[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS--SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-404 WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
P. Daniel Smith, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held February 26, 1998................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 10
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, prepared statement of............. 153
Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon................................... 62
Statements of witnesses:
Bachrach, John Christopher, Treasurer and Board Member, Grand
Canyon Private Boaters Association......................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Berry, John M., Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior; accompanied by Henry
Rodger Schmitt, Group Manager, Recreation Group, Bureau of
Land Management............................................ 11
Prepared statement of Mr. Berry.......................... 49
Coyne, Alasdair, Conservation Director, Keep the Sespe Wild.. 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Crandall, Derrick, President, American Recreation Coalition.. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Dingman, Robert, American Motorcyclist Association,
Washington, DC............................................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Fretwell, Holly, Research Associate, Political Economy
Research Center............................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Johnson, Myrna, Director of Government Affairs, Outdoor
Recreation Coalition of America, prepared statement of..... 143
Laverty, Lyle, Former Director, Recreation Programs, Regional
Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. Forest Service;
accompanied by Greg Super, National Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service;
Linda Feldman and Floyd Thompson........................... 15
Prepared statement of Mr. Laverty........................ 51
Mackey, Craig, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound.......... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Santini, James D., Washington DC Representative, National
Tour Association and former Member of Congress............. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Sloan, Mary Margaret, Conservation Director, American Hiking
Society.................................................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Stavely, Gaylord, Vice President, National Forest Recreation
Association................................................ 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Voorhees, Philip David, Associate Director of Policy and
Development, National Parks and Conservation Area.......... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Additional material supplied:
Andersen, Heide, Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain
Club, prepared statement of................................ 148
Colby, Wendy, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of............ 147
Neubauer, Dale, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of.......... 155
Spohn, Isabell, Twisp, Washington, prepared statement of..... 160
U.S. Dept. of the Interior and the Dept. of Agriculture,
``Recreational Fee Demonstration Program''................. 100
Vaughan, Ray, Executive Director, Wildlaw, Montgomery,
Alabama.................................................... 156
Waldheim, Edward H., President, Calfornia Off Road Vehicle
Assoc., Glendale California................................ 158
HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS--SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 132, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] I've scheduled this hearing today
to continue the longstanding involvement of the members of this
Subcommittee in examining the issues of recreation fees on
Federal lands.
As many of you are aware, this Subcommittee held several
hearings on recreation fee proposals during the first session
of the 10th Congress. Several members of the Subcommittee and
several of the witnesses today will have fond memories of our
discussion during 1995. However, today we will review the
successes and failures of the recreational fee demonstration
program that the Congress authorized in the Omnibus
Consolidation Rescissions Act of 1996 and amended in subsequent
legislation during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Currently, this recreational fee demonstration program
authorizes the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service
to establish fee collection programs at up to 100 sites for
each agency. The fee demonstration program allows these
agencies to retain 80 percent of the fee at the collecting
unit, and the remaining 20 percent is available to the
collecting agency at management discretion.
The agencies are collecting a variety of entrance and user
fees to test the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery
for operation and maintenance costs, and to address the backlog
repair and maintenance of infrastructure. The fees are also
being used for interpretation, facility enhancement, and
resource management projects. However, I am concerned that some
fees are being spent on items that do not fit within these
areas.
I am pleased to note that, generally, public awareness and
acceptance of the fee demonstration program has been positive.
I have long held the view that if the fees are fair and
reasonable, and the funds are retained at the site to enhance
the visitor experience, that the American public will support a
fee program. However, we will hear testimony today that will
show that not all of the public is totally convinced of the
rationale for charging cost-recovery fees on the public lands.
This hearing will serve to provide necessary information
for this Subcommittee to consider legislation that would
provide permanent authorization for the recreational fee
demonstration program under the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965. I believe that the recreational fee program is the
most fair and realistic way to address the backlog problems of
the Federal land used by the American people. I fully realize
there's some problems with the current recreation fee program;
however, this hearing will help us to make decisions that will
correct these deficiencies, explain this program to the public,
and enhance outdoor recreation experiences for everyone. I look
forward to the testimony we will receive today, and appreciate
the efforts of all of you to be present and express your views
on this important program.
I hope you folks realize there's a dozen hearings going on
all over the Hill, most of them on CIA and Iraq and things such
as that, so it's, I don't know why, but anyway you will see
members dribble in and out, and I apologize that not everyone's
here right now, but I've been assured that many will come.
Normally, at usual congressional time, which is twenty minutes
after we start.
With that in mind, I am very happy to recognize, I'd
recognize the gentlelady, but I don't know if she wants to be
recognized right now. I'll then turn to--see, I told you they'd
all start coming. We'll start then with the Honorable Wally
Herger, the gentleman from California who works so diligently
on these programs. It's always a pleasure to have you, Mr.
Herger. We'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do
appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the fee
demonstration program currently being implemented by our
National Park Service and our United States Forest Service. I
represent all or part of nine national forests, and one
national park, and one national recreation area. The fee
demonstration program is severely impacting the people of my
district. I am strongly opposed to any extension or
continuation of this program for three main reasons.
First, this program is another unnecessary tax on families
who are already overburdened by taxes. Second, the fee program
places additional burden on recreational access and as a result
is highly detrimental to local economies, such as mine in
Northern California, which are dependent on tourism and
recreation. And third, this fee program only perpetuates misuse
of existing funding and natural resources by land management
agencies.
First issue of the tax burden. In 1997, Federal, State, and
local taxes combined are projected to claim 38.2 percent of the
median income of two-earner families--up from 37.3 percent in
1996. This means families are now taxed at a level higher than
any other time in our Nation's history, excluding the years of
1944 and 1945, during World War II. Imposing an additional tax
burden in the form of fees on the already overburdened American
family is considered unconscionable.
One unintended and unfortunate result of this tax is that
the average American family may no longer be able to afford a
visit to our national parks and forests. Families who once
simply drove through these areas now have an added financial
burden. The impact of fewer citizens visiting our National
parks and forests would negatively impact local economies.
Imposing fees is not the answer.
At the heart of this issues are Federal agencies that have
mismanaged their funding. These agencies claim significant
backlogs in maintenance and upkeep for basic services, while
continuing to receive annual appropriations that are not
adequately accounted for. For example, according to a report by
the General Accounting Office and the Department of Interior's
Inspector General, the National Park Service lacks (1)
necessary financial and program data on its operations; (2)
adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent; and (3)
that the agency lacks performance measures on what is being
accomplished with the money being spent.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's recreational needs will not be
met by throwing more money into the Federal Government's
insatiable hands. Before we give the National Park Service or
the United States Forest Service a permanent, revenue-
generating program such as the fee demonstration program, we
should require a proper accounting for the resources already at
their disposal.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my firsthand experience,
this program is not working. There has been a substantial
amount of animosity generated by local communities who have had
to deal with implementation of this program. This ill-conceived
program needs to be discontinued. Again, I want to thank the
Subcommittee for hearing my testimony, and I request that when
this Subcommittee takes up any action on this issue, it will
consider the negative impact suffered by local communities such
as mine. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the fee
demonstration program currently being implemented by our
National Park Service and our United States Forest Service. I
represent all or part of nine national forests, one national
park, and one national recreation area. The fee demonstration
program is severely impacting the people of my district. I am
strongly opposed to any extension or continuation of this
program for three main reasons: first this program is another,
unnecessary tax on families who are already over-burdened by
taxes; second the fee program places additional burdens on
recreational access and as a result is highly detrimental to
local economies, such as mine in northern California, which are
dependent on tourism and recreation; and third, this fee
program only perpetuates misuse of existing funding and natural
resources by land management agencies.
First the issue of the tax burden. In 1997 Federal, state
and local taxes combined are projected to claim 38.2 percent of
the median income two-earner family, up from 37.3 percent in
1996. This means families are now taxed at a level higher than
any other time in our history, excluding the years of 1944 and
1945 during World War II. Imposing an additional tax burden in
the form of fees on the already overburdened American family is
considered unconscionable. One unintended and unfortunate
result of this tax is that the average American family may no
longer be able to afford a visit to our national parks and
forests. Families who once simply drove through these areas,
now have an added financial burden. The impact of fewer
citizens visiting our national parks and forests would
negatively impact local economies.
Imposing fees is not the answer. At the heart of this issue
are Federal agencies that have mismanaged their funding. These
agencies claim significant backlogs in maintenance and upkeep
for basic services while continuing to receive annual
appropriations that are not adequately accounted for. For
example, according to a report by the General Accounting Office
and the Department of the Interior's Inspector General, the
National Park Service lacks: 1. necessary financial and program
data on its operations; 2. adequate internal controls on how
its funds are spent; and 3. that the agency lacks performance
measures on what is being accomplished with the money being
spent.
Mr. Chairman, our nation's recreational needs will not be
met by throwing more money into the Federal Government's
insatiable hands. Before we give the National Park Service or
the United States Forest Service a permanent revenue generating
program such as the fee demonstration program we should require
a proper accounting for the resources already at their
disposal.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my first hand experience
this program is not working. There has been a substantial
amount of animosity generated by local communities who have had
to deal with implementation of this program. This ill conceived
program needs to be discontinued. Again I want to thank the
Subcommittee for hearing my testimony and I request that when
this Subcommittee takes up any action on this issue it will
consider the negative impact suffered by local communities.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Herger. We appreciate you being
with us, and if you stay with us just a minute, we may have
some questions for you.
Let me state that we're very pleased to have Ralph Regula,
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of Interior with
us. It's always a pleasure to have Ralph with us. We work very
closely on matters pertaining to public lands, Interior issues.
I'll turn to Mr. Regula for any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a formal
statement, but I want to re-emphasize what Congressman Wally
Herger said about accountability, and we've built that into the
pilot programs. Accountability for the money that's collected
and accountability for the management. This was instituted as
part of our Appropriations Committee, as a demonstration as to
what could be done. Not all units are using the fee program,
but I will say that in talking with people that have both
experienced paying the relatively small fees, as well as the
superintendents and managers of our recreation systems in the
parks, forests, and Fish and Wildlife Service, and BLM, that I
get very positive reaction. A little footnote to it is that
they find that vandalism is down, lessened because people, when
they pay a little bit, have a stake in the facility. Visitation
is up, so I don't believe people are being restricted in usage.
I know that the parks have worked out an arrangement for
local folks that are in and out for various reasons, working
there, or delivering materials, that they don't pay, they get a
sticker. This is a pilot, or an experimental program, and the
effort is being made to get the bugs out of it and make it work
well. And we've made it clear in the appropriations process
that we don't see this as a substitute for annual
appropriations, but rather as a supplement to deal with the
maintenance backlog. For example, I believe in Yellowstone,
they're going to use some of their money to replace the sewer
system, along with what we appropriate, to enhance the visitor
experience by doing things that they normally couldn't do. And
there is a high level of enthusiasm on the part of the
managers, simply because of what they are able to do.
As I say, it's not a substitute for the appropriations
process, and I think that the way it's being worked in the
various parks and forests now demonstrates that there is merit
to a program of this type. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
having a hearing and looking at this program and the pluses and
minuses of what we've experienced in the past 2 years under the
program to see what should be done, if anything, on a permanent
basis. Because I think it does have a potential for giving
people a sense of participation in the park responsibilities,
as well as providing some additional funds to substantially
enhance the visitor experience. And I believe there are a lot
of pluses to it based on my conversations with people as I
visit parks, and with the superintendents or the managers.
There's a pretty positive reaction, all up and down the line.
And I'm as interested in your comments, Mr. Herger. I think
probably some of those concerns would be addressed in permanent
legislation. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:]
The Hon. Ralph Regula,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, we
express our appreciation for the opportunity to improve our recreation
resources through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized
by section 315 of the fiscal year 1996 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. Attached is a joint progress report on the status
of the program, submitted by the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture on behalf of the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service. This report
summarizes the most recent information on visitation, revenues, and
management issues that have arisen during initial implementation of the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
We are pleased to inform you that visitor response to the new fees
has been generally positive. We increased revenues substantially during
the first year, and began the long process of reducing our maintenance
backlogs. The program represents a significant step toward improving
visitor services and facilities for those who recreate on public lands.
The agencies agree that long-term implementation of this effort is
desirable. We will work with Congress to design a program that builds
upon our positive experience in implementing the demonstration effort.
Such a program should provide flexibility for designing fees tailored
to specific situations, embody strong incentives for agencies to
collect recreation fees, and provide assurance to the public that a
majority of revenues raised will benefit the site where fees are
collected. To that end, we will be pleased to submit draft legislation
during the coming year and to work closely with your staff. However, we
do believe that permanent authority should not take effect until after
the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999.
A similar letter is being sent to Sidney R. Yates, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, the Honorable Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
John Berry,
Assistant Secretary,
Policy, Management and Budget
Department of the Interior
James Lyons,
Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment,
Department of Agriculture
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Regula. Ms. Smith, do you have
any statements or comments to Mr. Herger?
Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington. To begin with, I've got two
different groups. We have people who live close to the sites
who have used those properties for many, many years for picking
berries, for hiking around the Mt. Saint Helens site, which was
obviously a volcano and now restored. And so we're not finding
a lot of complaint, except for some of the families' having to
pay 20 more dollars a year per member, and we are in an area of
very large families, and a lot of stay-home moms. And it is
very difficult. It appears that if we could have something for
those closer. It is not just those distributing things into the
site. It's those that live across the street. It's like you
have to, where you used to go play and climb and hike, now
you're charged. That's pretty steep for them--not for all
families, but it certainly is for a significant number. And if
we could find some way to get the Park Service to do something
with the families that are real close, that would probably
satisfy most of the complaints that I'm getting. Because I'm
only getting them from those people. So if the Chairman could
consider that, and possibly--both chairmen.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Vento? Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Herger, I'll
address the question to you and then have a comment. You know,
this legislation was authorized by the 19, well first we had
the Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-134. How would you vote on that?
Mr. Herger. Well, my understanding----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, did you vote for or against the bill?
I'm just curious.
Mr. Herger. This was part of a large bill.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but----
Mr. Herger. Of which I voted for.
Mr. DeFazio. So you voted for the bill, but you were
against this part of it.
Mr. Herger. That's correct.
Mr. DeFazio. Correct, OK.
Mr. Herger. And my experience has been one that's been very
much in the same line of Mrs. Smith.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Mr. Herger. Except I could put many exclamation marks. The
local people, I can tell you, are incensed with this. I have
probably had as many complaints on this one issue than I've had
of anything I can recall in the 11 years I've been representing
the area. And I would hope that at least we could look at----
Mr. DeFazio. OK----
Mr. Herger. [continuing] as Mrs. Smith mentioned, doing
something for the locals.
Mr. DeFazio. If I, if Mr. Herger, if I could----
Mr. Herger. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. [continuing] if I could reclaim my time,
because I've got limited time. And then we had the 1998
Interior Appropriations Act, which extended it. Do you recall
how you voted on that?
Mr. Herger. Mr. DeFazio, all of these bills----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, but I mean, did you vote for that too?
Mr. Herger. I----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, I voted it against it, you voted--OK. If I
could reclaim my time--I have introduced legislation to repeal
this and replace it with a modest charge on those who deplete
minerals from Federal lands, a royalty charge, which is charged
by all other owners of lands. Are you a co-sponsor of my bill
to repeal it and replace this legislation with another form of
fee?
Mr. Herger. I believe I'd be very opposed to the latter----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all right, well, Mr. Herger, I would
suggest that, you know, you voted for it twice, even though it
was part of other legislation. There is one bill pending to
repeal it, which is mine, and you're not a sponsor of it. I
guess I'm looking for a little consistency here. I, you know,
I'm opposed. I heard, with great interest, that the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee talked about reductions in
vandalism. Actually, we have a totally new form of vandalism in
my district, which is very significant removal and vandalism of
the signs for the fee areas. It's a new kind of vandalism.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. So, I haven't had the experience of reductions
in vandalism. You know, the kind of complaints I get are
similar to those that Mrs. Smith has received, and you have
received, people particularly who live in or adjacent to the
forests.
There was a precedent established in Oregon which may
address their concerns and the Chairman may need to take this
into account. In the Federal District Court in Oregon, you
know, this doesn't just apply to parks. It applies to forests,
you know; apparently, I don't know if there are any BLM lands
doing it yet. It applies to beaches in Oregon, and some surfers
who wanted to access a beach in Oregon on the other side of the
Dunes National Recreation Area were ticketed for not having
paid these fees, where they had no intention of using the
trails. They just wanted to access the beach and surf, as they
had done traditionally. They won in court. And it was found
that they could not be ticketed or charged for that use.
I'm not exactly certain of all the principles in that case,
but I think that may undermine this fee program in a number of
areas, and I think that the Committee ought to be looking for
other, and more fair, alternatives to this tax on individuals.
It flies in the face of most of the things I've heard from the
majority on the Republican Contract. I mean, this is a tax on
individuals who want to use public lands and, you know, I, and
it's, it is inconvenient for people who live in those areas. It
is burdensome for people of low incomes that live in those
rural areas. It's even, I've experienced it as a pain in the
butt because I bought a sticker. I put it on one car. But then
I went backpacking and I took a different car, and I forgot,
and I got all the way there, and then I had to drive back out
again, find a place to buy one, slap it on my other car, and
drive back in again. And I know that other people have had
that, have had that happen.
I think this is something that should come out of general
funds or some other source, and not through this program. And
the reason we haven't had too many complaints, also, is that it
hasn't been enforced. Wait until this year, when the Forest
Service starts ticketing people for money, instead of courtesy
tickets, if you want to see a firestorm of protest, and/or
vandalism, and/or antagonism toward the government and Federal
employees. Last year, people just got courtesy tickets saying
you should have a ticket. But this year they're going to get
tickets for real, and it's going to be a very unpleasant
experience for the Forest Service employees in my district who
are issuing those tickets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlemen from California, Mr. Gallegly. Do
you have comments for Mr. Herger, or an opening statement?
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it's
always a pleasure to have Wally here. Wally and I have been
friends for a long time. In fact we were classmates in the
100th Congress together, and we've been through a lot of
battles and wars together. I think that the comments relative
to those that live in the proximity certainly deserve a lot of
consideration. I think Linda Smith was right on point. However,
I would say that for those who are driving their $100,000
mobile homes that go across the country, and go into a park a
thousand miles from home, or 1,500 miles from home, to say they
can't afford five dollars to help maintain the, the integrity
of the public land, I think is a little bit disingenuous. But I
do think that collectively we can work on this issue. But those
that are immediately living in the area, I do think that we
need to address that issue a little bit. But going across the
country, I'm sorry. And I do appreciate the comments of Wally
and look forward to working with him on this issue as well as
many others.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlemen from Nevada has no opening
statement. We'll appreciate the gentleman----
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment if I could. I
know you want to get going, and I'll just be brief.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. Vento. [continuing] I wanted to be certain that Mr.
DeFazio--Mr. Herger, I didn't see your statement in my file
here, but I assume the concern was about Mt. Saint Helens?
Mr. Herger. No, that wasn't----
Mr. Vento. Well, that was----
Mr. Gallegly. That's a bit north of----
Mr. Vento. OK, what is the, what was the unit that you were
concerned about?
Mr. Herger. Well, I----
Mr. Vento. Was there a specific unit? Was it a Forest
Service unit or a Park Service unit? Mt. Saint Helen, of
course, was a, is a Forest Service unit.
Mr. Herger. We have nine national forests within our
district--the specific, where the strongest concerns have been
around Mt. Shasta.
Mr. Vento. Does it concern user fees, or does it concern
entrance fees?
Mr. Herger. It would be, I assume that would be, entrance
fees.
Mr. Vento. I assume it's user fees.
Mr. Herger. They're fees that are paid at such time as they
enter the park.
