[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE FOREST SERVICE RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 25, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-401 WASHINGTON : 2002
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 25, 2001............................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, prepared statement of..................... 39
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 39
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 1
Letter to Dale Bosworth, Chief, USDA Forest Service,
submitted for the record............................... 3
Otter, Hon. C.L. "Butch", a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, prepared statement of.................. 40
Statement of Witnesses:
Bschor, Dennis, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Hoschek, Doug, Co-Founder, Public Access Coalition........... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Robertson, Jason, Access Director, American Whitewater....... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Viehman, John, Publisher, BACKPACKER Magazine................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Warren, Bob, Chairman, National Alliance of Gateway
Communities................................................ 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Additional materials supplied:
Smith, Vera, Conservation Director, The Colorado Mountain
Club, Letter submitted for the record...................... 12
HEARING ON PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE FOREST SERVICE RECREATION FEE
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommitee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in Room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John E. Peterson
presiding.
Mr. Peterson. [Presiding.]
The hour being 3 o'clock, the Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health will come to order.
The Subcommitee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
permanent extension of the Forest Service Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program. We are going to dispense with all
opening statements, which may be submitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
Today the House Subcommittee and Forests and Forest Health will
conduct an oversight hearing exploring the Forest Service Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program, or Rec Fee Demo as it is generally known.
Since the Program's inception in 1996, the Forest Service Rec Fee Demo
has been the subject of both praise and vilification; it has been
roundly commended by some and loudly condemned by others. But whatever
your position on the Demo Program, there is a growing feeling among
those on all sides of the issue that the time has come for Congress to
make a definitive, comprehensive and long-term decision about the
future of this Program.
Before we arrive at the point of making a lasting judgement,
Congress needs to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the Forest Service
Rec Fee Demo. That process begins here today. What are the Program's
strengths? Where has the Rec Fee Demo fallen short? What statutory
guidelines can Congress give the Forest Service to reinforce the
desirable elements of the Demo, while heading-off any unintended
consequences or unwanted up-shots. That is the purpose of the hearing
today to weigh the relative merits of the Program against its
inadequacies and begin the difficult process of determining if, how and
under what conditions the Forest Service Rec Fee Demo should be
permanently authorized by Congress.
Before we hear from my Colleague Mr. Inslee and our distinguished
panel of witnesses, I want to make a final observation. The most
frequently cited criticism of the Rec Fee Demo is that it is tantamount
to double-taxation. Because taxpayers already underwrite federal land
management activities with their tax dollars, the argument goes, it is
unfair to asks users to incur an additional cost associated with
recreation related management. While this argument seems conclusive at
first glance, the unfortunate and unmistakable reality is that
Congressional Appropriations simply have not met the basic needs of the
Forest Service, particularly when it comes to addressing the
recreational stresses and strains currently on our nation's forests.
Presently, the Forest Service has a deferred maintenance backlog in
excess of $800 million. And while it's easy to say that Congress should
step up to the plate and appropriate moneys to cover these costs, a
statement I personally agree with, we live in a world governed by
reality and the reality is that these dollars have not materialized,
and there are no signs that they will materialize in the foreseeable
future. So what do we do in the meantime? We rely on tools like the Rec
Fee Demo that, while maybe not needed in a perfect world, provide a
fair and equitable stream of financial resources to manage our Forests'
recreational resources.
It is with this that I look forward to beginning this important
dialogue today and hearing the testimony of my Colleagues and our
witnesses.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. McInnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5401.001
Mr. Peterson. I would like to introduce our witness on
Panel One. Denny Bschor is Acting Associate Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service.
I want to remind the witnesses that under our Committee
rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but
your entire statement will appear in the record.
Mr. Bschor, please take the chair and position the mike so
we can hear you, and proceed. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS BSCHOR, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Bschor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here today to testify on the future of the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program which was begun in 1996.
I would just like to summarize a few statements out of my
written statement. I would begin by saying that expiration of
the current program, if allowed to expire, would currently
expire on September 30, 2002. I would remind the Committee that
if this happens, as of October 1, the Forest Service would have
to begin the process of shutting down some of the fee programs
that we have, especially the ones that include annual permits.
I also want to mention that through fiscal year 2000, we
collected over $74 million above appropriations that had been
used for the recreation program.
I want to mention a few things about what is getting done.
We have an extensive list of items in the testimony, and I will
not go through each one of them--they are available for your
perusal--but I do want to let you know that that is just a
fraction of what has been accomplished, although I think you
will find it considerable.
We have been able to provide quality recreation experiences
and services. We have been able to reduce maintenance backlogs.
We have been able to enhance facilities, enhance safety,
enhance security, and enhance the conservation of natural
resources by the use of these funds.
When we started the fee demo in the Forest Service, we took
the demonstration part of fee demo very seriously. We tried to
design a program that is not top-down, that is not one-size-
fits-all, but a program that encourages experimentation and
innovation. In doing this, we learned a lot. We also created
some concern among the public about inconsistencies and that
sort of thing.
For each of our projects, we require a business plan which
includes a business plan per se, a communications plan, and a
civil rights impact analysis. Each of these are reviewed by a
regional board of directors which consists of a variety of
folks, from business management types to actual recreation
managers.
Changes that we have made during this time I think are
important to mention. I will just mention a few. We have been
able to elicit public comments through public comment cards. We
have done surveys of folks who are using the system and folks
who are not. We have a lot of research information, and
hopefully, we can use that to design any future program.
We consolidated fees when we heard that there were too many
different types of fees. We have provided better information on
expenditures and accomplishments with these fees to
stakeholders. We have invited comments on how to utilize future
revenues and how they should be spent. Where we have done a
good job of that, we have received good compliance and support.
We have coordinated fees with other State and Federal agencies
and have some pretty good examples of that.
We have also learned to conduct market studies prior to fee
implementation to learn more about the visitor preferences and
their needs.
I just want to mention a couple of items that are in my
testimony that relate to the future of a fee program that I
think are important to outline here. Whatever the program, it
needs to be nationally consistent but locally driven. We have
some suggestions for policy objectives, and the first one would
be to provide equity and community needs; that means that
whatever program is developed should include fairness of fees
and the needs of potential users, including low-income and
minority communities.
Future programs should also include efficiency--that is,
efficiency in delivery of the program and the fee system and
also in the use of public services. They should also be
consistent and coordinated, and that means it should be
convenient to pay the fees, and the fees should not impede use.
Future programs should also include revenue production,
which means sufficient revenue to provide for the unmet needs
within the recreation program.
And last but probably not least, and one of the major
points, is revenue distribution. We have found that as you
develop the revenue at a site, if it is spent at that site, it
seems to be accepted much better.
I also want to say that the fee demo program, we have found
in the Forest Service, is not just about collecting fees. It is
another tool for management that helps us provide the goods and
services that we would not normally be able to through
appropriations, but it also does not do away with the need to
rely upon volunteers, concession operations, and others to help
us deliver the program.
With that, I will summarize by saying that we appreciate
the opportunity to work with the Committee in the very near
future to develop a replacement or a future rec fee
demonstration program--or, a rec fee program, I should say. And
once again, as I just said, it is more than collecting dollars;
it is a way of managing our ever-increasing recreation use.
With that, I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bschor follows:]
Statement of Dennis Bschor, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Forest
Service, United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Denny Bschor, Acting
Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System. We appreciate
the Committee's interest in reviewing the recreational fee
demonstration program and would like to work with Congress on
developing a replacement for this very important program.
The recreational fee demonstration program was first authorized by
Congress in the fiscal year (FY) 1996 Interior Appropriations Act
(Section 315 of Public Law 104-134). It has given the Forest Service,
Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management an important opportunity to test the notion of ``user-pays''
recreation where fees are collected and expended on-site to provide
enhanced user services and facilities. The current authorization
expires on September 30, 2002. Unless the demonstration program is
extended or new authority is granted, this important tool will
disappear at the end of fiscal year 2002, and our phase-out will begin
even sooner.
While some of our visitors and Forest Service employees are
ambivalent over the idea of charging fees for recreation use on our
national forests, taxpayers generally benefit when the cost of public
services are at least partially borne by the direct users of these
services. Ideally, with fee support for direct services, other critical
recreation resource needs for the Forest Service would be fully funded
through the appropriations process. Since there will always be limits
on available resources, the existing fee authority complements our
appropriated funds to better meet our visitors' expectations. The four
agencies authorized to test fee retention have been working together at
the local, regional, and national levels to gain better public
understanding and resolve implementation issues.
Through fiscal year 2000, nearly $70 million in new funding has
been generated above congressional appropriations to enhance the
visitor experience at 88 national forest projects across the United
States. Program funds are making a crucial difference in providing
quality recreation services, reducing maintenance backlog, enhancing
facilities, enhancing safety and security, and conserving natural
resources. Many of these services can be provided by Forest Service
employees and equipment. In many cases, however, fee receipts collected
by the Forest Service are used to fund service contracts providing
additional economic benefit to our local communities.
Some of the direct investments by the Forest Service of fee
receipts through fiscal year 2000 include:
LNearly $17 million to reduce backlog maintenance and
address public health and safety concerns through repair and/or
replacement of inadequate toilets, picnic tables, building roofs, water
and sewer lines, trails, and other facilities. Examples include
maintenance of 940 miles of trails in Oregon and Washington, repair or
replacement of four toilets, 300 shade ramadas, 25 picnic tables, and
50 fire ring/grills at Roosevelt Lake in Arizona; and repair of a sewer
line at Sitting Bull Falls in New Mexico.
LOver $7 million for new and improved interpretive and
informational materials and services, such as signs, brochures,
campfire talks, and visitor center staffing. Visitor centers at Mount
St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in Washington operated for longer
hours with additional interpretive talks than otherwise possible. Evans
Notch Visitor Center in New Hampshire contacted 34,000 visitors and
provided numerous children's programs. El Portal Visitor Center in
Puerto Rico reached some 8,400 visitors through the ``Rent-A-Ranger''
and ``Forest Adventure'' programs.
LAbout $3 million for habitat enhancement and resource
preservation such as improvements for wildlife viewing and fishing,
erosion control devices, and historic building restoration. The Pack
Creek bear viewing platform in Alaska allowed more than 1,400 visitors
to view brown bears safely. Historic cabins throughout Arizona and New
Mexico were rehabilitated for public use.
L$2 million for law enforcement to enhance the safety and
accountability of all users, including 3,603 additional visitor
contacts, 34 public ``emergency assists,'' and extinguishing 83
abandoned campfires in southern California. At Canyon Creek in
Colorado, visitor contacts increased 80%.
LAlmost $5 million for facility enhancements such as new
trails, new campsites, and accessibility for the disabled. Some
examples include leveraging funding with Volunteers for Outdoor
Colorado to build a nature center on Mt. Evans near Denver, Colorado;
improved wheelchair accessibility at three boat ramps and a beach on
the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; and new restrooms and an
interpretive shelter at Keown Falls, Georgia.
LAbout $20 million for annual operation including visitor
services, litter removal, toilet pumping, water sampling, supplies, and
services, such as reserved permits, camping reservations, and heritage
expeditions. One ton of refuse and abandoned materials were removed
from wilderness areas in Idaho and Montana. The Boundary Waters Canoe
Area in Minnesota maintained 660 wilderness campsites and 333 miles of
trails. The Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania increased visitor
contacts at boat launches and increased recreation site maintenance.
The recreational fee demonstration authority encourages
experimentation with a broad variety of fees to test feasibility and
public acceptance. We made a conscious effort to avoid top-down
directions and a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to encourage creativity
and local decisions as to how this program should be implemented. We
have not allowed any indirect expenses to be paid with fee receipts.
Initiation of fees has stirred some controversy and generated
public and media interest. In the first years of experimentation, we
did not always get it right. Some people remember those early problems
to this day. But, we have listened, learned, and adjusted, and we
continue to adapt to changing situations and new information today. The
Forest Service has made a number of changes to projects based on public
comment and our own monitoring. We would be glad to share with you the
results of our public comment cards and survey and research information
we have compiled. We have consolidated fees in places like the Pacific
Northwest, where the ``Northwest Forest Pass'' replaced multiple fees
on individual forests. We are providing better information on
expenditures to our stakeholders, and inviting comments on how future
revenue should be spent. We are working with other state and federal
agencies to coordinate programs and fees. We are conducting market
studies prior to implementation to learn more about visitor
preferences. We are developing an understanding of what works and what
does not.
