[Senate Hearing 114-345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-345
REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS TO THE FEDERAL LAND RECREATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-909 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director
PATRICK J. McCORMICK III, Chief Counsel
LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director
SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel
DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria. Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Washington..................................................... 3
WITNESSES
O'Dell, Peggy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 12
Benzar, Kitty, President, Western Slope No-Fee Coalition......... 17
Brown, David, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association... 27
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Adams, Gaye:
Statement for the Record..................................... 70
American Recreation Coalition:
Statement for the Record..................................... 71
American Whitewater, The Mountaineers, Washington Trails
Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 79
Archibald, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 83
Benson, Bill:
Letter for the Record........................................ 84
Benzar, Kitty:
Opening Statement............................................ 17
Written Testimony............................................ 19
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 64
Bonowski, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 90
Bragg, Susannah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 92
Breiding, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 93
Brown, David
Opening Statement............................................ 27
Written Testimony............................................ 29
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 67
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Capps, Don:
Letter for the Record........................................ 94
Christiansen, Chris:
Letter for the Record........................................ 95
Cornett, Nina:
Statement for the Record..................................... 96
Coyne, Alasdair:
Letter for the Record........................................ 97
Edkins, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 98
Fleming, Stephen:
Statement for the Record..................................... 99
Fragosa, Rich:
Letter for the Record........................................ 101
Gall, Mark:
Statement for the Record..................................... 103
Goetsch, Matt:
Letter for the Record........................................ 104
Gray, Kurt:
Letter for the Record........................................ 105
Hall, Linda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 106
Henderson, Norm:
Statement for the Record dated 9/25/15....................... 107
Henderson, Norm:
Statement the Record dated 10/7/15........................... 128
Holliday, Richard:
Statement for the Record..................................... 129
Holt, Jan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 133
Jenkins, Matt:
Comment for the Record....................................... 134
Johnson, Lanie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 135
Kelly, Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 136
Kelley, Tammy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 137
Larsen, Helen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 139
Lewis, Greg:
Letter for the Record........................................ 140
Marotta, Cynthia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 141
McMichael, Malcolm:
Statement for the Record..................................... 142
Miller, Chip:
Letter for the Record........................................ 143
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
(The) National Outdoor Leadership School:
Statement for the Record..................................... 144
Nelson, Dr. Allen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 147
O'Dell, Peggy:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 48
Peters, Robert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 148
Rodgers, Sonya:
Statement for the Record..................................... 149
Romanello, Jill:
Letter for the Record........................................ 150
Ross, John:
Statement for the Record..................................... 151
Sample, Stephen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 152
Sandahl, Brooke:
Letter for the Record........................................ 153
Schweiker, Roy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 154
Silver, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 155
Smith, James:
Letter for the Record........................................ 156
U.S. Travel Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 157
Wagner, Mary:
Opening Statement............................................ 12
Written Testimony............................................ 13
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 53
Weisman, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 159
Wiechers, Peter:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
Wittrock, Paul:
Letter for the Record........................................ 162
Zierhut, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 163
REAUTHORIZATION OF AND POTENTIAL REFORMS TO THE FEDERAL LAND RECREATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
Thank you all for being here.
We are meeting this morning to consider the reauthorization
and the possible reform of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act, commonly called FLREA. For those who are
engaged and in tune with this, this act provides the National
Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest
Service with limited authority to charge recreation fees. Those
agencies are further authorized to keep those fees in order to
maintain and improve recreation sites.
FLREA initially passed as a legislative rider on the Fiscal
Year Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The original authorization
was for ten years. FLREA has been extended now twice through
the appropriation process. With our Committee holding
jurisdiction over FLREA and with larger items like our broad
bipartisan Energy bill which has now been reported from the
Committee, I think this is a good time to conduct oversight as
we consider this Act's future.
While I personally wish that we did not have to charge
recreation fees, I am generally supportive of FLREA. I want to
see the Act and its programs continue without interruption as
we work on longer term reforms, but the path to accomplishing
that, I think, is not always as easy as it sounds.
With FLREA's current authorization expiring at the end of
2016, I think we need to focus on two separate extensions.
The first will be a temporary one-year extension that
would, ideally, be enacted before the end of this year. If we
can do that, we will avoid disruptions to programs that are
multiyear or that require lead time such as the annual America
the Beautiful National Parks and Recreation Federal Recreation
Lands Pass. The House has already passed a one-year extension,
and I think the Senate needs to do the same.
The second extension will hopefully be longer term and it
may include some of the practical ideas that we are seeing to
reform and to improve FLREA. Without question recreation fees
have become an important part of the Federal land agencies
comprehensive funding strategies to support recreation sites
and services. In FY'14 nearly $280 million was collected by the
five relevant agencies. The National Park Service took in 67
percent of the revenue and the Park Service and Forest Service
together collected 92 percent of the total.
Yet there still appears to be plenty of room for
improvement within the fee authorities and structures. The Park
Service's entrance fees are the most accepted by the public
along with fees for developed sites such as campgrounds, but a
number of important questions have been raised. For example,
why is the Park Service charging individuals permit fees for
back country access in addition to an entrance fee? Why are the
cost collections skyrocketing within the agencies?
BLM and Forest Service have not fared as well as the Park
Service with the public with respect to recreation fees under
FLREA. The Forest Service, in particular, has drawn multiple
lawsuits for its interpretations of standard amenity fees and
special recreation permit fee authority. It is my understanding
that the citizens challenging the fees were successful in many
of those instances.
I will also mention one incident that stands out in my
mind. I think members on the Committee have heard me raise
this. This occurred in the Tongass National Forest a couple
years ago. I actually had an opportunity to deliver this issue
personally to the Chief of the Forest Service, and this related
to a daycare provider who had taken her young charges for a
picnic out in the Tongass. It was essentially a picnic table
with a roof overhead. It was not within a cabin. It was just an
open air picnic table. As a commercial day care operator, she
had a commercial license. But she was actually presented with a
fine from the Forest Service for operating her business, her
commercial business, within the Tongass National Forest without
a permit. Now what she was doing was taking her kids out to an
afternoon picnic using the picnic tables there. In my mind that
is a perfect example of where permitting requirements are
limiting access to our public lands. I do not think that that
was the intention. While we have addressed the situation with
Auntie's Day Care in Wrangell, Alaska, it is examples like that
that I think get the people's attention, interest and really
ire.
Another issue that deserves our attention is a special
recreation permit authority that FLREA provides to outfitters
and guides. This authority has been particularly important in
national forests and refuges and on BLM public lands, but it is
my understanding that we can make these permits work better.
Our goals here can be relatively simple and
straightforward. We should try to keep recreation fees as low
as possible to ensure that Americans can access and enjoy their
public lands, we should ensure that these fees are not being
used to encumber or dissuade visitors, and we should ensure
that these fees are being used appropriately for maximum
benefit in maintaining and improving our recreation sites.
So with that I look forward to the comments from my Ranking
Member, Senator Cantwell, and we will then have an opportunity
to hear from the witnesses who have joined us here this
morning.
Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you for holding this hearing this morning to consider
reauthorization of the Federal Government's authority to
collect recreational fees. And I welcome the witnesses.
For those of us representing states with large amounts of
Federal land, outdoor recreation is an important part of our
local economy. Senator Wyden and I, just prior to the gaveling
down, were talking about those very activities within our two
states and how much it means to us. I did not know that the
Senator had traveled to the seven wonders of Oregon. So I
think, maybe next year, as we celebrate our centennial we will
have to do something similar in Washington.
Recreation fees have helped the land management agencies
better provide and protect Federal lands and provide important,
improved visitor services. In general I support the extension
of the authority for Federal recreation fees so long as fees
are kept at reasonable levels and they do not discourage the
public from accessing the public lands. We must also ensure
that fee revenues continue to be used to enhance visitor
experiences on those Federal lands.
For example, last year recreation fee revenues enabled the
Forest Service in partnership with the Washington Trail
Association to maintain and improve 92 miles of popular hiking
trails across our state including portions of the Quinault
National Recreation Trail System, the Duckabush Trail, and the
Upper Big Quilcene Trail. These recreation fees collected in
the Olympic National Forest enabled the Washington Trail
Association to donate 11,000 hours of servicing these trails.
Fee revenues have enabled Mount Rainier National Park to build
a new ranger and visitor station at Carbon River, fund numerous
trail and campground and picnic area repairs, and improve and
help restore some of the park's subalpine meadows.
Where there is a direct connection between the fee and the
benefit to the public, recreation fees can improve both the
management of the Federal land and the visitor experience. It
is also worth noting that next year will mark the 100th
anniversary of our National Park System and the Park Service
collects over $180 million in fee revenues each year. That is,
by far, the largest amount of any of the Federal agencies.
Several of us have been working to develop a National Park
Centennial bill, and I certainly want to work with the Chairman
on that. This bill would provide the Park Service in its second
century with additional tools to enable and better manage our
National Park System. I think we should consider extension of
fee as an important way to improve the Federal services and
address the deferred maintenance backlog.
While these recreation fees can help, I also just want to
put a reminder in that it is important that we make sure that
we extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Money from that
conservation fund helps provide important outdoor recreation
opportunities on Federal land, so I hope that we will take
advantage and get an agreement reached in the Committee, so
that we can continue to push that forward.
I also believe, as the Chair mentioned, that Federal
agencies need to look for innovative ways to access public
lands for recreation. I will give an example. For the past few
years, the YWCA of Seattle has been trying to get the Forest
Service to issue a permit to allow the YMCA to bring young
people to national forests for the very first time. Because the
Forest Service treats the YMCA as a commercial entity, their
required permit has been held up. We have discussed this with
Under Secretary Bonnie, as well as the Forest Service, and I am
happy that the Forest Service as a first step is trying to fix
this problem and has provided the YMCA a temporary user day
authorization. But for me, this is a fundamental issue as well.
We need to make sure that we are encouraging more people to
visit our national parks and not obstructing them to get there.
Finally, I just want to mention that I would like to
highlight some of the issues of how we treat different users of
the public lands. The entrance fee at Mount Rainer in my home
state increased this year from $15 to $20 and will increase
again next year to $25. This represents a 67 percent increase
in two years. I recognize the Park Service had not instituted
fee increases for several years and these are comparable with
other outdoor recreation fees; however, the public seeking to
visit national parks on Federal land should not be the only
ones paying higher fees. While park visitors are being assessed
higher fees on public lands, fees charged for other issues like
extraction on public lands remain historically low. If we are
going to ask the public to step up and fund increased
recreation fees, then we ought to be asking those who are doing
coal, hard rock mining, and other extractions on Federal lands
to also see an increase.
With that, I look forward to hearing from the panel and the
opportunity to discuss these issues in more detail so that we
can move forward on continuing to have great resources that the
public can access.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, all certainly
pertinent issues. And I think, again, timely as we are
exploring this reauthorization and the need for a little bit of
modernization, but also rationalization.
This morning we are eager to welcome our panel. We will
provide each of you an opportunity for about five minutes of
comments. Your full testimony will be included as part of the
record. After you have each given your statements we will have
an opportunity for the members to ask questions of each of you.
We will begin with Ms. Peggy O'Dell. Ms. O'Dell is the
Deputy Director for the National Park Service.
She will be followed by Ms. Mary Wagner, who is the
Associate Chief for the U.S. Forest Service at Department of
Agriculture.
We have Ms. Kitty Benzar, who is the President of the
Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. We welcome you to the
Committee.
And Mr. David Brown, who is the President of the American
Outdoors Association.
We look forward to the comments from each of you this
morning and for the effort that you have made to be here to
provide testimony.
We will begin with you, Ms. O'Dell. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY O'DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. O'Dell. Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and
members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before
you today. And thank you for your opening comments in support
of fee legislation in general. We look forward to discussing
the specifics with you.
Every year over 500 million Americans and travelers from
around the world visit our national parks, national forests,
wildlife refuges and public lands to enjoy the recreation
opportunities offered. Recreation activities on Federal lands
contributed an estimated $22.1 billion in economic output to
the surrounding communities and supported an estimated 197,000
jobs in communities surrounding these sites in 2013.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (or FLREA)
provides our agencies with recreation fee authority which has
allowed us to enhance visits to Federal lands by leveraging the
fees to implement thousands of projects that directly benefit
visitors.
In 2014 Interior's bureaus collected approximately $230
million in recreation fees. FLREA ensures that efficiency and
consistency in fee collection and also provides needed
flexibility for our agencies, each with unique authorizations,
geographies and management responsibilities to operate
effectively. The ability to spend recreation fees without
further appropriation and over multiple fiscal years permits
the agencies to expend funds for large projects that require
significant investment.
Each agency has developed procedures and tools to ensure
accountability in the administration of the recreation fee
program. We share the objectives of fair and transparent
revenue collection, controlling the cost of collection while
maintaining high levels of service and avoiding the
accumulation of unobligated revenues.
Our agencies also provide an interagency pass that covers
many recreation opportunities across Federal lands. These
passes provide a simple and cost effective way for visitors to
pay their entrance and standard amenity fees. The pass program
includes an annual pass, senior pass, access pass and volunteer
pass. It also includes a military pass available since 2012
which provides free access to all current military members and
their families. And as of September 1st it now includes the
Every Kid in a Park fourth grade pass which provides fourth
graders and their families nationwide free access to our
Federal lands.
The recreation fee program also supports recreation.gov,
the Federal website which provides convenient, one stop access
for those making reservations, securing permits and building
itineraries for travel to Federal recreation sites around the
country. Since its launch, recreation.gov has received nearly
1.2 billion page views and has processed over 7.5 million
reservations.
Recreation fees collected under FLREA have funded thousands
of projects that directly benefit visitors. A few recent
examples include: A partnership with the Montana Conservation
Corps to build fencing and repair and improve facilities at
three campgrounds in the BLM managed Little Rocky Mountains;
providing additional opportunities for hunting and enhancing
fishing facilities at Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge;
the rehabilitation of 12 miles and relocation of seven miles of
the Copper Lake Trail at Wrangell St Elias which restored
wetlands and facilities, hiking, camping and fishing; and
providing law enforcement service at New Melones Lake
Recreation Area through a partnership with the Tuolumne County
Sheriff's Office.
