[Senate Hearing 108-574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-574
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM BY THE FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND
POLICIES RELATED TO THE PROGRAM
__________
APRIL 21, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-431 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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 27
Anderson, Ted, Commissioner, Skagit County, WA, on behalf of the
National Association of Counties and the Washington State
Association of Counties........................................ 31
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Bray, Susan, Executive Director, the Good Sam Club, Ventura, CA.. 40
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Phillips, Edwin, Americans for Forest Access, Big Bear City, CA.. 50
Raney, Robert, Montant State Parks Foundation, Livingston, MT.... 44
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 16
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior............................. 6
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 4
Wilgus, Carl, Treasurer, Western States Tourism Policy Council... 33
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon everyone. The Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests of the full Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources will be in session.
I want to welcome all of you to this oversight hearing on
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior's implementation of the recreation fee demonstration
program. I especially want to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey
who is here to represent the U.S. Forest Service and Assistant
Secretary Lynn Scarlett who is here to represent the Department
of the Interior.
To start, you need to know that I will be charging a basic
hearing users fee for the opportunity to participate in this
hearing today.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. For those of you who have received water and
a name tag, there will be an enhanced amenity hearing fee
charged.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Do not worry. 80 percent of what we collect
will go back into making this room a desirable and enjoyable
place to have this unique experience.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Well, a few of you out there have got to be
saying Senator Craig has lost his marbles. Why should I have to
pay a users fee to come to Congress to testify? Why should I
have to pay a users fee to come to listen to a hearing? The
answer is with a hearing user fee, I can ensure you that the
hearing room will be well maintained and it will be a more
enjoyable experience in the future.
I think by now I have made my point about how people feel
when they are asked to pay a users fee in certain situations,
especially to enter the Federal domain, and that is a
discussion that we are once again having here today.
I want to welcome our public witnesses who have traveled
from Montana, Washington State, California, and Idaho to help
us understand the recreation fee demonstration program. I
especially want to welcome Carl Wilgus, who is the
administrator of the Division of Tourism in the State of Idaho.
Carl, I am looking forward to your testimony in what I hope
will be a lively hearing.
I do want to set the stage for this hearing and why I
believe that we are holding the hearing today.
Through the mid-1990's, the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM
timber receipts were sufficiently large enough that the
agencies were able to accommodate most of their resource
programs' needs, including paying for fire emergencies without
the disruption that has occurred in recent years. They did not
need or want money because the Federal agency itself was
generating enough resources.
Despite congressional increases in the Forest Service's
budget from $3 billion in the early 1990's to nearly $5 billion
in the 2000 budget, there are still individual programs that
are in need of additional funding. Many in Congress, myself
included, attempted to make those who oppose timber harvesting
understand the implications of the declining timber revenues.
Even some of the organizations in this room would not listen,
nor did they care.
I view the agency's request for the permanent recreation
fee to be a manifestation of our shift away from a timber-based
Forest Service budget. It is very likely the beginning of a
series of several requests for direct funding from other
programs and land management agencies, and I think we should
carefully assess what that means before we make any of these
changes permanent.
Today we are going to hear stories about dazzling successes
in the recreation fee demonstration program, as well as stories
of abject failure on the part of the recreation fee
demonstration program. We have seen some recreation areas that
have truly benefited from the program and its unique ability to
maintain funding at the site where those fees are collected.
But we have also seen some behavior on the part of some land
managers, as well as from some regional administrators, that I
believe are questionable at best.
Everyone knows that I am not a fan of the user fee for
entering a national recreation area. Over the years, the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area in my State of Idaho has
demonstrated a wide range of uses for this program and the
public has not always agreed with them. Many times I too do not
agree with the decisions that the SNRA makes, but I do feel
they are now trying to listen to the public and are trying to
institute positive changes in the program. They deserve credit
for that recognition.
It is my understanding that the Federal agencies believe
the continuation of this program is critical. I have a number
of concerns that I think have to be addressed before I can
become an advocate of a recreational fee program. I also
believe there must be a number of external controls that need
to be implemented before I can become a supporter of the
program, and I will be happy to discuss that with the
administration as we move forward on this issue.
Most importantly, I want all to know that I will not
support a basic entrance fee to any national forest, BLM
district, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Bureau of
Reclamation lands, whether or not it is called an entrance fee
or basic fee or by any other name. I believe it simply has to
be called a users general tax.
Having said that, I would support--or I should say I would
not oppose in some instances--the collection of fees at
specific recreationsites, campgrounds where an agency has
developed specific amenities that are desired by the recreating
public and that the recreating public expects.
I hope that all the witnesses will expend their time today
helping us understand how to make the recreation fee program
workable. To the extent that you can tell us, it will help us
in the future as we deliberate on this issue. If the local
community does not see the benefit, then I think Senators like
myself are not likely to see the benefit either, and in the
long run, the program will be taken away.
We will keep this hearing record open for 10 days for any
additional comments.
And I am pleased that my colleagues have joined me this
afternoon. Let me turn first to the ranking member of the full
committee, the Senator from new Mexico, Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you very much for having the
hearing, Mr. Chairman.
This is an issue that, as you know, we have had some debate
on already this year. We passed legislation earlier this year
to authorize a permanent fee authority for the National Park
Service but for no other agency. It was my thought that we
needed to look at appropriate authority for the rest of the
agencies as well.
I have been concerned that this is authority that was
enacted as part of the appropriation bill initially 8 years
ago. It has been renewed as part of the appropriations process.
We have never fulfilled the responsibility of an authorizing
committee to really look at this and put appropriate limits on
fees being charged; if we believe that that is the right thing
to do. I think that your statement would lead me to conclude
that you certainly believe that.
So I think that we need to have this hearing. We need to
hear the testimony and learn from the various agencies what
they think is appropriate. I think just allowing a
reauthorization of the current fee demonstration program, which
really puts no limit on what is charged, as I understand it, is
not a responsible course for us to follow, and particularly
that is true now that we have enacted legislation relevant to
the National Park Service. So I look forward to the testimony,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for those
comments. I too agree. That is why we are holding this hearing
today and we may well hold others as we shape this issue.
Senator Burns, any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. I will submit my statement.
I, like you, always get a little nervous whenever we start
paying twice for our land and for our services we charge twice.
And so I am a little bit nervous and I would associate myself
with your remarks.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing.
By the way, we have a good representative from Livingston,
Montana, over here. It is nice to see him. He served in the
Montana State legislature. He never voted very many times the
right way, but nonetheless represented his constituency well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator
From Montana
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I also
want to thank the witnesses, especially Mr. Robert Raney, who is here
from Livingston, Montana.
This hearing is a follow-up as part of the discussion on S. 1107,
the Recreational Fee Authority Act that authorizes the National Park
Service to collect fees for admission and the use of services and
facilities after analysis by the Secretary.
In reviewing the Administration's testimony, I am encouraged they
are beginning to hear the public outcry over user fees when the Forest
Service Blueprint recognizes there should be no charge for driving
through national forests, wildlife refuges, or BLM public lands.
Involving the local community in fee project design and where the fees
are invested is another step in the right direction.
However, I am still worried when Federal agencies want to develop
ways to charge access fees for Federal lands and facilities. The
taxpayers should not have to pay twice to use their Federal lands.
And I am concerned that definitions of enhanced services, fees for
basic recreation sites, including day use sites, and expanded
recreation sites can and will be misused by the agencies in their
effort to fund their recreation program.
Finally, I am always nervous when the Federal government wants the
public to pay a second time for using their public lands and we need to
proceed carefully with any proposals for other Federal agencies.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Conrad.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
willingness to schedule this hearing to review the recreation
fee demonstration program administered by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
The recreation fee demonstration program provided almost
$5.8 million for maintenance, visitor services, and resource
protection on Federal lands in Oregon in 2003.
However, this program has not been popular with the public,
as you have noted, Mr. Chairman. The early administration of
the program was very problematic in my State, particularly in
those areas where the Forest Service and BLM lands are
intermingled and recreationists were expected to get multiple
passes.
I recognize the efforts of Federal agencies to address
these problems and I think that improvements have been made.
They are to be congratulated. The creation of the Oregon-
Washington pass and reducing the number of sites where fees
apply have all been helpful and I also appreciate the
administration's establishment of the Recreation Fee Council
and its ongoing efforts to resolve the public's concerns with
the fee demonstration program.
That being said, I am not yet prepared to support efforts
to make this program permanent. I would say to our
representatives I had a great meeting with some of your folks
yesterday and suggested a way to make this a little bit more
sellable, and I hope those can be responded to.
The Federal appropriations for the Forest Service for
recreation have increased from $267 million in 1996 to $390
million in 2002. This is much higher than the rate of inflation
and should provide sufficient funds to maintain trails, develop
recreationsites on Forest Service lands, and more.
Further, it appears that the Forest Service is spending
almost $10 million for administration of the fee demonstration
program which collected only $38 million nationwide in 2003. I
remain concerned that this fee program and other future fees
will be increasingly relied upon for maintaining our public
lands as revenues from resource production continue to decline.
Such fees were never necessary or even contemplated when the
timber sale program was generating more revenue. Neither were
safety net payments to schools.
Candidly the timber sale program financed a whole host of
activities and facilities on BLM and national forest lands,
provided significant funds to counties, and created jobs in
rural communities. In 1990, Forest Service timber receipts
nationwide were over $1 billion. By 2002, this number had
dropped to $164 million. It is only since timber revenues have
been decimated that we have resorted to these other programs to
supplement funding for public lands and to make local
governments whole.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, Mr. Chairman,
but I do note with some disappointment that our friends on the
Democratic side tomorrow I guess are scheduled to go beat up on
the President for his efforts to try and give some concern to
rural issues that we are talking about here. I hope the public
understands that environmental protection is not free. It comes
at a very high price, and what we are doing in our State, the
State of Oregon, is growing a lot of timber, harvesting little,
and burning tremendous tracts of it that does little good for
wildlife or for human life. It is a darned shame. I think too
much is lost in all of the demagoguery on protecting the
environment when you fail to include some human stewardship
component in it. I think our witnesses understand that. I
appreciate the President's understanding, a better sense of
balance than we have seen in recent years.
I look forward to joining the debate tomorrow and pointing
out the other side of the equation. I had a very wise mother,
Mr. Chairman. One of her many sayings I remember is that the
best way to ruin a good story is to hear the other side. I hope
the American people hear the other side.
Thank you for letting me include this statement.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you all very much for being
here.
Now let us turn to our witnesses and our first panel. We
have the Honorable Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior, and
the Honorable Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment, Department of Agriculture.
Again, welcome before the committee. We will forego the
charging of the anticipated fee today. With that, Lynn, we will
start with you. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and members of the subcommittee. We are pleased to be able to
have an opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's
views on implementation of the rec fee demo program and our
ideas for going forward with such a program. I would like to
thank the subcommittee and the committee for their interest and
willingness to discuss this issue.
Why do we think recreation fee programs and the
continuation of a program are important? The Department
supports the establishment of a permanent multi-agency
recreation fee program because the program does allow us to
meet growing visitor demands for enhanced visitor facilities
and services. It also enhances our ability to support the
President's initiative on addressing the maintenance backlog in
all of our public lands.
Interior, as we are all aware, manages 1 in every 5 acres
of the United States. Growing numbers of Americans and others
are visiting public lands and seeking recreation opportunities.
Increased recreation is especially dramatic on our Bureau of
Land Management lands and our Fish and Wildlife Service lands,
as you can see from this chart which shows the two rapidly
escalating lines. Since 1985, recreation demand has increased
approximately 65 percent on Bureau of Land Management lands.
Recreation demand has increased approximately 80 percent on
Fish and Wildlife Service refuges. Recreation demand has also
increased at our Bureau of Reclamation lakes by some 10 million
visitors.
The administration strongly supports ensuring that visitors
have outstanding recreation experiences. The recreation fee
demo program has contributed significantly, we believe, in each
of our land management agencies to meeting the needs of that
visiting public. Fees have provided Interior in a single year
over $170 million that are invested directly at the
recreationsites on Department of the Interior managed lands.
The most significant revenues accrue to the National Park
Service, as we are all aware, which charges fees at some 60
percent of locations. But for the very few select number of
Bureau of Land Management sites and Fish and Wildlife sites
that have taken advantage of the rec fee program, these
revenues have been critical to their ability to serve the
public and expand facilities and services to meet growing
demand.
At Moab, Utah, which I had the opportunity to visit just
this last week, recreation fees bring in over $500,000 compared
to the recreation management appropriation of $187,000. These
revenues from the fee program are, in fact, the backbone of the
special services we provide to the growing number of users at
the Moab site. This chart and the yellow line shows the pace of
revenues that represent the expanding use by people to the Moab
site. Moab now serves over 1.6 million visitors each year,
compared to 800,000 visitors to the neighboring national park
site at Arches National Park.
As we look at recreation and visitation patterns, we
conclude that it is not the agency label that really is
relevant. Rather, in considering the appropriateness of
applying recreation fees, we think what is critical are the
site characteristics, uses, and amenities. Many lands,
regardless of which agency manages them, display similar
features in terms of recreation activities, amenities, and
visitation levels. I know this is a little bit of an eye chart,
but let me describe what is on it for you.
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, for example,
has striking similarities to Arches National Park and, as the
Forest Service will testify, to the Sedona Recreation Area. Red
Rock offers visitors world-class rock climbing, a visitor
center, bookstore, toilet facilities, picnic areas, and many
other amenities. As with other BLM sites, visitation at Red
Rock Canyon has increased substantially in recent years.
In your handout packet, we actually have some pictures of
the sites and facilities at Red Rock.
Our visitor surveys show strong support for the recreation
fee program if and when these dollars are invested back in the
site where visitors recreate. A permanent multi-agency program
should ensure that a majority of recreation fees stay at the
site to enhance visitors and facilities.
Visitors have come to count on the services that these fees
provide. At Moab, recreation fees help maintain and upgrade
toilet facilities, trails, and parking lots. For example, BLM
used $50,000 per year just to service the toilet facilities
with that 1.6 million number of visitors each year. At Lake
Havasu, there are over 3.1 million annual visits. To serve
these visitors, BLM has replaced 50 leaking and deteriorating
fiberglass outhouses and numerous other facilities, including
installation of 700 feet of riverbank block walls. Rec fees
help us to continue to maintain these facilities and
infrastructure.
The Fish and Wildlife Service likewise is using fees at a
selected number of sites to enhance the visitor experience. The
Fish and Wildlife Service has replaced outhouses, provided
wildlife viewing boardwalks, upgraded cabins, introduced
education programs, built parking areas, and improved trails.
Sites that attract thousands of visitors each day and tens
of thousands of visitors each year must invest in these
sanitation facilities, parking, campgrounds, shelters, and
other infrastructure.
We are aware of the concern that many Members of Congress
have expressed, particularly concerns that fees might be
charged where no recreation amenities exist. Many of these
concerns arise from practices applied during the experimental
introduction of fees at the outset of the fee demo program. Our
agencies have learned from those experiences and have made
adjustments to address public concerns.
All Interior agencies now have disciplined processes for
making determinations regarding the introduction of recreation
fees. At Bureau of Land Management, locations must first be
designated as a special recreation management area which
requires following the land use planning process. Site plans
and business plans must be developed. Public comment, often
including participation of the resource advisory councils is
received. Decisions require approval of the State director and
all proposed decisions are presented at the Federal Register
for public comment.
Fish and Wildlife Service similarly has a rigorous review
process with final fee decisions requiring approval by the
director.
We look forward to working with you to enhance that
discipline and that decision process.
Using these management procedures, the result for Interior
has been that a small percentage of Fish and Wildlife Service
and BLM sites use fees. 89 percent of BLM sites do not charge
any fee at all. 78 percent of Fish and Wildlife Service sites
that are open to visitation do not charge any fee demo fees. 40
percent of all National Park Service sites do not charge fees.
