[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPEDIMENTS TO PUBLIC RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-815 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 7, 2013............................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bacon, Sutton, Chief Executive Officer, Nantahala Outdoor
Center, Board of Directors, Outdoor Industry Association,
Bryson City, North Carolina................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Bannon, Aaron, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability
Director, National Outdoor Leadership School............... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Brown, David L., Executive Director, America Outdoors
Association................................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Duncan, John F., Managing Partner, Telluride Fly Fishing Co.,
Inc., dba Telluride Outside Outfitter and Guide............ 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Friedman, Michael, Managing Partner, Adventure Partners, LLC. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 4
Kauffman, Teresa ``Terry,'' Rancho Red Rock.................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Lindsey, Rick J., President, Chairman and CEO, Prime
Insurance Company.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement dated August 2, 2012, submitted for the record. 67
McFarland, Scott, Owner, High Point Adventures............... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Merrill, Brian I., CEO, Western River Expeditions, Salt Lake
City,
Utah....................................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Simonds, Grant, Executive Director, Idaho Outfitters and
Guides Association......................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 69
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``IMPEDIMENTS TO PUBLIC RECREATION ON PUBLIC
LANDS''
----------
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis,
Labrador, Daines; Grijalva, DeFazio, Shea-Porter, and Garcia.
Also Present: Representative Heck.
Mr. Bishop. All right, this hearing will come to order.
Even though it sounds like a mausoleum out there anyway, you
will be orderly now. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum
on the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulation. We are meeting here today to have oversight
testimony on ``Impediments to Public Recreation on Public
Lands.''
So, under the rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous
consent to include any other Members' opening statement in the
record, if they submit it to the clerk by close of business
today. And, hearing no objections, it is so ordered.
If I can start with my opening statement and see if we can
move this along as best we can.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Americans are clearly blessed with vast
expanses of land suitable for almost every type of outdoor
recreation: hunting, fishing, off-road vehicles, hiking,
camping, boating. They are among the recreational activities
that, for generations, American families have enjoyed on public
lands.
In my home State of Utah, outdoor recreation opportunities
are aplenty, from world-class skiing in the north, to the Red
Rock Country in the south, Utah is a truly remarkable place to
enjoy the great outdoors. Utah is leading the way when it comes
to accommodating outdoor recreation enthusiasts and business.
Governor Herbert recently released the ``State of Utah's
Outdoor Recreation Visit,'' which we could probably kill a
whole lot of trees if I put that in the record, but it is
there.
The State legislature adopted this vision, its first
recommendations, when they created the Office of Outdoor
Recreation. And I have initiated a multi-stakeholder process to
harness Eastern Utah's conservation, outdoor recreation, and
mineral assets into a balanced, locally driven concept.
Although our opportunities on Federal lands are
unsurpassed, they are not being realized as fully as they
should, simply because Federal land management has become often
bureaucratic, always autocratic, and traditionally
dysfunctional. I believe this dysfunction has catapulted
Federal land management to the forefront of the public lands
issues. And I believe we are in the midst of a paradigm shift
when it comes to the management of our Federal lands. Put
simply, a major reassessment of our Federal land management
apparatus is clearly needed.
Public use is one of the fundamental purposes of public
lands, and it requires an open and a fair process. Properly
managed, our lands could provide far more toward our economic
well-being, our recreational use, and our conservation
interest. To be good stewards of the Federal land, we need to
encourage all three objectives, and they are compatible. It is
not a zero-sum game. The land and all the nature of this big
continent is resilient, it is dynamic, it responds well to good
management.
In many instances, public access and enjoyment depends upon
the service of outfitters and guides. These outfitters and
guides are typically small, locally owned businesses who
operate on a very small profit margin. They provide jobs, they
are integral to the communities that surround our public lands,
and they provide essential expertise, training, and equipment
to visitors. Increased fees, bureaucratic resistance,
regulations, processing times, and especially litigation, are
driving up the costs of running private businesses on public
lands and making a profitable operation difficult, putting many
out of business and threatening the continuation of the
services that make visitor access possible and affordable for
families.
Unless there is a change in direction, a generation of
Americans could lose this opportunity to participate in the
outdoor adventure, and thousands of local jobs could be lost,
as well. In our hearing today, we will see testimony from
outfitters and guides, along with representatives from
insurance companies and trade associations that support their
work. These are skilled professionals dedicated to public
enjoyment of our public lands which provide services that
government simply cannot.
To truly appreciate the abundance of natural resources the
Lord has blessed our land with, we should encourage, not
hinder, a full range of public uses that our land can provide.
Today we are going to hear from individuals who experienced
firsthand how Federal land managers are performing their task
of providing open and fair access, and we are going to hear
recommendations on how to overcome impediments to public
recreation on public lands.
So, I would like to specifically welcome Brian Merrill and
Aaron Bannon. These gentlemen have been active participants in
our Eastern Utah planning process, and have been very helpful
in outlining the challenges and opportunities that we face with
the outdoor recreation community.
With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Grijalva, for any opening statement he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. Thank you for
holding this hearing today. I think this is a critical issue,
and one that deserves attention. And we appreciate the
attention you have brought to it by holding this hearing. Thank
you.
And I also want to thank everyone that is testifying today.
Your testifying today means you aren't home running your
businesses, so we appreciate the sacrifice you made to come to
D.C.
Recreation and the money recreation generates from our
public lands is important. Too often we fight over oil and gas
development, logging, mining, when the real economic engine
fueling many communities is the recreation economy. The Outdoor
Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation creates
$646 billion in direct consumer spending, and $80 billion in
Federal, State, and local taxes. This is bigger than the
pharmaceutical or automobile industry. In my home State of
Arizona, outdoor recreation is a $10 billion industry that
supports $3.5 billion in wages and salaries.
The importance of the industry is why I have introduced
legislation to create a 21st Century Great Outdoors Commission.
This legislation is modeled after the bipartisan Outdoor
Recreation Resource Review Commission that was enacted in the
Eisenhower Administration. When enacted, the 21st Century Great
Outdoors Commission will be charged with making policy
recommendations to Congress on how to promote and protect this
valuable activity.
As everyone testifying today says, in one way or another we
need to relook at how people in America are using these
resources, and what can be done to make sure the Federal
Government is meeting the needs of its taxpayers. And, by the
way, no Federal money would be spent on this Commission.
My legislation has the support of the Outdoor Industry
Association, the Trust for Public Land, and the Nature
Conservancy, the Outdoor Alliance, and the National Parks
Conservation Association.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman for holding this
important hearing, and I look forward to the hearing and to the
comments by our witnesses. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this hearing today. I think
this is a critical issue--and one that deserves more attention. Thank
you also to those of you who are testifying. For many of you,
testifying today means you aren't home running your businesses so we
appreciate the sacrifice you made to come to D.C.
Recreation and the money recreation generates from our public lands
is important. Too often, we fight over oil and gas development,
logging, and mining when the real economic engine fueling many
communities is the recreation economy.
The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation
creates $646 billion in direct consumer spending and $80 billion in
federal, state, and local taxes. This is bigger than the pharmaceutical
or automobile industry. In my home state of Arizona, outdoor recreation
is a $10 billion industry that supports $3.5 billion in wages and
salaries.
The importance of the industry is why I introduced legislation to
create a 21st Century Great Outdoors Commission. This legislation is
modeled after the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Resource Review
Commission that was enacted in the Eisenhower Administration.
When enacted, the 21st Century Great Outdoors Commission will be
charged with making policy recommendation to Congress on how to promote
and protect this valuable activity. As everyone testifying today says
in one way or another, we need to re-look at how people in America are
using these resources and what can be done to make sure the federal
government is meeting the needs of taxpayers. And by the way--no
federal money would be spent on this Commission.
My legislation has the support of the Outdoor Industry Association,
the National Wildlife Federal, the Trust for Public Land, the Nature
Conservancy, the Outdoor Alliance, and the National Parks Conservation
Association.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman for holding this important
hearing and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it. With today's
hearing we are going to have three distinct panels. The first
panel will consist of our colleague, Congressman Joe Heck, a
representative from the third district in Nevada.
The subsequent panels we are going to hear from
representatives from the outdoor recreation and insurance
industries. These are the small business operators and
outfitters we talked about.
Mr. Heck, at the end of your presentation, if you would
like to join us, we will be happy to accommodate that. So far I
have yet to have anybody take me up on that offer in my entire
career here, but I am always looking for somebody to do that.
Mr. Heck, you have 5 minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the
Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva.
More than 85 percent of my State is owned by the Federal
Government. So Nevadans know how critical public lands are for
environmental and recreational purposes. And the topic of
today's hearing, ``Impediments to Public Recreation on Public
Lands,'' is an important one. Nevada's lands have been used for
generations by folks who enjoy the many activities that the
Chairman listed in his opening statement. And our land should
be open for these activities. I thank the Committee for their
continued vigilance in this matter.
But I want to turn briefly to another topic that is very
timely related to public lands usage. It is a topic that I am
hopeful this Committee will look into more thoroughly in the
coming weeks, and that is the issue of bureaucratic impediments
to volunteer search and rescue efforts on public lands.
On January 31, 2012, Las Vegas taxi driver Keith Goldberg
went missing. Investigators believed that he was killed and the
body disposed of in the desert in the vicinity of the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area. Local law enforcement suspended their
search when Keith was not found, and arrests were made in April
of 2012. But the Goldberg family and Keith's sister, Jody, who
is with us today in the audience, still wanted answers. They
wanted to find Keith and bring closure to what had been a
heart-wrenching experience.
The Goldberg family turned to Red Rock Search and Rescue, a
nonprofit search and rescue team that helps families like the
Goldbergs when loved ones go missing. The team at Red Rock is a
trained group of volunteers with extensive experience. And the
Goldbergs were hopeful that, with Red Rock's help, they would
be able to close this tragic chapter of their lives.
As Red Rock prepared to start their search, they ran into a
number of bureaucratic road blocks at the National Park
Service. Valuable time was consumed with the processes needed
to obtain a special use permit and to obtain a liability
insurance policy. Now recall this is a trained, nonprofit,
volunteer, Good Samaritan organization trying to bring closure
to a family by searching for their lost family member for free,
and at no expense to the taxpayer. They provide a valuable
community service. And they need to be able to get in to the
public park and make their search.
Some 15 months after Keith Goldberg disappeared, Red Rock
was finally able to find an insurance policy and obtain the
requisite permits that would allow them to start their search.
And on April 14th, after less than 2 hours of searching, Red
Rock Search and Rescue discovered the remains that had been
matched to Keith Goldberg. The Goldberg family had their
closure.
But the Goldberg's story is not unique. Air Force Staff
Sergeant Antonio Tucker was presumed drowned in Lake Mead on
June 23, 2012. As the National Park Service searched, they were
contacted by an owner of a company specializing in underwater
recovery and survey work. He offered to help. He was told the
Park Service had all the help it needed.
Ten months later, after hiring an attorney, filing a
request for public documents, and applying for a special use
permit, he was finally cleared to search the lake. Staff
Sergeant Antonio Tucker's body was recovered on April 17th of
this year, in less than 2 days of searching. Antonio Tucker's
family waited 10 months for closure. A spokesman for the Lake
Mead National Recreation Area now acknowledged that the company
had more advanced equipment than the service and stated, ``We
should be able to utilize their services much more rapidly.''
Now, neither of these examples is intended to be an
indictment of the men and women who work at the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area or any of our public lands. They are
truly dedicated professionals working to the best of their
ability within a bureaucratic framework that hinders the
acceptance of Good Samaritans offering to help.
Having thought about these issues, and as a former member
of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Search and
Rescue Team, developing legislation that would require the
National Park Service and other Federal land management
agencies to streamline and expedite the permitting process, as
well as waive any liability insurance requirements for
nonprofit, accredited search and rescue organizations for the
purpose of carrying out privately requested missions on Federal
lands.
Again, I am hopeful that the Committee will give this
matter its due consideration so that families like the
Goldbergs and the Tuckers can have the closure they deserve
when unfortunately faced with a missing loved one.
I again thank the Committee for allowing me the chance to
testify here today. I look forward to working with you on the
public land access issues in the future, and as much as I would
love to join the Committee at this time, I do have another
committee meeting to get to, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Heck, we appreciate your testimony here,
and I appreciate you alerting us to what is really an
astonishing failure on the part of land managers. I also
appreciate having some of the members of the family of those
who were involved in this here with us today, as well. So thank
you for doing that.
My assumption is, Mr. Heck, that you are working on
legislation to address this problem.
Mr. Heck. That is correct. We have the discussion draft
back; we should have it ready by next week.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We hope to be able to have a quick
hearing and be able to move that forward and do whatever we can
to help you on that.
I don't have any other questions. Mr. Grijalva, do you have
questions of the Representative?
Mr. Grijalva. No, just to thank our colleague for bringing
this to all of our attention, and to extend condolences to the
family that is here. This is a policy, not based on regulation,
based on, I think, the lead land manager's discretion and their
ability to assess and understand. It is unfortunate that
discretion was not what it should have been in this case. But I
look forward to discussing that legislation as you prepare it
and finalize it. And again, thank you for bringing it to our
attention. And to the family, condolences. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for joining us today, Congressman.
We would like to call our second panel up. We are going to
have two more panels. Panel two will be Rick Lindsey, who is
from Prime Insurance Company; Terry Kauffman, the Rancho Red
Rock; Scott McFarland, High Point Hummer; Mike Friedman, the
Adventure Partners; and Sutton Bacon from the Nantahala Outdoor
Center--if I even came close to saying that properly.
We can invite you up to the table. We will just start with
Rick and go from left to right, as I look at you. For many of
you who have been here before, for those who have not, your
written testimony is part of the record. We will ask for some
oral testimony at this time. We are granting you 5 minutes each
for that oral testimony. So, if you would, watch the clock
ahead of you. When you have 5 minutes the time will start, it
will be green. When you see it hit yellow, that means you have
1 minute left to sum up. And when you see it hit red again,
that is like any traffic light. We would like you to stop.
So, thank you for being here. Rick, I will turn to you
first for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK J. LINDSEY,
PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY
Mr. Lindsey. Thanks, Chairman Bishop, members of the
Subcommittee. As you may recall, I testified before the
Subcommittee on August 2, 2012, and respectfully request that
you enter my written and oral testimony of that date by herein
incorporating by reference such that it will be continued to
form my ongoing position on this matter.
[Statement for the record can be found on page 67:]
Mr. Lindsey. Further, to my August 2nd testimony, I would
like to bring your attention to some of the additional
information that has come to my attention in the time period
since that time.
The National Park Service has failed to adequately address
the issues brought to the Subcommittee's attention on August
2nd. When the National Park Service representative testified
before the Subcommittee last year, there was an inadequate
response to the request for the National Park Service to
provide actual case-specific examples of the current insurance
requirements being inadequate to cover a claim for any injury.
In fact, no such examples have been provided by the National
Park Service to this day.
I have personally been contacted by distressed
concessioners from around the country, telling me of their
horror stories. These individual examples range from insurance
requirements of $7 million in the U.S. Virgin Islands to $11
million in Virginia. Non-insurance issues that have either put
small concessioners out of business or soon will. Many of these
concessioners have expressed their emotional and heartfelt fear
that they will be even further victimized by the Federal
Government if they fully disclose their identity.
Small businesses are particularly harmed by the government
agency's actions. As you will hear from the other witnesses
today, I have personally been informed by many concessioners
and Federal permit holders around the country that their small
businesses have been directly targeted and significantly harmed
by the Federal agencies.
It is clear to me that these agencies are trying to put
small operators out of business, which runs contrary to Ms.
Peggy O'Dell's testimony on August 2, 2012, that the National
Park Service adheres to its guidelines not to unduly burden
small businesses. This means, sadly, that smaller operators who
are usually safer, more experienced, and provide a better
experience for the public, will be a thing of the past to be
replaced by a few large conglomerates. This reminds me of the
2008 mortgage crisis, where the largest banks had been
considered too big to fail.
Public access on the public lands will be curtailed with
the obviously putting out of business of these small permit
holders, outfitters, and guides, and concessioners. This could
only affect the chilling public access, which, for some unknown
political reason, appears to be what the Federal agencies are
hoping to achieve. The further increase of insurance
requirements is unnecessary, and only serve to add to the
issues that will continue to put small business operators out
of business.
Release forms being disallowed. Outfitters, outdoor
operators, and their insurance companies indemnify and hold
harmless the Federal agencies that have immunity. But some
Federal agencies attempt to sever these protections by taking
away the assumption of risk and release of liability forms.
Some Federal agencies will not allow assumption of risk forms
or release of liability forms. This means that no matter the
facts of the injury to the outdoor participant, they never
assume the risk. This places an undue burden of possible
liability on the permit holders, the Federal agencies, and
their insurance carriers.
However, companies that do not hold permits with the
Federal agencies are protected by these release claims without
interference from the Federal agencies from patrons renting
equipment outside of the park and for use on public lands, but
used to enjoy outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in these important
matters of not allowing small operators to be put out of
business, and ensuring that the public access is not restricted
as a result. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindsey follows:]
Statement of Rick J. Lindsey, President, Chairman & CEO,
Prime Insurance Company
Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee:
As you will recall, I testified before this Subcommittee on August
2nd 2012, and I respectfully request that my written and oral testimony
of that date be herein incorporated by reference such that it will
continue to form my ongoing position in this matter.
Further to my August 2nd 2012 testimony, I would like to bring to
your attention some additional information that has come to my
attention in the time period since that time, as follows:
The NPS has failed to adequately address the issues
brought to this Subcommittee's attention at the August 2, 2012
Hearing. When the NPS representative testified before this
Subcommittee last year, there was an inadequate response to the
request for the NPS to provide actual case specific examples of
the current insurance requirements being inadequate to cover a
claim for injury. In fact, no such examples have been provided
by the NPS to this day.
I have personally been contacted by distressed
Concessioners from around the country telling me of their
``NPS/NFS/BLM Horror Stories''. These individual examples range
from examples of insurance requirements for $7.0MM of liability
limits in the U.S. Virgin Islands and $11.0MM in Virginia, to
broader, non-insurance issues that have either put small
concessions out of business, or soon will. Many of these
Concessioners have expressed their emotional and heart-felt
fear that they will be even further victimized by the Federal
Government if they disclose their identity.
Small businesses are particularly harmed by the NPS,
BLM and NFS actions: As you will hear from the other witnesses
today, I have been personally informed by many Concessioners
and Federal Permit Holders around the country that their small
businesses have been directly targeted and significantly harmed
by these federal agencies. It is clear to me that these
agencies are trying to put small operators out of business
which runs contrary to Ms. Peggy O'Dell's testimony on August
2nd, 2012 that the NPS adheres to its guidelines NOT to unduly
burden small businesses. This means, sadly, that the smaller
operators who are usually safer, more experienced, and provide
a better experience for the public will be a thing of the past,
to be replaced by a few large conglomerates. This reminds me of
the 2008 mortgage crisis where the largest banks had been
considered ``Too big to Fail!''
Public Access to Public Lands will be Curtailed: With
the obvious putting out of business of all the smaller permit
holders, outfitters, guides, and concessioners, this can only
have the effect of chilling public access, which for some
unknown political reason, appears to be what these Federal
Agencies are hoping to achieve. The proposed further increases
in insurance requirements are unnecessary and only serve to add
to the issues that will continue to put small businesses and
operators out of business.
Release Forms Disallowed: Outdoor operators and their
insurance companies indemnify or hold harmless the federal
agencies that have immunity but some federal agencies attempt
to sever these protections by taking away the assumption of
risk and release of liability. Some Federal Agencies will not
allow assumption of risk and release of liability forms this
means that no matter the facts of the injury to the outdoor
participant, they never assume the risk. This places an undue
burden of possible liability on the permit holders, the Federal
Agencies and the insurance carriers. However, companies that do
not hold permits with these Federal Agencies are protected by
the release of claims, without interference of the Federal
Agencies, from patrons renting equipment rented outside of
public lands but used to enjoy outdoor recreation activities on
public lands.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in these important matters of
Not allowing Small Operators to be put out of business and Ensuring
that Public Access is Not Restricted as a result.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Lindsey.
Terry, if we can turn to you now, same 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF TERESA ``TERRY'' KAUFFMAN,
RANCHO RED ROCK
Ms. Kauffman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Bishop. Can you make sure that is as close to your
mouth as you can get it?
Ms. Kauffman. OK, sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Kauffman. OK. My name is Teresa Kauffman, and I run a
small horse farm riding stable near Reno, Nevada. Since 1975, I
have managed riding stables with my sons in the Reno-Tahoe
area, most notably North Star Stables, from 1975 to 2011.
In 2010, Vale Resorts purchased North Star Resort. And at
the end of the 2011 season, I was handed a new contract. My
insurance requirement went from $1 million to $5 million.
Employee compensation was to double, and we were required to
have a $2 million policy on all our private vehicles. This was
impossible. We could in no way finance this or continue to run
the business. Corporate headquarters would not even discuss a
possible solution with us or our insurance company. Sadly, we
gave up North Star Stables, a good 80 percent of our family
income.
Since then, I have dug my heels in, so to speak. I am
trying to make a living from my little farm. We sold half our
horses, my sons have work elsewhere. Here at Rancho Red Rock, I
own 20 acres in a valley with home owners associations. The
parcels are large enough and I can do a fair amount of rides on
private land. Best of all, I have BLM land all around me.
Tourists and locals alike enjoy being taken out in the hills
where they can see antelope and deer and wild horses and super
views.
I had a permit from 2001 to 2011. Last year I spent several
months doing necessary paperwork to renew my permit. The BLM
contact, Mr. Arthur Callan, was very helpful, even loaning us a
GPS and helping us to map the routes. It has been a long
process. We miss being able to go up in the hills. Last month
the big brown envelope came. But insurance requirements have
now gone from $300,000 to $1 million. Here we go again, I
thought. I emailed Rick Lindsey, President at the insurance
company, Worldwide Outfitters and Guides. He confirmed this was
the trend. Then he asked me if I could come to Washington and
tell my story.
So, here I am. This is my story. I don't see anything good
coming from the higher insurance rates. Small, local outfitters
will not be able to finance the increases, and go out of
business. Big corporations will come in with less qualified,
non-local employees to fill the gap. Or, certain activities
will just be dropped. The public will lose, similar to my time
at Lake Tahoe. When we started in 1975 there were 13 riding
stables. Now there are only three.
Yes, some were on private land, but the issues are related.
As private land is lost, public land becomes more important to
our industry. And who benefits? The government will lose the
fees.
Just in my valley we have a good example. There is a local
hunt club. They have been taking guests on horseback in BLM for
30 years. Last year they were required to have an EIS
statement, and no way could they do that. So, what did they do?
They founded a private hunt club, elected officials, members
pay dues, all nonprofit. They still hunt, but there is no
regulation, and they pay no fees. And people will still
continue to go out in the private lands, and more accidents
will happen.
In conclusion, I feel I have provided the public with a
valuable and enjoyable resource for 38 years. I have lost my
main location due to high insurance requirements. I see the
writing on the wall. It is happening again.
Human beings need high-risk activities to be truly human,
to shake out the cobwebs, to use our brains and nerves and
feelings, to help us deal with our computerized, technical
world.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kauffman follows:]
Statement of Teresa Kauffman, Rancho Red Rock
Mr Chairman:
My name is Teresa Kauffman and I run a small horse farm/riding
stable near Reno, NV. Since 1975 I have managed riding stables with my
sons in the Reno/Tahoe area, most notably Northstar Stables from 1975
to 2011. In 2010 Vailresorts purchased Northstar Resort, and at the end
of the 2011 season I was handed a new contract. My insurance
requirement went from $1 million to $5 million, my employee
compensation was to more than double and we were required to have a $2
million policy on all our private vehicles. This was impossible. We
could in no way continue to run the business. Corporate headquarters
would not even discuss a possible solution with us or our insurance
company. Sadly, we gave up Northstar Stables, a good 80% or our family
income.
