U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67-110 PDF 2012

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTDOOR 

RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 

Serial No. 112-44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Akenson, Jim, Executive Director, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers ....... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Amador, Donald, Blue Ribbon Coalition ......................................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Bacon, Sutton, Chief Executive Officer, Nantahala Outdoor Center, Inc. ... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Crimmins, Thomas, Lead Spokesman, Professionals for Managed 

Recreation ...................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Ehnes, Russ, Executive Director, National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Jones, Scott, Board of Directors, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition . 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Lepley, Dick, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle 

Association ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Umphress, Karen, Board Member, Minnesota Motorized Trails Coalition 

and the Coalition of Recreational Trail Users ............................................ 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Additional materials supplied: 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 46 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS.’’ 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Labrador, and 

Garamendi. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Subcommittee will come to order. I note the 

presence of a quorum, low bar, but we have it. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

is meeting today to hear testimony on the Opportunities for Outdoor Recreation on Public Lands. And so under the Committee 

Rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member. However, I do ask unanimous consent to include 

any other Members’ opening statements in the record, if submitted 

to the Clerk by the close of business today. Hearing no objections, 

so ordered. 

Here I have to ask a question. I would also ask unanimous consent that if other Members join us at some particular time during 

the course of this hearing, that we give them permission to join us 

on the dais and to participate in the hearing. Without objections, 

we will do that as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me start with my opening statement, then I will 

turn to Mr. Garamendi, who is sitting in for Congressman Grijalva 

this morning. 

I am actually happy to have this group here. The pattern of outdoor recreation in America is always going to be changing, and it 

is sometimes hard to predict. 

The concept of recreation is one of the last items added to our 

concept for the purposes for which we have public lands. And because of that, sometimes it is the loser, vis-a-vis the other types of 

longer traditional uses of public lands. 

From the end of the Second World War through the 1970s, America experienced an explosion in the interest and in the traditional 

and family forms of outdoor recreation. So as this country grew in 

wealth, number of vacations, mobility, especially by car, the postWar generation made uses of our parks and other public lands for 

family camping and sightseeing activities. 

Recreational use of the public lands since the 1970s has also 

taken divergent paths that reflect the change in America, so that 

the demand for outdoor recreation remains very high, but overall 

the tidal wave of the baby boomer generation has slowed that rate, 

or sometimes changed the direction in which it grows. 

2 

If you use more informative measuring sticks than simply number of visits, there is a complexity and diversity in the changes and 

the demands for outdoor recreation. Now, having said that, I am 

going to do something very simplistic, and simply look at the number of people who are attending our current national parks. And it 

shows, I think, that we have shorter recreational trips taking place. 

Statistically, the demand close to urban population centers is increasing, while the demand for those faraway sites is lessening. 

Obviously it is clear that people are taking more day trips close to 

home, that supplant those long trips with a park as a final destination. 

Obviously some parks, like Yosemite and Grand Canyon, will 

always be a destination spot, and they will continue to draw visitors from far and near. But we see changes in the pattern of what 

people want and how they wish to use their public lands. 

Although the United States has a vast expanse of publicly available forests and lakes and rivers and trails and beaches and 

mountains and prairies and everything else, the distribution of 

these settings does not correspond well with the distribution of the 

population. So this maldistribution in recreational opportunities is 

made worse by the compulsion of some people who apparently want 

to impose from afar aesthetic preferences on their fellow 

recreationists, even if they are a continent away. 

The history of public land in the United States has been a history of legislators from the East making rules and regulations on 

a West that they never did quite understand, and failing, historically, in the process. 

While some of the conflicts over limited resources is unavoidable, 

whether that is the fly fisherman versus the kayaker on the water, 

I also believe that with public lands comprising one out of every 

three acres in the United States and half of the West, there is plenty of room for all of us. And I realize that while some people will 

always oppose hunting, or commercial ski resorts, or especially offroad vehicles on our public lands, others will view those as wholesome family activities. And there is room for everyone. Multiple 

purpose should be our goal, and it is a feasible, possible goal. 

Today we are going to hear testimony from an assessment of recreational opportunities on Federal lands from former land managers, participants in those activities, and others. I look forward to 

hearing their testimony. And I wish to recognize the gentleman 

from California for five minutes for any statement he wishes to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In your 

opening statement you said five words, six words which are really, 

really important in today’s hearing: plenty of room for all of us. 

Indeed, there is a lot of land out there, and there really is plenty 

of room for all of us. The question is, where will all of us be at one 

time, and exactly what will we be doing on that? 

I think all of our history, all of us are somehow influenced by our 

past history. I remember as a teenager, my father, who was operating our family ranch, really in the springtime was about to kill 

3 

one of my cousins, who had taken his motorcycle and was running 

it up and down the hill, scarring and raising a lot of dirt and mud. 

When he came down from the mountain, my dad grabbed him by 

the collar, threw him off the motorcycle, and I think was about to 

throw the motorcycle on top of him, saying you get your GD machine out of here and don’t ever come back. 

I have been at this for a long, long time. I think many of you 

in the room were aware when I was at the Department of the Interior, this issue was there. And it has been in California. One of my 

very first bills in California was to establish an off-the-road vehicle 

park, which is still operating. 

The real question is what will be done on a specific piece of land 

or a specific area. Very contentious. But over the years, I have discovered that if people are willing to sit down on all sides, look at 

all the facts, look at all of the opportunities, both the opportunities 

to preserve and protect and the opportunities to enjoy the recreation of many, many different kinds, there are solutions. 

It is when we fail to sit down, and we just kind of get back into 

our corner and come out fighting, that things don’t work out too 

well. 

Clearly, some places are not good for certain types of recreation; 

other places, ideal. Some roads yes, other places no. Off-the-road 

vehicles, snowmobiles and the like, all of these things can be 

worked out, and we ought to get about it. 

I am really interested in hearing today’s testimony. I will not 

allow my father’s experience, where I was standing next to his 

anger, to somehow taint your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. I may have to qualify 

your remarks. I said there is room for all of us. Obviously at my 

size, if I am part of the process, there may not be room. Maybe a 

hundred pounds ago there was room for all of us. 

I would like to invite our first panel up, if we could, to begin this 

hearing. Mr. Russ Ehnes, I hope I have pronounced that properly, 

who is the Executive Director of the National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council; Mr. Scott Jones, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition; Mr. Dick Lepley, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association; Ms. Karen Umphress, and 

I hope I have pronounced that properly, Board Member of the Coalition of Recreational Trail Users, the Minnesota Motorized Trail 

Coalition. And I don’t know if Mr. Jim Akenson was—you made it 

from Chicago, good for you—Executive Director of the Backcountry 

Hunters and Anglers. 

If I could, for all our witnesses, your written testimony is going 

to appear full in the hearing, so we want to keep your oral testimony if possible to five minutes, so we can end this on time. 

The microphones are not automatic, so please press the button 

when you want to begin. When you start, the Clerk there will start 

the timer, so in front of you the green light goes on. When you have 

one minute left, the red light will come on—I mean the yellow light 

comes on. Consider it red. And then when the red light comes on, 

we really do need to move on, so I would have to ask you if you 

would stop at that point. 

4 

With that, we appreciate you coming from afar to join us here. 

And this is going to be I think a fascinating hearing and interesting topic. So let us just start in the front, left to right. Mr. 

Ehnes, if you would like to begin, please do so, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RUSS EHNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. EHNES. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name 

is Russ Ehnes, and I am the Executive Director of the National 

Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, or NOHVCC. I am a 

fourth-generation Montanan, and a third-generation motorcycle 

trail rider. My grandfather and my father began riding backcountry trails in 1959 near Lincoln, Montana. My mom began 

riding trails in 1960, the year after my brother was born. 

Their favorite trips were to Hart Lake and Bighorn Lake near 

the Continental Divide. The trip to Bighorn Lake was always a 

great fishing trip. The creation of the Scapegoat Wilderness, however, put an end to those trips in 1972. But there were still other 

places to ride near Lincoln. 

My brother and I began riding in the early 1970s with Mom and 

Dad, and one of our favorite rides was from Rogers Pass along the 

Continental Divide to Flesher Pass. That trail was closed in the 

early eighties, after the grizzly bear was listed as threatened on 

the Endangered Species List. 

In the mid-eighties, travel planning resulted in the closure of 

several other key trails in the area, and what remains open now 

is an incomplete system of trails that don’t connect. The only way 

to connect opportunities is with roads that aren’t legal for offhighway vehicles. You can forget about a family trail ride in the 

Lincoln area, because you can’t do it right now. 

Being from Great Falls, though, we did most of our riding in the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest, in the Little Belt Mountains, and 

also in the Badger-Two Medicine area near Browning in the 

Highwood Mountains. 

In 1986 several of us in Great Falls formed an organization 

called the Great Falls Trail Bike Riders. Since then we have built 

the organization to over 900 members, and have developed trail 

maintenance agreements on most of the trails in the Little Belts 

and the Highwood Mountains. We have constructed and maintain 

hundreds of miles of trail, donated thousands of hours of labor, and 

trained over 100 volunteers. We have also secured several hundred 

thousand dollars in grants for maintenance and education. In fact, 

our club received an award from then Chief of the Forest Service, 

Jack Ward Thomas. 

In 1993, travel planning in the Highwood Mountains resulted in 

the closure of 70 percent of the mountain range to motorized use, 

and designation of just 29 miles of motorized trail. The latest round 

of travel planning in the Lewis and Clark National Forest began 

in 2004, and two separate decisions were made in 2007. Our local 

club participated in every aspect of the planning process, including 

inventory and collaborative meetings, the comment periods for the 

proposed action and the draft EIS. 

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, the decision closed all but one 

short ATV trail in the Badger-Two Medicine area, and most of the 

5 

trails in the remaining areas along the front. In the Little Belts, 

the decision closed all but two routes in the 90,000-acre Middle 

Fork of the Judith Wilderness Study Area, all of the routes in the 

Hoover Creek and Tillinghast Drainages, and about a third of the 

routes in the Deep Creek Tenderfoot area, permanently. It also 

closed all but, it closed all but a couple trails in the Deep Creek 

Tenderfoot area seasonally, until the 1st of July each year, to protect elk calving. Ironically, the problem with the elk herd in the 

area is it is too large. Obviously, the use of the trails in the area 

for the past 50 years had not affected the ability of the elk to reproduce. 

The decision in the Little Belts was described as a balance because several groups wanted all of the trails closed in the wilderness study areas and the inventory roadless areas, but roughly half 

were closed. So I am not saying that none of these closures were 

legitimate or should not have been made, or that OHV recreation 

should be allowed everywhere it was in 1959. What I am attempting to demonstrate is that each of these decisions had an effect on 

the ability of the public to access public lands, and the cumulative 

effects of these individual decisions has greatly reduced OHV opportunities and concentrated the use into smaller areas. The vast 

majority of these trails were sustainable and could have been managed for OHV recreation. 

This is a scenario that has repeated itself hundreds of times nationwide, and has been accelerated by actions, including this Forest 

Service Travel Management Rule, Roadless Rules, and the Endangered Species Act. Areas with strong clubs have fared better than 

areas that haven’t had strong clubs, but the net result has been 

massive losses of OHV opportunities in many areas. 

It is time for us to begin addressing off-highway vehicle recreation in a more holistic way. The NOHVCC has worked closely 

with Federal agencies to teach successful OHV management techniques that have been proven over three decades. We need to recognize that OHV recreation is an important resource, it is an important part of what defines our people, and needs protection through 

effective planning. Then we can achieve effective balance. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehnes follows:] 

Statement of Russ Ehnes, Executive Director, 

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

My name is Russ Ehnes. I am the Executive Director of the National Off-Highway 

Vehicle Conservation Council, or NOHVCC. I am also a Fourth generation Montanan and third generation motorcycle trail rider. My grandfather and father began 

riding back-country trails in 1959 in the Lincoln, Montana area soon after my parents met. My mom began riding the trails in 1960, the year after my brother was 

born. Their favorite trips were to Hart Lake and Bighorn Lake, near the Continental Divide. The trip to Bighorn was an overnight trip that almost always delivered great fishing. 

The creation of the Scapegoat Wilderness put an end to those trips in 1972 but 

there were still other places to ride near Lincoln. My brother and I were old enough 

to trail ride by the early 70’s so we rode the trails with Mom and Dad. One of our 

favorite rides was from Rogers Pass, along the Continental Divide to Flesher Pass 

and then down the Seven-Up Pete drainage to my grandparents’ house. That trail 

was closed after the grizzly bear was listed as threatened on the endangered species 

list. In the mid-eighties travel planning resulted in the closure of several other key 

trails in the area and what remains open now is an incomplete system of trails that 

6 

doesn’t connect. The only way to connect opportunities is with roads that aren’t 

legal for OHVs. Forget about the family trail ride in the Lincoln area for now. 

Being from Great Falls, we did most of our riding in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. We rode in the Little Belt Mountains but also made annual trips to 

the Badger/Two Medicine area near Browning and springtime trips in the Highwood 

Mountains. 

In 1986 several of us formed The Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association because the Forest Service was again beginning travel planning in the Little Belts. 

Since then we have built the organization to over 900 members and have developed 

trail maintenance agreements on most of the trails in the Little Belts and 

Highwoods, have reconstructed and maintained hundreds of miles of trail, donated 

thousands of hours of labor, trained over one hundred volunteers, and have secured 

several hundred thousand dollars in grant funds for maintenance and education. 

In 1993 travel planning in the Highwoods resulted in the closure of seventy percent of the mountain range to motorized use and the designation of just 29 miles 

of trail to motorized use. 

The latest round of travel planning on the Lewis and Clark began in 2004. Our 

local club participated in every aspect of the process including trail inventory efforts, collaborative meetings, the comment periods for the proposed action and draft 

EIS. 

The decisions closed all but one short ATV trail in the Badger-Two Medicine area 

and most of the trails in the remaining Rocky Mountain Front areas. In the Little 

Belts it closed all but two routes in the 90,000 acre Middle Fork of the Judith Wilderness study area, all of the trails in the Hoover Creek and Tillinghast drainages 

and over one third of the trails in the Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area permanently. It 

closed all but a couple trails in the Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area until July first of 

each year to protect elk calving. Ironically, the problem with the elk herd in the 

area is that it is too large. Obviously the use of trails in the area for the past fifty 

years had not affected the ability of the elk to reproduce. 

The decision in Little Belts has been described as a ‘‘balance’’ decision because 

several groups wanted all the trails in the inventory roadless areas and the WSA 

closed. 

I am not saying that none of these closures were legitimate or should not have 

been made or that OHV recreation should be allowed everywhere it was in 1959. 

What I am attempting to demonstrate is that each of these decisions had an effect 

on the ability of the OHV public to access public lands and the cumulative effects 

of these individual decisions has greatly reduced OHV opportunities and concentrated use into smaller areas. The vast majority of these trails were sustainable 

and could have been managed for OHV recreation. 

This is a scenario that has repeated itself hundreds of times nationwide and has 

been accelerated by action including the Forest Service Travel Management Rule, 

the Roadless Rules, and the Endangered Species Act. Areas with strong clubs have 

fared better that areas without but the net result has been massive losses of OHV 

opportunities in many areas. 

It is time for us to begin addressing OHV recreation in a more holistic way. The 

NOHVCC has worked closely with the Federal agencies to teach successful OHV 

management techniques that have proven successful for more than three decades. 

We need to recognize that OHV recreation is an important resource that is an important part of what defines our people and that needs protection through effective 

planning. Only then will we achieve a true balance. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that testimony. I apologize 

for mispronouncing your name, Mr. Ehnes. 

Mr. EHNES. That is all right. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is as bad as introducing the next guy from Colorado or something here. 

Mr. Jones, you are up. If you would, please. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT JONES, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST 

ASSOCIATION, COLORADO OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COALITION 

Mr. JONES. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Garamendi, and 

Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss sustainable recreation on the public lands. 

7 

My name is Scott Jones; I am a member of the American Motorcyclists Association, I am a member of the Board of Directors for 

the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and thankfully a lifelong outdoor enthusiast. 

The recreation opportunities provided to enthusiasts on public 

lands often range far beyond us riding our equipment. They provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, simply the 

need to get some exercise and go spend a day with good friends. 

