S. HRG. 115–350 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO FEDERAL 

LANDS, RECREATION, WATER, AND RESOURCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO 

FEDERAL LANDS, RECREATION, WATER, AND RESOURCES 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

24–975 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–350 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO FEDERAL 

LANDS, RECREATION, WATER, AND RESOURCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 21, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

BRYAN PETIT, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Argust, Marcia, Director, Restore America’s Parks campaign, The Pew Charitable Trusts .......................................................................................................... 60 

Bonar, Bob, President, Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort, and Chairman, National Ski Areas Association’s Public Lands Committee .................................. 72 

Simmons, Jill, Executive Director, Washington Trails Association .................... 82 

Spears, David B., President, Association of American State Geologists ............. 89 

Treese, Chris, Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River Water Conservation 

District, and Board Member, National Water Resources Association ............. 93 

Worsley, Bradley, President, Novo Power, LLC .................................................... 106 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

American Rivers, et al.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 200 

Argust, Marcia: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 60 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 63 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 135 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 203 

Bonar, Bob: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 72 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 75 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 175 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Report dated November 

2016 entitled ‘‘Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic 

Opportunities’’ ............................................................................................... 4 

Chart entitled ‘‘2012 Economic contributions of visitor spending for recreation on federal lands and water (2012 dollars)’’ ....................................... 58 

(The) Corps Network: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 206 

(The) Mountain Pact: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 211 

Attachments: 

Cover Letter to Congressional Leadership (Hon. Mitch McConnell, 

Hon. Chuck Schumer, Hon. Paul Ryan, and Hon. Nancy Pelosi) ...... 214 

Letter to President Donald Trump and Hon. Ryan Zinke ..................... 215 

Opinion dated February 3, 2017, in the Denver Business Journal 

entitled ‘‘Outdoor Rec Act gives boost to major Colorado industry’’ .. 217 

Article by Richard Hildner dated February 20, 2017, in the 

Missoulian entitled ‘‘Outdoor REC Act a lifeline for Whitefish’’ ....... 219 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: 

Letter to Hon. Mark Amodei ............................................................. 221 

Letter to Hon. Dean Heller ............................................................... 222 

Letter to Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto ............................................ 223 
Page

IV 

(The) Mountain Pact—Continued 

Attachments—Continued 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency—Continued 

Letter to Hon. Tom McClintock ........................................................ 224 

Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris .......................................................... 225 

Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein ....................................................... 226 

Town of Truckee (California): 

Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris .......................................................... 227 

Letter to Hon. Tom McClintock ........................................................ 229 

Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein ....................................................... 230 

Town of Mammoth Lakes (California): 

Letter to Hon. Paul Cook ................................................................... 231 

Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein ....................................................... 232 

Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris .......................................................... 233 

City of Aspen (Colorado): 

Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton ............................................................... 234 

Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet ......................................................... 235 

Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner ............................................................. 236 

Town of Buena Vista (Colorado): 

Letter to Hon. Doug Lamborn ........................................................... 237 

Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet ......................................................... 238 

Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner ............................................................. 239 

Town of Estes Park (Colorado): 

Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet ......................................................... 240 

Letter to Hon. Jared Polis ................................................................. 241 

Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner ............................................................. 242 

Town of Ridgway (Colorado): 

Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton ............................................................... 243 

Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet ......................................................... 244 

Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner ............................................................. 245 

Town of Telluride (Colorado): 

Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton ............................................................... 246 

Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet ......................................................... 247 

Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner ............................................................. 248 

Village of Taos Ski Valley (New Mexico): 

Letter to Hon. Martin Heinrich ........................................................ 249 

Letter to Hon. Ben Lujan .................................................................. 250 

Letter to Hon. Tom Udall .................................................................. 251 

City of Bend (Oregon): 

Letter to Hon. Greg Walden .............................................................. 252 

Letter to Hon. Jeff Merkley ............................................................... 253 

Letter to Hon. Ron Wyden ................................................................ 254 

Town of Alta (Utah): 

Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch .......................................................... 255 

Letter to Hon. Jason Chaffetz ........................................................... 256 

Letter to Hon. Mike Lee .................................................................... 257 

Teton County (Wyoming): 

Letter to Hon. John Barrasso ........................................................... 258 

Letter to Hon. Michael Enzi .............................................................. 259 

Letter to Hon. Liz Cheney ................................................................. 260 

City of Leavenworth (Washington): 

Letter to Hon. Patty Murray ............................................................. 261 

Letter to Hon. Maria Cantwell ......................................................... 262 

Letter to Hon. Dave Reichert ............................................................ 263 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 264 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

National Ground Water Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 266 

National Trust for Historic Preservation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 267 

National Wildlife Federation: 

Email for the Record ........................................................................................ 273 

Attachment: 

Alabama Wildlife Federation, et al.: 

Letter to President Donald Trump ................................................... 275 
Page

V 

Ormat Technologies, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 278 

Outdoor Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 280 

Outdoor Industry Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 285 

Poseidon Water LLC: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 289 

Rieman, Jerimiah L.: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 293 

Simmons, Jill: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 82 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 84 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 179 

Spears, David B.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 89 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 91 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 183 

Treese, Chris: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 93 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 95 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 190 

Trout Unlimited: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 322 

Worsley, Bradley: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 106 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 108 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 196 

(1) 

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO 

FEDERAL LANDS, RECREATION, WATER, 

AND RESOURCES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will 

come to order. 

We are here today to continue our discussion about infrastructure. We had a good hearing last week and, I think, gained a lot 

of good insight. 

Today’s look is a little bit different. We are going to be focusing 

on infrastructure that is beneficial to our federal lands, to our 

waters and to the people and the communities that rely on them. 

Infrastructure in this context means everything from trails for 

hikers and bikers, to sawmills and biomass facilities to process timber and slash from overgrown, fire-prone, federal forests. It also 

means water projects to control floods, deliver water to communities and store water to protect against drought, something that, 

of course, is on all of our minds here in the midst of Water Week 

2017. It also means mineral development as federal lands can provide everything from the sand and gravel for roads to the trails as 

well but to the rare earths and other metals found in solar panels, 

electric vehicles and countless other technologies. It also means the 

infrastructure on our federal lands that is critical to the visitor experience but that our land management agencies have often failed 

to maintain according to schedule. The sewer and water systems, 

the roads, the buildings, the trails that all need work and repair. 

We call it the deferred maintenance backlog. And it is staggering. The National Park Service backlog has now grown to nearly $12 billion, the Forest Service backlog is over $5 billion, and the Bureau of Reclamation has a backlog of over $3 billion in maintenance needs. This is significant, and I don’t think that any of us 

should kid ourselves. The backlog, in order to truly and meaningfully address it, is going to take real dollars to resolve. But whether 
2 

we are talking about aging infrastructure on federal lands or looking to build something new to respond to a community need or visitor demand, Congressional appropriations alone are not going to 

be enough. So, what else do we do? 

This is the reason we have asked you to join us this morning. 

Leveraging private dollars and capacity through public/private 

partnerships is absolutely necessary in these tough budget times. 

I think it can be a win/win for both the Federal Government and 

rural, regional economies. 

We should also remember that infrastructure is not just a matter 

of dollars. It is also about cutting the regulatory red tape that often 

holds projects back and adds to their costs. We had a great deal 

of that discussion in last week’s hearing, talking about the uncertainty that with certain focus on regulation and overlay and overlap, that adds uncertainty to a process and certainly cost to a process as well. 

How we might be able to address that, again, is something that 

I would hope to elicit in today’s discussion. 

When we talk about the regulatory red tape and those things 

that do hold projects back and add to the cost, we have seen the 

need for this in mining, water projects, community-supported forest 

thinning projects, timber sales and new recreation uses—just 

about, really, everywhere. Everywhere you look is an issue that relates to the regulation. 

The take away is that navigating the current maze of congressional statutes, federal regulations, administrative directions, executive orders, secretarial memos and court decisions, is a mine field. 

And it is not necessarily for the faint at heart. We need to do better. 

I think we owe it to our Western and our rural communities and 

the people who live near and depend on federal lands for their livelihoods to do better. We need to do better for the next generation 

so they too can experience the world class, outdoor recreation system that generations before them have enjoyed. 

As I said, last week our Committee began to address the infrastructure challenges within our jurisdiction through the bipartisan 

energy bill that Senator Cantwell and I led on last year, as well 

as our wildfire and forest management discussion draft and other 

legislation that came from this Committee. Know that we will work 

to build on that through our infrastructure hearings. When Congress is ready to consider an infrastructure package, our Committee will be ready to make a serious contribution to it. This is 

an important subject. 

I thank our witnesses for being here to discuss this with us. I 

also want to recognize and acknowledge our newest Committee 

member, Senator Strange, from the great State of Louisiana. 

Senator STRANGE. Alabama. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alabama. You are sitting at the end there. It’s 

that southern accent. 

[Laughter.] 

Even though he sits at the end of this broad dais here, he has 

much to contribute on these matters that are so important in the 

energy sector and for the overall strength of our nation’s economy. 

It is good to have you as part of the Committee. 
3 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, I am honored to serve with you on 

the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Fabulous. 

With that, I will turn to Senator Cantwell for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am excited about today’s hearing and to hear from the witnesses, because infrastructure to support our recreation economy is 

a very important subject. 

Before I get started, I wanted to acknowledge the witness, Jill 

Simmons. Thank you for coming here to testify and welcome as the 

newest Director of the Washington Trails Association. That is a 

very important organization in our state, and I thank you for the 

amazing work that they do. 

When it comes to our recreation economy, a report released at 

the end of last year by the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station, showed that in one year outdoor recreationists 

made more than 938 million visits to federal lands, spending $51 

billion and supporting 880,000 jobs. That is just the federal land 

piece of the $646 billion outdoor recreation economy. 

The report goes on to forecast increased participation in recreation activities on federal lands in the future and describes how 

these lands have encouraged businesses to locate in adjacent communities. Unfortunately, the report also discusses how the current 

infrastructure deficit and needs on federal lands are constraining 

our recreation use. 

Madam Chair, I would like to enter that USDA report into the 

record today, if I could, in full. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
4 
5 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA:s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Authors 

Eric M. White is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rct Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 

98512-llOl; J.M. Bowker is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 

30602-2044; Ashley E. Askew is a postdoctoral research associate, Warnell School 

of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 East Green Street, 

Athens, GA 30602-2152: Linda L. Langner is Resources Planning Act Assessment 

national program leader and J. Ross Arnold is a resource analyst, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research and Development, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0003; and Donald B.K. English is National 

Visitor Usc Monitoring program manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, National Forest System, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 

20250-0003. 

Cover photos: Undeveloped skiing on the Willamettc National Forest. Photo by 

Emily Jane Davis. 
6 

Abstract 

White, Eric M.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, Ashley E.; Langner, Linda L.; Arnold, 

J. Ross; English, Donald B.K. 2016. Federal outdoor recreation trends: effects 

on economic opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 46 p. 

Outdoor recreation is a central way that people interact with the natural environment. Federal land agencies are key providers of settings, facilities, and landscapes 

for recreation. Outdoor recreation is also an important driver of economic activity 

in rural communities near recreation destinations and across the United States. 

Future participation in outdoor recreation, and associated economic activity, will 

be influenced by demographic changes in population, lowering per capita land 

available for recreation, and changing recreation resource conditions, influenced 

partially by climate change. In this report, we summarize recent trends and current 

projections to 2030 of recreation participation and total days of recreation for 17 

key outdoor recreation activities common on federal lands. We report the current 

economic activity supported by outdoor recreation on the seven agencies participating in the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation and describe how 

anticipated future changes in recreation participation and climate may change the 

economic activity supported by outdoor recreation. 

Keywords: Outdoor recreation, trends and projections, climate change impacts, 

demographic trends, federal lands, recreation opportunities, trip spending patterns, 

economic contributions. 
7 

Preface 

This general technical report vvas sponsored by the National Center for Natural 

Resource Economics Research. The center is a virtual collaborative effort of the 

Washington office and the regional research stations within U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Research and Development. The center was founded to 

respond rapidly to emerging natural resource economic issues of national significance by leveraging expertise across the Forest Service. The center sponsors research 

with funding from client organizations and regional research station contributions. 
8 

Contents 

Introduction 

2 Outdoor Recreation Participation 

2 Measuring Outdoor Recreation Participation in the United States 

2 Historical Outdoor Recreation Trends 

5 Recreation Participation in the Future 

11 Climate Change and Recreation Trends and Projections 

13 Dominant Factors in Recreation Projections 

15 Federal Land Base for Outdoor Recreation 

16 Local and State Government Lands 

17 Federal Lands 

21 Economic Contributions From Recreation on Federal Lands 

22 Factors Contributing to Economic Activity From Federal Recreation 

25 Classification of Trip Spending and Recreation Visits 

27 Economic Contribution From Federal Recreation Opportunities 

28 Economic Activity Associated With Future Recreation Participation 

28 Visitor Spending on Day Trips 

30 Visitor Spending on Overnight Trips 

30 High Spending Trip Types and Recreation Activity Projections 

31 Distribution of Visitor Use by Trip Type and Activity 

33 The Potential Influence of Climate Change 

34 Demographic Change and Recreation Spending 

36 Other Considerations for Future Economic Contributions From Recreation 

39 Other Economic Outcomes From Federal Recreation Resources 

39 Amenity Migration 

40 Business Relocation 

40 Health Benefits 

40 Recreation Backdrops 

41 Summary and Conclusions 

43 English Equivalents 

44 Acknowledgments 

44 Literature Cited 
9 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Introduction 

Outdoor recreation plays a significant role in American lives. It provides physical 

challenges and a sense of well-being, helps develop lifelong skills, provokes interest 

and inquiry, inspires wonder and awe of the natural world. and often provides an 

alternative to daily routines. Recreation contributes greatly to the physical, mental, 

and spiritual health of individuals: bonds family and friends: and instills pride in 

natural and cultural heritage. Federal lands contribute significantly. and in many 

cases uniquely, to the provision of nature-based outdoor recreation opportunities. 

This report, prepared for the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR), focuses on the potential future role offederallands in supplying 

outdoor recreation opportunities and therefore supporting associated jobs and 

income. The FICOR is a seven-agency council that promotes better coordination 

and collaboration among federal agencies whose missions or programs include 

providing outdoor recreation and conserving or managing natural and cultural 

resources. The FICOR agencies include the U.S. Department of the Interior (USD!), 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR): Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS): U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS): U.S. Department ofComcrcc (USDC); U.S. Department 

of Defence (USDOD): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

We begin with an overview of recent trends in outdoor recreation activity 

participation in the United States and projected recreation participation to 2030. 

The primary driving forces for participation are reviewed. and their effects on 

future recreation usc arc discussed. The fcderalland base for outdoor recreation 

and expectations for future availability are also described. Recreation visitation in 

2012 on lands and waters managed by the FICOR agencies and the associated jobs 

provide the baseline for considering how projected recreation usc might influence 

future economic effects. 

The "future "look takes into account (I) the key factors that determine the level 

of economic activity in and around federal lands. (2) potential changes in recreation 

activities and associated spending patterns, and (3) other factors that influence 

spending. Finally, we discuss other contributions to local economies that may be 

influenced by federal recreation opportunities, including amenity migration, business relocation, and natural backdrops. 
10 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

Choices for outdoor 

recreation today are 

different from choices 

made by previous 

generations of 

Americans, both in the 

mix of activities and 

relative popularity. 

2 

Outdoor Recreation Participation 

Measuring Outdoor Recreation Participation in the United States 

National trends in outdoor recreation participation arc based primarily on the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). The NSRE was a 

geneml population telephone survey of people !6 years of age and older designed to 

measure participation in outdoor recreation activities and people "s environmental 

behaviors and attitudes (Cordcll2012). The NSRE sampling was population-based. 

occurring across both rural and urban areas of the country. and included all activity 

participation whether on public or private land and water. 

Historical Outdoor Recreation Trends 

Choices for outdoor recreation today arc different from choices made by previous 

genemtions of Americans, both in the mix of activities and relative popularity. 

Outdoor recreation participation grew through the 1960s and 1980s. Activities such 

as camping, canoeing. kayaking, and bicycling grew rapidly, influenced partly by 

improving equipment technology. New activities appeared, while a few activities 

declined in participation (Cordell 2012). 

Between 1999 and 2009. nature-based outdoor recreation genemlly increased, 

although trends differ across individual activities. The number of U.S. participants' 

in 50 nature-based outdoor recreation activities increased 7.1 percent between 1999 

and 2009, while the number of activity days2 increased at least that much (table I). 

Activities oriented toward viewing and photographing nature have been among the 

fastest growing activities, both in terms of number of participants and activity days 

of participation. Off-highway vehicle driving realized a 34-perccnt increase in participants. Severn! physically challenging activities. such as kayaking, snowboarding, 

and surfing also had relatively large increases in this timeframc (Cordell 2012). 

Although there were increases in the number of participants for the majority of 

activities between 1999 and 2009. there were declines in some activities. Most of the 

traditional winter recreation activities experienced decreasing participation mtes and 

days of activity, with tl1e exception of snowboarding. In addition, several activities 

that had increased numbers of participants experienced a drop in total days of activity, 

indicating that the average number of days per participant declined. Examples included 

day hiking and horseback riding on trails. While more people recreate in the Eastern 

1 A participant is any individua116 :years of age or older \Vho engaged in one or more 

recreation activities during the 12 months prior to the survey interview date 
11 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Table 1-Percentage change between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 in total participants and total 

days for people age 16 and older participating in nature-based outdoor activities 

Activity g.-oups 

Visiting developed sites: 

Developed site useFamily gathering 

Picnicking 

Developed camping 

Visiting interpretive sitesVisit outdoor nature center/zoo 

Visit historical sites 

Visit prehistoric sites 

Viewing/photographing nature: 

BirdingViewing/photographing birds 

Vic\vingVie,ving/photographing natural scenery 

Viewing/photographing flowers, etc. 

Viewing/photographing other wildlife 

Vicwing/photogmphing birds 

Gathering mushrooms, berries, etc. 

Backcountry activities: 

ChallengeMountain climbing 

Caving 

Rock climbing 

EquestrianHorseback riding on trails 

HikingDay hiking 

Visiting primitive areasBackpacking 

Primitive camping 

Visit a wilderness 

Motorized activities: 

Motorized off-road uscOff-higlnvay vehicle driving 

Motorized \vatcrMototboating 

Waterskiing 

Use personal watercraft 

Percentage change 

in total participants 

1999-2009 

10.5 

2.8 

l.l 

10.2 

8.1 

ILl 

22.8 

17.9 

29.4 

25.4 

22.8 

28.6 

~5.9 

18.4 

9,5 

1.6 

15.4 

7.9 

l2 

17.7 

34.5 

8.6 

33.1 

10.9 

Percentage change 

in total da~:s« 

21.5 

-5.8 

0.5 

18.6 

7.0 

9.4 

36.7 

62.6 

83.5 

51.8 

16.7 

30.1 

~4.3 

14.0 

12.3 

-9.7 

-4.9 

26.6 

6.6 

31.8 

47.6 

12.3 

20.0 

127 

3 
12 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

4 

Table 1-Percentage change between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 in total participants and total 

days for people age 16 and older participating in nature-based outdoor activities (continued) 

Activity groups 

Motori:~..ed sttow 

Snmvmobiling 

Hunting and fishing: 

HuntingSmall game hunting 

Big game hunting 

Migmtory bird hunting 

FishingAnadromous fishing 

Coldwater fishing 

SaltvYater fishing 

Warmwater fishing 

Non motorized \vintcr activities: 

Developed skiingDownhill skiing 

Snowboarding 

U ndevclopcd skiingCross-country skiing 

Snmvshocing 

Non motorized water activities 

SwimmingSwimming in lakes. streams. etc. 

Snorkeling 

Surfing 

Scuba diving 

Visit a beach 

Visit waterside besides beach 

Windsurfing 

FloatingCanoeing 

Kayaking 

Rafting 

Percentage change 

in total particillants 

1999-2009 

-5.5 

11.4 

17.1 

-1.1 

24.1 

8.7 

17.2 

17.1 

-8.5 

33.7 

-21.7 

-9.4 

14.0 

11.8 

46.3 

-5.6 

20.7 

6.3 

-10.1 

18.2 

103.8 

-2.8 

Percentage change 

in total daysa 

-23.7 

-0.7 

22.2 

0.-1 

9.7 

1.4 

-0.7 

13.1 

-19.~ 

32.6 

-32.9 

-25.1 

16.0 

-0.6 

18.6 

-15.6 

28.2 

28.1 

-24.7 

8.0 

86.3 

7.9 

Bec<tusc individuals may report multiple activity days fOr a given calcnd;u· day. these increases arc not additi\·e across acti-..;itics. 

Source: Cordell 2012 
13 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

United States because of the U.S. population distribution, participation rates arc uniformly higher in the West for all activities except hunting and fishing (Cordell2012). 

Recreation Participation in the Future 

Past and recent outdoor recreation trends are important indicators of what might 

happen in the ncar future. However, simple trends do not address the underlying 

factors and associations that may be driving these trends. llms. a trend may be 

of limited value as an indicator if the time horizon is long or ifthe trend's driving 

factors arc expected to deviate substantially from historical patterns. Therefore, projection models developed for the 2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment3 

(USDA FS 20 12a) arc used in conjunction with external projections of relevant 

factors, including demographic, economic, land use, and climate factors. to simulate 

future recreation participation (Bowker eta!. 2012). Outdoor recreation participation 

was projected for l7 recreation activity composites that were organized into seven 

activity groups that either occur in similar recreation settings or have a similar 

focus (table 2). 1l1ese projections arc based on the NSRE data described above and 

include nature-based recreation on all ownerships ofland and \\ater. 

The 2010 RPA Assessment used multiple scenarios to explore a range of possible futures that account for uncertainties about future political, economic, social, 

and environmental change. A detailed description of these scenarios can be found 

in USDA FS (2012b). Projections to 2060, at to-year intervals, associated with these 

scenarios incorporate changing population, socioeconomic characteristics, land 

availability. and the potential effects of climate change. For this report, we chose 

to use projected recreation participation through 2030 to focus on the timeframe 

most consistent with federal land management planning. We also chose to focus 

on the results from one socioeconomic scenario and its associated climate projcc~ 

tions-the scenario referred to as RPA AlB in the 2010 RPA Assessment. Because 

population growth is an important determinant of recreation demand in the future, 

we chose the RPA AlB scenario because it is the most consistent with the U.S. 

Census Bureau's projected population growth in the United States at the time the 

RPA scenarios were developed (U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 2012). 

The outdoor recreation projections resulted in estimates of per capita participation and average annual days per participant. Total participants and total annual days 

of participation were calculated by multiplying the RPA population prqjcctions by 

the participation rate and average days per participant (Bowker et al. 2012). Table 3 

summarizes projected participation and usc for the activity groups shown in table 2. 

3 Sec http://vvww.fs.fCtl.us/rcsearch/rpa/ for additional infommtion about the RPA Assessment. 

Outdoor recreation 

participation was 

projected for 17 

recreation activity 

composites. 

5 
14 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

Table 2-0utdoor recreation activity groups and associated activity composites 

Acti\'ity group 

Visiting developed sites 

Viewing and 

photographing nature 

Backcount1)' activities 

Motori1..cd activities 

Hunting and fishing 

Nonrnotorizcd winter 

activities 

Nonmotorized \Yater 

activities 

6 

Modeled activit~· composite Activities included in modeled activit~' comt>osite 

Developed site use Family gathering: picnicking: developed camping 

Visiting interpretive sites 

Birding 

Viewing 

Challenge activities 

Day hiking 

Equestrian 

Visiting pri mitivc areas 

Motorized off-road usc 

Motorized snmv usc 

Motorized water use 

Hunting 

Fishing 

Developed skiing 

Undeveloped skiing 

Swimming 

Floating 

Visiting nature centers. zoos. historic sites. and prehistoric sites 

Viewing/photographing birds 

Viewing/photographing natural scenery, Howers, birds. other 

\vildlifc: gather mushrooms, berries. etc. 

Caving: mountain climbing: rock climbing 

Day hiking 

Horseback riding on lrails 

Backpacking: primitive camping; visiting wilderness 

Off-road driving 

Snmvmobiling 

Motorboating: ·waterskiing: personal ·watercraft usc 

Big game: small game; migratory birds 

Anadromous; coldwater; warmwater: saltwater 

Downhill skiing: snowboarding 

Cross~country skiing: snmvshoeing 

Swimming in lakes. streams: snorkeling; surfing: scuba diYing: 

visiting a beach: visiting vvatersidc besides beach: 'vindsurfing 

Canoeing: kayaking; rafting 

Visiting developed sitesThe activities associated with developed-site usc include venues popular with 

all age groups. Per capita participation in this activity group is currently highest 

among the 17 activity groups and is projected to remain the most popular through 

2030. The number of potential developed-site users increases from over 190 to 

246 million participants over the projection period, driven primarily by increasing population. Although the total number of participants is projected to increase. 

those participants are projected to have slightly fewer numbers of days recreating 

at developed sites each year, on average, compared to the current pattern. 

Visiting interpretive sites is also popular across all ages and occurs primarily in 

developed settings. The projections indicate that participation rates of the population conld increase by more than 3 percent, translating into a gain of more than 30 

percent in the total number of participants by 2030. Two fuctors might influence the 

greater participation rate growth in this activity group compared to developed-site 
Table 3-Projected participation and use for activity groups between 2008 and 2030 

Per capita J>articipation Adult participants (millions) Days per participant Total days (million

2008 2030 Percent 2008 2030 Percent 2008 2030 Percent 2008 2030 

Activity groups rate rate change number number change rate rate change number number Visiting developed sites: 

Developed-site usc 0.819 0.825 0.7 192.7 27.6 11.67 11.58 -0.8 2235 2.830 

Visiting interpretive sites 0.669 0.690 3.2 157.4 205.7 30.7 7.81 8.02 2.6 1,243 1,666 

Viewing/photographing nature: 

Birding 0.361 4.4 107.7 32.3 97.71 97.91 0.2 8,215 10,889 

Viewing 0.805 0.814 1.2 189.4 242.7 28.1 169.59 163.96 -3.3 32.303 40.019 

Backcountry activities: 

Challenge 0.107 ()JJI 3.6 25.1 33 31.3 4.77 4.74 -0.6 120 156 

Equestrian 0.070 0.072 2.7 16.4 21.3 30.1 16.28 16.48 1.2 262 345 Hiking 0.333 0.343 3.1 78.3 102.2 30.5 22.89 23A1 2.3 1,826 2.437 

Visiting primitive areas 0.383 0.375 -2.1 90.2 ll1.8 24.0 13.22 13.08 -l.l 1,233 1.512 

Motorized acth·itics: 

Motorized off-road usc 0.194 -4.7 <7.9 57.8 20.7 21.65 21M -2.8 1.229 Motorized water usc 0.263 0.270 2.5 62.0 80.5 29.9 15.27 15.35 0.5 953 1,2H Motorized snow use 0.040 0.036 -10.4 9.4 10.7 13.6 7.25 7.16 -1.3 68 77 

Hunting and fishing: 

Hunting 0.119 0.105 -11.6 27.9 31.3 12.0 19.13 18.17 -5.0 535 570 

Fishing 0.309 0.301 -2.6 72.7 89.7 23.4 18.48 18.15 -1.8 1,363 1,651 

Non motorized winter actiYities: 

Developed skiing 0.101 0.108 6.7 23.7 32.1 35.1 7.19 H2 3.2 l7l 238 

Undeveloped skiing 0.033 0.033 -0.6 7.8 9.8 25.9 6.58 6.72 2.J 51 66 

Nonmotorized water activities: 

s,vimming 0.609 0.630 3.4 143.2 187.5 31.0 23.98 24.12 0.6 3.459 4.558 

Floating 0.169 0.162 -3.9 39.8 48.4 21.7 6.50 6.53 0.5 261 318 

__, 
16 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

8 

use. First, developed-site use is negatively correlated 'vith age, which is expected to 

rise by 2030, and positively correlated with available federal land per capit"' which 

is expected to decline. Those variables are less important in interpretive site participation. Secondly, in comparison to the other activity groups, visiting interpretive 

sites has one of the higher percentage increases in both average days per participant 

and total days of participation. 

Viewing and photographing natureThis category comprises birding and nature viewing, which includes viewing 

wildlife and nature, gathering, m1d nature study. Adult participation in birding 

averaged 35 percent in 2008. Nearly 81 percent of adults participated in the more 

broadly defined nature viewing during the same period. The participation rate for 

nature viewing is pr(ljected to increase by slightly more thm1 I percent through 2030, 

whereas the participation rate for birding could increase by 4 percent. The viewing 

days per participant arc m1ticipated to decline by over 3 percent. This decline is 

influenced by projected increases in population density m1d minority populations, 

as well as projected decreases in botl1 forest and rangeland and national park acres 

per capita. The average annual days of participation exceed 160 and contribute to 

an estimate of total days nearly 10 times higher than any other nonviewing activity 

group. However, given the broad definition of viewing, much of this activity occurs 

in proximity to home, in transit to other recreation activities, or while participating 

in another activity. 

Backcountry activitiesBackcountry activities are pursued in undeveloped, but accessible lands. This 

activity group includes challenge activities. equestrian activities, hiking, and 

visiting primitive areas. Challenge activities arc often associated with young and 

affluent adults and include caving, mountain climbing, and rock climbing. Over 

11 percent of adults arc expected to participate in challenge activities by 2030, an 

increase of about 3.6 percent from 2008. The growth in the rate of participation 

is driven mostly by projected increases in income. The projected days per participant arc almost unchanged through 2030. Participants in challenge activities 

report fewer than 5 days of participation per year, which is the lowest among all 

activity groups. 

Participation in equestrian activities or trail riding per capita is projected to 

increase about 2.7 percent by 2030. As with the challenge activities, income also 

has a strong positive influence on the participation rate for trail riding. However, 

the days per participant change very little, perhaps suggesting that higher income 

participants have more competing uses for their time. 
17 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Hiking is the most popular single backcountry activity. with 33 percent adult 

participation in 2008. By 2030. the participation rate is projected to increase about 3 

percent with the number of projected participants exceeding l 00 million. Total days 

of hiking are projected to increase by about 33 percent, which is slightly more than 

the increase in participation (30 percent). The increase in hiking days is among the 

highest for all activity groups. 

The final backcountry activity is visiting primitive areas. It is a composite activity consisting of people who backpack, primitive camp. or visit wilderness areas. 

The participation rate is projected to decline by over 2 percent by 2030. Increased 

population density and projected decreases in wilderness, forest, and rangeland 

acres per capita appear to correlate with the participation rate decline. Activity days 

per participant arc projected to decline slightly less than participation rates. 

Motorized activitiesThree categories of motorized activities were considered: off-road driving, 

motorized water use. and motorized snow usc. Participation in off-road driving 

averaged a little more than 20 percent among the adult population in 2008. An 

expected decrease in the participation rate between 4 and 5 percent will lower 

participation to below 20 percent by 2030. The decrease is correlated with 

expected increases in the average age and the increasing proportion of Hispanics 

in the population. Annual days per participant arc also projected to decline by 

almost 3 percent. The declines in both the participation rate and days per participant imply that the overall increases in total days will be less than the respective 

increase in population. 

Motorized water use has the highest participation rate of the motorized activities. More than 80 million adults or 27 percent of the adult population are projected 

to participate in 2030. It is the only motorized activity with positive percentage 

increases in both participation rate and days per participant. Income growth appears 

to be a significant factor in the positive growth rates. Both total participants and 

total days grow by about 30 percent between 2008 and 2030. 

Motorized snow use (snowmobiling) has one of the largest projected declines 

in participation rates across all activities. Snowmobiling is geographically limited to areas with adequate recreation opportunities and snow conditions and is 

undertaken by only about 4 percent of the population. By 2030, rates arc projected 

to decline by more than lO percent. Similar to off-road driving, these declines arc 

correlated \Vith increasing average age and increasing proportion of Hispanics in 

the population. Days per participant also decline, but at a much lower percentage 

than the participation rate. Snowmobilers will still average about 7 days per year 

on the snow. 

Hiking is the most 

popular single 

backcountry activity. 

9 
18 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

10 

Hunting and fishingThe traditional wildlife pursuits of hunting and fishing remain popular outdoor 

activities, with about 28 million and 73 million annual adult participants, respectively, in 2008. However, on a per capita basis, these activities continue a decline 

from levels of past decades. The adult hunting participation rate is projected to 

decline by II to 12 percent by 2030. Increased education levels, increased population density, diminishing availability of private and public land, and strong negative 

relationships between growing minority populations and hunting appear to be 

influencing the decline in participation rate. Days per hunter are also projected to 

decline by about 5 percent. Total participants and total days of hunting continue 

to grow because of population growth, but at small increases of about 12 and 6.4 

percent, respectively. Hunting exhibits the largest drop in the rates of participation 

and days per participant and the smallest increases in the number of participants 

and total days of participation. 

The overall rate of decline in per capita participation and days per participant 

are not as drastic for fishing as hunting. The participation rate for fishing is projected to decline bel\veen 2 and 3 percent. The number of adult participants is still 

expected to increase by about 23 percent to over 89 million anglers. Average annual 

fishing days per participant arc projected to fall a little less than 2 percent. 

Nonmotorized winter activitiesDeveloped skiing (downhill skiing and snowboarding) is the only winter activity 

with projected percentage increases in both per capita participation and days per 

participant. TI1e participation rates increase by 6 to 7 percent by 2030, the largest 

increase among all activity groups. Income growth is a strong driver in skiing 

participation. Days per participant also increase but at a more modest rate of 3 

percent. The total days of 238 million in 2030 reflect an almost 40-percent increase 

above the 2008 levels. 

Undeveloped skiing (cross-country skiing and snowshoeing) has the lowest 

participation rate for any of the activity groups. About 3 percent of the population 

participates, with the number of adult participants expected to remain below lO million in 2030. Although per capita participation is expected to change little, the days 

per participant arc projected to increase slightly owing to a positive correlation with 

mean population age. However, given this small increase and a static participation 

rate, the increase in annual undeveloped skiing days per year will most likely track 

population growth at about 29 percent. 
19 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Nonmotorized water activitiesThis category consists of floating and various kinds of outdoor swimming activities, 

including snorkeling, surfing, diving, and visiting beaches or watersides. Swimming 

is the tourth most popular outdoor activity, with a 63 percent adult participation rate 

and 187 million participants projected for 2030. Although the projected percentage 

increase in days per participant is relatively flat the projected total days will exceed 

4.5 billion by 2030. This is driven by the popularity of swimming and the relatively 

high number of days people swim each year. 

Floating activities include canoeing, kayaking, and rafting. By 2030, the participation rate is projected to decrease by almost 4 percent. The days per pa1ticipant are 

projected to be virtually unchanged between 2008 and 2030 at about 6.5 days per 

year. Both the total adult participants and total days increase in future decades, but 

at levels less than the expected increase in population. 

Climate Change and Recreation Trends and Projections 

The results shown in table 3 were estimated without incorporating climate change 

into the projections. Climate variables were added to the projection models to assess 

whether participation and participation intensity were sensitive to climate effects 

(see Bowker eta!. 2012 for details about the climate variables). 

Except for a few activities, adding climate variables to the projection models 

does not greatly change projected future participation (Bowker eta!. 2012). 

Generally, the effect of the climate variables is a minor change in both per capita 

participation and average days per year compared to the ··no climate change·· 

projection. The effect of climate is easier to understand when expressed as 

cha11gcs in total participation or total days. Table 4 shows the percentage changes 

between 2008 and 2030 for activity projections with and without climate effects 

in the model. It also displays the net difference. in percentage points, between 

the no climate change (no CC) versus climate change (CC) estimates as increases 

or decreases from the percentage for the no climate change projection. Overa11. 

14 of 17 activities showed average declines in total days of participation when 

accounting for climate change. Most of those reductions lower future projected 

percentage increases in total days by 5 percentage points or less. The percentage point decline was greatest for three activities: snowmobiling, undeveloped 

skiing (cross-country skiing, snowshoeing), and floating (canoeing, kayaking, 

rafting)_ accounting for average net decreases of 39, 36, and 9 percentage points, 

respectively. The effect of climate change on snowmobiling and undeveloped 

skiing actually reduced the projected days of participation in 2030 to levels lower 

Snowmobiling, 

undeveloped skiing, 

and floating are the 

activities projected 

to have the greatest 

declines in participant 

days under climate 

change. 

11 
20 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

12 

Table 4-Projected percentage of change in participants and days to 2030 with climate change (CC) and 

without climate change (No CC) the effects of climate change (Scenario RPA A1B), by recreation activity 

Adult participants (millions) Total days (millions) 

Average o/o change, Effects of Average 0/o change, Effects of 

2008 to 2030 cc 2008 to 2030 cc o/o point o/o point 

Activity groups NoCC cc difference NoCC cc difference 

Visiting developed sites: 

Developed site use 27.6 26.5 -1.1 26.6 243 -2.3 

Visiting interpretiYc sites 30.7 30.0 -0.6 34.1 35.4 1.4 

Viewing and photographing nature: 

Birding 32.3 28.8 -3.5 32.5 28.3 -4.3 

Viewing 28.1 27.8 -0.4 23.9 22.2 -1.6 

Backcountry activities: 

Challenge 31.3 32.6 1.4 30.5 32.9 2.5 

Equestrian 30.1 35.0 -1.9 31.7 27.2 -4.5 

Hiking 30.5 27.7 -2.8 33.5 31.0 -2.5 

Visiting primitive areas 24.0 22.3 -1.6 22.6 18.8 -3.8 

Motorized actiyitics: 

Motorized off-road use 20.7 21.2 0.5 17.3 19.3 2.1 

Motorized water use 29.9 26.3 -3.5 30.6 25.5 -5.1 

Motorized snow usc 13.6 -18.4 -32.0 12.1 -26.8 -38.9 

Hunting and fishing: 

Hunting 12.0 10.5 -1.5 6.4 4.0 -2.4 

Fishing 23.4 19.1 -4.2 21.1 16.1 -5.0 

Nonmotorized winter activities: 

Developed skiing 35.1 34.7 -0.4 39.5 38.7 -0.8 

Undeveloped skiing 25.9 -5.9 -31.8 28.6 -6.9 ~35.5 

Non motorized water activities: 

Swimming 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.7 29.8 -1.9 

21.7 13.1 -8.5 22.1 !3.1 -9.0 

than those observed in 2008. TI1e effects of climate change surpassed the gains 

in participant days resulting from population growth. Activities that could show a 

slight increase in total days under projected climate changes include interpretive 

site use. challenge sports. and off-road driving. 

The general effects of climate change on projected percentage change in the 

number of total participants for 2030 is also shown and has similar results to the 
21 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

climate effect on total days. The direction (increase or decrease) of the climate 

effect is often the same, but the magnitude of the difference is more muted for the 

analysis of participants. TI1e primary exception is for equestrian activities, where 

the climate change models reduced the estimate of days by 4.5 percentage points 

and increased the number of participants by 4.9 percentage points. The opposite 

effect was evident for visiting interpretive sites, as climate change had a negative 

effect on the number of participants and a positive effect on days. The magnitude of 

the effect was relatively low at -0.6 aud 1.4 percentage points, respectively. 11Jirteen of 17 activities are expected to experience fewer participants when climate 

chaugc is included into the projection estimates. 

However, the small percentage increases or decreases from incorporating 

climate change cau have a noticeable impact on total participants and days if the 

activity has high levels of participation and average days. For example, climate 

change effects associated with developed-site usc could result in 2 million fewer 

participants and 52 million fewer activity days in 2030, on average. than would 

be expected with no climate change (tables 3 and 4). The overall decline is l.l 

percentage points for total participauts and 2.3 percentage points for days. In contrast, the 36 percentage point drop in days for undeveloped skiing only reduces 

the total activity days by only 18 million because participants engage in only 6 to 

7 days of skiing annually. 

The effects of climate chauge on outdoor recreation activities vary across 

alternative climate prqjections. In the set of climate projections used in the 2010 

RPA Assessment (USDA FS 2012a). the most pronounced effects of anticipated 

climate change were associated with the climate projections with the greatest 

projected increases in average temperature and decreases in precipitation (Bowker 

et al. 2012). 

Dominant Factors in Recreation Projections 

Previous research (e.g., Cordell 2012) has established that population size, 

gender, race, ethnicity, education, income, and supply of and proximity to 

recreation settings can be highly correlated with the rate of outdoor recreation 

participation as well as age, place of residence, and participation intensity. The 

results of the recreation projections (Bowker et aL 2012) reinforce those findings, as summarized below. 

Key differences in the model variables drive the projections of recreation 

participation. Population growth often is the most important factor. Income 

growth also has differential effects on projected participation, particularly for 

those activities that require wherewithal for effective participation, such as 

13 
22 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

14 

developed skiing, challenge activities, equestrian activities, hunting, and motorized activities. The effects of population growth were often offset by more 

indirect effects. For example, increased population density in the vicinity of 

recreation sites can cause crowding onsite, which has been shown to reduce the 

quality of many nature-based recreation experiences. In most cases, population 

growth is sufficient to result in overall growth in total participants and total days 

of participation, even when participation rates or average days of participation 

arc projected to decline. 

Males are more apt to participate in backcountry activities, hunting and fishing. 

motorized activities, nonmotorized winter activities, and floating than are females, 

while the latter arc more likely to participate in the viewing activities, swimming, 

equestrian, and visiting developed sites. 

Ethnicity is still a strong factor on the decision to participate. However, it has 

little influence on the annual days of participation, once an individual chooses 

to participate. Minorities including African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, 

are almost always less likely than Whites to participate in the various activities 

examined in this report. A notable exception occurs with hiking where, controlling 

for other socioeconomic and supply factors, Hispanics arc more likely than Whites 

to participate. Respondents claiming American Indian, non-Hispanic identity 

arc often more likely than Whites to participate in remote activities like hunting 

and fishing, motorized off-road usc, motorized snow usc, hiking, equestrian, and 

viewing. In absolute numbers, 70 to 75 percent of total participants across all activity groups are non-Hispanic Whites with Hispanic participants the next highest, 

averaging about 14 percent. 

Those with an education beyond high school generally have higher participation rates for most activities. However, the level of education attained can 

influence participation somewhat. For example, the greater the education level, 

the more likely one would participate in birding, nonmotorized winter activities, 

backcountry activities, and viewing activities. More than a high school education lowers the probability of participation for fishing and hunting, motorized 

off-road use. and motorized snow activities. While participation rate generally 

increases with education, around 50 percent(± 5 percent) of participants across 

all activity groups have maximum education attainment of either a high school 

education or some college. 

Income is positively associated with participation and use across all activities. However, for some activities such as birding, hiking, and hunting, the 
23 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

effect is smalL while for others, such as developed skiing and motorized water 

usc. the effect is large. An important aspect of income growth, omitted from 

the analysis in this report, is that RPA Assessment scenarios used in this study 

accounted only for aggregate income growth and omitted any consideration of 

changing income distribution. This omission is serious and likely overlooks the 

fact that recreation access will probably become more partitioned by income 

class in the future. 

Generally, land and water available per capita positively influence activity 

patticipation. Population growth combined with a stable public land base and 

declining private natural land base (from urbanization) resulted in a decline 

in per capita recreation opportunities over the projection period. This decline 

is likely to reduce participation rates for activities that require large spatial 

extents, such as hunting, off-road driving, and visiting primitive areas. Similarly, participation in water-based activities such as swimming, motorized boating. and nonmotorized boating are all positively correlated with the per capita 

water area. Fishing is positively correlated with both per capita water area and 

forest and rangeland area. A seemingly counterintuitive result occurred with 

the variable indicating whether the respondent lived in a coastal community. 

Here, participation in fishing, hunting, and viewing are negatively correlated 

with residence in a coastal county. Such a result could be driven by the fact that 

coastal populations in the country arc dominated by highly urban areas. Finally, 

note that these results and projections do not account for factors outside the 

range of available data such as climate change effects on recreation resources, 

new technology, changes in relative costs, new infrastructure, and changes in 

tastes and preferences. 

Federal Land Base for Outdoor Recreation 

The United States has extensive land and water resources. Public lands held in 

trust by local, state, and federal governments are critical resources for naturebased outdoor recreation. While focusing on the federal land base, we briefly 

describe the role of state and local lands in providing recreation opportunities. based on Cordell et al. (2013). The distribution offederalland is uneven 

between the Eastern and Western United States, which influences the role of 

federal lands in providing outdoor recreation opportunities in different regions 

of the United States. Some of the information is provided by regions used in the 

RPA Assessment (fig. 1). 

The amount of land and 

water available per 

capita for recreation 

influences recreation 

participation. 

15 
24 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

figure 1-Resourccs Planning Act (RPA)Assessment regions of the United States. 

16 

Local and State Government Lands 

Local governments own a small percentage of total public lands, but these holdings 

arc very important because they tend to be located close to population centers. Urban 

parklands arc an important resource in areas of high population density. These 

resources typically fill a key recreation niche, providing places for activities such as 

team sports and daily exercise such as walking or jogging. Generally, these resources 

arc designed and managed to accommodate frequent and heavy density of use. 

States manage a variety of lands that can provide recreation opportunities, 

including state parks, state forests, state wildlife areas, and other designations. 

State lands tend to occupy a niche between the more undeveloped and dispersed 

recreation opportunities of federal lands and the much more facility and development-oriented local lands. Similar to local government lands, state resources tend 

to occur in proximity to populated areas, especially in the Eastern United States, 
25 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

where state lands play a much more significant role in providing outdoor recreation 

opportunities than in the West Still, because of the lower population in the West, 

there are more state park system acres per capita in the West than in the East 

(Cordell eta!. 2013). 

States manage more than 6,500 individual parks and other categories of areas 

(e.g .. natural areas, historic sites) that account for about 14 million acres. The North 

and Pacific Coast regions have the largest areas (about 5.2 million acres each), 

while the South has about 2.2 million acres, and the Rocky Mountain region about 

!.4 million acres. About 25 million acres of U.S. forestland are managed by state 

forestry agencies. These lands arc often available for recreation purposes, especially 

fishing. hunting, and wildlife watching. The largest percentage (64 percent) is in 

the North region, followed by the Pacific Coast region (20 percent). State forests 

and state wildlite and fish areas provide additional outdoor recreation opportunities 

(Cordell eta!. 2013). 

Federal Lands 

Federal lands cover about 640 million acres in the United States,' about 28 percent 

of the total land area. Nearly alllecteralland is open and available to the public for 

recreation. More than 92 percent of federal land is located in the West, with about 

36 percent of all federal land in Alaska. The BLM and FS manage the majority of 

federal land. The acres of land managed by six of the seven F!COR agencies arc 

shown in table 5, as well as the distribution of federal lands by RPA region. Because 

the Pacific Coast includes large federal holdings in Alaska, table 5 shows acreage 

for Alaska separately. The NOAA manages 14 marine-protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes water from 

Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. 

The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and one marine 

national monument.5 

Congressional designations offer additional direction to the management of 

federal lands that often affect the recreation opportunities available on those lands. 

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) includes more than !09 

million acres of wilderness areas that represent the most pristine and protected of 

federal lands. More than half of the NWPS area is in Alaska, while the remainder 

is almost entirely in the Western United States. Other Congressionally designated 

areas provide unique recreation resources: national recreation areas (NRAs), 

1 Thc 640 million acres docs not include land managed by the Department of Defense. 

5 http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/. 

17 
26 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

18 

Table 5-Area of federal land' in the United States by Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor 

Recreation agency and Resources Planning Act region 

Rock~' Pacific United 

Federal agenq· North South Mountain Coast' Alaska States 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand acres- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Forest Service 12.161 !3396 100Jl96 •5JOI 22_207 192.961 

National Park Scr\'icc L225 5.129 10.763 9.954 52.621 79.691 

Fish and Wildlife ScrYicc 1.568 4.522 10.496 1.767 76.886 95.239 

Bureau of Reclamation 197 5.470 s5• 6.522 

Bureau of Land Management 4 25 142.956 3!.906 72.423 247.314 

Army Corps of Engineers 2.557 7.104 3.540 526 19 13.7.6 

Total 17.515 30.373 273.321 90.108 224.156 635.<73 

national wild and scenic rivers (NWSRs), and the national trail system (NTS). 1l1e 

NRAs are intended to serYe primarily as a recreation resource and be accessible to 

population centers. In 2008. 41 NRAs covered 7.4 million acres, with 90 percent 

of that acreage in the Western United States. The NWSR designation requires 

qualifying rivers to have outstanding scenic, wild, and recreation ;·alues. Almost 

12,600 miles of 203 rivers in 39 states and Puerto Rico were designated as of April 

2012: 6 the Pacific Coast region contained more than half of the designated NWSR 

areas in 2009 (Cordell et al. 2013). Areas in the NTS include national historic trails 

and national recreation trails (NRTs). Currently. the NTS totals over 60,000 miles 

in all 50 states and comprises 11 national scenic trails and 19 national historic 

trails authorized by Congress, and more than 1,000 NRTs designated by the U.S. 

Departments of the Interior or Agriculture. The NRT system is unique in that it 

can be managed by any government agency at any level of government. In 2009, 

there were slightly more than 20.000 miles in the system, with the East accounting 

for almost 70 percent of the total trail miles (Cordell et al. 2013). 

6 http://\\\n\'.rivers.gov/national-system.php. 
27 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Federal land availability and facilitiesThe seven FTC OR agencies arc critical providers of outdoor recreation opportunities to the American public as well as foreign tourists. The key activities for each 

agency focus on connecting the visiting public with the resources under their stewardship. All of the FICOR agencies balance recreation activity with resource management. where ""management·· can be construed as either preserving a specific 

resource or balancing joint production of several outputs from one resource unit. 

All ofthe FICOR agencies have goals that include some combination of providing 

public access to the resource base, promoting health of benefits from the resource, 

and improving connections with our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. 

The recreation resources managed by the FICOR agencies are extensive. 

However, ifthe area of federal lands and waters is assumed to remain stable, per 

capita availability can only decline over time as population increases. The ability of 

fcdcml resources to meet future recreation participation depends on future recreation 

participation rates, the distribution of recreation participants in relation to recreation 

resources. and substitutes for federal opportunities. Transportation systems will continue to be critical for providing access to recreation opportunities. Figure 2 overlays 

the current land base of six of the FICOR agencies (excluding NOAA) in the United 

States on a map of county-level projected population change to 2030. following the 

population pr()jections of the RPA AlB scenario from the 2010 RPA Assessment. 

Although the federal land base may remain relatively static, legislative and 

executive designations. along with agency regulations and mlcs. can alter the mix of 

recreation opportunities available. Changes in designations can affect the mix between 

recreation activities (e.g., a change from motorized to nonmotorizcd usc) or the mix 

between recreation and other uses (e.g., recreation and logging or mineral extraction). 

These types of changes can effuetivcly increase or decrease federal acreage available 

for recreation. 

The NPS, FWS, BLM, and FS provide a wide range of recreation opportunities, 

with dominant activities including sightseeing (including auto touring or pleasure 

driving). viewing nature and wildlife (including birds), and hiking and walking. Top 

activities across all NPS units are sightseeing, day hiking, visitor center use, and 

creative arts (photography, writing, painting, drawing, etc.).- The greatest participation rates on FWS lands are for wildlife observation and birding, photography, 

hiking/walking, auto-tour driving, and freshwater fishing, although other popular 

'https://irma.nps.gov/Stats!Rcports!NationaL 

The ability offederal 

resources to meet 

future recreation 

participation depends 

on future recreation 

participation rates, 

the distribution of 

recreation participants 

in relation to recreation 

resources, and 

substitutes for federal 

opportunities. 

19 
28 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

20 

activities are hunting, bicycling, and nonmotorized boating8 Bureau of Land 

Management officials indicated the activities with the highest recreational visitation on BLM lands are camping and picnicking, nonmotorizcd travel, off-highway 

travel, and hunting (USDI BLM 20 13). The most common activities in which people 

participate on FS lands include viewing scenery/natural features, hiking/walking, 

relaxing/hanging out. and viewing wildlife 9 

sKilcullcn, K. 2014. Personal communication. Chief of Visitor Services, U.S. Fish and 

Wiklliie Service, 4401 N Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. 

9

http://\nV\:>v-.fs.fed.us/rccrcation/programs/nvum/. 
29 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

The USACE, BOR, and NOAA arc more focused on opportunities associated 

\\ith water recreation. The USACE sites host 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater 

lake fishing: provide other water-based activities. and camping and hiking/walking opportunitics 10 Similarly. the BOR provides extensive water-based opportunities. The BOR's day use and dispersed opportunities areas also accommodate 

activities such as camping, picnicking, hiking, wildlife viewing, and photography. The most common activities at NOAA marine sanctuaries arc fishing, 

SCUBA, and snorkeling. 

Proximity is important for many recreation visitors, For several agencies, 

including BLM, FS. FWS, and USACE, at least half of the visits come from people 

who live within 50 milcsn Thus, population growth or change in the communities 

in those proximate zones greatly affect the volume and nature of visitation. Even so. 

these agencies all have resources that can have regionaL national, or international 

markets. Although there is considerable overlap in the recreation opportunities 

across the FICOR agencies, they could be segmented into dominant niches. TI1e 

BLM and FS offer a range of opportunities from "big backyard" to backcountry: 

the FWS opportunities emphasize wildlife, fish, and birds, while the NPS is often 

associated with iconic natural and cultural resources. The USACE, BOR, and 

NOAA tend to focns on water and underwater resources. 

Economic Contributions From Recreation on 

Federal Lands 

Federal recreation resources offer opportunities for individuals to interact with 

forests and other natural resources. Federally managed public areas supply places 

individuals can use to recreate or exercise and landscapes that arc aesthetically 

pleasing and provide desirable backdrops for living or working. Through these 

interactions with federal recreation resources, a number of positive economic 

effects accme to people, individually and as communities. The most commonly 

recognized economic outcomes from federal recreation resources include business 

activity generated from spending by recreation visitors, increased property values 

and business attraction because of natural amenities tl10se resources provide, and 

health benefits from physical activity and stress reduction. 

Of the economic outcomes associated \Yith federal recreation resources noted 

above, the most attention is typically given to the business activity created when 

10 http://w\\"Wusacc.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Rccrcation.aspx. 

11 http://wv·:w.fs. fcd.us/recrcation/programs/nvum/2012%20National_ Summary_ 

Rcport_ll614!3.pdf. 

21 
30 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

22 

visitors spend money to recreate. This economic outcome is often a key consideration in federal natural resource planning: is a focus of local, regionaL and national 

business groups; and is a primary interest of local and state community leaders. 

Americans spend an estimated $646 billion annually on recreation equipment 

and the goods and services connected with outdoor recreation (Outdoor Industry 

Association 20 13). l11e mqjority of that spending-$525 billion-is made while 

recreating for purchasing food, lodging, fuel, and entertainment. Recreation trip 

spending includes purchases at home in preparation for the trip, cnroute, and at the 

recreation destination. In total, American spending for recreation supports about 6.1 

million full- and part-time jobs (Outdoor Industry Association 2013). Ho\\ spending 

in support of recreation influences the economy in the future will be influenced. in 

large part, by future patterns of recreation participation. 

People spend money at businesses while recreating on both public and private 

lands. But, from the standpoint of public lands management, there is substantial 

interest in how government provision of opportunities for recreation on public 

lands translates into economic activity in communities around federal recreation 

resources. Studies specific to federal lands indicate that those recreating on federal 

recreation resources spend at least $51 billion in the local economics around their 

federal recreation destination (English et al. 2014, USDI 2014). This is a conservative estimate of overall spending relative to spending reported in national recreation 

industry analyses. Federal contribution analyses typically limit visitor expenditures 

to a geographic area in proximity to the federal recreation sites. l11e at-home and 

enroute spending of visitors traveling longer distances is typically not included 

in economic contribution analyses for agencies. Rather, the intent typically is to 

attribute the spending to a single destination and a single trip and focus the effects 

in and around federal recreation opportunities. l11is limits the magnitude and scope 

of what is included in federal contributions. but links the spending to resources and 

opportunities provided. 

Factors Contributing to Economic Activity From Federal 

Recreation 

The magnitude of business activity in local communities associated with outdoor 

recreation on federal lands is dependent on (1) the presence of people recreating on 

federal recreation lands, (2) the existence of businesses where visitors can spend 

money, and (3) spending by recreation visitors. 

Recreation participationRecreation occurring on federal lands results from individual visitor preferences for 

outdoor recreation as well as the quality and quantity of recreation opportunities 
31 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

supplied by federal agencies. The quality of opportunities for recreation activities 

such as camping, hiking. picnicking, observing nature, fishing, hunting, viewing 

wildlife, driving off-road, and others. will influence the an10unt and type ofrecrcation on federal lands. Visitors to communities around tcderal recreation opportunities generate economic activity. A number of federal recreation destinations are 

unique, premier recreation destinations (i.e., "crown jewels'') that consistently attract 

large numbers of tourists who travel long distances to reach the site. TI1e recreation 

activity at these sites often drives substantial economic activity in local communities. 

Tourism is the primary economic driver in many of these communities. Some other 

federal recreation destinations arc in remote rural communities that tend to have fc\:v 

visitors, many of whom reside in the local area. Visitor spending in these locales is 

often relatively low with limited associated business activity. The majority offcdcral 

recreation areas are likely somewhere in the middle, receiving moderate levels of 

visitation that drive an important but modest component of local economic activity. 

Opportunities for visitor spendingThe amount of visitor spending stimulated by federal recreation opportunities 

depends, in large part, on the presence of private businesses in nearby communities. 

Communities that arc able to capture the most spending from recreation visitors 

have businesses that offer services and goods desired by those engaged in outdoor 

recreation. On average. expenditures for lodging: food. and drink in restaurants, 

bars, and grocery stores; and fuel account for the majority of recreation trip spending. Communities may increase the likelihood and magnitude of visitor spending by 

including complementary attractions/activities to lengthen visitor stays. or provide 

incentives for return visits. 

The presence of private businesses operating as concessionaires or offering 

outfitter/guide services on federal lands often enhances the recreation opportunities accessible to visitors and leads to increased spending in local communities. 

Concessionaire and guide businesses arc attracted to, and dependent OIL the 

innate features of federal recreation resources and operate within guidelines set by 

federal agencies. Concessionaires and guides can provide key services and create 

access opportunities for a broader spectrum of recreation visitors. In some cases, 

concessionaires and guides may encourage longer stays and enhance the amount of 

spending in local communities by selling recreation packages that include services 

or products offered by other local businesses. 

The primary effects of visitor purchases of goods and services arc realized by 

businesses catering directly to visitor needs. However. the total economic activity 

is greatest when there arc other local businesses that arc intermediate suppliers to 

businesses selling directly to recreationists. For example, if a restaurant purchases 

23 
32 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

Spending from visitors 

in and around federal 

recreation resources 

creates economic 

activity in local 

communities. 

24 

meats, vegetables, or beverages from producers in the local area, money spent by 

rccreationists accrues both to the restaurant serving recrcationists as \Yell as local 

food producers. Alternately, if a restaurant must source food from outside the local 

area. the money spent by recreationists leaks out of the local economy more rapidly 

as restaurant supplies are purchased from elsewhere. 

Recreation visitor spendingSpending from visitors in and around federal recreation resources creates economic 

activity in local communities. A variety of tactors, including the size of the travel 

party, time spent in the local area, personal preferences and income, and shopping 

opportunities influence how much money people spend in local communities and 

their types of purchases. The specific recreation activity of the visitor has a secondary, and limited, influence on visitor spending. 

Visitor spending is strongly influenced by the type of recreation trip: day use 

versus overnight trips, and destinations far from or close to home. Those characteristics of trip type alter the array of items and services a visitor must purchase during 

the recreation visit. Those staying overnight away from home usually spend money 

for lodging in hotels/motels, bed and breakfasts, or public or private campgrounds. 

An individual on a day trip docs not need to purchase lodging. Visitors staying one 

or more nights in a community eat more meals in the area and often spend more 

money in local restaurants/bars and grocery stores. A day visitor may spend a relatively brief time in local communities and may eat meals at home before and after 

the trip. Finally, visitors staying more than one day in an area arc more likely to 

spend money on entertainment, souvenirs, and other retail items. A visitor traveling 

a long distance from home, whether on a day trip or overnight trip, often has greater 

spending because the trip length requires increased purchases of items such as fuel. 

Generally, the specific recreation activity has a secondary influence on visitor 

spending. Some activities have greater or lesser spending, on average, because of the 

types of purchases (e.g., lift tickets, fuel, and guide services) required to complete 

the trip. For exan1ple. downhill skiers at sites on federal lands are among the highest 

recreation spenders. On a per-night basis, these visitors spend significantly more than 

other visitors fur recreation fees (e.g., lift tickets), restaurants and bars, and lodging. 

Conversely, some activities such as backpacking and hiking have spending levels that 

are lower than those of visitors on the same type of trip but engaged in a different primary activity. Visitors on backpacking trips are likely to make purchases near their 

home and have limited or no opportunities to spend money while recreating in the 

backcountry. Despite lower than average spending, hiking is one of the most popular 

activities on federal lands. The aggregate total spending of hikers and backpackers 

can be an important contribution to the economics of many rural communities. 
33 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Classification of Trip Spending and Recreation Visits 

The FICOR agencies each develop estimates of total recreation use. the amount of 

money visitors spend in local communities, and how that spending affects local 

economics. In many cases, agencies have implemented monitoring systems to 

update estimates of total recreation usc, visitor characteristics, and trip spending 

on a regular basis. For this discussion, we use spending estimates developed from 

the FS National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Progranr as an indicator of how 

projected future recreation participation could change the amount of recreation 

spending in local communities. The NVUM data arc a useful source for this 

analysis because they are collected throughout the United States, represent visitors 

engaged in a broad range of recreation trips and activities, and come from surveys 

of users in a variety of settings near a diverse group of communities. The approach 

for estimating visitor spending through NVUM is generally consistent with that 

used by other FICOR agencies. Further, spending averages estimated from the 

NVUM data are consistent with spending averages estimated from the monitoring 

programs of other agencies. For the purpose of economic contribution analysis, the 

F!COR agencies are consistent and only consider visitor spending within about 50 

miles of federal recreation resources. The marine sanctuaries managed by NOAA 

are one notable exception. 

Visitor spending attributed to recreation on federal lands is categorized by 

the type of recreation trip. At the most aggregate level, trips arc classified by the 

proximity of their origin to the destination and if the trip lasted more than one 

day. Trip origin distinguishes trips to recreation sites close to home (local trips) 

from trips involving longer distance travel (non local trips). The cutoff distance 

can vary based on the recreation market area, but local trips arc often less than 50 

miles from the visitor's home to the recreation destination. The length of the trip 

is classified as(!) recreation trips that start and finish at home on the same day 

(day trips) or (2) trips that involve an overnight stay on federal lands or in local 

communities nearby (overnight trips). The combination of these trip types creates 

four separate categories and forms the core of trip types considered across all federal agencies. Most agencies refine the categories to explain more of the spending 

variation between trips. For exanrple, the NPS classifies overnight trips into those 

staying in NPS campgrounds, NPS lodges, private hotels/motels outside the park, 

and private canrpgrounds (Cullinane et al. 2014). Further, the FS partitions overnight stays into those that include stays at hotels, motels, or campgrounds outside 

the national forest versus those in campgrounds, or other lodging on national 

forest lands (White ct al. 20 13). Lastly, recreation visitors who do not consider 

the federal site to be the primary motivating reason fur the trip are often grouped 

25 
34 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

into a separate category. The spending of visitors in that '"nonprimary'' category is 

typically fully or partially excluded from analysis of economic contribution, leading to a more conservative estimate of the economic contribution of federal lands. 

At the national level across all activities, the FS uses seven trip types to classify 

all recreation visits to national forests (table 6). The FS visitor spending figures 

and the distribution of recreation visits across the trip tYpes demonstrate the key 

features of classifying trips. 

TI1e type of recreation trip is the most important factor in explaining variation 

in visitor trip spending to federal recreation sites (White and Styncs 2008). Average 

spending figures estimated from NYU M data illustrate how recreation spending 

varies by trip type. Visitors traveling outside the local area of their home (nonlocal visitors) to recreate spend up to twice as much as visitors recreating ncar their 

homes (local visitors) (table 6). Further. those visitors who take trips where they 

stay overnight away from home (whether local or nonlocal trips) spend more than 

visitors on day trips. The greatest spending comes from visitors who travel far from 

horne and stay overnight in communities ncar federal lands. These visitors spend on 

average 15 times more than those on local day trips. 

Communities often make a considerable effort to attract overnight visitors 

(who tend to have higher spending). HmYever. recreation visitors take a variety of 

trip types and total spending in communities is dependent on both the patterns of 

average spending and the distribution of visitation across trip types (table 6). Most 

visits to FS lands are associated with people on day trips recreating locally, ncar 

their homes (49 percent). Although day trips have relatively low levels of average 

spending. the high number of trips yields a significant amount of total spending. 

Table &-Average spending in local communities and the distribution recreation visits across Forest Service 

trip type categories 

Non local Local 

Non local overni~ht Local ove1·night 

m'crnight triJlS overnight trips 

Non local trips (hotels or Local day trillS (hotels or Not 

day trips (cam1Jing) motels) trips (camping) motels) primary a 

Average party spending $63 $233 $51-1 $33 $162 $213 NA 

within 50 miJes of 

recreation dcstinations 11 

Percentage of all trips'· 10 !-I 49 4 13 

Source: \\'hite eta!. 20U. 

26 
35 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

The second most common type of trip to FS lands is by non local visitors staying 

overnight. The high spending of that group, and the fairly large number of trips, 

combine to generate high levels of total spending. Relatively small changes in the 

level of visitation in that group can produce large swings in total spending. 

Total spending in local communities is largely a function of the numbers of 

each trip type taken by visitors. The recreation activity can also play an important 

role if opportunities for expensive activities such as developed skiing and motorized 

vehicle usc arc available. Conversely, low spending activities, such as backcountry 

can1ping and hiking usually support less spending. However, lower spending for 

these activities may not hold for unique recreation opportunities or high-quality 

environments that draw visitors for extended stays. The recreation activity can 

provide important information about visitor spending, but except for special cases, 

like developed skiing, it should be considered as a secondary attribute after trip 

type when evaluating recreation spending. 

Economic Contribution From Federal Recreation Opportunities 

A recently completed analysis by the FICOR agencies uses spending and reported 

recreation visitation to provide estimates of the economic contribution of federal 

recreation to tl1e national economy (English et al. 2014, USDI 2014). Outdoor 

recreationists made more than 938 million visits to federal lands in 2012, spending 

$51 billion and supporting 880,000 jobs (English et al. 20l4, USDI20!4). Table 7 

provides a snapshot of the contributions that outdoor recreation had on jobs and the 

economy in 2012. 

Table 7-2012 economic contributions of visitor spending for recreation on federal 

lands and waters (2012 dollars} 

Recreation Tot~tl visitor Jobs 

Outdoor recreationists 

made more than 

938 million visits 

to federal lands in 

2012, spending $51 

billion and supporting 

880,000 jobs. 

Agency visits spending su1>ported 

National Park Scn·icc 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Forest Sen'ice 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Total 

.\Jillions 

283 

59 

47 

28 

161 

NR" 

360 

938 

l3i/lion dollars Thousands 

15 

II 

13 

51 

243 

58 

37 

26 

194 

135 

187 

880 

27 
36 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

28 

Economic Activity Associated With Future 

Recreation Participation 

The RPA Assessment projections described earlier arc used in this section as a reasonable estimate of the overall patterns of future recreation participation on federal 

lands. Those projections do not differentiate recreation participation on public or 

private lands. Moreover, \Yhile the projections arc not specific to federal lands, the 

set of nature-based activities considered arc closely related to many federal opportunities. Because consideration of trip type is fundamental to understanding visitor 

spending in local communities, we separately discuss activity spending for day and 

overnight trips and the distribution of visitation by activity across trip types. The 

effects of climate change on future recreation participation are discussed at the end 

of this section. 

Visitor Spending on Day Trips 

The level of average spending for day trips ranges from a low of $21 dollars for 

local visitors to $130 for visitors coming from longer distances (table 8). At the high 

end of spending are visitors engaged in developed skiing (downhill, snowboarding). all motorized activities, undeveloped skiing (cross country, snowshoeing), and 

hunting. These activities often require a significant investment in recreation fees, 

fueL and supplies for completing the trip. Of these activities, developed skiing and 

motorized water recreation are projected to see the greatest percentage increases 

in participant days by 2030. Motorized off-road usc, snowmobiling, and hunting 

arc projected to have the lowest increases in participant days, ranging from 6 to 17 

percent. Motorized recreation activities on federal lands arc typically restricted to 

specific areas. Snowmobiling is further limited to times and regions of the country 

where weather conditions arc conducive. Changes in recreation participation in 

motorized activities (and the associated changes in visitor spending) will likely 

affect a select subset of communities ncar federal lands. Because hunting occurs 

across a broad range of recreation resources and is distributed across the United 

States, although seasonally restricted, the effects of slow growth in participation 

could influence many communities. 

Hiking, birding. and interpretive site use occur across a broad spectrum of 

recreation environments and represent three of the top four projected percentage 

increases in participant days. Hiking is currently the most common recreation 

activity on FS lands. The average spending of day trip visitors engaged in these 

general activities is among the lowest and is significantly less than specialized 

activities like motorized recreation or skiing. HO\wver. recreation participation 
37 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Table 8-Projected change in participant days' and average spending of parties in local 

communities on recreation trips to U.S. Forest Service lands 

Spending per part~" per trip in federal recreation communities 

(2007 dollars) (White and St)'nes 2010) 

Projected change Non Nonlocal Local 

in particit>ant local day OYCrnight day 

Acth'ity groups da)·s, 2008-2030 trips triJlS trips 

Percent - - - - - - - - -Dollars- - -

Visiting devc1oped sites 27 $72 $206 $40 

Visiting interpretive sites 34 $65 $473 $37 

Vie\ving/photographing nalurc: 

Birding 33 $65 $473 $37 

Viewing 24 $65 $473 $37 

Backcountry activities: 

Challenge 30 $50 $473 $21 

Equestrian :u $50 $473 $21 

Hikiug 33 $50 $473 $21 

Visiting primitive areas 23 $50 $134 $21 

Motorized activities: 

Motorized off-road usc 17 $109 $277 $58 

Motorized water usc 31 $109 $277 $58 

Motorized snow use 12 $129 $642 $74 

Hunting and fishing: 

Hunting 6 $88 $368 $51 

Fishing 21 $55 $331 $38 

Nonmotorizcd \Yinter activities: 

Developed skiing 39 $130 $798 $64 

Undeveloped skiing 29 $97 $537 $27 

Nonmotorizcd water activities: 

Swimming 32 $72 $330 $40 

22 

'Results do not inclnd.: dimat.; change cffCd;;;: sec table 3. 

in general activities is so great that the total spending is substantiaL Most federal 

lands offer opportunities for visitors to engage in these activities. Therefore, 

anticipated future participation increases in these generalized activities is likely to 

have positive economic effects on numerous communities located around federal 

recreation resources. 

Local 

overnight 

trips 

$171 

$195 

$195 

$195 

$150 

$!50 

$150 

$120 

$134 

$134 

$31! 

$248 

$161 

$386 

$259 

$187 

29 
38 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

30 

Visitor Spending on Overnight Trips 

Visitors traveling on overnight trips have the highest per-trip spending of any visitor 

type (table 8). Spending ranges from about $120 for locals visiting primitive areas to 

almost $800 for nonlocal developed-area skiers. TI1e pattern of high spending noted for 

day trip visitors engaged in developed and undeveloped skiing and snowmobiling continues for ovemight visitors as all three groups exceed $500 per trip. Motorized water 

and off-road usc arc generally on the lmYcr end of the ovemight spending spcctmm in 

contrast to their high spending as day use activities. In many cases, visitors engaged in 

these activities arc camping and spending less on lodging than other overnight visitors. 

Visitors on overnight trips use a variety oflodging types and have varying patterns of visitor spending. Campers tend to have high levels of spending for groceries and fuel, although some campers bring food purchased outside the local area. 

In many settings. these visitors also have relatively high spending on entertainment 

and souvenirs. Public or private area camping is split between developed site usc 

(which includes developed campground camping) and visiting primitive areas 

(backeountry camping). Participation in both those activities is projected to increase 

in the coming decades (27 and 23 percent, respectively). Increased rates of camping 

will promote increased spending for groceries, fuel, souvenirs, and entertainment. 

Those staying overnight in hotels/motels and lodges spend more in restaurants 

and bars and on entertainment than do campers. Winter recreationists engaged in 

developed skiing or snowmobiling have some of the highest levels of overnight 

visitor spending and usc hotels/motels and lodges more than visitors engaged in 

other activities. Participation growth in developed skiing is projected to be very 

high, while motorized snow recreation is prqjeetcd to sec lower levels of growth. 

Visitors using cabins, seasonal homes, or staying with friends and relatives have 

spending patterns that are a mix of those camping and those using hotels/motels 

or lodges. They often cat some meals at the cabin (leading to grocery spending) 

and some meals in restaurants (leading to restaurant spending). Like campers, 

some of these visitors may bring food purchased from outside the local area. 