Visitor support and public participation are integral to
the recreation fee program. Visitor satisfaction surveys
conducted in the past six years have found that about 90
percent of respondents are satisfied with the level of
amenities and services provided and believe that the recreation
fees they pay are reasonable. FLREA promotes visitor
satisfaction by requiring the reinvestment of fee revenue at
the site where the fees were collected.
While recreation fees provide a source of funding to
support recreation at many developed and popular areas, our
agencies continue to offer a huge number of recreation
opportunities at no cost.
The Bureau of Land Management manages over 245 million
acres and charges recreation fees on less than one percent of
that acreage. Over 93 percent of the 464 Fish and Wildlife
Service refuges that are open to the public have free entry. Of
the 408 units of the National Park Service, 227, more than
half, do not charge any FLREA fees. Reclamation currently
charges fees authorized by FLREA at only one site, New Melones
Lake.
The Department supports the permanent authorization of
FLREA. The authority for FLREA is scheduled to sunset September
30th, 2016. And if it is not reauthorized the lapse in
authority will detrimentally impact the agency's ability to
support projects and improve visitor safety, experiences and
recreation opportunities.
Furthermore, beginning this fall the agencies will be faced
with challenging decisions as we try to anticipate the future
of the program and make decisions about ongoing operations such
as issuance of the annual pass or future campground
reservations.
Ms. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be
happy to answer questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Dell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Wagner?
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee,
thanks for the opportunity to be here this morning. I
appreciate your interest in the Federal Land Recreation
Enhancement Act.
I'm Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the Forest Service.
I've provided written testimony for the record, so I'm going to
limit my remarks to a few highlighted points this morning.
National forests and grasslands provide a great diversity
of outdoor recreation opportunities connecting people with
nature in an unmatched variety of settings and activities.
Millions of visitors enjoy the outdoors and experiences on
these lands. These activities are a significant driver of
economies and are vitally important to communities and
businesses across the nation.
We strive to enhance the experience of visitors to national
forests and grasslands in our management of recreation
facilities and programs and identify ways to continue to
deliver high quality recreation services on national forests.
Along with appropriated funds and contributions from
volunteers, partners, private recreation providers and grants,
recreation fee revenues authorized under the act are a key
component of a sustainable funding for many developed
recreation sites. Recreation fee revenue is often leveraged in
partnership with communities, recreation groups, nonprofit
organizations and businesses such as outfitter guides which are
an important part of the local tourism economy.
We found that most visitors support recreation fees.
Visitors consistently comment that they're willing to pay a
reasonable recreation fee if they know the money will be used
to improve the site that they are visiting.
In the ten years since the act was passed through public
engagement, as well as recreation resource advisory councils,
we've learned a great deal about what works and what doesn't.
We changed as a result of that learning, and the Forest Service
continues to improve how we collect recreation fees, deliver
services and improve facilities. And we strive to do this
within the constraints of the law. And we'd like everybody to
have a great story such as the ones that you shared about the
recognition of the investments and the value to the visitor for
those investments.
The Department of Agriculture supports permanent
reauthorization of the act. The act is an important piece of
legislation that has helped the Forest Service to provide more
and higher quality recreation experiences at sites across the
United States. The act has strengthened the connection between
visitors and the lands they cherish by requiring that the fees
they pay benefit the sites where the fees are collected.
Thanks for the opportunity to share and how the Forest
Service has implemented the recreation enhancement authority,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Wagner.
Ms. Benzar?
STATEMENT OF KITTY BENZAR, PRESIDENT, WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE
COALITION
Ms. Benzar. Good morning.
We Westerners know how important our Federal lands and
waters are to those who enjoy hiking, riding, boating, fishing,
hunting and other outdoor activities. In my home State of
Colorado, in Alaska, in all of your states, these lands are our
backyard. I know that preserving our access to them is
important to you, and I thank you for taking up this issue.
For 30 years recreation fees were governed by the Fee
Authority section of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
which contained this statement of Congressional intent, ``The
purposes of this act are to assist in preserving, developing
and assuring accessibility to all citizens of such quality and
quantity of outdoor recreation resources as are necessary and
desirable for individual active participation and to strengthen
the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States.''
Fee demo suspended that commitment to health and vitality
for eight years during which the agencies experimented with
anything goes fee authority treating the natural world as a
market commodity and putting a price on any experience that the
market would bear. The results of the experiment clearly showed
that the public willingly accepts some types of fees and
actively rejects others. FLREA was Congress' attempt to apply
those findings and define a framework of limits and rules on
recreation fees.
When Congress enacted FLREA it again expressed its
commitment to the public interest. The then Chairman of the
House Resources Committee said of FLREA and again I quote,
``This will put an end to fears that Federal land managers
cannot be trusted with recreational fee authority because we
lay out very specific circumstances under which these fees can
be collected and spent.''
Indeed FLREA does contain some common sense prohibitions on
fees for basic access and does so in language that the Federal
courts have found to be clear and unambiguous. The Forest
Service and BLM, however, have evaded FLREA's requirements and
restrictions, and as a consequence FLREA has failed to achieve
its objectives. These agencies have repeatedly demonstrated
that they cannot be trusted to honor congressional intent. For
this reason it's vital that you enact new fee authority that's
crystal clear in its vision and its purpose.
The national parks have always been distinctly different
from other public lands with higher levels of infrastructure
and services. Entrance fees for parks when kept at modest
levels are generally well accepted. The rapidly approaching
centennial makes it imperative that Congress deal with park
fees soon.
And because the parks are so different, I don't think
they've ever been a very good fit under the FLREA framework. I
offer that fee authority for the Park Service could be removed
from FLREA and handled in park specific legislation such as a
centennial bill. Recreation fees for other agencies could then
be dealt with in separately written language and in a timeframe
not rushed by the centennial.
With respect to FLREA's implementation I'm deeply concerned
about the way the Forest Service and BLM are privatizing our
public lands by using concessionaires and private contractors
to get around the rules laid down in the law. Almost all the
requirements and restrictions that apply to these agencies are
rendered null and void at sites where a permitee or contractor
is operating a recreation facility while providing a service.
This has become a get out of jail free card removing recreation
policy from congressional oversight altogether. Any legislation
to reform recreation fees must require that private management,
where the agencies choose to use it, is transparent to the
visitor.
Federal policy should be consistent. It currently is not,
not even within a single agency.
I traveled to Alaska this summer and was pleased to see
that with the exception of concessionaire managed sites, the
Tongass and the Chugach National Forests are not charging for
parking at trail heads. But when I passed through Washington
and Oregon on my way home, it was quite the opposite. Hundreds
of trail heads in those two states charge what amounts to a
parking fee just to go for a walk in the woods.