So I have ``dug my heels in'' so to speak, and am trying to make a
living from my little farm. We sold half our horses, and my sons have
work elsewhere. Here at Rancho Red Rock I own 20 acres in a valley with
a homeowners assn. The parcels are large and I can do a fair amount of
rides on private land. Best of all, I have BLM land all around me.
Tourists and locals alike enjoy being taken out in the hills where they
can see antelope, deer and wild horses. And super views. I had a permit
2001 to 2011. Last year I spent several months doing the necessary
paperwork to renew my permit. My BLM contact Arthur Callan was very
helpful, even loaning my son Leo and me a GPS to help us map routes. It
has been a long process, and we miss being able to go out in the hills
. . . last month the big brown envelope with my 10 year permit came.
BUT . . . insurance requirements have gone from $300,000 to $1 million.
HERE WE GO AGAIN I thought!! I emailed Rick Lindsey, president of my
insurance company, Worldwide Outfitters and Guides. He confirmed that
was the trend, then he asked me if I could come tell my story in
Washinton DC.
So here I am, this is my story. I do not see anything good coming
from the higher insurance rates. Small local outfitters will not be
able to finance the increases and go out of business. Big corporations
will come in with less qualified, non local employees to fill the gap.
Or certain activities will just be dropped. The public will lose.
Similar to my time at Lake Tahoe . . . when we started in 1975 there
were 13 riding stables in the area. Now there are 3. Yes some were on
private land, but the issues are all related. Again, who benefits? The
government will lose the fees these small outfitters pay. Just in my
valley we have a prime example. There is a local hunt club that has
been taking guests hunting on horseback on BLM land for 30 years. Last
year when it was time for them to renew their permit. They were told
they had to get an EIS statement. That was totally impossible
financially. So what did they do? Founded a private hunt club, elected
officers, members pay dues . . . all non profit. They still hunt . . .
each week in the winter with 5 to 20 riders and 30 hounds. But it is
all non regulated and they pay no fees.
In conclusion I feel I have provided the public with a valuable and
enjoyable resource 38 years. I have lost my main location due to higher
insurance requirements. I see the writing on the wall. It is happening
again. Human beings need ``high risk'' activities to be truly human . .
. to shake the cobwebs out...use our brains and nerves and feelings . .
. to help us deal with our computerized, technical world.
Thank you for your time.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Kauffman, for your personal
story. Scott from High Point Hummer, if you can, once again,
pull that as close to you as you possibly can.
Mr. McFarland. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. And you have 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT McFARLAND,
HIGH POINT HUMMER
Mr. McFarland. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to express my views on issues
regarding guides and outfitters on public lands. Over the past
19 years I have worked in the outdoor recreation industry and
have had the experience and opportunity to work with each of
the different land management agencies.
Public land supervisors have a duty to preserve the natural
resources within their jurisdiction, while facilitating public
enjoyment and access to these lands. The constant evolution of
the recreational opportunities that take place on public lands
challenges stewardship efforts. Confronted with this task, I
believe that land management agencies should be more proactive
in cooperating with local governments, partnering with
outfitters and guides, and avoid broad measures that will have
unintended consequences.
A very successful partnership between the Moab, Utah BLM
office and the local county government is the Sand Flats
Recreation Area. This partnership was formed in 1995, in which
county employees manage and maintain a very popular camping and
recreational area of BLM lands known as Sand Flats. The Sand
Flats area is over 8,000 acres with 120 campsites and home to 2
world-renowned trails: the Slick Rock Mountain Bike Trail and
Hell's Revenge OHV Trail, that host over 100,000 visitors each
year.
The Recreation Area is well-planned, well-maintained, and
also financially self-sustaining. I would like to reiterate:
financially self-sustaining. The relatively inexpensive fees
collected for entrance and campsite use exceed $300,000
annually, with an average budget surplus of $40,000 that then
is reinvested into the recreation area.
Through mutual hard work and respect the Moab BLM office
and county managers have developed a very important high level
of trust among all involved. Through partnerships and private
outfitters and guides, private land supervisors can increase
opportunities for environmental education and natural resource
interpretation.
Outfitters and guides have multiple roles. While providing
outdoor education and recreational opportunities to our
clients, we often come in contact with non-commercial visitors
in the back country. Through these informal encounters, guides
act as the eyes and ears of land management agencies. As
stewards of our precious lands, guides strive to preserve the
quality of the natural resources of the area that we guide in.
Guides and outfitters also frequently provide non-commercial
visitors with area information, direction, additional
equipment, supplies, and even emergency assistance.
Another way public lands will suffer an unintended resource
loss is by choosing to increase the liability insurance
policies that are required for all commercial outfitters and
guides. In addition to higher premium costs, having a large
amount of insurance monies available for payout to anyone that
can plan a possibly winning lawsuit against a guide or
outfitting company will only incentivize more claims. Defending
against even the most frivolous claim is still very time
consuming and expensive. At some point, operating with too many
obstacles in the way and battles to fight, it becomes
unfeasible for responsible outfitters and guides to continue
on. The loss of outfitting and guide services on public lands
will result in a much larger negative impact on these areas
than most would predict.
In conclusion, a typical scenario on recreational public
lands is that a certain location becomes popular, then becomes
over-used and under-managed. Then, in an effort to stop the
negative impacts to the area, the area is closed to all access
and public use. What must become the scenario in the future is
to have Federal public land agencies partner with local
governments and outfitters and guides to plan, implement, and
manage these areas before undesired environmental impacts
occur.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on these
important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McFarland follows:]
Statement of Scott McFarland, Owner High Point Adventures
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Thank you for the
opportunity to express my views on issues regarding guides and
outfitters on Public Lands, National Forests and National Parks. Over
the past 19 years, I have worked in the outdoor recreation industry and
have had the experience and opportunity to work with each of the
different land management agencies.
Public lands supervisors have a duty to preserve the natural
resources within their jurisdiction while facilitating public enjoyment
and access to these lands. We are only beginning to understand the
complexity of these resources. Furthermore, the constant evolution of
the recreational opportunities that take place on public lands
challenges our stewardship efforts. Confronted with this task I believe
that land management agencies should be more proactive in cooperating
with local governments, partnering with outfitters and guides and avoid
broad measures that will have unintended consequences.
One existing successful partnership model is the Sand Flats BLM
recreational area.
A very successful partnership between the Moab Utah BLM office and
the local county government is the Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab,
Utah. This partnership was formed in 1995 in which county employees
manage and maintain a very popular camping and recreational area of BLM
lands known as Sand Flats. The Sand Flats area is over 8,000 acres with
120 campsites and home to two world renowned trails, the Slick Rock
Mountain Bike Trail and the Hell's Revenge OHV Trail that host over
100,000 visitors each year.
The recreation area is well planned, well maintained and also
financially self-sustaining. The relatively inexpensive fees collected
for entrance and campsite use exceed $300,000 annually with an average
budget surplus of $40,000 that is then reinvested into the recreation
area.
Through mutual hard work and respect the Moab BLM office and county
managers have developed a very important high level of trust among all
involved.
Guides and Outfitters are often an overlooked land resource.
Through partnerships with private outfitters and guides, public
land supervisors can increase opportunities for environmental education
and natural resource interpretation. Outfitters and guides have
multiple roles. While providing outdoor educational and recreational
opportunities to our clients we often come in contact with non-
commercial visitors in the backcountry. Through these informal
encounters guides act as the eyes and ears of land management agencies.
As stewards of our precious lands, guides strive to preserve the
quality of the natural resources of the areas we guide in and at times
even report vandals to the appropriate authorities. Guides and
outfitters also frequently provide non-commercial visitors with area
information, direction, additional equipment, supplies and even
emergency assistance.
Overreaching bureaucratic processes make forming successful
partnerships challenging and in some instances increase
negative environmental impacts.
Two years ago at a National Park a moratorium was placed on guided
commercial canyoneering trips. Up to this time the park had only issued
one Commercial Use Authorization for this activity. The park did not
have a management plan in place when they issued this permit. After a
couple of years the park management determined that they needed to
suspend the commercial activity altogether until they had a chance to
develop a use plan. The park management chose to issue a broad
moratorium as opposed to utilizing the operating permit holder's
familiarity and presence to increase the effectiveness and timeliness
of any management action. On several occasions, prior to this
moratorium, the guides leading the commercial trips came upon private
groups that were ``in over their heads'' and in need of assistance with
everything from directions to drinking water. In these cases the guides
were able to prevent the need for a Search and Rescue response to aid
these park visitors. This moratorium had the unintended consequence of
suspending all the benefits to the park of having the existing guide
service in the back country.
Another way public lands will suffer an unintended resource loss is
by choosing to increase the liability insurance policies that are
required for all commercial outfitters and guides. In addition to
higher premium costs, having a large amount of insurance monies
available for pay out to anyone that can plan a possible winning law
suit against a guide or outfitting company will only incentivize more
claims. Defending against even the most frivolous claim is still very
time consuming and expensive. At some point, operating with too many
obstacles in the way and battles to fight it becomes unfeasible for
responsible outfitters and guides to continue on. The loss of
outfitting and guide services on public lands will result in a much
larger negative impact on these areas than most would predict.
Conclusion
A typical scenario in recreational public areas is that a certain
location becomes popular then becomes over used and under managed then
in an effort to stop negative impacts to the area, the area is closed
to all access and public use. What must become the scenario in the
future is to have Federal Public Land Agencies partner with local
governments and outfitters and guides to plan, implement and manage
these areas before undesired environmental impacts occur. Thank you for
this opportunity to express my views on these important issues.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. McFarland. I appreciate that.
Mike, we will turn to you, from Adventure Partners.
STATEMENT OF MIKE FRIEDMAN,
ADVENTURE PARTNERS, LLC
Mr. Friedman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share my
views as an outfitter guide. For 30 years I have earned a
living on National Forest, BLM, and National Park Service
lands. My company, Adventure Partners, has a dozen full-time
employees and many more seasonal staff. We hold commercial use
authorizations, CUAs, in Grand Canyon National Park, Zion, Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, as well as special recreation
permits in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument,
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, Utah and Arizona strip BLM
lands, Kaibab National Forest, and Santa Fe National Forest.
I am also privileged to serve as the guide outfitter
representative on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument's
advisory committee, where BLM staff and an outstanding group of
local stakeholders work together to gather information and
develop recommendations concerning the use and management of
the monument. This is no easy task, as the monument's very
existence remains highly polarized.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to encourage
Congress and the BLM to provide the necessary base funding for
full-time operation of BLM visitor centers located in
Cannonville, Escalante, Kanab, and Big Water, Utah. These
facilities and their knowledgeable, friendly staffs are vital
to the area. They provide much-needed interpretive services,
access to tourism information, and local seasonal employment.
Economic opportunity is always central to any conversation
about recreation on Federal lands. The public's appetite for
guided activities continues to grow, along with the frequency
of requests by entrepreneurs for CUAs and SRPs to serve this
demand. The trajectory of use requires land managers to display
extraordinary vision, leadership, and a can-do attitude to
achieve responsiveness and efficiency, while balancing
conservation and tourism.
From my perspective as an outfitter and guide, I would like
to share several challenges which Congress and land management
agencies need to address if small businesses are going to
effectively meet the public's expectations for commercial
recreation.
The BLM, Forest Service, and Park Service are required by
the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze any land use
authorization occurring on public lands, including management
of commercial use requests. Every commercial permit application
is required to undergo a determination of NEPA adequacy, which
may be as simple as reviewing the proponent's operating plan
and proposed areas of use. These applications pile up on the
desks of recreation specialists. Regulations dictate processing
them within 180 days.
If the field office cannot fulfill or complete all the
necessary steps of use authorization within this time frame due
to workload priorities, then no commercial use will be granted.
This scenario effectively creates a permit moratorium.
Increasingly, land managers are required to initiate a
programmatic environmental assessment for allocation of
commercial use. This is a tiered, over-arching study with the
ultimate goal of streamlining and simplifying the issuance of
permits.
I have recently participated in this process at two
national monuments with very different outcomes. In the case of
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, 3 contentious years of
scoping and analysis produced a 130-page document filled with
largely arbitrary and capricious commercial use allocations,
and a very blunt management tool. It was based on de facto,
cookie-cutter-style of decision-making, rather than reflecting
on-the-ground reality.
On the other hand, Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument's recreation staff produced a programmatic EA in less
than 2 years. This document utilized a site and problem-
specific approach to managing commercial operations.
The key to success was embracing the concept of adaptive
management, a flexible decision-making process which treats
plans and activities as working hypotheses, rather than final
solutions to complex problems. Adaptive management emphasizes
stakeholder participation, helps resource managers maintain
flexibility in their decisions, and leaves open future
allocations of commercial and public use to ongoing analysis.
It also reduces the necessity of burdening small business with
cost recovery by streamlining permit evaluation processes.
I would encourage Congress to press all Federal land
agencies to place a much greater emphasis on adaptive
management whenever possible, and tackling increasingly time-
consuming and contentious recreation planning.
In conclusion, recreation is rapidly superseding
traditional uses on public land. In many parts of the country,
recreation has become the primary economic engine. As such, it
needs to be administered in a practical and sustainable way.
Recreation can no longer be an after-thought. Land managers are
simply overwhelmed by workloads associated with mandated
regulations and lack the efficiency, agency leadership and
culture of innovation required to succeed.
My clients are not merely consuming a product, they are
discovering and becoming a constituency of a place. As
outfitters and guides, we are inspired by these lands, and want
to share our knowledge and passion while simultaneously
protecting our livelihoods and way of life. We understand our
guests, like non-commercial users of public lands, need to be
accountable for their impacts and, when necessary, regulated on
actual changes on the ground. I have always considered it a
privilege to make my living on public lands.
And again, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
Committee, for this opportunity to share my thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
Statement of Michael Friedman,
Managing Partner, Adventure Partners, LLC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for providing
me with the opportunity to share my views as an outfitter and guide.
For thirty years I have earned a living on National Forest, BLM and
National Park Service lands. My company, Adventure Partners, has a
dozen full time employees and many more seasonal staff. We hold
commercial use authorizations (CUAs) in Grand Canyon National Park,
Zion National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, as well as
Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) in Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, Utah and Arizona Strip
BLM Lands, Kaibab National Forest, and Santa Fe National Forest.
I am also privileged to serve as the Guide and Outfitter
representative on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument's
Advisory Committee, where BLM staff and an outstanding group of local
stakeholders work together to gather information and develop
recommendations concerning the use and management of the Monument. This
is no easy task as the Monument's very existence remains highly
polarized. In the midst of this ongoing controversy, guide services are
playing an ever expanding role in the economic fabric of gateway
communities, who increasingly depend on tourism dollars for their tax
base and job creation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to
encourage Congress and the BLM to provide the necessary base funding
for full-time operation of BLM visitor centers located in Cannonville,
Escalante, Kanab and Big Water, Utah. These facilities and their
knowledgeable, friendly staffs are vital to the area, as they provide
much needed interpretive services, access to tourism information and
local seasonal employment.
Economic opportunity is always central to any conversation about
recreation on federal lands. The public's appetite for guided
activities continues to grow, along with the frequency of requests by
entrepreneurs for CUAs and SRPs to serve this demand. This trajectory
of use requires land managers to display extraordinary vision,
leadership and a ``can-do'' attitude to achieve responsiveness and
efficiency while balancing conservation and tourism. The demographics
of our business are compelling. At age sixty-two you can purchase a
lifetime pass for ten dollars which allows free entry and discounted
camping in over two thousand federal recreation sites. Every day over
ten thousand Americans become eligible for this benefit, and a great
many are planning to live active, outdoor lifestyles.
From my perspective as an outfitter and guide, I would like to
share several challenges which Congress and land management agencies
need to address if small businesses are going to effectively meet the
public's expectations for commercial recreational opportunities.
NEPA and Adaptive Management
The BLM, Forest Service and Park Service are required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze any land use
authorization occurring on public lands, including management of
commercial use requests. Every commercial permit application is
required to undergo a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) which may be
as simple as reviewing the proponent's operating plan and proposed
areas of use. As these applications pile up on the desks of recreation
specialists, regulations dictate processing them within 180 days. If
the field office cannot fulfill or complete all the necessary steps of
a use authorization within this time frame, due to workload priorities,
then no commercial use will be granted. This scenario effectively
creates a ``permit moratorium''. Increasingly, land managers are
required to initiate a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the
allocation of commercial use. This is a tiered, overarching study with
the ultimate goal of streamlining and simplifying the issuance of
permits. I have recently participated in this process at two National
Monuments with very different outcomes. In the case of Vermillion
Cliffs National Monument, three contentious years of scoping and
analysis produced a hundred and thirty page document, filled with
largely arbitrary and capricious commercial use allocations and a very
blunt management tool. It was based on a defacto, cookie cutter style
of decision-making rather than reflecting on the ground reality.
On the other hand, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument's
recreation staff produced a Programmatic EA in less than two years. At
sixty-seven pages in length, this document utilizes a site and problem
specific approach to managing commercial operators. The key to their
success was embracing the concept of ``Adaptive Management''--a
flexible decision making process which treats plans and activities as
working hypotheses rather than final solutions to complex problems.
Adaptive management emphasizes stakeholder participation, helps
resource managers maintain flexibility in their decisions and leaves
open future allocation of commercial and public use to ongoing
analysis. It also reduces the necessity of burdening small business
with cost recovery by streamlining the permit evaluation process. I
would encourage Congress to press all federal land agencies to place a
much greater emphasis on Adaptive Management, whenever possible, in
tackling increasingly time consuming and contentious recreation
planning.
This circles back to economic opportunity. In the case of Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, seventy-eight percent of issued
guide and outfitter permits are operated by local and regional
businesses \1\. These companies create jobs. They are advocates for
land conservation, skilled practitioners of leave-no-trace ethics and
often report resource abuse to the BLM for enforcement action.
Prematurely allocating finite commercial use, as was the case in
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument's Programmatic EA, can have the
unintended consequence of tying the hands of land managers, creating
permit exclusivity and ultimately limiting the public's choice based on
the value and quality of a guided experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GSENM, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-UT-0030-2011-0002-EA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Land Conservation System and Recreation
When Congress authorized the National Land Conservation Act in
2009, it legislatively formalized a BLM policy shift which began with
the proclamation of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, the
first BLM unit to hold NLCS designation. I want to emphasize the
importance of expressly naming ``recreation'' as a stated value in any
future authorizing language creating an NLCS area. In addition,
recreation needs to be recognized within the accompanying EIS analysis
and Management Plan.
Failing to acknowledge this essential value comes at a financial
and opportunity cost to guides, outfitters and the general public; as
the subsequent implementation of NEPA makes it progressively more
controversial, costly and time consuming to manage recreation and
stimulate tourism. The ambiguous language put forward in many of these
designations and associated management plans, particularly in the
absence of a flexible management tool like adaptive management, is
causing gridlock within our field offices. We all hold passionate views
on the highest and best use of public lands, but it seems increasingly
that outfitters and guides are trapped in the middle of these
legislative and regulatory debates.
NLCS units are created to conserve, restore or enhance their unique
and special resources, while serving as playgrounds for the recreating
public and a critical source of economic activity for businesses and
communities. To achieve this seemingly contradictory goal, we must
continue to embrace a multiple use approach to management, and seek out
real world solutions to this dual objective of conservation and
economic development.
Conclusion
In conclusion, recreation is rapidly superseding traditional uses
on public land, and in many parts of the country has become the primary
economic engine. As such, it needs to be administered in a practical
and sustainable way. Recreation can no longer be an after-thought. Land
managers are simply overwhelmed by the work load associated with
mandated regulations, and lack the efficiency, agency leadership and
culture of innovation required to succeed.
My clients are not merely consuming a product, they are discovering
and becoming the constituency of a place. As outfitters and guides, we
are inspired by these lands and want to share our knowledge and
passion, while simultaneously protecting our livelihoods and way of
life. We understand our guests, like non-commercial users of public
lands, need to be accountable for their impacts and when necessary
regulated based on actual changes on the ground.
As you have heard, running a guide service in the twenty-first
century requires a broad understanding of public policy and complex
regulatory directives; it's no longer a few backpacks and a first aid
card. I have always considered it a privilege to make my living on
public lands, and again want to thank you Mr. Chairman and the
Committee for this opportunity to share my thoughts.
______
Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Great. Thank you very much, Mr.
Friedman.
Our next witness is Mr. Sutton Bacon of the Nantahala
Outdoor Center. Mr. Bacon, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUTTON BACON,
NANTAHALA OUTDOOR CENTER
Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. My name is Sutton Bacon. I
am from Asheville, North Carolina. And I am the CEO of the
Nantahala Outdoor Center. I am also on the Board of Directors
of the Outdoor Industry Association.
NOC was founded in 1972, and we are one of the Nation's
largest outdoor recreation businesses, operating under special
use permits in 12 National forests and parks. Through our
activities and resorts, we introduce over a million Americans
to the outdoors every year. We also employ over 1,000
employees.
NOC is located high in the rugged mountains of Western
North Carolina, at the intersection of the Nantahala River and
the Appalachian Trail in the Nantahala National Forest. And,
like so many other small, rural communities, our economy has
suffered immensely through the recession. However, our small
community has fully embraced the notion that our public lands
are the pathway to a growing and sustainable prosperity, a type
of prosperity that cannot be outsourced overseas, and is rooted
in the value of experiencing these places directly.
Swain County's new economy is an experience-based economy,
and it is because of the vibrant public-private partnership we
have between the outfitter guides, the Forest Service, Duke
Energy, which supplies water on the river, and Swain County.
According to the OIA, as we heard earlier, Americans spend $646
billion per year on outdoor recreation. And in North Carolina
alone it is $19 billion. Those numbers are so staggering and,
in some ways, hard to grasp.
So, what does that mean at a local level in a small, rural
community like ours? The economic impact of outdoor recreation
on the Nantahala River is an $85 million-per-year industry
supporting over 1,000 jobs. Over 20 percent of employees, all
workers in our community, are employed because of the outdoor
recreation economy. None of this economic revitalization would
happen without our public lands.
And we, as a business, believe in the outdoor recreation
economy, and have directed significant investments toward it.
In fact, we have invested over $10 million in capital in
support of our outfitting operations on public lands. We have
grown at a 15 percent compounded annual growth rate since the
recession, and added over 200 jobs.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government doesn't approach
lands management and investment through the same business lens.
The outdoor industry, as a whole, grew at a 5 percent growth
rate during the recession, while most industries contracted. If
the government took a business-style profit-and-loss approach
to land management, it would take notice of the powerful
financial dividends from the $646 billion recreation economy in
concert with the healthy, positive growth rates of our
industry. It would then invest capital in our Nation's
recreation infrastructure to help fuel future growth and
enhance these financial returns even further.
In order to sustain this thriving and successful and
sustainable recreation economy, there are three primary
requests I have. One, Congress must endorse a national outdoor
recreation system with increased investments in all agency
recreation budgets. Two, we must fully fund the land and water
conservation fund, especially the stateside program that allows
for investments in fundamental recreational infrastructure.
And, three, we must definitively partition off the exorbitant
and unpredictable cost of fire suppression from impacting our
agency recreation land and habitat protection budgets.
Now, all of that being said, our Nation is facing, as we
all know, a very serious budget and debt crisis. And simply
requesting from Congress that it increase the funding of
Federal recreation programs is not the only solution, nor is it
practical. The government cannot and should not do it alone.
First, we must seek a holistic, comprehensive approach that
reaches out to the private sector and the outfitter guide
community. Private partners can further the interpretive and
recreational mission of the Agency, enhance guest services and
social experience, invest in the infrastructure, market to new
and diverse audiences, and generate jobs.