Cabin and seasonal home users participate in a variety of activities but have high 

levels of participation in winter recreation and general recreation activities like 

viewing and photographing nature, hiking, or visiting developed sites. All of those 

activities are prqiected to sec increases in recreation participation in the future. 

High Spending Trip Types and Recreation Activity Projections 

A few activities (e.g., developed skiing and motorized recreation) have higher 

than average spending because participants need to purchase specific items 

(e.g., lift tickets or additional fuel) regardless of the type of trip taken. Other 
39 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

activities generate high trip spending because visitors often stay overnight or 

take trips far from home. Both trip types lead to high trip spending and create 

significant economic effects for local communities. Federal recreation opportunities that facilitate overnight stays or encourage long-distance travel support 

these types of activities. The RPA projections, coupled vvith an understanding 

of what activities are most associated with overnight and long-distance trips. 

can provide insight into how total spending may change in the future because of 

changing trip type. 

Distribution of Visitor Use by Trip Type and Activity 

The intensity of visitor usc within each of the trip types significantly aftccts 

total spending. Overnight trips from nonlocals. some coming from very long 

distances, are most common among visitors \'Yho engage in developed skiing, 

developed site usc. swimming, and floating (table 9). A quarter or more of the 

trips in each of those activities occur in that trip type. Those four activities. 

along with the wildlife-related activities (birding. hunting, and fishing), have 

over 30 percent of their visitor usc from people traveling 50 or more miles from 

home. Developed skiing is the only activity with greater than 50 percent of 

reported visitation (58 percent) coming from distances more than 50 miles from 

the site. Large percentage increases in participant days are projected for both 

developed skiing and birding. Relatively small percentage increases arc projected 

for hunting, fishing. and floating. Federal recreation opportunities supporting 

birding and developed skiing should yield increased out-of-town travelers to 

communities near the visited sites. Communities close to federal hunting and 

fishing opportunities will probably sec gains in out-of-town visitors, although 

those gains will not be as large because those activities require low densities of 

use for quality experiences. 

Local day users tend to dominate recreation trips to FS lands with about 

two-thirds of the activities having 50 percent or more trips in that category; the 

largest proportions in baekcountry activities, motorized activities, and undeveloped skiing. Relatively large increases in participant days arc projected for most 

backcountry activities and motorized water use. lfthe distribution of trips across 

trip types is stable over time, the relatively large increases in participant days in 

these activities will likely yield associated increases in local trips. Although the 

spending of these visitors is lower than that of non locals, it can be an important 

economic activity in some communities. Thus. the volume of use from local day 

users generates significant cumulative economic activity despite their lo\\'cr average trip spending. 

The volume of use 

from local day users 

generates significant 

cumulative economic 

activity despite their 

lower average trip 

spending. 

31 
40 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

Table 9-Projected change in participant days and current distribution of recreation trips across trip type 

categories for visitors to U.S. Forest Service lands engaged in a variety of recreation activities a 

Proj<'Cted 

change in Nonlocal Local 

pat1iciJlant Nonlocal overnight Local overnight Not 

Activity groups days, 2008-2030 day triJlS trips day trips trips primary 

Percent 

Visiting developed sites: 

Developed site usc 27 9 25 43 8 15 

Visiting interpretive sites 34 10 16 39 33 

Viewing/photographing nature: 

Birding 33 10 21 55 7 

Viewing 24 10 16 39 33 

Backcountry activities: 

Challenge 30 8 B 62 15 

Equestrian 32 13 62 15 

Hiking 33 8 13 62 15 

Visiting primitive areas 23 8 13 62 2 15 

Motorized activities: 

Motorized off-road usc 17 7 21 62 

Motorized water use 31 7 21 62 

Motorized snow use 12 21 62 

Hunting and fishing: 

Hunting 6 10 21 55 7 

Fishing 21 10 21 55 7 

Nonmotorized \Vintcr activities: 

Developed skiing 39 14 44 36 2 4 

Undeveloped skiing 29 7 16 68 2 

Nonmotorizcd water actiYities: 

Swinuning 32 9 25 ~3 8 15 

Floating 22 9 25 ..J.3 8 15 

"Recreation trip type source: \Vhitc and Styncs (2010). 

32 
41 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

The Potential Influence of Climate Change 

Future climate conditions-along with population growth, increasing wealth, and 

changing preferences, as alluded to above-will likely influence participation 

patterns in outdoor recreation. The recreation participation projections for 2030 

displayed in table 9 do not include the influence of climate changes. Additional 

RPA Assessment projection models were estimated with the inclusion of variables 

to account for future climate conditions. Incorporating climate variables slightly 

lowered the estimates of participation days in 2030 for most activities relative 

to the projections without climate change (see table 4). In general, the effects of 

climate change were overwhelmed by increases in participation because of greater 

future population and income. Although most of the differences between the 

climate and no climate estimates are small and considered insignificant, three key 

recreation activities have much lower participation rates when climate change is 

incorporated (table 10). 

Accounting for anticipated future climate change substantively reduces the 

projections of future recreation participation in motorized snow usc, undeveloped 

skiing, and floating. Climate change is projected to decrease total participation in 

2030 for the former two activities and to slow the growth of participation in floating. 

Some places that still have adequate snow in the future may see muted reductions, 

or even increases, as visitors arc displaced from areas \Vith poor sno·w conditions. 

Other locales could experience more significant variations in climate and have more 

extreme reductions in participation. Recreationists who engage in snovvmobiling or 

undeveloped skiing on fcdcmllands have some ofthe highest trip expenditures of 

federal lands rccreationists. Large changes in the numbers of participant days in these 

activities could lead to meaningful reductions in the economic inputs to communities 

where those activities arc currently popular. Hmvevcr, because winter recreation is 

constrained to areas with specific recreation opportunities and climate conditions, the 

effects of reductions in spending would not be felt across all communities ncar fudcral 

Table 10-Projected future recreation participation with (CC) and without climate change 

(no CC) for select recreation activities 

Activity grou11 

Motorized snow usc 

Undeveloped skiing 

Floating 

CC ~. climate change. 

Projected change in days of 

Jlllliicipation (no CC), 2008-2030 

12 

29 

22 

Percent 

Projected change in days of 

participation (CC), 2008-2030 

-27 

-7 

l3 

33 
42 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

Amongst all racial 

and ethnic groups, 

visiting developed 

sites and viewing 

nature have the highest 

levels of participation. 

Racial and ethnic 

groups show greater 

differences in 

participation for more 

specialized recreation 

activities. 

recreation opportunities. In those places that arc affected, reductions could result in 

significant local economic changes unless the winter activities can be substituted for 

others in the same region. For example, in the absence of snow cover, snowmobile 

areas might be suitable for other fom1s of dispersed recreation. 

Climate change is also projected to slow participation growth in floating 

(rafting, tubing, canoeing, kayaking). Floating is a general recreation activity that 

occurs ou a wide range of locations across most federal land management agencies. Those engaged in floating have average levels of spending during their trips, 

although the popularity of floating creates an important contribution to the economics of many locales near federal lands. With changing climate, floating participation may grow more slovvly than it might otherwise. Similar to nonmotorized 

winter activities, areas offering floating activities will be differentially affected 

as climate change effects will vary across regions. Some areas will improve and 

benefit in terms of local conditions, while other areas experience declines. 

Demographic Change and Recreation Spending 

TI1e racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population is projected to continue 

to increase in the coming decades. Table ll displays recreation participation by 

different racc/ethnicity groups for the seven composite activity groups. Although 

the composite groups obscure important differences in individual activities, some 

overall trends arc evident. Amongst all racial and ethnic groups, visiting developed 

sites and viewing nature have the highest levels of participation. Comparing across 

racial and ethnic groups, American Indians have the highest rates of participation in 

those activities, while African Americans report the lowest rates. 

Racial and ethnic groups show greater differences in participation for more specialized recreation activities. African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders have 

Table 11-Percentage of participation in outdoor recreation activity groups by racial and 

ethnic group, 2005-2009 

African Asian/Pacific American 

Activity groups White American Islander Hispanic Indian 

Visiting developed sites 80 69 82 75 8-l 

Vic,wing/photographing nature 78 59 73 7l 79 

Backcountry activities 46 2l 34 43 60 

Motorized actiYities -11 l5 2-l 35 42 

Hunting and fishing 38 21 l9 32 38 

Nonmotorized winter activities 13 -1 ll 12 7 

Nonmotorized vYatcr activities 2-l 7 2l 19 21 

Sour.:e: Cordell 2012 

34 
43 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

relatively low levels of participation in backcountry activities, motorized activities, 

and hunting and fishing. Hispanics have rates of participation in those aggregate 

activities that arc more similar to. but lower thau, participation by Whites. American Indians have by far the highest rate of participation in backcountry activities 

and participate in motorized activities and hunting and fishing similar to participation rates ofWhites. The increasing share of Hispanic, African American, and 

Asian/Pacific Islanders in the population is projected to contribute to slower gains 

in participation in motorized recreation and hunting and fishing. Communities that 

currently sec high levels of spending from visitors engaged in those activities may 

sec slower growth in spending in the future. 

Increasing diversity in the population is unlikely to decrease future levels of 

spending for people engaged in general activities such as visiting developed sites and 

viewing and photographing nature. TI10sc sorts of activities account for a large share 

of current recreation visits to federal lands, arc popular among most groups, and 

contribute significant levels of spending. Spending attributed to those general activities will likely remain largely unchanged as the population continues to diversify. 

Winter recreation sports arc key drivers of local economic activity in some communities. Visitors engaged in developed and undeveloped skiing and snowmobiling 

have the highest spending per trip in local communities. Among racial and ethnic 

groups. Whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders show the greatest rates of 

participation in winter recreation. Anticipated increases in the number of Hispanics 

and Asian/Pacific Islanders will likely lead to continued popularity of winter snow 

sports. especially if the opportunities are not diminished by climate change. 

Americans 45 and older report participating in fewer types of recreation activities as they age (table 12). Projected participation drops significantly for hunting 

and fishing, motorized activities. backcountry activities, and non motorized winter 

activities. However, general activities like visiting developed sites and viewing and 

photographing nature remain popular for almost two-thirds of older individuals. 

Local communities can expect to continue to sec older Americans participating in 

these general recreation activities. Because most federal lands offer opportunities to 

participate in those activities. many local communities are in a position to continue 

to capture the economic benefits associated with these visitors. 

Men typically report higher overall rates of participation in outdoor recreation 

activities than women. The largest differences occur for nonmotorizcd winter 

activities, hunting and fishing, and to a lesser extent motorized and backcountry 

activities. Therefore. continued slowing of hunting and fishing participation, as the 

population diversifies, and associated changes in spending may affect communities 

with high dependency on those activities. 

35 
44 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

36 

Table 12-Participation rates in outdoor recreation activity groups by age group and gender, 

(2005-2009) 

Activit~· grout> Age45-54 Age55-64 Age65+ Male Female 

Percent 

Visiting developed sites 81 75 62 76 79 

Viewing and photographing nature 80 75 65 74 

Backcountry activities 48 37 22 49 

Motorized activities 37 27 17 41 

Hunting and fishing 38 29 20 46 

Nonmotorized '\vintcr activities 10 15 

Nonrnotorized '\Vater activities 22 15 23 

Other Considerations for Future Economic Contributions 

From Recreation 

Future visitor spending patterns75 

35 

30 

23 

19 

Expectations for the future effects on local communities from federal recreation 

opportunities arc sensitive to a number of considerations beyond future participation rates. Effects of future changes in recreation participation on economic activity 

in communities are based on current visitor spending patterns. The current patterns in the expenditures for goods and services by federal recreation visitors have 

appeared stable in recent years. For example, after accounting for inflation, there 

has been relatively little change in the relative amounts that visitors spend on food 

versus gasoline versus lodging. In the future, aside from any inflationary differences, the types and amounts of things that visitors buy could change from current 

patterns. Changing technology, economic conditions, or preferences could result in 

unforeseen effects to local economies dependent on tourism associated with federal 

recreation resources. 

User and entrance fee changesChanges in entrance or user fees charged by providers of federal recreation opportunities or concessionaires and guides operating on federal lands could change 

the amount of recreation visits to those resources or the patterns of spending of 

recreation visitors. TI1e relationship between fees and recreation use is complex. 

making it difficult to accurately project changes. Bowker et al. (1999) reported that 

95 percent of the public found fees or a combination of fees and taxes acceptable 

to fund recreation opportunities on public lands. Further, fees can be a relatively 

insignificant share of trip costs for some types of trips. Nonetheless, changes in 
45 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

fees to recreate at federal sites could change future recreation activity participation beyond the projected levels noted in this report. There is some evidence that 

increased user fees arc associated with reductions in recreation visits (e.g., Brown 

et al. 2008, Stevens et al. 2014). Conversely, a reduction in fees could lead to an 

increase in recreation usc. However. to the extent that user recs arc essential for site 

maintenance and improvements. a reduction in fees could affect the quality of visitor experiences, which may negatively affect participation. Unanticipated changes 

in recreation visits because of fcc changes could lead to economic effects to local 

communities that differ from the reported projections. 

Aside from entrance or access-fee changes, changes in the rates charged by 

concessionaires (e.g., increased lift-ticket fees or guide fees) could also affect 

recreation visit numbers (and the magnitude of future recreation visitor spending) 

or the patterns of recreation yisitor spending. Differential changes in concessionaire 

fees could lead to substitution between activities or displacement to other sites for 

the same activities. Ultimately. however, the outcomes from changes in concessionaire fees are difficult to predict. In many cases, the recreation experience or 

novel recreation opportunity may be great enough to overwhelm the effect of minor 

increases in concessionaire fees. 

Transportation costsFuture, unforeseen cost increases for transportation fuels could result in recreation 

participation patterns that diticr from those discussed here. Fuel constitutes a 

primary expense for visitors on recreation trips and increased transportation costs 

can greatly increase overall trip costs. With increased transportation expenses, 

individuals may complete fewer recreation trips or complete trips that are closer 

to home and require less transportation expense. There is some indication of this 

behavior by recreation visitors during fuel price increases experienced in the early 

2000s (Cho ct al. 20!4, Stevens et al. 2014). A reduction in the number of recreation 

trips would likely reduce the overall amount of visitor spending injected in communities surrounding federal lands; visitors spend more when they take recreation 

trips that arc away from their local home area. Further, communities that can attract 

visitors who have traveled from outside the local area achieve the greatest positive 

economic effect. Increased fuel cost could reduce the economic effects to federal 

recreation communities as rccrcationists change their trip behavior and travel 

shorter distances from home and less often leave their local areas. Conversely, 

changes in transportation technology, such as increased availability of electric/ 

hybrid vehicles, could have a counter effect. 

With increased 

transportation 

expenses, individuals 

may complete fewer 

recreation trips 

or complete trips 

that are closer to 

home and require 

less transportation 

expense. 

37 
46 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

38 

Climate changeFor most activities, population increases and economic improvements are projected 

to yield increases in participant numbers that mute any negative effects of a changing climate. At the national level, most future recreation participation numbers 

arc projected to continue to grow even after taking into account future climate. 

However, the anticipated climate changes differ across U.S. regions, and there 

will likely be ;-ariation in the regional effects on recreation from climate change. 

Because of regional variation in the effects of climate change, there will likely be 

some regions that experience positive responses in recreation participation because 

of changing climate. Such positive changes might come about, for example if 

shoulder seasons become longer, thereby increasing opportunities for activities such 

as camping and off-road vehicle usc. At the same time, there will likely be other 

regions that experience deleterious effects from climate change that arc more severe 

than that experienced elsewhere. For instance, \YC project that developed skiing 

participation will remain steady to increasing nationally under anticipated future 

climates; however, regions that arc unable to maintain artificial snow production 

or that experience increased rain on snow or high overnight low temperatures may 

sec significant declines in developed skiing because of poor snow conditions. This 

may be even more of a concern for more localized winter activities like snowmobiling and undeveloped skiing. Ultimately, for some activities, regional participation 

in outdoor recreation under a climate-changed environment may differ from the 

overall national pattern. 

Capacity of recreation resources and community congestionThere arc constraints in the amount of recreation use that federal resources can 

accommodate with current infrastructure. For example, there are only so many 

camping sites at existing campgrounds: trailhead parking lots can provide access to 

a set number of vehicles: and some trails already have limited, permit-only access. 

It is uncertain whether existing federal facilities and lands will be able to provide 

expanded opportunities for all the future increases in recreation. Limitations in the 

capacities of federal opportunities may limit the extent to which tedcral resources 

capture expected future increases in recreation participation. If future users arc 

unable to access federal opportunities (perhaps because can1pgrounds are full or 

permits cannot be obtained). potential participants may choose not to recreate, 

choose alternative activities where capacity is not an issue, or usc substitute sites 

provided by other government or private providers. 

Large increases in recreation participation days may bring large numbers of 

Yisitors into local communities around federal recreation resources. Although initial 

increases may bring about positive economic gains, significant increases in the 
47 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

numbers of tourists in towns can also bring about many negative effects. Traffic 

congestion, 'vear to roads and infrastructure. increased costs for public safety, and 

noise and air pollution are just some of the costs that can accrue to communities 

because of high rates of tourism. Increased recreation participation may lead to 

g:llns to some local businesses, but those gains may be overwhelmed by costs to the 

broader community. 

Economic dependence of local communitiesSome communities located around federal recreation lands have a high dependence 

on economic inputs from recreation spending and natural amenity economic inputs. 

Although strong connections between communities and federal recreation often 

lead to positive economic outcomes, high economic dependence on a single ceonomic sector can leave a community vulnerable to changes in economic conditions. 

In the case of recreation, communities with a high dependence on recreation visitor 

spending may experience negative economic conditions if participation numbers 

decline or visitor spending patterns change significantly in the future. 

Other Economic Outcomes From Federal 

Recreation Resources 

Federal recreation lands also can provide positive economic outcomes for communitics in a number of ways beyond attracting recreation visitors and promoting their 

spending. Commonly noted positive economic effects include aesthetic benefits 

that attract new residents and businesses to communities, contributions to improved 

health of rural populations, and the provision of scenic landscapes that serve as backdrops to those passing nearby. Several of these outcomes are briefly described below. 

Amenity Migration 

The populations and numbers of homes in communities around federal lands have 

been increasing more rapidly relative to other similar communities. The presence 

of large expanses of undeveloped, aesthetically pleasing views and opportunities 

for recreation has led to high levels of amenity migration to many communities 

around federal lands (McGranahan ct al. 2011, Radeloff et al. 2010, Stein ct al. 

2007). In-migration of new residents and expansion in local housing stock can lead 

to increased tax bases for local governments, increased demand from the financial, 

real-estate, and construction sectors oflocal economies, and expansion in the 

service and retail businesses (e.g., restaurants and bars, stores, and entertainment). 

Although amenity migration can be traced in part to recreation opportunities, the 

economic effects of amenity migration on local economics and tax bases is additional to that reported in studies oftbe economic effects of visitor spending. 

The presence of 

large expanses 

of undeveloped, 

aesthetically 

pleasing views and 

opportunities for 

recreation has led to 

high levels of amenity 

migration to many 

communities around 

federal lands, 

39 
48 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

40 

Business Relocation 

In addition to attracting new residents, the presence of appealing landscapes and 

the natural resource amenities of federal lands can encourage business to relocate 

to communities adjacent to federal lands. Businesses. especially those not tied 

to location-dependent manufacturing inputs, have relocated to areas that offer 

desirable amenities to potential employees. Relocation of businesses in particular 

industries (e.g., technology) can lead to further relocation of related businesses and 

the creation of business hubs-agglomerations of related businesses. In addition to 

business relocation, the appeal of some locales as convention destinations (and the 

success of convention-related businesses) can be credited in at least some part to 

the presence of amenity-rich federal resources. The role of federal lands in making 

convention destinations attractive has not been studied. 

Health Benefits 

With increasing rates of obesity, poor cardiovascular health, diabetes, and stress, 

positiYc economic effects can accrue to individuals and communities who take 

advantage of recreation opportunities on federal lands to pursue activities that 

can contribute to health. Urban residents often find places for rest, relaxation, and 

exercise at local- and county-government parks. In rural communities, which often 

lack those sorts of recreation resources, federal recreation resources may substitute 

for local government recreation resources. Across the United States, people living 

in the vicinity of FS land-many ofthem in rural locations-are estimated to burn 

about !46 billion calories annually while using FS recreation resources (Kline ct 

al. 2011). With increased attention to healthcare costs, the role of federal recreation 

resources in contributing to improved individual and community health and wellbeing deserves more attention. 

Recreation Backdrops 

In addition to providing places for people to recreate, federal lands can provide the 

backdrop for recreation outings that never involve a formal visit to federal lands. 

For example, a tourist to Alaska might take a cruise or a ferry through the Inland 

Passage and view the Tongass National Forest but never set foot on federal lands. 

Likewise, a visitor to Las Vegas might take a helicopter ride over Grand Canyon 

National Park to view natural features but may never enter the park. In typical studies of the economic impact offederal recreation opportunities, the spending of those 

individuals is not counted. Although the spending of these visitors is excluded from 

official estimates, and not considered here, the spending of those who view· federal 

recreation resources also generates positive economic effects in local communities. 
49 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Summary and Conclusions 

Public lands arc crucial resources for nature-based outdoor recreation. Assuming that the public land base for outdoor recreation remains stable into the future, 

an increasing population will result in decreasing per-person opportunities for 

recreation across most of the United States. Although there arc many other factors 

involved in recreation supply, recreation resources will likely become less available 

and perhaps less desirable, as more people compete to usc them. A major challenge 

for public natural resource managers and planners will be to ensure that recreation 

opportunities remain viable and adapt to a changing population. This could be 

accomplished through more creative and efficient management of existing federal 

recreation resources. 

Choices in outdoor recreation activities have changed over time in response to 

changing preferences, demographics, and recreation opportunities. Overall, participation in nature-based outdoor recreation has grown in the last decade, continuing 

a long-term trend. At the same time, recreation visitation to state parks and federal 

lands has not increased at similar rates (Walls ct al. 2009), indicating that recreationists are increasing their use of other lands. The change in recreation preferences at least partly reflects changing demographics in the American public. As 

the population ages and becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, it is unclear 

whether current recreation opportunities will meet future needs. 

Given the growing diversity of the American population, and despite studies 

tha have found increasing acculturation related to natural resource-based recreation 

(Johnson ct al. 2005), the relatively low participation rates of all groups except nonHispanic Whites may signal a shift in overall future recreation participation. The 

aging population may require different types of recreation opportunities. Recreation 

activities that have hecn dominated hy rural residents are also likely to decline, 

as the American population becomes increasingly urbanized. Understanding the 

constraints on recreation participation of various groups could improve the ability 

of recreation providers to deliver recreation opportunities to underserved groups. 

Social factors such as time, money, lack of transportation, lack of facilities, lack 

of information, crowding at sites, poorly maintained facilities, and pollution arc 

constraints felt by potential recreationists. 

Based on the available data, future growth is projected for most recreation 

activities between 2008 and 2030. The five outdoor recreation activities projected 

to have the highest percentage growth in total days of participation arc developed 

skiing, visiting interpretive sites, day hiking, birding, and equestrian activities. In 

contrast, the five activities expected to grow the least are hunting, motorized snow 

activities, motorized off-road use, floating, and fishing. Several of the activities 

A major challenge 

for public natural 

resource managers 

and planners will be to 

ensure that recreation 

opportunities remain 

viable and adapt to a 

changing population, 

41 
50 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

42 

with high projected growth, such as downhill skiing and equestrian activities, tend 

to require substantial financial commitments. TI1is factor partially explains the 

low current participation rates and may limit growth in participant numbers and 

participant days depending on the distribution offuture income growth. Projected 

population growth is high enough that the total number of participants and the total 

number of days for most recreation activities are projected to increase regardless of 

the direction of the trends in participation rates or days per participant. 

Climate can affect individual willingness to participate in recreation activities 

or affect recreation resource availability and quality. The climate variables used 

in the recreation projection models discussed in this report were limited to those 

coming directly from the 2010 RPA Assessment climate projections, or variables 

derived from those basic variables. Generally. the climate variables used in these 

recreation models were presumed to affect willingness to participate and frequency 

of participation directly. Despite the lack of existing data, it is reasonable to expect 

that climate change vvill affect resource availability. For example, in the case of 

hnnting and fishing, increasing temperatures will likely affect the distribution of 

plant and animal species that arc fundamental to maintaining fish and game populations. Moreover, changes in precipitation may influence local snow cover and 

thus affect seasonal availability for activities like snowmobiling and undeveloped 

skiing. Disentangling the effects ofthe climate variables on recreation participation is difficult. Further exploration of these direct and indirect relationships at 

different scales will be fundamental to improving forecasts of recreation behavior 

in the future. 

The magnitude of business activity in local communities associated with 

outdoor recreation on tederallands results from the combination of (1) people 

recreating on federal recreation lands, (2) the presence of businesses where visitors 

can spend money, and (3) the trip spending of those recreation visitors. Communitics best able to capitalize from recreation visitor spending offer services and goods 

that cater to those engaged in outdoor recreation. Communities that have attractive 

combinations of lodging, restaurants/bars, and entertainment will sec more spending from recreation visitors than communities without those things, all else being 

equal. Resource managers and policymakers can help facilitate positive economic 

outcomes in local communities by providing recreation opportunities that arc 

consistent with activities that tend to involve overnight stays or long-distance travel, 

like skiing. developed site recreation, and water usc. Providing "bundled" recreation 

sites or groups of interpretive sites that make it easy for visitors to engage in longer 

periods of recreation by visiting multiple sites in one area can promote longer stays, 

and thus, more opportunities to spend money in the community. 
51 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Studies specific to recreation on federal lands indicate that visitors spend at 

least $51 billion in the local economics around the federal destination. Anticipated 

future increased participation in general recreation activities like hiking, viewing 

nature, and visiting developed sites will likely have positive economic effects on 

the numerous communities located around federal lands. Projected increases in 

more specialized recreation activities, like developed skiing, motorized vehicle 

usc, and motorized water use. will likely lead to increased economic activity in 

communities located ncar those specialized places where visitors can engage in 

those types of activities. 

Racial and ethnic diversity and the age of the US. population may alter future 

participation patterns for some recreation activities. However, generalist activities 

like hiking, viewing nature, and visiting developed recreation and historic sites 

remain popular with all population subgroups. Recreation sites that can provide 

recreation opportunities supporting those types of activities, and local communities 

around those sites, arc in a position to see continued high levels of recreation use. 

Those engaged in winter recreation have the highest spending of any visitor group. 

Developed skiing remains popular with people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially among young people. Developed skiing is expected to remain a 

popular recreation activity-and local economic driver-even in the context of an 

increasingly diverse population. 

A changing climate may alter future recreation participation and lead to 

change in the amount and distribution of money spent in local communities. 

Expected future climate conditions may lead to lower participation in motorized 

snow activities and undeveloped skiing. Recrcationists engaged in those activities have some of the highest trip expenditures of any federal lands recreationists. 

Thus, large reductions in the numbers of participant days in those activities would 

likely lead to reductions in the economic activity in communities dependent on 

those rccrcationists. 

English Equivalents 

When ~:ou know: MultiiJly by: To find: 

Miles 1.609 Kilometers 

Acres .405 Hectares 

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers 

43 
52 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

44 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Karen Abt, David Allen, Daniel McCollum, and 

Susan Winter tor their reviews. Thanks also to Knrt Riittcrs for providing figure 2. 

Literature Cited 

Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.; Cordell, H.K. [et al.]. 2012. Outdoor recreation 

participation in the United States: projections to 2060: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRSGTR-160. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southem Research Station. 34 p. 

Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K.; Johnson, C.Y. 1999. User fees for recreation 

services on public lands: a national assessment. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 17: 1-14. 

Brown, R.N.K.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Kline, J.D.; Hall, T.E.; Needham, M.D. 

2008. Visitor preferences tor managing wilderness recreation after wildfire. 

Journal of Forestry. 1/2: 9-16. 

Cho, S-H.; Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Roberts, R.K.; Kim, T. 2014. Effects 

of travel cost and participation in national forest visits. Journal of Forest Policy 

and Economics. 40: 21-30. 

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 167 p. 

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J. 2013. Recreation and protected land 

resources in the United States: a technical document supporting the Forest 

Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-169. Asheville. NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 198 p. 

Cullinane, T.C; Huber C.; Koontz L. 2014. 2013 National park visitor spending 

effects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation. 

Natural Resources Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR-2014/824. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 42 p. 

English, D.B.K. [et aL]. 2014. Outdoor recreation: jobs and income. Federal 

Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation. http//www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/ 

outdoor-recrcation/reercation-cconomy.pdf (September 26. 2016). 
53 

Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities 

Johnson, C.J.; Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K. 2005. Acculturation via nature-based 

outdoor recreation: a comparison of Mexican and Chinese origin groups in the 

U.S. Environmental Practice. 7: 257-272. 

Kline, J.D.; Rosenberger R.S.; White E.M. 2011. A national assessment of 

physical activity on U.S. national forests. Journal afForest"'· 109(6): 343-353. 

McGranahan, D.A.; Wojan, T.R.; Lambert, D.M. 2011. The rural gr0\\1h 

trifccta: outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context. Journal of 

Economic Geography. !1(3): 529-557. 

Outdoor Industry Association. 2013. The outdoor recreation economy. http:!/ 

outdoorindust"·.org/images/researchfiles/OIA _ OutdoorRecEconomyReport20 12. 

pdf>l67. (October 5, 2014). 

Radeloff, V.C.; Stewart, S.I.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Gimmi, U.; Pidgeon, A.M.; 

Flather, C. H.; Hammer, R.B.; Helmers, D.P. 2010. Housing growth in and 

ncar United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107(2): 

940-945. 

Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M.; Comas, S.J.; Carr, M.; Eley, M. 2007. 

National forests on the edge: development pressures on America's national forests 

and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p. 

Stevens, T.H.; More, T.A.; Markowski-Lindsay, M. 2014. Declining national 

park visitation. Journal of Leisure Research. 46(2): 153-164. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2012. Projections of the population 

and components of change for the United States 2015 to 2060. NP2012-TI. http:!/ 

www.ccnsus.gov/population/projections/data/national/2012.html. (July 18. 2014). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FSJ. 2012a. Future of 

America's forests and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-87. Washington, DC. 198 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FSJ. 2012b. Future 

scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLMJ. 

2013. Public land statistics 2012. BLM/OC/ST-12/002+1165 -!08-2. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 271 p. 

45 
54 

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-945 

46 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2014. FY 2014 economic contributions. 

https://my.usgs.gov/doidv/. (May 10, 2016). 

Walls, M.; Darley, S.; Siikamaki, J. 2009. The state of the great outdoors: 

America's parks, public lands, and recreation resources. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future. 97 p. 

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2008. National forest visitor spending averages and the 

influence of trip-type and recreation activity. Journal ofForcstry. 116(1): 17-24. 

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2010. Updated spending profiles for national forest 

recreation visitors by activity. [Corvallis, OR]: [Oregon State University]: report, 

Joint Venture Agreement No. 10-JV-11261955-018. 40 p. On file with: Eric 

M. White, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625 93"1 Ave SW, Olympia, 

WA 98512. 

White, E.M.; Good ding, D.B.; Stynes, D.J. 2013. Estimation of national forest 

visitor spending averages from National Visitor Usc Monitoring: round 2. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: US. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p. 
55 

Website 

Telephone 

Publication requests 

FAX 

E-mail 

Mailing address 

Pacific Northwest Research Statio 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ 

(503) 808-2592 

(503) 808-2138 

(503) 808-2130 

pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us 

Publications Distribution 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890 

Federal Recycling Program 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
56 
57 

Senator CANTWELL. Investing in infrastructure is key for maintaining and growing our economy, and this is one of the most basic 

areas where we can grow jobs. I thought that President Trump and 

the Republicans and Democrats in the Congress can agree on that, 

that we need a budget proposal that will help us do that. 

Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the President’s 

proposed budget. Today my colleagues and I are sending a letter 

to the President detailing how devastating the Interior and Forest 

Service budget would be to infrastructure and the infrastructure 

jobs that we need. 

It is ironic that we are gathered to discuss investing in infrastructure at the very time we are seeing a budget that kind of 

abandons that concept. The President’s budget shortchanges the 

National Park Service, slashes the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund to its lowest level in 40 years, it cuts key tribal infrastructure 

programs, reduces PILT (the Payments In Lieu of Taxes program), 

makes no mention of the Secure Rural Schools program, and contains no plausible fix for fire borrowing, that my colleague, Senator 

Murkowski, just mentioned that we worked so hard on. 

Let’s just look at PILT and Secure Rural Schools. It highlights 

that we need to have progress made on these issues. We cannot 

claim to be saving money for an infrastructure package by taking 

money away from the infrastructure needs of states. Whether 

that’s in counties who have to fund their schools in rural areas or 

increase access in communities or do road work, we need to work 

together to resolve these problems. 

The issue is fundamentally about making investments in our 

economy, particularly for jobs. We need to be looking at the sectors 

that are the biggest contributors to the economy. Certainly, the biggest contributor or ‘‘bang for the buck’’ is the recreation economy 

and what we’ve been able to accomplish. People spend $646 billion a year in the U.S. outdoor recreation 

economy, and it is one of the largest industries in the country, directly employing six million Americans. In Washington State, there 

are 227,000 people directly employed in the outdoor recreation 

economy. 

Recreation in the parks helps us support 300,000 jobs, and visitors spent an estimated $16.9 billion in gateway communities last 

year. And last year during the Centennial anniversary of the National Park Service, a record 331 million people visited our parks, 

a seven percent increase over the previous year. 

Recreation in our national forests provides 194,000 jobs. That is 

about 40 percent of the national forests’ contribution to the GDP, 

so it’s a very important part of our forest system. 

I know the Chair and I discussed these issues and would like to 

have more influence over many of these issues, as it relates to the 

Forest Service. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
2012 Economic contributions of visitor spending for recreation 

federal lands and water (20 12 dollars) 

Recreation Total visitor Jo

Agency visits spending suppo

Millions Billion dollars Thous

National Park Service 283 15 24

Bureau of Land Management 59 3 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 47 2 3

Bureau of Reclamation 28 1 2

Forest Service 161 11 19

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration NR* 5 13

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers 360 13 18

Total 938 51 88

*NR=not reported 

Source: English, D.B.K. [et al.]. 2014. Outdoor recreation: jobs and income. Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation
59 

We have invited the ski industry areas association here today because I don’t know that members of the public understand how 

much they also contribute to the economy. Each year people spend 

$4 billion recreating at these resorts, and the primary reason listed 

for 16 percent of the visits to national forests last year was skiing 

and snowboarding. Washington has amazing ski places. We have 

ten different ski areas on our national forests and they generate a 

lot for our economy. 

We need Congress to significantly increase the investment in our 

national parks, our forest lands, and other public lands. Yet, with 

the 12 percent budget cut proposed by the President, the National 

Park Service and other land management agencies will likely fall 

further and further behind in maintenance. 

It is well known that the Park Service total deferred maintenance backlog is almost $12 billion. This figure reflects the failure 

of Congress to keep pace with the infrastructure needs. It has been 

estimated the Park Service needs over $800 million each year just 

to keep the maintenance backlog from getting any larger, yet the 

annual appropriations rarely meet 60 percent of that which means 

the backlog continues to grow. 

It is a similar story on our national forests. A GAO report issued 

last year detailed the dire condition of the Forest Service’s trails 

systems. Trails are essential and must continue to be invested in, 

but less than 25 percent of the Forest Service’s trails are up to the 

Agency’s standard for safety and use. Thousands of hours are performed by volunteer crews, like Jill’s, and they more than exceed 

every federal dollar going in, with a $1.60 local match. But we, on 

the federal side, need to do more. 

We need to address, as the Chair mentioned too, rural communities and headwater issues while making investments for recreation on public lands. Much of our country’s water infrastructure 

is aging and in need of repair. My colleague from Michigan is here 

and obviously, the failure in Flint, Michigan, and recent failures at 

the Oroville Dam in California have brought national attention to 

the state of our water supply system. As this infrastructure is 

aging and communities in the agriculture sector face challenges in 

meeting those water needs we must invest in ways to improve our 

business and our capacity. This means investing in more collaborative planning like the Yakima Basin and improving water conservation, recycling, groundwater storage and recovery. 

Investing in our water infrastructure and our public lands is all 

about jobs. I hope, Madam Chair, if there is any infrastructure bill 

that moves this year, that it will include these issues (our outdoor 

economy and water) as part of that. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I appreciate your 

comments and, again, the reminder how much, really, when you 

think about the economic impact that we see on our federal lands, 

comes from the recreation side. I know that I, personally, contribute in ways that are helpful. 

[Laughter.] 

Whether it is trails or being able to ski or just being outside. 
60 

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this morning. 

We appreciate the travel that it takes but also your commitment, 

not only to being here this morning, but for the work that you do. 

We will have the panel led off by Marcia Argust, who is the Director for Restore America’s Parks campaign. She is with The Pew 

Charitable Trusts here in Washington. 

She will be followed by Mr. Bob Bonar. Mr. Bonar is the President of Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort. He is also the Chairman 

for the National Ski Areas Association Public Lands Committee 

from Snowbird, Utah, a lovely place. We appreciate you being here. 

Ms. Simmons has been introduced a little bit by Senator Cantwell here as the Executive Director for the Washington Trails Association. It is nice to have you here, Jill. 

David Spears is the President of the Association of American 

State Geologists from Virginia. Thank you for joining us. 

Mr. Chris Treese is the External Affairs Manager for the Colorado River District from Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Welcome to 

the Committee. 

The last member of our panel this morning is Mr. Brad Worsley, 

who is the President of Novo Power, from Snowflake, Arizona. I 

think we recognize Snowflake from one of our Committee members. 

We are pleased to have you here as well. 

I would ask that you limit your comments to five minutes. Your 

full statements will be included as part of the record, but that will 

provide us an opportunity to ask questions at the conclusion of 

your remarks. 

We will begin with Ms. Argust and just go straight down the 

table here. 

Welcome and good morning. 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, DIRECTOR, RESTORE 

AMERICA’S PARKS CAMPAIGN, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS 

Ms. ARGUST. Thanks. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members 

of the Committee, thanks for hosting the hearing today and inviting me. I’d like to submit my full written testimony for the record. 

I’m Marcia Argust with the Restore America’s Parks program at 

The Pew Charitable Trusts. We’re working to implement common 

sense solutions to address the deferred maintenance challenge facing the National Park System. Infrastructure, as mentioned, is part 

of that challenge. 

The Park Service maintains 10,000 miles of roads, 18,000 miles 

of trails, more than 24,000 buildings, many of which are historic, 

and 2,000 sewage systems, many of them which are in Yellowstone 

Park. It cares for waterfronts and marinas, former military installations, campgrounds and iconic monuments. In total, the agency 

is responsible for protecting 75,000 assets, 41,000 of which need infrastructure repairs. And as we’ve noted, as you’ve noted, the assets require $11.9 billion to fix them. The Park Service is struggling to keep pace with 

these repairs for a number of reasons: aging facilities, unfair transportation cost burdens, pressures due to increased visitation and 

decreasing maintenance budgets, with the exception of the Centennial budget. 
61 

Our parks preserve our history and natural resources. They provide unmatched recreation, and they serve as economic engines. 

For all these reasons and more, restoring park infrastructure is a 

smart investment and it has potential to create jobs. 

Reduction of the backlog will require multiple approaches. I’d 

like to highlight a few ideas here. We absolutely need reliable, annual appropriations and dedicated funding as well as adequate 

staff capacity. A more realistic funding approach to Park Service 

transportation costs must also be considered. Half of the backlog, 

$6 billion, is due to transportation needs. Some of the most costly 

park road projects are parkways that have become major commuter 

routes. This is simply unsustainable. 

While Congressional funding is key, we also need to be encouraging public/private partnerships to address the backlog. For example, job training can repair infrastructure. The Concrete Preservation Institute is an example of this. It’s a non-profit organization 

that’s partnering with DoD and the Park Service to do 12 weeks 

of construction skills training for soon-to-be discharged military 

personnel, and it’s having them work on deferred maintenance 

projects on historic assets in parks. Construction firms then hire 

the alumni when they’ve completed their training and their military service. This program is currently only in two parks, but 

they’d like to expand. They simply don’t have the capacity. Foundations, businesses and philanthropists should be lining up to engage 

in this program and we should be encouraging that. 

Pew also supports opportunities for appropriate corporate partnerships. In Yellowstone National Park, Toyota Yellowstone Forever and the National Park Service has partnered to sustainably 

power a remote field station by repurposing hybrid vehicle car batteries and solar panels. Previously the station relied on polluting 

diesel and propane generators. This is the type of innovative corporate collaboration we should be encouraging to address deferred 

maintenance. 

Another corporate example is that with the Park Service and 

Musco Lighting. At Mount Rushmore, Musco Lighting enabled the 

park to reduce energy consumption by 90 percent resulting in a 

major cost savings for the park. 

Volunteerism is another area that should be encouraged and 

where modest investment can leverage more coordination and work 

orders—work hours devoted toward maintenance projects. The 

Park Service had over 330,000 participants contribute over one million hours of maintenance work last year, and that translated to 

a savings of $20 million to the agency. 

The Student Conservation Association which uses student crews 

on federal lands contributed over one million hours of service last 

year. Much of the students’ work is on trails in parks, and trails 

have over $530 million worth of repairs needed, as Jill might talk 

about. 

In conclusion, repairing park infrastructure is a wise investment. 

Pew urges any infrastructure proposal to incorporate National 

Park maintenance provisions. This will help to ensure visitors and 

nearby residents safe access to park resources and recreation. It 

will also sustain the local economies that depend on parks and it 

will create infrastructure-related jobs. 
62 

Thank you, and I’m happy to address any questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Argust follows:] 
63 

Testimony of Marcia Argust 

Director, Restore America's Parks campaign, The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 

On Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, 

Water, and Resources 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

inviting me here today to discuss infrastructure within our national park sites. I would like to submit my 

full written testimony for the record. 

The Restore America's Parks campaign at The Pew Charitable Tmsts seeks to conserve the natural and 

cultural assets of the National Park System by providing common sense, long-tem1 solutions to the 

deferred maintenance challenge facing the National Park Service (NPS). 

Established in 19 J 6, today the NPS manages more than 400 nationally significant sites in all 50 states and 

several territories. l11e Park System encompasses wild landscapes, historic and cultural sites, scenic 

byways, trails, military parks, and iconic monuments that celebrate and commemorate the remarkable 

people, heritage, and ongoing story of America. 

Our parks also encompass infrastructure. NPS maintains 10,000 miles of roads (over 5,000 of which are 

paved). nearly 1,500 bridges and 60 tunnels, 18,000 miles of trails. more than 24,000 buildings, and over 

2,000 sewage systems, as well as former military installations, parking lots, waterfronts, can1pgrounds, 

electrical and water systems, interpretive facilities, and iconic monuments and memorials. 

What Is Deferred Maintenance? 

National parks often have the same infrastmcture as a city or town, and as a result face the san1e 

deterioration and maintenance needs. In total, the agency is responsible for protecting and managing over 

75,000 assets, while also ensuring that visitors can safely access and enjoy these resources. NPS assets 

are tangible properties that serve a specific park function and can include: roads and bridges, trails, 

historic buildings, employee housing, wastewater and electrical systems, military fortifications, 

monuments and memorials, and seawalls. 

Maintenance is required at regular intervals to ensure acceptable park facility conditions: when this 

maintenance is delayed for more than a year, it's considered to be "deferred." 
64 

& Parking Lots 

The Causes of Deferred Maintenance 

Due to aging facilities, strain on resources caused by increased visitation, and unreliable funding, NPS has 

been unable to keep pace with necessary infrastmcturc repairs. Based on 20 15 data, the agency estimates 

it would cost $11.9 billion if it were to fix all of the items on its deferred maintenance list. 

Aging Jnfrastmcture. Last year the National Park Service celebrated its I OOth anniversary. Many units of 

the National Park System arc older than 50 years, and their facilities and infrastmcture are showing their 

age. According to a December 2016 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, most of the NPS 

maintenance backlog is attributed to older park sites, stating specifically that "about $10.5 billion in 

deferred maintenance was for park units established more than 40 years ago." Most infrastmcturc has a 

finite lifespan. due to factors such as material longevity, weather, use, and design. 

For example, at Grm1d Canyon National Park, more than $150 million is needed to repair the TransCanyon Pipeline. an essential piece of infrastmcture that brings water from a spring located in the North 

Rim to the South Rim. Built in the 1960s, the 16-milc pipeline is the sole potable water supply for five 

million park visitors, local residents, and concession operations. Its reliability is therefore an issue of 

public health m1d safety, as well as the maintenance of park assets since it is the only water source should 

a fire break out and threaten any of the park· s hundreds of historic stmctures. Annual fixes arc costly and 

inconvenient. A 1995 flash-flood caused significm1t damage to the pipeline, requiring that it be shut 

down for 28 days: emergency measures were employed and 23 million gallons of water per day (85 

2 
65 

trucks) had to be hauled in, at an expense of approximately $5 million. In 2013, multiple breaks required 

the closure and evacuation of guests and employees from Phantom Ranch on the Canyon floor. 

Mirroring the infrastructure problems of both urban and rural areas across the country, transportation 

needs comprise half of the backlog, roughly $6 billion, and represent some of the most costly 

infrastmcture projects. 

Denali National Park in Alaska-one of our national jewels-just celebrated its 1 OO'h birthday. The park 

has $53 million in deferred maintenance and its most pressing need is the 92 mile Denali Park Road, the 

only way to access the heart of the park The harsh freeze-and-thaw cycles oftl1e Alaskan climate have 

caused the paved and non-paved sections to deteriorate, requiring $26 million in repairs. 

Similarly, in Olympic National Park in Washington, the most visited park in the Northwest, 

the park has $140 million in deferred maintenance and one ofthe highest cost needs is $30 million in 

repairs to a section of Highway 101 (the primary route through the Olympic Peninsula) around the 

popular Lake Crescent area of the park. 

Denali and Olympic National Parks arc both national jewels that provide spectacular recreation 

opportunities and generate significant economic benefits for local communities in Alaska and 

Washington. It's critical to ensure that these parks and others like them are safe and well-maintained. 

Rising Visitation Pressures. In addition to aging infrastmcture, the NPS is experiencing visitation at 

record levels. According to data released this month by Secretary of the Interior Zinke, the National Park 

3 
66 

System had 331 million visits in 2016, a seven percent increase from 2015. The National Park System 

must continue to be welcoming to visitors, providing unmatched recreation, wildlife viewing, and 

educational experiences. But, we must acknowledge and prepare for the increased wear that rising 

visitation can put on resources that are often already showing signs of deterioration. 

Unreliable Funding. Years ofunderfunding compound the challenges of preserving the physical integrity 

ofNPS assets. From FY2006-FY20 15, federal funding for the repair and rehabilitation, cyclic 

maintenance, and line-item construction portions of the NPS budget declined by 33 percent; this number 

increases to 43 percent when inflation is taken into account. TI1e agency is typically $250 - $320 million 

short of the $800 million it estimates it needs each year to maintain transportation and non-transportation 

assets at existing conditions. 

The scenario of increased visitation at the same time that infrastructure is declining is not new to NPS. 

During the 1950s, there was significant visitor surge to our national parks. At 50 years old, early park 

infrastructure was showing signs of disrepair and the public noticed. TI1ere was a public outcry over the 

state of the parks, including the lack of visitor centers, inadequate bathrooms, and poor roads. Congress 

responded with an initiative referred to as Mission 66 and, from 1956 to 1966, invested a total of$900 

million to improve facilities within the National Park System. That figure is the equivalent of$7.4 

billion (1966) to $8.8 billion (1956) in dollars (based on 

Prioritizing Deferred Maintenance 

Executive Order 13327, issued in 2004 by President G.W. Busb, required agencies to identify and 

categorize assets with the goal of improving overall operations and financial management. In compliance 

with this Executive Order, NPS began to develop a system to review its more than 75,000 assets, resulting 

in a deferred maintenance figure that is updated annually to reflect on-the-ground data. 

Based on 2015 data, 41,000 of the National Park System's assets have deferred maintenance. As noted 

previously, the cost to address these repairs is estimated at $11.9 billion. Approximately $4.8 billion of 

the $11.9 billion backlog is attributed to highest priority assets, or assets NPS deems critical to its 

fl11SS1011. 

4 
67 

Lowest Low Medium High Highest 

Highest priority assets include memorials, historic buildings, visitor centers, key infrastructure, and other 

properties that a park unit may have been established to preserve. Specific examples include items like 

President Lincoln's boyhood home, the portico at the Jefferson Memorial, the main entry road to Mt. 

Rainer NP, and Martin Luther King's birth home. Maintenance shops, administrative buildings, and 

warehouses are examples of assets that typically serve a secondary role in supporting park facilities with a 

direct agency mission. 

Using an approach referred to as the Capital Investment Strategy, the NPS prioritizes assets by looking at 

the overall importance a park facility or property has to the agency mission, in addition to other 

considerations, such as an asset's importance to resource protection, visitor experience, safety, and 

accessibility. By identifYing its priority assets and projects, NPS is able to more strategically allocate 

limited resources to areas of greatest need. 

The Path Forward 

Preventing the escalation of the NPS maintenance backlog is not an insunnountable feat. But Congress 

and the Administration must pursue multiple approaches to ensure success, including federal funding, 

policy refonns, and increased opportunities for public-private partnerships. Focusing limited resources on 

priority assets must continue to be part of common sense solutions. 

With the enactment of the NPS Organic Act in 1916, Congress mandated the agency "to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic obj eels and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of 

5 
68 

the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations." So while collaboration must be a part of the equation to resolve deferred maintenance, it 

should complement, not replace Congress's responsibility to fund park infrastmcture needs. 

Pew recommends a multi-pronged approach to addressing deferred maintenance that includes: 

Congressional Appropriations. Reliable annual appropriations for transportation needs and NPS park 

maintenance-specifically, line-item constmction, cyclic, and repair and rehabilitation-are needed, as 

well as adequate staff capacity to implement prQjects. TI1is would provide more certainty for planning 

and integration of projects, allowing for more cost-effectiveness. We appreciate initial recommendations 

in the President's budget blueprint to ensure "that the National Park Service assets are preserved for 

future generations by increasing investment in deferred maintenance projects." 

Dedicated Annual Federal Funding. The establishment of a dedicated federal fund that would direct 

resources to the NPS maintenance backlog each year, both for non-transportation and transportation 

needs, is em cia!. We propose federal funding of $500 million per year over a period of 10 years. This 

fund should not be used to supplant annual appropriations. Piggybacking on the successful Centennial 

Challenge program, public-private matches would be encouraged by allowing maintenance projects with 

a non-federal match to be expedited. 

lnfrastmcture Package. Any potential national infrastmcture package, such as the one proposed by the 

Administration, must include deferred maintenance provisions specific to the parks, recognizing that 

national park buildings, roads, trails, aging electrical and water systems, and monuments need significant 

updating. 

User Fees. The Federal Lands Recreation and Enhancement Act (FLREA), the law which authorizes the 

govemment to charge user fees on public lands, is due for reauthorization in 2017. Its reauthorization is 

an opportunity to consider user fee increases (including park entry fees, filming fees, and commercial 

buses fees). FLREA might also consider more efficient ways for NPS to collect fees, making it more 

cost-effective for a greater number of park units to collect entry fees. 

Volunteerism. NPS's largest volunteer initiative, the Volunteer in the Park (VIP) program, had over 

330,000 participants who contributed over eight million hours of volunteer work, with over 1.16 million 

of those hours spent on maintenance in 2016. This translates to a savings of$27.3 million to NPS, based 

on an independent sector model of $23.56 per hour for each volunteer hour contributed. NPS could 

benefit from one to two volunteer coordinators in each of its seven regions, enabling the agency to better 

leverage and coordinate its growing volunteer force. 

Programs like the Student Conservation Association (SCA) should be encouraged. The SCA is modeled 

after the federal Civilian Conservation Corps program, which built much of our national park 

infrastmcture in the 1930s and 1940s. SCA student crews repair and enhance federal lands, particularly 

parks, while receiving job training. In 2016,9,638 SCA participants contributed 1.3 million hours of 

service. In Alaska, SCA placed 250 young adults at national parks throughout the state, where they learn 

stewardship skills while undertaking maintenance work. 

Partnerships. 

NPS currently has authority to enter into various types of partnerships and agreements, which has led to 

alliances with Park Friends Groups, corporations, and non-govemmental organizations. These 

6 
69 

opportunities need to occur more broadly throughout the National Park System, achieving a cost-savings 

while reducing the maintenance backlog. 

Job Training for V cterans 

There are several examples of programs in national parks tbat provide job training for veterans or 

active duty service members while drawing down deferred maintenance-these initiatives are a 

win-win and need be replicated in more park units. 

The Mission Continues is a new partnership with NPS, the National Park Foundation and Boeing 

that is aimed at protecting, restoring, and rebuilding America's natural and cultural resources by 

working with veterans. The program is intended to expand opportunities for volunteer service and 

career development for post -9/ II veterans within national parks across the country. Veterans have 

recently worked on projects such as improving accessibility at Fort Ricketts in Washin!,>ton, DC, 

clearing trails at Ebey' s Landing National Historical Reserve in Washington State and tending the 

hallowed grounds at Battleground National Cemetery in Washington, DC. 

The Concrete Preservation Institute (CPI) is a non-profit tbat partners witb the Department of 

Defense and tbe NPS to train soon-to-be-discharged active duty military personnel for careers in the 

construction industry. CPI currently operates in Golden Gate National Recreation Area (CA) and 

World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument Pearl Harbor, where participants undergo a 

12-week, hands-on program acquiring skills and training in the concrete and construction industry 

while they do deferred maintenance work on historic assets within the park sites. CPI receives 

financial and material support from some of the largest construction fim1s in the country. These 

firms recognize the desperate need for skilled labor in the concrete industry and work closely with 

CPI to place program alumni after they complete training and military service. CPI is a win for 

parks, veterans, and companies; investments in programs such as this should be strongly 

encouraged-with businesses, foundations, philanthropists-so there is capacity to provide training 

to more service members as well as address park maintenance. 

Corporate Partnerships. Pew supports opportunities for appropriate corporate partnerships that 

enable NPS to reduce deferred maintenance costs. There are numerous examples of successful 

partnerships and more should be encouraged. 

One example of a successful partnership is that with Musco Lighting, a company known for 

lighting major sporting events such as the Olympics and the Super Bowl. Musco has partnered with 

NPS to light some oftbe country's most iconic landmarks, such as tbe White House and 

Washington Monument, tbe Statue of Liberty, and Mount Rushmore. The updated lighting systems 

enhance visitor experience, improve resource protection, preserve the dark sky environment and 

reduce costs. At Mount Rushmore, the lighting system installed by Musco reduced energy 

consumption by 90 percent resulting in major sustainability achievements and cost savings for the 

park. 

Another example occurs in Yellowstone National Park, our nation's first national park. The Lamar 

Buffalo Ranch Battery Project is a partnership with Toyota, Indy Power Systems, Sharp USA 

SolarWorld, Patriot Solar, Yellowstone Forever, and the NPS. Initiated in 2014, the project reuses 

hybrid vehicle car batteries to sustainably power a remote field station in the park. Solar panels are 

used to generate energy and the renewable energy is then stored in the re-purposed battery packs 

and used to power the ranger station and environmental education center at the Ranch. Previously, 

the remote field station relied on noisy, polluting diesel and propane generators for electricity. The 

Yellowstone-Toyota partnership is the type of innovative corporate collaboration we should be 

encouraging to address deferred maintenance projects. 

7 
70 

Communities adjacent to park units are benefactors of park tourism: in 

spent nearly $17 billion in local communities, translating to ta:'< revenue and and 

jobs. Most gateways recognize this benefit and want to ensure that their park neighbors continue to 

provide a safe, positive visitor experience. In the case of Bandelier National Monument in New 

Mexico, Los Alamos County has stepped up to address a safety issue facing the monument. NPS is 

in the process of replacing the primary electrical system at Bandelier National Monument: the 

electrical lines are over 50 years old and severely deteriorated, leading to safety-risks for visitors 

and fire-risks for the park and surrounding community including the Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. 

NPS and the staff at Bandelier negotiated with Los Alamos County, their current power provider, to 

replace the electrical system to the County's standards. NPS is in the process of burying these 

upgraded power lines, using specialized sleeves that make repairing and replacing more efficient 

and less costly. Once replaced, Los Alamos County will assume ownership and maintenance tor the 

lines. Historically, a ''bum-out" on a section of the line would cost approximately $10,000 for a 

repair; in the future, the County will be responsible for identifYing and fixing any power issue, 

typically within 24 hours, providing a cost-savings for NPS, as well as increased safety for visitors 

and community memhers. Collaboration between individual parks and local communities should 

be considered more frequently, where feasihle. 

percent assets on the deferred maintenance list are considered historic. We support the 

increased use of historic leasing to repurpose and reuse park sites. One successful example is the block of 

historic houses witl1in the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. NPS funds the 

maintenance for all of the federally-owned houses within the park unit with revenue generated by leasing 

29 of the federally-owned historic buildings for private residential purposes. These structures include 

apartments. duplexes and single family homes and tlw leasing program has proven to be very popular. 

New Technologies. As NPS enters its second century, the agency should be a showcase for smart 

technology and sustainable practices. Implementation of new technologies provide an opportunity for 

more efficient management and cost savings, as welL Examples might include sensor technologies that 

provide real-time data on road conditions, trash collection, and electrical outages. The opportunity to 

purchase park passes online should be implemented on a large-scale, and user-friendly technology to 

allow for more efficient collection of fees at park entrance booths should be considered. While remaining 

consistent with historic preservation requirements, when designing or repairing facilities, NPS should 

consider using materials and techniques that prolong an asset's lifespan. 

The Importance oflmproving Infrastructure Within the National Park System 

Restoring the infrastructure and physical integrity of our national park assets is a common sense 

investment: 

• Preservation. Our national park units document our nation's history-both the high and low points. This 

history must be protected and preserved for current and fi.Jture generations to experience and learn from. 

• Accessibility. Park resources can only be experienced by visitors if they arc accessible. Park roads, 

bridges, trails, and historic resources need to be routinely maintained to ensure accessibility and safety. 

• Revenue. Parks are proven economic generators. Local gateway communities received $16.9 billion in 

direct park visitor spending in 2015 with a cumulative nationwide boost of$32 billion and 295,000 jobs. 

It's critical that parks continue to be destinations that provide a positive experience for visitors and sustain 

neighboring communities. 

8 
71 

• Cost Savings. Repairs become more costly with delay. 

• Job Creation. Addressing park maintenance has the potential to create a significant number of 

infrastructure-related jobs in the U.S. 

Conclusion 

Our National Park System showcases America's spectacular natural resources and documents our 

heritage. From stories that arc important to Native American tribes and military veterans, to sites that 

capture the painful history of the Civil War, Japanese internment, and the Civil Rights movement, to 

iconic landscape parks, we must invest in the maintenance of park infrastructure, ensuring the integrity of 

America's ''best idea" for generations to come. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share these views and am happy to answer any questions the Connnittee 

may have. 

9 
72 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Argust. 

Mr. Bonar? 

STATEMENT OF BOB BONAR, PRESIDENT, SNOWBIRD SKI & 

SUMMER RESORT, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SKI AREAS 

ASSOCIATION’S PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE 

Mr. BONAR. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of Snowbird Resort and the National Ski 

Area Association on the important topic of private investment in 

infrastructure on public land. 

Snowbird was founded in 1971 by the late Dick Bass in Little 

Cottonwood Canyon on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in 

Utah. We operate on a year-round basis accommodating 480,000 

skiers and snowboarder visits per year. 

Snowbird has made significant capital investments on the moun- tain over the past 46 years totaling $300 million. We have plans 

to make significant investments in the future as well, totaling $55 

million. With the help of this Committee and our partners in recreation, the U.S. Forest Service, we hope to be able to make those 

investments and do so in an efficient and timely manner. 

I serve as Chairman of the National Ski Areas Association’s Public Lands Committee, representing the 122 ski resorts that operate 

on National Forest System lands in 13 states. Collectively, we 

make significant capital investment in infrastructure, and we need 

Congress’ help to remove impediments to allow more investment in 

the future. 

Public land resorts work in partnership with the Forest Service 

to deliver an outdoor recreation experience unmatched in the 

world. Our model public/private partnership greatly benefits rural 

economies, improves the health and fitness of millions of Americans, of all ages, promotes appreciation for the national environment and delivers a return to the U.S. Government through fees 

paid for use of the land. 

Ski areas are the economic drivers in many rural communities in 

which they operate and are frequently the largest employers in 

these communities. Over the past five years, the U.S. ski industry 

has averaged 57 million skiers/snowboarders annually and more 

than half of those visits occur on public land. In total, the ski industry, including retail apparel/equipment, supports $62 billion in 

tourist-related revenue, creates 964,000 jobs and $4.6 billion in annual retail sales. 

Ski areas are developed sites that are designated to accommodate very large numbers of visitors. While ski areas pay for all capital improvements onsite and the review process as well, our improvement projects are simply not moving forward as quickly as 

they used to. 

I will next elaborate on the investments we are poised to make 

and why this process is hamstrung and what solutions might be 

applied to allow us to invest more and sooner in this much needed 

infrastructure. 

Ski areas are, excuse me, poised to invest in infrastructure on 

public lands because of the favorable economy that we have right 

now, strong skier/snowboarder visits and great snow this year. 
73 

Congress opened up authority for year-round uses at ski areas by 

enacting the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act 

in 2011 and demand for summer activities is sharply on the rise. 

Here are some examples of typical infrastructure improvements 

we’re looking at at the ski resorts. 

Ski areas constantly invest in lift infrastructure to improve our 

guest experience and uphill capacity, more circulation on the mountain, replacing aging lifts and to serve new terrain. Snowbird is 

planning to invest in two new lifts in the near future in Mary Ellen 

Gulch which will total $17 million. Like many resorts, we need to 

and hope to replace older lifts totaling $12 million. Lift infrastructure investments are critical, absolutely critical, to the future of 

our businesses. 

Ski areas also need to upgrade snowmaking systems to be more 

consistent and reliable ski conditions, especially early season in 

time for the holidays. Water facilities related to snowmaking are 

also critical infrastructure. The snow that we make with this infrastructure benefits the entire community in winter, not just at the 

ski area. 

Ski areas need to invest in on-mountain facilities for guest services including rest rooms, rentals, ski schools and dining. Last season Snowbird opened a 23,000 square foot lodge on top of our 

mountain called ‘‘the Summit’’ as part of a $35 million capital improvement that took seven years to approve. 

Ski areas are investing heavily in summer activities as well, such 

as zip lines, rope courses, mountain coasters, alpine slides, bike 

parks and other amenities. Snowbird already has many of these 

amenities and facilities and is planning to add two new zip lines 

soon. 

There’s a great potential for resorts to expand year-round activities, but already overwhelmed agency staff now have summer 

projects to approve in addition to the winter projects. 

When ski areas are ready to build something and capital is available to fund it, we need the approval process to be predictable and 

move forward quickly. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. 

In fact, some regions, particularly the Pacific Northwest, face a situation where no new projects are being considered by the Forest 

Service. 

Mount Hood Meadows in Oregon, which is highlighted in our 

written testimony, recently proposed a new $12 million lodge to address overcrowding and current retail dining and ski school facilities, but the application was denied. Similarly, Timberline Lodge in 

Oregon proposed a project to replace an aging lift at the resort but 

was denied due to lack of staff. The upshot of having no process 

or slow process for ski resort projects is that money that would be 

invested in infrastructure remains sitting on the sidelines. 

Even when resorts are lucky enough to get their projects rolling 

in the review process, there are two major factors that have bogged 

down the process. One, understaffing at the Forest Service, and 

two, layers of regulation that need to be streamlined. 

The Forest Service recreation program is understaffed and underfunded due to firefighting costs and the resulting downsizing of 

jobs, among special use administrators. It has become close to im-
74 

possible to move ski area improvement projects forward in a timely 

manner as there is literally no one at the desk to move them along. 

The review process should be streamlined for highly developed 

sites, like ski areas, that have likely been reviewed more than any 

other acres on the national forest. Replacing an existing chair lift 

in the same alignment or replacing a building in the same footprint 

should be covered by a categoric exclusion, not an EIS. Incidental 

tree removal that occurs at resorts in conjunction with projects 

should not be treated as a full-blown timber sale. Streamlining in 

these areas would save millions of dollars and benefit both the 

agency and the ski industry. 

So I’ve been saving the best news for last. There are solutions 

to reduce the hurdles to private investment in infrastructure at ski 

resorts. First, Congress should enact legislation to locally retain a 

percentage of ski area permit fees paid to the Forest Service and 

support ski area administration, permit administration and facilitate the approval of these projects. We want to thank Senator 

Wyden and Senator Gardner for their leadership on the ski retention legislation to date. We’re looking forward to working with you 

and other committee members on capturing these fees locally to 

provide adequate staff and eliminate the backlog of critical ski area 

infrastructure projects. Second, a team of winter sports specialists 

funded by fee retention could help streamline and expedite the 

NEPA review process. More CEs, less EISs particularly when replacing lifts and buildings and less timber process. Third, we would 

dramatically increase the use of contracting in ski resort NEPA review using private sector specialists instead of the overwhelmed 

Forest Service staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bonar, can I ask you to wrap, please? 

Mr. BONAR. Yes, thank you very much. 

I’m finished and I thank you for the—allowing me to run over 

for a couple minutes and for testimony today. Thank you. I am 

happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We like the fact that we have suggestions at the 

end which makes it good. 

Mr. BONAR. Okay, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonar follows:] 
75 

Statement of Bob Bonar 

President, Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort 

Chairman, National Ski Areas Association's Public Lands Committee 

Before the United States Senate 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure Important to Federal Lands, 

Recreation, Water and Resources 

March 21, 2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide written testimony. On behalf of Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort and 

the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), I am pleased to provide testimony on the important 

issue of private investment in infrastructure on public land. 

Snowbird was founded in 1971 by the late Dick Bass in Little Cottonwood Canyon on the 

Wasatch Cache National Forest in Utah. We operate on a year round basis accommodating 

480,000 skier/snowboarder visits per year. Snowbird has made significant capital investments 

on the mountain over the past 46 years totaling$ 300M. We have plans to make significant 

investments in the future as well totaling $55M. With the help of this Committee and our 

partners in recreation, the U.S. Forest Service, we hope to be able to make those investments, 

and do so in an efficient and timely fashion. I serve as Chair of the NSAA Public Lands 

Committee. NSAA's member resorts include the 122 ski areas that operate on National Forest 

System lands. These public land resorts are in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington 

and Wyoming. Collectively we make significant capital investments in infrastructure on public 

land, and we need Congress' help to remove impediments to allow more investment in the 

future. 

Background 

Public land resorts work in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service to deliver an outdoor 

recreation experience unmatched in the world. Our longstanding partnership-dating back to 

the 1940s, is a model public-private partnership that greatly benefits the American public. The 

recreation opportunities provided at public land ski areas provide a boost to rural economies, 

improve the health and fitness of millions of Americans of all ages, promote appreciation for the 

natural environment, and deliver a return to the US government through fees paid for use of the 

land. 

Ski areas are the economic drivers in the rural communities in which they operate. They are 

frequently the largest employers in mountain communities and contribute greatly to their 

economies. Over the past five years, the US ski industry has averaged 57 million 

skier/snowboarder visits annually, and about 60% of those visits occur on public land. In total, 

the US ski industry (resorts, equipment, apparel and retailers) supports $62 billion in touristrelated revenue, 964,000 jobs and $4.6 billion in annual retail sales. 

Ski areas are developed sites that are designed to accommodate very large numbers of visitors. 

Ski areas pay for all of the on-site improvements including roads, parking lots, bathrooms, trails, 

chair lifts, dining areas and lodges, guest services facilities (rental and ski school), maintenance 
76 

facilities, patrol facilities and other needed facilities. While ski areas pay for all review processes 

as well as the capital improvements themselves, our improvement projects are not moving 

forward like they used to. Our testimony below will elaborate on why the process is hamstrung 

and what solutions might be applied to allow us to invest more and sooner in much needed 

infrastructure at public land resorts. 

Ski Area Investments in Infrastructure 

Ski areas are poised to invest in infrastructure on public lands. The economy is favorable and 

skier/snowboarder visits have been strong as a result of positive economic conditions and great 

snow. Congress opened up authority for year round uses at ski areas by enacting the Ski Area 

Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA) in 2011, and demand for summer and 

shoulder season activities is sharply on the rise. Examples of infrastructure investments at ski 

areas include: 

Chairfifts. Ski areas are constantly looking to invest in lift infrastructure to improve our guests' 

experience and uphill capacity, improve circulation on the mountain and remove bottlenecks, 

replace aging lifts for safety reasons, and to serve new terrain. Snowbird is planning two new 

lifts in the near future in Mary Ellen Gulch in the American Fork Canyon, which will total $ $17M. 

Like many resorts, we hope to replace two older lifts totaling $12M. Lift infrastructure 

investments are absolutely critical to our business, and unfortunately they produce lengthy and 

expensive review processes. 

Snowmaking and Water Facilities. Ski areas need to upgrade snowmaking systems for more 

consistent, dependable and reliable conditions, especially early in the season in time for holiday 

visitation - and to improve snowmaking capacity and efficiency. Water facilities related to 

snowmaking are also critical infrastructure that we need to invest in. The snow we make 

benefits the entire community in winter. Not just the ski area, nearby restaurants, hotels, gas 

stations and retail, but also the electricians and the plumbers and all of the jobs that stem from a 

healthy economy. 

On-Mountain Facilities. Ski areas need to invest in on-mountain facilities for restrooms, rentals, 

ski school and dining to enhance guest experience. Last season, Snowbird opened a new 

23,000 square foot lodge at the top of Hidden Peak called "the Summif' as part of a $35 million 

capital investment project that took seven (7) years to approve. 

Four-Season Operations. Ski areas are investing heavily in non-skiing related infrastructure 

such as zip lines, ropes courses, mountain coasters, alpine slides, mountain bike parks and 

other amenities in our transition to 4-season operations. Snowbird already has many of these 

activities and is planning to add two more zip lines. Vail Resorts expects to invest a total of $80-

$85M company-wide in their summer "Epic Discovery" program utilizing SAROEA This 

summer, Aspen Skiing Co. will be installing a mountain coaster, challenge course, canopy tour, 

climbing wall, 14.4 miles of bike trails and teaching terrain and related facilities and structures 

through an $8.5M investment (plus $800,000 for process) at Snowmass Resort. Ski area 

investments in year round facilities can transform both the ski area and the local community 

from single season destinations into year-round destinations for the public. There is great 

potential for resorts to expand their offerings of year-round recreation activities, but snags in 

process have hindered the transition to four seasons that Congress envisioned in passing 

SAROEA in 2011. 

Employee Housing. Ski areas already have some employee housing on their permit areas, but 

demand for employee housing in mountain communities has never been higher. A combination 
77 

of factors have resulted in a shortage of employee housing creating a crisis in mountain 

communities, including lack of availability of private land and the emergence of VRBO, Air BnB 

and other online rental portals which have eliminated season-long rentals for employees. 

Countless newspaper articles over the past few years have featured images of employees living 

in cars in mountain communities. According to a recent NSAA survey, 65% of resort 

respondents were interested in investing in employee housing on their permit areas or on 

nearby federal lands. Vail Resorts has set aside $30 million to partner in mountain communities 

to address critical shortages of housing. Ski areas are ready to invest in employee housing, but 

are waiting for Forest Service clarifying guidance to the field in order to proceed with proposals. 

Lengthy and Expensive Process 

When ski areas are ready to build something and capital is available to fund it, we need the 

approval process to be predictable and move quickly. Unfortunately, even though the ski area 

pays for all of the capital improvements and all of the review process to make those 

improvements, we still are not getting project approvals done in a timely fashion. In fact, resorts 

in some regions, particularly the Pacific Northwest, face a situation where no new projects are 

being considered by the Forest Service. We highlighted the example of Mt. Hood Meadows in 

Oregon in the attachment to this testimony, where the ski area proposed a new $12M lodge 

($14M with review costs) in 2016 to meet guest service demands and address overcrowding in 

current rental, dining and ski school facilities. In response, the ski area received a denial letter 

from the agency (attached) stating that 40 projects are in line ahead of it "and there are no 

resources to process this request." Similarly, Timberline Lodge & Ski Area in Oregon proposed 

a project of replacing an aging lift at the resort, but was declined due to lack of capacity to staff 

the review process, which was expected to require an EIS. The upshot of having no process or 

even slow process for ski area projects is that money that would be invested in infrastructure to 

benefit the public remains on the sidelines. 

The Forest Service recreation program is understaffed and underfunded. Current recreation 

program staffing levels are at 40 percent of what they were in the year 2000, due to firefighting 

costs and the resulting downsizing and fragmentation of jobs among special uses 

administrators. Day-to-day permit administration has suffered as a result, and it has become 

close to impossible to move ski area improvement projects forward. Key employees are often 

put on "detail" in another location or are diverted to do firefighting work, and there is literally no 

one in the desk to move ski area projects along. 

