Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress

Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues June June 3, 2020
and Legislation in the 116th Congress in Brief14, 2022 for Congress
Mark K. DeSantis
Guides and outfitters play a Guides and outfitters play a significant role in facilitating recreational use of the country’s public role in facilitating recreational use of the country’s public lands.
Analyst in Natural
Congress routinely considers issues related to these service providers, often in the context of
Resources Policy
broader recreation issues. Generally, these issues concern how best to balance opportunities for

commercial activities on federal lands and waters with the general public’s usage of and access to
these lands.

Congress also has considered issues specific to commercial guides and outfitters operating on federal lands. It has focused
particular attention on whether and how to simplify the current permitting framework for commercial guide and outfitting
usage on lands managed by Analyst in Natural lands, including those owned by the federal government. These service providers also can be of Resources Policy particular importance to the economies of local communities that surround these resources, providing jobs and generating tourism. As visitation to federal lands has increased in recent years, questions have arisen about the role of commercial guides and outfitters in facilitating visitor access and whether, or to what degree, the federal government should more effectively work with these service providers moving forward. According to some industry estimates, of the roughly 40,000 small businesses nationwide that provide guide and outfitter services, approximately 15,000 operate under permit, contract, or other authorization from at least one of the four major federal land management agencies (FLMAs) the four major federal land management agencies (FLMAs):. These agencies are the Bureau of Land Management the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)—all in the Department of the Interior (DOI)—(BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)—all in the Department of the Interior (DOI)—
and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA). and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Although data are not available on the specific economic impacts of guiding and outfitting businesses operating on federal lands, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in real terms, guided tours and outfitted travel on all lands contributed an annual average of roughly $10.9 billion in value added to the U.S. economy from 2012 to 2020. The guide and outfitter industry is of particular importance to the economies of rural communities. Congress routinely considers issues related to commercial guides and outfitters on federal lands, often in the context of broader recreation issues—including provision of federal resources, planning efforts, and funding. For example, Congress has considered which types of recreational activities may be permitted on federal lands and waters and the extent to which commercial entities have access to these areas to provide their services. The role in which commercial operators—and, more specifically, the number of operators, usage implications, and types of activities offered by service providers—has been debated. Some stakeholders view increased access for commercial guides and outfitters as prioritizing private companies that primarily serve paying customers. Others see these services as allowing visitors to have a safer, more reliable experience on public lands than they could have individually. In addition, Congress also has considered whether and how to simplify the current permitting framework for commercial guide and outfitting usage on lands managed by the four FLMAs. Generally, commercial guides and outfitters are required to obtain a permit to operate on lands owned and administered by Generally, commercial guides and outfitters are required to obtain a permit to operate on lands owned and administered by
the FLMAs. Some stakeholders view the rules, regulations, and guidance across the four FLMAs as disparate and see it as an the FLMAs. Some stakeholders view the rules, regulations, and guidance across the four FLMAs as disparate and see it as an
administrative and financial hindrance to administrative and financial hindrance to guideguiding and outfitting operators—particularly small businesses and and outfitting operators—particularly small businesses and entitiesthose whose whose
operations cross multiple federal jurisdictions. Opponents of adjusting permitting requirements assert that doing so operations cross multiple federal jurisdictions. Opponents of adjusting permitting requirements assert that doing so would
may open federal lands to additional guide and outfitter open federal lands to additional guide and outfitter operators, thereby limiting access to these resources for noncommercial visitor use. Congress also considers extensions and other amendments to programmatic authorities that directly or indirectly relate to guide and outfitting permits—particularly, authorities provided under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814). FLREA is set to expire on October 1, 2023. Congressional deliberations encompass whether to let FLREA expire, to extend it, or to make it permanent, with or without modifications. Other considerations for Congress include issues related to economic and financial impacts to commercial guides and outfitters. In particular, Congress has debated and considered the potential impacts of federal minimum wage requirements on guides and outfitters and other recreational businesses operating on federal lands, as well as the short- and long-term disruptions facing these businesses caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress Contents Guides and Outfitters in the Economy ............................................................................................ 2 Access to and Use of Federal Lands and Waters ............................................................................. 2 Permitting ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Streamlining Efforts and Multi-jurisdictional Permitting ......................................................... 4 Permit Fee Calculations ............................................................................................................ 5 Agency Capacity and Funding .................................................................................................. 6 Insurance and Liability Requirements....................................................................................... 7 Reauthorization of FLREA.............................................................................................................. 8 Minimum Wage Requirements ........................................................................................................ 9 Coronavirus Response and Assistance .......................................................................................... 10 Contacts Author Information ......................................................................................................................... 11 Congressional Research Service Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress Introduction1 Guides and outfitters play a role in facilitating recreational use of the country’s federal lands. These operators can provide specialized knowledge, skills, and expertise, as well as equipment, for people to recreate on public lands, regardless of their skill operators, to the detriment of noncommercial visitor use.
In addressing these concerns and others, the 116th Congress has considered multiple bills that include provisions addressing
the permitting process for guides and outfitters operating on land owned or administered by the FLMAs. These bills include
the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (SOAR Act; S. 1665/H.R. 3879), the Recreation Not Red Tape Act (RNR
Act; S. 1967/H.R. 3458), and the Guides and Outfitters Act (GO Act; H.R. 316). The specifics of the proposed amendments
vary across bills, but generally the bills all provide for adjustments in permit fee and cost-recovery calculations, potential new
categorical exclusions (CEs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) for certain
recreation-related activities, and new multi-jurisdictional permits for activities that cross multiple federal lands.
Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Contents
Issues for Congress ......................................................................................................... 1
Access to Federal Lands and Waters ............................................................................. 2
Reauthorizations........................................................................................................ 3
Permitting ................................................................................................................ 3
Streamlining Efforts and Multi-jurisdictional Permitting............................................. 4
Permit Fee Calculations......................................................................................... 5
Agency Capacity and Funding................................................................................ 6
Insurance and Liability Requirements ...................................................................... 6
Legislation in the 116th Congress ....................................................................................... 8
Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act ............................................................. 8
Recreation Not Red Tape Act....................................................................................... 8
Guides and Outfitters Act............................................................................................ 8

Tables
Table 1. Bil s Addressing Permitting Issues for Guides and Outfitters on Federal Land,
116th Congress ............................................................................................................. 9