Throughout the first five years of the ``fee demo'' program,
evaluation through research and monitoring has been ongoing. We believe
that we now have enough information to examine what has been learned,
provide a public forum for the program through congressional hearings,
and develop policy for a nationally consistent, but locally driven, fee
program. In developing this program, we would like to work with
Congress on the lessons we have learned through the pilot program to
establish standards of where and when to charge a fee.
Based upon our research, we believe that policy objectives for the
Forest Service fee program should include consideration for:
LEquity and community needs: Fees are fair and consider
the needs of all potential users, including low income and minority
communities.
LEfficiency: Fees encourage efficient delivery and use of
public services.
LConsistency and Coordination: Fees are convenient to pay
and agency policies do not discourage recreation use.
LRevenue Production: Fees supply an appropriate amount of
revenue to provide for unmet recreational visitor and management needs,
with a special understanding of the need to reduce the maintenance
backlog.
LRevenue Distribution: Fees provide value at the site
where they are collected.
Fees are only one tool to achieve recreation management objectives.
We have developed specific management standards and have calculated
costs to achieve those standards. In addition to appropriated funding,
means such as volunteers, concession operations, donations and grants,
partnerships, and recreation fees help the Forest Service meet our
objectives.
The four agencies currently authorized to collect and retain
recreation fees have been working together, along with a fifth agency,
the Bureau of Reclamation, to draft proposed authorizing legislation
for a recreation fee program. We would appreciate the opportunity to
work with the committee in the very near future on developing a
replacement for the recreational fee demonstration program. A
successful recreation fee program is more than collecting dollars. It
is a way to manage our ever-increasing recreation use.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Peterson. The chair thanks the gentleman.
You said you have brought in $74 million so far. I am sure
that that has been escalating as the years go by. Do you know
what the last fiscal year figure was?
Mr. Bschor. Last year, it was $31.9 million.
Mr. Peterson. Is it growing?
Mr. Bschor. It has been growing a slight amount. Initially,
it grew a lot, but it is stabilizing because we have not had
very many new projects recently. We have something like 88
projects in 31 different States.
Mr. Peterson. That was part of the demo?
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. Okay. I am a supporter of the program. I
think that most people are willing to pay for more costly
services. What percentage do you think comes from the use of
services? I struggle with admission fees; I am not as
supportive of that. I think people should be able to enter a
park. But to use certain costly facilities, then I think it is
fair to ask them. Do you have any breakdown as to how much of
it is from entrance fees?
Mr. Bschor. I do not have that breakdown handy, but I could
get it for you.
Mr. Peterson. Could you hazard a guess?
Mr. Bschor. It would be a very small amount.
Mr. Peterson. A small amount--but there are some entrance
fees, aren't there?
Mr. Bschor. Yes, places like national recreation areas that
have a specific entrance in and a specific way out--now, in the
National Forest System, a lot of our lands do not have just one
entrance and one exit.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, they have many.
Do you have the list of issues that were raised with you by
Mr. McInnis' letter?
Mr. Bschor. Yes, I do.
Mr. Peterson. Do you want to quickly go through them?
Mr. Bschor. There are quite a few--there are about 10--and
they relate to much of what we have been hearing about the
program over the past several years.
The first one is the contention that a fee to recreate is a
form of double taxation. We hear that a lot. The policy
considerations over the degree to which Federal recreation
resources should be subsidized by taxes and how much the user
should pay is somewhat beyond the Forest Service to address,
but I can say that the appropriations that we have provide for
those broader public-interest types of needs in the recreation
program. And I have a statistic here of $1,000 paid in taxes,
about 29 cents goes toward the Forest Service Recreation
Heritage and Wilderness Program. So it is obvious that
allocations alone are not going to be enough to manage the
program.
The other thing is that the general public pays for the
National Forests, and a lot of those folks never visit the
National Forests, whereas the user receives the actual
amenities and services by paying this fee. The theory is it
will get better services and better facilities.
The next one is that there are too many fees, and they vary
too much from place to place. Well, as I mention in my
testimony, we have really emphasized the demonstration aspect
of that, and we would agree with that. In our future program,
we have really got to look at managing that in a different way.
There is a concern that the fee program is developed with
little public input. I would say that this is a congressional
program that we implemented fairly quickly initially, because
there was about a 2-year time frame that the first program
called for, and we did our best to include the public as much
as possible in developing that initial program. But over the
years, I think we have really done a lot better job of that.
Another common criticism is that low-income people and
people who are not as able to pay a fee are being prevented
from recreating. This is very complex and has been the subject
of many studies, with different conclusions, and has also been
one of our concerns from the start. That is why we do a civil
rights impact analysis to try to help us analyze that impact on
low-income and minority users. But we have through the years
provided free days throughout the year on many of these
projects--most of them, actually. We have allowed for
administrative passes for certain groups, such as school
groups, Indian tribes, volunteers working on service projects
and that sort of thing.
Mr. Peterson. Okay, we need to shift. My 5 minutes is up,
so I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Bschor. I got through half the questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Just to demonstrate my bias before my question, I consider
it really a sad day when the U.S. Congress makes a working guy
who wants to take his family out for a picnic next to a stream
to have to pay ``x'' number of dollars out of the last few
bucks in his pocket to get to use a national resource. I think
this is a terrible, terrible state that we are in that the
Congress has so underfunded the responsibilities of the Forest
Service in this regard.
Having said that, what do you think is the best thing we
can do to prevent the U.S. Congress from using this crutch to
an even greater level in the future to make up for your
shortfalls? What is the best way to keep this monster as small
as we can--at least, assuming that that is your view.
Mr. Bschor. Well, I would suggest taking a look at the
recreation agenda that we have developed in the Forest Service
and look at our priorities there.
We do have many different concerns about our program
delivery that we are trying to emphasize, but one is the
backlog of maintenance that we have, and our estimates are
somewhere around $812 million, and that is a ballpark figure
that grows annually. So it is very difficult for us to really
get ahead or to even catch up with that maintenance backlog.
That is one item.
Mr. Inslee. Well, let me just suggest that if we are all
looking for a stimulus package, which we may be in the next few
weeks, a great place to start is to get you to go out and hire
some unemployed hotel workers to go out to work in the woods on
that huge backlog, and I am all for it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. I might just take the liberty of the chair to
say that I think the problem that we have had is that all the
money that should have been allocated for maintenance has been
used in recent years to buy more land; and you cannot do both
with the same dollars. So billions of dollars have been used to
buy more, and that money in my view should be taking care of
what we have.
The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for your testimony, Denny. If you do not have
this Recreational Fee Demonstration Project, how do you
maintain those parking lots, trails, campsites, and so on?
Mr. Bschor. We do that through the regular appropriations
process.
Mr. Simpson. That would be out of taxpayer money?
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. That would be out of an appropriation by
Congress?
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. That would come from taxes from that poor
working guy who wants to go out and sit at a campsite and have
a picnic with his family?
Mr. Bschor. It would come from taxes from all Americans.
Mr. Simpson. So he is going to pay for it one way or
another, either through the general fund in taxes that we take
out and then appropriate one way or another, because quite
frankly, Congress does not create money--it takes it from the
taxpayer--or he is going to do it through actual user fees, so
the guy who uses that is actually going to pay for it more than
the general taxpayer. Is that correct?
Mr. Bschor. That is correct.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that.
I have gone from supporting this program to opposing it to
supporting it, and I actually think it is probably a pretty
good idea where we have at least some type of user fee
associated with this, because there is a lot of maintenance
that needs to be done in these areas, a huge amount of
maintenance, and if you have not been out to some of those
sites, you need to get out to see them and also see some of the
things that have actually been done with the recreation fees
and what they have been able to do.
I do have some problems with, as has been mentioned, the
disparity or differences between different regions and the
different fees that are imposed. I think there needs to a more
uniform system of allocating it. And remind me--I am not
certain--how much of the money stays within the area where it
is generated?
Mr. Bschor. The law says 80 percent. The agencies have
dealt with that in different ways. At the Forest Service, we
have tried to provide that 90 percent of that money goes back
to the site.
Mr. Simpson. We need to make sure somehow, however we do
this, that the public is aware of where those improvements come
from, that those fees actually go to those sites and to
maintaining them.
One of the problems that I have also heard about is the
difficulty sometimes in collecting it. Some people pay it, some
people do not, and sometimes it is kind of an honor system,
because if it is a parking lot, some people might put the $5
there, and some might not. So there can be great difficulty in
trying to uniformly collect it.
Has the Forest Service thought of any way to more
effectively make sure that it is uniformly applied?
Mr. Bschor. We have in fact looked at it very closely, and
initially, since it was a demonstration program, it was a new
program in the Forest Service where we were charging fees where
we never had before. We took a nonpunitive approach. We use
what we call a ``noncompliance notice,'' and in many cases, you
would need to get three of those in order to get a ticket. So
we have been very lenient relative to that. But I think that in
a long-term program, we would need to look at that consistency.
I think you are correct that that would need to be improved
over time.
But initially in the program, we felt that there was an
education aspect of this and that we needed to at least give
the user an opportunity to know what was going on and to not be
punitive with them.
Mr. Simpson. One other thing, and I do not know if you have
an answer for this or not, and in fact, I did not know this
when we actually passed the legislation, but in the Interior
appropriation this year, there were a couple of attempts, one
to repeal it, one to extend it for a year, and then, a
successful amendment that prevented the imposition of the fee
at the White Mountain Area in New Hampshire.
Do you have any idea why we accepted that amendment and
exempted the White Mountain parking pass?
Mr. Bschor. No, sir. I know that the White Mountain has
been one of the areas that has been controversial for some
time.
Mr. Simpson. Why has it been controversial as opposed to
some of the others?
Mr. Bschor. Initially, we had three or four projects
nationwide where we initiated almost a blanket entrance fee for
the forest, and we found that that did not go over very well.
When we backed away from that and started charging just for
facility use and trailhead use, that sort of thing, in most
cases, that opposition went away. On the White Mountain, I
think there is still some concern.
Mr. Simpson. Well, if we decide to do this--we have had a
demonstration project going since 1996, and I do not know how
much demonstration we need--but if there are ways to improve it
and make it uniform across the board so that everyone knows
that, and Congress does not come in and say, well, you can do
it in this area but not in this area--that would concern me.
I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Bschor. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding the hearing for several
reasons. For one thing, the Rec Demo Program is a matter of
concern to many Coloradans, both proponents and opponents.
Also, I think it is appropriate that this Committee and not the
Appropriations Committee should take the lead in weighing how
it has worked and whether it should be continued in its current
form or with revisions.
In connection with that statement, I have received a letter
from the Colorado Mountain Club, outlining their suggestions
for how we might proceed, and I would ask unanimous consent to
have that letter included in the hearing record.
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
[Letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5401.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5401.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5401.004
Mr. Udall of Colorado. I have some questions for the Deputy
Chief, and I thank you for taking the time, Mr. Bschor, to join
us today.
When does the current authorization for this program
expire?
Mr. Bschor. September 30, 2002.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. And am I right in understanding that
the administration will be submitting a proposed legislative
package for the program's reauthorization?
Mr. Bschor. Yes. I understand the administration is working
on such a package.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Do you have a sense as to when that
might arrive?
Mr. Bschor. No, I really do not. I would say at least a
couple of months.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Do you agree that it would be
appropriate for Congress to wait until we have a chance to
review the proposal before we act on reauthorization?
Mr. Bschor. I guess I really do not have an opinion on
that. I think that is up to Congress.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. I do believe you have some
suggestions to make, though, which are implied in--
Mr. Bschor. Yes, we have some suggestion on what a future
program could look like, if that is what you are referring to.
Yes, we would love to work with the Committee to provide that
information.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. So I would hope that we wait in this
Committee and in the Congress in general until we hear from
you. You have been on the ground; you have had a chance to
analyze what is working and what is not working. I think that
would make sense; do you agree?
Mr. Bschor. I would agree.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. On a tangential note, my colleague
from Idaho asked about the situation in New Hampshire. I think
we ought to call on Mr. Sununu or others to help explain the
situation there, perhaps.
