[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3283, A BILL TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND VISITOR
OPPORTUNITIES ON FEDERAL RECREATIONAL LANDS BY REINVESTING RECEIPTS
FROM FAIR AND CONSISTENT RECREATIONAL FEES AND PASSES.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 6, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-531 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 6, 2004............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 3
Peterson, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 13
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 11
Udall, Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Colorado................................................... 13
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown, David L., Executive Director, America Outdoors,
Knoxville, Tennessee....................................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Denner, Roy, President & CEO, Off-Road Business Association,
Santee, California......................................... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Funkhouser, Robert, President, Western Slope No-Fee
Coalition, Dorset, Vermont................................. 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C............ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Jourdain, Christine, Executive Director, American Council of
Snowmobile Associations, and Board Member, American
Recreation Coalition, East Lansing, Michigan............... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
King, Aubrey C., President, National Alliance of Gateway
Communities, Washington, D.C............................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Scarlett, Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management
and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Thompson, Tom, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3283, TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AND VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES ON FEDERAL RECREATIONAL LANDS BY REINVESTING
RECEIPTS FROM FAIR AND CONSISTENT RECREATIONAL FEES AND PASSES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, May 6, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P.
Radanovich presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Peterson, Souder,
Christensen, Mark Udall, and Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to
order, and today the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will receive testimony on H.R.
3283, legislation introduced by Congressman Ralph Regula of
Ohio, to improve recreational facilities and visitor
opportunities on Federal recreation lands by allowing the
Federal land managers to reinvest receipts from recreational
fees.
Mr. Radanovich. Many of you will recall back in 1996 when
the then Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, Ralph Regula, created an innovative program
called the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The program
authorized in Section 315 of the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 1996 directed Federal land managers to
implement a fee program to demonstrate the feasibility of user-
generated cost recovery for the operation and maintenance of
recreation areas or sites and habitat enhancement projects on
Federal lands. Each Secretary was to select no fewer than 10,
but as many as 50 areas, sites, or projects for fee
demonstration. Fundamental to this program was that up to 80
percent of the fees collected at each Federal unit would stay
at the site to enhance the quality of the visitor experience
and for backlog maintenance and repair projects.
Today, it is no secret that the agencies have enjoyed the
success of the program because it gives them a stream of
revenue that is not subject to the uncertainly of an
appropriation process. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Rec Fee Demo
Program was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committee and
the Congressionally mandated limit of 100 demonstration sites
was lifted. The National Park Service shifted all of its
remaining recreational fee sites into the Fee Demo Program,
increasing the number of fee demo projects from 100 to 233. As
of September 30, 2002, there were 104 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service projects, 100 Bureau of Land Management projects, and
92 U.S. Forest Service projects.
Originally a 3-year trial authorization, the Rec Fee
Program has now been reauthorized by Congress six times and is
due to expire on December 31, 2005. In terms of revenue, the
Federal land managers have collected over $900 million in
recreation fees from the public since its inception.
Some on the Committee are concerned that with its success
may come less appropriated funds for programs that can be
funded by recreational fees. It has always been my
understanding that fees collected under this fee program were
to supplement, not replace, annual appropriations.
While the program is popular with a number of
constituencies and has certainly been effective in raising
important additional revenue for the agencies to enhance their
visitor experience, it has also created a great deal of
animosity among some of the very recreational users it was
designed to support. By now, many in the audience have heard
those horrible stories where an agency actually began charging
for a view off the side of a road. Obviously, that was not the
intent of Congressman Regula when he created the program, nor
were funds raised through the Rec Fee Program, I envision, to
be used for an endangered species survey at the expense of
enhancing a popular recreational experience.
The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program is now
approaching 8 years of operation, all through the actions of
the House Appropriations Committee. As Chairman Pombo stated on
the House Floor last year during the debate on the Fiscal Year
2004 Interior appropriations bill, it is time that the
Committee on Resources, the authorizing committee, step up to
the plate and determine the future of this program. Today, this
Subcommittee begins that charge.
I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses and
the opportunity to engage in a fruitful discussion on H.R.
3283, as well as issues surrounding the future of the program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands will receive testimony on H.R. 3283, legislation introduced by
Congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio to improve recreational facilities and
visitor opportunities on Federal recreational lands by allowing the
Federal land managers to reinvest receipts from recreational fees.
Many of you will recall back in 1996 when, then-Chairman of the
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Ralph Regula created an
innovative program called the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
The program, authorized in Section 315 of the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 1996, directed Federal land managers to
``...implement a fee program to demonstrate the feasibility of user-
generated cost recovery for the operation and maintenance of recreation
areas or sites and habitat enhancement projects on Federal lands.''
Each Secretary was to select no fewer than 10, but as many as 50 areas,
sites or projects for fee demonstration. Fundamental to this program
was that up to 80% of the fees collected at each Federal unit would
stay at that site to enhance the quality of the visitor experience and
for backlogged maintenance and repair projects. Today, it is no secret
that the agencies have enjoyed the success of the program because it
gives them a stream of revenue that is not subject to the uncertainty
of the appropriation process.
In FY 2002, the Rec Fee Demo Program was reauthorized by the
Appropriations Committee and the Congressionally mandated limit of 100
demonstration sites was lifted. The National Park Service shifted all
of its remaining recreational fee sites into the Fee Demo Program
increasing the number of Fee Demo projects from 100 to 233. As of
September 30, 2002, there were 104 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
projects, 100 Bureau of Land Management projects and 92 U.S. Forest
Service projects.
Originally a three-year trial authorization, the Rec Fee Program
has now been reauthorized by Congress six times and is due to expire on
December 31, 2005. In terms of revenue, Federal land managers have
collected over $900 million in recreational fees from the public since
its inception. Some on the Committee are concerned that with its
success may come less appropriated funds for programs that can be
funded by recreational fees. It has always been my understanding that
fees collected under this fee program were to supplement, not replace,
annual appropriations.
While the program is popular with a number of constituencies and
has certainly been effective it is raising important additional revenue
for the agencies to enhance the visitor experience, it has also created
a great deal of animosity among some of the very recreational users it
was designed to support. By now, many in the audience have heard those
horrible stories where an agency actually began charging for a view off
the side of a road. Obviously, that was not the intent of Congressman
Regula when he created the program. Nor were funds raised through the
Rec Fee Program, I believe, envisioned to be used for an endangered
species survey at the expense of enhancing a popular recreational
experience.
The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program is now approaching eight
years of operation--all through the actions of the House Appropriations
Committee. As Chairman Pombo stated on the House Floor last year during
the debate on the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations bill, it is time that
the Committee on Resources--the authorizing Committee--step up to the
plate and determine the future of this program. Today, this
Subcommittee begins that charge.
I look forward to the testimony of all our witnesses and the
opportunity to engage in a fruitful discussion on H.R. 3282 as well as
issues surrounding the future of this program.
I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman Walden be permitted
to sit on the dais for the duration of the hearing and that Congressman
Regula be permitted to sit on the dais following his statement. Without
objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for any opening
statement she may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I would ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Walden be permitted to sit on the dais for the
duration of the hearing and that Congressman Regula be
permitted to sit on the dais following his statement.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for any
opening statements she may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome Chairman Regula.
Assistant Secretary Scarlett, it is good to see you again
too.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming all of our
distinguished witnesses and thank them for making the time to
join us here today.
The issue of charging visitors for the use of their public
lands is complex and controversial. For many Members on both
sides of the aisle, including myself, charging a fee of any
kind is unacceptable given that these are public resources
which have been acquired and managed using funds supplied by
the American taxpayer. To then assess those taxpayers a further
fee in order to actually use these resources appears to be
double taxation.
Of course, user fees would be unnecessary were the
Administration and Congress able to work together better to
provide our National parks, refuges, and other public lands
sufficient funds to meet all of their needs. Other members,
however, view user fees as an equitable solution to the growing
problem of deferred maintenance within our public land system.
What most members do agree on, however, is that the current Fee
Demo Program is not the ideal solution to this problem. Fees
should either be abandoned completely, or if we are to have a
fee program, it should be properly authorized rather than
continue to exist in this limbo of sporadic extensions through
Interior appropriations bills.
Congressman Regula is to be commented for taking an
important step by introducing H.R. 3283. This is a
comprehensive piece of legislation and provides a valuable
starting point for this debate.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses and I look forward
to their testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Donna.
And again I want to welcome our first panel member, the
Honorable Ralph Regula, representing the 16th District of Ohio.
Ralph, welcome to the Subcommittee, and we enjoy the
opportunity of hearing about your bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Regula. I would ask that my full statement be entered
into the record.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Regula. We have all have limited time. I might hit a
few highlights and then respond to questions that you might
have.
When we created this, our goal was to deal with backlog
maintenance. So what I discovered when I took the chairmanship
of the Interior Subcommittee is that there is a huge backlog of
maintenance needs, and one of the ways to address these was to
provide a modest fee that could be used for that purpose, and I
think that has happened in most instances. We provided that the
money collected from fees should be used for maintenance,
backlog maintenance, and to enhance the visitor experience, and
I think that has been achieved as one of our goals.
The requirement that 80 percent of the revenue generated
stay in the park or the facility that generates it ensures that
it would be used for that purpose, and as I have visited parks,
I have had a number of maintenance people come up to me and say
we are so thankful because we have been neglecting safety
issues, we have been neglecting health issues, we have been
neglecting the trails at one of the facilities, and now we have
some money to do this with. And I talk to visitors, and they
don't object to paying a modest amount. In fact, I urge all
these superintendents to put a sign up at the entrance saying
that the money that you pay here in fees will be used for this
facility, and I think people welcome that understanding and
they welcome an opportunity to have a better facility for their
experience.
I would point out that I was at The Presidio this past
weekend, and, of course, that and Golden Gate includes a number
of facilities. They do have a rec fee in part of their
facilities, not the Christy Field, for example, not the trails
within the Presidio, but two of the locations that they have do
have rec fees, and of course about a third of their visitors
come from all offshore that don't pay any taxes toward the
maintenance of those facilities, but they do pay the rec fee
which helps to give them a better experience.
I think that the features that were outlined in the bill
are good. You have tried to address these and we have tried to
address these in the language we provide. One of the things
that I have been struck with is the superintendents telling me
that their vandalism level has been reduced when they have a
rec fee because people have an ownership because they know that
they are there. I still remember so clearly, I visited Angeles
National Forest, and there they had this beautiful--because
that is basically the park or the open space for the people who
live in Los Angeles, but it abuts right up against the city.
So they built this lovely area with picnic tables, with
swings, with cooking burners where you could charcoal and so
on. It was a beautiful area for the public to use. A couple of
days before we visited this, somebody came in with one of these
vehicles with huge balloon tires and crushed everything, just
drove over it, smashed it. Now, what mentality would cause
somebody to do that totally escapes me, but if that individual
had to stop and pay a couple of bucks, five dollars maybe to
get in there, they would be very reluctant to do that because
they would know that there was some possible way of identifying
them as being in the facility, and I think it wouldn't have
happened, frankly.
This is what superintendents tell me, that this sense of
ownership, this sense of people knowing that somebody knows
they are there has reduced the level of vandalism, and we
hadn't anticipated that, but it is one of the benefits.
As you pointed out, it raised almost a billion dollars, and
I have to say at the outset I made it very clear that this was
not done in the appropriations process to replace the level of
dollars that we put in these systems, and I don't think the
evidence would indicate anything else. What it does is supplant
what we appropriate, and it does give the park superintendents
and their maintenance crews something to work with to, at Muir
Woods, for example, improve the trails. I visited Muir Woods,
and they were using porta-potties at one time. That is a heck
of a way to treat the public, and of course I came back and put
in a line item and took care of that.
Sid Yates was Chairman of our Appropriations Committee and
I have been on Interior Appropriations for 30 years, but Sid
said, I can't afford to have you travel because you come back
and you want to take care of all these problems that you saw
when you were out. And it is true. If you go the Muir Woods
today, they have an excellent sanitary system, but the
superintendent also told me when I visited there a few years
back that she had done a lot with trail improvement with this
money, and she was so grateful that they had this little extra
money that they got from the fee collections.
I think if you make this program permanent, and that is the
way it ought to be done rather than on a temporary basis
through the Interior appropriations bill. It will enable
superintendents to do planning. It will enable them to ensure
that they can deal with the maintenance problems. I pushed hard
as Chairman of Interior to deal with the backlog maintenance,
and we made some progress, because you have to take care of
facilities. I was in Yellowstone, and my wife said the
restrooms there need some help. They weren't porta-potties, but
they needed some improvements. So we suggested to the
superintendent that might be a good place to use some of the
fee money, because we want visitors to have a good experience.
We want the roads to be safe. We want the campsites to be
reasonably attractive. We want the hiking trails to be that
way.
And I might say that this bill doesn't put fees on back
country trails and that type of thing. It is to deal with the
backlog maintenance of the facilities that the public are
using, and certainly in my conversations with the visitors,
they don't feel at all that they are being put upon to provide
a modest fee.
I know there has been some discussion that maybe we should
limit it to the Park Service. The only comment I would have is
this, that I think the Forest Service more and more is going to
be part of our recreational base for this country, because they
have the vast acreage. They have beautiful trails in places
that people want to go, and the pressure is going to be on for
more and more open space, and because of the limitations we put
on harvesting, I see the forests and BLM and all these agencies
getting more and more into the recreation business; and
therefore, I think with maybe some changes in the language,
they should be part of it.
But certainly the parks should have the ability to do the
rec fee, and if it is permanent, they have they can plan
accordingly and embark on long-term maintenance programs that
will enhance the visitors' experience, safety, and, frankly,
the pressure is going to grow and grow on the parks. I was
interested to note that the fees collected in the past year
have gone up substantially because more people are visiting,
and in my experience out at The Presidio this weekend, it was a
busy place, and people really seek outdoor experience.
And I'll just share one last experience: When I travel, I
like to visit parks in other countries. When I was in Warsaw, I
said show me your best park. We were there for an NATO meeting.
So they took me 30 miles out to show me this park. I say said,
This is the best you have? Yes, that is the best. Well, they
had a few campsites. They had a few of these charcoal burners,
and it wasn't Yellowstone, I can tell you, or The Presidio. I
said, Look, do you get many visitors. He said, On the weekends,
this is wall to wall, because there is such a craving for open
space.
I thought this morning driving in, what in the world are we
going to do in this city 50 years from now when the population
is doubled when the traffic is almost impossible. Well, we are
setting the stage for a growing, growing population, and I
think growing, growing interest in recreational opportunities
and open space, and this program offers a way to ensure that
the system can keep up and keep current with their maintenance
and with providing safety facilities and so on, and I believe
that the public would be very supportive and has demonstrated
they are very supportive for a modest fee for this purpose.
User fees are not anything unusual in our society. We pay
user fees in a lot of different ways, and if you want the most
persuasive testimony, just talk to a park superintendent and
especially talk to the maintenance crew. I was in--what is the
one in the State of Washington, right up in the northwest
corner of the State of Washington? I forgot.
Mr. Radanovich. Olympic?
Mr. Regula. Olympic. The superintendent says to me, he
said, You are the hero of our maintenance crew. He said they
have been so frustrated because the budget is always so tight
that they don't have money to do the repairs they need, and now
they do. And he said they are very conscientious, and my
experience with park personnel, they are extremely
conscientious people. They care. They really care, and this
enables them to ensure that the public has a good experience.
Maybe it needs a little tweaking. I worked with the
departments to try to get a bill that would work. We don't
mandate a specific fee level. There is no requirement that you
have to purchase a National plan. That is not privatized land
management, and we are not going to put anybody in jail for
failing to pay a fee, but I don't think you can underestimate
how important it is to give people a good experience and how
important it is to ensure that they get an element of ownership
which reduces this vandalism problem.
And I will be happy to answer questions that you might
have, but I hope you will give this a lot of consideration in
making it a permanent program so that our managers, starting
with the director Nationally, and each park site can plan to
enhance the visitor experience and can plan to meet the growing
pressures that exist on these systems as the population grows.
We have the Cuyahoga Valley between Cleveland and Akron, and
any weekend you go out there and there are no fees there. There
are too many entrances, but every weekend you go out there,
there is just thousands of people on the trails, on the bicycle
paths, and so on. As the population grows over the next many
years, it is important that we address those needs.
And I thank you for giving us this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify before you today on an issue that I feel strongly about.
Maintaining and enhancing our national parks, forests and other Federal
recreation areas is not easy or inexpensive. As demands exceed
available funding, routine maintenance is too often deferred and
improvements postponed, which in turn degrades the recreation
experience for our constituents. I am hopeful that after many years of
hearings, debates, and experiments on this subject that we can work
together to find a solution to provide these lands with adequate
funding and the necessary services to enhance visitors' experiences.
In 1995, when I became Chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Interior Appropriations, I decided to do something about the
deteriorating conditions in our national parks, forests, and refuges.
As part of this effort, I established a demonstration program to charge
nominal fees and use the revenue for maintenance and improvements at
the site where they were collected. Specifically, no less than 80
percent of the revenue collected would stay at the site and would go
towards needs identified by visitors.
Since its inception in 1996, the Rec Fee Demo Program has generated
over one billion dollars. These dollars have gone towards reducing the
growing backlog of deferred maintenance, protecting natural resources,
enhancing facilities, and improving visitor services and safety. For
the price of less than a movie ticket, visitors are able to enjoy
cleaner facilities, well-maintained trails and an overall better
recreation experience. Because visitors have a financial stake in the
land, they are much less likely to commit vandalism and property
damage. In addition, I have heard of no instances in which this program
has blocked public access or reduced visitation. In fact, visitation
has increased as services have improved.
Based on these positive results, I worked with the land management
agencies to draft legislation to move this program out of the
experimental phase. The result is, H.R. 3283, the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act. Included in the bill are several new
initiatives based on recommendations from outside sources and from
experiences learned from the demo program. Among these improvements are
restricting fees to only sites where there is a federal capital
investment, establishing different fee levels to reflect the level of
that investment, allowing access to many or all sites with the same
pass, and making agencies more accountable for how they spend money.
We are already beginning to see changes in the way fees are being
administered and collected. Since the implementation of the Forest
Service Blueprint in January they have dropped fees at over four
hundred sites. All this is part of the new policy to make the fees more
consistent nationwide, and to have fees at sites only where there is a
capital investment, not just for access. Making the recreation fee more
consistent between sites and creating a structured fee system based on
the service performed and costs incurred by that site will go a long
way towards creating a seamless fee and collection system. It has been
established that visitors are willing to pay a fee as long as the fee
stays at the site and will be invested in maintaining and upgrading
facilities they use.
Some people have complained that the fees do not stay at the
recreation site and instead go towards collecting fees and
administering the recreation fee program. Others claim that up to fifty
cents from every dollar is used for administering the program and
collecting fees. This could not be further from the truth. The cost of
collection for the agencies over FY00 through FY02 has remained roughly
consistent at about 20 percent of fee revenue. This number will only
decrease as the program continues to improve and coordination of
programs is enhanced.
There is tremendous value for the American public in maintaining
this fee authority for the Forest Service. Much of the controversy
surrounding the Forest Service was due to the entrepreneurship its
employees exhibited when the rec fee demo began. I commend this agency
for really testing a variety of fee mechanisms, and for being
responsive to public concern of the implementation during the
experimental, demonstration phase. In the long run, we have learned
from this process, and we are now better situated to implement a
permanent program. The funds retained at many Forest Service recreation
sites are essential to providing quality recreation experiences to the
public, and this should not be discontinued.
Accountability is essential on the part of the agencies that value
these funds. They must be accountable for the use of their receipts and
use them to reduce the backlog maintenance and for visitor service
enhancements. The receipts should not be used to replace Federal
appropriations. They should work in concert with the Federal
investment. Recreation fees are not double taxation; rather, they serve
as partial payment for use of special recreation sites. Under my bill,
fees are not charged for access to back country, only for use where
there is developed infrastructure.
I believe, if made an authorized program, the Fee Demo Program will
continue to yield positive results. Never has it been more apparent
than during these difficult budget times that our Federal Lands need
these funds to maintain their facilities, provide for the increase in
visitors, and homeland security costs. In FY03 the Fee Demo Program
raised $176 million for all four agencies involved, approximately a $1
million increase over FY02. Without these fees Federal Lands would not
be able to provide our constituents with the amenities they desire and
deserve, such as clean restrooms, maintained trails and staff for
customer service.
I would also like to take this time to clear up several
misconceptions about this legislation:
This bill would not mandate a specific fee level. Each
fee would be determined by the land management agencies, based on a
number of factors, including the value of the visitor experience and
the level of federal investments. In fact, this bill establishes a fee
structure so that fees would be more uniform from site to site. Several
kinds of visits would be exempt from fees. For example, there will be
no fee for a visitor seeking to see a sunset or a vista, and for back
country visitors;
There is no requirement for anyone to purchase a national
pass to visit a local national park or forest. While the bill does give
people the option of purchasing one pass to visit all sites, it also
provides for an annual site-specific agency pass as well as regional
passes. This is done to give the visitor more choices;
This bill will not privatize land management. On the
contrary, this program empowers public land managers, giving them
additional resources to do their jobs better;
This bill will not put people in jail for failure to pay
the fee. It brings fee nonpayment in line with other recreation
offenses, such as littering and driving off road, which are classified
as Class B Misdemeanors. Of course, no one is put in jail for these
offenses. The bill only seeks to create uniformity within the law. As a
practical matter, the fine (usually around $50) for fee nonpayment will
stay the same. These fees go directly to the U.S. Treasury so that the
agencies have no incentive to impose fines other then as a last resort.
In addition, these fees are not arbitrarily decided, they are based on
a scale and a Magistrate rules on every one. To date the maximum fine
ever given by any of the land agencies is $250; and
This bill does not discriminate against those who cannot
afford the fees. Federal lands should be accessible to all regardless
of income. That is why this legislation proposes numerous fee free days
and encourages volunteerism as an alternative to easily earn recreation
permits without having to pay the fees.
While I am a supporter of the fee demo, I understand the need to be
critical and make improvements to the program. If we expect Americans
to spend money to take their families to our lands, the fees must be
fair, equitable, consistent and convenient. We as Representatives have
the responsibility to maintain our public lands while at the same time
ensuring Americans that when they visit the Federal recreation sites
they will be receiving a service that is worth their hard-earned money.
I have seen firsthand the benefits of the fee demo program. When I
first became Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations
our nation's parks were in decline. This is why following several
hearings I decided to implement a fee demo program. Clearly there was a
precedent for this action as the National Park Service had been
collecting fees for years. Why not try this with other land agencies? I
recognize there are flaws in the program and there used to be many more
seven years ago, but we have worked collectively to improve the program
and should continue to do so.
It is time now for Congress to take action and authorize the fee
demo program. The funds generated from the program are critical to the
land agency's ability to provide meaningful and efficient recreation
experiences to the public. Services could be cut back and the aesthetic
beauty and appeal of these lands could be lost. We have made
significant strides in reducing the maintenance backlog, improving our
public recreation lands and managing fees since the implementation of
the demo. We must continue on this path to ensure that decades from now
Americans can continue to benefit from the natural beauty our nation's
lands have to offer. I fully intend for this bill to be the starting
point, not the end product and I look forward to working with members
of the House Resources Committee to bring it to fruition.
______
Mr. Radanovich. My pleasure, Mr. Regula.
If I may start off with one question, I am curious as
Chairman of the Appropriating Committees, do you have a concern
over the 80 percent of the fee that goes to the park that is
not subject to appropriation?
Mr. Regula. Well, I suppose there is some mechanism you
could do on that. I think more important would be a more
accountability system to ensure. I also always had a little
concern that at some park, there would be a scandal, if you
will, where the fees were used for purposes other than what we
intended. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened,
and I think it reflects that you have very conscientious people
in the Park Service. It always amazes me how many volunteers
they get in these parks. I think they told me at The Presidio
they have 15,000 people in one way or other another
volunteering. That is terrific. Particularly it is wonderful
for retirees. It gives them a mission.
But I think accountability would perhaps ensure that we
have that built into the system.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Donna, any questions.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, perhaps one.
As I said in my opening statement, you know, I think this
helps us to begin to talk about an important issue to parks. In
Saint John, we have a Demo Program which has not been without
controversy, of which I have been in the middle of it, of
course, but it has been helpful to the superintendent there to
better maintain Trunk Bay and the other areas where it is in
place. But at this time, the National Park Service, for
example, is reaching out to population groups that have not
really fully taken advantage of our parks and visited our
parks. A lot of our them are poorer populations, minority
populations and so forth.
Would you have any concern or how do you think we could
address those groups that don't usually use the parks and the
fact that a fee pay may present an additional barrier as we
reach out and try to include more population groups in
utilization of the parks?
Mr. Regula. Well, I think you could have special programs
for seniors, for school groups, so that students would learn
the pleasure and the wonderful things that take place in the
park. The fees are pretty modest, generally, in most of the
parks, and we do, I think in the bill, allow fee-free days to
ensure that if you have those kind of situations, that no one
is ever excluded from the facility. They might pick the fee-
free day, and also volunteers do earn credit toward whatever
fee there might be.
People do have a love affair with the parks, and I think we
should in every possible way make them accessible, but we want
them accessible where they are safe, where their trails are
maintained, and the rest of restrooms and the sanitary
facilities of all kinds, campsites are attractive, and this
would help a lot with that.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you for your answer. I don't have
any other questions. And thank you for considering taking those
issues into consideration as the bill was followed.
Mr. Regula. Well, I don't want anybody denied, and in some
places near the big metropolitan centers, like the Cuyahoga
Valley where there are five or six million people in the base,
there are no fees collected there because there are multiple
entrances, and I talked with the superintendent in the Golden
Gate, and he said much of the area at The Presidio within
Presidio within San Francisco's boundaries is open to
everybody. There are no fees, and I saw thousands of people
there on the weekends.
Some areas you have trails. You have campsites. You have
water, sanitation problems, and this gives them a helping hand,
but we still have the free days to ensure that everybody gets a
crack at it.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, and I am going to plan some
trips for you to communities where there are high health care
disparities. We will be talking to you about that at another
time. Thanks.
Mr. Regula. OK.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Donna. Mr. Souder, any
questions?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Good to see you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to mention a couple
other things that I have raised to you in the past, and this is
a good opportunity to get it on the public record.
One thing is I am concerned about the National Parks pass.
As we increase the demo fees at some of the major parks, we are
pushing more people to move to that pass, which defeats the
whole point of the demo fee, which I think has been an amazing
thing with very little opposition anywhere in the country, and
it is time to make it permanent and I applaud your leadership;
but one thing that I think that we need to do is push to have
the National pass price raised, because we have some of these
parks at $20, or as you see the Utah parks where there are five
of them in a row, unless you are kind of naive or uninformed,
you are going to get a pass at the beginning or the end or get
it before you plan a major vacation, which defeats the whole
point of getting the money to the parks to enable them to do
the maintenance fee.
And I like the idea of a National pass, and I always get
one myself, but we need to have a market adjustment in the pass
as we are making the market adjustments in the park, or we will
defeat the whole point of the program, and that is one thing I
am going to raise at a number of points here.
Mr. Regula. Well, probably with a creative staff, you can
figure out a way to deal with that, and I know we have
discussed that, but I think there are ways to do this, and of
course part of the 20 percent would go to that too.
Mr. Souder. And Dr. Christensen raised another point that
probably we won't be able to put inside this bill without
getting jurisdiction with Ways and Means. We are going to check
and see, because I think it would be scored so low, it wouldn't
matter, but to address her concern, I have long advocated
picking a number, whether it is 30,000 or 40,000 in income, and
anybody below that income gets an automatic tax credit to
offset the cash price of a National Parks card, so that no one
in low income would be excluded from the park. For a middle
income or higher income family, this is nothing. It costs less
than a day at an amusement park to get a National Parks pass
for the whole year, and it is just one person, not counting
food or anything else they do at an amusement park.
But I believe, personally, that less than 10 percent of the
total of that National Parks pass total probably goes to low
income people, in which case it is such an asterisk in the
budget, I am not even sure it can't go under suspension and not
come under the jurisdiction of Ways and Means, because I don't
think most low income people are buying the parks pass, and
that would address the question of if we raise that fee, that
low income people would be excluded.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think that anything that can be done
creatively in the language to give more people access, because
once people visit a park and have the experience, they like it,
and they go back, as evident in Poland and Warsaw and their
system. They have this new thing that you get a stamp. My wife
started the National First Ladies Library, which is now the
National First Ladies Historic Site, and she is always
surprised how many people come in there and the first thing
they want to is to get their stamp, because apparently the Park
Service--I don't know if they fill it out or something, but it
a challenge for them to get a stamp from as many parks as
possible, and that, again, fits with what you are saying about
getting a pass.
Mr. Souder. And as you pointed out, the largest attendance
by far in the parks right now are Golden Gate, Gateway, Santa
Monica, Cuyahoga Valley, the urban parks where you have often a
metro population of a lower income that isn't impacted.
I want to raise one other thing that I just learned a few
minutes ago. Apparently, the Governor of California has just
announced that he has pulled the guard off the Golden Gate
Bridge and stuck the National Park Service with the Homeland
Security costs at Golden Gate Bridge. This is kind of the last
straw in how we are going to be able to deal with Homeland
Security in the National Parks, because the bridge is under
special attack all over the United States. It will take an
incredible number of rangers that will have to be pulled off
the rest of the Golden Gate, and I urge the Appropriations
Committee to do something about getting some of the Homeland
Security costs shifted from the National Park Service, because
if this starts to hit things like that Golden Gate Bridge, I
don't know how they can possibly keep the parks functioning
unless we figure how to address the Homeland Security.
Mr. Regula. Yes. I heard a lot about that when I was at The
Presidio this past weekend, and when I thought it about it
myself when we crossed the bridge, we went up to Fort Baker,
which is part of Golden Gate, because I have had an interest in
that as a destination, and it is a marvelous potential site,
and I thought to myself these things are really vulnerable,
trains, bridges, and so on. And I heard about it had been under
guard and it was not at some points.
So that would be an enormously significant burden for the
park system if they have to take on that.
Mr. Radanovich. Excuse me, Mark. We are going to try to
stick to our 5-minute rule. If you could wrap it up, we will do
another round of questions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have
any questions for the Chairman, but I do want to point out that
on Guam, all of our public areas, parks and so forth, both
Federal and local, there are no fees, and I think that we will
be able to maintain things a little bit better if we do impose
fees.
So I will have a question for the next round.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Peterson. I would just like to commend the Chairman for
his leadership on this issue. I concur with this proposal, and
I guess the point I wanted to make on the discussion previously
about people being prevented, all parks have lot of free areas
that are not fee. Am I correct?
