    [Senate Hearing 116-290]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-290

                        OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ACCESS,
                         INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PERMITTING
                             FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 14, 2019

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                             ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-559               WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
                    Annie Hoefler, Professional Staff Member
                    Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Kirkwood, Daniel, General Manager, Pack Creek Bear Tours, and Co-
      Chair, Visitor Products Cluster Working Group, Juneau Economic
      Development Council............................................     5
    Lusk, Jeffrey Todd, Executive Director, Hatfield McCoy Regional
      Recreation Authority...........................................    11
    Fosburgh, Whit, President and Chief Executive Officer, Theodore
      Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.............................    17
    O'Keefe, Dr. Thomas C., Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director,
      American Whitewater............................................    33
    Mitchell, Sandra F., Public Lands Director, Idaho State
      Snowmobile Association, and Executive Director, Idaho
      Recreation Council.............................................    44

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Access Fund:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    84
    Allen, Jim, Mary and Jessie:
        Letter for the Record........................................    92
    (The) American Alpine Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    American Alpine Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    99
    American Mountain Guides Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   101
    Coalition for Outdoor Access:
        Letter for the Record........................................   106
    Fosburgh, Whit:
        Opening Statement............................................    17
        Report by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
          titled ``Off Limits, But Within Reach''....................    18
        Written Testimony............................................    29
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    77
    Kirkwood, Daniel:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    74
    Lusk, Jeffrey Todd:
        Opening Statement............................................    11
        Written Testimony............................................    13
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    75
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Mitchell, Sandra F.:
        Opening Statement............................................    44
        Written Testimony............................................    46
        Region 1 Types of Wilderness.................................    49
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    81
    (The) Mountaineers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   109
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Marine Manufacturers Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   112
    National Outdoor Leadership School:
        Letter for the Record........................................   115
    O'Keefe, Dr. Thomas C.:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    35
    Outdoor Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   118
    Outdoor Industry Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   125
    Outdoor Recreation Roundtable:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   129
    People for Bikes:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   134
    Recreation Equipment, Inc. (REI Co-op):
        Statement for the Record.....................................   137
    River Runners for Wilderness:
        Letter for the Record........................................   139
    Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative:
        Letter for the Record........................................   145
    Winter Wildlands Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   149
    Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   154

                        OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ACCESS,

                         INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PERMITTING

                             FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are here today to focus on recreation on our nation's
    incredible public lands. This is a fun topic, one that should
    allow us to cover some things that we all enjoy, everything
    from guided bear hunts to four-wheeling to rock climbing.
        In terms of timing, I don't think we could have timed this
    one any better. Just two days ago the Senate was able to work
    with the House, and the President on Tuesday signed our
    bipartisan lands package into law, marking the end of years-
    long efforts.
        Again, I thank and acknowledge the great work of the
    Committee, certainly the strong support and assistance from
    Senator Cantwell, to get us there, and Senator Manchin, but
    really, Senator Heinrich, so many who were up to their eyeballs
    in the discussions, the negotiations and the assists, are so
    greatly, greatly appreciated.
        The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
    Recreation Act is now law and, as its name suggests, it does
    promote recreation.
        One of the most significant provisions for that purpose is
    the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). That provides a minimum of 40 percent
    to the state-side program and requires that at least 3 percent
    of funding, or $15 million, whichever is greater, be used to
    increase recreational public access.
        Our lands package also ensures that BLM and Forest Service
    lands are ``open'' unless specifically ``closed'' to hunting,
    fishing, and recreational shooting. This is something that I
    worked on, that Senator Heinrich worked on, with the sportsmen
    and sportswomen for really, almost a decade. It has been a
    long, long time.
        Our lands package also protects some of our most treasured
    landscapes and waterways across the West for future generations
    of recreationists to enjoy.
        Again, I would like to thank President Trump for signing
    our bill, and I thank all of the members and the staff from
    both sides of the aisle in both chambers for their hard work to
    make sure it reached the finish line.
        Senator Daines, you have just come in, but I have been
    acknowledging the good work of so many. The work that you and
    Senator Gardner did on our side to help, again, shepherd it, it
    was greatly, greatly appreciated.
        The lands package is a victory for all of us, and I think
    it is a victory for the country. But we also recognize that
    there is more work to be done, which is why we are here today
    to focus on opportunities to improve access, infrastructure,
    and permitting for outdoor recreation.
        We are seeing more and more folks who just want to be
    outside. They want to be active in our national parks. They
    want to be out there in our forests, in our refuges, and on our
    BLM lands. And that is all great.
        We certainly know firsthand in Alaska how recreating on
    public lands, including our state lands, can enhance
    communities and foster economic development in rural areas.
        If colleagues have not looked at the committee background
    memo that outlines the significant economic impact that we have
    from this industry and the opportunities that then come to us,
    the Outdoor Recreational Satellite Account, the economic
    analysis from the Bureau there, shows that in 2016 outdoor
    recreation generated $412 billion, accounted for 2.2 percent of
    the U.S. GDP, and grew at a rate of 1.7 percent. Those are real
    numbers. Those are real economic benefits, particularly into
    some of our smaller and more remote areas.
        But as the number of visitors increases, the strain is also
    visible on our trail systems, on our roads, our campgrounds,
    and even our bathrooms. The maintenance backlog on our public
    lands is significant, totaling about $21.5 billion across
    Interior and Forest Service lands.
        Competing land designations make it difficult to provide
    adequate access for motorized and non-motorized recreation.
        Another matter we hear a lot about is that special
    recreation permits are taking way too long to be processed. We
    had a situation in the Chugach National Forest, there was a
    guide who wanted to offer an opportunity for people to go ice
    fishing. So this is a pretty low-key operation. He was told
    that there was a moratorium on permit applications and to check
    back in seven years. Seven years for a permit to take folks ice
    fishing. That is unacceptable.
        Rather than encouraging individuals and small businesses to
    use our lands, federal bureaucracy and a lack of resources and
    capacity are oftentimes making it difficult to respond to the
    increasing and diverse needs of recreationists and to provide
    that quality visitor experience.
        What I hope we will accomplish today is to hear from those
    on the ground who have encountered these issues. I want to
    start identifying the fixes that can be implemented, whether it
    is through administrative action or through legislation, to
    ensure that federal lands are open for these incredible
    recreational experiences and continue to be a source of
    economic prosperity.
        I am pleased to be able to welcome Mr. Dan Kirkwood. He is
    Co-Chair of the Visitor Products Cluster Working Group at the
    Juneau Economic Development Council. He is going to speak about
    the tourism that we are seeing in Southeast Alaska and really
    how tourism is impacting the local economy and the
    infrastructure there in the Tongass National Forest. So we
    welcome you to the Committee. Thank you for making the long
    trip back.
        We also have Mr. Whit Fosburgh, who is President and CEO of
    the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Mr. Thomas
    O'Keefe, who is the Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director for
    American Whitewater; Mr. Jeffrey Lusk, who is the Executive
    Director of the Hatfield McCoy Regional Recreation Authority in
    West Virginia; and Ms. Sandra Mitchell, who is representing
    both the Idaho State Snowmobile Association and the Idaho
    Recreational Council.
        So a good panel for discussion here this morning. We thank
    you all for being here. I will now turn to Senator Manchin for
    his opening comments.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, especially for
    holding this hearing today and prioritizing the topic on the
    Committee's agenda.
        Outdoor recreation is a rapidly growing sector of our
    nation's economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
    the recreation economy contributes 2.2 percent of the U.S. GDP
    and supports millions of jobs across the country which is
    particularly important to the economies of rural states like
    mine, of West Virginia, and yours, of Alaska.
        In my home State, we boast wild and wonderful public lands
    and natural resources that bring tourists from around the world
    to enjoy the beauty that West Virginia has to offer--whether
    they be sportsmen, whitewater rafters, boaters, kayakers,
    hikers or climbers. These guests contribute $9 billion a year
    to the state in outdoor recreation in West Virginia.
        Our state is truly a hub for recreation with Canaan
    National Wildlife Refuge, the New River Gorge National River,
    Dolly Sods in the Monongahela National Forest, and so many more
    beautiful sites truly making West Virginia almost heaven.
        I am particularly excited about this hearing today, because
    this Committee is serious about outdoor recreation. I am
    committed to working with Chairman Murkowski and both of our
    staffs to promote, protect, and enhance all forms of recreation
    in our country.
        I know there are numerous members of the Committee,
    especially my good friend, Senator Wyden, who has spent a lot
    of time examining what Congress can do to improve the
    opportunities we have around outdoor recreation.
        As a former Governor of my state, I know the important role
    of the outdoor economy in West Virginia. These activities can
    inject new opportunity in areas with high unemployment and
    depleted tax bases, providing a pathway to diversify economies
    and build economic resilience.
        My colleagues on this Committee have heard me say it many
    times, but West Virginia needs economic development
    opportunities. And I believe the outdoor recreation sector
    offers us more of those and a better chance to survive.
        I am excited that Mr. Lusk, my good friend, Jeff, has
    agreed to join us today to tell us about the 200 jobs his
    organization has helped to create in rural southern West
    Virginia. I have seen it since its infancy and where it has
    grown to.
        The Hatfield McCoy Trail System is now bringing 50,000
    people annually to rural West Virginia, 87 percent of whom
    reside outside of our state. It is a great example of how we
    can leverage our State's resources, love of the outdoors, and
    turn them into real economic drivers.
        So thanks, Jeff, for all the jobs and all the hard work you
    have done. I know it has been a struggle, but by golly, you
    made it, buddy.
        As Chairman Murkowski discussed in her statement just now,
    the public lands package that President Trump signed into law
    on Tuesday, which we were both present for, includes a lot of
    wins for communities across the nation. The bill permanently
    authorizes LWCF, designates 621 miles of wild and scenic
    rivers, and added 2,600 miles to the National Trails System.
    The bill also provided direction to all federal agencies to
    facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting, fishing,
    and recreational shooting opportunities on federal land.
        But there is more that can be done to maximize the outdoor
    recreation opportunities in these spaces while balancing
    conservation needs. I am looking forward to hearing from the
    witnesses about ways this Committee can balance the need to
    conserve public lands and waterways with needed infrastructure
    investment, all with the focus of improving the experience of
    an outdoor enthusiast.
        As evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support of the
    recently enacted public lands package, it is clear that the
    energy around our public lands and outdoor recreation is strong
    and continues to grow. We must take advantage of this momentum
    to work on additional commonsense solutions and work with our
    agency partners to ensure they are prioritizing recreational
    opportunities. We want to make it easier for businesses to
    locate in rural areas and thrive. We want to make it easier for
    members of the public to access and enjoy all of our public
    lands.
        I know, Mr. Fosburgh, that you will be talking about the
    report your organization published last year, highlighting
    approximately 9.5 million acres of federal lands that Americans
    cannot, I repeat, cannot currently access because they are
    surrounded by private lands.
        I am so proud that we were able to permanently authorize
    LWCF in the public lands bill and to carve out funding
    specifically to gaining access to lands like the ones
    highlighted in your report for hunting, fishing, and other
    types of recreation. I look forward to working with my
    colleagues in leading the effort to ensure that LWCF is
    permanently funded.