FLREA contains what Congress and its primary authors
believe were ironclad prohibitions on fees for hiking, riding,
boating through undeveloped Federal land solely for parking or
for general access. The Forest Service and BLM have not
followed those provisions nor many others. They've become
expert at taking phrases in FLREA that say one thing and
twisting them to say that they mean the opposite. The
legislation that replaces FLREA needs to be very clearly
written and unambiguous so that not even the most clever
wordsmith can contort its meaning.
Regardless of what you enact you must make it clear that
Congress remains committed to a robust system of public lands
where the public has access and is welcome, not as customers,
but as owners.
I look forward to working with you to craft that
legislation and restore that tradition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benzar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Benzar.
Mr. Brown?
STATEMENT OF DAVID BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICA OUTDOORS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brown. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee,
thank you for taking the time to consider the concerns and
issues that are necessary to improve the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act.
FLREA is the authority under which more than 8,000
recreation special use permits are issued in national forests
and on BLM lands. For that reason America Outdoors Association
members and our affiliate state organizations are supportive of
reauthorization provided there are adjustments to the law.
Since FLREA expires September 30th, 2016, reauthorization is
necessary to avoid destabilization of thousands of small
businesses operating on permits authorized under this law.
While the authorization of this permitting authority is
important, it will become increasingly irrelevant unless we are
able to streamline the permitting processes that have become so
complex and costly. In fact, Federal lands are on virtual
lockdown to new permitted activities because the processes are
so complex and costly they often exceed the economies of scale
of the field staff and the perspective permit holders. Even
some existing permits are becoming obsolete in some cases
because they cannot be modified to enable outfitters to adjust
to changing markets.
I've prepared a chart with my testimony to give you some
idea of the hoops that have to be negotiated to authorize
outfitting and guiding in organized groups on national forests.
Most of these same issues apply to the BLM. So while I urge you
to pass FLREA, we desperately need to include provisions that
streamline the permitting processes for outfitters, organized
groups and special events.
The permitting authority in FLREA needs to be strengthened.
The authority in the current law under Section 802-H is vague.
When it is strengthened we think that this is also the
opportunity to encourage efficiency in permit administration
and NEPA documentation.
I just want to offer you some suggestions on streamlining.
Authorization encouragement of programmatic environmental
assessments in lieu of NEPA documentation for every permit or
group of permits issued should be considered.
The use of categorical exclusions should be expanded.
They're being used in some cases successfully, but the tendency
is to go to higher and higher levels of analysis.
The Forest Service and BLM cost recovery rule should be
revised. It provides a financial incentive for the agencies to
ramp up documentation requirements when they could be using CAD
axis. The cost for any small group of outfitters can exceed
$100,000. For new proposed uses the costs are off the charts
and are not consistent with economies of scale of the outdoor
recreation industry.
Temporary permits should be authorized for new uses. BLM
doesn't have a temporary permit. The Forest Service limits
their 200 service days. CQ guidance supports the use of
categorical exclusions for temporary permits, and this can be a
way to test new uses in national forests and on BLM lands.
We also suggest eliminating the needs assessment for
commercial services unless that process is a statutory
requirement.
One of the other issues that has come up is some of the
executive orders related to Department of Labor issues, and we
think a provision in FLREA which makes it clear that Forest
Service and BLM permits are not subject to the Service Contract
Act is needed.
I want to wrap up with some perspectives on FLREA and
recreation fees in general.
For these fee initiatives in FLREA to survive we must have
better accountability. We recommend requiring an annual report
to be published on amenity fee collections and expenditures at
each fee site not at each forest. Within 90 days of the close
of the physical year each collection site should provide an
annual accounting of fees collected and how amenity fees were
spent. Failure to provide the report should result in the loss
of fee authority for that resource. If 80 percent of the fees
are indeed being returned to the site where they are collected
this reporting should not be problematic.
Once FLREA is reauthorized we just ask that you plan to
conduct regular oversight hearings to ensure the intent of
FLREA is realized. We support a ten-year reauthorization, not a
permanent reauthorization.
I've offered a number of other suggestions in my testimony
including a strategy to dramatically improve trail clearing
which is so important to access.
I look forward to answering any questions you have about
this and other issues covered by my testimony. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Thank you, each of you, for your comments this morning.
I think the interest here from the Committee is clearly
from those of us in the West. Thank you, Senator Manchin, for
joining us and giving us a little geographic distribution here
around the country. [Laughter.]
I think for so many of us our public lands, our national
parks, our Forest Service lands, this is our backyard. And as
you point out, Ms. Benzar, we use them. We are out there every
day whether it is walking the dog or going skiing or cross-
country hiking or running. We are using our parks.
I do not think that there is much push back on fees, again,
so long as you can see the benefit back to your park. But what
we are seeing is an increasing cost or a rise in the fees for
various uses. I think you have pointed out some areas where
perhaps they are not consistent with the criteria set out in
FLREA.
Ms. Benzar, you have outlined some, but a big part of the
concern that I have is what we are seeing with this rising
percentage of administrative costs. That is something that the
public sees no benefit to.
Ms. O'Dell, within the National Park Service we saw last
year the cost of fee collection was about 18 percent of fee
revenue. You spent about five percent on management agreements,
above that reservation services as well, another five percent
for administration and overhead. So by my calculation that's
about 28 percent of all fees doing nothing to benefit the
parks.
Ms. Wagner, within the Forest Service it looks worse. For
the last several years we have seen about 32 to 34 percent of
fee revenue that went toward administration, overhead and fee
collection. That is a third of the fees where the public sees
no benefit. Somehow or other it is going into administration.
Twenty-four percent of fees went just toward fee management
agreements and reservation services. Your testimony suggests
that you reinvest, what, 80 to 95 percent in recreation fee
sites where the visitor fees were paid. I need to understand
because there is a clear discrepancy there.
Back to you, Ms. O'Dell, looking at the percentages of the
fees going to administrative costs. Last year the Bureau of
Reclamation spent approximately 56 percent of fee revenue on
cost of collection and administrative costs. You have to help
me out here because you will not have the support from the
public for increasing fees. I do not care if we are going from
$3 at the Mendenhall Visitor Center to $5 which most people
would say is insignificant. If they are looking at this and
seeing a third of your fees are going for administrative
purposes and 28 percent of fees of the Park Service are going
for administrative purposes, and at the Bureau of Reclamation,
56 percent is going for administrative purposes. I am not going
to buy it, and I do not think anybody else would.
Tell me what we can do to reduce the overhead involved here
because it is going, clearly, in the wrong direction.
We will start with you, Ms. O'Dell, and then we will go to
you, Ms. Wagner.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you for your concern, Senator.
In the National Park Service we put a great deal of
emphasis on staffing our entrance stations to national parks,
so we are employing a lot of people to greet visitors as they
come in, to take their fee, to give them orientation materials,
to help them understand how best to use the park, where to find
their campground or their lodge. We see that that provides a
huge benefit to the visitor. Sometimes that is the only
employee they will see and have a direct personal relation,
interaction with during their time at the park.
The Chairman. But do you think we want to see more
employees or do we want to see our parks? It sounds to me like
what you are doing is you are putting more employees there to
collect the fees.