Mr. Regula. I think that is correct.
Mr. Peterson. I think the fee system has been sort of
targeted at those facilities that cost a lot of maintain and
that people who utilize them, like boat launches and I know in
the National Forests, the four-wheeler trails. I mean, these
are $6,000 toys that people play with. A small annual fee to
maintain those trails is, I don't think, out of the way, and I
don't hear any complaints because they are just looking for
places to run their snowmobiles and four-wheelers and their
toys, which are expensive play toys, and that is why I have
always been supportive of the fee system.
Historically, Congress has not adequately funded the
maintenance of some of the most beautiful lands we have in this
country, and I think users, especially high-end users who are
using things that cost a lot of money, should pay for that, and
hopefully it will enable us to enhance these parks to where we
even have more attractions and can keep them beautiful and in
shape so that it is the kind of experience people expect when
they go to a park.
I would like to commend the Chairman on his leadership.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Udall.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to welcome you, Mr. Chairman, to this
Subcommittee. I think you know it is the best run subcommittee
on the Hill except for that little subcommittee you head. Mr.
Radanovich does a great job over here.
Mr. Regula. Well, I commend you for your attendance. I have
been to a lot of committee hearings where the chairman is it. I
have been in a number of those myself.
Mr. Mark Udall. I appreciate the way that you are
proceeding. We have had some of these debates over the last
couple of years through the appropriations process, and I think
it is timely that we are going to debate this fee demo issue
through an authorization process, and I want to thank you for
your leadership.
I did miss the early part of your testimony. If I might, I
would ask you just to discuss the question of whether a
permanent fee program would tend to replace appropriations or
supplement them. That is, as you know, a heated discussion all
over the country.
Mr. Regula. Well, I made the statement, and we did this
when I initiated it has as Chairman of the Interior, that
absolutely not. That is the reason we wrote in the language
that it would be used for backlog maintenance. It would be used
to enhance the visitor experience, and I don't believe there
has been any evidence whatsoever that the Interior
Appropriations Committee, either House or Senate, have said,
well, we don't have to do as much because they are collecting
feed.
The fees are collected where there a facility that will
benefit from additional efforts, and I have had any number of
times when I visited parks that the maintenance crew, I am
their hero sort of because they have had to neglect
maintenance. It is not very sexy to fix a roof or a step or a
trail, or in a case of Muir Woods, at one point they had porta-
potties. We should make these parks attractive, the visitor
sites, the camp grounds, and that is what this is designed to
do, and it does not impact on the appropriations.
Mr. Mark Udall. I appreciate that clarification. Obviously,
one of the opportunities we have here, but one of the
challenges is to do a better job, and when I say we, I mean all
of us in the Congress, but also the land agencies of informing
the general public about the benefits of the Fee Demo Program
and how it is reinvested. There are cases where we haven't done
that very effectively, and I think that has led to some
misperceptions.
Mr. Regula. Well, I have pushed everybody that will listen
to put a big sign out there at the entrance to say that the fee
you pay will be used to deal with maintenance and with your
experience here. In a couple of parks I visited, I could tell
the paint was still wet, and we were getting their attention
anyhow.
Mr. Mark Udall. I know that in an area in my district, one
of the operators of a little marina--this is the Green Mountain
Reservoir in northern Summit County--they were actually in a
position where the local Forest Service, I believe--now, BLM
land abuts the Forest Service land there, so I may not have my
facts correct here about which agency was managing the fee demo
project, but they were not actually collecting the receipts. So
the owners of this small business were collecting the receipts,
and they were in a way happy to do that, but they also had
gotten an impression that the agency didn't really care
particularly about this fee demo project.
So I think we also have to work to ensure that the agencies
have the capable of actually administering the Fee Demo
Program.
If I could make one other comment also, maybe there is an
opportunity here to involve the public a little bit more on the
front end. At some point, the process could bog down, but there
is perhaps a way to do that to allay some of the suspicions and
the feeling that get generated.
Mr. Regula. Well, my experience in visiting in the parks
and with visitors is that they are supportive. As you point
out, when they see where it is going into the park where it is
generated, there is very little resistance.
Mr. Mark Udall. I would just conclude and thank you for
your leadership. My predecessor, Congressman Skaggs always
appreciated his working relationship with you and would come
home to Colorado and say there is a guy in Ohio that really
gets it here when it comes to our public lands in the west. So
thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. [Presiding] Does anyone have any further
questions that they would like to ask the Chairman?
I would like to thank the Chairman for coming and putting
his bill out there--I agree with it--and for his leadership on
this issue, and we just want to thank you for coming and
sharing it with us today.
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Peterson. OK. If you would like to join us at the
podium, you are welcome to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regula. I will stay for a few minutes. You know how we
all have too many things to do.
Mr. Peterson. OK. We understand that.
Mr. Peterson. We would like the second panel to come
forward and take a seat: Ms. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary
for Policy Management and Budget for the Department of
Interior; Mr. Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Barry T. Hill, Director of
National Resources and Environmental, General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.
If you all would take your seats, we would like to remind
you that you all have 5 minutes to present your views and
thoughts and share with the Committee, and then we will take
questions after all three of you have spoken.
Mr. Peterson. Ms. Scarlett, you are on, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 3283 regarding recreational fees and
passes. I would like to especially thank Congressman Regula for
introducing the bill and his critical role in the creation and
the extension of the Fee Demo Program over the last several
years. The Department strongly supports this bill with several
technical amendments.
A permanent multi-agency recreation fee program does allow
us to substantially and significantly improve our ability to
meet visitor demands for enhanced visitor services and
facilities. It also enhances our efforts, as Mr. Regula pointed
out, to address maintenance backlog needs on our public lands.
Growing numbers of Americans are visiting public lands in our
parks, our forests, our wildlife refuges, as well as Bureau of
Land Management Lands. Indeed, that recreation has increased
most dramatically on Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Land Management lands. Since 1985, recreation demand has
increased approximately 65 percent on Bureau of Land Management
lands, 80 percent within Fish and Wildlife Service refuges.
The Administration strongly supports ensuring that visitors
have outstanding recreation experiences. Fees have provided
nearly $200 million each year in recent years that are invested
directly at the sites where the recreation activities are
occurring. At Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, for
example, recreation fees totaled approximately 40 percent of
that refuge's ability to add and enhance and serve the public
for recreation activities. At Moab in Utah, recreation fees
contributed over 69 percent of the total recreation moneys
available to the Bureau of Land Management to build campsites,
provide toilet facilities, provide boating ramps, and related
infrastructure. These revenues are the backbone of special
services to the user public, and they complement rather than
substitute for appropriations funding provided by Congress.
As we look at recreation and visitation patterns, we
conclude that is it is not the agency label that is relevant.
Many lands, regardless of which agency manages them, display
similar features in terms of recreation activities, amenities,
and visitation levels. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area, for example, has striking similarities to Arches National
Park and the Sedona Recreation Area. Red Rock offers visitors
world class rock climbing, a visitor center, bookstore, toilet
facilities, picnic areas, and many other infrastructure.
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Assateague Island
National Park protects similar environmental and wildlife
resources, and both offer visitor centers, a bookstore, toilet
facilities, observation decks, and hunting blinds.
Our visitor surveys show strong support for the recreation
fee program when these dollars are invested back on the site to
better serve visitors. We support provisions in H.R. 3283 that
keep a majority of recreation fees at the site to enhance
visitor facilities and services. Visitors have come to count on
the extra services and special amenities that these fees have
enabled us to provide. At Lake Havasu, for example, there are
now over 3.1 million annual visits. To serve these visitors,
the Bureau of Land Management has replaced 50 leaking and
deteriorating fiberglass outhouses and 36 block wall accessible
restrooms. They have installed 700 feet of river bank block
walls and used the recreation fees to now maintain this very
substantial infrastructure.
We are aware of concerns that some Members of Congress
have, particularly concerns that fees might be charged where no
recreation amenities exist. H.R. 3283 would address this issue.
Many of these concerns arise from practices applied during the
experimental introduction of fees at the outset of the Fee Demo
Program. All agencies have learned from those experiences, and
we have made adjustments to address public concerns.
All Interior agencies now have discipline processes for
making determinations regarding the introduction of recreation
fees. At the Bureau of Land Management, most locations must
first be designated in a land use plan as a special recreation
management area with the sort of public engagement and
involvement that Mr. Udall has suggested. This process includes
notice in the Federal Register and several opportunities for
public comment and ultimate approval by the state director as
well as an appeals process.
The Fish and Wildlife Service similarly has a rigorous
review process and public engagement as they develop proposals
for fee sites. Using these management procedures, the result
for Interior has been that a very small percentage of Fish and
Wildlife Service and BLM sites actually utilize recreation
fees. Eighty-nine percent of BLM sites do not charge fees.
Seventy-eight percent of Fish and Wildlife sites do not charge
fees.
We believe another key provision as we move forward with
fees is to develop collaborative partnerships that allow
counties that provide services to visitors to share revenues
and maintain the nexus between the visitors who pay the fees
and the benefits. H.R. 3283 would provide for the creation of
regional multi-entity passes so that Federal, state, and local
sites can provide visitors with combined and streamlined
quality recreation. This is exactly the model that we are now
using at places like Sand Flats where we also have a
cooperative agreement with the county, and the county actually
collects the fees and we jointly manage state lands and BLM
lands for recreation services.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we believe that
H.R. 3283 would translate our experiences over the past several
years into a permanent fee program that would enable us to
better serve the public, continue to enhance the infrastructure
that they have, and be the best that we can be. I look forward
to any questions you might have and appreciate your strong
interest in this issue.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3283, a bill to improve
recreational facilities and visitor opportunities on Federal
recreational lands by reinvesting receipts from fair and consistent
recreational fees and passes, and for other purposes.
The Department of the Interior (Department) strongly supports H.R.
3283, and we along with the Forest Service would like to offer several
technical amendments. The establishment of a permanent multiagency
recreation fee program would allow us to meet visitor demands for
enhanced visitor facilities and services on our federal lands. The
recreation fee program is vital to our ability to provide our visitors
with a quality recreational experience. It significantly enhances the
Department's efforts to support the President's initiative to address
the deferred maintenance backlog at our National Parks and enables us
to better manage other federal lands. H.R. 3283 would allow the
agencies the certainty that is needed to better-serve visitors by
making long-term investments, streamlining the program, and creating
more partnerships.
Our federal lands boast scenic vistas, breathtaking landscapes, and
unique natural wonders. On these lands, many patriotic symbols,
battlefields, memorials, historic homes, and other types of sites tell
the story of America. Federal lands have provided Americans and
visitors from around the world special places for recreation,
education, reflection, and solace. The family vacation to these
destinations is an American tradition. We want to ensure that the
federal lands continue to play this important role in American life and
culture. Fulfilling this mission requires that we maintain visitor
facilities and services, preserve natural and historic resources, and
enhance visitor opportunities. Such efforts require an adequate and
steady source of funding that can quickly respond to increases in
visitor demand. Recreation fee revenues provide us important
supplemental funding that better enables us to serve those using
recreation amenities.
Although recreation fees date back to 1908, Congress first
established broad recreation fee authority in 1965 under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act. In enacting this authority,
Congress acknowledged that the visitors to federal lands receive some
benefits that do not directly accrue to the public at large and that
charging a modest fee to that population is equitable to the user and
fair to the general taxpayer. In 1996, Congress took that idea one step
further when establishing the Recreation Fee Demonstration (Fee Demo)
program for the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife
Service), and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). During the
105th Congress, a House Appropriations Committee Report noted that the
Fee Demo program was developed in direct response to the federal
agencies' concern over their growing backlog maintenance needs. The Fee
Demo program allowed participating agencies to retain a majority of
recreation fees at the site collected and reinvest those fees into
enhancing visitor facilities and services. This authority was
deliberately broad and flexible to encourage agencies to experiment
with their fee programs. Congress has demonstrated its support of the
Fee Demo program by extending the program seven times and expanding the
program by lifting the initial one hundred site limit per agency.
H.R. 3283 reflects the lessons we have learned in implementing the
Fee Program over the last eight years by creating a permanent
multiagency recreation fee program that balances the desire to restrict
authority only to sites where an investment is made in visitor
facilities or services with the need to provide enough flexibility to
meet the changing recreation demands of our visitors. We would like to
share our views on some of the key provisions of this bill as well as
some of our observations about recreation activity on federal land.
A Multiagency Permanent Recreation Fee Program
We strongly agree with H.R. 3283's creation of a multiagency
permanent recreation fee program. The Department has found that the
pattern of recreation on our federal lands has changed dramatically.
National Parks continue to be a destination favorite for American
families. However, more than ever, Americans also are choosing to
recreate on lands managed by other federal agencies, such as BLM and
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1985, recreation demand has
increased approximately 65 percent on BLM lands and 80 percent on
National Wildlife Refuges. Over the same time period, the Bureau of
Reclamation estimates an increase of 12.5 percent or 10 million
recreation visits for a total of 90 million visits to their 288 lakes.
With this increase in visitation is an increase in visitor demand for
adequate visitor facilities and services. Because many of our visitors
do not distinguish among federal land management agencies, many expect
to find the same amenities typically provided at National Parks,
including hosted campgrounds, permanent toilet facilities, and potable
drinking water. This increase in visitor use on these other federal
lands also creates a greater need to expend funds to protect natural
and cultural resources--the resources that are often the very reason
visitors are drawn to the particular site. A permanent multiagency
recreation fee program allows each agency to respond to the needs of
the visiting public.
Many lands, regardless of which agency manages them, display
similar features in terms of recreation activities, amenities, and
visitation levels. For example, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area (NCA), managed by the BLM, has striking similarities to Arches
National Park, managed by NPS and to Sedona Recreation Area, managed by
the Forest Service. Both Red Rock Canyon NCA and Arches National Park
were created to protect their unique geological features and offer
visitors world-class rock-climbing, a visitor center, book store,
toilet facilities, and picnic areas. Both sites charge a modest
recreation fee, a majority of which stays at the site to enhance
facilities and services. As in other BLM sites, visitation at Red Rock
Canyon NCA has increased substantially in recent years. Visitation
increased 5.5 percent from 761,445 recreation visits in FY 2001 to
803,451 recreation visits in FY 2003.
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Assateague Island
National Seashore both protect exceptional beaches, maritime forests,
saltwater marshes, wild horses, Atlantic flyway and migratory bird
sanctuaries, and cultural resources. These sites offer visitors similar
amenities such as a visitor center, a bookstore, toilet facilities,
observation decks, and hunting blinds. In FY 2003, the park received
approximately 2 million recreation visits on its 39,723 acres while the
refuge received approximately 1.5 million recreation visits on its
14,062 acres. The park has two entrance stations, and the refuge has
one entrance station and several public boat landings. Both sites
charge a modest recreation fee, a majority of which stays at the site
to enhance facilities and services. To accommodate visitors' enjoyment
of both sites and to minimize fee layering, the park and the refuge
have entered into a reciprocal fee agreement. A visitor who purchases a
single visit entry or a site specific annual pass at either the refuge
or park or holds a National Parks Pass or a Federal Duck Stamp can
enter either site for no additional fee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3531.001
As with some National Parks, recreation fees can represent a
substantial contribution to a FWS or BLM site's total budget. In Moab,
Utah, recreation fees contribute over 69 percent of the total
recreation budget. Recreation fees total $500,000 while the recreation
resource management appropriations total $196,000. In Chincoteague
National Wildlife Refuge, recreation fees totaled approximately 40
percent of that refuge's base budget in FY 2003. Chincoteague collected
just over $650,000 in recreation fee revenues and its base budget and
maintenance project money was approximately $1,655,500 that year.
A Permanent Multiagency Recreation Fee Program that is Limited to Areas
that Provide Enhanced Facilities or Services
We understand that our visitors seek a broad range of experiences
when they choose to visit their federal lands and that a successful
recreation fee program would enable us to offer these recreation
options to the public. H.R. 3283 would provide this opportunity by
limiting the program to areas where the visitors are provided enhanced
facilities and services. Some visitors, for example, choose our federal
lands because they want a unique individualized experience with
nature--they seek out areas where they can camp under the stars at
undeveloped sites, hike alone along a river, and enjoy the solitude.
These visitors do not mind carrying all of their food in and all of
their garbage out, and they would prefer areas that do not have picnic
tables, toilet facilities, or visitor centers. Even under the broad
authority of the Fee Demo program:
89 percent of BLM sites do not charge Fee Demo fees;
78 percent of FWS sites open to visitation do not charge
Fee Demo fees;
75 percent of all Forest Service sites do not charge Fee
Demo fees; and
40 percent of all NPS sites do not charge Fee Demo fees.
In contrast, we understand that other visitors enjoy a more
structured recreation experience. These visitors enjoy viewing
interpretive films, attending lectures about geology, history and
culture at a visitor center or museum, and riding trams or other types
of transportation to see the sites. Their preferred lodging is a
developed cabin or hotel. For these reasons, these visitors often
choose to visit destination National Parks.
Still other visitors prefer a little bit of both experiences. These
visitors often visit areas managed by one of many different agencies,
including the BLM, FWS, and the Forest Service. These visitors enjoy a
less structured experience and more direct interaction with the land
and its unique resources, but still want certain facilities, such as
toilet facilities, interpretive exhibits, boat ramps, and developed
parking areas. Other areas that appeal to these visitors are the
popular weekend destinations that are located near major urban centers.
Because of the sheer number of visitors at these locations, the need
for visitor services increases. Such services include increased medical
and emergency services, increased maintenance of toilet facilities and
trails, and greater protection of natural, cultural, and historic
resources. Modest recreation fees that primarily stay at the site of
collection make such enhanced facilities and services possible.
To ensure that the Recreation Fee Program enhances the recreation
experience for our visitors, BLM and FWS have made a commitment not to
charge basic or expanded recreation fees:
At areas with no facilities or services;
For persons who are driving-through, walking-through, or
hiking through federal lands without using the facilities or services;
For undesignated parking; and
For overlooks or scenic pullouts.
Through the Interagency Recreation Fee Leadership Council (Fee
Council), which was created in 2002 to facilitate coordination and
consistency among high-level officials of the Department of the
Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department also
identified seven principles critical to a successful fee program. These
guiding principles indicate that fees should be: 1) beneficial to the
visiting public; 2) fair and equitable; 3) efficient; 4) consistent; 5)
implemented collaboratively; 6) convenient; and should 7) provide for
accountability to the public. The Department has committed to applying
these guiding principles to any administrative and legislative effort
concerning the recreation fee program.
Toward this end, all agencies have administrative processes to
limit the expansion of the program to areas where the visitors are
provided enhanced facilities and services. For BLM, areas with entrance
or use fees must first be designated a Special Recreation Management
Area (SRMA). These designations are made in land-use plans and require
publication in the Federal Register, environmental analysis and public
participation. Any change in nationwide fees, including those that
impact commercial, competitive, and organized groups, requires BLM to
publish notice in the Federal Register. For changes to Recreation Use
Permits, BLM provides opportunities for the public, user groups and
gateway communities to get involved when establishing or designating a
fee area or establishing fees. Every addition or modification to the
fee program in the FWS requires the development of a proposal and
approval by the Director.
In the Cascade Resource Area that spans 169,400 acres, BLM only
charges an entrance fee at one 550 acre area with developed recreation,
the Wildwood Recreation Site. Thus, visitors who seek a more natural
experience and do not wish to use facilities and services can recreate
free of charge in over 99 percent, or 168,850 acres, of the Cascade
Resource Area. Those who choose to use the facilities and services at
the Wildwood Recreation Site, which include a learning center, the
Cascade Streamwatch interpretive trail featuring an in-stream fish
viewing window, a wetlands boardwalk trail, 2.5 miles of paved trails,
two large group picnic shelters, and an athletic field, pay a modest $3
per vehicle per day fee, $10 for an annual site pass, or a group
facility fee. Visitors who walk-in or bike-in and school groups can use
the Wildwood Recreation Site free of charge. Although construction of
most of the facilities was paid for out of other funds, just as it is
in many National Park Service sites, recreation fees provided the site
with $37,000 in FY 2003, a modest, but significant, contribution to the
maintenance and upkeep of the facilities. These services, along with
environmental education and interpretive programs, enhance the visitor
experience and would not be possible without the recreation fee
program.
At Moab, Utah, BLM manages 1.8 million acres. Portions of these
lands consist of dramatic geologic structures and canyons through which
the Colorado River cuts. The area has become a premier destination for
mountain bikers, campers, rock climbers, and off-road vehicle
enthusiasts. To provide opportunities for these visitors, BLM has
constructed and manages around 400 campsites, groomed and marked miles
of trails with signage, provided toilet facilities, and other
amenities. These sites attract over 1.6 million visitors annually. The
recreation fees charged at these sites generate over $500,000,
comprising two-thirds of the recreation management budget for these
areas. At another area near Moab, BLM operates under a joint agreement
to provide biking, camping, and off-road vehicle opportunities in an
area that includes BLM and State Lands. Through a recreation fee, the
partners generate over $250,000, which enables them to offer trails,
toilets, signage, campgrounds, paved parking, and other amenities.
Other BLM areas are open to recreation, free of charge for visitors.
These areas abut Arches National Park and Canyonlands National
Park, where entry fees are charged. The two parks have 94 campsites,
small amounts of OHV recreation opportunities and offer educational and
interpretation at the visitor centers and around the parks. The NPS,
BLM and Forest Service jointly participate with a County association in
operating a downtown visitor center in the heart of Moab.
A Permanent Multiagency Program that Provides for Standardized
Recreation Fees, Allows for Development of a Streamlined Pass
System, and Minimizes Fee Layering
H.R. 3283 would standardize recreation fees and provide the
authority to create a streamlined pass system that allows for creative
options based on visitor demand. In working administratively to improve
the recreation fee program, the Department has found that the issues of
standardizing recreation fees across agencies, creating a streamlined
and sensible pass system, and minimizing fee layering--or what might
better be thought of as tiered fees--are all interrelated. Historical
fee definitions in the LWCF Act and differences among agencies in
legislative fee authorities have led the agencies to develop slightly
different definitions of what activities are covered by ``entrance''
fees and those covered by ``use'' fees. The result has been that, at
some sites, a use fee was established rather than an entrance fee, and
at other sites, an additional use fee was charged for the primary
attraction of the site when the activity should have been covered by an
already-paid entrance fee. The lack of consistency among and within
agencies has led to visitor confusion and some expression of
frustration about fee layering and the related issue of when the Golden
Passes established under the LWCF Act and the National Park Passport
may be used.
In the Department's testimony before this Congress during the 107th
Congress, we proposed addressing these concerns by creating a new
system of ``basic'' and ``expanded'' recreation fees that would be
consistently applied across all agencies and would minimize fee
layering by ensuring that the basic fee covers the primary attraction
of the site. Under this system, restrictions would be put in place to
ensure that the visiting public is not charged if the agency is not
making a certain level of investment in visitor facilities or services.
H.R. 3283 contains such important provisions.
The Department supports the provisions in H.R. 3283 that would
allow for the streamlining of a multiagency pass and the creation of
regional multientity passes with a standardized package of benefits.
The visiting public is interested in having a variety of pass options.
Multiagency and regional passes can provide visitors, including nearby
residents, with convenient and economical ways to enjoy recreation on
federal lands. Passes also can serve as a means to educate the American
public about their federal lands and available recreational
opportunities. Because of the lack of standardization of fees, however,
some confusion has resulted from the existing pass system. Visitors
should be able to expect and receive the same amenities for their pass
regardless of which agency manages the site they are visiting.
The Department and USDA have moved forward administratively to
address these issues, where possible. Although we are retaining the
LWCF terminology, the agencies are making adjustments to standardize
the classification of fees to decrease visitor confusion about the
passes and minimize fee layering. For example, the Forest Service has
expanded and clarified the benefits of the Golden Passes to include
1,500 additional sites. The previous pass policy at those sites was
extremely confusing: the Golden Eagle Pass was not accepted; Golden Age
and Access passholders were given a 50 percent discount; while a
regional pass, like the Northwest Forest Pass, was accepted in full.
NPS is evaluating whether passes could be accepted at an additional 30
sites that currently do not accept passes for the primary attraction.
BLM has evaluated all of its sites and is now accepting the Golden
Eagle Pass at 12 additional sites.
The Department is streamlining the recreation fee system. Our
experience has shown that eliminating all fee-tiering is neither fair
nor equitable, especially for specialized services such as camping,
reservations, enhanced tours, or group events. The notion behind
charging a fee beyond the basic recreation fee is that certain
recreation activities require additional attention by agency staff or
involve costs that should not be borne by the general public through
taxpayer funds or by the rest of the visiting public through the basic
recreation fee. The system must balance fairness and equity principles
by carefully considering the relationship between who pays and who
benefits.
Another important consideration is fee levels. The Department is
committed to ensuring access to all visitors. Recreation fees represent
a tiny percentage of the out-of-pocket costs that an average family
spends on a typical vacation. Recreation fees are reasonable in
comparison to those charged for other recreational activities. For
example, in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a family of four pays $20 for a
seven day pass to both Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone
National Park. In contrast, in Jackson Hole, the same family pays
$27.50 for 2-3 hours of entertainment at a movie theatre.
A Permanent Multiagency Program That Ensures that a Majority of
Recreation Fees Stay at the Site to Enhance Visitor Facilities
and Services
Visitor support of recreation fees is strong when the fees remain
at the site for reinvestment into visitor facilities and services. H.R.
3283 would do this by ensuring that not less than eighty percent of the
recreation fees collected remain at the site of collection. We believe
that this is an essential component of any permanent multiagency
recreation fee program. We understand that it is not only important to
make these critical investments, but also to ensure that we communicate
to the public how recreation fees are spent to enhance the visitor
experience. Recreation fees are sometimes spent in ways that may not be
apparent, but would be noticed by visitors if the investment did not
occur. Recreation fees are spent on such services as maintaining and
upgrading toilet facilities, trails, and parking lots. For example, at
Moab, Utah, which receives over 1 million visitors annually, it costs
BLM $50,000 per year just to service the toilet facilities.
At the Lake Havasu Field Office in Arizona, BLM has replaced 50
leaking and deteriorating fiberglass outhouses with 36 block wall
accessible restrooms. BLM also has installed 700 feet of riverbank
block walls, which will help protect the newly constructed restrooms as
well as stabilize the campsites' eroding shoreline. Recreation fees
contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of these investments and will
help ensure that the visiting public will be able to use these
facilities for many years in the future.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has used fees to offer some unique
opportunities to visitors consistent with the six priority recreation
uses outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997--hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation,
environmental education, and interpretation. At California's Modoc
National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service used recreation
fees to benefit hunters and photographers by replacing an old hay bale
blind with a new wooden, more accessible hunting and photo blind,
complete with access ramp. At the National Elk Refuge, the Fish and
Wildlife Service collects an Elk hunt permit recreation fee of $1 per
hunter at the weekly hunter drawings in October, November, and
December. These recreation fees are used to rent a fair pavilion
building from the county to conduct refuge hunt orientation and permit
drawings at the beginning of each hunting season. Hundreds of hunters
attend each year. In addition, the modest recreation fee allows the
Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase retrieval carts and sleds for the
hunters' use and shooting sticks to encourage ethical hunting.
As public recreation grows in scope and form of recreation,
increasingly, all of our land management agencies are meeting these
needs. Sites that attract thousands of visitors each day and tens of
thousands of visitors each year, must invest in sanitation facilities,
parking, campgrounds, shelters, boat ramps, and other infrastructure
that helps ensure access, safety, and resource protection so the very
feature that attracts the visitor remains available for the future.
Many BLM, Forest Service, FWS, and NPS sites share identical or similar
characteristics, including significant infrastructure. These sites
vary--not by the agency label--but by the particulars of location. Sand
Flats, in Moab, Utah, includes BLM lands and a single point of entry
into canyon area trails and campgrounds. The Everglades National Park
in Florida stretches over 1.5 million acres and has multiple points of
access. Recreation fees are charged in some parts of the park and not
others, much like the situation on BLM lands in Moab.
These and the many other important enhancements made possible by
the recreation fee program are described in our annual Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program report to Congress. All of these reports are
available on http://www.doi.gov/nrl/Recfees/RECFEESHOME.html. The
FY2003 annual report is currently in the final stages of review, and we
expect to transmit it to Congress shortly.
Collaborative Partnerships with States, Counties, and Gateway
Communities
We view counties and gateway communities as potential partners in
our effort to provide a quality recreation experience for our mutually-
shared visitors. The Department supports the provisions in H.R. 3283
that would provide the Secretary authority to enter into collaborative
partnerships with public and private entities for visitor reservation
services, fee collection or processing services. This provision would
allow us, among other things, to more vigorously seek out opportunities
to engage gateway communities through the recreation fee program and is
consistent with Secretary Norton's emphasis on cooperation and
partnerships to achieve public goals.
It is critical that we recognize the positive impact the presence
of recreation sites on nearby federal lands has on counties and gateway
communities. According to a study entitled, Banking on Nature 2002: The
Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge
Visitation, the more than 35.5 million visits to the nation's 540
refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment,
food, lodging, transportation and other expenditures in 2002. The total
for sales and tourism-related revenue plus employment income, $1.12
billion in total is nearly four times the $320 million that the
National Wildlife Refuge System received in FY 2002 for operation and
maintenance and over 300 times the $3.6 million the FWS generated
through the Fee Demo Program in that year.
The collaborative partnership approach recognizes that we can work
together with gateway communities to promote tourism by providing a
quality recreational experience to our shared visitors. One example of
the type of partnership that could flourish through a collaborative
agreement provision under a permanent recreation fee program is the
Sand Flats Agreement entered into in 1994 by BLM and the gateway
community of Grand County, Utah, discussed earlier in this testimony.
Sand Flats is a 7,000-acre recreational area outside Moab, Utah, that
includes BLM and state lands. It is highly popular, particularly with
mountain bikers and off-highway vehicle users. In the early 1990s, its
popularity increased so much that the BLM was no longer able to manage
and patrol the area. Looking for a creative solution, BLM entered into
a cooperative agreement with the county under which the county would
collect recreation fees and use them to manage and patrol the highly
popular recreational area. The county and its citizens have benefitted
from a more vigorous tourist trade; the BLM now has a signature
recreation area; and visitors can safely enjoy the Sand Flats area. We
believe that the Sand Flats Agreement is an excellent model of a
mutually beneficial collaborative partnership and that the opportunity
to craft these types of agreements exists across the country.
Recreation revenues make up over 50 percent of the economy in Moab.