These resources are becoming more and more important to people. Unlike those that can live in the mountains, a lot of us live 

in urban centers, and that is our sole source of recreation. We just 

don’t have it in our back yard any more. 

We believe the management and stewardship of these resources 

is critical. As it has provided a great resource to this generation, 

we would like to pass it on. While the national economy has 

slowed, many of the OHV recreationalists have continued to utilize 

the resources available to them, both locally and regionally. Last 

year $33 billion was spent on outdoor recreation equipment alone. 

OHV recreation provided over a billion dollars in positive economic impact, and resulted in 12,000 jobs in the State of Colorado 

alone. OHV usage also provided an additional $100 million in tax 

revenues to Colorado communities. This revenue was obtained for 

the communities without the need for a tax increase; it was merely 

an increase of revenue. 

While many of these impacts were disproportionately located in 

small Colorado mountain communities, which would basically disappear without the income from recreation, the other industries are 

simply not there any more. Recently the Wall Street Journal coined 

a term for these towns, calling them the 21st Century Ghost 

Towns. Unfortunately, I believe that could be accurate. 

The positive economic impacts from OHV recreation have been 

documented throughout the country. Research into the economic 

impacts on the Paiute Trail System in Utah and the HatfieldMcCoy System in West Virginia have found significant positive economic impacts to the local communities surrounding the trail systems. Both of these trail systems have provided over $7 million in 

positive economic impacts to the surrounding communities, and 

have accounted for over 150 jobs in the local towns, and over 

$600,000 in associated tax revenues to the communities. Many of 

these communities, again, simply struggle to sustain ongoing economic viability. 

The tax revenue that results from state and local governments 

is often overlooked, but can be of great importance to these communities, given the lack of other revenue sources currently. These revenues are often paid with little complaint from recreationalists 

seeking access to the lands. 

While the Hatfield-McCoy Trail System in West Virginia was developed through a public-private partnership, the government 

agencies that partnered with local private entities received 125 percent payback on their investment, in addition to the $600,000 tax 

revenue generated. 

Additionally, the economic impacts span well beyond simply purchasing the machines and equipment. Many of the motorized 

recreationalists are utilizing hotels and motels for their recVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 Mar 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67110.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

reational access. Recently a study found that one third of users in 

Colorado used a hotel or motel, so our economic impact is well beyond just our equipment. 

Research also found that the number of licensed businesses tripled in Marysville, Utah, which has operated as a base for the Paiute Trail System since it was opened. 

Motorized users in Colorado have also voluntarily formed a paid 

annual registration program to assist the Forest Service and BLM 

in maintaining public access, and offsetting costs incurred in managing these programs. Most states have a system similar to the 

Colorado Off-Highway Registration Vehicle Program. 

Recently, the State of Colorado performed a survey of volunteer 

hours for users of the public lands. This report found that motorized users were by far the largest volunteer group on the forest. 

This volunteer spirit has formed strong partnerships with many 

local employees, and this also helps us address a wide range of 

issues beyond just recreational access. 

The program in Colorado generated over $5 million for the management of a wide range of activities. These included funding Federal employees who dedicated their time to trail maintenance, directly supporting and partnering with law enforcement agencies, 

purchasing equipment, developing parking lots, kiosks, and rest 

rooms. 

In addition, these monies have also gone toward partnerships 

with the Forest Service Research Station and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service for the reintroduction and management of endangered and 

threatened species on public lands. 

The Colorado OHV enthusiasts are currently working with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to best determine available science for 

lynx management, and usage of recreational activities, and possible 

reintroduction of the wolverine in Colorado. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

Statement of Scott Jones, Board of Directors, 

Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition 

Good Morning. My name is Scott Jones and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition and Vice President of the Colorado Snowmobile Association and a lifelong outdoor enthusiast. I would like to 

thank the Committee members for providing this opportunity to testify regarding 

opportunities for sustainable motorized recreation provided by public lands. These 

recreational opportunities often range far beyond simply riding our equipment and 

include wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing activities, the need to shed the rigors 

of a busy week with some exercise to satisfying the simple need to get away from 

the day to day life with good friends. The recreational resources provided by public 

lands are of increasing importance as more and more people are drawn to urban 

centers, and the public lands are relied upon for the sole source of recreation. Recreational usage of public lands increases concern for proper management and stewardship of the resources in these areas. We believe this stewardship insures the recreational experience currently provided to the public by outdoor recreation remain 

available for generations to come. 

While the economy has slowed many OHV recreationalists have continued to utilize resources that are available to them locally and regionally. Last year over $33 

billion was spent on outdoor recreation equipment. OHV recreation provided over 

a billion dollars in positive economic impact and resulted in over 12,000 jobs in the 

state of Colorado alone. Many of the economic impacts are disproportionally located 

in small mountain towns, which would simply disappear without the income provided from those who are utilizing recreational opportunities on adjacent public 

lands. Many of the other industries, such as mining and forestry, that have historically supported these communities has simply disappeared. 

9 

Research into the economic impacts of the Paiute Trail system in Utah and the 

Hatfield & McCoy trail system in West Virginia have found significant positive economic impacts on communities surrounding these trail systems. Both trail systems 

have provided over a 7 million dollar positive impact to surrounding counties and 

over $600,000 in associated tax revenue to those counties. These communities that 

have struggled severely to maintain basic economic viability for a long time after 

the industries that once supported the communities have closed. 

The tax revenue that is made available for state and local governments as a result 

these economic impact from OHV recreation is often overlooked. These revenues are 

paid with little complaint from recreationalists seeking to access public lands. This 

simply cannot be said for a lot of other taxes. 

The economic impact from OHV recreation takes a lot of different forms in addition to the purchase of the machines that are ridden and safety equipment needed, 

motorized users also require trucks and trailers to move their equipment and most 

users are staying in hotels and motels and buying parts and accessories for their 

equipment. Research has found that approximately 1/3 of recreational users in Colorado are including a hotel or motel stays and associated meals as part of their OHV 

recreational experience and vigorously utilizing available restaurants after a day of 

riding. 

In addition to the positive economic impacts, motorized recreational users in Colorado have developed a paid annual registration program to provide funding to partner with the Forest Service and BLM to improve and maintain public lands experiences. Most states have programs similar to the Colorado OHV registration program. These moneys are leveraged with funds from the Recreational Trails Program 

and volunteer hours to maintain sustainable recreation on the forest. Recently a 

Colorado report was that totaled volunteer hours for all groups of public lands 

users. This report found that motorized recreation was the largest source of volunteer hours for forest management, this volunteering has resulted in strong partnerships with district employees which can help a wide range of issues that may not 

be directly related to recreational usage of the areas such as search and rescue. 

Last year the Colorado OHV registration program generated over 5 millions of 

dollars that directly benefitted all users of public lands with on the ground management of all recreation through a wide range of projects. This included purchase of 

equipment and funding statewide teams of federal employees dedicated to trail 

maintenance, directly supporting and partnering with law enforcement agencies, development of parking lots, kiosks and restrooms. The registration funds also provided signage and sound testing equipment to promote voluntary compliance with 

sound standards and preparing and producing maps designating legal area usages 

and extensive educational programs and programs targeting the sustainable usage 

of the forests. 

Registration monies have also funded partnerships with the Forest Service’s Research Station and Fish & Wildlife Service for the reintroduction and management 

of endangered or threatened species on to the public lands. Colorado OHV enthusiasts are working with the FWS to determine best available science for the management of the lynx in conjunction with recreational usage of the habitats and possibly the wolverine on public lands in Colorado. 

While the economic impacts of OHV recreation are relatively simple, the planning 

process for public access can be very complex. We are aware planning for usages 

of the public lands is never going to be easy given the wide range of competing interests in usage of the forest lands. Unfortunately the process has become so complex that most users of the forest are simply overwhelmed by the complexity which 

results in limited participation and a lot of frustration. This is unfortunate as participation in planning for the forest fosters stewardship in the public lands and 

forms strong relationships with local land managers, which can be invaluable for a 

lot of issues. 

While roadless area designations may serve a commendable purpose in theory by 

trying to provide a dispersed recreational experience to all users of the forest often 

roadless designations are misapplied and in manners that directly contradict the 

clear language of the rule. These misunderstandings can be the result of the numerous court proceedings and variations on the rule that have been developed over the 

years to something as simple as misunderstanding the name, as roads can and do 

exist in roadless areas and trails for dispersed motorized recreation are to be protected by the roadless area designation. Simply mentioning the term roadless area 

will elicit a collective groan from all users of the forests. 

I have had the privilege of working with the facilitators in the development of the 

new Colorado Roadless rule proposal. The meeting facilitators had came to a rather 

stunning conclusion in the developing the public hearings for the proposed rule. All 

10 

user groups simply wanted consistency in the rule and something that could be easily applied. 

The complexity added to a planning process by a roadless designation often outweighs the benefits obtained from a roadless area designation in comparison to 

management decisions for the area made under existing forest plans and determinations. Roadless areas are often designated under a land management category that 

is designed to protect and preserve dispersed recreation. We believe that the new 

Colorado roadless rule is a step towards providing clarity and consistency in planning for roadless areas we also believe any reductions in roadless area designations 

are welcome to the users of the public lands as any reduction in roadless areas will 

result in expanded multiple usage of the forests. 

We believe that Rep McCarthy’s proposed wilderness and roadless area release 

legislation is a great first step in reducing the confusion and frustration to forest 

users that the roadless area designation invokes. The Forest Service has already 

prepared the research to determine significant portions of designated roadless areas 

are not available for more protective designations. Releasing these areas would expand multiple usage and the associated economic benefits without reducing existing 

Forest Service budgets as is proposed with the purchase of additional lands under 

the Presidents Great Outdoors initiative. 

Unfortunately the new FS planning rule does not streamline the planning process 

as a lot of new theories and standards are introduced into the planning process. We 

believe the new theories and standards will result in significant expenses as unit 

level as representatives attempt to deal with the new standards and rules. Many 

key terms are poorly defined, such as what level restoration activities will be 

deemed complete. The end result of these limited definitions is Courts will be forced 

to determine what the correct standard for each term is. Despite the expanded costs 

to be incurred under the Plan no funding resources are identified to assist with coverage of these costs in the short term. This will significantly tax the already 

strained budgets of the units as they have been forced to deal with the massive beetle kill epidemic that has plagued the rocky mountain region. 

We would ask that land managers be allowed to do what they know how to do 

best. Their management has allowed the public lands to be managed to provide 

recreation to this generation and this generation would like to provide the same recreational opportunities to the following generation and protect the economic benefits 

that the public lands provide to all users 

I would like to thank the committee members for providing this opportunity to 

discuss recreational usage of public lands and would welcome any questions you 

may have. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate it. Like we say, your full 

written testimony will be included in the record. 

Mr. Lepley, I hope I pronounced that properly. 

Mr. LEPLEY. Yes, you did. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are up for five minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF DICK LEPLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PENNSYLVANIA OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LEPLEY. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands, thank you for giving me the chance to 

testify regarding the positive economic impact of off-highway vehicle recreation. 

As the owner of a 44-year-old dealership known as Street, Track, 

and Trail in Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania, as an avid enthusiast, 

and as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association, I have seen firsthand the incredible growth of 

OHV recreation, and the impact it can have on local, and often 

rural, economies. 

The numbers speak for themselves, especially during these difficult times. In 2009, the estimated economic value of the off-road 

vehicle retail marketplace was $14.6 billion, bolstered by the sale 

11 

of 131,000 new off-highway motorcycles, and 321,000 new ATVs, 

which are now part of the estimated 12.2 million dirt bikes and 

ATVs in America. 

My dealership employs 50 people, and during the good economy we generate nearly $2 million in payroll, and pay over $2 million 

in state and Federal taxes yearly. There are 13,230 dealerships 

similar to mine nationwide, employing over 107,544 Americans, 

with a payroll of over $3.6 billion. Clearly, the power sports industry contributes mightily to the nation’s economy during both good 

times and bad. 

But regardless of the economy, nothing threatens dealerships 

and the industry-at-large like having no place to ride. 

It is encouraging that you are holding this hearing today, as it 

often seems like there is a never-ending stream of special land designations, rules, regulations, and other efforts to limit OHV access 

to the lands that belong to all of us. 

Here in the East we have far less access to public lands than 

folks in the West, but the struggle for trail miles is the same nationwide. 

For example, the 108-mile motorized trail system in the Allegheny National Forest in western Pennsylvania has for decades 

been recognized as the model for doing it right. It has attracted 

thousands of riders, and generated millions of dollars for the regional economy. 

But instead of recognizing the growth potential, the ANF is putting its efforts into non-motorized recreation. I find this alarming 

for a number of reasons. 

For one, the ANF embraces over a half-million acres, but our 108 

miles of motorized trails occupy well under one tenth of 1 percent 

of the total forest. And unlike most recreational disciplines on the 

ANF, we willingly pay to play every time we saddle up. 

It has been years since I have struggled through an economy as 

challenging as the current one, and it is readily apparent that 

every job counts. If I could deliver just one message today, it would 

be that OHV opportunities equal jobs. Where trail systems exist, 

the power sports industry and dealerships thrive, and local communities flourish. 

This doesn’t mean we don’t have a commitment to our shared 

natural resources. I recognize there are special places across America that deserve protection, and that OHV should not be allowed 

on every acre of public land. But I believe there is room for all us. 

And further, that responsible access to our public land is the birthright of all Americans. 

I don’t expect you to shirk your duties to protect public lands, but 

instead to encourage you to consider the full impact that land use 

decisions have on Americans, including the revitalizing effect that 

building or expanding a trail system can have on local economies. 

And conversely, the negative impact that unnecessarily closing existing trails or preventing the addition of new ones can have, as 

well. 

Local areas share a symbiotic relationship with the public lands 

that surround them. Residents are often dependent on the wages, 

recreation, and way of life public land offers. But so, too, is public 

land dependent on those who care for and watch over it. Simply 

12 

putting up signs that say closed will not serve to protect our lands. 

Instead, it will take active management, and a commitment from 

those whose livelihoods depend on the long-term health of our resources. 

In closing, I want to reiterate the enormous impact the power 

sports industry has on the economy, and the positive effect that 

OHV trails have on the communities they serve. And to state once 

again that sustainable OHV opportunities equal jobs. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lepley follows:] 

Statement of Dick Lepley Executive Director, 

Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking member Grijalva, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. . .thank you for giving me the chance to testify regarding the positive economic impact of off-highway 

vehicle recreation. 

As the owner of a forty-four year old dealership known as Street Track ‘N Trail 

in Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania, as an avid enthusiast, and as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association, I’ve seen first-hand the incredible growth of OHV recreation, and the impact it can have on local and often 

rural economies. 

The numbers speak for themselves, especially during these difficult times. In 

2009, the estimated economic value of the off-road vehicle retail marketplace was 

$14.6 billion dollars bolstered by the sale of 131,000 new off-highway motorcycles 

and 321,000 new ATV’s which are now part of the estimated 12.2 million dirt bikes 

and ATV’s in America. 

My dealership employs fifty people, and during a good economy we generate nearly two-million dollars in payroll, and pay over two-million dollars in state and federal taxes yearly. There are 13,230 dealerships similar to mine nationwide, employing over 107,544 Americans with a payroll of over $3.6 billion dollars. Clearly, the 

power sports industry contributes mightily to the nation’s economy during both good 

times and bad, but regardless of the economy, nothing threatens dealerships and the 

industry at large like having no place to ride. 

It’s encouraging that you’re holding this hearing today as it often seems like there 

is a never ending stream of special land designations, rules, regulations, and other 

efforts to limit OHV access to the lands that belong to all of us. Here in the East, 

we have far less access to public lands than folks in the West, but the struggle for 

trail miles is the same nationwide. For example, the one-hundred-eight mile motorized trail system in the Allegheny National Forest in western Pennsylvania has for 

decades been recognized as the model for doing it right. It has attracted thousands 

of riders, and generated millions of dollars for the regional economy. But instead 

of recognizing the growth potential, the ANF is putting its efforts into non-motorized recreation. I find this alarming for a number of reasons. For one, the ANF embraces over a half-million acres, but our one-hundred-eight miles of motorized trails 

occupy well under a tenth of a percent of the total forest. And, unlike other recreational disciplines on the ANF, we willingly pay to play every time we saddle up. 