For example, there is nationwide demand for front country
developed multiple-experience recreation, similar to what the
ski areas are doing through the Ski Area Recreation Opportunity
Enhancement Act, which this Committee brought forward. However,
Congress and the Forest Service must develop a 21st century
concession model that can invite private investment and other
non-ski area lands to redevelop and rejuvenate developed front-
country recreation areas and close-to-home settings.
And in fact, we at NOC are exploring partnership concepts
with the Cherokee National Forest to revitalize the Ocoee
Whitewater Center, site of the 1996 Olympic kayaking events,
but largely dormant since, to restore waterflows, international
events, and economic impact to that facility. We are making
great progress with our local forests, but it is clear the
Forest Service lacks a defined and streamlined pathway to
effectuate private investment on public land.
Second, I will echo the comments previously that the Agency
also struggles with a shortfall of skilled special-use permit
administrators and professionals. One potential solution is to
incentivize our local forests to partner with the private
sector through fee retention. For example, allow a local forest
to retain as many locally generated fees as possible, as long
as they are then reinvesting a meaningful portion of those
receipts back into permit administration. This would greatly
enhance the availability of high-quality outfitted services on
public lands.
And finally--I know I am running late on time--this
Committee should lead the conversation on establishing a
recreation culture within our agencies. We need to foster a
culture shift, whereby outdoor recreation, healthy Americans,
and prosperous rural economies are considered agency mandates,
missions, and mantras. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:]
Statement of Sutton Bacon, Chief Executive Officer, Nantahala Outdoor
Center; Board of Directors, Outdoor Industry Association, Bryson City,
North Carolina
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Sutton Bacon, and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the
Nantahala Outdoor Center. Established in 1972, NOC is an outdoor
recreation company located at the intersection of the Appalachian Trail
and the Nantahala River in the Nantahala National Forest in Swain
County, North Carolina. Originally a roadside inn, the company has
evolved into one of the largest outdoor recreation companies in the
nation. We are also one of Western North Carolina's largest employers
with approximately 250 full-time employees and over 1,000 employees
during peak season.
Over one million guests visit NOC annually to embark on a diverse
collection of over 120 different river and land-based itineraries
predominantly on public lands, learn to kayak at NOC's world-renowned
Paddling School, travel abroad to foreign countries with NOC's
Adventure Travel program, shop at one of our LEED-certified flagship
retail stores, or enjoy NOC's resort amenities including our three
restaurants and multi-tiered lodging. Each year, NOC guests paddle over
one million river miles on federal lands, enough for two voyages to the
moon and back. NOC has recently been recognized as ``The Nation's
Premier Paddling School'' by The New York Times, ``Best Place to
Learn'' by Outside Magazine, and as ``One of the Best Outfitters on
Earth'' by National Geographic ADVENTURE. In addition, 22 Olympians,
including two Olympic Gold Medalists, have called NOC home.
Through our programming, we strive to educate and engage adventure-
seekers through dynamic, world-class instruction and tours on some of
the world's most beautiful whitewater rivers and landscapes. We are
committed to sharing our passion for the outdoors and our penchant for
exploration with our guests. Our employees share a common vision of
keeping NOC a dynamic, enjoyable, and successful place to work and of
participating actively, considerately, and sustainably in the
communities in which we operate. We firmly believe in the triple bottom
line of people, planet, and profits.
My testimony today will discuss how our nation's public lands and
waterways offer a pathway for economic prosperity, especially in rural
communities. I will articulate how NOC and our partners have
established a vibrant public-private partnership in the Nantahala
National Forest. I will discuss the present challenges at a federal
level in actualizing additional opportunities for recreational access
and economic impact through the outdoors. Finally, I will provide some
solutions I feel can assist the federal government in fostering
enhanced partnership opportunities in this difficult economic and
budget environment.
Public-Private Partnerships and Rural Economic Development
NOC is located high in the rugged mountains of Western North
Carolina in a small county with a population of 14,000 and a county
seat of only 1,400 residents. Like so many other small, rural
communities, our economy has suffered immensely through the recession.
We continue to suffer from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs
to international outsourcing, as textile, garment, and furniture plants
continue to close. Our housing and construction industries have
collapsed. And Swain County suffers from one of the highest
unemployment rates in North Carolina (19.0%) and an equally-disturbing
rate of poverty (22.5%). A recent study indicated that 19.9% of Swain
residents faced ``food insecurity,'' in other words, not knowing from
where their next meal would come.
Approximately 88% of Swain County is federally-owned, such as the
Nantahala National Forest and Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Some
might say that our current economic situation is exacerbated by these
large federal land holdings diminishing our tax base. However, nothing
could be further from the truth. In fact, our small community has fully
embraced that our public lands and waters are the pathway to a growing
and sustainable prosperity--a type of prosperity that cannot be
outsourced overseas and is rooted in the value of experiencing these
places directly.
Swain County's new economy is an experience-based economy. Whereas
extraction and manufacturing industries have come and gone, our public
lands boast a wealth of waterways, trails, and recreation areas, making
Swain County a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts. In fact,
while our local manufacturing base continues to contract, the region's
outdoor-based tourism economy has seen exponential growth, as has
interest in tourism re-development, the enhancement of existing public-
private tourism product, and the utilization of tourism-related natural
resources in an environmentally-sensitive manner. Human-powered outdoor
tourism is the backbone of our future.
Our community recognizes the importance of activating public-
private partnerships with our natural resources to affect rural
economic development. The collaboration we have amongst the outfitting
community, the U.S. Forest Service, Duke Energy, and Swain County is
worthy of examination and even imitation. These diverse organizations
all manage and utilize the Nantahala Gorge and work together every day
to share the resource with hundreds of thousands of paddlers, hikers,
and bikers, to meet the energy needs of our region, and to maintain the
forest's healthy local ecosystem. Our collaboration is based on trust,
mutual respect and admiration, open communication, and alignment.
I can cite numerous examples of how this stakeholder group
collaborated and compromised for the benefit of our community and our
forest user groups, from a decade's-long FERC relicensing project that
ensured consistent water flows on the Nantahala to a successful bid to
host the 2013 World Freestyle Kayaking Championships to collectively
mitigating drought conditions to participating actively in the new
forest planning process. The impact of our continual collaboration
enhances our river and forest's reputation, informs the investments we
make in our communities, and contributes to the branding and
positioning of our entire region as an international destination for
active outdoor enthusiasts.
At a national level, we all recognize the economic impacts of
outdoor recreation. According to a recent study by the Outdoor Industry
Association, Americans spend $646 billion on outdoor recreation every
year. This is twice as much as they spend on pharmaceuticals or cars.
Outdoor recreation creates $40 billion in federal tax revenue and $40
billion in state and local tax revenue. And, over six million Americans
are directly employed by outdoor recreation providers, retailers,
manufacturers, outfitters, and guides. In North Carolina, outdoor
recreation generates $19 billion in consumer spending and supports
192,000 jobs.
The national and state numbers are staggering and in some ways hard
to grasp. But, what does that mean at a local level, in a rural
community such as Swain County? Several years ago we commissioned a
study from Western Carolina University to quantify the economic impact
of the Nantahala Outdoor Center and public outdoor recreation on the
Nantahala River. The researchers calculated that the direct annual
economic impact from the Nantahala was $62 million with another $23
million of indirect economic impact, for a total annual contribution of
over $85 million to our local economy--while employing directly and
indirectly supporting over 1,000 full-time jobs in our community. If
you then compare that number to the total workforce in Swain County, it
can be said that 20% of Swain County workers are now employed due to
the outdoor recreation economy.
None of this economic and civic revitalization would happen without
our cherished public lands and waters. Our guests travel from all over
the world to experience our mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct
and meaningful way. The jobs created by using our natural resources to
provide experience rather than extraction cannot be outsourced. As long
as the health and integrity of our lands and waters are maintained,
these jobs will never go away.
Challenges Inherent to Fully Activating the Outdoor Recreation Economy
In a time filled with economic uncertainty nationwide, instead of
hunkering down, NOC has been boldly embarking on a number of new
initiatives we firmly believe will transform our company. We have
invested nearly $10 million of capital in the last three years in
support of our outfitting operations on federal lands. We believe in
the power of the outdoor recreation economy, and we have seen
significant financial dividends from it. Since the recession, NOC has
grown at a compounded annual growth rate of nearly 15% and added over
150 jobs, with plans to increase employment again in 2013. For a
mature, 40-year old business in such a remote rural area, we are proud
of our business growth.
Unfortunately, the federal government does not approach public
lands management and investment through the same business lens. The
outdoor industry on a national basis grew at a 5% growth rate during
the recession while many if not most other industries contracted.
Americans value recreation and having quality spaces to get outside and
recreate, especially in these trying economic times. If government took
a business-style profit and loss approach to land management, it would
take notice of the significant financial dividends from the $646
billion outdoor recreation economy along with the healthy, positive
growth rates of the industry. It would then invest significant capital
into our nation's outdoor recreation infrastructure to fuel future
growth and enhance financial returns, just as NOC and many other
outdoor businesses have invested their own capital into this growing
segment.
However, the future of recreation lands and waters is neither
protected nor vested. The nation's outdoor recreation economy depends
primarily on the integrity, protection and stewardship of our natural
resources, but it also depends on fundamental recreational
infrastructure, including parks, trails, and open spaces necessary to
enjoy places both remote and close to home. America's public lands and
waters are to the outdoor recreation industry what highways are to the
transportation industry, or power lines to the energy industry--
absolutely critical infrastructure that requires recognition and
funding. For example, the USFS recreation budgets--both nationally and
locally--are declining at an alarming rate. Trails, campgrounds, and
recreation sites close every day, and the funding to manage others is
evaporating. Our rangers are doing more with less and are having to cut
important services from interpretative programming for children to
basic trash collection along our river corridors. When the outdoors is
such a critical economic driver for our country, these cuts are
impacting visitor experiences and will, over time, turn visitors away.
Where I live, we are known for the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. However, millions more people visit the three National Forests
that surround the Great Smoky Mountains National Park--the Nantahala,
Pisgah, and Cherokee National Forests--than the GSMNP itself. These
National Forests have remarkable public recreation venues, wilderness
areas, and treasured landscapes that rival if not soundly exceed what
the GSMNP offers. Yet, when our Forests had to close trails and limit
recreation areas due to budget cuts and the sequester, they did not
receive nearly the national media attention and public outcry as the
closures in the Smokies and other iconic National Parks around the
country. Nonetheless, cuts in those National Forests will impact far
more visitors and local economies. It is crucial that we elevate the
discourse around funding shortfalls in our National Forests to the same
level as our National Parks, as they are of equal importance.
Today, this Congress and the Forest Service allocate roughly $300
million dollars to manage recreation on 193 million acres. That equates
to about $1.50 an acre. Amazingly, there is good news here. With that
investment, Forest Service lands and waters host an amazing array of
world-class recreation on which NOC is able to provide a spectrum of
recreational opportunities, from world-class extreme whitewater rivers
to relaxed, family-oriented float trips to wilderness-oriented Wild and
Scenic excursions. However, in order to sustain this thriving, unique,
and sustainable outdoor recreation economy, Congress must fully fund a
national outdoor recreation system with investments in all agency
recreation programs, it must fully fund the Land and Water Conservation
Fund--especially the stateside program--that allows for fundamental
recreation infrastructure investment, and we must partition the
exorbitant and unpredictable costs of fire suppression from impacting
our agency recreation, habitat protection, and public lands health
budgets.
Comprehensive Solutions to Foster the Outdoor Recreation Economy
All of this said, we all know that our nation is facing a serious
budget and debt crisis. Simply requesting from Congress that it
increase funding of federal recreation programs is not the only
solution nor is it practical. Instead, we must seek a holistic,
comprehensive approach--inclusive of the private sector--in order to
fully actualize the potential economic benefits of outdoor recreation.
By replicating in other places the public-private partnership model on
the Nantahala, we can put more Americans to work, especially in rural
areas, we can provide Americans more close-to-home access to their
public lands, and we can create a guest-centric approach to our public
lands whereby we are managing them to meet the changing desires,
demographics, and geographies of our nation.
America is changing. In order for our natural resources to remain
relevant, we must examine the outfitted public and who they are. For
example, we are witnessing the aging of adventurous baby boomers who
built the outdoor recreation business decades ago. They still want to
stay active and outdoors but with softer recreation. We are
experiencing declining participation rates in outdoor recreation from
the millennial generation, who are bombarded with technology and
distractions. 80% of Americans now live in urban settings, often with
limited access to or knowledge of the outdoors, and we are faced with a
dilemma of how to reach this audience and introduce a new generation to
their inheritance.
Resources like our southern forests--located near major population
centers with compelling developed recreation opportunities already
within--are positioned squarely at these changing demographics.
Americans increasingly seek and demand ready access to recreation
experiences, professional guides and rental equipment that are off-the-
shelf and close to their homes. Multiple-experience, developed
recreation areas in front-country settings represent the future reality
to reach new audiences. There is nationwide demand for this style of
front-country developed recreation. Facilitated through the Ski Area
Recreation Opportunity Enhancement Act, a bill sponsored by this
committee and which passed the House unanimously, ski areas are moving
assertively toward this approach.
Likewise Forest Service must develop a 21st century concession
model that can address and, most importantly, fund evolving guest
desires and expectations on public lands. Rejuvenating existing
developed recreation sites can be both costly and ambitious. Without
even funds to address even the most critical backlogged maintenance,
the Forest Service must create streamlined pathways to encourage
willing, local partners to invest private-sector capital, resources,
and expertise on public lands. These partners can further the
interpretive and recreational mission of the agency, enhance guest
services and social experiences, invest in core infrastructure and
address deferred maintenance, market to new audiences, and create jobs
and rural economic development.
In fact, we are collaborating with Cherokee National Forest on
partnership concepts to revitalize the USFS Ocoee Whitewater Center,
site of the 1996 Olympic kayaking events but largely dormant since. We
are working with the agency, local partners, and the TVA to restore
water flows, host international events, invest in recreation and guest
facilities, assist the local Forest with funding shortfalls, and
catalyze significant economic development and job growth just as we
have done on the Nantahala. We are making great progress, but it is
clear that the agency lacks a defined pathway to effectuate impactful
change at a local level without incurring substantial costs to either
the local forest or potential partner.
To that end, our local forests must also have the ability to retain
as many locally-collected fees as possible to provide for maximum local
economic and forest impact. The agency also struggles with a shortfall
of skilled special use permit professionals and an intense and growing
backlog of permit requests. One potential solution is for the local
forest to retain all permit receipts so long as they are then
reinvesting those receipts into permit administration to enhance public
access to our forests as well the availability of high-quality
outfitted services. While potentially controversial, the agency must
focus on localized revenue generation activity to address agency
funding gaps. If forest managers are incentivized through fee retention
to sensibly partner with the private sector and outfitting community,
the localized rural economic impacts of each forest will be greatly
enhanced.
Another critical issue facing our National Forests is branding and
communication. As previously mentioned, the three National Forests
surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains National Park attract
substantially more visitors annually than does the Park itself.
However, these beloved forests have little name recognition and no
friends groups supporting the forests. This is because the Forest
Service provides protection, management and enhancement of its
resources, but it does not bestow an identity or a sense of place. This
is critical. The Smokies gateway communities thrive off the Smokies'
reputation, and the Park's admirers rally around this identity. In
fact, the sense of place relative to the Smokies is so significant than
many visitors to our National Forests think that all of our mountains
here are ``in the Smokies.'' Cultivation of identity and communication
of value are specialties of the National Park Service, and they have
created self-sustaining momentum.
With better branding, our agencies can do much more to reach out to
their gateway communities. In the Southeast, the economies of our
gateway communities to our national parks and forests are booming. The
reason that guests visit destinations such as Gatlinburg, Tennessee and
Asheville, North Carolina is because of their connection to nearby
public treasures. Therefore, the Forest Service should consider a
program branding its exemplary recreation areas and treasured
landscapes as premier venues for human-powered recreation, conferring a
special status to specific locations that gateway communities can rally
behind. These communities should be relied on to help promote their
local natural resources and play an active role in introducing forests
and active outdoor recreation to new audiences. Having location-
specific identities and shareback programs (using, for example, the Ski
Conservation Fund as a model) whereby visitors to gateway communities
can directly invest in these forests also make it easier to raise funds
and support. Most forest users have no idea how they can support the
Forest Service or if that money will go to benefit locations that they
care about or simply be directed to the Treasury.
Finally, as authorizers, this committee needs to lead the
conversation on establishing a recreation culture, mission, and
workforce within the agencies. We need to foster a culture shift within
our agencies to where outdoor recreation, healthy Americans, and
healthy local economies are considered agency mandates, missions and
mantras. The agencies must all support recreation through their land
and water use plans, prioritize recreation to reflect, for example,
21st century demands for developed, front-country recreation so that
the American people have a wide spectrum of opportunities and
experiences on public lands, conducted in a variety of settings, from
river trips to hiking to biking. The goal of this subcommittee should
be to foster that spectrum of opportunities, services, and experiences
on federal lands and waters while providing them in a sustainable
manner that formally recognizes, nurtures, and overtly supports local
recreation economies.
Conclusion
In these trying economic times, it is clear that Americans need
more than ever the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits that
human-powered outdoor recreation provides. Another OIA research project
showed that 80% of Americans feel that they are happier, have better
family relationships and less stress in their lives when they engage in
outdoor recreation. Anecdotally, during the recession, we have seen
more hikers pass through NOC on the Appalachian Trail than we have in
years.
Our own internal research over the last 40 years indicates whenever
there is economic uncertainty or a precipitous rise in gas prices, our
guest numbers increase. This affirms the importance of human-powered
outdoor recreation during difficult times. We take this charge
seriously and appreciate our guests' confidence in our ability to
deliver these authentic outdoor experiences. We also take seriously our
ability to create jobs and positively impact local economies in need,
especially in rural areas such as ours. The jobs we are creating
through the outdoor recreation economy can never be outsourced so long
as we have open spaces, healthy forests, free-flowing rivers, and
recreation infrastructure.
I truly appreciate this invitation to speak with you today. Thank
you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony. That
completes the testimony of the first panel of witnesses, and we
will now move to questions from the members of the
Subcommittee. And I will begin.
Ms. Kauffman, let me start with you. I represent the Sierra
Nevadas of California. And I have been absolutely inundated by
complaints from folks involving both the National Forest
Service and the National Park Service. I have Yosemite in my
district. The Park Service is in the process of proceeding with
the plan to remove long-standing tourist amenities, including
bicycle and raft rentals, horseback riding.
They are planning to rip out an ice-skating rink at Curry
Village that has been there since the 1920s. Snack shops,
swimming pools, and tennis courts at the Ahwahnee Lodge, just
literally hanging a ``Tourists Go Home'' sign in the National
Park.
In the meantime, the National Forest Service has been
employing activities that range from imposing inflated fees
that are forcing the abandonment of family cabins, some of
which have been held for generations; shutting down long-
established community events upon which many of these small and
struggling mountain towns depend for tourism; expelling long-
standing grazing operations on specious grounds; causing damage
both to the local economy and the Federal Government's
revenues; closing long-used roads, many of which are parts of
county road systems that are essential to local residents; and
even obstructing county efforts to provide maintenance from
local budgets to keep these roads open; obstructing the sound
management of our forests, creating both severe fire dangers
and chronic unemployment.
Are you seeing the same thing in your neck of the woods,
there?
Ms. Kauffman. Yes, I think we are. I mean we were just
talking this morning about the Black Rock Desert. And with the
new designation up there, well, they didn't really close down
the ranching operation, but with closing roads and having more
limitations on where you can take vehicles, yes, it impacted
the ranchers quite a bit, and a lot of them are just quitting.
Mr. McClintock. This is the National Forest Service,
specifically?
Ms. Kauffman. No, no. This is, I believe, a national
monument. The Black Rock Desert. It is where Burning Man is
held, and everything.
Mr. McClintock. OK, so this would be Bureau of Land
Management.
Ms. Kauffman. Yes. It is public land, that is----
Mr. McClintock. And this is the declaration of, as you say,
a wilderness area? Or a national monument?
Ms. Kauffman. A national monument, I believe, yes.
Mr. McClintock. That would be under the Antiquities Act of
1906?
Ms. Kauffman. I don't know, I just know that is something I
have heard about, because----
Mr. McClintock. Well, I believe the designation of
monuments--because we have had a similar situation up in my
area, where the Administration is proposing literally declaring
a monument of a million acres in Modoc County in California--
the Antiquities Act was actually originally established to give
the Administration emergency power to protect newly discovered
archeological sites from raiding. And how that has grown from
that very limited power to this expansive power asserted by
this Administration is beyond me.
Mr. McFarland, what are you seeing?
Mr. McFarland. Along that same lines also, there is a
proposal to possibly make a national monument out of an
additional 1.4 million acres surrounding Canyonlands National
Park. We already have two national parks, we are blessed to
have two national parks in Moab. But an additional 1.4 million
acres is just too much land to be managed well.
Mr. McClintock. Are you seeing the same kind of
exclusionary attitude seeping into the management of our public
lands as I have just described in my area?
Mr. McFarland. Very much so. In one instance, in Arches
National Park, there was one permit for canyoneering guiding
hiking trips in the national park, existed for 2 years. One day
they revoked that without warning, claiming that they needed to
make a management plan to assess the activity. The consequence
of doing that is that private users, without commercial guides
assisting them, continued to do that activity in those areas,
making a huge negative impact.
They could have, in turn, opted to utilize the experience
and knowledge of that guiding company to help to make the plan.
It has now been 2 years in the planning process, still no
permits, no guiding activities, and still erosion to the
natural resource that we have in the park.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Friedman, just in 10
seconds, in your neck of the woods, are you seeing the same
attitude?
Mr. Friedman. I think that this issue of monument
proclamations and designations is a growing challenge for the
BLM, and it is something that Congress needs to take a closer
look at.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you. And, Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bacon, thanks
for testifying today.
Mr. Bacon. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate your leadership in the industry.
You make a very poignant observation, that the future of
recreation lands and water is neither protected nor vested.
Mr. Bacon. Correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And having introduced the 21st Century
Outdoor Commission legislation, which I see as the first step
in getting a grasp on how recreation use is changing and where
policy needs to catch up to that change, if you could take a
few minutes and talk about the changes you have seen, both in
terms of the clients of your business, but also broadly across
the industry. Any particular thoughts on how changing
demographics are impacting the industry.
Mr. Bacon. Certainly. I think we all realize and recognize
that America is changing. When you look at the outdoor
landscape, the Baby Boomers who built the outdoor recreation
business generations ago are aging, but they still want to be
active. They still want to be outdoors. But they are aging.
Then we all know the issues in terms of really attracting
the millennial generation and all the distractions that go
along with that. And 80 percent of Americans now live in urban
settings and not rural settings. So, what I see, from a
demographic perspective, is that we have to look at close-to-
home, developed, multi-experience recreational sites and venues
as a remarkable opportunity to attract new audiences that are
close to home to our public lands.
Per the previous question, and just to dig in specifically,
we are working on a great initiative on the Cherokee National
Forest to revitalize a close-to-home outdoor recreation
facility on the Ocoee River in the Cherokee National Forest, an
hour from our main location on the Nantahala.
