U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–533 PDF 2015

H.R. ____, ‘‘FEDERAL LANDS 

RECREATION ENHANCEMENT 

ACT’’; H.R. 2743, ‘‘VETERANS 

EAGLE PARKS PASS ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 3976, ‘‘WOUNDED 

VETERANS RECREATION ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Friday, April 4, 2014 

Serial No. 113–68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, April 4, 2014 ................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 4 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Nugent, Hon. Richard B., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 4 

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

Ruiz, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bannon, Aaron, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Director, 

National Outdoor Leadership School .......................................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Benzar, Kitty, President, Western Slope No-Fee Coalition .......................... 67 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69 

Brown, David, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association .............. 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Crandall, Derrick, President, American Recreation Coalition ...................... 63 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64 

Davidson, Todd, Chief Executive Officer, Travel Oregon .............................. 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Haze, Pam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance, and Acquisition, Department of the Interior .................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Merrill, Brian I., Western River Expeditions, Moab Adventure Center ...... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Pemmerl, Elizabeth, President, NIC Technologies ........................................ 52 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Reppenhagen, Garett, Coordinator, Rocky Mountain West, Vet Voice 

Foundation ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Terrell, Jack, Senior Project Manager, National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council .................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47 

Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

American Alpine Club Northwest Region, et al., Letter submitted for 

the record ....................................................................................................... 93 

American Aviation, Inc., Letter submitted for the record ............................. 44 

American Hiking Society, Letter submitted for the record ........................... 96 

American Trails, Letter submitted for the record ......................................... 97 

Association for Experiential Education, Letter submitted for the record .... 97 

Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education, et al., Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 98 

Coalition for Recreation Enhancement on Federal Lands, Letter submitted for the record ..................................................................................... 103 

Page

IV 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record—Continued 

National Forest Recreation Association, Prepared statement of .................. 88 

Outdoor Alliance, Letter submitted for the record ........................................ 106 

The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the record ............................. 113 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. ____, TO 

AMEND THE FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION 

ENHANCEMENT ACT TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL 

RECREATION FEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT’’; H.R. 2743, TO MAKE THE 

NATIONAL PARKS AND FEDERAL RECREATIONAL LANDS PASS AVAILABLE AT A 

DISCOUNT TO CERTAIN VETERANS, ‘‘VETERANS EAGLE PARKS PASS ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 3976, TO PROVIDE FOR A LIFETIME NATIONAL RECREATIONAL PASS FOR ANY 

VETERAN WITH A SERVICE-CONNECTED 

DISABILITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 

‘‘WOUNDED VETERANS RECREATION ACT’’ 

Friday, April 4, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Bishop, Lummis, Tipton, Daines, 

LaMalfa; Grijalva, Garcia, and DeFazio. 

Also Present: Representatives Nugent, Mullin; and Ruiz. 

Mr. BISHOP. This committee is called to order. We have presence 

of a quorum. Under the Rules, opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous 

consent to include any other Members’ opening statements into the 

hearing record, if submitted to the clerk by the close of business 

today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Hearing no objections, that is ordered. 

I want to welcome our colleagues here who are here to testify to 

two bills: Mr. Nugent, Mr. Ruiz, who are here. These bills you are 

going to hear are discussing—Mr. Nugent has one to make the 

National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at 

a discount to veterans. Mr. Ruiz’s bill is to provide a lifetime 

2 

National Recreational Pass for veterans with service-connected 

disability. 

We are also going to be talking about a draft of reauthorization 

of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. To save time, because we are going to have votes 

here, I am going to submit my statement to the record. We will discuss the H.R. 2743 and H.R. 3976 first in here, then we will go to 

the FLREA issue. 

My statement is really great, so I hope you read it at some time. 

When we come to FLREA, I just want to say this in preference 

to FLREA. Often times, when we have hearings on bills, it is the 

bill that we want—with which we will go forward. The FLREA 

draft that you have seen is not the final version of the bill that will 

go forward. The purpose for this hearing is actually to get a lot of 

ideas that we can then go back and reincorporate into a final 

version. 

So, this is going to change. It will deal with the concept of fees, 

which is a practice that goes back 100 years in this country to 

1914, another of those archaic laws that we have. But there are 

only three reasons for having fees. Either it is a sleazy way of getting revenue in place of taxes, in which case the amount you generate is the most important element. Or, it becomes some kind of 

user element, in which case the distribution and how those fees are 

used becomes the most significant element. Or, it is some kind of 

way of using a market force to try and drive decisions on where 

we actually place our resources. 

So, we are going to talk about that philosophy, but then I want 

to have specifics. Those who are testifying will have a chance to 

have specifics. Also, we are going to hold open the ability of people 

to send other ideas to us, because we have a lot of work still to do 

on this particular bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Today we will be considering three bills. Two that would provide discount passes 

for our Nation’s veterans and a discussion draft for the reauthorization of the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLUH-REE-AH, in government-speak) 

which expires next year. 

FLREA is the program that authorizes the National Park Service, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service to charge 

fees at developed recreation facilities on Federal lands and waters when special 

services are provided. The agencies can then retain and spend the revenue from fees 

with most of the money retained at the collection site. 

FLREA also authorizes the sale of nation-wide passes including the discount 

passes that would be authorized by H.R. 2743 and H.R. 3976. 

Charging fees on the public lands is a complicated issue that Congress has been 

dealing with since 1914 when the first automobile fee was charged at Mount Rainer. 

America’s vast system of public lands can, if managed wisely, provide our country 

with a great abundance of outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, energy, minerals timber and food. But to obtain these benefits our Federal land managing agencies must 

stop thinking they are like the Sheriff of Nottingham whose job it was to keep people from entering the King’s Forest. 

Each year we in Congress appropriate billions of dollars collected from the already 

overburdened taxpayer to pay for visitor access, safety, services, and maintenance 

3 

on our public lands. To encourage additional visitor facilities we also allow the agencies to charge FLREA fees in certain circumstances. 

There are differences of opinion as to how these fees should be paid. Some believes that access to all public lands should generally be free, that the full cost of 

the managing these lands should be paid entirely by the general taxpayer. Others 

argue that the people who actually use these lands should pay, through entrance 

and user fees, a greater share than the taxpayers who may never choose to visit 

these places. 

The goal of the discussion draft is to hear suggestions from the interested public 

and the agencies on what changes should be made in the program. 

Today we will hear from witnesses who represent the Federal agencies that administer FLREA as well those who have proposals for reforms of the program. 

Several important issues need to be addressed. 

• There is the fundamental question of where, when and who should be 

charged? Is the system of fees that we have now fair? 

• How do we ensure that the public has ample opportunity to participate in determining where fees are charged and what the rates are? 

• How should fee revenue be used? What should Congress do to ensure that the 

agencies are accounting for the revenue? The agencies cannot expect public 

support for the fee program if they do not know how the fees are being used. 

• Outfitters and guides and other private organizations provide outstanding opportunities for visitors to get out and experience our public lands, but right 

now the bureaucracy and permit limitations are pushing these often small, 

family-run companies to the edge of extinction. What steps can congress take 

to ensure that these small businesses are able to thrive and continue to make 

recreation experiences available to a wide audience? 

These are just a few of the questions this subcommittee will need to consider as 

part of any FLREA extension. 

The authorization for FLREA expires in December of 2015, but because some of 

the activities allowed under the act are multi-year, it is best for us to act well before 

the expiration date. Before we extend the program, however, we need to see what 

we can learn from the successes and failures of the current and past programs. In 

doing so, I want the agencies to come to realize that when the American people 

enter public land, they are not trespassing. 

Let us then begin the hearing. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. 

Mr. BISHOP. With that, I will yield—I will finish my opening 

statement, and I will turn to Mr. Grijalva for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Following the cue, I will submit my statement for 

the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important meeting, 

and thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his valuable input into the 

discussion we are having today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

I would like to thank Chairman Bishop for holding this important hearing today 

and thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his valuable input in the discussion. 

Since the passage of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the collection of fees to recreate on public lands has at times been very controversial. Some 

believe that we should not charge entrance fees for our public lands at all, and others believe it is important for public land managers to be able to collect fees to provide enhanced services to those who visit our Nation’s public lands. 

I witnessed the controversial nature of fees first-hand in my home State of 

Arizona. Fees established by the Forest Service for parking on the Mt. Lemon highway became hugely contentious. 

4 

Arguing that the Forest Service was illegally charging fees, a group of local citizens sued the Forest Service and won. The court found that the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act doesn’t let the Forest Service charge people for parking, hiking or using any land that doesn’t have some physical structure. 

Although I believe it is important for the agencies to be able to collect fees to offset dwindling appropriations for our Nation’s public lands, I do not believe that collecting fees to recreate on our Nation’s public lands is the silver bullet to solve the 

maintenance backlog and is the long-term solution to our budget constraints. 

So I am eager to hear from today’s witnesses to see what middle-ground we can 

find to ensure that reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act can strike a balance for everyone, and see if this fee program is working to enhance recreation on our public lands. 

I’m eager to hear from our witnesses and again want to thank the Chairman for 

holding this important hearing and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio, do you have a statement 

you wish to make? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, you have created such a great example early in the morning here, that I will also forego the opening 

statement. I did like—out of your three reasons for fees, number 

two is the one I would circle and choose. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, anyway, I am looking forward to the information received today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. With that, we are going to turn to the 

first of the two bills that are in front of us. I would like to ask the 

sponsors of those two bills, if they have a statement they would 

like to make with us. 

So I will first go with H.R. 2743, Mr. Nugent, then I will turn 

to Mr. Ruiz for H.R. 3976. Then, while we are playing with this 

game, I would like Mr. Reppenhagen, if you would talk on these 

bills, we will open it up for questions at that point. 

Ms. Weldon, Ms. Haze, I think you are here on everything. So 

I am going to hold you until we bring up the second panel, and you 

can give the Administration’s opinion on all three issues. 

OK. So, we are trying to expedite this, which is what I usually 

don’t do. 

But, Mr. Nugent, you are recognized to introduce your bill. 

Thank you for being here with us, by the way. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD B. NUGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

and other members of the committee. Thanks for inviting me and 

affording me this opportunity to testify in support of my bill, the 

‘‘Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act.’’ 

Last May, my constituent, one of my constituents, David 

Shulbert, brought to my attention that senior citizens are eligible 

for a $10 lifetime pass to more than 2,000 recreation sites across 

the country, but our Nation’s veterans are not. Furthermore, active 

duty military personnel and their dependents are eligible for free 

annual admission to any national park that charges an entrance or 

5 

standard amenity fees. My constituent simply asked, ‘‘Don’t our 

veterans deserve the same? ’’ Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with 

my constituent on this issue. 

Our Nation’s veterans have made tremendous sacrifices in defense of our freedom. If it weren’t for these brave men and women, 

we wouldn’t be here, sitting here today, having discussions about 

this particular issue or any issue. The Veterans Eagle Parks Pass 

would allow honorably discharged veterans providing their DD214’s 

the freedom to purchase a lifetime national park pass for Federal 

and recreational lands for $10. The DD214 is a certificate of release 

or discharge from active duty, and that issue of service member’s 

retirement, separation, or discharge. 

Upon introducing this bill, I was pleased to learn that at least 

80 percent of the revenue collected at these sites stay at those 

sites, providing agencies flexibility, and enabling them to directly 

address visitor and site needs. By offering a $10 pass instead of a 

free pass, recreational sites will still be able to collect much-needed 

revenue. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if the committee finds a different 

dollar amount is more sensible, I would defer to you in that aspect. 

Recreation sites throughout our country bring families together. 

I know that some of my finest memories include my years growing 

up and my dad and folks taking us to national parks, but also my 

taking my sons to those same national parks. So—let’s not forget 

about the impact recreational sites have on our local economies. 

Tourism has been a great potential to foster economic growth and 

create jobs. 

Before concluding, I would like to take a moment to recognize my 

colleague from California, Mr. Ruiz. I applaud the gentleman’s efforts to provide a lifetime pass to our service-connected disabled 

veterans, and I hope we can collaborate in the future. I happen to 

have three sons that currently serve this country in the U.S. Army. 

So I am certainly indebted to them. 

So, we are all indeed indebted to our veterans for their honorable 

and heroic service. The Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act, I hope we 

can honor the service with a discount to the land they helped defend. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nugent follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD B. NUGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA ON H.R. 2743 

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me here and affording me the opportunity to testify in support of my bill, the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act. 

Last May, my constituent, David Chilbert, brought it to my attention that senior 

citizens are eligible for a $10 dollar lifetime pass to more than 2,000 recreation sites 

across the country, but our Nation’s veterans are not. Furthermore, active duty military personnel and their dependents are eligible for free annual admission to any 

National Park that charges entrance or standard amenity fees. My constituent simply asked, ‘‘Don’t our veterans deserve the same?’’ Mr. Chairman, I agree with my 

constituent. 

Our Nation’s veterans have made tremendous sacrifices in defense of our freedom. 

If it weren’t for those brave men and women, we wouldn’t be sitting here today having this hearing. 

The Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act would allow honorably discharged veterans— 

upon providing their DD214—the freedom to purchase a lifetime National Parks 

and Federal Recreational Lands Pass for $10. The DD214 is a certificate of release 

6 

or discharge from active duty that is issued at a service member’s retirement, separation or discharge. 

Upon introducing this bill, I was pleased to learn that at least 80 percent of the 

revenue collected at sites stay at those sites, providing agencies flexibility and enabling them to directly address visitor and site needs. By offering a $10 pass instead 

of a free pass, recreation sites will still be able to collect much needed revenue. 

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if the committee finds that a different dollar amount is 

more sensible, I would defer to you on that aspect. 

Recreation sites throughout our county bring families together. I know some of 

my fondest memories include teaching my sons about the great outdoors. We must 

also not forget about the impact recreation sites have on local economies. Tourism 

has the great potential to foster economic growth and create jobs for Americans. 

Before concluding, I would like to take a moment to recognize my colleague from 

California, Mr. Ruiz. I applaud the gentlemen’s efforts to provide a lifetime pass to 

service-connected disabled veterans and I hope we can collaborate in the future. 

We are all indebted to our veterans for their honorable and heroic service. With 

the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act I hope we can honor their service with a discount to the land they helped defend. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Sheriff. I appreciate that. Appreciate 

your testimony. You have the option of staying here with us and 

hearing the rest of the testimony on your bill and others. If you 

have other appointments, I realize that, and I will be terribly offended if you leave, but I recognize—— 

Mr. NUGENT. As you know, we have a rule on the Floor right 

now, which I need to go testify on, Mr. Chairman. We were at the 

Rules Committee last night together. So if you don’t mind, I 

would—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Sure, have a good reason for it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will now turn to 

Mr. Ruiz, if you would like to introduce H.R. 3976, please. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

and all members of this committee, for holding this legislative 

hearing. Before Congressman Nugent leaves, I want to say thank 

you for your bill. It is a very good bill. I will take you up on the 

offer to partner and continue to serve our veterans. 

The bills we will be discussing today serve as a testament to our 

committee’s dedication to preserving veterans’ access to national 

parks. I thank the Chairman for including my bill, H.R. 3976, the 

Wounded Veterans Recreation Act, in the legislative hearing today. 

My bill honors the service of our Nation’s veterans by ensuring 

that disabled veterans have the opportunity to enjoy and visit 

America’s national parks at no cost. 

National parks give our veterans the opportunity to connect with 

nature and to exercise, which leads to better spiritual, mental, and 

physical health. I am an emergency medicine physician, and I often 

times see individuals post-trauma, whether in civilian or sometimes coming in with disabilities from their service. There is a 

strong want for connect, for living their life the way they had before they were injured or wounded. It is not only medicine to the 

body, but also medicine to the mind and medicine to the soul to be 

7 

able to go visit those same national parks that they have defended 

our country and defended with their service. 

These national parks also preserve and commemorate our heritage, ideals, and the sacred sites that American service members 

have defended since the founding of our great Nation. The service 

of our Nation’s veterans past and present is the centerpiece of 

many of our national parks. This bipartisan bill will ensure disabled veterans have the opportunity to enjoy and frequent these 

sites. 

I would like to thank Mr. Garett Reppenhagen, a veteran and 

program director with the Vet Voice Foundation, for traveling here 

today to share his story about the importance of nature when 

transitioning back to civilian life, and also Mr. Mark Star, a veteran and program director with the Vet Voice Foundation from 

southern California. I also want to thank the VSOs, my veterans 

advisory group, and the veterans in my district for their input. This 

is really their creation. 

I appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to include this bill in today’s legislative hearing, and I look forward to working together to 

move this legislation forward. 

Thank you all, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentleman from California for his testimony. We will make the same offer to you, as well. You may stay 

here as long as you wish. I appreciate it if you did, but if you have 

other obligations, we understand that as well. Thank you. 

Let me turn to Mr.—and the name is Reppenhagen—— 

Mr. REPPENHAGEN. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Is that correct—who is coordinator of 

the Rocky Mountain West, Vet Voice Foundation, to testify on either of these or both of these two pieces of legislation. 

If you have not been here before and—recognize that you have 

5 minutes in which to speak. Anything, obviously, you have written 

will be part of the record. This is the oral presentation. So when 

the green light is on you are in great shape. When the yellow light 

hits you have 1 minute to finish. When the red, you are dead. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. So, please, we will recognize you, appreciate you 

being here. We recognize you. 

STATEMENT OF GARETT REPPENHAGEN, COORDINATOR, 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN WEST, VET VOICE FOUNDATION 

Mr. REPPENHAGEN. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. Thank you, 

members of the subcommittee. As said, my name is Garett 

Reppenhagen. I am the program director of Vet Voice Foundation. 

Vet Voice Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit 

organization. One of our chief campaigns is to get veterans into the 

outdoors. We have already recognized the fact that veterans benefit 

from the healing nature of our outdoors areas. Our public lands are 

the best access for veterans to receive that therapy. 

Second of all, we also provide protection for our natural wonders. 

We see, as a continued service to our country, coming back and defending the lands that we love, and making sure that they are preserved, as well. 

8 

To begin, I would like to tell you a little bit of my personal story. 

Both of my grandfathers served in World War II. My father’s father 

was a Marine Corps veteran that served in Europe, and my mother’s father was in the Navy and served in the Pacific. My own father served in Vietnam. He enlisted as a U.S. Army engineer, 

served one tour in Vietnam, completed 20 years of active duty, and 

retired. He passed away 1 year after he retired of Agent Orangerelated cancer. 

So, my family has a strong tradition of serving in the military, 

and I learned going into the outdoors was an important way to 

share the bonds with my family, to reconnect, to grow, without the 

distractions of television and shopping malls. An ability to speak 

father-to-son in an outdoor setting is an incredible, impactful experience. That is how I learned to enjoy the outdoors. 

I, myself, joined as a cavalry scout in the U.S. Army 1 month before September 11. I went to Kosovo for a 9-month peacekeeping 

mission with the 1st Infantry Division, was selected to sniper 

school. I finished second in my class in the Special Forces Army 

Interdiction Target School. Then I went to 1 year of service in Iraq. 

I served in a brigade sniper team on counter-IED, counter-mortar 

missions. I conducted over 160 combat operations without the use 

of an armored military vehicle. Many of those were on foot, climbing over our own wall, going up to 2 kilometers away on foot to 

sniper positions to overwatch roads. I was in countless amounts of 

combat situations and survived dozens of ambushes. 

To say the least, I had come home with post-traumatic stress disorder. I suffered from intrusive thoughts, hyper-vigilance, anxiety, 

troubled sleep, aversion to crowded areas, depression, relationship 

issues. If it wasn’t for my ability and my knowledge to go out into 

our public lands and enjoy nature, I probably wouldn’t be sitting 

here today. The recovery that I personally experienced in our outdoors was incredible. It allowed me to transition back on a time of 

my choosing, and I was able to find peace of mind in the serenity 

of our outdoors. 

So, not only do I know from personal experience that the outdoors can benefit me spiritually, emotionally, and physically, there 

has also been a study by the University of Michigan, a mental 

health study in 2013, that shows that veterans participating in extended outdoor recreation activities show signs of improved mental 

health. Some of the most serious mental health problems have benefited the most from outdoor experiences. 

Right now, you have to be 100 percent disabled to be able to get 

a lifelong pass into our outdoors. I know if this was changed to include any disabled veteran, that would encourage more veterans to 

seek out our outdoors and enjoy those experiences and be offered 

the same opportunities for the therapeutic benefits of those areas. 

Vet Voice Foundation has over 360,000 members. Many of these 

members have discovered the same things I do. It is one of the reasons why we defend the ability to preserve our national parks so 

much. I know that you all are patriotic Americans, and I know you 

appreciate the service that veterans have done. But I want you to 

consider the fact that sometimes even the small fees some of these 

parks have is a deal-breaker for many veterans to go to the outdoors. If they could take their families on hunting, fishing, and 

9 

camping trips, I think many of these veterans would heal at a 

much faster rate. 

So, in closing, I want to thank Representative Ruiz. I think your 

leadership is commendable for this. We need more decisionmakers 

like yourself moving forward to help our veterans. I want to thank 

the entire subcommittee. I will stay around for any questions. I am 

humbled to be here, and honored. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reppenhagen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARETT REPPENHAGEN, VET VOICE FOUNDATION ON H.R. 

3976 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Garett Reppenhagen and 

I am the Program Director for the Vet Voice Foundation. 

Vet Voice Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-partisan, non-profit organization which was 

established in 2009. One of the key campaigns at the Vet Voice Foundation is simple and two-fold: First, to reach out to America’s veterans, especially our Nation’s 

wounded warriors and introduce them to outdoors. This introduction is very important for our service members. Outdoor recreation can and does play a strong role 

in the recovery of many of America’s veterans when they return from the battlefield 

and begin the process of reintegration to their communities and families. 

Second, Vet Voice Foundation is also involved in protection efforts of our Nation’s 

public lands. Throughout the western United States, Vet Voice Foundation and its 

membership have provided a unique voice in the call to preserve our natural heritage for future generations advocating for both responsible Federal conservation policies and funding as well as legislation that protects these beautiful landscapes. 

In order to share with you how I became involved with this organization and its 

mission, I feel it is also important that I tell my own story. My family has a tradition of military service. Both my grandfathers served in World War II. My father’s 

father was a Marine and my mother’s father was in the Navy. My father joined the 

U.S. Army as an Engineer and completed a tour in Vietnam. He retired after 20 

years of active duty and passed away the following year from Agent Orange related 

cancer when I was 14 years old. 

I joined the U.S. Army as a Cavalry Scout in August of 2001, 1 month before the 

attacks on September 11. I served in a 9-month peacekeeping mission in Kosovo before being selected to sniper school and earning the second best score in the Special 

Training Target Interdiction Course. I deployed to Iraq in January 2004 and served 

in a Brigade sniper team on counter IED and counter mortar missions. After a 10- 

month stop-loss, I received an Honorable Discharge in June 2005. During the 1 year 

in Iraq I performed over 160 combat missions without the use of an armored vehicle, 

engaged in countless firefights, and survived dozens of ambushes. 

My transition back into civilian life was a challenge. I found that I struggled with 

intrusive thoughts, hyper vigilance, anxiety, troubled sleep, an aversion to crowded 

areas, depression, and relationship issues. While I have always found peace in the 

outdoors, it was never more evident than when I returned home from Iraq. Camping, hiking and exploring natural wonders became a way of life and an opportunity 

to find peace. 

My road to recovery was not just spent in VA offices but also on hiking trails and 

cold water streams. 

As a veteran with a PTSD diagnosis, I can tell you that outdoor recreation has 

benefited me in so many ways—spiritually, emotionally and physically. 

In 2012, I joined Vet Voice Foundation. Since then, I have worked and traveled 

all over the West, recruiting veterans to our cause, hosting outdoor events and conservation service projects. I partnered with Veteran Expedition, Sierra Club, and 

Rivers of Recovery to bridge more veterans to the outdoors. The connection between 

veterans and conservation is not a new phenomenon. Actually, veterans have a 

storied tradition of involvement in conservation dating back to arguably one of 

America’s greatest presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, who was a founder of our Nation’s 

conservation movement. 

As veterans, many in our community view conservation as a civic duty. Protecting 

America’s lands is patriotic. After all, as veterans, we not only fought to preserve 

our Nation’s democracy, but also this land in all its glory—from shore to shore, from 

sea to shining sea, against all enemies. Yes, conservation is patriotic and if you talk 

to our membership they will be quick to remind you that keeping America’s public 

lands—its natural treasures—beautiful, is a noble and worthy cause for veterans. 

10 

Today, thanks to Representative Raul Ruiz and the bi-partisan coalition that 

joined to support his efforts, I am here to offer the support of Vet Voice Foundation 

and the veteran community for the ‘‘Wounded Veterans Recreation Act.’’ 

This bill, is a fitting tribute to America’s veterans and military families. 

As I have noted, veterans frequent America’s public lands. Many are sportsmen, 

hunters and anglers who value their time in the wild. Some simply utilize these 

treasures as a means or reconnection with family and friends by camping and hiking. All have, however, as I, found some form of peace on our precious Federal recreational lands. 

Currently, to enjoy a free lifetime pass on these lands, a veteran would have to 

be totally and permanently disabled with a 100 percent disability rating from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. In my case, I am a 90 percent service connected 

veteran—thus I do not qualify for this pass due to my current rating. My situation 

is also similar to many veterans I have worked with over the years as very few are 

permanently disabled at 100 percent. 

Also of interest, 3.5 million veterans live with a service connected disability. Free 

access to our Nation’s parks and Federal recreational lands would definitely give an 

incentive to get outdoors for what would be a very therapeutic experience. 

On that specific note, the University of Michigan conducted a study in 2013 which 

clearly shows that veterans participating in extended outdoor recreation activities 

showed signs of improved mental health. The study also suggested a link between 

outdoor activities and long-term psychological well-being. 

The study also clearly noted that veterans with the most serious health problems 

benefited the most from outdoor recreation. 

While Vet Voice Foundation was happy to see a scientific study of this nature, 

it came as no surprise. 

A member of Vet Voice Foundation, Scott Roney, is a retired Army Chaplain who 

currently serves as a behavioral health provider at Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton. 

Scott, like many mental health clinicians sees service members and their families 

as they are in the process of reintegration. Many of these men and women are seeking help in dealing with combat trauma. Scott is a strong believer in encouraging 

these men and women, as well as their families to look to the outdoors as a means 

of recovery. 

Last summer, Scott joined Vet Voice Foundation as we visited various lawmakers 

and the White House to discuss our mission and work with veterans. I was truly 

moved to hear Scott share with congressional and White House staff the stories of 

courage and recovery as well as how mother nature can play a role in helping make 

someone become whole again. Yes, this is a very powerful anecdote that our veterans can turn to. Science and our Nation’s behavioral health specialists are in 

agreement—get outdoors and get healthy. 

Today, I ask the members of this committee to please consider this information 

when evaluating this bill. Including all service connected veterans for a lifetime 

pass through this legislation is a benefit long overdue to our community. We have 

sacrificed dearly for this Nation. Some of us have scars that will always be present. 

As I look at this committee, I do know that you are all patriots and care deeply 

about the future of America’s veterans. With that stated, I ask again, please remember us as you consider this legislation. It would truly benefit our community and 

families and would likely draw even more veterans to the outdoors. 

In closing, I want to personally thank Representative Raul Ruiz for his leadership 

on this bill. His vision, commitment and character are things we all hope to see in 

our elected officials. 

In conclusion, Chairman Bishop and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

again for inviting me to testify today. I hope that in the coming months, Vet Voice 

Foundation and its members can possibly visit with members of the subcommittee 

and its staff. I know our veterans would be honored to meet with you all and discuss 

their stories of why the outdoors are such an important component of their lives. 

I look forward to answering any possible questions you may have concerning my 

testimony. Today has truly been an honor for myself and our organization. I am 

humbled to be here. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. You notice how well you timed that 

thing. 

The Administration will eventually testify on this bill, and you 

can ask questions at that time of them. But are there any quesVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
11 

tions for either the Congressmen or Mr. Reppenhagen from the 

committee? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If not, I want to thank you for being here. Thank 

you for your testimony. I appreciate your—you know what I am 

trying to say. Thank you for being here. You can go now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REPPENHAGEN. You are welcome. Thanks, everyone. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, what I would like—and appreciate it. If 

you would like to hang around, you still can. All right. 

What I want to do is leave Ms. Weldon from the Forest Service 

and Ms. Haze from the Department of the Interior there, and bring 

up Brian Merrill, who is the Western River Expedition—from 

Western River Expeditions, the Moab Adventure Center; David 

Brown, who is America Outdoor Association; and Mr. Aaron 

Bannon, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Director 

from the National Outdoor Leadership School. 

You all heard the spiel. Again, please watch the clock in front of 

you. When it goes yellow, you have 1 minute to finish up. All of 

your testimony that is written will be added—is already in the 

record. Anything you want to add, again, that is written, is in the 

record. 

We will ask—starting first with Ms. Weldon from the Forest 

Service, if you would like to testify on all three bills, and then we 

will go to Ms. Haze, and then we will go down the line, starting 

with Brian, and continue on. Each of you have 5 minutes for your 

oral presentation. 

Ms. Weldon, please. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WELDON. Great, thank you very much. Thanks, on behalf of 

the Department of Agriculture, for the opportunity to testify to you 

today on the three bills—the two bills and the one draft bill that 

we are looking at. 

So, just succinctly—and I really appreciate hearing the expressions around the two veterans bills that are proposed for free 

passes. The Forest Service and our other Interior agencies over the 

years have had opportunities where we have strived toward offering and honoring our veterans through different types of passes. 

The two that are proposed today, I would just say that the Department fully supports. 

We look forward to working with both the committee and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to work through the rest of the 

issues on these and how we can get to a point of implementation. 

It was great to hear the acknowledgment of the value of outdoor 

experiences from so many different venues, especially from the 

standpoint of our veterans returning home and getting back to full 

quality of life that we all strive for. 

As it relates to the proposed bill, again, thank you to the committee for the work that you have done to really keep this a frontburner issue to enable the Recreation Enhancement Act to be 

something that we can continue to use into the future. We really 

acknowledge the value and benefit of this program, through the exVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
12 

periences that we have had over the last number of years to provide good-quality recreation experiences at these fee sites, and to 

use the revenues that come from this program to help create a lot 

of flexibility in how we deliver the whole suite of outdoor experiences to citizens on the national forests. 

As you know, we have over 166 million visitors who do every 

kind of outdoor recreation year-round on national forests. These 

contribute significantly to our local communities. As of last June, 

when we testified, there were approximately $13.6 billion of recreation-related experiences that contribute to the national gross domestic product associated with national forests. That translates 

into over 200,000 jobs, many of which are located in rural communities. 

Fee retention is a critical component of our sustainable recreation program, from a financial standpoint, and, again, for that 

flexibility. With this program we have about—between 80 and 95 

percent of the revenues that come from fee purchases that get reinvested directly into the sites where people expect certain amenities 

when they come and recreate. By way of a couple of examples, in 

Utah rec fee revenue has helped to develop a mobile app for people 

to quickly and easily search for recreation sites and opportunities. 

In Idaho, fee revenues from outfitters and guides has helped us 

monitor the Middle Fork and the Main Salmon Rivers where river 

rangers remove garbage and hazard trees and help injured or lost 

and disabled boaters, and inspect boats to prevent spread of 

invasive species. 

We also see that our recreation use, overall, with the national 

forests is continuing to increase. From studies we have done between 2005 and 2012 on 70 national forests, there has been an 

overall increase for developed campgrounds that has grown by over 

2.5 million people, visits. 

Another thing that is very important about this fee program is 

that we work hard and we are very successful at leveraging our 

partnerships with communities, with recreation groups, other nonprofit organizations, as well as working with our outfitter and 

guides, who are a key partner in delivering recreation experiences 

on the national forests. These fees help to support small businesses 

who provide services that help citizens to enjoy experiences on the 

national forests. 

We are really pleased with the progress the discussion draft has 

made, and we would like to continue to work with the Chairman 

and the subcommittee on a few issues. We want to be sure that we 

can retain a consistent approach regarding fees at recreation sites, 

especially as it relates to getting public input, and being able to 

evaluate where those fees occur, what those fee structures are. We 

know we have work to do to ensure that we keep that important 

part of the process very transparent. 

We also want to be sure that we can retain our recreation reservation service, and that we can continue to maintain the flexibility that occurs across the agencies. Finally, we really would like 

to continue an open dialog around the ability for us to pursue permanency for this legislation that will allow for some stability as 

both the private side and the national forests do planning. 

13 

So, with that, I would like to conclude my remarks, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman Bishop and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. I am 

Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Forest Service, testifying today on behalf of USDA. 

USDA appreciates the efforts of this Congress to extend REA for an additional 

year in last October’s continuing resolution. This extension has allowed the agency 

to proceed with normal operations without any impact on the public or our partners. 

It has also allowed time to continue valuable discussions concerning the recreation 

fee authority on Federal lands and identify a way to continue to deliver important 

recreation services to the public. 

REA and Recreation 

The authorities in REA allow us to improve recreational facilities and services 

and provide quality visitor experiences across National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

These authorities enable the Forest Service to invest in upkeep and improvements 

at recreation sites that visitors use and enjoy. Through our collective mission with 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, we provide the American public and visitors 

from around the world with outstanding recreation opportunities on Federal lands. 

Since the enactment of REA in December 2004, we have made tremendous progress 

in accomplishing our mission. 

Recreation fees play a critical role in our ability to ensure that outdoor recreation 

opportunities remain available, accessible, and sustainable, so that current and future generations of Americans may continue to enjoy these places of remarkable 

natural beauty and rich American heritage. Recreation on NFS lands contributes about $13.6 billion to the Nation’s gross domestic product each year and supports approximately 205,000 jobs. Many of these 

jobs are located in rural communities and are associated with numerous outdoor industries and small businesses. One dollar invested in recreation programs yields approximately $46 to the Nation’s GDP, and NFS lands support over 5,000 outfitting 

and guiding operations authorized under REA, many of which are small businesses 

employing local citizens. 

Sustainable Recreation 

The Forest Service manages these recreation opportunities in a sustainable manner through appropriated funds, partnerships, alliances, volunteers, and fee retention. The authority to retain and spend recreation fees under REA is critical to the 

sustainability of the Forest Service’s national recreation program. Under REA, at 

least 80 percent and up to 95 percent of recreation fee revenues must be spent at 

the sites where they were collected. In addition, REA enables agencies to partner 

with user groups, small businesses, and industries to ensure sustainable recreation 

practices involving a variety of resources, settings, and activities, including guided 

hikes, hunting trips, off-road tours, sport fishing, kayaking, and canoeing. 

Fee retention authority is a critical tool that forest managers use to develop, 

maintain, service, and protect high-priority and heavily used recreation sites and 

visitor centers that are enjoyed by millions. Often located near urban centers, small 

towns, and rural communities, these heavily used sites have become our Nation’s 

backyard for outdoor experiences. Over 240 million Americans live within 100 miles 

of a National Forest or Grassland. These recreational sites introduce millions of 

Americans to the natural splendors that surround them. 

