[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 23, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-561 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 23, 2001..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, Prepared statement of....................... 6
Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, Prepared statement of............... 6
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 4
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Bassett, Steve, President, United States Air Tour Association
(USATA).................................................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
DeCou, Wesley, Flying Site Coordinator, Academy of Model
Aeronautics................................................ 109
Prepared statement of.................................... 111
Ehnes, Russell L., Testifying on behalf of Americans for
Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA)..................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Hill, Alan T., Testifying on behalf of the American Horse
Council.................................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Kiernan, Tom, President, National Parks Conservation
Association................................................ 112
Prepared statement of.................................... 114
Knowles, Amy Krech, Representing the Florida Keys Fishing
Guides Association, et al.................................. 86
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Laine, Russell, Private PWC User, Testifying on behalf of the
Personal Watercraft Industry Association................... 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
Mackey, Craig, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound USA...... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Michael, Sarah, President, Winter Wildlands Alliance......... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Nelson, Courtland, Director, Utah State Parks and Recreation. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Pidgeon, Walter ``Bud'' P., Jr., President, Wildlife
Legislative Fund of America................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Smith, Vera, Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain Club... 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Ward, Bruce, Executive Director, Continental Divide Trail
Alliance, Inc.............................................. 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Woodside, David, Vice Chairman, National Parks Hospitality
Association................................................ 105
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS
----------
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. I appreciate you folks being here with us
today. We are grateful for those who are going to testify.
As you know, members come dribbling in from time to time.
We don't have a vote on the agenda, they tell me, so I think we
are safe.
I have an opening statement. I will turn to the gentleman
from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, for an opening statement, and then
we will proceed with our first panel.
Mr. Rahall has a family problem and won't be able to be
with us. We are hoping that some members from the other side
will come in, as I am sure they will.
The hearing will focus on recreational activities and
access to our public lands. Since coming to Congress, it has
become very evident that Federal land management agencies have
been engaged in a systematic closure and restriction of a
number of customary uses by people wanting to enjoy our public
lands.
This became especially clear during the Clinton
administration, as agencies under his watch, in concert with a
variety of the environmental groups, attempted to prohibit
various types of uses and access to our national parks, along
with our Federal lands, through rulemaking, policy
interpretation, and management plan implementation.
Although the agencies have premised these prohibitions and
restrictions on the need for added resource protection,
analysis of each situation indicates that the science simply
does not support these measures.
In effect, these agencies have needlessly closed access and
have banned traditional use to the very people who they should
be accommodating, the American public.
Without question, unnecessarily restricting and prohibiting
access to the public by the Federal Government is the wrong
direction to move in and certainly does not serve the public's
right to enjoy these lands and uses.
Here are just a few examples, illustrating how Federal land
management agencies have extended their hand, not to help, but
shove people off and out of public lands:
On April 22, 2000, then-Interior Assistant Secretary of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Don Barry announced out of the blue a
complete ban on snowmobiling in all national parks. He did so
without the benefit of any rulemaking process, public comment,
or peer-reviewed science.
One month earlier, on March 21, 2000, the National Park
Service published a final rule prohibiting all personal
watercraft, or PWCs, in all park units. Although this rule
provided a 2-year grace period to form special regulations
allowing for continued PWC use, five park units, including Cape
Lookout National Seashore, decided to ban PWC use with just a
year gone by and with very, very little specific science to
support the prohibition.
On January 12, 2001, the Clinton administration signed a
record of decision, which effectively created almost 60 million
acres of highly restricted wildness areas, purposely bypassing
any congressional designation. And I am sure you folks all
realize that the Constitution gives the public lands to
Congress, not to the President.
We know this is the Forest Service roadless area
initiative, which was premised under the notion that these
areas needed protecting. However, President Clinton never did
explain what he was protecting these forest lands from.
Clearly, this was just another way to keep people out and
prohibit use of the public land.
Last year, I became aware of a situation where the Park
Service denied backcountry trail access to a Boy Scout troop
for no apparent reason at one of our premier parks. I find it
hard to believe that our park system has stooped to this new
low by refusing to let Boy Scouts, a highly respected and good
institution, in the national parks because here were a few too
many Boy Scouts.
Currently, the Park Service is attempting to eliminate
recreational fishing in the Dry Tortugas National Park,
restricting public access to historic sites at Curtiss Island,
Georgia, and eliminate all vehicular traffic from the Grand
Canyon by replacing it with a very costly transportation
network, which may prove to be too expensive for visitors to
pay.
Finally, although it may not fit exactly in this hearing,
it is a typical example of this attitude, exhibited by many
Federal agencies. On April 5, a group of 50 high school
students, winners of a national VFW contest on patriotism,
while touring the Jefferson Memorial, when they spontaneously
broke into singing the National Anthem, instead of waiting, a
Park Service ranger took it upon herself to run out and tell
them to shut down the singing immediately because they were
violating regulations.
Now, I can understand enforcement of rules, but I do
believe this is going just a wee bit too far.
In fact, I understand there were 10 Members of Congress who
wanted to go over to the Jefferson Memorial and sing the
National Anthem.
[Laughter.]
I would have gone with them if I could carry a tune.
[Laughter.]
But Mr. Hefley could have led that.
[Laughter.]
All of this clearly shows that the Federal Government has
been moving to restrict activities and otherwise limit public
access to our national parks and other public lands, especially
under the Clinton administration.
Customary use, such as snowmobiles, personal watercraft,
hiking, boating, climbing, along with normal vehicular travel,
have been restricted, as users sought to enjoy our public land,
just like everybody else.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources
Good morning everyone and welcome to the oversight hearing. We have
many witnesses testifying today so my opening remarks will be brief.
The hearing will focus on recreational activities and access to our
public lands. Since coming to Congress, it has became very evident that
Federal land management agencies have been engaged in the systematic
closure and restriction of a number of customary uses by people wanting
to enjoy our public lands. This became especially clear during the
Clinton Administration as agencies under his watch, in concert with a
variety of environmental groups, attempted to prohibit various types of
uses and access to our national parks along with other Federal lands
through rulemaking, policy interpretations, and management plan
implementation. Although the agencies have premised these prohibitions
and restrictions on the need for added resource protections, analysis
of each situation indicates that the science simply does not support
such draconian measures. In effect, these agencies have needlessly
closed access and banned traditional uses to the very people who they
should be accommodating - the American public. Without question,
unnecessarily restricting and prohibiting access to the public by the
Federal Government is the wrong direction to move in and certainly does
not serve the public's right to enjoy these lands and uses.
Here are just a few examples illustrating how Federal land
management agencies are extending their hand not to help, but to shove
people off and out of public lands:
On April 27, 2000 then Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Don Barry, announced out-of-the-blue a
complete ban on snowmobiling in all national parks. He did so
without the benefit of any rulemaking process, public comment,
or peer-reviewed science.
One month earlier, on March 21, 2000 the National Park
Service published a final rule prohibiting all personal
watercraft or PWCs in all the park units. Although this rule
provided a two-year grace period to form special regulations
allowing for continued PWC use, five park units, including Cape
Lookout National Seashore, decided to ban PWC use with just a
year gone by and with very little specific science to support
the prohibition.
On January 12, 2001, the Clinton Administration signed a
Record of Decision which effectively created almost 60 million
acres of highly restrictive wilderness areas, purposely
bypassing any Congressional designation. We know this as the
Forest Service Roadless Area Initiative which was premised
under the notion that these areas needed protecting. However,
President Clinton never did explain what he was protecting
these forest lands from. Clearly, this was just another way to
keep people out and prohibit uses of Forest Service land.
Last year I became aware of a situation whereby the Park
Service denied backcountry trail access to a Boy Scout Troop
for no apparent reason at one of our premiere parks. I find it
hard to believe that our park system has stooped to this new
low by refusing to let the Boy Scouts, a highly respected and
good institution into a national park because there were a few
too many Boy Scouts.
Currently, the Park Service is attempting to eliminate
recreational fishing in the Dry Tortugas National Park,
restrict public access to historic sites at Cumberland Island,
Georgia, and eliminate all vehicular traffic from the Grand
Canyon by replacing it with a very costly transportation
network which may prove to be too expensive for visitors to
pay.
Finally, although it may not fit exactly into this hearing it
is a typical example of the attitude exhibited by many of the
Federal agencies when dealing with the public they are there to
serve. On April 5th a group of 50 high-school students, winners
of a national VFW contest on patriotism, were touring the
Jefferson Memorial when they spontaneously broke out singing
the National Anthem. Instead of waiting, a park service ranger
took upon herself to run out and tell all of them to shut down
the singing immediately because they were violating
regulations! Now, I can understand enforcement of rules, but I
do believe that this is going just a little too far.
All of this clearly shows that the Federal Government has been
moving to restrict activities and otherwise limit public access to our
national parks and other public lands, especially under the Clinton
Administration. Customary uses such as snowmobiles, personal water
craft, hiking, boating, climbing along with normal vehicular travel
have been restricted as users have sought to enjoy our public lands,
just like everybody else.
I want to thank all the many witnesses for coming today, especially
those who had long distances to travel and I look forward to their
testimony.
______
The Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses who are
here today, especially those who had to travel long distances
for your testimony. Let me point out to all of you who testify,
we have a long list of witnesses, a number of panels. And we
hate to restrict you, but you were probably told if you could
stay within the 5 minutes, we would really appreciate it.
You will see in front of you something there, and it will
say talk, and then it will say sum up, and then it says you
better stop or somebody is going to gavel you down.
[Laughter.]
With that in mind, if you have to go over 20 or 30 seconds
because you just have to say that, I won't say anything. Go
much longer than that, we may have a wee bit of a problem. I do
appreciate all of you being here.
We now turn to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to our witnesses, and we welcome you to
Washington. And I look forward to your testimony on how this
Committee might bring balance and common sense back to managing
our public lands.
As the Chairman pointed out, it is very clear, just from
those examples, that the former administration, along with its
extreme environmental allies, decided early on to restrict our
nation's premier park system and vast public lands from--guess
who? The recreating public.
Instead of welcoming millions of Americans the freedom to
explore these wonderful places through hiking, biking, camping,
horseback riding, by snowmobile, or their own car, these
beautiful and singularly American places of enjoyment and
recreation have become more synonymous with unjustified
limitations and restrictions.
Frankly, to many Americans, more and more of our public
lands are displaying a ``keep out'' sign rather than a welcome
mat at the gate. This is ironic because in their 2001
management policies guide, the National Park Service states,
``National parks belong to all Americans, and all Americans
should feel welcome to experience the parks.''
While I appreciate the difficulty our Federal land managers
face in balancing the need to preserve and protect these
natural resources while promoting their enjoyment, simply
shutting the gate on millions of law-abiding Americans without
just cause or, more importantly, their input, is simply un-
American.
At some point during the last 8 years, Federal land
managers decided unilaterally and behind closed doors with the
environmental community that they, rather than publicly elected
officials in Congress or the public at large, knew what was
best for our Federal lands.
For many, the ultimate goal of these restrictive policies
is to designate all public lands as wilderness, which begs the
question: Who will be able to enjoy these public lands?
Now, I love wilderness. I love getting on a horse and
packing back into the high country where there aren't any
mechanized vehicles. And I can do that, and I think that is
wonderful. A lot of Americans can't do that and can't enjoy the
wilderness.
Let us not forget, these public lands belong to 270 million
Americans. All Americans, specifically all users of our public
lands, should participate in the development of each general
management plan in the National Park Service or how the
resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service should be used.
I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today, and
especially those who came a long distance, who traveled. And we
do look forward to your testimony.
And please don't assume because there are not very many
Committee members here today that that indicates a lack of
interest. There are a lot of other demands going on today, and
we will have others in. But this is a subject that we are very,
very interested in, and we seek your help in helping us to
bring balance.
Our two charges are to protect the resource and also to
provide the opportunity for public enjoyment of the resource.
So help us bring balance to that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
Recreation is the fastest growing use on the National Forests and
Grasslands today. Americans cherish these lands for many reasons
ranging from relaxation to experiencing life in the great outdoors,
firsthand. Recreation is the most important issue on the forests in my
district and any decisions impacting them have far reaching effects on
all the communities in western Colorado.
The previous Administration gave lip service to recreation, but at
every decision reduced recreational opportunities. Now is the time to
give recreation the attention it deserves in the form of adequate
funding and community involvement.
The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health has held hearings
before on recreation management. I look forward to working with all the
various user groups, the Agency, and the Administration to evaluate
alternative land use designations and options that impact recreation on
the forests.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I was very
pleased with the addition of Recreation to the name of the National
Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee. It brings into focus one of the
most important aspects of our responsibility over public lands
management.
When I speak to the people in my home state of Utah, they routinely
talk of their love for the land. They tell of a traditional family trip
into the BLM lands of Utah, or a new canyon they have discovered on
their yearly trip to Lake Powell.
Unfortunately, they also tell me of restrictions that they have
encountered when trying to return to that favorite place.
On Lake Powell, they worry that they won't be able to continue to
use their personal watercraft to explore the narrow canyons. They worry
that their aging parents will have to hike to the traditional Memorial
Day picnic spot on the desert. They worry that they won't be able to
show their children the beauty of Yellowstone National Park on a winter
snowmobile trip.
Mr. Chairman, there are always competing interests on our public
lands. When weighing these interests, we must ensure that recreation is
not the interest that gets lost. Access to our public lands is part of
what makes them such an important piece of our heritage. Those of us
who love our public lands want to make sure that we can continue to
visit them with our children and grandchildren.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today and
hope that it will give this committee the information we need to make
informed decisions about access to our public lands.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York
Permit me to take this opportunity to thank my friends and
colleagues, Chairman Hansen and Ranking Member Rahall, for affording me
the opportunity to provide testimony to the House Committee on
Resources concerning Galeville Airfield in New York.
Located in and around my district are the Wallkill River and
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuges. Established in 1990 by
Congress, the refuges are located in Sussex County, New Jersey and
Orange County, New York. In the spring, fall, and winter, the Wallkill
River floods extensively, offering broad flood plains of forested
wetlands and wet meadows. Oak-covered limestone ridges parallel the
river, sometimes coming right to the river's edge. Wetlands and forests
yield to open farmlands and grasslands at the higher elevations.
The region supports a diverse number of species, including 19
species listed by New Jersey as threatened or endangered. These include
the American bittern, barred owl, bobolink, Cooper's hawk, grasshopper
sparrow, great blue heron, northern harrier, savannah sparrow, sedge
wren, short-eared owl, upland sandpiper, vesper sparrow, and wood
turtle. The bog turtle, proposed for listing as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act, is found on the refuge. Black bear
and bobcat also occur. A major grassland and wetland complex, habitat
is provided for black ducks, wood ducks, green-winged teal and for
shorebirds, songbirds and raptors. Waterfowl and shorebirds are common
during migration, as are neotropical songbirds. Many species of
songbirds also nest on the refuge, including chestnut-sided warblers
and scarlet tanagers
Mr. Chairman, overall, this area offers the citizens of our region
a beautiful area to hike, hunt, and appreciate. However, within the
Shawangunk Refuge Area, there is a site called ``Galeville,'' which has
become the center of an ongoing debate between my constituents and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Galeville is a section of land, which was constructed as an
alternative airstrip for Stewart International Airport during World War
II. Due to its unique qualities, for over thirty years, members of the
East Coast Free Flight Conference and aeromodelers from throughout the
East Coast have enjoyed the use of Galeville for both practice and
competitions. During that time, they maintained an excellent
relationship with both the Town of Shawangunk officials and the
community at large. Their use has always been largely recreational and
they have always exercised extreme reverence with regard to the
surrounding wildlife which have continued to flourish during their long
utilization of the facility. However, in 1996, upon transfer of the
site from the West Point Military Academy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the aeromodelers were prohibited from using the site.
In an effort to remedy this situation, I communicated on numerous
occasions with representatives of the USFWS. However, conversations
with Fish and Wildlife personnel regarding the aeromodeler's continued
use of Galeville for their competitions have been unsuccessful. There
has been an unwillingness on the part of the USFWS to entertain any of
the propositions put forth by both myself and members of the East Coast
Free Flight Conference, who have tirelessly worked toward a compromise
since being barred from use of the facility.
In a meeting in my office on May 14, 1999, Mr. Daniel Ashe,
Assistant Director of the Fish & Wildlife Service and Ms. Elizabeth
Herland, Refuge Manager, Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge,
stated that compliance with the Service's mandate to preserve wildlife
and maintain a ``wildlife first'' preserve in lands that fall under the
jurisdiction of the Service is the basis for their refusal to allow the
aeromodelers to continue to fly at Galeville. They contend that they
are merely following their mandate, as stated in the National Wildlife
System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57), which will not allow
model airplane flying refuge because it is neither a ``priority wild-
life dependent public use,'' nor is it compatible with the mission of
the Refuge System.
However, in reviewing the legislation and discussing this situation
with staff on the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Subcommittee, I have been informed that ``wild-life dependent public
use'' was supposed to be considered a priority activity, while other
uses, such as rock climbing or aeromodeling, were not to be prohibited.
However, the USFWS is misinterpreting the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 and refuses to find a cooperate solution
to this situation.
Additionally, when I inquired about the interest of the Town of
Shawangunk in establishing a recreational facility on the airport
grounds, Mr. Ashe and Ms. Herland stated that they are assisting the
Town to find alternate sites for their facility. They added that if no
alternate site is found, the facility would then be located at the
airport on a separate section of land that would not fall under the
auspices of the Service. When I inquired as to whether or not this same
courtesy was extended to the aeromodelers, I was told it was not.
Mr. Chairman, the members of the East Coast Free Flight Conference
have taken exceptional steps to find an alternative site, address every
concern and acquire public support.
They made numerous efforts to purchase, lease or rent space to
continue modeling competition activities in the Northeast. These
efforts have fallen short of the criteria necessary for their hobby
because either the size of the land was insufficient, was not flat
enough, was only available in non-growing seasons or neighboring
landowners would not allow overflights.
The aeromodelers also contracted a private entity to study the site
and prepare a site survey report. In this report, Northeast
Environmental Management Systems, with special attention to the
wildlife habitat and plant community, found, ``Continued use of the
site for free-flight activities would pose no significant negative
impacts to the flora and fauna of the site,'' and, ``impacts from the
East Coast Free Flight Conference members is not likely to impact
sensitive species.''
Furthermore, the East Coast Free Flight Conference worked with
local officials to acquire public support and organized a letter
writing campaign. In the Refuge's Fall 1999 Planning Update, under the
section entitled Planning Workbook Responses, Shawangunk citizens
supported allowing model airplanes a few hours per week and, on
November 19, 1999, the Town of Shawangunk unanimously passed a
resolution in support of model airplane flying at Galeville.
Although I understand the concerns and the ``wild-life first''
mission of the USFWS, I am sympathetic to the plight of the
aeromodelers. I believe that in our effort to fight for the
preservation of open space and endangered species, we have cast away
those individuals who have worked diligently for many years to care for
this land, its wildlife and use it for a simple and harmless activity.
The Galeville site has an international and historical value to
aeromodelers throughout the East Coast. Their efforts to work within
the system should be rewarded with our utmost consideration, attention
and assistance.
I am supportive of efforts to preserve open space, wildlife
habitat, and environmentally sensitive areas throughout our nation and
believe that it is important to look at public use on a case by case
basis. Moreover, I believe that we must weigh the impact of public
activities, the need for those activities, and the availability of
space for the enjoyment of non-destructive activities when considering
whether or not public access should be allowed in areas that were
designated for the purpose of protecting habitat. Galeville is one case
where USFWS failed to take these circumstances into consideration.
I would like to once again thank Chairman Hansen and Ranking Member
Rahall for affording me the opportunity to participate today, and hope
that the Members on the Committee will take this unfortunate and
incredulous situation into consideration as they review our policies
towards public use on our nation's lands.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Our first panel is Courtland Nelson, Director of Utah State
Parks and Recreation; Alan T. Hill, testifying on behalf of the
American Horse Council; Walter ``Bud'' Pidgeon, President of
the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America; Russell L. Ehnes,
Americans for Responsible Recreation Access; and Sarah Michael,
President of the Winter Wildlands Alliance.
We will start with you, Mr. Nelson. You know the rules, and
we appreciate you being here. And the time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF COURTLAND NELSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH STATE PARKS AND
RECREATION
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I appreciate
the opportunity to speak to you today.
We are fortunate in the intermountain West and Utah to have
an abundance of public lands that provides outstanding
recreational and scenic opportunities. But to take advantage of
the opportunities, citizens must have access to these lands.
This is just not an issue for Utah. Thousands and thousands
of visitors from all parts of the world come to the
intermountain west to experience our world-class landscapes.
On behalf of the Utah Department of Natural Resources,
thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the theme
of public recreation and access to the Federal lands.
I would want to state, Mr. Chairman, we have a long history
of working with Federal agencies, local communities, and others
for the development of motorized and nonmotorized trail
opportunities, recreational facilities, as well as partnering
on our lakes, reservoirs, and waterways.
Mr. Chairman, our work over the last decade has been
primarily with multiple-use agencies of the Forest Service and
BLM, and I will concentrate my comments on that today, and, to
a lesser degree, specific park units of the National Park
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It is important to underscore our positive and healthy
relationship with a variety of Federal representatives. These
land managers have applied for both motorized and nonmotorized
trails grants as well as boating grants in our state and in
Arizona, where I was previously.
They have worked with us on education endeavors, both on
the ground and in the classroom, to further ensure safe
recreation. For Utah citizens, we have developed land
management plans and feel very, very positive about that
aspect.
However, for the U.S. Forest Service, I would have some
comments about, particularly, the roadless inventory and
closure that has been discussed previously.
This would have a significant impact on opportunities for
the recreating public. The prohibition against new construction
or reconstruction of roads will eliminate that which we will
need for future demand for outdoor recreation.
This will create additional pressures to expand or develop
these kinds of sites on remaining lands, including those of
state parks and other recreation providers. It is not known
whether there are lands within the inventoried roadless areas
that are suitable for this kind or recreational use, but we
assume there are.
In any case, total acreage affected would likely be very
small compared to the total roadless inventory. It would not
significantly detract from the purposes of the initiatives.
These lands could play a vital role in meeting this future
need. Eliminating this seems short-sighted.
There are almost 34 million acres of national forests in
the lower 48 States designated as wilderness, wilderness study
area, wild and scenic rivers, and national monuments. There are
an additional 8.3 million acres in Alaska for a total of 42
million acres.
Both building and reconstruction are prohibited in the vast
majority of these acres. If we add the 54 million of
inventoried roadless, the total is 96 million acres or nearly
one-half of the Forest Service land.
There seems to be an inappropriate prohibition of lands
allocated for dispersed recreation, most of which will
ultimately be nonmotorized. This is a significant change for a
system of national forests originally reserved for the public
domain to produce timber and water, a change under the
multiple-use concept.
For the Bureau of Land Management, as I mentioned
previously, we have a long, successful partnership with the BLM
in Utah and in Arizona. We currently manage or co-manage
several park sites around the State of Utah.
Some of these areas have involved complex management due to
the presence of endangered species, rangeland management
issues, and the development of recreational facilities on BLM
property staffed and managed by Utah State Parks. We have, I
believe, successfully worked through these various projects to
the satisfaction of a majority of Utahans.
Currently, we are working the BLM office in St. George and
the Washington County Conservancy District for the creation of
a new state park facility that we believe will emphasize this
partnership for motorized and nonmotorized trail users, as well
as creating camping and boating opportunities.
The key to this effort is the opportunity for dispersed
recreation on BLM lands.
I would be very concerned if there were any future
decisions that would allow significant restrictions without
specific management or scientific rationale. For decades, these
lands have been available to the recreating public.
And as you are all well aware, in the St. George-Las Vegas
area, there is a tremendous increase in population. And these
folks will need a place for their recreation.
Our future partnership to a degree hinges on the
availability of recreational opportunities on this land. At the
root of many of those conflicts are issues involving
restrictions to lands that have traditionally been open for
reasonable use and access.
There is a carrying capacity issue here that is endemic in
much of my comments about the Forest Service and BLM, and I
think that has to do with closure in one area, which means
overuse in other areas, as opposed to the general, broad,
dispersed use.
The future. I am very concerned about the impacts in the
intermountain west from the increase in population. I think we
have four of the five fastest growing states in the country.
These people are moving to our area of the country for a
variety of reasons. But for most of them, it is a chance to
enjoy the natural resources which we have. My experience has
been that reasonable rules and regulations and reasonable fees
are not a deterrent to access to public lands. The key is
``reasonable,'' and the key is also that we work together for
the settlement and resolving of certain issues.
I do believe that it would be a benefit, particularly in
Utah, Mr. Chairman, if the wilderness issue on BLM lands could
be settled. Then we can put in the appropriate administrative
rules that benefit a majority of Utahans and our visitors.
For the future, as I mentioned, the population growth and
the impacts of tourism are tremendous. I would encourage all of
our partners to work together on local and regional resource
plans so that we can create the management scheme that will
benefit the most.
We all agree that certain areas should be wilderness and be
managed under very restrictive access methods. We all agree
that other areas are open and available for dispersed
recreation.
The tough task is to make the decision with regard to broad
closures of large tracks of Federal land, which may benefit
that area for some by keeping citizens out, at least from some
perspectives. But it may have the net effect of greatly
concentrating other users in areas that will no doubt have much
more significant resources impacts.
I would also add to that that the sale of recreational
toys, recreational products, is increasing dramatically all
over the West, and we must prepare for the future impact of
that.
Finally, I have some comments that are in my document,
which you all have, regarding NEPA issues.
I would just finally conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that
like a congressional district, I have to represent rural and
urban needs, I have to represent different age groups, I have
to represent different individuals who have different
backgrounds and values.
As I have said at home in our legislative session, I serve
the chronically mentally healthy, and it is a difficult task at
best to try and provide the best service. I would hope to work
with the Federal land agencies and the local partners in the
private sector to improve the recreational estate in Utah and
the intermountain west.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
Statement of Courtland Nelson, Director, Utah State Parks and
Recreation
We are fortunate in Utah to have an abundance of public lands that
provide outstanding recreational opportunities. From rivers, to
redrock, to desert, to high elevation mountains; we have it all. But,
to take advantage of these opportunities, we must have access to these
lands. This is not just an issue for the citizens of Utah. Thousands of
visitors from all parts of the world come here to see and experience
our world-class landscapes.
On behalf of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, thank you
for the opportunity to submit comments on the themes of public
recreation and associated public access to the Federal lands. We have a
long history of working with the Federal agencies, and local
communities in the development of motorized and non-motorized
recreation opportunities, as well as partnering on our nation's lakes,
reservoirs and waterways for safe boating. Over the years, we have been
very pleased with many accomplishments in our cooperative efforts with
the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. Mr. Chairman, our
work over the last decade has been primarily with the multiple use
agencies (BLM and Forest Service) and to a lesser degree, specific park
units of the National Park Service. It is important to underscore our
positive and healthy relationship with a variety of Federal
representatives. These land managers have applied for both motorized
and non-motorized grants as part of our statewide programs. They have
worked with us on education endeavors, both on the ground and in the
classroom, to further ensure the safe recreation for Utah citizens. We
have been very pleased with our improved regional planning as it
relates to the opportunities that are in place for the trail users and
the visitors to State Parks in Utah.
I have been involved in Utah and Arizona for twenty years with
program management and other joint activities with the Federal agencies
and feel as though there are many positive accomplishments over the
years. I assume, however, that much of the interest in today's meeting
focuses on some aspects of Federal land management that are not working
as well for the recreating public and those interested in resource
conservation and protection.
U.S. Forest Service
Recent Forest Service actions have created quite a stir here in
Washington, D.C. and on the ground. For instance, the proposed roadless
inventory and closure for the Forest Service would have a significant
effect on opportunities for the recreating public. The prohibition
against new construction or reconstruction of roads will eliminate the
use of these lands to meet future demand for developed site recreation
such as camping and picnicking. This will create additional pressures
to expand or develop these kind of sites on the remaining lands of all
ownership including State Parks. It is not known whether there are
lands within the inventoried roadless area suitable for this use, but
if there are, the total acreage affected would probably be very small
in comparison to the total area of roadless inventory and would not
significantly detract from the purpose of the initiative. These lands
could play a vital role in meeting this future need. Eliminating this
possibility seems short-sided.
There are already almost 34,000,000 acres of National Forest in the
lower 48 states designated as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild
and Scenic Rivers and National Monuments. There are an additional
8,353,000 acres in Alaska for a total of 42,000,000 plus acres. Both
building and reconstruction are prohibited on the vast majority of
these acres. If we add the 54,000,000 acres of inventoried roadless
acres, the total is 96,000,000 acres or nearly one-half of all National
Forest land. This seems to be an inappropriate prohibition of lands
allocated for dispersed recreation, most of which will ultimately be
non-motorized. This is a significant change for a system of National
Forest originally reserved from the public domain to produce timber and
water and later changed to manage under multiple use concept.
The effects of future road building do not significantly impact the
total acreage. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement states ``that
under the no action alternative there will be approximately 300 miles
of new roads built in the inventoried roadless areas over the next five
years.'' If we assume that each mile would affect 5,000 acres this
would mean 25,000 acres would be affected during this period. This is
less than one percent of the 54,000,000 acres inventoried. The
maintenance costs for these new roads also seems insignificant. If they
build 60 miles per year and the maintenance costs were $1,500 per mile,
the total cost would be $90,000. This is less than two-tenths of one
percent of the total annual Forest Service's road maintenance budget of
$656,000,000.
There is an assumption built into this analysis that all roads are
bad, based on some problems caused by the current road system. Many of
the old roads built during the last 50 years do not cause resource
problems as measured by today's standards. However, with today's
science and stringent requirements of NEPA it is doubtful that any such
road would be built in the future. Therefore, the projected impacts of
new road construction are exaggerated.
The number of grant applications from Forest Service Districts in
Utah for our motorized and non-motorized matching grants have leveled
off or declined (in the case of motorized grants) due in part to
district confusion regarding Forest Service support and commitment to
trail programs for their users. The attached data suggests that both
the Forest Service and BLM are the major providers of trail-based
recreation in Utah. The demand continues to rise while construction and
maintenance are lagging behind.
Bureau of Land Management
As I mentioned previously, we have a long and successful
partnership with the Bureau of Land Management in Utah. We currently
manage or co-manage several park sites and recreation facilities around
the state of Utah in a very successful manner. Some of these areas
involve complex management due to the presence of endangered species,
range land management issues and the development of recreation
facilities on BLM properties staffed and managed by State Parks. We
have, I believe, successfully worked through these various projects to
the satisfaction of a majority of Utahns. Currently we are working with
the Bureau of Land Management office in St. George and the Washington
County Water Conservancy District for the creation of a new state park
facility that will meet both motorized and non-motorized trail user
needs, as well as create a boating and camping opportunity on a large
reservoir. The key to this effort is the opportunity for dispersed
recreation on the BLM lands. I would be very concerned if there were
any future decisions that would allow any significant restrictions
without specific scientific rationale as this partnership is put
together. For decades these lands have been available to the recreating
public. With the recent creation of the Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Desert Tortoise in this region, there is less Federal property
available for motorized and non-motorized trail activities. Our future
partnership, to a degree, hinges on the availability of recreation
opportunities on those lands. Any additional restrictions spill over
into other properties regardless of their ownership. My field rangers
are constantly asked to resolve disputes between public land owners and
recreation users. At the root of many of those conflicts are issues
involving restrictions to lands that have traditionally been opened for
reasonable use and access.
We find, for instance, in managing boating facilities that often
have closures or restrictions, while having a benefit for one specific
lake or reservoir, make situations worst in adjacent bodies of water.
There is considerable data from social science research that would
indicate that closures merely increase environmental degradation in
other areas and do little to improve overall habitat protection or
recreational opportunity.
Congress should settle the Wilderness issue for BLM lands
administered in Utah. Failure to act is creating an enormous and ever
growing burden on local administrators as they work to preserve the
wilderness character of millions of acres of land while trying to meet
ever increasing user demands. This is an untenable position which must
be resolved at the earliest possible date. The American public would be
much better served if the resources used to cope with this problem were
available to provide goods and services from their public lands.
The Future
There is little that most of us at the local level can do to affect
the work of Congress and the Administration in making laws and policies
that will determine the broad land use allocation questions. However,
within the state of Utah, government agencies at all levels are
developing structured and harmonious working relationships that will
enable them to cope with the existing situation and to meet the needs
of the public when the broad land use issues are settled. We know each
other. We trust each other. We are committed to working together
despite our various missions and circumstances.
As an example, over the past decade the use of off-highway vehicles
on public lands has become an issue of crisis proportions. While
recognized as a legitimate use of public lands, all of the land
managing agencies were becoming overwhelmed with the scope and
dimension of this use. As a result a group of agency heads called the
Natural Resources Coordination Council decided to take this on as an
interagency project. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed and a
steering team was formed. Subteams were organized and chartered and the
work began. The goal was to bring to bear the collective resources of
all the participating agencies to protect natural resources while at
the same time providing and preserving the outstanding off-highway
vehicle recreation riding opportunities in the state.
Some of the results of this interagency effort have been the
development of a communications campaign, the identification of high
use areas, organization of local interagency teams to deal with the
highest priority areas, organization of interagency law enforcement
teams, development of uniform trail signing standards and much more.
While all of these results have been significant achievements, the
greatest achievement has been the working relationships established
that will facilitate the resolution of future issues.
In addition, a tremendous partnership is taking root between the
user groups and the agencies. There is full recognition that no
recreation program on public lands can be successful without the
participation and commitment of those most directly affected by it.
Where agencies are finding it difficult to deal with on-the-ground
problems, the organized users are stepping in and doing their part.
They realize the importance of their contributions to the long-term
viability of their recreation pursuits.
It would be our hope that reasonable decisions could be made about
the future closures and access restrictions. Let me be more specific.
In the cases of Utah and Nevada, you are all aware that we are having
tremendous population increases. People moving to this part of the
country reasonably expect to have ample opportunities to use their
public lands. We all agree that certain areas should be wilderness and
be managed under very restrictive access methods. We all agree that
other areas are open and available for dispersed recreation
opportunities. The tough task is to make the decisions with regards to
broad closures of large tracks of Federal land which may benefit that
area by keeping citizens out at least from some perspectives, but it
may have the net effect of greatly concentrating other users in areas
that will no doubt have much more significant resource impacts.
As you have seen in both personal watercraft situations and
snowmobiling at Yellowstone, industries have been built upon the
opportunity to access Federal lands and waters. The trend line in Utah,
and I believe most western states, is continuing to go up dramatically
for the sale of motorized vehicles and mountain bikes. I do not see,
from my personal experience and observation, any change in this trend
line. All one has to do in Salt Lake City is go to an OHV shop or bike
shop on a Saturday morning from January to March to observe the
dramatic interest in purchasing these types of vehicles. Exactly the
same situation exists for mountain bikes and other four-wheel drives or
other mechanical methods of travel. Whether it is a result of a
sustained good economy, a land mass that awaits recreational use or
other factors, there are going to be tremendous expectations for
reasonable opportunities to access Federal lands. We in Utah would hope
to be a helpful part of that solution in reaching decisions that we can
live with.
Land management planning, travel planning and project planning on
public lands is increasingly complex and expensive with uncertain
outcomes. Law, regulations and case law born out of litigation has
created a process that is almost impossible to complete without some
flaw. As a result, when some faction does not agree with the decision
reached, appeals and lawsuits can postpone many projects indefinitely.
This can occur even when most would agree that the process was fair,
reasoned and within the agencies discretionary prerogatives. The cost
of pursuing these cases to a conclusion is staggering. Most agency
local units will not take on more than a few projects in a year which
require a NEPA process because they do not have the resources to do so.
This sometimes includes even the smallest projects. In some cases the
result of this quagmire is that they cannot complete the necessary
planning and project approvals in a timely manner to take advantage of
state and other grant opportunities which significantly increase on-
the-ground accomplishments. Planning process management is the primary
activity of many agencies, not land management. To those of us outside
these agencies, it seems unfortunate that so much of an agencies
resources must be used to complete even the smallest of projects when
they could be used to do so much for the users of the public lands.
Securing access for many recreation uses is certainly in this category.
Perhaps it is time for Congress to review the impacts of the laws which
have far outgrown any outcome envisioned by those who first enacted
them.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important
dialogue. I hope my comments have been helpful.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me point out that all of your entire statements will be
in the record. If you want to summarize, speak off the cuff,
that is up to you.
Mr. Hill, we turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ALAN T. HILL, AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of the recreation
committee of the American Horse Council.
According to the Barents study, the equine industry
involves 2.9 million horses, 4.3 million participants, has a
total economic impact in the U.S. of $23.8 billion, and
supports 317,000 full-time jobs.
We would like to discuss with you today perhaps what should
be introduced as a broad overview of the state and condition of
public access and associated recreation issues from the
perspective of the recreational stock user.
The use of recreational stock on Federal lands is a vitally
important issue to the entire equestrian community and is a
rapidly growing segment of the recreating public.
First, it is important to take note of the enormous and
significant contributions made by volunteer equestrian
organizations, who spend a tremendous number of hours and hard-
dollar contributions each year. A few examples I have listed
include providing educational programs, written documents,
pamphlets and brochures to inform and educate the public on the
wise and sustainable use of public lands, and providing
volunteer service.
For example, my organization, Backcountry Horsemen of
America, is a volunteer service organization that has
contributed over 600,000 man hours and livestock equipment
valued in excess of $10 million from the years 1995 to 2000.
This volunteer service contribution should supplement not
supplant the Federal budget for these matters.
We believe that responsible public land management should
be based on good scientific studies with blind peer review.
To this end, the equestrian community has encouraged,
participated in, and assisted in funding scientific studies
which demonstrate, for example, that our recreational riding
horses are NOT a significant source of cryptosporidium,
giardia, salmonella or pathogenic E. coli on our public lands
or watersheds.
We have formed partnerships with various partners to
maximize and leverage our contributions and labor and hard-
dollar commitments.
Through these and many other programs, we have contributed
many ways to support our passion to retain the historic and
traditional rights for pack and saddle stock use of public
lands.
We have become alarmed as we have witnessed during the last
decade the continued decline and condition of our trail
systems. We have also noted a pervasive trend throughout the
country of increasing restrictions directed specifically at
recreation pack and saddle stock use on the Federal lands,
including the wilderness areas, national forests, national
parks, national monuments, backcountry, and front country.
During this same period, we have observed a shift in
emphasis of the Federal agencies from one of managing our
natural resources and wilderness system for the multiple
purposes originally intended by Congress to the singular
objective of restoring and sustaining pristine ecological
conditions.
Consequently, we have identified three major concerns that
desperately need attention if we are to restore a proper
balance between preservation, access, enjoyment, and use of our
resources by the recreation user.
Access: National policy needs to reaffirm that recreation
and historic uses, such as equestrian uses, be recognized as an
appropriate and acceptable use on Federal lands and that the
management of our public lands is for the use and the enjoyment
of the American people.
It has been our experience that special designations--such
as monuments, wilderness, roadless--seldom if ever expands
recreational opportunities for horsemen. In practice, the
designations often result in a loss of access and recreation
opportunities.
Funding: In spite of the public support for a strong
recreation agenda advocated by Congress, the previous
administration, and Federal land management agencies, the level
of funding for annual trail maintenance and reconstruction has
been abysmally low. Even though congressional appropriations
have showed a slight increase over the last few years, almost
without exception, these dollars do not get to the ground.
Trail systems built over the last 100 years with taxpayer
dollars have been left to deteriorate, been abandoned or simply
left off of the trail system maps, often at the sole discretion
of an overworked seasonal trail worker.
We have provided as an attachment to written testimony an
example of a documented case of a forest in northern California
that shows that the forest supervisor budgeted in fiscal year
2000 $1.091 million for ``wilderness and recreation.'' By the
time the forest supervisor deducted ``$369,000 for cost
pools,'' ``$169,000 for the supervisor's office,'' ``recreation
staff $500,000 for the five districts,'' a minimal $49,200 was
left for total trail budget for the maintenance of 1,000 miles
of trails encompassing two wilderness areas and five ranger
districts on one of the most remote, high-altitude areas in
northern California and southern Oregon that is subject to
heavy annual storm damage.
That is less than $5 per mile, and is an unconscionable
amount of money for that effort.
Accountability. Accountability from the Federal land
managers must be demanded by Congress and public if issues of
access, funding, and management policy are to be implemented in
accordance with the law of the land.
Specific examples can be offered where the intent of
Congress had to be reaffirmed by the courts before
implementation and consistency with the law could exist.
One example occurred when the intent was affirmed in 1998
court case, Wilderness Watch v. Dale Robertson, that resulted
in the conclusion that directed the Forest Service to
administer the wilderness with an eye not only toward strict
conservation but also to assure the use and enjoyment of the
American people. It states the resource will be devoted ``to
the public purposes of recreational, scenic, educational,
conservation, and historical use.''
The emphasis of land managers to place a higher emphasis on
restoring pristine conditions are the result of a misguided
preservation purity bias. The purity doctrine was addressed by
Congress during the 1970's in two important pieces of
legislation, one of which was the Endangered American
Wilderness bill, Report 95-540, July 27, 1977, that
specifically directed the managing agencies to abandon the
purity approach.
Congress clearly expected the wilderness would accommodate
a wide spectrum of Americans who desire wilderness-type
recreational experiences of a nature that were established at
the time the law was passed. The intent of Congress, emphasized
throughout the Congressional Record, was to preserve existing
conditions while providing for existing and future uses.
Nowhere does the Wilderness Act require restoring
wilderness to a condition more pristine than that which existed
prior to designation.
As a result of the unwillingness of the Federal agencies to
use the flexibilities authorized by Congress, we are seeing a
decline in the extent of the trail systems. House Report 95-540
directed the agencies to ``maximize efforts to construct,
maintain, and improve trail systems in wilderness areas, to
facilitate access and recreational use.''
I would also point out that the report also instructed the
agency in its maintenance and construction efforts to include
the use of mechanical equipment where appropriate or necessary,
and under the minimal-tool analysis concept, to consider
prudent use of mechanical equipment as has been advocated to
accomplish and manage the wilderness in accordance with section
4(b) of the Wilderness Act until tremendous backlog of
wilderness trail maintenance and reconstruction is eliminated.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to respond to your
request for this testimony on this subject that we feel so
passionately about.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Statement of Alan T. Hill on behalf of the American Horse Council
INTRODUCTION
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of
the American Horse Council (AHC). My name is Alan T. Hill. I am Public
Liaison Chair of the Backcountry Horsemen of America and a member of
the AHC's Recreation Committee. We appreciate the Committee conducting
this important oversight hearing on recreational access to public
lands. We hope that by identifying what we believe are existing
problems regarding access and discussing the proper balance between the
preservation of natural resources and the enjoyment of these resources
by recreational horseback riders, our testimony will help the Committee
as it examines the broad national themes of public recreation and
access to Federal lands.
The AHC represents 190 equine organizations in Washington, DC
before Congress and the Federal regulatory agencies. These
organizations include breed registries, national and state breeders
associations, state horse councils, recreational associations,
organizations representing race tracks, horsemen, horse shows,
veterinarians, rodeos and numerous other equine related stakeholders.
