U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56-090 PDF 2010

H.R. 4888, 

CABIN FEE ACT OF 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, April 22, 2010 

Serial No. 111-51 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Vacancy 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Vacancy 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, April 22, 2010 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 1 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 2 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington, Prepared statement of .............................................. 10 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Almy, Richard D., Cabin Owner, Seattle, Washington ................................. 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Anderson, Geoffrey, President, National Forest Homeowners, Lincoln, 

California ....................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Bailey, Peter D., Director, National Forest Homeowners, Tacoma, 

Washington .................................................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54 

Barile, Maureen E., Cabin Owner, Fresno, California .................................. 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Additional materials supplied: 

List of information retained in the Committee’s official files ....................... 23 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4888, TO 

REVISE THE FOREST SERVICE RECREATION 

RESIDENCE PROGRAM AS IT APPLIES TO 

UNITS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

DERIVED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BY 

IMPLEMENTING A SIMPLE, EQUITABLE, 

AND PREDICTABLE PROCEDURE FOR 

DETERMINING CABIN USER FEES, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. (CABIN FEE ACT OF 

2010) 

Thursday, April 22, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Kildee, Napolitano, DeFazio, 

Inslee, Hastings, Lummis, and McClintock 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me call the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands to order. The subject of this hearing is 

H.R. 4888, introduced by the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings, of 

the Committee. 

I have an opening statement that I will submit for the record. 

Mr. Hastings, any comments? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you. 

Today we will receive testimony on H.R. 4888, the Cabin Fee Act of 2010. The 

bill addresses a program that the Forest Service has administered since 1915. The 

program was so successful that families have passed those cabins down from generation to generation, developing strong local partnerships with the Forest Service. 

However, the Recreation Residence Program has come before Congress repeatedly 

due to concerns raised by cabin owners. Just about 10 years ago, we passed the 

Cabin User Fee Fairness Act, known as CUFFA, to address the concerns of cabin 

owners who were upset about rising fees and an unfair appraisal process. Now, we 

are hearing about similar issues once again. It is my hope that we will be able to 

find a solution that solves these problems once and for all. 

As always, we very much appreciate the time and effort put forth by our witnesses and thank them for joining us today. With that said, I’d now like to turn 

to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening statement he may have. 

2 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank 

you for holding a hearing on this bill. It is a bill that I know is 

critically important to the 14,000 Americans that own cabins in our 

national forests. And unless we act on this issue, many of those 

owners may be forced to abandon those cabins that have been in 

their families for many years. 

And I also want to thank Forest Service Chief Tidwell, with 

whom I met last week, and the Deputy Chief, who is here to 

testify, for their willingness for the Forest Service to work with us 

to find a legislative solution to this problem. 

The fee schedule spelled out in my bill was crafted to be balanced 

and fair to both the cabin owners and the Treasury. And I am more 

than willing to consider additional proposals, as long as they 

provide a simple, predictable system that does not result in fee 

increases that are beyond the reach of average Americans. I think 

that should be the goal for all of us. 

A number of my constituents are cabin owners, and I appreciate 

the input that I have received from them, along with cabin owners 

throughout the country. They worked together, and they brought 

this issue to our attention. 

Many of the private cabins on Forest Service land are simple, 

rustic structures. Many were built in the last century by grandparents of the current owners, and they are passed down, of course, 

from generation to generation. 

Although there may be a few that are large and showy, the overwhelming majority of these cabins are modest family retreats. And 

the purpose of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for these people, who are average Americans, as I mentioned: factory workers, 

retirees, teachers. But, of course, that won’t happen unless we 

address this problem. 

The cabin owners affected by this bill currently are charged an 

annual fee for the use of the land on which their cabin sits. They 

don’t get ownership rights to the land; they have only a temporary 

and highly restrictive use permit. So basically what they have is 

just the footprint for their cabin. 

Because of the limited-use permit, it is not comparable to the 

rights acquired when someone owns property in fee simple. It has 

proven impossible under current law to establish what I consider 

to be a fair process for setting the fees charged to these cabin owners; thus, the result of this legislation that I introduced. 

There is a story in my state where the Seattle Times talked 

about a family in Lake Wenatchee, which is in my district, where 

their fee schedule increased over 1,000 percent, from $1400 to 

$17,000. Well, that is obviously untenable, and fee increases like 

that, frankly, make it impossible for the cabin owner to even sell 

their property. And we simply don’t want to do that. We want to 

correct that in a way that, I think, is equitable to all. 

When the Forest Service established this policy nearly a century 

ago, they were trying to promote outdoor recreation. We want to 

continue that. Our national forests are multiple-use areas. They 

ought to be. Cabins on that land is part of that. 

3 

So Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you very much for scheduling this hearing. And I want to thank again Mr. Tidwell for 

working with us, and hopefully we can find a solution so this will 

be predictable in the future. 

And with that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, sir. Let me ask the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, if he has any 

comments. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let us begin with our first panelist, 

Mr. Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest Service, U.S. 

Forest Service. Thank you, sir, and I look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide 

the Department’s view of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010. 

We have provided written testimony for the record, and I would 

like to focus my remarks this morning on the benefits and the 

challenges of this bill. 

First of all, the benefits. Clearly, reduced appraisal costs for the 

Forest Service, and reduced administrative burden for the Forest 

Service. And that is a significant advantage of this bill. 

There is also, as Representative Hastings mentioned, a certainty 

for cabin owners is a key positive aspect of this bill. And we recognize those, and do look forward to continuing to work with you to 

come up with a solution that also addresses some of the concerns 

that I will mention in a moment, as well. 

And I also want to express my appreciation for the financial burdens that some cabin owners may face as a result of the implementation of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 that Congress 

passed. 

And I want to acknowledge our appreciation to the cabin owners, 

as well. They do bring lots of benefits to the National Forest System. They bring benefits such as volunteer services. They bring 

benefits such as economic benefits to local communities. And they 

bring benefits of connecting people to their natural world, and from 

generation to generation. Those benefits are considerable; they are 

important to us as an agency, and to us as a society; and we appreciate that very much. 

However, I also want Congress to understand that without a fee 

system that approximates market value, we will continue to see 

large profits from the sale of cabins, where cabin owners are in reality selling the value of the underlying lot. And we, the American 

people, own these lots, and not the cabin owners, as has already 

been mentioned. 

We do welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to develop 

a bill that is fair to cabin owners, the taxpayer, to users of the 

national forests, and can be administered without undue burden. 

I would like to just briefly mention five aspects of the bill that 

we have either concerns or suggestions about. 

4 

One is we would like to create one fee system for the entire 

National Forest System, not a fee system just for that portion of 

the National Forest System that has been derived from the public 

domain in another fee system for acquired lands. 

Second, we would like to have the consideration of perhaps increasing the fee amounts within each of the categories that are in 

the bill, as well as maybe adding to the numbers of categories in 

the bill, in order to better reflect markets. If fees, again, are below 

market value, cabin owners will be selling National Forest System 

lands when they sell their cabin. 

We would like to consider the elimination of the transfer fee for 

a couple of reasons. One, it would be administratively difficult for 

us to track the sales, and could be adding to a cumbersome administrative process. 

And, third, it also assumes that there is a value in the sale beyond the value of the cabin itself in the transfer fee. And again, 

if the fees approximate market values, then we would not have to 

be worrying about the transfer fee. 

I also would like to recognize and understand the administrative 

cost of administering this program. As Representative Hastings 

said, there are over 14,000 cabin owners, and we recognize that 

those cabin owners visit the forests many times in a year, and visit 

the forests with friends and family. So there are maybe as many 

as five million visitors that are associated with the cabin users. 

The National Forest System accommodates 175 million visits a 

year, and the cost of us administering the Cabin User Program is 

over 5 percent of our recreation budget. In the State of California 

it is over 15 percent of our recreation budget. And on the El Dorado 

National Forest alone, it is one third of our recreation budget. The 

El Dorado is in California. 

Fifth, I would like to recognize and understand the need for us 

to study the management of a very limited number of these recreation parcels or groups of parcels that may have lost their national 

forest character over time because of their proximity to neighboring 

subdivisions on private land, or for other reasons. 

And again, let me express there are certain advantages to this 

bill, such as reduced appraisal costs being a primary one, and certainty for the cabin owner another. And we do look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on adjusting to the concerns 

that I just raised, and some other technical changes that we would 

like to discuss. 

And I want to work with the Committee to develop a bill that 

is fair to the cabin owners, that is fair to the American people 

whose lands these cabins are on, and does not cause an undue burden for either the Forest Service or for the cabin owners. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:] 

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to provide the Department of Agriculture’s views on 

H.R. 4888, the Cabin Fee Act of 2010. The Department appreciates the over 14,000 

5 

cabin owners across the country and the recreational experiences they enjoy on the 

National Forests and Grasslands. 

H.R. 4888 would revise the procedures for determining the amount an owner of 

a cabin on the National Forests must pay to lease the underlying public property. 

The Department appreciates the financial burdens that some current cabin owners 

may face as a result of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA). However, 

H.R. 4888 presents challenges that I will discuss in further detail. The Department 

welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress to create a bill that is fair to cabin 

owners, other users of the National Forests, and the taxpayer, and that can be administered without undue burden on the agency or cabin owners. 