We absolutely agree with those who have stated that fees
are inappropriate under many circumstances on public lands. If
given permanent recreation fee authority, the Department will
not charge for Federal lands that do not have enhanced
facilities and services. The Bureau of Land Management and Fish
and Wildlife Service have made a commitment not to charge any
fees at areas with no facilities and services, for persons who
are driving through, walking through, or hiking through Federal
lands without using facilities or services, for undesignated
parking, and for overlooks and scenic pullouts.
Even at locations with fees, the actual area where a
recreation fee charged is narrowly drawn and only includes the
recreationsite that offers the facilities and services. In the
Cascades Resource Area, for example, which spans 169,000 acres,
the Bureau of Land Management charges a fee at the Wildwood
Recreation Site, which is a 550-acre developed site within that
larger arena. Visitors who seek the more natural experience and
do not wish to use facilities and services can recreate free of
charge at over 99 percent of the Cascades Resource Area.
At Moab, Utah, the Bureau of Land Management, as I noted,
manages 1.8 million acres, attracting over 1.6 million visitors
annually. Fees are charged only at a small portion of these
lands where significant amenities exist. The location has
become a premier destination for mountain bikers, campers, rock
climbers, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts. Amenities include
over 400 camp sites, miles of groomed and marked trails with
signage, toilet facilities, and other infrastructure.
The BLM, the National Park Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service or Forest Service jointly participate with a
county association in operating a downtown Moab visitor center.
Interior sees outstanding opportunities to partner with
gateway communities to serve visitors and benefit cities and
counties.
However, we are concerned that a strict revenue-sharing
provision that would give a percentage of recreation fees to
all neighboring counties would present significant problems. As
I noted earlier, the public's acceptance of recreation fees is
strongly related to the commitment that the revenues stay at
the site and be reinvested in visitor services. Collaborative
partnerships allow counties that provide services to visitors
to share revenues and maintain the nexus between the visitors
who pay the fees and the benefits received. Recreationsites
provide tremendous benefits to counties and gateway
communities. Recreation activities on the BLM lands in Moab,
for example, account for nearly 60 percent of the economy in
Grand County and more if indirect effects are included.
At BLM sites, those areas with recreation fees and the
associated investments in amenities, made possible by those
fees, are actually experiencing higher growth rates in
visitation than the non-fee areas.
We believe the collaborative partnership approach with
counties and others recognizes that we can work together with
gateway communities to promote tourism and provide quality
recreation experiences to our shared visitors. This is exactly
what is occurring at Sand Flats in Utah where the county and
the BLM work together and charge a fee for recreation
opportunities on land that includes State lands combined with
BLM lands.
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, we believe
we are ready to translate our experiences over the past several
years into a permanent recreation fee program that does enable
us to serve the public well. We hope the facts and information
provided will be helpful to you and other members as these
discussions continue.
The Department thanks you for your interest. We look
forward to working with members of the subcommittee and
committee on this issue. We do think accountability,
transparency, efficiency, and fairness are critical.
We would also like to take this opportunity to invite you
and any other members of the committee out for a visit to BLM,
Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Park Service fee demo
sites.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on the implementation of the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program and ideas for a permanent multi-
agency recreation fee program. We also would like to thank members of
the Subcommittee and Committee for their interest and willingness to
discuss this very important issue.
The Department of the Interior (Department) strongly supports the
establishment of a permanent multi-agency recreation fee program
because it allows 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. Authorization of a permanent program 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. 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.
Given the Department's experience with these programs, we would
like to share with you some of our observations about recreation
activity on federal land and the lessons we have learned implementing
the Fee Demo Program over the last eight years. We offer several
suggestions about the types of provisions that we believe are critical
to any permanent recreation fee program.
A PERMANENT RECREATION FEE PROGRAM SHOULD BE MULTI-AGENCY
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 to 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 multi-agency
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. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA)
managed by the BLM has striking similarities to Arches National Park
managed by NPS and, as the Forest Service will testify, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Rock Canyon Sedona Recreation Area
National Conservation Arches National Park (Forest Service)
Area (BLM) Nevada (NPS) Utah Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Features.......................... Rock Formations--thrust Rock Formations--arches, Rock Formations--buttes,
faults, petrified sand windows, pinnacles, pinnacles, mesas, rock
dunes, canyons, rock pedestals, rock art art, canyons
art
Amenities......................... Visitor Center Visitor Center Visitor Center
Book Store Book Store Book Store
Toilet Facilities Toilet Facilities Toilet Facilities
Picnic Area Picnic Area Picnic Area
Activities........................ Rock Climbing Rock Climbing Rock Climbing
Hiking Hiking Hiking
Bicycling Bicycling Bicycling
Birdwatching Birdwatching Birdwatching
Picnicking Picnicking Picnicking
Camping Camping Camping
Backpacking Backpacking Backpacking
Commercial Filming Commercial Filming Commercial Filming
Archeological Sites Archeological Sites Archeological Sites
Horseback Riding Guided Ranger Walks Horseback Riding
Off Road Vehicle Areas Swimming
FY 2003 Revenue................... $1,410,174 $1,555,819 $734,633
FY 2003 Visits.................... 803,451 757,781 1,525,000
Site Acres........................ 196,000 76,519 160,000
Contiguous public land............ 3.3 million acres of BLM Approx. 1 million acres 1.8 million acres in the
land (Las Vegas Field of BLM land (Moab Coconino National
Office) District) and 2,000 Forest
acres State land
Access points..................... One entrance station; One entrance station; Two visitor gateway
five other access two other entrances centers; three access
points with no fee with no fee collection highways
collection
Current Entrance Use Fee.......... $5 per vehicle (per $10 per vehicle (7 $5 per vehicle (per
day); $2 per person on days); $5 per person (7 day); $15 per vehicle
a bus; $20 annual pass; days); $25 Southeast (per week); $20 annual
$25 group/weddings; $10 Utah Pass annual pass pass; $16 per night per
per night per site (Arches, Canyonlands, site camping fee; Free
camping fee Free for Hovenweep, Natural for walk-in, bike-in,
walk-in, bike-in, and Birdges); $10 per night and school groups;
school groups; Accepts per site camping fee; Accepts Golden
Golden Passports. Accepts National Park Passports.
Pass and Golden
Passports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A PERMANENT MULTI-AGENCY RECREATION FEE PROGRAM SHOULD BE 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. For example, some visitors 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. If given permanent
recreation fee authority, the Department will not charge for federal
lands that do not have enhanced facilities and services. 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 law enforcement, 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 must first be
designated a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). These
designations are made in land-use plans and require environmental
analysis and public participation. It is important that these processes
also ensure that the actual area where a recreation fee is charged is
narrowly drawn and only includes the recreation site that offers the
facilities and services.
For example, 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 over 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 MULTI-AGENCY PROGRAM SHOULD PROVIDE FOR STANDARDIZED
RECREATION FEES, ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A STREAMLINED PASS SYSTEM,
AND MINIMIZE FEE LAYERING
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.
We look forward to working with the Committee to further refine these
concepts.
The visiting public is interested in having a variety of pass
options. Multi-agency 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. For these reasons, the Department supports a program that would
allow for the streamlining of a multi-agency pass and the creation of
regional multi-entity passes with a standardized package of benefits.
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
1500 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-ofpocket 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 MULTI-AGENCY PROGRAM SHOULD ENSURE 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. We
believe that this is an essential component of any permanent multi-
agency 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 100,000 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 river bank
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 a recreation fee program that
provides the Secretary authority to enter into collaborative
partnerships with public and private entities for visitor reservation
services, fee collection or processing services. Such a 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. Given our experience with
cooperative decision-making within the Fee Demo program, we believe
that any future permanent multi-agency fee program should foster
collaborative opportunities.
The Department believes that collaborative partnerships with
gateway communities best serve our visitors and the counties involved.
Our experience with recreation fees under LWCF and the Fee Demo program
has shown us that a strict revenue sharing provision that would give a
percentage of recreation fees to all neighboring counties would present
significant problems. First, as we discussed earlier in this testimony,
the public's acceptance of recreation fees is strongly related to the
commitment that revenues stay at the site and be reinvested in visitor
services. A provision for the sharing of recreation fee revenue where
counties provide mutually-shared visitors with services, such as search
and rescue services, would maintain the nexus between the visitors who
pay the fees and the benefits received. Under a strict revenue sharing
provision, the monies would go into the general county funds, rather
than to the agencies--local, state, and federal--that are actually
providing the visitors with the services.
Second, the agencies already have the authority to charge
recreation fees under LWCF, but had no incentive to charge because the
recreation fees were not retained at the site for reinvestment into
enhanced visitor facilities and services. A strict revenue sharing
provision would severely compromise the agencies' incentive to charge
recreation fees--thus resulting in a diminution of facilities and
services for the visitors. Third, a strict revenue sharing provision
does not account for the different relationships counties may have with
recreation sites on neighboring federal lands. Some communities provide
more services to the mutually-shared visitors, yet would receive the
same amount of funds as other counties.
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 benefited
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.
Other possible collaborative partnerships with states and local
communities could be developed through the creation of regional multi-
entity passes. Providing visitors and residents of nearby communities
with a well-structured, appropriately priced, regional multi-entity
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 multi-agency 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.
The Department supports a permanent recreation fee program that
works together with gateway communities and counties and keeps our
commitment to the visitor that we use recreation fees to improve
visitor services. We believe that collaborative partnerships best
achieve this goal.
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 with the suggestions in this testimony would create such a
dynamic program while providing the Department the certainty to make
long-term investments, improve efficiencies, and initiate more
partnerships.
During full committee markup on S. 1107, a bill to enhance the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for the National Park Service,
many members of the Committee recognized the need to further discuss
multi-agency recreation fee authority. Mr. Chairman, we hope the facts
and information provided in this testimony will be helpful to you and
other members of the Committee during future discussions of permanent
multi-agency recreation fee authority. The Department thanks you for
your interest and looks forward to working with members of the
Subcommittee and Committee on this important issue. We also would like
to take this opportunity to invite you and any other members of the
Committee out for a visit to a BLM, FWS, or NPS Fee Demo recreation
site.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Senator Craig. Well, Lynn, thank you very much.
Now let us turn to Under Secretary Mark Rey, Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture. Mark,
again, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you. In my experience, the committee has
often charged a hearing user fee, and the legal tender
generally involves some poundage from the witnesses. So I am
glad that you are waiving the fee today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Forest
Service implementation of the recreation fee demonstration
project.
Over the last 8 years, all of the agencies involved in fee
demo have experimented with fees and learned many lessons. The
program was designed to allow flexibility in implementation and
experimentation and be broad enough to allow agencies to
experiment with different types of fee programs. The Department
and the Department of the Interior 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 to date.
In January of this year, the Forest Service started
implementing the Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees.
The blueprint was developed based on lessons learned 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
recreationsites, services, and settings that enhance the
visitor experience and protect natural and cultural resources.
By implementing the blueprint, which we have provided for the
committee's record, the Forest Service is addressing public and
congressional concerns to ensure that recreation fees are
convenient, consistent, beneficial, and accountable.
Each unit that is participating in the fee demonstration
program has reviewed how its current fee program fits with the
blueprint. Those units that do not conform to the national
criteria have been changed. Many units have been deleted from
fee coverage, and all new projects that are proposed will
follow the blueprint criteria.
Additionally, as we have been working with your staffs, we
have been discussing our suggestions for permanent recreation
fee authority. Those suggestions are detailed in our testimony
for the record, and I will simply summarize in saying that we
are eager to translate the experience that we have received so
far into a permanent fee program that you all can support. It
should be a program that promotes interagency coordination
because our users have told us that is paramount; that second,
establishes a consistent interagency approach; that third,
enhances partnerships with States and gateway communities; that
fourth, establishes agency site-specific and regional multi-
entity passes; that fifth, provides for a new system of
expanded fees; and sixth, provides for better reporting on the
use of revenues; seventh, provides necessary authorities to
implement the program; and finally, provides criteria for
accountability and the control of revenues collected.
Those suggestions, as I said, are detailed in our statement
for the record.
I will close by just making one observation about funding
for the recreation program of the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior land management agencies. Unlike
other programs where we can plan for expected results in ways
that are more or less under our control, in the recreation
program we are presented with events and circumstances that are
often outside of our control. People show up and when they show
up, we are obliged to deal with them.
Your States and the western region are among the fastest
growing places in the country. And as Assistant Secretary
Scarlett has indicated, the use of our recreationsites has
expanded exponentially as that growth has occurred.
In addition to that simple growth in numbers, as our
population ages, the nature of the recreation experience
requested and desired has changed as well with more developed
sites being desired and needed to serve an aging population.
When you look at our budgets, it is without dispute that
they are increasing, and I still find it somewhat remarkable
how we manage to spend so much money. As Senator Smith
indicated, it is correct that our budget increased from $267
million for recreation in the Forest Service in 1996 to $390
million in 2002. And that is a lot of money.
But looked at differently, that is somewhat under a 6
percent annual rate of increase, which means half of that has
been consumed by inflation, without making any difference in
the way things are managed. Add to that the increased use and
the fact that many of our capital assets were constructed in
the 1950's and the 1960's at the dawn of the outdoor recreation
movement as our population became more mobile after World War
II and leisure time expanded, assets that were built in the
1950's and 1960's are now approaching the end of their useful
lives and both Departments are contending with that. So we face
a significant problem that unlike some of our other resource
management problems present us with circumstances that we have
to react to rather than which we can control completely.
With that, either of us would be happy to answer any of
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss implementation of the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program by the Forest Service. The
Department appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in how the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are implementing this vital
program and want to work with Congress to develop permanent recreation
fee authority which will provide quality services and facilities for
the public to use.
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. A permanent fee program would allow the Forest
Service, along with the Interior agencies, to make long-term
investments, continue to build further on successes of the current demo
program, improve efficiencies, and initiate more partnerships.
The recreation fee program is vital to our ability to provide
quality recreational facilities, settings, and services. While the idea
of charging fees for recreational use on our 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.
My testimony today regarding the Fee Demo program will focus on:
(1) implementation of the Forest Service Blueprint for Recreation Fees;
(2) interagency coordination and consistency in developing recreation
fee policies; (3) suggestions for permanent authority that would adhere
to guiding principles and build on lessons learned; and (4) ideas for
partnering with counties in implementing any permanent recreation fee
authority.
FOREST SERVICE BLUEPRINT FOR RECREATION FEES
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 be broad enough to allow
agencies to experiment with different types of fee programs. The
Department continues 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.
In January 2004, the Forest Service started implementing the
Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees (Blueprint). The Blueprint
was developed based on lessons learned 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 only be established 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 on program investments and
performance).
Each unit that is participating in the Fee Demo program has
reviewed how its current fee program fits with the Blueprint. Those
units that do not conform to the national criteria have been changed.
All new projects that are proposed will follow the Blueprint criteria.
Some changes that have been implemented include:
The Adventure Pass in Southern California (includes the
Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National
Forests) has identified four free areas where the Adventure
Pass is not required, while designating 12 free days for all
sites. This was implemented in response to public comments to
provide areas where a fee will not be charged.
The Northwest Forest Pass program in Oregon and Washington
has removed 385 sites where a pass will not be required.
Currently 679 day-use recreation sites on national forests in
the Pacific Northwest are included in the Northwest Forest
Pass.
The Sawtooth National Forest Trailhead-Parking Pass
Recreation Fee Project has removed 18 trailheads from the
program. Only 20 of the 38 trailheads in the Sawtooth project
met the Blueprint criteria. The Agency will no longer charge
fees at the 18 trailheads that do not meet the definition for a
significantly developed day-use site.
In addition to the changes listed above, the Forest Service had
implemented additional changes to fee sites based on public feedback to
provide better service and improve efficiency:
The Yankee Boy Basin area, part of the Canyon Creek project
on the Grand MesaUncompaghre National Forest in Colorado, has
suspended fees for off-highway vehicle travel for one year to
allow local groups the opportunity to manage and monitor the
area.