These organizations include several hundred thousand individual horse
owners of all breeds and disciplines and industry service providers
involved in virtually every facet of the horse world.
We appreciate this opportunity to give you a broad overview of the
condition of public access and associated recreation issues from the
perspective of the recreational rider and stock user. The use of horses
and recreational stock on Federal lands is a rapidly growing segment of
the recreating public and is a vitally important issue to the entire
equestrian industry.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE HORSE INDUSTRY
According to the study of The Economic Impact of the Horse Industry
in the United States done by Barents Group, LLC, the U.S. horse
industry, including recreation, showing, racing and other segments,
involves more than 7 million participants and includes nearly 2 million
horse owners. The median income of horse-owning families is around
$60,000 with 38% of households earning under $50,000 and 21% over
$100,000.
The industry as a whole has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of
$112 billion and supports 1.4 million full-time jobs with approximately
$1.9 million paid in taxes at each level. Thousands of breeding and
training farms breed, train and care for the horses that provide the
foundation upon which the industry is built. In many cases, these
facilities provide open envelopes of ``green space'' in otherwise
heavily-urbanized areas.
Economic Impact of the Equine Recreation Industry
The largest and fastest growing segment of the horse industry in
terms of participation by Americans is the recreational segment.
According to the Barents Study, the equine recreation industry involves
2.9 million horses, 4.3 million participants, has a total economic
impact in the U.S. of $23.8 billion and supports 317,000 full-time
jobs. This important part of the horse industry provides a great
recreational, sporting, competitive and healthy experience to
additional millions of Americans, young and old.
The positive economic impact of recreational trail riding is
present in all fifty states. For example, in California it involves
278,000 horses, has a $2.8 billion economic effect and supports 23,000
full-time jobs; in Colorado it involves 57,000 horses, has a $500
million economic effect and supports 5,200 full-time jobs; in Florida
it involves 109,700 horses, has a $6 million economic effect and
supports 5,300 full-time jobs; in Maryland it involves 47,200 horses,
has a $242 million economic effect and supports 2,300 full-time jobs;
and in Texas it involves 180,000 horses, has a $995 million economic
effect and supports 14,000 full-time jobs.
Many individuals ride and compete horses when they are young and
millions continue this form of recreation as they mature into
adulthood. We expect, however, that as the so-called ``baby boomers''
approach and enter retirement or semi-retirement more will find
themselves in good shape physically and financially and be ready to
return to one of the sports in which they can participate late into
life--Riding! While this re-entry into the riding community will
increase the economic impact of the recreational riding industry, it
will also put an even greater burden on our nation's trails and
recreational resources.
GENERAL CONCERNS
The recreational riding community recognizes its responsibilities
to treat our nation's public lands with respect. Recreational riders
have a deep commitment to outdoor recreation and believe that
recreation is a legitimate use of our country's public lands. Whether
we are owners, breeders, trail riders, competitive riders, stock
companies, or service providers we recognize that we have a vital
interest in the responsible use and wise management of our natural
resources. Our organizational and individual members recognize that we
must protect our historical heritage and traditions and that not all
forms of outdoor recreation are suitable for all sites.
The recreational riding community is very concerned about the
recent direction of our nation's approach to recreation and a number of
policy initiatives that seem to intend to deny public access to
millions of acres of public land. We are concerned that if this
direction is not changed, it will prevent Americans from participating
in recreational activities, including horseback riding, in areas that
have long sustained such activities. Some such initiatives include the
U.S. Forest Service rulemaking on the expansion of ``roadless'' areas;
the designation of millions of acres of land as ``national monuments;''
and the seeming absence of a national Federal policy on recreation and
public lands that is considered at the state and local level. In fact,
it often seems as if the riding public is excluded when decisions are
made on access.
We have become alarmed as we have witnessed during the last decade
the continued decline in the condition and extent of our trail systems
and a pervasive trend throughout the country of increasing restrictions
directed specifically at recreation, pack and saddle stock use on our
Federal lands including wilderness areas, national forests, national
parks, national monuments, backcountry and front country. During this
same period, we have observed a shift in emphasis of the Federal
agencies from one of managing our national wilderness preservation
system for the multiple purposes intended by Congress, i.e.
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and
historical use, to the singular objective of restoring and sustaining
pristine ecological conditions.
Consequently we have identified several major concerns that
desperately need attention if we are to restore a proper balance
between preservation and access, enjoyment and use of our resources by
the recreational user.
We would like to focus our comments on the importance of access for
riders to Federal lands, the need for additional funding that is
actually used on trails maintenance, the need for a national recreation
policy, the necessity of a partnership between riders and the Federal
agencies to build and maintain trails and the importance of good
science in making any decisions in this area.
ACCESS
Perhaps the most important issue facing the recreational segment of
the horse industry is access to public lands, both Federal and state.
While the industry is losing its access to public lands, urban areas
encroach on open green space. In fact, Horse and Rider magazine polled
its readers in late 1999 regarding their ``top problem or concern'' and
loss of riding trails was the number one concern, ranked first by 42%
of those who responded.
National policy needs to reaffirm that recreational and historical
uses--such as equestrian uses--be recognized as an appropriate and
acceptable use on Federal lands such as wilderness areas, national
forests, parks and monuments, and that management of our public lands
is for the use and enjoyment of the American people. It has been our
experience that special designations, i.e., monuments, wilderness,
roadless areas, seldom if ever expands recreational opportunities for
horsemen. In practice these designations often result in a loss of
access and recreational opportunities.
Restrictions and prohibitions imposed on recreational equine use
and incidental grazing, should be the exception rather than the rule
and be determined by site-specific analysis based on use, land
characteristics and science. It should not be subjective or based on
the social preferences of other users.
The ability of the Forest Service or any other Federal land agency
to unilaterally close a trail or trail head with no notice or public
process must be stopped. De facto restrictions on access or the
limitation through onerous regulations must be eliminated. For example,
the ``number of heart beats'' test on a trail at any one time in a
national monument is unsound policy. A grandfather could not take his
extended family on a trail ride because the number of people in the
family would exceed the heart beat rule. Such de facto restrictions
must be reconsidered.
FUNDING
Federal funding for the construction, repair and maintenance of
trails is obviously an important element to the recreational horse
industry and trail riders. The horse industry is very concerned about
the level of funding for the National Park Service trail systems in
National Parks and the U.S. Forest Service trails programs for trails
maintenance and reconstruction. The Forest Service is the largest
recreation provider in the U.S. and is responsible for more than
133,000 miles of trails in some of the most scenic and yet rough
country in the Nation. This increasing responsibility of the Forest
Service for recreation has not, however, been supported with an
accompanying increase in trail maintenance and reconstruction funding.
The horse industry was actively involved in passing the Symms
National Recreational Trails Trust Fund Act in 1991 and continues to be
involved in supporting its funding. Our industry worked with Congress
and other trails groups to ensure the continued Federal funding of the
Recreational Trails Program of $50 million from 2000 through 2003.
These funds are divided among states and each state provides funds
to individual organizations for trail development and maintenance. Once
appropriated by the Federal Government it is important for state
organizations to be involved in the allocation process so horseback
riders get their fair share.
To assist Congress in the appropriations process the AHC and other
trails groups developed a database of projects funded by the
Recreational Trails Program. This database demonstrates the scope and
importance of the Recreational Trails Program and should be reviewed by
this Committee and others to ensure that funding for trails programs
continues. Such funds to build and maintain trails will be critical to
recreational riders in the future.
In spite of the public support for a strong recreation agenda
advocated by Congress, the previous administration and the Federal land
management agencies, the level of funding for annual trail maintenance
and reconstruction has been lower than what is needed. Although
Congressional appropriations have showed a slight increase over the
last few years, it must be increased to keep pace with the increase in
the costs of maintaining trails. We hope that Congress will increase
Federal funding to build and maintain trails.
Moreover, even the wishes of Congress as expressed by its
appropriating funds for building and maintaining trails is sometimes
thwarted by the bureaucratic process. In too many cases the funds
appropriated do not get to the trails! Trail systems built over the
last 150 years with taxpayers' dollars have been left to deteriorate,
been abandoned, or simply left off trail system maps--often at the sole
discretion of an overworked seasonal trail worker.
For example, a documented case on a forest in Northern California
is all too typical of many areas of our country. The brief details are
as follows. The Klamath NF Forest Supervisor budgeted in fiscal year
2000, $1.1 million for ``Wilderness and Recreation.'' By the time the
forest supervisor deducted $369,100 for ``Cost Pools, $168,600 for
Supervisor's Office Recreation Starr, and $504,100 for the 5
Districts,'' $49,200 was left for the total trail budget for
maintenance of 1000 miles of trails encompassing two wilderness areas
and five ranger districts in one of the most remote, high altitude
areas of Northern California and Southern Oregon that is subject to
heavy annual storm damage. Less than $5 per mile!
Sometimes it appears that much of the money earmarked for trail
maintenance is going for environmental studies to determine if the
trail should be saved! That money would be better spent on the trail.
NATIONAL RECREATION POLICY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Congress and the Federal agencies must have one national recreation
policy. Congress must express the will of the people and the Federal
agencies must carry out the will of Congress pursuant to the Federal
laws. We believe that too often we have seen Federal land managers
ignore or misinterpret Congress' intent. Accountability from the
Federal land managers must be demanded by Congress and the public if
issues of access, funding and management policies are to be implemented
in accordance with the law of the land.
Consistent with Forest Service's new emphasis to establish
ecosystem sustainability as its first priority--an emphasis that we
believe is derived without the benefit of Congressional sanction--many
wilderness managers are interpreting the primary intent of wilderness
designation as that of restoring wilderness to a pre-European
settlement or pre-Colombian condition. We fear that this agenda is, and
will be, accomplished at the expense of traditional and historical uses
that were established as acceptable when the law was passed.
We are seeing a pervasive trend throughout much of the West, for
example, of increasing restrictions directed specifically at
recreational opportunities permitted in the Wilderness Act.
Moreover, even if horses are allowed in wilderness areas, the
``roadless initiative'' has caused a problem because it has closed
trail heads and areas that can allow the vanning in of horses to such
areas. Fully 50% of people who own horses transport them off-property
to another area for enjoyment. This requires horse vans and trucks to
pull trailers. If such vans cannot get to trail heads, then horses are
de facto prevented entry to roadless areas.
We support Congress' intent as expressed in the Wilderness Act ``to
secure for the American people the benefits of an enduring resource of
wilderness'' (Section 2(a) of P.L. 88-577) which will be ``devoted to
the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use.'' (Section 4(b) of P.L. 88-577)
This intent of Congress was affirmed in the 1998 court case of
Wilderness Watch v. Dale Robertson, Civ. No. 92-740, August 31, 1998.
In this decision the District Court for the District of Columbia
concluded that the statute directs the Forest Service to administer the
wilderness with an eye not only toward strict conservation, but also to
``ensure the use and enjoyment of the American people.
The efforts of land managers to place a higher emphasis on
restoring pristine conditions are the result of a misguided
preservation/purity bias. The purity doctrine was addressed by Congress
during the 1970's in two important pieces of legislation. One was the
endangered American Wilderness Bill (Report 95-540, July 27, 1977) that
specifically directed the managing agencies to abandon the purity
approach. Congress clearly expected that wilderness would accommodate a
wide spectrum of Americans who desired wilderness-type recreation
experiences of a nature that were established at the time the law was
passed. The intent of Congress (emphasized throughout the Congressional
Record) was to preserve existing conditions while providing for
existing and future uses. Nowhere does the Wilderness Act require
restoring wilderness to a condition more pristine than that which
existed prior to designation.
As a result of the unwillingness of the Federal agencies to use the
flexibility authorized by Congress, we are seeing a decline in the
extent of the trail systems. House Report 95-540 directed the agencies
to ``maximize efforts to construct, maintain and improve trails systems
in wilderness areas so as to facilitate access and recreational use, as
well as to increase opportunities for a high quality wilderness
experience for the visiting public.'' The report also instructed the
agency in its maintenance and construction efforts to ``include the use
of mechanical equipment where appropriate and/or necessary.'' We have
urged the use of the minimum tool analysis concept to consider the
prudent use of mechanical equipment to accomplish the wilderness
purposes in SEC. 4(b) of the Wilderness Act until the tremendous
backlog of wilderness trail maintenance and reconstruction is
eliminated.
GOOD SCIENCE
We believe that responsible public land use and management should
be based on good scientific studies with blind peer review. As with all
users of recreational trails and lands, concerns have been raised
regarding the impact of horses on trails and the environment. We
recognize that we must be involved in answering these concerns. To this
end the equestrian community has encouraged and assisted in funding
scientific studies which demonstrate the effect of horses on the
environment.
In some cases these concerns have been unfounded. For example,
several years ago concerns were raised regarding whether our
recreational riding horses were a significant source of cryptosporidium
parvum or giardia being introduced into public land watersheds.
Although these assumptions were made without sufficient scientific
information, they resulted in restrictions being placed on equestrian
use on one California watershed.
Studies were performed at the Center for Equine Health at
University of California Davis to determine if recreational pack and
saddle stock were a significant source of cryptosporidium and giardia.
At the conclusion of these studies, the answer was a resounding ``No!''
The horse industry believes that decisions to restrict the use of
horses on any Federal, or state, lands for environmental concerns
should only be made after full scientific review by competent
veterinarians and scientists.
RIDERS' RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Recreational riders, their organizations and service providers,
recognize their responsibilities in building and maintaining trails.
First, it is important to take note of the enormous and significant
contributions made by volunteer equestrian organizations that spend a
tremendous number of hours and hard dollar contributions each year in
diverse and important activities. A few of those activities are:
LProviding educational programs, written documents,
pamphlets and brochures to inform and educate horsemen and women and
the public on the wise and sustainable use of public lands.
LProviding volunteer service. For example, my
organization, the BCHA, is a volunteer service organization consisting
of more than 14,000 members who have contributed in excess of 557,200
man hours, $10,210,900 days of livestock use and equipment from 1995 to
2000 clearing trails, building trailhead facilities, and packing
supplies, tools and equipment for trail maintenance crews and similar
projects that benefit all trail users across the country. We recognize
that this volunteer service contribution should supplement, not
supplant, the Federal budget.
LForming partnerships with various Federal and state
partners such as Conservation Corps, Department of Fish and Game,
Continental Divide Trails Alliance, Pacific Crest Trails and others to
maximize contributions in kind, labor and hard dollar commitments.
There must be more emphasis and willingness on the part of the
Federal agencies to use our equine volunteers. There are many riders
who want to help, but can't convince forest supervisors that we are
serious. The problem seems to be work load. We fear that the more
trails that deteriorate and are then closed, the less work that has to
be done in the field.
Through these and many other programs we contribute in many
different ways to support our passion to retain the historic and
traditional rights for riders, pack and saddle stock to use our Federal
lands for recreation purposes.
CONCLUSION
Recreational riders consider themselves both horsemen and women and
environmentalists. We are concerned that our lands and resources are
suffering from neglect, either by an administering agency or by an
uninformed public. Our challenge and the challenge of all trail users,
Congress and the responsible Federal agencies is to ensure that Federal
lands are managed to meet all of the intents and purposes of the law,
the people who use the land and, of course, the land itself. The new
paradigm is about seeking common ground and understanding the needs of
all users. We look forward to the challenge of collaborative efforts
involving the Federal agencies and other interested stakeholders as we
work to preserve our lands, our access and the common good.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this subject that we
feel so passionately about.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Pidgeon?
STATEMENT OF WALTER ``BUD'' PIDGEON, PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE
LEGISLATIVE FUND OF AMERICA
Mr. Pidgeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, appreciate, the opportunity to testify before this
Committee on behalf of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of
America, or the WLFA.
We have been organized since 1977 as a volunteer sportsman-
based organization to protect our American heritage to hunt,
fish, and trap, and to support the vital role of scientific
wildlife management. We pursue these objectives at the Federal,
state, and local level for over 1.5 million members and our
affiliates.
Public land really provides us with a critical base for
hunters and fishermen around the country. A national survey of
fishing and hunting and wildlife-associated recreational
activities indicate that over 4 million Americans hunted on our
public lands last year. And of these citizens, about half of
them, hunt on a full-time basis on public land, and it is
critical for them to have that access.
Hunting and fishing are important recreational activities
occurring on public lands. All the public land masses--national
forests, the Bureau of Land Management, national wildlife
refuges and preserves, the national park systems--are very
important to us.
Each of these systems individually provide access for
hundreds of thousands of hunters and anglers. On BLM land, for
example, a half million hunters were on those lands this last
year. And the National Forest Service is comparable to this.
But it really doesn't tell the story. Those of you who hunt
or fish know, if you want elk hunting access to forest lands in
the West, it would have to be by other kinds of access than
walking.
Try to hunt the wild turkey in the Appalachians--the
forests of Virginia and West Virginia, and you have the same
problem. In my home State of Ohio, I hunt primarily on public
land myself.
Units of national park system preserves provide another
example. And South Florida's Big Cypress Preserve is a great
example where access issues are coming forth as we speak.
Last year, nearly 20,000 man days of hunting were affected
there last year. And I can't imagine, if you were a urban
southern Florida person, how you could have any other hunting
experience other than in that particular area.
Within the national wild refuge system, over 500 units were
acquired through hundreds of thousands of dollars hunters
provided through duck stamps over the last 60 years. And half
of the refuge system, thank goodness, are provided to hunters
for hunting opportunities.
Access to public land has an array of recreational
activities that are important as well. Public health comes to
mind, for just being out in the outdoors. There is something
about that. Human beings have to be out there once in a while.
Management of these areas are important but many other
things are as well, for example, the economic base of rural
areas depend a lot of times on hunters and fishermen coming
into those areas.
Unfortunately, as it was mentioned a couple of minutes ago,
we did not have the welcome sign out over the past several
years, due to the last administration and others.
And it is unfortunate because hunters, in particular, have
constantly battled for access to public lands. In 1997, the
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act is a great case in point where we were able to come to
Congress to be able to seek access, and we really do appreciate
that.
This particular bill, I think, adds a thought to what could
happen for the future. It could be a model for us to use to
create a bill to recognize public access on all public lands.
This act obviously resulted in the agency responding positively
to hunters being on-site.
And lawsuits from animal rights extremists have been
outlawed and that is really exciting news.
I would welcome the opportunity for our organization to
work with you, to model future legislation that would provide
public access for hunting throughout the public lands system.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pidgeon follows:]
Statement of Walter ``Bud'' P. Pidgeon, Jr., President, The Wildlife
Legislative Fund of America (WLFA)
Mr. Chairman:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA) regarding the importance of
recreational access to public lands. WLFA was organized in 1977 to
protect the American heritage to hunt, fish, and trap and support
scientific wildlife management. We pursue these objectives at the
Federal, state, and local level on behalf of over 1.5 million members
and affiliates.
America's public lands provide critically important fishing and
hunting opportunities to hunters and anglers across the nation. The
latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated
Recreation indicates that over 4 million Americans hunted on our public
lands. Over half of these citizens hunt exclusively on public lands.
Limitations on hunting access to public lands would have catastrophic
effects on this large segment of the sporting community.
Hunting and fishing are important recreational activities occurring
on public lands and access to those lands is crucial to maintaining
hunting opportunities for millions of Americans. Four major public
lands systems provide hunting (and fishing) opportunities: National
Forests (192 million acres), Bureau of Land Management (264 million
acres), National Wildlife Refuges (92 million acres) and Preserves
within the National Park System (20 million acres).
Each of these systems individually provide access for hundreds of
thousands of hunters and anglers. BLM estimates over half a million
hunted on lands under its management. Forest Service numbers are
comparable, but barely tell the whole story. Try to imagine elk hunting
without access to Forest lands in the west. Trying to imagine the
pursuit of wild turkeys in the Appalachians without access to the
Forests of Virginia and West Virginia.
And even units of the National Park System--the Preserves--provide
critical access for hunters. For example, in South Florida's Big
Cypress Preserve (established as the first Preserve in 1974) there are
nearly 20,000 man-days of hunting effort each year. In urban South
Florida, our hunting tradition would be eliminated without Big Cypress.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a special case where many of
its over 500 units were acquired with hunters' dollars. Monies raised
annually for over 60 years from he sale of Duck Stamps. Now over half
of the units are open to hunting providing an array of opportunities
from duck hunting in Atlantic salt marshes to brown bear hunting on
Alaska's Kodiak Island.
Access to public lands for an array of recreational activities is
critical to assuring public health, maintaining public support for land
conservation and management, and providing a stable economic base for
many rural communities. Unfortunately, many recreational users--
including hunters and anglers--felt less than welcome on their lands in
recent years. The hanging out of a ``not welcome'' sign on our public
lands was clearly contrary to our laws and Congressional intent. And it
cut off much of the citizen support for conservation of the important
habitats and resources on these lands.
Hunters in particular have constantly battled for access to public
lands and have needed Congress to assure that traditional access. The
1997 enactment of National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is a
case in point. Facing threats to hunting, fishing and other forms of
wildlife recreation from a disinterested Administration and hostile
animal rights radicals, the sporting community asked Congress for help.
It responded by legislatively designating wildlife dependent recreation
including hunting and fishing as priority public uses of refuges.
Congress expressly recognized the legitimacy of these traditional
activities on refuge lands and further provided that if found to be
compatible, these uses are to be ``facilitated'' on refuges.
The 1997 Act may provide a model for recognizing and securing
public access for hunting (and other recreation) on public lands.
Express legislative recognition of these activities and a direction to
facilitate such uses have assured hunting use of refuge units. The
agency has responded to Congressional direction. Threats of lawsuits to
close Refuges to hunting from animal rights extremists have been
extinguished by the law. Passage of similar legislation for other
public lands systems should be strongly considered. WLFA would welcome
the opportunity to work with the Committee to fashion an appropriate
legislative measure.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. WLFA
appreciates the Committees consideration of the importance of
recreation on the public lands and looks forward to working with the
Committee to further ensure continued access to recreational
opportunities.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pidgeon.
Mr. Ehnes?
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL L. EHNES, AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE
RECREATIONAL ACCESS
Mr. Ehnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Russ Ehnes,
and I am testifying today on behalf of Americans for
Responsible Recreational Access.
ARRA was founded almost a year ago because of growing
concerns that fewer and fewer opportunities were available for
recreational activities on public lands and waterways. A series
of steps taken by the previous administration to limit access
to public lands caused considerable concern among our members
and many recreational enthusiasts.
Our members recognize the critical importance of protecting
our environment; we also recognize that not all forms of
outdoor recreation are suitable for all sites. We also believe
it is the role of government and its citizens to actively
discuss ways outdoor recreation activities can be made
available to all citizens, regardless of age or physical well-
being.
During the last 5 years, the Federal Government has erred
on the side of closing access to public lands rather than
managing access. We have called this the crisis of closure. Let
me mention three examples.
First, when the National Park Service announced its
intention to ban snowmobile from national parks despite the
fact that cleaner and quieter snowmobiles will be soon
introduced to the marketplace.
Second, when the Forest Service promulgated a rule changing
the management of approximately 60 million acres of forests,
inventoried roadless forests lands.
Third, when President Clinton created and expanded many
national monument areas without regard to the impact to local
communities and recreational activities.
Some have suggested that all of these actions were
necessary because of the abuse on the part of a few. When
someone breaks our traffic laws, society's response is not to
ban all traffic on our highways. Rather, we increase
enforcement and we prosecute lawbreakers. The same should hold
true for activities on Federal lands and waterways.
We know land managers have a tough job, made even tougher
because much of what they do is challenged in the court of law.
Increased administrative burdens and legal fees siphon off
funds for needed work at the district level.
We say this is not fair to these civil servants or the
American people. Access is also being denied because of a lack
of funds for maintenance and management.
As our urban centers become more congested, more must be
done to make our Federal lands accessible to all Americans.
Making sure the money reaches the ground at the district level
is critical, and we encourage this Committee to exercise its
oversight to ensure this happens.
Maintaining our parks and forests should not rest solely on
the Federal Government. The private sector, along with
volunteers, can also play an active role in the stewardship of
public lands.
Let me give this Committee an example from my own
experience. Since 1986, the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders
Association in Great Falls, Montana, has worked closely with
the U.S. Forest Service in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.
Our club has committed to maintain over 400 miles of trail
each year. We have literally rebuilt more than 10 miles of
trail and have cleared countless miles of trail for use by all
recreationists.
We have also made a 15-year commitment to hand pull a
serious noxious weed infestation that is more than a half mile
from the nearest trail.
All of these things are done by volunteers.
Hundreds of recreational clubs throughout the U.S. have
undertaken similar activities to assist the government in
providing stewardship of our public lands. But these clubs do
more than just trail conservation. They sponsor and run
educational programs to teach people to use Federal lands
safely, respectively, and responsibly.
We don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges
of managing Federal lands. From our standpoint, one thing is
clear: Posting ``do not enter'' signs or ``keep out'' signs
does nothing to foster civic pride or respect for the
government.
As I have said, our members recognize the critical
importance of protecting our environment, and we recognize that
not all forms of recreation are suitable for all sites. We also
believe that the consultative process of determining what is
and what is not appropriate must be done in an open forum, as
is the case of this Committee hearing.
We stand ready to do our share in terms of participating in
these policymaking discussions. We are encouraged that the
current administration seems intent on seeking the opinion of
local government officials and citizens prior to promulgating
Federal policies governing our lands.
In terms of what we believe this Committee should and can
do during the 107th Congress, we have these thoughts:
First, rigorously exercise your oversight responsibility of
the executive branch. The Federal bureaucracy needs to be
reminded that maintaining access to Federal lands and waterways
for recreational purposes is a national priority.
Second, explore whether a new designation recognizing
recreational access is worthy of congressional action, a
concept similar to wilderness designation but less restrictive
and more receptive to appropriate recreational access. This is
a new century and new thinking is warranted for this area of
public policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehnes follows:]
Statement of Russ Ehnes on Behalf of Americans for Responsible
Recreational Access (ARRA)
Mr. Chairman:
My name is Russ Ehnes, and I am testifying today on behalf of
Americans for Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA). We appreciate
having this opportunity to participate in this important hearing.
ARRA was founded in June of last year because of a growing concern
that fewer and fewer opportunities were available for recreational
activities on public lands and waterways. ARRA is comprised of the
following organizations: The American Horse Council, the Motorcycle
Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, the
American Council of Snowmobile Associations, the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, the American Motorcyclist Association, the
Personal Watercraft Industry Association and the National Off-Highway
Vehicle Conservation Council. In addition, a number of state and
regional user organizations have affiliated with ARRA.
Our members recognize the critical importance of protecting our
environment. We also recognize that not all forms of outdoor recreation
are suitable for all sites. We believe it should be the role of
government and its citizens to actively discuss ways in which outdoor
recreational activities can be made available to all citizens
regardless of age or physical well-being.
Unfortunately, many of the policies pursued by the Federal
Government over the past five years served to limit opportunities for
recreational access. ARRA members have been concerned with the general
attitude of closing off public lands to Americans. We have called this
the ``Crisis of Closure.'' We witnessed this when the National Park
Service announced its intention to limit snowmobile access to many of
our National Parks without regard to the fact that newer, cleaner and
quieter snowmobiles are on the verge of being introduced to the
marketplace.
We witnessed this again when the U.S. Forest Service promulgated a
rule that would change the management of approximately 60 million acres
of inventoried roadless areas in our national forests without regard to
the impact such major shifts in land use management would have on local
economies adjacent to the affected national forests. It goes without
saying that we were pleased when Judge Lodge issued a preliminary
injunction temporarily halting the roadless rule because the Forest
Service failed to abide by the consultative process as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). And, we witnessed this many
times when President Clinton arbitrarily placed ``off limits'' millions
of acres of Federal land to recreational activities when he established
or expanded numerous national monument areas.
We do not deny that there are problems associated with managing and
using our public lands. The solution to such problems should not be,
however, the simple response of denying access to these lands. Too
often some interest groups push agencies to cut off access to these
lands to only but a select few. Automatically restricting access is the
easy way out and is too punitive to millions of law-abiding citizens
who care about the environment.
When someone violates a traffic law on our highways, the response
of our law enforcement agencies and society as a whole is not to close
the highways to all travelers. Nor should this be the response when
careless individuals improperly use a National Forest, a National Park
or BLM land. Rather, violators should be prosecuted to the fullest
extent permissible under the law. And if the penalties associated with
such violations prove to be ineffective in stemming inappropriate
behavior, then we would support strengthening these laws and the
penalties. I might add that a major part of our outreach program is
dedicated to working cooperatively with the agencies to develop and
implement effective educational programs to provide recreation
enthusiasts with the information they need to make the right choices
when using Federal lands.
ARRA is sympathetic to the job that the personnel of the National
Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service
have in managing and protecting our national treasures. We know it's a
tough job, made even tougher because of numerous lawsuits filed on
every little decision managers make on land use policies.
Unfortunately, because of these lawsuits, money that should go for work
on the ground is siphoned off to pay for increased administrative
burdens and legal fees. This is not fair to the people charged with the
responsibility to protect these properties and it is not fair to the
American people. At a time when our urban areas are becoming even more
congested, more resources must be devoted to the proper maintenance of
these Federal properties so more Americans can use and enjoy them for
recreational activities. While we are encouraged by the fact that the
Bush Administration has said that it intends to devote more funds
towards these needs, we must understand that the problems of neglect
have existed for years. Even what has been proposed will not solve the
problems identified until the money reaches the ground at the district
levels.
Having said that let me be clear that ARRA does not believe that
the entire responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the Federal
Government. The private sector and volunteers can also play an active
role in concert with Federal agencies in properly maintaining and
caring for our natural resources. Let me share with this committee just
one example of how local citizens are working with the Federal
Government in protecting the environment.
Since 1986, I have been associated with the Great Falls Trail Bike
Riders Association. Our group has worked closely with the U. S. Forest
Service particularly in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. We have
committed to the U. S. Forest Service that we will maintain over 400
miles of trails in this national forest. We cut bush, clear trails of
fallen trees, and have worked on water diversion projects. We have
literally reconstructed more than 10 miles of trails in this national
forest alone. And, we have been actively involved in assisting the
Forest Service in eradicating noxious weeds. In fact, we made a
fifteen-year commitment to hand pull a noxious weed infestation that is
more than a 1/2 mile from the closest trail. Year after year, many
people devote weekends to pulling noxious weeds from this area in order
to restore the area to its natural habitat. All of these efforts are
done entirely with volunteer labor.
Even though we are proud of our civic contributions, it is
important to note that what the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders
Association is doing is not unusual. There are hundreds of similar off-
highway vehicle organizations throughout the country working to improve
the environment on our national forests and public lands.
However, these organizations do far more than just trail
maintenance. These groups actively support educational programs for all
ages of riders on the proper use of trails for both motorized and non-
motorized recreational activities. These programs teach and encourage
people to use their Federal lands safely, respectfully and responsibly.
These education programs are just as important as our trail maintenance
programs because they contribute towards protecting the environment of
our country.
Mr. Chairman, we don't pretend to have all the answers to solving
the challenges confronting the usage of public lands. But from ARRA's
standpoint one thing is clear, posting DO NOT ENTER signs or KEEP OUT
signs does not foster civic pride or respect for our government. ARRA
members are active in fostering a better appreciation of what our
country has to offer its citizens in terms of recreational
opportunities and the fact that as individuals, we have an obligation
to do our best to protect these resources for future generations to
enjoy. ARRA has confidence that our society can do just that by
ensuring there is a healthy and active dialogue among all interested
parties who care about public lands.
As I said in my opening remarks, ARRA members recognize the
critical importance of protecting our environment. We also recognize
that not all forms of outdoor recreation are suitable for all sites. We
also feel just as strongly that coming to the conclusion of what is and
what is not appropriate recreational use should be done with all
participants active in the policymaking. We stand ready to do our
share.
Much has been written lately about where the new Administration
stands on environmental issues. While I can't speak for the
Administration, I would like to make this observation. One of our
frustrations with the Clinton Administration's roadless rule was the
fact that the policy seemed to be preordained and that only certain
sectors of our society were really involved in the formation of the
policy. I am encouraged that the Bush Administration has said that it
intends to seek the opinions of local government officials and citizens
prior to promulgating Federal policies that affect areas adjacent to
these communities. We welcome the opportunity to have our views invited
and considered. We will be less worried about the ramifications of such
policies relative to recreational access when we know that this promise
of participation is honored.
Finally, let me say just a few words about what we hope this
committee will do during the 107th Congress. First, rigorously exercise
your oversight responsibility of those Federal agencies having
responsibilities for the management of our Federal properties. Even
though there is a new Administration, old habits are difficult to break
and we believe that this committee will need to continue to remind the
Federal bureaucracy that access to Federal lands for recreational
purposes is of national importance. ARRA will remain vigilant on the
access issue, but we hope this committee will as well.
Second, there seems to be great conflict among various parties over
the extent Federal lands should be classified as either wilderness or
roadless. Clearly the Congress has jurisdiction over wilderness
designation and the Administration has jurisdiction over the roadless
designation. Perhaps a new classification of protection that falls
somewhere between wilderness designation and multiple use designation
and that permits recreational activities might be appropriate for
consideration by this committee. ARRA is aware that there are several
proposals suggesting such a new classification. We believe this issue
merits this committee careful and thoughtful consideration.
We thank this committee for its commitment to the interests of all
recreational enthusiasts and its commitment in sharing this great land
with as many of its citizens as is appropriately possible.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or
members of your committee would like to ask. Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ehnes.
Sarah Michael, the time is yours.
STATEMENT OF SARAH MICHAEL, PRESIDENT, WINTER WILDLANDS
ALLIANCE
Ms. Michael. Thank you. My name is Sarah Michael, and I am
President of the Winter Wildlands Association. It is a national
organization of cross-country skiers, snowshoers, and others
who are dedicated to promoting and preserving winter wildlands
and a quality nonmotorized recreation experience in winter.
I am also an elected Blaine County commissioner from Sun
Valley, Idaho, Mr. Otter's state. And prior to my election, I
have been involved with the Chamber of Commerce there, so I
know how important public land access is to winter economics
and economies in rural resort communities.
Winter Wildlands was formed last year. The founding members
are state organizations from Colorado, California, Idaho, and
Nevada. In addition, we have worked with ski groups all over
the West and the country.
According to the National Sporting Goods Association, there
are an estimated 5 million human-powered recreation users. An
estimated 225,000 people bought snowshoes in the 1999-2000
winter. And 3 million people tried this sport last year.
Today, I think you are going to hear from a number of
witnesses being concerned about losing access to public land.
We share those same concerns but for different reasons, because
throughout snow country, cross-country skiers and snowshoers
and others enjoying the untrampled winter wilderness are
finding that their favorite places are being dominated by
snowmobiles and motorized access.
And the changes occurred over just the last 5 years where
the technology improvements and then increased use have enabled
the snow machines to go just about anywhere on public lands.
And with more and more users competing for the same terrain,
there is definitely an issue of conflicts as well safety
issues. When you have people that are going at walking pace and
snowmobiles going very fast, there is definitely some issues of
safety.
There is also another issue where development on private
lands have transformed popular backcountry ski areas into ski
lift commercial cross-country ski resorts or snowmobile areas.
Now, we are not saying that we are against snowmobiles or
that snowmobiles do not have a right on public lands or that we
are against ski resort development. But we have created an
organization because we were concerned about that we are losing
our recreation on public lands, and we needed to organize to
preserve the sport that we love.
Fortunately, we think there are some common-sense solutions
to solving winter recreation conflicts. We are seeing those
throughout the West.
One is to create separate use areas. That has been tried
and had positive results in places like Vail and Rabbit Ear
Passes in Colorado, Teton Pass in Wyoming. Sun Valley, through
collaboration, developed a separate-use plan so that both
groups could have a wonderful opportunity to recreate.
But unfortunately, there has been no consistent leadership,
and I think you will hear that today, as far as public land
managers dealing with those conflicts.
I think, obviously, one reason is that public land managers
are not social scientists; they are foresters or biologists.
Having to deal with user conflicts is not generally within
their job description.
But I think you as a policy Committee are going to be
hearing more from recreational groups saying we need to
separate uses so that both groups can have a quality
experience.
We feel that there is also a need to have more monitoring
and an evaluation of all increased recreation use in the winter
on the resource and wintering wildlife. We agree that we have
impacts on wintering wildlife. And I think the public land
managers should move in that direction, to monitor and make
sure that they are not impacted.
We feel that balancing the needs of different recreation on
public lands is essential to the development of rural resort
economies. Experience in winter tourism shows that to be
competitive, winter resorts such as Sun Valley and elsewhere
need to offer a variety of recreational activities. So we hope
that there will be more public policy that will look at the
needs of the nonmotorized winter recreational community as well
as the motorized to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to
enjoy public lands.
So I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I look
forward to hearing any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Michael follows:]
Statement of Sarah Michael, President, Winter Wildlands Alliance
My name is Sarah Michael. I am here today as President and Co-
founder of Winter Wildlands Alliance, a national organization of cross-
country skiers, snowshoers and others who are dedicated to promoting
and preserving winter wildlands and a quality human-powered winter
sports experience on public lands.
I am also an elected Blaine County Commissioner, home of world
famous Sun Valley, Idaho ski resort. Before my election, I worked as
manager of the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, and more recently,
served on its Board of Directors. With this background, I am very
familiar with the economics of winter recreation and the important
contribution of public lands to rural resort communities. In Sun
Valley, access to public lands is essential to our county's economic
vitality.
In addition, I have had extensive experience in the regulatory and
legislative arena. In the 1970's, I served on the staff of California
State Legislature, in the early 1980's I managed Energy Programs for
the California Energy Commission, and subsequently joined the private
sector as a lobbyist for clients such as IBM, American Express, Hughes
Aircraft and Bechtel Corporation. This background provides an excellent
basis for understanding public policy, Federal legislation and
regulations.
Background on Winter Wildlands Alliance
Winter Wildlands was formed in the winter of 2000. The founding
members of our group are state organizations from Colorado, California,
Idaho and Nevada. In addition, we have worked with groups in many other
states, including Alaska, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. According to the National Sporting Goods
Association, there are an estimated 5 million human powered winter
recreation users. An estimated 225,000 snowshoes were sold in the
winter of 1999/2000 and approximately 3 million people tried this sport
that winter (Tubbs Snowshoe).
I am testifying today to share the perspective of cross-country
skiers and snowshoers regarding winter access to public lands. I will
discuss the need for upholding current public land management policies,
initiating policies to address increasing conflicts between winter
recreation groups and better stewardship practices that protect natural
resources including wintering wildlife. In addition, I will talk about
the importance of a diversified winter recreation economy to the future
of rural communities.
Losing Access to Public Lands
Many of today's witnesses expressed concerns about being shut-off
public lands or waterways. Cross-country skiers and snowshoers are also
afraid that we will lose access to public land, but for different
reasons. Our fear arises from two sources, but especially with the
increasing proliferation of snowmobiles on public lands. Significant
technology improvements coupled with lack of management have allowed
them access to almost all Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
lands. Secondarily, the encroachment of private development on public
lands can eliminate terrain or the quality recreation experience
enjoyed historically by cross country skiers and snowshoers. This
occurs when popular off-trail winter recreation spots become ski lifts,
groomed private cross-country ski resorts, and/or snowmobile trails.
Throughout snow country, cross-country skiers and snowshoers are
finding their favorite trails or slopes becoming increasingly dominated
by snowmobiles or in some cases, being proposed for commercial
development. Very simply, it seems that our vast open spaces are
experiencing too many people seeking the same areas in which to
recreate or private interests desiring to use public land for
commercial development.
Don't misunderstand this statement. Winter Wildlands Alliance was
not organized because of some abstract ethic or value that snowmobiles
don't have a right to be on public lands or that cross-country skiers
and snowshoers are against ski resorts or private enterprise. We
created an organization because human powered snowsports enthusiasts
across the country were losing a quality recreation experience, and we
realized that we needed to organize to preserve the winter sports that
we love. In addition, we felt that a group was needed to focus on all
of the impacts of increased recreation use on winter wildlands, whether
non-motorized or motorized, to ensure that the resource and wintering
wildlife were adequately protected.
Fortunately, there are some common sense solutions to solving
winter recreation conflicts.
Create Separate Use Areas for Non-Motorized Snow Sports
In areas of increasing user conflict, we propose that separate use
areas for non-motorized and motorized winter sports be created. In
places where this idea has been implemented, the results have been
positive. Vail Pass and Rabbit Ear Pass in Colorado have created
separate areas, and an odd-even year approach to snowmobiling in the
Twentymile River valley on the Chugach National Forest in Alaska has
worked to eliminate conflicts. In Sun Valley, Idaho, six years of
conflict and debate ended last winter when skiers and snowmobilers
agreed to create separate use areas and work together to see that the
agreement was followed. While this approach worked after six long years
of hard work, it will not work everywhere. It is incumbent upon the
land management agencies to implement current policies and regulations.
One strategy is a national policy on both Forest Service and BLM lands
to designate routes as ``closed unless posted open.
Creating separate use areas and establishing limits to the number
of people that can access particular areas are not new concepts. For
example, everyone accepts that there are only so many trailhead permits
to Yosemite's backcountry or Utah's Grand Gulch issued in a day. On
most public lands, separate recreation areas are available to hikers
and mountain bikers who enjoy miles of non-motorized trails without
competition from motorcycles or all terrain vehicles. For the same
reason that local government passed zoning laws as their population
grew, zoning of separate recreation areas is an effective tool to use
that can enable different recreational groups to preserve and enhance
their enjoyment of public lands.
Stronger Public Land Management Practices
There are many reasonable resolutions that can be applied to
resolve winter use conflicts. Yet, we have found that there is little
willingness to apply them at the local level, and there is no
consistent national directive or management mandate to motivate local
public land managers towards working with conflicting recreation groups
to develop equitable solutions.
Current policies require public land managers to deal with resource
and wildlife impacts and to manage off-road vehicles, including
snowmobiles, so that ``areas and trails shall be located to minimize
conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed
recreation uses of the same or neighboring public lands''. (36 Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 295.2). One of the reasons that these
regulations are not being followed is that conflict resolution is
perceived as the role of the social scientist, not a forester. It will
be this role, however, that public land managers will be forced to take
on a regular basis. Congress can help by adopting policies that will
direct land managers to deal with these conflicts and to increase
Congressional appropriations to fund conflict resolution programs. This
would go a long way towards achieving more collaboration and solutions
at the local level.
With increasing numbers of users demanding the same terrain, new
leadership and Federal policies that direct public land managers to
provide a quality recreation experience for all users are required.
Surveys confirm that outdoor recreation enthusiasts want non-motorized
trails and backcountry outside of wilderness. This is particularly true
in the winter because most wilderness areas are beyond the reach of
most cross country skiers and snowshoers.
