Page 16 - 74752_NSAA_LowRes

Forest Service
WASHINGTON DC’S FOCUS ON INFRASTRUCTURE

BOOSTS CHANCES OF SKI FEE RETENTION PASSAGE

BY GERALDINE LINK, NSAA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY

ON MARCH 21 2017, Snowbird President and NSAA Public Even though the amount of trees that we remove is tiny in
Lands Committee Chairman Bob Bonar testified before the comparison to the agency’s overall timber program, ski areas
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on the import- are subjected to a full blown timber sale when we remove
ant topic of increasing private investment in infrastructure on trees. Whether we are widening a run, removing trees for safety,
public land through more efficient process. or removing dead trees, agency policy requires excessive tree mea-
The testimony was solicited by the Committee’s chairman, surement, tree marking, and environmental review. Every hour
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has been working the USFS spends on our timber removal projects is an hour that
with the ski industry, and Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and could be redirected to addressing either an actual timber sale or a
Cory Gardner (R-CO) on crafting ski fee legislation that fuels mitigation project or other agency priorities.
would keep USFS permit fees on the local forest in which they Bob Bonar ended his testimony with good news—that
were generated. Recent budget cuts proposed by the Trump ski areas are poised to invest in infrastructure on public lands
Administration—which would make a bad situation even worse including chairlifts, snowmaking and water-related facilities,
for the Forest Service—make passing fee retention legislation all year-round activities facilities, employee housing, and more—
the more important for ski areas who need agency approvals for and with application of solutions, we will get those infrastructure
improvement projects at their resorts. projects done. Solutions included ski fee retention legislation to
NSAA’s testimony at the hearing emphasized that ski areas dedicate more resources to agency staffing and training. This
are the economic drivers in the rural communities in which would entail locally retaining a percentage of ski area permit fees
they operate, and frequently the largest employers in mountain paid to the Forest Service to support ski area permit administra-
communities. While ski areas pay for all review processes as tion and facilitate project approvals.
well as the capital improvements made on site, our improve- Another solution is having a team of winter sports or
ment projects are not moving forward like they used to, due to developed recreation specialists on staff with the agency to
underfunding and understaffing, and because of layers of regula- help streamline and expedite the NEPA review process, con-
tions that need streamlining. Current USFS recreation program sistent with legal requirements of course, particularly on
staffing levels are at 40 percent of what they were in the year projects that occur in already impacted or disturbed areas.
2000, due to firefighting costs and the resulting downsizing They could also greatly streamline the timber removal
and fragmentation of jobs among special uses administrators. approval process at ski areas.
Day-to-day permit administration has suffered as a result, and Finally, we need to see the increased use of third party tech-
it has become close to impossible to move ski area improvement nical consultants, instead of overwhelmed USFS staff, to perform
projects forward. NEPA studies and prepare NEPA documents for proposed
The review process is also overkill for sites like ski areas that projects at ski areas. Ski areas already pay third parties to assist
are highly developed and quite frankly have likely been reviewed with the NEPA process, but this new alternative would entail
more than any other acres on the national forests. We have too hiring pre-approved private sector specialists, such as soils engi-
many EISs rather than EAs or CEs. When we are replacing a neers and botanists, to complete the work that often presents
chairlift in the same alignment and merely increasing it from a bottlenecks due to lack of agency specialists. The agency would
two-passenger to a four-passenger lift, we should not start from still make the ultimate decision of whether to approve the
square one in the NEPA review process, and we should not be project, but the bulk of the review work would be performed by
required to do an EIS. Lift replacements should have their own outside specialists in a more efficient and expedited manner.
category under NEPA Categorical Exclusions because they have NSAA is optimistic about the chances of passing ski fee
minimal environmental effects and the effects are known. This retention legislation. We will keep members up to date on our
simple change would save millions nationwide in dollars and progress through Capital Watch and Public Lands Committee
time spent for both the industry and the agency. communications. Huge thanks to Bob Bonar for his service
In addition, the agency needs to streamline the arduous as chair of the Public Lands Committee and for traveling to
process applied to the removal of trees from our permit area. Washington to deliver this important testimony.

14 | NSAA JOURNAL | CONVENTION 2017