Ms. O'Dell. Well.
The Chairman. Are you going to----
Ms. O'Dell. I would say we are putting more employees there
to help visitors have a safe and enjoyable visit and to help
them manage getting around in a place that they are not
familiar with.
The Chairman. Okay. I will let you finish your comments
here. Go ahead.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you.
And funding the recreation.gov service has been extremely
valuable to visitors so that there is one place to go to make
reservations, for all of the uses that they would like to do in
national parks and in forests and refuges. It's an interagency
service.
The Chairman. But does that bring down our costs?
Ms. O'Dell. Well, it costs money. That's a contractor.
And so we----
The Chairman. But that level of efficiency ought to bring
down the cost. What we are seeing is just the opposite, so it
causes me to question how good this is.
Ms. O'Dell. Well, I would say that having one contractor do
that for all of our agencies has minimized the cost rather than
every agency doing, creating their own system and trying to
manage their own system----
The Chairman. Let me go to Ms. Wagner because my time is
expired here, but I think it is important that we understand
our Forest Service side as well.
Ms. Wagner. I'm interested in understanding the numbers
that you're looking at and the numbers that----
The Chairman. One third.
Ms. Wagner. That I'm provided. So the data that I have
shows that the cost for collections for the Forest Service in
2005 ran about $8 million. In 2014 it's running about $4.8
million, about 6.7 percent of the expenditures that we're
making under the fee authority. So the cost of collections is
not considered an overhead cost, per se, it is the cost of
having a fee program.
So when I look at 2014 expenditures in the Forest Service
we spent $48 million of fee revenue. Eighty-six percent went
into visitor services, ten percent to the cost of collections,
three percent to overhead and administration and one percent
for habitat restoration and fee management agreements.
So I am curious, given your data, to do a comparison and
kind of unpack that. It makes me very curious.
The Chairman. We are wildly apart on this because as we
look at the numbers for the administration, the overhead and
the fee collection, basically the stuff that will not go out to
either help with interpretive or maintenance or just enhance
the quality of the visitor experience out there, about a third
of it by our calculations, the visitor does not see.
I would be happy to have our folks sit down with you and
look at your numbers, because this is something that if we are
going to be looking at in a FLREA reauthorization I need to
have the assurance that the people that are visiting the parks
in Alaska or elsewhere are having a better experience and not
just paying for somebody to sit in an office here in
Washington, DC.
Let me go to Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Continuing on that same point, this is to Ms. O'Dell and
Ms. Wagner. I understand that if somebody uses the
recreation.gov website to make a reservation for a campsite or
purchase a recreation permit on Federal land that the site adds
a $9 service fee in addition to the price of the recreational
permit. If a typical campsite reservation is $20, adding that
is a very significant increase. Does the agency take into
account that service fee in establishing the price?
Ms. Wagner. It is a service fee indeed, for the
convenience.
Senator Cantwell. At $9?
Ms. Wagner. A $9 fee to acquire a permit, to make sure the
reservation is there for your event, your activity, your
camping spot. And it is a fee that is charged by the contractor
to provide that service.
Senator Cantwell. I think we need to make sure that
whatever these prices are, you are taking that into
consideration about what is a reasonable price. To me, I mean,
I am sure it is a sweet deal for the contractor, but I have no
idea whether that is the price value for putting that in place.
Again, I do not know, to me, if this is like what I would
call domain expertise, which I would, because we are in the
business of giving people access to the park system, like
building your own system and having it administered by somebody
at the Park Service as opposed to an outsource contractor.
I see I have got my colleague, Senator Daines', attention
as someone who has been involved in software.
That this would be a better way to go and that adding $9
onto a $20 fee does not sound like a reasonable price to me.
Does anybody have any further comment on that?
Ms. O'Dell. The recreation.gov contract does expire in
2016, I believe. I believe we can extend it additional years,
but we would be happy to engage in more conversation about how
to have a system that gives the guarantee that visitors are
looking for as they are coming to their public lands, that they
will have a campsite when they get there rather than having to
sit in a line and not get one for the night. So we'd be happy
to engage in more conversation about that.
Senator Cantwell. I get that using automation, just as
opposed to having so many people just old-fashioned phone
reservation taking, you know, shows it is a good idea.
Automation is a good idea, but if it is a core competency by
the agency it is probably better just to build that into our
system as opposed to having some contractor throw on $9. It
just sounds like a lot for processing. I mean, even the credit
card people aren't doing that, even Comcast is not doing that
on their crazy, you know, pay by phone or pay online thing. I
don't know, what, there is this $5 or something. If you talk to
somebody.
The Chairman. We can get an airline ticket and it
reserves----
Senator Cantwell. So anyway, okay.
I understand that the Mount Baker and Snoqualmie Forests
have been designated as a pilot test--this is to Chief Wagner--
to test ways to improve the issuance of permits, and so I hope
the Forest Service will use this to help the YMCA get the
permits. Can I get your commitment to work with me to resolve
this issue so that it is not just a temporary pilot?
Ms. Wagner. Absolutely. And if I could add, I think the
experience on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie is something that we
should look at expanding across a number of regions in a number
of forests.
So Mr. Brown's comments about are there opportunities for
outfitting and guiding. Outfitters and guides, they offer a
professional service. They are a means to connect people to the
land and outdoor experiences, and they make it easier for
people to do that. They value the natural resources. The
natural resources are their backdrop and setting to offer that
experience, and they want to offer a quality experience in a
quality setting.
We're committed to taking the experience from the Mount
Baker-Snoqualmie and expanding that to make sure that we can
simplify and create access and streamline procedures and
processes and prepare the workforce to work that way.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. We will work with you on that,
it is very important.
The Mount Rainier fee increase will be 67 percent over a
two-year period. We have not changed fees charged for coal
leasing and hard rock mining on Federal lands since 1872. Do we
believe that this needs to be changed if the public is paying
more for access to Federal land? Should those mining resources
on Federal land pay an increase?
Ms. Wagner. We'd be interested in working with you on that
particular issue.
Senator Cantwell. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a question, Mr. Brown. I frame this in the context
of during the August recess the highlight was spending time
with my wife and our dog, Ruby, miles and miles into the
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness there, just outside of
Yellowstone National Park, enjoying our tremendous public lands
that we love and cherish in the State of Montana.
I also recognize that outfitters and guides are important
partners to our Federal land management agencies by helping to
ensure public access to public lands. I am grateful for these
guides that, you know, a horse looks better and better as you
get older and older oftentimes to get into some of the back
country. I say this as somebody who grew up climbing a lot of
mountains as a kid, but as the knees start to go, the lungs
start to go. Again, I am grateful for what outfitters and
guides can do in so many ways across our great state. But could
you elaborate on the benefits and values that this partnership
brings to the visiting public as well as the managing agencies?
Mr. Brown. Well, thank you, Senator. You know, I want to
say that this has been one of the most successful programs in
the Federal agencies and I used to work for the Federal agency.
So I think the outfitting and guiding program and the
permitting program, over the years, has been one of the most
successful in providing access to people who would otherwise
not have the opportunity to experience some of these great
resources.