        I know that we will be hearing a lot of ideas this morning
    on ways that we can improve the laws governing recreation and
    policy. And I am excited to hear about what specifically we can
    be doing to facilitate access and grow rural economies through
    outdoor recreation. And I am eager to learn more about the
    opportunities we have across the nation in my new role as the
    Ranking Member working with the Chairman.
        So I want to thank all of you for being here today. And
    again, thank you to the Chairman for holding this hearing. And
    let's start.
        The Chairman. Let's start. I think I have identified each
    of our witnesses and your affiliations, so we will skip over
    more detailed biographies. The Committee members certainly have
    that. We appreciate your leadership in various sectors and
    parts of the country and are grateful that you have made the
    trip to be here with us to provide your testimony this morning.
        We would ask you to try to limit your comments to about
    five minutes. Your full statements will be included as part of
    the record.
        Let's begin with you, Mr. Kirkwood, and again, welcome to
    the Committee.
        Dan Kirkwood.

    STATEMENT OF DANIEL KIRKWOOD, GENERAL MANAGER, PACK CREEK BEAR
     TOURS, AND CO-CHAIR, VISITOR PRODUCTS CLUSTER WORKING GROUP,
                  JUNEAU ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

        Mr. Kirkwood. Thank you.
        Thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to testify.
        Outdoor recreation on Alaska's public lands is the
    foundation of our state's tourism economy. In Southeast Alaska,
    people come to experience unique cultures. They come to
    experience a pristine wild place, glaciers, mountains and
    forests, bears, whales, wild salmon. Everyone who visits
    Southeast Alaska experiences the Tongass National Forest.
        At Pack Creek Bear Tours, we provide what I'm sure is one
    of the most outstanding opportunities in the world for people
    to get face to face with Alaskan brown bears chasing wild
    salmon.
        The Chairman. Just for the record, they are really not face
    to face.
        [Laughter.]
        They get up close, but we do take care of them, right?
        Mr. Kirkwood. We take excellent care of them, but the bears
    can get quite close.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. We don't want to scare anybody away.
        Mr. Kirkwood. But like so many other businesses in
    Southeast Alaska, we rely on the Tongass National Forest for
    their recreation planning, for special use permitting and their
    management of tourism in the region.
        At the Juneau Economic Development Council we've convened
    the Visitor Products Working Group since 2011. Now the goal has
    been to encourage positive growth in the business sector of
    tourism and to help our businesses and the Forest Service
    better understand each other's opportunities, needs, and
    challenges.
        We've identified a decline in recreation program funding
    and understaffing is one of the key impediments to responsive
    management.
        For many of our businesses, access really means permitting
    as much as it means infrastructure. Companies like mine, we
    need access to undeveloped places where a trail may be all the
    infrastructure we need.
        On the other hand, places like the Mendenhall Glacier
    Visitor Center and Recreation Area, this is one of the most
    visited places in the National Forest System, certainly in
    Alaska. And this is a place where new infrastructure
    developments can increase capacity, can decrease impacts. We
    have supported fee increases at the Glacier Visitor Center, and
    the Forest Service is now working on a master plan that is
    forward thinking and was developed in collaboration with local
    communities as well as businesses.
        But again, permitting is really the core issue for us. Our
    permit administrators do work very hard. They understand the
    resource, they understand our businesses, and we're very
    grateful for their work. However, understaffing means that
    there's at least a dozen ongoing planning projects on the
    Juneau Ranger District alone. There are long wait times for
    permits which impacts our ability to plan for the future and to
    sell tours, and there's a lack of flexibility. The Forest
    Service does desire and strive to be adaptive; however, we
    sometimes hear no because they can hardly keep up with the work
    that they have.
        I think it's important to say that we are not asking for
    unregulated access. We're not asking for unlimited access. We
    want to work with the Forest Service to manage our growing
    sector.
        So we have continued to advocate for a reverse in the
    decline of recreation funding. Tourism, including hunting and
    fishing, are huge economic drivers for Alaska and also a major
    contributor to the Forest Service in the economic sense.
        So the Forest Service does need your direction to
    prioritize these programs and to help our businesses.
        I want to specifically recognize you, Senator Murkowski,
    for the leadership you've shown on this issue, for the steps
    you've already taken in bringing this Committee to work on
    these important issues. So thank you.
        I think that we need new metrics for the Forest Service,
    new targets that capture the value of these lands to our
    industry. The current metrics are vague, and what we measure
    matters. We need to measure things that are going to have real
    impacts for our businesses and communities.
        Pilot metrics have been proposed for Region 10 in the
    Tongass National Forest using data that the Forest Service
    already collects. And I think that this could be a good way to
    capture again the significant economic benefits of tourism.
        We will continue to advocate for collaboration. We need the
    Forest Service to have the ability to be a good partner. We
    need them to have the ability to think long-term, landscape
    level recreation planning and to work with the hundreds of
    tourism businesses in the 33 communities of Southeast Alaska.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kirkwood follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kirkwood. We greatly
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Lusk, welcome to the Committee.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFREY TODD LUSK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HATFIELD
                  MCCOY REGIONAL RECREATION AUTHORITY

        Mr. Lusk. Thank you.
        I want to start first by thanking you, Madam Chairman and
    Ranking Member Manchin and members of the Committee, for
    allowing me the opportunity to be here today to talk about
    public opportunities and access.
        My name is Jeffrey Lusk. I'm the Executive Director of the
    Hatfield McCoy Regional Recreation Authority. We're a quasi-
    governmental agency located in West Virginia. We were created
    by the West Virginia Legislature in 1996 for the purpose of
    managing ATV, UTV, off-road motorcycle trails on private
    property in southern West Virginia.
        Currently the Authority works with over 90 coal, timber,
    and natural gas companies in southern West Virginia and
    landholding companies on managing these activities on over
    250,000 acres of private property. It's unusual in the country.
    I don't know of another example where the private sector is
    providing such a vast resource in the form of their property
    for public recreation for no monetary consideration. And it's
    very unique, but I think it's very germane to what we're
    talking about today.
        Our trail system is known as the Hatfield McCoy Trail
    System. This past year we had over 50,000 annual riders on our
    trail system. These riders came from throughout the country,
    from several foreign countries. Eighty-seven percent of our
    riders are non-West Virginia residents which means they are
    overnight visitors to our communities.
        Our trail system charges a user permit for these riders to
    come and visit us. This is important in that it helps offset
    the money, the money needed from the public sector to run our
    trail system. A West Virginia resident pays $26.50 for a user
    permit. A non-West Virginia resident pays $50 for a permit.
    Last year those permits generated $2 million. They did not pay
    for our entire operations, but they did do a great deal toward
    our sustainability. By charging a small fee to the user, we're
    able to dramatically reduce the public funding necessary to
    operate our system. That's big for us and for all public
    projects that, if there's a small user fee attached, that fee
    can go a long way to helping maintain that public recreation
    area.
        As I said earlier, we were created by the Legislature, and
    we were not created as a trail office. We were created as an
    economic development office. When you look at our code it
    actually says we're a multi-county economic development
    authority.
        Trails are the venue that we use to be an economic
    development authority. Our agency was created to help diversify
    the economy of southern West Virginia. We use trails to do that
    economic diversification.
        Our job is to create an atmosphere and a product, an
    infrastructure, which is the trail system, where entrepreneurs
    can open up businesses to provide the needed services for the
    riders that visit our system.
        And it's working. We've had over 50 businesses open up
    along the Hatfield McCoy trails. These are the usual businesses
    you would think about such as lodging, cabins, campgrounds,
    restaurants, but also some very unique trail-oriented
    businesses like ATV outfitters. We've also had some moonshine
    distilleries open up that are providing tours and showing
    people about what is a piece of West Virginia's history, this--
    what used to be a secret--lucrative business is now something
    where you can go into a regulated facility and take a tour. And
    it's driven by the fact that we have these non-West Virginia
    residents, these visitors to our trail system coming to our
    area, buying their permits, staying in our lodges. That's what
    supports all these businesses.
        And I will say it's challenging for our entrepreneurs when
    you're in a rural area, and southern West Virginia is not
    unique. We've suffered, as many rural areas, with the change in
    our economy.
        Southern West Virginia was built around mining, timber,
    natural gas extraction. Those industries have continued to
    mechanize and decline. And we had to diversify our economy. We
    saw tourism, trails, access to public recreation areas as a way
    to do that and entrepreneurship as a way to get to that
    vehicle.
        As Senator Manchin had said, our project has created over
    200 jobs in southern West Virginia. It's provided business
    opportunities to over 50 entrepreneurs. These are companies
    that are there, doing business in southern West Virginia,
    creating jobs.
        And I will tell you there's a great value to a job in a
    rural area. When a job in a rural area is a whole lot harder to
    come by and it means a lot more than a job in a more prosperous
    area.
        Going on to why we feel like what we're saying is germane
    today. You are the Federal Government, the largest neighbor to
    many of the rural communities throughout the country. There are
    great opportunities for those rural communities to use the
    property through trail development, outdoor recreation, to
    create and make their economy around your lands.
        It will require investments. It will require coordination.
    I know that some of the property has been set aside for use for
    natural resource extraction. We're a great example of how that
    resource extraction can happen in tandem with public
    recreation. So as their neighbor, I feel that it's on all of us
    to look forward and to find ways that you can partner to not
    only preserve these lands but also make these lands available
    for economic development to help these rural communities.
        I'd also like to end, and I'm getting to the end of my
    time, but to say that, you know, we've enjoyed many of the
    programs that you have developed here at Congress. The
    Appalachian Regional Commission, the federal EDA, the AML Pilot
    Program, all these programs provide funding that we've utilized
    and we do appreciate the investment you've already made in our
    rural communities.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lusk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lusk, we appreciate that.
        Mr. Fosburgh, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF WHIT FOSBURGH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
          OFFICER, THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

        Mr. Fosburgh. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Senator Heinrich,
    Ranking Member Manchin. So privileged to be here today to talk
    about infrastructure for outdoor recreation and ways we can
    also improve access.
        I'm Whit Fosburgh. I'm the President and CEO of the
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), a national
    coalition of 58 sporting and conservation organizations plus
    about 92,000 individual members and supporters all united to
    ensure that all Americans have quality places to hunt and fish.
        As was mentioned, according to the U.S. BEA, outdoor
    recreation accounts for 2.2 percent of GDP and about 4.5
    million jobs. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    more than 40 million Americans age 16 or older hunt and/or
    fish. Collectively, expenditures on hunting and fishing total
    about $61 billion a year, and 483,000 Americans are directly
    employed in the hunting and fishing industries. To put that
    number in context, about 180,000 Americans are directly
    employed by the oil and gas industries.
        Yet there are warning signs about the future health of the
    hunting and fishing economy, especially on the hunting side. In
    2011, about 13.5 million Americans hunted. In 2016, that number
    had dropped to 11.5 million.
        There are several reasons for this decline that go well
    beyond the purview of this hearing. But when most people are
    asked why they stopped hunting, the number one reason that is
    given or the two top reasons are one, loss of places to hunt
    and too little time to hunt. And obviously those two can be
    related. As you lose close-to-home access and have to travel
    further, you lose those quality access opportunities.