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

---

Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Introduction1
Guides and outfitters play a role in facilitating recreational use of the country’s public lands.2
These operators can provide specialized knowledge, skil s, and expertise, as wel as equipment,
for people to recreate on public lands regardless of their skil level or prior experience. level or prior experience.
As visitation to public lands has increased in recent years, various stakeholders have raised As visitation to public lands has increased in recent years, various stakeholders have raised
questions about the degree to which the federal government should al ocate Generally, an outfitter is considered a business that questions about the degree to which the provides clients with various products and services federal government should allocate access to (which may include food, shelter, horses, equipment, etc.) for a particular outdoor recreational activity. access to lands and lands and
resources to commercial guides and outfitters. Although guides and outfitters and their clientele
general y represent a fraction of the total visitation to public lands, some stakeholders view any
commercial access as infringing on the available use of these lands by do-it-yourself recreational
users. Some stakeholdersresources to commercial guides and Outfitters often register and employ guides to lead outfitters. Although guides and outfitters and clients in these activities. For example, an outfitter may their clientele generally represent a small supply clients wishing to engage in a fly-fishing trip with proportion of the total visitation to public rods, flies, and waders, and it may engage a guide to lead clients to local fishing areas, advise on fishing lands, some stakeholders view some or any techniques, and ensure clients’ safety by monitoring commercial access as infringing on the local conditions. Guides also may operate independent available use of these lands by do-it-yourself of outfitters. recreational users. Others have raised particular concerns about issues of overcrowding at specific have raised particular concerns about issues of overcrowding at specific
sites that sites that al owallow commercial guides and outfitters. By contrast, some commercial guides and outfitters. By contrast, some other stakeholders see guides see guides
and outfitters as a valuable resource for visitors and an asset to local economies, providing safe, and outfitters as a valuable resource for visitors and an asset to local economies, providing safe,
reliable reliable access to federal lands. access to federal lands. In some cases, supportersSupporters of guides and outfitters of guides and outfitters also have suggestedhave stated that that
federal agencies rely on the expertise of guides and outfitters to reduce incidents that involve federal agencies rely on the expertise of guides and outfitters to reduce incidents that involve
search and rescue or to promote ethical use of federal lands and resources (i.e., Leave No Trace search and rescue or to promote ethical use of federal lands and resources (i.e., Leave No Trace
ethics).ethics).32
This report discusses This report discusses some of theseselected issues and other areas of congressional interest related to issues and other areas of congressional interest related to
commercial guides and outfitters. commercial guides and outfitters. It discusses the role commercial guides and outfitters have in providing access to federal lands and the economic impact the industry has on the broader recreation economy and local communities. The report pays particular attention to commercial guide and The report pays particular attention to commercial guide and
outfitting usage on lands managed by the four major federal land management agencies outfitting usage on lands managed by the four major federal land management agencies
(FLMAs): the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife(FLMAs): the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Service (FWS), and
National Park Service (NPS)—National Park Service (NPS)—al all in the Department of the Interior (DOI)—and the Forest in the Department of the Interior (DOI)—and the Forest
Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA). These issues include Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA). These issues include whether and how
how best to facilitate access best to facilitate access to federal lands for existing or new recreational providers; whether for existing or new recreational providers; whether to
reauthorize or amend existing laws related to guides and outfitters; and whether and how to and how to
simplify the simplify the current permitting framework; the impacts of minimum wage requirements and standards on providers; and whether to reauthorize or amend existing laws related to guides and outfitters, particularly the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814). In addition, Congress has considered questions regarding the financial impacts of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on commercial guides and whether or how to address the continuing economic effects on the industry. 1 For a more general overview of guide and outfitter activities on federal lands, see CRS Report R46380, Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Background and Permitting Processes, by Mark K. DeSantis. 2 See, for example, Testimony of Aaron Bannon, National Outdoor Leadership School, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, Impediments to Public Recreation on Public Lands, hearing, current permitting framework for commercial guides and outfitters operating on
federal lands and waters. The report also provides an overview of certain legislation introduced in
the 116th Congress that addresses some of the issues discussed.
Issues for Congress
Congress routinely considers issues related to guides and outfitters, often in the context of
broader recreation issues. General y, these issues concern how best to balance opportunities for
commercial activities on federal lands and waters with the general public’s usage of and access to

1 For a more general overview of guide and outfitter activities on federal lands, see CRS Report R46380, Guides and
Outfitters on Federal Lands: Background and Perm itting Processes, by Mark K. DeSantis.
2 Generally, an outfitter is considered a business that provides clients with various products and services (which may
include food, shelter, horses, equipment , etc.) for a particular outdoor recreational activity. Outfitters often register and
employ guides to lead clients in these activities. For example, an outfitter may supply clients wishing to engage in a fly -
fishing trip with rods, flies, and waders, and it may engage a guide to lead clients to local fishing areas, advise on
fishing techniques, and ensure clients’ safety by monitoring local conditions. Guides also may operate independent of
outfitters.
3 See, for example, T estimony of Aaron Bannon, National Outdoor Leadership School in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, Im pediments to
Public Recreation on Public Lands, 113th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013). For examples of 113th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013). For examples of
past agency perspectives, see Forest Service (FS)past agency perspectives, see Forest Service (FS) comments on agency need for outfitting and guidingcomments on agency need for outfitting and guiding services at FS, services at FS,
“Final Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding“Final Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Special Use Permits and Insurance Permits and Insurance Requirements Requirements for Forest for Forest
Service Service Special UseSpecial Use Permits,” 73Permits,” 73 Federal Register 53829, September 17, 2008. 53829, September 17, 2008.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

---

link to page link to page 12 link to page 6 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress Guides and Outfitters in the Economy3 As Congress considers issues related to outdoor recreation—including provision of federal resources, planning efforts, and funding—data on the size, distribution, and relative importance of guides and outfitters to the local and national economy may inform these debates. According to some industry estimates, of the roughly 40,000 small businesses nationwide that provide guide and outfitter services, approximately 15,000 operate under a permit, contract, or other authorization issued by one of the FLMAs.4 Although the Congressional Research Service did not locate any estimates of the economic impact of guides and outfitters on federal lands, the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA’s) Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (ORSA) provides some estimates for the industry’s impact overall. According to BEA, guided tours and outfitted travel on all lands (including federal lands) has contributed an annual average of $10.9 billion in value added (the value of goods and services purchased by end-users minus the value of the goods and services used up in production) to the economy from 2012 to 2020.5 Given the distribution and location of federal lands, many commercial guides and outfitters operate in rural areas and gateway communities, where they are of particular importance to local economies.6 These operators provide economic opportunity in communities where tourism may be a job-creating industry.7 Businesses located in these communities often rely heavily on access to federal lands to execute their work and provide services to clients. In evaluating legislation and current and proposed agency regulations related to commercial guides and outfitters, Congress and various Administrations often have considered the impact outfitting can have in contributing to rural economies. In particular, the federal government has, at times, looked to minimize the regulatory burden for small businesses operating in rural communities reliant on this source of economic input (for example, see “Minimum Wage Requirements”). Access to and Use of Federal Lands and Waters The abundance and diversity of outdoor recreation on federal lands have increased the challenge of balancing recreation—and, in turn, guiding and outfitting operations—with other land uses for which the federal government manages lands and waters. Issues related to access and use of these resources, including the extent to which individuals and businesses have permission to access these areas to recreate, the degree to which such access is equally available, and the impact this recreation has on resources, are of perennial concern to Congress. Generally, all commercial guides and outfitters are required to obtain permission to operate on lands owned and administered by the FLMAs (See “Permitting”). Congress has, at times, 3 For more information on the outdoor recreation economy overall, see CRS Report R45978, The Outdoor Recreation Economy, by Anne A. Riddle. 4 America Outdoors, “AO Letter to Senate Leadership re: Coronavirus Relief,” March 18, 2020, at https://www.americaoutdoors.org/assets/1/27/AO_letter_to_Senate_leadership_re_coronavirus_relief.pdf?6482. 5 CRS calculation from BEA, Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and Prototype for States, 2020, Tables-Real Outdoor Recreation Value Added by Activity, November 9, 2021. Note that ORSA data dates back only to 2012. Figures use chained 2012 dollars adjusted for inflation. 6 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Outfitter Policy Act of 1999, report to accompany S. 1969, 106th Cong., 2nd sess. S.Rept. 106-491 (Washington, DC: GPO 2000), p. 11. Hereinafter referred to as “S.Rept. 106-491.” 7 S.Rept. 106-491. See also Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), The Outdoor Recreation Economy, 2017, at https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf. Congressional Research Service 2 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress considered ways to simplify the process by which commercial guides and outfitters obtain permission to operate. However, some stakeholders see efforts to streamline and expedite these processes as granting preferential access to commercial guides and outfitters at the expense of the unguided public.8 These stakeholders contend that legislative and administrative proposals aimed at facilitating access to commercial guides and outfitters could prevent other visitors from accessing lands, as some proposals would prioritize private companies that primarily serve paying customers.9 FLMA regulations typically specify that permits for guides and outfitters do not grant exclusive use of federal lands and waters to commercial operators.10 Supporters of additional access for guides and outfitters on federal lands claim that these services allow many visitors to have a safer, more reliable experience on public lands than they could have individually. Supporters also state that guides and outfitters play a vital role in introducing public lands to diverse visitor segments.11 Some Members and stakeholders have raised concerns that not all communities benefit equitably from access to federal lands and waters and, in particular, services provided by outfitters, guides and other businesses.12 Some stakeholders see attempts to facilitate additional access by guides and outfitters—and the emphasis among some groups on increasing outdoor recreation and nature tourism more broadly—as an impediment to managing visitation and protecting valuable resources.13 Many federal lands across the country have experienced record-high visitation over the last decade.14 The effectiveness or extent to which FLMAs have policies in place to limit the amount of use by commercial operators in the event of overuse or resource degradation may be a subject of congressional interest. Permitting15 As mentioned above, commercial guides and outfitters are required to obtain permission—typically in the form of a permit—6 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