Recreation fee revenue generated under REA constitutes about 20 to 25 percent 

of the recreation budget. Recreation fees have made a huge difference in the Forest 

Service’s ability to improve sites and repair deteriorating facilities. Investments are 

made in some of our most heavily used recreation sites to enhance public services, 

provide health and safety benefits, and mitigate impacts on cultural and natural resources. However, the revenues generated under REA do not fully cover the cost of 

maintaining and servicing these sites. Appropriated dollars, volunteers, and partnerships with outfitters and guides are also used to cover costs, leverage assistance, 

and provide in-kind services and value. Retention of permit fees under REA also 

helps support administration of permits for commercial recreational activities like 

outfitting and guiding and competitive events. 

14 

Recreation Fee Program Management 

As important as REA is to the agencies testifying before you today, it is only one 

piece of a much larger recreation strategy. I would like to clarify REA’s role in 

Forest Service management of recreation opportunities on Federal lands. 

The vast majority of recreation opportunities on NFS lands is free to the public 

and offers a suite of high-quality experiences. Approximately 98 percent of NFS 

lands, providing recreation opportunities ranging from camping, hiking, fishing, 

hunting, and much more, is available to the public free of charge. There are more 

than 20,000 developed recreation sites on NFS lands. Of those 20,000 sites, approximately 4,000 are subject to recreation fees under REA, and approximately 2,000 are 

concession campgrounds that are subject to fees charged under another authority. 

Most of these 6,000 fee sites are campgrounds and cabin rentals, but they also include developed boat launches, picnic sites, off-road vehicle staging areas, developed 

swimming areas, developed recreation sites at trailheads, and target ranges. 

There are approximately 6,000 trailheads in the National Forests that lead to 

nearly 160,000 miles of trails. While maintenance of trails can be costly, most 

trailheads the Forest Service manages, about 85 percent, are not subject to any fees 

despite substantial investment in these sites. Fees may be charged only when a site 

has the amenities required under REA. These amenities are provided to meet public 

need and convenience, address public health and safety concerns, and protect sensitive natural and cultural resources. 

The ability to retain fees locally is beneficial to both the American taxpayer and 

to the recreation user. When a recreation user agrees to share in the cost of managing our most heavily used facilities and services by paying a fee, it not only helps 

create a stewardship ethic, but also reduces the burden on taxpayers to maintain 

these sites. Recreation fees also give Forest Service managers more flexibility with 

regard to expenditure of appropriated dollars to manage the vast majority of NFS 

lands at no additional cost to the public. 

Finally, the Forest Service is seeing increased use at our developed sites. Data 

from over 70 National Forests collected in a recent National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Survey show that the number of visits to campgrounds rose by more than 2.5 million from 2005 to 2012. 

Accountability 

USDA is committed to working with this committee, National Forest visitors, and 

the American public to ensure transparency and accountability in operation and 

management of the recreation fee program. Since enactment of REA, the Forest 

Service has developed numerous tools to assist National Forests in implementing 

the statute, including standardized signage, fee proposal tools and templates, national reporting tools, financial tools, and training to ensure funds are tracked and 

spent in accordance with REA. Local Forest Service managers evaluate how to 

spend recreation fee revenue site by site, depending on the condition of facilities and 

public needs and desires. 

In 2011 the Forest Service started reviewing all recreation fee proposals at the 

national level. National review enhances consistency of recreation fee proposals with 

regard to public involvement, establishment of specific types of fees, and other aspects of implementation. This represents a few of the changes the Forest Service 

has implemented to ensure compliance with REA. 

The Forest Service also began implementing a point of sale (POS) system in 2011, 

which enhances customer service and convenience by allowing use of credit cards. 

The POS system will increase internal efficiency and the agency’s ability to track 

collection of recreation fee revenues. The POS system is being implemented in 

phases, beginning with vendor sites that handle the highest volume of collections. 

Comments on the Draft Bill 

The Forest Service has had the opportunity to review the draft bill. The draft bill 

revises the existing terminology and conditions under which the U.S. Forest Service 

and all other agencies collect fees. The draft bill modifies the public input and participation process in the agencies’ establishment of fees. It provides for additional 

types of America the Beautiful—the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands 

Passes or Interagency Passes. The draft bill outlines a different approach to expenditure and reporting requirements for agencies while eliminating the triennial reporting process. Finally, we note the draft bill includes a 5-year sunset date. 

USDA would like to work with the Chairman and the subcommittee on this legislation once the bill is introduced. 

We would appreciate further discussion on retaining a national recreation reservation system for all REA agencies. The Forest Service would also like to work 

with the committee to make it feasible for concessioners to accept passes. Finally, 

15 

we recommend that Congress permanently authorize this program. Permanent authority provides stability for the public and enables managers to implement long 

projects and enter into partnerships with outfitters, vendors, and communities who 

benefit from the program economically. 

Conclusion 

Reauthorization of REA is critical to the Forest Service’s national recreation program. REA has enabled the agency to provide consistently excellent recreation experiences at sites across the United States. REA has strengthened the connection 

between visitors and the lands they cherish by requiring that the fees they pay benefit the sites where they were collected. Thousands of projects, large and small, have 

been supported by REA fees since 2004. Visitors consistently comment that they are 

willing to pay reasonable recreation fees if they know the money will be used to improve the sites they are visiting. 

REA facilitates efficiency, consistency, and good customer service by enabling 

interagency cooperation and public participation. The agencies strive to manage visitor contributions effectively, efficiently, and in an open and collaborative manner. 

The administrative and policy changes the Forest Service has introduced since 2004 

demonstrate the agency’s commitment to improve the recreation fee program, both 

in terms of customer service and good governance. 

The Forest Service plans projects funded by recreation fees years in advance. Administration of the recreation fee program requires significant up-front investment 

to implement customer service enhancements and to ensure that the Interagency 

Pass is designed, produced, and distributed on schedule. The agencies work for 

years to develop mutually beneficial relationships with public and private sector 

partners at the local and national levels. Reauthorization of REA before it expires 

on December 8, 2015, would allow the program to continue in a cost-effective manner and without disruption of visitor services. 

We look forward to working with the subcommittee and our sister agencies on developing permanent recreation fee authority. As part of that effort, we hope to enhance REA based on our experience implementing the statute, for example, by more 

effectively addressing public involvement and authority for amenity fees and by providing for a veterans pass. 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Forest Service’s implementation of 

REA and its critical importance to sustainable recreation opportunities on Federal 

lands. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

H.R. 3976, ‘‘WOUNDED VETERANS RECREATION ACT’’ 

Chairman Bishop and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 3976, the ‘‘Wounded Veterans Recreation Act.’’ I am Leslie 

Weldon, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Forest Service, testifying 

today on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

USDA supports the intent of H.R. 3976 to honor the service of our veterans. 

H.R. 3976 would extend lifetime Federal Recreation Land Passes, also known as 

Interagency Passes, to any veteran with a service-connected disability as defined in 

section 101 of title 38, United States Code. The Department understands and shares 

the committee’s desire to honor the service of our veterans, particularly those individuals who suffer injury or illness as a result of their service. We ask for an opportunity to work with the committee staff and the Department of Veteran Affairs to 

address a number of logistical, cost and other issues associated with effective implementation. 

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

H.R. 2743, ‘‘VETERANS EAGLE PARKS PASS ACT’’ 

Chairman Bishop and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 2743, the ‘‘Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act.’’ I am Leslie 

Weldon, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System for the Forest Service, testifying today on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

USDA supports the intent of H.R. 2743 to honor the service of our veterans. 

H.R. 2743 would provide for a Veterans Eagle Parks Pass that would be available 

to any veteran who has separated from military service under conditions other than 

dishonorable, if the veteran provides proof of that status by presenting a DD214. 

That pass shall be valid for the life of the veteran for whom it was purchased. The 

Department understands and shares the committee’s desire to honor the service of 

our veterans. 

16 

We ask for an opportunity to work with the committee staff and the Department 

of Veteran Affairs to address a number of logistical, cost and other issues associated 

with effective implementation. 

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

We will now turn to Ms. Haze for 5 minutes for the testimony 

from the Department of the Interior. 

STATEMENT OF PAM HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR BUDGET, FINANCE, PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. HAZE. Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for inviting me 

to testify on the panel. Good morning—let me start over. Thanks 

for allowing me to testify on the panel with my colleague from the 

Forest Service and the other panel members. I work in the Department of the Interior, and I work collaboratively with our four bureaus that operate the recreation programs: the National Park 

Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I have a group of folks with 

me today who are the experts that work in this program. 

First and foremost, I want to thank the Congress for extending 

authority for the program through December 2015. It came just in 

the nick of time to extend the program and allow us to accept reservations, continue important programs and projects, and support 

our visitors. I also want to thank the subcommittee for taking steps 

to reauthorize the program. 

Recreation is a significant contributor to the national economy 

and to our programs. It is a major economic driver. In 2012, the 

Outdoor Industry Association reported recreation generated $646 

billion in spending each year, and supports about 6 million jobs. 

Recreation has many other significant benefits, as Mr. Ruiz pointed 

out, drawing people outdoors to learn, exercise, work, volunteer, 

and get other benefits. 

We have over 400 million visitors to our parks, refuges, and public lands, that take their positive experiences home and benefit 

from the physical activity that promotes health and quality of life. 

Included in these visits are nearly 230 million visits to recreation 

enhancement sites. These visits and associated travel generate 

about $25 billion in economic output, and a significant number of 

jobs. 

Among the many visitors are military members, their families, 

veterans, and wounded warriors. In recognition of the need to 

honor the service and sacrifice of our military, in 2012 a new free 

military pass became available to current U.S. military members 

and their dependents. Beginning in 2006 and every year since, we 

have designated fee-free days in honor of veterans across the country. In 2013 we designated three of these fee-free days. We support 

the intent of the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act, and the Wounded 

Veterans Recreation Act, to recognize the contributions of these 

brave men and women. If the committee moves forward with the 

legislation, we would like to work with you closely. 

The recreation fee demonstration program was established, as 

you know, by the Appropriations Committee in 1996. The Federal 

17 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was enacted in 2004. Over the 

course of nearly 20 years, our agencies, working closely with the 

Forest Service, have learned a lot about the program, and experienced implementation of the program. Through this experience we 

can identify four key elements of the program that should be preserved. This mirrors a lot of what Leslie just talked about. 

First, the ability of our agencies to retain the fees and reinvest 

them where they are collected without further appropriation. This 

has allowed our agencies to have certainty, and be able to reinvest 

those programs so the visitors can see the results of the program. 

Visitor satisfaction surveys conducted have found that most visitors 

are satisfied with the level of amenities and services, and believe 

the fees are reasonable. 

Second, the creation of an interagency program has allowed the 

agencies to streamline and simplify access, sustain strong partnerships, and, most importantly, provide more seamless processes for 

the public and the visitors. 

Third, flexibility to establish fees for a range of activities allows 

the agencies to charge for unique services and amenities. This is 

a very important aspect of the program, and allows us to align our 

operations with the unique recreation visitor programs our bureaus 

have. We want to work with you on Sections 806 and 807 of the 

draft bill along those lines. 

Fourth, and last, long-term authority, as Leslie pointed out, has 

allowed the agencies to keep the long view, and achieve a more 

seamless approach, continue to learn from our experience, including best practices, and make investments and improvements to efficiently operate the program. 

The draft bill represents a thoughtful approach to continue the 

program. We want to work with the subcommittee to address some 

of the aspects of the bill, working toward long-term authority and 

administrative flexibility. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Haze follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

BUDGET, FINANCE, PERFORMANCE AND ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, ON H.R. ____, H.R. 3976, AND H.R. 2743 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to appear before you today 

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. ____, draft legislation 

that would amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), and 

on H.R. 2743 and H.R. 3976, bills that would authorize special passes for certain 

veterans to national parks and other Federal recreation lands. 

As an initial matter, we appreciate that Congress enacted, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (P.L. 113–46), a 1-year extension of FLREA, until 

December 8, 2015. We believe that the recreation fee program authorized by FLREA 

has been a highly successful and effective program, critical to providing quality 

recreation amenities and services to the public. This extension allows the program 

to continue uninterrupted as Congress considers its reauthorization for a longer 

time period. We also appreciate the attention that this subcommittee has given to 

this important issue. 

Permanent reauthorization of FLREA, as identified in the President’s fiscal year 

2015 Budget, will provide an important authority that allows the agencies to continue to effectively serve the visiting public, provide high-quality visitor amenities, 

and respond quickly to meet changing visitor demands. FLREA provides these important benefits to visitors as a result of the agencies’ ability to immediately reinvest recreation fee dollars and use them, without further appropriation, for site 

enhancements, resource protection, interpretive programs, visitor safety, and other 

18 

1See the Triennial Report to Congress, Implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, May 2012, http://www.doi.gov/ppa/upload/ 

FLREA_Triennial_Report_2012_FINAL.pdf 

vital services and improvements. We refer the subcommittee to our June 18, 2013, 

testimony for additional details on how FLREA has benefited the Federal land management agencies and the visiting public. 

H.R. ____, Amendments to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

H.R. ____ amends FLREA in a number of ways. Among other changes, the draft 

bill revises the terminology and conditions under which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) collect fees (identified as day use, entrance, recreation, and special recreation permit fees). The draft bill modifies the processes for ensuring public participation in the agencies’ establishment of fees. It provides for additional categories 

and types of the America the Beautiful—National Parks and Federal Recreational 

Lands Pass. The draft bill also amends the expenditure and reporting requirements 

for agencies. Finally, the draft bill provides that the authority of the Secretaries will 

sunset 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act. 

The draft bill represents a thoughtful approach to addressing many of the issues 

and concerns that have been identified by the Administration and by stakeholders 

regarding implementation of FLREA. This testimony reflects our initial review of 

the draft bill. The Department may provide additional views on this legislation after 

the bill is introduced and after conducting further analysis. The Department looks 

forward to working with subcommittee on this important issue. 

We believe there are several core elements of the recreation fee program authorized by FLREA that have contributed to the success of the program,1 and that each 

of these core elements should be contained in any reauthorization of FLREA. One 

element is the ability for agencies to retain fees, and reinvest fee dollars where they 

are collected without further appropriation. This element of the program has ensured visitor support for the program. Visitor satisfaction surveys conducted in the 

past 3 years by BLM, FWS, NPS, and USFS also have found that the vast majority 

of visitors (about 90 percent of respondents) are satisfied with the level of amenities 

and services provided at FLREA sites and believe that the recreation fees they pay 

are reasonable. 

A second core element is the creation of an interagency program. By providing a 

single recreation fee authority for the agencies, FLREA has enhanced customer 

service, efficiency, and consistency in fee collection and expenditure and establishment of national fee policies, such as fee-free days, and the creation of the successful 

Recreation.gov Web site. The recreation program has improved coordination among 

agencies which benefits the visiting public—making recreation sites more accessible 

and information easier to find. Furthermore, while ensuring coordination, FLREA 

acknowledges and allows for differences among the agencies. This is important because the agencies have different missions, and are unique in the services they provide to the public and in the services the public expects from the agencies. 

The administrative ability to establish recreation fees for a range of activities, including flexibility to charge for unique services or amenities and new emerging 

amenities that could benefit visitors, is a third core element of the success of the 

recreation fee program. In setting any fees, the agencies seek the public’s input, and 

there are protections in the FLREA program to ensure there are no disadvantages 

to the local communities. Each agency has developed policies consistent with 

FLREA to ensure that the public receives notification about agency proposals and 

has an opportunity to provide input to agencies as they consider new recreation fees 

and changes to existing recreation fees. 

A final core element of the success of the recreation fee program is long-term authority. Knowing that a program is not likely to change every few years provides 

certainty to visitors, and enables the agencies to efficiently implement the program 

and to manage multi-year projects that improve visitor safety, experience and opportunities. This element also allows for the development of key partnerships with 

outfitters, other vendors, and communities that rely on the economic benefits of visitation and investments made by the agencies. and to provide key programs. 

The draft bill appears to contain many of these core elements, such as authority 

for an interagency program and the ability of agencies to retain and reinvest fees 

at the sites where they were collected. However, we note that it does not appear 

to provide for long-term authority, or for administrative flexibility for agencies. 

With respect to a long-term authority, Section 820 of the draft bill includes a 5- 

year sunset date. We recommend that Congress permanently authorize this proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
19 

gram,. Permanent authorization would not preclude the Congress from ongoing 

oversight of the program, and the agencies have consistently submitted reports of 

their activities to Congress. With respect to administrative flexibility, Sections 806 

and 807 of the draft bill identify and limit the types of activities for which the agencies could establish fees for or authorize under FLREA. We are concerned that, as 

written, the draft bill may preclude agencies from permitting or charging fees for 

certain well-established recreational events and activities currently authorized 

under FLREA. We also seek clarity on the relationship between the prohibitions and 

fee authority set forth in the draft bill and on the factors to be considered in determining fees, to enhance consistency and effectiveness in the agencies’ implementation of the recreation fee program. 

We look forward to working with the committee on appropriate language to ensure that the agencies will be able to effectively and efficiently manage the breadth 

of activities that occur on the lands they manage and provide for the diverse current 

and future recreational needs of the public, and to provide other clarifying and technical amendments. 

H.R. 2743, Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act and H.R. 3976, Wounded Veterans 

Recreation Act 

H.R. 2743 would make the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal 

Recreational Lands Pass available at a discount for life to any veteran who was separated from military service under conditions other than dishonorable, if the veteran 

provides proof of that status by presenting a DD214. H.R. 3976 would also make 

the America the Beautiful-National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 

available for the lifetime of the passholder for any veteran with a service-connected 

disability, as defined in section 101 of title 38, United States Code. 

The Department supports the intent of these bills to honor the service of our veterans. Men and women who have served in the armed forces have made tremendous 

contributions to this country, and we honor their service. In 2006, the agencies established the first fee-free day in honor of veterans at recreation fee sites across the 

country. Every year since 2006, the agencies have established at least one fee-free 

day to honor veterans. In 2013, for example, the agencies established 3 days— 

Veterans Day and the two weekend days before it—as fee-free in honor of veterans. 

In 2012, the agencies announced a free military version of the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass for current members of the military and their dependents. Although this military pass is not available to veterans, many veterans are eligible for other discounted passes, such as the 

Senior Pass granting lifetime access to U.S. citizens over 62 for $10, and the Access 

Pass granting free lifetime access for permanently disabled U.S. citizens. 

With the military pass, the fee-free days in honor of veterans, and the eligibility 

of many veterans for the Senior Pass or the Access Pass, we believe that the agencies are providing honor and recognition for the men and women who are serving 

or who have served our Nation in the armed forces, If the committee moves forward 

with this legislation, we would like to work with you and the USFS and Department 

of Veterans Affairs to address a number of logistical, cost and other implementation 

issues associated with a special pass for veterans. 

Conclusion 

In addition to drawing people outdoors to learn, exercise, work and volunteer, outdoor recreation is a significant contributor to the national economy and the economies of communities that surround the lands we manage. It is important that we 

make recreational opportunities available in communities across the Nation, to promote health and fitness, engage our youth, and inspire the next generations to conserve and protect America’s precious resources. In 2012, the Outdoor Industry 

Association reported that recreation activities generate $646 billion dollars in spending each year, and support 6.1 million jobs. In particular, the approximately 383 

million visits to DOI-managed lands in 2011 contributed an estimated $42.3 billion 

in economic output to the surrounding economies through trip-related spending. The 

approximately 230 million visitors to FLREA sites in 2011 contributed an estimated 

$25.2 billion of the $42.3 billion total. Recreation-related spending on DOI-managed 

lands supported an estimated 352,000 jobs in the communities surrounding Federal 

lands, of which an estimated 210,000 are related to FLREA visitation. 

With revenues from the recreation fee program, the agencies have been able to 

implement thousands of projects that directly benefit visitors. These projects support public safety, maintain recreation sites, provide eye-opening educational experiences, build informational exhibits, fund interpretive programs, engage youth, and 

leverage other funding sources to stretch each visitor’s dollar further. The recreation 

fee program sustains a significant portion of the Department’s youth programs, 

20 

which enable us to increase the engagement of younger generations in the outdoors 

and develop an awareness of public resource stewardship. In addition, the recreation 

fee program has supported the Recreation.gov Web site, which provides convenient, 

one-stop access for those making reservations, securing permits, and building 

itineraries for travel to Federal recreation sites across the United States. Nearly 3.5 

million reservations were made in FY2013 

The Department supports the recreation fee program and has found that FLREA 

facilitates efficiency, consistency, and good customer service by enabling interagency 

cooperation and public participation. Recreation fee authority is a vital component 

of our Department’s ability to serve as effective stewards of the Federal lands we 

treasure. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. We will now 

turn to Brian Merrill, and the same thing, 5 minutes. 

We recognize you, appreciate you being here, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN I. MERRILL, WESTERN RIVER 

EXPEDITIONS, MOAB ADVENTURE CENTER 

Mr. MERRILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. We are an 

outfitter that operates river trips, off-road tours, and hiking tours 

in the State of Utah and in the Grand Canyon. FLREA is the authority under which we are issued permits by the Bureau of Land 

Management for many of our Utah trips. 

I am in favor of reauthorization of FLREA, but with some caveats that I will detail in my testimony. I am concerned about some 

provisions that could prove to be financially difficult for our industry, and, in some cases, be unsustainable. 

I think I support the second reason the Chairman defined for 

fees, in that I believe there should be a narrowly defined list of 

things for which fees can be used, and they should be logically connected to the users of that resource. 

In general, the ability for the agencies to collect fees is important, and I agree with that, and I have some slides—very few—just 

to show you some of the things that they get used for in our areas. 

As I said here, sometimes all that is needed is to smooth out a 

little bit of dirt. The next slide will show a busy day at Sandwash 

Boat Ramp in Desolation Canyon on the Green River in Utah. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MERRILL. Sometimes when the water gets high and moves 

stuff around you get a big berm there, so they just need to come 

in and smooth out some dirt. That is what—and fees might get 

used for something as simple as that. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MERRILL. The next—and then sometimes, like in Westwater 

Canyon, we have a full-on paved ramp. So that was super exciting. 

There is an example of the work there. The next slide will show 

you the ramp, finished. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MERRILL. These are the kind of things that make our life a 

lot easier, the kind of things we worry about in the outfitting business. The next slide? 

[Slide] 

21 

Mr. MERRILL. Sometimes it is about comfort and convenience. 

That is what they call a bug hut. At Desolation Canyon, when the 

water gets high, there are a lot of mosquitos on the Green River, 

unfortunately. But mostly just at the beginning of the trip. So, people can reserve those bug huts, and they are very much appreciated and very much used, and are an example of a really good 

use of the fees generated by FLREA, I believe. 

Then I think you just have one more. 

[Slide] 

Mr. MERRILL. So, that is the end of a ramp at the end of our 

Green River trip. As you can see, it has become a hazard for feet 

and ankles. They are going to spend some fee money this year to 

change the lip of that thing to make it a little safer. I think that 

is all I have, in terms of slides. But I just wanted to show those 

examples of how fees are being used, and how I think they ought 

to be used. 

Boy, this 5 minutes goes fast, doesn’t it? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MERRILL. There is another provision in the bill about which 

I am excited, and it is the stewardship credits pilot program that 

is talked about in there, the idea that outfitters could get bonus 

points, if you will, for doing work on public lands, helping to maintain trails, particularly. Our Forest Service outfitters in our organization will be particularly happy with that. 

My worries in the bill have to do with many of the exemptions 

that are spoken about in there. They are pretty broad and undefined. I worry that they will become too great. While there are certainly examples where exemptions from fees are important or 

appropriate: not having to pay a few to go into the attractions here 

on the National Mall I think is a good idea, the veterans that we 

are talking about earlier I think is a good idea, and there will always be groups that may not be able to afford fees and are worthy 

of an exemption. But I would say that most groups are not, and 

that a user is a user. 

We look at a person traveling with an outfitter, a person traveling on their own, a student, they have the same impact on the 

resource, and they should all be required to pay fees, unless they 

have a really compelling reason. So I think that list of exemptions 

needs to be really narrowly defined. 

I will let Mr. Brown talk about the cost recovery concerns I have; 

he will do a better job of it than I will. 

I just want to make one more point, that there is cost sensitivity 

in our industry. We are probably at the limit of where we can be, 

in terms of fees that our guests pay. If they get any higher, then 

it will start affecting our ability to operate trips, because people 

won’t be able to afford it. The margins in our industry, recent studies show that our—the average profitability margin for our industry is about 6 percent. So we are small family businesses. We can’t 

afford to pay a lot more in fees. 

So, anything the legislation does to keep the definition of fees 

and the use of fees limited, and keep them from getting used for 

a lot of things that are beyond the scope is appreciated by our industry. 

Thank you. 

22 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrill follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN I. MERRILL, CEO, WESTERN RIVER EXPEDITIONS, 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on issues that are important to my company and to the future of outfitted 

guide services all across the country. 

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) is the authority under 

which my company holds Special Recreation Permits issued by the Bureau of Land 

Management. These permits allow us to lead guided rafting trips on the Green and 

Colorado Rivers in Utah as well as guided off-road and hiking tours. The Act also 

defines fees that the BLM charges pursuant to our permits and to each individual 

user of the resource, whether they travel on their own or with a professional guide. 

When I was invited to testify at this hearing, I fully intended to advocate for the 

reauthorization of FLREA. Obviously, the ability of the BLM to issue our permits 

is critical to our business. Without the permits, we have no business. At the same 

time, the ability to collect fees is important so the BLM can build and maintain facilities related to what we do. 

As I read through the legislation, however, I am concerned about certain provisions that could prove financially devastating to a business like mine. If those concerns are resolved, I will again be fully supportive of the Act’s reauthorization. 

Let me start with the positives: 

In general, the ability of the agencies to charge fees for the use of the resources 

they manage is a good thing. There are certain facilities and amenities that are logically paid for by fees collected from users. I’ll show photos of some examples. 

The provision in Section 811 that allows 80 percent of fees collected at a specific 

site to stay with that unit or area is critical. I believe that 100 percent of the fees 

should stay local. 

The increased level of reporting outlined in Section 813 is welcomed. This will go 

a long way to making sure the program gets administered effectively and will give 

the public the tools it needs to comment intelligently when public input is solicited 

The public participation process included in Section 808 is a positive feature. This 

combined with the reporting provisions will create the accountability and transparency that the program needs. 

The ‘‘Stewardship Credits’’ pilot program explained in Section 807(d) will be welcomed by outfitters. Many outfitters are eager to help out by clearing trails and performing other acts of service that benefit the resource. They also possess the 

required skills and training necessary to perform such work. However, this work is 

done at their personal expense and in some cases they are not even allowed to do 

it. This provision creates a partnership between the outfitters and the managing 

agency that will greatly benefit the resource. It also provides the incentive needed 

for the outfitter to perform the work. 

My concerns with the draft legislation are as follows: 

Sections 804 and 805 provide an exemption from fees for certain educational 

groups. I fear that the burden of administering a program that serves a large number of visitors will be borne by relatively few of the users, namely the professionally 

guided public. We are the easy target, and the assumption is often that the commercially guided guests and the companies that provide guided services can afford it. 

That is not true. 

The fact is that a user is a user when it comes to resource impacts. A person participating on an educational trip does not step or float or camp more delicately than 

a person on a guided trip. While there are compelling reasons to create some fee 

exemptions such as those granted to NPS attractions here on the Capitol Mall, the 

mere fact that a trip has an ‘‘educational’’ purpose does not make its participants 

more worthy of consideration than anyone else. It is also true that there may be 

some individuals or groups for whom fees create a financial barrier. Any language 

accommodating these users would need to be narrowly crafted to not include all educational or non-profit groups because and exemption for most groups is not warranted. 

I am also concerned about the ‘‘cost recovery’’ language contained in this bill. Up 

until now, cost recovery has been limited to a narrow range of activities such as the 

building and maintaining of facilities. The draft bill proposes expanding the activities to such things as natural and cultural resource monitoring, and restoration. 

These are activities that, if fully funded by the collection of user fees would price 

every single user out of the resource. 

23 

Natural and cultural resource monitoring is a bottomless pit of need. For example, 

in Utah we are in the middle of a discussion regarding the potential listing, as an 

endangered species, of the Western Sage Grouse. Potentially, the cost recovery for 

monitoring something like this could be funded through fees. The outfitted public 

cannot be expected to pay the bill for an endless list of endangered species monitoring. 

FLREA allows fees to be used for trail maintenance, but the backlog of trails that 

need to be maintained in the National Forests alone is so immense that much more 

creative methods of accomplishing the work and funding the work are needed. For 

example, a portion of the money collected through the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund could be used for trails. Another idea would be to utilize fire crews during 

those times when they are not needed to fight fires. These other sources of trail 

maintenance revenue and labor combined with the ‘‘stewardship credits’’ mentioned 

previously would reduce the pressure to increase fees through FLREA for the funding of trail maintenance. 

Western River Expeditions pays permit fees equal to 3 percent of its gross receipts. We also collect and remit a per-head, ‘‘special area fee’’ on those trips where 

there is one clear access point. For example, we collect and remit $10 per person 

for a single day trip that we operate through Westwater Canyon on the Colorado 

River. We also collect and remit a $25 per person, special area fee for a multi-day 

trip we operate through Desolation Canyon on the Green River. 

Our experience has been that our local resource areas do a good job of collecting 

and properly using these fees. However, if the door is opened allowing the use of 

fees for a much broader list of activities, the temptation will be to continue 

ratcheting the fees up to pay for things that are not logically connected to the use 

and enjoyment of the specific resource. 

In Desolation Canyon, which is administered by the Price, Utah Resource Area 

of the BLM, the river program relies on fee money from outfitters and private boaters to provide the opportunity for a high quality, primitive recreation experience. 

Examples of facilities that have been built and maintained with fees include: boat 

ramps, bathrooms, mosquito huts, signs, picnic tables, fire rings, and interpretive 

displays. Fees are also used to fund seasonal river rangers, transportation costs, a 

recreation planner, and river patrol equipment. Contracts with private companies 

for services such as: garbage collection, toilet pumping and water hauling are also 

funded with fees. 

An example of a project that will be completed in 2014 is the improvement of the 

Swasey’s boat ramp where we end our trips. This particular improvement is important because it currently presents a hazard to feet, ankles and equipment. The river 

program largely supports itself from fee money generated through permits and commercial use fees. 

In Westwater Canyon, the special area fee was recently increased from $7.00 per 

person to $10.00. If you read the business plan for Westwater, you will see that ‘‘full 

cost recovery’’ would have resulted in a $15.00 per person fee. We are thankful that 

the Moab Resource Area chose to show restraint in their fee increase, but as appropriated money becomes increasingly scarce, the inevitable increase in fees will begin 

to have a real impact on the ability of the general public to enjoy the resource. 

The fees I’ve described probably seem fairly reasonable; however, fees currently 

represent nearly 10 percent of the cost of our trips. For commercial trips, we already 

experience price sensitivity, so merely increasing the price would most certainly 

cause us to lose business. Add to that the fact that outfitting and guiding companies 

are small, family run businesses with very slim profit margins and it becomes clear 

that businesses cannot merely absorb theses costs. 

A recent survey of our industry conducted over the last two seasons indicates that 

the average profit margin for an outfitting business is around 6.5 percent. Even little changes that increase our costs are significant. 

It is my hope that changes to provisions I have mentioned here can be made before formal introduction of this legislation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. We will keep you there for 

questions. 

We will now turn to Mr. Brown for 5 minutes. 

24 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICA OUTDOORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the attention that you are giving to this important issue, which will affect 

the future of recreation on public lands for years to come. 

As you know, we are a national trade association of outfitters 

and guides. There are about 60,000 full- and part-time jobs in outfitting that will be affected by this legislation. So it is very significant, both economically and to the social fabric of our Nation. 

We certainly support reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in principle, but do have some issues with 

the current draft that would prevent us from supporting it. I know 

you have mentioned there are going to be changes, so we look forward to that. 

I have offered a number of changes in my testimony; I have three 

pages of changes which I will refer you to. Not going to go over all 

those in my testimony, because we don’t have time. But I do want 

to offer a couple of perspectives and, as you are considering 

changes to the bill, and even another option that will enable rapid 

reauthorization of FLREA. 

One of our biggest concerns of the cost recovery and requirements in Section 807 of the draft language which are unsustainable 

for outfitters and guides, at a time when we should be streamlining 

permitting—permit processing and administration, Section 807 

adds new complications, regulatory burdens, and costs that would 

threaten the viability of outfitters on public lands. We had 12 national and State outfit organizations sign a letter that express concerns about that provision. 

Let me offer some other observations on some of the potential 

unintended consequences of the proposed changes. The bill, as written, revises the fee structure. It eliminates fees that have original—in the original law. The currently enacted amenity fees are 

eliminated, replaced by day use fees and focus a lot of the fee revenue on permit fees. 

For back-country recreation, most of the users don’t have permits. So that pretty much takes them off the table for paying fees, 

which may be intended, but it—that, in essence, focuses most of 

the potential for fee revenue onto the outfitted public to cover all 

of the costs that are outlined in Section 807, which I think are 

going to be too expansive to bear. They include infrastructure, 

maintenance, monitoring, law enforcement, even some general 

forest management goals that are outlined in the recently changed 

forest planning rules related to focal species monitoring, monitoring 

of watershed health. I mean that is what, basically, is defined as 

‘‘monitoring’’ in the Forest Service. So, we have some concerns 

about the breadth of the cost recovery language in Section 807 that 

definitely needs to be looked at. 

I also have concerns about—it seems like the number of exemptions are expanding. Section 806(b) has changed from the previous 

bill, and looks like, to me, it would create problems, or certainly 

uncertainty for the agencies in who was exempted from fees for access and for certain activities. 

25 

So, while there are some challenges with implementation of the 

existing amenity fees, I do think that those could be dealt with by 

oversight. Perhaps one suggestion you may want to consider is not 

restructuring the fees, but improving the existing fees in the law. 

In other words, not making the changes to the fee structure that 

are in the proposed draft. 

I think if this process becomes bogged down, one alternative is 

to extend the current law. We have done that already, and it got 

through the Senate. So I think that is an option. Then I think that 

your oversight is very important for implementation of this program, whether or not there are changes made to it or—because I 

think the—if you would do annual oversight of the fees, how they 

are being used, where there are problems, I think the agencies very 

often respond, and you can make incremental changes to the fee 

authority as necessary, rather than revising the whole fee structure, as proposed in the draft. 

So, I will be happy to answer any questions about the changes 

that I proposed, or you know, this position. We do advocate rapid 

reauthorization, and would like you to consider our comments, both 

written and oral. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICA

OUTDOORS ASSOCIATION ON H.R. ____ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee thank you for taking the time 

to consider the concerns and issues that are necessary to improve the draft reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). The time you 

are spending on this legislation is crucial to the future of outdoor recreation. Your 

efforts are very much appreciated. 

America Outdoors Association is a national, non-profit trade association representing the interests of outfitters and guiding companies, most of which operate 

on federally managed lands and waters under permits authorized by REA. 

This is complex legislation. Since REA is the authority under which outfitter and 

guide permits are currently issued and those permit fees retained by agency units, 

America Outdoors Association members and our State affiliate organizations are 

hopeful that we can eventually support reauthorization of this authority. However, 

we cannot support passage of the discussion draft circulated prior to this hearing. 

