    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    87-533 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush Holt, NJ
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    John Fleming, LA                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Glenn Thompson, PA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Niki Tsongas, MA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Tony Caardenas, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Jared Huffman, CA
    Rauul R. Labrador, ID                Raul Ruiz, CA
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Bill Flores, TX                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Joe Garcia, FL
    Markwayne Mullin, OK                 Matt Cartwright, PA
    Steve Daines, MT                     Katherine M. Clark, MA
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Vacancy
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO
    Vance M. McAllister, LA
    Bradley Byrne, AL

                           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
                RAUUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Niki Tsongas, MA
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Rush Holt, NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Rauul R. Labrador, ID                Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Steve Daines, MT                     Joe Garcia, FL
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Matt Cartwright, PA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Jared Huffman, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO                   Vacancy
    Vance M. McAllister, LA              Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    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. Rauul, 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
        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

    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 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 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. RAUUL 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. Rauul 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.
        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 off-set 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 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 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 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.
        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 Orange-related 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 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.
        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 questions 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
    front-burner 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 experiences 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 non-profit 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.
        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.
    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, 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.
        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 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 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See 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
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 program,. 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, 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]
        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.
        [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.
        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.

    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.
        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 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 interagency 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 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.

      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 non-
    profit, outdoor, educational institution utilizing the
    wilderness 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 nuts-and-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.
        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
    already 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.
        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.
        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.
        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 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 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
    follow-up 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, 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, 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 re-
    evaluate 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 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, 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 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.
        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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 half-a-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 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 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.

                                     ______

        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 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See attachment I.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Attachment II.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     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 Pre-Employment 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

                                  attachment 1

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ATTACHMENT 2

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Crandall.

     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 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 international
    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 well-understood 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.
      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. 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
    anything-goes 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 experiment 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 non-existent. 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 porta-potties. 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 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, 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 low-income 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 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, non-commercial 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 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 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 per-vehicle 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.
              (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.

      (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:

                      (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 parking, 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.

             (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 provides
            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
                    non-Federal 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.

      (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).
    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.
      (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. Sec. 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 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.

      (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, institutionally, 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.
        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.
        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 e-
    government services, we are considering kiosk options where
    available, to ensure that an individual has the opportunity for
    self-service 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.
        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.

        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 program, 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 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 forest-
                specific 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 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 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. Rauul 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 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.
                           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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ BARK, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, et al., 1:12-cv-01505-RC
    D.D.C. March 28, 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
        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. Rauul 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.

      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. Rauul 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. Rauul 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 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. Rauul 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 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 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 outfitter-guide 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.
        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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sherer 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).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.
        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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ BARK v. U.S. Forest Service, Case No. 1:12-CV-01505 (D.D.C.
    2012).
        \4\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Forest Service Trails; Long- and Short-Term Improvements Could
    Reduce Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability, GAO-13-
    618.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.

      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. Rauul 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
    developed 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 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

                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

                                The Wilderness Society,

                                                        April 18, 2014.

    Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Hon. Rauul 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 Wilderness Society respectfully submits this supplemental
    statement for the record for the hearing on the Federal Lands
    Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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, 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.

                                     [all]