[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1370, THE REFUGE CONCESSION BILL
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 20, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-254 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 20, 2001............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., A Delegate to Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 5
Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam,
prepared statement of...................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashe, Daniel M., Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Campbell, Chip, President, Okefenokee Adventures, Okefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge Concessionaire.................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Hirsche, Evan M., President, National Wildlife Refuge
Association................................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Additional materials supplied:
Hoffman, Gerald L., President, Tarpon Bay Recreation, Inc.,
Sanibel, Florida, Letter submitted for the record.......... 36
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1370, THE REFUGE CONCESSION BILL
----------
Thursday, September 20, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Walter Jones
presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALTER JONES, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jones. Thank you. We are going to begin the hearing,
and I am serving as temporary Chairman substituting for Mr.
Wayne Gilchrest.
I would like to open with some prepared remarks. I
certainly want to first thank the panel and the ranking member,
Mr. Underwood, who will be here shortly. So I will begin my
prepared remarks.
First of all, good afternoon. I am pleased to convene this
hearing on H.R. 1370, a bill introduced by our distinguished
colleague from Indiana, Mark Souder, to establish a new policy
for those concessionaires within our National Wildlife Refuge
System.
While anyone who has visited a national park is quite
familiar with the many valuable services provided by private
commercial concessionaires, there is only a handful of refuges
where the public is offered the opportunity to rent a canoe, to
ride a ferry, or to enjoy the thrill of traveling over a snow-
covered landscape on a horsedrawn sleigh. In fact, there are
fewer than 20 refuges that have some kind of concession
services.
These services vary greatly; however, they have certain
common elements. For example, the title to all property within
the Refuge System is held by the Federal Government. In
addition, there is no statutory provision which allows a
concessionaire to be given any credit or compensation for
spending any money to repair, maintain, or improve the
buildings they use to enhance the public refuge viewing
experience.
Sadly, with a maintenance backlog in excess of $800
million, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lacks the resources
and the motivation to maintain these properties. The net result
is that most of the buildings utilized by concessionaires are
in fair to poor condition, and there is no incentive for refuge
managers to encourage additional commercial enterprises within
the system.
H.R. 1370 will establish a new policy for the upkeep and
maintenance of property used by refuge concessionaires.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how this
legislation will provide for better-maintained and safer
recreational opportunities, allowing expenses to be treated as
compensation by concessionaires and not undermine the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund.
If the ranking member were here at this time, I would yield
time to him to make an opening statement.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Souder be
allowed to sit with the Subcommittee today.
I hear no objection.
Mr. Souder?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr. , A Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina
Good afternoon, I am pleased to convene this Hearing on H. R. 1370,
a bill introduced by our distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mark
Souder, to establish a new policy for those concessionaires within our
National Wildlife Refuge System.
While anyone who has visited a National Park is quite familiar with
the many valuable services provided by private commercial
concessionaires, there are only a handful of refuges where the public
is offered the opportunity to rent a canoe, to ride a ferry or to enjoy
the thrill of traveling over a snow covered landscape on a horse drawn
sleigh. In fact, there are less than 20 refuges that have some type of
concession services.
These services vary greatly. However, there are certain common
elements. For instance, the title to all property within the Refuge
System is held by the Federal government. In addition, there is no
statutory provision which allows a concessionaire to be given any
credit or compensation for spending any money to repair, maintain or
improve the buildings they use to enhance the public's refuge viewing
experience.
Sadly, with a maintenance backlog in excess of $800 million, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lacks the resources and the motivation
to maintain this property. The net result is that most of the buildings
utilized by concessionaires, are in fair to poor condition and there is
no incentive for refuge managers to encourage additional commercial
enterprises within the Refuge System.
H. R. 1370 will establish a new policy for the upkeep and
maintenance of property used by refuge concessionaires. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses on how this legislation will provide for
better maintained and safer recreational opportunities, allow expenses
to be treated as compensation by concessionaires and not undermine the
National Wildlife Refuge Fund.
I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Democratic
Member, Mr. Underwood.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Souder. First of all, let me start by thanking you, Mr.
Chairman, as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Gilchrest, for holding a hearing on this very important
legislation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for many
years on a bill like this which gives the Service the tools to
properly maintain concession facilities located in National
Wildlife Refuges and to provide the refuge visitor with safe
places for recreation. I am pleased to be part of this process
and am proud to be the House sponsor of H.R. 1370, the National
Wildlife Refuge Concessions Reform Bill.
This bill amends the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act to establish a new policy for the basic
maintenance of facilities as well as Fish and Wildlife Service-
authorized improvements of facilities that are leased by
concessionaires in the National Wildlife Refuges.
Specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of
Interior to include in any contract with a concessionaire
provisions that authorize the concessionaire to maintain and/or
repair facilities and to treat the costs incurred as a form of
payment toward the leasing fees of the facilities. It is
important to note that the Fish and Wildlife Service ultimately
retains the right to decide which repairs are consistent with
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and thus
should be authorized. This bill outlines specific lists of
authorized projects that concessionaires are permitted to
maintain and/or repair.
Finally, the bill states that funds spent by
concessionaires to maintain or repair a facility will not
affect the National Wildlife Refuge Fund.
Like most Americans, I regard wildlife refuges as national
treasures where one can observe a variety of animals living in
their natural habitats. Over 500 refuges have been established
in the United States, not only to carry out conservation
missions but also to act as living laboratories for the many
visitors. Historically, refuges have sought to educate people
about the importance of wildlife and plant habitats.
In order for wildlife refuges to continue to carry out
their important missions, refuge facilities must be able to
adequately support visitors. This bill seeks to improve refuge
facilities and properties by permitting the local
concessionaires to fund maintenance projects. In a sense,
concession operations provide visitors with a means to access
refuge facilities and appreciate wildlife. Concession
operations also provide a means for the refuge manager to build
community support for the refuge by attracting visitors to the
areas.
Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service does not
have the tools needed to adequately maintain our refuges'
facilities. Restrooms, campgrounds, boat docks and buildings
have fallen into a state of disrepair at refuges across the
country. I know from personal experience that this is the case.
Every year, my family travels to Sanibel Island, Florida, which
is home to Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. I have
witnessed firsthand the need for roof repairs, deck
replacement, and additional restrooms that are handicapped-
accessible because of the tremendous number of people who go
through this refuge.
This bill seeks to correct the problem that is becoming
commonplace at refuges across our Nation. The primary goal of
this bill is to provide safe and properly-maintained facilities
for the public to enjoy the experience of visiting a wildlife
refuge. With enhanced facilities, it may even attract increased
visitors to the refuges, which will in turn raise the awareness
of wildlife refuges.
As habitat decreases in many areas of the United States due
to business and home expansion, it is critical that the public
appreciate and understand the need for wildlife refuges. I
encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Mark Souder, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana
First of all, let me start out by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding a hearing on this very important legislation. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has been working for many years on a bill like this
which gives the service the tools to properly maintain concession
facilities located in National Wildlife Refuges and to provide the
refuge visitor with safe places for recreation. I am please to be a
part of this process, and I am proud to be the House sponsor of HR
1370, the National Wildlife Refuge Concessions Reform Bill.
Purpose of this Bill
This bill amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act to establish a new policy for the basic maintenance of facilities
as well as Fish and Wildlife Service authorized improvements of
facilities that are leased by concessionaires in National Wildlife
Refuges.
Specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of Interior to
include in any contract with a concessionaire, provisions that
authorize the concessionaire to maintain and/or repair facilities and
to treat the costs incurred as a form of payment towards the leasing
fees of the facilities. It is important to note that the Fish and
Wildlife Service ultimately retains the right to decide which project
repairs are consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System an thus should be authorized. This bill outlines specific lists
of authorized projects that concessionaires are permitted to maintain
and/or repair.
Finally, the bill states that funds spent by concessionaires to
maintain or repair a facility will not affect the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund.
Why this Bill is Important
Like most Americans, I regard wildlife refuges as national
treasures where one can observe a variety of animals living in their
natural habitats. Over 500 refuges have been established in the United
States not only to carry out conservation missions, but also to act as
living laboratories for the many visitors. Historically, refuges have
sought to educate people about the importance of wildlife and plant
habitats.
In order for wildlife refuges to continue to carry out their
important missions, refuge facilities must be able to adequately
support visitors. This bill seeks to improve refuge facilities and
properties by permitting the local concessionaires to fund maintenance
projects. In a sense, concession operations provide visitors with a
means to access refuge facilities and appreciate wildlife. Concession
operations also provide a means for the refuge manager to build
community support for the refuge by attracting visitors to the areas.
Under the current law, the Fish and Wildlife service does not have
the tools needed to adequately maintain our refuge's facilities.
Restrooms, campgrounds, boat docks and buildings have fallen into a
state of disrepair at refuges across our country. I know from personal
experience that this is the case. Every year, my family travels to
Sanibel Island, Florida which is home to Ding Darling National Wildlife
Refuge. I have witnessed first hand the need for roof repairs, deck
replacement and additional restrooms that are handicapped accessible.
This bill seeks to correct the problem that is becoming commonplace
at refuges across our nation. The primary goal of this bill is to
provide safe and properly maintained facilities for the public to enjoy
the experience of visiting a wildlife refuge. With enhanced facilities,
it may even attract increased visitors to the refuges, which will in
turn raise the awareness of wildlife refuges.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation. Thank you.
______
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
American Samoa for comments.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that our ranking
member, Mr. Underwood's, statement be made part of the record.
Mr. Jones. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Robert Underwood, A Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I realize that you are anxious to begin, so
my opening remarks will be brief.
Earlier this year, this committee met in March to learn more about
the significant operations and maintenance budget backlog affecting the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
I think it is safe to conclude that the majority of members were
greatly concerned, if not shocked, by the scale and extent of the
deterioration of buildings and other vital facilities within the Refuge
System such as utilities, dikes, levees, boat launches and public
roads. This backlog not only presents pernicious hazards for the
visiting public, but it also perpetually retards efforts to open the
Refuge System to broader public use and dampens the public's enjoyment.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I read through Mr. Souder's
legislation, H.R. 1370. Considering the magnitude of the problem, I
commend my colleague from Indiana for his creativity. Now more than
ever, Congress will have to be innovative if we ever hope to find the
necessary resources to rectify the budget backlog.
However, despite my admiration for Mr. Souder's ingenuity, I do
have concerns about the approach proposed in H.R. 1370 and its
practical implications for the Refuge System.
For example, what would be the affect on refuge revenue sharing
payments to surrounding counties? Also, how many buildings and
facilities identified under the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS)
or listed in the Maintenance Management System (MMS) are currently
leased by concessions? Furthermore, how many of these facilities would
actually be fixed up under this approach?
I also question whether Mr. Souder's approach might exacerbate
existing differences among individual refuges and further undermine
consistency within the Refuge System as a whole.
None of these questions raise insurmountable hurdles, but they do
have to be answered. I am hopeful that many of them will be answered
today. But until they are, this committee should proceed with caution
until the need for this legislation and its practical affects on the
Refuge System are clearly understood.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also certainly like to commend my
good friend, the gentleman from Indiana, for his proposal in
the legislation now before our Subcommittee for consideration.