The review process is also overkill for sites like ski areas that are highly developed and quite 

frankly have likely been reviewed more than any other acres on the national forests. We have 

too many EISs rather than EAs or CEs. When we are replacing a chair lift in the same alignment 

and merely increasing it from a 2 passenger to a 4 passenger lift, we should not start from 

square one in the NEPA review process, and we should not be required to do an EIS. Lift 

replacements should have their own category under NEPA Categorical Exclusions because 

they have minimal environmental effects and the effects are known. This simple change would 

save millions nationwide in dollars and time spent for both the industry and the agency. The 

case of Timberline Lodge, noted previously, is particularly troubling. Replacement of an aging lift 

is a safety issue, and it should be moved to the front of the line in terms of agency review. 

Likewise, replacing a building in an existing footprint, such as Mt. Hood Meadow's proposal 

highlighted in the attachment, should not require an EIS. Again, this kind of project has minimal 

incremental environmental effects, and the effects are already known. 

Another good example of excessive regulation is the arduous process the agency applies to the 

removal of trees from our permit area. Even though the amount of trees that we remove is tiny 
78 

in comparison to the agency's overall timber program -our resorts are subjected to a full blown 

timber sale when we remove trees. Whether we are widening a run, removing trees for safety 

or removing dead trees, agency policy requires excessive tree measurement, tree marking, and 

environmental review. This can, and should be fixed for both of our benefits. Every hour the 

USFS spends on our timber removal projects is an hour that could be redirected to addressing 

either an actual timber sale or a fuels mitigation project or other agency priorities. 

Solutions 

I have been saving the good news for last. There are solutions to reduce the hurdles to private 

investment in infrastructure at ski areas: (1) dedicating more resources to agency staffing and 

training; (2) simplifying and streamlining the process; and (3) using more private sector 

contracting to perform agency functions in the review process. 

The first solution I mentioned - dedicating more resources to agency staffing and training - is the 

most important one. Congress could enact legislation to locally retain a percentage of ski area 

permit fees paid to the Forest Service to support ski area permit administration and facilitate 

project approvals. We want to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Gardner for their leadership 

on the topic of ski fee retention to date. We look forward to working with all of the Senators on 

this committee from ski states on ski fee retention in the future. Fee retention would allow the 

agency to have adequate and trained staff to focus on ski area permit administration and 

eliminate the backlog of critical ski area infrastructure projects. A cadre of winter sports or 

developed recreation specialists on staff with the agency could help streamline and expedite the 

NEPA review process, consistent with legal requirements of course, particularly on projects that 

occur in already impacted or disturbed areas. They could also greatly streamline the timber 

removal approval process at ski areas. Finally, increased use of third party technical 

consultants, instead of overwhelmed USFS staff, to perform NEPA studies and prepare NEPA 

documents for proposed projects at ski areas should be explored. Ski areas already pay third 

parties to assist with the NEPA process, but this new alternative would entail hiring preapproved private sector specialists, such as soils engineers and botanists, to complete the work 

which often presents bottlenecks due to lack of agency specialists. The agency would still make 

the ultimate decision of whether to approve the project, but the bulk of the review work would be 

performed by outside specialists, at the expense of the ski area, in a more efficient and 

expedited manner. 

There are many benefits associated with applying these solutions. Private investment in 

infrastructure that can: accommodate millions of visitors and help US ski areas remain world 

class destinations; provide significant economic boosts to rural economies; provide year round 

employment opportunities in mountain communities; increase fee receipts by the agency; and 

foster a better guest experience for visitors of all ages. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 
79 

October 27,2016 

Forest Smnerllis<w 

Mt. 

16400 Champion 

Sandy, Oregon 

RE: Mt. Hood Meadows Oreg., LLC Proposed NEPA Projects 

South Lodge ExpatiSiG'n 

Re11ponse to 11, 20Hi Correspondence 

Dear Supervisor Northrop: 

I am in ofyourOctober 11, 2016letter in which 

review and opportunity for 

a $12,000,000 new addition 

existing Hood Meadows South Lodge 

inability to perform a timely review. 

Such 

economic 

as well as the enj<Jyrrtent 

resolve the CO!lstraints 

moving forward. 

F: 503-295-6467 

and other administrative 

use Hood National Forests. These 

could be accomplished by shift 

should not create barrieJS to public interest 

are avoidable. Avoidance of these barriers 

meJIIlO<:JOl<Jgy used by the Mt. Hood National 

Forest in the prc•ce1;sil:Jtg 

we have discussed 

but are 

.. processes, consistent 

ad!ninistrati1re rule, less invasive projects; 

spe~ia~islts and other NEP A consultants who can apply their expertise to 

a more Process; 

" Guaranteeing aruma! "collection agreement" payments years to assure stable 

.. sources; and 

with the 

fees 

the 

Co:ngressionru :Ciele:gation to obtain for the Agency authority to 

Forest to the resources necessary 

including funding a more robust 
80 

United States Forest Service 

October 27, 2016 

Page two 

been included Senator Wyden in 

the Congress. 

We would like to meet with you, Janeen and Scott in November 2016 to discuss how we can 

move forward with alternatives to work for the benefit of all the 

stakeholders of the Mt Hood National Forest, for the South Lodge 

Addition project at Mt. Hood Meadows 

Please let me know staff, for this as soon 

Matthew B. Drake 

Meadows LLC 

Cc: 

Attachment: Letter from Supervisor Lisa Northrop dated October ll, 2016 
81 

Matthew Drake 

Chairman and CEO 

Forest 

Service 

Mt. Hood Meadows, Oreg., llC 

Post Office Box 490 

Mt. Hood, Oregon 97041 

Dear Mr. Drake: 

FAX: 503-668-1641 

File Code: 2720 

Date: October 11, 2016 

This letter Is In response to your June 30, 2016 Standard Form 299 submittal, which proposes a substantial addition to Mt. 

Hood Meadows existing South lodge facility. 

As you are aware, the Mt Hood National Forest is not currently accepting new special use proposals for new uses or 

actions requiring environmental analysis until the proposals accepted during the previous open seasons have been 

processed. The Forest must process proposals from all occupants of the Forest In a fair and equitable manner. The forest 

established a process to ensure consistent management of proposals; to maintain access to National forest System lands; 

and to safeguard stewardship of natural resources through a variety of land management efforts. Once the current 

proposals are processed, !he Forest will initiate an open season for new proposals such as this one. 

The Forest has staff and resources currently working on fove projects of direct benefit to Mt Hood Meadows, Oreg., LLC 

(MHM)- and a large, complex land exchange project that requires reallocation of Region 6 and Forest resources away 

from other projects to process. in addition to the projects of benefit to MHM, the forest Is processing 44 other special use· 

related proposals across the Forest, along with the many othar land management projects and responsibilities outside of 

special uses. 

The new South Lodge addition proposal was not submitted during a designated open season. The project does not qualify 

as an exceptional case .. limited to projects where immediate safety issues exist Given these drcumstancas and 

with more than 40 projects Regulations 

2.51.54 Special Use proposal because there are no resources to process the 

request. Forthese reasons, your proposal Is returning MHM's proposaL 

I encourage you to submit this proposal during the forest's next open season. I will give full consideration to a subsequent 

Please contact Janeen Tervo at (541)352-1201 to discuss anv concerns or 

questions you have with and I are willing to meet with you to discuss the items noted 

above. Please note that return of your proposal is not subject to administrative appeal {forest Service Handbook 2709.11, 

Section 12.4). 

Sincerely, 

Forest Supervisor 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 
82 

The CHAIRMAN. It gives us something to feed off with our questions. 

Let’s go to Ms. Simmons. 

STATEMENT OF JILL SIMMONS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WASHINGTON TRAILS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SIMMONS. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. My name is Jill 

Simmons, and I’m the Executive Director of the Washington Trails 

Association, the nation’s largest trail maintenance and hiking advocacy organization. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the importance of recreation infrastructure on federal lands. I’m here today to talk about 

the risks to the economic engine of the outdoor recreation economy, 

an economy that in 2013 was estimated to generate $646 billion in 

consumer spending, an amount greater than the 2015 GDP of all 

but six states. 

The recreation economy is at risk because of decades of chronic 

underinvestment in infrastructure on public lands which will be exacerbated by the current Administration’s proposed budget that includes deep cuts to the agencies that are needed to keep this economic engine humming. 

But I’m also here to talk about some good news. There are hundreds of organizations and thousands of volunteers who are ready 

and willing to leverage increased federal investment many times 

over with their sweat equity to ensure trails and other recreation 

infrastructure remain available for all Americans to enjoy. 

Take my organization, for example. The Washington Trails Association runs a trail maintenance program where last year more 

than 4,700 volunteers donated 150,000 hours of their time to maintaining trails. More than half of those hours were on federal land, 

thanks to strong partnerships with the Forest Service and the Park 

Service. 

Just two weeks ago, I went out on one of our volunteer work parties. Twenty volunteers worked all day to build up the tread and 

improve the drainage along the trail. As you can imagine with it 

being winter in the Northwest, it was wet and muddy work but it 

was a lot of fun. But what impressed me the most was the commitment of these volunteers. The 20 people I worked with in the mud 

that day had collectively donated more than 5,000 days to maintaining trails. Yes, that’s more than 13-1/2 years. 

But volunteers cannot do it alone. Volunteer programs must 

work effectively. In order for volunteer programs to work effectively 

there must be adequate staffing at land management agencies and 

sufficient construction and maintenance budgets. From expertise 

on federal regulation to site-specific knowledge, federal employees 

and their supporting budgets are essential to the success of programs like ours. 

What’s more, we’re helping to maintain publicly-owned infrastructure that is increasingly in demand. Since 1977 the number 

of recreation visitor days on National Forest trails has increased 

376 percent. The Forest Service has reported that recreation is, by 

far, the single biggest use of the National Forest System. And in 

Washington State, 54 percent of residents report hiking every year, 
83 

a number that grows to 72 percent if you include all types of trail 

users, like hunters and equestrians. 

People head out on the trail for many reasons: exercise, recreation, peace and quiet, but they all have one thing in common. On 

the way to the trail and back again they support the local, state 

and national economy. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, outdoor 

recreation is an economic driver that should not be ignored—employing more than six million Americans and contributing nearly 

$40 billion in federal taxes and another $40 billion in state and 

local taxes. 

A recent study in my own home State of Washington showed that the state’s recreation economy generates $21.6 billion in annual 

consumer spending and $2 billion in state and local tax revenue. 

At a time when visitation to our public lands is at an all-time high, 

federal trail maintenance backlogs run in the hundreds of millions 

of dollars. A 2013 GAO report found that the Forest Service has 

only been able to maintain 25 percent of its trails to agency standards. 

Without trails to draw them in, people won’t have a reason to 

stop at the local restaurant or the gas stations that are scattered 

throughout gateway communities across the United States. Chronic 

underinvestment cannot continue if we want to keep the recreation 

economy growing. 

I believe that enhanced federal funding and creative partnerships 

are key to reducing the infrastructure backlog on federal lands. 

Washington Trails Association has been working for nearly 25 

years to maintain trails. We stretch tax dollars, donating more 

than $3 million in volunteer labor annually. 

The American people are demonstrating year over year that we 

want to use our lands for hiking and outdoor recreation. Washington Trails Association and the many partner organizations we 

work with stand ready to leverage federal investment with the 

hard work of our volunteers. The people who use and love our nation’s trails want to partner with you to keep our public lands 

available for everyone to enjoy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and I look 

forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Simmons follows:] 
84 

Statement of Jill Simmons, Executive Director, Washington Trails Association 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Regarding Recreation Infrastructure on Federal Lands 

March 21, 2017 

Executive Summary 

Washington Trails Association is the nation's largest state-based trail maintenance and hiking advocacy 

nonprofit organization with more than 15,000 member households. 

54 percent of Washington state residents go for a hike each year'; 72 percent of Washington state 

residents participate in outdoor activities that take place on or involve trails. 2 

Outdoor recreation drives $646 billion nationally in annual consumer spending, employing 6.1 million 

Americans and contributing $39.9 billion in federal taxes and $39.7 billion in state and local taxes 3 

A Government Accountability Office report describes how the Forest Service's trail system, one of the 

primary ways people access federal lands, has an incredible backlog of trail maintenance needs. The 

GAO estimates the "trail maintenance backlog to be $314 million in fiscal year 2012, with an additional 

$210 million for annual maintenance, capital improvement, and operations." 

For nearly 25 years, Washington Trails Association has led volunteer trail maintenance on federal, state 

and local public lands in Washington state, resulting in more than 1.6 million hours of donated work by 

more than 28,000 volunteers. The value of this volunteer labor is equal to a $32 million investment in 

recreation infrastructure on public lands. 

Washington Trails Association believes public-nonprofit partnerships, like our volunteer trail 

maintenance program, are key to reducing the infrastructure backlog on federal lands, but volunteers 

cannot do it alone. In order to increase our volunteer trail work, there must be additional investment in 

land management agencies to address the maintenance backlog for trails, campgrounds and access 

roads on federal lands. 

Washington Trails Association stands ready to leverage increased federal investment in recreation 

infrastructure on federal lands with the sweat equity of our thousands of volunteers who are eager to 

help steward the places they love. 

The Administration's proposed budget takes us in the wrong direction, exacerbating chronic agency 

underfunding. Budget cuts to the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture will have a 

negative impact on trail users and the agencies trying to manage our public lands. 

1 http://www. reo. wa.gov I documents/rec_ trends/2013-2018SCORP-Full Rpt. pdf 2 http://www .reo. wa.gov j documents/rcfb/2013-2018Trails_Pian&Appendices. pdf 3 https:/ /outdoorindustry.org/resource/the-outdoor -recreation-economy-2012 
85 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the importance of recreation infrastructure on federal lands. My name is Jill Simmons 

and I am the Executive Director at Washington Trails Association. 

Founded in 1966, Washington Trails Association (WTA) is the nation's largest state-based trail maintenance and 

hiking advocacy nonprofit organization with more than 15,000 member households. Washington Trails 

Association's mission is to preserve, enhance and promote hiking opportunities in Washington state through 

collaboration, education, advocacy and volunteer trail maintenance. Each year more than 4,700 Washington 

Trails Association volunteers perform 150,000 hours of trail maintenance across Washington. That equates to 

$3.9 million in donated labor to our public lands annually. More than 50 percent of the 150,000 hours of 

volunteer trail maintenance is provided on federal lands, including national forests and parks. 

In addition to the on-the-ground impact on trails, Washington Trails Association's reach is profound. We have an 

expansive website with trail suggestions and trip reports. Each year more than 4.5 million people go to 

Washington Trails Association's website in search of recreation opportunities and the chance to protect wild 

places for their children's children. This incredible number reflects the fact that 54 percent of Washington state 

residents go for a hike each year. 4 Through Washington Trails Association's online trip reports, our dedicated 

community tells us about their hiking experiences, regularly highlighting the need to invest in our federal lands, 

create more equitable access to the outdoors and preserve quality hiking experiences. 

Washington Trails Association's community extends to partnerships with organizations around the state and 

nation. We work closely with our federal land managers- namely the United States Forest Service and National 

Park Service- to build and maintain sustainable trail systems. We also work with the recreation industry, such as 

outdoor retailer REI, to invest in our wild places and the recreation economy. 

Washington state is rapidly growing. Our state population was 4.1 million in 1980. 5 Today it has nearly doubled 

to approximately 7.3 million and is estimated to grow to 9.1 million by 2040. 6 With this growth comes increased 

demand for outdoor recreation opportunities. In recent years, our federal land management partners have seen 

a dramatic increase in the number of visitors to their lands, including on trails. 

The trend of growing visitorship and use of the National Forest System for recreation can be seen across the 

country. Since 1977, the number of recreation visitor days on national forest trails has increased 376 percent-' 

And, the Forest Service has reported that recreation is by far the single greatest use of the National Forest 

System. 8 Recreation and visitor spending on national forests contributes $13 billion to the economy annually 

and provides 205,000 jobs9 

Washington Trails Association believes that a thriving future for Washington state, and the rest of the nation, 

will come from embracing recreation not only as a way of life but also as a key economic driver. In fact 1 

recreation already has a significant economic impact, which will only increase as more people get outside to 

enjoy our public lands. 

4 http://www.rco. wa.gov /documents/rec_ trends/2013-2018SCORP-Full Rpt. pdf 5 https://www.census.gov 

6 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/forecasts.asp 

7 USDA Forest Service. Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget 8 USDA Forest Service. A Sustainable Recreation Future. Draft 12/16/2015. Page 1. 9 https:/ /www.usda.gov /media/press-releases/2016/06/17 /forest -service-makes-it -easier-visitors-enjoy-national-forestsand 

2 
86 

The Recreation Economy in Washington State & Nationally 

Whether a lifelong Washingtonian or a newcomer to the state, 

hiking and outdoor recreation is a key part of their identity for 

many Washingtonians. The mountains not only lure individuals 

interested in a weekend adventure, they also call to the 

technology industry transplants and small business startups to set 

up shop and make Washington home. Beyond attracting new 

talent and businesses to our state, the recreation economy in 

Washington generates $21.6 billion in annual consumer spending 

and $2 billion in state and local tax revenue. Additionally, nearly 

200,000 Washington residents are employed thanks to the 

recreation economy. 10 These economic benefits reach every 

county of our state. 

Many rural towns in Washington are nestled against the 

boundaries of our national forests and parks. These "gateway 

Jobs In Washington 

communities" rely on outdoor recreation visitors spending money on food, gas, lodging and gear. Washington 

communities such as Darrington, Bellingham, Winthrop, Skykomish and Trout Lake see recreation as crucial to 

sustaining their livelihoods. 

For example, the town of Trout Lake, Washington, is at the base of Mount Adams and next to the Yakama 

Nation. In 2015, catastrophic fires destroyed miles of trail and wildlands on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 

The community of Trout Lake felt the loss of visitors and the recreation tourism economy in the aftermath of the 

fires. This year Washington Trails Association, local community groups and the Yakama Nation are working 

together to open trails and spark renewed interest in this beautiful region of Washington state. As popular trails 

reopen on federal lands with Washington Trails Association's help, the town of Trout Lake expects to see its 

tourism numbers rebound as hikers and campers stop by for the famous huckleberry milkshakes at the local gas 

station. And the story of this community is not unique. There are thousands of ('Trout lakes" across Washington 

state and the rest of the nation. 

The value of the recreation economy can also be seen on a national scale. Outdoor recreation drives $646 billion 

in annual consumer spending, employing 6.1 million Americans and contributing $39.9 billion in federal taxes 

and $39.7 billion in state and local taxes. 11 

A good example of the purchasing power of outdoor enthusiasts can be seen by recent earnings from REI, a 

Washington-based and nationally recognized outdoor retailer. The retailer reported annual revenues of $2.56 

billion in 2016, a 5.5 percent increase over 2015. REI recognizes the necessity of investing in our public lands, as 

illustrated by annual donations of millions of dollars to support efforts nationwide to build and maintain trails, 

clean up beaches and restore local parks. 

While REI is a great example of the purchasing power of the outdoor retail economy, many more examples are 

bound to come to light thanks to the passage late last year of the "Outdoor REC Act." The new federal law will 

ensure that, for the first time, the outdoor recreation economy is counted as part of the U.S. Gross Domestic 

Product. This change will provide new measures of the impact outdoor recreation has on the overall U.S. 

economy. Washington Trails Association believes that the numbers will demonstrate conclusively that investing 

10 http://www. reo. wa.gov I documents/ORTF /EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec. pdf 11 https:// outdoorindustry.org/resource/the-outdoor -recreation-economy-2012 

3 
87 

in trails, campgrounds, and access roads on federal lands is an investment in a significant and growing economic 

driver. 

In fact, without investments in infrastructure, such as trails and recreational access roads on our public lands, we 

run the risk of diminishing recreation's economic impact. Trail maintenance backlogs in the hundreds of millions 

of dollars mean that people soon may no longer be able to visit their favorite lake or mountain vista. And 

without that hike to draw them, they will not stop for a meal at the mom-and-pop burger joints that are 

scattered throughout the gateway communities in Washington state and around the country. 

Federal lands Recreation Infrastructure and Chronic Underfunding 

For more than 20 years, federal land budgets have been chronically underfunded. This underfunding has 

decreased land management agencies' resources and staffing and, therefore, their ability to maintain trails, 

campgrounds, recreational road access and other recreation infrastructure. 

In 2013, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) produced a 

report outlining the negative impacts of the maintenance backlog on United States 

Forest Service trails. Forest Service data show that national forests receive about 165 

million visits each year, 40 percent of which are visitors coming to hike on trails. The 

report describes how the Forest Service's trail system, one of the primary ways 

people access federal lands, has an incredible backlog of trail maintenance. The 

report estimated the value of the Forest Service '~trail maintenance backlog to be 

$314 million in fiscal year 2012, with an additional $210 million for annual 

maintenance, capital improvement, and operations." One of the most startling 

revelations in the report was that the Forest Service has only been able to keep a 

quarter of its 158,000 miles of recreational trails up to the agency's standards. 12 Due 

to the lack of adequate funding in the five years since the report was published, the 

backlog of maintenance needs has undoubtedly increased. 

Similarly, the National Park Service has reported an infrastructure repair backlog 

Only 25% of Forest Service 

trails are maintained to 

standard, creating unsafe trails 

and loss of access to hikers and 

othertrai!users. 

estimated at $11.9 billion (FY 2015). This estimate includes vital repairs to aging historical structures and 

thousands of miles of roads and trails, bridges, tunnels, sewers, drainage and other infrastructure. Trail 

infrastructure needs, such as placing crucial footbridges over rivers and fixing trail-closing washouts, are 

estimated at $482 million. 

At a time when visitation to our public lands is at an all-time high, this cycle of chronic underfunding cannot 

continue. Land management agencies cannot see their budgets further reduced. But that is exactly what the 

Trump Administration's budget proposal does- a 12 percent cut to the Department of Interior, home to our 

National Park Service, and an even greater 21 percent cut to the Department of Agriculture, which manages our 

national forests. These cuts will only deepen the maintenance backlog issues on our federal lands, resulting in 

trail closures, washed out roads and shuttered ranger stations. 

12 http:/ fwww.gao.gov/ assets/660/655555.pdf 

4 
88 

The Need for Investment 

Due to dwindling resources and staffing, federal land management agencies have increasingly relied on partner 

organizations, such as Washington Trails Association. As an organization that has led more than 1.6 million 

volunteer hours on trails in Washington state involving more than 28,000 volunteers (totaling $32 million in 

donated labor), Washington Trails Association values these partnerships. We are committed to caring for our 

public lands, but our volunteers cannot do it alone. 

Washington Trails Association will continue to work hard to chip away at the backlog of maintenance needs, but 

we rely on federal support to make our volunteer trail maintenance programs work. Washington Trails 

Association and other organizations that conduct maintenance on federal lands receive government grants to 

fund, in part, our trail work. We leverage those dollars significantly through private funding and volunteer hours 

to have an even greater impact. As an example, since 1996, the federal Recreational Trails Program (funded 

through the transportation budget) has contributed more than $2.3 million to Washington Trails Association's 

volunteer trail projects. Coupling this investment in these projects with our volunteers' donated time valued at 

about $9 million, the total investment going into federal lands is worth nearly $12 million. Imagine the impact 

we could have if additional investments were made to improve and expand recreation infrastructure and 

support volunteer trail maintenance programs on federal lands. 

In addition, in order for community organizations to effectively work on federal lands, there must be adequate 

staffing within land management agencies and sufficient construction and maintenance budgets to facilitate the 

on-the-ground efforts of our volunteers. From expertise on federal regulations to site-specific knowledge of 

preferred use and management policies, federal employees are vital to the success of volunteer work on public 

lands. Further, there are critical projects that cannot be carried out by volunteers, such as the installation of 

major bridges, but that are needed to get to other places on federal lands where volunteers can do the work. 

Washington Trails Association has been partnering with the Forest Service and National Park Service for nearly 

25 years. During this time our expertise has grown along with our volunteer hours of service. Some people think 

that trail work is as simple as shoveling a little dirt, but we understand it is much more complex, which is why 

these agencies trust us to perform well. And Washington Trails Association is not alone; many other nonprofit 

organizations have also answered the call to help care for our public lands, including Back Country Horsemen of 

Washington, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, Pacific Crest Trail Association and Washington Conservation 

Corps, to name a few. 

Together, we are answering the call for increased volunteerism on federal lands highlighted in the National 

Forest System Trails Stewardship Act, which passed into law late last year. And we stand ready to do so again in 

response to increased federal investment in recreation infrastructure. We will leverage those investments many 

times over by bringing the sweat equity of the many trail users who want to help care for the places they love. 

With increased support, we are confident that together we can create the trail and recreation system that is 

being demanded by the millions of visitors to our public lands. In turn, this will foster Washington state's and 

local communities' outdoor recreation economies, keeping them competitive and sustainable in this rapidly 

changing world. 

This concludes my testimony. I thank the Committee for providing me this opportunity to testify. I would be 

happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

5 
89 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Simmons. 

Mr. Spears, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SPEARS, PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS 

Mr. SPEARS. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and members of the Committee. My name is David 

Spears, and I am President of the Association of American State 

Geologists. Our members are the chief executives of the state geological surveys. Every one of your states has a geological survey, 

either in an Executive Branch agency or in a state university. 

Like the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), our activities are focused on geologic and topographic mapping, identification and assessment of mineral, energy and water resources and the reduction 

of risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes and 

landslides. We collaborate closely with the USGS on these topics, 

often through cooperative programs such as the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program and the National Geological and Geophysical 

Data Preservation Program. We are proud of the positive impact 

our activities have had on our nation’s economic prosperity, national security and environmental protection. 

We’re here today to talk about infrastructure, and no input is 

more essential to infrastructure than minerals. And I’m using the 

term ‘‘minerals’’ broadly to include all non-fuel mineral materials 

such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, metals and industrial minerals. These are the raw materials essential to building almost anything. 

Road construction and maintenance require large quantities of 

crushed stone for the road base and then either asphalt or concrete 

for the road surface. Constructing just one mile of two-lane highway requires between 20,000 and 40,000 tons of sand, gravel and 

crushed stone. 

According to the United Nations, ‘‘Sand and gravel represent the 

highest volume of raw material used on earth after water.’’ These 

materials have a relatively low unit price, but because they are 

bulky, transporting them is expensive; therefore, having adequate 

supplies available locally is important to the economy of every community. 

Constructing bridges, trails, buildings, airports, power plants and 

water infrastructure requires limestone and aggregate for concrete, 

clay for bricks, copper for wiring and steel for framing, along with 

other minerals for paint, fixtures, pipes and appliances. And with 

changing technology, demand for new mineral commodities is growing. 

We’ve all heard about the rare-earth elements which are essential for cell phones, solar panels, electric vehicles, wind turbines 

and military applications. Currently, the U.S. is 100 percent reliant 

on imports for these rare-earth elements. According to the USGS, 

in 2016 there were 20 essential mineral commodities on which the 

U.S. was 100 percent import-reliant, and the largest supplier of 

minerals imported to the U.S. was China. 

Much of our nation’s mineral production comes from federal 

lands, especially in the West. Potash for fertilizer is produced from 
90 

federal land in Utah. Lithium for batteries is produced from federal 

lands in Nevada. Metals such as copper and gold are mined in 

Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Montana. And these are just a few 

examples of the dozens of mineral commodities contributed to the 

U.S. economy by federally-owned land. According to USGS, the 

value of non-fuel mineral raw materials produced in the U.S. in 

2016 was nearly $75 billion, and these raw materials, combined 

with domestically recycled materials, were consumed by downstream industries to produce products worth an estimated $2.78 

trillion. 

The primary source of information about the location and quantity of mineral materials for infrastructure is geologic mapping. 

Geologic maps also help reduce infrastructure costs by identifying 

landslides, sinkholes and otherwise unstable ground which should 

be avoided early in the planning stages of construction. State and 

federal geoscience agencies have produced geologic maps to cover 

about half of the U.S. at a level of detail sufficient for making wise 

land-use decisions, but large data gaps remain. 

Airborne data-collection technologies such as magnetics, 

radiometrics, gravity and LiDAR are helping to expand our knowledge of the nation’s geology and are leveraging investment in 

‘‘boots-on-the-ground’’ geologic mapping and physical sampling. Detailed mapping enables smart decisions on which lands to protect 

and which lands to develop. 

In summary, expanding and maintaining our nation’s infrastructure will require minerals. Responsibly managing our mineral resources, reducing reliance on imports and reducing the risk of natural hazards will require cooperation between state and federal geological surveys to fill the significant gaps in our current knowledge. Investment in infrastructure will require investment in geology. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spears follows:] 
91 

David B. Spears, P.G. 

President, Association of American State Geologists 

Testimony on "Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure Important to Federal Lands, 

Recreation, Water, and Resources" 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee: 

My name is David Spears and I am President of the Association of American State Geologists. Our 

members are the chief executives ofthe state geological surveys. Almost every one of your states 

has a geological survey, either in an executive branch agency or in a state university. Like the 

U.S. Geological Survey, our activities are focused on geologic and topographic mapping, 

identification and assessment of mineral, energy, and water resources, and the reduction of risk 

from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides. We collaborate closely 

with the USGS on these topics, often through cooperative programs such as the National 

Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 

and the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program. We are proud of the 

positive impact our activities have on our nation's economic prosperity, national security, and 

environmental protection. 

We're here today to talk about infrastructure, and no input is more essential to infrastructure 

than minerals. I'm using the term "minerals" broadly to include all nonfuel mineral materials: 

sand, gravel, crushed stone, metals, and industrial minerals. These are the raw materials 

essential to building almost anything. Road construction and maintenance require large 

quantities of crushed stone for the road base, and either asphalt or concrete for the road surface. 

Constructing one mile of two-lane highway requires between 20,000 and 40,000 tons of sand, 

gravel, and crushed stone. According to the United Nations, "Sand and gravel represent the 

highest volume of raw material used on earth after water." These materials have a relatively low 

unit price, but because they are bulky, transporting them is expensive. Therefore, having 

adequate supplies available locally is important to the economy of every community. 

Constructing buildings, bridges, airports, power plants, and water infrastructure requires 

limestone and aggregate for concrete, clay for bricks, copper for wiring, and steel for framing, 

along with other minerals for paint, fixtures, pipes, and appliances. With changing technology, 

demand for new mineral commodities is growing. We've all heard about the rare earth elements 

which are essential for cell phones, solar panels, wind turbines, and military applications. 
92 

Currently, the U.S. is one hundred percent reliant on imports for the rare earths. According to 

the USGS, in 2016 there were twenty essential mineral commodities on which the U.S. was 100% 

import-reliant. The largest supplier of minerals imported to the U.S. was China. 

Much of our nation's mineral production comes from federal lands, especially in the West. 

Potash for fertilizer is produced from federal land in Utah. Lithium for batteries is produced from 

federal land in Nevada. Metals such as copper and gold are mined in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, 

and Montana. These are just a few examples of the dozens of mineral commodities contributed 

to the U.S. economy by federally-owned land. According to USGS, the value of nonfuel mineral 

raw materials produced at mines in the U.S. in 2016 was nearly $75 billion. These raw materials, 

combined with domestically recycled materials, were consumed by downstream industries to 

produce products worth an estimated $2.78 trillion. 

The primary source of information about the location and quantity of mineral materials for 

infrastructure construction is geologic mapping. Geologic maps also help reduce infrastructure 

costs by identifying landslides, sinkholes, and otherwise unstable ground which should be 

avoided early in the planning stages of construction. State and federal geoscience agencies have 

produced geologic maps to cover about half of the U.S. at a level of detail sufficient for making 

wise land-use decisions, but large data gaps remain. 

Airborne data-collection technologies such as magnetics, radiometries, gravity, and LiDAR are 

helping to expand our knowledge of the nation's geology, and are leveraging investment in 

"boots-on-the-ground" geologic mapping and physical sampling. Detailed mapping enables 

smart decisions on which lands to protect, and which lands to develop. 

In summary, expanding and maintaining our nation's infrastructure will require minerals. 

Responsibly managing our mineral resources, reducing reliance on imports, and reducing the risk 

of natural hazards will require cooperation between state and federal geological surveys to fill 

the significant gaps in our current knowledge. Investment in infrastructure will require 

investment in geology. Thank you. 
93 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Spears. 

Mr. Treese? 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS TREESE, MANAGER, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 

AND BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. TREESE. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell, Senator 

Gardner, always a pleasure. Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the invitation and the opportunity to visit with you today. 

Senator GARDNER. Welcome. 

Mr. TREESE. My name is Chris Treese. I am representing my employer, the Colorado River Water Conservation District. We’re responsible for the protection and development of the Colorado River 

for both Western Colorado and the state. I also have the distinct 

honor today of also representing the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance. Both organizations that 

represent and advocate for reliable water supplies and wise water 

use by and for farmers, ranchers, municipalities and industry 

throughout the West. 

I commend the Committee for your timing of this hearing coinciding with Water Week 2017 and tomorrow being World Water 

Day, both highlighting the universal importance of water. 

I want to begin by recognizing Reclamation’s historic investments 

in water storage and delivery, in fulfillment of its mission to settle 

the West and make the deserts blue. Today it may be tempting to 

let Reclamation declare victory and tell them their work here is 

done; however, Reclamation and all the federal agencies have been 

good partners with Western water providers and must continue in 

this partnership role, albeit with a refocused mission. 

Western water providers are anxious to pursue new water supply 

options. New investment is required in water conveyance, surface 

water storage, aquifer storage and recovery, new wastewater technologies, water reuse, desalination and broad efficiency and conservation measures. 

However, we must concurrently ensure maintenance of our existing but aging infrastructure. A Family Farm Alliance 2015 study 

found that irrigated agriculture contributes $172 billion to total 

household income annually just in the Western U.S., yet this economic force is at risk from an aging infrastructure. Nearly all of 

Reclamation’s irrigation projects are more than 50 years old, and 

many have already celebrated their centennials. 

Our organizations believe federal infrastructure investment must 

not be limited to traditional brick and mortar. To maximize multiple benefits and produce the greatest return on investment, federal infrastructure investments must include capital maintenance 

and rehabilitation for aging infrastructure, integrated planning, 

forest management, watershed protections and system-wide efficiency and conservation measures. 

My written testimony includes additional examples of the scale 

and variety of financing of opportunities as well as innovative financing measures necessary to preserve and advance Western 

water infrastructure. I want to stress that the water community is 
94 

already partnered with the Federal Government to realize the 

shared goals of a stable and sustainable water supply. 

Regarding potential legislation, we encourage Congress to include water infrastructure in any infrastructure legislation, to 

maintain the tax exempt status of municipal bonds, maximize the 

use of and fully fund state revolving funds, target funding increases for Reclamation and the Army Corps for existing programs 

assisting water supply development, addressing aging infrastructure, meeting rural water development needs and increasing 

drought resiliency, fully fund the WIFIA and last year’s WIIN Act, 

expand Reclamation’s WaterSMART grant program and explore 

simpler processes for transferring title of federal projects to local 

agencies that have been repaying and managing those operations. 

And finally, I’d like to echo the Chair and Ranking Member’s recognition of the need for improved forest management and resolution of so-called fire borrowing. Our national forests are the primary source of water for the vast majority of the West. Healthy 

and resilient forests are required for a safe and sustainable water 

supply. 

Members, we stand on the shoulders of past generations’ investment in infrastructure. Now it’s our responsibility to invest in the 

infrastructure for future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Treese follows:] 
95 

Chris Treese 

Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River Water Conservation District 

Board Member, National Water Resources Association 

Advisory Committee Member, Family Farm Alliance 

Testimony Before the United States Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing to receive testimony on opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure 

important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources. 

March 21,2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the importance of water 

infrastructure in the Western United States. My name is Chris Treese, and I am the external affairs 

manager for the Colorado River Water Conservation District (River District), located in Glenwood 

Springs, Colorado. The River District is the principal water policy and planning agency for the 

fifteen counties of northwest and west central Colorado. We are responsible for the conservation, 

use, protection, and development of Colorado's apportionment of the Colorado River. The River 

District comprises approximately 29,000 square miles, roughly 28% of the land area of Colorado. 

Seventy percent of our district is made up of lands managed by the federal government. 

Our district belongs to the National Water Resources Association (NWRA) and the Family Farm 

Alliance (Alliance), two organizations that I also represent with this testimony. NWRA represents 

state water associations, irrigation districts, municipal water providers, end water users and their 

collective interests in the management of irrigation and municipal water supplies throughout the 

western United States and portions of the South. NWRA advocates for federal policies, legislation, 

and regulations promoting protection, management, development, and beneficial use of water 

resources in these regions. The Alliance advocates for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, 

and allied industries in seventeen Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission- to 

ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and 

ranchers. 

The NWRA and the Alliance are organizations that represent the water users that are the 

cornerstone of western communities and their economies. 

In the world of Western water, a massive flood event or devastating drought is sure to get policy 

makers focused on the need to update and create more effective water management policy. The 

recent, multi-year drought in the arid Southwest has ramped up Congressional interest in 

legislation that would allow Western water providers to better address the current drought as well 

as improve preparations for future dry times. Now, the heaviest rains in a decade have 
96 

overwhelmed parts of the West Coast underscoring the critical importance of having modernized 

infrastructure in place to optimize water resources management. 

Many communities of the semi-arid and arid West as well as the farms and ranches they are 

intertwined with owe their existence, in large part, to the certainty provided by water stored and 

delivered by the Bureau of Reclamation and other state and local water storage projects. The 

federal government has a enduring role in water supply infrastructure development and 

management that, consistent with state water laws, includes working with local water managers 

on a policy level and, in partnership with them, providing available federal funding and federal 

cost-share opportunities in support of their efforts to secure a stable and sustainable water supply. 

Importance of Water Infrastructure 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the importance of water infrastructure before the 

Committee today. This historically Western Committee also has strong representation from the 

Eastern and Southern United States. Water challenges vary from region to region; however, 

water's importance is paramount regardless of location. 

Today's hearing, and the chance to discuss water infrastructure, is especially timely as it coincides 

with Water Week 2017, a week when water and wastewater organizations from around the nation 

travel to D.C. to highlight the national importance of water. Like members of this Committee, the 

groups participating in Water Week recognize the critical importance of water to every part of our 

nation and society. They recognize that different communities have different kinds of water needs 

and that an "all of the above" response to our nation's water challenges is necessary to solve 

important but complex and varied water problems. 

Water managers from throughout the West are actively investing in new water supply options, 

embracing technology, utilizing green infrastructure and looking to use water as efficiently as 

possible. Thanks in large part to these efforts, water usage in the U.S. for agricultural, industrial 

and municipal uses have declined since the mid 1980's while at the same time populations, 

crop production, and demands have increased. Local water managers are looking to their 

federal partners to ensure that this impressive track record of water innovation can continue 

and be improved. 

As a part of this "all-of-the-above" solution, it is critical that water infrastructure for both 

agricultural and municipal water providers is recognized as nationally important and qualified as 

such in potential infrastructure legislation. We believe qualifying projects should include water 

conveyance, surface water storage, aquifer storage and recovery, wastewater, water reuse, 

desalination, and efficiency investments. We also believe that infrastructure legislation must apply 

to the remediation of aging infrastructure as well as to the development of new infrastructure. 

Moreover, meaningful infrastructure legislation should encourage integrated water planning from 

watershed to wastewater discharge. Investments in forest health and watershed management can 

have as high or greater returns as traditional brick-and-mortar capital investments. 

2 
97 

Water is the lifeblood of our nation. Without reliable water, every sector of our economy would 

suffer- from agriculture, to manufacturing, to high-tech. Food cannot be grown, businesses cannot 

operate, and homes and schools cannot be built or operate without water. Critical water 

infrastructure must be maintained and modernized to ensure the delivery and safety of water today 

and for future generations. As Congress discusses the development of an infrastructure package, 

it is of paramount importance that maintenance and rehabilitation of water infrastructure is a high 

priority. 

Western water managers face significant regulatory and policy-related challenges. Water 

infrastructure that was built early in the last century is aging, and once-reliable federal grant 

and loan programs have been greatly diminished. Meanwhile, little progress has been made at 

the federal level towards developing new and improved water infrastructure to keep up with 

the growing water demands of expanding cities, energy production, and environmental needs. 

While water conservation, water efficiency, and water transfers are important tools for 

addressing certain water supply challenges, these tools must be balanced with supply 

enhancement measures that provide long-term solutions for the varying and specific 

circumstances in the West. 

Water infrastructure is perhaps the most important, yet overlooked, form of infrastructure in our 

nation. An investment in water infrastructure is an investment in the very foundation of our 

nation's economy, its health, and its future. Access to a sustainable supply of water is a 

fundamental necessity for all economic development. Conversely, adverse economic 

consequences are certain if we do not invest and reinvest in our water infrastructure. According to 

the American Society of Civil Engineers 2016 Infrastructure Report Card, released last week, lack 

of investment in water and wastewater systems will cause the U.S. to lose nearly 500,000 jobs by 

2025 and 956000 jobs by 2040. This lack of investment will also lead to a loss of$3.2 trillion in 

GDPby 2040. 

Western irrigated agriculture is a significant contributor to the national economy. The Family Farm 

Alliance in 2015 published "The Economic Importance of Western Irrigated Agriculture" 

(prepared by the Pacific Northwest Project), a white paper specifically drafted for policy makers 

seeking to better understand the direct economic impact of Western irrigated agriculture and to 

acknowledge the growing chorus of voices bringing attention to food security and irrigated 

agriculture as a national economic issue. For the 17 Western states studied in the 2015 report, the 

total household income impacts from irrigated agriculture, associated service industries, and food 

processing sectors is $172 billion annually. Irrigated farming and ranching is a huge economic 

driver in the West, particularly in rural communities. Further the fact that Americans spend less of 

their disposable income on food than any other nation in the world ensures a vibrant, consumerdriven economy. However, this economic force would virtually disappear, along with the rural 

American communities dependent on farming and ranching, if the water infrastructure that 

supports it crumbles. Given the magnitude of the food security issue to the nation's economic and 

social wellbeing, policy makers must prioritize protection of our water infrastructure. 

3 
98 

This economically critical infrastructure is aging and is in need of improvement. Many of the 

Bureau of Reclamation facilities are between 50 and 100 years old. Reclamation has reported an 

infrastructure and maintenance backlog of approximately $3 billion. Such aging infrastructure 

presents a further challenge because it requires ever increasing maintenance and replacement 

investments. As of2013, the replacement value of Reclamation's infrastructure assets was $94.5 

billion. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Investing in this 

infrastructure on the front end will save taxpayers' money in the long run and allow us to preserve 

it, and the many benefits it provides, for future generations. 

In addition to maintaining existing infrastructure, there are also numerous opportunities to expand 

water supply operations in a manner that supports the economy, ecosystems and western 

communities. 

Case Studies in "All of the Above" Infrastructure Investment Opportunities 

New Surface Water Storage: Sites Reservoir 

Sites Reservoir is designed to be a large, off-stream reservoir located west of Colusa in the 

Sacramento Valley of Northern California. The estimated water yield would be between 470,000 

to 640,000 acre-feet per year. The reservoir would be operated as part of the California State Water 

Project and is projected to cost between $2.3-3.2 billion. According to a 2013 Bureau of 

Reclamation study, it would provide economic benefits of between $248.8-276.2 million per year, 

while annual operating costs would be in the range of$10-20 million. 

Infrastructure for Water Delivery: Columbia Basin Project East Low Canal Widening 

The Columbia Basin Project delivers water to over 670,000 acres in central Washington state 

allowing land to flourish providing specialty crop production worth over $1.6 billion through the 

economy. The local irrigation districts and the State of Washington are working with the Bureau 

of Reclamation to boost water delivery by expanding the East Low Canal bringing a sustainable 

surface water supply to an area that suffers from a declining aquifer. The Washington State 

Department of Ecology estimates moving irrigators from groundwater, to surface water, 

prevents 3,600 jobs from being lost and saves $840 million each year in agricultural production. 

Integrated Water Management: Yakima Basin 

The Yakima Basin in Washington State is home to some of the most productive agricultural land 

in the world. Yakima County ranks first in the nation in the production of numerous crops, 

including apples and hops. The importance of the hop crop should be especially apparent to those 

that just celebrated St. Patrick's Day. Agricultural producers, state, tribal and local governments, 

and the federal government are working through the implementation of the Yakima Basin Water 

Enhancement Project. This basin-wide integrated water management project has brought diverse 

groups together to work on water management and is supporting agricultural industries in the 

Yakima basin that produce more than $1.8 billion in crops and $1.4 billion in food processing 

while supporting more than 5, 700 jobs. This type of integrated planning could benefit other water 

4 
99 

projects as well. I know that water managers in the Yakima Basin greatly appreciate Senator 

Cantwell's work and dedication to this process. 

Surface Water Delivery to Move Rural Communities off Impaired Groundwater: Arkansas 

Valley Conduit 

The Arkansas Valley Conduit would utilize clean water stored in the Bureau of Reclamation's 

Pueblo Reservoir to replace groundwater supplies for 50,000 people in rural southeastern 

Colorado. Those groundwater supplies are contaminated with radionuclides at levels which violate 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the water providers are under enforcement orders from the 

Colorado Department of Public Health. This project, now in final feasibility, has a revenue stream 

sufficient to fully repay the capital costs, as defined in PL 11-111. 

Expansion of Existing Surface Storage: Fontenelle Reservoir 

The Fontenelle Dam, located in southwest Wyoming on the Green River, is a principal feature of 

the federal Seedskadee Project. The current active storage capacity of the reservoir is 260,000 acrefeet. Since 2011, Wyoming has proposed expanding the active storage capacity of the 

reservoir. The House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 648, this bill allows the Fontenelle 

Dam to be modified to increase the active storage capacity to 345,000 acre-feet. The expansion of 

this project will increase storage without noticeable change to the environmental footprint of the 

project. 

Reallocation of Existing Storage: Chatfield Reservoir 

Chatfield Reservoir in metro Denver, Colorado is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) facility 

with flood control as its primary purpose. The Corps determined Chatfield Reservoir can 

accommodate an additional 20,600 acre feet of water storage for water supply without 

compromising its flood control function. This additional storage space will be used by municipal 

and agricultural water providers to help meet the diverse needs of the state. Project participants 

will undertake recreational modifications and environmental mitigations at Chatfield State Park to 

address the impacts of additional water storage. 

Innovative Aquifer Storage: Groundwater Recharge in California and Arizona 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) has been exploring a water 

purification project to reuse water currently discharged to the ocean to recharge regional 

groundwater basins. Through a partnership with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 

MWD is expected to build a new water purification plant and up to 60 miles of distribution lines 

to convey the water to four groundwater basins in Los Angeles and Orange counties, allowing for 

additional natural filtration. According to MWD, the estimated construction cost is $2.7 billion. 

The program would produce up to 168,000 acre feet per year (150 million gallons of purified water 

per day), enough water to serve more than 335,000 homes. 

In Arizona, the Salt River Project (SRP) has partnered with cities to develop two groundwater 

recharge facilities. These facilities, the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project and the New 

River Agua Fria Underground Storage Project, enable Arizona to use its allocation of Colorado 

River Water. These facilities are permitted to store 168,000 acre-feet of water each year. SRP has 

been working in aquifer storage since 1994 and continues to look for innovative options to store 

water underground. 

5 
100 

The Role of the Federal Government in Modernizing and Expanding Water Infrastructure 

We need new water storage to adapt to our changing hydrology and develop usable and sustainable 

supplies to meet growing demands for water. Even with downward pressures on the budget, the 

federal government must be a partner with non-federal water users in solving water problems in 

the West by developing innovative policy and financing mechanisms with a very low federal cost. 

These types of programs should make water infrastructure development more attractive and 

affordable for non-federal interests to invest in projects the federal government can no longer fund. 

New water supply infrastructure must be developed to capture water in good years and replace 

diminishing snowpack during drought conditions, provide for growing recreational and 

environmental needs, address climate change and variability, allow for continued economic and 

population growth, and protect the vitality of the West and the Nation. 

a) Federal Funding and Competitive Cost-Shared Grant Programs 

Western water providers have invested billions in local and regional projects and strategies in 

recent years to improve water supply reliability. Those investments have been a major factor in 

the West's ability to manage through years of severe drought. 

New federally-backed tools to assist in financing new and improved water infrastructure will be 

needed in the coming years. Water infrastructure is a long-term investment, and longer repayment 

and lower interest terms will be crucial to attracting investment in these water supply facilities. 

Such arrangements could include investments in everything from new water storage reservoirs 

(both on- and off-stream as well as groundwater storage), regulating reservoirs, canal lining, piping 

open channels, computerized water management and delivery systems, real-time monitoring of 

ecosystem functions and river flows to manage limited water supplies to benefit both fish and 

people, and watershed-based integrated regional water management project planning and 

implementation. 

We need to develop innovative ways to encourage non-federal investments in new water 

infrastructure without requiring that the federal government actually build or fully fund that 

infrastructure. We believe such investments would allow for more cost-effective construction and 

operation and maintenance of much needed new water supply infrastructure and not impact federal 

budgets. Bridging the overall funding gap will require a partnership between the federal, state and 

local governments. This partnership will necessitate diverse revenue streams to ensure that 

communities, both large and small, along with agricultural, municipal and industrial water 

providers are all able to meet the water infrastructure needs of the future. 

We encourage Congress to: 

6 
101 

• Make water infrastructure a high priority in any infmstructure legislation. 

• Maintain the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds, one of the most valuable 

financing tools used by our nation's water suppliers to build and improve 

infrastructure. 

• Maximize the use of State Revolving Funds (SRF) for investments in drinking water 

and wastewater management. 

• Strategically target funding increases for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army 

Corps of Engineers to assist in the development of projects that increase water 

supply, address current and future drought and water shortage concerns, meet 

aging infrastructure needs, address rural water needs, and increase project 

operational efficiency. 

• Fully fund the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WTFIA). The 

WIFIA program was recently updated by the l141

h Congress in the passage of the Water 

Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WllN) Act of 2016 and WIFIA loans were 

funded for the first time to the tune of$17 million in the continuing resolution funding 

the federal government through April 28, 2017. 

• Consider a "WIFIA-Iike" alternative for agricultural water providers. The proposed 

Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA) and the New WATER 

Act (H.R. 434) would authorize a new affordable financing mechanism for certain large 

water supply projects in the West. The RIF!A provisions would be similar to WIFIA but 

focused on water supply infrastructure. 

• Jump start investments authorized by WIIN that provided critical new 

authorizations for water infrastructure development. 

• Expand Reclamation's Water SMART grants to include a larger (np to $20 million) 

competitive 50-50 cost-shared grant for water supply management projects 

integrated into a regional watershed plan could help fund larger water conveyance 

and conservation infrastructure. 

• Find ways to improve coordination of WaterSMART and other water management 

programs at Reclamation with existing conservation programs at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This 

would lead to more effective federal investments in on- and off-farm water management 

improvements. 

• Make maximum use of existing financing tools for project beneficiaries, including 

direct loans and loan guarantees, such as those authorized by The Rural Water 

7 
102 

Supply Act of 2006 (PL 109-451). Efforts must continue to compel Reclamation and the 

Office of Management and Budget to implement this program, that is already authorized 

by Congress, and to investigate opportunities to develop similar loan and loan guarantee 

programs that can help fund new water infrastructure projects. 

• Fully funding the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs for new and modernized 

drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. SRF programs provide vital, grants 

and low interest loans to predominantly rural communities to ensure safe drinking water 

and compliance with evolving Clean Water Act requirements. 

We fully understand that the federal funding mechanisms used in the past to build Reclamation 

water infrastructure may be gone. We view the future of water infrastructure as one where local 

districts plan, design, finance, construct, operate and maintain new water facilities, sometimes on 

federally-owned lands, as integrated features of existing federal projects. Innovative ideas 

currently being explored (and potentially in need of federal legislative authorities) include longterm leases of federally owned property, full or partial title transfers of federal property to project 

beneficiaries. We need to encourage the innovative nature embedded in private-public partnerships 

(P3) to build non-federal water infrastructure, while also recognizing that a P3 relationship may 

not work for many smaller or rural water providers. More can be done to engage the unique 

relationships Reclamation has with project water users who depend on Department of the Interior 

infrastructure. 

We also encourage Congress to look for opportunities to reduce costs without adverse ecosystem 

impacts. Water users are responsible members of the regulated community. We recognize that 

reasonable regulations provide warranted environmental protections without creating unnecessary 

regulatory burdens or delays. Nevertheless, Congress should look for opportunities to improve the 

federal regulatory process by streamlining regulations, improving coordination, reducing 

duplication, and increasing transparency. Clarity on rule development and better-coordinated 

federal permitting processes would reduce permitting timelines and save taxpayer dollars without 

compromising environmental protections. 

b) Bureau of Reclamation Policy Recommendations 

Of all federal agencies, Western water users work closest with the Bureau of Reclamation, whose 

core mission is to provide for the delivery of water and power from its Western U.S. facilities in a 

manner that meets applicable requirements of state and federal law. Essential components of the 

core mission are: 1) providing for the operation and maintenance of existing facilities that are 

likely to remain in federal ownership; 2) providing for the rehabilitation and replacement of 

infrastructure that is likely to remain in federal ownership; and 3) possessing the ability to manage 

the construction of new projects that Congress may fund through Reclamation. 

Even casual observers would note that Reclamation has carried out few major new construction 

projects in recent decades. Even though the designers and builders of Reclamation's most 

8 
103 

impressive works have long since retired, Reclamation staff members from regional and area 

offices can continue to play a key role in helping to find the right path to make multi-agency 

processes and projects work, as well as direct strategic investment in capital maintenance and 

rehabilitations. When strong relationships are developed between Reclamation employees 

(especially those in area or regional offices) and local water users, strong, cooperative and 

innovative solutions can and have been reached (such as in the Yakima River Basin (Washington)). 

There are other models in the West where successful projects have been completed as well. A 

template for success might be one where state and federal agency regulators establish criteria, 

federal and non-federal funding agencies write the checks, and local districts and their consultants 

implement and satisfy regulatory criteria and funding-eligibility requirements. 

The Bureau of Reclamation must either hire skilled and experienced engineers and managers or 

turn to their non-federal project managers and the private sector partners to provide the human 

resources necessary to maintain and improve Reclamation's facilities. Meeting the challenge of 

modernizing the West's aging water infrastructure will require highly qualified professionals 

serving in the public and private sectors. Reclamation's February 2006 Managing for 

Excellence Action Plan should be updated and used as a key resource to help address these 

concerns. 

Congress should work to establish a simpler approach to facilitate transferring the title from federal 

ownership to non-Federal ownership of small-scale, single-purpose Reclamation projects and 

facilities. Title transfers are a positive means of strengthening control of water resources at the 

local level. In addition, they help reduce federal costs and allow for a better allocation of federal 

resources. Reclamation should work with Congress to develop a legislative concept for a 

programmatic approach intended to simplify transfer of "non-complicated" facilities. This would 

greatly reduce the hurdles and expense that can impede title transfers beneficial to local interests 

and to the federal government. NWRA and the Alliance are happy to commit to working with 

Congress to accomplish this. 

c) Forest Health Threats to Water Supply and Infrastructure 

Improving the condition of our nation's forested lands is of primary importance to water providers. 

National Forest lands are overwhelmingly the largest, single source of water in the U.S. and, in 

most regions of the West, contribute nearly all of the water that supplies our farms and cities. In 

addition, water infrastructure can be severely damaged or rendered useless by fire and post-fire 

flooding and debris flows. 

The unhealthy state of our national forests, which were reserved specifically to protect water 

resources, has led to catastrophic wildfires that threaten the reliability, volume, and quality of water 

for tens of millions of Americans, along with the wildlife, recreational, and multi-purpose values 

of these lands. Large-scale, catastrophic wildfires today are more frequent and significantly larger 

than in the past. In Colorado alone, from 2004 through 2007, fires burned an average of 40,000 

acres annually. However, from 2008 to 2015, that annual average jumped to 140,000 acres. 

9 
104 

Unfortunately, Colorado is not alone. Increasingly, wildfires are threatening water supplies and 

water infrastructure throughout the west. In recent years: 

• Denver Water has spent tens of millions of dollars to remove around 1 million cubic yards 

of fire related debris from Strontia Springs Reservoir, 

• In Arizona, water providers have had to upgrade water treatment facilities by adding carbon 

filtration to handle the increased levels of organics and sediment at a cost of hundreds of 

millions of dollars. 

• The Greater Wenatchee Irrigation District in Washington lost power to pump irrigation 

water during a critical growing time due to wildfire threatening crops and the livelihoods 

of farmers that depend on them. 

• Placer County Water Agency and other local agencies in California spent $8 million to 

repair and protect water and energy infrastructure following the King Fire. 

We believe it is critical that both forest management reforms and resolution of the "fire borrowing" 

issue are addressed in comprehensive legislation focused on improving the health and resiliency 

of our federal forests. Only by addressing both issues together can we ensure that on-the-ground 

forest management and restoration activities will proceed at the pace and scale equal to the problem 

and begin to improve the forest conditions that led to the recent devastating and costly fire seasons. 

d) Opportunities for Water Storage Infrastructure Development 

For many reasons- political, economic, societal, environmental- the construction of traditional 

surface storage projects is undertaken on a much more limited basis than in decades past. The 

most frequent reasons center around economics or an inadequate water market associated with the 

given facilities. ln other cases, environmental, safety or geologic challenges came to light during 

a project's development, and rendered its construction, completion or operation unfeasible. 

Political opposition often contributed to a project's demise, leaving the facilities "on the books" 

awaiting further action, but with external events and new priorities passing them by. Even if 

funding and authorization is secured for a new storage project, the existing procedures for 

developing additional water supplies can make project approval incredibly burdensome and time 

consuming with companion costs outstripping the ability of local water providers to accommodate. 

Individual surface storage proposals must be evaluated and the associated benefits and risks must 

be viewed in a net, comprehensive manner. While some critics of new storage projects focus on 

perceived negative impacts associated with new facility construction (e.g., loss of habitat, 

disruption of "natural" stream flow patterns, and potential evaporative losses), these perceived 

impacts must also be compared to the wide range of multi-purpose benefits that storage projects 

provide. Properly designed and constructed surface storage projects provide additional water 

management flexibility to better meet downstream urban, industrial and agricultural water needs, 

10 
105 

improve flood control, generate clean hydropower, provide recreation opportunities, and create 

additional instream flows that benefit downstream habitats. 

The aforementioned WIIN Act contains provisions that allow irrigation districts to voluntarily 

prepay contracts with the federal government. The funding that is expected to be generated by 

these prepayments over the next ten years would be placed into an account to fund (finance) either 

the construction of new state-led water storage projects or the expansion of current federallyowned water storage reservoirs. The WIIN Act also authorizes Reclamation to implement a water 

storage enhancement program to fund new or expanded surface and groundwater storage 

construction for the purposes of increased municipal supply, agricultural irrigation, and to reduce 

impacts to fish and wildlife. The Trump Administration's Bureau of Reclamation should work to 

ensure that these authorities are implemented as a priority. 

Conclusion 

In closing I want to re-emphasize the importance of water infrastructure to our nation, its economy, 

and its health. A strong commitment to water infrastructure must be made in any infrastructure 

package that Congress and the Administration considers. 

The infrastructure challenges our Nation faces are daunting, and they will require innovative 

solutions. The infrastructure investments made by prior generations have benefited this country 

for over a hundred of years. Now it is this generation's responsibility to invest in infrastructure 

and invest for future generations. It is our hope that you and others in the 1151

h Congress will 

embrace a core philosophy shared by the River District, Family Farm Alliance and NWRA: the 

best solutions are driven locally by people with an "on-the-ground" reality who are willing to 

partner with state and/or federal agencies to achieve our national goals of safe, reliable and 

sustainable water supplies. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your attention to the many infrastructure 

challenges facing our nation. Please know that the NWRA, the Family Farm Alliance and our 

members stand ready to assist you in your efforts. 

11 
106 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Treese. We appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Worsley, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY WORSLEY, PRESIDENT, 

NOVO POWER, LLC 

Mr. WORSLEY. Thank you, Senators. And my name is Brad 

Worsley. I’m the President and CEO of Novo Power. 

Biomass is very personal to me. In late 2000, my family completed the construction of a multi-generational home in the beautiful mountains of Northern Arizona. In 2002, the Rodeo Chedeski 

fire ravished over half a million acres of that forest burning it to 

the ground, included in which was the acres where our family 

home was built. 

This disaster, followed by the Wallow fire just eight years later, 

highlighted a need for action. So we became educated on the subject. We procured a census done on the territory of Arizona in the 

1900s, early 1900s, and we found that the acreage where our home 

existed traditionally held 5 to 15 trees per acre. Today, there are 

as many as 2,000 trees per acre—the same sunlight, the same 

water, and the same nutrients. We have a very unhealthy forest. 

We were saddened by the inaction caused by the timber wars of 

the ’80s and ’90s, and we didn’t agree with the U.S. Government’s 

policy on no fire. It was a God-given way to manage our forests, 

and for 100 years we have reduced and limited that power and that 

cleansing mechanism. 

Because nothing was being done, we did something. And in 2008 

we completed the construction of a biomass power plant, 28 

megawatts in Northern Arizona, Snowflake, Arizona. That facility 

today is the keystone of the needed infrastructure for forest restoration. You’ve probably mostly have heard of the 4FRI project, 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, the largest CFLR project in 

the country, that has a standing requirement of doing, or goal of 

doing, 50,000 acres of mechanical thinning annually. Last year, we 

did 17,000 acres and it was our best year. 

We are woefully behind in our attempts to get that work done, 

and the 17,000 acres that were done were because of the capacity 

generated by this singular biomass facility. We have about a third 

of the needed infrastructure in Arizona to manage our national forest. 

Now I’ve looked at all types of technologies that can manage biomass and I’m telling you, as my professional opinion, that the best 

way to do it is to touch at the very least amount of times, cut it, 

grind it and make power from it. 

When we do that, we are significantly reducing the air quality 

issues that are generated in these mega fires that are happening 

in Arizona and across the Western United States. We reduced, by 

almost 98 percent, the particulate matter that goes into the air 

while burned because of the systems that we have at our facility. 

We are also a huge resource in Arizona, potentially one of the 

only resources in restoring our national forests, and 15,000 acres 

a year are treated and restored because of our facility. 

Mr. Treese here talked about the water infrastructure. What 

happens after forest fires is we silt out our dams and our reservoirs 
107 

and we spend decades spending exorbitant amount of money to 

treat that water post-fire. 

We also have a huge benefit as it relates to the renewable energy 

sector. We are a baseload power. That means that we stabilize the 

grid. Well, I love solar and I love wind, but we are baseload and 

we don’t destabilize that grid. 

We also have a huge economic impact. In my humble opinion, it’s 

the most important 28 gigawatts generated in Arizona because of 

the forest restoration, because of the watershed management. A 

million acres of the four million acres that we have in Arizona that 

were established to provide watershed to a desert have burned to 

the ground. We cannot afford to lose more watershed. 

These are the types of things that we do. But without your help, 

without help building infrastructure, we’re never going to get there. 

The East side of the State of Arizona runs without subsidy because 

we have the needed infrastructure. We have sawmills, we have pellet mills, we have a biomass facility and we do it without subsidy. 

It is not going to happen on the west side of the state unless there 

is some form of assistance. Now what type of assistance am I talking about? 

We need to advance the pace and efficiency of U.S. Forest Service 

action. In Arizona, we have plenty of NEPA-ready acres, but we 

can’t allow acre prep to become the new NEPA bottleneck. 

We need to ensure that biomass is considered a renewable power. 

We need regulatory certainty in that area. People like to argue 

over that. Most certainly as it relates to forest restoration, it is carbon neutral. But what we’re doing is preserving those things that 

are carbon receptors. 

We want to see fiscal incentives provided for biomass power to 

capture the real value it’s giving to the state. It does more per 

megawatt than any other type of renewable power for the state of 

the structure. 

We’d like to see something like, 10 percent of fire spending, firefighting spending in previous years, spent to prevent fires the next 

year. Last year we spent almost $1 billion. Well, how about $100 

million to preserve our forests rather than burning them to the 

ground? 

We’d like to maybe see increased weight limits on U.S. highways, 

it’s 50 percent of the cost of removing that biomass and a five ton 

increase, 90,000 pounds, allows for us to haul that material cheaper. The U.S. Government could buy the power directly for their 

military bases. 

And then, specifically in Arizona, we’d like to see a new RFP for 

300,000 to 500,000 acres put out on the 4FRI layout and footprint 

so that we can invite new investment. 

And we can do this. And I’m open to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Worsley follows:] 
108 

Mr. Bradley Worsley 

President 

Novo Power, LLC 

PO Box 2649 

Snowflake, AZ 85937 

Biomass Power: A Critical Element of Forest Maintenance 

The Story of Novo Power in Snowflake, Arizona 

My name is Brad Worsley and I am here on behalf of my family's biomass power facility, Novo 

Power, located in Snowflake, Arizona. It is my firm belief that biomass power and healthy forests and 

watersheds go hand-in-hand, and that the benefits of biomass power go far beyond electricity on the 

grid. Investing in biomass power helps fund badly needed forest and watershed maintenance, saves 

money for the U.S. Forest Service and taxpayers, and supports local economies. I am going to tell you 

some of the lessons we have learned through our experience in Arizona- but many of these lessons are 

directly applicable to federal and private lands across the country. 

In the face of massive high intensity forest crown fires, Novo Power has chosen to act. Our story 

is personal. We built a multi-generational home on a small homestead deep in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

Forest. In 2002, the Rodeo Chedeski fire changed the landscape around our home for the next several 

generations. The deep loss we felt led us to educate ourselves on the issues. We learned that the 

condition of the dense green forests of Northern Arizona are far departed from their historical range. 

We obtained a census on the Territory of Arizona from the early 1900's and learned that the forest 

looked very different when the pioneers arrived and began to settle the country. Acreage with 5-15 

trees per acre and gaps large enough to drive a covered wagon through, now are made up of dog hair 

thickets where as many as 2,000 trees per acre fight for the nutrients, sunlight, and water that used to 

support a tiny fraction of the current tree population. We were saddened by the U.S. Forest Service 

policies on fire suppression that all but eliminated the natural form of cleansing and forest 

management. We were irritated by the fighting and ensuing inaction caused by the "timber wars" of 

the 80's and 90's. We decided that if no one was going to act, we would. 

In 2006, we entered Power Purchase Agreements with Salt River Projects (SRP) and Arizona 

Public Services (APS) to build a 28 megawatt (MW) Biomass facility to assist in the restoration of our 

National Forests. By June of 2008 we were operational. The first few years were laden with challenges, 

the most significant of which was the changing debt markets. The economy was about to enter the 

worst recession since the Great Depression and the Biomass plant came in 1.5 time over projected build 

budget. In 2010, the bank took the plant into receivership in hopes of running the plant more 

efficiently. Our family was relegated to the sidelines until an opportunity to repurchase the plant 

surfaced in early 2013. We were more than willing to finish what we started and we jumped back in 

with both feet. We had learned so much and were determined to not repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Since July of 2013, we have profitably run the facility while increasing output by over 10% with uptime 

levels that rival the best run facilities in the country. 

This Novo Power Biomass facility is the keystone of the successful accelerated, industry-funded, 

landscape-scale restoration of Arizona national forests under the Four Forest Restoration Initiative 
109 

(4FRI). Over 90% of all acres thinning under this contract in 2016 was made possible by having the 

biomass from those acres burned at our facility. The great success of 4FRI to date has been the spirit of 

collaboration that has brought Industry, Environmentalists, Academia, USFS, and others to the same 

negotiating table. No one is getting everything they want but everyone is getting most of what they 

want. What we all realized is that no one won in the catastrophic forest fires that burned through 

Arizona over the last 20 years. The social consensus between the parties is based on the realization that 

restoration, starts with the removal of the excess biomass which causes the dangerously high fuel load 

on the landscape, and that this is impossible to accomplish without a place to dispose of the biomass 

responsibly and ecologically, such as a biomass facility with controlled emissions. If the forest products 

industry wanted the small round wood, they would need to find a solution to the removal and disposal 

of biomass- pre-commercial trees and brush, tree tops, limbs and logging residues that have little or no 

value other than as fuel. These materials, also known as "high hazard fuel" to foresters, increase 

exponentially the risk of catastrophic wildfire if not removed from the landscape. This is the reason why 

best available science forest restoration, such as implemented under the 4FRI project, requires the 

removal of biomass during mechanical thinning treatments. We support this position and believe that 

science, as well as common sense support it as well. Consequently, two of the challenges of forest 

restoration in Arizona, are that biomass represents more than 50% of the woody mass that must be 

removed from every acre treated with mechanical thinning, and that there are very few utilization 

opportunities for biomass that are economically viable enough to fund the restoration treatments. 

Therefore, biomass removal and utilization become a limiting factor on the implementation of 

restoration. We affectionately call this the biomass bottleneck. 

To date, almost all acres thinned in the 4FRI area have been made possible by bringing the low 

value biomass to our facility to be burned. The challenge is twofold. 

First, we have reached our capacity. Our facility, at best, can only resolve the biomass bottleneck for 

approximately 15,000 acres of National Forest each year. This is one of the two reasons why 4FRI only 

treated around 17,000 acres in 2016. With a goal of 50,000 acres per year, we are woefully 

underperforming our objectives in 4FRI. The two solutions to this problem are to add contractor 

capacity, and to add biomass disposal infrastructure in the state. The small round wood utilization 

infrastructure will follow, if we can find a way to handle the biomass. 

The second problem is the changing power markets. When we repurchased the facility in 2013 we 

immediately began an effort to extend the life of our current power purchase agreements and increase 

our capacity, but the changing renewable energy markets have decreased interest by the Utilities in 

biomass power because they can buy intermittent solar and wind for half the price. This market change 

in the macro level environment has lead me to campaign for biomass power with a simple slogan "not 

all electrons are created equal!" 

Although every electron will do the same thing, the process of creating that electron varies 

significantly along with its benefit to the environment and to society. My opinion is that the megawatts 

we generate at Novo Power are the most valuable megawatts produced in the state. Here is some 

critical data to support that assertion: 

• By funding forest and watershed restoration, biomass electricity addresses directly the two 

Arizona priorities of Fire and Water. Forest restoration mitigates the risk of catastrophic fires, 
110 

and prevents the further loss of watershed functions. It may even help a little bit with water 

augmentation. 

Biomass truly meets the definition of green energy, being produced locally and supporting 

directly the local economy and residents of the community where it is produced. Novo Power 

sources all of their raw feed stock from within 150 miles of our facility, which means all of the 

jobs are created and maintained in AZ. The number of indirect employees that work fulltime to 

support our little facility exceeds 100. 

Novo Power has a major impact on the rural economy of the White Mountain communities with 

-40 direct employees. 2016 numbers show: 

o Novo Power Payroll with Benefits: $3.4M 

o Wood Supplier Payments: $7.9M 

o 3'd Party Services/Supplies: $3.97M 

The Bureau of Economic Statistics states that a 1.33 revenue multiplier applies to our direct 

economic impact to the economics of the local communities. Our overall economic impact 

therefore totals $27.8 million (M). 

Novo Power is also a 50% owner of Novo Star Wood Products, a local sawmill. We have an 

additional 20 employees and revenues in excess of $4.7M at NovoStar. 

Our feedstock is the no value/low value biomass that is making our forest unhealthy. Every ton 

we process improves the health of our National Forest: 

o Over 25% (-1 Million Acres) of the Ponderosa Pine National Forest in Arizona has 

burned in catastrophic wildfire in the last 15 years. 

Prior to Novo Power going online, the cost to suppress these two fires along 

with private property damage exceeded costs of $250M. 

In comparison, the San Juan fire of 2014 had similar potential but was limited to 

7,000 acres and a cost of only $6.5M because it ran into acres where we had 

carried out restoration services. 

o We received a letter of endorsement from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest stating 

that we save over $1M annually in prescribed burning cost by removing and disposing of 

the biomass generated through restoration logging, as compared to leaving it in the 

forest. 

o The -15,000 acres annually we assist in restoring are critical habitat for endangered 

animals such as the Goshawk and Mexican Spotted Owl. 

Our National Forest is the mechanism for capturing, storing, and releasing the rainfall in our 

state. In a state where the vast majority of its citizens live in a desert, the National Forest is 

perhaps the most important asset to the state. Beyond the real risk of burning more capacity to 

the ground, we protect the critical water infrastructure that exists in the state. Our reservoirs 
111 

are in real risking of "silting out" in the next generation along with the increasing cost to treat 

waters following forest fire. 

Our forest also generates some $3Billion dollars of revenue from hunting, fishing, hiking, 

tourism, etc. The work we do protects this industry by making the land friendlier to tourists and 

by removing potentially hazardous trees. 

• Burning this wood in a controlled environment has the following benefits: 

o Methane is generated when biomass decays naturally in the woods. Methane is 25x 

more potent in capturing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than C02. When burned 

in a biomass facility, C02 is released instead of Methane. Whereas fossil fuels release 

new carbon into the atmosphere from underground, the C02 released by a biomass 

facility is already part of the atmosphere, having been absorbed over the past few 

decades by growing trees. 

o By burning in a controlled and filtered environment, particulate matter emissions are 

reduced by 90-98%. 

o 502 emissions release acid into the environment and are a cause of acid rain. Our 

Biomass plant emits less than 10% of 502 per megawatt in comparison to a coal 

powered facility. 

o NOx emissions generally create the "haze" seen in major cities and around industrial 

facilities. Our biomass plant emits less than 50% NOx per megawatt in comparison to a 

coal powered facility. 