I also heard my colleague from Pennsylvania suggest that
perhaps the problem with maintenance and the backlog therein
has to do with the acquiring of additional lands as opposed to
directing moneys into maintenance. I did want to set the record
straight that the acquisition moneys that are available,
particularly through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, are
designated for that purpose. And I note that you have $800
million in backlogs that you have identified, and if I am not
incorrect, the Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations
have generally been in the $100 to $200 million range over many
of the past years. One of the reasons we were working hard in a
bipartisan fashion here in Congress to pass the CARA Act was to
actually have a mechanism by which those moneys were directed
to the purposes for which they were originally designed.
It strikes me that many of these backlogs have been in
place for many years and are a direct result not of additional
land purchases--which actually, I think if you look at the
Forest Service piece of the moneys that have been allocated, is
not significant--but it is because visitation is increasing and
that the Congress for many years has underfunded those needs,
and we have turned to you to be creative and to find additional
ways to help meet those demands.
Do you have any comment in regard to the comments I have
just made?
Mr. Bschor. I would just support that the backlog consists
mostly of recreation facilities, which includes everything from
campgrounds to picnic grounds to boat ramps to trail systems.
Most of those are in place.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Yes. With all due respect to my
colleague from Pennsylvania, with whom I have worked on a
number of issues successfully, I would welcome a look at
whether additional land purchases have placed demands on the
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and other Government
agencies that are unreasonable and have increased in size and
heft over the last number of years. I think it would be useful
for us to look at; it might provide us with additional
incentives to fully fund the maintenance backlog and perhaps
inform us if in fact some land purchases need to be attached to
maintenance and backlog funding as well.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
In response, I might say that the amount of money spent
annually for purchasing land has been far greater than the Land
and Conservation Fund. As someone who has been a part of the
Interior budget for 3 years now, each and every year, it
competes; every $1 billion we spent for land purchases comes
out of an allocation that competes with maintenance money, and
the maintenance money has been the loser year after year. There
have been some very large earmarks that have purchased large
pieces of land, but each year, it has been almost growing, I
think, in recent budgets. Money that had been allocated for
maintenance in the planning process has been taken away to buy
land. I have watched it happen.
I now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would agree with my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. Udall--
the one from Colorado, not New Mexico--although I might agree
with you, too, Tom--that we ought to know where we are going
with this, we ought to know what you folks think before we put
something into the code and into permanent place before we go
forward with the legislation.
But Denny, let me ask you a question, as long as we have
gotten onto this care versus CARA for the public lands that we
already have. We were told that the Forest Service was $8
billion behind in backlog work, which includes bringing up to
speed the facilities for the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Clean Air, Clean Water, noxious and invasive weeds--that the
Forest Service was behind $8 billion. The BLM said they were
behind $1.6 billion; and $800 million for the National Parks.
I am only going to ask you about the Forest Service. Are
some of those acts, like the ADA, Clean Water, Clean Air, part
of the $8 billion backlog in maintenance, or not?
Mr. Bschor. As far as the backlog I was discussing, the
$800 million?
Mr. Otter. Well, the $800 million is for parks only.
Mr. Bschor. Yes, it is for recreation facilities only.
Mr. Otter. Right.
Mr. Bschor. The other, sir, I cannot answer; I could get
you an answer on that later.
Mr. Otter. Well, I think that would not only help us on
consideration of whether or not we should make the user pay
fees for the facilities that we are talking about, but it would
probably also give us a little better direction on what the
urgency is and where we should be doing a better job with the
relatively little money that we have, whether we should be
buying more land so that we can put it into disuse or abuse it,
or whether we should be taking care of that which we have now
and making those facilities a little more available.
I would suggest, at least in part, that perhaps some of the
fees that are being collected are being used to bring these
facilities up to speed, for restrooms--is that right?
Mr. Bschor. That is correct.
Mr. Otter. So if you did not have to charge these fees in
order to get some of this money at least for these facilities
improvements, if we were using some of this money that we are
using now to buy more land to put it into disuse, we may not
have to charge these fees; right? Is that reasonable?
Mr. Bschor. That is a theory, yes.
Mr. Otter. Okay. Let me make another reasonable assumption.
Do you see anything wrong with the working guy in Idaho paying
for the working guy from another State like, say, Washington to
come to one of the parks in Idaho, and that the working guy in
Idaho is paying higher property taxes so we can pay for the law
enforcement that is going to be required for this facility, so
we can pay for the facilities themselves in some cases, the
sewer systems, the water systems, much of the infrastructure
that goes into that?
I guess it is more of a rhetorical question, and I am sorry
that my colleague from Washington was not here to hear me ask
that very important and astute question.
I am a ``user pay'' person. I do not think that some
retired person who is still being asked to pay income tax on
their minimum income should be paying for me to go and take a
walk in the woods because I can and they cannot, or for me to
drive to a National Park and park my car so that I can go for a
walk in the woods to get some exercise. I do not think they
should be paying for that, either.
So from the get-go, let me just say that I am a ``user
pay'' person. But it seems to me--and we went through this in
Idaho, and my colleague from Idaho who was speaker of the house
the whole time that I was president of the Senate of the State
of Idaho, faced these kinds of decisions many, many times. But
we found that to the degree that we diminished the income
coming off the Idaho public lands, we had to make up from the
general revenues of the public. So when we are no longer going
to allow multiple use like logging and many other multiple uses
that we might have, which heretofore had been paying, at least
in part, a cash flow stream had been coming in to pay for some
of these facilities and some of these activities, that we are
going to have to stay with ``user pay,'' I believe.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the time.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman.
I was not aware that we have Idaho's two best here.
Mr. Simpson. Oh, yes. Not only that--Idaho's only two.
Mr. Otter. But we are the best two.
Mr. Peterson. Having served in both the House and Senate in
State government, I am impressed.
The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask a little bit about the public acceptance of
the fees. You have had for several years now experience with
these fees. Has there been opposition to them? Is it site-
specific? Is it project-specific? Is it on a regional basis?
What can you tell us about that? I think you have a website
that interacts with the public on this. What can you tell us
about the public acceptance of the fees?
Mr. Bschor. It is kind of across-the-board. In gnarl, we
have surveys that say that generally, the public who are using
the sites and see what is getting done with their money are
very highly favorable toward the system.
We also have a general public in the realm of 17 to 30
percent, depending on which study you look at, who do not want
fees at all and never will want fees, because there were never
fees there.
We have outside studies, one from the Los Angeles Times,
and there are internal studies. So it varies across-the-board.
There are some specific sites where we had some concerns
about how we applied the system by the demonstration, the
experiment that we did; we did not start out real well, so we
had low acceptance when it first started.
In general, we see that as the program progresses, and
people see what is done with the money that they pay,
generally, the acceptance goes up.
So it varies a lot. It depends also on the site to some
extent.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. The fees clearly drive some people
away from using the forests. What can you tell me about the
number of people who stay away as a result of the fees, and is
there any difference in categories or groups that use as far as
the fees?
Mr. Bschor. That is another one that is difficult to
assess, because you have to do a general survey of the people
who are not coming to the National Forest, which is harder to
do, and those surveys generally--and I cannot quote you a
specific figure--but that is in the realm of that 17 percent
who are against fees. Now, whether they stay away totally and
finally go to the site, I cannot tell you, but I would say it
is in that realm of statistics.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. I am looking here at a written
journal by a Forest Service person who did a study titled, ``Do
User Fees Exclude Low-Income People from Resource-Based
Recreation?'' and some of the information that I have indicates
that the impact of these fees falls heavily on low-income
families and minorities and that according to the Forest
Service's own surveys, 15 percent of Hispanics, 12 percent of
African Americans as compared to 9 percent of whites, did not
enter an area where a fee was being charged. And income level
also correlates with not entering fee areas.
Do you think, when these are the public lands, that this is
the way to operate lands with those kinds of results?
Mr. Bschor. We are concerned about those results as well.
That is why we have experimented with free days and some other
ways of allowing use. I also want to remind everyone that the
fee is not applicable to all National Forest System lands; the
majority of National Forest System lands are still open to the
public without a fee. But those are concerns that we need to
look at, and if you have ideas that we can work with you on, we
would be glad to look for ways to mitigate that impact.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Do all the areas that have fee
demonstrations have free days?
Mr. Bschor. I cannot say that all of them do, but I would
guess the majority of them do. I would have to get that
statistic for you; I do not have it off the top of my head.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. But you would agree that this is a
problem; I mean, the Forest Service sees it as a problem.
Mr. Bschor. It is a concern that we need to deal with, yes.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Several concerns have been raised
about privatization and commercialization of our public lands.
Is it true that many formerly Federal responsibilities such as
maintenance and fee collection have been turned over to
concessionaires and paid for with recreation fees?
Mr. Bschor. Would you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Yes, and let me ask another one on
top of that. Is it true that these concessionaires who sell
fees, like REI, take 20 percent of the commission of the fee?
And the first question is is it true that many formerly Federal
responsibilities such as maintenance and fee collection have
been turned over to concessionaires and paid for with rec fees.
Mr. Bschor. We use concessionaires to deliver a good
portion of our program; I believe 30 percent of the campgrounds
that we manage are under a concession program. But that is
under a concession permit where they provide the service rather
than us, so that actually, that is saving us from using
appropriated dollars to manage that site.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. And they get a commission to do
that?
r. Bschor. Sure, they do, yes.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Is the commission up toward 20
percent or more?
Mr. Bschor. I would have to get you the specific
percentage, but it is probably--I am not talking about selling
passes but just the provision of a recreation service out there
as far as a campground--I am sure it is around 10 to 20 percent
at least; they have to make somewhat of a profit in order to
run a business.
As far as the collection of fees for the permits, we have
many outlets to help us sell the permits so that we can provide
the permits to a wider variety of the public, so they do not
have to come to a ranger station or to the site to get the
permit; and there is an amount--I think it is around 10
percent--that they would be able to keep for helping us sell
that permit.
Mr. Peterson. We need to move on.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I have a couple of requests at the beginning.
Could you provide us with a current list of the forests that
have a fee--we have one list here--and the amount of the fee
for the different things that are there, so we can have an
updated list here at the Committee that we can review?
Mr. Bschor. Yes, we can provide you with that.
Mr. Souder. Do you know approximately what percentage of
all the forests have a fee at this point?
Mr. Bschor. I can tell you that I think 80 National Forests
have a fee program, and that includes 88 projects nationwide,
and that they are in 31 States and Puerto Rico.
Mr. Souder. About what percentage is that of the whole? I
do not have a concept of--how many forests do you have?
Mr. Bschor. About 150.
Mr. Souder. So it is about half.
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Souder. I would hope that we could look at a creative
way to address this low-income people question, because it
comes up in the National Parks Subcommittee as well, and I
personally believe that it is not as big of a problem as it
appears on the surface but would like to look at a creative
way, such as a tax credit for low-income people that you could
immediately take off or get rebated what you pay on these fees.
I would be interested, if the Forest Service or the Park
Service have not done this, if there could be a study of areas
where there is no fee to see whether low-income people are
using those areas. To say that low-income people are not using
the areas where there is a fee is not comparing apples to
apples. We have a general problem with low-income people not
necessarily using the parks for multiple reasons, including
transportation costs, and we ought to be comparing apples to
apples. But the real way to address this for low-income people
would merely be to have a tax credit, because we should not
drop wise policies for the bulk of the population because of
the few, and at the same time, we do not want to deprive those
who are the least fortunate of the ability to visit.
I have another concern, and that is that around a lot of
the parks where there is a fee, you have National Forests that
may also be charging fees, and a lack of coordination in
planning. In some areas, like around Mount Saint Helens, it
seems like we have a proliferation of visitor centers, and that
could easily happen in other areas if these are not
coordinated. I think this is something that we in Congress have
to look at on a regional basis, not just a forest-by-forest or
park-by-park. Particularly as we get national monuments and BLM
as we now have, this is going to get extremely confusing if we
do not get a handle on it.
You mentioned the Northwest Pass for the forests. The
programs that are listed here--is that by the Pacific Northwest
region, the whole group, or who is included in that Northwest
Pass?
Mr. Bschor. The Northwest Pass is for the Pacific Northwest
Region and includes Oregon and Washington.
Mr. Souder. And that pass covers what?