Mr. Vento. Well, is it for a camping reservation, or what
is the purpose of it? I mean, because----
Mr. Herger. It's anything they do utilizing the water at,
for example, Lake Shasta----
Mr. Vento. Well, I don't want to--I mean the concern is, I
think, that we've always had, the Forest Service has had,
historically, authority for user fees as well as the Park
Service. That would be for parking a car, for a campsite, you
know, primitive and so----
Mr. Herger. This is just for day use for going use and use,
like, the water----
Mr. Vento. Just an entrance fee, but I guess that's under
the experiment. But we had authorized, I think, for BLM and for
Forest Service some of the sites, you know, that are a basic
monument or type of a visitor contact station, not just for
entrance. And of course there's a big increase. I mean, the
real question here is, you know we go to a film or something
and it costs five, six, seven dollars to get into a film. You
know, and you talk about people, you know. So they, you know,
the issue here is, how do we sustain or support this. I
appreciate your comments about those that live in close
proximity, and there are, of course, accommodations where you
can get an annual pass because you're going more often. It is
inconvenient, it is obviously a--they're on the learning curve
with regards to understanding that.
Mr. Herger. But even on that point----
Mr. Vento. Yes, sure----
Mr. Herger. [continuing] even on an annual pass, say
someone living in Redding, California would have to buy a pass
for Lake Shasta and an additional pass for----
Mr. Vento. Yes. Well, I think that----
Mr. Herger. [continuing] the lake, which are all within,
maybe three miles.
Mr. Vento. Well, I appreciate that, because the Forest
Service doesn't have a Golden Eagle, so to speak, as the Park
Service. So that's something that needs to be, needs to be
addressed.
Mr. Herger. And I would like to urge the Committee, there
are a number of issues of this type that I'd like to see us
address. We attempted to address this point, Mrs. Smith brought
it up, of perhaps having the local area, some type of discount
for people who leave there.
Mr. Vento. Well, they already--I mean, I think there are
accommodations----
Mr. Herger. They determined that was not constitutional to
be able to do that----
Mr. Vento. Yes, well, I think there probably is a better
deal than that that probably they can get for going to five or
six parks, in terms of a Golden Eagle, or America the
Beautiful, or some other type of pass that had been recommended
previously. And this, of course, was an experiment, but there
are in fact annual passes that permit any type, and there are
even exemptions, of course, for those that need them. So there
is a process set up, and obviously, as I said, everyone's on
the learning curve with regard to this process.
But I think the fundamental issue is that, the consensus is
that those that use or those that visit these areas ought to at
least help in sustaining them. These fees, of course, will
never sustain the type of costs for maintenance for the expense
of these units. So I think we, especially with our friend Mr.
Regula here, we have to obviously point out that we understand
the dilemma that he faces, because if we cut these back, all
we're doing is adding to the backlog of costs that we have both
in the Forest and in the park, and the other public land units.
Thanks. Thanks, Wally.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlemen from Montana, Mr. Hill. Do you
have any opening statement? Gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs.
Chenoweth, do you have an opening statement or comments for Mr.
Herger?
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening
statement.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady is recognized.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing on the recreational fee demonstration
program, which we enacted last year. And normally I don't make
an opening statement; I just submit it for the record. But I
feel very strongly about this. As I was in the district last
week, the issue of fees was something that I heard a lot about.
So I commend you on holding this hearing now, and, and I do
minimally support the concept of having users help contribute a
minimal fee, specifically for recreational area improvement.
But ultimately, I would like to see recreationalists have
the best experience possible on well maintained forest
campgrounds, facilities, and trail. Very small fees can play a
role in that effort, but I am especially interested in this
issue because a couple of areas in Idaho, most significantly
the Sawtooth National Recreational Area, has been chosen as
test cases for this fee program.
However, I do have concerns about how this demonstration
program has been implemented, serious concerns. Generally, I do
not believe that agencies have done an adequate job selling the
program to the public. The common complaint I have heard is
that visitors have suddenly have had to pay a fee without
knowing the reason why, and most people are not aware that
these fees are to go directly to the upkeep and improvement of
the specific area that they are visiting.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in our, our general
fund budgeting that, to the degree fees are collected and kept
within that forest, then I think that we ought to be able to
save the general taxpayer money by, in a comparable manner,
diminishing our appropriations to the agency. Otherwise, we
just have mounting of fees as well as a continued increase in
our general funding.
And my second concern, which is that there have been no
noticeable improvement to campgrounds, hiking trails, boat
docks, restrooms, and many other facilities and amenities that
serve the general public. If there have been changes, the
agencies have not done a good job of letting the people know,
because evidence shows there hasn't. Just as any charity
soliciting funds, the Federal Government must actively promote
the benefits of fees.
I am concerned also about what appears to be a case of
double and even triple taxation that this program represents to
some public lands users. In some States, there are already
programs in place that collect a fee for improvements,
especially the fee many off-road users pay in many States, such
as the green-sticker program in California, and the OHV trail
fund in Idaho is one such example. So we need to make sure that
we're not double-charging these people, and that we're not
negatively impacting our counties and the tourism industry that
so many of our States and counties have learned to lean upon
with the diminishment of active natural resource industries
being fees from them, and resources from them, being made
available to the counties.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you very
much for holding this hearing.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentlelady from Idaho. That takes
care of the opening part.
Mr. Herger, you're more than welcome to join us on the
dais. We appreciate having you with us, if you have the time to
stay with us, and appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. With that in mind, let's turn to the first
panel. Our two panelists will be Mr. John M. Berry, Assistant
Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, Department of the
Interior, and Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain
Region. They both are accompanied by--Mr. Berry is accompanied
by Henry Schmitt, Maureen Finnerty, and Dr. Roger Coleman. Mr.
Laverty is accompanied by Greg Super. We appreciate these folks
being with us. Mr. Berry, this is twice in one week you've had
this opportunity. We appreciate you being here. Five minutes
OK? You need any little extra time, let us, let us know, OK?
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BERRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED
BY HENRY RODGER SCHMITT, GROUP MANAGER, RECREATION GROUP,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Berry. OK, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you for appearing before us, and, Mr.
Secretary, we'll start with you.
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm very pleased to
talk to you and the Committee about the experiences we've had
with the fee demonstration program, which have been mostly
positive, I would like to add, and, based on our first year-
and-a-half experiment with this demonstration project.
As you know, this project has been a joint effort on the
part of three bureaus within the Department of Interior and the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. These agencies
manage a variety of resources under a variety of authorities,
yet for this experiment they have worked very closely and have
found that they have a great deal in common.
I have prepared a statement, Mr. Chairman, that, with your
agreement, we would just submit for the record, and I'll try
and summarize here.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Berry. But I would be pleased to also introduce the
folks who will with me who can help us answer questions in
specific detail about each of our bureau's programs. We have
Maureen Finnerty, who is the Associate Director of the National
Park Service for Park Operations and Education. We have Dr.
Richard Coleman, Director of Refuges for the Fish and Wildlife
Service. And we have Roger Schmitt, who is the Group Manager
for Recreation in the Bureau of Land Management. So they'll be
with us in case we have specifics that I'm unable to answer.
Visitor response to the demonstration fees program has been
very positive. Both the National Park Service and the USDA
Forest Service conducted surveys to assess visitor reactions
during the first full year of the recreational fee
demonstration program. Overall, 83 percent of National park
visitors surveyed said they were either satisfied with the fees
they paid, or thought the fees were too low. In the Forest
Service, over 6 percent of people who completed a survey card
said that the opportunities and services they experienced were
at least equal to the fee that they paid.
We believe that the strong support so early in this program
is primarily because the fee revenues have not been offset by
reduced appropriations, and because receipts remain in the
recreation areas in which they are collected, to be used to
improve visitor services and to protect resources. Our visitors
seem to be responding with greater care to the recreation
resources, for there is increasing evidence that incidents of
vandalism have decreased in areas where recreation fees have
been collected.
We also believe that much of this public acceptance came
about because we involved and communicated with the public in a
process, in a variety of ways. At the local levels, our
agencies spent a great deal of effort working with the public
through formal communication plans, news releases, meeting with
local community leaders, constituent groups, advisory councils,
information leaflets, explanatory videos, open houses at the
parks, public workshops, comment cards, and then signs,
entrance signs and bulletin boards. These efforts, I believe,
were important to the success of the public reception for the
recreational fee demonstration program.
Interagency cooperation has blossomed under this
recreational fee demonstration program. The participating
agencies have established a record of cooperation that I
believe is unprecedented in this, in this government. This is
true not only among the Department of Interior's bureaus, but
also with the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
Throughout the process of implementing the program, fee
managers from the four agencies held regular meetings to
discuss progress, approaches, problems, and solutions. And they
have developed common approaches for evaluating the fee
program.
Mr. Chairman, I could go into a great deal about our
accomplishments, but they're already described in a report that
we have prepared for the Interior, Agriculture Committees on
Appropriations, and which I believe we have made available to
the Committee and to the Members. I'd just like to highlight a
few of the summaries, points in that report.
First, a very large majority of visitors' levels have been
sustained during the initial year of new fees. The initial data
we have on visitation during the first full year of the program
indicate that fees appear to have a negligible impact on
visitation levels. Of course, we will not be satisfied with a
single year's experience.
Second, recreation fee revenues have increased
significantly in all four agencies administering this program.
Between 1996 and fiscal year 1997, recreational fee revenues
increased by 57 percent in the National Park Service, 35
percent for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 11 percent
for the Bureau of Land Management. This is good news, for it
identifies a new source of revenue in addition to public
appropriations that will allow us to improve visitor services
and deal with our serious backlog of infrastructure needs.
Third, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of
different types of fees. Some are variations of entrance fees,
ranging from individual and carload fees that are typically
collected at an entrance kiosk, to the Golden Eagle Passport,
unit-specific annual passes, and also multi-unit passes that
allow entry into several sites of the same Federal agency, or
several sites operated by different Federal, State, local
agencies. Too, we're trying to address some of the concerns
that Mr. Herger and some of the members of the panel have
already raised this morning. We are also evaluating several
types of user fees for such uses as parking, hunting, camping,
boat launching, dumping of sanitary waste from recreation
vehicles, and expedition fees.
Fourth, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of
methods for collecting the fees, from typical ranger in the
kiosk, to automated collection machines and collection by mail.
And we are looking at different approaches to this that will
include using our employees, partnership arrangements with
other agencies, volunteers, as well as consignment with
private-sector vendors and concessionaires.
Fifth, the agencies--Mr. Chairman, if it's OK, if I would,
I see the red light, but I----
Mr. Hansen. Go ahead, Mr. Berry. I want to hear your
testimony.
Mr. Berry. Just got a couple more minutes.
Mr. Hansen. Don't let the light bother you.
Mr. Berry. Great.
Fifth, the agencies have found that some of the initial
collection costs for new fees are higher than expected, and
certainly higher than they will be over the long run. The
reason for these higher costs initially is the large startup
and capital costs for instituting some of the capital
infrastructure that needs to be in place to collect the fees,
such as kiosks, entrance stations, new equipment, and supplies
that have to be in, in availability to monitor.
The agencies will continue to look for ways to reduce the
cost of collecting these fees, but it's also important to note
that cost-effectiveness may not always be possible. In some
sites, for example, the particular mix of low visitation and
multiple access points may just make it impractical,
impractical to institute any fees at all.
Finally, the agencies have begun the process of financing
maintenance backlog projects. Considering that we are now only
into the second full year of the recreation fee demonstration
program, and that many of the revenues were not available to
the bureaus until the end of fiscal year 1997, the
participating agencies have begun a significant number of
projects that will reduce the backlog maintenance requirements
and provide public service enhancements at recreationsites. I'd
like to point out just a few.
At Yellowstone National Park, they are rehabilitating their
deteriorated electronic infrastructure for safety and resource
protection, repairing utility systems, replacing deteriorated
docks, rehabilitating trail and overlook, interpretative
exhibits, and back country sites. In Paria County, on the
Arizona-Utah border, the Bureau of Land Management used fee
revenues to maintain and upgrade sanitation facilities at trail
heads.
The recreation fee demonstration program has been a very
positive experience for participating agencies, and the
agencies agree that long-term implementation of the fee program
is desirable. We wish, however, to emphasize our strong desire
that any permanent authority should not take effect until after
the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal
year 1999. The test is entering its second full year, and our
current findings and observations are preliminary. The full
evaluation of this program will not be completed until March
1999. Yet even at this early stage, we are very pleased with
the results, and we would like to work with you to design a
program that builds on that positive experience in implementing
this effort.
There are a few elements which I would like to recommend
for your consideration for permanent legislation. These
elements are presented in more detail in the report that we
have submitted, but let me just touch on a few.
First, we would emphasize the need for flexibility to
tailor fees to meet specific management and visitor needs. We
simply caution that one size does not fit all.
Second, we think it is crucial to recognize the importance
of incentives in the design of recreation fees. The provision
in the demonstration program that fees be applied to onsite
backlog maintenance projects provides a very substantial
incentive for recreation managers to collect and keep the cost
of collection low. People seem much more willing to pay fees if
they know the revenues will directly benefit the resources that
they are enjoying.
Third, the provision that allows agencies to utilize the
revenues over more than a single fiscal year can help agencies
do better long-range planning to approach backlog reductions,
and implement reform and rehabilitation in a more systematic
way.
Finally, we believe that this provision, that the provision
that sets aside some of the fee revenues for addressing broader
agency priorities would be an important element to continue in
any permanent legislation. We caution that a fixed formula that
returns a high percentage of revenue to the collecting site
could, over the long run, and this would be long run over 5 to
10 years, could create undesirable inequities within an agency,
where certain popular facilities have more funds than they can
effectively use, and others that don't have the public access
would face continuing deterioration.
So we need to consider the possibility in determining
what's the appropriate balance between the needs of the fee-
collection site in the long run, with the backlog maintenance
needs of the entire agency.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. That would conclude my statement,
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Laverty.
STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, FORMER DIRECTOR, RECREATION
PROGRAMS, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY GREG SUPER, NATIONAL RECREATION FEE
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; LINDA
FELDMAN AND FLOYD THOMPSON
Mr. Laverty Mr. Chairman, it's an honor for me to be here
today to discuss the fee demonstration program as it relates to
the Forest Service and how we have been able to implement this
program. I'm delighted to be here, because I have great
interest in what is happening, and even though I have
transitioned from Washington to Colorado I had great interest,
as I served in, not only the Director of Recreation, but also
in the Acting Associate Deputy Chief role as we began to roll
this out.
Many of the comments that I'll share with you, Mr. Berry
has already captured, and I think as we have looked at the
implementation of the fee demonstration project across agency
lines, it truly has brought agencies together. I'll just
summarize some of our remarks, because many of the things that
we have prepared in our statement are already captured by Mr.
Berry, and I'll zip through that so we can engage with any
questions you might have for us.
I am accompanied by Greg Super, as you mentioned, and Linda
Feldman on our staff, and Floyd Thompson, who are really the
key folks on our staff that help make this come about. For the
Forest Service, it was really an incredible journey for us as
we began implementing the program, simply because in many of
our sites, unlike many of the Park Service sites, we had not
charged fees before. So we embarked in a endeavor where we
started essentially from ground zero in terms of helping people
understand that we were in fact going to collect fees but, more
importantly, as Mr. Herger even pointed out, that we need to be
able to let people know why and how these fees are going to be
collected, but how they're going to be used.
And I can share with you, as I've talked to folks around
the country, that folks are very, very supportive of the idea
of paying fees, as long as they know those fees are going back
on the site, they can actually see some tangible results.
As Mrs. Chenoweth pointed out, we are just the in process
now of beginning to implement some of those fees and actually
make some of these improvements. We had projects on, in fact at
Flaming Gorge, where the ranger, as soon as he started
collecting fees, began making significant improvements on boat
docks right away, even though he didn't have all the fees in
hand. And, you know, so that people could visibly and tangibly
see that these fees were actually showing some improvements on
the facilities that they used.
Let me just capture a few points that I think are
significant, and then, I think we can answer any questions you
might have. As I look at what's happening in the National
forests, we're just continuing to see increased demands for
recreation. And, as we have pointed out with, with the
Committee in the past, the demands are far outreaching our
abilities to deliver the services, in terms of providing the
basic attention to the services that people expect. But I
think, more importantly, the investment we need to be making as
we protect America's resources, I think this is one of the
significant tools that has come to us as a result of the fee
demonstration program. That it does, in fact, give us the
opportunity to make not only investments to serve people, and
also to protect these resources so that future generations are
going to be able to enjoy many of the same things that we're
experiencing today.
The recreation use on the National forests, as well as all
public lands, are significant contributors to the gross
domestic product, and as we begin to rack up, across agency
lines, contribution that takes place on public lands as a
result of recreation is significant. That, that use on local
economies is extremely significant. I was in Glenwood Springs
yesterday, and listened to folks from the community talking
about the importance of the National forest in that community's
economy as it relates to the use that takes place there. And as
we look at how we can invest to make sure that those resources
that draw and attract people to these lands are sustainable.
Our trails are an excellent example. If we're not able to
sustain trails, these folks that normally would hike, are going
to make choices to go somewhere else. And that's where I think
the value for us in being able to return these resources and
funds back to the sites to improve and maintain these systems
is critically important.
I'd like to just share maybe with you a few ideas that we
would recommend that you consider long-term engagement of a fee
bill. And the values that we have learned, and we would capture
that, as we aggressively moved on implementing the fee program.
Back in 1996 when the Congress passed the opportunity for us to
do this, we moved right along. And we actually implemented
projects in 1996. And we have learned a lot. We viewed this as
a test, and we have, we went through a very structured process
in terms of how we started. We required business plans, we
required communication strategies, and setting up the whole
financial and cash management accountability part, which I
think is extremely crucial for us as we implement the program.
And if I could just take a couple minutes, I'll be done, and
then we can start.
Mr. Hansen. Nancy, maybe you want to turn the light off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Laverty. This is a great conversation. We, we really
viewed this as a test, and the places where we have been
successful, we have found that that up-front communication has
been absolutely crucial. Where people could really understand
why we're collecting the fees, but more importantly how we're
going to use those fees.
I was talking to the ranger on the Clear Creek Ranger
District--this is the Mt. Evans project. One of the ideas that
he has to better communicate with the folks on what we have
actually collected in 1997, but on the other side of this
little hand-out that he's going to distribute to the folks that
actually pay the fees, is going to show exactly how those funds
are going to be used. So we have that accountability, not only
internally, but also with the people that pay those fees. And I
think that's our key for our success.
Let me just suggest there's four elements that I would, I
would capture that you want to consider, at least as we've
learned from the past. The first is that, I would recognize
that this, this joint agency effort. And I would hope that as
you consider long-term consideration on this bill, or permanent
legislation, if you could give us some clarity and some
authorities where we could even cross across lines, not only
with Federal agencies, but even with some States and counties.
We've got some projects that, that we're doing this, but it's
been really tough because we have folks that think we don't
have the authority to do that. That would be most helpful.
I think in terms of building a long-range planning, some of
the things that Mr. Berry spoke about, as we know that we have
a more permanent authority coming that we can carry over some
of those funds to take on larger projects than simply one year
at a time type of projects. I think the idea, perhaps, for you
to consider broadening the fee demonstration authorities, where
we could expand to include the recreation-related activities,
such as some of the fees that we collect off of outfitter and
guide permits. If we were able to keep even a portion of some
of the fees from some of the ski areas, that we could put back
into the administration and improvement and enhancements. Right
now, all those funds simply go back into the Treasury.
Let me just close it off, because I know that we need to
have some conversation about some of the questions you might
have. But I would just close by saying that we aggressively and
totally endorse the concept of the fee demonstration program.
It's been a great tool for us, and, you know, we're just in the
process right now, I think, of beginning to demonstrate that
government works, and that government can work well. And I
think this is really key. We've got some bumps in a road that
we're addressing, and as we pick these up, we've aggressively
gone back to take care of that.
I think the piece I would just share with you, comments
from the people that are paying the fees has been very, very
positive. Certainly, as Mr. Herger pointed out, we've got some
folks that still don't agree with the fee, period, but I think
as we begin to show and demonstrate the results, folks are
going to accept that. I appreciate just the chance to share
with you, and would love to get you out and show you some of
our projects on the ground.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Laverty. I appreciate your
comments. You folks that are standing back there, if you're so
inclined, this bottom tier, no one's going to use it, if you'd
like to sit down, we'd be more than happy to have you do that.
If you want to stand, that's up to you, but I'm embarrassed to
see you standing there.
We'll start with members of the Committee to question this
panel. Mr. Hill from Montana, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hill. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
of questions about the fee structure.