And it is remarkable, what the ski industries have done, in
terms of looking at it from a holistic, developed recreation
approach, especially through their ski area recreation
enhancement bill. And I think that the Forest Service
specifically--they are talking about partnerships, they want to
be partners, but they don't have a great pathway to encourage
private investment on public lands because, ultimately, the
private sector must step up and help the Forest Service and all
the agencies address the shifting demographics, market
creatively and inventively, which is not a specialty of the
Federal Government in the land management agencies, and try to
address agency funding issues and really invest in the close-
to-home outdoor recreation infrastructure to attract urban
audiences from the City of Atlanta, for example, up to the
mountains in a close-to-home setting to experience the
wonderful inheritance that they have in our public lands.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Mr. Friedman, you
operate in Utah and Arizona. Both the legislatures in those
States passed legislation that would turn over Federal lands to
the State. What would happen to your business if the Federal
lands your business relies on were turned over to the State of
Utah or to the State of Arizona to be developed primarily for
extraction industries?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I feel that--me, personally--it is
important that the Federal Government continues to manage these
public lands in a responsible and fair way. And I think that
there is always this tension between the State and the Federal
Government, that is never going to go away. And it has just
become such a dysfunctional relationship that a lot of the
problems that we are facing as guide-outfitters relates back to
that inability of the State and Federal Government to really
communicate in an effective way.
So, I think that your----
Mr. Grijalva. You think this nonpartisan commission that I
have been talking about could address some of those issues that
you brought up?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I mean, working in Grand Staircase-
Escalante, that is a pretty--like I said, highly polarized
environment. And I do think that commissions and monument
advisory committees, these collaborative efforts, have a lot of
potential value to working through some of these problems.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. I was also going to ask Ms. Kauffman. Do
you think such a commission should look at the liability
insurance requirements that you brought up during your
testimony?
Ms. Kauffman. Well, yes. I mean if nobody looks at them and
tries to make an evaluation, I just see everything going up.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I just want, for the record,
before I yield back, the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon
Emigrant Trail was created by Congress in 2000, not by agency
designation or a Presidential fiat. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Daines.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the State
of Montana. This is a subject very near and dear to my heart.
In my home State our outdoor recreation industry is very, very
important to our economy, as you well know.
Just last week, when we were in recess, I was back home. I
toured different sportsmen groups throughout our State. In
fact, Friday I was at a roundtable with the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation. In fact, at their world headquarters in Missoula,
Montana. Boone and Crockett, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited,
and then there is a group called Hellgate Hunters & Anglers
Club of Missoula, as well as the Wildlife Federation. I am one
who is a fifth-generation Montanan. I have spent a lot of time
above 10,000 feet, climbed Montana's highest peak, and I love
taking my kids hunting and fishing. It is part of the heritage
I inherited from my grandfather and my parents and passed on to
my kids.
So, as a fifth-generation Montanan, as a passionate
sportsman myself, these are industries that are critical to our
way of life in our State and it is paramount that our Federal
Government doesn't stand in the way of obstructing our economy.
One of the challenges we face in Montana are the wilderness
study areas. And I was wondering if you could comment--maybe
start with Mr. Friedman--and I saw some other heads nodding, as
well--around how a WSA becomes almost a de facto wilderness.
And I enjoy experiencing the wilderness, I enjoy multiple use.
So this is not a discrediting wilderness. But wilderness study
areas, can you expand on the restrictions to outdoor recreation
in WSAs?
Mr. Friedman. Well, I think that the WSAs present a real
challenge, again, for land managers, for local BLM and Forest
Service offices to try to figure out how to manage recreation
in that context.
And that also relates to the National Land Conservation
System designation, as well. Once a piece of land is given the
special area title, and a designation, then it is really
important that recreation is included as a value of that
particular unit so that land managers can actually pursue the
NEPA process in a straightforward and unobstructed way.
I mean WSAs and LCS lands, they all require an additional
level of scrutiny and analysis in order to be managed. And if
recreation isn't specifically stated as a purpose and value on
those lands, then it definitely creates major problems for
folks like us down the road.
Mr. Daines. Mr. Bacon, do you have a thought on that?
Mr. Bacon. Yes, I agree. I think certainly from a
perspective of multiple use, and recognizing the outstanding
recreational values in many of these wilderness study areas
certainly needs to be part of the conservation relative to
them. I think we have some great national treasures that are in
wilderness study areas. Certainly we are a very pro-multiple-
use company. But certainly outdoor recreation in these areas
needs to be a part of the mix.
Mr. Daines. Any other comments from any panelist on WSAs?
[No response.]
Mr. Daines. I also want to talk a bit about the length of
time it takes for Federal agencies to issue recreation permits.
How much of these delays do you think can be attributed to NEPA
analysis or the threat of litigation from fringe groups? Who
would like to take that question?
Mr. Bacon. I would say, NEPA is a complex piece of
legislation. It has its merits and its downfalls. Certainly, I
think from our perspective and working with our land managers,
they each have a different perspective on NEPA and how it
applies and a different sensitivity to threats of litigation
from environmental groups.
Certainly, it does present a challenge when we are looking
at, for example, like I have testified earlier to, developed
recreation areas, existing developed recreation areas. On the
Ocoee project I have mentioned where we are looking at
literally just taking over, potentially, a visitor's center
that is already there, it was the site of the Olympic Games.
The local forest personnel is saying that the NEPA analysis
would be $2, $3 million, 2 to 3 years' worth of analysis, when
we are doing something much less invasive than having 20,000
people there for the Olympics.
So, I think it does present a challenge, and I think the
Agency needs a streamlined process for NEPA to be able to issue
outfitter guide permits, be incentivized to have private sector
investment on public lands, and do so in an----
Mr. Daines. And who is paying that $2 to $3 million for
that NEPA review?
Mr. Bacon. That would be the private business looking at
potentially partnering with the Forest Service on a project
with no guarantees that the special use permit would be issued.
Mr. Daines. OK, Mr. Friedman, just maybe answer that and
then I am out of time.
Mr. Friedman. Yes. No, I think that it really varies from
office to office and from staff person to staff person. Some
land managers overreach in how they approach the NEPA process.
They try to take in too much information, and they end up with
a, like I said in my statement, kind of a cookie-cutter product
versus something that allows them flexibility. So I think
adaptive management and the application of adaptive management
is a really key point here to make this all run more
efficiently, because NEPA isn't going to go anywhere.
Mr. Daines. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. Mr. McClintock, did you have a
chance to ask questions?
Mr. McClintock. I did, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just pose a couple very quickly, if I
could.
Mr. Lindsey, you are an insurance guy, and insurance
companies benefit by bigger policies. You seem to be testifying
against yourself in requiring these increases. Wouldn't that be
a benefit to you? And why are you so adamant that this is one
of the things that are moving us in the wrong direction?
Mr. Lindsey. Well, if you look back at history, in 1985,
1986, Congress, or the National Park Service, actually, waived
the insurance requirement for Grand Canyon Outfitters, because
nobody would insure them. And so the insurance market is very
unstable, especially in these small recreational classes.
Companies come and go. Many of the companies that have offered
coverage historically have gone broke, leaving outfitters and
the government exposed.
Some admitted insurance companies have guarantee funds, but
the limit on those guarantee funds is $300,000.
Mr. Bishop. So what you are telling me is there is a
tipping point in all this stuff.
Mr. Lindsey. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. At which you actually create more harm than you
create good, as you are going up the scale.
Mr. Lindsey. You create huge instability by having the
limits go up and down.
Mr. Bishop. The Canadian Park System has about the same
range of public activities as we do. Do you or maybe anyone
else on the panel know what kind of insurance companies
coverage is required in Canada?
Mr. Lindsey. Well, we have actually provided coverage for
the Canadian Mountain Guides Association in the past. And in
Canada they don't have the legal system that we have here. They
don't have the same medical system that we have here. So, I
mean, the coverage up there is much less expensive because of
the litigation system.
Mr. Bishop. Bad one, though. Mr. McFarland, you spoke about
the Salt Flats Recreation Area and the ability of working
together in that particular--with the people working together
to create something that was very positive. In your opinion, is
that a structural situation, or is that the personalities
working together? Is this a personality issue or a structural
issue?
Mr. McFarland. It is a structural issue. The structure that
was implemented has created positive personalities.
Mr. Bishop. So the structure of having that cooperation
actually put forth in that direction. But one of you--maybe it
was Mr. Friedman--was talking about Vermillion Cliffs before.
Mr. Friedman. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Was that you?
Mr. Friedman. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. That came up with an entirely different result
as Grand Staircase.
Mr. Friedman. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. Is that simply because of personality, or was
there a structural cause that created that difference of
decision?
Mr. Friedman. I think it was leadership, absence of
direction from either the monument manager, or maybe from the
Washington office, about how to approach this programmatic
environmental assessment process.
In Grand Staircase, the recreation planner there took a
more open approach to managing the monument using adaptive
management, again, as a tool to not tie their hands, as far as
how they are going to deal with allocations of use. And, for
some reason, Vermillion Cliffs chose to try to come up with
some specific limits without really looking at what was really
happening on the ground. I can't really explain why they chose
to go that route.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate you going in that particular
direction. I think one of the things the State of Utah did and
the Governor did with his outdoor recreation vision is simply
try to recognize that places like Utah, for example, is a
public land State, it is always going to be a public land
State. The issue is not whether it is public lands, but who is
actually making the decisions on those public lands. Is it made
by people who are there locally, or is it going to be made by
people here in Washington? That is the kind of situation I
think you have identified some ways in which, based on
personality, but perhaps by the structure of how we create
those things, you can produce a better product.
I will just ask Ms. Kauffman, just in the last question I
have, you talked about kind of the options either being big
companies taking all those areas or your services being
dropped. Which do you think is the more likely approach? Will
big companies step in and do this? Or are we just going to lose
services and opportunities?
Ms. Kauffman. I think it depends how profitable the
particular operation is. I mean, I guess----
Mr. Bishop. But you are working on a very low profit
margin, aren't you?
Ms. Kauffman. Well, yes. And I mean my specific example is
a corporation, it is not public. It is not a public entity. And
what happened there, because I was unable to get the insurance,
because I couldn't finance it, they no longer have riding up
there. The corporation decided it wasn't worth it to go ahead
with the activity.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate those. We have two
Members who just came in. Do you have questions for these
panelists, by any chance? Mr. Labrador? OK.
With that, we thank you all, and I apologize for having to
leave and come back in the middle of this. But we thank you all
for your presence here and for the testimony that you have
given. You are excused at this time. I will bring up the last
panel, if possible.
Once again, I do appreciate your time and travel to come
here. So, in panel three, I have: Mr. David Brown, who is from
the American Outdoors Association; Grant Simonds--you will tell
me how I messed up that name--from the Idaho Outfitters and
Guides Association; Brian Merrill, from Western Rivers Guides;
Aaron Bannon, from the National Outdoor Leadership School; and
John Duncan, from Telluride Outside.
So, I am assuming--once again, we welcome you. We thank you
for being here. I think you saw the drill in the last panel.
Your written testimony is already included in the record. We
are going to simply ask you to add it verbally, and watch the
timer in front of you. The other panel was very good about
keeping within the 5-minute limit. Once it goes to yellow it
means you have 1 minute left. And, like every good semi, when
it goes to yellow, then you speed up so that you don't get
caught in the red zone.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Brown--if I can just go from my left to
right here--Mr. Brown, we recognize you for 5 minutes to give
us your oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BROWN,
AMERICAN OUTDOORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. I really do
appreciate you taking the time to address these issues that I
think are very important to the future of recreational public
lands. Because I think, unless we address these issues, we are
likely to see a contraction in recreation access. And I want to
touch on some of the major issues that I see, and some other
witnesses are going to touch on some other issues, so we are
not repeating ourselves. But we are, I think, at a point where
we have to address these issues or we are going to see some
problems down the line. And we are already starting to see
them.
First of all, as some of the other witnesses have
identified, the processes and analysis required to plan and
authorize outdoor recreation are becoming more complex,
especially in congressionally designated areas. Those processes
have to be streamlined or the public will lose access to some
incomparable experiences. They evolved in a different budget
environment, and they are simply no longer sustainable.
In my written testimony, I document how the Forest
Service's own assessment of their cost of excessive analysis
has contributed to some of their logjams in authorizing
activities. The authorization of recreation permits has become
more complex over time, as a result of court rulings and agency
rulemakings which extend NEPA compliance to the smallest permit
decision.
For example, some rangers feel it necessary to complete a
2-year need assessment and NEPA analysis to make a decision as
simple as moving 300 or 400 service days in wilderness from the
fall to the summer.
Another example of how extensive documentation can be just
to issue permits in national forests is the 10-year process to
issue six permits for pack and stock use in wilderness areas in
the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The final EIS was 700
pages in length to enable these outfitters to provide services
to approximately 1,200 people per year.
Before issuing outfitter permits in designated wilderness
areas, agencies are required to determine if the service is
necessary to fulfill the recreational purpose of the Wilderness
Act. The Forest Service is extending this process to non-
wilderness areas, even though it does not have the funding to
complete these studies. These logjams will become most apparent
when permits need to be renewed in designated areas. Permitting
new activities is simply too expensive in national forests,
except for minor uses.
I think one of the key points that was made earlier in the
testimony, and it has come up in court cases now, is when these
areas are designated it is going to be very important to make
recreation a purpose, and then to be very specific about what
the types of recreation activities can be authorized or
managed. It shouldn't be totally exclusive, but it could be
including, but not limited to, and name those activities.
Because we have seen a recent court case where kayaking on the
Upper Chattooga, for example, was prohibited, and the Agency
was given discretion to do that.
One of the issues that I do want to touch on is that cost
recovery will not solve this problem. As some of you, I think,
have experienced in your districts, the Agency is trying to
pass the costs on for these analyses to these small businesses,
which is just simply not affordable, to do a 700-page EIS for 6
stock outfitters who carry 1,200 people a year.
So, that is where, I think, you are going to see the
erosion or elimination of these services, and certainly no new
services, as Mr. Bacon indicated, because the cost of the
analysis are just too expensive. And who is going to risk the
money, when you don't know what the outcome is going to be?
One of the key issues that I am really hopeful this
Committee will address is reauthorization of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act, which is the authority under which
outfitter and guide permits are issued. It also allows the
agencies to retain the money generated from permits and amenity
fees for use at the resource. I do think that authority needs
to be amended so that we can ensure that those funds are being
used properly--sport recreation activities--there are some
other adjustments we think that need to be made, but we think
that is a critical element, and we would like to see this
Committee put together a model bill. I know there is some talk
about extending that authority, but I believe you certainly
have the understanding that would be required to make that bill
successful.
Road and trail infrastructure degradation is another big
issue. I am not going to go into the details of that, because
we have other witnesses who are going to testify, but we have
to have a new strategy to clear trails that are becoming
impassible, especially in wilderness areas. Thank you so much
for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of David L. Brown, Executive Director,
America Outdoors Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify on some of the critical issues which
threaten recreation access on public lands throughout the United
States. America Outdoors Association represents the interests of more
than 1,000 outfitters, guides and outdoor recreation service providers
who are members of our association and our affiliate state
organizations. Most of our members provide services to the public in
National Parks, National Forests, on BLM lands, including units within
the National Landscape Conservation System, and in U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Refuges.
Please accept my sincere appreciation on behalf of outfitters and
guides for your concern about the future of recreation and outfitted
services on public lands.
Why Recreation Access May Soon Contract on Public Lands
I believe we are facing the potential for contraction of recreation
access for the general public unless the Congress and agencies work
together with the recreation community to resolve critical, emerging
impediments to authorizing and facilitating recreation activities on
public lands. My testimony will cover several broad areas that I
believe will inevitably lead to this contraction unless action is
taken.
The Cost of Recreation Management as a Barrier to Recreation.
Agency processes for planning and authorizing outfitting and other
recreation activities are becoming more complex and expensive. The
trend is especially notable in congressionally designated areas within
National Forests, National Parks and the BLM's National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS). On the other hand, some users are not
managed at all at some resources so the impacts and costs for
recreational use unfairly falls on those who are permitted and
regulated.
If these trends continue, the processes for managing outfitted use
in some congressionally designated areas will no longer be sustainable
and will lead to contraction of recreation access. The costs for the
more complex analyses required to authorize recreation activities
cannot be transferred to users, especially in outfitting which is a low
profit-margin business. Those processes have to be streamlined. Because
agencies are diverting funding from recreation management to other
programs, the capacity for new recreation activities is very limited.
With a new swarm of congressional designations under consideration,
we believe that advocates and the Congress should consider the impact
that the required management processes will have on use and enjoyment
of these designated areas.
1. The National Landscape Conservation System Does Not Advance Outdoor
Recreation.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS) includes all congressionally designated
areas and other lands such as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's). The NLCS
was authorized in 2009 to conserve landscapes for scientific, cultural
and ecological values. Overnight, the NLCS went from ``working
landscapes'' to educational preserves. Recreation and outfitted
recreation activities are not an emphasis on NLCS lands unless the
congressional designation makes recreation a purpose and management
plans specify recreation management areas (RMA's). We suggest some
legislative adjustments to the BLM's NLCS authorizing language to give
recreation a higher status.
We have concerns that the requirement for a science plan for NLCS
units and aggressive strategies to engage and educate youth, while
noble in their intent, are not fully funded and could divert funds
needed for recreation management which will further depress access.
Remarkably, the BLM Manuals and Handbooks for management of the
vast NLCS lands were issued without public comment. We believe Congress
should require those policies to be re-issued and make them subject to
public comment. The importance of understanding these management
regimes prior to additional congressional designations of BLM lands
cannot be understated.
I respectfully submit that Congress should carefully consider the
following issues when designating BLM lands, which are automatically
part of the NLCS:
Where appropriate future designations should ensure
that the recreational values of those resources are
specifically recognized as a purpose in the legislation;
Where wilderness is designated, a provision which
recognizes outfitted services as ``necessary'' should be
included. Senator Udall's draft for the Brown's Canyon National
Monument does that with the following language: ``(2)
OUTFITTING AND GUIDE ACTIVITIES.--Consistent with section
(d)(5) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(5)), commercial
services (including authorized outfitting and guide activities)
are authorized in the Wilderness to the extent necessary for
activities that fulfill the recreational or other wilderness
purposes of the Wilderness.'' The agency will still be required
to develop a new management plan and complete capacity analysis
to determine ``the extent'' to which outfitted services are
``necessary''.
Senator Udall's draft for the Brown's Canyon National
Monument authorizes planning for specific recreation activities
within the Monument and excludes the Arkansas River, one of the
nation's most popular whitewater rafting rivers, from the
Monument boundaries on each side of the river. The State of
Colorado retains management authority over commercial rafting
on the river. This strategy represents one way to eliminate the
potential impacts on access of the monument designations. While
state management is appropriate for the Arkansas River, not
every state is capable of managing a significant recreation
resource on federal lands.
2. Excessive Analysis in the Forest Service as an Impediment to
Recreation Activities
The Forest Service described the torpor that results from
``excessive analysis'' when they concluded in 2002 that ``These factors
frequently place line officers in a costly procedural quagmire, where a
single project can take years to move forward and where planning costs
alone can exceed $1 million. Even noncontroversial projects often
proceed at a snail's pace.'' (The Process Predicament, USDA Forest
Service, June 2002, page 5).
In National Forests these processes have become more complex over
time as a result of court rulings and agency rule-makings which extend
NEPA compliance to even the smallest permit decision. For example, some
rangers feel it is necessary to complete a two-year ``need'' assessment
and NEPA compliance to make a decision as simple as moving 300 or 400
service days in wilderness from the fall to the summer.
Before a new recreation permit is issued for a significant new
activity or a level of use changed, the Forest Service may have to:
determine if the recreation activity and extent of
use is authorized in the Forest plan and, if not, amend the
plan and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) by completing NEPA documentation;
assess the ``need'' for the commercial recreation
services, a process which is not well defined by the agency and
more likely to be directed by the Courts, especially in
designated wilderness where the Forest Service must determine
the extent of outfitted activity allowable and its impact on
wilderness values in addition to the need for the services
consistent with The Wilderness Act;
complete an elaborate capacity analysis;
complete site specific NEPA analyses upon reviewing
the permit application, which for some permits, may require an
environmental assessment or a full environmental impact
statement;
engage the Fish and Wildlife Service or National
Marine Fisheries Service in Section 7 consultation and complete
various biological assessments related to the impact of the
permitted activities.
One recent example of how extensive documentation can be in
National Forests is the 10-year process to issue six (6) permits for
pack and stock use in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The Final
EIS (FEIS) was nearly 700 pages in length to enable these outfitters to
provide services to approximately 1,200 people per year. This extensive
analysis was driven by fear of lawsuits by those opposed to outfitted
use, which totals about 10% of overall use of the wilderness. The FEIS
was preceded by a study to determine if the services were ``necessary''
during which users were surveyed. We appreciate the Forest Service's
efforts to authorize this use, but realize this is not a sustainable
process if it has to be repeated in most National Forests. Fortunately,
cost recovery was not applied in this instance because the process
began long before cost recovery was authorized and it was simply not
affordable.
3. Re-examining Visitor Use and Capacity in National Parks
Legal challenges have greatly impacted recreation access in some
National Parks and National Forests. Equine activities are especially
vulnerable to these attacks. For example, equine activities have been
eliminated in Grand Canyon National Park and are under threat in
Yosemite and Yellowstone. Lawsuits were filed over equine activities in
National Forests in California and Idaho.
In 2012 Congress had to pass the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks Backcountry Access Act (H.R. 4849) to enable NPS to issue permits
for historical horse pack trips after a lawsuit successfully blocked
their issuance in designated wilderness. The Court agreed with the
plaintiffs that NPS had not adequately assessed ``the need'' for those
services in the wilderness. The plaintiffs also charged that the trips
used items that were unnecessary for the enjoyment of wilderness, such
as tables, chairs and other ``luxury'' items.
Other commercial services are also under greater scrutiny. The
court ruling in the lawsuit over the re-development plan to restore
flood-damaged facilities in Yosemite National Park now requires NPS to
establish a numerical carrying capacity consistent with the Wild and
Scenic River designation for the Merced River, which flows through an
area with historic facilities and recreation activities. Recreation
activities are being eliminated if they are deemed to be inconsistent
with the Merced's designation. This 9th Circuit ruling rippled through
NPS as the agency became sensitive to any uses which were not backed up
by planning documentation. The ruling also impacted Wild and Scenic
River management in other areas resulting in restricted access at
rivers in National Forests in northern California and Idaho where
carrying capacity had not been an issue.
An internal 2008 briefing from the NPS planning division addressed
the issue of ``Visitor Use and Capacity Planning and Management'' by
describing the broad impacts of the Yosemite Court decision.
``The Yosemite litigation emphasizes the complexity and
conflict inherent in visitor use and capacity management, and
the increasing debate over the ``right way'' to balance visitor
opportunities and resource protection goals. Yosemite is not
alone. There are many other costly lawsuits and political
battles being waged over visitor use and capacity management-
related issues, such as river use in Grand Canyon, equestrian
recreation in Sequoia, off-road vehicle use in Cape Hatteras,
and dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, to
name just a few.'' (Briefing Statement, Visitor Use and
Capacity Planning and Management, March 2008).
NPS units have to complete an array of plans to accommodate
visitors. Among the plans that may be necessary to authorize
recreational use are: General Management Plans, Special Resource
Studies, Commercial Services Plans, Resource Management Plans,
Wilderness Plans, and Transportation Plans.
4. Management Streamlining Strategies
We understand and appreciate the many conflicting demands placed on
federal land managing agencies. However, despite all the challenges,
many areas manage to get things done by defensibly authorizing use
without spending years preparing documentation. The best practices
within each agency to facilitate recreation access should be
identified, encouraged and used as a basis for facilitating recreation
access rather than eliminating it. The BLM appears to have developed a
successful strategy in some areas by using Programmatic Environmental
Assessments combined with needs assessments.
