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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–092 PDF 2006

TAKING ON WATER: THE NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE’S STALLED RULEMAKING EFFORT ON

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–134

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ED SCHROCK, Staff Director

ERIK GLAVICH, Professional Staff Member

BENJAMIN CHANCE, Clerk

KRISTA BOYD, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 15, 2006 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Baughman, Laura, president, the Trade Partnership ................................... 36

Garcia, Fernando, director of public and regulatory affairs, Bombardier

Recreational Products ................................................................................... 24

Hamer, John, owner, Motorsports of Miami .................................................. 69

Schneebeck, Carl, public lands campaign director, Bluewater Network ..... 80

Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director for Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Jerry Case, Regulations Policy Program Manager ................... 16

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Akin, Hon. W. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 11

Baughman, Laura, president, the Trade Partnership, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 39

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 99

Garcia, Fernando, director of public and regulatory affairs, Bombardier

Recreational Products, prepared statement of ........................................... 27

Hamer, John, owner, Motorsports of Miami, prepared statement of ........... 71

Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 3

Schneebeck, Carl, public lands campaign director, Bluewater Network,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 83

Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director for Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, prepared

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

(1)

TAKING ON WATER: THE NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE’S STALLED RULEMAKING EFFORT

ON PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Cannon and Lynch.

Also present: Representative Akin.

Staff present: Ed Schrock, staff director; Erik Glavich and Joe

Santiago, professional staff members; Benjamin Chance, clerk;

Krista Boyd, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant

clerk.

Mrs. MILLER. Call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Appreciate you all coming. I certainly want to welcome everyone

that’s in attendance today to our hearing on the National Park

Service’s rulemaking effort on personal watercraft. Sometimes it

seems that the Government sort of moves along at its own pace.

I think we’ve all noticed that. Many times, certainly, a calculated

approach is warranted, but too often governmental agencies seem

to work at a glacial pace.

The National Park Service has been working on a rulemaking effort to allow personal watercraft such as jet-skis or Sea-Doos,

known by the acronym PWC—and I come from a boating background, I still call them jet-skis or what have you; though I still

call copy machines Xerox machines—for about 6 years, and during

this time many self-imposed deadlines have come and gone, and

I’m concerned that the completion of this effort has not been a priority as it should be, I think, for the Service. The delays have resulted in unwarranted bans of PWCs in national parks, which have

had a detrimental impact on small businesses and individuals that

rely on sales, rentals and services for their livelihood.

In March 2000, the Park Service issued a rule banning personal

watercraft from national parks beginning in 2002. The rule identified 21 parks which may allow PWCs, but only after completing appropriate procedures to ensure that PWC use is appropriate. The

Bluewater Network and its parent company, Earth Island Institute, filed suit against the Interior Department and the Park Service challenging the provision of the rule that allowed 10 of the idenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 May 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27092.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

tified national parks to allow the use of PWCs without having to

go through a special rulemaking with a public comment period and

an environmental assessment as well. As part of a settlement

agreement, the Park Service required all parks to complete a special rulemaking and environmental assessment before allowing

PWCs to be used, and extended the deadline for completing the

rulemaking before PWCs would be banned.

Though people may question the appropriateness of the March

2000 rule or even the settlement agreement which required all

parks to complete a special rulemaking before allowing personal

watercraft, my principal concern is the reasons behind the seemingly constant delays experienced by the Park Service in completing this rulemaking effort. Fifteen of the 21 parks affected by the

Service-wide rule have decided to allow PWCs and have proceeded

with a rulemaking. Though seven were not affected by the settlement agreement, the Park Service not only failed to complete a

rulemaking for any of these parks before their self-imposed deadline, but only one park issued an environmental assessment before

the ban took effect. For the seven parks with extended deadlines,

only one park issued an environmental assessment before the deadline, and no parks issued a proposed rule before PWCs were

banned.

It is imperative that governmental agencies be responsive in enacting appropriate policy, and I’m concerned that the Park Service

has allowed this rulemaking process to languish for too long. All

15 environmental assessments conducted by the Park Service have

found that personal watercraft do not cause harm to the environment to the extent that a ban is warranted. For the 5 parks that

have not issued final rules, an average of nearly 30 months has

passed since an environmental assessment was issued.

The Service needs to make completion of the rulemaking process

a priority for them because their failures have a significant impact

on the public. The Personal Watercraft Industry Association estimates a ban on PWCs by the Park Service has cost the industry

$144 million per year and 3,300 direct or indirect jobs between

2001 and 2004. One of our witnesses Laura Baughman will present

a study discussing the economic impact of the bans that are now

into their 4th year.

The debate surrounding personal watercraft is not about whether

they harm the environment. The issue we’re here to discuss today

is about fairness for those who use PWCs responsibly and about

the Park Service’s failure to finalize the PWC rules.

I want to thank each of the witnesses certainly for agreeing to

be here today, and I trust before this hearing is over the Park

Service will be able to give us a time certain for when the rulemaking process for affected parks will be complete. And with that

I recognize the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee

Mr. Lynch.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]

3

4

5

6

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Chairman Miller. Good morning. I appreciate the members of the panel coming forward to help us work on

this issue.

The mission of the National Park Service is expressly to preserve, unimpair the natural and cultural resources and values of

the National Park System for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future generations. I’m a great fan of former

President Theodore Roosevelt, and I have followed his life’s story

with great interest, and I believe that he was a man with tremendous vision, and the reason that we have such a wonderful National Park System is in large part due to his great work. He had

a wonderful vision and appreciation of the beauty and the integrity

of these areas that we have preserved.

The laws that established the National Park Service are fairly

express in their intent. First of all, they are to conserve the scenery

and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and

to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. It also goes on to say that the Park Service itself

in its mission shall be—the protection, management and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public

value and integrity of the National Park System, and shall not be

exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these

various areas have been established.

So we’re not talking about general shoreline. My district includes

Boston Harbor, and I have a lot of folks that are boaters and jetskiers and enjoy the water very much. We’re talking about a very

specific jurisdiction here; national parks. God knows, there aren’t

enough of them, and we all know how much they are appreciated

more and more by each succeeding generation.

The National Park Service laws and regulations gave the agency

broad authority how to make decisions about how to balance visitor

recreation with the need to preserve each park’s resources. Courts

have consistently held that when there is a conflict between conservation and visitor recreation, conservation is the most important

consideration. It’s in this context that the National Park Service

must make decisions about how to manage visitor activities.

Today we’re looking at one particular activity, the use of jet-skis

or personal watercraft in national parks. Personal watercraft, more

popularly known as jet-skis, are marketed as so-called thrillcraft.

One current advertisement touts the jet-ski’s ability to allow aggressive turning and high-speed stability. Another advertisement

promotes the fun and adventure and independence when it meets

the power, performance and style of the jet-ski.

This hearing is not about whether America should or shouldn’t

buy or use personal watercraft. I think wonderful technology and

in the right place, it is a lot of fun, and I see a lot of people in my

district enjoying that. This hearing is not about whether people

should partake in that activity, which is fine and should be encouraged, but whether the use of these watercraft can be reconciled

with the need to conserve the precious resources of each national

park.

The National Park Service has found that there are unique concerns related to the personal watercraft, and that those concerns

7

should be considered in evaluating whether and how they should

be allowed in certain parks. Personal watercraft are designed for

speed and maneuverability to perform stunts. One of the concerns

associated with personal watercraft is the noise associated with

their use, in part because they’re often operating very close to the

shore.

Additionally, personal watercraft have a shallow draft, and I

know we’ve had studies along the Cape Cod seashore that have indicated that there’s been some damage because these jet-skis can

go where other watercraft cannot, and they’re able to access areas

including those close to the shoreline, which can affect vegetation

and wildlife.

Personal watercraft emit air and water pollution, which can have

an impact on air and water quality. A conventional engine can discharge between 1 and 3 gallons of fuel during 1 hour of use at full

throttle. I understand the industry is working on improving that

technology, and that there are cleaner, better technology engines

that are becoming available; however, there are still many, many

vehicles with the conventional engines still in use.

An important issue related to personal watercraft, no matter

where they are, is safety, and the U.S. Coast Guard reports that

personal watercraft accounted for about 25 percent of boat accidents in 2004, with more than one-third involving riders age 19 or

younger. So the safety issue has to be met within the National

Park Service if this activity will go forward. We need to put the

funding in to make sure that safe handling of these vessels can be

managed and that people who may have these accidents which are

shown to occur can be rescued, can be protected.