It has certainly been my privilege over the years, not only
working with my good friend from Indiana, but I am 70 percent
sure that the gentleman's intent and the purpose of this
legislation is going to be a positive one for the care and
providing for our National Wildlife Refuge System, and
initially, I want to say that I will lend my support for the
gentleman's proposed legislation, and I look forward to hearing
from our friends with the administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jones. The panel consists of Mr. Dan Ashe, Chief of the
National Wildlife Refuge system, accompanied by Mr. Louis
Hinds; Mr. Evan Hirsche, President of the National Wildlife
Refuge Association; and Mr. Chip Campbell, President of
Okefenokee Adventures.
You are welcome, and we are glad to have you here.
Please begin, Mr. Ashe.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. ASHE, CHIEF, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SYSTEM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY LOUIS
HINDS, REFUGE SUPERVISOR FOR AREA IV, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the
opportunity to come before the Subcommittee today. As I
explained to a few of you, I have to apologize to the
Subcommittee because somewhere today, I somehow misplaced my
jacket, but I will say that it is at least a sign of my
willingness to come and roll up my sleeves and work with the
Subcommittee.
As we think about America's National Wildlife Refuge System
and where we find ourselves today, we are on the verge of
celebrating the 100th anniversary of this system of lands. We
are still growing, at nearly 94 million acres and 548 units
across the United States. We are protecting more and more of
our Nation's richest wildlife habitat. In many respects, we are
stronger than we ever have been, and in many respects, we are
more challenged than we ever have been.
I think the discussion that we are having today about
providing authority for us to use and manage concessions in a
better way is a good example of what we need to do. Americans
have a passion for wildlife and wild places. They are
increasingly turning to the out-of-doors for recreational
opportunities. They are increasingly turning to us and the
National Wildlife Refuge System to provide those opportunities
to get outdoors, to experience wildlife, to bring their
families and to bring their friends.
Currently, we are struggling to provide the services that
are necessary to meet the demand and the expectations that
people have of us and the portion of America's public lands
that we manage.
Congressman Jones, I believe, mentioned our maintenance
backlog, our operations backlog, our backlog of construction
projects. When you add all of those up, the total is about $2.7
billion worth of needs within the Refuge System.
I think that concessions and better and stronger
partnerships with business to provide the kinds of services
that people expect and deserve when they come to National
Wildlife Refuges is a key to meeting the needs, the growing
needs and demands of the public for quality outdoor recreation.
Just last week in dealing with an issue regarding a public
use program at one of our refuges and one of our existing
cooperative agreements, one of the attorneys in the
Department's Solicitor's Office looked and me and told me:
``Dan, the problem is the Service is trying to deal with big
business using small tools.''
So I think that what I have to do mostly today,
Congressmen, is applaud your leadership in introducing H.R.
1370 and applaud the Subcommittee and the Committee for holding
this hearing and taking an important step to help give us some
bigger tools to manage the challenges that lie before us.
Ultimately, we will all be serving America by providing
expanding opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.
The administration supports the goals of H.R. 1370. As we have
gone through the process of reviewing the legislation, we have
identified some concerns--and maybe ``concerns'' is too strong
a word to express in some regards, because they are simply
suggestions and recommendations about how to make the
legislation stronger, to ensure that as we move in this
direction, we are accountable for the use of any dollars that
are collected and to ensure they are directed toward providing
services for people who ultimately will be paying the fees and
the price of admission that concessionaires are charging.
These are specific and not serious concerns on our part,
but they are concerns that we feel we need to sit down with the
Subcommittee and address as you consider moving forward with
this bill today and in the weeks ahead.
Those concerns are articulated in our testimony.
Specifically outlined in the testimony--and I will not go
through each of them here today--but as an example, one of the
things that we want to make sure of is that in section 5(a)(2)
for instance, we need to talk and think about specifically what
kinds of maintenance and repairs would be appropriate for a
concessionaire to provide in lieu of a cash payment, because
certainly as we think about these relationships, we do not want
to provide the opportunity where a concessionaire would
essentially be getting credit, I will say,k for something that
they would do normally and should provide normally as a part of
their business investment in the refuge. But I think those are
issues that we can resolve through discussion, as we have with
the Subcommittee and the Committee on many other things, and we
look forward to working with you and moving this legislation
forward.
I will again briefly say that I do believe this is an
important opportunity for us to work together to provide us
with the bigger tools that we meed if we are going to meet the
challenges ahead and as we look forward to celebrating the
100th anniversary of the Refuge System and inviting America to
come and experience what wonderful places they are.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hinds, did you want to add anything at this point?
Mr. Hinds. Not at this time, thank you.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Hirsche?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
Statement of Dan Ashe, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
the Administration's views of H.R. 1370. The bill would amend the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to authorize
the Secretary of Interior to provide for maintenance and repair of
buildings and properties located on lands in the Refuge System. The
Administration supports the goals of this legislation; however, we have
a number of concerns with the bill and would like to work with the
committee to address these concerns to help improve the management and
accountability of the refuge concession program.
HISTORY AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
A brief review of relevant legislation and background information
will help explain the need for this type of bill.
Concessions (i.e., secretarially granted privileges) are defined as
businesses operated by private enterprise that provide recreational,
educational, and-interpretive opportunities for the visiting public. A
concession provides a public service and, generally, requires some
capital investment by the concessionaire and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) for facilities and products. The Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) delegated the authority to approve such ventures
to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in October 1957. It
has since been delegated to the Regional Directors.
Since 1935, the Secretary has been authorized to sell or otherwise
dispose of surplus products, to grant privileges on units of the Refuge
System and to have the receipts be reserved in a separate fund known as
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (See Section 401 of the Act of June 15,
1935, 16 U.S.C. 715s). Subsection (b) of 16 U.S.C. 715s stipulates that
the Secretary may pay any necessary expenses incurred in connection
with the revenue-producing measures set forth in 715s(a). However,
public recreation-related concession-generated revenues have not been
utilized to offset concession-related refuge administration, capital
improvements, and maintenance expenses because of competing priorities
for refuge resources. Subsection (c) requires that the balance of the
Fund be paid to counties in which lands are reserved from the public
domain or acquired in fee and managed by the Service. In fiscal year
2000, the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund received deposits of $6.7 million
from sales and the disposal of property. Only $204,000 was deposited
into this account from refuge concession programs.
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k through 460
k-3), as amended, allows for public recreation in fish and wildlife
conservation areas as long as it is compatible with conservation
purposes, is an incidental or secondary use, and is consistent with
other Federal operations and primary objectives of the particular area.
Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Secretary is authorized to
negotiate and enter into contracts with any person, public agency, or
private enterprise for the provision of public accommodations when the
Secretary determines such accommodations would not be inconsistent with
the primary purpose for which the affected area was established.
Subsequent to that, in 1983, the Service's Regional Director from
Region 3 requested that concessionaires at the Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge in Marion, Illinois, be allowed to pay for repairs to
facilities there in lieu of making concessions payments to the refuge.
This request was denied. On January 12, 1983, the Service's Solicitor
in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, ruled that 40 U.S.C. 303c (an exemption to
40 U.S.C. 303b which requires all payments for leasing of buildings and
property to be monetary in nature) was issued only with regard to the
National Park Service. At that time, the Regional Director requested
that the Service proceed with securing a similar exemption. This
request was prepared by the Service's Legislative Counsel in 1984 and
was forwarded to Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., then-Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, this was never acted
upon.
In 1995, the Office of the Inspector General identified the need to
improve the condition of concession facilities, to increase the fees
paid to refuges by concessionaires, and the need to have
concessionaires make repairs and improvements to the facilities (Audit
Report No. 95-I- 376). The Office of the Inspector General has issued
numerous reports on the management and administration of National Park
Service concessions and Concessionaire Improvement Accounts. The
National Park Service has an extensive concession program and any
legislation to improve the refuge concession program should consider
the recommendations included in these reports on managing concessions.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducted an audit of
government agencies providing concession opportunities in 1996. The GAO
found that competition resulted in a higher rate of return from
concession operations and that agencies that were allowed to retain the
fees received a better rate of return. In agencies retaining fees, the
average return to the government was 11.1 percent. In contrast, the
concessions managed by agencies that did not retain fees averaged a 2.6
percent rate of return.
Most recently, the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd)
established priority uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental
education and interpretation are the six priority uses that the System
must provide, if they are deemed compatible with the purpose for which
the refuge was established.
Finally, the Service is supplementing this statutory framework by
developing policy on concession operations to provide guidance for
issuing concession agreements under our current legislative mandates
and authorities.
THE VALUE OF CONCESSIONS IN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Despite the long history of attention to the issue of concessions
facilities on National Wildlife Refuges, the concessions program can be
improved.
The Service utilizes concession operations as a valuable management
tool by which it can provide recreational and educational services to
the visiting public. In some instances, concession operations may be
the best means for visitors to view and appreciate wildlife and, thus,
to gain a better understanding of the purpose and mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In general, concessions help the
Service achieve its mission to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife, plants and their habitats. They also help to educate the
public about the importance of wildlife habitat preservation and the
protection of ecosystems.
Concession operations also help refuge managers demonstrate that
refuges can be an economic asset by attracting visitors to areas
perhaps otherwise not visited. Current concession operations include
services such as canoe rentals, guided naturalist tours, ferry
operations to remote refuge islands, and fishing guides. All of these
operations afford the public the opportunity to experience ``hands on''
the many features and advantages of a wildlife refuge, and to come away
with a greater appreciation of how their tax dollars are being spent.
Despite the many advantages of concession operations, the Service
currently has very few operations in place compared to the total number
of refuges. Part of the reason for such few numbers of concessions is
that current law (40 U.S.C. 303b) requires leasing of buildings and
properties by concessionaires to be paid for monetary consideration
only. Some refuge managers believe their best efforts to provide a
cost-effective means of maintaining refuge facilities are hampered by
not allowing non-monetary consideration be paid by concessionaires for
such leases. Although the Service can pay for the administration,
capital improvement, and maintenance expenses involved with a
concession operation (as is allowed under subsection (b) of 16 U.S.C.
715s), other priorities exist.
We believe that improving the existing concessions program could
begin with legislation similar to H.R. 1370 which, among other things,
would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept non-monetary
considerations in lieu of concessions payments.
H.R. 1370
Legislation could improve refuge concessions management and
accountability. The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 1370 and
would like to work with the committee to strengthen and clarify
provisions as described below.
H.R. 1370 would create a new Section 5(a)(1) which authorizes a
concessionaire to maintain or repair any improvement on or in such land
or water that the concessionaire is authorized to use for such
purposes. This language is vague and should be modified to ensure that
the maintenance and repairs are to lands and waters directly related to
the concession.
Section 5(a)(2) allows the Secretary of the Interior to treat costs
incurred by the concessionaire for maintenance or repair as
consideration for the use of the refuge lands. In order to maintain
accountability, the bill should specifically say what kind of
maintenance and repairs qualify as consideration for use of the
refuges. Otherwise, concessionaires could include a number of costs not
intended to be included under the bill and would normally be considered
part of doing business or carrying out a concession agreement. The
Service would be happy to help identify specific costs to include.
H.R. 1370 should be amended to address possessory interests as they
relate to improvements or new structures constructed by the
concessionaire.
Issues with possessory interests have caused problems with National
Park Service concessions and should be explicitly addressed in any bill
designed to improve the refuge concession program. We will be more than
happy to work with the committee to address this issue.
Additionally, the bill does not indicate how the non-monetary
consideration would be calculated. Based on past experience with the
National Park Service concession program, H.R. 1370 should ensure that
concessionaire improvement accounts are not established.