In 1999, the Colorado State Parks Trails Program conducted a
statewide poll that showed that the public believes that motorized and
non-motorized activities on our public lands are incompatible. In a
1995 survey of visitors to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks,
noise, pollution and the number of snowmobiles were frequently cited as
what they least liked about their experience. (University of Idaho
Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Project Reports 74&75) In 1994, the
Montana Trail Users study found that non-motorized recreationists
(hikers, backpackers, horseback riders, mountain bikers) rated
motorized trail use high on the incompatibility scale. However, the
majority of off-road motorcyclists, ATV riders and snowmobilers were
less likely to rate non-motorized activities as incompatible. (McCool
and Harris, 1994) Until there are more non-motorized opportunities for
cross-country skiers and snowshoers, Federal land managers will not be
providing a quality recreation experience for this group of winter
recreationists.
Monitor and Minimize Impacts on Wintering Wildlife and the Resource
All Federal land management agencies need to begin enforcing the
policies and regulations that are already in place for protecting
wildlife and other natural resources. Under 43 CFR 8341.2, the BLM is
directed to close areas to OHV use when the agency determines that such
use is causing or will cause ``considerable adverse effects upon soil,
vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical
resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability,
other authorized uses, or other resources.'' The Forest Service is
guided by similar regulations and the National Park Service is guided
by an even higher mandate to protect natural resources.
Wintering wildlife is particularly vulnerable to disturbance from
all recreationists. Winter Wildlands believes that there are some areas
that should be closed to everyone in the winter and we support
management decisions to achieve this. What we do not support, however,
is inconsistency in wildlife protection decisions. The most glaring
example is the proposed rule that limits winter access to public lands
in order to protect the Canadian Lynx. Compacted snow from ski tracks
or groomed trails apparently put the Lynx at a disadvantage with its
predator competitors so that the permitting of new backcountry
overnight ski huts and new groomed ski trails may be discouraged by
Federal land managers. At the same, there is no discussion about
unrestricted access to the same areas by snowmobile users who, in a
matter of minutes, can create multiple trails and many miles of
compacted trails. If the Lynx is threatened and compacted snow is an
issue, then we believe that access should be limited to both groups.
There are other impacts caused by snowmobiles. According to a 1991
Environmental Protection Agency study, the antiquated two-stroke engine
found in snowmobiles dump about 30 percent of their fuel, unburned,
into the land. Noise and air pollution from these machines can dominate
the peaceful winter landscape as anyone who has been to Old Faithful in
Yellowstone can attest. Regulations are also need to require at least
one foot of snow cover on the ground or hillside before an area is open
to snowmobile use. Permanent scarring of the landscape occurs without
adequate snow. In order to measure, manage and mitigate these impacts,
Federal land management agencies require additional funds and direction
to make this a priority.
Diverse Winter Recreation Opportunities Create a Vital Rural Resort
Economy
Now I would like to address the importance to rural areas of having
a diverse winter recreation economy to attract visitors. Experience in
winter tourism shows that in order to be competitive, winter resorts
need to offer a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities. Sun
Valley, Idaho, for example, no longer relies solely on our downhill ski
mountain to attract winter visitors. Visitors want variety. Regardless
of downhill skiing conditions, our local economy is vibrant because of
opportunities to cross country ski, snowshoe, ice skate, take
snowmobile tours, helicopter ski, overnight at backcountry ski huts, to
try dog sledding or to simply enjoy the peace and quiet of winter
wildlands. All of these recreational opportunities are needed to
compete and sustain a resort economy.
I make this point because statements have been made about the
economic impact of the proposed ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone.
According to the Park's Final Winter Use DEIS, only 4% to 5% of the
annual visitation to Yellowstone National Parks occurs in the winter
season (December through March) and the direct expenditures represent
only .5% of the total economic output of the Greater Yellowstone Area
(DEIS, Ch. 3, page 89). With over four hundred miles of groomed
snowmobile trails on National Forest land near West Yellowstone as
compared to 200 miles in the Park, snowmobiling will continue to play a
part in West Yellowstone's economy. The ban on snowmobiles will,
however, create a more diverse, sustainable economy for West
Yellowstone and attract new winter visitors, once it is not dominated
by one recreation that prevents others from experiencing Yellowstone
with its natural quiet, clean air, and pristine beauty. These qualities
are expected in our National Parks and this is reflected in editorials
across the country supporting this ban.
Improved recreational opportunities for cross country skiers,
snowshoers and other human powered winter recreationists will add to
creating sustainable rural economies throughout snow country.
Development of new snowmobile facilities and private development in
mountain areas can negatively impact or eliminate opportunities to
enjoy cross-country skiing or snowshoeing. Federal land managers should
be directed to follow their multiple use mandates and provide places on
public lands where people can continue to find untracked snow, silence
and solitude. Balancing commercial recreational development with
preserving winter wildlands will ensure long-term competitiveness and
the economic health of rural resort communities.
Education and Collaboration
Winter Wildlands Alliance is working hard to get our message to
public land managers. For the past two winters, we have participated in
the Forest Service's national meeting of winter sports specialists from
around the country to discuss tools that they can use to reduce
conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation groups. Many
resource managers state that their number one winter recreation problem
is the increasing friction between motorized and non-motorized sport
enthusiasts and they welcomed learning about what is working elsewhere
to reduce this conflict.
We meet with snowmobile clubs and ski clubs to help resolve
conflicts through mediation and collaboration. We meet regularly with
the Forest Service and BLM managers to educate them about the need for
better management of public lands in winter, the need for separate use
areas, and how it can be a win-win situation if all parties work
together and decide how to create separate zones.
Conclusion
Without more proactive Federal land management to resolve winter
user conflicts, protect wildlands and wildlife, a new group of
activists will be visiting your offices each year: for example, myself,
a retired corporate lobbyist and county official; a math professor from
Reno fighting to save 4 square miles of meadows above Lake Tahoe; a
retired engineer who has worked hard with volunteer members of his ski
club to create a cross country ski and snowshoe trail system that is
now being threatened by the desire of a ski resort developer to
establish a commercial snowmobile concession on the same small 6 square
mile patch of ground.
Improving management, protecting natural resources, and developing
strategies to deal with user conflicts are approaches that Federal land
management agencies must adopt in order to vastly improve every
visitors recreation experience on public lands.
We appreciate the opportunity to be here today and talk about our
concerns about access to public lands.
______
The Chairman. I thank you for your testimony. I thank all
of the panel for their excellent testimony.
If you will submit to questions, we will ask our members to
please stay within their time limit, which is 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Colorado, the Chairman of the
Subcommittee of Public Lands, Recreation, and Parks, Mr.
Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief, because we do have a lot of work today.
First to Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson, is there anything in Utah
that anyone would want to come and see?
[Laughter.]
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nelson, you don't have to answer that.
[Laughter.]
Yes, he wants to know.
Regarding the Forest Service proposed roadless rule, you
noted that it would result in over half of the forest lands
being placed under highly restrictive management. As one who
deals with these lands on a daily basis, as well as with the
Federal personnel responsible for these lands, what are the
environmental ramifications associated with placing such harsh
restrictions on so many lands?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, my next trip to
Moab, I will make sure and tell all those Coloradans that you
were interested in having them remain home in Colorado and
recreating, and that we are really not that pretty a place.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. Spend their dollars in Colorado instead of
Utah.
Mr. Nelson. To that issue, Representative, my
recommendation would be an evolution of certain components of
the NEPA process that tend to drag out and lengthen what are
relatively simple decisions at other levels of government that
at the Federal level of government seem to take months and
years for the simplest of resolution.
Also, I believe that we are going to need to work with the
Federal agencies to find a way to put more field staff on the
ground, whether it is for the analysis aspects of science,
whether it is maintenance issues, or enforcement, or education,
which may be the most important component of all.
It is very typical in the Western United States, as you
know, sir, to have an extremely small staff responsible for an
extremely large area. And some of us are able to pick up that
lack of staff in various ways, but I don't think it is uniform.
And I see it as a very critical problem.
Also, the other issue that I mentioned, which I think is
extremely important, the net effect of degradation of resources
outside areas of closure. When you have more people
concentrating on smaller areas, you are going to have more
negative impacts than may be there if people were allowed to
experience recreation and other activities on a broader area.
And there are many social science as well as biological
examples of that degradation, whether you are talking about
rivers or community parks or other areas of natural resources.
Those would probably be my three areas of emphasis.
Mr. Hefley. You manage Utah parks and recreation. With the
state park system and public lands system, are you able to
balance the two charges that we have for our national parks--
and one is to protect the resource, and that is a very
important charge; at the same time, provide for the enjoyment
of the public. Are you able to do that on the state parks, do
you believe?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe we have
done that at a very successful level. It is always a challenge.
In the last 8 years, we have completed a number of resource
management plans for all of our parks and are receiving
responses from our visitors as well as our citizens.
The net effect, I believe, of this is that we have local
involvement, we have individuals who have a vested interest in
the management of that facility involved in those management
issues.
We also are able to work better with the special interest
groups as well as the business community to create that type of
experience and the welcoming effect that was referred to by one
of my fellow panelists, and feel quite successful at that.
That is not to say we don't have, occasionally, very
serious battles regarding transportation and some trail
restrictions and the lack of certain amenities in certain
areas. Like all park systems, we deal in the unmet needs versus
the limited resources, whether its human or financial. And we
all struggle with that.
But as a simple answer to your question, I do believe we
have done well at that and would be more than willing to share
that with members of the panel and the Committee.
Mr. Hefley. So it is not incompatible? The two aren't
incompatible if you work at it? And it can be done at the
Federal level as well as the state level?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think it can be
done well at any level of government.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since I have some legislation dealing with this issue, I
did want to make a few comments; I realize that particular
legislation is not the specific subject today.
As you know, the National Park Service did suggest a plan
that would be applied to 43 parks where snowmobile uses occur.
And under the plan, snowmobile use would be unchanged in 21
parks, would continue on a limited basis in 10 parks, and would
end in 12 parks.
This discussion really goes back several decades to the
Nixon administration, when the Administration said that
snowmobile use would continue in the National Park Service only
if it did not adversely affect the parks' natural aesthetic or
scenic values.
But it is interesting that the Park Service didn't monitor
these effects until it was sued and required to do so. In one
particular park, where snowmobile is particularly heavy,
Yellowstone, there are about 80,000 snowmobile trips per
winter, now that that Park Service is keeping information on
this.
These 80,000 snowmobiles, it is reported, produce more air
pollution than the cars and trucks that bring the other 3
million visitors each year. The snowmobiles emit somewhere
between two-thirds and 90 percent of the motor vehicle
hydrocarbon emissions, and between a third and two-thirds of
the carbon monoxide emissions, and the noise of snowmobiles is
audible 95 percent of the time during daylight hours at Old
Faithful and during very high percentages of the time at other
major areas in the park.
I have just a couple of quick questions. First of all, for
Mr. Hill, I mean, I know that horses on occasion emit some
methane--
[Laughter.]
--but I was wondering whether you have some measurements of
the sound level in decibels for a horse at 50 yards.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hill. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Holt. Or carbon monoxide emissions?
Mr. Hill. No, again, I don't.
[Laughter.]
Sorry about that.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Ehnes, do you have any information on the
sound level in decibels for a canoeist or a kayaker at 50
yards?
Mr. Ehnes. No, sir.
Mr. Holt. Okay.
And, Ms. Michael, for a snowshoer, do you have a sound
level measurement of a snowshoers at 50 yards?
Ms. Michael. No, we have never measured.
Mr. Holt. Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Michael. Unmeasurable.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
The Chairman. Excuse me, gentleman, you finished your
questions?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Holt. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would have been interested in some of those answers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nelson, because of the long-term process that we
generally find when trying to get some use or some
consideration for a strategy or a management plan with most of
the Federal agencies, would the state parks national
association, which I assume that there is such an association,
would they be interested in providing a strategy whereby the
state parks comes up with a management plan, comes up with a
use plan and strategy, and submits it to the Federal Government
agency, and says, okay, either approve or disapprove of it,
instead of waiting on the Federal agency to provide the plan?
Do you understand where I am going with this?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, could you give me
a little more clarity on the specific question that you have?
Mr. Otter. Well, I am abundantly familiar--I was lieutenant
governor of Idaho for 14 years before this, and I saw a lot of
these problems, not just with the Forest Service or BLM.
But with most Federal agencies, when you request a permit
to do something, generally you go through a long process where
they have hearings and then they build a plan. My question goes
to, wouldn't your organization be enthusiastic about a notion
that you build the plan, you submit a plan to the Forest
Service and say, ``Okay, this is what we want to do on this
area. This is where we want to recreate. This is how we want to
recreate. This is the scope of our activities. Now, you either
accept or deny our strategy,'' rather than waiting on them to
build a strategy?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think that is
often the case, particularly with trails issues in the Western
States, which I am most familiar with, and we do promulgate
plans and proposals that go to the BLM district office or the
state office, or in the case of the forests, the forest
supervisor.
It also works the other way. All of us, including the State
of Idaho, have grant programs, and that is a matching grant
program, and that speaks to the issue of that local-Federal
agency applying for matching grant opportunities to create
recreational opportunities.
Idaho, in particular, is quite famous for your RV grant
program, where literally millions of dollars are put into the
forests and BLM properties during the year.
I think the key issue, Representative, would be the
timeliness of how that proposal would come and being able to
work more specifically at the local level on recreational
management plans.
There are cycles that the Federal Government must follow,
and from my reading, which may be inaccurate, both the BLM and
the Forest Service have not been able to keep up with the
routine reviews of their forest and land management programs.
So the need to have input on that program may not coincide with
the opportunity that the Federal Government can provide through
those agencies.
Mr. Otter. If we were to provide, say, some legislative
relief in that direction, what kind of time period do you think
would be applicable in this case?
We do that, you know, the Federal agencies, ``You have 30
days to respond.'' In fact, they do that to us all the time.
They take 4 years to put together a FEMA program and give us
maybe 30 days to respond to a whole new direction of wetlands
or a whole new direction of flood shed.
What do you think would be a responsible period of time to
assess the process that needs to take place for the permitting
activities on BLM or Forest Service lands?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, my observation
would be anything less than 6 months would be a wonderful
improvement and would create an opportunity for dialogue within
a calendar year.
And that is important at the state level, sir, as you know,
because of the annual legislative process. Our budget times are
shorter. We don't generally have that long budgetary process
that the Federal agencies go through, and most things come down
to money and personnel.
A shorter timeframe, around 6 months in the off session, I
would think would be a laudable goal.
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much.
Ms. Michael, isn't the Forest Service and BLM required to
obey local planning and zoning laws?
Ms. Michael. We would like them to be, yes.
Mr. Otter. Aren't they required to restrict themselves to
the local planning and zoning laws, within the impact areas?
Ms. Michael. In most cases.
Mr. Otter. Has Blaine County sought to use their local
planning and zoning laws in order to provide for specific use
or restricted use for public access, whether it be cross-
country skiers or snowshoers or a snowmobiler?
Ms. Michael. No, that is really something that--travel
management is something that is under the requirements of the
Forest Service and BLM, so that what we control through our
zoning ordinances is access through private lands. So if
someone is subdividing private lands next to public lands, then
our ordinances require that that subdivision provide access to
public lands.
But as far as management of travel on forest or BLM lands,
they have specific regulations that require them, actually, to
minimize user conflicts.
They have regulations on the books currently that require
them to minimize user conflict, but because of not having any
national direction, they are not following those regulations,
essentially.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Mark Udall, the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome the panel and thank you for your
interesting and enlightening testimony.
If I might, I would like to make a couple of comments and
then direct a question to Mr. Ehnes.
I had the good fortune for many years to serve as the
executive director of the Colorado Outward Bound school based
in Denver. I think there is going to be testimony from a
representative of Outward Bound on the next panel.
But at one point, we were the largest outfitter in the
Rocky Mountain West, so I am very familiar with the issues of
access and how you find the balance point between human
activity on public lands and when it starts to become
detrimental to the quality of those lands and the experience of
other people there.
And I think that this hearing, for that reason, is very
important, as we try and grapple with these issues.
Ms. Michael, you may be familiar with what has been going
on at Vail Pass in Colorado, where we have segregated some
winter uses. And I think it has worked reasonably well. I think
the problem is that land is finite, and as more humans move to
the West, for all of the good reasons that us westerners know,
it has become a challenge. But I think what you suggest has
been very workable in Colorado.
I don't know if you would like to make any other comments
at this point, in that regard?
Ms. Michael. I think that the regulations are clearly
written, and I think it is a matter of Federal leadership.
For instance, in Sun Valley, we have been in negotiation
and collaboration with the snowmobile club for 6 years, and we
have reached a stalemate. And it wasn't until the forest
supervisor said to both groups that, ``If you don't come up a
negotiated agreement, I will come up with one for you.'' And so
it was that threat that got the two groups off of a stalemate.
Because as the supervisor said, when one group--in this
case, it was the snowmobile community--had access to all of the
land, they benefited from stalemate. And it was his leadership,
then, that made the two groups get together and negotiate and
finally settle on an agreement.
So I think that the tools are there. It is just that the
leadership isn't.
Mr. Udall. That provides an opening maybe for me to respond
to a couple of comments Mr. Nelson made, and also speak to the
Chairman.
I think we need that mediator to bring us together to work
on Utah wilderness. I noted that Mr. Nelson suggested, if we
could resolve the wilderness issues in Utah, it would help a
lot of the land managers who find themselves betwixt and
between with the status that the lands in Utah have.
I also just want to compliment you on your acknowledgment
that we need to put more people on the ground to help manage
and protect the resources, but, in the end, to educate. I know
that users across the spectrum understand the more we educate
users about Leave No Trace principles and other ways of moving
lightly on the land, that the capacity probably increases. And
we also leave the land in better condition for our children.
That might lead me to Mr. Ehnes. You mentioned on page 3 of
your statement that if penalties for violating regulations for
vehicle use aren't enough to stem inappropriate behavior, your
group would support strengthening them.
As it happens, I have actually introduced a bill that would
do that, and I would love to at least have you take a look at
it and critique it, and perhaps we could work together. This
bill applies particularly to people who take off-road vehicles
off designated roads and destroy wetlands and cause real
problems. And we have had some high-profile incidents in
Colorado.
And I am certainly not looking to penalize the good guys.
As you know, the large percentage of the users are good guys.
But it is that small group of people that give everybody
else a bad name and, in the process, sometimes wreak real
damage on the public resources.
So I would like to get that legislation in your hands and
have you take a look at it.
Mr. Ehnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Representative. We
would welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with you
on that matter.
Mr. Udall. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the measly time I have left.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We look forward to you
as one of the sponsors on the Utah wilderness bill that we are
introducing. In fact, I would like your name right under mine,
if that would be all right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Udall. I'll sign onto yours if you sign onto mine.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You've got a deal--
[Laughter.]
--1.2 million acres.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
this hearing.
The exchange of information that we are having here this
morning I think is helpful to all of us to understand the
nature of this issue. And to some extent, we have a
fundamental, philosophical difference of opinion amongst the
people in the room and certainly amongst the members.
And the hearing I think will help us sort out and
understand the other person's philosophy. And the philosophy
is: access to public land and what are the best ways to access
public land; why is there public land; for what purpose is it
be used for habitat for wildlife, for recreation for human
beings, or can there be a mixture of both so that human beings
can responsibly recreate and there can be what we now
understand is certainly a dwindling amount of habitat for
wildlife--especially if you are somebody like me who is from
Maryland and we don't often look at east of the Mississippi
River as habitat for wildlife in the same we look at west of
the Mississippi for habitat for wildlife.
And we back here like to see bald eagles and osprey and
blue heron and dear and fox just as much as anybody else. So
when we talk about habitat for wildlife, an easterner wants to
protect all of it because we don't have much left back here,
and we know that if you don't do the same thing out there, in
another 100 or so years, you might have what we have here, and
that wouldn't be so good, at least from my perspective.
Most public land could not facilitate responsible human
activity without the private sector volunteering to help with
trails and a whole range of other things.
So, Mr. Ehnes, you said the number of things that your
group does, and I think we ought to appreciate that and
certainly how valuable that is.
I think we also need to understand that in a true sense,
regardless of your philosophy toward access, we as responsible
adults need to be stewards of the land. And we need to have
respect for the bison in the middle of winter in a harsh
environment, in certain circumstances barely able to survive.
And do they need to be gawked at by thousands of
snowmobilers, with the noise and the pollution? Is there a
difference to the buffalo with that than there is someone
silently careening through the area on cross-country skies? Is
there a different experience for the recreational person? I
would suggest there certainly is a different experience for the
bison.
So my question is--whoever wants to answer this, I suppose.
We have groups that want to open up public access to every
manmade device. And we have groups that want to close public
access to every manmade device.
I like horses. And I have two legs and two arms, and I like
to walk. And I like the silence and the quiet.
But can we, as responsible adults, pursue--and it was
suggested here a number of times today--a balance between
motorized access by the lower decibel of a kayak or a canoe to
our public lands?
Mr. Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think there are
many examples of success being achieved in finding that
balance. I referred and inferred earlier to opportunities that
have to be evaluated based on impacts to the natural resources.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you give us specific examples of that,
so we can sort of take that information and see if we can
replicate it on the Federal level.
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I will give you a
couple.
I just came from visiting some Maryland state parks this
weekend, and you have some small pieces of property that were
purchased with public money and managed by private or nonprofit
groups where, other than trail systems, it is generally and
strongly supported that no more facilities be added to those
properties. They are meant to be protected areas for habitat
for a variety of critters, as I understand it, and also
watershed protection.
Along the Colorado River in the Colorado plateau, within
the national park system, at Canyon Lands National Park, there
are canyons that are totally restricted not only because they
are inaccessible, which is true, but also there are such rare
natural and archaeological sites that there cannot be the
opportunity for those to be impacted or destroyed.
Outside of those restricted areas, you have other areas
that are open for many, many kinds of recreation.
Outside of the national park, you have the Bureau of Land
Management that has multiple-use agenda. And there are few
restrictions, currently, on those lands that are around them.
So I think you have a cascading down of experiences from
the protected and the most precious down to the multiple-use
categories of some agencies. And I think there are many
examples that could be used to isolate those most protected and
move out to those areas that have greater opportunities.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California?
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming
in a little late.
But this subject matter is very near and dear to many in
California. In my district alone, we don't have many public
open areas where many of my constituents can truly enjoy some
of these very pristine areas that are found throughout the
State of California.
But in my district, we do have the Angeles National Forest.
And I do see a lot of public usage there these days. It is
affordable. It is easy to get to. We see a number of my
constituents spending weekends and summers there over the past
few years.
And it is increasing, partly because of the population and
the density and the fact that that is one of the few areas that
is still somewhat open. And there is a real interest on the
part of our community, which is largely working-class families
with young children who want to enjoy what little is left in
urban America.
The district that I represent roughly contains anywhere
from 3 to 2 million people that live up and around the
foothills in the San Gabriel Valley.
One of the issues that I have is that folks in our area
really do want to see some effort to really provide more
support for land management, for restoration, and things of
that nature.
There are many children in our district who have never seen
live wildlife, animals, deer, fisheries, things of that nature.
And I know that it is very important to continue the process of
education and funding for these kinds of efforts.
So while in my district we may not have as many folks that
own snowmobiles or are able to kayak, many of them do enjoy the
trails, they do enjoy the fact that they can go out and have a
nice outing on the weekend.
And it is a priority for many people, not only in my
district, but in other parts of the country, who want to
continue to see that efforts are made by the Federal Government
in an effort where we can cooperate with both the public and
the private sector to see that these areas are continually open
to them, accessible, but also maintained. And that requires a
commitment on the part of the Federal Government.
And right now, alone, in my district, the city of Asuza,
which is the door to the Angeles National Forest, we are in
dire need of support there. We have some very important issues
there at hand.
And some of cities are trying to tackle some of these
issues. They are looking to us for relief so that they can
maintain access, one that is controllable, one that is
manageable.
And I would really look forward to working with the
Committee to see how we can continue those kinds of
collaborative efforts in a bipartisan manner.
So I am very happy that this issue is being brought before
us. This is one that is very sensitive, believe it or not, for
people in my district who don't get a chance, an opportunity,
to go out on snowmobiles and kayaking, but whose only recourse
is to go to trails, camp, rock climb, and maybe fish a little
bit. And that is what we have in my district.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chair and
members of the Committee, and obviously with the various
Federal departments and public organizations that are
interested in this issue as well.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Ehnes, I am sorry, I missed how to pronounce your name.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Ehnes. Ehnes.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Ehnes, thank you very much.
It sounded like you had a successful experience with the
trail bike association you are involved in. What contributed to
that success? Why did it work?
Mr. Ehnes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Representative, that is an
effort that was successful because of collaboration with a
number of groups and agencies. And it was a matter of having an
open dialogue and expressing what our desired conditions for
the future would be and figuring out how that meshed with the
agencies and spending time together and building a
relationship.
It has been a 10-year process to build a relationship that
we all feel very comfortable with, but it has been well-worth
all the effort. It is very easy to duplicate.
Mr. Inslee. Great.
I am sorry I didn't get to hear your testimony, but I read
your written testimony and you made reference, saying that
certain sectors of our society were really not involved in the
foundation of the roadless policy of the past administration,
and you expressed a concern about that.
We had Mr. Bosworth testifying the other day in another
Subcommittee about their plans for amending this rule or going
through the rulemaking process again.
I, frankly, have been flummoxed to understand why people
did not understand they had an opportunity to have input in
this last rulemaking process. There were 600 meetings. There
were 1.6 million responses received by the Forest Service.
We had meetings in every town that had a stoplight in the
State of Washington, I think. You know, Morton, Colville,
places you have never heard of.
Yet, people still come and tell us they didn't have input.
What do you think the service should do now that they are
going through another rulemaking process? What would you
encourage them to do? Should they have 1,200 meetings instead
of 600? What should they do to try to increase that
opportunity?
Mr. Ehnes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Representative, first, from my
perspective, the original rulemaking process did not include a
broad spectrum of groups in the initial processes when the idea
was being first formulated.
After that, when we did get to the process of having formal
meetings, I did attend in my home town as well. And I will tell
you that it was a PowerPoint demonstration put on by one of the
staff folks, who had a very difficult time answering any
questions that the audience had.
And the PowerPoint presentation, to me, demonstrated what
the changes would be. And when we asked questions about our
opportunities to be involved or how we could affect the
changes, the staff people really had no ability to answer those
questions.
As far as another process to start over, I would say the
most important thing is to get all groups involved in the
process early, both the environmental community and the
recreational community. And try to find common ground right off
the bat, and then base our course of action from there.
Mr. Inslee. In general, could you describe what you think
should be in the amended plan, if there is an amendment?
Mr. Ehnes. My personal opinion is that amended plan should
rely heavily on the opinion of local foresters, district
rangers, and supervisor offices to do the right things. And
also, involve the communities heavily, both in the planning and
the implementation.
Mr. Inslee. I am really struggling, honestly, to try to
figure out what you are referring to by this ``more
participation.''
Are you saying that the Forest Service should not do
anything until they have full public meetings? I mean, should
they have the 600 meetings first, before anybody puts a
proposal on the table, because you don't want to be left out of
the first meeting? I am really trying to figure out what they
should do.
Mr. Ehnes. No, I would suggest that the meetings that the
Washington-level folks had first involved the environmental
community last time, and the folks in the multiple-use
communities or recreation communities didn't know anything
about the proposed rulemaking process until a preliminary plan
had really been formed.
And I would say that at that level, at the Washington
level, if there is going to be an amended plan, that all those
parties should be involved at that level first.
Mr. Inslee. Okay.
I understand that the snowmobiling group is involved in
your association; is that right?
Mr. Ehnes. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. Yes.
Just one more question, Mr. Chair, if I can.
As for as the snowmobile, are you asking to have a full
rulemaking process with concomitant hearings before there is a
change in the snowmobile policy? Or are you suggesting that the
Administration just sort of agree to some consent decree in
this litigation that is now ongoing?
Mr. Ehnes. I don't have an accurate answer for that
question at this point.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, and thanks for your work on the
mountain bike trails, too.
Mr. Ehnes. Thank you.
The Chairman. I think the gentleman.
I appreciate the testimony from the panel. Let me point out
that many of the questions were very interesting and food for
thought.
The questions from Mr. Holt from New Jersey regarding
snowmobiling, I think that many of those things are ready to be
resolved as the industry is now going to a four-stroke engine,
as far as pollution and noise. They have committed to do that
over a period of time, which in their opinion and the opinion
of most people who have analyzed it, would probably answer most
of the questions.
Mr. Hill, you represent the horse industry, and, of course,
horses are allowed under the 1964 Wilderness Act. You can take
horses into the backcountry area.
The Committee has received a lot of requests from people
regarding mountain bikes, which are not allowed because they
are mechanized.
A lot of people misinterpret the 1964 bill; it doesn't say
motorized, it says mechanized. And the Forest Service and BLM
has had quite a quandary in trying to figure out, well, what is
mechanized, what can you take in? Is a camp stove mechanized?
We had a big argument 1 day on oar locks; are they
mechanized?
What would be your reaction if they allowed mountain bikes
into wilderness areas, say the law was changed to allow that,
as some people, I understand, are going to propose this year?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, I am not totally familiar with all
the consequences that would be involved. I am aware of what the
Wilderness Act intent was, and I referred to some of it in my
testimony.
I will have to say that in our experience, in areas outside
wilderness boundaries, many of the equestrian users, as
identified by the testimony from the other folks here, have had
an opportunity to work with mountain bike community and have
reached agreement about how the trails can be used in a
compatible manner by the equestrian community and the mountain
bikers.
That is not the case inside the wilderness boundaries
because it has not been a topic of discussion, principally, I
think, because of the ``Wilderness Designation'' and most areas
that we are familiar with are very rough terrain and are not
accessible easily by wheeled vehicles.
But I think that there has been an opportunity to continue
a dialogue with users with some success in some of those areas
in the West where there is an opportunity for more compatible
use of wheeled vehicles.
The Chairman. It is very interesting that Moab, Utah, seems
to be the headquarters of mountain biking in the United States
now. And what I find ironic is that many of the mountain bikers
have signed petitions for that area to be put into wilderness,
and yet they are avid mountain bikers.
And so when it has been pointed out to them that they would
also prohibit themselves, it has put a lot of anguish among
some of the mountain bikers in that area.
There are literally thousands in Grand County, or Moab,
Utah, so they have an ironic situation and a real paradox. They
signed this petition that in effect ended the mountain biking.
Of course, a lot of them, I don't think, understand that or
what the thing is.
But you may recall, during the Americans with Disabilities
Act, I put in an amendment that allowed wheelchairs into
wilderness areas, and I feel that was a justifiable thing. I
mean, these guys are on their own, if they have courage enough
to do it.
Specifically, a Vietnam veteran had his legs blown off, who
can challenge anybody on this community to a tennis match or a
basketball match or a road race, and no one took the offer
because he would have probably wiped us out.
But anyway, it got down to the idea that maybe sometimes we
could look at some of those things.
The gentleman from Washington brought up this issue about
selective questioning. That seems to be the problem. Whether it
is right or not I guess is debatable. But it seems to be the
problem that many people have talked about.
Mr. Ehnes, you brought up that a lot of people outside of
the environmental community felt that they were not given their
right to have any input on that. Whether that is true or not--
some have sent me stacks of letters regarding that.
But I think when we start getting into this idea of public
comment, it should be public comment for everybody. And we
would hope that would be the case regardless of what political
party happens to run the Congress or the White House.
With that, let me thank you all of you for your excellent
testimony and putting up with our questions. And we will excuse
this panel and go to our next panel.
Our next panel is Mr. Steve Bassett, President of the
United States Air Tour Association; Mr. Craig Mackey, Public
Policy Liaison, Outward Bound; Vera Smith, Conservation
Director of Colorado Mountain Club; Bruce Ward, Executive
Director of the Continental Divide Trail Alliance; and Amy
Knowles, testifying on behalf of the Florida Keys Fishing
Guides Association.
We appreciate you folks being with us today. I know you
understand the rules. If you could stay within your allotted
time, it would help us out. We have one more panel following
this one.
And we will start with you, Mr. Bassett.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BASSETT, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES AIR TOUR
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bassett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
opportunity to be here today. And we also sincerely appreciate
your personal involvement in this issue over the years and your
leadership in seeking to help preserve air touring as a
legitimate way to view America's national parks.
The National Park Service and the Federal Aviation
Administration are getting pretty creative and pretty sneaky
when it comes to finding ways to deny access to our national
parks and public lands.
As Chairman Hefley commented in his opening statement, the
NPS management guides of 2001 states: ``National parks belong
to all Americans and all Americans should feel welcome to
experience the parks.'' Really?
The Rocky Mountain National Park recreational visitor
access is being denied via a ban on air tours.
At Yellowstone National Park, recreational visitor access
could be denied due to legislation which has been offered which
would ban air tours.
At other national parks, recreational visitor access could
be denied under the provisions of the Air Tour Management Act
of 2000, which provides the FAA and the NPS with the authority
to ban aircraft.
And at the Grand Canyon, recreational visitor access is
being denied to thousands of potential visitors by artificially
limiting flights, imposing unreasonable curfews, instituting
unrealistic and unscientifically contrived sound limits, and
failing to implement quiet technology standards.
One million, seven hundred thousand. That is how many
visitors will be denied recreational access to the Grand Canyon
during the next decade based on government restrictions on air
tours. And that will cost the Grand Canyon air tour industry,
conservatively, $25 million a year or $250 million over the
next 10 years.
Of the Grand Canyon, Teddy Roosevelt said: ``Keep it for
your children, your children's children, and for all who come
after you, as the one great sight that every American should
see.''
But many won't. Sixty percent of the Grand Canyon's air
tour visitors are retirement age, disabled, or in poor health.
And for them, air touring is the only way for them to see the
Grand Canyon. But in the next 10 years, many of them won't be
able to.
Already, two air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon,
Grand Canyon Airlines and Kenia Helicopters, report that
draconian flight caps imposed by the FAA last year will drive
them out of business by this fall.
As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, you previously learned
that air tour sound data in the Grand Canyon had been
manipulated by the Park Service. You also learned that the Park
Service was making a significant policy shift by establishing
in director's order 47 a sound threshold at an unjustifiable 8
decibels below natural ambient sound, and artificially shifting
from a noticeability to a detectability standard as the
criteria for determining acceptable levels of sound.
Noticeability is the level at which a person thinking about
something other than aircraft would first notice aircraft
sound. Detectability is the threshold at which a person
intently listening for a sound of known character, such an
aircraft, would first detect it.
According to acoustical experts who testified before you
previously, abandoning the noticeability standard in favor of a
detectability standard is neither appropriate nor conforming
with accepted industry standards.
But this is the Park Service's trump card, its back door,
underhanded, arbitrary, mischievous way to justify banning all
motorized recreational vehicles on the ground or in the air
from all national parks. But there are alternatives,
alternatives which we have sought to discuss with the FAA and
Park Service, but which seem to fall on deaf ears.
No. 1, implement quiet technology standards and incentives
as the FAA encouraged and as Congress mandated. Our industry
took the lead in developing quieter aircraft.
As just a few examples of many, Papillon Grand Canyon
Helicopters invested 8 years and $14 million of its own money
redesigning the Sikorsky S-55 into a quieter air tour platform.
Their efforts cut the sound generated by this aircraft by 50
percent.
Grand Canyon Airlines spent $1.5 million back in 1984,
converting its fleet to the larger Dehavilland Twin Otters,
flying the same number of passengers with 70 percent fewer
flights and then, 2 years later, converted those aircraft to
the quieter VistaLiners, through a wide variety of
modifications, reducing the sound generated by those aircraft
by 66 percent.
Scenic Airlines spent more than $35 million converting the
quiet VistaLiners and reducing its fleet by 60 percent.
Air Vegas Airlines spent $12 million of its own money,
converting its entire fleet to larger, quieter Beechcraft C-99
aircraft, reducing the number of flights it took to serve the
same number of passengers by 65 percent.
The efforts of each of these companies and their sizable
investments have bought them absolutely nothing from the
Federal Government except more and more onerous regulations.
No. 2, fairly apply cap limits based on recommendations by
the National Park Overflights Working Group and apply no caps
or curfews to operators using quiet technology.
No. 3, link morning and evening curfews to actual hours of
sunrise and sunset, as the original NPRM proposed.
And finally, stop monkeying with the routes in the Grand
Canyon. The last of the scenic routes from Las Vegas to the
Grand Canyon have already been stripped away, and it is only a
matter of time before the rest of them are eliminated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bassett follows:]
Statement of Steve Bassett, President, United States Air Tour
Association (USATA)
Thank you, Chairman Hansen, for inviting the United States Air Tour
Association (USATA) to testify before the House Resources Committee
today. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on the issue of
denial of recreational access to America's national parks. We also
sincerely appreciate your leadership in seeking to preserve air touring
as a legitimate way to view the spectacular sights of America's
national parks.
1.7 million. That's how many visitors will be denied recreational
access to the Grand Canyon during the next decade based on government
restrictions--caps--on air tours created under the Clinton/Gore
Administration.
1.7 million. And, that's just at the Grand Canyon. No telling how
many more will also be denied access based on the provisions of the
National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
Who are these people who take air tours and why do they do it?
Grand Canyon air tour visitors take air tours for many reasons.
Many are elderly or disabled and for them air touring is the only
way for them to see our national parks.
Some are in poor health and unable to hike the trails, backpack in
the wilderness, or even get out of a bus and walk to a scenic overlook.
Air touring is the only alternative they have.
Some are on family vacations and have only limited time. Without
the opportunity of taking an air tour, they would be unable to enjoy
the breathtaking scenery our national parks offer.
And some find seeing a national park from the air better and more
enjoyable than seeing it any other way.
Each and every one of these segments of society is impacted when
the Federal Government creates a regulatory environment limiting
recreational access to our national parks.
Nearly all of our members' customers are time-constrained to one
degree or another. Of those flying to the Grand Canyon from Las Vegas,
100 percent of them are time-constrained. The only way for them to see
the Grand Canyon is by air. They will not see the Grand Canyon except
by air tour because their travel plans do not include a trip to
Arizona.
Sixty percent of the Grand Canyon customers are retirement ago or
older, disabled, have health problems or are too young to see the Grand
Canyon any way other than air tour.
Ninety-five percent of the Grand Canyon customers are from
international destinations. Most of those are from Japan, Korea and
China with the UK, Germany and France representing the next largest
group.
In addressing the issue of the disabled, the NPS 2001 Management
Policies Guide says specifically ``All reasonable efforts will be made
to make NPS facilities, programs, and services accessible to and usable
by all people, including those with disabilities . . . One primary
tenet of disability rights requirements is that, to the highest degree
reasonable, people with disabilities should be able to participate in
the same programs and activities available to everyone else.
When more than 40 percent of air tour passengers are either
disabled or have health related problems which preclude them from
visiting the Grand Canyon any other way, NPS/FAA regulations are
clearly inconsistent with the Park Services stated policy on this
issue.
And, make no mistake. Contrary to proclamations by the Federal
agencies of jurisdiction, denying air access to our national parks does
have a significant impact on foreign trade and is contrary to the
provisions of the Trade Agreement Act (TAA) of 1979 which specifically
prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States.
At the Grand Canyon alone, more than 60 percent of air tour park
visitors flying either from Las Vegas or from the Grand Canyon National
Park Airport are from foreign countries. To say, as the Federal
Aviation Administration does, that flight caps, curfews and other
access-limiting regulations do not impact foreign trade is simply
incorrect.
Specifically, the fact is that the overall demand for air tour
flights at the Grand Canyon has not significantly increased over the
last half dozen years. Rather the number of companies providing air
tour services out of Las Vegas has decreased some 60% since 1995.
Problem is that limiting or capping flights based on the baseline of
1997-1998, due to worldwide economics, is not reflective of numbers of
fights needed to accommodate the 1995-1996 time frame, let alone allow
for any moderate growth. Additionally, with the economic demise of so
many operators since 1995, there has not been an accurate
redistribution of flight allotments to the remaining operators.
Competitively speaking, an unfair advantage or disadvantage exists
between current operators concerning their growth capabilities. As
stated previously, overall industry growth is relatively small year to
year, if at all. But expansion and contraction between competitors for
market share is at issue each season.
Mr. Chairman, let me continue to quote directly from the 2001 NPS
Management Policies Guide:
``National parks belong to all Americans, and all Americans should
feel welcome to experience the parks . . . Providing opportunities for
appropriate public enjoyment is an important part of the Service's
mission . . . Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of
the United States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks . . .
The Service is committed to providing appropriate, high quality
opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks, and will maintain within
the parks an atmosphere that is open, inviting, and accessible to every
segment of American society . . . The fact that a park use may have an
impact does not necessarily mean it will impair park resources or
values for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Mr. Chairman, I'm not making this stuff up. It's clear as can be
and right here in black and white. Yet, recent actions by the Park
Service and the Federal Aviation Administration regarding air touring
are not even remotely consistent with this stated policy.
There are many ways the government can deny visitors access to our
national parks.
At Rocky Mountain National Park recreational visitor access is
denied via a ban on air tours.
At Yellowstone National Park recreational visitor access could be
denied due to legislation which has been offered which would ban air
tours.
At other national parks, recreational visitor access can be denied
under the provisions of the Air Tour Management Act of 2000 and
codifying regulations which provides the Federal Aviation
Administration and National Park Service with the authority to ban air
tour aircraft.
And, at the Grand Canyon, recreational visitor access is being or
will be denied to thousands of potential visitors by (2) artificially
limiting flights, (2) imposing unreasonable curfews, (3) instituting
unrealistic and scientifically contrived sound limits, and (4)
artificially creating a barrier to trade such that many of the air tour
companies currently offering Grand Canyon air tours will eventually be
forced out of business--the ultimate denial of access.
But, it gets worse!
In a not-so-veiled attempt to try and justify its actions and the
actions of the FAA with bogus sound data, the Park Service implemented
on December 1st of last year new draconian rules in Director's Order 47
which guarantee the eventual elimination of all air tours at the Grand
Canyon.
As you will recall Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the former National
Parks and Public Lands subcommittee, you previously learned through
expert testimony and admissions from NPS officials that noise
monitoring computer modeling in the Grand Canyon both had been
manipulated and had not undergone scientific validation or peer review.
In a subsequent hearing, you learned that the Park Service was
making a significant policy shift proposing in Director's Order 47 to
set the acceptable noise level in one backcountry zone of the Grand
Canyon at 8 decibels below natural ambient sound--about the same level
of noise blood makes going through my veins.
Then perhaps even more onerous and more a frightening for air
touring and all other forms of mechanized recreational park users, the
new Park Service policy arbitrarily abandons the longstanding
``noticeability'' standard in favor of a ``detectability'' standard as
the criteria for determining acceptable levels of sound.
Originally the Park Service had a sound threshold for achieving
substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon of 3dB(A)
above ambient sound using the threshold of ``noticeability --the level
at which a person thinking about something other that aircraft would
first notice aircraft sound.
The Park Service then changed that policy to better suit its
purposes and proposed a new methodology for determining sound based on
a standard of audibility or ``detectability''--the threshold at which a
person intently listening for a sound of known character such as an
aircraft would first detect it.
In Director's Order 47, the Park Service claimed to have stationed
human ``listeners'' at various locations around the Grand Canyon and
asked them to take note of when they heard an aircraft. The Park
Service claimed that those trained ``listeners'' heard or ``detected''
aircraft noise at between 8 and 12 decibels below the average ambient
sound levels thus justifying their proposal to set minimum acceptable
sound levels at 8dB below natural ambient sound--based on the new
``detectability'' standard.
