[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]