        So I'm going to summarize five steps I think Congress and
    the Committee can take to spur outdoor recreation and spur the
    outdoor recreation economy by improving access and the
    infrastructure related to recreation and hunting and fishing.
        As Senator Manchin mentioned, last summer TRCP teamed up
    with onXmaps to produce a report called ``Off Limits, But
    Within Reach.'' Copies of the report have been provided to the
    Committee and will be submitted for the hearing record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fosburgh. That report documents that 9.52 million acres
    that belong to all the public are essentially off limits to the
    public because they are landlocked without any legal access
    right.
        The first priority for Congress should be getting public
    access to their public lands. This can be done through targeted
    Land and Water Conservation Fund projects, especially given the
    fact that the fund has now been permanently reauthorized and
    includes a requirement that three percent of expenditures be
    used to expand public access to public lands.
        And I want to thank Chairman Murkowski, Senator Heinrich,
    and others for their dedication to this issue. On the access
    one, Senator Heinrich and his Hunt Act were a part of S. 47 and
    will go a long way to opening up a lot of these lands.
        But fully funding Land and Water Conservation Fund is
    probably the single most important thing we can do to expand
    access to our landlocked public lands.
        Second, neither the Forest Service nor the BLM are
    currently equipped to reliably identify where they do or do not
    hold legal access across private lands or where they ought to
    prioritize access projects. This is because many of the
    agency's access easement records are still held in paper files
    in the basements of local offices and cannot be integrated into
    the digital mapping systems that are foundational to public
    lands management in the 21st century. Congress should direct
    the Forest Service and BLM to digitize all easements into
    electronic databases and give the agencies funding to do that
    quickly.
        Third, Congress should address the maintenance backlog on
    public lands because Congress fixed the fire funding mess in
    2018. Thank you very much. In 2020, the Forest Service should
    have additional resources to fix degraded roads, trails,
    campgrounds, boat ramps, and other things that directly hamper
    recreational access.
        But this alone will not solve the problem. If Congress
    decides to move forward with a maintenance backlog bill or an
    infrastructure bill, this is a huge opportunity to promote
    recreational access and the outdoor recreation economy.
        Congress should also focus on nature-based solutions in any
    infrastructure bill. For example, rebuilding barrier islands
    can help protect coastal communities and provide important fish
    and wildlife habitat as to promote expensive, short-term
    solutions like bigger seawalls.
        Fourth, Congress should support making recreational access
    a consideration in the BLM Land Disposal process. As part of
    FLPMA, BLM is required to identify lands that are suitable for
    disposal, but today access is not one of the criteria that they
    look at and this needs to change. The Committee should
    encourage Interior to add recreation access to the BLM disposal
    criteria and this should change--and this change should be
    codified in statutory law when and if FLPMA is reauthorized or
    amended. To his credit, Acting Secretary Bernhardt is looking
    at making this change administratively.
        Finally, we need to address climate change with smart
    public lands policies. Perhaps the biggest threat to hunting
    and fishing and access in this country is climate change. We
    see it through changing migration patterns, fishing closures in
    places like Montana, algae blooms off the coast of Florida. All
    of these things impact the recreation economy. If properly
    managed, public lands can become a bulwark against the worst
    impacts of climate change and it does well, as we think about
    our public lands policies that help the climate are generally
    good for fish and wildlife and therefore, good for fishing and
    hunting.
        Thank you and happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fosburgh follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fosburgh. I appreciate the
    very concrete suggestions that you have outlined and look
    forward to discussing them.
        Dr. O'Keefe, welcome.

         STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. O'KEEFE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
               STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR, AMERICAN WHITEWATER

        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Manchin, members of the Committee. My name is Thomas
    O'Keefe. I'm the Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director for
    American Whitewater.
        Founded in 1954, American Whitewater is a national river
    conservation non-profit with a mission to protect and restore
    America's whitewater rivers and enhance opportunities to enjoy
    them safely.
        I want to first say something about rural economic
    development which has been mentioned here. I grew up in rural
    Upstate New York, in the town of Norwich, population of 8,000
    people. I've witnessed firsthand the struggles of a community
    that has seen locally-based manufacturing leave the town with a
    commensurate decline in the local economy.
        But as a youth, I could hunt, fish, swim, boat, ski, simply
    by walking out the back door. Outdoor recreation, these
    opportunities provide real economic benefit to rural
    communities.
        Our organization sponsors the Gauley River Festival in West
    Virginia. It generates over $1 million in direct spending in
    that local community which is significant in a town of 3,500
    people.
        But enhancing opportunities for outdoor recreation is about
    more than providing jobs for seasonal raft guides or bartenders
    serving a tourist town. It's about providing infrastructure,
    connectivity to global markets, access to outdoor recreation
    amenities that make communities desirable places to live, work
    and start a business. We need to think beyond tourism to build
    communities that have an economic base for workers and their
    families who value the opportunities for close to home
    recreation.
        How do we do that? The recently passed Farm bill promoting
    synergy between rural development programs and the Forest
    Service at USDA is one example of this. But we need to do more
    of this, promote more of this within the Federal Government and
    between the states through the state outdoor recreation
    offices.
        Access to public lands and waters and the experience the
    public can enjoy in them begins with smart agency planning as
    well as quantifying the diversity of activities occurring on
    public lands. With organic acts like the Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Act or the Wilderness Act, there's a requirement to inventory
    eligible areas for their conservation value during the land
    management planning process. No such requirement exists for
    land management agencies to prospectively evaluate where areas
    for outdoor recreation are suitable.
        We also need to place a greater focus on outdoor recreation
    among a diversity of federal agencies including those where
    outdoor recreation is not the primary objective. We also need
    to quantify the quality of visitor experiences, not just the
    number of visitors. We need to support efforts of federal
    agencies to do this and integrate the information to decision-
    making and personnel evaluations.
        I want to speak to infrastructure. For our members, clean,
    healthy rivers are the real infrastructure for outdoor
    recreation. But we also need facilities, roads, trails and ways
    to access these public lands. And while national parks have
    received much of the attention, chronic underfunding of public
    lands and local parks applies broadly and solutions to this
    issue cannot be restricted to the national parks.
        We need renewed partnership between the Federal Government,
    tribal, state and local authorities. We need to fully fund the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Let me say something about outfitter and guide permits.
    Many of our members own or work in small businesses that
    provide guided opportunities for individuals and members of the
    public to safely enjoy public lands in an environmentally
    respectful way. To do this requires an outfitter guide permit.
        Let me just tell you when--brief story. Sam Drevo owns eNRG
    Kayaking in Oregon. He was on a waiting list for 12 years to
    get a permit for his national forest, and he found that it was
    easier to take his clients and customers to Costa Rica than the
    national forest in his backyard. That's something we need to
    take a look at.
        I want to touch on limited entry permit systems. Many of
    our popular rivers across this country have permits that are
    distributed on an annual basis through lotteries. For many of
    these rivers the allocations and capacity limits have not been
    updated in decades. Changes in the way people recreate, the
    equipment they use, and the experiences they seek necessitate a
    regular assessment as to whether current management strategies
    and the plans that guide them are meeting public needs.
        Finally, I'd like to close by just saying that as you've--
    thank you for holding this hearing. And as you further consider
    the topic of access to our public lands and waters, I'd like to
    reflect on the fact that we come from an incredibly diverse
    country. Where I live tribes have had a long cultural
    connection to the landscape. I hope you will seek out their
    perspectives as well as those of other communities across this
    country, rural and urban communities, communities of color. We
    need to expand the conversation.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. O'Keefe follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I absolutely agree. Thank you, Dr. O'Keefe.
        Ms. Mitchell, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. MITCHELL, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, IDAHO
      STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IDAHO
                           RECREATION COUNCIL

        Ms. Mitchell. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski and
    Senators. My name is Sandra Mitchell, and I come before you
    today with the envious task of explaining the state of
    snowmobiling.
        The Chairman. Microphone.
        Ms. Mitchell. Good point--explaining the state of
    snowmobiling.
        Senator Risch. Idahoans are technically challenged.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Mitchell. Snowmobiling is woven into the fabric of
    Idaho and every snow state. It facilitates a sense of solitude
    in ever-crowded landscapes. Snowmobiling reveals the awe-
    inspiring beauty of this incredible country dressed in white at
    a time of year when most are in front of a couch, sitting on a
    couch in front of a fireplace. Most importantly, snowmobiling
    unites families and friends in play. After all, most of life's
    great memories are not created on a couch.
        Snowmobiling in America is big business. It generates about
    $26 billion annually. In Idaho, snowmobiling's total economic
    impact is $197.5 million. Snowmobiling is not only important to
    the economic stability of Idaho. It is the main reason why many
    of our small communities will survive.
        Snowmobiling is changing. It's getting younger. That's
    thanks to the growing popularity of snow bikes, fat tire bikes,
    the hybrid. The hybrid are folks who use a snowmobile to access
    the high country and then ski down. Many ATVers and UTVers are
    now putting tracks on their snowmobiling and using our groomed
    snowmobile trails. And we welcome them.
        All recreationists use the public lands for the same
    reason. Every visitor study shows that. Regardless of the mode
    of transportation, all go to experience the backcountry because
    of the beauty, the wildlife, and for the adventure and
    challenge.
        This does not mean that a snowmobile belongs on every acre
    of public land. There are places where there should be no use,
    places where motors belong and places that should be shared.
        I think it's important to note, that as far as I know,
    there is no such thing as an exclusive snowmobile area. There
    are shared use areas where motors are allowed and there are
    non-motorized areas.
        Snowmobiling is good for the economy, quality of life. Our
    tracks don't last because we ride on a cushion of snow. We go
    up, most wildlife goes down, so life must be easy for the
    snowmobile community, right? Well, we do have our challenges.
        For example, the use of conflict as a reason to justify a
    snowmobile closure. We understand that there will be
    restrictions but they should be established on good scientific
    data, not preferences or perceptions or assumptions. Decisions
    driven by real and substantive resource problems or by
    Congressional designations are not at question. However, social
    issues, such as conflict, drive many allocation decisions. All
    users of the public lands must be treated equitably. We suspect
    that when a motorized recreation is granted the first exclusive
    use area and it becomes evident that raising issues of conflict
    can hurt one side as much as the other, most of the shouts of
    conflict will abate.
        The Management of Recommended Wilderness. In the Northern
    Region, Region 1, which includes 12 national forests,
    Recommended Wilderness is managed as Designated Wilderness. The
    policy was adapted around 2006. The assumption behind the
    policy statement seems to be that motorized and mechanized
    recreation is automatically incompatible with RWA's. The proper
    test is whether the specific motorized/mechanized activity
    somehow compromises the area's future potential for designation
    as wilderness. That is the official policy of the Forest
    Service but not the policy of Region 1. A consistent nationwide
    policy is needed. We believe that can be accomplished with a
    Secretarial Order.
        Winter Travel Planning. I have yet to see a Forest Plan or
    a Travel Plan that has increased motorized recreational
    opportunities. In fact, every process in which I have worked,
    snowmobilers lose areas and summer motorized users lose trails.