First--according to acoustical experts familiar with this issue--
J.R. Engineering of Seattle, Washington--abandoning the noticeability
standard in favor of a detectability standard is neither appropriate
nor in conformance with accepted industry standards. Ground visitors
don't just stand out in the wilderness trying to hear aircraft. If they
are doing what we are led to believe the Park Service is trying to
protect, they're listening to the birds, smelling the flowers, and
watching the little bunnies hop along the trails.
Second--based on J.R.'s review of engineering reports of Harris,
Miller, Miller and Hanson--the Park Services noise consultant--there
were no new noise studies conducted for the NPS prior to this action.
There were no measurements or human observations, only some new
arithmetic performed on two year old measurements and studies. In fact,
at no time did any observer actually detect any aircraft sounds at
anything close to the levels indicated in the NPS Public Notice either
in the Grand Canyon or anywhere else.
This is the Park Services back door, underhanded, arbitrary,
mischievous way to justify banning all motorized recreational
vehicles--on the ground and in the air--from our national parks. The
precedent this has established guarantees the eventual elimination from
national park lands of air tours, snowmobiles, jet skis, four-wheelers,
busses, cars and anything else with an engine. It is the Park Services
answer to access denial.
Flight Caps
If not an outright ban, the second easiest way to deny access to
air tours or other forms of recreational activity is to establish
activity limits. In the case of air tours it takes the form of caps on
the number of flights which can be conducted over a national park.
Using voodoo scientific methodology and partial flight data, the Park
Service and FAA did just that with its cap rule in the Grand Canyon.
The results are devastating.
Flight caps have imposed massive, unrecoverable economic losses on
a number of air tour providers which, by this fall, will force some
operators out of business.
Here's is a sampling:
In 1999, Grand Canyon Airlines flew 3,085 flights at the Grand
Canyon. Keep in mind, that number is already 70 percent fewer flights
than the company flew before because it voluntarily spent millions of
dollars converting it's fleet to larger quieter aircraft. This year,
flight cap restrictions will cost GCA more than $650,000. GCA reports
without immediate relief the company cannot possibly survive as a
business and the Grand Canyon's first air tour operator soon will
become simply an historical reference.
Kenai Helicopters will run out of flight allocations the middle of
September this year. Their economic losses will exceed $600,000 and
they report that they will be forced to close up shop by October.
Air Vegas Airlines will exhaust it's flight allotments in October
of this year. This will result in a revenue loss for 2001 or $1.3
million. Based on similar loss projections in the future, Air Vegas
reports that the cap rule will eventually force them out of business.
Other operators are reporting similar economic losses as a result
of the flight cap rule, are bleeding to death, and closure is only a
matter of time.
Quiet Technology
Whether its modifying engines on jet skis and snowmobiles or
reconfiguring rotor blades on helicopters, manufacturers and operators
have, for years, been working to make machines quieter. Certainly in
aviation, the results of many hours and many millions of dollars of
work and investment have paid off. This was all done in good faith as
the FAA consistently led the air tour industry to believe that quieter
aircraft and Park access were synonymous. But, like a good NFL running
back who baits a defender by showing him a leg then pulls it back at
the last second avoiding a tackle, the FAA baited us by promoting the
use of quiet technology aircraft then yanked it away leaving our
industry holding the bag.
Title VIII of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) known as the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 states that within 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act (by April 5, 2001), the
[FAA] Administrator (1) shall designate reasonably achievable
requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such
aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology and
(2) shall establish a quiet technology advisory group.
The Act further states that, in consultation with the [NPS]
Director and the advisory group, the Administrator shall establish, by
rule, routes or corridors for commercial air tour operations by fixed-
wing and helicopter aircraft that employ quiet aircraft technology for
(1) tours of the Grand Canyon originating in Clark County, Nevada; and
(2) ``local loop'' tours originating at the Grand Canyon National Park
Airport, in Tusayan, Arizona.
The Act goes on to provide that for commercial air tour operations
by any fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft that employs quiet aircraft
technology and that replaces an existing aircraft shall not be subject
to the operational flight allocations that apply to other commercial
air tour operations of the Grand Canyon, provided that the cumulative
impact of such operations does not increase noise at the Grand Canyon.
Finally, the Act says that if the ``. . . [FAA] Administrator
determines that the Administrator will not be able to make such
designation before the last day of such 12-month period, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the reasons for
not meeting such time period and the expected date of such
designation.''
The April 5, 2001 deadline has come and gone and the FAA has
neither designated ``reasonably achievable requirements'' for quiet
technology in the Grand Canyon nor sent a report to Congress explaining
why the agency has failed to do so.
Since passage of the Overflights Act of 1987, quiet technology has
been recognized as a key to achieving the substantial restoration of
natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. The Act itself spoke directly to the
issue. The 1994 NPS Report to Congress spoke to the issue. The FAA
clearly envisioned in a 1996 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) which accompanied the imposition of caps, curfews and other
onerous restrictions on Grand Canyon air tour operators the need for
incentives for operators transitioning to quieter aircraft which
included preferential routes and relief from flight caps.
The FAA was very specific in the ANPRM when it said,--. . . the FAA
agrees that the use of quieter aircraft will, in the long run, provide
the most benefit toward restoring natural quiet [to the Grand Canyon] .
. . the FAA and NPS are working together to develop a long-term
comprehensive noise management plan that will address . . . provision
of appropriate incentives for [operators] investing in quieter
aircraft, and appropriate treatment for operators that have already
made such investments.'' The message contained in the ANPRM was clear--
Grand Canyon air tour operators utilizing quieter aircraft would not be
subject to caps on flights and would be provided incentive routing.
That has not occurred.
Previously, the FAA, in withdrawing the ANPRM, commented to
operators that it could not move forward on quiet technology because it
could not define what a quiet aircraft is. Then in the April 9th FAA
response letter to Senators Reid and Ensign, the agency commented that
this is the most expensive piece of the three-legged stool and should
be delayed until the results of the other two steps in the process are
in. That, of course, would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Caps and
unscenic routing will wreak such havoc in the industry as the year goes
on that it may be far too late for any quiet technology incentives to
provide the relief needed for operators to maintain viability.
Already, Grand Canyon air tour operators have invested millions of
dollars and years of effort designing or obtaining ``quieter''
aircraft. Here are some examples:
Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters
Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters--one of the oldest and most
successful air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon--spent eight
years and $14 million modifying a Sikorsky S-55 into a quieter air tour
platform. That included redesigning the main rotor, replacing the
three-bladed rotor with five blades, reducing the RPMs and adding a new
exhaust system to the machine. They did this (1) because it is the
right thing to do and (2) in anticipation that the FAA would keep its
word and move on the development of quiet technology incentives. The
new S-55 WhisperJet produces less than one half of the sound generated
by many other rotorcraft.
Three are in service now. Papillon can produce a new WhisperJet
about every 90 days. Their objective is to produce about 100 of them
and they intend to replace their fleet of Bell JetRangers with the new
modified S-55 at the Grand Canyon.
But, as the president of the company told me recently, what's the
use if it doesn't get us anything?
Grand Canyon Airlines
In 1984, GCA began its conversion to larger aircraft, reducing its
fleet from six (6) Cessna 207s to only two (2) Dehavilland Twin Otters,
each of which has seating capacity for 19 individuals. This voluntary
aircraft upgrade cost GCA $1,550,000 (1981 dollars), but allowed GCA to
reduce the number of flights it flew by two thirds, with a
corresponding reduction in aircraft sound generated by GCA operations
in the Grand Canyon.
In 1986 GCA again established itself as the leader of the ``quiet
technology'' revolution when it developed quiet aircraft technology
that could be applied to the Twin Otter. The result is the
``VistaLiner,'' which remains the industry standard for ``quiet
aircraft technology.'' Scientific testing conducted by the FAA proves
that the VistaLiner is an incredible 66 percent quieter than the Twin
Otter. Additionally, only one other air tour aircraft is quieter than
the VistaLiner in absolute terms and that aircraft, the Cessna Caravan,
requires twice as many flights to carry the same number of passengers
as the VistaLiner. Thus, no aircraft can carry as many passengers as
quietly as the VistaLiner. Inexplicably, the FAA has refused to give
GCA any credit whatsoever for voluntarily switching from small
conventional aircraft to the larger and quieter VistaLiner, or for
reducing, from over 10,000 to less than 3,200, the number of flights
GCA flies around the Grand Canyon each year.
Scenic Airlines
In recent years, and at a cost of over $35,500,000, Scenic reduced
its fleet by 60 percent, replacing 41 conventional aircraft with 20
VistaLiners, the same state-of-the-art quiet aircraft technology that
Grand Canyon Airlines uses, and with five (5) Fokker F-27 aircraft,
which are also quiet technology aircraft by any definition of that
term. Scenic reduced its fleet and made these huge investments based on
the FAA's representations that it would soon implement ``quiet
technology'' incentive routes at the Grand Canyon. According to the
FAA, these incentive routes were absolutely required in order to comply
with the Overflights Act, which was enacted in 1987, fourteen years
ago.
Other manufacturers and air tour operators also are voluntarily
working toward quieter machines yet they receive no credit for their
efforts and have no incentives to continue those efforts.
Of the Grand Canyon, Teddy Roosevelt said: ``Keep it for your
children, your children's children, and for all who come after you . .
. as the one great site that every American should see.''
Current NPS/FAA practices guarantee that not every American can see
the Grand Canyon--that many are denied access to the Park.
By our testimony, we are not suggesting that there should not be
come controls on air touring. We are not suggesting that air tours
should be permitted to go wherever they choose, whenever they choose.
What we are saying is that regulations which are arbitrary and which
are purposely designed to put up a big stop sign that says ``NO
ENTRANCE PERMITTED'' is not in conformance with the basic tenants of
the 1916 Organic Act which among other things, vests in the Park
Service the responsibility to--. . . promote the use of national parks
. . . and to provide for the enjoyment of the same . . . ``
But, there are alternatives--alternatives we have sought to discuss
with the governing Federal agencies often but which seem to fall on
deaf ears:
Do what Congress mandated in the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act of 2000 which directs the FAA to designate reasonably achievable
requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such
aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology and
provide incentive routes and corridors, relief from caps and curfews,
and other relief for Grand Canyon operators using quiet technology
aircraft. Many of the most scenic routes that have been eliminated by
NPS/FAA regulations could easily be used by quiet technology aircraft.
Recalculate the base year for flights to determine a fair and
equitable baseline of operations. Rather than using the 1997-1998 time
frame which was the worst year in modern-day Grand Canyon air tour
history, adopt the same formula as recommended by the National Park
Overflights Working Group (NPOWG) and which is contained in the same
Act referenced above which is:
The average number of flights used by an operator within the
previous 12-month period; or,
The average number of flights per 12-month period within the
previous 36-month period.
A third alternative which has been discussed would be the average
number of flights per company of the three highest years as calculated
during the previous ten years.
Link morning and evening flight curfews to the actual hours of
sunrise and sunset throughout the year as the original NPRM proposed.
The curfews which were implemented have no direct correlation to actual
sunrise and sunset and have cost operators upwards of 20 percent of
their customers.
Go back to the drawing board and rework the routes from Las Vegas
to the Grand Canyon and ``loop'' routes flown by operators based at the
GCNP Airport.
In 1987, then Assistant Interior Secretary Bill Horn, in
interpreting the original Overflights Act, said ``Congress intended to
provide for the use of sightseeing aircraft . . . seeing the [Grand
Canyon National] Park from the air is enjoyed by many Park visitors . .
. The recommendations allow for air tours of 30 minutes or more that
encompass spectacular portions of the Canyon.
The current re-routing of air tours in the Grand Canyon,
particularly those flying from southern Nevada, reduce actual flying
time over the Grand Canyon to anywhere from two to 10 minutes and the
most scenic portions of the Canyon--the ``spectacular portions''
referred to by Mr. Horn--are no longer even visible to air tour
visitors.
Already the Bush Administration has stepped into the issue of the
snowmobile ban in Yellowstone by agreeing to negotiate a settlement on
a lawsuit and issuing new proposed regulations. They also have weighed
into the Clinton roadless policy. We seek the same review by the Bush
Administration of past Clinton policies severely restricting air tours.
Mr. Chairman, access to America's national parks is a right
guaranteed to all citizens. The 1916 Organic Act provides the Park
Service with the responsibility to provide for the enjoyment of our
national parks--in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Air touring is the only recreational activity we know of which
absolutely supports this Park Service mission. Air tour visitors do not
trample through the wilderness, break tree limbs, kick rocks, disturb
wildlife, destroy natural vegetation, erode the soil, disturb historic
ruins, remove artifacts, start camp fires, leave waste and garbage
along the trails, or, for that matter, use our national parks to
smuggle marijuana which apparently is the case with some of our
backcountry friends in southern Arizona at Oregon Pipe Cactus. They
simply fly over, take a few pictures, and leave without ever having
touched a thing? Perhaps, if the Park Service would loosen the reins a
bit, they could enlist the air tour industry to help keep an eye out
for drug smugglers as they fly over the Canyon!
Stephen T. Mather, the first director of the Park Service and for
whom a scenic overlook at the Grand Canyon is appropriately named
said-- The parks do not belong to one state or to one section .. . the
Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in
which every citizen has a vested interest; they belong as much to the
man of Massachusetts, of Michigan, of Florida, as they do to the people
of California, of Wyoming, and of Arizona.
I'm afraid Director Mather's words ring quite hollow in today's
regulatory environment which seems to place more emphasis on keeping
people out as it does letting people in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bassett.
Mr. Mackey?
STATEMENT OF CRAIG MACKEY, PUBLIC POLICY LIAISON, OUTWARD BOUND
USA
Mr. Mackey. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members.
My name is Craig Mackey and I represent Outward Bound USA,
a nonprofit institution and a leader in experiential education.
Outward Bound taps the educational value of wildlands to teach
young people leadership, self-reliance and citizenship skills.
Utilizing the solitude, adventure, and challenge inherent
to wilderness and public lands, Outward Bound presents young
people and adults with opportunities for personal growth and
value-forming experiences.
I speak to you as an educator but also as an outfitter.
Outward Bound is the largest holder of Federal land and water
access permits in the country.
Today, I want to impart three messages.
First, let's take the recreation out of the recreation
opportunity spectrum. We utilize and visit public lands for a
variety of reasons. Not all nonconsumptive human use is
recreation.
Second, educational and outfitter groups are but a small
portion of use in the wilderness and public lands, but we play
a key role in meeting demand for quality visitor services from
a broad cross-section of America. In doing so, we meet broad
societal needs.
Third, key elements for the visitor opportunity spectrum
are in jeopardy, the reason for the hearing today. For Outward
Bound, wilderness and public lands are our classroom. Today,
our ability to access that classroom is in question.
Group size restrictions, allocation caps, itinerary
controls, and zoning of the backcountry all impact our ability
to deliver quality programs.
Finally, limiting supply increases prices. Limited access
and rising costs are narrowing participation, particularly for
youth and those with special needs.
I want to be clear that Outward Bound is a historical and
significant user of public lands. We have little reason to
complain. And we voluntarily alter our own use to limit
impacts.
But most disturbing are management trends and philosophies:
LPark Service wilderness with a group size of six
or seven.
LNational Forests trail heads where dozens of
educators and outfitters are blocked out or compete for daily
quotas as low as five or seven.
LA ``closed'' sign on a Fish and Wildlife refuge
because a local manager didn't know people were allowed in
wilderness.
LLetters from Outward Bound alumni dropped from a
Park Service planning process because they were solicited by
our organization.
Public lands host a range of opportunities and values. That
concept is being lost. Not in Washington but in the field.
Many would argue we have a capacity crisis on public lands.
I would submit the capacity problem is in the field office.
Wilderness areas that a decade ago had 15 rangers today have
one or two.
Lack of staff, budget, and training for the field are
resulting in a command and control paperwork approach to
management. Litmus tests and rules have replaced collaboration
and communication.
We are losing adaptive management, interpretation, and
education. We can fix the problem without locking up the land.
First, philosophy. Congress and the agencies need to
reestablish the proper opportunity spectrum. The agencies have
taken significant steps on the ecological and biological
benefits, even working jointly across ecosystems and
watersheds. We need to do the same for people.
With proper direction and management, there is room out
there for everyone.
Second, training. Today, we have biologists managing
outfitter permits. Visitor services need to be fully addressed
up and down the agencies.
Third, funding for the field. Educators and outfitters pay
fees, lots of fees. Either more groups and people need to pay
fees or Congress and the agencies need to appropriate dollars
to the field.
Fourth, I would mention planning. Local communities,
regional and national constituencies, such as Outward Bound,
need to be engaged in collaborative, open, and honest
decisionmaking.
Fifth, education and engagement. Let's give credit to the
American people; we will protect these public resources if
given the what, where, why, and how. Give grassroots education,
like Leave No Trace, an honest shot to supplant capacity
quotas.
And finally, I would mention the private sector. Today, an
urbanized and diverse America looks to public lands for diverse
reasons. As agency capacity declines, educators, outfitters,
and guides play an important role in exposing, educating, and
engaging Americans, and particularly the special populations
among us, in the enjoyment and protection for these resources.
The recognition of, first, the opportunity spectrum on
public lands and, second, the role of the private sector in
providing that spectrum are significant steps in resolving
access concerns.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mackey follows:]
Statement of Craig Mackey, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound USA
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Outward Bound
appreciates the opportunity to testify today about the importance of
recreational access to public lands.
My name is Craig Mackey, and I represent Outward Bound USA, a non-
profit educational institution recognized as a leader in wilderness and
experiential education. For over 40 years, the Outward Bound system has
teamed with America's wild lands to provide adventure-based education
to young people, adults, and families. Today, the system is comprised
of five wilderness schools and two urban centers, serving over 30,000
students annually. In addition, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound
has now taken the mission and methods of experiential learning to the
core curriculum of over 80 public school systems in the United States.
Outward Bound's extended backcountry expeditions draw upon the
natural, historical, and cultural values found on our public lands,
particularly the purity of those values as they exist in wilderness
settings. Our concept remains true to the nautical meaning of ``outward
bound : a ship is said to be outward bound as it leaves its moorings,
committing to a journey on the open sea. Here, on the open waters or in
the heart of the forest, Outward Bound instructors teach leadership,
personal development and outdoor skills. Simply put, these wild places
are our classrooms.
Outward Bound has dealt with an astonishing array of policies and
regulations related to access, itineraries, resource protection and
performance evaluation for educational activities conducted on Federal
lands. For several decades, the Outward Bound system in the United
States has been the largest single holder of permits for outfitted
activities, spanning scores of Federal land and water management units
in 25 states.
Commercial Use on Public Lands
I speak to you today as a non-profit educator, but I am also
speaking to you about Outward Bound as a commercial user of Federal
resources. As a nonprofit outfitter and guide operation on Federal
lands, Outward Bound's logistical and regulatory requirements, and our
potential impact on these resources, are no different than those of our
for-profit colleagues in the outfitter industry. For all of us, it is a
privilege to engage in this opportunity to make an important
contribution toward meeting the recreational and educational
expectations of the American public.
Outward Bound values this partnership with Federal land managers.
Overall, we support policies that control access to Federal lands,
though I'm here today to argue about the details. We believe that the
public's use and enjoyment of these resources must be subject to
restraints in order to sustain our resources and benefits such as clean
water and healthy watersheds. As an accountable user of public
resources, Outward Bound should be obligated to protecting natural
resources in areas where we operate; providing for the public health
and safety; and paying an equitable share of the agency's cost of
administrating recreational and educational programs.
Through these partnerships with land managers, Outward Bound hopes
to preserve and protect the concept of the outdoor classroom for future
generations. In these settings, we are privileged to nurture an ongoing
constituency that will continue in each generation to press for clean
waterways, healthy forests, and sustainable management practices,
whether those decisions are made locally, regionally, or nationally.
St. Bernard de Clairvaux spoke to this opportunity for self-renewal
in an earlier century: ``Believe one who knows; you will find something
greater in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that
which you can never learn from masters.''
At the bottom line for all of us who guide groups into the
backcountry, it's all about access. In greater and greater numbers, the
public wants to be there. Some want to feel and taste and smell at
their own pace, depending upon their own skills and equipment for safe
journey. Some will be seeking an intense educational experience, such
as is offered by Outward Bound in its 14- to 83-day wilderness training
expeditions. Others know little about what they might confront in this
unfamiliar territory, and so will put their trust in a commercial
outfitter and guide to provide for logistics, safe journey, and lasting
memories.
Trust the public to decide about the kind of experience they might
choose to enjoy from one year to the next. Purists disparage outfitters
and guides for ``profiting'' from public resources, but in fact, like
any other business or institution we must pay the bills in order to
continue serving the public. The point of my testimony is that we
should be finding more ways to provide the public with these unique
opportunities for educational and recreational experiences. We should
be innovative about providing more access, not less and less as the
trend has been in recent years.
Diversity
Purists also disparage outfitters for ``marketing wilderness.''
Indeed, Outward Bound is guilty of marketing wilderness, its values,
benefits and opportunities. We share the sentiments of William
Wordsworth, who admonished: ``Come forth into the light of things. Let
Nature be your teacher.
We believe that the segments of society toward which we have
targeted much of this marketing will speak to the importance of
wilderness and other backcountry as a classroom. Absent our marketing,
it would never have occurred to many of the people who have benefited
the most from an Outward Bound experience to have sought a wilderness
setting for personal development.
The Outward Bound program touches approximately 30,000 Americans
annually, ranging from age 14 to people in their 70s and 80s. Half of
these students are open enrollment, signing up individually for
wilderness education and adventure programs. Another 15,000 students
come through contract courses where a company or a school may enroll as
a group, including the professional development/team building exercises
for which Outward Bound has become noted.
While Outward Bound and wilderness education are synonymous, many
of our programs are directed at urban youth in cities such as Boston,
New York, Baltimore, and San Francisco. These students are exposed to
the same leadership, self-reliance, and citizenship skills directly in
the urban setting or through exposure to the natural world by canoeing/
kayaking the Boston harbor or sailing the Chesapeake.
Outward Bound strives for gender, ethnic, socio-economic and age
diversity in our programs. To reinforce this mission, the system raises
over $2 million dollars annually in scholarship money. Scholarships are
dispersed either as full-tuition or on a sliding scale based on family
income.
The Outfitted Pubic
By choosing to visit public lands under the guidance of trained,
professional instructors, Outward Bound students become members of the
outfitted public. For many of our students this is their first exposure
to public lands and certainly to the vast tracts of wilderness and
backcountry America has to offer. Given the young age of our students,
parents are looking for the experience and safety offered by
professional programs such as Outward Bound. Older students come for
the Outward Bound experience, but also to learn the wilderness ethic,
stewardship and safety skills that will allow them to be intelligent,
efficient users of our public resources.
Given the dramatic decline in agency field staff assigned to
wilderness and backcountry management, Outward Bound has now become a
de facto provider of educational, interpretive and safety information
on resources where we operate. This important role played by outfitters
and guides, including Outward Bound, was acknowledged by the Forest
Service in its publication in 1997 of a staff reference entitled
``Guidebook on Outfitting and Guiding'': 1:
On the public lands of the United States, and in particular
the National Forests, outfitter and guides provide visitors
seeking their assistance a quality experience as an extension
of the agency's mission. Outfitting and guiding provides a
small fraction of the total visitor days experience on the
National Forests, but it is an important segment to the
visitor, the agency, the resources and the economy of the
communities where outfitters are based.
People want to know more about the wild lands they visit. This
knowledge makes a difference in their lives. It increases their own
quality of living. The majority of Americans polled recently by Roper
Starch 2 believe that even the unstructured experiential
aspects of outdoor recreation play a positive role in reducing various
key social concerns, such as childhood obesity, parent/child
communication, and tough social problems such as juvenile crime,
underage drinking, and illegal drug use. Lessons learned in wilderness
make us less tolerant of urban decay when we return home, and more
prepared to take effective action to improve our communities:
The importance of recreational use as a social force and
influence must be recognized and its requirements met. Its
potentialities as a service to the American people, as the
basis for industry and commerce, as the foundation of the
future economic life of many communities, are definite and
beyond question.
Robert Y. Stuart
Forest Service Chief, 1928-33
Who will teach these important lessons to visitors to public lands?
Not the agencies. Too few personnel in the field and an overwhelming
workload have distanced rangers from their role as hosts in parks,
forests, and on public lands. Agency personnel simply cannot reach out
to each of the millions of families and individuals who visit each
year. Face to face interpretive talks in visitor centers are an
important component of the educational effort, but these are not the
same opportunities to educate as those teachable moments that occur
from one minute to the next on an extended outfitted expedition.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
In both our formal and informal roles as outdoor educators, Outward
Bound taps into the solitude, risk, challenge, and adventure offered by
dispersed, backcountry and wilderness venues. As such, our program
anchors one element of a very diverse range of experiences and
opportunities offered on public lands.
Laws and regulations that govern the public's use and enjoyment of
Federal lands are replete with references to promoting multiple use
within a range of natural and developed settings. Nonetheless, the
primary and overriding statutory obligation for each of the Federal
land management agencies is the protection of the natural resources
that support this variety of uses. It is not surprising, therefore,
that lawmakers began in the latter part of the 20th century to provide
authority for setting limits on use. For example, the General
Authorities Act of 1978 3 requires all park units to have a
general management plan (GMP). One of the required elements in GMPs is
the ``identification of implementation commitments for visitor carrying
capacities for all areas of the unit.''
The need to decide where and how visitors might pursue diverse
recreational interests in an increasingly crowded landscape has led to
the development of several methodologies for measuring and analyzing
user activities and preferences. One such method is called the
``recreation opportunity spectrum'' (ROS). This system categorizes land
into classes, each being defined by its setting and the probable
recreation experiences it provides. Settings are defined in terms of
their remoteness, naturalness/authenticity, type and degree of facility
development, intensity of use, evidence of use, type of use (e.g.
motorized vs. non-motorized settings), and visitor services available.
For example, popular tourist destinations on public lands in the
western states are commonly classified by agency planners into a mix of
``primitive,'' ``semi-primitive non-motorized,'' ``semi-primitive
motorized,'' ``roaded natural,'' or similarly descriptive
classifications, each offering the diverse kinds of recreational
opportunities these nametags suggest.
Well before the formal development of the Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum, congressional crafters of the Wilderness Act 4
recognized and reinforced this concept of differing values and
differing uses of lands set aside for protection. Motorized and
extractive activities in wilderness areas were prohibited by the
wilderness statute, but the statute otherwise suggests that a variety
of ROS classes may be appropriate in a wilderness setting:
Sec. 4(b). Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each
agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be
responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area
and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for
which it may have been established as also to preserve its
wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation,
and historical use.
Recreational opportunities to be provided are further refined by
application of a key component of ROS methodology, the measurement of
People At One Time (PAOT). The ROS system uses PAOT to measure and
compare the number of recreationists and the likelihood of social
encounters in an area at one time. Analysis is based upon the principle
that as the number of people and evidence of human use increases,
opportunities for solitude decrease.
Determining basic ROS land classifications and factoring in the
impact of social encounters within these areas is by no means an exact
science. ROS values can be interpreted in many different ways, which
inadvertently invites land managers to insert their personal values
into the process. As early as 1993 the Forest Service acknowledged that
the method by which party size limitations were being established had
begun to upset the general public and particularly the outfitting
industry. In a letter to Regional Foresters, Chief F. Dale Robertson
described factors that needed to be considered before establishing
party size limitations 5:
1. LIs there a valid social or resource need established
through some analysis process that necessitates a party size
restriction for protection of the resource?
2. LIs it necessary to establish party size limitations or can
identifying the desired condition, requiring compliance and
monitoring, suffice? (Similar to monitoring grazing
utilization)
3. LHas outfitter economic viability been considered? If you
have identified a need for outfitted services, what are the
economic factors for a successful operation?
4. LHas historic and local use been considered and is a
transition to a more appropriate party size necessary?
5. LCan the limitation be flexible enough to deal with changing
outfitted operational needs, changing conditions, and improved
techniques, equipment, and technology?
6. LWill the restriction unnecessarily limit equal
opportunities for all people to visit the National Forests?
7. LHas adequate public involvement taken place so that
affected publics feel informed and involved?
Chief Robertson's letter can easily be interpreted as a caution to
his field staff against unnecessarily narrowing commercial and
noncommercial recreational access to forest resources. Yet little more
than four years later, one of the agency's most respected resource
managers stated in a presentation on Determining Visitor Use Limits
(Capacity): 6
Thus, the question is not whether or not limits are necessary
but rather what setting should this area provide and what
should use limits be based on.
The Narrowing Spectrum
Demand for human use and enjoyment of our recreational resources
has been growing at an unprecedented rate over the past two decades. As
demand increases, law, science, and management philosophy are pulling
us in the direction of narrowing the recreation opportunity spectrum.
Attempts have been made to eliminate some activities altogether,
such as the use of fixed anchors in wilderness. Controls over sports
involving motorized watercraft and vehicles are increasingly strict.
Primarily, though, managers are adopting party size restrictions, and
the allowable group size is getting steadily smaller.
In all of this debate about ``What activities are appropriate, and
how much recreation is enough?'' some very important distinctions have
been lumped together. Not all non-consumptive human use on public lands
is for recreational purposes, but in order to keep the count simple and
convenient, agency planners lump together every visitation under the
Federal recreation program.
Americans also gravitate toward wilderness and public lands to
satisfy educational, scientific, spiritual, artistic, therapeutic, and
a host of other needs. As the American population continues to grow and
diversify, the range of activities, opportunities, and values to which
we look to our public lands are growing and diversifying as well.
Yet, in the management of Federal resources--and particularly in
Wilderness--we're seeing more and more restrictions on the number and
types of activities and opportunities being made available to all
categories of visitors. From a random reading of the literature, it is
easy to conclude that the argument about how many people should be
allowed to enjoy wilderness arose even before the wilderness system
that we know today was fully launched. Now a larger population feels
the need to make connections to these wild places, and this seems to
have put new feet under a debate that began early in the last century.
Bob Marshall, a founding father of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, had an appetite for protecting big, unfettered
spaces. His goal in the 1930s, when he worked for the Forest Service in
Montana, was to set aside areas where a person could ``spend at least a
week or two of travel...without crossing his own tracks.'' Initially,
Marshall disagreed with Olaus Murie, another of wilderness' founding
fathers, who thought that visitors to the backcountry should be limited
to keep down the number of facilities required. On a hike with Joel
Hildebrand, then the president of the Sierra Club, Marshall encountered
53 people on the trail. The experience changed his thinking, and over
60 years ago Marshall became one of the first Forest Service field
staff to research the carrying capacity of wilderness areas. Before his
untimely death in 1939 at age 38, Marshall and friends founded The
Wilderness Society, and he served as the organization's first
president.
I offer this brief historical snapshot because I think it's
important to understand that controlling the number of people who use
and enjoy backcountry is by no means a new issue, nor is it exclusively
a scientific debate. The debate is in part philosophical, and it is
deeply rooted in the origins of wilderness itself. All of the key
players were debating the same issues in the 1930s that we are
discussing in this hearing today.
The terminology agencies use today to describe the need and
justification for these restrictions is grounded in the biological and
social sciences, but the underpinnings that arise from the
philosophical debate continue to guide public debate and the decisions
made by managers. Reductions in use are accomplished through a variety
of restrictions:
LCaps on number of launches, groups, individuals or
similar measurements
LCaps on number of permits or the number of users overall
LGroup size limitations
LItinerary controls
LZoning of the backcountry
The trend toward reducing access and use results from a number of
factors, some of which reflect the preferences and expectations of user
groups and society in general, and some of which reflect the management
philosophies of agency leadership:
LAn increasing focus on the Federal estate as the
cornerstone for biodiversity protection--an elevation of biocentrism,
as opposed to anthropocentric management philosophies and objectives.
LSevere lack of funding for on-the-ground field staff,
resource management, education and interpretation. A wilderness area
that had a dozen or more wilderness rangers for the summer season a
decade ago is now budgeted for one or two.
LLack of staff in the field is resulting in a ``command
and control'' paperwork approach to managing people and the resource.
These professionals have been forced to forego face-to-face
collaboration and constituency building through adaptive management,
interpretation, and education.
LAgency leadership routinely points to the diversification
of American society and the need to reach out to educate and engage
these new, younger generations of Americans. Unfortunately, there is no
real depth to the implementation of that commitment. In the field, very
little effort or innovation is resulting in facilities and activities
to attract these young people, and their access to traditional
recreation programs is becoming increasingly limited and increasingly
costly.
LBoth Congress and agency leadership have reaffirmed in
the last few years the need for outfitters and hospitality
concessioners, educators, and other service providers as increasingly
important, cost effective partners in the delivery of quality visitor
experiences. Field managers don't share this enthusiasm for commercial
services on public lands. Planners and permit administrators have
become increasingly hostile toward their recreation service partners in
the last decade.
Recent Data and Management Theories
So many management plans are under revision right now that it's
nearly impossible to gather a complete point-in-time report about use
restrictions that currently exist, or might be contemplated in the
future. However, research about wilderness party size regulations
conducted by Christopher Monz and his colleagues was released recently,
and offers many important insights into the process and the
consequences of controls. 7
Mr. Chairman, in the time available I am only able to mention a few
of the highlights found in this study. The individual work of many
prominent scientists is footnoted in this document, and they should be
properly credited for their insights. I'd like to ask that the document
be placed in the hearing record.
In this study, Monz describes the trend toward limiting party size
over the last two decades:
In one of the first surveys of wilderness managers, Fish and
Bury (1981) found that 46% of all Forest Service and 43% of all
National Park Service wilderness managers had limited maximum
group size. Washburne and Cole (1983) found that 48% of all
wilderness managers had placed a limit on group size and that
the percentage of Forest Service wilderness areas with such
limits had increased to 58%. Marion and others (1993) surveyed
National Park Service wilderness and backcountry managers in
the early 1990s and reported that 62% required groups to limit
their size.
Since 1981, according to follow-up surveys conducted by Monz, group
size limits in wilderness managed by the Forest Service have grown from
46% to 73%, and in the National Park System from 43% to 68%. Let me
mention that lands and water managed by these two agencies support the
overwhelming majority of commercial and institutional group use
operating under Federal permits or other access rules.
The numbers reflecting similar controls on party size at wilderness
units of the Fish and Wildlife Service (currently 11%) and the Bureau
of Land Management (17%) are much lower. Monz suggests that these
differences likely reflect the differing recreational use levels and
management philosophy/objectives of the four agencies. Unfortunately,
these lower numbers also have the effect of making statistics that
report on the aggregate increase in use controls in all agencies over
time appear less significant (from 48% in 1983, to 51% in the Monz
survey).
He also learned that about 17% of the areas surveyed plan to change
or create new limits within the next five years; 6% are unsure whether
controls are needed and will see what results from public involvement
and research; and the remainder (26 areas) plan to establish a limit
sometime in the future.
The results of this survey tell us a great deal about the direction
in which land managers are moving, but one needs to look more closely
at specific sites. The problem isn't simply that controls exist, but
that desirable levels of control enacted in earlier decades are now
being made more strict.
For instance, Monz reported on a survey done in 1971 that found
visitors in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area were limited by a party size
restriction of 15 people. Some 62% of canoeists surveyed at that time
said they supported this limit. Over time, however, the limit at
Boundary Waters has been reduced to nine people per party, changing the
dynamics and economics of most outfitted and institutional operation.
Agency managers are now proposing to shave that number down to seven,
and ``controversial'' is an accurate description of the reaction from
user groups.
Overall, the trend toward downsizing organized group trips is
dramatic. Monz reported on an analysis in 1981 of previous data. Group
size limits ranged from 5 to 60. The most common limit was 25. New data
produced by Monz shows that the most common group size limit today is
10; the median is 12.
Monz notes that at least one leading scientist who has been
examining the impacts of party sizes for several decades has concluded
that ``party size limits larger than about 10 would likely have little
social or ecological consequence.'' In other words, small is generally
better from the standpoint of resource protection and achieving
solitude, but as Monz points out, it's not altogether that simple.
Monz describes important tradeoffs when allowable party size is
reduced:
Minimizing ecological and social impacts, while of
fundamental importance, is just one goal of wilderness
management. Optimizing this goal may conflict with other
important goals, such as pursuing equity in decisions about
access and avoiding the exclusion of organized groups that
provide important societal benefits.
Monz also describes important reasons why the assumption that
``small is better'' isn't necessarily, or consistently, valid:
LIn interactions between nordic skiers and elk, the
animals were startled at the passage of the first skier but it was
irrelevant how many additional skiers passed by thereafter. This
suggests that a few large groups would have less impact than many small
groups, since there would be fewer skier-wildlife interactions overall.
LLarge groups are not likely to increase either the area
or magnitude of impact if the already impacted places where they walk
and camp are large enough to accommodate them. Conversely, large groups
will have much more impact than numerous small groups if already
impacted sites are not large enough to accommodate large groups.
LTotal amount of visitation, season of use, visitor use
patterns, types of activities, availability of resistant substrates for
campsites and geographic features to name a few, can play a role in the
degree of compromise required for meeting competing stakeholder
demands.
LIn those wildernesses where visitors have been queried,
only about 20% to 30% say seeing large groups was at least a slight
problem and very few say it substantially detracted from the
experience. In the Teton Wilderness, 29% reported that large groups
lowered the quality of their experience, but 12% said such groups added
to their enjoyment.
LIn assessing the severity of the ``large group problem''
on wilderness experiences, it's also important to determine how it
ranks against lists of other potential problems. One such study
examined the top ten perceived problems out of 42 listed for Linville
Gorge, Shining Rock, and Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock, and encountering
excessively large groups was not on the list of top 10 problems in any
area.
LSurveys of wilderness visitors at several locations
indicate substantial support (75% or more) for party size restrictions.
However, Monz notes, some have speculated that the reason most
wilderness visitors generally support group size limits is that they
bear none of the costs associated with this regulation. Since most
wilderness user groups include two, three, or four persons and most
established size limits are much higher, these limits leave the
majority of visitors unaffected.
Several findings in Monz's survey of agency managers confirm our
suspicions about the underlying motivations that are driving agency
managers toward restrictions on group size. Respondents were presented
with seven reasons for establishing group size limits, and there was
opportunity to provide open-ended responses as well. Not surprisingly,
Monz reported, environmental impact was the most frequently listed
reason (81%) for establishing group size limits.
Monz was surprised, however, that the second most frequently
selected reason, at 50%, was ``to be consistent with neighboring
wilderness areas.'' This collective confession did not surprise
outfitters and guides. It simply confirms what is so often offered by
agency managers as justification for new carrying capacity studies and
reductions in use: ``Everybody's doing it.'' What began many years ago
as a legitimate trend in land management has today become simply
``trendy.
Monz is more academically restrained in criticizing agency managers
for their lack of process and science:
[Consistency with neighboring wildernesses]... is in some
respects admirable; it seems wise to present consistent minimum
impact messages and management regulations to the public. But
not all areas, or zones of area, have similar susceptibility to
impact. This also suggests that the wilderness manager may not
have carefully evaluated the benefits and costs of group size
limits in his or her area.
Monz also learned from the survey that managers seemed to most
frequently base their decisions on their own perceptions of resource or
social impacts. Only 24%, he reported, said that ``public complaints/
pressure'' was a reason for their group size limit. This confirms
another fear that outfitters share with other user groups. Many of
these decisions about access and use are being made without public
participation and, wittingly or unwittingly, many of these decisions
are deeply colored by the individual values of agency personnel or by
the perception of peer pressure. Monz also points out the need for a
formal decision-making framework that incorporates measurements of
biophysical and social conditions into all of the determinants that
must be considered in making management decisions about controls on
access and use.
Monz's survey also identified the least-used justification for
controls a factor that is one of the most fundamentally important
issues for organizations like Outward Bound, the National Outdoor
Leadership School, Wilderness Inquiry, and an array of university and
therapeutic programs. Only 6% of all respondents said their actions
were influenced by conflicts within groups. In one sense, Monz
suggested, this is not surprising, since neither managers nor
researchers have focused on within-group dynamics. On the other hand,
he observed, we know that such dynamics profoundly affect the
experiences of all groups in wilderness, especially the learning and
growth outcomes of educational groups. Thus, Monz concludes, managers
may be unknowingly affecting experiences in wilderness in profound
ways, for better or for worse, with their group size limits.
Let me give you several examples of why these findings about
conflicts within groups are so important in serving that diversified,
largely younger population I talked about earlier. Our concerns seem to
be supported by Monz, who said in the study:
Despite the fact that guided and educational groups represent
a small proportion of the total use in wilderness...they can
serve broad societal needs.
Outfitters working with young people at risk for addiction or
criminal behavior are absolutely unable to provide safe, effective
therapeutic programs when severe restrictions on party size exist.
Despite careful screening by doctors and the judicial system for youths
who are likely to willingly participate and likely to benefit from the
outdoor classroom approach to therapy, there are higher than normal
risk factors in these trips. There is also the need for specialized
staffing over and above the guide staff necessary to carry out trip
logistics. Popular, more heavily crowded destinations where limitations
on party size are warranted are not even the venue of choice for these
therapeutic programs. Their dispute with land managers is this
``trendy'' notion that limitations on access and party size must be put
in place everywhere, even when visitation is minimal.
Chairman Hansen and other members of this committee are quite
familiar with the work pioneered by Wilderness Inquiry in Minneapolis,
MN, to provide opportunities in backcountry for people with
disabilities. WI's executive director, Greg Lais, has expressed many of
these same frustrations about the trend toward restricting access and
limiting party size. WI's core activities are conducted in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area, but the program needs to move around the country in
order to bring opportunities closer to home for those less able to
travel great distances. Temporary access to new areas is a particular
problem for Wilderness Inquiry. Limitations on party size in the
Boundary Waters and elsewhere are a nightmare.
Trips conducted by Wilderness Inquiry require a higher than
customary number of guide staff as well as specialized equipment. In
addition, a good number of guests need the services of a personal
attendant in order to participate. WI tries to keep its trips
affordable by providing space for attendants at little or no cost. This
formula doesn't work where party sizes are severely limited, and
therefore the revenue from paying guests won't spread to cover the
overhead costs of additional staff and non-paying attendants. In
imposing a party size limitation that affect the logistics of
organizations like Wilderness Inquiry, the agencies are shutting down
opportunities for universal access for people with disabilities.
I think it's important to mention that making an exception to group
size limits in order to accommodate people with disabilities is not the
politically correct solution. Wilderness Inquiry's board and managers
believe that agencies should adopt the group size limit which will best
maintain wilderness resource values, that any exception should be made
only infrequently on a case-by-case basis. Their real concern is the
frequent failure of agency managers to fully analyze the options
available to accommodate users. Wilderness Inquiry and other affected
parties would like to be ongoing participants in that process, and
further, user groups like Wilderness Inquiry frequently know more about
the capacity and condition of the landscape than agency managers
themselves.