Other possible collaborative partnerships with states and local
communities could be developed through the creation of regional
multientity passes that would be authorized under H.R. 3283. Providing
visitors and residents of nearby communities with a well-structured,
appropriately priced, regional multientity pass would allow for
benefits that could extend to other federal, state, and private
entities. Recognizing that recreation areas and the visitors who enjoy
them do not necessarily follow state boundaries, our experience has
shown that regional multientity passes offer greater flexibility and
can be tailored to meet identified recreational demands. One example of
a successful regional pass is the Visit Idaho Playground (VIP) Pass,
which covers all entrance and certain day-use fees at a variety of
state and federal sites including those under the jurisdiction of the
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, the Idaho Department of
Commerce, the Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, NPS, and BLM.
During FY 2003, BLM, NPS, FWS, and the Forest Service worked
cooperatively with the Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, the
Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to develop an annual multiagency day-use recreation pass
for use in the Pacific Northwest. This annual pass became available
this month and will be accepted at many public day-use fee areas in
Oregon and Washington. Revenues will be used to operate and maintain
key recreation facilities and services. The pass will sell for $85 and
includes the Golden Eagle Passport for $65 and the Washington and
Oregon Recreation Pass Upgrade for $20.
As mentioned earlier in the testimony, the Department would like to
offer several technical amendments to H.R. 3283, and we also understand
that the Forest Service will be offering several technical amendments
in which we concur. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with
the Subcommittee to discuss these issues in detail at a later date.
The Future of the Recreation Fee Program
We have learned a great deal from our experience in administering
the Fee Demo program and believe we are ready to translate that
experience into a permanent recreation fee program. Delay could result
in a lost opportunity to implement a more productive, streamlined
recreation fee system, designed to enhance the visitor's experience.
Establishing a permanent program does not mean the learning ends here.
We support a dynamic recreation fee program that responds to new
lessons learned and builds on success stories. We believe a recreation
fee program created under H.R. 3283 would create such a dynamic program
while providing the Department the certainty to make long-term
investments, improve efficiencies, and initiate more partnerships.
Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you for your interest in this
issue and for the opportunity to express the Department's support of
H.R. 3283. We also would like to take this opportunity to extend our
gratitude to Congressman Regula, for introducing this important piece
of legislation and for his critical role in the creation and extension
of the Fee Demo program. We would like to extend an invitation to any
interested members of the Subcommittee and Committee for a visit to a
BLM, FWS, or NPS Fee Demo recreation site.
______
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Department's views on H.R. 3283, the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
I am Tom Thompson, here representing the Department of
Agriculture and Under Secretary Mark Rey. I have a few
comments. I would like to have my full testimony in the record.
Mr. Peterson. So ordered.
Mr. Thompson. The Department supports H.R. 3283 and wants
to work with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsors on
submissions of technical correction amendments to the bill.
While the idea of charging fees for recreation use on National
forest has been controversial in some cases, taxpayers
generally benefit when the cost of public services are at least
partially borne by direct users of these services. Over the
years, surveys conducted regarding recreation fees indicate
that most people accept modest fees, especially when they know
that the fees are returned to the site where they are collected
to enhance recreation experience.
An example of some of these surveys is included in a packet
which I believe you all have.
In January of 2004, the Forest Service starting
implementing the blueprint for Forest Service recreation fees.
The blueprint was developed based upon lessons that we have
learned since the first years of the program and establishes a
consistent National criteria for how the recreation fee program
would be implemented. The Forest Service has removed over 400
sites that no longer charge a day use fee under the fee demo.
Some examples of these sites are in my full testimony.
The Department supports H.R. 3283, which would establish a
permanent recreation fee program for the Forest Service, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management. Specifically, H.R. 3283 provides
nine provisions for permanent recreation fee authority. The
Department believes an essential aspect of a permanent
recreation fee program is that the majority of fees are indeed
retained and spent at the site where they are collected to
enhance resources, facilities, activities, services, and
programs used by the visiting public. In implementing public
fee demo wherever possible and appropriate, agencies have
coordinated fees with private local, state entities, gateway
communities, and each other to minimize overlapping costs and
to simplify fees for the visiting public.
Federal lands have provided Americans and visitors from
around the world with special places for recreation, education,
reflection and solace, and just to make memories. The Forest
Service has estimated that over 211 million annual visits occur
on National forests. It is a significant increase over the last
30 to 40 years. This increase in visitation means an increase
in visitor demand for adequate visitor facilities and services.
Since the inception of the Fee Demo Program in 1996, the
Forest Service has shown that it can manage the recreation fee
program and provide numerous benefits to the American public.
In 2003, the agency generated $38.8 million, which has made a
crucial difference in reducing the maintenance backlog,
enhancing facilities, and improving visitor services and
operations. In your packet is an example of how fee demo
revenues help to maintain very popular OHV trials on the Wayne
National Forest in Ohio, the same with Pennsylvania and others.
Whether a person is visiting a day-use site like a trail
head or recreating at a developed campground, visitors to
public lands expect the same amenities, facilities, and
services as those enjoying a National park. As Assistant
Secretary Lynn Scarlett stated, examples of where the public
does not differentiate between a land management agency, but
expects the same amenities and use of the land in similar
locations is the example in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. In all
three areas, similar recreation opportunities exist within the
various natural settings and opportunities.
Again, the Department supports H.R. 3283, and we have
learned a great deal from our experiences in administering the
Fee Demo Program over the past 8 years. It is time to make the
recreation fee program permanent. The Department is eager to
work with the Subcommittee, the sponsors of H.R. 3283, the
Department of Interior, and our partners on clarifying
amendments.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the Department's views on H.R. 3283, the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act. The Department supports H.R. 3283 and wants to work
with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsors on submissions of technical
correction amendments to the bill. Specifically, the Department
recommends clarifying that individuals who have a permanent disability
are eligible for discount passes; commissions, reimbursements and
discounts should be provided for private vendors who sell the Federal
Lands Recreational Pass, how volunteers should be used; and the law
enforcement provision.
The Recreational Fee Demonstration program (Fee Demo), first
authorized by Congress in 1996, has given the Forest Service, National
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management a great opportunity to test the notion of user-generated
cost recovery, where fees are collected and expended onsite to provide
enhanced services and facilities. Current authorization expires on
December 31, 2005. The Administration in its FY 2005 Budget requests
that the recreation fee demo program become permanent. A permanent
recreation fee program, as outlined in H.R. 3283, would allow the
Forest Service, along with Department of the Interior agencies, the
opportunity to make long-term investments and address maintenance
backlogs, continue to build further on successes of the current demo
program, improve efficiencies, and initiate more partnerships.
A permanent recreation fee program will enhance recreational
facilities, settings, and services for the public to use. While the
idea of charging fees for recreational use on the national forests has
been controversial in some cases, taxpayers generally benefit when the
cost of public services are at least partially borne by the direct
users of these services. Since visitors to Federal lands receive some
benefits that do not directly accrue to the public at large, charging a
modest fee to partially offset the cost of that use is both fair and
equitable. This principle underlies permanent fee authority under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). Over the years, surveys
conducted regarding recreation fees indicate that most people accept
modest fees, especially when they know that the fees are returned to
the site where they are collected to enhance their recreation
experience.
Implementation of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Over the past eight years all agencies involved in Fee Demo have
experimented with fees and learned many lessons. Fee Demo was designed
to allow flexibility in implementation and to be broad enough to allow
agencies to experiment with different types of fee programs. The
Departments continue to study, evaluate, and improve the fee program
within individual agencies, sharing our learning experiences along the
way. It has taken time to understand the results of these experiences,
but the Forest Service is moving aggressively to address concerns that
have arisen. Based upon what we have learned, the agency has adopted
many changes in implementing Fee Demo since the first project was
established in 1997.
In January 2004, the Forest Service started implementing the
Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees (Blueprint). The Blueprint
was developed based on lessons learned in the first years of the
program and establishes consistent national criteria for how the
recreation fee program will be implemented. The goal of the Blueprint
is to have a consistent national policy to provide high-quality
recreation sites, services, and settings that enhance the visitor's
experience and protect natural and cultural resources. By implementing
the Blueprint, the Forest Service is addressing public and
Congressional concerns to ensure recreation fees are: (1) convenient
(making it as easy as possible for visitors to comply with fee
requirements); (2) consistent (visitors expect a similar fee for
similar activities, facilities, and services; thus a fee program will
be established only where certain amenities or services are provided);
(3) beneficial (demonstrating the added value the visitor receives in
exchange for fees); and (4) accountable (building trust by informing
the public of program investments and performance).
Each unit that is participating in Fee Demo has reviewed how its
current fee program fits with the Blueprint. Those projects that did
not conform to the national criteria have been changed. All new
projects will follow the Blueprint criteria. Some changes that have
been made include:
The Enterprise Forests in Southern California (the
Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests)
that have implemented the Adventure Pass Program have identified four
free areas where the pass is not required, in addition to designating
12 free days for all sites where a fee will not be charged. This
approach was implemented in response to public comments to provide
areas where a fee will not be charged on the national forests covered
by the Adventure Pass;
The National Forests in Oregon and Washington have
identified 385 sites where a pass will not be required on those forests
implementing the Northwest Forest Pass program. This change will mean
that only 679, instead of 1,064, day-use recreation sites on national
forests in the Pacific Northwest will be included in the Northwest
Forest Pass; and
Twenty-one trailheads have been removed from the Sawtooth
National Forest Trailhead-Parking Pass Recreation Fee Project. Only 17
of the 38 trailheads in the Sawtooth project met the Blueprint
criteria. The Agency will no longer charge fees at the 21 trailheads
that do not meet the definition for a significantly developed day-use
site.
H.R. 3283--the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
The Department supports H.R. 3283, which would establish a
permanent recreation fee program for the Forest Service, the National
Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, but would like to work with the Subcommittee
and bill sponsors on the submission of technical correction amendments
to clarify the bill. Specifically, H.R. 3283 provides: (1)
establishment of principles for a recreational fee program; (2)
promotion of interagency coordination; (3) establishment of an
interagency national pass; (4) collaborative agreements with Federal,
State, county, or gateway communities; (5) establishment of site-
specific agency and regional multi-entity passes; (6) provision for
basic and expanded recreation fees; (7) communication with the public
regarding use of revenues; (8) provision of additional authorities to
implement the program; and (9) provision of criteria for accountability
and control of revenues collected.
1. Establishment of Principles for a Recreational Fee Program
Section 2(b) in H.R. 3283 would establish seven principles for
implementing a permanent recreation fee program, i.e., that fees should
be beneficial to the visiting public, fair and equitable, efficient,
collaborative, convenient, accountable, and consistent. These are the
same guiding principles established by the Interagency Recreational Fee
Council (Fee Council) in 2002. The Fee Council, chaired by Assistant
Secretary Lynn Scarlett and Under Secretary Mark Rey, was developed to
provide leadership and consistency for the agencies implementing Fee
Demo. The Department believes an essential aspect of a permanent
recreation fee program is that the majority of fees are retained and
spent at the site where they are collected to enhance resources,
facilities, activities, services, and programs used by the visiting
public. In implementing these guiding principles the agencies, wherever
possible or appropriate, have coordinated fees with private, local, and
State entities and each other to minimize overlapping costs and
simplify fees for the visiting public.
Federal lands have provided Americans and visitors from around the
world with special places for recreation, education, reflection and
solace. The pattern of recreation on our Federal lands has changed
dramatically and has increased significantly. More than ever before,
Americans are choosing to recreate on all Federal lands, in particular
on National Forests. The Forest Service has estimated that over 211
million annual visits occur on National Forests, a two-fold increase
since the 1960s. This increase in visitation means an increase in
visitor demand for adequate visitor facilities and services.
Since the inception of Fee Demo in 1996, the Forest Service has
shown it can manage a recreational fee program that provides numerous
benefits to the American public. Fee Demo has generated over $161
million to enhance the visitor experience at 105 projects in 123
National Forests and National Grasslands across 36 States and Puerto
Rico. In 2003, the Agency's program generated $38.8 million. The funds
from this program have made a crucial difference in providing quality
recreation services to the public, reducing the maintenance backlog,
enhancing facilities, improving visitor services and operations,
strengthening public safety and security, developing new partnerships,
educating America's youth, and conserving natural resources. Some
examples of these benefits include:
Maintaining 465 miles of trail on the Deschutes National
Forest in Oregon;
Removing hazardous trees along a 92-mile trail system on
the Wayne National Forest in Ohio in 2003 to reduce the danger of
fallen trees and hanging limbs across 45,000 acres after a heavy ice
storm;
Installing target walkways, shooting tables, and a sound
abatement berm at the Scioto Shooting Range on the Cherokee National
Forest in Tennessee;
Replacing 8 picnic tables, 40 fire rings with grills, and
1 water tank on the Klamath National Forest in California; and
Upgrading concrete walkways and paths for better
accessibility at the Payette River Recreation Complex on the Payette
National Forest.
2. Promotion of Interagency Coordination
H.R. 3283 would authorize an interagency recreation fee program by
allowing the Secretary to establish guidelines for implementing a
permanent recreation fee program. Such a program would enhance
coordination among agencies and create a seamless, collaborative,
efficient, and effective fee program that is well understood by the
public. The program would give Federal land management agencies an
opportunity to improve the recreational facilities under their
management and enhance the experience of the visiting public. Whether a
person is visiting a day-use site like a trailhead, or recreating at a
developed campground, visitors to public lands expect the same
amenities, facilities, and services as those enjoying a national park.
As Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett stated, examples of areas
where the public does not differentiate between land management
agencies, but expects the same amenities and use of the land in similar
locations, is the red rocks areas in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.
Visitors to these areas can recreate on lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada),
lands managed by the Forest Service (the Sedona Red Rocks Area in
Arizona), and lands managed by the National Park Service (Arches
National Park in Utah). In all three areas, similar recreation
opportunities exist within the various natural settings and
opportunities vary depending on the area selected. Public expectations
in most instances, though, for the same amenities and services in each
area are the same.
Some examples of interagency efforts to create a seamless,
consistent fee program include:
In April 2003, the Forest Service dramatically broadened
the application of the Golden Eagle Passport program to provide
interagency application and benefits. This change was based on guidance
from the Fee Council, which worked to facilitate coordination and
consistency among the agencies on implementation of recreation fee
policies. The Council developed standards for a new fee structure to
replace the outdated entrance and use fees established under the LWCFA.
Using the framework of this new fee structure, the agency started
accepting the Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access Passports at
all Forest Service sites that charge a basic fee. Previously, only 18
Forest Service sites accepted these passports; now over 1500 sites
accept them.
Starting in March 2003, Federal and State agencies in
Washington and Oregon are for the first time offering a convenient
interagency day-use recreation pass that is accepted at many public
day-use fee areas. The Washington and Oregon Recreation Pass is an add-
on to the existing Golden Eagle Passport program and will be honored at
all National Forest, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sites, in addition to 26 Oregon
State Parks charging a day-use fee, 20 Washington State Parks charging
a daily vehicle parking fee, and 6 Army Corps of Engineers sites
charging facility use fees.
3. Establishment of an Interagency National Pass
Section 8 in H.R. 3283 would create an interagency national pass
called America the Beautiful--the National Parks and Federal
Recreational Lands Pass. This pass system would consolidate the Golden
Passport program established under the LWCFA and the National Parks
Passport (established in 2001), into an interagency pass to decrease
visitor confusion. Currently the Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden
Access Passports are accepted on Forest Service units that charge an
entrance or basic use fee. However, the National Parks Pass is not
accepted on those units, as this pass is valid only at National Parks,
unless the pass has been upgraded with a Golden Eagle hologram. An
interagency national pass would provide value to recreational users of
Federal lands managed by multiple agencies. This type of pass would
provide a convenient, cost-effective alternative to the purchase of
multiple-agency passes.
4. Collaborative Agreements with Federal, State, County, or Gateway
Communities
Section 4 in H.R. 3283 would allow the Secretary to establish
agreements with any governmental or nongovernmental entities to provide
fee collection and processing services, including visitor reservation
services. This section would provide authority for Federal land
management agencies to engage in partnerships with State, county, other
Federal agencies, gateway communities, or local organizations in
implementing a permanent recreational fee program. Partnerships allow
the Federal land management agencies to enlist others to help meet the
recreational demand of the visiting public.
The Agency has developed numerous partnerships and agreements over
the years to help us to deliver a successful program. Along the South
Fork of the Snake River in Idaho, a partnership between Federal, State,
and local entities has evolved to cooperatively manage recreation sites
spread along a 62-mile stretch of the Snake River. The use of fees
collected from boat launching and other activities in the river
corridor is determined on a consensus basis by the partnership,
regardless of which jurisdiction collects the fee. The partnership
includes the Forest Service (Caribou-Targhee National Forest), the
Bureau of Land Management, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and
Madison, Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties. Revenues from the project
have been used to provide restroom facilities and litter control along
the river.
The Forest Service has established fee management agreements that
have helped the agency provide needed safety and emergency services at
recreation sites. In Arizona, the Tonto National Forest has an
agreement with the Maricopa and Gila County Sheriff's Offices to
provide additional law enforcement personnel and emergency medical
service teams at recreation lakes on busy weekends and holidays.
5. Establishment of Site-Specific Agency and Regional Multi-Entity
Passes
H.R. 3283 would allow agencies to establish site-specific agency or
regional multi-entity passes in addition to an interagency national
pass. In some cases, regional passes meet the needs of visitors who
want to recreate only in a certain area or state. The Washington and
Oregon Recreation Pass is a good example of a regional pass that
crosses many jurisdictional boundaries. Another example of a regional
pass is the Visit Idaho Playground Pass.
The Visit Idaho Playground Pass is an interagency program operated
by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service, and the Idaho Department of Parks.
The pass is valid for those who choose to recreate on Federal lands in
Idaho. Passes are available for purchase via a website or a toll-free
number for visitor convenience. Revenues are shared according to a
formula in the business plan, and directed back to the recreation sites
for improvements in facilities and services.
6. Provision for Basic and Expanded Recreation Fees
Sections 5 and 6 in H.R. 3283 would allow the Secretary to charge a
basic or an expanded fee in certain locations and sites on National
Forests. This new system of basic and expanded recreation fees would
minimize layering, which has resulted from agencies charging both
entrance and use fees at the same site, based on fee practices carried
over from the LWCFA. Under the LWCFA, entrance fees can be charged only
at certain sites, such as a national park or a national monument. Use
fees are charged for use of a site or facility, not entrance into a
particular site. The current entrance and use fee structure has created
some inconsistency among and within agencies, which has led to visitor
confusion and frustration about what constitutes an entrance fee and
what constitutes a use fee.
Under the new system identified in H.R. 3283, the basic fee would
be charged by all Federal land management agencies in an area that has
some expenditure in services and facilities, and an expanded fee would
be charged for additional facilities or amenities, such as a developed
campground or boating area, for specialized interpretative services, or
for a transportation system.
7. Communicating with the Public Regarding Use of Revenues
Section 11 of H.R. 3283 states that the Secretary shall post clear
notice of the basic recreation fee and available recreation passes at
appropriate locations in each unit or area of a Federal land management
agency where a basic recreation fee is charged, and shall post clear
notice of locations where work is performed using collected recreation
fee or recreation pass revenues. The Department believes that any
permanent recreation fee authority should provide for the agencies to
be accountable to Congress and the public by reporting where revenues
are being expended and identifying what work has been accomplished
using collected fees.
8. Provision of Additional Authorities to Implement the Program
H.R. 3283 provides additional authority for the use of volunteers
and law enforcement and security with respect to fee collection and
establishes guidelines for depositing and distributing fee revenues. On
some National Forests, the Agency has implemented Fee Demo utilizing a
large cadre of volunteers to sell recreation fee passes, maintain
trails, clean facilities, refurbish buildings and archaeological sites,
and provide educational programs. Without volunteers in many instances,
work would not get accomplished and fee revenues would not be leveraged
with partner funding to complete projects. H.R. 3283 would allow the
Secretaries to award a fee waiver, a discount, or an interagency
national or regional pass in exchange for significant volunteer
services.
An important component of a permanent recreation fee program is
enforcement of fee payment and security for receipts, which H.R. 3283
establishes in Section 15 of the bill. For implementation to be fair
and equitable, a recreation fee program must ensure that everyone who
uses facilities and services for which a fee is charged pays the fee.
Security of the revenues collected and the Federal equipment used to
collect the fees must be provided in any permanent recreation fee
program.
9. Provision of Criteria for Accountability and Control of Revenues
Collected
Accountability is one of the guiding principles established by the
Fee Council. In accordance with this principle, the Forest Service is
collecting good data and reporting annually to Congress on
administration of Fee Demo. Fee Demo revenues and expenditures are
accounted for separately from appropriated funds, which is consistent
with program authority and Federal accounting standards. H.R. 3283
would allow the Secretaries to work with the Secretary of the Treasury
to establish separate accounts to track fee revenues and expenditures.
Conclusion
The Department supports H.R. 3283 and we've learned a great deal
from our experiences in administering Fee Demo over the past eight
years. It is time to make the recreational fee program permanent. The
Department is eager to work with the Subcommittee, the sponsors of H.R.
3283, the Department of the Interior, and our partners on clarifying
amendments. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Peterson. Thank you Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R.
3283, and if I may, I would like to summarize my statement and
request that my full statement be included in the record.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
Mr. Hill. H.R. 3283 proposes, among other things, to
establish a permanent recreation fee program for certain
Federal land management agencies and to standardize certain
visitor fees. For many years, the Congress has sought to
identify programs that would help Federal land management
agencies provide high quality recreation opportunities for
visitors while at the same time protecting their resources.
Accordingly, in 1996, the Congress authorize the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program.
Under this program, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service are
authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a
number of sites to, among other things, enhance visitor
services, address a backlog of needs for repair and
maintenance, and manage and protect resources. Since its
inception, the program has generated about a billion dollars in
revenues.
GAO has been heavily involved in reviewing the fee
demonstration program since its inception. My testimony today
focuses on H.R. 3283's potential effect on the various issues
that we have raised in our prior work on the Fee Demonstration
Program, specifically the extent to which it would affect
Federal agencies' deferred maintenance programs, the management
and distribution of the revenue collected, and the interagency
coordination on fee collection and use.
Let me start by discussing the effects that your program
would have on agencies' deferred maintenance programs. H.R.
3283 would provide a permanent source of revenue for Federal
land management agencies to use to help address the backlog in
repair and maintenance of Federal facilities and
infrastructure. Interior's latest estimates of participating
agencies' deferred maintenance backlog ranged from $5.1 billion
to $8.3 billion with the Park Service accounting for the
majority of this backlog. Likewise, the Forest Service
estimated its total deferred maintenance backlog to be about $8
billion. Although our work has shown that neither the Park
Service nor the Forest Service has yet to develop systems that
will accurately and reliability report information on their
deferred maintenance needs or on the overall impact that the
Fee Demonstration Program is having on reducing this
maintenance backlog, our work has shown that the bulk of the
fee demonstration revenue is being used and is having a
positive impact at improving visitor services and for
operations and maintenance activities.
Now let me briefly touch upon the issue of management and
distribution of the revenues being collected. Currently, the
Fee Demonstration Program requires Federal land management
agencies to spend at least 80 percent of the collected revenues
onsite. While this requirement has or will soon help some
demonstration sites generate revenues in excess of their high
priorities needs, the high priority needs at other sites that
have not collected as much fee revenues remains unmet. We
reported that agencies needed greater flexibility in
transferring revenue to sites that would help the agencies
better meet their overall priority needs; however, we noted
that agencies needed to carefully balance this flexibility to
ensure that sites continue to maintain incentives to collect
fees and that visitors continue to support the fee collection
program. H.R. 3283 would allow agencies to reduce the
percentage of fee revenue used onsite down to 60 percent,
thereby allowing greater flexibility to help the agencies
achieve this balance.
Finally, let me mention the need for interagency
coordination on fee collection and use. We previously reported
on the need for more effective coordination and cooperation
among the agencies to better serve visitors by making the
payment of fees more convenient and equitable while at the same
time reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees
being charged at nearby or adjacent Federal recreation sites.
H.R. 3283 allows for improved service to visitors by
coordinating Federal agency fee collection activities. First,
it standardizes the type of fees Federal land management
agencies may use. Second, it creates a single National pass
that provides visitors general access to a variety of
recreation sites managed by different agencies. And, third, it
allows for the regional coordination of fees to access multiple
nearby sites.
In summary, the Fee Demonstration Program has been
successful in raising a significant amount of revenue for the
participating agencies to use for maintaining and improving the
quality of visitor services and protecting the resources at
Federal recreation sites. Several of the provisions in H.R.
3283 address many of the quality of service issues we have
identified through our prior work, and if the provisions are
properly implemented, these services should be improved.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 3283, the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which proposes, among other things,
to establish a permanent recreation fee program for certain federal
land management agencies and standardize certain visitor fees. For many
years, the Congress has sought to identify programs that would help
federal land management agencies provide high-quality recreational
opportunities for visitors while at the same time protecting their
resources. Accordingly, in 1996, the Congress authorized an
experimental initiative, called the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. Under this program, four land management agencies--the Bureau
of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service within the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture--are authorized to establish,
charge, collect, and use fees at a number of sites to, among other
things, enhance visitor services, address a backlog of needs for repair
and maintenance, and manage and protect resources. We have issued a
number of reports and testimonies on the program since its inception,
identifying issues that need to be addressed to improve the program's
effectiveness. (Appendix I lists our related reports and testimonies.)
The Congress is now considering, through H.R. 3283, whether it
should make the program permanent. Central to the debate is how
effectively the land management agencies use the funds generated from
recreation fee collection. My testimony today focuses on H.R. 3283's
potential effect on the issues that we raised in our prior work on the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, specifically the extent to
which the Act would affect: (1) federal agencies' deferred maintenance
programs; (2) the management and distribution of the revenue collected;
and (3) interagency coordination on fee collection and use.
We did not conduct any follow-up audit work in conjunction with
this testimony. All of our prior work was conducted in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
In summary, H.R. 3283 would provide federal land management
agencies with a permanent source of funds to help reduce their
maintenance backlogs--one of the authorized uses of the revenues
collected under the fee demonstration program. According to the
Department of the Interior's latest estimates, the combined deferred
maintenance backlogs for the participating agencies ranged from $5.1
billion to $8.3 billion of which the Park Service accounted for an
estimated $4 to $7 billion. Likewise, the Forest Service estimated its
total deferred maintenance backlog to be about $8 billion, the bulk of
which was needed for forest roads and bridges. However, as we have
previously reported, neither the Park Service nor the Forest Service
have accurate and reliable information on their deferred maintenance
needs and, as a result, they cannot determine how much of the fee
demonstration revenues is being spent on deferred maintenance or the
fee program's overall impact on reducing their deferred maintenance
needs. Some agency officials have hesitated to divert resources to
develop a process for tracking deferred maintenance because the fee
demonstration program is temporary. H.R. 3283 would provide agencies
with a permanent source of funds to better address their maintenance
backlog, and by making the program permanent, the Act would provide
agencies incentive to develop a system to track their deferred
maintenance backlogs.
H.R. 3283 provides the participating agencies greater flexibility
in how and where they may apply fee revenues. Currently, the fee
demonstration program requires federal land management agencies to
retain at least 80 percent of the collected fee revenues for use on-
site. While this requirement has helped some demonstration sites
generate revenue in excess of their high-priority needs, the high-
priority needs at other sites, which do not collect as much in fee
revenues, remained unmet. We have suggested that the Congress consider
modifying the current 80-percent on-site spending requirement to
provide agencies greater flexibility in using fee revenues to better
meet their overall priority needs. However, we noted that agencies
needed to balance the need for flexibility in transferring revenue
against the need of keeping sufficient funds on-site to maintain
incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain visitor support.
H.R. 3283 would allow agencies to reduce the percentage of fee revenue
retained for use on-site down to 60 percent, if the respective
Secretary determined that the revenues collected at the unit or area
exceed the reasonable needs of the site. H.R. 3283 would also provide
agencies with the flexibility to balance the need to provide incentives
at fee-collecting sites and support of visitors against transferring
revenues to other sites.
H.R. 3283 contains provisions to improve interagency coordination
in the collection and use of recreation fees. Previously, we
demonstrated the need for more effective coordination and cooperation
among the agencies to better serve visitors by making the payment of
fees more convenient and equitable while at the same time, reducing
visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees being charged at
nearby or adjacent federal recreation sites. For example, visitors
entering Olympic National Park or the adjacent Olympic National Forest
previously paid different fees to hike on the same trail. H.R. 3283
would standardize the types of fees federal land management agencies
may use, create a single national pass that provides visitors general
access to a variety of recreation sites managed by different agencies,
and allow for the regional coordination of fees to access multiple
nearby sites.
Background
For the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating
and maintaining federal recreation sites within the federal land
management agencies have led the Congress to provide a significant new
source of funds. This additional source of funding--the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program--was authorized in 1996. The fee
demonstration program authorized the Bureau of Land Management, Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the Forest Service to
experiment with new ways to administer existing fee revenues and to
establish new recreation entrance and user fees. The current
authorization for the program expires December 31, 2005.
Previously, all sites collecting entrance and user fees deposited
the revenue into a special U.S. Treasury account to be used for certain
purposes, including resource protection and maintenance activities, and
funds in this account only became available through congressional
appropriations. The fee demonstration program currently allows agencies
to maintain fee revenues in special U.S. Treasury accounts for use
without further appropriation: 80 percent of the fees are maintained in
an account for use at the site and the remaining 20 percent are
maintained in another account for use on an agency-wide basis. As a
result, these revenues have yielded substantial benefits for local
recreation sites by funding significant on-the-ground improvements.
From the inception of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program,
the four participating agencies have collected over $1 billion in
recreation fees from the public. The Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture's most recent budget requests indicate that
the agencies expect to collect $138 million and $46 million,
respectively, from the fee demonstration program in Fiscal Year 2005.
H.R. 3283 Provides a Permanent Source of Revenue That Could Be Used to
Address Participating Agencies' Maintenance Backlogs
H.R. 3283, as proposed, would provide a permanent source of revenue
for federal land management agencies to use to, among other things,
help address the backlog in repair and maintenance of federal
facilities and infrastructure. One of the principal uses of the
revenues generated under the existing Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program is for participating agencies to reduce their respective
maintenance backlogs.
The Department of the Interior owns, builds, purchases, and
contracts services for such assets as visitor centers, roads, bridges,
dams, and reservoirs, many of which are deteriorating and in need of
repair or maintenance. We have identified Interior's land management
agencies' inability to reduce their maintenance backlogs as a major
management challenge. 1 According to the Department of the
Interior's latest estimates, the deferred maintenance backlog for its
participating agencies ranged from about $5.1 billion to $8.3 billion.