Section 5(b) of the bill establishes that concession-related
receipts shall be available to the Secretary for expenditure, without
further appropriation, to increase the quality of the visitor
experience and enhance the protection of resources. This means that an
appropriate share of the concessionaire's gross receipts would be
available to the refuge for contract administration, backlogged repair
and maintenance projects, interpretation, signage, habitat or facility
enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation, maintenance and
law enforcement relating to public use. Precedent for returning a
portion of revenues to the collecting field station is provided by the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P. L. 105-391). This law
authorizes the return of 80 percent of the franchise fees (and other
monetary considerations) collected at each Park Service unit to be used
for visitor services and resource management programs and operations.
The remaining 20 percent is returned to the National Park Service to
address National Park Service-wide concessions costs.
If there is a mechanism to allow a portion of revenues to remain
where they are generated, the Department believes that field stations
with existing concessionaires will provide a higher quality experience
for the visiting public. In addition, more field stations will be
willing to pursue the option of providing recreational opportunities to
the public through the use of concessions, benefiting neighboring
communities in meaningful ways. The key, however, in the spirit of
being accountable to the users, is that there must be a linkage between
the revenue coming in and the use of those funds. The bill should
clearly establish this linkage to prevent fees and other payments from
simply supplementing annual appropriations for the refuge system.
We do need to point out, however, these funds would no longer be
available to communities through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund.
Without knowing how to calculate non-monetary consideration it is
difficult to estimate what the overall impact of this section would be
on individual counties. We would be happy to prepare such information
for further consideration of this bill.
Finally, section 5((b)(3) should be clarified. We would be happy to
work with the committee to strengthen this language.
CONCLUSION
The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 1370 and looks
forward to working with the Committee to address its concerns during
this exciting time. As the National Wildlife Refuge System approaches
its centennial anniversary in 2003, the Service is working hard to
ensure that visitors find national wildlife refuges welcoming, safe,
and accessible, with a variety of opportunities to enjoy and appreciate
America's fish, wildlife and plants. We intend to host thousands of
activities for the public nationwide throughout and beyond 2003. We
want people in communities to become aware of local national wildlife
refuges, to understand that each refuge is part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, and to realize how refuges can contribute to
tourism and enhance local economies even while placing wildlife first.
Providing quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities is
part of the Service's vision for the Refuge System. Concession
operations can provide the visiting public with a means to access and
interpret refuge ecosystems. Yet due to disincentives in current
concessions law, concessions are greatly underutilized throughout the
refuge system. We look forward to working together to help ensure that
the Service's concessions system will be more efficient and economical
and improve the quality of the visitor experience at existing
concessions operations without compromising overall management and
accountability of the refuge concessions program.
A properly managed concessions program will help accomplish the
Service's desire to build a broader base of public support for wildlife
conservation by reaching out and involving a larger cross section of
the American public in public use programs and community partnership
efforts. Further, concession-generated visitation can demonstrate to
local communities that refuges are an economic asset. Part of the
dialogue with communities and their leaders should be a full accounting
of the impacts refuges have in local communities, both economically and
through intangible contributions to quality of life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to discuss
this legislation with you. I will be happy to answer any questions the
Committee might have.
______
STATEMENT OF EVAN HIRSCHE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hirsche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of
the National Wildlife Refuge Association comprised largely of
current and former refuge employees and also refuge ``Friends''
group members from around the United States, I thank you for
the opportunity to offer comments on H.R. 1370, which concerns
the use of concession fees to offset maintenance needs on
refuges.
I would also like to thank Representative Souder for
introducing this legislation and directing attention to the
dual issues of concessions on refuges and the crippling Refuge
System maintenance backlog.
As the only national organization dedicated solely to the
protection, enhancement, and expansion of the Refuge System,
the Refuge Association has a fundamental interest in how
concessions are operated and managed on refuges, particularly
in light of the rapidly growing number of visitors to the
System witnessed in the last few years, and we expect a
significant increase in the coming years.
The Association applauds H.R. 1370 for allowing
concessionaires to allocate fees to improving concession
facilities that would otherwise be directed off-refuge. The
intent, as we understand it, is that funding otherwise
allocated to concession facility upkeep could then be directed
to other critical refuge needs.
However, H.R. 1370 does raise a few important issues as
well as questions, and we look forward to working with the
Committee to address these as the legislation moves forward.
From the outset, we want to affirm that although the Refuge
Association is an ardent supporter of the Refuge System's
``wildlife first'' mission, we do understand and recognize that
allowing people good opportunities for compatible wildlife-
oriented recreation on refuges is a great way to get
communities excited about and supportive of refuges.
We are concerned, however, that without adequate sideboards
for how fees can be expended, creating an incentive for
allowing concessions on financially stressed refuge lands, will
lead to abuses in making compatibility determinations for these
activities.
In the words of one current refuge manager with concessions
experience: ``Concessions tend to run you. They get the support
of the community, and suddenly, you are at their mercy.'' While
I think that view represents one end of the spectrum, I am
confident that by and large most concessionaires are
sympathetic to the conservation goals and objectives of
refuges.
To minimize the potential problem the Association
recommends that language be modified in H.R. 1370 to more
specifically limit funds to facilities improvement and services
that are directly related to the concession, as we believe the
legislation intends.
As currently crafted, the language in our view allows for a
broad array of uses and could lead to some level of abuse.
An additional way to better ensure that concession
activities remain consistent with the conservation objectives
of refuges may be to offer a right of first refusal to refuge
``Friends'' groups, which currently number about 210 around the
system. The benefits here are twofold. First, refuge
``Friends'' groups by their very nature are inclined to have
the best interests of the refuge in mind; and second, fees from
concessions will go back to support the facilities that they
are operating, while at the same time profits end up reaching
the refuge in one way, shape or form over the long haul, in
essence doubling the money.
Our last point concerns the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. As
we read it, by allowing concession fees to stay on refuges,
H.R. 1370 will divert funds from the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Fund, monies of which are used to compensate counties in which
lands are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Concession
fees represent a very small contributing component to the
overall fund, but we do have concerns about further
deterioration of an already underfunded program that also
serves to build community support for refuges. In effect, are
we robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Because of this, we urge the Committee to review this
important issue in the near future.
In conclusion, while the National Wildlife Refuge
Association strongly supports the intent of H.R. 1370, we
believe changes can be made to ensure that this legislation
addresses maintenance needs relating to concession activities
while also preserving the mission and purposes of refuges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsche follows:]
Statement of Evan M. Hirsche, President, National Wildlife Refuge
Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and its
membership comprised largely of current and former refuge professionals
and refuge ``Friends'' group members throughout the United States,
thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on H.R. 1370 which
concerns the use of concession fees to offset maintenance needs on
refuges. I would also like to thank Representative Souder of Indiana
for introducing this legislation and directing attention to the dual
issues of concessions on refuges and the crippling $700 million Refuge
System maintenance backlog.
As the only national organization dedicated to the protection,
enhancement and expansion of the Refuge System, the Refuge Association
has a fundamental interest in how concessions are operated and managed
on refuges, particularly in light of the rapidly growing number of
visitors to the System. Anticipating the Refuge System's Centennial in
2003, and as a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), we are also acutely aware of the need to address
the System's massive operations and maintenance backlog if these vital
conservation lands are to successfully ensure that wildlife populations
are both plentiful and diverse in this new century.
In our view, H.R. 1370 raises important issues as well as questions
and we look forward to working with the Committee to address these as
this legislation moves forward. From the outset, we want to affirm
that, while we are ardent supporters of the ``wildlife first'' mission
of the Refuge System, we also recognize that providing opportunities
for the public to engage in compatible, wildlife-oriented recreational
activities on refuges contributes to building community support for
these lands. Furthering public understanding and appreciation for
refuges can help us ensure a well-tended Refuge System in the years
ahead.
Nevertheless, in 2000, the number of visitors to refuges was 36
million, an increase of more than 80 percent since 1990. Estimates are
that visitation will reach more than 40 million in 2003, the Refuge
System's Centennial. In light of this, there can be no question that
programs and facilities meant to provide a positive experience for
visitors must be both capable of safely meeting demand while not
detracting from the important conservation activities that refuges are
charged with implementing.
The NWRA applauds H.R. 1370 for seeking to address this challenge
by allowing concessionaires to allocate fees that would otherwise be
directed off the refuge, to instead improve concessionaire facilities
on site. The intent is that funding otherwise allocated to concession
facility upkeep could then be directed to other critical refuge needs.
Incentives for Allowing Concessions
We are concerned, however, that creating an incentive for allowing
concessions on financially stressed refuge lands will lead to abuses in
making compatibility determinations. Specifically, while all
concessions activities will be required to meet compatibility
determinations under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act, the lure of increased maintenance funding for refuges could result
in refuge professionals tilting their decisions in favor of the
allowing the concession in situations where they might otherwise err on
the side of caution.
Concessions currently operate on at least 20 refuges and at first
glance it might appear that the opportunities to operate lucrative
businesses on other units are limited. As for-profit ventures, however,
private concessions must devise strategies to lure more customers and
provide more services to ensure long-term profitability. From our
perspective, there are numerous untapped possibilities that might
represent outstanding opportunities for concessionaires where such
activity may be inappropriate.
For example, the 45,000-acre Red Rock Lakes NWR, located in
southwest Montana's Centennial Valley, just 30 miles west of West
Yellowstone, is virtually unknown to the millions of tourists that
visit Yellowstone each summer. Yet this valley that runs east-west
along the continental divide is not only a haven for hundreds of bird
species, moose, pronghorn, grizzly, lynx and wolves, but is also
visually spectacular, with the 10,000 foot Centennial Range towering
over the south side of the refuge.
By advertising heavily in West Yellowstone and creating
arrangements with local outfitters, establishing a canoe or boat
livery, and ``updating'' the refuge's two campsites to include potable
water and restrooms, an entrepreneurial concessionaire could attract
possibly tens of thousands of visitors to the refuge each year. In such
case, the impacts to wildlife may be difficult to ascertain, yet the
character of the valley, with a steady stream of vans, cars and buses
through it, would clearly be altered, even if kept outside wilderness
boundaries. Furthermore, a heavy volume of traffic could ultimately be
used as an excuse to pave over the gravel road that lies on a route
once traversed by the Pony Express. Finally, with the significant
increase in visitors, there would be a justifiable need to expand and
modernize the refuge's offices and visitor center. Although these
activities could be construed as being benign with respect to the
refuge's establishing purpose (trumpeter swan protection), there's
clearly a question of whether such activity would be appropriate given
the circumstances.
The lure of increased funds can be a powerful enticement to allow
activities on refuges that are likely to be inappropriate. In some
cases, politics can force refuge managers into accepting activities
they would otherwise reject. In the words of one current refuge manager
with concession experience, ``concessions tend to run you...they get
the support of the community and suddenly you're at their mercy.''
In one extreme case, albeit prior to the enactment of the NWRSIA, a
regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placed inordinate
pressure on a refuge manager to allow construction of an ``eco-lodge''
in the middle of whooping crane critical habitat. Risking his job to
protect the resource, the now-retired refuge manager was forced to
appeal to an international treaty signatory nation and organizations
such as the NWRA to place pressure on senior Interior Department
officials to halt the project. Ultimately the project was rejected but
this example illustrates one of the inherent risks of promoting
concessions on refuges without adequate oversight and sideboards.