The Salmon River project on the Salmon-Challis National
Forest in Idaho reduced fees this year (from $5.00/day/person
to $4.00/day/person) because necessary infrastructure has been
completed so not as much revenue is needed.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY IN DEVELOPING FEE POLICIES
The strongest aspect of the Fee Demo program has been the
coordinated efforts between the Forest Service and agencies in the
Department of the Interior to minimize confusion and making recreation
fees more convenient and beneficial. Our experience has shown that the
visiting public does not distinguish between lands managed by different
federal agencies. Thus, the Department has tried to implement a program
that streamlines management across different boundaries. In
implementing such a program, revenue has decreased in some instances,
but the agencies have been able to provide a consistent program, which
has significantly enhanced our ability to serve the public. Examples of
interagency efforts 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 Interagency Recreational Fee Council (Fee
Council) which worked to facilitate coordination and
consistency among the agencies on the implementation of
recreation fee policies. The Council developed standards for a
new fee structure to replace the outdated entrance and use fees
established under 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.
SUGGESTIONS FOR PERMANENT RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY
The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have learned a
great deal from experience in administering Fee Demo, and are eager to
translate that experience into a permanent recreation fee program with
Congressional support. 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 exponentially.
More then ever before, Americans are choosing to recreate on all
Federal lands, in particular their 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. The Department wants to work with Congress and
the public to ensure that our Federal lands continue to play an
important role in American life and culture. To this end, permanent
recreation fee authority is needed. From our knowledge, experience, and
lessons learned from the past, here are some suggestions for a
successful fee program. These suggestions adhere to the guiding
principles established by the Fee Council that fees should be
beneficial, fair and equitable, efficient, consistent, implemented
collaboratively, convenient, and they should provide for accountability
to the public.
A permanent recreation fee program should: (1) promote interagency
coordination; (2) establish an interagency national pass; (3) enhance
partnerships with states and gateway communities; (4) establish agency
site-specific and regional multi-entity passes; (5) provide for a new
system of basic and expanded recreation fees; (6) provide for better
reporting on the use of revenues; (7) provide necessary authorities to
implement the program; and (8) provide criteria for accountability and
control of revenues collected.
1. Promote Interagency Coordination
There has been debate in Congress and with the public as to whether
an interagency recreation fee program should be permanently
established. The Department believes the question should be asked if
the public is benefiting from enhanced recreational facilities,
settings and services that result from a fee being charged. If this is
the case, we suggest that an interagency recreation fee program is
needed. More and more people are recreating on a national forest.
Whether they are 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
though, for the same amenities and services in each area are the same.
The authorization of an interagency recreation fee program would
enhance coordination among agencies and create a seamless,
collaborative, efficient, and effective fee program that is well
understood by the public. Such a program would allow land management
agencies an opportunity to improve the recreational facilities under
their management and enhance the experience of the visiting public.
Since the inception of Fee Demo in 1996, the Forest Service has
shown that it can manage this type of program that provides various
benefits to the American public. The Department believes permanent
recreation fee authority is needed so we can continue to provide
recreational opportunities and services to those who recreate on
Federal lands. The Forest Service Fee Demo program has generated over
$161 million to enhance the visitor experience at 105 projects in 123
National Forests and Grasslands across 36 States and Puerto Rico. In
2003, the Agency's program generated $38.7 million dollars. 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 include:
Maintaining 465 miles of trail on the Deschutes National
Forest in Oregon.
Rehabilitating the Scioto Shooting Range on the Cherokee
National Forest in Tennessee (installation of target walkways,
shooting tables, and a sound abatement berm).
Replacing 8 picnic tables, 40 fire rings with grills, and 1
water tank on the Klamath National Forest in California.
Upgrading concrete walkways and paths for better
accessibility on the Payette River Recreation Complex (Payette
National Forest).
As stated above, the Forest Service has been able to use Fee Demo
revenues in areas that benefit the American public. An interagency
recreation fee program would allow the Forest Service, along with the
other agencies in the Department of the Interior, an opportunity to
continue to provide the recreation settings, services, and facilities
that the American public expects when visiting their Federal lands.
Interagency coordination is needed to ensure recreation fees are
convenient, consistent, and beneficial.
2. Establish an Interagency National Pass
With the establishment of an interagency recreation fee program, an
interagency national pass should be created. By consolidating the
Golden Passport program established under the LWCFA and the National
Parks Passport (established in 2001), an interagency pass would
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, but the National Parks Pass is not
accepted as this pass is only valid at National Parks, unless the pass
has been upgraded with a Golden Eagle hologram. Any interagency
national pass should still be provided to seniors at a discount and
free of charge to people with a permanent disability.
3. Enhance Partnerships with States and Gateway Communities
An interagency recreation fee program will provide a foundation to
seek new partnerships with other Federal, State, County, and Gateway
Communities as needed. By expanding the avenues for collaborative
efforts, we enlist others to help us to meet the recreational demand of
the visiting public. The Forest Service has developed numerous
partnerships over the years to help us in delivering a successful Fee
Demo program. A permanent fee program would allow the Forest Service,
along with the Interior agencies, to make long-term investments on
current partnerships and initiate new partnerships where needed.
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 group, 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 program include providing restroom facilities and
litter control along the river.
4. Establish Agency Site-Specific and Regional Multi-Entity Passes
Any permanent recreation fee authority should also allow agencies
to establish agency sitespecific 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 public lands in Idaho. Passes
are available for purchase via a website, or by a toll-free number for
visitor convenience. Revenues are shared according to a formula
developed for the business plan, and revenues are directed back to the
recreation sites for improvements in facilities and services.
5. Provide for a New System of Basic and Expanded Recreation Fees
As stated previously, the Forest Service in 2003 started accepting
the Golden Age, Golden Eagle, and Golden Access passports at over 1500
sites, where previously only 18 sites accepted them. These passports
are honored usually where an entrance fee is charged, not a use fee. A
new structure should be developed that is based on use of the sites and
facilities, not entrance into a particular site. This new fee structure
would reduce fee layering and develop some consistency among and within
agencies to avoid visitor confusion and frustration about what
constitutes an entrance fee and what constitutes a use fee.
A new system of basic and expanded recreation fees should minimize
fee layering of entrance and use fees. Under the new system, the basic
fee would be charged in an area that has some expenditure in services
and facilities, and an expanded fee would be charged in areas where
additional facilities or amenities are provided, such as a developed
campground or boating area, specialized interpretative services or a
transportation system.
6. Provide for Better Reporting on the Use of Revenues
The Department believes any permanent recreation fee program should
have components for ensuring the agencies are accountable to Congress
and the public and report revenues and experrditures. Agencies should
collect good data and publish annually public documentation showing how
the fee program is administered. In producing a report, the Department
would evaluate fee programs to consider the cost of collection,
adherence to policy, use of revenues, fiscal safeguards, and how well
organizational, site, or community goals are achieved.
The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are preparing the
Fiscal Year 2003 Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Progress Report
to Congress. This report should be sent to Congress shortly, and we
look forward to any constructive feedback you may have after reviewing
the report.
7. Provide Necessary Authorities to Implement the Program
Any permanent recreation fee program should provide authority for
the Federal land management agencies to work with volunteers, develop
fee management agreements with any governmental or nongovernmental
entities, and establish procedures to protect fees collected (law
enforcement). In some cases, the Forest Service 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. An example
includes the Adventure Pass Program in Southern California, which is
implemented through the use of private sector vendors (small and large
local businesses) who sell the pass at over 400 locations to
communities near the forests. Use of private vendors makes it
convenient to purchase an Adventure Pass in advance of a trip to the
forest.
An important component of a recreation fee program is enforcement
of fee payment and security for the receipts. 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 per revenues collected also must be provided.
8. Provide Criteria for Accountability and Control of Revenues
Collected
Accountability is one of the guiding principles established by the
Fee Council. In being accountable, the Forest Service is collecting
good data and publishing annually in a report to Congress how the fee
program is being administered. Fee Demo revenues and expenditures are
accounted for separately from appropriated funds, which is consistent
with program authority and Federal Accounting Standards. Because the
Agency uses several expenditure categories to track fee demo
accomplishments (categories that were established in the 1996 Fee Demo
legislation), some reporting overlaps may have existed, but the total
expenditures accounted for were accurate. Starting with the fiscal 2003
report to Congress, the Forest Service will reduce the number of
reporting categories and be more consistent with the Department of the
Interior in reporting fee revenues and expenditures.
WORKING WITH COUNTIES IN REVENUE EXPENDITURES
One of the fundamental lessons the Department has learned from the
demonstration phase of the program is that support for recreation fees
is contingent on the revenues being invested directly at the site where
they are collected. Apportioning some recreation fee revenues to States
and counties, without targeted investment into the sites where the
revenues were collected, would create significant problems for the
program, and may not be acceptable to those who pay recreation fees to
a particular site.
Also, some counties provide more services and have a different
relationship to visitors than other counties and a blanket provision to
return recreation fees back to a county would not reflect those
differences. The Forest Service has worked to develop partnerships or
agreements with local communities, organizations, or county sheriff's
offices to help us to deliver a successful Fee Demo program, while
providing some fee receipts to those entities involved in implementing
the program. Revenue sharing would remove a vital avenue where land
management agencies can work with local communities and counties to be
involved in implementing a fee program, and still return revenues to
the site for enhancement and services.
The Department understands how local governments in some counties
where certain Federal lands are located believe they should share in
recreation receipts. The Department would like to work with the
Committee to determine what this may mean to a particular site. Any
decrease in fee revenues would mean less facilities, services, or
revenue for reinvestment, thus creating a disincentive for having a
recreation fee at all.
Another option for working with local governments could be
development of fee management agreements, where a county could help an
agency implement a recreation fee program by providing fee collection
or processing services, visitor reservation services, law enforcement
to provide additional public safety and security, emergency medical
services, or marketing resources. These fee management agreements need
to provide the visiting public with services that are visible and are
viewed as beneficial by users of fee site.
On some units, the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management
is currently working with some counties to implement these types of fee
management agreements. In Arizona, the Tonto National Forest has an
agreement with the Maricopa and Gila County Sheriffs Offices to provide
additional law enforcement personnel and emergency medical service
teams at recreation lakes on busy weekends and holidays. Under
permanent recreation fee authority, revenue sharing could be identified
for those state or local governments that enter into such an agreement
with the Secretary.
CONCLUSION
The Department has learned a great deal from our experiences in
administering the Fee Demo program and is ready to translate that
experience into a permanent fee program. With the changes that have
implemented, from lessons learned, and with development of national
criteria for the Forest Service's recreation fee program, the
Department is eager to work with this Subcommittee and the Department
of the Interior to develop a successful permanent fee program.
Establishment of permanent recreation fee authority does not mean our
learning will end. Fine-tuning of the program will continue to occur.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, other members of
the Subcommittee, and our interagency partners to implement a permanent
recreation fee program. This concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mark and Lynn,
for your collective testimony because I do think it goes hand
in glove and it provides us with several opportunities of
questioning I think as we attempt to establish a record in this
area.
Mark, let me start with you and let me start right where
you left off. The growth of your recreation program budget from
the $267 million to the $390 million between 1996 and 2000.
During the same period of time, your rec fee receipts grew from
nothing to $38 million. Is the GAO data correct? You only
collected $38 million in recreation fees, yet Congress has
increased its funding for your recreational programs by more
than $120 million in that same timeframe?
Mr. Rey. The exact number would be $127 million. That is
correct.
Senator Craig. Some in the Forest Service have suggested
that an alternative to reauthorization would be to close
campgrounds and other sites. Given that we have provided a
nearly 50 percent increase in recreational funding since 1996,
could you take a moment or two to explain where all of that
additional money then is going? You did mention inflation and
that is an appropriate approach.
Mr. Rey. Inflation over that period has hovered just under
3 percent, so I think you can reasonably say that half of that
$127 million was an inflation adjustment. The balance has been
a response to two factors: one, a dramatic increase in
recreation use and, second, the need to start dealing with
capital assets that are approaching the end of their useful
lives. I think that is where the lion's share of the increases
has gone.
Senator Craig. In 1996, the original fee authority mandated
100 sites to be tested and that 80 percent of these receipts
would be expended at the site where they were collected. At how
many individual sites, trail heads, campgrounds, picnic areas,
et cetera, are you currently collecting recreational user fees
today? Is it 100 or more?
Mr. Rey. It is 105 in total. In 2002, Congress lifted the
cap of 100 fee sites and in that time we have added 5 more
sites, which I think is also a reflection of the fact that we
have proceeded cautiously in the ensuing years since 2002.
Senator Craig. Lynn, I am struggling to understand why the
Department of the Interior is investing so much energy in
getting the recreation fee demonstration program authorized for
the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The GAO data consistently suggests that BLM, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only account for a total of 6
percent of the overall recreational fee revenues. So my
question would be, with so little at stake, what is all the
fuss about when it comes to non-Park Service DOI agencies and
fees?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, I think that is a good
question. As I noted in my testimony, there are really a
relatively small number of our BLM sites and Fish and Wildlife
Service refuges that actually charge the fees. So the $4
million or $5 million that goes to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the nearly $10 million or so that goes to the
Bureau of Land Management go to a fairly small number of sites.
At Moab, as I mentioned, those fees actually amount to some
two-thirds of their recreation management budget. At
Chincoteague, a wildlife refuge, those fees amount to about 40
percent of their budget. I was at a small satellite refuge,
Hobe Sound in Florida, which has a very, very small overall
operating budget. There they are in the midst of the West Palm
Beach area with millions of visitors. Those fees provide a very
critical resource for them to increase parking, increase toilet
facilities, as that demand escalates.
I do want to mention a second reason why our land managers
see these as important. The fees actually provide them a very
immediate and very ready source of funding to address
escalating recreation demand at the time that it occurs so that
they can immediately invest in new toilet facilities if demand
for recreation services has increased rapidly beyond what was
expected.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. My time is almost up,
so let me turn to Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask you. Your statement talks about the
establishment of an interagency recreation fee program, an
interagency national pass should be created. Is there any
reason why the administration needs to wait on Congress to
legislate this? Why can you not just convene an interagency
task force and do this?
Mr. Rey. We actually have an interagency Recreation Fee
Council to assure that some of the mistakes that were made
during the experimental part of this program are reduced.
I think, though, that going the next step and changing some
of the recreation pass systems should involve Congress, first,
because there are antecedent legislative authorities that we
might be modifying with regard to the existing Park Service
program, and second, I think that this is something that needs
to be durational. It should not be something that changes every
year. I think this is something we believe strongly that we and
the Congress ought to work together on.
Senator Bingaman. I have a sheet here called Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program, State of New Mexico, which I think you
folks provided us with today. You have got a chart here on the
front that says: total revenue from New Mexico, $4,338,361. And
then you have got three columns for expenditures, and the three
columns, when you add them up, come to somewhere around $1.85
million or $1.9 million maybe. So substantially less than half
of what is collected in revenue is actually expended. Am I
missing something on that chart?
Mr. Rey. What you are missing is that we did not include
all of the expenditure categories on that list. We did not
include fee collection, which generally accounts for 18 to 20
percent of the total, and we also did not include any of the
planning work that goes into the actual construction of the
assets that are provided here under either maintenance or new
construction of facilities.
Ms. Scarlett. I was just actually going to amplify what
Mark said. You will see in the columns that you are looking at,
maintenance, visitor services, and resource protection, that
these are expenditure highlights. There are additional
expenditures on such things as planning and administration and
so forth. We could provide you that full breakout and the full
summary of the total expenditures, if you would like.
Senator Bingaman. Okay.
Well, I gather there is some kind of requirement that you
folks are living with, that at least 80 percent of the revenue
received at these various sites be actually expended there. Is
that right?
Ms. Scarlett. In fact, on BLM sites we keep 100 percent
onsite. For the Park Service, they have an 80 percent/20
percent so that high visitor using sites versus lower ones can
actually benefit from some of that 20 percent.
Mr. Rey. And that 80 percent has not been a problem. We
have been able to hit that mark. Of course, the expenditures
that are not shown on this page are also being expended on that
site. The planning for a new construction project is part and
parcel of what is happening on that site.
