[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TAKING ON WATER: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S STALLED RULEMAKING EFFORT
ON PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-134
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-092 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ed Schrock, Staff Director
Erik Glavich, Professional Staff Member
Benjamin Chance, Clerk
Krista Boyd, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 15, 2006................................... 1
Statement of:
Baughman, Laura, president, the Trade Partnership............ 36
Garcia, Fernando, director of public and regulatory affairs,
Bombardier Recreational Products........................... 24
Hamer, John, owner, Motorsports of Miami..................... 69
Schneebeck, Carl, public lands campaign director, Bluewater
Network.................................................... 80
Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director for Visitor and
Resource Protection, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior, accompanied by Jerry Case, Regulations Policy
Program Manager............................................ 16
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Akin, Hon. W. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 11
Baughman, Laura, president, the Trade Partnership, prepared
statement of............................................... 39
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 99
Garcia, Fernando, director of public and regulatory affairs,
Bombardier Recreational Products, prepared statement of.... 27
Hamer, John, owner, Motorsports of Miami, prepared statement
of......................................................... 71
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 3
Schneebeck, Carl, public lands campaign director, Bluewater
Network, prepared statement of............................. 83
Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director for Visitor and
Resource Protection, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior, prepared statement of........................ 19
TAKING ON WATER: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S STALLED RULEMAKING EFFORT
ON PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Candice S.
Miller (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Cannon and Lynch.
Also present: Representative Akin.
Staff present: Ed Schrock, staff director; Erik Glavich and
Joe Santiago, professional staff members; Benjamin Chance,
clerk; Krista Boyd, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mrs. Miller. Call the meeting to order. Good morning,
everyone. Appreciate you all coming. I certainly want to
welcome everyone that's in attendance today to our hearing on
the National Park Service's rulemaking effort on personal
watercraft. Sometimes it seems that the Government sort of
moves along at its own pace. I think we've all noticed that.
Many times, certainly, a calculated approach is warranted, but
too often governmental agencies seem to work at a glacial pace.
The National Park Service has been working on a rulemaking
effort to allow personal watercraft such as jet-skis or Sea-
Doos, known by the acronym PWC--and I come from a boating
background, I still call them jet-skis or what have you; though
I still call copy machines Xerox machines--for about 6 years,
and during this time many self-imposed deadlines have come and
gone, and I'm concerned that the completion of this effort has
not been a priority as it should be, I think, for the Service.
The delays have resulted in unwarranted bans of PWCs in
national parks, which have had a detrimental impact on small
businesses and individuals that rely on sales, rentals and
services for their livelihood.
In March 2000, the Park Service issued a rule banning
personal watercraft from national parks beginning in 2002. The
rule identified 21 parks which may allow PWCs, but only after
completing appropriate procedures to ensure that PWC use is
appropriate. The Bluewater Network and its parent company,
Earth Island Institute, filed suit against the Interior
Department and the Park Service challenging the provision of
the rule that allowed 10 of the identified national parks to
allow the use of PWCs without having to go through a special
rulemaking with a public comment period and an environmental
assessment as well. As part of a settlement agreement, the Park
Service required all parks to complete a special rulemaking and
environmental assessment before allowing PWCs to be used, and
extended the deadline for completing the rulemaking before PWCs
would be banned.
Though people may question the appropriateness of the March
2000 rule or even the settlement agreement which required all
parks to complete a special rulemaking before allowing personal
watercraft, my principal concern is the reasons behind the
seemingly constant delays experienced by the Park Service in
completing this rulemaking effort. Fifteen of the 21 parks
affected by the Service-wide rule have decided to allow PWCs
and have proceeded with a rulemaking. Though seven were not
affected by the settlement agreement, the Park Service not only
failed to complete a rulemaking for any of these parks before
their self-imposed deadline, but only one park issued an
environmental assessment before the ban took effect. For the
seven parks with extended deadlines, only one park issued an
environmental assessment before the deadline, and no parks
issued a proposed rule before PWCs were banned.
It is imperative that governmental agencies be responsive
in enacting appropriate policy, and I'm concerned that the Park
Service has allowed this rulemaking process to languish for too
long. All 15 environmental assessments conducted by the Park
Service have found that personal watercraft do not cause harm
to the environment to the extent that a ban is warranted. For
the 5 parks that have not issued final rules, an average of
nearly 30 months has passed since an environmental assessment
was issued.
The Service needs to make completion of the rulemaking
process a priority for them because their failures have a
significant impact on the public. The Personal Watercraft
Industry Association estimates a ban on PWCs by the Park
Service has cost the industry $144 million per year and 3,300
direct or indirect jobs between 2001 and 2004. One of our
witnesses Laura Baughman will present a study discussing the
economic impact of the bans that are now into their 4th year.
The debate surrounding personal watercraft is not about
whether they harm the environment. The issue we're here to
discuss today is about fairness for those who use PWCs
responsibly and about the Park Service's failure to finalize
the PWC rules.
I want to thank each of the witnesses certainly for
agreeing to be here today, and I trust before this hearing is
over the Park Service will be able to give us a time certain
for when the rulemaking process for affected parks will be
complete. And with that I recognize the distinguished ranking
member of the subcommittee Mr. Lynch.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.003
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Chairman Miller. Good morning. I
appreciate the members of the panel coming forward to help us
work on this issue.
The mission of the National Park Service is expressly to
preserve, unimpair the natural and cultural resources and
values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education
and inspiration of this and future generations. I'm a great fan
of former President Theodore Roosevelt, and I have followed his
life's story with great interest, and I believe that he was a
man with tremendous vision, and the reason that we have such a
wonderful National Park System is in large part due to his
great work. He had a wonderful vision and appreciation of the
beauty and the integrity of these areas that we have preserved.
The laws that established the National Park Service are
fairly express in their intent. First of all, they are to
conserve the scenery and the 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. It also
goes on to say that the Park Service itself in its mission
shall be--the protection, management and administration of
these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public
value and integrity of the National Park System, and shall not
be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which
these various areas have been established.
So we're not talking about general shoreline. My district
includes Boston Harbor, and I have a lot of folks that are
boaters and jet-skiers and enjoy the water very much. We're
talking about a very specific jurisdiction here; national
parks. God knows, there aren't enough of them, and we all know
how much they are appreciated more and more by each succeeding
generation.
The National Park Service laws and regulations gave the
agency broad authority how to make decisions about how to
balance visitor recreation with the need to preserve each
park's resources. Courts have consistently held that when there
is a conflict between conservation and visitor recreation,
conservation is the most important consideration. It's in this
context that the National Park Service must make decisions
about how to manage visitor activities.
Today we're looking at one particular activity, the use of
jet-skis or personal watercraft in national parks. Personal
watercraft, more popularly known as jet-skis, are marketed as
so-called thrillcraft. One current advertisement touts the jet-
ski's ability to allow aggressive turning and high-speed
stability. Another advertisement promotes the fun and adventure
and independence when it meets the power, performance and style
of the jet-ski.
This hearing is not about whether America should or
shouldn't buy or use personal watercraft. I think wonderful
technology and in the right place, it is a lot of fun, and I
see a lot of people in my district enjoying that. This hearing
is not about whether people should partake in that activity,
which is fine and should be encouraged, but whether the use of
these watercraft can be reconciled with the need to conserve
the precious resources of each national park.
The National Park Service has found that there are unique
concerns related to the personal watercraft, and that those
concerns should be considered in evaluating whether and how
they should be allowed in certain parks. Personal watercraft
are designed for speed and maneuverability to perform stunts.
One of the concerns associated with personal watercraft is the
noise associated with their use, in part because they're often
operating very close to the shore.
Additionally, personal watercraft have a shallow draft, and
I know we've had studies along the Cape Cod seashore that have
indicated that there's been some damage because these jet-skis
can go where other watercraft cannot, and they're able to
access areas including those close to the shoreline, which can
affect vegetation and wildlife.
Personal watercraft emit air and water pollution, which can
have an impact on air and water quality. A conventional engine
can discharge between 1 and 3 gallons of fuel during 1 hour of
use at full throttle. I understand the industry is working on
improving that technology, and that there are cleaner, better
technology engines that are becoming available; however, there
are still many, many vehicles with the conventional engines
still in use.
