[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-110 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, June 22, 2011......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Akenson, Jim, Executive Director, Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers.................................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Amador, Donald, Blue Ribbon Coalition........................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Bacon, Sutton, Chief Executive Officer, Nantahala Outdoor
Center, Inc................................................ 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Crimmins, Thomas, Lead Spokesman, Professionals for Managed
Recreation................................................. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Ehnes, Russ, Executive Director, National Off-Highway Vehicle
Conservation Council....................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Jones, Scott, Board of Directors, Colorado Off-Highway
Vehicle Coalition.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Lepley, Dick, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Off-Highway
Vehicle Association........................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Umphress, Karen, Board Member, Minnesota Motorized Trails
Coalition and the Coalition of Recreational Trail Users.... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 46
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS.''
----------
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Labrador, and
Garamendi.
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee will come to order. I note the
presence of a quorum, low bar, but we have it.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on the Opportunities
for Outdoor Recreation on Public Lands. And so under the
Committee Rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman
and the Ranking Member. However, I do ask unanimous consent to
include any other Members' opening statements in the record, if
submitted to the Clerk by the close of business today. Hearing
no objections, so ordered.
Here I have to ask a question. I would also ask unanimous
consent that if other Members join us at some particular time
during the course of this hearing, that we give them permission
to join us on the dais and to participate in the hearing.
Without objections, we will do that as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Let me start with my opening statement, then I
will turn to Mr. Garamendi, who is sitting in for Congressman
Grijalva this morning.
I am actually happy to have this group here. The pattern of
outdoor recreation in America is always going to be changing,
and it is sometimes hard to predict.
The concept of recreation is one of the last items added to
our concept for the purposes for which we have public lands.
And because of that, sometimes it is the loser, vis-a-vis the
other types of longer traditional uses of public lands.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1970s,
America experienced an explosion in the interest and in the
traditional and family forms of outdoor recreation. So as this
country grew in wealth, number of vacations, mobility,
especially by car, the post-War generation made uses of our
parks and other public lands for family camping and sightseeing
activities.
Recreational use of the public lands since the 1970s has
also taken divergent paths that reflect the change in America,
so that the demand for outdoor recreation remains very high,
but overall the tidal wave of the baby boomer generation has
slowed that rate, or sometimes changed the direction in which
it grows.
If you use more informative measuring sticks than simply
number of visits, there is a complexity and diversity in the
changes and the demands for outdoor recreation. Now, having
said that, I am going to do something very simplistic, and
simply look at the number of people who are attending our
current national parks. And it shows, I think, that we have
shorter recreational trips taking place. Statistically, the
demand close to urban population centers is increasing, while
the demand for those faraway sites is lessening. Obviously it
is clear that people are taking more day trips close to home,
that supplant those long trips with a park as a final
destination.
Obviously some parks, like Yosemite and Grand Canyon, will
always be a destination spot, and they will continue to draw
visitors from far and near. But we see changes in the pattern
of what people want and how they wish to use their public
lands.
Although the United States has a vast expanse of publicly
available forests and lakes and rivers and trails and beaches
and mountains and prairies and everything else, the
distribution of these settings does not correspond well with
the distribution of the population. So this maldistribution in
recreational opportunities is made worse by the compulsion of
some people who apparently want to impose from afar aesthetic
preferences on their fellow recreationists, even if they are a
continent away.
The history of public land in the United States has been a
history of legislators from the East making rules and
regulations on a West that they never did quite understand, and
failing, historically, in the process.
While some of the conflicts over limited resources is
unavoidable, whether that is the fly fisherman versus the
kayaker on the water, I also believe that with public lands
comprising one out of every three acres in the United States
and half of the West, there is plenty of room for all of us.
And I realize that while some people will always oppose
hunting, or commercial ski resorts, or especially off-road
vehicles on our public lands, others will view those as
wholesome family activities. And there is room for everyone.
Multiple purpose should be our goal, and it is a feasible,
possible goal.
Today we are going to hear testimony from an assessment of
recreational opportunities on Federal lands from former land
managers, participants in those activities, and others. I look
forward to hearing their testimony. And I wish to recognize the
gentleman from California for five minutes for any statement he
wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In your
opening statement you said five words, six words which are
really, really important in today's hearing: plenty of room for
all of us.
Indeed, there is a lot of land out there, and there really
is plenty of room for all of us. The question is, where will
all of us be at one time, and exactly what will we be doing on
that?
I think all of our history, all of us are somehow
influenced by our past history. I remember as a teenager, my
father, who was operating our family ranch, really in the
springtime was about to kill one of my cousins, who had taken
his motorcycle and was running it up and down the hill,
scarring and raising a lot of dirt and mud. When he came down
from the mountain, my dad grabbed him by the collar, threw him
off the motorcycle, and I think was about to throw the
motorcycle on top of him, saying you get your GD machine out of
here and don't ever come back.
I have been at this for a long, long time. I think many of
you in the room were aware when I was at the Department of the
Interior, this issue was there. And it has been in California.
One of my very first bills in California was to establish an
off-the-road vehicle park, which is still operating.
The real question is what will be done on a specific piece
of land or a specific area. Very contentious. But over the
years, I have discovered that if people are willing to sit down
on all sides, look at all the facts, look at all of the
opportunities, both the opportunities to preserve and protect
and the opportunities to enjoy the recreation of many, many
different kinds, there are solutions.
It is when we fail to sit down, and we just kind of get
back into our corner and come out fighting, that things don't
work out too well.
Clearly, some places are not good for certain types of
recreation; other places, ideal. Some roads yes, other places
no. Off-the-road vehicles, snowmobiles and the like, all of
these things can be worked out, and we ought to get about it.
I am really interested in hearing today's testimony. I will
not allow my father's experience, where I was standing next to
his anger, to somehow taint your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. I may have to
qualify your remarks. I said there is room for all of us.
Obviously at my size, if I am part of the process, there may
not be room. Maybe a hundred pounds ago there was room for all
of us.
I would like to invite our first panel up, if we could, to
begin this hearing. Mr. Russ Ehnes, I hope I have pronounced
that properly, who is the Executive Director of the National
Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council; Mr. Scott Jones,
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition; Mr. Dick Lepley,
Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle
Association; Ms. Karen Umphress, and I hope I have pronounced
that properly, Board Member of the Coalition of Recreational
Trail Users, the Minnesota Motorized Trail Coalition. And I
don't know if Mr. Jim Akenson was--you made it from Chicago,
good for you--Executive Director of the Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers.
If I could, for all our witnesses, your written testimony
is going to appear full in the hearing, so we want to keep your
oral testimony if possible to five minutes, so we can end this
on time.
The microphones are not automatic, so please press the
button when you want to begin. When you start, the Clerk there
will start the timer, so in front of you the green light goes
on. When you have one minute left, the red light will come on--
I mean the yellow light comes on. Consider it red. And then
when the red light comes on, we really do need to move on, so I
would have to ask you if you would stop at that point.
With that, we appreciate you coming from afar to join us
here. And this is going to be I think a fascinating hearing and
interesting topic. So let us just start in the front, left to
right. Mr. Ehnes, if you would like to begin, please do so,
sir.
STATEMENT OF RUSS EHNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OFF-
HIGHWAY VEHICLE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Ehnes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name
is Russ Ehnes, and I am the Executive Director of the National
Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, or NOHVCC. I am a
fourth-generation Montanan, and a third-generation motorcycle
trail rider. My grandfather and my father began riding
backcountry trails in 1959 near Lincoln, Montana. My mom began
riding trails in 1960, the year after my brother was born.
Their favorite trips were to Hart Lake and Bighorn Lake
near the Continental Divide. The trip to Bighorn Lake was
always a great fishing trip. The creation of the Scapegoat
Wilderness, however, put an end to those trips in 1972. But
there were still other places to ride near Lincoln.
My brother and I began riding in the early 1970s with Mom
and Dad, and one of our favorite rides was from Rogers Pass
along the Continental Divide to Flesher Pass. That trail was
closed in the early eighties, after the grizzly bear was listed
as threatened on the Endangered Species List.
In the mid-eighties, travel planning resulted in the
closure of several other key trails in the area, and what
remains open now is an incomplete system of trails that don't
connect. The only way to connect opportunities is with roads
that aren't legal for off-highway vehicles. You can forget
about a family trail ride in the Lincoln area, because you
can't do it right now.
Being from Great Falls, though, we did most of our riding
in the Lewis and Clark National Forest, in the Little Belt
Mountains, and also in the Badger-Two Medicine area near
Browning in the Highwood Mountains.
In 1986 several of us in Great Falls formed an organization
called the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders. Since then we have
built the organization to over 900 members, and have developed
trail maintenance agreements on most of the trails in the
Little Belts and the Highwood Mountains. We have constructed
and maintain hundreds of miles of trail, donated thousands of
hours of labor, and trained over 100 volunteers. We have also
secured several hundred thousand dollars in grants for
maintenance and education. In fact, our club received an award
from then Chief of the Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas.
In 1993, travel planning in the Highwood Mountains resulted
in the closure of 70 percent of the mountain range to motorized
use, and designation of just 29 miles of motorized trail. The
latest round of travel planning in the Lewis and Clark National
Forest began in 2004, and two separate decisions were made in
2007. Our local club participated in every aspect of the
planning process, including inventory and collaborative
meetings, the comment periods for the proposed action and the
draft EIS.
Along the Rocky Mountain Front, the decision closed all but
one short ATV trail in the Badger-Two Medicine area, and most
of the trails in the remaining areas along the front. In the
Little Belts, the decision closed all but two routes in the
90,000-acre Middle Fork of the Judith Wilderness Study Area,
all of the routes in the Hoover Creek and Tillinghast
Drainages, and about a third of the routes in the Deep Creek
Tenderfoot area, permanently. It also closed all but, it closed
all but a couple trails in the Deep Creek Tenderfoot area
seasonally, until the 1st of July each year, to protect elk
calving. Ironically, the problem with the elk herd in the area
is it is too large. Obviously, the use of the trails in the
area for the past 50 years had not affected the ability of the
elk to reproduce.
The decision in the Little Belts was described as a balance
because several groups wanted all of the trails closed in the
wilderness study areas and the inventory roadless areas, but
roughly half were closed. So I am not saying that none of these
closures were legitimate or should not have been made, or that
OHV recreation should be allowed everywhere it was in 1959.
What I am attempting to demonstrate is that each of these
decisions had an effect on the ability of the public to access
public lands, and the cumulative effects of these individual
decisions has greatly reduced OHV opportunities and
concentrated the use into smaller areas. The vast majority of
these trails were sustainable and could have been managed for
OHV recreation.
This is a scenario that has repeated itself hundreds of
times nationwide, and has been accelerated by actions,
including this Forest Service Travel Management Rule, Roadless
Rules, and the Endangered Species Act. Areas with strong clubs
have fared better than areas that haven't had strong clubs, but
the net result has been massive losses of OHV opportunities in
many areas.
It is time for us to begin addressing off-highway vehicle
recreation in a more holistic way. The NOHVCC has worked
closely with Federal agencies to teach successful OHV
management techniques that have been proven over three decades.
We need to recognize that OHV recreation is an important
resource, it is an important part of what defines our people,
and needs protection through effective planning. Then we can
achieve effective balance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehnes follows:]
Statement of Russ Ehnes, Executive Director,
National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
My name is Russ Ehnes. I am the Executive Director of the National
Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, or NOHVCC. I am also a Fourth
generation Montanan and third generation motorcycle trail rider. My
grandfather and father began riding back-country trails in 1959 in the
Lincoln, Montana area soon after my parents met. My mom began riding
the trails in 1960, the year after my brother was born. Their favorite
trips were to Hart Lake and Bighorn Lake, near the Continental Divide.
The trip to Bighorn was an overnight trip that almost always delivered
great fishing.
The creation of the Scapegoat Wilderness put an end to those trips
in 1972 but there were still other places to ride near Lincoln. My
brother and I were old enough to trail ride by the early 70's so we
rode the trails with Mom and Dad. One of our favorite rides was from
Rogers Pass, along the Continental Divide to Flesher Pass and then down
the Seven-Up Pete drainage to my grandparents' house. That trail was
closed after the grizzly bear was listed as threatened on the
endangered species list. In the mid-eighties travel planning resulted
in the closure of several other key trails in the area and what remains
open now is an incomplete system of trails that doesn't connect. The
only way to connect opportunities is with roads that aren't legal for
OHVs. Forget about the family trail ride in the Lincoln area for now.
Being from Great Falls, we did most of our riding in the Lewis and
Clark National Forest. We rode in the Little Belt Mountains but also
made annual trips to the Badger/Two Medicine area near Browning and
springtime trips in the Highwood Mountains.
In 1986 several of us formed The Great Falls Trail Bike Riders
Association because the Forest Service was again beginning travel
planning in the Little Belts. Since then we have built the organization
to over 900 members and have developed trail maintenance agreements on
most of the trails in the Little Belts and Highwoods, have
reconstructed and maintained hundreds of miles of trail, donated
thousands of hours of labor, trained over one hundred volunteers, and
have secured several hundred thousand dollars in grant funds for
maintenance and education.
In 1993 travel planning in the Highwoods resulted in the closure of
seventy percent of the mountain range to motorized use and the
designation of just 29 miles of trail to motorized use.
The latest round of travel planning on the Lewis and Clark began in
2004. Our local club participated in every aspect of the process
including trail inventory efforts, collaborative meetings, the comment
periods for the proposed action and draft EIS.
The decisions closed all but one short ATV trail in the Badger-Two
Medicine area and most of the trails in the remaining Rocky Mountain
Front areas. In the Little Belts it closed all but two routes in the
90,000 acre Middle Fork of the Judith Wilderness study area, all of the
trails in the Hoover Creek and Tillinghast drainages and over one third
of the trails in the Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area permanently. It closed
all but a couple trails in the Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area until July
first of each year to protect elk calving. Ironically, the problem with
the elk herd in the area is that it is too large. Obviously the use of
trails in the area for the past fifty years had not affected the
ability of the elk to reproduce.
The decision in Little Belts has been described as a ``balance''
decision because several groups wanted all the trails in the inventory
roadless areas and the WSA closed.
I am not saying that none of these closures were legitimate or
should not have been made or that OHV recreation should be allowed
everywhere it was in 1959.
What I am attempting to demonstrate is that each of these decisions
had an effect on the ability of the OHV public to access public lands
and the cumulative effects of these individual decisions has greatly
reduced OHV opportunities and concentrated use into smaller areas. The
vast majority of these trails were sustainable and could have been
managed for OHV recreation.
This is a scenario that has repeated itself hundreds of times
nationwide and has been accelerated by action including the Forest
Service Travel Management Rule, the Roadless Rules, and the Endangered
Species Act. Areas with strong clubs have fared better that areas
without but the net result has been massive losses of OHV opportunities
in many areas.
It is time for us to begin addressing OHV recreation in a more
holistic way. The NOHVCC has worked closely with the Federal agencies
to teach successful OHV management techniques that have proven
successful for more than three decades. We need to recognize that OHV
recreation is an important resource that is an important part of what
defines our people and that needs protection through effective
planning. Only then will we achieve a true balance.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that testimony. I
apologize for mispronouncing your name, Mr. Ehnes.
Mr. Ehnes. That is all right.
Mr. Bishop. That is as bad as introducing the next guy from
Colorado or something here.
Mr. Jones, you are up. If you would, please.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT JONES, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION,
COLORADO OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION
Mr. Jones. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Garamendi, and
Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to discuss sustainable recreation on the public
lands.
My name is Scott Jones; I am a member of the American
Motorcyclists Association, I am a member of the Board of
Directors for the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and
thankfully a lifelong outdoor enthusiast.
The recreation opportunities provided to enthusiasts on
public lands often range far beyond us riding our equipment.
They provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting,
fishing, simply the need to get some exercise and go spend a
day with good friends.