Outward Bound sees the issue of party size limits as a serious
safety problem as well as a significant impediment to our ability to
provide the right mix of teaching skills for our students. Where the
group size limit is 10 or less, it's generally costly and inefficient
to send eight or fewer students into the field with two teachers. We
cannot, however, consider cutting the teaching staff to one person per
small group. Should a weather- or resource-related emergency arise or
the teacher or a student become ill or injured, the entire group is put
into serious, potentially life-threatening jeopardy.
Monz's study and much of the other literature about controlling
access and limiting group sizes is focused on wilderness settings. It's
important for the committee to understand that as this trend toward
ensuring solitude and protecting resources in wilderness gathered
steam, the trend ceased to be limited to wilderness areas. These
restrictions are coming into play everywhere on lands managed by the
National Park Service and the Forest Service. This is also becoming
true at popular destinations on public lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management, to the extent the agency has field personnel available
to enforce these controls.
Ironically, many areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service
contain underutilized recreational capacity. An investment in
innovative management and marketing could succeed in drawing people
away from popular park and wilderness destinations where crowding has
become a problem.
Other Examples of Restrictions on Outfitters
Overreaching limitations on use and enjoyment of our lands and
waters become particularly absurd when the hammer is chosen over
tightening a few screws. One such example has been unfolding in Idaho
in recent years along the Salmon River in the heart of the 2.4 million-
acre Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area:
LSalmon River, ID: ``The Frank Ain't Broke ... Don't
Fix It!'' became the rallying cry in 1998 for commercial and
private boaters on Idaho's famed Salmon River. At one point
whitewater rafts and boats were lined up outside the Statehouse
in Boise as river users protested a Forest Service plan to
sharply reduce use along a river corridor believed to have
concentrated but relatively few impacts from human use or other
management problems. Long recognized as one of the best
wilderness river trips in the lower 48, the 100-mile float down
the Middle Fork of the Salmon is an unforgettable experience
for the roughly 10,000 people who make the trip each year under
a quota set up by the Forest Service. Another 9,000 boaters
face bigger water on the somewhat flatter terrain of the Main
Salmon corridor, passing by historic pioneer ranches and a vast
array of wildlife.
The Forest Service struck without warning in late January
1998. None of the customary warnings, scoping, or informational
sit-downs preceded the release of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement that proposed cutting back river use by 50 percent on
the Middle Fork and 30 percent on the main Salmon. Along with
fewer launches, commercial party sizes would shrink from 30
people per group to 15, and private boating groups would be
reduced from 24 people to 10. The DEIS also proposed reducing
the number of days each party could be on the river.
In fact, party sizes likely do need to be reduced, but what
was particularly disingenuous about the initial presentation
was that the Forest Service tried to convince commercial
outfitters that their use wasn't actually being reduced, merely
spread over a longer operating season. The agency proposed to
compensate outfitters for operating days lost in June through
September with an expanded river-running season in late winter
and early spring, months when the Salmon River corridor is
buried under snow and assaulted by heavy storms, avalanches,
and flooding.
Ultimately the agency withdrew the DEIS and is currently
engaged in reworking its river management proposals.
The situation confronting wilderness user groups in the Inyo and
Sierra National Forests in California parallels in many respects the
initial Salmon River proposal to reduce use.
LAnsel Adams, John Muir, Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses,
CA: The Final Environmental Impact Statement released in March
2001 8 adopts a modified version of Alternative 1,
the agency's preferred alternative. This approach, according to
the FEIS, ``...attempts to concentrate use and impacts, manage
intensively to mitigate these impacts, and manage the remaining
majority of the landscape for low and moderate levels of use.
This alternative maintains commercial use at current levels;
however, some reductions will occur within areas where
monitoring of limiting factors indicates that such action is
necessary to alleviate impacts. The alternative also strives
for equitable use between commercial and non-commercial users
by proposing changes to commercial operations on gaining access
to wilderness.
I invite you to read the agency's explanation of potential impacts
on outfitter operations once again. It is a classic example of
doublespeak: ``...maintains commercial use at current levels; however
[emphasis added]...'' The list of ``however's'' that follows could not
possibly support the contention that commercial use is maintained at
the current level.
In reality agency managers have elected to reduce party sizes to 8,
with the limited opportunity that larger parties might be eligible to
spread total user days into the next day's quota, should any of that
quota be available. Rather than eliminating outfitting altogether at
some locations, as the Draft EIS proposed, the Forest Service simply
provides no reliable allocation for outfitted use in areas where there
is low commercial use and/or the desired condition for the area
prescribes low levels of use. For outfitters, this means it will be
difficult to reliably serve current demand for outfitted services, let
alone meet any additional needs of the outfitted public in the future.
These cuts take place despite the forests' own data that reveal:
LVisitor numbers have declined steadily and significantly
since the 1970s when this process began. Visitor days on the John Muir
declined by over 70 percent from 1975 to 1995. Visitor days on the
Ansel Adams declined by 70 percent between 1972 and 1995.
LCommercial backpacking days are currently operating 40
percent below agency allocations on the Sierra (according to the plan).
In fact, commercial backpacking is operating over 60 percent below
agency prescriptions for resource protection and this plan could
readily take that number to 10 percent or zero.
For the sake of brevity, let's look quickly at the structure and
the allocations made by the new quota system in these three wilderness
areas. This mechanism will govern all overnight use by groups and
individuals as well as day use at Mt. Whitney:
LA ``single quota'' system is established for 34 units in
the Inyo and Sierra National Forest wildernesses, meaning that these
are areas where there is low commercial use and/or the desired
condition for the area prescribes low levels of use. Overnight permits
and Mt. Whitney day use permits will be issued to commercial or
noncommercial users on some basis yet to be determined. The daily quota
on entry is 8, 10, 12 or 15 people at each of the various locations,
for a total of 427 people who are allowed access each day via these 34
locations. Agency personnel are instructed to monitor these trails to
assure that commercial use is not precluding non-commercial public
access to these areas, and that recreation use does not increase
significantly over time.
LAt 17 other units there will be ``case-by-case itinerary
approvals.'' According to the FEIS, these are entry points with
currently low levels of commercial use, no commercial use, or where the
Forest Service has not identified a compelling reason for commercial
services to be provided. If commercial use can be accommodated within
the quota of use provided for each of these units, other restricting
factors must also be considered before an outfitter itinerary is
approved. Most of these units allow only 8 or 10 visitors to enter per
day, but Mt. Whitney day hikes (100 people per day), Mt. Whitney
overnight stays (60), and Willow Meadow in the Sierra NF (30) are also
included in this category. Overall, the quotas set for these 17 units
will support wilderness access for 325 people per day, but nearly half
are restricted to day-only or overnight use.
LThe outfitted public has been assigned a specific
commercial allocation to support their access at 30 units, totaling
access for 387 outfitted guests and their guides per day. The quotas
assigned at these locations for access for noncommercial visitors are
generally double the number of commercially outfitted people who are
allowed access, totaling 683 non-commercial visitors per day.
The entire planning area involved covers 840,581 acres spread
across three wilderness areas located both east and west of the Sierra
Crest. After weighing potential impacts of recreational use and
enjoyment against the societal opportunities in conducting recreational
and educational programs, the Forest Service settled on allowing
permits for access for 1,822 people each day. Broken down, this is
equivalent to one person per 461 acres of land, or assuming a guided
party of 8 people, the opportunity for each group to wander unfettered
through 3,688 acres of solitude without encountering their own
footprints. Something tells me the crowded urban populations along the
coast of California were short-changed by the results of this planning
process.
National Park Service planning and capacity processes have
significantly impacted Outward Bound and other educational
institutions. Following are two examples:
LGates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, AK: As
the direct result of a group size cap of seven instituted in the early
90s, Outward Bound no longer operates in the park. The sheer size and
vast areas of remote backcountry in the park dictated that two
instructors be utilized at all times. A ratio of 2 instructors to five
students was not economically viable or acceptable under the school's
educational mission. Higher operating costs and reduced revenues under
the cap limited the pool and diversity of students eligible to
participate and rendered scholarships infeasible to achieve educational
and diversity objectives.
LCanyonlands National Park, UT: Canyonlands also
instituted a group size of seven. Much of Outward Bound's use in the
park has since been relocated to surrounding Bureau of Land Management
property. While in the park, Outward Bound patrols are currently
comprised of six students and a single instructor. As outlined later in
this document, solo instructing has significant impacts on educational
efficacy and safety.
Last year the Forest Service proposed boating reductions on the
North Umpqua River in Oregon on a much more modest scale. It amounted
to something resembling a tempest in a small teapot:
LNorth Umpqua River, OR: The handful of outfitters on the
North Umpqua River in Oregon are provided with a very small amount of
use, totaling for one company with which I'm familiar only 78 user days
per season. As is the case on most rivers, private boating is
unrestricted, but in this case, it is also not a river corridor for
which demand is great. Flows are unpredictable. Randomly timed water
releases from facilities upstream pose a threat to all but the most
experienced private boaters who can afford top of the line equipment.
The steep, straight sweep of the river itself is unforgiving in the
event of a flip or a person who falls overboard. In short, it's a great
whitewater experience when everything is working right, but it's not a
resource people depend upon for their recreational opportunities.
Nonetheless, the Forest Service proposed to cut outfitted use by 30%
about a year ago. The outfitters fussed and asked the river manager to
take another look at the factors used to justify the reduction. All
parties are now satisfied with a modest reduction in use that accounts
for some legitimate safety questions, but the point is in how the
problem was handled. The agency's unilateral effort to solve a problem
resulted in an unnecessary amount of stress and consumed the valuable
time of a relatively large number of people. Once resolved, it was
obvious that an informal meeting with a couple of the river-runners
when the problem was first identified would have led to the same
satisfactory solution in considerably less time. Agency managers need
to step out from behind the shield of paperwork to deal face-to-face
with their concessioners and user groups when problems arise.
Despite errors made in determining carrying capacity limits in some
areas, there's no question but that controls are necessary to protect
resources and preserve the quality of the experience at places where
popularity threatens to destroy the resource. The Smith River in
Montana is an example:
LSmith River, MT: It is not much of a whitewater
experience, but the scenery and fishing are world class on the five-
day, 62-mile float. Beginning in 1991, as the Smith River became more
popular, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks began
charging fees, limiting the size of groups, restricting the number of
launches each day and conducting a lottery for permits. In 1998,
worried about too many people, the department cut back again, from 63
launches a week to 58. In 1992, almost all the 216 people who applied
for permits on the Smith were accommodated. In 1997, nearly 4,000
applications were received. 9
I can't speak from personal experience about whether the current
limit on the number of launches and party size on the Smith River are
the ``right numbers'' but it's easy to conclude that the Smith River
cannot support all of the demand that is out there. I suspect Federal
managers are glad to be out of the decision-making loop on the Smith
because the steps taken by the State to protect this world-class
fishing hole also act to preserve its mystique. Now an international
attraction, the competition for permits means that local residents have
increasingly less access to fishing in their own backyard.
Impacts and Solutions
Visitor Opportunity: The Forest Service Guidebook on Outfitting and
Guiding emphasizes that a small but significant portion of the American
public looks to educators, outfitter, and guides to provide quality
experiences on public lands. Elimination or curtailment of outfitter
services significantly narrows the opportunity spectrum for a broad
cross section of Americans, particularly those life skills and
experiences are limited to urban areas.
Safety: For four decades Outward Bound has established the safety
standards and protocols for the wilderness education industry. These
standards and protocols have been adopted across much of the rest of
the outdoor recreation industry. In these four decades Outward Bound
has utilized two (or more) field instructors in conducting all of our
courses. The combined requirements of insurance carriers and
organizational by-laws also require most organizations to utilize at
least two instructors to minimize liability exposure related to
accidents or claims of sexual harassment or child abuse. These are the
unpleasant realities, but issues related to safety in an outdoor
setting are especially serious. Unfortunately, for most, if a group
size limitation as low as six, seven or eight people is imposed by
agency managers, the pressure to send out solo instructors--or split
large groups in half with solo instructors--is significant.
Educational Efficacy: Outward Bound is chartered as a non-profit,
educational organization. Our staff of trained instructors work from
established curricula toward educational objectives. All of this takes
place in the wilderness classroom. As with any classroom, student to
instructor ratios are critical to the success of Outward Bound's
educational mission. In smaller groups--six, seven, eight--instructors
dominate, and the students often fail to feel or achieve the degree of
independence necessary to build personal, leadership, and teamwork
skills.
Conversely, educational paradigms fail when groups become too
large. In groups of 15 or more, social and educational dynamics shift
as smaller groups or ``clicks'' naturally form, breaking down desired
interaction between students and with instructors.
Diversity: As discussed, America has become an increasingly diverse
and urbanized society. New generations of Americans are increasingly
less likely to make parallel connections to the natural world, or to
outdoor recreation on public lands where ``facilities'' are not the
primary recreational venue. The leadership of the Federal land agencies
has certainly grasped this concept. National conferences and training
sessions, led by the agencies and by the NGO community, have attempted
to address the gap that is widening between Americans and their public
lands.
The fact that many first experiences on public lands and in
backcountry occur through the facilitation of organized groups and
institutions is no secret. This includes scouts, kid camps, churches,
educators, and outfitter and guide activities focused on kids and
families. For many groups, working with diverse, urban, disabled, ``at
risk'' or other segments of the populations is part of their core
mission. Sadly, it is this kind of organized group activity that has
become the primary target of agency controls on access, group size, and
itinerary. When these controls are unneeded or unreasonable, these are
the first set of user groups to suffer the consequences.
Increasing Costs for the Consumer: Basic economics dictates that
restricting supply will increase price. All businesses and
organizations, regardless of for-profit or non-profit status, must
cover their costs and put money aside to replace worn equipment. As
group sizes decrease, the increase in per capita costs leads inevitably
to the need to increase fees or, conversely, cut the quality of goods
and services provided. Increases in fees, which is the only alternative
responsible outfitters and educators will consider in order to make
ends meet, inevitably alter the mix of participants. The recreational
and educational opportunities offered become unaffordable for many of
the people who would most benefit from the experience.
For non-profit organizations like Outward Bound, providing
education to diverse groups of young people in wilderness settings, or
Wilderness Inquiry, providing unique opportunities for personal growth
to people with disabilities, this kind of economic pressure can change
fundamental, core missions.
Declining Revenues for the Agencies: Educators, outfitters and
guides, camps, and other permittees who organize and guide groups pay
fees for the privilege of operating on Federal lands. Typically, more
than one fee is levied against the service provider and each
participant. These may take the form of an annual operating or
franchise fee; a per person/per day charge for each visitor; entrance
fees; parking fees; or backcountry permit fees. Under cost recovery
provisions, agencies are also required to recoup the cost of processing
permit applications, administering commercial activities, and
monitoring impacts directly connected to these activities. Additional
fees may also be charged at some areas under the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program. As the ``era of accountability'' continues to
unfold, the scouts, churches, universities and other nonprofit or
charitable organization who sponsor group trips may also be required to
pay some or all of these fees.
Because most wilderness educators and the outfitters and guides
operate under permits and controlled itineraries, their level of use is
known and the cost of collection of the fees they pay is negligible.
They contribute significantly toward the bottom line that represents
agency costs in administering these programs. Except for areas where
entrance fees or Fee Demo charges are collected, the general public
pays few or no fees. Unfortunately, as group use declines or is
eliminated significant revenue will be lost, and it is unlikely that
the general public will acquiesce to making up the difference.
At the bottom line, it's all about money. ``Collateral duties'' are
increasingly common in the field. Biologists are administering
outfitter permits. The increasing demand for recreation administration
and management must be recognized and staffed accordingly, including
professional training.
Sufficient funding for all aspects of recreation management is
simply not available in the field, and it is particularly galling that
``recreation'' funding is the mask behind which the agencies also lack
money for education, the needs of special populations, and the
opportunity to diversify traditional programs to attract future, more
diversified generations. Programs like the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program are helpful bandages that are propping up some areas, but in
the meantime we are proceeding to shut down the some of the arteries
and facilities that are important to other user groups and gateway
communities.
I recognize that this committee is not responsible for the flow of
money to the land management agencies, but you can exert considerable
influence on your colleagues at the appropriations committees and upon
public opinion back home in your congressional districts. Any
perception that ``recreation'' on public lands is merely fun and games
provided at public expense is a bad notion. Human health, the human
psyche, a challenging climate in which addiction and antisocial
behavior can be cured are societal benefits lumped into this
programmatic basket. We've thrown money at school construction and
educational grants and been disappointed in the results. Talk has
turned now toward year-round classrooms, and I'd like to suggest that
the most consistently successful classrooms were built at the beginning
of time. Properly managed, the teachable moments provided by these
outdoor classrooms are infinitely sustainable and unquestionably
successful. Do your personal best to assure a level of appropriations
that allows the agencies to allow organizations like Outward Bound to
continue to pull these kids out of the inner cities and help them see
themselves as responsible citizens.
Bias Against Group and Commercial Use: There has evolved within the
agencies over the last decade or so a culture that believes organized
group use of public lands, specifically commercial use, is
unacceptable. The vestiges of this thinking are as old as dirt itself,
but the difference in this era is that it's now apparently ``OK''
within the agencies to talk out loud in public about personal
prejudices against specific user groups, and to act upon these
prejudices.
A number of factors contribute toward situations in which these
attitudes prevail. Agencies like the Forest Service and BLM have lost
perspective about statutory obligations imposed by Congress to manage
for multiple use. Wilderness is certainly an important element among
these multiple uses of resources, but so are recreation and education,
whether these activities occur in wilderness or non-wilderness
settings.
More training is needed to refresh the knowledge of key field staff
about the diverse range of values and opportunities available on
Federal lands. It was discouraging to hear recently that 36 years after
the passage of the Wilderness Act, a USFWS refuge manager was found to
have closed all access to a wilderness area because she ``did not think
people were allowed in wilderness.'' Managers need to look once again
at the importance of visitors and the role and value of educators,
outfitters, and others who provide structure for the services visitors
need and expect. It's not OK for agency managers to continue to
publicly bash and deride these commercial services, let alone exclude
visitors. Upper management in each of the agencies need to make these
responsibilities clear once again to field staff, not merely as
``responsibilities'' but also as opportunities that can vastly increase
the constituency that supports resource protection. It's always a
balancing act, but finding that balance is always worth the effort.
Public Participation in Planning: This bias against commercial
services is most evident in the planning process. Recently, Outward
Bound attempted to contribute its thoughts about a formal backcountry
planning exercise in one of the national parks. The superintendent
refused to accept comments from Outward Bound alumni who live in
various communities across the United States because those comments had
been ``solicited'' by our organization. If public participation is to
have real meaning in these planning processes, segments of the public
cannot be arbitrarily excluded. By not engaging people at every
opportunity in the management of our grasslands, forests, and parks we
risk losing these people entirely as full partners in the protection
and preservation of these resources. Certainly, excluding and offending
people loyal to the values taught by Outward Bound is a step in the
wrong direction.
A Predetermined Hierarchy of Values: We are witnessing an evolving
focus on biodiversity, at the expense of visitation. Further,
wilderness agency managers have selected solitude as the value of
choice at the expense of other aspects of the wilderness statute that
provides for human use and enjoyment. Unchecked is the perception that
allowing group visitation in wilderness areas destroys the experience
of all others who encounter an organized group, despite important
research that places this issue of group size very low in the priority
of management issues to be confronted and resolved.
Managers need to accept the premise that preservation, recreation
and education can effectively share the stage. The Park Service does
not recognize recreation as a primary use of the resources it manages,
preferring instead a subordinated role as ``visitor services.'' The
nomenclature is interesting, but largely irrelevant. For NPS, it's all
about protecting resources within the magnificent landscapes it
manages. For Outward Bound, it's all about connecting the human psyche
to these magnificent landscapes and fostering the personal growth that
results from these encounters. Our goals are mutually reinforcing, and
the NPS and other agencies need to get over their bias that group
visitation is threatening.
Impact on Local Communities: As extractive activities have
declined, local communities have shifted their economies to rely more
heavily upon tourism. For these communities, dependable income from
visitors is fundamental to long-term economic viability. Outfitters and
guides and other concessioners provide the foundation that creates jobs
and promotes a flow of and services locally. When agency managers
eliminate or reduce access to lands that they manage, the economic
consequences trickle down immediately through these gateway
communities. It's critical that agency managers focus on sustainable
ecosystems necessary to the long-range viability of tourism, but it is
equally important that agencies factor in sustainable human use within
these ecosystems if local rural communities are to survive
economically.
Technology Is Replacing Contact With People: In dispersed,
backcountry/wilderness venues, the educational/interpretive mission of
the agencies has steadily dwindled, if not disappeared entirely, in
some locations. This results from a lack of staff and budget. Managers
are attempting to fill this void through technology, using the Web, the
Internet, videos and kiosks to impart vital messages to visitors and
permittees about management and resource protection. The potential
upside is huge. One forest uses the Web to provide photos of the
resource and data on use numbers. In advance, visitors can select their
experience and voluntarily disperse to less utilized areas. However,
the best technology will never supplant the need for traditional
education and interpretation--people learn through doing. That is why
the Leave No Trace program has been so effective in teaching outdoor
skills and resource ethics. Partnerships such as Leave No Trace, and
the communication capacities of wilderness educators and outfitters and
concessioners, can significantly supplement agency educational efforts.
Accountable Use of Public Lands: We have entered an ``era of
accountability'' in the use and enjoyment of Federal lands. Simply put,
the administrative and management protocols that have, for decades,
been applied to ``commercial'' educators and outfitters and guides are
increasingly being applied to all group and public use. These include
requirements for permits, payment of fees, itinerary controls, controls
on access and amounts of use, insurance requirements, and utilization
of minimum impact techniques. The purpose is to bring all visitors in
under the tent as accountable, appropriate users of these public
resources. As visitor numbers and demands increase, and the presence of
agency field staff decreases, this push for accountability will
accelerate and should be supported by Congress. Otherwise, the status
quo will be preserved a situation in which the agencies really don't
know how many people are out there on any given day, where they are, or
what they are doing that might damage resources or have an adverse
impact on other visitors. Nor are an enormous number of these visitors
who participate in organized group paying any fees, even though many of
these trips are commercial in nature. When those of us who are paying
fees and submitting to controls on use are being asked to reduce our
use, it is hardly fair that others are being allowed to dodge the
responsibility of being fully accountable users.
Reduction in Illegal Outfitting: Illegal outfitting is a
significant problem. The agency staff available for enforcement is
limited. The problem is further complicated by the number of legitimate
group trips that operate without any requirement to have a permit or
approved itinerary. It is difficult for managers to identify and take
action against the illegal operators and harder yet to obtain a
conviction in court for other than violations of the National Park
Service statute that governs concessioner activities. There are no
statutes defining legal outfitter activities on lands administered by
the other agencies. A patchwork of regulations (or lack thereof)
inadequately differentiate between legitimate outfitters, other group
trips that are allowed to operate without a permit, and the efforts of
illegal outfitters to slide between the cracks. Proposed changes in
Forest Service law enforcement policies that would have, in part,
addressed the illegal outfitting problem were subsequently withdrawn
several years ago because of objections to unrelated provisions.
Congress needs to encourage a solution to the problem of illegal
outfitting.
Effective Interpretation and Implementation of Visitor Capacity:
The Department of Interior is currently spearheading an Interagency
Task Force on Recreation Carrying Capacity. The goal of the task force
is to develop the proper guidelines and tools for managers for
decision-making related to visitor impacts and capacities. The
underlying philosophy of the Task Force is that visitor capacity is not
a magic number or solid cap. Rather, determining carrying capacity is
seen as a tool or marker where, as use or impacts approach identified
capacities, a range of mitigating management objectives, options or
prescriptions have been identified for possible implementation.
Overall, decisions about visitor access and group size should be based
on solid physical and social science that is factored into the
consideration of other societal, economic and management factors.
Developing True Resource Opportunity Spectrums: ``Commercial''
operations, groups and the public are being restricted and squeezed out
of designated Wilderness. For the long-term health of the resource,
this trend will likely continue. While this fact may not sit well with
many, significant steps can and should be made to facilitate the
preservation of Wilderness while promoting wilderness opportunities.
The answer lies in the identification, preservation and management of a
spectrum of backcountry venues (Wilderness, roadless, primitive non-
motorized, primitive motorized).
Groups like Outward Bound are working in cooperation with managers
of Wilderness and other resources to redesign and relocate educational
programs to minimize visitor impacts--particularly in heavily impacted
portion of Wilderness. This process is made easier when contiguous
tracts of Federal lands are available and suitable for wilderness
education. Contiguous tracts, similar management schemes and viable
group sizes will allow groups to ``flow'' in and out of designated
Wilderness, maintaining access to these premier backcountry settings
and educational opportunities while preserving wilderness character.
Prior to limiting capacities, managers should move to coordinate on:
LDefining resource values and opportunities
LThe resource opportunity spectrum and provision of
opportunities
LDispersal of visitation
LRegional economic impacts and impacts on local
communities
Funding for Partnerships Related to Human Use, Recreation and
Access: A partnership between The National Outdoor Leadership School
and Colorado State University resulted in the best recent work on group
size. Other groups like Outward Bound are working in cooperation with
wilderness managers to redesign and relocate educational programs in
order to minimize visitor impacts, particularly in heavily impacted
portion of wilderness and other crowded destinations. Leave No Trace,
Inc., a non-profit, partner-based organization is leading the way on
minimum impact skills and ethics. The Student Conservation Association
is partnering with Home Depot and the agencies to provide fire
mitigation education on private lands in Idaho. Wilderness Inquiry, a
Minnesota-based nonprofit, has spearheaded agency training on access
for people with disabilities on Federal lands. Congress and the
agencies need to continue to leverage this private sector funding and
innovative thinking in order to better address concerns about access
and resource impacts.
Conclusion
I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today. Obviously,
a number of problems, situations and opportunities are weighing heavily
on the minds of Outward Bound program managers. I'll be glad to answer
further questions about these situations, but I want to close by
assuring this committee that Outward Bound's enthusiasm and commitment
to our mission is undiminished. Each year the lives of thousands of
young people are made richer by their experience with Outward Bound.
Most telling is the opportunity to walk through an airport wearing
an Outward Bound cap. Invariably, you are approached with; ``Outward
Bound changed my life.'' Indeed, while Outward Bound played a role, it
was exposure to, engagement with and education within public lands,
wilderness and the wilderness classroom that so indelibly altered the
student.
At Outward Bound, we know the process works. We have witnessed the
power of the connection between people and the natural world. We
welcome the opportunity to continue our work in partnership with the
resource and the people who manage it.
endnotes
1 USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 1997. Guidebook on
Outfitting and Guiding. Missoula, MT.
2 Roper Starch. 2000. Outdoor Recreation In America 2000:
Addressing Key Societal Concerns. Prepared for The Recreation
Roundtable. Washington, DC.
3 Public Law 95-625.
4 Act of September 3, 1964 (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890 as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136).
5 Robertson, F. Dale, Chief, USDA Forest Service, Letter to
Regional Foresters. March 8, 1993. Washington, DC.
6 Merigliano, Linda, Bridger-Teton National Forest. November
22, 1997. Determining Visitor Use Limits (Capacity). Jackson,
WY.
7 Monz, Christopher; Roggenbuck, Joseph; Cole, David; Brame,
Richard; Yoder, Andrew. 2000. Wilderness party size
regulations: Implications for management and a decision-making
framework.
8 Ansel Adams, John Muir, Dinkey Lakes Wilderness: Final
Environmental Impact Statement. 2 vols. March 2001. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.
9 Kenworthy, Tom. February 19, 1998. U.S. changing white-
water rafting rules. The Washington Post. Denver, CO.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mackey.
Vera Smith?
STATEMENT OF VERA SMITH, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, COLORADO
MOUNTAIN CLUB
Ms. Smith. Thank you. On behalf the Colorado Mountain Club,
I would like to thank Chairman Hansen and the Committee for the
opportunity to testify at this hearing.
The Colorado Mountain Club is one of the Colorado's largest
outdoor organizations, with over 10,000 members and 14
chapters. Founded in 1912, the CMC strives to ensure high-
quality recreational experiences for the public, protect the
natural resources of the south Rocky Mountains, and educate the
public on responsible and appropriate recreation.
The issue of recreational access is of paramount importance
to the club since we engage both in recreation and conservation
related pursuits on Federal lands.
As Americans, we are privileged to recreate on a vast array
of public lands, from the Keys of Florida to the wilds of
Alaska. Accompanying that privilege, however, is
responsibility--the responsibility to steward these lands both
as individuals and collectively, to ensure that their
fundamental integrity is sustained.
Public land recreation provides wonderful benefits, but it
also has the potential to impact the environment significantly,
especially in light of recent and predicted increases in use.
It is our responsibility as Americans to ensure that our
recreation is in harmony and not in conflict with the land.
We see two major trends in public lands recreation today
that threaten to impair our ability to maintain this harmony.
The first is increasing an unmanaged motorization, and the
second is commercialization.
Off-road vehicle travel is one the many allowable forms of
recreation on public lands. In the past 20 years, off-road
vehicles, such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles, have grown
significantly in popularity.
For example, in Colorado, ORV registrations have increased
by over 500 percent in the past 7 years. As these machines have
grown more popular, they have also become more powerful and
technologically sophisticated.
With ever-increasing ease, they can cross rough terrain,
conquer mountain peaks, crawl through wetlands and rivers, and
penetrate into even the most remote backcountry.
The result is that the nonmotorized recreation community is
losing access. As motorized vehicles proliferate into lands
that were traditionally nonmotorized, nonmotorized
recreationists are displaced.
For example, in the lower 48 States, over 90 percent of BLM
lands are open to off-road vehicle use, leaving little room for
wildlife and people alike to seek refuge from the sights,
sounds, and smells of machines.
In addition, weak or nonexistent travel management
planning, monitoring, and enforcement have led to an
unprecedented urbanization of our backcountry.
When we think of the southern Rocky Mountains, we conjure
up images of open meadows, high peaks, and uninterrupted
vistas. The reality, unfortunately, is that the southern Rocky
Mountains are a spaghetti network of roads so dense that there
are very few places that are greater than 2 miles from a
primary or secondary road.
The qualities that draw all of us to our public lands--
quiet, clean water, healthy wildlife, and wildness--are
yielding to the noise, pollution, and infrastructure
characteristic of urbanized areas.
I brought these posters to demonstrate the point. The first
poster shows the road network. The second poster shows distance
from a road. So the green area in the very center of those
blobs is 4 miles or greater from a road.
Common-sense solutions exist to bring recreation back into
harmony with the land. The first and most necessary step is
immediately to develop and adopt enforceable travel management
plans that limit motorized use to designated routes, eliminate
cross-country travel, establish a ``closed unless marked open''
policy, and increase enforcement and monitoring.
Travel management plans must be consistent across agency
boundaries. Furthermore, these plans must allocate recreation
to accommodate the basic needs of user groups while recognizing
the constraints of the land.
Indeed, a few weeks ago, Colorado's front-range resource
advisory council unanimously adopted a resolution that
requested the BLM to implement similar solutions. That was
included in my written testimony.
The second trend of concern is the potential
commercialization of Federal lands and recreational services.
In an effort to find funding sources for recreation, the
agencies seem increasingly willing to dance with the idea of
commercializing Federal lands.
The most disturbing aspect of this is the potential loss of
Federal management autonomy as private enterprise acquires
financial interests in public lands and facilities.
I urge the Committee to consider a vision where all
citizens have the opportunity to enjoy their public lands in an
undeveloped state and without financial burden.
Public lands should not be beholden to the desires of
private industries whose motivation is to maximize profits for
the shareholders instead of stewarding the lands for future
generations.
We have come to a point where the public perceives that
public land recreation is getting out of control. It is easy to
point fingers at the agencies, but the fact is they cannot
manage recreation effectively without receiving the necessary
appropriations.
Furthermore, all users must be willing to accept limits and
compromise access so that the fundamental ecological integrity
of the land will not be diminished. Indeed, all citizens should
have the right to experience solitude, feel wildness, and
discover the wonders of the natural world without being
assailed by the whir of a dirt bike, the scream of the
snowmobile, or the solicitations of major corporations.
In the words of Aldo Leopold, ``Recreation development is a
job not of building roads into lovely country but of building
receptivity into the still and lovely human mind.''
I thank you for this opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
Statement of Vera Smith, Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain Club
On behalf of the Colorado Mountain Club, I would like to thank
Chairman Hansen and the Committee for the opportunity to testify at
this hearing.
The Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) is one of Colorado's largest
outdoor organizations with over 10,000 members and 14 chapters. Founded
in 1912, the CMC strives to ensure high quality recreational
experiences for its members and the public, protect the natural
resources of the Southern Rocky Mountains, and educate the public on
responsible and appropriate recreation.
The issue of recreational access is of paramount importance to the
Club since we engage both in recreational and conservation-related
pursuits on Federal lands.
Harmonious Recreation
As Americans, we are privileged to recreate on a vast array of
public lands, from the keys of Florida to the wilds of Alaska.
Accompanying that privilege, however, is responsibility--responsibility
to steward these lands both as individuals and collectively to ensure
that their fundamental integrity is sustained.
Public land recreation provides wonderful benefits but it also has
the potential to harm the environment significantly, especially in
light of recent and predicted increases in use. It is our
responsibility as Americans to ensure that our recreation is in harmony
and not in conflict with the land.
We see two major trends in public land recreation today that
threaten to impair our ability to maintain this harmony. The first is
increasing and unmanaged motorization, and the second is
commercialization and privatization.
Motorization
Off-road vehicle travel is one of the many allowable forms of
recreation on public lands. In the past twenty years, off-road vehicles
(ORV) such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles have grown significantly in
popularity. For example, in Colorado, ORV registrations have increased
by over 500% in the past seven years. As these machines have grown more
popular, they have also become more powerful and technologically
sophisticated; with ever-increasing ease, they can cross rough terrain,
conquer mountain peaks, crawl through wetlands and rivers, and
penetrate into even the most remote backcountry.
The result is that the non-motorized recreation community is losing
access. As motorized vehicles proliferate into lands that were
traditionally non-motorized, non-motorized recreationists are
displaced. For example, in the lower 48 states, over 90% of BLM lands
are open to ORV use, leaving little room for wildlife and people alike
to seek refuge from the sights, sounds, and smells of machines.
1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is true that wilderness areas are, for the most part, non-
motorized. However, it is important to realize that most of the
wilderness in the Western United States is ``rock and ice'' wilderness.
For example, in the Southern Rockies, over 75% of the protected areas
(defined as National Parks and wilderness) lie above 10,000 feet in
elevation. Because these alpine areas are difficult to access (by any
means) and because these areas are not the biodiverse, biologically
critical areas of the landscape, it is critical that non-motorized
tracts at lower elevations be maintained/restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, weak or non-existent travel management planning,
monitoring, and enforcement have led to an unprecedented urbanization
of our backcountry. When we think of the Southern Rocky Mountains, we
conjure up images of open meadows, high peaks, and uninterrupted
vistas. The reality, unfortunately, is that the Southern Rocky
Mountains are a spaghetti-network of roads, so dense that there are
very few places that are greater than two miles from a primary or
secondary road (see attached map and statistics). The qualities that
draw all of us to our public lands--quiet, clean water, healthy
wildlife, and wildness--are yielding to the noise, pollution, and
infrastructure characteristic of urbanized areas.
The problem ultimately lies with the fact that the Federal agencies
lack the necessary funds and, at times, the will to develop, implement,
and enforce travel systems in which motorized travel is limited to
designated routes. Without designated travel systems, ORVs are often
allowed to travel cross-country or are only limited to existing routes,
conditions that lead to a proliferation of user-created routes.
Consider that under a system where ORVs are limited to existing routes,
the first ORV to carve a new route is breaking the law but all
subsequent users to drive that route are legal. Consider also that it
usually requires only a few passes before a track appears to be a road.
Other factors also contribute to the proliferation of routes and
the eventual urbanization of the landscape. The U.S. Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management are not consistent in their management of
ORVs. For instance, where the two agencies administer lands with
adjoining boundaries, one agency may require that ORVs stay on
designated routes that are marked as open while the other agency may
require that ORVs drive on existing routes under the presumption that
all routes are open unless otherwise noted. When lands are intermixed,
not even the most well-intentioned motorized recreationist is able to
understand and follow the rules.
Lastly, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
have failed adopt a system-wide policy that allows motorized travel
only on routes and in areas marked as open. This policy, referred to as
``closed unless marked open,'' is the only policy under which the
agencies are able to 1) reasonably monitor route proliferation and
consequent resource damage, and 2) enforce the travel designations.
After all, it is ostensibly legal for a motorized recreationist to
drive on an illegally-created route if a ``closed unless marked open''
policy is not in place.
Common sense solutions exist to bring recreation back into harmony
with the land. The first and most necessary step is immediately to
develop and adopt enforceable travel management plans that limit
motorized use to designated routes, eliminate cross-country travel,
establish a ``closed unless marked open'' policy, and increase
enforcement and monitoring. Travel management plans must be consistent
across agency boundaries. Furthermore, these plans must allocate
recreation to accommodate the basic needs of user groups while
recognizing the constraints of the land. Indeed, a few weeks ago,
Colorado's Front Range Resource Advisory Council unanimously adopted a
resolution that requested the BLM to implement similar solutions (see
attached).
In the words of two Colorado recreationists from Chaffee County,
Dennis and Kathleen Claveau, ``The impact of all-terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles, dirt bike motorcycles, jet skis, and sport utility
vehicles in the past few years has been so overwhelming that government
agencies, whose job it is to steward our lands, seem to stand in awe
unable to act, or worse yet, their attempts to act are restricted by
bullying from the ORV community and neglect by the legislative branches
of our government failing to support them.
If you lived where we live on the edge of the San Isabel National
Forest and closely observed the exponential growth in numbers of ORVs
entering the national forest in the past eight years, you could not but
wonder what will be left ten years from now'' Time is rapidly running
out for our natural heritage.
Commercialization
The second trend of concern is the potential commercialization of
Federal lands and recreational services. By allowing private
enterprises to erect gates and charge fees, we will essentially turn
public land recreation into an elitist privilege where only those with
the financial means will be able to pay to play.
Even more disturbing is the potential loss of Federal management
autonomy if we allow private enterprise to acquire financial interests
in public lands and facilities. For example, suppose after a company
were given the right to operate twenty campgrounds for thirty years on
one national forest in exchange for capitally improving and maintaining
the site, the land management agency discovered that the increased use
is endangering an imperiled species. The Forest Service will be hard-
pressed to break the agreement in order to manage the species
appropriately.
Another example of loss of management autonomy and
industrialization of Federal lands can be found in the ski industry.
Several of the major destination ski resorts in Colorado including Vail
and Copper Mountain are located on Forest Service lands in critical
wildlife habitat, including the habitat of the endangered lynx. Despite
the fact that skier numbers are flat nationwide, the resorts are
regularly applying for and receiving approvals for expansions--
expansions that will increase the number of resort-owned acres adjacent
to skiable terrain. Although the motivation for expanding these public-
land ski areas is not to meet a flat demand but rather to increase the
profits yielded from private land development, the Forest Service,
seemingly intimidated by the political power of these publicly-traded
corporations, has not denied an expansion request in Colorado on
environmental grounds since 1985. Furthermore, because these companies
are profiting off their ability to manipulate development on public
lands, they are pushing small ski areas or areas that won't play ``the
real estate game'' out of business.
Clearly, the recent emphasis on increased commercialization of
recreation by private industry is a consequence of inadequate funding
of the land management agencies. For example, in Colorado, the Forest
Service can only fund, on average, one law enforcement officer for
670,000 acres. In addition, under current funding levels, the Colorado
Bureau of Land Management State Office will not be able to complete an
initial set of travel designations for another 12 to 15 years, at a
minimum. The answer to the budget shortfalls is not to commercialize
and develop more infrastructure (the agencies still will not be able to
provide adequate oversight), but, instead, is to provide adequate funds
for the agencies to manage existing levels of recreation.
I urge the Committee to consider a vision where all citizens have
the opportunity to enjoy their public lands in an undeveloped state and
without financial burden. Public lands should not be beholden to the
desires of private industries whose motivation is to maximize profits
for the shareholders instead of stewarding the lands for future
generations.
Conclusion
We have come to a point where the public perceives that public land
recreation is getting out of control. It is easy to point fingers at
the agencies but the fact is that they cannot manage recreation
effectively without receiving the necessary appropriations.
Furthermore, all users must be willing to accept limits and to
compromise access so that the fundamental ecological integrity of the
land will not be diminished. Indeed, all citizens should have the right
to experience solitude, feel wildness, and discover the wonders of the
natural world, without being assailed by the roar of a dirt bike, the
scream of a snowmobile, or the solicitations of major corporations. In
the words of Aldo Leopold, ``Recreational development is a job not of
building roads into lovely country, but of building receptivity into
the still unlovely human mind.''
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
[The attachments listed below follow:]
1. Fact Sheet on Off-Road Vehicles on BLM Land
2. Resolution passed by the Colorado Front Range RAC on May 10,
2001 entitled, Resolution for Consistent, Positive, and
Environmentally-Responsible Management of Off-Road Vehicles
3. Two maps of the Southern Rockies Ecoregion: The Road Network of
the Southern Rockies, and Distance from a Road in the Southern Rockies
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.006
The Chairman. I thank you.
Bruce Ward, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONTINENTAL DIVIDE
TRAIL ALLIANCE
Mr. Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
I know you have experience as a swamper, at least I have
heard that, and I recognize that you have personal experience
in the recreation world, and that you appreciate why we are
here.
I also have a quote from Aldo Leopold that I would like to
start out with, and it goes like this: ``Recreation is a
perpetual battlefield because it is a single word denoting as
many different things as there are diverse people. One can
discuss it only in personal terms. There is no unit of either
volume or value where diverse persons can impersonally measure
or compare recreational use.''
And I really think that is what we are talking about here,
Mr. Chairman. And I think that the ultimate decision that you
need to make, and members of this Committee need to make, is:
Are we going to use a carrot or are we going to use a stick in
order to make that happen?
And I think that the team of people that you have put
together in these panels would like to work with you further to
use the carrot as opposed to a stick.
I have to tell you, when Rob Howarth asked me to come out
here--I live in Park County, Colorado. Some people call it
God's country, some people call it McInnis country, but bottom
line is, it is a place that I have a hard time leaving. I don't
like coming back here, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman.
But I am here because this is a vitally important topic,
and I really, sincerely appreciate the fact that you are
holding these hearings. And my intention is to work with you
and this Committee in any way that I can to help you delve into
this very serious issue.
You know, I am here not only because of my personal desire
and commitment to this cause, but because of my children,
Phillip and Isabella. I take them out with me on the
backcountry, and I am concerned about what the future of that
backcountry is going to be.
And I really think that this Committee and the people that
are here at this table will help determine where we are going.
And I have a great deal of optimism.
I am also here because of the volunteers. You have heard
them talked about in many cases. We have had hundreds of
thousands of dollars in volunteer labor put on the ground
through our organization, and with the help of land managers.
And I want to echo another theme that has resonated
throughout this hearing, and that is that there are not enough
people on the ground.
