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

98–909 2017

S. HRG. 114–345 

REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS 

TO THE FEDERAL LAND RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria. Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

O’Dell, Peggy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 5 

Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 12 

Benzar, Kitty, President, Western Slope No-Fee Coalition .................................. 17 

Brown, David, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association ..................... 27 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Adams, Gaye: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 70 

American Recreation Coalition: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 71 

American Whitewater, The Mountaineers, Washington Trails Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 79 

Archibald, David: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 83 

Benson, Bill: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 84 

Benzar, Kitty: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 17 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 19 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 64 

Bonowski, Steve: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 90 

Bragg, Susannah: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 92 

Breiding, Michael: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 93 

Brown, David 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 27 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 29 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 67 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Capps, Don: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 94 

Christiansen, Chris: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 95 

Cornett, Nina: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 96 

Coyne, Alasdair: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 97 

Edkins, John: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 98 

Fleming, Stephen: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 99 

Page

IV 

Fragosa, Rich: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 101 

Gall, Mark: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 103 

Goetsch, Matt: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 104 

Gray, Kurt: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 105 

Hall, Linda: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 106 

Henderson, Norm: 

Statement for the Record dated 9/25/15 ......................................................... 107 

Henderson, Norm: 

Statement the Record dated 10/7/15 ............................................................... 128 

Holliday, Richard: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 129 

Holt, Jan: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 133 

Jenkins, Matt: 

Comment for the Record .................................................................................. 134 

Johnson, Lanie: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 135 

Kelly, Karen: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 136 

Kelley, Tammy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 137 

Larsen, Helen: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 139 

Lewis, Greg: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 140 

Marotta, Cynthia: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 141 

McMichael, Malcolm: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 142 

Miller, Chip: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 143 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

(The) National Outdoor Leadership School: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 144 

Nelson, Dr. Allen: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 147 

O’Dell, Peggy: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 48 

Peters, Robert: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 148 

Rodgers, Sonya: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 149 

Romanello, Jill: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 150 

Ross, John: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 151 

Sample, Stephen: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 152 

Sandahl, Brooke: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 153 

Schweiker, Roy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 154 

Silver, Scott: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 155 

Smith, James: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 156 

U.S. Travel Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 157 

Page

V 

Wagner, Mary: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 12 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 13 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 53 

Weisman, David: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 159 

Wiechers, Peter: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 160 

Wittrock, Paul: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 162 

Zierhut, Michael: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 163 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS TO THE FEDERAL LAND RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Thank you all for being here. 

We are meeting this morning to consider the reauthorization and 

the possible reform of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act, commonly called FLREA. For those who are engaged and in 

tune with this, this act provides the National Park Service, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service with limited authority to charge recreation fees. Those agencies are further authorized to keep those fees in order to maintain and improve recreation sites. 

FLREA initially passed as a legislative rider on the Fiscal Year 

Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The original authorization was for 

ten years. FLREA has been extended now twice through the appropriation process. With our Committee holding jurisdiction over 

FLREA and with larger items like our broad bipartisan Energy bill 

which has now been reported from the Committee, I think this is 

a good time to conduct oversight as we consider this Act’s future. 

While I personally wish that we did not have to charge recreation fees, I am generally supportive of FLREA. I want to see the 

Act and its programs continue without interruption as we work on 

longer term reforms, but the path to accomplishing that, I think, 

is not always as easy as it sounds. 

With FLREA’s current authorization expiring at the end of 2016, 

I think we need to focus on two separate extensions. 

The first will be a temporary one-year extension that would, 

ideally, be enacted before the end of this year. If we can do that, 

we will avoid disruptions to programs that are multiyear or that 

require lead time such as the annual America the Beautiful National Parks and Recreation Federal Recreation Lands Pass. The 

2 

House has already passed a one-year extension, and I think the 

Senate needs to do the same. 

The second extension will hopefully be longer term and it may 

include some of the practical ideas that we are seeing to reform 

and to improve FLREA. Without question recreation fees have become an important part of the Federal land agencies comprehensive funding strategies to support recreation sites and services. In 

FY’14 nearly $280 million was collected by the five relevant agencies. The National Park Service took in 67 percent of the revenue 

and the Park Service and Forest Service together collected 92 percent of the total. 

Yet there still appears to be plenty of room for improvement 

within the fee authorities and structures. The Park Service’s entrance fees are the most accepted by the public along with fees for 

developed sites such as campgrounds, but a number of important 

questions have been raised. For example, why is the Park Service 

charging individuals permit fees for back country access in addition 

to an entrance fee? Why are the cost collections skyrocketing within the agencies? 

BLM and Forest Service have not fared as well as the Park Service with the public with respect to recreation fees under FLREA. 

The Forest Service, in particular, has drawn multiple lawsuits for 

its interpretations of standard amenity fees and special recreation 

permit fee authority. It is my understanding that the citizens challenging the fees were successful in many of those instances. 

I will also mention one incident that stands out in my mind. I 

think members on the Committee have heard me raise this. This 

occurred in the Tongass National Forest a couple years ago. I actually had an opportunity to deliver this issue personally to the Chief 

of the Forest Service, and this related to a daycare provider who 

had taken her young charges for a picnic out in the Tongass. It was 

essentially a picnic table with a roof overhead. It was not within 

a cabin. It was just an open air picnic table. As a commercial day 

care operator, she had a commercial license. But she was actually 

presented with a fine from the Forest Service for operating her 

business, her commercial business, within the Tongass National 

Forest without a permit. Now what she was doing was taking her 

kids out to an afternoon picnic using the picnic tables there. In my 

mind that is a perfect example of where permitting requirements 

are limiting access to our public lands. I do not think that that was 

the intention. While we have addressed the situation with Auntie’s 

Day Care in Wrangell, Alaska, it is examples like that that I think 

get the people’s attention, interest and really ire. 

Another issue that deserves our attention is a special recreation 

permit authority that FLREA provides to outfitters and guides. 

This authority has been particularly important in national forests 

and refuges and on BLM public lands, but it is my understanding 

that we can make these permits work better. 

Our goals here can be relatively simple and straightforward. We 

should try to keep recreation fees as low as possible to ensure that 

Americans can access and enjoy their public lands, we should ensure that these fees are not being used to encumber or dissuade 

visitors, and we should ensure that these fees are being used apVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:53 Mar 10, 2017 Jkt 098909 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98909\G98909.TXT G98909
3 

propriately for maximum benefit in maintaining and improving our 

recreation sites. 

So with that I look forward to the comments from my Ranking 

Member, Senator Cantwell, and we will then have an opportunity 

to hear from the witnesses who have joined us here this morning. 

Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for holding this hearing this morning to consider reauthorization of the Federal Government’s authority to collect recreational 

fees. And I welcome the witnesses. 

For those of us representing states with large amounts of Federal 

land, outdoor recreation is an important part of our local economy. 

Senator Wyden and I, just prior to the gaveling down, were talking 

about those very activities within our two states and how much it 

means to us. I did not know that the Senator had traveled to the 

seven wonders of Oregon. So I think, maybe next year, as we celebrate our centennial we will have to do something similar in Washington. 

Recreation fees have helped the land management agencies better provide and protect Federal lands and provide important, improved visitor services. In general I support the extension of the 

authority for Federal recreation fees so long as fees are kept at reasonable levels and they do not discourage the public from accessing 

the public lands. We must also ensure that fee revenues continue 

to be used to enhance visitor experiences on those Federal lands. 

For example, last year recreation fee revenues enabled the Forest 

Service in partnership with the Washington Trail Association to 

maintain and improve 92 miles of popular hiking trails across our 

state including portions of the Quinault National Recreation Trail 

System, the Duckabush Trail, and the Upper Big Quilcene Trail. 