It has been years since I’ve struggled through an economy as challenging as the 

current one, and it is readily apparent that every job counts. If I could deliver just 

one message today it would be that OHV opportunities equal jobs. Where trail systems exist, the power sports industry and dealerships thrive, and local communities 

flourish. 

This doesn’t mean we don’t have a commitment to our shared natural resources. 

I recognize there are special places across America that deserve protection, and that 

OHV’s should not be allowed on every acre of public land. But, I believe there is 

room for all of us, and further, that responsible access to our public lands is the 

birthright of all Americans. 

I don’t expect you to shirk your duties to protect public lands, but instead to encourage you to consider the full impact that land use decisions have on Americans, 

including the revitalizing effect that building or expanding a trail system can have 

on local economies, and conversely, the negative impact that unnecessarily closing 

existing trails or preventing the addition of new ones can impose. 

Local areas share a symbiotic relationship with the public lands that surround 

them. Residents are often dependent on the wages, recreation, and way of life public 

land offers, but so too is public land dependent on those who care for and watch 

over it. Simply putting up signs that say closed will not serve to protect our public 

13 

lands. Instead, it will take active management, and a commitment from those whose 

livelihoods depend on the long-term health of our resources. 

In closing, I want to reiterate the enormous impact the power sports industry has 

on the economy, and the positive effect that OHV trails have on the communities 

they serve, and to state once again, that sustainable OHV opportunities equal jobs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Ms. Umphress, tell me how that is supposed to be. 

Ms. UMPHRESS. That is correct, Umphress. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, thank you. You are on. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN UMPHRESS, BOARD MEMBER, 

COALITION OF RECREATIONAL TRAILS USERS, MINNESOTA 

MOTORIZED TRAIL COALITION 

Ms. UMPHRESS. Thank you, Committee Members and Chairman 

Bishop, for allowing me to be here today. My name is Karen 

Umphress, and I am a member of the Coalition for Recreational 

Trail Users and the Minnesota Motorized Trail Coalition. 

Both of these coalitions in Minnesota are made up of four very 

strong individual state associations, the All-Terrain Vehicles, OffHighway Motorcycles, Off-Road Vehicles, which in Minnesota are 

four-wheel drives, and Snowmobiles. 

However, in Minnesota, snowmobiles have their own designation; 

they are not included in the off-highway vehicle. So the rest of the 

information I have will not include snowmobile numbers or information. 

Off-highway vehicle recreation is very important, and often essential, to Minnesota and our economy. We have two main ATV 

and snowmobile manufacturers in our state, Arctic Cat and Polaris. 

We also have over 360,000 registered ATVs, OHMs, and ORVs in 

the state, that use a designated trail system. 

According to a 2006 University of Minnesota economic impact 

study, ATVs alone had an annual impact of over $2 billion annually. This figure includes $86 million in state and local tax revenues, and sustains nearly 14,500 jobs. 

The University of Minnesota did a followup study in 2009 that 

looked at all trail users in the state, both motorized and non-motorized. Motorized trail users spend more money per trip than nonmotorized trail users. Yet the amount of trails available for motorized users is inadequate for the number of riders who wish to participate in trails-related activities. 

I have more statistical information in my written testimony; I 

just want to give some anecdotal information to help show the 

points of the economic impact. 

In Minnesota we have an area that is called the Iron Range, 

which is an area that has taconite mining. And this area has been 

depressed since taconite mining and taconite are no longer as valuable as they used to be. 

We have an area on the Iron Range called the Quad Cities. It 

is made up of Eveleth, Virginia, Mountain Iron, and Gilbert. And 

Gilbert was known as the red-light district in the Iron Range, and 

was working very hard to reverse its not-so-good image, and the 

other Quad Cities were also working to improve their economy. 

14 

So one of the things that they looked at was an off-highway vehicle riding park. This riding park was the first one in Minnesota, 

and there were a lot of misconceptions of who the off-highway vehicle rider was, and what we were looking for in a trail system. 

During the planning process, only Gilbert was willing to put an 

entrance to the park from their town. Prior to the opening of the 

park in October of 2002, the All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota had one of their annual conventions. This had 850 participants. And to help drive home who an off-highway vehicle rider 

was to the community, the members of ATVAM all changed in 

their money for two-dollar bills. And they spent all of their services, their hotel, their lodging, everything, using these two-dollar 

bills. 

So it did two things: It helped show the people of the community 

who the people who rode in the park were, and showed them that 

these, this money that was coming into the community was from 

that park. The Iron Range Resources Tourism Bureau estimates 

that over $125,000 went into the community on just that one convention. 

Since the opening of the park, Gilbert is the only town on the 

Iron Range that is expanding their businesses, and the business expansion is all due to off-highway vehicles, such as service washes, 

hotels, things like that. 

The other two cities, Virginia and Eveleth, have asked for an expansion to the park to more than double the size, and to also have 

an entrance for their city, from their towns as well, so they too may 

grow. 

The City of Appleton is in the southwestern section of the state. 

They have expanded their off-highway vehicle park three times 

now, and will continue to expand it as long as they have land acquisition and funding available. But one of the main drivers of the 

economic development for them is they also had a 1400-bed private 

prison. 

This private prison closed because the prisoners were being 

moved to state and county locals. They have not had an overall economic decline from the prison closing, due to the positive effects of 

the off-highway vehicle recreation areas. 

So in closing, I just want to say that we have a lot of registered 

OHV users, but not enough trails. So the economic impacts could 

be even greater if we had much more trail systems available. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Umphress follows:] 

Statement of Karen Umphress, Board Member, Minnesota Motorized Trails 

Coalition and the Coalition of Recreational Trail Users 

In Minnesota, there are 3 types of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV). They are an All 

Terrain Vehicle (ATV), an Off-Highway Motorcycle (OHM), an Off-Road Vehicle 

(ORV, which are 4-wheel drive vehicles). Snowmobiles are also in the state, but are 

listed in a separate category of vehicle. There is a state association for each type 

of OHV plus the snowmobiler association. The Minnesota Motorized Trails Coalition 

(MMTC) is made up of members from each of the state associations. The Coalition 

of Recreational Trails Users (CRTU) is a separate, educational coalition with 3 

board members from each of the 4 state associations. 

Off-Highway Vehicles are an important part of life in Minnesota. They are used 

for assistance in agriculture and hobby farms, as a means to access hunting and 

trapping areas, as a means to access areas for berry picking or other forest uses, 

as a form of transportation in place of automobiles in parts of the state, and as a 

15 

form of recreation. They are an important part of the lifestyle, culture, and tourism 

within the state. They are also part of a large economic engine that helps drive the 

state’s economy forward. 

The state of Minnesota houses the headquarters of both Polaris and Arctic Cat. 

Both companies make snowmobiles and ATVs. They employ thousands of people directly in their home offices and manufacturing plants, as well as indirectly, including smaller companies that make parts such as drive trains and axels, for the company. 

A large portion of the economic engine of OHVs is the recreational use. There 

were over 360,000 OHVs registered for recreational use in MN in 2010. This figure 

does not include the thousands of other ATVs that are registered for use as agricultural implements, which must remain on private property. 

In 2006, the University of Minnesota completed an economic impact study of ATV 

use in Minnesota. The highlights of this study are: Direct ATV–Related expenditures: $641.9 millionq02 

Of the total travel expenditures: $260.3 million spent at the destination $311.8 million spent at home and en route 

Economic impact of expenditures: 8,756 jobs $224.6 million wages and salaries: 

$491.2 million contributed to GSP 

$48.9 million tax revenueq02 

ATV related retail activity: 1,477 jobs $39.2 million wages and salaries: 

$79.3 million contributed to GSP 

$6.9 million tax revenueq02 

ATV manufacturing activity: 4,216 jobs $165.6 million wages and salaries: 

$349.2 million contributed to GSP 

$30.4 million tax revenueq02 

Totals: 14,449 jobs $429.4 million wages and salaries: 

$919.7 million contributed to GSP 

$86.2 million tax revenueq02 Combined total including expenditures: $2.08 billionq02 

While ATVs are the largest sector of OHV riders in Minnesota, the number above 

would be higher if OHMs and ORVs were included in the report. The report also 

does not calculate the indirect impacts such as the companies which manufacture 

parts that are used by the ATV manufactures, marketing, government agencies that 

administer or regulate the trails, etc. The report also does not calculate the impact 

of non-resident recreational riding in Minnesota. 

All of this impact is generated on 858 miles of recreational trails plus 2,379 miles 

of System Forest Roads and Minimum Maintenance roads. In addition, there are 

143 miles of OHM-only trails. 

In 2009, the Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association (MRTUA) worked 

with the University of Minnesota to discover the trail user’s economic impact for 

both motorized and non-motorized terrestrial trail use (although there are over 

4,000 water trails in Minnesota, their use was not included). Motorized 

recreationalists contribute more money to the economy during their use of the trails, 

then non-motorized recreationalist. The chart below indicates the amount of money 

spent per day directly related to trail activities of longer than 30 minutes: 

Runners 

In-line Skaters 

Walkers/Hikers 

Horseback Riders 

Bicycle Riders 

ATV Riders 

Snowmobile Riders 

Cross-Country Skiers 

OHM Riders 

ORV Riders 

$26 

$26 

$39 

$43 

$44 

$46 

$49 

$54 

$63 

$69 

The positive economic impact of the recreational trail use is only one of the ways 

that recreational OHV use creates a positive economic impact for Minnesota. For example, there are 8 motocross promoters in the state whose living is based on OHM 

recreation. Spring Creek Motocross Track is the largest of the motocross tracks in 

16 

Minnesota. It holds several amateur events and 2 professional events each season. 

The Rochester Post Bulletin newspaper did an article on one of the 2 professional 

races, estimating that one event pulls over $4 million into the local economy. For 

the track itself, about 20,000 people attend the event, it has about 150 event staff, 

50 security personnel, hire about 25 local sheriffs and other police officers, several 

EMT personnel, a dozen local food vendors and a dozen local accessories vendors. 

They also hire the local 4–H club to pick up the grounds after the event and to assist with parking the cars. Then there are the local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, 

parts shops, etc. that derive income from this one event. The article states that the 

gas station in near-by Zumbro Falls sets its summer staffing according to the Spring 

Creek track event schedule. 

To help accentuate the full impact of the statistics and studies, let me share with 

you some real examples of the impacts of the recreational use of OHVs in Minnesota: 

1) The Iron Range OHV Recreation Area. This park was the first OHV riding park 

in the state of Minnesota. As you may expect, the Iron Range area of Minnesota 

is the location of the mining industry in Minnesota. The Quad Cities of the Iron 

Range are Eveleth, Gilbert, Mountain Iron, and Virginia. Gilbert was known as the 

red light district of the Iron Range and was working hard to reverse that image. 

The rest of the Quad Cities were also working to improve their economy since taconite and taconite mining were no longer as valuable. During the planning process 

for the OHV Recreation Area, only the city of Gilbert was willing to put an entrance 

to the park in its city due to the fears from the misconceptions of the types of people 

who ride OHVs. 

Prior to the park opening in October of 2002, the All Terrain Vehicle Association 

of Minnesota held its spring convention at the park. To help the community get a 

more realistic idea of who an OHV rider is, ATVAM members used $2 bills to pay 

for their services in the area. This act made a tremendous impression with the local 

community. The iron range resources tourism board estimated that the economic 

input to the local area from that one convention was over $125,000. 

Since the opening of the park, Gilbert is the only town on the iron range that is 

expanding the amount of businesses in town and the businesses are directly related 

to the OHV park, such as parts stores, camping areas, OHV wash areas, etc. The 

nearby cities of Eveleth and Virginia have requested access to the park directly from 

their towns and the City of Virginia is working with the DNR and user groups to 

open an expansion of the park, more than doubling its size. 

2) The City of Appleton had a city park that was not getting used due to flood 

damage. Because of the cost to continue to repair the paved walkways, the city 

started to explore other uses of the area. One of the ideas was to turn the area into 

an OHV park. The Swift County Board of Commissioners did its research and got 

behind the idea. The park was built and first opened in 2004. Since that time, the 

city has opened 2 additional expansions and plans to continue to open other expansions as land and funding for acquisition becomes available. 

The City of Appleton also houses a 1400 bed private prison. This prison was 

closed by the owners because of the decreasing use of the prison by the state governments, which moved to house as many inmates in state and county prisons as possible. However, the city has not seen an over-all economic decline from the closure 

of the prison due to the positive economic of the OHV riding area. 

3) The City and County of Houston are working on bringing tourism to their town 

in the Southeastern corner of the state. They have already put in a trailhead for 

a walking/bike path and have a fly-fishing trout steam running through their area. 

They still need additional tourism income to help the city to prosper. They are turning to OHV recreation. They have started the planning and acquisition process to 

purchase private land for an OHV trail system. As part of the planning process, national experts were brought in to hold an OHV Management Workshop in the City 

of Houston. Although it is still years before the OHV trail system will be open, the 

Mayor already feels like the plan has had a positive economic impact since the 

workshop brought the first catering contract to the local deli and the city’s accommodations were all filled for the first time since the largest hotel opened in 2005. 

Without the trail systems that currently exist in Minnesota, there would be little 

opportunity for the positive economic impact in the state from the recreational use 

of OHVs. And yet, the potential for a greater impact is still there. During the recession, the registrations for OHVs dipped, but there are signs that in a few years the 

number of registrations will again be on the rise. With over 360,000 registered vehicles, and only 1,001 state trail miles, there is a lot of room for improvement of these 

economic numbers. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

17 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And our final gentleman on this panel 

is Mr. Akenson. I heard you had a hairy trip getting in here, but 

I appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF JIM AKENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS 

Mr. AKENSON. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and 

Committee Members, and thank you for acknowledging my trip. It 

actually was about equal to the trip I used to do on horseback in 

the Idaho backcountry to go vote, which was a 55-mile trail ride. 

So anyway, I am here. 

My name is Jim Akenson, and I live in Joseph, Oregon, surrounded by the spectacular Wallowa Mountains within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. I am representing Backcountry 

Hunters and Anglers as the Executive Director. I am also representing a partner organization of ours, Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. 

Both these organizations are nonprofit conservation groups that 

serve traditional outdoorsmen and women from nearly all 50 

states. 

America’s national forests, refuges, and rangelands are treasures 

to the people of this nation. Over 100 years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt helped create this priceless gem. He also knew this 

public demand of more than 200 million acres would become more 

and more valuable as America grew and developed, and he was 

right. 

In today’s rapid-pace society, we often forget that America’s original wild country advocates were sportsmen, the likes of Theodore 

Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold. These men cherished 

wildlife, wild places, and harvesting nature’s bounty through hunting and fishing. They left behind for us a legacy and a mission to 

protect and wisely use our nation’s precious natural resources. 

Today we face a very important question: How do we balance the 

use of the public treasure in a way that guarantees clean water 

and wildlife habitat in a nation that is now home to over 300 million people? 

Between new technology like motorized recreation and industrial 

uses like oil and gas development, our public lands are under more 

and more pressure. The U.S. Forest Service has nearly 375,000 

miles of official roads in its inventory, and a minimum of 60,000 

miles of unofficial user-created routes, enough to circle the Earth 

17 times at the Equator. 

While most of my career has been as a wildlife biologist, I can 

tell you with certainty that protecting wild, natural places from industrial development and motorized recreation has very real benefits for our wildlife and water resources. But today I would like to 

focus on another element, the human element. 

I have a unique perspective on the topic of wilderness and our 

public lands, as I have been very privileged to live 21 years in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return wilderness. My wife, Holly, 

and I manage an educational and research facility for the University of Idaho, called Taylor Ranch Field Station. 

Over two decades we mentored hundreds of people who came to 

this remote wilderness setting to experience and learn about the 

18 

natural world. They came from diverse backgrounds, political 

views, and places from around our nation. Besides educating these 

young Americans on natural resource issues and practices, we exposed them to simple traditional skills, through putting up hay 

with a mule team and traveling long distances by horse and mule, 

or on foot with a backpack. 