Mr. Bschor. The fee systems for the trailhead fees and--
Mr. Souder. But not, for example, Christmas trees or
camping fees?
Mr. Bschor. I do not believe so, but I would have to check
on that; I do not think so, no.
Mr. Souder. It is an interesting thing to look at these
things as regional concepts, because one thing that is
happening with the National parks pass is that as more people
get the full parks pass, all of a sudden the income goes down
per park, particularly if you buy it nationally, and our whole
concept of user fees is being destroyed.
I think it is also important to point out for the record--I
assume the logging income to the Forest Service has declined
over time, or at least any growth in it.
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And wasn't one thing that the logging companies
did was to maintain and create roads?
Mr. Bschor. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And if your logging income has declined because
we have prohibited logging, and your roads income has declined
because we have prohibited logging, that leaves the Forest
Service, if they are going to provide recreational
opportunities, without other places to go, except to either the
general Treasury or to fees; is that not a logical assumption?
Mr. Bschor. Yes, it is.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. DeFazio has joined us from the full
Committee.
Please proceed.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could follow up in response to the gentleman's
questions on the Northwest, I do not know exactly how many
forests we have, but the original situation in the Pacific
Northwest was that we had some 13 forests, some of which were
charging fees, some of which were not, some of whom were
recognizing the others' passes, some of whom were not. So you
actually had a situation within fairly short driving distance
where you could have had to paper your entire windshield with
different fee stickers. That was in the days when we had
stickers. Two years ago, it went on the windshield; now, you
hang them on the mirror. In any case, the consolidation has at
least removed some of that confusion and been helpful to people
who want to recreate in that area, although you still have to
buy a different pass to go to California or a different pass if
it does not apply in other parks, and so on and so on. So that
is just to answer that question a little more comprehensively.
To the Forest Service, again to follow up on the question
about the way you raise funds to take care, before we had Rec
Fee Demo, you charged for developed campsites, you charged in
many cases for boat ramps, and the Park Service charged for
parks, the BLM had some developed sites where they charged; is
that correct?
Mr. Bschor. That is correct.
Mr. DeFazio. So you did not need the Rec Fee Demo
authority, so the Rec Fee Demo actually began to charge people
for dispersed recreation--is that correct--someone who might
just drive out there on a logging road, park the car, get out
and go hunting rocks or maybe, if it is permissible, go pick
some ferns or something like that?
Mr. Bschor. The difference is that the L&WCF Act allowed us
to charge for certain facilities with a certain amount of
amenities within those facilities, and the difference is that
there was no fee retention as far as those fees coming back to
the site; those fees went into the general Treasury.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. We could certainly deal with that
problem.
Mr. Bschor. But the ability and authority that the Forest
Service had was very limited to charge fees for certain
specific sites.
What Fee Demo did was give us an opportunity to try some
fees for other types of recreational activities and services,
such as trailheads, facilities where we did not have the
authority to charge an entrance fee where we could now--
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So, basically, to park on a Forest
Service road in Wilamette National Forest on a road that was
paid for by taxpayers, just to park your car and get out and
walk, either on the road or into the woods, whether there is a
trial or not, you have to have a pass.
Mr. Bschor. It is specifically for trailheads and
facilities.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but you pass a sign at a certain point
that says if you pass this point, you have to have a pass--I
see those posted in various--
Mr. Bschor. But they are applicable to the facilities that
are listed.
Mr. DeFazio. So do you have a map that shows where all
these places are--because I will tell you, you drive to some
trailheads and you do not see a sign; you drive to other
places, and you do not even think you are near a trailhead, and
you see a sign that says if you want to park here, you have to
have a pass; and in other cases, it is clearly a trailhead
parking lot.
I have a lot of complaints from people saying, ``I do not
even know where I really need this and do not need it.''
Mr. Bschor. I would say that that is a part of the program
we really need to take a close look at, that we need to be very
clear on what you pay for and what you do not and make that
more evident if it is not.
Mr. DeFazio. And then, in terms of consumptive uses, does
the Forest Service get any revenues from mining on Forest
Service lands?
Mr. Bschor. Once again, it goes through the general
Treasury.
Mr. DeFazio. And what is the cost to patent an acre of
Forest Service land under the Mining Act?
Mr. Bschor. I am not aware of that cost, but it is not very
much.
Mr. DeFazio. I think it is $3.50, which is less than--
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Two-forty.
Mr. DeFazio. I thought it was $3.50--$2.40--sorry. So if I
want to get a day pass to park my car, which occupies so many
square feet, I have to pay $5, but if I can patent an acre of
land and remove it from Federal ownership, and extract a
valuable resource, I pay $2.40. Do we think that that is
equitable?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. Okay.
Mr. Bschor. Are you asking me?
Mr. DeFazio. That is above your pay grade. That is our
problem here with policy.
Anyway, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. We thank you, Mr. Bschor. All other questions
will be submitted for the record and will be responded to. I am
sorry for the lack of time. We need to get the next panel up
here, and we need to hear from you for 3 minutes each, and all
questions for you will be submitted for the record, because we
all have to be at a briefing at 4 o'clock.
I would like to introduce the second panel.
Mr. John Viehman is publisher of Backpacker Magazine.
Mr. Doug Hoschek is co-founder of Public Access Coalition.
Mr. Jason Robertson is Access Director for American
Whitewater.
Mr. Bob Warren is Chairman of the National Alliance of
Gateway Communities.
Welcome, and please proceed quickly.
Mr. Viehman?
STATEMENT OF JOHN VIEHMAN, PUBLISHER, BACKPACKER MAGAZINE
Mr. Viehman. Thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf
of the Fee Demonstration Program.
While my position is that the concept has proven sound, I
have to stress that it is sound only if we take what we have
learned and adjust our sights accordingly, as you have heard
from Denny. And the time for testing has passed. We should vote
this up or down, make changes where they are needed, but let us
make a decision. As you have said already, 5 years is enough.
I have some reservations about how and where we implement
new fees or increase existing fees for visitation to our public
lands. However, as I indicated, I welcome the concept of having
those who visit public lands for whatever reason pay for that
privilege.
I welcome the recognition that outdoor recreation is an
economic force, and to the concern expressed by some detractors
that this will commercialize our outdoor resources--with all
due respect, what rock have they been living under for all
these years?
The logging, mining, and cattle grazing on our public lands
has been there from the beginning, and that is certainly
commercialization in my book.
Let us agree now to put a legitimate and fair price tag on
outdoor recreation and welcome it with open arms, because it
will mean outdoor recreation has earned the right to a larger
voice in the management of our resources--something it has not
had in just about every debate for as long as I have been
writing letters to Congress.
This fee demonstration project makes a powerful statement
about the economic value of outdoor recreation. Since 1996,
according to Government sources, it has fed over $608 million
in additional revenues to public lands.
Concerns about fees excluding certain segments of our
society from public lands do not wash, frankly--let us get over
our misplaced guilt about elitism--or the concern that our
nation's backcountry may become the exclusive playground of
America's upper crust.
First of all, there are ways--voucher systems, work-for-
credit programs, and innovative private sector programs, for
example--to subsidize this end of things.
Secondly, statistics show that in very quantifiable terms,
the outdoors is not being used by those segments of the
population that qualify as the struggling lower class. I am not
saying that this is good or that I like it, just that this is
what the outdoor recreation world is. If you take the average
reader of our magazine, Backpacker, as representative of the
core or center of the outdoor universe, you will see median
household incomes of over $62,000, and 79 percent are college-
educated. They are not anything but ``upper class'' to my mind.
Not only are they predominantly upper class, but they have
more than enough discretionary income to afford higher fees for
using our public lands. How much are we really talking about
them paying, anyway? It seems to be averaging out to about the
equivalent of what it would cost for two Happy Meals for your
kids at McDonald's; two rides at an amusement park; even my
monthly late charges for video rentals. This is not a lot of
money, and certainly not for high-income households.
Better still, every survey I have seen on this tells me
that these people do not mind paying for the privilege of
access to our public lands, with some important caveats.
At Backpacker, we have tracked our readers' feelings on the
issue of paying more for the past 5 years, and what we have
found is that overwhelmingly, to the tune of 84 percent, they
are willing to pay more as long as the money finds its way
directly back into the resource. And when asked without that
important caveat, the answers skewed heavily against additional
funding to the tune of 89 percent opposed to it.
Interestingly, nowhere has it been shown that higher fees
have significantly reduced visitation, at least I am not aware
of any cases. Quite the contrary--in the first year of the new
fees, from 1996 to 1997, visitation increased almost 5 percent.
Park Service surveys show that 83 percent of users were
satisfied with the fee amounts or felt they were too low. Early
Forest Service surveys pegged it at anywhere from 57 to 68
percent satisfied.
I alluded earlier to the notion of all users paying fair
price for access to our Nation's public lands.
Mr. Peterson. I apologize, but we need to move on.
Mr. Viehman. All right.
Mr. Peterson. You are doing well.
Mr. Hoschek?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Viehman follows:]
Statement of John Viehman, Publisher, BACKPACKER Magazine
Thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf of the fee
demonstration project.
As you will hear from other witnesses today, the program has not
been without its shortcomings and detractors but it has made a positive
impact overall. As you know, implementation was left up to the various
agencies and only loosely coordinated. As a consequence, there were
plenty of situations where the public was upset and at best confused.
But everyone involved learned a lot, and that was the point of the
project: To test the concept.
While my position is that the concept has been proven sound, I have
to stress that it's sound only if we take what we've learned and adjust
our sights accordingly. And that the time for ``testing'' has passed.
We should vote this up or down, make changes where they're needed but
let's make a decision. Five years is enough.
I have some reservations about how and where we implement new fees
or increase existing fees for visitation to our public lands. However,
as I indicated, I welcome the concept of having those who visit public
lands, for whatever reason, pay for that privilege. It's important that
we all recognize the value of the resource, and this program
effectively does that. Consumer marketing experts know full well that,
if you give away your product, the consumer attaches little value to
it. The notion that visitors have paid for our public lands through
taxes, while not to be diminished, simply doesn't provide the direct
connection to create ``value'' with visitors to, in this case, our
nation's forests. Certainly I've seen evidence of devaluing the
resource from all users of public lands, and I'd wager that it relates
to what those users either paid or didn't pay to be there.
Bills such as this fee demonstration project are good for our
outdoor community for lots of reasons. For one, I welcome the
recognition that wilderness lovers are an economic force. And the
concern expressed by some detractors that this will commercialize our
outdoor resource well, what rock have they been living under all these
years? The logging, mining and cattle grazing on our public lands have
been there from the beginning, and that's certainly commercialization
in my book. No, let's agree now to put a legitimate and fair price tag
on outdoor recreation and welcome it with open arms, because it'll mean
outdoor recreation has earned its right to a larger voice in management
of the resource something it hasn't had in just about every debate for
as long as I've been writing letters to Congress.
This fee demonstration project makes a powerful statement about the
economic value of outdoor recreation. Since 1996, it has fed over $608
million in additional revenues to public lands, $88.5 million of that
to our nation's forests. <1>
Concerns about fees excluding certain segments of our society from
public lands don't wash, frankly. Let's get over our misplaced guilt
about elitism, or the concern that the backcountry may become the
exclusive playground of America's upper crust. First of all, there are
ways (voucher systems, work-for-credit programs, and innovative public-
private sector programs, for example) to subsidize this end of things.
Secondly, statistics show that, in very quantifiable terms, the
outdoors is not being used by those segments of the population that
qualify as the struggling lower class. I'm not saying this is good, or
that I like it, just that this is what the outdoor recreation world IS.
If you take the average readers of BACKPACKER magazine as
representative of the core, or center, of this outdoor user universe,
you'll see median household incomes of over $62,000, and 79 percent are
college educated. <2> They are not anything but ``upper class'' to my
mind.
Not only are they predominantly upper class but they have more than
enough discretionary income to afford higher fees for using our public
lands.