These recreation fees collected in the Olympic National Forest enabled the Washington Trail Association to donate 11,000 hours of 

servicing these trails. Fee revenues have enabled Mount Rainier 

National Park to build a new ranger and visitor station at Carbon 

River, fund numerous trail and campground and picnic area repairs, and improve and help restore some of the park’s subalpine 

meadows. 

Where there is a direct connection between the fee and the benefit to the public, recreation fees can improve both the management 

of the Federal land and the visitor experience. It is also worth noting that next year will mark the 100th anniversary of our National 

Park System and the Park Service collects over $180 million in fee 

revenues each year. That is, by far, the largest amount of any of 

the Federal agencies. 

Several of us have been working to develop a National Park Centennial bill, and I certainly want to work with the Chairman on 

that. This bill would provide the Park Service in its second century 

with additional tools to enable and better manage our National 

Park System. I think we should consider extension of fee as an important way to improve the Federal services and address the deferred maintenance backlog. 

4 

While these recreation fees can help, I also just want to put a 

reminder in that it is important that we make sure that we extend 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Money from that conservation fund helps provide important outdoor recreation opportunities on Federal land, so I hope that we will take advantage and 

get an agreement reached in the Committee, so that we can continue to push that forward. 

I also believe, as the Chair mentioned, that Federal agencies 

need to look for innovative ways to access public lands for recreation. I will give an example. For the past few years, the YWCA 

of Seattle has been trying to get the Forest Service to issue a permit to allow the YMCA to bring young people to national forests 

for the very first time. Because the Forest Service treats the YMCA 

as a commercial entity, their required permit has been held up. We 

have discussed this with Under Secretary Bonnie, as well as the 

Forest Service, and I am happy that the Forest Service as a first 

step is trying to fix this problem and has provided the YMCA a 

temporary user day authorization. But for me, this is a fundamental issue as well. We need to make sure that we are encouraging more people to visit our national parks and not obstructing 

them to get there. 

Finally, I just want to mention that I would like to highlight 

some of the issues of how we treat different users of the public 

lands. The entrance fee at Mount Rainer in my home state increased this year from $15 to $20 and will increase again next year 

to $25. This represents a 67 percent increase in two years. I recognize the Park Service had not instituted fee increases for several 

years and these are comparable with other outdoor recreation fees; 

however, the public seeking to visit national parks on Federal land 

should not be the only ones paying higher fees. While park visitors 

are being assessed higher fees on public lands, fees charged for 

other issues like extraction on public lands remain historically low. 

If we are going to ask the public to step up and fund increased 

recreation fees, then we ought to be asking those who are doing 

coal, hard rock mining, and other extractions on Federal lands to 

also see an increase. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from the panel and the opportunity to discuss these issues in more detail so that we can 

move forward on continuing to have great resources that the public 

can access. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, all certainly pertinent issues. And I think, again, timely as we are exploring this reauthorization and the need for a little bit of modernization, but 

also rationalization. 

This morning we are eager to welcome our panel. We will provide 

each of you an opportunity for about five minutes of comments. 

Your full testimony will be included as part of the record. After you 

have each given your statements we will have an opportunity for 

the members to ask questions of each of you. 

We will begin with Ms. Peggy O’Dell. Ms. O’Dell is the Deputy 

Director for the National Park Service. 

She will be followed by Ms. Mary Wagner, who is the Associate 

Chief for the U.S. Forest Service at Department of Agriculture. 

5 

We have Ms. Kitty Benzar, who is the President of the Western 

Slope No-Fee Coalition. We welcome you to the Committee. 

And Mr. David Brown, who is the President of the American 

Outdoors Association. 

We look forward to the comments from each of you this morning 

and for the effort that you have made to be here to provide testimony. 

We will begin with you, Ms. O’Dell. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PEGGY O’DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. O’DELL. Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. And thank you for your opening comments in support of fee legislation in general. We look forward to discussing the 

specifics with you. 

Every year over 500 million Americans and travelers from 

around the world visit our national parks, national forests, wildlife 

refuges and public lands to enjoy the recreation opportunities offered. Recreation activities on Federal lands contributed an estimated $22.1 billion in economic output to the surrounding communities and supported an estimated 197,000 jobs in communities surrounding these sites in 2013. 

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (or FLREA) provides our agencies with recreation fee authority which has allowed 

us to enhance visits to Federal lands by leveraging the fees to implement thousands of projects that directly benefit visitors. In 2014 Interior’s bureaus collected approximately $230 million 

in recreation fees. FLREA ensures that efficiency and consistency 

in fee collection and also provides needed flexibility for our agencies, each with unique authorizations, geographies and management responsibilities to operate effectively. The ability to spend 

recreation fees without further appropriation and over multiple fiscal years permits the agencies to expend funds for large projects 

that require significant investment. 

Each agency has developed procedures and tools to ensure accountability in the administration of the recreation fee program. 

We share the objectives of fair and transparent revenue collection, 

controlling the cost of collection while maintaining high levels of 

service and avoiding the accumulation of unobligated revenues. 

Our agencies also provide an interagency pass that covers many 

recreation opportunities across Federal lands. These passes provide 

a simple and cost effective way for visitors to pay their entrance 

and standard amenity fees. The pass program includes an annual 

pass, senior pass, access pass and volunteer pass. It also includes 

a military pass available since 2012 which provides free access to 

all current military members and their families. And as of September 1st it now includes the Every Kid in a Park fourth grade 

pass which provides fourth graders and their families nationwide 

free access to our Federal lands. 

The recreation fee program also supports recreation.gov, the Federal website which provides convenient, one stop access for those 

6 

making reservations, securing permits and building itineraries for 

travel to Federal recreation sites around the country. Since its 

launch, recreation.gov has received nearly 1.2 billion page views 

and has processed over 7.5 million reservations. 

Recreation fees collected under FLREA have funded thousands of 

projects that directly benefit visitors. A few recent examples include: A partnership with the Montana Conservation Corps to build 

fencing and repair and improve facilities at three campgrounds in 

the BLM managed Little Rocky Mountains; providing additional 

opportunities for hunting and enhancing fishing facilities at 

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge; the rehabilitation of 12 

miles and relocation of seven miles of the Copper Lake Trail at 

Wrangell St Elias which restored wetlands and facilities, hiking, 

camping and fishing; and providing law enforcement service at 

New Melones Lake Recreation Area through a partnership with the 

Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office. 

Visitor support and public participation are integral to the recreation fee program. Visitor satisfaction surveys conducted in the 

past six years have found that about 90 percent of respondents are 

satisfied with the level of amenities and services provided and believe that the recreation fees they pay are reasonable. FLREA promotes visitor satisfaction by requiring the reinvestment of fee revenue at the site where the fees were collected. 

While recreation fees provide a source of funding to support 

recreation at many developed and popular areas, our agencies continue to offer a huge number of recreation opportunities at no cost. 

The Bureau of Land Management manages over 245 million 

acres and charges recreation fees on less than one percent of that 

acreage. Over 93 percent of the 464 Fish and Wildlife Service refuges that are open to the public have free entry. Of the 408 units 

of the National Park Service, 227, more than half, do not charge 

any FLREA fees. Reclamation currently charges fees authorized by 

FLREA at only one site, New Melones Lake. 

The Department supports the permanent authorization of 

FLREA. The authority for FLREA is scheduled to sunset September 30th, 2016. And if it is not reauthorized the lapse in authority will detrimentally impact the agency’s ability to support 

projects and improve visitor safety, experiences and recreation opportunities. 

Furthermore, beginning this fall the agencies will be faced with 

challenging decisions as we try to anticipate the future of the program and make decisions about ongoing operations such as 

issuance of the annual pass or future campground reservations. 

Ms. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be 

happy to answer questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Dell follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98909.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98909.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98909.003
10 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98909.004
11 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98909.005
12 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Wagner? 

STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WAGNER. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, 

thanks for the opportunity to be here this morning. I appreciate 

your interest in the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act. 

I’m Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the Forest Service. I’ve provided written testimony for the record, so I’m going to limit my remarks to a few highlighted points this morning. 

National forests and grasslands provide a great diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities connecting people with nature in an 

unmatched variety of settings and activities. Millions of visitors 

enjoy the outdoors and experiences on these lands. These activities 

are a significant driver of economies and are vitally important to 

communities and businesses across the nation. 

We strive to enhance the experience of visitors to national forests 

and grasslands in our management of recreation facilities and programs and identify ways to continue to deliver high quality recreation services on national forests. Along with appropriated funds 

and contributions from volunteers, partners, private recreation providers and grants, recreation fee revenues authorized under the act 

are a key component of a sustainable funding for many developed 

recreation sites. Recreation fee revenue is often leveraged in partnership with communities, recreation groups, nonprofit organizations and businesses such as outfitter guides which are an important part of the local tourism economy. 

We found that most visitors support recreation fees. Visitors consistently comment that they’re willing to pay a reasonable recreation fee if they know the money will be used to improve the site 

that they are visiting. 

In the ten years since the act was passed through public engagement, as well as recreation resource advisory councils, we’ve 

learned a great deal about what works and what doesn’t. We 

changed as a result of that learning, and the Forest Service continues to improve how we collect recreation fees, deliver services 

and improve facilities. And we strive to do this within the constraints of the law. And we’d like everybody to have a great story 

such as the ones that you shared about the recognition of the investments and the value to the visitor for those investments. 

The Department of Agriculture supports permanent reauthorization of the act. The act is an important piece of legislation that has 

helped the Forest Service to provide more and higher quality recreation experiences at sites across the United States. The act has 

strengthened the connection between visitors and the lands they 

cherish by requiring that the fees they pay benefit the sites where 

the fees are collected. 

Thanks for the opportunity to share and how the Forest Service 

has implemented the recreation enhancement authority, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:] 

13 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98909.006
14 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98909.007
15 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98909.008
16 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98909.009
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Wagner. 

Ms. Benzar? 

STATEMENT OF KITTY BENZAR, PRESIDENT, WESTERN SLOPE 

NO-FEE COALITION 

Ms. BENZAR. Good morning. 

We Westerners know how important our Federal lands and 

waters are to those who enjoy hiking, riding, boating, fishing, hunting and other outdoor activities. In my home State of Colorado, in 

Alaska, in all of your states, these lands are our backyard. I know 

that preserving our access to them is important to you, and I thank 

you for taking up this issue. 

For 30 years recreation fees were governed by the Fee Authority 

section of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act which contained this statement of Congressional intent, ‘‘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 

eight years during which the agencies experimented with anything 

goes fee authority treating the natural world as a market commodity and putting a price on any experience that the market 

would bear. The results of the experiment clearly showed that the 

public willingly accepts some types of fees and actively rejects others. FLREA was Congress’ attempt to apply those findings and define a framework of limits and rules on recreation fees. 

When Congress enacted FLREA it again expressed its commitment to the public interest. The then Chairman of the House Resources Committee said of FLREA and again I quote, ‘‘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 does contain some common sense prohibitions on 

fees for basic access and does so in language that the Federal 

courts have found to be clear and unambiguous. The Forest Service 

and BLM, however, have evaded FLREA’s requirements and restrictions, and as a consequence FLREA has failed to achieve its 

objectives. These agencies have repeatedly demonstrated that they 

cannot be trusted to honor congressional intent. For this reason it’s 

vital that you enact new fee authority that’s crystal clear in its vision and its purpose. 

The national parks have always been distinctly different from 

other public lands with higher levels of infrastructure and services. 

Entrance fees for parks when kept at modest levels are generally 

well accepted. The rapidly approaching centennial makes it imperative that Congress deal with park fees soon. 

And because the parks are so different, I don’t think they’ve ever 

been a very good fit under the FLREA framework. I offer that fee 

authority for the Park Service could be removed from FLREA and 

handled in park specific legislation such as a centennial bill. Recreation fees for other agencies could then be dealt with in separately 

written language and in a timeframe not rushed by the centennial. 

18 

With respect to FLREA’s implementation I’m deeply concerned 

about the way the Forest Service and BLM are privatizing our public lands by using concessionaires and private contractors to get 

around the rules laid down in the law. Almost all the requirements 

and restrictions that apply to these agencies are rendered null and 

void at sites where a permitee or contractor is operating a recreation facility while providing a service. This has become a get out 

of jail free card removing recreation policy from congressional oversight altogether. Any legislation to reform recreation fees must require that private management, where the agencies choose to use 

it, is transparent to the visitor. 

Federal policy should be consistent. It currently is not, not even 

within a single agency. 

I traveled to Alaska this summer and was pleased to see that 

with the exception of concessionaire managed sites, the Tongass 

and the Chugach National Forests are not charging for parking at 

trail heads. But when I passed through Washington and Oregon on 

my way home, it was quite the opposite. Hundreds of trail heads 

in those two states charge what amounts to a parking fee just to 

go for a walk in the woods. 

FLREA contains what Congress and its primary authors believe 

were ironclad prohibitions on fees for hiking, riding, boating 

through undeveloped Federal land solely for parking or for general 

access. The Forest Service and BLM have not followed those provisions nor many others. They’ve become expert at taking phrases in 

FLREA that say one thing and twisting them to say that they 

mean the opposite. The legislation that replaces FLREA needs to 

be very clearly written and unambiguous so that not even the most 

clever wordsmith can contort its meaning. 

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 is welcome, not as customers, but as owners. 

I look forward to working with you to craft that legislation and 

restore that tradition. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Benzar follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98909.010
20 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98909.011
21 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98909.012
22 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98909.013
23 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98909.014
24 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98909.015
25 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98909.016
26 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98909.017
27 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Benzar. 

Mr. Brown? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICA OUTDOORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee, 

thank you for taking the time to consider the concerns and issues 

that are necessary to improve the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

FLREA is the authority under which more than 8,000 recreation 

special use permits are issued in national forests and on BLM 

lands. For that reason America Outdoors Association members and 

our affiliate state organizations are supportive of reauthorization 

provided there are adjustments to the law. Since FLREA expires 

September 30th, 2016, reauthorization is necessary to avoid destabilization of thousands of small businesses operating on permits 

authorized under this law. 

While the authorization of this permitting authority is important, 

it will become increasingly irrelevant unless we are able to streamline the permitting processes that have become so complex and 

costly. In fact, Federal lands are on virtual lockdown to new permitted activities because the processes are so complex and costly 

they often exceed the economies of scale of the field staff and the 

perspective permit holders. Even some existing permits are becoming obsolete in some cases because they cannot be modified to enable outfitters to adjust to changing markets. 

I’ve prepared a chart with my testimony to give you some idea 

of the hoops that have to be negotiated to authorize outfitting and 

guiding in organized groups on national forests. Most of these same 

issues apply to the BLM. So while I urge you to pass FLREA, we 

desperately need to include provisions that streamline the permitting processes for outfitters, organized groups and special events. 

The permitting authority in FLREA needs to be strengthened. 

The authority in the current law under Section 802–H is vague. 

When it is strengthened we think that this is also the opportunity 

to encourage efficiency in permit administration and NEPA documentation. 

I just want to offer you some suggestions on streamlining. 

Authorization encouragement of programmatic environmental assessments in lieu of NEPA documentation for every permit or 

group of permits issued should be considered. 

The use of categorical exclusions should be expanded. They’re 

being used in some cases successfully, but the tendency is to go to 

higher and higher levels of analysis. 