They experienced much more than the beauty of wild places and 

wildlife. They experienced the same sense of self-reliance and accomplishment felt by Teddy Roosevelt, when he was a young adventurous man experiencing the vanishing wild West of the Dakota 

Territory. 

For my wife, Holly, and I, that rich lifestyle is mostly behind us 

now. We moved back to town. Of course, we moved to a county that 

only has—well, it doesn’t have any traffic lights. But we constantly 

get comments from scores of past students that their most memorable college experience was learning the old ways of America deep 

in the Idaho backcountry. A single visit to the wilderness can 

shape a life forever. Places affording these types of experiences are 

becoming rare in this country. 

My group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and our partner organization, Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Program, were founded 

by fathers and mothers who know that the great outdoors will help 

shape the character of their children. They want to make sure their 

children and grandchildren will be free to enjoy the sounds and 

sights of nature, and enjoy clean, free-flowing rivers. 

Groups like ours are not working merely to protect the land and 

water for next hunting season or fishing season; we are working for 

generations to come. Or, as TR put it, those still in the womb of 

time. 

The economic value of wild lands and water in America is huge, 

with billions of dollars per year paid to commercial outfitters who 

take people on float trips on wild rivers and pack trips in the 

mountains of Federally owned public lands. Not to mention millions of private individuals that head to the outdoors on their own, 

and buy gear at local outdoor stores. 

Let us be perfectly clear. There are plenty of places to ride offroad vehicle in our national forests. These are popular tools. However, we must also have big wild habitat that is completely separate from the noise and disturbance that comes from motorized 

traffic. 

Likewise, there are places where oil and gas development, logging, and mining are perfectly appropriate uses for our national 

forests. But they must be balanced with the larger purpose behind 

our public lands. Our public lands are owned by all Americans. 

Congress hires professionals to manage these resources. Let us give 

them the leeway and the tools they need to do their mission: serve 

the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the long run. 

Consider this. When Theodore Roosevelt was President, there 

were about 100 million Americans. When I was born, there were 

roughly 200 million. Today, we are somewhere around 310 million. 

The figure will continue to grow. 

Our public land legacy is a gift to each and every one of them 

and those to come. We must manage it wisely. Once our 

backcountry is gone, there is no getting it back. 

19 

Thank you for considering my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akenson follows:] 

Statement of Jim Akenson, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee members. My name is Jim Akenson. 

I live in Joseph, Oregon, surrounded by the spectacular Wallowa Mountains within 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. I am representing Backcountry Hunters & 

Anglers, a non-profit conservation group that represents traditional outdoorsmen 

and outdoorswomen from nearly all 50 states. I serve as executive director of that 

organization. 

America’s national forests, refuges and Bureau of Land Management lands are 

treasures to the people of this nation. Over 100 years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt helped create this priceless American birthright. He knew this public domain 

of more than 200 million acres would become more and more valuable as America 

grew and developed. He was right. 

In today’s rapid-paced society we often forget that America’s original wild country 

advocates were sportsmen: the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and Aldo 

Leopold. These men cherished wildlife, wild places, and harvesting nature’s bounty 

through hunting and fishing. They left behind, for us, a legacy and a mission to protect and wisely use our nation’s precious natural resources. 

Today, we face a very important question: how do we balance the use of this 

public treasure in a way that guarantees clean water and wildlife habitat 

in a nation that is now home to 300 million people? 

Between new technology like motorized recreation and industrial uses like oil and 

gas development, our public lands are under more and more pressure. The USFS 

has nearly 375,000 miles of official roads (U.S. Forest Service 2006) in its inventory 

and a minimum of 60,000 miles of unofficial, user created routes (U.S. Forest Service 2001), enough to circle the earth 17 times at the equator! 

With most of my career spent as a wildlife biologist, I can tell you with certainty 

that protecting wild, natural places from industrial development and motorized 

recreation has very real benefits for our wildlife and water resources. Everyone benefits from natural backcountry, because the benefits of backcountry literally spill out 

of it in the form of clean rivers and abundant wildlife. 

But today I would like to focus on another element: the human element. 

I have a unique perspective on the topic of wilderness and our public lands, as 

I have been very privileged to live deep within the America’s wilderness. I spent 

21 years in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. My wife, Holly, 

and I managed an educational and research facility for the University of Idaho 

called Taylor Ranch Field Station. 

Over two decades, we mentored hundreds of people who came to this remote wilderness laboratory to experience and learn about the natural world. They came from 

backgrounds ranging from city life in Chicago, Illinois, and Seattle, Washington, to 

rural ranch life right in Idaho. These were primarily young adults whose parents’ 

political views varied from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat. Besides 

educating these young American’s in natural resource issues and practices, we exposed them to the ways of ‘‘old Idaho’’ through putting up hay with a mule-team 

and traveling long distances by horse and mule or on foot with a backpack. They 

experienced much more than the beauty of wild places and wildlife. They experienced that same sense of self-reliance and accomplishment felt by Theodore Roosevelt when he was a young adventurous man experiencing the vanishing wild-west 

of Dakota Territory. 

For Holly and me that rich lifestyle is mostly behind us now. We’ve moved back 

to town. But we constantly get comments from scores of past students that their 

most memorable college education experience was ‘‘learning the old ways of America’’ deep in the Idaho backcountry. A single visit to the wilderness can shape a life 

forever. Places affording these types of experiences are becoming rare in this country. 

The peace, solitude and physical challenge of the backcountry—including wilderness areas, roadless areas and well-managed working forests—are important for 

millions of American families. My group, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, was 

founded by fathers and mothers who know that the great outdoors will help shape 

the character of their children. They want to make sure their children and grandchildren will be free to enjoy the sounds and sights of nature, and enjoy clean, freeflowing rivers. Groups like ours are not working merely to protect the land and 

water for next hunting season or next fishing season. We are working for generations to come—or as TR put it ‘‘those still in the womb of time.’’ 

20 

The economic value of wild lands and waters in America is huge, with billions of 

dollars per year paid to commercial outfitters who take people on float trips on wild 

rivers of the West, Alaska, and the Great Lakes region, and who provide horse and 

mule pack trips in the mountains and canyon lands on our federally owned public 

lands. These high quality experiences are dependent on wild backcountry that is 

free from the noises of man’s machines and high-tech devices. As a resident of a 

‘‘gateway’’ community, I assure you that the near proximity to Wallowa Lake and 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area help bring investment and jobs to my home town. 

Let’s be perfectly clear: There are plenty of places to ride off-road vehicles on our 

national forests. These are powerful and popular tools. However, we must also have 

places—big, wild habitat—that is completely separate from the noise and disturbance that comes from motorized traffic. Likewise, there are places where oil and gas 

development, logging and mining are perfectly appropriate uses for national forests—but they must be balanced with the larger purpose behind our public lands. 

Our public lands are owned by all Americans. Congress hires professionals to 

manage these resources. Let’s give them the leeway and the tools they need to do 

their mission: serve the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the long run. 

Consider this: When Theodore Roosevelt was president, there were about 100 million Americans. When I was born, there were roughly 200 million. Today, we are 

somewhere around 310 million. This will continue to grow. 

Our public land legacy is a gift to each and every one of them, and those to come. 

We must manage it wisely. Once our backcountry is gone, there’s no getting it back. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate all of those who have spoken to us so far. We will now open this up for questions from the 

panel. I traditionally have gone first, but I am going to yield my 

time to the other Members of our Committee first. 

So Mr. McClintock from California, do you have questions for 

this group? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. I would just like to begin with Mr. Ehnes. 

Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the National Forest Service in 1905, 

described its mission thusly: To provide the greatest amount of 

good, for the greatest amount of people, in the long run. 

How would you say they are currently meeting that charge? 

Mr. EHNES. I have a lot of good friends who work in the Agency, 

and work very hard to achieve that goal. And I think that, you 

know, on many fronts they are doing a good job. 

On off-highway vehicle recreation, I think that the new Forest 

Service Travel Management Rule from 2005 presented them with 

a fairly difficult challenge. It put them in a fairly compressed timeframe, to do a fairly complex job, a very complex job. And in some 

areas, I think they did OK. But in many areas, because of the pressures to get the job done quickly, I don’t think the right amount 

of planning went into it. 

And I think there were decisions made to close more trail, and 

err on the side of getting it done sooner, than probably were necessary in most areas. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, that has certainly been the experience in 

my district, which is the northeast corner of California. Most of it 

is national forest, and we are being flooded by complaints of Forest 

Service abuses of the public on the public’s land, in a pattern that 

seems to suggest that they view their mission as excluding the public from the public’s land. 

Are you seeing the same thing nationally? 

Mr. EHNES. Nationally, yes, there has been a lot of trail loss for 

off-highway vehicle, due to the Travel Management Rule. 

21 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The complaints that we are receiving go far 

beyond that. Imposing inflated fees that are forcing the abandonment of family cabins that have been held for generations, charging 

exorbitant new fees that are closing down long-established community events upon which many small and struggling mountain towns 

depend for tourism, expelling longstanding grazing operations on 

specious grounds, obstructing the sound management of our forests 

through a policy that can only be described as benign neglect. 

What are your members telling you? 

Mr. EHNES. We are hearing those same types of complaints. Because I am in the off-highway vehicle field professionally, that is 

mostly what I hear about. And the vast majority of folks that I 

have spoken to have not been happy with the Travel Management 

Rule results. 

Again, the Forest Service is made up of a lot of different people, 

and there are some very dedicated folks. But I think that the Travel Management Rule was rushed, and the results were very negative. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I sense that there is a fundamental change of 

attitude in the Forest Service over the past decade or so, from one 

of public service, welcoming the public to the public’s lands, of fulfilling Gifford Pinchot’s vision for the Forest Service. That is being 

replaced by an elitist, exclusionary, extreme attitude that the 

Forest Service mission is to close the forests to the public. 

Mr. Jones, what are your members telling you? 

Mr. EHNES. We are hearing that from a lot of people. And again, 

there are good people in the Agency, and I have seen the face of 

the Agency change over the last few years, as a lot of—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It is becoming downright alarming. Mr. Jones, 

Mr. Lepley, I want to give you a chance to jump in on this. 

Mr. JONES. Actually, we have been participating in some wolverine reintroduction discussions with the Colorado Department of 

Wildlife, and we have had some pretty diverse partner groups coming in. Like, as you mentioned, the cattlemen and forestry groups. 

And we all have a surprising amount of similarity in our concerns. I think you pretty accurately summarized them. That sometimes keeping public access is not the priority. And it is concerning. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Lepley? 

Mr. LEPLEY. Yes, I would say the same thing. The Allegheny National Forest is the only national forest in Pennsylvania, and it is 

somewhat unique. If you look at the Allegheny, in many respects 

it is an open history book of America’s growth. 

It has been heavily trammeled over by the oil and gas people, by 

lumber, et cetera. And it is a latticework of roads that display that 

history in a pretty grand style. 

And what we are seeing up there, and it is pretty common 

knowledge, there have just been some major contentious lawsuit 

issues with the O and G folks. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am afraid my time is running out, Mr. 

Lepley. And I just want to make a statement. 

Mr. Chairman, we are getting flooded by complaints in my district over these exclusionary attitudes that seem to be running 

rampant now in the Forest Service management. And I think at 

some point this Committee is going to have to step in and remind 

22 

the Forest Service that they are public servants, not public masters. And that the national forests are not the king’s royal forests, 

but belong to all of the people of the United States. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. Now to the other gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Much of what my colleague from California was 

describing in the Forest Service in his area is found throughout the 

United States. And the Forest Service has been severely stressed 

by very, very significant budget reductions. More than half of the 

Forest Service budget is consumed in fighting fires, and what remains, as the population pressures and the multiple uses of the 

forest continue to press upon the National Forest System and the 

U.S. Forest Service, they have very little time and staff and money 

available to carry out their tasks. 

One of their tasks is to provide the multiple recreation and uses 

of the forests. And therefore, a couple of questions, if I might, to 

the panel. 

Mr. Lepley, you mentioned that there are 1.2 million dirt bikes 

and ATVs in 2009. When you started, how many were there in 

1959? 

Mr. LEPLEY. Well, in 1959? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Mr. LEPLEY. That is reaching way back. That was the first year 

Honda started in America. There were no ATVs. Which have become now basically half of the industry. And what motorcycles 

were out there were very small. 

At that point in time, the off-road influence would have been 

negligible. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. And Mr. Ehnes, I think you were the one 

that gave part of those statistics. Could you describe—I think you 

said, one of you said you started in 1959? 

Mr. EHNES. My grandfather and my father started riding in 

1959. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Do you know how many bikes there were, and 

ATVs, in 1959? 

Mr. EHNES. I don’t have any statistical information, but there 

were not a lot. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, that difference, between not a lot, or none 

in the case of ATVs, is precisely why we have this issue before us. 

We have a huge number of off-the-road vehicles out there, and we 

have very little money to plan, to maintain the trails. Is that correct? I think it is. Anybody think that is incorrect, say so. 

That being the case—go ahead. 

Mr. EHNES. If I may, you are correct that there are budgetary 

challenges for the Forest Service. They do deal with a very challenging budgetary situation. 

There are solutions, and they are local solutions. And a good example of that, I mentioned the Highwood Mountain Range, where 

only 29 miles of trail is designated. But those 29 miles are extremely important to our local riders. So we partnered with the 

Charlie Russell Backcountry Horsemen and a number of civic 

groups, and did the entire implementation of the 1993 Travel Plan 

through volunteer labor. And not one dime for trail construction for 

23 

maintenance of that implementation was spent, of Forest Service 

money. It was all done with grants and with volunteers. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excellent. Excellent. But the point—— 

Ms. UMPHRESS. And if I may. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, please, go ahead. 

Ms. UMPHRESS. If I may add, there is also the Recreational 

Trails Program, which takes the unrefunded gas tax money from 

off-highway vehicle use, and puts it out to the states for trail acquisition and maintenance, as well. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. The combination of what resources, what financial resources are available, together with volunteer organizations, 

is absolutely critical in this. There is no doubt that off-the-road vehicles provide very important recreational opportunities. They also 

have the potential to have a very heavy impact on the land and, 

therefore, maintenance and wise locations become extremely important. 

So in this process, it is not just one thing or another; it is a combination. I am curious if the industry might be interested in a fee 

system to provide the public lands, BLM, Forest Service and the 

rest, with the money it needs to design, locate, and maintain offthe-road vehicle facilities. And any one of you, just down the line 

left to right, or right to left, from your perspective, does that make 

sense? 

Mr. EHNES. Sir, yes, it does. And what you have stated is correct. 

And what we are advocating is that planning and management of 

off-highway vehicle recreation is critical. 

And the off-highway vehicle world at large has actually been proponents of the idea of user fees in areas where maintenance needs 

to be applied. The only caveat is that riders need to be assured that 

the money that they pay for maintenance of an area in fact goes 

back to those areas. But we have been floating that idea for a number of years. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. That issue also exists at every national park 

where they have an entrance fee. Is it used at that park, or is it 

used someplace else. It is an ongoing debate and issue. 

I think I am almost out of time. But I think if we are going to 

adequately address this issue, it is going to take money and resources, and a combination of good will on the part of everybody. 

Much of what my colleague from California complained about was 

the result of insufficient funds that the Forest Service has, and 

therefore they had to shut down those areas simply to protect 

them, so that some other day in the future they might be available. 

Thank you for the extra 35 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We will take it off next time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Labrador, the gentleman from Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like once 

again, when we deal about budgetary challenges, that the solution 

is a local solution that I think the off-road vehicle industry and 

many other people are willing to probably take care of this. 

It is true in your state, and it is true in Idaho. Where they are 

willing to take care of their own roads, and they are willing to do 

the things that, once again, we show the mismanagement and the 

24 

poor planning of having the Federal government try to govern everything in the United States. 

I want to welcome Mr. Akenson from my, who lived in my part 

of the world for a long period of time. Thank you for being here. 

I just have one simple question, and I want everybody to answer 

it. In your opinion, has the off-highway vehicle rule resulted in an 

overreach by the agencies to further other agendas, and limit use 

in unreasonable ways? And if you believe that it has, can you give 

me some examples of that? Starting with Mr. Ehnes. 