An important issue related to personal watercraft, no
matter where they are, is safety, and the U.S. Coast Guard
reports that personal watercraft accounted for about 25 percent
of boat accidents in 2004, with more than one-third involving
riders age 19 or younger. So the safety issue has to be met
within the National Park Service if this activity will go
forward. We need to put the funding in to make sure that safe
handling of these vessels can be managed and that people who
may have these accidents which are shown to occur can be
rescued, can be protected.
The National Park Service is still in the rulemaking
process for five parks where personal watercraft is being used
or actually is being considered. Though these rulemakings may
have taken longer than anticipated, this is not an easy
process. For one thing, the National Park Service is facing
enormous resource constraints. There's only one full-time staff
person right now handling all of the National Park Service
regulation, including personal watercraft regulation.
For each park where the National Park Service determines
that personal watercraft may be allowed, it's important that
the agency carefully and thoroughly analyze how personal
watercraft will impact the park, including the potential impact
on plants, wildlife, water and air quality and other visitors.
Even if a determination is made that personal watercraft
use is appropriate, the park must also determine how to manage
that use in order to best preserve the park's resources and
provide for the safety of those individuals using the
watercraft. The National Park Service must balance that
interest of visitors wishing to ride personal watercraft within
the agency's mission to preserve the resources of each park for
generations to come.
I appreciate all the witnesses taking their time to help
the committee on their work here today and to share their
thoughts on this issue, and I look forward to the testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Cannon for an opening
statement.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Chairman Miller. I appreciate this
hearing, it's very important to me. I appreciate your
indulgence. I have two markups going on, and I wanted to
apologize, too, for not being able to indulge in our witnesses
because the issue is important.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the rulemaking
process at the National Park Service governing personal
watercraft use. It's difficult to examine the rulemaking
process where there doesn't actually seem to be a process. The
Park Service has issued rulings regarding which parks allow use
of PWCs and which can't. The NPS has complicated matters by
delaying completion of this process in a variety of ways for
almost 6 years, thereby making this process completely unclear.
As an aside, I chair the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, and we're doing a review of
the Administrative Procedure Act, and this is going to be one
of those issues we take a look at.
This lack of clarity has left many national parks in a
state of limbo, unsure whether they will be allowed to grant
access to PWCs, and the bureaucratic nature of the NPS has
resulted in the loss of revenue for a major industry, the loss
of numerous jobs, and the subsequent loss of revenue for our
economy as a whole. The PWC Industry Association estimates that
the bans by NPS cost the industry about $144 million a year
directly. That does not include all the people that are
supported by and employed in the business of renting and
maintaining and the tourism that comes from this. The PWIA
estimates that the National Park Service bans will cost about
3,300 direct and indirect jobs in 2000 and 2001.
We are not here to talk about the environmental impact of
PWCs to date. That issue has been determined and environmental
studies conducted in each park that PWCs would be allowed. In
fact, it has been a average of nearly 30 months since the
environmental assessments for each of the parks was released.
The issue of this hearing, and my concern, is the
government could be such a destructive force to business just
by delay. The PWC industry has played by the rules and waited
patiently for NPS to complete the rulemaking procedures, yet
NPS has continuously shirked its responsibility. The NPS needs
to be accountable for the slowness and the gross negligence of
this process. NPS must answer why there's never been a
scientific study conducted to support the legitimacy of the
systemwide PWC bans that exist today in the national parks. The
NPS must respond to the numerous requests by Members of
Congress to reconsider NPS bans that have been never subject to
an environmental assessment, and explain why it's created a
rulemaking process that condemns an industry by making the
default policy an immediate ban on their products.
By the way, for those who haven't used PWCs, you're invited
to come to the most beautiful place on the face of the Earth,
which used to be in my district, but not now, but Lake Powell.
It is a place where it is directly affected by this. Nobody
wants to damage the environment, but ski jets are a lot of fun,
and it's a great industry.
In its enabling statute, Congress instructed the NPS to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations. I won't sit here and
deliberate whether NPS achieves the mission; however, I would
think it wise for the decisionmakers in this particular
situation to let this committee know whether the issue of
delaying PWC fits within its mission. As it stands,
preservation doesn't appear to be the driving force behind the
rulemaking process.
I look forward to your testimony and with that yield back
the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
You are certainly excused whenever. We appreciate your
attendance here for your opening statement. And it is widely
acknowledged that Lake Powell is a beautiful place on the
planet, of course surpassed a bit by Lake St. Clair in
Michigan.
Mr. Cannon. The stark beauty of the bright red sandstone
and the bright blue water, and the clear, cloudless sky
unimpaired by all those trees that hide your landscape.
Mrs. Miller. All our water is fresh. However, I will say
this: There is a lot of interest--before we get to the
witnesses, there obviously is a lot of interest amongst the
Congress. This is not a partisan issue, and many people are
very parochial about their parts of the Nation that we all
represent, and this is a very hotly debated issue, as you might
imagine. And, in fact, before we get to the witnesses, let me
also state for the record that both Chairman Pombo, who is the
Chairperson of the House Resources Committee, and
Representative Steve Pearce, who is the chairman of the
resources Subcommittee on National Parks, both wanted to be
here for the hearing, but they were unable to come because of
their schedules. However, Chairman Pearce had actually held a
hearing on this topic in May 2005. Both of them obviously have
a strong interest in seeing the Park Service complete the
rulemaking effort. They have a written statement, and, without
objection, both of them will be submitted to the record.
And we are joined by Mr. Akin. I recognize Mr. Akin for an
opening statement as well.
Mr. Akin. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, for holding this
important hearing today, and I'm not actually a member of the
Government Reform Committee, but I am the chairman of the
regulatory oversight, Committee on Small Business. So we have a
shared interest in your hearing today, and I wanted to
congratulate you on taking up a topic that I think is very
important.
I'm deeply concerned by what appears to me to be a
continued delay in the Park Service in working through this
issue over a period of a number of years, which appears to have
lost many jobs over the last 9 years and has had a considerable
impact on small business, particularly in the area of the
watercraft that are near these different various parks that are
affected.
I don't know that I need to probably reiterate what I
think, Chairwoman, that you probably made clear in this
committee, the fact that small businesses are a very, very
large part of jobs in America and a very significant part of
our economy overall. And I just think we have to get past the
foot-dragging state, and I understand it's a controversial
issue, but have to come to our conclusions.
I did have questions and things, but I have two other
committees I'm supposed to be at as well, so thank you very
much for letting me join you and weighing in to say let's get
off the nickel, and let's get moving on this project. Thank
you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attendance.
[The prepared statement of Hon. W. Todd Akin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.005
Mrs. Miller. It's the committee's process to ask all the
witnesses to be sworn in before you do testify, so if you could
all rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Miller. We appreciate that.
With the indulgence, what I would like to do is recognize
Mr. Cannon for several questions. I know he has a markup and
needs to leave. So before we actually have our testimony from
the witnesses, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. That is very kind of you. I deeply appreciate
it. I would look forward to the witness testimony and wish them
the best.
If you don't mind, I just have a few questions for you, Ms.
Taylor-Goodrich. Given the amount of time that's elapsed since
the file rule was established and the grace period has expired,
wouldn't it be reasonable to open the remaining parks so
another boating season isn't missed?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Good morning. Can you hear me? Thank
you. Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director for Visitor and
Resource Protection.
Your question I understand to be can we open----
Mr. Cannon. Quickly so we don't miss a season.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We're not considering that option at
this point. We are not considering that option.
Mr. Cannon. Are you saying that the timing of the coming
boating season is not being considered by the Park Service?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We are in the process of our
rulemaking we anticipate, which I'll cover in my testimony as
well and give you an update on where we are with each of the
parks. We need to have everything in place by this summer.
Mr. Cannon. By this summer, what month does that mean in
particular?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. I can cite specific examples. We're
looking at in one case for Big Thicket National Preserve the
summer of 2007.
Mr. Cannon. So are we talking about June or the end of
August?
Mrs. Miller. Could you move your mic a little closer? I'm
not sure if it's working.
Ms. Goodrich-Taylor. I would also like to ask--I'm not sure
you can hear me.
If permissible, I have our regulations program sheet with
me that can provide detailed information.
Mr. Cannon. Are you looking at trying to get this
implemented; so have you considered it in the past? Rulemaking
has its own timeframes. Have you considered doing this in a way
that would optimize this summer season? We don't use PWCs when
it's cold. So is that part of the thinking, and if so, are we
working at the beginning of the summer or calling it summer
when it's really August 31st?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Depending on the park and where they
are in the rulemaking process, the earliest would probably be
June. But we are responsible and obligated to follow the 2000
rule and settlement agreement where we have to follow through
with all parts of the rulemaking process before we allow
opening that.