• We produce a renewable accredited power. We provide a baseload power at all times to the 

grid rather than the intermittent power generated by wind and solar. Biomass can be an 

excellent complementary power source to wind and solar and can take the place of natural gas 

or coal powered facilities. 

The most important forest restoration next step in Arizona is to build additional infrastructure to 

process biomass. It is my opinion that one of the most economical and practical ways to process the 

biomass is to take it in raw form and make power from it. The more process steps we add to the 

biomass utilization, the more we make its disposal cost prohibitive. A simple example of this reality is 

based in the following data. One megawatt of power requires one bone dry ton of biomass to generate 

in our plant. We pay approximately $38 per bone dry ton for the biomass prepped to enter our boiler. If 

you were to pelletize this biomass to co-burn in a coal facility the cost on locally sourced pellets would 

be in the range of $120-$150 per bone dry ton. We generate a finished power product for significantly 

less than the raw cost of pellets alone. We have proven in the last 4 years that a biomass plant 

facilitates restoration and brings increased investment in higher value uses for the round wood. The 

Apache-5itgreaves forest cannot keep enough wood in front of our industry and they provide $0 in 

subsidy for those acres. In fact, as stated above, they receive a $1 million benefit. 

At this point, Arizona needs your help. Until we get our next major biomass facility built we will 

likely stagnate in a prolonged stalemate to solve this problem. Conversely, if a biomass solution is 
112 

implemented soon, the remaining objectives will be met in short order and we will see the largest 

restoration project in the country provide the impact we all hoped for. Here is how you can help: 

Advance the pace and efficiency of Forest Service action. This could involve moving to a more 

efficient and faster preparation process (Designation by Description (DxD) or Designation by 

Prescription (DxP)) and by adopting technology that allows for the limited funds to prep more 

acres (digital prescription technology). We cannot allow prep to "become the new NEPA" as the 

bottleneck to restoration implementation. 

• Insure that biomass electricity, generated from forest biomass removal, remains classified as a 

renewable energy. The carbon foot print and emission impacts of a biomass facility are minimal 

-especially if you consider one of its key benefits: the reduction of risk for catastrophic forest 

fires, which release massive amounts of carbon into the air. 

Provide fiscal incentives to make biomass power cost-competitive with other renewable 

energy sources. Biomass power has long received half the benefits of other renewable energy 

sources through the Section 45 tax credit program, which expired for biomass on December 31, 

2016. When facilities were eligible for benefits, it was harder for them to take advantage given 

the length of time it takes to build a facility. A new approach to tax incentives for biomass is 

needed. 

Work with us to reduce the cost of transporting fuels to facilities, which is one of our biggest 

expenditures. This can come in the form of matching payments or transportation credits like the 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), or in the form of a price per megawatt generated 

incentive. This ought to be tied directly to biomass harvested off National Forest so as not to 

incentivize the facilities that run on byproducts from other forest industry. This subsidy ought to 

come in the form of spending tied to preventive vs reactive restoration measures. If done right, 

this could help the U.S. Forest Service greatly reduce the amount it spends on fire suppression. 

For example, if we spend $1 Billion fighting fires in 2017, there should be a fund of $100 Million 

in 2018 for restoration services targeted at reducing catastrophic fire. The Biomass Power 

Association is lobbying for a similar fund for removing high hazard fuels from USFS lands with 

$117 Million in annual funding. 

• The US government can provide power purchase agreements directly to the biomass facility to 

power government facilities like military bases, educational and administrative buildings. For 

example, Fort Drum in New York is powered by a biomass facility. 

• Implement a pilot project in Arizona, as previously done in a few northwestern states that would 

allow a higher maximum truck weight on interstates for biomass related industry, in order to 

bring costs down through more cost effective transportation. 

Require that the Forest Service release by September 2017 a new RFP of 300,000 to 500,000 

acres within the 4FRI area, in order to attract additional investments in round wood and 

biomass utilization in Arizona in order to meet the 50,000 acres annual objective of 4FRI. 

The end goal is to restore the forest to a condition where we can reintroduce low intensity fire back 

into the ecosystem and let it play its indispensable role in preventing catastrophic wildfire. In the 

meantime, we use mechanized thinning as a first treatment that allows subsequent controlled burns. 

We remove the fuel load and restore the acres to pre-settlement reference condition and we do so 

while mitigating the risk of catastrophic fire, and at a fraction of the cost to fighting such fires. I often 

find it ironic that we focus on the cost of suppressing fire while not recognizing the enormous loss in 

natural resources in these mega-fires. We lose timber, water, animal life, recreational revenues, 

personal property, cultural identity and way of life, while emitting a horrific amount of particulate 
113 

matter and carbon into the atmosphere, and destroying the very mechanism that could recapture it. 

We have to fund the ecological services required to restore this national resource, and biomass removal 

and disposal has a big part to play in this restoration effort. If we deal with this issue correctly, industry 

will quickly do at landscape scale in Arizona what it has already done in the White Mountain: that is fund 

and implement industry-funded ecological restoration. What we have accomplished in East Arizona can 

be replicated in other areas of the state, the West, and across the entire country. 
114 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Great testimony, and I appreciate 

the contributions from all of you here this morning. 

You know, it is interesting, when you think about the enormous 

potential on our federal lands. We have heard from many of the 

specific areas, whether it is your focus on the biomass and what 

we can receive or the benefits from our national forests. Mr. 

Spears, you talk about the critical minerals. You talk about the elements, just the sand and the gravel. When Ms. Simmons wants to 

build a trail, she needs some of the stuff that you take from out 

of the earth there. Of course, we cannot do any of it unless we have 

water sources that are available, that are reliable and that are safe 

in many, many different ways. And then, of course, we have the 

recreation aspect of all of our federal lands. Again, a clear reminder 

of this multiple-use concept that we talk about. 

Oftentimes though, there is not a level of equity when you think 

about where those dollars go in managing these lands for multiple 

use. Several of you have suggested that what we see in shortcomings, whether it is on trails or whether it is for our ski resorts 

or in our water supply, the fact that Forest Service has been up 

against, what we call, forest borrowing for as many years as they 

have, just basically throwing everything out of whack and the ability to manage other aspects within their jurisdiction. It is very 

frustrating. So I appreciate what you have all raised. 

What I am hearing consistently though, is that what would be 

helpful from your perspective is if we can do more here to reduce 

some of the uncertainty when it comes to the regulations that are 

coming your way, to alleviate some of the delays and the costs that 

are associated with that. 

I want to ask just a general question here because when we are 

talking about multiple-use for some that want to use the trails or 

want to go skiing, they do not necessarily want to see a mining operation where you have gravel extraction or rock to provide for 

crushing or they do not want to see the dam here. 

Mr. Spears, you cited the USGS report on the Mineral Commodity Summaries and a recognition that, from a vulnerability perspective, we are headed down the road of greater reliance on others 

for the stuff that we need, whether it is the sand and gravel or 

whether it is the copper that we need for some of our high-tech initiatives. 

Are we all in agreement that regardless of where our interest is, 

we still need to provide for greater opportunities for accessing our 

minerals throughout the country? Do we agree that is a sound 

thing, if done properly? 

You mentioned the mapping, Mr. Spears, and the fact that we 

are about 50 percent there. But to better analyze where those resources are, recognizing that there are some areas where we are 

never going to touch that. Mr. Spears is saying yes, but of course, 

I expect him to say yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SPEARS. Well, I would like to address that. 

So, yeah, timber is managed by foresters knowing, you know, 

how many trees per acre, how many board feet per acre. So it requires a level of mapping and GIS. Similarly, the mapping—the 

management of minerals would require knowing what’s down 
115 

there, often in the subsurface where you can’t see it. So that requires investment in geophysics and mapping. 

But I’m not saying we need to mine the earth. I’m saying that 

we need to know what’s in what places before we make decisions 

about what we’re going to do with the surface of that land. 

And I’d just like to say that as geologists we take a longer-term 

view of things than some people do. One of my favorite places to 

go hiking in Virginia is called the St. Mary’s Wilderness. It’s a 

beautiful hiking trail, but when you get way back in the wilderness 

there’s a little area called Ore Bank which was an important 

source of manganese ore during World War I. So this was only 

about 100 years ago there was a mine in this location. That mine 

was closed after, in the 1920s that mine was closed and now it’s 

a beautiful wilderness area and a very popular hiking destination. 

If we look at the temporal progression of land use, it’s not necessary that when an area is mined it’s forever destroyed, that Reclamation is a viable response and a viable way of recovering land 

and returning it to other uses. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to turn to my colleague, Senator 

Cantwell, and we will have an opportunity for more questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask, Ms. Simmons and maybe others, Ms. Argust or 

others, who might want to comment on the President’s budget that 

is cutting greater than one half of the land acquisition funds, as 

it relates to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). 

How have you seen this program work to help us in maintaining 

lands and giving people access, and do you worry that this would 

mean reductions in some of those projects that you are trying to 

help further investments in? 

Ms. SIMMONS. Thank you, Senator, for your question. 

And yes, Washington Trails Association does support the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund and has seen it used many times 

over as a critical piece of building our trail infrastructure. 

I think one example is the Pacific Crest Trail which is one of the 

nation’s most iconic trails that runs 2,600 miles through our nation 

and through a large part of our state. There, the trails cross 

through a lot of private land holdings and there have often been 

willing sellers that understand it’s important for the management 

of a trail like that to consolidate ownership and be able to build 

and maintain the trail collectively. 

So in those places the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 

been critical. I know of other trails in our state now that have portions still in private ownership and there are landowners that 

would be willing to and understand the benefits of consolidating. 

So we have deep concerns about what’s proposed, and we see a 

huge opportunity for those types of funding to be used in the future. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ms. Argust, did you have any comments on 

that? 

Ms. ARGUST. Sure. I don’t work specifically on LWCF but I would 

say in terms of the parks that LWCF can certainly be a cost savings, consolidating land parcels and also increasing management 

efficiencies for the park, reducing user conflicts, also increasing 
116 

public access. I would also say that LWCF does not increase deferred maintenance. I think that’s very important to note. 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes. 

I remember an instance, I think, in Mount Rainier on the Carbon 

River. We needed to improve the trail because it kept flooding 

every year. So basically, it saved us dollars by making improvements and moving the trail to higher ground. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Worsley, you mentioned these issues. 

Obviously, the Chair and I worked very hard on trying to get our 

colleagues in the House to agree to something that would be a better solution. 

Do you think we need longer-term contracts? My idea, and I 

think there are many people who were interested in supporting it, 

on the Pine Pilot was to say that if we did some fuel reduction and 

gave mill owners longer-term certainty, like 20-year contracts, they 

could plan and hopefully give priority to things like cross-laminated 

timber, as a way to actually store carbon in the new building materials. Do you think we need longer-term contracts with some of 

these mills to give them predictability? 

Mr. WORSLEY. Certainly. 

When you look at ways to efficiently process something that has 

almost no value, when I talk about this low value/no value biomass, not the value of why there’s always uses for that, it generally 

is going to require significant capital investment in the ballpark of 

$100, $200, $300 million, in order to get the kind of scale that will 

drive costs low enough to make a profit on this type of material. 

It is impossible to go get lending on that kind of capital without 

certainty of supply, so long-term contracts certainly help in that 

area. And if you are trying to stimulate, like a place in Arizona, 

where you don’t have that industry, you’re going to have to stimulate it through long-term contracts. 

If there’s an area where there’s active capital markets, there’s no 

need, let the capital markets work themselves out. But if you are 

trying to stimulate an area that’s in need, yes, absolutely. 

Senator CANTWELL. And do you think that is 20 years? Do you 

know a timeframe that you think would be sufficient? 

Mr. WORSLEY. Well, listen, 10 years is very difficult to write off 

$300 million, so, you know, 20 years certainly helps. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Ms. Argust, I am not sure anybody has spoke 

to what I am about to ask, but you seem the best and maybe Ms. 

Simmons after that. 

Clearly, we would like to have more money for maintenance. 

Now we can generate more money, appropriate more money, and 

also use money more wisely. 

It is always my impression that the cost of a repair at a government facility is 1-1/2 to 3 times that which it would be in the private sector, for whatever reason. Is that presumption true for work 

in the National Park Service? Is it more expensive to do the same 

repair through the National Park Service as if it were a private entity doing it on their own property? 
117 

Ms. ARGUST. So let me better understand your question. Is it 

more expensive for the Park Service to do it themselves or to contract it? Is that what you’re asking? 

Senator CASSIDY. I guess what I’m asking—let me relate it this 

way. In South Louisiana if we build a levy, if the local municipality 

or the political subdivision builds a levy, it is going to cost $1 million. If the Army Corps of Engineers builds a levy, it will cost $1.2 

million to $2 million. So, the Army Corps’ involvement will increase 

the cost by a multiple, dependent on whom you speak with. 

Is that same phenomena true in the National Park Service? For 

example, if a foundation who was able to contract with whomever 

they wish without federal procurement guidelines fixes a road is it 

less expensive than if the National Park Service contracts for that 

road to be fixed? 

Ms. ARGUST. Yeah, to be honest I think you’re best to ask a Park 

Service official that, but I will say that for major projects, in most 

cases, the Park Service does contract that work out. 

Senator CASSIDY. Well, they would still be subject to federal procurement guidelines though, I presume. 

Ms. Simmons, you do trails, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Ms. SIMMONS. Well, I’m not qualified and I don’t know enough 

to speak about the specifics around the cost of projects done by private company versus by the public agencies. 

I will say that, I think, the Forest Service, the Park Service and 

organizations like mine have been working together to think about 

creative ways to do more and stretch the dollars farther. And so 

the public/private partnerships like the one that my organization 

runs is just an example of where, in fact, we can bring volunteer 

labor with some base support from the Federal Government to 

stretch those dollars further. 

So, I don’t think the answer is that it needs to be necessarily privatization. There are other creative models. 

And I know—— 

Senator CASSIDY. I have limited time, so let me stop you there. 

Ms. SIMMONS. Yup. 

Senator CASSIDY. Although I would, if the staff could, kind of research that, I think that would be useful for us to know. 

Secondly, my brother-in-law has a camp right outside of Yosemite, so we are fortunate to go there once or twice every decade. 

Then I go through other places, and I see the concessionaires. 

Do you have any sense of whether these concessions contracts 

are, sometimes those are, kind of, legacy contracts which, frankly, 

work to the disadvantage of the federal taxpayer and sometimes 

the other federal taxpayer does okay with this? Do you have any 

sense of how the concessions contracts work with the National 

Park Service? Are they a good deal or not a good deal or perhaps 

you do not feel qualified to answer? 

Ms. ARGUST. Well, I think that there are folks who would like 

to reform how concessioner contracts are done and that is a hot 

button issue. But I think the Park Service has been working very 

hard when they—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Now reform suggests less than optimal and so 

knowing not hardly anything. 

Ms. ARGUST. I’m referring to the 1998 Concessions Act. 
118 

But I do know that when the Park Service is renegotiating agreements and taking in bids, they are working very hard to do a better job, in for instance, making sure that concessioners wrap in deferred maintenance into those agreements and contracts. That is 

not always the case and I’m making this applicable to deferred 

maintenance because that’s what I know most about. 

But, for instance, in some cases you cannot get a feasible contract that gets a concessionaire to do all the deferred maintenance 

because it would not be economically viable for them. In the case 

of Yosemite, Ahwahnee Hotel, which is currently called something 

else, the Majestic, I think, that has $51 million of deferred maintenance and a concessioner would not take that on. So things like 

that do need to be taken into account when the Park Service makes 

an agreement with concessioners. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay, I am out of time. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And I want to thank all our witnesses for talking about potential 

for outdoor recreation. 

I want to begin when I was Chair of this Committee and we 

started talking about the potential for recreation. What I was really stunned by was how the framework of laws governing the various natural resource agencies just had not kept up with the times. 

It was not as if somebody at one of these agencies got up in the 

morning and said, I want to spend my day being rotten to people 

who are involved in skiing. But the problem was that the laws 

were written for a time, really of the last century, I think that is 

the most charitable thing you can say. 

After listening to folks at home and some of the organizations 

you all work with, I have introduced a bill called Recreation, Not 

Red Tape. The idea is to modernize the system so as to get more 

people outdoors more quickly. Two of the provisions, I think, relate 

directly to some of what I’ve heard this morning. 

The first is we ought to require all agency permits and passes 

to be made available online. I have heard stories that just curdle 

your blood about how people get up in the middle of the night to 

wait in some kind of line and after they are done with that line, 

they go on to some other kind of line. So the availability of online 

pass sales has been shown to increase the number of passes that 

are actually sold. There is a pilot project going on in our part of 

the world to test out the online sales. I think we are going to hear 

more about that. But to me, that ought to be non-negotiable. You 

ought to be able to get all your passes online. 

The second provision that Senator Gardner also has an interest 

in, we are going to see if we can script Senator Daines into this 

too, is a provision to retain all ski area permit fees collected by the 

agencies. 

The way it would work is instead of sending the money raised 

by ski area permit fees to the Treasury, the money would stay with 

the agencies to use for things like maintenance projects, visitor 

amenities and processing permits. So the fee visitors already pay 
119 

would go back to maintaining the very mountaintops they were collected on. 

The question for you, Mr. Bonar, is how would the ski area permit fix, the provision that is in the Recreation, Not Red Tape bill 

now, how would that help ski areas make the improvements to ski 

infrastructure and how would that end up benefiting the public? 

Mr. BONAR. Senator Wyden, thank you for the question. 

The Forest Service simply, right now, does not have the bandwidth or the staff to review ski resort proposals. We need to be replacing old lifts, old infrastructure. We need to make other improvements within our ski area permit areas, and the Forest Service right now, because most of their funding or so much of their 

funding is now used for fighting fires, they simply don’t have the 

staff to do that. 

Senator WYDEN. I appreciate your making a plug for the bill. 

Senator Crapo and I have to stop fire borrowing. Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell and Senator Daines, we are all involved in the plot on that. But go ahead, I interrupted you. 

Mr. BONAR. Oh, that’s okay. 

So, you know, we see the fee retention as being crucial for us to 

be able to invest money and be able to move forward on these critical needs. 

Right now we have, as I said in my statement, many ski resorts 

that need to replace old ski lifts and aging infrastructure in other 

ways. It’s critical that we are able to make those improvements for 

safety reasons and also because we’re seeing increased visitation 

year-round at all the resorts. And it’s really important that we’re 

able to move forward on those projects by increasing that funding 

for the Forest Service staff. 

Senator WYDEN. So you would support the provision in the bill 

strongly? 

Mr. BONAR. Yes, I think all the ski resorts would because of this 

backlog of projects. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I can just tell you, in the Pacific Northwest no new projects are being considered by the Forest Service. 

We have highlighted the example in Mount Hood, the meadows, 

and I know you touched on it as well. 

I think the point really is that unless we move to, sort of, update 

the recreation policies for the times, I think, we are going to see 

more and more of these challenges where there is gridlock on permits, people cannot get them online. These are common sense, bipartisan type ideas. 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank our witnesses and am 

sorry to be in and out this morning. I think what the Chair is 

working on is an extremely important area and we appreciate your 

input. 

Mr. BONAR. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden, I appreciate it. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Senator Wyden, you should join the Skier’s Caucus here, by the way. 

[Laughter.] 
120 

We would love to have you. The Chair is an excellent skier. I can 

testify to that fact. 

Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing today. 

I serve as this Committee’s National Parks Subcommittee Chair. 

It is one of my top priorities. Working alongside Chair Murkowski 

and my colleagues on this Committee, along with a fellow Montanan, Secretary of the Interior Zinke, we are going to be working 

to reduce the National Park Service maintenance backlog. 

As Congress and the Administration consider ways to strengthen 

the nation’s infrastructure, I am happy that National Park Service 

deferred maintenance is now part of that conversation. FY’15 numbers estimate it to be $11.9 billion. We know the number has only 

increased as that data is over a year old. 

Fifty percent of the deferred maintenance backlog is roads. There 

are over 3,400 water systems with deferred maintenance needs and 

this backlog has steadily increased over time. I believe Congress 

must act. 

The Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Zinke, grew up in the 

shadows of Glacier National Park. He grew up about 30 minutes 

away from Glacier National Park. I grew up about 90 minutes 

away from Yellowstone National Park. So this is a product of our 

own experiences, fellow Montanans and how we, as Americans, love 

our national parks. I am committed to fighting for as much appropriation as possible, as a member of the Interior Subcommittee, 

alongside Senator Murkowski. 

I would also like to explore some creative ways we can facilitate 

new investments in our maintenance backlog. We are going to have 

to be creative, whether it is more public/private partnerships or the 

use of innovation and technology. 

In Senator King’s home State of Maine, there is a pilot project 

at Acadia National Park which began just last year to collect entrance fees through online passes. Senator Wyden mentioned this 

online pass idea. In fact, I worked for 12 years in the cloud computing business, and I am a firm believer that we do need to leverage some modern technology to solve some of our constraints and 

the problems that we face. 

The National Park Service maintenance backlog is no different. 

Nowadays everybody wants to share their experience on Snapchat, 

on Instagram, on Facebook and that just continues to build more 

interest in our parks which is a good thing. 

In Montana we saw record visitation rates last summer. During 

peak visitation times, to keep traffic moving, sometimes they would 

just wave cars through into the park because if you saw the lines 

and you have families all excited to come to our national parks, 

who wants to wait in a long line of traffic when you cannot wait 

to get in to see the wildlife or the wonders of our national parks? 

What happens? The parks lose much needed revenue and this is 

for good reason. Traffic gets so bad in summer months it does become a public safety issue, and it puts a serious strain on our infrastructure. 

With that as background, I want to start with Mr. Treese. In 

your written testimony, you share multiple cases with opportunities and studies to expand water infrastructure that supports western communities. You did not mention any in Montana, but I have 
121 

a couple to add. One will be the Dry-Redwater and the MusselshellJudith water systems. There are over 35,000 Montanans and North 

Dakotans whose current public water system does not meet safe 

drinking water standards. 

This afternoon I am introducing legislation, the Clean Water for 

Rural Communities Act, to authorize Reclamation to construct both 

of these projects. 

My question is, would you please elaborate on the importance of 

clean, reliable water to health and the economic being of rural 

America? 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that opportunity. 

Yes, rural water. I live in rural Colorado and am familiar with 

the projects you talk about. Rural water is critical and perhaps important in this discussion because rural water may be one of the 

areas that doesn’t make the headlines that some of the infrastructure that has been mentioned nationally might garner or might be 

broader recognized. But rural water is critical, critical to the health 

and welfare of the United States, as well as our economy. 

I appreciate your legislation. I had an opportunity to talk to staff 

about your legislation last night. I’m impressed by it and look forward to supporting it. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Treese. 

As I wrap up I am going to ask you a question, Mr. Worsley. In 

Montana, we have seen harvest in our national forests decline by 

more than 70 percent versus the past generation. The number of 

mills in my home state declined; it went from 30 to eight. When 

I grew up we had 30, now we have eight. There are seven million 

federally-controlled acres in Montana. They are at high risk of 

wildfire. 

My question. Can you speak to why it is so critical to retain mills 

and a wood product workforce in a state like Montana? 

Mr. WORSLEY. Well, not only is there huge economic benefit, but 

we have a natural resource that is going to waste. 

There was a question earlier about whether we support mining 

for minerals. We sometimes do a horrible job of utilizing and maximizing the use of our natural resources and burning to the ground 

hundreds of millions of acres is align to that reality. And so, there’s 

a huge economic benefit. There’s a use of natural resources that is 

critical. And a lot of times once this stuff goes away, it doesn’t come 

back. And so, once that infrastructure closes, to get it restarted is 

just almost impossible. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, we have seen that in Colorado. 

I am out of time, and I know Montanans are tired of breathing 

smoke in the summertime and then the damage environmentally 

to our watersheds. 

Mr. WORSLEY. That’s right. 

Senator DAINES. And wildfires as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for this 

hearing. 

I feel this morning, after listening to each of our witnesses, I 

want to say, Amen, to each of you and also indicate that it is not 
122 

only National Water Day, it is National Ag Day. And we will not 

have agriculture, we will not have food unless we have an abundant, clean water supply. 

And so, there’s a lot in common. As the Ranking Democrat on the 

Agriculture Committee, when we look at conservation efforts on 

privately-owned land which are managed through the Agriculture 

Committee, again, so much in common. 

There is no question, I could go right down the line, in terms of 

our national forests and what they mean in terms of jobs and outdoor recreation. I am very concerned about the cuts in President 

Trump’s budget as it relates to those things. 

I invite you all to Sleeping Bear Dunes in Northwest Michigan, 

if you have not been there, to see God’s country up north. In fact, 

anywhere in Michigan is God’s country, but we have absolutely 

beautiful places. 

When we look at infrastructure, yes, it is not only trails, it is not 

only all of the things that I support that you have been talking 

about, but we have large infrastructure projects like the Soo Locks 

where commerce comes through the Great Lakes. Right now, if the 

large lock, Poe Lock, shuts down or has a problem, there is no second lock that will allow the barges to come through to bring the 

minerals or to focus on the other areas. So infrastructure, in many 

ways, relates to what we are doing on public lands and private 

lands and water, and I do not think we have focused on that 

enough. 

I do want to talk about water, specifically, as you can imagine 

being surrounded by water in Michigan. 

Mr. Treese, I completely agree with what you said about water 

being the lifeblood of our nation. And certainly, in Michigan, the 

Great Lakes are part of our DNA and also part of the backbone of 

our economy. 

I have to say in the President’s budget, and this is not for the 

hearing today, but the President completely zeros out the Great 

Lakes restoration initiative, zeros out monies that we have been 

using through legislation developed, on a bipartisan basis, to protect our waters in our Great Lakes. We intend to do everything 

possible to make sure that that elimination of funding does not 

happen for a number of reasons. 

But along with the zeroing out of the Great Lakes restoration 

initiative is a 15 percent cut to the U.S. Geological Services, which 

also is critically important to the Great Lakes as well as everything 

else that you talked about Mr. Spears, in terms of access to minerals and so on. 

But when we look at the fact that President Trump’s cut would 

be the lowest funding level for the USGS since Fiscal Year 2002 

and yet, the pressures, the demands, the challenges on our Great 

Lakes continue to grow. I am very concerned that what the U.S. 

Geological Survey has done to protect the Great Lakes, developing 

toxins to kill sea lamprey, for instance, without harming other fish. 

Now we have the Asian Carp which is a huge challenge and threat 

to us in terms of fish and boating and quality of life and water. 

When we look at researching how to get the Great Lakes fish 

populations to thrive and the fact that we have over 75,000 jobs directly related to fishing in Michigan and hundreds of thousands of 
123 

jobs indirectly related to fishing, not counting boating and other activities outdoors or algae blooms that threaten the drinking water 

of our 40 million people a day that get their water from the Great 

Lakes. Senator Portman and I co-chair the bipartisan Great Lakes 

Task Force, and he certainly can speak to the fact that algae 

blooms have left 400,000 people in Toledo without drinking water. 

So, all of that to say and actually, Mr. Treese, you may assume 

I am directing this to you, which I assume you are concerned about 

the cuts. But actually, I wanted to ask, Mr. Treese, just in terms 

of the importance of federal assistance and support, as it relates to 

water projects. Obviously in Colorado it is not the Great Lakes, but 

certainly, when we look at western water managers and the importance of focusing on interstate waters and so on, I wonder if you 

might speak from your state’s perspective about why it is important to be able to invest in protecting our water. 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator. 

Colorado covets the amount of water you have around the Great 

Lakes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. And you cannot have it. 

[Laughter.] 

Unless you want to move to Michigan—we would love to have 

you move to Michigan. 

Mr. TREESE. I understand, thank you. 

I think the regional initiatives you mentioned, they are notable 

for their size, their multi-state, multi-party involvement, the 

Chesapeake Bay Initiative in this area. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Mr. TREESE. And the Colorado River efforts, the multi-state efforts that are involved in the Colorado River, are all critical. And 

the Federal Government is an essential partner in those. The local 

communities, the states and the Federal Government must be 

equal partners in those processes if they are going to be successful. 

To have the Federal Government unilaterally withdraw or significantly decrease their participation, financial and human resource 

participation, is to, frankly, doom those initiatives to failure. 

Senator STABENOW. One of the things I wanted to mention as 

well on water infrastructure is that, again, with my agriculture hat 

on, rural water and sewer projects which are so critical to my 

hometown of Claire and to communities across America, small 

towns across America, is zeroed out in the President’s budget 

which is also stunning to me. 

I mean there seems to be a wholesale attack, Madam Chair, on 

water infrastructure and I know we are going to want to work in 

a bipartisan basis to make sure that we have support for that infrastructure going forward in the budget. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. A big part of our consideration. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Treese, I assure you in Arizona we covet the water you have 

in California, or Colorado, so— 

[Laughter.] 

So, anyway, it is all in where you are. 
124 

I am sorry for not being here earlier. There was a Gorsuch hearing going on a few doors away, so that is occupying a lot of time. 

It is nice to have Brad Worsley here. Thank you for making the 

trip from Arizona. 

In Arizona, we have had two once-in-a-lifetime fires in the last 

15 years. And if you are from Northern Arizona, as I am, you have 

seen the devastation that has occurred there. It has been a tough 

thing to watch. 

After the Rodeo Chedeski fire back 15 years ago, we realized that 

we needed industry in Northern Arizona in order to partner with 

the Federal Government or we simply were not going to do the 

amount of forest restoration that we needed. 

Fortunately some industry has stepped up to the plate, including 

Novo Power and others that Brad is very familiar with. We have 

to have industry, private industry, that is functioning, and the infrastructure that is needed there—the infrastructure that is needed 

in terms of roads and what not to get wood out of the forest is vital 

here. 

I want to thank Brad for serving on my Healthy Forest Advisory 

Panel, and I am looking forward to suggestions that you have. I 

have read the written testimony, but I was interested in hearing 

some about the role of transportation, the cost, to your industry. 

You have advocated there is a pilot project in Arizona to increase 

weight limits on state roads, and I wanted to hear from you on how 

a similar program on federal highways could help existing industry 

reach deeper into the forest to be able to treat those areas that 

need to be treated. 

Mr. WORSLEY. You bet. 

Let me first, I know it’s decorum to praise your local Senators, 

but I have to tell you, Senator Flake and Senator McCain give a 

disproportionate amount of time. I sat with the biomass group this 

morning and they were just so shocked that I speak with them regularly and their efforts on our behalf. So we are definitely appreciative of our two sitting Senators. 

Over 50 percent of your cost to move biomass is in transportation. And so, a small addition to what a highway can handle, go 

from 80,000 pounds to 90,000 pounds, is a 20 percent increase in 

haul capacity. So you’re talking a 20 percent benefit on the largest 

expense in hauling biomass. The state is doing it and they’ve seen 

it work successfully. It’s been a huge success. 

Unfortunately, our trucks can only go some routes. You know, if 

we’ve got a problem on the west side of the state, we’ve got to see 

Interstate I-17 and I-40 and others increase by 10,000 pounds in 

order to see that same savings that we’re seeing on the east side 

of the state. 

Senator FLAKE. It sounds like you are suggesting we could take 

advantage of the existing infrastructure of the Forest Service, if 

they did a better job, the Forest Service, in considering the cost of 

transportation, given the locations of the mills. 

How would you suggest that they better incorporate transportation costs in their planning? 

Mr. WORSLEY. Yeah, I think you’ve raised an important point. 

This isn’t any more dollars. This is—these roads can handle, 
125 

they’re engineered to handle this kind of weight. And given its impact to the state, I think it would be a zero-cost proposition. 

But it’s also important that the state—that the Federal Government, the national forest, takes the consideration to haul distances. 

So when they’re offering products they can’t say, here’s everything 

that’s 100 miles from your mill. They have to take into consideration we can share costs, spread costs, but we need stuff closer and 

stuff farther away and there needs to be that balance in their planning. 

Senator FLAKE. We have had issues in Arizona with the cost of 

doing NEPA, doing the prep work there required by NEPA, to 

make sure that we have acreage that has passed the environmental 

test to be able to access and be treated. 

You mentioned in your testimony that we cannot allow prep to 

be the new NEPA. Can you explain what you mean by that? 

Mr. WORSLEY. I can. 

Most states deal with getting NEPA-ready acres. We have over 

500,000 NEPA-ready acres in Arizona, and by 2019, it will be darn 

near a million. Now what we have to do is make those acres available, and prep is becoming the new NEPA. The Forest Service is 

grossly out of date as it relates to technology and efforts. To go 

paint every single tree is such a waste of time and resources. The 

technology is there, and industry is pressing. We can, through GPS 

and tablet technology, tell you what we cut, how we cut it, when 

we cut it, where we cut it, and just provide designation by prescription or by diameter and let us go to work and save all of that 

money and make that acreage available. So absolutely, we cannot 

let prep become the old NEPA bottleneck in Arizona. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. Well, thank you. 

If I may, in Arizona, we have, with the ponderosa pine forest, a 

healthy forest traditionally has about 20 trees per acre. We have 

areas with 200 trees per acre. 

Can you talk some about the areas that you have been able to 

go in, the difference between that acreage in terms of the fire hazard, fuels reduction you have been able to do, compared to the old 

or what we have seen over the past couple of decades? 

Mr. WORSLEY. You bet, Senator Flake. 

I’ll increase that statistic. We have 2,000 trees per acre in some 

areas, and so we have a situation where we have a gross overgrown. 

Just think about being able to drive a covered wagon through the 

forests of Arizona. That’s what they came into in the 1900s. Today 

you couldn’t drive a motorcycle through those forests, so we are significantly reducing on that. 

If you ever walk onto a forest fire, post-burn, what’s left? What’s 

left is the big trees. What burned to the ground was all of this high 

hazard fuel, all of this biomass. 

So, when you now drive up the rim, which I know you do often, 

you can see through that forest again and that’s because of the 

work we’re doing, not in removing big trees, but in removing trees 

that are three feet tall and one inch around and doing that in a 

high scale and with mechanization in order to make it cost-effective. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. 
126 

Unless any of you want to answer a question on separation of 

powers or the Chevron doctrine, I better get back in to the other 

hearing. So thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Flake. We appreciate the work 

you are doing over in Judiciary too. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you 

for putting together this esteemed panel of witnesses on such an 

important topic. 

As you may or may not know, I represent the State of Nevada 

which has the largest amount of public lands in our state, in the 

country. So the topics that we are discussing today are very, very 

important, not only to me, but to many of the constituents that I 

represent. 

I want to see the outdoor recreation industry expand and provide 

folks visiting my state an incredible experience in exploring the 

wonderful beauty of Nevada, and I believe we need to preserve and 

repair our infrastructure in these natural areas for future generations. 

I also know that Nevada is one of the driest states in the nation 

with only 9.63 inches of average annual rainfall, so we are particularly focused and innovative when it comes to our water supply and 

resources, particularly, since we have the lowest allotment of water 

along the Colorado, as you well know. 

Then we also have, and I am very proud of, our mining industry 

in the State of Nevada. I graduated from the University of Nevada, 

Reno. At the time, it was the Mackey School of Mines—one of our 

departments and colleges there. It is now the Mackey School of 

Earth Sciences and Engineering. 

I appreciate the comments today and would like to start with Mr. 

Spears. You talked a little bit about airborne data collection technologies. I think, as we talk about updating our infrastructure, the 

use of technologies is so important. This helps us really, kind of, 

pinpoint areas where we can manage our natural resources and everything else that we just talked about and our great opportunity 

to utilize the outdoors. Can you talk a little bit more about how you 

think that airborne data collection technologies and the use of it 

will help and benefit mining operations and the economy in general? 

Mr. SPEARS. Sure, Senator. 

Putting people on the ground is very expensive. Putting planes 

in the air is also expensive, but you can cover vast areas at the 

same cost as putting people on the ground. 

There’s no substitute for having people on the ground actually 

collecting physical samples, but to cover large areas with a single 

kind of technology such as LiDAR which gives you centimeter scale 

model of the surface of the landscape, there’s really no substitute 

for that. 

But also, less well known technologies like arrow magnetics, the 

ground is naturally magnetic. Arrow radiometrics, the earth naturally glows in certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. 

We can fly over with passive techniques just observing the natural 
127 

background, physical properties that the earth is already displaying, and tell something about what’s down there. 

For example, magnetics will tell you about the presence of iron, 

certain iron bearing minerals, like magnetite, that will show up 

from the air from a mile up you can tell how much magnetite is 

in the ground. And magnetite is often a leader, an indicator mineral, for other things such as copper or zinc or lead. 

So investment in airborne technologies can be a very efficient 

way of giving us a picture of our subsurface infrastructure, subsurface resources. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Treese, I want to focus a little on the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Do you think that the Bureau should integrate its water supply 

management project grants into a regional watershed plan? The 

reason why I ask that, and a couple of things I think we do an incredible job, at times, working together with other states and regionalizing, I think the states do, in trying to work together to 

manage, but I am not sure it is always done at the federal level 

as well. I would like your thoughts with respect to the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, I absolutely agree. I believe the new Farm bill has a regional conservation partnership program. My district has taken advantage of one of those competitive grants. 

It is a regional—it has a goal of regional cooperation and interagency cooperation. We’ve been successful in seeking and receiving 

the cooperation of local districts and the state. 

We have been less successful in receiving the cooperation of the 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior in 

realizing the goals of that grant, and I think that an explicit statement in the funding of some of their programs and coordination between the departments is imperative for the success of the federal 

investment. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I see my time is up. I appreciate the comments today. Thank you 

so much for appearing before the Committee today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you 

to all the witnesses for your time and testimony and work today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to learn from you about how we can 

work together in the future, on water issues, infrastructure issues 

and make some great things happen. 

Welcome, Mr. Treese, to the Committee. I appreciate your expertise over the years in working with you on a number of policies affecting what is the most important river, waterway, in the Western 

United States, the Colorado River. 

The entire Colorado River Basin feeds an incredible population, 

economy, agriculture, resource issues, you name it. And your working advocacy is truly appreciated. But it also means that effective 

water management in the West is more critical than ever as the 

growing states of Nevada, Utah and Colorado continue to rely more 

and more heavily on 50-year-old, 60-year-old, 70-year-old infrastructure projects. 
128 

The Western states are some of the fastest growing in the nation. 

California and beyond have been plagued by significant drought 

over the years and resource challenges. 

Colorado is a unique state when it comes to our water. We are 

the only state that does our water law the way we do, or headwaters, not just the Colorado River, but the Platte, the Arkansas, 

the Rio Grande, Republican River basins, one area of agreement for 

water managers representing all those river basins in Colorado is 

the need to continue our investment in infrastructure. So we have 

a couple of challenges facing water infrastructure in Colorado. 

One of them is the permitting process and then aquatic and nuisance species. The projects in Colorado like the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Gross Reservoir Expansion, others, on the 

Western Slope as well, began their federal permitting process years 

ago, and just now, still do not have final permitting approval, final 

approval. 

So I would ask you two questions. Number one, can you discuss 

the impacts of federal permitting process on infrastructure development with regard to timelines, long-term planning decisions and 

economic costs? And number two, the invasive species issues and 

the impact they could have on Colorado’s water infrastructure? 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator Gardner, thank you for the kind 

words. 

Yes, first to the permitting issues. The expense of permitting has 

multiplied the cost of projects, projects that were budgeted both in 

time and dollars have had, have seen, tremendous delays. They’ve 

seen multi-year delays, all resulting in additional costs and less 

certainty that the Chairwoman mentioned, as an important element of any natural resource project. That, the loss of that certainty and the expense associated, eventually gets passed on to the 

consumers, and that has been an impact throughout the West. 

The invasive species, a critical issue. Colorado is one of the few 

states, essentially one of a handful of states, along the spine of the 

Rockies that is not currently infected by the Zebra or the Quagga 

mussels. Nationwide, they have colonized waterways and clogged 

infrastructure. There is no simple, cheap or permanent solution to 

the remedy once infected. 

The efforts to prevent and through, primarily through, inspection 

have been successful in Colorado and New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming. And I think, again, the federal partnership is critical. We 

have enjoyed it in the past. We have lost it in the recent past. And 

that partnership with federal involvement in federal facilities and 

others, all is connected, as you described that Colorado is the headwater state. If you infect the Colorado River, if you infect the 

Platte, the Arkansas, downstream states are going to suffer commensurately. 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Treese, I think in some of the studies on 

infrastructure needs in Colorado that have been performed over the 

past several years, one study identified, I think it was, the statewide water supply initiative, the second phase study, identified 

around $15 billion of water infrastructure needs just to meet the 

next two decades of projected municipal, industrial, agricultural 

need in Colorado. Is that still a ballpark figure today? 

Mr. TREESE. It is. 
129 

Senator GARDNER. That is $15 billion that we need just in Colorado alone in water infrastructure. So this is a critical conversation 

that we are having to meet the economies’, communities’, industries’ needs in Colorado and, of course, even more outside of the 

state. 

Thank you, Mr. Treese, for being here today. 

Mr. Bonar, thank you again for talking about much needed infrastructure issues at our ski resorts and our national forests. 

Colorado, home to the White River National Forest, a number 

one, most heavily used forest in the country, home to a number of 

great recreation opportunities, both in the summer and the winter. 

Of course, with the passage in 2011 of the Ski Area Recreational 

Opportunity Enhancement Act that you mentioned, it has opened 

up even more opportunities for families to enjoy the great Colorado 

outdoors. 

Vail Resort is planning on investing a total of $80 to $85 million 

for their summer program alone, but what I am hearing from some 

of these other ski resorts in Vail and others in Colorado is that the 

Forest Service simply does not have the ability, because of resource 

demands on the Forest Service budget, to meet the requirements 

that they have, in terms of permitting and staffing issues that are 

going to be needed if they invest $85 million. 

What does an approach to ski fee retention mean? What does it 

mean to you? You talked about it in your opening statement, but 

what does it mean to you and how can Congress help build the infrastructure necessary for the ski industry while not simply increasing the number of Forest Service employees? 

Mr. BONAR. You know, we would just simply like to see the fees that all the ski resorts pay, in Snowbird’s case it’s about $250,000 

a year, for the use of the land. We’d like to see a portion of that 

stay with our local forests so that they can more adequately staff 

the positions that a lot of those have been eliminated. We would 

like to see those staffed up again so that they can make the adequate analysis that they need to make on all the backlog projects 

that we have, whether they’re summer projects or winter projects. 

Senator GARDNER. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Bonar. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

I want to go back to you, Mr. Spears, for a moment following on 

Senator Cortez Masto’s questions about mapping. Again, we are 

talking about an infrastructure package coming out of the Congress 

that could potentially be huge, perhaps as much as a trillion dollars, I don’t know for sure. 

[Laughter.] 

I do not know whether that is where we are going to end up, but 

right now there is a big focus, and rightly so, on aging infrastructure, inadequate infrastructure, and how we build it out. Again, 

knowing where to build it is important, and knowing that we have 

those resources that will then be required to build it are equally 

important. 

It was just a couple of years ago we celebrated with a big ceremony in a hangar with cakes and balloons the fact that Alaska was 

now finally 57 percent mapped. Now I don’t know where you celebrate 57 percent of anything— 
130 

[Laughter.] 

But we did it in Alaska because it was like oh, we are just a little 

more than half way there. But that is just mapping the terrain, so 

we have a long ways to go. Understanding and being able to inventory what it is that we have so that we move forward smartly with 

infrastructure is really important. 

You have talked a little bit about some of the technologies that 

can help us more readily and hopefully less expensively identify 

this, but it seems to me that we could be in a situation where we 

are in such a hurry to get shovel ready projects moving that we 

have not done enough on the front end in terms of making sure 

that we have got good inventory understanding and mapping. Am 

I alone in my concerns there or do you think we are doing okay? 

Mr. SPEARS. You’re not alone, Madam Chair. 

The fact is the U.S. Geological Survey currently invests about 

$25 million a year of its roughly $1 billion budget in geologic mapping, a small fraction of that, about $5 million a year, goes to the 

states for cooperative programs and is matched by the states. It’s 

a relatively small investment in something that means so much to 

this country. 

With just a modest increase in that program we could rapidly accelerate the percentage of our country that is understood geologically in terms of its mineral resources and natural hazards. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well that is certainly something that we would 

like to continue the work on. It is something we have been leading 

on, but I think you are right, we need to be doing much more in 

that vein. 

Speaking a little bit about public/private partnerships leveraging 

dollars, I think we recognize that we are in a budget environment 

where it is just tough around here. As we saw from the skinny 

budget that was laid down, there is a lot in it that a lot of us really 

do not like because it is going to impact the programs and priorities that, for many of us in our parts of the country, are very, very 

key to our economy and really key to our quality of life. 

As we talk about the infrastructure challenges on our parks and 

the public lands, we have done some things recently, specifically as 

it relates to national parks, with appropriations last year. We had 

the Centennial Challenge account, which received a $5 million increase. ONPS got an increase of $43 million—this is where we do 

the repair and rehab as well as cyclical maintenance, so that was 

a six percent increase. The construction account received a $112 

million increase, which was an 81 percent increase. But even so, 

even with these small and, believe me, when we are talking about 

a $12 billion hole, it does not get us there. We recognize that it is 

not just through the appropriations process, but it is how we are 

leveraging, how we move toward these public/private partnerships. 

Within the Park Service, Ms. Argust, is there more that we can 

be doing administratively? I recognize that legislation around here 

is usually just a long time in coming. Is there more that we can 

be doing administratively to improve the infrastructure, specifically, within the Park Service and greater areas where we can tap 

into this public/private partnership that perhaps we just have not 

hit yet? 
131 

We have the Centennial Act’s Challenge Fund, I think, that we 

can look to. I do not know whether that is being accessed to the 

degree and to the extent that is most effective, but if you can comment on that, please? 

Ms. ARGUST. Right. 

I think there are some things that can be done, but again, I will 

point out that they do need staff, right, to implement some of these 

ideas. 

Let me just start with, for instance, their volunteer programs. 

They could do more with that. If the volunteers are able to do 

maintenance programs that are more detailed, if they had volunteers and volunteer coordinators in each region. Right now, they 

have one volunteer manager for the entire Park Service, who is in 

the DC office, so it makes it difficult to leverage and coordinate all 

those volunteers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask about that, and maybe Ms. Simmons, 

you might want to jump in here. 

Because we had a situation a couple years ago where the Forest 

Service budget decreased. They maintain cabins, Forest Service 

cabins, that people can visit. The community of Ketchikan saw that 

because of the budget cuts that the Forest Service was proposing, 

basically, dismantling some of these Forest Service cabins. The volunteers said, hey, wait a minute, we can step in here. We can provide for the upkeep, and it seemed like a perfect fit. 

As it turned out, the hoops that a volunteer had to jump through 

in order to qualify to be an acceptable volunteer to maintain these 

cabins, whether it was being able to demonstrate that you could 

safely operate a chain saw, going through a safety course that most 

people would say, well, wait a minute, I am an outdoorsman, I am 

a woodsman, I don’t necessarily carry my red cross card with me 

everywhere. It was very frustrating to the local people because the 

agency was so concerned about liability and the volunteers were 

saying, hey, I just want to make sure that this cabin is going to 

be there for us. 

Are we making things too complicated for our volunteers? I appreciate what you are saying about the need to have somebody that 

organizes it, absolutely, but is it working like we need it to? 

Ms. ARGUST. So, instead of in this case, talking about volunteers, 

I’ll talk about some of the partner groups and friends groups who 

do a lot of work and projects for the Park Service and provide funding. 

What we’ve heard is sometimes the paperwork can be a burden. 

They could do more if there wasn’t that paperwork. Some of the 

friends groups don’t have the staff to do that or the friends groups 

themselves don’t have that capacity so that can be an issue that 

we should be thinking about. 

I do want to talk about opportunities with public/private partnerships. I think the Park Service really is trying to use public/private 

partnerships and agreements to address the backlog, but there are 

obstacles to that. In some cases, you have parks that have fantastic 

friends groups that can do a lot. In other areas, there aren’t any 

friends groups. The Martin Luther King historic site in Atlanta 

doesn’t have a friends group or you might have regions where they 

have friends groups but they’re relatively small and they just can’t 
132 

put up the matching funds, say for Centennial Challenge projects. 

So, those are issues. 

And also, to be frank, some friends groups or other partners 

groups and philanthropists just don’t want to fund, you know, sewage systems. They don’t want to fund roads, and that’s understandable. 

I should also point out with corporate partnerships, there is a 

public perception problem. People hear parks, they hear corporate 

partnerships and there is a concern that that’s going to lead to a 

banner across Mount Rushmore. That is not the case. 

The National Park Service is working with the National Park 

Foundation. They’re doing some great work with corporations, and 

we should be encouraging that. It is not going to solve all the repairs needed for infrastructure by any means. We’re going to have 

to rely on appropriations, but we should be encouraging more of 

that type of partnership. 

The CHAIRMAN. When I think through the Centennial Act, we do 

have some opportunities there. But how we help shape and guide 

some of that, I think, remains to be seen. 

Ms. Simmons, can you comment on what we can be doing to 

make sure that volunteers really do feel welcome, whether it is paperwork or whether it is the agency saying thanks, but no thanks? 

Ms. SIMMONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Well I want to be clear that we do not work on structures, our 

volunteers don’t work on structures and so, I can’t comment to the 

specifics of restoring cabins. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you build trails, you—— 

Ms. SIMMONS. But we do build trails. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. SIMMONS. And I think we can say quite definitively, we think 

there’s great power in using volunteers. And we’ve been fortunate 

to have nearly 25 years of a relationship with the Forest Service 

and our local forest to work out the kinks and to establish the relationships and the systems and the trust that works really well. 

I think that a key for us has really been understanding. We take 

anyone, regardless of experience, but we have crew leads and assistant crew leads that have been well trained and know how to 

manage volunteers. And so, there’s a balance between the expertise 

and everyone who comes to build the trails, that can be developed. 

And we’ve been fortunate to work really cooperatively with the Forest Service to figure out how to make this happen in Washington 

State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is good. That is a good success story. 

I know people that have been involved with either establishing 

trails or maintaining trails over the years going way back to my 

parents’, grandparents’ days in the Tongass, who still look at that 

trail and say, I helped make that trail. And there is a real sense 

of pride. The family says, yes, that was my grandpa’s trail. That 

really does allow for great community buy-in and support for what 

it is that we are doing. 

Senator Cortez Masto, do you have any follow-up questions? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. No, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank each of you for your input here 

this morning. I think the hearing today has been very interesting. 
133 

Following on what we heard last Tuesday, I think, as a Committee, we have got a great deal to work with. When we think 

about an infrastructure proposal that can really help this country, 

help our economy, but also ensure that whether it is clean water, 

whether it is ensuring that our communities are safe from the 

threat of wildfire, whether it is how we enjoy our amazing open 

spaces, whether they are trails or parks or skiing, and making sure 

that these resources that we have on our land, under our land, are 

respected, is a great part of what we do here in this Committee. 

Everybody else is talking about infrastructure and what they can 

contribute to the package. I think within this Committee we have 

the most exciting part of that portfolio, so I look forward to working with you as we help advance this. 

Thank you very much for your time this morning. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(134) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
135 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

Question from Senator John Barrasso 

Question: Your written testimony discussed a number of causes ot~ and solutions for, 

the deferred maintenance backlog. In your opinion, does the deferred maintenance backlog, and 

the actual infrastructure needs it represents, affect the communities surrounding public lands? 

Yes. Regarding the National Park System .1pecijically, the deferred maintenance backlog has the 

potential to impact communities surrounding the park units. According to a 2015 NPS visitor 

.1pending report, park visitors spent an estimated $16.9 billion in towns and cities within a 60-

mile radius <if park sites. !his spending generated over 295,000jobs and a $32 million boost to 

the national economy. Below is a sample o.fwhat we have heardfi·om gateway community 

representatives about the importance of addressing park maintenance: 

"Each year, guests from more than 20 states and six countries stay at my RV park, resort, 

and cottages to enjoy the fabled Sleeping Bear Dunes and its many trails and activities. 

Many community business owners rely on that tourism to make a living. lhat 's why it's 

so important that we maintain the park's roads, trails, campground\·, and picnic areas so 

that visitors will continue to make the trip to this beaut(fi!llandl·cape. "(Gary Becker, 

president, indigo B!z{/fs RV Park & Resort, Empire, Michigan) 

"The Denali Borough communities benefitfi·om a thriving Denali National Park in many 

ways. We supportfimding the maintenance backlog to keep Denali a great place to enjoy " 

(Clay Walker, Denali Borough maym) 

"Yellowstone National Park was the reason we located our family 'sfly:fzshing business at 

the west entrance to the park nearly 40 years ago. Since then, thousands o.f our customers 

have been introduced to the sport and conservation. Jhere 's so much public streams and 

lakes with native and wild trout that we must ensure the park is maintained so people can 

continue to experience it. "(Craig Mathews, Blue Ribbon Flies). 

"Moccasin Bend is home to Civil War battles and Native American archeological treasures, 

but mounting overdue repairs are jeopardizing our ability to protect these resources and 

allow visitors to access the area. "(lvfichael Wurzel, executive director <?[Friend~<>/ 

Moccasin Bend, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park) 

It is critical that park infi·astructure is kept in good repair so that visitors and local residents can 

safely access park resources. Limited access, outdated, and unsafe facilities can negatively 

impact park visitor experience, which in turn may have a negative impact on the communities 

that depend on park tourism for their economic livelihood 

Investing in the maintenance and restoration o.f deteriorating park infrastructure al.w has the 

potential to benefit local economies by creating significant numbers ofjobs in field\· such as road 

construction, masonry and concrete repair, cwpentry, welding, and roo_fzng. 
136 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

Questions from Senator Joe Man chin III 

Question 1: West Virginia's natural resources provide us with incredible vistas and outdoor 

recreational opportunities. I believe in protecting these resources for future generations of West 

Virginians and for our visitors from around the world. But, I am also a pragmatist and I believe 

that we must balance the economy and the environment. West Virginia has a long tradition of 

being an energy exporting state. That's a tradition that we are determined to continue but in 

order to do so- our nation's energy infrastructure must be modernized and expanded in an 

environmentally responsible way. I want to make sure that, when these projects cross public 

lands, federal agencies with permitting authority are doing their part. I'm sure you are aware that 

the National Park Service and other agencies are currently engaged in permitting several pipeline 

projects in my state, with FERC as the lead agency 

In your written testimony you said that Congress needs to work to streamline the permitting 

process for infrastructure on federally managed lands. Please identify the top regulatory change 

that you seek made to streamline permitting process and remove duplications while still ensuring 

robust public engagement? 

My written testimony did not address streamlining the permitting process within the National 

Park Service (NPS). 

Question 2: In West Virginia, we have the 17,000 acre Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

The headquarters of the Refuge is a 7,000 square foot facility that was constructed in 1975. The 

building was originally a complex containing a restaurant and apartments, and was concerted to 

be used as the Refuge headquarters after it was acquired in 1999. The building is in subpar 

condition to serve as an adequate headquarters building for the Refuge-it even experienced a 

fire sometime before the building was acquired and is not up to current codes. The building has 

undergone an assessment to determine the cost and scale of the work needed to rehabilitate the 

building so that it is up to code. But, after reviewing the assessment and seeing the building in 

person, it is clear that a new building is the best option. 

Ms. Argust, President Trump has promised to do an infrastructure package, and this is a shovel 

ready project. What does your organization believe Congress should do to ensure this type of 

project and other deferred maintenance projects be addressed in an infrastructure package? 

We recommend the .following actions be taken to ensure that an injiustructure package will 

successfully address maintenance issues and projects within the National Park System: 

• Include robust jimding to address NPS ·highest priority assets and transportation 

megaprojects. 

• Ensure that proper levels of NPS stqff are retained and employed so that projectfunds 

can be spent expeditiously. Additionally, appropriate.fimding must be allocatedfor the 

hiring (if contractors, as many large-scale or .1pecia/ized deferred maintenance repairs 

2 
137 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

necessitate skill sets not typical ofNPS employees. An infrastructure package should 

also be designed to foster enhanced opportunities fbr local contractors. 

• Focus on providingfundingjbr planning, design, and permitting so that projects of 

greatest need can be addressed, not simply those that are "shovel-ready. ''Lack of 

su.fftcientfimdingfor deferred maintenance over the years has resulted in minimal 

capacity for long-range planning. Typically, planning and design work associated with 

projects are not developed unless constructionjimding is guaranteed 

• Allow forjimds to be obligated over a multi-year timeframe. 

These provisions would be a significant start to restoring the infrastructure within our National 

Park System. Moving fonvard, smart investments in preventivefimding-such as appropriations 

for repair and rehabilitation and cyclic maintenance· along with dedicatedjimding and policy 

reforms, need to be implemented to keep deferred maintenance fi·om escalating. 

Question 3: Outdoor recreation is a significant economic engine for my state, supporting 82,000 

direct jobs in West Virginia. It generates $2 billion in wages and salaries, $7.6 billion in retail 

sales and services, and brings in $532 million in tax revenue every year. West Virginia's outdoor 

reaction industry relies on various forms of infrastructure to ensure access to public lands or 

rivers. While the rivers themselves are public, the land around them is not. If you can't launch 

legally, you can't use the river. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) plays a crucial 

role in enhancing and maintaining access for outdoorsmen and women. For example, all public 

access points along West Virginia's Lower and Middle Gauley River, which are used by over 

50,000 people annually, were made possible by LWCF funding. LWCF has also protected 

57,000 acres in the Gauley River and New River Gorge Recreation Area that include not just 

river access but over 2,000 named rock climbing routes and protection of the remnants of 

19111 and 20tl1 century mining towns in the New River Gorge. LWCF protects our unique West 

Virginia heritage and helps diversify the base of visitors to the area. Roughly 1.2 million visitors 

enjoy these two parks annually, bringing $53 million to the local economy and directly 

supporting more than 700 jobs. 

The Trump Administration has said that an infrastructure package is one of his legislative 

priorities. Would you agree that strategic federal land conservation projects, made by the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, can be included as part of a larger infrastructure proposaP 

Do you agree that the infrastructure investment plan should include an investment in our national 

and cultural infrastructure that supports our outdoor recreation industry? 

While the Restore America's Parks Campaign is focused on NPS' deferred maintenance backlog, 

an infi·astructure package could include strategicfederalland conservation projects made by the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF acquisitions can increase management 

3 
138 

U.S. Senate Committee on Ene1·gy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

efficiencies within agencies, consolidate land parcels, decrease user conflicts, and enhance 

public access and recreation opportunities, 

Regarding your second question, investments in NPS infrastructure support our outdoor 

recreation industry. Many of the NPS assets requiring repairs are related to recreation and user 

need>-such as trails (NPS maintains 18,000 miles (if trails, requiring over $530 million in 

maintenance), campground\· (NPS maintains over 1,400 campground> requiring almost $73 

million in repairs), and marinas and constructed watenvays (NPS owns over 1, 400 marinas, 

constructed waterways, and wate~ft·onts --these include boat launches, docks, boat rental 

facilities, seawalls, canals, buoys, canoe trai/.1·, river access points, and shorelines--with a 

deferred maintenance price tag of $893million). 

Local gateways communities and businesses recognize the recreation and economic value of 

national parks and have indicated support for providing more resources to address deferred 

maintenance. lhe Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is also supportive of e.ffbrts to restore 

infrastructure within our national parks. See attached letter. 

Questions from Senator Mazie K. Hirono 

Questions: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the premier federal program 

that provides the infrastructure and conservation support for Hawaii's national parks, trails and 

recreation areas. The McCandless Ranch is a parcel in Hawaii that is proposed to be added to the 

Hakalau Forest NWR via the support of the LWCF. The McCandless Ranch is in an area that 

receives annual rainfall totals of more than 200 inches. Healthy native forests such as those 

found on the McCandless Ranch are proving to be much better at capturing rainfall and cloud 

moisture than degraded areas. This makes protecting these forest and watershed areas within the 

boundaries of Hawaii's national parks and wildlife refuges important for groundwater recharge 

and water security in Hawaii. 

Would you agree that strategic federal land conservation projects made through the LWCF are a 

critical component of any infrastructure proposals considered by Congress? Do you agree that 

green infrastructure, such as the forests and watersheds found in our National Parks and Wildlife 

Refuges, be prioritized along with energy, water, transportation and other key forms of 

infrastructure? 

While the Restore America's Parks Campaign isjiJcused on NPS 's deferred maintenance 

backlog, we agree that an infrastructure package could include strategic federal land 

conservation projects, made by the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF 

acquisitions can increase management efficiencies within agencies, consolidate land parcels, 

decrease user conflicts, and enhance public access and recreation opportunities, 

4 
139 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

We also agree that green ir?fi·astructure should he included in an infiustructure package. Take 

.flood risk reduction projectsfbr example: healthy wetlands, salt marshes, dunes, and riverine 

areas can act as holding hasinsforjloodwaters. decreasing the effects of flooding on people, 

homes, and businesses in adjacent communities while providing habitat for fish and wildlife. 

Along the coasts, such natural areas act as the .first line of defense to reduce the effects ofstorm 

surge. 

Research has shown that using nature-based solutions to mitigate the threats posed hy severe 

weather can be both economical and long-lasting. One recent studyfound that coastal wetland~ 

provide an estimated S23 billion each year in storm protection benefits. Another study.fbund that 

coastal habitats such as salt marshes and mangroves can be more cost-effective than engineered 

structures in lessening storm surge and can provide a bz!ffer to properties during storms. We 

cannot afford lo leave these savings on the table as we consider new it?frastructure investments. 

Questions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

Question 1: How many jobs are created by visitor spending? With increased attendance at 

National Parks, how many more jobs could we anticipate if we addressed some of these 

infrastructure concerns? 

According to a NPS 2015 visitor spending report, the 307 million park visits recorded that year 

led to S16.9 billion in direct spending in local gateway communities. 1his spending led to a 

cumulative economic outpoint (!fS32 billion natiomt·ide and the creation of 295,000jobs. 

NPS reported 331million visits in 2016, however, the agency has not yet released updated 

2016 visitor spending andjob numbers. Pew has commissioned an analysis to determine 

the number of infi'astructure-relatedjobs that could potentially be created if Congress were 

to invesr in restoring NPS infrastructure. 1he preliminary analysis, conducted by 1he 

Cadmus Group, indicates that 130,000 direct and indirect jobs could be created if the 

estimated S11.9 billion hack log were.fitlly addressed. 

Question 2: How long do you think the current infrastructure will last with an increased 

number of visitors? 

This is a question best directed to the NPS, as park assets vary in age, materials, design, 

and location (all o_fwhich can impact an asset's lifespan). According to a December 2016 

report issued by the Government Accounting Qffice (GAO), however, over $10.5 billion (!f 

the NPS backlog is in park units that were established more than -10 years ago. 

The prospect of increased visitation combined with decaying iT?frastructure is not a new 

phenomenon fin· the NPS. During the 1950s, the number (if national parks visitors surged. 

At that time, the NPS was 50 years old and already some (!fits infi·astructure was showing 

5 
140 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Marcia Argust 

signs of disrepair. There was a public outcry over the state of the parks, including the lack 

of visitor centers, inadequate bathrooms, and poor roads. Congress responded with an 

iniTiative referred to as Mission 66 and,from 1956 to 1966, invested a total of$900 million 

to improve facilities within the National Park System. in today 's dollars, that figure would 

be the between $7 and 8 billion dollars (based on 

6 
141 

Restore America's Parks 

April4, 2017 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chair 

Interior Subcommittee 

Committee on Appropriations 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Udall 

Ranking Minority Member 

Interior Subcommittee 

Committee on Appropriations 

Washin~orton, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ken Calvert 

Chair 

House Subcommittee on 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Betty McCollum 

Ranking Minority Member 

House Subcommittee on 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chair Murkowski, Chair Calvert, Ranking Member Udall, and Ranking Member McCollum: 

2016 marked the IOOth birthday of the National Park Service (NPS), which oversees more than400 

natural and cultural areas in all 50 states and most U.S. territories. NPS faces a growing challenge in 

adequately maintaining its sites to ensure that visitors can experience the parks· natural beauty and !cam 

about our nation's history. After decades of underfunding, NPS has an infra.stmcture repair backlog 

estimated at $11.9 billion (FY 2015). This includes cmcial repairs to aging historical structures and 

thousands of miles of roads and trails, bridges, tunnels, sewers, drainage, and other vital infrastmcture. 

Writer and historian Wallace Stegner said that national parks are "the best idea we ever had. Absolutely 

American, absolutely democratic. they reflect us at our best rather than our worst." As companies, 

organizations, and associations, we support addressing the infrastmcture repair backlog throughout these 

parks. 

To address the backlog and put our national parks on sound financial footing for the future, we must do 

the following 

Create a guaranteed federal fund that will chip away at the estimated $11.9 billion backlog over 

time. 

Implement policy reforms, such as entry and vendor fees, that will help to prevent repair backlog 

from accming to begin with. 

• Direct more Highway Tmst Fund dollars to NPS, as half of the estimated $11.9 billion backlog is 

attributed to the I 0,000 miles of roads and hundreds of bridges and tunnels that NPS must 

maintain and repair. 

Provide additional opporttmities for public-private opportunities to address infrastructure repair. 
142 

From the Grand Canyon and the Great Smoky Mountains, to the Statue of Liberty to battlefields like 

Gettysburg, the National Park System serves as a living testament to our citizens' valor, our hardships, 

our victories, and our traditions as Americans. We need to ensure that our children and grandchildren are 

able to sec and appreciate our rich history in these places, and to learn more about the people and lands 

that have shaped us as a nation. 

We urge you to work with us to protect our national parks well into the future and, in particular, to 

support guaranteed ftmding for infrastructure repair needs. 

Sincerely, 

National Supporters 

American Alpine Club 

American Alpine Institute 

American Cultural Resources Association 

American Institute of Architects 

Archaeological Institute of America 

American Hiking Society 

Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation 

Coalition to Protect America's National Parks 

Family Motor Coach Association 

GrcenLatinos 

Hispanics Enjoying Can1ping Hiking & the Outdoors (HECHO) 

International Dark -Sky Association 

International Inbound Travel Association 

Intemational Mountain Bicycling Association 

hlstitute for Bird Populations 

Kappa Alpha Phi Fratemity, hlc. 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Tmst for Historic Preservation 

Outdoor Industry Association 

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 

Society for American Archaeology 

Society for Historical Archaeology 

Student Conservation Association 

The Corps Network 

The Pew Charitable Tmsts 

Tourism Cares 

U.S. Conference of Mayors 

Vet Voice Foundation 

2 
143 

State Supporters 

Alabama 

Statewide Supporters 

Alabama NAACP 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Chamber of Commerce Association of Alabama Fort Payne Chamber of Commerce 

(statewide) Greater Jackson County Chamber of Commerce 

Alexander City Chan1ber of Commerce Main Street Alexander City 

Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce Shoals Chamber of Commerce 

Colbert County Tourism and Convention Bureau Selma and Dallas Co. Chamber of Commerce 

Dadeville Area Chamber of Commerce 

Florence-Lauderdale Convention and Visitors 

Bureau 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Friends of the Preserve at Little River Canyon 

and Tourism Information 

Alaska 

Gateway Communi(v resolutions 

City of Homer 

City of Seward 

Kenai Borough 

Municipality of Skagway Borough 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Cooper Landing Chamber of Commerce Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 

Cordova Chamber of Commerce Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Discover Kodiak Seward Chamber of Commerce 

Explore Fairbanks 

Greater Whittier Chamber of Commerce 

Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council 

Talkeetna Chamber of Commerce 

Valdez Convention and Visitors Bureau 

3 

Skagway Chamber of Commerce 

Skagway Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Soldotna Chamber of Commerce 
144 

Arizona 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Cottonwood 

City of Tucson 

Pima County 

Elected Officials 

Andrea Dalessandro, State Senator, District 2 

(Green Valley) 

Olivia Cajero Bedford, State Senator, District 3 

(Tucson) 

Lisa Otondo, State Senator, District 4 (Tucson) 

Jamescita Pcshlakai, State Senator, District 7 

(Cameron) 

Steve Farley, State Senator, District 9 (Tncson) 

David Bradley, State Senator, District I 0 

(Yuma) 

Matt Kopec, former State Representative, 

District 9 (Tucson) 

Art Babbott, County Commissioner, Coconino 

County 

Diane Jones, Mayor, Cottonwood 

Coral Evans, Mayor, Flagstaff 

Jamie Whelan, Vice Mayor, Flagstaff 

Statewide Supporters 

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest 

Arizona Conservation Corps 

Arizona Native Plant Society 

Celia Barotz, City Council, Flagstaff 

Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor, Tucson 

Karin Uhlich, City Council, Tucson 

Paul Cunningham, City Council, Tucson 

Regina Romero, City Council, Tucson 

Steve Kozachik, City Council, Tucson 

Shirley Scott, City Council, Tucson 

Adclita Grijalva, School Board, Tucson 

Beki Quintero, School Board, Tucson 

Eva Carrillo Dong, School Board, Tucson 

Ramon Valadez, Board of Supervisors, Pima 

County 

Raymond Carroll, Board of Supervisors, Pima 

County 

Richard Elias, Board of Supervisors, Pima 

County 

Arizona Preservation Foundation 

Latinos for National Parks 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Ajo District Chamber of Commerce Marana Chamber of Commerce 

Bisbee Visitor Center/Discover Bisbee Nogales-Santa Cmz County Chamber of 

Bowie Chamber of Commerce Commerce and Visitor Center 

Dolan Springs Chan1ber of Commerce 

Florence Visitor Center 

Gila Bend Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Douglas Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Vail Area Chan1ber of Commerce 

Green Valley Sahuarita Chamber of Commerce 

and Visitor Center 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Arizona Vintage Sign Coalition 

BK's Came Asada & Hot Dogs 

Blair Charity Group 

Blenman Elm Housing, LLC 

Boum Companies 

4 

Sedona Chamber of Commerce and Tourism 

Bureau 

Sunland Visitor Center 

Visit Mesa 

Visit Tucson 

Willcox Chamber of Commerce 

Canyon Inn Flagstaff 

Casa Maria Catholic Worker Community 

Cascabel Conservation Association 

Cesar Chavez Holiday Coalition 

Chan1bers Chambers, LLC 
145 

CICHotels 

City Center for Collaborative Learning 

Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection 

Conecta Los Puntos 

Crow Communications Group, Inc. 

Dan Cavanagh, Inc 

DeTours of AZ 

Economic & Human Dimensions Research 

Assoc. 

Empire Fagan Coalition 

Four Peaks Brewing Company 

Flame Tree Initiative 

Friends of Cabeza Prieta 

Friends of Flagstaffs Future 

Friends ofironwood Forest 

Friends of Madera Canyon 

Friends of Petrified Forest National Park 

Friends of Saguaro National Park 

Friends ofTortolita 

Gadsden Company 

Gates Pass Area Neighborhood Association 

General Air Control 

Hotel Congress 

JL Investments 

Kal1toola. Inc. 