The National Park Service is still in the rulemaking process for

five parks where personal watercraft is being used or actually is

being considered. Though these rulemakings may have taken

longer than anticipated, this is not an easy process. For one thing,

the National Park Service is facing enormous resource constraints.

There’s only one full-time staff person right now handling all of the

National Park Service regulation, including personal watercraft

regulation.

For each park where the National Park Service determines that

personal watercraft may be allowed, it’s important that the agency

carefully and thoroughly analyze how personal watercraft will impact the park, including the potential impact on plants, wildlife,

water and air quality and other visitors.

Even if a determination is made that personal watercraft use is

appropriate, the park must also determine how to manage that use

in order to best preserve the park’s resources and provide for the

safety of those individuals using the watercraft. The National Park

Service must balance that interest of visitors wishing to ride personal watercraft within the agency’s mission to preserve the resources of each park for generations to come.

I appreciate all the witnesses taking their time to help the committee on their work here today and to share their thoughts on this

issue, and I look forward to the testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.

8

I would now like to recognize Mr. Cannon for an opening statement.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Chairman Miller. I appreciate this

hearing, it’s very important to me. I appreciate your indulgence. I

have two markups going on, and I wanted to apologize, too, for not

being able to indulge in our witnesses because the issue is important.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the rulemaking process

at the National Park Service governing personal watercraft use. It’s

difficult to examine the rulemaking process where there doesn’t actually seem to be a process. The Park Service has issued rulings

regarding which parks allow use of PWCs and which can’t. The

NPS has complicated matters by delaying completion of this process in a variety of ways for almost 6 years, thereby making this

process completely unclear.

As an aside, I chair the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial

and Administrative Law, and we’re doing a review of the Administrative Procedure Act, and this is going to be one of those issues

we take a look at.

This lack of clarity has left many national parks in a state of

limbo, unsure whether they will be allowed to grant access to

PWCs, and the bureaucratic nature of the NPS has resulted in the

loss of revenue for a major industry, the loss of numerous jobs, and

the subsequent loss of revenue for our economy as a whole. The

PWC Industry Association estimates that the bans by NPS cost the

industry about $144 million a year directly. That does not include

all the people that are supported by and employed in the business

of renting and maintaining and the tourism that comes from this.

The PWIA estimates that the National Park Service bans will cost

about 3,300 direct and indirect jobs in 2000 and 2001.

We are not here to talk about the environmental impact of PWCs

to date. That issue has been determined and environmental studies

conducted in each park that PWCs would be allowed. In fact, it has

been a average of nearly 30 months since the environmental assessments for each of the parks was released.

The issue of this hearing, and my concern, is the government

could be such a destructive force to business just by delay. The

PWC industry has played by the rules and waited patiently for

NPS to complete the rulemaking procedures, yet NPS has continuously shirked its responsibility. The NPS needs to be accountable

for the slowness and the gross negligence of this process. NPS must

answer why there’s never been a scientific study conducted to support the legitimacy of the systemwide PWC bans that exist today

in the national parks. The NPS must respond to the numerous requests by Members of Congress to reconsider NPS bans that have

been never subject to an environmental assessment, and explain

why it’s created a rulemaking process that condemns an industry

by making the default policy an immediate ban on their products.

By the way, for those who haven’t used PWCs, you’re invited to

come to the most beautiful place on the face of the Earth, which

used to be in my district, but not now, but Lake Powell. It is a

place where it is directly affected by this. Nobody wants to damage

the environment, but ski jets are a lot of fun, and it’s a great industry.

9

In its enabling statute, Congress instructed the NPS to conserve

the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife

therein, and to provide for the enjoyment in such manner and by

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. I won’t sit here and deliberate whether NPS

achieves the mission; however, I would think it wise for the decisionmakers in this particular situation to let this committee know

whether the issue of delaying PWC fits within its mission. As it

stands, preservation doesn’t appear to be the driving force behind

the rulemaking process.

I look forward to your testimony and with that yield back the

balance of my time, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

You are certainly excused whenever. We appreciate your attendance here for your opening statement. And it is widely acknowledged that Lake Powell is a beautiful place on the planet, of course

surpassed a bit by Lake St. Clair in Michigan.

Mr. CANNON. The stark beauty of the bright red sandstone and

the bright blue water, and the clear, cloudless sky unimpaired by

all those trees that hide your landscape.

Mrs. MILLER. All our water is fresh. However, I will say this:

There is a lot of interest—before we get to the witnesses, there obviously is a lot of interest amongst the Congress. This is not a partisan issue, and many people are very parochial about their parts

of the Nation that we all represent, and this is a very hotly debated

issue, as you might imagine. And, in fact, before we get to the witnesses, let me also state for the record that both Chairman Pombo,

who is the Chairperson of the House Resources Committee, and

Representative Steve Pearce, who is the chairman of the resources

Subcommittee on National Parks, both wanted to be here for the

hearing, but they were unable to come because of their schedules.

However, Chairman Pearce had actually held a hearing on this

topic in May 2005. Both of them obviously have a strong interest

in seeing the Park Service complete the rulemaking effort. They

have a written statement, and, without objection, both of them will

be submitted to the record.

And we are joined by Mr. Akin. I recognize Mr. Akin for an opening statement as well.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, for holding this

important hearing today, and I’m not actually a member of the

Government Reform Committee, but I am the chairman of the regulatory oversight, Committee on Small Business. So we have a

shared interest in your hearing today, and I wanted to congratulate

you on taking up a topic that I think is very important.

I’m deeply concerned by what appears to me to be a continued

delay in the Park Service in working through this issue over a period of a number of years, which appears to have lost many jobs

over the last 9 years and has had a considerable impact on small

business, particularly in the area of the watercraft that are near

these different various parks that are affected.

I don’t know that I need to probably reiterate what I think,

Chairwoman, that you probably made clear in this committee, the

fact that small businesses are a very, very large part of jobs in

America and a very significant part of our economy overall. And I

10

just think we have to get past the foot-dragging state, and I understand it’s a controversial issue, but have to come to our conclusions.

I did have questions and things, but I have two other committees

I’m supposed to be at as well, so thank you very much for letting

me join you and weighing in to say let’s get off the nickel, and let’s

get moving on this project. Thank you.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attendance.

[The prepared statement of Hon. W. Todd Akin follows:]

11

12

13

Mrs. MILLER. It’s the committee’s process to ask all the witnesses

to be sworn in before you do testify, so if you could all rise and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. MILLER. We appreciate that.

With the indulgence, what I would like to do is recognize Mr.

Cannon for several questions. I know he has a markup and needs

to leave. So before we actually have our testimony from the witnesses, Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. That is very kind of you. I deeply appreciate it. I

would look forward to the witness testimony and wish them the

best.

If you don’t mind, I just have a few questions for you, Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Given the amount of time that’s elapsed since the file

rule was established and the grace period has expired, wouldn’t it

be reasonable to open the remaining parks so another boating season isn’t missed?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Good morning. Can you hear me? Thank

you. Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director for Visitor and Resource Protection.

Your question I understand to be can we open——

Mr. CANNON. Quickly so we don’t miss a season.

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We’re not considering that option at this

point. We are not considering that option.

Mr. CANNON. Are you saying that the timing of the coming boating season is not being considered by the Park Service?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We are in the process of our rulemaking

we anticipate, which I’ll cover in my testimony as well and give you

an update on where we are with each of the parks. We need to

have everything in place by this summer.

Mr. CANNON. By this summer, what month does that mean in

particular?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. I can cite specific examples. We’re looking at in one case for Big Thicket National Preserve the summer

of 2007.

Mr. CANNON. So are we talking about June or the end of August?

Mrs. MILLER. Could you move your mic a little closer? I’m not

sure if it’s working.

Ms. GOODRICH-TAYLOR. I would also like to ask—I’m not sure

you can hear me.

If permissible, I have our regulations program sheet with me

that can provide detailed information.

Mr. CANNON. Are you looking at trying to get this implemented;

so have you considered it in the past? Rulemaking has its own

timeframes. Have you considered doing this in a way that would

optimize this summer season? We don’t use PWCs when it’s cold.

So is that part of the thinking, and if so, are we working at the

beginning of the summer or calling it summer when it’s really August 31st?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Depending on the park and where they

are in the rulemaking process, the earliest would probably be June.