these lands. Some specific issues deliberated by Congress include how best to facilitate access for
existing or new recreational providers; whether to reauthorize or amend existing laws related to
guides and outfitters, particularly the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16
U.S.C. §§6801-6814); and whether and how to simplify the current permitting framework. These
and other issues are discussed below.
Access to Federal Lands and Waters
The abundance and diversity of outdoor recreation on federal lands have increased the chal enge
of balancing recreation—and, in turn, guide and outfitting operations—with other land uses for
which the federal government manages lands and waters. Issues related to access, including the
types of recreational activities permitted on federal lands and waters and the extent to which
individuals have physical access to these areas to recreate, are of perennial concern to Congress.4
FLMAs have considered and implemented various permitting processes to provide commercial
entities—including guide and outfitter operators—physical access to public lands in certain
contexts (see “Permitting”). Some stakeholders see efforts to streamline and expedite these
permitting processes as granting preferential access to commercial guides and outfitters at the
expense of the unguided public.5 These stakeholders contend that legislative and administrative
proposals aimed at facilitating access to commercial guides and outfitters could prevent new
visitors from accessing lands, as some proposals would prioritize private companies that
primarily serve paying customers.6 However, FLMA regulations typical y specify that use permits
do not grant exclusive use to commercial operators.7 In addition, supporters of additional access
for guides and outfitters on federal lands claim that these services al ow many visitors to have a
safer, more reliable experience on public lands than they could have individual y. Supporters also
state that guides and outfitters play a vital role in introducing public lands to diverse visitor
segments.
Similarly, some stakeholders see attempts to facilitate additional access by guides and outfitters as
an impediment to managing visitation and protecting valuable resources. Many federal lands
across the country have experienced record-high visitation in recent years.8 The effectiveness or
extent to which FLMAs have policies in place to limit the amount of use by commercial operators
in the event of overuse or resource degradation may be a subject of congressional interest.

4 For more information on issues related to recreation, see CRS Report R43429, Federal Lands and Related Resources:
Overview and Selected Issues for the 116th Congress, coordinated by Katie Hoover.
5 For example, see public comments regarding updated FS permitting regulations at FS, “Final Directives for Forest
Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service Special Use
Permits,” 73 Federal Register 53824, September 17, 2008. (“A number of respondents opposed the proposed directives
because they perceived them as granting exclusive access to National Forest System (NFS) lands to commercial
outfitters and guides at the expense of the unguided public and without the opportunity for public input.”)
6 River Runners for Wilderness, “ Kiss Your Federal Land Access Goodbye,” September 18, 2019, at https://rrfw.org/
node/886.
7 For example, see FS regulations at 36 C.F.R. §251.55(b).
8 T he COVID-19 outbreak that began in early 2020 may affect visitation figures for the year. T he degree to which the
pandemic may increase or decrease visitation is still unclear, although some federal lands were closed to the public
temporarily.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Reauthorizations
Congress often considers extensions and other amendments to programmatic authorities that
directly or indirectly relate to guide and outfitting permits. In particular, ongoing deliberations
encompass whether to let FLREA expire, to extend it, or to make it permanent, with or without
modifications.9 Among other provisions, FLREA provides the four FLMAs and the Bureau of
Reclamation with authority to issue special recreation permits for specialized recreation uses —
including guide and outfitting operations—and to charge fees for those permits. FLREA also
authorizes these agencies to retain certain fee revenues and use them for specified purposes that
aim to benefit visitors directly. If FLREA were to expire, some FLMAs may stil have other
authority to set fees for commercial recreational use on federal lands; however, fees established
under these other authorities general y would be directed to the Treasury rather than retained by
agencies.10
Some stakeholders have suggested that should FLREA authority lapse, agency capacity to
administer recreation programs would be diminished. According to these stakeholders, the loss of
permit and amenity fee retention would “likely result in the elimination of outfitted services and
recreation access” on FLMA lands.11 In the FY2021 budget request, the Administration supported
permanent reauthorization of FLREA and requested appropriations language to provide a two-
year extension of FLREA “as a precaution” to ensure FLREA authorization does not lapse.12 In
the FY2020 Interior appropriations law, the authority in FLREA was extended through October 1,
2021.13
Permitting14
General y, al commercial guides and outfitters are required to obtain a permit to operate on lands
to operate on lands owned and administered by the FLMAs. 8 For example, see public comments regarding updated FS permitting regulations at FS, “Final Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service Special Use Permits,” 73 Federal Register 53824, September 17, 2008. (“A number of respondents opposed the proposed directives because they perceived them as granting exclusive access to National Forest System (NFS) lands to commercial outfitters and guides at the expense of the unguided public and without the opportunity for public input.”) 9 River Runners for Wilderness, “Kiss Your Federal Land Access Goodbye,” September 18, 2019, at https://rrfw.org/node/886. 10 For example, see FS regulations at 36 C.F.R. §251.55(b). 11 Letter from Outdoor Alliance to Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. John Barrasso, Chair and Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, December 1, 2021, https://www.outdooralliance.org/s/OA-June-8-NPFPL-hearing-2.pdf. 12 For example, in the 116th and 117th Congress, Members introduced bills that would direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to complete a study and report on the use of special recreation permits by service providers that service “environmental justice communities,” as well as barriers to accessing public lands that do serve such communities. See H.R. 8401 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 3687 and S. 1269 in the 117th Congress. 13 Todd Wilkinson, “The Question That None of Greater Yellowstone’s Conservation Groups Are Willing to Confront,” Mountain Journal, August 7, 2020. 14 For example, NPS reported record number visitation from 2014 to 2019. Visitation decreased in 2020 and 2021, likely due to the COVID-19 outbreak that began in early 2020 (NPS, “Visitor Use Statistics,” at https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/). Other federal land management agencies saw visitation increase during the pandemic. For example, FS reported an estimated 12% increase in FY2020 from FY2019 in visitation (FS, “2020, National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey). 15 For a detailed discussion of the permitting process across federal land management agencies for commercial guides and outfitters, see CRS Report R46380, Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Background and Permitting Congressional Research Service 3 link to page 5 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress The laws, regulations, and policies that guide this permitting process vary across the FLMAs. Over the years, the various FLMA permitting processes for commercial recreation providers have been of interest to Congress, Presidential administrations, and owned and administered by the FLMAs. Over the years, the various FLMA permitting processes
for commercial recreation providers have been of interest to Congress, the Administration, and

9 For more information on particularly the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801 -
6814), see CRS In Focus IF10151, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancem ent Act: Overview and Issues, by Carol Hardy
Vincent .
10 For example, a number of statutes other than FLREA authorize FS to charge fees for the occupancy and use of NFS
lands. A difference between FLREA and other fee authorities is that FLREA provides the agencies with the fle xibility
to test different types of fees and retain most of the revenue at the site where the fee was collected. T he primary
exception to this would be the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-
391; 54 U.S.C. §§101911-101926), which is the authority the National Park Service (NPS) typically uses to issue
permits to commercial guides and outfitters operating on agency lands. Similar to FLREA, the law allows 80% of fees
to be retained at the park where they are collected and stipulates that these funds may be used for visitor services and
high-priority resource management activities. T he remaining 20% of the fees are deposited in a speci al account to
support activities throughout the park system.
11 T estimony of David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation of the House Committee on Natural Reso urces, Citizen and Agency
Perspectives on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancem ent Act, 113th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2013.
12 Department of the Interior (DOI), Fiscal Year 2021, The Interior Budget in Brief, p. DH-37, at https://www.doi.gov/
sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/2021-highlights-book.pdf, and DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Budget
Justifications and Perform ance Inform atio n, Fiscal Year 2021, p. XI-6, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/fy2021-blm-budget-justification.pdf.
13 P.L. 116-94, Division D, T itle IV, §425.
14 For a detailed discussion of the permitting process across federal land management agencies for commerc ial guides
and outfitters, see CRS Report R46380, Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Background and Perm itting
Processes, by Mark K. DeSantis.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

link to page 11 link to page 11 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