These resources are becoming more and more important to
people. Unlike those that can live in the mountains, a lot of
us live in urban centers, and that is our sole source of
recreation. We just don't have it in our back yard any more.
We believe the management and stewardship of these
resources is critical. As it has provided a great resource to
this generation, we would like to pass it on. While the
national economy has slowed, many of the OHV recreationalists
have continued to utilize the resources available to them, both
locally and regionally. Last year $33 billion was spent on
outdoor recreation equipment alone.
OHV recreation provided over a billion dollars in positive
economic impact, and resulted in 12,000 jobs in the State of
Colorado alone. OHV usage also provided an additional $100
million in tax revenues to Colorado communities. This revenue
was obtained for the communities without the need for a tax
increase; it was merely an increase of revenue.
While many of these impacts were disproportionately located
in small Colorado mountain communities, which would basically
disappear without the income from recreation, the other
industries are simply not there any more. Recently the Wall
Street Journal coined a term for these towns, calling them the
21st Century Ghost Towns. Unfortunately, I believe that could
be accurate.
The positive economic impacts from OHV recreation have been
documented throughout the country. Research into the economic
impacts on the Paiute Trail System in Utah and the Hatfield-
McCoy System in West Virginia have found significant positive
economic impacts to the local communities surrounding the trail
systems. Both of these trail systems have provided over $7
million in positive economic impacts to the surrounding
communities, and have accounted for over 150 jobs in the local
towns, and over $600,000 in associated tax revenues to the
communities. Many of these communities, again, simply struggle
to sustain ongoing economic viability.
The tax revenue that results from state and local
governments is often overlooked, but can be of great importance
to these communities, given the lack of other revenue sources
currently. These revenues are often paid with little complaint
from recreationalists seeking access to the lands.
While the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West Virginia was
developed through a public-private partnership, the government
agencies that partnered with local private entities received
125 percent payback on their investment, in addition to the
$600,000 tax revenue generated.
Additionally, the economic impacts span well beyond simply
purchasing the machines and equipment. Many of the motorized
recreationalists are utilizing hotels and motels for their
recreational access. Recently a study found that one third of
users in Colorado used a hotel or motel, so our economic impact
is well beyond just our equipment.
Research also found that the number of licensed businesses
tripled in Marysville, Utah, which has operated as a base for
the Paiute Trail System since it was opened.
Motorized users in Colorado have also voluntarily formed a
paid annual registration program to assist the Forest Service
and BLM in maintaining public access, and offsetting costs
incurred in managing these programs. Most states have a system
similar to the Colorado Off-Highway Registration Vehicle
Program.
Recently, the State of Colorado performed a survey of
volunteer hours for users of the public lands. This report
found that motorized users were by far the largest volunteer
group on the forest. This volunteer spirit has formed strong
partnerships with many local employees, and this also helps us
address a wide range of issues beyond just recreational access.
The program in Colorado generated over $5 million for the
management of a wide range of activities. These included
funding Federal employees who dedicated their time to trail
maintenance, directly supporting and partnering with law
enforcement agencies, purchasing equipment, developing parking
lots, kiosks, and rest rooms.
In addition, these monies have also gone toward
partnerships with the Forest Service Research Station and the
Fish and Wildlife Service for the reintroduction and management
of endangered and threatened species on public lands.
The Colorado OHV enthusiasts are currently working with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to best determine available science
for lynx management, and usage of recreational activities, and
possible reintroduction of the wolverine in Colorado. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of Scott Jones, Board of Directors,
Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition
Good Morning. My name is Scott Jones and I am a member of the Board
of Directors of the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition and Vice
President of the Colorado Snowmobile Association and a lifelong outdoor
enthusiast. I would like to thank the Committee members for providing
this opportunity to testify regarding opportunities for sustainable
motorized recreation provided by public lands. These recreational
opportunities often range far beyond simply riding our equipment and
include wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing activities, the need to
shed the rigors of a busy week with some exercise to satisfying the
simple need to get away from the day to day life with good friends. The
recreational resources provided by public lands are of increasing
importance as more and more people are drawn to urban centers, and the
public lands are relied upon for the sole source of recreation.
Recreational usage of public lands increases concern for proper
management and stewardship of the resources in these areas. We believe
this stewardship insures the recreational experience currently provided
to the public by outdoor recreation remain available for generations to
come.
While the economy has slowed many OHV recreationalists have
continued to utilize resources that are available to them locally and
regionally. Last year over $33 billion was spent on outdoor recreation
equipment. OHV recreation provided over a billion dollars in positive
economic impact and resulted in over 12,000 jobs in the state of
Colorado alone. Many of the economic impacts are disproportionally
located in small mountain towns, which would simply disappear without
the income provided from those who are utilizing recreational
opportunities on adjacent public lands. Many of the other industries,
such as mining and forestry, that have historically supported these
communities has simply disappeared.
Research into the economic impacts of the Paiute Trail system in
Utah and the Hatfield & McCoy trail system in West Virginia have found
significant positive economic impacts on communities surrounding these
trail systems. Both trail systems have provided over a 7 million dollar
positive impact to surrounding counties and over $600,000 in associated
tax revenue to those counties. These communities that have struggled
severely to maintain basic economic viability for a long time after the
industries that once supported the communities have closed.
The tax revenue that is made available for state and local
governments as a result these economic impact from OHV recreation is
often overlooked. These revenues are paid with little complaint from
recreationalists seeking to access public lands. This simply cannot be
said for a lot of other taxes.
The economic impact from OHV recreation takes a lot of different
forms in addition to the purchase of the machines that are ridden and
safety equipment needed, motorized users also require trucks and
trailers to move their equipment and most users are staying in hotels
and motels and buying parts and accessories for their equipment.
Research has found that approximately 1/3 of recreational users in
Colorado are including a hotel or motel stays and associated meals as
part of their OHV recreational experience and vigorously utilizing
available restaurants after a day of riding.
In addition to the positive economic impacts, motorized
recreational users in Colorado have developed a paid annual
registration program to provide funding to partner with the Forest
Service and BLM to improve and maintain public lands experiences. Most
states have programs similar to the Colorado OHV registration program.
These moneys are leveraged with funds from the Recreational Trails
Program and volunteer hours to maintain sustainable recreation on the
forest. Recently a Colorado report was that totaled volunteer hours for
all groups of public lands users. This report found that motorized
recreation was the largest source of volunteer hours for forest
management, this volunteering has resulted in strong partnerships with
district employees which can help a wide range of issues that may not
be directly related to recreational usage of the areas such as search
and rescue.
Last year the Colorado OHV registration program generated over 5
millions of dollars that directly benefitted all users of public lands
with on the ground management of all recreation through a wide range of
projects. This included purchase of equipment and funding statewide
teams of federal employees dedicated to trail maintenance, directly
supporting and partnering with law enforcement agencies, development of
parking lots, kiosks and restrooms. The registration funds also
provided signage and sound testing equipment to promote voluntary
compliance with sound standards and preparing and producing maps
designating legal area usages and extensive educational programs and
programs targeting the sustainable usage of the forests.
Registration monies have also funded partnerships with the Forest
Service's Research Station and Fish & Wildlife Service for the
reintroduction and management of endangered or threatened species on to
the public lands. Colorado OHV enthusiasts are working with the FWS to
determine best available science for the management of the lynx in
conjunction with recreational usage of the habitats and possibly the
wolverine on public lands in Colorado.
While the economic impacts of OHV recreation are relatively simple,
the planning process for public access can be very complex. We are
aware planning for usages of the public lands is never going to be easy
given the wide range of competing interests in usage of the forest
lands. Unfortunately the process has become so complex that most users
of the forest are simply overwhelmed by the complexity which results in
limited participation and a lot of frustration. This is unfortunate as
participation in planning for the forest fosters stewardship in the
public lands and forms strong relationships with local land managers,
which can be invaluable for a lot of issues.
While roadless area designations may serve a commendable purpose in
theory by trying to provide a dispersed recreational experience to all
users of the forest often roadless designations are misapplied and in
manners that directly contradict the clear language of the rule. These
misunderstandings can be the result of the numerous court proceedings
and variations on the rule that have been developed over the years to
something as simple as misunderstanding the name, as roads can and do
exist in roadless areas and trails for dispersed motorized recreation
are to be protected by the roadless area designation. Simply mentioning
the term roadless area will elicit a collective groan from all users of
the forests.
I have had the privilege of working with the facilitators in the
development of the new Colorado Roadless rule proposal. The meeting
facilitators had came to a rather stunning conclusion in the developing
the public hearings for the proposed rule. All user groups simply
wanted consistency in the rule and something that could be easily
applied.
The complexity added to a planning process by a roadless
designation often outweighs the benefits obtained from a roadless area
designation in comparison to management decisions for the area made
under existing forest plans and determinations. Roadless areas are
often designated under a land management category that is designed to
protect and preserve dispersed recreation. We believe that the new
Colorado roadless rule is a step towards providing clarity and
consistency in planning for roadless areas we also believe any
reductions in roadless area designations are welcome to the users of
the public lands as any reduction in roadless areas will result in
expanded multiple usage of the forests.
We believe that Rep McCarthy's proposed wilderness and roadless
area release legislation is a great first step in reducing the
confusion and frustration to forest users that the roadless area
designation invokes. The Forest Service has already prepared the
research to determine significant portions of designated roadless areas
are not available for more protective designations. Releasing these
areas would expand multiple usage and the associated economic benefits
without reducing existing Forest Service budgets as is proposed with
the purchase of additional lands under the Presidents Great Outdoors
initiative.
Unfortunately the new FS planning rule does not streamline the
planning process as a lot of new theories and standards are introduced
into the planning process. We believe the new theories and standards
will result in significant expenses as unit level as representatives
attempt to deal with the new standards and rules. Many key terms are
poorly defined, such as what level restoration activities will be
deemed complete. The end result of these limited definitions is Courts
will be forced to determine what the correct standard for each term is.
Despite the expanded costs to be incurred under the Plan no funding
resources are identified to assist with coverage of these costs in the
short term. This will significantly tax the already strained budgets of
the units as they have been forced to deal with the massive beetle kill
epidemic that has plagued the rocky mountain region.
We would ask that land managers be allowed to do what they know how
to do best. Their management has allowed the public lands to be managed
to provide recreation to this generation and this generation would like
to provide the same recreational opportunities to the following
generation and protect the economic benefits that the public lands
provide to all users
I would like to thank the committee members for providing this
opportunity to discuss recreational usage of public lands and would
welcome any questions you may have.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate it. Like we say, your
full written testimony will be included in the record.
Mr. Lepley, I hope I pronounced that properly.
Mr. Lepley. Yes, you did.
Mr. Bishop. You are up for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF DICK LEPLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA OFF-
HIGHWAY VEHICLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lepley. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, thank you for giving me the chance
to testify regarding the positive economic impact of off-
highway vehicle recreation.
As the owner of a 44-year-old dealership known as Street,
Track, and Trail in Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania, as an avid
enthusiast, and as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania
Off-Highway Vehicle Association, I have seen firsthand the
incredible growth of OHV recreation, and the impact it can have
on local, and often rural, economies.
The numbers speak for themselves, especially during these
difficult times. In 2009, the estimated economic value of the
off-road vehicle retail marketplace was $14.6 billion,
bolstered by the sale of 131,000 new off-highway motorcycles,
and 321,000 new ATVs, which are now part of the estimated 12.2
million dirt bikes and ATVs in America.
My dealership employs 50 people, and during the good
economy we generate nearly $2 million in payroll, and pay over
$2 million in state and Federal taxes yearly. There are 13,230
dealerships similar to mine nationwide, employing over 107,544
Americans, with a payroll of over $3.6 billion. Clearly, the
power sports industry contributes mightily to the nation's
economy during both good times and bad.
But regardless of the economy, nothing threatens
dealerships and the industry-at-large like having no place to
ride.
It is encouraging that you are holding this hearing today,
as it often seems like there is a never-ending stream of
special land designations, rules, regulations, and other
efforts to limit OHV access to the lands that belong to all of
us.
Here in the East we have far less access to public lands
than folks in the West, but the struggle for trail miles is the
same nationwide.
For example, the 108-mile motorized trail system in the
Allegheny National Forest in western Pennsylvania has for
decades been recognized as the model for doing it right. It has
attracted thousands of riders, and generated millions of
dollars for the regional economy.
But instead of recognizing the growth potential, the ANF is
putting its efforts into non-motorized recreation. I find this
alarming for a number of reasons.
For one, the ANF embraces over a half-million acres, but
our 108 miles of motorized trails occupy well under one tenth
of 1 percent of the total forest. And unlike most recreational
disciplines on the ANF, we willingly pay to play every time we
saddle up.
It has been years since I have struggled through an economy
as challenging as the current one, and it is readily apparent
that every job counts. If I could deliver just one message
today, it would be that OHV opportunities equal jobs. Where
trail systems exist, the power sports industry and dealerships
thrive, and local communities flourish.
This doesn't mean we don't have a commitment to our shared
natural resources. I recognize there are special places across
America that deserve protection, and that OHV should not be
allowed on every acre of public land. But I believe there is
room for all us. And further, that responsible access to our
public land is the birthright of all Americans.
I don't expect you to shirk your duties to protect public
lands, but instead to encourage you to consider the full impact
that land use decisions have on Americans, including the
revitalizing effect that building or expanding a trail system
can have on local economies. And conversely, the negative
impact that unnecessarily closing existing trails or preventing
the addition of new ones can have, as well.
Local areas share a symbiotic relationship with the public
lands that surround them. Residents are often dependent on the
wages, recreation, and way of life public land offers. But so,
too, is public land dependent on those who care for and watch
over it. Simply putting up signs that say closed will not serve
to protect our lands. Instead, it will take active management,
and a commitment from those whose livelihoods depend on the
long-term health of our resources.
In closing, I want to reiterate the enormous impact the
power sports industry has on the economy, and the positive
effect that OHV trails have on the communities they serve. And
to state once again that sustainable OHV opportunities equal
jobs. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lepley follows:]
Statement of Dick Lepley Executive Director,
Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association
Chairman Bishop, Ranking member Grijalva, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. .
.thank you for giving me the chance to testify regarding the positive
economic impact of off-highway vehicle recreation.
As the owner of a forty-four year old dealership known as Street
Track `N Trail in Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania, as an avid enthusiast,
and as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle
Association, I've seen first-hand the incredible growth of OHV
recreation, and the impact it can have on local and often rural
economies.
The numbers speak for themselves, especially during these difficult
times. In 2009, the estimated economic value of the off-road vehicle
retail marketplace was $14.6 billion dollars bolstered by the sale of
131,000 new off-highway motorcycles and 321,000 new ATV's which are now
part of the estimated 12.2 million dirt bikes and ATV's in America.
My dealership employs fifty people, and during a good economy we
generate nearly two-million dollars in payroll, and pay over two-
million dollars in state and federal taxes yearly. There are 13,230
dealerships similar to mine nationwide, employing over 107,544
Americans with a payroll of over $3.6 billion dollars. Clearly, the
power sports industry contributes mightily to the nation's economy
during both good times and bad, but regardless of the economy, nothing
threatens dealerships and the industry at large like having no place to
ride.
It's encouraging that you're holding this hearing today as it often
seems like there is a never ending stream of special land designations,
rules, regulations, and other efforts to limit OHV access to the lands
that belong to all of us. Here in the East, we have far less access to
public lands than folks in the West, but the struggle for trail miles
is the same nationwide. For example, the one-hundred-eight mile
motorized trail system in the Allegheny National Forest in western
Pennsylvania has for decades been recognized as the model for doing it
right. It has attracted thousands of riders, and generated millions of
dollars for the regional economy. But instead of recognizing the growth
potential, the ANF is putting its efforts into non-motorized
recreation. I find this alarming for a number of reasons. For one, the
ANF embraces over a half-million acres, but our one-hundred-eight miles
of motorized trails occupy well under a tenth of a percent of the total
forest. And, unlike other recreational disciplines on the ANF, we
willingly pay to play every time we saddle up.