But we are responsible and obligated to follow the 2000 rule and

settlement agreement where we have to follow through with all

parts of the rulemaking process before we allow opening that.

14

Mr. CANNON. Members of Congress have requested the NPS reconsider the ban by starting the process of an environmental assessment. It is my understanding that NPS ignored these requests.

Can you tell me why these were ignored, and what’s going to happen with the new Biscayne National Park petition?

Mrs. MILLER. Could I ask, Mr. Garcia, perhaps you can pass that

microphone over to her. For some reason our wonderful technology

has failed.

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Is that better?

Your question is what is the status of Biscayne National Park.

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. The petition we have received, we are in

the process of responding, preparing a response to that petition.

Mr. CANNON. Do you know the timeframe for responding to that

petition?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We should have it to the industry within

about a week and a half, 2 weeks. It’s already in process and needs

to be reviewed by final legislative affairs and then our Director to

sign.

Mr. CANNON. Since the NPS began to examine the environmental

impacts, PWCs—numerous environmentally friendly models have

been created. What steps have you taken to include this in your

rulemaking process?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Each area that we are going through

rulemaking is required to do an environmental impact. It’s an environmental analysis [EA], pursuant to the policy acts, and that’s

where we look at alternatives in considering new technologies.

Mr. CANNON. Have you done that with the new motors, the new

versions of PWCs?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. I’d have to ask our program manager

specifics on that.

Mr. CANNON. Would you make sure that you do that?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Absolutely.

Mr. CANNON. How can NPS continue to support a complete PWC

prohibition in the absence of any relevant studies?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We are managing our parks pursuant to

what our organic legislation allows us to. We have determined

through the 2000 rule that there are 21 parks that could be considered for PWC use. We still feel very comfortable with that decision.

Each park is unique in itself, and we can’t have a one-size-fits-all,

open policy. The determination was made for appropriateness in

those 21 parks, so each environmental analysis would account for

localized conditions, and a complete ban is really pursuant to our

legislation in those individual parks.

We have 390 units in the National Park System, 21 of which

were determined to be suitable because they allow in their legislation motorized motorboat use. And we consider PWCs in the same

category, in essence, as motorboats. That’s how they were determined.

Mr. CANNON. Embedded in your answer is motorboats can be

used in these areas, but PWCs can’t until you make a ruling. Why

is that?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. They’re considered a motorized vessel.

They are a different kind vessel because they have a shallower

15

draft, and they get into areas that are certainly more shallow, but

ecologically sensitive.

Mr. CANNON. Why is the presumption they can’t be there until

sometime, somewhere, somehow NPS acts?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. National Park Service Organic Act allows

for the National Park System to err on the side of conservation.

Mr. Lynch read the statement from our mission where we are responsible certainly for the enjoyment, for visitor enjoyment, but our

primary purpose is for conservation of natural and cultural resources. There are certain areas, and we can provide more detailed

answers, if you would like.

Mr. CANNON. Why is the presumption that you can’t use PWCs,

and then you have this almost infinite—at least in the life cycle of

business products, 6 years is an incredible amount of time that the

NPS has not done anything. The delay has injured business, hurt

business, I think hurt the parks, not allowed people to enjoy them

the way they can. While you can speed around and make very

sharp turns, as Mr. Lynch mentioned, and have a lot of fun with

these things, they take you into these areas and allow for enjoyment.

Why is there a presumption? I haven’t heard what the context

is for a presumption they shouldn’t be allowed. You can distinguish

them from boats, but why do you do so?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Back in the 1980’s and then on into the

1990’s when they became much more popular in national parks,

the technology at that time was much rougher, as well as a little

noisier, more cumbersome.

Mr. CANNON. Did you make findings that those older models

would damage the environment, or did somebody say, we don’t like

these, people are enjoying them too much, let’s use our authority

as an agency to prevent the activity until we figure out how to do

it better. Was there a finding or just a conclusion by the system?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Our rulemaking in 2002 identified those

areas where it would be appropriate to allow PWCs by virtue of the

kind of parks that they were. The National Park Service, as part

of our mission we have the responsibility to look at various types

of use, and since PWCs are one type of use, since we have over 273

million visitors to the National Park System, we have to consider

the visitor experience for all visitors, and the 2000 rule identified

those areas where it would be appropriate, no matter what the

technology would be, even though we are looking, to answer your

question, and we take into those accounts those technologies at the

areas where it’s appropriate.

But it’s our responsibility as the National Park Service to determine—we start from a point of nonmotorized use except where motorized boats are allowed in specific legislation as a baseline for the

National Park Service. We work our way up on appropriate levels

of motorized use after that. The 2000 rule is what allowed us to

have those 21 parks to be considered for PWC use.

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, I notice my time has expired.

I can understand why the industry is so frustrated, and yield back.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much. Again, we appreciate your

attendance, Mr. Cannon, as we’ve gone a bit out of order here.

16

But let me introduce our first witness who’s already done some

testifying here this morning, Karen Taylor-Goodrich. She’s the Associate Director for Visitor and Resource Protection at the National

Park Service. She has served as a Deputy Associate Director for

Park Operations and Education, also held a wide range of positions

within the Park Service that includes natural and cultural resource

management, back country wilderness management, and visitor

services as well.

She’s even served as a ranger with the National Parks and Wildlife Service at a national park in New South Wales, Australia. She

earned her Bachelor’s of Science degree in geography from Portland

State University in Oregon and has done graduate work in natural

resources through the Park Service Natural Resources Management Trainee Program.

We welcome you here this morning. The floor is yours. You already had a bit of the flavor of these boxes that you have in front

of you with the light system that we use, so we ask you to try to

keep your testimony to not much longer than 5 minutes, if you

could. Although, we’ll let you go a little over if you need to. The

yellow light is a 1-minute caution and the red is a 5.

STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR VISITOR AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY CASE, REGULATIONS POLICY PROGRAM MANAGER

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Thank you very much. And good morning

again, Ms. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. We do appreciate you holding this oversight hearing to take a look at PWC and

the National Park System. I’ll read from my testimony. I won’t

cover every point, but I’d like to refer to it.

Providing for the enjoyment of the national parks’ resources and

values is the fundamental part of what we do in the National Park

Service. That’s for all units, all 390 units, of the National Park System. The desire to provide access to park resources is the reason

we have roads, accommodations, other recreational facilities in our

national park units. It’s also the reason that we continuously seek

ways to provide appropriate recreation opportunities and to improve the experience for all of our 273 million-plus visitors.

Among the types of recreational uses currently permitted in national parks, PWCs became popular in the 1980’s, throughout the

1990’s and currently. Since that time, watercraft use has occurred

at some level in approximately 32 of the 87 areas of the National

Park System that allow motorized boating. We have grouped personal watercraft among other motorized vessels. Historically, PWC

use within the unit was allowed with special regulations published

within a Superintendent’s Compendium, when it allowed for use by

other vessels. In the late 1990’s, 87 park units allowed motorized

boating, including PWCs.

One of the questions Representative Cannon had was why do we

have a ban, a universal ban? We start from that point pursuant to

the Organic Act, but given the wide variety of our units, the appropriateness of a given recreational activity will vary from park to

park. An appropriate use is based first on the mandated purpose

17

established by the park’s enabling legislation as well as a sensitivity to the resources, values and visitor access. And due to these differences, our management policies recognize that an activity that

is appropriate when conducted may be inappropriate conducted in

another type of park.

As you mentioned earlier, Ms. Chairman, in 1998, the Bluewater

Network filed a petition urging the NPS to initiate rulemaking to

prohibit personal watercraft throughout the National Park System.

In response to the petition, we conducted an analysis of the original

87 sites, examining enabling legislation, resource sensitivity, values, and visitor access; and then in March 2000, we published a

final regulation identifying 21 units of the National Park Service

that could continue PWC use.

The final rule gave park managers until September 2002 to determine whether to pursue a new rulemaking procedure to continue PWC use in the 21 units. In August 2000, we negotiated a

settlement agreement with the Bluewater Network and its parent

organization, as you mentioned, the Earth Island Institute. This

was in response to a lawsuit from those organizations that challenged our decision to allow personal watercraft in those 21 units.

The settlement agreement was very specific. It specified that no

PWC use within the National Park System after September 15,

2002, could be pursued without a comprehensive environmental

analysis and a rule allowing the use in that unit. The environmental analysis pursuant to that settlement must include impacts

on water quality, air quality, sound, wildlife, shoreline, vegetation,

visitor conflict and visitor safety.