The Forest Service and BLM cost recovery rule should be revised. 

It provides a financial incentive for the agencies to ramp up documentation requirements when they could be using CAD axis. The 

cost for any small group of outfitters can exceed $100,000. For new 

proposed uses the costs are off the charts and are not consistent 

with economies of scale of the outdoor recreation industry. 

Temporary permits should be authorized for new uses. BLM 

doesn’t have a temporary permit. The Forest Service limits their 

200 service days. CQ guidance supports the use of categorical exVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:53 Mar 10, 2017 Jkt 098909 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98909\G98909.TXT G98909
28 

clusions for temporary permits, and this can be a way to test new 

uses in national forests and on BLM lands. 

We also suggest eliminating the needs assessment for commercial services unless that process is a statutory requirement. 

One of the other issues that has come up is some of the executive 

orders related to Department of Labor issues, and we think a provision in FLREA which makes it clear that Forest Service and BLM 

permits are not subject to the Service Contract Act is needed. 

I want to wrap up with some perspectives on FLREA and recreation fees in general. 

For these fee initiatives in FLREA to survive we must have better accountability. We recommend requiring an annual report to be 

published on amenity fee collections and expenditures at each fee 

site not at each forest. Within 90 days of the close of the physical 

year each collection site should provide an annual accounting of 

fees collected and how amenity fees were spent. Failure to provide 

the report should result in the loss of fee authority for that resource. If 80 percent of the fees are indeed being returned to the 

site where they are collected this reporting should not be problematic. 

Once FLREA is reauthorized we just ask that you plan to conduct regular oversight hearings to ensure the intent of FLREA is 

realized. We support a ten-year reauthorization, not a permanent 

reauthorization. 

I’ve offered a number of other suggestions in my testimony including a strategy to dramatically improve trail clearing which is 

so important to access. 

I look forward to answering any questions you have about this 

and other issues covered by my testimony. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

29 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98909.018
30 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98909.019
31 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98909.020
32 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98909.021
33 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brown. 

Thank you, each of you, for your comments this morning. 

I think the interest here from the Committee is clearly from 

those of us in the West. Thank you, Senator Manchin, for joining 

us and giving us a little geographic distribution here around the 

country. [Laughter.] 

I think for so many of us our public lands, our national parks, 

our Forest Service lands, this is our backyard. And as you point 

out, Ms. Benzar, we use them. We are out there every day whether 

it is walking the dog or going skiing or cross-country hiking or running. We are using our parks. 

I do not think that there is much push back on fees, again, so 

long as you can see the benefit back to your park. But what we are 

seeing is an increasing cost or a rise in the fees for various uses. 

I think you have pointed out some areas where perhaps they are 

not consistent with the criteria set out in FLREA. 

Ms. Benzar, you have outlined some, but a big part of the concern that I have is what we are seeing with this rising percentage 

of administrative costs. That is something that the public sees no 

benefit to. 

Ms. O’Dell, within the National Park Service we saw last year 

the cost of fee collection was about 18 percent of fee revenue. You 

spent about five percent on management agreements, above that 

reservation services as well, another five percent for administration 

and overhead. So by my calculation that’s about 28 percent of all 

fees doing nothing to benefit the parks. 

Ms. Wagner, within the Forest Service it looks worse. For the 

last several years we have seen about 32 to 34 percent of fee revenue that went toward administration, overhead and fee collection. 

That is a third of the fees where the public sees no benefit. Somehow or other it is going into administration. Twenty-four percent 

of fees went just toward fee management agreements and reservation services. Your testimony suggests that you reinvest, what, 80 

to 95 percent in recreation fee sites where the visitor fees were 

paid. I need to understand because there is a clear discrepancy 

there. 

Back to you, Ms. O’Dell, looking at the percentages of the fees 

going to administrative costs. Last year the Bureau of Reclamation 

spent approximately 56 percent of fee revenue on cost of collection 

and administrative costs. You have to help me out here because 

you will not have the support from the public for increasing fees. 

I do not care if we are going from $3 at the Mendenhall Visitor 

Center to $5 which most people would say is insignificant. If they 

are looking at this and seeing a third of your fees are going for administrative purposes and 28 percent of fees of the Park Service 

are going for administrative purposes, and at the Bureau of Reclamation, 56 percent is going for administrative purposes. I am not 

going to buy it, and I do not think anybody else would. 

Tell me what we can do to reduce the overhead involved here because it is going, clearly, in the wrong direction. 

We will start with you, Ms. O’Dell, and then we will go to you, 

Ms. Wagner. 

Ms. O’DELL. Thank you for your concern, Senator. 

34 

In the National Park Service we put a great deal of emphasis on 

staffing our entrance stations to national parks, so we are employing a lot of people to greet visitors as they come in, to take their 

fee, to give them orientation materials, to help them understand 

how best to use the park, where to find their campground or their 

lodge. We see that that provides a huge benefit to the visitor. 

Sometimes that is the only employee they will see and have a direct personal relation, interaction with during their time at the 

park. 

The CHAIRMAN. But do you think we want to see more employees 

or do we want to see our parks? It sounds to me like what you are 

doing is you are putting more employees there to collect the fees. 

Ms. O’DELL. Well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to—— 

Ms. O’DELL. I would say we are putting more employees there 

to help visitors have a safe and enjoyable visit and to help them 

manage getting around in a place that they are not familiar with. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I will let you finish your comments here. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. O’DELL. Thank you. 

And funding the recreation.gov service has been extremely valuable to visitors so that there is one place to go to make reservations, for all of the uses that they would like to do in national 

parks and in forests and refuges. It’s an interagency service. 

The CHAIRMAN. But does that bring down our costs? 

Ms. O’DELL. Well, it costs money. That’s a contractor. 

And so we—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But that level of efficiency ought to bring down 

the cost. What we are seeing is just the opposite, so it causes me 

to question how good this is. 

Ms. O’DELL. Well, I would say that having one contractor do that 

for all of our agencies has minimized the cost rather than every 

agency doing, creating their own system and trying to manage 

their own system—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go to Ms. Wagner because my time is expired here, but I think it is important that we understand our Forest Service side as well. 

Ms. WAGNER. I’m interested in understanding the numbers that 

you’re looking at and the numbers that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. One third. 

Ms. WAGNER. That I’m provided. So the data that I have shows 

that the cost for collections for the Forest Service in 2005 ran about 

$8 million. In 2014 it’s running about $4.8 million, about 6.7 percent of the expenditures that we’re making under the fee authority. 

So the cost of collections is not considered an overhead cost, per se, 

it is the cost of having a fee program. 

So when I look at 2014 expenditures in the Forest Service we 

spent $48 million of fee revenue. Eighty-six percent went into visitor services, ten percent to the cost of collections, three percent to 

overhead and administration and one percent for habitat restoration and fee management agreements. 

So I am curious, given your data, to do a comparison and kind 

of unpack that. It makes me very curious. 

35 

The CHAIRMAN. We are wildly apart on this because as we look 

at the numbers for the administration, the overhead and the fee 

collection, basically the stuff that will not go out to either help with 

interpretive or maintenance or just enhance the quality of the visitor experience out there, about a third of it by our calculations, the 

visitor does not see. 

I would be happy to have our folks sit down with you and look 

at your numbers, because this is something that if we are going to 

be looking at in a FLREA reauthorization I need to have the assurance that the people that are visiting the parks in Alaska or elsewhere are having a better experience and not just paying for somebody to sit in an office here in Washington, DC. 

Let me go to Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Continuing on that same point, this is to Ms. O’Dell and Ms. 

Wagner. I understand that if somebody uses the recreation.gov 

website to make a reservation for a campsite or purchase a recreation permit on Federal land that the site adds a $9 service fee in 

addition to the price of the recreational permit. If a typical campsite reservation is $20, adding that is a very significant increase. 