    The solution would be to start every Forest Planning with a
    clean slate. Remove all the lines except for the designated
    areas and reevaluate those areas. The areas change. Nature
    changes them. Fire changes them. The uses change. Why don't we
    go back and reevaluate each time?
        I thank you for this opportunity to talk about
    snowmobiling. We truly value the opportunity to ride on our
    public lands. The value is unmeasurable and we know that,
    because loss has taught us the worth of those lands. A young
    snowmobiler once told me that he had spent years and years
    sitting around listening to `old timers' tell them about where
    they used to ride, and it motivates him to stay involved and to
    protect access so that he can show his children and
    grandchildren where they ride and let them experience the joy
    and wonder for themselves.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. I appreciate your
    testimony as well. The only disagreement that I might have with
    you is you all call it snowmobiling. In Alaska, it is snow
    machining.
        We are all talking about the same means of getting around,
    and it is just the terminology. I think it is parochial stuff,
    or whatever it is, but thank you for this.
        As I look to the members that have come in and out and are
    here to participate in this hearing, we are all hunters. We are
    all fishermen, hikers, those who really enjoy the great
    outdoors and whether it is on motorized, snow machine,
    snowmobile, or using your own legs to get you out skiing or
    just hiking around, it is a recognition that it is all ages,
    all parts of the country and in how we make this access
    available is important to us.
        And you, several of you, have hit on what we are seeing of
    late with decreased access that comes about because you don't
    have the ability to go out and hunt and fish because you don't
    have availability of the lands as much as before.
        But I want to focus a little bit on the permitting aspect
    of it because Dr. O'Keefe, you mentioned the situation in
    Oregon. It is easier to take your clients down to Costa Rica
    than to get out on a river there. Mr. Kirkwood, you had
    mentioned the challenges that go with the permitting in just
    the timeliness. Several of you have said you don't have a
    problem with small user fees, and what I am trying to
    understand here for purposes of today's testimony is we know
    that we need more people processing the permits, okay. We know
    we need to deal with this timeline and the uncertainty that is
    out there.
        I am curious to know, from a cost perspective, how big of
    an impediment is that to a small, local outfitter. Are the
    fees, are the permit fees, higher than might be reasonable?
    Because really, that is a big barrier if you can't afford to
    get onto and use the public lands, that is an issue.
        Dr. O'Keefe, you look at a river. A river just doesn't stay
    in Oregon. They might in Alaska, but most of them will cross
    multiple state jurisdictions. And you know, you need to get
    multiple permits if you are going to be guiding down a river
    that crosses certain areas.
        So if we can have a three-and-a-half-minute conversation.
    Everyone can jump in here, but I need to understand better what
    the barriers are when it comes to the permitting process. Have
    at it. Dr. O'Keefe, you look like you are leaning in first.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, well, I'll jump in here.
        I mean, I think, one of the things is just to make this a
    priority for land managers and river managers. And you also
    touched on, you know, rivers do cross jurisdictions and having
    better coordination for a river system that crosses between
    Bureau of Land Management land, Forest Service land, National
    Park Service land. Currently an outfitter has to interface
    directly with each of those agencies individually, and there
    are opportunities for better coordination.
        The Chairman. So do they currently coordinate if you are
    moving from BLM?
        Dr. O'Keefe. No.
        The Chairman. So it is literally, there is no place to go
    for a one stop shop permit if you are this river outfitter and
    you are going to go through BLM to Forest Service?
        Dr. O'Keefe. That's right. And it's even more complicated
    than that. There's often not even a person to go to at a lot of
    these agencies.
        So, a lot of times, you know, you make a phone call to the
    district ranger. He sends you to someone. Then you get sent to
    someone else. And I've seen correspondence records from some of
    these outfitters where it's usually, literally taken them years
    and 12 different individuals they've spoken to within an agency
    and often requires a member of Congress to intervene to
    actually assist the process and move it along.
        The Chairman. What about on the cost side? Who wants to
    speak to that? Are they reasonable?
        Mr. Kirkwood?
        Mr. Kirkwood. We don't think that the fees are
    unreasonable.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Kirkwood. The fees are appropriate, and we're happy to
    help pay our way.
        What we see as a challenge is the backlog of planning. And
    this is where collaboration for large landscape scale planning
    on recreation could be a big opportunity.
        The Chairman. I think that was mentioned previously as
    well.
        So, other issues with permitting? We've got backlog,
    timeliness. Would it help if there was a time period within
    which you know you should expect a response back on your
    permit?
        Dr. O'Keefe. I would say absolutely because, I mean, I've
    seen situations where someone contacts the agency and there's
    literally no response back, so.
        The Chairman. Well, that is where we get involved.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Right, I know.
        The Chairman. That is where they call their Senator and
    say, we need help because we are trying to get this heli-ski
    permit and we have already missed this season and we are going
    to miss next season. So you know, that, in fairness, should not
    be our job to help navigate you through this.
        Dr. O'Keefe. I agree, yeah.
        The Chairman. That is why I am curious about what more we
    can be doing to make sure that we have a process that is
    reliable. One that says check back in seven years for your ice
    fishing permit, to me, is not a decent process.
        Okay. Let me turn to Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Let me apologize to all of you. I had another meeting. They
    just double book us sometimes, and I had to get that one going.
        Anyway, I appreciate so much all of you being here with
    your expertise.
        The western lands versus eastern lands are very different,
    and I am learning that. I am learning about BLM. I have never
    lived out West. I was born and raised in West Virginia.
        My friend Jeff here, Jeff Lusk, he has come into it. He has
    always been from the coal fields. He is from where I am from.
    And I understand there are challenges you might have, Jeff.
        You might explain a little bit, the successes you have had
    with Hatfield McCoy, how it came into fruition, how it took
    private-public partnerships, where we are at now to expand it.
    And you have the same challenges working with private
    landowners as the federal lands, like BLM. Kind of explain the
    differences you have there and the challenges and where you
    are.
        Mr. Lusk. Thank you, Senator.
        Yeah, so our project is on private property. We work with
    over 90 coal, timber, and natural gas companies who provide
    us----
        Senator Manchin. Which would be equivalent to basically
    working with BLM?
        Mr. Lusk. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Who provide us access to over 250,000 acres of their
    private property. And we work with these companies. They
    primarily hold the property for natural resource extraction.
        We actually put a public recreation area in amongst this
    natural resource extraction. They, for no monetary
    consideration, they allow us to use the property. We provide
    policing, indemnity. We are stewards of the property. We manage
    this activity. In turn, we don't pay them for use of the
    property, but they do give us a limited license agreement to be
    on the property.
        This has created a catalyst for economic development in
    southern West Virginia. And as you said, the challenge is we're
    working with 90 companies and you guys are working with the
    BLM. And it may be easier to work with these 90 companies, so I
    can understand that.
        But we use the property. It's an economic development tool.
    And as the Federal Government being the largest neighbor to
    many small cities and towns, it's imperative that they do have
    access, that there is economic development activities just like
    the folks going bear hunting or the folks snowmobiling to these
    properties. For these communities, it's their lifeblood.
        In southern West Virginia we are reinventing cities and
    towns by providing access to this historically closed off,
    private property for the use of ATVing, off-road motorcycling,
    UTVing, but it could just as easily be hiking or bear hunting
    or snowmobiling by providing access, by charging a fall permit,
    by policing the property, I think that there's a good marriage
    there.
        And for the towns that are adjoined by federal lands or
    adjoined by vast tracts of private property, they need access.
    And I think it's tantamount on all of us to give them access.
    And I think it can be done in a good stewardship way and also
    be an economic development project.
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Fosburgh, if you could. We just passed
    the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
    Recreation Act, which we call the Public Lands bill. In your
    estimation, how does it help with recreational access or is
    there still some challenges we have to overcome?
        Mr. Fosburgh. You know, thank you, Senator.
        And first, you know, S. 47 was a great accomplishment. And
    I think it was really a team effort from both sides of the
    aisle and really shows these issues should not be partisan.
    This is something that ought to bring us together. I think
    that, you know, all sorts of different aspects of that bill
    impact outdoor recreation and infrastructure.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund is obviously the great
    big one. And the fact that now, not only has it been
    permanently reauthorized, but that three percent of the
    expenditures are targeted toward access type projects, it's
    going to change, I think, the way the agencies look at this
    fund from the beginning, and it's going to change the way it
    gets implemented on the ground.
        I mean, LWCF has got, sort of, a bad rap, I think, in the
    past for like funding a far-off butterfly habitat that doesn't
    impact average people, which is not true.
        But this really, I think, brings the focus really back to
    recreation type projects--access, hunting, fishing projects.
    And I think, you know, with that, if we can fully fund that in
    particular, you know, we have, I think, real opportunity here.
        Now part of the problem is you ask the agencies where are
    the key target parcels they need to, you know, go out and do an
    easement with or do an outright----
        Senator Manchin. The nine and a half million acres that's
    inaccessible right now, how do we make that accessible and have
    the public be able to utilize that----
        Mr. Fosburgh. Exactly.
        And if you were to ask the agencies, they'd give you a
    shrug of the shoulders because they don't even know where they
    right now have existing access routes across private land. So
    we've got to get that stuff digitized.
        And then we also have to be thinking about instead of great
    big landscapes that may be a target for an LWCF project, there
    may be one section someplace----
        Senator Manchin. Gotcha.
        Mr. Fosburgh. ----that opens up 10,000 acres of national
    forest behind it. And thus, the agencies have not looked at
    these, you know, projects in that way in the past.
        So I think that it's, I think it will be a game changer in
    terms of the way we view these projects moving forward.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have more questions, but I will wait for another round.
        The Chairman. Yes, thank you, good.
        That is a good question though. I appreciate it.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin,
    thank you.
        And Joe, I know they say West Virginia is almost heaven. We
    have to get you out West where you can experience heaven in
    Montana. We will do that.
        Senator Manchin. You are a little bit higher than we are,
    but we are still almost heaven.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. This has been a historic week for outdoor
    recreation and conservation with the enactment of the lands
    package signed Tuesday by the President.
        I want to thank Senator Heinrich. Martin, it was great
    working with you and Chair Murkowski and many others on this
    Committee in a true bipartisan fashion to get this done. So
    thank you.
        I truly believe that this bill will pay dividends to not
    only our outdoor economy, which is a booming $7 billion in
    Montana, but really for generations to come.
        This permanent reauthorization of LWCF, I don't think can
    be overstated what this means--locking in these key reforms,
    increasing the dollars reserved for access easements,
    provisions requiring agencies to prioritize public land access
    and to keep them open unless the state or another statute
    authorizes their closure. More Montanans, more Americans will
    be able to enjoy our country's favorite outdoor activities.
        Mr. Fosburgh, good to see you here.
        According to TRCP, Montana alone has one and a half million
    acres of inaccessible lands, public lands. I wanted you to
    maybe comment on what permanent reauthorization means for LWCF
    and how that can help in some of these access issues we face in
    states like Montana?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Well, thank you, Senator Daines.