Of the 21 units originally considered in the rule for continued

PWC use, 5 units made administrative determinations to not allow

PWCs. This determination was based on the unit’s legislative history, regulatory authorities, and the required environmental analysis factors. Each determination was made with public participation,

including public meetings and participation by advisory commissions and State and local governments.

Ten of the 15 remaining parks have completed the rulemaking

process and are open to PWC use. The remaining five are in the

process of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act

and promulgating regulations pursuant to our settlement agreement.

Gulf Islands National Seashore is currently under final signature

review and should be published in the Federal Register very shortly. The final rule for Cape Lookout should be published before the

summer season. Final rules for Gateway and Curecanti should be

published in midsummer of 2006. Big Thicket’s finishing their

NEPA work right now, and will promulgate rulemaking shortly.

Since 2000, we have devoted substantial resources to the study

of appropriate methods of managing personal watercraft in units in

the National Park System. The laws and policies applicable to the

management of the National Park System afford us as the National

Park Service broad discretion and mandate no single method for

satisfying our responsibility to protect park resources. We can use

a variety of administrative tools, including: visitor education, increased enforcement, regulatory measures, including seasonal cloVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 May 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27092.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
18

sures and flat wake zones; and use limits, including numerical

caps, to manage these personal watercraft use areas.

For example, Lake Mead National Recreation Area established a

lake carrying capacity, implemented management zoning to separate recreational activities, and is incorporating a phase-in of cleaner engine technologies. Glen Canyon Recreation Area, that’s Lake

Powell that Mr. Cannon referred to, PWCs continue to be very popular, with increased use of PWCs up about 12 percent since 2001.

In those areas where PWC use is allowed, the parks will rely

heavily on our partners in the gateway communities to educate

visitors and encourage responsible and safe use of our PWCs. We

also rely on industry to develop new technologies that may help

parks balance visitor use and resource conservation.

In conclusion, we’re dedicated to improving recreation opportunities for all park visitors, and we also provide opportunities to the

public, including PWC users where appropriate, to increase recreational opportunities.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak before you. I

mentioned earlier that I have our regulations policy program manager Jerry Case here to be available for questions as appropriate.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor-Goodrich follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Fernando

Garcia, director of public and regulatory affairs, with Bombardier

Recreational Products, with U.S. operations based in Wisconsin. In

1986, he became a marine engineering manager with Yamaha

Motor Corp. USA, charged with product planning and validation

for the company’s outboard and stern drive engines and recreational fishing boats. In 1995, he joined Bombardier where his

responsibilities include public affairs and regulatory compliance of

all product lines on a domestic and international scope. We welcome to you the hearing.

STATEMENT OF FERNANDO GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL

PRODUCTS

Mr. GARCIA. Good morning, Chairwoman Miller, distinguished

members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to represent the personal watercraft industry and Bombardier Recreational Products [BRP]. Again, my name is Fernando Garcia. I

am chairman of the board of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association and director of regulatory and public affairs of BRP.

I’m here to address this subcommittee on a very important issue,

the National Park Service’s ban of personal watercraft. In order to

illustrate the nature and the consequential economic damage of the

PWC bans, I feel I must take a moment to update you on the state

of the personal watercraft market today.

In the mid-1990’s, nearly 200,000 personal watercrafts were sold

annually in the United States, and in 2005, it is estimated that

only some 80,000 units were sold. There is no doubt in my mind,

and I’m 100 percent certain, that the bans implemented at the National Park Service level are primarily to blame for this substantial

decline.

Early generation personal watercrafts were mostly stand-up, single-type vessels, as we have displayed on our boards. Critics of the

vessels still attempt to portray this outdated image of the product

as current reality. The truth is that personal watercrafts have

evolved. They are sit-down models, mostly equipped with cleanrunning engines like the one in your automobile; family oriented

vessels, as they accommodate up to three persons. They account for

99 percent of the PWC market.

In the 1990’s, PWCs were criticized over their sound level and

concerns with air and water emissions. The industry responded by

investing over $1 million in the last 10 years in new technologies.

Today’s PWCs are among the cleanest, quietest boats on the water,

and indeed they are boats.

Industrywide, any new PWC model uses cleaner-running fourstroke or newer two-stroke engine technologies that have reduced

emissions by at least 75 percent, and in many cases much more,

well ahead of the enforcement schedules. New models are also 70

percent quieter than those produced before 1998.

More importantly, the National Park Service’s own environmental assessments have confirmed time and time again that PWC

use will neither impair nor significantly impact the environment or

human health. Fifteen parks, not 1, not 2, but 15, have taken the

time to evaluate PWCs, and the National Park Service has decided

25

that PWC use is appropriate, will not impair park resources, and

should resume.

Unfortunately, critics of PWCs continue to use inaccurate and

outdated information to justify PWCs owners from operating their

craft in areas where other forms of motorized motorboating are allowed. Such an example is what we heard earlier this morning of

fuel spillage. This is a claim that is a very case-specific, very worstcase scenario that is not representative of PWCs back in that era

and this era. There are other motorized marine engines that have

characteristics similar to this that are in continued use.

The regulatory backlog and lack of response from the National

Park Service with regards to reopening parks to personal

watercraft use has been frustrating for my entire industry. In

March 2000, the NPS banned PWCs systemwide, but allowed some

PWC use to continue for a 2-year grace period in 21 units where

other motorized boating was prevalent. The 21 units were to evaluate PWCs during this 2-year period, and, if appropriate, reauthorize continued PWC use after a grace period expired.

Due to a lawsuit brought by an environmental extremist group,

the rule was effectively amended to require each of the 21 units to

conduct a full NEPA analysis and complete a special rulemaking

before reauthorizing PWC use. Not a single park has complied

within the grace period. As a result, PWC users were effectively

banned throughout the park system.

To date, only 10 units have completed the rulemaking process,

while 5 other units have unexpectedly stalled in the rulemaking

process, with no sign of progress for yet another boating season.

We estimate that these delays have caused my industry to suffer a $2 billion loss based on unfounded allegations. Countless family

run businesses, suppliers and others are no longer in operation because of these bans. In 2004, even Polaris Industry, a major U.S.

manufacturer, ceased manufacturing personal watercraft.

We’re asking this committee to no longer accept these allegations

and rest on the findings of these 15 consecutive scientific studies

to reopen the stalled parks immediately. The grace period expired

in 2002; 4 years later the National Park Service still fails to commit to a near-term, hard deadline to complete the rulemakings.

BRP is one of the largest investors in the boating market and

employs more than 1,400 people in the United States and 6,200

worldwide, with manufacturing and product development and distribution operations in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Illinois and

Florida. While I take great pride that BRP is the market leader,

this market is not what it should be given the investment our entire industry has made to make today’s personal watercraft both

environmentally and family friendly.

This decline in sales caused by the NPS bans forced us to close

our headquarters of Sea-Doo activities in Melbourne, FL. Due to

the decline in demand, we consolidated our teams. Nearly the entire Melbourne staff was released. My colleagues and friends were

without their jobs.

In closing, our industry is seeking your assistance in this matter.

We have repeatedly made the case to the National Park Service

that they must streamline its regulatory process in light of their

own scientific findings. Studies have shown that PWCs cause no

26

unique environmental harm, but still the rulemaking for the remaining six parks languish, and as long as the National Park Service bans PWCs, I fear other local lakes and seashores across the

country will follow suit.

I have asked for your help to ensure the National Park Service

quickly expedites the rulemakings. Each boating season that goes

by with these bans still in effect has an estimated cost to the U.S.

economy that exceeds $500 million a year. We recommend that all

remaining rules be issued no later than April of this year, as we

asked last May 2005, so that consumers have time to purchase

their personal watercraft for this boating season. I thank you for

your time and concern.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Mrs. MILLER. Our next witness is Laura Baughman. She’s the

president of the Trade Partnership, a trade and economic consulting firm. Ms. Baughman has been an economist since 1977, and

she follows closely the impacts, both prospective and actual, on

policies and programs on the U.S. economy and the trade flows of

U.S. trading partners. The Partnership also follows the U.S. trade

policy formulation process, assisting clients and providing input to

that process.

We certainly appreciate your attendance here today at the hearing and look forward to your testimony now.