NWRA Recommendations
While careful monitoring of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)
by more objective parties may serve as a balance, the likelihood of
consistent oversight is remote. To minimize this potential problem, the
NWRA recommends that language be modified in H.R. 1370 to more
specifically limit funds to facilities improvement and services that
are directly related to the concession. As currently crafted, the
language in Sec. 5(a)(2) could conceivably allow fees to support
everything from major expansion of visitor centers to habitat
restoration. In our view such a broad array of authorized uses is
fertile ground for abuse.
An additional way to better ensure that concession activities
remain consistent with the conservation objectives of refuges is to
offer right of first refusal to refuge Friends groups on the units
where they exist (currently 210). The benefits of such an approach
would have a two-fold effect: Refuge Friends groups, by their very
nature, have the best interests of the refuge in mind and; the refuge
will benefit not only from fees returned to offset concession
maintenance, but also from profits generated by the enterprise that
will ultimately be returned to support the refuge in a number of
different ways; in essence, doubling the money.
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act
By allowing concession fees to stay on refuges, H.R. 1370 will
divert funds from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund, monies of which are
used to compensate counties in which lands are managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. While representing a small contributing component
of the overall Fund--$204,000 out of $6.7 million in fiscal year 2000--
we do have concerns about further deterioration of an already
underfunded program that also helps build community support for
refuges. In effect, are we ``robbing Peter to pay Paul?'' Because of
this, we urge the Committee to review this important issue in the near
future.
In concluding, while the National Wildlife Refuge Association
strongly supports the intent of H.R. 1370, we believe changes can be
made to ensure that this legislation addresses maintenance needs
relating to concession activities, while also preserving the mission
and purposes of refuges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF CHIP CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT, OKEFENOKEE ADVENTURES
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
I do want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
in support of H.R. 1370. I believe that passage of this bill is
important to the public use and support of our country's
outstanding National Wildlife Refuge System.
My wife Joy and I own and operate Okefenokee Adventures in
Folkston, Georgia. Last year, we were awarded the concession
contract for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's East
Entrance, which is also known as the Suwannee Canal Entrance.
Our company, Okefenokee Adventures, began operations on
September 1, 2000, so we are pretty new. I have included some
additional information in my written statement about the
character of our extraordinary refuge down on the Okefenokee
Refuge, but I do want to point out that as the Okefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge's concessionaire, it is the business
of our company to help visitors understand and appreciate the
extraordinary ecological dynamics, wilderness values, and
cultural history of the Okefenokee Swamp and in doing so, to
further the mission and purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Our commitment to developing a high-quality visitor
services operation was the centerpiece of our contract
proposal, and we view that role as that of a cooperating
partnership with the refuge's public use program managers.
While that is necessarily and understandably a secondary
priority for refuge management, it is nevertheless important.
The Okefenokee attracts 400,000 visitors a year from local
communities across the United States an around the world. A
Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism study reveals
that Okefenokee visitors produce an average annual economic
impact of $55 to $65 million for the three Georgia counties,
Charlton, Clinch, and Ware, in which the refuge is located. In
2000, overall tourism expenditures in these counties totalled
$77.2 million. According to Georgia Industry, Trade and Tourism
data, tourism supports 66 businesses and provides 1,083 jobs in
the same three-county area.
The management of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
administers three public entrances under varying arrangements,
one in each county. A private park on the north side of the
swamp near Waycross in Ware County, Georgia, the Okefenokee
Swamp Park, receives about 80,000 visitors per year. Operating
under a lease arrangement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Stephen C. Foster State Park, located near the small
town of Fargo in Clinch County, Georgia, provides access to the
western side of the swamp for approximately 120,000 visitors
per year. And about half of the Okefenokee's visitors, about
200,000, come through our entrance, the East Entrance, located
in Charlton County south of Folkston, Georgia. That also serves
as the primary National Wildlife Refuge entrance.
The facilities provided to our company, Okefenokee
Adventures, under our concession contract with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service are located onsite at the East Entrance,
which was formerly known as the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area
and historically known as Camp Cornelia. These facilities
consist of two buildings--an 1,800-square-foot, climate-
controlled buildings and a 900-square-foot storage shed without
climate control. Along with the refuge visitor center, these
structures were build in the late sixties to replace the rather
dilapidated shacks of a fish camp that had operated at the
site. The buildings were completed about 1970 and are
immediately adjacent to a boat basin that includes a 400-foot
wooden bulkhead and dock, 25 15-foot-long finger docks, and a
concrete boat ramp. We have a six-by-six oil and gas house for
hazardous waste material storage and a 500-gallon above-ground
storage tank located away from the water's edge.
I should note that at the time of their completion, these
structures served what was still primarily an access for
fishermen in the early seventies. According to refuge
officials, the projected useful life of the buildings was 20
years, and obviously, they are still in use. I have observed
numerous renovations of the service area over the years as the
operators have sought to accommodate changing visitor needs.
When I was a youngster, I purchased my fish bait and tackle
at a counter located in the half of the larger building that
was wired for electricity. At that time, the other half of the
building was unwired and used for storage, and other than
traditional fishermen's staples, it offered little in the way
of visitor amenities.
As the Okefenokee's national profile grew, and visitor
numbers increased, the larger building's former storage area
was enclosed and wired; the building's electricity, air
conditioning and plumbing systems were extended into the
expansion, and restroom facilities were constructed, although
they could not and still cannot be accessed from the interior
of the building.
In the 1980's and 1990's, as visitor demographics continued
to shift toward traveling families and retirees, birders,
wildlife photographers, canoeists, and the other outdoor
recreationists that tourism officials like to call ``eco-
tourists'' and ``nature-based tourists,'' t-shirts, postcards,
rubber alligators, and other souvenirs appeared.
The refuge removed a fish cleaning station at the end of
the dock that had become an attractive nuisance--it was too
attractive to the boat basin's resident alligators--and
replaced it with a handicapped access ramp and a 1,100-square-
foot picnic deck. The 900-square-foot outbuilding was divided
into three rooms to accommodate storage and workshop needs, and
a 40-foot canoe storage rack constructed. In the late 1990's,
the previous concessionaire converted a back room into a small
kitchen, primarily to prepare meals for organized groups.
Today, using these same families, our company, Okefenokee
Adventures, provides a full range of visitor services and
support. We are open 364 days a year--every day except
Christmas--from half an hour before sunrise until 5:30 p.m.
during daylight savings time and until 7:30 p.m. during
standard time--we have long days. We have 12 employees, most of
whom work full-time or nearly so for us. We conducted guided
interpretive tours of the swamp's waterways by motorized boat,
canoe and kayak, for individuals, families, and organized
groups, by prior arrangement and on a walk-in basis. We also
outfit and guide multi-day excursions into the swamp's interior
on the refuge's wilderness canoe trail system. We conduct
walking tours along upland trails, along an historic swamper
homestead, and along the Chesser Island boardwalk.
In addition to our interpretive tours, we provide rentals
of canoes, kayaks, and motorized skiffs for self-guided
exploration of the swamp. We do have other rental items. We
continue the tradition of selling Georgia hunting and fishing
licenses, fishing tackle and provisions, and our gift shop
inventory includes many kinds of swamp and nature-related
souvenirs and educational toys.
In addition to prepared snacks, beverages and ice cream,
our food service operation, the Camp Cornelia Cafe, services a
variety of sandwiches and daily specials to the public, refuge
employees, and prearranged organized groups.
We are doing a lot out of a fairly small facility. Our
operations began on September 1, 2000, as I said. Our first
year of operation, we received tremendous assistance and
support from Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge management,
staff, and volunteers. We are especially grateful to the
AmeriCorps crew that cleaned, scoured, and painted our main
building in the earliest days of our operation.
At the same time, we are aware of the extremely limited
funding available to repair and maintain our facilities. While
critical materials, such as replacement of rotten dock board,
have been obtained rapidly, other projects, such as
construction of a lean-to shelter for our rental bicycles, are
languishing for lack of funds.
When the invitation was extended to me to present my views
on the proposed legislation, H.R. 1370, my thoughts turned to
the maintenance projects that could be funded from our
concession revenue. Most of these are decidedly prosaic. We
need a ready supply of replacement dock boards and nails. The
ceramic tiles in the original half of our main building do not
match the linoleum tiles of the expansion and kitchen; they are
all badly discolored and worn, and we would like to replace the
tiling. Our bathroom fixtures are old and corroded and need to
be replaced. We would really like to renovate the bathrooms
entirely and create some kind of external access as well. We
need new screens for the windows, and we can identify several
repairs and upgrades to our kitchen facilities that would
probably please our county health inspector.
In addition to basic maintenance and repairs, the
provisions for funding of facility enhancements are appealing.
Through my reading of the proposed legislation and my
understanding of financial logistics, I am led to conclude that
major facility enhancements such as new building construction
would probably continue to require special project grants or
appropriations. But as far as smaller projects go, the proposed
amendment could provide or help provide funding for substantial
facility enhancements. Examples that would be of direct benefit
to our company would be the proposed Mizell Prairie boardwalk,
the trailhead for which is slated to be located adjacent to our
facility; new observation decks and/or benches; upgrades to the
composting toilets at the wilderness canoe trail campsites;
construction of new canoe trail camping platforms if that is
deemed compatible; and new landscaping with native plants as
part of an overall renovation plan.
If, as proposed, H.R. 1370 assures that the Revenue Sharing
Program payments will not be affected, it does seem reasonable
to conclude that any project on our refuge receiving funds from
our concession fees would be preferable to the current
situation, however indirect the benefits to our business
interests might be.
An important point that I would respectfully urge the
Committee to consider--I would like to see the proposed change
represent a net gain for the refuge public use program funding.
If, as I understand it, one of the purpose of H.R. 1370 is to
provide refuge manager with greater incentives to enter into
concession contracts that enhance public use programs, that
proposed change would need to provide revenues to supplement
other funding sources rather than replacing them.
In conclusion, I do wish to thank Congressman Mark E.
Souder for introducing this important and necessary
legislation. It makes good business sense for refuge
concessionaires, refuge managers, refuge public use programs,
and by extension, it makes good business sense for the local
communities in which National Wildlife Refuges are located.
I consider it a rare privilege to serve as the
concessionaire on the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and a
tremendous honor to present my views on this matter today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
Statement of Chip Campbell, President of Okefenokee Adventures,
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Concessionaire
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 1370. I believe that the
passage of this bill is important to the public use and support of our
country's outstanding National Wildlife Refuge system.
My wife, Joy, and I own and operate Okefenokee Adventures in
Folkston, Georgia. Last year, we were awarded the concession contract
for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's East Entrance, also known
as the Suwannee Canal Entrance. Our company, Okefenokee Adventures,
began operations on September 1, 2000.
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is the largest National
Wildlife Refuge in the eastern United States, encompassing 396,000
acres of the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp. Scientists tell us that the
Okefenokee is a vast peat wetland complex of cypress, bay, gum and pine
forests, dense shrub bogs, freshwater marshes, small lakes and streams,
that it is the largest and best example of its ecosystem type, and that
it harbors an abundance of wildlife endemic to the southeastern United
States' coastal plain, including numerous threatened and endangered
species - all of which is true. But the Okefenokee is far more than
technical language conveys. In a region that abounds with wetlands, the
Okefenokee is ``The Swamp''. An incomparable landscape of sometimes
subtle but often breathtaking beauty, the swamp is an organic riot of
teeming life and sudden death, home to hundreds of black bears and
thousands of American alligators, as well as a kaleidoscope of birds
and frogs and dragonflies and plants. It is a natural wildlife refuge.