It has been years since I've struggled through an economy as
challenging as the current one, and it is readily apparent that every
job counts. If I could deliver just one message today it would be that
OHV opportunities equal jobs. Where trail systems exist, the power
sports industry and dealerships thrive, and local communities flourish.
This doesn't mean we don't have a commitment to our shared natural
resources. I recognize there are special places across America that
deserve protection, and that OHV's should not be allowed on every acre
of public land. But, I believe there is room for all of us, and
further, that responsible access to our public lands is the birthright
of all Americans.
I don't expect you to shirk your duties to protect public lands,
but instead to encourage you to consider the full impact that land use
decisions have on Americans, including the revitalizing effect that
building or expanding a trail system can have on local economies, and
conversely, the negative impact that unnecessarily closing existing
trails or preventing the addition of new ones can impose.
Local areas share a symbiotic relationship with the public lands
that surround them. Residents are often dependent on the wages,
recreation, and way of life public land offers, but so too is public
land dependent on those who care for and watch over it. Simply putting
up signs that say closed will not serve to protect our public lands.
Instead, it will take active management, and a commitment from those
whose livelihoods depend on the long-term health of our resources.
In closing, I want to reiterate the enormous impact the power
sports industry has on the economy, and the positive effect that OHV
trails have on the communities they serve, and to state once again,
that sustainable OHV opportunities equal jobs. Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Umphress, tell me how that is
supposed to be.
Ms. Umphress. That is correct, Umphress.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. You are on.
STATEMENT OF KAREN UMPHRESS, BOARD MEMBER, COALITION OF
RECREATIONAL TRAILS USERS, MINNESOTA MOTORIZED TRAIL COALITION
Ms. Umphress. Thank you, Committee Members and Chairman
Bishop, for allowing me to be here today. My name is Karen
Umphress, and I am a member of the Coalition for Recreational
Trail Users and the Minnesota Motorized Trail Coalition.
Both of these coalitions in Minnesota are made up of four
very strong individual state associations, the All-Terrain
Vehicles, Off-Highway Motorcycles, Off-Road Vehicles, which in
Minnesota are four-wheel drives, and Snowmobiles.
However, in Minnesota, snowmobiles have their own
designation; they are not included in the off-highway vehicle.
So the rest of the information I have will not include
snowmobile numbers or information.
Off-highway vehicle recreation is very important, and often
essential, to Minnesota and our economy. We have two main ATV
and snowmobile manufacturers in our state, Arctic Cat and
Polaris. We also have over 360,000 registered ATVs, OHMs, and
ORVs in the state, that use a designated trail system.
According to a 2006 University of Minnesota economic impact
study, ATVs alone had an annual impact of over $2 billion
annually. This figure includes $86 million in state and local
tax revenues, and sustains nearly 14,500 jobs.
The University of Minnesota did a followup study in 2009
that looked at all trail users in the state, both motorized and
non-motorized. Motorized trail users spend more money per trip
than non-motorized trail users. Yet the amount of trails
available for motorized users is inadequate for the number of
riders who wish to participate in trails-related activities.
I have more statistical information in my written
testimony; I just want to give some anecdotal information to
help show the points of the economic impact.
In Minnesota we have an area that is called the Iron Range,
which is an area that has taconite mining. And this area has
been depressed since taconite mining and taconite are no longer
as valuable as they used to be.
We have an area on the Iron Range called the Quad Cities.
It is made up of Eveleth, Virginia, Mountain Iron, and Gilbert.
And Gilbert was known as the red-light district in the Iron
Range, and was working very hard to reverse its not-so-good
image, and the other Quad Cities were also working to improve
their economy.
So one of the things that they looked at was an off-highway
vehicle riding park. This riding park was the first one in
Minnesota, and there were a lot of misconceptions of who the
off-highway vehicle rider was, and what we were looking for in
a trail system.
During the planning process, only Gilbert was willing to
put an entrance to the park from their town. Prior to the
opening of the park in October of 2002, the All-Terrain Vehicle
Association of Minnesota had one of their annual conventions.
This had 850 participants. And to help drive home who an off-
highway vehicle rider was to the community, the members of
ATVAM all changed in their money for two-dollar bills. And they
spent all of their services, their hotel, their lodging,
everything, using these two-dollar bills.
So it did two things: It helped show the people of the
community who the people who rode in the park were, and showed
them that these, this money that was coming into the community
was from that park. The Iron Range Resources Tourism Bureau
estimates that over $125,000 went into the community on just
that one convention.
Since the opening of the park, Gilbert is the only town on
the Iron Range that is expanding their businesses, and the
business expansion is all due to off-highway vehicles, such as
service washes, hotels, things like that.
The other two cities, Virginia and Eveleth, have asked for
an expansion to the park to more than double the size, and to
also have an entrance for their city, from their towns as well,
so they too may grow.
The City of Appleton is in the southwestern section of the
state. They have expanded their off-highway vehicle park three
times now, and will continue to expand it as long as they have
land acquisition and funding available. But one of the main
drivers of the economic development for them is they also had a
1400-bed private prison.
This private prison closed because the prisoners were being
moved to state and county locals. They have not had an overall
economic decline from the prison closing, due to the positive
effects of the off-highway vehicle recreation areas.
So in closing, I just want to say that we have a lot of
registered OHV users, but not enough trails. So the economic
impacts could be even greater if we had much more trail systems
available.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Umphress follows:]
Statement of Karen Umphress, Board Member, Minnesota Motorized Trails
Coalition and the Coalition of Recreational Trail Users
In Minnesota, there are 3 types of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV). They
are an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV), an Off-Highway Motorcycle (OHM), an
Off-Road Vehicle (ORV, which are 4-wheel drive vehicles). Snowmobiles
are also in the state, but are listed in a separate category of
vehicle. There is a state association for each type of OHV plus the
snowmobiler association. The Minnesota Motorized Trails Coalition
(MMTC) is made up of members from each of the state associations. The
Coalition of Recreational Trails Users (CRTU) is a separate,
educational coalition with 3 board members from each of the 4 state
associations.
Off-Highway Vehicles are an important part of life in Minnesota.
They are used for assistance in agriculture and hobby farms, as a means
to access hunting and trapping areas, as a means to access areas for
berry picking or other forest uses, as a form of transportation in
place of automobiles in parts of the state, and as a form of
recreation. They are an important part of the lifestyle, culture, and
tourism within the state. They are also part of a large economic engine
that helps drive the state's economy forward.
The state of Minnesota houses the headquarters of both Polaris and
Arctic Cat. Both companies make snowmobiles and ATVs. They employ
thousands of people directly in their home offices and manufacturing
plants, as well as indirectly, including smaller companies that make
parts such as drive trains and axels, for the company.
A large portion of the economic engine of OHVs is the recreational
use. There were over 360,000 OHVs registered for recreational use in MN
in 2010. This figure does not include the thousands of other ATVs that
are registered for use as agricultural implements, which must remain on
private property.
In 2006, the University of Minnesota completed an economic impact
study of ATV use in Minnesota. The highlights of this study are:
Direct ATV-Related expenditures: $641.9 millionq02
Of the total travel expenditures: $260.3 million spent at the
destination
$311.8 million spent at home and en route
Economic impact of expenditures: 8,756 jobs
$224.6 million wages and salaries:
$491.2 million contributed to GSP
$48.9 million tax revenueq02
ATV related retail activity: 1,477 jobs
$39.2 million wages and salaries:
$79.3 million contributed to GSP
$6.9 million tax revenueq02
ATV manufacturing activity: 4,216 jobs
$165.6 million wages and salaries:
$349.2 million contributed to GSP
$30.4 million tax revenueq02
Totals: 14,449 jobs
$429.4 million wages and salaries:
$919.7 million contributed to GSP
$86.2 million tax revenueq02
Combined total including expenditures: $2.08 billionq02
While ATVs are the largest sector of OHV riders in Minnesota, the
number above would be higher if OHMs and ORVs were included in the
report. The report also does not calculate the indirect impacts such as
the companies which manufacture parts that are used by the ATV
manufactures, marketing, government agencies that administer or
regulate the trails, etc. The report also does not calculate the impact
of non-resident recreational riding in Minnesota.
All of this impact is generated on 858 miles of recreational trails
plus 2,379 miles of System Forest Roads and Minimum Maintenance roads.
In addition, there are 143 miles of OHM-only trails.
In 2009, the Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association (MRTUA)
worked with the University of Minnesota to discover the trail user's
economic impact for both motorized and non-motorized terrestrial trail
use (although there are over 4,000 water trails in Minnesota, their use
was not included). Motorized recreationalists contribute more money to
the economy during their use of the trails, then non-motorized
recreationalist. The chart below indicates the amount of money spent
per day directly related to trail activities of longer than 30 minutes:
,-- ,
Runners $26
In-line Skaters $26
Walkers/Hikers $39
Horseback Riders $43
Bicycle Riders $44
ATV Riders $46
Snowmobile Riders $49
Cross-Country $54
Skiers $63
OHM Riders $69
ORV Riders
The positive economic impact of the recreational trail use is only
one of the ways that recreational OHV use creates a positive economic
impact for Minnesota. For example, there are 8 motocross promoters in
the state whose living is based on OHM recreation. Spring Creek
Motocross Track is the largest of the motocross tracks in Minnesota. It
holds several amateur events and 2 professional events each season. The
Rochester Post Bulletin newspaper did an article on one of the 2
professional races, estimating that one event pulls over $4 million
into the local economy. For the track itself, about 20,000 people
attend the event, it has about 150 event staff, 50 security personnel,
hire about 25 local sheriffs and other police officers, several EMT
personnel, a dozen local food vendors and a dozen local accessories
vendors. They also hire the local 4-H club to pick up the grounds after
the event and to assist with parking the cars. Then there are the local
hotels, restaurants, gas stations, parts shops, etc. that derive income
from this one event. The article states that the gas station in near-by
Zumbro Falls sets its summer staffing according to the Spring Creek
track event schedule.
To help accentuate the full impact of the statistics and studies,
let me share with you some real examples of the impacts of the
recreational use of OHVs in Minnesota:
1) The Iron Range OHV Recreation Area. This park was the first OHV
riding park in the state of Minnesota. As you may expect, the Iron
Range area of Minnesota is the location of the mining industry in
Minnesota. The Quad Cities of the Iron Range are Eveleth, Gilbert,
Mountain Iron, and Virginia. Gilbert was known as the red light
district of the Iron Range and was working hard to reverse that image.
The rest of the Quad Cities were also working to improve their economy
since taconite and taconite mining were no longer as valuable. During
the planning process for the OHV Recreation Area, only the city of
Gilbert was willing to put an entrance to the park in its city due to
the fears from the misconceptions of the types of people who ride OHVs.
Prior to the park opening in October of 2002, the All Terrain
Vehicle Association of Minnesota held its spring convention at the
park. To help the community get a more realistic idea of who an OHV
rider is, ATVAM members used $2 bills to pay for their services in the
area. This act made a tremendous impression with the local community.
The iron range resources tourism board estimated that the economic
input to the local area from that one convention was over $125,000.
Since the opening of the park, Gilbert is the only town on the iron
range that is expanding the amount of businesses in town and the
businesses are directly related to the OHV park, such as parts stores,
camping areas, OHV wash areas, etc. The nearby cities of Eveleth and
Virginia have requested access to the park directly from their towns
and the City of Virginia is working with the DNR and user groups to
open an expansion of the park, more than doubling its size.
2) The City of Appleton had a city park that was not getting used
due to flood damage. Because of the cost to continue to repair the
paved walkways, the city started to explore other uses of the area. One
of the ideas was to turn the area into an OHV park. The Swift County
Board of Commissioners did its research and got behind the idea. The
park was built and first opened in 2004. Since that time, the city has
opened 2 additional expansions and plans to continue to open other
expansions as land and funding for acquisition becomes available.
The City of Appleton also houses a 1400 bed private prison. This
prison was closed by the owners because of the decreasing use of the
prison by the state governments, which moved to house as many inmates
in state and county prisons as possible. However, the city has not seen
an over-all economic decline from the closure of the prison due to the
positive economic of the OHV riding area.
3) The City and County of Houston are working on bringing tourism
to their town in the Southeastern corner of the state. They have
already put in a trailhead for a walking/bike path and have a fly-
fishing trout steam running through their area. They still need
additional tourism income to help the city to prosper. They are turning
to OHV recreation. They have started the planning and acquisition
process to purchase private land for an OHV trail system. As part of
the planning process, national experts were brought in to hold an OHV
Management Workshop in the City of Houston. Although it is still years
before the OHV trail system will be open, the Mayor already feels like
the plan has had a positive economic impact since the workshop brought
the first catering contract to the local deli and the city's
accommodations were all filled for the first time since the largest
hotel opened in 2005.
Without the trail systems that currently exist in Minnesota, there
would be little opportunity for the positive economic impact in the
state from the recreational use of OHVs. And yet, the potential for a
greater impact is still there. During the recession, the registrations
for OHVs dipped, but there are signs that in a few years the number of
registrations will again be on the rise. With over 360,000 registered
vehicles, and only 1,001 state trail miles, there is a lot of room for
improvement of these economic numbers.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And our final gentleman on this
panel is Mr. Akenson. I heard you had a hairy trip getting in
here, but I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF JIM AKENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BACKCOUNTRY
HUNTERS AND ANGLERS
Mr. Akenson. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and
Committee Members, and thank you for acknowledging my trip. It
actually was about equal to the trip I used to do on horseback
in the Idaho backcountry to go vote, which was a 55-mile trail
ride. So anyway, I am here.
My name is Jim Akenson, and I live in Joseph, Oregon,
surrounded by the spectacular Wallowa Mountains within the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. I am representing Backcountry
Hunters and Anglers as the Executive Director. I am also
representing a partner organization of ours, Teddy Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership.
Both these organizations are nonprofit conservation groups
that serve traditional outdoorsmen and women from nearly all 50
states.
America's national forests, refuges, and rangelands are
treasures to the people of this nation. Over 100 years ago,
President Theodore Roosevelt helped create this priceless gem.
He also knew this public demand of more than 200 million acres
would become more and more valuable as America grew and
developed, and he was right.
In today's rapid-pace society, we often forget that
America's original wild country advocates were sportsmen, the
likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold.
These men cherished wildlife, wild places, and harvesting
nature's bounty through hunting and fishing. They left behind
for us a legacy and a mission to protect and wisely use our
nation's precious natural resources.
Today we face a very important question: How do we balance
the use of the public treasure in a way that guarantees clean
water and wildlife habitat in a nation that is now home to over
300 million people?
Between new technology like motorized recreation and
industrial uses like oil and gas development, our public lands
are under more and more pressure. The U.S. Forest Service has
nearly 375,000 miles of official roads in its inventory, and a
minimum of 60,000 miles of unofficial user-created routes,
enough to circle the Earth 17 times at the Equator.
While most of my career has been as a wildlife biologist, I
can tell you with certainty that protecting wild, natural
places from industrial development and motorized recreation has
very real benefits for our wildlife and water resources. But
today I would like to focus on another element, the human
element.
I have a unique perspective on the topic of wilderness and
our public lands, as I have been very privileged to live 21
years in Idaho's Frank Church-River of No Return wilderness. My
wife, Holly, and I manage an educational and research facility
for the University of Idaho, called Taylor Ranch Field Station.
Over two decades we mentored hundreds of people who came to
this remote wilderness setting to experience and learn about
the natural world. They came from diverse backgrounds,
political views, and places from around our nation. Besides
educating these young Americans on natural resource issues and
practices, we exposed them to simple traditional skills,
through putting up hay with a mule team and traveling long
distances by horse and mule, or on foot with a backpack.