STATEMENT OF LAURA BAUGHMAN, PRESIDENT, THE TRADE

PARTNERSHIP

Ms. BAUGHMAN. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Laura Baughman, and I am president of

the Trade Partnership, an economic consulting firm based here in

Washington, DC, that specializes in assessing the economic effects

of U.S. policies and regulations. I am pleased to appear before you

today to summarize the results of some research that we completed

recently regarding the economic effects of the National Park Service bans on the use of personal watercraft in selected U.S. park

areas.

As you know, the use of PWC has been adversely affected by consideration and implementation of bans on their use in U.S. national

parks. The negative impacts of the bans and the publicity associated with the bans has resulted in lost sales since 1995, as shown

on that chart over there. I’ll refer to this version here because it’s

closer. But from here to here you can see the decline in sales.

Lost sales in turn have adversely impacted U.S. producers and

distributors of PWCs, suppliers, retailers and other businesses that

service PWC, and their users. The decline in sales volume grew annually from 1996 to 2001 and stabilized at about 80,000 units per

year since then, down from 200,000 units in the early 1990’s. Sales

volumes in the 2002 to 2004 period are just 40 percent of what

they were in 1995 prior to the adverse publicity about the potential

for bans.

Our research examined the national impacts of the PWC bans on

output and unemployment over the 1995 to 2004 period. It measured the impacts on both up and downstream industries throughout the U.S. economy. These impacts are negative and significant.

But before I detail our national findings, I think it’s important

for you to know the National Park Service itself is now quantifying

significant adverse impacts of the bans on the local economy surrounding park areas. When it first published its rule in 1998, the

NPS stated that, ‘‘it expects little, if any, economic impacts on PWC

users or the PWC industry on a regional or national basis.’’

It based this assertion on several premises that did not turn out

to be true: that a grace period during which PWC use could continue would mitigate negative impacts, and an assumption that alternative sites exist for PWC use. Subsequent economic analyses

commissioned by the NPS from an independent contractor team

using a technique known as input-output analysis contradicted

these expectations, finding significant potential negative impacts

37

on regions located adjacent to the parks contemplating bans, and

even negative actual impacts on those regions associated with the

potential for bans.

The total annual downstream cost for the 10 parks studied so far

exceeds $86 million a year. The NPS studies found that the bans

impacted local economies in three ways. First, families that might

have wanted to buy a new PWC to use at a local park would no

longer do so. In most instances, the local retailers reported to NPS

that a ban would cause their sales of PWCs to fall by as much as

100 percent. In addition, just the publicity about possible bans

caused a reduction in sales of PWC.

Second, NPS interviews found that in many instances rental income from PWC dropped by 100 percent as well.

Third, spending associated with PWC use would decline, including spending on hotels, restaurants and grocery stores, fuel and

other PWC maintenance expenses, park admission and camping

fees, and related State and local taxes.

Eighty-six million a year may seem like a lot, but is actually not

the full picture, because the NPS-commissioned assessments only

estimate, as I said, the downstream impacts of the ban, ignoring

the upstream impacts on PWC manufacturers and their raw material suppliers.

In addition, the bans have had a negative impact beyond the

economies nearest the parks, an impact not measured by the NPS

studies. Thus, as large as the NPS estimates are, they understate

the true impacts of the bans on the U.S. economy.

The purpose of our researching, using the same input-output

methodology, was to look at the full picture, to estimate the up as

well as the downstream impacts of the bans on the United States

as a whole, not just on the economy surrounding the affected parks.

Our findings can briefly be summarized as follows. Direct cost to

the PWC industry of continued uncertainty associated with the

bans and the existing bans themselves is estimated to total about

$1.3 billion over the last 9 years. That’s this area here. This cost

affects hundreds of other sectors of the U.S. economy, bringing the

total hit to the American economy of PWC bans and the negative

publicity around them to $2.7 billion over the last 9 years. That includes sectors such as Mr. Hamer’s.

The estimated total cost to the U.S. economy of the bans and the

negative publicity around them will continue at a pace of more

than $567 million a year as long as the bans continue. The employment cost of the bans and the negative publicity around them has

grown and today averages about 3,300 direct and indirect jobs lost

across the United States. This job cost will also continue as long

as the bans persist.

Our results derive from conservative assumptions and factor out

possible alternative reasons for declines in sales during the period.

Our analysis is consistent with the studies conducted by the National Park Service, but is more comprehensive, and thus provides

you with a fuller estimate of the economic effects of the bans and

of continued hesitation by parks to publish final rules on PWC use.

38

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present the results of this

research to you today. I would, of course, be pleased to answer any

questions you have about it. Thank you.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baughman follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mrs. MILLER. Next we’re going to hear from John Hamer. Mr.

Hamer is currently a managing partner of Motorsports Investment

Group, which owns five dealerships in Florida. He and his partners

owned the predecessor Motorsports of Miami from 1973 to 1999, at

which time they sold that company. And he continued to work as

the company’s vice president and chief operating officer until he

and his partner repurchased Motorsports of Miami and four other

dealerships in 2003. He’s worked in the motorsports industry for

over 32 years, so should have some very interesting testimony

about this particular subject.

And we welcome you Mr. Hamer, and the floor is yours, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HAMER, OWNER, MOTORSPORTS OF

MIAMI

Mr. HAMER. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify

before this subcommittee. My name is John Hamer, and I own and

operate Motorsports of Miami along with my partner, a dealership

that sells and services personal watercraft, sportboats, motorcycles

and off-road vehicles. My dealership is located in the area of Miami

known as Cutler Ridge, which is between the heart of the city of

Miami and Homestead. It is also the closest personal watercraft

dealership to Biscayne National Park.

I have seen firsthand all the ebbs and flows of the personal

watercraft popularity due to the ban of PWCs at Biscayne National

Park which went into effect in 2000. I can personally attest to the

fact that my business suffered greatly due to the ban.

I have been in the motorsports industry since 1973, and in 1981

my partners and I relocated our dealership to South Dade and got

into the personal watercraft business, and they increasingly became an important part of that business. Of all the products we

sold, personal watercraft sales skyrocketed in the early 1990’s. At

one point we were selling 800 personal watercraft per year. Our

sales were so high that we hired personnel dedicated solely to PWC

sales and service, in addition to opening a new showroom for that

purpose.

The market for personal watercraft was growing as well. All

types of consumers became interested, especially families for whom

personal watercraft is the only boat they can afford, yet it is

banned in places where more expensive boats can operate. In the

late 1990’s, when news began to spread about the possibility of

banning personal watercraft use at Biscayne National Park, our

customer base declined markedly. You might think that being in

Miami there are plenty of other places to boat; if not Biscayne,

then someplace else. This isn’t the case. My customers have no

other choice but to trailer boats from south Miami to Key Largo or

somewhere else. In many cases that can take over an hour.

Even before the personal watercraft ban went into effect in 2000,

the rumors around the potential ban precipitated a decline in PWC

sales at my shop. Sales slipped from an average of 800 vessels per

year to 200 per year in the late 1990’s, and by 2002 sales leveled

off at 25 percent of the previous sales. To be more specific, we sold

just 201 personal watercrafts in 2005.

Since my shop is located directly next to the park where personal

watercraft are banned, we felt a more dramatic hit than other dealVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 May 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27092.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
70

ers. As Ms. Baughman pointed out, the average decline in sales

due to the ban was 60 percent, while my shop suffered a 75 percent

decline. This sharp decline in sales forced Motorsports of Miami to

downsize. The showroom was closed, repairmen were laid off, and

our business shrunk. I watched the business nearly shatter.

To really appreciate the absurdity of the Biscayne ban, you must

see it for yourself. There are no physical boundaries that wall off

the waters of Biscayne National Park from those of the Atlantic

Ocean. So imagine you are a personal watercraft rider; you have

to ride 8 miles or more out into the water where the waves become

larger, and the ride becomes more dangerous. Furthermore, there

is no sign that tells you when you have passed the boundaries of

the park. You don’t know when it’s allowable for you to return closer to shore. In the meantime, all other types of boats, fishing,

pleasure, are cruising the waters of Biscayne National Park.

As I look back, the most frustrating part of this whole situation

is the authorities at Biscayne National Park have never even conducted an environmental assessment to investigate whether this

ban is warranted or not. A letter came down from the National

Park Service headquarters here in Washington, DC, alleging personal watercraft were bad for the environment, and, therefore, the

park could ban them. As you know now, these allegations have

been proven untrue in 15 consecutive instances where they conducted an environmental assessment since the year 2002.