Senator Bingaman. Last month we had quite a bit of press
coverage about an internal Park Service memo directing park
superintendents to make plans for service cutbacks that were
necessary because of budget shortfalls. Most of this money that
is collected through fees is collected by the Park Service, as
I understand. It certainly is in my State, according to this
chart. Are the planned service cutbacks that were talked about
in that memo an indication that this fee program is not working
the way it should somehow or other?
Ms. Scarlett. That memo is actually an inaccurate
reflection is what is going on in the National Park Service.
The Park Service has higher operating dollars right now per
acre, per FTE, and per any other measure that one would
utilize, and in fact, we are ensuring that all visitor services
are maintained.
Of the $145 million or $150 million that the fee revenue
program puts into the National Park Service, one-half of that,
approximately, goes to deferred maintenance backlog activities.
The other half goes to enhancing visitor services.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just ask one other issue. As I
understood your testimony, Ms. Scarlett, you said that you did
not object to us putting in the law certain restrictions on the
ability to charge fees for certain activities. So that is
something that you think is entirely appropriate and should be
done if we go ahead and do authorizing legislation on this
subject?
Ms. Scarlett. That is correct. We have agreed that there
have been concerns during the fee demo program over the years
about charging fees where there are no amenities or for just,
for example, walking through, driving, through, or other
activities such as that, and we would like to work with you on
what those restrictions might be.
Senator Bingaman. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Now let me turn to Senator Burns. Conrad.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think I
found our money. It went to New Mexico.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. I have the same question that the Senator
from New Mexico had when I looked at these numbers here. We had
collections of $10,779,000 and we only expended $3.2 million.
So I think our money might have gone to New Mexico. Do you want
to explain that, Senator?
[Laughter.]
Senator Bingaman. Well, if we got it, we misplaced it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. You earned it.
That is the only thing that I was looking at here, and that
is the only question that I have. There is some question on
these expenditures and what it costs when you start building
things back. I know we have got one rule that we were talking
about this morning with Representative Raney when he came into
my office, and we are going to try to change that a little bit.
And there are some things that we will change on this.
On some services, I think charges are in order in places
where you have facilities and those facilities need to be
maintained. I have very few problems with that. But as you
know, just to walk through and hike and do this thing, well, I
have very serious problems with that.
I have a question on my expenditures. You got the 80
percent on the wrong side here. Is that an error?
Mr. Rey. I think what we need to do on these sheets is give
you the full breakdown of expenditures. These are the
highlighted expenditures in three areas that most people focus
on, which is maintenance of facilities, visitor services, and
resource protection. What we have not included is health and
safety enhancements, additional law enforcement and the
planning and analysis work that goes into building or repairing
a capital facility. But we can add to that.
Senator Burns. I understand that.
I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for having the hearing.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Conrad.
We have now been joined by Senator Lamar Alexander.
Senator, any opening comments you would like to make and
questions of these two panelists, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will combine
the two.
I welcome the hearing and I thank you for holding it. This
is an important topic, and I would like, as part of my opening
remarks, to tell of what we in Tennessee regard as a success
story with the recreation fee demonstration program. I will
start with the Cherokee National Forest.
The Cherokee National Forest, Mr. Chairman, is by Eastern
standards big. It is 650,000 acres, which is about 150,000
acres larger than the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It is
basically adjacent all around the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park, so the Cherokee National Forest gets a lot of visitors.
I learned years ago, Mr. Chairman, that there are some
pretty big differences in attitudes and conditions sometimes
between easterners and westerners when it comes to public land,
and one reason is that the Federal Government owns so much of
the land out West and there are fewer people in some of the
States. And then you come to the East where the Federal
Government owns very little and you have large concentrations
of people using land. So I try to be sensitive to the fact that
what might be a problem in Idaho might not be a problem in
Tennessee or vice versa.
In east Tennessee, where we have 10 million visitors to the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park every year, as compared, for
example, with 3 million to Yellowstone, and where we have 8
million to the Cherokee National Forest--they may not be
absolute figures. 2.5 million campers, maybe 4 million or 5
million people who drive through to visit. The recreation fee
demonstration program has been very, very welcome and is
strongly supported. I would like to add my support to it as
well.
Since 1998, the Cherokee National Forest has been able to
use 95 percent of the recreation user fees they collected, and
over those 6 years, that has amounted to about $3 million. That
has been a big help. They have used it for new water systems.
They have used it for new tables. They have used it for new
fire rings, bear-proof trash cans. I go in those mountains a
lot and those areas a lot. The personnel there are very
limited. There are problems with drug use sometimes back in the
mountains.
This is something that the chairman is very familiar with.
We have got a pine beetle problem in our area, and one of the
most dangerous places you can be these days is not on the
highways, but out camping or hiking or walking because of the
trees that need to be taken away from the areas where people
are. And if you are in a large expanse in part of the West
where people rarely go, that may not be as much of a problem,
but if you are in the Cherokee National Forest where you might
have 8 million visitors a year, you have got a real problem if
you do not clean out some of the dead wood.
So this has been a big help and it has worked very well. I
have heard no complaints. While I have not interviewed
everybody in east Tennessee, I believe the overwhelming
attitude would be that we are happy to pay a reasonable user
fee if it is used to keep up the Cherokee National Forest that
we enjoy.
I would say that same is true with Land Between the Lakes,
which is completely the other end of the State, out in Kentucky
and Tennessee. It has 2 million visitors a year, and it will
benefit from the program.
We took a look at this back in 1986 when I was the chairman
of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors where I
got good exposure to some of the differences in conditions
between what happens in the West and what happens in the East.
But the idea of a reasonable user fee was broadly endorsed by
all the members of the commission. And it was a very diverse
commission of conservatives and liberals and Republicans and
Democrats and outdoor recreation enthusiasts. And we all
thought that if it were a reasonable fee, that people would
welcome that. So that is my endorsement of the idea.
I guess my question would be this. So that people in places
like the Cherokee National Forest can enjoy the advantage of
having the benefit of a reasonable user fee, what steps will
you take to make sure that, in other parts of the country where
it might be more difficult to apply a reasonable charge for a
service, you do not mess it up in those areas so you deny us
the chance to have such a fee?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scarlett. Mark, do you want to take that or do you want
me to?
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. We do not allow the shifting of blame or
responsibility in this committee.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scarlett. Since we never messed anything up at
Interior----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, let me tell you what we are doing at
Interior to bring some discipline to the process. As I
mentioned earlier, the Bureau of Land Management for any fee
proposal must first have a special recreation area designation.
That goes through a land use planning process and all of the
public commentary and so forth associated with that.
In addition, BLM has begun to utilize its resource advisory
councils. These are a cross section of the public to
participate in helping to determine where fees might be
appropriate. The Bureau of Land Management then also must
present a business case and ultimately the State director
approves that business case for any fee proposals.
In turn, as a further protection, the Bureau of Land
Management actually puts such fee proposals in the Federal
Register for public comment. So no fee goes forward without
that long process and that careful public scrutiny occurring.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a somewhat different
approach, but again, all fees must ultimately be approved by
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service after having
presented a business case, looked at market surveys to see the
commensurability of fees with like activities elsewhere.
So we believe we now have a very disciplined process in
place. We certainly would like to work with Congress if they
think additional safeguards are needed.
Mr. Rey. One of the things that we have come to recognize
in experimenting with this program is that the half-life of
screw-ups is very long.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. What we have done is to institute procedures not
dissimilar to the ones that Assistant Secretary Scarlett has
described in installing good business planning and public
participation before any new fees are initiated. And most
recently, as a result of our January 2004 blueprint for how the
program should work, based on the results of the experiments to
date, we have started to pull back the program from places
where it was not appropriate and where additional value was not
being offered to recreation users at a specific site. I think
since January, we have decommissioned roughly 400 places where
fees were charged that are not now being charged.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.
I would just observe. I genuinely thank you for the hearing.
In my short time here, I think that one of the underused
powers of the U.S. Senate is oversight, that we do not do
enough of it, and I think this is a good example of where there
are lots of judgment calls to make over a period of time and
maybe one of the things this committee can do over time is just
what it is doing today, is on a regular basis get a report
about what is going well, and what has not gone so well.
But I just hope we do recognize that this is a big country
and there are different conditions in different parts of the
country, and we do not need to force a rule that works in east
Tennessee on rural Wyoming or vice versa, and that if there is
a mistake here or there, that we would like to know about it
and we would like for you to make the adjustments. But I would
like it not to invalidate an entire program which has in my
opinion a very good basis for going forward to improve
recreational opportunities in America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you, and I think those comments
are well spoken. I agree with you. I had said in my opening
statement, while I have general opposition, I recognize the
necessity in targeted areas where amenities have been developed
and services are expected and needed, not only for the using
public, but certainly also to protect and maintain the quality
of the environment, that fees may well be appropriate.
A couple of last questions. Lynn, I see that in the GAO
data that it costs the Park Service about 25 percent of what it
takes in to collect the recreation users fee. What does it cost
the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Reclamation to collect their recreation fees, do you know?
Ms. Scarlett. Actually the most recent figures for the
National Park Service are that they have been able to bring
that down closer to 20-21 percent.
Senator Craig. Good.
Ms. Scarlett. And for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, the cost of the fee ranges between
about 13 percent and 18 percent. So they have actually managed
to become much more efficient over time at their fee
collection. In fact, I was out at a Park Service location in
Colorado just last week, and they have been able to bring their
costs down to almost zero by using unmanned collectionsites at
one particular park location.
Senator Craig. Well, I make the observation that if a
national sports team had to spend 25 percent of its take just
to get it, there would be a lot fewer high-paid athletes in the
country. Obviously, the private sector has got it down to an
art, and it appears that still, if you are talking down in the
20 range, while that is an improvement, that is still a
substantial cost. If you are trying to use these fees to
generate benefits of the kind that you are obviously trying to
generate, there needs to be a real focus on the business side
of managing this revenue flow.
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, I would agree with you and, of
course, we have been attempting over the last 2 years to bring
those costs down.
I will make two additional comments, though. One of the
reasons we look forward to a permanent or more enduring rec fee
authority is so that we will able to make some long-term
investments in some automation and other kinds of fee
collection systems that could help bring those costs down.
Second, the administrative costs are a little bit
misleading because many of these costs are also associated with
personnel who are providing collateral services as well, for
example, also providing visitor interpretation service or
communication and information to visitors, not just simply
standing at a booth and collecting fees.
Mr. Rey. And all of our players are cheaper than Alex
Rodriguez.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Yes, Mark. Well spoken.
Well, let me thank you both for being here today. I think
this committee wants to work with you. Certainly the Senator
from Tennessee has spoken well of the differences that exist
across this great country of ours. And as I have said, I would
not oppose targeted, effectively collected and implemented
recreational fees.
But I hope you understand that we are not going to start
managing the Forest Service, the BLM, and wildlife refuges as
if they were national parks. I would certainly resist that
attitude that some employees, I think, of the agency have of
``if we build it, they will pay and they will be happy about
it.'' That is not true in the State of Idaho. You heard other
western Senators express great skepticism as we approach this
clear need for new revenue, different kinds of revenue for
these public land resource management agencies. We will
struggle with that, and working together, I think we can
resolve it.
I do agree that what starts out as an appropriated approach
in demonstration does at some point need to be thoroughly
vetted and authorized through this committee structure.
So we thank you both for being with us today.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Again, thank you very much. And we will ask
the second panel to come forward.
Once again, we thank you all very much for being with us
today as we work to build a record on the recreation fee
demonstration program and where the Congress may go with it
from here.
Let us start, and I will start to my left, Commissioner Ted
Anderson, commissioner from Skagit County, Washington, Mount
Vernon, Washington. Commissioner, welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF TED ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER, SKAGIT COUNTY, WA, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Mr. Anderson. Before I begin, I would be happy to pay the
fee that you are charging for this room if I could get a
receipt for our State auditor. They have been somewhat critical
of my travel budget.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. A point well made.
Mr. Anderson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Ted
Anderson and I am a member of the Board of County Commissioners
of Skagit County in the State of Washington. I am testifying
today, though, as vice chair of the Public Lands Steering
Committee for the National Association of Counties. NACo is the
national association of America's 3,066 counties and seeks to
ensure county officials' voices are heard and understood in the
White House and in the halls of Congress.
It is my privilege to represent the Washington State
Association of Counties. WSAC members include elected county
commissioners, council members, and executives from all of
Washington's 39 counties. Each year WSAC works with NACo to
promote positions that help counties serve our citizens.
I thank the subcommittee for scheduling this hearing on the
recreation fee demonstration program.
As you are well aware, during the debates leading to the
establishment of the national forest system, Congress concluded
a compact with rural communities within and adjacent to the
lands to be reserved. This was premised on the notion that the
communities should be compensated for foregone economic
opportunities through sharing revenues from the national
forests for the maintenance of essential local public
infrastructure and services, especially schools and roads.
With regard to this compact, the Forest Counties Payments
Committee concluded in its February 2003 report that Congress
promised that these lands would be forever managed for multiple
uses and that the revenues derived from this management would
be shared with the communities. And in fact, both State and
Federal courts have ruled that the 25 percent fund revenue
sharing payments were not to be considered as payment in lieu
of taxes but as grants or payments as compensation for impacts
associated with the removal of land from potential development.
NACo and WSAC believe that this compact is now and should
remain in full force and effect. Its unambiguous and explicit
acknowledgement should inform all policymaking regarding
national forest management, including recreation management.
Regrettably, from the enactment of the first recreational
fee demonstration program, amounts collected pursuant to its
authorities were not taken into account for purposes of the 25
percent fund. This practice must be stopped. At a time when a
broad national consensus is building around locally based
collaborative models of resource management, it makes no sense
to undermine one of the historic institutions binding
communities to the sustainable stewardship of public lands.
While the amounts generated for the counties would,
admittedly, be small, the value we believe remains.
Strengthening, not eroding the ties that bind local communities
to the forests should be their aim.
Movement toward that aim can be achieved by giving more
specific congressional direction to the Federal agencies to
consult and collaborate with local governments in all aspects
of recreation fee programs. While NACo has to date no specific
policy recommendation as to the advisability of extending or
making permanent the recreation fee authority, if the authority
were to be extended, we have no doubt that it would be more
successful if implemented in cooperation with the local county
governments. Our experience has taught us that where recreation
fee demonstration projects have been successful, it has been
due in no small part to the fact that the Federal managers in
those instances worked with the local counties to design and
implement them. Conversely, opposition and outright revolt
against the program have been the result of projects designed
in isolation and imposed on communities with little or no
regard for the input of elected officials.
NACo and WSAC ask that any extension of the recreation fee
authority require formal consultation and collaboration with
community stakeholders convened by their elected local
officials to select and prioritize projects to be funded.
Furthermore, in order to enhance local collaboration and to
ensure its ongoing success, the public needs better access to
information about these projects. At a minimum, a clear
accounting of the funds generated locally should be provided to
the counties on an annual basis.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this
hearing and for giving me the opportunity to present the views
of NACo and WSAC for the record. We look forward to working
toward a more complete fulfillment of the original promise of
that 100-year-old compact between the counties and the Federal
Government, a full partnership leading to vibrant local
communities and a healthy natural environment.
An additional comment that you will not find here is that
what has become known as the Craig-Wyden bill, Public Law 106-
393--I think the one component of that, the title II part, is a
great model where we formed resource advisory committees. We
work in collaboration with the Forest Service, and I think it
has been a really healthy thing.
One other additional comment. Road closures by the Forest
Service at least in my area, when we are talking about
recreation and access, let us not forget the handicapped and
the senior citizens that utilize those roads to access those
lands. And they certainly have as much right to be there as the
athletically elite.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony. We will complete the testimony of all our panelists
before I ask or Lamar asks any questions.
Now let me turn to Carl Wilgus, administrator, State of
Idaho Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, Boise.