Are any of the concessionaire fees retained within the park
for the purpose of the park services, or, or are they, or do
they go to the general treasury?
Mr. Laverty. I'll speak on the Forest Service side. Right
now, those all go into the general treasury.
Mr. Hill. Those all go to the general treasury?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hill. And how do those fees compare with the other fees
that you charge directly to people who, either admittance fees
or user fees. Could you give me some indication of what that
relative amount of money is?
Mr. Laverty. I don't have those figures here, but I could
certainly pull that up. I used to know those figures, but I've
forgotten that stuff.
Mr. Hill. I mean, obviously, the concessionaire fees are
indirectly fees that are charged for people who use the parks.
It just seems to me that if we're going to be talking about
trying to create an entrepreneurial climate within the parks,
we ought to consider whether or not some portion of
concessionaire fees or something ought to be retained within
the park. What do you think of that idea?
Mr. Laverty. I think if we were able to keep some of those
fees in the fee demonstration program, it could go a long ways.
I think it could help us do a couple of things. We could
enhance the administration that goes on right now in terms of
how we administer those special-use programs, particularly
outfitter and guide programs. And if we were able to get some
consistency, I think we would find our relationship with many
of the outfitters would even improve.
Greg was just telling me that our, our special use fees
that we collect, are about $37 million. Last year, we collected
about $8 million under the fee demonstration program, and we
expect that to go up significantly as we begin to implement the
program. We have 40 projects underway that we actually
implemented in 1996-1997, another 5 ready to go on line in 1998
and 1999, so, I think we'll see that fee collection increasing
to be probably comparable over time.
Mr. Hill. Is there any relationship between the fees the
concessionaires pay, and the use of infrastructure they have?
For example, sewer and water costs, and those sorts of things
within the park or within the--now, I would ask any one of the
three of you to respond to that. Are those fees, do they bear
any relationship to the services that they also consume?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. Each concession contract in
the Park Service is an individually negotiated contract between
the concessionaire that accounts for opportunities and other
costs that are subject to that. In response to your last
question, in the Park Service, the general rule is that our
concession funds are returned to the Treasury, but there are
instances in certain concessions in certain parks where we have
the ability to keep some of those funds on park site. And we
can get you a more detailed break-out of that, I think, in an
answer to the record.
Mr. Hill. I would appreciate having that.
Noting that, you know, a lot of the backlog is associated
with infrastructure needs, and, I mean, how do you fund those
infrastructure needs? Substantially, now, they're being funded,
obviously, by the Treasury, I mean, just general taxpayers.
Some of it's going to be funded from increase in user fees.
Seems to me that, if we're going to address this whole issue,
that we ought to look at that again. I'm not making a case for
more concessionaires' fees; I want to make that clear. I'm just
saying, though, that there ought to be some relationship there,
and those, it seems to me, those dollars ought to stay within
the park, too.
Mr. Berry. You raise an excellent point, Mr. Hill, and the
administration, we're working now between the departments and
the Office of Management and Budget on preparing some
concession approaches similar to what you're talking about, so
that we can submit those for your consideration. But you,
you've hit on a very god point.
Mr. Laverty. One of the points I would also make, Mr. Hill,
that relates to outfitters and guides on the National forests
is that most of those folks do an incredible amount of
volunteer work for us, just doing basic maintenance that we
would not be able to do ourselves. That's not part of the
permit, but, you know, that's work that's being contributed by
the folks, you know, for, oftentimes in addition to what the
fee that they pay. So that probably doesn't cover all that.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, a
member of the Committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vento. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I didn't make an opening
statement, but I did read yours and noted your concerns with
regards this experimental program, and specifically with regard
to trying to guide the use of the entrance fee and user fee
type of programs. It's really pretty confusing for those that
are not familiar with this. And, of course, when my colleague
from Montana, introduces concessions into the process, you can
really, I'd suggest--and I think that, you know, he had some
very good points with it, but that if we're going to deal this,
we try to deal with the user and entrance issue. And what you
were removed from, like, for instance, I mentioned Mr. Laverty
that you actually have broad authority to implement user fees,
in almost many instances. Is that correct?
Mr. Laverty. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Vento. And this, this gave you flexibility to put in
more user fees, not entrance fees, because you hadn't had that
except in the special units that we designated in 1993. Is that
correct?
Mr. Laverty. That's correct.
Mr. Vento. And so the, the point is that this freed you up
in terms of not being limited by the land water conservation
law, in terms of where you could charge user fees. These user
fees are generally designed to pay for what the actual use is
of a campsite, and they go directly into that site. Is that
right? Or a parking lot or some other activity?
Mr. Laverty. That's correct. We have used those for trail
fees, where those funds are going back for trail maintenance,
and that's one of the significant----
Mr. Vento. So none of that goes to the Treasury, does it?
Mr. Laverty. That's correct.
Mr. Vento. That does not. I mean, it's only these entrance
fees that the new issue. You hear, someone's going to give you
some advice now.
Mr. Berry, have you been around this a little bit so you
get the difference here?
Mr. Berry. At the Parks and Fish and Wildlife, and Public
Lands, there is a distinction between the departments in this
regard in that we generally approach it from the entrance fee
approach, as opposed to the service approach.
Mr. Vento. Well, I think we have in the Park Service, I
think the others--of course BLM recently in 1993 was granted
authority for special units. I don't really know the Fish and
Wildlife Service, but obviously it's a small amount of revenue
there. We look at these figures, and then there's also a county
sharing in terms of some of the type of fees that are present
here, that the counties actually, under normal law, would get
some share--not under the user fee, I don't think, but under--I
don't know if under user fees or not. Mr. Laverty, do they get
part of the user fees too?
Mr. Laverty. Under the fee demonstration, they do not.
Mr. Vento. They don't, but otherwise they would, is that
right?
Mr. Laverty. That's correct.
Mr. Vento. Well, that's sort of problematic, especially if
we want the money to go into the purpose for which it's
intended. Of course, it isn't enough but, you know, I'm a
little--the concern here, of course, asking for more
specificity, you know, is going to end us up at the
Appropriations Committee again. And then when you get the
revenue comes all to the government, then it gets to be an
offset in the appropriations bill. And, of course, that's one
of the problems with this concessions policy, you know. They're
trying to find a balance between the superintendent, or the
supervisor of a forest, or the other administrator, and the OMB
and appropriator type of process. Because the money just
doesn't seem to get back once it comes to Washington--at least
not all of it.
And, of course, there are a lot of units that don't have
any collection of fee money. I notice that these ideas seem to
be a better idea in Washington than sometimes in the field.
Mr. Laverty. I have spent the last two-and-a-half months
talking to a lot of the folks in the field, and I can tell you
that there's a lot of enthusiasm and great support among agency
people, you know, with this, with this program. I wish we could
have some of the folks that I talked to yesterday, that were
just talking about the project that they have at Vail Pass.
These folks are enthused about it, but also, more importantly,
is that they're finding that there is a great support from the
public that is paying that. And, you know, I can't share that--
--
Mr. Vento. No, no. I understand that but I think there is
some, I think as I said that the public is on the learning
curve and you have to become acquainted with this. For
instance, in the case that our colleague presented in his
testimony, it looks to me there is no pass that would be
applicable. You have the authority and have exercised the
authority to provide a single pass for multiple units. Hasn't
the Forest Service done that?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, we have.
Mr. Vento. You haven't done it in northern California or
Oregon, I guess, is the problem.
Mr. Laverty. Southern California has one, and northern, the
Oregon----
Mr. Vento. So they do have it, so it's just a matter of
misunderstanding at this point, at least in term of the pilot
program?
Mr. Laverty. That's correct, and I think we also share,
though, the point that I believe you're going to make is that
we've got 40, maybe a hundred projects on the national forests;
we've got 40 or a hundred projects on the national parks and
BLM. And at some point in time, we need to begin look at, you
know, should there be, whether it's a State pass that covers
all agencies, or should it be a Federal pass.
Mr. Vento. Well, I hope my colleagues----
Mr. Laverty. I think those are some of the things that we
can learn.
Mr. Vento. Yes. I hope my colleagues will be patient with
this and try to work it through. I think there's nothing worse
than having something start in fits and starts and maybe we can
get the insights from this, and then proceed. But to completely
just pull it back because there is a misunderstanding or
political reaction to it, I think would be the wrong thing to
do. This wasn't my baby; this was Ralph's, but I've been
through this before, and I think that there's nothing worse
than having something that goes in fits and starts, especially
on an issue like this. And I think that we should try to build
the consensus on the Committee, and to be reasonable where we
can, look at these factors more carefully, and give some
guidance, but, hopefully, keeping the money in the, in the land
management units, and with the type of flexibility. I think,
obviously, the comments you made, Mr. Chairman, about what's
happened with some of the money, you know, fall right in line
with why there are the certain requirements in the Land, Water
Conservation Fund. They may not be perfect, but they're better
than nothing.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I didn't make
myself clear in my opening statement, I want to make it clear
now. I think that for us to look at the possibility of charging
fees, user fees, in the Park Service is one thing. But for the
record, I am adamantly opposed to user fees, or fees being
charged by the Forest Service and by Department of Interior for
anything other than National parks, and anything other than an
experimental demonstration fee program.
It's creating tremendous reaction in my district. In fact,
or in my State. In Mr. Crapo's district, there's a little city
named Salmon, Idaho. And the mayor and the city council adopted
a new vehicle use fee test program. And the proposal is that
the city of Salmon is proposing to charge all U.S. Forest
Service vehicles using city streets to a use fee. The purpose
of the fee is to replace declining funds and to provide
finances to ensure we provide quality road experiences while
traveling on city streets. The current allotted funds do not
adequately cover the cost of maintaining the highly used
streets, and the U.S. Forest Service was chosen as a test group
because they have established user fees on the Salmon River,
and several Forest Service-operated areas and must believe this
is an accepted method of raising funds.
They go on to say the city of Salmon will share the
information gathered from this project, and will provide, free
of charge, to any city, the procedure used and the amount of
funds brought into the city budget. The city will receive
comments until May 29, but just like the Federal Government, it
doesn't matter what you say. The fee will begin on June 1st.
It's a little half-serious, tongue-in-cheek, but the fact
is that the mayor of Salmon wrote to me and said this is an
area where the average family income is about $18,000 a year.
And the mayor says the fees that are being charged means that,
if I'm traveling from Boise to my home in Salmon, Idaho, and
choose to stop along with my wife and three children for a
picnic under a tree, I will have to pay $10. And if I need to
stop along the road at one of the outdoor toilets, I will be
expected to pay two dollars a person.
So this is the kind of thing that I'm receiving in my, in
my district, Mr. Chairman. Actually, if we wanted to paint a
great big, huge sign in the name of the free market system and
charge fees, which is what we're doing, we might as well paint
a huge big ``keep out'' sign to all of the citizens with
regards to what's happening on our National forests. Our trails
are being shut off, access to the river is being shut off, our
roads are being shut off, maintenance is declining. And because
the Federal Government, this Congress, has failed to fence
funds, which we didn't because we trusted the administration
and the Federal Forest Service, funds are being shifted from
those areas that we have allocated moneys for to other areas
that are unauthorized, unappropriated programs such as the
American Heritage Rivers initiative, the Inner Columbia
Ecosystem Management plan.
And I think that the idea of trying to utilize Ludwig von
Meese's theory of freedom of the marketplace with a Federal
agency is ludicrous. And I think we need to look in another
direction to raise funds. Now, if we charge fees for the Park
Service, I think also that we ought to reduce the general fund
by an appropriate amount, by a corresponding amount. Because we
have increased funding to Interior and to the Forest Service
for several years now. And we're seeing the services to the
general public decline.
And I just want to make one final statement, and that is
that many of the user groups are willing to put forth their own
effort, and their own funds, and their own time to help improve
roads and trails and facilities. So, I just wanted to make that
clear.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have 12 questions that I would like to
ask, especially of Mr. Laverty. My time is up, so with your
indulgence, I wonder if I might submit those to the Committee
to ask the questions for me.
Mr. Hansen. All the questions from members of the
Committee, I'm sure, our witness would be more than happy to
respond to those in correspondence. And if they do it, I wish
they'd correspond to all of us so we can all get the answers to
it.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really
have any questions. I just wanted to make a brief statement.
St. John in my district is a very beautiful island, with
some of the more beautiful parks, but its facilities are also
in very bad disrepair. We have a new superintendent, who
quickly moved on coming to St. John to get the last slot, I
believe, in the fee demonstration program. And so now meetings
are being held in my communities, one as late as last night,
and I haven't heard how it went. But I listened with a great
deal of interest to the fact that across the country the fee
demonstration programs are being received with broad
acceptance. I'm not too sure that that's going to happen in St.
John, because when the parks were turned over, when the land
was turned over to the National Park Service, it was with the
understanding that the residents of St. John, and I believe the
entire Virgin Islands, would never be charged a fee for the
parks.
And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely hearing for me.
I thank you for holding it. It's also very informative. I
really don't have any questions, but I do share some of the
concerns that were voiced already, that the fees that are
collected be returned to the park for maintenance and other
uses in the park, and that it not be used to replace
appropriations, but be a supplement.
Mr. Vento. Will the gentlewoman yield to me briefly?
Ms. Christian-Green. Sure.
Mr. Vento. I was just going to point out that most of the
units, when they were established in terms of parks, if they
had a Native American or, in fact, an indigenous community that
actually was involved, that there are exceptions, usually, for
them not to be charged fees. In a sense, I don't know if this
particular measure overrode that, this experiment overrode
that.
But, of course, as I said before, I think the distinction
between user fees is very important, because user fees, they
have general authority always to put into effect user fees. And
so the real authority here might be that they have more
flexibility with regards to what user fees, where they're
charged, and what parcels. But entrance fees would be,
obviously, a different matter, and there's a whole list of
these fees, if we'd look at this study we have, in terms of
reservation fees and other charges that are accumulating to the
cost of the Forest Service for providing recreation. And one of
the laments we often hear is that the recreational user is not
carrying his fair share, and this means that costs are being
shifted in different directions.
Here we've got a minuscule amount of money that's been
collected so far in the Forest Service. I mean, compared to its
overall budget, it's I think, like a $2 million increase, and
we got a
firestorm, really, in terms of, I think a lot of
misunderstanding and, about it. But it, you know, there's many
of us that would like to find a way to permit these units to be
used and not charged. But that is predicated on the funding.
I'd be happy to yield back. But I just wanted to point out that
there is an opportunity for, many times, from parks or other
units that are created for non-charging for certain
populations.
Ms. Christian-Green. OK, thanks. I'd like to just reclaim
my time, and I would ask that question. Because, in talking
with our superintendent, he was saying that we could not waive
the fees for residents. Is that true, or can there be a fee but
the residents, because that was the understanding when the park
was created, be exempted from the fee?
Mr. Berry. There is flexibility with each park,
Congresswoman, so that we look into that situation with you. We
do try to respond and provide flexibility to local residents in
some of the instances that were described, when construction
people have to drive through public lands to get to work, or
other things. So there is clearly flexibility. We need to look
at your specific situation, and let me find out with you. We'll
work with the ranger and we'll get back to you on that.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I see the bell has rung for a vote over in the
House, but I'd just like to indicate that, now that the
President and the Congress are balancing the budget, I hope
this Committee some time, Mr. Chairman, would have a hearing on
my bill, which would take the Land and Water Conservation Fund
totally off-budget. Let us use the Land and Water Conservation
funds for what they were originally intended. So I hope you
will consider my bill on that.
Mr. Hansen. That should be interesting.
Mr. Kildee. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We appreciate this panel. Let me
just say this: This is an experiment. We tried it out. This
oversight hearing is to try to determine if we want to
continue, we want to leave it as-is, where we want to go. You
can see we're fraught with problems in a thing like this. You
heard all the testimony.
It's rather easy to take a park that is isolated and have
an entrance fee. That's pretty simple. We expand it to user
fees that the gentleman from Minnesota has talked about.
Reservation fees, we're talking about. You have problems like
Mr. Kildee just brought up, drive-throughs, which we're talking
about Yosemite right now. Zion's National Park in my district
has the same problem. One in Florida has the same problem.
We're trying to figure out how do we work this out. You go
to the Park Service, that Mr. Laverty has pointed out. It's
probably got bigger problems. Camping fees, you're in that
area; how do we do user fees. Now we get into recreation areas,
like we have at the Flaming Gorge and we have a the Glen Canyon
Recreation Area. We have reclamation problems. I've got
something here that talks about the two dollar fee at Flaming
Gorge just isn't making it anymore. That's two dollar vehicle
per day fee.
So how do you make a fit-all, and I think Mr. Berry's
right. There is no thing where you can make it fit everything.
So as we look at this, we're going to have to be very careful
in figuring out how we do this. If we could just take what the
Department of Interior has under the Park Service, and even
that would be, those remote parks that you drive to.
Mr. Gallegly made an interesting point. What about these
western, drive-to parks. They don't have walk-in people in
those areas. People that go in those areas do go in with a lot
of money, pulling their Suburban with their Winnebago, and all
that type of thing. And to think that they can't pay a few
bucks is unbelievable.
Yet, on the other hand, how do you handle it in a historic
park, where there's no way to stop anybody from coming in. Then
it becomes a rather difficult situation. So I worked with Mr.
Regula on this first experiment. We may have to move along very
carefully as we do this, but the input has been very valuable
today, and I would hope we could all work together. And the
next panels coming up, of course, will have some very
interesting approaches to it. And that's all this is, is we're
trying to figure out how to do this so it benefits the people
in America.
We hear a lot of folks say, doggone it, I pay my taxes, I
shouldn't pay anything for these things. Well, that's kind of
hard to believe in some instances, because other people who
don't use them say, well why should I pay for them? So we find
ourselves in kind of this interesting position.
We do have a vote on. I do appreciate the excellent
testimony from our first panel. I'll recess the Committee
briefly. I would urge all members to come back, and I'll try to
collect a few more, and we'll come right to the second panel as
soon as we return. So we stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] The meeting will come to order.
We are happy that on our second panel we have Derrick
Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition,
Philip David Voorhees, Associate Director of Policy and
Development, National Parks and Conservation Area, and our
friend from Arizona, Gaylord Stavely, vice president, National
Forest Recreation Association.
It's always good to have you gentlemen with us. And
Derrick, we'll start with you. Is that all right? You have all
been here many times. You know the rules. Try to stay within 5
minutes. We want your testimony, however.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION
COALITION
Mr. Crandall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
delight to be here to talk about a topic on which you have such
a strong and positive role. As you know, ARC represents a range
of interests that include companies and associations
representing the manufacturers of tents and motorhomes and
canoes, bicycles and much more, as well as enthusiast
organizations that represent millions of Americans involved in
downhill skiing and camping and fishing and many other kinds of
activities.
In fact, fees were catalysts for bringing the American
Recreation Coalition into existence in 1979. We've told you
before that we would like to continue a policy of free lunch.
However, we have learned that the free lunch comes with a
price. It's hard to demand a great menu and top food when you
are not paying the tab.
We also understood that other consequences arise. We found
that without paying we could not justify the demands for
continued recreation excellence. We found that campgrounds in
our national forests were opening later. And millions of people
who came to use those campgrounds during the shoulder seasons
found locked gates. We saw declines in the numbers of
interpretive programs and declines in the quality of trails
across this country.
During the time of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors the Nation engaged in a debate, and I believe we came
to a consensus that while we shouldn't support the entire
Federal recreation program on the basis of recreation fees, it
was legitimate to look to the direct beneficiaries, those
people who actually come to the public lands, for a greater
share of the cost of providing those recreation programs.
In fact, our studies show only about 26 percent of the
American public visits a Federal recreation site of any type
administered by any agency in any year. We heard that agencies
had little incentive, though, to charge higher recreation fees,
since the fees they now collected disappeared into a variety of
special accounts in the black hole, and it left the Forest
Service, the National Park Service, BLM managers on the ground
unable to respond to a very simple question from the visitors:
Where do our fees go?
This Subcommittee provided leadership that ultimately was
acted on by Chairman Regula to create the fee demonstration
program that is the subject of this hearing. Its design work
largely came through your work here in 1995 on your bill H.R.
2107.