        I think that as we were just talking about, I mean, now
    that it is permanent, we don't have to come back every three
    years and worry about the existence of the fund. We can really
    think longer term about where, strategically, individual
    projects really make some sense and it can be leveraged into
    something much bigger.
        And I use the example of that individual section that may
    open up 10,000 acres. But I think that, you know, so I think
    that is the real opportunity moving forward, particularly if we
    can fully fund LWCF. But also, it's going to require also just
    the agencies to do things differently.
        We've talked about the permits that are, I mean, the
    easements that are sitting in cardboard boxes in basements some
    place. We've asked the agencies how long, under the current
    situation, it would take for them to digitize all their access
    records and we got in the ballpark of 10 to 20 years. I mean,
    this is ridiculous. I mean, this is the 21st century. We ought
    to have this stuff digitized--if it takes a little bit more
    money to do it.
        And hey, listen, I don't want to bash the agencies because
    they've been starved for years. They have guys doing
    permitting, I mean, this stuff, doing litigation work. I mean,
    you know, I feel badly for them. They need more resources to be
    able to make this a priority.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Fosburgh.
        Sometimes when people think about outdoor recreation, they
    think it is just about hiking and backpacking. By the way,
    those are two of my passions. That is what we spend most of our
    time doing in the summertime and occasionally in the winter.
        However, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis
    reporting the outdoor economy, it is boating and fishing that
    is some of the largest outdoor activities. In fact, by the way,
    LWCF provides 70 percent of the fishing accesses in Montana.
    That is huge if you think about access, and we have great
    stream access laws in Montana. I would invite other states to
    think about what we have done in Montana. The public can get
    from high water mark to high water mark on our streams.
        But the largest outdoor activity generating nearly $37
    billion in gross output was actually U.S. motorcycling and
    ATVing which is one of the fastest growing, highest grossing
    activities accounting for about $20.3 billion. Snow activities,
    snowmobiling, we talked about this earlier, generate $11
    billion.
        I recently wrote the U.S. Forest Service about some
    concerns that we have regarding the planning process for
    closing historic trails in the Bitterroot National Forest. In
    that forest we recently saw closures on hundreds of miles of
    trails and thousands of acres to bikers, mountain bikers, and
    snowmobilers in the Sapphire and Blue Joint WSA despite decades
    of historical use.
        Ms. Mitchell, how do you see the closures of historic
    trails like this hurt families and our outdoor recreation
    economy?
        Ms. Mitchell. Thank you.
        Senator Daines. You might want to hit your button there
    too. Thank you.
        Ms. Mitchell. There's that button thing again.
        I thank you for the question.
        It definitely damages opportunities. It hurts the families
    who have historically ridden in these areas. They can no longer
    ride in them. Then that puts them into other areas that they
    haven't ridden. And we're going to have more people riding
    those areas.
        It's important to disperse recreation. This works against
    it.
        But most importantly, it hurts the economies. There are
    many areas in Montana that have joined Idaho that were ridden
    for years and years and those people now come to Idaho to ride
    because they can no longer ride in Montana. We appreciate the
    benefits to Idaho, but we need to get the people back in
    Montana.
        Senator Daines. So I want to follow up about how the Forest
    Service manages what we call, RWAs, Recommended Wilderness
    Areas. Right now, there is no consistent standard for how the
    Forest Service manages recreational activities in areas they
    have recommended for wilderness but have not yet been
    designated by Congress. In some regions the Forest Service
    continues to manage for existing multiple use recreation such
    as snowmobiling and in other areas they prohibit every activity
    except horses and hikers.
        Ms. Mitchell, could you speak briefly on how the
    inconsistency makes it difficult for outdoor recreation groups,
    like yours, and what do you think is the solution?
        Ms. Mitchell. Well, sir, this is an issue on which I have
    been working for about ten years, and it is a very frustrating
    issue.
        In fact, the Gallatin National Forest just released their
    proposed action and they are going to add 116,302 more acres of
    recommended wilderness that will be managed as wilderness to
    that forest.
        The Forest Service is doing the job of Congress. It's up to
    the people working with our elected officials to determine
    which lands qualify for wilderness. And that's a difficult job
    but it was meant to be difficult. Wilderness is very
    restrictive and we need to make sure it's in the right place
    for the right reasons.
        Now, the Forest Service has decided, and on many occasions
    I have been told by Forest Service personnel, that the reason
    for this policy is because it eliminates the opposition to
    wilderness. And I do not believe that's their job.
        It is costing the economies of Idaho and Montana because of
    this policy and I truly believe that because this is not a
    problem that Congress created, there's no directive. There's no
    law. There's no policy from Congress that directs them to
    manage recommended wilderness as wilderness. This is an
    administrative issue that can best be solved with a Secretarial
    Order that provides a consistent policy for the management of
    recommended wilderness.
        Senator Daines. Okay, thank you. I am out of time.
        Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Wyden, we are having the hearing that you and I
    have been talking about for some time. So, your turn.
        Senator Wyden. Well, we have, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for championing recreation, scheduling this hearing. Coming
    after the successful public lands legislation, I think, is the
    real one-two punch in favor of sensible resource policy.
        So I want to thank you, and our Ranking Member is off to a
    strong start and has been enormously helpful as well. So I want
    to thank both of you.
        I was just noting the hearing we already had on climate
    change. It has been a long time since that happened. So we are
    off to a really strong start.
        The reason this hearing is so important, and I want to
    apologize to our guests because I am also going back and forth
    with the Finance Committee. We are having important hearings
    today, and otherwise I would be hanging on your every word, as
    I know Senator Heinrich is. He has been a great champion of
    recreation.
        I think recreation has the potential to be a major economic
    engine for rural America. And I want to underline potential,
    because I think people really have not had a sense to capture
    what this could be all about.
        In Oregon not long ago, a young man came up to me and said
    he was making kayaks. He has a big market for these kayaks, not
    just in Oregon but he told me he is looking to export them
    around the world. So this is a value-added kind of commodity.
    And I think there is so much potential here and the challenge
    is in the days of the smartphone to bring the permitting system
    and the regulatory systems in line with the times. That is what
    former House Chairman Rob Bishop and I have done with what we
    call the RNR bill, Recreation Not Red Tape.
        I got into this when I saw, as the recreation season was
    beginning a couple years ago, that people would call me at home
    and they would say they got up in the middle of the night to
    call some agency and they were put on hold. And then after they
    waited a long time, they were told to call somebody else. I
    gather that Dr. O'Keefe has been walking people through some of
    these friendly, wonderful, enjoyable experiences as well. And
    we can do better.
        That is what we did in the RNR bill, and much of it has
    absolutely nothing to do with being partisan. I mean, it is not
    Democratic or Republican to modernize the regulatory system so
    at least it gets into the relevant century because what we have
    today really has remnants of yesteryear.
        So I think what I would like you to do, Dr. O'Keefe,
    because you have spent a lot of time in these precincts arguing
    that smart policy could really be an economic magnet for rural
    areas, is tell us a little bit about what your perspective is
    on how the Federal Government is handling the current system
    with respect to oversight of the recreation system.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, well, thank you, Mr. Wyden. Thank you
    for the question. And thank you for your leadership and
    everyone on this Committee on S. 47 and particularly all the
    wild and scenic rivers.
        As you know, you come from a state with a lot of wild and
    scenic rivers and we have a----
        Senator Wyden. We are trying to catch Senator Murkowski in
    Alaska. We are coming on.
        Dr. O'Keefe. You're getting close. Thank you.
        So you have a lot of rivers in the state and there's a lot
    of interest in realizing business opportunities on those
    rivers. You know, I shared a story earlier, I've got a whole
    boatload of these, but you've got, you know, constituents in
    the Portland area that are interested in providing guiding
    opportunities, taking people from outside the state,
    introducing them to the great rivers of Oregon.
        Now I can go down to Ecuador and I can hire a guide in
    Ecuador and we can go all over the country and explore
    different places. It's extremely difficult to do that in
    Oregon, if you want to set up a business to be able to do it.
        And as you articulated, the systems in place are very
    antiquated. It requires going in person to the offices,
    literally tracking people down.
        I really appreciate what you've done in sort of launching
    this discussion with the Recreation Not Red Tape Act and doing
    so in a bipartisan fashion, because I sit here today and I
    listen to the issues that we're discussing and, you know, these
    aren't partisan issues. And you know, helping rural economies
    and helping people get outside, I think that's something that
    we can all agree on.
        And so, given the leadership that really came out of this
    Committee to launch a bipartisan discussion on public lands and
    conservation issues, I think we can do the same thing on
    recreation.
        I really appreciate the Chair and the Ranking Member
    holding this hearing, and I think we can do some great work
    together.
        Senator Wyden. Well said. I look forward to working with
    all five of you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        We've got some work to do, but I know you are excited to do
    that.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Let's start with the fact that recreation is now, by far,
    the biggest economic driver on our public lands. And as we
    heard from Senator Wyden, it has a lot of opportunity yet to
    go, especially for rural communities where we really need to be
    thinking about how we build and diversify our economies.
        I wanted to give a shout out to the state lawmakers in my
    home state who last night passed through the second chamber now
    an Office of Outdoor Recreation as people are starting to
    realize that if you cultivate this, you can truly do even more
    than what is already an amazingly vibrant industry.
        I used to be an outfitter guide. I used to do these
    permits. They are not a lot of fun. And I will tell you a
    little story, and I will try and keep it short. But I worked
    for an organization who at the time had been around, oh, about
    70 to 75 years. They have now been around a little longer. The
    Cibola National Forest was one of the places where every year
    we had a permit for Mount Taylor. I called up to check on my
    permit a month or two out before the summer season and I was
    told, sorry, I am working on a land swap this year and it is
    really important, so I won't have time to do your permit. And
    that is the kind of thing that we hear from Alaska to New
    Mexico and everywhere in between.
        And so, one, I think we need to stop, within these
    agencies, treating this as an afterthought. Almost every one of
    these folks who approve permits have another job that is
    actually considered their primary job. There should be people
    whose primary job it is to process this recreation.
        And I want to thank Senator Capito because she and I have
    been working on some recreation reform legislation now for
    several years that addresses the multijurisdictional issue. You
    oftentimes will cross two different agencies in multiple ranges
    or districts and several national forests to utilize one river
    or one wilderness area or one recreation area. We can fix that.
        So I wanted to ask anybody on the panel if they had had a
    chance to look at that legislation? Last year it was Senate
    bill 3550. I know we have been deeply engaged with a number of
    the outfitter guide groups, a number of the non-profits, the
    NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) and Cottonwood
    Gulches of the world as well as The Wilderness Society and
    others, as well as some of the outfitter guide organizations
    and wanted to see if any of you had a chance to review that
    legislation. If not, I would highly encourage you to because we
    want to make this open for business. We want to make this work
    better all across the country. Please, if you have a chance,
    take a look at that.
        Mr. Fosburgh, I want to shift real quickly to you on land
    and water. It was an enormous victory to see permanent
    authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
    habitat and for access, as you point out.
        I was very disappointed to see that the President's budget
    that was just released effectively zeros out that program after
    we just permanently reauthorized it. I am going to urge my
    colleagues to treat that line item as purely advisory, but if
    Congress were to zero out the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
    what would it mean for access in the coming year? What would it
    mean for habitat? For sportsmen?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Thank you, Senator.