Craig Mackey did a great job of specifically articulating
the numbers of people that are no longer out there, doing the
work that is fundamental to restoring and maintaining the
recreation infrastructure that this country put into place in
the 1930's. And in many cases, no work has been done since or
minimal work has been done since.
So ultimately, the question of access, how much is too
much, is what we are here to address. And how do we best
address the increasing numbers of recreationists from all walks
of life?
For my way of thinking, Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is
collaboration and education, and you have heard those themes
time and time again in here.
Again, I think you have assembled a great team of people
who are interested in this cause and could work with you, work
with this Committee, to substantively address from a grassroots
level ways that we can deal with increasing recreational use.
I think it is critical that we come up with solutions that
are acceptable because they are based in scientific fact but
also because they are socially acceptable. And that seems to,
again, be a reoccurring theme with the groups that are
represented here.
Mr. Chairman, Congress can make laws and the land managers
can be charged with enforcing them, but it is only when those
people represented by the various panels that are here, and the
millions of others who seek to enjoy our public lands, it is
only when they truly embrace these decisions and understand
them will we truly make any progress on our public lands.
I would suggest that if there is a way to come up with a
commission of some sort, made up of grassroots organizations
that would address these issues, that we look into that
opportunity and we discuss amongst the people who are
represented here and the other recreation and environment
groups who are concerned about this.
I have a quote I would like to leave you with as well, and
that was Teddy Roosevelt, who I know is near and dear to many
members of this Committee who are concerned about natural
resources. He said, ``The nation behaves well if it treats the
natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next
generation increased and not impaired in value.''
And perhaps one last quote from a fellow--I am from Boston
originally, if you haven't picked up on my accent, Mr.
Chairman--
[Laughter.]
--from a fellow member of my favorite state, from growing
up.
He said, ask not what trails can do for you, ask what you
can do for trails.
[Laughter.]
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]
Statement of Bruce Ward, Executive Director, Continental Divide Trail
Alliance, Inc.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Resources
Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to address you about
recreation and access to public lands. I have been working on the
effort to complete and maintain the Continental Divide Trail since
1994. My wife, Paula, and I helped to form the Continental Divide Trail
Alliance with then vice chair of the National Forest Foundation Steve
Fausel. Our organization was specifically formed to assist the Forest
Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management with the
congressional mandate to complete and maintain this national treasure.
Introduction
Our great country is made up of a people proud of our
individualism, proud of our heritage and proud of our pioneering
spirit. Yet today there is less opportunity for Americans to experience
our natural lands as our forefathers did. As we move from a rural to an
urban society, we must seek ways to connect people to the land.
One such connection is our National Trail System. I have the
privilege of representing the Continental Divide Trail, which, along
with the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail constitute the
crown jewels of America's long distance primitive trails. The
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail wraps its spirit and soul
around the hearts of all Americans who remember the history of the
making of the West and who look with hope to the continuance of the
pioneer spirit. It is our hope, in an age of political and social
polarization, that people from all walks of life, cultures,
environmental perspectives, and ethnic backgrounds find in the Trail
the history of America and hope for our future.
When Meriwether Lewis and William Clark crossed the Continental
Divide, it was a defining moment in history for both these intrepid
explorers and our country. The Continental Divide has always been
profoundly defining in the hearts and souls of the American people. How
often do we as citizens and do you as our Representatives have the
opportunity to support something so grand as to tie together our past
and our future with such majesty of time and place?
We recognize the honor, duty and priceless gift of living free in
this land we call our home. What price is placed on the enhancement of
the soul? What is the value of things which bring unity to our changing
community of citizens? Can we think of a gift of greater value or a
treasure more deserving of protection than the education of future
generations of young Americans to the value and heritage of pristine
public lands?
A trail of history, freedom and the American spirit is what we are
charged to pass to future generations. I am here before you today
representing those among us who believe we are better Americans because
of what joins us together as opposed to what separates us.
With this understanding of what our organization stands for I would
like to address the issue of recreation and access to our public lands.
Recreation on public lands is a benefit that Americans value. The
issues we address here involve what types and extent of access are
appropriate to maintaining the integrity of a natural resource.
We depend upon the public servants from our land management
agencies to determine what natural settings are appropriate for certain
types of recreational use based upon administrative or legislative
designation, but it is our responsibility to adhere to those
guidelines.
We must consider the impacts that different types of use have on
these resources, as well as their effects on other users. Different
types of trails and trail lands may accommodate a public with varied
interests, yet they must do so in a manner compatible with the land.
One specific way of addressing the need for achieving a balance
between protection and recreation needs is a toolkit approach for land
protection. While ``Big W'' Wilderness is one useful tool, one size
does not fit all, as many areas of open space worthy of protection from
development simply would never make it through the designation process
to qualify as Wilderness. National Conservation Area (NCA) designation
provides a much more flexible vehicle.
Two recent NCA designations in Colorado have done an excellent job
of protecting large areas while providing for a range of recreation
activities. Under their guidelines, smaller Wilderness area
designations were embedded within them, but the entire NCA areas would
never have made it through the Wilderness designation process. The NCAs
are the Gunnison Gorge section of the recent Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park legislation and the Colorado Canyonlands NCA
just west of Colorado National Monument. There are another dozen or
more NCAs that have been designated over the past 20 years or so.
Ideally we could develop some kind of organic legislation for
National Conservation Areas that is similar to the Wilderness Act. This
would legitimize this very useful tool in the eyes of a wide range of
Americans as an appropriate form of land protection to complement
Wilderness designation. It would also provide a workable alternative to
the insistence of some for ``Wilderness or nothing'' that can too often
result in very little Wilderness and a lot of nothing.
Recreation represents an increasing and important use of our public
lands--one that merits increased resources and attention. As the
increasing demands on our public lands continue, additional resources
must be allocated for recreation and conservation investment.
Recreation on our nation's public lands is significant--combined
estimates among the four agencies total over 1.2 billion visitors
annually. The Forest Service estimates they have 850 million visitors
per year; the National Park Service attracts 287 million; and the
Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service estimate 65
million and 35 million, respectively.
In 1999, a study conducted for the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of
America found that 94.5 percent of the American public participated in
some form of outdoor recreation. And, according to the 2000 National
Survey on Recreation and the Environment, hiking and backpacking are
among the nation's fastest growing forms of recreation. In 2000, 73
million Americans hiked (a 196% growth since 1982) and 23 million
backpacked. Despite these trends, Federal funding for recreation has
not kept pace with demand and continues to fall far short of needs.
Increased opportunities and access to the outdoors--where
appropriate--will strengthen the public's appreciation and connection
to the natural world. It will make us healthier. Convenient access to
trails will make their homes more valuable.
It is paramount that the agencies utilize our trails as a means to
educate the public about conservation issues and as a way to increase
recreational opportunities and access. Trail protection and natural
resource conservation are inextricably linked. However, trail systems
built over the last 150 years with taxpayer dollars have been left to
deteriorate, been abandoned, or simply left off of trail system maps,
often at the sole discretion of an overworked seasonal trail worker.
The outdoor recreation community supports more recreation staff on
the ground, more trail maintenance dollars, more funding for recreation
and Wilderness management and programs that create more recreation
opportunities for the American people.
Federal land managers are struggling to keep up with the dramatic
increase in trail use in America. The solution is not to merely
appropriate more money to the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest Service, but to couple targeted
increased funding with increased on-the-ground trails coordinators and
volunteer coordinators.
Bureau of Land Management
Increasingly, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had to
address the needs of a growing and changing West. The BLM lands in the
West are experiencing unprecedented growth in recreational use as a
result of rapid population growth and the expansion of communities
within and outside major metropolitan areas. This growth increases the
demands on adjacent public lands, user conflicts and management costs
of public lands.
Outdoor recreation is an important public use of these lands and
management of outdoor recreation resources, facilities, and visitor use
are significant components of the BLM's multiple use mission, yet the
agency remains severely underfunded and understaffed.
National Park System
The National Park System (NPS) continues to grow, both in terms of
the number of units it oversees and the number of visitors it
accommodates each year. This growth in the system has not been
accompanied by sufficient increases in financial resources and support.
Years of inadequate funding have contributed to the deterioration of
natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources throughout the
system. Recreation and conservation funding increases are critical to
enable the Park Service to protect its magnificent wealth of resources
and continue to offer outstanding recreational opportunities.
The National Park Service faces the challenge of protecting
resources while serving visitors. Recreation is integral to its role
and mission. Yet, despite its tremendous role in recreation, the agency
lacks senior-level administrative support and personnel focused
strictly on recreation. As a result, recreation planning and management
receive inconsistent attention and limited policy guidance. Recreation
management requires greater emphasis from NPS headquarters rather than
through individual parks and units alone. The prevalence of recreation
today, exploding visitation to national parks, and the emergence of
user conflicts warrant national policy direction and attention from the
agency. We believe recreation deserves a higher place in the NPS
hierarchy.
NPS and the National Trails System
National Trails System funding increases during the past eight
years have not kept pace with the needs for the system today. The 16
national scenic and historic trails administered by the National Park
Service require increased funding for natural and cultural resource
management and protection, improving visitor services, and
strengthening volunteer partnerships. For most of the national scenic
and historic trails, barely one-half of their congressionally
authorized length and resources are protected and available for public
use. Most trail offices are understaffed, hindering the agencies'
ability to properly administer and manage these trails and work
effectively with volunteer-based organizations.
USDA Forest Service
The USDA Forest Service is the nation's largest outdoor recreation
provider, managing over 133,000 miles of trails--including all or part
of six national scenic and eleven national historic trails--more than
277,000 heritage sites, over 4,300 campgrounds, and 31 national
recreation areas, scenic areas, and monuments. Recreation creates about
75% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) generated from Forest Service
land, yet only about 10% of the Forest Service budget supports
recreation.
The Forest Service itself now highlights the growing importance of
recreation to the agency, as evidenced by the release of a Recreation
Agenda.
The Recreation Agenda identifies resource protection, reducing the
$812 million trail maintenance backlog, and augmenting recreation staff
and volunteer coordinators, particularly on the ground, as critical.
Despite the increased emphasis the agency is placing on recreation
through the Recreation Agenda, we are concerned that the concept as
articulated at the top is not translating into action on the ground.
Few national forests have even one full-time trails coordinator. And
despite the number of hiking and other recreation organizations that
want to volunteer to build and maintain trails in National Forests, few
Ranger Districts have a volunteer coordinator. The American Hiking
Society and some its member clubs, including the Continental Divide
Trail Alliance, have had volunteer trail crews turned away because of
the agency's inability to provide the necessary minimal supervision or
support.
As expressed in the Recreation Agenda, the Forest Service
highlights staffing and acknowledges the need to place trail
coordinators, volunteer coordinators and/or recreation planners at each
national forest and for each nationally designated area or trail. The
agency must follow-through with this commitment by increasing funding
for recreation staff on the ground.
Wilderness
Wilderness areas are particularly important to recreationists
seeking solitude and escape in pristine backcountry and other
outstanding natural areas. Maintaining the integrity of the land and
resources is essential for ecosystem viability and to assure these
places remain wild for future generations. Wilderness areas are
critical for ecosystem protection, for water, wildlife, and
vegetation--all valued pieces of the recreation experience. The
agencies must receive additional funding to manage Wilderness
effectively and appropriately.
Volunteers
In 2000, national trail volunteer organizations contributed $6.6
million in financial resources and over 593,000 volunteer hours with an
estimated labor value of $8.8 million. The Forest Service relies very
heavily on volunteers, especially for trail maintenance activities.
Last year, over 90,000 volunteers contributed millions of hours in
labor to the Forest Service with an appraised value of $35.8 million.
Clearly, these volunteer efforts warrant an expanded commitment to
trails and recreation funding.
Our organizations have sent thousands of volunteers per year into
America's public lands to revitalize trails and protect natural
resources. These dedicated volunteers have raked, shoveled, trimmed,
lopped, and chopped hundreds of trail miles that, without these crews,
would be unsafe for travel. We send numerous crews into America's
National Parks, Forests and rangelands each year.
These volunteer programs have expanded greatly over the years. As
we have sought to expand these programs, we have found, more and more,
that the public agencies do not have enough on-the-ground staff to
supervise volunteers who want to work on trails - even where the
agencies themselves have identified critical maintenance and repair
work.
Adequately trained volunteer crew leaders would not replace Forest
Service, NPS, or BLM staff as decision-makers, but instead would help
the public land managers fulfill their responsibility to the recreating
public, contributing significantly toward the goals set in the
Recreation Agenda.
Congressional support for these endeavors will ensure that our
organizations can continue our strategic efforts to work with
volunteers and grassroots trails organizations to encourage increased
volunteerism on public lands.
Willing Seller Legislation
Willing seller legislation is critical to the completion and
protection of our National Trail System and to ensuring access to
opportunities for outdoor recreation and appreciation and enjoyment of
the natural and historic resources there as Congress intended.
Willing-seller legislation would amend the National Trails System
Act to provide Federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers
to complete nine of the twenty-two national scenic and historic trails
currently lacking this authority. Willing seller authority restores
parity to the National Trails System and provides authority to protect
critical resources along the affected trails.
It gives the Federal agencies administering the trails the ability
to acquire land from willing sellers only. The legislation would not
commit the Federal government to purchase any land or to spend any
money but would allow managers to purchase land to protect the national
trails as opportunities arise with funding appropriated through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Without willing seller authority, Federal trail managers' hands are
tied when development threatens important links in the wild landscapes
of the national scenic trails or in the sites that authenticate the
stories of the historic trails. With willing seller authority, sections
of trail can be moved from roads where hikers and other trail users are
unsafe, and critical historic sites can be preserved for future
generations to experience. Moreover, this authority protects private
property rights, as landowners along the nine affected trails are
currently denied the right to sell land to the Federal Government if
they desire to do so.
The four national scenic trails included under willing seller
legislation have a combined projected length of 9300 miles. Twenty
years after their authorization, only about 4885 miles--slightly more
than half their total length--are protected so they will be permanently
available for public use and enjoyment. Without the ability to purchase
permanent rights-of-way from willing sellers, it is highly unlikely
that these trails will ever be the continuous pathways that Congress
intends them to be.
Even though most of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is
on public land, there are several major gaps to fill in order to make
the trail continuous from Canada to Mexico. Although most of the five
national historic trails affected by this legislation are not intended
to afford continuous routes for recreation, the degree of protection of
their ``significant sites and segments'' mirrors the condition of the
four scenic trails.
In March 2001, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed
H.R. 834, the National Trails System Willing Seller Act, introduced by
Representative Scott McInnis, by a 409-3 vote.
Education
Trails can be a particularly valuable tool as the land management
agencies stretch themselves further into education. They can serve as
the classrooms for biology, history, geology, ecology and more. Our
best guess is that there are well over 200,000 miles of trails in the
US; all of them can teach us something.
Economic Benefits: A Growth Industry
The number of Americans who participate in human powered activities
such as hiking, canoeing, kayaking, mountain climbing, and bicycling,
has increased substantially over the last two decades. Furthermore, the
number of households in the U.S. is projected to increase by 12.3% by
the year 2010 to a total of 113.4 million. As the number of households
in the U.S. expands and interests in outdoor activities grow, demand
for natural places, resources, and sports equipment and apparel will
rise. As society's interest in outdoor recreation grows, so does the
economic benefit of those activities.
Commerce and Jobs
Across the United States, parks, rivers, trails, and recreational
open space help support a $502 billion tourism industry--the nation's
third largest retail sales industry. In 1993, 273 million visits to our
national parks created over $10 billion in direct and indirect
expenditures within parks and surrounding communities. These
expenditures also generated over 200,000 jobs. Well-managed trails
running through communities can foster substantial, sustainable
economic activity through business development and tourism. Trail users
need food, lodging, and campgrounds as well as special clothes, shoes,
and equipment.
A study of economic impacts of trails by the Allegheny Trail
Alliance (a federation of seven trail groups working to build a 209-
mile network of trails from Pittsburgh to Cumberland, Md.) estimates
that approximately $14.1 million- $25 million will be cycled into local
economies once the network is completed. In another study, the National
Park Service found that three rail-trails in Iowa, Florida, and
California contributed between $1.2 million and $1.9 million per year
to their home communities.
Retail Values
Hiking and outdoor recreation help boost the economy. The
manufacturing of hiking boots, tents, backpacks, sleeping bags, and
other related outdoor equipment has become a major job-creating
industry. The Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America estimates that
total current sales of human-powered outdoor recreation products and
specialty items are over $17.9 billion. Outdoor specialty retailers and
chain stores accounted for $4.78 billion of the total 1999 retail
sales, which represents a 6.6% increase from 1998. A recent study
reveals that on average, $374 million is spent on hiking footwear each
year.
In addition, many of these companies find ways to give back to
organizations like ours with generous donations of financial support,
in-kind and products for our volunteers.
Property Appreciation
Across the nation, parks, protected open space, and trails are
increasingly recognized as vital to the quality of life that benefits
economic health. According to a Regional Planning Association poll, the
major elements cited as crucial for a satisfactory quality of life were
low crime and access to greenery and open space. CEOs and owners of
small companies ranked recreation/parks/open space as the highest
priority in choosing a new location for their business.
Studies have supported the direct relationship between property
values and proximity to greenways, trails, and open space. A 1996
survey of property values near greenbelts in Boulder, Colorado
concluded that the average value of a home adjacent to the greenbelt
would be 32 percent higher than the same property 3,200 feet from the
greenbelt.
In Salem, Oregon, land adjacent to a greenbelt was found to be
worth about $1,200 an acre more than land only 1,000 feet away, and in
Seattle, WA homes bordering the 12-mile Burke Gilman Trail sold for 6.5
percent more than other houses of comparable size.
Congestion Relief and Pollution Control
Trails connect the community and can be an important part of the
transportation system. The use of human-powered transportation by way
of walking and bicycling could result in a savings of 17.9 billion
motor vehicle miles, 7 billion gallons of gas, and 9.5 million tons of
exhaust emissions annually.
Health Benefits
Accessible, safe trails mean that more people will walk and hike,
leading to both short- and long-term health benefits. Walking can
prevent heart disease, decrease hypertension, decrease cholesterol
levels, help weight loss, improve osteoporosis, improve and maintain
mental health, prevent and control diabetes, improve arthritis, and
relieve back pain. Trails provide a safe, inexpensive avenue for
regular exercise for people living in rural, urban, and suburban areas.
Studies show that walking or hiking a few times per week can improve a
person's health and lower health care costs. In a study conducted by
the National Park Service, individuals who exercised regularly filed 14
percent fewer healthcare claims, spent 30 percent fewer days in the
hospital, and had 41 percent fewer claims greater than $5,000 compared
to those who lead sedentary lifestyles.
National Trails Day
On June 2, 2001, American Hiking Society will coordinate its ninth
``National Trails Day,'' to raise public awareness and appreciation for
trails. Participants gather at more than 2,000 National Trails Day
events nationwide.
Uniting Along the Divide II
Hundreds of volunteers will travel to remote locations along the
3,100-mile CDT to explore and document in writing and with photographs
its historical and geologic features. Information gathered during UAD
II what is important to the CDT experience and take steps to protect
these landmarks by developing a CDT Master Plan, a blueprint for the
future of the trail.
Conclusion
By increasing the focus and funding of the recreational programs
outlined in this testimony, Congress will help ensure the viability of
America's unique natural heritage and protect the outstanding
recreation opportunities on our public lands.
Thank you, again. I will be happy to answer any questions from the
committee.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Amy Knowles?
STATEMENT OF AMY KNOWLES, FLORIDA KEYS FISHING GUIDES
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Knowles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I
appreciate this opportunity to speak before you.
My name is Amy Knowles. I live in Islamorada in the Florida
Keys, and I represent the Florida Keys Fishing Guides
Association, although I am a member of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary's personal watercraft working group.
Congress, in recognition of a need to protect the only
living coral reef ecosystem in the continental U.S., passed the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Protection Act of 1990,
signed that November by President Bush.
In 1997, the sanctuary advisory council voted to ban
personal watercraft. But upon review, the vote was rescinded,
and an alternative giving the personal watercraft industry 1
year to implement an education plan for PWC operators was
approved.
In November 1999, responding to increased public outcry and
the fact that conflicts with personal watercraft had increased
rather than diminished, the full sanctuary advisory council,
composed of new members, directed staff to begin the regulatory
making process.
The scoping period has just recently ended, and we are
currently evaluating the public comments.
The words ``Florida Keys'' conjure up images of sunshine,
palm trees, balmy tropical nights, flowers in colors,
tranquility, clear-blue waters teeming with fish and wildlife--
paradise, in short.
Yet we are besieged by a relatively new sport that is
abusive and runs counter to all traditional marine recreational
pursuits: personal watercraft operation.
With few exceptions, the operation of these craft is
reckless, loud, threatening to wildlife in shallow-water
habitats. And due to their low-hull draft and internal water
jet design, PWCs are more capable than other vessels of travel
into shallow and remote areas.
The breeding, nesting, roosting, and feeding activities of
birds are greatly disturbed by the constant variation of noise
and pitch levels of the craft. The many mangrove and shallow
flats of the sanctuary and the Everglades and Biscayne Bay
National Park's waters provide essential wild bird habitat and
feeding areas. And the accessibility of these areas to PWCs,
even though they are banned from the two national parks,
greatly increases the risk of wildlife disturbance.
In addition to their ability to access sensitive grass
flats and mangrove shorelines, the adverse impacts to wildlife
from PWC operations are much more significant than from
traditional motorized vehicles, due to their speed, noise, the
riders' tendency to travel in groups, and the maneuverability.
The migratory and feeding patters of the Keys' most sought
after shallow water game fish--bone fish, tarpon, and permit--
have changed in response to the increased traffic of PWCs
across the shallow flats.
PWC operators have been observed harassing schools of fish,
Key deer, and manatees--both of which are endangered species--
dolphins, and surfacing birds. To my great dismay, I have
witnessed frequent incidents of habitat destruction, wildlife
harassment, and the death of birds purposefully run down by PWC
riders.
This clearly is a national issue. There is documented
evidence of community after community across the country
struggling to find solutions to defend sensitive ecosystems
against the activities associated with the unregulated
operation of personal watercraft.
In South Florida, PWC use is prohibited in Biscayne
National Park, Everglades National Park, and the wildlife
refuges of the lower Keys. These areas offer relatively safe
haven for migratory and resident bird, marine mammal and fish
populations, and protection for nursery habitats.
And this level of resource protection should be extended to
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as well.
Precedent already has been set in the Monterey Bay and the
Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries with the
establishment of special zones of operation for PWCs.
The notion that personal watercraft must be treated the
same as any other vessel is puzzling and incongruous. Reckless
and intrusive PWC use tends to discourage others from using the
resource. A day's fishing, diving, swimming, or canoeing is all
too often ruined by the negligent operation and inappropriate
behavior of PWC riders.
Government at the Federal and state and local levels
regulate our public road and waterways. This is not
discrimination; it is zoning.
I realize it would be unfair and unrealistic to recommend a
ban on PWCs across the U.S. And while there are certain places
or zones where loud and fast thrill craft operation might be
appropriate, there are also environmentally special places
where it is not.
In conclusion, there appears to be a very strong need for
Federal regulation of personal watercraft use in our country's
environmentally sensitive coastal areas and freshwater lakes
and rivers.
Congressman Saxton's bill, H.R. 702, is a good start and
could do much to lessen environmental impacts and improve PWC
operator safety, thereby reducing user conflicts.
We must not roll back the regulations already in place. As
we have already lost so many of our coastal areas to
development, we cannot afford to lose even more ground in our
preserves, sanctuaries, national parks and seashores, and
wildlife refuges. We need to go forward and identify where
protection is needed.
It is the responsibility of the Committee to protect the
natural environment of the places that have been and will be
determined in the future to have special significance for
wildlife.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Knowles follows:]
Statement of Amy Krech Knowles, Representing the Florida Keys Fishing
Guides Association; Save Our Waters Coalition; and Florida Keys
Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my name is
Amy Knowles. I live in Islamorada, Florida, in the Florida Keys, and
speak on behalf of the members of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides
Association, Save Our Waters Coalition and the Florida Keys Chapter of
the Izaak Walton League of America. Although I am not a spokesperson
for the group, I am also a member of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary's Personal Watercraft Working Group. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today.
I grew up on the Eastern shore of Maryland, where I developed a
strong sense of stewardship of our natural environment, nourished by my
father who has spent the better part of 30-odd years involved in
Chesapeake Bay restoration issues and served two terms on the State of
Maryland's Critical Areas Committee. With this knowledge came the
understanding that we are individually and collectively responsible for
the choices we make and the legacy we leave. My husband, a fourth
generation Coloradan, and I, lived in Colorado for 27 years where we
raised our two sons. In the '70s we discovered the Florida Keys. We all
loved to fish, and the Keys were ideal for our family vacations: quiet,
casual, friendly, pretty, with beautiful water teeming with fish and
wildlife. We eventually bought a boat and a house, and in 1990, when
our youngest graduated from high school, we packed up the dogs and the
cats and moved permanently to Islamorada.
That same year, Congress, in recognition of the need to protect the
only living coral reef ecosystem in the Continental U.S., passed the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Protection Act of 1990, which
was signed that November by President Bush. The Act required NOAA to
develop a comprehensive management plan, and to that end, the Sanctuary
Advisory Council was formed. I was a member of the council from 1995--
1997. During the last days of finalizing the management plan, the
Sanctuary Advisory Council voted to ban personal watercraft from the
Sanctuary. One of our members, uncomfortable with the vote, asked to
revisit it, and upon review, the vote was rescinded. The Advisory
Council recommended an alternative which gave the personal watercraft
industry one year to implement their education plan for PWC operators.
If, at the end of the year's trial, there was no improvement in the
behavior of PWC riders, the Sanctuary Advisory Council would then
direct staff to begin the regulatory making process. The final
management plan was approved in 1998.
In November of 1999, in response to increasing public outcry and
the fact that conflicts with personal watercraft had increased rather
than diminished, the full Sanctuary Advisory Council, composed of new
members, reaffirmed the former Advisory Council's recommendations and
requested that staff begin the regulatory making process. The Personal
Watercraft Working Group was formed and began meeting in 2000. The
committee is comprised of fishing guides, recreational fishermen,
personal watercraft venue operators, the diving industry, environmental
organization representatives, the personal watercraft industry, state
agency representatives and sanctuary staff. The purpose of the
committee was to draft a set of management alternatives to present to
the Advisory Council with our ranking and recommendations. We have just
completed the public comment period on the eight options drafted, and
are in the process of evaluating the comments received.
The islands of the Florida Keys, connected to the mainland and each
other by a series of bridges, have a diverse and colorful history,
populated at various times by pirates and bootleggers, cigar makers and
spongers, authors, musicians and artists, pineapple and palm tree
farmers, recreational and commercial fishermen, salvagers and
recreational divers, railroad builders, developers and tourists. What
lures people to the Keys is the simultaneous remoteness and
accessibility of the islands, and the beauty and diversity of the
marine and terrestrial ecosystems. However, as with most places that we
love and value, those very sentiments and our desire to share them with
friends and family often contribute to the diminishment of special
places.
The inevitable outcome of unbridled growth in the Keys in the '70s
and early '80s, and the accompanying surge in tourism is evidenced by
the degradation of our nearshore and inshore water quality and the
decline of the coral reef ecosystem. The establishment of the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with its mission to protect and
conserve the Keys' fragile marine and cultural resources, and the
attendant Water Quality Protection Program, was an important step
toward stemming the tide of this decline.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary shares boundaries with
Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, and the Key Deer,
Great White Heron and Key West National Wildlife Refuges. These are
man-made boundaries. The waters of Florida Bay (a large estuary
situated in the easternmost part of the Gulf of Mexico), the
terrestrial ecosystem of the Keys, and the coral reef tract are all
integral parts of the greater Everglades ecosystem. As you are
undoubtedly aware, the Federal Government and the state of Florida are
committed to a multi-billion dollar restoration of the Everglades.
The shallow waters of Florida Bay contain thousands of acres of sea
grasses, essential nursery habitat for juvenile finfish and
crustaceans; and the many mangrove islands which characterize the
composition of the Keys, afford nesting, breeding and roosting sites
for the many bird species which inhabit our islands and the Everglades.
The legendary Zane Gray and Joe Brooks put the Florida Keys in the
forefront of saltwater fishing, and the Keys still enjoy a worldwide
reputation as a premier destination for shallow - water fishing
enthusiasts. Large migrations of Tarpon take place each spring and
summer, and Bonefish, Permit, Snook and Redfish can be found year
round. The experience of fishing for these species is further enhanced
by the method used to pursue them. When fishermen arrive at their
destination, the motor is shut down, and the guide silently poles the
boat across the shallow grass flats in search of fish. It is a peaceful
and quiet endeavor, the success of which is not so much determined by
catching fish as it is by experiencing the serenity and beauty of the
natural environment.
With the advent of SCUBA, the dive industry found a home in the
beautiful clear waters of the Florida Keys and the country's first
underwater park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, was established
in the 1960s. Today, thousands of visitors each year travel to the Keys
to dive and to snorkel.
The natural assets of the Keys, which are so unique, so precious,
are the true treasures that the Florida Keys have to offer the citizens
of the United States and are irreplaceable. Indeed, the mention of the
words ``Florida Keys'' conjures up images of sunshine, palm trees,
balmy tropical nights, and flowers in riotous colors, solitude,
tranquility, and clear waters. Yet we are besieged by a relatively new
``sport'' that is abusive and runs counter to all traditional marine
recreational pursuits: personal watercraft operation. With few
exceptions, the operation of these craft is reckless, loud, threatening
to wildlife and shallow water habitats. Compared to other vessels, due
to their low draft and internal water jet design characteristics, PWCs
are more capable of travel into shallow and more remote areas where
environmental degradation to water and on-shore resources is likely to
be greatest. The breeding, nesting, roosting and feeding activities of
birds are greatly disturbed by the constant variation of noise and
pitch levels of PWC operation; the many mangrove islands and shallow
flats within the Sanctuary and the Everglades and Biscayne Bay National
Parks' waters provide essential wild bird habitat and feeding areas and
the accessibility of these areas to PWCs - even though they are banned
from the two national parks - greatly increases the risk of wildlife
disturbance.
The adverse impacts from PWC operation on wildlife are much more
significant than from traditional motorized vessels and are the result
of the following factors: their physical ability to access shallow
grass flats and skim the mangrove shorelines, speed, noise, the riders'
tendency to travel in groups, and their maneuverability and/or
confinement to small, normally shallow areas. The migratory and feeding
patterns of the Keys' most sought-after shallow water game fish--
Bonefish, Tarpon and Permit--have changed in response to the increased
traffic of PWCs across the shallow grass flats and because of the speed
and maneuverability of these craft. PWC operators have been observed
harassing schools of fish on the flats, Key Deer swimming the canals of
the Lower Keys, manatees, dolphins, and surfacing birds. To my great
dismay, I have witnessed frequent incidents of habitat destruction,
wildlife harassment and the death of birds purposely run down by PWC
riders.
This is clearly a national issue. There is documented evidence of
community after community across the country struggling to find
solutions to defend sensitive ecosystems against the activities
associated with the unregulated operation of personal watercraft. In
South Florida, PWC use is prohibited in Biscayne National Park,
Everglades National Park and the Wildlife Refuges of the Lower Keys.
These areas offer safe haven for migratory and resident bird, marine
mammal and fish populations, and protection for nursery habitats and
this level of resource protection should be extended to the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary as well. Precedent already has been set
in the Monterey Bay and Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries
with the establishment of special zones of operation for personal
watercraft.
The notion that personal watercraft must be treated the same as any
other vessel is puzzling and incongruous. Reckless and intrusive PWC
use tends to discourage others from using the resource. A day's
fishing, diving, swimming or canoeing is often ruined by the negligent
operation and inappropriate behavior of PWC riders. Governments at the
Federal, state and local levels regulate our public roads and
waterways. This is not ``discrimination'', it is ``zoning''. I realize
that it would be unfair and unrealistic to recommend a ban on PWCs
across the U.S., and while there are certain places where loud and fast
``thrill craft'' operation might be appropriate, there are also certain
places where it is not.
In conclusion, there appears to be a very strong need for Federal
regulation of personal watercraft use in our country's environmentally
sensitive coastal areas, and freshwater lakes and rivers. Congressman
Saxton's bill, H.R. 702, is a good start and if implemented, could do
much to lessen environmental impacts and improve PWC operator safety,
thereby reducing user conflicts.
We must not roll back the regulations already in place. As we have
already lost so much ground in sensitive coastal areas to development,
we cannot afford to lose even more ground in our preserves,
sanctuaries, national parks and seashores, and wildlife refuges. We
need to go forward and identify where protection is needed. It is the
responsibility of this committee to protect the natural environment of
the places that have been and will be determined in the future to have
special significance for wildlife.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania I will now recognize for
any questions he may have for this panel.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mackey, knowing the Federal land managers want
increased wilderness designated areas, who do you suppose they
envision using these areas?
Mr. Mackey. I guess they would have to answer that question
specifically, but I think there are a number of things going in
this country.
You state that managers want increased wilderness. I think
that is fair in some places, not in all places. There is a
large constituency of people in this country who certainly want
more wilderness areas for a variety of reasons.
I guess I would answer that question by, what Outward Bound
promotes is a spectrum of opportunities in the backcountry,
from wilderness to roadless to pristine nonmotorized to
pristine motorized, et cetera.
And I think we, as a country, need to take a close look at
that. I don't think we can afford to get to the point where we
have islands of wilderness in this country, whether we have
more of it or not.
I have 20 years of background in the public policy realm.
Personally, I don't necessarily agree with the way the Clinton
administration went about the roadless project. I don't think
it is a brilliant piece of public policy.
That said, Outward Bound is unabashed about wilderness and
unabashed about roadless opportunities. But I am also unabashed
about opportunities for all Americans out there.
And I think that is what is missing from the debate and
from management out there on public lands today, that we are
not looking at--I don't prefer to use the word recreation--but
we are not looking at recreation or visitor opportunity across
a broad spectrum of opportunities. We are not managing
recreation or visitor opportunity across a broad spectrum. We
are not looking at it regionally, et cetera.
I think there is room out there for everyone. And there are
places where, absolutely, we can afford more wilderness. But we
can't get caught in a trap of wilderness versus nonwilderness,
motorized versus nonmotorized, recreation versus nonrecreation.
That is what we have to avoid.
Mr. Peterson. You are there. Who is using the wilderness
today?
Mr. Mackey. Well, that varies by agency, in particular.
Park Service wilderness--
Mr. Peterson. Who does the best job?
Mr. Mackey. Who does the best job of using it?
Mr. Peterson. Of allowing all to--
Mr. Mackey. Who does the best job of allowing people to use
wilderness? Well, I would say that that is probably the BLM at
this point in time. It offers the most spectrum of people in
wilderness. They are the most liberal in terms of group size.
There is the least administration.
The Park Service is getting increasingly restrictive on
access. We have a group size of six in Glacier National Park.
Outward Bound used to operate in the backcountry of Gates
of the Arctic National Park where they now have a group size of
seven. Due to our desire to reach out and engage a diverse
spectrum of Americans in that wilderness, to give scholarships
to people, we can no longer afford to operate in the Gates of
the Arctic National Park. We have left the park because of the
group size of seven.
Mr. Peterson. What group size works?
Mr. Mackey. For Outward Bound, the way we describe that is
a group size of six is probably too small; a group size of 15
is probably too large.
For Outward Bound, I would say it is somewhere between 10
and 12 people, because what we are trying to do is educate in
backcountry. So we are looking at the backcountry as a
classroom, and we are looking at things like instructor-to-
student ratios.
A group size of five or six is too small for that. A group
size of 15 is too large. So we have very specific parameters
which we work in and for objectives we are actually trying to
achieve in the backcountry.
Those types of things I can flatly say are not being taken
into consideration in the development of group sizes today.
Mr. Peterson. How long has the group size been restricted
that much?
Mr. Mackey. Most of the group sizes that low are very new.
It is a trend.
As I say, Outward Bound is a very large and significant
user of the backcountry in the United States. We celebrate our
40th anniversary today, this year. We put about 15,000 people a
year out into backcountry, not necessarily wilderness
experiences.
Most places, group sizes are still 12, 15. In many Forest
Service and BLM areas, it is 15 or 25, particularly for horse
packers, et cetera.
But the trend is absolutely in the other direction in
formal planning process after formal planning process, whether
it is the Forest Service, the Park Service, or the BLM.
We are going to group sizes of six and seven in the Park
Service wilderness. We are going to group sizes in the Sierra
National Forest for the Forest Service of group sizes as low as
zero on many trails; for commercial outfitters, five and seven.
The Escalante in the Chairman's district area of the BLM,
Escalante National Monument just went to a group size of 12.
Mr. Peterson. What is the rationale for the real small
group size? What is their reasoning?
Mr. Mackey. First and foremost, resource protection. But I
think the thing that is increasing mentioned--if you will, the
crutch--is solitude, that somehow large groups, even groups as
small as large, however you look at it, of 8 and 10 people are
not compatible with the concept of solitude.
Outward Bound has for four decades looked to solitude. What
we do is pull kids out of their comfortable urban environments
and take them out in the backcountry and, if you will, put them
through a little form of boot camp.
We get them out of bed at 4 o'clock in the morning, get
them dressed, and make them climb a peak. We give them the map.
We give them the compass, and say, ``Be back here by 5 o'clock
this afternoon.''
Mr. Peterson. Who has been successful at restricting these
numbers? Who thinks the number should be this low? Who has been
successful at getting these numbers lowered?
Mr. Mackey. I honestly think it is coming from the field,
the field-level offices. I do not get it from the people I work
with on a daily basis here in the Washington office.
Mr. Peterson. No national association of anybody that is
saying it should be less?
Mr. Mackey. Oh, there are certainly groups out there.
I mean, I will mention one specifically, Wilderness Watch,
who does good work. I worked with George Nickas on the fixed
anchor in wilderness issue. I am not shooting at Wilderness
Watch by any stretch.
But there are definitely organizations out there that are
promoting their interpretation of the Wilderness Act and their
interpretation of wilderness values, and that is fair.
That is what I am doing here today. I am promoting my
interpretations of wilderness values to say that should include
educational use of public lands, that not all use of public
lands out there is recreation. We certainly don't view
ourselves as recreation.
The University of Idaho put 31 separate programs out onto
the public lands in Idaho, across the country. They go up and
climb Denali. Almost none of those programs are permitted or
administered or recognized by the agencies for their
educational value on public lands.
If President Bush wants to be the education President, I
would ask him to look to and communicate with the managers of
public land agencies in this country about why the University
of Idaho is putting 31 separate groups--whether it is the
English honors program, the range management program, the
forestry program, or the formal outdoor recreation program of
the university--out onto public lands.
Obviously, they see an educational value to those
resources. We are not managing for that educational value. We
are not funding for that educational value. We are not looking
at group sizes which allow that educational value.
Mr. Peterson. So we are really not allowing it?
Mr. Mackey. I want to be clear, in most places, we are
absolutely still allowing it, but the trends are absolutely to
smaller and smaller group sizes.
In the Sierra National Forest, the planning process may
well put Outward Bound out of business on the Sierra National
Forest, an area where we have operated for decades. We can't
survive with group sizes of five, and the proposal from the
Sierra National Forest is 5 commercial operator days per trail
head, for which dozens of outfitters, guides, educators will
compete for those 5 days. That will quite likely put us out of
business on the Sierra National Forest.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his excellent questions.
And this has been a very interesting panel, as the first
one was.
The basic thing behind this whole idea is the use of public
lands that America wants to use. And I don't know whoever said
moderation in all things, but somewhere we hope we can come to
that.
And we feel that this last administration has been a little
excessive in eliminating people from public ground.
I would just like to quickly ask questions here, for some
brief answers, if I could.
Mr. Bassett, as president of the United States Air Tour
Association, how many parks do you normally fly over? Ho many
parks have overflights?
Mr. Bassett. Not that many. Out of the 370-some national
parks in the United States, a couple in Hawaii, Grand Canyon,
Glacier, Denali. And we understand that there are some isolated
operators at other places, perhaps Bryce. They are not members
of ours, but I believe there are one or two operators there.
There are one or two down south, but most of the air
touring is concentrated at the Grand Canyon, Hawaii, and
Alaska.
The Chairman. How many folks are from foreign countries
that you take over? Do you have a percentage of how many that
would be?
Mr. Bassett. Absolutely. And the Grand Canyon and Hawaii
are key to that. And about 60 percent is the answer.
One of the Administration's claims, particularly as it
imposed new regulations in the Grand Canyon, was that it
wouldn't have an impact on foreign trade. Well, it will have an
impact on foreign trade, particularly those folks going into
Las Vegas who are visiting the Grand Canyon, because they don't
intend to go to the Grand Canyon by any other means.
They are not going to drive there. They are going to go to
Las Vegas, do other things, fly to the Grand Canyon as a part
of their package, and then go back to Las Vegas.
But approximately 60 percent, very heavily from the Asian
countries, and increasingly from a number of the European
countries as well.
The Chairman. So if I am reading you right, these are
people that have come into the United States, who are on some
kind of tour. They don't have the opportunity to hike down the
canyon, go to the South Rim or the North Rim, but they do have
maybe 2 or 3 hours that they can block off to fly over and see
the canyon. Is that right?
Mr. Bassett. Absolutely. And predominantly from Las Vegas,
that is true. Those who actually are visiting the Grand Canyon
from the Arizona side, we may find that they may also drive in
or go in to the South Rim, but their time is limited. And they
are trying to see as much of the canyon as possible in the
shortest amount of time. Air tours do that.
The Chairman. What about handicapped people?
Mr. Bassett. We find also that handicapped, retirement age,
those with health-related problems, also about 60 percent of
the air tours, not only at the Grand Canyon but in Hawaii and
Alaska as well. And same story as with international, but even
more so for those over on the Arizona side.
There is absolutely no other way for them to see the
canyon. I mean, they can't even take a bus a get out of it and
go to the South Rim. We literally watch wheelchairs being
loaded into aircraft that have been adapted for them. That is
how they get to see the canyon.
The Chairman. Mr. Mackey, you talked about, when you were
answering Mr. Peterson, about a trend on size.
You know, years ago, when you were in the mountains, when I
was a kid, the Boy Scouts used to go into the mountains. That
was part of the deal. That is where you got four or five of
your merit badges. And now, of course, they want to limit the
size.
What trend do you see? If I read you right, you said you
see a trend. Is that a trend toward smaller, larger or where?
Mr. Mackey. Specifically on group size, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. On the amount of people that can go into a
wilderness area, forests, BLM, reclamation parks, the whole
nine yards.
Mr. Mackey. And are you talking specifically to wilderness
here?
The Chairman. Yes, wilderness.
Mr. Mackey. The trends are clear. And as I said in my
answer earlier, we are talking about limited examples if you
look at the overall spectrum of opportunity on public lands.
But where we are seeing formal management, wilderness
backcountry management planning processes taking place, across
the agencies the trend is clearly toward reducing group size,
reducing overall allocations of use in wilderness.
The Chairman. Do you think this predicated on science?