They experienced much more than the beauty of wild places
and wildlife. They experienced the same sense of self-reliance
and accomplishment felt by Teddy Roosevelt, when he was a young
adventurous man experiencing the vanishing wild West of the
Dakota Territory.
For my wife, Holly, and I, that rich lifestyle is mostly
behind us now. We moved back to town. Of course, we moved to a
county that only has--well, it doesn't have any traffic lights.
But we constantly get comments from scores of past students
that their most memorable college experience was learning the
old ways of America deep in the Idaho backcountry. A single
visit to the wilderness can shape a life forever. Places
affording these types of experiences are becoming rare in this
country.
My group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and our partner
organization, Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Program, were
founded by fathers and mothers who know that the great outdoors
will help shape the character of their children. They want to
make sure their children and grandchildren will be free to
enjoy the sounds and sights of nature, and enjoy clean, free-
flowing rivers.
Groups like ours are not working merely to protect the land
and water for next hunting season or fishing season; we are
working for generations to come. Or, as TR put it, those still
in the womb of time.
The economic value of wild lands and water in America is
huge, with billions of dollars per year paid to commercial
outfitters who take people on float trips on wild rivers and
pack trips in the mountains of Federally owned public lands.
Not to mention millions of private individuals that head to the
outdoors on their own, and buy gear at local outdoor stores.
Let us be perfectly clear. There are plenty of places to
ride off-road vehicle in our national forests. These are
popular tools. However, we must also have big wild habitat that
is completely separate from the noise and disturbance that
comes from motorized traffic.
Likewise, there are places where oil and gas development,
logging, and mining are perfectly appropriate uses for our
national forests. But they must be balanced with the larger
purpose behind our public lands. Our public lands are owned by
all Americans. Congress hires professionals to manage these
resources. Let us give them the leeway and the tools they need
to do their mission: serve the greatest good, for the greatest
number, for the long run.
Consider this. When Theodore Roosevelt was President, there
were about 100 million Americans. When I was born, there were
roughly 200 million. Today, we are somewhere around 310
million. The figure will continue to grow.
Our public land legacy is a gift to each and every one of
them and those to come. We must manage it wisely. Once our
backcountry is gone, there is no getting it back.
Thank you for considering my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Akenson follows:]
Statement of Jim Akenson, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee members. My name is Jim
Akenson. I live in Joseph, Oregon, surrounded by the spectacular
Wallowa Mountains within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. I am
representing Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a non-profit conservation
group that represents traditional outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen from
nearly all 50 states. I serve as executive director of that
organization.
America's national forests, refuges and Bureau of Land Management
lands are treasures to the people of this nation. Over 100 years ago,
President Theodore Roosevelt helped create this priceless American
birthright. He knew this public domain of more than 200 million acres
would become more and more valuable as America grew and developed. He
was right.
In today's rapid-paced society we often forget that America's
original wild country advocates were sportsmen: the likes of Theodore
Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and Aldo Leopold. These men cherished
wildlife, wild places, and harvesting nature's bounty through hunting
and fishing. They left behind, for us, a legacy and a mission to
protect and wisely use our nation's precious natural resources.
Today, we face a very important question: how do we balance the use
of this public treasure in a way that guarantees clean water and
wildlife habitat in a nation that is now home to 300 million people?
Between new technology like motorized recreation and industrial
uses like oil and gas development, our public lands are under more and
more pressure. The USFS has nearly 375,000 miles of official roads
(U.S. Forest Service 2006) in its inventory and a minimum of 60,000
miles of unofficial, user created routes (U.S. Forest Service 2001),
enough to circle the earth 17 times at the equator!
With most of my career spent as a wildlife biologist, I can tell
you with certainty that protecting wild, natural places from industrial
development and motorized recreation has very real benefits for our
wildlife and water resources. Everyone benefits from natural
backcountry, because the benefits of backcountry literally spill out of
it in the form of clean rivers and abundant wildlife.
But today I would like to focus on another element: the human
element.
I have a unique perspective on the topic of wilderness and our
public lands, as I have been very privileged to live deep within the
America's wilderness. I spent 21 years in Idaho's Frank Church-River of
No Return Wilderness. My wife, Holly, and I managed an educational and
research facility for the University of Idaho called Taylor Ranch Field
Station.
Over two decades, we mentored hundreds of people who came to this
remote wilderness laboratory to experience and learn about the natural
world. They came from backgrounds ranging from city life in Chicago,
Illinois, and Seattle, Washington, to rural ranch life right in Idaho.
These were primarily young adults whose parents' political views varied
from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat. Besides educating
these young American's in natural resource issues and practices, we
exposed them to the ways of ``old Idaho'' through putting up hay with a
mule-team and traveling long distances by horse and mule or on foot
with a backpack. They experienced much more than the beauty of wild
places and wildlife. They experienced that same sense of self-reliance
and accomplishment felt by Theodore Roosevelt when he was a young
adventurous man experiencing the vanishing wild-west of Dakota
Territory.
For Holly and me that rich lifestyle is mostly behind us now. We've
moved back to town. But we constantly get comments from scores of past
students that their most memorable college education experience was
``learning the old ways of America'' deep in the Idaho backcountry. A
single visit to the wilderness can shape a life forever. Places
affording these types of experiences are becoming rare in this country.
The peace, solitude and physical challenge of the backcountry--
including wilderness areas, roadless areas and well-managed working
forests--are important for millions of American families. My group,
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, was founded by fathers and mothers who
know that the great outdoors will help shape the character of their
children. They want to make sure their children and grandchildren will
be free to enjoy the sounds and sights of nature, and enjoy clean,
free-flowing rivers. Groups like ours are not working merely to protect
the land and water for next hunting season or next fishing season. We
are working for generations to come--or as TR put it ``those still in
the womb of time.''
The economic value of wild lands and waters in America is huge,
with billions of dollars per year paid to commercial outfitters who
take people on float trips on wild rivers of the West, Alaska, and the
Great Lakes region, and who provide horse and mule pack trips in the
mountains and canyon lands on our federally owned public lands. These
high quality experiences are dependent on wild backcountry that is free
from the noises of man's machines and high-tech devices. As a resident
of a ``gateway'' community, I assure you that the near proximity to
Wallowa Lake and the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area help bring investment
and jobs to my home town.
Let's be perfectly clear: There are plenty of places to ride off-
road vehicles on our national forests. These are powerful and popular
tools. However, we must also have places--big, wild habitat--that is
completely separate from the noise and disturbance that comes from
motorized traffic. Likewise, there are places where oil and gas
development, logging and mining are perfectly appropriate uses for
national forests--but they must be balanced with the larger purpose
behind our public lands.
Our public lands are owned by all Americans. Congress hires
professionals to manage these resources. Let's give them the leeway and
the tools they need to do their mission: serve the greatest good, for
the greatest number, for the long run.
Consider this: When Theodore Roosevelt was president, there were
about 100 million Americans. When I was born, there were roughly 200
million. Today, we are somewhere around 310 million. This will continue
to grow.
Our public land legacy is a gift to each and every one of them, and
those to come. We must manage it wisely. Once our backcountry is gone,
there's no getting it back.
Thank you for considering my testimony. I am happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of those who have
spoken to us so far. We will now open this up for questions
from the panel. I traditionally have gone first, but I am going
to yield my time to the other Members of our Committee first.
So Mr. McClintock from California, do you have questions
for this group?
Mr. McClintock. Yes. I would just like to begin with Mr.
Ehnes. Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the National Forest
Service in 1905, described its mission thusly: To provide the
greatest amount of good, for the greatest amount of people, in
the long run.
How would you say they are currently meeting that charge?
Mr. Ehnes. I have a lot of good friends who work in the
Agency, and work very hard to achieve that goal. And I think
that, you know, on many fronts they are doing a good job.
On off-highway vehicle recreation, I think that the new
Forest Service Travel Management Rule from 2005 presented them
with a fairly difficult challenge. It put them in a fairly
compressed timeframe, to do a fairly complex job, a very
complex job. And in some areas, I think they did OK. But in
many areas, because of the pressures to get the job done
quickly, I don't think the right amount of planning went into
it.
And I think there were decisions made to close more trail,
and err on the side of getting it done sooner, than probably
were necessary in most areas.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that has certainly been the
experience in my district, which is the northeast corner of
California. Most of it is national forest, and we are being
flooded by complaints of Forest Service abuses of the public on
the public's land, in a pattern that seems to suggest that they
view their mission as excluding the public from the public's
land.
Are you seeing the same thing nationally?
Mr. Ehnes. Nationally, yes, there has been a lot of trail
loss for off-highway vehicle, due to the Travel Management
Rule.
Mr. McClintock. The complaints that we are receiving go far
beyond that. Imposing inflated fees that are forcing the
abandonment of family cabins that have been held for
generations, charging exorbitant new fees that are closing down
long-established community events upon which many small and
struggling mountain towns depend for tourism, expelling
longstanding grazing operations on specious grounds,
obstructing the sound management of our forests through a
policy that can only be described as benign neglect.
What are your members telling you?
Mr. Ehnes. We are hearing those same types of complaints.
Because I am in the off-highway vehicle field professionally,
that is mostly what I hear about. And the vast majority of
folks that I have spoken to have not been happy with the Travel
Management Rule results.
Again, the Forest Service is made up of a lot of different
people, and there are some very dedicated folks. But I think
that the Travel Management Rule was rushed, and the results
were very negative.
Mr. McClintock. I sense that there is a fundamental change
of attitude in the Forest Service over the past decade or so,
from one of public service, welcoming the public to the
public's lands, of fulfilling Gifford Pinchot's vision for the
Forest Service. That is being replaced by an elitist,
exclusionary, extreme attitude that the Forest Service mission
is to close the forests to the public.
Mr. Jones, what are your members telling you?
Mr. Ehnes. We are hearing that from a lot of people. And
again, there are good people in the Agency, and I have seen the
face of the Agency change over the last few years, as a lot
of----
Mr. McClintock. It is becoming downright alarming. Mr.
Jones, Mr. Lepley, I want to give you a chance to jump in on
this.
Mr. Jones. Actually, we have been participating in some
wolverine reintroduction discussions with the Colorado
Department of Wildlife, and we have had some pretty diverse
partner groups coming in. Like, as you mentioned, the cattlemen
and forestry groups.
And we all have a surprising amount of similarity in our
concerns. I think you pretty accurately summarized them. That
sometimes keeping public access is not the priority. And it is
concerning.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Lepley?
Mr. Lepley. Yes, I would say the same thing. The Allegheny
National Forest is the only national forest in Pennsylvania,
and it is somewhat unique. If you look at the Allegheny, in
many respects it is an open history book of America's growth.
It has been heavily trammeled over by the oil and gas
people, by lumber, et cetera. And it is a latticework of roads
that display that history in a pretty grand style.
And what we are seeing up there, and it is pretty common
knowledge, there have just been some major contentious lawsuit
issues with the O and G folks.
Mr. McClintock. I am afraid my time is running out, Mr.
Lepley. And I just want to make a statement.
Mr. Chairman, we are getting flooded by complaints in my
district over these exclusionary attitudes that seem to be
running rampant now in the Forest Service management. And I
think at some point this Committee is going to have to step in
and remind the Forest Service that they are public servants,
not public masters. And that the national forests are not the
king's royal forests, but belong to all of the people of the
United States.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. Now to the other
gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Much of what my colleague from California
was describing in the Forest Service in his area is found
throughout the United States. And the Forest Service has been
severely stressed by very, very significant budget reductions.
More than half of the Forest Service budget is consumed in
fighting fires, and what remains, as the population pressures
and the multiple uses of the forest continue to press upon the
National Forest System and the U.S. Forest Service, they have
very little time and staff and money available to carry out
their tasks.
One of their tasks is to provide the multiple recreation
and uses of the forests. And therefore, a couple of questions,
if I might, to the panel.
Mr. Lepley, you mentioned that there are 1.2 million dirt
bikes and ATVs in 2009. When you started, how many were there
in 1959?
Mr. Lepley. Well, in 1959?
Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
Mr. Lepley. That is reaching way back. That was the first
year Honda started in America. There were no ATVs. Which have
become now basically half of the industry. And what motorcycles
were out there were very small.
At that point in time, the off-road influence would have
been negligible.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes. And Mr. Ehnes, I think you were the one
that gave part of those statistics. Could you describe--I think
you said, one of you said you started in 1959?
Mr. Ehnes. My grandfather and my father started riding in
1959.
Mr. Garamendi. Do you know how many bikes there were, and
ATVs, in 1959?
Mr. Ehnes. I don't have any statistical information, but
there were not a lot.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, that difference, between not a lot, or
none in the case of ATVs, is precisely why we have this issue
before us. We have a huge number of off-the-road vehicles out
there, and we have very little money to plan, to maintain the
trails. Is that correct? I think it is. Anybody think that is
incorrect, say so.
That being the case--go ahead.
Mr. Ehnes. If I may, you are correct that there are
budgetary challenges for the Forest Service. They do deal with
a very challenging budgetary situation.
There are solutions, and they are local solutions. And a
good example of that, I mentioned the Highwood Mountain Range,
where only 29 miles of trail is designated. But those 29 miles
are extremely important to our local riders. So we partnered
with the Charlie Russell Backcountry Horsemen and a number of
civic groups, and did the entire implementation of the 1993
Travel Plan through volunteer labor. And not one dime for trail
construction for maintenance of that implementation was spent,
of Forest Service money. It was all done with grants and with
volunteers.
Mr. Garamendi. Excellent. Excellent. But the point----
Ms. Umphress. And if I may.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes, please, go ahead.
Ms. Umphress. If I may add, there is also the Recreational
Trails Program, which takes the unrefunded gas tax money from
off-highway vehicle use, and puts it out to the states for
trail acquisition and maintenance, as well.
Mr. Garamendi. The combination of what resources, what
financial resources are available, together with volunteer
organizations, is absolutely critical in this. There is no
doubt that off-the-road vehicles provide very important
recreational opportunities. They also have the potential to
have a very heavy impact on the land and, therefore,
maintenance and wise locations become extremely important.
So in this process, it is not just one thing or another; it
is a combination. I am curious if the industry might be
interested in a fee system to provide the public lands, BLM,
Forest Service and the rest, with the money it needs to design,
locate, and maintain off-the-road vehicle facilities. And any
one of you, just down the line left to right, or right to left,
from your perspective, does that make sense?
Mr. Ehnes. Sir, yes, it does. And what you have stated is
correct. And what we are advocating is that planning and
management of off-highway vehicle recreation is critical.
And the off-highway vehicle world at large has actually
been proponents of the idea of user fees in areas where
maintenance needs to be applied. The only caveat is that riders
need to be assured that the money that they pay for maintenance
of an area in fact goes back to those areas. But we have been
floating that idea for a number of years.
Mr. Garamendi. That issue also exists at every national
park where they have an entrance fee. Is it used at that park,
or is it used someplace else. It is an ongoing debate and
issue.
I think I am almost out of time. But I think if we are
going to adequately address this issue, it is going to take
money and resources, and a combination of good will on the part
of everybody. Much of what my colleague from California
complained about was the result of insufficient funds that the
Forest Service has, and therefore they had to shut down those
areas simply to protect them, so that some other day in the
future they might be available.
Thank you for the extra 35 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will take it off next time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Labrador, the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like once
again, when we deal about budgetary challenges, that the
solution is a local solution that I think the off-road vehicle
industry and many other people are willing to probably take
care of this.
It is true in your state, and it is true in Idaho. Where
they are willing to take care of their own roads, and they are
willing to do the things that, once again, we show the
mismanagement and the poor planning of having the Federal
government try to govern everything in the United States.
I want to welcome Mr. Akenson from my, who lived in my part
of the world for a long period of time. Thank you for being
here.
I just have one simple question, and I want everybody to
answer it. In your opinion, has the off-highway vehicle rule
resulted in an overreach by the agencies to further other
agendas, and limit use in unreasonable ways? And if you believe
that it has, can you give me some examples of that? Starting
with Mr. Ehnes.