Mr. Cannon. Members of Congress have requested the NPS
reconsider the ban by starting the process of an environmental
assessment. It is my understanding that NPS ignored these
requests. Can you tell me why these were ignored, and what's
going to happen with the new Biscayne National Park petition?
Mrs. Miller. Could I ask, Mr. Garcia, perhaps you can pass
that microphone over to her. For some reason our wonderful
technology has failed.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Is that better?
Your question is what is the status of Biscayne National
Park.
Mr. Cannon. Yes.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. The petition we have received, we are
in the process of responding, preparing a response to that
petition.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know the timeframe for responding to
that petition?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We should have it to the industry
within about a week and a half, 2 weeks. It's already in
process and needs to be reviewed by final legislative affairs
and then our Director to sign.
Mr. Cannon. Since the NPS began to examine the
environmental impacts, PWCs--numerous environmentally friendly
models have been created. What steps have you taken to include
this in your rulemaking process?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Each area that we are going through
rulemaking is required to do an environmental impact. It's an
environmental analysis [EA], pursuant to the policy acts, and
that's where we look at alternatives in considering new
technologies.
Mr. Cannon. Have you done that with the new motors, the new
versions of PWCs?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. I'd have to ask our program manager
specifics on that.
Mr. Cannon. Would you make sure that you do that?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Absolutely.
Mr. Cannon. How can NPS continue to support a complete PWC
prohibition in the absence of any relevant studies?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We are managing our parks pursuant to
what our organic legislation allows us to. We have determined
through the 2000 rule that there are 21 parks that could be
considered for PWC use. We still feel very comfortable with
that decision. Each park is unique in itself, and we can't have
a one-size-fits-all, open policy. The determination was made
for appropriateness in those 21 parks, so each environmental
analysis would account for localized conditions, and a complete
ban is really pursuant to our legislation in those individual
parks.
We have 390 units in the National Park System, 21 of which
were determined to be suitable because they allow in their
legislation motorized motorboat use. And we consider PWCs in
the same category, in essence, as motorboats. That's how they
were determined.
Mr. Cannon. Embedded in your answer is motorboats can be
used in these areas, but PWCs can't until you make a ruling.
Why is that?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. They're considered a motorized vessel.
They are a different kind vessel because they have a shallower
draft, and they get into areas that are certainly more shallow,
but ecologically sensitive.
Mr. Cannon. Why is the presumption they can't be there
until sometime, somewhere, somehow NPS acts?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. National Park Service Organic Act
allows for the National Park System to err on the side of
conservation. Mr. Lynch read the statement from our mission
where we are responsible certainly for the enjoyment, for
visitor enjoyment, but our primary purpose is for conservation
of natural and cultural resources. There are certain areas, and
we can provide more detailed answers, if you would like.
Mr. Cannon. Why is the presumption that you can't use PWCs,
and then you have this almost infinite--at least in the life
cycle of business products, 6 years is an incredible amount of
time that the NPS has not done anything. The delay has injured
business, hurt business, I think hurt the parks, not allowed
people to enjoy them the way they can. While you can speed
around and make very sharp turns, as Mr. Lynch mentioned, and
have a lot of fun with these things, they take you into these
areas and allow for enjoyment.
Why is there a presumption? I haven't heard what the
context is for a presumption they shouldn't be allowed. You can
distinguish them from boats, but why do you do so?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Back in the 1980's and then on into
the 1990's when they became much more popular in national
parks, the technology at that time was much rougher, as well as
a little noisier, more cumbersome.
Mr. Cannon. Did you make findings that those older models
would damage the environment, or did somebody say, we don't
like these, people are enjoying them too much, let's use our
authority as an agency to prevent the activity until we figure
out how to do it better. Was there a finding or just a
conclusion by the system?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Our rulemaking in 2002 identified
those areas where it would be appropriate to allow PWCs by
virtue of the kind of parks that they were. The National Park
Service, as part of our mission we have the responsibility to
look at various types of use, and since PWCs are one type of
use, since we have over 273 million visitors to the National
Park System, we have to consider the visitor experience for all
visitors, and the 2000 rule identified those areas where it
would be appropriate, no matter what the technology would be,
even though we are looking, to answer your question, and we
take into those accounts those technologies at the areas where
it's appropriate.
But it's our responsibility as the National Park Service to
determine--we start from a point of nonmotorized use except
where motorized boats are allowed in specific legislation as a
baseline for the National Park Service. We work our way up on
appropriate levels of motorized use after that. The 2000 rule
is what allowed us to have those 21 parks to be considered for
PWC use.
Mr. Cannon. Madam Chairman, I notice my time has expired. I
can understand why the industry is so frustrated, and yield
back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. Again, we appreciate your
attendance, Mr. Cannon, as we've gone a bit out of order here.
But let me introduce our first witness who's already done
some testifying here this morning, Karen Taylor-Goodrich. She's
the Associate Director for Visitor and Resource Protection at
the National Park Service. She has served as a Deputy Associate
Director for Park Operations and Education, also held a wide
range of positions within the Park Service that includes
natural and cultural resource management, back country
wilderness management, and visitor services as well.
She's even served as a ranger with the National Parks and
Wildlife Service at a national park in New South Wales,
Australia. She earned her Bachelor's of Science degree in
geography from Portland State University in Oregon and has done
graduate work in natural resources through the Park Service
Natural Resources Management Trainee Program.
We welcome you here this morning. The floor is yours. You
already had a bit of the flavor of these boxes that you have in
front of you with the light system that we use, so we ask you
to try to keep your testimony to not much longer than 5
minutes, if you could. Although, we'll let you go a little over
if you need to. The yellow light is a 1-minute caution and the
red is a 5.
STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
VISITOR AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY CASE,
REGULATIONS POLICY PROGRAM MANAGER
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Thank you very much. And good morning
again, Ms. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. We do
appreciate you holding this oversight hearing to take a look at
PWC and the National Park System. I'll read from my testimony.
I won't cover every point, but I'd like to refer to it.
Providing for the enjoyment of the national parks'
resources and values is the fundamental part of what we do in
the National Park Service. That's for all units, all 390 units,
of the National Park System. The desire to provide access to
park resources is the reason we have roads, accommodations,
other recreational facilities in our national park units. It's
also the reason that we continuously seek ways to provide
appropriate recreation opportunities and to improve the
experience for all of our 273 million-plus visitors.
Among the types of recreational uses currently permitted in
national parks, PWCs became popular in the 1980's, throughout
the 1990's and currently. Since that time, watercraft use has
occurred at some level in approximately 32 of the 87 areas of
the National Park System that allow motorized boating. We have
grouped personal watercraft among other motorized vessels.
Historically, PWC use within the unit was allowed with special
regulations published within a Superintendent's Compendium,
when it allowed for use by other vessels. In the late 1990's,
87 park units allowed motorized boating, including PWCs.
One of the questions Representative Cannon had was why do
we have a ban, a universal ban? We start from that point
pursuant to the Organic Act, but given the wide variety of our
units, the appropriateness of a given recreational activity
will vary from park to park. An appropriate use is based first
on the mandated purpose established by the park's enabling
legislation as well as a sensitivity to the resources, values
and visitor access. And due to these differences, our
management policies recognize that an activity that is
appropriate when conducted may be inappropriate conducted in
another type of park.
As you mentioned earlier, Ms. Chairman, in 1998, the
Bluewater Network filed a petition urging the NPS to initiate
rulemaking to prohibit personal watercraft throughout the
National Park System. In response to the petition, we conducted
an analysis of the original 87 sites, examining enabling
legislation, resource sensitivity, values, and visitor access;
and then in March 2000, we published a final regulation
identifying 21 units of the National Park Service that could
continue PWC use.
The final rule gave park managers until September 2002 to
determine whether to pursue a new rulemaking procedure to
continue PWC use in the 21 units. In August 2000, we negotiated
a settlement agreement with the Bluewater Network and its
parent organization, as you mentioned, the Earth Island
Institute. This was in response to a lawsuit from those
organizations that challenged our decision to allow personal
watercraft in those 21 units.
The settlement agreement was very specific. It specified
that no PWC use within the National Park System after September
15, 2002, could be pursued without a comprehensive
environmental analysis and a rule allowing the use in that
unit. The environmental analysis pursuant to that settlement
must include impacts on water quality, air quality, sound,
wildlife, shoreline, vegetation, visitor conflict and visitor
safety.