Linda Cato Arts 

Modern Works Music Publishing 

Natural Allies 

Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship & 

Technology 

Northwest Neighborhood Alliance 

O.A.R.S. Family of Companies 

Peach Properties 

Poster Frost Mirto Architecture 

Raven Eye Design LLC 

REA Media Group 

RF Strategies 

RLB Rider Levett Bucknall 

Rocco's Little Chicago 

Safford Peak Watershed Education Team 

Sandor Vineyards 

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas 

Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter 

Sierra Club- Rincon Group 

Sky Island Alliance 

Sky Island Watch 

Society for Ecological Restoration 

Sonoran Institute 

Southwestern Biological Institute 

Stewart Travel 

Super 8 Hotel - Conference Center 

NAU/Downtown 

The Shanty 

Tortolita Homeowners Association 

Tucson Audubon Society 

Tucson Electric Vehicle Association 

Tucson Herpetological Society 

Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation 

Tucson Mountains Association 

Watershed Management Group 

Westem Sky Communications 

Arkansas 

Statewide Supporters 

Arkansas Hospitality Association 

Arkansas State Parks, Recreation, and Travel 

Commission 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce Harrison Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Bentonville-Bella Vista Chamber of Commerce Norfork Lake Chamber and Tourism 

Calico Rock Area Chamber of Commerce 

Dumas Chamber of Commerce 

Experience Fayetteville 

Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Smith Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Friends of Hot Springs National Park 

5 

Northwest Arkansas Council 

Ozark Mountain Region 

Rogers-Lowell Area Chan1bcr of Commerce 

Searcy County Chamber of Commerce 

Visit Bentonville 

Visit Hot Springs 

Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers 
146 

California 

fiateway Community resolutions 

Town of Fairfax 

City ofNovato 

City of Petaluma 

TownofRoss 

Elected Officials 

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Assembly, 4th District 

Richard Kerr, Mayor, Adelanto 

Paul Pitino, Mayor, Arcata 

Mary Sure Maurer, Mayor, Calabasas 

Randall Bonner, City Council, Canyon Lake 

Randall Stone, City Council, Chico 

Joseph Tessari, Mayor, Eastvale 

Brady Jenkins, Mayor, Firebaugh 

Serge Dcdina, Mayor, Imperial Beach 

John McCauley, Mayor, Mill Valley 

Dawn Haggerty, Mayor, Canyon Lake 

Blake Inscore, Mayor ProTem, Crescent City 

Renee Goddard, Mayor, Fairfax 

Jack Castro, City Manager, Huron 

Bmce Blayney, Mayor, Kingsburg 

Catherine Way, Mayor, Larkspur 

Derek Robinson, Mayor Pro Tem, Madera 

Tim Steams, Mayor ProTem, Mt. Shasta 

Evan Phelps, Mayor, Nevada 

Reinette Senum, City Council, Nevada 

Valerie Moberg, City Council, Nevada 

Janet Goodson, Vice Mayor, Oroville 

Carmen Ramirez, Mayor ProTem, Oxnard 

Statewide Supporters 

Robert Moon, Mayor, Palm Springs 

David Glass, Mayor, Petaluma 

Dave King, Vice Mayor, Petaluma 

Jim Cunninghan1, Mayor, Poway 

Mary Fast, City Council, Reedley 

Susan Rohan, Mayor, Roseville 

Kathleen Hoertkorn, Mayor, Ross 

Frank Gonzalesz, Mayor, Sanger 

Kate Colin, Vice Mayor, San Rafael 

Helene Schneider, Mayor, Santa Barbara 

Harwood White, Mayor ProTem, Santa Barbara 

Peter Zalm, Deputy Mayor, Solana Beach 

Julie Fulkerson, Former Mayor, Trinidad 

Gary Soiseth, Mayor, Turlock 

Erik Nasarenko, Mayor, Ventura 

Warren Gubler, Vice Mayor, Visalia 

Robert Leone, Mayor, Yucca Valley 

Rodrigo Espinoza, Supervisor, Merced Cotmty 

Richard Anderson, Supervisor, Nevada County 

John Gray, Supervisor, Tuolumne County 

Matthew Serratto, City Council, Merced 

Jose Ornelas, City Council, San Joaquin 

Norman Shaskey, City Council, Yreka 

Asian and Pacific Islanders Americans in Historic Preservation 

Califomia Wilderness Coalition 

Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities 

CREEC Network 

Endangered Habitats League 

Forests Forever 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Anderson Chamber of Commerce Cathedral City Chamber of Commerce 

Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Visit Crescent City/Del Norte County Chamber of 

Bishop Commerce 

Calaveras Visitors Bureau Death Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Camarillo Chan1ber of Commerce and Visit Fresno/Clovis Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Camarillo Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce 
147 

HalfMoon Bay Coastside Chamber of 

Commerce and Visitors Bureau 

Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce 

King City Chamber 

Lake Almanor Chamber & Visitor Center 

Larkspur Chamber of Commerce 

Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce 

Mammoth Lakes Tourism 

Millbrae Chan1ber of Commerce 

Mt. Shasta Chamber of Commerce 

Oakhurst Chamber of Commerce 

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce 

Oxnard Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce 

Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce 

Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau 

San Benito County Chamber of Commerce and 

Visitors Bureau 

San Carlos Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Aimee June Winery 

All Solar Electric 

Applied Solar Energy 

Arts Alliance of Three Rivers 

AS! Peak Adventures 

Audubon Canyon Ranch 

Aztec Mobilchomc Estates 

Bay Area Discovery Musenm 

Bear Yuba Land Trust 

BeeGrcenFarm 

Big Sur Garden Gallery 

Big Sur Tours 

Big Wheel Tours 

Buckeye Tree Lodge 

Calaveras Winegrape Alliance 

Cal-Flor Accessory Systems 

California Native Plant Society- Mount Lassen 

Chapter 

California Native Plant Society- Alta Peak 

Chapter 

Castle Rock Climbing School 

Cedar Lanes 

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation 

Central California Inbound & Refined Journeys 

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center 

Channel Islands Outfitters 

Clearwater Lodge Fall River Mills 

Cliffl1anger Guides 

Committee for Green Foothills 

Community Energy Services Corporation 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 

San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau 

San Mateo Chamber of Commerce 

San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention 

and Visitors Bureau 

Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce 

Santa Barbara Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Santa Monica Tourism and Travel 

Simi Valley Chamber Tourism Alliance 

Soledad-Mission Chamber of Commerce 

Tehachapi Chamber of Commerce 

Tehan1a Country Visitor Center 

Tulelake Chamber of Commerce 

Twenty11ine Palms Chamber of Commerce 

Ventura County Lodging Association 

Ventura Visitor and Convention Bureau 

Visalia Convention and Visitors Bureau 

West Marin Chamber of Commerce 

Community Venture Partners, Inc. 

Conscious Elders Network 

Conservation Corps North Bay 

Courtyard by Marriott, Larkspur 

Coyote Comer 

Desert Adventures Red Jeep Tours & Events 

Diner on Main/California Banquet Corp. 

Eagle House Victorian Inn 

Eagle Rider Motorcycles 

El Morocco Inn & Day Spa 

Five Dot Ranch 

Grass Valley Retreat Home Rental 

Gray Whales Count 

Green Gulch Fann 

Greenway Partners 

Homestead Inn 

Hostelling International USA- Los Angeles Santa 

Monica Hostel 

Island Packers Company 

Johnny's Bar&Grill 

Johns Place Restaurant Twentynine Palms 

Joshua Tree adventures 

Lefs Got Travel 

Maturango Museum 

McKellar Family Farms 

Mother Road Enterprises 

Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center 

Mount Shasta Retreat 

Museum of Contemporary Art Santa Barbara 

Naylor's Organic Family Farm Stay 
148 

North Shore Ace Hardware 

Ojai Raptor Center 

01' Buckaroo Diner. Three Rivers 

Ore-Cal Resource Conservation & Development 

Platypus Tours Limited 

Red and White Fleet 

Reimer's Candies 

Rio Sierra Rivcrhouse 

River's Edge Boutique 

Sagewater Spa 

Sail Channel Islands 

Sanmdra Skin & Sea 

San Fran cisco Bay keeper 

San Francisco Parks Alliance 

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

Sequoia Rivcrlands Tmst 

Sequoia Village Inn, LLC 

Servpro of Palm Springs 

SF Fire Engine Tours & Adventures 

Sierra Cascade Land T mst Council 

Sierra Club - Y ahi Group 

Siskiyou Land Tmsts 

SW Stories with Steve Brown (KVCR PBS TV) 

Spin & Margics Desert Hideaway 

Sushi Ran 

Tehama Oaks Winery 

The Joshua Tree Tortoise Telegraph Newspaper 

The Kaweah Commonwealth 

The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies 

The O.A.R.S. Foundation 

The Sun Runner Magazine 

Theatre on the Ridge 

Tributary Whitewaters Tour 

Trickle Creek Ranch 

TuleLake Committee. Inc. 

Turtle Island Restoration Network 

Uprising Adventure Guides, Inc. 

Urban Hiker SF 

V entana Wildlife Society 

Visalia Fox Theatre 

We Care Spa 

WildCare 

WildEarth Guardians 

Wildemess Youth Project 

Wildling Museum of Art and Nature 

YExplore Yosemite Adventures 

Yosemite Bug Rustic Mountain Resort 

Yosemite Highway Herald 

Yosemite Naturalist 

Zach Green Films 

Colorado 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Cortez 

Town of Estes Park 

Grand County 

Elected (J[ficials 

Suzanne Jones, Mayor. Boulder 

Lisa Morzel, City Council, Boulder 

Jan Burton, City Council, Boulder 

Bob Holcomb, Town Tmstee, Estes Park 

Patrick Martchink, Town Trustee, Estes Park 

Wendy Koenig, Town Trustee, Estes Park 

Bob Overbeck, City Council, Fort Collins 

E. Jane Tollet County Commissioner, Grand 

County 

Kristen Manguso, County Commissioner, Grand 

County 

Merrit Linke, County Commissioner, Grand 

County 

8 

Town of Grand Lake 

City of Montrose 

Rosalie Pinney, County Commissioner, Grand 

County 

Becky Elder, Town Trustee, Manitou Springs 

Rex Swanson, Mayor, Montrose 

Dan Gibbs, County Commissioner, Summit 

County 

Karn Stiegclmcier, County Commissioner, 

Summit County 

Thomas Davidson, County Commissioner, 

Summit County 

John Schafer, City Council, Woodland Park 
149 

Statewide Supporters 

Colorado Mountain Club 

Colorado Youth Corps Association 

Continental Divide Trail Coalition 

HistoriCorp 

Southwest Conservation Corps 

The Colorado Mountain Bike Association 

Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado 

Westem National Parks Association 

Chambers(){ Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs} 

Alamosa County Chamber of Commerce Grand County Tourism Board 

Alamosa Convention & Visitors Bureau Grand Junction Visitor and Convention Bureau 

Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors 

Bureau 

Dolores Chan1bcr and Visitor Center 

Estes Park Economic Development Corporation 

Estes Area Lodging Association 

Grand County Economic Development 

Gateway Communi~v businesses and organizations 

A La Carte 

Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 

Arkansas River Tours 

Bluff Lake Nature Center 

Bureau 

Carefree of Colorado 

Center of Southwest Studies, Fort Lewis College 

Coalition for the Upper South Platte 

Conservation Legacy 

Dawn Wilson Photography 

Eden Valley Institute 

Ela Fan1ily Fauns 

Environmental Leaming for Kids (ELK) 

Estes Park A TV 

Estes Park Mountain Shop 

Fall River Village 

Fishpond, Inc 

Friends of the Peak 

Gold Strike Inn 

Great Divide Pictures 

Heaven's Popcom 

Images of Rocky Mountain National Park 

Inkwell & Brew 

Jovial Concepts 

Jump Start 

Junction West RV Park 

Kind Coffee 

Lewis &Co 

Lucky Bear B&B 

Macdonald Bookshop 

9 

Gunnison-Crested Butte Tourism Association 

Moffat Co. Tourism Association 

Montrose Chamber of Commerce 

Rangely Area Chamber of Commerce 

Visit La Junta 

Visit Longmont 

Visit Estes 

Mountain Man Fruit and Nut Co. 

Rinaldo's Paris Bakery 

Rocky Mountain Conservancy 

Rocky Mountain Holiday Tours 

Rocky Mountain Salsa 

Sagebrush BBQ and Grill 

Sea to Summit 

Smart Cookie Treats 

Sticks-N -Stones 

Styria Bakery 

Swiftcurrent Lodge, Inc. 

The Bearded Monkey 

The Caramel Crisp Shop 

The Gearage 

The Greenway Foundation 

The Hiking Hut 

The Hoof and Feather Gallery 

The Hub 

The Trading Post 

Turtle Mountain Tea 

Tussey Kids Clothing 

Voormi 

Walking Mountains Science Center 

Westem Resource Advocates 

Wild Spirits Gallery 

WildEarth Guardians 

Wildside 4X4 Tours 

Wynbrier Home 

YMCA of the Rockies 

Zippity Zoo Barnyards 
150 

Connecticut 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Wilton Chamber of Commerce 

Delaware 

Statewide Supporters 

Delaware Wild Lands 

Delaware Nature Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Greater Wilmington Convention and Visitors Bureau 

District of Columbia 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC 

Georgetown Heritage 

Florida 

Statewide Supporters 

Florida Hospitality Industry Association 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Bradenton Area Convention and Visitors Bureau Marco Island Chamber of Commerce 

Brevard Tourism Development Council 

Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Fort Walton Beach Chan1bcr of Commerce 

Greater Pensacola Chamber of Commerce 

Homestead Main Street 

New Smyrna Beach Area Visitors Bureau 

Okaloosa County Tourist Development Council 

Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce 

Destin Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce 

JAX Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

JFMLLC 

Sweat, LLC 

SouthArc, Inc. 

10 

Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce 

St. Augustine, Point Vedra, and The Beaches 

Visitors and Convention Bureau 

Titusville Chamber of Commerce 

Tropical Everglades Visitors Association 

Visit Jacksonville 

Visit Pensacola 
151 

Georgia 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Atlanta 

Statewide Supporters 

Georgia Restaurant Association 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Bnmswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce Macon County Chamber of Commerce 

Cobb Travel and Tourism Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce 

Dooly County Chamber of Commerce 

Explore Gwinnett 

Fort Oglethorpe Tourism Association 

Golden Isles Convention and Visitors Burean 

Macon Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

6th Cavalry Museum 

St. Mary's Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Tybee Island Chamber of Commerce 

Visit Savannah 

Visit Tybee Island 

Hawaii 

Statewide Supporters 

Hawaii Lodging and Tourism Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Chamber of Commerce Havvaii (statewide) 

Maui Hotel and Lodging Association 

Molokai Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Communi(v businesses and organizations 

Hotel Molokai 

Makani Kai Air 

Elected Officials 

Marc Bolduc, County Commissioner, Golding County 

Statewide Supporters 

Continental Divide Trail Coalition 

Jdabo Lodging & Restaurant Association 

Idaho Retailers Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVB.~) 

Hagcm1an Valley Chamber of Commerce Rigby Chamber of Commerce 

Hailey Chamber of Commerce Teton Regional Economic Coalition 

Jerome Chan1ber of Commerce Tviin Falls Chamber of Commerce 

Lincoln County Chan1ber of Commerce Visit Pocatello 

Orofino Chamber of Commerce 

Pocatello-Chubbuck Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

BT's Fly Fishing & Photography 

Yellowstone Teton Territory 

11 
152 

Illinois 

Statewide Supporters 

Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Com•ention and Visitor< Bureaus (CVBs) 

South Chicago Chamber of Commerce 

Springfield Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Indiana 

Statewide Supporters 

Indiana Tourism Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Indiana Dunes Tourism 

Not1hern Indiana Tourism Development Commission 

Perry County Chamber of Commerce 

Perry County Development Corporation 

Portage Economic Development Corporation 

Spencer County Chamber of Commerce 

Chambers of Commerce ami Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Allamakee County Economic Development & Tourism 

Waukon Chamber of Commerce 

Kansas 

Statewide Supporters 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers ofCtnnmen·e and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Chase County Chamber of Commerce 

Emporia Area Chamber and Visitors Bureau 

fort Scott Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Center 

Topeka Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Kentucky 

Gateway Community resolution.\' 

Barren County 

City of Brownsville 

City of Cave City 

Edmonson County 

12 

City of Horse Cave 

City of Munfordville 

City of Park City 

Warren County 
153 

Elected Officials 

Sonny Prunty, City Council, Brownsville 

Dwayne Hatcher, Mayor, Cave City 

Joseph Durbin, County Commissioner, 

Edmonson County 

Statewide Supporters 

Kentucky Association of Convention and 

Visitors Bureaus 

Kentucky Hotel and Lodging Association 

Mark Young, County Commissioner, Warren 

County 

Tom Lawrence, County Commissioner, Warren 

County 

Kentucky Travel Industry Association 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (statewide) Elizabethtown Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Bell Cowl!}' Tourism Glasgow -Barren County Chamber of 

Bowling Green Area Convention and Visitors Commerce 

Bureau Hardin County Chamber of Commerce 

Cave City Chamber of Commerce Harrodsburg/Mercer County Tourist 

Cave City Tourism and Convention Commission Commission 

Cave land Marketing Association, Inc, Hart County Chamber of Commerce 

Edmonson County Chamber of Commerce 

(iateway Communi~v businesses and organizations 

Baymont Inn and Suites-Bowling Green 

Candlewood Suites-Bowling Green 

Fairfield Inn and Suites-Bowling Green 

Gerald Printing 

Holiday Inn Express-Bowling Green 

Jellystone Park of Mammoth Cave 

Lost River Cave 

Louisiana 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Leesville 

City of Monroe 

City of Natchitoches 

Elected Officials 

Regina Barrow, State Senator, District 15 (Baton 

Rouge) 

Barbara Norton, State Representative, District 3 

(Shreveport) 

Kenny Cox, State Representative, District 23 

(Natchitoches) 

Ed Price, State Representative, District 58 

(Gonzales) 

Paula Davis, State Representative, District 69 

(Baton Rouge) 

Walt Leger III, State Representative, District 91 

(New Orleans) 

Mitch Landrieu, Mayor, New Orleans 

Stacy Head, City Council President, Ne~v 

Orleans 

13 

City of New Orleans 

St Bernard Parish 

James Gray, Cit}' Council, New Orleans 

Jared Brossett, City Council, New Orleans 

Jason Williams, City Council, New Orleans 

LaToya Cantrell, City Council, New Orleans 

Nadine Ran1sey, City Council, New Orleans 

Susan Guidry, City Council, New Orleans 

Woody KoppeL School Board, New Orleans 

Dawn Collins, School Board, New Orleans 

Nolan MarshalL School Board. New Orleans 

Barbara Frieberg, School Board, Baton Rouge 

Connie Bernard, School Board. Baton Rouge 

David Tatum, School Board, Baton Rouge 

V ereta Lee. School Board, Baton Rouge 

Lee Posey, Mayor, Natchitoches 

Don Mims, City Council, Natchitoches 
154 

Sylvia Marrow, City Council, Natchitoches 

Eddie Harrington, City Council, Natchitoches 

Dale Nielsen, City Council, Natchitoches 

Lawrence Batiste, City Council, Natchitoches 

Rick Allen, Mayor, Leesville 

Chris Robertson, City Council, Leesville 

Statewide Supporters 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Louisiana Council of Teachers of English 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

Louisiana Landmarks Society 

Louisiana Living History Foundation 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Willie Mae Kennedy, City Council, Leesville 

Danny Dowd, City Council, Leesville 

Tony Shapkoff, City Council, Leesville 

Alice Guess, City Council, Leesville 

William Thomas, City Council, Leesville 

Louisiana Public Adjusters 

Louisiana Travel Promotion Association 

Louisiana Weekly 

Louisiana Women's Network 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Jefferson Chamber of Commerce 

Lake Charles/Southwest Louisiana Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Madison Parish Tourism 

Natchitoches Convention and Visitors Bureau 

New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau 

St. Bemard Chamber of Commerce 

Visit Jefferson Parish 

(iateway Community businesses and organizations 

6th District New Orleans Police Advisory 

Council 

AARP-New Orleans Chapter 

Lan1bert Law Office 

AJ Sisco Photography 

American Association of Blacks in EnergySouthwest Chapter 

Archcessory, Inc. 

Area Agency on Aging New Orleans 

Axxess-It 

Barbara Cambias Clark Personal Trainers 

Baton Ronge Nanny 

BBL&G Financial Consulting 

Beads by the Dozen 

Benroe Housing Initiatives 

Blue Camp Arts LLC 

Broadspire 

Burton Steel Photography 

CafeAmelie 

Cafe Reconcile 

Carriere and Dunn CP As 

Carrollton Riverbend Neighborhood Association 

Center for Restorative Breast Surgery 

Champions of Greater New Orleans 

Chic Nouvelle 

14 

Ciolino Law Finn 

City of New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board 

Claver Foundation 

Cogent Concepts 

Commander's Palace 

Community Volunteers Association 

Couchsurfing.com 

Creole Queen History Cmise 

Crimcstoppers Inc. 

Cumulus Media Baton Rouge Office 

D Sixty 7 Consulting 

Dan Wally Baker Dance 

Debbie de Ia Houssaye French Translator 

District Attomey's Office of New Orleans 

Dr. Stanton Lee, lntemal Medicine 

D'{NELinc 

Einstein Charter School 

Elder Action Coalition of New Orleans 

Elite Constmction 

Elizabeth Livingston, Artist 

Encore Lcaming 

Evan Bamcs Chauffeurs 

Evan Bamcs Chauffeurs 

eVentures Technologies 

EWI Healthcare 
155 

Faubourg Marigny Improvement Association 

Faubourg St. John Neighborhood Association 

Frances Chapman Freelance 

Friends ofMerci Academy 

Friends of Our Lady of Good Counsel 

Genevieve Trimble, Author 

Mark Lewis, Author 

Green Party of Louisiana 

Gretna Historic Home Tours 

Gretna Visitors Center 

Gulf South Strategies 

H2NOLA 

Heller Draper Law Firm 

Historic New Orleans Collection 

Hog Dat Nation 

Holistic Resolution Inc 

Hometown Productions 

Hop and Jaunt Advertising 

Hoskins General Contractor and Landscaping 

HRI Properties 

Hubic Vigreux Photography 

Irish Channel Neighborhood Association 

Jauntiness Productions 

Jefferson Aging and Disability Resource Center 

Jefferson Council on Aging 

Jeffcrsonghostwalk.com 

Jericho Road Episcopal Housing 

Kabuki Hats 

L9 Center for the Arts 

LAManimals 

Ladies Auxiliary, Knights of Peter Claver 

Latter and Blum Realtors 

Lemann Playground No. 2 

Living History Foundation 

Lofton Staffing 

Lots of Green LLC 

Loyola University Student Union 

LSU Ambassadors 

Maraud Foundation 

Marshall Studios 

Mary Lane Carleton, Preservation Consultant 

Melissa Lee Communications 

Messy Cookers Jazz Band 

Michael Duplantier, ESQ 

Mighty Muffins 

Mr. Everything Cafe 

National Association of Black Accountants, 

Louisiana 

Neighborhood Partnerships Network 

15 

New Orleans Ballet Association 

New Orleans Coalition 

New Orleans Council on Aging 

New Orleans Creole Belle Baby Dolls 

New Orleans Family Justice Center 

New Orleans Fringe Festival 

New Orleans Healing Center 

New Orleans Rose Association 

New Orleans Senior Fest 

NOLA Beer Blog 

Nolavore 

Ocean Star Media LLC 

Operation Comeback 

Orleans Assessor's Office 

Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office 

Our Lady of Lourdes Church Alumni 

Pendarvis Media 

Preservation in Print 

Preservation Resource Center 

Presse Dufour 

Renew Charter School 

Rhodes Funeral Home 

Scott Shea ESQ 

Serve safe 

Simmons and White Consulting 

Southern Louisiana Community College 

Southern Oaks Plantation 

Southern University AG Center 

St. John Farmers Market Advisory Board 

St. Mary's Academy 

St. Peter Claver Catholic Church 

Stephen Clayton Art Gallery 

T & L Advertising 

The Company Burger 

The Marketing Center 

The W alkcr Group 

Tina J. Studio 

Tmc Tales from Mardi Gras NOLA 

Uptovm Auto Specialists 

V almont Properties 

Vieux Carre Property Owners and Renters 

Association 

Walter L Cohen High School Alumni Group 

WCWinc. 

WIN Partners 

Wise Buys 

Women's Center for Healing 

Y'all Come to the Table 

Yvonne Perret, Author 
156 

Statewide Supporters 

Maine Tourism Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Machias Bay Area Chamber of Commerce 

Maryland 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Baltimore City Chamber of Commerce 

Berlin Main Street Association 

Dorchester Chamber of Commerce 

Hagerstown-Washington County Chamber of Commerce 

Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area 

Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce 

Ocean City Chamber of Commerce 

Prince George's County Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Visit Baltimore 

Visit Montgomery 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Applied Archaeology and History Associates, Inc. 

World Black History on Periscope 

Massachusetts 

Resolutions 

Town of Eastham 

City of Lowell 

Elected Officials 

Joan Lovely, State Senator, 2"" District (Essex) 

Dan Wolf, former State Senator, Cape and 

Islands District 

Adrian Madaro, State Representative, I'' District 

(Suffolk) 

Timothy Whelan, State Representative, !'' 

District (Barnstable) 

Matthew Muratore, State Representative, 1" 

District (Plymouth) 

Sarah Peake, State Representative, 4'" District 

(Barnstable) 

Paul Tucker, State Representative, 7'" District 

(Essex) 

Robert Koczera, State Representative, II'" 

District (Bristol) 

16 

Daniel Hunt, State Representative, 13'" District 

(Suffolk) 

Cory Atkins, State Representative, 14'" District 

(Middlesex) 

Timothy Madden, State Representative, 

Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket District 

Martin Walsh, Mayor, Boston 

Andrea Campbell, City Council, Boston 

Annissa Essaibi-George, City Council, Boston 

Bill Linehan, City Council, Boston 

E. Denise Simmons, Mayor, Cambridge 

Edward Kennedy, Mayor, Lowell 

Cory Belanger, City Council, Lowell 

Thomas Koch, Mayor, Quincy 

Brian Palmucci, City Council, Quincy 

lan Cain, City Council, Quincy 
157 

William Harris, City Council, Quincy 

Kimberly Driscoll, Mayor, Salem 

Josb Turiel, City Council President, Salem 

David Eppley, City Council, Salem 

Stephen Dibble, City Council, Salem 

Stephen Lovely, City Council, Salem 

Jonathan Mitchell, Mayor, New Bedford 

Statewide Supporters 

Environmental League of Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Historical Society 

Massachusetts Restaurant Association 

Domenic Samo, Mayor, Springfield 

Adan1 Gomez, City Council, Springfield 

Kateri Walsh, City Council, Springfield 

Marcus Williams, City Council, Springfield 

Michael Fenton, City Council, Springfield 

Timothy Rooke, City Council, Springfield 

Preservation Massachusetts 

Retailers Association of Massachusetts 

Chambers()/' commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau Marshfield Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Merrimack Valley Convention and New Bedford Area Chamber of Commerce 

Visitors Bureau North Shore Chan1bcr of Commerce 

Boston Green Tourism Orleans Chamber of Commerce 

Brewster Chamber of Commerce 

Cambridge Chamber of Commerce 

Cape Cod Canal Region Chamber of Commerce 

Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 

Concord Chan1ber of Commerce 

Dennis Chamber of Commerce 

Destination Plymouth 

Destination Salem 

Eastham Chamber of Commerce 

Hanover/Norwell Business Council 

Lexington Retailers Association 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

li8Group, LLC 

Abigail Adams Historical Society 

Ad+Genuity Marketing Solutions, Inc. 

AdamsComm, Inc. 

Archaeological Institute of America- Worcester 

Chapter 

Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc. 

Atlantic Renewable Energy Services, Inc. 

Bl2 Technologies 

Back to Nature Rentals 

Backworks 

Bakken CPA, PC 

Baldwin Realty Group 

Bewitched After Dark Tours 

Bluebird Cafe 

Bond Printing & Marketing 

Boston Duck Tours 

Boston Harbor Now 

Boston Preservation Alliance 

Bostonian Society 

17 

Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce 

Plymouth County Development Council 

Plymouth Plantation 

Provincetown Chamber of Commerce 

Rockland Chamber of Commerce 

Salem Chamber of Commerce 

Sandwich Chamber of Commerce 

Wellfleet Chamber of Commerce 

Weymouth Chamber of Commerce 

Yannouth Chamber of Commerce 

Bright Language Testing 

BVA Energy LLC 

Cafe' Chew 

Cape Cod Beer 

Cape Cod Coffee 

Cape Codder Resort & Spa 

Cape Navigate 

Captain Tom Lawrence House Inn 

CARE for the Cape and Islands 

carlsonCREA TIVE, inc. 

Camey Environmental 

Catania Hospitality Group 

Centerline Communications 

Chip Bishop Communications 

City of New Bedford Office of Tourism 

Marketing 

Clapp's Guest House 

Client Marketing Pov<cr 

Codfish Press 

Conway Enterprises Ltd. h1e. 
158 

Cornerstone Cafe' 

Craft Beer Cellar 

Dan'! Webster Inn & Spa 

Eastham Ace Hardware 

Edible Cape Cod 

Friends of the Public Garden 

Girls Incorporated of Greater Lowell 

Goldenrod Fow1dation 

Goldsmith, Inc. 

Greater Boston Concierge Association 

H&R Block -Hyannis 

Hearth n' Kettle Restaurants 

Historic Boston Incorporated 

Kinlin Grover Real Estate 

Kiskadee Coffee 

Lowell Heritage Partnership 

Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust, Inc. 

Lowell Plan, Inc. 

Main Street Hospitality Group at The Red Lion 

Inn 

Marspec Inc. (dba Marine Specialties) 

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 

Mass Ignite 

Merrimack Valley Housing Partnership 

Moore Media, Inc. 

Murphy Business Brokers, Cape Cod 

Nantucket Sound 

New England Aquarium 

O'Sullivan and Associates 

Pickle Jar Kitchen 

Plymouth 400, Inc 

Seafood San1's 

Sports Travel aud Tours 

Springfield Regional Chamber 

The Association to Preserve Cape Cod, Inc. 

(APCC) 

The Captain's Manor Inn 

The Clam Man 

The Freedom Trail Foundation 

The Hot Chocolate Sparrow 

The Scoop 

The Saunders Hotel Group 

Tiny & Sons Auto Glass 

Triffletti & Costa, P.C. 

Well fleet Motel & Lodge 

WeNeedAVacation.Com 

Wolfe Adventures & Tours. LLC 

Michigan 

Statewide Supporters 

Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association 

Michigan Manufactured Housing, Recreation Vehicle, and Campground Association 

Otambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Alger County Chamber of Commerce Keweenaw Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Empire Chamber of Commerce Leland Chamber of Commerce 

Frankfort-Elberta Chamber of Commerce Munising Downtown Development Authority 

Glen Lake Chamber of Commerce Suttons Bay Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Munising Bay Partnership for 

Commerce Development 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Arbor Woods Vacation Homes 

Art's Tavern 

Cherry Republic 

Empire Outdoors 

18 

Traverse City Tourism 

Indigo Bluffs RV Park and Resort 

Leelanau Coffee Roasting Company 

Sleeping Bear Surf and Kayak 
159 

Minnesota 

Elected Officials 

Nancy Tyra-Lukcns, Mayor, Eden Prairie 

Tina Folch, City Council, Hastings 

Doug Mcnikheim, City Council, Stillwater 

Amy Brendmoen, City Council, St. Paul 

Dai TI1ao, City Council, St. Paul 

Rebecca Noecker, City Council, St. Paul 

Russ Stark, City Council, St. Paul 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Cook County Chamber of Commerce Inver Grove Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Destination Voyageurs National Park Kabetogama Lake Association 

Falls Chamber of Commerce Pipestone Chamber of Commerce 

International Falls. Rainy Lake and Ranier Visit Cook County 

Convention and Visitors Bureau Visit St. Paul 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Arrowhead Lodge and Resort 

Cycle Path Paddle 

Finn Sisu Sporting Goods 

Gear West 

North Star Canoes 

NorthWest Canoe 

Piragis Northwoods Company 

Superior North Outdoor Center 

Wilderness Inquiry 

Mississippi 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Natchez 

City of Ridgeland 

City of Tupelo 

Elected Officials 

Hob Bryan, State Senator, 7'h District (Amory) 

John Horhn, State Senator. 26th District 

(Jackson) 

David Blount, State Senator, 27th District 

(Jackson) 

Bob Dearing, State Senator, 37th District 

(Natchez) 

D. Stephen, State Representative, 16'h District 

(Plantersville) 

Oscar Denton, State Representative. 55th District 

(Vicksburg) 

Robert Johnson III, State Representative, 94th 

District (Natchez) 

Statewide Supporters 

Bed and Breakfast Association of Mississippi 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Mississippi Main Street Association 

Natchez Trace Compact 

Southeast Tourism Society 

19 

City of Vicksburg 

City of Corinth 

Butch Brown, Mayor, Natchez 

Gloria Holland, Mayor, Plantersville 

Sadie Holland, Justice Court Judge. Plantersville 

Gene McGee, Mayor, Ridgeland 

D.I. Smith, Alderman, Ridgeland 

Jason Shelton, Mayor, Tupelo 

Jim Johnson, Sherriff, Tupelo 

Lynn B1yan, City Council, Tupelo 

George Flaggs, Mayor, Vicksburg 

Billie Joe Holland, County Supervisor, Lee 

County 
160 

(Jwmbers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Canton Chamber of Commerce Main Street Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Convention & 

Association Visitors Bureau 

Canton Convention and Visitors Bureau Okolona Area Chamber of Commerce 

Calhoun County Economic Development Ridgeland Tourism Commission 

Association The Alliance: Corinth and Alcorn Co. 

Claiborne County-Port Gibson Chamber Tishomingo Co. Tourism Council 

Clinton Chan1bcr of Commerce Tupelo Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Kosciusko-Attala Development Corporation Visit Jackson 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

A2Z Printing 

African-American Military History Museum 

Ajax Diner 

B&B Concrete 

Baria-Jones Law Finn 

Battle Focus 

Black Jack Oil 

Blaylock Fine Art Photography, Inc 

Bomm Family Health Clinic for Children and 

Adults 

Boys & Girls Clubs of North Mississippi 

Capital Financial Group -Tupelo office 

Carby And Carby PC 

Cathead Vodka 

CDA Hospitality 

Century Commercial Real Estate Servivces 

Charboneau Distillery 

Clapton Realty Company 

Cotton Alley Cafe 

Craft Spirits LLC 

Crowd Qwest LLC 

Duvall Decker Architects 

Echo Pictures 

Eichelberger Law Firm 

Elgin Plantation Guest House 

Forum Family Health Clinic 

FR Blankenstein Wholesale 

Fred Richards. CPA 

General Pump Hardware Store 

Grennell Paint Quarter Horses 

Guice Agency 

Harden Enterprises 

Hardy Reed Financial Consultants 

Historic Natchez Foundation 

Hudson Management Corp. dba McDonalds 

Imaginary Company 

J. Britt Lighting and Interiors 

James Bell, Attorney 

Jan1es L. Weir Law Firm 

20 

Jones Lumber Company 

Jordan Flooring 

Jordan, Kaiser and Sessions Engineering 

KC Grist Consulting 

Ketco Enterprises 

Kings Tavern Natchez 

Kosscn Equipment 

LB Properties LLC 

Luckett Communications 

Magnolia Cultural LLC 

Middleton Law Firm 

Mindful Therapy 

Mississippi e-Centcr 

Mitchell McNutt Lawfirm 

Molpus Woodlm1ds Group 

Natchez Arts Gallery 

Natchez Childrcns Services 

Natchez. Inc. 

Open Air Tours 

P3 Strategies LLC 

Peters Real Estate 

Phelps Dunbar Tupelo 

Pig Out Inn 

Plan House Printing 

Prime Time Agency 

Reed's Clothing 

Risk Management Partners 

Ritter Law Finn 

Rolling Roasters Bistro 

Safe and Sound Home Care 

Salmon Architect, LLC 

Scent from Natchez 

Shm1ty Bellum 

Silas Simmons, CPA 

Slover m1d Associates 

Sportsmm1 Lawn and Landscape 

Stalllmm1 Mm1agemcnt Services 

StateStreet Group, LLC 

Stedmm1 Real Estate 
161 

Stephens and Hobdy Insurance 

Stratton Bull Law Fim1 

The Archaeological Conservancy-Southeast 

The Greenlea Company 

The Learning Skills Center 

The Link Centre 

Tour by Design 

Statewide Supporters 

Missouri Lodging Association 

Tmly, Smith and Latham PLLC 

Twin Oaks Natchez, LLC 

Walter Brown Attorney 

Water Fresh. Inc. 

Wayfil Jewelry 

Wood Law Firm 

Missouri 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Carthage Chan1ber of Commerce Joplin Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Carthage Convention and Visitors Bureau Salem Area Chamber of Commerce 

Eminence Chamber of Commerce Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Explore St. Louis Van Buren Chamber of Commerce 

Statewide Supporters 

Continental Divide Trail Coalition 

Montana Conservation Corps 

Western National Parks Association 

Montana 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Beaverhead Chamber of Commerce 

Big Sky Chamber of Commerce 

Big Sky Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Dillon Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Gardiner Chamber of Commerce 

Laurel Chamber of Commerce 

Southwest Montana Tourism 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Clark Fork Trout 

Rocky Mountain International 

Nebraska 

Statewide Supporters 

Nebraska Hotel & Lodging Association 

Nebraska Restaurant Association 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Beatrice Chamber of Commerce Main Street Beatrice 

Crawford Chamber of Commerce Scottsbluff/Gering United Chamber of 

Gage County Tourism Commerce 

21 
162 

Nevada 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Boulder City 

City of Ely 

Elected Officials 

James Bilbray, former U.S. Congressman 

Richard Segcrblom, State Senator, 3"1 District 

(Las Vegas) 

Elliot Anderson, State Assemblyman, l5'h 

District (Las Vegas) 

Carol)11 Goodman, Mayor, Las Vegas 

Pamela Goynes-Brown, Mayor Pro Tem, Las 

Vegas 

Mike Saunders, Deputy Attorney, Las Vegas 

Steve Sisolak, Chair-County Commission, Clark 

County 

Larry Brown, County Commission, Clark 

County 

Chris Giunchigliani, County Commission, Clark 

County 

Marilyn Kirkpatrick, County Commission, Clark 

County 

Andy Hafen, Mayor, Henderson 

Statewide Supporters 

Nevada Conservation League & Education Fund 

Western National Parks Association 

City of Henderson 

City of Reno 

John Lee, Mayor, North Las Vegas 

Anita Wood, City Council, North Las Vegas 

Isaac Barron, City Council, North Las Vegas 

Richard Cherchio, City Council, North Las 

Vegas 

Melody Van Camp, Mayor, Ely Kurt Carson, 

City Council, Ely 

Jolene Gardner. City Council, Ely 

Pat Robison, City Council, Ely 

San Hanson, City Council, Ely 

Bmcc Setterstrom, City Council, Ely 

Roy Edgington, Jr., Mayor, Fernley 

Stana Hurlburt, Mayor, Caliente 

Allan Litman, Mayor, Mesquite 

David Bobzien, City Council, Reno 

Chris Garvey, Tmstee, Clark County School 

Board 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Beatty Chamber of Commerce Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority 

Boulder City Chan1ber of Commerce Ward 5 Chamber of Commerce 

Henderson Chamber of Commerce 

Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

1 Sun Solar Companies 

Accessible Trails Foundation 

Archaeological Institute of America Society 

Southern Nevada (Las Vegas) 

Battle Born Progress 

Better Education Today 

Billy'sBBQ 

Carolina Chacon Consulting 

Carter Powcrsports 

Central Rotary Club - Las Vegas 

Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada 

Chung Insurance Agency Incorporated 

22 

White Pine Chamber of Commerce 

Colucci Animal Trappers and Savers Inc. 

Community Services of Nevada 

Desert Research Institute 

Desert Wind Coffee Roasters 

Dora! Academy 

Education Space 

Family to Family Connection 

Filthy Animal Apparel 

Friends of Gold Butte 

Friends of Nevada Wilderness 

Friends of Sloan Canyon 

Fundraising Fore Futures 
163 

Girl Scout Troop #44- Las Vegas 

Girl Scouts of Southern Nevada 

GLV AR Green Committee 

Go Solar Las Vegas 

Goldwater Consulting 

Goldwell Open Air Museum 

Great Basin Institute 

Heddy's Fabric 

Integrity Partners Inc. 

Kenny Guinn Center for Policy Priorities 

Kiwanis Club of Las Vegas 

Kiwanis Club of the Las Vegas Strip 

Las Vegas Foundation 

Las Vegas Health & Fitness Chamber of 

Commerce 

Laborers International Union Local 872 

Las Vegas Kids Directory 

Las Vegas Young Professionals 

League ofWomen Voters of Las Vegas Valley 

LM Enterprises LLC 

Losander Inc. 

Mardy's Designs 

Montoya Law 

Murrieta & Associates Consulting LLC 

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 

North Las Vegas Kiwanis Club 

North Las Vegas Rotary Club 

On the Ranch 

Powered By Sunshine 

Principal Architect LEBO DESIGN 

Principal, Anne Johnson, AlA 

Principal, DECO Lights 

Professor, CSN 

Reba Labat Agency LLC 

Red Rock Citizens 

Road Up 

Sandbags LLC 

Save Nevada's Water Ban Fracking In Nevada 

SH Architecture 

Sol-Up 

Southern Nevada Building Construction Trade 

Council 

Southwest Energy Efficiency Project -Nevada 

Source Direct Promotions 

Summer Swim School 

1l1e Blue Nevadan 

The Magic School 

1l1c Vegas Dad 

The Zen Speaker 

Trina Johnson Events 

Troph LLC 

Vegas Tows LLC 

Verdek 

Visual Eye Photography 

Weston Tutoring 

WOLF Consulting 

Young Democrats of Nevada 

New Hampshire 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Lebanon Area Chamber of Commerce 

New Jersey 

Elected Officials 

Susan McCartney, City Council, West Orange 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Eastern Monmouth Area Chamber of Commerce Morris County Economic Development 

Greater Newton Chamber of Commerce Corporation 

Hudson Co. Chamber of Commerce Morris County Tourism Bureau 

Morris County Chamber of Commerce Sussex Co. Chamber of Commerce 

West Orange Chan1ber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Friends of Thomas Edison National Historic Park 

23 
164 

New Mexico 

Gateway Communi(!' resolutions 

City of Los Alamos 

City of Santa Fe 

Elected Officials 

Mimi Stewart, State Senator, 17'h District 

(Albuquerque) 

Brian Egolf, Speaker oftbe House, 47'h District 

(Santa Fe) 

Dale Janway, Mayor, Carlsbad 

Ken Miyagashima, Mayor, Las Cmces 

Statewide Supporters 

Americans for Indian Opportunity 

Backcountry Horsemen of New Mexico 

Conservation Voters NM 

Continental Divide Trail Coalition 

Environment New Mexico 

EPICS (Education for Parents oflndian Children 

witb Special Needs) 

Interfaith Power & Light 

Native American Voters Alliance 

New Mexico HospitaJity Association 

Javier Gonzales, Mayor, Santa Fe 

Susan O'Leary, Vice Chair County Council, Los 

Alamos 

Pete Sheehey, County Commissioner, Los 

Alamos 

Pat Davis, City Council, Albuquerque 

New Mexico Restaurant Association 

New Mexico Voices for Children 

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

One New Mexico 

Opportunity New Mexico 

Southwest Conservation Corps 

Strong Families New Mexico 

Western NationaJ Parks Association 

Wildcarth Guardians 

Chambers of C'ommerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

New Mexico Chamber Executives Association 

Alan10gordo Chamber of Commerce 

Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce 

Albuquerque Westside Chamber of Commerce 

Clayton-Union Co. Chamber of Commerce 

Espanola Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Farmington Chamber of Commerce 

Gallup-McKinley County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Grants-Cibola County Chamber of Commerce 

Las Cmccs Green Chamber of Commerce 

Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Albuquerque Wildlife Federation 

Amigos Bravos 

Atlixco Productions LLC 

Bold Visions Conservation 

Buffalo Tours in Los Alamos 

CB Fox Department Store- Los Alamos 

Conservation Legacy 

EDJ Ink - Los Alamos 

EdwardJones Investing--Los Alamos 

24 

Los Alamos Commerce & Development 

Corporation 

Mora Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Otero County Economic Development Council 

Raton Chamber and Economic Development 

Ruidoso Chamber of Commerce 

Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce 

Santa Fe Green Chamber of Commerce 

Silver City Arts and Cultural District 

Silver City Grant Co. Chamber 

Visit Carlsbad 

Visit Raton 

Far Flung Adventures 

Focus Ink- Los Alamos 

Friends of Bandelier 

Gila Conservation CoaJition 

Gila Resources Infom1ation Project 

Green Fire Times 

Infinity Wellness 

JACO Outfitters, LLC 
165 

Jewish Community Center of Greater 

Albuquerque 

Juutos, a project ofCVNM Education Fund 

Los Alamos Historical Society 

Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) Foundation 

Metzger's Hardware - Los Alamos 

North Road Inn- Los Alamos 

Pajarito Environmental Education Center/Los 

Alamos Nature Center 

Partnership for Responsible Business 

Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club 

Rio Grande Valley Great Old Broads for 

Wildemess 

Rio Puerco Alliance 

Southwest Organizing Project 

Taos Land Tmst 

Teres Kids 

Voces LLC 

Y\:VCA Middle Rio Grande 

New York 

Elected Officials 

Anthony Picentc, County Executive, Oneida County 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Columbia County Tourism 

Dutchess County Regional Chamber of Commerce 

Dutchess Tourism 

Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce 

Oneida County Tourism 

Oyster Bay Main Street Association 

North Carolina 

Statewide Supporters 

North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Alleghany County Chamber of Commerce Greensboro Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Andrews Chan1ber of Commerce Henderson County Chamber of Commerce 

Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce 

Asheville Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Avery Couuty Chan1ber of Commerce 

Blowing Rock Chamber of Commerce 

Blowing Rock Tourism Development Authority 

Boone Area Chamber of Commerce 

Brevard/Transylvania Chamber of Commerce 

Crystal Coast Tourism Authority 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Antler Ridge Vacation Rentals 

Henderson County Tourism Development 

Authority 

Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 

Outer Banks Visitors Bureau 

Watauga/Boone Tourist Development Authority 

Wilmington and Beaches Convention and 

Visitors Burean 

Wilmington Chan1ber of Commerce 

Di Santi Watson Capua Wilson & Garrett, PLLC- Blowing Rock 

Jerome D. Miller, CFP- Blowing Rock 

Mast General Store, Inc. --Boone 

ZAP Fitness - Blowing Rock 

25 
166 

North Dakota 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Beulah Chamber of Commerce and Convention McKenzie County Tourism Bureau 

and Visitors Bureau Medora Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Hazen Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Rocky Mountain Intemational 

Statewide Supporters 

Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association Ohio Travel Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Akron Summit Convention and Visitors Bureau Lake Erie Shores and Islands Visitors Bureau 

Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce 

Cuyahoga Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Da)ton Area Chamber of Commerce 

Da)ton Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Destination Cleveland 

Lake County Ohio Visitors Bureau 

Mentor Area Chamber of Commerce 

Nordonia Hills Chamber of Commerce 

Put -in -Bay Chamber of Commerce & Visitors 

Bureau 

Stark County Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Xenia Area Chan1ber of Commerce 

Oklahoma 

Statewide Supporters 

W estem National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Cheyenne Roger Mills Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Green Country Inn 

Oregon 

Statewide Supporters 

Association of Northwest Steelheaders 

NW Guides & Anglers Association 

Northwest Youth Corps 

Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Astoria-Warrenton Chamber of Commerce Illinois Valley Community Development 

Grant County Chamber of Commerce Organization 

Grants Pass & Josephine County Chamber of Klamath County Chan1ber of Commerce 

Commerce Travel Portland 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Central Oregon Fly Tyers Guild 

Level Beer 

Gigantic Bre\'ving Company 

26 

Sagara Outdoor Products 

Wasatch Custom Angling Products 
167 

Pennsylvania 

Elected Officials 

Annette Atkinson, Supervisor, Middle Smithfield Township 

Mark Oney, Supervisor, Middle Smithfield Township 

Michael Dwyer, Middle Smithfield Township 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Allegheny Ridge Corporation 

Destination Gettysburg 

Explore Altoona 

Fayette Chamber of Commerce 

Great Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Convention 

and Visitors Bureau 

Greater Reading Convention and Visitors 

Bureau 

Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce 

Lackawmma County Convention m1d Visitors 

Bureau 

Middle Smithfield Township Economic 

Development Committee 

Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Phoenixville Regional Chmnber of Commerce 

Pocono Mountains Visitor Bureau 

Somerset County Chamber of Commerce 

TriCounty Area Chamber of Commerce 

Tyrone Chamber of Commerce 

Valley Forge Tourism and Convention Bureau 

Visit Philadelphia 

Rhode Island 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Providence Convention m1d Visitors Bureau 

Gateway Communi(V businesses and organizations 

Collette Travel 

Preserve Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

Elected Officials 

Mike Rowe, Mayor, Town ofNinety Six 

Statewide Supporters 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce 

Greenwood SC Chamber of Commerce Visit Greenwood 

Orangeburg County Chamber of Commerce 

Sea Islands Chmnber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Arcadia Publishing m1d The History Press 

27 

York County Convention and Visitors Bureau 
168 

South Dakota 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Hill City Area Chamber of Commerce Vermillion Area Chamber of Commerce and 

Hot Springs Area Chamber of Commerce Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Rapid City Convention and Visitors Bureau Yankton Area Chamber of Commerce and 

South Dakota Hotel & Lodging Association Convention and Visitors Bureau 

South Dakota Retailers Association 

Gateway Communi~v businesses and organizations 

Rocky Mountain International 

Tennessee 

Gateway Commun~v resolutions 

Town of Dandridge 

City of Gatlinburg 

Town of Greeneville 

City ofMayyville 

Elected Officials 

Steve McDaniel, State Representative, 72nd 

District 

Andy Berke, Mayor, Chattanooga 

Madeline Rogero, Mayor, Knoxville 

Don Mull, Mayor, Alcoa 

Connie Ball, Mayor, Ncv.rport 

Ann Davis, Mayor, Athens 

David Wear, Mayor, Pigeon Forge 

Gayy Jacobs, Mayor, Centerville 

Gary Welch, City Manager, Savannah 

Christa Martin, Vice Mayor, Columbia 

Statewide Supporters 

Dollywood 

Scenic Tennessee 

Southeast Conservation Corps 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Sustainable Tennessee 

Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club 

Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning 

Tennessee Clean Water Network 

Tennessee Conservation Voters 

Tennessee Cotmeil of Trout Unlimited 

Tennessee Environmental Council 

City of Pigeon Forge 

City of Savannah 

City of Sevierville 

Kevin Davis, Mayor, Hardin County 

Mike Werner, Mayor, Gatlinburg 

Byyan Atchley, Mayor, Sevierville 

Mark Potts, Mayor, Jefferson City 

Jonathan Dagley, Mayor, Wartburg 

Jack Lay, Mayor, Oneida 

George Potter, Mayor, Huntsville 

Jim Hickman, City Manager, Waynesboro 

Jeff Howell, Mayor, Waynesboro 

Ken Moore, Mayor, Franklin 

Shane McFarland, Mayor, Murfreesboro 

Tennessee Geographic Alliance 

Tennessee Green Hospitality Program 

Tennessee Hospitality and Tourism Association 

TenneSEA 

Tennessee Orinthological Society 

Tennessee Returned Peace Corps Volunteers 

Tennessee Urban Forestyy Council 

Tennessee Walkingmen 

Tennessee Wildlife Federation 

The Land Trust for Tennessee 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Blount Chamber of Commerce Sevierville Chamber of Commerce 

Carter County Tourism Association 

Chattanooga Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Cocke County Partnership 

28 

Stewart County Chamber of Commerce 

Wears Valley Area Chamber of Commerce 
169 

Ciateway Community businesses and organizations 

212 Market 

A Walk in the Woods 

A/Trail. Inc. 

Author Johnny Molloy 

Benjamin Walls Fine Art Gallery 

Benton MacKaye Trail Association 

Big East Fork Retreat and Farms 

Biketopia 

Black Bear Solar Institute 

Bowman Adventures 

Bradfield Environmental Consulting 

Brent McCamish Photography 

Caney Fork Outdoors 

Cedar City Consulting 

Center for Sustainable Stewardship 

Chattanooga Audubon Society 

Cherokee Rafting 

CLIMB Nashville 

Clinch River Chapter of Trout Unlimited 

Coast 2 Coast 

Coker Creek Village 

Cole Scott Consulting 

Creekview Farm Retreat B&B 

Cumberland Transit 

D.A. Ramsey Photography 

Dynan1ic Capabilities Group 

Eastern Fly Outfitters 

Equestrian Legacy Radio 

Escape to the Southeast Travel Guide 

Explore Oak Ridge 

Fly South 

Fort Donelson Camp #62 

Four Bridges Outfitters 

Friends ofMocassin Bend National Park 

Friends of Shiloh National Military Park 

Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park 

Gear Closet 

Glen Leven Farm 

Gran Fondo Cycles 

Greater Knoxville Hospitality Association 

Greater Nashville Hospitality Association 

Green Spaces 

Green View Properties 

Grcenways of Nashville 

GSM Outfitters 

Hike The Smokys.com 

HikeyMikey 

JK Woodworks 

29 

Johnson City Hiking Club 

Johnson City Parks and Recreation 

Johnson Management and Media 

Kilowatt Ours 

Knoxville Botanical Garden and Arboretum 

Kristin Knoll 

Legacy Parks Foundation 

Lequire Gallery 

Lifeview Outdoors 

Lilly Pad Obed 

Little River Chapter of Trout Unlimited 

Lori Putnam - Artist 

Malloncy's Outfitters 

Mast General Store, Inc. 

McKee Outdoors 

Melinda Welton Bird Works Consulting 

Memphis Cyclist 

Mid-Appalachian Highlands 

Morning Pointe 

Mud Creek Fanus 

Nashville Underground Radio 

New Paradaigm Development Partners 

North Chickamauga Creek Conservancy 

Old Timers Hiking Club 

Once Upon a Time Wilderness Adventures 

Outdoor Chattanooga 

OverY our Head Productions 

Ovcnnountain Chapter of Trout Unimited 

Panther Creek Bike Shop 

Pride of Place/Tennessee Bottle Bill Project 

Rand R Fly Fishing 

R.B's Cyclef)· Inc. 

Rock Creek Outfitters 

Scenic Knoxville 

Shiloh Accounting 

Sierra Club - Cherokee Group 

Smoky Mountain Navigator 

Smoky Mountains Outdoor Unlimited 

Smoky Mountains Rafting 

South Chickamauga Creek Greenway Alliance 

Southeast Pack Trips 

Stones River Paddle Company 

Strategic Solutions Partnership LLC 

Tean1 Green Adventures 

Tellico Grains Bakery Inc 

Tennessee Fly Company 

Tennessee Ornithological Society- Memphis 

Chapter 

Tennessee State Naturalist Emeritus 
170 

The Art of David Wright 

The Blue Mason Coffeehouse 

The Compost Company 

The Crash Pad Chattanooga 

The Nugget on Coker Creek 

Trace Bikes 

Trees Knoxville 

Trekka Outfitters 

Trout Unlimited -Appalachian Chapter 

Trout Unlimited -Cumberland Chapter 

Trout Unlimited -Hiwassee Chapter 

Statewide Supporters 

American Y outhworksffX Conservation Corps 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Trout Unlimited - Ovcnnountain Chapter 

Viking Mountain Lodge 

Wahoo's Adventures 

Walk Bike Tennessee 

Watauga Group of the Tennessee Sierra Club 

Watauga Watershed Alliance 

Wayne County Chamber 

Webb Brothers Float Service 

West Bicycles 

Wild Birds Unlimited 

Will Skelton 

Texas Restaurant Association 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Alpine Chan1ber of Commerce Marble Falls/Lake LBJ Chamber of Commerce 

Bellmead Chamber of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Del Rio Chamber and Convention and Visitors Odessa Chamber of Commerce 

Bureau 

Dumas/Moore Chamber 

Dripping Springs Visitors Bureau 

El Paso Chamber of Commerce 

El Paso Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 

Fort Davis Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Waco Chamber of Commerce 

Hewitt Chamber of Commerce 

Johnson City Visitor Center and Chamber of 

Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Taxa Outdoors 

Statewide Supporters 

Utall Hotel & Lodging Association 

Utah Restaurant Association 

Utall Scenic Byways 

Odessa Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Port Aransas Chamber of Commerce 

Port Isabel Chamber of Commerce 

South Padre Island Chamber 

Tyler County Chamber of Commerce 

Visit El Paso 

Visit Fredericksburg TX 

Waco Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Utall Tourism Industry Association 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce Cache Valley Visitors Bureau 

Economic Development Corporation of Utah Cedar City Chamber of Commerce 

Bear River Valley Chan1ber of Commerce Cedar City-Brian Head Tourism 

Brigham Area Chamber of Commerce 

Cache Chamber of Commerce 

30 

Davis County Tourism and Events 

Hurricane Valley Chamber of Commerce 
171 

Kanab Area Chamber of Commerce 

Moab Area Travel Council 

Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Utah Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Boy Scout Troop 187 4 

Goulding's Lodge & Tours 

V emal Area Chamber of Commerce 

Visit Salt Lake 

Visit St. George 

Washington Area Chamber of Commerce 

Vermont 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Woodstock Area Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Inn Consulting Partners 

Virginia 

Statewide Supporters 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Appomattox County Chamber of Commerce Loudoun County Visitor Center 

Botetourt County Chamber of Commerce Petersburg Area Regional Tourism 

Businesses of Rappahannock Petersburg Chamber of Commerce 

Chincoteague Visitor's Center and Chamber Stanardsville Area Revitalization 

of Commerce Top of Virginia Regional Chamber of 

Colonial Beach Chamber of Commerce Commerce 

Colonial Heights Chamber of Commerce Tysons Regional Chamber of Commerce 

Crater Planning District Commission Visit Fairfax 

Culpeper Tourism and Economic Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge 

Development Winchester- Frederick County Convention and 

Eastern Shore of Virginia Tourism Visitors Bureau 

Floyd County Chamber of Commerce York County Chamber of Commerce 

Greater McLean Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Danbra Tours LLC 

Friends of Dyke Marsh 

Great Appalachian Valley Conservation Corps 

Mast General Store, Inc. 

Tmst for the George Washington Memorial 

Parkway 

Washington 

Gateway Community resolutions 

City of Covington 

City of Seattle 

City of Shoreline 

31 
172 

Elected Officials 

Pat McCarthy, Washington State Auditor 

Dave Somers, Executive, Snohomish County 

Jerome Delvin, Commissioner, Benton County 

Mark Ozias, Commissioner, Clallam County 

Mark Boldt, Commissioner, Clark County 

David Sullivan, Comm., Jefferson County 

Claudia Balducci, Commissioner, King County 

Jean Kohl-Welles, Commissioner, King County 

Frank Wolfe, Commissioner, Pacific County 

Dan Roach, Commissioner, Pierce County 

Derek Young, Commissioner, Pierce County 

Rick Talbert, Commissioner, Pierce County 

Ken Dahlstedt, Commissioner, Skagit County 

Ron Wesen, Commissioner, Skagit County 

James Duncan, Commissioner, Walla Walla Co. 

James Johnson, Commissioner, Walla Walla Co. 

Todd Vanek, Mayor, Colfax 

Louis Janke, Mayor, Colville 

Tom Trulove, Mayor, Cheney 

Pete Kmet, Mayor, Tumwater 

Crystal Dingler, Mayor, Ocean Shores 

Randy Taylor, Mayor, Prosser 

Liz Rey11olds, Mayor, Enumclaw 

Statewide Supporters 

Baekcountry Horsemen of Washington 

Conservation Northwest 

Washington Bed & Breakfast Guild (WBBG) 

Washington Council of Trout Unlimited 

Terry Goetz, Mayor ProTem, Odessa 

Glorida Kuchenbuch, Mayor, Wilbur 

Andy Ryder, Mayor, Lacey 

Pat Johnson, Mayor. Buckley 

Royal DeVaney, Mayor, Waterville 

Marilyn Strickland, Mayor, Tacoma 

Ryan Mello, Deputy Mayor, Tacoma 

Frank Chestnut, Mayor, Cosmopolis 

Linda Lehman, Mayor, Benton City 

Glenn Johnson, Mayor, Pullman 

Val Tollefson, Mayor, Bainbridge Island 

Ann McEncmey-Olgle, Mayor Pro Tem, 

Vancouver 

Alishia Topper, City Council, Vancouver 

Sean Smith, Mayor ProTem, Covington 

Debora Juarez, City Council, Seattle 

Kshama Sawant, City Council, Seattle 

Lisa Herbold, City Council, Seattle 

Lorena Gonzalez, City Council, Seattle 

Mike O'Brien, City Council, Seattle 

Sally Bagshaw, City Council, Seattle 

John Creighton, Pmt of Seattle Commission 

Washington Tourism Alliance 

Washington Tmst for Historic Preservation 

Washington Wild 

Washington Wildlife Federation 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Downtown Bellingham Partnership Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater Visitor & 

Greater Seattle Business Association Convention Bureau 

Jefferson County Washington Tourism Olympic Peninsula Gateway Visitor Center 

Coordinating Council Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 

Kent Downtown Partnership The Port Townsend Main Street Program 

Langley Main Street Association Vancouver Downtown Association 

North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce Whidbey and Camano Islands Tourism 

Yakima Valley Tourism 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Bellevue-Issaquah Trout Unlimited 

Bitterroot Net Company 

Calyx Sustainable Tourism 

Clark County Trout Unlimited 

Columbia River Chapter -Association ofNW 

Steclhcaders 

Dianna Denny Design 

Duna Fisheries, LLC 

Emerald Water Anglers, LLC 

32 

Emerging Rivers Guide Services 

Etta's Place Suites 

Evergreen Escapes 

ExOfficio 

Filson 

Fort Vancouver National Trust 

Hiatt Consulting, LLC 

Historic Dm\11town Chelan Association 

Historic Seattle 
173 

Icicle Valley Trout Unlimited 

lslandwood 

Izaak Walton League - Seattle Chapter 

Laird Norton Wealth Management 

Mountain Gear, Inc. 

Mountains to Sound GreemYay Trust 

National Parks Revealed 

North Sound Chapter Trout Unlimited 

Norvise Fly Tying System 

Oak Harbor Main Street 

Olympia Chapter Trout Unlimited 

Olympic Peninsula Fishing Innovations 

Olympic Raft & Kayak 

Orca Conservancy 

Orca Network 

Recreation Northwest 

Sandstone Distillery 

SMJ Management 

Spokane Preservation Advocates 

The Avid Angler 

The Inn at Mallard Cove. a Bed & Breakfast 

Troutwater- Fly Shop, Guide Service, Outfitters 

Vancouver Audubon Society 

Vancouver Wildlife League 

Visit Seattle 

Washington Hometown 

Willapa Hills Audubon Society 

Wirta Hospitality 

West Virginia 

Statewide Supporters 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Beckley-Raleigh County Chamber of Commerce Summersville Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce Visit Southern West Virginia 

Mercer County Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

BRIDGE Network 

Wisconsin 

Elected Officials 

David Bowen, State Representative, 1 O'h District 

Jonathan Brostoff, State Representative, 19'h 

District 

Bryan Ke1medy, Mayor, Glendale 

David Metille, City Council President, Ashland 

Kate Beaton, City Council, Eau Claire 

John Gclhard, City Council, Glendale 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Bayfield Chan1ber and Convention and Visitors Falls Chamber of Commerce 

Bureau 

Bayfield County Tourism 

(iateway Community businesses and organizations 

Animaashi Sailing Company 

Artha 

Antique Garden Inn 

Bay Point Inn 

Blue Bike Burrito 

Can1Rock Cafe and Sport 

Crystal River Inn 

33 

Madeline Island Chamber of Commerce 

Washburn Area Chamber of Commerce 

Door County Kayak Tours 

Ecology Sports 

Franklin Victorian Bed & Breakfast 

Golden Properties 

Greens N Grains 

Kavama Coffeehouse 

Lake Ripley Lodge 
174 

Pine Harbor Campground 

Rutabaga Paddlesports LLC 

Sandy's Clothing & Art 

Tangled Up h1 Hue 

The Konkapot Lodge 

The Lamar Center 

The Purple Tree 

True Blue Houskeeping 

White Winter Winery 

WI River Outings 

Wisconsin Canoe Company 

Wyoming 

Statewide Supporters 

Continental Divide Trail Coalition 

Western National Parks Association 

Chambers of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureaus (CVBs) 

Can1pbell County Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Go Goshen/Goshen Co. Chamber 

Gateway Community businesses and organizations 

Rocky Mountain h1ternational 

34 
175 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Bob Bonar 

Question from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Ouestion: What new or innovative ideas would you recommend be implemented to keep pace 

with increased visitation, permit requests, and permittee oversight on federallandsry 

Answer: There are three innovative ideas that we would recommend to keep pace with 

increased visits and permitting needs for resorts on federal lands: 

( 1) Through the passage of ski fee retention legislation, Congress could he! p dedicate more 

resources to agency staffing and training to facilitate better ski area permit administration. Such 

legislation would locally, at the National Forest or Ranger District level, retain a percentage of 

the $33 million annual ski area permit fees paid to the USFS to complete project reviews in a 

timely fashion and eliminate the backlog of critical ski area infrastructure projects. 

(2) Assigning specific USFS personnel to winter recreation permitting would also be 

significantly beneficial. A team of winter sports or developed recreation specialists on staff with 

the agency could help streamline and expedite the NEPA review process, consistent with legal 

requirements of course. 

(3) Establish appropriate levels ofNEPA review. The current review process is excessive for 

sites like ski areas that are highly developed and, quite frankly, have likely been reviewed more 

than any other acres on the National Forests. When we are replacing a chair lift in the same 

alignment and merely increasing it from a two-passenger to a four-passenger lift, we should not 

start from square one in the NEP A review process, and we should not be required to do an EIS. 

Likewise, replacing a building in an existing footprint should not require an EIS. 

Another good example of excessive regulation is the arduous process the agency applies to the 

removal of trees from our permit areas. Even though the number of trees that we remove is tiny 

in comparison to the agency's overall timber program, our resorts are subjected to the same level 

of review as a full-blown timber sale when we remove trees. Whether we are widening a run, 

removing trees for safety or removing dead trees, agency policy requires excessive tree 

measurement, tree marking, and environmental review. 

This inappropriately high level ofNEP A review should be rectified for the benefit of both the 

USFS and the ski resorts. Every hour the USFS spends on NEP A processes that go beyond what 

is required and meaningful could be redirected to addressing the agency's many real priorities. 

One easy solution would be establishing an appropriate set of Categorical Exclusions from 

higher-level NEPA review for winter recreation. Lift replacements, building upgrades, 

snowmaking installations, associated tree removal, and other routine ski area maintenance and 

development projects should have their own categories for exclusion because they have minimal 

environmental effects and those effects are known. This simple change would save millions 

nationwide in dollars and time spent for both the industry and the agency. 
176 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Bob Bonar 

( 4) More private sector contracting to assist in the agency review process should be encouraged. 

Increased use of skilled and experienced third-party contractors, instead of overwhelmed USFS 

staff, to perform NEPA studies and prepare NEPA documents for proposed projects at ski areas 

should be a priority. Ski areas already pay third parties to assist with the NEP A process, but this 

process could be improved by establishing a pre-approved roster of private sector NEPA and 

natural resource specialists to complete the work that often presents bottlenecks due to lack of 

agency specialists. The agency would still sign off on the NEPA documentation and make the 

ultimate decision of whether to approve the project, but the bulk of the review work would be 

performed by outside specialists, at the expense of the ski area, in a more efficient and expedited 

manner. 

There are many benefits associated with applying these solutions to facilitate investment by 

facilitating appropriate NEPA review. Private investment in infrastructure: accommodate 

millions of visitors and help US ski areas remain world-class destinations; provide significant 

economic boosts to local economies; provide year-round employment opportunities in mountain 

communities; increase fee receipts by the agency; and foster a better guest experience for 

National Forest visitors of all ages. 

Question from Senator John Barrasso 

Question: In her written testimony, Ms. Ar~,>ust discussed a number of causes of, and solutions 

for, the deferred maintenance backlog. In your opinion, does the deferred maintenance backlog, 

and the actual infrastructure needs it represents, affect the communities surrounding public 

lands? 

Answer: Ski areas are unique in that we do not rely on the agency for maintenance offacilities 

or trails. Ski areas own all of the capital improvements associated with our permit areas, and we 

do all of the maintenance ourselves. What we face is deferred decision making on our own 

maintenance and improvements. Those deferred decisions and the resulting backlog on capital 

investments by ski areas certainly affect the communities surrounding public lands. 

By way of example, ski areas are poised to transition to four-season operations with the addition 

of facilities such as zip lines, ropes courses, mountain coasters, alpine slides, mountain bike 

parks and other summer recreation amenities. Ski area investments in year round facilities can 

transform botb the ski area and the local community into year-round destinations. Those 

investments will benefit the local community with a more robust economy and stable, year-round 

jobs. Deferred decision-making has delayed the transition to four-season operations that 

Congress envisioned when it passed SAROEA in 20 II. 

Deftmed decision making in winter should also be addressed, as ski area investments in winter 

can also benefit the local community greatly. For example, when ski areas upgrade snowmaking 

2 
177 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Bob Bonar 

systems for more consistent, dependable and reliable conditions, especially early in the season in 

time for holiday visitation those improvements benefit the entire community. The snow we 

make with those improvements benefits not only the ski area but nearby restaurants, hotels, gas 

stations retail, and all of the employment sectors that thrive in a healthy economy. 

Questions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

Question 1: What do you believe makes the public private partnership between public land 

resorts like yours and the USFS successful? 

Answer: As I mentioned in my oral testimony, public land resorts have worked in 

partnership with the Forest Service dating back to the 1940s. There are a number of key 

ingredients to the success of this partnership. The very foundation of our partnership is a 

mutual understanding that we could not do what we do without each other. The USFS 

provides the land and a dedicated staff that truly appreciates the unique experience we bring 

to the recreating public. The resorts provide the necessary capital, business acumen and 

operational capability to accommodate large numbers of visitors in a high quality recreation 

setting. We both bring a strong stewardship value to the table that makes the landscape 

special and attractive for our visitors to experience. We also make communication and 

mutual respect a high priority in our relationship and have operated under a formal MOU 

articulating these priorities for decades. Together, these ingredients have supported a 

partnership that benefits rural economies, improves the health and fitness of millions of 

Americans, provides people of all ages great outdoor experiences and promotes appreciation 

for the natural environment. 

Question 2: You mentioned that the USFS recreation program is understaffed and underfunded. 

How much have firefighting expenditures contributed to that issue? 

Answer: Firefighting expenditures have profoundly impacted the USFS's budget, and in 

particular, the recreation program. The fire suppression budget continues to eat into the 

operational and program budget of the USFS in the annual budgeting process as well as through 

the borrowing across accounts when the suppression account is exhausted, a seemingly annual 

occurrence. Recreation program budgets have been negatively affected by this practice year 

after year. Current recreation program staffing levels are at 40 percent of what they were in the 

year 2000, due to these costs and the resulting downsizing and fragmentation of jobs among 

special uses administrators. Fire fighting costs are expected to increase in the future, and if the 

"fire borrowing" problem is not fixed by Congress, the USFS recreation program will not be able 

to meet even the most basic statutory requirements placed on it. 

The ski industry has played an active role for decades in the coalition of interests united by the 

common goal of fixing the fire borrowing problem in the agency's budget. While our numerous 

calls for fixes to the fire funding problem have not been answered to date, we are hopeful that 

3 
178 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Bob Bonar 

Congress will address this problem in the near term with increased awareness about the crisis 

that we now face. 

4 
179 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Jill Simmons 

Questions from Senator Catherine Cortez Mas to 

Question 1: The outdoor recreation industry is thriving in Nevada and I intend 

to support this industry as well as protect public lands, which drive the outdoor 

economy. There has been a significant increase in visitation at Red Rock 

Canyon, for example, and they don't have the recreational capabilities to 

handle the current numbers of visitors. 

What do you believe makes the partnership between volunteer organizations like 

yours and federal agencies so successful and what can Nevada learn from that 

model? 

Washington Trails Association's volunteer trail maintenance program was developed 

nearly 25 years ago. The foundation of the partnership between Washington Trails 

Association (WTA) and federal agencies is built on strong relationships between our staff 

and land managers. It takes time to develop those relationships and the agencies need 

adequate staffing in order to work effectively with volunteer programs. While volunteer 

programs stretch tax dollars, they cannot replace them. Federal agencies need consistent 

funding to employ volunteer coordinators, recreation managers, trail coordinators and 

trail field staff. These employees are key to creating successful partnerships between 

federal agencies and nonprofits. For example, we have had significant success with our 

volunteer program on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest thanks to strong agency 

personnel that help us identify the best projects for volunteers, keep us apprised of any 

changes in public lands policies and are able to quickly respond to program needs. WTA 

meets with trail coordinators annually to identify projects, maintain ongoing 

communication to plan projects and work with them to adapt plans when needed. These 

trail coordinators play a critical role in helping the forest maximize available resources by 

determining which projects are best suited for volunteer organizations like WT A and 

which projects should be tackled by agency trail crews, such as when specific technical 

expertise is required. 

Another key to success is the development of a robust community of trail maintenance 

volunteers. Washington Trails Association cultivates and trains crew leaders and assistant 

crew leaders who are experts in teaching trail building and maintenance to others. This 

allows us to effectively engage a large number of volunteers, the majority of whom have 

no trail building experience or expertise. The skilled, talented and committed people 

leading our volunteer crews are focused on the dual goals of building trails to agency 

standards and ensuring that the work we do is a rewarding volunteer experience. As a 

result, federal land managers trust us to do the job well and volunteers have fun doing it. 

Over two decades, our organization has built the credibility needed to take on challenging 

projects and consistently deliver the desired results. 
180 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Jill Simmons 

Question 2: In Nevada, we also have many rural towns that serve as "gateway 

communities" and rely on outdoor recreation visitors to sustain their local 

economies. 

What is the best to way for federal agencies to promote outdoor recreation and in 

turn support these communities? 

One of the best ways for federal agencies to promote outdoor recreation is by making 

outdoor recreation a priority in their land management objectives and, in tum, making 

funding investments in outdoor recreation infrastructure on public lands. By increasing 

investment in trails and other recreation infrastructure, gateway communities can market 

these recreation opportunities and drive people to their communities to stay for a day, a 

weekend or a week. In turn, federal agencies can also promote and market these 

recreation opportunities and the nearby communities. 

In Washington state, we have a number of towns that thrive on the outdoor recreation 

available on federal lands. The town of Winthrop, in the Methow Valley not too far from 

the Canadian border, is a great example. Winthrop is one of Washington's recreation 

hubs, offering year-round recreation. In the winter, the town provides one of the best 

cross-country ski trail systems in the country. In the summer, Winthrop touts its mountain 

location by marketing opportunities for hiking, backpacking, mountain biking and trail 

running. Many of these opportunities take place on nearby national forest lands. 