The bill would replace CUFFA on National Forest System lands reserved from the 

public domain. It would create five payment tiers, or categories and provide for an 

additional payment on the sale or transfer of the cabin. It would require the agency 

to place cabins in five categories utilizing appraisals that would be in place at the 

time of enactment. CUFFA would remain in place for cabins on acquired National 

Forest System lands. 

Before describing the challenges of this bill, it is important to consider the history 

of this program. In the early part of the twentieth century, the Forest Service began 

introducing Americans to the beauty and grandeur of their National Forests. One 

way to accomplish this objective was to permit individuals to build cabins for summertime occupancy within the National Forests. Cabin owners were permitted to occupy NFS land during the summer months in exchange for a fee. In 1915, the agency began to issue permits of up to twenty years for occupancy of NFS land. At that 

time, there was relatively little recreational use of the National Forests. Today, the 

National Forests host over 175 million visitors per year. When this recreational 

cabin program began, there was limited interest in building and owning a remote 

cabin on NFS land. Today, similar land at ski resorts, near lakes, and remote mountain settings are highly prized, selling for prices beyond the means of many Americans. In the early years, fees were nominal, but since the 1950’s, the Forest Service 

has been mandated to obtain fees approximating market value for the use of NFS 

land. Increasing fees have led to controversy and have resulted in enactment of multiple fee moratoriums and caps over the years. CUFFA was the latest attempt to 

achieve an equitable fee for the use of National Forest System land. 

CUFFA prescribes parameters for the appraisal process and fees under CUFFA 

are based on five percent of the appraised market value of the lot under permit. 

The agency began the appraisal process pursuant to CUFFA in 2007, and will be 

continuing that effort through 2012. As cabin owners received notice of the new fees, 

some have experienced dramatic increases because the old fees were based on appraisals completed ten to thirty years ago. In response, Congress included appropriations language for FY2010 which limited fee increases to no more than 25% of 

the fee paid in calendar year 2009. 

There are a number of examples of families who have had cabins for generations, 

but are having difficulty paying the new fees. However, there are also examples 

where low annual fees in the past have led to significant financial gains when cabin 

owners have sold their cabins for significantly more than the value of the structure, 

essentially benefiting from a lower than market value for their use of public land. 

When this occurs, cabin owners are, in effect, selling the location of their cabin, 

which is owned by the American people. Some cabins have sold at a premium price, 

only to be torn down by the new owner and replaced with a new structure. 

Here are our concerns with the bill as written: 

Different Fee Systems 

The bill applies to cabins on National Forest System lands reserved from 

the public domain which is the status of NFS land in much of the western 

US. However, the National Forest System also consists of lands acquired 

from other ownerships. Most of the eastern and mid-western National Forests are comprised of acquired lands. We estimate that seven to ten-percent 

of the estimated 14,000 cabins nationwide would be on a different fee system. To simplify the process and reduce the administrative burden, the Department requests that the same fee system apply to all cabins on all National Forest System lands. 

Fee Amount: Our analyses indicate that many of the proposed fees are less than 

those which would be paid under current law and below market value for many of 

the lots. As previously noted, fees below market value can lead to windfall profits 

when cabins are sold, as the sale prices will reflect the value of the locations as well 

as the value of the cabins. When the buyer of a cabin knows he or she will be paying 

market value for the location, prices tend to reflect only the value of the structure 

being conveyed. To reduce the likelihood of these profits, the proposed fee schedule 

6 

should include additional tiers or the fees within the tiers of the draft bill should 

be increased. Projections indicate that expected receipts under CUFFA are significantly more than that which H.R. 4888 would generate. In addition, to reduce the 

administrative burden of billing or reimbursing fees due to changes in the fee estimate, the Department requests that appraisals be updated as scheduled and in 

place prior to implementation of any new fee legislation. 

Additional Transfer Fees: H.R. 4888 requires the Department to verify the 

price at which these private cabins are sold and subsequently obtain a payment 

based on a percentage of the sale. The Department is concerned about the administrative challenges of obtaining this information, which in many localities is not public information, and collecting additional fees which creates an additional administrative burden. 

Cost of Administration: We appreciate that the bill acknowledges the financial 

burden on the agency. Under CUFFA the Department estimates that the annual 

cost of administering is from $500 to $700 per cabin plus approximately $1 million 

per year for appraisals. In California the administration of this program accounts 

for over fifteen percent of the total recreation budget. On the El Dorado National 

Forest, one third of the recreation budget is spent administering this program. 

While there are some 14,000 cabin owners, there are 175 million visitors to the National Forests each year. H.R. 4888 would reduce the administrative burden by 

eliminating the need for appraisals. This would increase the availability of funding 

in the recreation budget for the Forest Service to provide a quality experience and 

protect the environment for all who use the National Forests. 

Need to study cabin lots that may have lost their National Forest character: Over time, occupancy of some ‘‘summer’’ cabins has evolved into four-season 

use, particularly those located on the periphery of the National Forests. While yearround use remains contrary to agency policy, administration of these cabins can become more complex as owners desire typical public services found in residential subdivisions; such as electric, phone, cable, and sewer. In addition, their proximity and 

similarity to neighboring private subdivisions, suggests that some of these lots may 

have lost their National Forest character. The Department would like the opportunity to study this issue more carefully and to consider options to more effectively 

manage these areas. 

Technical Changes: Additionally, there are a number of additional technical 

suggestions which we would like to share with the Committee. 

That said we acknowledge that there are advantages to this bill from an administrative perspective. It would reduce the agency’s appraisal costs and it would provide certainty for cabin owners in terms of anticipated fees. Again, we welcome the 

opportunity to work with the Committee to develop legislation that is fair to the taxpayer, the cabin owner, and other users of the National Forests and Grasslands, and 

can be administered without undue burden on the agency or cabin owner 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Holtrop. Let me, back 

to the cost issue that you mentioned in one of the five areas that 

you felt needed change or consideration. 

First of all, how much does it currently cost the Forest Service 

to administer the residency program? And when CUFFA is fully 

administered, can you tell us approximately how much money the 

Forest Service expects the program to generate? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes. The answer to the first question is, we esti- mate an approximate cost of between $500 and $700 per cabin per 

year for us to administer the program. And at 14,000 cabins, that 

is between $7 and $10 million a year. 

And then, in addition to that, under the Cabin User Fee Fairness 

Act, the appraisal cost is approximately, maybe $10 million every 

10 years, and so maybe another million dollars a year for that. So 

somewhere in the $8 to $11 million-a-year range to administer the 

program. 

Under CUFFA, our anticipated revenues that the program would 

generate through the Treasury would be between $40 and $45 milVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
7 

lion. That is based simply on, we have, we have already done the 

appraisals on approximately 8,000 of the 14,000 residences. If the 

same average value amount were in place for the remaining 6,000, 

that would add up to an annual income of around $40 to $45 million. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And if the Forest Service is opposed to an additional transfer fee, how do you recapture value? How would the 

Agency, what would you recommend, how are we capturing value 

if there is opposition to the transfer fee? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I think the way for us to capture value is to establish a fair market value, establish the percentage of that fair market value, which under CUFFA is 5 percent, which was established, and charge a fee for the permits that approximates market 

value. And that should generate the types of funds that are appropriate. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Hastings pointed out the one example of the 

1,000 percent fee increase. About what percentage of the cabin fees 

right now are more than $6,000 a year? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I do have a chart that shows. And again, this is 

based on the approximately 8,000 of the cabins that have been appraised under CUFFA to date. 

Those that are, what was the question, over $6,000? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. What percentage? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Those that are over $6,000 is approximately 10 

percent. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I yield to Mr. Hastings first? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. And Chief Holtrop, thank you for your 

testimony. 

I just wanted to clarify. I am inferring from your testimony that 

you don’t necessarily, you know, oppose the fee structure. But one 

of the concerns is, my words, the revenue neutrality. In other 

words, you don’t want it to cost any more. If we can figure out a 

way, with this fee, to make it revenue-neutral, that would be a 

win-win for both sides. Is that essentially correct? 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is correct. But I am also interested in having 

the fee structure represent a fair market value. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I understand that. And you are going through 

that process. You have what, roughly three fourths or just about 

three fourths of the appraisals done? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Sixty percent, approximately. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Sixty percent, roughly, OK. Just a question. With 

the real estate market going down, have you seen a change in the 

appraisals here, the current appraisals compared to, say, ones that 

were done a year or so ago? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I would expect that there is some reflection of 

that, over time. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. Well, that is going to be the challenge, is trying to figure that out. Because you have to have a starting point. 

And once you have a starting point, I think that everything hopefully, at least with the idea that we had with this, the tiered system, will, in the future, level itself out, you know, with sales and 

so forth. And we can work with you on that. 