Of the 21 units originally considered in the rule for
continued PWC use, 5 units made administrative determinations
to not allow PWCs. This determination was based on the unit's
legislative history, regulatory authorities, and the required
environmental analysis factors. Each determination was made
with public participation, including public meetings and
participation by advisory commissions and State and local
governments.
Ten of the 15 remaining parks have completed the rulemaking
process and are open to PWC use. The remaining five are in the
process of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act
and promulgating regulations pursuant to our settlement
agreement.
Gulf Islands National Seashore is currently under final
signature review and should be published in the Federal
Register very shortly. The final rule for Cape Lookout should
be published before the summer season. Final rules for Gateway
and Curecanti should be published in midsummer of 2006. Big
Thicket's finishing their NEPA work right now, and will
promulgate rulemaking shortly.
Since 2000, we have devoted substantial resources to the
study of appropriate methods of managing personal watercraft in
units in the National Park System. The laws and policies
applicable to the management of the National Park System afford
us as the National Park Service broad discretion and mandate no
single method for satisfying our responsibility to protect park
resources. We can use a variety of administrative tools,
including: visitor education, increased enforcement, regulatory
measures, including seasonal closures and flat wake zones; and
use limits, including numerical caps, to manage these personal
watercraft use areas.
For example, Lake Mead National Recreation Area established
a lake carrying capacity, implemented management zoning to
separate recreational activities, and is incorporating a phase-
in of cleaner engine technologies. Glen Canyon Recreation Area,
that's Lake Powell that Mr. Cannon referred to, PWCs continue
to be very popular, with increased use of PWCs up about 12
percent since 2001.
In those areas where PWC use is allowed, the parks will
rely heavily on our partners in the gateway communities to
educate visitors and encourage responsible and safe use of our
PWCs. We also rely on industry to develop new technologies that
may help parks balance visitor use and resource conservation.
In conclusion, we're dedicated to improving recreation
opportunities for all park visitors, and we also provide
opportunities to the public, including PWC users where
appropriate, to increase recreational opportunities.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak before you.
I mentioned earlier that I have our regulations policy program
manager Jerry Case here to be available for questions as
appropriate.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor-Goodrich follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.010
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Fernando
Garcia, director of public and regulatory affairs, with
Bombardier Recreational Products, with U.S. operations based in
Wisconsin. In 1986, he became a marine engineering manager with
Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, charged with product planning and
validation for the company's outboard and stern drive engines
and recreational fishing boats. In 1995, he joined Bombardier
where his responsibilities include public affairs and
regulatory compliance of all product lines on a domestic and
international scope. We welcome to you the hearing.
STATEMENT OF FERNANDO GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Garcia. Good morning, Chairwoman Miller, distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
represent the personal watercraft industry and Bombardier
Recreational Products [BRP]. Again, my name is Fernando Garcia.
I am chairman of the board of the Personal Watercraft Industry
Association and director of regulatory and public affairs of
BRP.
I'm here to address this subcommittee on a very important
issue, the National Park Service's ban of personal watercraft.
In order to illustrate the nature and the consequential
economic damage of the PWC bans, I feel I must take a moment to
update you on the state of the personal watercraft market
today.
In the mid-1990's, nearly 200,000 personal watercrafts were
sold annually in the United States, and in 2005, it is
estimated that only some 80,000 units were sold. There is no
doubt in my mind, and I'm 100 percent certain, that the bans
implemented at the National Park Service level are primarily to
blame for this substantial decline.
Early generation personal watercrafts were mostly stand-up,
single-type vessels, as we have displayed on our boards.
Critics of the vessels still attempt to portray this outdated
image of the product as current reality. The truth is that
personal watercrafts have evolved. They are sit-down models,
mostly equipped with clean-running engines like the one in your
automobile; family oriented vessels, as they accommodate up to
three persons. They account for 99 percent of the PWC market.
In the 1990's, PWCs were criticized over their sound level
and concerns with air and water emissions. The industry
responded by investing over $1 million in the last 10 years in
new technologies. Today's PWCs are among the cleanest, quietest
boats on the water, and indeed they are boats.
Industrywide, any new PWC model uses cleaner-running four-
stroke or newer two-stroke engine technologies that have
reduced emissions by at least 75 percent, and in many cases
much more, well ahead of the enforcement schedules. New models
are also 70 percent quieter than those produced before 1998.
More importantly, the National Park Service's own
environmental assessments have confirmed time and time again
that PWC use will neither impair nor significantly impact the
environment or human health. Fifteen parks, not 1, not 2, but
15, have taken the time to evaluate PWCs, and the National Park
Service has decided that PWC use is appropriate, will not
impair park resources, and should resume.
Unfortunately, critics of PWCs continue to use inaccurate
and outdated information to justify PWCs owners from operating
their craft in areas where other forms of motorized
motorboating are allowed. Such an example is what we heard
earlier this morning of fuel spillage. This is a claim that is
a very case-specific, very worst-case scenario that is not
representative of PWCs back in that era and this era. There are
other motorized marine engines that have characteristics
similar to this that are in continued use.
The regulatory backlog and lack of response from the
National Park Service with regards to reopening parks to
personal watercraft use has been frustrating for my entire
industry. In March 2000, the NPS banned PWCs systemwide, but
allowed some PWC use to continue for a 2-year grace period in
21 units where other motorized boating was prevalent. The 21
units were to evaluate PWCs during this 2-year period, and, if
appropriate, reauthorize continued PWC use after a grace period
expired.
Due to a lawsuit brought by an environmental extremist
group, the rule was effectively amended to require each of the
21 units to conduct a full NEPA analysis and complete a special
rulemaking before reauthorizing PWC use. Not a single park has
complied within the grace period. As a result, PWC users were
effectively banned throughout the park system.
To date, only 10 units have completed the rulemaking
process, while 5 other units have unexpectedly stalled in the
rulemaking process, with no sign of progress for yet another
boating season.
We estimate that these delays have caused my industry to
suffer a $2 billion loss based on unfounded allegations.
Countless family run businesses, suppliers and others are no
longer in operation because of these bans. In 2004, even
Polaris Industry, a major U.S. manufacturer, ceased
manufacturing personal watercraft.
We're asking this committee to no longer accept these
allegations and rest on the findings of these 15 consecutive
scientific studies to reopen the stalled parks immediately. The
grace period expired in 2002; 4 years later the National Park
Service still fails to commit to a near-term, hard deadline to
complete the rulemakings.
BRP is one of the largest investors in the boating market
and employs more than 1,400 people in the United States and
6,200 worldwide, with manufacturing and product development and
distribution operations in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Illinois
and Florida. While I take great pride that BRP is the market
leader, this market is not what it should be given the
investment our entire industry has made to make today's
personal watercraft both environmentally and family friendly.
This decline in sales caused by the NPS bans forced us to
close our headquarters of Sea-Doo activities in Melbourne, FL.
Due to the decline in demand, we consolidated our teams. Nearly
the entire Melbourne staff was released. My colleagues and
friends were without their jobs.
In closing, our industry is seeking your assistance in this
matter. We have repeatedly made the case to the National Park
Service that they must streamline its regulatory process in
light of their own scientific findings. Studies have shown that
PWCs cause no unique environmental harm, but still the
rulemaking for the remaining six parks languish, and as long as
the National Park Service bans PWCs, I fear other local lakes
and seashores across the country will follow suit.
I have asked for your help to ensure the National Park
Service quickly expedites the rulemakings. Each boating season
that goes by with these bans still in effect has an estimated
cost to the U.S. economy that exceeds $500 million a year. We
recommend that all remaining rules be issued no later than
April of this year, as we asked last May 2005, so that
consumers have time to purchase their personal watercraft for
this boating season. I thank you for your time and concern.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.019
Mrs. Miller. Our next witness is Laura Baughman. She's the
president of the Trade Partnership, a trade and economic
consulting firm. Ms. Baughman has been an economist since 1977,
and she follows closely the impacts, both prospective and
actual, on policies and programs on the U.S. economy and the
trade flows of U.S. trading partners. The Partnership also
follows the U.S. trade policy formulation process, assisting
clients and providing input to that process.
We certainly appreciate your attendance here today at the
hearing and look forward to your testimony now.