Two petitions have been filed requesting that the same scientific

study be conducted at Biscayne National Park, but we have been

denied. So here we are today. We hope you can resolve this matter

quickly. You have the oversight authority that I do not. I would

like to know from the National Park Service why it is taking so

long for our voices to be heard. At the very least, I deserve an explanation of what could be so important that my business and livelihood must suffer.

Enough is enough. This ruling was issued 6 years ago. Until now,

we’ve been largely ignored, and the layers of red tape at the Park

Service pile higher and higher. I implore you to demand an environmental assessment and rulemaking begin immediately at Biscayne National Park. Otherwise, the National Park Service will

simply tell us that Biscayne National Park wasn’t part of their

original plan, so we should just go away and be ignored.

Thank you for calling this hearing and investigating this matter.

Please use your leadership and oversight to put an end to the rulemaking delays that have caused great hardship for small businesses and boaters. Thank you very much.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamer.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamer follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Mrs. MILLER. Our final witness this morning is Carl Schneebeck.

He’s a public lands campaign director for Bluewater Network, a position he’s held since 2003. Before this, he managed a number of

public land campaigns for the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance

in Jackson, WY; he served as a ranger naturalist at the Grand

Teton National Park for 4 years, taught national history at the

Teton Science School, and completed an internship at Muir Woods

National Monument in California.

A lifelong outdoor enthusiast, obviously, so we certainly appreciate your attendance at the hearing today and look forward to

your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CARL SCHNEEBECK, PUBLIC LANDS

CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, BLUEWATER NETWORK

Mr. SCHNEEBECK. Good morning. Thank you for having me here

today. My name is Carl Schneebeck, and I am the public lands

campaign director for Bluewater Network, a division of Friends of

the Earth. I’m also testifying this morning on behalf of the Wilderness Society and the National Parks Conservation Association.

I have had the privilege of serving as a National Park Service

ranger in Grand Teton National Park, and I would contend that’s

the most beautiful place in the world.

When Congress created the National Park Service in 1916 with

the Organic Act, it gave the agency a clear mission that’s been

mentioned this morning, to conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the

enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

National Park Service professionals are entrusted with making

decisions that uphold the agency mandate by determining the

health and future of individual park units and the system as a

whole, including the type of experience that will ensure the safety

and protection of visitors; natural resources, including wildlife; and

other park professionals. It was in keeping with this mandate that

the National Park Service began prohibiting personal watercraft in

individual parks in the late 1990’s and finalized a systemwide rule

in 2000.

The economic analysis conducted by the Trade Partnership is

premised on the tenuous assumption that the primary reason for

the declining sales has been the bans on personal watercraft use

in most of the U.S. National Parks. To suggest that National Park

bans are the primary factor is inconsistent with reasons that the

industry has publicly cited as responsible for sales declines, fails to

acknowledge negative press about safety and noise issues, and provides no concrete evidence to substantiate this claim. Rather, by a

process of elimination, the study concludes that personal watercraft

bans in the National Parks are the most plausible explanation. An

article posted on the Personal Watercraft Industry Association Web

site analyzing sales trends points to negative press from safety,

noise and emissions issues but makes no mention of bans in National Park areas as being responsible for sales declines. In a 2004

press release announcing its decision to discontinue production of

personal watercraft, Polaris cited the declining market, escalating

costs and increasing competitive pressures as reasons for exiting

81

the market. The company made no mention of bans in National

Park units as a reason for discontinuing sales of personal

watercraft.

The Trade Partnership study also did not factor in the significant

negative press generated by safety concerns of personal watercraft,

including a report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 1997 that found that there had been a fourfold increase in

personal watercraft injuries between 1990 and 1995. The Trade

Partnership study fails to consider these significant contributing

factors to the negative press concerning personal watercraft use

and provides no concrete evidence that the National Park Service

bans are primarily responsible for the decline in personal

watercraft sales in the last 10 years.

By design, personal watercraft are fast, powerful machines, marketed for speed, adrenaline and thrills. Advertisements for personal

watercraft promote them as high-performance muscle craft and include messages such as: See those blurred colors streaming by you?

That is called scenery. Scenery is for saps. And: Next time you see

ripples on the water, you’ll know why it’s trembling.

There is nothing wrong with a thrill ride, but these thrills come

at a high price to park resources and impair other visitors’ ability

to safely enjoy National Park areas, as evidenced by a number of

studies and reports including several conducted by the National

Park Service itself. Other State and Federal agencies, organizations and universities have also provided documentation of the distinct impacts caused by the use of jet-skis on natural resources and

the safety and enjoyment of other recreational users. Personal

watercraft have proven damaging to air and water quality, visitor

safety and enjoyment, natural soundscapes and wildlife, and pose

significant enforcement problems.

It was for these reasons, in keeping with the agency mandate,

that the National Park Service prohibited personal watercraft in

the majority of the National Park system.

At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on National Parks

last May, a representative from Yamaha called the full National

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], analysis, ‘‘a costly burdensome

requirement.’’ And while no irony is lost on the jet-ski industry’s

need for speed, it is not how hastily the National Park Service conducts these rulemakings that is vital to fulfilling this mandate,

rather how thoroughly.

In many of the studies conducted to date on personal watercraft

use in the parks, we have found several deficiencies, including a

failure to adequately monitor water quality at Lake Mead National

Recreation Area, exclusion of data on impacts of dolphins at

Assateague Island National Seashore, and an inadequate assessment of safety threats posed to park visitors by personal watercraft

use.

As these deficiencies demonstrate, the National Park Service has

been hasty in the rulemaking process; details have been overlooked. Without a thorough analysis, the National Park Service

runs the risk of allowing use that is damaging to park resources

and hence in defiance of the clear agency mission. The National

Park Service needs to take its time and ensure that rulemaking

82

process is thorough and in keeping with the mandates of the Organic Act.

Since its inception, the gold standard of the National Park Service has been to preserve and protect park resources. The agency is

mandated to actively protect natural resources for visitors to enjoy

for generations to come. The agency must conduct thorough studies

and not be forced to view the NEPA process as a burdensome hoop

to jump through, as the industry does. A careful review of uses,

recreational or otherwise, that have the potential to impair park

resources should not be considered a burden. Visitors expect park

units to be safe and protected when they visit them, and this expectation should not be compromised.

I thank you for your time this morning and for having me here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneebeck follows:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very, very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses. We have quite a bit of difference of opinion amongst all of you, and that is really what the

purpose of the hearing is today.

Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, I guess my first question would be for you.

First of all, it is unusual to have other Members of Congress that

are not even on a committee come, as Mr. Akin had done and wanted to make comment on this issue. It is unusual to have chairmen

of other committees submit testimony for the record. And I don’t

know if it’s completely unusual, but I guess my point is that this

is an issue, obviously, that, as I say, is throughout the entire Congress.

And there does appear to be an incredible amount of frustration

about this rulemaking and the deadlines that have been passed.

And in 2005, actually, both Chairman Pombo, who is the chairman

of the Resources Committee, and myself, and also Chairman Manzullo, who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee, had

sent a letter to Director Mainella; we were asking for dates when

the PWC rules would be complete. And, you know, every time the

deadlines are just failed; they are failed to be met, certainly. And

it seems as though they just, the Park Service just keeps pushing

this back for completion every time we ask about it. In my office,

if somebody were just to blow us off, I would demand accountability.

And I guess two questions. First of all, what is going on? Second,

who actually is the person who is responsible for, ultimately responsible for the Park Service’s failure to meet self-imposed deadlines, if you can comment?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Park regional and our Washington office

staff are working with a contractor to move ahead as quickly as

possible on the environmental analysis, certainly as part of the

larger rulemaking process, and to complete the five remaining

parks. We are working as quickly as we can with the staff that we

have available to us. I don’t have one individual to cite for you regarding a person to blame for this hesitation.

Since 2000, in the settlement agreement, we’ve been working as

hard as we can with the resources that we have spread across the

parks that are involved as well as the Washington office to address

not only the correspondence we are receiving from the industry and

the organizations that are interested in PWC use, but we also have

other kinds of regulatory affairs that we have to deal with on a

day-to-day basis and that we have a limited staff to deal with. And

so we are constantly having to juggle priorities.