Does the agency take into account that service fee in establishing 

the price? 

Ms. WAGNER. It is a service fee indeed, for the convenience. 

Senator CANTWELL. At $9? 

Ms. WAGNER. A $9 fee to acquire a permit, to make sure the reservation is there for your event, your activity, your camping spot. 

And it is a fee that is charged by the contractor to provide that 

service. 

Senator CANTWELL. I think we need to make sure that whatever 

these prices are, you are taking that into consideration about what 

is a reasonable price. To me, I mean, I am sure it is a sweet deal 

for the contractor, but I have no idea whether that is the price 

value for putting that in place. 

Again, I do not know, to me, if this is like what I would call domain expertise, which I would, because we are in the business of 

giving people access to the park system, like building your own system and having it administered by somebody at the Park Service 

as opposed to an outsource contractor. 

I see I have got my colleague, Senator Daines’, attention as 

someone who has been involved in software. 

That this would be a better way to go and that adding $9 onto 

a $20 fee does not sound like a reasonable price to me. Does anybody have any further comment on that? 

Ms. O’DELL. The recreation.gov contract does expire in 2016, I 

believe. I believe we can extend it additional years, but we would 

be happy to engage in more conversation about how to have a system that gives the guarantee that visitors are looking for as they 

are coming to their public lands, that they will have a campsite 

when they get there rather than having to sit in a line and not get 

one for the night. So we’d be happy to engage in more conversation 

about that. 

Senator CANTWELL. I get that using automation, just as opposed 

to having so many people just old-fashioned phone reservation taking, you know, shows it is a good idea. Automation is a good idea, 

36 

but if it is a core competency by the agency it is probably better 

just to build that into our system as opposed to having some contractor throw on $9. It just sounds like a lot for processing. I mean, 

even the credit card people aren’t doing that, even Comcast is not 

doing that on their crazy, you know, pay by phone or pay online 

thing. I don’t know, what, there is this $5 or something. If you talk 

to somebody. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can get an airline ticket and it reserves—— 

Senator CANTWELL. So anyway, okay. 

I understand that the Mount Baker and Snoqualmie Forests 

have been designated as a pilot test—this is to Chief Wagner—to 

test ways to improve the issuance of permits, and so I hope the 

Forest Service will use this to help the YMCA get the permits. Can 

I get your commitment to work with me to resolve this issue so 

that it is not just a temporary pilot? 

Ms. WAGNER. Absolutely. And if I could add, I think the experience on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie is something that we should 

look at expanding across a number of regions in a number of forests. 

So Mr. Brown’s comments about are there opportunities for outfitting and guiding. Outfitters and guides, they offer a professional 

service. They are a means to connect people to the land and outdoor experiences, and they make it easier for people to do that. 

They value the natural resources. The natural resources are their 

backdrop and setting to offer that experience, and they want to 

offer a quality experience in a quality setting. 

We’re committed to taking the experience from the Mount BakerSnoqualmie and expanding that to make sure that we can simplify 

and create access and streamline procedures and processes and 

prepare the workforce to work that way. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. We will work with you on that, 

it is very important. 

The Mount Rainier fee increase will be 67 percent over a twoyear period. We have not changed fees charged for coal leasing and 

hard rock mining on Federal lands since 1872. Do we believe that 

this needs to be changed if the public is paying more for access to 

Federal land? Should those mining resources on Federal land pay 

an increase? 

Ms. WAGNER. We’d be interested in working with you on that 

particular issue. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a question, Mr. Brown. I frame this in the context of during the August recess the highlight was spending time with my 

wife and our dog, Ruby, miles and miles into the AbsarokaBeartooth Wilderness there, just outside of Yellowstone National 

Park, enjoying our tremendous public lands that we love and cherish in the State of Montana. 

I also recognize that outfitters and guides are important partners 

to our Federal land management agencies by helping to ensure 

public access to public lands. I am grateful for these guides that, 

you know, a horse looks better and better as you get older and 

37 

older oftentimes to get into some of the back country. I say this as 

somebody who grew up climbing a lot of mountains as a kid, but 

as the knees start to go, the lungs start to go. Again, I am grateful 

for what outfitters and guides can do in so many ways across our 

great state. But could you elaborate on the benefits and values that 

this partnership brings to the visiting public as well as the managing agencies? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, thank you, Senator. You know, I want to say 

that this has been one of the most successful programs in the Federal agencies and I used to work for the Federal agency. So I think 

the outfitting and guiding program and the permitting program, 

over the years, has been one of the most successful in providing access to people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to experience some of these great resources. 

So it’s been a success. It’s been a good partnership. I do think 

we’re starting to collect some additional overburden of regulation 

and cost as we’re discussing in other aspects of the fee program 

that need to be addressed in order for us to be able to continue this 

partnership. 

Senator DAINES. Maybe we could have you elaborate on that. I 

have heard concerns regarding some of the challenges surrounding 

permit renewals on Federal lands, certainly in my home State of 

Montana. In fact in your testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee you said the permit renewals sometimes face 

and I quote, ‘‘runaway analysis from NEPA.’’ Unfortunately 

permitees are required to recover those costs from the agency like 

a blank check according to one Montana outfitter. How much of 

that uncertainty for the outfitters and the agencies could be fixed 

by streamlining NEPA? That is kind of the first part. The second 

part is would you have any recommendations on how to create 

more certainty for those who facilitate access to our public lands? 

Mr. BROWN. Well I think, the use of categorical exclusions would 

help reduce some of those costs. When permits come up for renewal 

they have to be, they have to have NEPA analysis currently. As 

you know in Montana, the Bob Marshall, those costs were $100,000 

for a group of small businesses which, you know, is hardly significant. 

We don’t know what the end game will be in terms of analysis. 

The beginning is environmental assessment. And the Passaic Wilderness they went all the way to a 700-page EIS for about 1,600 

people to go into the Passaic Wilderness. Now cost recovery didn’t 

apply there because they started the process after or before the cost 

recovery rule went into effect. But if that 700-page EIS was billed 

to those outfitters, they wouldn’t exist or certainly the permits 

wouldn’t be issued to them. 

So, you know, these are the kinds of things that I think we’ve 

got to address. And there are a number of suggestions in my testimony about how we can streamline the processes and lower the 

cost for the renewal of those permits and even issuing new ones. 

Senator DAINES. Now you have made calls for more transparency 

in use of fees. How does that call for transparency and use of fees 

differ from what is being done currently? 

Mr. BROWN. Well the current reports, it depends from agency to 

agency and even, probably, forest to forest. But generally you’ll get 

38 

a glossy report about some of the projects that have been done in 

a forest. And we just recommend that each fee site report on how 

much they collected and where that money has gone. 

To give an example, in Idaho permits were coming up for renewal. The Forest Service wanted cost recovery. We said, well what 

happened to that more than $1 million the outfitters had paid in 

fees over the last five years? We couldn’t get the report. Now we 

finally got it, and discovered they had spent $200,000 one year, 

counting river users, 10,000 river users. So we need transparency 

to make sure that kind of thing doesn’t happen and the fees get 

used more appropriately. 

Senator DAINES. One last question. I am going to be out of time 

here. 

We are in the midst of and coming through one of the worst wildfire seasons in the Western U.S. in history, and that is why forest 

reform is one of my top priorities here in Congress. These wildfires 

create closures, oftentimes, sometimes the back country in our national parks as well as in our wilderness areas and Federal lands, 

other Federal lands. Could you expand, and you are going to have 

to do this quickly because I am out of time, how better and more 

active forest management might be able to facilitate more access to 

Federal land? 