Mr. Ehnes. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
believe that the Forest Service Travel Management Rule has had
unintended consequences. And those unintended consequences are
that great, great numbers of trails, large numbers of trails
have been shut down nationwide. And it has given our community
a real challenge to try to maintain adequate riding areas that
are connected, and meet our needs.
I think that, you know, it will continue to challenge us
into the future. But we need to work together with the agencies
to come up with systems that work.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Jones. And if you have specific examples.
Mr. Jones. Actually, we in Colorado have varying degrees of
success with partnering with some of the forests, and it works
really well. And then unfortunately, in some of the other
forests, it doesn't work so well.
And I would have to agree, on some of the forests that we
just finished comments on an appeal on the Travel Management
Plan. And it was pretty clear that Travel Management was being
used to further a lot of other concerns and issues, other than
responsible sustainable recreation on the forest. And that was
really troubling to us.
Mr. Labrador. Like what, for instance?
Mr. Jones. Actually, they developed ideas of a whole new
category of wilderness, something called Capable and Available
for Wilderness, as a roadless area. I had never heard of that
before, and it wasn't in the Land Management Plan. We tend to
question why that was ever even come up with.
There were a lot of concerns where comments were
erroneously submitted, and that were relied upon for closures
in areas that were open legal riding areas to us. And you went
back and looked at it, and the comment was just wrong. You
know, they said ``Oh, this was closed,'' but it wasn't.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Mr. Lepley.
Mr. Lepley. Yes. In the Allegheny, early on there was a
significant amount of volunteer effort that went into that
system, and that worked extremely well. We have not been able
to accomplish that, and the system now needs maintenance. And
of course, there is a fee structure up there. We pay to play
every time we go in there.
The numbers have dropped up there, and I don't think it is
just the economy. I think to a certain extent, the
infrastructure in that system has not grown to handle the use.
Hence, it is not as fun to be there. The camping is lacking, et
cetera, and everything has been kind of shrouded in history.
Rather than an open dialogue being made available and working
with associations like ours and other groups to actively get
involved in a system and make that system better, that just
hasn't happened.
And it is really annoying, because that forest is sitting
within hours of millions and millions of people. And if it was
looked at from an entrepreneurial standpoint, it could blossom
and grow, and generate even more revenue. And that is what I
find disheartening.
Ms. Umphress. The Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota at
the first pass, it did close most of the off-highway vehicle
routes to it. But I do want to say that the current forest
ranger has been very open to working with the club that formed,
and that now has about 200 members. And some of those trails
are starting to open back up.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Akenson.
Mr. Akenson. Yes, I am going to use the Lymm High Mountain
Range, which you are familiar with, in East Idaho as an
example, where I have done bighorn sheep research, and seen a
lot of abuses, off-trail abuses, by ATVs. But I have to put a
caveat on that.
We, being those folks that are interested in trail
restrictions, are teaming up with some local ATV clubs, and
decommissioning some of those trails. And the way I see it with
the Forest Service, we are looking at an issue of enforcement.
They don't have money. And the main way that I see that being a
problem for those of us who are interested in quiet situations,
is through enforcement.
So the rogue users of ATVs are reined back in check, and
kept out of places where they shouldn't be, that do cause
wildlife disturbance, which I documented in some bighorn sheep
research.
Mr. Labrador. I spent this weekend actually dirt-biking,
and there were a lot of quiet places out there, as well as
places where I could enjoy with my kids. I actually went on a
fathers-and-sons activity, and it was quite enjoyable to be
able to go out there and enjoy nature, and also enjoy the
activities that we wanted to participate in. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Bishop. The eruption of the fathers-and-sons bit, huh?
Yes. Fortunately I am older than that, I don't have to do that.
I have a couple of questions. First of all, I am happy that
all of you have addressed the gentleman from California and a
couple of other questions about the role of partnerships,
especially in tough budget times. And you said some very
positive things about how all those can work out.
Can I ask a couple of very quick ones? Ms. Umphress, first
of all, in your testimony you said that OHV enthusiasts spend
more in Minnesota, anyway per day, than other types of
recreationists. Why do you think that is the case?
Ms. Umphress. Off-highway vehicle riders have, they have to
buy gas. They generally have more maintenance on their
machines. They generally stay overnight at hotels, bring their
supplies with them. They can carry more with them at a time.
The study in Minnesota said walkers and bikers generally
use, pay about $39, and off-road vehicles generally pay about
$69 per day for each vehicle trip.
Mr. Bishop. All right, I appreciate that. Just very
quickly, you talked about the Iron Range Recreation Area. How
did you get the funding to develop that?
Ms. Umphress. We used the Recreational Trails Program,
which is the unrefunded gas tax. We also combine it with a
state program that is similar, that we call the Grant and Aid
Program, that uses the state unrefunded gas tax.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. For you as well as Mr. Lepley,
probably Mr. Lepley, ATV and off-road bikers have been
sometimes characterized, I think unfairly, as thrill-seekers
and renegades, and oftentimes, jerks.
So Mr. Lepley, specifically in your dealership, how do you
direct riders to legal areas and promote safe and responsible
riding?
Mr. Lepley. Well, it starts with staff training. We are
adamant about using safety gear around the dealership. You
don't ride a motorcycle or ATV on the premises without a helmet
on.
And we preach the message all the time. We do so via public
service announcements through radio and TV, and the store is
loaded with information. You would be amazed at the volume of
good information out there from the Motorcycle Industry
Council, from NOHVCC, from the state itself.
We keep all of the map materials on hand in the dealership,
because we are questioned about where to ride all the time. And
so we have all of the mapping for the Allegheny.
And again, our staff is trained to promote safe use of
everything we sell. It is just the way we do business. And I
think that is the best way to do it, in the dealership.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Ehnes, I guess the question is
what kind of trails make the best experience. I am assuming it
is safe to say that a better-managed trail is a better riding
experience?
Mr. Ehnes. Oh, absolutely. In fact, at NOHVCC we actually,
in our workshops, teach sustainable trail design. And trails
that are built in a sustainable fashion actually are much more
fun to ride. And they become a management tool because riders
have trails that they want to ride on, not that they have to
ride on.
Mr. Bishop. And Mr. Lepley again. When you talked about the
ANF shift in one side, was that a shift to closing trails in
the forests? Or was it simply not expanding them?
Mr. Lepley. Well, this is somewhat speculation, but we have
been concerned over the last few years with closures. And it
seems when we, as an association, have gotten involved, and
began to question what is going on, then suddenly maintenance
will pick up and things get better.
I don't know what would happen if we turned our backs on it
entirely. And it has been a struggle. And that forest is under
a lot of stress right now, with all of the oil and gas
development and timber issues, et cetera. It has always been an
industrial kind of forest.
So yes, I am not sure what would happen if we just turned
our back on it and went away. It is one of constant
maintenance.
Mr. Bishop. Let me throw out a general question to anyone
who wants to answer that. Can I have any of you that would
compare the economic benefits of areas that allow mechanized
vehicle use versus those that don't allow mechanized, try to
close it off to any kind of mechanized vehicle use? Wilderness,
for example. Is there a comparison in the economic benefit? I
have only got less than a minute here.
Ms. Umphress. I don't believe there is any specific study
on wilderness, just the Minnesota study that compared all trail
users.
Mr. Bishop. And you gave me that material already.
Ms. Umphress. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask one last question? I have 43 seconds,
42, 41, to do this.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. You know, when Pinchot said the greatest good
for the greatest number, does anyone know what he was really
talking about? Because he was pretty clear on that. All right,
for my next history lesson, I will give you that one later. I
think it may surprise a lot of people what he actually meant
when he said that phrase.
Since you went over, I am going to go under. And do you
want a second--I just did it, sorry. If you have other
questions, please feel free.
Mr. Akenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I make a quick
comment on that, greatest good?
Mr. Bishop. Please.
Mr. Akenson. OK. I think you are looking at something that
gets, renders down to some real basic economics. And that is,
there are a lot of Americans that can't afford to have a
motorcycle or a four-wheeler, but they can afford to buy a
little bit of gas to go to someplace to go on a hike. And that
hiking experience is a lot more rewarding if it is a quiet
hiking experience.
And I think that if you really looked at the true numbers,
all the population of this country, you would see that most
Americans do that form of recreation. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. It is a good guess. It is not what Pinchot
meant, but it is a good guess. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whatever he meant,
he said it nearly a century ago, and we have added about 200
million-plus to our population.
Mr. Akenson, is your notion of an OHV a horse?
Mr. Akenson. No, it is not. No. And actually, when I was
doing bear and cougar research in Oregon, I used ATVs
extensively as a work tool. And I think they are a fine tool.
And I am certainly willing to work with ATV entities to come up
with solutions. But I just feel that there needs to be quiet
places for recreating, and places where you can take a pack
string and not run into an ATV that does make noise.
Mr. Garamendi. If you are a hunter or a fly fisherman or in
that area, I suppose an ATV or a snowmobile and the rest might
be a troublesome thing to have nearby.
Mr. Akenson. Yes, it can be, that is for sure.
Mr. Garamendi. I think what we are really dealing with here
is how to apportion our public lands so that we can achieve a
balance. Clearly, there are places where we don't want to have
motorized vehicles, for the reasons stated by Mr. Akenson. And
clearly, there are other places where we need it. And the
Minnesota situation, where the community came together and
decided that these things would work well in that area, is a
good example.
But I think there is an overarching problem there, and I
would like our Committee to really spend some time focusing on
it. That is that we have well over 300 million Americans, we
have 12.2 million off-the-road vehicles of various kinds. And
that puts enormous pressure on the public lands. And while
there are vast public lands, the pressure is usually found in a
specific area, where people congregate because of the nature of
the terrain, or access, and the like.
What we don't have is the money to manage it. We need to be
very, very clear about this. We have been cutting back at the
Federal level money to manage the public lands. And that is a
reality.
At the same time, the money that is available is going into
things like firefighting. How much money is being spent by the
Federal government in Arizona in the last month? An enormous
amount of money that is not available for other purposes in
those national forests and BLM land in that area.
There is a money problem here. And much of the, in my
experience in California, which has been extensive, a lot of
the shutdown of various trails and the like is due to the
inability of the Forest Service to guarantee safety,
maintenance, and protection of the public resources.
So what I would like all of the folks here, particularly
the off-the-road vehicle folks, to ponder is how do we deal
with this. Fees? At the end of this fiscal year, the highway
fees expire. Gone. We are going to have to renew them, as in
raising taxes. Will this be part of that tax program, as we re-
fund or reestablish those? You need to think about it.
And so I would ask, in my last 30--and I am going to
subtract 35 seconds here--in my last minute, for all of you to
ponder the necessity for the off-the-road vehicle industry to
participate financially in supporting the public lands use for
off-the-road vehicles. Without that, further restrictions are
inevitable, because it is the responsibility of the public land
managers to manage the land for the long term. And the long
term can seriously be destroyed by the inappropriate use of
off-the-road vehicles.
Mr. Akenson, there is nothing I would like better than to
go into the wilderness area and be left alone, without the
sound of my own political voice, but rather, the sound of the
wilderness. Thank you very much.
And I guess I used my 35 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the witnesses on this particular panel
for your testimony and for your answers, your written testimony
and oral testimony. And I thank you very much, appreciate you
being here. We will excuse you at this time, and invite the
next panel of witnesses to join us.
Once again, I thank you all for being here. I thought you
were going on the assumption if we burn down the forest, we
don't have to worry about any of this, right?
Coming up here, if we could, we have Mr. Amador from the
Blue Ribbon Coalition; Tom Crimmins, who is the Lead Spokesman
for the Professionals for Management Recreation; Mr. Sutton
Bacon, CEO of the Nantahala Outdoor Center--is that even
close--Outdoor Center.
Once again, we appreciate all of you being here. Same
situation as before. You have your written testimony; I ask you
to do the oral within five minutes. Same process will be there,
green, keep going; yellow, you have one minute; when it is red,
we ask you to stop. And we welcome you to be here.
Mr. Amador.
STATEMENT OF DON AMADOR,
BLUE RIBBON COALITION
Mr. Amador. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share
my views and the views of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, regarding
the single-largest public land closure of its kind in U.S.
history. And that is the ongoing closure of 75,000 acres of BLM
lands to all public users.
My name is Don Amador; I live in Oakley, California. I am a
recreation and public land advocate, who has championed
responsible access to public lands for the last 21 years. I am
owner of Quiet Warrior Racing, a recreation and public land
consulting company, and I am a contractor to the Blue Ribbon
Coalition, where I serve as its western representative.
In 2002, Dirt Rider Magazine listed Clear Creek as one of
the top 10 OHV recreation sites in the country. It is located
mostly in the southern San Benito County in the Coastal
Mountain Range.
While the closure only technically closed 33,000 acres, it
functionally closed 75,000 acres, since practically all route
networks originate in the technically closed area.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, unlike other BLM units in California,
I believe Hollister, with help from EPA, has failed to fulfill
its Congressional multiple-use mandate via its current effort
to use junk science and personal agendas in a scheme to create
de facto wilderness without Congressional approval or
direction.
I believe that Hollister is not in compliance with the
President's and the Department of the Interior's scientific
integrity policy. In 2008, before the emergency closure, EPA's
draft risk analysis model said the health risk from naturally
occurring asbestos could be, in quotes, ``perhaps zero.'' Yet,
in EPA's final report, they simply removed that phrase.
NOA occurs in various public and private lands in 43
counties in California, many of which contain popular local,
county, state, and Federal recreation sites. Because many of
those areas are important for multiple-use recreation, the Off-
Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California State
Parks commissioned an independent health study.
On March 22, 2011, a report was completed by scientists
from the International Environmental Research Foundation, the
Department of Physics at Harvard University, and the Center for
Applied Studies of the Environment at the City University of
New York. According to that new and scientifically valid
report, the health risk at Clear Creek is similar to the
lifetime risk of death from smoking less than one cigarette
over a one-year period.
They noted other recreational activities, such as swimming,
hiking, and snow skiing, are over 100-fold more dangerous.
Other Department of the Interior units, such as BLM at
Samoa Dunes and Redwood National Park, they simply post signs
to warn of hazards. Yet Hollister selected to ignore those
management tools, and willfully selected to ban recreation at
Clear Creek instead of posting signs.
Ken Deeg, a local law enforcement officer, believes the
County's 2010 decision to reopen 25 miles of its roads was
based on the fact that Hollister and EPA had manipulated and
embellished their data and test results.
In its effort to create a non-motorized ecotopia, Hollister
is erasing all evidence of OHV recreation that existed on this
unit for the last 60 years. Hollister has ripped up relatively
new public rest room facilities and staging areas along the
main access road. Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreations,
through state recreation grants, contributed approximately $7
million to the management of Clear Creek. No doubt, during that
same time period, millions of dollars of appropriated funds
have also been spent to manage multiple-use recreation on that
unit.
After reviewing Hollister's illegitimate decision-making
process to date, I believe Congress should consider bipartisan
legislation that designates the 75,000-acre Clear Creek
management area as a National Recreation Area, where OHV
recreation and other uses are codified as a proscribed use.
I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify on this
all-too-important issue. And I would like Exhibits A, B, C, D,
and E included with my written testimony. I look forward to
working with Congress and the Agency to find a way to reopen
Clear Creek for OHV recreation and other multiple-use
activities.
At this time I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amador follows:]
Statement of Don Amador, Blue Ribbon Coalition
Testimony--Statement by Donald Amador that questions the BLM's
decision-making process associated with the ongoing landscape level
functional closure of the 75,000 acre Clear Creek Management Area
(CCMA) to all user groups on May 1, 2008. This unit is managed by the
Hollister Field Office (HFO) and is located in Fresno and San Benito
Counties in the Central Coast Mountain Range of California.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of
the BlueRibbon Coalition, and views of other multiple-use interests
about the single largest public land closure of its kind in U.S.
history.