How much are we really asking them to pay, anyway? Well, it seems
to be averaging out at about the equivalent of what it would cost for:
Ltwo Happy Meals for your kids at MacDonald's;
La 1/2-day of childcare (in Pennsylvania);
Lbarely two rides at an amusement park;
Ltwo extra large boxes of popcorn at the theater;
Lmy monthly late charges for video rentals
This is not a lot of money, and certainly not for high income
households. Better still, every survey I've seen on this tells me that
these people don't mind paying more for the privileges with some
important caveats:
At BACKPACKER magazine, we've tracked our readers' feelings on the
issue of paying more for the past five years. What we've found is that
overwhelmingly (to the tune of 84 percent!) <3> they're willing to pay
more so long as the money finds its way directly back into the
resource. When asked without the important caveat, the answer skewed
heavily against any additional funding (to the tune of 89 percent
opposed!) <3>
One independent survey (Roper <4>) shows that only 15 percent would
be unwilling to pay additional fees if they were assured it would go
toward the resource. Interestingly, nowhere has it been shown that
higher fees have significantly impacted visitation. Quite the contrary,
in the first year of new fees, from 1996-97 visitation increased almost
five percent.<5> Again, going back to my earlier comment, underlying
some of this may be the notion that people value what they pay for, and
the more they pay, the more they value it.
Park Service surveys show that 83 percent of users were satisfied
with the fee amounts or felt they were too low. Early Forest Service
surveys pegged it at anywhere from 57-68 percent satisfied. <6>
I alluded earlier to the notion of all users paying fair price for
access to our nation's public lands. By extension, then, I'd add that,
once we've established a baseline that accepts a value for recreational
use of our public lands and a corresponding fee for that use, the same
exercise should be applied to other users of our public lands,
particularly timber, mining and grazing. Let's balance the scales so
that the fees charged reflect the impact.
Finally, I'd urge that the government consolidate its fees so that
users aren't ``nickeled-and-dimed'' at every corner. When you ask for
an entrance fee, a parking fee, a backcountry permit fee, a trailhead
fee, and god-knows-what-else-will-be-inflicted-upon-us, all at
different points, you risk annoying users to the point of opposition to
something they're now clearly in favor of. Besides, the Congressional
directive originally asked the agencies to make the fee demonstration
project innovative, not inconsistent. And certainly, if fees are
charged, they need to be related to the use. That is, in highly
developed areas of high use, there are obvious needs for facilities to
minimize impact (e.g., parking lots, toilets, shelters, etc.) Visitors
who use them, know the value and will support fees related to that
usage. On the other hand, there is very little real cost to maintain
backcountry areas that realize comparatively low visitation, so those
visitors should not be charged the same fees, if any, as frontcountry
visitors. My point is that much work needs to be done at each national
forest site to determine the most equitable distribution of fees and
whether fees are even warranted in some areas. It's not a ``one fee
serves all'' scenario, by any stretch.
As an aside, I'd like to add that, while I'm representing my
position as Publisher of BACKPACKER magazine and its readership, I also
serve on the board of the Outdoor Industry Association, which is
submitting testimony for the hearing record. I want to make it clear
that I do not represent their position today. I encourage you to look
over the OIA testimony carefully, however, because it includes some
thoughtful analysis and a survey of other outdoor opinion leaders and
businesspeople.
A summary of my key points:
1. The research among the vast, vocal majority of user groups on a
national level clearly shows this is one government idea worth
supporting.
2. User fees represent a much-needed financial shot in both arms
for the Forest Service and our public lands generally.
3. Public-private partnerships can supplement this program to
remove any barriers it might pose to the American public.
4. Before final implementation, agency heads should establish a
period of public input and/or information exchange to ensure public
support.
5. Fees and the fee structure need to be finely crafted based on
the individual resource and user groups.
6. Other public land usage fees (e.g. timber, mining, and other
resource extraction) should be evaluated to maintain parity with their
relative impact and the market value of that resource.
7. It's time to stop testing and implement this program across-the-
board.
Thank you for letting me speak to you today.
References/Footnotes:
1-Source: GAO Report To Congress, Nov. 1998 (GAO/RCED-99-7), pages
31 & 88.
2-Source: BACKPACKER magazine MRI-Doublebase 2001.
3-Source: BACKPACKER magazine April 1995 Editorial Survey
4-Source: ``Outdoor Recreation in America 1998'' by Roper-Starch,
pages 4 & 26.
5-Source: GAO/RCED-99-7, page 76.
6-Source: Ibid, pages 6 & 80.
Biographical Information:
JOHN VIEHMAN
Publishing Director - Wilderness Travel Group, Rodale Inc.
Publisher of Backpacker magazine (1988-present).
Executive Producer and Series Host of the PBS television series,
Anyplace Wild (1997-present).
Board member of Outdoor Industry Association (2001-present)
Former member of American Hiking Society Board of Directors (1990-
1999); Board Chair (1996-1999).
Founding Host and Series Editor of the public television series,
Trailside, for three seasons (1994-1996).
Series Editor of Trailside Guides by Norton Press (1995-1996).
Former board member of American Rivers (1978-1985).
Former Editor & Publisher of Canoe magazine (1976-1985).
Former Executive Editor of Practical Homeowner (1985-1988), Cross
Country Skier (1988- 1990), and Adventure Travel (1988-1989) magazines.
John Viehman started with Backpacker as Executive Editor when
Rodale Inc. purchased the magazine in 1988 and became Publisher in
1999. During that period, he has spent an inordinate amount of time in
the wilds, developing ideas for the magazine as well as two public
television series, three outdoor book series, a website, and, most
recently, a WebTV convergence project. In 1997, the last time he tried
to keep count, he logged over 150 days in the field developing
information products while also searching for the perfect sunset, not
necessarily in that order. No surprise that when he's not hiking down a
trail, climbing up a mountain, paddling down a river or sailing across
a seamless wilderness lake, John enjoys the simple life on his small
Pennsylvania farm.
______
STATEMENT OF DOUG HOSCHEK, CO-FOUNDER, PUBLIC ACCESS COALITION
Mr. Hoschek. Thank you for letting me be here.
I am from the State of Oregon, and when I leave here, I am
going to drive 3,000 back to Oregon. My driver's license cost
me about $15 for 4 years. Thank God I do not have to go through
the system of forest passes to get there; I can stay on public
highways and do it for free.
In traveling here, I want to encourage everyone in this
room to pay attention to the fact that the people of the United
States of America have never been asked about their opinions of
this Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Public Access
Coalition was founded in 1999 by individuals in the outdoor
industry, like myself, the developer of Polarfleece, and owners
of major companies who stepped back and decided that we were
citizens, not just business entrepreneurs trying to make a buck
off the public lands. We decided to figure out how we would
feel if we made $30,000 a year and we had to pay a $5 fee, if
we had to give up the Happy Meal, if we had to decide that
Johnny was going to go to school with his backpack and his
hiking shoes and his fleece and be in a public school for free,
but had to pay $5 to go to the National Forest with me on
weekends.
This thing has never been put--even though your process of
Committees and the way you create legislation and laws in this
country, you have never done this with fee demo, and now you
want us to put up with another 4 years of it, which will make a
total of 7. We have the 7-year itch; we do not want fees
anymore. They are unfair, they are unpopular, they discriminate
against people whether you make $62,000 a year or $22,000, or
whether you are on unemployment.
The public lands belong to the public. They were created by
our taxes 100 years ago. We promised the Government that we
would pay you taxes, you give us the land access for free.
Whoever extracts anything from that land for commercial
purposes, the public does not really care as long as you manage
it properly and it does not impede the environmental impact on
the land and it does not make it a stinkpot for us to recreate
on.
I cannot encourage you enough to pay attention to the
people of the United States of America. One hundred million
participants recreate in National Forests for the simple
pleasures of viewing, picnicking, and just having a good time,
putting their arm around somebody and watching a sunset.
This is not about business. This is about people.
Businesses do not pay fees to sell their products on public
lands. People are being asked to pay fees on public lands.
You have given hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies
to businesses to extract for the public lands. You gave $27
billion to the farmers last year--farmers like Scotty Pippin,
who plays basketball and received $172,000 to not cut some
trees down on some land he owns someplace in the South.
I wish I had an hour and 5 minutes. Now I have only 3
minutes, and my drive from Oregon has taken me a hell of a lot
longer than that. And I am really sorry that I had to listen to
Mr. Bschor tell you things that he does not know about. We the
people of the United States know about fees; we have been
putting up with them for 7 years by the time you finish the
extension. And by the time that is over, like the State of
California and the State of Oregon have done, they passed
resolutions demanding that you in Congress end the fee program.
By next year, there will be seven more States demanding the
same thing.
I am sorry to talk so fast, but I am trying to race the
clock.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoschek follows:]
Statement of Doug Hoschek, Public Access Coalition
I am Doug Hoschek and I live in the State of OREGON. My
professional career for over 35 years has been in the development and
marketing of outdoor fabrics and insulations. As the creator and
codeveloper of polarfleece fabrics, I have worked with every type of
outdoor recreation activity for over twenty years.
In 1999, I organized and cofounded the PUBLIC ACCESS COALITION
along with Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard. Other cofounders include The
Access Fund for climbers, The American Whitewater Association, Kelty
Outdoor Products president, Casey Schean; nature photographer, Bruce
Jackson; former Conservation Alliance president, Ron Nadeau; and the
former Mayor of Bend Oregon, Bob Woodward. The mission statement of the
Public Access Coalition addresses the issue of preserving and
protecting citizens' rights to freely access federal recreation lands.
The statement goes on to say we support reasonable access fees to
National Parks and non discriminatory fees for developed sites or
services on public lands like fees at public campgrounds.
My testimony argues that the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
should be ended. It is unfair and unpopular, and has never been
properly authorized.
REASON ONE: FAIRNESS
Fee demo was foisted upon the public at large without any public
hearings or debate in Congress that would have allowed what you are
doing in this hearing today. Getting public testimony.
The National Forests are public lands that since their creation
have been funded by citizens' taxes. The maintenance and health of all
National Forests is provided by tax paying citizens on an equal basis
and the amount one pays in taxes does not determine or affect any
citizens' ownership of or access to National Forests. Fee demo is seen
as a second tax upon all citizens and has proven to be a financial
hardship to middle income and lower income citizens. To prove this
point, I offer you a survey conducted in Vermont and New Hampshire by
scientists from the USDA Forest Service and the University of
Massachusetts. The study shows that user fees may substantially reduce
participation in recreation by those earning less than $30,000 per
year. I further offer you a letter published in the Outdoor Retailer
Magazine by John Viehman, which clearly states citizens with incomes of
over $58,000 a year don't mind paying fees and that lower income
citizens don't have the means to recreate on public lands like our
National Forests and National Parks.
As further evidence of the FAIRNESS issue, the State Legislature in
California heard so many complaints from its citizens about the
UNFAIRNESS OF FEE DEMO in National Forests that the State voted
unanimously to pass a resolution calling for the end of the fee
demonstration program in California, which was sent to President
Clinton and Congress last year in 2000. Furthermore, the State of
Oregon has done the same in 2001. The State of New Hampshire is
finalizing a similar resolution at this time. Strong reports from
citizens, recreation groups, and newspapers in Washington State,
Montana, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, and Utah indicate similar
resolutions are in the works.
The USDA Forest Service is now labeling visitors to the national
forests ``customers''--whether they come for a hike or to watch the
sunset--and with this label, are blocking access and charging unfair
fees.
REASON TWO: FREEDOM
In 1997 a survey was released by the USDA FS and the SGMA (Sporting
Goods Manufacturers Association) titled Emerging Trends in Outdoor
Recreation Participation. The survey listed the annual number of
participants for many types of outdoor activities.
Outdoor activities with the highest number of participants were
walking, viewing, and picnicking, with 100 million participants in each
activity per year. These low-impact activities, which formerly could be
pursued at no cost on our National Forests, now come with a price. The
incomes of 100 million adults in this country that participate in these
recreation activities ranges from low to middle to high. But a great
many of these recreationists live near National Forests and most jobs
in those towns do not pay over $30,000 a year.
The three essential outdoor products that recreationists buy are
backpacks, hiking boots and fleece. The purchase of these three
products combined runs about $100. A 1999 study from the Luggage and
Leather Manufacturers Association of America showed that 50% of outdoor
gear is purchased at discount retail stores while only 6% is purchased
at specialty stores. In addition, sales of outdoor products have been
dropping since 1999. Recreation fees could make it even harder for
Americans to buy the products they need to participate in recreation
activities.