Mr. BROWN. No, I think in general and I’m probably getting off 

into an area that I’m outside, a little outside of my expertise. But 

I think at some point you do have to look at the way the agency 

spends money in general. Whether it’s efficient, whether the four 

tier organizational structure is appropriate verses a three tier organizational structure. 

And so those kinds of issues are on a larger scale and outside of 

FLREA, but those are things that I think have to be looked at to 

make sure that the overhead, because each year the bureaucracy 

is going to take a cut of any appropriation. So you don’t get as 

much to the ground. And therefore, you can’t have as much access 

and certainly as much recreation access and other programs unless 

those efficiencies are improved. 

Senator DAINES. Alright, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Before he leaves I just want to commend Senator Daines for 

mentioning this question of wildfire because, of course, you cannot 

enjoy your treasures if you have infernos going on in the neighborhood. So I appreciate your saying that. 

I think colleagues know the 11 Western Senators said before we 

left for the August break that priority one for the West this September was to fix this broken system of fighting fire. There are a 

number of pieces to the puzzle, but certainly it starts with ending 

the fire borrowing. 

I commend my colleagues. Senator Gardner is here, Senator 

Murkowski. All 11 Western Senators said we were going to get this 

done this fall because this has been the longest running battle 

since the Trojan War. So I appreciate my colleague mentioning 

that. 

On this question that we talk about today I think it is also worth 

noting that as we go into the end of the Fiscal Year budget debate 

39 

during this counterproductive government shutdown what was 

learned indisputably is how much the American people revere their 

treasures. They looked at the closure of government and said, ehh. 

Maybe this agency, that agency, we will see. But what they cared 

about the most were the special places. Whether it was the Western treasures or the ones in the East, it sent a very powerful message. I think this is not by accident. I mean, recreation is a major 

economic engine for the country. 

Industry people say it approximates close to $650 billion worth 

of spending, and it is not hard to see where the numbers come 

from. Mention was just made of guides and people using equipment 

and getting in the car and hotels and restaurants. It is a big economic multiplier. 

I saw that this summer. Senator Cantwell made mention of the 

fact of the tour I made of Oregon’s seven wonders. We started with 

Crater Lake and a number of our treasures. I was struck again and 

again that the accounts because every time we went to a treasure 

we would have a meeting with the recreation leaders the day before or hours before. 

I want to ask you, Ms. Wagner, about an account I heard from 

the outfitters. Because they said they were facing hardships at the 

beginning of the season when they have to purchase all of their 

permits up front when they have not made any money from the 

trips. And then if the season was not particularly good—certainly 

in the West we saw drought this year, rivers running low, forest 

fires close areas—the guides get stuck with permits they have paid 

for but cannot use. 

I would be interested in your thoughts, Ms. Wagner, and your 

thoughts, Ms. O’Dell, because look it is quite obvious that at your 

agencies you do not get up in the morning and say let’s spend our 

day being rotten to guides and outfitters. We get that. 

But clearly, as our colleague mentioned, a lot of what has happened in the development of this staggering recreation engine, the 

rules and the procedures have not kept up with the times. So for 

you, Ms. Wagner and you, Ms. O’Dell, what can you do to help 

these outfitters and these guides, with a permitting system that actually works here on Planet Earth? 

I know that we have all these scenarios and discussion from 

agencies, but what can you do to try to address those two kinds of 

concerns? Because I think those are really representative of what 

I heard as I made my way in seven days through the seven wonders. 

Ms. Wagner? 

Ms. WAGNER. Senator Wyden, I am glad that you got out to experience America’s great outdoors. And thank you so much for your 

leadership on wild land fire management and your colleagues as 

well. 

So an exciting development is the Outdoor Industry Association 

has started a group called the Outdoor Access Working Group. And 

David is part of that as well as a number of nongovernmental organizations and industry players as well as Federal agencies. And I 

think that is a group that can come together and really start collaborating on what are some ways to more successfully offer outfitVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:53 Mar 10, 2017 Jkt 098909 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98909\G98909.TXT G98909
40 

ting and guided experiences on public lands. So I’m really looking 

forward to that. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is short. I know about the working 

group. I share your view, but exactly how would you, because you 

are hearing these for the first time, I assume. How would you go 

about trying to address the examples I gave? 

Ms. WAGNER. For the required purchase of—— 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. I mean—— 

Ms. WAGNER. Permits upfront? 

Senator WYDEN. The first is they have to buy them up front, but 

they have not made any money. And then if they have problems, 

they are stuck with permits they paid for but cannot use. 

Ms. WAGNER. And Senator—— 

Senator WYDEN. What would you do about that? 

Ms. WAGNER. Senator, I’m going to have to get back with you on 

that because I’m not familiar with that requirement to purchase up 

front. But I will look into that and get back with you and would 

offer ideas and suggestions for improving that after that staff meeting. 

Senator WYDEN. When could I have the answers to that? 

Ms. WAGNER. Quickly. 

Senator WYDEN. Like within a week? 

Ms. WAGNER. Absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and know that this 

is an issue that I, too am concerned about. We have the exact same 

situation with our air taxi operators in the Tongass and the need 

to require their permits well in advance. They do not know what 

the summer season is going to do in terms of keeping their float 

planes on the ground, so know that I am with you on this one. 

Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

To Ms. O’Dell and Ms. Wagner, the purpose of the Federal Land 

Recreation Enhancement Act is to provide an element of user pay 

while also limiting what the agencies can and cannot charge a fee 

for. 

In Ms. Benzar’s testimony she characterizes the land management agencies implementation of the law as agency overreach and 

evasion of the restriction of fees and treating citizens as customers 

rather than owners. Citizens are the owners. She further describes 

hidden or high administrative fees, the practice of creating facilities in order to justify a fee. Her testimony essentially contains 

about eight examples of instances where she believes a situation is 

questionable for fees being assessed. And from each of the examples under her or under your respective jurisdiction would you provide a written explanation to this Committee and to me for why 

the agency has the authority under the Federal Land Recreation 

Enhancement Act to take the action outlined in each of the situations that Ms. Benzar makes reference to? 

Ms. O’DELL. Certainly, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Benzar, in the written Forest Service testimony Ms. Wagner highlighted what is called the Comprehensive 

41 

Public Involvement Process which uses input from Recreation Resource Advisory Committees for fee and fee site changes. In your 

written testimony you state that the reauthorization must include, 

you describe, a procedure for citizens to challenge fees that do not 

appear to comply with the law. Do you believe that the Resource 

Advisory Committees really constitute a comprehensive public involvement process? And if not, what type of public process do you 

believe needs to be implemented? 

Ms. BENZAR. Thank you, Senator. 

I certainly do not think the Recreation Resource Advisory Committees have achieved that. They’ve been nothing but a rubber 

stamp for agency policy. They’ve held their meetings on weekdays 

in the middle of the day when ordinary citizens can’t really meaningfully participate. 

The Forest Service chartered committees of which I think there 

were five, none of them have met for several years now. They’re all 

defunct because everybody’s terms expired, and I’m not sure why 

they haven’t been refilled. But the rumor is that they can’t get 

enough applicants. Nobody wants to sit on those. But that’s okay 

because all they did was rubber stamp things. 

Anyway, they’ve approved 97 percent of the proposals that have 

been presented to them, and when the rate of approval is that high 

I question the need for any advisory committee at all. And I think 

that any fee legislation authority should be so clear that they don’t 

have to seek advice on what the law allows them to do. They know 

what the law allows them to do because the law says so. 

So I think there are many other ways that we could involve the 

citizens. A big one would be to make sure Congress is notified well 

in advance of any proposed changes to the fee programs and that 

the public is notified in a meaningful way. And then we, as citizens, can have a dialog with you, as our elected officials, if we 

think that there’s a problem looming. And we can ask you to look 

into it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Brown, the Department of Labor uses the Service Contract 

Act to apply executive orders to those who have contracts to operate on Federal land. In your testimony you state that the Forest 

Service and BLM permits for outfitters and guides should not be 

subject to the Service Contract Act. 