8 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. And I also think having a starting 

point that is, that is fair and makes sense. And right now, those 

cabins that have not been appraised under CUFFA, some of those 

appraisals go back to the early 1980s. And so that is one of the 

technical corrections that we want to work with you on, as to how 

to make sure that we don’t have a tier system that is based, on 

some cases, on a value that is a couple of decades or more old, and 

some that are based on values that are a couple years old. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, I agree with you. But I will make a prediction that when we go through that process and finally come up 

with something, there will be some that will be upset. 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is probably a very safe assumption. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Grace just said that is not going to be the case, 

so I hope that is good. 

And finally, I just want to ask this. The Forest Service has no 

intention of shutting down this program at all; that was never the 

intention. 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We value this program. Like I mentioned, we 

value the volunteer services that the cabin owners provide for us 

in the locations of the cabins, and beyond those locations. We value 

the economic benefits that they bring to communities. And we 

value the way that they are, that is one of the ways that the 

National Forest System is helping the American public become connected to their natural world. We value that. 

There are some of the cabin lots and combinations of lots that 

may have lost their national forest character, and we want to look 

at whether there is some appropriate other way of dealing with 

that. But that in no means is indicative of a desire to do away with 

the program. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. Well, I appreciate that. I just wanted to get 

that on the record so we are sure. Because as I mentioned in my 

opening remarks, this is nearly a century-old program. And clearly, 

at least hearing from my constituency, it is a program of those that 

have those cabins, and the fact that they are passed down, many 

of them, from generation to generation, it certainly demonstrates 

that there is some value to that. But I just wanted to get to clarify 

that. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I am listening 

with a great interest. 

What is the number of cabins that you normally have leased out, 

roughly? 

Mr. HOLTROP. About 14,000 on the National Forest System as a 

whole. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Fourteen thousand. Of those six are over the 

10 percent of that 6,000? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Approximately 10 percent of those 14,000 would likely be paying an annual fee of $6,000 or more per year. That is 

based on the 8,000 that we have appraised to date. 

9 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A lot of these—and I am listening to Doc Hastings—indicated that a lot of these are handed down generation to 

generation. Are they grandfathered in terms of being able to pay? 

Or is this a standard fee that you impose based on location, based 

on area, whatever? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, that is an excellent question. Ever since the 

1950s we have been required to be charging for the permit, and it 

is based on an appraisal of the land value. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. HOLTROP. And so we are, we appraise the land. We contract 

with certified appraisers who do the appraisal process of the land. 

And what CUFFA accomplished in 2000 was updating an appraisal process. And up until we started implementing the appraisals under CUFFA, the fees were being based on appraisals that 

were done in the 1980s, to a large extent. 

And so now, with the new appraisals, in many cases, of course, 

the fees are going up, and in some cases they are going up dramatically. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then none of these are grandfathered in 

terms of payment of the lease? 

Mr. HOLTROP. They are passed on, the permit is passed on from 

family to family, generation to generation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But not the amount paid for the lease. 

Mr. HOLTROP. But the fee is something that we—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is standard. 

Mr. HOLTROP.—determine based on the current law of the land. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. I understand the upkeep and the maintenance is up to the lessor. I mean, the lessee. Are any of those being 

checked to ensure that they are maintained at least to some degree 

of viability, in case of fire or—you understand. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, I do. That is a condition of the permit, and 

that is part of the cost of administering the program that, in answer to the Chairman’s question, I was talking about. We approximate between $500 and $700 per year per cabin to 

administer the program. Part of that administration is visiting the 

cabin, checking on the compliance with things. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How often? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Pardon me? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How often? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, it depends on, it depends. It is location-specific. We generally have an expectation that at least once a year a 

Forest Service officer will visit a cabin to check on it. Whether that 

is accomplished in all cases, I am unable to say for sure. But in 

many cases, I think it happens far more often. 

It is somewhat dependent upon whether the owner of the cabin 

is proposing some adjustment, whether they want to add a deck or 

upgrade a driveway or something like that. That requires far more 

visits than somebody who is just, that is just maintaining the status quo over time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Now, are these individual grandfathered residents of those cabins able to sublease to others that are not descendants? 

Mr. HOLTROP. No. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Sublet? Rent? 

10 

Mr. HOLTROP. There is some limited amount of—— 

VOICE. Depending on the region, there is some ability to, in the 

short term—— 

Mr. HOLTROP. There is some limited short-term opportunity to do 

some subleasing. But generally, that is not the purpose of the—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have a percentage, approximate percentage, of those? No? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I certainly don’t. And I don’t think we can provide 

that right now, but I would be happy to look into that and get you 

an answer. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Because if they are subleasing, they are 

asking for more money than they are paying. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t have information to either deny or agree 

with that. And I think it is a fairly limited—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would be nice to know, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I will get you the information. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much. Then, I am just 

barely—how is the revenue currently used? And what adjustments 

would have to be made if this is enacted and costing the program 

to generate the $20 million less? 

Mr. HOLTROP. If the question—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The revenue. 

Mr. HOLTROP. It is a question of the fees from CUFFA? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. HOLTROP. The fees from CUFFA go to the Treasury. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Would that cause any problems for the— 

well, then you get your revenue from the Treasury. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, we get it through Appropriations. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate it. I think the hearing so 

far has—first of all, may I ask unanimous consent to have a statement from Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers submitted to the 

record? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 

I would like to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings, for his work on this 

issue. When the U.S. Forest Service’s Recreation Residence program was established 

almost 100 years ago (1915), it was intended to allow American families to enjoy 

our nation’s treasures for years to come. In fact, there are more than 14,000 cabin 

owners from all walks of life enjoying our national forests today. Yet, many of them 

face the real possibility of having to sell or abandon their cabins because of unpredictable fee increases. H.R. 4888 will bring stability to the appraisal process and 

ultimately to the calculation of annual fees for these cabin owners. 

Yet, there is a related issue that is not addressed by H.R. 4888 and that is the 

calculation of fees for cabin owners leasing land from the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Similar to the disparity in cabin fee increases on forest service land, many cabin 

owners on reclamation land are facing steep fee increases. For example, in Eastern 

Washington, cabin owners on Lake Conconully have been subjected to what seems 

to be discretionary fee increases over the years, with fees rising from approximately 

$700 to anywhere between $1,800 and $3,300 annually. For many of the older fixed 

income folks, these increases will be devastating. 

Of particular concern is the lack of uniformity in calculating fees. For example, 

the Bureau of Reclamation manages approximately 500-600 cabins in 10-15 sites 

around the west. It appears that these fees are calculated using the fair market 

11 

value of adjoining property. However, at Lake Conconully, fees have been calculated 

using the fair market value of adjoining agricultural property. Moreover, in addition 

to the properties specifically managed by the Bureau, the Bureau has also entered 

into an unknown number of agreements that authorize entities to manage property. 

These managing partners in turn rent to cabin owners. It is my understanding that 

these managing partners have the ability to enter into their own agreements with 

cabin owners, including setting their own fee structures. The disparity in fee calculation across the nation is concerning. 

I would like to work with the Ranking Member to address this fee disparity on 

reclamation land as H.R. 4888 moves forward. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I think there are two things 

I have learned so far. Number one is, I am grateful my in-laws 

have a cabin, even though I don’t use it very much; and I am grateful they did it on private land. 

Number two, I am grateful I was not—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I am grateful I was not here when CUFFA was 

passed, so I don’t have to bear that burden. 

I would like to ask you for some documents. Not that you have 

any I want, it is just, it is tradition. So if you can get me a document some time, that would be kind. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I would be happy to oblige. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let me ask two serious questions, though, 

if I could. 

You stated that the administrative cost was $500 to $700 per 

cabin. Does that include the appraisal cost, or is that outside of the 

other appraisal cost? 

Mr. HOLTROP. That was just the yearly administration. It does 

not include the appraisal cost. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the appraisal cost is approximately about $10 

million every 10 years, under CUFFA. What is it that you do that 

costs $500 to $700 per year per cabin? 

Mr. HOLTROP. We visit the cabin on an annual basis. We have 

conversations with the cabin owners about any improvements that 

they want to make to the cabin, to make sure that those improvements would continue to be consistent with the permit. And the objectives of the permit is largely to make sure that the, that the lots, 

the several lots together will continue to have national forest character. And so we are, so it is the on-the-ground administration of 

the permit. 

There is the issuing of the permit. There is the issuing of the 

bills for the permits. There is the response to cabin owners if they 

have an objection to the permit fee, et cetera. 

Mr. BISHOP. Could I make the assumption that there would be 

administrative cost savings if they were no longer faced with constant appraisals, reappraisals, legal challenges? Would there be an 

actual savings that would occur to the Forest Service? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I do see one of the advantages of this, of the proposed bill as reducing our costs for appraisals over time, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I do appreciate your willingness to work with 

Congressman Hastings to move this forward and work out some of 

these details. I think that is very positive, and I appreciate that 

very much. 

When the appraisal, as you said, it is only on the land; it is not 

on the value of the cabin, per se. 

12 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And therefore, you have to come up with a fair market value on the land. Can I ask, because appraisal is as much art 

as it is science. And it is based on what has sold in other areas 

very close to it, at least if you are going into the private sector and 

appraising a house. 

What is the base line that you use to make the assumption of 

fair market value when you are dealing with the Forest Service, 

and there is no private sector competition for that particular piece 

of land? How do you make the base assumption of what is a fair 

market value for a piece of property within government-owned 

land? 