The National Park Service and Forest Service documents at one point
recognized the need for legislative changes regarding their planning
processes. The NPS Briefing Statement suggested the agency, ``evaluate
the need for amendments to legislation or notice and comment rulemaking
to reflect a broader and more comprehensive definition and related best
practices on visitor use and capacity management''. The Forest Service
report from 2002 stated, ``The need for so much planning is
questionable. For example, much of the environmental information that
the Forest Service collects is of dubious scientific or practical
value. Although it might be needed to meet procedural requirements or
to withstand appeals and litigation, resources spent on process cannot
be put to other uses. The opportunity costs alone--which might range
into the tens of millions of dollars--suggest a fundamental lack of
efficiency and effectiveness in national forest management. ``
One concern we have in proposing these necessary changes is that
Congress not exempt certain groups and establish double standards for
documentation and regulation. For example, the 1998 Concession Reform
legislation exempted non-profit entities from the requirement to have a
commercial use authorization to provide commercial services in National
Parks unless the activities produce taxable income. This double
standard is not appropriate and makes it harder for taxpaying
businesses to compete when providing similar services. America Outdoors
Association has nonprofit members and we understand and respect their
role in providing educational services to the public. Some of them do
not agree with this exemption in National Parks.
5. The Public Cannot Be Expected to Pay More for Less.
Some agencies are diminishing access, which they claim is necessary
as a result of budget cuts.
More reports surface each day detailing access and campground
closures, which seem to be more prevalent within National Parks. These
negative reports alone could depress visitation to National Parks this
year. NPS may be surprised to find fewer visits are used to justify
even deeper cuts. Here are some examples from press reports:
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area has
closed two important public access points at Milford and
Kittatinny Point which some canoes liveries estimate will cost
them between 25% and 50% of their business. These closures
eliminate a float trip on the river that is popular with
families. The Superintendent says it is too expensive to
collect the garbage in those areas on weekends.
Cuyahoga Valley National Park is reducing visitor
center hours, education programming, restroom cleaning, trail
maintenance, and mowing.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park closed five
campgrounds and picnic areas, and reduced road maintenance.
Yellowstone National Park delayed road openings,
reduced staffing, and delayed access to Grant Village and
Yellowstone Lake, although some of these closures may have been
rescinded.
Glacier National Park says they will delay plowing
Going-to-the-Sun Road, the only road providing access to the
entire park, which impacts visitors and concessioners'
services.
Most businesses in America had to absorb a 5% decline in revenues
during the latest recession but few cut-off services to the public to
accommodate the decline. Agencies should look at opportunities to
improve their efficiency instead of cutting access and services to the
public. Streamlining documentation requirements and reviewing
organizational structures for duplicative programs are two strategies
that might yield some savings.
6. Cost Recovery Will Not Solve the Process Problem.
Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have a
cost recovery regulation designed to fund the cost of environmental
analyses and permit administration when the time required to process a
special recreation permit exceeds 50 hours. The BLM appears to be the
leader among agencies in streamlining processes, such as the use of
programmatic Environmental Assessments. The Forest Service, on the
other hand, seems to be increasing process requirements and initiating
cost recovery more aggressively. If fully implemented in both agencies,
cost recovery will eliminate many outfitted services, especially in
designated wilderness, on NLCS lands, where threatened or endangered
species are present, or where social conflicts require the agency to
engage in higher levels of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance.
We have proposals to amend the Forest Service and the BLM's cost
recovery authority which expires in September of this year, which we
ask the committee to consider.
If a permitted use has been ongoing for a number of
years and there are no significant changes to the use or the
resource, categorical exclusions for NEPA compliance should be
authorized.
Compliance with the Endangered Species Act should not
be subject to cost recovery for existing permits.
Programmatic EA's are another strategy BLM is
adopting with success in some areas to eliminate the cost
recovery requirement.
Eliminate the needs assessment requirement in non-
wilderness areas.
These changes could be included in the reauthorization of the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
7. Unrealistic Restrictions Imposed by Wilderness Management.
Restrictions on group sizes in wilderness areas are increasingly
limiting access for groups and commercial parties. We understand the
need to have some limitation on group size in wilderness. However,
limits on groups to as few as five (5) or six (6) persons in some
wilderness areas eliminate families, social and outfitted groups from
using the wilderness. Group size restrictions may expand to wilderness
study areas (WSA's) in the NLCS and in the backcountry eligible for
wilderness in National Parks, according to agency policies, which
suggests that those areas must be managed as wilderness. Activities
which might not be suitable under a wilderness designation are
discouraged by the BLM's NLCS Manual for WSA's. These restrictions
should be considered before extending a wilderness designation to a
recreation area that is popular with groups.
The primary motivation of group size limitations is to manage
wilderness to provide for ``outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation'', one of the four
mandatory requirements for managing wilderness, according to the BLM
Manual on Management of Wilderness (BLM Manual 6340, page 8,9).
Group size restrictions vary from wilderness to
wilderness, but can be as low as five (5) or six (6) people in
the most restrictive wilderness areas.
Within National Forests ten (10) is the most common
group size limit, a restriction found in 63 wilderness areas.
30 wilderness areas in National Forests limit access
by the total number of ``heartbeats'', meaning people and
stock. 12 heartbeats per group are allowed in 18 wilderness
areas.
The upper limit is 25 heartbeats (or people and
stock) per group found in 23 wilderness areas.
For some outfitted trips, a group size of eight (8) to ten (10) is
appropriate, such as hunting parties, which require a higher guide to
guest ratio. But higher group sizes are usually necessary to make
rafting trips affordable and cost effective.
The expansion of the need assessment requirement for commercial
services in designated wilderness has also created unnecessary log jams
in the authorization of outfitted services. Agencies must determine the
need for commercial services through an ambiguous process before
permitting outfitted activities. Now, need assessments, which the
agency does not have the funding to complete, are being implemented in
some Forests, suppressing new outfitter permits, another example of
mushrooming agency processes. Permits for new activities are rare in
National Forests because the agency field staff can't jump through all
the hoops to issue permits.
To overcome the need assessment hurdle any future wilderness
designations should establish in the authorizing legislation that
historic outfitted activities are ``necessary'' to fulfill the
recreational purposes of The Wilderness Act. At some point Congress may
wish to consider an alternative to wilderness designations to give
agencies more freedom to authorize recreation activities.
8. Reauthorizing and Amending the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act
Recreation access will contract even more dramatically unless The
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which expires in
2014, is amended and reauthorized. FLREA is the authority for issuing
outfitter and guide permits in National Forests, on BLM lands and
within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges. Without reauthorization,
the agencies will have to find some other authority but the fees
generated by permitted activities will not be retained. Recreation fees
are supposed to be retained to support recreation activities where they
are collected, although that does not always happen. While FLREA should
be reauthorized, that reauthorization should not occur without changes.
Lack of accountability for use of the fees is a
problem in some areas. We believe, because we have reports from
field staff, that the fees are being spent inappropriately at
some sites. A portion of the fee money should be used by
Congress to conduct random or targeted audits of agency
expenditures of fee revenues at fee sites.
Permit fees should be applied to permit
administration. However, a limitation on that authority is
needed to prevent the agency from using it to impose crippling
fee burdens. We believe the fee structure should be standard
across the agency as it is now and any changes subject to
comment. Administration of amenity fees should be separated
from other recreation fees.
The current FLREA law authorizes the agencies to go
into the concessions business, to run reservations services,
rent cabins, rent equipment and to offer specialized tours.
This authority should be altered to allow agency-provided
services only when they cannot be provided by the private
sector or when they are part of the agency's core mission.
Congress should consider authorizing non-profits to
collect donations from users and others to support recreation
activities and the goals of FLREA in lieu of agency-collected
amenity fees where the non-profit can use fees more
efficiently. These entities may accept outside contributions as
well as be responsible for cost effectively collecting
donations from recreation users. The overhead associated with
the operation would have to be limited to ensure appropriate
use of the funds and some limitations on advocacy established.
While this option will not work everywhere, there are examples
of workable strategies which should be considered.
Rather than permanent authorization, we believe it is
better for FLREA to sunset every 10 years so that it can be
adjusted when needed. We also strongly urge this committee to
write a model bill this year. An extension is necessary if a
bill cannot be passed in this session.
9. Road and Trail Infrastructure Degradation.
There is no question that new strategies are needed to maintain the
road and trail infrastructure on public lands. Beetle kill and fires
have resulted in dramatic degradation of the trail infrastructure
especially in National Forests and on BLM lands. Wilderness lands are
among the hardest hit because mechanized equipment cannot be used to
clear trails. Outfitters are often required to open up trails prior to
the start of each season with crosscut saws, a task which has become
overwhelming after winter blow downs block public access. Agency trail
crews often arrive too late in the season or are simply understaffed to
get the work done. Outfitters are reporting that secondary trails are
being abandoned forcing more use on to mainline trails, which will
undoubtedly result in someone complaining about overuse. Other
witnesses at the hearing will testify to the magnitude of the problem
in their areas.
We have suggested some strategies to facilitate maintaining these
trails.
A portion of the fees generated by FLREA was intended
for agency-wide use although the agencies have the flexibility
to retain all the fees locally. A portion of agency-wide fees
could be used for trail maintenance and river access to
reimburse the Forest for fee credits given to outfitters which
would be deducted from their annual fee bill. Revenue from the
account could also be used to support volunteer groups and
other entities to clear trails. The money would have to be held
in a special account for trail maintenance to avoid its
diversion.
Some authorization for limited use of chain saws in
wilderness may be necessary to open up impassable trails and
rivers to protect the public from dead fall and strainers.
One concern is that a road use fee will be applied
exclusively to permit holders when FLREA is reauthorized, even
though outfitters are often the minority users of Forest and
BLM roads. If any road use fees are approved, they should be
broad-based and include all users of those roads.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony and for your
attention to outdoor recreation on public lands.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0815.001
.eps__
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will now turn
to Grant--and it is Simonds? Is that the correct way?
Mr. Simonds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. From the Idaho Outfitters. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GRANT SIMONDS,
IDAHO OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Simonds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members,
for this opportunity to testify on this topic. Idaho is a State
in which nearly two-thirds of the land base is public lands
managed primarily by the Forest Service and BLM. So adequate
and safe access to our public lands is fundamental for outdoor
recreation, including trails utilized by hikers.
The Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness is the
largest forest wilderness at 2.3 million acres in the Lower 48.
At the time of enactment of the Act in 1980, this wilderness
area had nearly 2,500 miles of catalog trails, and Section 5(b)
of that Act says, ``The Secretary shall, to the extent
practicable, consistent with the management plan required by
this section, clear obstructions from all of the national
forest trails and adjacent to the wilderness on at least an
annual basis.'' For several decades, the Forest Service has not
met the requirements of the law.
Recently, the Agency has been able to maintain
approximately 20 percent of the 2,500 miles. The large fires
since 1988 have cumulatively increased the damage to the trail
system. Invariably, after a wind storm, blow-downs of both dead
and live trees further clog mainline and secondary trails. Each
year this phenomenon has become more apparent to those who
visit the wilderness.
Outfitter and guide trail maintenance provides access to
portions of this wilderness on secondary trails, thereby
providing access to little-used areas of the wilderness while
spreading out use. However, the increasing costs associated
with maintaining these trails have outstripped the ability of
these small businesses to do so, especially in this new economy
for which there has been no recovery for the Idaho industry.
The trail maintenance backlog and out-year damage from
fires to the trail system could benefit from policy changes
that would allow for a window of mechanized use from tools such
as wheelbarrows and chainsaws. Additionally, outfitters and
guides would be further incentivized to clear more trails
through institution of a credit toward the annual fees they pay
the government for the privilege of providing outfitter
services on public lands. Dealing with the trail maintenance
backlog needs to strongly consider ideas outside the proverbial
box.
The situation is so dire in the Frank Church that the State
legislature passed a resolution that contained the following
language: ``Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of
the Idaho Legislature that we urge the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture to declare the Frank Church River of
No Return and adjacent national forest lands to be a natural
resource disaster area.''
I would like to talk just a little bit about cost recovery.
To a certain extent, small businesses in Idaho have become a
poster child for cost recovery, especially where threatened
endangered species were present. Recently an Idaho base land
outfitter with a historic base camp that is now exemplary in
how the outfitter maintains it for minimum impact has been
assessed a $5,600 cost recovery fee by the Boise National
Forest for environmental analysis that may or may not lead to
permit renewal. While $5,600 may seem minor to a ski area or
mining operation, it is a significant amount for a company with
insignificant earnings.
The base camp is located within 300 feet of the south fork
of the Salmon River, a stream where endangered Chinook Salmon
also spawn. This base camp is utilized during the summer as
headquarters for a week-long outdoor education camp for
teenagers. The non-outfitter public, however, is not allowed to
approach the banks of the stream to watch the returning fish
during the summer, an educational opportunity not afforded to
the kids who choose this opportunity through the outfitter.
I would like to echo the need to amend the Forest Service
and BLM's cost recovery authority. Compliance with the
Endangered Species Act should not be subject to cost recovery
for existing permits. This analysis should be programmatic and
not one that individual small businesses should incur. If use
has been ongoing for a number of years and there is no
significant change to the use of the resource, categorical
exclusions for NEPA compliance should be authorized. Also, if
cost recovery is to continue for outfitter permit renewal, then
the Agency should provide credit for the first 50 hours of
work. This is not currently the case.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, outfitting is an important
contributor to the Idaho rural economy. Reduction of the trail
maintenance backlog and the elimination of cost recovery for
NEPA compliance would assist our industry and encourage the
continuation of the small businesses in the Idaho rural
economy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simonds follows:]
Statement of Grant Simonds, Executive Director,
Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify on the
topic of impediments to public recreation on public lands. My name is
Grant Simonds, and I have been the executive director of the Idaho
Outfitters and Guides Association, a statewide non-profit business
trade organization, since 1985. IOGA represents the interests of more
than 200 outfitters, guides and outdoor recreation service providers.
Idaho outfitters provide service to more than 200,000 persons each year
that would not have the opportunity to enjoy a guided vacation without
the assistance of an outfitter.
Idaho is a state of which nearly two-thirds of the land base is
public lands managed primarily by several federal agencies such as the
Forest Service and the BLM. Adequate and safe access to our public
lands is fundamental for outdoor recreationists, including trails
utilized by hikers and stock users. The Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness is the largest forest wilderness at 2.3 million acres in the
lower 48. At the time of enactment of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act
(CIWA) in 1980, this wilderness area had nearly 2,500 miles of
catalogued trails. Section 5b of the CIWA states:
The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with the management plan required by this section,
clear obstructions from all of the national forest trails
within and adjacent to the wilderness on at least an annual
basis.
For several decades the Forest Service has not met the requirement
of the law. Recently, the agency is able to maintain approximately
twenty percent of the 2,500 miles annually. The large fires since 1988
have cumulatively increased the damage to the trail system. Invariably
after a wind storm, blow downs of both dead and live trees further clog
mainline and secondary trails. Each year this phenomenon has become
more apparent to those who visit the Wilderness whereby outfitters and
their guests and the self-guided public are no longer able to access
portions of the Wilderness. Further, fire rehabilitation funds need to
be extended beyond the initial year of the fire to specifically deal
with damage to trails that occur long after fire control is achieved.
The trail maintenance backlog is similar on other nearby public lands.
Outfitter and guide trail maintenance provides access to portions
of the Wilderness on secondary trails, thereby providing access to
little used areas of the Wilderness while spreading out use. However,
the increasing costs associated with maintaining trails for access have
outstripped the ability of small rural-based businesses to do so,
especially in this age of the new economy associated with the Great
Recession for which there has been no recovery for the Idaho industry.
The trail maintenance backlog and out-year damage from fires to the
trail system could benefit from a policy change that would allow for a
window for mechanized use annually from tools such as wheelbarrows and
chainsaws. Additionally, outfitters and guides could be further
incentivized to clear more trail though institution of a credit toward
the annual fees they pay the government for the privilege of providing
outfitter servicers on public lands. Dealing with the trail maintenance
backlog needs to strongly consider ideas outside the proverbial box.
The situation is so dire in the Frank Church that the state
legislature passed a resolution that contained the following language:
``WHEREAS, the Chief of the United States Forest Service has
not placed emphasis on efficient and economical methods of
trail restoration and maintenance, and has in fact aggressively
limited methods and tools by Forest Service crews, contractors
and volunteers that would greatly increase accomplishment and
lower costs without adverse effect on wilderness values or
visitors; and WHEREAS, use of outfitter and guide permittees,
contractors and volunteers from various organizations to
accomplish trail work is well below potential due to a lack of
emphasis by the United States Forest Service on using
innovative ways to offset permittee fees and streamline and
simplify contracting procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First
Regular Session of the Sixty-second Idaho Legislature, the
House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein,
that we urge the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture to declare the Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness and adjacent national forest lands to be a Natural
Resources Disaster Area.''
To a certain extent Idaho has become the poster child for cost
recovery for environmental analysis and outfitter permit administration
especially where threatened and endangered species are present.
Recently, an Idaho land-based outfitter with a historic base camp that
is now exemplary in how the outfitter maintains it for minimum impact
has been accessed a $5,600 cost recovery fee by the Boise National
Forest for environmental analysis that may or may not lead to permit
renewal. While $5,600 may seem minor to a ski area or mining operation,
it is a significant amount for a company with insignificant earnings.
The base camp is located within 300 feet of South Fork of the Salmon
River, a stream where endangered Chinook salmon also spawn.
This base camp is utilized during the summer as headquarters for
week-long outdoor education camps for teenagers. The non-outfitted
public is allowed to approach the banks of this stream to watch the
returning fish during the summer, an educational opportunity not
afforded to the kids who choose an outfitted outdoor education summer
experience with this outfitter. During the fall, this site serves as a
base camp for outfitted hunters. Complicating this matter is that there
is apparently no suitable location for moving the base camp, and even
if that were to occur, cost recovery analysis would be invoked since
the outfitters assigned area of operation is within the South Fork
Salmon drainage.
Since 1992 this outfitter has requested that activities that were
once permitted to the previous owner be added in order to extend the
season while diversifying his operation. Now, in order for these
activities to be added, the environmental analysis and associated cost
recovery bill would increase substantially.
Cost recovery was invoked on float trip operators on the Upper Main
Salmon during the height of the recession because the Forest Service
was unable to complete its analysis in less than 50 hours. The Forest
Service had to complete Section 7 consultation and other biological
assessment related to endangered Chinook salmon which return to the
river each year to spawn. The analysis does not begin until the special
use permittee agrees to pay for the analysis up front. Then there is no
guarantee that the outfitter will be permitted once the analysis is
complete. Never mind that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Department was simultaneously applying for a take permit from the
National Marine Fisheries Service for the same stretch of river that
allows the general public to walk and wade during spawning season. The
analysis, while required by law, seems superfluous for float trips with
the same fish are more likely to be disturbed by fishing and wading.
I would like to echo the need to amend the Forest Service and BLM's
cost recovery authority. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act
should not be subject to cost recovery for existing permits. This
analysis should be programmatic and not one that an individual small
business should incur. If a use has been ongoing for a number of years
and there is no significant change to the use or the resource,
categorical exclusions for NEPA compliance should be authorized. Also,
if cost recovery is to continue for outfitter permit renewal, then the
agency should provide credit for the first 50 hours of work. This is
not currently the case.
Our Idaho industry studies indicate the average net after all the
bills are paid is less than five percent. Cost recovery means that
small businesses are forced to make decisions such as whether to
continue operating or not, how much health care to afford, whether to
reduce staffing and marketing.
Outfitting is an important contributor to the Idaho rural economy.
Reduction of the trail maintenance backlog and elimination of cost
recovery for NEPA compliance would assist in maintaining viable small
businesses and options for the public that chooses an outfitted
vacation to enjoy our public lands.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. So I thank you and Mr. Brown both
for watching that red light like a hawk. I appreciate that.
I will turn now to Brian Merrill, welcome, you are
recognized for 5 minutes to address us.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN I. MERRILL,
WESTERN RIVERS GUIDES
Mr. Merrill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grijalva, and the
rest of the members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the
opportunity to testify on issues that are important to the
future of recreation on public lands. I am particularly
concerned about lands that are located in Utah. And, as the
Chairman knows, 63 percent of Utah's lands are owned by the
Federal Government. Only Nevada has a higher percentage. And
what happens on that land is of critical importance to the
economy of our State.
I am concerned that we maintain specifically public access
to these lands for recreation and multiple uses. Recently
Chairman Bishop sent a letter to a number of groups asking for
their thoughts on designation of lands that could be included
in future legislation for public lands in Utah. I very much
appreciate the Chairman's approach, because there are areas
that I particularly would like to see protected, and most of
all I would like to see access to those areas maintained for
people who want to recreate there. And, more specifically, for
commercial recreation. I make my living taking people out on
these lands, and so that is my bias.
But I am also very appreciative of this approach because I
believe bringing these disparate groups together, everything
from the environmental community to extractive industries and
all of us in between, is important because in meetings I have
had with a lot of these groups, private meetings, a lot of
times we are saying the same things. And I think there is a lot
of common ground that we can find. And the Chairman's
leadership is very much appreciated.
The focus of my testimony today is about the national
landscape conservation system, NLCS. And in a recent
presentation to the Utah BLM Advisory Council--I sat through a
presentation about their 3-year plan for implementing the NLCS.
And it is a real ambitious document. It talks about developing
friends groups, extensive media campaigns, student and
volunteer-led monitoring efforts, development of friends
groups, programs for youth and disabled veterans, massive
amounts of science, and only occasionally is recreation
mentioned in that document. Maybe four sentences. And even when
you get down to discussion of management of specific resources,
it hardly mentions recreation at all, even though recreation is
a significant part of just about every BLM-managed resource in
Utah.
I worry about that for the NLCS on the grand scale, too.
And when I think about the implementation of management under
NLCS, again, I see very little mention of recreation and,
specifically, guiding and outfitting.
As you know, the NLCS was established in 2009 to include
all congressionally designated areas to conserve, protect, and
restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding
cultural, ecological, and scientific values. And, as I have
already said, recreation is not a value for which an NLCS unit
is managed, unless it is included as a purpose in the
authorizing legislation for the area.
And if there is one message I would like to send today it
is that any legislation going forward ought to specifically
mention recreation as a value for which the area ought to be
managed. And, even more specifically, I would hope that they
would mention guiding and outfitting services.
In these areas, recreation can be allowed, but it is only a
secondary use in most situations. Clearly, recreation needs to
be compatible with the other objectives of the NLCS. And, in
fact, in the case of commercial outfitting, it already is.
Commercial outfitters, including Mr. Bannon's organization
here, have invented all of the low-impact camping protocols and
low-impact use protocols that are the standard in our industry.
They were invented by our industry. And so we know how to take
care of these lands. And it is in the best interest of the
agencies to use us as their partners. We are the eyes and ears
on the ground, as has already been said here today.
Oh, I am running out of time. I am out of time, aren't I? I
will just say that the combination of the Chairman's leadership
in bringing these groups together and Governor Herbert's
recreation vision, outdoor recreation vision in Utah, I think
are the right recipe for fixing the way lands are managed in
Utah. We do not have a specific designation that accommodates
recreation, and I would encourage the members of the Committee
to read my oral or my written testimony, because I have some
great ideas, I think, in there about how to do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrill follows:]
Statement of Brian I. Merrill, CEO,
Western River Expeditions, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on issues that are important to the future of
recreation on public lands. I want to make it clear that I am
representing my company and myself in this testimony.
As you know, 63% of the land in Utah is under federal ownership.
Only Nevada has a higher percentage of federal land ownership. What
happens on that land is of critical importance to the economy of the
state. That is why I am grateful to be able to testify today, because I
am concerned that we maintain public access to these lands for
recreation and multiple uses.
Recently, Chairman Bishop sent a letter to a number of groups and
individuals asking for suggestions on designation of lands that should
be included in future legislation for public lands in Utah. I very much
appreciate the Chairman's approach because there are areas I would like
to see set aside for recreation, as well as scenic and cultural values
provided they remain available for public access and multiple-use. Of
course, in highlighting recreation, I want to emphasize outfitting and
guiding.