Table 1 shows the Department's estimate of deferred maintenance for its
agencies participating in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of the Interior, GAO-03-104 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003); U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management
Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior, GAO-01-249
(Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3531.002
Of the current participating agencies within Interior, the National
Park Service has the largest estimated maintenance backlog--ranging
from $4 to nearly $7 billion. As we have previously reported, the Park
Service's problems with maintaining its facilities have steadily
worsened in part because the agency lacks accurate data on the
facilities that need to be maintained or on their condition. As a
result, the Park Service cannot effectively determine its maintenance
needs, the amount of funding needed to address them, or what progress,
if any, it has made in closing the maintenance gap. Although the Park
Service has used some of the revenues generated from the fee
demonstration program to address its high- priority maintenance needs,
without accurate and reliable data, it cannot demonstrate the effect of
fee demonstration revenues in improving the maintenance of its
facilities.
The Park Service has acknowledged the problems associated with not
having an accurate and reliable estimate of its maintenance needs and
promised to develop an asset management process that, when operable,
should provide a systematic method for documenting deferred maintenance
needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of deferred
maintenance. Furthermore, the new process should enable the agency to
develop: (1) a reliable inventory of its assets; (2) a process for
reporting on the condition of each asset; and (3) a system-wide
methodology for estimating its deferred maintenance costs. In 2002, we
identified some areas that the agency needed to address in order to
improve the performance of the process, including the need to develop
cost and schedules for completing the implementation of the process,
better coordinating the tracking of the process among Park Service
headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency,
and better definition of its approach to determine the condition of its
assets and how much the assessments will cost. 2 In our last
testimony on this issue before this Subcommittee in September 2003, we
stated that the complete implementation of the new process would not
occur until Fiscal Year 2006, but that the agency had completed, or
nearly completed, a number of substantial and important steps to
improve the process. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status
of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-568R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr.12, 2002).
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Efforts
Underway to Address Its Maintenance Backlog, GAO-03-1177T (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 27, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two other Interior agencies participating in the program--the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management--also
report deferred maintenance backlogs of about $1 billion and $330,000,
respectively. We do not have any information at this time on the
effectiveness of the program in reducing these backlogs.
The Forest Service also has an estimated $8 billion maintenance
backlog most of which is needed to maintain forest roads and bridges.
In September 2003, we reported that the Forest Service (like the Park
Service) had no effective means for measuring how much of the fee
demonstration revenues it had spent on deferred maintenance or the
impact that the fee program had had on reducing its deferred
maintenance needs. 4 Although the Forest Service has
recognized the significance of its deferred maintenance problem, it
does not have a systematic method for compiling the information needed
to provide a reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs.
Furthermore, the agency has not developed a process to track deferred
maintenance expenditures from fee demonstration revenues. As a result,
even if the agency knew how much fee revenue it spent on deferred
maintenance, it could not determine the extent to which these revenues
had reduced its overall deferred maintenance needs. Forest Service
officials provided several reasons why the agency had not developed a
process to track deferred maintenance expenditures from the
demonstration revenues. First, they said that the agency chose to use
its fee demonstration revenue to improve and enhance on-site visitor
services rather than to develop and implement a system for tracking
deferred maintenance spending. Second, the agency was not required to
measure the impact of fee revenues on deferred maintenance. Finally,
because the fee demonstration program was temporary, agency officials
had concerns about developing a process for tracking deferred
maintenance, not knowing if the program would subsequently be made
permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Information on
Forest Service Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration
Program, GAO-03-1161T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3283 would provide participating agencies with a permanent
source of funds to supplement existing appropriations and to better
address maintenance backlogs. Furthermore, by making the program
permanent, H.R. 3283 could provide participating agencies like the
Forest Service with an incentive to develop a system to track their
deferred maintenance backlogs.
H.R. 3283 Provides Agencies Additional Flexibility in Distributing
Collected Fee Revenues
The existing fee demonstration program requires federal land
management agencies to maintain at least 80 percent of the fee revenues
for use on-site. In a 1998 report, we suggested that, in order to
provide greater opportunities to address high priority needs of the
agencies, the Congress consider modifying the current requirement to
grant agencies greater flexibility in using fee revenues. 5
H.R. 3283 provides the agencies with flexibility to reduce the
percentage of revenues spent on-site down to 60 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Demonstration
Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues but Could Be Improved, GAO/
RCED-99-7 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reported that the requirement that at least 80 percent of
the revenues be maintained for use at the collection site may
inadvertently create funding imbalances between sites and that some
heavily visited sites may reach a point where they have more revenues
than they need for their projects, while other sites would still fall
short. 6 In 1999, we testified that some demonstration sites
were generating so much revenue as to raise questions about their long-
term ability to spend these revenues on high-priority items.
7 In contrast, we warned that sites outside the
demonstration program, as well as demonstration sites that did not
collect as much in fee revenues, may have high-priority needs that
remained unmet. As a result, some of the agencies' highest-priority
needs might not be addressed. Our testimony indicated that, at many
sites in the demonstration program, the increased fee revenues amounted
to 20 percent or more of the sites' annual operating budgets, allowing
such sites to address past unmet needs in maintenance, resource
protection, and visitor services. While these sites could address their
needs within a few years, the 80-percent requirement could, over time,
preclude the agencies from redistributing fee revenues to meet more
pressing needs at other sites. Our November 2001 report confirmed that
such imbalances had begun to occur. 8 Officials from the
land management agencies acknowledged that some heavily visited sites
with large fee revenues may eventually collect more revenue than they
need to address their priorities, while other lower-revenue generating
sites may have limited or no fee revenues to meet their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Management
Improvements Can Help the Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor
Services, GAO-02-10 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2001).
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Demonstration
Program Successful in Raising Revenues but Could Be Improved, GAO/T-
RCED-99-77 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 1999).
\8\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this imbalance, we suggested that the Congress consider
modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee revenue be
maintained for use by the sites generating the revenues to allow for
greater flexibility in using fee revenues. H.R. 3283 would still
generally require agencies to maintain at least 80 percent of fee
revenues for use on-site. However, if the Secretary of the Interior
determined that the revenues collected at a site exceeded the
reasonable needs of the unit for which expenditures may be made for
that fiscal year, under H.R. 3283 the Secretary could then reduce the
percentage of on-site expenditures to 60 percent and transfer the
remainder to meet other priority needs across the agency.
The need for flexibility in transferring revenue must also be
balanced against the necessity of keeping sufficient funds on-site to
maintain incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain the support
of the visitors. Such a balance is of particular concern to the Forest
Service, which has identified that visitors generally support the
program so long as the fees are used on-site and they can see
improvements to the site where they pay fees. Accordingly, under the
existing fee demonstration program, the Forest Service has committed to
retaining 90 to 100 percent of the fees on-site. As such, H.R. 3283
would not likely change the Forest Service's use of collected fees.
However, it would provide the Forest Service, as well as the other
agencies, with the flexibility to balance the need to provide
incentives at fee-collecting sites and support of visitors against
transferring revenues to other sites.
H.R. 3283 Should Help Reduce Visitor Confusion by Creating a National
Pass and Requiring Participating Agencies to Coordinate Fee
Collection on a Regional Level
The legislative history of the fee demonstration program places an
emphasis on participating agency collaboration to minimize or eliminate
confusion for visitors where multiple fees could be charged to visit
recreation sites in the same area. Our prior work has pointed to the
need for more effective coordination and cooperation among the agencies
to better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more convenient
and equitable while at the same time, reducing visitor confusion about
similar or multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal
recreation sites. 9 For example, sites do not consistently
accept agency and interagency passes, resulting in visitor confusion
and, in some cases, overlapping or duplicative fees for the same or
similar activities. H.R. 3283 would allow for improved service to
visitors by coordinating federal agency fee-collection activities.
First, the Act would standardize the types of fees that the federal
land management agencies use. Second, it would create a single national
pass that would provide visitors access to recreation sites managed by
different agencies. Third, it would allow for the coordination of fees
on a regional level for access to multiple nearby sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3283 Standardizes Recreation Fees
In November 2001, we reported that agencies had not pursued
opportunities to coordinate their fees better among their own sites,
with other agencies, or with other nearby, nonfederal recreational
sites. 10 As a result, visitors often had to pay fees that
were sometimes overlapping, duplicative, or confusing. Limited fee
coordination by the four agencies has permitted confusing fee
situations to persist. At some sites, an entrance fee may be charged
for one activity whereas a user fee may be charged for essentially the
same activity at a nearby site. For example, visitors who entered
either Olympic National Park or the Olympic National Forest in
Washington State for day hiking are engaged in the same recreational
activity--obtaining general access to federal lands--but were charged
distinct entrance and user fees. For a 1-day hike in Olympic National
Park, users paid a $10 per-vehicle entry fee (good for 1 week), whereas
hikers using trailheads in Olympic National Forest were charged a daily
user fee of $5 per vehicle for trailhead parking. Also, holders of the
interagency Golden Eagle Passport--a $65 nationwide pass that provides
access to all federal recreation sites that charge entrance fees--could
use the pass to enter Olympic National Park, but had to pay the Forest
Service's trailhead parking fee because the fee for the pass covers
only entrance fees and not a user fees. However, the two agencies now
allow holders of the Golden Eagle Passport to use it for trailhead
parking at Olympic National Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, confusing and inconsistent fee situations also occur at
similar types of sites within the same agency. For example, visitors to
some Park Service national historic sites, such as the San Juan
National Historic Site in Puerto Rico, pay a user fee and have access
to all amenities at the sites, such as historic buildings. However,
other Park Service historic sites, such as the Roosevelt/Vanderbilt
Complex in New York State, charge no user fees, but tours of the
primary residences require the payment of entrance fees. Visitors in
possession of an annual pass that cover entrance fees, such as the
National Parks Pass, may be further confused that their annual entrance
pass is sufficient for admission to a user fee site, such as the San
Juan National Historic Site, but not sufficient to allow them to enter
certain buildings on the Roosevelt/Vanderbilt Complex, which charge
entrance fees.
H.R. 3283 would streamline the recreational fee program by
providing a standard fee structure across federal land management
agencies using a 3-tiered fee structure: a basic recreation fee, an
expanded recreation fee, and a special recreation permit fee. H.R. 3283
establishes several areas where a basic recreation fee may be charged.
11 For example, the basic recreation fee offers access to,
among other areas, National Park System units, National Conservation
Areas, and National Recreation Areas. Expanded recreation fees are
charged either in addition to the basic recreation fee or by itself
when the visitor uses additional facilities or services, such as a
developed campground or an equipment rental. A special recreation
permit is charged when the visitor participates in an activity such as
a commercial tour, competitive event, or an outfitting or guiding
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The listed areas are National Park System Units, National
Conservation Areas, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments,
National Volcanic Monuments, National Scenic Areas and areas of
substantial investment by a federal land management agency that are
managed for recreation purposes or that contain at least one major
visitor attraction and have had substantial investments made in their
facilities or services in restoring resource degradation in areas of
concentrated public use including a visitor or interpretive center, a
trailhead facility or a developed parking lot, or in requiring the
presence of personnel of a federal land management agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3283 Would Create a National Pass
In November 2001, we reported another example of an interagency
issue that needed to be addressed--the inconsistency and confusion
surrounding the acceptance and use of the $65 Golden Eagle Passport.
12 The annual pass provides visitors with unlimited access
to federal recreation sites that charge an entrance fee. However, many
sites do not charge entrance fees to gain access to a site and instead
charge a user fee. For example, Yellowstone National Park, Acadia
National Park, and the Eisenhower National Historic Site charge
entrance fees. But sites like Wind Cave National Park charge user fees
for general access. If user fees are charged in lieu of entrance fees,
the Golden Eagle Passport is generally not accepted even though, to the
visitor with a Golden Eagle Passport, there is no practical difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further exacerbating the public's confusion over payment of use or
entrance fees was the implementation of the Park Service's single-
agency National Parks Pass in April 2000. This $50 pass admits the
holder, spouse, children, and parents to all National Park Service
sites that charge an entrance fee for a full year. However, the Parks
Pass does not admit the cardholder to the Park Service sites that
charge a user fee, nor is it accepted for admittance to other sites in
the Forest Service and in the Department of the Interior, including the
Fish and Wildlife Service sites.
H.R. 3283 would eliminate the current national passes and replace
them with one federal lands pass--called the ``America the Beautiful--
the National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Pass''--for use at any
site of a federal land management agency that charges a basic
recreation fee. The Act also calls for the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior to jointly establish the National Parks and Federal
Recreation Lands Pass and to jointly issue guidelines on the
administration of the pass. In addition, it requires that the
Secretaries develop guidelines for establishing or changing fees and
that these guidelines, among other things, would require federal land
management agencies to coordinate with each other to the extent
practicable when establishing or changing fees.
H.R. 3283 Would Provide Interagency Coordination on the Regional Level
H.R. 3283 would also provide local site managers the opportunity to
coordinate and develop regional passes to reduce visitor confusion over
access to adjacent sites managed by different agencies. When
authorizing the demonstration program, the Congress called upon the
agencies to coordinate multiple or overlapping fees. We reported in
1999 that the agencies were not taking advantage of this flexibility.
13 For example, the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service manage sites that share a common border on the same island in
Maryland and Virginia--Assateague Island National Seashore and
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. When the agencies selected the
two sites for the demonstration program, they decided to charge
separate entrance fees. However, as we reported in 2001, the managers
at these sites developed a reciprocal fee arrangement whereby each site
accepted the fee paid at the other site to better accommodate the
visitors. 14 Resolving situations in which inconsistent and
overlapping fees are charged for similar recreation activities would
offer visitors a rational and consistent fee program. We stated that
further coordination among the agencies participating in the fee
demonstration program could reduce the confusion for visitors. We
reported that demonstration sites may be reluctant to coordinate on
fees partly because the program's incentives are geared towards
increasing their revenues. Because joint fee arrangements may
potentially reduce revenues to specific sites, there may be a
disincentive among these sites to coordinate. Nonetheless, we believe
that the increase in service to the public might be worth a small
reduction in revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO/T-RCED-99-77.
\14\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior direct the heads of the participating agencies to improve
their service to visitors by better coordinating their fee collection
activities under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. In
response, in 2002, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture
formed the Interagency Recreational Fee Leadership Council to
facilitate coordination and consistency among the agencies on
recreation fee policies. We also recommended that the agencies approach
such an analysis systematically, first by identifying other federal
recreation areas close to each other and then, for each situation,
determining whether a coordinated approach, such as a reciprocal fee
arrangement, would better serve the visiting public. The agencies
implemented this recommendation to a limited extent as evidenced by the
reciprocal fee arrangement between Assateague Island National Seashore
and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
H.R. 3283 offers federal agencies the opportunity to develop
regional passes to offer access to sites managed by different federal,
state and local agencies. As we have reported in the past, for all four
agencies to make improvements in interagency communication,
coordination, and consistency for the program to become user-friendly,
an effective mechanism is needed to ensure that interagency
coordination occurs or to resolve interagency issues or disputes when
they arise. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-02-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
Essentially, the fee demonstration program raises revenue for the
participating sites to use for maintaining and improving the quality of
visitor services and protecting the resources at federal recreation
sites. The program has been successful in raising a significant amount
of revenue. However, the agencies could enhance the quality of visitor
services more by providing better overall management of the program.
Several of the provisions in H.R. 3283 address many of the quality of
service issues we have identified through our prior work and if the
provisions are properly implemented these services should improve.
While the fee demonstration program provides funds to increase the
quality of the visitor experience and enhance the protection of
resources by, among other things, addressing a backlog of needs for
repair and maintenance, and to manage and protect resources, the
program's short- and long-term success lies in the flexibility it
provides agencies to spend revenues and the removal of any undesirable
inequities that occur to ensure that the agencies' highest priority
needs are met. However, any changes to the program's requirements
should be balanced in such a way that fee-collecting sites would
continue to have an incentive to collect fees and visitors who pay them
will continue to support the program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841. Doreen Feldman, Roy Judy, Jonathan McMurray, Patrick
Sigl, Paul Staley, Amy Webbink, and Arvin Wu made key contributions to
this statement.
Related GAO Products
The following is a listing of related GAO products on recreation
fees, deferred maintenance, and other related issues.
Recreation Fees
1. Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of
Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program. GAO-03-1161T. Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 17, 2003.
2. Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of
Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program. GAO-03-470. Washington,
D.C.: April 25, 2003.
3. Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10. Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 26, 2001.
4. Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Survey. GAO-02-88SP.
Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2001.
5. National Park Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Spending Priorities. GAO/RCED-00-37R. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 1999.
6. Recreation Fees: Demonstration Has Increased Revenues, but
Impact on Park Service Backlog Is Uncertain. GAO/T-RCED-99-101.
Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1999.
7. Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program Successful in Raising
Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/T-RCED-99-77. Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 4, 1999.
8. Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in
Raising Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/RCED-99-7. Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 20, 1998.
Deferred Maintenance
1. National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its
Maintenance Backlog. GAO-03-1177T. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2003.
2. National Park Service: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Its
Maintenance Backlog. GAO-03-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2003.
3. National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better
Deferred Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12,
2002.
4. National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the
Maintenance Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998.
5. National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-
98-61. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 1998.
6. Deferred Maintenance Reporting: Challenges to Implementation.
GAO/AIMD-98-42. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 1998.
Other Related Products
1. Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of
the Interior. GAO-03-104. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003.
2. Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of
the Interior. GAO-01-249. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001.
3. Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability. GAO/RCED-97-125. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 1997.
______
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much. I guess I will just
share with you I was just sharing with the staff here that in
Pennsylvania, years ago, they had a fee program, and it was
prior to I being a part of the State Senate, but then I found
out when I got there that once they had been given this fee
money, they were sort of flat-funded year after year because we
had given them all this cash that they could maintain the parks
with. In a very short time, they actually had less money to
maintain the parks than they had before the fee system, and I
hope we don't repeat that here, that it is looked at as here is
a new cash cow, we don't need to fund parks anymore, because we
all know the backlog is huge and it is about catching up.
Ms. Scarlett, how does the Administration respond to
critics of the fee program who call it double taxation?
Ms. Scarlett. Mr. Chairman, our response to that is that we
have, as I noted, many, many public lands that are open and for
free. Eighty-nine percent of all Bureau of Land Management
sites are accessible at no fee charged; likewise, with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, seventy-five percent. Even with the
National Parks, forty percent have no fee charged. So there are
many, many open areas with free access.
We charge fees at those areas that have that above and
beyond extra infrastructure that serves the specific visiting
public, for example, a campsite with camp hook-ups and water
facilities or toilet facilities, a special dedicated boat ramp
for boating access, and that sort of extra above and beyond
infrastructure that a particular user might take advantage of.
Mr. Peterson. OK. Do you have plans to streamline the
program?
Ms. Scarlett. We established a Recreation Fee Leadership
Council 2 years ago which included the Forest Service and all
of our land management agencies that have recreation fees and
have used the Rec Fee Demo Program. As part of that process, we
identified some of the challenges or issues that had surfaced
over the demonstration period in which we implemented the Rec
Fee Program, and among those were to have, for example, clearer
and more uniform fees for like purposes across the lands.
Likewise, we have proposed and are appreciative of the proposal
for a National interagency pass. We have also through better
management managed to bring the cost down for managing the Rec
Fee Program from above 20 percent to, in the case of Bureau of
Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, to between 14
and 18 percent, demonstrating, I think, that streamlining of
our implementation.
Mr. Peterson. OK. The next is question is for both Ms.
Scarlett and Mr. Thompson. One of the biggest criticisms of the
Rec Fee Demo Program has been that it nickels and dimes the
visitors of public lands. H.R. 3283 would authorize, one, a
basic fee; two, an expanded recreation fee; and three, a
special recreation fee. While I understand the need to offer
flexibility to both agencies and the visitor, is it me or do
all of these fees sound more complicated and costly than it
needs to be?
Ms. Scarlett. I guess I will take a stab at it. We really
have two different kinds of sites and, hence, an explanation
for two of the three fees described in the bill. There are
those sites that are very discrete and have a single entry
point and then a lot of dispersed extra infrastructure for
visitor utilization. One can think of, for example, Assateague
and Chincoteague, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife
Service respectively. You drive in and you have a whole array
of facilities that you access. Sand Flats in Moab, Utah, again
a single point of entry. You go in, and then inside, there are
all kinds of trails, paved areas for recreation vehicle use,
and so forth.
Then in addition to those, we have some circumstances where
we have, for example, an individual dispersed campsite where we
have developed a specific campsite, but on land that is
otherwise is freely accessible. So you go onto those public
lands freely and accessibly, hiking on trails or enjoying those
lands, but if you then take your RV and park at the campsite,
you would pay a special amenity fee. So that is the distinction
between a basic fee and a special amenity fee.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. I would just add I think there are a lot of
provisions that need to be looked at to reduce exactly what you
said, and I think we have been working hard over the last few
years to learn from the experiences that we have had where a
lot of different systems were created, working consistently
between agencies--the Assistant Secretary mentioned the
Council--trying to identify a way to develop a program that
provides consistency, works across agencies, works with
partners, is fair, equitable, efficient, tries to provide a
system of fees that does make sense and that does recognize the
importance of applying a different fee in different situations,
but I think the values that are gained by the cross-department,
multi-agency fees reduces rather than adds, for sure, to the
confusion for the public. It makes it much simpler, and people
can understand it and certainly benefit tremendously from the
efficiencies that are gained.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, could I add a quick comment to
that?
Mr. Peterson. You certainly can.
Mr. Hill. In doing our work, we noticed when the
demonstration program was getting going there was a lot of
confusion out there by the public, by the visitors, in terms of
the difference between an entrance fee and a user fee. A lot of
the public would buy the Golden Eagle Pass which would give
them the entrance into the parks, but in some parks, they were
being charged a user fee for what seemed to be basically an
entrance into the park.
So there is a lot of confusion. I think the attempt of this
bill is to kind of standardize the terminology here between an
entrance fee or a user fee or the basic fee or the expanded fee
and get all the parks and forests and the units that are
participating in this to basically have common definitions and
have common charges.
Mr. Peterson. You think the bill as drafted gets that done?
Mr. Hill. I think the bill sets up a good structure for
that. Obviously, the devil is in the details, how it is
implemented. I think it is up to the agencies to work together
to make sure they have got some good common definitions and
criteria and guidance out there to make sure that everybody is
on the same song street.
Mr. Peterson. I think your thoughts are well taken and I
think if you can continue to be involved in the process, I
think it would be helpful, because I think it is a valid
observation.
Mr. Thompson, in your written testimony, you support the
proposal under H.R. 3283 of consolidating the Golden Passport
Program into a single interagency pass. This concept has raised
concern from some senior citizen groups who strongly support
the Golden Age Passport. Do you envision any changes for
seniors citizen either in cost or benefit if a single
interagency pass is established?
Mr. Thompson. I think the provisions that have been set
forth for both seniors and also of people with disabilities are
very clearly an important aspect of the bill, and I think we
all support those special provisions in the fee process.
Mr. Peterson. You think you can get it done without
controversy?
Mr. Thompson. Well, the devil is in the details, but I
believe when you frame a program that is consistent, again,
across agencies, allows people the opportunity to better
understand what the benefits of the program are, and they see
the benefits on the ground, I think there is no doubt in my
mind that people truly support it and are willing to pay a
nominal fee to help do the maintenance, to help keep the sites
clean, and to improve the education opportunities and just the
overall benefits of the program. Where it is done right, I
think has shown tremendous public support.
Mr. Peterson. We are going to count on these agencies to
keep the devil's horns cutoff so they don't get in the way.
Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions that probably all of you could
answer. If H.R. 3283 is not enacted and the existing Fee
Demonstration Program expires, is it the case that your
agencies would have no authority to charge fees, and if that is
not the case and you would be able to, could you describe what
fee authority you would have?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. I will take
a stab at that first. There are other fee authorities, of
course. Fee authorities for the Park Service date back, I
believe, as far as 1908, and for the Bureau of Land Management
and the Fish and Wildlife Service date to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The significant difference is that that fee
authority did not allow the agencies to retain the fees onsite.
The tremendous advantage of the Rec Fee Demo Program has been
that the fees charged go directly and immediately to the site
for enhancement of the facilities, and we are concerned, of
course, that if we do not get a continuation and a permanent
fee authority, that the ability to invest in those sites
immediately to respond to rapidly escalating use will not be
available to us.
Mrs. Christensen. As the fees are included in the bill,
there is sort of an entrance fee and then there is a fee for
use of facilities. Is it planned that people might have to pay
more than one fee in visiting a park, both to get in and then
for use of facilities as well?
Ms. Scarlett. The structure of fees varies depending upon
particular sites. For example, it currently is the case at some
parks that one might pay an entrance fee, but then there may be
circumstances where one is engaged in a very special activity
for the user beyond all of the just general facilities that
that entrance fee would avail oneself of. So there are
circumstances where you might pay for a special activity at the
particular location in addition to your entrance fee.
Generally speaking, however, the way most of our locations
perform, you have either site-specific entrance fees--and that
avails you of all the activities and infrastructure in the
location--or you have an amenity fee for a specific campsite.
Generally speaking, that is the case. There are some exceptions
to that.
Mrs. Christensen. There are the different passes, for
example, the Golden Eagle. So how would that work if H.R. 3283
was enacted, the passes that allow you go do all to have parks?
Ms. Scarlett. Well, what the bill proposes is actually an
interagency pass, a National pass, so that a visitor who buys
that would be able to avail themselves of access to any place
where an entrance fee is charged, whether it is Fish and
Wildlife Service, whether it is National Park Service, whether
it is Forest Service or BLM. One of the beauties of that is
that we find increasingly people really do not distinguish
between locations based on the label, but rather what the
amenities are, and so we think the National pass really is a
step forward.
Right now, we have a proliferation of passes, Golden Eagle,
and this and that and the other thing, and we think that
National pass would be a help to the consumer, the customer,
the public to be able to better access all places equally.
Mrs. Christensen. And you envision that if this was to pass
and someone was holding, say, a Golden Eagle pass, that it
would be good, it would still be usable?
Ms. Scarlett. Our concept, of course, in developing the
National pass is to have something that would incorporate other
passes and make whatever pass you buy uniformly available for
access to public sites. I think, again, working out the details
and the logistics between the existing passes and a new
National pass would need to be developed, but it is the intent
that we would have a seamlessness across those passes.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Thompson, looking at the Demo
Program, a lot of people would feel maybe the park system, the
National Park Service may be an area where fees would work, but
that they generally would not work as well in some of the of
the other units under the Department of the Interior, yet the
Administration supports expanding it. Do you think that the
public, general public, would be as amenable to using the fee
services for fees for the other units other than the park
system? I think they are kind of used to maybe seeing fees in
the Park Service, but not forests and others.
Mr. Thompson. The National Forest system is 192 million
acres in 42 states and two territories. There is tremendous
recreation use, tremendous recreation expectations. We have
nearly 200, over 200 million, visits to the National Forests.
As I said, that is up tremendously from where it was 30, 40
years ago. I think in 1956, we had about 50 million visitors.
So we are nearly four times what we were just 50 years ago.
The Forest Service will be a hundred years old next year.
If you look at the next hundred years, use is going to increase
as our population increases. The demands for quality recreation
experiences on all public lands is going to increase. The
demand for facilities, the demand for opportunity to educate
the urban population as they come to the forests and parks and
refuges is going to increase. We believe that now is the time
to learn what we have learned through the demonstration and put
permanent authority there so that we can count on and begin to
make the investments and continue to develop a program that
provides public service at the quality that the American public
expects on all public lands seamlessly and consistently so that
the public has the same expectation over their public lands,
and many of them do not distinguish between a park or a forest
or BLM or refuge. They just know when they go there, they want
an experience.
So we certainly believe that the public deserves a quality
program, a consistent program, a fair program, and one that
builds confidence and accountability from the agencies, and if
you talk to our people at the field level, as has been
mentioned already, they are just so appreciative we had this
opportunity in the fee program, but they would be so
disappointed, and I think the public would, should we use that
authority.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Ms. Scarlett. Mrs. Christensen, may I adjust quickly for
the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service
within the Department of the Interior? As I briefly noted in my
testimony, we have seen a 65 percent increase in recreation on
BLM lands and 80 percent fish and wildlife. If you go to a
single place like Moab, Utah, which is right next to Arches
National Park, Arches National park gets about 800,000 visitors
a year. Moab gets about 1.8 million visitors a year. It has
over 400 campsites. The park has about less than a hundred.
So from a public standpoint, despite the label, these are
both recreation destinies, and we are trying to provide them
the same kinds of services in both locations that they
anticipate.
Mr. Radanovich. [Presiding] Thank you, Donna.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I have a couple requests, and in 5 minutes, I
can't possibly get these answered. So let me give you some
things that I would like the answers submitted, because I want
to make a couple of things on the record.
From the Department of the Interior, we have a chart here
that shows the non-demo receipts in 1994 to 1997 being roughly
75 to 77 million and then dropping dramatically when the Fee
Demo Program went in, and I would like some explanation,
because that is about two-thirds of the variable. I would like
kind of a written response as to which fees went down when the
fee demo went in.
Also, it looks to me that my earlier concern is, in fact,
happening. In the last 2 years of reporting, we have had a 50
percent increase in National Park passes with a corresponding
decline in fee demo receipts, and if we don't address this
disparity, we are going to have a long-term problem, and I
would like to see if you have any additional data on where that
correlation is. In fact, are more people presumably then buying
these at locations? How is that impacting, then, on the parks?
From Mr. Hill, in your written statement, you have a couple
times repeated the prospect that some parks might receive more
in demo fees than they could use and therefore suggested that
maybe the 80-20 rule shouldn't be followed. I believe the whole
integrity of the fee demo rests on the money staying in that
park, and I wonder if you could submit a list of parks that you
think may get more demo money than they could possibly use, or
forest or wherever it is, but I presumed that it was mostly
parks, but where that would be, because then maybe they have
the fee too high.
That would be the possible question there. I am not sure
that the general public would support the concept of moving the
fee around away from their park.
I also wanted to put on the record while I agree that there
needs to be some standardization, standardization is difficult
when you have multiple entrances to a place. So you may have
to, in fact, charge a fee by buildings in some parks because
you can't have multiple--you spend so much in collection and
confusion, and also Mount Rushmore, you mentioned Wind Cave,
but right near there in Mount Rushmore, they couldn't build
their parking lot if they didn't have a special fee for that
parking lot in order to fund a parking lot with the capital
expenses required, and that is confusing. That is one of the
places where people complained about having their pass and then
they can't exercise it at the parking lot. But that is not
really fixable in the planning.