My testimony today will focus primarily on the provisions in this legislation which 

impact backcountry recreation. The draft bill is unsustainable from a financial 

standpoint for holders of outfitter permits under Section 807. I will offer some solutions which enable the agencies to collect and retain reasonable recreation fees to 

support quality services and experiences for the public. 

The provisions of this bill in many ways reveal the increasing costs of managing 

recreation on Federal lands and why we need to work on the cost side of the equation and not just on the funding side. 

SEC. 807 requires permit holders, primarily outfitters and guides, organized 

groups, special events and motorized recreationists, to cover some or all of the costs 

for 

(1) trail and facility construction; 

(2) maintenance; 

(3) natural and cultural resource monitoring; 

(4) restoration; 

(5) emergency response and law enforcement; 

(6) signage and user education; 

(7) permit administration. 

Since most self-guided, backcountry recreationists are exempted from fees in the 

draft legislation, except in a handful of areas, these burdens would fall mainly on 

the outfitted public and their service providers. Outfitter permit holders would be 

saddled with the costs for trail maintenance, monitoring of natural and cultural resources, restoration, signage, law enforcement and user education for all users in 

26 

most areas. In 2012 the Forest Service estimated that its trail maintenance backlog 

totaled $314 million, which is beyond the financial viability of recreation permit 

holders and their customers. Outfitted use in wilderness usually amounts to around 

15 percent or less of overall use, so the fees to support recreation for other users 

would largely be levied on the outfitted public. 

Recreation.gov lists only 26 areas where the Forest Service and National Park 

Service collect permit fees from the self-guided (noncommercial), general public for 

backcountry uses. Fourteen areas are in National Forests. A few other areas charge 

permit fees for self-guided users which are not listed on recreation.gov, including a 

few rivers managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but few noncommercial backcountry users would share the cost recovery burdens listed in SEC. 

807. 

Several of the items under the cost recovery provision in SEC. 807 are defined 

in the April 9, 2012 Final National Forest System Land Management Planning rule. 

This rule provides evidence as to why the costs in SEC. 807 cannot be separated 

among uses or users or sustained solely by the outfitted public. For example, ‘‘natural and cultural resource monitoring’’ and ‘‘restoration’’ are very broad in scope as 

identified in the Forest Service rule. Forest plans are required to include ‘‘monitoring of select ecological and watershed conditions and focal species to assess 

progress toward meeting diversity and ecological sustainability requirements.’’ This 

same planning rule requires Forest plans to include in their ‘‘maintenance’’ and 

‘‘restoration’’ goals, the requirement ‘‘to provide for the maintenance or restoration 

of the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in 

the plan area.’’ 

These issues, impacts and costs, which are covered in SEC. 807, are often indistinguishable among users and uses, not to mention the impacts of natural disasters. 

They should be programmatic and not transferred to a small number of permitted 

visitors whom the agencies will find convenient to isolate and exploit for revenue. 

The construction and maintenance of public facilities and trails are also programmatic costs, which should not be borne solely be permit holders. 

The threat of cost recovery for permit administration required of small businesses 

cannot be dismissed. The Forest Service acknowledged the threat to small businesses it in its final cost recovery rule in 2006 when it stated: ‘‘The Forest Service 

has prepared a cost-benefit analysis of the final rule, which concludes that the final 

rule could have an economic impact on small businesses if their application or authorization requires a substantial amount of time and expense to process or monitor. 

These entities could be economically impacted, for example, when they apply for 

agency approval to expand or change their authorized use, or when an expired authorization prompts them to apply for a new authorization to continue their use and 

occupancy, and the application requires a substantial amount of time and expense 

to process.’’ 

In a few areas cost recovery has been implemented appropriately. However, the 

risk of runaway analyses is ever present when permits are up for renewal. Permit 

holders are basically required to sign a ‘‘blank check’’ agreement to cover the costs, 

even when those costs may be well beyond their means. These permitting processes 

should be streamlined following the model used in SEC. 603 of the recent Farm Bill 

(H.R. 2642), which authorizes categorical exclusions for forest restoration thinning 

projects. Likewise, permitting new outfitted activities on public lands is prohibitively expensive for both the BLM and the Forest Service. We had hoped the bill 

would include some streamlining of those processes by authorizing the use of programmatic Environmental Assessments and Categorical Exclusions in certain 

circumstances. 

Permit fees should be dedicated first to permit administration and then to other 

uses in consultation with the permit holders. We do not believe the costs to construct recreation facilities and trails for the general public, forest restoration, emergency response, or law enforcement are appropriate costs to be paid by recreation 

permit fees since self-guided users are not required to have permits in most areas. 

Those agency actions benefit the public at large and are more appropriately paid 

by day use fees, recreation fees, or other sources of funding including appropriations, which provide a broader base of funding than permit fees. Outfitters may be 

subject to one of these alternative fees as well to support some of these costs. 

SEC. 806 of the draft authorizes and promotes agency-led tours, services and 

equipment rental, which could compete with the private sector, without any of the 

similar permit or cost recovery obligations in SEC. 807. Nor are these agency services required to carry or pay for liability insurance. Some of these activities were 

authorized in the previous version of the legislation. Not all are objectionable to us. 

But these agency-led programs have begun to expand with the launch of the interVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
27 

agency reservation service, recreation.gov. The agency activities authorized by the 

legislation include 

• guided walks, talks and tours, • rental of stock animals, boats, equipment, cabins; and • services where specialized equipment is required for programs of substantial 

length. 

We do appreciate the Stewardship Credits proposed in SEC. 807. It is a step in 

the right direction. We offer ideas on expanding that program in our suggested list 

of changes. 

We also appreciate the public participation provisions in SEC. 808 and the reporting requirements in SEC. 813, especially the provision to annually report how fees 

are being spent. SEC. 808 should include a provision that authorizes a public meeting on fee expenditures at each unit so that questions can be asked and input taken 

on the use of fees. Such a meeting should not be mandatory if there is no interest. 

An example of why such a meeting would be of value is included in our suggestions 

for changes to the draft. 

While we do understand the importance for this authorization to sunset, a 5-year 

sunset may be too short. The agencies also need specific legislative authority to 

issue permits with terms beyond whatever sunset date is in the final bill or they 

may not issue them for fear their fee authority will expire during the term of the 

permit. We suggest a 10- to 15-year sunset provided the Congress conducts routine 

oversight hearings on implementation of this legislation. 

As previously mentioned, we had also hoped this legislation would help resolve 

the near lockdown that currently exists on Federal lands with regard to new or expanded outfitter services. If the Congress wants the private sector to be involved 

in providing outfitting services in Forests, Refuges and on BLM lands, it has to provide the agency with the authority to streamline the required permitting processes. 

These changes would enable the agencies to open areas to new uses and enable existing service providers to adapt to changing markets. 

The following modifications and additions to this legislation are offered for your 

consideration with the understanding that some of these suggestions may be more 

appropriate for other legislative initiatives. 

1. Because about 8,000 outfitter and guide special recreation permits are issued 

by the Forest Service and BLM, the outfitter and guide special use permitting 

authority deserves its own Section in the legislation, which will enhance the 

clarity of this legislation instead of mixing that authority and those fees with 

other uses and users. We estimate that at least 60,000 full- and part-time 

jobs are at stake in rural areas just among Forest Service, BLM and Fish and 

Wildlife Service permit holders. 

2. All the costs in SEC 807(b) should not be attributed to permit fees for outfitting and guiding. Permit fees should be held in a special account for permit 

administration first and foremost. Permit fees should be allowed to accumulate to help cover the cost associated with permit processing when permits expire. Permit holders should be consulted before those fees are used for other 

purposes or to benefit other uses. Fees to cover some or all of the costs for 

restoration, monitoring of biological and cultural resources, and similar items 

should be removed from SEC. 807. 

3. A fee other than a permit fee should be considered to support maintenance 

of trails, facilities, user education and similar costs, but it should be applied 

to all users or to none. Perhaps, the Recreation Fee Section could be broadened so that a fee could be collected from anyone using a resource or facility 

which requires oversight, construction of specific facilities, and maintenance 

if the fees are reasonable, cost-effective and benefit the user base paying the 

fees. 

4. The exemption from recreation fees for a wide range of uses in SEC. 806 is 

confusing and muddies the water. This exemption is so broad and ill-defined, 

the courts are likely to be the agent determining which if any fee these 

recreationists are subject to, including fees for use of facilities that provide 

‘‘access’’ to rivers or permits which provide ‘‘access’’ since these users are exempted (by this Section). 

5. We believe that restoration and ecological monitoring are general management 

obligations, inseparable among various users and natural events and should 

not be subject to fees. 

6. Streamline permit documentation. Authorize the use of Programmatic 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) for recreation uses and activities to include 

28 

the self-guided and outfitted portion of those uses. The BLM and National 

Park Service already use this strategy to some extent. The goal should be to 

enable these EAs to reduce some of the site specific documentation requirements when permits are issued. Categorical exclusions should be authorized 

for routine renewal of existing uses even in the presence of extraordinary circumstances when there is a finding of no significant impact. Lawsuits by 

those opposed to commercial outfitting activities have made the Forest 

Service gun-shy about using categorical exclusions in these circumstances; 

therefore a specific legislative authority would be helpful. We need to find 

ways to encourage efficiency in permit administration and NEPA documentation to enable these permits to be issued cost effectively. Five or six outfitters 

simply cannot bear the costs of a 700-page Environmental Impact Statement, 

as was done to authorize six outfitters to take 1,200 people per year into the 

Pasayten Wilderness. The Forest supervisor later decided the EIS was inadequate and withdrew the Record of Decision to issue the permits after the 

agency spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the process for six permits. 

7. We strongly recommend that Congress mandate what constitutes a valid assessment of need for commercial services in designated wilderness. This provision will help free the agencies from the fear of litigation. The Forest 

Service should eliminate these assessments of need in non-wilderness areas 

because there is no statutory basis or funding. In response to lawsuits challenging the need for commercial services, the agencies have to perform assessments of need for those services. The Act states: ‘‘Commercial services may 

be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent 

necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other 

wilderness purposes of the areas.’’ Therefore, the assessment must also determine the extent of that need and the degree to which it impairs wilderness 

values. But the standards for documenting this need for commercial services 

are not established or standardized among the agencies. Therefore, it should 

be mandated. 

8. In order to provide more flexibility to accommodate new recreation services, 

reinstate 1-year temporary permits for new types of outfitted uses. BLM currently has no temporary permit authority. The Forest Service has a temporary permit, but for only 200 service days. These temporary permits should 

include operating plans, performance reviews, fees, and utilization requirements similar to longer term permits. There should be a cost effective strategy to convert these permits to longer-term permits. Categorical exclusions 

are already authorized for temporary uses, which will make issuance of these 

permits feasible. These permits can be issued when the ranger does a simple 

assessment that the capacity is available for the new activity. Uses should be 

allowed to re-occur for up to 3 years. This authority should not be used to 

extend existing permits or for existing permitted activities unless there is unfilled need for those services. 

9. The provisions that are in the original REA authority, which prohibit additional charges for road use and monitoring for endangered species, should be 

reinstated. Permit holders should not be charged road use fees unless other 

users are also charged. Permit holders are often the minority users of roads 

but would likely be billed for all or most of the cost for road maintenance for 

every user. The same concern applies to fees for biological monitoring for endangered species since many other non-permitted users frequent these recreation areas. 

10. For trips or recreation services which cross agency boundaries, provide legislative authorization for one agency permit to be issued to cover uses on the 

lands and waters of both agencies. 

11. Provide the BLM and the Forest Service with the authority to concession-out, 

non-essential facilities for recreation services for permit terms sufficient to 

justify and attract the capital necessary to make them viable for commercial 

services. The BLM does not currently have this authority. The Forest Service 

has it but does not use it very often. 

12. Mandate that permit fees be based only on the activities on Federal lands. 

Currently, the Forest Service bases permit fees on the entire cost of the trip, 

including activities that occur on private land, essentially taxing activities 

and services outside National Forests. The Forest Service was ordered by the 

U.S. District Court in Alaska to stop using this basis for fees (Tongass 

Conservancy v Glickman), but the practice continues as official agency policy 

outside the Alaska Region. 

29 

13. The requirement for prior approval of the exemption from day use fees for 

education institutions is important. We also suggest limiting that fee exemption strictly to activities in pursuit of course credits so that adult continuing 

education recreational activities and similar programs are not inadvertently 

exempted from fees. 

14. Provide clear authority for expansion of the pilot program for stewardship 

credits or begin contracting with outfitters for river and trail maintenance. 

We suggest including the goal of reaching 40 units by the end of year three 

and providing some form of reimbursement to ranger districts from fee revenues for fee credits if that strategy is adopted. There is also a new contracting 

authority (Sec. 8205. Stewardship end result contracting projects) for road 

and trail maintenance for the Forest Service in the Farm bill which may be 

considered if some source of funding is available. 

15. Consider use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the backlog of 

trail and facilities maintenance. While this authority is probably not within 

the domain of this legislation, we believe it is an important piece of the puzzle 

for future legislation when the Land and Water Conservation Fund is up for 

reauthorization. 

16. Limit the agencies’ authority to provide fee-based services directly to public 

when those services can be provided by the private sector. We suggest clarification on what types of tours are authorized by this legislation in SEC. 

806(b) and that they be limited to interpretive walks and hikes where outfitting or specialized equipment are generally not required. If cost recovery 

provisions are authorized for outfitter permits, those same cost recovery provisions should apply to the services agencies provide directly to the public. 

17. We appreciate the reporting requirements in the bill but do not believe they 

are adequate. Current reports of fee spending are often so general, one cannot 

easily tell how the fee money is being spent. The Salmon Challis National 

Forest report for 2012 describes a few projects which were completed, but 

does not reveal how much was spent on each project. Expenditures are given 

for operational costs, such as Visitor Services and Law Enforcement without 

further detail. In 2012 the Intermountain Region, which is comprised of 12 

National Forests, reported spending $319,899 on law enforcement from recreation fees for the entire Region. The Salmon Challis National Forests spent 

$172,263, about half of the Region’s fee-based, law enforcement expenditures. 

This imbalance could result because that Forest simply has more fee money 

to spend and is diverting it to law enforcement whereas the other Forests 

have to rely on appropriated funds. There is no way to tell if this spending 

is related to recreational activity. The public should have an opportunity to 

meet with the agency each year, to discuss these expenditures and get a more 

detailed accounting. 

18. The draft bill also conflicts with the National Park Omnibus Management Act 

authority for issuing contracts and commercial use authorization to outfitters 

operating in National Parks. REA should not govern contracting and permitting procedures in National Parks. 

Thank you again for taking the time to consider this important legislation. We 

appreciate the opportunity to share our views on how we can continue to support 

the important economic and social benefits of outdoor recreation on federally managed lands and waters. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate those comments. We will 

now turn to Mr. Bannon. 

STATEMENT OF AARON BANNON, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OUTDOOR 

LEADERSHIP SCHOOL 

Mr. BANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you. My name is Aaron Bannon, and I represent 

NOLS, the National Outdoor Leadership School. We are a nonprofit, outdoor, educational institution utilizing the wilderness 

30 

classroom, typically through month-long, expedition-style courses, 

and we educate 19,000 students every year. 

Our 230,000 graduates include high school and college students, 

Naval Academy cadets, corporate CEOs, returning veterans, and 

NASA astronauts. We were founded almost 50 years ago in Lander, 

Wyoming, and we have since grown to be one of the largest commercial outfitters in the country, offering courses in 14 States, including Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona; in 9 countries; and across 6 

continents. 

I want to thank this subcommittee for taking the time today to 

consider reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or FLREA. Continuing this authority is critical to support the ongoing operations of permitted outfitters across the public 

lands system. 

Many key provisions of this law today work very well. Through 

FLREA, at least 80 percent of fees are spent within the unit where 

they are accrued, creating an incentive for both fee payers and 

agencies to participate in the fair fee program. These fees are used 

primarily to pay for repair, maintenance, or enhancement of 

recreation infrastructure, bug huts, and to support permit administration. FLREA ensures a balance of responsibility between 

commercial permittees, private recreationists, and general appropriations. We could do much worse than to simply reauthorize the 

Recreation Enhancement Act as it exists today. If that proves to be 

the swiftest path to its passage, NOLS supports straight reauthorization. 

In the meantime, the discussion draft we are reviewing makes a 

number of thoughtful adjustments to the existing law. Some are 

notable improvements, such as the pilot program to reimburse entities that do their own maintenance on public lands, and the retooled notification process alerting the public to changes in fees, 

and involving the public in how recreation fees are allocated. 

There are, however, some modifications that are problematic, 

particularly for special recreation permit holders. Specifically, in 

this discussion draft, cost recovery for the expenses of many nutsand-bolts activities Federal agencies conduct is placed solely on the 

shoulders of special recreation permittees. Activities such as natural resource monitoring, restoration, emergency response, and law 

enforcement should not figure uniquely into special recreation permit fees. 

The cost of these activities should be shared equally by users, 

and therefore, be funded through general appropriations. Because 

the portion of the public that opts to travel with an outfitter or an 

outdoors school is only a small percentage of the recreating public, 

it is not reasonable for them to shoulder more of the burden than 

private recreationists do. 

This discussion draft also does away with Recreation Resource 

Advisory Councils, which were established to review fees in the 

current iteration of FLREA. While it may be appropriate in places 

where these councils have not functioned well, it should not exclude well-functioning resource advisory councils from continuing 

to operate. In Wyoming, for example, ours has functioned and continues to function very well. 

31 

The sunset provision in the draft, set at 5 years, is too rapid a 

turnaround. In order to properly assess the success of this program, a longer period is preferable, and we recommend 10 to 15 

years. 

Finally, as we consider ways to enhance recreation on public 

lands, please consider highlighting the work that volunteers can 

do. Service corps and other organizations across the country play 

a key role in stretching available funds for maintenance and improvements. These programs should be supported. It strikes me 

that this is in line with Congressman Grijalva’s Public Lands 

Service Corps of 2013, and I encourage the committee to hold a 

hearing on this bill. 

It is heartening to see that there is relatively little daylight between the various positions being expressed here today. We all 

want to see the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act reauthorized, and reauthorized swiftly. The core of this bill, as it relates 

to the fees generated on Federal lands, is good. I want to express 

my gratitude to the members of this committee and to the witnesses testifying here today, as well, as we all share a common 

cause. We are all in the business of deepening people’s connections 

with the outdoors. As Congressman Ruiz mentioned, these places 

are good medicine for the body, mind, and soul. 

It is a pleasure to work with you toward this goal today. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bannon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AARON BANNON, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND

SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP SCHOOL

Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time today and for 

your attention to reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act. I am here representing NOLS, the National Outdoor Leadership School. NOLS 

is a non-profit outdoor educational institution offering environmental studies, technical backcountry and leadership skills to students of all ages. NOLS utilizes the 

wilderness classroom—remote wilderness, roadless, and backcountry lands and 

waters—to educate 15,000 students each year, most frequently on month-long expedition-style courses. The lessons learned on NOLS courses are invaluable to our 

graduates, who range from high school students to business leaders and NASA 

astronauts. 

The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) supports swift reauthorization 

of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). As one of the largest permitted outfitters on Federal lands agencies in the country, our continuing operation 

depends upon certainty of a permitting authority and anticipated fees. We support 

reasonable refinements during this reauthorization process, and appreciate the collaborative spirit that has thus far moved this issue forward. 

The broad spectrum of support for reauthorization of this Act speaks to its 

functionality. Fees assessed through the existing program are, with some exceptions, reasonable and appropriate. REA extends a critical authority for assessing 

fees, and for providing guidance to Federal agencies to distribute those fees. 

Through REA, at least 80 percent of fees are spent within the unit where they are 

accrued, creating an incentive for both fee payers and agencies to participate in a 

fair fee program. With additional refinements, REA can ensure a balance of responsibility between commercial permittees, private recreationists, and general appropriations for the maintenance of recreation infrastructure on public lands. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DISCUSSION DRAFT

The Discussion Draft we are considering introduces some notable improvements 

to the existing system. The pilot program for stewardship credits, where groups who 

have an agreement with the land manager may be reimbursed for ‘‘maintenance and 

resource protection work,’’ (Sec. 807(d)), is a good step toward fostering productive 

partnerships between Federal agencies and private entities. Many outfitters are alVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
32 

ready shouldering the costs of forest maintenance, such as clearing trail, to keep 

their operation viable. This would recognize that good work. 

The adjustment in public participation regarding the establishment of fees (Sec. 

808), is a notable improvement over the existing Recreation Resource Advisory 

Council system. Many States have struggled to implement a well-functioning 

Recreation Resource Advisory Council (RAC), though Wyoming’s is function quite 

well. The public participation model should streamline the fee assessment process. 

Similarly, the system established to report the use of fee revenues (Sec. 813), should 

answer concerns regarding how collected fees are spent. 

NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE DISCUSSION DRAFT

There is room for improvement on a few fronts within this Discussion Draft, some 

of them critical. In some cases positive aspects of the original REA were lost. In 

other cases revisions themselves are problematic. 

For example, though the public participation changes help with the assessment 

of fees, nothing of the previous Recreation RAC is retained. In places where they 

worked well, their continuing existence should be supported through inclusion in 

this legislation. This may exist, perhaps, as an additional layer of oversight where 

States choose to use them. 

More critically, the cost recovery language specifically applied to Special Recreation Permit Fees (Sec. 807(b)), is extremely problematic. If it is retained as written 

in this discussion draft, it will create an undue burden on recreation permit holders. 

According to the discussion draft: 

(b) COST RECOVERY.—In setting the fee for Special Recreation Permits the 

Secretaries may consider the costs associated with the activities authorized 

under 807(a), including—— 

(1) trail and facility construction; 

(2) maintenance; 

(3) natural and cultural resource monitoring; 

(4) restoration; 

(5) emergency response and law enforcement; 

(6) signage and user education; 

(7) permit administration. 

(c) RELATION TO OTHER FEES.—Special recreation fees may be charged 

inaddition to day-use 

By and large, this is a laundry list of basic infrastructure that should by fundamental to core agency operations. It is inappropriate for fees assigned to special 

recreation permit holders to be uniquely responsible for standard amenities maintenance and operations. The portion of the public that opts to travel with an outfitter, 

or an outdoor school, to enjoy our public lands and waters is only a small percentage 

of the recreating public. It is not reasonable for them to shoulder more of the burden 

than private recreationists. 

Recreation fees should be used primarily to pay for repair, maintenance, or enhancement of recreation opportunities and infrastructure, for direct operating costs 

of the fee program, and to support permit administration. Backcountry and Wilderness maintenance work should be on par with these priorities. Fees should supplement, but not supplant, existing revenues for agency recreation programs. 

Additionally, the Sunset Provision (Sec. 820) in this discussion draft, set at 5 

years, is too rapid a turnaround. A longer sunset provision would be advisable, especially given the relative success that the previous 10-year sunset provision allotted. 

Given a realistic reauthorization window, which was recently extended by a year, 

we may not be able to practically assess the merits and pitfalls of the existing act 

before it must once again be reauthorized. NOLS recommends a 15-year sunset provision. 

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES

While there are limited opportunities to address permitting policy in this recreation fee legislation, we urge Congress to consider the significant and varied obstacles that exist to obtaining, renewing, and growing Special Recreation Permits on 

public lands. In general, given the value that Federal lands agencies attach to providing outdoor opportunities, we believe agencies should be proactive in supporting 

and expanding appropriate recreation activities on public lands. Obstacles in obtaining, renewing, and growing Special Recreation Permits on public lands are significant and varied. We should consider opportunities to streamline agency processes 

to improve services to permittees. 

33 

For example, when there are reasonable opportunities for programmatic environmental reviews to be conducted on an activity or a suite of similar activities, 

agencies should pursue that opportunity to avoid shouldering permit holders with 

administrative fees that can be internally driven, routine processes. Also, while preserving the integrity of the National Environmental Policy Act, agencies should ensure that an appropriate but not excessive level of environmental analysis when a 

permit is renewed with no significant changes, including the use of Categorical 

Exclusions to renew permits. 

Clear support for volunteers, too, would benefit this legislation. Volunteerism is 

addressed, (Sec. 814), but we can do more to build partnerships between lands agencies and commercial permittees, volunteer groups, and institutions. While volunteer 

service work cannot fully supplant maintenance and enhancement pressures, it can 

help alleviate constraints and stretch existing fee dollars. 

Finally, we can encourage consistency across agencies and across districts when 

considering fee assessment and permit reporting requirements. These should be consistent and reasonable across agency boundaries. When a permittee spends time in 

multiple agencies, layering of fees can easily occur unless there is active coordination. 

IN CONCLUSION

It is hearting to know that there is relatively little daylight between the various 

positions being expressed. We all want to see the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act reauthorized. The core of this bill, as it relates to fees generated 

on Federal lands, is good. While we have differences on details of this legislation 

we are predominantly all on the same side of the issue, and we appreciate its need. 

We are in the business of deepening people’s connections with the outdoors. We are 

seeking that balance between providing access for people to locations and preserving 

the natural resource that inspires us. It is a pleasure to further this ideal through 

the work we are doing today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony of all our witnesses. We will now turn to questions of any of them from our 

panel. As long as you have questions. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly want to 

welcome Aaron back to our committee. Wyoming is very proud of 

NOLS and proud to be the mother ship of such an important organization, globally. So, welcome. Welcome to all of our panelists. 

I do want to focus on our last witness for my portion of the questions. You are right, the Wyoming Resource Advisory Committee 

members do provide informed advice to the BLM on a variety of 

issues, and the RAC does work, I think, exceptionally well in 

Wyoming, and exceptionally poorly in some other places. So, I am 

interested in hearing from you on how we might integrate a successfully operating RAC under the law with places where they just 

don’t work. How can we legislate that to allow those that really do 

operate effectively to continue to do so, while recognizing it just 

doesn’t work everywhere? 

Mr. BANNON. That is a great question. Thank you, Congressman. 

It is good to see you, too. Thank you for your excellent representation and support of NOLS over the years. We really appreciate it. 

I think the Wyoming example of this Resource Advisory Council 

is—could definitely be a model for the country. There is a provision 

in FLREA, as it exists today, that allows States to develop a system separate from exactly how a resource recreation advisory council is mapped out in the law, and the State of Wyoming pursued 

that exemption and got permission from the Secretary to create 

what they call REACT, the Recreation Action Team. 

34 

REACT deals with fees, as is required through FLREA, but it 

has taken its responsibilities far beyond that. REACT engages all 

of the agencies across the State and a number of public entities, 

including NOLS and the Teton Science School to look for opportunities to promote activities in the outdoors, to engage youth in the 

outdoors. Fee review and approval is a portion of the work that— 

really just a piece of it. So I think Wyoming’s program could be a 

model for the country. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. This question I will also pose initially to you, but 

I do ask other members to provide examples, too, of how special 

recreation permit fees are currently spent. 

Mr. BANNON. That is a good question. I think that, by and large, 

the fees are spent well. They are spent on improvements. Some of 

the improvements that Brian mentioned, we see improvements 

around the Shoshone National Forest, as well, for how these fees 

are spent. I think the challenge is sometimes it is not clear to permittees how those decisions are made, or to the general public, for 

what projects are chosen, or how fees are distributed between administration and between actual improvements. There is some language in the new discussion draft that I think actually makes some 

notable improvements on that, in terms of accountability. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. Would anyone else care to respond? 

Ms. HAZE. I can. For the Department of the Interior, our bureaus 

work and prepare 5-year plans for the more major projects that are 

doing capital kinds of projects, and prioritize them locally. They are 

doing exhibits on trails, visitor programs, a whole broad array of 

visitor services that help promote the enjoyment of the visitors. 

Mr. MERRILL. In Utah I agree—I also believe that the BLM is 

doing a good job of using these fees. They—bathrooms are amazingly important, and require a lot of maintenance and a lot of 

money. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, yes. 

Mr. MERRILL. You know, facilities, amenities like that, that are 

important to the resources, and everything from signage to examples of what I showed in the slides are all important, fire rings for 

camps, and everything along the way. Sometimes it is just about 

transportation costs, for example, of rangers getting to and from 

these remote resources, or funding of those rangers who do the 

monitoring and who might patrol the river. They get used in a lot 

of good ways, I think. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. While you have the microphone, could you please 

give us some examples of unreimbursed maintenance that an outfitter or guide might perform? 

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, I am—Mr. Brown might know a little bit more 

about that, but we have a lot of—of our national trade association, 

we have a lot of Forest Service members. I am not one, but they 

are experienced and have the ability to clear forest trails, for example, and they do. They will do it in the way that the forest wants 

them to do it, with cross-cut saws. They are not taking chain saws 

and things into these areas. They would love to be able to do it, 

to just keep trails open, for example, so that the increasing number 

of trails that are closed due to beetle kill and deadfall and stuff 

doesn’t just keep escalating. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

35 

Mr. MERRILL. So, the idea that there could be some credit given 

to them for that work toward their fees is a really great idea. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. My time has expired. You are right; 5 minutes 

really does go fast. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will come back again. Mr. DeFazio, do you have 

questions? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Weldon, there was 

a court ruling last week, as you know, regarding concessionaires 

operating in national forests. You know, Congress has seen fit to 

put certain restrictions on the agency, in terms of where you can 

and can’t charge fees. When we first started the fee demo program 

it was a mess. I mean you had to get one for every forest, some— 

special use areas in a forest, and they were charging for people just 

to park their car, essentially, and walk in the forest or hunt. 

We have cleaned a lot of that up, we have put in restrictions. But 

it seems to me the finding of this court says concessionaires can 

charge fees for things the Forest Service can’t charge for, and there 

are some who are concerned, including myself, that this could 

incent the agency to move toward a more privatization, or concessions, in certain areas. How would you address that? 

Ms. WELDON. Thanks, Congressman DeFazio. Thanks for your 

acknowledgment as far as all the learning that has occurred as we 

have worked through this fee program over the last almost couple 

of decades. 

This recent court ruling was really asking the question of the authority that the Recreation Enhancement Act has with concessionaires. So, it affirmed that there are different authorities that 

concessionaires use, or are authorized to use, compared with how 

we set up fees for recreation sites. Basically, the Granger-Thye 

Authority is the one under which concessionaires act, and the one 

under which the Forest Service enters into agreements with concessionaires to enable them to run a business that provides certain 

services. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Maybe if I make it specific we could get a 

more succinct answer. There is a lake in Mr. Walden’s district that 

I am familiar with—Walton Lake, on the—— 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, I am familiar with it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. There is a camping facility there, boat launch 

ramp, and all that. Those are sort of accepted things for which you 

can charge a fee. There is a concessionaire there. 

But if people just want to drive up to the lake, park their car, 

and have a picnic, very low-impact activity, they are being charged 

a daily use fee there. It is something, if the Forest Service was 

maintaining that site, they couldn’t do. 

What we are getting at is—I mean there is a concern that this 

is going to the Forest Service, we are going to see charges in areas 

where we—for activities that we don’t think should be charged for. 

Ms. WELDON. Our relationships with concessionaires are one that 

they must work very closely with us to get approval for any fees 

that they are charging. We don’t foresee moving into a place where 

we are opening up the opportunities for fees to be charged that 

aren’t commensurate with real clear services being provided. 

So, we don’t feel that this is going to open the flood gates for concessionaires moving into more privatization, because they can only 

36 

do that with our agreement and authority, and what the local community would be willing to sustain. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. WELDON. So we think that we will be able to manage that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Because there has also been concern expressed 

about a very popular area where people park to just walk across 

the road to climb—same thing. I mean some people wanted to get 

that as—a parking lot as a concession, because it would be very lucrative, and the—— 

Ms. WELDON. I think it is really important to stay clear on what 

the intention of both those authorities are that they do require that 

engagement with the agency and with the public. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. A public process. 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Another concern I have with the Forest Service is a lot of people live in Portland. They buy passes locally right 

now—say at the Mount Hood Forest—but they go elsewhere, many 

of them, to recreate. Yet the revenue stays with the Mount Hood 

Forest. I understand region 6 is looking at a pilot program—— 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Which I would really encourage, 

where people can essentially specify where they expect to recreate, 

and some portion of the fee for the pass they buy would go there, 

as opposed to just being wherever it was they bought the pass. 

Ms. WELDON. Correct. That pilot is starting this week, actually. 

So you can now buy your pass in Portland or in Eugene, and part 

of that process you can identify where you recreate. That info in 

the Pacific Northwest can be accumulated to help guide where the 

fees go. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So, we would want to give you flexibility in 

the law, whereas currently, right now, a certain percent is supposed to stay with and be non-appropriated funds at that local 

unit. But you think you have legal authority now to reallocate that 

money outside of that area? 

Ms. WELDON. We need to make sure that the law allows that. We 

just want to make sure that, as our technology changes and get 

more specific, we would have the flexibility to have those fees go 

to where those users would like them to go. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. We will work on that. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. LaMalfa, do you have questions? 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me ask Ms. Weldon and Ms. Haze, 

both. Recreation fees—and that is part of the big discussion 

today—are applicable to everyone, regardless. But there has been 

a special effort by the Department to try to make the public lands 

more accessible to more communities. It is a very good initiative, 

and I am glad it is being done. 

Does that—has there been any thought about fees disproportionately limit the access for low-income, poor people, to be able to access the lands? Any consideration that is being thought about in 

terms of sliding fee, passes, other kinds of things that would fit 

37 

into this discussion that potentially could be something that is explicit in the legislation down the road? 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you for your question, Congressman. One 

thing we like to acknowledge is that developed sites across the 

National Forest System, there are over 20,000 of them—a subset 

of those, about 4,000, are places that we actually charge fees. So 

a citizen can come to a national forest and experience quality outdoor rec with good support for amenities in many places. We are 

being very careful, as we move to the future, about where it makes 

sense, and where the local market and citizens can support additional fees. 

I agree with you, it is worthwhile for us to keep an eye on where 

we charge fees, and whether or not it is affecting visitation. Right 

now, with the surveys that we have done, we haven’t seen that 

there has been an effect of folks choosing not to recreate on 

national forests, due to fees. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you. Mr. Merrill, in your testimony, in 

your written testimony, you make a point about the idea of—you 

take issue with the idea of carving out fee exemptions for educational groups, and suggest that any exemptions that are made be 

very, very narrowly crafted. 

Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Can you give us a specific example? The followup to that is why you believe that not all non-profits should be exempted from recreation fees. 

Mr. MERRILL. My experience is many of the non-profit groups 

with whom we have worked are well-heeled. They have plenty of 

money. The fees are not an issue for them. So, to paint with a 

broad brush stroke that just because you have the title ‘‘non-profit’’ 

or ‘‘educational,’’ I think, is just that, it is too broad. 

A lot of university groups in Utah run specialty trips, for example. You know, educational trips with students, but those students 

pay thousands of dollars to have that experience. Fees are not a 

problem for them. There might be other groups that—where—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, appreciate it. 

Mr. MERRILL [continuing]. Budget is a problem. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bannon, any comment on that exception 

question? 

Also, I wanted to ask you, too, your organization has difficulty 

sometimes acquiring a sufficient amount of permits. My question 

was how an activity-based, programmatic, environmental review 

would help toward that end. 

Mr. BANNON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. These are great 

questions. 