Mr. HOLTROP. First of all, I am not a land appraiser myself. But 

we do contract with certified land appraisers who, the process that 

they go through, as I understand it, is they look for comparable lots 

that have sold in the area. In some cases that is actually quite easy 

to do, and there are comparable lots. And in other places it is—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Comparable lots within the Forest Service? 

Mr. HOLTROP. No. Outside of the Forest Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, I interrupted you. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, I believe that is correct. I am looking at our 

chief appraiser to make sure I said that correctly. 

VOICE. Whatever is the closest you can find to be competitive. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any inside the national forests as comps? 

VOICE. Well, certainly within the bounds of the national parks, 

yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. But private land-only comps. And you feel comfortable that is an apples-to-apples comparison? Or is there obviously going to be some kind of dissidence between public land 

versus private land? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, there are, I think I am comfortable that it 

is consistent with current appraisal processes in many settings. 

And I think it is, I think what CUFFA also includes is, if there is 

a dissatisfaction with the appraisal amount, it can be appealed, 

and we will look at an independent appraisal other than the one, 

the appraiser that we contracted with. 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand—that is not quite what I asked, but 

I do appreciate this, as my time is running out here, and I am not 

going to extend it. I do appreciate your willingness to move forward 

on this legislation and try and work out some of these details. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Costa, any questions? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the 

privilege of sitting in with the Subcommittee and the Ranking 

Member. This is an issue that, in various parts of the West, I think 

has significance. And the legislation that I am a co-sponsor with, 

with Doc Hastings, I think is an attempt to try to clear up what 

has been problematic for the 14,000 cabin owners in the West 

who—not just the West actually. There are some other parts of the 

country, as well, that are on public lands, that go back to 1915. 

Cabin owners have always I think strived to get back to their 

communities on the forest lands in which their cabins are, to help 

preserve the national forest where their cabins lie. And I know that 

in California, which is what my experience is, the cabin owners 

13 

have provided a great deal of time and effort to volunteer activities 

that include volunteer fire departments, museums, and other voluntary efforts to work with enhancing the forest that not only they 

and their families and friends use, but that the public uses. Because oftentimes there are adjacent campgrounds that the public 

uses. 

I would like to get in a couple of questions here in my time, with 

our first witness. And we appreciate your input as to how we can 

make this measure work and have the support of the Administration. 

The tier system that we have set up in the bill I think frankly 

is something that we can all work on. Does the Forest Service see 

the benefit of maintaining the cabin program? I guess that is the 

first threshold question. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Absolutely, we do. 

Mr. COSTA. Wonderful. So do I. Are there additional changes to 

the program that you would like to see occur beyond what we have 

outlined in our bill and in your testimony? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Just some technical improvements that aren’t outlined in detail in my testimony. But the improvements, the changes 

that we would like to see are included in the testimony. 

Mr. COSTA. Could you, and when you provide that technical information, also inform us on how the cabin owners can be helpful 

to the Forest Service in making this program work, and on an ongoing basis? 

I think that what has happened with the original Act and the 

lack of implementation in an orderly fashion has created a whole 

lot of frustration, and in some cases, deep concern that cabins that 

have been in families for generations are going to be lost. These are 

not palatial homes; these tend to be, at least in California, from my 

experience, rustic and modest, but yet a wonderful place to go and 

to experience the outdoors. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I would be happy to continue to work on identifying how the owners of these cabins can continue to help serve our 

national forest mission. And I agree with what you are saying. 

Mr. COSTA. Many of the cabin owners have indicated that as the 

current fee structure moves forward, they will have to look to sell 

or abandon their cabins. Do you have any anticipation of permits 

that the Forest Service believes might be lost under the current 

structure? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t have any specific information on this. I do 

know that the National Forest Homeowners Association has done 

a survey of their membership, and I would defer to their information. 

Mr. COSTA. They think 5 percent to 10 percent is what I have 

heard, or more. That could be a loss of $8 to $9 million in revenue. 

So, and the appraisals my colleague and friend from Utah I think 

centered in on. I mean, I think that is a problem, and we hope to 

facilitate this. 

You have indicated in conversations that I have had with you 

that the appraisals are a problem. Is that not the case? Time-consuming? 

Mr. HOLTROP. The appraisals, they are time-consuming. As Mr. 

Bishop’s questions indicated, they are controversial in many cases. 

14 

But I do believe that some establishment of fair market value before—— 

Mr. COSTA. No, we need to do that. 

Mr. HOLTROP.—the system is in place—— 

Mr. COSTA. I don’t think there is a disagreement there. If we expanded it beyond the five tiers to a sixth and seventh tier, do you 

think that would be more helpful? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I do. 

Mr. COSTA. You do, OK. What percentage I guess in how we 

meet a happy medium or a comfort zone is, have you given that 

some thought since our last discussion? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, we have, both since our last discussion and 

in preparation for this hearing, and in ongoing conversations with 

the National Forest Homeowners Association. 

Mr. COSTA. And are you prepared to provide that information? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I think, if I am understanding the question—— 

Mr. COSTA. Or you did before I got here? 

Mr. HOLTROP.—things like additional tiers and understanding— 

maybe you should repeat the question. I might not be catching 

what it is you are asking. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, what I am trying to do is to figure out if we 

go from five—my time has run out—but if we go from five tiers to 

six or seven tiers, what the percentage or the breakdown, in terms 

of finding that happy medium, would be. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, yes. We have done analysis of what that 

would be, how much, what the value of different tiers in order to 

have something in which the cabin owners would not have to pay 

significantly more than they would under CUFFA. 

Mr. COSTA. And make it pay-go neutral on that? 

Mr. HOLTROP. We are continuing to work on that. And yes, we 

have some information we can share. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the time 

here. And I appreciate working with your Subcommittee, and I 

think this is an opportunity to put together a bipartisan bill that 

can fix this problem. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Mr. Inslee, any questions? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes, thank you. Do you think the goal of the tier, 

if we go to a tier system for its administrative convenience, should 

the goal be to come as close as possible to fair market value? 

Should that be the goal? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I think that ought to be one of the goals, yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. So right now, under Mr. Hastings’s proposal, it has 

tier five, and it would have a fee amount of $4,000 per year. How 

would that relate to fair market value the way this is set up? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I think in a vast majority of cases, that might be 

sufficient. However, I believe that there are some lots in which fair 

market value is considerably more than $4,000, and that is part of 

the rationale of providing for additional tiers that may go up to 

maybe as much as $6,000. 

Mr. INSLEE. So it is just a matter of the more tiers we have, the 

more difficult it will be, but the closer it will be to fair market 

value, I guess. 

15 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I am not, I think the closer it will be to fair 

market value, and the closer we will be able to be fair to each of 

the cabin owners that somebody is paying similar amounts of 

money for similar right on a similar property. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you would suggest consideration of more tiers to 

be closer, then, I take it? Closer to the fair market value? 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is correct. 

Mr. INSLEE. OK. And when you told us that there is a per-cabin 

administrative cost of $500 to $700 annually, would that continue 

with this tier system? If we have a tier system, would that expense 

continue? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Why? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Because that expense is just the annual process of 

managing the program and managing the permits. So it is visiting 

the sites, administering the sites to make sure that the cabin is 

being maintained in a manner that is consistent with the permit. 

It is the billing process. It is the issuing of the permits when there 

is a change in property. There is the paperwork that is associated, 

that we have to do in the changing permits, et cetera. 

Mr. INSLEE. You actually make annual visits to all these cabins? 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is, that is our expectation. I can’t tell you for 

sure that we do, but you know, many of the cabins are in locations 

in which there are hundreds of them together in one subdivisionlike area. So in a short number of days you can visit numerous cabins, and ensure that there is a lot of consistency in a short period 

of time. 

Again, as I was mentioning earlier, the circumstances are different, depending on whether the cabin is just being maintained on 

a regular basis and there are no changes; or if there is fuels work 

that needs to be done on the property around the cabin; if the cabin 

owners are looking at adding a deck, or wanting to put a new roof 

on, and there are aspects of those activities that we have to make 

sure that it is being done in a fire-resistant manner and continues 

to be consistent with the national forest character. 

Mr. INSLEE. So if you look at the total cost of this program compared to total revenues right now, what is the net for the Forest 

Service? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, the revenues for the program under CUFFA, 

we don’t get revenues from the program. That goes to the—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I am talking about the Federal government. Is 

there a net positive for the Federal government on this? Considering the expenses associated with the program. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, yes. I estimate the cost to administer the program on an annual basis to be between $8 and $11 million. And 

the benefits that come from, if we were to implement CUFFA, the 

benefits, the value to the Federal government would be in the $40 

to $45 million range. Based on current amount of appraisals done. 

Mr. INSLEE. And with the tiers as the bill is currently structured, 

could you suggest, are these tiers, you know, basically the average 

fair market value? Or are they, if you add them all up, are they 

lower than the current fair market value, or higher? What is your 

sort of assessment of the numbers? 