So there is going to be some exceptions, but I agree with
your basic thrust that we need to minimize the exceptions.
I found this fascinating discussion on Parks, Fish and
Wildlife, Forest and BLM, and I am kind of an old-fashioned guy
trying to work my way through this, because I view Parks and
Fish and Wildlife as different than Forest and BLM. Parks were
set aside for the appreciation of the public, but also for
preservation of the resources. Fish and Wildlife were set aside
for fish and wild life areas for them where the public would
have the appreciation of them as long as they didn't disrupt
the flow of the fish and wildlife.
BLM and Forest Service have different missions. There are
renewable resources in the forest, and it is supposed to be
literally for cutting down trees. I know that is not popular to
say, but that is what it was supposed to be. The Bureau of
Lands and Mines, as it used to be called, was supposed to be
the places in the United States where we could mine. Now, as we
have wilderness areas in the Forest Service and BLM, as we have
increasingly pushed recreation away from the parks and into the
forests that are adjacent to the parks, I agree completely that
there a confusion coming in, Moab being the classic example
with the camping sites. You also have that going in and out of
Sequoia and Kings Canyon. There are multiple, Olympic where the
Lake Quinault Lodge is actually in the forest and people are
going through and saying why are these trees cut down. They
think they are in Olympic National Park.
But I am not sure that a fee demo as opposed to
recreational use fees don't work better in Forest and BLM, and
I would be interested in your comment on that, why Forest
Service, if it is going to be recreational, why that isn't the
focus there rather than having a set fee and then we try to
address in the broader pass how to put those things together.
Mr. Thompson. Well, for most of the National Forest system,
I think 75 percent of the National Forest system, to start with
is free. There would be no fee at all for the facilities. When
you look at the diversity that exists across those lands from
the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area to scenic trails, all
the different situations that exist out there, there is just
tremendous needs, as has been described. There is not the
entrance fee. That is not what we do, but there are sites and
improvements that need to be maintained and kept in good
condition.
So in that regard, the user fee is what we are talking
about here for providing for that use. I mean, that to me,
there is no difference in the user fee concept here.
Mr. Radanovich. If you could wrap it up, Mark.
Mr. Souder. Some of the differences is in a park, and I
know that part of my frustration is that to the degree a Mount
St. Helens or an area becomes wilderness and is no longer going
to be used for timber harvesting, in my opinion, that is
becoming some kind of category other than a National forest,
and that is partly what our confusion here is.
Mr. Thompson. OK.
Mr. Radanovich. Mark, if you want to do another round of
questioning when we are done here too, I am very happy to do
that.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My first question a point of clarification. Was this
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for the Island of Guam
put out by Park Services? Who provided these statistics?
Ms. Scarlett. The chart that you have, I believe was put
together by Department of the Interior, and it is a compilation
by location by state and by territory.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. I just wanted a point of clarification.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. First of all, I thank the Department of the
Interior. Any time we can be highlighted in the big country of
ours, you know, the small Island of Guam, I appreciate it very
much. But on the bottom, it says a list of recreation fee
demonstration sites in North Dakota. Is this a typo?
Ms. Scarlett. That must be a typo. My apologies to you. We
will get that fixed.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you very much, because I just
didn't want anyone in the room here to think that Guam was
located in North Dakota.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scarlett. My apologies. That must certainly be a typo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Ms. Scarlett. Our staff works very hard, but they put a lot
together quite quickly. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I understand.
Now my serious question: I recognize the many pros and cons
to permanently authorizing the program, but I will say at this
point that I give more support to the program, and I note that
on Guam, our National Park, the War in the Pacific National
Historical Park, has benefited from the Park Service's
participation in the demonstration program, and some of the 20
percent for agency-wide discretion has gone to upgrading
facilities in the park on Guam. I also want to note another
unique element of our situation in Guam. Our park attracts a
high percentage of foreign visitors, Japanese tourists--we are
only three to 4 hours from Japan--over 1.5 million foreign
visitor a year, and thus a lot of the revenue from the program
that would likely be generated from the park in Guam would be
from patrons other than U.S. taxpayers.
So the concern about double taxation for us is not
particularly strong.
But a couple of questions: Can you tell us looking at the
demo fees in the past--and I think you did talk on this in a
couple other instances. Are there any statistics in general
that speak to the impact on access and use where they may have
been implemented? Has it affected a particular unit's average
visitation? Has it been found to slow down the rate of use or,
say, use by the local community? Can you share with us some of
the negatives, any of the negatives that have been discovered
from the imposition of a fee under this program?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Let me first address the issue of fees
and their impact on visitation. We have done a lot of research
to review that and have found no real discernible impact and,
in fact, require ironically or perhaps surprisingly, the
locations in the Bureau of Land Management that are now
charging recreation fees are actually seeing substantial
increases in visitation in part because with those fees, we are
able to provide infrastructure that actually attracts people to
those locations.
So, no, generally speaking, the fees have not in any way
adversely affected visitation. The ebbs and flows of visitation
which have mostly been up are more affected by things like
economic turn-downs, for example, a little blip after 9-11, as
one might expect and has occurred with other tourist activity.
In terms of the challenges, I think as we initially
implemented the Fee Demo Program, and this was new in
particular for non-Park Service sites, some of the challenges
were that we sometimes charged fees where there was not
significant infrastructure. The public, therefore, wondered why
am I being charged a fee where I used to just walk, and so we
have substantially rectified that problem.
A second perhaps challenge is that often we have not been
good at explaining to folks that their fees go directly onsite.
So we have begun to address that by actually putting signage up
that says your fees goes to support this campsite and so forth.
When we do that, we find that support, whether it is BLM, Fish
and Wildlife Service, or the Park Service, and indeed the
Forest Service is 85 to 90 percent or more for the fee program
and the benefits it provides.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. In essence, then, there
haven't been any real strong negative points?
Ms. Scarlett. Well, I think that would be probably
misleading to say there have been--certainly there have been
some folks in the public early on in the demo program when we
were applying fees to areas with no infrastructure that were
strongly concerned. We believe we have addressed those problems
largely and certainly will continue to keep our fingers on our
pulse to address public concerns.
Ms. Bordallo. The other quick question, Mr. Chairman, is I
noticed that there is a waiver or discount of fees for I think
senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Do you suppose
that we could amend that and include the veterans? Would there
be any objection to that?
Mr. Thompson. Certainly I think the discussion is open.
Certainly there are a lot of opportunities to take notice, and
we will be willing to work with the Committee.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that
on the table in the future, to add the veterans. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
Mr. Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the witnesses for taking their time out of their day to come up
here to the Hill and share their points of view with us.
If I could, I would like to just direct the question to all
three of you. All three of you may not need to answer, but your
statements indicate the Administration supports Chairman
Regula's bill; however, the President's budget says the
Administration will submit its own legislative proposal. Can we
expect to receive, this Committee expect to receive, an
administrative proposal, and if so, when would you anticipate
it being delivered up here to the Hill?
Mr. Thompson. I might take this opportunity. The Under
Secretary of Agriculture is here, and if there is an
opportunity here that he could join in this discussion, I would
certainly provide that.
Mr. Mark Udall. I have no objection.
Ms. Scarlett. Let me take a stab at it. I think at this
point, with Mr. Regula's bill having been put forth, and on the
Senate side, of course, Mr. Thomas has a National Parks Service
fee provision, we are very much looking forward to working with
Congress as they have developed some ideas, many of which are
very, very much like what our Recreation Fee Leadership Council
has outlined. So at this point, I think we are looking forward
to continuing to work with Congress and the legislative
provisions that are on the table at this point.
Mark, did you want to add to that?
Mr. Rey. I think that is right. Congressman Regula's bill
is--
Mr. Radanovich. Mark, would you identify yourself for the
record?
Mr. Rey. I am sorry. I am Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of
Agriculture. I was at a conflicting hearing over on the Senate
side. I will endeavor not to contradict anything that has been
said so far, and I have instructed staff to poke me in the back
if I do, and I will start into a coughing fit.
But that having been said, the language in Congressman
Regula's bill is very comparable to what we were working on
anyway, and I think it would delay the process for the
Committee to wait for the Administration. We are happy to work
off of Congressman Regula's bill and the ideas that you all
have been discussing here today.
Mr. Mark Udall. OK. Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Hill, if I could direct this question to you, there is
a later witness, Mr. Funkhouser, and I am going to have to
leave before he gets to testify, but in his testimony, prepared
testimony, he cites a GAO report as saying that the Forest
Service has not adequately accounted for the costs of
collecting fees. Is he accurate about your findings in that
respect, and if so, how would the bill improve that aspect of
fee management? I also spoke to this a little bit earlier when
Chairman Regula was here.
Mr. Hill. I think that is an accurate statement. As the fee
demo was unfolding, one of the things we did look at was how
the various agencies were accounting for the moneys, the fees
they were collecting, and then for the use of those fees in
terms of what was the expenditures.
The Forest Service was new to the fee collection process,
as you may be well aware. Some of the parks had been charging
fees prior to fee demo, but the Forest Service and some of
these other agencies, it was a new endeavor for them to kind of
start collecting fees.
So there was some growing pains early on there, and
furthermore, they were making a concerted effort to use those
fees to pay for improving visitor services and for working on
the maintenance projects as opposed to setting up systems to
account for the maintenance backlog or how those fees were
being used. At the time we were doing the work when we
questioned that to the Forest Service, one of the reasons they
gave us for not establishing those systems to track collections
and expenditures to the extent perhaps they could have was that
it was fee demo program. It was not a permanent program. They
did not want to invest the money in setting up systems for
something that may not become permanent. They would rather use
those expenditures on the items that sorely needed the work,
basically the visitor services and the maintenance problems.
So I think by making the program permanent, there would be
some certainty not only in the revenues that would be generated
in this program, but in also setting up systems that would
account and track for the expenditures as well.
Mr. Mark Udall. I appreciate that clarification, and I
understand that rationale, that it was an experimental program,
but I would tell you that some of the people I talked to on the
ground don't factor that into their opinions and their
perspectives they generate. I mentioned earlier, and I am going
to pursue this, that there is one site in my district where a
local for-profit marina operator was actually collecting the
checks and the cash out of the collection box sometimes a month
or 6 weeks after it had begun to fill again, and they were just
astounded that the local land agency didn't have enough
interest to come and at least collect the money. And so I think
we have to remedy that if, in fact, we are going proceed with
this more expanded fee demo program.
I looked in my sheet for the particular project. I couldn't
find it. I would note, though, that they didn't include Guam in
Colorado or Colorado in Guam, but I know that I would like to
pursue this and at least let the BLM or the Forest Service know
potentially, and it might even be a Bureau Rec Program, but I
think that this is the kind of example that we want to try to
avoid in the future if we are going to reauthorize or more
broadly authorize the Fee Demo Program.
Mr. Hill. Most definitely. Here again, very early in the
program for some of these agencies that were not used to
collecting these fees, we did find instances where they were
literally storing the money onsite in a room. A lot of these
units are out in the middle of nowhere, and they are not real
ready accessible to banks where they can make these deposits.
So, I mean, there were some really early growing pains that
they all went through, and I think hopefully they have resolved
a lot of them, and if the program were to become permanent,
that is something we would have to keep an eye on.
Mr. Mark Udall. Yes. Well, I thank the Chairman. I am
trying to keep him from getting anymore gray hairs as we all
run over the time limit here, but again, thanks to the panel.
Thanks to the land agencies that are here, and I look forward
to working further with you on this important question.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mark.
Mr. Souder, did you have any more questions?
Mr. Souder. Yes, if I could. I wanted to take another stab
at trying to understand the Forest-BLM situation a little bit.
Are there any fees charged in a National Forest where there
is timber cutting?
Mr. Rey. Yes, recreation fees in a National Forest where
there also happens to be timber cutting. There is no relation
between the two.
Mr. Souder. And, Ms. Scarlett, let me ask you are there any
fees collected in an area that mining occurs in the BLM?
Ms. Scarlett. The BLM often manages, individual field
managers often manage, tracts of land that might be a million
and a half acres, even more. So, for example, if you take the
Moab, Utah situation that I described, there is a small area
within that Moab tract where they have the developed campsites
and where they charge fees. Elsewhere on tracts of land managed
by that field unit, there is other activity which would include
in some instances mining or oil and gas development, but they
are not the same piece of land within the overall area.
Mr. Souder. This is one of the things that has been
bothering me just as I move about, because I think that this
kind of confusion is going to develop a backlash and is
continuing to develop a backlash against the timber cutting,
against the ability to mine or develop anywhere, because as
people think of these as predominantly recreational or
wilderness-type units and pay a fee for that, they are not
going to understand because they thought that the timber
cutting and the leasing was supposed to be paying, for example,
in a forest, that the forest was there as it was growing and
people were going to cut down some of the trees, that they
could camp whenever they wanted, that they could fish whenever
they wanted, and they weren't paying a fee, and that the
mission as it changes, some sort of separation of BLM land and
of National Forest land in saying this is a zone that is going
to be an entry place where there is a park and we are going to
push more of the recreation there as we restrict camping spots,
for example, restrict certain kind of vehicles potentially from
coming in, if snowmobiles can't go into a park and they only be
the areas around it.
That is a different function and you are walking down a
path with these fees that ultimately I am afraid as an area
that also depends on natural resources as well as wood that
this is helping fuel a confusion in the general public.
Ms. Scarlett. Let me just add to my previous comments. The
Bureau of Land Management, of course, is a multiple use agency
and that includes oil and gas development, some forestry
foraging. It also includes recreation in the portfolio of
multiple use activities that it is respond responsible for.
BLM goes through a land use planning process, and in that
planning process, they designate areas that are suitable for
oil and gas development. Obviously, the place has to have oil
and gas as a starting point. There are some areas and, again,
without totally relying on Moab, where there are really no
mineral resources in the particular area. In that particular
case, there are no forests either. It is pinnacles and a river
and very suited for recreation activities. Through the land use
planning process, they actually have a special recreation
designation that there is very clear public comment upon that,
and so I believe that those distinctions that you set forth, in
fact, are occurring through that land use planning process.
Mr. Souder. I personally think we need a different type
of--while you are managing it inside, for example--this is a
big debate in this Committee in Utah over whether we do the Red
Rocks and develop it in Utah, whether it is going to be
basically one huge park or government-controlled area south or
how we do this, and with mixed missions in your agencies as
opposed to setting up a sub-recreation agency and maybe meshing
certain of the forest lands and BLM lands that aren't being
used in other ways, I think we are walking down a path that has
been inevitably restricting our ability in understanding of the
general public, because I know what those maps are, but I know
when you drive into the area, you really have little clue. You
see BLM and you have a BLM fee, or you go into Olympic National
Forest and see all these trees cut down. If you paid a fee, you
are going to have a different attitude about whether they cut
down those trees.
I am just telling you that is a fact, and we have to figure
out how we are going to deal with that.
Mr. Rey. Congressman, I think the concern has some merit to
it. It is clear that as our Federal lands have become more
popular for recreation use and as recreation use has increased,
notwithstanding the fee system, but just as a matter of fact as
people have become more and more interested in outdoor
recreation, we have seen some increased conflict between
recreation use and other uses; but in many cases where we have
had the opportunity to enhance visitor awareness of the other
uses of the land through investments made by the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program, to interpret the importance of those
other uses for the recreating public, we have been able to
diminish that amount of conflict.
So there really are two sides to this equation, and there
are places where recreation fee demonstration money, and for
that matter appropriated dollars as well, have gone into
interpreting for the recreating public what else is going on on
BLM or Forest Service lands and why it is important for them to
understand the necessity of those other uses to meet their
daily needs.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mark.
I do want to get one more question out of the way before we
dismiss this second panel.
Ms. Scarlett, I did want to get one thing down on the
record regarding Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. In the
next page, Roy Denner, who serves as BLM's technical review
team for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area will tell us
how BLM this year funded a million dollar species monitoring
study exclusively with rec fee demo money. As part of the
study, the BLM purchased a $60,000 high-performance sand car,
whatever that is, as opposed to considering other temporary
methods of transportation.
Do you consider that the purchase of this sand car an
appropriate use of rec fees?
Ms. Scarlett. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
specifics of the purchase of the sand car, but let me speak
more largely to Imperial Sand Dunes and the issue that has been
raised there. This is a rather unique situation. There was a
lawsuit, an endangered species lawsuit. As part of the
settlement to that lawsuit, some 49,000 acres of previously
recreated lands were withdrawn from recreation use. In order to
get some of those lands back into recreation use, the Bureau of
Land Management moved forward with an adaptive management plan,
that is a plan that would use the biological opinion of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, monitor the lands, and then allow
the recreation to occur alongside with the resource protection.
There was a time issue there because the monitoring to get
the baseline information needed to take place in spring. They
did use, therefore, the recreation fee moneys. That is an
authorized use. I will say, however, that the Bureau of Land
Management has proposed, and the President in our 2005 budget,
a $4 million increase in appropriated funds for monitoring, and
certainly we would like to work with the Congress on ensuring
that we have those appropriated dollars for monitoring going
forward.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Were the rec fees for that
particular BLM land, were they increased for this study or do
you recall were they the same?
Ms. Scarlett. No, they were not increased for that study.
There is a technical review team that reviews the
implementation of fees in Imperial Sand Dunes. The technical
review team had looked at the previously existing fees and
actually had made proposals for some fairly substantial
increases entirely unrelated to this monitoring issue. In fact,
in the end, BLM did move forward with an increase in the fee,
again unrelated to the monitoring, and, in fact, quite a bit
lower than the technical review team proposed. That team, I
will say is made up of local recreators and other stakeholders
in the process.
Mr. Radanovich. It was my understanding that the fee was
increased threefold. So maybe if you will double-check your
information, recheck it for me, I would sure appreciate it.
Ms. Scarlett. If I could just clarify, I think what I meant
to articulate there is they did go through a fee process, and
it had not been raised in quite a long time. They raised the
fee, but it was not related to that monitoring issue. It was a
separate process that was ongoing.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you also get back to me with a good
description of what a sand car is?
Ms. Scarlett. I would like to find out myself.
Mr. Radanovich. I am thinking a dune buggy here or
something.
Ms. Scarlett. I will do that.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much.
I would like to thank the panel for being here today. Your
testimony is finished, and again, thank you very much. We will
move on to our third panel.
Mr. Radanovich. Panel number three consists of Mr. Aubrey
King, who is head of the Gateway Alliance here in Washington,
D.C.; Ms. Christine Jourdain, Executive Director of American
Council of Snowmobile Associations, the American Recreation
Coalition; Mr. Roy Denner, President and CEO of the Off-Road
Business Association from Santee, California; Mr. David L.
Brown, Executive Director of the America Outdoors, Knoxville
Tennessee; and Mr. Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western
Slope No-Fee Coalition from Dorset, Vermont.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Committee. If you
could, I would ask you to keep your testimony to the 5-minute
rule. As you will notice, 5 minutes are up when the red light
shines, and we will hear testimony from everybody and then
after that open it up for questions from the panel.
I would like to welcome Mr. Aubrey King to the
Subcommittee. Aubrey, good to see you and thank you for being
here, and if you would like to begin, I would sure appreciate
it. You might want to turn your mike on down there and kind of
bring it in to you a little bit if you don't mind. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AUBREY KING, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Alliance
of Gateway Communities. We have submitted longer comments which
we request to be added to the record.
As you know, our organization represents the interest of
those communities that serve as gateways for millions of
domestic and international visitors to our magnificent National
parks, forests, and other Federal public lands. We commend you
for holding this hearing on H.R. 3283 and the future of the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. We commend Chairman
Regula for introducing H.R. 3283, and we certainly agree that
it provides a good solid start for this reconsideration of fee
demo.
After being created and sustained by the Appropriations
Committee since 1996, it is now time for authorizing committees
to take over and determine the future of the Fee Demo Program.
NAGC supports making the Fee Demo Program permanent or
extending it on a long-term basis, perhaps for 6 years or more.
H.R. 3283 would accomplish that goal and accomplish important
fee demo reforms, but we believe further changes are necessary.
Fee demo generates approximately a $180 million annually
for the four agencies involved, and, very significantly, 80
percent or more of this revenue must be spent at the site or
area where it is collected. This is has enabled the agencies to
invest in badly needed local infrastructure maintenance that
has made those lands safer, more convenient, more attractive,
and more useable for both visitors and for gateway citizens.
Gateways, obviously, have a vital interest in visitors to
the Federal lands, enjoying a positive pleasurable experience
on those lands. Gateways understand the value of fee demo as
shown in a January 2004 NAGC member survey when 76 percent of
the respondents expressed support or strong support for fee
demo. At the same time, gateways are perhaps more familiar than
anyone with the difficulties the agency have encountered as
they have implemented fee demo. In our longer written
submission, we cite what seems to have been many of the major
implementation problems as well as some of the philosophical
objections to the program.
Some agencies have done better than others, but clearly
there have been problems from the layering of fees to
inconsistencies and poor interagency and intergovernmental
coordination. Concessioners and permittees have suffered from
fee increases levied on both them and their customers without
sufficient notice or input. Gateway businesses have been
damaged when fee demo revenue has been used to develop, expand,
or modernize unnecessary recreation facilities that compete
unfairly with existing nearby businesses. To their credit, the
fee demo agencies have recognized many of these problems and
have taken encouraging steps to correct most of them.
H.R. 3283 will bring about important permanent fee demo
reforms, especially by encouraging greater interagency and
internal governmental coordination, although we do recommend
that the agencies be directed to make such coordination a top
priority instead of simply encouraged and by more specifically
delineating which fees can be charged at which locations and
for what activities. We believe it is absolutely essential, as
H.R. 3283 would do, to keep 80 percent of the revenue collected
at the local level.
We strongly agree, also, with the bill's allowing gateway
communities to play a role in collecting fees. We especially
endorse allowing five different Federal land agencies to
implement fee demo and would support, in fact, adding the Corps
of Engineers as the sixth fee demo concern.
We oppose limiting fee demo to only one or two agencies
because this would further aggravate the problems of
inconsistency and lack of coordination. It would not address
implementation problems in all of the agencies, and it would
create more of a budget gap between have and have not land
agencies.
Before we can give our full support to H.R. 3283, however,
we believe further reforms are necessary, and we detailed these
in our written comments. These include providing clear and
explicit authority for the agencies to collect fees for each
other. H.R. 3283 suggests that and heads in that direction, but
we think more explicit authority should be provided. State and
local tourism offices should be utilized to identify areas with
special tourism and recreational appeal. There should be an
authority to utilize differential fee pricing to respond to
seasonal demand. We recommend utilization of a portion of fee
demo revenue or public information, education, and
communication programs with the better known Federal land.
We suggest development of local advisory process involving
state tourism offices, gateway communities, as well as
concessioners and outfitters to help design and plan fee
structures. We recommend establishment of a National recreation
fee advisory board to set broader principles and guidelines for
the country as a whole. We recommend that somewhere in this
legislation or perhaps in the report language that there be an
assurance that Federal land budgets will not be cut or have
their growth rates reduced to offset fee revenues.
In concluding, let me make clear, Mr. Chairman, while no
one likes to pay fees, the Recreation Fee Program is essential
for the fiscal future of the Federal lands. It cannot be the
only answer, and we suggest a more comprehensive review of all
the Federal land fiscal outlooks here, and we very much doubt
that in these times of heavy demands on the Federal Treasury,
Congress would be likely to replace $180 million in fee demo if
we allow it to go away. The obligation of all of us must be to
ensure that the future fee program is as fair and reasonable as
possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Statement of Aubrey C. King, President,
National Alliance of Gateway Communities
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor and pleasure for me to present these
comments to you this afternoon on behalf of the National Alliance of
Gateway Communities (NAGC) regarding the recreation fee demonstration
program (``fee demo''). I am Aubrey King and I am President of the
NAGC.
We are here today to testify with regard to H.R. 3283 and to
express our appreciation to Chairman Regula for introducing it. The
innovative fee demo program was, of course, originally the creation of
Chairman Regula and we commend him and others in Congress who have
supported the program over the years. We have some reservations about
H.R. 3283, however, and we want to recommend several amendments, which
we believe will make the recreation fee program as proposed in this
legislation stronger and more effective.
Mr. Chairman, it is also appropriate at this time to commend you
and this subcommittee, as well as other authorizing committees and
subcommittees in both Houses of Congress, for reviewing the fee demo
program as part of your authorization responsibilities. Since its
inception, fee demo has been sustained solely through the Congressional
appropriations process. The appropriations committees have made a
significant contribution to the vitality of our Federal lands through
establishing and extending the innovative fee demo program. But, as the
appropriators themselves recognize, it is now time for the authorizers
to decide the future of fee demo.
The National Alliance of Gateway Communities Interest in Fee Demo
The NAGC is the national trade association that represents the
interests of those communities that serve as gateways for millions of
domestic and international visitors to our magnificent national parks,
forests and other Federal public lands.
The expenditures of these visitors support the economic base for
hundreds of gateway communities and serve as the mainstay for economic
growth. Not only are the Federal lands a critical tourism draw for
gateway communities, their accessibility also contributes very
substantially to the quality of life for residents who can so easily
take advantage of the scenic and recreational appeal of those lands in
their backyards.
Since formation of the NAGC in 1999, we have recognized the
critical importance of the recreation fee demonstration program (``fee
demo'') and regarded it as a priority issue on the NAGC agenda. We
believe that the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been
generated by fee demo, with eighty percent retained for use at the
lands where it is collected, have enabled thousands of projects to be
completed, significantly reducing the infrastructure maintenance
backlog that has plagued these agencies for decades. The result has
been to improve the Federal lands experience for both visitors and
residents. We have closely followed the implementation of the program
by the four Federal agencies given this responsibility by Congress,
testifying and submitting several statements to Congress during this
period in broad support of fee demo while recommending substantial
reforms in the program.
In a January 2004 survey of the NAGC membership, 76 percent of
those responding said they either supported or strongly supported the
fee demo program. Most gateway residents understand how important it is
to retain 80 percent of fee demo revenue for use at the public lands
location where it is collected. They understand that fee demo revenue
has funded numerous projects that have made the Federal lands more
appealing and more enjoyable for visitors. They understand that it is
unrealistic to expect that the $180 million now collected annually from
fee demo will be replaced through the Congressional appropriations
process. They believe it is imperative that this recreation fee stream
be continued by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, we would also note that there has been discussion of
combining recreation fee legislation with key elements of H.R. 1014,
the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act, which you introduced. While we
can see the benefits of such a combined bill, we do not favor anything
that would delay consideration of H.R. 1014, which, as you know, has
received careful attention for nearly four years and seems to be moving
towards passage.
Importance of Fee Demo
It is clear to us that fee demo has benefitted the Federal lands,
allowing them to serve their visitors better and, thereby, to have an
even more positive impact on state and gateway community economies.
In Fiscal Year 2004, it is estimated that fee demo will generate
approximately $180.2 million for all four agencies involved, with the
National Park Service collecting $124.7 million, the Forest Service $42
million, the BLM $9.5 million and the Fish & Wildlife Service $4
million. Revenue from fee demo has been used almost entirely to pay for
badly needed infrastructure maintenance and visitor service facilities
at the public land sites where the revenue is collected.
The NAGC believes the case for fee demo transcends budgetary needs
and that fee demo has the potential to: (1) engender greater public
appreciation for the Federal lands by showing the value-added benefits
of those lands and the recreation experience; (2) help agencies manage
access to overcrowded areas; (3) encourage greater stakeholder
participation in Federal land management decisions; and (4) encourage
greater interagency and interdepartmental coordination.
Criticisms of Fee Demo
We fully recognize that implementation of fee demo has been
problematic. We are sure that other witnesses before this subcommittee
will elaborate on criticisms of fee demo implementation. It should be
noted that these criticisms are, for the most part, much less
applicable to the National Park Service, which has long experience with
administering entrance fee programs and as it has implemented fee demo,
has for the most part simply increased fee levels and expanded the
number of entrance fee sites. For the Forest Service the BLM and the
Fish & Wildlife Service, without a tradition of fee collection, and
often with multiple points of entry onto their lands that make
enforcement of entrance fees difficult, fee demo implementation has
necessarily been more varied and more experimental.
Following is a summary of what appear to us to have been the most
serious and valid shortcomings of fee demo implementation. While
significant strides have been made by the agencies to address many of
these problems, further improvements are needed in new recreation fee
authorization legislation and many of them are addressed in H.R. 3283.
1. Fee demo implementation has too often resulted in ``layering''
of fees whereby visitors are required to pay multiple fees for
different services or activities at the same site.
2. Fees levied at different sites by different agencies have not
been coordinated to prevent duplicate fees and to ensure that
comparable fees are charged for comparable services.
3. Fees have been charged that are disconnected to Federal land
improvements, with the result that visitors and residents are asked to
pay for the same services and facilities that have previously been
available without charge. (This has been a particular complaint of many
local gateway community residents upset at suddenly having to pay for
access to the same Federal lands they have always regarded as their
``backyards'' with virtually unlimited access.)
4. Related to the preceding point, fees have been charged for
access to ``dispersed recreation areas'' where the benefits from such
fees are not self-evident.
5. Concessioners and permittees, who have already paid their
contractual fees, made their business and marketing plans and set their
prices accordingly, have objected strongly when their customers on
short notice have had to pay additional fees under fee demo.
6. Local gateway community businesses object that fee revenue has
been used to modernize or expand facilities on the Federal lands that
compete unfairly with nearby private businesses.
7. The Federal agencies have spent too much on implementation of
the fee demo program.
In addition to these implementation criticisms, there have been
what can be termed philosophical objections to fee demo, with three of
them especially prominent: (1) that fee demo charges Americans for use
of Federal lands they own and are already paying for through their
taxes; (2) that fee demo is economically regressive and inhibits use of
the Federal lands by those with lower incomes; and (3) that fee demo
encourages commercialization of the Federal lands by forcing the
agencies to rely more on revenues generated by more visitors, resulting
in ecological damage to those lands.
To the extent that such philosophical objections reflect different
value judgments they are difficult to rebut, but we would make the
following points. First, it is not at all uncommon to levy user fees
for government products and services that are principally beneficial to
individual citizens. Second, a carefully structured and implemented fee
program can add considerably to the visitor experience on our Federal
lands and can actually enhance the protection of the environment and
the preservation of the resource.