Carl, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CARL WILGUS, TREASURER, WESTERN STATES TOURISM
POLICY COUNCIL
Mr. Wilgus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor and
pleasure for me to be present here for these comments this
afternoon on behalf of the Western States Tourism Policy
Council.
I am Carl Wilgus and I am treasurer of the WSTPC. I am also
the State Tourism Director for Idaho, a position in which I
have been proud to serve for 17 years. As with other State
tourism offices, our job in Idaho is to help increase the
contributions of tourism and recreation to the economy of our
State and its communities. In Idaho, tourism and recreation
have a very substantial economic impact indeed, generating more
than $2.2 billion in annual revenue and supporting 42,000 jobs,
more jobs than any other industry in the State.
The WSTPC is a consortium of the 13 Western States' tourism
offices. Our mission is to support public policy that enables
tourism and recreation to have an optimum, positive economic
and environmental impact on the American West.
In all 13 WSTPC States, tourism and recreation industries
are major components of their States' economies. As you know so
well, Mr. Chairman, the magnificent Federal public lands are a
major attraction for millions of domestic and international
visitors to the West who contribute billions of dollars to our
economy.
Not only are the Federal lands a critical tourism draw for
the West, 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 back yards.
Since formation of the WSTPC in 1996, we have recognized
the critical importance of the recreation fee demonstration
program and regard it a priority issue on the WSTPC agenda. Mr.
Chairman, the position of the WSTPC is to support authorization
of a permanent or long-term reformed fee program. We believe it
is imperative that the authorization of fee demonstration
include at least all four agencies now in the program. While
the problems that have manifested themselves have not occurred
equally at all four agencies, the budget pressures on all four
agencies are the same. The visitors who use and enjoy the
Federal lands often do not understand or appreciate the agency
boundaries, and it is critical that the implementation of the
fee program be coordinated and consistent for all agencies.
We would further support expansion of the program to
include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
The WSTPC believes the case for fee demonstration
transcends budgetary needs and that fee demos have the
potential to: one, enhance the visitor experiences; two,
engender greater public appreciation for Federal lands; three,
help agencies manage access to overcrowded areas; four,
encourages greater stakeholder participation in Federal land
management decisions; and five, encourages greater interagency
and interdepartmental cooperation.
The WSTPC realizes that the agencies themselves have taken
meaningful steps to reform the fee demo program. The Federal
Recreation Fee Council has greatly improved interdepartmental
and interagency coordination and helped make the overall
program more consistent and rational.
We are also encouraged by the 2003 Forest Service Blueprint
for Recreation Fees, which shows an awareness of the problem
and outlines several promising initiatives. In Idaho, both the
Forest Service and BLM have actively solicited the views of
local government officials and the public regarding design and
implementation of the fee demo.
A permanent authorization would give the agencies with
maximum certainty to facilitate long-term planning. If,
however, Congress believes it is advisable to review the
effectiveness of the reforms in the program, we believe a 6-
year reauthorization, similar to the Federal surface
transportation authorization, would prove a reasonable balance
between agency planning needs and time to assess the impact of
future reforms.
For the fee demonstration program to fulfill its promise,
some reforms are necessary. The WSTPC recommends that several
changes in the program be mandated in authorizing legislation
including:
One, development of more interagency/intergovernmental
regional entrance fees, i.e., the VIP Pass in the State of
Idaho, the ones that we have heard about in Washington and
Oregon.
Two, clear authority for the agencies to collect fees for
each other.
Three, utilization of State tourism offices to identify
areas with special tourism or recreation appeal.
Four, utilization of State agencies and local gateway
businesses to collect fees.
Five, utilization of differential fee pricing to respond to
seasonal demand fluctuations.
Six, utilization of a portion of the fee revenues for
public information, education, and communication programs.
Seven, development of a local advisory process involving
State tourism offices and gateway communities.
Eight, establishment of a national recreation fee advisory
board.
And nine, retention and use of 80 percent of the revenue
from special use permits at locations where it is collected.
The WSTPC realizes that fee revenues will never be
sufficient to meet the budget needs of the Federal land
agencies. At same time, it seems likely that stringent demands
on the Federal resources will create severe pressures on
natural resource agency budgets. With that 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 innovations, and other alternatives.
On behalf of the Western States Tourism Policy Council, I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come before
your subcommittee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilgus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Wilgus, Treasurer, Western States Tourism
Policy Council
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor and pleasure for me to present these
comments to you this afternoon on behalf of the Western States Tourism
Policy Council (WSTPC) regarding implementation of the recreation fee
demonstration program (fee demo) by the USDA Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management.
I am Carl Wilgus and I am Treasurer of the WSTPC. I am also State
Tourism Director for Idaho, a position in which I have been proud to
serve for seventeen years. As with other state tourism offices, our job
in Idaho is to help increase the contributions of tourism and
recreation to the economy of our state and its communities. In Idaho,
the tourism and recreation industry has a very substantial economic
impact indeed, generating $2.2 billion in annual revenue and supporting
42,000 jobs, more jobs than any other industry in the State.
the western states tourism policy council interest in fee demo
The WSTPC is a consortium of thirteen western state tourism
offices, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington
and Wyoming. The mission of the WSTPC is to support public polices that
enable tourism and recreation to have an optimum, positive economic and
environmental impact on the American West.
In all thirteen WSTPC states, the tourism and recreation industry
is a major component of the economic base of the states and hundreds of
their communities. In every western state, tourism and recreation is
either the first or second greatest source of jobs. And as you know so
well, Mr. Chairman, the magnificent Federal public lands are a major
attraction for millions of international and domestic visitors to the
West who contribute billions of dollars to our economies.
Not only are the Federal lands a critical tourism draw for the
West, 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 WSTPC in 1996, we have recognized the
critical importance of the recreation fee demonstration program (``fee
demo'') and regarded it as a priority issue on the WSTPC agenda. We
believe that the hundreds of millions of dollars that has been
generated by fee demo, with eighty percent retained for use at the
lands where it is collected, have enabled hundreds 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,
submitting several statements to Congress during this period in broad
support of fee demo while recommending substantial reforms in the
program.
Mr. Chairman, it is 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. While the appropriations committees have made a
significant contribution to the vitality of our Federal lands through
establishing and extending the innovative fee demo program, as the
appropriators themselves recognize, it is now time for the authorizers
to decide the future of fee demo.
IMPORTANCE OF FEE DEMO TO THE WEST
It is clear to us that fee demo has benefited the Federal lands in
the West, allowing them to serve their visitors better and, thereby, to
have an even more positive impact on state and gateway community
economies. The following are 2003 data from twelve western states
showing how much was invested that year in the national forests and BLM
lands in those states directly from revenue collected and retained from
fee demo. Please note that these figures are for one year only and do
not include fee demo expenditures by the National Park Service or the
Fish & Wildlife Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska............................. FS.................... $1,105,442
BLM................... 239,570
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona............................ FS.................... $3,073,879
BLM................... 1,160,785
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California......................... FS.................... $4,440,304
BLM................... 958,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado........................... FS.................... $872,621
BLM................... 224,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho.............................. FS.................... $1,043,861
BLM................... 233,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana............................ FS.................... $1,463,349
BLM................... 209,687
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada............................. FS.................... (1)
BLM................... 2,027,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico......................... FS.................... $266,611
BLM................... 93,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon............................. FS.................... $3,770,303
BLM................... 1,447,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah............................... FS.................... $738,860
BLM................... 1,169,614
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington......................... FS.................... $2,169,744
BLM................... 15,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming............................ FS.................... $116,149
BLM................... 135,028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No Forest Service Fee Demo Expenditures
Just a few of the illustrative projects funded by fee demo revenue
in only three of these states have included:
Idaho--remodeling of all picnic sites and updating nature trails
and information in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest; providing nine
miles of extensive trail maintenance in the Clearwater NF; producing a
new water safety brochure, ``Wildwater Wisdom'' in the Boise NF;
replacing all boat docks and widening roads, adding culverts and five
campground spurs in the Milner Historic Recreation Area.
Arizona--cleaning up 16,300 pounds of ground trash in the Coconino
NF; reconstructing an old Civilian Conservation Corps retaining wall in
the Tonto NF; repairing nine historic rock bridges in the Coronado NF;
installing new restrooms at Lake Havasu.
Washington--providing more than half the operation and maintenance
costs for Coldwater and Johnston Ridge Visitor Centers at Mount St.
Helens National Volcanic Monument; hiring four trail crews to maintain
787 miles of trails in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF; providing climbing
services including hiring climbing rangers for Mt. Adams and Mount St.
Helens; replacing needed picnic tables, signs and fire rings and
constructing a wildlife viewing platform in the Yakima River Canyon.
Several of these and other ``fee demo projects'' have involved the
use of grants from State agencies and nonprofit organizations, but it
has been fee demo revenue that has enabled the Federal agencies to
provide their matching share and benefit from such vital partnerships.
WSTPC POSITION
In essence, Mr. Chairman, the position of the WSTPC is to support
authorization of a permanent or long term, reformed fee program for all
four agencies now included in the program--the National Park Service,
the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service--with eighty percent of fee revenue continuing
to be retained and used at the Federal land location where it is
collected.
We believe it is imperative that authorization of fee demo includes
at least all four agencies now in the program. It is not advisable to
treat the agencies separately for purposes of fee demo. While the
implementation problems that have manifested themselves have not
occurred equally at all four agencies, the budget pressures on all four
are the same. Moreover, the visitors who use and enjoy the Federal
lands often do not understand or appreciate agency boundaries and it is
critical that implementation of fee programs be coordinated and
consistent for all agencies. We would further support expansion of the
program to include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
The WSTPC believes the case for fee demo transcends budgetary needs
and that fee demo has the potential to (1) enhance the visitor
experience by meeting infrastructure and maintenance needs, (2)
engender greater public appreciation for the Federal lands by showing
the value-added benefits of those lands and the recreation experience,
(3) help agencies manage access to overcrowded areas, (4) encourage
greater stakeholder participation in Federal land management decisions
and (5) encourage greater interagency and interdepartmental
coordination.
It is critical, however, that fee demo be reformed to address many
of the justified criticisms that have been raised about the program,
especially as it has been implemented by the Forest Service and the
BLM. The WSTPC in these comments will recommend several such reforms.
CRITICISMS OF FEE DEMO
We fully recognize that implementation of fee demo has been
problematic. 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 and BLM, 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, especially
at the Forest Service and the BLM. While significant strides have been
made by the agencies to address many of these problems, further
improvements are needed in new fee demo authorization legislation.
WSTPC recommendations for such improvements will be outlined below:
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.
WSTPC RECOMMENDATIONS
The WSTPC 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 the 2003 Forest Service's Blueprint for Recreation Fees,
which shows an awareness of the problems and outlines several promising
initiatives. And the BLM has regularly reviewed and revised its fee
demo implementation.
In Idaho, both the Forest Service and BLM have actively solicited
the views of local government officials and the public regarding design
and implementation of fee demo projects and have modified the program
accordingly.
As indicated earlier, the WSTPC supports authorization of a
permanent or long term, reformed fee demo program. A permanent
authorization would provide the agencies with maximum certainty to
facilitate long term planning. If, however, Congress believes it is
advisable to review the effectiveness of reforms in the program, we
believe a six-year authorization similar to the Federal surface
transportation authorization would provide a reasonable balance between
agency planning needs and time to assess the impact of future reforms.
Whether authorization is permanent or long term, the WSTPC
recommends the following statutory changes in the fee demo program:
1. The agencies should be directed to develop to the maximum extent
possible regional access or entrance fees on an interagency and
intergovernmental basis. Examples of successful use of common fees
combining agencies and Federal and State public land fees can be seen
in Idaho, Oregon and Utah.
2. Agencies should be 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.
3. Agencies should utilize the expertise and experience of state
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. Designating such ``Special Places'' would be one way of
avoiding debate over charging fees for areas with dispersed recreation.
4. State agencies and gateway businesses should be encouraged to
collect fees so as to substantially reduce Federal collection costs.
5. If necessary, Federal collection costs should be capped by
Congress.
6. Agencies should be encouraged to use differential pricing for
fees to recognize seasonal market demand.
7. 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 tourism office marketing efforts.
8. The Federal agencies should work more closely with State tourism
offices and gateway communities in designing and planning fee
structures. The local advisory process should be formalized through
advisory groups, perhaps modeled after or incorporated into Resource
Advisory Councils. NOTE: For an example of how a Federal land agency
and local community leaders can work productively together as partners
to make mutually beneficial decisions regarding fee demo, see the
attached letter from the Bonneville County (ID) Board of Commissioners
regarding their partnership with the Caribou-Targhee National Forest to
allocate fee demo funds for projects along the South Fork of the Snake
River.
9. 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.
10. Following the fee demo model, eighty percent of the revenue
from special use permit fees should be retained and used at the
locations where it is collected. In the thirteen WSTPC member states,
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 (unlike the National Park Service, which
can use its special use permit fee revenue where it is collected) must
return all that revenue to the Federal treasury.
11. The fee program should be carefully monitored in the future
through the Congressional authorization process.
12. Authorization legislation should provide Congressional
assurance that revenue from fees will not be nullified or offset by
reductions or lower growth rates in agency budgets.
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 users,
local governments and the tourism and recreation industry should be
involved in the design and implementation of fee programs.
Finally, the WSTPC 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 Western States Tourism Policy Council supports long term
authorization by Congress of the recreation fee demonstration program
as vital to the viability of the tourism and recreation industry in the
West. 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 valueadded 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.
For the fee demo program to fulfill its promise, reforms are
necessary. The WSTPC recommends that several changes in the program by
mandated in authorizing legislation, including:
1. development of more interagency and intergovernmental regional
access or entrance fees;
2. clear authority for the agencies to collect fees for each other;
3. utilization of state 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.
Congressional assurance that Federal land budgets will not be cut
nor have their growth rates reduced to offset fee revenue.
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 can only be part of a needed broader
fiscal strategy for the Federal lands.
Senator Craig. Well, Carl, thank you for that very detailed
testimony.
Now let me turn to Ms. Susan Bray, executive director of
the Good Sam Club of Ventura, California. Susan, welcome before
the committee.
STATEMENT OF SUE BRAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE GOOD SAM CLUB, VENTURA, CA
Ms. Bray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Sue Bray
and I am executive director of the Good Sam Club based in
Ventura, California. The Good Sam Club is comprised of nearly 1
million families who own and operate RV's, motor homes, and
trailers. I really do not know what my user fee charge is going
to be today, but probably extra.
Senator Craig. It depends on how long you park it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bray. But our members often visit Federal
recreationsites.
I also serve as a member of the board of directors of the
American Recreation Coalition, or ARC.
Quality recreation opportunities on Federal lands are one
of our central concerns. Fees, though, are not an end for us,
rather a means to help achieve our goal of great experiences in
the great outdoors, along with volunteerism, appropriations,
partnerships, and more.
The American Recreation Coalition's position on Federal
recreation fees is to support if the fees are equitable and
aimed at recovering costs where the services and facilities are
provided; the fee system is efficient; the fees are convenient
to the recreationalist; the fee system is coherent, flexible,
and integrated; the fee revenues are returned to benefit
resources, facilities, and programs utilized by those paying
the fee.
We have closely monitored the actions of the four agencies
involved in the fee demo program. In general, we consider the
fee demonstration program to have been a success, but we do
believe it is time to move forward, commencing a new 6-year fee
program. We cannot support permanent fee legislation at this
time for several reasons.
First, we believe that substantial further experimentation
and development are needed to capitalize on new technologies
and communications opportunities, particularly at the local
level.
Second, we believe the Congress must underscore to Federal
agencies that fees are merely one aspect of a program to
enhance visitor experiences and provide direction on priority
uses of the collected fees. We also believe that the Congress
must ensure that the agencies are explaining the fees and their
use to the public.