In Winthrop, organizations and individuals interested in promoting outdoor recreation to 

support the community have joined together to develop a coalition called the Methow 

Trails Collaborative. The mission of the group is to "build and strengthen relationships 

among trail managers, advocates and user groups to support and enhance sustainable trail 

experiences in the Methow Valley." The local Forest Service office, the Methow Valley 

Ranger District, plays an active role in the collaborative. Other state and local agencies 

are also members of the collaborative, as well as nonprofit organizations and local 

businesses. By joining forces to promote outdoor recreation, coordinate on trail projects 

and create high-quality volunteer stewardship opportunities to maintain trails, the 

collaborative can accomplish more together than each entity can do alone. 

Question 3: How do the backlogs in infrastructure improvements affect jobs 

and the economies in adjacent communities? 

When federal land managers don't get the funding they need in order to provide 

high-quality recreation experience, the needs of recreation infrastructure, such as 

trails and campgrounds, are often deferred year after year as non-essential activities. 

This deferment and under investment adds up over time. Poor infrastructure can 

create an unsafe or negative experience for a hiker, mountain biker, equestrian or 

other recreationist, which can dissuade people from returning. 

2 
181 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Jill Simmons 

For example, if a hiker drives two hours to a trailhead only to be~:,rin their hike and 

find a critical bridge is washed out, forcing the hiker to tum around, she may not 

hike in that area again. On the way to that trail, the hiker stopped to top off her car's 

gas tank and get a bite to eat in a nearby town. If the hiker doesn't return, that town 

loses out on the sale of the tank of gas and food. Multiply this example by the 

countless people who face this situation each year and our gateway communities can 

suffer. 

In Washington state, the upper Suiattle River Road, a major recreation access road, 

was washed out for more than a decade due to intense flooding. The blocked-off 

section of the road included connections to seven popular trailheads, two 

campgrounds, a rental cabin and many hunting and fishing locations. It took a 

decade for the road to finally receive much needed repairs, but when it did, the 

nearby town of Darrington celebrated. A grand reopening party included a ribbon 

cutting, community barbeque and tours of the repaired road. Darrington relies on 

outdoor recreation to draw in visitors. Local leaders knew that having such an 

important recreational access road reopened would draw people to town on the way 

to their adventures. 

Washington Trails Association has dedicated the years since the reopening of the 

road to fixing trails in the area that had not received maintenance in years. Partner 

organizations such as the Pacific Crest Trail Association and Back Country 

Horsemen of Washington organized volunteer work parties as well, which has 

restored access to hundreds of miles of trails, providing more access for 

recreationists to enjoy our country's wild places. 

Question 4: How do you see the Administration's proposed budget affecting the 

rural communities that rely on outdoor recreation? 

Despite the fact that visitation to our public lands is at an all-time high, a 20-plus year 

cycle of chronic underfunding for our federal agencies continues unabated. 

In 2013, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) produced a report 

outlining the negative impacts of the maintenance backlog on United States Forest 

Service trails. The report estimated the value of the Forest Service "trail maintenance 

backlog to be $314 million in fiscal year 2012, with an additional $210 million for annual 

maintenance, capital improvement, and operations." One of the most startling revelations 

in the report was that the Forest Service has only been able to keep a quarter of its 

158,000 miles of recreational trails up to the agency's standards. 

Similarly, the National Park Service has reported an infrastructure repair backlog 

estimated at $11.9 billion (FY 2015). This estimate includes vital repairs to aging 

3 
182 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Jill Simmons 

historical structures and thousands of miles of roads and trails, bridges, tunnels, sewers, 

drainage and other infrastructure. Trail infrastructure needs, such as placing crucial 

footbridges over rivers and fixing trail-closing washouts, are estimated at $482 million. 

The Trump Administration's proposed cuts- a 12 percent cut to the Department of 

Interior, home to our National Park Service, and an even greater 21 percent cut to the 

Department of Agriculture, which manages our national forests. will only deepen the 

maintenance backlog issues on our federal lands, resulting in trail closures, washed out 

roads and shuttered ranger stations. 

Furthermore, these proposed cuts are short-sighted. They overlook the significant 

economic engine of outdoor recreation in the United States. In fact, according to a 2012 

report by Outdoor Industry Association, the outdoor recreation industry generates $646 

billion in consumer spending nationwide, an amount greater than the 2015 GDP of all but 

six states. Federal agency budgets for outdoor recreation infrastructure are investments in 

our nation's economic prosperity. 

4 
183 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. David Spears 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Raw minerals and materials are critical components in the infrastructure 

that we use to power and drive our economy. Can you highlight some of the minerals 

and materials that are needed to produce steel and cement? Do we have the capacity to 

produce more of those materials in the U.S.? 

Steel composed primarily of iron, the least expensive and most widely used metal. In 2016, 

the U.S. produced iron ore from nine mines in Minnesota and Michigan. Because of declines in 

domestic steel production, the U.S. is a net exporter of iron. Manganese, nickel, chromium, 

molybdenum, titanium, and niobium are all important elements used steel alloys. 

Manganese, nickel, and chromium are important ingredients stainless steel. None of them 

have a suitable substitute. The U.S. is 100% import-reliant for manganese, 58% for chromium, 

and 25% for nickel. The U.S. has not produced manganese since 1970, and known remaining 

domestic resources are low-grade. U.S. chromium production comes from recycling and 

releases from government stockpiles; no primary chromium ore is currently produced in the 

U.S., although unmined chromium resources remain in the Stillwater Complex Montana. U.S. 

nickel production comes from single mine in Michigan. 

Molybdenum increases the heat and corrosion resistance of steel, so it is used extensively in 

structural Two mines Colorado produce molybdenum as a primary product; seven 

copper mines in western states produce molybdenum as a by-product. Because of the 

relatively low volume of domestic steel production, the U.S, is net exporter of molybdenum. 

Titanium and vanadium are used to produce strong, lightweight steel alloys used in aircraft 

engines, military applications, medical devices, and various industrial applications. The U.S. is 

100% import-reliant for and 45% import-reliant for titanium used in steel. 

A small amount of niobium added to steel greatly improves strength; therefore, niobium 

steel is often used in the construction of interstate gas and pipelines, The U.S. currently has 

no domestic niobium production and is, therefore, 100% reliant on imports. According to 

USGS, known domestic niobium resources are of low grade 

Additional geological studies are needed to determine if 

u.s. 

mineralogically complex. 

niobium resources exist in the 

Cement is composed primarily calcined lime, which comes from limestone. Cement is 

commonly combined with aggregate (sand plus gravel or crushed stone) to form concrete. In 

the U.S., cement is produced nearly 100 plants in 34 states. About 12% of the cement 

consumed in the U.S. in 2016 was imported. Domestic production of cement is reportedly well 

below the capacity of the industry, due to weak demand. 
184 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. David Spears 

Question 2: Can you speak to the state-federal relationship that state geologists have with 

federal agencies, like the U.S. Geological Survey? How could it be improved? 

geologists, working through the Association of American State Geologists, have 

excellent collaborative relationship with the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS has geoscience 

programs in almost every state, and in many cases they work closely with the state geological 

survey. The AASG places high value on cooperative programs with USGS, the 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the National Geological and Geophysical Data 

Preservation Program, the National Energy Resources Data System, and the National 

Groundwater Monitoring Network. 

One large point contention recent years has been the growth of many USGS programs, but 

not the cooperative programs with the states. glaring example is the National Cooperative 

Geologic Mapping Program, which drives most of the geologic mapping performed in the U.S. 

Out of a total USGS budget of over $1 billion, only $25 million dedicated to geologic mapping. 

The production of geologic maps, which should be one of the primary activities of USGS, 

receives only 2.5% of overall bureau funding. Of the $25 million, about $5 million dedicated 

to STATEMAP, the cooperative program through which state geological surveys receive funding 

for geologic mapping. The program is highly productive; every penny federal funding must 

be matched 100% by state funding. Grants are given a one-year cycle, with program 

deliverables due every twelve months. Therefore, the state geological surveys are held to a 

high standard of productivity. 

The value of this program is widely recognized in Congress, in the states, and in various federal 

agencies that consume geoscience data. Efforts by AASG to increase funding for the program 

have met with little success, even though find strong support on Capitol HilL We are told 

that in order to increase funding, the increase must first appear in the USGS budget request. 

The USGS has not requested significant increased funding for NCGMP a decade. The 

best way to improve the relationship between USGS and AASG would be for the USGS to 

increase funding to these cooperative programs that are so important to the states. 

Other federal agencies with which the AASG works closely, commonly pursuant to Memoranda 

of Agreement (MOAs) include the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Forest 

Service, NASA, that Resources Conservation Service, and National Park Service. 

Question 3: Two programs that support mapping are the National Cooperative Geologic 

Mapping Program and the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program. 

These programs expire in 2018. Do you support reauthorizing these programs? If so, why? 

Yes, we strongly support reauthorization of both of these programs. As described above, the 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program drives almost all geologic mapping in the U.S. 

2 
185 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. David Spears 

With only about half of the nation mapped at a scale useful for mineral, energy, and water 

resource identification geologic hazard mitigation, the remaining need is great. A 

modest increase of $10 million per year to the program, of which about $5 would go to 

the state geological surveys pursuant to requirements set out in the National Cooperative 

Geologic Mapping Act, would enable the states to double their annual output geologic maps, 

The National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program, which is currently funded 

at $1,3 million per enables state geological surveys to preserve, catalog, and distribute 

information about significant collections of rock samples, well logs, geophysical surveys, 

photographs, and other important geoscience information. These vital materials are often in 

poor states of preservation and access, and in danger of permanent loss. The federal dollars 

must be matched 100% by the states. The program has met with great success, with many 

examples of economic development the availability of NGGDPP-generated 

information. For example, 2008, reinspection of rock chips from a plugged oil well in Texas, 

preserved, cataloged, and made publicly available with NGGDPP funding, led to the discovery of 

the Eagle Ford Shale deposit, had a $25 billion economic impact. 

The AASG would like to enter its NCGMP and NGGDPP fact sheets into the record. 

3 
186 

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM (NCGMP) 

PREPARED sv: The Association of American State Geologists, March 2016 

Status of FY 2017 appropriation ----------------------------------- ---

FY 2016 President's AASG House Senate 

Jl.ll!h~g-~d __ ilPP_!c:>Jiria_tE!tt __ b_!!dg_f!!_!E!.qll_!!~t ____ _ r_E!Clll~t. 11lilr~- mark Conference 

$64.0M $24.4M $24.5M $30.0M 

W~. et:'lcourage Congress to gr~w the_ funding to $30.0M for the National Cooperative Geologl~ 

··Mapping Program iq FY 2017 by · 

111 restoring the _recent cu_ts to the ~ase J.)rograrn ill'\d 

incorporating fl.!ndlng_for new initiatlve.s 

Program Value 

Produces essential resource information. The geologic map products provide objective 

scientific-based information for robust land, energy, minerals, water, and biologic resource 

decisions. These products are also essential to assess natural hazards, mitigate risks, and 

address national security issues. 

Drives economic growth. These products spur economic growth through direct and indirect 

employment, cost savings for business and government, new business opportunities, plus 

effective and sustained resource management. 

Offers high cost-benefit value. Several recent cost-benefit studies have looked at the 

economic value of geologic maps: 

In Ohio, developers and engineers who used modern geologic maps saved about $50,000 

for every project. Typically, many projects use the same map, multiplying these cost 

savings many times over. 

Economists at the Illinois Geological Survey documented Kentucky's geologic maps to be 

worth 25 to 39 times the cost of the mapping. 

Creates 50:50 funding match. All federal dollars in the STATEMAP and EDMAP efforts are 

matched 50:50 with state dollars. Despite this, significant state geologic mapping resources 

that could be used to match federal dollars in the STATEMAP effort are "being left on the table:' 

A 2003 survey by the Association of American State Geologists identified approximately 

$18M of state money that was available to match federal dollars. 

Since FY 2001, more than $1OM annually in state money has remained unleveraged and 

unmatched by federal dollars. 
187 

/(} 

Program Description 

Geologic maps record the nature and distribution of rock and soil materials as well as the 

water, energy, and mineral resources at and below the land surface. The NCGMP is designed to 

support the production of modern geologic maps, commonly in digital form, at detailed, locally 

useful scales. 

The three-part program consists of 

~ FEDMAP, a federal mapping effort by the U.S. Geological Survey, 

STATEMAP, a state mapping effort by state geological surveys, and 

- EDMAP, a university training/mapping effort. 

The STATEMAP and ED MAP projects are 

prioritized by individual state geologic mapping advisory committees, 

evaluated by a competitive, peer-reviewed process, and 

~ funded by a 50:50 match of federal and state dollars. 

Since its beginning in 1993, the NCGMP has 

supported new mapping in 49 of so states plus Puerto Rico, 

distributed over $117M in federal dollars to the states through STATE MAP and EDMAP, and 

generated more than 5,000 new geologic maps and digital versions of earlier detailed maps 

that are regularly used by state, county, and local governments and the private sector. 

History 

Created by the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 [PL 1 02-285] 

Reauthorized in 1997 [PL 1 05-36], 1999 [PL 1 06-148], and 2009 [PL 111-11] 

All Congressional action with strong bipartisan support 

Recent funding history ---------------------- ------------

FY Appropriated FEDMAP STATEMAP 

2007 $64.0M $25.4M $17.6M $7.2M 

2008 64.0 26.6 18.4 7.6 

2009 64.0 27.7 18.7 8.4 

2010 64.0 28.2 18.9 8.6 

2011 64.0 27.7 18.7 8.4 

2012 64.0 26.3 17.8 7.9 

2013 64.0 24.4 16.9 6.9 

2014 64.0 24.4 16.9 6.9 

2015 64.0 24.4 16.9 6.9 

2016 64.0 24.4 16.9 6.9 

Note: The budget"address"for the NCGMP is: 

Appropriation Bill: Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 

EDMAP 

$0.6M 

0.6 

0.6 

0.7 

0.6 

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

Account: U.S. Geological Survey~Appropriations for Surveys, Investigations, and Research 

Budget Activity: Core Science Systems 

Budget Subactivity: National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 
188 

National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP) 

Prepared by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) 

The AASG strongly supports the reauthorization of the NGGDPP. In order for the Program to reach its intended 

goals, the AASG believes it should begin growing by$ 5 M per Fiscal Year until it reaches the original authorized 

level of$ 30 M per Fiscal Year. 

Geoscience issues that are critical and of immediate concern to the Nation's security include the 

following: 

Water supplies, especially their location, 

quantity, and quality 

Domestic metal and industrial mineral 

sources to meet rising demands 

Re-examination of samples utilizing new 

technological breakthroughs 

Domestic energy sources: Oil, gas, coal, 

geothermal, and renewables to meet rising 

demands 

Identification, mapping, and prediction of geologic 

hazards 

Training the next generation of Geoscientists, 

especially geologic mappers 

All of these issues rely on the analysis of geological and geophysical samples, collections, and data that already 

exist. Regrettably, these vital materials are often in poor states of preservation and access, and in danger of 

permanent loss. 

The Challenge 

Geoscience data preservation in the United States consists of a set of disparate facilities and programs, of 

variable effectiveness and with little coordination. More than 25 percent of this nation's geological data 

repositories are currently at or near their storage capacity. Some have exceeded their capacity and are relying 

on temporary, non-climate-controlled portable storage. While industry and government have made substantial 

investments to acquire geoscience data and collections for over 150 years, volumes of expensive and difficult-toobtain subsurface information are currently at risk of disposal or ruin; once these data are lost, they probably 

will never be replaced. 

A Promising Remedy 

Congress established the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP) through 

the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 [PL 109-38, Sec. 351] to address these issues. In order to assure the 

proper and continued preservation of irreplaceable geoscience data, the NGGDPP needs to be reauthorized. 
189 

Highlights of the Act 

The NGGDPP was established to: 

Create a National network of cooperating geoscience materials centers and data archives, representing 

a partnership between U.S. Department of the Interior Bureaus and the State Geological Surveys; 

Archive geologic, geophysical, and engineering-geologic data, maps, well logs, and samples in 

accordance with National and international formats and standards; 

Permit ready access to the holdings of all collections through a common, distributed Internet-based 

National Digital Catalog of archived materials; 

Provide federal assistance, matched by state and private funds, to support physical and digital 

infrastructure efforts, outreach, public awareness, and workshops; 

Ensure that this Nation's next generation of Earth Scientists has the necessary reference material with 

which to train; 

Designate the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the program administrator to coordinate geologic 

material centers and data archives with other Department of Interior Bureaus, the State Geological 

Surveys and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG); and 

Encourage private industry and universities to partner with State Geological Surveys and the USGS to 

leverage resources. 

Current Activities 

The USGS Data Preservation Program administrator has: 

Initiated a modest grants program to facilitate the initial inventory of geological and geophysical data 

and samples held by State Geological Surveys and DOl agencies, to assess their preservation and datarescue needs. 

Initiated the design, implementation, and population of a National Digital Catalog. 

Established detailed guidelines for the distribution of program funds. 

Established minimum standards and best practices and archiving of the geologic data and collections. 

Completed guidelines for institutions to create and implement long-range data preservation plans. 

Recent Funding History 

The Data Preservation Program was funded at $1.3M in each of FY-14 to FY-16. AASG endorses an 

appropriation of$ 5 M for FY-17. 

Note: The budget "address" for the NGGDPP is: 

• Appropriation Bill: 

• Bureau: 

• Activity: 

• Subactivity: 

• Component: 

Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

U.S. Geological Survey-Appropriations for Surveys, Investigations, 

and Research 

Core Science Systems 

Science Synthesis, Analysis & Research 

National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program 
190 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

lmpot·tant to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: In your discussion of infrastructure investment opportunities you call for an 

"all-of-the-above" approach, a phrase we often use in the energy context. From a water 

perspective, what does this type of approach entail and why is it important for water 

management? 

Response: Communities have varied and different water needs; an "all of the above" response to 

our nation's water challenges is imperative. 

Water managers throughout the West are actively investing in new water supply options, 

embracing technology, utilizing green infrastructure and looking to use water as efficiently as 

possible. 

It is critical that policy conversations and federal infrastructure legislation include water 

infrastructure for both agricultural and municipal water. Qualifying investments should include 

water conveyance, surface water storage (both on- and off-stream), regulating reservoirs, aquifer 

storage and recovery, wastewater, water reuse, desalination, canal lining, computerized water 

management and delivery systems, real-time monitoring of ecosystem functions and river flows 

for both fish and people, watershed-based integrated regional water management, and other 

efficiency investments. Infrastructure legislation must also apply to the remediation of our aging 

infrastructure as well as to the development of new infrastructure. 

Congress should recognize the diverse nature of the water supply community and ensure that 

funding mechanisms are available to a broad spectrum of users. Important tools like tax-exempt 

municipal bonds should be protected. Newer forms of financing like WIFIA should continue to 

be supported while not losing sight of the importance of appropriated dollars for infrastructure 

investment. 

Question 2: The need to repair or replace aging water infrastructure is something we have 

heard about for some time. What negative impacts are you seeing financially and 

operationally as a result of the aging water facilities? 

Response: Failure to rehabilitate and upgrade our water infrastructure results in over-diversions 

from our streams and rivers, regional water quality suffers from leaching and deep percolation, 

farm fields fail to receive full water allocations resulting in reduced yields and threatened 

sustainability. 

The more than one million miles of pipes beneath our streets is nearing the end of its useful life 

and approaching the age at which it needs to be replaced. In an undated American Water Works 

Association report, it notes nationwide the required investment will roughly double from about 
191 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

$13 billion a year in 2010 to almost $30 billion annually by the 2040s for replacement alone. If 

growth is included, needed investment increases to nearly $50 billion over the same period. 

Similarly, our western water delivery infrastructure, primarily supporting our nation's 

agriculture, is between 50 and 100 years old. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has reported an 

infrastructure and maintenance backlog of approximately $3 billion. Non-federal infrastructure is 

in similar condition. Such aging infrastructure presents a further challenge because it requires 

ever increasing maintenance and replacement investments. As of2013, the replacement value of 

Reclamation's infrastructure assets was $94.5 billion. 

In the American West, Federal water supply systems are essential components of communities, 

fanns, and the environment. These facilities are an integral part of the nation's food-production 

system and their consistent operation helps ensure our farmers' ability to provide a reliable and 

secure food supply for our own citizens and the world. Population growth, environmental 

demands and climate change are placing an unprecedented strain on aging water storage and 

conveyance systems designed primarily for agricultural use. 

Protecting this national asset is absolutely essential to American economic security. Repairing 

and modernizing our western water infrastructure will also directly address some of the West's 

vexing water supply problems by improving water resource management and conservation. 

These in turn will produce greater energy efficiencies and provide more flexibility to meet 

environmental needs, thereby alleviating conflict. 

Ouestion 3: In your testimony, you discuss the need to evaluate the benefits of new surface 

storage projects comprehensively, and that some projects have been shelved due a narrow 

focus on the perceived negative impacts. Can you discuss the benefits you see being 

overlooked? Are there policy changes that would facilitate projects being considered in a 

more comprehensive way? 

Response: Individual surface storage proposals must be evaluated and the associated benefits 

and risks must be viewed in a holistic and comprehensive manner. While some critics of new 

storage projects focus on perceived negative impacts associated with new facility construction 

(e.g., loss of habitat, disruption of"natural" stream flow patterns, and potential evaporative 

losses), these perceived impacts must also be compared to the wide range of multi-purpose 

benefits that storage projects provide. 

Properly designed and constructed surface storage projects provide additional water management 

flexibility to better meet downstream urban, industrial and agricultural water needs, improve 

flood control, generate clean hydropower, provide recreation opportunities, and- yes, create 

additional flows that can benefit downstream fish and wildlife species. 

2 
192 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21, 2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

Surface storage is essential to providing drought protection, releasing water at specific times 

for water quality and environmental benefits, contributing to flood management, mitigating for 

lost snow pack due to climate change, and responding to other unforeseen circumstances. 

In California, additional surface storage would have provided flexibility to the state's severely 

constrained water management system during the recent drought. That flexibility would include 

protections and improvements to the long-term sustainability of the Delta ecosystem, 

maintaining water quality and water supply reliability, and preventing and planning for 

catastrophic failure of the Delta system. With additional capacity and integrated operations, 

water diversion and deliveries can also be timed in ways that will allow for better response to 

the effects of earthquakes, floods and climate change. 

The practical result of"no net loss" policies has been a substantial net gain in wetlands and other 

environmental benefits. New water projects today invariably are multi-purpose projects with 

operations committed to ensuring in-stream, ripmian, and wetlands benefits. Nearly all of the 

Gold Medal fisheries in Colorado and elsewhere in the West are located immediately 

downstream of dams. This is a direct result of sustained stream flows and consistently favorable 

water quality of the released water. 

The time required and companion expense associated with project permitting has steadily 

increased, to the point where today permitting costs represent 25% or more of total project costs 

and the time required for permitting equals or exceeds project construction. There are three water 

projects of varying sizes currently in their tenth or greater year of permitting in Colorado; none 

has a final Record of Decision. 

Congress should look for opportunities to improve the federal regulatory process by streamlining 

regulations, improving coordination, reducing duplication, and increasing transparency. Clarity 

on rule development, establishment of common baseline evaluations usable by multiple projects, 

improved coordination among federal permitting processes, and elimination of duplicative 

permitting requirements would reduce permitting timelines and save taxpayer dollars, all without 

compromising environmental protections. 

Question 4: We have heard frequently about the importance of healthy forests and 

watersheds to our water resources and I'm glad you mentioned it in your testimony. Can 

you explain in a bit more detail how forest management is impacting both your existing 

infrastructure and the need for new projects? 

Response: A healthy forest will mitigate both droughts and floods, create and protect a healthy 

and functional soil profile, remove and decompose pollutants, maintain biodiversity, provide 

natural beauty, and provide reliable, high quality source water for people, agriculture and 

industry. Wildfires eliminate these benefits requiring substantial mitigation and remediation 

whose costs far exceed healthy forest management investments. 

3 
193 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

Large-scale, catastrophic wildfires today are more frequent and significantly larger than in the 

past, even the recent past. In Colorado alone, from 2004 through 2007, fires burned an average of 

40,000 acres annually. However, from 2008 to 2015, that average jumped to 140,000 acres 

annually. 

Wildfires dramatically and adversely affect source-water quality, interrupt water storage 

opportunities, obstruct hydropower generation, hinder water delivery, and impact downstream 

communities and ecosystems reliant on water originating on the forest. Even communities 

hundreds of miles downstream of the fire may be affected by the aftermath. 

In Colorado, summer rains that followed a major wildfire in the watershed that feeds Denver 

Water's Strontia Reservoir washed more than one million cubic yards of ash and debris 

into the reservoir. significant inflow of solids filled the reservoir to seven percent of its 

capacity, requiring Denver Water to spend more than $16 million just on reservoir dreds>ing that 

ultimately proved only marginally successful. 

The water supply infrastructure of the West also plays a critical role in the generation of carbonfree, hydroelectric power. This generating capacity can also be affected by wildfire. In Northern 

California's Placer County, the King Fire burned a total of !56 square miles. This fire directly 

affected the Placer County Water Agency (PCW A) and its operations. PCW A provides drinking 

water for 250,000 citizens and enough renewable hydroelectric energy for 100,000 homes. 

Questions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

Question 1: As you must know, water in Nevada is a scarce resource and 

infrastructure improvements are needed. 

Do you think the federal government should incentivize or encourage utilities to take 

regional approaches for water delivery? 

Response: Water supplies have traditionally been a local responsibility. The result is a complex 

network of individual water utilities and ditch and reservoir companies that are too often 

Balkanized and lack even emergency interconnections. Cooperative, regional, and multi-party 

partnerships that frequently provide cost and efficiency advantages and should be incentivized. 

Direct federal agency participation proved an effective and efficient partnership in the Elkhead 

Reservoir Enlargement Project in western Colorado, where the US Fish & Wildlife Service paid 

roughly 40% of the cost of enlargement and received 40% of the increased storage capacity, 

which it uses for recovery ofESA-listed fish species. 

4 
194 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

Chatfield Reservoir in metro-Denver is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) facility with 

flood control as its primary purpose. The Corps determined Chatfield Reservoir could 

accommodate additional water storage for water supply without compromising its flood control 

function. A regional consortium of municipal and agricultural water providers are undertaking the 

recreational and environmental mitigations at Chatfield State Park to address the impacts of the 

additional water storage. They will pro rata share in the increased storage. Individually, most of 

the members of the consortium do not have the financial or institutional capacity to undertake this 

magnitude of infrastructure investment. 

There are other, ongoing examples of improved regional water management and coordination. The 

Sites Joint Power Authority in California has approached the Sites off-stream reservoir project 

with the goal of generating water for the environment while improving statewide water reliability 

and regional sustainability in Northern California. In Washington state, a large cross-section of the 

water stakeholder interests and the Yakama Nation have worked together over the past several 

years in developing the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. This is intended to help plan for expanded 

access to more irrigation and M&T water storage capacity and to help relieve tensions in the 

Yakima region over water supply management for all needs. 

Regional approaches to water management can be beneficial; however, their success is linked to 

buy-in from local governmental entities like irrigation districts and individual municipal water 

providers. When looking at regional approaches to water management it is vital to work with local 

water providers. 

Question 2: In rural communities, the availability of funding and resources to meet 

treatment standards and improve water reuse is more challenging. Which federal 

programs are best suited to help rural communities? 

Response: There are numerous federal programs that are helping communities throughout the 

West meet evolving water quality and water supply standards. Each of these needs Congress' full 

support. 

Fully funding of the State Revolving Funds (SRF) for investments in drinking water and 

wastewater requirements is perhaps the most effective existing mechanism for addressing rural 

water infrastructure needs as well as initiating "shovel ready" projects. 

Maintaining the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds is imperative for continued local 

investment in required infrastructure. 

The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFTA) program was recently updated by 

the ll41

h Congress, and WIFIA loans were funded for the first time in the current Continuing 

5 
195 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Chris Treese 

and Answers from Chris Treese, 3/31/2017 

Resolution funding the federal government through April 28, 2017. Additionally, passage of the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WllN) Act of 2016 provided numerous 

infrastructure authorizations that will need future appropriations. 

The proposed Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA) and the New 

WATER Act (H.R. 434) would authorize new, affordable financing mechanisms for certain large 

water supply projects in theW est. 

Reclamation's Water SMART grant program has been very successful in leveraging new and 

efficient capital investments. Water SMART could be expanded to include larger (up to $20 

million) competitive, cost-shared grants for water supply management projects. 

Based on my agency's recent experience with the Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

(RCPP), improved coordination between U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and Reclamation would lead to more effective federal investments 

in on- and off-farm water management improvements. 

Congress should maximize use of existing financing tools for project beneficiaries, including 

direct loans and loan guarantees, such as those authorized by The Rural Water Supply Act of 

2006 (PL 109-451). 

Question 3: Do you believe investing in better ways to capture stormwater could also 

help with flood control and water reuse? 

Response: Stormwater management requirements are a relatively new (and expensive) challenge 

under the Clean Water Act but potentially with multiple benefits. Meeting municipal stormwater 

management requirements is requiring substantial capital investments nationwide. 

There is no doubt stormwater management and flood control and prevention are inextricably tied 

to one another. It is worth noting, however, that surface water storage nearly always include 

flood control benefits. 

Water reuse, where legal and available, is another potential benefit of integrated stormwater 

management planning that can and should be incentivized by the federal government. 

6 
196 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Brad Worsley 

Question from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Ouestion: Your testimony highlights a need for increased capacity in Arizona in order to both 

meet the need for additional forest restoration activities, as well as the need for additional output 

of accredited renewable power. We have heard about similar challenges in other parts of the 

country as well. What are the main factors preventing the expansion of the biomass industry and 

what can be done to provide enough certainty to attract investments in needed facilitiesry 
197 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Brad Worsley 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: I believe that healthy, well-maintained public lands are critical to our economy. It is 

clear to me that Novo's harvest operations improve both the environment and the economy in 

Arizona. Can you talk a little bit about the impact your company, and the biomass industry, may 

have on other land uses like recreation or huntingry 

Question 2: During the beginning stages of the Novo project, what barriers did you face from 

the federal government? 

Question 3: Many biomass facilities face challenges with the lack of transmission potential for 

the power they create. Did Novo face this challenge, and if so, how did you address it? 

Question 4: How does Novo deal with the potential uncertainty in timber supply from federal 

lands, given backlogs in processing timber harvests, among other administrative delays? 

2 
198 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Brad Worsley 

Questions from Senator Joe Manchin III 

Question 1: I included a provision in last year's energy bill that improved the Department of 

Energy's coal technology program budget and focus. The amendment would have increased 

funding for the Fossil Energy program but would have also authorized about $22 million to be 

used in support of exploring the possibility of large-scale plants that co-fire biomass and coal 

with carbon capture. 

Mr. Worsley, do you agree with me that biomass energy is a carbon neutral power source? 

What are some of the environmental benefits that a biomass power plant can bring to a local 

forest and a local economy? 

What are some of the innovative technologies your company is examining to enhance the use of 

biomass and increase efficiency of these plants? 

' -' 
199 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 21,2017 Hearing: Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, and Resources 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Brad Worsley 

Question 2: West Virginia's natural resources provide us with incredible vistas and outdoor 

recreational opportunities. I believe in protecting these resources for future generations of West 

Virginians and for our visitors from around the world. But, I am also a pragmatist and I believe 

that we must balance the economy and the environment. West Virginia has a long tradition of 

being an energy exporting state. That's a tradition that we are determined to continue but in 

order to do so - our nation's energy infrastructure must be modernized and expanded in an 

environmentally responsible way. I want to make sure that, when these projects cross public 

lands, federal agencies with permitting authority are doing their part. I'm sure you are aware that 

the National Park Service and other agencies are currently engaged in permitting several pipeline 

projects in my state, with FERC as the lead agency 

In your written testimony you said that Congress needs to work to streamline the permitting 

process for infrastructure on federally managed lands. Please identify the top regulatory change 

that you seek made to streamline permitting process and remove duplications while still ensuring 

robust public engagement? 

Questions from Senator Luther Strange 

Questions: Mr. Worsley, I agree with your testimony's premise that biomass use from forest 

residuals should be recognized as carbon neutral. 

A. Do you think it is time for EPA and Congress to affirmatively recognize the carbon 

neutrality of biomass from forest or manufacturing residuals? 

B. Does this lack of regulatory certainty complicate your business investment decisions? 

4 
200 

"'f\.mcrican Rivers A.mcr:ican \'('hitcwater -r Cascade l•'orcst Conservancy .-r Conservation Northwest 

____ * Pichuck Audu~~!n Societi " The \~iklemess Society * \\lashington W'i~~~ W'ildEartl~Guar(~~~:: __ ~-

March 19, 2017 

The Honorable Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chaif\voman Senate Committee on Energy and 

Nahual Resources 

U.S. Senate 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

\'iiashington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking :\:!ember- Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

r:.s. Senate 

3111lart Senate Office Building 

\'Fashington, D.C. 20510 

Subject: Written testimony in advance of the bearing on opportunities to improve and expand 

infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, water and resources. 

Dear Chainvoman lviurkowski and Ranking 1\'femhcr Cantwell, 

\\;e arc writing to thank you for hosting this hearing and for efforts to imprO'i'e infrastructure important to 

federal lands, recreation, "\Vater and resources. As and recreation groups working (:md 

on federal lands, we are deeply concerned about the declining condition of federal infrastructure. 

fonvard to \Vorking with you as you begin charting a path forward. 

Among the topics for the hearing is outdoor recreation on federal land, \vhich is the single greatest use of the 

National Forest The number of recreation visits on national forests rose from about 5 million .in 1925 

to nearly 1-t. 7 today-a rate of 2,800~/oP This huge supports thousands of jobs and \vith 

a $10.3 billion contribution to Gross Domestic Product, the combined contribution of 

grazing, forest products and energy/mineral production on forest service 

\\?e are excited to see so many Americans public lands. But \VC also understand and 

have experienced how the neglect of investment 111frastructure threatened the public's ability to access 

trails, and fishing holes. It is not only the -infrastruch1re such as toilets, signs, picnic tables, but it 

all starts the roads that people use to ge-t to the places they love. 

:\'ationally, the l :.s. Forest Service has over 370,000 miles of road-that's equivalent to driving roundtrip from 

\X:,'ashington D.C. to Anchorage 43 times. Only 18~/o of these roads are maintained for passenger cars, with the 

remaining 72~/o maintained for high-clearance '"Tehicles. The C.S. Forest Service does its best to maintain as 

miles of roads as possible, but with shrinking budgets, the agency can usually only lightly maintain about 

of the 370,000 miles per year. 

The chronic undcrfunchng and lack of routine maintenance means that deferred maintenance grows and 

For the t7.S. r:orest Service, deferred maintenance in 2015 reached $52 billion, 'ivith 57~/0 due to roads:3 

are highly vulnerable to \veather C\Tnt. For example last winter, in one watershed 

llaker·-StlOtjuaJmte :..lat.ional Forest 45~/o of the roads were closed because they washed 

out to last winter's stonns and the Gifford Pinchot 

National sustained $3.5.0,1 in storm-related {viany of these roads have not yet 

been fixed-effectively eliminating recreational access for months and often closures occurred this 

\vinter but have not ye-t been tallied. 1 f \Ve \vant to support access to and the economic growth 

communities that depend on the outdoor recreation economy, then the road infrastructure must be 

1 ESDA_l-;,'orest Service . .:-\ Sustainable Recreation Fuh.1re. December 2015. 

2 t:SDA. Pore~ I Service. A Su~tainahle Recrclttion Future. December 2015. 

3 t ;SDA Forest Service. :"Jational Pore~t System Statistics IT 2015. April2016. 
201 

Washington State. as one example: 

In State, the f'ore~t Service road is compounded by the \veather amounts of 

rainfall)> (unstable in many portions), built in the wrong place) 

endangered/ threatened fish listings sediment and/ or salmon and trout having access 

to spa\vning grounds blocked by u11ucJ:m:eu 

The Forest Service road system is old: built decades ago and financed nearly 75~/o by appropriations. 

Road maintenance budgets in OR & WA dropped from a high of $12li'v! in 1990 to just over $20\! in 

2015.4 

The road network continues to support forest management activities but also supports a strong 

recreation economy in \\-ashington \Vith 12 million visitor days a year and over $535 million in annual 

cxpenditurcss. 

Road and culvert failures eliminate access to forests and 

fish. This impacts the $1.1 B industry, the 

the $92M shellfish economy in 

tons of sediment into streams 

national forest recreation industry 

Reduced annual road maintenance translate to increased deferred maintenance liability-no\v 

over $385?vL At the current rate, it take over 200 years to address the deferred maintenance needs 

of aU national forests in \X/ashington State. 

~early 86~/o of the state's population6 depends on drinking "\Vater from national forest lands. Poorly 

maintained roads bleed sediment into increasing turbidity and increasing costs to filter 

\Vater for public drinking \Vater suppbcs. forest management can decrease drinking water 

treatment and chemical costs by 20 percent7. 

\X:ashington State is under a court order to hundreds of culverts that block passage for salmon 

(2016 decision by the Court of Appeals). \Vashington's national forests 

to fish passage (61 are barriers for anadromous fish). 

State is not alone. All national forests arc burdened by this infrastructure liability that looms larger 

but the specific challensres may differ across the country. 

Moving Forward: 

For ten years, our coalition has advocated for smart solutions to this problem. This starts \Vith a plan to 

sizen the road system. Some of this work has been done when the U.S. Forest Service completed its 

Analysis Process to determine the access needs, environmental risks and costs of the road system in each 

national forest. This information can be used to determine where targeted investments should be made. 

Rhdltstztn,- the road system to a more mana1::,reable size over time reduces both its fiscal and environmental 

1 t also enables the to keep a significantly higher portion of the road system maintained to 

standard allo\ving better more reliable access. 

Being strategic and to include the repair of key roads and trails used for public access, 

replacement of failed or culverts to reconnect fish habitat, and or reclaiming roads to 

prevent sediment pollution from entering \Vater, the 

can begin to get a handle on thi~ challenge 

ml!;rnicnirc problems arc addressed in real time, enables the Forest Service to plan, design, 

and implement treatments. Road \vork also often requires skilled \vorkers \vhich creates high \vage jobs for 
202 

contractors, including those who specialize in stream restoration, environn1cntal design, and heavy equipment 

operation. 

Conclusion: 

\\'e want to be able to continue to access our public lands and recreate in our own unique \vays but we are 

deeply concerned about losing that access due to and lack of investment in the infrastnKture that gets 

us to the places \VC love. Investing maintenance in roads that arc needed, investing in treatments to 

reduce road-related impacts to drinking water and fisheries and the overall road network is one way 

to begin to make a tangible difference on the ground. The ne\VS is these investments will pay off 

\vith job creation, recreational spending, reduced costs to systems, increased commercia], tribal 

and sportfishing opporh111ities and more-guaranteed access. 

Thank you for having this important discussion! 

Sincerely, 

Marlies Wierenga 

Pacific ~ortlnvest Conservation Ivfanagcr 

\\(ildEarth Guardians 

Mike Anderson 

Senior Policy Analyst 

The \\iilderness Society 

~·iicolc Budinc 

and 

Allen Gibbs 

Conservation Chair 

Pilchuck _Audubon Society 

Wendy McDermott 

Director, Rivers of Puget Sound and Columbia Basin 

American Rivers 

Thomas O'Keefe 

Pacific Northwest Ste\vardship Director 

American \X/hitewater 

Tom Uniack 

Exectttive Director 

Washington \\'ild 

Dave \(/ erntz 

Science and Conservation Director 

Conservation N ortlnvest 

3 
203 

BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS 

March 20, 2017 

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Re: Hearing to receive testimony an opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure 

important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources 

Dear Committee Members, 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers provides the following recommendations for the record to the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and tomorrow's hearing "to receive 

testimony on opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure important to federal lands, 

recreation, water, and resources." 

BHA is the sportsmen's voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife. We seek to ensure 

North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting through education 

and work on behalf of fish, wildlife and wild places. With more than 250,000 members and 

supporters and chapters in 25 states and British Columbia, BHA is attracting support from 

sportsmen and women all across the continent. 

North America's public lands and waters are the lifeblood of America's hunters and anglers. 

These are the cherished wild places that restore our spirits and provide the solace of solitude. 

They're where we go to challenge ourselves in pursuit of adventure and game. They are 

strongholds of important wildlife habitat and fisheries, providing places where a range of 

species- everything from elk and mule deer to grouse, waterfowl and native trout- can grow 

to maturity and thrive. 

The lands and waters that make up this unique public legacy are the infrastructure for an 

outdoor recreation economy that drives $646 billion in our country annually. Beyond hunting 

and fishing opportunities, infrastructure investments in public lands and waters supports 6.1 

million direct jobs. When we include historical preservation, cultural resources, and other facets 

tied to public lands and waters, this economic contribution rises to $1.06 trillion annually and 

bolsters 9.4 million American jobs. These are sustainable economic engines and jobs that can 

sustain our country through the hardest of times (our outdoor recreation sector saw a 5% 

increase during the most recent economic recession and remained strong throughout the entire 

economic downturn) so it is imperative that we elevate our commitment as we discuss 

infrastructure and budgeting needs to ensure adequate resources are allocated to strategic 

areas. 

Specifically, we encourage the Committee to regard the following: 
204 

BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS 

Support permanent reauthorization and full dedicated annual funding for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. Created by Congress more than 50 years ago, the LWCF is a 

bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and our cultural 

heritage and to provide recreation opportunities to all Americans. Previously authorized for 

up to $900 million annually, the LWCF provides matching grants to states and local 

governments for the acquisition of irreplaceable lands that improve outdoor recreation, 

develop public facilities and advance shared federal land conservation strategies. The 

program is intended to create and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation 

areas and facilities to stimulate non-federal investments in the protection and maintenance 

of recreation resources. While LWCF monies are leveraged in partnership with state and 

local efforts to acquire and protect inholdings and expansions in our national parks, national 

wildlife refuges, national forests, national trails and BLM lands, the program itself has been 

chronically underfunded. This leads to missed opportunities for investing in areas that 

benefit fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation like hunting and fishing. 

LWCF may be our most effective tool for increasing management efficiencies and eliminating 

challenges related to operations and maintenance by facilitating land purchases from 

willing-seller landowners that occupy checkerboard areas of land within park boundaries 

and other important landscapes. These strategies directly reduce agency costs and benefit 

wildfire resources that provide public safety and contribute to resource protection. We 

can't, however, let LWCF funds be diverted to maintenance costs. The result would be 

catastrophic and the original spirt of the program would be permanently eroded on top of 

increasing management costs, challenges with incompatible development within various 

jurisdictional boundaries, and new expenses related to fire and pest treatments. 

Whether we're talking about large western landscapes and waters that support clean water 

or parks in local communities that provide safe places for our children and green spaces for 

smart transportation needs, it's clear that we must secure permanent reauthorization of 

LWCF and full, dedicated, annual funding in perpetuity. 

We must work together to integrate conservation funding into infrastructure building efforts 

(legislative and administrative) by advancing the following legislative opportunities: 

The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, which would end the practice of fire borrowing; 

The Recovering America's Wildlife Act, which has bipartisan support for the Wildlife 

Conservation and Restoration Account by dedicating $1.3 billion dollars annually from 

existing energy revenues (onshore and OCS) that will fund species management efforts; 
205 

BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS 

A federal trust fund that will enhance public access and support maintenance and longterm sustainability of all our nation's public lands, including national wildlife refuges and 

other lands managed by the Department of the Interior (BLM, Park Service, etc.), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (national forests) and other facilities under federal 

management. 

The American Heritage and Conservation Trust Act, which would, amongst other 

important funding considerations like developing a public access and infrastructure 

maintenance account, fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million. 

Support reauthorizations and robust annual funding for other critical programs such as 

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. NAWCA alone is a wildly successful wetland conservation program that has 

helped safeguard more than 33.4 million acres since 1989 and supports an incredible 

network of natural infrastructure around the country. In addition to conserving valuable 

habitat and providing natural infrastructure, these programs secure thousands of acres 

of new public hunting and fishing access each year. 

Now, more than ever before, we need wild lands: places to rekindle the fire at the heart of the 

human soul. BHA is a nonpartisan group of hunters and anglers who are standing up for these 

places and for the outdoor opportunities they represent. We thank the members of the 

committee in advance for their consideration of our public lands, waters, and wildlife as they 

review critical infrastructure needs. Together we can create jobs, build a more robust economy 

and address important management needs like the maintenance backlog and do so in 

thoughtful ways that also increase investments in habitat and provide adequate funding to 

federal management agencies to enhance our proud public lands legacy. 
206 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairwoman 

March 20, 2017 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

5 J 1 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 205!0 Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

On behalf of the Corps Network, I write with respect to the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 21 

"Opportunities to Improve and Expand Infrastructure Important to Federal Lands, Recreation, Water, 

and Resources." Thank you for your attention to this important issue and for recognizing that in the 

ongoing debate about infrastructure, our nation's parks and forests should be an area of focus as well. 

With record-high park visitation numbers just released, and unanimously supported legislation last 

Congress to officially recognize the $646 billion outdoor recreation economy, it has never been more 

obvious that our federal lands are not only a treasured resource for all American's, but also help drive 

significant economic growth and activity. Unfortunately, those resources are also in need of investment, 

and innovative investment strategies at that, in order to ensure continued enjoyment, access, and 

recreation opportunities for all Americans and the effective use of taxpayer resources. 

The 135locally-based Corps of the Corps Network have been partnering with parks and forests around 

the country to help government be more efficient and accomplish needed projects in a cost-effective 

manner. More of these innovative public-private partnerships should be developed, and taxpayer funds 

could be better leveraged, by prioritizing the use of Corps in an infrastructure package using existing 

funding to increase access, recreation opportunities, productivity offish and wildlife habitat, enhance 

multi-use trials, and address wildfires, backlog maintenance, and historic preservation. Corps already 

have authority in federal law for these partnerships with DOI, USDA, DOT, and US ACE and bring a 

significant match of 20% to these projects as well, making limited federal funds go even further. 

Another innovative approach is to develop a 21M Century Conservation Service Corps (21 CSC). The 

bipartisan 21CSC Act (HR 5114 & Sl 993 in the 114'h Congress) was the subject of a subcommittee 

hearing on March 17, 2016. The 21 CSC Act would simply update existing law to engage more Corps on 

important projects, provide new fundraising and partnership tools, and engage more young adults and 

veterans in Corps. The 21CSC is supported by the past five Secretaries oflnterior (two republicans and 

three democrats) and has support from a broad range of private sector partners like the North Face, REI, 

KEEN, the Outdoor Industry Association, Thule, Coca-Cola and American Eagle. 

Corps provide young adults and veterans (Corpsmembers) the opportunity to serve their country, 

advance their education and obtain in-demand skills and credentials. Serving in crews and individual 

placements, Corpsmembers perform important conse1vation, infrastructure, wildfire and invasives 

remediation, disaster response, recreation, and community development service projects on public lands 

and in rural and urban communities. Corps enroll over 25,000 youth and veterans annually in all 50 

states and DC, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. Engaging young adults and veterans in Corps on 

11275K I p: 1 f: 202.737.6277 
207 

natural resource and infrastructure projects on parks and forests, also helps develop the next generation 

of conservation stewards, recreationists, entrepreneurs, and sportsmen and women. 

Corps have also engaged in their own innovative partnerships that should be expanded and prioritized in 

an infrastructure package. For example, as part of their concessionaire contract, Delaware North 

partnered with a Corps and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to preserve a historic stable in 

Shenandoah National Park, which was selected by the park superintendent as important. The project 

saved 20% over typical costs, reduced the backlog of defetTed maintenance in the park without any 

expenditure of federal funds, and provided technical skills to Corpsmembers. Corps also supplement 

park and forest staff and conduct outreach, lead volunteer groups to help get projects done, engage with 

friend's groups on fundraising and projects, and partner with sportsmen and recreation organizations on 

projects important to generating more revenue, visitation, and recreation. 

Modern day Corps are locally run, highly skilled, efficiently managed and cost-effective at completing 

quality pr()jects. According to a study by Booz Allen Hamilton commissioned by NPS, utilizing Corps 

saves over 50%. In addition, 99.6% offederal partners said they would work with Corps again. We're 

proud to have the Western Governors Association as supporters with a policy resolution that states "We 

recognize Conservation Corps as essential partners in meeting ongoing demands for natural resource 

management needs and as effective workforce and career development programs for young people." 

Corps are essential partners in that they help accomplish a significant amount of priority work for parks 

and forests. Recently, Corps accomplished the following: 1,577,252 acres of wildlife habitat improved 

and made accessible; 1,502,078 trees managed & planted; 365,000 acres of invasive species removed; 

32,000 acres of fire fuel reduced; 21,861 miles of multi-use trails constructed and improved; 16,000 

recreation facilities improved; 8,200 acres of erosion, landslide, and flood prevention; 2,600 miles of 

fish and waterway habitat restored; 500 wildfires and disasters responded to; and 190 historic structures 

preserved. Corpsmembers also received over 14,000 credentials. 

As you can see, there are a number of ways that Corps can be better utilized on a variety of federal lands 

infrastructure projects, and there is a large body of work to show the success and potential effectiveness 

of expanding on these types of partnerships. As an infrastructure package develops, we respectfully urge 

you to include Corps as a priority project partner and identify other innovative ways for us to be engaged 

in improving our nation's federal lands for all Americans. Thank you for your time and consideration of 

these issues. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Ellen Sprenkel 

President & CEO 

Cc: Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Enclosure: Corps by State of the Corps Network 

I !275 KSt. Suite ! \Vashin~ton, nc 
208 

American ConscrYation [:-,;:pcricncc 

AmcriC0rps NCCC 

Community Training Works, lnc,Y/\CC 

Co11scrvation J ,~;.~gar..:~ 

(Jrt.:Clling Youth l'oundatiOJl 

Student Conservation Association (SCA) 

Anchor:tgc Park Foundation, YEP 

Student Conservation Assocwhon (Anchorage Ofl:kc) 

American Conservation E;.;.pericnce 

Arizona Conservation Corps (l·lagstnfl~ Tucson) 

II ·ode Sw1o: CCYC (UT): NYC (OR). IlMYC (NM) 

Cass Job Corps CiYilian Con~cn:aiion Center 

Ouachita Joh Corps CiYilian Conservation Center 

Amt~riCorps NCCC (Pat:ific Region) 

Ca!if(nnia Conscr;,.-ation Corps 

CiYiCOJVS 

Conservu!ion Corps of Long Be(H~h 

Consern1tion Corps North Bay 

Desert Restoration Corps (SCA) 

Fresno EOC I,ocal Conservation Corps 

Greater Valley Conservation Corps 

Kern Service and ConscrYation Cot1Js 

Los Angeles Conservation Corps 

Orange Count~ Conservation Corps 

Sacra menlo Regional Conservation Corps 

San [:rancisco Conservation Corps 

San Gabrid Va!l<..~y Conscr\ation Corps 

San Joaquin Regi(mal Const'Tvaiinn Corps 

San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School 

Sequoia Community Corps 

Sonoma County Youtlt Ecology Corps 

Student Co!lscrvation Assoc1ation (()akland) 

thhan Conservation Corps .S.CA. Mtns Foundation 

Urban Corps of San Diego County 

Work ACE (AZ): ACC (AZ:): NCC: (NV): NYC (Oil) 

A1neriCorps NCCC (Southwe-st Region) 

Col!hran Job Corp<> C1vilian Conscn·a1ion C.::ntcr 

Conservation I,cgacy (IIQ) 

Environment for ihc Americas 

Serve Colorado 

l,arimer County Cons-.~rvalion Corps 

Mile I Jigh Y outb Corps 

Rocky Mountain Conscrvanc~ 

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (Steamboat Springs) 

Soutlmcst Conservation Corps (Four Corners. l .o:; Valles) 

Wc<:>krn Colorado ConscJTation Corps 

Work .\fate: CCYC (Ul) 

Knox Parks T'oundalion ---Green Crc\\' 

Ddawar12 State- Parke; 

Amc-riCorps Na1ional CiYilian Communit~y Corps (HQ) 

Student Conservation Association (Capital Region) 

Community Training Works, fnc , Young American CC 

Greater Miami Service Corps 

Greening Youth Foundation (IIQ) 

KtJPrTHawaii Youth Conservation Corps 

Centennial Job Corvs Ci\·ilian Conservation Center 

ldaho Conservation Corps 

SCA Idaho AmeriCorps 

WorA in MCC IMT): NCC (NV); NYC (Oil): UCC 

(UT) 

Grccnco111s Chicago 

Golconda Job Corps Civilian Cons.::rYation Center 

Peoria Corps 

~ludcnt Conservation Association (Chicago) 

Youth Consen·ation Corps, Jnc 

YouihJSuiid Lake Countv 

K St. l\"\'1', Suit" J05ill Washington, DC 2110il51p: 2112.737.62721 202.737.6277 
209 

i\meriCorps NCCC (North Central Region) 

Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa (Ames) 

Frenchburg Job Corps CiYilian ConscrYatlon Center Great 

Onyx Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center 

Pine Kno! Job Corps Ci,·ilian Conservation Center 

Limitless Vistas. Inc. 

AYW(TX) 

Maine Comet\ at ion Corps 

AmcriCorps NCCC (South"\YCS1 Region) 

Civic \Vorks 

Mary land ConscrYation Corps 

County Conservation Corps 

CCCWV(WV) 

Massachusetts Corps (SCA) 

1 )etroit Conservation Corps 

Oreal Lakes Conservation Corps 

Mil'higan Civilian Conservation Corps 

Student Consenation Association (Detroit) 

SU,:DS Youth Conservation Corps 

Work m Slott:: CCMI (MN). GLCCC (V\."I) 

Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa 

ClJMB Commnnity Development Corporation 

Mingo Job Corps Civilian Consen:atinn Center 

CCMJ(MN) 

Anaconda Job Corps Civilirm Conservation Center 

Montana Conservation Corps 

Trappt;:r Crt>:d-. Job Corps Civilian Const;.>:r\. Center 

Piue Rid!,!e Job Corps CiYilian Conservation 

#Corps Work #11 esc I 1275 K S!. i'<W, Suite 

Nevada Conservation Corps (Great Basin Institute) 

Work in ,)'tate: ACC (AI) 

Nc\v I1ampshirc Corp':i (SCA) 

fl"ork in GMC (VT) 

NC\\ Jersey Youth Corps of Atlantic Cape May 

Ne\\ Youth Corps ofCamden'The Work Group 

Nc\\ Jersey Youth Corps of Elizabeth 

Ne'v Jersey Youth Corps of Jersey City 

Nc\V Jersey Youth Corps of Middlesex County 

Nc\Y .krscy Youth Corps of Monmouth County 

New Jersey Youth Corps of N0\\HJk 

Nc\\ Jersey Youth Corps of Paterson 

Ne1Y Jersey Youth Corps of Phillipsburg 

Ne\v J.,;;rsc) Youth Corps of Tr..:nton 

Ne\>. Jersey Youth Corps of Trenton lslcs 

New Jerse:· Youth Corps of Vineland 

Ne\\ York New Jersey Trail Confe-rence 

Student ConscrYation Association (New Jersey) 

EcoScrvants 

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps {Taos) 

SouUmest Consern1tion Corps (Ancestml Lands) 

Youth Works Santa h~ 

Adirondack Corps {SCA) 

Excelsior Conscrvatinn Corps 

Gr~~cn City Force 

Hudson Valle~· Corps (SCA) 

New Ymk City Justice Corps "Brons 

Nc\\ York City Jusli0e Corps Brooklyn 

Ne\\ York. Cit~' Justi0e C.\1rps J larlcm 

New York Cit: Justice Corps Queens 

New York Restoration Project 

Onondaga Earth Corps 

Student ConscrYntion Association (New York Cit:·) 

The PIHCC'lkadwatcrs Youth Conscrmtion Corps 

The Service Collaborative ofWNY. Inc. 

Work NYNJTC (NJ) 

A1ncrican Conservation l~xpcriencc 

L.B. Johmon Joh Corps Civilian Consenation Center 

North Carolina Youth Consen'ation Corps 

Nortlnvcst Piedmont Service Corps 

Ocona!uftcc Job Corps Ci,-ilian Consc!Tation Center 

I W ashin~ton, DC 20005 I 1 f: 202.737.6277 
210 

Sch.;nk Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center 

Work VYCC (VT), A TCLC (WV) 

Work m State: CCMI (MN): MC:C (MT) 

WSOS Communit)' Action 

AYW(TX) 

Angt.::ll Joh Corps Civilian Conscrv3tion Center 

Heart of Oregon 

Northwcs1 Youth Corps 

Oregon Volunteers 

Timber Lake Job Corps Civilian Consernttion Center 

\VolfCreek Joh Corps Civilian Conservation Ccnk~r 

PowcrCorpsPl H, 

Student ConsctTation Association (Pittsburg 'Philadelphia) 

Palmetto Conscrnttlon Corps 

St Bernard Project 

The Sustainahilit:y 1nstitute 'Energy Conservaiion Corps 

Bo:-:chler Job Corps Ci\'ilian Conservation Center 

Work CCM! (MN) 

Jacobs Creek Job Corps Civilian Conscrv. Center 

Knox County CAC AmcriCorps 

Southeast Youth Corps 

Amaican YoulhWorks. incl. Texas Cons..::rvation Corps 

Student ConserYation /\ssocia1ion (ITouston) 

Wor/1 State.- Sou!h"~>\'C~t Consernttion Corps 

Am..::rican Conservation Experience 

Canyon Country Youth Corps 

1127;>K Suite 

lJtah Conservation Corps 

Weber Basin Job Corps Ci\·ilian Conservation Center 

II 'ork ACC (AI.) 

Green Mountain Club 

Vcrnwnt Youth Consen·ation Corps 

Flat\voods Job Corps Civilian ConserYation Corps 

SCA (Student Conscrnt1ion Association) (HQ) 

Virginia ScrYicc and ConscrYation Corp~ 

State Parks Youth Conservation 

,\TCLC (WV) 

Columhia Basin Joh Corps Civilian Conscn·. Center Curle\\ 

Job Corps Civilian ConscrYation Center FarthCorps 

Fort Simco(;: Joh Corps ConserYation Cwtcr 

Mt. Adams lns:tilute 

Student Co11scrvation Associatlon (Seattle) 

Washington Conservation Corps 

NYC (OR) 

Appalachian Trail Conscn'ancy Lt~adership Corps 

Cili/.cns Const~rvation Corps 

llurpt~r:; Ferry Job Corps Civilian Conserv. Ct'nter 

Btaek\vcll Job Corps Civilian Consernltion Center 

Fresh Start- ADVOCAf' 

Fresh Stm't -- Rcnc>7\al Unlimitc~-L Inc. 

Great Lakes Communit~ Conservation Corps 

Mih\aukec Community Service Corps 

Operation 1-'resh Start 

Student Conservation /\ssnciatlon (Mih\aukec) 

WisCorps Wisconsin Conservation Corps 

fl'ork in CCM[ (MN) 

MCC (MT): UCC (UT) 

DC 200051p: 202.737.<•2721 f: 
211 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

U.S. Senate 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

U.S. Senate 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Hearing to receive testimony on opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure important to 

federal lands, recreation, water, and resources (March 21, 2017) 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

The Mountain Pact, a network of mountain towns and chambers of commerce in the Intermountain West, 

appreciates the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' consideration of opportunities 

to improve and expand infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources. Public 

lands play a critical role in supporting rural jobs and local economies, and they provide our communities 

with a competitive advantage to attract businesses and employees wanting to live close to outdoor 

recreation opportunities. Any infrastructure plan must also invest in America's public lands- on which 

the outdoor recreation economy relies- through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other 

funding to address infrastructure needs, maintenance backlogs at our nation's parks, wildlife refuges, 

forest, and other public lands. 

Millions of residents and tourists enjoy the diverse outdoor recreation opportunities of the Intermountain 

West, and many towns and individuals rely on this tourism for their livelihoods. Hunting, fishing, hiking, 

and outdoor recreation contribute $646 billion to the US economy with 6.1 million Americans jobs tied to 

the outdoor recreation industry- almost equal to pharmaceuticals and motor vehicles and parts 

combined.' 

Most of the outdoor recreation takes place on public lands; 46.9% of the 11 western states is owned and 

managed by either the United States Department of Agriculture or the Department of Interior.2 Yet, much 

of this land-critical infrastructure for rural economic development-has received inadequate 

management and funding over recent decades, and is in need of infrastructure investments. Critical 

investments in public lands infrastructure must include maintenance, habitat protection, and 

improvements to accessibility such as conservation easements that incentivize private landowners to 

allow the public to pass through their land in order to access public lands. While it is important to address 

the national parks maintenance backlog, recent analyses3 have found that hundreds of millions of dollars 

in projects identified are costs that should be borne by concessionaires or funded through a different 

legislative process. Also, the backlog must not be addressed at the expense of other im·estments through 

the Department of the Interior important for the outdoor economy and rural communities. 

Investments in natural resources create more jobs than other types of infrastructure spending because 

1 Secretary' ,Je\'\'ell Offers Vision for Next 100 Years of ('.A)nservation in America. Department of Interior. April2016. 

A vailablc online at: hltps: //W\VVV .doi.gov /pressreleascs/ secretary-je\vcll-offcrs-vision-next -1 oo-ycars-conscrvationamerica 

2 Federal Land Ownership: Overvic\\' & Data. C,ongressional Research Data. December 2014. Available online at: 

https:/ /"~'w.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf 

sYosemite for Sale How Trump Could Privatize America's National Parks. Center for American Progress. February 

2017. Available online at: 

https: // cdn.amcrican progrcss.org/ content/uploads/ 2017/02/10035249 /ParkService Backlog-brief. pdf 
212 

most of the investment goes into labor rather than capital expenses. About 20 jobs are created per $1 

million invested in recreation and up to 33 jobs are created per $1million invested in environmental 

restoration.4 The Land and Water Conservation Fund alone provides a strong return on investment; for 

every $1 of LWCF funds invested results in a return of S4 in economic value.5 

In orderfor the outdoor recreation economy, its $646 billion contribution to the US economy, and its 6.1 

million (mostly rural) Americans jobs to continue to grow, the public lands infrastructure on which it 

relies must be supported by the federal government through increased infrastructure investment. 

The Mountain Pact is a network of such outdoor recreation-based mountain towns in the Intermountain 

West working together to build economic and environmental resilience in our communities through a 

shared voice on federal policy. The Mountain Pact represents approximately 200,000 permanent 

residents, 40 million visitors, and 5,200 small and medium-sized businesses. Attached please find a 

recent series ofletters from local governments and other Intermountain West stakeholders in regarding 

the value of the outdoor recreation economy. 

We appreciate the Committee's attention to infrastructure on public lands and the opportunity to 

comment. Please contact me at diana(mthemountainpact.org with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Madson 

Executive Director I The Mountain Pact 

4 Defining and evaluating the ecological restoration economy. BenDor, T., Lester, T.W., Livengood, A., Davis, A., 

Yonm:iak, A. Restoration Ecology 23(3): 209-219. April20t5. Available online at: http:/ jdx.doi.orgjw.uujrec.12206 

G Relum on lhc Jnyestmcnt from the Land & Water ConscrYation Fund. The Trust for Public Land. November 2.010. 

Available online at: https:/ jwww.tpl.org/sites/dcfaull/iiles/cloud.tpl.org/pubs/benefits-LWCF-ROI Report-11-

2010.pdf. 

Mountain Communities for Environmental & Economic Resilience 

.1. Diana Madson, Executive Director Oll!diana@themountainpact.org !!'""!! 530.539.4071 
213 

Attachment: Mountain Pact cover letter to Congressional leadership, local government 

letters to members of Congress, and chamber and economic development corporation 

letter to President Trump and Interior Secretary Zinke. 
214 

The Honorable ~Jitch l\1cConndl 

United States Senate 

317 Russell Senate Ollice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

United States House ofRcprcsentati\TS 

1233 Longvvorth House 0 Hicc Building 

\Vashhtgton. D.C. 20515 

1'he Honorable Chuck Scltumer 

lJnjted States Senate 

322 Hart Senate Ollice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

United Stat('s I [ousc of Representatives 

233 Cannon House Ollicc Building 

\Vashington, D.C. 20515 

'\larch 6, 201 7 

Drar Senator rvlitch :lVIcC:onnell, Senator Chuck Schumer, Reprt'sentative Paul Ryan, and Representative Nancy 

Pelosi, 

I <nn writing to introduce you to The 1\1ountain Pact and sh~re the attached letters fron1 1nountain 

communities, chmnbers of cmnmercc, and econon1ic devrlopment corporations (EDCs) highlighting thee-conmnir benefits of national public lands in the Intennountain \'Vest, and in particular, the ne\·V jobs 

study made possible by the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Analysis Act 

('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518 and 1I.R. 4665] of2016. 

Passed unanimously by the U.S. Congress, the Outdoor REC Act requires that the federal government 

study and complete the first-ever analysis of the jobs associated with tourism, hunting and fisbing, 

1nanufacturing of outdoor gear, and other econmnic implications of visits to our national parks and other 

public lands, which our communities depend on. Finally, this economic impact will be recognized and 

counted toward the national GDP. 

As you know, the outdoor recreation economy is already recognized for contributing an estimated S646 

billion to the US economy vvith G.l 1nillion direct /unericans jobs. It drives our local economies, not only 

through spending directly associated with outdoor recreation, but also by making our cmnn1unities 

attractive to new residents, entrepreneurs and s1n;lll businesses. Visitors to and uses of our national public 

lands, locaJ jobs, and tht econmny of\V tstrrn cmnmunities arc inextricably linked. 

The ~tountain Pact is a nt:'twork of such outdoor recreation~hased tnountain tmvns in the Intcnnountain 

\Vest \vorking together to build cconon1ic and environmental resilience in our communities through a 

shared voice on federal policy. The Mountain Pact represents approximately 2<>0,000 permanent 

residents, 43 million visitors, and 5,200 small and medium-sized businesses. 

Attached please find forty-three letters from local governments and other Intermountain \Vest 

stakeholders in support of implementation of the Outdoor REC Act-authorized study. It is vital to local 

jobs in these states, and to the future of our to\vns. Please contact tnc at diana@theinotmtainpact.org with 

any questions. 

Thank you fOr your continued support for our outdoor econOiny. 

Sincerely, 

Diana .Madson 

Executive Dire-ctor, The ~'fountain Pact 

Mountain Communities for Environmental & Economic Resilience 

.a. Diana Madson, Executive Director Ollldiana@themountainpact.org ~ 530.539.4071 
215 

President Donald Trump 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvitnia Ave, l\.\V. 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

Dear President Trump and Secretary Zinke, 

February 7, 20 1 7 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary t:.s. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, l\.vV. 

Washington, D.C. 202+0 

As chambers of con1merce and econmnic devdop1nent corporations (EDCs) in world~class tourisn1 

destinations, \VC share our enthusiastic support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Econmnic Impact .Act 

('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/J-l.R. 4665]. lnlate 2016, the Outdoor REC Act passed the C.S. Senak 

and the llou-;f' ofReprcsentatiYes \'vith :'ltrong support, including co-sponsorship ii·om then-CongTessman 

Zinke. Before the passage oftl1is bill, the federal government did not account for the outdoor recreation 

indus\Iy's contribution to the t:.s. <:<:onomy, estimated at ofSfi.j(i billion \Tar. With tl1e Outdoor REC 

Act, Congress has dire-cted the Bureau ofEconomk Analysis (BEA) to collect, track, and analyze data to 

report on the local and collective economic impact of Arncrica's outdoor economy. 

Together, our local chambers of commerce and EDCs represent 5,200 businesses, 12 tmvns, 200,000 

pcnnanent residents and 40 rnillion annual visitors. \Ve are surrounded by and serve as the gateways to 

unparalleled outdoor recreation opportunities that support our local businesses, entrepreneurs and 

reg-ional economies. The tourism g-enerated from people advcmuring into the neighboring- public lands 

helps our communities to diversify economically by tnaking tbenr nrorc attractive to ne\v residents~ 

entreprent>urs and snrall businesses, and investments that provide tovvns with a cmnprtitive advantage to 

<Utract retirees, businesses and telecommuters wanting to live close to outdoor recreation opportunities. 

According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation supports G.l million American jobs, 

and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues. Throug-h a comprehensive BEA analysis, the 

Outdoor REC Act is an important step in valuing- the impact of usc and visits to the natural and cultural 

assets that our communities depend on for local jobs, rc\'enue and quality of life for our residents. 
216 

Whik the Outrloor R EC ,\ct directs the study of the outdoor economy by the BEA, the Jaw did not 

include allocated funding i(Jr annual1naintenancc of the mode' ling and economic analysis. \Ve respt'ctCully 

request that your Adrnini:-.tration put its full support behind the analys1:-:; and cornpletion of the outdoor 

recreation econorny study. Tt is of utmost in1ponancc to \Vcstcrn businesses, our chambers, and local 

CC0rl()l11l('S, 

We look forward to working with you both to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study 

is funded and completed, but to also support the national public lands on which our communities depend 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Alta Chan1ber (lnd Visitors Bureau 

Aspen Chamber Resort Association 

Bend Chamber of Commerce 

Crested Butte/Mt. Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce 

Estes Park Economic Development Corporation 

Estes Valley Partners for Commerce 

Jackson II ole Chamber of Commerce 

Leadville Lake County Chamber of Commerce 

Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce 

:Vfammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce 

Ouray Chatnber Resort Association 

Ridgway Area Chamber of Commerce 

Taos Ski Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Vail Valley Partnership 
217 

FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DIANA@THEMOUNTAINPACT.ORG 

From the Denver Business Journal: 

http:/ /www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2017/02/03/opinionoutdoor-rec-act-gives-boost-to-major.html 

Opinion: Outdoor Rec Act gives boost to major Colorado industry 

Feb 3, 2017, 6:15am MST 

When the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act was 

passed in early December, it gave assurances to Colorado's tourismdependent economies that America is committed to the outdoor 

recreation industry -- at least to the extent that other industries are 

acknowledged by the federal government. 

The Outdoor REC Act passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. 

Congress, directing the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to measure 

and quantify the economic value and jobs associated with outdoor 

recreation, such as those related to hunting and fishing, manufacturing 

outdoor gear, retail and hospitality, and other economic implications of 

visits to our national parks and public lands. The Vail Valley and other 

mountain communities throughout the country thrive on outdoor 

recreation as a key driver of our local economies. 

For over 50 years, Vail Valley partnership has been working on behalf of 

the economic vitality of this area. Not only do we work as the regional 

chamber of commerce and economic development agency for this 

area, we also promote it as a year round destination for outdoor 

recreation enthusiasts. 

The Vail Valley is a world famous ski region and is an increasingly popular 

location for mountain biking, hiking, golfing, horseback riding and other 

BROOKEHEATHERPHOTOGRAPHER 

Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership 

types of outdoor recreation. The community's shops, restaurants, hotels and other local businesses cater to tourists 

who are drawn to incomparable beauty and recreation opportunities in this region- or non~tourism businesses that 

appreciate our recreational assets. The revenue generated by outdoor recreation helps our community to diversify 

economically by making it more attractive to new residents, entrepreneurs and small businesses. 

Our local economy is dependent on this outdoor recreation and it is the role of Vail Valley Partnership to help ensure 

an environment where local businesses can survive and thrive. 

That is why we celebrate the Outdoor REC Act and applaud the bipartisan effort behind escalating this important billespecially the leadership of Colorado Senator Cory Gardner. 

The Outdoor REC Act will quantify the contributions of mountain communities like those in the Vail Valley to the U.S. 

economy. The revenue generated by the outdoor industry is estimated at $646 billion and 6.1 million direct American 

jobs. Providing information on the structure and interaction of all sectors of the economy is essential function of the 
218 

government. The results of this BEA study will be a critical tool for policymakers to better understand the direct and 

indirect economic impacts of outdoor recreation when making decisions. For example, when making the case for 

investment in trail maintenance or forest restoration, advocates for outdoor recreation and public lands will have 

official federal economic data to back it up. With the BEA study results, policymakers will have the objective data they 

need to understand that the connection between visits to and uses of our national public lands, local jobs, and the 

economy of Western communities, are inextricably linked. 

Vail Valley Partnership is joining chambers of commerce and economic development corporations from mountain 

communities across the Intermountain West on a joint letter to the Trump Administration, requesting that it put its 

full support behind the analysis and completion of the outdoor recreation economy study. 

Outdoor Recreation is an important economic driver here in the Vail Valley as well as throughout the country in rural, 

tourism dependent regions. Vail Valley Partnership looks forward to how this new law, and the critical economic 

information it now requires the government to collect and publish will benefit our members, local businesses, and 

regional economy in the coming years. 
219 

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/outdoor-rec-act-a-lifeline-for·Whitefish/article_820ca958-43b4-588b·bld2-6843c8edcc7c.html 

GUEST COLUMN 

Outdoor REC Act a lifeline for Whitefish 

RICHARD HILDNER Feb 20, 2017 

When Republicans and Democrats agree on an idea, you know it's 

likely a good one. Recently, the president signed the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act, a bill that the U.S. 