Fee demo is not increasing access to our forests; it's restricting
it. Fee demo means National Forests are closed during hours when local
residents are off from work. Instead of being open 24/7 we now find
tollbooths with poles across the entryway and signs saying 9-5.
Arguments to support the restricted use of National Forests center
around not enough manpower to be at toll gates and issues of vandalism.
But is fees can not provide enough staff to keep forests open, the
program is not working.
Allowing the public to freely access public lands they already own
and support with their taxes should not be compromised. It is hard to
believe that there are no funds to properly maintain the health and
services of our National Forests when hundreds of millions of tax payer
dollars are given to private interests in logging, grazing, and mining
subsidies.
Please investigate all these spending practices and you will surely
find the funds to keep the access to National Forests free of fees and
free of unnecessary closures that keep hardworking citizens out of
their Forests.
______
John Viehman - Editorial Director Backpacker Magazine
From: Outdoor Retailer - November 1999
Get behind user fees, or else
I had to cringe when I heard the news that a small but vocal group
of Industry leaders staged a protest over extending the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program, or the agency experiment to raise fees on
public lands. My hope was that the protest wouldn't garner much news
and quickly disappear under the weight of its own wrong-headedness.
Bills such as this fee demonstration project are good for our
outdoor community for lots of reasons. Upfront, though, let me just say
that I welcome the recognition that wilderness lovers are an economic
force. And the concern expressed by this group that this will
commercialize our outdoor resource.. well, what rock have they been
living under all these years? The logging, mining and cattle grazing on
our public lands has been there from the beginning, and that's
certainly commercialization in my book. Let the Feds put a price tag on
outdoor recreation and welcome it with open arms, because it'll mean we
then get a larger say in management of the resource - something we've
been losing ground on in just about every area for as long as I've been
writing letters to Congress.
This one program since 1996 has demonstrated its clout by feeding
close to $284 million in additional revenues to public lands, a 70-
percent increase from 1996 to 1998.
Concerns about fees excluding certain segments of our society from
public lands don't wash either. Let's get over our misplaced guilt
about elitism, or the concern that the backcountry may become the
exclusive playground of the upper crust. First of all, there are ways
(voucher systems, work-for-credit programs, for example) to subsidize
this end of things. Secondly, I'm of the school that says, ``See the
world for what it is, then seek to change it.''
Statistics show that in very quantifiable terms, the outdoors isnot
being used by those segments of the population that qualify as non-
elite (mainly low education, low income, minorities, etc.). I'm not
saying this is good, or that I like it, just that this is what the
outdoor recreation world is. If you take the average readers of
Backpacker magazine as the core, or center, of this outdoor user
universe, you'll see median household incomes of over $58,000 and 76
percent are college educated. This is not anything but ``elite'' to my
mind.
Not only are they elite, but they have more than enough
discretionary income to afford higher fees for using our public lands.
How much are we really asking them to pay, anyway? Well, it seems to he
averaging out at about the equivalent of what it would cost for:
Ltwo Happy Meals for your kids at McDonald's
La day of childcare (in Pennsylvania)
Lbarely two rides at an amusement park
Ltwo extra large boxes of popcorn at the theater
Lmy monthly late charges for video rentals
This is not a lot of money, and certainly not for high-income
households, better still, every survey I've seen on this tells me that
these people don't mind paying more for the privileges.. with some
important ``ifs''
At Backpacker magazine, we've tracked our readers' feelings on the
issue of paying more for the past five years. What we've found is that
overwhelmingly (to the tune of 84 percent!) they're willing to pay more
so long as the money finds its way directly back into the resource.
When asked without the important caveat, the answer skewed heavily
against any additional funding (to the tune of 89 percent opposed!).
One independent survey (Roper) shows that only 15 percent would be
unwilling to pay additional fees if they were assured it would go
toward the resource. Interestingly, nowhere has it been shown that
higher fees have significantly impacted visitation. Quite the contrary.
In the first year of new fees, from 1996 to 1997, visitation increased
almost 5 percent. Underlying some of this may be the notion that people
value what they pay for, and the more they pay, the more they value it.
Park Service surveys show that 83 percent of users were satisfied
with the Fee amounts or felt they were too low. Early Forest Service
surveys peg it at anywhere from 57 percent to 68 percent satisfied.
My final point has more to do with political realities than
anything else. A few years ago, a tax proposal came out of Washington,
D.C., that was essentially a misguided ``hidden' excise tax on outdoor
equipment. While I was vocal in my opposition to this ill-conceived
tax, I saw that by not offering an alternative, as an industry we
cashed in considerable goodwill in Washington. Turns out, we beat the
tax and our outdoor lives have gone on. Now comes another funding
proposal, this one not nearly in the same league. If we as an industry
oppose it, we risk losing whatever political firepower we once had,
which could prove important to a battle that truly should be fought
sometime in the future. We cannot be perceived as 'against' everything,
but we can be in favor of publicly supported programs when they present
themselves, and offer alternatives when they don't.
Bottom Line: The research among the vast, vocal majority of user
groups on a national level clearly shows this is one government idea
worth supporting. It'll mean a shot in both arms for our public lands.
[The article, ``Do User Fee's Exclude Low-income People
from Resource-based Recreation?'' has been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
------
Mr. Peterson. I commend the gentleman's speed and accuracy.
Mr. Robertson, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JASON ROBERTSON, ACCESS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
WHITEWATER
Mr. Robertson. Good afternoon.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommitee, it is an honor
and a privilege to be invited by the majority to speak about
permanent extension of the Forest Service Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program, Fee Demo.
I am Jason Robertson, Access Director for American
Whitewater. I speak here on behalf of a broad cross-section of
America's recreationists and sportsmen through the human-
powered recreation coalition which represents more than half a
million member canoeists, hikers, backpackers, cross-country
skiers, climbers, and bikers.
I personally am a hiker, a camper, a boater, a climber, a
kayaker, a canoeist, and an occasional fly fisherman. Fee demo
affects me on a personal as well as a professional level.
Our recreation community is encouraged that the Subcommitee
members are taking a personal interest in the future of this
program. We look forward to working with you in the coming
months to ensure that recreationists will continue to enjoy
quality, affordable outdoor recreation opportunities on
America's public lands.
As indicated in my written testimony, there is consensus
among recreationists that it is wrong to continue luring the
agencies on with temporary extensions of fee demo. It prevents
the agencies and the Forest Service in particular from fixing
problems inherent to the system today, including real issues of
fairness, equity, and coordination.
However, simply making fee demo a permanent collection
authority is not the solution, because it would remove any
incentive to the agencies to remedy existing problems with the
program.
There is disagreement on whether the best solution is to
approve a permanent albeit hobbled program, or simply to allow
this broken experiment to expire.
I myself am torn. I believe that the agencies, and the
Forest Service in particular, do not need fee demo and should
not charge Americans to visit their public lands. While the
program has raised a few dollars for maintenance, it has come
at the expense of some core American values and principles.
I ask in my written testimony whether you can imagine being
ordered by your family to pay $5 to enter your home, or being
commanded to pay $5 to enter your church to worship. Making
America's sportsmen and recreationists pay for entry to the
public lands that we own is little different. It also
constitutes double taxation on the public.
Mandatory fees should be discouraged, and Congress should
consider and encourage broad voluntary contribution programs to
maintain recreation facilities and services on public lands.
Now, speaking once again for the human-powered recreation
community, we support no more than a single 1-year extension of
fee demo in the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill.
This 1-year extension will give the authorizing Committees time
to hold public hearings and judge the fate of this
demonstration program.
The recreation community would consider supporting certain
user fees if there is a firm commitment to providing adequate
public land funding via appropriations with an emphasis on
restoration and maintenance. However, we have found that there
have been real funding offsets for the agencies since the
program was implemented and that budgets have been effectively
flatlined. Hence some of our trepidation for supporting even a
modified program.
If a permanent fee authority is granted, there is some
support for entrance fees to National Parks and us fees at
developed campgrounds on public lands. In addition, there could
be justification for charging fees at a few specific, high-use
recreation areas.
However, the community is not likely to support fees at
these additional developed recreation sites without a broader
evaluation of the program and implementation of limits on the
collection authority.
Finally, and I would like to emphasize this, there is broad
opposition for fees among recreationists and sportsmen for
accessing undeveloped recreation activities such as trail use,
backcountry hiking and fishing, kayaking and canoeing, and
mountaineering.
In summary, it is time to stop testing the wildlife and
recreation management agencies. We have to feed them with
adequate public funding, put them out of the fee collection
business, or tie the scope of the fee collection authority and
make them truly accountable to the taxpayers, sportsmen, and
recreating public they serve.
If Congress determines that fee demo should continue, it
should be modified such that fairness issues are addressed and
should be limited solely to developed sites rather than
traditional, undeveloped backcountry activities including river
use.
This concludes my oral statement. I would be glad to speak
about specific elements of the fee program later.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
Statement of Jason Robertson, Access Director, American Whitewater
Summary:
Outdoor recreationists and sportsmen believe that it is
inappropriate to continue extending the Fee Demo program through the
appropriations process. For that reason, the human-powered recreation
community is encouraged by this subcommittee hearing. We support no
more than a single one-year extension in the fiscal year 2002 Interior
Appropriations bill. This one-year extension will give the authorizing
committees time to hold public hearings and judge the fate of this
demonstration program. In a broad analysis:
LThe recreation community would consider supporting
certain user fees if there is a firm commitment to adequate public land
funding via appropriations with an emphasis on restoration and
maintenance.
LThere is some support for entrance fees to National Parks
and use fees at developed campground sites on public lands. In
addition, there could be justification for charging fees at specific,
high-use recreation areas. However, the community is not likely to
support fees at these additional developed recreation sites without
cautious evaluation and strong parameters (i.e. limiting use of funds
to maintenance and projects directly benefiting recreation, and
specifically excluding administration costs for planning and
enforcement).
LThere is broad opposition for fees for undeveloped
recreation activities, such as trail use, backcountry hiking, kayaking
and canoeing, and mountaineering.
LFees will impact future outdoor recreation, as well as
how recreation is managed on public lands. We are committed to working
with Congress and the public land agencies to ensure that
recreationists will continue to enjoy quality, affordable, outdoor
recreation opportunities on America's public lands.
Statement:
Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is
an honor and a privilege to be invited by the majority to speak before
the committee about permanent extension of the Forest Service
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.
I am Jason Robertson, Access Director for American Whitewater. I am
speaking here on behalf of a broad cross section of America's human-
powered recreation industry and sportsmen. I, personally, am a hiker, a
camper, a boater, a kayaker, a canoer, an occasional fly fisherman. Fee
Demo affects me on a personal as well as a professional level.
I would like to share a story with you that I prepared for our
magazine, the American Whitewater Journal.
When I was 11 my grandmother invited my family home for
Thanksgiving.
Unfortunately, my beagle, Maggie, had just broken her leg and had
to wear one of those satellite dishes so she would not lick her
stitches. She looked pitiful, and we figured we could not leave her
alone for the weekend.
Grandmother invited us to bring Maggie up to keep her company while
she was cooking in the kitchen. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Well, Grandmother finished cooking the turkey, and placed it on the
kitchen table to cool. We left the dog in the kitchen and went in the
dining room to say grace.
A few minutes later we went back in the kitchen to slice the turkey
and found that Maggie, even with that satellite dish hobbling her, had
leapt up on the table and was gnawing on the turkey.
We learned that we could not tease the dog forever. You have to
feed him, put him out, or tie him up.
Now, we thought leaving the dog in the kitchen with the turkey was
a good idea. As we learned, without appropriate supervision, it was not
and neither is Fee Demo.
When we, sportsmen, recreationists, and Congress joined together in
1996 to give the agencies permission to test the idea of collecting
funds from the public, it also seemed like a good idea. Unfortunately,
we started this program by locking the dog in the kitchen with the
turkey and turning our back on her. We have given the Forest Service,
Park Service, BLM, and Fish & Wildlife Service authority to collect
funds without any real oversight, review, or evaluation.
To make matters worse, we have teased the agencies for three years
with these arbitrary extensions of Fee Demo and lured them on with the
promise of permanent Fee collection authority. It is little surprise to
find that the agencies have gone to such extraordinary lengths to
expand their fee collection programs after being teased with this test
program for six years. Unfortunately, the agencies desire for funding
has blinded them to the consequences of their actions. This hearing is
the first step to remedying this unfortunate situation.