Among the provisions we urge Congress to incorporate are:
new provisions to stimulate volunteerism on public lands; new
authorities for creative and innovative partnerships among
Federal agencies, nonprofits and corporations; retention by the
agencies of special permit fees paid by outfitters, guides, and
other recreation service providers; a new effort to communicate
opportunities in the great outdoors to all Americans, in part
because of the growing problems with obesity; new provisions
for enlisting the assistance of corrections agencies and
military units in caring for America's public lands; and the
reinvigoration and expansion of interpretive and recreational
programs.
We recognize that the Senate now has pending for floor
action legislation that would deal with fees for a single
Federal agency, the National Park Service. We cannot support
passage of that measure for several reasons. We believe that
recreation fee policies of the Federal agencies should be
coordinated and complementary and a unified authority would
best accomplish this goal. We also believe that the legislation
could be improved with several additional provisions including:
Sunset provisions for fees every 6 years,
accompanied by full congressional oversight of the fee
program.
Uniformity of fee provisions for all Federal
agencies.
Continuation of the local retention of receipts and
availability of at least 80 percent of collected
recreation fees without any further need for
appropriation, public involvement in fees establishment
and use, clear and meaningful reporting on the use of
the fees, and assurance that the fees will not be
offset by reductions in appropriations.
Limitations on automatic authority for Federal
recreation fees, primarily focusing on those sites
where visitors receive clearly identified services and
utilize specific facilities, but also providing a
process for adding additional sites to the fee program
where key tests, including public support, are met.
Creation of a new national recreation fees advisory
board with authority to approve expanded and unusual
fee sites with authority to review fee program appeals.
A significant number of the board members should
represent those paying the fees.
Creation of a new recreation fee site investment
account which would allow improvements prior to
imposition of new or raised fees.
Investigation and support of the role of RAC's in
providing local oversight of the fee program.
And last, local retention of revenues from
recreation special permits, concessions, and similar
agreements under clear provisions which consolidate
fees now charged under such doctrines as cost recovery.
And finally, the goal is quality recreation experiences,
not fee revenues. Fees should not undercut better services and
facilities available through partnerships with State and local
agencies, volunteers, and friends organizations, concessioners
and permittees.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sue Bray, Executive Director,
The Good Sam Club, Ventura, CA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, I am Sue Bray and I am the
Executive Director of the Good Sam Club, based in Ventura, California.
The Good Sam Club is comprised of nearly one million families who own
and use recreational vehicles--motorhomes and trailers--and 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 motorhomes 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 Good Sam and BoatUS. 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 the Good Sam Club.
Quality recreation opportunities on federal lands are one of our
central concerns and we perceive fees as one element in assuring
members of the public that their visits to their lands will be
enjoyable and safe. Fees, though, are not an end for us--rather a means
to help achieve our goal of great experiences in the great outdoors
along with volunteerism, appropriations, partnerships and more.
The recreation community enjoys free lunches much as any other
interest group, but we have come to understand that it is hard to
demand a great meal when you aren't paying. And we certainly are
learning to understand that quality recreation on federal lands really
isn't a free lunch: costs have been borne by general taxes, not user
fees. However, there is a real downside to that situation. We've seen
that 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, 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 look at
the Congressional appropriators, not visitors, as their customers and
the American people, their real customers, as an unwelcome burden.
We took an active part in the national debate on fees hosted by the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) from 1985 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 most fees disappeared into general Treasury accounts. We agreed
when PCAO called 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.
The American Recreation Coalition's position on federal recreation
fees is support if:
the fees are equitable, and aimed at recovering costs where
the services and facilities provided represent significant
costs to American taxpayers;
the fee system is efficient, costing the least amount
practical to administer;
the fees are convenient for the recreationist, so that
voluntary compliance is readily achievable;
the fee system is coherent, flexible and integrated, so that
overlapping charges are minimized and federal, state and local
fees are integrated where appropriate (such as Sikes Act
provisions for hunting and fishing fees on federal lands,
collected as a supplement to state licenses, or the Pacific
Northwest's winter park program); and
the fee revenues are returned to benefit resources
facilities and programs utilized by those paving the fees.
We applaud this committee's involvement in the origins of the fee
demonstration program, which has provided an important learning
opportunity. Across the nation, new fees have been tried and fees have
been collected in new ways. In a few cases, fees have varied by day of
the week or season, or have been established cooperatively among
federal agencies--and in a few instances, with state recreation
agencies. In addition to the learning going on, federal agencies are
being furnished immediately with substantial new resources--
approximately $200 million annually--to protect the Great Outdoors
Legacy we share and to enhance many of the nearly two billion visits we
make to federal land systems. We also think it is notable and important
that for the first time, federal officials are now able to answer a
visitor's simple question about where the fees they pay actually go.
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. But we
do believe it is time to move forward, ending the short-term nature of
the demonstration program through the appropriations created process
and commencing a new, six-year fee program.
We cannot support permanent fee legislation at this time for
several reasons. First and most importantly, we believe that
substantial further experimentation and development are needed in the
fee area, both to overcome recognized concerns about specific fee
demonstration projects and to capitalize on new technologies and
communications opportunities.
Second, we believe that both now and at some future date, the
Congress must underscore to federal agencies the view that fees are
merely one aspect of a program to enhance visitor experiences in the
Great Outdoors and provide direction to the agencies on priority uses
of the collected fees. Among the provisions we urge the Congress to
incorporate in any legislation dealing with fees are:
1) new provisions to stimulate volunteerism on public lands. We
urge the 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 will
eliminate current 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;
2) new authorities for creative and innovative partnerships among
federal agencies, nonprofits and corporations, including PPVs (Private/
Public Ventures) and NAFIs (NonAppropriated Funding Instrumentalities);
3) retention by the agencies of special permit fees paid by
outfitters, guides and other recreation service providers, and
treatment of these receipts in a parallel way to direct recreation
fees;
4) a new effort to communicate opportunities in the Great Outdoors
to all Americans, in part, because of the growing recognition of health
risks arising from inadequate physical activity;
5) new provisions for enlisting the assistance of corrections
agencies and military units in caring for America's public lands and
the recreation facilities on those lands; and
6) reinvigoration and expansion of interpretive and educational
programs at federal recreation sites.
We recognize that the Senate now has pending for floor action
legislation that would deal with fees for a single federal agency--the
National Park Service. We compliment the legislation's author and the
committee for a number of important and meritorious provisions of this
legislation. Yet we cannot support passage of the measure for several
reasons. Most fundamentally, we believe that recreation fee policies of
the federal agencies should be coordinated and complementary wherever
possible, and a unified authority and common provisions would best
accomplish this goal. We also believe that the legislation could be
improved with several additional provisions. Our recommendations for
amending the legislation recently reported out of the full Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources include:
1) sunset provisions for fees every six years, accompanied by full
Congressional oversight of the fee program as part of a reauthorization
of fees and appropriate fee program modifications and program
directions;
2) uniformity of fee provisions for all federal agencies, including
the four agencies covered under the fee demo program and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation;
3) continuation of the local retention of current receipts and
availability of at least 80% of collected recreation fees without any
further need for appropriation, public involvement in fees
establishment and use, clear and meaningful reporting on the use of the
fees, operation of the fee program as fair, convenient, understandable
and efficient, and assurance that the fees will not be offset by
reductions in appropriations;
4) limitations on automatic authority for federal recreation fees,
primarily focusing on those sites where visitors receive clearly
identified services and utilize specific facilities, but also providing
a process for adding additional sites to the fee program where key
tests, including public support, are met;
5) creation of anew National Recreation Fees Advisory Board with
authority to approve expanded and unusual fee sites and with authority
to review fee program 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;
6) penalties for misuse of fee authority or fee receipts applicable
to the line officials involved and to the fee site, including a freeze
on fees and a reduction in local retention of collections from 80% to
60%;
7) creation of a new recreation fee site investment account which
would allow improvements prior to imposition of new or raised fees;
8) investigation and support of the role of RACs in providing local
oversight of the fee program;
9) local retention of revenues from recreation special permits,
concessions and similar agreements under clear provisions which
consolidate fees now charged under such doctrines as cost recovery; and
10) a clear goal of quality recreation experiences--not fee
revenue--as an outcome, and thus 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.
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.
Senator Craig. Well, Sue, thank you very much. Again, some
detailed testimony that I think will be very valuable to us as
we sort through this.
Now let me turn to Robert Raney, Montana State Parks
Foundation, from Livingston. Welcome before the committee,
Robert.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RANEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONTANA STATE
PARKS FOUNDATION, LIVINGSTON, MT
Mr. Raney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Raney. I
am from Livingston, Montana. I served 16 years in the Montana
legislature, all of that time on the Natural Resources
Committee and on the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee.
I am volunteer director of the Montana State Parks
Foundation, which is an all-volunteer organization, and we have
dedicated the last 15 years to research into policy on
management of public lands in Montana.
Most of the things that we have come up with and presented
to the legislature, which have become law, were contrary to
what the agency wanted but very acceptable to the legislature
and the citizens of Montana. And so I am here today to support
Senator Thomas' bill, S. 1107, to abolish access fees to public
lands, and I am going to use our Montana experience to show
constructive alternatives to access fees. Mind you, we are not
concerned with fees for development such as campgrounds with
shower houses, motor launches, or museums.
Let me give you a background of what occurred in Montana.
Between 1989 and 2003, a 14-year period, very little land was
added to our public recreation areas in the State. However, the
budget grew dramatically, more than doubling in 8 years, and
the FTE also grew dramatically. They built visitor centers,
showers, and amphitheaters, did a tremendous amount of
interpretive and educational work. Throughout all of that, the
FTE and the budget kept growing supposedly to maintain all of
this development.
However, during this entire time period, maintenance
deteriorated and continued to deteriorate throughout it all.
Toilets were stinking all across the State. I visited 100 of
the 370 sites in Montana, and in most of them, the toilets were
not usable. Stream banks were eroding away, noxious weeds
becoming a tremendous problem and extending on to private land,
boat ramps not reaching the water. At Plentyku State Park,
insects were in the last chief of the Crow tribe's head bonnet.
At all of this time they were developing, vandalism grew,
and because of it, they had to close our parks for 7 or 8
months a year. So because of the development, we can no longer
get to our places. And throughout it all, they threw at us the
Washington Monument syndrome, which is if you do not give us
more money, we will close operations. We will sell lands, and
we will curtail operations.
We gave them fees in 1989. By 1993, the legislature
recognized that the fees were not going to maintenance. And the
legislature took one-third of the park system in Montana and
said, you can no longer develop these beyond where they are now
developed, and they were not allowed to charge fees to access
that one-third of the system. But, nonetheless, because of
Federal dollars, expansion continued in other parks.
In 1997, the legislature adopted appropriation language
saying, you are done developing. We want you to maintain what
we have. And again, because of Federal rules, so many dollars
coming from the Federal Government that they could use for
development, this did not work.
So in 1999, Governor Rocicot and the legislature passed a
good neighbor policy and defined maintenance. So in the
statutes, we told them you are going to now do maintenance and
you are going to cease your development. It still did not work.
Fees went up and they used the fee money not for maintenance,
but to match Federal dollars for more growth.
So finally in 2003, the legislature said, enough chicanery
is enough, and abolished access fees to Montana lands.
You have heard a lot today about user demand for
development and enhanced services. Let me give you a Montana
example. At our flagship park, the Lewis and Clark Caverns, the
department told the legislature they wanted $880,000 to build a
new visitor center rather than use $90,000 to overhaul the old
one and they told us it was visitor demand. Well, we took it
upon ourselves as the State Parks Foundation to go find out the
base that they used for this information, and what we
discovered was that 57 percent of the people who responded to
their surveys were satisfied with what was there. 40 percent
had no position. Only 3 percent wanted more development and the
development they wanted was more trees in the campground. So we
believe that it is wrong when you accept that the agencies tell
you that the citizens are demanding more services. And when
they want more developed services, such as developed
campgrounds for RV's, we believe in Montana that that should be
accomplished by private enterprise outside of our lands.
Westerners find fees to access their own land appalling.
You are witnessing the backlash. People quit going. It is
because our heritage is being taken away from us. Fees affect
the people who live closest to the land. In many cases, that is
people on low income. What do they do? They have to quit going.
By putting fees on, what you are doing is taking away a great
American freedom, freedom to access our own lands.
We would encourage you not to concede this tax and spend
policy to the bureaucracy, but rather keep it in your hands.
In Montana we found a solution. One, we have said no
development may take place without significant public review
during the entire process from the beginning. We do not want
them to give us the finished plan and ask them to approve it.
Second, we have said that that development must then be
approved in the appropriations process specifically.
And third, we have said that the elected policymakers are
going to prioritize maintenance over development.
This is an extremely inefficient tax collection policy. In
Montana citizens did a study, along with the Department, on
seven parks that the Department wanted to expand fee collection
in. And it turns out they were going to get $114,000 in new
revenue, but it was going to cost $94,000 to collect it. So,
therefore, we got that stopped.
We believe our public lands are for public enjoyment and
use and it is the responsibility of Congress to fund it and
that free access is an American freedom as old as this country.
Thank you for allowing me to talk today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Raney, Executive Director (volunteer),
Montana State Parks Foundation
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the privilege of testifying before you today regarding the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. I am Bob Raney, from
Livingston, Montana. I am a Vietnam veteran, was a railroad conductor
for 25 years, spent 16 years as a State Representative in the Montana
Legislature, and am now the volunteer director of the Montana State
Parks Foundation.
The Montana State Parks Foundation is a small, non-partisan group
of dedicated citizens who have spent the last 15 years analyzing,
developing, and proposing legislative policies and budgets for
Montana's 41 state parks and 320 fishing access sites.
It is fair to say that much of what we have done has been contrary
to the wishes of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
but has been very well accepted by Montana residents and the
legislature.
The policy debates we have in Montana are much the same as those
being debated under the Fee Demo program, although the solutions we
have implemented are considerably different.
For this committee's use, I shall discuss constructive examples of
policy alternatives, without the use of access fees, for running and
funding government agencies that deal with public recreational lands.
In Montana, our main goals have been to:
maintain and restore the public's recreational resources
provide free public access so all citizens can enjoy those
resources
restrain government competition with taxpaying, private
business
keep development, fee, and budget decisions firmly in the
hands of elected policymakers and the public they represent
Before I get into the specifics, let me make a very basic point
that is often missed in discussions about public recreational
resources. It is important to remember that the nation's recreational
lands are owned by all Americans. All too often, the various agencies
that administer these lands forget that vital point, and act as if
they, not the public, own the land. They do not.
We, the American people, own the land--and it is through our
elected representatives that the policies and budgets for these lands
should be decided. Otherwise, the bureaucracy makes the decisions, and
we have seen where that leads.
THE SPIRAL OF GOVERNMENT GROWTH--AND FEES TO FUND IT:
MONTANA'S EXPERIENCE
In 1989, the Montana Legislature first authorized the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to collect entrance fees to
lands under its control. The department immediately implemented $2
access fees to many areas and soon, the Parks Division began to raise
the fees and implement them at more and more places.
Between 1990 and 2003, no new parks were added to the
system. Yet, the number of Parks Division employees rose
dramatically and a former division administrator bragged of
``doubling his budget.''
During that time, new visitor centers, public showers,
amphitheaters, and lots of educational and interpretive programs, roads
and other developments were added. Simultaneously, the Parks Division
continued to increase employment and expand fees--purportedly to
improve maintenance.
The Parks Division increased access fees to $5, but maintenance
continued to lag. Many toilets across the state were filthy--and I,
personally, visited each of them. Meanwhile, stream banks eroded away,
boat ramps did not reach the water, and noxious weed infestations on
the public lands grew wild and eventually spread to adjoining private
lands.
Of course, all the new developments resulted in additional
operations and maintenance costs and they suffered increased vandalism.
The Parks Division, falling back on ``The Washington Monument
Syndrome,'' demanded more money and threatened to close parks, curtail
maintenance, and sell off some units unless they got it. And, because
visitation slows significantly outside of summer, many recreational
areas are now closed for much of the year because the department cannot
protect its developments from vandalism.
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 our natural areas.