You know, NOLS is a non-profit, educational institution. We find 

it much more pragmatic to be recognized as a commercial permittee, and to pay our 3 percent to Federal agencies to recreate. 

So I do tend to agree with Brian, that we want to be pretty careful 

about how we carve out exemptions. There is certainly certain 

groups that really deserve it, and then there is other groups similar to ours, who should be able to pay their fair share. 

To your second question, I think there has—especially in the 

forest we see a backlog of processing that would allow additional 

permits to be awarded. They are expected to do capacity analyses, 

38 

and it has been pretty difficult thus far for those capacity analyses 

to happen. So, what ends up happening is if a group wants to obtain additional days, as we are trying to do on the Shoshone 

National Forest, basically there is a microcosm of capacity analysis 

that is being conducted. Programmatic aid that looked at capacity 

for all groups that didn’t charge all groups to do so would be a good 

alternative to that. Thank you so much, Mr.—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Daines, do you have questions? 

Mr. DAINES. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have the privilege 

of representing the State of Montana as a Member of Congress. An 

avid outdoorsman, fifth-generation sportsman. So thank you for the 

testimony today. It is very relevant. Makes me homesick, but I am 

14 hours and 20 minutes away from breathing the air of Montana, 

but who is counting? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAINES. Mr. Brown, your testimony talks about the risk of 

runaway analyses when permits are up for renewal, and how 

streamlining the permit renewal process and the permitting process overall would save costs. Could you expand a little more on 

that? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. As you know, in 

Montana, outfitters in the Bob Marshall are being required to sign 

cost recovery agreements, which make them agree to cover the cost 

of any level of analysis before they receive their permits. So it is 

actually signing a blank check agreement. They could be paying for 

a full 700-page EIS, which small businesses just could not afford. 

So, there are ways to streamline the processing for those permits. 

Doing programmatic environmental assessments, for example, expanding categorical exclusions, as was done in the farm bill—I 

think it was Section 603, but I am not sure—for forest thinning 

and restoration projects, if we can do it for forest thinning, we 

should be able to do it for outfitting and guiding. That would cut 

down on the documentation requirements and the costs that the 

agencies incur in issuing these permits. 

Mr. DAINES. Yes, and I was troubled when you see the term— 

from a Montanan, saying they have to cut a blank check when renewing their permit, something has to change here in this. 

How much of this uncertainty and this whole blank check comment really could be fixed by strengthening protections from these 

habitual litigants that come from these fringe extreme groups, or 

by streamlining NEPA and ESA consultation? 

Mr. BROWN. I think, if it is in the law, then it is more difficult 

for lawsuits to be filed. The Forest Service has actually—at least 

some of the people in the field that I have talked to—have suggested that authority for categorical exclusions would be appreciated, or at least they would appreciate them. 

So, I think it is very important, if it is mandated—let me give 

you another example. There is a requirement in wilderness to do 

an assessment of need for commercial services, because the Wilderness Act basically says that commercial services are allowed to the 

extent necessary to fulfill the recreational purposes of the Act. So 

the Forest Service now, as a result of lawsuits, has to do assessments of need, then they have to determine the extent of that need, 

39 

then they have to determine whether the extent of that need has 

an impact on wilderness values. There is no standard for that. 

So, if Congress, for example, mandated what a needs assessment 

was for wilderness, that would take that issue off the table. 

Mr. DAINES. That is helpful. We, too, have heard some positive 

feedback on some of the provisions in the last farm bill that is 

starting to move down the field here, and a certain amount of 

progress in policy. So I think it is something that this committee 

ought to look at as we craft policy. 

Let me ask you a question about the uncertainty and cost recovery that is due to wildfire, beetle kill, lack of trail maintenance, the 

lack of active forest management. Seems to me if the forests are 

left dry, overstocked, trails are unmaintained, the cost of outfitting 

our public lands is just going to continue to increase. Do you share 

that view? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I do. The difficulty now is that—and I—because 

I have been to Montana, I have actually seen these trails in person, 

have been on—my family used to do pack trips quite a bit out 

West. So the beetle kill and fire, winter storms would blow down 

400 or 500 logs, sometimes over a trail, an outfitter has to go out 

in the start of the season with cross-cut saws in wilderness, pay 

their employees to clear those trails, because the Forest Service 

crews either—the Forest Service is only maintaining 35 percent of 

the trail system. So they either don’t get there, ever, or their trail 

crew gets there too late. 

So, the expense becomes the outfitters’. These are trails that the 

public uses, not just outfitters. 

Mr. DAINES. Right. Last, how do you think Congress should 

strengthen recreational access into wilderness areas? 

Mr. BROWN. I think that removing any of the barriers to recreation access, such as the needs assessment question for outfitting 

and guiding, would be helpful. I think that reauthorizing temporary permits for new activities, which enables categorical exclusions would be another way to improve access, especially for new 

activities. Those are two solutions. I think that we need to look at 

less bureaucracy, basically, in authorizing use, and making sure 

that we have plans that facilitate access. 

Party size restrictions in wilderness are another big issue. There 

is no science related to it, there just seems to be this desire to cut 

party size. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am now 

just 14 hours and 15 minutes away from breathing Big Sky air. 

Just telling you that. So thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. When you don’t make your plane, we will reevaluate those numbers. 

Let me just—for the committee’s sake, and also the guests who 

are here—we will probably be voting maybe in about 10, 20 minutes or so. There is another panel. We will go through that maybe 

after votes, but we will do that. If there is another round of questions for these witnesses, we will do that, as well. I do have a couple, while we have the agency here. 

Let me follow up very quickly with Ms. Weldon. Representative 

Grijalva asked you about the low-income impact for visitation. Is 

40 

there any research that the Forest Service has done to quantify 

that? 

Ms. WELDON. Not to my knowledge have we done some specific 

studies with low-income and whether there is a challenge for visits. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. To either you or Ms. Haze, there seems to 

be a little reporting on how agencies spent the revenue that is generated. Do the agencies track expenditure by project? 

Ms. HAZE. We do. We track at the unit level, they are tracking 

the fees they are using, both obligations and expenditures. I would 

just—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that information then reported on a national 

level? 

Ms. HAZE. It is rolled up in a summary level. So in our systems 

we would have it at the unit level and have that detail. We do the 

3-year report, and then both the Forest Service and our bureaus report annually on that financing in our budget—— 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Ms. HAZE [continuing]. That is submitted. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Haze, only 131 of the parks charge entrance 

fees, and the rest don’t. How do you decide where to charge entrance fees? Is it fair that some sites are free and some sites have 

fees? 

Ms. HAZE. That is a really great question. So the decision about 

whether or not to collect entrance fees is made by the park managers. They are looking at issues including the logistics and the 

ability to collect fees if they have multiple sites of entry. The level 

of staff they have and infrastructure to support it. As these gentlemen pointed out, you don’t want to make this cost too burdensome 

and bureaucratic. 

Then, management goals, including whether we want to make 

sure that under-served communities and urban areas, for example, 

have access to recreation. All those factors into those decisions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any standards that the agency has determined that these land managers at the local level use to determine 

whether they are going to collect fees or not? 

Ms. HAZE. At the national level in each bureau there is a set of 

values that they are looking at: the value of getting people out and 

seeking recreation, the under-served communities, again, and 

where it makes sense to have the fees. 

Mr. BISHOP. This could actually go to both of you, but it is probably more prevalent on the Park Service. You have free fee days, 

or fee-free days, I should say. Have you done any analysis on how 

much revenue is lost on these days? 

Ms. HAZE. We have. I don’t have those at my fingertips, but we 

have estimated the impacts. We had to do that as part of our determination to declare the fee-free days. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let me go back and follow up with Mr. 

DeFazio’s questions with Ms. Weldon, if I could, because I thought 

they were very interesting on that court case. 

Does the Forest Service then use concessionaires to avoid some 

of the restrictions on changing fees in FLREA? 

Ms. WELDON. The Forest Service doesn’t try to game between the 

two of those. They are really quite distinct. The thing they do have 

in common is the fact that, as we look at which authority to use, 

41 

where to charge fees, that we do that in such a way that is really 

responsive to what amenities the public could appreciate. With concessionaires, in particular, is there a business plan that could fully 

support them as a business providing those services that the public 

wants? 

Mr. BISHOP. If there were few concessions, would public access 

increase or decrease? 

Ms. WELDON. That is a good question. In general, we use our outfitter guides, our concessionaires, as a way to extend and expand 

the availability of experiences for the public, especially those who 

may not be able to fully support the thing they want to do without 

having assistance from those types of business partners. 

Mr. BISHOP. So what do you predict would happen if concessionaires were required to take all passes? 

Ms. WELDON. I think—and you will hear probably from the next 

panel—that there would be a mixture of concern, as far as the 

tradeoff of the bottom line—our concessionaires are business partners, compared with working in—with us. They actually host and 

deliver the services as part of a business, compared with a system 

where those funds go back into a large pot. So that would be the 

tradeoff, or the concern. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. To Mr. Merrill, Brown, and Bannon, I 

did have questions for each of you, but Daines and Lummis took 

them all. So that is the last time I let them go first. I appreciate— 

and we will have conversations as time goes on. 

Mr. DeFazio, do you still have other questions? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Ms. Haze, it is 

my understanding—and I don’t know if you are familiar with this, 

but BLM is reviewing its special permitting. I will be specific. 

There is a group called Cycle Oregon. They hold a week-long 

bicycle ride every year. Any and all—it is a non-profit, and any and 

all proceeds over and above their costs are dedicated to a rural 

community that is along their route. They have built sports fields 

and things at local high schools and communities that don’t have 

a lot of money. 

A few years ago they rode, I think, 180 miles on Forest Service 

roads and at a very reasonable fee—I was on this ride—and then 

they rode 80 miles on BLM on a 1950s chipseal, not a really great 

road that hasn’t ever been maintained, to go through a forest over 

to the coast, and BLM wanted to extort them for $25,000. There 

were no BLM law enforcement officers, there were no amenities 

used. They merely rode over the road. 

Now this seems—and I have been quite involved in this—it 

seems to me that the Forest Service, where they rode more miles 

for about one-tenth the cost on a better road, you know, there 

needs to be some consistency here. What is the review process? 

How are you going to look at the Forest Service standards? Because they seem to be much more reasonable, in terms of the impacts and costs they charge for. 

Ms. HAZE. I am very glad you asked me that question, because 

the last time I appeared here to talk about this program and talked 

about this issue it was rather unpleasant. So, better news. BLM 

has spent quite a bit of time on this, and they are looking at this 

as a linear event. They can bring their fees and their approach in 

42 

line, more in line, with the Forest Service. So I think that demonstrates the flexibility of the program and the program we have 

now. 

I think we consider to be challenged to some degree, as these 

gentlemen did a really good job of explaining with this issue about 

profits and non-profits. So I think that will merit additional discussion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Or perhaps direction from Congress. 

Then, very quickly to Ms. Weldon, this is just a suggestion, 

which I have made to the regional supervisor and others. I had an 

experience last summer backpacking in a forest, the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness, Wallowa-Whitman, and went to the Web site to kind 

of see what the conditions were. Of course, on the Web site there 

was no useful information, except for a couple of campgrounds, because apparently they have a rule that they can’t assess, on an annual basis—put on any information about a trail until they have 

sent someone out and they have come back and reported on the 

trail. 

But the example here is the year before the bridge had blown out 

on this trail over a stream, and they didn’t even put that information up, and I don’t think the bridge would have repaired itself over 

the winter, so they could have at least put up the data from the 

year before: ‘‘bridge out.’’ But they didn’t even do that. 

I talked to the supervisor, I talked to the recreation person. I 

suggested that—couldn’t you just have, like, a page where the public—because it used to be in the old days you could call the Forest 

Service, talk to a local ranger, and say, ‘‘How are the bugs at this 

lake?’’ They will say, ‘‘Oh, God, awful.’’ You know? Can’t do that 

any more, you don’t have enough people, you don’t get people out 

there. 

But other people have been there, but there is no aggregate place 

for them. Said, ‘‘Oh, no, we will have horrible liability if we let people go on to anything that we are associated with and put things 

about trail conditions on it.’’ I mean do we need to extend you some 

legislative cover here, so you could post sites like that so users 

could actually put up useful information for people who intend to 

go to that forest or recreation—— 

Ms. WELDON. I fully agree with you. I would say the biggest barrier is around just those security issues of what we post. But we 

are actually exploring ways for our own employees, as they are out 

and about, to be sources of info that can be readily posted. ‘‘Went 

such-and-such a place, here is how it looked today.’’ You know, 

from the standpoint of health and safety, for sure, if we have information, we must post it. We should do a better job of that. But we 

are exploring how in the world of social media and such, and different ways of sharing information, we can be much more nimble 

in making that information available. So I appreciate the feedback. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Quick question for Ms. Weldon and Ms. Haze. 

We are—we heard in this panel, we are going to hear probably in 

the next panel, stakeholders from outfitter and the guide community, concerns about the availability of special research permits. 

43 

So, two questions. How have the shrinking appropriations impacted your agencies’ ability to process these permits? And have 

there been any attempts to do activity-based programmatic environmental assessments that came up today—consistent with NEPA 

compliance? The categorical exclusion concept, that would potentially increase the available permits. What are the potential problems with that approach? 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you. I just want to acknowledge how important our outfitter and guide business partners are to delivering 

those services to the public, and really appreciate the strong relationships that we have with them, and the comments today. 

Our objective is to ensure that, as we are permitting activities, 

we do it in such a way that we can understand and ensure the fiscal responsibility, what the market can support successfully. Also, 

how can we safely and, in a sustainable fashion, have these activities occur on public lands? I will acknowledge that we are challenged, compared to the amount of opportunity that outfitter and 

guides and other folks want to bring our way, and being able to be 

fully responsive. 

So, we are in the process of really evaluating what might be a 

different model for us to be able to be more responsive, because of 

our acknowledgment of that economic opportunity and the needs 

that citizens are expressing. 

So, if we can have different mechanisms to get those bottom lines 

of financially responsible, ecologically feasible, and what the market can bear in that legal context, then we would like to work with 

you to see what else we might be able to do there. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. HAZE. Could I add to that? I would just like to point out I 

think it is the ability we can leverage the recreation program and 

the fee program with our appropriation that allows us to maintain 

a good bit of stability. Last year, during the sequester, I know all 

of us were not happy that that happened. In a lot of cases, the programs could continue at our sites because of the fee program. 

There have been real impacts on agency budgets and their ability 

to address all of the things we want to address. Thank you for that 

question. 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to thank the panel for your testimony here, 

and dismiss you at this time. We have votes that are going on. This 

will be, in all sincerity, probably about 25 minutes before we get 

done with these two votes. 

So, what I am going to do is dismiss this panel. I hate to do this 

to the second panel, but that is what happens when we do votes 

on a Friday—or have committee hearings on a Friday. So we will 

ask you simply to enjoy the amenities of this room. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. For about 25 minutes. We will be back to continue 

on with that. 

Once again, I appreciate this panel being here, and thank you for 

all your efforts. Anything else you have for the record that is written, we will add to it. 

I would also like unanimous consent to add to the record a letter 

that has been sent to me by a Utah-based recreation company that 

44 

could not be here today, but would like to have their comments 

submitted. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. So, without objection, since no one is listening to me, 

it is part of the record. 

[The information submitted by Mr. Bishop for the record follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. BISHOP ON H.R. ____ 

AMERICAN AVIATION, INC., 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 

APRIL 2, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 123 Cannon Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: April 4, 2014 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act Hearing (FLREA) 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP: 

Our National Parks, Monuments and Recreation Areas are important destinations 

for national and international recreation users, also known as park unit visitors. Of 

the top 25 domestic travel locations, 8 of them are National Parks. They account 

for more than $30 billion in economic activity and support more than a quarter million jobs annually. 

The core of American Aviation’s business is dealing with those recreation users 

that enjoy Glen Canyon National Recreation Area from the air. While air visitors 

do not pay a fee to the Recreation Area, it should be noted that they do not use 

ground facilities or require National Park Service (NPS) employee management or 

support. What the air visitors do contribute toward is word-of-mouth promotion of 

what the Recreation Area has to offer to their friends and families. We know of several examples of our visitors returning to enjoy the Recreation Area by watercraft, 

a trip inspired directly from their initial introduction to the park through their air 

tour experience. 

NPS’ statutory purpose under the 1916 Organic Act is twofold: ‘‘(1) to conserve 

the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein; and (2) 

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

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ 

We understand and sympathize with their dilemma of balancing conservation responsibilities with the demand of recreation users, all while dealing with strained 

operating budgets, not the least of which is their $11.5 billion maintenance backlog. 

We also believe that they can do a better job of prioritizing their duties and expenditures, overall. 

Since the National Park Air Tour Management Plan Act (ATMP Act) was passed 

by Congress in 2000, the NPS and the FAA have spent substantial revenues and 

have yet to complete a single air tour management plan for any park unit. In the 

interim, while patiently awaiting these plans to be completed for any given park, 

air tour operators were granted Interim Operating Authority (IOA) for a limited 

number of flights annually based on prior activity, essentially a ‘‘cap’’ that has precluded any opportunity for growth or expansion for over a decade. Not surprisingly, 

the stalled efforts in adopting air tour management plans have had a detrimental 

effect on Air Tour companies. 

The Act, and the resultant delays attributed to the dismal performance of implementing it by our Federal agencies, has inhibited market growth, and stymied 

competition between the existing market participants, as well as created insurmountable barriers of entry for new market entrants. 

The NPS Director’s Order #22 outlines their fee program purpose as supporting 

the NPS mission as it relates to: ‘‘resource stewardship, visitor facility improvements, education, and visitor use management’’. It further states: ‘‘Fees are used to 

fund projects that address deferred maintenance needs, provide for new visitor programs and services, protect resources, improve and rehabilitate facilities for visitors.’’ We have come to learn that FLREA funds are being used by NPS for their 

soundscape programs, which is responsible for their duties under the ATMP Act. 

American Aviation has applied numerous times for an increase of the ‘‘IOA’’ (number of flights) we are permitted to provide over the Glen Canyon Recreation Area. 

45 

We have been waiting over 6 months on our latest application, and the foot-dragging 

continues. 

Shouldn’t the type of Park Unit be the primary consideration in how air tours are 

managed and the number of IOA (number of flights) allowed or how an Air Tour 

Management Plan or Voluntary Agreement is crafted? Given that Glen Canyon 

Recreation Area is primarily a watercraft recreation area, should we be held to 

same soundscape standard as Yosemite or Yellowstone? 

The NPS, under the ATMP Act, has the discretionary authority to approve increases in IOA (number of flights). We have been told that the NPS Director is vehemently opposed to increasing the number of flights over any Park Unit no matter 

what the circumstance or situation. If they are unable to responsibly exercise their 

authority in a timely manner, perhaps watercraft recreation areas should be excepted out of the ATMP Act. 

While we support the concept of FLREA, we believe the act needs fine tuning with 

consideration given that this effort may well serve as an opportune vehicle for providing the NPS with more prescriptive guidance for prioritizing its expenditures. 

Chairman Bishop, on behalf of our employees, our Air Tour visitors, the residents 

of southern Utah and Page, Arizona, we appreciate your efforts on all of our behalfs 

to make the NPS more efficient and recreation-user friendly. 

Respectfully, 

LARRY WRIGHT, 

President. 

Mr. BISHOP. We are in a state of adjournment. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me call the next panel forward. If I could have— 

looks like you are almost all there—Kitty Benzar, who is from the 

Western Slope No-Fee Coalition; Derrick Crandall from the American Recreation Coalition; Elizabeth Pemmerl—am I close? 

Ms. PEMMERL. You are close. 

Mr. BISHOP. But no cigar, OK. General manager of NIC; Toddy 

Davison, Chief Executive Officer of Travel Oregon; and Jack 

Terrell, who is from the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. 

So, we appreciate you being here. You remember the deal about 

watching the time in front of you. We are officially now back in session. 

Mr. Terrell, allow me to let you go first. I realize you have a 

plane to catch, and a lot of other people do, as well, so—I mean 

some other people do, as well. So we are going to try and get this 

one done, hopefully within the hour. Let me allow you to go first, 

and then leave when you need to leave. OK? Mr. Terrell, you are 

recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JACK TERRELL, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, 

NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. TERRELL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing 

me to testify, and thank you for rearranging the schedule. I appreciate it very much. I am the senior project manager for the 

National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council. We are a 

501(c)(3) education foundation, and we are a national organization 

of off-highway vehicle recreation enthusiasts. 

I think in the interest of keeping it short, I am going to skip over 

quite a bit of what I have submitted as testimony. I do want to say 

that it is the official position of the National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council that we support Federal recreation fees as a 

46 

critical source of funding to maintain and improve quality recreation opportunities on public land. We feel the demand for that. 

Recreation is growing, and many times the appropriated funds to 

support that type of activity on public lands doesn’t provide enough 

funding to support the activity. 

I will say, however, that our support for the recreation fee comes 

with a qualification, and that qualification being that the fees collected be directed back to the location and the recreation activity 

from which they were collected. I think that is extremely important 

to maintain the public support for recreation fees on public land, 

that they have to see the result, direct result, of what they are paying the fees for. So I would say that, that it is extremely critical 

to any changes or any improvements that you make to the law. 

These recreation fees have been very important to the OHV community across the country, and the community has worked very 

closely with both the BLM and the Forest Service on these activities. Often, the money that is collected through these recreation 

fees provides leverage that ends up actually leveraging the amount 

of money, and additional money comes in from State grant programs, and also from non-profit organizations, support organizations, that will add to those fees to create increased amenities at 

local locations. 

Having said that, in testifying to what the National Off-Highway 

Vehicle Conservation Council, what our position is on it, I would 

also like to take the opportunity to provide some experience that 

I gained as a member of one of the RACs that was formed under 

the current legislation. I have been a member of the southern region RAC for the U.S. Forest Service. My term expired last month. 

I served part of that time as Chairman of that RAC and became 

quite involved and knowledgeable of how the RACs work. 

I am interested to hear that there are parts of the country where 

you don’t feel the RACs have been successful. My observation has 

been that, particularly in the southern region of the Forest Service, 

the RAC was very successful, really got down to the details of what 

it was supposed to do, looked into the—reviewed all of the fees, and 

made sure that they were justifiable. We worked very closely with 

the Forest Service employees, both at region level and at the ranger, district, and forest levels. It was an extremely, I think, beneficial and very efficient process. 

However, I do have to criticize what ended up after—what started out as a very successful program pretty much ran up on the 

rocks and became totally inactive for 5 years. In that 5-year period 

you really did not have a RAC in the southern region. I would have 

to say that the reason for that was not that the private members 

of the RAC became disinterested. They stayed interested and involved to the end. It was certainly not a problem with the folks in 

the region or the folks in the Forest Service units at the lower 

levels. 

Where the problem came up was that the RAC—again, I’m 

speaking Region 8, southern region—did not get the administrative 

or budgetary support from Washington to continue its operation. 

This was both because of sequester, it was because of the government shut-down, it was for a lot of reasons. But we went for 5 

years and we did not have a single meeting of that committee. I 

47 

think that the RAC is the place where you get your—where everything comes together. You get your public input, you get input from 

stakeholders, such as the different concessionaires. If that RAC 

does not operate efficiently, in effect, the law goes away. I would 

urge very, very much that any changes that are made to the law 

made sure that the budgetary and administrative support was 

there for the RACs to operate properly. 

With that, I will conclude my statement. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terrell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK TERRELL, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE CONSERVATION (NOHVCC) ON H.R. ____ 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about reauthorization of and amendments to the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). 

I am Jack Terrell, Senior Project Manager of the National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council (NOHVCC), a national body of off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

recreation enthusiasts. NOHVCC is a 501(c)(3) education foundation that develops 

and provides a wide spectrum of programs, materials and information to individuals, clubs, associations, public agencies, and private land owners in order to further 

a positive future for responsible OHV recreation. Additional information about 

NOHVCC can be obtained at www.nohvcc.org. 

In my role as NOHVCC Senior Project Manager I have worked extensively with 

Federal (USFS/BLM/FHWA), State and local government entities, private landowners, NGOs and recreation enthusiasts on motorized and non-motorized programs 

and projects. 

NOHVCC supports Federal recreation fees as a critical source of funds to maintain and improve quality recreation experiences on public lands. The demand for 

recreation opportunities on public lands is growing at a time when appropriated 

recreation funding falls short of the needs of the USFS, BLM and other Federal 

agencies. Our support for the recreation fee program comes with the qualification 

that the money collected by these fees be used at the same location and in support 

of the same recreational activity that generate the fee. In this regard, rules and procedures must be in place to accurately document where the fee is collected and 

where the fees are spent. The recreation public will support the fees when they are 

used to support the activity where the public pays the fee. 

These recreation fees have been very important to the OHV community in maintaining and improving motorized recreation opportunities at numerous USFS and 

BLM areas, such as the Ocala National Forest, Imperial Sand Dunes, and many 

other locations. Often the revenue from these fees has been used to leverage additional funding from various State and local grant sources, and non-government 

sources. This leverage often provides on-the-ground improvements far beyond what 

would be expected from the dollar amount of the fees collected. NOHVCC supports 

the extension of FLREA with amendments to improve documentation where fees are 

collected and where fees are spent. 

Having presented NOHVCC’s position on FLREA, I would like to describe my personal experiences as a member of the public serving on a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee that was established in accordance with the current FLREA. In 

March 2007 I was appointed to the USFS Southern Region Recreation Resource 

Advisory Committee as a representative of the summer motorized recreation community. I served on this 11-member committee until its operation was suspended 

in early 2009. I was re-appointed to the committee in March 2011 and served as 

its chair at its February 2014 meeting. My term expired last month. 

The committee held its first meeting in April 2007 and continued with a series 

of regularly scheduled meetings through September 2008. During this period the 

committee, Region 8 staff, and personnel at the various Forests and Ranger 

Districts developed an in-depth knowledge of the requirements of the law, and the 

procedures for submitting and reviewing fee proposals. Constant interaction and 

mutual support led to a working relationship that resulted in the adoption of justified fees. A meeting was scheduled for February 2009 to consider another slate of 

fee proposals. 

Before that meeting could be held the entire process went into limbo for 5 years. 

No meetings were held between October 2008 and January 2014. No fee proposals 

were reviewed or approved. Terms of members expired, some resigned, and morale 

48 

among the all-volunteer committee members plummeted. New members were appointed in 2011 but no meetings were held. A committee meeting was held in 

February 2014 just before the expiration of the terms of most of its members. 

I ask the subcommittee what is the purpose of a law that is not implemented or 

supported by an agency that directly benefits from its revenue? 

From my ground-level perspective as a private citizen serving on the RRAC, I do 

not believe the 5-year hiatus was the result of non-involvement of private members, 

nor was it the result of lack of support or enthusiasm on the part of USFS Region 

8 staff and personnel at the various Forests and Ranger Districts. The problem 

clearly was in Washington, DC. The February 2009 meeting was canceled due to 

a lost request for a Federal Register notice. Rescheduling was delayed by arbitrary 

holds placed by a new administration on Federal Register requests in 2009. As time 

went by it was apparent that the Washington Office put a very low priority on the 

RRACs. More attempts to schedule RRAC meetings ran aground due to budget 

transfers and budget freezes. Add in sequester and government shutdowns, and the 

result was a 5-year suspension of the operation of the Southern Region RRAC. 

In conclusion, I support the intent of FLREA but I must criticize its implementation. RRACs should be retained in the reauthorization legislation, the process must 

be streamlined, funding for the RRACs must be budgeted and used, and the priority 

of support for the RRAC program must be elevated within the Washington Office. 

Without exception, amendments must address issues of accountability and transparency since the success of the program is dependent upon stakeholder involvement and buy-in by the recreation public. Hopefully an amended version will be 

enacted that addresses these issues. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. Once again, all your 

written statements are in the record; these are the oral statements 

in addition to that. Let’s reverse tradition and go the other way, 

just for the fun of it. 

Mr. Davidson. 

STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, TRAVEL OREGON 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grijalva and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you today the importance of specifically including the engagement of America’s travel and tourism industry 

in your discussions regarding reauthorization of the Federal Lands 

Recreation Act and, in doing so, allowing the expertise and resources of States, local communities, and under-utilized Federal 

agency resources to be fully leveraged to drive increased visitation 

and recreation opportunities. 

My name is Todd Davidson. I am the CEO of Travel Oregon. I 

am testifying today on behalf of the Western States Tourism Policy 

Council, and the Southeast Tourism Society. Together we strongly 

endorse reauthorization of FLREA this year, and can attest to its 

importance to public lands in our States. 

The WSTPC is a consortium of 11 western State tourism offices, 

and the Southeast Tourism Society is a network of communities 

and small businesses, government offices, associations, and others 

in 12 southeastern States. Our organizations represent 23 States 

that are home to some of America’s most spectacular and iconic 

Federal lands, well known to this subcommittee. From the Mount 

Hood National Forest and the Petrified National Forest—National 

Park, to the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge and the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park, Federal lands, recreation, and 

49 

conservation play a critical role in driving local economies and creating extraordinary travel experiences. 

As organizations that represent communities across nearly half 

our country, we support the reauthorization of FLREA, and offer 

three proposals to better engage States and local communities, enhance visitor and recreation experiences, and drive increased visitation, revenues, and economic impact. In addition, these proposals 

aim to strengthen FLREA from the perspective of Federal land 

management agencies, and from the vantage point of local user 

groups, including the oft-overlooked gateway communities. 

First, we propose to have a portion of fees designated for promotional cooperative efforts with tourism and community partners. 

At present, each of the authorized agencies, under FLREA, has a 

dedicated tourism coordinator who participates in Federal policy forums such as the Tourism Policy Council. But these coordinators 

are under-utilized as resources for frontline staff in local communities. 

So, in order to encourage greater engagement with local communities and provide opportunities for the agencies to expand their 

outreach to user groups, we would propose that your consideration 

of up to 1 percent of the national portion of the entrance and 

recreation fees on sites that have fee revenue of greater than halfa-million dollars annually be designated for the agency’s office 

coordinating the tourism activities. These funds would then be deployed to create and distribute cooperative grants that encourage 

collaboration between Federal sites and local gateway communities. 

Creating a manageable, cooperative tourism grant program is an 

opportunity to connect Federal policies with front-line tourism communities and businesses that are demonstrating that investments 

in Federal lands are also investments in local communities. 

Second, we would like to see a provision including—in FLREA to 

specifically allow fee revenues retained at the local site to also be 

used for cooperative promotional efforts in local communities. Many 

Federal land managers perceive marketing and promotion as prohibited activities, and they are reluctant to discuss cooperative programs with destination marketing organizations. We recognize that 

Federal land managers may have limited understanding as to the 

fundamentals of marketing and promotion, so we see this as an opportunity to put the talents and expertise of the travel and tourism 

industry to work for local Federal lands managers. 

Third, effective utilization of technology is a challenge for organizations of all sizes and scope, including Federal land management 

agencies. Rather than calling for a specific technology system and 

solution, we would like to see FLREA funds devoted to developing 

a technology infrastructure that drives private-sector innovation 

and improves the visitor experience. We propose that a portion of 

the entrance fee and the recreation fees that are sent to 

Washington be used to develop and maintain an electronic resource 

that compiles outdoor recreation data across all Federal lands and 

waters into a robust, comprehensive database that can then be 

used by visitors for information, trip planning, reservation systems, 

and other applications. 

States and local destination marketing organizations and businesses would be able to access this data to target their promotional 

50 

efforts, and the private sector would be able to develop applications 

and other tools to better utilize and enhance visitor experiences 

and recreation programs at the local, regional, and national level. 

These proposals are meant to encourage and enhance visitation 

in outdoor recreation, and to create opportunities for collaboration 

with States, local communities, and the private sector. 

We stand ready to work with you to advance FLREA reauthorization. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, CEO OF TRAVEL OREGON

We appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the importance of specifically 

including engagement with the travel and tourism sector in reauthorization of the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) to allow the expertise and resources of States, local communities and underutilized Federal agency resources to 

be fully leveraged to drive increased visitation and recreation opportunities. 

I am Todd Davidson, CEO of Travel Oregon and am testifying today on behalf 

of the Western States Tourism Policy Council (WSTPC) and the Southeast Tourism 

Society (STS). Together we strongly endorse reauthorization of FLREA this year, 

and we can attest to its importance to the public lands in our States. 

WSTPC is a consortium of 11 western State tourism offices, including Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 

and Wyoming. Our members are appointed by Governors and report to our State 

legislatures. WSTPC’s creation was inspired by the 1995 White House Conference 

on Travel and Tourism, which urged greater regional attention to the interrelationships between Federal lands, the environment and tourism. The mission of the 

WSTPC is to foster and encourage a positive environment for travel and tourism 

by serving as a forum to identify research, analyze, and advocate the travel and 

tourism related issues of public policy and opinion in the western United States. 

STS is a not-for-profit membership association that works to elevate the talents 

and strategies of travel and tourism organizations and individual professionals within its 12 State region. STS’s mission is to strengthen the economic vitality of the 

region by uniting all segments of the travel and tourism industry through collaboration, education, advocacy, networking, and recognition. Established in 1983, STS is 

an engaged network of more than 800 members from 12 States: Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Our organizations represent 23 States that are home to some of the America’s 

most spectacular and iconic Federal lands—well known to this subcommittee. From 

Mount Hood National Forest and the Petrified Forest National Park to the 

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge and the Great Smokey Mountains National Park 

and many sites in between, Federal lands, recreation, and conservation play a critical role in driving local economies and creating extraordinary travel experiences. 

As organizations that represent communities across nearly half of the country, we 

support the reauthorization of FLREA and offer three proposals to better engage 

States and local communities, enhance visitor and recreation experiences and drive 

increased visitation, revenues, and economic impact. 

Although management of Federal lands is funded primarily by appropriations, a 

significant and growing portion of this management depends upon entrance and 

recreation fees. Revenues collected through FLREA enhance visitor experiences by 

providing funds to repair, maintain, and improve facilities; restore wildlife habitat 

for visitor recreation; offer educational materials and services; and provide law enforcement. For example, since FLREA enactment in 2005, the National Park 

Service, one of the authorized agencies, has obligated $2.3 billion in fee revenues, 

which have funded over 9,800 projects and services with the National Park Service. 

COOPERATIVE GRANTS TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES

We propose to have a portion of the fees designated for promotional cooperative 

efforts with tourism and community partners. At present, the National Park Service 

has a National Tourism Strategy and an Office of Tourism, providing an excellent 

model for how Federal land management agencies can engage with local communities and the tourism sector. Each of the authorized agencies under FLREA has 

a dedicated tourism coordinator who participates in Federal policy forums, such as 

the Tourism Policy Council, but these coordinators are underutilized as resources 

for frontline staff and local communities. In order to encourage greater engagement 

51 

with local communities and provide opportunities for the parks to expand their outreach to user groups, we recommend that 1 percent of the national portion of entrance and recreation fees on sites that have fee revenue of more than $500,000 

annually be designated for the agency’s office coordinating tourism activities. These 

funds would be deployed to create and distribute cooperative grants to local communities and individual sites. Cooperative grants will encourage collaboration between 

Federal sites and local gateway communities to promote the sites and their activities ensuring that the messaging of Federal sites has resonance and rewards engaged parks and sites with increased visitation, volunteerism, and spending. 