Mr. EHNES. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I believe that the Forest Service Travel Management Rule has had unintended consequences. And those unintended consequences are 

that great, great numbers of trails, large numbers of trails have 

been shut down nationwide. And it has given our community a real 

challenge to try to maintain adequate riding areas that are connected, and meet our needs. 

I think that, you know, it will continue to challenge us into the 

future. But we need to work together with the agencies to come up 

with systems that work. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Jones. And if you have specific examples. 

Mr. JONES. Actually, we in Colorado have varying degrees of success with partnering with some of the forests, and it works really 

well. And then unfortunately, in some of the other forests, it 

doesn’t work so well. 

And I would have to agree, on some of the forests that we just 

finished comments on an appeal on the Travel Management Plan. 

And it was pretty clear that Travel Management was being used 

to further a lot of other concerns and issues, other than responsible 

sustainable recreation on the forest. And that was really troubling 

to us. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Like what, for instance? 

Mr. JONES. Actually, they developed ideas of a whole new category of wilderness, something called Capable and Available for 

Wilderness, as a roadless area. I had never heard of that before, 

and it wasn’t in the Land Management Plan. We tend to question 

why that was ever even come up with. 

There were a lot of concerns where comments were erroneously 

submitted, and that were relied upon for closures in areas that 

were open legal riding areas to us. And you went back and looked 

at it, and the comment was just wrong. You know, they said ‘‘Oh, 

this was closed,’’ but it wasn’t. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. Mr. Lepley. 

Mr. LEPLEY. Yes. In the Allegheny, early on there was a significant amount of volunteer effort that went into that system, and 

that worked extremely well. We have not been able to accomplish 

that, and the system now needs maintenance. And of course, there 

is a fee structure up there. We pay to play every time we go in 

there. 

The numbers have dropped up there, and I don’t think it is just 

the economy. I think to a certain extent, the infrastructure in that 

system has not grown to handle the use. Hence, it is not as fun to 

be there. The camping is lacking, et cetera, and everything has 

been kind of shrouded in history. Rather than an open dialogue 

being made available and working with associations like ours and 

25 

other groups to actively get involved in a system and make that 

system better, that just hasn’t happened. 

And it is really annoying, because that forest is sitting within 

hours of millions and millions of people. And if it was looked at 

from an entrepreneurial standpoint, it could blossom and grow, and 

generate even more revenue. And that is what I find disheartening. 

Ms. UMPHRESS. The Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota at 

the first pass, it did close most of the off-highway vehicle routes to 

it. But I do want to say that the current forest ranger has been 

very open to working with the club that formed, and that now has 

about 200 members. And some of those trails are starting to open 

back up. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Akenson. 

Mr. AKENSON. Yes, I am going to use the Lymm High Mountain 

Range, which you are familiar with, in East Idaho as an example, 

where I have done bighorn sheep research, and seen a lot of 

abuses, off-trail abuses, by ATVs. But I have to put a caveat on 

that. 

We, being those folks that are interested in trail restrictions, are 

teaming up with some local ATV clubs, and decommissioning some 

of those trails. And the way I see it with the Forest Service, we 

are looking at an issue of enforcement. They don’t have money. 

And the main way that I see that being a problem for those of us 

who are interested in quiet situations, is through enforcement. 

So the rogue users of ATVs are reined back in check, and kept 

out of places where they shouldn’t be, that do cause wildlife disturbance, which I documented in some bighorn sheep research. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I spent this weekend actually dirt-biking, and 

there were a lot of quiet places out there, as well as places where 

I could enjoy with my kids. I actually went on a fathers-and-sons 

activity, and it was quite enjoyable to be able to go out there and 

enjoy nature, and also enjoy the activities that we wanted to participate in. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. The eruption of the fathers-and-sons bit, huh? Yes. 

Fortunately I am older than that, I don’t have to do that. 

I have a couple of questions. First of all, I am happy that all of 

you have addressed the gentleman from California and a couple of 

other questions about the role of partnerships, especially in tough 

budget times. And you said some very positive things about how all 

those can work out. 

Can I ask a couple of very quick ones? Ms. Umphress, first of all, 

in your testimony you said that OHV enthusiasts spend more in 

Minnesota, anyway per day, than other types of recreationists. 

Why do you think that is the case? 

Ms. UMPHRESS. Off-highway vehicle riders have, they have to 

buy gas. They generally have more maintenance on their machines. 

They generally stay overnight at hotels, bring their supplies with 

them. They can carry more with them at a time. 

The study in Minnesota said walkers and bikers generally use, pay about $39, and off-road vehicles generally pay about $69 per 

day for each vehicle trip. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, I appreciate that. Just very quickly, you 

talked about the Iron Range Recreation Area. How did you get the 

funding to develop that? 

26 

Ms. UMPHRESS. We used the Recreational Trails Program, which 

is the unrefunded gas tax. We also combine it with a state program 

that is similar, that we call the Grant and Aid Program, that uses 

the state unrefunded gas tax. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. For you as well as Mr. Lepley, probably 

Mr. Lepley, ATV and off-road bikers have been sometimes characterized, I think unfairly, as thrill-seekers and renegades, and oftentimes, jerks. 

So Mr. Lepley, specifically in your dealership, how do you direct 

riders to legal areas and promote safe and responsible riding? 

Mr. LEPLEY. Well, it starts with staff training. We are adamant 

about using safety gear around the dealership. You don’t ride a motorcycle or ATV on the premises without a helmet on. 

And we preach the message all the time. We do so via public 

service announcements through radio and TV, and the store is 

loaded with information. You would be amazed at the volume of 

good information out there from the Motorcycle Industry Council, 

from NOHVCC, from the state itself. 

We keep all of the map materials on hand in the dealership, because we are questioned about where to ride all the time. And so 

we have all of the mapping for the Allegheny. 

And again, our staff is trained to promote safe use of everything 

we sell. It is just the way we do business. And I think that is the 

best way to do it, in the dealership. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Ehnes, I guess the question is what 

kind of trails make the best experience. I am assuming it is safe 

to say that a better-managed trail is a better riding experience? 

Mr. EHNES. Oh, absolutely. In fact, at NOHVCC we actually, in 

our workshops, teach sustainable trail design. And trails that are 

built in a sustainable fashion actually are much more fun to ride. 

And they become a management tool because riders have trails 

that they want to ride on, not that they have to ride on. 

Mr. BISHOP. And Mr. Lepley again. When you talked about the 

ANF shift in one side, was that a shift to closing trails in the forests? Or was it simply not expanding them? 

Mr. LEPLEY. Well, this is somewhat speculation, but we have 

been concerned over the last few years with closures. And it seems 

when we, as an association, have gotten involved, and began to 

question what is going on, then suddenly maintenance will pick up 

and things get better. 

I don’t know what would happen if we turned our backs on it entirely. And it has been a struggle. And that forest is under a lot 

of stress right now, with all of the oil and gas development and 

timber issues, et cetera. It has always been an industrial kind of 

forest. 

So yes, I am not sure what would happen if we just turned our 

back on it and went away. It is one of constant maintenance. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me throw out a general question to anyone who 

wants to answer that. Can I have any of you that would compare 

the economic benefits of areas that allow mechanized vehicle use 

versus those that don’t allow mechanized, try to close it off to any 

kind of mechanized vehicle use? Wilderness, for example. Is there 

a comparison in the economic benefit? I have only got less than a 

minute here. 

27 

Ms. UMPHRESS. I don’t believe there is any specific study on wilderness, just the Minnesota study that compared all trail users. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you gave me that material already. 

Ms. UMPHRESS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I ask one last question? I have 43 seconds, 42, 

41, to do this. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. You know, when Pinchot said the greatest good for 

the greatest number, does anyone know what he was really talking 

about? Because he was pretty clear on that. All right, for my next 

history lesson, I will give you that one later. I think it may surprise a lot of people what he actually meant when he said that 

phrase. 

Since you went over, I am going to go under. And do you want 

a second—I just did it, sorry. If you have other questions, please 

feel free. 

Mr. AKENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I make a quick 

comment on that, greatest good? 

Mr. BISHOP. Please. 

Mr. AKENSON. OK. I think you are looking at something that 

gets, renders down to some real basic economics. And that is, there 

are a lot of Americans that can’t afford to have a motorcycle or a 

four-wheeler, but they can afford to buy a little bit of gas to go to 

someplace to go on a hike. And that hiking experience is a lot more 

rewarding if it is a quiet hiking experience. 

And I think that if you really looked at the true numbers, all the 

population of this country, you would see that most Americans do 

that form of recreation. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is a good guess. It is not what Pinchot meant, but 

it is a good guess. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whatever he meant, 

he said it nearly a century ago, and we have added about 200 million-plus to our population. 

Mr. Akenson, is your notion of an OHV a horse? 

Mr. AKENSON. No, it is not. No. And actually, when I was doing 

bear and cougar research in Oregon, I used ATVs extensively as a 

work tool. And I think they are a fine tool. And I am certainly willing to work with ATV entities to come up with solutions. But I just 

feel that there needs to be quiet places for recreating, and places 

where you can take a pack string and not run into an ATV that 

does make noise. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. If you are a hunter or a fly fisherman or in that 

area, I suppose an ATV or a snowmobile and the rest might be a 

troublesome thing to have nearby. 

Mr. AKENSON. Yes, it can be, that is for sure. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think what we are really dealing with here is 

how to apportion our public lands so that we can achieve a balance. 

Clearly, there are places where we don’t want to have motorized 

vehicles, for the reasons stated by Mr. Akenson. And clearly, there 

are other places where we need it. And the Minnesota situation, 

where the community came together and decided that these things 

would work well in that area, is a good example. 

But I think there is an overarching problem there, and I would 

like our Committee to really spend some time focusing on it. That 

28 

is that we have well over 300 million Americans, we have 12.2 million off-the-road vehicles of various kinds. And that puts enormous 

pressure on the public lands. And while there are vast public lands, 

the pressure is usually found in a specific area, where people congregate because of the nature of the terrain, or access, and the like. 

What we don’t have is the money to manage it. We need to be 

very, very clear about this. We have been cutting back at the Federal level money to manage the public lands. And that is a reality. 

At the same time, the money that is available is going into 

things like firefighting. How much money is being spent by the 

Federal government in Arizona in the last month? An enormous 

amount of money that is not available for other purposes in those 

national forests and BLM land in that area. 

There is a money problem here. And much of the, in my experience in California, which has been extensive, a lot of the shutdown 

of various trails and the like is due to the inability of the Forest 

Service to guarantee safety, maintenance, and protection of the 

public resources. 

So what I would like all of the folks here, particularly the offthe-road vehicle folks, to ponder is how do we deal with this. Fees? 

At the end of this fiscal year, the highway fees expire. Gone. We 

are going to have to renew them, as in raising taxes. Will this be 

part of that tax program, as we re-fund or reestablish those? You 

need to think about it. 

And so I would ask, in my last 30—and I am going to subtract 

35 seconds here—in my last minute, for all of you to ponder the 

necessity for the off-the-road vehicle industry to participate financially in supporting the public lands use for off-the-road vehicles. 

Without that, further restrictions are inevitable, because it is the 

responsibility of the public land managers to manage the land for 

the long term. And the long term can seriously be destroyed by the 

inappropriate use of off-the-road vehicles. 

Mr. Akenson, there is nothing I would like better than to go into 

the wilderness area and be left alone, without the sound of my own 

political voice, but rather, the sound of the wilderness. Thank you 

very much. 

And I guess I used my 35 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank the witnesses on this particular panel for 

your testimony and for your answers, your written testimony and 

oral testimony. And I thank you very much, appreciate you being 

here. We will excuse you at this time, and invite the next panel of 

witnesses to join us. 

Once again, I thank you all for being here. I thought you were 

going on the assumption if we burn down the forest, we don’t have 

to worry about any of this, right? 

Coming up here, if we could, we have Mr. Amador from the Blue 

Ribbon Coalition; Tom Crimmins, who is the Lead Spokesman for 

the Professionals for Management Recreation; Mr. Sutton Bacon, 

CEO of the Nantahala Outdoor Center—is that even close—Outdoor Center. 

Once again, we appreciate all of you being here. Same situation 

as before. You have your written testimony; I ask you to do the oral 

within five minutes. Same process will be there, green, keep going; 

29 

yellow, you have one minute; when it is red, we ask you to stop. 

And we welcome you to be here. 

Mr. Amador. 

STATEMENT OF DON AMADOR, 

BLUE RIBBON COALITION 

Mr. AMADOR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my 

views and the views of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, regarding the 

single-largest public land closure of its kind in U.S. history. And 

that is the ongoing closure of 75,000 acres of BLM lands to all public users. 

My name is Don Amador; I live in Oakley, California. I am a 

recreation and public land advocate, who has championed responsible access to public lands for the last 21 years. I am owner of 

Quiet Warrior Racing, a recreation and public land consulting company, and I am a contractor to the Blue Ribbon Coalition, where 

I serve as its western representative. 

In 2002, Dirt Rider Magazine listed Clear Creek as one of the top 

10 OHV recreation sites in the country. It is located mostly in the 

southern San Benito County in the Coastal Mountain Range. 

While the closure only technically closed 33,000 acres, it functionally closed 75,000 acres, since practically all route networks 

originate in the technically closed area. 

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, unlike other BLM units in California, I believe Hollister, with help from EPA, has failed to fulfill its Congressional multiple-use mandate via its current effort to use junk 

science and personal agendas in a scheme to create de facto wilderness without Congressional approval or direction. 

I believe that Hollister is not in compliance with the President’s 

and the Department of the Interior’s scientific integrity policy. In 

2008, before the emergency closure, EPA’s draft risk analysis 

model said the health risk from naturally occurring asbestos could 

be, in quotes, ‘‘perhaps zero.’’ Yet, in EPA’s final report, they simply removed that phrase. 

NOA occurs in various public and private lands in 43 counties in 

California, many of which contain popular local, county, state, and 

Federal recreation sites. Because many of those areas are important for multiple-use recreation, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle 

Recreation Division of California State Parks commissioned an 

independent health study. 

On March 22, 2011, a report was completed by scientists from 

the International Environmental Research Foundation, the Department of Physics at Harvard University, and the Center for Applied 

Studies of the Environment at the City University of New York. 

According to that new and scientifically valid report, the health 

risk at Clear Creek is similar to the lifetime risk of death from 

smoking less than one cigarette over a one-year period. 

They noted other recreational activities, such as swimming, hiking, and snow skiing, are over 100-fold more dangerous. 

Other Department of the Interior units, such as BLM at Samoa 

Dunes and Redwood National Park, they simply post signs to warn 

of hazards. Yet Hollister selected to ignore those management 

30 

tools, and willfully selected to ban recreation at Clear Creek instead of posting signs. 

Ken Deeg, a local law enforcement officer, believes the County’s 

2010 decision to reopen 25 miles of its roads was based on the fact 

that Hollister and EPA had manipulated and embellished their 

data and test results. 

In its effort to create a non-motorized ecotopia, Hollister is erasing all evidence of OHV recreation that existed on this unit for the 

last 60 years. Hollister has ripped up relatively new public rest 

room facilities and staging areas along the main access road. Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreations, through state recreation 

grants, contributed approximately $7 million to the management of 

Clear Creek. No doubt, during that same time period, millions of 

dollars of appropriated funds have also been spent to manage multiple-use recreation on that unit. 

After reviewing Hollister’s illegitimate decision-making process 

to date, I believe Congress should consider bipartisan legislation 

that designates the 75,000-acre Clear Creek management area as 

a National Recreation Area, where OHV recreation and other uses 

are codified as a proscribed use. 

I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify on this all-tooimportant issue. And I would like Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E included with my written testimony. I look forward to working with 

Congress and the Agency to find a way to reopen Clear Creek for 

OHV recreation and other multiple-use activities. 

At this time I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Amador follows:] 

Statement of Don Amador, Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Testimony—Statement by Donald Amador that questions the BLM’s decision-making process associated with the ongoing landscape level functional closure of the 

75,000 acre Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) to all user groups on May 1, 

2008. This unit is managed by the Hollister Field Office (HFO) and is located in 

Fresno and San Benito Counties in the Central Coast Mountain Range of California. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of the BlueRibbon Coalition, and 

views of other multiple-use interests about the single largest public land closure of 

its kind in U.S. history. 