By 1993, the legislature began to catch on to what we call ``the
spiral of government growth'' being practiced by the Parks Division.
The question was: ``What can we do about it?'' The Montana State Parks
Foundation suggested some policy alternatives.
The Primitive Parks Act, (See attachment 1*) which was signed into
law in 1993 by Governor Marc Racicot, required that the state's least
developed parks--about one-third of the total--be left that way. By
maintaining the ``primarily natural and undeveloped'' character of
these parks, the impetus for system-wide development--and concurrent
expense--was eliminated. The legislation banned development beyond the
functions necessary to accommodate the basic public needs such as
maintenance of toilets, picnic tables, fire rings, trails and weed
control. Removing these parks from the ``development spiral'' also
helped to meet the demand of those members of the recreating public who
enjoy more natural surroundings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments 1 and 2 have been retained in the subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly to this discussion, however, is that because the
initial high and escalating long-term costs of development and
maintenance were avoided, the agency was prohibited from charging
access fees for Montana residents. Why did they choose to leave it
free? It was easily determined through budget analysis that the
citizens already provided plenty of money for basic maintenance of the
entire recreational lands system through general taxation allocations.
In the meantime, the agency continued to spend millions on
development of other state recreation lands using federal dollars.
Since federal guidelines make it difficult to use federal dollars for
maintenance of existing facilities, they encourage constant growth--
something we simply cannot afford. This federally provided development
money increased the need for maintenance, which increased the need for
more employees and added other costs, which increased the demand for
fees--not just fees for services provided by the development, but fees
to merely walk upon the land.
The legislature responded in 1997 by putting boilerplate language
in appropriation bills to require the department to discontinue most
development until maintenance was caught up. However, the agency used
federal guidelines and other fund manipulations to get around the
budget language. The Parks Division used its own language to decide
whether a project was a basic need or a capital improvement.
Maintenance continued to lag, development persisted, and the Parks
Division increased fees again and again. The legislature tried to
respond once more.
THE GOOD NEIGHBOR ACT--PRIORITIZING MAINTENANCE OVER DEVELOPMENT
In 1999, the legislature and Governor Racicot responded by passing
statutes prioritizing maintenance over development and defining
maintenance to prevent department abuse of the maintenance policy. (See
attachment 2) Yet, because of language attached to federal funds, the
department continues to use Wallop-Breux/Dingle-Johnson money for
development. (The federal guidelines restricting state use of federal
money for maintenance continues to be a problem for states seeking to
control agency-initiated growth.)
Fees increased again in 2002.
The 2004 legislature finally decided enough chicanery was enough
and abolished fees to access recreational lands and waters for Montana
residents and established a voluntary park contribution on vehicle
registration.
DO THE AGENCIES NEED THE MONEY?
JIGGING THE FACTS TO SUPPORT HIGHER FEES
It would be great to believe that agencies always paint a true
picture of public demand and funding needs. But an in-depth case study
at just one Montana park showed that isn't always so.
At the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park, Montana's flagship park,
the agency proposed spending $880,000 to build a new ``visitor contact
center'' at the park entrance rather than $90,000 to upgrade an
existing structure. In its Environmental Assessment, the agency claimed
it had decided to build this new development based on ``public
comments.''
The Montana State Parks Foundation obtained a copy of the ``Visitor
Survey Report'' and the original citizens comments on which this
decision was based, to see what comments the public made.
The results were surprising and disappointing. Contrary to the
agency's contention that the public demanded a new visitor center, 58
percent of those surveyed were ``satisfied with current facility,'' 40
percent were ``neutral or no position'' and only 3 percent (out of 343
surveyed) were ``dissatisfied.''
The entire ``plan'' was based on fictional ``needs'' of the public.
Throughout the survey results, it was obvious that people were happy
with the park as it was and there was NO pressure whatsoever for more
development. In fact, the single improvement sought by the majority of
respondents was to have the agency plant more trees in the camping
area.
While it is no doubt embarrassing to catch a government agency in
such a fabrication, it is by no means an isolated incident. Throughout
the last 15 years, the Montana State Parks Foundation repeatedly has
exposed similar efforts that misled policymakers and the public into
believing there was either great public pressure or ``need'' for
expensive developments and, of course, additional staff. It may be
virtually impossible to inspect every agency development proposal with
this degree of detail, but to think, even for a moment, that this isn't
occurring in federal bureaucracies would be a grave error in judgment.
DON'T CEDE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OR OVERSIGHT TO BUREAUCRACIES
The basic concept of Fee Demo, giving agencies authority to charge,
collect and utilize fees with virtually no Congressional oversight, is
a fatally flawed policy. It gives government agencies the power to tax
and spend, which is reserved to the elected representatives of the
people who are, by virtue of every election, accountable to the voters.
Ceding taxation and budgeting power to the ``faceless bureaucracy''
will ensure continued widespread and costly abuses by agencies; endless
and even more costly court struggles; and the dangerous isolation of
Congress from the basic information necessary to make good, justified
policy decisions. And, the people lose a great freedom-free access to
public land.
WESTERNERS DO NOT TOLERATE FEES TO MERELY ACCESS PUBLIC LANDS
The whole concept of charging access fees to public lands is
appalling to most people in the West, and, as you are aware, there has
been a huge backlash from the public concerning fee demo, the worst of
which is that people simply quit going to public lands. We experienced
the same public response in Montana. Citizens were angered by the state
government's policy of marketing public land access to the very people
who own the lands. Government was stealing our heritage and selling it
back to us.
It is common knowledge that the people most affected by access fees
are those who live closest to the lands. In Montana, where the income
level is rock bottom, people quit going. At some parks, the Parks
Division had to eliminate the access fee to get people to come back. A
quote from an editorial in The World Newspaper, Coos Bay, Oregon, Sept.
18, 2002, emphasizes the point:
The fee (for access) mostly hurts local residents, poor local
residents. These are the people most likely to visit the South
Coast's popular forest trails over and over again. These are
the people who can't afford to vacation far from home. These
are the people already paying to subsidize those lands through
property taxes and income taxes that maintain the roads, other
surrounding infrastructure and even law enforcement--all of
this in a region plagued by unemployment, underemployment and
chronically low wages.
The very concept of requiring people to pay to access their own
land is reprehensible in the West. It is no longer our land when we
must pay the government just to access it!
A SOLUTION
There is a solution to the fiscal problem that has created the
demand for access fees by government agencies. We have found it in
Montana.
No development may take place without it first going through
a significant public review process.
The development must be approved in the legislative
appropriation process, which helps eliminate uncontrolled
bureaucratic growth.
Policymakers prioritize government spending between
maintenance and development. Development can no longer be
supported by use of access fees.
THE SENATE SHOULD SAY NO TO ACCESS FEES
You have heard over and over how inefficient access fee collection
is as a form of tax collection policy. When a Montana committee
examined a Parks Division proposal to expand fee collection to seven
additional areas, the numbers showed just how inefficient it really is.
Appendix H of the Montana Futures Report of 2002 showed the following:
In the chosen 7 parks, increased annual revenue collections
are to be $114,000.
Necessary capital costs to carry out this pilot project are
$21,000. The project requires 4.09 new FTE at a cost of $94,000
per year.
As you can see, we tax the citizens $114,000 and get $20,000 in
profit (after capital costs are paid) from this new tax to spend on
whatever the agency chooses. The Montana State Parks Foundation
believes this is a terrible return on citizens' money and is simply an
employment program based on increased taxation of Montana citizens.
There is no reason to doubt that if a similar cost-benefit study of the
Fee Demo program was conducted by independent analysts, it would reveal
that collection, administrative, enforcement, and legal costs are
likewise consuming the lion's share of the revenue generated by the
imposition of the new access fees.
This Committee has repeatedly heard about fostering the economic
value of our parks and increasing the ``value-added experience'' of
visitors. The Montana State Parks Foundation views this as bureaucratic
language for development-based policy supported by fee-based
management. We believe our public lands are for public enjoyment and
use, and free access is guaranteed by our ownership.
The Montana State Parks Foundation is strongly opposed to fees to
merely access and walk upon our own public recreational land and to
access our public waters. Free access to public land is a freedom as
old as this country.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to
answering any questions you might have.
Senator Craig. Well, Bob, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Now let me turn to our last panelist of this panel, Ed
Phillips, Americans for Forest Access, from Big Bear City,
California. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN PHILLIPS, AMERICANS FOR FOREST ACCESS, BIG
BEAR CITY, CA
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the subcommittee. My name is Edwin Phillips. I have
lived in the San Bernardino Mountains of California most of my
67 years. I am board chairman for Americans for Forest Access,
a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation dealing mainly in access
issues to public lands. We are made up of the leaders of other
recreation organizations and users of the public lands.
I have not been as deeply involved in the fee demo program
as others testifying here today, with the exception of
attempting to find out where the San Bernardino National Forest
has spent the fee demo moneys. Like all other users of public
lands, I have been aware of the problems plaguing the fee demo
program from the start about 7 year/8 years ago. These problems
seem to get worse year by year and have been driving a wedge
deeper between the agencies and the public. The hostilities are
on both sides and will remain there as long as the fee demo
program exists and will cause problems for fee programs in the
future.
The problems with the fee demo program seem to cover every
aspect of the program. There was no real effort to sell fee
demo to the public at its inception. Fee demo was dumped on the
public like a can of worms.
Collection of fees, as shown in appendix 1 and 2 of the GAO
report attached, show the costs of collections are next to
impossible to track in the agencies or their vendors. As much
as two-thirds of the operating costs of collections goes
unreported. The cost between administration and collections are
estimated to be as high as 50 percent of the fees collected in
many of the areas.
The standards for establishing fee collections and
enforcement exist at the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture. By the time the fee demo hits the
district offices, it appears in many cases the process has been
lost. It is charging what the traffic will bear and justifying
the high fee costs later by filling in a cost at a later date.
And they tell the public what a deal they are getting from the
fee demo because it pays only part of the costs to manage these
areas, not to mention the taxes of the same people that are
forced to purchase these passes that go to make up that
difference.
Abuses in collections, appendix 3, signed affidavits. An
80-year-old disabled grandmother stopped to use a handicap rest
room at a public U.S. Forest Service campground while traveling
through the forest. A ranger approached her family as they
waited for her and asked to see their Adventure Pass. Not
having one, they were told they would have to purchase a day
use permit for $5 because their mother was using the
facilities.
Gail Downs, a retired city secretary, wrote you a letter,
appendix 4, about the experiences since fee demo started, how
they have been treated by the rangers of the San Bernardino
National Forest. For many years I have known this lady and I
have never heard her say anything bad about anybody. Gail wrote
you this letter instead of her husband. If Jay had written the
letter, I could not use it today. When Jay told me about the
second incident, he was so angry he could hardly speak.
Appendix 5. This is the worst case scenario. It happened at
the Imperial Sand Dunes, California to Bryan Boyd. I am not
going to go into who said what to whom. We will let the courts
decide that. But we know we have a $6.5 million lawsuit, a 19-
year-old with spinal cord injuries who has got $70,000 in
doctors' bills. The problem is the rangers should never have
let the incident over a day use pass escalate into violence.
There are other ways to handle this type of a situation.
Number 6. Ladies and gentlemen, due to the time
constraints, I have put my personal statement as an attachment
with signed documentation.
There is a solution to fee demo. Let it die in 2006 and
over the next 2 years, go back to fully funded line item
budgets. The majority of the funds already exist to pay for
these changes today.
As it was 50 to 70 years ago, we paid for everything by the
acre. Today we still pay the agencies by the acre to manage our
lands. We no longer have logging, mining, ranching, recreation
on every acre of land as it was in the past. Today we have
millions of acres of roadless wilderness and millions more
acres proposed for wilderness. It is time to move to the 21st
century.
Since we are only supposed to monitor wilderness and let
nature do its thing, the job can be done quickly by satellite
for a fraction of the cost. You now move the funds from the
wilderness areas and add them to the managed lands, reinstate
the funds that Congress withheld 8 or 9 years ago, using a
mandated head count for accuracy and using the head count to
adjust funding to the heavier used areas. This way the agencies
will have ample funding to adequately maintain a well-trained
staff dedicated to managing and maintaining our public lands,
as well as helping the visitors. Then and only then will the
land managers and rangers regain their respect.
This is not just an off-highway vehicle issue. Mom and pop
coming to see the flowers first have to purchase a pass before
accessing public lands.
Thank you, gentlemen, for having me testify here today. If
there are any questions, I would be more than happy to answer
them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edwin Phillips, Board Chairman, Americans for
Forest Access
Dear Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of Subcommittee, my
name is Edwin Phillips. I have lived in the San Bernardino Mountains of
California most of my 67 years. I am Board Chairman for Americans for
Forest Access (AFFA) A 501 C3 Nonprofit Corporation dealing mainly in
access issues to public lands, we are made up of leaders of other
recreation organizations and users of public lands.
I have not been as deeply involved in the fee demo program as
others testifying here today; with the exception of attempting to find
out where the San Bernardino National Forestry spends the Fee Demo
Monies. Like all other users of public lands, I have been aware of the
problems plaguing the fee demo program from the start 7 years ago.
These problems seem to get worse year by year and have been driving the
wedge deeper between the agencies and the public. The hostilities are
on both sides and will remain there as long as the fee demo program
exists and will cause problems for fee programs in the future.
The problems with the fee demo program seem to cover every aspect
of the program.
There was no real effort to sell fee demo to the public at its
inception. Fee demo was dumped on the public like a can of worms.
Collection of fees as shown in Appendixes 1 & 2* of the GAO report
(attached) shows the costs of collections are next to impossible to
track in the agencies or their vendors, as much as \2/3\ of the
operating costs of collections go unreported. The cost between
administrations and collections are estimated to be as high as 50% of
fees collected in many areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The appendixes have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards for establishing fee collections, and enforcement
exists at the department of interior and Department of Agriculture. By
the time fee demo hit the district field offices, it appears in many
cases the process had been lost and charging what the traffic will bear
and justifying the high fee costs later by filling in the costs at a
later date and tells the public what a deal they are getting with the
fee demo because it pays only part of the costs, to manage the areas
not do mention it's the Taxes of the same people that are forced to
purchase these passes that go to make up that difference.
ABUSES IN COLLECTIONS
(Appendix 3 signed letter)
An 80 year old disabled grandmother stopped to use a handicapped
restroom at a public USFS camp ground while traveling through the
forest. A ranger approached her family as they waited for her and asked
to see their adventure pass (fee demo) not having one he told them they
would have to purchase a day use permit for 5 dollars because mother
was using their facilities.
(Appendix 4 signed letter)
Gail Downs a retired city secretary wrote you a letter about their
experiences since fee demo started. How they have been treated by the
rangers of the San Bernardino National Forest services. For the many
years that I have known this lady I have never heard her to say
anything bad about anybody. Gail wrote this letter instead of her
husband Jay. If Jay had written the letter I couldn't have used it here
today. When Jay told me about the second incident he was so angry he
could hardly speak.
(Appendix 5)
The worse case scenario happened at the Imperial Sand Dunes of
Calfomia to Bryan Boyd. I am not going to get into who said what to
whom, we will let the courts decide on that. What we know we have is a
5.6 million dollar law suit, a 19 year old spinal cord injuries and
70,000 dollars in Doctors bills. The problem is the rangers should have
never let the incident over a day use pass (fee demo) escalate into
violence. There are other ways to handle this type of situation.
(Appendix 6)
Ladies and Gentlemen due to time constraints I put my personal
statement as an attachment with signed documentation.
There is a solution for fee demo let it die in 2006 and over the
next two years go back to fully funded line item budgets. The majority
of the funds already exist to pay for these changes. Today as it was 50
to 70 years ago; we still pay the agencies by the acre to manage our
lands. We no longer have logging, mining, ranching or recreation on
every acre of land as it was in the past.