16 

Mr. HOLTROP. I think at the low end of the tiers, they are consistent with fair market value. I think at the high end, under 

CUFFA we have some, as has been mentioned, there are some 

properties that the value of the property is appraised considerably 

higher. There was one example mentioned today where the annual 

fee would be $17,000. There are a few anomalies like that. 

The number of fees that are greater than $10,000 is a very, very 

small percentage of the cabins. But there are like 10 percent of the 

cabins that would appraise at $6,000 or more on an annual fee 

basis. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. And I love the pin you are wearing in 

your lapel there; it looks pretty good this morning. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. Would you like one? 

Mr. INSLEE. Happy Earth Day. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. 

Mr. INSLEE. Happy Earth Day, and thanks for your work. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. INSLEE. You know, and I hope that we can pass a Clean 

Energy Bill this year so that we have a few trees left in our 

national forests, and the beetles don’t kill them all. I really hope 

that we get that job done. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Ms. Lummis, any questions? 

Ms. LUMMIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. LUMMIS. It looks to me like the Forest Service and the cabin 

owners might be using two different assumptions to reach their 

conclusions about financial implications of the CUFFA bill. 

The cabin owners are assuming that there will be abandonment 

if CUFFA continues unmodified. So my question is this. What assumptions on continued cabin ownership did the Forest Service use 

in its projections of receipts under CUFFA? 

Mr. HOLTROP. In our projections of receipts, we assumed that all 

the cabins would continue to be under permit. We did not assume 

any abandonment. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK, that is helpful. That helps explain some of the 

differences. 

The cabin owners have assumed a loss of 15 percent of total cabins if CUFFA is not modified. Does the Forest Service have procedures in place to handle cabin abandonment in the event that the 

cabin owners are correct, and 15 percent of those cabins would be 

left? And if so, what is the cost to deal with abandonment, to the 

Forest Service? 

Mr. HOLTROP. We do have policies and procedures in place to 

deal with abandonment. I don’t know off the top of my head, and 

would be happy to do some checking to be able to answer the question about what would be our projected cost of abandonment. 

There are various—if the assumption is, and again, we are not 

aware of any abandonments that have occurred under CUFFA. But 

we have not sought that out. I do defer to the Homeowner Association’s work with their membership to determine that. 

I think there are, if a family gets into the unfortunate circumstance where they can’t afford the fee—and again, I consider 

that an unfortunate circumstance, for sure. But if that were to be 

17 

the case, abandonment, of course, is not their only option. Selling 

the cabin is another option. And I do recognize that this is a difficult market to sell second homes in, both whether those are on 

the national forest or elsewhere. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, one more question. The 

appraisal process takes five to seven years, and must be redone 

every 10 years, according to existing law. It seems to me that completion of the appraisal timeline would subject some owners to the 

higher fees, awaiting completion. 

If that is the case, we would still need to issue reimbursements. 

So my question is, how quickly after completion of an appraisal is 

the owner subject to paying the new fee? 

Mr. HOLTROP. It is within a year, in the next year. That is the 

fee that we charge, based on the appraisal. Now, but that is subject 

to a couple of opportunities that CUFFA provides the cabin owner 

to appeal and seek an independent appraisal. And so that would 

put that in abeyance while that goes on. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Would it be possible to simply freeze current fees 

until the appraisal schedule is complete? And then assign owners 

into the appropriate tiers that are outlined in the bill? 

Mr. HOLTROP. That would require, that would require legislation, 

in my opinion, in order for us to do that. There are a couple of aspects of the freezing of that I would be concerned about, just to 

point out. 

One is it would continue the reliance on, for many of the cabins, 

on appraisals that were based back in the 1980s. And at some 

point in time when we have a more recent appraisal that is more 

reflective of the current market value, the longer the period of time 

from when the previous appraisal was to the newest appraisal, I 

think it is just going to exacerbate the change in fees over time. 

And then the second aspect of a freeze at this point is recognize 

that approximately 8,000 of the 14,000 lots have been appraised 

under CUFFA. That means 6,000 haven’t. And if there is a freeze 

on the current appraisal aspect, we would have some that, there 

would be, we would be freezing in place some discrepancy between 

those cabin owners that have had their appraisals already done 

under CUFFA, and those who have not. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK. Mr. Chairman, one more question in this 

round. We have heard from owners in Wyoming that appraisers are 

using comparable lots in out-markets that are quite dissimilar. For 

example, a lot in Cody was compared to a lot near Pinedale. And 

those are very dissimilar in terms of their economic situation, one 

being in a very, very active oil- and gas-producing area, and the 

one being in more of a tourist area. And then in some areas, an 

appraiser is difficult to find. 

What is the Forest Service’s protocol for establishing comparable 

properties and lots when undertaking an appraisal? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I would prefer to provide that answer in writing, 

to make sure that we have all the technical aspects of that correct. 

But in general, our protocol is to look for comparable lots that are 

as similar as possible. As earlier questions indicated, there are 

some difficulties of doing that when you are dealing with National 

Forest System lands and looking for comparable locations that are 

not on the national forests. 

18 

But the summary of our protocol is we use the best data available. And if, and sometimes that best data available leads to a fair 

market value that is based on lots that clearly are very comparable; and sometimes it is less, the best data available may not 

be as good. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if we have a subsequent round, I have some additional questions. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Kildee, any comments, questions? 

Mr. KILDEE. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we have 

a situation here where we can find an appropriate and reasonable 

fix for this. And I look forward to working with you and the Ranking Member to try to arrive at that fix. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Mr. McClintock, questions? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I would just like to offer the observation that 

of all the complaints I have about the Forest Service, the rapid escalation of fees vastly, vastly disproportionate to inflation or any 

other rational cost of living scheme has been number one. 

I would just like to offer my strong support of this measure, on 

behalf of constituents who are literally being priced out of cabins 

that they have been renting for decades. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just back to the question the gentlelady had asked 

about appraisals. I am just not quite clear. 

These, the cabins are, I guess if you are looking for an equivalent 

in the private sector, not on public lands, it would have to be something like a condominium. Because, you know, they don’t have 

right to the land, you know, they don’t have a permanent right. 

Well, it is not even exactly equivalent to a condominium, because 

they have no permanent right to the dwelling. They have very restrictive covenants in terms of use, you know, rental, a whole host 

of things. 

So when you do these, I mean, when they do that appraisal and 

they look for something that is, you know, equivalent, how are you 

doing that? Where are you finding them? Because there really isn’t 

anything equivalent. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, what CUFFA instructed us to do is base the 

appraisal on the value of the land; and that 5 percent is below 

what traditionally would be charged on private land. That lower fee 

was to make up for the differences in the rights of the cabin owners 

on their land. That is one of those areas where we have had difficulty in reaching agreement with the cabin owners on whether 

that is an appropriate approach or not. But that is our legal interpretation of what CUFFA has required us to do. So we don’t take 

the reductions in the appraisal. We do in the 5 percent fee, by taking a 5 percent fee. 

Now, there is an exception to that. If we specifically close an area 

because of an area closure for fire purposes or whatever, we do reduce the appraisal of the land based on the amount of time that 

the cabin owner is able to use the lot. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, would that take into account a cabin on a 

high altitude off of an unplowed Forest Service road in the wintertime, too? 

Mr. HOLTROP. No, no. 

19 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That doesn’t count. So you figure they are just 

going to come in on a snowmobile or something, or ski in. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Or snowshoes, snowmobile. Or, you know again, as 

CUFFA instructed, to only charge 5 percent of the appraisal value 

to account for that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can we go back also to the administrative costs? 

I am really having a struggle with that. I just don’t see how it 

could be $500 to $700 per year per dwelling. You know, you have 

specific employees detailed to this program who spend, you know, 

full time doing it? How long would it take to look at any individual 

property or cabin? I mean, if they are not remote from one another, 

one would assume that you could do a large number in a day. And 

I don’t think too many of your employees are getting paid $500 a 

day. 

So I am bemused. I mean, is this one of those exercises where 

we assume that you spend 10 percent of your time, or 5 percent 

of your time thinking about this program; therefore, 5 percent of 

your salary counts as overhead, and 5 percent of, you know, all 

your staff counts as overhead? And so you work all the way down 

in the organization until you actually get to the person who does 

the work, who doesn’t get paid all that much, and you say oh, well, 

the costs of this one lease are $500 to $700. Is that how it works? 

Mr. HOLTROP. No. The costs that I am talking about are the direct costs of the administration of the program. There is generally—I worked on a ranger district in the Mount Hood National 

Forest many years ago, in which there were several hundred recreation residences on that ranger district. We had a GS-11 who was 

pretty much an assistant ranger-level position, who was pretty 

much assigned to working on that program on a year-round basis. 

There is not just the site visit and the administration of the cabins. When there are several hundred cabin owners, there are many 

of those who want to do improvements to their lot. And that requires, under the permit, that requires additional interaction. So it 

can take several days of interactions on a specific permit. 

There is also the billing process, and the paperwork associated 

with issuing the permits and the paperwork associated with 

issuing the billings. And then if there are concerns or questions 

about the billings, the visits and the telephone calls and the response to the questions on the billing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If someone is applying to do improvements, do they 

pay for a permit? 