In general, we believe that the fee demonstration program
which resulted is laudable and has been successful. The report
to the Congress on the first full year of the fee demonstration
program displays a range of new approaches, which together are
increasing recreation program budgets of four key agencies by
some $150 million each year.
For the first time Federal recreation program personnel now
have the incentive to go out there and listen to their
customers. As we've told you in the past, we support Federal
recreation fee programs which meet five tests.
First, fees need to be equitable. Second, the fee system
itself needs to be efficient. Third, fees need to be convenient
for the recreationist, and we've heard some concerns about that
topic already this morning. Fourth, the fee system needs to be
coherent, flexible and integrated. Finally, the fee revenues
need to be returned to benefit the resources, facilities and
programs utilized by those paying the bill.
In general we find that the fee demonstration implemented
by the four agencies have met these goals. We are excited about
the use of the fee demonstration program, for example to
preserve the lookout towers in western national forests--that's
an exciting story that the Washington Post recently told--and
to provide new interpretation services on the Pike, Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests for families coming to cut their
Christmas trees and finding a nice surprise, people who could
share with them the learning opportunities that they could find
as a family on the national forest.
We find that effective fee programs will help Federal
agencies become more consumer-focused, which is hard to
accomplish when 95 percent of the budgets previously had been
determined a year in advance here within the beltway.
We are proud to say that ARC and the Recreation Roundtable
are actively involved in providing guidance and advice to the
Federal agencies across the country. We've provided top
marketing and communications executives from Disney, REI and
other companies to work with the Enterprise Forests in southern
California, for example, and in developing communication
efforts for dozens of Forest Service fee sites across the
country.
We also give our warm thanks to you and to Chairman Regula
for upholding a commitment to making the fee demonstration
receipts supplemental to the general appropriations for Federal
recreation programs of the four agencies.
But we can't praise the program in its entirety. We have
several concerns. First, we believe that the program has
several specific fee flaws that need to be rectified. Most
reflect poor communications, but some have deeper roots.
Second, we believe that there have been some outstanding
innovation already by the agencies involved, but far more ideas
and approaches can and should be tested.
Let me just quickly run through some of our concerns. There
is an inequity in fee collections going on out there right now.
Those enjoying the services of outfitters, guides and other
commercial services end up paying more, and more consistently.
This is largely because they are already assessed a fee
through the concession's special use permit on the agencies'
part, as opposed to the non-outfitted guest on the national
forest. Second, because they are identifiable through the
commercial service they are universally assessed, whereas those
coming on in a non-outfitted way are subject to the enforcement
efforts of the Federal agencies and, frankly, oftentimes get a
free ride.
Our second concern involves use of the new fee
demonstration authority in ways which undercut and jeopardize
the operation of commercial providers on public lands. We have
sparked the entrepreneurial fires of Federal employees
throughout the Nation. We are finding, however, that sometimes
this entrepreneurial spirit blinds the Federal agencies to the
benefits of long-term partnerships with other agencies at the
state and local level or with companies, for example those who
are providing concession campgrounds and other kinds of
services.
We don't believe that the Forest Service should lose sight
of the fact that even though they might be able to collect all
the revenues from a Snowbird, it would make no sense for the
Forest Service to try to operate a ski area like Snowbird
directly.
We think that our concerns are largely the result of a new
tool being handed to Federal officials who are very hard-
pressed to meet growing and changing demands for recreation.
They think of it, in many cases, of fees as a universal wrench
able to fix all problems, and it is not.
Thanks to you and to the Congress and to the agencies
themselves, we know that providing high quality recreation in
America will take a number of tools, including encouragement of
volunteer efforts, use of funding from ISTEA and other kinds of
Federal programs, partnerships with private sectors as
concessionaires and special permittees, partnerships with
states and local agencies in a wide variety of ways, corporate
support through sponsorships and work with non-profit
organizations.
In general we believe that the fee demonstration program
has already been a great success and deserves to continue for
at least two more years so we can learn through the process of
the projects underway. We think that there are some additional
needs to develop a broad recreation strategy for the Federal
agencies, and I want to encourage you to recommend to the
agencies to do that.
Among those lessons that still are unlearned would be use
of differential pricing between peak and non-peak periods of
the years, and linkages between the rich and the poor sites. We
heard today, for example, evidence that some national park and
some national forest areas will certainly be able to bring in
enough revenue to run well the recreation programs at that
site.
However, there are other sites which will never be able to
implement a strong fee program. There are ways, though, to link
those. For example, to use an example here in Washington, we
could reward volunteers working on the C&O Canal or on the mall
here in Washington with free access to Shenandoah National
Park. There are ways to combine this program with other
mechanisms to increase overall the opportunities for recreation
in this country.
We heard repeatedly concerns about the social equity and
whether local people or the economically disadvantaged are
being priced out of our public lands. Certainly we don't want
to see that occur. However, we now, under the fee
demonstration, could see enhanced use of such devices as free
access days, where we simply decide that during certain non-
peak periods families and individuals alike could come in
without a fee as a way to encourage them to use their land.
And there are other things in our testimony that we are
suggesting. We appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Finally, we would suggest just a couple of changes that you
might well be able to work either with the Chairman Regula or
through stand-alone authorization for this program coming
through the Resources Committee.
First of all, we would suggest strongly a prohibition on
the use of the authority of the fee demonstration program to
``replace, disrupt or jeopardize the provision of public
recreation services on Federal lands by permittees and
concessionaires.''
Secondly, we would encourage new direction on the type of
fee strategies to be tested during the demonstration period,
including as I mentioned peak and off-peak pricing strategies
to encourage volunteerism and free access periods.
Third, a provision for modest growth in the number of sites
permitted under the program. At this point the agencies are
limited to no more than 100 sites. The Park Service has shown
that they have 100 sites up and running right now and may
deserve an increase beyond that.
Fourth, a refocusing of the use of receipts in needed,
because there is some concern about the need to show the public
where their funds are going, and we've suggested some language
that we think would help to encourage the visibility of use of
the fees.
And finally, we specifically endorse allowing inclusion of
special use permit revenues as fee demonstration projects, and
that has been addressed in questions of the previous panel.
Such things as outfitter guide permits would be specifically
allowed.
We thank you very much for the time to be with you here
this morning and look forward to working with you on this
exciting program. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you Mr. Crandall. Mr. Voorhees.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP DAVID VOORHEES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF
POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION AREA
Mr. Voorhes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify. Again, I know NPCA was before you just
2 days ago testifying on the film fee matter. I appreciate the
access they provide us.
Since its initiation in 1996, the demonstration fee program
has proven valuable by almost any metric that you want to use.
It's brought more revenue into the national parks, and it has
begun to educate park managers about the public acceptance of
entrance and use fees, options for fee collections and the kind
of collateral benefits that increased fee collections or fee
collections of any kind can bring.
The program has also been dynamic in raising a variety of
issues that Congress should address once the program reaches
its conclusion. Some of those issues include the appropriate
method of interagency revenue-sharing, the appropriateness of
specific types of use and entrance fees, the possibility of
eventual fee caps and the distribution of revenues within the
National Park Service.
In my testimony today I want to limit my comments to the
National Park Service fee program alone, inasmuch as we
concentrate fairly closely on NPS.
First, with regard to entrance fees, I think there's no
question but that the public has been broadly accepting of the
fees that have been raised at the 100 sites or nearly 100 sites
that have been included in the demonstration fee program.
Before the program began in 1995 NPCA conducted a national
survey asking the question of the public's acceptance of fee
increase. We found that 70 percent of those surveyed responded
they were not opposed to an increase from an average, at that
time, of $5 per carload for a visit of up to 7 days.
A year later, still before the fee demonstration program
began, we conducted another survey and probed a little bit more
deeply into that, and I think the results here are telling.
Based on per person rather than a per carload assessment, we
asked at a variety of different levels what is the public's
tolerance, if you will, to pay certain increases.
We found that 56 percent of respondents would support an
increase of $5 per person and as support gradually dropped to
about 20 percent, that increase rose to about $10 per person.
I don't think the specific dollar figures here have a
tremendous amount of relevance because we are talking about
apples and oranges and per person as opposed to per carload and
such, but they do clearly show that there is a limit of public
acceptance of fee increases, obviously the higher you go.
So my question would be in this form, and I implore the
Committee to consider how much is too much. Now in some
circumstances in some parks the fees have been doubled or even
tripled. In some circumstances that may be well be warranted,
but there clearly are limits. And as the Committee considers
where to go next with regard to the fee program, I think that
close consideration ought to be given to exactly what are the
upper limits.
Now use fees might be in some circumstances a little bit
different kind of situation. There have been circumstances in
the Park Service's program in which use fees have met somewhat
more limited acceptance.
I think the best example is the private boater fees at the
Grand Canyon, and the Private Boaters Association is going to
be here testifying I am sure to that effect today where
currently, I believe, before you even dip an oar in the water,
if you are a private boater and waiting an average of 8 years
to get on the river, you pay $200 in waiting fees, if you will,
while you are waiting and then another $100 before you get on
the river. So before you ever dip an oar in the water you've
paid $300 for the privilege of getting on the river.
That seems a little bit excessive. I don't necessarily want
to damn the Park Service for exploring this kind of exercise,
this kind of use fee, because I think that's exactly the
purpose of the demonstration fee program, to specifically
explore the parameters of what the public acceptance is and
what kinds of fees should and shouldn't be charged.
I just would say that as the Committee moves forward with
its consideration of how the fee program has been moving along,
they should look closely at examples of excess and provide some
moderation where it's warranted.
Given the fact that there are clearly some hitches if you
will as the fee program progresses, I wonder if the length of
time that's been allowed the demonstration program to lay out
or to roll out is really adequate. NPCA would ask that the
Committee consider extending the program for perhaps another 5
years and in fact broadening the scope for the Park Service
beyond the 100 units that are now authorized to include all
units.
Now that doesn't mean that I am saying all units should
charge fees, but rather the Park Service should be given the
authority to extend it to any and all units they see might
work. That way you can develop a much more sophisticated
baseline, again, of what is and isn't appropriate, what is and
may not be the levels of public tolerance for fees in specific
circumstances before the Congress steps in and makes the
program permanent.
Another question is distribution of fees with the Park
Service. There are a limited number of sites that have had
spectacular success in the fees that they've raised. In fact
the Grand Canyon again is a good example in which the fees they
have collected have exceeded their operations budget. Now
that's fairly alarming notation. I think there might be others
here today who would say, ``Well why not cut them free and let
them float and not support them with tax revenues?''
I would say that for those folks who would make that
argument that they look at the purpose of the fee program which
is to address the backlog. In the Canyon alone the backlog for
maintenance and infrastructure exceeds $15 million, which if
you never added to the backlog would take 10 years to resolve
given the current fee stream.
On the issue of additional of additional research, the Park
Service constructed the program as it is essentially in going
out to the units that were charging fees now and gave them an
open question as to how they should proceed.
Before the Congress makes this a permanent program I would
implore that they ask the Park Service to do some more
sophisticated analysis, which would explore what are the limits
of public acceptance but also what are the limits of fee
collection at which you start to have some demographic impacts
on who can and cannot go to the national parks.
In no circumstances should we construct a fee program that
would affect the demographics and affect the willingness of
anybody in America to go and use the national parks, no matter
what their economic or social mean.
Lastly, I'd like to say that public fees, use fees,
entrance fees are really only a part of the equation. The Park
Service certainly is facing a broad number of financial issues
and has for quite some time. Public fees are a part of that.
When the issue of raising entrance fees and use fees was first
considered in the Congress some years ago, we came and said
then that private fees have to be a part of this. When I say
``private'' I mean concessions fees, filming fees, which the
Committee is now addressing.
In the last Congress we again came close on the issue of
concessions reform, and I think--and I hope--that before the
Congress moves any further with more public fees or raising the
public fees or making the program permanent, that we would
again sit down and finally resolve the issue of concessions
reform.
With that I'd like to conclude my comments with one final
caveat. It has been expressed before here, and that's that the
Committee always keep a close eye on the fact that these fees
should remain supplemental and not supplant existing
appropriated funds. I think there's broad recognition on the
part of the Committee and I believe on the part of the
Congress, but I think that there's reiteration.
With that I'll conclude. Thank you very much for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voorhes may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Stavely.
STATEMENT OF GAYLORD STAVELY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOREST
RECREATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Staveley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity. The National Forest Recreation Association
represents private sector business persons who own or operate,
developed sites such as resorts, lodges, pack stations,
campgrounds and marinas on the national forests for the use and
enjoyment of the public. Those include both public and private
facilities.
There are by Forest Service count some 1,700 private
businesses on the forests. Overall they have a multi-billion
dollar investment in structures, facilities and equipment used
to serve the visiting public; and they contribute millions of
dollars in privilege fees to the Federal treasurer every year.
NFRA's interest in the recreation fee demonstration program
springs from harmful effects the program has already had on a
number of these businesses and could have on them and others in
the future. NFRA is not presently opposed to the recreation fee
demonstration idea. It may be good for a recreation-managing
agency or a unit of that agency to have more than one source of
revenue, and it's certainly not unfair to ask a visitor to pay
for the use of a facility or an amenity on a national forest.
We do however strongly object to the use of fee
demonstration projects to harm, displace or subrogate
concessioner operations. There has for some time been a faction
within the Forest Service that advocates taking back the
visitor services, both public and private, that have been
concessioned out to the private sector, believing that the jobs
and revenues at those sites would then go to Forest Service
employees. Some in the agency now see fee demonstration as an
income base for taking back those sites and have begun using it
that way.
During the first year we've seen fee demonsatration used to
displace or subrogate concessioned operations in a number of
ways which include the following: The stripping, shortening or
otherwise changing of an existing permit (for which the Forest
Service euphemism is ``permit renegotiation,'') refusing to
renew a permit for which there is a pattern of past renewals,
setting a new fee and taking the revenue from it while shifting
its related maintenance costs over to a concessioner,
pressuring the concessioner to manipulate concession fees up or
down so the Forest Service fee will seem less objectionable or
more affordable.
Many Forest Service field employees ignored the parameters
of the 1996 fee demonstration authorization. A year ago the
Chief of the Forest Service was finding it necessary to issue a
letter to his regional foresters prohibiting displacement of
concessions based on recreation fee demonstration projects.
The Chief's letter notwithstanding, new instances of fee
demonstration impingements on concessionaires continued to be
reported throughout the summer of 1997. By September there was
sufficient concern in the Senate that in a September 18th
Colloquy on the Senate floor Senator John Kyl said that, ``at
some fee demonstration sites there appears to be an intent to
discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of
recreation goods and services.''
Senator Larry Craig cited a new Heritage exhibition program
that essentially puts the Forest Service into the outfitter
guide business. Senator Slade Gorton reiterated that
``concessioner displacement was not an intent of the fee
demonstration program.''
Toward the end of the last session an amendment to the 1988
Appropriations bill was being discussed, to assert the
parameters of fee demonstration. The Forest Service opposed
that amendment on the grounds that they don't want to
relinquish their authority to take back concessions.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, not enough is yet known about how
or whether fee demonstration funds and appropriated funds can
be blended to assure the continued availability of safe,
enjoyable visitor services on the Federal lands. More
demonstration is needed that the fees will be used for resource
protection and maintenance and not as a Forest Service jobs
program. More assurances are needed that the Forest Service
cannot use the fee demonstration program to damage, displace or
compete with its concessionaires.
If fee demonstration were permanently authorized and then
at some point the Administration or the Congress were to renege
on earlier promises and treat locally collected fees as an
appropriation offset, we believe the Forest Service would then
feel they have a legislated license to extract as much money as
possible from concessionaires without regard for the ability of
the private sector to pay those fees and still continue to
provide safe facilities and quality service.
The Forest Service needs private sector business and
financial help and is likely to need them increasingly in the
future. Fee demonstration was sold to the concessioner
community on the basis that it would provide new flexibility to
the agencies and attract more private investment to the
improvement of recreation and visitor facilities and services
on the public lands.
The effect of fee demonstration thus far has been to
discourage private investment and employee tenure at national
forest recreation sites. We would like to see the fee
demonstration program or something like it succeed, but we urge
that it not be permanently authorized at this time or without
legislated direction.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Staveley may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the excellent testimony
from all three of our panelists. I do have some questions, but
we've go two more panels to go. We may submit those to you if
that's alright. We'd appreciate a response from you. We'll
thank you and excuse you from the front table there in terms of
our next panel.
Mr. James D. Santini, a former Member of Congress from the
National Tour Association; Craig Mackey, Public Policy Liaison,
Outward Bound; Mary Margaret Sloan, Conservation Director of
the American Hiking Society and Holly Fretwell, Research
Associate, Political Economy Research Center.
If you folks would like to come up and take your places,
we'd appreciate it. We appreciate your being with us. Do your
best to stay within your time, I'd appreciate it if you could.
We are going to run out of time for this room, which has got me
a little concerned.
Our former colleague, Mr. Santini, it's good to see you.
We'll start with you. Is that all right?
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. SANTINI, WASHINGTON DC REPRESENTATIVE,
NATIONAL TOUR ASSOCIATION AND FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Santini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll do my best. I
adhere to the same clock that Mr. Crandall was speaking to. I
offer this testimony on behalf of the NTA, a Lexington,
Kentucky-based international package travel association of 627
companies.
Over the last 2 years--I should say probably 12 years--NTA
has been working closely with the National Park Service to make
demonstration fee programs and public-private cooperation a
success.
Most of our associations' tour operator members regard the
national parks, historic, heritage sites as lifetime
experiences for their group clients who are traveling together
for economy, efficiency, security and social interaction. That
is the basis of packaged travel. For many of America's senior
citizens and school-aged travelers, this is the only way they
will ever be able to share the natural and historic wonders
offered by park destinations.
NTA membership also includes 850 local, state, provincial,
destination marketing offices, the convention and visitor
bureaus; and 2,255 tourist suppliers that include attractions,
hotels, motels, restaurants, bus companies, airlines and
receptive operators.
In the 1996 Davidson-Peterson Association economic study
packaged travel industry generated over $11.6 billion to the
U.S. economy, of which $9.6 billion was spent at the local
level.
Today, Mr. Chairman, NTA will respond to your request for
oversight commentary on the demonstration fee program. At the
outset we applaud the innovative attempt by the U.S. Congress
to create opportunity for public land agencies to apply on-the-
ground, real world experiences in crafting the greatly expanded
entrance and use fee program.
Since the adoption of the fee demonstration program it has
been NTA's predominant experience that the National Park
Service has established an agency policy to do whatever it can
to make the congressionally mandated fee demonstration program
succeed.
Regrettably NTA cannot express the same positive experience
with the United States Forest Service during this same
demonstration fee period.
At the Committee's May 11, 1995 hearing on recreation fees
on public lands, NTA's President, then Secretary-Treasurer,
Keith Kerfall enunciated four basic appeals to the National
Park Service in adopting any kind of fee program.
First, there should be equitable fee comparison between the
individual and commercial group visitor. Second, Kerfall
pressed for adequate notice because most tour operator's
package 12 to 18 months in advance. Third, NTA urged the
opportunity to be heard for all impacted individual, group, and
recreational park visitors before the fee is adopted. And
finally, Kerfall appealed for uniform commercial and business
use fee structures throughout this 370-plus units of the
national parks.
From the industry's initial commercial fee crisis of
September 19, 1994 in which the National Parks Conservation
Associates incidentally an ally in resolution, to the Yosemite
National Park use permit panic of March 1995, the National Park
Service has made constructive efforts to respond to NTA's basic
fee fairness concerns.
This ongoing communication culminated in the December 1996
announcement of the individual and commercial visitor fee
program. With that fee program there was certainly an attempt
to establish equity or parity as between the individual
visitors and all other users of the national parks. There was a
12-month deferred period to enable the tour packager to catch
up with the impending increase in fee. And while all problems
with demonstration fee programs have not been ironed out, all
parties have experienced substantial progress toward the
practical implementation of the public-private goal.
Further, the National Park Service took the NTA 1995 plea
for park uniformity seriously and established the--tier
structure system. Our park partnership interaction continues
with meetings that continue this last month in Phoenix--Another
meeting in the upcoming month in Phoenix--to work out some of
the park fee problems at the Grand Canyon National Park, as
between the various tiers of commercial entrants.