Gateway communities would see increased visitor spending and jobs. 

Creating a manageable cooperative tourism grants program is an opportunity to 

connect Federal policies with frontline tourism communities and businesses demonstrating that investments in Federal lands are investments in local communities. 

By encouraging Federal land management agencies to develop strategies for engaging with the travel and tourism sector and local communities, FLREA will be driving policies to ensure the economic impact of Federal lands visitation and recreation 

are broadly shared by the States, communities, and small business. 

FEDERAL LANDS PROMOTION

Additionally, we would like to see a provision included in FLREA reauthorization 

to specifically allow the fee revenues retained at the site to be used for cooperative 

promotional efforts with local communities. Many Federal land managers perceive 

marketing and promotion as prohibited activities and are reluctant and or unwilling 

to discuss cooperative programs with destination marketing organizations. Not only 

is this a missed opportunity for sites to showcase their attractions and programs, 

but it also means that they are failing to leverage the expertise of the tourism community in targeting and attracting key demographics, such as young people and 

Hispanic and African-American families and in driving visitation in non-peak 

periods. We recognize that Federal land managers may have limited understanding 

of the fundamentals of marketing and promotion. We see this as an opportunity to 

put the talents and expertise of the travel and tourism sector to work for local 

Federal lands in order to help them better achieve their visitation, outreach and 

programmatic goals. 

INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Effective utilization of technology is a challenge for organizations of all sizes and 

scope, including the Federal land agencies. Rather than calling for a specific technology system and solutions, we would like to see the FLREA funds devoted to developing a technology infrastructure to drive private sector innovation that improves 

the visitor experience. We propose that the entrance and recreation fees sent to 

Washington be used to develop and maintain an electronic resource that compiles 

visitation and outdoor recreation data across all Federal lands and waters for information, guides, amenities, and reservations into a common visitor-services platform. 

Using Recreation.gov as a model for cross-agency collaboration, the visitor-services 

platform would encourage and enhance tourism and recreation on Federal sites, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal agency operations, enrich the visitor 

experience for a diverse set of audiences, and create opportunities for private sector 

collaboration. States and local destination marketing organizations and business 

would be able to access the data to target their promotional efforts and, working 

collaboratively, the private sector would be able to develop applications and other 

tools to better utilize and enhance visitor and recreation programs at the local, regional or national level. One-size-fits-all-solutions won’t work for the technology 

challenges faced by Federal land agencies, but a single resource can drive the targeted solutions that work for the diverse array of Federal lands and communities. 

CONCLUSION

These three proposals aim to strengthen FLREA from the perspective of the Federal land management agencies and from the vantage point of local user groups, including the often over-looked gateway communities. These proposals are meant to 

encourage and enhance visitation and outdoor recreation and to create opportunities 

for collaboration with States, local communities and the private sector. We stand 

ready to work with you to advance a FLREA reauthorization that works for all of 

our Federal lands stakeholders. 

52 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. We will 

turn to Ms. Pemmerl. 

Ms. PEMMERL. Ms. Pemmerl. 

Mr. BISHOP. Pemmerl. 

Ms. PEMMERL. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I appreciate that. You are recognized for 

5 minutes for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH PEMMERL, PRESIDENT, NIC 

TECHNOLOGIES 

Ms. PEMMERL. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss how technology can improve consistency 

and accountability in the collection and expenditure of Federal 

recreation fees, and help enhance the visitor experience for those 

who enjoy our Federal lands. My name is Elizabeth Pemmerl, and 

I am the President of NIC Technologies, the Federal Government 

Services Division of NIC, Incorporated. 

NIC is the Nation’s leading provider of official government Web 

sites, online services, mobile applications, and secure payment 

processing solutions. We provide the official Web sites for 29 

States, including Utah and Oregon. We focus on building solutions 

that make it easy for taxpayers to access government information 

and securely complete all types of government transactions. 

We believe that technology can help make a wide range of government operations more efficient, secure, and transparent. Employing the right technology can also save the government money. 

Agencies devote significant resources to entering data, printing 

forms, mailing, and storing documents. Online services can help decrease these costs, and recreation programs are no exception. 

In States ranging from Maine to Mississippi, NIC provides services that streamline the administration of hunting and fishing systems and various game lotteries. For example, in the State of 

Hawaii, NIC’s online camping system allows visitors to make reservations, buy permits, check site availability, and submit payments. The system then provides reports and transparent financial 

data back to the State. The State estimates the system saves tens 

of thousands of dollars per year, compared to the old paper-based 

processes. 

Technology offers additional benefits. It offers consumers choices. 

Visitors to our Nation’s recreation sites want the ability to access 

government services whenever, wherever, whether on a tablet, a 

computer, or a mobile device. In the State of Montana NIC helps 

provide residents and non-residents access to the State’s abundant 

wildlife by offering the online, on-demand purchase of hunting and 

fishing licenses, and accepting submissions for lottery draws. 

Consumers also want to use technology to enhance their visit to 

Federal lands. Mobile applications could allow a visitor to report an 

invasive species sighting, or upload photos and tips to a library 

that is crowd-sourced from visitors to a specific park or recreation 

area. 

Finally, consumers want technology to make compliance more 

convenient. In Arkansas, hunters have the option to use the camera on their phone to file required game checks via NIC’s mobile 

53 

1See attachment I. 

2See Attachment II. 

application. Now hunters don’t have to make a trip to a game warden, or remember to file paperwork days after the hunt. 

These solutions are available today, but the sky is the limit on 

what comes next. It could be making your national park pass available on your iPhone, just like a mobile boarding pass at the airport, 

or associating GPS data with the purchase of a permit on a mobile 

device, so that rec fees can be more easily dedicated to targeted regions. 

The State of Utah is considering the prospects of wearable technologies. The State, in collaboration with NIC, announced the first 

government application for Google Glass just last month. The application tells users when the next public bus or tram will arrive 

at their stop. But perhaps future generations of park visitors will 

use technologies like Google Glass to pull up trail maps. 

We commend Chairman Bishop and the subcommittee for evaluating how technology solutions can play an important role in Federal recreation programs. NIC is proud to contribute to these great 

success stories for many of your home States. As you reauthorize 

the Act, we encourage you to consider pilot projects to explore similar innovative partnerships, creative service delivery approaches, 

and alternative contracting models for these exciting technology solutions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee, and 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pemmerl follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH PEMMERL, PRESIDENT, NIC TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC 

Good morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and other members 

of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how technology can 

improve consistency and accountability in the collection and expenditure of Federal 

recreation fees, and help enhance the visitor experience for those who enjoy our Federal recreation lands and waters. My name is Elizabeth Pemmerl, and I am the 

President of NIC Technologies, the Federal Government Services Division of NIC 

Inc. 

OUR COMPANY

NIC is the Nation’s leading provider of official government Web sites, online services, mobile applications, and secure payment processing. We provide the official 

State Web sites for 29 States, including Utah and Oregon. We also provide a comprehensive online service for the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that allows motor carriers to check driver 

records for prospective employees. Since the Pre-Employment Screening Program 

launched in 2010, NIC has processed over 2.5 million driver record requests on behalf of FMCSA.1

We focus on building solutions that make it easy and efficient for taxpayers to 

access government information and securely process all types of government transactions. In the majority of our engagements with government, NIC is able to build 

and manage online services at no cost to government agencies. Through our unique 

self-funded model, NIC provides the upfront funding for eGovernment services, and 

then recoups our investment through modest fees paid by citizens or businesses 

electing to use the service. These funds are then rededicated to support the cost of 

maintaining the web platform, including ongoing improvements and customer support. A 2013 study from the University of Utah found that implementing transaction-based contracting for eGovernment services has saved the State of Utah $61 

million over 5 years.2

54 

APPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS

We believe that technology can help make a wide range of government operations 

more efficient, secure and transparent. Employing the right technology can also save 

the government money. Agencies devote significant resources to entering data, 

printing forms, mailing and storing documents. Online services can help decrease 

these costs, and recreation programs are no exception. 

In States ranging from Maine to Mississippi, NIC provides services that streamline the administration of hunting and fishing systems and game lotteries. For example, in the State of Hawaii, NIC’s online camping system allows visitors to make 

reservations, buy permits, check site availability, and submit payments. The system 

then provides reports and transparent financial data back to the State. The State 

estimates the system saves thousands of dollars per year compared to the existing 

paper-based process. 

In the State of Maine, NIC launched a campground reservations application on 

behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry in February 

2014. On opening day, nearly 1,000 reservations were processed in the first hour. 

Technology offers additional benefits—it offers consumers choices. Visitors to our 

Nation’s recreation sites want the ability to purchase passes and permits whenever, 

wherever—whether on a computer, tablet or mobile device. In the State of Montana, 

NIC helps provide residents and non-residents access to Montana’s abundant wildlife by offering the online, immediate purchase of hunting and fishing licenses and 

accepting submissions for lottery draws. 

Consumers also want to use technology to enhance their visit to Federal lands. 

Mobile applications could allow visitors to report an invasive species sighting, or 

upload photos to a library that is ‘crowd-sourced’ from visitors to a specific park or 

recreation area. 

Consumers want technology to make compliance more convenient. In Arkansas, 

hunters have the option to use the camera on their phone to file required game 

checks via NIC’s mobile game check application. Now, hunters don’t have to make 

a trip to a game warden or remember to file paperwork days after the hunt. 

These solutions are available today, but the sky is the limit for what comes next. 

It would be easy to make your National Park pass available on your iPhone, just 

like a mobile boarding pass at the airport, or associate GPS data with the purchase 

of a permit, so that recreation fees can be dedicated to targeted regions. The State 

of Utah is considering the prospects of wearable technologies. The State, in collaboration with NIC, announced the first government application for Google Glass just 

last month. The application will inform users when the next public bus or tram will 

arrive at their stop. Perhaps future generations of park visitors will use Google 

Glass to pull up a trail map! 

We commend the subcommittee for evaluating how technology solutions can play 

an important role in Federal recreation programs. 

NIC is proud to play a role in these great success stories from many of your home 

States. As you reauthorize the Act, we encourage you to consider authorizing pilot 

projects to explore similar innovative partnerships, creative service delivery approaches, and alternative contracting models for these exciting technology services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee. I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

ATTACHMENTS

I. Case study on NIC’s work for the Department of Transportation FMCSA’s PreEmployment Screening Program 

II. Executive summary of December 2013 study from the Center for Public Policy 

& Administration, University of Utah, Smarter eGovernment: The Economics of 

Online Services in Utah 

55 

ATTACHMENT 1


87533.012
56 


87533.013
57 


87533.014
58 


87533.015
59 

ATTACHMENT 2


87533.008
60 


87533.009
61 


87533.010
62 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Crandall. 


87533.011
63 

STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

RECREATION COALITION 

Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, also, for 

the opportunity to appear here, Mr. Grijalva and Mr. DeFazio. 

It is fun to be coming down the reverse way, because I am now 

in a position where I can say amen to all of the comments that 

have been made by the predecessors on this panel. We absolutely 

agree with the sentiments that Todd Davidson has expressed, in 

terms of the importance of outreach and promotion, certainly agree 

with NIC’s testimony about the use of technology. There are some 

great opportunities to do there. In fact, I guess I would premise my 

whole presentation here today with saying there is consensus on 

fees that is often hidden by the fact that we are talking about certain issues that obscure the broad support. 

Most of the fees are collected by people who stay very close to 

develop sites on Federal lands, and that is where there is great 

consensus. In fact, I would note the submission to the hearing 

record of a letter signed by more than 30 organizations, including 

AAA and the National Wildlife Federation and the National 

Tourist Association, talking about basic principles on fees, where 

there is broad agreement. 

I would like to address just three issues. The first is that the 

name of this bill is the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act. In fact, it reflects an attempt begun in the 1990s to understand that Americans deserve good experiences when they go on to 

Federal lands. That includes improved facilities that, in most cases, 

the appropriations process cannot provide. 

Americans are not looking for free or low-cost recreation experiences as much as they are looking for good value. They are looking 

for campgrounds that respond to their expectations. In many cases, 

that does mean showers. Unlike in Yosemite, where we have 1,500 

campsites and zero showers, most people, when they go to a campground, do expect an ability to take a shower, or to be able to access the Internet on WiFi. So, we are looking for opportunities to 

do that, and fees are certainly an opportunity to do that. 

As you look at the recreation facilities on Federal lands, large 

percentages of the recreation infrastructure do not meet the agency’s own standards for acceptable conditions. In fact, that is being 

exacerbated by a continued increase to the deferred maintenance 

backlog on a year-to-year basis. We need to be addressing that, and 

fees are one vital tool in doing that. 

The second issue I would like to especially discuss today is the 

importance of including all of Federal recreation-providing agencies 

under this provision, under the recreation pass authority. We do 

not now have U.S. Army Corps of Engineers covered under FLREA. 

It is important that they do be brought into the fold. They were 

under the authority of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 

the Golden Eagle Pass in 1964 because of congressional jurisdictional issues. They were not part of fee demo, and they were not 

included in FLREA. We would urge that they be included in any 

legislation coming from this committee. 

The final issue I would like to respond to and to emphasize the 

importance of what Mr. DeFazio was talking about, in terms of information, Americans are used to getting information on what they 

64 

buy or where they go through TripAdvisor, or through comments 

on the Best Buy Web site. That kind of information is long overdue, 

to try to ensure that we have knowledgeable visitors to areas. 

We cannot provide the recreation experiences that people seek 

everywhere; if they expect to use a mountain bike and they go into 

Yosemite National Park, they will be unsatisfied. But we have 

mechanisms in place today to use technology to help people find 

the experiences that they are seeking. We are not doing that. 

As my testimony describes, there is a misunderstanding of the 

restrictions that the Federal agencies have, in terms of use of their 

resources, both appropriated and earned. In many cases, we hear 

that we can’t advertise, we can’t use appropriations to advertise. 

We looked at that. We find no prohibition. The only requirement 

is that use of appropriated funding for advertising and other kinds 

of promotion needs to be made clear to the Congress as to how it 

is used. 

But as we look at recreation.gov, and the earnings from recreation.gov, the payments for those who are making reservations, 

certainly some of that revenue stream could be used to provide better information to the people who intend to go to their lands, their 

national forests, their national parks, their BLM LANDS, to have 

the kind of experiences that they seek. 

Great opportunities. We thank you so much for the interest of 

this committee. We look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION

COALITION, ON H.R. ____ 

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members, the American Recreation Coalition 

(ARC) appreciates the opportunity to applaud the interest of members of this committee and others in continuing and enhancing the experiences of the public as they 

visit a great American legacy—the federally managed lands and waters covering 

nearly one-third of the surface of this Nation. There are many reasons to strengthen 

the connection between today’s and tomorrow’s Americans and the outdoors, and the 

topic of this hearing is a key means to pursue this connection. 

I am Derrick Crandall and I am delighted to offer testimony on behalf of the 

members of the American Recreation Coalition—more than 100 national organizations, representing virtually every segment of the Nation’s $650+ billion outdoor 

recreation industry, and tens of millions of outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Our organization has played an active role in Federal recreation policy since its creation in 

1979, especially on funding Federal recreation programs. ARC played an active role 

in the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors in the 1980s, which served 

as the catalyst for a variety of important and successful funding initiatives ranging 

from expansion of the Dingell-Johnson program to the Recreational Trails Program 

and the Fee Demonstration Program of 1996, precursor to FLREA. 

Outdoor recreation is a vital and positive force in our Nation today. Many Americans participate in outdoor recreation today, and a major catalyst for this involvement is the marvelous shared legacy of our Great Outdoors—1 in 3 acres of the surface of the Nation managed by Federal agencies and hosting well in excess of a 

billion recreation visits annually. Americans spend some $650 billion annually on 

fun outdoors—and our Great Outdoors is a vital element in attracting international 

tourists. 

The benefits accruing from recreation participation are significant, and the appreciation for these benefits is growing. The economic significance of outdoor recreation 

is obvious in communities across the Nation, and especially those communities proximate to federally managed lands and waters. From boat dealers to campground operators, from RV manufacturers to ski rental shops, from retailers selling outdoors 

goods to guides and outfitters, tens of thousands of businesses and millions of Americans are supported by the expenditures on recreation by American families. And 

increasingly, America’s recreational opportunities are a key factor in luring interVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
65 

national visitors to enjoy the world’s best systems of parks and forests, refuges and 

other public sites. 

The role of recreation in addressing serious concerns about the increasing inactivity-related obesity of the American people, especially our young people, is also significant. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 7 in 10 

deaths are attributable to preventable, chronic diseases—like diabetes, heart disease 

and some forms of cancer—associated with obesity and inactivity. In addition, a national study has shown that nearly 20,000 children and adolescents in the United 

States are diagnosed with diabetes every year. A critical cause is the tripling in the 

rate of obesity among young people since the 1970s. We believe that the average 

of 11 hours of daily screen-time is a major contributor. An important antidote to this 

alarming picture is more active fun through outdoor recreation. We also believe that 

recreation opportunities on our Nation’s public lands, including our national parks, 

are an essential asset in the effort to encourage people to change their behavior and 

start enjoying the outdoors. 

Mr. Chairman, the recreation community appears here today to share its views 

on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which this subcommittee helped to shape prior to its enactment in December 2004. FLREA authorizes the collection and retention of entrance and recreation fees for most of the 

major Federal recreation providers: Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest 

Service. While management of recreation on our Federal lands remains funded primarily by appropriations of general funds, FLREA supplements those appropriations with more than $300 million annually in entrance fees, campground fees and 

other recreation-related charges. 

We applaud the Congress for labeling this legislation appropriately. We testify 

today not in favor of fees, but in favor of Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement. 

Fees are one important tool to help reach this goal—but FLREA fees are neither 

the only tool nor a goal in themselves. Recreationists pay for good recreation opportunities in many ways. Boating and fishing enthusiasts buy licenses and register 

boats and pay Federal and State gas tax on the fuel used in their activities—and 

most of these special user fees help to provide access to public waters, support water 

quality and fisheries improvements, manage the enjoyment of these activities and 

more. Recreationists also aid the quality of recreation in other ways, including volunteerism and philanthropy. FLREA-authorized fees must be considered in this context. 

Our support—and in fact overall public support—for well-designed and wellunderstood Federal recreation fees is strong. In 2012, the agencies reported to the 

Congress visitor satisfaction with fees at rates that ranged from 83 percent (Forest 

Service) to 94 percent (National Park Service). However, recreation fees can cause 

controversy. In particular, some Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

fees have generated enough opposition to prompt senior and influential Senators 

from both political parties to introduce legislation to repeal FLREA. 

We believe that most controversies surrounding FLREA-authorized fees result 

from agency failures to appreciate the role of fees as a tool, and not as an end in 

itself. Where the public seeks good facilities and services and finds them available 

at a Federal recreation site, support for fees is high. In particular, support for retention of most collected fees for use at and near the collection point is high. 

Attitudes toward FLREA have been complicated by Federal budgets and agency 

decisions which have reduced recreation access and services. The recreation community believes that much of the revenue collected under FLREA is simply offsetting 

reductions in general funding of Federal recreation programs. This does not reflect 

the nature of the agreement when FLREA was created 10 years ago. FLREA was 

to help in expanding the quantity and quality of recreation offerings on Federal 

lands and waters: better trails and better campgrounds, easier access to public 

waters and more interpretive and educational opportunities. 

Based upon nearly 20 years of experience with legislation which authorizes collection and retention of recreation fees, we support continuation of this authorization. 

We have worked with a large and diverse coalition of recreation, conservation and 

tourism organizations to articulate core principles which we feel should guide Federal recreation fee policy. These principles have been submitted to the committee 

and are also attached to my testimony. I include them here, as well: 

1. Federal recreation sites should be authorized to collect and retain fees for entrance to parks and selected other areas and for recreational services and visitor facilities involving significant investments and operational costs. 

66 

2. Collected fees should be used principally at sites where the fees were collected, 

serving those who paid the fees, and collected fees should be spent within a 

reasonable amount of time. 

3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the largest single Federal provider of 

recreation experiences, should be included under FLREA to unify Federal fee 

programs and eliminate current complications for visitors. 

4. The Federal recreation fee collection process should be as transparent as possible, allowing all interested parties the chance to see annual information on 

fee collections and use. 

5. Expenses of fee collection are a legitimate use of fee revenues but all efforts 

should be made to minimize these costs. 

6. Federal recreation site fee efforts can and should be integrated where possible 

with other fee collection programs, including of other Federal sites and agencies and with State recreation fees and licenses. State fee programs should 

be encouraged which support recreation on Federal lands—including trail programs. Models for this include the Winter Park Passes in several northwestern States and programs like the California ‘‘green sticker’’ program. 

7. Public involvement in Federal recreation site fee programs is vital. The first 

step is better notification of fee program proposals. Notification of new and 

changed fees should be made to all obviously affected organizations and local 

citizens, and should also be made through: (1) the Federal Register and (2) 

alerts to individuals and organizations requesting notification through 

www.recreation.gov, registering their interest in types of fees, geographical 

regions, agencies and other appropriate categories. Formal comment opportunities should be required and can include Recreation Resources Advisory 

Committees and Resource Advisory Committee requirements, but Congress 

should allow the Forest Service and BLM to develop alternative public involvement models, submitted to the appropriate Congressional committees. 

The committees shall have not less than 90 days to consider these proposals. 

A submitted model may be disapproved by vote of either committee or by a 

joint letter by the Chair and Ranking Member of one or both of the committees. 

8. Fee payment should be as convenient as possible to visitors. Use of commonly 

used non-Federal payment systems, such as EZ-Pass and PayPal, should be 

tested. Prepayment of entrance fees through inclusion in reservations for 

campsites, lodge rooms and other reserved services, and by sales in gateway 

communities, should also be encouraged. 

9. Reauthorization of the Federal recreation fee program should be for a minimum of 6 years and not more than 10 years. 

10. Fees collection by concessioners and third parties, including other governmental agencies and organizations which operate and maintain recreation 

services and facilities, should be authorized. 

11. Fees for special recreation uses and events may be required but should not 

unreasonably deter legitimate uses of Federal recreation sites nor discourage 

partnerships with third-party organizations. 

12. Agencies that receive funds through FLREA are encouraged to fully utilize 

Public Lands Corps Act authority to complete FLREA-funded projects that 

meet FLREA objectives such as enhancing visitor services. Use of conservation corps on these projects is likely to deliver lowered costs and will provide 

jobs for local young people and veterans and connect younger Americans with 

the Great Outdoors. 

There are three additional issues we urge you to consider as you prepare FLREA 

to meet the needs of the 21st Century. 

First, Americans gain little from great places that are invisible to them. And 

much of the Great Outdoors is not on the radar screens of younger, more urban and 

more diverse Americans. Greatly improved Web sites, use of social media and a redirected www.recreation.gov can help us deal with Federal site visitations that have 

lagged far behind population growth. For years, Federal recreation programs have 

declined to partner with gateway communities, with concessioners and permittees 

and with others on outreach and promotion, perpetuating and exacerbating patterns 

favoring well known sites and peak periods. We are heartened by the participation 

of most major Federal recreation providers in the IPW show which begins in 

Chicago tomorrow. We are heartened by the plans of the National Park Service to 

work with partners on a campaign linked to its Centennial to promote visitation. 

Yet we too often hear that advertising and promotion by Federal land agencies are 

prohibited by law. We strongly disagree. The restrictions we see simply require notice to the Congress about use of appropriated funds for advertising—paying for ads. 

67 

We see no prohibition on partner-based promotional activities designed to shift demand to lesser visited sites or to non-peak periods. And in fact we would appreciate 

this committee making it clear to the agencies that building awareness and promotion are legitimate uses of a portion of FLREA receipts. In the private sector, and 

even in some State parks, a percentage of gross receipts used for promotion is seen 

as vital. Perhaps a portion of overall www.recreation.gov revenues should be earmarked for partner-based promotion efforts. 

Second, we support providing senior Americans with special benefits associated 

with the Great Outdoors. We believe the current benefit of lifetime free access for 

a one-time fee of $10, with an additional benefit of 50 percent reductions of campground and certain other fees, no longer represents the best use of deferred fees. 

This benefit effectively imposes excessive costs on others, including families with 

young children. We would support changes in the special benefits offered to seniors 

in one or more of the following ways: 

a. 50 percent discount of the annual America the Beautiful (ATB) Pass; 

b. Changing the age of eligibility for a senior pass to the age at which an individual is entitled to full Social Security benefits. 

c. Maintain the lifetime provision but at the higher cost: the current annual 

price of the America the Beautiful pass. 

Third and finally, we support the annual free pass to America’s active duty servicemen and servicewomen. They put their lives in harm’s way to protect the values 

which are reflected in our Great Outdoors. This is now done under the discretionary 

authority of the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. We support codifying 

this and adding one more provision. We believe all recipients of a Purple Heart 

should qualify automatically for a lifetime disability pass. The costs associated with 

this provision will likely apply only to recent Mideast conflicts, since honorees for 

service in Vietnam and before are now virtually all eligible for lifetime senior 

passes—approximately 50,000. 

Purple Hearts have gone to those injured in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan 

and in Iraq. Any awardee with permanent injuries would be eligible for the existing 

free pass for any disabled American—this would simply eliminate the need to prove 

disability. 

We believe these changes would be valuable, win/win components for revitalized 

Federal recreation programs that succeed in providing benefits to all Americans in 

the 21st Century. Thank you for your interest and your actions to assist enjoyment 

of America’s Great Outdoors. We urge rapid action on legislation to achieve the goal 

set forth in the title of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. Benzar. 

STATEMENT OF KITTY BENZAR, PRESIDENT, WESTERN SLOPE 

NO-FEE COALITION 

Ms. BENZAR. Good morning. The proposed legislation should be 

rejected because it would bring us back to the fee demo days when 

Federal land management agencies could charge the public fees to 

visit virtually any area of our public lands. For 30 years, recreation 

fees were governed by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 

which contained this statement of congressional intent—and I 

quote—‘‘The purposes of this Act are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of such quality and 

quantity of outdoor recreation resources as are necessary and desirable for individual active participation, and to strengthen the 

health and vitality of the citizens of the United States.’’ 

Fee demo suspended that commitment to health and vitality for 

8 years, during which the agencies experimented with anythinggoes fee authority, treating the natural world as a market commodity, while charging whatever the market would bear for any 

experience on which a price could be placed. The results of the exVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
68 

periment clearly showed that some fees the public willingly accepts, and others they do not. 

FLREA was Congress’s attempt to apply those results and define 

a framework of limits and rules on recreation fees. When Congress 

enacted FLREA, it again expressed its commitment to the public’s 

interests. The then-Chairman of the House Resources Committee 

said of FLREA, ‘‘This will put an end to fears that Federal land 

managers cannot be trusted with recreational fee authority, because we lay out very specific circumstances under which these fees 

can be collected and spent.’’ 

Indeed, FLREA contains common-sense prohibitions on fees for 

basic access in language Federal courts have found clear and unambiguous. The Forest Service and BLM, however, have evaded 

FLREA’s requirements and restrictions, and FLREA has failed to 

achieve its objectives. These agencies cannot be trusted to honor 

congressional intent, and you cannot afford to enact new fee authority that is less than crystal clear in its vision and purpose. 

But instead of recommitting to a vision and purpose, this draft 

would change the law to fit past misbehavior. It would effectively 

transfer ownership of our public lands from the people to the agencies, and demote citizens from owners to mere customers. The bill 

fails to express a vision or delineate a framework. It fails to acknowledge the rights of citizens to recreational use of their public 

lands, or congressional intent to protect those rights from agency 

overreach. 

FLREA contains what Congress thought were iron-clad prohibitions on fees for hiking, riding, or boating through undeveloped 

Federal lands, solely for parking or for general access. Forest Service and BLM have not followed those provisions nor many others. 

They have become expert at taking phrases in FLREA that say one 

thing, and twisting them to mean the opposite. 

We need a bill that is so clearly written and unambiguous that 

not even the most clever wordsmith can contort its meaning. The 

draft being considered today is not that bill. It is riddled with ambiguous and contradictory language. It sets the requirements for 

charging fees at such a low threshold they might as well be nonexistent. The prohibitions on charging fees for certain activities are 

muted by overly broad authority granted elsewhere. The limits on 

overhead and collection costs are loosened, and accountability is 

weakened. 

For example, FLREA requires that a permanent toilet be provided at a fee area, but the draft bill calls for a regularly serviced 

and well-maintained toilet facility. Based on 10 years of experience 

with how the Forest Service and the BLM think, that means portapotties. As long as those porta-potties—pay toilets, really—are 

provided, the agencies will act as if Congress had given them the 

authority to charge a fee for access to all the land around the potty, 

as well as to the undeveloped back country beyond. 

A new and urgent concern is the ruling handed down last week 

by the D.C. Circuit Court making concessionaires completely exempt from the rules that apply to the agencies. This is a Get Out 

of Jail Free Card for the Forest Service that would remove its 

recreation policies from congressional oversight all together. There 

69 

is not time in my brief statement to address this, but I hope someone will ask me a question about it. 

In my written testimony, I have submitted alternative draft 

language that would allow reasonable fee authority within a framework of clear requirements and limits. It is guided by a commitment to public ownership and access, and this alternative takes 

into consideration input from a wide variety of recreational visitors, 

and would likely achieve broad support. 

But regardless of what you enact, you must make it clear that 

Congress remains committed to a robust system of public lands, 

where the public has access and feels welcome. Please don’t surrender to Forest Service and BLM overreach. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Benzar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KITTY BENZAR, PRESIDENT, WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE

COALITION ON H.R. ____ 

I am Kitty Benzar, President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, an organization that has been working since 2001 to restore the tradition of public lands that 

belong to the American people and are places where everyone has access and is welcome. I am speaking to you today on behalf of our supporters, on behalf of the organizations with whom we closely work, and on behalf of millions of our fellow citizens 

who believe as we do that while the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

is not perfect and is not being properly implemented in many areas, the proposed 

bill would be a huge step backwards. It would return us to the days of ‘‘Fee Demo’’ 

when the Forest Service and BLM could charge the public simply to park their car 

and go hiking, riding, or boating in undeveloped areas without using any developed 

amenities. 

For 18 years, the ‘‘pay to play’’ approach to recreation has transformed our 

National Forests and BLM lands from places where everyone has a basic right to 

access into places where we can be prosecuted for not having a ticket of admission. 

For 18 years the Federal land management agencies have viewed American citizens as customers rather than owners, and have increasingly managed basic access 

to outdoor recreation as an activity that must generate revenue, rather than as an 

essential service that promotes a healthy active population. 

Congress gave the agencies Fee Demonstration authority in 1996 to test, as an 

experiment, unlimited fees and see what worked and what didn’t, what the public 

would accept and what they would not. With this encouragement, the agencies embarked upon a new paradigm in public lands management. For the first time, the 

Forest Service and BLM began requiring direct payment for admission to the National Forests and other public lands under their management. Simple things like 

a walk in the woods or paddling on a lake at sunset became a product that could 

be marketed and sold to paying customers. 

Opposition to Fee Demo was overwhelming and widespread. From New 

Hampshire to California, from Idaho to Arizona, Americans from all walks of life 

and all political persuasions raised their voices against a fee-based system for basic 

access to outdoor recreation. Resolutions of opposition were sent to Congress by the 

State legislatures of Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, California, and New 

Hampshire. Counties, cities, and organizations across the Nation passed resolutions 

opposing the program. Civil disobedience was widespread, and in response enforcement became heavy-handed. Criminal prosecutions of people who simply took a 

walk in the woods without buying a pass were disturbingly frequent. 

Congress terminated the experiment in 2004 by enacting FLREA to set limits and 

scale back on fees based on what Fee Demo had shown. FLREA’s limiting language, 

had it been honored by the agencies, could have achieved this and might have 

calmed much of the public’s opposition. For example, FLREA prohibits fees: 

‘‘For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, 

horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and 

waters without using the facilities and services.’’ 

While the agencies made the appropriate changes in a few areas once FLREA was 

passed, in most places they carried on as if nothing had changed and recreation fees 

continued to spread to thousands of undeveloped and minimally developed areas. 

Americans are still being charged fees for such basic activities as: roadside parking, 

70 

walking or riding on trails, access to vast tracts of undeveloped public land, and 

even for such fundamentals as the use of toilets. Even FLREA’s straightforward requirement that a ‘‘permanent toilet’’ be provided before a Standard Amenity Fee can 

be charged has been interpreted to allow roadside porta-potties because then, according to the agency, they can charge a fee for access to all the undeveloped 

backcountry beyond the road. Rather than fix these problems of maladministration 

of FLREA, the proposed bill makes them worse by cementing them into the law. 

Recreation access fees are a new tax and they are a double tax. Americans already pay for management of their Federal public lands through their income tax, 

but these fees are an additional tax, levied directly by the agencies and distributed 

without congressional oversight. For those who enjoy motorized recreation, or who 

hunt or fish, they are a triple tax, because after paying State license fees as well 

as Federal income taxes, they often must also pay an access tax to enjoy recreation 

on their public lands. 

It is also a regressive tax. It puts the burden of public land management on the 

backs of Americans who live adjacent to or surrounded by Federal land. In rural 

counties in the West, where in many cases over 80 percent of the land is federally 

managed, public lands are an integral part of life. Citizens in these areas, who are 

often just scraping by financially, should not have to buy a pass just to get out of 

town. 

This regressive tax falls most heavily on lower income and working Americans. 

Two separate studies conducted 10 years apart and on opposite sides of the country 

reached the almost identical conclusion that fees have caused nearly half of lowincome respondents, and a third of all respondents, to use their public lands less. 

This has been reflected in declining visitation across agencies and geographic areas. 

For example, the Forest Service’s visitor use estimates have fallen from 214 million 

visits annually in 2001 to only 161 million in 2012. 

Fee Demo and FLREA have been a financial failure as well. GAO reports have 

revealed hidden administrative costs, fees being collected far in excess of operating 

costs, and agencies being unable to provide accurate and complete accountability for 

their fee revenue. The backlog of deferred maintenance, which was the initial justification given for Fee Demo, has continued to grow instead of shrinking, and appropriated funding disappears into agency overhead instead of making it to the 

ground. Instead of increased recreational opportunities, sites have been closed and 

facilities removed if they are perceived by the managing agency as inadequate generators of revenue. 

The powerful incentive embodied in fee retention has proved to be too much for 

the agencies to resist. They have used an undefined word here and an ambiguous 

sentence there to justify the implementation of policies that nullify the protections 

on public access that FLREA was supposed to provide. Contorted interpretations of 

FLREA’s Standard Amenity Fee and Special Recreation Permit Fee authority have 

led to de facto entrance fees to hundreds of thousands of acres of undeveloped 

Federal recreational lands. 

The best way to curb these abuses and restore common sense to fee policy would 

be to end the authority for fee retention and return fees to the Treasury for appropriation and oversight by Congress. As long as they get to keep all the money they 

can raise, the agencies will inevitably seek to find and exploit every weakness they 

can in the wording of any limiting law. 

But if Congress decides that fee retention is to continue, then it is imperative that 

the restrictions and prohibitions on where, and for what, fees can be charged must 

be spelled out very clearly, and there must be a procedure for citizens to challenge 

fees that do not appear to comply with the law. 