STATEMENT OF LAURA BAUGHMAN, PRESIDENT, THE TRADE PARTNERSHIP
Ms. Baughman. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Laura Baughman, and I am president of
the Trade Partnership, an economic consulting firm based here
in Washington, DC, that specializes in assessing the economic
effects of U.S. policies and regulations. I am pleased to
appear before you today to summarize the results of some
research that we completed recently regarding the economic
effects of the National Park Service bans on the use of
personal watercraft in selected U.S. park areas.
As you know, the use of PWC has been adversely affected by
consideration and implementation of bans on their use in U.S.
national parks. The negative impacts of the bans and the
publicity associated with the bans has resulted in lost sales
since 1995, as shown on that chart over there. I'll refer to
this version here because it's closer. But from here to here
you can see the decline in sales.
Lost sales in turn have adversely impacted U.S. producers
and distributors of PWCs, suppliers, retailers and other
businesses that service PWC, and their users. The decline in
sales volume grew annually from 1996 to 2001 and stabilized at
about 80,000 units per year since then, down from 200,000 units
in the early 1990's. Sales volumes in the 2002 to 2004 period
are just 40 percent of what they were in 1995 prior to the
adverse publicity about the potential for bans.
Our research examined the national impacts of the PWC bans
on output and unemployment over the 1995 to 2004 period. It
measured the impacts on both up and downstream industries
throughout the U.S. economy. These impacts are negative and
significant.
But before I detail our national findings, I think it's
important for you to know the National Park Service itself is
now quantifying significant adverse impacts of the bans on the
local economy surrounding park areas. When it first published
its rule in 1998, the NPS stated that, ``it expects little, if
any, economic impacts on PWC users or the PWC industry on a
regional or national basis.''
It based this assertion on several premises that did not
turn out to be true: that a grace period during which PWC use
could continue would mitigate negative impacts, and an
assumption that alternative sites exist for PWC use. Subsequent
economic analyses commissioned by the NPS from an independent
contractor team using a technique known as input-output
analysis contradicted these expectations, finding significant
potential negative impacts on regions located adjacent to the
parks contemplating bans, and even negative actual impacts on
those regions associated with the potential for bans.
The total annual downstream cost for the 10 parks studied
so far exceeds $86 million a year. The NPS studies found that
the bans impacted local economies in three ways. First,
families that might have wanted to buy a new PWC to use at a
local park would no longer do so. In most instances, the local
retailers reported to NPS that a ban would cause their sales of
PWCs to fall by as much as 100 percent. In addition, just the
publicity about possible bans caused a reduction in sales of
PWC.
Second, NPS interviews found that in many instances rental
income from PWC dropped by 100 percent as well.
Third, spending associated with PWC use would decline,
including spending on hotels, restaurants and grocery stores,
fuel and other PWC maintenance expenses, park admission and
camping fees, and related State and local taxes.
Eighty-six million a year may seem like a lot, but is
actually not the full picture, because the NPS-commissioned
assessments only estimate, as I said, the downstream impacts of
the ban, ignoring the upstream impacts on PWC manufacturers and
their raw material suppliers.
In addition, the bans have had a negative impact beyond the
economies nearest the parks, an impact not measured by the NPS
studies. Thus, as large as the NPS estimates are, they
understate the true impacts of the bans on the U.S. economy.
The purpose of our researching, using the same input-output
methodology, was to look at the full picture, to estimate the
up as well as the downstream impacts of the bans on the United
States as a whole, not just on the economy surrounding the
affected parks.
Our findings can briefly be summarized as follows. Direct
cost to the PWC industry of continued uncertainty associated
with the bans and the existing bans themselves is estimated to
total about $1.3 billion over the last 9 years. That's this
area here. This cost affects hundreds of other sectors of the
U.S. economy, bringing the total hit to the American economy of
PWC bans and the negative publicity around them to $2.7 billion
over the last 9 years. That includes sectors such as Mr.
Hamer's.
The estimated total cost to the U.S. economy of the bans
and the negative publicity around them will continue at a pace
of more than $567 million a year as long as the bans continue.
The employment cost of the bans and the negative publicity
around them has grown and today averages about 3,300 direct and
indirect jobs lost across the United States. This job cost will
also continue as long as the bans persist.
Our results derive from conservative assumptions and factor
out possible alternative reasons for declines in sales during
the period. Our analysis is consistent with the studies
conducted by the National Park Service, but is more
comprehensive, and thus provides you with a fuller estimate of
the economic effects of the bans and of continued hesitation by
parks to publish final rules on PWC use.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present the results
of this research to you today. I would, of course, be pleased
to answer any questions you have about it. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baughman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.049
Mrs. Miller. Next we're going to hear from John Hamer. Mr.
Hamer is currently a managing partner of Motorsports Investment
Group, which owns five dealerships in Florida. He and his
partners owned the predecessor Motorsports of Miami from 1973
to 1999, at which time they sold that company. And he continued
to work as the company's vice president and chief operating
officer until he and his partner repurchased Motorsports of
Miami and four other dealerships in 2003. He's worked in the
motorsports industry for over 32 years, so should have some
very interesting testimony about this particular subject.
And we welcome you Mr. Hamer, and the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HAMER, OWNER, MOTORSPORTS OF MIAMI
Mr. Hamer. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify before this subcommittee. My name is John Hamer, and I
own and operate Motorsports of Miami along with my partner, a
dealership that sells and services personal watercraft,
sportboats, motorcycles and off-road vehicles. My dealership is
located in the area of Miami known as Cutler Ridge, which is
between the heart of the city of Miami and Homestead. It is
also the closest personal watercraft dealership to Biscayne
National Park.
I have seen firsthand all the ebbs and flows of the
personal watercraft popularity due to the ban of PWCs at
Biscayne National Park which went into effect in 2000. I can
personally attest to the fact that my business suffered greatly
due to the ban.
I have been in the motorsports industry since 1973, and in
1981 my partners and I relocated our dealership to South Dade
and got into the personal watercraft business, and they
increasingly became an important part of that business. Of all
the products we sold, personal watercraft sales skyrocketed in
the early 1990's. At one point we were selling 800 personal
watercraft per year. Our sales were so high that we hired
personnel dedicated solely to PWC sales and service, in
addition to opening a new showroom for that purpose.
The market for personal watercraft was growing as well. All
types of consumers became interested, especially families for
whom personal watercraft is the only boat they can afford, yet
it is banned in places where more expensive boats can operate.
In the late 1990's, when news began to spread about the
possibility of banning personal watercraft use at Biscayne
National Park, our customer base declined markedly. You might
think that being in Miami there are plenty of other places to
boat; if not Biscayne, then someplace else. This isn't the
case. My customers have no other choice but to trailer boats
from south Miami to Key Largo or somewhere else. In many cases
that can take over an hour.
Even before the personal watercraft ban went into effect in
2000, the rumors around the potential ban precipitated a
decline in PWC sales at my shop. Sales slipped from an average
of 800 vessels per year to 200 per year in the late 1990's, and
by 2002 sales leveled off at 25 percent of the previous sales.
To be more specific, we sold just 201 personal watercrafts in
2005.
Since my shop is located directly next to the park where
personal watercraft are banned, we felt a more dramatic hit
than other dealers. As Ms. Baughman pointed out, the average
decline in sales due to the ban was 60 percent, while my shop
suffered a 75 percent decline. This sharp decline in sales
forced Motorsports of Miami to downsize. The showroom was
closed, repairmen were laid off, and our business shrunk. I
watched the business nearly shatter.
To really appreciate the absurdity of the Biscayne ban, you
must see it for yourself. There are no physical boundaries that
wall off the waters of Biscayne National Park from those of the
Atlantic Ocean. So imagine you are a personal watercraft rider;
you have to ride 8 miles or more out into the water where the
waves become larger, and the ride becomes more dangerous.
Furthermore, there is no sign that tells you when you have
passed the boundaries of the park. You don't know when it's
allowable for you to return closer to shore. In the meantime,
all other types of boats, fishing, pleasure, are cruising the
waters of Biscayne National Park.
As I look back, the most frustrating part of this whole
situation is the authorities at Biscayne National Park have
never even conducted an environmental assessment to investigate
whether this ban is warranted or not. A letter came down from
the National Park Service headquarters here in Washington, DC,
alleging personal watercraft were bad for the environment, and,
therefore, the park could ban them. As you know now, these
allegations have been proven untrue in 15 consecutive instances
where they conducted an environmental assessment since the year
2002.