Accordingly, the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge was established in
1937. It is one of our older Refuges. Although the swamp bears fading
scars from human economic endeavors, which have included a failed
drainage attempt in the late 19th century and a major cypress and pine
logging operation in the early 20th century, it remains one of the most
fundamentally wild places in the eastern United States. In recognition
of this enduring and essential wildness, in 1974 the United States
Congress designated 354,000 acres of the Okefenokee as a federal
Wilderness Area.
The human history of the Okefenokee is as rich as its biological
diversity and its wilderness values. Once inhabited by people of
Woodland and Mississippian cultures whose burial mounds still dot The
Swamp's interior islands and upland edges, the Okefenokee later served
as a hunting ground for Timucuans and a sanctuary for Seminoles before
being settled by frontier folk of extraordinary toughness and self-
reliance who came to be called ``swampers''. Today, the residents of
Okefenokee communities take great pride in their swamper heritage and
its colorful store of history, folklore, legend and myth and
determining which is which will pose a challenge for cultural
historians for generations to come.
As the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's concessionaire, it is
the business of our company, Okefenokee Adventures, to help visitors
understand and appreciate the extraordinary ecological dynamics,
wilderness values and cultural history of the Okefenokee Swamp and, in
doing so, to further the mission and purposes of the National Wildlife
Refuge system. Our commitment to developing a high-quality visitor
services operation was the centerpiece of our contract proposal, and we
view our role as that of a cooperating partnership with the Refuge's
public use program managers. While that is necessarily and
understandably a secondary priority for Refuge management, it is
nevertheless an important one.
The Okefenokee attracts approximately 400,000 visitors each year
from the local communities, across the United States, and around the
world. A Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism study
reveals that Okefenokee visitors produce an average annual economic
impact of $55-$65 million for the three Georgia counties, Charlton,
Clinch and Ware, in which the Refuge is located. In 2000, overall
tourism expenditures in these counties totaled $77.2 million. According
to Georgia Industry, Trade and Tourism data, tourism supports 66
businesses and provides 1,083 jobs in this same three county area. The
management of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge administers three
public entrances under varying arrangements, one in each county. A
private park on the north side of the swamp near Waycross in Ware
County, Georgia, the Okefenokee Swamp Park, receives about 80,000
visitors per year. Operating under a lease agreement with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Stephen C. Foster State Park, located near the
small town of Fargo in Clinch Country, Georgia, provides access to the
western side of the swamp for approximately 120,000 visitors per year.
And about half of the Okefenokee's visitors, approximately 200,000
people per year, come through our entrance, the East Entrance, located
in Charlton County south of Folkston, Georgia, which serves as the
primary National Wildlife Refuge entrance.
The facilities provided to our company, Okefenokee Adventures,
under our concession contract with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are located onsite at the East Entrance, which was formerly known as
the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area and historically known as Camp
Cornelia. These facilities consist of two buildings: an 1800-sq. foot,
climate-controlled building and a 900-sq. foot storage shed without
climate control. Along with the Refuge Visitor Center, these structures
were built in the late 1960's to replace the rather dilapidated shacks
of a fish camp that had operated at the site. The buildings were
completed about 1970 and are immediately adjacent to a boat basin that
includes a 400-foot wooden bulkhead and dock, twenty-five (25) 15-foot
long ``finger'' docks, and a concrete boat ramp. A 6'X6' oil/gas house
for hazardous material storage and a 500-gallon above-ground fuel
storage tank are located away from the water's edge across a paved
parking area.
It should be noted that at the time of their completion, these
structures served what was still primarily an access for fishermen in
the early 1970's. According to Refuge officials, the projected useful
life of the buildings was 20 years. They are still in use. I have
observed numerous renovations of this service area over the years as
the operators have sought to accommodate changing visitor needs. When I
was a youngster, I purchased my fish bait and tackle at a counter
located in the half of the larger building that was wired for
electricity. At that time, the other half of the building was unwired
and used for storage, and other than traditional fishermen's staples
such as Vienna sausages, soda crackers and Coca-Cola, the little shop
offered little in the way of visitor amenities. As the Okefenokee's
national profile grew and visitor numbers increased, the larger
building's former storage area was enclosed and wired. The building's
electricity, air conditioning and plumbing systems were extended into
the expansion, and restroom facilities were constructed, although they
could not (and still cannot) be accessed from the building's interior.
In the 1980's and 1990's, as visitor demographics continued to shift
towards traveling families and retirees, birders, wildlife
photographers, canoeists, and the other outdoor recreationists that
tourism officials like to call ``ecotourists'' or ``nature-based
tourists'', T-shirts, postcards, rubber alligators and other souvenirs
appeared on the concession shelves. The Refuge removed a fish cleaning
station at the end of the dock that had became an attractive nuisance
it was far too attractive to the boat basin's resident alligators and
replaced it with a handicapped access ramp and beautiful 1,100-sq. foot
picnic deck. The 900-sq. foot outbuilding was divided into three rooms
to accommodate storage and workshop needs, and a 40-foot canoe storage
rack was constructed. In the late 1990's, the previous concessionaire
converted a back room into a small kitchen, primarily to prepare meals
for organized groups.
Today, using these same facilities, our company, Okefenokee
Adventures, provides a full range of visitor services and support. We
are open 364 days a year (every day except Christmas) from half an hour
before sunrise until 5:30 p.m. during Daylight Saving Time and until
7:30 p.m. during Standard Time. We have 12 employees. Most work full-
time or nearly so. We conduct guided interpretive tours of the swamp's
waterways by motorized boat, canoe, and kayak for individuals, families
and organized groups by prior arrangement and on a walk-in basis. We
also outfit and guide multi-day excursions into the swamp's interior on
the Refuge's wilderness canoe trail system. We conduct walking tours
along upland trails, around an historic swamper homestead, and along
the Chesser Island boardwalk. In addition to our guided interpretive
tours, we provide rentals of canoes, kayaks, and motorized skiffs for
self-guided explorations of swamp waterways. Other rental items include
bicycles, which visitors use to observe wildlife along the Swamp Island
Drive, camping gear for backcountry excursions, and fishing gear. We
continue the tradition of selling Georgia hunting and fishing licenses,
fishing tackle, and provisions. Our gift shop inventory includes many
kinds of swamp and nature-related souvenirs and educational toys. In
addition to packaged snacks, beverages, and ice cream, our food service
operation, the Camp Cornelia Cafe, serves a variety of excellent
sandwiches and daily specials to the public, Refuge employees, and
prearranged organized groups.
As I stated, Okefenokee Adventures began operations on September 1,
2000. In our first year of operation, we have received tremendous
assistance and support from Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
managers, staff and volunteers. We are especially grateful to the
AmeriCorps crew who cleaned, scoured and repainted our main building in
the earliest days of our operation. At the same time, we are aware of
the extremely limited funding available to repair and maintain our
facilities. While critical materials such as replacements for rotten
dock boards have been obtained promptly, other projects, such as the
construction of a lean-to shelter for our rental bicycles, languish for
lack of funds. When the invitation was extended to me to present my
views on the proposed legislation, H.R. 1370, my thoughts turned to the
maintenance projects that could be funded from our concession revenues.
Most of these are decidedly prosaic. We need a ready supply of
replacement dock boards and nails. The ceramic tiles in the original
half of our main building do not match the linoleum tiles of the
expansion and kitchen, and they are all badly discolored and worn, so
we would like to replace our tiling. Our bathroom fixtures are old and
corroded and need to be replaced: indeed we would like to renovate the
bathrooms completely. We need new screens for our windows. And we can
identify several repairs and upgrades to our kitchen facilities that
would probably please our county health inspector.
In addition to basic maintenance and repairs, the provisions for
funding of facility enhancements are appealing. Though my reading of
the proposed legislation and my understanding of financial logistics
leads me to conclude that major facility enhancements such as new
building construction would continue to require special project grants
or appropriations, the proposed amendment could provide (or help
provide) funding for substantial facility enhancements. Examples that
would be of direct benefit to Okefenokee Adventures' interests could
include the proposed Mizell Prairie boardwalk, the trailhead for which
is slated to be located adjacent to our facility; new observation decks
and/or benches; upgrades to the composting toilets at the wilderness
canoe trail campsites; construction of new canoe trail camping
platforms; and new landscaping with native plants. If, as proposed,
H.R. 1370 assures that Revenue Sharing Program payments will not be
affected, it indeed seems reasonable to conclude that any project on
the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge receiving funds from our
concession fees would be preferable to the current situation, however
indirect the benefits to our business interests might be.
An important point that I respectfully urge the Committee to
consider: the proposed change should represent a net gain for Refuge
public use program funding. If, as I understand it, one of the purposes
of H.R. 1370 is to provide Refuge managers with greater incentives to
enter into concession contracts that enhance their public use programs,
the proposed change will need to provide revenues that supplement other
funding sources rather than replacing them.
In conclusion, I wish to thank Congressman Mark E. Souder for
introducing this important and necessary legislation. It makes good
business sense for Refuge concessionaires, Refuge managers and Refuge
public use programs and, by extension, it makes good business sense for
the local communities in which National Wildlife Refuges are located. I
consider it a rare privilege to serve as the concessionaire on the
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and a tremendous honor to present
my views on this matter today. Thank you.
______
Mr. Jones. I thank you each for your testimony, and I would
now like to yield to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank the witnesses for their testimony and apologize for not
being here a little bit earlier. The elevators here are
sometimes unreliable over in that part of Rayburn. We toyed
with the idea of opening one of those emergency doors, but we
thought better of it.
Basically, I know the issue of concessions. Mr. Hirsche, in
your testimony, you sort of intimated that the proposed
legislation might create situations where refuge managers would
pursue concessions in the hope of gaining additional funding
for their sites, which would perhaps allow some concessions
which would be incompatible with the Refuge System.
How would you go about resolving that, because I do think
that in general the legislation is a good idea; we would like
to see additional revenues.
Mr. Hirsche. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree.
Mr. Underwood. No, I am not the Chairman--he is.
Mr. Hirsche. Yes, Mr. Underwood, I certainly agree, and as
I mentioned in my spoken remarks, do think it is valuable to
have opportunities for the public to enjoy wildlife-oriented,
compatible recreation on refuges. It is a terrific way to build
community support for refuges.
Again, as we read it in section 5(a)(2), the language could
be interpreted as being fairly broad. The term ``resource
preservation'' is one authorized use, and let me give you an
example. Under that term monies could support rebuilding an
impoundment structure which would provide a wetland for nesting
birds. At many refuges around the country, there is a real need
for fixing these impoundments.
As we interpret the legislation it could be claimed by a
concessionaire that using the fee money to restore that water
control structure would be applicable to their concession if
they are running, for instance, a birdwatching program or a
hunt program, and so on. The concern would be that if you allow
all of these alternatives, refuge managers would suddenly see
an opportunity to address a number of conservation issues on
their refuges that may not be directly related to the
concession and the result may be bending some of the
compatibility determinations in cases where managers might
instead err on the side of caution.
Mr. Underwood. Isn't it possible to suggest a process of
review that would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
first make an assessment of the nature of the concessions?
Perhaps Mr. Ashe or Mr. Hinds would care to respond to that.
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Underwood, yes, I would, and I would like to
give Lou a chance to respond to that as well. I share Evan's
concern in several regards, and I think that with some
relatively simple changes as we have recommended in our
testimony, we can go a long way toward addressing those
concerns by specifically linking the kinds of things that we
can do with the money to the provision of visitor services.