NAGC Position Regarding H.R. 3283 and Further Recommendations
The NAGC realizes that the agencies themselves have taken
meaningful steps to reform the fee demo program. The Federal Recreation
Fee Council, co-chaired by Interior Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett
and Agriculture Under Secretary Mark Rey, has greatly improved
interdepartmental and interagency coordination and helped make the
overall program more consistent and rational. Although it does not
address all the concerns about fee demo implementation, we are also
encouraged by individual agency initiatives, such as the 2003 Forest
Service's Blueprint for Recreation Fees, which shows an awareness of
the problems and outlines several promising initiatives.
As indicated earlier, the NAGC supports authorization of a
permanent or long-term, reformed fee demo program. Permanent
authorization would provide the agencies with maximum certainty to
facilitate long-term planning. We are pleased, therefore, that H.R.
3283 would establish a permanent recreational fee program that would
require agencies to retain no less than 80 percent of recreation fee
revenues at the specific public lands unit or area where it is
collected.
If, however, Congress believes it is advisable to mandate a review
of the effectiveness of recreational fee program reforms, we believe a
six-year authorization, as with the Federal surface transportation
program, would provide a reasonable balance between agency planning
needs and time to assess the impact of reforms and other changes in the
program.
We support expanding the recreation fee program to include the
Bureau of Reclamation and would also support adding the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. We believe all the Federal land agencies that provide
recreational services and facilities to the public should be included
in recreation fee demonstration.
We cannot support legislation such as S. 1107 which would establish
a permanent recreation fee program but only for a single agency (i.e.,
the National Park Service). Visitors to the Federal lands often do not
distinguish between the different agencies managing those lands and
many of the problems with fee demo legislation have arisen because of a
lack of cooperation and coordination between the different agencies.
Congress should address the issue of recreation fees comprehensively.
We applaud the purposes and principles of the recreation fee
program as outlined in H.R. 3283. Although the stated purposes and
principles are stated in general terms and need to be interpreted and
clarified, they are a significant step towards development of a
coherent, rational set of guidelines.
We are especially pleased that H.R. 3283 would encourage greater
interagency and intergovernmental coordination of recreation fees, in
particular through the creation of ``regional, multientity passes'' in
Section 10(b). We recommend, however, that such interagency and
intergovernmental coordination be more strongly encouraged in the
legislation. Instead of saying the Secretary ``may'' establish regional
multientity passes, Section 10(b) should direct that the Secretary
``shall'' or ``will'' establish them.
We also support the provision in H.R. 3283--Section 4(f)--allowing
fee management agreements, as a means of allowing gateway businesses
and others to provide fee collection and processing services. This will
not only help reduce agency administration costs, but it will also
promote closer cooperation between the public land agencies and gateway
communities.
In addition, to strengthen H.R. 3283, we strongly recommend the
following amendments to H.R. 3283:
1. Agencies should be explicitly authorized to develop
cooperative agreements to collect fees for each other. Although this is
apparently now occurring in some areas, many local agency managers are
unwilling to enter into such agreements without clear statutory
authority;
2. Agencies should utilize the expertise and experience of state
and local tourism offices to help identify areas with particular
tourism and recreation appeal that justify entrance or access fees.
``Special Places'' with a high degree of such appeal may be identified
through a selection process similar to that used to designate national
scenic byways;
3. Agencies should be encouraged to use differential pricing for
fees to recognize seasonal market demand;
4. Some fee revenue--perhaps ten percent--should be used to
develop public information, education and communication programs for
better known parks, forests and other lands. Such programs can be
coordinated with ongoing state and local tourism office marketing
efforts;
5. The Federal agencies should work more closely with state
tourism offices and gateway communities in designing and planning fee
structures. Local fee boards should be established to review and
approve proposed Federal public land recreation fees because of their
impact on gateway communities and their residents;
6. A National Recreation Fee Advisory Board, as recommended by
the American Recreation Coalition, should be established to recommend
common criteria for fees, oversee agency fee programs, foster
coordination of fees, review innovative fee proposals, prepare annual
reports on fee programs and review appeals alleging unjustified or
inappropriate fees. Both national and local fee advisory groups should
have members representing those principally paying the fees, including
concessioners and permittees;
7. Following the fee demo model, eighty percent of the revenue
from special use permit fees should also be retained and used at the
locations where it is collected. While the National Park Service is
authorized to retain such special use permit revenue for use at the
local sites where it is collected, the other Federal land agencies are
required to turn over all such revenue to the General Treasury, thus
foregoing substantial revenue for local use. In the thirteen western
states, for example, the Forest Service collects about $25 million
annually in revenue from special use permit fees--nearly as much as the
agency collects from fee demo. Yet the Forest Service must return all
that revenue to the Federal Treasury;
8. The fee program should be carefully monitored in the future
through the Congressional authorization process;
9. Any new recreation fee legislation should include
Congressional assurance that revenue from fees will not be nullified or
offset by reductions or lower growth rates in agency budgets; and
10. Most attention given recreation fees has focused on how the
fees are set and collected. Similar attention needs to be given to how
fee revenue is spent. A major criticism of fee demo expenditures has
occurred when the result has been to fund projects on the Federal lands
that duplicate services or activities already available in nearby
gateway communities. An example is when campgrounds on Federal lands
are constructed, expanded or upgraded when nearby private campgrounds
could readily accommodate additional campers. The result is to create
unfair competition that damages private-sector businesses. We recommend
that Congress direct the agencies to conduct a study of any new visitor
service projects that may pose unfair competition for private gateway
businesses and ensure: (a) that the project is really necessary and
duplicative of services already available in the community; and (b)
that any fees charged for services on the Federal lands are comparable
to those charged in the private sector.
We are also concerned about potential adverse consequences of H.R.
3283 on concessioners, outfitters and guides on the Federal lands. In
the first place, it is important that public lands recreation fees be
set with full consideration of their impact on these vital private-
sector partners. It is unfair for the agencies to increase recreation
fees after the concessioners, outfitters and guides have published
their prices for the season. To avoid this problem, we recommend that
any long-term recreation fee legislation make clear that Congress
intends that no fees should be set that will reduce recreation use and
the prospects for profits by private-sector businesses under existing
contracts or permits. S. 1107 contains worthwhile notice and
documentation provisions that should be considered in this context. A
second serious concern regarding the impact on H.R. 3283 on
concessioners, outfitters and guides is its repeal of Section 4 of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This would seem to repeal
current Forest Service and BLM permitting authority. There may also be
potential conflicts with the National Park Omnibus Management Act. Such
dramatic changes in these fundamental statutes must be carefully
considered.
In addition, the agencies should be encouraged to communicate to
visitors and the public the benefits of their fee programs in terms of
providing a better visitor experience. Wherever possible, investments
from fee revenue should be tangible and visible. Public land recreation
users, local governments and the tourism and recreation industry should
be involved in the design and implementation of fee programs.
Finally, the NAGC realizes that fee revenue will never be
sufficient to meet the budget needs of the Federal land agencies. At
the same time, it seems likely that stringent demands on Federal
finances will create severe pressure on natural resource agency
budgets. With this in mind, we strongly urge Congress to undertake a
more comprehensive review of the fiscal needs of these agencies and
consider a wide range of options, including integrated fee strategies,
public-private partnerships, Federal land bonds, encouragement of
volunteer support, technological initiatives and other alternatives.
Summary and Conclusions
The National Alliance of Gateway Communities supports long-term
authorization by Congress of the recreation fee demonstration program
as vital to the viability of the tourism and recreation industry and
economies of hundreds of gateway communities. Not only does fee demo
provide essential revenue to fund critical infrastructure and
maintenance projects to improve the visitor experience, its potential
benefits can be even greater, including demonstrating to visitors and
the public the value-added importance of the Federal lands, providing
an important management tool regarding access to overcrowded areas,
encouraging a greater stakeholder role in land management decisions and
encouraging more interagency and intergovernmental coordination. The
policy of retaining and using at least eighty percent of fee demo
revenue at the location where it is collected must be continued.
While H.R. 3283 is a useful beginning to the establishment of a
permanent or long-term recreation fee program, it also has several
shortcomings. Clearly, for the fee demo program to fulfill its promise,
reforms are necessary. The NAGC believes that an effective recreation
fee program should contain the following elements:
1. development of more regional interagency and intergovernmental
fees;
2. clear authority for the agencies to collect fees for each
other;
3. utilization of state and local tourism offices to identify
areas with special tourism and recreation appeal;
4. utilization of state agencies and local gateway businesses to
collect fees;
5. utilization of differential fee pricing to respond to seasonal
demand;
6. utilization of a portion of fee revenue for public
information, education and communication programs for better-known
Federal lands;
7. development of a local advisory process involving state
tourism offices and gateway communities to help design and plan fee
structures;
8. establishment of a National Recreation Fee Advisory Board;
9. retention and use of eighty percent of revenue from special
use permit fees at locations where it is collected;
10. Congressional assurance that Federal land budgets will not be
cut nor have their growth rates reduced to offset fee revenue; and
11. prevention of expenditures from recreational fees being used
to fund projects that duplicate and compete unfairly with gateway
businesses.
Finally, we urge that Congress undertake a comprehensive review of
the short- and long-term outlook for Federal land agency budgets,
realizing that recreation fees must be part of a broader fiscal
strategy for the Federal lands.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. King.
I want to welcome Ms. Christine Jourdain, Executive
Director of the American Council of Snowmobile Associations.
Welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE JOURDAIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATIONS, AMERICAN RECREATION
COALITION, BOARD MEMBER, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
Ms. Jourdain. Thank you.
Good morning. I am the Executive Director of the American
Council of Snowmobile Associations, comprised of 25 state
snowmobile associations representing over 1.7 million
snowmobilers in the U.S. I also appear today as a director of
American Recreation Coalition, a National federation of more
than 100 organizations.
Let me begin by expressing appreciation to Congressman
Regula, author of the legislation under consideration today.
We perceive fees as one element in assuring the public that
visits to their lands will be enjoyable and safe. Fees are not
an end goal. Rather, they are a means to help achieve our goal
of great experiences in the Great Outdoors, along with an
appropriated funds, volunteerism, partnerships, and more. ARC
members took an active part in the National debate on fees
hosted by the President's Commission on America's Outdoors from
1985 to 1987. Americans made it clear then that they would pay
reasonable fees for quality recreation opportunities just as
they will pay reasonable costs for quality sleeping bags and
boats, but the agencies had little incentive to charge
recreation fees since they disappeared into the general
Treasury accounts.
We agreed with their call for more financial reliance, but
not complete reliance upon visitors to Federal recreation
facilities. We applaud this Committee's involvement in the
creation of the Fee Demo Program which has provided new
resources, nearly $200 million annually to protect the Great
Outdoors legacy and to enhance many of the more than one
billion visits we make to Federal lands systems each year. We
have monitored the actions of the agencies involved in the Fee
Demo Program and consider the program to be successful in the
most part.
We believe it is time to move forward, ending the short-
term nature of the demonstration. This brings us to our
comments on H.R. 3283. The American Recreation Coalition's
position on Federal recreation fees is very consistent with the
principle section of this bill. The additional principle we
urge would reflect the increasing importance of the Great
Outdoors in boosting the physical and mental health of all
Americans. Yet, despite our agreement on the principles and
appreciation for both Mr. Regula and this Committee, we cannot
support H.R. 3283 in its present form. Our most serious concern
is this bill would provide permanent authority for recreation
fees. We disagree.
We believe that further experimentation is needed in the
fee area both to over come concerns about specific fee
demonstration projects and to capitalize on new technology and
communication opportunities. New understandings achieved
through this process might modify the desirable provisions for
Federal recreation fee programs in the future.
We also believe that both now and again periodically in the
future, the Congress must make the point to Federal agencies
that fees are merely one aspect of a program to enhance visitor
experiences in the Great Outdoors. At the same time, Congress
should provide direction to the agencies on priority issues of
the collected fees. This is exactly the pattern used to guide
the Nation's surface transportation program. Both Federal fuel
tax and the programs using those taxes are reenacted every 6
years.
A second concern is that the legislation before the
Committee fails to go far enough in encouraging unification and
simplification of recreation fees. It also fails to cover the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.
A third concern is the failure to address the full range of
fees paid by special recreation permit holders. We support
retention of fees to assist in providing and enhancing visitor
services, but realize the complication, including laying of
fees under other authorities such as cost recovery. We also
support David Brown's comments that he will make on this topic.
A fourth concern is the failure to create mechanisms to
ensure that fee programs meet H.R. 3283's collaborative
principle. We urge the creation of a new recreation fee
advisory board with authority to review program complaints and
appeals. This board would also be responsible for preparing
annual reports on Federal recreation fees. Avenues on the local
level are also needed to achieve the collaborative principle.
A fifth concern is the failure of H.R. 3283 to establish a
new recreation fee site investment account allowing
improvements in advance of new or raised fees. Fees are
accepted readily if facilities and services are improved and
least welcomed when new or higher fees are charged without
instant and obvious results.
Sixth, we urge that the legislation clarify the language
authorizing waivers of fees for volunteers. We specifically
urge creation of a new ``Take Pride in America'' pass.
Seventh, we applaud H.R. 3283's focus on outcomes, not
incomes, yet the legislation fails to incorporate adequate
provisions to this goal. We urge inclusion of rewards for those
sites that are receptive to alternative means of providing
services and facilities on Federal lands through partnerships
and enlisting the assistance of correction agencies.
Eighth, new authorities for creative and innovative
partnerships among Federal agencies, non-profits, and
corporations are needing, including the use of PPVs and NAFIs.
Finally, we understand the need to limit fee collection,
yet we are concerned that the limits imposed may preclude some
fee strategies that would increase convenience, efficiency, and
other principles that might have broad support.
Thank you for your interest.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jourdain follows:]
Statement of Christine Jourdain, Executive Director, American Council
of Snowmobile Associations, Member, Board of Directors, American
Recreation Coalition
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, I am Christine Jourdain and
I am the Executive Director of American Council of Snowmobile
Associations (ACSA), based in East Lansing, Michigan. The Council is
comprised of 25 state snowmobiler associations comprised of more than
2,500 local clubs representing over 1,700,000 snowmobilers in the
United States--and these outdoor enthusiasts are very frequent visitors
to federal recreation sites. I also serve as a member of the Board of
Directors of the American Recreation Coalition (ARC), a national
federation of more than 100 national organizations actively involved in
meeting the recreation needs of Americans. ARC's members produce
recreational products ranging from canoes to motor homes to tents,
provide services ranging from campsites to downhill skiing and
represent the interests of tens of millions of us belonging to
individual membership groups including the Good Sam Club and BoatU.S.
ARC members have a very strong interest in fees at federal recreation
sites and played a key role in the creation of the National Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program. I appear in a dual capacity, representing
both ARC and ACSA.
Let me begin by expressing appreciation to the author of the
legislation under consideration today, the Honorable Ralph Regula. His
work on behalf of public lands and recreation has been extraordinary,
and ARC presented him with the highest recognition of the recreation
community, the Sheldon Coleman Great Outdoors Award, in June 2000.
Moreover, Mr. Regula's commitment to recreation prompted him to work
closely with ARC and others in crafting the National Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program, which paved the way for consideration of this
legislation.
We perceive fees as one element in assuring members of the public
that their visits to their lands will be enjoyable and safe. Fees are
not an end for us--rather they are a means to help achieve our goal of
great experiences in the great outdoors in conjunction with such other
tools as volunteerism, appropriated funds, partnerships and more.
Federal recreation programs have been underfunded for years,
resulting in an immense backlog of deferred maintenance and a failure
to develop new capacity as demand for recreation has grown. Prior to
the creation of the National Fee Demonstration Program, federal fees
existed but failed to contribute to recreation site operations.
Campgrounds operating with solely appropriated funding opened later and
closed earlier--frustrating millions who sought to use their lands and
were willing to pay, but who found only locked gates. We saw declines
in interpretive programs--the ranger walks and campfire talks that have
left indelible impressions on me and tens of millions of others. We saw
recreationists and federal officials alike frustrated that no monies
were available to create and manage opportunities for newly popular
recreational activities, such as mountain biking and rock climbing. And
we learned that the rules of the funding game taught federal agencies
to focus on the satisfaction of Congressional appropriators, not
visitors.
ARC members took an active part in the national debate on fees
hosted by the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO)
from1985 to 1987. Americans across the country made it clear that they
were willing to pay reasonable fees for quality recreation
opportunities--just as they will pay reasonable costs for quality
sleeping bags and boats. But we heard that the agencies had little
incentive to charge recreation fees, since fees generally disappeared
into general Treasury accounts. We agreed with PCAO's call for more
financial reliance--but not complete reliance--upon visitors to federal
recreation facilities to ensure that our national parks, national
forests, wildlife refuges and public !ands remain hosts to outstanding
recreation experiences.
We applaud this committee's involvement in tandem with the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee in the creation of the fee demonstration
program, which has provided a crucial learning opportunity. Across the
nation, new fees have been tried and fees have been collected in new
ways. In addition to the learning going on, federal agencies have had
substantial new resources--approximately $200 million annually--to
protect the Great Outdoors legacy we share and to enhance many of the
more than one-billion visits we make to federal land systems each year.
We have closely monitored the actions of the four agencies involved
in the fee demonstration program, consulting with local recreationists
as well as agency officials implementing the program. In general, we
consider the fee demonstration program to have been a success. We
believe it is time to move forward, ending the short-term nature of the
demonstration program and commencing a new, six-year fee program.
This brings us to our comments on the legislation before the
Committee today. The American Recreation Coalition's position on
federal recreation fees is remarkably consistent with the Principles
section of H.R. 3283. We will address mechanisms seeking to achieve
these Principles later in this testimony because our experience under
fee demonstration has been that the details of fee programs can
seriously undermine program goals. The sole additional Principle we
seek to include in the legislation would be to reflect the increasing
recognition of the role of the Great Outdoors in the physical and
mental health of all Americans, especially in light of the health risks
arising from inadequate physical activity by more than two-thirds of
the public.
Yet despite our agreement on Principles and our appreciation for
both Mr. Regula and this Committee, we cannot support H.R. 3283 in its
present form.
Our most serious concern is that H.R. 3283 would provide permanent
authority for recreation fees. We disagree with granting this authority
for several reasons. First, and most importantly, we believe that
substantial further experimentation is needed in the fee area, both to
overcome recognized concerns about specific fee demonstration projects
and to capitalize on new technologies and communications opportunities.
New understandings achieved through this process might modify the
desirable provisions for federal recreation fee programs in the future.
We also believe that both now and again periodically in the future,
the Congress must make the point to federal agencies that fees are
merely one aspect of a program to enhance visitor experiences in the
Great Outdoors. At the same time, the Congress should provide direction
to the agencies on priority uses of the collected fees. This is exactly
the pattern employed by the Congress to oversee the nation's surface
transportation program: Both the federal fuel tax and the programs
using those taxes are enacted by Congress every six years.
A second serious concern is that the legislation before the
Committee fails to go far enough in encouraging unification and
simplification of recreation fees. For one thing, it fails to cover the
federal agency hosting the largest number of recreation visits
annually--the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--as well as the Bureau of
Reclamation, a growing factor in recreation in the fast-growing western
U.S. We would further ask that Section 10(b) of the legislation be
amended to give strong encouragement to integration of fees charged by
federal, state and local agencies--an area with minor, but promising,
achievements to date. The Oregon Coastal Pass is a model in this
regard.
A third concern is the failure to address the full range of fees
paid by special recreation permit holders. We support retention of fees
paid for those permits to assist in providing and enhancing visitor
services but note the current and potential future complications
associated with these fees, including burdensome layering of fees under
other authorities, such as cost recovery. We recognize that another
witness at today's hearing, David Brown, will be addressing this issue
in some depth and wish to express support for his comments.
A fourth concern is the failure to create sufficient mechanisms to
ensure that fee programs meet the ``collaborative'' Principle of the
legislation. We urge new provisions affecting both the national and the
local levels. First, we endorse the creation of a new National
Recreation Fees Advisory Board with authority to review fee program
complaints and appeals. The Board would also be responsible for
preparing annual reports on federal recreation fees. A significant
number of the Board members should represent those paying fees. At the
local level, several agencies have existing RACs--resource advisory
committees--which can and should be utilized to achieve this principle.
A fifth concern is the failure of H.R. 3283 to establish a new
recreation fee site investment account which would allow improvements
prior to imposition of new or raised fees. Experience in the field
shows that fees are accepted readily if facilities and services are
improved, and least welcomed when new or higher fees are charged
without prompt and observable results. Congress can aid fee acceptance
by establishing and funding a revolving fund used to create
enhancements, a fund which could be repaid in part with collected fees.
Sixth, we urge that the legislation clarify the language
authorizing waivers of fees for volunteers. We specifically urge
creation of a new Take Pride in America Pass, available only as
recognition of significant volunteer efforts at one or more federal
sites. In addition to promoting volunteerism, the pass could have other
beneficial effects. It would provide an alternative for access to those
who face economic or other challenges regarding fees. This pass would
also eliminate concerns about the legal uncertainties arising from
giving passes available for purchase to volunteers--including questions
about coverage under Workmen's Compensation and protection from
lawsuits. Moreover, the opportunity to recognize volunteers could
enable federal sites with little or no opportunity to collect fees to
benefit indirectly from the fee program. These areas could offer their
volunteers the ability to be exempted from fees at other federal sites.
Seventh, we applaud the title and purposes of H.R. 3283 to focus on
outcomes, not incomes. Yet, the legislation fails to incorporate
adequate provisions to advance this goal. We urge inclusion of rewards
for those sites that demonstrate a receptivity to alternative means to
provide services and facilities on federal lands through partnerships
with state and local agencies, volunteers and ``friends'' organizations
and concessioners/permittees and/or enlisting the assistance of
corrections agencies and military units in caring for America's public
lands and the recreation facilities on those lands One such provision
would be to permit the Secretary to increase retention from 80% to 90%
for units and programs demonstrating this principle.
Eighth, we have grown increasingly interested in new authorities
for creative and innovative partnerships among federal agencies,
nonprofits and corporations to meet legitimate public recreation needs,
including use of PPVs (Private/Public Ventures) and NAFIs (Non-
Appropriated Funding Instrumentalities). We urge inclusion of NAFI
authority parallel to that recently given to the Department of Veterans
Affairs on at least a demonstration basis for all agencies covered
under H.R. 3283 as a means to expand or replace the investments
contemplated under the new recreation fee site investment account
described above.
Finally, we understand the need to constrain fees beyond the limits
contained under the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.
However, we are concerned that the limits imposed under H.R. 3283 may
preclude some fee strategies that would increase convenience,
efficiency and other principles and might enjoy broad public support.
For this reason, we support granting to the National Recreation Fees
Advisory Board the power to recommend to the Secretary, and to
empowering the Secretary with the right to approve, a fee program which
involves collection of fees at one or more sites at which fee
collection is limited under Section 6(b) of the legislation.
We thank you for your interest and for your willingness to address
the recreation fees issue comprehensively, fairly and creatively. I
would be delighted to respond to any questions you might have on our
suggestions and on our assessment of the successes and lessons learned
from the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. I am joined at
the hearing today by several ARC members and staff, including ARC
President Derrick Crandall, who will be able to assist me in responding
to your questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Jourdain. I appreciate your
testimony.
I would like to welcome next Mr. Roy Denner, the President
and CEO of Off-Road Business Association.
Mr. Denner, I understand you are recuperating well from
back surgery. I am glad you were able to make the trip out
here, and I appreciate you being here today.
STATEMENT OF ROY DENNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
OFF-ROAD BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Denner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking today on
behalf of several off-road recreational organizations
identified in my submitted material, which I would like to have
entered into the Congressional record.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Denner. OK. Nobody likes to pay fees, but I believe
most recreation enthusiasts in this country have conceded the
fact that user fees at recreation sites are a necessary evil.
The major concern now is that the fees collected are utilized
in a manner that benefits the people who pay those fees. By way
of example, I am going to describe a fee demo program that has
been in existence for 5 years that is actually working to the
detriment of the people who pay those fees.
There is an off-highway vehicle, OHV, recreational area in
the southeastern corner of California known as the Imperial
Sand Dunes Recreational Area, ISDRA, also known as Glamis. This
facility managed by the BLM is likely the most actively
utilized motorized recreation area in the country, especially
in terms of vehicle operating hours per acre available. It is
not unusual for the ISDRA to experience 200,000 visitors on a
holiday weekend. Annually, the facility accommodates almost one
and a half million visitors.
The ISDRA was reduced from around 160,000 acres to
approximately 118,000 acres when part of the sand dune chain
was designated as wilderness by the 1994 California Desert
Protection Act. The area available for motorized recreation was
subsequently cut in half as a result of a settlement by the BLM
on a lawsuit initiated by three environmental organizations in
the year 2000. As the area available for motorized recreation
has drastically reduced in size, the popularity of this area
for recreation has literally exploded. OHV enthusiasts come
from all across the country to visit the ISDRA. A recent
publication released by the BLM and the Forest Service lists
the ISDRA as one of the top 12 recreation sites in the United
States.
Prior to the initiation of the program on January 1, 1999,
there were two sources of funding to cover the operation and
maintenance of the ISDRA: Federal allocations and grants from
the California State Off-Highway Vehicle Program. Grants from
the California program have traditionally been slightly over $1
million annually. As of last year, the amount of grant money
received for O and M at the ISDRA has been reduced to zero. In
spite the huge number of visitors the area sees each year, the
total Federal allocated funding for the ISDRA is only two
$200,000, about 5 percent of the funds needed, not nearly
enough to keep the gates open.
So under the BLM's cost recovery program, user fee rates
are set to pick up the balance of the $4 million it takes to
operate the ISDRA each year on a minimal no-improvement budget.
Last year, with the elimination of the state grant funds, users
saw their fees triple without experiencing any significant
improvements on the ground to benefit the millions who recreate
there. The Fee Demo Program is being utilized to replace
Federal appropriations needed to operate the ISDRA.
It is not the end of my story. Last year, the BLM completed
the preparation of a new recreation area management plan, RAMP,
for the ISDRA. In addition to calling for many on-the-ground
improvements to benefit users, the plan requires a monitoring
study for one ESA-listed species and several species of
concern. The cost of the monitoring plan is almost $1 million.
The RAMP calls for the effort to be paid for by a combination
of allocated funds, state grants, and user fees. State grants
are gone, and the entire Fiscal Year 2004 Federal allocation to
the ISDRA is only $200,000.
As I speak to you, the monitoring effort underway is being
funded entirely by fee demo money. Implementation of on-the-
ground improvements to provide more OHV recreation support are
held up due to legal action which is preventing the
implementation of the new management plan. The BLM has decided
to go ahead with a monitoring study called for by the plan in
spite of the court's order preventing implementation of the
plan until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife issues its biological
opinion on the plan.
Fee demo money is being spent to whatever degree the BLM
deems necessary with no user input or consideration of the fee
demo's intended purpose. The elimination of the state-granted
dollars to operate the ISDRA coupled with unregulated
expenditures, such as the ongoing species monitoring program,
will undoubtedly lead to even higher user fees for next season.
The BLM will be asking visitors who have not seen a single
significant improvement in facilities or recreation
opportunities in at least 3 years to step up and pay for
environmental efforts that may ultimately be used to reduce OHV
recreation opportunities there even further. It is sort of like
being asked to pay for the material to build your own gallows.
How do we control this problem? Recreationalists nationwide
believe that is imperative that any fee demo legislation
adopted including a requirement that the bulk of the dollars
collected from end users go to improving recreation
opportunities on the ground at each facility. At the very
least, expenditure of these funds should be limited to intended
purpose and should not amount to an off-budget slush fund for
the BLM.
As Assistant Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett
testified to this Committee last month, it was the intent of
Congress that the Fee Demo Program allow participating agencies
to retain a majority of recreation fees at the site collected
and reinvest those fees into, quote, enhancing visitor
facilities and service. This authority was deliberately broad
and flexible to encourage agencies to experiment with their fee
programs, unquote. The BLM's experimentation with feel demo
money at the ISDRA cannot be seen as enhancing visitor
facilities or services and could eventually lead to visitor
fees that price the ISDRA out of the recreation marketplace and
ultimately closure of the facility, actually satisfying the
apparent agenda of some anti-access groups.
The people who recreate at Federal recreation sites should
expect to see reinvestment of their user fees and should be
afforded some say at a higher level of advisory as to how their
fees are spent. I respectfully petition this committee to help
correct the problem at the ISDRA and to establish controls to
prevent this example of fee demo gone awry from becoming the
norm for other recreation areas. federally mandated programs at
recreation areas, such as species monitoring efforts, should be
paid for with Federal funding, not user fees.
Thank you for listening to my story.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Denner follows:]
Statement of Roy Denner, President & CEO,
Off-Road Business Association (ORBA)
Geography:
The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) in the southeastern
corner of California is quite likely the most actively utilized
motorized recreation area in the country. This is certainly true in
terms of vehicle operating hours per acre available. Originally an area
of almost 160,000 acres, the area remaining for off-highway vehicle
recreation after the 1994 California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) was
approximately 118,000 acres. A significant part of the ISDRA was made a
wilderness area--disallowing motorized recreation--by that legislation.
It was Congress's intent at the time that the remaining portions of the
ISDRA that were not turned into wilderness by the CDPA remain available
for motorized recreation.
Then, more recently, the BLM was sued by the Sierra Club, the
Center for Biological Diversity, and Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility for not adequately protecting species within the
remaining area open to vehicles. The area available for motorized
recreation was then cut in half as a result of a settlement made by the
BLM the day before the current U.S. President was inaugurated in the
year 2000. Supposedly, the new closures are temporary until the BLM
consults with USFWS and develops a new management plan for the area.
The area has been closed for 4 years now! As the area available for
motorized recreation at the ISDRA has reduced drastically in size, the
popularity of this type of recreation has literally exploded. On major
holiday weekends, this area sees as many as 200,000 visitors. The
annual total is over 1.4 million. In California, alone, the OHV
recreation industry is estimated to have a $9 billion economic impact.
User Reaction to Fees:
With the implementation of the fee demo program at the ISDRA on
January 1, 1999, three funding sources were available for the operation
and maintenance of the facility--Federally appropriated funding; grants
from the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle trust fund; and fee demo
dollars collected. There was a loud outcry from the ISDRA user
community when the fee demo program was announced. Many people who
recreate at the ISDRA believe that they have already paid once for the
right to use the federal recreation area through the payment of their
Federal taxes. Some suggest that they have paid again for the right to
use the area through the payment of off-road vehicle license fees and
off-road fuel tax fees collected at the State level. Funds collected
through the State of California's Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle
Recreation (OHMVR) program have traditionally been directed to the
ISDRA through the State's grant program. Now, with fee demo, users are
expected to pay again for the right to recreate at the ISDRA by paying
user camping fees.