I applaud the Chairman and this subcommittee for acting to reform Federal fee 

policy. However I regret to say that the draft language under discussion today 

would make the situation far worse. It does not provide sufficient safeguards to 

counterbalance the powerful incentive of fee retention and protect the public’s right 

to basic access as expressed in FLREA. Instead, it provides strong new incentives 

to develop more facilities in more places—facilities the public neither needs nor 

wants—simply in order to be able to charge fees. 

Fees for use of developed facilities such as campgrounds are reasonable and have 

been well accepted, and we support them. But that should not be allowed to evolve 

into a situation where the agencies have an incentive to add facilities, not because 

the public needs or wants them, but because they want to be able to charge fees. 

A careful reading of this bill, in the context of the agencies’ past actions, shows that 

they would charge a fee anyplace that there is any sort of toilet in the vicinity— 

even a porta-potty. The amenities threshold of where fees could be charged would 

be reduced to nearly zero. This bill would be a throwback to the anything-goes 

71 

authority already proven to be a failure under Fee Demo. ‘‘Pay to play’’ would become ‘‘pay-to-pee.’’ 

The concept of shared ownership, shared access, and shared responsibility, which 

should be based on a long accepted tradition that on Federal lands facilities will be 

basic, would be lost under this draft bill. Federal facilities should remain basic specifically so that we can afford to make them available to everyone. 

When I testified before you in June last year, I provided numerous examples of 

how the Forest Service and BLM have evaded the restrictions on fees that are in 

the current statute. They have amply demonstrated their ability to use any small 

ambiguity or conflicting language to go far beyond congressional intent as expressed 

in the law. Unfortunately, this draft bill contains many ambiguities, inconsistencies, 

and internal conflicts, which the agencies would certainly exploit to do more of the 

same. Fee authority as currently being implemented has taken ownership of these lands 

out of the hands of the public and given it to the land management agencies. This 

is a change in relationship that is most disturbing. The draft under consideration 

would exacerbate instead of correcting it. It is time for the public, acting through 

our elected Federal officials, to re-assert ownership of our public lands from these 

agencies that have forgotten that it’s not their land! 

New legislation should ensure that: 

• fees are focused on use of developed or specialized facilities for which there 

is a demonstrated need; in particular, any fee areas should, at a bare minimum, require ‘‘permanent’’ toilet facilities, not just porta-potties as the proposed bill would allow; • entrance fees are limited to National Parks and Wildlife Refuges; • concessionaire fees are governed by the same requirements as agency fees; • fees for special uses are carefully defined and never applied to private, noncommercial use of undeveloped or minimally developed areas; • no incentive is given to the agencies that would encourage them to install 

facilities for the purpose of creating additional fee sites and revenues; • ironclad agency financial accountability is established. 

FLREA was Congress’s attempt to replace Fee Demo with legislation that would 

provide the agencies with appropriate, albeit limited, fee authority. Ten years after 

the passage of FLREA we can now see what its weaknesses are and where opportunities for improvement lie. Appended at the end of this testimony is suggested alternative language for your consideration. It represents our best attempt to ensure that 

the agencies are granted reasonable and well-defined fee authority, while protecting 

the public lands from costly unneeded development and protecting the recreating 

public from an onslaught of new and ever-higher fees. I believe that this draft, 

based on a more than decade’s worth of input from a wide cross-section of recreational visitors to Federal lands, more nearly meets the requirements listed above 

than the bill under discussion. It would close the loopholes in FLREA that the agencies have been able to exploit, and create an equitable recreation fee program that 

would enjoy wide public support. I urge you to consider it. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your consideration and for allowing me to testify before you today. 

Attachment: Alternative Discussion Draft Language. 

ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION DRAFT—RECREATION FEE LEGISLATION 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE, PURPOSE, AND TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(a) Short Title—This title may be cited as 

(b) Purpose— 

To amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to allow certain 

Federal Agencies, under strictly conforming and duly adopted guidelines, to 

establish certain nationally consistent fees on public lands where specified 

facilities are regularly available and regularly maintained for public use, 

and for certain special uses of public lands. 

It is the intent of Congress, in this Act, to expand access for all Americans 

and visitors to healthy and active outdoor recreation activities and other 

benefits offered by a system of federally managed lands. Further, it is the 

intent of Congress that the recreation fee program authorized under this 

Act take into consideration that Federal lands are public lands for which 

other funds are made available by Congress and fees are not intended to 

72 

cover the entire cost of recreation management. Recreation fees are supplemental to funds provided by Congress and should only be imposed where 

there is a demonstrated need to provide supplemental benefits; thus fee 

revenues should be expended to directly benefit those who paid them. 

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted or implemented to allow recreation 

facility fees on public lands or waters where constructed facilities are not 

available or when the visitor does not use them. Nor shall anything in this 

Act be interpreted or implemented to allow fees on Federal lands or waters 

that do not or cannot meet the requirements of this Act. 

(c). Table of Contents—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title, purpose, and table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

Sec. 3. Recreation fee authority. 

Sec. 4. Entrance fees. 

Sec. 5. Recreation facility fees. 

Sec. 6. Special use permit fees. 

Sec. 7. Prohibitions on fees. 

Sec. 8. Public participation. 

Sec. 9. Recreation passes. 

Sec. 10. Reservation service agreements. 

Sec. 11. Special account and distribution of fees and revenues. 

Sec. 12. Expenditures. 

Sec. 13. Reports. 

Sec. 14. Volunteers. 

Sec. 15. Enforcement and protection of receipts. 

Sec. 16. Repeal of superseded admission and use fee authorities. 

Sec. 17. Relation to other laws and fee collection authorities. 

Sec. 18. Limitation on use of fees for employee bonuses. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: 

1. ENTRANCE FEE—The term ‘‘entrance fee’’ means the fee authorized by 

Section 4 to be charged to enter onto lands or waters managed by the 

National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY—The term ‘‘Federal land management agency’’ means the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the 

Forest Service. 

3. FEDERAL RECREATIONAL LANDS AND WATERS—The term ‘‘Federal recreational lands and waters’’ means lands or waters managed under the 

authority of a Federal land management agency. 

4. FEE—The term ‘‘fee’’ relates to the fees established by this Act, which are 

entrance fees, recreation facility fees, and special use permit fees. 

5. NATIONAL PARKS PLUS PASS—The term ‘‘National Parks Plus Pass’’ 

means the interagency national pass authorized by Section 9(a). 

6. PASSHOLDER—The term ‘‘passholder’’ means the person who is issued a 

recreation pass established under Section 9. 

7. PERMANENT TOILET—The term ‘‘permanent toilet’’ means a pit, vault, or 

flush facility constructed in place for the purpose of depositing human waste 

in a sanitary manner. 

8. RECREATION FACILITY FEE—The term ‘‘recreation facility fee’’ means the 

recreation fee authorized by Section 5. 

9. RECREATION PASS—The term ‘‘recreation pass’’ means the National Parks 

Plus Pass or one of the other recreation passes available as authorized by 

Section 9. 

10. SECRETARY—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— 

(A) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to a Federal land management agency (other than the Forest Service); and 

(B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the Forest Service. 

11. SECRETARIES—The term ‘‘Secretaries’’ means the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture acting jointly. 

12. SPECIAL ACCOUNT—The term ‘‘special account’’ means the special account 

established in the Treasury under Section 11 for a Federal land management 

agency. 

13. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FEE—The term ‘‘special use permit fee’’ means the 

recreation fee authorized by Section 6. 

14. UNIT—For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘unit’’ means —for the National 

Park Service a single park, monument, or other management unit; for the 

73 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a single National Wildlife Refuge; for the 

Bureau of Reclamation the recreation complex associated with a single 

project; for the Bureau of Land Management the area managed by a single 

field office, and for the Forest Service a single ranger district. 

SEC. 3. RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY. 

(a) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY—All fees established pursuant to this 

Act shall be fair and equitable, taking into consideration the direct and indirect cost to the Government, the benefits to the visitor, the public policy or 

interest served, the economic and administrative feasibility of fee collection, 

and other pertinent factors. The Secretaries shall coordinate with appropriate 

Federal, State, tribal, and local government agencies, and nongovernmental 

organizations representing local tourism and recreation interests before setting fees. The Secretaries shall take into account that they are stewards for 

land that is held in common by all Americans, and shall consider their core 

mission to be providing nationally consistent and affordable access to healthy, 

active, outdoor recreation on Federal recreational lands and waters. Fees 

shall not be set in comparison to those at non-Federal recreational facilities, 

and shall not exceed actual costs. 

(1) Fees collected by contractors, cooperators, concessionaires, or other nonagency personnel shall be set in the same manner and are subject to the 

same limits as those collected by the agency. 

(2) The Secretary shall establish the fewest possible fees and shall avoid the 

collection of multiple or layered recreation fees. 

(3) The establishment of a fee under this Act shall constitute final agency 

action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

(5 U.S.C. 702) 

(b) NOTICE OF FEES—The Secretary shall post clear notice of any fee and 

available recreation passes at appropriate locations in each unit or area of 

Federal recreational lands or waters where a fee is charged. The Secretary 

shall include such notice in publications distributed at the unit or area. 

(c) DISCOUNTED OR FREE ADMISSION DAYS OR USE—The Secretary shall 

provide one free day per month during the open operating season at each 

unit, and may provide additional discounted or free days for use of Federal 

recreational lands and waters. 

SEC. 4. ENTRANCE FEES. 

(a) ENTRANCE FEE POLICIES— 

(1) AUTHORIZED SITES FOR ENTRANCE FEES—The Secretary of the 

Interior may charge an entrance fee for a unit managed by the National 

Park Service, or for a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

(2) Upon payment of an entrance fee, the Secretary of the Interior shall 

issue a nontransferable receipt valid for entry and reentry of the same 

area for a period of no less than 24 hours, and no more than 7 consecutive days; 

(3) Motorcycles, snowmobiles, and watercraft, when used as the means of 

entry, shall be considered as vehicles for the purposes of collecting pervehicle entrance fees; and 

(4) The Secretary of the Interior shall determine— 

(A) a consistent entrance fee policy and schedule for commercial and 

noncommercial recreational groups; and 

(B) the conditions under which an educational group entering an entrance fee area authorized under Section 4(b)(1) may be exempted 

from paying an entrance fee. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON ENTRANCE FEES FOR CERTAIN PERSONS OR 

PLACES.—The Secretary shall not charge an entrance fee for the following: 

(1) Outings conducted for noncommercial educational purposes by schools or 

bona fide academic institutions where the agency has provided prior approval for a fee waiver. 

(2) The U.S.S. Arizona Memorial, Independence National Historical Park, 

any unit of the National Park System within the District of Columbia, 

the Flight 93 National Memorial, the Statue of Liberty National 

Monument, or Arlington House-Robert E. Lee National Memorial. 

74 

(3) Entrance by other routes into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

or any part thereof unless fees are charged for entrance into that park 

on main highways and thoroughfares. 

(4) Entrance to units of the National Park System containing deed restrictions or other legislative prohibitions on charging fees. 

(5) An area or unit of the National Park System covered under Section 203 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law 96– 

487; 16 U.S.C. 410hh–2), with the exception of Denali National Park and 

Preserve. 

(6) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System created, expanded, or 

modified by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

(7) Entrance by any person engaged in a non-recreational activity authorized 

under a valid permit issued under any other Act, including a valid grazing permit. 

(8) Nonrecreational activities related to the exercise of First Amendment 

rights, agency authorized research, access to private property or 

inholdings, or officials engaged in local, State, tribal, or Federal business. 

(9) Travel by private, noncommercial vehicle over any national parkway or 

any road or highway established as a part of the Federal-aid System, as 

defined in Section 101 of title 23, United States Code, which is commonly 

used by the public as a means of travel between two places either or both 

of which are outside any unit or area at which recreation fees are 

charged under this Act. 

(10) Any person who visits a unit or area under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and who has been issued a valid migratory 

bird hunting and conservation stamp issued under Section 2 of the Act 

of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718b; commonly known as the Duck Stamp 

Act). 

(c) FEES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES—Where the Secretary requires 

visitors to a unit or portion of a unit where an entrance fee is established to 

use a government-provided transportation service in lieu of a private motor 

vehicle, no additional fee may be charged for the use of such required transportation service, whether provided as a government service or through agreement or contract. Where such transportation services are optional, riders may 

be charged an appropriate cost-recovery or other fee for the use of such service, consistent with Section 501 of the National Park Omnibus Management 

Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 5981) and other authorities. 

(d) FEES FOR INTERPRETIVE SERVICES—Where an entrance fee has been 

established, no additional charge shall be made for access to visitor centers 

or for interpretive programs and services that promote an understanding and 

appreciation of the values for which the unit was established. Reasonable fees 

may be charged for interpretive programs or services where no entrance fee 

has been established, or for extraordinary interpretive programs that exceed 

those related to the unit’s core mission, so long as participation in such standalone or extraordinary interpretive activity is optional. 

(e) WHITEWATER BOATING PERMIT FEE—Where the Secretary determines 

that a system of permits, limited in number, is necessary to equitably manage 

and provide special resource protection due to private noncommercial whitewater boating within a unit of the National Park Service or U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, a fee may be charged for such permit. Whitewater boating 

permit fees may not exceed the actual cost of administering the permit system and managing whitewater boating use. 

SEC. 5. RECREATION FACILITY FEES—The Secretaries may charge a recreation facility fee on Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of 

the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Forest Service, but only for the following activities and under the following conditions: 

(a) USE OF SPECIALIZED FACILITIES AT BOAT LAUNCHES. 

(1) IN GENERAL—A fee may be charged on a per-watercraft basis for the 

use of the following specialized facilities for launching a watercraft: 

(A) Mechanical or hydraulic boat lifts. 

(B) Boarding float or mooring dock. 

(2) No fee may be charged for access to a boat launch area if no specialized 

facilities as listed above are used. 

75 

(b) CAMPING IN DEVELOPED CAMPGROUNDS— 

(1) Fees for camping shall be limited to developed campgrounds accessed by 

vehicle or watercraft. 

(2) Fees shall only be charged at campgrounds that have a majority of the 

following facilities: 

(A) Tent or trailer spaces. 

(B) Picnic tables. 

(C) Drinking water. 

(D) Permanent trash facility. 

(E) Permanent toilet facilities. 

(F) Simple devices for containing a campfire. 

(G) Reasonable visitor protection. 

(3) Fees for camping shall be charged on a per-night, per-site basis. No extra 

charge shall be made for extra vehicles so long as such vehicles can be 

accommodated within the assigned campsite or in a designated overflow 

parking area without causing resource damage. 

(4) A limit of not less than six persons over the age of 16 may be imposed 

on the number of persons allowed per campsite. 

(c) SHORT TERM RENTAL of cabins, fire lookouts, historic structures, group 

day-use or group overnight facilities, designated target range sites, duck 

blinds, or other constructed facilities for recreational, non-commercial purposes. 

(d) SHORT TERM RENTAL of boats, stock animals, audio tour devices, portable 

sanitation devices, binoculars, or other recreational equipment for recreational, noncommercial purposes. 

(e) USE OF mooring docks, sewage dump stations, luggage storage lockers, electrical hookups for recreational vehicles and boats, and corrals. 

(f) ACCESS TO A DESTINATION VISITOR OR INTERPRETIVE CENTER that 

provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media except 

that no fee shall be charged if the visitor or interpretive center lies within 

a larger area for which an entrance or recreation facility fee is charged. 

SEC. 6. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FEES. 

(a) IN GENERAL—The Secretaries may issue a special use permit and charge 

a special use permit fee on Federal recreational lands and waters under the 

jurisdiction of the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Forest Service in 

order to recover a portion of the costs associated with the following special 

recreation uses, where they are otherwise authorized: 

(1) Use by off-highway vehicles or snowmobiles of specialized areas that 

contain all of the following facilities: 

(A) A system of designated and mapped off-highway vehicle or snowmobile trails. 

(B) Developed designated parking that is routinely cleared of excess 

snow at snowmobile areas. 

(C) Regular trail maintenance a majority of which is performed by Federal employees or contractors. At snowmobile areas maintenance 

shall include trail grooming. 

(D) Routine presence of agency law enforcement. 

(E) Toilets. 

(F) Refuse containers. 

(2) Use by cross-country skiers or snowshoers of specialized areas that contain all of the following facilities: 

(A) A system of designated and mapped trails. 

(B) Developed designated parking that is routinely cleared of excess 

snow. 

(C) Regular mechanical trail grooming a majority of which is performed 

by Federal employees or contractors. 

(D) Warming shelter. 

(E) Toilets. 

(3) Use of specialized swimming sites that contain all of the following 

facilities: 

76 

(A) Floats encompassing the swimming area. 

(B) Bathhouse with showers and changing rooms. 

(C) Developed designated parking. 

(D) Attendants, including lifeguards. 

(E) Permanent toilets. 

(F) Refuse containers. 

(4) Commercial outfitting and guiding. 

(5) Permits for organized gatherings of more than 20 people for such activities as weddings, sporting and competitive events, and rallies. 

(6) Advance reservation of a free backcountry or wilderness permit pursuant 

to Section 7(b), subject to the following conditions: 

(A) Advance reservation shall not be required as a condition of obtaining 

a free backcountry permit. 

(B) At least 10 percent of authorized permits for a particular 

backcountry or wilderness area shall be made available without a 

reservation on a first-come first-served basis. 

(C) The reservation fee charged shall be per permit and permits shall 

be per party. The fee shall not exceed the actual cost of providing 

the reservation service. 

(7) Recreational mining activities. 

(8) Harvesting of Christmas trees for personal, non-commercial use. Trees 

harvested pursuant to a permit issued under this authority shall not be 

considered timber. 

(b) ANNUAL SITE-SPECIFIC AND REGIONAL PERMITS AUTHORIZED—In 

order to provide more flexibility and lower-cost alternatives, the permits established under Section 6(a)(1), (2), and (3) in addition to being offered as a 

daily permit may also be issued on an annual or seasonal basis to allow 

unlimited use of the same area or a group of areas. 

(c) RELATION TO OTHER FEES— 

(1) Special use permit fees for organized group gatherings, commercial outfitting and guiding, advance reservation of backcountry or wilderness 

permits, recreational mining, and harvesting of Christmas trees may be 

charged in addition to entrance fees or recreation facility fees, in areas 

where those fees apply, except that no special use permit fee shall be 

charged for an organized group gathering under Section 6(a)(5) when a 

group facility rental fee has been paid in accordance with Section 5(c). 

(2) Special use permit fees for use of specialized areas for off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and swimming may 

not be charged in areas where an entrance fee or recreation facility fee 

is required, nor where a fee is charged by a non-Federal entity in order 

to access the Federal facilities. 

SEC. 7. PROHIBITIONS ON FEES— 

(a) IN GENERAL—Recreation facility fees and special use permit fees shall not 

be charged for the following private, noncommercial activities: 

(1) Camping outside of developed campgrounds. 

(2) Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or other non-motorized winter sports 

or access for the same except at locations where a recreation facility fee 

or special use permit fee is established in accordance with this Act. 

(3) Off-highway vehicle or snowmobile use of a trail or road that is open to 

motorized travel, except at locations where a recreation facility fee or 

special use permit fee is established in accordance with this Act. 

(4) Access to, travel on, or use of rivers, lakes, beaches, and other shoreline 

areas. 

(5) Snow play. 

(6) Equestrian trail use. 

(7) Wildlife viewing. 

(8) For the use, either singly or in any combination, of drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, overlook sites, scenic drives, toilet facilities, or picnic 

tables. 

(9) Hiking, walking, jogging, bicycling, or other non-motorized trail use. 

(10) Parking. However, nothing in this Act shall prohibit the Secretary from 

establishing a system of free parking restrictions to manage visitor parkVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
77 

ing, and subject to other terms and conditions as may be required to 

manage visitor use and provide for resource protection. 

(11) Any person below the age of 16. 

(12) Special attention or extra services necessary to meet the needs of the 

disabled. 

(13) Use of or access to designated wilderness or other backcountry or dispersed areas. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON BACKCOUNTRY PERMIT FEES GENERALLY—The 

Secretaries shall not charge a fee pursuant to this or any other Act for any 

permit issued for private, noncommercial recreational use of wilderness or 

other backcountry or dispersed areas. The Secretaries may establish a system 

of free backcountry permits, limited in number and issued per party, and subject to other terms and conditions as may be required to equitably manage 

visitor use and provide for resource protection. Such permits shall only be required where necessary to meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act or 

where special management is necessary due to demand in excess of resource 

capacity. 

SEC. 8. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL—The Secretary shall provide the public with opportunities to 

participate in the development or increasing of all fees established under this 

Act by: 

(1) establishing guidelines for public involvement; 

(2) establishing guidelines on how agencies will demonstrate on an annual 

basis how they have provided information to the public on the use of 

recreation fee revenues; and 

(3) publishing the guidelines in paragraphs (1) and (2) in the Federal 

Register. 

(b) ADVANCED NOTICE—The Secretaries shall publish a notice and solicit 

public comment in the Federal Register before establishing a new fee or increasing an existing fee. Such publication shall occur during the peak use season of the unit or activity to which the fee will apply and at least 1 year before such establishment or increase. The Secretaries shall publish notice 1 

year in advance of a new fee or a increase to an existing fee established under 

this title in local newspapers and publications located near the site at which 

the fee would be established or increased, and continuously on the home page 

of the Web site of the affected unit for 1 year before establishment or increase. Notification of a new or increased fee shall also be made 1 year in advance to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House 

Natural Resources Committee. 

(c) PUBLIC SUPPORT—Before establishing any new recreation fee or increasing 

an existing fee, the Secretary shall document public support by: 

(1) Providing advanced notice and opportunity for public comment in accordance with Section 8(b); 

(2) Accepting comments from the public about the new or increased fee; and 

(3) Publishing the public comments received at the Web site of the affected 

unit continuously for at least 30 days prior to establishing or increasing 

the fee. 

(d) RECREATION FEES CHARGED BY CONCESSIONAIRES—Fees charged at 

Federal recreation facilities that are managed by private contractors or permittees shall undergo the same public notice and involvement requirements 

specified in this Section as those at agency-managed facilities. 

SEC. 9. RECREATION PASSES. 

(a) The National Parks Plus Pass— 

(1) AVAILABILITY AND USE—The Secretaries shall establish, and may 

charge a fee for, an interagency national pass to be known as ‘‘The 

National Parks Plus Pass,’’ which shall cover, for the passholder and all 

occupants of the same private, non-commercial vehicle, the entrance fee 

for all Federal recreational lands and waters for which an entrance fee 

is charged and all visitor center fees established under Sec. 5(f). Where 

such fees are charged on a per-person basis, the pass shall cover the 

passholder and up to three additional persons age 16 and over. 

78 

(2) IMAGE COMPETITION FOR NATIONAL PASS—The Secretaries may 

hold an annual competition to select the image to be used on the National 

Parks Plus Pass for a year. 

(3) DURATION—The National Parks Plus Pass shall be valid for a period of 

12 months from the date of the issuance of the recreation pass to a 

passholder, except in the case of the age and disability passes issued 

under subsection (b). 

(4) PRICE—The price of the National Parks Plus Pass shall be set at $60 per 

year. 

(5) PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—The Secretaries may adjust the price of the National Parks Plus Pass by publishing their intended adjustment 1 year in 

advance in the Federal Register and continuously for 1 year on the home 

page of their agency Web sites. Notification of an adjustment shall be 

made 1 year in advance to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. Adjustments 

may occur no more often than every 5 years. 

(6) SALES LOCATIONS AND MARKETING— 

(A) IN GENERAL—The Secretaries shall sell the National Parks Plus 

Pass at all Federal recreational lands and waters at which an entrance fee is charged, and at such other locations as the Secretaries 

consider appropriate and feasible. 

(B) USE OF VENDORS—The Secretaries may enter into agreements for 

sales of the National Parks Plus Pass by non-Federal entities. Sales 

by such entities shall be at the same price and according to the 

same guidelines as those by Federal agencies. The Secretaries shall 

account for any commission paid to non-Federal entities on pass 

sales as a direct cost of each agency’s fee program. 

(C) MARKETING—The Secretaries may take such actions as are appropriate to provide for the active marketing of the National Parks Plus 

Pass. 

(7) ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES—The Secretaries shall issue guidelines on administration of the National Parks Plus Pass, which shall include agreement on the distribution of revenues between the Federal land 

management agencies, the sharing of costs, benefits provided, marketing 

and design, adequate documentation for age and disability discounts 

under subsection (b), and the issuance of the recreation pass to volunteers. The Secretaries shall take into consideration all relevant visitor and 

sales data available in establishing the guidelines. 

(8) ACCEPTANCE BY CONCESSIONAIRES—The Secretaries shall require 

that private operators of recreation facilities on Federal recreational lands 

and waters accept the National Parks Plus Pass under the terms and conditions specified in this Section. For contracts in effect at the date of enactment of this Act, this requirement shall become effective with the next 

contract issuance or renewal following enactment. 

(9) MULTIAGENCY ADMISSION AND SPECIAL USE PASSES—The Secretaries may enter into revenue sharing agreements with other Federal or 

non-Federal Governmental agencies to accept their annual passes and 

convey the same privileges, terms and conditions as offered under the 

auspices of the National Parks Plus Pass, to those passes. 

(10) PROHIBITION ON OTHER NATIONAL RECREATION PASSES—The 

Secretary shall not establish any national recreation pass, except as provided in this Section. 

(b) Discount Passes— 

(1) AGE DISCOUNT—The Secretary shall make the National Parks Plus 

Pass available, at a cost of $10.00, to any U.S. citizen or person domiciled 

in the United States who is 62 years of age or older, if the citizen or person provides adequate proof of such age and such citizenship or residency. The National Parks Plus Pass made available under this 

subsection shall be valid for the lifetime of the passholder. 

(2) DISABILITY DISCOUNT—The Secretary shall make the National Parks 

Plus Pass available, without charge, to any U.S. citizen or person domiciled in the United States who has been medically determined to be 

permanently disabled for purposes of Section 7(20)(B)(i) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B)(i)), if the citizen or person proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
79 

vides adequate proof of the disability and such citizenship or residency. 

The National Parks Plus Pass made available under this subsection shall 

be valid for the lifetime of the passholder. 

(3) APPLICABILITY OF DISCOUNT PASSES— 

(A) IN GENERAL—In addition to covering entrance fees and visitor 

center fees, the passes issued under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 

provide for a discount on fees for camping in developed campgrounds. The discount shall apply to the passholder and all occupants of the same campsite. 

(B) RATE—The amount of the discount under subparagraph (A) shall be 

50 percent. 

(c) In order to provide more flexibility and lower-cost alternatives, the Secretary 

may establish site-specific and regional passes that provide the same benefits 

as the National Parks Plus Pass on Federal recreational lands and waters, 

but are limited to one or more particular sites or regions. 

(1) Site-Specific Agency Passes—The Secretary may establish and charge a 

fee for a site-specific pass for a specified period not to exceed 12 months. 

(2) Regional Passes— 

(A) PASSES AUTHORIZED—The Secretary may establish and charge a 

fee for a regional pass that will be accepted by more than one Federal land management unit or by both Federal and non-Federal entities in one or more regions for a specified period not to exceed 12 

months. To include a Federal land management agency or nonFederal entity over which the Secretary does not have jurisdiction, 

the Secretary shall obtain the consent of the head of such agency or 

entity. 

(B) REGIONAL PASS AGREEMENT—In order to establish a regional 

pass under this subsection, the Secretary shall enter into a regional 

pass agreement with all the participating agencies or entities on 

price, the distribution of revenues between participating agencies or 

entities, the sharing of costs, benefits provided, marketing and design, and the issuance of the pass to volunteers. The Secretary shall 

take into consideration all relevant visitor and sales data available 

when entering into this agreement. 

(e) Effect on Existing Passes and Permits— 

(1) EXISTING PASSES— 

(A) A pass issued under Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–6a), title VI of the National Parks 

Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–391; 16 U.S.C. 

5991–5995), such as the Golden Eagle Passport, the Golden Age 

Passport, the Golden Access Passport, and the National Parks Passport, that was valid on the day before the enactment of this Act 

shall be valid in accordance with the terms agreed to at the time of 

issuance of the passport and remain in effect until expired, lost, or 

stolen. 

(B) An ‘‘America the Beautiful—the National Parks and Federal 

Recreational Lands Pass’’ issued under Section 805 of the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6804), title VIII of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 16 

U.S.C. 6801–6814) that was valid on the day before the enactment 

of this Act shall be valid in accordance with the terms agreed to at 

the time of issuance and remain in effect until expired, lost, or 

stolen. 

(2) PERMITS—A permit issued under Section 4 of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965 that was valid on the day before the date 

of the enactment of this Act shall be valid and remain in effect until expired, revoked, or suspended. 

SEC. 10. RESERVATION SERVICE AGREEMENTS. 

(a) The Secretary may enter into an agreement, including a contract, with a governmental or nongovernmental entity for the purpose of obtaining visitor reservation services. The entity providing visitor reservation services may charge 

a reasonable fee for their services in accordance with such agreement or contract, and such fee shall not be considered a recreation fee under this Act. 

80 

(b) Of amounts due any Federal land management agency under a reservation 

service agreement or contract, not more than 15 percent may be used by the 

agency for administrative costs related to the contract or agreement. The remainder shall be distributed agency-wide for expenditure according to the 

purposes specified under Section 12(a). 

SEC. 11. SPECIAL ACCOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF FEES AND 

REVENUES. 

(a) Special Account—The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish a special account in the Treasury for each Federal land management agency. 

(b) Deposits—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), revenues collected by each 

Federal land management agency under this Act shall— 

(1) be deposited in its special account; and 

(2) remain available for expenditure, until expended. 

(c) Distribution of Entrance Fees, Recreation Facility Fees, Special Use Permit 

Fees, and Site-specific Agency Pass Revenues— 

(1) Retention and expenditure of revenues— 

(A) With regard to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service— 

(i) Not less than 80 percent of fees collected under this Act shall remain available for expenditure by the collecting unit, without 

further appropriation, until expended. 

(ii) Entrance fees shall be expended within the same unit where collected. 

(iii) Recreation facility fees and site-specific agency pass revenues 

shall be expended at the same type of site where collected and 

within the same unit where collected. 

(iv) Special use permit fees for use of specialized facilities under 

Section 6(a)(1), (2), and (3) shall be expended at the same facility where collected. 

(v) Special use permit fees for group gatherings, reservation of 

backcountry permits, recreational mining, Christmas tree harvesting, and commercial outfitting and guiding under Section 

6(a)(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) shall be expended on administration 

of those permits and management of those activities. 

(B) With regard to the National Park Service— 

(i) Not less than 80 percent of amounts collected under this Act at 

a specific unit shall remain available for use at the specific unit, except 

that for those units of the National Park System that participate in a 

multiagency revenue sharing agreement under Section 9(a)(9) of this 

Act, not less than 90 percent of amounts collected at a specific unit 

shall remain available for use at that unit. 

(ii) Monies payable to the Service as a result of multiagency pass 

revenue sharing agreements established pursuant to Section 9(a)(9) 

shall be distributed equally to all units of the National Park System 

in the specific States where the Park Service units that are parties to 

the revenue sharing agreement are located. 

(2) AGENCY-WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS—The balance of the recreation fees and site-specific agency pass revenues collected shall remain 

available to that Federal land management agency for expenditure on an agency-wide basis, without further appropriation, until expended. 

(d) Distribution of National Parks Plus Pass Revenues—Revenues collected from 

the sale of the National Parks Plus Pass shall be deposited in the special accounts established for the Federal land management agencies in accordance 

with the guidelines issued under Section 11 and shall be distributed according 

to the agreement established under Section 9(a)(7). 

(e) Distribution of Regional Pass Revenues—Revenues collected from the sale of 

a regional pass established under Section 9(c)(2) shall be deposited in each 

participating Federal land management agency’s special account and distributed in accordance with the terms of the regional pass agreement established 

under Section 9(c)(2)(B). 

81 

SEC. 12. EXPENDITURES. 

(a) ADMINISTRATION, CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS—The Secretaries 

may not spend more than 15 percent of total revenues collected annually 

under this Act for fee collection program direct, indirect, and administrative 

overhead. The cost of fee-collection materials, contracts with third parties for 

fee collection services, and sales commissions to third party vendors of passes 

and permits shall be considered direct costs of the fee program. 

(1) BACKLOGGED MAINTENANCE—Amounts available for expenditure 

shall first be used for repairs and maintenance of existing facilities directly related to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety. 

(2) At units where visitor facilities are in good repair and are open and 

available for visitor use and no backlogged maintenance needs exist, 

amounts available for expenditure may be used for— 

(A) Enhancement of visitor facilities; 

(B) Interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs; 

(C) Habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation 

that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography; 

(D) Natural resource or cultural resource preservation or management 

programs, except that fee revenue may not be used for biological 

monitoring on Federal recreational lands and waters under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 for listed or candidate species; 

(E) Law enforcement related to public use and recreation; 

(F) Retirement of possessory interest or leasehold surrender interest of 

concessionaires. 

SEC. 13. REPORTS. 

(a) ANNUAL REPORT—Not later than _____, and annually thereafter, the Secretaries shall submit to Congress a separate accounting of the preceding fiscal 

year for each Federal agency. These individual agency reports shall list, broken down by unit, the total fee receipts collected under this Act by type, all 

expenditures from these accounts, any new fees established, and any changes 

to existing fees for each agency during the preceding fiscal year. Each report 

shall also detail any unobligated funds remaining at these units at the end 

of the fiscal year, along with planned utilization of these funds during the 

next fiscal year. 

(b) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS—All reports required under this Act shall be 

submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

Senate and shall be available to the public on appropriate agency Web sites 

at the same time the reports are made available to the committees. 

SEC. 14. VOLUNTEERS. 

(a) Authority to Use Volunteers—The Secretary may use volunteers, as appropriate, to collect recreation fees and sell recreation passes. 

(b) Waiver or Discount of Fees; Site-Specific Agency Pass—In exchange for volunteer services, the Secretary may waive or discount an entrance fee or recreation facility fee that would otherwise apply to the volunteer or issue to the 

volunteer a site-specific agency pass authorized under Section 9(c)(1). 

(c) National Parks Plus Pass—In accordance with the guidelines established 

under Section 9(a)(7), the Secretaries shall issue a National Parks Plus Pass 

to a volunteer in exchange for 20 hours of approved volunteer services performed by the volunteer. 

(d) Regional Passes—Where a regional pass is available, the Secretary shall 

issue a regional pass in accordance with the guidelines established under 

Section 9(a)(7) to a volunteer in exchange for 10 hours of approved volunteer 

services performed by the volunteer, if the regional pass agreement under 

which the regional pass was established provides for the issuance of the pass 

to volunteers. 

SEC. 15. ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF RECEIPTS. 

(a) Enforcement Authority—The Secretary concerned shall enforce payment of 

the fees authorized by this Act. 

82 

(b) Evidence of Nonpayment—If the display of proof of payment of a required 

fee, or the payment of a fee within a certain time period is required, failure 

to display such proof as required or to pay the recreation fee within the time 

period specified shall constitute evidence of nonpayment. 