So it's been a success. It's been a good partnership. I do
think we're starting to collect some additional overburden of
regulation and cost as we're discussing in other aspects of the
fee program that need to be addressed in order for us to be
able to continue this partnership.
Senator Daines. Maybe we could have you elaborate on that.
I have heard concerns regarding some of the challenges
surrounding permit renewals on Federal lands, certainly in my
home State of Montana. In fact in your testimony before the
House Natural Resources Committee you said the permit renewals
sometimes face and I quote, ``runaway analysis from NEPA.''
Unfortunately permitees are required to recover those costs
from the agency like a blank check according to one Montana
outfitter. How much of that uncertainty for the outfitters and
the agencies could be fixed by streamlining NEPA? That is kind
of the first part. The second part is would you have any
recommendations on how to create more certainty for those who
facilitate access to our public lands?
Mr. Brown. Well I think, the use of categorical exclusions
would help reduce some of those costs. When permits come up for
renewal they have to be, they have to have NEPA analysis
currently. As you know in Montana, the Bob Marshall, those
costs were $100,000 for a group of small businesses which, you
know, is hardly significant.
We don't know what the end game will be in terms of
analysis. The beginning is environmental assessment. And the
Passaic Wilderness they went all the way to a 700-page EIS for
about 1,600 people to go into the Passaic Wilderness. Now cost
recovery didn't apply there because they started the process
after or before the cost recovery rule went into effect. But if
that 700-page EIS was billed to those outfitters, they wouldn't
exist or certainly the permits wouldn't be issued to them.
So, you know, these are the kinds of things that I think
we've got to address. And there are a number of suggestions in
my testimony about how we can streamline the processes and
lower the cost for the renewal of those permits and even
issuing new ones.
Senator Daines. Now you have made calls for more
transparency in use of fees. How does that call for
transparency and use of fees differ from what is being done
currently?
Mr. Brown. Well the current reports, it depends from agency
to agency and even, probably, forest to forest. But generally
you'll get a glossy report about some of the projects that have
been done in a forest. And we just recommend that each fee site
report on how much they collected and where that money has
gone.
To give an example, in Idaho permits were coming up for
renewal. The Forest Service wanted cost recovery. We said, well
what happened to that more than $1 million the outfitters had
paid in fees over the last five years? We couldn't get the
report. Now we finally got it, and discovered they had spent
$200,000 one year, counting river users, 10,000 river users. So
we need transparency to make sure that kind of thing doesn't
happen and the fees get used more appropriately.
Senator Daines. One last question. I am going to be out of
time here.
We are in the midst of and coming through one of the worst
wildfire seasons in the Western U.S. in history, and that is
why forest reform is one of my top priorities here in Congress.
These wildfires create closures, oftentimes, sometimes the back
country in our national parks as well as in our wilderness
areas and Federal lands, other Federal lands. Could you expand,
and you are going to have to do this quickly because I am out
of time, how better and more active forest management might be
able to facilitate more access to Federal land?
Mr. Brown. No, I think in general and I'm probably getting
off into an area that I'm outside, a little outside of my
expertise. But I think at some point you do have to look at the
way the agency spends money in general. Whether it's efficient,
whether the four tier organizational structure is appropriate
verses a three tier organizational structure.
And so those kinds of issues are on a larger scale and
outside of FLREA, but those are things that I think have to be
looked at to make sure that the overhead, because each year the
bureaucracy is going to take a cut of any appropriation. So you
don't get as much to the ground. And therefore, you can't have
as much access and certainly as much recreation access and
other programs unless those efficiencies are improved.
Senator Daines. Alright, thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden?
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Before he leaves I just want to commend Senator Daines for
mentioning this question of wildfire because, of course, you
cannot enjoy your treasures if you have infernos going on in
the neighborhood. So I appreciate your saying that.
I think colleagues know the 11 Western Senators said before
we left for the August break that priority one for the West
this September was to fix this broken system of fighting fire.
There are a number of pieces to the puzzle, but certainly it
starts with ending the fire borrowing.
I commend my colleagues. Senator Gardner is here, Senator
Murkowski. All 11 Western Senators said we were going to get
this done this fall because this has been the longest running
battle since the Trojan War. So I appreciate my colleague
mentioning that.
On this question that we talk about today I think it is
also worth noting that as we go into the end of the Fiscal Year
budget debate during this counterproductive government shutdown
what was learned indisputably is how much the American people
revere their treasures. They looked at the closure of
government and said, ehh. Maybe this agency, that agency, we
will see. But what they cared about the most were the special
places. Whether it was the Western treasures or the ones in the
East, it sent a very powerful message. I think this is not by
accident. I mean, recreation is a major economic engine for the
country.
Industry people say it approximates close to $650 billion
worth of spending, and it is not hard to see where the numbers
come from. Mention was just made of guides and people using
equipment and getting in the car and hotels and restaurants. It
is a big economic multiplier.
I saw that this summer. Senator Cantwell made mention of
the fact of the tour I made of Oregon's seven wonders. We
started with Crater Lake and a number of our treasures. I was
struck again and again that the accounts because every time we
went to a treasure we would have a meeting with the recreation
leaders the day before or hours before.
I want to ask you, Ms. Wagner, about an account I heard
from the outfitters. Because they said they were facing
hardships at the beginning of the season when they have to
purchase all of their permits up front when they have not made
any money from the trips. And then if the season was not
particularly good--certainly in the West we saw drought this
year, rivers running low, forest fires close areas--the guides
get stuck with permits they have paid for but cannot use.
I would be interested in your thoughts, Ms. Wagner, and
your thoughts, Ms. O'Dell, because look it is quite obvious
that at your agencies you do not get up in the morning and say
let's spend our day being rotten to guides and outfitters. We
get that.
But clearly, as our colleague mentioned, a lot of what has
happened in the development of this staggering recreation
engine, the rules and the procedures have not kept up with the
times. So for you, Ms. Wagner and you, Ms. O'Dell, what can you
do to help these outfitters and these guides, with a permitting
system that actually works here on Planet Earth?
I know that we have all these scenarios and discussion from
agencies, but what can you do to try to address those two kinds
of concerns? Because I think those are really representative of
what I heard as I made my way in seven days through the seven
wonders.
Ms. Wagner?
Ms. Wagner. Senator Wyden, I am glad that you got out to
experience America's great outdoors. And thank you so much for
your leadership on wild land fire management and your
colleagues as well.
So an exciting development is the Outdoor Industry
Association has started a group called the Outdoor Access
Working Group. And David is part of that as well as a number of
nongovernmental organizations and industry players as well as
Federal agencies. And I think that is a group that can come
together and really start collaborating on what are some ways
to more successfully offer outfitting and guided experiences on
public lands. So I'm really looking forward to that.
Senator Wyden. My time is short. I know about the working
group. I share your view, but exactly how would you, because
you are hearing these for the first time, I assume. How would
you go about trying to address the examples I gave?
Ms. Wagner. For the required purchase of----
Senator Wyden. Yes. I mean----
Ms. Wagner. Permits upfront?