In reflecting on the prospect for designating lands under the
Bureau of Land Management's authority, I want to focus on concerns
about the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and what is an
inherent bias against recreation in the authorizing legislation and in
the NLCS management manuals. As you know the NLCS was established in
2009 to include all congressionally designated areas ``to conserve,
protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have
outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values''. Recreation
is not a value for which an NLCS unit is managed unless it is included
as a purpose in the authorizing legislation for the area. Recreational
use may be allowed but it is secondary and tolerated only if it is not
in conflict with the other purposes for the NLCS, the values prescribed
by the congressional designation, and the direction given in the NLCS
manuals and BLM handbooks.
Of course recreation needs to be compatible with the other
objectives of the NLCS. In the case of professionally guided
recreation, it already is. In fact, most if not all of the low-impact
use and camping practices that are the standard in our industry were
invented and developed by our industry, not by government employees.
The idea of ``partnership'' is given lip-service by BLM, NFS and NPS,
but I believe they largely dismiss the value that their outfitters
represent in accomplishing their goals. We are truly the only ones who
are out there educating visitors and creating constituencies for these
resources in any significant way. This is especially true of BLM and
NFS.
The NLCS Manual for National Monuments, National Conservation Areas
(NCA's), and similar designations were developed without public comment
and include provisions and direction which go beyond the obvious intent
in the NLCS authorizing legislation. For example, under A. General
Principles for the Management of Monuments and NCA's, No. 5 specifies
that the BLM's public engagement focus specifically on ``youth and
veterans on Monument and NCA lands for education, interpretation,
partnerships, volunteers and job opportunities''. While this focus may
be laudable, the omission of other visitors and groups may exclude
those segments of the public in the planning and management of these
areas. If you run an outfitting business which does not specifically
serve these groups, then it would appear your status is in question.
What about engagement of the general public?
With wilderness designations, party size limitations and the
limitations on commercial services mandated by The Wilderness Act make
me reluctant to want that designation for large areas in Utah
especially where outfitting and guiding takes place. The BLM Manual for
wilderness study areas (WSA's) discourages allowing any uses that could
detract from future wilderness designations even if those uses are
temporal, transitory and do not involve the construction of permanent
structures. For example, jeep tours or river tours could be at risk or
not allowed if the direction in the Manual for management of WSA's is
followed.
A primary focus of management in Monuments and NCA's appear to be
``science''. A ``science plan'' is required but, at least in the public
version of the Manual document, there does not appear to be a
requirement for a visitor services plan.
Given the direction in these manuals, any future designations in
Utah must specifically identify the recreational values that are to be
preserved, maintained or restored in order for them to be protected. I
am also concerned about the recreational potential for all the
congressionally designated areas that predated the establishment of the
NLCS in 2009, which are now, by law, part of it.
There are areas many of us would like to see set aside primarily
for their recreational value. Based on the direction of the NLCS policy
and legislative authority, it does not appear that including them under
the NLCS authority is a good idea unless recreation activities are
specifically mentioned as a purpose for the area with clear direction
that these are primary values and not secondary to the other values for
which the NLCS was established.
Understanding the future direction of management and recreation
with the BLM and the NLCS is difficult in part because the Manuals and
Handbook which guide recreation planning within the agency have not
been widely publicized or available for public comment. Without that
knowledge how these areas are managed for recreation, those advocating
congressional designations may not get what they bargained for unless
specific recreation activities are included in the authorizing
legislation. The public versions of the BLM Recreation and Visitor
Services Manual published in 2011 states that recreation is ``not
emphasized'' unless the management plan specifies an area as a
Recreation Management Area (RMA)''. So, it would appear that in
addition to making recreation a purpose for the area, any future
designations should also designate recreation management areas and
recreation activities that are appropriate in those places. To further
complicate planning, a RMA has to be designated as a Special Recreation
Management Area (SRMA) or an Extensive Recreation Management Area
(ERMA). SRMAs recognize unique and distinctive recreation values and
are managed to enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences,
benefits, and recreation setting characteristics, which become the
priority management focus. ERMA is defined as an administrative unit
that requires specific management consideration in order to address
recreation use, demand, or R&VS program investments. It is not very
clear what the distinction is between these two concepts since there
has been little opportunity for public discourse on these issues. Yet
these concepts must be understood before recommending any type of
congressional designation.
At a Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council meeting, I sat through a
presentation of the ``NLCS 3-Year Strategy for Utah 2013-2016''. It is
a very ambitious document including goals such as development of
friends groups, extensive media campaigns, student and volunteer led
monitoring efforts, development of programs for youth and disabled
veterans, and massive amounts of science. Occasionally, recreation is
mentioned. Even when you get into the sections discussing management of
specific resources, there is little and in most areas no mention of how
recreation fits into the management scheme.
We really do not seem to have a congressional designation that
specifically promotes recreation as a primary purpose and allows for
the accommodation of new and emerging activities. As we consider future
congressional designations for recreationally significant lands in Utah
and elsewhere, I urge members of the Committee to consider the
following actions:
Either specifically include recreationally
significant lands in NLCS management plans or leave
recreationally significant lands outside the NLCS. This would
require Congress to come up with a specific new designation,
exclude recreationally significant areas from the boundaries of
the designated area, or alter the existing NLCS authority to
give recreation higher standing.
Create a designation other than wilderness, such as a
``backcountry'' designation, where recreation is the primary
purpose for the area without the restrictions imposed by
wilderness, the NLCS and Monument status? A backcountry
designation would allow new uses to be considered and recognize
historic and multiple recreational uses where appropriate.
In any land use legislation that is created for Utah,
specifically define recreation, including outfitting and
guiding, as a value for which the appropriate areas should be
managed.
Require that BLM's handbooks manuals or handbooks be
subject to public comment prior to becoming agency policy so
that we may better participate in designations and management
planning decisions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. We gave you the extra
20 seconds because of what you said about me. That should give
a hint to the rest of you who are coming up here.
Mr. Merrill. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. We will now hear from the National Outdoor
Leadership School, Mr. Aaron Bannon. If you would, please.
STATEMENT OF AARON BANNON,
NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL
Mr. Bannon. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Grijalva, members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be
here. My name is Aaron Bannon, I am here representing NOLS, the
National Outdoor Leadership School. We are a nonprofit outdoor
educational institution utilizing the wilderness classroom
through month-long expedition-style courses to educate 15,000
students every year. Our 230,000 graduates include high school
and college students, naval academy cadets, corporate CEOs,
returning veterans, and NASA astronauts. We were founded almost
50 years ago in Lander, Wyoming, and we have since grown to be
one of the largest commercial outfitters in the country,
offering courses in 14 States, 9 countries, across 6
continents.
So, today I want to talk about outdoor recreation as
economic driver in the West, the challenges that NOLS faces in
maintaining its operations, and ways that Federal land agencies
can help rural economies better realize their market potential
of their natural landscapes.
So, first off, the recreation economy. We have heard today
some of the national figures for outdoor recreation. It is,
indeed, a sleeping giant. In Wyoming alone, travel is a $2.9
billion industry. NOLS has tried to estimate our own economic
impact just on Fremont County, where we are headquartered. We
know we are the third-largest employer in the county. We
generate earnings of over $7 million and provide hundreds of
jobs. We know, through our stability, that we have helped our
town weather the recent recession.
And this paradigm of outdoor recreation as a foundation for
stable growth in rural communities is not unique to NOLS or to
Fremont County or even to Wyoming. This is the story with towns
across the West, where good access to stunning public lands is
driving a healthy and thriving outdoor recreation economy.
We do, however, run into some obstacles. One is group size
limits. In the mid-1990s, Canyonlands National Park reduced
overall group sizes to seven people, a number we could not
sustain economically, and we were forced to stop operating
there. Until recently, the Coronado National Forest was
considering imposing an overnight group size limit of 6 people,
where our current permit stands at 20. We found a solution with
Coronado, but we fear that this is a growing trend. Agency
personnel are facing a challenging mandate in balancing the
preservation and solitude of wilderness with visitation.
Another challenge we face, particularly on National
forests, is finding opportunities for growth under the current
permitting policy. Today, new or expanded permits can't be
issued unless a forest is certain they will not exceed their
carrying capacity. The way to do this is to conduct a capacity
analysis, a process that follows NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act. Most forests do not have the
resources to complete a capacity analysis, and it has given us
opportunities--oh, I am sorry. Most forests do not have the
resources to complete a capacity analysis, and permitting,
therefore, grinds to a halt.
Now, NEPA is not the problem here. The NEPA process has
served us well. It has preserved the integrity of our operating
areas, and it has given us opportunities to anticipate
potential impacts to our courses. But it was not so long ago
that outfitters could sustain their operations through
temporary use permits, enabling businesses to continue until
the necessary NEPA could be completed.
So, what solutions can we offer? Well, we need to raise the
profile of recreation as is considered by our Federal agencies
to create a business-friendly climate. We need Congress to
reauthorize the Federal Lands and Recreation Enhancement Act,
as David mentioned. If 80 percent of these fees are collected
and retained at the site, that is a good incentive for
recreation. We ask that you consider, through reauthorization,
some adjustments, such as setting aside a portion of the fees
generated specifically for improvements.
We ask that you support the creation of a 21st Century
Outdoors Commission. And thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for
introducing this important bill. And we ask that you support
the creation of a public lands conservation corps. With a
congressional focus on promoting and enhancing our outdoor
landscapes, much can improve.
I feel we have a special situation here today. Everybody,
from all the panelists to the members of the Subcommittee to
the Federal agencies, we want the same thing here: to find more
opportunities for people to get outside. We all believe in
America's youth. And at NOLS we have since our inception. We
are eager to work hard to find ways to ensure that we can
continue to educate and inspire the next generation of
Americans and expose them to the wild, rugged wilderness that
is the heart and soul of our country. Thank you, and I yield my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bannon follows:]
Statement of Aaron Bannon, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability
Director, National Outdoor Leadership School
Members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time
today and for your attention to the challenges facing the outdoor
recreation industry. I am here representing NOLS, the National Outdoor
Leadership School. We are a non-profit outdoor educational institution
offering environmental studies, technical backcountry and leadership
skills to students of all ages, usually on month-long expedition-style
courses. NOLS utilizes the wilderness classroom--remote wilderness,
roadless, and backcountry lands and waters--to educate 15,000 students
each year. The lessons learned on NOLS courses have been invaluable to
our grads, who range from high school students, college students and
Naval Academy Cadets, to Corporate CEOs, returning veterans, and NASA
astronauts.
The Recreation Economy
Since it was founded in 1965 in Lander, Wyoming, NOLS has graduated
230,000 students. Our operations have grown steadily over the past 48
years, and we now offer courses in fourteen states from New York to
Alaska, in nine countries from Australia to Chile, and across six
continents. NOLS is one of the largest commercial outfitters in the
country.
NOLS is but one example of the national recreation economy. The
economic impact on rural economies of our rural operations is
measurable. And the impact of recreation spending nationally is
significant.
In Fremont County alone, the economic impact of NOLS and other
outdoor businesses in Wyoming's Fremont County is significant. As the
3rd largest employer in the county, NOLS supports 125 full-time and 300
seasonal positions generating earnings of $7.2 million. Our Lander base
spends $350,000 on food, $110,000 on outfitter services, and $100,000
on fuel and maintenance for our vehicles. We pay over $60,000 annually
to the Shoshone National Forest in fees. Our impact on Fremont County
is similar to towns across the west, where good access to stunning
public lands is driving a healthy outdoor recreation economy.
Travel spending in Wyoming was $2.9 billion in 2011. In has
increased 5.4% per year for 13 years running. Travel spending directly
supports nearly 30,000 jobs generating earnings of $731 million. Local
and state tax revenues generated by travel spending is approximately
$120 million. (Wyoming Travel Impacts, 1998-2011p, published in May
2012)
Accessing Public Lands and Providing Outfitter Services
Not only is NOLS one of the largest holders of federal recreation
permits, it is also one of the oldest. Over five decades, we have
worked extensively with federal, state, and local land managers,
including the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and numerous state and
tribal authorities. Our experience in permit management is extensive.
In our time we have seen major advancements through cooperative work
between agencies and the industry. For example, NOLS was instrumental
in the creation and adoption of the Leave No Trace style of camping,
which has been adopted by the three major federal land management
agencies and is the industry standard for responsible travel across
backcountry lands.
Being able to access the wilderness classroom to expose Americans
of all ages to the great outdoors is a great privilege. It is a
privilege for which we willingly procure and manage permits, and for
which we willingly pay fees.
Group Size Limits
We face real challenges to our operating paradigm in working with
the federal agencies. Our success is entirely dependent upon our
ability to operate on and access public lands. Therefore, we expend
significant resources preserving the integrity of our permits and of
our backcountry operations. We build relationships with land managers,
and we advocate our position.
Group size limitations are a persistent threat. Land managers
struggle to balance the dual mandates of the Wilderness Act: on one
hand preserving naturalness while on the other retaining opportunities
for visitors. When the wilderness resource is impacted, the easiest way
to preserve and restore its naturalness is to reduce visitation. And
the easiest way to manage visitation is through constraining commercial
outfitter providers.
We have seen this approach unfold across the three federal land
management agencies. In the mid-1990s, Canyonlands National Park
reduced overall group sizes to seven, a number we could not sustain
economically. We were forced to cease our operations there. In 2005, we
saw group size levels in the Dirty Devil drop from 20 to 12. Until
recently, the Coronado National Forest was considering a group size of
6, where our permit currently stands at 20. Through a series of
constructive discussions, over eight months and countless hours, we
have been able to reach an amicable outcome with the Coronado National
Forest. We fear, however, that it is becoming common practice to limit
group size in order to meet wilderness management objectives. This is
not the best answer, and its effectiveness is questionable.
Permitting Policy
Expanding permits today is both expensive and procedurally unclear.
For example, our expected payout to cover the environmental analysis
required to decide whether we can run four additional courses of 12
students on a single forest will likely exceed $50,000. If these
unplanned expenses are difficult for us, they must be daunting for
smaller, family-size operations.
We understand and respect the value of following the National
Environmental Policy Act. The NEPA process has certainly served to
preserve the integrity of our operating areas, and we work with the
NEPA process to understand, anticipate, and engage on potential issues
impacting our courses. Indeed, it is through the NEPA process that we
successfully engaged with the Coronado on our group size issue.
Nevertheless, the bureaucratic morass that has become the new
normal is stifling creativity and growth in the outdoor industry. Under
the current permitting policy on National Forests, new or expanded
permits can't be issued unless their issuance clearly will not exceed
the carrying capacity of the forest. If forests are unsure of the
carrying capacity, they must conduct a capacity analysis--a NEPA
process. Most forests have either not undertaken a capacity analysis,
or have initiated and then halted one, due to lack of resources needed
to complete it. New permits do not get issued, and long-standing
permitees must pay tens of thousands of dollars to conduct an analysis
of modest growth on one permit at a time. There is, additionally, a
lack of consistency across the national forest system, and forests tend
to interpret their guidelines differently, creating a confusing
landscape for permittees.
This process stagnation is not just bad for NOLS, it is bad for the
would-be recreating public. Many who would pursue outdoor recreation
lack the technical skills necessary to engage in a pursuit on their
own. They therefore seek out a school that can teach them the necessary
skills, or an outfitter who can guide and equip them. There is a public
demand for outfitting services. We are service providers, meeting that
demand and opening the doors to rich experiences.
In the end, current permitting policy is not a good model for
supporting a robust outdoor recreation economy. Federal land management
agencies, while being mindful of preserving our natural resources,
should be thoughtful and deliberate in creating a business-friendly
climate. Regulations should be reasonable. Permitting should be
straightforward. Commercial outfitting should not bear a
disproportionate burden of management restrictions.
Reauthorizing the Federal Lands and Recreation Enhancement Act
FLREA, the Federal Lands and Recreation Enhancement Act, has
provided a good model for how fees collected on public lands are
allocated. This is the fee authority under which our federal permits
are administered. According to FLREA, at least 80% of fees collected
are retained at the site. When it was created, FLREA helped improve the
dismal budgets for local forests, national parks, and BLM field
offices. As budgets have continued to shrink, revenues generated by
FLREA have shifted from funding enhancements to funding programs and
operations. While first and foremost we would like to see FLREA
reauthorized, we do think there is room for improvement. Ensure that a
portion of fees generated by FLREA are set aside for enhancements.
Adopt some measure of accountability to the public, so those who pay
fees can have some insight into how the money is spent. Those who pay
fees rightly have an expectation that some of those funds will be used
for improvements and for restoration projects, and because of their
intimate familiarity with the landscape, they often have the best
information regarding where work should be done.
Pending Legislation
We would like to express support for a 21st century great outdoors
commission. By examining use, values, and economic impacts of America's
outdoor resources, this body can equip congress to deal with the
challenges that lie ahead. Along with that, I would like to thank the
members of this body for their efforts to create a public lands
conservation corps. Service is essential to the maintenance of our
public lands, and NOLS regularly participates in service projects. The
volunteer spirit of America will be alive and well through this effort.
In Conclusion
At NOLS, we believe in the youth of America and desire to serve
them well. We strive to create ethical leaders, and these leaders
strive to change the world. The ripple effect of NOLS is substantial.
We are having a positive impact on rural economies, and we are creating
rich, life-changing experiences for our students on a daily basis. We
are proud of our legacy, and we look to you to help us ensure that we
can continue to provide our unique brand of service.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You and Mr. Merrill balanced out, so
that is great.
Mrs. Lummis, did you want to introduce Mr. Bannon to me,
even though it is past that time?
Mrs. Lummis. I would love to, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the
opportunity. I want to welcome Aaron Bannon from the National
Outdoor Leadership School to testify today, and I am delighted
to have a Lander, Wyoming gentleman at this hearing.
The National Outdoor Leadership School is headquartered in
Lander. And, as some of you know, NOLS is a global leader in
outdoor training and leadership education. And we are extremely
proud that Lander is the home of NOLS. And I am delighted that
Mr. Bannon is here today. NOLS is a critical part of Wyoming's
landscape and our multiple-use land tradition. And I just can't
say enough how beautiful Lander is and what a great home it is
for NOLS. And if you don't have a family member that has
participated in NOLS, you ought to.
Anyway, welcome. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I agree with you on the idea of
being outdoors in the wild. I tried to do that Monday here on
my deck, and it was just too damn cold. So I apologize for
that.
Let me turn to John Duncan. And is it Telluride?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, Telluride.
Mr. Bishop. That is the right way of saying it?
Mr. Duncan. It is our little town in Southwest Colorado.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We will recognize you for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DUNCAN,
TELLURIDE OUTSIDE
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to share my views as a long-time
outfitter in Southwest Colorado. Our company, Telluride
Outside, was founded in 1984. And today we operate six guide
services, primarily on Federal lands. We run fly fishing, four-
wheel-drive tours, rafting, mountain bike tours, photography,
and also snowmobile tours. I have personally worked on and off
for Telluride Outside for 22 years now, and have been a full-
time managing owner since May 2001. So about 12 years.
As an overview, I truly believe that small, specialized
guide services are excellent partners for the Federal
Government in providing safe and high-quality guided
experiences for the general public. Telluride Outside maintains
a very low guest-to-guide ratio for all of our trips, and that
is key to running high-quality, safe trips. Over the last 12
years, we have guided more than 65,000 customers without a
single accident claim. And the public clearly grasps the value
of this approach.
In our fishing guide service last year--our fishing guide
service is our largest guide service, with about 3,000 annual
customers--approximately 56 percent of all of our customers
were repeat customers. And I think that speaks volumes to that
approach to guiding.
Moreover, I believe that these statistics are pretty
typical of all specialized outfitters. It is not just us. I
know that so many other small specialty guide services build
that repeat clientele by running consistently high-quality
trips.
Also, we require safety credentials and guide experience
that far exceed Federal and State regulations. We purchase and
deploy all kinds of expensive operating and safety equipment
that is required nowhere by law, and our company volunteers
literally hundreds of man hours every year for trash cleanups,
wood removal from rivers, trail clearing, and resource
protection fundraising. We are truly dedicated stewards of our
natural resources. And I have always felt that one of the most
significant and valuable contributions to conservation that we
make every year is simply to take 7,000 or 8,000 people out and
offer them an authentic, unforgettable wilderness experience
that affects their future decision-making.
With this backdrop, I would like to address three issues at
the heart of our working relationship. First, the consideration
of financial feasibility for outfitters with respect to permit
management. Keep in mind that guiding is a labor of love. I
mean it truly is. Almost all guide services are owner-operated
with low margins and little or no investment return.
Telluride Outside is a major guide service within our
community with 29 years experience and over 50 employees. And
yet, for the last 12 years, our profit margins run about 2.3
percent. By comparison, our insurance premiums are over 3
percent of our gross revenues, and we pay the Forest Service
and the BLM the customary 3 percent for operating on public
lands.
The point here is that small cost increases can marginalize
some of that discretionary professional protocol that I was
referring to, and make our trips prohibitively expensive for
the general public. And we feel that pressure every day, every
week, and every year when we are making our price-setting
decisions.
Federal agencies should definitely consider the cost
impacts of changing policy. For example, the tenfold increase
in insurance minimums would almost certainly result in
unrealistic premium increases for outfitters. When issuing or
reissuing special use permits, weigh quality and experience
over low bids. Outfitter cost-cutting does not benefit the
general public.
Previous permit holders with a satisfactory operating
record should definitely be favored for permit renewal.
Because, with experience, quality and consistency increase. And
also, our processes, working together with our Federal
agencies, become much more streamlined and more efficient for
all of us.
On special use permits, on 10-year priority permits, we
need to build some modest growth assumptions into the 10-year
priority permits. Many of the 10-year permits, including the
ones on which we currently operate, have no room for growth
built in to the program. And that is just not realistic for a
partnership between a Federal agency and a small business.
Issue number two: methods for establishing and managing
resource carrying capacity. Establish realistic time frames for
environmental assessments and other carrying capacity studies
and clearly communicate those to the whole constituency. When
assessing carrying capacity, input should be gathered from
three sources: the general public, your active outfitters, and
also field biologists. Come up with a target for desirable
range of user days and manage your outfitters and permits
accordingly. The objective here is not so much to restrict
competition, but to keep a handle on the amount of commercial
use on a resource.
And the final issue is that user fees should be discreetly
earmarked for use on the resources in which they were
generated. Priorities include the maintenance of roads, trails,
boat ramps, and bathrooms, as well as providing basic access to
public lands.
Finally, and of great importance, we need to employ local
district officers endowed with flexible management practices
and sufficient resources to achieve these goals. In Southwest
Colorado, we are really fortunate to work with high-quality,
experienced managers with both the Forest Service and also the
BLM. Our working relationship seems to improve every year, as
does the quality of our guided trips that we provide for the
general public.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to sincerely thank
the Committee for this opportunity, and I feel that I speak not
only for our company, but for small outfitters across the West.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Statement of John F. Duncan, Managing Partner,
Telluride Fly Fishing Co., Inc., dba Telluride Outside Outfitter and
Guide
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share my views as a longtime outfitter in SW Colorado.
Our company, Telluride Outside, was founded in 1984 and today operates
six guide services on lands managed by the USFS, BLM and NPS. Our
guided activities include fly fishing, 4-WD tours, whitewater rafting,
mountain bike tours, photography and snowmobile tours. Approximately
90% of our guided trips are conducted on federal lands, so this is our
primary playing field. I have worked on and off for Telluride Outside
for 22 years and have been the fulltime managing owner since May, 2001.
It is from this perspective that I would like to offer the
following observations and recommendations with regard to the financial
impacts of federal policy on small outfitters that operate on NFS, BLM
and NPS lands.