(c) Responsible Party for payment of fees.—When a per-person fee is charged, 

each individual over the age of 16 years old will be responsible for payment 

of his or her personal fee. When a per-vehicle fee is charged, the operator of 

the vehicle will be responsible for payment. 

(d) Limitation on Penalties.—No penalty or service charge will be imposed without the admission or finding of guilt. Failure to pay a fee established under 

this Act shall be punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $100 

notwithstanding Section 3571(b) of title 18, United States Code. 

SEC. 16. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED ADMISSION AND USE FEE 

AUTHORITIES. 

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, Public Law 108447, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 6801, et seq., is superseded in its entirety by this Act. In addition: 

(a) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act—Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), 

(g), (i), (j), (k), and (n), except (n)(5) of Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–6a et seq.) are repealed. 

(b) Recreational Fee Demonstration Program—Section 315 of the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in 

Section 101(c) of Public Law 104–134; 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a), is repealed. 

(c) Admission Permits for Refuge Units—Section 201 of the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3911) is repealed. 

(d) National Park Passport, Golden Eagle Passport, Golden Age Passport, and 

Golden Access Passport: 

(1) Section 502 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 

(Public Law 105–391; 16 U.S.C. 5982) is repealed. 

(2) Title VI of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Public 

Law 105–391; 16 U.S.C. 5991–5995) is repealed. 

(e) Treatment of Unobligated Funds— 

(1) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS— 

Amounts in the special accounts established under Section 4(i)(1) of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i)(1)) 

for Federal land management agencies that are unobligated on the date 

of the enactment of this Act shall be transferred to the appropriate special account established under Section 11 and shall be available to the 

Secretary in accordance with this Act. A special account established 

under Section 4(i)(1) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 for a Federal agency that is not a Federal land management area, 

and the use of such special account, is not affected by the repeal of 

Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 by subsection (a) of this Section. 

(2) NATIONAL PARKS PASSPORT—Any funds collected under title VI of 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105– 

391; 16 U.S.C. 5991–5995) that are unobligated on the day before the 

publication of the Federal Register notice required under Section 5(a)(3) 

shall be transferred to the special account of the National Park Service 

for use in accordance with this Act. The Secretary of the Interior may 

use amounts available in that special account to pay any outstanding administration, marketing, or close-out costs associated with the national 

parks passport. 

(3) RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM—Any funds collected in accordance with Section 315 of the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Section 

101(c) of Public Law 104–134; 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a), that are unobligated 

on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act shall be transferred to the appropriate special account and shall be available to the 

Secretary in accordance with this Act. 

(4) FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT—Any funds 

collected in accordance with Title VIII Section 805 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 16 U.S.C. 6801–6814) 

that are unobligated on the day before the enactment of this Act shall 

83 

be transferred to the appropriate special account and shall be available 

to the Secretary in accordance with this Act. 

(5) ADMISSION PERMITS FOR REFUGE UNITS—Any funds collected in 

accordance with Section 201 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3911) that are available as provided in subsection 

(c)(A) of such section and are unobligated on the day before the date of 

the enactment of this Act shall be transferred to the special account of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use in accordance with this Act. 

(f) Effect of Regulations—A regulation or policy issued under a provision of law 

repealed by this Section shall remain in effect to the extent such a regulation 

or policy is consistent with the provisions of this Act until the Secretary 

issues a regulation, guideline, or policy under this Act that supersedes the 

earlier regulation. 

SEC. 17. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS AND FEE COLLECTION 

AUTHORITIES. 

(a) Federal and State Laws Unaffected—Nothing in this Act shall authorize Federal hunting or fishing licenses or fees or charges for commercial or other activities not related to recreation, affect any rights or authority of the States 

with respect to fish and wildlife, or repeal or modify any provision of law that 

permits States or political subdivisions of States to share in the revenues 

from Federal lands or, except as provided in subsection (b), any provision of 

law that provides that any fees or charges collected at particular Federal 

areas be used for or credited to specific purposes or special funds as authorized by that provision of law. 

(b) Relation to Revenue Allocation Laws—Amounts collected under this Act, and 

the existence of a reservation service agreement with a governmental entity 

under Section 10 (a), may not be taken into account for the purposes of any 

of the following laws: 

(1) The sixth paragraph under the heading ‘FOREST SERVICE’ in the Act 

of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500). 

(2) Section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500; commonly known 

as the Weeks Act). 

(3) The fourteenth paragraph under the heading ‘FOREST SERVICE’ in the 

Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501). 

(4) Section 33 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1012). 

(5) Title II of the Act of August 8, 1937, and the Act of May 24, 1939 (43 

U.S.C. 1181f et seq.). 

(6) Section 6 of the Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869–4). 

(7) Chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code. 

(8) Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 715s; commonly 

known as the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act). 

(9) The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 

2000 (Public Law 106–393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), except that the exception 

made for such Act by this subsection is unique and is not intended to 

be construed as precedent for amounts collected from the use of Federal 

lands under any other provision of law. 

(10) Section 2 of the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (43 U.S.C. 

618a). 

(11) The Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 4601–12 et seq.). 

(12) The first section of the Act of June 17, 1902, as amended or supplemented (43 U.S.C. 391). 

(13) The Act of February 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.; commonly known 

as the Mineral Leasing Act). 

(14) Section 4(e) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–263; 31 U.S.C. 6901 note). 

(15) Section 5(a) of the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000 (Public Law 106– 

298; 114 Stat. 1047). 

(16) Any other provision of law relating to revenue allocation. 

(c) Consideration of Other Funds Collected—Amounts collected under any other 

law may not be disbursed under this Act. 

(d) Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act—Revenues from the stamp established 

under the Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718 et seq.; commonly known as 

the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act or Duck Stamp Act), shall not be covered by this Act. 

84 

(e) Sole Recreation Fee Authority—Recreation fees charged under this Act shall 

be in lieu of fees charged for the same purposes under any other provision 

of law. 

(f) Fees Charged by Third Parties—A third party providing recreation management services on Federal lands and waters under a permit, contract or agreement may not charge any fee that is not in accordance with this Act. 

(g) Non-compliant fees—Any fee in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 

that is not in compliance with this Act shall be eliminated no later than 180 

days after enactment. 

SEC. 18. LIMITATION ON USE OF FEES FOR EMPLOYEE BONUSES. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees collected under the authorities 

of this Act may not be used for employee bonuses. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate all your testimonies. We 

will now turn to questions. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Benzar, because I took your subtle hint at the end—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Could—describe that reaction to the decision. 

Then I will ask Mr. Crandall the same question, because one of— 

it involves concessionaires and the potentials, as she is going to 

outline. OK. 

Ms. BENZAR. Yes. I hope Members of Congress know that the 

Forest Service has now placed under private management, in the 

form of concessionaire permits, 80 percent of their most highly developed camping sites, and a growing and large—I think undocumented—number of day use sites. They have claimed, since FLREA 

was enacted, that it does not apply to fees that are charged at 

those sites. So, at those sites people are charged fees for things 

FLREA prohibits, such as just going for a walk through the woods, 

general access to a lakeshore—Walton Lake was the example Mr. 

DeFazio used. Concessionaires are charging fees that the agency 

admits they would not be able to charge themselves. They have 

claimed that, under FLREA, it was congressional intent that they 

be allowed to do that. 

The case finally did come to litigation at the end of 2012, and 

that litigation was finalized on Friday with a decision out of the 

D.C. Circuit Court that found in the Forest Service’s favor, and 

read into the law a congressional intent that concessionaires not be 

subject to it. 

If that is what Congress intended to be in the law, then you got 

what you wanted. But if that is not what Congress intended, then 

it is important to make a legislative fix to that. Because, at this 

point, you have lost all control over those lands that are in concession permit. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Crandall. 

Mr. CRANDALL. Mr. Grijalva, I am not prepared to respond to the 

court decision, but I would say that the concessionaires in national 

parks and national forests are very interested in serving the visitor 

needs. We are not interested in leveeing charges for things that the 

public does not want. I think, as Deputy Chief Weldon mentioned 

today, she has no intent, and the Forest Service has no intent, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
85 

stitutionally, to use concessionaires as a mechanism to collect fees 

that are outside the scope of FLREA. 

So, I think there is a solution here, but—there is no willing 

agreement on the part of businesses operating in national parks to 

act as an agent for illegal collection of fees by the Forest Service 

or BLM. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That supplant the function of Forest Service 

personnel. 

Mr. CRANDALL. No, that is certainly not our intent. There are 

complexities. The 80 percent of the developed campsites that are 

now managed by concessionaires, I think we have a good system. 

Just like with skiing on national forests, which is provided by the 

private sector, we are meeting the needs of campers in national forests that could not be met with the Forest Service resources. 

But I would say that there are complexities, in terms of honoring 

of senior passes, the 50 percent discount, and others, and we will 

look forward to discussing with you how we could perhaps achieve 

both a recognition of certain privileged classes of visitors to national forests, whether they are veterans, or disabled, or something 

else, and do it in a way that makes sense for the businesses operating in the national forests. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Pemmerl. Did I say it—OK. I appreciate your testimony, because I think that what you talked 

about is an inevitability, in terms of how we serve the public in our 

forests and public lands. What—when you talked about alternative 

contracts and alternative contracting models that would support 

new technologies for rec programs and for the things that you described in your testimony, what kind of alternative contract do you 

mean? 

Ms. PEMMERL. One example, Congressman, is the self-funded 

model, which NIC frequently uses to deliver e-government services. 

In that model, NIC assumes the cost to build and maintain the 

services, and we are then paid by a small fee that is associated 

with some of the online applications that we provide. 

The model works so well because, obviously, the contractor is 

very motivated to provide services quickly that are easy to use at 

a very reasonable cost. Of course, this makes great strides in controlling the cost for IT systems at agencies. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Any—if I may follow up, have you run any—do 

you have any information as to—that can estimate how much 

money would be saved by the Federal Government in the event 

that you implemented that no-cost model for rec programs? 

Ms. PEMMERL. Thank you, Congressman. I don’t have exact figures. But one example would be the Fish and Wildlife Service $7 

million request in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget. I imagine there are 

opportunities there to work with Fish and Wildlife Service and 

other agencies to consider areas where the model could apply. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. I think I am almost done. 

No, I am almost done. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am done. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let me ask a few questions, too, to some 

of you, as well. 

86 

Mr. Terrell, in your testimony you indicated that your organization supports reauthorization of FLREA, provided there is increased documentation of what is collected and how it is spent. Can 

you just explain what you would like to see in future documentation? 

Mr. TERRELL. I think what we are looking for there would be so 

that it would be easier for the public in general, the general public, 

the person that is coming to a particular location in the national 

forest or on BLM land, to see exactly what had been collected, and 

where it had been spent, so that they had an appreciation of the 

fact that the money that they were paying to use that facility was 

being used to either maintain and/or improve that facility. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you see a standard that would have to be put 

so that—that would have to be met so that information could be 

there? 

Mr. TERRELL. I think that there should be a requirement that 

that would be available at the—when I say the local level, I am 

speaking of either at the ranger district level—and I am speaking 

of Forest Service now—or certainly the forest level. Then it could 

also be consolidated on a regional level and a national level. But 

it really needs to get down to the local level, so that it establishes 

the trust of the public that is paying that fee, that they are really 

getting something for what they paid for. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Crandall, 

what advantages or benefits would there be for adding the Army 

Corps? 

Mr. CRANDALL. There are a number. First, the Army Corps cannot now sell the America the Beautiful Pass. They cannot honor 

the America the Beautiful Pass. We find issues where, for example, 

people now arrive at a site and expect to be able to use a fee site 

on the Army Corps, and are told that they cannot do that. 

The Army Corps also exists under essentially the same authority 

that the agencies had pre-fee demo. In other words, any fee collection at campsites cannot be retained by the U.S. Army Corps and 

used to collect trash and clean toilets and serve the visitors in 

those campgrounds. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I thank you. In your testimony you also 

advocated for changes to the discount for seniors. How does that 

discount compare to other discounts that are provided by other 

State park systems or private industry? How would seniors react 

to paying more? 

May I just ask the general question of how would your concessionaires be able to handle the passes that you don’t—that they 

would have given by the other agencies that are not necessarily 

right now recognized by your group, by concessionaires? 

Mr. CRANDALL. Certainly, there are some differences, agency by 

agency, in terms of just requirements to honor passes. I would say 

that, for example, as you go into a national park—and if you are 

reserving a lodging facility at a hotel or a lodge, there is no discount offered to the senior citizens. Similarly, if you go to a national forest and you ski at Vail or Aspen or Mammoth or any of 

the major ski areas, you are not given a discount because you have 

a senior pass, America the Beautiful, or Golden Eagle, or anything 

like that. 

87 

The only application, pretty much, is in campgrounds, where 

there is an operation by a private-sector concessionaire in the national forest, in the national parks. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I appreciate that. Ms. Benzar, if I could 

ask you one—you have been a critic of the RAC process. How 

should the agencies notify and engage public on fees, revenues, how 

they are spent, how they are collected? 

Ms. BENZAR. I think the first and most important thing is to 

make the law as explicit as possible, so that there is no need for 

citizens to advise the agencies on how to follow it. It should be 

crystal clear, what it requires, and no question in their minds as 

to how to follow it. 

But second, as far as bringing the public into the process, I 

struggle with that because it is true that a large part of the public 

is not engaged in the notice and comment process, and probably 

never will be. But I think that you can go as far as possible on that 

by giving ample, robust notification, with plenty of time in advance 

of a new fee, or of a fee increase. I think the law is requiring local 

notification, but in many cases the audience for a particular recreation site isn’t local. They travel from their home to that recreation 

site. 

So, for instance, in California, what is a local newspaper—if you 

are going to raise a fee on the Angeles National Forest, there is no 

local—if you put it only in the LA Times, people come there from 

San Francisco. So lots of notification and plenty of time for people, 

if they don’t like what is being proposed, to contact their elected 

officials. Then we would look to you, Members of Congress, to be 

responsive to your constituents, and to take action based on whatever concerns you hear. 

Mr. BISHOP. So would you have a structured time limit, or a 

structured process? 

Ms. BENZAR. Yes. I think that is essential. In my draft alternative language I suggested a year, with plenty of notification on 

Web sites and plenty of media. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Ms. Pemmerl, I would—actually have a 

couple of final questions for you, if possible. 

I—first of all, I hate technology, I admit that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. So, whatever you do, if you can equate it to a legal 

pad, I will be happy. 

Ms. PEMMERL. Understood. 

Mr. BISHOP. But we have a lot of these areas in which people are 

going, they are very remote, with limited Internet, limited cell 

phone activity. How are you able to develop solutions to overcome 

these types of challenges? 

Ms. PEMMERL. Thank you, Chairman. That is not an unusual 

challenge to face in the State park environment, as you can imagine. So, frequently, when we are looking at implementing egovernment services, we are considering kiosk options where 

available, to ensure that an individual has the opportunity for selfservice at a location. 

Similarly, ensuring that services can be used in an offline mode, 

and that information can be uploaded when a park ranger, for example, is back to a home office, or has connectivity. 

88 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. That is fair enough. There is one thing. If you 

could, tell me how your company would have any solutions for—for 

example, you know, we have been giving paper passes to people for 

over 40 years. These passes provide free entrance to the Federal 

lands. The problem is there are no records of how many of these 

have been given out, how many are still around in circulation. It 

presents a problem in developing solutions. Does your company 

have a solution for how the agencies can solve that problem? 

Ms. PEMMERL. Sure. Chairman, of course it would depend on the 

specific requirements. There are multiple examples of systems we 

have deployed at the State level that have tackled similar challenges, and I would be happy to provide some information for the 

record on those systems. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I appreciate that. Are you sure you are 

done? You are done? All right. 

Look, I appreciate all of you, especially your patience in the inconvenience of sitting here while we broke for vote. That used to 

be commonplace around here, and we have tried to do away with 

that. But obviously, on get-away days, when we have a hearing at 

the same time there is Floor debate, that sometimes happens. So 

I apologize for making you wait in that dead space that was there. 

I do want to thank you, especially those of you who have come 

at great distances, for being here, for giving your testimony. There 

may be some additional questions that any member of the committee, present or not, may have for you, which we will send to you 

in writing, and we would ask that you respond to us in a quick 

time for those written questions. 

If there is nothing else, with great appreciation one more time, 

this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARILY REESE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FOREST

RECREATION ASSOCIATION, WOODLAKE, CA 

Chairman Bishop and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Board of 

Directors of the National Forest Recreation Association, I want to express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide information pertaining to changes for the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). I am Marily Reese, Executive 

Director of the National Forest Recreation Association. 

THE NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION ASSOCIATION

The National Forest Recreation Association (NFRA) was formed in 1948, and represents recreation businesses located on or near Federal lands throughout the 

United States. Our members hold authorizations, permits or contracts for providing 

services and facilities directly on Federal lands. A partial list of authorizing agencies includes the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation. Our members also 

operate facilities under contracts with State and local agencies, public utility companies, and conservation districts. NFRA members are vital ‘recreation service 

partners’ of the Federal land management agencies in providing recreational opportunities to the public. NFRA members have a wealth of experience providing front 

line service to the public, along with maintaining safe and desirable facilities. Members have served generations of national and international users, and continue to 

provide lifelong memories to visitors each year. NFRA members work directly with 

the governing agencies and strive to maintain cooperative and communicative relationships. 

89 

NFRA members include: 

• Campground concessionaires operating Federal campgrounds, picnic areas, 

boat launches, swimming areas, and cabins under jurisdiction of the USDA 

Forest Service, National Park Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

• Resorts, Pack Stations and Marinas operating on national forests, national 

parks and BLM lands nationwide offering a wide range of facilities and services to the general public. Examples include: lodging, guided horseback trips, 

historical and interpretive programs, boat rentals, boat slip rentals, tour boat 

rides, stores, cafes, shuttle services, guided snowmobile trips, winter snow 

play areas, and many others. 

• Organized youth and family camps. 

NFRA members are integrally involved in their communities, and contribute significantly to local economies and the tourism industry. They also participate in numerous programs for natural resource education and conservation programs across 

the country. 

FLREA—KEY ISSUES

NFRA is keenly aware of the need for the funds that are generated under FLREA. 

The Federal agencies authorized to collect these funds have come to depend on this 

stream of revenue to make beneficial improvements, and NFRA supports this concept. With the current legislation set to expire, this is the time to make changes 

to improve the program, and to correct deficiencies. 

Forest Service Campground Concession Program and FLREA 

Program Overview: 

The campground concession program was initiated by the Forest Service in the 

early 1980s in response to declining recreation budgets to operate and maintain 

their campgrounds. From its inception, the program has authorized the private sector to operate Federal facilities under the Granger-Thye Act. All of the activities to 

be authorized are clearly identified in a prospectus (bid offering), and interested 

companies submit their proposals, including fees to be charged to the public, based 

on the criteria stated in the offering. The company awarded the bid must submit 

an Annual Operating Plan for approval. All fees to be charged are carefully reviewed and approved by the local forest each year. 

Government-owned improvements in the program include facilities with clearly 

identifiable facilities and improvements such as campgrounds, picnic areas, boat 

launch ramps, cabins and other recreation sites. Concessionaires are responsible for 

all of the operating costs, and in exchange they pay a percentage of their gross income as a fee to the government. NFRA members have a credible record of providing facilities and services where there is a well-defined value for the price, with 

both visible and tangible assets. The public is accustomed to and willing to pay the 

fees because they appreciate the improvements. They directly benefit from the facilities and the personnel providing the services. 

Nearly all of the fees paid by concessionaires go directly back into improvements 

at the sites through a ‘fee off-set program.’ This program has invested literally millions of dollars over the past 30 years, and has included investments in the infrastructure of water systems, sewer systems, restrooms, showers, picnic tables, fire 

rings, paving, signing, fish cleaning stations, RV dump sites, bear-proof garbage and 

recycling containers and more. It is through the concession program that many 

campgrounds have been improved, without which, there would be hundreds of campgrounds in disrepair and/or closed. 

This cottage industry generates millions of dollars in revenue to the government 

and employs thousands of people each year. Concessionaires utilize the services and 

products of local vendors and other business service professionals across the country—making a much needed contribution to rural economies. Many Federal and 

State recreation areas are facing campground closures due to rapidly rising costs. 

Even in the sites staying open, most recreation agencies face deferred maintenance 

bills in the millions—or even billions of dollars. The Forest Service has avoided both 

of these recurring problems through its concession program. The lower cost capabilities of private concessionaires keep the campgrounds and day use areas open and 

the fees reasonable. The fee-offset program ensures funding is specifically directed 

back to those sites and that major maintenance and improvements are completed 

annually. 

All aspects of the concession operation of Federal recreation sites should continue 

to be authorized under the Granger-Thye Act. In addition to the campground proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
90 

gram, the Forest Service has a ski area and resorts that are also operated by the 

private sector under the Granger-Thye Act. Concessionaires provide a high level of 

customer service and compliance with all associated laws and regulations. The private sector is able to provide greater field presence as they are not subject to hiring 

limitations, freezes, or other complications that exist in the Federal agencies. The 

concession program helps avoid the problem of escalating deferred maintenance, as 

seen in other agencies. 

FLREA, as it exists today, has a provision stating that ‘‘Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this chapter, a third party may charge a fee for providing a good or service to a visitor of a unit or area of the Federal land 

management agencies in accordance with any other applicable law or regulation.’’ Thus, the fees concessionaires charge in the Federal campgrounds are exempt from the provisions required by FLREA because they are governed under the 

Granger-Thye Act. This provision is critical to the continued success of the 

concession program, and it must be included in new legislation. Concessionaires cannot wait up to 5 years that it takes some Recreation Advisory Committees (RACs) to approve their fees. The concessionaires have to provide detailed requests, including market surveys, to ensure their fees are commensurate with other 

similar facilities and it is imperative they be reviewed in a timely manner. Some 

fee increases are due to laws imposed by States and counties, including minimum 

wage rates, water system requirements and other mandated costs. Concessionaires 

must be exempt from FLREA to retain the flexibility to respond to these mandates 

in a timely manner. 

Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed 

that the fees charged by concessionaires under the Granger-Thye Act are legal. Contrary to misinformed claims from other groups that concessionaires ‘‘can require everyone to pay a fee for doing anything, anywhere’’ and that the Court’s ruling ‘‘gives 

the agency an easy end—run around laws designed to protect visitors from fees’’— 

is the track record of the past 30 years. Nothing has changed in the authorities and 

management oversight of the concession program, and to date—the private sector 

is only allowed to charge fees at sites where there are facilities and/or services provided. The program has not made an ‘end-run’ around fees to date, and there is no 

expectation that will change. 

Unintended Impacts: 

FLREA, and its program of discount passes, has not addressed the fact that most 

of the Forest Service sites are concessionaire-operated. The issue for concessionaires 

is being required to provide discounted camping or free day use without a fair method of compensation for the loss of revenue. The ‘America the Beautiful’ pass program has grown and expanded since FLREA was enacted, and there are additional 

passes proposed in the legislation. Although some of the passes state that they may 

not apply to concession operated facilities, the wording is in small print, and the 

public is not aware of the differences between Federal operations and concession operations. This has been the source of continual conflict throughout the program and 

has increased with each new pass that is added to the program. 

Pursuant to the Service Contract Act (SCA), the government cannot require concessionaires to provide free use. Requiring concessionaires to provide services for 

free, or at a discounted rate to certain groups without compensation, is a government benefits program and conflicts with the SCA. Thus, there needs to be a method of compensation for concessionaires who are required to provide services at a 

discounted price. This would enable the public to use facilities that are managed either by concessionaires—or by the agencies—in a seamless manner. Their passes 

would be good for sites that meet the criteria for a discount. Compensation to the 

concessionaires could be a fee-credit, or a payment based on the actual number of 

passes used. When concessionaires are not reimbursed for accepting the passes, the 

cost of this acceptance is passed on to other non-pass holding users. Other uses are 

subsidizing the discounted use. 

NFRA concessionaires were assured by numerous officials since the passage of 

FLREA that the problems with the pass discounts would be ‘fixed.’ (See attached 

letter to Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey dated January 10, 2007). There 

is now an opportunity with new legislation to make critical adjustments. 

• When Federal agencies issue passes that provide discounts in concession operated sites, the agencies need to compensate the concessionaires who are bearing the costs of operating the facility and providing the services to the public. 

Establishing a method of reimbursement, such as a fee-credit, would be the 

most direct and equitable means for covering the cost of the discount. With 

the government collecting the money for the passes, funds should be available 

91 

to reimburse concessionaires for providing the services to pass holders, or a 

system for a fee credit should be authorized. 

• The agencies should be prevented from removing concession operated sites 

from the program which the government then operates themselves to retain 

the fees. This results in a breakdown of the economic viability of concession 

operations, and puts the sites at risk when there are government shut-downs, 

reductions in hiring and other factors that affect operations. This provision 

had been specified in the Conference Language for FLREA, but is no longer 

adhered to by the Forest Service. 

• The agencies should not be in competition with the private sector. Services 

such as outfitting and guiding are more successfully provided by private companies and they help to stimulate local and regional economies. Hiring thousands of employees, purchasing goods and services, paying local—State—and 

Federal taxes are significant contributors to the recreation and tourism economy which is critical in many areas. 

Legislative Alternatives 

In response to the issues outlined above—NFRA suggests the following changes 

to future legislation regarding user fees: 

• Fees concessionaires charge in the Federal campgrounds must be exempt 

from the provisions required by FLREA. They are governed under the 

Granger-Thye Act. 

• Provide for compensation when concessionaires are required to honor any discount passes for overnight camping or day use. This includes all passes that 

are in the program initially, and those added in subsequent years. Compensation could come from the fees the government collects in the sale of the 

passes, or through a fee credit. This would also apply to regional and forestspecific passes. 

• Consider the expansion of fee retention for other recreation special use permit 

fees. Presently, only outfitter and guide fees are retained by the agency. 

Other special use permit fees for uses such as ski areas, resorts, marinas, 

youth camps, and organization camps could be retained. The fees generated 

from these special use permits need to be specifically directed to cover costs 

associated with permit issuance, including all environmental reviews and 

analysis costs. Any and all costs for studies, assessments, and other process 

procedures—beyond what are retained from the permit fees—should be covered by the agency. 

• The agencies need to retain full authority to approve fees of the concessionaires and permittees without being subject to ‘advisory groups.’ The complexity of establishing fees includes factors that can change suddenly and 

with which the private sector must comply. 

Cost Recovery: Section 807(b) 

Permits Issued to Businesses Operating on Public Lands: 

Under the current system of Cost Recovery, the Forest Service is reticent to use 

authorities available to renew, amend, and/or reissue recreation special use permits 

in a cost effective manner. The result is they undertake an extensive, costly, and 

time consuming NEPA process for simple changes to facilities, services, and permit 

renewals. 

Currently, Cost Recovery is an open checkbook as there are no limits on the fees 

to be charged; no schedule of fees that are required for a specific service; no accountability of how the fees are used; and no limit on the number of employees—or the 

amount of hours that can be charged to the project. Agencies are using Cost Recovery as a means to supplement what they perceive as lack of appropriated dollars, 

and it becomes a source to finance their under-funded personnel. Excessive agency 

costs and inefficiencies mean that cost recovery can exceed the value or potential 

gain possible given the term and specifications of a permit, effectively negating a 

business from operation. NEPA costs can easily outpace the gross income of the 

business. 

Requiring business owners to bear the cost of the complexity of NEPA documents 

is an impractical method of funding agency responsibilities. Cost recovery has become a major barrier to improvements to better serve the public—resulting in greater risks, reduced service, and decay of private investment on public land. This 

affects quality recreation service to the public as well as inhibiting job opportunities. 

The complexity and onerous regulatory environment created by management plans 

92 

and laws (e.g., Endangered Species Act) adds to burden of permit reissuance or renewal. These burdens become subject to NEPA and cost recovery. 

There is currently no accountability with Cost Recovery dollars. As currently proposed Cost Recovery applies broadly to programmatic issues, while permittees are 

the only source of financial recovery. 

Solutions 

• Make the use of Categorical Exclusions a statutory authority. • Utilize fee retention to cover the costs of any NEPA documentation needed 

for processing special use permits. • Design incentives for the timely completion of NEPA work, and for assurances of uninterrupted operations for the service provider. • Consider waivers for businesses with revenue less than $1 million. • Allow competitive services. Many environmental firms provide the same 

services and should be allowed to compete when environmental analysis is required. Authorize and require agencies to accept environmental review documents if the agencies cannot provide specific timelines and exact costs in 

advance. • Allow the first 50 hours of NEPA documentation at no cost to permittee. • Cost Recovery needs to be very specific and limited in scope. Any studies or 

environmental reviews that benefit anyone directly or indirectly other than 

the permittee should not be subject to cost recovery from the permittee. It is 

the agency’s responsibility to perform that work. 

Summary 

Because we are an association of businesses who are directly affected and 

impacted by this legislation, we would like to provide testimony at your next committee hearing. 

We are in general support fee legislation as a means of bringing additional funds 

to the agencies’ recreation programs. The changes we are recommending will serve 

to provide greater clarity and consistency to the public, and provide for an equitable 

and sound business environment for the companies operating Federal sites. 

Thank you very much. 

Attachment: January 10, 2007 Letter 

ATTACHMENT

NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION ASSOCIATION, 

WOODLAKE, CA, 

JANUARY 10, 2007. 

Mr. MARK REY

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, 

United Stales Department of Agriculture, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 217E 

Washington, DC 20250. 

DEAR MARK: 

This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation on December 21. 2006 regarding the new ‘‘America the Beautiful—National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands 

Pass’’ and its applicability to concession operated sites. I raised the concern that the 

press releases and information being distributed for the new passes did not clearly 

articulate whether the passes were valid at concession operated sites. I indicated 

this could be a potential problem when pass holders were expecting free access to 

concession operated sites having a standard amenity fee. You commented that the 

passes would not affect the concessionaires, and that you would have a recreation 

specialist contact me with further information. Later in the day, I was contacted by 

Martha Ketelle from the Washington Office of the Forest Service and we discussed 

the issue. 

I appreciate your attention to this matter, and for Martha’s prompt call. However, 

it is still not clear to me what the policy is on concession operated sites, and I am 

greatly concerned that the information is not being relayed to the public as to the 

distinction between agency operated and concession operated facilities. I have been 

contacted by several of our campground concession companies, and they are quite 

concerned as to how they are supposed to accommodate people who present the 

93 

passes and are expecting free access. In one case, a concessionaire was told by 

Forest Service personnel that he had to honor the passes. This would be a considerable change of economic factors if our concessionaires had to allow free use at sites 

with the standard amenity fees that they are currently managing. It would also pose 

serious issues with the Service Contract Act situation that has been an on-going 

issue with the Department of Labor. 

I have gone on-line and read the descriptions for each of the new passes. I have 

also searched through the ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions’’ and I do not see any distinct clarification that the passes do not apply to sites operated by concessionaires. 

There is a statement for the Senior Pass and the Access Pass that says, ‘The pass 

is non-transferable and generally does NOT cover or reduce special recreation permit fees or fees charged by concessionaires.’ The way this is phrased, saying the 

pass ‘generally does not cover . . . ’ leaves the door open for interpretation to be handled differently from site to site. In addition, the information is not provided at all 

for the Annual Pass. For your convenience, I have enclosed recent press releases, 

as well as information from the web to illustrate missing information regarding the 

passes’ validity at concession operated sites. 

Obviously, this issue is of great concern to many of our members, as they do not 

want any negative interactions with the visitors who come to their sites. Customer 

Service is an important aspect of concessionaire managed sites, and it is something 

that is highly stressed throughout the industry, as well as being an important element in Annual Operating Plans and in new prospectus offerings. It would be our 

preference to have the information that is distributed with each of the new passes 

very clearly articulate where the passes can be used. Currently, we believe it is not 

up front and clear to the public. We also believe it is not clear to Forest Service 

line officers and permit administrators as to how the permits are to be handled at 

concession operated sites. 

Mark, we are most willing to meet with you and any of the Forest Service or other 

agency staff who are involved with the implementation of the new passes. I’m sure 

the earlier we can discuss this, and make necessary adjustments, the better it will 

be for all in the coming recreation season. I or members of our Board of Directors 

arc ready and willing to come to Washington, DC if needed, or are available by teleconference at your convenience. 

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter and I look forward to 

talking with you soon. 

Sincerely, 

MARILY REESE, 

Executive Director. 

AMERICAN ALPINE CLUB NORTHWEST REGION, 

AMERICAN WHITEWATER, 

EVERGREEN MOUNTAIN BIKE ALLIANCE, 

MOUNTAINS TO SOUND GREENWAY TRUST, 

THE MOUNTAINEERS, 

WASHINGTON TRAILS ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON WILD. 

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: 

We are writing regarding the subcommittee hearing scheduled for April 4, 2014. 

We respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing record. 

The undersigned organizations strongly support reauthorization of the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (‘‘FLREA’’). We appreciate the work of the subcommittee to consider revisions to the current FLREA law (16 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., 

118 Stat. 3377 (Dec. 8, 2004)). 

Our organizations represent a broad range of human-powered outdoor recreation 

enthusiasts in Washington State and come together as a coalition on recreation and 

conservation issues. Collectively, we represent over 35,000 members in Washington 

94 

and contribute more than 165,000 hours of volunteer work annually to public lands 

across the region. Our members purchase and benefit from the Northwest Forest 

Pass, and we have a very strong stake in the future of the program, which is 

authorized under FLREA. 

User fees were authorized as a demonstration program through the appropriations process in 1997. FLREA created a Federal framework for user fees in 2005, 

instituting the standard and expanded amenity fee approaches. In 2012 alone, 

FLREA revenues to Region 6 National Forests totaled $8.8 million, which the Forest 

Service used to maintain sites across Oregon and Washington. By working with volunteer trail maintenance organizations, Region 6 is able to leverage those funds 

many times over. 

FLREA provides an important source of funds for Federal land managers due to 

continual declines in agency funding. Agencies are dependent on FLREA revenue to 

offset the costs of maintenance on Federal lands because of steep reductions in 

agency funding over the past few decades. We strongly urge Congress to increase 

agency funding to 2010 levels. Although full funding levels are likely much higher, 

a return to the funding levels of FY2010 would be a reasonable intermediate step 

toward adequately funding the agencies. Even if funding is returned to 2010 levels, 

FLREA will continue to be a critical funding mechanism for agency operations. 

The following are our comments on specific sections in the FLREA Discussion 

Draft. We hope our recommended improvements provide clarity to ensure that fees 

are used to enhance recreation opportunities on America’s public lands. 

SECTION 804. DAY-USE FEES

As written in Section 804(a)(2), user fees would only be applicable on recreation 

sites that feature ‘‘regularly serviced and well maintained toilet facilities and contains at least three of the following amenities: (a) trash collection, (b) permanent 

interpretive materials, (c) picnic tables and (d) routine presence of agency law enforcement.’’ 

We appreciate that Sec. 804(a)(2) allows more flexibility to agencies in deciding 

which amenities are appropriate for recreational facilities. Under current law many 

recreational facilities that would benefit from user fees are inappropriate locations 

for some of the six required amenities. For example, much of United States Forest 

Service Region six is black bear country. Generally speaking, unattended garbage 

cans are nuisances at best, and dangerous incentives for problem bears at worst. 