Mr. HOLTROP. For the permit, the permit allows certain, the permit with us allows them to do certain improvements. And they pay 

for the permit based on the appraisal of the land. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, no. But what I am saying is if I have, that 

is my, that is the routine recurrent cost. If I want to do another 

improvement that requires your approval, just like where I live in 

a city, I have to apply to the city. They send out an inspector, and 

I have to pay a fee that covers, more than covers the cost of that 

person’s salary. My city makes money on these things, and use it 

for other bureaucracy. 

So perhaps, you know, you could look at if that is part of the 

problem, then maybe for those who aren’t doing or requiring more 

of your time or your staff’s time, to actually have them pay a fee, 

20 

just like they would in a comparable situation in a county or a city 

because they want to do an improvement. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We don’t have the authority to do that at this 

point, but that is one of the solutions. That could be something we 

could do. 

I believe the cabin owners, if they are going to do some improvement, there may be in some cases some local government fees that 

they have to pay to the local government for some of that. But that 

is not for, that is not something that comes to us. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Lummis, you had other follow-up questions? 

And let me extend to the other Members, if you have follow-up 

questions, this would be the time. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I do think Mr. DeFazio 

is on to something, so I want to run with that line of questioning. 

County assessors tend to use, at least in my county and most, 

I believe, around the country, a computer-assisted mass-appraisal 

process, where they have factors plugged into a computerized massreappraisal system that would look at square footage, quality of 

construction, market conditions in the area, as assisting them in 

appraising. 

Now, in areas where a Forest Service-approved appraiser may 

not be readily available, so an appraisal that a cabin owner disputes might not get a visit from a Forest Service-approved reappraiser that is paid for by the cabin owner for quite some time, 

during which time they would be paying a higher fee, would it 

make some sense to adopt some of the same principles as a county 

assessor uses? To use these computer-assisted mass-appraisal processes. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We would certainly be willing to work with you to 

explore that option. I do want to point out that those, the examples 

that you just mentioned were examples around the value of the 

structure, and we are not appraising the value of the structure. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Oh. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We are appraising the value of the land. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Oh. OK. And excuse me for misunderstanding that. 

Mr. HOLTROP. That is quite all right. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK. What are the criteria for an appraiser to be an 

approved Forest Service appraiser? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I don’t have that information at my fingertips, but 

I can certainly get that for you. But there are certainly requirements that they need to be licensed, and that they have to be certified by the state in which the appraisal is occurring. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, do they have to be an MAI appraiser? They don’t, OK. 

Mr. HOLTROP. No. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Wouldn’t the Cabin Fee Act just eliminate all this 

confusion? 

Mr. HOLTROP. The Cabin Fee Act has many advantages, in terms 

of providing certainty of how much the cabin owners would be paying on an annual basis over time. It has the advantage of reducing 

the uncertainty and the controversy around the appraisal process. 

But there still does need to be some process in which there is, 

before the cabins are put into the various tiers, how you establish 

21 

which tiers they ought to go in, there has to be some basis of a fair 

market value that has to be determined at that point. 

So, but over time, I think there would be many advantages that 

would take us out of this. Because you know, 10 years from now, 

under CUFFA, we would be doing this again. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, if you are just appraising the land, 

there is a certain added value, I would think, to the exclusivity of 

the setting, in that, you know, you don’t have any neighbors because it is Forest Service land. Does that factor into these values? 

Because it is sort of a condition precedent. It is on Forest Service 

land. 

So if you are, in essence, providing a higher value to the land because it is so exclusive, and yet by its very nature it is exclusive 

because it is Forest Service land, it is pretty circular. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes. But no, we do not specifically raise the appraisal value because it is National Forest System land. What we 

look for are comparable properties that have, for instance, if there 

is, if it is a cabin on National Forest System land, and it is pretty 

isolated by itself without neighbors, we are looking for comparable 

private sites that would be consistent with that. 

We have many of our cabin owners that the cabins are actually 

in subdivision-like settings, as well. In those cases we are looking 

for comparable lots on private land that are in a comparable setting. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me 

ask these questions. This has really cleared up some of my own 

misconceptions, so I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Costa, you had some follow-up questions? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, thank you. The conundrum that you are in, 

though, in the example that was just stated, because I know a 

number of areas where you have Forest Service land, but you have 

some historical event that occurred in which there is private land 

that is there. And so when you are, and Doc Hastings cited a case 

up in his area, and in Washington we have a similar case that I 

am familiar with where we have 90 acres that is isolated private 

land, where there are condominiums and some cabins. And they 

get fee title to the land, and they actually own, they own something. But everything around it is Forest Service land. 

So when you are doing a comparable appraisal, it is not really 

comparable in the sense that, because people have fee title to the 

land, they actually built a dwelling, and they own it. So I think 

that is an issue that needs to be reflected here. 

I am also pleased that Congressman DeFazio explained that 

some of these are seasonal. I mean, you have maybe six months’ 

use of the cabin, realistically, because of the remoteness, the snow 

conditions, and other factors where they are located. 

Getting back to the, I guess bemused was an interesting description of how you assess these fees. Because in some of the instances 

I am familiar with, what the Forest Service has is an administrative office in the area; they manage the whole forest, they manage 

trails, they manage, they rescue lost hikers. They focus on lakes, 

and they work with Fisheries and state and other agencies to plant 

trout and do all sorts of, and maintain the campgrounds. There are 

22 

just a multitude of efforts. And the cabin owners, when they are 

adjacent in those areas, provide value-added in that sense. 

But just as I am familiar with that because in this one area it 

is seasonal, you have in the springtime a meeting with the cabin 

owners. There are two or three hundred cabin owners in one area. 

You guys come down; you have two or three of your guys, you have 

an hour meeting. You have a notice, everybody is on the list. These 

are the rules for this year. On May 30 or June 15, everybody has 

to clean their pine needles from their thing. 

I mean, it is a whole, it is not like you are visiting up in the 

cabin, and you are saying OK, well you know, I am checking off 

this. You have the cabin owners down. And this is a regular, annual part of the administration. So you are not going cabin to cabin 

for 300 cabins. You have them on the mail list, they get on the mail 

list. You have got emails. I mean, there is an association on this 

track-by-track basis. So the $500 to $700 per year administrative cost, it just, I guess 

the line of questioning that Mr. DeFazio was focused on I think 

more accurately reflects what is going on here, as opposed to what 

this is really costing. I guess I am trying to get a sense on how you, 

the way you do this systematically, to the degree where you have 

clusters of cabins located in an area. Is it not, is that not the way 

you deal with these administrative issues? 

Mr. HOLTROP. It is, it certainly is a way that we deal with the 

administrative issues. And I also want to acknowledge, I agree 

with you that the value that the cabin owners bring to the management of the National Forest System. 

But there still is, there is on-site visitation that does occur. I 

think our process does require our administrators of the permit 

process to visit every cabin once a year. There is a cost associated 

with traveling to get to the cabins, et cetera. 

Mr. COSTA. Does a visit include just driving by? 

Mr. HOLTROP. In those cases in which the cabin has been in the 

current state, and has many years of being in sharp compliance 

with the permit for years, I would expect one of our permit administrators to do some prioritizing that that is a cabin that I don’t 

have to spend as much time on. But if next door there is a cabin 

in which they are building a deck or doing something additional, 

that is going to take some additional work by the administrator. 

I am told we do have a study that lays out the details of the cost 

of administering the cabin program, that we can get a copy of it 

to all of you. 

Mr. COSTA. Please submit it to the Subcommittee and to all of 

us. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLTROP. OK, I will do that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Any other Members have follow-up questions? Mr. 

DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just, well, it is more an observation, though you 

may want to respond. I am just looking at a list of Oregon appraisals, and most of them were done in 2007 and 2008, which would 

have been the height of land rush hysteria in my state. And you 

know, I was just meeting with builders yesterday, and they were 

saying well, you can get lots in central Oregon now for 20 to 25 

cents on the dollar for what they were two years ago. 

23 

So I mean, that, you know, most counties, once they have done 

a physical appraisal, they then index that to the market. So they 

will say well, the market went up 5 percent last year; we appraised 

you three years ago; you are going up 5 percent. Or in this case, 

the market went down, you know, substantially; we are going to 

bring you down. 

Do you have anything like that? Or is it just, if you were appraised at the height of the market, you are stuck with that? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Both CUFFA and the Cabin Fee Act that we are 

considering here today have indicators, and we adjust to the market. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. After the initial appraisal there is—— 

Mr. HOLTROP. Adjustment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So the numbers I am looking at here, you know, 

which are quite high, are actually going to be adjusted downward 

because of market changes. 

Mr. HOLTROP. The amount would be based on, the adjustment is 

based on IGD/DGB? OK. It is the Department of Commerce figures 

that we base the adjustments on. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. For a subregion? For a forest? I mean, you know, 

we have seen actual, very substantial, you know, second-home decreases in prices in real estate in, say, central Oregon and other 

parts of Oregon. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Right. The legislation, the CUFFA legislation, as 

well as Cabin Fee Act, are both based on the national figure. So 

the concern that you are raising—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would love to know what the national figure says 

about recreation land over the last 24 months. I would be very interested. If you could provide that, that would be great. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We will respond. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Any other Members have follow-up questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me invite the next panel up. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me welcome the panelists so that we can 

begin. And turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I just ask unanimous consent to set 

into the record letters that we have received from cabin owners 

throughout the West. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Without objection. 