Observations
1) Small, specialized guide services are excellent partners
for the federal government in providing safe, high quality
guided experiences on public lands.
a. Small guide services provide a high quality, safe,
authentic experience. For example, our company has
guided more than 65,000 customers over the last 12
years without a single accident that led to a customer
insurance claim. In our fishing guide service last
year, an estimated 56% of trips were repeat customers,
which clearly illustrates the quality of our service. I
believe these statistics to be typical of specialized
outfitters.
b. Specialized guide services generally operate on a
low guest-to-guide ratio. Our company is typical. We
average a 2:1 ratio for fishing, 4:1 for mountain
biking, 5.5:1 for 4-WD tours. 5:1 for rafting and 4:1
for snowmobiling (these are statistical averages). A
low ratio improves every aspect of the trip: safety,
education, personal care of our guests, consistency,
response to changing weather and the overall quality of
the experience
c. One of the most valuable contributions to
conservation is to take 7,000 or 8,000 people each year
and give them a breathtaking, unforgettable outdoor
experience that creates a real bond to Mother Nature
and invariably instills conservation values that affect
their future decision making.
d. In spite of low margins and long hours, dedicated
guide services do what it takes to deliver a first-rate
experience. This is who we are and what we do.
e. Specialty guide services are stewards of the
resources. We pick up trash, police trespassing,
illegal fishing, crowding and other frequent
occurrences. We keep the peace and take care of the
rivers, mountains and canyons in which we operate.
f. Many guide services, like Telluride Outside, go way
beyond regulations in terms of safety preparation and
guide qualifications. Our company (like most) requires
safety credentials and personal experience that far
exceeds federal and state regulations. We also purchase
and deploy all kinds of expensive operating and safety
equipment that is required nowhere by law. Our company
volunteers tens or hundreds of man hours every year for
trash cleanups, wood removal from rivers, mountain bike
trail clearing and resource protection fundraising.
Much of this discretionary professional protocol will
be pushed to the curb if we are required to pay tens of
thousands of dollars in additional insurance premiums,
or if the cost of doing business on public lands
otherwise increases.
2) High quality guide services are generally owner-operated at
very low margins out of a true passion for place and sport. Our
company does approximately $1.75 million in annual revenues,
including about $600K in retail. We are among the larger guide
services in Southern Colorado, but our annual profit margin has
averaged only 2.3% over the last 12 years. By comparison, our
liability and vehicle insurance average 3% of gross sales and
we pay the NFS and BLM fees of 3%.
3) Outfitters can easily be pushed out of business by federal
policies and other factors that affect trip margins and the
operating playing field. Examples:
a. In the last two years, 2 of the 5 active rafting
outfitters in our area have literally walked away from
their guide services for lack of profitability (San
Miguel Anglers and Telluride Fly Fishers, who held
permits for 5 and 23 years, respectively). In the same
period, the BLM issued two new permits (without
retracting the abandoned ones) and changed all permits
to unlimited user days. This is absolutely crushing us.
Longstanding local outfitters are hanging up their
oars. The BLM appears to have succumbed to outfitters
begging for permits rather than sound economic and
resource carrying capacity analysis.
b. In 2005, NFS suddenly claimed jurisdiction over
local County road systems for 4-WD tours in San Miguel
and Ouray counties on the basis that tours surely
impact nearby off-road NFS lands. In return, NFS funded
a part-time high country ranger position to keep the
general public on the road and off sensitive
ecosystems. Our company has paid over $45,515 in user
fees since 2005, even though our tours rarely or never
touch actual NFS lands. How is this fair?
c. According to our underwriters represented by Rick
Lindsey and WOGA, the proposed 10-fold increase for
insurance minimums may increase our premiums by 300% or
more, affecting both liability and auto policies. In
our case, that would result in cost increases of at
least $60,000 per year. We have operated for 29 years
without a claim, but that would certainly put us out of
business.
4) There seems to be disagreement between managing agencies as
to whether financial feasibility should be taken into
consideration when considering outfitter management methods,
Special Use Permits and NPS CUAs. While testifying before the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands of the
House Committee on Natural Resources, on August 2, 2012, Deputy
NPS Director Peggy O'Dell clearly alluded to an NPS policy
requiring financial feasibility consideration. In 2012, the
Bureau of Land Management rejected our company's appeal for
such consideration in the course of local permit management
(please see our ``outfitter input'' letter from 2009, exhibit
A), stating that financial feasibility for the outfitter is
never taken into consideration in the permitting process. Is
there a written policy? Does it apply to NPS, BLM and NFS?
5) In SW Colorado there is little consistency between NFS and
BLM in their determinations of carrying capacity on similar
resources. The San Miguel and Dolores are similar rivers. The
San Miguel is managed primarily by the BLM and the Dolores by
the Forest Service. Both are free-flowing, wade fishing trout
streams that our company has guided for more than 25 years.
When tributary streams are taken into consideration, both
watersheds offer more than 20 miles of public access on which
we guide under our Special Use Permits. Our BLM permit grants
850 user days, all of which we use, while the NFS permit allows
only 250 user days with zero room for growth in our 10-year
priority permit.
Local administrators are best suited to manage the permits.
In fact, we have very good people on the ground for both NFS
and BLM locally. We have built strong relationships with these
agencies based on transparency; trust and performance over 29
years, but there need to be some guiding principles and
standardized methods for assessing carrying capacity and
managing permits.
6) NFS and BLM need to create a set of standard criteria for
determining how many Special Use Permits are issued for each
resource and the number of user days for each permit. Market
size absolutely must be taken into consideration in order to
assure financial feasibility for the outfitters and a high
quality customer experience. Healthy competition is desirable,
but outfitter free-for-all is not. 10-year permits must contain
clauses for growth (presently, ours do not) Study periods need
to be specific and limited. Unused permits should be cancelled.
7) Industry rate-of-return benchmarks are inappropriate. In
Deputy Director O'Dell's testimony from August 2, 2012, she
states that ``The projected cost of the insurance is considered
as an operating expense of the concession contract as part of
an overall financial analysis. A prospectus is released only if
a reasonable opportunity for profit exists considering industry
internal rate-of-return benchmarks.''
This is really dangerous territory with clear un-American
implications. The federal government should consider the impact
of its policies on partner outfitters, but an industry standard
for rate-of-return would be undeterminable, unmanageable and
probably illegal. If such a standard exists for our industry, I
would be very surprised. Unlike restaurants or banks,
outfitters operate on business models that are often completely
unique from one another.
Recommendation: create a written set of policy-making criteria and
objectives for future Department of the Interior rule-making. Include
the following:
1) Prioritize the guest experience by protecting specialty
guide services.
2) Incentivize outfitters to operate safely and contribute to
the preservation of the natural resources on which they
operate. Rather than raising insurance limits 10-fold, federal
agencies should focus on a number of things to actually improve
safety and the overall customer experience, including:
a. Consistent, detailed reviews of each guide
service's operating plan and performance.
b. Spot checking in the field for compliance.
c. Policing of pirate guides, very common in SW
Colorado. Pirate guides are unaccountable for trip
quality and customer safety.
d. Committing more of their budgets to safety-oriented
field work, including improvement of 4-WD access roads,
wood clearing and trail maintenance on the resources
where the revenues are generated.
3) Carrying capacity should be determined and managed by local
agency officers within the parameters of reasonable governing
criteria, including:
a) Market size and healthy competition must be taken
into consideration in determining the total number of
permits issued. If financial health is not considered,
the federal agencies will create a situation in which
high quality outfitters cannot make a living by guiding
the public. This is a losing situation for all
concerned.
b) 10-year permits should contain growth clauses of 5-
10%/year.
c) Previous permit holders should be favored for
renewal unless their operating record is deemed
unacceptable. Experienced outfitters offer a more
consistent, high-quality service for the general public
and have the opportunity to form a meaningful working
relationship with local managing agencies. Unused
permits, on the other hand, should be revoked or put
into a forced sale.
d) Every permit should have user day limits. Without
them, the managing agency forfeits a critical tool for
regulating carrying capacity. New permits should never
be issued when unused permits are potentially available
for purchase.
4) Insurance limits should be based upon compelling demand
rather than unfounded hypothetical concepts and irrelevant
references to other industries. There is currently no hard
evidence that limits should be increased from $500K per
incident. Increasing our minimums 10-fold might literally wipe
out the guiding industry.
5) Special Use Permit and CUA fees should be earmarked for
recovery of the direct costs of managing outfitter use of
public lands and enhancing safety on public land resources.
Bureaucratic costs that do not directly benefit the general
public, nor the outfitters, should be reduced or eliminated.
Outfitter use fees should be earmarked for local resource
management
6) Public lands jurisdiction issues should be clear cut. Does
NFS have jurisdiction over county roads? Does BLM have
jurisdiction over waterways that pass through BLM lands if
outfitters launch and take out on private property? These
questions need to be answered clearly and managed consistently.
With respect to outfitting, these rules should be applied
consistently by both the NFS and BLM. To the end user there is
no important distinction between the two from the standpoint of
hiring a guide for a specific activity on public land. The land
is either public, or it's not
Mr. Chairman, I would like to sincerely thank the committee for
this opportunity to express my views on behalf of our company,
Telluride Outside, and hundreds of other specialized guide services
that work hard to deliver a superior experience for our customers on
public lands.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You forgot that if you are going to
go over that long you have to compliment me some way.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. This has been a lot of fun this morning, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Yes. And for a fact I don't sweat too much,
either. Yes, OK, fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate you all being here and giving your
testimony. Now I will open it up for questions. Mr. McClintock,
do you have questions for this panel?
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gifford Pinchot,
the legendary founder of the National Forest Service, gave a
series of lectures at the Yale School of Forestry from 1910 to
1915, and he propounded maxims for ``the behavior of foresters
in public office.'' Let me read you a few of these.
``A public official is there to serve the public and not
run them.'' ``Public support of acts affecting public rights is
absolutely required. It is more trouble to consult the public
than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.''
``Find out in advance what the public will stand for. If it is
right and they won't stand for it, postpone action and educate
them.'' ``Get rid of an attitude of personal arrogance or pride
of attainment or superior knowledge.''
Let me ask you each briefly, how closely would you say our
lands management agencies are adhering to these principles
today? Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Well, I think they have been distracted by some
of the processes I described in my testimony, and that actually
are probably more removed from the public now than they ever
have been, because they are preoccupied by planning
environmental analyses and other processes----
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. That separate them from the public.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Simonds?
Mr. Simonds. It used to be that we could shake hands with
the permit manager and know that a deal is a deal. Those were
the old days. And invariably the processes have just become so
cumbersome that developing a personal relationship is key. And
sometimes we get those opportunities, sometimes we don't.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Merrill, briefly.
Mr. Merrill. There seems to be a disconnect between
managers on the ground and folks at the regional level and
national level. Often we have really great relationships with
on-the-ground people, and they are some of the best people I
know. And they can get things done. But then sometimes their
hands are tied by their regional managers. And often, people
who know nothing about the resource.
Mr. McClintock. Let me go on very quickly here. Mr.
Simonds, you mentioned that two-thirds of the land in Idaho is
set aside by the Federal Government. Is that two-thirds owned
by the Federal Government?
Mr. Simonds. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. And, Mr. Merrill, I didn't catch your--you
had a similar statistic for Utah?
Mr. Simonds. I think it is 63 percent of Utah lands are
owned by the Federal Government.
Mr. McClintock. So two-thirds in both cases. Would it
surprise you that, in Norman and Plantagenet England, the kings
set aside one-third of the land as the king's forest in which
commoners were actively discouraged from visiting or
participating in? No fewer than five clauses of the Magna Carta
were devoted to redress these grievances, they were so annoying
to the English people.
If we were to draft a new Magna Carta guaranteeing the
public the right to the public's lands, which one single change
would each of you--and we have five panelists, five clauses--
what is the single most important clause you would write in a
new Magna Carta for the public to restore to them the enjoyment
of the public's lands? And in 15 or 20 seconds each.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Well, I think recognizing that the general
public, the people who don't possess the skills and equipment
necessary to enjoy public land should have opportunities to do
so. And that is really what outfitters and guides do. They
provide that opportunity.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Mr. Simonds? One most important clause
you would put in.
Mr. Simonds. Access is the name of the game. If we can't
get there, then outfitters and guides have a hard time
providing service to those folks who desire a guided
opportunity on our public lands.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Mr. Merrill? Fifteen seconds or
less.
Mr. Merrill. Yes. No fair being last, because they both
said what I was going to say. But our guests, even though they
pay us to do this, are the general public. And sometimes they
are viewed as something different from the general public. I am
not sure why.
But access to public lands through outfitters and guides is
critical.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Actually, I am going to skip to
Mr. Duncan and then back to Mr. Bannon, if we have time. Mr.
Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Sure. As our population grows, we need space,
access, and freedom of use on public lands.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. And, finally, Mr. Bannon, in
three seconds?
Mr. Bannon. I would say opportunities for our youth. Thank
you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Grijalva, do you
have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bannon, thank
you, Mr. Chairman, thanks for coming today. I appreciate the
endorsement of the 21st Century Great Outdoors Commission.
Thank you for that.
I was going to ask you a similar question that I asked Mr.
Bacon in the previous panel. Based on what you have seen
directly with NOLS, and indirectly by being part of this
industry, how is the population that uses the public lands
different from what it was a decade ago or 15 years ago?
Mr. Bannon. Thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for the
question. We have a keen awareness that continue to be relevant
in the outdoor industry. We need to be very conscious of the
changing demographics of America. And we are going out of our
way to try and make the courses that we offer exciting,
interesting, and affordable to youth from diverse backgrounds.
An excellent example of that would be Expedition Denali,
which is a course that is heading to Denali this next month,
made up entirely of African Americans who are going to
celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the first American son of
Denali, but this time it will all be African Americans.
So, we are excited about that, and we are looking at other
ways to be able to continue to market our courses to the
changing demographics of America.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And let me extend my personal
appreciation for the time and effort you spent for coming up
with an agreeable group size for Coronado National Forest.
Do you think that the group size issue is something that
this commission that you endorse is--on a uniform level should
address, as well?
Mr. Bannon. I think it is exactly the right place where
something like this could work. We find that in conversations
with the Coronado and elsewhere, we can eventually reach
reasonable people who are willing to find reasonable solutions.
But to get to that point is not necessarily obvious or apparent
when you are in the midst of a NEPA process.
So, the way that we find opportunities is to find people
who are willing to cut through it and find solutions. And we
have had great success with the BLM, the Forest Service, and
the National Park Service, in having good intent to find better
ways to do things. And the group size is a great example of
that.
Mr. Grijalva. And one more question, if I may, sir. It is
my understanding, the Wyoming Legislature--as in other States--
is considering adopting legislation that would require the
Federal Government to turn over Federal lands to the State. How
would this impact your business, your school?
Mr. Bannon. Well, Congressman, thanks for the question,
again. That is a complex issue----
Mr. Grijalva. Probably not, but----
Mr. Bannon. What is that?
Mr. Grijalva. Probably not, but I hope it is.
Mr. Bannon. As challenging as things can sometimes be with
the Federal agencies, I have some skepticism that State
agencies would really be able to handle that level of capacity.
For example, in Wyoming, you can't camp on State lands. So
if they just all became State lands, we wouldn't be able to
operate there any more. There are challenges as well with State
parks, but I would say that our State parks are a very good
place to camp, and the permits are well-managed there.
So, it is problematic. I don't know how they would be able
to deal with some of the things that the Forest Service does.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mr. Merrill, kind of the same follow-up
question, if I may, sir. I asked the previous panel, Mr.
Friedman, this same question. You do business in Utah and
Arizona. If those two legislatures have passed the legislation
I was talking about in Wyoming with the primary focus on
extraction, how does that affect your business?
Mr. Merrill. Well, if the primary focus was extraction, it
could negatively impact certain areas where we go. I believe
that there are areas that are appropriate for extraction, and I
believe there are areas that are appropriate to protect maybe
even more than they are now.
And then, in between there are all those areas where we can
have these multiple uses. And that is the exact process that
Chairman Bishop is going through in Utah right now. And I
think--I am optimistic that we can find the common ground and
define which areas are appropriate for what.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mrs. Lummis, do you have questions?
Mrs. Lummis. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bannon,
NOLS has been a pioneer of Leave No Trace camping and hiking
techniques. Can you tell us a little more about that?
Mr. Bannon. Absolutely. And thank you, Congressman, for
your thoughtful comments a little bit ago. I appreciate it.
Leave No Trace has been a concept in development,
certainly, for 60 years. In the last 20 or 30 years we
formalized it significantly. As Brian mentioned, NOLS reached
out to other leaders in the industry to try to find a way to
lessen our impact on lands when we travel. And that is as far
as not just how you impact the land, but how you impact other
travelers, how you camp.
So, I will wrap up quickly here, but one of the concepts
behind Leave No Trace is not actually to lessen the visitors to
the land, but actually to be able to have more visitors have
less of an impact so that it is exposed to a greater number of
people.
Mrs. Lummis. So NOLS teaches courses on how to minimize
human impacts to the wilderness. Yet the Federal agencies are
forcing you to cut your group sizes, just to keep your already
long-standing use permits?
Mr. Bannon. It is interesting.
Mrs. Lummis. So when an agency demands that you cut your
group size, do they cite any measurable benefits to the
wilderness?
Mr. Bannon. What we hear when group size limits are being
considered is that there are impacts to the wilderness
resource. That might be through user-created trails, that might
be through impacted but dispersed campsites, and that would be
something they are trying to control.
Mrs. Lummis. Do you believe cutting your group sizes
produces measurable benefits to preserving the naturalness of
the wilderness areas on which your school resides, operates,
works?
Mr. Bannon. Congressman, I would argue that I think that is
probably one of the least effective ways that an agency could
manage their wilderness resource. And much better opportunities
exist in education of the public and of outfitter guides in
promoting Leave No Trace more aggressively, trail heads, and
other opportunities where there are interactions with the
public. To go after outfitters and guides, who tend to have
larger group sizes, but tend to also be your most conscientious
campers, is not really getting the job done, nor is it creating
responsible wilderness users everywhere.
Mrs. Lummis. To each of our witnesses, who I deeply thank
for being here, is a desire for certainty with regard to the
future planning of your businesses an important part of your
business opportunities?
Mr. Brown. Well, we represent over 500 members and 1,000,
including affiliates. And one of the biggest concerns they have
in our surveys is the uncertainty about public policy with
regard to management of public lands and fee structures. There
was a problem at one point about getting the permits reissued
or renewed.
And so, whenever someone goes on a temporary permit or has
an annual authorization, you can't plan, you can't invest. So
that is a big issue.
Mrs. Lummis. Do any of our other witnesses differ with the
views just expressed?
[No response.]
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Thank you. Mr. Bannon, I know you
generally support the NEPA process. But do you think it is
being applied efficiently to the recreational permit process?
Mr. Bannon. Congressman, thanks for the question. I think
that NEPA is, as you said, very valuable and appropriate when
it is well-used. And I see situations with Forest Service
planning, for example, where, for 10 or 11 years, they have
tried to streamline the NEPA process, make it shorter to
achieve planning. And I think that would be a good way to go,
generally, even when you are doing an environmental analysis on
a single user.
And we, of course, right now are on the cusp of initiating
an environmental analysis for our permit on the Shoshone
National Forest. We are asking for four more courses there, and
we are looking at an environmental analysis that is going to
cost tens of thousands of dollars. So it is daunting to think
that we would want to do that for a relatively modest increase
on a permit that we have held since 1965. But it is, at the
same time, a necessary evil we are preparing to live with.
And I think it would make more sense to take an
environmental analysis like that and spread it out across
outfitters.
Mrs. Lummis. Is streamlining NEPA for permitting, or giving
agencies the flexibility to do so when it makes sense,
something Congress should be looking at?
Mr. Bannon. I think so, certainly, yes. I think Congress
has an opportunity to help define when NEPA processes are
appropriate.
Mrs. Lummis. You mentioned that the Forest Service's
current permit process constitutes a bureaucratic morass. Would
you care to elaborate in 10 seconds or less?
Mr. Bishop. Or negative 11.
Mrs. Lummis. Oh, I am already over. Excuse me, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. If you can do that in 10 seconds or less, go
ahead and answer.
Mr. Bannon. What I see it happening on forests a lot is an
effort to do capacity analyses, even to be able to begin to
address whether permits can be offered. And they don't have the
resources to do it, more often than not. So it is a real
challenge, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate it. Mr. DeFazio, do you have
questions?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown, in part of your testimony you talked about a fee
structure being standard across the Agency. I would like to
examine that a bit and also ask about--among agencies, I had a
problem last year where a nonprofit, Cycle Oregon, was
charged--or BLM wanted to charge them--$25,000 to use 80 miles
of old paved logging road. And their combined fees for the use
of over 400 miles of Forest Service county and State roads was
$1,000. So I find an extraordinary disparity between agencies.
I would like to know if any of you have experienced that,
and whether you think we should standardize this process across
agencies. And second, within agencies, what sort of problems
you have seen, where you put that in your testimony, that they
needed to be more uniform.
Mr. Brown. Well, I think the first issue is the cost
recovery requirement, which may have been part of the problem
with authorizing that event. Very often for special events the
cost recovery, the environmental analysis required, exceeds the
entry fees. So it is very difficult for those events to----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, if I could, this was riding over an old
BLM logging road that was paved.
Mr. Brown. Right.
Mr. DeFazio. Chip-sealed, kind of bad surface. No BLM
personnel were present anywhere along the route for
interpretive or other purposes, and people just rode through.
And yet they want to charge $25,000. I don't see how that could
be cost recovery.
Mr. Brown. Well, I agree with you. I mean 100 percent. I
think that was exorbitant. And we see that happening. I mean
that is the kind of thing that very often suppresses these kind
of events.
Now, the fees are standard between the Forest Service and
BLM for permit fees. The difference is amenity fees. And then
different agencies have different cost structures. CUA, for
example, recovers a cost for administering the CUA. But that
can include overhead and other things other than, the way the
law reads, ``a minimum'' to recover the cost. So, the fees vary
significantly.
Now, concession contracts are different animals
altogether----
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. And I don't think we are looking
for standardization of that. But there are some issues with the
Forest Service fee structure.
For example, they will charge fees for all forest
activities, and then give a discount for the time spent off the
forest. Well, if you have a 7-day trip, the fee is based on the
price for the entire trip, even though you spend only a day on
the forest. And so we do have, occasionally, that issue come
up.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Anybody else have thoughts on
standardization within or among agencies? Yes, sir.
Mr. Merrill. A couple things. We pay anywhere from 3
percent to 18 percent, depending on the resource and the
agency. So there is a huge disparity that way. But most
recently, we have been trying to get a little bit of money--and
I mean just a little bit--to help improve a take-out ramp in
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, because it is unusual,
currently, for our Cataract River trips. At the same time--and
the Park can't seem to come up with the money.
At the same time, they admitted to me they have a surplus
of money in another fund from entrance fees that get paid that
they can't use for that, because they are not allowed to. So
they are inventing projects to do. So sometimes it might----
Mr. DeFazio. But they indicated that they would have put a
higher priority on doing the ramp, but they just were
administratively or legally prohibited from using entrance----
Mr. Merrill. Yes, this is an example of where the local
people would love to do it, and they would make it happen, but
their hands are tied. So----
Mr. DeFazio. And, Mr. Brown, you raised the lack of
accountability for the use of fees in some areas. Anybody else
experienced that kind of problem, where you think that the fees
did not go back into the resource?
Mr. Duncan. Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. An unusual thing
happened in our Forest Service district in 2004. We were in a
four-wheel drive Jeep-style touring company in the high country
above Telluride. And our Forest Service district claimed
jurisdiction over the county road system that passes through
some Forest Service lands and some of the old mining company
lands above Telluride.