My name is Don Amador; I am a native of Humboldt County in Northern
California. I currently live in Oakley, California in the Delta Region
of the Central Valley. I am a recreation and public land advocate who
has championed responsible access to public lands for the last 21
years. I am owner of Quiet Warrior Racing, a recreation and public land
consulting company. As a contractor to the BlueRibbon Coalition, I
serve as its Western Representative. In addition, I currently serve as
a member of Region 5's California Recreation Resource Advisory Council.
Recently, I served on the Del Norte County/Forest Service
stakeholder group, which successfully brought diverse interest groups
together to try and resolve contentious issues surrounding a recent
Forest Service Travel Management Decision. Based on that experience and
experience derived from service on other recreation-based stakeholder
groups, I am confident that with your help a solution to the Clear
Creek closure saga can be found.
Mr. Chairman, before getting into the substance of my concerns, I
want to give the committee a quick overview of CCMA. In 2002, Dirt
Rider Magazine listed Clear Creek as one of the top 10 OHV recreation
sites in the country. It is located mostly in southern San Benito
County in the Coastal Mountain Range that separates the Salinas Valley
from the Central Valley. While the closure only ``technically'' closed
33,000 acres, it functionally closed 75,000 acres since practically all
route networks originate in the closure area. Before the emergency
closure in May 2008, the unit was open for OHV use on approximately 242
miles of designated routes from October 16th to May 31. This unit also
contains approximately 25 miles of county roads.
Clear Creek has been a historic mining area since the 19th century.
California's official state gem, Benitoite, is found only in this area.
In the 1950's and 1960's, the primary mineral extracted was naturally
occurring asbestos (NOA). Today, the major mining operations that
produced asbestos have ceased operations. Yet, before the May 2008
emergency closure, the area remained a popular site for gem and mineral
collectors. The area is also a popular venue for the hunting community.
I have operated OHVs in CCMA since the early 1980s. As part of the
land stewardship program at BRC, I assisted the HFO from 2001-2008 at
numerous amateur motorcycle events by performing the SAE-J1287 20-inch
sound test to make sure attendees complied with state sound laws.
I consider many BLM employees on various units to be both personal
friends and professional colleagues who work hard to fulfill the
agency's multiple-use mandate, protect natural resources, and jealousy
guard public trust.
Sadly Mr. Chairman, unlike other BLM units in California, I believe
the HFO with support from EPA has failed to fulfill its congressional
multiple-use mandate via its current effort to use junk science in a
scheme to create de-facto Wilderness without Congressional approval or
direction.
Ultimately, I believe that Congress is the appropriate legislative
body that can help the public get answers to the many unanswered
questions regarding the bizarre and historic closure of CCMA to all
human uses and the ongoing decision-making process surrounding the May
2008 emergency closure.
ISSUE ONE--Scientific Integrity of the Decision/Science Used to Issue
the May 1, 2008 Emergency Closure Order
Based on the attached email (Exhibit A) obtained by FOIA, it
appears the Department of Interior's scientific integrity policy has
been compromised by HFO/EPA. When HFO questions EPA as to why HFO
should make an emergency land management closure decision based on a
risk analysis model so low that it is ``perhaps zero'', EPA responded
by simply removing the phrase in the final report.
In an urgent April 2008 pre-closure meeting between BRC
representatives and the agency, BRC urged the HFO to not use flawed
science to effect the May 1, 2008 emergency closure. Despite our
substantive pleas, HFO decided to use flawed science and personal
agendas as a foundation for the closure and the subsequent NEPA
planning process.
NOA occurs on various public and private lands in 43 counties in
California many of which contain popular local, county, state, and
federal recreation sites. Because many of those areas are important for
multiple-use activities, the California State Park Off-Highway Motor
Vehicle Recreation Commission requested that the Off-Highway Motor
Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR) of California State Parks complete
an independent NOA health study.
On March 22, 2011, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation
Division of California State Parks released an independent report
analyzing naturally occurring asbestos exposures associated with OHV
recreation and hiking at Clear Creek. The report was completed by
scientists from the International Environmental Research Foundation
(IERF), the Department of Physics at Harvard University, and the Center
for Applied Studies of the Environment at the City University of New
York.
2011 IERF Report
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ierf_ccma_final_3_8_11-web.pdf
The OHMVR Division commissioned the IERF report to gather more data
to determine if management and operational strategies could be employed
at the CCMA to mitigate risk while still allowing access to this
premier off-highway vehicle recreation.
According to the report, ``. . .this risk [health risk from NOA] is
similar to the lifetime risk of death from smoking less than one
cigarette over the same one year period [riding season]. Other
recreational activities, such as swimming, hiking, and snow skiing are
over a 100-fold more dangerous.
The percentage of mesothelioma deaths predicted among the CCMA
motorcycle riders for both sexes (0.000016%) is more than 6,500-fold
lower than percentage of mesothelioma deaths in the US general
population (0.11%).
Based on the IERF analysis, the results of which are included
herein, there is clearly an opportunity to allow OHV recreation at
CCMA. Under the conditions we observed, and similar seasonal
conditions. OHV enthusiasts would not be exposed to unacceptably high
levels of airborne asbestos.''
According to IERF, EPA Region 9 continues to refuse access to their
air sample and seasonal asbestos background datasets.
As you might expect, the BLM and EPA continue to inexplicably
defend their decision to close CCMA to all human uses with the basis of
that decision cast on the tenets of what many users, other publics, and
IERF scientists consider flawed science. It appears the agency
continues to favor a permanent ban on OHV recreation as articulated in
the current CCMA NEPA planning process.
IERF May 23, 2011 Response to BLM/EPA Defense of Flawed Science/Closure
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ierf-epa-rebuttal-ccma.pdf
ISSUE TWO: Faux Liability Issue
BRC is concerned HFO created an artificial liability for itself
(and hence the taxpayer) in its initial decision to issue an emergency
closure order and in subsequent planning documents without any
consideration for other viable and reasonable means of addressing what,
if any risk, may exist. BRC is also concerned this faux liability
issue, if not addressed, could be used by the agency as justification
to prohibit pro-OHV/access alternatives from being selected.
BRC April 19, 2010 Letter on Liability Issue
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/CCMA_DEIS_Turcke_Comments_
Supplemental_4-19-10.pdf
As BRC stated, it believes the Hollister Field Office continues to
chart its own and strangely unique course with its decision-making
framework. HFO's continues to believe that CCMA lands ought to be
rendered inaccessible based wholly on a now disproved assumption that a
public health risk from NOA will impact OHV recreationists.
BRC believes HFO should review management prescriptions such as
signs and public outreach currently being used by sister land
management agencies to caution the recreation public about the life
threatening hazards of rock climbing, snow skiing, swimming, and
boating.
ISSUE THREE--County Asserts Access Rights
On April 6, 2010 San Benito County passed a resolution that
reopened approxiemtly 25 miles of county roads within CCMA.
April 6, 2010 San Benito County Resolution
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/San_Benito_County_Road_Resolution_
2010.pdf
Just as many user groups and other stakeholders questioned the
decision-making process used by the BLM/EPA to close roads and trails
within CCMA, the County of San Benito reviewed options to assert its
right to manage their own roads within CCMA.
Ken Deeg, a local law enforcement officer and member of the Friends
Clear Creek Management Area and TimeKeepers Motorcycle Club, states
(Exhibit B) ``. . .in early 2010 after viewing the email information
and photos I received through [a] FOIA that the BLM and EPA manipulated
and embellished the September 2005 dust sampling test, San Benito
County Board of Supervisors realized they were mislead by the BLM's
Hollister Field Office and voted to take back their roads inside Clear
Creek and re-open them to the public. . ..''
Again, after reviewing Deeg's information, revelant laws,
regulations, impacts of the closure to the local economy, and science,
the county came to the conclusion that its roads do not present a
health risk and that they should be open for public use.
ISSUE FOUR: Willful Obliteration of Existing Recreation Facilities Paid
for by Taxpayers and with User Fees
In its effort to create a non-motorized ecotopia, the HFO is
erasing all evidence of OHV recreation that has existed on this unit
for the last 60 years; the agency has ripped up relatively new public
restroom facilities along the main access road. It has also obliterated
and/or rendered useless many traditional family camping sites in this
same area.
Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreationists through the OHMVR grants
program contributed approxiemtly $7 million dollars to CCMA for trail
and facility construction, route maintenance, resource protection, and
law enforcement. No doubt during that time period, millions of dollars
of appropriated funds have also been spent to manage multiple-use
recreation on that unit.
My assertions are substantiated by a June 17, 2011 letter (Exhibit
C) from Commissioner Eric Leuder, Chairman of the California Off-
Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. On April 6, 2011, he
witnessed in person the destruction of historic recreation facilities.
The destruction of property was authorized in a previous environmental
assessment based on the false assumption that the Evening Primrose was
a threatened species. Subsequently, new agency biologists have found
that species to be abundant. Yet, the HFO with this new information
continues on its path to erase any evidence that OHV recreation staging
areas existed on the unit.
While the HFO works hard to destroy all vestiges of it multi-
million dollar recreational infrastructure, it has found the time to
waste over $2 million dollars of taxpayer funds to construct its much
vaunted ``decontamination center'' at the entrance to CCMA.
Based on the aforementioned issues and concerns, I believe the HFO
and EPA should answer the following questions.
1. Is the HFO and EPA's decision-making process and supporting
documents in compliance with the March 9, 2009 Memorandum
(Exhibit D) on Scientific Integrity issued by President Obama
that states the. . .public must be able to trust the science
and scientific process informing public policy decisions?
2. Is the HFO and EPA decision-making process and supporting
documents in compliance with subsequent memos (Exhibit E) from
EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar, reaffirming the need to foster honesty and credibility
in science conducted and used by the Agencies?
3. Why has the EPA refused to share requested information from
their study with other scientists?
4. Why does the HFO continue to destroy and obliterate the
existing recreation infrastructure--paid for with state OHV
grants and appropriated funds--when it knows the premise for
the authorization is flawed?
5. Why did the HFO construct an unneeded multi-million dollar
decontamination center?
6. Did the HFO investigate any management tools that would
have allowed the unit to stay open during the planning process?
7. Does the HFO/EPA intend to incorporate the IERF study into
the planning process?
8. Does the HFO intend to lift the emergency closure order?
Summary:
After reviewing hold harmless laws, federal statutes, and new
science, I believe that Congress and reasonable people will come to the
conclusion that CCMA should be open for public use. Unfortuntely, it
appears the HFO/EPA continue to base the ongoing closure and closure-
oriented planning alternatives on flawed science, illogical decision-
making, and personal agendas that are in conflict with the multiple-use
mission of the BLM.
I urge Congress to investigate the decision-making process that
ranges from the initial process to issue an emergency closure in 2008
to the current planning effort. I believe that the continued closure of
CCMA is unwarranted and should be lifted immediately. Also, the
planning process is seriously flawed since it is based on what has been
clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate data and false assumptions. The
planning process should be put on hold until the scientific
discrepancies between EPA and IERF are resolved.
What makes this closure so puzzling is that since recreationists
started using CCMA after WW2, there is not one documented case of
mesothelioma caused by recreational exposure to NOA at Clear Creek. In
fact, there is not one documented case of mesothelioma caused by
recreational exposure to NOA anywhere in California.
According to BRC member Ed Tobin who served on the Central
California Resource Advisory Council (1995-2000), he had a number of
conversations with then BLM State Director Ed Hastey about CCMA as the
BLM was in the process of completing an EIS to guide the use of the
area (ROD signed in Jan 1998). During one of these conversations Hastey
told Tobin that despite EPA concerns about the asbestos risk and Fish
and Wildlife concerns about a T&E species, he felt that Clear Creek was
the ideal location for the BLM to promote motorized recreation. He
backed up these comments by approving the EIS/ROD that allowed
motorized recreation to continue. BRC agrees with Hastey's vision and
decision.
Based on the decisions made by the HFO over the last 4-5 years, I
believe that HFO has veered away from Director Hastey's vision for
Clear Creek and will create a defacto-Wilderness area at CCMA unless
Congress intervenes
Recommendation:
Congress should consider bipartisan legislation that designates the
70,000-acre CCMA as a National Recreation Area with OHV recreation and
other multiple-use recreational activities codified as ``prescribed
uses.'' Congress could base the route network on the 242 miles of
routes and 400 acres of open areas identified for motorized use in the
2005 CCMA Travel Management Plan.
On behalf of myself, BRC, and other access stakeholders, I thank
the subcommittee for allowing me to testify on this all too important
issue. I look forward to working with Congress and the agency to find a
way to reopen CCMA for OHV recreation and other multiple-use
activities. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions.
# # #
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E
Don Amador, 555 Honey Lane, Oakley, CA 94561--Phone: 925.625.6287,
Email: [email protected]
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Crimmins.
STATEMENT OF TOM CRIMMINS, LEAD SPOKESMAN, PROFESSIONALS FOR
MANAGED RECREATION
Mr. Crimmins. Chairman Bishop, Members of the Committee, my
name is Thomas Crimmins, and I am retired from the Forest
Service. I live in Hayden Lake, Idaho. And I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
offer my perspective on H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless
Area Release Act of 2011.'
I support the legislation, and I ask you to do the same.
The legislation would release all wilderness study areas
and inventoried roadless areas that have been evaluated, and
not recommended as suitable for wilderness, by the BLM and the
Forest Service. It will reduce restrictive management
practices, and direct that these areas be managed for multiple
uses, including recreation.
As it stands, the BLM currently restricts activity on
nearly seven million acres of WSAs, in spite of the fact that
the BLM itself has already determined that these areas are not
suitable for wilderness designation.
The situation for the Forest Service is even worse, as
access is restricted on over 36 million acres of IRAs that have
been deemed unsuitable for ultimate designation as wilderness.
I worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 32 years, from
1966 to 1998. And during my career I was involved with the
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation, the RARE process, on
several forests in California. Throughout the process, I and
other managers operated under the expectation that the areas
ultimately deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation would
be released.
This has not been the case. Instead, these areas continue
to be restricted, ostensibly to protect wilderness
characteristics of the area that have already been evaluated,
and found to be not suitable for wilderness. It doesn't make
sense.
I would like to provide a little background on my
experience that will shed some light on how we got here. From
1973 to 1977 I worked on the Mendocino National Forest, on the
Forest Planning Team. One of our tasks was to complete an
evaluation of the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area to determine if
it should be recommended for wilderness. The area had been
designated, under the RARE-1 process.
In 1977 the process, the report had been done, and was
ready to distribution, when we were told to hold the report
because we had to go back and determine if additional areas
should have been included in the analysis. This was the
beginning of RARE-2.
In 1977 I transferred to the Cannell Meadow Ranger District
on the Sequoia National Forest in California, as Resource
Officer. And I was included on a team that was tasked with
identifying possible areas that should be analyzed for new
wilderness consideration.
The direction came from the Forest Service headquarters
here in D.C. The intent of the process was to identify any and
all areas that could potentially be considered for wilderness
designation, and then, once and for all, make recommendations
for the areas that should be considered and recommended to
Congress, and the areas that should be managed for multiple
use. This would allow the Agency to move forward with its
mission to manage national forests.
We were asked to include any areas that did not have
evidence of past logging, and did not include roads that had
been constructed with mechanized equipment. As we worked on the
maps, we would identify potential areas, and where questions
existed, we would go into the field to identify the specific
boundaries. During these site visits, we would find areas that
we knew would not meet the criteria for wilderness, but that
did meet the criteria for evaluation, and we would include them
in the identified areas because subsequent analysis and
evaluation would ultimately resolve those issues.
Evaluations were completed, and the wilderness
recommendations were developed. Shortly thereafter, the whole
process was back in court.
During each iteration of forest planning, the Agency has
tried to placate the environmental community by identifying
more acreage for wilderness designation, and in each case they
failed to get the remaining areas released back into multiple-
use management. Each attempt has been met with litigation and
another round of rulemaking or analysis.