Mr. Mackey. Well, I have attached to my formal testimony a
paper spearheaded by Chris Monz at Colorado State University,
which I would encourage your staff to take a close look at.
There is really a two-part answer to science. In terms of
physical carrying capacity of the resource, we are using very
little science. There is very little formal science, in terms
of physical carrying capacity of the resource.
I would submit that group size is the No. 1 management tool
being used to restrict or reduce access to wilderness at this
point in time. And recreation ecologists will tell you that we
have virtually no scientific evidence on group size. We have
supposition, but we have no hard evidence.
There is much more evidence out there on the social impacts
of groups. But the paper, which I attached to my testimony,
will show you that, if given a spectrum of things people think
wilderness managers need to manage for in the backcountry or
problems in the backcountry, if you will, encountering large
groups often ranks 15th, 20th on a list. Yet, managers are
telling us that this is one of the No. 1 things they need to
manage for.
The Chairman. Always been the argument on the Committee of
how do we make determinations, or does an agency do it. We find
that many of these are not made on really good science, but
more emotion or driven by different groups who feel very
strongly and are very vocal about areas.
Vera Smith, you talked about different things. On the last
panel, I asked them about the question of the 1964 Wilderness
Act. The act says mechanized, can't take mechanized things in,
and we have never defined that.
Everyone argues and struggles over it, but nobody comes up
with anything. It is kind of like the eye of the beholder.
You know, people who climb these rocks, they drive these
things into the rocks. Is that mechanized? Is the hammer
mechanized? Is the oar lock mechanized? Is the knife in his
pocket mechanized?
You know, we changed the act to allow wheelchairs; that was
the amendment I put in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Right now, there are two that are floating around, one on
taking horses out of wilderness areas, and the other is putting
mountain bikes in wilderness areas. I don't know if either of
them will go anywhere. I don't even know if we will entertain
them.
But I would be curious as to your reaction to both of
those.
Ms. Smith. I think, when we look at the whole landscape,
especially in the Western areas, we look at the entire
landscape, there are very few areas, relatively, that qualify
for wilderness. It was a very strict criteria that was set out
in that act.
Managers have the responsibility to manage those lands so
that those criteria remain, that wilderness values are not
impaired. So I think any decisions that we make, we have to
ensure that introducing a use would not impair those wilderness
values.
I live in the front range of Colorado, and we have a lot of
open spaces there, where we have mountain bikes and hiking and
horses all going together. And the intensity of mountain bike
use I think would not meet the criteria in the Wilderness Act.
I think there is some validity in that decision.
I would also suggest that we have so many areas that are
open to mountain biking that to take the few that are really
designated as wilderness and say, ``Okay, we are going to put
mountain biking in there, too,'' just seems a bit unnecessary.
There are plenty of areas.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
We are going to run out of time. We have one more very
important panel to hear from. We have a number of things going
on on the Hill, the military and the President's budget. You
noticed that members have come in and out, and all of them are
pretty well tied up.
Mr. Ward, I thought your ideas about a commission had some
validity and is very interesting. We will try to explore that.
And, Amy Knowles, your comments about PWC would be very
provocative and debatable in some areas, but that is what we do
around here.
Around here, they say everyone has his say and not everyone
gets his way.
[Laughter.]
Anyway, let me thank this panel. And I appreciate you being
with us.
And we will turn to our last panel. And our last panel is
Russell Laine, private PWC user, testifying on behalf of the
personal watercraft industry; Mr. David Woodside, vice chairman
of the National Parks Hospitality Association; Mr. Wesley
DeCou, flying site coordinator, Academy of Model Aeronautics;
Mr. Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation
Association.
I appreciate you folks being with us. You know the rules.
If you'll notice this thing in front of you there, it says
talk, sum up, and stop. We would appreciate it if you could
keep your remarks within the 5-minute time. Keep in mind that
your full testimony will be in the record and is something that
will be looked at in great detail.
With that said, Mr. Laine, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL LAINE, PRIVATE PWC USER, ON BEHALF OF THE
PERSONAL WATERCRAFT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Laine. I appreciate the chance to come here and speak
before you today on behalf of the Personal Watercraft Industry
Association, personal watercraft users, and owners.
I am the bottom line. I am the end user. I am the person
that is being affected by these park closures--myself, my
family.
You have been bombarded today with numbers, figures,
decibels, pollution, different animals. My family and I enjoy
the use of our personal watercraft.
I am a 20-year veteran firefighter. I give my live every
day for the community that I live in.
My basic thing today is I would like to ask that I get
equal opportunity to use our national parks, our parks that are
owned by us, taken care of by our tax dollars. The National
Park Service has this way of closing doors before people get to
them.
1996, I went to the beach with my family, my boats, and I
stress ``boats.'' The National Park Service met me at the gate
and said, ``Sorry, you can't come in.'' I was appalled at that,
where the beach was full of other boats, standard outboard
motors, inboard motors, scarabs running up and down the beach
at 60 and 80 miles an hour, much louder than my boats, much
faster than my boats.
Yet I had been painted this picture as the modern day
Hell's Angels on water, and I take offense to that. I take
great offense to that.
I am a civil servant. I work hard. I like to just enjoy the
open land.
I am an avid fisherman. My son and I used to both hold
commercial fishing licenses. We fished off of our personal
watercraft. I have caught many nice striped bass off of Cape
Cod. That has been removed from my agenda. My family is no
longer allowed to do that.
My 17-year-old son has been forced to find alternative
means to go fishing, because we are no longer allowed to fish
off our watercraft.
I would ask that you look at the closings and the access to
these parks, not only on Cape Code, across the country.
There are lakes in the Midwest, Lake Mead, that they are
trying to close up. That was a manmade lake. I believe it was
built for boating recreation.
The Florida Keys, beautiful land. I have seen it.
Two years ago, I took my family to Alaska, the vacation of
a lifetime. We drove 15 days to get there. Got to Denali
National Park and was told, ``You can't drive in there.'' You
have to take this school bus and sit on the school bus for 7
hours if you want to see Denali National Park.
Once again, I am appalled that the National Park Service
has just closed the doors to us taxpayers, Federal taxpayers
that pay for these parks.
Personal watercraft have been painted as a picture of the
fast car on the water. I am sure that every person here that
owns a vehicle, your vehicle is capable of doing probably 100
miles an hour on our streets. But it doesn't go that fast
because you don't step on the gas that fast.
Personal watercraft do not automatically go 50 miles an
hour. It is the operator that makes it go 50 miles an hour.
I have never heard a report of a manatee being chopped up
by a personal watercraft. Yet, oil tankers, scarabs, fast
racing boats are allowed to use these waters where personal
watercraft are not allowed because of environmental issues.
There are a lot of issues that are being brought up right
now, with economics. It is an economic issue in this world,
too. I cannot afford $150,000 scarab boat that is allowed on
the waters that I can't take my personal watercraft.
To close, I would just like to ask for my fair share. That
is what I am looking for, my fair share. And the hundreds of
people, the thousands of the people, that are across the
country that own these personal watercraft are looking for
their fair share.
These vessels have been painted as a bad picture, a really
bad picture. I have never seen substantiated evidence,
ecologically, scientifically, that prove that these boats are
destroying our national parks. If there is in existence, I
would like to see it.
I met every criteria that I have ever been asked to meet.
And yet, I still cannot use my national parks.
And I thank you, sir, for giving me the time to express my
opinion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laine follows:]
Statement of Russell Laine, Boston, Massachusetts, on Behalf of the
Personal Watercraft Industry Association
Good Morning. Thank you Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Rahall and
members of the Committee. I am honored to be here today to talk about
such an important issue and to have the opportunity to speak on behalf
of the millions of people who enjoy personal watercraft and are
devastated at the prospect of being kept from enjoying our National
Parks.
I am speaking of the National Park Service personal watercraft ban.
On March 21, 2000, the National Park Service published a regulation in
the Federal Register banning personal watercraft in 66 of the 87
national parks. In the remaining 21 parks, the Service delegated two
years for superintendents to work with the public in deciding how to
handle personal watercraft use in the park.
However, an extremist, anti-access group dedicated to ending a
wide-array of recreational activities on public lands and waters, set
their sights on personal watercraft and filed a Federal suit against
the National Park Service to ban all personal watercraft in all parks
by 2002.
Demanding that the voice of the personal watercraft community be
heard in this lawsuit, motions were filed by representatives to ensure
a fair and open participation in the process. Intervention was sought
by the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA), representing
the manufacturers Bombardier, Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha, and the
national user group American Watercraft Association (AWA).
Unfortunately, in December 2000, the Park Service caved to the
pressure and settled the lawsuit without any input from the public or
the personal watercraft community. When Federal district court ruled on
the personal watercraft suit in April 2001, the judge also denied the
intervention requests of PWIA and AWA. However, the ruling reached does
ensure that the 21 remaining parks be open to personal watercraft at
least through September 2002 and that an environmental assessment be
carried out in each park under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Many parks have already begun the steps necessary to allow personal
watercraft use, but some parks had already been closed off to usage
through the superintendents' earlier decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I am a firefighter and family man from Massachusetts.
I am a member of the Taunton Rescue Dive Team and have used personal
watercraft in a number of rescues. It is a reliable vessel that gives
me the maneuverability to get up close to help anyone in trouble
without risking injury to the person I am saving.
Also, my family and I previously owned two personal watercraft. We
shared many outings on these boats--going fishing, touring the Cape Cod
National Seashore and enjoying a safe and fun family recreation.
Personal watercraft not only have brought my family closer together,
but also have increased our enjoyment of the outdoors
I have been going to Cape Cod National Seashore for 37 years, and I
was hoping my children could experience the reverence and enjoyment of
such an incredible resource in the same manner. We are diligent in
protecting these resources, respect the national parks and have always
been environmental stewards in every aspect of our lives. Mr. Chairman,
we are the people the national parks were created for.
That is why I am honestly stunned that it is necessary for me to be
here today. I still can not believe that the National Park Service has
seen fit to engage in a closed-door settlement that essentially has
told 1.5 million personal watercraft owners that they are no longer
welcome in our national waters. That my family, who has always been
conscientious in protecting our natural resources, is not welcome to
boat in the park.
Many of the 21 parks affected by this decision were created for
water recreation, including motorized boating. Personal watercraft and
other forms of water recreation have been enjoyed side-by-side in our
national parks for more than a quarter of a century. Now, my neighbor,
who owns a KrisKraft, is still welcome at the park. If he owned a
cigarette boat, he'd still be welcome at the Seashore. But my son and I
can longer enjoy fishing the waters off the Cape on our personal
watercraft. I'd like the Superintendent of the National Seashore to
tell me how this can be the right thing for the park.
But it's not just Cape Cod National Seashore. I've talked to
friends around the country. At Padre Island National Park in Texas you
can drive your truck up and down the beach, right on the beach, but
personal watercraft are not welcome. I know people around Gulf Islands
National Seashore in Mississippi and Florida will be unable to see
areas of that park accessible only by boat. And did you know that
personal watercraft are not allowed in Key Biscayne National Park, but
oil tankers, barges and cigarette boats are still welcome? How can that
be good or fair policy?
And that's the real issue. The ban is not sound policy. It was
orchestrated by a group of people who preach intolerance towards any
form of motorized recreation, has been taken at face value without any
scientific support. Even the General Accounting Office in September of
2000 revealed that the National Park Service had not used reliable
scientific methods to quantify the impact of personal watercraft. Yet
the National Park Service banned the boats anyway.
What science does prove is that personal watercraft are ideal for
use in our national parks and any waterway where other motorized
boating is allowed. Our boats are some of the most environmentally
friendly vessels on the water today, meeting or exceeding all state and
Federal noise level standards, without disturbing sensitive marine and
wildlife. I think that the millions of personal watercraft owners and
enthusiasts around the country will agree with me when I say that, when
operated according to existing state boating laws, personal watercraft
are not only clean and safe, but one of the best riding and most
enjoyable boats out on the water. Personal watercraft should be welcome
where motorized boating is allowed.
Consider these facts:
PWC AND SOUND
The Society of Automotive Engineers utilizes 3 methods of measuring
sound from watercraft, including PWC:
LSAE J34: This is the most precise measurement available,
taken of a boat at a distance of 50ft with wide-open throttle (the near
maximum noise of the boat). Although great for engineering standards,
it is difficult for enforcement purposes in the field. The Coast Guard
recommends 86 decibels (dBA), which most states have adopted as law.
LSAE J2005: This measures the engine sound at idle with
the microphone 1.5 m away. SAE recommends a limit of 90dbA for this
method, which does not account for the speed or power of the boat.
LSAE J1970: In realizing the enforcement difficulties of
the previous methods, SAE designed this shoreline noise test enabling
regulations keeping the boat under 75 dBA at 50 ft. by operation, not
mechanics. The operator is responsible for controlling the noise of the
boat.
dB refers to the measurement in decibels. The (A) refers to the
``A'' weighting of the scale, which discriminates against lower
frequency similar to the sensitivity of the human ear.
Sound energy dissipates with distance, other sound and wind. A
comprehensive study on sound with motorboats (but not including PWC)
found that sound dissipates up to 9.9dBA when the boat travels from 50
ft to 200 ft away (4.8 dBA reduction from 50 to 100 ft, additional 5.1
dBA from 100 to 200 ft.). 1
Both the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
and the National Marine Manufacturers Association have Model Noise
Acts, which our manufacturers follow as NMMA members. These
requirements are in compliance with the SAE recommended dBA standards.
NASBLA required 88 dbA under SAE J2005, and 75 dBA under SAE J1970.
NMMA recommends 90 dBA under SAE J2005. 2 The Environmental
Protection Agency has determined that 75 dBA at 50 feet is an
acceptable noise level to protect public health and welfare.
3
There are two items creating the noise one hears from PWC: noise
from the water splashing the hull and resonating, and the noise from
the engines during normal operation of the PWC.
Tests comparing noise levels emitted by 2001 models found that a 3-
seat PWC emits 70 dBA at 100 ft when towed, when engine is not running!
When tested with a running engine at full throttle, the engine sound
plus the water sound created 78 dBA, well below the Coast Guard's boat
noise regulation of 86 dBA at 50ft at full speed under SAE J34.
The personal watercraft industry has reduced engine noise levels by
up to 70% since 1998. The 70% reductions in noise levels since 1998
also involve the pitch of the engine. Methods by which they absorb or
block the wavelengths of sound also blocks the pitch of the sound.
4
To reduce the noise intake, the PWC utilized air intake resonators
with multiple maze-like chambers eliminating a direct path for the
sound waves to escape. 5 This series of tubes, termed the
resonator, employs several different length tubes attached to the
exhaust pipe. As sound waves pass into these tunnels, they bounce back,
and their opposite direction cancels out incoming, identical but
opposite ``crest'' waves. 6 Baffles are used for counter
frequency and to quiet vibration. Manufacturers also employ noise-
absorbing foam between the liner and the hull, so the boat is quieter
and more durable (and therefore quieter under water.) These machines
also have increased thickness to the crankcase wall muffles noise and
vibration. Rubber is also used as padding around the jet pump dampers
to absorb the shock loads and quell driveline noise. 7
In 1999 the Finnish Ministry of the Environment performed sound
experiments on old and new PWC, and compared to 2 stroke, four stroke,
and cabin cruiser. The boats were measured at different speed,
different distances, and by irritation to observers (subjective).
At maximum speeds 50 m away (164 ft), the new PWC was 70 dBA, and
the old PWC was 73 dBA. In order to compare this to the SAE J34
standard, a PWC at 41 ft in this test, according to their
(unfortunately metric) figures, would measure 79.9 dBA (new) and 82.9
dBA (old). Even at a slightly closer distance, the PWC are below the
U.S. Coast Guard noise level standards in SAE J34.
In any case with the Finnish experiment, comparisons with other
boats found that the new PWC was the quietest and least disturbing boat
at speeds up to 40 km/h and at lower speeds. It was the most variable
in terms of noise, because at 20 km/hr and at maximum speed it was
almost as loud as the cabin cruiser. The new PWC was much quieter than
the old PWC in every test, by an average 3.6 dBA (comparing all speeds
and distances)! The waves from the PWC were so minor, due to their
small size and weight as to be confused with natural waves. Distance
and manner driven were the most significant factor in disturbance.
``The restrictions concerning PWC do not seem justified with the new
models, if there are other regulations that could be set for top speeds
and driving manner. 8
In New Jersey, the state police measured the noise levels of PWC in
1996 in accordance with SAE J2005 (idle engines). These older model PWC
were found to have decibel levels of 71 and 70 in these tests, well
below recommended levels of 88 dBA by NASBLA. In contrast, the outboard
engine measured 74 dBA, outboard engine with exhaust above the water
measured 90 dBA, while the racing boats measured came in at 95-99 dBA.
9 The Marine Police Captain at the time was quoted in the
press ``It's interesting to note that in light of all the complaints we
get about PWC, their noise levels are much lower than other boats.''
10
Sound level tests performed according to SAE J1970 in California
found PWC measure an average of 70.68 dBA comparing the 4 brands of
1992 models. This is also well below the standard 75 dBA limit set by
NASBLA. 11
PWC AND EMISSIONS
PWC manufacturers have made enormous technological advances in
recent years that have resulted in engines that are 75 percent cleaner
than just two years ago.
Contrary to what anti-PWC groups claim, independent research done
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agent (EPA) and the California Air
Resources Board states clearly that the majority of PWC emissions are
not oil or gas but rather hydrocarbons. 12 Furthermore, EPA
studies on PWC hydrocarbon emissions prove that hydrocarbons are not
``dumped directly into the water'' from the engine of a PWC, as
opponents contend, but are mixed with air into a diluted gas in the
combustion chamber which then evaporates quickly due to their high
temperatures. 13
The EPA has determined that emissions from boat engines in the U.S.
account for only 3 percent of the total amount nationwide, while PWC
emissions account for only a fraction of those marine engine emissions.
Specifically, the EPA has determined that PWC-specific hydrocarbon
emissions account for only 0.3 percent of the country's total
hydrocarbon emissions. 14 By comparison, automobiles account
for 33 percent of emissions in the nation, while the commercial
industry is responsible for 57 percent. 15
The industry has worked hard to meet 2006 EPA clean air guidelines
in the 2001 personal watercraft models. That's five years early. It
took the automobile industry almost three decades to accomplish the
same goal. Personal watercraft are one of the cleanest motorized boats
on the water today.
PWC AND WILDLIFE
Waterfowl
Personal watercraft have no greater significant impact on waterfowl
than other motorized boats, according to a series of studies by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. A comparison of the
flush distances, or minimum distance required to disturb colonial
nesting birds, caused by personal watercraft and a two-stroke engine
motorboat found that personal watercraft are ``relatively quiet to the
point where their noise is not the factor which causes the birds to
flush.'' A fast-moving motorboat heading directly at the birds should
produce a flushing response similar to that of a PWC being operated in
a similar manner.
Most importantly, only one out of eleven species in the study
exhibited a larger flushing distance to the PWC than the motorboat.
Five species flushed at farther distances by the motorboat than the
PWC, and eleven species showed no significant difference in flushing
distances based on the boat approaching. In his discussion, Dr. Rodgers
claims there should be no difference in buffer zone size based on boat
type. Species type is more important when determining boundaries which
should not be crossed by humans. As both PWC and outboard motors, when
equipped properly, can go into shallow water, they both have the
potential to disturb loafing birds. 16
Similarly, a different study in Florida found an average greater
flush distance in response to walking than to approaching motor boats
or canoes. As a result, the researchers recommended set back distances
for all human activity of 100 m (328 ft) for wading birds and 180 m
(590 ft) for skittish species such as skimmers and terns. The
researchers also cited to one report finding no significant effect on
breeding success due to disturbance by boats or other methods.
Through successive disturbances, Rodgers et al. found that certain
species became increasingly or less tolerant of disturbance. Although
there was a small sample size in the experiment comparing canoes to
motorboats, the American Anhinga (water turkey) was flushed at equal
distances by the different types of boats. The reaction was not a
function of noise. Additionally, birds were less sensitive to a
tangential approach as opposed to a direct approach, whether by foot or
boat. 17
PWC are frequently blamed for the deaths and decreasing populations
of loons in the upper United States. However, there has been no
comprehensive study on the plight of the loon, or the effect of boating
and development on their populations. For instance, Sutcliffe (1979) is
cited in one article as reporting a 50% decline in the loon population
in New Hampshire from 1929-1979, prior to any PWC use! 18
It is actually the loss of nesting habitat, increased human
interaction and increased predation by urban animals such as raccoons
that have led to the decrease of the many populations of birds around
the country. In terms of mortality, there are very few reports of
waterfowl death directly from motorboats, and no studies cite it for
personal watercraft. 19
The regulation of one type of craft does not address the overall
issue that human development, including these lake associations,
created to protect the very wildlife they are harming, is to blame. In
fact, one study found loons are disturbed more by human activity on
lakes with no boating than on lakes with watercraft. 20
Manatees
Manatee injury and death from personal watercraft is non existent.
The FL Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Protected
Species Management reported in a review of over 25 years of manatee
mortality records, no PWC was ever implicated in a death or injury.
21
Seagrasses and Water Quality
The only comprehensive test evaluating personal watercraft's impact
on seagrasses indicate that personal watercraft use as recommended by
the manufacturers does not affect seagrass beds, water turbidity or
cause scarring of the grassbeds. 22
PWC ACCIDENT STATISTICS
I. PWC Accidents v. Other Vessel-Types Accidents
``Comparisons are Misleading because Non-Fatal Vessel Accident
Reporting Methods Are Flawed.''
A. LHours of Operation (``Riding Time'') should be a primary factor
when comparing PWC accidents with other motorized vessel accidents.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has indicated that
the lack of relevant usage data for recreational boats prevents an
accurate conclusion regarding PWC-related accidents.
According to the NTSB:
Riding time is an important factor in interpreting accident
and injury information. To accurately compare PWC accidents to
accidents involving other types of recreational boats, it is
necessary to qualify the usage time by vessel type. If PWC are
used more often than other types of boats, then their exposure
time for incurring an accident would be higher. 23
Conventional vessels spend much of their time docked, anchored, or
drifting. As a result, they are destination-oriented and are operated
from one point to another in a relatively short time. Conversely, PWC
are almost always in active operation when on the water because the
recreational objective of a PWC user is active touring rather than non-
operational water activities such as fishing. Studies have shown that
PWC are on the water as much as three times longer than most other
types of boats.
Additionally, PWC are often ``shared'' by a number of users during
the course of an outing, therefore increasing the average riding time
for a single PWC as compared to other types of vessels.
B. LNon-fatal boating accidents often are not reported.
The U.S. Coast Guard, which maintains the national database of
boating accidents, estimates that only 10 percent of all boating
accidents each year are reported to state agencies. 24
According to the Coast Guard, ``The reporting rates of subgroups of
accidents, such as those involving personal watercraft probably differ
greatly depending upon unspecified variables. 25 In a
separate comment, Captain T. Stimatz, Chief, Office of Boating Safety,
United States Coast Guard, specifically indicated he believed PWC
accidents were significantly more likely to be reported than other
boating accidents.
According to the 1999 Boating Statistics Report compiled by the
Coast Guard, many accidents are not reported because of ignorance of
the law and difficulty enforcing the law. 26The Coast Guard
believes that only a small fraction of all non-fatal boating accidents
each year in the United States are reported. Overall, the more serious
the accident, the more frequent the reporting. 27
As the Coast Guard suggests, PWC accidents are probably reported
much more often than other boat accidents because, among other things,
PWC are rented more than other boats and PWC rental operators report
most accidents for insurance and product liability reasons. Also, many
PWC accidents involve collisions, which most state laws require be
reported.
In contrast, people tend not to report accidents when they have
fallen in an open boat, injury themselves while starting an outboard
motor, or suffer an injury while canoeing or kayaking.
C. LSince 1997, the number of boating accidents each year has
remained consistent, while PWC related accidents have decreased
significantly.
PWC accidents have been reduced by 17 percent since 1997, while
boating accidents across the board have only decreased by 0.19 percent.
Over that same time period, PWC-related injuries have been reduced
by 11 percent while fatalities have dropped 21 percent. Comparatively,
boating accidents as a whole have increased by 1.25 percent and boating
fatalities have been lowed by 2.38 percent.
II. Current PWC Accident Totals v. Previous Year PWC Accident Totals
``PWC critics chose to focus on the ``increase'' in the total
number of accidents. However, a proper perspective on PWC accidents may
only be reached by considering the increase in PWC use along side the
number of PWC accidents.''
A. LSince 1987, PWC accident, injury and death rates have seen no
significant statistical increase.
In 1987, 92,756 PWC were in use across the nation. With 376 PWC
accidents that year, only 4.05 per 1,000 PWC on the water were involved
in an accident. Of those 376 PWC accidents, 156 resulted in injury and
5 were fatalities, resulting in a national injury/death rate of 1.68/
0.05 per 1,000. In 1987, 99.6 percent of PWC in use were not involved
in an accident of any kind.
In 1993, there were 454,545 PWC in use national with 2,236 total
accidents for a 4.91 per 1,000-accident ratio. That year, 915 accidents
resulted in injury and 35 were fatal. This resulted in a national
injury/death rate of 2.01/0.08 per 1,000. In 1993, 99.6 percent of PWC
in use were not involved in an accident of any kind.
In 1999, there was an estimated 1.1 million PWC in the Untied
States. That year, there were 3,374 PWC accidents nationwide, resulting
in an accident ratio of only 3.07 per 1,000. With 1,614 injuries and 66
fatalities that year, the national injury/fatality rate dropped to a
low of 1.47/0.06 per 1,000. In 1999, 99.7 percent of PWC in use were
not involved in an accident of any kind.
B. LPWC accident rates are not reported using the same method used
to determine other types of transportation accidents.
Transportation studies in the airline, train, and bus industries
are based on passenger injuries/fatalities per passenger mile and are
designed to gauge the level of danger confronted by riders. If PWC
statistics were similarly based on ``exposure hours,'' the accident
incidence rate would be even lower than the present 0.7%.
C. LMultiple-passenger PWC have increased in popularity in recent
years.
Prior to 1987, PWC were designed to carry one person at a time.
During the past fifteen years, however, PWC that allow for two, three
and four persons to ride together have become the most popular models.
This change undoubtedly accounts for at least some of the reported
increase in the injury and fatality statistics.
III. PWC State Accident Statistics
``The most common cause of PWC-related accidents involved operator
inexperience, excessive speed, and operator inattention. To address
these concerns, PWIA has supported mandatory education for all PWC
enthusiasts. To date, 35 states have enacted PWIA-endorsed mandatory
education for PWC users in some form. This being the case, in each of
these states, PWC accident rates have significantly deceased.''
A. LFlorida, which is the leading state for PWC registrations, has
enacted comprehensive PWC-laws in recent years. As a result, PWC
registrations have increased by 38 percent since 1995 while PWC
accidents have been reduced by 22 percent over that period of time - a
7-year low.
Florida's PWC-laws include the following provisions:
LEach person operating or riding on a personal watercraft
must wear an approved Type I, II, III, or V personal floatation device.
Inflatable personal floatation devices are prohibited.
LThe operator of a personal watercraft must attach the
engine cutoff switch lanyard (if equipped by the manufacturer) to his/
her person, clothing, or PFD.
LPersonal watercraft may not be operated from 1/2 hour
after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise.
LManeuvering a personal watercraft by weaving through
congested vessel traffic, jumping the wake of another vessel
unreasonably close, or when visibility around the vessel is obstructed,
or swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision is
classified as reckless operation of a vessel (a first-degree
misdemeanor).
LA person must be at least 14 years of age to operate a
personal watercraft in this state.
LA person must be at least 18 years of age to rent a
personal watercraft in this state.
LIt is unlawful for a person to knowingly allow a person
under 14 years of age to operate a personal watercraft (a second-degree
misdemeanor).
LPWC Liveries must provide on-the-water demonstration and
a check ride to evaluate the proficiency of renters.
LPWC Liveries must not rent to anyone under the age of 18
years of age.
LPWC Liveries must display safety information on the
proper operation of a PWC. The information must include: propulsion,
steering and stopping characteristics of jet pump vessels, the location
and content of warning labels, how to re-board a PWC, the applicability
of the Navigational Rules to PWC operation, problems with seeing and
being seen by other boaters, reckless operation, and noise, nuisance,
and environmental concerns.
B. LOther states have enacted similar safety and education
legislation and have also seen positive results.
LThe Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission recently released
its ``2000 Pennsylvania Boating Accident Analysis'' which shows a
dramatic drop in personal watercraft (PWC) accidents and injuries. The
annual report lists the number of reported recreational boating
accidents for 2000. Officials recorded only 13 PWC accidents in 2000,
23 less than in 1999, and only 11 total injuries for 2000. These
dramatic reductions, causing the lowest figures since 1992, occurred
while more than 3000 new PWC were registered in the state. The Analysis
also reports 2000 was the eighth straight year there were no fatalities
on board a PWC.
LIn Minnesota following the institution of mandatory PWC
education, PWC accounted for one-third fewer collisions last year than
three years ago.
LIn Wisconsin with mandatory education, PWC accidents have
decreased by 68 percent in the last two years, and
LIn Virginia, mandatory education helped reduce the number
of accidents by almost 40 percent since 1999.
LIn California, accidents involving PWC have decreased 32
percent since 1998
LIn Connecticut, since 1992 when mandatory PWC education
went into effect, the state has graduated over 22,000 students. This
represents over four graduates for every PWC registered in Connecticut.
As a result, while the number of registered PWC has tripled in recent
year, the rate of accidents has declined.
C. LA number of factors must also be considered when comparing PWC
accidents among states, including the existence of mandatory PWC
education, number of PWC registered in the state, and the length of the
boating season.
PWC AND WATER MANAGEMENT
Millions of people enjoy our nation's waterways, including the
National Park System each year. As our waterways become more congested,
appropriate management of these waterways is a significant challenge.
Water management policy should be based on scientific analysis and
fair judgments--not personal opinion and campaigns of misinformation.
Improved management, rather than exclusion, prevents the problem of too
many boaters in one area, and allows all citizens, instead of only
those with bigger and more expensive boats, to enjoy the natural beauty
of our waterways.
Moreover, bans frequently have a domino effect, restricting boats
from more and more waterways until there is nowhere left to cruise.
What happens when the thousands of PWC users in the state, anxious to
get back on the water, crowd lakes and rivers with larger boats. Will
they be banned also in the near future?
Instead of managing the water effectively, authorities have
discriminated against an entire class of boaters and taken choice away
from the American people. It's a slippery slope that can be avoided by
reasonable, common sense regulations rather than total restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
want to thank the Personal Watercraft Industry Association who made it
possible for me to be here today.
I want you to know that the National Park Service's personal
watercraft policy is based on misinformation and was promulgated
without hearing from the people it affects. I just want to let you know
that this ban was put into place without input from the people it
affects--honest, taxpaying citizens who have a right to be on the water
where other motorized boating is allowed. This ban is discriminatory
and wrong. Scientific assessments will prove what we PWC boaters know,
that we have a right to enjoy our national parks. Just give us a
chance.
This ban is discriminatory and wrong. My family and I deserve the
chance to enjoy the parks along side other motorized boating. My kids
deserve to be able to grow up enjoying the Cape Cod National Seashore
as I did. Just give us a chance.
ENDNOTES
1 Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress
Working Group No. 6, Discussion of Personal Watercraft Noise-
Related Issues
2 NASBLA Model Act for Motorboat Noise, Adopted 12/11/89,
Amended 9/26/91
3 ``Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect Public Health and Welfare With An Adequate Margin of
Safety.'' EPA 550/9-74-004, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 1974
4 Personal Communication, Harry Klemm, Group K Personal
Watercraft High Performance Shop, Mohave, Arizona
5 from ``The Yamaha Sound Suppression System and the Yamaha
Platinum Plus System,'' Yamaha Watercraft brochure, 1999
6 from ``Bombardier Announces Quieter Watercraft for 1999,''
Bombardier press release, 1997
7 from ``Kawasaki Marine Engine New Technology for Year 2000
and Beyond,'' Kawasaki press release, 2000
8 Lahti, Tapio, et al., ``Recreation Watercraft Noise and
Wave Formation,'' The Finnish Environment 460, 2001
9 Data from Noise Unlimited Inc. Report No. 8077.1, New
Jersey State Police-Marine Division, November 1, 1995
10 Moore, Kirk, ``Dockside tests show relative quiet of
water jets,'' Asbury Park Press, April 7, 1996
11 Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., Environmental Noise
Analysis, Sept. 14, 1992
12 ``Proposed Regulation for Gasoline Spark-Ignition Marine
Engines, Draft Proposal Summary.'' Mobile Source Control
Division, State of California Air Resources Board, June 11,
1998
13 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Marine Engine
Emissions Test (1996)
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Rodgers, James A., Jr. and Stephen T. Schwikert, ``Buffer
Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from
Disturbance by Personal Watercraft and Outboard-powered
Boats.'' Bureau of Wildlife Diversity Conservation, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
17 Rodgers, James A., Jr., and Henry T. Smith, ``Set-Back
Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human
Disturbance in Florida.'' Wildlife Research Laboratory, Florida
Fame and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
18 Ballestero, Thomas, PhD., P.E., P.H. ``Impact of Motor
Boat and Personal Watercraft on the Environment:
Bibliography.'' Environmental Research Group, University of New
Hampshire. August 1, 1990
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Letter from David W. Arnold, Chief of the Bureau of
Protected Species Management, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, to the Honorable David Weldon. March
16, 1999
22 ``Effects of Personal Watercraft Operation on Shallow-
Water Seagrass Communities in the Florida Keys,'' Continental
Shelf Associates, 1997
23 National Transportation Safety Board, Personal Watercraft
Study, May 19, 1998 at 24
24 USCG BARD, ``Use of the Accident Data and Statistics'' at
3
25 Id. (emphasis added)
26 U.S. Coast Guard 1999 Boating Statistics Report, at 1
27 Id.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Woodside?
STATEMENT OF DAVID WOODSIDE, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PARKS
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Woodside. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Park
Hospitality Association, I want to thank you for convening this
hearing on visitor access to the national parks and Federal
lands.
I am David Woodside, vice chairman of the National Park
Hospitality Association and president of the Acadia Corporation
that operates visitor services in Acadia National Park.
The 2001 National Park Service management policies guide
states, and I quote, ``National parks belong to all Americans.
Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the
United States is part of the fundamental purpose of our
parks.''
The words sound good, but Park Service action certainly are
at odds with these policy objectives.
In 1993, then-Interior Secretary Babbitt announced a policy
shift which emphasized the NPS's role to preserve the park
environment, stating that we are loving our parks to death.
The Secretary clearly was engaged in a concerted public
relations campaign to discourage Americans from going to their
national parks.
Former NPS director Robert Stanton later said that the Park
Service is now a conservation agency with a major focus on
protecting and preserving America's natural and cultural
resources, not visitor services.
When these disruptive access denial practices occur, there
is invariably a decline in visitors and revenue to the
concessionaires within the impacted parks.
This policy toward preservation coupled with a stream of
negative national media stories has skewed the public
perception of the national parks. During the past decade, park
visitation has been routinely discouraged by media accounts
highlighting the supposed ravages of tourism to the national
parks, with nightmares of congestion, overcrowding, and
blighted parks.
The public certainly responded to Secretary Babbitt's
message. Since 1994, there has been significant visitor decline
in some of the nation's major parks, like that experienced in
the NPS intermountain region, which has posted a steady
decrease in recreational visitation over the past 8 years,
especially at Grand Canyon National Park.
Overall, national park visitation is flat. Systemwide, the
NPS has posted a small increase in visitation of 1.2 percent
annually. However, many national parks have actually
experienced declines in visitation, some quite significant.
Acadia, where I come from, has decreased 8 percent since
1993. Parks like Muir Woods, 43 percent since 1993. Denali, 28
percent. And I provided more details in our written statement.
Concession businesses have experienced similar declines as
a direct result of a lower number of visitors, in terms of
fewer hotel bookings, restaurant patronage, and slower gift and
merchandise sales.
When viewed alongside rapidly escalating energy and
operational costs, the future for park concession business is
far from robust.
Interior Secretary Babbitt's campaign proved to be a public
relations disaster. It is true, the Secretary did attempt to
reverse his message with backtracking acknowledgements that ``I
really didn't mean American people should not come to their
national parks.'' It was clearly a case of too little too late.
Today, the American public seems convinced that parks do
not welcome visitors.
While our examples demonstrate how Federal park policy
decisions discourage U.S. park visitors, we also wish to stress
to the Committee that we want to build upon our unique
partnership with the NPS to enhance the recommended protection
and preservation goals. In particular, Congress should ensure
the NPS receives funds to confront the monstrous maintenance
backlog.
Our partnership with NPS is unique. We have more to give
and more to gain from a successful, practical implementation of
goals that heighten the commitments to the both the visitor
experience and the conservation of precious park resources.
Congress needs to provide guidance and restore a more
balanced approach to park preservation and visitation.
We will work with you, Mr. Chairman, and this Committee, to
achieve the mutually compatible goals. And I thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodside follows:]
Statement of David Woodside, Vice Chairman, National Park Hospitality
Association
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of National Park Hospitality Association we
want to thank your committee for convening this hearing on visitor
access to the National Parks. I am David Woodside, Vice Chairman of the
National Park Hospitality Association and President of the Acadia
Corporation that operates visitor services in Acadia National Park.
The National Park Hospitality Association is the national trade
association of the businesses that provide lodging, food services,
transportation, and retail services to visitors in the National Park
system. Our members work in public-private partnership with the
National Park Service and have served the public interest well over 100
years, pre-dating the establishment of the National Park Service (NPS).
Basic Management Policy for National Parks
``National parks belong to all Americans--Enjoyment of park
resources and values by the people of the United States is part of the
fundamental purpose of all parks . . . The Service is committed to
providing appropriate, high quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy
the parks, and will maintain within the parks an atmosphere that is
open, inviting, and accessible to every segment of American society . .
. The fact that a park use may have an impact does not necessarily mean
it will impair park resources or values for enjoyment of future
generations.'' 2001 NPS Management Policies Guide.
The words sound good, but sometimes management policies are at odds
with the expansive policy objectives. No words on paper can compensate
for the disruptive practices at those same national parks. When these
actions take place, there is invariably a decline in visitors and
revenue to the concessionaires within the impacted parks. No other
entity in the national parks has more to gain or lose from public
relations and management decisions made at that park than the visitor
services concessioner.
The National Park Service has done an outstanding job over the
years of preserving and managing a steadily expanding network of
national parks, national historic sites, national seashores and
national recreation areas which now number 379 units while
accommodating a growing number of system visitors.
As established by the National Park Service Act of August 25, 1916,
the National Park Service clearly was given a dual mandate:
``To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
the wild life in the parks and to provide for the enjoyment of same in
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
The NPS has been entrusted to preserve our parks for the enjoyment,
education and inspiration of current and future generations. We believe
that park units should be preserved for visitors, not just for the sake
of preservation alone. Whether it is the extraordinary vistas of the
Grand Canyon or the ability to track a soldier's footsteps across the
now quiet battlefields of Gettysburg and Valley Forge, national parks
have tremendous value to each one of us.
Members of the National Park Hospitality Association are committed
to preserving access to National Parks for all people. Not everyone can
don a backpack and trek across the wilderness. But with responsible
management of the parks, and services provided in them, people can come
and experience the wonder of these special places.
The concessioners strongly support park resource preservation and
work to enhance the park environment both philosophically and as
business imperative.
Shifting Park Visitation Policy
It is often very difficult to strike an equitable and fair balance
between visitor use and resource preservation which often forces the
National Park Service to manage competing interests of the
environmentalists and visitors.
In 1993, then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt announced a
policy shift which emphasized the NPS' role to preserve the park
environment, stating that ``we are loving our parks to death.'' The
Secretary of Interior was engaged in a concerted public relations
campaign to discourage Americans from going to their national parks.
During the recent past, then NPS Director Robert G. Stanton in a
keynote speech at the NPS' Discovery 2000 encapsulated this shift by
stating that the ``National Park Service is now a conservation agency''
with the major focus on protecting and preserving America's natural and
cultural resources, not visitor services.
This shift toward preservation, coupled with a stream of negative
national media stories, has skewed the public perception of the
national parks. During the past decade, park visitation has been
routinely discouraged by media accounts that highlight the supposed
ravages of tourism to the national parks with nightmares of congestion,
overcrowding and blighted parks.
Further media stories stress the dilapidated and depleted state of
the parks emphasizing the lack of infrastructure available to
accommodate these hordes of tourists. One recent story by the Chicago
Tribune, claimed that parking spaces were so scarce at the Grand Canyon
that visitors had to circle for hours waiting until a space opened up
much like a crowded shopping mall.
Visitation in National Parks Reduced
The public certainly responded to Secretary Babbitt's message. This
Federal policy shift has resulted in a definite impact on the amount of
park visitation. Since 1994, there has been significant visitor decline
in some of the nation's major parks. The NPS Intermountain Region has
posted a steady decrease in recreational visitation over the past eight
years, especially at Grand Canyon National Park.
Overall, national park visitation is flat. System wide NPS has
posted a small increase in visitation of around 1.2% annually, however
many national park units have actually experienced visitor declines. In
fact, over the past several years many of the major parks have
experienced a decline in the number of visitors well beyond factors
like inclement weather, wild fires, and increased gasoline prices.
The following chart illustrates the overall decline in visitation
at some of our concessioners' parks from 1993 when Secretary Babbitt
issued his proclamation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2561.007
Concessioner businesses have experienced declines as a direct
result of the lower number of visitors. In many major national parks,
we have witnessed a reduction in our members' concession businesses in
terms of fewer hotel bookings, restaurant patronage, and slower gift
and merchandise sales. The association received reports that many
concession operations experienced a reduction in business last year
from a few percent up to 50% in the parks hit by last summer's
wildfires. When viewed alongside rapidly escalating energy and
operational costs which impact our member's businesses, the future for
the park concession business is far from robust.
Doing Business in the Parks Is Always a Challenge
Federal policy is just one of the factors impacting park
visitation. Visitor service business is affected by many factors
including facility, transportation and services infrastructure,
inclement weather and other acts of nature. The national park
hospitality industry is continually challenged by natural forces like
the devastating Yellowstone fires of 1992 and the Yosemite floods in
1996 that closed the park to visitors, and the summer of 2000 spate of
wildfires that resulted in over 30% fewer visitors to the western
parks. The irony of the 2000 fire season was the fact that the
devastating New Mexico fires were started by the NPS itself as a
``controlled'' fire.
NPS Management Decisions Directly Affect Park Visitation
Interior Secretary Babbitt's campaign proved to be a public
relations disaster. It is true Secretary Babbitt did attempt to reverse
his message in 1994 with backtracking acknowledgments that, ``I didn't
really mean that the American people should not come to their national
parks.'' It was clearly a case of too little, too late.
Today, the American public seems convinced that parks do not
welcome visitors.We are very encouraged by the recent developments in
which the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation are
teaming up to launch a multi-million dollar, multi-year public
education program to issue citizens an invitation to ``Experience Your
America'' and visit their national parks.