We do not want to provide an incentive for a manager to, by
striking a deal with a business partner, essentially fund the
operation of the refuge. What we should be trying to do is make
this part of a plan to provide visitor services, and if we
restrict it to that and look at the range of things that would
be appropriate in supporting visitor services, then I think we
can go a long way toward mitigating that concern.
The other thing is that before 1997, I would have had more
concern about this, but through the hard work of this
Committee, we enacted the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, which put in place some very protective
standards for evaluating uses of National Wildlife Refuges, and
managers have to go through a rigorous process of making a
determination about compatibility of uses.
Let me let Lou Hinds make a few remarks. Lou is our refuge
supervisor in Atlanta. He supervises all of our refuges in
Florid and was recently the refuge manager at Ding Darling
National Wildlife Refuge at Sanibel Island in Florida.
Mr. Hinds. Thank you, Mr. Underwood, for your question.
I echo Dan's statement. I think the 1997 National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act, which requires public disclosure
through the comprehensive conservation management planning
process that is required, opens up to public scrutiny what uses
are going to take place on a National Wildlife Refuge. And it
is not just left up to the refuge manager there; it is then
bumped up to our regional office, where it goes through intense
scrutiny by biologists as well as outdoor recreation planners.
At that point, I think those people would, for lack of a better
word, ferret out those bad decisions if there were any made and
would say no to them. And if they were there, and a manger made
a bad decision, that is where it would show up, and it would
not be allowed.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I would hope that your managers are
not making bad decisions, but I am grateful for your oversight.
Just based on the list that was given here, there are 540
refuges, and 49 have concessions. What are the dynamics that
are keeping more refuges from having concessions, and what are
the impediments to that?
Mr. Ashe. I think we have 49 refuges with some kind of
cooperative agreement, or I will say ``business partnership,''
going on. We have a more limited number where we have
concession contracts--I think 15 is the number.
The main thing that limits or is a disincentive for a
manager to enter into a concession agreement is exactly what
Mr. Souder's bill is trying to address. It is a very practical
question that if I enter into a concession contract, all the
revenue from that contract goes into the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund and is paid to counties. So that revenue goes off-
refuge, essentially. In order, then, to make improvements to
the concession facilities, a manager has to use maintenance
funding, annually appropriated maintenance dollars, which are
very scarce. As wa mentioned before and as you have heard
before, Congressman, we have an $800 million backlog, so as a
manager faces that decision, it is a very pragmatic decision.
So they try to be creative, and they try to do things through
cooperative agreements or memoranda of understanding with other
organizations to try to make sure the revenue stays on the
refuge.
Mr. Underwood. Has the Service given any consideration to
perhaps--since it is not a question of whether these
concession-type activities are incompatible with the refuges,
it is just that under current rules, they are a disincentive--
have you made any estimate, perhaps, or thought about how many
refuges where it would be incompatible to have any concession
whatsoever, or conceivably, how many additional concessions
could be established?
Mr. Ashe. It would be sheer speculation on my part. I think
there could be a significant number, and by ``significant,'' we
are talking about dozens within the Refuge System. Our mission
is to protect wildlife and manage wildlife, and while we do
have an expanding visitation--we are approaching 40 million
visitors a year now--the opportunities for us to do these kinds
of things are fairly limited within the Refuge System, but this
is an important new tool, and I do think that if we had a new
tool, and the mangers knew they could go into a concession
contract, and they could have a relationship with a business
where the revenue was going to come to the refuge and was going
to support that activity, the managers would be more
comfortable with it, because they could say, ``Maybe I can get
my law enforcement officer paid from some of these revenues,''
or ``I will not have to build a trail and have my maintenance
worker maintaining the trail system to support the concession
operation.''
So I think that if we have legislation like this, our
managers will look at public use a little bit differently and
look to forge new kinds of partnerships with business to
provide those services.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Campbell, for
your testimony. I have never met anyone from the Okefenokee,
but I have heard a lot about it. So thank you.
Mr. Souder. [Presiding.] We are glad that you wear a beard,
because that is what we think people from the Okefenokee do.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Souder. I want to come at the question that Mr.
Underwood asked slightly differently. Currently--and Mr. Ashe
and Mr. Hinds, maybe you can answer this, and then I would like
to know how this would differ, because it is confusing--
currently, Fish and Wildlife determines which buildings and
structures should be maintained and repaired; is that not
correct?
Mr. Hinds. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. How would that change under the bill, because
wouldn't the concessionaire still have to get that cleared?
Mr. Hinds. Mr. Souder, that particular aspect would be
handled under the actual contract instrument. In other words,
when we sit down to negotiate the deal with the concessionaire,
at that time, the Fish and Wildlife Service will dictate what
buildings will be maintained, what trails will be maintained,
and the dollars will be negotiated as to what those maintenance
costs are and how they will be handled in the contract as
payment to the Government.
So we have the ability to regulate that through policy and
through your law.
Mr. Souder. In other words, a concessionaire cannot all of
a sudden decide he is going to put a new trail in, put a new
building in, or a new canoe concession?
Mr. Hinds. No. That is correct. That would still be under
the full control of the refuge manager, the Fish and Wildlife
Service; and again, any of those uses would have to first go
through the compatibility determination process.
Mr. Souder. And if the Fish and Wildlife Service determined
that they wanted a building in fact eliminated, that would be
negotiated in the contract--in other words, if there were
something that you felt was incompatible with a new nesting
area, this bill does not restrict your ability to remove that
if that had been negotiated in the contract--in other words,
the decisions are not ultimately being made by the
concessionaire. We are trying to get more dollars into the
hands of the concessionaires to maintain what they have, not to
give them decisionmaking power to put new things in.
Mr. Hinds. That is correct. Under the present instruments
that are used, the contract instruments, should we choose
because of a new endangered species that pops up or something
that we have to stop that use, within the contract, there are
terms and conditions under which we compensate the
concessionaire for the building of the building and then the
loss of the building. In other words, they amortize the loss.
So that yes, we still have full control over it.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hirsche, could you give your example again
of something that was not related to visitor services? I did
not understand it. I apologize.
Mr. Hirsche. The example was this. Throughout the system,
you have examples of water control structures, impoundments,
holding impoundments, which are broken down as a result of the
massive maintenance backlog. As we read in this legislation,
language is so broad for how these monies could be applied that
dollars could be applied to this for repair--
Mr. Souder. Okay, I understand that. Let me ask the
question. Currently, the way concessionaires operate in the
wildlife refuge, couldn't money from the concessionaire be used
for that?
Mr. Hirsche. I do not--I would not be able to answer that
question. Dan--
Mr. Souder. In other words, do you have any restrictions on
any money currently that you get from the concessionaire?
Mr. Ashe. If we have a typical concession contract now, and
we are receiving revenue, whenever a refuge manager receives
revenue, his duty is to put it into the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund, and that money then goes to payments to counties.
So we are restricted now, but as I said, there are ways around
that, and that is where we get into the small tools thing. In
the case that I was describing to you before, we have a
cooperative agreement with a rather large business, and it has
caused problems because it is not a very sophisticated tool. So
we used that model so that we could keep revenue on the
station, and it has caused great problems both for us and for
the business enterprise.
So managers will try to be creative and get around the
requirement to deposit revenues into the fund, but in the case
that Evan outlined, today, under a concession contract, you
could not take some of those revenues and invest them into
maintenance of a waterfowl impoundment without some very
creative and perhaps inappropriate movement of money.
Mr. Souder. You have partly confused me additionally and
partly answered the question. Let me see if I understand this.
What you are saying is that you technically cannot use
concession money to do other types of improvements on the
refuge in addition to visitor services, but because this puts
tremendous pressure on the refuge, you come up with creative
ways to do those kinds of things in that the concessionaire can
make improvements that might not be credited to him--
Mr. Ashe. Right.
Mr. Souder. --and therefore, this is more straightforward--
Mr. Ashe. I will be more blunt with you. We have authority
to accept donations, so in most cases, what a manager would do
if he wanted to keep the revenue on board is strike a deal with
the co-operator and say, ``You agree to make a donation to
maintain the facility and keep this going up to a certain
level,'' and it is within the law, but then it is a difficult
thing to enforce. If we get into a situation where the co-
operator is not performing, it becomes very difficult for us to
enforce, because in a legal sense, all they are doing is making
a donation.
So we do not have the right tool. It would be much better
to have concession contract authority where we have very
specific agreements, as Lou has outlined here, that a
concessionaire says ``As part of the business plan, we will do
this, this, and this,'' and that is part of the payment to the
United States Government. Then, if there is nonperformance, we
can go back under the terms of the contract and enforce that
nonperformance. So it is a much bigger tool to use.
Mr. Souder. And finishing up this line of questioning, let
me go to a broader question again. If I understand--because the
goal of the legislation is to try to clean up some of this
process and make it more straightforward--but coming back to
this broken water control project again, my understanding--and
I am flexible in this--but I thought that part of this, modeled
after what the Park Service does, is that in effect the
concessionaire bids a percentage that they are going to pay
based on the agreed-upon amounts of things that you are going
to have them deal with directly as opposed to paying a fee--so
in some areas it might be 10 percent, in some areas it might be
2 percent, depending on what they think the revenues are going
to be combined with what they are being asked to do. That is
correct so far, right?
Mr. Ashe. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Then, the next question is on that amount that
is coming to the refuge, why shouldn't the refuge be able to
decide whether or not they want to put the additional dollars
into things other than visitor services if in fact the
concessionaire is being asked to, with their percentage and
what they are bidding, address the visitor services question?
Mr. Ashe. I think that that is a fair question that you
ask. I think that as you get further away from the visitor
services context, it does raise additional concerns that a
manager might be entering into this agreement for the purpose
of supplementing the budget for the station as opposed to a
specific plan to provide for high-quality visitor services.
I can imagine a context where a concessionaire might say
``That impoundment is not working, so there are no birds there,
and I do not have customers unless you have birds in that
impoundment.'' So I can envision a case where work on an
impoundment might be a necessary element of a visitor services
experience at a particular refuge, but I think we need to make
sure that that is the decisionmaking that is going on, and that
it is not a manager saying, ``I really need another biologist
on my staff, so if I enter into a concession agreement over
here and generate some revenue, I can get my biologist and
supplement my budget.''
That is not what we want managers to do, but we do want
them to be able to sit down and, if an impoundment or some
other wildlife management activity is a function of a quality
visitor services program and public use program, that should be
within the realm of possibility.
Mr. Souder. I want to yield back to Mr. Underwood again,
but I want to put this thought out there. I am struggling with
this logic, because my understanding is that if there are
things that are directly visitor services, they should be in
that contract, and if you want to do other things, that is
fine; but the way we do it in the Park Service, they are not
restricted in the concessionaire fee just to use those things
for visitor services. In fact, it has been a supplement. I do
not think an individual park director any more than a wildlife
refuge manager can suddenly decide to do something without
clearance from above because he has additional cash; you still
have a check and balance system, particularly if it would
affect things in his refuge. But part of this is in fact to
enhance the refuge, both the visitor services, and presumably
visitor services are at least somewhat connected to the quality
of the refuge. We do not want to have a situation where we have
great visitor services and a lousy refuge. That would be all
backward.
The irony here is that we are talking as though the visitor
services are a higher standard than maintaining the park or the
refuge.