Mr. Chairman, you asked me to address another realm of less
successful fee demonstration resolution with the ill begotten
air tour commercial fees at Grand Canyon, Haleakala and
Hawaiian volcanoes. These fees were adopted without any
industry opportunity to be heard or even Park Service support
testimony by the former National Park's authorizing committee
in the 1993 budget reconciliation Act.
I have included in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, an
enumeration of all the fees that are presently being paid as a
consequence of operating an air tour to and from the Grand
Canyon. The cost per visitor is anywhere from $20.35 to $24.13,
which is double the comparative cost for any other park
entrant. The largest percentage, 70 percent estimate, air tours
do not land and take off from NPS ground. There is a
comparative user inequity for the air tour fee.
The air tour viewer utilizes no services, receives no
direct benefit of any kind. The air tour leaves no footprints,
sandwich papers or evidence of restroom use at the Grand Park
or the Hawaiian Park. It is without a question one of the most
environmentally sensitive ways for a disabled, physically
limited, time-constrained visitor to see the aerial grandeur of
both the Grand Canyon and the Hawaiian parks.
There is no precedent for an entrance fee for only visual
appreciation of a national park. There is a fleeting air noise
impact that has almost been totally eliminated by Public Law
100-91 and SFAR 50-1. This is proven by the 1993 Park Service
survey in Grand Canyon National Park. Ninety-five percent of
the ground visitors reported no aircraft noise from whatever
source. Interference with their park experience in 1996--only
25 written complaints out of 5 million park visitors about
aircraft noise from the plane.
At least to date no other Federal agency has attempted to
start taxing airspace users for sound impacts. With your
direction and reinforcement, Mr. Chairman, I believe we can
find a sensible resolution to the 1999 National Park
authorizing legislation.
Finally, again, speaking to the overall program, Mr.
Chairman, the NTA applauds this unprecedented opportunity to
work together with all the land management agencies. We hope
you will authorize this partnership problem-solving program for
at least 2 more years beyond the 3-year termination date for
the existing program.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and
recommendations with you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Santini may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Mackey.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG MACKEY, PUBLIC POLICY LIAISON, OUTWARD BOUND
Mr. Mackey. Good afternoon. I represent Outward Bound USA,
which is a non-profit educational institution and a leader in
wilderness and experiential education.
For 37 years Outward Bound has had the privilege of
conducting extended back country expeditions to teach
leadership, self-reliance and wilderness skills.
Quite simply, parks, public lands and wilderness are our
classroom. The Outward Bound system in this country has five
wilderness schools and two urban centers. With operations in 25
states and on scores of Federal resource units, we witness the
fully array of agency policies, procedures and fees.
I represent a leader in wilderness education. I also speak
to you as an outfitter. Outward Bound and other leading
educators such as Wilderness Inquiry and the National Outdoor
Leadership School (NOLS) operate as full commercial users of
the public land.
In my comments I will address our support for fees and
Outward Bound's experience with fees in the fee demonstration
experiment, including the issues of multiple fees, notification
on fees, consistency of fees, and the need for equitable fees.
On our support for fees I'll be brief. Public lands, as I
said, are our classroom. Outward Bound pays fees, probably more
fees on more units than any single entity in the country. We
recognize the need for and the merits of proper administration
and maintenance of our public resources.
That is why outdoor groups such as Outward Bound, NOLS, the
Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, and others supported
the fee demonstration program.
To talk about the Outward Bound experience with fees, I'll
touch on four issues. First, multiple fees. Fee demonstration
has quite simply produced fees upon fees. The most I've seen
paid on a given unit is five. Four is not uncommon. The usual
suspects--franchise fees, back country and camping fees,
entrance and trail head fees, parking fees and per-head-per-day
fees. For each fee the time, point or method of collection may
vary.
Also, as fees increase, we need to remember and ensure that
our Federal lands remain open to all economic classes among the
public.
The second issue I would mention is notification. When you
think of outfitters, think of small business. We set budgets,
establish costs, market and advertise. At Outward Bound our
catalogs go out a year in advance. The competition is quite
simply brutal.
In one national park we are staring at a new fee that will
increase Outward Bound's costs from $303 in 1997 to over $7,000
this summer. The fee is proposed to start in May. As of this
testimony today we have no written notification from the Park
Service.
In another example, both Outward Bound and NOLS have had a
van-load of students stranded outside an entry station while
our field instructors located cash to pay a new or increased
fee.
The third issue is consistency within each of the agencies.
The discrepancies in how fees are calculated, assessed and paid
are dizzying. One unit requires a single permit and a single
fee for sea kayaking, mountaineering and ice climbing
activities. Another unit will charge a separate fee for each of
those activities.
The fourth issue I would mention is equity. And here I'll
highlight compliance. Focus on Outward Bound for a minute as a
back country user. Our students comply with fees at a rate of
100 percent. In the case of the BLM and Forest Service, other
back country users typically pay no fees or only voluntary
fees. This includes the public and most institutional groups
such as scouts, church groups and university programs.
If fees are the future, will the agencies find the
resources to monitor and manage dispersed recreation such as
Outward Bound's use or will the outfitter continue to carry the
load? If fees are indeed the future, fee demonstration must
answer these and other fundamental questions.
In fee demonstration there have been successes. Public
acceptance is higher where fees are equitable, stay with the
resource and the results from agency-reinvestment are tangible.
We know the Park Service is issuing directive to eliminate some
of the duplicative fees that I talked about, and local Forest
Service staff revamped a significant per-head-per-day-fee in
the boundary waters based on public and outfitter input.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, many questions remain. Outward
Bound is here today in support of fees and in support of the
fee demonstration experiment. Outward Bound would recommend
that this experiment run its course. It's too early to make the
program permanent based on 1-year's performance, and we'd ask
that oversight activities such as this hearing today and the
report that was submitted on January 31, continue.
And in the future at the appropriate date Outward Bound and
other members of the outfitter community would be happy to sit
down with members of this Committee and help draft permanent
fee legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mackey may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mary Margaret Sloan, you have the
floor.
STATEMENT OF MARY MARGARET SLOAN, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY
Ms. Sloan. My name is Mary Margaret Sloan, and I am the
conservation director for American Hiking Society, a national
nonprofit organization serving 10,000 individual members and
the more than 500,000 members of our 120 affiliated clubs.
American Hiking supports the current recreation fee
demonstration program for a number of reasons. Revenues stay in
the unit, the oft-stated intent that appropriations will not be
offset by the fees, and because the fees address the enormous
need for on-the-ground funding. However, it is our opinion that
the demonstration program is not being implemented with
uniform, good success.
The purpose of the demonstration program is to encourage
the land management agencies to creatively implement different
fee collection projects. Some of these projects are just now
getting underway. We have not had an opportunity to adequately
evaluate the effectiveness of the fees or how the agencies are
spending their revenues. We urge the Subcommittee to let the
demonstration program run its course and wait until 1999 or
beyond to propose a permanent program.
In order for this Subcommittee and the Congress to create a
successful and positive recreation fees program, the concerns
of hikers and other recreationists paying the fee should be
carefully considered. To that end, American Hiking suggests
several principles which can contribute to a successful
program, some of which are a part of the current demonstration
program and some which should be added or changed.
First, the fees must be fair and equitable and not prohibit
anyone from visiting our public lands. Second, the fee
collection must be convenient and not unduly interfere with the
recreation experience sought by the park visitor. Third, any
fee system must consider and encourage park volunteers, and
fourth, the legislation should clearly state that fee revenues
should not offset general appropriations.
Fees which are assessed against the general public for
parks and forests must be fair and equitable. Multiple layers
of fees are onerous and may discourage lower-income Americans
from visiting our public lands. I have excerpted a letter from
an AHS member from Austin, Texas, and I quote:
``May 8, 1997. Perhaps you can't be of help, but I just
need to know what can be done, if anything. During the
first week of June 1997, I'm taking my oldest daughter,
her husband, and six of their children to the Grand
Canyon. My daughter is a cafeteria aide and her husband
is a porter at a local car dealership. These are
obviously low-income people, and it's because of my
determination that they're going on this trip at all. I
have already paid $60 for two campsites at Mather
Campground at the Grand Canyon, but I am hoping there
is not an additional entrance fee or per-person fee
like I read. Since I'm also planning on taking them to
the Petrified Forest and Painted Desert, and possibly
some other natural parks and monuments on the way there
and back, including Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe
Mountains, this means additional entrance fees, et
cetera. At any rate, all of these entrance fees will
take a heavy toll on my daughter and her husband.
``Is there anything you can advise me to do to help cut
the expense of this family vacation? We had started
planning this last year, well before the demonstration
fees were mentioned, and my children were rather
discouraged when they took effect.''
That's the end of the letter.
Because of the cumulative fees, this woman did not take her
grandchildren to the Grand Canyon in 1997. This letter
demonstrates the need for more sensitivity to those who are
less well off. Even so, this woman's complaints transcend
income. Simplicity and affordability should be the order of
business for the Federal agencies. Fees, particularly in
popular parks like the Grand Canyon should be re-evaluated for
their impact on lower-income communities.
Entrance and user fees should be reasonable and convenient
and unobtrusive into the hiking and trail experience. Fees
should apply to as wide an area as possible. Regional or
statewide fees are optimal.
In November 1997, the Mountaineers, a 15,000-member outdoor
recreation and conservation group based in Washington State,
hosted its second annual user fee conference. Attendees voiced
strong support for a regional fee requirement. They also
complained about the current multiplicity of user fees, with a
different sticker required for every trailhead, which leads to
frustration, makes compliance difficult, and will likely result
in keeping all but the wealthiest citizens off of public lands.
All of the land-managing agencies should actively cultivate
and pursue volunteers as one way to offset budget shortfalls
and to generate public support and goodwill.
May I have one more minute to conclude?
Last year, the USDA Forest Service issued a forestwide
memorandum encouraging the forests to work closely with current
volunteers when implementing a new fee, and also to use fee
waivers to encourage increased volunteerism. American Hiking
thinks fee waivers for on-the-ground volunteer work will prove
to be a useful tool for the forests.
American Hiking Society feels quite strongly than any
revenue generated from the fees should not be used to offset
appropriations. We hope that this intent will be made clear and
prominent in any recreation fees legislation.
Thank you for the invitation to testify. I look forward to
answering any questions the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sloan may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Our next, Holly Fretwell, we turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY FRETWELL, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, POLITICAL
ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER
Ms. Fretwell. Thank you. First, I'd like to commend
Congress for creating the fee demonstration program. It is a
great step toward self-sufficiency in our popular national
parks. The program has already generated in excess of $45
million for selected national parks. These parks have been able
to keep 80 percent of the new fee revenues. New legislation
offers even greater potential for self-sufficiency by allowing
participants to retain 100 percent of fee revenues.
I'm here today to urge Congress to make additional reform,
so that our popular parks can become totally self-supporting,
at least operationally. Why self-supporting? Requiring parks to
be self-supporting will motivate managers to create more
services for visitors, maintain our parks in better condition,
and importantly, to become financially responsible in this
process. Right now we have very little incentive for financial
responsibility at our parks. Exorbitant spending for our
employee housing and $330,000 outhouses are simply two examples
of wasteful spending in our parks.
It's not very well-known, but our early national parks were
created on the premise that they would be operationally self-
sufficient. In 1916, five of our national parks, indeed, were
operationally self-sufficient, with fee revenues exceeding
operating expenses.
Here are some of the remaining shortfalls that stand in the
way of our parks to become self-sufficient:
First, only one-fourth of our parks are now part of the fee
demonstration program. There are a lot more parks that could be
added to this.
Second, despite the recent fee hikes, entrance fees are
still unrealistically low in many parks. For example, the
Golden Eagle Passport costing only $50, allows a carload of
passengers to enter as many national parks as they like, as
many times ad they like in a single year. This fee could be
considerably higher. The Golden Age Passport allows senior
citizens the same right. It costs them only $10 for an entire
lifetime. Now this is a group that is being subsidized greatly
here, and I do believe they are capable of paying at least a
reasonable fee.
Entrance fees at Yellowstone and Yosemite are still fairly
low, even with the fee demonstration program. It costs only $20
for a family of four to visit Yellowstone for seven consecutive
days. In comparison, that same family would pay $40 to visit
Disneyland for a single day, and they would pay an equivalent
or more than the $20 to see a movie for a day--or for several
hours at that. Changing fees in our parks to reflect market
prices would not only raise revenues in our parks, but it would
also begin to address some of the overcrowding problems that
plague our national parks.
Third, we need stronger incentives for park managers to
spend funds wisely. Presently, managers are motivated to spend
all the funds they are allocated. We could change this
motivation by allowing cost savings to remain as a future
budget enhancement in our parks.
Our State parks are a great example and show us self-
supporting parks are a realistic goal. There are now 16 State
parks that generate more than half of their operating costs
from user fees. New Hampshire and Vermont are 100 percent self-
sufficient in their park operations. Dramatic changes have
taken place in many parks. Texas and California, for example,
have encouraged increased fee revenues and budget cost savings.
State parks are becoming better stewards of the land, and they
are responding to visitor demand. Many parks are making greater
efforts to manage the resource amenities.
Thanks to Congress, the National Park Service is making
progress for autonomy at selected national parks, but further
changes are, indeed, needed. I recommend the following:
Congress should begin by holding appropriations to
individual parks at current levels. Future budget increases
would come from higher revenues and cost savings. Congress must
allow managers to institute their own fees, taking into account
rising demand and park resources. This could address some of
the facts we've discussed today, such as resident and
nonresident fees and peak-season and shoulder fees.
Congress must also allow park managers to keep all costs
savings as an enhancement for subsequent year's budget. For
responsible capital spending, each park should have a park
endowment fund. This could be spent at the discretion of park
management for capital maintenance and improvement. Funds could
come from a portion of concession receipts or user fees or
private investment in the form of bonds.
Again, I would just like to reiterate that allowing parks
to be self-supporting motivates managers to respond to park
visitors and park resources, and at the same time it encourages
fiscal responsibility.
Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to speak
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fretwell may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. That was very interesting testimony.
I'd be very curious how we would work that endowment fund.
We've thought about that around here a few times.
I have a few questions, but I'm supposed to get out of this
room in a little while. So if it's OK with everybody, I'll
dismiss you and move to the next panel.
Panel No. 4: Mr. Bachrach, Mr. Dingman, and Mr. Coyne.
Would they all come forward, please?
Is that right; is it Bachrach?
STATEMENT OF JOHN CHRISTOPHER BACHRACH, TREASURER AND BOARD
MEMBER, GRAND CANYON PRIVATE BOATERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bachrach. Bachrach.
Mr. Hansen. You're first.
Mr. Bachrach. I've heard way worse.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our
thoughts on the demonstration fee special use cost recovery
programs. My name is John Bachrach, and I've come from
Flagstaff to represent the Grand Canyon Private Boaters
Association. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that was
formed in 1996 to give a voice to the private, noncommercial,
or self-guided river-running population who, until now, have
had no voice in Park Service policy matters that affect the
boating community.
Briefly, I will outline the fees a person must pay in order
to conduct or participate in a private, self-guided river trip
on the Colorado River. These fees include two different
authorities: cost recovery and fee demonstration.
First, the cost recovery program: In order to be accepted
onto the Grand Canyon National Park's wait list, you must pay
$100. Then
to remain on this list until your turn has come up, you will
have to pay $25 per year. The current wait is likely to be 18
years. Therefore, you will pay a total of $550 before you ever
see the river. When you're finally able to launch, you'll pay
another $200.
Second, the demonstration fees: Under this authority, you
and each participant in your trip will pay $10 for entry into
the park and $4 per night for every night spent in the park.
Combined, these river-running fees constitute a 1,200 percent
increase and were implemented with no public input.
Before the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association could
support continued advocation or further expansion and
implementation of the fee demonstration program, we would need
to be assured that the program meets several important
criteria. They are as follows:
One, fees must be applied equitably and fairly to all
persons, businesses, and corporate entities engaged in similar
activities on America's public lands.
Two, fees must not be used as a tool to limit access to
America's public lands or waterways.
Three, fees must be consistent in both their assessment and
administration.
As a group, we are very concerned that the fee
demonstration program does not currently pass any of these
fairness tests. In the case of the Grand Canyon River-running,
fees are not presently applied fairly to all users engaged in
similar activities. Most of our members and the private boaters
we have surveyed have no objection to paying their fair share
of the park's operating costs. In contrast to the collected
noncommercial fees, fees paid by the commercial outfitters are
not used to recover the Park Service's management expenses.
Outfitters pay franchise fees, and in the case of the Grand
Canyon, river-runners pay--river outfitters pay into the
Colorado River Fund. Neither of these is used to offset river
operations costs.
Consequently, outfitter patrons pay no fees directly to the
park. A system that provided for the commercial patrons to pay
the same fees for similar uses as the self-guided, in our view,
would be a fair system.
The imposition of fees has apparently been used as a tool
to limit access for the private boater in the Grand Canyon. The
Department of Interior's press releases assure the public that
they would be involved in the development of the fee
demonstration program process, but as far as the Grand Canyon
is concerned, not one public hearing was conducted before the
announcement and implementation of the new fee structure. This
sudden and enormous fee increase took the boating public by
surprise and resulted in slowing the growth rate of the park's
wait list by 30 percent.
In 1998, for the first time in the history of the Colorado
River running, the total number of hopefuls on the wait list
declined by more than 1,000. This is the number of people out
of 6,000 who did not renew their names on the waiting list. If
the point of raising the price was to discourage self-guided
use of the Canyon, then the fee demonstration program has been
a success.
The long wait, coupled with the high fees, has nurtured the
feeling among the river community that the annual fee is
actually a penalty meant to discourage them from future
participation. Current and former Park Service employees at the
Grand Canyon have stated that they felt fee demonstration
charges were being used to curb the growth of the park's
private boating wait list. Park staff had calculated an
attrition rate of up to 30 percent for the noncommercial
boating wait list.
The current fee demonstration program is inconsistent and
unfair when compared with other fee programs imposed on public
lands. Comparing the use of public lands by cows to humans
would seem ridiculous, but those of us living in the West know
from simple observation that overgrazing by itself causes more
damage to the resources in question than wilderness use by most
humans. Boaters and hikers are now paying $4 per night for
every night they spend in the Grand Canyon. Presently, it costs
less than $10 for a cow to spend a year in the wilderness. This
comparison looks even more extreme when fitted into the larger
picture that includes annual fees for mining, logging, and
other resource-consuming activities that take place on public
lands.
Additionally, we are concerned with the classification of
river-running at Grand Canyon National Park as a special use
and the precedent that special use classification may set for
other low-impact, human-powered activity on public lands.
Because Grand Canyon National Park has classified noncommercial
river-running as a special park use, the park attempts to
recover 100 percent of the cost of managing this use, in
contrast to other park activities, which receive almost all
their funding from the park's general fund.
Special park use includes activities that are outside of
the normal range of activities in a park--for example, holding
a wedding ceremony or filming a movie. Historically speaking,
one of the first uses of what eventually became Grand Canyon
National Park began with river-running and a character named
John Wesley Powell. A river trip on the Colorado is a special
experience for sure, but river-running is definitely not
outside the normal range of activities in the park, and
therefore, we feel that it is not a special use.
In closing, before private boaters can support the fee
demonstration program, we need to be sure that the criteria for
fairness is in place. We once again submit the following as
guidelines:
One, fees must be applied fairly to all users engaged in
similar activities.
Two, fees must not be used as a tool to limit access.
And, three, administration of fees must be consistently
assessed to all resource users.
We sincerely thank Representative Hansen's office for this
opportunity to present our perspective.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bachrach may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. That's an interesting
comparison you had there.
Mr. Bachrach. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Dingman?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DINGMAN, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Dingman. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Dingman, and
I'm the Washington representative of the American Motorcyclist
Association, an organization with over 222,000 motorcycle
enthusiast members. I have a written statement, which I will
summarize, and ask that it be included as part of the official
hearing record.
Derrick Crandall discussed five essential principles which
must be contained in any recreation fee proposal. We would like
to lend our voice to the call for a fee program which contains
those elements.