Two petitions have been filed requesting that the same
scientific study be conducted at Biscayne National Park, but we
have been denied. So here we are today. We hope you can resolve
this matter quickly. You have the oversight authority that I do
not. I would like to know from the National Park Service why it
is taking so long for our voices to be heard. At the very
least, I deserve an explanation of what could be so important
that my business and livelihood must suffer.
Enough is enough. This ruling was issued 6 years ago. Until
now, we've been largely ignored, and the layers of red tape at
the Park Service pile higher and higher. I implore you to
demand an environmental assessment and rulemaking begin
immediately at Biscayne National Park. Otherwise, the National
Park Service will simply tell us that Biscayne National Park
wasn't part of their original plan, so we should just go away
and be ignored.
Thank you for calling this hearing and investigating this
matter. Please use your leadership and oversight to put an end
to the rulemaking delays that have caused great hardship for
small businesses and boaters. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.058
Mrs. Miller. Our final witness this morning is Carl
Schneebeck. He's a public lands campaign director for Bluewater
Network, a position he's held since 2003. Before this, he
managed a number of public land campaigns for the Jackson Hole
Conservation Alliance in Jackson, WY; he served as a ranger
naturalist at the Grand Teton National Park for 4 years, taught
national history at the Teton Science School, and completed an
internship at Muir Woods National Monument in California.
A lifelong outdoor enthusiast, obviously, so we certainly
appreciate your attendance at the hearing today and look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARL SCHNEEBECK, PUBLIC LANDS CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR,
BLUEWATER NETWORK
Mr. Schneebeck. Good morning. Thank you for having me here
today. My name is Carl Schneebeck, and I am the public lands
campaign director for Bluewater Network, a division of Friends
of the Earth. I'm also testifying this morning on behalf of the
Wilderness Society and the National Parks Conservation
Association.
I have had the privilege of serving as a National Park
Service ranger in Grand Teton National Park, and I would
contend that's the most beautiful place in the world.
When Congress created the National Park Service in 1916
with the Organic Act, it gave the agency a clear mission that's
been mentioned this morning, to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, 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.
National Park Service professionals are entrusted with
making decisions that uphold the agency mandate by determining
the health and future of individual park units and the system
as a whole, including the type of experience that will ensure
the safety and protection of visitors; natural resources,
including wildlife; and other park professionals. It was in
keeping with this mandate that the National Park Service began
prohibiting personal watercraft in individual parks in the late
1990's and finalized a systemwide rule in 2000.
The economic analysis conducted by the Trade Partnership is
premised on the tenuous assumption that the primary reason for
the declining sales has been the bans on personal watercraft
use in most of the U.S. National Parks. To suggest that
National Park bans are the primary factor is inconsistent with
reasons that the industry has publicly cited as responsible for
sales declines, fails to acknowledge negative press about
safety and noise issues, and provides no concrete evidence to
substantiate this claim. Rather, by a process of elimination,
the study concludes that personal watercraft bans in the
National Parks are the most plausible explanation. An article
posted on the Personal Watercraft Industry Association Web site
analyzing sales trends points to negative press from safety,
noise and emissions issues but makes no mention of bans in
National Park areas as being responsible for sales declines. In
a 2004 press release announcing its decision to discontinue
production of personal watercraft, Polaris cited the declining
market, escalating costs and increasing competitive pressures
as reasons for exiting the market. The company made no mention
of bans in National Park units as a reason for discontinuing
sales of personal watercraft.
The Trade Partnership study also did not factor in the
significant negative press generated by safety concerns of
personal watercraft, including a report by the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention in 1997 that found that there
had been a fourfold increase in personal watercraft injuries
between 1990 and 1995. The Trade Partnership study fails to
consider these significant contributing factors to the negative
press concerning personal watercraft use and provides no
concrete evidence that the National Park Service bans are
primarily responsible for the decline in personal watercraft
sales in the last 10 years.
By design, personal watercraft are fast, powerful machines,
marketed for speed, adrenaline and thrills. Advertisements for
personal watercraft promote them as high-performance muscle
craft and include messages such as: See those blurred colors
streaming by you? That is called scenery. Scenery is for saps.
And: Next time you see ripples on the water, you'll know why
it's trembling.
There is nothing wrong with a thrill ride, but these
thrills come at a high price to park resources and impair other
visitors' ability to safely enjoy National Park areas, as
evidenced by a number of studies and reports including several
conducted by the National Park Service itself. Other State and
Federal agencies, organizations and universities have also
provided documentation of the distinct impacts caused by the
use of jet-skis on natural resources and the safety and
enjoyment of other recreational users. Personal watercraft have
proven damaging to air and water quality, visitor safety and
enjoyment, natural soundscapes and wildlife, and pose
significant enforcement problems.
It was for these reasons, in keeping with the agency
mandate, that the National Park Service prohibited personal
watercraft in the majority of the National Park system.
At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on National
Parks last May, a representative from Yamaha called the full
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], analysis, ``a costly
burdensome requirement.'' And while no irony is lost on the
jet-ski industry's need for speed, it is not how hastily the
National Park Service conducts these rulemakings that is vital
to fulfilling this mandate, rather how thoroughly.
In many of the studies conducted to date on personal
watercraft use in the parks, we have found several
deficiencies, including a failure to adequately monitor water
quality at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, exclusion of
data on impacts of dolphins at Assateague Island National
Seashore, and an inadequate assessment of safety threats posed
to park visitors by personal watercraft use.
As these deficiencies demonstrate, the National Park
Service has been hasty in the rulemaking process; details have
been overlooked. Without a thorough analysis, the National Park
Service runs the risk of allowing use that is damaging to park
resources and hence in defiance of the clear agency mission.
The National Park Service needs to take its time and ensure
that rulemaking process is thorough and in keeping with the
mandates of the Organic Act.
Since its inception, the gold standard of the National Park
Service has been to preserve and protect park resources. The
agency is mandated to actively protect natural resources for
visitors to enjoy for generations to come. The agency must
conduct thorough studies and not be forced to view the NEPA
process as a burdensome hoop to jump through, as the industry
does. A careful review of uses, recreational or otherwise, that
have the potential to impair park resources should not be
considered a burden. Visitors expect park units to be safe and
protected when they visit them, and this expectation should not
be compromised.
I thank you for your time this morning and for having me
here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneebeck follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.066
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very, very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses. We have quite a bit of
difference of opinion amongst all of you, and that is really
what the purpose of the hearing is today.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, I guess my first question would be for
you. First of all, it is unusual to have other Members of
Congress that are not even on a committee come, as Mr. Akin had
done and wanted to make comment on this issue. It is unusual to
have chairmen of other committees submit testimony for the
record. And I don't know if it's completely unusual, but I
guess my point is that this is an issue, obviously, that, as I
say, is throughout the entire Congress.
And there does appear to be an incredible amount of
frustration about this rulemaking and the deadlines that have
been passed. And in 2005, actually, both Chairman Pombo, who is
the chairman of the Resources Committee, and myself, and also
Chairman Manzullo, who is the chairman of the Small Business
Committee, had sent a letter to Director Mainella; we were
asking for dates when the PWC rules would be complete. And, you
know, every time the deadlines are just failed; they are failed
to be met, certainly. And it seems as though they just, the
Park Service just keeps pushing this back for completion every
time we ask about it. In my office, if somebody were just to
blow us off, I would demand accountability.
And I guess two questions. First of all, what is going on?
Second, who actually is the person who is responsible for,
ultimately responsible for the Park Service's failure to meet
self-imposed deadlines, if you can comment?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Park regional and our Washington
office staff are working with a contractor to move ahead as
quickly as possible on the environmental analysis, certainly as
part of the larger rulemaking process, and to complete the five
remaining parks. We are working as quickly as we can with the
staff that we have available to us. I don't have one individual
to cite for you regarding a person to blame for this
hesitation.
Since 2000, in the settlement agreement, we've been working
as hard as we can with the resources that we have spread across
the parks that are involved as well as the Washington office to
address not only the correspondence we are receiving from the
industry and the organizations that are interested in PWC use,
but we also have other kinds of regulatory affairs that we have
to deal with on a day-to-day basis and that we have a limited
staff to deal with. And so we are constantly having to juggle
priorities.