Senator Wyden. The first is they have to buy them up front,
but they have not made any money. And then if they have
problems, they are stuck with permits they paid for but cannot
use.
Ms. Wagner. And Senator----
Senator Wyden. What would you do about that?
Ms. Wagner. Senator, I'm going to have to get back with you
on that because I'm not familiar with that requirement to
purchase up front. But I will look into that and get back with
you and would offer ideas and suggestions for improving that
after that staff meeting.
Senator Wyden. When could I have the answers to that?
Ms. Wagner. Quickly.
Senator Wyden. Like within a week?
Ms. Wagner. Absolutely.
Senator Wyden. Okay.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and know that this
is an issue that I, too am concerned about. We have the exact
same situation with our air taxi operators in the Tongass and
the need to require their permits well in advance. They do not
know what the summer season is going to do in terms of keeping
their float planes on the ground, so know that I am with you on
this one.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Ms. O'Dell and Ms. Wagner, the purpose of the Federal
Land Recreation Enhancement Act is to provide an element of
user pay while also limiting what the agencies can and cannot
charge a fee for.
In Ms. Benzar's testimony she characterizes the land
management agencies implementation of the law as agency
overreach and evasion of the restriction of fees and treating
citizens as customers rather than owners. Citizens are the
owners. She further describes hidden or high administrative
fees, the practice of creating facilities in order to justify a
fee. Her testimony essentially contains about eight examples of
instances where she believes a situation is questionable for
fees being assessed. And from each of the examples under her or
under your respective jurisdiction would you provide a written
explanation to this Committee and to me for why the agency has
the authority under the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act
to take the action outlined in each of the situations that Ms.
Benzar makes reference to?
Ms. O'Dell. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Benzar, in the written Forest Service
testimony Ms. Wagner highlighted what is called the
Comprehensive Public Involvement Process which uses input from
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees for fee and fee site
changes. In your written testimony you state that the
reauthorization must include, you describe, a procedure for
citizens to challenge fees that do not appear to comply with
the law. Do you believe that the Resource Advisory Committees
really constitute a comprehensive public involvement process?
And if not, what type of public process do you believe needs to
be implemented?
Ms. Benzar. Thank you, Senator.
I certainly do not think the Recreation Resource Advisory
Committees have achieved that. They've been nothing but a
rubber stamp for agency policy. They've held their meetings on
weekdays in the middle of the day when ordinary citizens can't
really meaningfully participate.
The Forest Service chartered committees of which I think
there were five, none of them have met for several years now.
They're all defunct because everybody's terms expired, and I'm
not sure why they haven't been refilled. But the rumor is that
they can't get enough applicants. Nobody wants to sit on those.
But that's okay because all they did was rubber stamp things.
Anyway, they've approved 97 percent of the proposals that
have been presented to them, and when the rate of approval is
that high I question the need for any advisory committee at
all. And I think that any fee legislation authority should be
so clear that they don't have to seek advice on what the law
allows them to do. They know what the law allows them to do
because the law says so.
So I think there are many other ways that we could involve
the citizens. A big one would be to make sure Congress is
notified well in advance of any proposed changes to the fee
programs and that the public is notified in a meaningful way.
And then we, as citizens, can have a dialog with you, as our
elected officials, if we think that there's a problem looming.
And we can ask you to look into it.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, the Department of Labor uses the Service
Contract Act to apply executive orders to those who have
contracts to operate on Federal land. In your testimony you
state that the Forest Service and BLM permits for outfitters
and guides should not be subject to the Service Contract Act.
Can you give us some examples of the types of small
operators who are impacted and why you believe it is not
appropriate to apply the Service Contract Act to these permit
holders?
Mr. Brown. Well the implementation of Executive Order 13658
required increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for
employees of outfitters or anyone that held a permit or Federal
contracts. That was applied precipitously on some outfitters
this year after they had already sold trips attached to their
permit, so it had a big impact.
The Department of Labor uses the Service Contract Act as
justification for imposing this on permit holders. As you know
the Service Contract Act also requires prevailing wages which,
you know, we don't have any prevailing wages in the outfitting
industry but it's a factor that we certainly don't want to have
to endure in the future.
So our concern is what's going to happen down the line? And
there are some real, and I can't get in the weeds on this, but
technical issues with interpretation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act that makes it difficult for any outfitter
operating the back country to determine what their overtime
standard is.
Senator Barrasso. I am going to followup with the two from
the agencies on that, if I could, with both of them.
Ms. O'Dell and Ms. Wagner, in both your testimonies you
highlight the economic revenue and the jobs for local
communities that recreation provides as well as the importance
of the fees for the agencies. Take a look at what we just heard
about the minimum wage, the impact of this on the outfitters
and guides, the permit holders, and they are going to go out of
business. And I hear that at home in Wyoming. They cannot
comply with what you are asking or what the President is asking
through his executive order. So it doesn't really matter what
the President is doing, isn't he making it harder for the
public to get recreational opportunities when these folks have
to go out of business? Does it make it harder for local
economies to survive harder for people that are trying to hire?
Aren't jobs going to be lost?
Your agencies are going to collect less fees in recreation
areas because there are going to be less people able to provide
services because of the thing that Mr. Brown testifies about.
Currently, seasonal employees of ski businesses are exempt from
the Fair Labor Standards Act so wouldn't it be good to exempt,
if we are going to exempt ski areas which I agree, shouldn't we
also exempt people that are providing river rafting and
horseback riding and guides?
Ms. Wagner. That is a conversation we would invite with
Department of Labor in examining the implementation of the
executive order and their rule. We certainly have concerns
about the impacts to the outfitter guide community.
Senator Barrasso. Okay.
Ms. O'Dell?
Ms. O'Dell. And we are in the same position. So the
Department of the Interior continues discussions with
Department of Labor to try and understand how it might apply to
outfitters.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. O'Dell, last winter I made myself somewhat obnoxious
which isn't very difficult for me. [Laughter.]
In questioning Secretary Jewell about why the Park Service
did not have a mobile app and an ability to buy passes online
and have an app that would allow you to get into the parks and
join the 21st century. I followed up with a letter to the
Secretary last spring. Where are we on that? Are we making any
progress?
Ms. O'Dell. Oh, Senator, I am so happy you asked that
question because we are prepared to tell you that we hope to
have a pilot program up and running in several parks, Acadia
among them, by January 2016 to test out that kind of
application.
Senator King. So you are on it?
Ms. O'Dell. We're on it, sir.
Senator King. I appreciate the coincidence that Acadia in
Maine is one of the places.
Ms. O'Dell. I know. Isn't that amazing?
Senator King. It is astonishing. [Laughter.]
No, but seriously, I think that is great. I am delighted to
hear that because I think it is important. One of the things
that has concerned me in many parks, there are so many access
points that people that want to pay do not know where to pay--
there is no place to collect. Acadia is one of those where
there are many access points. So I think this could be a boon
to the Park Service and to our parks in terms of revenues
available.