the guide and outfitting industry. Certain stakeholders view the rules, regulations, and guidance the guide and outfitting industry. Certain stakeholders view the rules, regulations, and guidance
across the four FLMAs as disparate andacross the four FLMAs as disparate and see them as an administrative and financial hindrance to as an administrative and financial hindrance to
guide and outfitting operators—particularly guide and outfitting operators—particularly smal small businesses and businesses and entitiesthose whose operations cross whose operations cross
multiple federal jurisdictions.multiple federal jurisdictions.15 16 These stakeholders These stakeholders general ygenerally support increasing consistency and support increasing consistency and
uniformity across agencies and limiting the administrative costs of applying for and issuing uniformity across agencies and limiting the administrative costs of applying for and issuing
permits. Opponents of such changes assert that doing so would open federal lands to additional permits. Opponents of such changes assert that doing so would open federal lands to additional
guide and outfitter operators, to the detriment of noncommercial visitor useguide and outfitter operators, to the detriment of noncommercial visitor use.16 (see “Access to and Use of Federal Lands and Waters” above).17
Some of the permitting issues recently considered by Congress include establishing more Some of the permitting issues recently considered by Congress include establishing more
standardized permitting processes across FLMAs, implementing multi-jurisdictional permits for standardized permitting processes across FLMAs, implementing multi-jurisdictional permits for
guide and outfitting operations that span multiple federal lands, reforming cost-recovery guide and outfitting operations that span multiple federal lands, reforming cost-recovery
calculations for applicable permits, addressing possible staff or budget capacity issues for calculations for applicable permits, addressing possible staff or budget capacity issues for
processing guide and outfitting permits, and controlling liabilityprocessing guide and outfitting permits, and controlling liability and insurance costs for permit and insurance costs for permit
holders. These issues are discussed below. holders. These issues are discussed below.
Streamlining Efforts and Multi-jurisdictional Permitting
Each FLMA has established its own regulations, policies, and guidance for permitting guide and Each FLMA has established its own regulations, policies, and guidance for permitting guide and
outfitter operations. Some stakeholders in the outfitting community claim that these various outfitter operations. Some stakeholders in the outfitting community claim that these various
authorities have created a system that is difficult to navigate for commercial operators that work authorities have created a system that is difficult to navigate for commercial operators that work
with multiple FLMAs.with multiple FLMAs.1718 Some commercial guides Some commercial guides operatingwho operate trips that cross multiple federal lands trips that cross multiple federal lands
contend the current system—which may require guides to apply for and maintain multiple contend the current system—which may require guides to apply for and maintain multiple
permits with different agencies for a single trip—is overly time-consuming and costly.permits with different agencies for a single trip—is overly time-consuming and costly.1819 Other Other
stakeholders suggest the different permitting processes are necessary and tailored to the different stakeholders suggest the different permitting processes are necessary and tailored to the different
legislativelegislative mandates under which each FLMA operates.mandates under which each FLMA operates.1920 Several Members of Congress have Several Members of Congress have
introduced introduced bil sbills that would authorize the use of single joint permits for multi-jurisdictional trips, that would authorize the use of single joint permits for multi-jurisdictional trips,
along with various amendments to FLREA that seek to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost along with various amendments to FLREA that seek to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost
of applying for and administering permits for commercial guides and outfittersof applying for and administering permits for commercial guides and outfitters (See “Legislation
in the 116th Congress”). Agencies general y have expressed support for these efforts, although
concerns have been raised regarding how single joint permits would ensure compliance with each
agency’s different statutory authorities and management mandates.20

15 T estimony.21 Agencies Processes, by Mark K. DeSantis. 16 Testimony of Matt Wade, American Mountain Guides of Matt Wade, American Mountain Guides Association in U.S.Association in U.S. Congress, HouseCongress, House Committee on Natural Committee on Natural
Resources,Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and PublicSubcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Lands, Legislative Hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., , 116th Cong., 1st sess.,
September 19, 2019. (“It is time consuming and costly for guidesSeptember 19, 2019. (“It is time consuming and costly for guides to apply for and maintain multiple permits with to apply for and maintain multiple permits with
different agencies for just a singledifferent agencies for just a single trip.”) trip.”)
1617 For example, see Brodie For example, see Brodie Farquhar, “Sweet Deal for Outfitters? Some Criticize Forest Service’sFarquhar, “Sweet Deal for Outfitters? Some Criticize Forest Service’s Proposed Rule Proposed Rule
Change,” Change,” Casper Star-Tribune, December 23, 2007. , December 23, 2007.
1718 Coalition for Outdoor Access, “Comments on U.S. Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3366, Issued on Coalition for Outdoor Access, “Comments on U.S. Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3366, Issued on
April 18, 2018,” June 29, 2018. April 18, 2018,” June 29, 2018.
18 U.S. 19 America Outdoors, Testimony to U.S. Congress, HouseCongress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands, Lands, Legislative Hearing, , 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 2019.
19 T estimonyJune 11, 2021, at https://www.americaoutdoors.org/assets/1/27/AO_testimony_6-8-21_House_Hearing.pdf?6705. (“In many situations, especially when a commercial operator is crossing over multiple agency boundaries during a single trip, the layering of fees from multiple agencies will double or even triple the percentage of gross income across the permits.”) 20 Testimony of Leah Baker, Acting Assistant Director for Resources and of Leah Baker, Acting Assistant Director for Resources and Planning, BLM, in U.S.Planning, BLM, in U.S. Congress, House Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and PublicCommittee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,Lands, Legislative Hearing, ,
116th Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 2019. Hereinafter, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 2019. Hereinafter, T estimonyTestimony of Leah Baker, September 2019. 21 Multiple bills have been introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses that address permitting issues for commercial Congressional Research Service 4 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress generally have expressed support for these efforts, although concerns have been raised regarding how single joint permits would ensure compliance with each agency’s different statutory authorities and management mandates.22 Permit Fee Calculations of Leah Baker, September 2019.
20 T estimony of Leah Baker, September 2019. (“The Department supports delegating enforcement authorities among
agencies, but would like to ensure that these delegations conform with the statutor y authorities for each agency.... If an
agency needs to withdraw from a single joint [special recreation permit (SRP)], presumably it is because the agency
needs to issue a permit under terms different from the single joint SRP, whether due to differing ma nagement concerns
or other circumstances.”).
Congressional Research Service
4

---

link to page 11 link to page 11 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Permit Fee Calculations
Guides and outfitters pay various permitting fees to FLMAs to operate on federal lands. Although Guides and outfitters pay various permitting fees to FLMAs to operate on federal lands. Although
FLREA and other permitting and fee retention authorities provide general guidance as to how FLREA and other permitting and fee retention authorities provide general guidance as to how
these fees these fees shal shall be applied, the FLMAs have established specific regulations and policies that be applied, the FLMAs have established specific regulations and policies that
dictate permit costs. Two issues related to permit fees have attracted Congress’s attention in dictate permit costs. Two issues related to permit fees have attracted Congress’s attention in
recent years: recent years: gross revenue permit fee calculations and permit fee calculations and cost-recovery formulas. formulas.
Among the permitting fees established by FLMAs, commercial guides and outfitters Among the permitting fees established by FLMAs, commercial guides and outfitters general ygenerally are are
required to pay annual, nonrefundable land-use rental fees. These fees—primarily in the cases of required to pay annual, nonrefundable land-use rental fees. These fees—primarily in the cases of
FS and BLM—are set at 3% of the permit holder’s FS and BLM—are set at 3% of the permit holder’s adjusted gross revenue. However, FS and . However, FS and
BLM differ in detail as to how to calculate adjusted gross revenue. BLM BLM differ in detail as to how to calculate adjusted gross revenue. BLM general ygenerally excludes the excludes the
pre-trip and post-trip costs (e.g., for client transportation and lodging) incurred by the permittee pre-trip and post-trip costs (e.g., for client transportation and lodging) incurred by the permittee
outside federal land boundaries,outside federal land boundaries,2123 whereas FS fee policy requires revenue calculations to be based whereas FS fee policy requires revenue calculations to be based
on the total cost of the trip, including services delivered outside the boundaries of public lands.on the total cost of the trip, including services delivered outside the boundaries of public lands.22
24 Congress has debated whether revenue generated on nonfederal land should be included in gross Congress has debated whether revenue generated on nonfederal land should be included in gross
revenue calculations, with some Members introducing legislation to prohibit FLMAs from revenue calculations, with some Members introducing legislation to prohibit FLMAs from
including such costs in future permitting fee calculationsincluding such costs in future permitting fee calculations (see “Legislation in the 116th
Congress”).
.25 In addition, some FLMAs may charge a fee for cost recovery as a means to fund the costs In addition, some FLMAs may charge a fee for cost recovery as a means to fund the costs
incurred in issuing permits, including necessary environmental documentation, on-site incurred in issuing permits, including necessary environmental documentation, on-site
monitoring, and permit enforcement.monitoring, and permit enforcement.2326 For example, FS and BLM have cost-recovery For example, FS and BLM have cost-recovery
requirements for commercial recreation permits if more than 50 hours of staff time are required to requirements for commercial recreation permits if more than 50 hours of staff time are required to
process and administer the permit.process and administer the permit.24
27 In instances where extensive analysis is required (e.g., new permitted recreational uses In instances where extensive analysis is required (e.g., new permitted recreational uses, increases
in resource capacity), cost-recovery fees can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. Some ), cost-recovery fees can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. Some
industry stakeholders and some Members of Congress have suggested that in such cases, recovery
costs are prohibitive to smal businesses, which may be shut out of federal lands as a result.25
Some Members have introduced legislation that would adjust the cost-recovery process, seeking