PWC use is the regulations program manager’s highest priority,

and that’s under my purview, and he is working as fast as he possibly can with the assistance of the regions and the parks and their

available staff to get the rulemaking process and all the dynamics

from Federal Register to actually writing the rules, and then the

EA process in particular is probably the most lengthy process, and

we have a contractor working specifically in the parks to get that

moving. But just the public involvement process in itself takes

quite a bit of time with the length of open period for comment and

the number of reviews that are needed, let alone just the science

that we have to build into each one of our EAs. And having been

92

an environmental compliance specialist at one point in my career,

as well as a ranger, it is a lengthy process because you have a

number of responsibilities under NEPA that you have to—that you

are obligated to check as you are going through the process.

So, with a limited staff, we are doing absolutely as much as we

can. I mentioned some specific updates on the areas that are pending, the five parks that are left.

Mrs. MILLER. Let me, I think you just told me, you are too busy,

I believe, is what you said. And I appreciate that. Everybody is

busy. You ought to follow a couple Members of Congress around for

a day; we have a lot of things going on as well. But when you have

a specific deadline, people are wanting to hold you to that.

Could you commit today to a specific deadline? I know you talked

in your testimony about generalities.

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. I did not mean to imply that we are too

busy. What I really mean is that we, with the limited staff, the resources we have, we are working as fast as we can. That doesn’t

mean we are too busy to make it the highest priority. Right now,

it is our regulations program manager’s high priority. And I can

only look at where we are. I can’t give you an exact date with an

absolute; I can give you projected dates specific to each area and

where they are in the rulemaking process, the final rulemaking

being 2007 for the final park. And that’s the Big Thicket Preserve,

and that’s the summer of 2007. But we are anticipating most everything out, at least the draft rules out by this summer.

Mrs. MILLER. One of the, I think it was Ms. Baughman who had

mentioned, in 1998, when the first rule came out, at that time, it

was said that there was little or no economic impact by having

such a ban. I would just ask, I guess, to the committee generally,

first of all, Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, would you believe that is a correct

statement, that the ban—there is little or no economic impact on

the National Park system by the ban—or on the PWC industry because of the ban? Do you have any comment on that? Perhaps you

don’t.

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. I don’t have a comment. I can’t go outside of what our economic studies have indicated.

Mrs. MILLER. Do you normally take into consideration economic

impact when you are doing these kinds of rulemaking?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We do look at economic impact as part

of the environmental assessment process. And it’s primarily for localized communities.

Mrs. MILLER. Could I also ask—again, I’ve been a boater my entire life, all kinds of different—actually, I was a yacht broker by

trade before I ever got involved in Congress. Actually, during the

summer months, it was great because I could go demonstrate my

product. But we primarily were in the sailboat industry, but we’ve

had power boats in our family for years. We have a little 23-foot

Pro Line right now. And I have watched the PWC industry evolve

over the years. And, you know, there are bad actors in every industry, and you see people that are out there abusing all kinds of

watercraft. And they don’t understand the rules of the road. They

don’t have a clue what port from starboard means. They drink too

much. They want to go too fast. Perhaps they haven’t taken boating safety classes, etc.

93

But, you know, you can get a—I don’t want to use specific types

of boats, but, I mean, a small—I mean, a Boston Whaler or small

types of boats, you know, maybe an 18-foot with an awful lot of

horsepower on it that has no draft to speak of that can go everywhere that a PWC does in any park or any body of water, and that

boat operator can be—can have obnoxious behavior as well. Why

are we just focusing on PWCs really? I mean, why not just look at

every type of motorized vehicle? And it would seem to me, I mean,

if you are in a park where you have a guy on an inner tube that’s

out of control, you have a park superintendent or whoever eject

them. Why are we just focusing on PWCs to the extent that we are

with a complete ban?

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. It might have the appearance of just, as

far as an enforcement aspect, focusing on PWCs. Public safety over

the safety of small craft like PWCs are just part of our overall visitor resource protection mission. The ban of PWCs, some of it has

to do with public safety, but it’s not the sole reason. But boating

safety in general, watercraft use, boating, motorized boating safety

is a paramount concern for the National Park Service, and our law

enforcement rangers in parks that have this kind of use, PWC use

or motorboat use or any other kinds of use by motor vehicles, anything that would have a concern for public safety, are cognizant of

the kinds of characteristics to look for, certainly, when you are

looking for unsafe behavior.

So it’s not limited to PWCs; PWCs in particular, because they are

considered go-fast vessels for primarily speed and short turnaround and perhaps even stunts, as one person had mentioned, primarily. That is not the sole purpose. They are considered a higher

safety concern, but it is just one part of the concern overall for

PWCs.

But we have a really good example on what we are trying to do

to educate those folks in recreation areas. Lake Mead has a public

safety or boating center now, and there are even parks like Lake

Roosevelt National Recreational Area that will actually issue personal equipment, life jackets, for some of our users so they don’t

have to be sent back to a store to buy them. So we—in the areas

that it is appropriate, we encourage it. We just want folks to make

sure that they are doing it in a safe manner. It’s not limited to

PWCs, but we make boating safety, in mostly recreational areas because that’s where you’ll find the highest percentage, a high priority, and we just make sure that we have the enforcement staff

available. But it is an education as well as an accountability issue.

Mrs. MILLER. You know, I am a big believer in education. I think

education is absolutely key. And, again, just sort of my personal observation watching the industry evolve over the years, I mean, I

think when the jet-skis or whatever first came out, they were a

very inexpensive way to get involved in boating, and $1,000 or less,

turn on a key and off you went. And I think the industry in many

ways had a—you sort of had a reputation that came with that very

quickly because there were high incidents of problems, talking to

some of the different fellows involved in the marine division and

everything.

94

However, it’s no longer an inexpensive way to get into boating.

Some of these PWCs are quite expensive, and I think that has all

changed.

But perhaps I could ask for just a comment, generally, whoever

wants to take a swing at this, what your thought is about how the

industry has evolved, and perhaps maybe the best practices, worst

practices, perhaps. Or let me say it this way: Some of the different

State laws that require boating safety classes that have an age

limit on operators and whether or not they have to have an adult

on the PWC as well; perhaps some of the States that have the most

restrictive types of laws and how that has impacted the industry,

and some that would have very lenient or no laws in regard to this.

Mr. Garcia, you——

Mr. GARCIA. Madam Chairwoman, yes. I would like to quickly

comment on three points that have recently been brought up: the

safety; the performance characteristics; and the impact, suggested

impact on wildlife such as dolphins.

On the safety issues, we must be aware that PWC accidents reported by the Coast Guard, clearly the authorities on boating safety, have shown a steady decline since 1999 to the point where 99

percent of the time that PWCs are used, are used safely and without injury, 99 percent of the time.

The PWC industry is restless in pushing for greater boating safety. We have a model, a safety act that we continue to seek State

adoption. Components of that act include mandatory education, a

minimum age of 16 years old, wearage of the corrective safety gear,

such as a personal floatation device, wearage of the stop—the

emergency stop switch and other components. And at this time, 32

States have adopted either the act or components of the act, but

we continue to pursue the balance of the States.

So safety is a primary priority for our industry. But the results

are showing positive trends. Again, a steady decrease since 1999.

And today, as reported by the Coast Guard, 99 percent of the time

personal watercrafts are used safely. I would challenge anyone to

find another sector of the marine industry that has such a record

and such a commitment to the promotion of safety.

The performance, that the watercraft, as has been suggested,

that it is a high-performance watercraft. Just as with other industries, automotive industry, there are segments of the industry. And,

sure, one segment is a performance, but it is a small segment. The

majority of the market is the family, three-person, two or threeperson family cruiser, if I could use that term. It’s discriminating

to suggest that personal watercrafts are a high-performance or a

thrill craft particularly when you go simply down to where John’s

Market is, Biscayne. You’ll have no problem to quickly identify

boats that are maneuvering through Biscayne with two to four engines on the same boat, on one boat. So how could the personal

watercraft be characterized as a thrill craft with one single engine

when it is only one segment of the large market and the smallest

segment?

In addition, it was suggested that dolphins have been impacted

by personal watercraft. I am not familiar with that study, but I can

tell you what I am very familiar with is that a world leader in dolphin research uses personal watercraft in their research work.

95

That is the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute in Florida.

They use personal watercraft. They have been using personal

watercraft since 1999 because they are safe, not only to the operator but to the dolphin; that they could approach dolphins without

injuring them because there is no propeller; their operators are getting in and out of the water to aid the dolphins, and they also approach manatees for rescue; and for the quietness and the environmental friendliness to the water. They are not leaking fuel into the

water.