The other piece on this that I, based upon my experience at
Acadia, but I am sure this is the case in other parks, is
allowing local businesses to sell passes. One of the problems I
have heard in Acadia is businesses saying we would love to, you
know, hotels, bed and breakfasts, like to have the pass right
on the desk. You pay for it. But it has been difficult because
it is either not available or the business has to pay in
advance for 100 passes which they really cannot or do not want
to do. So I hope that is another area that you can look into
because, again, if you have people that want to pay and we need
revenues in the park, let's not leave money on the table. I
hope you will look into that as well.
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir, we are.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we are about to have a
vote, so that is all I have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
It is my understanding that we are too. But until we get
the word here, I am going to continue with a few questions.
I appreciate what you are saying about the fees and leaving
money on the table, but I also recognize that when we push it
too far in that sense we make it uninviting for a visitor.
I was recently at the Mendenhall Visitor Center in Juneau.
This is operated by the U.S. Forest Service. Now there is a
situation there where the fees are very, very minimal. It is
$3, and basically you can park and use the visitor's center.
They are looking to do an increase to $5. Not unreasonable. I
do not think anyone would suggest it is so. But now if you want
to bypass the visitor's center, you do not want to go to the
restroom, you do not even want to park your car, if you just
want to go to the trail--and I am reading the article from the
Juneau Empire here, which reports that if you just want to go
to the photo point trail, we are going to charge you the $5.
When I was out there I said, ``Well logistically how do you
make this happen? Are you going to be chasing everybody?'' You
had to have your band that was the color of my sweater here so
that everyone would know that you had paid your fee. The Forest
Service suggested we are going to have some kind of a vending
machine application, and there is not going to be a focus on
enforcement initially. But again, I do not want to go to my
Mendenhall Visitor Center and go hiking on the great trails
that we have out there and feel like I am going to have
somebody from Forest Service chasing me down the trail to pull
up my multiple rain jackets to see if I have a wrist band on.
So making sure that there is a reasonableness with all of
this, I think, is very, very important to how people feel about
their treasures and their backyard. I worry about this, and I
appreciate the fact that you, Senator Barrasso, asked both you,
Ms. O'Dell, and you, Ms. Wagner, to respond to the very
specific issues that were raised in Ms. Benzar's testimony
because I would agree. I think that there is interpretation
here that goes above and beyond the contours that are set out
FLREA in terms of those allowable charges for recreation sites.
Again, I would suggest that perhaps what we are seeing here
with the proposal at the Mendenhall Glacier may be one of those
areas that does not, in fact, comport with FLREA in terms of
the given fee authority. I would like to see, specifically, how
you can confirm that in fact these increases do fit within what
is outlined within FLREA.
Another area and this is primarily, I guess, on BLM lands,
they charge a special recreation permit fee at a trail head.
They justify it by classifying hiking as a specialized
recreational use. Now in my view, special recreational permits
were supposed to be used for things like group activities or
recreation events or motorized recreational use. So at what
point did we get to that spot where hiking became a specialized
recreational use? I do not think any of us would suggest that
is the case. So again, I want to know where you believe you
have the authorities because I think you are pushing it to
beyond what was understood within the confines of FLREA.
Let me ask you, Ms. O'Dell, with regards to Park Service we
have been in a situation where it has been a number of years.
We went from 2006 until 2014 before you updated the entrance
fee structure. I understand you are now in the process of
reviewing and updating the commercial tour fee structure for
the first time since 1998. These are significant periods of
time.
I think it is a fair question to ask whether or not you
have plans to regularly revisit fee structures. Senator
Cantwell here mentioned the increase at Mount Rainier, a pretty
significant increase. I think she said a 25 percent increase
over the past two years.
I understand that we are all looking to update things, but
it seems that we have got some considerable periods of time
where we are just not doing an assessment. We are not doing an
analysis. I am curious to know if you have plans to look at our
fee structures within our Park System on a little bit more
regular basis than since 1998?
Ms. O'Dell. I would say that generally, yes, that it just
should be a standard operating process that you take a look at
your fee structure repeatedly and tweak it. And then when you
do have increases they're potentially not so dramatic.
The long duration between raising entrance fees from 2006
to 2014 was in response to the economic downturn to try and
make sure that people had access to parks and didn't make it so
difficult.
With the commercial tour operators we are sensitive to
their concerns and their needs about advanced warning of
raising fees and letting, being able to pass those costs on to
their customers in an advanced notice.
So it is high time that we revisit that. We're glad that
we're doing it, and we're working collaboratively with that
community to try and find the right next best step.
The Chairman. I am going to look forward to the responses
that you are able to provide the Committee specific to Senator
Barrasso's questions, what I have raised and again, in direct
response to Ms. Benzar there.
On the fee retention issues, Ms. Wagner, you state in your
testimony that funding collected through FLREA is available and
these are your words, ``any operation maintenance and improve
costs at recreation fee sites.'' I think it is very, very clear
that FLREA does not allow that it be utilized for any
operation. It can only be used for specific things, again, that
are listed in the statute.
We need to make sure that that is exactly what is happening
and that it is not being used for installation of solar
systems, removal of invasive plants. This is not what it is
designed for. It is designed for operation and projects that
are specific to the visitor experience there.
We clearly have some issues that we need to look at. I
think Senator Cantwell, through her example of the service fee
of $9 on a $20 permit, I think most of us would say that is not
reasonable. You mention that we have got this contract that is
up for renewal next year. I do not know, but I think we all get
frustrated around here because we get so used to using this
phone.
Senator Barrasso and I were whispering to one another here.
I can get my airplane ticket on this. I can book it on this. I
can use this to go through the TSA and through the counter
there. It gives me my seat. It gives me everything.
Senator King. You are singing my song, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. I know, and we have talked about this. But
the fact that you cannot get an annual pass for the Mendenhall
Visitor Center through an app, we can do better than this. I do
not understand how it needs to be so complicated and why it is
so extraordinarily expensive. I think we are getting ripped
off. I will just say it. You cannot have one contractor who has
the total contract for the administration of the reservation
systems, all the bookings, have them making what they are
making and still charge $9 per permit on a $20 permit and that
is a reasonable service fee. I am thinking this just is not
working for us.
So anyway, we have got more that we need to talk about. I
want to make sure that at the end of the day we are able to use
these lands. I note with interest the number of discounted
passes that are provided whether it is to kids, whether it is
to seniors, whether it is to those who volunteer, whether it is
to our military, and I think we appreciate that.
I also know that we leave out many, many, many Americans
who look at the fee structure and say, well, I'm not going to
bring my family of four if I'm paying $50 to go out for the
afternoon. I'm just not going to do it. We need to be cognizant
of that. We need to be working to make sure that it is
affordable and accessible. Again, that those fees go to the
public lands themselves and not to some administrative black
hole back in Maryland or wherever it sits.
With that, we have got votes that we will head off to. I
think you had a fair amount of interest in this discussion this
morning, but unfortunately we do have some competing interests
in front of us. So do not take that as a lack of interest. Know
that we will be addressing this, as I mentioned in my opening
comments, with an effort to extend this and to look to more
comprehensive reform.
With that, I thank you all for your testimony and what you
have given us this morning. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]