Can you give us some examples of the types of small operators 

who are impacted and why you believe it is not appropriate to 

apply the Service Contract Act to these permit holders? 

Mr. BROWN. Well the implementation of Executive Order 13658 

required increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for employees of outfitters or anyone that held a permit or Federal contracts. That was applied precipitously on some outfitters this year 

after they had already sold trips attached to their permit, so it had 

a big impact. 

The Department of Labor uses the Service Contract Act as justification for imposing this on permit holders. As you know the 

Service Contract Act also requires prevailing wages which, you 

know, we don’t have any prevailing wages in the outfitting industry but it’s a factor that we certainly don’t want to have to endure 

in the future. 

42 

So our concern is what’s going to happen down the line? And 

there are some real, and I can’t get in the weeds on this, but technical issues with interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

that makes it difficult for any outfitter operating the back country 

to determine what their overtime standard is. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am going to followup with the two from the 

agencies on that, if I could, with both of them. 

Ms. O’Dell and Ms. Wagner, in both your testimonies you highlight the economic revenue and the jobs for local communities that 

recreation provides as well as the importance of the fees for the 

agencies. Take a look at what we just heard about the minimum 

wage, the impact of this on the outfitters and guides, the permit 

holders, and they are going to go out of business. And I hear that 

at home in Wyoming. They cannot comply with what you are asking or what the President is asking through his executive order. So 

it doesn’t really matter what the President is doing, isn’t he making it harder for the public to get recreational opportunities when 

these folks have to go out of business? Does it make it harder for 

local economies to survive harder for people that are trying to hire? 

Aren’t jobs going to be lost? 

Your agencies are going to collect less fees in recreation areas because there are going to be less people able to provide services because of the thing that Mr. Brown testifies about. Currently, seasonal employees of ski businesses are exempt from the Fair Labor 

Standards Act so wouldn’t it be good to exempt, if we are going to 

exempt ski areas which I agree, shouldn’t we also exempt people 

that are providing river rafting and horseback riding and guides? 

Ms. WAGNER. That is a conversation we would invite with Department of Labor in examining the implementation of the executive order and their rule. We certainly have concerns about the impacts to the outfitter guide community. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

Ms. O’Dell? 

Ms. O’DELL. And we are in the same position. So the Department 

of the Interior continues discussions with Department of Labor to 

try and understand how it might apply to outfitters. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. O’Dell, last winter I made myself somewhat obnoxious which 

isn’t very difficult for me. [Laughter.] 

In questioning Secretary Jewell about why the Park Service did 

not have a mobile app and an ability to buy passes online and have 

an app that would allow you to get into the parks and join the 21st 

century. I followed up with a letter to the Secretary last spring. 

Where are we on that? Are we making any progress? 

Ms. O’DELL. Oh, Senator, I am so happy you asked that question 

because we are prepared to tell you that we hope to have a pilot 

program up and running in several parks, Acadia among them, by 

January 2016 to test out that kind of application. 

Senator KING. So you are on it? 

Ms. O’DELL. We’re on it, sir. 

43 

Senator KING. I appreciate the coincidence that Acadia in Maine 

is one of the places. 

Ms. O’DELL. I know. Isn’t that amazing? 

Senator KING. It is astonishing. [Laughter.] 

No, but seriously, I think that is great. I am delighted to hear 

that because I think it is important. One of the things that has 

concerned me in many parks, there are so many access points that 

people that want to pay do not know where to pay—there is no 

place to collect. Acadia is one of those where there are many access 

points. So I think this could be a boon to the Park Service and to 

our parks in terms of revenues available. 

The other piece on this that I, based upon my experience at Acadia, but I am sure this is the case in other parks, is allowing local 

businesses to sell passes. One of the problems I have heard in Acadia is businesses saying we would love to, you know, hotels, bed 

and breakfasts, like to have the pass right on the desk. You pay 

for it. But it has been difficult because it is either not available or 

the business has to pay in advance for 100 passes which they really 

cannot or do not want to do. So I hope that is another area that 

you can look into because, again, if you have people that want to 

pay and we need revenues in the park, let’s not leave money on the 

table. I hope you will look into that as well. 

Ms. O’DELL. Yes, sir, we are. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we are about to have a vote, 

so that is all I have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. 

It is my understanding that we are too. But until we get the 

word here, I am going to continue with a few questions. 

I appreciate what you are saying about the fees and leaving 

money on the table, but I also recognize that when we push it too 

far in that sense we make it uninviting for a visitor. 

I was recently at the Mendenhall Visitor Center in Juneau. This 

is operated by the U.S. Forest Service. Now there is a situation 

there where the fees are very, very minimal. It is $3, and basically 

you can park and use the visitor’s center. They are looking to do 

an increase to $5. Not unreasonable. I do not think anyone would 

suggest it is so. But now if you want to bypass the visitor’s center, 

you do not want to go to the restroom, you do not even want to 

park your car, if you just want to go to the trail—and I am reading 

the article from the Juneau Empire here, which reports that if you 

just want to go to the photo point trail, we are going to charge you 

the $5. 

When I was out there I said, ‘‘Well logistically how do you make 

this happen? Are you going to be chasing everybody?’’ You had to 

have your band that was the color of my sweater here so that everyone would know that you had paid your fee. The Forest Service 

suggested we are going to have some kind of a vending machine 

application, and there is not going to be a focus on enforcement initially. But again, I do not want to go to my Mendenhall Visitor 

Center and go hiking on the great trails that we have out there 

and feel like I am going to have somebody from Forest Service 

chasing me down the trail to pull up my multiple rain jackets to 

see if I have a wrist band on. 

44 

So making sure that there is a reasonableness with all of this, 

I think, is very, very important to how people feel about their 

treasures and their backyard. I worry about this, and I appreciate 

the fact that you, Senator Barrasso, asked both you, Ms. O’Dell, 

and you, Ms. Wagner, to respond to the very specific issues that 

were raised in Ms. Benzar’s testimony because I would agree. I 

think that there is interpretation here that goes above and beyond 

the contours that are set out FLREA in terms of those allowable 

charges for recreation sites. 

Again, I would suggest that perhaps what we are seeing here 

with the proposal at the Mendenhall Glacier may be one of those 

areas that does not, in fact, comport with FLREA in terms of the 

given fee authority. I would like to see, specifically, how you can 

confirm that in fact these increases do fit within what is outlined 

within FLREA. 

Another area and this is primarily, I guess, on BLM lands, they 

charge a special recreation permit fee at a trail head. They justify 

it by classifying hiking as a specialized recreational use. Now in my 

view, special recreational permits were supposed to be used for 

things like group activities or recreation events or motorized recreational use. So at what point did we get to that spot where hiking became a specialized recreational use? I do not think any of us 

would suggest that is the case. So again, I want to know where you 

believe you have the authorities because I think you are pushing 

it to beyond what was understood within the confines of FLREA. 

Let me ask you, Ms. O’Dell, with regards to Park Service we 

have been in a situation where it has been a number of years. We 

went from 2006 until 2014 before you updated the entrance fee 

structure. I understand you are now in the process of reviewing 

and updating the commercial tour fee structure for the first time 

since 1998. These are significant periods of time. 

I think it is a fair question to ask whether or not you have plans 

to regularly revisit fee structures. Senator Cantwell here mentioned the increase at Mount Rainier, a pretty significant increase. 

I think she said a 25 percent increase over the past two years. 

I understand that we are all looking to update things, but it 

seems that we have got some considerable periods of time where 

we are just not doing an assessment. We are not doing an analysis. 

I am curious to know if you have plans to look at our fee structures 

within our Park System on a little bit more regular basis than 

since 1998? 