Many of the fees imposed under the recreational fee
demonstration program, however, have not met the essential
criteria that the fees be coherent and integrated. My comments
pertain specifically to the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management, as the other agencies don't provide
recreational opportunities for off-highway vehicle enthusiasts.
Several States have for many years had user fee programs
that are funded by the payment of registration fees for off-
highway vehicles, and a small percentage of State motor fuel
tax, which are returned in the form of grants to various land
management entities, including Federal land management
agencies, for the development, operation, and maintenance of
recreational facilities.
For example, as Mrs. Chenoweth already mentioned, the State
of California has perhaps the best-known such program, which is
commonly referred to as the Green Sticker Program, named for
the registration sticker required on vehicles ridden in areas
funded by the program.
Both the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management are beneficiaries of the program. According to data
provided by the Off-Highway Vehicle Division of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, over the last several years
Federal land management agencies have received an average in
excess of $10 million per year in grants from the Green Sticker
Program. Another such program can be found in the State of
Utah. According to Utah's Department of State Parks and
Recreation, the income generated in 1997 from both the $12.50-
per-year off-highway vehicle registration fee and a portion of
the State motor fuel tax is in excess of $1.2 million. Of this
amount, $175,000 was available in 1997 to Federal agencies for
grants to off-highway vehicle facilities. The Forest Service
applied for, and received, just $74,000 of this money. The BLM
didn't even apply for any grants, leaving over $100,000
unexpended. With this amount available to land management
agencies going unexpended, it doesn't seem necessary to impose
any additional fees on the off-highway vehicle community.
When the AMA last provided testimony on the subject of the
imposition of fees at public recreation facilities, we
expressed a lack of confidence in the ability and willingness
of the land management agencies to conduct a program which
provided the necessary protection against the duplication of
fees. We cautioned against providing the agencies the latitude
to impose a redundant fee on the user group already paying for
access to a particular facility, simply because it was easy to
charge them again.
The progress report on the fee demonstration program has
proven our concerns to be well-founded. When the Forest Service
and the BLM issued their initial proposals for areas to be
included in the fee demonstration program, both proposed to
charge fees at some of the most popular off-highway vehicle
areas, ranging from $3 to $10 per day per area, while
continuing to submit grant requests from State-imposed user fee
programs that amount to an average of $1 million per grant per
area. That's right; our worse fears were realized.
Consider, if you will, the motor fuel tax and the
registration fee comprising two layers of fees. The agency has
proposed to impose what amounts to a third layer of fees on a
single group of users who has been paying their way all along.
As you can imagine, the outcry from the off-highway vehicle
community was intense. As a result of this outcry, some of the
most popular areas in the California desert district, managed
by the BLM, were temporarily taken off the list. I understand,
however, that they are slated to be reproposed in the near
future.
In fact, over the President's Day weekend, fliers were
apparently distributed by the BLM which announced that fees
would be imposed beginning this April at the popular off-
highway vehicle area, Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. This
area already receives nearly three-quarters of a million
dollars a year from the California Green Sticker program. The
Forest Service only gave the off-highway vehicle community lip
service when it came to discussing the areas they had proposed
for inclusion in the pilot program, which were already being
funded with user fees. They publicly expressed a willingness to
evaluate the areas they had chosen, but never took any areas
off the list.
One good example of this is the so-called Enterprise
Forest, or the Southern Province Forest, comprised of the four
national forests in southern California. The situation on the
Enterprise Forest illustrates the third layer of fees that the
off-highway vehicle community has been asked to pay. Since the
demonstration program, in addition to needing a green sticker
on their vehicles, off-highway vehicle enthusiasts have needed
to purchase an adventure pass in order to park their trucks and
tow vehicles in staging areas that were built and maintained
with Green Sticker dollars.
Recently, an AMA affiliate, the Central Coast Motorcycle
Association, held a Sunday event in Los Padres National
Forest--if I might, I have just a little bit more--held a
Sunday event in the Los Padres National Forest, one of the
Enterprise Forest units. Forest Service agents were on hand to
sell the adventure passes to early arrivals on Saturday, but
due to the popularity of the event, the agents ran out of
permits early Saturday afternoon. The Forest Service could not
find any agents willing to work on Sunday to sell the passes,
but did manage to find law enforcement officers willing to
write tickets to every attendee. Even those who had managed to
buy a pass on Saturday before the supply was depleted were not
left out. The passes were for calendar days, not for 24-hour
periods. Since they had by then spent the night camping out in
the forest, the unlucky participants were now in violation.
Neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land
Management has done an acceptable job of ensuring that the fees
they impose are coherent and integrated. The AMA would only
support permit fee authority for the land management agencies
provided that safeguards were put in place to ensure that our
essential criteria are met.
Perhaps permanent fee authority could be provided in a
manner which would allow fees imposed by States and then
transferred to Federal agencies in the form of grants to be
scored as a fee generated by a land management agency for the
purposes of satisfying their responsibility for developing
revenue from fees.
The challenge for land management agencies, it seems to me,
is to develop innovative ways of collecting fees from visitors
to the facilities they manage, who have not traditionally been
asked to pay for the privilege of visiting those facilities.
Instead of meeting this challenge to their fullest potential,
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have, from
our perspective, taken the easy way out and imposed fees on
individuals from whom they have already figured out a way to
get fees.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments as
part of the official hearing record today. I'd be happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingman may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coyne?
STATEMENT OF ALASDAIR COYNE, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, KEEP THE
SESPE WILD
Mr. Coyne. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to appear before
you today, to discuss Forest Service access fees, and my
responsibility to inform you that this well-intentioned program
threatens many of the principles held dear by Congress and the
Forest Service, while eroding public confidence in the
government's ability to serve our common good.
In several decades of civic activism, I have never seen so
many people so outraged at a government program. The program is
upsetting a great number of people, far out of proportion to
the minimal fees collected. Democrats are upset at the
commercializing of public land. Republicans are upset about the
inefficiency of a program rooted in the idea of running
government like a business. Hunters and fishermen are incensed
at an additional fee on top of their licenses. Hikers are upset
at the very principle of being forced to pay, to enter our
National Forests. As one outdoor enthusiast was quoted in The
Ventura County Star, ``The Adventure Pass has proven wildly
unpopular with forest users.'' I have always believed that
Forest Service lands belonged to all Americans. How meaningful
is the land of the free, when they are charging us just to walk
in our National Forests?''
I believe that this fee-for-access program should be
abandoned out of respect for the 100-year tradition of free and
unfettered access to our National Forests. I believe that this
is a principle truly worth fighting for.
Let me make a few important points about the Progress
Report you received in January. This program is not generating
nearly the funds projected, nor does it apply the funds that
are raised to Forest maintenance, as promised. The Forest
Service stated when this program was initiated, that it would
generate a wealth of new revenues and would allow ``80 percent
of all the fees collected to go into the recreation maintenance
budget of the National Forest where collected.''
The best attempt at whitewashing cannot cover the fact that
this is a tremendously inefficient program. Despite its lofty
goals, a mere third of the fees collected were available for
recreation facilities in southern California, after the first
summer. For Los Padres Forest, next to my home, Forest Service
documents put that figure at only 12 percent. This is despite
the fact that the costs of the program have been severely
underestimated and do not include the considerable dedication
of time by district rangers, recreation officers, and Forest
police, whose salaries are not subsidized by the fees.
The Report does not indicate how much of the fee income
went to staffing and enforcement, often the largest
expenditure. In fact, the Report is not even clear on how much
was collected through these fees. The Forest Service has two
sets of figures for fee receipts in 1997 in the same Report:
$9.9 million and $8.7 million, for the same period of time.
Forest Service usage figures are also inconsistent. The
Report states that fee demonstration sites totaled only 4
percent of total 1997 visitation. The Forest Service has
elsewhere estimated that California represents 22 percent of
nationwide Forest recreation use. How, then, can it be that the
four participating southern California Forests, covering half
of the State's population, can comprise only a fraction of 4
percent of total visitation? The Forest Service simply has no
idea about true usage rates, and dangerously less about the
impact of this unpopular program on those rates.
The anecdotal evidence is strong that this program is
generating distrust of the Forest Service and disuse of the
Forests. Any survey which concludes that the majority of Forest
users support access fees is a work of fiction. Evidence
supposedly based on comment cards, cannot hope to capture the
opinion of most users, when the majority of users are not
estimated to be complying with the program.
The Report calls for the development of a customer
communications package. Meaning the need to find a better way
to sell something to the public that it clearly doesn't want to
buy. Forest Service materials now refer to us as ``customers,''
and Forest Service Chief of Staff Francis Pandolfi says,
speaking of recreation, ``For the first time, we are selling a
product.''
But the public already owns the land. We don't want to buy
it back a la carte. We expect Congress and the Forest Service
to manage it without doubly taxing us through both access fees
and annual Federal income taxes.
Here the Report gives the lie to the entire fee-for-access
program. The maintenance backlog for the Forest Service is
currently estimated at $1 billion. Expected contributions to
this backlog from the 40 participating sites for 1998, will
constitute only 0.38 percent of the backlog. At that rate, this
program will take over 250 years to successfully replace the
failed responsibility of Congress to adequately fund Forest
recreation facilities.
Forest users are not dumb. We are willing to pay more for
campground facilities, but not to surrender all Forest access
while the Forest Service loses approximately $400 million a
year through road building and below-cost timber sales to
logging corporations. It is impossible to miss the corporate
interest in privatizing the Forests and ``Disneyfying'' public
lands through concessionaire rights.
What is difficult to understand is the need to surrender
the public trust to these corporations. Government should be
efficient, but it cannot hope to be a business. Forest rangers
should not be meter maids, and their Supervisors should not be
PR flacks. The Forest Service mission is, frankly, more
important than any commercial enterprise. It begins with
protecting the land and ends with enabling everyday Americans
to enjoy nature without commercialization. When Congressman Jim
McClure of Idaho warned that people would not want to pay to
see the sun-set, he hit the nail on the head.
Mr. Chairman, you are here today because you have
demonstrated, with members of this Subcommittee, great skill in
reading the public mind and responding to its will. It is my
belief that my presence before you can help serve that purpose
by bearing witness to an unpopular, unsuccessful program that
is unworthy of your continued support.
I thank you for your time, and hope to commend your good
judgment.
I will leave for the record these 14,500 petition
signatures against Forest access fees, collected from the San
Bernardino Forest.
Thank you.
[Signatures are on file at the Committee office.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coyne may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We appreciate your comments, Mr.
Coyne.
I know many of you have reduced your testimonies to stay
close to the time. We appreciate that. Feel free to submit to
us, though, whatever you may have.
It's very difficult to come up with a way to analyze all of
these things and take care of all the needs of all the public
lands, and it's not an easy task. So we'll muddle our way
along. Hopefully, we can do something fairly right, and see
where we go. Keep in mind there's 535 people up here that will
have a hand in this. So we'll hope it comes out right and is
fair to the American taxpayers.
All of you have made excellent point, and I really truly
appreciate it. Thank you for coming. I know it's sometimes
frustrating to come to these hearings. You wait while we go out
for votes and you're cutoff on time. That's the frustrations of
Congress; we go through the same thing.
I thank you all for being here and appreciate your
testimony.
And this hearing will now stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additonal material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of John Berry, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget
Thank you Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee. I
am pleased to talk with you about our experiences, mostly
positive I might add, as we have implemented the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program over the last year and a half. As you
know, this program has been a joint effort on the part of three
bureaus within the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. These agencies
manage a variety of resources under a variety of authorities.
Yet, for this experiment, they have worked closely and have
found that they have a great deal in common.
Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement that summarizes
our experience. I will be pleased to answer any questions to
the best of my ability. With me are Maureen Finnerty, Associate
Director of the National Park Service for Park Operations and
Education, Dr. Richard Coleman, Director of Refuges for the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Roger Schmitt, Group Manager for
Recreation in the Bureau of Land Management. Each of these
persons has a working knowledge of the day-to-day operation of
the fee demonstration program and may be able to address more
specific questions.
Quality service to the public and accountability are two
primary themes for my tenure with the Department of the
Interior. Quality service to the public demands that, when we
charge a fee for the public to enjoy and recreate in our
special natural and cultural areas, the value of the recreation
experience is equivalent to or exceeds the fee.
Accountability demands that we use recreation fee revenues
wisely and in a way that enhances the quality of our visitors'
experience. I am working closely with the bureaus in the
Department of the Interior to develop approaches to priority
setting so that we give priority to those projects that affect
the public's or our employees' health and safety. I am
confident that recreational fees in our Federal recreationsites
remain a ``bargain'' and I am pleased with the progress we are
making in applying fee revenues to projects that reduce our
maintenance backlog.
Visitor response to the demonstration fees has been
positive. Both the National Park Service and the USDA Forest
Service conducted surveys to assess visitor reactions during
the first full year of the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. Overall, 83 percent of national park visitors surveyed
said that they were either satisfied with the fees they paid or
thought the fees were too low. In the Forest Service, over 64
percent of people who completed a survey card said that the
opportunities and services they experienced were at least equal
to the fee they paid.
We believe that the strong support, so early in the
program, is primarily because the fee revenues have not been
offset by reduced appropriations, and because receipts remain
in the recreation areas in which they were collected, to be
used to improve visitor services and to protect resources. Our
visitors seem to be responding with greater care of the
recreation resources, for there is increasing evidence that
incidents of vandalism have decreased in areas where we collect
recreation fees.
We also believe that much of this public acceptance came
about because we involved and communicated with the public
early in the process in a variety of ways. There was a lot of
national press, of course, and a surprisingly large proportion
of positive and supportive editorials in the newspapers. At the
local levels, our agencies spent a great deal of effort working
with the public through formal communication plans, news
releases, meetings with local community leaders, constituent
groups and advisory councils, information leaflets, explanatory
videos, open houses, public workshops, comment cards, and signs
and bulletin boards. These efforts were important to the
success of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
Though the fee authorities under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act have for many years applied to several
Federal agencies, interagency cooperation has blossomed under
the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The participating
agencies have established a record of cooperation that I
believe is unprecedented in the arena of recreation fees. This
is true not only among bureaus of the Department of the
Interior, but also with the Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service.
Throughout the process of implementing the program, fee
managers from the four agencies held regular meetings to
discuss progress, approaches, problems, and solutions. They
have developed common approaches for evaluating the fee
program. They have initiated a number of joint projects with
each other, and with states and counties.
Mr. Chairman, I could go into great detail about our
accomplishments, but these are already described in the joint
Interior-Agriculture progress report to the Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior. Copies were made
available to members of this Committee. Let me simply highlight
some of the findings in that report.
First, a very large majority of visitor levels have been
sustained during the initial year of the new fees. Our Federal
recreation resources are truly public treasures. Accordingly,
we must be concerned that we don't unwittingly price the
American public out of the use of their resources. The initial
data that we have on visitation during the first full year of
the program indicate that fees appear to have a negligible
impact on visitation levels. Of course, we will not be
satisfied with the results of a single year's experience. We
will continue to evaluate visitation as it relates to fees. We
will look at those sites where visitation increased and those
where visitation went down, and try to determine why. We will
also try to determine whether certain income, ethnic or other
groups are affected by the fees.
Second, recreation fee revenues have increased
significantly in all four agencies administering the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Between fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997, recreational fee revenues increased
by 57 percent in the National Park Service, by 35 percent in
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and by 11 percent in the Bureau
of Land Management. We expect further revenue increases during
fiscal year 1998. The U.S. Forest Service has also experienced
significant revenue increases. This is good news, for it
identifies a new source of revenue, in addition to public
appropriations, that will allow us to improve visitor services.
Third, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of types
of fees. Some are variations of entrance fees, ranging from the
individual and carload fees that are typically collected at an
entrance kiosk, to the Golden Eagle passport, unit-specific
annual passes, and also multi-unit passes that allow entry into
several sites of the same Federal agency or several sites
operated by different Federal, state and local agencies. We
also are evaluating several types of user fees, for such uses
as parking, hunting, camping, boat launching, dumping of
sanitary wastes from recreation vehicles, and outfitter and
expedition fees.
Fourth, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of
methods for collecting fees, from the typical ``ranger in the
kiosk'' to automated collection machines, and collection by
mail. We are looking at using different parties for collecting
fees, including our own employees, partnership arrangements
with other agencies, using volunteers, and consignment sales by
vendors, concessionaires, and other private entities inside and
outside of the recreation area boundaries. We have many
instances in which fees are being collected under an honor
system on a self-serve basis. What we learn will help us to
design efficient and effective ways of collecting fees in the
future.
Fifth, the agencies have found that some of the initial
collection costs for new fees are higher than expected, and
certainly higher than they will be over the long run. The
reason for these higher costs is largely the startup and
capital costs for new fees that include kiosks, entrance
stations, and new equipment and supplies. The agencies are
working on approaches to amortize capital expenditures over
their useful life, which will give an accurate representation
of their annual impact on collection costs. In addition, the
agencies will look for ways to reduce the cost of fee
collection. Cost effectiveness may not always be possible. In
some sites, for example, the particular mix of low visitation
and multiple access points may make it impractical to institute
any fees at all.
Finally, the agencies have begun the process of financing
maintenance backlog projects. Considering that we are only now
into the second full year of the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program, and that many of the revenues were only available to
the demonstration sites toward the end of fiscal year 1997, the
participating agencies have begun a significant number of
projects that will reduce the backlog maintenance requirements
and provide public service enhancements at their recreation
sites. I refer you to the initial lists of backlog projects
that are detailed in the Appendix section of our report to
Congress.
I would like to highlight some examples of the types of
backlog projects that are underway using Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program revenues. Yellowstone National Park is
rehabilitating deteriorated electronic infrastructure for
safety and resource protection, repairing utility systems,
replacing deteriorated docks, rehabilitating trails and
overlooks, interpretive exhibits and backcountry campsites, and
restoring the Turbid Lake road. At Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
revising and updating kiosks to facilitate better visitor
orientation, constructing hands-on environmental education
learning centers, and installing photo blinds to enhance
opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography. In Paria
Canyon, on the Arizona-Utah border, the Bureau of Land
Management used fee revenues to maintain and upgrade sanitation
facilities at trailheads.
The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has been a
positive experience for the participating agencies. The
agencies agree that long-term implementation of this fee
program is desirable. We wish, however, to emphasize our strong
desire that any permanent authority should not take effect
until after the current temporary authority expires at the end
of fiscal year 1999. The test is entering its second full year,
and our current findings and observations are preliminary. The
full evaluation of the program will not be completed until
March 1999. Yet, even at this early stage, we are pleased with
the results, and would like to design a program that builds on
our positive experience in implementing the demonstration
effort. The Administration proposed permanent fee authority as
part of the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, with the pay-
as you-go costs offset within the overall budget, and stands
ready to work with Congress to enact this legislation.
There are several elements that we would recommend for
permanent legislation. These elements are presented in more
detail in the report, but I wish to highlight some of them.
First, we would emphasize the need for flexibility to tailor
fees to meet specific management and visitor needs. Recreation
facilities, resources, and primary users are not alike from
agency to agency, and even within agencies. When it comes to
designing fee programs in the face of such differences, we
simply caution that one size does not fit all. At the same
time, of course, we don't want to burden the recreating public
with a confusing array of fees. But we should have the
flexibility to balance the needs of the recreation resources
with those of the user.
Second, we think it is crucial to recognize the importance
of incentives in the design of recreation fees. The provision
in the demonstration program that fees be applied to on-site
backlogged maintenance projects provides a substantial
incentive for recreation managers to collect fees and to keep
the cost of fee collection down. It also appears that the
public is highly supportive of this provision. People seem much
more willing to pay the fees if they know the revenues will
directly benefit the resources that they enjoy.
Third, the provision that allows agencies to utilize the
revenues over more than a single fiscal year can help agencies
do long-range backlog reduction planning, and to implement
these plans in a systematic way. The assurance of multi-year
funding also strengthens agencies' ability to enter into
partnership arrangements with states or non-governmental
entities so that backlog reduction becomes a community effort.
Such funding stability encourages long-term planning, including
investment in more efficient fee collection infrastructure.
Finally, we believe that the provision that sets aside some
of the fee revenues for addressing broader agency priorities
would be an important element of permanent legislation. We
caution that a fixed formula that returns a high percentage of
revenue to the collecting site could, over the long run, create
undesirable inequities within an agency. We need to consider
this possibility in determining the appropriate balance between
the needs of the fee collection site with the backlog
maintenance needs of the entire agency.