[NOTE: The following individuals submitted documents for the record, which have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Cline, Larry A. 

Congressional Record (copy), June 16, 2003 

Davis, Barry, WY 

Fashinell, Thomas R., Owner/Manager, Echo Chalet, Inc. 

Howard, Joanne, Board President, Echo Lakes Association 

Huber, Charles and Linda, AZ 

Johnson, Kenneth C., Cabin Co-Owner, CA 

Jossi, Dave, MN 

Peterson, Charles, D., CA (Fax) 

Prince, Megan, OR 

Raben, Debra Dianne, WY 

24 

Realtor Summary: Effect of CUFFA permit fees on the Health of the Recreation 

Residence Program (letters attached) 

Shaw, Randy L., OR 

Tripathi, Jay, President, Spring Creek Tract Association 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me welcome our panel, and begin with Mr. 

Anderson, President, National Forest Homeowners Association. 

Welcome, sir, and I look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS, LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you for the opportunity. I am Geoff Anderson. My family cabin of 50 years is in the Sierra National Forest 

in California. 

I am a cabin owner, and also the President of the National 

Forest Homeowners, which represents recreation residence and 

special-use permittees in 98 of our national forests. 

Since its inception, the cabin program has met the needs of the 

public for recreation opportunities. At present, there are 14,000 

cabins in 25 states under this program of non-exclusive, restricted, 

and permitted use. These are summer cabins, not full-time 

residences. 

This program continues to provide quality family-oriented 

recreation opportunities, a continuing goal of the Forest Service, 

generating substantial revenue per square foot and at low impact. 

Today cabins occupy a fraction of a percent of forest lands, and 

generate 5.1 million recreation visitor days each year. Cabin owners were encouraged by local forest rangers to join the program 

well into the sixties. Cabin sites were made available in primitive, 

often roadless and remote, areas. Many are accessible only a few 

months out of the year, due to weather. 

The original cabin owners were hearty souls. The cabins were 

built by hand, using primitive tools and natural materials. Some 

hauled with the mule-drawn conveyances of those days, and some 

by boat. We constructed our own roads, dealt with often severe environments, and provided our own services. 

Historically the cabins worked in partnership with the Forest 

Service. Cabin owners became invested in the forest, and as such, 

had great interest in the forest environment. They were often the 

first responders to forest fires and medical emergencies. This was 

the beginning of the public-private relationship that still exists 

today. 

Today, many of the cabin owners are descendants of the original 

owners. Some are quite elderly. They include veterans, teachers, 

civil servants, small business owners, and the like. 

Cabin ownership may have changed over time, but the stewardship and the close ties to the forest environment have never 

changed. Cabin owners and their guests, for example, volunteer 

their time to fire fuels reduction projects and rescue services. Educational environmental programs have been organized and funded 

by cabin tracts that benefit the public and help maintain healthy 

forests. 

There are many examples of cabin owner volunteers working cooperatively with the Forest Service and many nonprofits, church, 

25 

and youth groups. An elderly cabin owner in Arizona hosts docents 

from the local desert museum every summer. My cabin has served 

as a jumping-off site for numerous scouts seeking merit badges on 

back-country trails. Local businesses, state and county governments benefit, too. 

The existence of the local lodge, grocery store, and restaurant is 

often dependent upon cabin owner patronage. Resort owners in 

Huntington Lake, California tell us that if the 400-plus permitted 

cabins disappeared, they would be out of business. 

Cabin owners support projects and services which serve members 

of the public beyond just the cabin owners. We pay property taxes, 

access fees, utility and insurance fees, not to mention the purchases of staples, improvement and repair items, all of which benefit the rural businesses and communities. 

Cabin owners are valuable resources. Secretary Vilsack has stated, and I quote, ‘‘It is essential that we reconnect Americans across 

the Nation with the natural resources and landscapes that sustain 

us.’’ 

Cabin owners, their families and friends are already connected. 

They will continue to play a vital role in the health of our rural 

communities and our national forests, furthering the goals of the 

Forest Service and enhancing public services and recreation experiences. 

Mr. Chairman, I fear this valuable public program is being 

threatened. Current cabin owners cannot afford the unreasonably 

high fees, and potential purchasers are unwilling to pay them. 

Such is the dilemma of a widowed cabin owner in the Angeles 

National Forest, whose yearly fee will rise to over $3,600 this appraisal cycle. A cabin owner in Wisconsin is struggling with a 

$7,000 yearly fee. Both anticipate additional fee increases will 

drive them from their family cabins. They face making the choice 

between selling the cabin or walking away, leaving them with the 

costly obligation of removing the cabin and restoring the site to its 

natural state. 

One might say well, someone else will pay the fee. Declarations 

from real estate agents from across the country, which you were 

provided today, show that cabin sales are not down due to the general economic downturn; they are down because potential buyers 

will not pay the unreasonable fees, nor be burdened with even 

higher uncertain fees in the future for the restricted use of a small 

cabin that they may have access to only a few months of the year. 

With such high fees, no one, not even the wealthy, will pay these 

fees. The costs simply outweigh the benefits. At Lake Wenatchee, 

Washington, in 2007, a cabin owner, faced with a substantially increased fee, was not able to sell his cabin at auction, even with a 

minimal opening bid. 

Our members support the Cabin Fee Act, and ask you to support 

this legislation. I might add that the particulars of this bill and the 

difficulties with the current fee system will now be addressed by 

Mr. Almy and Mr. Bailey. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 

26 

Statement of Geoffrey Anderson, President, National Forest Homeowners 

and Cabin Coalition 2 Steering Committee Member 

History and Benefits of the Recreation Residence Program 

Introduction 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands subcommittee on an issue of great concern to recreation residence permittees, their friends and their families. This testimony has been prepared in conjunction with Mr. Dick Almy, who has provided an overview of the problem, and 

Mr. Pete Bailey, who has detailed the solution. This testimony summarizes the long 

and rich history of the Program and the benefits that accrue to the Forest lands, 

the rural communities, the public and participants in the Program. 

I am the President of National Forest Homeowners (NFH), which is the only national organization solely dedicated to representing all holders of special use permits 

issued by the USDA Forest Service pursuant to the Term Permit Act of 1915, 66 

USC Section 4971. My wife and I hold a special use permit for our summer cabin 

on the Sierra National Forest at Huntington Lake, California. 

History of the Recreation Residence Program 

The Recreation Residence Program was arguably the first formal effort made by 

the USDA Forest Service (FS) to provide recreation opportunities for the public on 

National Forest System land, although fishing and hunting cabins on these lands 

date back to the early 1870s, well before the establishment in 1891 of the Forest 

Reserves. 

With the passage of the Organic Administration Act of 1897, Forest Reserves were 

opened to the public with their use regulated by permit. However, these permits 

could be reviewed annually and terminated. Cabin owners needed longer tenure to 

justify the investment in and the construction of cabins. The Occupancy Permits Act 

of March 4th 1915 set aside land for the construction of summer homes with multiyear occupancy permits. 

Summer cabins have been a part of our nation’s forest recreation program, under 

Forest Service policies, ever since. At present there are approximately 14,000 cabins 

nationally in 25 states and Puerto Rico under this FS program. At its peak, the Program authorized nearly 20,000 cabins. More than 5,000 permits have been removed 

from the Program due to land exchanges and loss of structures from natural disasters. Many other forest lots originally were designated for cabins; however, current 

USFS policy does not allow them to be developed. 

In the early years, the Forest Service supported and actively promoted participation in the Cabin Program to encourage public use of our National Forests. In 1919 

rangers in the Sierra National Forest approached frequent campers in the area of 

recently plotted cabin sites and solicited applications for Recreation Residence Permits for a $15 annual fee and a 99-year lease. Eileen Davis, a current 90-year-old 

permit holder, in a written statement tells of these early days of the Cabin Program 

(statement attached as Exhibit 3A). This was the beginning of the public-private relationship that still exists today. Forest Service promotional brochures date back to 

1918. Interestingly, as recently as 1962 Forest Service publications promoted the 

Program and required that the cabins be ‘‘permanent’’ structures (‘‘Information for 

Prospective Summer Home Owners’’, USFS Intermountain Region brochure, 1962). 

Today, land set aside for this purpose is less than 3/1000th of one percent of all National Forest System lands. Many cabins continue to be owned, maintained, and enjoyed by the fourth and fifth generations of the families that built them. 

In the early era, families traveled substantial distances in primitive vehicles over 

uncertain roads in order to build modest cabins on roughly quarter-acre forest lots. 

For many of these tracts, the means of access today continues to be primitive and 

may involve a final trek on foot or by boat. Weather in some forests limits access 

to fewer than four months annually. For example, Echo Lakes’ tract in California’s 

Sierra Nevada, not atypically, has three months of access each year. As utilities and 

infrastructure became available in some of these rural areas, cabin owners banded 

together to provide water systems, electricity, fire protection and road and trail 

maintenance. Others still use gas lights, gas or wood stoves for heat and handpumped wells to provide water. 