        I think that we have a pretty good idea what it would mean
    is that right now we're losing the battle anyway and that's
    with LWCF at that $400 million, give or take, range annually
    and doing some great projects.
        It has the opportunity to do a lot more, particularly of a
    target's access. But if we basically were to lose that program
    and lose funding for that program, everything dries up.
        We've had projects that have been in the pipeline for years
    that are just waiting there, waiting for that green light for
    funding. And at some point, if you're a private landowner and
    you're willing to do a project like this, you're going to throw
    up your hands and just go and do something else, sell out to
    that developer who is offering you a lot more money than this
    would give you in the first place.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Fosburgh. So I think that the consequences of not
    funding LWCF are dire.
        Senator Heinrich. One of the things we included in S. 47,
    the public lands package, was actually language that I had
    originally introduced called the Hunt Act that just simply
    forces these agencies to figure out what they have access to
    and what they don't and to set priorities. So we intend to hold
    their feet to the fire moving forward to make sure that they do
    just that.
        But I would really welcome your ideas as to how we address
    the digital divide that you talked about, the paper records and
    everything being in the basement rather than, you know, you and
    I probably both have onXmaps on our phones, right? You know
    exactly what land you are on, who the landowner is and it is
    all right there on your phone. Our public lands should be
    similarly responsive.
        Mr. Fosburgh. You're exactly right.
        And I think that, you know, that is a big challenge that's
    only going to get done if it becomes a priority for the
    agencies, otherwise we're going to have that 10 to 20 years
    before they get these things fully digitized which is
    ridiculous.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you all.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, I see my colleague here from
    Nevada. Is she? Are you in line to----
        Senator Cortez Masto. No, go ahead.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I was hoping you were going to talk about Red Rock, but I
    will let you talk about Red Rock.
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this important
    hearing on the outdoor economy. Thank you for comments earlier
    about the President's signature to the lands package which
    included making permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    which has been a lot of the discussion here this morning which
    is, I just want to note, a little bit of divine intervention
    here. Most people know that Scoop Jackson was the author of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund in which he said, ``I'd like
    to remind you that mostly it's to open areas that 90 percent of
    Americans go each year to seek refreshment in body and
    spirit.''
        Madam Chair, the interesting point is, is that after the
    debate in the Senate the Land and Water Conservation Fund was
    passed as a program with 92 votes. The other day when we had
    our vote, it was 92 votes as well. So somewhere in all of this
    is that Mother Nature is very supported by our colleagues and
    definitely something that people want to continue for the
    future. I look forward to ways in which we are going to do
    that.
        Much of the discussion here has been about how to increase
    that continued access. To me, this $26 billion that is spent in
    my state, 200,000 direct jobs and $2.3 billion in annual tax
    revenues just shows you that if we make more investment, we
    will get more return and that the coalition is a pretty broad
    group of people. How do we convince people to put more into
    this economy? How do we go about communicating, particularly
    for rural communities, the value of this equation?
        I know we are going to have a discussion about park and
    maintenance backlog as well, but how do we convince people that
    the level of investment is just more recreational opportunity
    for Americans but it also is an economic value to those local
    communities?
        Dr. O'Keefe or Mr. Fosburgh or Ms. Mitchell?
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, so, I mean you touched on it with the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. And I think about a community
    like the community of White Salmon where, you know, I know
    you've been and worked on the wild and scenic designation for
    the Upper White Salmon.
        And you know, we have a situation there where the community
    is growing. We're seeing a lot more economic development there
    in that community and it's for access to that close to home
    recreation in telling that story. And we've got a Land and
    Water Conservation Fund project there in that community that is
    an opportunity that needs to get done to preserve the access to
    the river. And you know, the President's budget zeroed it out,
    so.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, there is one community in our state
    that is definitely very interested in this, Lewis County, in
    Centralia. They are very interested in telling the story of
    access and the connecting roads between Mount Rainier and Mount
    St. Helens and what you could do to create a scenic route there
    that were accessible to people.
        So I think communities are trying to figure out how to take
    this resource that is, literally, in their backyard and
    translate that into access because they know that it is just as
    great a tool as anything else that they have for their economy
    but it is figuring it out.
        I think both the Chair and others have mentioned this
    access issue that we have to solve as it relates to permits. I
    mean, we are literally holding people back from having access.
        But I definitely think that we have to identify how much
    solving these problems really does generate rural economic
    development and what we have to do to prioritize some of these
    projects in a way that would help them.
        I guess I went a long way around in saying I am sure right
    now if we wanted to improve that route, most people would say,
    why improve this route from Mount Rainier to St. Helens? People
    would be like, well, you know, how many people are going to go
    that route and how many people are going to do it? But in
    reality, it becomes a huge part of bringing tourists and
    recreation opportunity to a region.
        I just think we have to figure out how to quantify this for
    rural communities so that they, so that somewhere our
    transportation officials and others value this.
        Mr. Fosburgh. Senator, I would just add, and I think those
    are great points, that this is like, you know, a perfect
    example of what should be a really great public-private
    partnership. I mean, the private sector is doing this stuff
    already as, you know, Jeff talks about or as Dan talks about.
        I mean, this is happening across--and the states are coming
    to the table with Offices of Outdoor Recreation, as Senator
    Heinrich just mentioned. And right now, sort of the weak spot,
    is right on the fed side because we have these amazing public
    lands but the recreation infrastructure is in pretty poor shape
    in a lot of places. We can't get to those places in other
    spots.
        I think that the priority that you guys are all making
    right now with the focus on this issue really helps the first
    step on bringing the feds and LWCF to the table in a much more
    meaningful way with the private sector and with the states.
        Senator Cantwell. Now we can hear about Red Rock.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you and thank you, Chairwoman,
    for this great conversation. I so appreciate it.
        I have been running in and out because I have two other
    hearings, but I have read the testimony and I thank you and
    could not agree more with what I am hearing from my colleagues
    and what I am hearing and saw from the panel.
        Let me just say I am from Nevada. One of the areas that I
    do know is that our outdoor recreation is booming in Nevada,
    right? It generates about $12.6 billion annually, creates
    87,000 jobs and that is because of the beautiful Red Rock
    Canyon National Conservation Area from Mount Charleston to
    Mount Wheeler to the Ruby Mountains to Lake Tahoe to Jobs Peak,
    you name it, I can go on and on and on. These are areas that
    are very exciting--and Gold Butte, let me add that.
        I appreciate this idea of how do we balance everybody's
    interests, all the stakeholders, so everybody has the
    opportunity to participate and how do we streamline it so that
    if you want to get out there and you want to enjoy the mountain
    climbing or rock climbing or hiking or outdoor recreation on an
    ATV or we should be able to figure this out together. So I
    appreciate this conversation.
        One of the things that I am going to be introducing with
    one of my colleagues, Senator Daines, is a bill called the
    Accelerating Veterans Recover Outdoors Act, and it is a Senate
    companion that I am working on with a bipartisan group from the
    House. It calls upon the VA and the Interior Department to
    collaborate to utilize public lands as a medical therapy
    resource for mental health, for physical therapies, for
    preventative care and other health care applications to the
    benefit of our veterans.
        I am just curious. You haven't read it yet, but is that
    something you would support? And let me just go down the panel.
        Ms. Mitchell. Senator, yes, that is something I would
    support.
        In fact, last week, last Saturday, the Idaho State
    Snowmobile Association had their sixth annual Disabled Veterans
    ride, and we bring veterans. They are required to be 50 percent
    or more disabled and we take them snowmobiling for a day. And
    it is an amazing experience.
        The gentleman who started it is a disabled veteran and he
    spent weeks after coming back making lists everyday of all the
    things he couldn't do. And one day he's out in a field, he sees
    the guys with a snowmobile, and he says, hey, can I ride that?
    And the guy says, I don't know why not. And it saved his life.
    It changed his life. And he is now an extreme snowmobiler. He
    boondocks with the best of them. And so, we're giving other
    people, these other disabled veterans, the opportunity to ride.
    And it is amazing. It really is. Getting them outdoors, letting
    them find a way that they can do something fun and exciting. It
    really does make a difference.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, and we've done the same thing. We've had
    a lot of our members and volunteers who have worked with
    veteran's programs in getting those folks in the outdoors has
    been tremendous and we'd love to work with this body to find
    ways to better facilitate that.
        And some of the permitting issues that I've talked about
    earlier and they're in my statement, you know, we've had issues
    with, you know, we've got a group of folks that we want to get
    out and just, you know, trying to get the permit to be able to
    do that safely and legally has been a challenge. So if we can
    work on that, we can--that will help with this too.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right. No, I appreciate that. And
    that is why we have a close working relationship with our ATVs,
    snowmobilers.
        Believe it or not, I grew up in Southern Nevada, but I also
    grew up appreciating the outdoors and riding snowmobiles and
    ATVs. It is an incredible experience. I think that everybody
    should have that opportunity to experience it if they have the
    ability, and we should provide those opportunities as well.
        One thing I want to jump back to very quickly and maybe,
    Mr. Fosburgh, you can help me with this. My state is home to a
    large swath of unresolved checkerboard lands created in the
    1800s, and it causes a lot of private and public land
    management issues, particularly for some of our local
    communities in our rural areas. Can you comment on land
    management efficiency issues that arise from checkerboard lands
    and how the checkerboard pattern impacts access and permitting
    on public lands?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Well Senator, thank you and it certainly
    presents a challenge because, you know, most states you don't
    require hopping that corner. That's not legal, that air space
    above that corner is private property. So you think you can get
    from one, you know, BLM section to another by jumping that
    corner, but in Montana for example, you can't do that. I'm not
    sure what all the other states are.
        But what it really does is it shows that if you're
    strategic about projects from Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to voluntary public access programs through the Farm bill, you
    can essentially connect a lot of those areas and make
    management a lot easier. In certain cases, things like land
    swaps make a ton of sense.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
        Mr. Fosburgh. But also, just negotiating easements with
    adjacent landowners, something like that. It makes it more
    complicated but, you know, those sections out there,
    checkerboard as they may be, provide great habitat.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        [No response.]
        Senator Cortez Masto. Alright, thank you very much. I
    notice my time is up. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
        Let's talk a little bit about the infrastructure needs and
    Ms. Mitchell, you note that when you are out in the winter, out
    on a snowmobile or snow machine, it is not like you need to
    have a maintained trail there, but there are other
    infrastructure needs that I think we all recognize have an
    impact.
        It has an impact on access. It has an impact on the
    public's desire to go out and use certain areas if they realize
    that things are just run down or just not well cared for. So in
    the various areas, whether it is snow machining, whether it is
    the opportunities that you have out in the Tongass, Dan, with
    bear viewing and the like. Mr. Lusk, you talk about what you
    have created there in West Virginia on the rivers, but what
    would you view as the critical infrastructure needs? Does it
    just depend on where you are? Trail enhancements, or is it
    making sure that you have a road that can get you to the river?