21industry stakeholders and guides and outfitters on federal lands. These bills include the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (SOAR Act; S. 1229/H.R. 3670), the Recreation Not Red Tape Act (RNR Act; S. 1874/H.R. 3527). 22 Testimony of Leah Baker, September 2019. (“The Department supports delegating enforcement authorities among agencies, but would like to ensure that these delegations conform with the statutory authorities for each agency.... If an agency needs to withdraw from a single joint [special recreation permit (SRP)], presumably it is because the agency needs to issue a permit under terms different from the single joint SRP, whether due to differing management concerns or other circumstances.”). 23 BLM, H-2930-1, BLM, H-2930-1, BLM Recreation Permit and Fee Administration Handbook, 2014, p. 1-31, which states that, “For , 2014, p. 1-31, which states that, “For
commercial use,commercial use, deductions from gross receipts are alloweddeductions from gross receipts are allowed for actual transportation and lodging for actual transportation and lodging co stscosts incurred by the incurred by the
permittee before the client’s arrival at the beginning of a trip, and after departure at the end of a trip.” Hereinafter permittee before the client’s arrival at the beginning of a trip, and after departure at the end of a trip.” Hereinafter
referred to as BLM, H-2930-1. referred to as BLM, H-2930-1.
22 FS, FSH 24 FS, FSH 2709.11, 2709.11, Special Uses Handbook, Section 37.05, 2008. The FS handbook definition of , Section 37.05, 2008. The FS handbook definition of gross revenue
specifically includesspecifically includes “Revenue from goods“Revenue from goods or services provided off National Forest System lands, suchor services provided off National Forest System lands, such as lodgingas lodging and and
meals, unlessmeals, unless specifically excluded.” specifically excluded.”
23 See 36 C.F.R. §251.58 for FS 25 For example, 102(b) of the SOAR Act (H.R. 3670) would limit permit fee calculations made by the FS, BLM, FWS, and the Bureau of Reclamation, to revenue generated on federal lands, unless otherwise specified. 26 See 36 C.F.R. §251.58 for FS regulations related to cost recovery and 43 C.F.R.regulations related to cost recovery and 43 C.F.R. §2932.31(e) for BLM regulations. §2932.31(e) for BLM regulations.
2427 36 C.F.R. §251.58(g)(4) and 43 C.F.R. 36 C.F.R. §251.58(g)(4) and 43 C.F.R. §2932.31(e)(2). §2932.31(e)(2). T hisThis policy has, at times, been referred to as a 50-hour policy has, at times, been referred to as a 50-hour
“credit” for commercial recreation permits. However, in practice, the policy operates more as a threshold in which “credit” for commercial recreation permits. However, in practice, the policy operates more as a threshold in which
permit holders are subject to complete costpermit holders are subject to complete cost -recovery fees when administrative costs surpass 50 hours. For example, a -recovery fees when administrative costs surpass 50 hours. For example, a
permit that takes 60 hours to process wouldpermit that takes 60 hours to process would be subjectbe subject to all 60 hours of cost recovery, as opposed to 10 hours.to all 60 hours of cost recovery, as opposed to 10 hours.
25 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Guides and Outfitters Act, Report to
accompany H.R. 289, 115th Cong., 1st sess., September 21, 2017, H.Rept. 115-320, p. 6. See also U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 113 th Cong., 2nd
sess., April 4, 2014, H.Hrg. 113-68 (Washington: GPO, 2015). In the publication of its final rule on cost -recovery fees,
FS acknowledged the potential negative economic impact of cost recovery on small entities: “ T he 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.” FS, “Recovery of Costs for Processing Special Use Applications and Monitoring Compliance with Special
Use Authorizations,” 71 Federal Register 8897, February 21, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

link to page 11 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

to limit Congressional Research Service 5 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress some Members of Congress have suggested that in such cases, recovery costs are prohibitive to small businesses, which may be shut out of federal lands as a result.28 Some Members have introduced legislation that would adjust the cost-recovery process, seeking to limit the potential burden placed on the potential burden placed on smal small businesses and other guide and outfitting operators. businesses and other guide and outfitting operators.
For example, For example, legislation legislation in the 116th Congress would in the 116th Congress would providehave provided FS and BLM with authority to FS and BLM with authority to
waive cost recovery on a case-by-case basis if such costs “would impose a significant economic waive cost recovery on a case-by-case basis if such costs “would impose a significant economic
burden on burden on any small any smal business.”business.”2629 FS and BLM have suggested that such cost-recovery reforms FS and BLM have suggested that such cost-recovery reforms
likely likely would have littlewould have little impact on most impact on most smal small service providers, as permits for these entities service providers, as permits for these entities
topical ytopically require few administrative hours to process and rarely exceed the existing 50-hour require few administrative hours to process and rarely exceed the existing 50-hour
threshold for cost-recovery fees. Instead, the agencies assert that the proposed new exemptions threshold for cost-recovery fees. Instead, the agencies assert that the proposed new exemptions
general y generally would benefit large recreation service providers and would result in processing delays would benefit large recreation service providers and would result in processing delays
for new and existing permits.for new and existing permits.2730 Other legislative Other legislative proposals regarding cost recovery would prorate proposals regarding cost recovery would prorate
aggregate recovery costs for multiple applications for similar services in the same area and aggregate recovery costs for multiple applications for similar services in the same area and
provide categorical exclusions for certain agency actions subject to the National Environmental provide categorical exclusions for certain agency actions subject to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review, thereby reducing administrative costsPolicy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review, thereby reducing administrative costs (see
“Legislation in the 116th Congress”)..31
Agency Capacity and Funding
Some Members of Congress have shown interest in reducing the backlog and processing time for Some Members of Congress have shown interest in reducing the backlog and processing time for
guide and outfitter permit applications. According to FSguide and outfitter permit applications. According to FS, as of 2019, that agency alone , that agency alone hashad a backlog of more a backlog of more
than 5,000 applications for new special-use permits and renewals of existing special-use permits than 5,000 applications for new special-use permits and renewals of existing special-use permits
that are awaiting environmental analysis and decision.that are awaiting environmental analysis and decision.2832 Industry groups have raised concerns Industry groups have raised concerns
regarding the processing times, and agencies have pointed to their limitedregarding the processing times, and agencies have pointed to their limited staff capacity as a main staff capacity as a main
reason for permit backlogs.reason for permit backlogs.33 Some estimates suggest that Some estimates suggest that agency employees conduct anywhere from 70% to nearly 90% of all nearly 87% of al FS permitting work FS permitting work is
conducted as a collateral duty as a collateral duty by agency employees, (meaning the employees have other primary meaning the employees have other primary
job assignments that may not include processing job assignments that may not include processing permits.29permits).34 Other FLMAs also have indicated that Other FLMAs also have indicated that
processing special-use permits is largely a collateral duty for staff. In 2010, DOI officials testified
that fewer than 20 national park units had staff dedicated to managing the special park uses
program and processing permit requests.30
Insurance and Liability Requirements
Al guide and outfitter permits issued by FLMAs require the operator to possess commercial
general liability insurance.31 Commercial general liability is a type of insurance policy that,
broadly speaking, provides coverage to a business for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage caused by the business or its products. The level of coverage provided under commercial
general liability typical y depends on a given insurance policy’s provisions.