Congress passed with unanimous, bipartisan support, including that of U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, 

nominee for secretary of the Department of the Interior. Now, for the first time, the nation will 

have an accurate accounting of jobs associated with America's great outdoors. 

As a member of the Whitefish City Council, I am delighted by news of this bill's passage, as our 

success in creating jobs locally will now be measured as part of the nation's economic growth. 

People are drawn to this area for paddling the Whitefish River, fishing, rafting, hiking and 

playing in Glacier National Park, or enjoying the slopes at the Whitefish Mountain Ski Resort. 

Whitefish is known for its endless opportunities for recreation, but without fail, visitors also 

fall in love with our vibrant community. Local businesses involved in hospitality, dining, guiding 

and other recreation-based activities are an important economic foundation here in Whitefish. 

Although we already know first hand that tourism-dependent mountain towns like Whitefish 

are a significant contributor to the American economy, the Outdoor REC Act now directs the 

federal Bureau of Economic Analysis to coordinate and examine the value of recreation 

nationwide. For those of us who serve in local government and want to see a more efficient 

federal bureaucracy, this enhanced accounting, communication and cooperation is exciting. 

But that's only the start. This coordination will result in reporting the economic impact of local 

outdoor recreation and start including outdoor rec dollars when measuring the country's Gross 

Domestic Product- a number that affects almost every aspect of America's economic policies. 

Until passage of the Outdoor REC Act, income generated by outdoor recreation was not 

included as a part of the GDP. Although federal accountants measure the role of other 

economic sectors such as the arts, oil and gas, and manufacturing, the outdoor industry 

heretofore was ignored. Yet the outdoor economy is huge: according to the Interior 

Department, it generates $646 billion to the U.S. economy and provides 6.1 million direct 

Americans jobs - almost equal to pharmaceuticals and automobile manufacturing combined. 
220 

The Outdoor REC Act is an important first step toward better understanding of and accounting 

for the powerful influence in job creation and economic growth of mountain towns like ours, 

whose economies are closely linked to outdoor recreation and tourism. Now the federal 

government has begun to fully recognize and record the economic benefits of outdoor 

recreation. 

Thanks to bipartisan leadership in Congress, the Outdoor REC Act has ensured that the jobs 

associated with tourism, hunting and fishing, manufacturing of outdoor gear, and visitation to 

our national parks, forests, monuments and other national public lands will finally be 

recognized and counted. 

I want to personally thank Zinke for understanding the importance of Western public lands not 

only for our identity and lifestyle, but for building our local economies, as well. I am hopeful 

that Congressman Zinke, if confirmed as secretary of Interior, will protect and defend our 

public lands and the jobs and outdoor economy that are dependent upon them. 

Richard Hildner is a retired high school teacher and member of the Whitefish City Council. 
221 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449 5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

United States House of Representatives 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Amodei, 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: ns~sS8A547 

Fax: 775 5BBA527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, I'd like to extend our sincere gratitude for your 

leadership on two important pieces of legislation last year. First, passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration 

Act in late 2016 marks a milestone for the Tahoe Basin eight years in the making. Thank you for your 

tenacity in helping us move the bill over the finish line. The Act will provide the federal share of vital 

support for both the environment and economy of Lake Tahoe and we look forward to working with you 

on appropriations to implement the bill. 

We would also like to thank you for your support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact 

Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that 

annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in 

federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, Lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed 

Again, thank you for your ongoing support. We are eager to work with your office to turn the vision for 

the lake Tahoe Restoration Act into reality for the benefit of future generations of residents and visitors 

to Lake Tahoe. 

Joanne S. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
222 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449 5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

United States Senate 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Heller, 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: ns~sS8A547 

Fax: 775 5BBA527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, please accept our most sincere thanks for your 

tireless leadership on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act over the last few years. Passage of our bill in 

December was a major milestone for the Tahoe Basin. Your continued leadership and support for Lake 

Tahoe is truly appreciated. The Act will provide the federal share of vital support for both the 

environment and economy of Lake Tahoe and we look forward to working with you on securing 

appropriations to implement the bill. 

We would also like to thank you for your support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact 

Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that 

annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in 

federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, Lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed. 

From serving as TRPA's Governing Board Chair to your leadership in the US Senate, Lake Tahoe is 

fortunate to have such a stalwart champion. Thank you! 

Joanne S. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
223 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449"5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cortez Masto: 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: 775·5884547 

Fax: 775-5-88 4527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, I'd like to congratulate you on your successful 

campaign for the United States Senate. We have worked closely with Senator Reid's office for many 

years on a number of key pieces of environmental legislation. 

First, passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in late 2016 marks a milestone for the Tahoe Basin eight 

years in the making. The Act will provide the federal share of vital support for both the environment and 

economy of Lake Tahoe and we look forward to working with you on appropriations to implement the 

bill. 

Second, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, Lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed. 

We look forward to working with you and are eager to turn the vision for the Lake Tahoe Restoration 

Act into reality for the benefit of future generations of residents and visitors to Lake Tahoe. 

Joanne S. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
224 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449 5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Tom McClintock 

United States House of Representative 

2331 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman McClintock, 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: ns~sS8A547 

Fax: 775 5BBA527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, I'd like to extend our sincere gratitude for your 

support of two important pieces of legislation last year. First, passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 

in late 2016 marks a milestone for the Tahoe Basin eight years in the making. Thank you for your 

leadership in the House of Representatives which led to the ultimate passage of the bill. The Act will 

provide the federal share of vital support for both the environment and economy of Lake Tahoe and we 

look forward to working with you on securing appropriations to implement the bill. 

We would also like to thank you for your support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact 

Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that 

annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in 

federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, Lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed. 

Again, thank you for your ongoing support. We are eager to work with your office to turn the vision for 

the lake Tahoe Restoration Act into reality for the benefit of future generations of residents and visitors 

to Lake Tahoe. 

Joanne 5. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
225 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449 5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Kamala Harris 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20S10 

Dear Senator Harris: 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: ns~sS8A547 

Fax: 775 5BBA527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, I'd like to offer our most sincere congratulations on 

your successful campaign for the United States Senate. We worked closely with Senator Boxer on a 

number of key pieces of environmental legislation and we look forward to working with your office 

going forward. 

Passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in late 2016 marks a milestone for the Tahoe Basin eight 

years in the making. We worked with our California and Nevada congressional delegation to secure 

passage of the Act which provides the federal share of vital support for both the environment and 

economy of lake Tahoe. Our next step is to secure appropriations to implement the bill to match state 

and local contributions. 

Also of note late last year was passage of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act 

('Outdoor REC Act') [5. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually 

accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, 

state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed. 

Again, congratulations on becoming California's next US Senator. We are eager to work with you to turn 

the vision for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act into reality for the benefit of future generations of 

residents and visitors to Lake Tahoe. 

Joanne S. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
226 

PO Box 5310 

Stateline, NV 89449 5310 

February 2, 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Feinstein, 

128 Market Street 

Stateline, NV 89449 

Phone: ns~sS8A547 

Fax: 775 5BBA527 

www.trpa.org 

On behalf of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, please accept our most sincere thanks for your 

tireless leadership on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act over the last eight years. Passage of our bill in 

December was a major milestone for the Tahoe Basin and your tenacity was unwavering throughout the 

multi-year process. Your continued leadership and interest in Lake Tahoe is truly appreciated. The Act 

will provide the federal share of vital support for both the environment and economy of Lake Tahoe and 

we look forward to working with you on securing appropriations to implement the bill. 

We would also like to thank you for your support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact 

Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that 

annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in 

federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

With Lake Tahoe's approximate 53,000 permanent residents and up to 24 million visitors per year, Lake 

Tahoe serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life. We look forward to working with you to ensure 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed. 

Again, thank you for your ongoing support for our {(Tahoe Team." We are grateful for your passion to 

protect Lake Tahoe for the benefit of future generations. 

Joanne S. Marchetta, 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 
227 

Morgan Goodwin, Mayor 

Carolyn Wallace Dee, V1ce Mayor 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Kamala Harris 

United States Senate 

408 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Kamala Harris, 

Congratulations on your election to the U.S. Congress. As a constituent mountain 

community in a world-class tourist destination, we want to bring your attention to and share 

our enthusiastic support of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor 

REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. In late 2016, the Outdoor REG Act passed the U.S. Senate 

and the House of Representatives with strong support. Before the passage of this bill, the 

federal government did not account for the outdoor recreation industry's contribution to the 

U.S. economy, estimated at $646 billion year. With the Outdoor REG Act, Congress has 

directed the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to collect, track, and analyze data to report 

on the local and collective economic impact of America's outdoor economy. 

Our community represents 16,165 permanent residents and millions of annual visitors to our 

community and the region. We are surrounded by and serve as the gateway to unparalleled 

outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REG Act is the first step to putting an independent analysis on the impact of 

use of and visits to the natural and cultural assets that our communities depends on for local 

jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. While the Outdoor REG Act directs the 

study of the outdoor economy by the BEA, the law did not allocate funding for the 

completion of the study. 

We respectfully request your support in the 115th Congress in ensuring that the BEA study 

is funded in the fiscal year 2018 budget and completed. It is of utmost importance to our 

community and local economy. 

Tahoetrnukee 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161-3306 

www.townoftruckee.com 

Administration: 530-582-7700 I Fax: 530-582-7710 I email: lru<,keelft>tovvno>fln<ck<,e.<oom 

Community Development 530-582-7820 I Fax: 530·582-778~i8~9i;l,;e;,m~a;~ii.~·: ~~~~:~~~~~::=~~~~m Animal Services 530-582-7830 I Fax: 530-582-11031 email: a; 

Police Department: 530-550··2323 I Fax: 530-582-7771 
228 

Page 2 

We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the completion of the BEA study 

but to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies, 

Thank you for your time and your support, 

Sincerely, 

Morgan Goodwin, Mayor 
229 

Morgan Goodwin, Mayor 

Carolyn Walface Dee, Vice Mayor 

January 24, 2017 

The Honorable Tom McClintock 

United States House of Representative 

2331 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Tom McClintock, 

The Town of Truckee extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in 

consumer spending, 6. 1 milllon American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax 

revenue. 

Our community represents 16,165 permanent residents and millions of annual visitors to our 

community and the region. Truckee is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to worldclass outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated 

from people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and setvices. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with 

you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also 

further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor 

economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Talmenruckee 10183 Truck~• Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161-3306 www.townoftruckee.com 

Administration: 530-582-7700 I Fax: 530-582-7710 I email: truckee@townoffruckee.com 

Community Development 530-582-7820 I Fax: 530-582-7889/ email: cdd@townoflruckee.com 

Animal Services 530-582-7830 I Fax: 530-582-11031 email: anima/services@townoftruckee.com 

2m2 Police Department: 530-550-2323 I Fax: 530-582-77711 email: po!icedepartment@townoftruckee.com Prinf.orl nn n::.r-v.-.J.o.rl n:::~n~:~r 
230 

Morgan Goodwin Mayor 

Carolyn Wallace Dee, Vice Mayor 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein, 

The Town of Truckee extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in 

consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax 

revenue. 

Our community represents 16,165 permanent residents and millions of annual visitors to our 

community and the region. Truckee is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to worldclass outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated 

from people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant lax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REG Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with 

you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also 

further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor 

economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Tahoe/Truckee 

10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161-3306 

www.townoftruckee.com 

Community Administration: Development: 530-582-7700 530-582-7820 I Fax: 530-582-78891 email: I Fax: 530-582-7710 I ;m~a~ifl~::=~~::~~~~:~:~~~~~::~~177 Animal Services 530-582-7830 I Fax: 530-582-11031 email: 

Police Department: 530-550-2323 I Fa~;,~;J_~:_~2:!!_7_1,_~ _____ !2911QI1'llili:t£1!lllll1~il!.Q!!'l:tgft[IJ.fl.~£Q!2! 
231 

January 18,2017 

The Honorable Paul Cook 

United States House of Representatives 

1222 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Cook, 

Town of Mammoth lakes 

P.O. Box 1609, Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546 

(760) 965-3600 

www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes extends our sincere gratitude for your support ofthe Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518lH.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes is a small, remote community in the Eastern Sierra region of 

about 8,000 full-time residents. Mammoth Lakes is a tourist destination, servicing an average of 

2.8 million visitors each year. We are geographically isolated from populated areas by several 

hundred miles and are supported by our one primary industry- recreation-based tourism. 

Mammoth Lakes is surrounded by Federal lands, and visitors travel from all over the world to 

recreate in these areas year-round. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, located within the Town 

boundaries, operates under a special use permit with the United States Forest Service, and 

attracts an average of over one million skiers and snowboarders each winter. In the summer, 

hiking, fishing, and camping, and other outdoor recreational activities opportunities are 

abundant. 

The economy ofMammoth Lakes is greatly dependent upon outdoor recreation. The majority of 

jobs and businesses here are either directly or indirectly related to the recreation industry. 

The Outdoor REC Act will t1nally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality oflife for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Shields Richardson 

Mayor 
232 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Feinstein, 

Town of Mammoth Lakes 

P.O. Box 1609, Mammoth lakes, CA, 93546 

(760) 965-3600 

www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes is a small, remote community in the Eastem Sierra region of 

ahout 8,000 full-time residents. Mammoth Lakes is a tourist destination, servicing an average of 

2.8 million visitors each year. We are geographically isolated from populated areas by several 

hundred miles and are supported by our one primary industry- recreation-based tourism. 

Mammoth Lakes is surrounded by Federal lands, and visitors travel from all over the world to 

recreate in these areas year-round. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, located within the Town 

boundaries, operates under a special use permit with the United States Forest Service, and 

attracts an average of over one million skiers and snowboarders each winter. In the summer, 

hiking, fishing, and camping, and other outdoor recreational activities opportunities are 

abundant. 

The economy of Mammoth Lakes is greatly dependent upon outdoor recreation. The majority of 

jobs and businesses here are either directly or indirectly related to the recreation industry. 

The Outdoor REC Act will fmally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality oflife for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Mayor 
233 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Kamala Harris 

United States Senate 

40B Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Harris, 

Town of Mammoth Lakes 

P.O. Box 1609, Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546 

(760) 965-3600 

www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov 

Congratulations on your election to the U.S. Congress. As a constituent mountain community in a 

world-class tourist destination, we want to bring your attention to and share our enthusiastic support 

of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

In late 2016, the Outdoor REC Act passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives with 

strong support. Before !he passage of this bill, the federal government did not account for the 

outdoor recreation industry's contribution to the U.S. economy, estimated at $646 billion year. With 

the Outdoor REG Act, Congress has directed the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to collect, 

track, and analyze data to report on the local and collective economic impact of America's outdoor 

economy. 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes is a small, remote community in the Eastern Sierra region of about 

8,000 full-time residents. Mammoth Lakes is a tourist destination, servicing an average of 2.8 million 

visitors each year. We are geographically isolated from populated areas by several hundred miles 

and are supported by our one primary industry- recreation-based tourism. 

Mammoth Lakes is surrounded by Federal lands, and visitors travel from all over the world to 

recreate in these areas year-round. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, located within the Town 

boundaries, operates under a special use permit with the United States Forest Service, and attracts 

an average of over one million skiers and snowboarders each winter. In the summer, hiking, fishing, 

and camping, and other outdoor recreational activities opportunities are abundant. 

The economy of Mammoth Lakes is greatly dependent upon outdoor recreation. The majority of 

jobs and businesses here are either directly or indirectly related to the recreation industry. The 

Outdoor REC Act is the first step to putting an independent analysis on the impact of use of and 

visits to the natural and cultural assets that our community depends on for local jobs, revenue and 

quality of life for our residents. While the Outdoor REC Act directs the study of the outdoor economy 

by the BEA, the law did not allocate funding for the completion of the study. 

We respectfully request your support in the 115th Congress in ensuring that the BEA study is funded 

in the fiscal year 2018 budget and completed. It is of utmost importance to our community and local 

economy. 

We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the completion of the BEA study but to 

also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy 

relies. 
234 

THE Cm oF AsPEt'-l 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Scott Tipton 

United States House of Representative 

218 Cannon House of Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Scott Tipton, 

The City of Aspen extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 6,882 permanent residents and over a million annual visitors. Aspen 

is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community 

depends on for local jobs and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Steve Skadron 

City of Aspen, Colorado 
235 

THE Cm oF AsPEt'-l 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Michael Bennet 

United States Senate 

261 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Michael Bennet, 

The City of Aspen extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 6,882 permanent residents and over a million annual visitors. Aspen 

is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community 

depends on for local jobs and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Steve Skadron 

City of Aspen, Colorado 
236 

THE Cm oF AsPEt'-l 

January 18, 2017 

The Honorable Cory Gardner 

United States Senate 

354 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cory Gardner, 

The City of Aspen extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 6,882 permanent residents and over a million annual visitors. Aspen 

is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community 

depends on for local jobs and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Steve Skadron 

City of Aspen, Colorado 
237 

January 25, 2017 

Honorable Doug Lamboru 

Town of Buena Vista 

Post Office Box 2002 

Buena Vista, Colorado 81211 

Phone: (719) 395-8643 

Fax: (719) 395-8644 

United States House of Representative 

2402 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Doug Lamborn, 

The Towu of Buena Vista extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, m1d $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

We are the commercial hub for nearly 8,000 residents with roughly 2,800 within town limits. We 

also see thousands of visitors each year. As you know, Buena Vista is surrounded by the 

Collegiate Peaks and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportmlities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated fi·om people adventming into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infi·astructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natmal assets that my commmlity 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bmeau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also finthcr support tbe 

national public lands critical to our local jobs and our national outdoor economy. 

Thmlk you for your time and your support 

Sincerely, 

( 

Benson, Mayor 
238 

January 25, 2017 

The Honorable Michael Bennet 

United States Senate 

Town of Buena Vista 

Post Office Box 2002 

Buena Vista, Colorado 81211 

Phone: (719) 395-8643 

Fax: (719) 395-8644 

261 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Michael Bennet, 

The Town of Buena Vista extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

We are the commercial bub for nearly 8,000 residents with roughly 2,800 within town limits. We 

also see thousands of visitors each year. As you know, Buena Vista is sunounded by the 

Collegiate Peaks and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportnnities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my connnunity 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality oflife for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands critical to our local jobs and our national outdoor economy. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

( ) 

At1el Benson, Mayor 
239 

January 25, 2017 

Honorable Cory Gardner 

United States Senate 

Town of Buena Vista 

Post Office Box 2002 

Buena Vista, Colorado 81211 

Phone: (719) 395-8643 

Fax: (719) 395-8644 

354 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cory Gardner, 

The Town of Buena Vista extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accom1ts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

We are the commercial hub for nearly 8,000 residents with roughly 2,800 within town limits. We 

also see thousands of visitors each year. As you know, Buena Vista is snrronnded by the 

Collegiate Peaks and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opp01tnnities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring 

public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and 

services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infrastructme and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figme on the natmal assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, momffilents, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bmeau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the 

national public lands critical to our local jobs and our national outdoor economy. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

~"·' 

Joel Benson, Mayor 
240 

January 11, 2017 

The Honorable Senator Michael Bennet 

1127 Sherman Street, Suite 150 

Denver, CO 80203 

Re: Co-Sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Dear Senator Bennet, 

The Town of Estes Park extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, $6.1 million American 

jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

The Estes valley represents approximately 12,000 residents and over 4 million visitors each year. Estes 

Park serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. 

The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and 

employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues not only for local infrastructure and services, but provides significant contributions to the entire 

State of Colorado as well. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community depends on 

for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our National Parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

ESTES PARK 

Todd Jirsa 

Mayor 

cc: Board of Trustees 

170 MACGREGOR AVE. 

Administrative Service-s 

P.O. BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 www.estes.org 

970-577-4777 ··-~'--'""" __ .. __ ---
241 

OF 

January 11, 2017 

The Honorable Representative Jared Polis 

1644 Walnut Street 

Boulder, CO 80302 

Re: Co-Sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Dear Representative Polis, 

The Town of Estes Park extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, $6.1 million American 

jobs, and $80 billion in federal, stale, and local tax revenue. 

The Estes valley represents approximately 12,000 residents and over 4 million visitors each year. Estes 

Park serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. 

The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and 

employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues not only for local infrastructure and services, but provides significant contributions to the entire 

State of Colorado as well. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community depends on 

for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our National Parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support 

Sincerely, 

cc: Board of Trustees 

170 MACGREGOR A Vll. P.O. BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 www.estes .. org 

Administrative Services 970-577-4777 
242 

January 11, 2017 

The Honorable Senator Cory Gardner 

1125 171

h Street, Suite 525 

Denver, CO 80203 

OF 

Re: Co-Sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Dear Senator Gardner, 

The Town of Estes Park extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, $6.1 million American 

jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

The Estes valley represents approximately 12,000 residents and over 4 million visitors each year. Estes 

Park serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. 

The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and 

employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues not only for local infrastructure and services, but provides significant contributions to the entire 

State of Colorado as well. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that our community depends on 

for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our National Parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Board of Trustees 

170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 www.estes.org 

Administrative Services 970-577-4777 T"'"'"' r""l,.,..-1, 
243 

PO Box 10 i 201 N. Railroad Street Ridgway, Colorado 8!432 970.€26.530& i www.town.ridgway.co.us 

January 12, 2017 

Honorable Scott Tipton 

United States House of Representative 

218 Cannon House of Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Scott Tipton, 

The Town of Ridgway extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in 

consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local 

tax revenue. 

Our community represents 900+ permanent residents and fifteen thousand annual 

visitors. Ridgway is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but 

to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

~?c:~ Mayor 
244 

PO Box 10 i 201 N. Railroad Street Ridgway, Colorado 8!432 970.€26.530& i www.town.ridgway.co.us 

January 12, 2017 

Honorable Michael Bennet 

United States Senate 

261 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Michael Bennet, 

The Town of Ridgway extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in 

consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local 

tax revenue. 

Our community represents 900+ permanent residents and fifteen thousand annual 

visitors. Ridgway is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but 

to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ Mayor 
245 

PO Box 10 i 201 N. Railroad Street Ridgway, Colorado 8!432 970.€26.530& i www.town.ridgway.co.us 

January 12, 2017 

Honorable Cory Gardner 

United States Senate 

354 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cory Gardner, 

The Town of Ridgway extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in 

consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local 

tax revenue. 

Our community represents 900+ permanent residents and fifteen thousand annual 

visitors. Ridgway is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REG Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but 

to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ Mayor 
246 

January 23, 2017 

Honorable Scott Tipton 

United States House of Representative 

218 Cannon House of Office Building 

Washington, D"C" 20515 

Dear Representative Scott Tipton, 

The Town of Telluride extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S" 6518MR 4665]" 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion 

in consumer spending, 6" 1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and 

local tax revenue" 

Our community represents 2,319 permanent residents and close to half a million annual 

visitors" Telluride is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy" The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services" 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents" 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands" We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed 

but to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies" 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Sean Murphy, 

Town of Telluride 

P"O" Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 
247 

January 23, 2017 

Honorable Michael Bennet 

United States Senate 

261 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Michael Bennet, 

The Town of Telluride extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the 

Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Ac,'t') [S. 6518/H.R. 

4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 

billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, 

and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 2,319 permanent residents and close to half a million annual 

visitors. Telluride is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed 

but to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Sean Murphy, Mayor 

Town of Telluride 

P.O. Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 
248 

January 23, 2017 

Honorable Cory Gardner 

United States Senate 

354 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cory Gardner, 

The Town of Telluride extends our sincere gratitude for your leadership on the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Econornic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') 6518/HR 4665]. 

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion 

in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and 

local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 2,319 permanent residents and close to half a million annual 

visitors. Telluride is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism from 

people adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local 

residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax 

revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REG Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my 

community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, 

monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working 

with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed 

but to also further support the national public lands on which our local jobs and national 

outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Sean Murphy, Mayor 

Town of Telluride 

P.O. Box 397 Telluride, CO 81435 
249 

January 18,2017 

Honorable Martin Heinrich 

United States Senate 

303 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Martin Heinrich, 

PO Box 100, 7 Firehouse Road, Taos Ski Valley, NM 87525 

(575) 776-8220 (575) 776-1145 Fax 

E-mail: vtsv@vtsv.org Website: www.vtsv.org 

Mayor: Neal King 

Council: Kathleen Bennett, J. Christopher Stagg, 

ChristofBrownell, Thomas Wittman 

Administrator: Mark G. Fratrick 

Clerk/Treasurer: Ann M. Wooldridge 

The Village of Taos Ski Valley extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million 

American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 70 permanent residents, but Taos Ski Valley is the region's economic engine 

and source of employment for the surrounding communities to include Town of Taos and Taos County; 

we have 250,000 to 350,000 annual visitors depending on skiing conditions and snow fall. Taos Ski 

Valley is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring public 

lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and 

generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community depends 

on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Neal King 

Mayor 
250 

January 18, 2017 

Honorable Ben Lujan 

United States House of Representatives 

2446 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Ben Lujan, 

PO Box 100, 7 Firehouse Road, Taos Ski Valley, NM 87525 

(575) 776-8220 (575) 776-1145 Fax 

E~mail: vtsv@vtsv.org Website: www.vtsv.ora 

Mayor: Neal King 

Council: Kathleen Bennett, J. Christopher Stagg, 

ChristofBrownell, Thomas Wittman 

Administrator: Mark G. Fratrick 

Clerk/Treasurer: Ann M. Wooldridge 

The Village of Taos Ski Valley extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million 

American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 70 permanent residents, but Taos Ski Valley is the region's economic engine 

and source of employment for the surrounding communities to include Town of Taos and Taos County; 

we have 250,000 to 350,000 annual visitors depending on skiing conditions and snow fall. Taos Ski 

Valley is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these neighboring public 

lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and 

generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community depends 

on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Neal King 

Mayor 
251 

January 18, 2017 

Honorable Tom Udall 

United States Senate 

531 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Tom Udall, 

PO Box 100, 7 Firehouse Road, Taos Ski Valley, NM 87525 

(575) 776-8220 (575) 776-1145 Fax 

E-mail: vtsv@vtsv.org Website: www.vtsv.oroMayor: Neal King 

Council: Kathleen Bennett, J. Christopher Stagg, 

ChristofBrownell, Thomas Wittman 

Administrator: Mark G. Fratrick 

Clerk/Treasurer: Ann M. Wooldridge 

The Village of Taos Ski Valley extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor Recreation 

Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an 

economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million 

American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 70 permanent residents, but Taos Ski Valley is the region's economic engine 

and source of employment for the surrounding communities to include Town of Taos and Taos County; 

we have 250,000 to 350,000 annual visitors depending on skiing conditions and snow fall. Taos Ski 

Valley is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that 

drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into tl1ese neighboring public 

lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a market for local goods and services, and 

generates significant tax revenues we invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community depends 

on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, forests, 

wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only ensure that the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands on 

which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Neal King 

Mayor 
252 

710 NW WAlt Sn<cn 

PO BOX 431 

BEND, OR 97709 

541-388~5505 TEL 

Relay Users Olal7~t~1 

541-385-6676 fax 

bendoregon.gov 

MAYOR 

JimC!fnton 

MAYOR PROTEM 

Sally Russel! 

CITY COUNCILOR 

Nathom Boddi~ 

Barb Campbell 

Victor Chudowsky 

Doug Knight 

C-asey Roats 

CITY MANAGER 

Eric King 

Jan~ary 4, 2017 

Honorable Greg Walden 

United States House of Representatives 

2185 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Greg Walden, 

CITY OF BkN D 

The City of Bend extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act {'Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/HR 

4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts 

for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 

billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents approximately 83,500 permanent residents and 

between 2.5 and 3 million annual visitors. Bend is surrounded by and serves as 

the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these 

neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a 

market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we 

invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that 

my communtty depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our 

residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national 

parks, monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look 

forward to working with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands 

on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 
253 

710 NW WAlt STRHI 

PO Box431 

B~ND, OR 97709 

541-388~5505 TEL 

Relay Users Dial 7-1-1 

541-385-6675 fax 

hendaregon.gov 

MAYOR 

Jim Clinton 

MAYOR PROTEM 

Sally Russell 

CllY COUNCJLOR 

Nath:on Boddie 

S<Jrb Campbell 

Wtor CI1Udowsky 

Doug Knight 

cas~y Roats 

CITY MANAGER 

Eric King 

January 4, 2017 

Honorable Jeff Merkley 

United States Senate 

313 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Jeff Merkley, 

CITY OF B~ND 

The City of Bend extends our sincere gratitude for your support of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REG Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 

4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts 

for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 

billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents approximately 83,500 permanent residents and 

between 2.5 and 3 million annual visitors. Bend is surrounded by and serves as 

the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these 

neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a 

market for focal goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we 

invest in focal infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REG Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that 

my community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our 

residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national 

parks, monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look 

forward to working with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands 

on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 
254 

710 NW WALL SnEFT 

PO Sox 431 

BWD, OR 97709 

541-388-5505 TEL 

Rcl:;~:y Users Dial 7-1-1 

541-385-6676 fax 

bendoregon.gov 

MAYOR 

JimCf!nton 

MAYOR PROTEM 

Sally Russell 

CIIY COUNCILOR 

Nathan BOOdle 

Barb Campbell 

Victor Chuclowsky 

Doug Knight 

CaseyRoats 

CiTY MANAGER 

Eric!<ing 

January 4, 2017 

Honorable Ron Wyden 

United States Senate 

221 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Ron Wyden, 

CITY 0!= BEND 

The City of Bend extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the 

Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 

6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually 

accounts for $646 billion in consumer spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and 

$80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents approximately 83,500 permanent residents and 

between 2.5 and 3 million annual visitors. Bend is surrounded by and serves as 

the gateway to world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that drive our local 

economy. The tourism generated from people adventuring into these 

neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, provides a 

market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we 

invest in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that 

my community depends on for local jobs, revenue and quality of life for our 

residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national 

parks, monuments, forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look 

forward to working with you to not only ensure that the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis study is completed but to also further support the national public lands 