Today we have millions of acres of road less wilderness and
millions of more acres proposed for wilderness. It's time to move into
the 21st Century, since we are only supposed to monitor wilderness and
let nature do its thing. The job can be done quicker by satellite for a
fraction of the cost. You now move the funds from the wilderness areas
and add them to managed lands. reinstate the funds that congress
withheld gfrom the agencies 8 to 9 years ago. Using a mandated head
count for accuracy, using thishead ocunt to adjust funding to heavier
used areas. This way the agencies will have ample funding to adequately
maintain a well trained staff dedicated to managing and maintaining our
public lands as well as helping the visitors.
Then and only will the land managers and rangers regain their
respect.
This is not just an off highway vehicle issue. Mom and pop coming
to see the flowers first have to purchase a pass before accessing
public lands.
Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen for having me testify here today if
there are any questions I would be more than happy to answer them.
Senator Craig. Well, Ed, thank you very much for those
observations and comments. We appreciate your testimony for the
record.
Let me ask some questions of all you because many of you
brought up some very excellent points as we deliberate this
issue.
Commissioner, let me turn to you first. I noted you call
for a collaboration between the counties and the agencies on
recreation fees and for maintaining the 100-year-old compact
between the Federal Government management agencies and the
counties. I salute you for that. That is something that many
are beginning to forget as we disconnect, if you will, the
resource and the land from the adjoining communities of
interest, and by that I mean, not organized communities of
interest, but actual communities of people living near. I
believe that is what Gifford Pinchot was talking about.
I am told that Skagit County has both a title II resource
advisory committee and takes title III funding from the county
schools legislation. You spoke to the Craig-Wyden bill. This is
a question that is kind of a reality check because I think we
oftentimes are looking for alternatives now in lieu of what has
changed. I want to make sure that you and I have a similar
understanding.
Do you agree that the more timber sales that your title II
resource advisory committee would recommend and approve will
generate significantly more revenues and economic activity than
your county's share of a recreational fee might collect?
Mr. Anderson. Oh, absolutely. There is no question. It is
how do we get there because the one big difference is--and I am
sure you know this, Senator--the local jobs that are created
and those paychecks are spent right in the local community.
Even though the safety net was a very welcome thing for the
counties and we are deeply appreciative of that to restore
funding for our local schools and roads, the safety net did not
restore the 3,600 jobs we lost in Skagit County off the Federal
forests. And we have these communities located throughout the
county that were there for the sole purpose of the resource. So
certainly the Healthy Forests Initiative and a regeneration of
economic vitality in that area would do much more than the
recreation fees. No question.
Senator Craig. Has the title II resource advisory committee
recommended any timber sales----
Mr. Anderson. No, they have not.
Senator Craig [continuing.] Or done any studying as it
relates to EIS's?
Mr. Anderson. I am sorry, sir.
It is primarily recreation type projects, and we are
partnered with Whatcom County. We partnered with them on this
resource advisory committee out of concern for the staffing
levels for the Forest Service.
The reason I mentioned that was to show the intent. While
as you well know--you were the author of it--was this attempt
to restore, I think, a line of communication between the local
communities and the Forest Service. Frankly, the reason I threw
in the little addendum about the roads is because that does not
happen, and to a large degree, it really affects what happens
to not only urban interface fire fighting and a lot of these
issues that we are concerned about, but it also dampens
opportunity.
I authored a bill 2 years ago on the State level, H.R.
4316, that allows local county governments to utilize county
road funds to partner with other jurisdictions. So there are
some opportunities there if you had a collaboration on some of
these roads that are vital to the community as far as access
for partnerships.
But also my fear is with the Healthy Forests Initiative
that the limitations on these makes it difficult to access a
lot of these lands to carry out the Healthy Forests Initiative.
These lands were very much passive recreation for a lot of our
elderly people that are very localized. They do not come from
out of the area. And I think the comments about the local
people are right on. They live there because they enjoy the
lands. That is where they recreate.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for those comments. I must
tell you that during the aggressive road closure period of the
last administration, I was terribly frustrated that you would
close roads, on one hand, and be advocate of recreation on the
other. It seemed like you were locking the gates but
encouraging people at least to go to the gate. Especially in
localized recreation, those accesses are critically important.
Mr. Anderson. One other concern in relationship to that is
once these roads are closed, you end up with additional
wilderness areas. You know, the definition of 1,000 acres, you
know, roadless area--you end up with these roadless areas. That
further impacts.
I really appreciated your statement about you did not want
these run like parks. My local jurisdiction there in the Sedro-
Woolley, the Mount Baker and Snoqualmie Forest, is actually
housed in the same building with the national parks. They are
housed in the same building and the policies are not
dissimilar. That needs to change to some degree with the
recognition that they have a broader scope of application than
just recreation.
Senator Craig. Yes. Well, thank you very much.
Carl, would you support a recreation users fee that
required all funds be expended on the maintenance of the site
where they were collected?
Mr. Wilgus. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think that that works.
Obviously, we have seen in some of the other areas where a
portion of that is used for other areas within the region or
within the forest that may not get the usage.
An example would be--one of the things we mentioned was
information dissemination. Brochures and materials that talk
about treading lightly and about appropriate use of the public
lands do as much to preserve and protect those lands as you
would get in putting back in user fees with additional
facilities or trail maintenance. So in some instances, the
benefit or the value of money collected in one area can
actually support other areas in and around the region. But in
general, yes, we would be comfortable with that.
Senator Craig. I am wondering what the State of Idaho does
when someone pulls off the highway at a State-run rest stop or
campground to use the bathroom facility. I think that we had an
example with our last witness. Do you think it is reasonable to
charge a $5 day use fee to those that are just stopping for a
short period of time to utilize the facility and then, in
essence, head on down the road?
Mr. Wilgus. Well, to a large extent, Mr. Chairman, we are
all paying for that facility whether or not we use that rest
room because the Department of Transportation is paying for the
maintenance and operation of that facility and we all pay that
expense by traveling those highways. So you get a chance to pay
for it without even using the facility as well as the person
who does.
I think therein lies obviously the tough question of where
is the additional incremental value to the individual and what
is he willing to absorb and spend for that service versus what
is of greater societal benefit. I think, again, the Forest
Service and the BLM are taking those ideas very much to heart
when they look at it, and that is why the issues of scenic
overlooks are not looked as a fee demonstration issue because
that does have general societal value, where the additional
incremental value, once you stay at a campground, to charge an
increased fee on that does make some level of sense. So I think
those kinds of rules of reasonableness are probably the
important ones to apply. Obviously, in dealing with the Federal
Government, sometimes reasonableness is a hard thing to
understand.
Senator Craig. Well, you have spoken the right words there.
I have no disagreement with that approach.
Sue, what in your mind is an equitable fee? How do you
measure that?
Ms. Bray. First of all, I think it has to be measured
locally because it really depends on what you are getting for
the money. What you may be getting in a camping experience at
Yosemite is a completely different experience than you would
have out on the desert in California. So to just tell you an
equitable fee is $10 I cannot do that.
Senator Craig. I think you have approached my next question
then, and that is, how do you establish those guidelines for
setting the levels charged?
Ms. Bray. Well, we really believe that it needs to be done
at the local level and there needs to be input from the users,
the people who are paying the fees. That is why we are really
encouraging the use of the RAC's to establish what those
equitable fees would be because they are the people that know.
Senator Craig. Can you give me some ideas on what your
members would consider to be a convenient collection system?
Ms. Bray. Oh, gosh. Probably more automated collection
systems would make a lot more sense. I can get a debit card at
Starbucks and go in and use the card over and over again and
not have to deal with spending $2.50 for my coffee every day.
There are ways for this to be done.
Our members as a whole seem to feel pretty comfortable with
user fees when they understand how they work and what they are
going for. When we do hear from people, it is when a ranger,
for example, is trying to collect $6 and when the person asks
what it is for, they say they do not know, but you should write
your Congressman if you do not like it.
Senator Craig. And they do.
Ms. Bray. And they do, yes. You have probably heard from
them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Yes, I have. And then I go try to find that
ranger.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bray. Precisely.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you very much. I noted that
you added on the stipulation that users fees should be
voluntary. Would you or the other members of the American
Recreation Coalition support a mandatory recreation fee payment
system?
Ms. Bray. Yes, we would support a mandatory payment system.
That is what we would encourage you to do. But if you are
saying determine the fees, that is where we think it needs to
be at the local level.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Sue.
Bob, it sounds like you have been round and back again on
this issue, and I can appreciate the obvious frustrations you
had as a legislator, an observer, and now a direct participant
in trying to shape fees and results.
If you had a recreation fee that required that funds be
spent only on maintenance, do you think more people would be
supportive of that kind of program?
Mr. Raney. No, sir, certainly not in the West. It just
comes right down to the basic concept that that is our land and
it belongs to all Americans. All Americans are responsible for
the maintenance of that land.
It is a little different when it comes to the developments.
We would like to see the development money stay in the area
where the development is. So if they build a museum, then of
course we would like the fees that are collected at that museum
to stay at that museum. But for access, no.
Senator Craig. Then I think I would probably guess your
answer as it relates to the West Slope No Fees Coalition and
their attitude toward fees in general that went for land and/or
maintenance.
Mr. Raney. I do not know exactly what the West Slope No
Fees Coalition's position is, so I can only relay what our
experience and position is in Montana.
Senator Craig. That is fair enough. Well, I thank you very
much for that testimony.
Mr. Raney. I do have a little bit more information I would
like to enter in the record.
Senator Craig. Please do, and we will make that a part of
the record. We appreciate that.
Mr. Raney. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Ed, you have concerns about the amount of
fees collected. Would you support an advisory committee
approach that helped set the fee levels and monitor how the
revenues are spent?
Mr. Phillips. No, sir. I cannot support a fee of any type
at this time because it is discriminatory. It eliminates, I
would say, about 25 percent of the population that are the
working poor, the retired. You try to live on $1,100 a month
Social Security sometime and see if you have got any money left
for an Adventure Pass.
In our area all the improved areas, campgrounds and such,
have been leased out to concessionaires. So the Adventure Pass
came about, which is a parking permit. The way that this has
been administered and everything and also on part of the BLM,
the way they have assessed the fees, they have demonstrated to
us that they are not capable of managing their own fees.
And we feel that Congress and the Senate should set down
mandated rules, amounts, and make them do a line item budget
and go back to--well, basically this is the way it will be done
and take the rangers out of the collection area which will end
a lot of the hostilities and the problems that are created by
fee demonstration programs and such because these people are
not gate tenders. They are out there to manage our public
lands.
Senator Craig. As I mentioned, the San Bernardino had
implemented a users pass system before the 1996 authorization
for the recreation fee demonstration program. The difference
was that under that program the receipts went to the U.S.
Treasury. Are you suggesting that if we do away with the
recreation fee demonstration program, that we should also do
away with the Land and Water Conservation Trust authority to
collect fees at sites?
Mr. Phillips. I do not know enough about that particular
part of it to make an intelligent comment. I just cannot buy a
fee because of what has been demonstrated over the last 7 or 8
years and the problems it has caused and the hostilities and
everything else and the people it has eliminated from the
lands.
Senator Craig. Well, Sue and gentlemen, thank you very much
for your testimony today and your willingness to travel and to
speak to this issue. It is of concern to all of us. We search
to find adequate resources for these public land agencies,
while trusting that we can cause them to be well managed and
efficiently managed and that dollars be used wisely.
At the same time, we are in real conflict at this moment in
funding as it relates to the fire scenarios that our forests
are now experiencing and the ability of the Forest Service, as
we have allowed them to borrow from funds to fund fires and
then the Congress not replenishing those resources. So we are
ultimately in a funding conflict not unlike the one that I
suggested would occur, and when I made that suggestion it was
about 5 or 6 years ago as we watched the Forest Service
finally, after all of its history, plummet into the red with
the demise of the timber program. We are now at that crossroads
and Congress is struggling mightily with resources and trying
to control deficits and at the same time, figuring out which is
fair and equitable.
And I think Senator Alexander put it quite well. We in the
West sometimes look at these lands considerably differently
than some do here in the East where these lands are limited in
nature and numbers of people who desire to use them or access
them are substantially larger.
So we will sort through that. We did not think it was
appropriate that we simply move toward reauthorization or
allowing the Appropriations Committee just to move forward
without some fairly in-depth look at these programs in an
attempt to shape them in a way that has some of the safeguards
in them and some of the controls that many of you have spoken
to today.
So, again, we thank you very much for your testimony and
your time.
As I mentioned in my opening statements, the committee
record will stay open for a period of time to accept additional
information.
[The letter of Mr. Staker follows:]
Board of Commissioners,
Bonneville County, ID,
Idaho Falls, ID, April 8, 2004.
Jerry Reese,
Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark
Drive, Idaho Falls, ID.
Dear Jerry: It has come to our attention that the Forest Service
and BLM fee demo program is currently being reviewed by Congress to
determine whether the program will be authorized permanently. Negative
publicity about some particular fee demo projects around the Nation has
raised the possibility that the program will not be authorized
permanently and in fact, may be terminated.
Termination of the program would be of great concern to the
Bonneville County Commission because the program has been a great asset
to our partnership in management of the facilities along the South Fork
of the Snake River. The South Fork program has been in effect for
several years and is supported by users and agency partners alike.
Funding received from the Fee Demo program has provided both
construction and maintenance of launch and takeout facilities along the
South Fork. The funds are allocated through a joint committee and the
fees have virtually all gone back into facilities that support
recreation by Bonneville County citizens and a much broader public.
Our understanding is that there have been public complaints
regarding the fee program in some locations. Perhaps some of the
unpopular programs need to be redesigned, but locally we are hearing no
negative comments about the South Fork fee program. The local public
can see the direct benefits of the money that they invest.
Sincerly,
Lee Staker,
Commissioner.
Senator Craig. With that, the subcommittee will stand
adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of the Forest Service to Questions From Senator Gordon Smith
Question 1. You stated that the Forest Service has seen a dramatic
increase in visitation to National Forest lands. Does the Forest
Service have any statistics on what types of recreational experiences
people prefer within the National forest system? For example, can you
tell me how many people, as a percentage of all visitors, recreate in
legally-designated wilderness areas?
Answer. The Forest Service has a National Visitor Use Monitoring
(NVUM) project that provides statistically reliable estimates of
recreation and related visitor use on National Forests throughout the
United States. Based on national participation data, the top five
activities in which Forest Service visitors participated on a National
Forest include: 1. viewing natural features (53.4%); 2. relaxing
(40.2%); 3. hiking/walking (39.6%); 4. viewing wildlife (27.9%); and 5.
driving for pleasure (23.7%).
Out of 214 million visitors, 13 million or approximately 6% of
National Forest visitors stated they recreate in legally designated
Wilderness areas.
Question 2. How much of the National Forest visitation occurs in
those areas within the system that have enhanced recreation facilities,
or at least basic amenities?
Answer. The 2003 NVUM project data indicate that out of 214 million
visitors the Forest Service received 256 million visits to recreation
sites or areas. In other words, for each person visiting a National
Forest, that person visited, on average, 1.2 Forest Service recreation
sites. The Forest Service does not have data to compare the number of
visitors to recreation fee demonstration sites versus visitors who
visit a recreation site that is not a part of the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program.
Question 3. Have any of the legally-designated wilderness areas
administered by the Forest Service had to reduce or restrict public
access, or move to an entrance permit system in order to meet the
Service's solitude guidelines?
Answer. Out of the 406 Wilderness areas that are part of the
National Forest System, 18 require a mandatory permit system to meet
solitude guidelines and to mitigate resource damage as a result of
recreation use. The majority (96%) of Forest Service Wilderness areas
are not managed through a permit system.
Question 4. Do wilderness areas have to comply with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Answer. Yes, the compliance requirements for wilderness areas are
detailed in the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title V, Section
507(c) as follows:
FEDERALLY DESIGNATED WILDERNESS
``(1) IN GENERAL--Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness
Act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness area by an individual
whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires no
agency to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to
construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a
wilderness area to facilitate such use.
(2) Definition--for the purposes of paragraph (1), the term
wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by a mobility
impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor
pedestrian area.''