26 See, for example, H.R. 316 in the 116th Congress.
27 T estimony of Chris French, Deputy Chief, NFS, FS, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, processing special-use permits is largely a 28 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Guides and Outfitters Act, Report to accompany H.R. 289, 115th Cong., 1st sess., September 21, 2017, H.Rept. 115-320, p. 6. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., April 4, 2014, H.Hrg. 113-68 (Washington: GPO, 2015). In the publication of its final rule on cost-recovery fees, FS acknowledged the potential negative economic impact of cost recovery on small entities: “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.” FS, “Recovery of Costs for Processing Special Use Applications and Monitoring Compliance with Special Use Authorizations,” 71 Federal Register 8897, February 21, 2006. 29 See, for example, the Guides and Outfitters Act (“GO Act”), H.R. 316 in the 116th Congress. 30 Testimony of Chris French, Deputy Chief, NFS, FS, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 116th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2019. See also, Testimony of Mark Lambrecht, Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships, BLM, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 117th Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2021. 31 See, for example, SOAR Act; S. 1229 §5/H.R. 3670 §104. 32 These116th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2019.
28 T hese numbers reflect total special-use authorization applications under review, some of which are for activities numbers reflect total special-use authorization applications under review, some of which are for activities
conducted by commercial guidesconducted by commercial guides and outfitters. FS, “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance,” 84and outfitters. FS, “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance,” 84
Federal Register 27544, June 13, 2019. 27544, June 13, 2019.
29 T he 87% figure reflects a FS estimate from December 2019 (FS, “Working with Federal 33 Justin Wingerter, “Colorado guides say they can’t get enough permits on federal land,” The Denver Post, June 18, 2021, at https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/18/federal-land-colorado-permits-recreation/. 34 A December 2019 estimate from FS put the figure at 87% (FS, “Working with Federal Agencies,” presentation at Agencies,” presentation at
2019 America Outdoors Conference, Salt Lake City, UT2019 America Outdoors Conference, Salt Lake City, UT , December 2019)., December 2019).
30 T estimony from Marcilynn A. Burke, Deputy Director, BLM, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 112 th Cong., 2nd sess., April 28, 2010, S.Hrg. 111–744,
p. 35.
31 Depending on the activity in question and the facilities used, operators also may be required to carry additional
insurance coverage, such as automobile insurance, property insurance, and/or umbrella policies that provide liability
coverage higher than the limits set under individual policies held by the operator.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Requirements for operators to possess commercial general liability Other sources have cited figures closer to 70%; see Testimony of Betsy Robblee, Conservation & Advocacy Director, The Mountaineers, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Legislative Congressional Research Service 6 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress collateral duty for staff. In 2010, DOI officials testified that fewer than 20 national park units had staff dedicated to managing the special park uses program and processing permit requests.35 However, NPS has since indicated that more than 80 units of the National Park System have dedicated staff for such purposes.36 Insurance and Liability Requirements All guide and outfitter permits issued by FLMAs require the operator to possess commercial general liability insurance.37 Commercial general liability insurance is a type of insurance policy that, broadly speaking, provides coverage to a business for certain harms such as bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage that may be alleged to have been caused by the business or its products. The scope and amount of coverage provided by a commercial general liability policy typically depend on the given insurance policy’s provisions. Requirements for operators to possess commercial general liability insurance vary across FLMAs. insurance vary across FLMAs.
Some FLMAs have issued agency-wide guidance or policies that set minimum coverage limits—Some FLMAs have issued agency-wide guidance or policies that set minimum coverage limits—
based on either aggregate or per occurrence policies—whereas others evaluate guide and outfitter based on either aggregate or per occurrence policies—whereas others evaluate guide and outfitter
permits on a case-by-case basis.permits on a case-by-case basis.3238 These various policies have been the subject of congressional These various policies have been the subject of congressional
interest in recent years. For instance, concerns about increasing insurance minimums were raised interest in recent years. For instance, concerns about increasing insurance minimums were raised
in 2012, when Grand Teton National Park increased general liabilityin 2012, when Grand Teton National Park increased general liability requirements for rafting requirements for rafting
guides and outfitters from a minimum of $500,000 to a minimum of $5 guides and outfitters from a minimum of $500,000 to a minimum of $5 mil ion million in coverage.in coverage.39
Following this decision, concessioners and permit holders testified before Congress that such a Following this decision, concessioners and permit holders testified before Congress that such a
change would increase premium costs and place a substantial burden on their ability to continue change would increase premium costs and place a substantial burden on their ability to continue
offering services to park visitors.offering services to park visitors.3340 NPS testified that these increases were the result of insurance NPS testified that these increases were the result of insurance
experts’ recommendations to the agency and were in line with industry standards.experts’ recommendations to the agency and were in line with industry standards.34
Some agencies also have established policies that either al ow or prohibit the use of liability
waivers and/or visitor acknowledgment-of-risk (VAR) forms by commercial guides and outfitters
operating by permit on lands managed by FLMAs. Liability waivers are exculpatory contracts
that may excuse a party from responsibility when the other contracted party is injured by either
known or unknown risks in a particular activity. The enforceability of a liability waiver may vary
depending on the provisions within the waiver, as wel as any statewide insurance laws that may
limit or prohibit the effect of such waivers. As a result, agencies such as NPS have prohibited the
use of liability waivers, instead permitting only the use of VAR forms. Unlike liability waivers,
VAR forms simply41 NPS policies Hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess. June 8, 2021. 35 Testimony from Marcilynn A. Burke, Deputy Director, BLM, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., April 28, 2010, S.Hrg. 111–744, p. 35. 36 Personal communication between Mark K. DeSantis, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, and National Park Service Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs, June 13, 2022. 37 For a full overview of these requirements by agency, see CRS Report R46380, Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Background and Permitting Processes, by Mark K. DeSantis. Depending on the activity in question and the facilities used, operators also may be required to carry additional insurance coverage, such as automobile insurance, property insurance, and/or umbrella policies that provide liability coverage higher than the limits set under individual policies held by the operator. 38 For example, FS policies require a minimum of $300,000 aggregate coverage for low-risk activities; including backbacking, nature hikes, and Nordic skiing (see FS, Exhibit 01 in 2713.1, Forest Service Manual). For FWS, insurance requirements are generally established by individual FWS units based on activity and perceived risk. Insurance policies may be issued on a per occurrence (or per claim) basis, in which the limit refers to the amount the insurer pays per incident during the policy term. Aggregate policies establish the limit the insurer will pay for multiple claims over the course of a single policy term. 39 Mike Koshmr, “Guides, Outfitters Question Liability Insurance Requirements,” Casper Star Tribune, August 27, 2012. 40 For stakeholder perspectives, see Testimony of David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Concession Contract Issues for Outfitters, Guides and Smaller Concessions, 112th Cong., August 2, 2012 (Washington: GPO, 2012). 41 Testimony of Peggy O’Dell, Deputy Director, NPS, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Concession Contract Issues for Outfitters, Guides and Smaller Concessions, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., August 2, 2012 (Washington: GPO, 2012). Congressional Research Service 7 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress now set insurance minimums based on the class level of a guided rafting trip. Lower-risk trips (Class I-Class III) require lower insurance minimums, whereas trips deemed high risk (Class IV-Class V) require higher minimums, similar to those set at Grand Teton National Park.42 Some agencies also have established policies that either allow or prohibit the use of liability waivers and/or visitor acknowledgment-of-risk (VAR) forms by commercial guides and outfitters operating by permit on lands managed by FLMAs. VAR forms inform visitors of the inherent risk of the activity and provide a means for inform visitors of the inherent risk of the activity and provide a means for
visitors to declare in writing that they understand the risks of the activities they are to engage in visitors to declare in writing that they understand the risks of the activities they are to engage in
and possess certain prerequisite and possess certain prerequisite skil s or experience.
skills or experience. In contrast, liability waivers are exculpatory contracts wherein, in order to participate in an activity, a party waives its rights to bring tort claims against the party responsible for the activity for harm caused by known or unknown risks involved in the activity or by the other party’s negligence. The enforceability of a liability waiver may vary depending on the provisions in the waiver and the state in which the outfitter or guide is operating, as state tort and contract law generally governs whether and to what extent such waivers are valid and enforceable.43 Due to this and other issues, agencies such as NPS have prohibited the use of liability waivers, instead permitting only the use of VAR forms. Some Members and stakeholders contend that FLMAs could limit the need for high insurance Some Members and stakeholders contend that FLMAs could limit the need for high insurance
minimums, which have caused concern among some permit holders, by minimums, which have caused concern among some permit holders, by general y permitting
generally allowing guides and outfitters to require trip participants to sign liabilityguides and outfitters to require trip participants to sign liability waivers.waivers.3544 Some industry Some industry
advocates have asserted that this advocates have asserted that this approach would be particularly beneficial for would be particularly beneficial for smal small-scale operators that -scale operators that
may not be able to afford the premium costs associated with coverage required by a given may not be able to afford the premium costs associated with coverage required by a given
agency.agency.3645 Since Since liability liability waivers may be unenforceable depending on the state in which an waivers may be unenforceable depending on the state in which an
operator is licensed or operator is licensed or operating, allowing for the use of liability waivers may be a limited or ineffective solution to concerns about insurance coverage. Reauthorization of FLREA Congress often considers extensions and other amendments to programmatic authorities that directly or indirectly relate to guide and outfitting permits. In particular, ongoing deliberations often relate to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814). Among other provisions, FLREA provides the four FLMAs and the Bureau of Reclamation with authority to issue special recreation permits for specialized recreation uses—including guide and outfitting operations—and to charge fees for those permits. FLREA also authorizes these agencies to retain certain fee revenues and use them for specified purposes that aim to benefit visitors directly. FLREA is set to expire on October 1, 2023.46 Congressional deliberations encompass 42 See NPS, Commercial Services Guide, §4.3.8, Table 4-1, 2018. 43 See, for example, Miller v. Sunapee Difference, LLC, 918 F.3d 172, 174-76 (1st Cir. 2019). Note that waivers generally may only release claims for harm from a defendant’s negligence or reckless conduct, not from intentional harm. See, for example, id.; Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981); RESTATEMENT (2D) TORTS § 496B. Liability waivers “have historically been disfavored in law and have thus been subjected to close judicial scrutiny.” Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., 203 N.J. 286, 303 (2010). See also Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981). 44 See Sen. Martin Heinrich, “Heinrich, Capito Introduce Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Actoperating, it is not clear whether this would be the case general y.