Advisory Technical Review Team:
The BLM, in an effort to diffuse the uproar, agreed to establish a
Technical Review Team (TRT) composed of user representatives and
gateway community representatives. The TRT's primary function is to
advise the ISDRA BLM manager on the expenditure of user fees collected.
This arrangement enables TRT members to serve as a buffer between the
BLM and the recreationists who are being required to pay camping fees
at the ISDRA. Attached to this testimony is an article that I wrote
when the new management plan for the ISDRA was completed titled ``Fees
In The Dunes--A Necessary Evil?'' This article explains how, under the
BLM's cost recovery mandate, any costs necessary to run a particular
recreation area that are not provided by other sources must be made up
from user fees. The article also attempts to rationalize that, if users
want to see the operation stay in business, they must expect to pay a
share of the tab. Of course, no one expected that user fees would
subsequently triple at the ISDRA! It became difficult for me and other
members of the TRT to rationalize the fee increase. Attached is a
letter from the ISDRA Technical Review Team to Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton regarding the Fee Demo Program at the ISDRA.
The Fee Demo Program at the ISDRA:
With that background information, let me address what has taken
place with the ISDRA fee demo program since its inception.
Historically, the ISDRA received over $1 million each year in
grants from the CA State Off-Highway Motorized Vehicle trust fund to
help with operation and maintenance of the recreation area. This grant
to the BLM was deemed to be appropriate since so many Californians
recreate at the ISDRA. An OHMVR Commission, composed of concerned
citizens, decides on grants to be made from the State fund each year.
The current OHMVR Commissioners, who have been appointed by CA State
Legislators have, over the last few years, directed State grants away
from operation and maintenance activities to support conservation and
environmental issues. As I speak to you, not one dollar of the
California OHMVR trust fund goes to assisting operation and maintenance
of the ISDRA--a loss of funding to the tune of over $1 million!
The total Federally allocated annual funding that goes to the ISDRA
operation is $200,000. When compared to appropriated funding provided
to other Federal recreation areas with similar visitor counts, the
ISDRA is obviously seriously underfunded! This most popular high-
intensity visitor use area gets the least appropriated funding. To add
fuel to the fire, the BLM and the Forest Service recently published a
promotional document titled ``Discover US--Great Escapes--a dozen
trips--America's Public Lands'' that promotes the 12 most desirable
recreation areas in the country and, you guessed it, the ISDRA is
listed as number 9 in that publication. So, while the Federal
Government is encouraging people from across the U.S. to visit the
ISDRA, not nearly enough funding to manage the recreation area is being
provided!
So, here we are with a recreation area that, by the BLM's
admission, is one of the most popular in the United States. Total
appropriated funding is $200,000. Other sources of funding are
nonexistent. The actual cost to operate this area is around $4 million
per year. Without the fee demo program, this operation would be out of
business.
But, that's not all!
New Recreation Area Management Plan for the ISDRA and its Species
Monitoring Requirement:
The BLM recently prepared a new Recreation Area Management Plan
(RAMP) for the ISDRA. One of the provisions of this Plan is the
requirement for an intensive monitoring effort for various species of
concern in the ISDRA. The RAMP calls for funding to be provided from
three sources which include: 1) appropriated dollars; 2) the State OHV
grant program; and 3) fee demo money. The cost of this effort is almost
$1 million. The BLM decided that it would be beneficial to perform this
monitoring effort before the new management plan was approved. They
argued that it would be necessary to satisfy the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service's Carlsbad Office. That USFWS office has been working on a
Biological Opinion for the RAMP for many months with no commitment for
a decision at any particular date.
Where did the funding for this million-dollar effort come from?
Obviously, it didn't come out of the 200,000 appropriated dollars.
Grant funds from the State OHV Trust Fund have been eliminated! So the
full-blown monitoring effort--without concern for economic or user
impact--is being conducted and is being paid for out of fee demo money.
No public input or TRT vote on this use of fee demo money was
solicited. No negotiations took place to consider using existing
information or to consider paring down the effort to minimize the cost
of the task. In fact, the very first expenditure was a high-
performance, long-travel, 4-seater, $60,000 sand car to transport
survey participants and an enclosed trailer to transport the vehicle.
No one even considered renting a 4-wheel drive, 9-passenger Suburban
with paddle tires for the four-month period of the monitoring survey! I
have attached an article that I wrote regarding the use of user fees to
pay for the BLM mandated effort at the ISDRA titled ``Here's My
Checkbook--You Fill in the Name and the Amount.''
The reduction of dollars available to operate the ISDRA coupled
with unregulated expenditures--such as the million-dollar species
monitoring program--will lead to even higher user fees for next season.
We will be asking visitors--who have not seen a single significant
improvement in facilities or recreation opportunities in at least 4
years--to step up and pay for environmental efforts that may ultimately
be used to further reduce OHV recreation opportunities at the ISDRA.
Sort of like being asked to pay for the material to build your own
gallows!
Congressional Intent for Fee Demo:
When Interior Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett testified last
month it was pointed out that, when Congress established the Recreation
Fee Demonstration program for several Federal Agencies in 1996, ``it
was the intent that the program allow participating agencies to retain
a majority of recreation fees at the site collected and reinvest those
fees into enhancing visitor facilities and services. This authority was
deliberately broad and flexible to encourage agencies to experiment
with their fee programs.''
Was it the intent of Congress in 1996 that the ``flexibility'' of
the recreation fee program should allow managing Federal Agencies to
use fees collected to conduct extensive arbitrary species monitoring
studies while none of the fees are used for ``enhancing visitor
facilities and services'' at a given recreation area? (The balance of
fees collected at the ISDRA covers operation and maintenance). The
BLM's ``flexible fee experimentation program'' at the Imperial Sand
Dunes Recreation Area may well lead to the ISDRA's pricing itself out
of the recreation market place and ultimate closure of the facility as
a result of unreasonably high user fees coupled with the BLM's effort
to provide data (at user expense) on species that will give anti-access
groups more ammunition to use in future lawsuits against the use of
vehicles in the ISDRA.
Attached is my letter to Congressman Pombo, and a letter sent to
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton by the attorney for the American
Sand Association, asking for help with the unfair utilization of user
fees at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area.
Recommendation to Subcommittee:
How do we control this problem?
Recreationists nationwide believe that it is imperative that any
fee program legislation adopted include a requirement that the bulk of
the dollars collected from end users go to improving recreation
opportunities on-the-ground at each facility. Wasn't this actually the
intent of Congress when the fee demo program was established for
Federal Agencies in 1996?
Furthermore, the people who recreate at Federal recreation sites
should have some say--at a higher level than advisory--as to how their
fees are spent! And, of course, this needs to somehow be compatible
with the Endangered Species Act so that anti-access groups can't sue to
force Agencies to use fees collected for environmental studies that can
ultimately be used to close out recreation. This is precisely what's
happening at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area..
As part of the Congressional Record, I respectfully request that
this Subcommittee do a comprehensive review of how fees collected at
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area are being utilized before
establishing a new Federal Recreation Fee Program. I am convinced that
this example of a fee program that has no controls and no user input
will help prevent implementation of a National Program with similar
pitfalls.
Recreation enthusiasts are, for the most part, reconciled to the
idea that we need to pay to play. We just want to be assured that the
bulk of the fees that we pay go to improving recreational
opportunities.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Denner.
For the benefit of the panel and those in the audience,
there is going to be a series of votes coming up between 12:15
and 12:30, and we are going to try to get all of the testimony
done, and we may be doing rapid fire questioning if we can get
that done as well, but we will make sure that everybody gets
their questions in as well, including me.
Mr. Brown, I want to welcome you to the Committee.
David Brown is Executive Director of American Outdoors from
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Welcome, and again, if you could try to abide by that 5-
minute rule, it would be much appreciated.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICA OUTDOORS, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3283.
America Outdoors represents the interest of more than 1200
outfitters and guides, recreation service providers, operating
in 43 states. I will summarize my full testimony and
respectfully ask that it be entered into the record.
Outfitters and their customers have paid fees for access to
federally managed land for decades. We understand the
importance of recreation fees and the role in helping Federal
agencies accomplish their mission. That being said, while H.R.
3283 has several commendable provisions and good intentions, we
do not support the legislation in its current form. I will
offer suggestions on changes to the bill that we hope will
enable us to support the legislation.
Outfitters and guides are concerned about the overlays of
fees proposed in H.R. 3283 coupled with other agency fee and
cost recovery initiatives outside the scope of this
legislation. Despite numerous hearings on the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program on the need to consolidate permits across
agency boundaries, some of the same problems persist in the fee
with duplicative and unreasonable fees. H.R. 3283 does not
adequately address these issues.
The bill also repeals existing agency outfitter and guide
permitting authorities for BLM and the Forest Service. That
concerns us. Those authorities are contained in Section IV of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. This worries
outfitters and guides because it may result in new permitting
policies. H.R. 3283 appears to be in conflict with the National
Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998. By revising Park Service
fees for outfitters and guides, it describes a permit. Many of
our people operate under a contract currently.
To resolve these issues, with urge the following: The
inclusion of language in the bill to prohibit the impact of
permit fees, recreation fees, road fees, cost recovery from
prohibiting the reasonable opportunity for a profit for a
permittee. Without profit, businesses simply can't survive. The
public is not well served by businesses that are struggling and
marginalized by unreasonable fees. To attract quality
operators, Federal agencies need outfitters who are able to
replace worn equipment and enjoy a reasonable standard of
living.
H.R. 3283 should also defer to the National Park Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 for outfitter contracts and fees and
follow the language in S. 1107 for NPS recreation fees. H.R.
3283 should defer to the outfitter policy guide, S. 1420,
introduced by Senator Craig for guidance on outfitter
permitting policies.
We strongly urge that the Forest Service and BLM fees and
their cost recovery initiatives be consolidated into one
reasonable predictable fee. We also recommend the 6-year
authorization for these recreation fees with the understanding
that the fees would be reauthorized periodically.
Perhaps one of the most important issues that we believe
deserves addressing in this fee legislation is a broader
initiative to secure adequate funding for management of public
lands through a variety of revenue sources. That legislation
should also authorize an independent review of agencies'
organization structures, backlog, and operating overhead to
ensure that funding is not consumed by unnecessary overhead and
outdated process, and I know the Forest Service, for one, has
began some of this review with their process predicament paper
and some of their planning processes.
This full testimony provides more detail on our proposals
in this area. Improved public participation and oversight in
the fee initiatives is needed, and the proposals in H.R. 3283
are not adequate. We don't believe that the provisions for
public participation are legally binding in here and it is
simply encouraged. Unless this requirement is strengthened, the
same inconsistent application and administration that has
diminished support for the recreation fee demonstration program
will likely continue. With over 200 groups organized, by some
counts, to oppose the implementation of fee demo, it is
apparently that business as usual will not work.
I have recommended state-level fee councils appointed by
the secretaries with binding authority to coordinate fees and
direct spending in each state. State-level oversight is
preferable to a National-level council because it is closer to
the action. The division of labor afforded by state-level fee
councils also appropriately scale to the magnitude of the
oversight task and ensures a higher level of public
participation. I believe that there is a role for a National
council to oversee the overall program, to recommend best
practices, and perhaps nominate members of the state council.
My full testimony provides more detail on that proposal. I
will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of David L. Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3283, The Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act. America Outdoors represents the interests of more than
1,200 outfitters, guides and recreation service providers, who are
members of America Outdoors and our affiliate state organizations
operating in 43 states. The majority of these companies operate on
lands managed by the agencies covered by this legislation. Our members
and affiliate members provide recreation services to more than
2,000,000 Americans each year.
Mr. Chairman, please accept my sincere appreciation on behalf of
outfitters and guides for your interest in this issue and for your
careful consideration of all the testimony presented to you on this
important legislative initiative.
We also understand that the sponsors of H.R. 3283 are sincere in
their desire to address a significant funding problem that is likely to
worsen as entitlements seize a larger and larger portion of federal
budgets. As is often the case, legislation is proposed to stimulate
debate and input in an effort to make improvements to the legislation.
It is my hope that this testimony will make a positive contribution to
this debate.
Outfitters and their customers have paid fees for access to
federally-managed lands for decades. We understand the importance of
recreation fees and their role in helping federal agencies accomplish
their missions. We also believe that many worthwhile projects have been
completed under the recreation fee demonstration program. That being
said, while H.R. 3283 has several commendable provisions and good
intentions, we do not support the legislation in its current form. I
will offer several suggestions on changes to the bill that we hope will
enable us to support the legislation.
Need for a comprehensive approach to funding federal land managing
agencies.
We believe fee legislation should be coupled with a broader
initiative to secure adequate funding for management of public lands
through a variety of revenue sources. That legislation should also
authorize an independent review of agencies' organizational structures,
backlog, and operating overhead to ensure that funding is not consumed
by unnecessary overhead and outdated processes. Then, legislation
should specify adequate funding for management of public lands based on
realistic projections of need through a variety of revenue sources to
include:
Secure, stable funding from offshore oil and gas
royalties;
Congressional appropriations;
Recreation fees;
Corporate and charitable contributions; and
Other unique strategies.
Others have proposed this approach, including Carl Wilgus,
representing the Western States Tourism Council, at an oversight
hearing on recreation fees held in the Senate last April. 1
Such an approach is difficult, but without it the future of funding for
public lands is at risk. At one point, Congress wrestled with the
difficult process of closing unneeded military bases despite their
impact on certain Congressional districts. While this issue is somewhat
different, the base-closing initiative is indicative of Congress's
ability to successfully tackle tough issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony of Carl Wilgus, Idaho Department of Commerce,
Oversight Hearing on the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Energy and Natural
Resource Committee, United States Senate, Wednesday, April 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe Congress and the Administration need to take a hard look
at agency cost structures. The Forest Service has 121 Administrative
units each headed by a Forest Supervisor in addition to Regional
Offices and Deputy Chiefs. One former Senior Executive in the Forest
Service candidly admitted to me that the agency needed restructuring to
reduce overhead costs. He cited a $200,000 appropriation for the
Continental Divide Trail of which only $60,000 actually reached the
ground. On the other hand, field offices in the agency appear to be
overwhelmed with process-oriented work.
There are indications that the National Park Service may have
similar issues. Secretary Norton recently commented that the National
Park Service, in spite of some recent public pronouncements, has more
dollars per acre, per unit, per employee than ever before.
To their credit the Forest Service has made some progress in the
reduction of duplicative processes. The Forest Service's own white
paper, ``The Process Predicament'' (June 2002), 2 estimates
that 40% of direct work at the forest level is consumed by planning and
assessments that cost the agency $250 million annually. The same
document estimates that $100 million could be saved through revisions
to their processes and they have begun to take actions to reduce these
costs through revised planning regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Process Predicament'', USDA Forest Service, June 2002, page
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In most cases, BLM appears to be the leanest of all the agencies
that we deal with and the least conflicted by duplicative, arresting
processes. Still, there is significant functional overlap between BLM
and the Forest Service where their boundaries abut. Some of our members
are facing a difficult time with long-standing permits for trips that
cross agency boundaries because each agency is completing separate
management plans for adjoining resources. Consolidation of these
functions, offices and activities may make sense. There are examples of
where the agencies have successfully consolidated some functions, but a
more careful review of these opportunities is in order.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3283 does nothing to improve agency operating
efficiencies. H.R. 3283 has a set of principles, many of which are
well-meaning, but that are general, vague and unenforceable. One
provision is commendable in its intent. Section 2, subparagraph 2 calls
for ``Fair and Equitable Fees'' and states that fees ``should be
affordable and not significantly impact visitation levels.'' We very
much support this provision, but believe that it is unrealistic to
increase consumers' costs to visit public lands and to then expect
visitation levels to remain the same.
Need for Clear Policy Direction in H.R. 3283.
Legislation authorizing recreation fees should have a clear policy
statement. Is the fee authorization designed to restore backlogged
maintenance or are they to pay for salaries for recreation managers and
others? What happens to the fees when backlogged maintenance is
complete? Where does the money go? Is it used to add staff or offset
appropriated revenues?
Fees should only be levied for basic, necessary projects and
improvements. Otherwise, fee users may become the new source of funding
for well-intentioned, but unnecessary, spending. The recreation economy
in rural areas simply cannot support unnecessary spending. We believe
fees will be supported for backlogged maintenance, necessary services,
and modest construction of necessary facilities, if the users have a
voice in levying, collecting, spending and discontinuing the fees as
may be appropriate. Many users are eager to help the agencies if the
money is spent wisely.
Dangerous notions about fees.
A dangerously naive notion prevails that since everyone pays the
fee, it can be easily passed on to the consumer with little impact on
demand.
Most outfitters and guides are currently wrestling with increased
fuel and insurance costs, not to mention healthcare cost increases if
they are lucky enough to have coverage. All these increases cannot be
absorbed by the consumer who places a value on an experience in
comparison to the other options that they have for discretionary
spending on leisure, home improvements or retirement. Once the price of
a trip exceeds a perceived value, for all but the very rich, demand
declines.
Outfitters also operate in a competitive environment. While this
environment is generally beneficial to the consumer, it also results in
price competition that can lower pricing power and effect margins.
These are among the factors that often preclude outfitters from passing
on all fee increases. It is also why some fees threaten to dramatically
reduce an operator's bottom line.
Another notion often heard is that users should pay the cost of
federal recreation management on public lands. Users have little
control over these management costs, which are the result of years of
legislative direction from Congress and highly evolved bureaucratic
management structures and processes reinforced by court rulings. While
we can help, to expect users to suddenly bear these costs, or a
substantial portion of them, is unrealistic. In some cases, agency
administrative overhead already consumes 60% to 70% of appropriations.
We would like to work with Congress to address both the revenue and
cost side of the equation. I have made suggestions in this testimony on
how to proceed on this dual track. Until the cost side is addressed, we
reserve the right to oppose this and other recreation fee initiatives,
including temporary reauthorization of fee demo. I realize there is
some risk to making such a strong statement, but I am compelled to do
so because the survival of the hard-working families that I represent
is put at risk by the unfettered fee authority currently available to
agencies under fee demo.
Fees should not be implemented everywhere just because agencies have
the authority.
Many outfitters and guides are providing services to the public
that are fundamental to the agencies' missions at a resource. Some of
these outfitter operations are in very challenging business
environments that have survived for years on their resourcefulness, wit
and intuition. Margins are very thin for many of these operators.
Another wave of fees would eliminate the recreation opportunities these
operators provide to the public.
Recreation fees should not be implemented in these areas just
because the agency has the authority to do so. We have already seen the
quest for fees destroy previously successful outfitter operations
because an agency was unrelenting in its demand when business went soft
in the wake of 9/11. We thank the Secretary of Interior for urging
restraint among her agencies during this difficult period and
appreciate the extent to which most agencies cooperated.
Some outfitters are already paying higher fees in Park units as a
result of agency cost recovery or concessions fee initiatives. Another
layer of fees would seriously compromise some of these operations,
especially where weather, fire or economic downturns have disrupted
demand. The Buffalo National River is a good example. Canoe liveries
there are struggling with increased concessions fees and adverse
weather conditions that have persisted for several years. Many are
losing money after NPS raised minimum concession fees to 4% for the
first $100,000 and 7% for revenues over $100,000. The state and county
also collects 9% for sales and tourism taxes.
Improved public participation and oversight in fee initiatives is
needed.
Two significant omissions in H.R. 3283 include:
the lack of effective oversight of the fee implementation
and expenditures, and
inadequate public participation in setting and
administering fees.
While collaboration is encouraged, there is no legally binding
requirement for agencies to involve the public in a significant way.
Unless this requirement is strengthened, the same inconsistent
application and administration that has hampered support for the
recreation fee demonstration program will likely continue. With over
200 groups, by some counts, organized to oppose the implementation of
recreation fees, it is apparent that business as usual will not work.
The only accountability provision in the legislation is a provision
in the purposes and guidelines that the agencies ``should collect data
and publish annually public documentation showing how the recreation
fee program is administered.'' This level of disclosure is inadequate.
We are concerned that without better oversight both at the local
and national levels, fees may be misdirected and used for purposes
other than to benefit recreation. There have been runs on fee demo
money that attempted to divert the money away from their original
intent--reducing back-logged recreation maintenance. The Forest Service
did not follow through on those initiatives, but it underscores the
need for oversight, as well as, clearer policy direction.
The General Accounting Office Report of September 2003 found a lack
of documentation of progress in reducing the Forest Service's
maintenance backlog. Reducing this backlog was one of the primary
justifications for fee demo. There is no question that much fee revenue
has been used for this purpose, but the lack of documentation limits
the extent to which progress can be measured.
Other examples of the need for better oversight come from the
field. On the Salmon Challis National Forest, the Resource Advisory
Committee was given a report of proposed projects for use of fee demo
money in 2003, but the agency could not provide an accurate accounting
of the expenditures for 2002 and did little to document progress on the
projects initiated. Then, after promising last year to implement annual
meetings of user group representatives to prioritize projects, the
agency did not follow through with the meeting.
Recommendation on oversight and public participation--Recreation Fee
Councils.
We recommend that the legislation authorize the Secretary for each
agency to appoint members to State-level Recreation Fee Councils
(members may be appointed by each Secretary in proportion to the
acreage for each agency in the State) to oversee recreation fees where
fee collections or expenditures for all agencies exceed $200,000
annually. One agency Secretary could oversee the Fee Council with
nominees offered by the other Secretaries. These Fee Councils would
have the authority to oversee recreation fees in each state for all
federal agencies and have binding authority to set fee levels, approve
projects and oversee expenditures.
State-level oversight is preferable to a national-level council
because it is closer to the action. The division of labor afforded by
state Fee Councils is also appropriately scaled to the magnitude of the
oversight task and ensures a higher level of public participation.
Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) are not adequate for public
participation and involvement. They are advisory in nature and the
agency has the authority to set the agenda for an RAC.
State-level Fee Councils, if representative of users' interests,
will help develop stakeholder support for appropriate fees and avoid
the overlap and duplication of fees that we see in some areas in the
field. They will ensure that fees are meshed appropriately with state
fee initiatives and that fee-sharing arrangements are facilitated. In
some states, such as Montana, the State is attempting to regulate
rivers on federal lands in a manner that overlaps federal regulation.
In other areas, outfitters are subject to two or three agency fees
without any corresponding improvement in the experience. Fee Councils
should help avoid those problems.
We strongly recommend that legislation specify the make-up of
state-level Fee Councils subject to appointment by the Secretary. They
should be comprised of
at least six (6) representatives from groups who are
actually paying the fees, specifying no less than two representatives
from the outfitting and guiding industry or a number that is in direct
proportion to percentage of fees paid by each group;
representatives from the federal agencies not to exceed
four (4) representatives; and
two (2) representatives nominated by the governor in each
state, one from travel and tourism, and one attorney familiar with the
various state and federal legal authorities.
Notice of fee implementation.
The notice and documentation provisions in S. 1107 for the
implementation of recreation fees are also important to consider for
inclusion as a provision in H.R. 3283. Currently, outfitters are
finding that agencies sometimes announce fee increases at the onset of
a season after prices have been published. On the Deschutes River in
Oregon in March 2003, the BLM quadrupled fees on weekends effective
that season with no significant input from outfitters. The
justification for this increase was based solely on the agencies'
management cost, which involves overlapping management by the State of
Oregon. The increase was imposed at a time when outfitters were
struggling through a recession and skyrocketing insurance rates. It
underscores the frustration that we have with the unfettered authority
in the current fee program which is perpetuated in H.R. 3283. The
autocratic implementation of the fee demonstration program in some
areas is a reason we support state Fee Councils.
National Recreation Council
A national Fee Council (National Recreation Council) should be
authorized:
to provide oversight and national coordination for
federal passes and for the overall recreation fee program (except for
permit and NPS concessions contract fees);
to review the State Recreation Fee Council's performance;
to coordinate regional activities as may be appropriate;
to develop documentation systems;
to recommend best practices;
to coordinate regional initiatives;
to oversee spending of fees that are returned to the
agency at the national level; and
to resolve disputes.
Specific uses of fee revenue.
The first priority for recreation fee proceeds should be to benefit
projects for users paying fees in the areas where the fees are being
collected. Fees should not be used to offset appropriated revenues. Fee
Councils should have the authority to discontinue fees when they are
not needed or are not beneficial. These issues should be addressed in
the legislation.
We strongly recommend that at least 15% of the fee revenue be
returned to the agency for use at the national level to promote
sustainable use and enjoyment of federally-managed lands.
Fee retention for permit fees.
We strongly support fee retention of outfitter and guide permit
fees at the resource where they are collected if the provision that
prohibits the total fee burden from crippling the opportunity for a
profit is included in the legislation.
If reauthorized, we recommend a six-year authorization for recreation
fees.
The requirement for periodic reauthorization of the recreation fee
demonstration program has helped make the agencies more sensitive to
users and more customer service-oriented. We support a six-year
authorization if the oversight and policy issues outlined in this
testimony are addressed accordingly. Periodic reauthorization allows
for corrections and adjustments to the program based on the experiences
of the preceding period.
Issues in H.R. 3283 that are specific to outfitters and guides.
1. The repeal of existing permitting policies concerns us. H.R.
3283 has the potential for significant impact on outfitters and guides
because it repeals Section 4. of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
thereby repealing the current Forest Service and BLM permitting
authority. Guest ranches and other small businesses operating on public
lands may find themselves subject to a new, as yet undetermined, policy
for permit issuance. There are also some potential conflicts with the
National Park Omnibus Management Act. Solution: We believe that the
bill should make reference to existing agency permitting policies or
follow the language authored by Sen. Craig in S. 1420, The Outfitter
Policy Act. It should also defer to the National Park Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 on outfitter concessions contract fees.
2. A provision should preclude overlays of fees from threatening
the viability of outfitter and guide operations. After several
Congressional hearings where the overlap and duplication of fees have
been brought to the attention of Congress, we still have areas where
trips span agency boundaries where each agency is levying recreation
fees. H.R. 3283 does not require fee consolidation in those cases.
At least two fees are authorized by H.R. 3283, which will apply to
outfitters and which the agency has unilateral authority to set
according to their own needs. Separately, the Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) are proceeding with cost recovery initiatives
for permit administration. In some areas, the Forest Service is trying
to collect road fees in addition to permit fees. The National Park
Service has a set of fees and cost recovery requirements for various
authorities under the National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998,
some of which conflict with the provisions in H.R. 3283. Solution: We
strongly urge that any legislation include a provision that ``prohibits
the cumulative fee burden from permit fees, basic recreation fees, cost
recovery and other fees levied on outfitter and guide operations from
precluding a reasonable opportunity for a profit or successful business
venture.''. These fees should also be consolidated into one predictable
fee. Outfitter permit fees should not be subject to approval by the
state Fee Councils, but standardized in each agency and subject to
comment in the Federal Register.
3. Recreation fees should not float from year to year throughout
the term of a National Park Service contract. Outfitters, who are
required to meet obligations under NPS contracts, should not be subject
to recreation fees that float throughout the term of the contract. When
a proposal is accepted by NPS, an outfitter is required to meet their
obligations and endure the associated overhead throughout the term of
the contract. They cannot be expected to do so if the majority of
revenue collected by NPS comes from a separate recreation fee (fee
demo) that floats through the term of the contract. Solution: Allow for
a review of the franchise fee and the recreation fee after a five-year
period, or immediately in the event of extraordinary circumstances.
4. The exemption for schools and academic institutions needs to be
narrowed. ``Outings conducted for noncommercial educational purposes by
schools or bonafide academic institutions'' are exempted from basic
recreation fees although some institutions run trips that are very
similar to commercial trips. It is not clear to us why universities can
collect fees for their educational services, but agencies are precluded
from collecting a modest recreation fee for significant recreation
activities. In some cases paying customers are included on trips that
are accredited for course credit. Customers of commercial services
provided by colleges and universities and customers of recreation
activities should not be exempted from the basic recreation fee.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. I
appreciate it.
Next is Mr. Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western
Slope No-Fee Coalition from Dorset, Vermont.
Mr. Funkhouser, welcome to the Committee, and you may begin
your testimony.
Pardon me. Robert, would you mind grabbing your neighbor's
mike there. That would be great.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT FUNKHOUSER, PRESIDENT, WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE
COALITION, DORSET, VERMONT
Mr. Funkhouser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like the
summarize my statement and have a full statement submitted into
the Committee hearing.
Mr. Radanovich. Absolutely no problem.
Mr. Funkhouser. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Speak into that mike one more time for me.
Mr. Funkhouser. Is that better?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. I think it is fine. Thanks.
Mr. Funkhouser. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert Funkhouser,
President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. The
legislation before you authorizes the land management agencies
to charge a basic access tax of Americans who simply put foot
or tire on any one of the 640 million acres managed by the
these agencies. The Fee Demo Program long ago stopped being a
user fee and became an access fee. It threatens to destroy the
premise that the American public, not the management agencies,
owns our public lands. The owner is the citizens of the United
States who elected the Representatives and Senators who made up
this body. If we allow the agencies to charge a fee or acquire
a permit to enter these lands, we have given ownership of these
lands to the agencies and have taken it away from the people.
Under H.R. 3283, access to these lands would now be a
privilege you pay for and no longer a right. Although we do not
oppose a fee program for the National parks, we do have serious
concerns about the incentive this authority brings with it to
maximize revenue beyond what is fair and equitable to American
taxpayer. The public knows full well the difference between the
National parks and lands and waters managed by these other
agencies.
To start with, they know that the National parks are where
the toll booths are. The National Parks is where it costs $50
in some locations to enter with their families. The public
knows that there is a vastly higher level of infrastructure
that needs to be maintained in the parks and a higher level of
service. Yet even with fee retention authority in the last 8
years, the National Parks are still in financial trouble.
Visitation is down at least partially due to the cost of the
entrance fees, and the National Park Service is cutting back on
services.
Much of the budgetary woes that plague the National parks
are due to the enormous maintenance needs of its aging
infrastructure. The fundamental dilemma is does the American
public demand that all 640 million acres of public land be
managed as National parks? Is the public really demanding that
the land management agencies spend hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars to build capital infrastructure to enhance
what God has already given us, or would the public and the
local land managers be better served by taking a course that
emphasizes the use of our limited resources to maintain what we
already have first, to adhere to fiscal responsibility in
emphasizing maintenance and operation and the courts that
uphold public ownership and public access and at the same time
gives our local land managers the tools they need to accomplish
their mission?
The more the Government develops our public lands, the more
maintenance is required. The more fees that are imposed, the
fewer number of people that can enjoy the special places. In
this vicious circle, we lose access to our National areas. The
use of appropriated funds as well as fee revenues to establish
a higher level of capital infrastructure and service on public
lands would directly compete with the private sector in
communities adjacent to these lands. The loss of tourist
dollars, jobs, and tax revenues in these local communities to
taxpayer subsidized land management agencies and their partners
would be irreplaceable.