PWC use is the regulations program manager's highest
priority, and that's under my purview, and he is working as
fast as he possibly can with the assistance of the regions and
the parks and their available staff to get the rulemaking
process and all the dynamics from Federal Register to actually
writing the rules, and then the EA process in particular is
probably the most lengthy process, and we have a contractor
working specifically in the parks to get that moving. But just
the public involvement process in itself takes quite a bit of
time with the length of open period for comment and the number
of reviews that are needed, let alone just the science that we
have to build into each one of our EAs. And having been an
environmental compliance specialist at one point in my career,
as well as a ranger, it is a lengthy process because you have a
number of responsibilities under NEPA that you have to--that
you are obligated to check as you are going through the
process.
So, with a limited staff, we are doing absolutely as much
as we can. I mentioned some specific updates on the areas that
are pending, the five parks that are left.
Mrs. Miller. Let me, I think you just told me, you are too
busy, I believe, is what you said. And I appreciate that.
Everybody is busy. You ought to follow a couple Members of
Congress around for a day; we have a lot of things going on as
well. But when you have a specific deadline, people are wanting
to hold you to that.
Could you commit today to a specific deadline? I know you
talked in your testimony about generalities.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. I did not mean to imply that we are
too busy. What I really mean is that we, with the limited
staff, the resources we have, we are working as fast as we can.
That doesn't mean we are too busy to make it the highest
priority. Right now, it is our regulations program manager's
high priority. And I can only look at where we are. I can't
give you an exact date with an absolute; I can give you
projected dates specific to each area and where they are in the
rulemaking process, the final rulemaking being 2007 for the
final park. And that's the Big Thicket Preserve, and that's the
summer of 2007. But we are anticipating most everything out, at
least the draft rules out by this summer.
Mrs. Miller. One of the, I think it was Ms. Baughman who
had mentioned, in 1998, when the first rule came out, at that
time, it was said that there was little or no economic impact
by having such a ban. I would just ask, I guess, to the
committee generally, first of all, Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, would
you believe that is a correct statement, that the ban--there is
little or no economic impact on the National Park system by the
ban--or on the PWC industry because of the ban? Do you have any
comment on that? Perhaps you don't.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. I don't have a comment. I can't go
outside of what our economic studies have indicated.
Mrs. Miller. Do you normally take into consideration
economic impact when you are doing these kinds of rulemaking?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We do look at economic impact as part
of the environmental assessment process. And it's primarily for
localized communities.
Mrs. Miller. Could I also ask--again, I've been a boater my
entire life, all kinds of different--actually, I was a yacht
broker by trade before I ever got involved in Congress.
Actually, during the summer months, it was great because I
could go demonstrate my product. But we primarily were in the
sailboat industry, but we've had power boats in our family for
years. We have a little 23-foot Pro Line right now. And I have
watched the PWC industry evolve over the years. And, you know,
there are bad actors in every industry, and you see people that
are out there abusing all kinds of watercraft. And they don't
understand the rules of the road. They don't have a clue what
port from starboard means. They drink too much. They want to go
too fast. Perhaps they haven't taken boating safety classes,
etc.
But, you know, you can get a--I don't want to use specific
types of boats, but, I mean, a small--I mean, a Boston Whaler
or small types of boats, you know, maybe an 18-foot with an
awful lot of horsepower on it that has no draft to speak of
that can go everywhere that a PWC does in any park or any body
of water, and that boat operator can be--can have obnoxious
behavior as well. Why are we just focusing on PWCs really? I
mean, why not just look at every type of motorized vehicle? And
it would seem to me, I mean, if you are in a park where you
have a guy on an inner tube that's out of control, you have a
park superintendent or whoever eject them. Why are we just
focusing on PWCs to the extent that we are with a complete ban?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. It might have the appearance of just,
as far as an enforcement aspect, focusing on PWCs. Public
safety over the safety of small craft like PWCs are just part
of our overall visitor resource protection mission. The ban of
PWCs, some of it has to do with public safety, but it's not the
sole reason. But boating safety in general, watercraft use,
boating, motorized boating safety is a paramount concern for
the National Park Service, and our law enforcement rangers in
parks that have this kind of use, PWC use or motorboat use or
any other kinds of use by motor vehicles, anything that would
have a concern for public safety, are cognizant of the kinds of
characteristics to look for, certainly, when you are looking
for unsafe behavior.
So it's not limited to PWCs; PWCs in particular, because
they are considered go-fast vessels for primarily speed and
short turn-around and perhaps even stunts, as one person had
mentioned, primarily. That is not the sole purpose. They are
considered a higher safety concern, but it is just one part of
the concern overall for PWCs.
But we have a really good example on what we are trying to
do to educate those folks in recreation areas. Lake Mead has a
public safety or boating center now, and there are even parks
like Lake Roosevelt National Recreational Area that will
actually issue personal equipment, life jackets, for some of
our users so they don't have to be sent back to a store to buy
them. So we--in the areas that it is appropriate, we encourage
it. We just want folks to make sure that they are doing it in a
safe manner. It's not limited to PWCs, but we make boating
safety, in mostly recreational areas because that's where
you'll find the highest percentage, a high priority, and we
just make sure that we have the enforcement staff available.
But it is an education as well as an accountability issue.
Mrs. Miller. You know, I am a big believer in education. I
think education is absolutely key. And, again, just sort of my
personal observation watching the industry evolve over the
years, I mean, I think when the jet-skis or whatever first came
out, they were a very inexpensive way to get involved in
boating, and $1,000 or less, turn on a key and off you went.
And I think the industry in many ways had a--you sort of had a
reputation that came with that very quickly because there were
high incidents of problems, talking to some of the different
fellows involved in the marine division and everything.
However, it's no longer an inexpensive way to get into
boating. Some of these PWCs are quite expensive, and I think
that has all changed.
But perhaps I could ask for just a comment, generally,
whoever wants to take a swing at this, what your thought is
about how the industry has evolved, and perhaps maybe the best
practices, worst practices, perhaps. Or let me say it this way:
Some of the different State laws that require boating safety
classes that have an age limit on operators and whether or not
they have to have an adult on the PWC as well; perhaps some of
the States that have the most restrictive types of laws and how
that has impacted the industry, and some that would have very
lenient or no laws in regard to this.
Mr. Garcia, you----
Mr. Garcia. Madam Chairwoman, yes. I would like to quickly
comment on three points that have recently been brought up: the
safety; the performance characteristics; and the impact,
suggested impact on wildlife such as dolphins.
On the safety issues, we must be aware that PWC accidents
reported by the Coast Guard, clearly the authorities on boating
safety, have shown a steady decline since 1999 to the point
where 99 percent of the time that PWCs are used, are used
safely and without injury, 99 percent of the time.
The PWC industry is restless in pushing for greater boating
safety. We have a model, a safety act that we continue to seek
State adoption. Components of that act include mandatory
education, a minimum age of 16 years old, wearage of the
corrective safety gear, such as a personal floatation device,
wearage of the stop--the emergency stop switch and other
components. And at this time, 32 States have adopted either the
act or components of the act, but we continue to pursue the
balance of the States.
So safety is a primary priority for our industry. But the
results are showing positive trends. Again, a steady decrease
since 1999. And today, as reported by the Coast Guard, 99
percent of the time personal watercrafts are used safely. I
would challenge anyone to find another sector of the marine
industry that has such a record and such a commitment to the
promotion of safety.
The performance, that the watercraft, as has been
suggested, that it is a high-performance watercraft. Just as
with other industries, automotive industry, there are segments
of the industry. And, sure, one segment is a performance, but
it is a small segment. The majority of the market is the
family, three-person, two or three-person family cruiser, if I
could use that term. It's discriminating to suggest that
personal watercrafts are a high-performance or a thrill craft
particularly when you go simply down to where John's Market is,
Biscayne. You'll have no problem to quickly identify boats that
are maneuvering through Biscayne with two to four engines on
the same boat, on one boat. So how could the personal
watercraft be characterized as a thrill craft with one single
engine when it is only one segment of the large market and the
smallest segment?
In addition, it was suggested that dolphins have been
impacted by personal watercraft. I am not familiar with that
study, but I can tell you what I am very familiar with is that
a world leader in dolphin research uses personal watercraft in
their research work. That is the Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institute in Florida. They use personal watercraft. They have
been using personal watercraft since 1999 because they are
safe, not only to the operator but to the dolphin; that they
could approach dolphins without injuring them because there is
no propeller; their operators are getting in and out of the
water to aid the dolphins, and they also approach manatees for
rescue; and for the quietness and the environmental
friendliness to the water. They are not leaking fuel into the
water.