Now, whether they are right or wrong in doing that, we
expected some good and some bad to come from that. We came
under fee structure for those tours, it is a large guide
service for us, so that was not an insignificant amount of
money that we began paying and have continued to pay each year
since, and we really expected to see some direct returns from
that, in terms of the Forest Service investment up in those
high basins up there.
And I will tell you honestly. I know technically they have
done more than this, but the most concrete thing that has come
from that whole process and from those funds has been the
installation of an outhouse for 3 months a year in Savage Basin
at 12,000 feet above Telluride. And from what I can tell, that
is what we have gotten out of our $45,000.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Labrador, do you have
questions?
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Simonds, we
welcome you here, and thanks for being here. And, as all of you
know, he is the Executive Director of the Idaho Outfitters and
Guides Association, and we are grateful for the role that he
has had since 1985. And he has seen a multitude of changes come
over the Idaho recreation industry, from new management plans
to new national monuments to the introduction of wolf packs.
The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association has a diverse
membership, mostly small, independently owned businesses
offering guided hunting, fishing, hiking, river-running, and
other outdoor adventures. And I just really want to thank you
for being an ambassador for Idaho and for the recreation
industry that is so vital and so important to us.
And just a little plug for Idaho, Idaho offers high-quality
recreation trips in secluded Alpine mountain and high desert
settings. We have 3,200 miles of white water rivers, which I
love to do, and I enjoy. And the most in the Lower 48 States.
And Idaho has some of the best blue ribbon trout fishing in the
Nation, not to mention the chance to catch ocean-going
steelhead and salmon.
But Mr. Simonds, I understand how important these issues
are to you, and I just have a few questions for you. In your
testimony you talk of a backlog of a trail maintenance. This is
an obligation the Federal Government assumed when it created
the Frank Church Wilderness Area in Idaho. Does the Federal
Government meet its obligations to maintain trails in the Frank
Church Wilderness?
Mr. Simonds. Well, Congressman, thank you for the kind
words about the industry in Idaho. The Forest Service, as I
mentioned, has been able to maintain about 20 percent of those
2,500 miles of trail. They do a good job with the resources
they have. But what we have seen, especially with the large
catastrophic fires since the late 1980s, and with the lack of
resources, lack of trained personnel, they are not able to get
to it, our folks are not able to get to it. What we are seeing
is a loss of access to some portions of the wilderness area.
And this is not just a Frank Church problem; this problem
extends to nearby forests and, in fact, is a Western United
States problem on public lands, where essentially we need more
boots on the ground, to make a long story short, and we need
incentives for getting more boots on the ground, some of which
I mentioned in my testimony.
Mr. Labrador. OK. I understand, as you say, we need more
boots on the ground. And we all understand that funds are
extremely tight at the Federal level and in our government
right now. And we are borrowing money at a frightening pace. So
I understand that there may not be taxpayer dollars available
to do everything we would wish to do. But do you have some
other ideas about what we could do to actually maintain trails?
If we can't afford it from the Federal perspective, what do you
think we could be doing at the State level?
Mr. Simonds. Well, I think some things are being done,
because we have cooperative projects whereby the agencies will
apply for additional funds for trail maintenance from the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation. And, in fact, our
organization has cooperated with the Nez Perce Clearwater
Forest to extend through Parks and Recreation funding, to add
more trails to the maintenance backlog. There is going to be a
2-day session at the end of this month to explore more ways to
collaborate.
I mentioned in my testimony outfitters need to be
incentivized to provide some sort of credit against the fees
they pay the Federal Government for work done on the ground.
That would go a huge way to further incentivize our folks who
have the tools, have the resources to be out there. They are
out there, anyway.
So, that is a couple of ideas that I would like to see
occur.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me ask a
couple questions, if I could, myself. Starting with Mr.
Merrill, your testimony talked about a term called ``back
country.'' Is wilderness the only conservation designation that
should be considered as part of the Eastern Utah land plan
process that we are going through?
Mr. Merrill. No. In fact, I think ``wilderness'' should be
used sparingly, because it comes with so many restrictions. And
perhaps there is not a designation that truly allows for
recreation the way that it should. And so, my thought was that
maybe a new type of designation--and we could call it back
country--that includes recreation as a primary value for which
that area would be managed. And it defines recreation as an
important purpose, because often in wilderness designations,
recreation is left out altogether, or is incredibly limited.
So----
Mr. Bishop. What has been your personal role with the
Governor's outdoor recreation vision and office?
Mr. Merrill. I was not part of the development of that
vision, but I have asked to be part of anything going forward,
and ensure that the outfitters will have a seat at that table.
Mr. Bishop. So what has it been like to partner with that
office?
Mr. Merrill. It is just getting going. But I think it is a
sincere effort. Alan Matheson, who works for the Governor, I
think, is really reaching out, in combination with your office.
And they have asked for input from the Utah Tourism Industry
Coalition and from Utah Guides and Outfitters. And I think it
is going to be a good thing.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I appreciate that. Mr. Bannon, as I
understand from Representative Lummis' questions, you came up
with the Leave No Trace principle?
Mr. Bannon. In conjunction with a lot of other partners,
yes.
Mr. Bishop. So, as I understand also, the Canyonlands
National Park has banned you, specifically saying they worry
that you are not going to adhere to that principle?
Mr. Bannon. Congressman, thanks for the question. This
happened before my time. So as I understand it, looking back,
when Canyonlands decided to reduce their group size numbers to
seven, one of the things they cited was Leave No Trace, as the
reason they were doing that. And, unfortunately for us, it was
too low a limit.
Mr. Bishop. I want to come back to those visitation sizes
at some time. But, Mr. Brown, let me ask you first. Are there
some administrative land designations which impact negatively
outdoor recreation and things like parks?
Mr. Brown. Within the Park Service, or----
Mr. Bishop. Within the Park Service. Let's stick with them.
Mr. Brown. Well, one of the issues is the general
management policies require the Park Service to manage any
lands that are suitable proposed study areas as wilderness. And
that is having an impact, because it does, as Mr. Bannon has
indicated, can reduce party sizes unnecessarily.
Mr. Bishop. So back country activities have declined
because of that?
Mr. Brown. Back country camping, according to the Park
Service public statistics website, has declined.
Mr. Bishop. Let me go through two other things that you
were hit up with from Mr. DeFazio, as well. The idea of these
fees that are being paid, is there a need for transparency in
how those fees are being collected and how they are being used?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely. And I think more public involvement.
I am not sure the RAC process has worked quite as it should
have. It was established when FLREA was first passed. I think
maybe something as simple as public meetings to explain how the
fees were used, how they are going to be used in the future
where those amenity fees are applied to the resource, would be
helpful. But that is an adjustment that could be made in FLREA.
Mr. Bishop. In your written testimony you use such phrases
as, ``within the forest, the process has become more complex
over time, as a result of court rulings that''--where are we
here? ``Permits and new activities are rare in the national
forests because agency staffs can't jump through the hoops and
issue permits fast enough.''
Is fear of litigation something that is really driving us
to paralysis in dealing with a lot of these issues?
Mr. Brown. That is correct. We saw that in the Pasayten
Wilderness, where they went to the full EIS process, primarily
because there were concerns about litigation. The needs
assessment process, there was a lawsuit filed in Kings Canyon
to prohibit the issuance of permits last year for the pack
outfitters. And so, that is creating a process. The Park
Service has even identified that in their own internal
documents.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you. I have a few more
questions, but let me go to the rest of the panel first before
I come back and ask any more.
Mr. McClintock, do you have other questions for this group?
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple
more. Mr. Brown, you had first mentioned legislative solutions.
In fact, all of you have, in one capacity or another. But isn't
this also an attitude that is simply now rampant throughout our
land management agencies?
On the earlier panel, I cited complaints that I have
received from my constituents. In Yosemite Valley, forbidding
bicycle and raft rentals, equestrian activities. On the Forest
Service lands, running out grazing operations that have been
there for generations, running out folks who have leased cabins
on the public lands for generations.
It seems to me that one common denominator for all of these
policies across all of the public land management agencies is
to coax the public off the public's lands. And when they are
allowed on their own land, the public, they are told, ``Look,
but don't touch.''
Again, in Yosemite, I have asked for their rationale for
banning these amenities that have been in operation there,
literally, for generations. Yosemite was set aside 150 years
ago specifically for public use, resort, and recreation. And
through all of these years, commercial activities have provided
visitors there with the amenities that make their stay more
pleasant. And now we are told, ``Well, commercial activities
are not compatible with the public lands.''
Now, it seems to me that if somebody wants to rent you a
bicycle or a horse to ride through the park, is that such a bad
thing? The Park Service says, ``Well, don't worry. Yes, we are
banning the commercial rentals because we don't like commercial
activities, but it is OK if you want to bring your own.'' Well,
first of all, bringing your own horse to Yosemite from
Wisconsin is a bit of a logistical problem to begin with. But
setting all that aside, it seems to be that it is not so much
the activity they object to, it is the commercial aspect of the
activity.
And I would be interested in your observations and
comments, because you folks are all engaged in commercial
activities, providing amenities to folks who are using their
own public lands. What are you picking up out there? And what
should we be doing about it?
Mr. Brown. Well, I do think there is some resentment of the
private sector in some segments of the agencies. We do see that
in the wilderness in particular. But in the Yosemite situation,
obviously, you know there was a lawsuit filed. And the court
ruled that they had to establish a carrying capacity consistent
with the wild and scenic designation----
Mr. McClintock. Well, actually, just to interrupt you on
that, the court did not mandate any of these activities. They
simply required a plan. And Democratic congressman Tony Coelho,
author of the wild and scenic designation for the Merced River
that moves through Yosemite, has just written a stinging letter
saying this was never intended to be applied at Yosemite Park,
and is completely inapplicable.
Mr. Brown. Well, no, I agree with that. And what I am
suggesting is that I think it is why, when there is a
designation, to avoid this kind of outcome you really probably
have to direct the agencies to provide these services to the
extent possible. Because I am not sure of any other way to
adjust the culture.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Simonds, is this an attitude that we
are seeing rampant throughout these Federal land management
agencies?
Mr. Simonds. Well, we see this at various times. Certainly
there are land managers who understand that access to our
public resources is necessary and encourage it. On the other
hand----
Mr. McClintock. If I can just interrupt and underscore that
point, I did a tele-town hall meeting with all the folks from
the gateway communities of Yosemite. Some 5,000 individuals
joined that call, 89 percent, by the way, opposed to these
activities. But one of the most interesting insights was a
former Park employee who says, ``You know, the Park employees
are all against these changes. You know, we want to welcome the
public to the public's lands. The problem is that management is
now stopping us from doing so.'' So it is coming from the top,
it appears to me.
Mr. Merrill, your observations in 15 seconds?
Mr. Merrill. Sometimes you do see that. I think often they
feel pressure from outside organizations, too, that have a bias
against commercial operations. And so people within the Agency
who are of a like mind I think tend to go in lock step with
those groups. But that is what we see a lot of times, and I
think it is outside pressure that they are feeling, and the
threat of lawsuits from those groups that drives their
decision-making.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mrs. Lummis, do you have more?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown and
Mr. Merrill, when the National Landscape Conservation System
was created, could you have anticipated the real impacts it has
had on access to recreation in congressionally designated
areas?
Mr. Brown. Well, actually, I raised the issue to some of my
colleagues, that the designation did not include recreation as
a value for which the NLCS was established. Really, but it
includes all designated areas. So all the areas that were
designated prior to the NLCS fall under the umbrella. And,
therefore, they could be impacted if recreation is not
specifically identified, again, as a purpose for the area. So I
think it is going to have a significant impact.
Mrs. Lummis. And so you think there is a disconnect between
the National Landscape Conservation System, the way it is being
implemented, and the previous land designations?
Mr. Brown. Well when I first brought up the NLCS as an
administrative kind of construct, it was working landscapes.
Overnight it changed into educational preserves, basically. So
after the legislation was--the enabling legislation passed.
Mrs. Lummis. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Mr. Merrill. I described it in my written testimony as a
bias against recreation. And I don't know if it is so much a
bias, as it is just an absence of mention of it. So it has
created a conflict with the way things used to go. It doesn't
mention the historic use that was already in place, and it
specifically talks about science and all these other things as
the top priority, and so recreation naturally takes a back
seat, because that is what the NLCS is telling them to do. So--
--
Mrs. Lummis. Do any of you know any use of public lands for
which we have not tied ourselves in bureaucratic knots?
Mr. Duncan. I see it as the biggest single challenge. I see
red tape as the single biggest challenge in trying to clean the
system up and making it more functional for everyone. I really
do.
Mrs. Lummis. Anyone else on that?
[No response.]
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank
you all for your testimony, by the way. I deeply appreciate
your comments. It is interesting at how frustrated everyone is.
Everyone is, with public land administration.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I have appreciated both panels being here.
You can time me. Yes. I have appreciated both panels who have
been here, simply because we have illustrated in the old school
it was the idea that you either drill or it is wilderness. It
is an either/or situation. I think what you have clearly
illustrated is there is another option that is out there, and
that sometimes wilderness is not the best designation for
outdoor recreation.
And indeed, if we are not using public lands for outdoor
recreation, then we are going back to the era of the Normans
when they came in and they took over the forest and they took
over all the wildlife. Well, we are replicating some of that
today.
So, I do appreciate the concepts of the indication of how
we can use--that sometimes land designation impedes our ability
to use it. I appreciate your references to the litigation,
which I think drives some of the paralysis. I appreciate your
talking about the transparency factor of the fees that we need.
I do want to just--well, let me--Mr. Brown, let's say, for
example, they start taking the secondary trails off of the
system. What does that actually do to the primary trails?
Mr. Brown. Well, it concentrates use into those areas. And
then you begin to have people complaining about crowding or
potential carrying capacity issues, especially in wilderness.
Mr. Bishop. So it becomes counterproductive to go in there.
Mr. Brown. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bannon, because I am truly mystified by
this concept of limitation of size, of the downgrading of size,
has to be there. And I don't know where I am going with this,
but I would like you just to simply talk about that. Or maybe
any of the others who wanted to.
I am under the assumption that size is not a static number
that should be there. Wouldn't it be impacted by the groups and
the kinds of groups and the purpose for which they are
visiting?
And I am also wondering that isn't our visitation rates
going down, as far as number, as well as time spent in these
particular areas? And the goal should be to bring that up.
So, what kind of matrix is being used to come up with these
formulas that says you have to be downsized in some way?
Mr. Bannon. Mr. Chairman, I think that is very perceptive,
in that group size is a one-size-fits-all solution managed for
outdoor educators, managed for horse packers, everyone.
Sometimes it is 20 heartbeats, and that is all the horses and
people that you can take to a place. So there is no flat way
that group size is implemented.
I think that the way that NOLS operates definitely doesn't
fall well under the group size limitation, because you will
never see a group size of 15 or 20 moving through a place. You
will see five or six, just as Leave No Trace dictates. So it is
not a good fit.
And, I am sorry, the other half of your question?
Mr. Bishop. I do not remember what it was, either. So it is
OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I just wonder that sometimes our concept of
science isn't really science, it is more like value structure
that is being viewed as some kind of science there.
Didn't one of you write in your testimony about the idea of
a heartbeat rate instead of a person? Was that you, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Yes, one of the ways they manage group size is
by heartbeats. And that would be a combination of stock and
people. So it is kind of an unusual construct, I think.
Mr. Bishop. So if you are fat, like me, your heart goes
faster, right? So does that count as more of a beat than
somebody who is lean and----
Mr. Brown. I think you have given them another
consideration now that we probably would not want them to know
about.
Mr. Bishop. Probably talk too much. OK. Let me say to the--
unless there are other questions that anyone has?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. I do appreciate your coming the distance out
here to testify on this. This is one of those issues that I
think we are going to be talking about. This is the overview,
but we are going to be talking about it as time goes on, that
obviously we have a different paradigm that needs to be here,
and make sure that the lands values that we put into place
clearly allow for outdoor recreation as one of the purposes
that should be there, and it should not be just forgotten or
secondhand or an after-thought in what we are doing.
I appreciate the witnesses who are here. There may be other
questions Members have. We would ask you to respond in writing
to any written questions submitted by them, and we have 10 days
in which Members can do that.
Once again, I duly want to thank both panels for being
here. And, actually, Congressman Heck, for bringing that
situation to our attention. I think it has been an informative
morning. And I appreciate the members on the panel who have
been here, and I thank Mr. McClintock for filling in for me.
You saved me with my German friends in the other room.
With that, if there is nothing else, no further business,
without objection, this Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Rick J. Lindsey, President, Chairman and CEO,
Prime Insurance Company
Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee:
My name is Rick J. Lindsey, and I am the President, CEO and
Chairman of Prime Insurance Company as well as several affiliated
insurance services companies.
Prime is an Illinois domiciled Specialty Insurer providing hard to
place insurance for our customers throughout the United States and its
Territories.
I have worked in the insurance industry my entire adult life,
starting in 1979, finding a niche during the insurance crisis of 1985 &
1986. I have specialized in providing insurance solutions as the named
underwriter for Worldwide Outfitters & Guides Association, (``WOGA''),
on behalf of outfitters and guides around the country!
I am proud to say that I have been able to provide a stable
insurance market for this Class of insureds and continue to do so. In
fact, I do not know of any other insurance company that has been able
to support this Class on a consistent basis over time. Other carriers
have tried, but have not understood the business and have ultimately
dropped out after losing money on it.
The Insurance Crisis of the Early 1980s:
As you may be aware, in 1986, the insurance industry was in crisis
and at that time, the Federal Government reacted by enacting the 1986
Federal Risk Retention Act to enable similarly situated members of an
industry to form Associations for the purpose of procuring liability
insurance. The Recreational Outfitters and Guides formed Associations
and the process has worked very well all these years. Unfortunately,
the well-publicized current insurance industry crisis together with the
National Park Service's new mandate for $5,000,000 insurance limits
will conspire to put an unprecedented strain on both the Insurance and
the Outfitters & Guides industries, respectively.
New Draconian NPS Requirements:
Specifically, it has come to my attention that the National Park
Service is, for some unknown reason, creating many new draconian,
unwanted, and unwarranted burdens on the Outdoor Recreation & Guided
Tour Industry. One of these new unnecessary burdens is the proposed
ten-fold increase in the policy limits they must buy, from $500,000 to
$5,000,000, which will financially burden them to the extent that many
of the highly skilled, smaller Guides will literally be put out of
business as a result!
This saddens me because, having grown up in a state that has the
highest number of National Parks in the nation, and realizing that
these unique places are best visited with a smaller, locally owned
guide business, I believe that access will soon be curtailed for many
Americans!
Many of the smaller local experts will be forced out of business
because they will simply not be able to afford this extraordinary
insurance limit requirement. This means that there will be far fewer
local experts in the outdoor guided tour industry. It's disturbing to
think that the remaining guides will inevitably be a few huge, over-
crowded operations with young, largely inexperienced employees.
The Big Insurance Brokers & The Trial Lawyers:
However, these new burdensome insurance requirements will
undoubtedly help two groups of Americans: Big insurance brokers like
AON, and Trial Lawyers.
My experience has always been that whatever the Policy Limit is,
the Trial Lawyers will make that their natural target! In insuring
Outfitters and Guides for over two decades, my company, Prime, has
certainly handled many serious injury and fatality claims, BUT we have
never had even one claim that could not be satisfactorily resolved
within the currently mandated $500,000 insurance limit. If the limits
are increased by ten-fold, it will simply mean that the Plaintiff
Lawyers will have a much larger target to pursue, at the expense of
putting some of the very best Outfitters & Guides in this country out
of business.
Other Insurance Companies and What They Can Offer:
I was appalled to see a recent report generated by AON which, in my
opinion, tried to gloss over the effects of the proposed new insurance
requirement on Outfitters & Guides. It indicated, in essence, that the
increased requirement for policy limits would not cost that much more
and that there are plenty of insurers that can provide coverage to this
highly unique class of risk. Having read the report, I personally
telephoned people I know at the top of the organizations that were
cited in the report and I was informed that they did not know where the
report got its information, but that much of what was conveyed in it
about what these carriers could do was wholly inaccurate!
Again, my experience has been that even where large carriers have
attempted to insure this Class over time, they have been unsuccessful
in doing so and have later abandoned their insureds and gotten out of
the business altogether.
Insurance Requirements for Other Classes of Risk:
It also seems highly inconsistent to me that our ``Big Government
of the Day'' wants to focus its draconian attention on Outfitters and
Guides and require them to pay so much more for $5,000,000 in coverage
when other, arguably more dangerous operations in our country are still
required only to have a fraction of the insurance! Examples include
Minimum Limits for Auto Liability coverage which in most states are
around $15,000 Per Person and $30,000 Per Accident. I am also a pilot
and therefore closely follow requirements in the Aviation industry.
Surprisingly, aircraft are required to carry insurance in only 5
states, and in those states, the required limits are only $50,000 Per
Person/$100,000 Per Accident. The vast majority of states have no
requirements and there is no Federal insurance mandate by the FAA.
Also, many small airports are not required to carry any insurance at
all! Again, my experience in insuring Outfitters and Guides is that the
current $500,000 limits are more than adequate!
What are the Real Reasons for Attacking Outfitters?:
It seems, therefore, that Outfitters & Guides have been singled out
for ``Special Treatment'' by the U.S. Government and I don't believe
that any of us really understands why. As an insurance professional, it
is certainly my firm belief that insurance limits for this Class do not
need to be increased. Therefore, I think we would all like to know the
real reason for the government targeting Outfitters & Guides across the
board.
In Summary:
In summary, therefore, increasing the insurance requirements by ten
times on this stressed class of business fails to contemplate the
ramifications of this enormous new bureaucratic burden. Such
ramifications, as I have tried to illustrate here today, include vastly
increased expenses for existing professional Outfitters and Guides,
many of whom will simply be put out of business altogether, an
insurance industry that cannot provide a long term market at the
unrealistic prices contemplated by the AON Memo, and far fewer expert
Guides in the future. This will result in greatly reduced access for
the American public to recreational activities in America's parks, as
well as compromised safety.
In conclusion, we must be careful not to find ourselves in a more
dire position than we found ourselves in during the mid-1980s when the
1986 Risk Retention Act had to be passed to alleviate the problem at
that time. Unfortunately, the insurance industry is no better off now
than it was then and the litigation problems that caused the insurance
crisis have not gone away. Nothing has changed and the little ``Tort
Reform'' that has occurred has simply resulted in caps on certain types
of litigation recoveries. The massive underlying litigation problem
still persists and increasing the limits required of outfitters &
guides by 10 times is only going to worsen this out-of-control
litigation problem. In addition, the authentic experience of visiting
the Nation's parks will be greatly diluted as a result of replacing
local expert guides with a few very large corporate operations and
their employees who are likely to be non-local and far less
experienced.
Thank you for listening, and I trust you will be able to stop this
proposed bad law from being enacted as its adverse ramifications do not
seem to be fully appreciated by those who created it.
______
The documents listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.
American Adventure Tours Inc., Letter to Senator
Harry Reid submitted for the record encouraging the Senator to
attend the hearing
American Mountain Guides Association, Letter
submitted for the record
American Packrafting Association, Letter
submitted for the record
Back Country Horsemen of America, Letter
submitted for the record by Jim McGarvey, Chairman, wanting
lands to remain open for recreational stock use
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Letter submitted for the record
Marrs, Wayne, St. Elias Alpine Guides, McCarthy,
Alaska, Statement submitted for the record with his views on
issues regarding guides and outfitters on public lands
Outdoor Alliance, Letter submitted for the record
Stoneman, Darwon R., Managing Partner, Glacier
Raft Company and Glacier Anglers, Statement submitted for the
record with an outfitter and guide overview
Turiano, Thomas, Comments submitted for the
record
The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the
record
Wyatt, Rick, President, American Adventure Tours
Inc., Statement submitted for the record