That is why I am here to support passage of H.R. 1581. The
bill will finally take the Agency back to where it should have
been at the completion of the RARE-2 analysis process. It will
allow the Forest Service to responsibly manage these lands that
did not, and do not, qualify for wilderness designation. It is
a bill whose time has come.
And thank you very much for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crimmins follows:]
Statement of Thomas Crimmins, Lead Spokesman,
Professionals for Managed Recreation
My name is Thomas Crimmins, I'm a retired Forest Service Official
and I live in Hayden Lake, ID. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to offer my perspective on H.R.
1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011.
In short, I support the legislation and ask you to do the same. The
legislation would release all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that have been evaluated and not
recommended as suitable for wilderness by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service. It will reduce restrictive management
practices and direct that these areas be managed for multiple use,
including recreation.
As is stands, the BLM currently restricts activity on nearly 7
million acres of WSAs despite the fact the BLM itself has already
determined these areas are not suitable for wilderness designation by
Congress. The situation with the Forest Service is even worse, as
access is restricted to over 36 million acres of IRAs that have been
deemed unsuitable for ultimate designation as wilderness.
I worked for the US Forest Service for 32 years from 1966 to 1998.
During my career, I was involved with the Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation (RARE) process on several forests in California. Throughout
the process, I and other managers operated under the expectation that
areas ultimately deemed as unsuitable for wilderness designation would
be released. This has not been the case. Instead access to these areas
continues to be restricted, ostensibly to protect the wilderness
characteristics of areas that have been evaluated by the respective
agency to be unsuitable for designation as wilderness. This doesn't
make sense.
I would like to provide a little background on my experiences that
will shed some light on how we got here.
From 1973 to 1977, I worked on the Mendocino National Forest on the
Forest Planning Team. One of our tasks was to complete an evaluation of
the Snow Mountain area to determine if it should be recommended for
Wilderness designation. This area had been identified during the RARE I
process. In 1977, the report had been completed and was ready for
distribution when we were told to hold the report because we had to go
back and determine if additional areas should have been included in the
analysis area. This was the beginning of the RARE II process.
In 1977, I transferred to the Cannell Meadow Ranger District on the
Sequoia National Forest. As a Resource Officer, I was included on a
team that was tasked with identifying possible new areas that should be
analyzed for Wilderness consideration.
The direction for the process came from Forest Service headquarters
here in D.C. The intent of the process was to identify any and all
areas that could potentially be considered for Wilderness designation
and then, once and for all, make recommendations for areas that should
be considered for Wilderness designations and areas that should be
managed for multiple use. This would allow the agency to move forward
with its mission to manage the National Forests.
We were asked to include any area that did not have evidence of
past logging activities and did not include any roads constructed with
mechanized equipment. As we worked on the maps we would identify
potential areas and where questions existed we would go into the field
to identify the specific boundaries. During these site visits we would
find areas that we knew would not meet the criteria for Wilderness but
that did meet the criteria for evaluation and we would include them in
the identified area because the subsequent evaluation would ultimately
resolve the issues. The evaluations were completed and Wilderness
recommendations were developed. Shortly thereafter, the whole process
was back in court.
In 1984, Congress was considering the California Wilderness Act.
During that process, Senator Cranston had supported a specific acreage
for designation which was more than recommended by the Forest Service
and Representative Bill Thomas from the Bakersfield area was
recommending designation of significantly less acreage. The final
compromise that moved forward was halfway between the two proposals and
included areas that did not meet Wilderness criteria.
When the bill was ultimately enacted into law, we went out and
closed gates on roads and posted Domeland Wilderness boundaries on
areas that had been used for years for dispersed camping with campers
and motorhomes because their use had occurred on roads that had never
been constructed with mechanized equipment but the areas had been
included in the analysis process. In addition to Wilderness
designation, the Act identified several areas for further planning or
special consideration. While not exactly what we had envisioned, the
final Act seemed to be reasonable, particularly since it included the
following release language for the remaining areas:
Section 111(a)(4) areas in the State of California reviewed in
such final environmental statement or referenced in subsection
(d) and not designated as wilderness or planning areas by this
title or remaining in further planning as referenced m [sic]
subsection (e) upon enactment of this title shall be managed
for multiple use in accordance with land management plans
pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act of 1976: Provided, That such areas need
not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability
for wilderness designation prior to or during revision of the
land management plans;
We believed that we would now have the ability to move forward with
management of the remaining areas. But, it was not to be.
Almost before the ink dried on the President's signature, several
environmental organizations challenged the Forest Service on the
management of the released areas and the agency agreed to complete an
Environmental Impact Statement before any management entries would be
made into these areas. Thus, the agency returned to the ``analysis
paralysis'' that exists today. To avoid extra work and conflict
associated with management of the ``roadless areas'' the agency simply
tried to manage around them until Forest Planning and the accompanying
EIS were completed.
During each iteration of Forest Planning the agency has tried to
placate the environmental community by identifying more acreage for
wilderness designation and in each case, they have failed to get the
remaining areas released back into multiple use management. Each
attempt has been met with litigation and another round of analysis or
rulemaking.
That is why I am here to support passage of H.R. 1581. This bill
will finally take the agency to where it should have been with the
completion of the RARE II analysis process. It will allow the Forest
Service to responsibly manage these lands that did not and do not
qualify for Wilderness designation. It is a bill whose time has come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and I would be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Bacon.
STATEMENT OF SUTTON BACON, CEO,
NANTAHALA OUTDOOR CENTER
Mr. Bacon. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sutton
Bacon; I live in Asheville, North Carolina, and I am the CEO of
the Nantahala Outdoor Center.
I wanted to discuss with you three primary topics. First,
how my company and companies like mine are using human-powered
outdoor recreational and Federal lands as a catalyst for rural
economic development.
Second, how my guests seek and demand access to a full
spectrum of recreational opportunities on public lands and
waters.
And third, the importance of public-land stewardship to our
local and national outdoor recreation economy.
My company was founded in 1972. We are located in the
mountains of western North Carolina, in Swain County. We have
grown into one of the largest outdoor recreation companies in
the country. We offer over 120 river-and land-based outdoor
activities, including whitewater rafting, kayaking, hiking,
biking, and fishing.
We receive 500,000 visitors per year, and we take over
100,000 children from varied backgrounds on outdoor experiences
each year. On an annual basis, NOC guests paddle enough river
miles on Federal lands for 39 trips around the world, or two
trips to the moon and back.
Our local economy in western North Carolina continues to
suffer from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs. Swain
County suffers from one of the highest unemployment rates in
the State of North Carolina, at 18 percent, and an equally
disturbing rate of poverty, also at 18 percent. Twenty percent
of our residents face food insecurity. In other words, not
knowing where their next meal would come from.
Furthermore, approximately 88 percent of Swain County is
Federally owned, such as the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park and the Nantahala National Forest.
Some might say that our current economic situation is
exacerbated by these large Federal land holdings, which
diminish our tax base. However, nothing could be further from
the truth.
In fact, public lands and waters in our region are a
pathway to a growing and sustainable prosperity, a type of
prosperity that cannot be outsourced overseas, and is rooted in
the value of experiencing these places directly.
Whereas extraction and manufacturing industries have come
and gone, human-powered outdoor tourism is becoming the
backbone of our region's future. A recent study conducted by
Western Carolina University estimated the local economic impact
of NOC, an outfitting community on the Nantahala, to be $85
million per year. In 2010, NOC directly employed 816 people,
and created 81 new jobs. These jobs, created by our natural
resources to provide experience, rather than extraction, cannot
be outsourced. As long as the health and integrity of our
public lands and waters are maintained, these jobs will never
go away.
Our guests travel from all over the world to experience the
mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct and meaningful way.
Our guests are actively looking for a wide spectrum of
opportunities and experiences on public lands. The wealth of
natural resources in our region allows NOC to provide the full
spectrum of sustainable recreation opportunities, from relaxed,
family oriented float trips on the Nantahala, to world-class
whitewater on the Ocoee, to Georgia and South Carolina's wild
and scenic Chattooga River.
Especially in rural areas like western North Carolina,
America's $730 billion active outdoor recreation economy is
becoming an increasingly strong and vital part of our economy.
In North Carolina alone, the recreation economy contributes
$7.5 billion of economic impact, supports 95,000 jobs, and
generates $430 million in annual sales tax revenue.
That economy depends on a balanced approach to our public
lands. We must maintain the integrity, protection, and
stewardship of our natural resources, as well as fundamental
recreation infrastructure, parks, trails, open spaces, both
remote and close to home.
Whereas some public lands should be developed in the
traditional manner, this development should not, and must not,
occur everywhere. It is our responsibility, with the leadership
of Congress and this Subcommittee, to foster that spectrum of
opportunities, services, and experiences on Federal lands and
water. It is our responsibility to work with Federal land
managers to provide these opportunities in a sustainable manner
that ensures sustainable biodiversity, habitat, extractive
resources, as well as the recreational use which supports
significant rural recreation economies like ours.
This responsibility is fraught with challenge. Indeed, we
know our forests face tremendous threats from sprawl and
development, pressure from future water, energy, and resource
extractions, and the demand of multiple-use management and
competing priorities.
However, I believe that we can, if we are mindful, find a
sustainable path forward. Because in these tough times,
Americans, both children and adults, need the physical,
emotional, and psychological benefits that outdoor recreation
provides more than ever.
During NOC's last 40 years, wherever there has been
economic uncertainty, our guest numbers have always increased,
affirming the importance of outdoor recreation during difficult
times.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:]
Statement of Sutton Bacon, Chief Executive Officer,
Nantahala Outdoor Center, Inc., Bryson City, North Carolina
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Sutton Bacon and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the
Nantahala Outdoor Center. Established in 1972, the NOC is an employee-
owned outdoor recreation company located at the intersection of the
Appalachian Trail and the Nantahala River in Swain County, North
Carolina. Originally a roadside inn, the company has evolved into one
of the largest outdoor recreation companies in the nation and is one of
Western North Carolina's largest employers.
Over 500,000 guests visit NOC annually to embark on a diverse
collection of over 120 different river and land-based itineraries
predominantly on public lands, learn to kayak at NOC's world-renowned
Paddling School, travel abroad to foreign countries with NOC's
Adventure Travel program, shop at one of our flagship retail stores, or
enjoy NOC's resort amenities including our three restaurants and multi-
tiered lodging. Each year, NOC guests paddle over one million river
miles, enough for two voyages to the moon and back.
NOC has recently been recognized as ``The Nation's Premier Paddling
School'' by The New York Times, ``Best Place to Learn'' by Outside
Magazine, and as ``One of the Best Outfitters on Earth'' by National
Geographic ADVENTURE. In addition, 22 Olympians including two Gold
Medalists have called NOC home.
Through our programming, we strive to educate and engage adventure-
seekers through dynamic, world-class instruction and tours on some of
the world's most beautiful whitewater rivers and landscapes. We are
committed to sharing our passion for the outdoors and our penchant for
exploration with our guests. Our employees share a common vision of
keeping NOC a dynamic, enjoyable, and successful place to work and of
participating actively, considerately, and sustainably in the
communities in which we operate. We firmly believe in the triple bottom
line of people, planet, and profits.
Rural Economic Development
The economy in our region of Southwestern North Carolina continues
to suffer from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs to
international outsourcing, as textile, garment, and furniture plants
continue to close. Swain County suffers from one of the highest
unemployment rates in North Carolina (18.1%) and an equally-disturbing
rate of poverty (18.3%). A recent study indicated that 19.9% of Swain
residents faced ``food insecurity,'' in other words, not knowing from
where their next meal would come. Approximately 88% of Swain County is
federally-owned, such as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and
the Nantahala National Forest. Some might say that our current economic
situation is exacerbated by these large federal land holdings
diminishing our tax base. However, nothing could be further from the
truth. In fact, the public lands and waters in our region are the
pathway to a growing and sustainable prosperity--a type of prosperity
that cannot be outsourced overseas and is rooted in the value of
experiencing these places directly.
Whereas extraction and manufacturing industries have come and gone,
our public lands boast a wealth of waterways, trails, and recreation
areas, making Swain County a popular destination for outdoor
enthusiasts. In fact, while our local manufacturing base continues to
contract, the region's outdoor-based tourism economy has seen
exponential growth, as has interest in tourism re-development, the
enhancement of existing public-private tourism product, and the
utilization of tourism-related natural resources in an environmentally-
sensitive manner. Human-powered outdoor tourism is the backbone of our
future.
A study was recently conducted by researchers at Western Carolina
University to provide estimates of the economic impact of the Nantahala
Outdoor Center and outfitting activity on the Nantahala River on the
surrounding eight westernmost counties in North Carolina. The direct
impact of payroll expenditures, other operating expenditures, capital
expenditures and attendee spending was determined to be $61,918,474.
The indirect and induced effects of payroll expenditures, other
operating expenditures, capital expenditures and attendee spending were
determined to be $11,415,792 and $12,052,223, respectively. As a
result, whitewater recreation on the Nantahala annually contributes a
total of $85,386,489 to the local economy. It also represents a total
of 1,061 jobs. Furthermore, the researchers opined:
The Nantahala Outdoor Center has a substantial and valuable
effect on the surrounding Carolina Smokies region. This study
is specifically designed to quantify the tangible impact of the
Nantahala Outdoor Center on the region in terms of dollars and
cents. However, NOC also provides intangible benefits to the
community that are essential to regional community development.
For example, the Nantahala Outdoor Center contributes to the
cultural life and reputation of the region as a tourism
destination. These contributions reinforce the attractiveness
of the region as a family-friendly tourism locale.
In a time filled with such economic uncertainty nationwide, instead
of hunkering down, NOC has been boldly embarking on a number of new
initiatives we firmly believe will transform our company, all
reinforcing our outfitting operations on federal lands. For example, at
the height of the recession, NOC opened an 18,000 sq. ft. LEED-
certified flagship retail store and adventure center at the entrance to
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Gatlinburg in order to
promote NOC's human-powered recreational activities in the park. We
will soon be opening a similar LEED-certified activity concierge
concept in Asheville for activities in the Pisgah and Nantahala
National Forests. To support both initiatives, we have launched a host
of new excursions across multiple outdoor disciplines--including
paddling, fishing, and hiking--all permitted on federal lands.
As a result of these and other business expansion initiatives, NOC
has created 81 new full and part-time jobs during 2009 and 2010 with
plans to increase employment again in 2011.
None of this economic and civic revitalization would happen without
our cherished public lands and waters. Our guests travel from all over
the world to experience our mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct
and meaningful way. The jobs created by using our natural resources to
provide experience rather than extraction cannot be outsourced. As long
as the health and integrity of our lands and waters are maintained,
these jobs will never go away.
Youth Outreach in the Context of Job Creation
As Richard Louv writes in his book, Last Child in the Woods:
``Developers and environmentalists, corporate CEOs and college
professors, rock stars and ranchers may agree on little else, but they
agree on this: no one among us wants to be a member of the last
generation to pass on to its children the joy of playing outside in
nature.''
I was first introduced to the outdoors at summer camp in Western
North Carolina, growing up paddling on its many rivers and streams as a
young boy. I can personally attest to the value of being introduced to
the outdoors as a child, which has led to a lifelong passion for nature
and genuine passion for curing ``nature deficit disorder'' in today's
youth. I applaud President Obama, Interior Secretary Salazar,
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, and the federal government's efforts to
promote enhanced opportunities for wilderness and outdoor experiences
for our country's youth, in part, to help combat ``nature-deficit
disorder'' and the childhood obesity epidemic that our nation faces.
However, the success of these initiatives is wholly dependent on
linking them to job creation and economic development.
The Nantahala Outdoor Center has long created a sustainable
business and job growth model around delivering affordable and healthy
outdoor experiences to youth and underprivileged populations. NOC takes
over 100,000 children under the age of 18 on outdoor excursions each
year, which, for comparison, is more than NOLS and Outward Bound
combined. We supply these children with environmentally-enlightening
and life-altering outdoor experiences on public lands.