My name is Don Amador; I am a native of Humboldt County in Northern California. I currently live in Oakley, California in the Delta Region of the Central Valley. I am a recreation and public land advocate who has championed responsible access to public lands for the last 21 years. I am owner of Quiet Warrior Racing, a 

recreation and public land consulting company. As a contractor to the BlueRibbon 

Coalition, I serve as its Western Representative. In addition, I currently serve as 

a member of Region 5’s California Recreation Resource Advisory Council. 

Recently, I served on the Del Norte County/Forest Service stakeholder group, 

which successfully brought diverse interest groups together to try and resolve contentious issues surrounding a recent Forest Service Travel Management Decision. 

Based on that experience and experience derived from service on other recreationbased stakeholder groups, I am confident that with your help a solution to the Clear 

Creek closure saga can be found. 

Mr. Chairman, before getting into the substance of my concerns, I want to give 

the committee a quick overview of CCMA. In 2002, Dirt Rider Magazine listed Clear 

Creek as one of the top 10 OHV recreation sites in the country. It is located mostly 

in southern San Benito County in the Coastal Mountain Range that separates the 

Salinas Valley from the Central Valley. While the closure only ‘‘technically’’ closed 

33,000 acres, it functionally closed 75,000 acres since practically all route networks 

originate in the closure area. Before the emergency closure in May 2008, the unit 

31 

was open for OHV use on approximately 242 miles of designated routes from October 16th to May 31. This unit also contains approximately 25 miles of county roads. 

Clear Creek has been a historic mining area since the 19th century. California’s 

official state gem, Benitoite, is found only in this area. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, 

the primary mineral extracted was naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Today, the 

major mining operations that produced asbestos have ceased operations. Yet, before 

the May 2008 emergency closure, the area remained a popular site for gem and mineral collectors. The area is also a popular venue for the hunting community. 

I have operated OHVs in CCMA since the early 1980s. As part of the land stewardship program at BRC, I assisted the HFO from 2001–2008 at numerous amateur 

motorcycle events by performing the SAE–J1287 20-inch sound test to make sure 

attendees complied with state sound laws. 

I consider many BLM employees on various units to be both personal friends and 

professional colleagues who work hard to fulfill the agency’s multiple-use mandate, 

protect natural resources, and jealousy guard public trust. 

Sadly Mr. Chairman, unlike other BLM units in California, I believe the HFO 

with support from EPA has failed to fulfill its congressional multiple-use mandate 

via its current effort to use junk science in a scheme to create de-facto Wilderness 

without Congressional approval or direction. 

Ultimately, I believe that Congress is the appropriate legislative body that can 

help the public get answers to the many unanswered questions regarding the bizarre and historic closure of CCMA to all human uses and the ongoing decisionmaking process surrounding the May 2008 emergency closure. 

ISSUE ONE—Scientific Integrity of the Decision/Science Used to Issue the 

May 1, 2008 Emergency Closure Order 

Based on the attached email (Exhibit A) obtained by FOIA, it appears the Department of Interior’s scientific integrity policy has been compromised by HFO/EPA. 

When HFO questions EPA as to why HFO should make an emergency land management closure decision based on a risk analysis model so low that it is ‘‘perhaps 

zero’’, EPA responded by simply removing the phrase in the final report. 

In an urgent April 2008 pre-closure meeting between BRC representatives and 

the agency, BRC urged the HFO to not use flawed science to effect the May 1, 2008 

emergency closure. Despite our substantive pleas, HFO decided to use flawed 

science and personal agendas as a foundation for the closure and the subsequent 

NEPA planning process. 

NOA occurs on various public and private lands in 43 counties in California many 

of which contain popular local, county, state, and federal recreation sites. Because 

many of those areas are important for multiple-use activities, the California State 

Park Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission requested that the OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR) of California State Parks 

complete an independent NOA health study. 

On March 22, 2011, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California State Parks released an independent report analyzing naturally occurring asbestos exposures associated with OHV recreation and hiking at Clear Creek. The 

report was completed by scientists from the International Environmental Research 

Foundation (IERF), the Department of Physics at Harvard University, and the Center for Applied Studies of the Environment at the City University of New York. 

2011 IERF Report 

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ierf_ccma_final_3_8_11-web.pdf 

The OHMVR Division commissioned the IERF report to gather more data to determine if management and operational strategies could be employed at the CCMA 

to mitigate risk while still allowing access to this premier off-highway vehicle recreation. 

According to the report, ‘‘. . .this risk [health risk from NOA] is similar to the lifetime risk of death from smoking less than one cigarette over the same one year period 

[riding season]. Other recreational activities, such as swimming, hiking, and snow 

skiing are over a 100-fold more dangerous. 

The percentage of mesothelioma deaths predicted among the CCMA motorcycle 

riders for both sexes (0.000016%) is more than 6,500-fold lower than percentage of 

mesothelioma deaths in the US general population (0.11%). 

Based on the IERF analysis, the results of which are included herein, there is 

clearly an opportunity to allow OHV recreation at CCMA. Under the conditions we 

observed, and similar seasonal conditions. OHV enthusiasts would not be exposed 

to unacceptably high levels of airborne asbestos.’’ 

According to IERF, EPA Region 9 continues to refuse access to their air sample 

and seasonal asbestos background datasets. 

32 

As you might expect, the BLM and EPA continue to inexplicably defend their decision to close CCMA to all human uses with the basis of that decision cast on the 

tenets of what many users, other publics, and IERF scientists consider flawed 

science. It appears the agency continues to favor a permanent ban on OHV recreation as articulated in the current CCMA NEPA planning process. 

IERF May 23, 2011 Response to BLM/EPA Defense of Flawed Science/Closure 

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ierf-epa-rebuttal-ccma.pdf 

ISSUE TWO: Faux Liability Issue 

BRC is concerned HFO created an artificial liability for itself (and hence the taxpayer) in its initial decision to issue an emergency closure order and in subsequent 

planning documents without any consideration for other viable and reasonable 

means of addressing what, if any risk, may exist. BRC is also concerned this faux 

liability issue, if not addressed, could be used by the agency as justification to prohibit pro-OHV/access alternatives from being selected. 

BRC April 19, 2010 Letter on Liability Issue 

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/CCMA_DEIS_Turcke_Comments_ Supplemental_4–19–10.pdf 

As BRC stated, it believes the Hollister Field Office continues to chart its own 

and strangely unique course with its decision-making framework. HFO’s continues 

to believe that CCMA lands ought to be rendered inaccessible based wholly on a 

now disproved assumption that a public health risk from NOA will impact OHV 

recreationists. 

BRC believes HFO should review management prescriptions such as signs and 

public outreach currently being used by sister land management agencies to caution 

the recreation public about the life threatening hazards of rock climbing, snow skiing, swimming, and boating. 

ISSUE THREE—County Asserts Access Rights 

On April 6, 2010 San Benito County passed a resolution that reopened 

approxiemtly 25 miles of county roads within CCMA. 

April 6, 2010 San Benito County Resolution 

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/San_Benito_County_Road_Resolution_ 2010.pdf 

Just as many user groups and other stakeholders questioned the decision-making 

process used by the BLM/EPA to close roads and trails within CCMA, the County 

of San Benito reviewed options to assert its right to manage their own roads within 

CCMA. 

Ken Deeg, a local law enforcement officer and member of the Friends Clear Creek 

Management Area and TimeKeepers Motorcycle Club, states (Exhibit B) ‘‘. . .in 

early 2010 after viewing the email information and photos I received through [a] 

FOIA that the BLM and EPA manipulated and embellished the September 2005 dust 

sampling test, San Benito County Board of Supervisors realized they were mislead 

by the BLM’s Hollister Field Office and voted to take back their roads inside Clear 

Creek and re-open them to the public. . ..’’ 

Again, after reviewing Deeg’s information, revelant laws, regulations, impacts of 

the closure to the local economy, and science, the county came to the conclusion that 

its roads do not present a health risk and that they should be open for public use. 

ISSUE FOUR: Willful Obliteration of Existing Recreation Facilities Paid for 

by Taxpayers and with User Fees 

In its effort to create a non-motorized ecotopia, the HFO is erasing all evidence 

of OHV recreation that has existed on this unit for the last 60 years; the agency 

has ripped up relatively new public restroom facilities along the main access road. 

It has also obliterated and/or rendered useless many traditional family camping 

sites in this same area. 

Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreationists through the OHMVR grants program contributed approxiemtly $7 million dollars to CCMA for trail and facility construction, route maintenance, resource protection, and law enforcement. No doubt during 

that time period, millions of dollars of appropriated funds have also been spent to 

manage multiple-use recreation on that unit. 

My assertions are substantiated by a June 17, 2011 letter (Exhibit C) from Commissioner Eric Leuder, Chairman of the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle 

Recreation Commission. On April 6, 2011, he witnessed in person the destruction 

of historic recreation facilities. The destruction of property was authorized in a previous environmental assessment based on the false assumption that the Evening 

Primrose was a threatened species. Subsequently, new agency biologists have found 

33 

that species to be abundant. Yet, the HFO with this new information continues on 

its path to erase any evidence that OHV recreation staging areas existed on the 

unit. 

While the HFO works hard to destroy all vestiges of it multi-million dollar recreational infrastructure, it has found the time to waste over $2 million dollars of 

taxpayer funds to construct its much vaunted ‘‘decontamination center’’ at the entrance to CCMA. 

Based on the aforementioned issues and concerns, I believe the HFO and EPA 

should answer the following questions. 

1. Is the HFO and EPA’s decision-making process and supporting documents in 

compliance with the March 9, 2009 Memorandum (Exhibit D) on Scientific 

Integrity issued by President Obama that states the. . .public must be able 

to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions? 

2. Is the HFO and EPA decision-making process and supporting documents in 

compliance with subsequent memos (Exhibit E) from EPA Administrator, 

Lisa Jackson, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reaffirming the need to 

foster honesty and credibility in science conducted and used by the Agencies? 

3. Why has the EPA refused to share requested information from their study 

with other scientists? 

4. Why does the HFO continue to destroy and obliterate the existing recreation 

infrastructure—paid for with state OHV grants and appropriated funds— 

when it knows the premise for the authorization is flawed? 

5. Why did the HFO construct an unneeded multi-million dollar decontamination center? 

6. Did the HFO investigate any management tools that would have allowed the 

unit to stay open during the planning process? 

7. Does the HFO/EPA intend to incorporate the IERF study into the planning 

process? 

8. Does the HFO intend to lift the emergency closure order? 

Summary: 

After reviewing hold harmless laws, federal statutes, and new science, I believe 

that Congress and reasonable people will come to the conclusion that CCMA should 

be open for public use. Unfortuntely, it appears the HFO/EPA continue to base the 

ongoing closure and closure-oriented planning alternatives on flawed science, illogical decision-making, and personal agendas that are in conflict with the multiple-use 

mission of the BLM. 

I urge Congress to investigate the decision-making process that ranges from the 

initial process to issue an emergency closure in 2008 to the current planning effort. 

I believe that the continued closure of CCMA is unwarranted and should be lifted 

immediately. Also, the planning process is seriously flawed since it is based on what 

has been clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate data and false assumptions. The 

planning process should be put on hold until the scientific discrepancies between 

EPA and IERF are resolved. 

What makes this closure so puzzling is that since recreationists started using 

CCMA after WW2, there is not one documented case of mesothelioma caused by recreational exposure to NOA at Clear Creek. In fact, there is not one documented case 

of mesothelioma caused by recreational exposure to NOA anywhere in California. 

According to BRC member Ed Tobin who served on the Central California Resource Advisory Council (1995–2000), he had a number of conversations with then 

BLM State Director Ed Hastey about CCMA as the BLM was in the process of completing an EIS to guide the use of the area (ROD signed in Jan 1998). During one 

of these conversations Hastey told Tobin that despite EPA concerns about the asbestos risk and Fish and Wildlife concerns about a T&E species, he felt that Clear 

Creek was the ideal location for the BLM to promote motorized recreation. He 

backed up these comments by approving the EIS/ROD that allowed motorized recreation to continue. BRC agrees with Hastey’s vision and decision. 

Based on the decisions made by the HFO over the last 4–5 years, I believe that 

HFO has veered away from Director Hastey’s vision for Clear Creek and will create 

a defacto-Wilderness area at CCMA unless Congress intervenes 

Recommendation: 

Congress should consider bipartisan legislation that designates the 70,000-acre 

CCMA as a National Recreation Area with OHV recreation and other multiple-use 

recreational activities codified as ‘‘prescribed uses.’’ Congress could base the route 

network on the 242 miles of routes and 400 acres of open areas identified for motorized use in the 2005 CCMA Travel Management Plan. 

34 

On behalf of myself, BRC, and other access stakeholders, I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to testify on this all too important issue. I look forward 

to working with Congress and the agency to find a way to reopen CCMA for OHV 

recreation and other multiple-use activities. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

# # # 

Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E 

Don Amador, 555 Honey Lane, Oakley, CA 94561—Phone: 925.625.6287, Email: 

damador@cwo.com 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Mr. Crimmins. 

STATEMENT OF TOM CRIMMINS, LEAD SPOKESMAN, 

PROFESSIONALS FOR MANAGED RECREATION 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Chairman Bishop, Members of the Committee, my 

name is Thomas Crimmins, and I am retired from the Forest Service. I live in Hayden Lake, Idaho. And I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to offer my perspective on H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act 

of 2011.’ 

I support the legislation, and I ask you to do the same. 

The legislation would release all wilderness study areas and 

inventoried roadless areas that have been evaluated, and not recommended as suitable for wilderness, by the BLM and the Forest 

Service. It will reduce restrictive management practices, and direct 

that these areas be managed for multiple uses, including recreation. 

As it stands, the BLM currently restricts activity on nearly seven 

million acres of WSAs, in spite of the fact that the BLM itself has 

already determined that these areas are not suitable for wilderness 

designation. 

The situation for the Forest Service is even worse, as access is 

restricted on over 36 million acres of IRAs that have been deemed 

unsuitable for ultimate designation as wilderness. 

I worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 32 years, from 1966 to 

1998. And during my career I was involved with the Roadless Area 

Review and Evaluation, the RARE process, on several forests in 

California. Throughout the process, I and other managers operated 

under the expectation that the areas ultimately deemed unsuitable 

for wilderness designation would be released. 

This has not been the case. Instead, these areas continue to be 

restricted, ostensibly to protect wilderness characteristics of the 

area that have already been evaluated, and found to be not suitable for wilderness. It doesn’t make sense. 

I would like to provide a little background on my experience that 

will shed some light on how we got here. From 1973 to 1977 I 

worked on the Mendocino National Forest, on the Forest Planning 

Team. One of our tasks was to complete an evaluation of the Snow 

Mountain Wilderness Area to determine if it should be recommended for wilderness. The area had been designated, under the 

RARE-1 process. 

In 1977 the process, the report had been done, and was ready to 

distribution, when we were told to hold the report because we had 

35 

to go back and determine if additional areas should have been included in the analysis. This was the beginning of RARE-2. 

In 1977 I transferred to the Cannell Meadow Ranger District on 

the Sequoia National Forest in California, as Resource Officer. And 

I was included on a team that was tasked with identifying possible 

areas that should be analyzed for new wilderness consideration. 

The direction came from the Forest Service headquarters here in 

D.C. The intent of the process was to identify any and all areas 

that could potentially be considered for wilderness designation, and 

then, once and for all, make recommendations for the areas that 

should be considered and recommended to Congress, and the areas 

that should be managed for multiple use. This would allow the 

Agency to move forward with its mission to manage national forests. 

We were asked to include any areas that did not have evidence 

of past logging, and did not include roads that had been constructed with mechanized equipment. As we worked on the maps, 

we would identify potential areas, and where questions existed, we 

would go into the field to identify the specific boundaries. During 

these site visits, we would find areas that we knew would not meet 

the criteria for wilderness, but that did meet the criteria for evaluation, and we would include them in the identified areas because 

subsequent analysis and evaluation would ultimately resolve those 

issues. 

Evaluations were completed, and the wilderness recommendations were developed. Shortly thereafter, the whole process was 

back in court. 

During each iteration of forest planning, the Agency has tried to 

placate the environmental community by identifying more acreage 

for wilderness designation, and in each case they failed to get the 

remaining areas released back into multiple-use management. 