        We are going to have to prioritize here. I think we
    recognize that. We have an extraordinary maintenance backlog on
    our parks, but we have it on all of our public lands. If you
    were asked to prioritize when it comes to critical
    infrastructure needs that would help you within this outdoor
    recreation visitor opportunity, where do you put your money
    first? Everybody jump in, because you have all thought about
    this. Let's just start with Ms. Mitchell and then go this way.
        Ms. Mitchell. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        The motorized recreation community is proud of the fact
    that we pay our own way. We tax ourselves through a sticker
    program and we combine that money, we pool that money, with
    some state gas tax and often federal gas tax and we build our
    own infrastructure.
        We provide----
        The Chairman. So you have a snowmobile association that
    helps build out the trails?
        Mr. Mitchell. We do it through the Idaho Department of
    Parks and Rec and that's where our money is pooled. And that
    goes for OHVs also. They tax themselves with a sticker. And if
    it were not for those funds, we would not be able to ride on
    the public lands the way we do. We build, we groom our own
    trails. And a groomer in Idaho, they cost about $325,000 each
    now, and we have about 30 of them. We build parking lots. We
    plow parking lots. We build bathroom facilities. And everything
    we build is open year-round to all users, both motorized and
    non-motorized. If it were not for those funds, we would not be
    recreating the way we are.
        Our biggest problem in access is simply having the Forest
    Service allow us to use the lands.
        The Chairman. Dr. O'Keefe?
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, I've got two things.
        So one, a lot of our access is on Forest Service lands and
    we depend on Forest Service roads. There's a program that's
    been around for about ten years, the Legacy Roads and Trails
    program, that actually proactively looks at access needs before
    roads wash out or problems occur. I think this body could take
    a look at, you know, creating authorization for that program as
    a formal program.
        And the other thing that I'd like to touch on is private
    forest land. A lot of our members recreate on private forest
    land. That's becoming much more difficult. I don't know, you
    know, private forest landowners, it's their land, they're, you
    know, free to make their rules and regulations but it's
    becoming more and more challenging to enjoy those
    opportunities. So if we could develop more partnerships and
    encourage that, that would be helpful too.
        The Chairman. Good enough.
        Mr. Fosburgh?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yeah, I would jump in on forest roads as
    well. I think you have, I believe, a two-fer there. You know,
    not only does it expand access and it makes management easier
    too and we're going to do more management on a lot of our
    national forest, particularly with invasive species and, you
    know, the fire risk.
        So, but also, those areas are what, you know, pouring
    sediments into our streams. And if you're in, you know, with
    sensitive cold-water habitats with salmon or trout, you know,
    as those roads are washing out, not being maintained, that's a
    direct impact on habitat.
        And the other thing I would think about, we don't often
    think about it when we think about recreation infrastructure is
    things like boat ramps. And I think that the boating industry
    in this country is huge. About 70 percent of the boating is
    done with, you know, according to NMM, National Marine
    Manufacturers, for fishing in mind, but you know, we need to
    really pay attention to that infrastructure as well, just boat
    ramps on rivers, on our coastline and Corps of Engineers,
    Bureau of Reclamation facilities. So infrastructure runs more
    broadly than just roads and trails and campsites.
        The Chairman. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Lusk?
        Mr. Lusk. With our project we are on private property, but
    the reason our project has been successful is access to
    communities.
        So, if you want a priority, I think that your funds should
    be first spent to ensure that the communities, these rural
    communities that are sometimes islands in the midst of these
    fast, federal tracks, have access to the trails.
        We use user fees. And that is one of the things that you
    don't see a tremendous amount on federal lands but, you know,
    the folks that come into our recreation, it's a motorized
    recreation. It's a high-impact recreation. We have to get out
    there with bulldozers and maintain these trails. We have
    sediment control issues. We have parking areas. So, you know,
    it's not unfair to ask a user of a resource to pay a small fee
    to utilize that resource. We do it. Fifty thousand people a
    year come to southern West Virginia and pay to use that
    resource. We, in turn, take that money and reinvest it into the
    public access, into the infrastructure.
        So I think that user fees shouldn't be overlooked as a way
    to maintain. It will certainly stretch the federal dollars much
    farther. And if you want the communities to be partners, then I
    think it's access. Those communities have to have access to
    these resources.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Dan, we all know that forest roads in the Tongass have been
    a long and a perennial issue. But other infrastructure issues?
        Mr. Kirkwood. Yeah, I think certainly it's a balance
    because our clients have such an expectation of wild places in
    Alaska. And the demand is really changing. People want to get
    out.
        You know, these generations that are visiting Alaska now
    are so much more active than the generations before. And of
    course, Alaskans have the highest rate of participation in
    outdoor recreation tied with Montana.
        I think collaboration is key, collaboration with rural
    communities, collaboration with businesses.
        At our Visitor Products Group we try to develop a priority
    list of infrastructure. And that was very difficult to do. It
    takes a more concerted effort. It takes a bigger circle of
    folks.
        And I think the public-private partnerships will continue
    to be a positive way forward, but the Forest Service needs the
    ability to be a good partner. They need the staff and the
    ability to make partnerships that work for businesses.
        The Chairman. Good enough.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. First of all, I want to thank all of you
    for a great hearing here. We are learning an awful lot.
        It is important that you all give us the feedback. I mean,
    we really want to get something done. We want to, basically,
    remove the impediments.
        A lot of the times we might think that we are doing
    something, and we write a piece of legislation of rules and
    regulations. By the time they get to you all, it is not what
    that was intended to do and it created more of an obstacle than
    it did an advantage. So this input is really, really important.
        The big input that we are facing right now in both of our
    states is climate change, what climate has done and, you know,
    people--you have certain people that deny that it really is
    humans.
        What they can't deny in the last 100 years is the horrific
    impact that humans have had. There has always been climate
    change, always will be a climate change but with human
    involvement, human activity, and everything else, we have
    accelerated it. And we know that.
        Alaska is affected. West Virginia is affected. How has it
    affected the industry? And do you see it changing in what you
    all can do?
        We will start with Mr. O'Keefe and, Dan, we will have you
    come in and anybody else who wants to. And I have one follow-up
    after that.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, well I would just say briefly, you know,
    summer rafting seasons and a lot of places throughout the West
    and across the country when the snow is melting, that's the
    fuel for their recreational economy around whitewater rafting.
    And if that snowpack is not there, it has a direct economic
    impact on local communities who depend on that.
        Senator Manchin. I am hearing you are going to have a good
    year this year of rafting, right?
        Dr. O'Keefe. It's looking good this year.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Manchin. Dan?
        Mr. Kirkwood. Well, climate change is certainly something
    that is very visible in Alaska. The Mendenhall Glacier Visitor
    Center is as much a climate change education center as anything
    else as we watch that glacier recede.
        But I think, you know, the other thing that I think a lot
    about are our wild salmon. We need to make sure that they have
    a good place to come home to as things in the ocean are
    changing. And when salmon runs are low that really impacts our
    ability to show folks bears. We have something really special
    there with our wild salmon in Alaska.
        Senator Manchin. Yes.
        How about on the snowmobiles? It has to be affecting that.
    I mean, unless you are getting hit a little differently.
        Ms. Mitchell. Oh, definitely. It definitely impacts sales
    when there's no snow. Nobody buys snowmobiles.
        Senator Manchin. You have seen a change because of----
        Ms. Mitchell. Oh, it definitely has. Where we get snow,
    when we get snow. I no longer think there's such a thing as a
    normal winter. They're all erratic.
        But because it's changing, and the Forest Service needs to
    take that into consideration. For example, there's an area up
    in north Idaho called the Selkirks. It was caribou habitat and
    snowmobilers, by court order, have been eliminated from using
    the Selkirks even though it's opened in a forest plan. The
    caribou have now been, they're gone. The last caribou was
    exported back to Canada. That area should be open for
    snowmobiling. But they don't respond to that quickly, as you
    know.
        So it does change and the Forest Service needs to change
    because that's the definition of the use, the landscape
    changing and the needs and the use changing. And they need to
    evaluate that and change their management----
        Senator Manchin. We might be able to help you there.
        Anybody else want to say something on this before I go to
    something else?
        Mr. Fosburgh. Yeah, I'm going to chime in on this one too
    because I think if you're a hunter or an angler, you're seeing
    it every place you look. I mean Minnesota does not have a moose
    season anymore because they're losing all their moose because
    they're dying of tick infestations. It's not getting cold
    enough to kill the ticks. The waterfowl migrations are on
    average about two weeks later now than they used to be. Elk
    aren't coming out of the mountains during the hunting season
    sometimes because it's not getting cold enough to push them
    down.
        And we have a place like Montana where you have river
    closures routinely now on rivers like the Jefferson, the
    Blackfoot and others because it gets too hot and, you know,
    temperatures are getting too low.
        We have algae blooms in a bunch of our Great Lakes, off the
    coast of Florida, all of which are, you know, pollution related
    but they're also the fact that it's getting hotter and staying
    hotter for longer periods.
        So you can't ignore this stuff and again, as I said in my
    testimony, I think if we actually really invest in our public
    lands, reforestation, better management, things like that, that
    helps, you know, in part, solve this problem. Invest in
    migration corridors so these animals that are going to have to
    move can move. So I think there's a lot of things that are not
    scary, but are really good things for hunting and fishing but
    also address the impacts of climate change.
        Senator Manchin. Jeff?
        Mr. Lusk. I'll just say in our area and, of course, we're
    in an area that's an area that produces carbon and what we saw
    is, you know, is the impact is, is we're having to reinvent our
    communities.
        We think what we're talking about here today, trails,
    recreation, access to public lands, might be a good way of
    helping some of those communities that have been impacted as
    some of their core industries have decreased. And I think, you
    know, what we've talked about today is very relevant to that.
        I know our season is getting much longer in West Virginia
    for trail riding, you know, winters are getting a little milder
    and it's increasing our season. It's increasing some
    recreational opportunities.
        Senator Manchin. Let me just ask this and I will start with
    you again, Jeff, on this.
        I know the challenges that we have in different areas,
    especially a lot of us depend on private investment, lodging,
    different ways that the private industry can get involved. In a
    hard-hit area, economically, like southern West Virginia, there
    are people who have a hard time getting access to capital.
        Are there any programs that you see in the Federal
    Government that could help with promoting recreation to where
    people could have access to capital to build infrastructure for
    accommodations and the like?
        Mr. Lusk. That is a true issue in all of rural America.
        Senator Manchin. Yes.
        Mr. Lusk. And southern West Virginia is no different.
        What we see with our entrepreneurs is certainly access to
    capital becomes the primary issue. I know these folks are in
    rural areas. We don't have these----
        Senator Manchin. Any programs that you know of? Any
    programs you know of that basically the Federal Government can
    help you access this capital for this purpose and intention?
        Mr. Lusk. Yeah, I think the programs that most come to mind
    are things like our federal EDA programs, our ARC POWER
    program, POWER+ program which is providing some money to
    venture capital funds like the Natural Capital Investment Fund
    that is in southern West Virginia lending money right now.
        But the SBA could actually wade in and help with loan
    guarantees in these businesses, make introductions to banks,
    actually get capital to providers in other parts of the country
    to maybe look at southern West Virginia. And I think those
    introductions can be best made by someone like the Small
    Business Administration.