So I want to comment on our commitment to safety and the real

results, the real performance of our safety record, and the

mischaracterization of a thrill craft, and that wildlife is not

harmed. As a matter of fact, leading authorities are using personal

watercraft on the West Coast, the Scripps Institute of California,

University of California also uses a personal watercraft to research

sea horses. Sea horses. Thank you.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. Hamer, do you have any comment on that? Have you had a

personal observation of the dolphins running, swimming away

when they see the PWCs coming?

Mr. HAMER. I’ve had no personal observation of that. But as far

as the safety issue in Florida, we do have requirements in Florida

that people under 18 years of age have to take a test and be licensed to operate personal watercraft. My children had to do that.

When the law went into effect, they took the test and went down

and got their little licenses with the pictures on them so they could

continue to operate them. The problem was, we had to drive from

where we live in south Dade, south Miami, all the way either up

to the areas that are north of Fort Lauderdale, over an hour away,

or to the Keys for them to enjoy that. Even though they took the

course and they made sure that they followed all the rules of the

road, for lack of a better word, we weren’t allowed to enjoy the personal watercraft where we live. Even though we have a massively

big park, where, as Mr. Garcia pointed out, you have cigarette

boats with three and four motors burning 20 gallons an hour of

gasoline per motor, going over 70 miles an hour in the same park.

And, as opposed to a watercraft that, you know, you are going to

go out, a three-seater family oriented watercraft and have fun and

go out and with your friend and ride around and just enjoy the scenery and what’s there. It just doesn’t seem fair that you can ban

something that has very little impact compared to these big cigarette boats, or in the case of Biscayne National Park, there is a fuel

barge that goes and provides fuel to the Turkey Point Power Station that goes right through the park to provide that fuel. The

Intercoastal Waterway goes right through the park, which is supposed to be used for people to navigate. Personal watercraft doesn’t

seem to be allowed to do that. It just doesn’t seem fair that is what

is going on in the area in South Dade.

Mrs. MILLER. In fairness, do you have a comment as well?

Mr. SCHNEEBECK. Yes, I think the—in terms of safety, we acknowledge that, both in terms in safety and emissions, that the industry has put efforts into improving safety both technologically

and in education.

96

I think it’s important to remember we’re talking about National

Parks, and we’re talking about some of the more special places, and

they have a mandate to protect these places and the visitors who

come to visit them. And so we still have a disproportionate—the

Coast Guard statistics from 2004 still show that personal

watercraft represent about 7 percent of boats on the water, and

they are involved in about 24 percent of accidents on the water. So

there is still a disproportionate safety issue there.

When we first approached the Park Service with our petition, we

gathered numerous studies that showed that jet-skis are harmful

to wildlife, that they are harmful to near-shore areas, and that

they still had the emissions issues. And I just want to point out

that the emissions issues are still in play. There have been improvements, but the four-stroke machines that have been sold, you

know, there are 160,000 new machines that have been sold in the

last 2 years. There are 1.48 million personal watercraft still out on

the water, according to the industry. That is a very small percentage of these machines that are operating on this new technology.

And we applaud the new technology; it is a good improvement. But

we still have the problem of the emissions and the noise from older

machines.

Finally, I just want to address, you know, in terms of Biscayne,

we acknowledge there are other problems in Biscayne National

Park, but the Park Service shouldn’t be expected to have to treat

all of those problems. It should be able to treat one of those problems without having to treat all of them at once, and they certainly

should be looking at other problems in other places that could be

detrimental to park resources.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Representative Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

I just want to say, just to kind of put all this in perspective.

Right now, you can use these personal watercraft, jet-skis, if you

will, on 99 percent of the waterways in the United States. So you

have 99 percent of the waterways in the United States where you

can use jet-skis. Actually, it’s more than 99 percent, because about

half—a little bit more than half of what the National Park Service

has under its jurisdiction; they have about 2 percent of America’s

waterways under their jurisdiction; 98 percent of the waterways in

the United States of America are outside of the National Park

Service jurisdiction. And you can currently use jet-skis and personal watercraft in 99—roughly 99.3 percent of America’s waterways. But this 0.7 percent—0.7 percent or roughly somewhere between 1.3 percent and 0.7 percent—of the waterways in the United

States that are under the National Park Service jurisdiction, you

can’t use jet-skis. And yet I have heard today that the entire industry, the entire industry is going in the toilet because this 1 percent

of the waterways is not available to jet-skis.

Now, I have to ask myself—you know, I live in Boston, and folks

keep the jet-skis in their garages, and a regular decision by my

constituents and a lot of folks on Cape Cod say, OK, where am I

going to use my jet-skis today? And they have about 1,000 opportunities. And they say, I am not going to the National Park because

I can’t use it there; I am going to go down to the beach; anywhere,

97

lakes, beaches. And yet you’re saying, because folks can’t go to the

National Park that the whole industry is basically going bankrupt;

and that, based on Ms. Baughman—I need to see that study you

did for all those jobs that are being lost because this 1 percent of

waterways that’s been preserved for conservation purposes, this 1

percent—99 percent you can do. This 1 percent is responsible for

the downfall of this industry. It’s not the product liability suits. It’s

not the class actions. And there’s a ton of those against these

watercraft. But go back to Polaris. Their’s wasn’t this—their problem was they were getting sued in a whole bunch of States for

product liability issues. And that’s really what’s killing this industry.

So I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it that this 1 percent

that’s regulated is the be all and end all of your industry. I don’t

believe—you know, Bombardier, I know you’ve got a couple of manufacturing facilities in the United States, but I also know a lot of

stuff’s going on outside the country. That’s fair. That’s fair. A lot

is going on in Japan as well.

So I don’t see every single job here being related to this 1 percent

of waterways that’s being protected right now by this country and

by this law. And I spend a lot of time in Florida. And I do agree,

Lake Powell is one of the most beautiful spots in the country. Wonderful. And I aim to keep it that way to the best of my ability. But

I just know when people are overstating the case; overstating the

case in terms of what this 1 percent, 1 percent of the waterways

that remains preserved. You’ve got 99 percent. Do what you want.

Do what you want. We’ve preserved 1 percent of the waterways

here right now under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service

that you can’t do this because other folks want to use it for a different reason. They might want quiet. They might want to have a

pristine environmental—a pristine environment there, and so we’ve

carved out this 1 percent.

So if you can’t make your industry work with 99 percent of the

waterways in this country, why the heck should I sit up here and

believe that, with this 1 percent, first of all, we are going to solve

the unemployment problem, because the number of jobs that have

been connected to this industry today is just incredible? Talk about

a stimulus package. All we’ve got to do is open up this 1 percent

of National Parks, and we’ll put the whole country back to work

based on what I’ve heard here today. It’s incredible. From folks

under oath. And I am supposed to believe this. I’ve got to tell you,

I find it very, very difficult to believe. I find it totally unsubstantiated by the facts here, that this 1 percent—opening up this 1 percent that’s protected right now is going to turn this industry

around and put everybody in this country back to work. I just don’t

believe it. I don’t believe the billions and billions of dollars that are

being laid on—this is extremely incredible that this small percentage of waterways could be responsible for so much devastation and

so much unemployment and such downturn in—and such a huge

impact in our economy given the fact that these are National

Parks, and they are supposed to be undeveloped.

So just—it’s been really tough for me to sit here and bite my

tongue during this testimony, but there it is. And I have a couple

98

of markups, too, Madam Chair, and I think I have a vote, too. So

I am going to have to——

Mrs. MILLER. We do. We do have a vote on. And if you are not

looking for an answer to your statement, we can conclude the hearing.

Mr. LYNCH. No. That was a tirade. That was not a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. MILLER. And I appreciate his passion, which is why he is

a great ranking member. We agree to disagree on various things,

and that is what democracy is all about.

I am sorry. We have a vote on right now, so we do have to run

across.

Mr. GARCIA. May I make one very quick comment?

Mrs. MILLER. Very quick.

Mr. GARCIA. My testimony was the truth. It was the truth. And

the reality is, irregardless of the percentage, it’s bad government

to maintain a ban when their own study shows no impact. Second,

it is greater than 1 percent because of the publicity factor across

the country.

Mrs. MILLER. OK. We appreciate that. And your testimony is

part of the record. And, as I said, we do have a vote on. So I want

to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning. It obviously

is an issue of great debate. And I know the Park Service is well

aware that we are all watching to make sure that the deadlines are

going to be adhered to. And thank you all for coming. The meeting

is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon and additional

information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Æ