It is time to stop teasing the wildlife and recreation management
agencies. We have to feed them with adequate public funding, put them
out of the fee collection business, or tie the scope of the fee
collection authority and make them truly accountable to the recreating
public that they serve.
Personally, I think Fee Demo is a failure. American Whitewater's
membership and board agree with me. Therefore we dropped our support
for the program in 1998 after observing that 20% to 25% of all Fee
collection sites target river users, though boating represents less
than 1% of Forest and Park visitation. In essence, we have found that
boaters are subsidizing all other forest visitors through Fee Demo.
In July 2001, the human-powered recreation coalition of hikers,
bikers, skiers, climbers, and boaters wrote the Senate Appropriators:
The program has now been in demonstration phase since 1996. We
believe that it is inappropriate to continue to extend the
program through the appropriations process. If this issue is to
move forward, an evaluation by the authorizing committees is
necessary. For that reason, we strongly urge Interior conferees
to support no more than a one-year extension in the fiscal year
2002 Interior Appropriations bill. This one-year extension will
give the authorizing committees time to hold public hearings
and determine the fate of the program.
As indicated, recreationists do not support the extension of Fee
Demo without a complete and fair review. This program was implemented
as a test, a demonstration, but there's been little oversight. In fact,
the agencies have been tasked with reviewing their own successes or
failures and have claimed that because many people pay the fees there
is evidence of support for the program. The GAO has repeated the
claims. The logic of this argument is flawed, and the fact that the
public is obeying the law should not be confused with whether the
public actually supports the law. It is essential for Congress to
seriously evaluate both the negative and positive sides of this
program.
It is my belief that the agencies, and the Forest Service in
particular, don't need Fee Demo and don't need to charge Americans to
visit their public lands. While the program has raised a few million
dollars it has come at the expense of some core American values and
compromised many of our basic principles. Can you imagine being ordered
by your grandparents to pay $5 to come in the house for Thanksgiving;
or being commanded to pay $5 to enter your church to worship? Making
America's sportsmen pay for entry to the public lands that we own is no
different.
Mandatory fees should be discouraged, and Congress should consider
and encourage voluntary contribution programs.
American Whitewater manages property all over the country for
recreation. We acquire some outright, lease some, and simply engage in
partnerships in other locations.
Currently, we are partnering with Maryland's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to manage river access on the Youghioheny River in
Garrett County. The DNR was tasked by the state with cost recovery for
the site, which amounted to $8000 a year. The DNR raised about $1000 in
the first year and less than $400 in the second.
American Whitewater stepped in to prevent ticketing for violators
and closure of the site. We provide toilets, changing rooms, and mow
the grass at the site for less than $300 a year with the help of
volunteers. We also collect over $1000 a year in donated funds at the
site, which are set aside for future projects. We found that visitors
will volunteer and provide funding if they detect a direct benefit from
their contributions.
Now, American Whitewater is a small non-profit, so the logical
question is whether the agencies can also use this model of funding
maintenance and upkeep for recreation though volunteers and donations,
rather than a mandatory fee system? The answer is yes.
Dave Cernicek is the Forest Service Backcountry and River Manager
on the Snake River in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He opted out of Fee Demo
and has managed to provide new toilets, fresh drinking water, improved
parking, new river access, and even shaded park benches through a
voluntary donation program called the Snake River Fund.
He will be the first to tell you that it is difficult and time
consuming to manage volunteers and solicit donations. But he will also
tell you that it is rewarding, that it has made the agency directly
accountable to visitors, and that those visitors are getting the
maintenance that they have asked for. As Ranger Cernicek has told me,
``visitors vote with their dollars, and I aim to satisfy them.''
In contrast, Fee Demo is not accountable to the public. The fees
are often unfair. The agencies are unresponsive. And, recreationists
and sportsmen are not getting the services that they desire or deserve.
During the course of the Fee Demonstration program, the outdoor
community has learned that outdoor recreationists and sportsmen believe
it is inappropriate to continue extending the Fee Demo program through
the appropriations process. For that reason, the human-powered
recreation community is encouraged by this subcommittee hearing. We
support no more than a single one-year extension in the fiscal year
2002 Interior Appropriations bill. This one-year extension will give
the authorizing committees time to hold public hearings and judge the
fate of this demonstration program. In a broad analysis:
LThe recreation community would consider supporting
certain user fees if there is a firm commitment to adequate public land
funding via appropriations with an emphasis on restoration and
maintenance.
LThere is some support for entrance fees to National Parks
and use fees at developed campground sites on public lands. In
addition, there could be justification for charging fees at specific,
high-use recreation areas. However, the community is not likely to
support fees at these additional developed recreation sites without
cautious evaluation and strong parameters (i.e. limiting use of funds
to maintenance and projects benefiting recreation, and specifically
excluding administration such as planning and enforcement).
LThere is broad opposition for fees for undeveloped
recreation activities, such as trail use, backcountry hiking, kayaking
and canoeing, and mountaineering.
Fees will impact future outdoor recreation, as well as how
recreation is managed on public lands. We are committed to working with
Congress and the public land agencies to ensure that recreationists
will continue to enjoy quality, affordable, outdoor recreation
opportunities on America's public lands.
______
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr. Warren, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOB WARREN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF GATEWAY
COMMUNITIES
Mr. Warren. I am Bob Warren, and I am Chairman of the
National Alliance of Gateway Communities, an organization
dedicated to working with gateway communities and the Federal
land management agencies.
Gateway communities have a symbiotic relationship with
public lands in that they are adjacent to public lands. They
see the benefit of the Fee Demo Program in that it does provide
additional, quality product that does have a value to the
consumer.
Most recently, we had a meeting for our organization in
Grand Junction, Colorado, which happens to be in your district,
and we saw the difference that public lands were making to the
community in Grand Junction. They went through an oil shale
period where they were relying on natural resources, and now
tourism has helped that community come back to its grandeur.
Why charge fees on Forest Service lands? There is a variety
of reasons. Most important, it provides support for nationally-
designated areas. There are many areas out there on Forest
Service lands that have never had the funding necessary to
adequately maintain them.
Fees allow for more timely response to needs. A major
advantage of charging a fee for a specific site is the ability
to solve problems and mitigate the impact of heavy usage that
that site might have.
There is local support for fees when fees are used locally.
There are a number of areas in our country that are now going
through an educational process to let people know that their
fees fund particular projects, and that is receiving widespread
support.
Fees provide for unmet needs. Often in our local forests,
issues come up with heavy usage, and the appropriation process
does not necessarily solve them in a timely fashion. Fees help
in that process.
One area that has been discussed is why pay for something
that is already covered by taxes, and also the impact on lower-
income people. In California about 3 years ago, the Governor
reduced all State Park fees by one-half. It did not double the
usage in any of the parks in California and so just decreased
the amount of money available to the parks to use for
maintenance.
We hope that you will look at some of the issues that might
come up when it comes to fees, and most importantly, we want
you to give guidance to the Forest Service so they are not
using fees to provide for competition with the private sector.
Using them for maintenance is fine, and we think that is a
great idea.
We also know that a problematic area is in working with
locals. Most of those problems have been solved through
offering an annual pass.
I appreciate the opportunity to come here and talk to you
about this. We certainly hope that the fees will be used to
provide an average usage for all campgrounds--for example, not
charging one amount in one area and a different amount in
another area.
We think this is a great program that deserves support by
Congress.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Warren follows:]
Statement of Bob Warren, Chairman, National Alliance of Gateway
Communities
Good afternoon. It is a genuine pleasure for me to be part of this
important hearing today. I am Bob Warren and I am Chairman of the
National Alliance of Gateway Communities. NAGC is the national
organization that represents the interests of hundreds of communities
that serve as ``gateways'' for millions of visitors to the treasures of
our national forests, parks and other Federal public lands. I am also
General Manager of the Shasta Cascade Wonderland Association, a multi-
jurisdictional tourism marketing organization in Northern California.
Outdoor recreation on public lands is as important to the social
fabric of America as baseball and apple pie. The United States is
unique in that it has set aside millions of acres of public land for
the use of all. Our country offers probably one of the most extensive
``menus'' of recreational opportunities on public lands of any nation
in the world. A number of communities in the west have either developed
because of outdoor recreation or have transitioned into being service
centers for those users of public lands. There are numerous examples of
communities that were founded because of resource extraction and that
have now become healthy and viable recreation oriented destinations for
ever-increasing outdoor recreation enthusiasts.
As California and the United States become more populated, public
lands set aside for outdoor recreation uses, will become increasingly
more important. The density of many big cities is in the hundreds of
people per acre, and along with stressful jobs, individuals need a way
to ``get-away from it all''. Public lands offer an opportunity for
families to reconnect, for individuals to ``recharge their batteries'',
and a way for all to enjoy a wide variety of outdoor recreational
experiences that are both healthy for the body and the soul.
Gateway Communities Need Public Lands
Gateway communities in America, by their very nature, are close to
public lands. This symbiotic relationship creates an arrangement where
the public lands users need the community for services while the
communities need the public lands as an attraction. As more and more
communities are transitioning into more diverse economies that are less
based on resource extraction, visitors to public lands will play an
increasingly important role in local economies. In rural California,
every $63,000 dollars spent by visitors creates one new job. Many of
those using public lands are international visitors who often make
their visit to America a visit to our magnificent public lands and
other parts of rural America. Germans alone account for hundreds of
thousands of visits to public lands annually. One public lands
attraction in Northern California surveyed visitors during a specific
month several years ago, and 11% of the visitors were German.
Obviously, the money spent by these visitors is important to both the
local economies and to our balance of trade. In light of the recent
terrorist tragedy in America the tourism industry knows it will be
severely impacted. Those of us in the west also know that public lands
will be the magnet that draws both domestic travelers and
internationals back to rural America.
Why Charge Fees on Forest Lands?
Charging fees for the use of Forest Service lands is obviously a
new concept. Several generations ago when the National Park Service
began charging fees, there were certainly many complaints. The Park
Service had the obvious advantage of some of our most spectacular
attractions and the ability to put a gate in front of them. This
advantage is not always available to the Forest Service. Although the
Forest Service may not have as many well-known attractions as the Park
Service, it does have a far greater number of acres dedicated to
general outdoor recreation. Some of America's most spectacular trails
and vistas are on Forest Service lands, as well as many of the most
heavily used waterways and lakes in our country are again managed by
the Forest Service.
When discussing fees on the national forests, the inevitable
question is ``why pay for something that should be covered by our
taxes''? The problem is it has not been covered by our taxes. In a
recent survey conducted by the Forest Service on maintenance backlogs,
it was determined that $812 million dollars in unmet maintenance needs
existed on Forest Service lands. This budgetary shortfall only likely
to be exacerbated by the fiscal demands that the tragic events which
occurred two weeks ago will place on our nation.
In California, I believe we cannot appropriate money fast enough to
mitigate the effect of an ever increasing population and its use of
public lands. California currently has 35 million people and it is
expected that this will increase to more than 50 million by the year
2020. Appropriated funds should continue to provide most of the funding
needed by the Forest Service. But, especially in heavily used
recreation areas and at high use attractions, user fees make good
sense. The primary reasons for fees in this area are:
LIncreased support for nationally designated areas Many of
the nationally designated areas such as national recreation and scenic
areas, monuments, national trails and historic sites have never
received the funding necessary to mitigate the often heavy visitation
at these locations. Charging fees at these sites certainly makes the
greatest sense, as the user has a high perceived value of what they are
receiving, as well as the obvious need to mitigate the impact of high
usage. Charging fees at these locations also makes good sense as there
are direct correlations between usage, need for mitigation, and fees
collected.
LFees allow more timely responses to mitigation needs One
of the major advantages of charging fees for a specific site or for
heavily used disbursed areas, is the ability to solve problems and
mitigate the impact of heavy usage in an immediate way. The
appropriation process can often be lengthy and is usually not finely
focused on the attraction needing funds for mitigating usage. In other
words, funds collected for a specific site can usually hit the ground
much faster than those coming from appropriated sources.