Mr. Ashe. I think they are not, and in some regards, the
analogy to the Park Service is a good one, in some regards not.
I can see in the case of the Park Service where money going
back generally into the operation of a park makes more sense,
because the purpose of parks is recreation; their fundamental
purpose is to provide recreational opportunity for Americans.
Our fundamental mission is conservation of wildlife, so we have
to be more careful as we think about the intermingling of the
objectives. I think we need to maintain a greater degree of
separation between public use and resource management than the
Park Service does. And there is some crossover; there
definitely are some places where resource management is needed
to support quality visitor experience, and we need to provide
flexibility for managers to make those decisions, but not too
far.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Basically, I do not really have a series of questions, but
I did want to offer the observation that I would like to see
something come from the National Park Service in terms of their
implementation of this process to see what kinds of problems
they have experienced.
I would assume that in those refuges that you have a series
of activities and responsibilities that you have to carry out
regardless of whether you have a concession or not. So
contracting out certain things and allowing concession provides
an opportunity to supplement but certainly not to supplant your
activities. So I guess we are trying to find out exactly what
is the meaning of ``supplement'' in this particular case. It is
sort of difficult. I guess the only thing I can compare it to
is when I used to as an educator try to get Federal grants, and
they always had in there a series of caveats that were
``supplementing and not supplanting,'' and I do not know
whether that has any kind of real clear definition, but in this
instance, ``supplement'' does mean something as well; it does,
in my estimation, mean going somewhat a little bit beyond a
tightly-wound definition of visitor services.
I just wanted to ask Mr. Campbell, in your line of work, is
there an industry-wide support organization, and have they
taken a position on this, or are you just representing your
concession at the Okefenokee?
Mr. Campbell. I am not aware of any industry-wide
associations. We have a State association in Georgia, the
Georgia Nature-Based Tourism Association, which includes some
concessionaires on both State and Federal operations, but it is
a small association and has not taken any kind of formal
position, so there is no professional association.
Mr. Underwood. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I need to get a little more input on the
earlier question, because somehow this seems backward to me.
Mr. Hirsche in effect has said he wants the dollars used for
visitor services. Is that not correct?
Mr. Hirsche. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Yet the difference when I asked about the Park
Service was that the Park Service could use these things for
other visitor services--recreation. In fact, a biologist is not
related to visitor services. A water control gate that needs
repair--now, we can argue whether it should be repaired, but
that is a decision that is at a higher level--obviously, it
cannot be used--under current and under Mr. Hirsche's
suggestion of a change would be to limit it to visitor
services. What I am asking is what is wrong with having it so
that it can be used for something that is not recreation-
oriented or visitor service-oriented, but is actually related
to preserving habitat or helping the things that are supposed
to be protected in the refuge, such as a biologist or for
research. I do not quite understand the objection. I am not
saying that it should not be used for visitor services, and in
fact one of the other questions I have is what happens if the
estimate of what the concessionaire was going to pay does not
maintain visitor services the way you had hoped; how would you
cover that? If you used all of your money on a biologist, you
would not have the ability to cover; on the other hand, the
stuff is not being maintained currently, either, so it is not
necessarily a loss.
Do you want to address that?
Mr. Hirsche. Yes, I would like to address that. This is
certainly an interesting dilemma. If I am a concessionaire, I
am going to enter into a contract that will ensure that I have
a good business model over the long haul. That means attracting
more people, providing better and more services, and having a
good outfit so people have a positive experience at the refuge.
So--and Chip can respond to this further--as a
concessionaire I would only enter into a contract where I knew
that fees I am paying going back into the refuge are going to
bolster my business in terms of reaching and involving
visitors. So I do not think I would necessarily wish to see
funds support a biologist if I did not see a direct
relationship.
I guess the point I am making is when a concessionaire
comes in with a plan and says, ``Look, if we did this and this
and this, and we repaired this water control structure, I can
set up more trams, more operations, and generate more income.
The refuge manager may see that opportunity as a good one, but
the improvements may be secondary tasks to, for instance, a
species recovery effort in a part of the refuge that is not
going to be accessed by visitors.
So I am not sure if I am articulating myself well here, but
I think that ultimately, concessionaires are going to be
interested in entering into contracts where the money is going
back to support their concession. The issue is whether refuge
managers are going to be willing, because of the allure of
having some projects or needs addressed that are not
necessarily top priorities, to go ahead with those simply
because the concessionaire offers an opportunity.
Mr. Souder. Unless somebody has a strong opinion, let me
move away from that and make a brief statement, and that is
that I hope--and this is what we are seeing in the parks, we
are starting to see it in the forests and BLM, particularly in
the wilderness areas of those, and we a certainly seeing it in
the wildlife refuge--we are out of money, and we are running
out at a faster rate every time we have incidents like last
week; and we are going to dip in and basically wipe out what we
were trying to do in paying off our debts regarding Social
Security, and the budget pressure is going to be incredible.
Yet every year, including under this administration in
spite--and I am saying this as a conservative Republican--in
spite of the official position that we are adding no new net
lands, we are going to add new net lands, particularly areas
around the country where we have less public ownership than in
the West--in the Midwest, the East, areas of the South, we are
going to be adding additional public lands because it has
become increasingly important to the psyche of this country,
the desire of this country, to have everything from places to
hike, for preservation, as we build more, and it does not
matter whether you are a conservative Republican or a liberal
Democrat--we are going to be adding more cultural and
historical and natural lands, which means there are going to be
increasing amounts of public lands with a flat funding stream
or less, depending on what subpart you are in. We need creative
ways to address that. And while there might be temptations to
expand and abuse refuges if they have the ability to bring in
more concession revenue, the fact is that we have to find
additional ways to do this without compromising the fundamental
portions of the refuges, or some of the original purposes are
going to break down themselves. The areas around the refuges
are going to put more pressure on the refuges.
We are not going to have the dollars in those refuges to
understand the relationships of the outside to the inside if we
do not have sufficient biologists, if we do not have sufficient
research, if we do not watch where the migratory patterns are
changing or the pressures on the water systems that are coming
in. We are not going to have the Federal dollars with which to
do that, and we are looking for increased ways to do it without
turning every area into commercialization.
So I have not been convinced by this debate, although we
will continue to work with that.
I have a few other questions if I may go ahead, Mr.
Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Go ahead.
Mr. Souder. How does this legislation affect the amount of
money deposited in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund? I heard
some mixed comments on that.
Mr. Ashe?
Mr. Ashe. The best that I think we can tell is that the
immediate effect would be very negligible, because of the 15
concession contracts that we have now, only three of them, I
believe, are paying into the revenue-sharing fund, which raises
an important question in my mind.
Mr. Underwood. I have the same question; do you want to
verbalize that a little?
Mr. Ashe. It is about $200,000 is the total effect on the
National Wildlife Refuge System Fund; the total available for
revenue-sharing payments this past year was about $25 million,
so it is a negligible impact.
Mr. Souder. And the reason only three are paying in is
because in fact the refuges need the money, and they are
figuring out ways to get around it--would that be a fair
statement?
Mr. Ashe. Yes--I do not know. My guess is those managers
are either unaware of the requirement or those are longstanding
concession agreements, and at some point in time they had
worked out some other arrangements. So my answer to you is I do
not know. This is information that we have just gathered in the
last couple of days, so all I can do is report to you the
information; I cannot tell you why 12 out of 15 are not making
deposits into the revenue-sharing fund.
Mr. Souder. How do you think we should offset that
$200,000?
Mr. Ashe. In the current budget for 2002, both the House
and the Senate have increased the appropriations for the
National Wildlife Refuge System by about $5 million each. So I
think the best way is probably the traditional way, which is to
appropriate additional dollars.
It is a much larger question, Mr. Souder, but it is one I
would pose to the Committee and the Subcommittee, and that is
that perhaps we need to take a look at how the revenue-sharing
program is structured as a whole. In the case of a refuge like
Okefenokee, where that refuge is generating significant
economic benefits for the surrounding community, or a refuge
like Ding Darling in Florida, which is generating significant
economic benefit, maybe we should be questioning whether we
need to make a revenue-sharing payment.
Congressman Jones was here before, and we have a refuge
like Alligator River in Hyde and Tyrrell County in North
Carolina, very economically depressed counties. Those revenue-
sharing payments are very important to those communities.
So maybe we need to take another look at how the revenue-
sharing program is structured as well.
Mr. Souder. Would you oppose having all concessionaires pay
into this fund?
Mr. Ashe. If you make the concessionaires pay into the
fund, you defeat the purpose of making the revenue available to
the refuge, or you diminish it in any regard, so--
Mr. Souder. In other words, in effect, you have less money
to use.
Mr. Hinds. Yes, correct.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask the question a different way and
instead bounce off of--in the testimony that you presented, Mr.
Ashe, you raised the 80-20 fee that we have in the National
Parks. Certainly if we did the 80-20 on top of this, we are
actually headed in the wrong direction. In other words, there
will be less money for repairs and maintenance if you did 80-20
plus had to put the funds in all concessionaire agreements into
local offset.
Mr. Ashe. I think the issue of 80-20 is related to
maintaining some kind of ability to provide oversight of a
national concession program, and the same was true for the fee
demonstration program that Congress initiated several years ago
for public lands of which the Refuge System is a part. That
legislation allows 100 percent of the revenue to stay on the
station, but provides that up to 20 percent can be retained at
the regional or national level. So there is also a similar
model in the fee demonstration program. But that would result
in less dollars remaining at the station, clearly, and in some
cases in the Fish and Wildlife Service with the fee
demonstration program, we have allowed all the revenues to stay
at the station rather than taking any at the regional or
national level.
So that requirement clearly would pull dollars away from
the field station, but I do believe, too, that there does need
to be some kind of ability to oversee this kind of program so
we make sure that the kinds of problems that have happened in
the Park Service concession program and the kinds of concerns
that Evan has raised in his testimony do not take hold as we
build a bigger concession program within the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Refuge System.
The question about the revenue-sharing fund is a more
difficult question, and I guess I do not believe that the funds
from these concession contracts should go into the revenue-
sharing fund. I think we need to find other ways to deal with
the issues pertaining to payments to counties under the
revenue-sharing fund, both by direct appropriations and also by
looking at the possibility, as I said, of restructuring the
approach that we are taking to making revenue-sharing payments.
Mr. Souder. What if the funds not used in maintenance went
into the revenue-sharing fund?
Mr. Ashe. Portions of the payments that were not used for
maintenance went into the revenue-sharing fund? You could do
that. I think what that would do is create a very strong
incentive on the part of a manager to come up with a lot of
maintenance projects.
Mr. Souder. I think that that might happen as well, which
could be good or bad, depending.
Mr. Hinds?
Mr. Hinds. Congressman Souder, if I might, if I could put
some numbers to this to bring it a little bit more into focus,
as Dan Ashe said, there are about $204,000 right now going into
the revenue-sharing payment from the three refuges that are
currently inputting that money. Divided out, there are 780
counties that are receiving that money. If you do the math, it
comes to about $256 per county on average that would be reduced
at this time.
However, when you look at what a concession can provide to
a county like Ding Darling, where I thought I was going to have
to close down our concession at one time because of the lack of
maintenance funds, and I went to the county and asked them,
``How much is the Ding Darling concession worth to you?'' I
thought they were going to come back with a number of $2 or $3
million. I was staggered in Florida when they came back and
said approximately $54 million in direct and indirect costs.