In our final report at the end of March, 1999, we will be
able to provide to Congress much more detailed findings on
visitors, management issues, revenue potential, impact of fees
on communities and the less fortunate, and other issues. I
believe that this information will help the agencies in
implementing permanent fee authority to maximize public service
and accountability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I or my colleagues will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
------
Statement of Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region
Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased
to be here today to discuss how the Forest Service is
implementing the recreational fee demonstration program. I am
accompanied by Greg Super, the national Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program Coordinator for the Forest Service.
Every year, almost 95 percent of all Americans engage in
some sort of outdoor recreation. As the largest single supplier
of public outdoor recreation, the National Forest System hosted
over 850 million visits to its 191 million acres of national
forests and grasslands in fiscal year 1997. People are drawn to
national forests for a variety of activities, including white
water rafting, hiking, camping at developed sites, skiing,
sightseeing, mountain bike riding, and seeking the solitude of
the primitive backcountry.
Demands for recreation opportunities are becoming
increasingly complex. Forest visitors include more senior
citizens, people of diverse ethnic backgrounds, urban dwellers,
and people with disabilities. To meet this demand, we need more
specialized resources to provide the quality experiences our
visitors expect. While our fiscal year 1999 budget request
increases for recreation, appropriations have remained static
while demand has increased. Increasingly, we must meet our
recreation objectives through creative and innovative
approaches, such as the recreational fee demonstration program
and working jointly with our partners and through volunteers.
Outdoor recreation and tourism play a significant role in
the national economy and are key to the economies of many local
communities. Spending by recreation visitors contributes
billions of dollars to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product and
thousands of jobs. In addition to receipts from the recreation
fee demonstration program, other revenues from National Forest
System recreation fees exceed $45.2 million annually. Outdoor
recreation provides the largest contribution to national
economic activity of any National Forest System program.
From fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998, the Agency's
recreation budget averaged $217 million annually, but total
annual needs for operation, maintenance, backlog reductions,
and capital investments are much higher. We need additional
resources to meet demands for activities as diverse as managing
caves and wild and scenic rivers, providing more interpretive
services, and trail maintenance. In fiscal 1997, the
recreational fee demonstration program provided a much needed
$8 million to address critical resource needs and enhance
customer services. We expect the fees collected to increase
significantly this year. For these reasons, the Forest Service
strongly supports the recreation fee demonstration program
(RFDP), an essential part of meeting the increased demand for
quality recreation facilities and services to the public. It is
critically important that base level appropriations funding
continue in conjunction with the RFDP to demonstrate a clear
added value to the public for their fees.
Now let me turn to the implementation of the recreational
fee demonstration program.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Congress authorized the landmark recreational fee
demonstration program in fiscal year 1996 through enactment of
the Omnibus Consolidation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1996. The RFDP authorizes the USDA Forest Service, and the
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior to
test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new
recreation admission and user fees on up to 100 projects in
each Agency. Before the RFDP, the Forest Service was limited to
charging user fees at a limited number of developed sites and
none of the collections were retained for Forest Service use.
This new authority was a major positive departure from
historical practice. Initially, the RFDP authority allowed
agencies to retain all of the new fees in excess of a fiscal
year 1995 base figure, with 80 percent of the retained fees to
be used at the sites where they were collected, and 20 percent
to be distributed nationally to any site under the jurisdiction
of the collecting agency. However, the fiscal year 1998
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act removed the
base year requirement, thus allowing the agencies to retain all
recreation fee revenues from the fee demonstration projects,
not just the revenues in excess of the fiscal year 1995
collections, greatly increasing our ability to improve
recreational sites and services. The demonstration authority
expires at the end of fiscal year 1999, with receipts being
available to complete projects through September 30, 2002.
The Forest Service began to agressively implement the RFDP
in June, 1996, as indicated in the interagency report recently
provided to Congress. By the end of fiscal year 1997, with 40
projects collecting funds, receipts from the RFDP grossed well
over $8 million. An additional 45 projects will begin
collections in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Projects are being
tested in 28 states in all regions of the country, including
Puerto Rico.
The agency is testing a variety of fees in both developed
and dispersed recreation areas. Based on survey results, public
acceptance is increasing over time as people adjust to the new
fees and begin to see results.
Project Selection and Approval
As I previously mentioned, the Forest Service had 40
approved projects collecting fees in the RFDP in fiscal year
1997; 45 additional projects have been approved and will be
operational over the next 2 years. Before we approve the
projects, we develop a business plan and a communications plan
describing the project and how we plan to use the additional
fees, we evaluate local community effects, estimate the startup
costs and the cost to improve the project, explain the fee
calculation rationale, involve the public in the planning
process, and develop customer service feedback mechanisms.
Along with the RFDP came more responsibility and the need
for tight fiscal accountability. In order to track accurately
the RFDP funds, the agency had to incorporate new collection
and cash management procedures, and improve local and national
accounting systems to report revenue and expenses by project,
forest, and type of recreation activity.
Recreation Backlog and Enhancements
The House Appropriations Committee directed us to use the
revenues from this program primarily to reduce the maintenance
backlog and provide public service enhancements. The Forest
Service currently has a deferred maintenance backlog for
recreation facilities and trails estimated at about $1 billion.
This backlog continues to grow each year with ever-increasing
use pressures and insufficient operations and maintenance
resources. We spent $638,500 of RFDP collections in fiscal year
1997, addressing less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total
deferred maintenance backlog. We expect the RFDP revenues
generated in fiscal year 1998 will address an additional $3.9
million of recreation and trails backlog.
Addressing the backlog component is a priority for this
Administration, which is why the President included the
President's Environmental Resources Fund for America Initiative
in his fiscal year 1999 budget. Such an initiative would help
address the deferred maintenance backlog in Forest Service
facilities and provide increases for such activities as
restoration and replacement of water and sanitation facilities
at major recreation sites and trails. The President's budget
also proposes making the fee authority permanent, which will
help ensure that reducing the deferred maintenance backlog will
continue to receive high priority.
Interagency Coordination
The RFDP has provided a unique opportunity for close
coordination and collaboration between the four agencies
implementing the program. National fee managers hold regular
meetings to share information and provide common guidance for
collecting public feedback, so that each agency's evaluations
are comparable for implementing joint projects.
Working jointly across jurisdictional boundaries has proven
to be very effective and less burdensome and confusing to the
public. All four agencies are proud that we were able to
produce a quality interagency progress report to Congress on
the RFDP in a timely manner.
Lessons Learned
Mr. Chairman, one important characteristic of the fee
program is that it is a ``test'' which has allowed the Forest
Service the flexibility to be innovative, while making needed
adjustments based on public concerns and experience. Since we
began testing the RFDP in June 1996, we have learned that most
of our visitors accept paying fees if the majority of those
fees are returned to the local project and visible results are
evident quickly.
While we have had many successes, there have also been some
challenges. An example of a problem we faced was making the
distinction between admission fees and user fees. According to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, admission fees are
fees charged for general access into a recreation site or area.
User fees are charged for use of specific facilities, programs
or resources, some of which are within a recreation site. For
many of our visitors who possessed a Golden Eagle passport or
similar pass, this subtle distinction became a problem since
these passports can only be used for admission fees, but not
for user fees. In response to public comments identifying this
concern, the Forest Service changed its policy and began to
accept the Golden Eagle passport for admission to all national
monuments, national scenic areas and national recreation areas
on national forests participating in the RFDP. Although this
reduced collections, we felt it was an important customer
service improvement.
All of the participating agencies faced a number of other
issues such as negotiating regional and multi-agency entrance
fees; questions about reasons for collecting recreation fees;
financing startup costs for new projects; cash management and
employee safety; compliance regarding payment of fees;
communicating with our visitors; inequities within or among
agencies; local community effects; agency liability; project
tracking systems; and gaining critical business and
communications skills. The agencies are jointly working to
address these concerns as new projects are implemented.
Legislative and Management Improvements
After almost 2 years of testing the RFDP, we have a number
of suggestions for how the fee program can be improved and
strengthened. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget assumes
permanent legislative authority, which we strongly encourage
the Committees to consider. I will highlight a few of the
significant improvements and refer to the progress report for
the detailed list of other suggestions.
Joint Agency Effort: Congress needs to clarify
authority to provide for increased joint agency efforts across
Federal, state, and local jurisdictions in administering the
fee program. Specific statutory authorization could help
clarify the agencies' authority to enter into multi-agency and
multi-governmental fee agreements, and how fees should be
distributed under these agreements.
Better Long Term Planning: Permanent authority could
allow agencies to set aside funds toward expensive backlog
projects that could not be funded with only 1 year's revenue.
Permanent authority would strengthen the agencies' ability to
enter into cost-sharing or other partnership arrangements that
make backlog reduction a cooperative effort.
Base Level Appropriations: Congress should preserve the
added value provided by the fee demonstration by not offsetting
appropriations with fee receipts which would undermine local
public support and agency incentives.
Broadening the Demonstration Effort: The RFDP could be
expanded to explicitly include recreation-related activities,
such as ski area special use permits and permits for outfitters
and guides, which currently may be outside of the scope of the
RFDP.
Closing
Mr. Chairman, we agree that long-term implementation of the
RFDP is desirable. The interagency progress report highlights
many successes on the ground since we began implementing the
RFDP and also draws to your attention several areas that need
improvement.
We will continue to evaluate during the testing period so
that we may further explore ways to better administer this
program.
We are pleased that overall visitor response has been
generally positive. This program represents a significant step
toward improving customer services and recreation facilities
for those who visit our national forests.
This concludes my statement. We would be pleased to answer
your questions.
------
Statement of Philip H. Voorhees, Associate Director for Policy
Development, National Parks and Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Phil Voorhees. I am Associate Director for Policy Development
for the National Parks and Conservation Association, America's
only private, non-profit citizens organization dedicated solely
to protecting, preserving and enhancing the National Park
System.
NPCA appreciates the opportunity to testify today on the
issue of the fee demonstration program. Since its initiation in
1996, the demonstration program has proven valuable. It has
brought more revenue into the national parks and has begun to
educate park managers about public acceptance of entrance and
use fees, options for fee collection, and collateral benefits
and costs of increased fee collection. The program has been
dynamic in raising a variety of issues that Congress should
address once the program reaches its conclusion. Some of those
issues include the appropriate method of interagency revenue
sharing, the appropriateness of specific types of use fees,
eventual fee caps, and distribution of revenues within the
National Park Service. It is our hope that between this hearing
and the filing of the final report on the progress of the
program, this Committee will consider the issues identified
below, adjust the program accordingly and make the authority
permanent.
Public Acceptance of the Demonstration Program: Entrance Fees
The land management agencies' Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program Progress Report to Congress notes that the
demonstration program has met with generally high levels of
public acceptance for increased entrance fees to the national
parks. In 1995, prior to initiation of the program, NPCA
conducted a national survey asking about the public's
acceptance of fee increases. Seventy nine percent of those
surveyed responded that they were not opposed to an increase
from an average (at that time) of $5 per carload for a visit of
up to 7 days. In 1996, NPCA again conducted a survey exploring
the public's willingness to pay specific levels of fee
increases. Based on per person, rather than per carload
assessments, the 1996 survey showed that 56 percent of
respondents would support an increase of $5 per person, with
support gradually dropping to 20 percent as the increase rose
to $10 per person.
The 1995 survey accurately predicted the general public
support for fee increases. The 1996 survey, however, should
raise some questions for the National Park Service and for
Congress as the agency moves more aggressively into fee
collection. The question is how much is too much. Clearly, the
public acceptance for fee increases has limits. At many units
of the park system, entrance fees have been doubled and in some
instances tripled. Yosemite's fee, for example, climbed from $5
per car before the initiation of the program to $20 per car. If
the NPCA survey is any indicator, the current fee levels may be
approaching or may have already reached the limit of what the
public finds acceptable.
National Park Service fee revenues have grown under the
program from $75.7 million in fiscal year 1994 to an estimated
$142 million in the current fiscal year. With 97 sites
participating in the program, broadening the base of the fee
program (i.e. authorizing more units to participate) should be
examined before any consideration is given to raising entrance
fees even further.
Public Acceptance: Use Fees
Unlike entrance fees, the new and elevated use fees
established under the demonstration program have received mixed
reviews. The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association,
testifying today, presents perhaps the most cogent examples of
where the National Park Service has already stepped some
distance across the line of public acceptance for fee
increases. At the Grand Canyon, for private boaters, the wait
to get a slot on the Colorado River is as much as 8 years. NPS
has instituted a place-holding fee of $25 per year and a $100
application fee so that, on average, private boaters would pay
$300 before ever dipping an oar in the water. Additional use
fees apply once the boaters are on the river. While it is true
that charging a fee to wait in line thins the list of those who
are less serious (or less patient) about running the river,
requiring $300 up-front, before ever experiencing the Colorado
and the Grand Canyon seems a little excessive.
Nonetheless, this and other examples of excess can and
should be an active learning experience for the National Park
Service as it explores the boundaries of public acceptance of
use fees. The demonstration program was well crafted, in that
it allows NPS and the other land management agencies to explore
different opportunities and occasionally fail without penalty
any venues, use fees are a new concept both for the public and
for the agency. As Congress evaluates the success of the
program and considers making the program permanent, it should
pay careful attention to examples like the Colorado River wait
list fee and evaluate what kinds of fees are acceptable to the
public and what kinds are not.
Broadening the Scope of Fee Collection
The National Park Service is authorized to collect fees
under the demonstration program at 100 sites and currently
collects at 97. Those 97 units include some that had previously
prohibited collection, like Cape Canaveral NS which now charges
a daily use fee. Other areas have discovered that, if
appropriately applied, use fees can have collateral benefits
unrelated to revenue generation. When Glen Canyon NRA
established a fee at Lone Rock Campground, within 1 year
assaults dropped by 71 percent, disorderly conduct violations
dropped by 88 percent, quiet hours were enforced for the first
time, littering decreased and family use of the campground
increased. Although it is unfortunate that the parks experience
any crime, clearly the fees assessed here have had a beneficial
impact. In addition, smaller units, like Cape Canaveral were
able to generate supplemental revenues that proved useful in
addressing backlogged park needs.
In response, the Congress should consider expanding the
program to all units of the National Park System and extending
the demonstration period for another 5 years. This expansion
would allow the Park Service to explore further both the
opportunities and pitfalls of fee collection, building a more
accurate record of where, what kind and what level fees are
appropriate, while at the same time providing parks with badly
needed supplemental revenue. At the conclusion of an expanded
program, Congress would have a more accurate record to guide
future decisions on where, when, how and how much the public
should be asked to contribute for use of its park lands.
Distribution of Revenues Among Agencies and Within NPS
For the land management agencies, one of the most
contentious aspects of the demonstration program has been
distribution of the revenues resulting from the Golden Eagle
passport. Purchase of the Golden Eagle passport allows free
entry to all fee areas across the land management agencies.
Under the demonstration program, the price for the Golden Eagle
passport was raised from $25 to $50 in 1997, resulting in an
increase in total NPS revenues from $5.4 million to $9.6
million. Currently, revenue from the sale of the passport is
retained by the agency making the sale. When sale of the
passport is opened to third parties the calculus will become
far more complex, as none of the agencies will be directly
selling at least some portion of the passports. The fee
demonstration program was specifically authorized to spend the
resulting revenues on projects visible to the fee paying
public. As a matter of equity, revenues should therefore be
applied to the agencies based on their share of fee-generating
visitation.
Within the Park Service, the level of revenues received at
some of the ``crown jewel'' parks matches or exceeds the total
annual operations budget for those units. Grand Canyon NP is
the best example, generating $19.4 million in fee revenues in
fiscal year 1997, compared with an operations budget for that
year of $14.6 million. There are not many units in this
category, but all of the high visitation units participating in
the program generate similarly high revenues. To advocates of a
fee-funded National Park Service, this presents a tempting
target. Those advocates, however, should realize that many of
the most highly visited units also have the most substantial
backlog of maintenance and infrastructure needs. Not
surprisingly, visitation has a price. Grand Canyon NP alone has
an infrastructure and maintenance backlog exceeding $154
million. Even with an annual contribution of an additional $15
million (the park currently retains 80 percent of the
revenues), it will take Grand Canyon 10 years to address its
outstanding maintenance project needs, assuming future
maintenance budgets meet the needs of the park and the backlog
does not grow. And Grand Canyon, like many other parks has
substantial cultural and natural resource protection needs as
well.
Nonetheless, as Congress considers the success of the
demonstration program as it moves forward, it should consider
the equity of high levels of supplemental revenues flowing into
the high visitation, crown jewel parks. Units throughout the
system suffer from similar problems of decaying infrastructure
and delayed maintenance. The demonstration program currently
distributes 80 percent revenues to the parks that collect the
fees. The remaining 20 percent is distributed to the non-fee
demonstration units and is used to support the management of
the national fee program. As the need for additional studies
(discussed below) emerge, Congress should consider evening the
distribution so that the less visited and non-fee units do not,
in effect, end up supporting the additional research and
management of a program that generates revenues
disproportionately benefiting the high visitation crown jewels.
Additional Research Needs
When the National Park Service finished its plan for the
demonstration fee program, the Service made relatively heavy
use of parks that already charged fees and simply raised them.
This avoided generating some of the controversy that the Forest
Service has experienced, but it also provided a narrower scope
for the demonstration program than could have been achieved.
Before the Congress considers making the program permanent,
some additional research may be warranted to improve the
agencies' level of understanding about the public's willingness
to pay for entry to and use of parks supported by tax dollars.
In addition, little is known about the impact specific
levels of fees have on the inclination of people to visit the
parks from specific demographic and economic groups. The
national parks are for all of us to enjoy and to learn from, no
matter the individual's economic or social circumstance.
Visitation figures since the initiation of the demonstration
program indicate that the increases have had little or no
impact on the public's willingness to visit the national parks.
But as the Congress, the agency and the public becomes more
comfortable with higher entrance and use fee levels, we must
remain always cognizant of the impact that fee increases of any
and all kinds have on Americans with limited means. Additional
research would help delineate at what point fees become
problematic for those visitors and begin to affect adversely
the demographics of park visitation. For both issues--
willingness to pay by the general public and impact of fee
levels on economic and demographic groups--the National Park
Service should understand the effect of its actions before
proposing changes, rather than proposing changes and evaluating
the impacts after the fact. Acknowledging that research costs
money, all such research could be covered by the revenues
generated by the existing demonstration program.
Supplementing Appropriations Beyond Public Fees
A separate, but equally important concern for NPCA is the
balance between assessing fees for the public enjoyment of the
national parks and collecting appropriate fees from
concessioners and other private users of the national parks who
gain financial profit from their use of the parks. On Tuesday,
this Committee conducted a hearing on H.R. 2993 to apply fair
market value-based fees to the production of commercial
photography and films in the national parks. For fifty years
Hollywood and Madison Avenue have leveraged the image of the
parks to improve their bottom line and have provided very
little to the parks in return. It is our hope that this
Congress will move to correct this imbalance before it adjourns
next fall. Similarly, national park concessions reform has been
on the agenda of each of the past four Congresses and has yet
to pass.
Senator Bumpers has voiced his concern for the need for
reform for two decades, repeatedly introducing legislation to
accomplish that reform. On this side, Chairman Hansen has also
expressed an interest and was helpful in addressing reform
proposals in the 104th Congress. Since 1965 and the passage of
the Concessions Policy Act, NPCA has been working and waiting
for reform. When the last Congress was discussing new fee
authorities for the National Park Service, we were outspoken in
noting that fees should not be increased for the public before
a more fair return to the taxpayer was achieved from the
businesses that profit from the park visitors themselves. Any
reform that Congress seriously attempts should increase the
competition for park concession contracts, should address the
standing debt to the Federal Government in the form of
possessory interest held by the concessioners and should make
the resulting revenues available to the parks themselves.
Our view on this issue has not changed with the passage of
the fee demonstration program. Before the conclusion of the
demonstration program and the consideration of implementing the
experimental program on a permanent basis, Congress must
address and resolve the issue of concessions reform. Failing to
do so would be profoundly unfair to the park visitor and to the
American taxpayer.