32 Insurance policies may be issued on a per occurrence (or per claim) basis, in which the limit refers to the amount the
insurer pays per incident during the policy term. Aggregate policies establish the limit the insurer will pay for multiple
claims over the course of a single policy term.
33 For stakeholder perspectives, see T estimony of David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association ,
in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
Concession Contract Issues for Outfitters, Guides and Sm aller Concessions, 112th Cong., August 2, 2012 (Washington:
GPO, 2012).
34 T estimony of Peggy O’Dell, Deputy Director, NPS, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Concession Contract Issues for Outfitters, Guides and
Sm aller Concessions, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., August 2, 2012 (Washington: GPO, 20 12).
35 See Sen. Martin Heinrich, “ Heinrich, Capito Introduce Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act ,” May 23, ,” May 23,
2019, at https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-capito-introduce-simplifying-outdoor-access-for-2019, at https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-capito-introduce-simplifying-outdoor-access-for-
recreation-act. recreation-act.
36 T estimony 45 Testimony of Rick J. Lindsey, Prime Insurance Company, U.S. Congress, of Rick J. Lindsey, Prime Insurance Company, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public LandsSubcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, and Environmental Regulation, Im pedimentsImpediments to Public Recreation on Public Lands, ,
113th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013)113th Cong., 1st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013). 46 P.L. 117-103, Division G, Title IV, §421. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
7

---

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Legislation in the 116th Congress
Multiple bil s have been introduced in the 116th Congress that address permitting issues for
commercial guides and outfitters on federal lands. These bil s include the Simplifying Outdoor
Access for Recreation Act (SOAR Act; S. 1665/H.R. 3879), the Recreation Not Red Tape Act
(RNR Act; S. 1967/H.R. 3458), and the Guides and Outfitters Act (GO Act; H.R. 316). See Table
1 for a list of issues covered in these bil s. Versions of these bil s, as wel as broader legislation on
some of the issues addressed within them, have been introduced in prior Congresses. This section
does not address al prior versions or similar legislation introduced prior to the 116th Congress.
Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act
S. 1665/H.R. 3879, the SOAR Act, would make various changes to the administration of special
recreation permit programs authorized under FLREA and the commercial use authorization
(CUA) program administered by NPS under the authority of the National Park Service
Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391; 54 U.S.C. §§101911-
101926). Among its various provisions, the bil would adjust permit fee and cost-recovery
calculations, authorize the establishment of potential new categorical exclusions (CEs) under
NEPA for certain recreation-related activities, and codify a temporary permit program for BLM
and FS lands. The bil also would create new multi-jurisdictional permits for activities that cross
multiple federal lands and would al ow guides and outfitters to share unused service days. The
House Committee on Natural Resources held subcommittee hearings in September 2019, and the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a full committee hearing in October
2019. For a section-by-section analysis of the SOAR Act, see Table 1.
Recreation Not Red Tape Act
S. 1967/H.R. 3458, the RNR Act, would support the creation of state offices of outdoor
recreation, facilitate and support outdoor recreation programs for servicemembers and veterans,
and establish a National Recreation Area System. The RNR Act contains the provisions in the
SOAR Act addressing permitting language. The House Committee on Natural Resources held
subcommittee hearings in September 2019, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources held a full committee hearing in October 2019.
Guides and Outfitters Act
The GO Act (H.R. 316) also would address recreation-related permitting and fee programs. The
GO Act includes provisions similar to those in the SOAR and RNR Acts, with some distinctions.
For example, some provisions in the GO Act—specifical y, the multi-jurisdictional permit
authority—would apply only to FS and BLM, whereas the SOAR Act and the RNR Act would
apply such provisions across the four FLMAs and the Bureau of Reclamation. Similarly, the GO
Act would not specifical y apply to CUAs issued by NPS under P.L. 105-391, whereas the SOAR
and RNR Acts would apply to these CUAs, unless otherwise specified. The GO Act also would
expand the authority of the Secretary of the Interior (and, in the case of FS, the Secretary of
Agriculture) to waive cost-recovery fees on a categorical or case-by-case basis. This provision
would include instances in which costs would impose a “significant economic burden” on smal
Congressional Research Service
8

---

link to page 13 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

businesses or would threaten an applicant’s ability to provide recreational services, as wel as
cost-recovery fee waivers in times of “unfavorable” economic conditions.37
The GO Act also differs from the SOAR and RNR Acts in the application of CEs for outfitter
permits intended to streamline the NEPA process. Whereas the SOAR and RNR Acts would direct
the agencies to consider whether additional CEs could be adopted to improve the permitting
process, the GO Act would explicitly create a statutory CE for new permits if the proposed use is
similar to previously authorized uses.38
Table 1. Bills Addressing Permitting Issues for Guides and Outfitters on Federal
Land, 116th Congress
(issues by Title/Section in S. 1665, S. 1967, and H.R. 316)
Provision
SOAR Act (S. 1665)
RNR Act (S. 1967)
GO Act (H.R. 316)
Limits permit fee calculations to revenue generated on
federal lands, unless otherwise specified
§3(b)
Title I, §102b
§4(a)
Authorizes use of permit fee revenue for expenses
associated with processing permits and/or improving
§3(c)
Title I, §102c
§5
recreation permit system
Permanently authorizes FLREA for guides and
§3(d)
Title I, §102d
—
outfitters
Requires applicable Secretary to eliminate duplicative
processes and identify opportunities for cost
§4(a)
Title I, §103a
§2
reduction
Authorizes use of programmatic environmental
reviews and evaluation of categorical exclusions under
§4(b)-(c)
Title I, §103b-c
§2a
NEPA or certain recreation-related activities
Limits use of needs assessments
§4(d)
Title I, §103(d)
—
Establishes online application for permits
§4(e)
Title I, §103(e)
§9(b)
Authorizes the use of existing permits for substantial y
§5(a)
Title I, §102(b)
—
similar activities
Provides for voluntary return of unused service days
for shared use among operators
§5(b)
Title I, §104(a)
—
Establishes temporary permit program for FS and BLM
§5(c)
Title I, §104(b)
§7
Requires the agencies to notify the public when new
recreation permits are available and requires the
agencies to provide timely responses to permit
§6
Title I, §105
—
applicants
Creates new multi-jurisdictional permits for activities
that cross multiple federal lands
§7
Title I, §106
§3
Revises FS permit use review process to provide for
additional use capacity should a permit holder meet
§8
Title I, §107
§6
certain performance requirements and waives such
use reviews in extraordinary circumstances
Authorizes use of liability waivers by permit holders
§9
Title I, §108
§8