        Mr. Fosburgh. And I think your situation where we look at
    we've lost a lot of the, you know, timber capacity in the
    western United States as mills have shut down. They're not
    going to come back by themselves unless, I think you want to
    look at things like a revolving loan fund out of USDA to help
    small mills come back to, you know, take care of a lot of that
    timber management we're going to need to see because it doesn't
    make any economic sense to be able to truck those logs, you
    know, thousands of miles to someplace to get them processed.
        Senator Manchin. Let me just say, thank you.
        Anybody else, any comments?
        [No response.]
        I just want to thank you. I think it has been tremendously
    educational for us. But this is something that has to be a
    continuing conversation. We want you to converse with us, give
    us the top concerns you have and the impediments you are
    running into. If something might have been well-intended that
    didn't end up helpful when it got to you, we want to know.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        I just have a couple of quick follow-ups, and then I am
    ready to wrap here as well.
        But the issue that Senator Manchin has raised, the impact
    of climate change and what we are seeing--whether with winter
    sports and snow coming later or just not as good as snow for
    skiing, for snowmobiling, the like, for dog mushing. We
    recognize that that change has impact.
        I think several of you have mentioned that one of the
    things you would like to see with the agency is a little more
    flexibility as they are dealing with this, recognizing that the
    season may not be the same calendar that the agency has been
    operating off of for the past 25 years. And so, I think that is
    important to recognize.
        Senator Wyden said something in his conversation. He said
    the recreational season was beginning. I want us to think that
    the recreational season is 365 days a year. And in some parts
    of the country, that is a little bit challenging. It is like
    sports, you move from one different activity to another. But it
    is something that, in Alaska, we have long sought to build is
    greater winter tourism opportunities because we think we have
    extraordinary things.
        Right now, in the State of Alaska, everyone in the state is
    following our biggest winter activity which is the 1,100-mile
    Iditarod race. The winner got to Nome yesterday. Nine days and
    some odd hours. But you think about that and some might not
    think that that is recreation. It is a lot of hard work. But it
    is an extraordinary part of, not only of our state's history,
    but it is something the tourists want to see when they go out
    to Juneau. They go up on top of the Mendenhall Glacier, and
    they are able to take a dog sled ride up there.
        But how can we be doing more to help these rural
    communities, again, or these places that are just smaller? They
    need to be making money not just in June, July and August.
        What we hear an awful lot--and, Dan, you probably know a
    lot of these folks. They work real hard in the summer and then
    in the winter we don't have that influx of tourists so they go
    down to Costa Rica and they will be river guides down there. It
    is a pretty nice life, but what we would really like to do is
    attempt to build out these opportunities in another or extended
    season, move out this shoulder season.
        Do any of you feel that, again, trying to get it back to
    the things that we can unravel here, are there issues where you
    have agencies that just aren't used to dealing with these new
    asks? For instance, up in Alaska we have more that are
    interested in doing heli-skiing opportunities. Well, we just
    really have not had much opportunity before so we didn't have
    the people that were focused on it. When we get to the
    permitting process, again, I am rambling a little bit but I am
    trying to determine if process-wise we are limiting, the
    agencies are limiting, our ability to try to expand more into
    the shoulder season to create a more year-round economic
    opportunity. Comments on that?
        Dan?
        Mr. Kirkwood. Yeah, thank you, Senator.
        I'm familiar with the heli-skiing challenges and the
    challenges of planning for new recreation opportunities. And I
    think part of that derives from a planning effort that has been
    piece-by-piece. Okay, we'll plan for small ships. Okay, now
    we'll plan for hikes.
        But I think that there might be an opportunity and not
    something I'm very familiar with but would love to talk with
    your office more about is are there opportunities to think
    collaboratively on the large scale so that we're not finding
    our permits ending a half mile away from the beach because no
    one has done the important NEPA work to think about the
    interior of the island, for example. Certainly the, you know,
    the agency has a responsibility and it's an important one to do
    that analysis, but I think there's a chance to think big scale
    and long-term about recreation.
        And certainly winters are something that we're focused on
    in Alaska, and we do see our seasons growing both in the fall
    and the spring as well.
        The Chairman. That is a good thing.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Let me, if I could, just share a quick
    anecdote with you.
        So I had one of our members who was interested in providing
    a new opportunity as you described. And the response he got
    from the agency was this isn't a bad proposal. It's actually
    got a lot of merit, but we just have so much required work to
    do that we don't have time for discretionary projects like
    this.
        The Chairman. So they view it as discretionary.
        Dr. O'Keefe. Yeah, so now when did outdoor recreation
    become a discretionary project?
        And I think if this body could really change that
    conversation to make this an intentional part of the priorities
    for the agency and not just discretionary, that would be a huge
    benefit for these communities across the country.
        The Chairman. Good. Important.
        Ms. Mitchell. We have a small community in central Idaho
    that used to have two populations when you drove in to their
    town. One was summer and one was winter, and it declined
    immensely in the winter. That has changed because of
    snowmobiling and winter sports, snowshoeing. People are now
    coming to this small community, and it's actually enlivened.
    It's given them a winter economy, and it saved them year-round.
        The Forest Service will never be accused of being flexible,
    and they need to become advocates of adaptive management. They
    need to respond to the new forms of recreation.
        Many times you'll look into the forest plan and in the
    standard they will say, no new forms of recreation are allowed.
    They simply have drawn a line. And that stops progress.
        It stops these small rural communities that are literally
    starving. Their schools are crumbling. And they have all the
    resources around to build an amazing economy, but they're not
    allowed to because the Forest Service simply will not respond
    accordingly.
        And he's absolutely right, they need to understand that
    recreation is the largest use of the federal land. It's the
    future for the economy of the rural communities.
        The Chairman. Let me ask on that question because I know
    that certainly in the Southeast area what I have heard from
    others is that if you have a lot of area around you but with
    the permits and the process that is out there, more and more
    outfitters and guides are being pushed into the same areas and
    that you are not seeing other areas that are being opened.
    Limitations on, you know, if you are the new outfitter that
    wants to come on you really don't have that opportunity to
    create your own small business there.
        Mr. Kirkwood, in terms of what we have been seeing, is it
    getting any better, is it getting worse in terms of just, kind
    of, the congestion into the same areas?
        I know that we hear this coming out of Ketchikan a lot
    where you have a few areas where those who are getting off the
    cruise ships can go do a small float plane ride, touch down in
    a few chosen lakes but it is very limited. And so, what they
    are seeing is just increased pressure there on the limited
    number of permits.
        Mr. Kirkwood. Yeah, thank you, Senator.
        You know, the Tongass is such a large place, the largest
    national forest. But when it comes to the recreation resources,
    I think in the northern part of Southeast, where I live, we see
    a lot of crowding as well. And that's because the places that
    are both beautiful to hike or a good place to anchor a boat,
    you actually start to whittle down to a handful of really good
    places.
        Now as our tourism season has expanded, what some are
    calling Alaska awakening in April and May, we're now seeing
    more visitors than ever before early in the season. We have
    folks who want to go into the wilderness and go on a hike in
    maybe some of the same places where a bear hunting guide is
    running their operation. We certainly have no argument with
    that but those are two very different experiences that neither
    wants to participate in together.
        So this year I can report that, you know, leaders, I would
    say, innovators in the Forest Service have brought the bear
    hunters and the small ship cruise guides together.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Mr. Kirkwood. This has been a great success for everyone to
    learn about their different businesses and to create best
    management practices that have built on other programs like the
    Wilderness Best Management Practices in Tracy Arm, the Tourism
    Best Management Practices in Juneau that have really been
    successful at helping people stay out of each other's way and
    provide that very classic Alaskan experience.
        The Chairman. A couple of final questions, I know I said my
    others were going to be the final. Whit, you mentioned the need
    for digitization which just seems so basic and commonsense. So
    making sure that we address that is something that you would
    seemingly think would be easy. But it does appear that
    something just as routine as that could actually help
    facilitate some of the issues that you have raised in your
    testimony and with the report that has been prepared and handed
    down.
        Dan, you also mentioned the metrics and making sure that we
    are gathering the data and understanding the value that is
    coming here. In terms of the metrics then that are currently
    being used, is it naive to assume that the agencies collect
    this and that they use the same metric or is this part of our
    problem?
        Mr. Kirkwood. Thank you, Senator.
        In advance of coming down here I spoke with a friend who
    works at the Forest Service and asked for what some of the
    metrics they were responsible were. And so, for a place that
    has visitors coming in increasing numbers with crowding and
    infrastructure issues, the response was well, the metric I need
    to meet is I need to create seven new recreation programs.
    Okay. What does that do? Where does the rubber meet the road?
    Why are we not measuring things that will have the positive
    impacts?
        And I think that there are so many of them that new
    metrics, like I said, that have already been developed for
    piloting in Region 10 with data the Forest Service already
    captures will be really helpful for them to tell us, to tell
    you, what they're doing and how they're succeeding. They can
    deliver incredible success for us. They have and they can
    continue to. They deserve credit for it.
        The Chairman. So others, do the agencies--is there a
    consistency in terms of the metrics, do we know?
        Dr. O'Keefe. I mean, I would add that the, you know, the
    Forest Service has a national visitor use monitoring program
    and it's standard methodology they have used for many years.
    But it doesn't capture the nuances of a lot of the different
    activities that are happening out on the national forests.
        And it also, I believe, they don't currently do a
    sufficient job to look at the quality of visitor experiences.
    So it's not just, you know, the number of people that are going
    out there, but what's the quality of the experience. And
    they're doing some work in that regard, but I think we could do
    that in a much more intentional way.
        The Chairman. Well, you have given us all some really good
    feedback here this morning.
        Again, I noted the five reforms, I think, that you are
    suggesting, Mr. Fosburgh, that I think are some things that the
    Committee can look to in terms of--you mentioned the BLM
    disposal criteria within FLPMA--what more can be done to just
    really understand the inventory issue as it relates to BLM and
    Forest Service.
        I think we have some things to look at with regards to the
    permitting, the metrics, but very, very helpful. I think there
    is a keen recognition that while at the same time many of us as
    users are just out there for fun, the men and women that help
    us get out there and have that fun, whether it is on the river
    or on the mountain or the outfitter who is making sure that you
    have your hunting permit and license, it is a real economy for
    them.
        And this is a healthy, great way to utilize our lands in a
    way that we can all enjoy but also gain extraordinary economic
    benefit from.
        So how we help facilitate that, how we make sure that it is
    not our agencies that are actually holding us back, that we all
    appreciate that there is a level of regulation that is smart
    and makes sense but we also want to make sure that it is smart
    and makes sense.
        Thank you for the suggestions that you have provided to us
    today.
        Senator Risch had to go to another committee and has asked
    that several questions be submitted for the record for your
    response, Ms. Mitchell, with regard to winter travel access and
    recommended wilderness issues. So you will be seeing those.
    Other members of the Committee may also wish to submit
    questions to you for the record, so we would look forward to
    those responses as well as all you have provided for us today.
        We thank you for being here and thank you for the
    opportunity to continue this dialogue as we work to access our
    treasured federal lands.
        Thank you so much.
        The Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]