So I want to comment on our commitment to safety and the
real results, the real performance of our safety record, and
the mischaracterization of a thrill craft, and that wildlife is
not harmed. As a matter of fact, leading authorities are using
personal watercraft on the West Coast, the Scripps Institute of
California, University of California also uses a personal
watercraft to research sea horses. Sea horses. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Hamer, do you have any comment on that? Have you had a
personal observation of the dolphins running, swimming away
when they see the PWCs coming?
Mr. Hamer. I've had no personal observation of that. But as
far as the safety issue in Florida, we do have requirements in
Florida that people under 18 years of age have to take a test
and be licensed to operate personal watercraft. My children had
to do that. When the law went into effect, they took the test
and went down and got their little licenses with the pictures
on them so they could continue to operate them. The problem
was, we had to drive from where we live in south Dade, south
Miami, all the way either up to the areas that are north of
Fort Lauderdale, over an hour away, or to the Keys for them to
enjoy that. Even though they took the course and they made sure
that they followed all the rules of the road, for lack of a
better word, we weren't allowed to enjoy the personal
watercraft where we live. Even though we have a massively big
park, where, as Mr. Garcia pointed out, you have cigarette
boats with three and four motors burning 20 gallons an hour of
gasoline per motor, going over 70 miles an hour in the same
park. And, as opposed to a watercraft that, you know, you are
going to go out, a three-seater family oriented watercraft and
have fun and go out and with your friend and ride around and
just enjoy the scenery and what's there. It just doesn't seem
fair that you can ban something that has very little impact
compared to these big cigarette boats, or in the case of
Biscayne National Park, there is a fuel barge that goes and
provides fuel to the Turkey Point Power Station that goes right
through the park to provide that fuel. The Intercoastal
Waterway goes right through the park, which is supposed to be
used for people to navigate. Personal watercraft doesn't seem
to be allowed to do that. It just doesn't seem fair that is
what is going on in the area in South Dade.
Mrs. Miller. In fairness, do you have a comment as well?
Mr. Schneebeck. Yes, I think the--in terms of safety, we
acknowledge that, both in terms in safety and emissions, that
the industry has put efforts into improving safety both
technologically and in education.
I think it's important to remember we're talking about
National Parks, and we're talking about some of the more
special places, and they have a mandate to protect these places
and the visitors who come to visit them. And so we still have a
disproportionate--the Coast Guard statistics from 2004 still
show that personal watercraft represent about 7 percent of
boats on the water, and they are involved in about 24 percent
of accidents on the water. So there is still a disproportionate
safety issue there.
When we first approached the Park Service with our
petition, we gathered numerous studies that showed that jet-
skis are harmful to wildlife, that they are harmful to near-
shore areas, and that they still had the emissions issues. And
I just want to point out that the emissions issues are still in
play. There have been improvements, but the four-stroke
machines that have been sold, you know, there are 160,000 new
machines that have been sold in the last 2 years. There are
1.48 million personal watercraft still out on the water,
according to the industry. That is a very small percentage of
these machines that are operating on this new technology. And
we applaud the new technology; it is a good improvement. But we
still have the problem of the emissions and the noise from
older machines.
Finally, I just want to address, you know, in terms of
Biscayne, we acknowledge there are other problems in Biscayne
National Park, but the Park Service shouldn't be expected to
have to treat all of those problems. It should be able to treat
one of those problems without having to treat all of them at
once, and they certainly should be looking at other problems in
other places that could be detrimental to park resources.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Representative Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I just want to say, just to kind of put all this in
perspective. Right now, you can use these personal watercraft,
jet-skis, if you will, on 99 percent of the waterways in the
United States. So you have 99 percent of the waterways in the
United States where you can use jet-skis. Actually, it's more
than 99 percent, because about half--a little bit more than
half of what the National Park Service has under its
jurisdiction; they have about 2 percent of America's waterways
under their jurisdiction; 98 percent of the waterways in the
United States of America are outside of the National Park
Service jurisdiction. And you can currently use jet-skis and
personal watercraft in 99--roughly 99.3 percent of America's
waterways. But this 0.7 percent--0.7 percent or roughly
somewhere between 1.3 percent and 0.7 percent--of the waterways
in the United States that are under the National Park Service
jurisdiction, you can't use jet-skis. And yet I have heard
today that the entire industry, the entire industry is going in
the toilet because this 1 percent of the waterways is not
available to jet-skis.
Now, I have to ask myself--you know, I live in Boston, and
folks keep the jet-skis in their garages, and a regular
decision by my constituents and a lot of folks on Cape Cod say,
OK, where am I going to use my jet-skis today? And they have
about 1,000 opportunities. And they say, I am not going to the
National Park because I can't use it there; I am going to go
down to the beach; anywhere, lakes, beaches. And yet you're
saying, because folks can't go to the National Park that the
whole industry is basically going bankrupt; and that, based on
Ms. Baughman--I need to see that study you did for all those
jobs that are being lost because this 1 percent of waterways
that's been preserved for conservation purposes, this 1
percent--99 percent you can do. This 1 percent is responsible
for the downfall of this industry. It's not the product
liability suits. It's not the class actions. And there's a ton
of those against these watercraft. But go back to Polaris.
Their's wasn't this--their problem was they were getting sued
in a whole bunch of States for product liability issues. And
that's really what's killing this industry.
So I don't buy it. I don't buy it. I don't buy it that this
1 percent that's regulated is the be all and end all of your
industry. I don't believe--you know, Bombardier, I know you've
got a couple of manufacturing facilities in the United States,
but I also know a lot of stuff's going on outside the country.
That's fair. That's fair. A lot is going on in Japan as well.
So I don't see every single job here being related to this
1 percent of waterways that's being protected right now by this
country and by this law. And I spend a lot of time in Florida.
And I do agree, Lake Powell is one of the most beautiful spots
in the country. Wonderful. And I aim to keep it that way to the
best of my ability. But I just know when people are overstating
the case; overstating the case in terms of what this 1 percent,
1 percent of the waterways that remains preserved. You've got
99 percent. Do what you want. Do what you want. We've preserved
1 percent of the waterways here right now under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service that you can't do
this because other folks want to use it for a different reason.
They might want quiet. They might want to have a pristine
environmental--a pristine environment there, and so we've
carved out this 1 percent.
So if you can't make your industry work with 99 percent of
the waterways in this country, why the heck should I sit up
here and believe that, with this 1 percent, first of all, we
are going to solve the unemployment problem, because the number
of jobs that have been connected to this industry today is just
incredible? Talk about a stimulus package. All we've got to do
is open up this 1 percent of National Parks, and we'll put the
whole country back to work based on what I've heard here today.
It's incredible. From folks under oath. And I am supposed to
believe this. I've got to tell you, I find it very, very
difficult to believe. I find it totally unsubstantiated by the
facts here, that this 1 percent--opening up this 1 percent
that's protected right now is going to turn this industry
around and put everybody in this country back to work. I just
don't believe it. I don't believe the billions and billions of
dollars that are being laid on--this is extremely incredible
that this small percentage of waterways could be responsible
for so much devastation and so much unemployment and such
downturn in--and such a huge impact in our economy given the
fact that these are National Parks, and they are supposed to be
undeveloped.
So just--it's been really tough for me to sit here and bite
my tongue during this testimony, but there it is. And I have a
couple of markups, too, Madam Chair, and I think I have a vote,
too. So I am going to have to----
Mrs. Miller. We do. We do have a vote on. And if you are
not looking for an answer to your statement, we can conclude
the hearing.
Mr. Lynch. No. That was a tirade. That was not a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Miller. And I appreciate his passion, which is why he
is a great ranking member. We agree to disagree on various
things, and that is what democracy is all about.
I am sorry. We have a vote on right now, so we do have to
run across.
Mr. Garcia. May I make one very quick comment?
Mrs. Miller. Very quick.
Mr. Garcia. My testimony was the truth. It was the truth.
And the reality is, irregardless of the percentage, it's bad
government to maintain a ban when their own study shows no
impact. Second, it is greater than 1 percent because of the
publicity factor across the country.
Mrs. Miller. OK. We appreciate that. And your testimony is
part of the record. And, as I said, we do have a vote on. So I
want to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning. It
obviously is an issue of great debate. And I know the Park
Service is well aware that we are all watching to make sure
that the deadlines are going to be adhered to. And thank you
all for coming. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon and additional
information submitted for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7092.073