37 H.R. 316, §10.
38 T he Secretary would still be required to determine that such new proposed uses have no “significant environmental
effects” for a categorical exclusion to apply. See H.R. 316, §2.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress

Implements cost-recovery reform (i.e., 50-hour credit,
group applications, use of existing studies and analysis)
§10
Title I, §109
§10
Establishes five-year permit extension limit for delayed
processing on long-term permit renewals
§11
Title I, §110
§11
Source: CRS, with information from S. 1665, S. 1967, and H.R. 316, as introduced.
Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FLREA = Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 16 U.S.C.
§§6801-6814; FS = Forest Service; GO Act = Guides and Outfitters Act (H.R. 316); NEPA = National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.); RNR Act = Recreation Not Red Tape Act (S. 1967/H.R.
3458); SOAR Act = Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (S. 1665/H.R. 3879). Issue area is for
categorization purposes only; language may differ among bil s.
a. Whereas the SOAR Act and RNR Act would direct the agencies to consider whether additional categorical
exclusions (CEs) could be adopted to improve the permitting process, the GO Act would explicitly create a
legislative CE for new permits if the proposed use is similar to those previously authorized.
H.R. 316 includes additional language authorizing the Secretary (of the Interior and Agriculture)
to waive cost-recovery fees in certain instances, including if economic conditions were
unfavorable or if such costs would impose a burden on a smal business or would threaten an
applicant’s ability to provide recreational services.

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
8 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress whether to let FLREA expire, to extend it, or to make it permanent, with or without modifications.47 If FLREA were to expire, some FLMAs still may have other authority to set fees for commercial recreational use on federal lands; however, fees established under these other authorities generally would be directed to the Treasury rather than retained by agencies.48 Some stakeholders have suggested that should FLREA authority lapse, agency capacity to administer recreation programs would be diminished. According to these stakeholders, the loss of permit and amenity fee retention would “likely result in the elimination of outfitted services and recreation access” on FLMA lands.49 In the FY2023 budget request, the Administration sought a one-year extension (through October 1, 2024) in appropriations law.50 Minimum Wage Requirements Commercial guides and outfitters that operate under permits on federal lands can sometimes be subject to federal mandates regarding minimum wage increases and requirements. For example, in 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13658 “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” that mandated a $10.10 minimum hourly wage be paid by employers who contract with the federal government.51 Pursuant to the implementing rules finalized by the Department of Labor, permits issued to commercial guides and outfitters on federal lands were generally considered “contracts” under the purposes of the E.O., and therefore, subject to these requirements.52 In May 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13838, “Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands,” which created an exemption for commercial guides and outfitters from the federal minimum wage requirements established under E.O. 13658.53 Then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and industry stakeholders largely supported this exemption, claiming the order would “have a positive effect on rural economies 47 For more information on particularly the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; 16 U.S.C. §§6801-6814), see CRS In Focus IF10151, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent. 48 For example, a number of statutes other than FLREA authorize FS to charge fees for the occupancy and use of NFS lands. A difference between FLREA and other fee authorities is that FLREA provides the agencies with the flexibility to test different types of fees and retain most of the revenue at the site where the fee was collected. The primary exception to this would be the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391; 54 U.S.C. §§101911-101926), which is the authority the National Park Service (NPS) typically uses to issue permits to commercial guides and outfitters operating on agency lands. Similar to FLREA, the law allows 80% of fees to be retained at the park where they are collected and stipulates that these funds may be used for visitor services and high-priority resource management activities. The remaining 20% of the fees are deposited in a special account to support activities throughout the park system. 49 Testimony of David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors Association, in U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Citizen and Agency Perspectives on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 113th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2013. 50 Department of the Interior (DOI), Fiscal Year 2023, The Interior Budget in Brief, p. NPS-4, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2023-bib-entire-book-508.pdf. 51 Executive Order 13658, “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” 79 Federal Register 9849, February 20, 2014. 52 Department of Labor, “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” 79 Federal Register 60634-60732, October 7, 2014. 53 E.O. 13838, “Exemption From Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands,” 83 Federal Register 25341, May 25, 2018. Congressional Research Service 9 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress and American families, allowing guides and outfitters to bring tourists out on multi-day hiking, fishing, hunting, and camping expeditions, without enduring costly burdens.”54 In 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14026, revoking the 2018 order, and increasing the minimum hourly wage to $15.00.55 In response, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court on behalf of outdoor recreation groups against the Biden Administration challenging the new E.O.56 In February 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the plaintiffs an injunction pending appeal, halting the required wage increase for seasonal recreation or equipment rental services operating on federal lands.57 Since the introduction of the initial minimum wage requirement set in 2014, Congress has regularly considered and held hearings regarding the potential impacts these requirements might have on guides and outfitters and other recreational businesses.58 Supporters of the requirements generally have viewed them as an important means to bolster economic growth and ensure employees make sufficient wages to support themselves and their families.59 Others, including many stakeholders within the guide and outfitter industry, have indicated that compliance with the regulations would force many providers out of business or would require them to significantly reduce their services due to higher labor costs.60 In response to these concerns, some Members have introduced legislation that would exempt commercial guides and outfitters from such wage requirements.61 Coronavirus Response and Assistance During the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses in the outdoor recreation economy have experienced varying degrees of disruption to the continuity of their operations. Stakeholders and interest groups point to months of closures on federal lands and waters, supply chain disruptions, and workforce shortages contributing to a loss of billions of dollars in revenue due to the pandemic.62 According to the BEA’s ORSA figures, value added for the outdoor recreation economy decreased 19.0% from 2019 to 2020, compared with a 3.4% decrease for the overall U.S. 54 DOI, “Secretary Zinke Applauds Presidential Action Supporting Public Lands Outfitters and Guides,” May 25, 2018. 55 Executive Order 14026, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors,” 86 Federal Register 22835, April 30, 2021. 56 Bradford v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 21-cv-03283-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2022). 57 Bradford v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 22-1023 (10th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022) (granting injunction pending appeal). 58 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Interior, The Impact of Executive Order 13658 on Public Land Guides and Outfitters, 114th Cong., 1st sess., June 10, 2015, 114-34. (Hereinafter referred to as “2015 House Oversight Hearing.”) 59 See Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rep. Lawrence, 2015 House Oversight Hearing. (“I want to also note that decades of research have shown that raising the minimum wage raises economic growth, and raising the minimum wage is one of the most effective economic tools we have to ensure that the American working class retains its position as the most affluent in the world, a destination it’s recently lost.”) 60 See Testimony of David L. Brown, American Outdoors, 2015 House Oversight Hearing. 61 For example, see H.R. 6280 and S. 4092 in the 117th Congress. 62 Statement for the Record of Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 117th Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2021, at https://recreationroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ORR-Recreation-Legislation-Hearing-Testimony-Final1.pdf. Congressional Research Service 10 Guides and Outfitters on Federal Lands: Issues for Congress economy.63 During that period, the “Guided Tours/Outfitted Travel” subaccount decreased 35.8% in real terms.64 Some Members have advocated for providing financial relief to commercial guides and outfitters impacted by the pandemic. This has included exemption from federal land use and permitting fees, as well as direct financial assistance for lost revenue resulting from closures. For example, in the 116th Congress, the 21st Century Conservation Corps for Our Health and Our Jobs Act (H.R. 7264) would have required federal land management agencies to waive recreation permit fees and to reimburse those fees paid during a period starting in March 2020.65 H.R. 7264 and a similar bill (S. 3684) also would have established an Outfitters and Guides Relief Fund that would have allowed certain commercial guides and outfitters to apply for funding based on an estimate of revenue lost as a result of “State or Federal action resulting from the Coronavirus Disease 2019.”66 Author Information Mark K. DeSantis Analyst in Natural Resources Policy Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

63 BEA, Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and Prototype for States, 2020, Tables-Real Outdoor Recreation Value Added by Activity, November 9, 2021. 64 Ibid. 65 H.R. 7264 §§7-8. 66 H.R. 7264 §3(e)(1); S. 3684 §3(e)(1). Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46381 R46381 · VERSION 1 · NEW
103 · UPDATED 11

---