Under the discussion draft, the agency has the flexibility to decide which of the 

three out of the four amenities makes the most sense based on the recreational facility use and location. 

SECTION 807. SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT FEES

The inclusion of backcountry travel, river running, and bicycling in Section 807(a) 

inappropriately links these activities with those that are otherwise high-impact or 

consumptive when applying a fee. We recognize any use may rise to a level that 

becomes unsustainable on the landscape, and that, in those situations a fee may be 

necessary to recover the costs of managing the activity and mitigating the impacts. 

However, the determination must be made through the land management planning 

process and must be made based on the effect of the activity, not the activity itself. 

Our recommendation: 

We request that the subcommittee remove Subsections (a)(7), (a)(8), and (a)(9) and 

create a new section addressing areas where high demand exceeds the carrying capacity of the land. This section should apply where an agency has determined, 

through the land management planning process, that impacts to an area necessitate 

permitting to manage use to sustainable levels. In such a situation, agencies should 

be able to recover only the costs of mitigating the impacts of high use in that area 

and administering the permitting process through user fees. 

In addition, as proposed, we are concerned by the cost recovery language of 

Section 807(b). As it is currently worded, authorizing the agencies to recover costs 

‘‘associated with the activities authorized under 807(a)’’ would shift virtually limitless costs to special recreation permit holders. 

Our recommendation: 

For low impact recreation users and the organizations facilitating these activities, 

fees in Section 807(b) should be limited to the costs of administering the program 

that can be reasonably attributed to the user impact. 

95 

1 BARK, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, et al., 1:12–cv–01505–RC D.D.C. March 28, 2014). 

SECTION 812. EXPENDITURES

We appreciate that the discussion draft recognizes the enhancement of recreation 

opportunities, such as trail maintenance, as a valid fee revenue use (Sec. 812 (a)(1)). 

While it’s obvious that amenities must be maintained and repaired to comply with 

FLREA, it is equally important to recognize that the majority of people purchasing 

day-use fee (Sec. 804) passes are doing so to engage in the local recreational opportunity (ex. hiking, biking trails) afforded by the recreation facility. We believe that 

revenue generated by FLREA should be prioritized for the enhancement and maintenance of those recreational opportunities in addition to the maintenance and repair of the five amenities listed in Sec. 804. 

Our recommendation: 

Prioritize the enhancement of recreation opportunities (Sec. 812 (a)(1)) for the use 

of fee revenue. 

Regarding overhead, the discussion draft limits overhead and administrative costs 

to 5 percent of total revenues. However, it then authorizes the use of up to 20 percent of total revenue for ‘‘direct fee collection costs.’’ When combined, this means 

that 25 percent of total revenue can be used for the costs of administering the fee 

collection system. This is a significant increase over the 15 percent authorized under 

existing law. The law should be written to encourage agencies to keep administrative costs down and devote as much of the revenue as possible to maintenance and 

improvement of recreation facilities and trails. 

Our recommendation: 

We urge the committee to preserve the 15 percent limit. 

CONCESSIONAIRE FEE AUTHORIZATION

We support FLREA in allowing the authorization of Federal land managers to collect and retain fees to areas that have significant operational costs and provide significant services to users. We are concerned by the March 28th, 2014 U.S. District 

Court decision 1 (District of Columbia) which found that concessionaires of land 

management agencies are not held to the same FLREA standards as land management agencies. The court’s decision allows concessionaires to continue charging fees 

for more than the direct use of services and amenities that they provide. We are 

concerned that this decision will give private businesses the ability to charge for access to public lands in ways that land agencies cannot under FLREA, and therefore 

negatively impact public access. 

Our recommendation: 

Concessionaires should be subject to the same fee restrictions as land management agencies are mandated by FLREA. 

SITE-SPECIFIC AGENCY PASSES

We support the inclusion through section 809(h) Site-Specific Agency Passes of the 

opportunity for 12 month passes rather than only day-use, but are concerned that 

as written this section is vague and could be interpreted to allow the development 

of passes for locations where they would not otherwise be required. 

Our recommendation: 

Clarify that the section can only be applied when the site meets the requirements 

of Section 804 Day-Use Fees or Section 805 Entrance Fees. 

The recommended changes listed above will make FLREA more flexible and responsive to the needs of the public and land management agencies, will ensure that 

the program addresses the overwhelming need for maintenance of trails and other 

recreation facilities on our public lands, and will provide opportunities for the public 

to engage on the management of the public lands they enjoy. 

96 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the reauthorization of 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Sincerely, 

KAREN DAUBERT, 

Executive Director, 

Washington Trails Association. 

THOMAS O’KEEFE, 

Pacific NW Stewardship Director, 

American Whitewater. 

MARTINIQUE GRIGG, 

Executive Director, 

The Mountaineers. 

GLENN GLOVER, 

Executive Director, 

Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. 

TOM UNIACK, 

Conservation Director, 

Washington Wild. 

EDDIE ESPINOSA, 

Regional Manager—PNW, 

American Alpine Club Northwest Region. 

CYNTHIA WELTI, 

Executive Director, 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust. 

AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY, 

SILVER SPRING, MD, 

APRIL 17, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: 

I am writing regarding the subcommittee hearing that took place on April 4, 2014, 

regarding the amendment of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

(FLREA). I request that this communications be included as a part of the hearing 

record. 

American Hiking Society strongly supports the reauthorization of the FLREA and 

appreciates the work of the subcommittee to consider amendments to the current 

law, enacted in 2004. On behalf of our members and the 43 million Americans who 

hike and backpack, we request that the committee consider the following items in 

the amended Act: 

1. Fees should not produce incentives for expansion of development-oriented activities and facilities at the expense of protecting resources and preserving the 

natural elements of the outdoor recreation experience. 

2. Recognition of volunteer services on public lands should be recognized with 

free seasonal, annual, or national passes for those volunteers meeting a designated number of service hours. 

3. The Federal recreation fee collection process should be highly transparent, allowing all parties the opportunity to see annual information on fee collections 

and uses. 

4. At least 80 percent of FLREA revenue should be retained at the site where 

the fees were collected. 

5. Long term authorization should require that expenditures on administration 

and overhead be tightly monitored and limited in scope. 

a. Concessionaires and third parties should be subject to the same administration and overhead restrictions as Federal agencies. 

97 

6. Agencies should encourage reciprocity of fees among adjacent sites/lands 

under the same or different jurisdictions. 

Thank you for allowing American Hiking Society to provide our comments on the 

reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Sincerely, 

GREGORY A. MILLER, PH.D. 

President. 

AMERICAN TRAILS, 

REDDING, CA, 

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

American Trails, a national non-profit organization, has worked for over 25 years 

advocating for all types of trails and trail systems and on behalf of all trail interests. We believe that viable trail systems are healthy for the people of the United 

States, healthy for our economy, and healthy for our environment. Our mission is 

to have a trail within 15 minutes of every person in our Nation. To this end, we 

are writing regarding the subcommittee hearing scheduled for Friday, April 4, 2014 

and the consideration of Chairman Bishop’s bill to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). We request that this communication be made part 

of that hearing record. 

We wish to convey our strong support for the reauthorization of the FLREA. Federal lands visitor programs depend upon this authority. Further, we appreciate the 

work of the subcommittee to consider amendments to the current law, enacted in 

2004. As part of the reauthorization process, American Trails would like the committee to consider allowing a user fee payment system for entrance to parks and 

selected other areas; and for recreational services and visitor facilities involving significant investments and operational costs. These fees should be at a minimum to 

not deter families from experiencing our natural environment, while giving the 

agencies additional income at the locations the fees are collected so they may provide quality experiences to the visitors. 

The FLREA program has been successful in providing critical funding for Federal 

lands. As a result, countless Americans have benefited and have had the opportunity to get to know America’s Great Outdoors. We would be pleased to discuss 

these ideas with any of the committee members or their staff. 

We would like to thank the committee and its leadership for your oversight of 

FLREA and your help in emphasizing the accountability of Federal agencies for full 

compliance with this law, nationally and locally. Thank you also for your consideration of this letter. 

Sincerely, 

PAM GLUCK, 

Executive Director. 

ASSOCIATION FOR EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION, 

BOULDER, CO, 

APRIL 16, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

The Association for Experiential Education (AEE) represents individuals and nonprofit organizations across the country providing outdoor education and therapeutic 

experiences on America’s public lands. Through programs conducted for youth and 

98 

adults, AEE members help people learn, develop skills to improve their personal 

and professional lives, and improve their physical and mental health. 

I am writing to express our view on the reauthorization of the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., 118 Stat. 3377 (Dec. 8, 2004) 

(‘‘FLREA’’). AEE members are interested in the development of this legislation because we believe America’s public lands should be readily accessible for recreation 

by individuals and guided groups, subject to statutory limitations. In our experience, 

the indiscriminate imposition of fees can have the effect of limiting access. At the 

same time, we recognize that fees are appropriate in some circumstances, and provide valuable resources to agencies in carrying out their land management responsibilities. 

AEE has reviewed the statement submitted jointly on April 2 by the Association 

of Outdoor Recreation and Education, High Mountain Institute, The Mazamas, The 

Mountaineers, and The Wilderness Society. We are in agreement with the recommendations contained in that statement and urge the committee to adopt these 

recommendations in developing a revised FLREA reauthorization bill. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share our views on the reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT SMARIGA, 

CEO. 

ASSOCIATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AND EDUCATION, 

HIGH MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, 

THE MAZAMAS, 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY. 

MARCH 28, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE: 

The above-listed organizations provide and advocate for outdoor recreation and 

education opportunities on America’s public lands. Through programs offered to both 

young people and adults, we develop connections between people and America’s natural heritage. By providing rewarding outdoor experiences on public lands, we help 

people grow personally and professionally, enrich their lives and improve their 

health. 

We write to express our views on the reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., 118 Stat. 3377 (Dec. 8, 2004) 

(‘‘FLREA’’), scheduled to be the subject of a subcommittee hearing on April 4, 2014. 

We are interested in the development of this legislation because we believe 

America’s public lands should be readily accessible for recreation by individuals and 

guided groups, subject to statutory limitations. In our experience, the indiscriminate 

imposition of fees can have the effect of limiting access. At the same time, we recognize that fees are appropriate in some circumstances, and provide valuable resources to agencies in carrying out their land management responsibilities. 

We offer a number of recommendations below that we believe strike an appropriate balance between these two considerations. We respectfully request that this 

letter be included in the hearing record for the subcommittee. 

I. INTRODUCTION

FLREA authorizes Federal land management agencies to charge fees for 

recreational use of Federal lands, and also authorizes them to retain the revenue 

generated from those fees for the agency’s use without further appropriation. It also 

authorizes the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to issue special 

recreation permits, including ‘‘outfitter-guide permits,’’ and to charge special recreation permit fees for use of Federal lands. FLREA is scheduled to sunset on 

December 8, 2015. 

By accident or design, FLREA has become an important source of revenue for 

Federal land management agencies. Because of recent reductions in agency funding, 

the agencies are increasingly dependent on FLREA revenue to offset the costs of 

99 

maintenance on Federal lands. If the Federal land management agencies were adequately funded, the imposition of recreation fees might be unnecessary. 

For that reason, we urge Congress to restore the cuts to agency funding that have 

occurred since 2010. Although full funding levels are likely much higher, a return 

to the funding levels of FY2010 would be a reasonable intermediate step towards 

adequately funding the agencies. Funding the agencies at FY2010 levels is an essential investment in America’s $646 billion recreation industry, which supports 6.5 

million jobs nationwide. Providing additional funding would reduce the incentives 

for agencies to charge recreation fees in more areas. 

In the absence of increased agency funding, some form of fee collection authority 

is necessary if the agencies are going to have any chance of addressing their maintenance backlogs. Thus, reauthorization of FLREA is needed. At the same time, 

FLREA as originally enacted has significant flaws that should be corrected before 

the law is reauthorized. We discuss these flaws and the resulting controversies 

below. We also analyze the discussion draft released by the subcommittee and make 

recommendations for improvement. Our recommendations would allow agencies to 

charge appropriate fees, but place limitations on that authority to ensure that fees 

do not become a barrier to the use of public lands. 

II. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Cost Recovery for Outfitter-Guide Permits 

Section 6802(h) of Title 16, U.S. Code and section 807(a) of the discussion draft 

authorize the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to issue special 

recreation permits, which are sometimes referred to as ‘‘special use’’ permits, and 

include the permits issued to outfitters and guides. Outfitter-guide permits are an 

important tool for getting people out on America’s public lands. Small business owners use these permits to take people rafting, horse-packing and climbing on National 

Forests and BLM lands. Likewise, nonprofit organizations and universities use 

these permits to get young people outdoors, provide environmental education opportunities, and fight the obesity epidemic. Together, these organizations play an important role in encouraging and assisting the public in enjoying their public lands, 

including America’s Wilderness areas. 

In setting fees for special recreation permits, section 807(b) of the discussion draft 

authorizes agencies to consider ‘‘the costs associated with the activities authorized 

under 807(a), including— 

(1) trail and facility construction; 

(2) maintenance; 

(3) natural and cultural resource monitoring; 

(4) restoration; 

(5) emergency response and law enforcement; 

(6) signage and user education; 

(7) permit administration.’’ 

Section 807(b) appears to allow an agency to shift any cost ‘‘associated’’ with the 

recreational activities authorized under a section 807(a) permit onto an outfitterguide permit holder. Without more of a limiting principle, this would allow agencies 

to shift a significantly larger amount of agency costs onto outfitter-guide permit 

holders than is authorized under current law. 

For example, existing Forest Service cost recovery regulations allow the agency 

to require permit applicants and permit holders to pay ‘‘processing fees’’ and ‘‘monitoring fees.’’ 36 CFR 251.58. Processing fees are ‘‘based on the costs that the Forest 

Service incurs in reviewing the application . . . and shall be based only on the costs 

necessary for processing that application.’’ Section 251.58(c)(1). ‘‘ ‘Necessary for’ 

means that but for the application, the costs would not have been incurred.’’ Id. 

Monitoring fees are ‘‘based on the estimated time needed for Forest Service monitoring to ensure compliance with’’ a permit. Section 251.58(d)(1). 

Section 807(b) goes well beyond current Forest Service regulations. It would allow 

agencies to require a guide to pay for the costs of maintaining a trail used by the 

guide as part of its operations, along with the costs of restoration and law enforcement along that trail, since all of these costs could be ‘‘associated’’ with the guide’s 

permit. An agency could shift these costs onto a permit holder even though they do 

not satisfy the ‘‘but for’’ test in current law, since agencies are generally required 

to provide trail maintenance and law enforcement services in places where no permits have been issued. If agencies use their authority in this way, the cost of permits will increase dramatically. This will impact both for-profit and nonprofit 

outfitter-guide operations, and could make it very difficult for these organizations 

and businesses to take people out on public lands. 

100 

1Sherer v. U.S. Forest Service, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (D. Colo. 2010), U.S. v. Smith, 740 F. 

Supp. 2d 1111 (D. Ariz. 2010), Adams v. U.S. Forest Service, 671 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012). 

It is worth noting that, under the existing cost recovery authority in 36 CFR 

251.58, outfitters and guides already find it challenging to pay for the permits needed to get people outdoors. Section 251.58 requires outfitter-guide applicants to pay 

significant up-front costs in some circumstances in order to apply for permits. Paying these up-front costs is a substantial burden for many companies and organizations, particularly since doing so does not guarantee that they will receive a special 

recreation permit. See Section 251.58(c)(5). We recognize the need to charge reasonable recreation fees to offset the costs of permit administration, and to pay for monitoring to ensure compliance with permit terms. However, the open-ended cost 

recovery authority provided by draft section 807(b) would allow agencies to charge 

fees for expenses the agency would incur even in the absence of a permit. The resulting increase in fees would make it more difficult for outfitter-guides to provide 

opportunities for people to get out on public lands. 

We urge the committee to reject this open-ended approach, and limit the agency’s 

cost recovery authority to that conferred under existing Forest Service regulations. 

B. Public Notification for Outfitter-Guide Permits 

Although FLREA authorizes the agencies to issue outfitter-guide permits, many 

organizations that would like to offer outdoor experiences and environmental education on the national forests have been unable to do so because some National 

Forests refuse to issue permits. Among the organizations affected are nonprofit outdoor experiential education programs, public schools, university outing programs 

and nonprofit recreation clubs. 

The U.S. Forest Service does not currently have any sort of nationwide listing of 

where permits are available within the National Forest system. The agency’s on-line 

permit resources are quite limited, even though the agency’s web page would be an 

ideal way to inform the public of permit availability. Consequently, organizations 

that would like to obtain a permit must contact each individual national forest ranger district to determine if permits are available. To address these issues, a reauthorized FLREA should establish public notification requirements for outfitter-guide 

permits. The Forest Service and BLM should be required to develop and operate the 

following systems: 

1. An on-line lookup of permit availability that enables organizations interested 

in outfitter-guide permits to search by activity, Forest Service ranger district 

or BLM field office, and State. 

2. A web page on the Web site of every ranger district or field office listing: 

a. Locations within the ranger district or field office where outfitter-guide 

permits are available. 

b. Locations within the ranger district or field office where outfitter-guide 

permits are not available, and for each such location, the reason why permits are not available. 

3. A list serve or similar mechanism in which interested organizations may enroll to receive email notification of availability of outfitter-guide permits on 

forests throughout the National Forest or BLM System. 

Providing this information to the public in a more systematic way will enable 

businesses and nonprofit organizations to know where permits may be obtained that 

will allow them to get more people out on America’s public lands. 

C. Standard Amenity Recreation Fees and Day Use Fees 

The version of FLREA in existing law contains an inherent ambiguity that has 

generated significant litigation.1 It authorizes collection of a standard amenity 

recreation fee for use of an ‘‘area’’ that provides significant recreation opportunities 

and has all of six listed amenities (parking, toilet, trashcan, interpretive signage, 

picnic tables, security). However, it prohibits the collection of fees for general access, 

parking, and traveling through lands and waters without using facilities and services, and also prohibits USFS, BLM and BOR from charging entrance fees. Thus, 

existing law is internally inconsistent about whether agencies can collect fees from 

a hiker using a trail within an area that has the six listed amenities if the hiker 

does not specifically use those amenities.

The discussion draft released by the subcommittee wisely abandons the use of 

‘‘special amenity recreation fees’’ in favor of a simplified ‘‘day use’’ fee structure. It 

also revises the list of prohibitions on day use fees in a way that appears to resolve 

the inherent ambiguity described above. 

101 

2The Forest Service claims that there is ‘‘routine presence of agency law enforcement’’ everywhere on a National Forest. See Section 804(a)(2)(D). Thus, the requirement that a site of 

concentrated public use have routine law enforcement is always satisfied, and therefore has no 

practical effect. 

Unfortunately, the discussion draft would allow agencies to charge fees in locations where we believe fees are inappropriate. We also think that agencies should 

be required to provide more documentation when they decide to establish a fee site. 

1. Day Use Fees in the Discussion Draft 

a. National Volcanic Monuments and National Conservation Areas 

Existing FLREA and the discussion draft broadly authorize fees at all National 

Conservation Areas (NCA) and National Volcanic Monuments (NVM). Some of these 

sites have little or no amenities. In those instances, charging a fee is not warranted. 

In the past, the agencies’ authority to charge fees at NCAs and NVMs has been 

cited as a reason why areas eligible for these designations should not be so designated. When that happens, fees that are intended to assist agencies in their efforts to conserve and maintain these places have the perverse effect of preventing 

them from being protected. 

In managing monuments and conservation areas, agencies should be authorized 

to charge fees only in those areas that have developed amenities. The discussion 

draft’s definition of ‘‘sites of concentrated public use’’ and ‘‘areas of concentrated 

public use’’ could be used as the basis for charging fees in these areas, subject to 

the modifications we recommend below. This would allow agencies to charge fees in 

monuments and conservation areas that have developed amenities, but would eliminate fees in other areas where fees are not justified. 

b. Sites of Concentrated Public Use 

Although the discussion draft addresses some of the ambiguities that exist in current law, the draft’s definition of ‘‘sites of concentrated public use’’ is loose enough 

to allow the agencies to charge fees at locations that have minimal facilities, and 

for which there may be little or no public demand. In effect, an agency could charge 

a hiker a fee at a trailhead with a portable toilet, a trash can, and an interpretive 

sign.2 We believe this would encourage agencies to charge fees nearly everywhere 

on public lands, which undermines the goal of making America’s public lands open 

and accessible to everyone. 

We recommend two modifications to the definition of ‘‘sites of concentrated public 

us’’ to limit the number of locations where fees are charged. 

i. There should be a public demand for additional facilities and amenities at 

the day use fee location. The agency should be required to demonstrate 

that there is demand for the facilities in order to impose the fee. See our 

discussion of a fee area plan in Section 2 below. 

ii. Fees should be limited to areas that have a permanently installed toilet 

facility rather than a temporary one. Agencies should not be authorized to 

drop a portable toilet at a trailhead and begin charging a fee. 

2. Public Notice and Comment Opportunities 

Under existing law, agency consultations with the public on when and where fees 

will be imposed and the amount of fees to be charged have not been effective. The 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committee review process prescribed by existing law 

does not provide consistent public oversight of the fee system. 

The public participation provisions in the discussion draft are a significant improvement. However, we believe the public notice and comment requirements for establishing day use fees should be more robust. In addition to the requirements in 

the discussion draft, we recommend that FLREA require agencies to produce a short 

fee area plan when they want to impose a new day use fee, and provide the public 

with an opportunity to comment on it. This fee area plan should include the following information: 

a. A demonstration of public demand for additional facilities and amenities at 

the day use fee location; 

b. An inventory of the amenities in the area; 

c. A description of the funding and maintenance needs of the area; and 

d. A brief explanation of how the fee revenue will be used. 

Requiring the agencies to produce these plans will establish a useful baseline and 

reference point for each agency decision to impose a fee, and provide the public with 

102 

3 BARK v. U.S. Forest Service, Case No. 1:12–CV–01505 (D.D.C. 2012). 4 Id. 

5Forest Service Trails; Long- and Short-Term Improvements Could Reduce Maintenance 

Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability, GAO–13–618. 

a basis for providing effective input on whether the fee should be imposed. We urge 

the committee to include this requirement in reauthorizing FLREA. 

D. Fees Charged by Concessionaires 

Both existing law and the discussion draft authorize agencies to enter into fee 

management agreements with nongovernmental entities to facilitate fee collection 

and processing. However they do not explain how this authorization applies to concessionaires. There is ongoing litigation challenging the Forest Service’s policy of entering into concession contracts that allow private companies to charge members of 

the public to use public lands.3 In the leading case, the plaintiffs assert that concessionaires are charging fees solely for the availability of amenities and services, and 

not limiting the fees to situations where those amenities are actually used, thereby 

subverting the intent of FLREA.4

In revising FLREA, the source of concessionaires’ authority to charge fees should 

be clarified, and concessionaires should be subject to the same fee limitations as the 

agencies themselves. Likewise, the draft bill should require agencies and concessionaires to provide public participation opportunities when concessionaires plan to 

impose new fees. 

E. Expenditures of Fee Revenues 

FLREA is ambiguous as to whether Standard Amenity Recreation Fee revenue 

can be used for trail maintenance, or instead must be used only to maintain the 

amenities (parking, toilet, trashcan, interpretive signage, picnic tables, security) for 

which the fees are collected. If limited to the amenities, FLREA revenue provides 

no relief for the significant trail maintenance backlog on the National Forests, a 

backlog that was recently documented by the Government Accountability Office.5

There is also concern that too much of the revenue is used for overhead and administrative costs, rather than for actual maintenance. 

The list of permissible expenditures in the discussion draft is essentially unchanged from existing law. Consequently, the ambiguity about the use of FLREA 

revenue for trail maintenance remains. We urge the committee to revise section 

812(a)(3) to specifically authorize the use of FLREA revenue for trail maintenance 

costs anywhere on the unit in which the fees are collected. This will empower the 

agencies to use FLREA revenue to help address the trail maintenance backlog and 

make it easier for people to enjoy our public lands. 

Regarding overhead, the discussion draft limits overhead and administrative costs 

to 5 percent of total revenues. However, it then authorizes the use of up to 20 percent of total revenue for ‘‘direct fee collection costs.’’ When combined, this means 

that 25 percent of total revenue can be used for the costs of administering the fee 

collection system. This is a significant increase over the 15 percent authorized under 

existing law. The law should be written to encourage the agencies to keep administrative costs down and devote as much of the revenue as possible to maintenance 

and improvement of recreation facilities and trails. We urge the committee to preserve the 15 percent limit. 

F. Stewardship Credits 

Section 807(d) would establish a pilot program for providing stewardship credits 

that would offset the fees owed by a special recreation permit holder when the permit holder agrees to provide maintenance and resource protection work on public 

lands. We support the development of a pilot program to test this idea. 

In some locations, special recreation permit holders provide important services on 

public lands that make these lands more accessible for average Americans. Currently, they provide this work on a voluntary basis, putting a strain on their small 

business operations. The pilot program would test the idea of giving these permit 

holders an additional incentive to undertake trail maintenance and other work on 

public lands. If the program includes appropriate safeguards, this could benefit the 

public by improving access. 

Section 807(d) builds in some safeguards to ensure that work is done by qualified 

personnel and in cooperation with local land managers. However, we believe these 

safeguards should be enhanced to ensure that the agencies see significant benefits 

from the fee credit system. We urge the following modifications. 

103 

1. Section 807(d) should more explicitly state that credits will only be given for 

work that addresses the agency’s priorities, and then only when the work is 

done to minimum agency standards. 

2. Because agencies will receive less revenue under the pilot program, Congress 

should require the agencies to include in the report required by section 

807(d)(2) an evaluation of whether the pilot program has resulted in a net 

gain for trails and facilities maintenance. 

3. As currently written, the pilot program would continue even if it is not producing net benefits. FLREA should authorize agency managers to discontinue 

the pilot program if it is not producing a net gain in trails and facilities maintenance. 

With these modifications, we urge the committee to include this pilot program in 

the reauthorization of FLREA. 

G. Reporting 

The reporting provisions in section 813 are a significant improvement over existing law, and we support them. In particular, we support the requirement that agencies produce annual reports on the use of fee revenue and make them available on 

their Web sites. 

H. Sunsetting 

Section 820 would sunset the law after 5 years. We believe a duration of 10 years 

would be more appropriate and urge the subcommittee to revise the draft accordingly. 

III. CONCLUSION

We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share our views on the reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Sincerely, 

JEANETTE STAWSKI, 

Executive Director, 

Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education, 

Ann Arbor, MI. 

JUSTIN TALBOT, 

Director of Wilderness Programs & Risk Management, 

High Mountain Institute, 

Leadville, CO. 

LEE DAVIS, 

Executive Director, 

The Mazamas, 

Portland, OR. 

PAUL SANFORD, 

Senior Recreation Specialist, 

The Wilderness Society, 

Washington, DC. 

COALITION FOR RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands, and Environmental Regulation 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

We are writing regarding the subcommittee hearing scheduled for Friday, April 

4, 2014 and the consideration of Chairman Bishop’s bill to amend the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). We request that this communication be 

made part of that hearing record. 

We wish to convey our strong support for the reauthorization of FLREA. Federal 

lands visitor programs depend upon this authority. Further, we appreciate the work 

of the subcommittee to consider amendments to the current law, enacted in 2004. 

The recreation, conservation and tourism organizations signing this letter have deVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04AP04 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87533.TXT DARLEN
104 

veloped a set of principles which we urge be reflected in the legislation on enhancing 

recreation on Federal lands you are now developing: 

1. Federal recreation sites should be authorized to collect and retain fees for entrance to parks and selected other areas and for recreational services and visitor facilities involving significant investments and operational costs. 

2. Collected fees should be used principally at sites where the fees were collected, serving those who paid the fees, and collected fees should be spent 

within a reasonable amount of time. 

3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the largest single Federal provider of 

recreation experiences, should be included under FLREA to unify Federal fee 

programs and eliminate current complications for visitors. 

4. The Federal recreation fee collection process should be as transparent as possible, allowing all interested parties the chance to see annual information on 

fee collections and use. 

5. Expenses of fee collection are a legitimate use of fee revenues but all efforts 

should be made to minimize these costs. 

6. Federal recreation site fee efforts can and should be integrated where possible 

with other fee collection programs, including of other Federal sites and agencies and with State recreation fees and licenses. State fee programs should 

be encouraged which support recreation on Federal lands—including trail programs. Models for this include the Winter Park Passes in several northwestern States and programs like the California ‘‘green sticker’’ program. 

7. Public involvement in Federal recreation site fee programs is vital. The first 

step is better notification of fee program proposals. Notification of new and 

changed fees should be made to all obviously affected organizations and local 

citizens, and should also be made through: (1) the Federal Register and (2) 

alerts to individuals and organizations requesting notification through 

www.recreation.gov, registering their interest in types of fees, geographical 

regions, agencies and other appropriate categories. Formal comment opportunities should be required and can include Recreation Resources Advisory 

Committees and Resource Advisory Committee requirements, but Congress 

should allow the Forest Service and BLM to develop alternative public involvement models, submitted to the appropriate Congressional committees. 

The committees shall have not less than 90 days to consider these proposals. 

A submitted model may be disapproved by vote of either committee or by a 

joint letter by the Chair and Ranking Member of one or both of the committees. 

8. Fee payment should be as convenient as possible to visitors. Use of commonly 

used non-Federal payment systems, such as EZ-Pass and PayPal, should be 

tested. Prepayment of entrance fees through inclusion in reservations for 

campsites, lodge rooms and other reserved services, and by sales in gateway 

communities, should also be encouraged. 

9. Reauthorization of the Federal recreation fee program should be for a minimum of 6 years and not more than 10 years. 

10. Fees collection by concessioners and third parties, including other governmental agencies and organizations which operate and maintain recreation 

services and facilities, should be authorized. 

11. Fees for special recreation uses and events may be required but should not 

unreasonably deter legitimate uses of Federal recreation sites nor discourage 

partnerships with third-party organizations. 

12. Agencies that receive funds through FLREA are encouraged to fully utilize 

Public Lands Corps Act authority to complete FLREA-funded projects that 

meet FLREA objectives such as enhancing visitor services. Use of conservation corps on these projects is likely to deliver lowered costs and will provide 

jobs for local young people and veterans and connect younger Americans with 

the Great Outdoors. 

There are other important issues which many of the undersigned organizations 

will address in testimony and other comments. We want to express our collective 

thanks to the committee and its leadership for your oversight of FLREA and your 

help in emphasizing the accountability of Federal agencies for full compliance with 

this law, nationally and locally. 

Over the last 10 years, we believe that FLREA has been a successful program 

that has provided critical funding for Federal lands. As a result, countless Americans have benefited. We thank you for your consideration of these principles and 

look forward to an ongoing dialog with you, other interested Members and your staff 

105 

to craft broadly supported legislation that supports America’s enjoyment of our 

Great Outdoors. 

Sincerely, 

AAA 

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATIONS

AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL

AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

ARIZONA CONSERVATION CORPS

ASSOCIATION OF MARINA INDUSTRIES

ASSOCIATION OF PARTNERS FOR PUBLIC LANDS

BLUERIBBON COALITION

THE CORPS NETWORK

EQUINE LAND CONSERVATION RESOURCE

INTERNATIONAL SNOWMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PARK DIRECTORS

NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL TOUR ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

OUTDOOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

PUBLIC LANDS SERVICE COALITION

RECREATION VEHICLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

SNOWSPORTS INDUSTRIES AMERICA

SOCIETY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION PROFESSIONALS

SOUTHEAST YOUTH CORPS

SOUTHWEST CONSERVATION CORPS

STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

TREAD LIGHTLY! 

UNITED FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATIONS

106 


87533.001
107 


87533.002
108 


87533.003
109 


87533.004
110 


87533.005
111 


87533.006
112 


87533.007
113 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

APRIL 18, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, AND MEMBERS OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE: 

The Wilderness Society respectfully submits this supplemental statement for the 

record for the hearing on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 6801 et seq., 118 Stat. 3377 (Dec. 8, 2004) (‘‘FLREA’’). The FLREA hearing took 

place on April 4, 2014. We have the following additional comments on the testimony 

provided at the hearing. 

Limiting Agency Programming on Public Lands 

In reauthorizing FLREA, Congress should not limit the ability of the land management agencies and their staff to offer programs directly to the general public. 

Providing educational information and outdoor opportunities to Americans on the 

public lands that they own is a core function of the land management agencies, and 

it is entirely appropriate that the agencies be able to perform this function. Placing 

limits on this activity would eviscerate the role of the land management agencies, 

and excessively privatize agency functions. Agency staff should retain the ability to 

provide these services in places and activities that agency managers deem appropriate. 

Statutory Standards For ‘‘Extent Necessary’’ Determinations 

During the hearing, it was suggested that Congress should pass legislation establishing a statutory standard for making ‘‘extent necessary’’ determinations for commercial activities in Wilderness. See section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1133(d)(6). Any effort to codify a statutory standard for extent necessary determinations is beyond the scope of FLREA, and the subcommittee should not complicate the already complex process of reauthorizing FLREA by taking on this potentially controversial issue. 

Streamlining the Permitting Process 

We agree that some streamlining of the special recreation permitting process is 

warranted, but urge the subcommittee to be cautious about how this is done in 

order to ensure that it does not significantly undermine the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., 83 Stat. 852 (NEPA). Any recalibration of the 

application of NEPA to the permitting process should recognize that some environmental review of outfitter-guide decisionmaking is necessary and appropriate. Thus, 

the agencies’ authority and obligation to perform this review should be preserved. 

If the subcommittee believes there should be increased use of categorical exclusions in the permitting process, the subcommittee should authorize the agencies to 

develop these exclusions. However, in doing so, the subcommittee should include a 

limiting principle that ensures that CEs are not used to authorize outfitting and 

guiding in all circumstances without any environmental review. Without a limiting 

principle, the agencies may be pressured to use CEs in situations where the authorized activity would have significant environmental impacts, and the use of a CE 

would be inappropriate. 

Diversion of LWCF 

We oppose the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965, 16 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq., 78 Stat. 897 (LWCF) for maintenance on public lands. LWCF has its 

own funding source, drawn mainly from annual OCS revenues that far exceed the 

amounts credited to the Fund. These revenues reflect a promise made to the many 

communities across America that rely on these resource lands, and on the conservation and recreation economies they support. They are essentially a capital account, 

to be reinvested in lands of lasting value to all Americans—NOT an operating account to be diverted to annual upkeep needs. 

While the backlog of maintenance needs must be addressed, it is penny wise and 

pound foolish to divert resources away from the purchase of lands and easements, 

114 

therefore neglecting current and future community needs. It is also important to 

maintain the intent of the original LWCF Act, which is to balance the depletion of 

one Federal asset by investing in another capital asset, in this case, the public lands 

and outdoor recreation infrastructure that benefits all Americans. 

Conclusion 

We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to share our views on the reauthorization of FLREA. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL SANFORD, 

Senior Recreation Specialist. 

Æ