Each attempt has been met with litigation and another round of 

rulemaking or analysis. 

That is why I am here to support passage of H.R. 1581. The bill 

will finally take the Agency back to where it should have been at 

the completion of the RARE-2 analysis process. It will allow the 

Forest Service to responsibly manage these lands that did not, and 

do not, qualify for wilderness designation. It is a bill whose time 

has come. 

And thank you very much for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crimmins follows:] 

Statement of Thomas Crimmins, Lead Spokesman, 

Professionals for Managed Recreation 

My name is Thomas Crimmins, I’m a retired Forest Service Official and I live in 

Hayden Lake, ID. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today to offer my perspective on H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area 

Release Act of 2011. 

In short, I support the legislation and ask you to do the same. The legislation 

would release all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRAs) that have been evaluated and not recommended as suitable for wilderness 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service. It will reduce 

restrictive management practices and direct that these areas be managed for multiple use, including recreation. 

As is stands, the BLM currently restricts activity on nearly 7 million acres of 

WSAs despite the fact the BLM itself has already determined these areas are not 

suitable for wilderness designation by Congress. The situation with the Forest ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 Mar 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67110.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
36 

ice is even worse, as access is restricted to over 36 million acres of IRAs that have 

been deemed unsuitable for ultimate designation as wilderness. 

I worked for the US Forest Service for 32 years from 1966 to 1998. During my 

career, I was involved with the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) process on several forests in California. Throughout the process, I and other managers 

operated under the expectation that areas ultimately deemed as unsuitable for wilderness designation would be released. This has not been the case. Instead access 

to these areas continues to be restricted, ostensibly to protect the wilderness characteristics of areas that have been evaluated by the respective agency to be unsuitable 

for designation as wilderness. This doesn’t make sense. 

I would like to provide a little background on my experiences that will shed some 

light on how we got here. 

From 1973 to 1977, I worked on the Mendocino National Forest on the Forest 

Planning Team. One of our tasks was to complete an evaluation of the Snow Mountain area to determine if it should be recommended for Wilderness designation. This 

area had been identified during the RARE I process. In 1977, the report had been 

completed and was ready for distribution when we were told to hold the report because we had to go back and determine if additional areas should have been included in the analysis area. This was the beginning of the RARE II process. 

In 1977, I transferred to the Cannell Meadow Ranger District on the Sequoia National Forest. As a Resource Officer, I was included on a team that was tasked with 

identifying possible new areas that should be analyzed for Wilderness consideration. 

The direction for the process came from Forest Service headquarters here in D.C. 

The intent of the process was to identify any and all areas that could potentially 

be considered for Wilderness designation and then, once and for all, make recommendations for areas that should be considered for Wilderness designations and 

areas that should be managed for multiple use. This would allow the agency to 

move forward with its mission to manage the National Forests. 

We were asked to include any area that did not have evidence of past logging activities and did not include any roads constructed with mechanized equipment. As 

we worked on the maps we would identify potential areas and where questions existed we would go into the field to identify the specific boundaries. During these site 

visits we would find areas that we knew would not meet the criteria for Wilderness 

but that did meet the criteria for evaluation and we would include them in the identified area because the subsequent evaluation would ultimately resolve the issues. 

The evaluations were completed and Wilderness recommendations were developed. 

Shortly thereafter, the whole process was back in court. 

In 1984, Congress was considering the California Wilderness Act. During that 

process, Senator Cranston had supported a specific acreage for designation which 

was more than recommended by the Forest Service and Representative Bill Thomas 

from the Bakersfield area was recommending designation of significantly less acreage. The final compromise that moved forward was halfway between the two proposals and included areas that did not meet Wilderness criteria. 

When the bill was ultimately enacted into law, we went out and closed gates on 

roads and posted Domeland Wilderness boundaries on areas that had been used for 

years for dispersed camping with campers and motorhomes because their use had 

occurred on roads that had never been constructed with mechanized equipment but 

the areas had been included in the analysis process. In addition to Wilderness designation, the Act identified several areas for further planning or special consideration. While not exactly what we had envisioned, the final Act seemed to be reasonable, particularly since it included the following release language for the remaining 

areas: 

Section 111(a)(4) areas in the State of California reviewed in such final environmental statement or referenced in subsection (d) and not designated as 

wilderness or planning areas by this title or remaining in further planning 

as referenced m [sic] subsection (e) upon enactment of this title shall be managed for multiple use in accordance with land management plans pursuant 

to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976: Provided, That such areas need not be managed for the purpose of protecting 

their suitability for wilderness designation prior to or during revision of the 

land management plans; 

We believed that we would now have the ability to move forward with management of the remaining areas. But, it was not to be. 

Almost before the ink dried on the President’s signature, several environmental 

organizations challenged the Forest Service on the management of the released 

areas and the agency agreed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement before any management entries would be made into these areas. Thus, the agency reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 Mar 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67110.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
37 

turned to the ‘‘analysis paralysis’’ that exists today. To avoid extra work and conflict 

associated with management of the ‘‘roadless areas’’ the agency simply tried to manage around them until Forest Planning and the accompanying EIS were completed. 

During each iteration of Forest Planning the agency has tried to placate the environmental community by identifying more acreage for wilderness designation and 

in each case, they have failed to get the remaining areas released back into multiple 

use management. Each attempt has been met with litigation and another round of 

analysis or rulemaking. 

That is why I am here to support passage of H.R. 1581. This bill will finally take 

the agency to where it should have been with the completion of the RARE II analysis process. It will allow the Forest Service to responsibly manage these lands that 

did not and do not qualify for Wilderness designation. It is a bill whose time has 

come. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Bacon. 

STATEMENT OF SUTTON BACON, CEO, 

NANTAHALA OUTDOOR CENTER 

Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sutton 

Bacon; I live in Asheville, North Carolina, and I am the CEO of the 

Nantahala Outdoor Center. 

I wanted to discuss with you three primary topics. First, how my 

company and companies like mine are using human-powered outdoor recreational and Federal lands as a catalyst for rural economic 

development. 

Second, how my guests seek and demand access to a full spectrum of recreational opportunities on public lands and waters. 

And third, the importance of public-land stewardship to our local 

and national outdoor recreation economy. 

My company was founded in 1972. We are located in the mountains of western North Carolina, in Swain County. We have grown 

into one of the largest outdoor recreation companies in the country. 

We offer over 120 river-and land-based outdoor activities, including 

whitewater rafting, kayaking, hiking, biking, and fishing. 

We receive 500,000 visitors per year, and we take over 100,000 

children from varied backgrounds on outdoor experiences each 

year. On an annual basis, NOC guests paddle enough river miles 

on Federal lands for 39 trips around the world, or two trips to the 

moon and back. 

Our local economy in western North Carolina continues to suffer 

from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs. Swain County suffers from one of the highest unemployment rates in the State of 

North Carolina, at 18 percent, and an equally disturbing rate of 

poverty, also at 18 percent. Twenty percent of our residents face 

food insecurity. In other words, not knowing where their next meal 

would come from. 

Furthermore, approximately 88 percent of Swain County is Federally owned, such as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

and the Nantahala National Forest. 

Some might say that our current economic situation is exacerbated by these large Federal land holdings, which diminish our tax 

base. However, nothing could be further from the truth. 

In fact, public lands and waters in our region are a pathway to 

a growing and sustainable prosperity, a type of prosperity that canVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 Mar 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67110.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
38 

not be outsourced overseas, and is rooted in the value of experiencing these places directly. 

Whereas extraction and manufacturing industries have come and 

gone, human-powered outdoor tourism is becoming the backbone of 

our region’s future. A recent study conducted by Western Carolina 

University estimated the local economic impact of NOC, an outfitting community on the Nantahala, to be $85 million per year. In 

2010, NOC directly employed 816 people, and created 81 new jobs. 

These jobs, created by our natural resources to provide experience, 

rather than extraction, cannot be outsourced. As long as the health 

and integrity of our public lands and waters are maintained, these 

jobs will never go away. 

Our guests travel from all over the world to experience the 

mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct and meaningful way. Our 

guests are actively looking for a wide spectrum of opportunities and 

experiences on public lands. The wealth of natural resources in our 

region allows NOC to provide the full spectrum of sustainable 

recreation opportunities, from relaxed, family oriented float trips 

on the Nantahala, to world-class whitewater on the Ocoee, to Georgia and South Carolina’s wild and scenic Chattooga River. 

Especially in rural areas like western North Carolina, America’s $730 billion active outdoor recreation economy is becoming an increasingly strong and vital part of our economy. In North Carolina 

alone, the recreation economy contributes $7.5 billion of economic 

impact, supports 95,000 jobs, and generates $430 million in annual 

sales tax revenue. 

That economy depends on a balanced approach to our public 

lands. We must maintain the integrity, protection, and stewardship 

of our natural resources, as well as fundamental recreation infrastructure, parks, trails, open spaces, both remote and close to 

home. 

Whereas some public lands should be developed in the traditional manner, this development should not, and must not, occur 

everywhere. It is our responsibility, with the leadership of Congress and this Subcommittee, to foster that spectrum of opportunities, services, and experiences on Federal lands and water. It is our 

responsibility to work with Federal land managers to provide these 

opportunities in a sustainable manner that ensures sustainable 

biodiversity, habitat, extractive resources, as well as the recreational use which supports significant rural recreation economies 

like ours. 

This responsibility is fraught with challenge. Indeed, we know 

our forests face tremendous threats from sprawl and development, 

pressure from future water, energy, and resource extractions, and 

the demand of multiple-use management and competing priorities. 

However, I believe that we can, if we are mindful, find a sustainable path forward. Because in these tough times, Americans, both 

children and adults, need the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits that outdoor recreation provides more than ever. 

During NOC’s last 40 years, wherever there has been economic 

uncertainty, our guest numbers have always increased, affirming 

the importance of outdoor recreation during difficult times. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:] 

39 

Statement of Sutton Bacon, Chief Executive Officer, 

Nantahala Outdoor Center, Inc., Bryson City, North Carolina 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Sutton Bacon and 

I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Nantahala Outdoor Center. Established in 

1972, the NOC is an employee-owned outdoor recreation company located at the 

intersection of the Appalachian Trail and the Nantahala River in Swain County, 

North Carolina. Originally a roadside inn, the company has evolved into one of the 

largest outdoor recreation companies in the nation and is one of Western North 

Carolina’s largest employers. 

Over 500,000 guests visit NOC annually to embark on a diverse collection of over 

120 different river and land-based itineraries predominantly on public lands, learn 

to kayak at NOC’s world-renowned Paddling School, travel abroad to foreign countries with NOC’s Adventure Travel program, shop at one of our flagship retail 

stores, or enjoy NOC’s resort amenities including our three restaurants and multitiered lodging. Each year, NOC guests paddle over one million river miles, enough 

for two voyages to the moon and back. 

NOC has recently been recognized as ‘‘The Nation’s Premier Paddling School’’ by 

The New York Times, ‘‘Best Place to Learn’’ by Outside Magazine, and as ‘‘One of 

the Best Outfitters on Earth’’ by National Geographic ADVENTURE. In addition, 

22 Olympians including two Gold Medalists have called NOC home. 

Through our programming, we strive to educate and engage adventure-seekers 

through dynamic, world-class instruction and tours on some of the world’s most 

beautiful whitewater rivers and landscapes. We are committed to sharing our passion for the outdoors and our penchant for exploration with our guests. Our employees share a common vision of keeping NOC a dynamic, enjoyable, and successful 

place to work and of participating actively, considerately, and sustainably in the 

communities in which we operate. We firmly believe in the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits. 

Rural Economic Development 

The economy in our region of Southwestern North Carolina continues to suffer 

from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs to international outsourcing, as textile, garment, and furniture plants continue to close. Swain County suffers from one 

of the highest unemployment rates in North Carolina (18.1%) and an equally-disturbing rate of poverty (18.3%). A recent study indicated that 19.9% of Swain residents faced ‘‘food insecurity,’’ in other words, not knowing from where their next 

meal would come. Approximately 88% of Swain County is federally-owned, such as 

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Nantahala National Forest. 

Some might say that our current economic situation is exacerbated by these large 

federal land holdings diminishing our tax base. However, nothing could be further 

from the truth. In fact, the public lands and waters in our region are the pathway 

to a growing and sustainable prosperity—a type of prosperity that cannot be 

outsourced overseas and is rooted in the value of experiencing these places directly. 

Whereas extraction and manufacturing industries have come and gone, our public 

lands boast a wealth of waterways, trails, and recreation areas, making Swain 

County a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts. In fact, while our local manufacturing base continues to contract, the region’s outdoor-based tourism economy 

has seen exponential growth, as has interest in tourism re-development, the enhancement of existing public-private tourism product, and the utilization of tourismrelated natural resources in an environmentally-sensitive manner. Human-powered 

outdoor tourism is the backbone of our future. 

A study was recently conducted by researchers at Western Carolina University to 

provide estimates of the economic impact of the Nantahala Outdoor Center and outfitting activity on the Nantahala River on the surrounding eight westernmost counties in North Carolina. The direct impact of payroll expenditures, other operating 

expenditures, capital expenditures and attendee spending was determined to be 

$61,918,474. The indirect and induced effects of payroll expenditures, other operating expenditures, capital expenditures and attendee spending were determined to 

be $11,415,792 and $12,052,223, respectively. As a result, whitewater recreation on 

the Nantahala annually contributes a total of $85,386,489 to the local economy. It 

also represents a total of 1,061 jobs. Furthermore, the researchers opined: 

The Nantahala Outdoor Center has a substantial and valuable effect on the 

surrounding Carolina Smokies region. This study is specifically designed to 

quantify the tangible impact of the Nantahala Outdoor Center on the region in terms of dollars and cents. However, NOC also provides intangible 

40 

benefits to the community that are essential to regional community development. For example, the Nantahala Outdoor Center contributes to the cultural life and reputation of the region as a tourism destination. These contributions reinforce the attractiveness of the region as a family-friendly 

tourism locale. 

In a time filled with such economic uncertainty nationwide, instead of hunkering 

down, NOC has been boldly embarking on a number of new initiatives we firmly 

believe will transform our company, all reinforcing our outfitting operations on federal lands. For example, at the height of the recession, NOC opened an 18,000 sq. 

ft. LEED-certified flagship retail store and adventure center at the entrance to the 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Gatlinburg in order to promote NOC’s 

human-powered recreational activities in the park. We will soon be opening a similar LEED-certified activity concierge concept in Asheville for activities in the Pisgah 

and Nantahala National Forests. To support both initiatives, we have launched a 

host of new excursions across multiple outdoor disciplines—including paddling, fishing, and hiking—all permitted on federal lands. 

As a result of these and other business expansion initiatives, NOC has created 

81 new full and part-time jobs during 2009 and 2010 with plans to increase employment again in 2011. 

None of this economic and civic revitalization would happen without our cherished 

public lands and waters. Our guests travel from all over the world to experience our 

mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct and meaningful way. The jobs created by 

using our natural resources to provide experience rather than extraction cannot be 

outsourced. As long as the health and integrity of our lands and waters are maintained, these jobs will never go away. 

Youth Outreach in the Context of Job Creation 

As Richard Louv writes in his book, Last Child in the Woods: ‘‘Developers and environmentalists, corporate CEOs and college professors, rock stars and ranchers 

may agree on little else, but they agree on this: no one among us wants to be a 

member of the last generation to pass on to its children the joy of playing outside 

in nature.’’ 

I was first introduced to the outdoors at summer camp in Western North Carolina, growing up paddling on its many rivers and streams as a young boy. I can personally attest to the value of being introduced to the outdoors as a child, which has 

led to a lifelong passion for nature and genuine passion for curing ‘‘nature deficit 

disorder’’ in today’s youth. I applaud President Obama, Interior Secretary Salazar, 

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, and the federal government’s efforts to promote enhanced opportunities for wilderness and outdoor experiences for our country’s youth, 

in part, to help combat ‘‘nature-deficit disorder’’ and the childhood obesity epidemic 

that our nation faces. However, the success of these initiatives is wholly dependent 

on linking them to job creation and economic development. 