Conclusion
Thus far, the fee demonstration program has proven to be a
success by almost any metric. Fee revenues have increased 88
percent since fiscal year 1994; the application of fees has
shown some collateral benefits; and the participating parks
have begun to address their backlog of maintenance and
infrastructure needs through the new revenues, albeit at a very
measured pace. But the program is still relatively new and a
broad variety of questions remain unanswered.
When fee proposals were discussed in the 104th Congress,
many comparisons were made between the cost of a visit to the
fee collecting parks and the cost of a variety of other forms
of public entertainment. The comparisons provided an
interesting diversion but avoided addressing the central
question of what defines an appropriate fee for visiting the
national parks and using the legally available resources.
National parks are not entertainment outlets comparable to
Disney World or the latest Hollywood blockbuster film. They
serve a very different purpose, focused on education,
inspiration and preservation for the future.
Given those differences, before the Congress moves toward
permanent authority for the National Park Service to set and
adjust fees on its own judgment, it should require a full
analysis of how the NPS expects to use and develop its
authority, how it sees that fees will need to be adjusted in
the next 10 years, and where (if anywhere) it intends to draw
the line on fee collections for the National Park System.
Before Congress provides permanent authority similar to the
demonstration program, whether next year at the conclusion of
the demonstration program, or after an additional 5 year
extension, the National Park Service should be asked to provide
a coherent plan for the fee program, detailing where and when
fees will be applied, at what level fees will be applied, how
quickly and to what level fees will be increased over time, and
if there are any program types or areas that NPS or the other
agencies have learned from experience should remain free to the
public.
Above all, when Congress moves to extend the demonstration
program or make the authorities permanent, it must reaffirm its
intent that the resulting revenues be provided to the parks and
public lands as supplemental revenues, in addition to the
annual appropriations that the National Park Service and the
other agencies currently receive. Despite the impressive
revenue performance of a small collection of high visitation
parks, the National Park System as a whole will never and
should never be asked to support itself with fee revenues. In
the same 1995 survey, NPCA asked respondents about their
willingness to pay more in taxes to support the national parks.
Overwhelmingly--79 percent--said they would. This is a strong
indication of the value that Americans place on their tax-based
financial support for the national parks.
------
Statement of Gaylord Staveley, Vice President, National Forest
Recreation Association
Mr. Chairman, my name is Gaylord Staveley. I'm Vice
President of the National Forest Recreation Association. In our
view, this oversight hearing on the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program is much-needed and very timely. We thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
Our comments deal almost entirely with the Fee Demo program
as it is operated by the USDA Forest Service. NFRA, established
in 1948, is a national association of private-sector business
owners or companies who construct and/or operate resorts,
lodges, campgrounds, marinas, and pack stations for the use and
enjoyment of the public, under permits from the Forest Service.
There are, by Forest Service count, some 1,700 such businesses
serving the National Forest system nationwide. Overall, these
businesses have a multi-billion dollar investment in
structures, facilities and equipment used to serve the visiting
public. They contribute millions of dollars in privilege fees
to the Federal treasury every year.
NFRA's interest in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
springs from harmful effects the program has, in its very first
year, had on a number of those private sector businesses, and
our concern that those effects will continue if not curbed.
We are also concerned about the effects of a permanently
authorized Fee Demo program on the safety and quality of
national forest recreational experiences.
When in late 1996, Congress authorized the selection of
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, it was as a three-year
pilot project during which Federal land management agencies
could test new access and user fees at certain sites of their
choosing, to learn more about possible ways of reducing the
size and scope of government while continuing to provide for
the use and enjoyment of Federal lands.
By February 1997 even before the fee demo program had been
implemented in many locations, some proponents were describing
it as being ``highly successful.''
At that same time, some wild interpretations and
applications of the fee demo concept were occurring in the
field. Many Forest Service employees clearly considered the
newer and higher fees ``found money.'' Despite the guidance
provided with the initial authorization, it appeared there was
little consideration for what the market would bear, or the
effect of higher fees on local communities. Moreover, the
program impinged heavily on a number of private-sector
businesses to whom the Forest Service had issued concession
permits.
At this point I want to emphasize that NFRA is not opposed
to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Area Program. In this time
of limited appropriations, it may be good for the agency to
have more than one source of revenue. And certainly it is not
unfair to ask visitors to pay something for the use of a
facility or amenity on a national forest. What we object to are
the abuses of this the program and the potential for future
abuses.
Fee Demo is being used to displace and subrogate
concessioner operations, and in the absence of top-down
administration and oversight, we believe it will continue to be
use that way.
There has, for some time, been a faction within the Forest
Service that advocates taking back the visitor services that
have been concessioned out to the private sector, so those
facilities could be operated directly by Forest Service
personnel.
The notion of taking back the concessions initially arose
from resentment at seeing private sector employees beginning to
do forest-based jobs that had traditionally been done by
``green shirts,'' i.e. Forest Service employees. Some of those
Forest Service employees continue to view Fee Demo as an income
base for regaining those jobs by taking back the job sites, and
have begun using it that way.
During Fee Demo's first year, we have seen it used as a
take-back device in the following ways:
The peremptory modification of current permits. The Forest
Service euphemism for this is ``renegotiation.'' When Forest
Service officials withdrew the Trinity Lake Recreation Area in
California from an established campground concession program,
and indicated they intended to do the same thing at Lake
Shasta--and were stopped from carrying out that plan the Forest
informed the concessioner that the terms of the concession
permit will be ``renegotiated.'' Other concessioners who
questioned Forest Service interpretations of Fee Demo have been
told they are going to have the number of one-year renewals
reduced as a consequence, or that ``if they make waves, they
will be eliminated from the forest.''
Refusal to renew a permit that had in the past always been
renewed. Several months ago the permitter who had operated the
Table Mountain Campground for many years simply disappeared.
When we couldn't find her we telephoned the Forest Office
administering her permit to ask how she might be contacted. The
Forest Service person on the other end of the line said ``oh,
we have that campground now--fee demo, I think it's called.''
This occurred in a four-forest complex the Forest Service calls
the Enterprise Forest project where they are doing what we
consider to be ``cherry picking'' concessioned sites on four
urban national forests, taking back the higher-revenue sites.
Setting a new fee and taking the revenue from it, while
shifting its related maintenance cost to a concessioner. In one
situation we observed, the Forest Service began charging
visitors a fee for parking in a lot that has historically been
free, while requiring a nearby concessioner--as a condition of
a permit at a totally different location--to pay the costs of
cleaning this Forest Service parking lot, its toilets and
trailhead.
Pressuring the concessioner to lower its fees so the Forest
Service fee will be more affordable. An alternate tactic has
been to ask the concessioner to raise its fees so a new or
higher Forest Service fee will seem less drastic to visitors.
These tactics were used in connection with parking and boat
launching.
Refusing for several years to allow a concessioner to raise
prices, so that he or she will abandon the permit; the Forest
Service can then take over the business ``in the public
interest.'' One such situation has been going on for 9 years.
A year ago, even as Fee Demo was being hailed a success,
the Chief of the Forest Service was finding it necessary to
issue a letter to his Regional Foresters under the subject:
``Prohibition Against Displacement of Concessions Based on
Recreation Fee Demonstration Projects.''
However, many Forest Service field employees ignore the
Washington office. The Chief's letter notwithstanding, new
instances of fee demo impingements on concessioners continued
to be reported throughout the summer of 1997.
By September, there was so much concern in the Senate that
in a September 18, 1997, colloquy on the Senate floor, Senator
Jon Kyl, a member of the Forests and Public Land Management
Subcommittee, noted that ``as private permit terms expire, it
appears that at some fee demo sites there is an intent to
discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of
recreation goods and services.''
Senator Larry Craig, also a member of that Subcommittee,
then noted that Senator Kyl had identified a serious problem
that is also occurring in Idaho. He noted the development of a
new Forest Service ``Heritage Expedition'' program that
essentially puts the agency into the outfitter-guide business.
Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee
on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, then stated
that concessioner displacement was not an intent of the fee
demo program.
Near the end of the first session of the lO5th Congress,
the 1998 Appropriations Bill was nearly amended to reassert the
parameters of fee demo. The Forest Service opposed that
amendment, on the grounds that ``they don't want to relinquish
their authority to take back concessions.''
The Fee Demonstration Project is too new to receive permanent
authorization.
Not enough is yet known about the extent or manner that fee
demo funds and appropriated funds can be blended to assure the
continued availability of safe enjoyable visitor services on
the Federal lands. It may be that the fee demo concept works
better where there are gated chokepoints, as in national parks,
than where entry in predominantly uncontrolled, as in the
national forests.
We need to learn more about what level of fees are
reasonable: Clearly, the Forest Service has a different view of
reasonability than does the public--as evidenced by the fact
that in many instances the public objected to demonstration
fees called ``fair,'' but did not object to them when they were
lowered.
We need more assurance that demonstration fees will be used
for resource protection and maintenance, and that they will not
become a source of income for a Forest Service ``jobs
program.''
Demonstration fees on a per-vehicle basis fall unfairly on
escorted groups, especially those in partially filled coaches
and vans. When transportation, tour, or ecotour companies must
bypass national forests because of excessive fees, the public,
the tour companies, the forest based concessioners, and the
adjoining rural economies are all adversely affected.
If the Administration was to renege on earlier promises and
treat locally collected fees as an appropriation offset, the
Forest Service would be left with no other funding source for
recreation and maintenance backlog reduction. We believe they
would then use Fee Demo authority as a license to extract as
much money as possible from visitors and concessioners, without
regard for the effect on resource protection or the ability of
the private sector to afford quality service.
If Forest Service recreation management--under which the
concession permit system is administered--were required to
operate solely on revenue from the Fee Demo program, we are
certain the number and type of Forest Service demands on its
private-sector permitters, already substantial, would increase
further.
Many forest-based businesses are already being subjected to
extraordinary financial or labor requirements as a condition
for favorable consideration on issuance or renewal of a permit.
For the most part these requirements are not commensurate with
the term of the permit; they would have to be amortized against
a longer permit or a renewed permit--neither of which can be
relied on.
CONCLUSION
NFRA would like to see the Fee Demo program succeed, but we
urge that it not be permanently authorized at this time or
without legislated direction.
The Forest Service is experiencing financial and staffing
problems as well as a huge maintenance backlog. More than ever,
help from the private sector is needed. The Fee Demo project
was sold to the concessioner community on the basis that it
would provide new flexibility to the agencies and attract more
private investment to the improvement of recreational and
visitor facilities and services on the public lands. The effect
thus far has been to discourage private investment at national
forest permitted sites.
The Forest Service continues to compete against and
undercut its concessioners whenever and wherever it chooses to
do so. The charge to be ``entrepreneurial,'' fed by the fee
demo program, is encouraging Forest Service employees to free-
lance. One Forest Service field officer told a concessioner
``we don't care what Washington says, we're going to do (fee
demo) any way we choose.''
The program needs more time to mature, and during that time
it needs the oversight of Congress and the people who will be
affected by it.
Late in 1997, consideration was given to amending the 1988
Appropriations Bill to provide that:
Projects undertaken under the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program shall not result in:
(a) the modification of a current concessioner authorization
without willing consent of the holder of such authorization;
(b) failure to renew, to extend, or to offer a new prospectus
for an existing concession authorization; or
(c) the displacement of an authorized concessioner operation.
We urge the adoption of that language, along with
legislation that standardizes and codifies the forest Service
developed-site permit system and its developed-site concessions
policies and practices.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this very
important matter.
------
Statement of John Bachrach, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our
thoughts on the Fee Demonstration/Cost Recovery program
implemented in 1997. We recognize the importance of this issue
to the huge population of people who cherish and seek to access
our public lands.
My name is John Bachrach and I have come from Flagstaff,
Arizona to represent the Grand Canyon Private Boaters
Association. The boating public is one component of the outdoor
community. We are a 501C3 non-profit corporation that was
formed in 1996 to give a voice to private/non-commercial or
self-guided river running population who, until now have had no
voice in NPS policy matters that affect the boating community.
Briefly I will outline the fees a person must pay in order
to conduct or participate in a private, self-guided river trip
on the Colorado River. First, in order to be accepted onto the
Grand Canyon National Park's wait list and secure a position on
that list you have to pay $100. Then to remain on this list
until your turn has come up you will have to pay $25 per year.
The current wait is eighteen years so you will pay a total of
$450. When you are able to launch you will pay another $200 for
that privilege. You, and each participant in your trip will
then pay $10 for entry into the park, additionally each of you
will be assessed $4 per night for every night you spend in the
park.
The current structure was implemented after the December
1996 Fee Demonstration and Cost Recovery Programs were
authorized by Congress. River running fees were raised 1200
percent with no public input.
The concept of paying fees at Grand Canyon National Park to
recreate is not new to non-commercial river runners, however
the new fee program at Grand Canyon National Park is
inconsistent with other recreation and use fees on public
lands. Before the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
could support continued application or further expansion and
implementation of the fee demonstration program, we would need
to be assured that the program meets several important
criteria. They are as follows:
(1) Fees must be applied equitably and fairly to all persons,
businesses and corporate entities engaged in similar activities
on America's public lands
(2) Fees must not be used as a tool to limit access to Americas
public lands or waterways
(3) Fees must be consistent in both their assessment and
administration
As a group we are very concerned that the fee demonstration
program does not currently pass any of these fairness tests.
(1) In the case of Grand Canyon river running, fees are not
presently applied fairly to all users engaged in similar
activities.
Most of our members, and private boaters that we have
surveyed have no objection to paying their fair share of the
parks operating costs, but in contrast to the collected non-
commercial fees, fees paid by commercial outfitters are not
used to recover the NPS' management expenses. Outfitters pay
franchise fees, and in the case of the Grand Canyon, river
outfitters pay into the Colorado River Fund. Neither of these
fees are used to offset river operations costs. Consequently,
outfitted patrons pay no fees directly to the park, thereby
being insulated from the increased awareness generated by
direct contact with park staff and park needs.
Policy should be crafted that brings to all users greater
awareness of the costs involved with our public lands
operations and would help instill a sense of participation,
ownership and preservation among all users. Making sure
commercial patrons paid the same fees for the same kinds of
uses as the self-guided could help to raise awareness and would
be fair.
(2) The imposition of fees apparently has been used as a tool
to limit access for the private boater in the Grand Canyon.
The Department of Interior's press releases assured the
public that they would be involved in development of the fee
demonstration program process, but, as far as the Grand Canyon
is concerned, not one public hearing was conducted before the
announcement and implementation of the new fee structure.
The sudden and enormous fee increase to the boating public
by surprise and resulted in slowing the growth rate of the
parks wait list by 30 percent. In 1998, for the first time in
the history of Colorado river running, the total number of
hopefuls on the wait list declined by more than 1000 people out
of 6000 did not renew their names on the waiting list. If the
point of raising the price was to discourage self-guided use of
the canyon, then the fee demo program has been a big success.
The long wait coupled with the high fees has nurtured the
feeling amongst the river community that the annual fee is
actually a penalty meant to discourage them from future
participation.
Current and former NPS employees at Grand Canyon stated
they felt fee demonstration charges were being used to curb the
growth of the Park's private boating wait list, and that park
staff calculated an attrition rate of up to 30 percent for the
non-commercial boating wait list.
(3) The current fee demonstration program is inconsistent and
unfair when compared with other fee programs imposed upon
public lands.
Comparing the use of public lands by cows to humans would
seem ridiculous, but everyone of us living in the west knows
from simple observation that cows do far more damage to public
lands than do humans. Over grazing, by itself causes more
damage to the resources in question, than wilderness use by
humans. And let's not forget the cows trampling of
archeological sites. Boaters and hikers presently pay $4 per
night for every night they spend in the Grand Canyon, contrast
that to the cost of grazing a cow for a year on public lands.
If grazing were to be assessed at the same rate people are, it
would cost $1460 to graze a cow for a year. Presently it costs
less than $10 for a cow to spend a year in the wilderness.
Hikers and boaters would be better off if they were treated
equally to cows!
This comparison looks even more extreme when fitted into
the larger picture that includes annual fees for mining,
logging and other resource consuming activities that take place
on public lands.
Additionally we are concerned with the classification of
river running at GCNP as a ``special use,'' and the precedent
that ``special use classification'' may set for other low
impact, human-powered activities on public lands.
Because GCNP has classified non-commercial river running as
a ``special park use'' the park attempts to recover 100 percent
of the costs of managing this use, in contrast to other park
activities which receive almost all their funding from the
parks general funds. ``Special park uses'' include activities
that are outside of the normal range of activities in a park,
for example holding a wedding ceremony, or filming a movie.
Historically speaking, the first use of what eventually became
GCNP began with river running and a character named John Wesley
Powell. A river trip on the Colorado is a special experience,
for sure, but, river running is definitely not outside the
``normal range of activities'' in the park, it is most
definitely not a special use.
The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association would like to
encourage the distinguished members of this Committee and
Congress to reexamine Federal funding policies that make it
necessary for our National Park system to resort to drastic and
sudden measures like the Cost Recovery/Fee Demonstration
program imposed upon non-commercial boaters and hikers at GCNP
in order to survive and continue to provide American's and our
visitors from all over the world access to these natural
treasures.
In closing before private boaters can support the fee
demonstration program, we need to be sure that a criteria for
fairness is in place, we once again submit the following as
guidelines:
(1) Fees must be applied fairly to all users engaged in similar
activities.
(2) Fees must not be used as a tool to limit access.
(3) Administration of fees must be consistently assessed across
all resource users.
We sincerely thank Rep. Hansen's office for this
opportunity present our perspective and we are sure you will
give our thoughts consideration.
------
Statement of Hon. Robert F. (Bob) Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman:
The Endangered Species Act is the most powerful law in the
country today. Its impact on private property, economic
production, and our standard of living is unprecedented;
because of its power, the enforcement of this law must be
carefully scrutinized. I commend you on your decision to hold
this important hearing.
The total impact of the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act is sometimes difficult to ascertain. We do know,
however, that it has led to a greater reliance on imported wood
products, higher energy costs, restrictions on the use of our
nation's waterways, and more rigid regulations on the use of
private land. Ultimately, my biggest concern about the Act is
the emotional burden it places on hard-working farmers who have
been forced to deal with a question fundamental to their very
existence: will they have enough water to grow their crops and
provide for their families?
This is a critical aspect of the law that is too often
overlooked. As Federal agencies focus on the rigid regulations
written to implement the Act, they often lose sight of the fact
that we are placing people's livelihoods at stake over a
biologist's judgment. This is an awesome responsibility. Do we
cut off water to a farmer and ruin his crops because one
biologist believes that a lake ought to have six additional
inches of water in it? Or for an additional 50 cubic feet per
second of flow in a river? If such a decision is made, Federal
agencies bear the burden of proof. Solid scientific evidence
must be driving these issues; too often it does not.
The listing of a species must contain two key components.
First, we ought to have rigid standards placed on the
scientific evidence being used to support the listing. The data
should be collected using commonly-held scientific practices,
peer reviewed by a broad array of experts in the field, and
closely scrutinized by agencies and affected interests before
being adopted. If the Federal agencies rush to judgment under
the threat of a lawsuit, the burden of proof to delist then
falls on landowners. This is wrong. It should be the agencies'
burden to prove that a species merits listing, not a
landowners' burden to prove it does not. Second, there must be
a comprehensive plan adopted that specifies realistic numerical
targets for species recovery. Without such a common
understanding of the goals, how can landowners participate in
the species recovery? If they are forced to comply with an
ever-expanding list of Federal requirements and shifting
standards, the Federal Government will lose the most effective
partner they have in the effort to save legitimately threatened
species.
When the Federal Government's efforts degenerate into
incrementalism and loosely defined goals, the recovery of
species will never be successful. If, however, we can adopt a
common understanding of the key issues that lay before us--
principally, the adherence to strictly scrutinized and peer
reviewed science, and a detailed recovery plan--we can make
progress. The need to provide more stability to the victims of
misguided agency decisions requirethat we act to make this law
better. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
Congress to achieve this goal.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this very
important hearing, and I look forward to discussing this matter
in greater detail with our witnesses.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T47404.099