LLocal support for fees, when funds used locally There are
numerous anecdotal reports that public lands users support fees when
they know they are being used locally to provide improvements for the
attractions they are using. On Shasta Lake, houseboat owners are
charged an annual fee to have their boat on the lake. Recently when
these houseboat fees were raised, the local boating club indicated they
would not fight this fee increase because they knew the money collected
would be staying at Shasta Lake and used to provide improvements from
which they would benefit. In Southern California, a survey by the Los
Angeles Times found that 62% of those surveyed indicated they approved
of the Forest Service charging a user fee. Dr. Jerrell Richar of
California State University, San Bernadino, conducted a user survey
associated with the adventure pass program. Dr. Richar's survey
indicated the vast majority of forest visitors support the program. 59%
of survey respondents felt that they were better off with the adventure
pass program, and its resulting improvements to the forest lands.
LFees provide matching funds for state grants An
unanticipated benefit of collecting and retaining fees, has been the
ability to use some of these fees for matching state program grants. In
California there are several state grant programs that have been
unavailable to the Forest Service in the past because of a lack of
funds. These programs are under the California Department of Boating
and Waterways, the California Off-Road Vehicle ``Green Sticker''
program and the California Department of Fish & Game. These state
programs require a matching contribution and then these state grants
provide for such important projects as boat ramps, handicapped access
to attractions, and the development of trails and wildlife viewing
areas.
LFees provide for unmet needs Experiences from my local
forest, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, provides several positive
examples of the benefits of the fee demo program with some being
unanticipated when the program was first established. The retention of
fees on Shasta Lake has provided the opportunity to fund worthy
projects that would normally have not received funding. One of the most
important projects on Shasta Lake, that has been funded by the
retention of special use fees, is the marking of obstacles. This has
greatly enhanced the experience and the safety of boaters on Shasta
Lake, as there is now less worry about hitting barely submerged land
points. Another major project recently completed on Shasta Lake is the
addition of a state of the art accessible boat-loading platform, which
provides greater access to the lake for people of all abilities. Prior
to the completion of this project, many individuals with limited
mobility had an extremely difficult time accessing the boating
experience.
What works and what doesn't
The advantage of a demonstration program such as fee demo for the
Forest Service is that it provides the opportunity to experiment with
various fee collection programs. If one were to identify the biggest
problem of demonstration programs, it would be the wider margin for
errors a pilot program such as fee demo allows. Living inside a
national recreation area has given me insight into the potential
problems that a demonstration program can create.
When the fee demo program was first announced in the area I live,
the local ranger district indicated a general use fee would be
collected from everyone inside the recreation area. Living on a private
``in holding'' caused me to ask the question--would I have to buy a
permit to live inside a national recreation area? At the time, before
fee demo was implemented, the local reaction by the recreation staff
was, ``No, not to live in the area, but, should you go off your
property into the surrounding forest you would need a permit.''
Fortunately, clearer minds prevailed, and it became apparent that the
only viable way to implement the fee demo program in the Shasta Lake
National Recreation Area was through special use fee retention. There
are several hundred private houseboat owners on Shasta Lake that pay an
annual fee to be on the lake. Also, eleven marinas operate on Shasta
Lake, offering more than 400 commercially available houseboats for
rent. The special use fees paid by these marinas are now being utilized
under the fee demo program. This program has worked extremely well
because there is a finite number of potential payees into the fee demo
program and collection approaches close to 100% compliance. Collection
costs are just a very small percentage of the actual amount collected.
Another problematic area for any fee program is how to deal with
local users. Often these users consider the public lands their backyard
and are reluctant to pay a day use fee when they are on these public
lands frequently. Almost all fee programs have identified this
potential use and have developed season passes at very nominal charges.
As an example what may be a $5.00 daily fee usually translates into a
$25.00 to $30.00 annual fee. Most locals, when they realize that the
money is being used locally, and that it is very nominal fee, are okay
with paying it.
Another important factor to consider is the perceived value of a
particular attraction, and the fee connected with it. It is important
that the Forest Service continue to adjust fees related to what is
being received. For example, very primitive campgrounds should require
lower fees than more developed campgrounds. Another issue arises in
disbursed recreation areas such as in Southern California, when there
are public highways going through these areas and fees are required for
just stopping to take a walk. In recent years, administrators of the
adventure pass program in Southern California, have realized that it is
important to remove vista points and certain scenic sections of state
highways, from fee collection.
The NAGC makes two specific recommendations regarding the future of
the fee demo program, one pertaining to the collection of fees and the
other to the expenditure of fee revenue.
Regarding fee collection, the NAGC strongly urges that the Forest
Service and other public land agencies with fee demo authority, to
follow more consistent collection policies both within and between
agencies. Public lands visitors are especially frustrated when they are
required to pay different prices for similar services in the same
national forest, or to be charged one fee by a national forest, another
fee by an adjacent national park, another by an adjacent national
recreation area and still another fee by another adjacent national
forest. There absolutely must be scrupulous coordination and
consistency within and between the land agencies.
Regarding fee revenue expenditures, gateway communities are
concerned over instances when this revenue has been used to expand,
modernize or construct new facilities, such as campgrounds, that are in
direct competition with existing nearby businesses. We urge that
Congress make clear that fee demo revenue is to be used to maintain
existing facilities and visitor services not to make them competitive
with private sector businesses. In the example of campgrounds, fee demo
should not be used to upgrade sites to accommodate large, modern
recreation vehicles when those RVs can be readily served by private
campgrounds.
Conclusion
The fee demo program for the Forest Service has been a learning
experience for both the agency and the users. Initially strong
opposition led many to believe this program would never work. Through a
strong educational program and focused marketing to show the value of a
fee program, the implementation of tangible projects paid for by fees,
and the ironing out of some of the initial collection problems, fee
demo has now developed into a viable program. User fees are a way of
collecting money from those that actually use the forests and it
provides for additional mitigation of usage that is unavailable under
the normal Congressional appropriations process.
The National Alliance of Gateway Communities supports the fee demo
program for the Forest Service because it serves gateway communities as
well. Funds from fee demo are used to provide a better recreation
experience on the public lands and provides the consumer with the
understanding that there is product out there worth paying for. The
fees have helped shrink a small portion of the backlog of maintenance
while providing improved services and products, which enhance the
visitor experience on Forest Service lands. While there is a need for
improvement and refinement in the fee demo program in the Forest
Service and in the other public land agencies, most notably in
utilizing more consistent pricing and collection practices, and in
avoiding expenditures that create facilities or services that compete
directly with the private sector, we encourage Congress to continue
this program while providing continued direction to the Forest Service
and the other agencies to ensure that the program helps to achieve the
goal we all seek, maintaining the national forests, parks and other
public lands as the best, most visitor-friendly in the world.
______
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the panel and the
members today.
Mr. DeFazio. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could I insert a
statement for the record?
Mr. Peterson. Without objection.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Peter DeFazio, A Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman,
As you know, the fee demonstration program began in 1996 as an
appropriations rider and has now been extended three times, and amended
or supplemented numerous times, through the appropriations process. The
House version of the fiscal year 02 Interior Appropriations bill
contains language that extends the Recreation Fee Demonstration program
for another four years. I believe this usurpation of the legislative
process is unacceptable and fee demonstration should be subject to
congressional hearings and proper authorization. Chairman Hansen, prior
to becoming Chairman of the House Resources Committee, assured me that
the fee demonstration program-which is generally unpopular with the
public-would not be extended beyond fiscal year 02 through an
appropriations rider. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, it appears
that the appropriations rider extension through fiscal year 06 is going
forward. Though I am opposed to the stealth authorization of the fee
demonstration program, I am also concerned with the lack of recreation
opportunities it provides for many communities.
The Recreation Fee Demonstration program imposes user fees on
citizens who merely intend to hike, hunt, or drive and park along U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) roadways. Many
formerly timber dependant communities in my district, and throughout
the Northwest, have not recovered from the decline in timber revenue.
Most of these communities are nearly surrounded by Forest Service or
BLM land. The fee demonstration program is an unfair double-tax on
these communities that have historically used their public land for
recreation.
The National Park Service (NPS) is one of the agencies covered by
the fee demonstration program. However, the repeal of this tax would
not prohibit the NPS from charging fees at national parks. In addition,
it would not prohibit the USFS and BLM from charging to use improved
campsites and maintained trails.
Fee demonstration is currently opposed by over 230 outdoor
recreation, environmental, and public interest organizations
nationwide; as well as being formally opposed by the Oregon, California
and New Hampshire state legislatures. Contrary to USFS claims,
statistics show that the fee demonstration program is not popular with
the public at large. Regional Forest Service staff have reported that
just 30 percent of the public complies with the program. This
percentage simply reflects compliance with the law. Based on the volume
of correspondence I have received in opposition to the program, I
believe the percentage of the public who actually support the fee
demonstration program to be even less.
The most fair and prudent way to proceed with the Recreation Fee
Demonstration program is through the standard authorization process
rather than continuing extensions through riders to Interior
Appropriations bills.
______
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I today urge this committee to not support making the
Forest Service recreation fee demonstration program permanent. I was
one of the members of Congress who supported the creation of the Forest
Service recreation fee demonstration program. However, I did so with
the assurance that the money collected from this fee would be used to
reduce the maintenance backlog in our national forests. Unfortunately,
it has been brought to my attention that a large percentage of the
funds are not being used for forest maintenance, but are being used to
fund the bureaucracy that operates and enforces the fees.
Mr. Chairman, the Los Padres National Forest encompasses nearly
half of my district. My constituents have lived around and recreated in
this forest for years. While some are concerned about paying for an
``Adventure Pass'' to use a forest they have recreated in freely for
generations, many would accept the pass if it meant that the forest
would be preserved and enhanced for their recreational needs.
I believe every member of the Resources Committee would like to see
that our national forests are properly maintained for our citizens. But
I can not support a program that taxes my constituents beyond what they
already pay to the federal government when the bulk of the tax pays for
the taxing program, not forest maintenance.
It is clear that our national forests are underfunded. We need to
work with our colleagues in the Appropriations Committee to address
funding shortfalls in the operation and maintenance of our national
forests. If not, then we have to enhance the current program so that
the funds collected are used for their intended purposes. I thank the
Chairman and yield...
______
Statement of Congressman C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, A Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding a hearing on such an important
subject--measuring the impact of the recreational fee demonstration
program authorized by Congress in 1996, and hearing testimony as to
whether it should be permanently established.
The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management manage an
estimated 455 million acres of public lands that are visited by nearly
one billion visitors each year. As a result, a staggering amount of
federal funding is devoted each year to ensure that these recreational
activities are available. I commend the partnership that has been
established to maintain access of citizens to numerous sites managed by
the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
National Park Service and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation--
called the ``Visit Idaho Playgrounds.''
Mr. Chairman, I support the concept of a ``user pay'' system--those
who use federal lands for recreation should contribute a portion of the
cost to maintain them. However, I'm concerned that the huge amount of
land acquired by the federal government over the last few years
underscores the high costs of maintenance that accompanies such
acquisitions. While I am interested in hearing testimony from those who
want to extend the program, I am also interested in knowing from the
federal agencies how they intend to address the huge maintenance
backlogs they have amassed without substantially raising the fees or
restricting access.
I'm also concerned that the agency needs to correct the apparent
double-standard of charging recreational fees for law-abiding citizens
while also permitting free access to groups such as the ``Rainbow
Family Coalition,'' such as occurred in the Boise National Forest in
Idaho in July. Some 20,000 people from outside the area converged on
the Boise National Forest without a legal permit and caused a
significant amount of environmental and economic damage to public
lands.
I believe that we must be cautious with any proposal that imposes a
permanent fee from the federal government, no matter how noble its
intention. Congress funds these federal agencies every year, and I am
hesitant to allow expanded authority without also maintaining our
constitutional oversight authority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Peterson. These are unusual times, and we apologize for
how this worked. This is the first defense briefing by
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell for
the general Members of Congress at 4 o'clock. We had no lead
time; we just found out about it. So we apologize. Most Members
feel obligated to hear that, and their constituents want them
to be informed.
Your full testimony will be in the record. Members will
have the right to ask questions. They will be sent to you for
response, and that will be made a part of the record.
This would have been an interesting panel to hear
discussion--it would have gone on for some time, I am sure--so
I apologize, but I want to thank each of you for your
participation on behalf of the Committee and the members.
Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 o'clock p.m., the Subcommitee was
adjourned.]
-