Ms. O’DELL. I would say that generally, yes, that it just should 

be a standard operating process that you take a look at your fee 

structure repeatedly and tweak it. And then when you do have increases they’re potentially not so dramatic. 

The long duration between raising entrance fees from 2006 to 

2014 was in response to the economic downturn to try and make 

sure that people had access to parks and didn’t make it so difficult. 

With the commercial tour operators we are sensitive to their concerns and their needs about advanced warning of raising fees and 

letting, being able to pass those costs on to their customers in an 

advanced notice. 

45 

So it is high time that we revisit that. We’re glad that we’re 

doing it, and we’re working collaboratively with that community to 

try and find the right next best step. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to look forward to the responses that 

you are able to provide the Committee specific to Senator 

Barrasso’s questions, what I have raised and again, in direct response to Ms. Benzar there. 

On the fee retention issues, Ms. Wagner, you state in your testimony that funding collected through FLREA is available and these 

are your words, ‘‘any operation maintenance and improve costs at 

recreation fee sites.’’ I think it is very, very clear that FLREA does 

not allow that it be utilized for any operation. It can only be used 

for specific things, again, that are listed in the statute. 

We need to make sure that that is exactly what is happening and 

that it is not being used for installation of solar systems, removal 

of invasive plants. This is not what it is designed for. It is designed 

for operation and projects that are specific to the visitor experience 

there. 

We clearly have some issues that we need to look at. I think Sen- ator Cantwell, through her example of the service fee of $9 on a 

$20 permit, I think most of us would say that is not reasonable. 

You mention that we have got this contract that is up for renewal 

next year. I do not know, but I think we all get frustrated around 

here because we get so used to using this phone. 

Senator Barrasso and I were whispering to one another here. I 

can get my airplane ticket on this. I can book it on this. I can use 

this to go through the TSA and through the counter there. It gives 

me my seat. It gives me everything. 

Senator KING. You are singing my song, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know, and we have talked about this. But the 

fact that you cannot get an annual pass for the Mendenhall Visitor 

Center through an app, we can do better than this. I do not understand how it needs to be so complicated and why it is so extraordinarily expensive. I think we are getting ripped off. I will just say 

it. You cannot have one contractor who has the total contract for 

the administration of the reservation systems, all the bookings, 

have them making what they are making and still charge $9 per 

permit on a $20 permit and that is a reasonable service fee. I am 

thinking this just is not working for us. 

So anyway, we have got more that we need to talk about. I want 

to make sure that at the end of the day we are able to use these 

lands. I note with interest the number of discounted passes that 

are provided whether it is to kids, whether it is to seniors, whether 

it is to those who volunteer, whether it is to our military, and I 

think we appreciate that. 

I also know that we leave out many, many, many Americans who 

look at the fee structure and say, well, I’m not going to bring my 

family of four if I’m paying $50 to go out for the afternoon. I’m just 

not going to do it. We need to be cognizant of that. We need to be 

working to make sure that it is affordable and accessible. Again, 

that those fees go to the public lands themselves and not to some 

administrative black hole back in Maryland or wherever it sits. 

With that, we have got votes that we will head off to. I think you 

had a fair amount of interest in this discussion this morning, but 

46 

unfortunately we do have some competing interests in front of us. 

So do not take that as a lack of interest. Know that we will be addressing this, as I mentioned in my opening comments, with an effort to extend this and to look to more comprehensive reform. 

With that, I thank you all for your testimony and what you have 

given us this morning. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98909.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98909.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98909.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98909.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98909.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98909.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98909.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98909.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98909.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98909.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98909.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98909.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98909.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98909.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98909.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98909.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98909.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98909.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98909.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98909.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98909.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98909.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98909.044
71 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98909.048
72 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98909.049
73 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98909.050
74 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98909.051
75 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98909.052
76 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98909.053
77 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98909.054
78 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98909.055
79 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98909.056
80 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98909.057
81 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98909.058
82 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98909.059
83 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98909.060
84 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98909.061
85 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98909.062
86 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98909.063
87 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98909.064
88 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98909.065
89 


Insert offset folio 66 here 98909.066
90 


Insert offset folio 67 here 98909.067
91 


Insert offset folio 68 here 98909.068
92 


Insert offset folio 69 here 98909.069
93 


Insert offset folio 70 here 98909.070
94 


Insert offset folio 72 here 98909.072
95 


Insert offset folio 73 here 98909.073
96 


Insert offset folio 74 here 98909.074
97 


Insert offset folio 75 here 98909.075
98 


Insert offset folio 76 here 98909.076
99 


Insert offset folio 78 here 98909.078
100 


Insert offset folio 79 here 98909.079
101 


Insert offset folio 80 here 98909.080
102 


Insert offset folio 81 here 98909.081
103 


Insert offset folio 82 here 98909.082
104 


Insert offset folio 83 here 98909.083
105 


Insert offset folio 84 here 98909.084
106 


Insert offset folio 86 here 98909.086
107 


Insert offset folio 87 here 98909.087
108 


Insert offset folio 88 here 98909.088
109 


Insert offset folio 89 here 98909.089
110 


Insert offset folio 90 here 98909.090
111 


Insert offset folio 91 here 98909.091
112 


Insert offset folio 92 here 98909.092
113 


Insert offset folio 93 here 98909.093
114 


Insert offset folio 94 here 98909.094
115 


Insert offset folio 95 here 98909.095
116 


Insert offset folio 96 here 98909.096
117 


Insert offset folio 97 here 98909.097
118 


Insert offset folio 98 here 98909.098
119 


Insert offset folio 99 here 98909.099
120 


Insert offset folio 100 here 98909.100
121 


Insert offset folio 101 here 98909.101
122 


Insert offset folio 102 here 98909.102
123 


Insert offset folio 103 here 98909.103
124 


Insert offset folio 104 here 98909.104
125 


Insert offset folio 105 here 98909.105
126 


Insert offset folio 106 here 98909.106
127 


Insert offset folio 107 here 98909.107
128 


Insert offset folio 108 here 98909.108
129 


Insert offset folio 109 here 98909.109
130 


Insert offset folio 110 here 98909.110
131 


Insert offset folio 111 here 98909.111
132 


Insert offset folio 112 here 98909.112
133 


Insert offset folio 113 here 98909.113
134 


Insert offset folio 114 here 98909.114
135 


Insert offset folio 115 here 98909.115
136 


Insert offset folio 117 here 98909.117
137 


Insert offset folio 118 here 98909.118
138 


Insert offset folio 119 here 98909.119
139 


Insert offset folio 120 here 98909.120
140 


Insert offset folio 122 here 98909.122
141 


Insert offset folio 123 here 98909.123
142 


Insert offset folio 124 here 98909.124
143 


Insert offset folio 125 here 98909.125
144 


Insert offset folio 126 here 98909.126
145 


Insert offset folio 127 here 98909.127
146 


Insert offset folio 128 here 98909.128
147 


Insert offset folio 129 here 98909.129
148 


Insert offset folio 130 here 98909.130
149 


Insert offset folio 131 here 98909.131
150 


Insert offset folio 132 here 98909.132
151 


Insert offset folio 134 here 98909.134
152 


Insert offset folio 135 here 98909.135
153 


Insert offset folio 136 here 98909.136
154 


Insert offset folio 137 here 98909.137
155 


Insert offset folio 138 here 98909.138
156 


Insert offset folio 139 here 98909.139
157 


Insert offset folio 140 here 98909.140
158 


Insert offset folio 141 here 98909.141
159 


Insert offset folio 142 here 98909.142
160 


Insert offset folio 143 here 98909.143
161 


Insert offset folio 144 here 98909.144
162 


Insert offset folio 145 here 98909.145
163 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 147 here 98909.147