That is what a concession operation that is properly run
and maintained, to a degree--again, I thought I was going to
have to close it down--but that is what it is worth to the
county.
So with these things, even though there may be some short-
term losses in revenue-sharing funds to the county, the long-
term gain to the county is better economic health, and that is
the point I would like to make.
Mr. Souder. I want to pursue just a couple of other brief
lines of questioning, because this is very helpful as we plunge
into this. It is the first real airing of something that we
have been talking about for a long time, and I appreciate your
patience.
I spent a fair amount of time over the last two summers
working with some of the National Park questions and have some
real strong concerns with the demonstration and how it is being
handled. So let me ask some fundamental questions first about
the fee structure. In the fee structure, if someone enters--I
know that at Ding Darling, it is $5 when you come in--is that
true at most refuges? Is there any kind of fee? I have been in
some where there is no logical collection place.
Mr. Ashe. At most refuges, there is no kind of fee or
controlled entry program. If you have a duck stamp or a Golden
Eagle Passport, you get access to all refuges. But at most of
our refuges, we do not have high enough visitation or
controlled access points where you can do what we do at Ding
Darling or at Chincoteague.
Mr. Souder. So, there are very few places where that is a
revenue source.
Mr. Ashe. True.
Mr. Souder. And there are not that many places where
concessions are a revenue source--it was something like 40. One
of the goals of the demonstration fees was to try to have more
parks, particularly a lot of the larger parks where they have a
lot of visitation, get dollars in by using the concession fees.
In some places, it has worked well, but in other places, having
the passes is undermining that goal. Particularly, the more we
promote the pass, the more the money is not going to the park.
They are now taking an increased advertising fee out of the
demonstration fee, plus they want the 20 percent in, and all of
a sudden, people who had banked and made their assumptions and
their budgeting on that are having problems. Similar things can
occur in concession fees in planning.
One of the fundamental goals in introducing the bill was to
have more control at the individual refuge level and more
flexibility, and not in effect have the Federal Government in
Washington and in Congress then figure out how to cover the
other areas, which is kind of what you are arguing on some of
this local fee question, in addition to the argument that,
look, if they have a concessionaire, they are actually going to
gain more than they are going to lose in the matching fees,
because the property taxes, the State income taxes, the payroll
taxes that come out of an expanded concessionaire business are
going to exceed the amount of fees that are lost.
In the Park Service, one of the things we had in the
demonstration fees, for example, the 80-20 argument, was that
in effect, Yellowstone could help pay for the Apostle Islands,
where the Apostle Islands do not have a logical place to get
in. This is kind of a difficult accounting system in the sense
that if in fact we put this to where we are underwriting part
of the national program, with the exception of Ding Darling and
maybe Okefenokee and a few other places, we are not talking
about having lots of dollars coming in from concessionaires--is
that not true?
Mr. Ashe. I think that is true. The differences are orders
of magnitude.
Mr. Souder. We are not looking at hotels.
Mr. Ashe. In the fee demonstration program, we bring in
about $5 million a year. The Park Service brings in, I think,
about $140 million a year. So we are looking at orders of
magnitude difference. I am sure the same is true with
concession contracts and agreements. In our context, it is
going to be a small element of our annual operating and
maintenance, but it can be important on some stations. Most of
that $5 million that we collect comes from a very few--we have
almost 100 refuges in the fee demonstration program now, and
probably 90 percent of that $5 million comes from 10 refuges.
And I imagine concession agreements would be the same--they
will gravitate toward the refuges where we have high
visitation, controlled access, so the same will be true in the
end.
But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have money going
into the revenue-sharing fund and going into maintenance at the
ground level. It is a one-for-one tradeoff--either concession
contracts provide money to go into the revenue-sharing fund, or
they allow flexibility at the station level to get the work
done.
I think I am with you, Congressman Souder. I want that
money to go onto the ground to do things. That does mean that
we are making a compromise, and we are agreeing that that money
will not go into the revenue-sharing fund, but I do believe
that that is a sound investment, and it is an investment that
we should be making at this point in time.
I think that increasingly, local governments--as you said,
people support acquisition of land. There was a time when the
mindsets were different, and when we went in to buy a piece of
land, we had to convince people that Federal ownership of land
is an economic benefit, and the establishment of a refuge or a
park is an economic benefit. We do not have to do that so much
anymore. In some communities, in some counties, those revenue-
sharing payments are very, very important. In other places,
they are less important.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to ask another question. Mr. Hirsche
raised the question of the associations getting at least
priority, if not a commitment that they could have first crack
at certain concessionaire services--``friendship'' groups.
In the visitor centers and in the book sales and other
things--I know, for example, at Ding Darling, the ``friends''
group built the new visitor center--is that already basically
not done for certain things, and could you go through some of
the difficulties of how this might relate to other types of
things like providing canoes or food services as opposed to the
traditional ``friends'' groups?
Mr. Hirsche. Yes. In this case, we are talking about a
range of local organizations that have varying levels of
sophistication and expertise. At Ding Darling, the ``friends''
group down there is truly remarkable in what they have
accomplished in terms of raising money and setting up programs.
On other refuges, you have ``friends'' groups that are not as
large, not as successful in fundraising, and would likely pass
on a concession opportunity.
But I could see a number of situations around the country
where a ``friends'' group would be interested in pursuing a
concession opportunity. And again, as we indicated in our
testimony, there is a dual benefit to allowing that--and to be
fair, I think most refuge managers, would choose to partner
with the friends group, saying ``This is great; let us go with
it,'' before bidding it out. But I am not sure what the
guidelines would be along those lines in terms of bidding for
contractors or concessionaires.
Mr. Hinds. Although I somewhat agree with Evan that it
would be nice to allow our ``friends'' groups the ability to
have the first option, it is not practical, and I will give you
the reason why as it relates to Ding Darling.
Concessions are businesses which require investment. Banks
are very leery of giving large sums of money to 501(c)(3)
organizations that do not have collateral property or whatever
to back up that loan.
At Ding Darling, they went out and got donations from the
public, but would have liked to proceed much faster. They went
to the bank and asked, ``Would you give us a loan for
$250,000?'' and the bank said, ``Sure, but you have no
collateral. Therefore, you as individual members of the board
must put up your homes as the collateral.''
They did not want to do that. I do not blame them.
The same thing would happen with a business investment like
a concession where a refuge manager--I will give you an
example--Loxahatchee. Loxahatchee, under a State agreement with
Florida, needs to provide for visitor services. That was part
of the agreement when establishing Loxahatchee. They have not
been able to do that because they do not have the capital. Your
bill would allow them to do that by asking the concessionaire
in the contract to build the facility.
What that concessionaire would then do is, in the contract,
build the building, and over the 10 years, amortize his losses
over that 10-year period, because there is a building there,
and he has a business. Banks are willing to do that. That is a
long-term investment with the Federal Government. We are not
going away.
However, they are not willing to do that with 501(c)(3)
organizations, so even though I agree with Evan that it would
be nice, it is not practical.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Campbell, did you have a comment?
Mr. Campbell. There are several things I have thought of.
One of them is--not specifically to this issue--the question of
whether funds would need to return to something that directly
benefitted my business. I do not know that that is necessarily
a sound assumption. I would not necessarily require that. Right
now, everything that I am paying in is going offsite, and I am
not seeing anything returning to the refuge that I live on and
operate day after day. Almost anything that worked to benefit
that refuge and was being paid for out of my fees would be A-
okay with me. In the long run, either directly or indirectly,
it is going to return; it is going to accrue value to me as a
business and as someone who personally supports the refuge.
Now, as far as giving ``friends'' groups the first crack at
it, what Lou mentions is true. Banks are really leery of making
investments that are not collateralized. Our investment in the
concession that we operate at Okefenokee is collateralized by
our personal assets, and we had to be able to demonstrate that
in order to put the bid in on the concession in the first
place. So we are pretty deeply vested in that.
I would not have any philosophical objection to seeing
``friends'' groups getting first crack at it. I do see some
real financial hurdles there to overcome.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hirsche?
Mr. Hirsche. If I could respond to that, with respect to
Chip's first comment, I think that if we are talking about
establishing profitable concessions at quite a few more refuges
around the country, Okefenokee and Ding Darling are two
examples of refuges that are readymade, and setting up a
concession--I will not say it is easy--business is never easy--
but you have a nice starting point. At other refuges in the
country, you are going to want to negotiate a pretty good deal
if you are going to set up a concession there. And if I were a
concessionaire, if I were in business, I would say, ``Look, I
want to see my fees returned to support what my concession is
trying to accomplish as part of a successful business plan.''
That would be my response.
In terms of the ``friends'' groups, I think the collateral
argument is a good one, but I would again go back to the point
that different ``friends'' groups have different levels of
capacity and ability, and certainly the beauty of ``friends''
groups is that the individuals in those groups represent an
incredible cross-section of individuals, and some people are
very wealth, some people are not; they come from all political
backgrounds. So you may have that opportunity for somebody who
is willing to provide the collateral. But again what we are
talking about here is a right of first refusal rather than
immediately dictating that these people get the concession.
Mr. Souder. I want to thank each of you for your testimony.
I am sure that we will be following up as we move this bill.
I want to reiterate that part of the reason I am interested
in this is to make sure that we look at creative ways to make
sure there are dollars in this, that people have access to the
beauty of the wilds yet at the same time that we do not
undermine the fundamental purpose. And I think that some of the
very types of concessions that we may be talking about, even if
they are visitor centers or food, may actually add land to the
edge of the existing center so it does not impact the wildlife
but provides additional dollars for the protection of the areas
themselves. So we have to look at creative ways to do it. I
have seen in the park system and increasingly at edges of the
Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service very creative ways to
do this.
At Rocky Mountain National Park, they have a new visitor
center at the edge of the park where the concessionaire built a
multi-million-dollar visitor center, but part of the deal was
that to get to the restrooms at the visitor center, you have to
go through his gift shop and through the restaurant. It was one
of the main negotiating contentions, because he could afford to
build the visitor center for free and have it connected if in
fact he was assured a certain amount of traffic. It does not
impede the park, yet it is generating--they have a new visitor
center, and the ``friends'' group is operating the book store
in the visitor center, and it works out well.
We see lots of areas like that with potential to get
additional dollars from Americans who are willing to spend if
they know their dollars are being used for that refuge. They
are a little less concerned or willing to just put dollars
generally, not knowing where they are going to go. We have
almost zero objections to the fees being charged at parks and
refuges. Compared to the cost of going to a concert or to an
amusement park, it is minimal. You feel that the investment is
going back into protecting the resource. So I think there are
tremendous opportunities.
Charles Russell Wildlife Area in northern Montana does not
have many people go through it, but it is one of the last open
areas in the Missouri Breaks area, and there is potential for
certain things that can be done.
In Indiana, every inch of public land is a battle, but
things like Mishawaka, and as we look at the areas in northwest
Indiana which used to all be wetlands and try to look at how
that can be preserved, unless we have ways to figure out how to
do this, it is not going to happen, and unless there is a
broader base of public support, it is not going to happen.
So thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it and look
forward to working with you.
We will include for the record a statement from Mr. Gerald
Hoffman from Tarpon Bay Recreation at Sanibel Island, who is a
very creative concessionaire whom I have used a number of time.
He was not able to make it because of the tropical storm. With
that, we will forgive him. That is a pretty good excuse for not
showing up for a congressional hearing.
Mr. Souder. With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5254.001
-