Opposition to the current Fee Demo Program has been
overwhelming and widespread. It is clear that even more
Americans will oppose this new National lands access tax that
H.R. 3283 represents.
Fee demo has been a financial failure as well. The General
Accounting Office recently audited the Fee Demo Program in the
Forest Service. They found that in Fiscal Year 2001, the Forest
Service used $10 million of appropriated funds for
administration of the Fee Demo Program, and the cost to manage
the programs is over 50 percent.
H.R. 3283 revokes the ability of our seniors to purchase a
lifetime Golden Age passport for entrance into National parks.
H.R. 3283 would make criminals out of taxpayers that calls for
a Class B misdemeanor for those who enter public lands without
a pass. Citizens should not face jail time or a $5,000 fine for
simply walking in the woods without paying a five dollar fee.
Fee demo is not the solution and neither is H.R. 3283. The
solution is a matter of will, the will to hold the agencies
truly accountable for the appropriated taxpayer dollars that
they already receive every year, the will to tear down the fire
wall between capital infrastructure budgets and the recreation
budgets so that those millions can be used by for backlog
maintenance and operations, not for building more visitor
centers and paved parking lots that only add to the maintenance
needs, the will to find effective avenues for appropriated
dollars to get to the ground, the will to restrict the
pilfering of recreation operations and maintenance budgets for
other purposes, the will to create incentives that encourage
the agencies to identify their maintenance backlogs, encourage
them to be addressed, and the will of Congress to ultimately
adequately fund these agencies through the appropriations
process.
We believe that the public will only support fees, except
for the National parks, for services specified in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act. All funding for those agencies
should come from our tax dollars through the appropriations
process with more oversight and not less. We urge you to
recognize the distinct differences between the National parks
and the land managed by the other agencies. We urge you to
choose the financially responsible course to maintain what we
already have first, to stop the spiral of Government growth,
and to hold public ownership of public lands.
We ask you not to support this legislation, H.R. 3283.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity, and
I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Funkhouser follows:]
Statement of Robert Funkhouser, President,
Western Slope No-Fee Coalition
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee;
Thank you for the privilege of testifying before you today
concerning H.R. 3283, The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, and
Public Ownership of Public Lands.
I am Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western Slope No-Fee
Coalition, a coalition that has come to represent hundreds of
organizations and millions of Americans nationwide in advocating for
the continued tradition of public ownership of public lands and the
rejection of the access tax approach to public land management. Our
mission is to end the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, to
require more accountability within the land management agencies, and to
encourage Congress to adequately fund our public lands.
The current Fee Demo program began as an appropriation rider in
1996 and has been extended five times through the appropriations
process. After eight years of a demonstration program it is clear that
the program has not been a success outside of possibly the National
Park System. After eight years it is clear that Americans do not
support fees to access federally managed public land and waters. It is
clear that Americans prefer fiscal responsibility to the seemingly
endless use of appropriated funds for capitol infrastructure. And after
eight years it is clear that Americans will not give up their ownership
of their public lands to become customers and trespassers.
The legislation before us today, H.R. 3283 authorizes the National
Park Service, as well as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, to
charge a basic access tax of Americans that simply set foot or tire on
any of the 640 million acres managed by these agencies. The Fee Demo
Program, as we know it, long ago stopped being a ``user fee'' and
became an access or entrance fee. The premise that the American public,
not the management agencies, owns our public lands, and pays to
maintain them through our taxes is alive today as much as ever. The
owner is the citizen of the United States who voted and sent to
Congress the Representatives and Senators who make up this body.
Congress then established agencies to manage certain Forests and public
domain lands, to provide fair, equitable means by law and regulation
for the goal and benefit of settlement, resource development and
recreation activity. Every citizen of the United States has the
statutory right as well as the Constitutional heritage to enter the
forests and public domain lands to explore, or recreate in those
resources. If we allow the agencies to charge a fee or require a permit
to enter these lands then we have given ownership of the lands to the
agencies and taken it away from the people. Under H.R. 3283 access
these public lands would now be a privilege you pay for and no longer a
right. The Fee Program as we know it today and even more so with this
proposed legislation represents an across-the-board double taxation on
the taxpayer.
The National Parks differ greatly from the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and
Bureau of Reclamation in regards to fee collection authority. The
Parks, unlike the other agencies, have a long history of charging
entrance fees. They have the existing collection infrastructure, a
higher level of development and service that the public expects.
Fee authority for the Parks is about fee retention. It is about
allowing the National Park Service to retain the fees that the agency
has been collecting for decades. In the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Forest Service, the Fee Demo Program is about
establishing new fees and it is this new authority that has been so
controversial and unpopular that we are opposed to.
Although we do not oppose a fee program in the National Parks, (
but not the language of H.R. 3283), we do have serious concerns about
the incentive this authority brings with it to maximize revenues beyond
what is fair and equitable to the American taxpayer. The National Park
Service, under Fee Demo, has doubled and sometimes tripled the entrance
fees at some National Parks. On top of that the agency now charges for
such basic services as parking and mass transportation. The agency is
also charging additional fees for such activities as backcountry hiking
and trail head use.
The public knows full well the difference between the National
Parks and the lands and waters managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Forest Service. To start with they know that the National Parks is
where the tollbooths are. The National Parks is where it costs $50.00,
in some locations, to enter with their families. The public knows that
there is a vastly higher level of infrastructure that needs to be
maintained in the Parks and a higher level of service.
Yet, even with fee retention authority for the last eight years the
National Parks are still in financial trouble. Visitation is down, at
least partially due to the cost of entrance fees, and the NPS is
cutting back on services. Much of the budgetary woes that plague the
Parks is due to the enormous maintenance needs of its aging
infrastructure.
As opposed to the implementation of the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program in the National Park Service, Fee Demo has proven
to be a failure in the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife
agencies. These fees were formerly limited to developed campgrounds and
a few highly developed recreational sites carefully defined by Congress
in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Under Fee Demo,
fees have been allowed to spread to hundreds of undeveloped and
minimally developed areas. Americans are now being charged fees for
such basic services as picnic tables, roads, and trails, and for access
to vast tracts of undeveloped public land.
The fundamental dilemma is, does the American public demand that
all 640 million acres of public land be managed as National Parks as
H.R. 3283 calls for? Is the public really demanding that the land
management agencies spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to
build capital infrastructure to ``enhance'' what God has already given
us?
Or, would the public and the local land managers be better served
by taking a course that emphasizes the use of our limited resources to
maintain what we already have first? To adhere to fiscal responsibility
in emphasizing maintenance and operations over uncontrolled growth. A
course that upholds public ownership and public access and, at the same
time, gives our local land managers the tools they need to accomplish
their mission.
In all the thousands of contacts I have had with organizations,
individuals, local and State governments in the last few years on this
subject I do not recall anyone advocating for the kind of agency growth
that the incentives created by this legislation would produce. The
incentive to ``build it and they will pay'' is clearly not in the
public's best interests. Nor, can we as a nation afford to maintain
that level of capital infrastructure. Again, look what's happening to
the Parks. It becomes a vicious circle: The more the government
develops its public lands--the more maintenance is required--the more
fees are imposed--the fewer number of people who can enjoy these
special places. And in this circle, we lose access to our natural
areas. This ``Spiral of Government Growth'' is also known as ``Empire
Building.'' Examples of this are widespread.
The BLM at the Escalante National Monument are building three new
visitor centers. One alone costs over $10,000,000. At the same time
Monument managers want to start charging for backcountry use and car
camping because they do not have the funds to deal with those uses.
At the Maroon Bells in Pitkin County, Colorado, the Forest Service
has built a toilet for $1,600,000, but has to charge a fee because they
say they don't have the funds for toilet paper.
The Forest Service at Yankee Boy Basin in Ouray, Colorado,
threatened to close this world class Jeeping and hiking area unless the
Fee Program was allowed citing lack of funds for toilet maintenance.
The following year the Forest Service spent over $650,000 to expand a
concessionaire-run campground across the highway.
Furthermore, the use of appropriated funds as well as fee revenue
to establish a higher level of capital infrastructure and service on
the public lands allowed by this legislation competes directly with the
private sector located in the communities adjacent to these lands. The
loss of tourist dollars, jobs, and tax revenue in these local
communities to taxpayer-subsidized land management agencies or their
partners would be irreplaceable. Many of these local governments are
already hurting because of the underfunding of PILT.
H.R. 3283 is a regressive tax. It puts the burden of public land
management on the backs of Americans who live adjacent to or surrounded
by federal land. In rural counties, such as mine in western Colorado,
where 87% of the land is federally managed, public lands are an
integral part of life. To mandate that those local residents carry a
heavier burden of funding our land management agencies is unjust and
unfair. The nation as a whole has and should continue to provide
adequate funding. There is much that the Federal Government funds that
I will never benefit from, for instance most discretionary spending.
H.R. 3283 is also a regressive tax because it discriminates against
lower-income and working Americans. A Forest Service study showed that
23 percent of lower-income Americans no longer visited our public lands
due to the fees. It stated that 49 percent of all Americans regardless
of income use the public lands significantly less due to the fees.
Opposition to the current Fee Demo program has been overwhelming
and widespread. It is clear that even more Americans will oppose this
``National Public Lands Access Tax'' that H.R. 3283 represents. From
New Hampshire to California, from Idaho to Arizona, Americans from all
walks of life and all political persuasions are raising their voices
against this program. Resolutions of opposition have been sent to
Congress by the State Legislatures of Colorado, Oregon, California, and
New Hampshire. Thirteen counties in western Colorado alone, as well as
counties, cities, and towns across the nation have passed resolutions
opposing the program. Hundreds of organized groups oppose Fee Demo, and
civil disobedience to it is rampant.
Fee Demo has been a financial failure as well. The General
Accounting Office recently released the findings of an audit concerning
the Fee Demo program in the Forest Service (GAO-03-470). They found
that in FY2001 the Forest Service used $10 million of appropriated
funds for administration of the Fee Demo program and to augment
collection costs. This $10 million, almost one-third of their total fee
revenues, had been previously unreported in the agency's annual report
to Congress. The GAO also found that the agency had been under-
reporting the costs of administration, collection, and fee enforcement.
Although the Forest Service claimed the program was a success, with
gross revenue in FY2001 of $35 million, the truth is that the program
brought in far less than $15 million because the cost of overhead,
collection, and enforcement was well over 50%.
Until the GAO audits the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service Fee Demo
programs, their true financial results are uncertain, but, as it
stands, the net revenues for these two agencies in FY2001 are estimated
at less than $4 million.
The Fee Demo program has changed the mission of the land management
agencies from one of resource management and stewardship to one of
revenue generation. It allows the three agencies to appropriate their
own funds without any congressional oversight. This creates a perverse
incentive to maximize revenue at the public's expense, and has resulted
in excesses of implementation and enforcement, such as charging fees
for unimproved backcountry areas, forest wide fees, simple picnic
tables, and parking.
Under Fee Demo, it is not just the public that has suffered. The
agencies are experiencing an increasingly strained relationship with
local communities and the public as a whole. The land management
agencies are a tentative guest in many communities to begin with. When
they assume a heavy enforcement role, as Fee Demo forces them to do, it
erodes any positive relationship that had been built. Gene Chandler,
the New Hampshire Speaker of the House, has said, ``This program drives
a wedge between local governments and public on one hand and the
federal land management agencies on the other.'' The longer the wedge
stays in place, the harder it will be to repair the damage.
Volunteerism suffers and community involvement suffers.
H.R. 3283 further encourages the focus on revenue generation over
stewardship and service. H.R. 3283 revokes the ability of our seniors
to purchase a lifetime Golden Age Passport for entrance to our National
Parks. Seniors on limited budgets will now have to purchase an annual
pass to enter not only the Parks, but to access any of our public
lands.
H.R. 3283 would make criminals out of taxpayers. The legislation
calls for a Class B misdemeanor for those that have entered upon public
land without a pass. It is clear that compliance with Fee Demo is,
indeed, dismal. The program has not won over the hearts and minds of
the public and a Big Stick approach will only alienate more Americans.
If a $100 fine has been insufficient to deter the public from using
their public lands, a $5,000 fine most likely will. Citizens should not
face jail time or a $5,000 fine for simply walking in the woods without
paying the $5.00 fee.
H.R. 3283 would take away the Constitutional presumption of
innocent until proven guilty. Again, in an effort to enforce the
unenforceable our Constitutional protections are being trampled on.
H.R. 3283 is forcing a square peg in a round hole.
The American taxpayer has already done their part. Surely we, as a
nation, are above charging for public restrooms, dirt roads, parking
and picnic tables.
We believe that Fee Demo is not the solution. Nor is it all about
more appropriated funds. There are already funds available that with
re-prioritization can be used to address maintenance needs and to keep
public lands operating.
We firmly believe that the solution is a matter of will.
``The will of Congress to hold the agencies truly accountable for
the appropriated taxpayer dollars that they already receive each year.
Again, the GAO has reported that the Forest Service ``has not been able
to provide Congress or the public with a clear understanding of what
the Forest Service's 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately
$5 billion the agency receives every year.'' It is time to bring
``Sound Fiscal Science'' to public land management.
``The will of Congress to tear down the firewall between the
Capital Infrastructure budget and recreation budgets so that those
millions can be used for maintenance and operations, not for building
more visitor centers and paved parking lots that only add to the
maintenance needs of the agencies.
``The will of Congress and the agencies to find effective avenues
for appropriated dollars to get to the ground. Operations and
maintenance at the local level should be paramount.
``The will of Congress and the agencies to restrict the pilfering
of recreation, operations, and maintenance budgets for other purpose so
that the local agency managers have the funds they need to fulfill
their goals and objectives.
``The will of Congress to create incentives that encourage the
agencies to identify their maintenance backlogs and encourage them to
be addressed.
``And the will of Congress to adequately fund these agencies
through the appropriations process. Adequate funding goes hand in hand
with accountability and redirecting priorities.
Fee Demo is an attempt to introduce the concept of ``direct
taxation'' into the management of our public lands, completely
reversing the previous system of public ownership supported by public
funding. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965
contained carefully crafted language defining what services were
appropriate to charge fees for, such as developed campgrounds and
mechanized boat launches. It also specified what services are
prohibited from charging a fee, such as roads, visitor centers, scenic
overlooks, toilets, and picnic tables either singly or in any
combination. Those guidelines served the American public well for over
thirty years.
We believe that the public will support fees, for the agencies
outside of the National Parks, for services only as specified under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and that the provisions
restricting fees should be kept intact. We believe that all funding for
these agencies should come from our tax dollars, through the
appropriations process with more oversight, not less.
We urge those of you on this Committee to recognize the distinct
differences between the National Parks and the land managed by the
other agencies. We urge you to choose the financially responsible
coarse, to maintain what we already own first, to stop this ``Spiral of
Government Growth,'' and to uphold Public Ownership of Public Lands. We
ask you not to support this legislation, H.R. 3283.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
consideration of this important issues.
______
WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION
P.O. Box 403
Norwood, CO 81423
July 29, 2003
Appendix 1
General Accounting Office Report GAO-03-470 Highlights:
TWO-THIRDS OF FS OPERATING COSTS UNREPORTED.
In what amounts to an absence of accountability on the part of the
Fee Demo managers, the Forest Service has failed to report in its
annual Fee Demo Progress Reports to Congress that (in 2001) close to
$10 million in appropriated funds was used as a taxpayer subsidy to
administer the program. (GAO p.32)
This alone triples the $5 million which the Forest Service was
declaring as the true cost of collection and administration for the
program. This, $15 million for cost of collection and administration
represents, by itself, 43% of the Forest Service's reported Fee Demo
gross revenue of $35 million in FY 2001. The Forest Service is limited
by Congress to 15% for cost of collection expenses.
THE FS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL FEE COLLECTION COSTS.
The Forest Service does not report commissions to vendors for
selling Fee Demo passes (GAO p.25-27). In the Adventure Pass fee
program, the Pacific Northwest and Sedona's Red Rock fee sites in
Arizona, among others, the Forest Service uses private vendors to help
sell Fee Demo passes. In the Adventure Pass fee program, vendors buy a
$5 daily pass discounted to $4 and a $30 annual pass for $27.
``Forest officials at the locations where this was occurring could
not tell us the total amount of vendor discounts that the agency has
permitted. Excluding vendor discounts from the cost of collection is
also inconsistent with federal financial accounting standards and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture financial manual. These standards
require that total revenues and expenses be reported'' (GAO p.25-26)
Although the Forest Service did not make vendor figures available
to the GAO the figures were obtained, in 2002, through FOIA for the
Adventure Pass fee program. Vendors sold 56% of all passes in FY2001
and those sales represent hundreds of thousands of dollars that had
gone unreported as cost a collection in one fee area alone. It is
unknown what this figure might be nationwide.
OTHER COSTS OF COLLECTION ARE HIDDEN
A percentage of the $8.6 million categorized as program-operations
in the FY 2001 Annual Report to Congress is actually Fee Demo
administrative overhead. This increases the cost of operating the
program (GAO p.32).
Local Fee program managers have been inconsistent with their
categorizing of costs of collection. Costs related to fee enforcement
and cost of collection had been reported in other categories. This also
raises the costs of collection higher (GAO p.7 and p.17).
BOTTOM LINE: FEE DEMO IS NOT WORTH IT
The Forest Service gross Fee Demo revenue for FY 2001 was over $35
million (GAO p.6). We must subtract the reported cost of collection,
5,05 1,000 (GAO p.9), the unreported use of $10 million of appropriated
funds to subsidize the program (GAO p.32), the unreported vendor
commissions nationwide, and a further $4.6 million (this represents the
amount raised at some Fee Demo sites that already produced fee income
[campgrounds, boat launches, etc.] before Fee Demo began in 1997)
(April 2002 interim report to Congress on Fee Demo, p.23). The Forest
Service claims the program is a success with gross revenues of $35
million. The bottom line is that the program brings in far less than
$15 million and the cost of overhead, cost of collection and the
enforcement is well over 50 percent. The public has rejected the notion
of Fee Demo and financially it is of little or no value to the American
taxpayer.
Until the General Accounting Office audits the Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Fee Demo programs the
amount of cost of collection and the use of appropriated funds for
program management in those agencies remains unclear. As it stands, the
net revenues for the BLM and USFWS combined is less than $4 million.
The Forest Service has pointed to backlog maintenance needs as its
justification for the program. The General Accounting Office reports
that the Forest Service puts less priority on paying down the backlog
than other agencies and does not even know how much Fee Demo revenue
they spend on the backlog. In fact, the agency does not know how large
the backlog really is (GAO p.4,19-20,22). The Forest Service continues
to put its emphasis instead on capital infrastructure.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3531.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3531.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3531.005
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Funkhouser. I appreciate
your testimony.
I am going to ask you each of you a couple of questions for
the record.
Mr. King, I wanted to start it off by asking you in your
opinion what has caused so much hostility against the Rec Fee
Demo Program, if you can outline that for me.
Mr. King. Well, that is very difficult to characterize the
position of a whole lot of other people, and we certainly
understand the criticisms of the program, and I think much of
it justified. I think that I have heard it said about the
Forest Service that they made the mistake of hearing about this
fee demo program and they thought it was a fee demo program,
and, consequently, they tried a lot of experimental approaches,
many of which did not pan out. I think the agencies have
realized the error of their ways in many respects, and I think
they are taking steps, have taken steps, to correct this.
Certainly nobody likes to pay fees. I don't. I resent it
when the gas tax goes up, but I also understand that sometimes
the cost of progress is involved in those fees and I think we
probably have not done a good enough job stressing the benefits
that result from the revenue that has been collected through
fee demo. I think the fact of the matter is there have been
improvements on the Federal lands, improvements to make them
more attractive, more appealing to visitors, and I think we
really have not done a good enough job of telling the public
about that.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. In your opinion, Mr. King, have
gateway communities seen an increase or a decrease in business
because of the new or increased fees?
Mr. King. I can't identify a decrease, certainly, and
again, I think the point should be made that while anything
that adds to the cost of vacations or the work place or
anything else is a disincentive to continue that activity.
Economists would probably tell you that it depends on what the
return is, and I think it depends on what you are getting for
your money. If you are getting better services, if you are
getting more attractive, more usable facilities, I don't think
it is going to have a significant negative effect on
visitation. It may actually increase it.
Mr. Radanovich. One more for you: If a National and/or a
local fee review and oversight bodies were established, do you
have an opinion as to who should be named to them?
Mr. King. I think certainly I would strongly urge that
concessioners and permittees be included. You have heard many
of the problems that they have from Mr. Brown. We would endorse
those concerns. I think they should be part of it. I think
leaders in the gateway community who are affected by visitation
to the public lands should be included, and I think probably
somebody from the state and local tourism offices should be
involved as well. They, better than anyone else I think, know
the impact that fees have on the levels of visitation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. King. I appreciate that.
Ms. Jourdain, in your testimony, you endorse the creation
of a new National recreation fees advisory board with authority
to review complaints and appeals. Can you expand on this and
describe your vision of who would make up this board; and,
second, are you concerned that such a board might amount to
little more than another layer of bureaucracy?
Ms. Jourdain. Well, we would certainly not want another
layer of bureaucracy. I think creating a board like that would
give users input, and I think when you have users included in
the board like that in the beginning, then they are part of the
process and therefore feel some ownership into the overall fee
program. So I think I would certainly include those folks that
Aubrey just mentioned, and I would also include some users in
that group.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Denner, as a member of the BLM's technical review team,
has BLM sought the TRT's advice on the cost and how they
anticipate that they will fund their species monitoring program
for next year, 2005?
Mr. Denner. We have asked that question. I think they are
hoping that they will see a significant increase in
appropriated money next year. If they don't, they have no other
source to funding it but user fees.
Mr. Radanovich. Is there a way in your mind that the BLM
might justify using rec fee monies to fund their monitoring
study if the alternative would be further closures and less
visitor access into the ISDRA?
Mr. Denner. Unless I misunderstand your question, you are
asking me if there is a way that we can use the money I pay to
do more studies to shut me down.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, if the alternative was to shut it
down if those studies are unfunded.
Mr. Denner. No. I understand what you are saying now. I
really don't think that the people that recreate there object a
hundred percent to using user fees for environmental studies.
We see that as a necessary evil; however, to fund a hundred
percent of those kinds of efforts out of user fees without
building a new camping pad or installing a new toilet facility
at that recreation area, you know, it takes the pendulum all
the way to one side, and we gain no benefit and we are actually
helping to do things that could reduce our opportunities. You
know, that is not fair.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much.
One further question.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one comment.
Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
Mr. King. I think it is absolutely critical what Mr. Denner
is saying, and that is I think the public, the users, must see
the benefits.
Mr. Radanovich. Correct.
Mr. King. Of their payments. I think that is critical to
any recreation fee approach.
Mr. Radanovich. Which makes it not an access fee, but
actually what a user fee should be, I think. Right?
Mr. Denner, one more question: Can you give me an idea what
the fees are? It was mentioned that they are tripled. What are
the fees now?
Mr. Denner. Yes. Since the program started, the fees
typically for a person to camp there for a weekend would be $10
and for an annual pass would be $30. Last year, the weekend
camping fee went up to $25, and the annual pass is now $90, and
under the cost recovery program, that just covers what it takes
to run that facility. Not a single new improvement has been
made, yet we can spend a million dollars for an environmental
study.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Brown, if the Committee were to move
forward with some type of permanent authorization for the Rec
Fee Program, what specific side bars would you recommend for
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management?
Mr. Brown. Well, the first side bar, I think would be, at
least for outfitters and guides, we need some statement that
mentioned that controls the total fee burden from all forms of
fees, and certainly the language that has been in National Park
Omnibus Management Act that says that we would have to prohibit
the fees. The total fee burden can't prohibit the reasonable
opportunity for a profits is the kind of language that I think
would work there.
I think that I recommended in my written testimony that the
fees be used for necessities and for basic projects where the
user does see a benefit, because I share some of the same
concerns. One of the things, concerns, our people have in the
field is that the fee is established, and once the project is
completed, then the agency starts looking around for other ways
to spend the money, and it is not always spent appropriately.
And so that is why I think this local state-level fee council
that could help coordinate the fees among the different Federal
agencies and that could also provide better oversight of the
fees would be very helpful there, and I think if you have that
kind of thing with better policy direction in the bill, then
you will have better stakeholder involvement and buy-in.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Brown, also could you offer
this Committee a specific example of how the Rec Fee Program
has negatively affected an outfitter and what could be done to
prevent these negative impacts from happening again in the
future?
Mr. Brown. Well, in the Deschutes River last March, the BLM
walked in and told the outfitters it was going to quadruple
their fees on weekends when their prices were already set. So
it was very hard to recover that. I think it was too steep to
begin with. The fees there, when I see fees reaching 15 percent
of gross for seasonal business, the only way that the outfitter
can survive that is when the economy is booming or doing quite
well. That is a good example.
The language in S. 1107, the Senate side, requires a year
notice and notice in the Federal Register before fees are
increased, and so I think that sort of notice should be
required; and again, I think the local involvement in setting
the fees will help preclude some of that negative effect.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Funkhouser, you made it pretty clear that you believe
that funds derived from the Rec Fee Program are no longer
associated with user fees, but have been, in fact, transformed
into an access fee, and therefore should be terminated for BLM,
Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service. That being said, why
do you view those same funds as appropriate for, say, the
National Park system? What is your view on the difference?
Mr. Funkhouser. Well, to begin with, outside of the
National parks, I don't think Americans oppose use fees, for
instance, for services, specifically for campgrounds,
mechanized boat launches that are specified under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act. With that said, the parks vary
greatly, as I mentioned in my testimony, from the other land
management agencies, the higher level infrastructure, the
higher level service that the public has come to expect, the
historic use of entrance fees to the parks in some places since
1908.
For us, also, we are supporting Senate Bill 1107 over on
the Senate side in part as a compromise to move this issue
forward and in part that the Park Service should retain those
fees. The Park Service, it should be important to point out,
has brought in 80 percent, roughly, of all the fee revenues,
and that has not been brought out today, fee revenues under the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. It has been vastly
successful financially largely because it has been able to
retain the fees, but of course, as I pointed out in testimony,
that also brings with it--and again, this has to do with
outfitter permits across the board, the incentive the fee
retainage brings with it inherently to the agency.
Now, the Park Service has been dealing with collecting
fees, has limited number of access points, for some time. I
think with oversight and control, I think they can do a good
job with the situation. Outside of the National Park Service,
the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and Forest Service, the incredible amount of size of land,
incredible amount of access points, the difference between the
gateway communities to local communities and those lands which
in some cases, like in my county, it is 87 percent BLM and
Forest Service, is vastly different than the National Park
Service. The impacts of the fees system together with the
incentives that it gives the agencies really produces a
negative effect, not just in a sense a double taxation, but
changes to relationship to the land, and the management
agencies in those local communities is totally different.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Since the Rec Fee Demo program
was implemented, do you believe that you have benefited from
any improvements on Federal lands that were a result of the rec
fees? Have they provided improvements?
Mr. Funkhouser. I think that, well, financially, the Rec
Fee Program in these other agencies has been questionable at
best. As I mentioned 50 percent, the GAO found, including
appropriated funds for administration and cost of collection in
the Forest Service, and we don't know how much in the other
agencies, is limited. You know, it has essentially become a way
for the agencies to get money onto the ground. If you are using
33 percent of your gross revenues is appropriated dollars to
administer the program, what the program has become is
essentially an avenue to get revenues on the ground. In other
words, we will pay to run this program, but you have to collect
it from the public.
Essentially what happens is the public is loser again, and
that is a problem, and I would like the point out, also, 3283
does not address any of the issues that have been brought up
and have been a mistake. I know the agencies have said we have
learned by our mistakes, but then they go ahead and ask for
full-blown authority above and beyond what the current Fee Demo
Program is today.
What we have attempted to do both in the Senate and here in
the House is bring alternative to that suggestion in a full-
blown. We need to define what the sideboard should be, what is
appropriate to charge for a fee and what is not. I think the
land and water, the reason we point to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act is people are still very much used to
that where campgrounds are improved and that certain specific
uses, amenities on public lands are not allowed to be charged
for, roads, water fountains, picnic tables, bathrooms, visitor
centers, either singularly or in any combination. And I think
those are defined guidelines accepted by the public. Again, we
suggest very heavily that the agencies--although we suggested
fees for that were appropriate because the public is willing to
pay for an extra service like that, that retainage of the fees
by the agency still creates the incentive to use appropriated
dollars inappropriately to continue to build infrastructure or
to pull money elsewhere for other uses.
I think that it doesn't solve the problem of funding and
maintenance backlog, which has not been a priority of the
agencies under the Fee Demo Program. So I think that while
allowing to charge for those services, that the money should
still come back to Congress and still should be allocated
through the appropriations process with oversight. Fee Demo
allows vastly too much freedom of movement and money in
agencies that have accountability problems to begin with.
Although they are beginning to be addressed, we feel that, I
think, tighter Congressional control is needed.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
One last question for you, Mr. King. Have gateway
communities been forced to compete with Federal lands that have
enhanced their recreation opportunities as a result of the Fee
Demo Program?
Mr. King. I don't know of any examples of competition along
that line. I think it is really more a case of the gateways
benefiting from the increased appeal, the increased
attractiveness of the public lands that results from the
investment of those fee demo revenues in visitor service
facilities and other projects on the lands. I have not really
detected competition. I think the gateway communities with
which I am familiar certainly would welcome improvements on the
Federal lands that add to their visitor appeal.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
Those are the last of my questions. I want to thank--
Mr. Denner. Mr. Chairman, could I add something to that
statement?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Denner. I serve on the BLM's California Desert District
Advisory Council. So I attend meetings all over California, and
I could cite a number of examples that back up what Mr. King
just said. There is no level of competition. In fact, we have
representatives of some local governments and local cities and
counties coming to our advisory council meetings asking the BLM
to open up more recreation opportunities because that brings
dollars to their town. There is no competition whatever that we
find.
Thank you.
Ms. Jourdain. I would also like to add one thing. I think I
certainly agree from the user side to both what Mr. King and
Mr. Denner said, because the money collected from fee demo goes
straight to the ground, whereas a dollar collected in
Washington virtually disappears by the time it gets back to the
region.
Mr. Radanovich. Got it. All right.
Again, panel, thank you so much for making the trip here to
Washington to testify. I really do appreciate it. It is
valuable information, and again, with that, this hearing is
closed. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]