The Nantahala Outdoor Center has long created a sustainable business and job 

growth model around delivering affordable and healthy outdoor experiences to youth 

and underprivileged populations. NOC takes over 100,000 children under the age 

of 18 on outdoor excursions each year, which, for comparison, is more than NOLS 

and Outward Bound combined. We supply these children with environmentally-enlightening and life-altering outdoor experiences on public lands. 

Providing outfitting services for youth and underserved populations requires specific skills and exceptionally high levels of training. For example, one of our most 

popular programs is a collaboration with the ‘‘Adventure Amputee Camp,’’ which invites disabled children from a wide geographical area to participate in rafting, 

kayaking, and other group initiatives such as a high ropes course. The guides dedicated to this program are our most-trained guides and are considered leaders in innovative activities for children with disabilities. 

Programs like this and many others collectively serve as a business case that 

small companies across the country can capitalize on youth development initiatives, 

change lives, and make a difference for our two most precious resources—children 

and the environment—all while fostering economic growth and job opportunities 

Economy and Public Lands Stewardship Intertwined 

America’s outdoor recreation economy is an increasingly strong and vital part of 

our nation’s economy, especially in rural areas like Western North Carolina that are 

blessed with healthy public lands. The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), a national outdoor industry trade association upon whose board I sit, completed the outdoor industry’s first study quantifying the contribution of active outdoor recreation 

to the nation’s economy. The study indicated that active outdoor recreation and our 

outdoor industry contribute $730 billion annually to the United States economy and 

41 

support nearly 6.5 million jobs across the country. North Carolina’s share of this 

economic impact is substantial. Active outdoor recreation contributes more than $7.5 

billion to North Carolina’s economy, supports 95,000 jobs and generates $430 million in annual sales tax revenue. 

The nation’s outdoor recreation economy depends primarily on the integrity, protection and stewardship of our natural resources, but it also depends on fundamental recreational infrastructure, including parks, trails and open spaces necessary to enjoy places both remote and close to home. As a businessman, I know 

it would not be possible for NOC to exist without the dramatic land conservation 

efforts that designated the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, which recently 

celebrated their 100th birthday. Back then, Western North Carolina’s forests had 

been devastated by timber operations that left much of the land clear-cut and 

burned. The Forest Service has resuscitated the Nantahala and Pisgah National 

Forests by replanting forests, restoring watersheds, and creating campgrounds, 

trails, and access areas. Today, Western North Carolina enjoys 1.1 million acres of 

national forest land, with 178,000 acres identified as roadless. Over 10 million visitors visit our region annually because of our natural resources with the intent to 

experience them in their natural settings. 

As you can see, we have had quite an evolution here in Western North Carolina. 

At first, we leaned heavily on our natural resources to drive our industrial economy. 

Previous generations used the resources from our forests, rivers, and mountains to 

build and power homes, farms, and factories. We created a tremendous amount of 

wealth and benefit to the nation. Thankfully, we also had the subsequent wisdom 

and vision to nurture these places back to health and maintain a balanced approach 

to our public lands. It took a very long time to get simply where we are today, and 

I acknowledge that it very much is still a journey and not a destination. I believe 

it is our responsibility, with the leadership of Congress and this Subcommittee, to 

maintain this balanced approach into the future. 

This responsibility is fraught with challenge. Indeed, the Nantahala National Forest faces enormous threats from sprawl and development, given the intensity of second-home development in our region. Our forests may face pressure from future 

water, energy, and resource extraction to fuel the growth of nearby metropolises like 

Atlanta and Charlotte. Because our public lands are managed for multiple uses, I 

believe that we can, if we are mindful, find a sustainable path forward. Whereas 

some public land should be developed in a traditional manner, this development 

should not and must not occur everywhere. 

Through the wealth of public lands and waters in Western North Carolina, NOC 

is able to provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities, from world-class extreme 

whitewater rivers to relaxed, family-oriented float trips to wilderness-oriented wild 

and scenic. In all cases, a pristine, natural setting is the main attraction. Swain 

County, and particularly NOC, needs open space, healthy forests, mountain ecosystems and free-flowing rivers if it is going to have an economy that will continue 

to grow and thrive. 

The wide diversity of NOC’s trip portfolio indicates that indeed our guests are actively looking for a wide spectrum of opportunities and experiences on public lands, 

conducted in a variety of settings, from river trips to hiking to biking. The goal of 

this subcommittee should be to foster that spectrum of opportunities, services, and 

experiences on federal lands and waters while providing them in a sustainable manner that recognizes, nurtures, and supports regional and national recreation economies. 

To this end, the outstanding recreational values of some of our most prized river 

and trails, wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers—the very foundation of the 

recreation economy described above—must not only be protected through thoughtful 

legislation and careful management (including, for example, forest planning and 

travel management) but also be supported by the necessary funding to the federal 

land management agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and Department 

of Interior, so the vitality of the active outdoor recreation economy can continue here 

in North Carolina and across the nation. 

Conclusion 

In these trying economic times, Americans need more than ever the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits that human-powered outdoor recreation provides. 

Another OIA research project showed that 80% of Americans feel that they are 

happier, have better family relationships and less stress in their lives when they 

engage in outdoor recreation. Anecdotally, during the recession, we have seen more 

hikers pass through NOC on the Appalachian Trail than we have in years. 

Our own internal research over the last 40 years indicates whenever there is economic uncertainty or a precipitous rise in gas prices, our guest numbers increase. 

42 

This affirms the importance of human-powered outdoor recreation during difficult 

times. We take this charge seriously and appreciate our guests’ confidence in our 

ability to deliver these authentic outdoor experiences. 

Similarly, I truly appreciate this invitation to speak with you today. Thank you 

for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I thank the three of you for your testimony that you have given to us, both oral and written. We have 

a few questions. 

Mr. Garamendi, I will let you go first, if you would like. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bacon, thank you for 

your testimony. I have had the pleasure of rafting on one or more 

of those rivers, and it is extraordinary to have those facilities available. And your recitation of the economic impact of I believe 

human-powered recreation? 

Mr. BACON. Correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So, not including in that economic analysis, the 

motorized, is that correct? 

Mr. BACON. That is correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. So stacked up against the motorized, we 

have another part of the recreational community, and it needs to 

be addressed. 

Mr. Amador, I will note that the EPA, when did the EPA shut 

down that facility in San Benito County? 

Mr. AMADOR. That was May 1, 2008, BLM issued an emergency 

closure order and closed it to all users, even the gem and mineral 

collectors that had small businesses there. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And the reason was fear over asbestos? 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes, fear. Even though to date, there hasn’t been 

one documented case of death from exposure to naturally occurring 

asbestos in a recreational capacity anywhere in California. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. But we do know that large portions of California do have naturally occurring asbestos. 

Mr. AMADOR. That is correct, 43 counties. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. So it was the concern about that that shut 

it down. You now have studies available that indicate that it may 

not be a problem, is that correct? 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes. California State Parks did commission a 

study, and it is a minute risk. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. And I notice that was March 22. 

Mr. AMADOR. Correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Less than three months ago. 

Mr. AMADOR. Correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. And what is the status today? 

Mr. AMADOR. Well, the status is the area is still closed, under 

emergency closure order. And it is my concern that the BLM has 

shown no inclination to incorporate that new science into their decision-making process. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And what have you done with BLM? 

Mr. AMADOR. Well, besides submitting comments, there was actually an OHV Commission hearing a month or so ago in Hollister. 

And the topic of the study was introduced to BLM. And at that 

time they still showed no inclination to recognize it or adopt it into 

their work. 

43 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would just make a comment here briefly on 

that, that I really think the BLM did the right thing. When faced 

with a potential public hazard, they did the right thing to shut it 

down, and then to proceed with caution. And I suspect that, given 

the studies and your own intense interest, that they may be considering this, and formal hearings are likely to take place to determine the appropriateness of reopening. 

With regard to the issue of study areas that Mr. Crimmins, you 

raised, in 1977 the population of California was one half what it 

is today. And the pressures on those areas are significantly greater, 

is that the case? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Yes, there are significantly greater pressure. But 

through careful management, it can, that pressure can be taken 

care of and alleviated. The ethical thing is to direct people where 

they need to go. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And over that period of time, the budget for the 

U.S. Forest Service, per capita, and the pressures has significantly 

diminished. Is that also the case? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. That is also true. When I retired, from then until 

now, the budget has gotten significantly worse. We were talking 

about bad budgets and how bad the budgets were when I was 

working. When I was there, it was a priority problem, in my opinion—it was not a budget problem. Things have changed. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I guess this is the point, to my colleague here, 

Mr. Bishop, and to his caucus. These problems that we have heard 

about today require extensive work on the part of the Federal 

agencies. It is very expensive. These studies have to be made in 

order to protect the resources. And without the appropriate funding, these issues cannot be resolved. 

And it seems to me extremely important that we recognize the 

financial strain that we are putting on all of the public land management organizations in their effort, and in the necessity that 

they have to sort out these conflicting, sometimes conflicting, but 

not always conflicting, resource-use issues. 

And the budget issue is a paramount importance, and one of the 

fundamental underlying problems here. With that, I will yield back 

my five seconds. 

Mr. BISHOP. You will get another shot at it, too. Can I ask a couple of questions of you, as well? Let me start with you, Mr. 

Crimmins, I appreciate it. 

Can you spend like 10 seconds just to tell me a little bit about 

the Professionals for Managed Recreation? Its members? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Professionals for Managed Recreation are generally retired Agency personnel that have been involved in a variety of recreation management. They support responsible motorized 

recreation, as well as other recreation activities. 

But they have had experience in the field, and they have been 

involved with that. 

Mr. BISHOP. We often hear claims that OHV is bad for public 

lands. In your 30 years of experience, what have you learned about 

the values of providing for a managed OHV opportunity on forest 

lands? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Managed opportunities can be managed. In fact, 

I have written a book that talks about the guidelines and principles 

44 

for management. And off-highway use can be managed, but it has 

to be managed. 

When we look at most of the problems—and I am being called 

in the field as a consultant a number of times to look at things. 

And usually when I find a problem, it is a management problem, 

to start with. 

Mr. BISHOP. You indicated your support for H.R. 1581, based on 

your years as a former Forest Service employee. What do you think 

happens to BLM, for that matter, to your agency and BLM, if Congress doesn’t pass the legislation? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Once again, we are going to be back in that paralysis-analysis situation. And my experience has shown that the 

Agency generally tries to manage around those kinds of areas. 

They just don’t deal with it, because of too much conflict, and they 

are going to continue that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I will come back, hopefully, again 

before I run out. Since I am the last one here I can go forever, can’t 

I? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Amador, let me ask you something. 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you feel that the BLM has embarked on a campaign to make Hollister Field Office an OHV-free zone? 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. What other opportunities for OHV are there in the 

area? 

Mr. AMADOR. None. In fact, within the entire Hollister Field Office has wiped off OHV symbols from their web site. 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand that the Forest Service in California 

Region V has taken a position which prohibits local forests from 

designating old logging roads for use as OHVs? I think there are 

thousands of miles of dirt roads in rural California that have been 

closed to motorized use. 

Has the region ever given a substantial justification for actually 

doing that? 

Mr. AMADOR. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good answer, all right. Let me give you two more 

quick ones if I can here. I saw in your testimony where the BLM, 

in the Samoa Dunes near Eureka, California, in the Redlands National Park, simply posts warning signs to caution users about lifethreatening conditions. Did you ask Hollister Field Office why he 

didn’t review other options or review such options before closing 

Clear Creek to all users? 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes. On several occasions, I asked the field manager why he did not review other options that would have allowed 

Clear Creek to stay open. And they simply replied by saying I 

chose not to. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is an amazing answer. And I apologize for 

using my Utah accent, calling it crick. 

Mr. AMADOR. That is OK, I do it too. I am from Humboldt County. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, we are cricks. 

Mr. AMADOR. OK. 

45 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I ask you one more? Was the BLM aware, well, 

are you aware of any documented cases of mesothelioma caused by 

recreational exposure to naturally occurring asbestos in California? 

Are there any cases? 

Mr. AMADOR. Not a single case. 

Mr. BISHOP. If there are none, and this is unfair, but give me a 

rough estimate of why do you think they still closed the unit? 

Mr. AMADOR. I believe it was based on a political and personal 

agenda of the Hollister Field Office. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Crimmins, if I can ask you maybe 

another question. I find it interesting that it was your expectation 

as to the wilderness study area’s inventoried roadless areas that 

were deemed not suitable for wilderness designation would be released from management for multiple purpose use. 

Would you say that other land managers at the time felt the 

same way as you did? 

Mr. CRIMMINS. Absolutely. In fact, many of our discussions in the 

field, we were in the position of saying well, do we put it in or do 

we put it out, or do we leave it out. It may meet it, but we actually 

put it in, to make sure that we would go through the analysis process and then get everything done, and release what was left. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Bacon, I can’t let you go that easily. It is like 

from Central Casting. 

What percentage of North Carolina is Federal land? 

Mr. BACON. I don’t know the answer to that specifically. 

Mr. BISHOP. So if I gave you 7 percent, would you believe it? 

Mr. BACON. I would. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, 2500 acres. And do you compare that to my 

state, which is 67 percent Federal land? 

I am an old school teacher, so I am simply going to come back 

to the premise of what you were giving. Do you have any clue on 

why, if you take the 13 states that have the hardest time funding 

their education system, and you put them against a map of public 

land states, they are the same states? North Carolina ain’t in that 

mix. Utah is, Nevada is. Do you have any idea of why that works 

out that way? 

Mr. BACON. I would suspect because of the tax base. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is a big part of it. We have to sit down; I won’t 

go into the recapture concept here. 

Let me ask one last question, Mr. Amador, and then I will answer my own question. Mr. Amador, have you met with any other 

Members from the other side of the aisle to try and get bipartisan 

legislation that you reference in your testimony, to designate Clear 

Creek as multi-use? 

Mr. AMADOR. Yes, I and a number of OHV groups have met with 

Congressman Jim Costa personally and his staff, along with staff 

from Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office, on several occasions, as well 

as their staff attending public meetings. And also other OHV 

groups have met with Congressman Sam Farr. 

Mr. BISHOP. And their response? 

Mr. AMADOR. Congressman Jim Costa has indicated he would be 

willing to work with this Committee to maybe find a solution. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good, we will follow up with him on that. 

Mr. AMADOR. Thank you. 

46 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate all three of you for being here. Just to 

answer my last question, when I said what was Gifford Pinchot 

talking about. 

He made it very clear when he was talking about greatest good 

for the greatest number, and actually having a national forest system, it wasn’t for the scenic beauty, and it wasn’t for the critters, 

as he said it. It was for having affordable homes. We have changed 

slightly over the years. 

I appreciate the three of you being here very much. I appreciate 

the colleagues who have been here for it. Thank you for your testimony. I ask unanimous consent to put two insertions into the 

record—one from the American Motorcyclists Association and one 

from the State of California Natural Resources Agency. 

If there are no other questions, we are adjourned. Thank you so 

much for your time and effort in being here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

The documents listed below were submitted for the record and 

have been retained in the Committee’s official files. 

• Amador, Don, Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Æ Exhibits A–E showing concerns regarding the closure of Clear Creek 

Management Area 

Æ Photo showing Clear Creek Management Area 

Æ Photo showing closure of Clear Creek Management Area 

Æ Photo showing destruction of facilities at Clear Creek Management Area 

Æ Photo showing Samoa Dunes Management Area 

• American Motorcyclist Association, Letter to Subcommittee Chairman and 

Ranking Member 

• Jones, Scott, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, ‘‘Economic Contribution 

of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado’’ 

• Off-highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, Letter to Chairman 

Hastings, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member Grijalva 

• Umphress, Karen, Coalition of Recreational Trails Users and Minnesota 

Motorized Trail Coalition 

Æ Chart highlighting trail designation in Minnesota titled ‘‘Final Route Designation—58 State Forests’’ 

Æ ‘‘Trail Use/Impact Studies’’ of recreation on Minnesota Trails 

Æ Rochester Post Bulletin, August 2006, Article highlighting professional races 

at Spring Creek Track 

Æ University of Minnesota Tourism Center, ‘‘All-Terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: 

Economic impact and consumer profile’’ 

Æ