Conclusion
While our critical examples demonstrate how Federal park policy
decisions discourage U.S. park visitors, we also wish to stress to the
committee that we want to build upon our unique partnership with the
NPS to enhance the resource protection and preservation goals and
increase Federal revenues to NPS to confront the monstrous maintenance
back log.
Our partnership with NPS is unique. We have more to give and more
to gain from a successful, practical implementation of goals that
heighten the commitments to both the visitor experience and the
conservation of the precious park resources.
Congress needs to provide guidance and restore a more balanced
approach to park preservation and visitation. Congress needs to fund
the park infrastructure maintenance backlog fully. Congress needs to
ensure that the dual roles of the National Park Service of preservation
and visitor service continue to remain equal.
We will work with you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee to achieve
these mutually compatible goals.
We thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeCou?
STATEMENT OF WESLEY DECOU, FLYING SITE COORDINATOR, ACADEMY OF
MODEL AERONAUTICS
Mr. DeCou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee.
I am Wesley DeCou, flying site coordinator for the Academy
of Model Aeronautics, a 165,000-member organization concerned
with all aspects of the international sport of model aviation.
Prior to accepting my current assignment, I held the
elected position of AMA vice president, serving our members in
New York and New Jersey, as well as our members who are in the
U.S. armed forces in Europe.
With me in the gallery today, are Academy President David
Brown, East Coast Free Flight Conference President Bob
Langelius, and members Sydney Krivin and Jean Pailet.
I speak on behalf of the Academy today in an effort to
provide you with background relative to what we consider to be
very appropriate use of public lands, a use that comes with
negligible impact to the environment, yet which provides
educational and recreational opportunities for entire families.
As its representative, I am speaking, of course, about
model aviation.
Historically, many of the most prodigious advancements in
aeronautics in this country have come from the minds of
individuals whose intellectual fire was first sparked by an
interest in model aviation.
Wherever I travel, when I speak to a group about our sport
and ask for a show of hands, fully half of those in attendance
indicate an interest, either past or present, in model
aviation.
The ranks of our AMA members have included such aviation
and aerospace luminaries as Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Dr.
Paul MacCready, Burt Rutan, and many other pioneers in the
fields of aviation, aerospace, and related disciplines.
With our population on the increase and urban sprawl trying
to keep up, we see fewer and fewer venues at which we can
practice our sport. As a result, seasoned pilots as well as
youngsters who would aspire to the many world championship
model aviation teams representing the United States are left
without an adequate space to hone their skill.
More and more people of all ages and from all walks of life
are denied access to the hobby sport of their preference. An
example familiar to some of you as a result of Congressman
Benjamin Gilman's testimony before your Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, in June of last
year, is that of the east coast free flight conference flying
site at Galeville, New York.
This flying site, by far the best location on the east
coast for free flight modeling activity, had been used by
aeromodelers for nearly 30 years and was administered by the
Military Academy at West Point.
In the early 1990's, the site was cleared of underbrush by
the modeling community and the AMA at no expense to West Point,
but with encouragement from a West Point biologist. The
specific objective, which was indeed realized, was to create a
Savannah-like grasslands environment for grass-nesting birds
co-located with a launch site for the free flight modeler--a
win for the birds and a win for the modelers.
Shortly after the grasslands environment was created, the
Galeville site was declared excess by West Point. And after a
short period of time, it was given to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Because of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
interpretation of the National Wildlife System Improvement Act
of 1997, the east coast free flight conference flyers were
summarily banned from further activity at the airfield. That
interpretation was essentially that only wildlife-dependent
activities could be conducted at Galeville.
Hunters would now be permitted to go on the site, but the
modelers would have to go.
In spite of documented evidence to the effect that model
aviation activity is ignored by birds, just as they ignore
full-size aircraft operating in and out major airports, and in
spite of professional opinions that any impact on migratory or
migrating birds would extremely unlikely, the ban continues in
effect since model aviation is not a wildlife-dependent
activity.
We urge that priority activities on any public land--be it
a national park, a national recreation area, a national
wildlife refuge--continue to be undertaken by the local staff
people. Further, as a means of creating a significant increase
in recreational opportunities on public lands, we urge that
activities such as model aviation, with minimal attendant cost
and minimal or zero impact on the local environment, be
permitted uses in addition to the stated priority activities.
A grassland created and maintained by a group of dedicated
modelers is a win. A model aviation venue where we can strike
the spark that fires the imagination of a youngster is a win.
Model aviation's loss of the Galeville facility is a shame.
In your quest to determine what are the best methods to
increase the recreational use of public lands, we trust you
will create opportunities for new law and policy concerning the
governance process for our vast outdoors.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommends that in doing
so, you revise current law to allow wildlife-neutral
activities, such as model aviation, to take place alongside
wildlife-dependent activities at Galeville and where
appropriate on others of the more 95 million Fish and Wildlife
Service acres.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, on behalf of the
Academy of Model Aeronautics and associated modeling groups
present with me today, I offer my thanks for the opportunity to
talk to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeCou follows:]
Statement of Wesley DeCou, Flying Site Coordinator for the Academy of
Model Aeronautics
Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members
of the Committee, I am Wesley DeCou, Flying Site Coordinator for the
Academy of Model Aeronautics, a 165,000-member organization concerned
with all aspects of the international sport of model aviation. Prior to
accepting my current assignment I held the elected position of AMA Vice
President, serving our members in New York and New Jersey, as well as
our members who are in the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe. With me in the
gallery today are Academy President David Brown, Syd Krivin, AMA member
and private pilot, Robert Langelius, President, East Coast Free Flight
Conference) and Jean Pailet, AMA member and former AMA contest board
chairman
I speak on behalf of the Academy today in an effort to provide you
with background relative to what we consider a very appropriate
recreational use of public lands, a use that comes with negligible
impact to the environment, yet which provides educational and
recreational opportunities for entire families. I'm speaking, or
course, about model aviation.
Historically, many of the most prodigious advancements in
aeronautics in this country have come from the minds of individuals
whose intellectual fire was first sparked by an interest in model
aviation. Wherever I travel, when I speak to a group about our sport
and ask for a show of hands, fully half of those in attendance indicate
an interest, either past or present, in model aviation.
The ranks of AMA members have included such aviation and aerospace
luminaries as Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Dr. Paul MacCready, Burt
Rutan, and many other pioneers in the fields of aviation, aerospace,
and related disciplines.
With our population on the increase, and urban sprawl trying to
keep up, we see fewer and fewer venues at which we can practice our
sport. As a result, seasoned pilots as well as youngsters who would
aspire to the many World Championship model aviation teams representing
the United States are left without adequate space to hone their skills.
More and more people of all ages, from all walks of life are being
denied access to the hobby/sport of their preference.
An example, familiar to some of you as the result of Congressman
Benjamin Gilman's testimony before your Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans in June of last year, is that of the
East Coast Free-Flight Conference flying site at Galeville, New York.
This flying site, by far the best location on the east coast for
Free-Flight modeling activity, had been used by aeromodelers for nearly
30 years, and was administered by the Military Academy at West Point.
In the early 1990's the site was cleared of underbrush by the modeling
community and the AMA at no expense to West Point, but with
encouragement from a West Point biologist. The specific objective,
which was indeed realized, was to create a savannah-like grasslands
environment for grass-nesting birds, co-located with a launch site for
the Free-Flight modelers. A win for the birds, and a win for the
modelers.
Shortly after the grasslands environment was created, the Galeville
site was declared ``excess'' by West Point, and, after a short period
of time, was given to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because of a USFWS interpretation of the National Wildlife System
Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57), the East Coast Free-Flight
Conference fliers were summarily banned from further activity at the
airfield. That interpretation was essentially that only activities that
were dependent on wildlife could be conducted at Galeville. Hunters
could now be permitted on the site, but the modelers would have to go.
In spite of documented evidence to the effect that model aviation
activity is ignored by birds just as they ignore full-size aircraft
operating in and out of major airports, and in spite of professional
opinions that any impact on migratory or migrating birds would be
extremely unlikely, the ban continues in effect, since model aviation
is not a ``wildlife dependent'' activity.
We urge that priority activities on any public land (National Park,
National Recreation Area, National Wildlife Refuge, etc.) continue to
be undertaken by local staff people with vigor. Further, as a means of
creating a significant increase in recreational activity opportunities
on public lands, we urge that activities such as model aviation, with
minimal attendant costs and minimal or zero impact on the local
environment, be permitted uses in addition to the stated ``priority''
activities.
A grassland created and maintained by a group of dedicated modelers
is a win.
A model aviation venue where we can strike the spark that fires the
imagination of a youngster is a win.
Model aviation's loss of the Galeville facility is a shame.
In your quest to determine what are the best methods to increase
the recreational use of public lands, we trust you will create
opportunities for new law and policy concerning the governance process
for our vast outdoors. The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommends that
in doing so you revise current law to allow ``wildlife neutral''
activities, such as model aviation, to take place alongside ``wildlife
dependent'' activities at Galeville and, where appropriate, on others
of those 95 million USFWS acres.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Academy of
Model Aeronautics and the associated modeling groups present with me
today, I offer my thanks for the opportunity to present our thoughts on
this important issue.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kiernan?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARKS
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee.
My name is Tom Kiernan. I am the president of the National
Parks Conservation Association. We have been working now for
over 80 years to protect and enhance America's national park
system for present and for future generations. And we are
America's only group dedicated to that mission.
I am also testifying today on behalf of the National Trails
and Waters Coalition, a group of over 70 conservation,
recreation, hunter, and other groups that work to protect and
restore public lands from the impact of off-road vehicles.
Having the opportunity to recreate in our public lands is
very important to our organization and to me personally. I grew
up here in Washington, D.C., and grew up kayaking in Great
Falls, grew up biking on the C&O Canal, hiking out in the
Shenandoahs. And that form of recreation in our public lands is
very important to me as an individual and to our organization.
It is one of the reasons that I am working with NPCA and am
here today testifying, so that our public lands can be
available to more Americans for this form of activity, and as
well for my three children, so they can have the privilege of
recreating on our public lands.
I occasionally hear criticism that environmental groups
want to lock out the public from the public lands, and this is
not true. Groups like NPCA depend on our members and all
Americans having access to the public lands, to enjoy them, to
be educated by them, to be inspired by them, to be rejuvenated
by them. We want Americans in our national parks, in our
national forests, and on BLM land.
I also hear people say that they have been denied access to
public lands. This lack of access to public lands is a myth.
The national park system, the national wildlife refuge system,
the national forests, and BLM are open to everyone. It is that
simple.
Anyone can visit these lands just about whenever they want.
And the United States has always been a world leader in
providing this kind of maximum access to our remarkable
landscapes.
But is not myth that some forms of access and some types of
activities are very hard on the land and the water in our
public lands.
For example, swamp buggies and off-road vehicles have dug
tens of thousands of miles of rutted trail down in the Big
Cypress National Preserve.
Tens of thousands of snowmobiles in the winter in
Yellowstone pollute the air quality in Yellowstone. We have
documented evidence that they have harassed wildlife. They are
very noisy and reduce the ability for other visitors to enjoy
Yellowstone.
At Grand Canyon, the awe-inspiring stillness and the sound
of the wind is interrupted by over 650 flights daily, given
that there is no now appropriate regulation of those flights.
Jet Skis dump very large quantities of unburned fuel into
our national seashores and lake shores.
Now, our different agencies do have different purposes. The
Park Service has a clear mandate to protect the resources above
all else. And let me just very quickly quote the Organic Act
that created the National Park Service, saying its mission is
to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and
the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
That is the National Park Service's mission. Now, the
national forests and the BLM land accommodate extraction
activities and multiple recreational uses. The refuge system is
charged with preserved wildlife and their habitat.
But no matter which agency has the management
responsibility, I believe that all recreation public lands must
have as their primary goal, overall goal, protecting ecological
integrity of those lands.
Like visitors to a great university, we have access to all
the wonderful information, knowledge in those universities, in
those libraries, but only if we treat them respectfully and
behave responsibly.
When we go into a library, we cannot tear out the pages of
the books. We cannot climb on the bookshelves. We don't play
basketball in the Lincoln Memorial.
Basketball is a great sport. The Lincoln Memorial is a
wonderful, inspirational place. We don't play basketball in the
Lincoln Memorial because it may damage the memorial, and it
reduces the ability for other visitors to enjoy and be inspired
and learn from what the Lincoln Memorial has to tell us.
Let me close by reiterating three main points.
There is no shortage of access to public lands; there is
shortage of public lands. I encourage this Committee to focus
on creating new national parks, national monuments, and other
public lands.
Second point, recreation is very important to me personally
and to our organization. But the primary function of the public
land management agencies should be to protect the overall
ecological integrity of those lands.
And lastly, recreation on public lands and waters should
not be allowed to damage those areas or the ability of others
to enjoy them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]
Statement of Thomas C. Kiernan, President, National Parks Conservation
Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Tom Kiernan and
I am a President of the National Parks Conservation Association. NPCA
is America's only private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to
protecting and enhancing America's National Park System for present and
future generations. NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has more than
450,000 members.
I am also testifying on behalf of the National Trails and Waters
Coalition, which includes over 70 conservation, recreation, hunting,
and other groups working to protect and restore all public lands and
waters from the severe damage caused by dirt bikes, jet skis, and all
other off-road vehicles.
Overview
Let me begin by making clear that as a private citizen I am an avid
recreational user of our national parks and other public lands. All of
my life I have enjoyed white water kayaking at Great Falls, part of the
C&Of Canal National Historical park. I have hiked and rock climbed
throughout the West, and I take my kids camping in our national forests
and national seashores.
As President of the National Parks Conservation Association, I am
also committed to preserving access to our national park lands. One
important function of national parks is to offer the opportunity for
visitors to enjoy and learn about our country's magnificent natural
resources. NPCA's membership, the lifeblood of our organization, is
made up of people who enjoy visiting the national parks.
So it is as a recreational user and professional conservationist,
that I say unequivocally that there is no shortage of access to public
lands. However, recreation use of public lands is expanding
dramatically. This Committee should focus on creating new national
parks, monuments, and other public lands to meet growing demand.
Recreation is important to me as an individual and to my
organization, however, I also believe that the primary function of our
public land management agencies should be to protect the natural
resources in their charge. Providing recreation is an important, but
secondary function.
I am most familiar with the National Park System and most of my
comments will be directed there. The national parks have a clear
mandate to protect resources above all else. Other areas, such as
national forests and BLM land, accommodate extractive activities and
multiple recreational uses. However, I believe that all public land and
water recreation should be consistent with maintaining overall
ecological integrity.
The Restricted Access Myth
The National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
national forests, and BLM lands are open to everyone. It's that simple.
Anyone, not just American citizens, can visit these lands just about
whenever they want. The United States has always been the world's
leader in providing maximum public access to remarkable natural
landscapes.
But that access must not come at the expense of the health of the
resources. Like visitors to a great university library, we have access
to all the wonderful resources inside, but only if we treat them with
respect and behave responsibly. We can't tear pages out of the books or
practice our climbing skills on the stacks. We don't play basketball in
the Jefferson Memorial.
The National Park System is perhaps the most popular American
public institution. There were 286 million recreation visits to the
national parks in 2000. Only 115 million people voted in last year's
presidential election. If the Park System were a country, it would be
the third most populated in the world.
In the face of these extraordinary visitation numbers, and with too
few rangers and not enough money, the National Park Service does a
masterful job of making sure that most visitors have a safe, enjoyable,
educational, and often unforgettable experience in the parks. The Park
Service does its best to accommodate the desires of as many visitors as
possible.
Occasionally, however, the desires of some visitors threaten to
destroy the substance of the parks themselves or are in direct conflict
with the requirement to offer other visitors a high quality experience.
In those cases, the Park Service steps in and restricts or prohibits
certain activities. We should all be grateful that the Park Service is
there to protect America's national parks so that what we enjoy today
will be around for our children to enjoy tomorrow.
When you add together the hundreds of millions of people who visit
our public lands, it is clear that individual visitors have a
responsibility to minimize the impact they have on resources.
Fortunately, most Americans are extremely conscientious when it comes
to protecting public lands and particularly national parks.
The public is even willing to accept limits on park visitation if
necessary. In 1998, NPCA asked a random sample of Americans: ``Should
the National Park Service limit the number of visitors if a park is too
crowded?'' Eighty-nine percent said yes.
We also asked: ``Should the National Park Service limit the number
of visitors if the number is harming the park's cultural or natural
resources?'' Ninety-five percent said yes.
Further, 92 percent said they would personally ride a shuttle or
make a reservation to reduce overcrowding.And finally, a wide majority
of Americans agreed that certain activities need to be limited or
banned altogether in order to protect parks: 87 percent said
overflights should be limited or banned; snowmobiles, 89 percent and;
jet skis 92 percent.
Motorized Recreation
By its very nature, motorized recreation on public lands can be
extraordinarily damaging and disruptive to other visitors.
Nevertheless, access for motorized recreation is widespread. For
example: off road vehicles are allowed on 93 percent of BLM lands
outside of Alaska and there are 380,000 miles of Forest Service roads
and routes open to motorized access. The National Park System is less
heavily used by motorized recreation vehicles, but even in parks there
are many examples of severe damage.
Jet skis pollute national seashores and lakes. Snowmobiles clog the
road to Old Faithful and stress wildlife that is struggling to survive
Yellowstone's harsh winter. Swamp buggies scar the wetlands of Big
Cypress National Preserve. Helicopters shatter the stillness at Grand
Canyon. And all of these activities conflict with visitors who have
come to learn about and appreciate the special resources of the parks.
For example, as a kayaker and park visitor, I am particularly disturbed
by the appalling safety record of jet skis and other personal
watercraft. According to the U.S. Coast Guard's 1998 accident
statistics, of 3,607 reported jet skis accidents, 2,528 involved
collisions with other boats. This is a much higher rate than other
types of watercraft.
The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition believes a few basic
management philosophies should be followed for motorized recreation on
public lands:
1. Public land recreation decisions are predicated on maintaining
the ecological integrity of our public lands and waterways.
2. Motorized recreational vehicles are prohibited where they come
into conflict with natural resources, wildlife, wildlife habitat, air,
water, vegetation, landscape, solitude, natural quiet, and
archaeological and historical sites.
3. Motorized recreational vehicle use is prohibited on all
roadless, wilderness and wilderness-quality lands and waters.
4. All vehicular travel, including off-road vehicles, occurs only
on designated roads and routes. Cross-country motorized recreation is
prohibited on public land.
5. Motorized personal watercraft are allowed on public waterways
only in areas where these vehicles cause no measurable ecological
impacts or human conflicts.
The use of automobiles as transportation to and around national
parks is very different from motorized recreation in the parks.
Automobiles are used to tour the parks and to view scenery and
wildlife. On the other hand, too many automobiles is already a major
problem in many national parks. NPCA believes that the quality of a
visit to a national park can be enhanced through the use of
transportation systems that accommodate the greatest number of people
with the least impact on the park's resources. This model has been
successfully adopted by the National Park Service in Acadia National
Park, Denali National Park, Zion National Park and others. Extreme
vehicular congestion, whether in the summer or winter, should not be a
regular part of a visit to any national park.
Access for People with Disabilities
Two years ago, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior were required to conduct a study on improving access for
persons with disabilities to outdoor recreational opportunities made
available to the public.
Several Members of Congress urged the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture to hire an external agency to conduct the study. In
response to this request, Wilderness Inquiry, a non-profit organization
with more than 22-years experience providing outdoor recreation
opportunities for persons with disabilities on Federal lands, was hired
to conduct the study. The study was published earlier this year.
Wilderness Inquiry found that:
Federal land management agencies do have a fundamental
mandate to protect the natural resources in their charge.
Persons with disabilities must recognize that natural,
cultural, and historical resource protection is primary.
Research suggests that the majority of persons with
disabilities do recognize and accept these mandates. They do
not support compromising these mandates solely in the name of
providing access.
Unfortunately, increased use of motors as a means to provide
access to outdoor recreation for persons with disabilities has
frequently been misrepresented by some who have other goals as
a priority--increased motorized vehicle use on public lands for
profit, convenience, or as a means to establish patterns of use
that would make it difficult for land management agencies to
designate lands as closed to motorized vehicles due to
management needs or to become part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System at some future date. These proponents of
increased motorized use are simply using the claim of ``access
for the disabled'' to advance other goals and priorities.
Not surprisingly, the Wilderness Inquiry report mirrors broader
sentiments of the American public. Most Americans know that the real
concern is not about losing widespread ``access'' to public lands; it's
about controlling the damaging excesses of a few. That's why the
regulations proposed by the Park Service to end snowmobile damage in
Yellowstone, and the Forest Service to protect roadless areas have
received such widespread public support.
What Kind of Activities Are Appropriate on Public Lands?
The National Parks Conservation Association believes strongly that
some types of recreation are inappropriate in national parks. Decisions
about whether to allow certain activities in national parks should be
based on whether the activity preserves the ecological integrity,
natural and historical context, interpretive values, and unique
experiences contained within the National Park System. The heart of the
issue is: Do we want a visit to Yellowstone National Park to be a
unique experience, different from a trip to anywhere else? Again, most
Americans would say ``yes.'' It is reasonable, therefore, to expect
national parks to be managed differently than national forests, BLM
lands, state parks, etc.
At the same time, none of our public lands should be considered
recreational sacrifice zones. In no case should recreation be allowed
to damage or degrade resources. Our public lands are not amusement
parks. Their purpose is not to provide thrill rides or to make money
through industrialized recreation. Having access to parks and public
lands means having access to all of the elements that make those
natural areas so special. That includes clean air, natural sounds,
undisturbed wildlife, and the scent of woods and flowers. Thank you, I
would be happy to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kiernan.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
questions for this panel.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I apologize for getting here so late, but we had the
Secretary of Defense for a classified briefing with members of
Armed Services, and certainly you would have been there, but
you were here at this important hearing.
The Chairman. Well, that took half of our Committee right
there.
Mr. Jones. So I apologize that I missed the presentations
from the panel.
This is a very important issue in my district. For those of
you on the panel who don't know me, I represent the Third
Congressional District of North Carolina. And with the
exception of Wilmington, North Carolina, which is not in my
district, everything above Wilmington, the outer banks of North
Carolina, Emerald Isle, these areas, there is tremendous
presence of the Park Service in the Third District of North
Carolina.
I came here in 1995, being one of many Members of Congress
on both sides of the political aisle that constantly we try to
find the balance between the environment and the people. And
for me, there are many times, particularly with Park Service--
and I apologize, Mr. Kiernan, I heard some of your remarks; I
was in the outer room. And then I look at Mr. Laine, I believe,
your comments, which I read.
And this year, I hope--I had great respect for Secretary
Babbitt, but I think he was always interested more in the
environment and could care less about the feelings of the
people. And that troubled me a great deal because that attitude
was carried on by the Park Service. And I still see that
attitude.
And I hope that Secretary Norton, in her tenure as
Secretary of Interior, will help us we can--and we can't always
find the balance--but many times we can.
I had a situation, Mr. Chairman and panel, down in my
district about 2 months ago. The Park Service superintendent
just made a decision that 2 years from date forth they would
prohibit personal watercrafts being used down in that area. And
I was just taken aback because that again is a prime example of
eliminating the taxpayer, eliminating the people.
And we wouldn't have all these great parks if we didn't
have the taxpayers. If the taxpayers did not pay the taxes, we
could not afford to have these wonderful parks and the people
that protect and work in those parks.
So I guess my point is, we actually did get, with the help
of the staff, Mr. Chairman--I want to thank you and the staff--
able to get the superintendent who had made that proclamation
to back off because she actually had violated the provision
that would give input from the people.
I don't own any property at the beach; I respect those that
do. But we have a lot people that have personal watercrafts
that would never have any fun in these parks because they
couldn't afford any other way if they did not have these
personal watercrafts.
So I want to ask Mr. Laine, because, again, I missed yours.
And everyone else I missed; I am sorry. Your testimony, I
haven't had a chance to read it.
But just tell me, how much trouble are these personal
watercrafts, as you see it.
I am going to give Mr. Kiernan a chance to respond also.
Mr. Laine. During my testimony to you, Mr. Chairman, I
spoke of the watercraft not being the issue, more or less the
operator being the issue.
The watercraft only does what the operator makes it do. It
is no different than any other boat that is on your seashore.
You can make a boat go faster than a personal watercraft; you
have a boat that is louder than a personal watercraft. It is
all in the operator's view of what they are.
Like I said before, I feel it has been painted as a bad
picture. It is classified by the Coast Guard as Class A inboard
power boat. It is a boat, no different than any other boat that
is on the water, just a different size, different shape.
You can make any boat a bad boat. Or the operator can make
any boat a bad boat.
I hope I answered you on that.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kiernan, I guess you heard my position, and I would
like for you to respond to my statement, so to speak. And also,
since I did not hear your presentation--I heard some of it in
the outer room, but I didn't hear it as carefully as I would
like to have--the position of the National Park Conservation
Association as it relates to people coming into that park who
behave themselves having fun, whether that be with a personal
watercraft or maybe some other equipment.
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you for an opportunity to respond.
Let me make clear, NPCA strongly wants people to be coming
to our parks. We want access. We want people coming into the
parks, enjoying the parks, learning from the parks, having a
great time with their families, et cetera. We want that kind of
access, and we want more of that kind of access.
The question is, what are the appropriate activities that
allow the resources to be protected for future generations?
I have been on a personal watercraft vehicle. They can be a
lot of fun. And I had a good time. It was a two-person one. I
have had one of my children on it with me. That is great.
The very strong concern is, for example, that one-third of
the oil and gas, I believe, from a personal watercraft vehicle
is emitted into the water unburned. So we have a very highly
polluting vehicle that is very noisy, that is designed to go
very fast.
I believe that that is an inappropriate activity in our
park. We want people, Mr. Laine, in the park, but there are
places where it is more appreciate for this kind of activity,
given that the parks are set aside to be protected unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations.
Clearly, the personal watercraft vehicles are impairing the
water quality. They are harassing the wildlife. And they are
quite noisy, impairing other current visitors there to enjoy
the park.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, may I have just a couple more--
The Chairman. By all means. There aren't too many folks
here right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. That, I guess, is the advantage of being the
last one here.
Last year, I have never forgotten this, we had a professor
from Arizona State University, I believe, that testified. I was
just really enthralled with what he said, and I believe that he
was talking about the Grand Canyon, but I think his concern was
that 1 day that no one would have access into the park except
there would probably be, in the front, a booth. And you get on
a bus or maybe have some rail system that you could ride
around. But you would not yourself as an individual be able to
go into that park setting.
And I appreciate what you said, Mr. Kiernan, about the
discharge of oil or gas into the waters. And there probably
should be some balance as to where; we can have certain areas
where maybe they should be prohibited.
But, again, my concern as a conservative Member of Congress
is, again, going back to that man or woman that is paying the
taxes. And when they begin to feel that they are not welcome,
then I think we as a country have a serious problem.
And I guess what I would like to ask you, again, or Mr.
Laine--Mr. Laine, you might want to comment. I am not trying to
get you all going.
And I am sorry, to the other two gentlemen, I was not here
to hear your testimonies. But if anybody would like to respond
to my rambling, they are more than welcome. Just raise your
hand, and I assume the Chairman would call on you.
But you see what I am trying to say? Recreation is a
primary for a lot of working people, and a lot of working
people particularly in my district, where it is a very per
capita low-income area. This is all they have. This is their
primary way of having recreation.
And, again, I hope that we will find the balance as to
where we are not trying to exclude these people from having a
little bit of fun.
Mr. Laine, you go.
Mr. Laine. If I may, sir.
I think that you will find in the figures that the personal
watercraft emits less unburned fuel and oil than the
conventional two-stroke outboard motor. These parks are being
opened to the conventional outboard motors with propellers that
emit and burn the same fuels, exact same fuels, and emit even
more unburned fuels into the water than a personal watercraft
engine does.
The industry has worked very hard. They have been very
diligent at cutting down the noise, at cutting down the
unburned fuel. Personal watercraft today are one of the most
user-friendly and economic boats out there today, as far as the
environment goes.
Mr. Jones. Well, I appreciate you sharing that with
Committee staff and the Chairman and myself, and any other
member would care to would certainly be able to read the
comments from this hearing.
With that, again, Mr. Kiernan, I am not trying to pit you
against Mr. Laine, and certainly the other two gentlemen--but
this, again, is where the public gets concerned and maybe many
of those taxpayers that maybe should better understand the
position of your association.
It is just like some the environmental groups in California
that are trying to dictate policy in their county as it relates
beach access, driving on the beaches, these people that want to
go out there and fish.
So, again, I hope that we will, as a Committee and this
administration--and a Committee of Democrats and Republicans--
ensure that the balance is there. That is what the key is, is
the balance.
Mr. Kiernan. Let me share a couple of examples, if I may.
We have the Reflecting Pool on the Mall. We do not allow
Jet Skiing in that pool, because that is not the purpose of the
pool. It is there to reflect the monuments and for people to
learn from that.
Similarly in our national parks, they are there to protect
the natural and cultural resources inside the parks.
We want people there. People should be welcome. To the
extent the Park Service is not effectively communicating that,
they need to change. They need to be welcoming all Americans
into the parks.
However, certain activities are inappropriate.
I have not done the game paintball. I guess you run around
in the woods and shoot paint at each other. That is not allowed
in the national parks. Why? Because it damages the resources,
and it hurts other people's ability to enjoy the park.
Similarly for Jet Skis. I have no problem with Jet Skis.
The concern is, is it an appreciate activity in the parks,
given the purpose of the parks that I read earlier, to protect
the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations?
I think it is clear that they are not appropriate in the
parks. There are places where they can be very appropriate. And
as I said earlier, I have enjoyed being on a Jet Ski, but not
appropriate in the parks.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, let me ask you--I apologize. I can't
see the name.
Mr. Woodside. I am David Woodside from the National Park
Hospitality Association, and I wanted to comment on your
discussion of the Grand Canyon National Park issues and some
other related issues.
It is true that there is a plan to eliminate private motor
vehicles during the peak season. I believe there also is at
least discussion of removing some lodging facilities there in
the Grand Canyon. There also are plans to remove lodgings in
Denali National Park and Yosemite and various other parks
across the country.
This is a concern to us because, while we appreciate trying
to protect the resource, there is something magic about waking
up in a national park that cannot be replicated waking up in a
gateway community.
Twenty years ago, when I first began visiting parks, I had
the opportunity to visit Shenandoah, very close by. Arrived
after dark and the next morning, waking up and looking out at
that national parks spread before you is just something that
cannot be replicated.
And I believe it is an important thing and it is
illustrative of providing that access to national parks where
it can be done responsibly.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want thank you.
Again, I close by saying that I believe initially the
intent of the national parks was to give the people an
opportunity to enjoy those parks. And that means recreation as
well as other activities.
So thank you for giving me a chance to be here today.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
And, of course, as you read the 1916 Organic Act, that is
what it says. Now, we have had different organizations and
different political persuasions try and put their own
interpretation on it, but they are for the enjoyment of people.
What a lot of people don't realize is of the 379 units of
the Park Service, 19 of them are recreation areas. And you get
to what is a recreation area. You have a little reflection on
that; that is a little different.
The Glen Canyons recreation area is different than Zion
park, for example. So people have to keep that in mind. That is
what they are for.
And I think the superintendent--well, now he is out of
there--but Joe Alston did a super job in taking care of those
things.
Mr. Kiernan, your organization, some people are trying to
turn you into a wilderness organization, that you want all 379
units of the Park Service to become wilderness. And I know,
from talking to you in the past and testimony and what you said
today, that is not correct.
And I guess a lot of this stuff is interpretation, but I
received a letter from you folks, signed by Mr. Chandler, on
March 8 of this year, that has given me and members of the
Committee some real cause for concern.
It says: As you know, we do have significant disagreements
over certain park areas. For example, I believe that the
majority of the public shares NPCA's views that motorized
access to national parks should be strictly regulated or even
banned.
That causes a great concern to me.
Mr. Kiernan. We commissioned Colorado State University in
1998, I believe, to do a poll of the America public that we
would be happy to share with Committee. It was a statistically
validated poll, and we can give you all the details and the
analysis.
It is my recollection that roughly 89 percent of the
American public said that Jet Skis should be either highly
regulated or banned from the national parks. And I believe
snowmobiles, 89 or 87 percent of the American public said the
same.
So that is where that is coming from.
The Chairman. You have a poll that 89 percent of Americans
want to ban motorized access to the parks?
Mr. Kiernan. The question related to snowmobiles or Jet
Skis, and the answer was, as I said, 89 percent wanted them
either banned or highly regulated. We would be happy to share
that with the Committee.
[The information referred to above was not received by the
Committee at the time of printing]
The Chairman. Will you share that with the Committee,
because I find that stunning, frankly.
I have been on this Committee for 21 years, I have been
Chairman of the park Committee for 6 of those years, and I have
seen poll after poll after poll, and I have never seen anything
like that. But I am not in any way questioning you; I would
like to see it, if you would give me that opportunity.
What do you think of overflights of Grand Canyon, Mr.
Kiernan?
Mr. Kiernan. We do believe that overflights can be an
appropriate--
The Chairman. For tourists, excuse me.
Mr. Kiernan. Yes.
They can be an appropriate means of understanding a park,
or seeing a park, of experiencing a park. So we agree that
overflights can be appropriate means in a park.
However, there need to be adequate regulations so there can
be either times of day when you don't have to listen to the
overflights or portions of the park where you don't have to
listen to overflights. Right now, when you are in the Grand
Canyon, it feels as though constantly you are hearing the noise
of aircraft overflights when you are down in the canyon.
I have spent lots of time in the canyon, have boated the
river twice. When you are listening to this noise, it seriously
detracts from the experience in the Grand Canyon.
However, since we do think it can be an appropriate means
of seeing the park, we feel strongly there need to be
appropriate regulations so, as I said, either all morning there
are not tours, or this portion of the park there are no tours,
so that people can go out and have that wilderness experience.
And we have come to understand that listening to the sounds
of nature, listening to moving water, listening to wind, is an
important part of the experience in our national parks, just as
seeing the night skies. That is an important part. We don't
want those things lost.
The Chairman. Do you feel the current regulations of
overflights in the Grand Canyon are adequate?
Mr. Kiernan. No.
The Chairman. How would you strengthen them?
Mr. Kiernan. I would need to respond to the Committee in
more detail to give you some specific ideas.
The Chairman. Let me ask you about Glen Canyon recreation
area. Personal watercraft are allowed there. It is probably the
biggest reservoir in America; 186 miles long. Do you feel they
should be restricted or banned?
Mr. Kiernan. We feel, because of their impact on the water
quality and on wildlife, that they should be banned.
Once again, the question is the form of recreation. Those
are recreation areas. Absolutely agree with you, Mr. Chairman,
that we want to be recreating in those lands. The question is
what form of recreation is appropriate given the purpose of the
national park system.
Given the emissions from the Jet Skis, and the noise, and
the impact on wildlife, we do not think they are appropriate.
The Chairman. In your statement, you talked about
snowmobiles, and I think you alluded to Yellowstone. I guess
Voyageurs and Yellowstone would be the two biggest; there are
42 parks that allow snowmobiles.
In the event that the industry--by that, the manufacturers
of these--come up with a four-stroke engine. And so far, the
technology that it is as quiet and as pollution-free as any
motorized vehicles.
For example, they used, in front of this Committee, they
said Honda Accord. I don't drive a Honda Accord, but a lot of
people seem to like that car.
If they could do that, do you still have your feelings
toward banning snowmobiles, say, in Yellowstone?
Mr. Kiernan. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman.
I have had the opportunity to ride a four-stroke
snowmobile. They are still very loud. They still have the
potential, obviously, of harassing the wildlife.
We have video footage of snowmobilers stampeding the bison
in the winter in Yellowstone. That is not the vision that
people have of Yellowstone.
As well, there is a viable alternative, and this is in the
form of snow coaches.
The Chairman. Well, let me frame my question again and say,
if they can demonstrate scientifically that their four-stroke
engine is as quiet as a car that goes through there in the
summer months, do you still an objection?
Mr. Kiernan. Yes, and my concern is the following. We did a
study last winter--actually, it was 14 months ago--
The Chairman. Then I can only draw the conclusion that you
object to the amount of cars that go through there in the
summer.
Mr. Kiernan. No. The question is, we want people in the
parks, what is the best means of access into the park, causing
the least damage?
There is a wonderful alternative in the snow coaches.
Getting people into the parks, in Yellowstone, in particular,
right now, the car is the only means of getting people in the
parks, hence why we support having cars in the park.
However, in the wintertime, there is an alternative to
snowmobiles. And the problem with the snowmobiles is 100
percent of the time on a weekend in Yellowstone in the
wintertime when you are sitting at Old Faithful, you are
listening to the sounds, to the whine, to the scream of
snowmobiles.
While you are sitting there, trying to see one of the
wonders of the world, and in the winter, with the bisons this
is a wonderful place, and you are listening to snowmobiles.
That is a lost experience for the visitors.
If we replace the snowmobiles with snow coaches, we can
regain the solitude and the quiet.
The Chairman. Well, in effect, the only people that can see
the bison in the winter are snowmobilers. There isn't anybody
else in there.
Mr. Kiernan. There are cross-country skiers and there is
the snow coach technology--
The Chairman. You realize how far a backcountry skier has
to go from the west side of Yellowstone to get to the Old
Faithful lodge? Boy, I would like to meet that guy. We are
going to take him to the 2002 Olympics games, I can tell you
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kiernan. But the snow coaches would do that function
right now. They bring people into the park.
They essentially are vans with cleat tracks underneath
them, and they bring people in and can actually improve the
educational experience by having a driver that can teach and
share and interpret the park, as opposed to being on a
snowmobile where you have a helmet and you hear and see nothing
but the scream and the noise of your own snowmobile.
The Chairman. Mr. Kiernan, you have a very interesting
organization. As you know, this Committee has from time to time
wondered about the wilderness in our parks. The 1964 bill
called for Park Service to do the work, trying to determine
what should be wilderness in a park.
We often felt that would be a pretty easy thing to do
because parks would be the easiest of all to do, but we never
really get around to doing that.
Tell me, what would be your reaction to mountain bikes in
wilderness in parks? Would you oppose it?
Mr. Kiernan. I would want to consider it, but I believe we
would be concerned because of the impact on the trails of
mountain bikes. But I would want to study it and get back to
you.
The Chairman. Mr. Kiernan, you have objected to
overflights, snowmobiles, personal watercraft, and you want to
consider mountain bikes.
Could we infringe upon you a little bit to tell us what the
position--not right now--but would you, if I may ask you,
respectfully, would you please send us your written analysis of
those four issues that I have just brought up, to where the
NPCA would be coming from on them?
I mean, I have gotten mixed signals from your folks, from
the letter I read to you, from another letter addressed to Mr.
Hefley on May 14. I am kind of trying to figure out where you
folks are coming from.
I do not accept the premise you are against everything,
like I would on some organization.
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you.
The Chairman. And I know that your organization does some
very fine things for the parks, and I don't argue with that. I
compliment you for it.
On the other side of the coin, we do have some
organizations that constantly lobby Congress who are against
everything. I mean, I have asked some on wilderness, well, if I
gave you this much, what would you do? And they just keep
moving the goal posts on us.
So many of us have come to the conclusion that it is more
an industry to raise money and litigate than it is to really
take care of the public lands.
I haven't found your organization that way, but I would
really appreciate if you would supply us with your written
answer to some of these questions that we have.
Mr. Jones, did you have one?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Like you, I am sure, I have another meeting shortly. But I
wanted just to ask a couple questions. I have kind of gone
through Mr. Kiernan's statement, and a couple of questions come
to my mind after reading this.
You advocate no motorized recreational vehicle use on all
roadless wilderness and wilderness-quality lands and water.
Will you define for me what wilderness-quality is?
Mr. Kiernan. Areas that have been identified by the Park
Service as potential wilderness areas and that are in the
process of being brought forward to Congress for consideration.
Mr. Jones. Okay. Let me ask you to give me your definition
of motorized recreational vehicles.
Mr. Kiernan. To be fair to the Committee, if I can respond
in writing; I want to be sure to be clear and concise and
consistent.
Mr. Jones. I think that would be fine, but would you give
me just one example before I have to leave?
Mr. Kiernan. Snowmobiles, Jet Skis, anything with a motor
that is propelling the individual. I need to give some more
thought to that.
Mr. Jones. Does this mean like an RV going through the
park? Would that obviously be--
Mr. Kiernan. Correct, yes.
Mr. Jones. Okay. And you are against bicycles, I think you
said to the Chairman?
Mr. Kiernan. In wilderness areas.
Mr. Jones. Dirt bikes or whatever they are.
Mr. Kiernan. In wilderness areas. Have some concerns; want
to get back to you.
But, clearly, I would enjoy putting in that letter all the
things that we are for in the national parks, all of the
activities that we believe are appropriate, that millions of
Americans love to do in our national parks.
Strolling in the national parks. Walking. Picnicking in our
national parks. Listening to the streams in our national parks.
There are a lot of activities that we clearly support and
would love to include in information to the Committee.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Kiernan, some time ago, Chairman Hefley
and I put a bill in to form a commission that would try to
determine the criteria of a park, what it should be and what it
shouldn't be.
As we probably all know, some parks were created that
really didn't have much quality. Most of them, of course, are
very great and are jewels.
Do you feel that that would be reasonable to do that? Or do
you think it still should be to the eye of the beholder and the
congressman who has the most clout gets to create the park,
even if it is a past landfill?
Mr. Kiernan. I believe the Park Service currently has some
standards already established that help guide it in designating
parks and monuments and wild and scenic rivers. I would take a
look and see how effective those are and whether additional
guidance needs to come from Congress.
The Chairman. Actually, the Park Service criteria is pretty
loose, and it kind of ends up with what congressman can get his
bill through, is what it amounts to.
We were a little concerned that conservation areas,
heritage areas, primitive areas, wilderness areas, park areas,
have some criteria. We had to cave on that because Secretary
Babbitt had a great deal of fun calling that a park closing
law.
And we kind of enjoyed the humor for a little while.
Finally, it got to us when he got President Clinton and one of
the prime ministers of the new federation of Russia involved.
And we saw that it had gone a little far.
So I asked Roger Kennedy, the director of the Park Service,
to come up here, and put him under oath, and asked one
question: Does this bill constitute a park closing?
His response was, no, absolutely not.
Out of that, he was no longer a park director. But anyway,
he was right and admirable in what he said, because there was
nothing in that law that did it.
But we are always curious about, should someone establish a
commission. But we have too many Members of Congress--and I
guess I have been very close to it for many years--who want a
park for no reason, really, at all.
I do think there should be a criteria. I mean, look at the
parks. We have natural parks, archaeological parks, we have one
named after a band, historic areas.
And I am really not going to do one for a landfill,
regardless of what one of my friends keeps asking.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kiernan. I think, Mr. Chairman, we could work together
on that one.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I look forward to working with you.
And I thank this panel and all the other panels for
excellent testimony. It has been very informative.
And believe me, this information you have given us, both
orally and written, will be put to good use.
And thank you so much.
The Chairman. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]