Providing outfitting services for youth and underserved populations
requires specific skills and exceptionally high levels of training. For
example, one of our most popular programs is a collaboration with the
``Adventure Amputee Camp,'' which invites disabled children from a wide
geographical area to participate in rafting, kayaking, and other group
initiatives such as a high ropes course. The guides dedicated to this
program are our most-trained guides and are considered leaders in
innovative activities for children with disabilities.
Programs like this and many others collectively serve as a business
case that small companies across the country can capitalize on youth
development initiatives, change lives, and make a difference for our
two most precious resources--children and the environment--all while
fostering economic growth and job opportunities
Economy and Public Lands Stewardship Intertwined
America's outdoor recreation economy is an increasingly strong and
vital part of our nation's economy, especially in rural areas like
Western North Carolina that are blessed with healthy public lands. The
Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), a national outdoor industry trade
association upon whose board I sit, completed the outdoor industry's
first study quantifying the contribution of active outdoor recreation
to the nation's economy. The study indicated that active outdoor
recreation and our outdoor industry contribute $730 billion annually to
the United States economy and support nearly 6.5 million jobs across
the country. North Carolina's share of this economic impact is
substantial. Active outdoor recreation contributes more than $7.5
billion to North Carolina's economy, supports 95,000 jobs and generates
$430 million in annual sales tax revenue.
The nation's outdoor recreation economy depends primarily on the
integrity, protection and stewardship of our natural resources, but it
also depends on fundamental recreational infrastructure, including
parks, trails and open spaces necessary to enjoy places both remote and
close to home. As a businessman, I know it would not be possible for
NOC to exist without the dramatic land conservation efforts that
designated the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, which recently
celebrated their 100th birthday. Back then, Western North Carolina's
forests had been devastated by timber operations that left much of the
land clear-cut and burned. The Forest Service has resuscitated the
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests by replanting forests, restoring
watersheds, and creating campgrounds, trails, and access areas. Today,
Western North Carolina enjoys 1.1 million acres of national forest
land, with 178,000 acres identified as roadless. Over 10 million
visitors visit our region annually because of our natural resources
with the intent to experience them in their natural settings.
As you can see, we have had quite an evolution here in Western
North Carolina. At first, we leaned heavily on our natural resources to
drive our industrial economy. Previous generations used the resources
from our forests, rivers, and mountains to build and power homes,
farms, and factories. We created a tremendous amount of wealth and
benefit to the nation. Thankfully, we also had the subsequent wisdom
and vision to nurture these places back to health and maintain a
balanced approach to our public lands. It took a very long time to get
simply where we are today, and I acknowledge that it very much is still
a journey and not a destination. I believe it is our responsibility,
with the leadership of Congress and this Subcommittee, to maintain this
balanced approach into the future.
This responsibility is fraught with challenge. Indeed, the
Nantahala National Forest faces enormous threats from sprawl and
development, given the intensity of second-home development in our
region. Our forests may face pressure from future water, energy, and
resource extraction to fuel the growth of nearby metropolises like
Atlanta and Charlotte. Because our public lands are managed for
multiple uses, I believe that we can, if we are mindful, find a
sustainable path forward. Whereas some public land should be developed
in a traditional manner, this development should not and must not occur
everywhere.
Through the wealth of public lands and waters in Western North
Carolina, NOC is able to provide a spectrum of recreational
opportunities, from world-class extreme whitewater rivers to relaxed,
family-oriented float trips to wilderness-oriented wild and scenic. In
all cases, a pristine, natural setting is the main attraction. Swain
County, and particularly NOC, needs open space, healthy forests,
mountain ecosystems and free-flowing rivers if it is going to have an
economy that will continue to grow and thrive.
The wide diversity of NOC's trip portfolio indicates that indeed
our guests are actively looking for a wide spectrum of opportunities
and experiences on public lands, conducted in a variety of settings,
from river trips to hiking to biking. The goal of this subcommittee
should be to foster that spectrum of opportunities, services, and
experiences on federal lands and waters while providing them in a
sustainable manner that recognizes, nurtures, and supports regional and
national recreation economies.
To this end, the outstanding recreational values of some of our
most prized river and trails, wilderness areas, and wild and scenic
rivers--the very foundation of the recreation economy described above--
must not only be protected through thoughtful legislation and careful
management (including, for example, forest planning and travel
management) but also be supported by the necessary funding to the
federal land management agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture
and Department of Interior, so the vitality of the active outdoor
recreation economy can continue here in North Carolina and across the
nation.
Conclusion
In these trying economic times, Americans need more than ever the
physical, emotional, and psychological benefits that human-powered
outdoor recreation provides. Another OIA research project showed that
80% of Americans feel that they are happier, have better family
relationships and less stress in their lives when they engage in
outdoor recreation. Anecdotally, during the recession, we have seen
more hikers pass through NOC on the Appalachian Trail than we have in
years.
Our own internal research over the last 40 years indicates whenever
there is economic uncertainty or a precipitous rise in gas prices, our
guest numbers increase. This affirms the importance of human-powered
outdoor recreation during difficult times. We take this charge
seriously and appreciate our guests' confidence in our ability to
deliver these authentic outdoor experiences.
Similarly, I truly appreciate this invitation to speak with you
today. Thank you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I thank the three of you for your
testimony that you have given to us, both oral and written. We
have a few questions.
Mr. Garamendi, I will let you go first, if you would like.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bacon, thank you
for your testimony. I have had the pleasure of rafting on one
or more of those rivers, and it is extraordinary to have those
facilities available. And your recitation of the economic
impact of I believe human-powered recreation?
Mr. Bacon. Correct.
Mr. Garamendi. So, not including in that economic analysis,
the motorized, is that correct?
Mr. Bacon. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. So stacked up against the motorized, we
have another part of the recreational community, and it needs
to be addressed.
Mr. Amador, I will note that the EPA, when did the EPA shut
down that facility in San Benito County?
Mr. Amador. That was May 1, 2008, BLM issued an emergency
closure order and closed it to all users, even the gem and
mineral collectors that had small businesses there.
Mr. Garamendi. And the reason was fear over asbestos?
Mr. Amador. Yes, fear. Even though to date, there hasn't
been one documented case of death from exposure to naturally
occurring asbestos in a recreational capacity anywhere in
California.
Mr. Garamendi. But we do know that large portions of
California do have naturally occurring asbestos.
Mr. Amador. That is correct, 43 counties.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes. So it was the concern about that that
shut it down. You now have studies available that indicate that
it may not be a problem, is that correct?
Mr. Amador. Yes. California State Parks did commission a
study, and it is a minute risk.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. And I notice that was March 22.
Mr. Amador. Correct.
Mr. Garamendi. Less than three months ago.
Mr. Amador. Correct.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. And what is the status today?
Mr. Amador. Well, the status is the area is still closed,
under emergency closure order. And it is my concern that the
BLM has shown no inclination to incorporate that new science
into their decision-making process.
Mr. Garamendi. And what have you done with BLM?
Mr. Amador. Well, besides submitting comments, there was
actually an OHV Commission hearing a month or so ago in
Hollister. And the topic of the study was introduced to BLM.
And at that time they still showed no inclination to recognize
it or adopt it into their work.
Mr. Garamendi. I would just make a comment here briefly on
that, that I really think the BLM did the right thing. When
faced with a potential public hazard, they did the right thing
to shut it down, and then to proceed with caution. And I
suspect that, given the studies and your own intense interest,
that they may be considering this, and formal hearings are
likely to take place to determine the appropriateness of
reopening.
With regard to the issue of study areas that Mr. Crimmins,
you raised, in 1977 the population of California was one half
what it is today. And the pressures on those areas are
significantly greater, is that the case?
Mr. Crimmins. Yes, there are significantly greater
pressure. But through careful management, it can, that pressure
can be taken care of and alleviated. The ethical thing is to
direct people where they need to go.
Mr. Garamendi. And over that period of time, the budget for
the U.S. Forest Service, per capita, and the pressures has
significantly diminished. Is that also the case?
Mr. Crimmins. That is also true. When I retired, from then
until now, the budget has gotten significantly worse. We were
talking about bad budgets and how bad the budgets were when I
was working. When I was there, it was a priority problem, in my
opinion--it was not a budget problem. Things have changed.
Mr. Garamendi. I guess this is the point, to my colleague
here, Mr. Bishop, and to his caucus. These problems that we
have heard about today require extensive work on the part of
the Federal agencies. It is very expensive. These studies have
to be made in order to protect the resources. And without the
appropriate funding, these issues cannot be resolved.
And it seems to me extremely important that we recognize
the financial strain that we are putting on all of the public
land management organizations in their effort, and in the
necessity that they have to sort out these conflicting,
sometimes conflicting, but not always conflicting, resource-use
issues.
And the budget issue is a paramount importance, and one of
the fundamental underlying problems here. With that, I will
yield back my five seconds.
Mr. Bishop. You will get another shot at it, too. Can I ask
a couple of questions of you, as well? Let me start with you,
Mr. Crimmins, I appreciate it.
Can you spend like 10 seconds just to tell me a little bit
about the Professionals for Managed Recreation? Its members?
Mr. Crimmins. Professionals for Managed Recreation are
generally retired Agency personnel that have been involved in a
variety of recreation management. They support responsible
motorized recreation, as well as other recreation activities.
But they have had experience in the field, and they have
been involved with that.
Mr. Bishop. We often hear claims that OHV is bad for public
lands. In your 30 years of experience, what have you learned
about the values of providing for a managed OHV opportunity on
forest lands?
Mr. Crimmins. Managed opportunities can be managed. In
fact, I have written a book that talks about the guidelines and
principles for management. And off-highway use can be managed,
but it has to be managed.
When we look at most of the problems--and I am being called
in the field as a consultant a number of times to look at
things. And usually when I find a problem, it is a management
problem, to start with.
Mr. Bishop. You indicated your support for H.R. 1581, based
on your years as a former Forest Service employee. What do you
think happens to BLM, for that matter, to your agency and BLM,
if Congress doesn't pass the legislation?
Mr. Crimmins. Once again, we are going to be back in that
paralysis-analysis situation. And my experience has shown that
the Agency generally tries to manage around those kinds of
areas. They just don't deal with it, because of too much
conflict, and they are going to continue that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I will come back, hopefully,
again before I run out. Since I am the last one here I can go
forever, can't I?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Amador, let me ask you something.
Mr. Amador. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Do you feel that the BLM has embarked on a
campaign to make Hollister Field Office an OHV-free zone?
Mr. Amador. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. What other opportunities for OHV are there in
the area?
Mr. Amador. None. In fact, within the entire Hollister
Field Office has wiped off OHV symbols from their web site.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that the Forest Service in
California Region V has taken a position which prohibits local
forests from designating old logging roads for use as OHVs? I
think there are thousands of miles of dirt roads in rural
California that have been closed to motorized use.
Has the region ever given a substantial justification for
actually doing that?
Mr. Amador. No.
Mr. Bishop. Good answer, all right. Let me give you two
more quick ones if I can here. I saw in your testimony where
the BLM, in the Samoa Dunes near Eureka, California, in the
Redlands National Park, simply posts warning signs to caution
users about life-threatening conditions. Did you ask Hollister
Field Office why he didn't review other options or review such
options before closing Clear Creek to all users?
Mr. Amador. Yes. On several occasions, I asked the field
manager why he did not review other options that would have
allowed Clear Creek to stay open. And they simply replied by
saying I chose not to.
Mr. Bishop. That is an amazing answer. And I apologize for
using my Utah accent, calling it crick.
Mr. Amador. That is OK, I do it too. I am from Humboldt
County.
Mr. Bishop. OK, we are cricks.
Mr. Amador. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you one more? Was the BLM aware,
well, are you aware of any documented cases of mesothelioma
caused by recreational exposure to naturally occurring asbestos
in California? Are there any cases?
Mr. Amador. Not a single case.
Mr. Bishop. If there are none, and this is unfair, but give
me a rough estimate of why do you think they still closed the
unit?
Mr. Amador. I believe it was based on a political and
personal agenda of the Hollister Field Office.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Crimmins, if I can ask you maybe
another question. I find it interesting that it was your
expectation as to the wilderness study area's inventoried
roadless areas that were deemed not suitable for wilderness
designation would be released from management for multiple
purpose use.
Would you say that other land managers at the time felt the
same way as you did?
Mr. Crimmins. Absolutely. In fact, many of our discussions
in the field, we were in the position of saying well, do we put
it in or do we put it out, or do we leave it out. It may meet
it, but we actually put it in, to make sure that we would go
through the analysis process and then get everything done, and
release what was left.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bacon, I can't let you go that easily. It
is like from Central Casting.
What percentage of North Carolina is Federal land?
Mr. Bacon. I don't know the answer to that specifically.
Mr. Bishop. So if I gave you 7 percent, would you believe
it?
Mr. Bacon. I would.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, 2500 acres. And do you compare that to my
state, which is 67 percent Federal land?
I am an old school teacher, so I am simply going to come
back to the premise of what you were giving. Do you have any
clue on why, if you take the 13 states that have the hardest
time funding their education system, and you put them against a
map of public land states, they are the same states? North
Carolina ain't in that mix. Utah is, Nevada is. Do you have any
idea of why that works out that way?
Mr. Bacon. I would suspect because of the tax base.
Mr. Bishop. That is a big part of it. We have to sit down;
I won't go into the recapture concept here.
Let me ask one last question, Mr. Amador, and then I will
answer my own question. Mr. Amador, have you met with any other
Members from the other side of the aisle to try and get
bipartisan legislation that you reference in your testimony, to
designate Clear Creek as multi-use?
Mr. Amador. Yes, I and a number of OHV groups have met with
Congressman Jim Costa personally and his staff, along with
staff from Senator Dianne Feinstein's office, on several
occasions, as well as their staff attending public meetings.
And also other OHV groups have met with Congressman Sam Farr.
Mr. Bishop. And their response?
Mr. Amador. Congressman Jim Costa has indicated he would be
willing to work with this Committee to maybe find a solution.
Mr. Bishop. Good, we will follow up with him on that.
Mr. Amador. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all three of you for being here.
Just to answer my last question, when I said what was Gifford
Pinchot talking about.
He made it very clear when he was talking about greatest
good for the greatest number, and actually having a national
forest system, it wasn't for the scenic beauty, and it wasn't
for the critters, as he said it. It was for having affordable
homes. We have changed slightly over the years.
I appreciate the three of you being here very much. I
appreciate the colleagues who have been here for it. Thank you
for your testimony. I ask unanimous consent to put two
insertions into the record--one from the American Motorcyclists
Association and one from the State of California Natural
Resources Agency.
If there are no other questions, we are adjourned. Thank
you so much for your time and effort in being here.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee hearing was
adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
The documents listed below were submitted for the record
and have been retained in the Committee's official files.
Amador, Don, Blue Ribbon Coalition
Exhibits A-E showing concerns regarding the closure of
Clear Creek Management Area
Photo showing Clear Creek Management Area
Photo showing closure of Clear Creek Management Area
Photo showing destruction of facilities at Clear Creek
Management Area
Photo showing Samoa Dunes Management Area
American Motorcyclist Association, Letter to Subcommittee
Chairman and Ranking Member
Jones, Scott, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition,
``Economic Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado''
Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, Letter
to Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member Grijalva
Umphress, Karen, Coalition of Recreational Trails Users
and Minnesota Motorized Trail Coalition
Chart highlighting trail designation in Minnesota titled
``Final Route Designation--58 State Forests''
``Trail Use/Impact Studies'' of recreation on Minnesota
Trails
Rochester Post Bulletin, August 2006, Article highlighting
professional races at Spring Creek Track
University of Minnesota Tourism Center, ``All-Terrain
Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic impact and consumer profile''