on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, / /··;/ 

~~~ City Councilor 
255 
256 
257 
258 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Sen. Barrasso, 

Thank you for your time and your support 

Sincerely, 

january 30, 2017 
259 

PO Box3594 

ZOO Somh Wlllow St. 

Jackson, Wyoming 83001 

Tel' 307.733.8094 

Fax: 307,733A451 

Emal!: 

commlss!oners@teton\Vj'o.org 

The Honorable Michael Eozl 

United States Senate 

379A Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Sen, Enzi, 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

january 30, 2017 
260 

january 30, 2017 

Dear Representative Cheney, 

In late 2016, the Outdoor REC Act passed the U.S, Senate and the House of 

bill, the federal 

Our county represents more than 23,000 residents and over 3 million annual visitors. 

We are surrounded 

revenues we inve-st in local infrastructure and services. 

We look forward to working with you to 

BEA study but to also 

and national eccmomv rel!ies, 

Thank you for your time and your support 

Best regards, 
261 

January 23, 2017 

~itp of JLeabentuortlJ 700 Highway 2 ( Post Office Box 287 

Leavemvorth, Washington 98826 

(509) 548-5275 I Fax: (509) 548-6429 Web: www.cih-oflellvrn\YOrth.com 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

United States Senate 

154 Russel Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murray, 

City Council 

Cheryl K Farivar- Mayor 

Elmer Larsen 

Carolyn Wilson- M1yor Pro Tem 

Gretchen Wearne 

Mia Bretz 

Margaret Neighbors 

Richard Brinkman 

Sharon Waters 

Joel Walinski- City Administrator 

The City of Leavenworth extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 1,995 pennanent residents and approximately 2.5 million visitors 

annually. Leavenworth is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people 

adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, 

provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest 

in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed, but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor Cheryl K. Farivar 

CC: Leavenworth City Council 

File 
262 

January 23, 2017 

QC:itp of JLeabentuortiJ 

700 Highway 2 I Post Office Box 287 

Leavenworth, Washington 98826 

(509) 548-5275 I Fax: (509) 548-6429 Web: \nnv.dtyofleavenvrorth.com 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cantwell, 

City Council 

Cheryl K Farivar · Mayor 

Elmer Larsen 

Carolyn Wilson- Mayor Pro Tem 

Gretchen Wearne 

Mia Bretz 

Margaret Neighbors 

Richard Brinkman 

Sharon Waters 

joel Walinski City Administrator 

The City of Leavenworth extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6.1 million American jobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 1,995 permanent residents and approximately 2.5 million visitors 

annually. Leavenworth is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people 

adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, 

provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest 

in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed, but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

CC: Leavenworth City Council 

File 
263 

January 23, 2017 

QC:itp of JLeabentuortiJ 

700 Highway 2 I Post Office Box 287 

Leavenworth, Washington 98826 

(509) 548-5275 I Fax: (509) 548-6429 Web: \nnv.dtyofleavenvrorth.com 

The Honorable Dave Reichert 

United States Representative 

1127 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Reichert, 

City Council 

Cheryl K Farivar · Mayor 

Elmer Larsen 

Carolyn Wilson- Mayor Pro Tem 

Gretchen Wearne 

Mia Bretz 

Margaret Neighbors 

Richard Brinkman 

Sharon Waters 

joel Walinski City Administrator 

The City of Leavenworth extends our sincere gratitude for your co-sponsorship of the Outdoor 

Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act ('Outdoor REC Act') [S. 6518/H.R. 4665]. Outdoor 

recreation is an economic powerhouse that annually accounts for $646 billion in consumer 

spending, 6. I million Americanjobs, and $80 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. 

Our community represents 1,995 permanent residents and approximately 2.5 million visitors 

annually. Leavenworth is surrounded by and serves as the gateway to world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities that drive our local economy. The tourism generated from people 

adventuring into these neighboring public lands helps attract and employ local residents, 

provides a market for local goods and services, and generates significant tax revenues we invest 

in local infrastructure and services. 

The Outdoor REC Act will finally put a dollar figure on the natural assets that my community 

depends on for local jobs, revenue, and quality of life for our residents. 

We thank you for your dedication to protecting and enhancing our national parks, monuments, 

forests, wildlife areas, and other public lands. We look forward to working with you to not only 

ensure that the Bureau of Economic Analysis study is completed, but to also further support the 

national public lands on which our local jobs and national outdoor economy relies. 

Thank you for your time and your support. 

Sincerely, 

CC: Leavenworth City Council 

File 
264 

Testimony of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust 

United States Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Hearing to receive testimony on opportunities to improve and expand 

infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources 

March 21, 2017 

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding opportunities to improve and 

expand infrastructure important to federal lands, outdoor recreation, clean water, and other 

natural resources. 

The Mountains to Sound Greenway is the landscape connecting Seattle to Ellensburg 

surrounding Interstate 90, including wilderness lands, rural areas and historic sites, and the 

15th largest metropolitan area in the country. This spectacular landscape has not happened 

by accident. More than two decades of collaborative work have preserved the natural 

heritage of the Greenway, leading us to propose that the U.S. Congress designate this 

1.5-million~acre landscape as a National Heritage Area. 

This proposed National Heritage Area is a major recreation destination for tourists and 

residents alike, providing enormous economic and quality of life benefits to Washington 

State. We believe that increased federal investment in recreation infrastructure is essential to 

keep and enhance our outdoor recreation economy in this part of the country. 

Outdoor recreation is a major economic driver The outdoor recreation industry is a significant contributor to our state and national economy. 

A recent report in Washington State estimates that outdoor recreation generates $21.6 

billion dollars in annual expenditures and supports nearly 200,000 jobs, many of those in rural 

areas. In addition to direct employment in the outdoor industry, Washington State retains a 

competitive advantage as an attractive location for companies and talent due to the 

abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation. 

Also, investing in recreation infrastructure immediately creates many local jobs as small 

businesses and crews deploy to rebuild trails and day-use areas. With funding through 

private donations and public grants, the Greenway Trust directly supports more than two 

dozen professional, skilled and labor jobs as well as multiple local contractors. Federal 

investment in recreation infrastructure creates prevailing wage jobs like these in rural areas 

around the country. 

Without investments in trails and access roads, deteriorating facilities will dampen the 

popularity of outdoor recreation and we will risk losing these many economic benefits. 
265 

Outdoor recreation has multiple benefits 

Beyond the significant economic impacts, outdoor recreation contributes significantly to 

quality of life. American families of all classes have been spending time together outdoors for 

generations. Americans hike, bike, swim, hunt, fish, and camp outside because it is 

affordable, healthy, and fun. The national pastime of visiting National Parks and National 

Forests became much more popular after the massive federal investment in recreation 

through the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. To encourage families to take 

advantage of healthy outdoor activity today, we need a similar reinvestment in our currently 

aging and insufficient recreation infrastructure. 

Land management agencies are underfunded Federal land management agencies like the US Forest Service have been chronically 

underfunded for years, leading to the deterioration of outdoor recreation infrastructure and 

causing ecological damage. A 2013 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 

estimates that the total backlog of trail maintenance on Forest Service lands to be "$314 

million in fiscal year 2012, with an additional $210 million for annual maintenance, capital 

improvement, and operations." The National Park Service faces a similar and well~known 

maintenance backlog that threatens access to our nation's most spectacular landscapes. 

Federal investments leverage private resources Given the enormous grassroots support for outdoor recreation and healthy natural areas, 

federal land management agencies have access to an impressive network of non-profit and 

private partners who are willing to contribute time and money to improve recreation access. 

This widespread citizen support means that investments in US Forest Service or National Park 

Service recreation budgets can frequently be leveraged many times over. 

The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust is currently leading a $10 million campaign to raise 

private dollars that we will match with public funds to invest in recreation infrastructure in the 

Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Valley, a spectacular basin managed largely by the US Forest 

Service, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and King County Parks. 

However, our ultimate success in leveraging these private donations is contingent on the 

basic federal investment required for planning, project review, and environmental analysis 

that are appropriately the responsibility of the federal land manager. Our ability to reach the 

full potential of our campaign to raise private dollars is directly dependent on the federal 

budget that has too often fallen short in recent years. We have a significant opportunity to 

raise additional private capital to rebuild and develop infrastructure to accommodate the 

increasing demand for outdoor recreation in the region, but we need federal land managers 

to be partners in this endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director, 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust 
266 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

U.S. Senate 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: March 21 hearing on improving and expanding infrastructure 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

U.S. Senate 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

On behalf of the National Ground Water Association's (NGWA) thousands of members across the United States, 

we commend the attention the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is giving water infrastructure during 

the March 21 hearing, "Hearing to receive testimony on opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure 

important to federal lands, recreation, water., and resources. 1

' NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater 

professionals in the world, whose mission is to promote the responsible protection, management and use of 

groundwater. 

As water resources and infrastructure Improvements are considered, please consider the role of aquifers as 

''natural 11 infrastructure play in water storage and infrastructure. Aquifers have tremendous water storage 

capacity, but this capacity is often overlooked and instead, priority is placed on constructing new surface 

storage. We urge the committee to look at managed aquifer recharge as an integral part of improving and 

expanding water Infrastructure. 

Aquifers exist as natural capital infrastructure and storing water underground is less expensive than building 

new dams, avoids the massive losses to evaporation from surface water reservoirs, and greatly reduces the 

environmental effects of changes in the natural flow of rivers. Underground water storage also can help alleviate 

problems with land subsidence, which damages the state's flood control infrastructure. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Please contact Lauren Schapker, NGWA's Government 

Affairs Director, at lschapker@ngwa.org or 202.888.9151 with questions or if NGWA can be of assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin McCray, CAE 

Chief Executive Officer 

National Ground Water Association 

cc: Members, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
267 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

366 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

HEARING ON OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND INFRASTRUCTURE 

IMPORTANT TO FEDERAL LANDS, RECREATION, WATER AND RESOURCES 

MARCH 21, 2017 

TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members ofthe Committee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to share the National Trust for Historic Preservation's perspectives on 

opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure on federal lands. My name is Pam Bowman 

and I am the Director of Public Lands Policy. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded charitable, educational and 

nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949 in order to "facilitate public participation 

in historic preservation" and to further the purposes of federal historic preservation laws.1 The 

intent of Congress was for the National Trust "to mobilize and coordinate public interest, 

participation and resources in the preservation and interpretation of sites and buildings.'' 2 With 

headquarters in Washington, D.C., nine field offices, 27 historic sites, more than one million 

members and supporters and a national network of partners in states, territories, and the 

District of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America's historic places and advocates 

for historic preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all levels of 

government. 

We appreciate the Committee scheduling this hearing to explore opportunities to improve 

aspects of our nation's infrastructure and thereby preserve the ability for Americans and visitors 

to enjoy and experience natural wonders and iconic historic resources on federal lands. 

The Need 

The National Park System in particular is one of our nation's best ideas- a network of 417 parks 

and sites that protect spectacular historic, cultural, and natural resources and tell the stories of 

remarkable people and events in our country's history. The National Park Service (NPS) is 

responsible for maintaining a system comprised of more than 84 million acres across all so 

states, the District of Columbia, and many U.S. territories. 

The National Park System tells an incredible story at sites as diverse as Gettysburg National 

Military Park, the Statue of Liberty, Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, the Martin 

Luther King ,Jr. National Historic Site, and Native American cultural sites like those at Mesa 

Verde National Park. National parks, and the historic and cultural sites they protect, are some 

of our nation's most popular attractions. In 2015 alone, they generated over 307 million visits 

1 54 U.S. C. §§ 3!2102(a). 32010 L 

2 S. Rep. No. 1110, 8lst Cong .. 1st Scss. 4 (1949). 

1 
268 

with visitors spending an estimated $16.9 billion in nearby communities -spending that 

supported 295,300 jobs and provided a $32 billion boost to the national economy. 

The size and complexity of the NPS infrastructure and the importance of preserving our parks' 

invaluable resources represent a significant challenge. Unfortunately, after 100 years of 

operation and inconsistent public funding, the National Park System faces a deferred 

maintenance backlog estimated at $12 billion, of which 47% is attributed to historic assets.3 

Deferred maintenance in our national parks puts historic and cultural sites at risk of permanent 

damage or loss, and in the absence of funding, the condition of these assets will continue to 

deteriorate and become more expensive to repair and preserve in the future. Some of the 

National Park Service's most significant historic sites are at risk of falling into disrepair. For 

example, the Statue of Liberty National Monument in New York Harbor, which includes Ellis 

Island- an iconic symbol of American freedom and immigration - has repair needs of over 

$160 million. 

Direct Federal Investments 

The NPS maintenance backlog of approximately $12 billion demonstrates that additional 

investments and new strategies are necessary ifNPS is to meet their stewardship 

responsibilities. We are encouraged by Secretary Zinke's statements of support for reducing the 

maintenance backlog and prioritizing this issue as part of policy proposals seeking to make 

investments in our nation's infrastructure, as well as the recommendation in the President's 

budget blueprint "that the National Park Service assets are preserved for future generations by 

increasing investment in deferred maintenance projects." 

We believe that congressional appropriations that provide sustained and robust funding levels 

for Repair and Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, and Line-Item Construction are needed to 

alleviate the infrastructure backlog and ensure adequate preservation and protection of 

resources in our parks. After years oflevel funding or modest increases for both Repair and 

Rehabilitation and Cyclic Maintenance, we were pleased to see increases for FY16 enacted of $35 

million for both accounts. Additional investments-such as those proposed by the House and 

Senate Appropriations Committees for FY17-will contribute to the successful preservation of 

historic sites and other resources in the National Park System. 

Additionally, a reliable, dedicated federal funding source distinct from annual appropriations to 

address the deferred maintenance backlog, along with providing sufficient staffing capacity 

would ensure that we preserve historic sites, maintain buildings and infrastructure in safe 

condition, and keep our parks open and accessible. 

The nation faces a challenging fiscal environment, and the National Trust recognizes there is a 

need for fiscal restraint and cost-effective federal investments. However, we do not believe that 

preservation and conservation programs should suffer from disproportionate funding 

reductions, or that a successful solution to address the maintenance backlog can omit 

significant financial investments. Given the unprecedented size of the maintenance backlog, we 

understand the need to explore complementary proposals and opportunities, and we offer two 

such options for your consideration. 

3 The Pew Charitable Trusts, "NPS Deferred Maintenance: By the Numbers" 

http://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=e437bdf8-

85ad-6a3d-6dlb-d343c374d4ac&forceDialog=O accessed March 2017 

2 
269 

Historic Leasing 

Leasing of historic buildings in the National Park System to private parties is an effective and 

proven public-private partnership that can be used as part of a suite of options to mitigate the 

deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks. Historic leases alleviate the burden on the 

National Park Service to maintain historic buildings and for long-term commercial leases of 6o 

years, an incentive is available for the lessee to utilize the federal 20% historic tax credit and 

invest in qualified rehabilitation expenses. 

Congressional support for this approach has long existed, as evidenced by grants of authority to 

enter into public-private partnerships and historic leases, which Congress has extended to the 

NPS over the years. The House Appropriations Committee has also noted, in part, that "leasing 

of historic park buildings has proven to be an effective public-private partnership that has 

brought private investment to the repair and maintenance of historic park resources. "4 

The Department of the Interior reported to Congress that among the 27,000 assets on the List of 

Classified Structures (LCS), potentially 9,000 structures could be evaluated for re-use through 

leasing. Even with the availability of leasing authority included in the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Concessions Management Act, along with Congressional 

encouragement, the NPS has struggled to fully use its authority to preserve historic structures 

and cultural resources. Barriers to full use of this authority-including unduly restrictive policy 

interpretations or statutory and regulatory hurdles-have often stood in the way. 

Despite these obstacles, there are numerous examples where historic leasing and public-private 

partnership agreements have been used to authorize non-federal entities to operate businesses, 

provide services and housing, and manage event spaces in historic structures within the national 

park system. In many cases, the involvement of non-federal entities has meant the difference 

between preservation and reuse, or deterioration and neglect of irreplaceable historic resources. 

The American public has directly benefited from these private investments through increased 

opportunities to enjoy historic properties that otherwise would have been unavailable. 

Several historic leasing examples highlight some of the many historic leasing success stories, 

along with a few challenges, that illustrate the potential of this opportunity: 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. Alaska 

The NPS has acquired and restored many of the most historic buildings along the main 

thoroughfare in Skagway, Alaska to ensure protection of the cultural landscape features of the 

park. Local park administrators began an active push to use leases here in 1986 that has been 

very successful. Seven historic leases have been extended to commercial businesses in the park 

that cater to tourists. Under these leases, the Park Service received $368,572 in rent in 2012 that 

was used to fund historic property maintenance. 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Ohio 

Of all of the units of the national park system, Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP) has 

perhaps been the most creative in using a variety of! eases, partnership agreements, concessions 

contracts and sales with easements to restore and maintain the historic properties that make up 

the park's cultural landscape. To ensure flexibility to support its leasing needs, the park's staff 

developed two separate leasing programs. The "Historic Property Leasing Program" was 

established to handle individual buildings and the "Countryside Program" was developed to 

4 House Report l 14-170. accompanying the Department oft he interior. Environment and Related Agencies 

Appropriation BilL FY20 16 

3 
270 

address farms and associated historic buildings. 

Under the Historic Property Leasing Program, NPS requires lessees to pay for repair and 

rehabilitation of the historic house and establishes a rental amount that takes the private 

investment into account. Several historic properties have been successfully leased under these 

terms. Notably, since 1987 the National Register-listed Inn at Brandywine Falls has operated 

under a so-year lease as a bed and breakfast that makes 6 rooms available to guests on a yearround basis. Other attempts to use leasing to manage individual historic houses have proven to 

be problematic. 

In its Countryside Program, the park has been successful in leasing farms to private operators. 

For example, in 1999, working through its Countryside Program, the park entered into a 

Cooperative Agreement with the non-profit Cuyahoga Valley Countryside Conservancy (CVCC). 

Under the terms of the agreement, CVCC coordinates efforts to rehabilitate a working 

agricultural landscape within the park. Prior to developing this leasing program, NPS used its 

own funds to repair and restore the farmhouses in the park and only required authorized private 

farmers to maintain high priority farm fields and cultural landscapes. Now, through the 

cooperative agreement v.cith CVCC, the park has been able to shift historic maintenance 

responsibilities almost entirely onto the lessees and more of the farmlands are being used and 

maintained. 

Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania 

Valley Forge National Historic Park is dedicated to preserving and interpreting the winter 

encampment site of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. The park includes 

numerous historic structures that post-date the Revolutionary War and are thus outside the 

historical time period that is the main interpretive focus of the park. In 2009, park staff 

successfully negotiated a 40-year lease agreement for the David Walker Farmstead, a 3.7-acre 

site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The lessee is the Montessori 

Children's House of Valley Forge, a non-profit organization that uses the farmstead as a school. 

The Montessori school has invested over $3 million dollars into restoration and maintenance, 

including funding the removal of non-historic elements, such as an adjacent, non-historic 1958 

house. 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. California 

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a large park unit that spans multiple sites across 

the greater San Francisco Bay region. NPS personnel have successfully used historic leases and 

cooperative agreements to work with a diverse array oflocal partners to provide assistance and 

funding for historic facility repairs within the park system unit. 

A significant success story is found north of the Golden Gate Bridge at Fort Baker in Sausalito. 

Through a long-term lease that permitted utilization of the federal historic tax credit, the former 

officer's residences at Fort Baker have been impeccably restored and transformed into the 

Cavallo Point, the Lodge at the Golden Gate. The Argonaut Hotel is another exemplary leasing 

example in the Pacific West Region. The hotel is located in the century-old Haslett Warehouse 

within the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. Under a 6o-year lease this one-time 

fish cannery is now open to the public as a hotel. The rehabilitated historic building includes the 

park's Visitor Center onsite. The length of the lease term allowed the hotel operators to qualify 

for federal historic tax credits that made the building's rehabilitation financially feasible. 

Without the investment of private funds, and the utilization of the federal historic tax credit, it is 

likely that these beautifully restored buildings would be sitting unused. 

Another example of creative use of! easing and cooperative agreements is the successful Fort 

Mason Center, a non-profit arts and cultural center housed at the historic military base site. The 

4 
271 

Center serves as the home for over 15 primarily arts-related small businesses and non-profit 

organizations that offer services ranging from a used books store to a vegetarian restaurant. The 

Center also offers the former Officers Club for rent as a public event space. The Center operated 

under a cooperative agreement with the NPS for over 30 years, but in 2005 the relationship was 

converted to a lease. This conversion provided greater stability and assurances of continued 

operation to the lessee. The National Park was assured of significant and continued investment 

in maintenance by the lessee in return. The lease includes all of the historic buildings in Lower 

Fort Mason, which allows the Center to manage sub-leases with a variety of organizations. 

Despite successful examples of historic leasing being used to rehabilitate historic structures in 

almost every NPS region, some Superintendents have not used the NPS's leasing authorities to 

their full extent. Other issues, such as a lack of leasing expertise, staff capacity, and more general 

policy concerns also stand in the way. 

Specific recommendations for utilization of historic leasing by the National Park Service are 

outlined in a reports produced by the National Trust that also includes several policy 

recommendations to expand and enhance the use of this entrepreneurial tool. While not a 

solution to the entire maintenance backlog, expanding leasing authority and implementation by 

park superintendents, as well as providing comprehensive guidance and encouragement for the 

use of historic leasing, paves the way for collaborative, cost-effective arrangements that improve 

park maintenance and enhance visitor experience. 

Volunteerism 

Efforts to increase the exposure of our national parks to young people - particularly those from 

underserved communities- include programs such as the Every Kid in a Park campaign and 

public-private partnerships that provide opportunities for youth corps and other groups to 

engage in interactive experiences within the National Park System. 

As part of our commitment to these initiatives and to assist the NPS in reducing the 

maintenance backlog of historic properties, the National Trust launched the HOPE (Hands-On 

Preservation Experience) Crew initiative in 2014 to train young adults in preservation skills, 

while helping to protect and restore historic sites. Youth and veterans are trained in the 

preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks and other federal lands 

through a cooperative agreement between the NPS, other federal land management agencies, 

and several NGOs including the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. 

In the first two years of the program, HOPE Crew has engaged over 300 Corps members (youth 

and veteran), spent 6o,ooo hours completing 67 projects and supporting over $8 million of 

preservation work, including rehabilitating structures at Martin Luther King, .Jr. National 

Historic Site, Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, and Shenandoah National Park. Projects like these help reduce the maintenance backlog 

while also providing job skills and education for the next generation of stewards of America's 

most important historic sites. 

in the National Park System: 

5 
272 

Infrastructure Investment 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the National Trust's perspectives on these issues, 

and we look forward to working with the committee and other stakeholders as you consider 

proposals to improve and expand the nation's infrastructure as it relates to our federal lands. 

We hope these investments continue to sustain our nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic 

resources that generate lasting economic vitality for communities throughout the nation. 

6 
273 

From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Attachments: 

For the Record: Outdoor Infrastructure Priorities for Wildlife, Hunters & Anglers 

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 11:06:23 AM 

Infrastructur~ ltr-Sportsmen to President Trumo 15 17.ndf 

As the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee considers the testimony received from its 

~.aU[lg.QJl.QP.llillLlillili~llQLrnPIQY.f_<iDlit;;X!laruiinfl:a:;1!:y(jJJJ:sclmtJ.QitiliJ.tJcl~-"l:<l!JilO.d:i, 

re.£Le.ittilll1..WEJ-iill~\Jr:g;;;, we hope the Committee will consider the outdoor infrastructure 

priorities identified by more than 50 sportsmen organizations in a recent letter to President Trump 

(attached), and ask that the letter and this email be included in the hearing record. These groups 

highlighted confronting the forest fire crisis through funding and management solutions, and 

addressing the maintenance backlog on public lands, along with other priorities including recovering 

America's wildlife, advancing sportsmen legislative priorities, and restoring degraded habitat. 

Additional infrastructure priorities we ask the Committee to support include: 

Conserve America's Private Lands: Restoring degraded wildlife habitat on private lands and large 

landscapes would spur significant rural job growth, while reconnecting key wildlife migratory 

corridors and cleaning up contaminated waterways. For example, there is bipartisan support for 

investing a portion of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund in habitat restoration that could help 

put people back to work, revitalize communities, and expand hunting and fishing opportunities. 

Similarly, restoring degraded grasslands and coastal and inland wetlands would increase duck and 

pheasant populations and hunting opportunities, while strengthening local economies. 

Construct Next Generation Energy Infrastructure: As America makes long awaited investments in 

power transmission and distribution upgrades to improve the reliability and resiliency of our electric 

power grid, we must commit to deeper investments in wildlife friendly renewable energy, energy 

efficiency, energy storage, and more sustainable transportation. Modern mass transit, electrified 

transportation systems, and renewable energy technologies like wind both on- and offshore--

distributed and utility-scale solar, and programs like Atmosphere to Electrons, Wind for Schools, 

SunShot Initiative, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant and Federal Energy Management 

Programs need robust support. Investments should go beyond tax credits to include research and 

development grants to spur the greatest innovation. 

Create the Vital Infrastructure Program (VIP): VIP would focus on major federal investments to 

jumpstart innovative new projects that enhance the way we move goods and freight to modernizing 

highways and transit systems, to providing resilient protection to regions at risk. VIP transportation 

projects will also fund other types of infrastructure investments of national significance, including 

large-scale restoration efforts with landscape-scale benefits to mitigate the impacts of severe 

weather events. 

Build Resilient Communities: Extreme weather events leave communities unprepared to address 

disasters in real-time. Federal funding that supports critical infrastructure resiliency competition 

requires investments in the Resilient Communities Revolving Loan Fund, State and Federal resiliency 

or restoration plans, and the Federal Emergency Management flood risk reduction. 
274 

Thank you, 

Mike Leahy 

Sr. Manager, Public Lands and Sportsmen Policy 

National Wildlife Federation 

Mike Leahy 

Sr. Manager, Public Lands & Sportsmen 

National Wildlife Federation 

1990 K St NW #430, DC 20006 

202-797-6826 

to ensure wildlife thrive in a rapidly changing world 
275 

Alabama Wildlife Federation * Archery Trade Association * Arkansas Wildlife Federation * 

Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies* Boone and Crockett Club* Camp Fire Club of 

America* Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation* Conservation Federation of Missouri* 

Conservation Force * Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports *Dallas Safari Club 

Delta Waterfowl* Ducks Unlimited* Florida Wildlife Federation* Georgia Wildlife Federation 

Houston Safari Club* Indiana Wildlife Federation* Iowa Wildlife Federation* Izaak Walton 

League of America* Kansas Wildlife Federation* Louisiana Wildlife Federation* Masters of 

Foxhounds Association * Michigan United Conservation Clubs *Minnesota Conservation 

Federation *Mississippi Wildlife Federation *Montana Wildlife Federation *National 

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative* National Trappers Association* National Wild Turkey 

Federation *National Wildlife Federation* National Wildlife Refuge Association *Nevada 

Wildlife Federation* New Mexico Wildlife Federation* North American Grouse Partnership* 

North Carolina Wildlife Federation *North Dakota Wildlife Federation * Orion- The Hunter's 

Institute* Pheasants Forever* Quail Forever* Quality Deer Management Association * 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation* Ruffed Grouse Society* Shikar Safari Club International* 

South Carolina Wildlife Federation* South Dakota Wildlife Federation* Sportsmen's Alliance 

Tennessee Wildlife Federation * The Conservation Fund* The Wildlife Society * 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership *Whitetails Unlimited* Wildlife Forever* 

Wild Sheep Foundation *Wildlife Management Institute *Wisconsin Wildlife Federation * 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

February 15,2017 

The Honorable Donald J. Trump 

President of the United States 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania A venue NW 

Washington, District of Columbia 20500 

Dear Mr. President, 

On behalf of the millions of hunters, anglers, shooters, and outdoor enthusiasts that our 

organizations represent, we write to thank you for your commitment to America's sportsmen and 

women. We especially want to thank you for nominating Representative Ryan Zinke to serve as 

Secretary oflnterior and Governor Sonny Perdue for Secretary of Agriculture, both of whom are 

sportsmen who understand our nation's conservation heritage. 

We write because we believe that there is an opportunity for your Administration to advance 

three campaign promises simultaneously-creating American jobs, revitalizing rural America, 

and honoring the conservation legacy of Theodore Roosevelt-by including strategic 

investments in America's outdoor economy into the President's infrastructure package. 

America's outdoor economy is one of the fastest growing parts of our nation's economy, 

generating more than $646 billion in annual economic benefit, supporting 6.1 million jobs, and 

attracting more than 140 million participants (including nearly 40 million hunters and anglers). 

This burgeoning sector depends upon healthy and accessible public lands, clean water, clean air, 

and abundant wildlife populations. Investments in natural infrastructure as part of an 
276 

infrastructure package would bolster the outdoor economy, while creating more jobs (15-28 per 

$1 million invested) and producing a greater return on investment ($2-2.62 return per $1 

invested) than other types of investments because most of the investment goes into labor. 

Investments in natural infrastructure are an opportunity to significantly improve wildlife habitat 

and water quality while securing dramatic infrastructure investment savings for the taxpayer. 

Importantly, many of the jobs created would be in rural communities facing high unemployment. 

We specifically encourage the Administration to dedicate 5% of the $1 trillion 

infrastructure package ($5 billion/year) toward natural infrastructm·e and conservation 

investments that will grow America's outdoor economy, including: 

1. Recover America's Wildlife: Much of the outdoor economy is predicated on healthy wildlife 

populations, yet thousands of wildlife species are at-risk with more than 1,500 listings 

pending under the Endangered Species Act. Investing in restoration projects at the state-level 

(through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration program at $1.3B/year) will drive nonregulatory collaboration to save at-risk wildlife, reduce the need for expensive "emergency 

room" measures, and avoid tens of billions of dollars in regulatory/litigation paralysis-all of 

which create jobs and strengthen America's economy. The Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining 

America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources stands ready to help. 

2. Advance Bipartisan Sportsman Legislation: America's sportsmen have been waiting more 

than six years for bipartisan sportsmen legislation that expands hunting and fishing access 

and creates jobs by implementing key on-the-ground conservation and natural infrastructure 

projects through the North American Wetland Conservation Act, National Fish Habitat 

Conservation Through Partnerships Act, and a modernized Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. 

3. Confront Forest Fire Crisis: Larger and more frequent wildfires are harming local rural 

economies, affecting millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and consuming more than half of 

the US. Forest Service budget. There are broadly supported bipartisan solutions that will 

address the fire funding crisis and improve the agency's ability to restore wildlife habitat, 

increase timber yields, and expand recreational opportunities-all of which create jobs. 

4. Address Maintenance Backlog: As Rep. Zinke discussed during his confirmation hearing, 

there is a significant maintenance backlog for our National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National Forests, Bureau of Land Management Lands, and Tribal lands. This backlog is 

hindering the growth of the outdoor economy, contributing to conflicts with local 

communities, and preventing millions of outdoor enthusiasts from enjoying public lands and 

spending money in local economies. Such investments will create tens of thousands of jobs. 

5. Restore Degraded Habitat: Restoring degraded wildlife habitat on private lands and large 

landscapes would spur significant rural job growth, while reconnecting key wildlife 

migratory corridors and cleaning up contaminated waterways. For example, there is 

bipartisan support for investing a portion of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund in 

habitat restoration that could help put people back to work, revitalize communities, and 

expand hunting and fishing opportunities. Similarly, restoring degraded grasslands and 

coastal and inland wetlands would increase duck and pheasant populations and hunting 

opportunities, while strengthening local economies. 
277 

In addition to accelerating the growth of America's outdoor economy, we suggest that projects 

across the entire package be encouraged to enhance wildlife habitat and expand hunter and 

angler access to lands and waterways. We also recommend that the Administration adopt a 

simple proposition when considering how best to pay for the infrastructure package: If public 

resources are taken out of the ground, some of the monetized value should be put back into the 

ground through investments in conservation and natural infrastructure, as listed above. This 

principle will ensure that wealth and jobs are not transferred out of rural America and that we are 

instead "leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us," as Theodore 

Roosevelt envisioned. 

Including the investments above in your infrastructure package will create significant jobs and 

help ensure that you and your administration leave a conservation legacy worthy of President 

Roosevelt himself. Together, we will show that we can maximize economic growth, while also 

restoring fish and wildlife populations, expanding access to public lands, ensuring clean air and 

water, and creating more outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans. Thank you for 

embracing hunting, fishing and our nation's outdoor heritage. 

Sincerely, 

Alabama Wildlife Federation 

Archery Trade Association 

Arkansas Wildlife Federation 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Boone and Crockett Club 

Camp Fire Club of America 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Conservation Federation of Missouri 

Conservation Force 

Council to Advance Hunting and the 

Shooting Sports 

Dallas Safari Club 

Delta Waterfowl 

Ducks Unlimited 

Florida Wildlife Federation 

Georgia Wildlife Federation 

Houston Safari Club 

Indiana Wildlife Federation 

Iowa Wildlife Federation 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Kansas Wildlife Federation 

Louisiana Wildlife Federation 

Masters of Foxhounds Association 

Michigan United Conservation Clubs 

Minnesota Conservation Federation 

Mississippi Wildlife Federation 

Montana Wildlife Federation 

National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 

National Trappers Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Nevada Wildlife Federation 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

North American Grouse Partnership 

North Carolina Wildlife Federation 

North Dakota Wildlife Federation 

Orion- The Hunter's Institute 

Pheasants Forever 

Quail Forever 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Shikar Safari Club International 

South Carolina Wildlife Federation 

South Dakota Wildlife Federation 

Sportsmen's Alliance 

Tennessee Wildlife Federation 

The Conservation Fund 

The Wildlife Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Whitetails Unlimited 

Wildlife Forever 

Wild Sheep Foundation 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 
278 

March 28, 20 17 

Chainnan Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

3 74 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

374 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chainnan Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

Ormat Technologies, Inc. is a clean energy project developer headquartered in Reno, Nevada 

with over thirty years of experience in geothennal power. 

On March 21, 20 l 7, your Committee held a hearing on opportunities to improve and expand 

infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources. First, Ormat supports 

the Committee's notion that energy projects, including power generation, are a type of 

infrastructure. Geothennal should be eligible to take advantage of any federal incentive programs 

and thoughtful pennitting reforms to support infrastructure build-out. 

Second, we submit that the geothennal energy concepts articulated in last year's S. 2012, the 

Energy Policy Modernization Act, would be a strong addition to any infrastructure legislation 

that focused on energy and public lands. The geothennal industry worked closely with you and 

yours staff over many months to assemble the concepts inS. 2012, and they were captured in 

Section 3005-3012 of the final bill. As a reminder, those provisions were as follows: 

3005- Provides a Sense of Congress for geothermal energy urb>ing the Secretary of 

Interior to "significantly increase" geothermal production from federal lands. Also 

requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to identify sites capable of producing 

50,000 megawatts of geothennal power within 10 years. 

• 3006- Directs BLM to identify high priority areas for geothermal development and to 

facilitate required leasing and development. 

• 3007- Allows geothennal development by co-production of electricity from oil and gas 

leases on federal lands using geothermal technologies. 

• 3008 - Set up a noncompetitive leasing process where existing geothermal leaseholders 

on federal lands can move to lease adjoining lands administratively without rebidding. 

• 3009 Report to Congress from Departments of Interior and Energy 

3010 Authorization of Appropriations 

3011 -Establishes priority areas for geothennal, wind and solar on public lands, requires 

a supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, for all three, and allows 

Interior Secretary to decide when PElS is adequate review to avoid additional duplicative 

EIS's. 
279 

3012 - Allows for the use of a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) to permit geothermal "slim holes" for observation and exploration test wells 

to be drilled. The new section limits when the exclusion can be used by acreage and 

environmental impact, requires complete restoration of any site within three years, allows 

the relevant Secretary to deny any exclusion based on extraordinary circumstances, and 

includes review and public notice provisions. 

Commercial geothermal is the poster child for how public lands can be utilized wisely to support 

American infrastructure and economic development. Ninety percent of the known geothermal 

resources which could be economically developed in the U.S. are on federal lands, which means 

the productivity of our industry is a direct result of cooperation with our Department of Interior 

partners at the state, regional and federal offices. When we work together effectively, geothermal 

creates enormous benefits to the stability of the local grid we are baseload power source with 

capacity factors over 95%, but can be dispatched or "ramped" very quickly in order to respond to 

other intermittent power sources or changing demand. Geothermal also results in the most jobs 

per megawatt of any type of power generation. 

We ask that the Committee include the S. 2012 geothermal title in any upcoming infrastructure 

legislation. We also hope to work with you on including a few targeted new ideas to improve the 

permitting process for geothermal on public lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for all your hard work on energy issues so far this 

Congress. Please contact me at Jnordquistfiilormatcom or 775-336-0164 if you would like to 

discuss further. 

Sincerely, 

Josh Nordquist 

Director, Business Development 

Ormat Technologies 

2 
280 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

March 21, 2017 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Hearing to receive testimony on opportunities to improve and expand 

infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, water, and resources 

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the outdoor recreation community on 

infrastructure opportunities for our public lands and waters. 

Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of eight member-based organizations representing the 

human powered outdoor recreation community. The coalition includes Access Fund, 

American Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling 

Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, 

and the Mazamas and represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb, 

paddle, mountain bike, and backcountry ski and snowshoe on our nation's public lands, 

waters, and snowscapes. 

In addition to the personal benefits outdoor recreation provides for millions of 

Americans, outdoor recreation is a proven economic driver, supporting communities 

across the country, often in more rural areas. Each year, outdoor recreation contributes 

more than $646 billion to the U.S. economy, supporting more than 6.1 million jobs and 

generating more than $39.9 billion in federal tax revenue and $39.7 billion in state and 

local taxes. 1 These benefits depend on maintaining clean, healthy, and well-managed 

public lands, but also on providing the infrastructure that makes our public lands 

accessible and enjoyable for a wide range of visitors. 

1 Outdoor Industry Association, The Outdoor Recreation Economy 2012, available at 

https:f/outdoorindustry.org/resource/the-outdoor-recreation-economy-2012/. 
281 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

In recent years, our public lands have suffered from inadequate investment in federal 

land management agencies, which perform essential work in stewarding our public 

lands for a wide array of uses and benefits. This problem has been exacerbated by the 

current method of funding for wildfire suppression activities, which consume an evergrowing share of these agencies' budgets. 

Key Considerations 

As the committee considers much needed investments in our country's public lands and 

waters, we think several key principles are important to bear in mind. 

First, providing necessary resources for the land management agencies is essential. 

Our community is deeply troubled by the President's proposed budget, which would 

slash resources available for public lands management We believe strongly that the 

agencies must be given additional resources to carry out their important work and to 

make up for past shortfalls. Fortunately, these expenditures remain exceedingly strong 

investments in the American economy, producing outsize returns in economic growth. 

As an example, a recent study demonstrates that federal dollars spent through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund have a return on investment of more than 4 to 1.2 

Second, we believe firmly in the principle embodied in the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act (FLREA) concerning the appropriate place for user fees on public 

lands. Fees may be appropriate where particular, highly-developed amenities are 

offered on public lands or in places where limited-entry permitting is necessary to 

preserve the environment or the user experience, but they should not be charged simply 

for access to undeveloped public lands. Funding for appropriate infrastructure on public 

lands and the activities of the land management agencies should be appropriated by 

Congress, particularly given the strong economic return on investment and the public 

interest in ensuring that Congress does not unintentionally create additional barriers to 

entry for healthy outdoor activities that benefit participants and the economies of public 

lands gateway communities. 

Finally, as Congress considers infrastructure investments on public lands, it is essential 

to preserve opportunities for public participation through processes like land 

management planning and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Outdoor recreation and its attendant benefits depend on access to healthy, pleasant, 

and ecologically sound environments. Development of any kind-for activities from 

2 The Trust for Public Land, Return on the Investment from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, available at 

http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/files/LWCF%20ROI%20Report_11 %2029%201 O.pdf. 
282 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

energy development to recreation-must be pursued in a way cognizant of its effect on 

the broader landscape and on other users and uses. Planning processes-from Forest 

Planning to BLM resource management plan development to advanced energy planning 

like Master Leasing Plans-are invaluable investments in ensuring that development is 

pursued in a thoughtful manner, avoiding or mitigating conflicts and environmental 

degradation to the greatest extent possible. 

Trail Stewardship 

Chronic underfunding of the National Park Service has resulted in $11.9 billion in 

deferred maintenance. In the absence of required maintenance, life expectancy of 

infrastructure assets is reduced, and the initial capital investment for facilities is 

compromiseda 

In 2013, a Government Accountability Office report found the Forest Service had a $314 

million deferred-maintenance backlog for trails, along with $210 million in unfinished 

annual maintenance, capital improvements, and operations in its trails program 4 The 

report further notes that trails not maintained to quality standards have a range of 

negative effects, such as inhibiting trail use and harming natural resources, and 

deferring maintenance can add to maintenance costs. 

Trails and other simple infrastructure needs are a basic, yet far too often overlooked, 

component of an accessible and enjoyable public lands system. Congress should 

ensure that land management agencies have the resources they need to address trail 

construction and maintenance needs, including ensuring that agencies have the 

necessary capacity to take advantage of volunteers eager to engage in basic, on-theground stewardship activity. 

Opportunities to Improve Public Access to Waterways When a Bridge is 

Reconstructed 

Across the country, bridge right-of-ways serve as an important access point for those 

recreating on rivers. When a bridge is constructed, it represents an important 

opportunity to evaluate how the public is using the site for river access and identify 

3 NPS Deferred Maintenance Report FY 2015, available at 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/plandesignconstruct/defermain.htm. 

4 Forest Service Trails: Long- and Short-Term Improvements Could Reduce 

Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability, GA0-13-618: Published: Jun 

27, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-13-618. 
283 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

opportunities to both improve public safety and enhance the quality of the user 

experience for fishermen, canoeists, and the general public. 

In many cases, bridge construction projects are an opportunity to address public access 

to the waterways they cross. It is often a simple matter of designing the landscaping to 

accommodate a foot trail to the water and making sure vehicles can safely park outside 

the travelway. In other cases however, bridge designs proceed forward without an 

understanding of public use for access to a waterway and opportunities are lost. We are 

seeking more consistency with federally-funded projects to ensure the multiple public 

benefits that can be achieved with proper planning on the front end. 

The states of California5

, Maryland6, Virginia7, and Washington8 have all recognized the 

connection between transportation planning and outdoor recreation when a bridge is 

constructed or reconstructed and have laws and policies in place that require an 

evaluation of public access needs to the waterway. We believe it is appropriate to apply 

these policies nationally for federally-funded projects. 

Land and Water Conservation 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund continues to be an overwhelmingly successful 

program for meeting recreation infrastructure needs on public lands and in communities 

across the country. Over the life of the program, LWCF has funded critical protections 

for river corridors in places like West Virginia's Gauley and New Rivers and helped 

establish public river access points for canoers, kayakers, and rafters in places like 

Washington's White Salmon River. LWCF has made possible thousands of miles of 

singletrack for mountain bikers and hikers, including at areas like the world-class trail 

system at Lory State Park near Fort Collins, Colorado, and Toro Park, California, home 

to challenging trails and spectacular views of Monterey Bay. LWCF has funded close-tohome recreation opportunities in all fifty states and every congressional district. 

5 California Streets and Highways Code § 84.5. 6 Annotated Code of Maryland, Transportation §2-1 03.1 (c)(?). 7 MOU for Cooperative Action to Develop/Enhance Public Water Access at Bridge 

Crossings and Roads Among Virginia Department of Transportation, Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries, and Department of Conservation and Recreation, Governor 

of Virginia Terence R. McAuliffe, July yth, 2015, available at 

https://governor. virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleld=1181 0. 8 RCW 4701.500. 
284 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE 

We greatly appreciate your efforts at securing permanent reauthorization of this 

valuable program, and hope to see those efforts continue in this new Congress as the 

committee looks for ways to meet infrastructure needs on public lands. 

Best regards, 

Adam Cramer 

Executive Director 

Outdoor Alliance 

cc: Brady Robinson, Executive Director, Access Fund 

Wade Blackwood, Executive Director, American Canoe Association 

Mark Singleton, Executive Director, American Whitewater 

Dave Wiens, Executive Director, International Mountain Bicycling Association 

Mark Menlove, Executive Director, Winter Wildlands Alliance 

Tom Vogl, Chief Executive Officer, The Mountaineers 

Phil Powers, Executive Director, American Alpine Club 

Lee Davis, Executive Director, the Mazamas 
285 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

OUTDOOR 

INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION 

March 20, 2017 

Chair, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing to receive testimony on 

opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure important to federal lands, recreation, 

water and resources. 366 Dirksen House Office Building; 10:00 AM 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for calling this hearing today and highlighting the important role of recreation 

infrastructure, especially on public lands. Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is the national 

trade association for suppliers, manufacturers and retailers in the $646 billion outdoor recreation 

industry, with more than 1200 members nationwide. The outdoor industry supports more than 

6.1 million American jobs and makes other significant contributions toward the goal of healthy 

communities and healthy economies across the United States. 

Public lands and waters of all types, such as trail systems, rivers, lakes and parks, are powerful 

assets and are the foundational infrastructure that generates economic activity across every state 

in the country. America's natural landscapes and waterways are also its greatest attraction, for 

international visitors and for the recruitment and retention of American businesses, workers and 

their families. Simply marketing and advertising them is not enough; we must protect these lands 

and waters, invest in their infrastructure, address the substantial maintenance backlog and 

enhance the visitor experiences to continue to promote this powerful economic driver and job 

creator and the world-class experiences they provide. 

The $12 billion National Park Service (NPS) maintenance backlog, and cumulative $20 billion 

maintenance backlog on our national public lands, must be addressed in any infrastructure 

package passed by Congress. Much of the NPS, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and United States Forest Service maintenance backlog is grey infrastructure- roads and 

bridges. However, our green infrastructure, trails (hiking, biking, ATV, off road), boat put-ins 

and campgrounds (RV & tent) have a backlog of projects as well, and if addressed, would pay 

dividends to the health of local communities and local economies. As Congress contemplates this 

infrastructure package, it is our hope that a recreation title is included that provides innovative 

ideas and resources for both the grey and green infrastructure that our businesses and the 

American people rely on. 
286 

OUTDOOR 

INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION 

Our shared recreation assets play an increasingly important role in mainstream business 

development and economic revitalization. Proximity to shared open spaces such as forests, trails, 

rivers and lakes makes for desirable places to live, work and retire and drive this economic 

engine that cannot be outsourced. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

committee you have the opportunity to encourage economic development, smart investments and 

prosperity across the country by enhancing recreation access and infrastructure within cities and 

rural communities through an infrastructure package that is a priority for Congress and the 

administration, as was evident in budget priorities laid out last week. 

The outdoor industry contributes $80 billion every year in taxes when you combine local and 

state ($40 billion) and federal ($40 billion) tax dollars. Unfortunately, outdoor recreation assets 

reap very little of that through reinvestment back into our shared public lands and waters- the 

infrastructnre needed for the recreation economy. Businesses in our industry are no different than 

businesses in other sectors. They rely on certainty that they can have ensured access to adequate 

infrastructnre to plan their investments and grow jobs in a certain area. Corporations and 

businesses of all types are attracted to the quality of life that results from access to wellmaintained green spaces and interconnected trails as a key tool for recruiting and retaining highly 

skilled workers and entrepreneurs that create many American jobs in rural and gateway 

communities. 

By focusing on the economic development opportunities associated with recreation assets, there 

is real potential to drive sustained economic growth in communities that are suffering from the 

boom and bust cycle of extractive industries. Communities lucky enough to have nearby public 

lands have growth opportunities that can complement these traditional land uses and provide 

sustainable jobs in both the near and long term. 

Some ideas on making these projects a reality through innovative public/private partnerships: 

o Utilize youth or conservation corps (who are funded from public and private partnership 

dollars, many from the outdoor industry) and that provide young people jobs and training, 

often in rural communities, and can lower the cost of many of the projects on our public 

lands, while investing in our next generation 

o Reauthorize (and re-visit) the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) and 

the cost of entrance fees at our parks, especially during peak season and for international 

travelers. We are hopeful that FLREA will address some ways to increase revenue that 

can be used on maintenance at local units to improve recreation and access. One such 

opportunity is to allow the fees paid by ski areas that operate under special use permits on 

public lands to be reinvested in local recreational infrastructure projects. 

o Improve the special use permitting system on public lands that is so critical to local 

economies and gateway communities across the country, both as a job creator and as a 

tourism driver. An improved permitting process will benefit the economies of gateway 

communities, increase revenue to land management agencies, and introduce and educate 

new visitors to public lands through guided experiences. 
287 

OUTDOOR 

INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION 

o Support the use of programmatic environmental assessments, which allow for strategic 

planning and NEP A on the front end of the planning process, looking at the whole unit, 

rather than one-otfs that need to be done at the time a permit is requested or activity is 

being considered. This will allow land managers to plan economic growth for the entire 

landscape, with more agility to support specific projects and programs under a tighter 

timeframe and with less red-tape. 

o to more accurately collect fees (and 

donations for projects), disperse visitors and highlight closures or areas that are 

overcrowded and ensure younger visitors can stay connected at campgrounds or in local 

gateway communities. 

o Work with local stakeholders to identify shovel-ready projects on our public lands that 

have local buy in and resources and would improve recreation access or infrastructure. 

County commissioners and State Outdoor Recreation Directors stand ready to improve 

the value of their recreation assets through updated or improved infrastructure. 

o Address wildfire funding/borrowing so that in years of severe wildfire important 

maintenance projects that have often already been contracted and started, don't get 

delayed (adding to backlog and cost) or halted altogether because funding has been 

diverted to fight longer, hotter and more destructive wildfires. 

o Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Conservation investments, 

through LWCF, play an essential role in securing America's vital outdoor recreation 

infrastructure. Maintenance spending and LWCF projects represent two sides of the 

infrastructure coin-just as crucial expenditures on existing public lands maintain and 

enhance their utility for public use, LWCF is needed to provide recreation access to those 

already-public lands, including many popular national park, forest, and other federal 

areas where access currently is restricted or unavailable. Moreover, conservation of 

adjacent properties and inholdings is central to protecting the existing investment in our 

public lands, where consolidating public ownership and preventing incompatible 

development are often vital to the visitor experience. 

While there are countless examples of our members engaging in public private partnerships with 

the federal government or a friends group to provide much-needed maintenance work on our 

shared public lands, this approach needs to be in addition to federal appropriations, as much of 

this support is garnered from matching government funding. These are America's public lands 

and heritage and they should be budgeted for accordingly. In fact, every $1 invested in our 

National Parks brings $10 of revenue into local communities and we need to evaluate our 

domestic infrastructure spending in a way that Americans are benefiting from every dollar 

invested, as they do from thoughtful investments on our national public lands. 

Please consider OlA, our member companies across the country, and the 142 million Americans 

who recreate outside each year, partners who are ready and willing to work with you and the 

committee on innovative infrastructure ideas that will contribute to the growth and success of 

American jobs and the outdoor recreation economy. Thank you for your time and attention to 

this important issue and we look forward to our work together. 
288 

Sincerely, 

Jessica Wahl 

Government Affairs Manager 

Outdoor Industry Association 
289 

March 21,2017 

Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

United States Senate 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Re: Hearing on Opportunities to hnprove and Expand Infrastructure 

Important to Federal Lands. Recreation, Water and Resources 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell: 

Poseidon Water LLC ("Poseidon") commends the Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

("Committee") for conducting today's timely hearing on how to facilitate further development of 

infrastructure related to resources under the Committee's jurisdiction. We respectfully request 

that this letter be entered into the hearing record, and would be pleased to respond to any 

questions or requests for further information the Committee may have. 

Overview of Poseidon 

Poseidon is one of the nation's leading private developers of water infrastructure projects. 

Throughout our company's history dating to 1995, we have focused plimarily on water supply 

and wastewater treatment projects. These include the nation's very first P3 water project, a 

wastewater treatment modernization project undertaken for the city of Cranston. Rhode Island in 

1997. Most recently, in 2015 Poseidon successfully completed the largest seawater desalination 

project in the Americas. the Claude "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant. This plant now 

produces 50 million gallons per day of high-quality drinking water, meeting nearly ten percent of 

the daily urban water needs of San Diego County, California. 

Poseidon has been a longtime proponent of the use of public-private partnership (P3) to support 

the timely and efficient delivery of water projects. We believe there is tremendous, but largely 

untapped, potential to use the P3 model throughout the US water sector. The time has come for 

the Congress to enact certain reforms that can enable increased use of this approach to meet the 

pressing need for the renewal of this critical infrastructure system. 

Poseidon Water LLC 
290 

Chairman Murkowski and Sen. CantwelL Senate E&NR Committee 

March 21,2017 

The Nation's Water Infrastructure Challenge 

After decades of underinvestment, America's aging water infrastructure has reached an advanced 

stage of deterioration. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). in its recently-released 

2017 Infrastructure Report Card. issued grades of "D" to the nation's drinking water sector and 

"D+" to its wastewater treatment sector. Experts agree that further deterioration of these systems 

poses a serious threat to the nation's public health and environmental quality. The renewal of 

these systems also presents a major opportunity for economic renewal and the generation of 

thousands of high-quality jobs. Within the coming decade, investment needs in the water sector 

are widely estimated to be in the range of several hundred billion dollars. 

The primary barrier to renewal of this c1itical infrastructure is the shortage of public sector 

capital. In today's political and fiscal climate, all levels of government face severe constraints 

that are unlikely to abate in the foreseeable future. At the same time, there is strong public 

opposition to the privatization of critical public water assets. Opponents of privatization fear that 

the outright divestment of these assets could lead to the loss of accountability for, and control 

over, functions that are deeply imbued with a public interest. 

The Public-Private Partnership or P3 Model 

Given the convergence of these three factors- the urgent need for water infrastructure renewal, 

the reluctance to commit large sums from public funding sources, and the reluctance to permit the 

outright privatization of water assets it is imperative that our nation find new ways to meet these 

needs. The P3 model offers a proven approach. Well-structured P3s enable access to abundant 

capital sources seeking stable. long-term returns. They can thereby preserve the public sector's 

limited financial capacity, enabling government to address other pressing needs while avoiding 

added tax and debt burdens. At the same time. they preserve public oversight. participation and 

accountability for critical public functions. 

A well-designed P3 typically entails assembly of a broad expert team. Such teams comprise one 

or more public sector entities alongside debt and equity financing sources. as well as partners 

skilled in diverse disciplines including: overall project development siting and permitting: 

engineering: design: construction: operations & maintenance: and finance. While no one entity 

can possess all of these capacities, in the aggregate these teams can combine the skills and 

resources to plan, execute and operate highly complex projects. Very early in the project 

development process. participants engage in a detailed and explicit contracting process. All 

known and anticipated project risks are identified. evaluated and assigned to the project partner 

best able to manage them. This rigorous, transparent process results in a well-documented and 

analyzed investment opportunity that suppmts the use of non-recourse project finance. Overall. 

this approach leads to increased certainty around project timelines. improved performance and 

competitive overall cost. 

Poseidon Water LLC 
291 

Chainnan Murkowski and Sen. Cantwell. Senate E&NR Committee 

March 21. 2017 

The P3 approach is not universally applicable. It requires the creation of some fonn of revenue 

stream to compensate for the costs and risks involved. This revenue stream may be tied to the 

construction of a new asset, or the increased productivity, capacity or efficiency of an existing 

one. It is typically secured through a long-term lease or franchise agreement. At the end of the 

term of this agreement, ownership and control of the new asset may pass to the public sector 

entity. at zero or nominal cost. Thus. a P3 is clearly distinguishable from a piivatization, and 

should be viewed instead as an alternative model of project delivery. 

Barriers and Disincentives to the Use of P3s 

There is ample precedent for the use of P3s to meet America's water infrastructure needs. 

Already, P3s are being used with increased frequency to finance U.S. roadways and airports. 

Outside the US. P3s have been used to address water supply and wastewater treatment needs. At 

the state level within the US. P3s have been nsed successfully, as witnessed by Poseidon's own 

experience in California. Rhode Island and elsewhere. 

To date. though. P3s have yet to be used to construct federal water infrastructure projects. The 

failure to use this model more broadly is not due to a lack of interest, but instead results from a 

variety of barriers and disincentives encoded in federal law and policy. These include. for 

example, the following: 

• Annual federal budgetin~ urocess. Under federal law including the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

federal agencies may not make multi-year, forward commitments to provide for repayment 

over time of investments in infrastructure projects. As a result. infrastructure investments are 

limited to those that can be funded from a single annual appropriation. To address this 

bariier, budgetary rules should be reexamined. Congress should consider new mles and/or 

interpretations to allow the contemplation of future-year payment streams. For example, 

agencies might be expressly pennitted to make commitments that, in calculating future-year 

budget requests to Congress, they will include repayment streams associated with their P3 

contract obligations. 

Differential access to tax-exempt financing. Public authorities and private entities typically 

have differential costs of capital. owing to the fact that public bodies have access to taxexempt financing whereas piivate lending is typically taxable. Infrastructure projects often 

qualify for private activity bonds (PABs). tax-exempt bonds issued by or on behalf of local or 

state governments for the purpose of providing special financing benefits for qualified 

projects. However, the quantity of PABs available in the financing marketplace is subject to 

caps on a state-by-state basis. To stimulate lending for the infrastructure sector, Congress 

should consider raising the caps that limit availability of these PABs. 

Poseidon Water LLC 
292 

Chai1man Murkowski and Sen. Cantwell, Senate E&NR Committee 

March 21,2017 

• Legacy attitudes. In large part, the reticence to use private capital sources to meet the pressing 

need for water infrastructure renewal arises from an enduring presumption that these needs 

must be funded with public dollars, simply because provision of water supply and treatment 

services is a matter of public interest. This presumption has long since been overcome in any 

number of other capital-intensive infrastructure sectors. Plivate developers of America's 

energy, railway, airport and. increasingly. highway infrastructure routinely attract tens of 

billions of dollars in private capital annually to meet evolving needs. 

Conclusion 

As a leading developer of major water projects for more than twenty years, Poseidon Water is 

experienced in encountering and addressing a variety of issues associated with the use of P3s. 

Given the urgent needs in our nation's water sector. we believe it that this model of project 

delivery offers an alternative that is both highly promising and very timely. Across the aisle in 

Congress, and across the broad geography of the United States, there is now strong recognition of 

the need for a vigorous program of infrastructure renewal to address water and other needs. We 

encourage the Committee to take a serious look at barriers in law and policy to the wider use of 

the P3 approach. 

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your leadership 

on the important issue of infrastructure renewal. and for your consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely. 

{;?~/v )vv<-----

Carlos A. Riva 

President & CEO 

Poseidon Water LLC 

Poseidon Water LLC 

Swte 270 !A 
293 

Statement of Jerimiah L. Rieman, 

Director of Economic Diversification Strategy and Initiatives 

Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Regarding Federal Land Infrastructure Challenges 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Tuesday, March 21,2017 

Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for holding today's 

hearing to examine opportunities to improve and expand infrastructure important 

to federal lands, recreation, water and resources. I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit testimony on carbon capture and carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure for 

enhanced oil recovery (COz-EOR) on behalf of Wyoming and the State COz-EOR 

Deployment Work Group. 

The State COz-EOR Deployment Work Group brings together officials from 14 oil 

and gas-producing states with industry and other experts to make federal and state 

policy recommendation and support the deployment of carbon capture and EOR. 

Governor Mead is the co-chair of the initiative with Governor Steve Bullock of 

Montana. 

Together with the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative (NEORI) of industry, 

labor and environmental interests, states in the Work Group have called for federal 

legislation to provide financial incentives for carbon capture projects, not just for 

the energy sector of our economy, but for industrial facilities as well. I would like to 

thank Senator Barrasso for his leadership on this issue and acknowledge the 

support of other committee members as well, including Chairman Murkowski, 

Senator Portman, Senator Duckworth, and Senator Franken, all of whom were 

cosponsors of legislation in the last Congress and hopefully will be working with us 

again this year to shepherd a bill through as part of comprehensive tax reform. 

In addition to its recommendations for federal carbon capture incentives legislation, 

the Work Group released a white paper last month encouraging the federal 

government to take a strong leadership role in supporting the development of COz 

pipeline infrastructure. In particular, the Work Group recommends supplementing 

private capital with federal financing for priority trunk pipelines to transport COz 

from industrial facilities and power plants to oilfields for enhanced oil recovery with 

safe and permanent geologic storage. 

Both Governors Mead and Bullock have been monitoring the discussions on 

infrastructure thus far this year. There has not been any mention of the need for COz 

pipelines. I ask members of this Committee to review the recommendations of the 

Work Group and consider another hearing on infrastructure to look more broadly at 

the need for expanding COz pipelines and opportunities for a federal role to foster 

that deployment.[BClJ 
294 

The development of regional and national COz pipeline networks, together with 

proposed tax credits and other financial incentives for industrial and power plant 

carbon capture, can support long-term production and use of America's abundant 

and affordable coal, oil and natural gas resources, put our nation further down the 

path of replacing imported oil, and create high-paying jobs in energy-producing and 

industrial states and regions of the country, all while significantly reducing net 

carbon emissions. 

The Work Group's white paper is included for the Committee's review and for 

inclusion in the hearing record. Thank you for your interest in this important issue. 

I stand ready to respond to any questions you might have about the Work Group's 

recommendations and to provide additional information regarding the need for COz 

pipeline infrastructure. I look forward to working with you on a comprehensive 

national infrastructure agenda this year. 
295 

Policy Recommendations for Development 

of American C02 Pipeline Networks 

White paper prepared by the 

State C02

-EOR Deployment Work Group 
296 

While the final recommendations of this white paper represent the joint conclusions of 

state officials in the State CO,-EOR Deployment Work Group, participating state officials 

want to recognize the contributions of leading private sector stakeholders and CO,-

enhanced oil recovery experts who lent their expertise and guidance to the effort. The 

state representatives extend their thanks to all who contributed to this white paper, and 

to the Hewlett Foundation for the funding that made this work possible. 
297 

Representatives of Co-convening Governors 

• Matthew Fry, Policy Advisor, Office of Wyoming Governor Matt Mead 

• Dan Lloyd, Business Development Specialist, Office of Montana Governor Steve 

Bullock 

Participating State Officials 

• Stuart Ellsworth, Engineering Manager, Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission 

• Michael Kennedy, Assistant Director, Kentucky Energy & Environment Cabinet 

• Shawn Shurden, Commission Counsel, Mississippi Public Service Commission 

• Patrick McDonnell, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection 

• Leslie Savage, Chief Geologist, Railroad Commission of Texas 

• Rob Simmons, Energy Policy & Law Manager, Utah Governor's Office of Energy 

Development 

• Michael Teague, Oklahoma Secretary of Energy & Environment 

• Ted Thomas, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission 

• Robert Worstall, Deputy Chief, Division of Oil & Gas Resources, Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources 

• Tristan Vance, Director, Indiana Office of Energy Development 

Participating Stakeholders & Experts 

• Fatima Ahmad, Solutions Fellow, Center for Climate & Energy Solutions 

• Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization Research Council 

• Jeff Brown, Lecturer in Management, Stanford University Graduate School of 

Business 

• Steven Carpenter, Director, Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, University of Wyoming 

• AI Collins, Senior Director for Regulatory Affairs, Occidental Petroleum Corporation 

• Ben Cook, Assistant Professor, Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, University of 

Wyoming 

• Phil DiPietro, Technology Manager, GE Oil & Gas Technology Center 

• Sarah Forbes, Scientist, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

• Julio Friedmann, Senior Adviser for Energy Innovation, Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 

• Judith Greenwald, Principal, Greenwald Consulting 

• Scott Hornafius, President, Elk Petroleum 

• Rob Hurless, Deputy Director, Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, University of 

Wyoming 
298 

• Dina Kruger, Principal, Kruger Environmental Strategies 

• Sasha Mackler, former Vice President, Summit Power Group (now at Enviva LP) 

• Steve Melzer, Geological Engineer and Principal, Melzer Consulting 

• Julie Moore, Senior Director, State Government Affairs, Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation 

• Deepika Nagabhushan, Policy Associate, Clean Air Task Force 

• John Thompson, Director, Fossil Transition Project, Clean Air Task Force 

• Keith Tracy, former Director of CO, Midstream Operations, Chaparral Energy 

Great Plains Institute Staff 

• Brad Crabtree, Vice President for Fossil 

Energy 

• Brendan Jordan, Vice President 

• Patrice Lahlum, Program Consultant 

• Dane McFarlane, Senior Research 

Analyst 

• Doug Scott, Vice President for 

Strategic Initiatives 

About the State C02·EOR Deployment Work Group 

Wyoming Governor Matt Mead (R} and Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) 

jointly convened the State C02

-EOR Deployment Work Group in September 

2015 as a key follow-on to the Western Governors Association resolution calling 

for federal incentives to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture from 

power plants and industrial facilities and increase the use of C02 in enhanced 

oil recovery, while safely and permanently storing the C02 underground in the 

process. 

Twelve states currently participate in the Work Group: Arkansas, Colorado, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, 

Utah and Wyoming. State participation varies by state and includes governors' 

staff, cabinet secretaries, utility commissioners, and agency and commission 

staff. Some state representatives participate at the direction of the governor; 

others do not. State representatives were joined by leading enhanced oil 

recovery, electric power, coal industry, regulatory and NGO experts. 

The Work Group identified three principal roles for its work, including modeling 

analysis and policy identification, developing recommendations for state and 

federal policy makers, and supporting the implementation of those policy 

recommendations. The Work Group aims to foster: 

• Expansion of CO, capture from power plants and industrial facilities; 

• Buildout of pipeline infrastructure to transport that C02 ; and 

• Use of C02 in oil production, along with its safe and permanent storage. 

The Work Group released a comprehensive set of federal and state policy 

recommendations in December 2016 
299 

Introduction 

Key Recommendations and Benefits 

Today's C02 Industry Opportunities for the Future 

C02 Pipelines are Key to 21st Century Energy Infrastructure 

Rationale for Federal Involvement in C02 Pipeline 

Infrastructure Development 

Additional Federal Recommendations 

Conclusion 

Endnotes 
300 

Development of regional and national carbon dioxide (CO,) pipeline networks, together 

with proposed tax credits and other financial incentives for industrial and power plant 

carbon capture, can support long-term production and use of America's abundant and 

affordable coal, oil and natural gas resources, put our nation further down the path of 

replacing imported oil and create high-paying jobs in energy-producing and industrial 

states and regions of the country, all while significantly reducing net carbon emissions. 

American oil fields are poised to rapidly expand production through utilization 

of man-made CO, for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This promise can be realized, 

if the oil industry can gain access to large, secure volumes of CO,, transported 

via pipeline networks and purchased from industrial facilities and power plants 

where that CO, would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere and wasted. 

Nearly a half-century ago, the EOR industry got its start by capturing CO, at commercial 

scale from man-made sources, and it later began drilling for and utilizing naturally 

occurring geologic CO,. The oil industry first purchased CO, captured through natural 

gas processing, then expanded to fertilizer production, coal gasification, chemical and 

ethanol production and, most recently, added refinery hydrogen production, coal-fired 

electric power generation and steel manufacturing (see Figure 1 on the next page). 

However, in most cases, the costs of CO, capture, compression and pipeline transport 

remain higher than revenue received from sales of the CO, to the oil industry. Expanding 

carbon capture at industrial and power generation facilities would transform CO, from a 

liability into a resource, by driving an increase in American oil production and by storing 

that CO, safely and permanently underground in the process. In addition to federal 

incentives needed to deploy carbon capture equipment across industries, a primary 

obstacle to scaling up this national opportunity is the lack of infrastructure: trunk 

pipelines are needed to link industrial and power plant C02 sources to oilfield 

customers, and they must be built at very large scale across regions to make 

economic sense. 

Report Outlines Federal Financial Incentives for C02-EOR 

~~tw.:~~;..g.;,::w,~.::~~:w.~.~~. a report released by the State 

Deployment Work in December 2016, provides analyses and federal and 

state incentive recommendations, including: 

• Improving and expanding the existing section 45Q tax credit for storage of 

captured C02

; 

• Deploying a revenue neutral mechanism to stabilize the price paid for C02

-

and carbon capture project revenue-by removing volatility and investment risk 

associated with C02 prices linked to oil prices; and 

• Offering tax-exempt private activity bonds and master limited partnership tax 

status to provide project financing on better terms. 
301 

Today's lack of necessary long-distance, large-volume CO, pipelines creates a serious 

transport problem for potential CO, suppliers and customers that stifles both energy and 

industrial development. This dilemma is not unlike the situation for Midwestern farmers 

and Western ranchers prior to the coming of the railroads, Texas natural gas producers 

before the development of long-distance interstate gas pipelines, the unrealized 

hydropower potential in the Northwest before construction of huge electric transmission 

lines, or the slow crawl of truck traffic before President Eisenhower spurred the buildout 

of an efficient interstate highway system. The federal government initially had a hand 

in fixing all four of these national infrastructure problems before ultimately passing the 

torch to industry and the states. 

Importantly, no safety or technical barriers exist to large-scale C02 pipeline deployment. 

C02 pipelines have an excellent safety record of over 40 years of operation with no 

serious injuries or fatalities ever reported. Today, over 4,500 miles of pipeline transport 

C02 for EOR at wells producing 400,000 barrels of oil per day. These pipelines have 

operated for decades under existing policy and regulatory oversight at the local, state 

and federal level. 

Successful commercial-scale carbon capture deployment has a long 

history through the capture, compression and pipeline transport of C02 

for EOR with geologic storage, especially in the U.S. Industrial processes 

where large-scale carbon capture is demonstrated and in commercial 

operation include natural gas processing, fertilizer production, coal 

gasification, ethanol production, refinery hydrogen production and, most 

recently, coal-fired electric power generation and steel production. 

1972: Val Verde gas processing plants in Texas. Several natural gas 

processing facilities began supplying C02 in West Texas through the first largescale, long-distance C02 pipeline to an oilfield. 

1982: Koch Nitrogen Company Enid Fertilizer plant in Oklahoma. This 

fertilizer production plant supplies C02 to oil fields in southern Oklahoma. 

1986: Exxon Shute Creek Gas Processing Facility in Wyoming. This natural 

gas processing plant serves Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Anadarko Petroleum 

C02 pipeline systems to oil fields in Wyoming and Colorado and is the largest 

commercial carbon capture facility in the world at 7 million MT of capacity 

annually. 

2000: Dakota Gasification's Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota. 

This coal gasification plant produces synthetic natural gas, fertilizer and other 

byproducts and has supplied over 30 million MT of C02 to Cenovus and Apacheoperated EOR fields in southern Saskatchewan as of 2015. 
302 

2003: Core Energy/South Chester Gas Processing Plant in Michigan. C02 

is captured by Core Energy from natural gas processing for EOR in northern 

Michigan, with over 2 million MT captured to date. 

2009: Chaparral/Conestoga Energy Partners' Arkalon Bioethanol plant in 

Kansas. The first ethanol plant to deploy carbon capture, it supplies 170,000 MT 

of C02 per year to Chaparral Energy, which uses it for EOR in Texas oil fields. 

2010: Occidental Petroleum's Century Plant in Texas. The C02 stream from 

this natural gas processing facility is compressed and transported for use in the 

Permian Basin. 

2012: Air Products Port Arthur Steam Methane Reformer Project in Texas. 

Two hydrogen production units at this refinery produce a million tons of C02 

annually for use in Texas oilfields. 

2012: Conestoga Energy Partners/PetroSantander Bonanza Bioethanol 

plant in Kansas. This ethanol plant captures and supplies approximately 

100,000 MT per year of C02 to an EOR field in Kansas. 

2013: ConocoPhillips Lost Cabin plant in Wyoming. The C02 stream from this 

natural gas processing facility is compressed and transported to the Bell Creek 

oil field in Montana via Denbury Resources' Greencore pipeline. 

2013: Chaparrai/CVR Energy Coffeyville Gasification Plant in Kansas. 

The C02 stream (approximately 850,000 MT per year) from a nitrogen fertilizer 

production process based on gasification of petroleum coke is captured, 

compressed and transported to a Chaparral-operated oil field in northeastern 

Oklahoma. 

2014: SaskPower Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

SaskPower commenced operation of the first commercial-scale retrofit of an 

existing coal-fired power plant with carbon capture technology, selling C02 

locally for EOR in Saskatchewan. 

2016: Abu Dhabi Carbon Capture Project, United Arab Emirates. This project 

involves the capture of C02 from the Emirates Steel Factory in Abu Dhabi and its 

transportation to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) reservoirs for 

EOR. 

2017: Petra Nova in Texas. Commencing commercial operation in January 

2017, this project is designed to capture 1.6 million tons of C02 per year from an 

existing coal-fired power plant. At 240 MW, Petra Nova is the world's largest postcombustion carbon capture facility installed on an existing coal-fueld power plant. 
303 

The State C02-EOR Deployment Work Group recommends that President Trump 

and Congress incorporate the development of long-distance, large-volume C02 

pipelines as a priority component of a broader national infrastructure agenda. 

The state officials, industry leaders and other experts in the Work Group launched their 

work in 2015 with the development and deployment of carbon capture and CO, pipeline 

infrastructure as a top priority. Thus, Work Group members and participating states 

support the Administration and Congress' new focus on our nation's infrastructure, and 

they would welcome the opportunity to be partners in this effort. 

Work Group participants also urge implementation of policies that direct the 

federal government to play a targeted role, supplementing private capital, 

in financing increased capacity for priority trunk pipelines to transport C02 

from industrial facilities and power plants not currently served by pipeline 

infrastructure to oilfields for EOR. 

Finally, Congress and the President should, in consultation with states, tribal 

governments and key stakeholders, identify and foster the development of five 

such priority C02 trunk pipelines, including support for planning, streamlined 

permitting, and financing. These trunk pipelines should link key industrial, fossil 

power-generating, and agricultural regions of the country with the potential to supply 

significant CO, to major hubs of domestic oil and gas production. A vital element in the 

design of the larger pipeline network is the enormous potential of the Permian Basin 

region and its proven CO, potential and vast resources of residual oil zones.' Each 

trunk pipeline for man-made CO, would be comparable in scale and volume to the 30-

inch diameter Cortez pipeline, the world's largest CO, pipeline. Cortez can transport 

approximately 30 million tons of CO, annually along a 500-mile route from southern 

Colorado and through New Mexico to the Perm ian Basin of Texas. 

The map below (see Figure 2) does not reflect any decisions to site, permit or build 

particular CO, pipelines by states and stakeholders participating in the Work Group, 

nor the federal government. Instead, this map was prepared by the Work Group 

for illustrative purposes to show how just five pipeline corridors, strategically 

placed, could expand on existing commercial C02 pipeline networks to build out 

a national system of infrastructure with the capacity to help scale up American oil 

production and geologic storage of power plant and industrial carbon emissions. 

With the addition over time of several connecting pipelines of modest length, this 

roughly horseshoe-shaped system would link the Upper and Lower Midwest in the east 

to the Gulf Coast and the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico in the south to the 

Rockies and Northern Plains of the U.S. and Canada in the west. 
304 

Data source: National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 

"National Carbon Sequestration Database." hUps://W\IftN.nct!.doe.goviresearch!coali 

c-arbon-storage/natcarb·a11as (accessed February 9, 2016) 

The five potential priority CO, trunk pipeline corridors suggested by this map are: 

• North Dakota to Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. Moving CO, from coal 

gasification, coal and natural gas-fired power generation and ethanol production 

southwest into southeastern Montana, connecting the existing North DakotaSaskatchewan and Wyoming-Colorado-Montana pipeline systems; 

• Upper Midwest to the Permian Basin. Moving CO, from ethanol, fossil power 

generation, fertilizer production and other industries in the corn-producing heartland 

of the Upper Midwest into the vast potential and proven reservoirs of the Permian 

Basin of Texas and New Mexico; 

• Illinois Basin-Midwest to the Permian Basin. Moving CO, from Midwestern 

ethanol production, fossil power plants and other industries to midcontinent oilfields 

in Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas and the Permian Basin; 

• Louisiana Gulf Coast to the Permian Basin. Moving CO, from the cluster of 

refining, petrochemical and other industrial facilities in Louisiana to oilfields along 

the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast and on into the Permian Basin; and 

• Ohio River Valley-Lower Midwest to Gulf Coast. Moving CO, from fossil 

power generation, steel production, and other industries in the rndustrial and 

manufacturing heartland of the Lower Midwest to Midwestern oilfields and down 

to onshore and offshore fields of the Gulf Coast of Alabama, Mississippi and 

Louisiana. 
305 

Benefits of Building Out a National C02 Pipeline Infrastructure Network 

Establishing a C02 pipeline infrastructure of this magnitude, in conjunction with 

targeted federal incentives for deployment of carbon capture technology, could 

expand the annual supply of man-made (anthropogenic) C02 available for EOR 

by 150 million tons by 2030, resulting in: 

• A tripling of the U.S. EOR industry, with new domestic oil production of 

approximately 375 million barrels per year; 

• An estimated reduction of 22 percent in current U.S. oil imports or $30 billion 

in reduced annual expenditures on foreign oil; and 

• A reduction of roughly four percent in U.S. stationary source C02 emissions 

from current levels. 

This level of C02 pipeline infrastructure development has the potential to: 

• Drive an estimated $75 billion of capital investment; 

• Stimulate more than $30 billion per year in economic activity; 

• Support thousands of high-paying construction, energy, mining, 

manufacturing, engineering and technically-skilled operations and services 

jobs; 

• Generate additional state and federal revenues through new energy 

production and other economic activity; and 

• Secure and expand a major competitive advantage the U.S. oil and gas 

industry holds in utilizing C02 for hydrocarbon recovery with safe and 

permanent geologic storage. 

By providing needed common infrastructure, new C02 pipelines will improve the 

competitiveness of existing domestic manufacturing, attract new manufacturing, 

and help onshore and return industrial production of petrochemicals, cement, 

steel, and other heavy industries. 

There are a number of ways the federal government could provide assistance, 

including: 

1. Federal financial support could leverage substantially greater pipeline 

infrastructure capacity at a small proportion of total pipeline cost by financing the 

modest incremental expense of constructing increased capacity up front through, 

for example, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Loan Programs Office;' 

2. DOE Office of Fossil Energy's Regional Industrial Carbon Capture Initiative 

could work with states and private sector partners to identify corridors for these 

pipelines that would connect industrial CO, sources with EOR opportunities, provide 

technical and financial analyses to support early private investment and commercial 

deployment and help address financial and other barriers to investment and 

deployment; 
306 

3. Governors or federal agencies could nominate these pipelines as high priority 

infrastructure projects for streamlined environmental review and approval, and 

these pipelines can use American-made equipment and materials, in accordance 

with President Trump's January 24th executive orders;'·' 

4. These projects could be included as high priority projects in federal infrastructure 

legislation being developed by Congress, for example by expanding the scope 

of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) to include 

pipelines; and 

5. Congress could enact tax incentives for carbon capture, pipeline transport and 

storage, such as extension and reform of the Section 450 Tax Credit for Carbon 

Dioxide Sequestration and eligibility of carbon capture projects for tax-exempt 

Private Activity Bonds, both of which enjoy broad bipartisan support. 

While the total pipeline investment for five such large projects would be approximately 

$15 billion, the amount of federal support needed would be considerably smaller. The 

federal investment might be only the debt, or a portion of the debt. For instance, if the 

federal government made all the loans, and loans were 50 percent of total pipeline 

financing, the federal share would be $7.5 billion. If, as described later in this document, 

the federal government acted as a short-term "bridge lender" to support super-sized, 

scale-efficient pipelines, the federal share would likely be on the order of only $2-4 

billion. 
307 

CO, -EOR represents a well-understood and commercially successful technique for 

oil production that enables cost-effective recovery of remaining crude from mature oil 

fields. In the early or primary phase of traditional oil production, the extraction of oil and 

gas decreases the fluid pressures in a reservoir. Often, a secondary phase involving 

injection of water to restore reservoir pressure has followed the primary phase, enabling 

production of still more of the original oil in place. Eventually, waterflooding reaches 

a point of diminishing economic returns.' Then, most of those fields are suitable for a 

tertiary phase of production that commonly involves CO, injection-referred to as "CO, 

floods"-to recover still more of the remaining oil. Suitable fields tend to be deep and 

at high pressures, causing CO, to function like a liquid that readily dissolves in the oil. 

Such fields also have a high degree of structural integrity, so that CO, floods move in a 

controlled, predictable fashion. 

Commercial CO,-EOR was pioneered in West Texas in 1972. In the ensuing 45 years, 

the U.S. independent oil and gas industry turned the practice into a robust and growing 

industry that accounted for approximately 4 percent of domestic oil production in 2014. 

The first two large-scale CO,-EOR projects in the United States (SACROC and Crossett 

in West Texas) remain in operation today. 

Capturing, compressing and transporting C02 via pipeline to an oilfield transforms 

C02 from a liability into a valuable commodity with remarkable properties and 

potential for enhancing oil production. When injected into an existing oilfield, CO, 

lowers the viscosity of the remaining oil, reduces interfacial tension, and swells the oil, 

thereby allowing oil affixed to the rock and trapped in pore spaces to flow more freely 

and be produced through traditional means. 

Oil Production Well 

""Miscible Zone Injected C02 encounters trapped oil C02 and oil mix Oil expands and moves towards 

producing well 

Source: Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long Term Carbon Storage Solution, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 
308 

A majority of injected CO, remains in the reservoir in the first pass; that CO, which 

does return to the surface with the produced oil is then separated, compressed, and 

re-injected. With standard operating procedures, this process results in only de minimis 

emissions (less than two percent) from what constitutes a closed-loop system from CO, 

source to oilfield sink. 

Traditional production techniques yield one-third to one-half of the original oil in place. 

If oil companies could readily source ample CO, from pipeline networks to existing 

oilfields, operators would have the potential to extract a further 1 0-20 percent of the 

original oil resource. With access to CO,, the same oilfield, with the same leases, drilling 

pads, extraction wells, and oil pipelines, would yield significantly more production. 

However, insufficient access to CO, constrains long-term growth of EOR production. 

Two types of CO, supply the EOR industry, naturally occurring from geologic domes and 

man-made from industrial and power plant sources. The latter provides roughly onefourth of the total volume of CO, purchased and injected by oilfield operators. 
309 

138 Number of U.S. CO,-EOR Projects 

Natural co, Source 

0 Industrial co, Source 

co, Pipeline 

C02 Proposed Pipeline 

C02-EOR Region 

Permian Basin (W. TX, NM, and S. CO) 

Rocky Mountains (N.CO, WYand MT) 

Gulf Coast (MS, LA, and ETX) 

Mid~Continent (OK and KS) 

Other (ND, MJ, Canada) 

Source: Quadrennial Energy Review: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure, April2015. 

2,3?0 

810 

740 

480 

2b 

The COO first used in EOR was man-made and stripped from natural gas produced 

from fields in Texas and later in Wyoming. Today, Exxon's Shute Creek gas processing 

plant at the LaBarge gas field in Wyoming is the largest operating carbon capture 

facility in the world,' capable of separating over seven million tons of CO, per year 

and supplying a pipeline network and EOR fields spanning much of Wyoming and 

extending into Colorado. 

Despite a long history of capturing, compressing and transporting man-made CO, 

for EOR, naturally occurring, but limited geologic CO, procured from underground 

domes now dominates the industry supply. For instance, CO, is transported via Kinder 

Morgan's Cortez pipeline-the world's largest-from McEimo Dome in southern 

Colorado across all of New Mexico, ultimately reaching the Permian Basin in Texas. 

Taken together, natural and man-made CO, supplies about 79 million tons a 

year, supporting U.S. C00-EOR oil production of about 146 million barrels a year. 

Increasing man-made C02 supplies by 150 million tons per year though 

expanded carbon capture and the buildout of five major pipeline corridors would 

increase annual U.S. EOR production by approximately 375 million barrels. 
310 

IIJ US Bbl Ex CO, 

US Bbl CO,-EOR 

1,\!{i Net Imports 

146, 

Today Expanded C02

-EOR Displaces 

1/51

h of Net Imports 

Since our nation still imports a net 1. 76 billion barrels per year of foreign oil, 

a cost-competitive increase in U.S. domestic C02

-EOR production of this 

magnitude could reduce our net imports by more than one-fifth. 

CO,-EOR can become a game changer for U.S. domestic energy production. According 

to 2013 analysis from the U.S. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, the U.S. 

has the potential to produce an estimated 28 billion barrels of economically recoverable 

oil from conventional oil fields with today's industry best practices. Next-generation 

techniques have the potential to yield an estimated 81 billion barrels. For comparison, 

total U.S. proved reserves of oil stood at just under 40 billion barrels in 2014. 

CO,-EOR enhances our nation's energy and economic security by lessening our 

dependence on foreign oil, often imported from unstable and hostile areas, and 

reducing our trade deficit by keeping dollars currently spent on oil imports at work in the 

U.S. economy. Moreover, EOR operations remain relatively robust in the face of oil price 

declines triggered by foreign actors such as OPEC. Once the extensive infrastructure 

of wells, surface processing facilities, and CO, pipeline transport has been financed and 

constructed, an EOR operation is designed to operate and pay off its investors over 

20 to 40 years, depending on the size of the field. An EOR operation has large initial 

investment costs compared to conventional onshore oil production, but very low cash 

costs of operation-and many of those cash costs, including royalties, severance taxes, 

and even CO, purchase costs, typically decline when oil prices fall. Thus, as shown in 

the chart below (Figure 7), an established EOR flood that has reached full operational 

levels may be able to cover day-to-day operating costs at oil prices as low as $20 per 

barrel. 
311 

In contrast, some newer technologies such as hydraulic fracturing can be very 

profitable, but require consistent re-investment in order to maintain oil production 

volumes. In an environment where oil prices have been driven to very low levels (e.g., 

because of actions by OPEC or other foreign actors), that reinvestment may not occur, 

and domestic oil production volumes begin to fall. Even with considerable and ongoing 

innovation and cost reductions in hydraulic fracturing, experts peg the break-even level 

for drilling new wells at a considerably higher range of $35-50 per barrel (depending on 

the particular site). 

CO, from many man-made sources, especially from industrial processes with low costs 

of carbon capture, could readily supply oilfields with the right pipeline infrastructure in 

place. For example, ethanol and fertilizer plants emit CO, to the atmosphere that they 

would rather sell into a pipeline bound for an American oilfield. Even in the absence of 

regulatory requirements limiting CO, emissions, a number of industrial facilities located 

within reasonable proximity of oilfields have already been tapped. For example, fertilizer 

plants at Enid, Oklahoma, and Coffeyville, Kansas, were both close enough to oilfields 

to make the construction of short (-100 miles), small-diameter (-8 inch) pipelines 

feasible for CO,-EOR. 
312 

ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) captured 300,000 tons of CO,per year at its Decatur, 

Illinois, ethanol plant, and anticipates increasing capture capacity to 1.1 million tons 

per year -but that volume alone is not enough to make feasible the construction of a 

600+ mile-long pipeline to reach large-scale EOR opportunities-' Thus, the CO, is being 

injected into a saline aquifer 7,000 feet below the plant. If a company like ADM could 

transport the CO,, an entirely new revenue stream would emerge-in turn supporting 

the entire economic value chain of farmers, fertilizer makers, seed providers, and 

agricultural equipment manufacturers that supply ADM with its corn. Further, the global 

competitors of our ethanol producers, such as Brazil, currently lack the same extra 

revenue opportunity. 

Like natural gas pipelines, building large, high-capacity CO, pipelines creates 

economies of scale and opportunities to realize major cost savings. The reason is 

simple. Pipelines are categorized by diameter (typically running as small as 8 inches 

up to more than 30 inches). The main cost of a pipeline-the tons of steel and miles of 

welds needed-is based on its circumference (i.e. the girth of the belt of steel it takes to 

go around the pipe as it is formed), which increases in direct proportion to the diameter. 

However, the capacity of the pipeline or, in this case, the volume of CO, it can transport, 

is based upon its cross-sectional area, which increases exponentially with diameter. 

Thus, doubling the diameter of the pipeline doubles the circumference, but quadruples 

the cross-sectional area and, therefore, quadruples the throughput capacity of the 

pipeline.•o 

So, by spending twice as much money to build a larger pipeline, an owner can get four 

times as much throughput capacity. Spending four times the money garners an even 

greater return-16 times the capacity.'' The scale economies mean that pressurized 

gas can be moved long distances at reasonable tariffs, but only if pipelines are built at 

sufficiently large diameter to drive down capital cost per unit of CO, throughput capacity. 

In simple terms, at today's expected oil prices (using estimates from futures markets 

or U.S. government forecasts), CO, will be worth roughly $25 per ton delivered to U.S. 

oilfields a decade from now. To make it worthwhile to capture and compress CO, at 

industrial and power plant sites far from those oil fields, the transport cost needs to be 

well under $25. For example, if the CO, is worth $25 at the oilfield, and it costs $10 to 

ship, $15 per ton remains to cover capture and compression costs and profit for an 

Iowa fertilizer plant or an Illinois ethanol distillery. If it costs $25 per ton just to move 

the CO,, it will not be economical for a plant owner to capture, compress and transport 

CO,. Instead, that plant owner will opt to vent the CO,, no oil company will have an 

opportunity to buy it, and the potential oil production, job creation and emissions 

reduction benefits are all lost. 
313 

The chart above shows the pipeline size needed to drive down transport costs to 

$10 per ton-the longer you build the pipe, the larger it must be to make sense 

economically: 

• To go only 200 miles12 (far left of chart), with a $10 per ton tariff (transport fee), the 

pipeline can be eight inches in diameter and only needs to carry 1. 7 million tons of 

CO, per year. (The total capital required is $150 million, or $750,000 per mile.) 

• To go 800 miles (far right of chart), still keeping the tariff at $10, the pipeline needs 

to be expanded to 30 inches in diameter, carrying 26 million tons per year. (The 

total capital required is $2.4 billion, or $3 million per mile.) 

From the first example to the second example above, the pipeline cost per mile 

quadruples from $750,000 per mile to $3 million per mile, but the capacity increases a 

staggering 16-fold, from 1. 7 million to 26 million tons of CO, per year. An extraordinary 

economy of scale is realized. However, to obtain such savings in the real commercial 

world, the pipeline business deal becomes very complex. The pipeline developer must 

assemble a larger number of CO, suppliers, a larger number of oilfield customers, and a 

much greater sum of financing ($2.4 billion), all at once. 
314 

The potential for a major buildout of CO, pipeline infrastructure, together with the 

ramping up of industrial and power plant carbon capture, to deliver domestic energy 

production, jobs and environmental benefits on a truly national scale warrants a role for 

the federal government in supporting the financing of CO, pipeline infrastructure and in 

providing incentives for commercial carbon capture deployment. 

Supersizing the capacity of the first CO, trunk pipelines constructed in states 

and regions not yet presently served by pipeline infrastructure capitalizes on the 

demonstrable cost-savings from economies of scale. Additionally, it will also derisk and lower the cost of capital for tens of billions of dollars in private investment 

needed in carbon capture projects at industrial facilities and power plants, as well as in 

infrastructure required to prepare an oilfield for CO, injection and EOR. 

Fortunately, private sector industrial CO, suppliers and oil industry customers can 

carry most, but not all, of the cost of a large capacity pipeline for a few years, while the 

remaining CO, suppliers and customers are identified. To illustrate, we use numbers 

similar to those in the chart in Figure 8: 

• A small group of shippers needing to transport CO, 800 miles, aggregating to only 

12 million tons per year of volume, could make use of a large 30-inch diameter 

pipeline, instead of the smaller 20-inch line normally utilized for that volume. The 

30-inch pipe can function at this smaller volume, even though it can carry much 

more-26 million tons per year (see the far right of pipeline bar chart above). The 

flexibility comes from a pipeline operator's ability to vary pressures-lower pressure 

for lower volumes, higher pressure for higher volumes. 

• Until the rest of the suppliers and customers are recruited, the initial shippers, if 

unaided, would face a relatively high transport charge of $19 per ton-a level that 

would normally deter prospective shippers. However, once CO, shippers for the 

full 26 million tons per year have signed on, tariffs can fall to a more commercially 

attractive $1 0 per ton. 

• However, accomplishing this favorable outcome for energy independence, jobs and 

the economy depends on finding an alternative to charging a prohibitive $19 per ton 

for the first shippers. To keep the initial shipping fee down to a more feasible $12 

per ton, for instance, approximately $84 million per year in cash would be required 

during an assumed five-year period of operation before additional CO, suppliers 

and customers are brought on board (i.e., an expenditure of $500 million-including 

interest cost-would economically bridge the gap before the pipeline was filled to 

capacity). 

• Finally, with the full complement of shippers (26 million tons per year) on board, a 

feasibly small repayment surcharge of $1.50 per ton would repay that $500 million 

bridge financing with interest. 13 
315 

• Ultimately, a pipeline of this size could sell $650 million of CO, per year, driving EOR 

production of nearly $5 billion dollars of oil per year. More importantly the critical 

$500 million bridging investment created annual savings of $100 million per year in 

transportation costs. 

The analysis of the Work Group suggests a critical supplementary role to private capital 

that the federal government is well-positioned to play. Federal financial support 

could leverage substantially greater pipeline infrastructure capacity at a small 

proportion of total pipeline cost by financing the modest incremental expense 

of constructing increased capacity up front. Federal taxpayers' infrastructure 

investment could then be recouped over time through minor tariff increases spread 

across many additional shippers added to the system as new carbon capture projects 

and EOR operations deploy and use the pipeline. 

Under such an approach, all private sector participants-industry CO, suppliers, pipeline 

owners and EOR operators-come out financially ahead by constructing a highercapacity pipeline with a modest federal financing component and adding shippers over 

time. By contrast, acting alone and building a smaller, optimized pipeline upfront would 

require permanently higher tariffs over the life of the project. 

For its part, the federal government's incremental financing role for this CO, pipeline 

infrastructure would yield the extraordinary energy security, jobs, economic, fiscal and 

environmental benefits for our nation outlined at the beginning of this paper. 

The State CO,-EOR Deployment Work Group offers the following recommendations for 

a federal financing, siting and permitting role in CO, pipeline corridor development that 

enables construction of increased capacity upfront, potentially with options for states to 

supplement federal support. The Work Group urges the following: 

• DOE should recognize long-distance CO, pipeline corridors as an "innovative" 

technology under the DOE Loan Program Office's funding available for Advanced 

Fossil Energy Projects. There has never been a long-distance (in excess of 200 

miles) CO, pipeline constructed in the U.S. expressly to carry man-made CO, to 

oilfields, or one built with increased capacity to facilitate and accelerate future 

deployment of carbon capture and EOR projects. 

The Canadian energy powerhouse of Alberta is pursuing just such a supersized 

CO, pipeline, the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, in partnership with industry and in 

consultation with First Nations and other key stakeholders. The Carbon Trunk 

Line benefits from a combination of provincial and federal government financial 

participation. 

• The US Congress should expand the mission of USDOT's Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)14 subordinated loan program to 

include CO, pipeline networks as part of its mission. This program has been used 

to spur innovative road and rail projects, such the Alameda Corridor Project to debottleneck freight movement from ports to railroads through the congestion of Los 

Angeles. 
316 

• Congress should authorize and direct federal agencies to play a supplementary 

role to private investors by financing additional capacity in strategic CO, trunk line 

projects until a sufficient customer base has been established to recoup the federal 

investment through tariffs. 

o In a historic example of the significant impact such a federal financing role can 

have, the federal government initially financed and owned the 1300 and 1500-

mile oil pipelines (20 and 24-inch, respectively) from Texas to New England that 

eventually were privatized (sold for approximately $1.6 billion in today's dollars) 

and converted to natural gas pipelines as the Texas Eastern Transmission 

Corporation." Those lines remain an important backbone of the U.S. energy 

system 75 years later. 

o To take another interesting example, once the federal Bonneville Power 

Administration had initially strung 1,000 miles of transmission lines between the 

Pacific Northwest and California, an enterprising group of utilities was able to 

piggyback on that federal investment by paying for capacity upgrades that greatly 

increased the lines' capacity. 

• Pursuant to President Trump's January 24'h executive order, Governors or heads 

of federal agencies should identify long-distance CO, pipelines as high-priority 

infrastructure projects for expedited environmental reviews and approvals.'' 

• The Administration should develop a more concerted federal policy" and require 

better coordination and consultation between federal agencies and with state, tribal 

and local governments and stakeholders regarding pipeline corridor siting and 

permitting. The development and utilization of designated pipeline corridors is a 

highly efficient and effective way to incentivize pipeline infrastructure development. 

Pipeline corridors are delineated primarily by siting them adjacent to existing 

infrastructure and in conformance with federal agency land use and planning 

documents. The benefits of utilizing designated corridors include: streamlined 

regulatory authorization, reduced environmental impacts, and increased 

constructability for project proponents. 

• Federal land management agencies should: 

o Actively issue themselves right-of-way (ROW) grants that they will designate and 

manage as pipeline corridors on lands that they own or administer. 

o Allocate resources to complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses, which are required for ROW grants. 

o Develop their NEPA analyses at as close to project-level scale as possible. 

Fine scale analyses will allow the agencies to disclose the majority of impacts 

associated with building pipelines within the designated corridors. These robust 

analyses will allow pipeline projects to proceed with a much less costly and timeconsuming authorization process. 

o Foster relationships to the greatest extent allowed by law with appropriate 

state, tribal and local governments, as well as industry, NGOs and other 

stakeholders, to ensure that designated corridors encompass all reasonably 
317 

foreseeable development scenarios. To formalize these cooperative relationships, 

memorandums or agreements should be developed to describe the roles and 

responsibilities of each partner. 

American oil fields are poised to rapidly expand production through utilization of manmade CO, for enhanced oil recovery. This promise can be realized if the oil industry 

can gain access to large, secure volumes of CO,, transported via pipeline networks and 

purchased from industrial facilities and power plants where that CO, would otherwise be 

emitted to the atmosphere and wasted. 

The State CO,-EOR Deployment Work Group recommends that President Trump and 

Congress incorporate the development of long-distance, large-volume CO, pipelines as 

a priority component of a broader national infrastructure agenda. 

In particular, Congress and the President should, in consultation with states, tribal 

governments and key stakeholders, identify and foster the development of five priority 

CO, trunk pipelines. This would include support for planning, streamlined permitting, and 

financing to transport CO, to oilfields for EOR from industrial facilities and power plants 

not currently served by pipeline infrastructure. 

Development and expansion of regional and national CO, pipeline networks, together 

with proposed tax credits and other financial incentives for industrial and power plant 

carbon capture, can support long-term production and use of America's abundant and 

affordable coal, oil and natural gas resources, put our nation further down the path of 

replacing imported oil and create high-paying jobs in energy-producing and industrial 

states and regions of the country, all while significantly reducing net carbon emissions. 
318 

1. Identifying and developing technology for enabling small producers to pursue the 

residual oil zone (ROZ) fairways in the Permian Basin San Andres. Final Report 

http://www. netl.doe.gov/file%201ibrary/research/oil-gas/1 0123-17 -final-report. pdf 

2. In order to be eligible for LPO financing, a project must use fossil energy; avoid 

or store greenhouse gas emissions; be innovative; and provide a reasonable 

prospect of repaying the federal loan. 

3. " ... it is the policy of the executive branch to streamline and expedite, in a 

manner consistent with law, environmental reviews and approvals for all 

infrastructure projects, especially projects that are a high priority for the Nation, 

such as improving the U.S. electric grid and telecommunications systems 

and repairing and upgrading critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges, 

and highways ... upon request by the Governor of a State, or the head of any 

executive department or agency (agency), or on his or her own initiative, 

the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

shall, within 30 days after a request is made, decide whether an infrastructure 

project qualifies as a "high priority" infrastructure project. .. the Chairman of 

the CEQ shall coordinate with the head of the relevant agency to establish, 

in a manner consistent with law, expedited procedures and deadlines for 

completion of environmental reviews and approvals for such projects ... " https:// 

www. whitehouse. gov/the-press-office/20 17/0 1/24/executive-order -expeditingenvironmental-reviews-and-approvals-high. 

4. 'The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with all relevant executive 

departments and agencies, shall develop a plan under which all new pipelines, 

as well as retrofitted, repaired, or expanded pipelines, inside the borders of 

the United States, including portions of pipelines, use materials and equipment 

produced in the United States, to the maximum extent possible and to the 

extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall submit the plan to the President 

within 180 days of the date of this memorandum ... " htlpsl/www.whitehouse.gov/ 

lhe-press-office/2017 /01 /24/presidential-mem orandum-regarding-constructionamerican-pipelines. 

5. Some operators go directly to C02, where it is readily available and skip the 

waterflooding phase. 

6. Information on the Shute Creek facility can be found at: ht!Q§.;.//wwvv. 

globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects 

7. "C02 EOR: A Model for Significant Carbon Reductions," L. Steven Melzer and 

C. Michael Ming, Paper Presented at the Symposium on the Role of EOR in 

Accelerating the Deployment of CCS, July 23, 2010, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology. https:! /rfflibrary. word press. com/2011 /05/25/role-of -enhanced-oilrecovery-in-accelerating-lhe-deployment-of-carbon-capture-and-segueslra!ion/ 
319 

8. A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline 

Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Interstate Oil and 

Gas Compact Commission, December 31,2011. httg://aroundwork.iogcc.ok.gov/ 

node/987 

9. Decatur to North Burbank Field (Chaparral) is about 600 miles. To Permian hubs 

(Denver City) is approximately 900 miles. 

10. The surface area of a pipe (cylinder)= length x circumference= length x (2 x TT x 

radius). The volume of a pipe (cylinder)= length x cross-sectional area= length x 

( TT x radius2). 

Steel needed vs. volume of a one-foot long pipe 

Diameter Radius= Area of steel plate Area vs. Volume of gas Volume vs. 2 

0/2 needed to form the pipe 2 inch contained inside inch diameter 

= 12 inches x Circum- diameter the pipe= 12 pipe 

ference pipe inches x Area 

2inch 1 inch 12x2x3.14x1 =75.3 1x 12xrrx12 =37.7 1x 

sq-in cubic-in 

4inch 2inch 12x2x3.14x2= 2x 12xrrx2'= 4x 

150.8 sq-in 150.8 cubic-in 

8 inch 4inch 12x2x3.14x4= 4x 12 X TT X 42 = 16x 

301.4 sq-in 603.2 cubic-in 

16 inch 8inch 12x2x3.14x 16 = 8x 12xrrx82 = 64x 

602.8 sq-in 2,411 cubic-in 

11. The main cost that has to be recovered through transportation tariff rates charged 

to pipeline shippers is the annual financing charge based upon the original capital 

cost. 

12. Note that in the chart we assume the pipeline climbs 4 feet per mile, since 

industrial sources in the Midwest (for example) are located at low elevations (for 

example, 1 ,000) feet, whereas much of the oil production region lies at altitudes 

3,000 to 4,000 feet higher. 

13. The repayment surcharge is relatively small because it is spread over the full26 

million ton per year customer base and extended over the full life of the pipeline. 
320 

14. The TIFIA program was modeled on the Alameda Corridor $400 million loan, 

though it is not clear that the actual loan was technically a TIFIA loan at the time. 

(Source: Jllili§J.J:YJ[]'fYi.,!Jid£~:x:t!J.QID@lli!1M~rl!JilJJJl:llli&:2J;!illUilJJM!l:S1i:: 

1 07hhrg77859. htm) 

TIFIA Eligibility- h!tps:l/www lransoortation.gov/buildamerica/programs-services/ 

tifia/eliqibility 

Any type of project that is eligible for Federal assistance through existing surface 

transportation programs (highway projects and transit capital projects) is eligible 

for the TIFIA credit program, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS). 

In addition, the following types of projects are eligible: international bridges and 

tunnels; intercity passenger bus and rail facilities and vehicles; publicly owned 

freight rail facilities; private facilitates providing public benefit for highway users; 

intermodal freight transfer facilities; projects that provide access to such facilities; 

service improvements on or adjacent ot the National Highway System; and 

projects located within the boundary of a port terminal under certain conditions. 

An eligible project must be included in the applicable State Transportation 

Improvement Program. Major requirements include a capital cost of at least $50 

million (or 33.3 percent of a state's annual apportionment of Federal aid funds, 

whichever is less) or $15 million in the case of ITS. TIFIA credit assistance is 

limited to a maximum of 33 percent of the total eligible project costs. Senior debt 

must be rated investment grade. The project also must be supported in whole or 

in part from user charges or other non-Federal dedicated funding sources and 

be included in the state's transportation plan. Applicable Federal requirements 

include, but are not limited to Titles 23 and 49 of the U.S. Code, NEPA, Buy 

America provisions, and the Civil Rights and Uniform Relocation Acts. 

Qualified projects are evaluated by the Secretary against eight statutory criteria, 

including among others, impact on the environment, significance to the national 

transportation system, and the extent to which they generate economic benefits, 

leverage private capital and promote innovative technologies. 

15. Big Inch definition on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.orq/wiki/Big Inch 

The Big Inch and Little Big Inch, collectively known as the Inch pipelines, are 

petroleum pipelines extending from Texas to New Jersey, built between 1942 and 

1944 as emergency war measures in the U.S. Before World War II, petroleum 

products were transported from the oil fields of Texas to the northeastern states 

by oil tanker. After the United States entered the war on January 1, 1942, this 

vital link was attacked by German submarines in the Operation Paukenschlag, 

threatening both the oil supplies to the northeast and its onward transshipment 

to Great Britain. The Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, championed the 

pipeline project as a way of transporting petroleum by the more secure interior 

route. 

The pipelines were government financed and owned, but were built and operated 

by the War Emergency Pipelines company, a non-profit corporation backed by a 

consortium of the largest American oil companies. It was the longest, biggest and 

heaviest project of its type then undertaken; the Big and Little Big Inch pipelines 

were 1,254 and 1,475 miles (2018 and 2,374 kilometers) long, respectively, with 
321 

35 pumping stations along their routes. The project required 16,000 people and 

725,000 short tons of materials. It was praised as an example of private-public 

sector cooperation and featured extensively in U.S. government propaganda. 

After the end of the war, there were extended arguments over how the pipelines 

should be used. In 1947, the Texas East Transmission Corporation purchased 

the pipelines for $143,127,000, the largest post-war disposal of war-surplus 

property. The corporation converted them to transport natural gas, transforming 

the energy market in the northeast. The Little Big Inch was returned to carry oil 

in 1957. The pipelines are owned by Spectra Energy Partners and Enterprise 

Products and remain in use. 

16. " ... it is the policy of the executive branch to streamline and expedite, in a 

manner consistent with law, environmental reviews and approvals for all 

infrastructure projects, especially projects that are a high priority for the Nation, 

such as improving the U.S. electric grid and telecommunications systems 

and repairing and upgrading critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges, 

and highways ... upon request by the Governor of a State, or the head of any 

executive department or agency (agency), or on his or her own initiative, the 

Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) shall, 

within 30 days after a request is made, decide whether an infrastructure project 

qualifies as a "high priority" infrastructure project. .. the Chairman of the CEQ 

shall coordinate with the head of the relevant agency to establish, in a manner 

consistent with law, expedited procedures and deadlines for completion of 

environmental reviews and approvals for such projects. https/iwwwwhitehouse. 

gov/!he-press-office/2017/0 1 /24/executive-order -expediting-environmentalreviews-and-approvals-high. 

17. USDOE, A Review of the C02 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S., DOE/NETL2014/1681,April21, 2015. 
322 

Laura Ziemer 

Senior Counsel and Water Policy Advisor 

March 22,2017 

The Honorable Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington D.C. 20510 

Re: Letter for the Record for the March 21, 2017 Hearing on Infrastructure 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record the following testimony in 

response to the Committee's March 21, 2017, hearing on infrastructure. The priorities 

outlined below for any infrastructure initiative, whether developed by the Trump 

Administration or by Congress, are critical to American infrastructure and jobs, and 

provide multiple benefits for river health, public lands, recreation and water infrastructure. 

Trout Unlimited (TU) represents more than 155,000 conservation-minded 

members, organized into 380 chapters in 35 state councils. Our mission is to conserve, 

protect and restore the Nation's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. We have 

280 staff spread across America who work with our members and a wide variety of 

partners- including farmers, ranchers, miners and state and local agencies- to accomplish 

our mission. 

1. A comprehensive Infrastructure Package should feature strategic, costeffective investments that promote innovation and collaboration among 

stakeholders. 

The best proposals for infrastructure investment create new partnerships and 

provide benefits across different sectors. A recent Treasury Department report of 40 

proposed infrastructure projects of "major economic significance" demonstrates this value. 

Three of the 40 infrastructure projects identified as being essential, major projects, were 

investments in restoring aquatic ecosystem functioning to protect against flooding, and 

scored among the highest cost-benefit ratios of all the projects (at p. 4 ("planning 

underway" project numbers 5, 6, and 10) and pp. A-46, A-48, and A-56)). 

Trout Unlimited: America's Leading Coldwater Fisheries Conservation Organizatio11 

321 East Main Street, Suite 411, Bozeman, MT 59715 

office: (406) 522-7695 • cell: (406) 599-2606 • email: lziemercwtu.org • www.tu.org 
323 

TU works on projects that build drought and flood resilience for rural communities 

and agricultural regions. These projects address rural transportation infrastructure and 

public safety while simultaneously building partnerships on projects that provide multiple 

benefits. TU believes that linking investment in natural infrastructure with water 

infrastructure upgrades is essential in order to reduce inefficiencies and project delays, and 

maximize benefits, including improved trout habitat and watershed health. Two examples 

of such projects include TU's Montana Sun River project and TU's Washington Wenatchee 

River project. 

In the upper Missouri River basin's Sun River, TU, the Fort Shaw Irrigation District, 

and members of the Sun River Watershed Group worked to create multi-sector benefits. 

The Bureau of Reclamation's WaterS MART program provided significant irrigation 

infrastructure funding and was matched by state and local dollars, contributions from the 

Irrigation District, and private contributions from the Coca-Cola Company. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service contributed to the success of the project with new onranch center pivots that required less water to be delivered, to match the more efficient 

delivery of water through the irrigation district. The Coca-Cola Company's contributions 

were essential to securing the flow restoration benefits to the chronically dewatered Sun 

River from the irrigation infrastructure upgrades within Fort Shaw Irrigation District. Two 

thousand feet of lined canal and PVC pipe, and a new bypass canal, created the opportunity 

to keep more water for the Sun River's wild trout fishery, which have more than doubled 

their population over the last three years. Today, anglers from all over can enjoy fishing 

along the Sun River. 

In eastern Washington's Wenatchee River, TU worked with Pioneer Water Users 

(Pioneer) to change their point of diversion from the flow-limited Wenatchee River to the 

Columbia River, thereby protecting over 38 csFs in the Wenatchee River, improving habitat 

for imperiled spring Chinook, steel head and bull trout. Pioneer benefitted by adopting the 

most sophisticated irrigation system in the state that will last through the next century: the 

whole system is managed by a "brain" that dictates how the pressurized system rotates 

water use among five pumps. The instream benefit to the Wenatchee is complemented in 

the Columbia by the fact that the system is based on demand. Withdrawal from the 

Columbia River only occurs when that the agricultural users need water. This 

collaboration also increased the water security for the town of Wenatchee by transferring 

saved water to their municipal supply. Although not a simple project-17 separate permits 

were obtained and 12 funders contributed to the project-its $3.4 million total cost for 

7,823.5 acre-feet provides municipal, irrigation, and habitat benefits for imperiled species 

at $435 per acre-foot of water savings-demonstrating the success of investing in 

innovative infrastructure solutions to creating multiple benefits. 

2 
324 

2. Investment in Natural Infrastructure Should be Linked with Water 

Infrastructure Upgrades to Maximize Cost-Effectiveness and Create Multiple 

Benefits. 

Every aging, century-old piece of irrigation and water delivery infrastructure in the 

West is an opportunity to build flood and drought resilience through improved water 

storage and delivery and improved river health. Every obsolete culvert on Eastern 

highways, and pollutant-leaching abandoned mine across the nation, offers opportunities 

to improve watershed health. Flood and drought resiliency, and improved fish habitat, 

come from functional watershed processes, which work more cheaply and more effectively 

with less capital investment than constructed structures. Restoration of watershed 

function is a sound investment that pays dividends over the long-term, without the 

depreciation in value and on-going, mounting expense of operation and maintenance of 

built structures. Linking a water infrastructure project with upstream or downstream 

investments in natural aquatic functioning increases the cost-effectiveness of the project 

and increases the range of project benefits. A comprehensive infrastructure package 

should prioritize infrastructure investments that provide multiple benefits. These projects 

both upgrade existing infrastructure, but at the same time restore natural riverine 

processes that provide flood mitigation services through intact floodplains. Other projects 

will relieve water delivery bottlenecks by improving natural flows that provide drought 

resiliency while upgrading water delivery infrastructure. 

A key Bureau of Reclamation program that this Committee should support is 

WaterS MART, which was created during President George W. Bush's Administration. 

WaterSMART is a successful program that finances innovative upgrades of western water 

infrastructure to save water. The Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART funding of water 

infrastructure projects-from large diversion dams to small headgate repairs-prioritize 

"win-win" projects that provide multiple benefits. These are projects that can improve 

water storage and delivery, improve a farmer or rancher's operation, as well as improve 

the river or stream that supplies the water. 

Infrastructure projects should also support regional, cooperative initiatives, which 

have taken watershed restoration and infrastructure reform to scale. Successful western 

examples are the Klamath and Yakima River basin collaboratives. These multi-stakeholder 

investment plans stack benefits, and they recognize economic and business risks of 

avoiding upgrades and missing opportunities to promote resiliency. These are investment 

plans that have been made with a whole-system view-not just straight update and 

replace, but based upon comprehensive, system-level evaluations. They are supported by a 

broad range of stakeholders, including states, counties and communities. 

3. Natural Infrastructure Investments Should Enhance Public Land Access and 

Address 21st Century Land Management Challenges. 

In many locations throughout the West, public lands are the backbone oflocal 

economies and an outdoor recreation industry that contributes a total $646 billion 

annually to the economy and 6.1 million direct jobs. Strategic investments in conservation 

3 
325 

and recreation will help to grow and diversify the financial health of communities that are 

gateways to our nation's public lands. However, this will require a commitment to address 

the growing maintenance backlog, ensure adequate resources for our public land 

management agencies and fully funding programs that open up access for hunters, anglers 

and outdoor recreationists. 

The health of our public lands is plagued by inadequate funding to ensure that our 

land management agencies have the resources to be effective land managers. Since 1998 

we have seen a 39% decrease in staffing for managing National Forests, creating problems 

such as a $314 million trail maintenance backlog that impact millions of hunters, anglers 

and other recreationists that depend on our nation's public lands. 

This maintenance backlog is a pervasive across land management agencies, and 

affects not only trails, but also an aging public land infrastructure that includes facilities, 

road networks, recreation sites, and ecosystem services such as clean water for 60 million 

Americans who rely on drinking water that originates on the national forests and 

grasslands. We must address this maintenance backlog and invest in our public lands, but 

raiding programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Funds is not the answer or a 

sustainable solution. In Montana alone, there are nearly two million acres of public land 

that are inaccessible to the public. If fully funded, the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

will help to expand hunter and angler access to lands and ensure that the benefits of these 

public lands are fully realized. A start to addressing the public land infrastructure backlog 

would be for Congress to end fire borrowing, which is the fiscally reckless practice of 

raiding agency funds earmarked for other priorities and using them to battle wildfires. 

In summary, the cost is high of neglecting these essential water and public lands 

infrastructure upgrades. Neglect of water infrastructure risks floods from failing dams, 

under-sized culverts, and bridges that need larger spans across floodplains. Neglect of 

water infrastructure also makes the impact of drought worse by wasting water in failing 

water delivery infrastructure. Protecting and enhancing public lands is an investment 

strategy that will yield continued economic growth and quality of life across our nation, 

while creating jobs and sustaining our outdoor traditions. Trout Unlimited urges the 

Committee to support an infrastructure package that provides multi-sector benefit, costeffective projects that build partnerships and are smart, high-yield investments. 

Thank you for your interest in this important discussion. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me at l?.LQmg_r@_tu,Qrg or ( 406) 522-7 695 if more detail or specific examples would 

be of assistance. 

Yours truly, 

Laura Ziemer 

0 

4