Many of the cabins were hand built from materials found nearby and still display 

period construction methods. In fact, most cabins were built prior to 1960 and many 

are classified as ‘‘historic’’ under the National Historic Preservation Act. Most are 

true ‘‘cabins in the woods’’ and are not in any way equivalent to vacation homes 

in resort areas (Francis True statement attached as Exhibit 3B). 

27 

Nature of Permit Rights and Restrictions 

The cabins may have maintained their historic features; however, the rights and 

responsibilities of cabin owners, as noted in the regulations, (last reissued June 2, 

1994, now found in the USDA Forest Service Manual at 2721.21.33 and Handbook 

at 2709.22), have evolved. Interim directives have placed further limitations on use. 

A few of these limitations are identified below. 

One significant limitation is that the use of the lot is not exclusive. The general 

public can access and utilize the lot at will other than the ‘‘footprint’’ of the cabin. 

Most cabin associations welcome and encourage other forest visitors, sponsoring interpretive trails and information kiosks to foster responsible shared use of tract 

sites, trails and the forest resources that surround the area. Cabin tracts can be important buffers between more intensive day uses or campgrounds and less intensive 

uses such as backcountry or wilderness areas. 

Permits are limited to a maximum of 20 years. Year-round permanent residency 

is not allowed and use as a rental property is on a limited basis needing prior written approval by the local Forest Service office, if allowed at all. If an alternative 

public use for the land is determined consistent with the FS management plan, then 

within a 10-year notice period, the cabin owner must remove the cabin and restore 

the land to its natural state. If the cabin owner does not comply, the Forest Service 

will remove the cabin and bill the cabin owner for the expense. Only if the notice 

is less than 10 years is the owner entitled to compensation. 

Cabin owners are responsible for maintaining their lots, including the removal of 

hazard trees both on and off the lot. Erosion control, removal of non-native species, 

clearance of excess forest understory to satisfy fire concerns—all are the cabin owner’s responsibility. All exterior repairs/alterations must have prior approval from the 

Forest Service, even if required by another governmental agency. At the end of a 

20-year term, each cabin and lot is evaluated for whether it meets the local requirements for a new permit. Sometimes the local rules on acceptable structures—down 

to the color of the cabin—have changed since the last permit was issued and burdensome new changes are required. Typical forest or regional restrictions include 

limitations on the size of the structure (1,200 square feet in Region 6), the size of 

decks, second floors are not allowed, outbuildings are prohibited entirely or limited 

to one or two at the most, fencing is not allowed, landscaping is prohibited, and the 

color of paint on the cabin, its doors and window frames is tightly controlled. It is 

not uncommon for a permit to be issued for one year to complete the required 

changes. 

Despite the challenges, the Forest Service and cabin owners have had a successful 

long-term relationship, both contributing significantly to a program that provides for 

family-oriented recreation and generates revenue for the U.S. Treasury. 

Benefits of Cabin Owner Stewardship 

Today, more than ever, the cabin owners and their families and friends work in 

partnership with the Forest Service, volunteering their time and labor to help the 

Forest Service with projects and services the general public enjoys. What began as 

a way in which to encourage public use of the National Forests has matured into 

a valuable resource of knowledgeable Americans who help in the management and 

stewardship of those forests. As the Forest Service stated in the Pacific Southwest 

Region’s Recreation Residence Assessment (June 10, 2009 and updated November 

12, 2009): ‘‘Recreation residences provide for unique, family-oriented experiences 

that foster stewardship and volunteerism. Ownership often spans generations, creating a valuable source of local knowledge regarding resource issues.’’ 

This established partnership can aid in developing the vision and direction for our 

forests that Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Vilsack, has described. He has stated 

in the USDA Department of Agriculture News Release #0383.09, ‘‘It is essential that 

we reconnect Americans across the nation with the natural resources and landscapes that sustain us.’’ Cabin owners, their families and friends are already making these connections and will continue to play a vital role in the health of our National Forests. 

In order to better understand how cabins are used and how they benefit the forests where they are located, in 2009 National Forest Homeowners (NFH) surveyed 

cabin owners across the U.S. One of the sections of the survey addressed the stewardship activities of cabin owners. As documented in this survey, cabin owners help 

in the management of the forest areas both in and around their tracts, from eradicating non-native species, trail maintenance, river rescue and general clean up to 

aiding the day use and camping public and participating in Fire Safe Councils. Further, they work in partnership with the Forest Service to provide help in manning 

informational kiosks for campers and day visitors, in some cases after having helped 

build those kiosks. Permittees help with Saturday night presentations at amphiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

theaters they helped construct for audiences made up of local campground visitors. 

They build and staff local museums of the history of the areas. Most cabin tracts 

are located in areas where there are other types of recreational uses of the forest; 

in many instances these cabin communities are the first responders to put out 

campfires left burning, help visitors who may be injured or lost, and pick up trash. 

Many cabin owners have been coming to their cabins all of their lives. They know 

about the local environment from personal experience and the Forest Service often 

draws on their knowledge when managing the area. One example is the relocation 

of a parking lot that provides access to a wilderness area, based on input from a 

cabin owner. In addition to providing ideas for the relocation, the tract members got 

together and helped replant the affected wetland, which now looks as if cars were 

never there. Wesley Voth, a cabin owner in Oregon at the Breitenbush tract in the 

Willamette National Forest, tells of the impact that cabin ownership has had in 

terms of shaping their lives, including their family values and careers (Voth letter 

attached as Exhibit 3C). Wesley shares the lessons learned from spending time at 

the cabin and how their cabin is a ‘‘natural classroom in the forest’’. This closeness 

to the land resulted in his father’s choice of career. Their cabin is a place to share, 

care for, preserve and teach stewardship to his children, just as he learned from his 

parents and grandparents. 

The devastation of recent western wildfires is well-documented. In the Huntington 

Lake basin of the Sierra National Forest in California, a fuels reduction project was 

established involving cabin volunteers, the Forest Service, the California Fire Service and local merchants. Their mission: to cut and remove dangerous trees and 

brush that threatened large areas of forest. Over a two-year period, using funds 

from the local rural advisory council and the Forest Service and with labor from the 

other partners, substantial areas were thinned or cleared. This provided a buffer between the recreation area and the Kaiser Wilderness area while also protecting 

structures, campsites and businesses from wildfires. As stated by Christine Oberti, 

President of the Huntington Lake Association..., ‘‘the significant economic and cooperative benefit contributions of the Recreation Residence Program in conjunction 

with other volunteer organizations is substantial. If the program is priced out of existence, the Forest Service will lose a great partner and many auxiliary benefits that 

make up for the reduction in appropriated non-fire funds on our National Forests.’’ 

At Echo Lakes in El Dorado National Forest near Tahoe, California, the Echo 

Lakes Environment Fund (ELEF) started in 1970 with the institution of a recycling 

program for trash generated by cabin owners and the public. The ELEF has performed numerous back country cleanups. The ELEF organizes ‘‘walks’’ led by various professionals (botanists, geologists, nature photographers, star-gazers, etc.) that 

are open to all comers. They have been very active in the education of cabin owners 

and the public on how to live with bears. They also have a very active youth education and outreach program that includes fishing derbies, log-rolling contests, nature scavenger hunts and other activities. The ELEF also provides small grants to 

students whose research includes the Echo Lakes area. These are only a few of the 

examples of cabin-owner led programs that really benefit their communities, the forests and the public. 

Economic Benefits from Cabins 

The cabin owners also have a major impact beyond their stewardship of the forest. 

The economic impact of the cabin tracts on the surrounding communities was also 

evaluated in the NFH Economic Impact Survey, conducted in the Spring of 2009. 

Expenditures in local economies (defined as within 50 miles of the cabins) on food, 

staples, improvements and repairs, recreational activities, and dining out for the 

’typical’ cabin average approximately $7,000 annually. An additional $369 per year 

is given in donations and our volunteer hours contribute $303 of value to local communities. Based on these data, we estimate that each cabin, on average, injects approximately $7,600 dollars into the local economy. At the national level, the impact 

of the 14,000 cabins in the program on local economies is over $110 million annually. In many cases, these expenditures are critical to the economic health and viability of the small, rural communities that provide products and services to the 

cabin owners. 

For example, the 400-plus Huntington Lake cabins support the local volunteer fire 

department with money and manpower. In fact, most of the emergency services are 

provided to campers in the public campgrounds and to motorists utilizing the nearby 

roads and highways. The loss of the cabins would mean the loss of these emergency 

responders and facilities. Would the Forest Service fill the gap? 

Significantly, the local lodge, grocery stores and restaurants would suffer if the 

cabin owners weren’t there to support them. At Echo Lake, California, which is an 

important restocking/communication location on the Pacific Crest Trail, the store 

29 

and boat taxi/rental service owner has stated that 50% of his revenues come from 

cabin owners and he would go out of business if the cabins were not there (statement attached as Exhibit 3D). The local historical museum, staffed by local volunteers, owes its very existence to cabin owners. Diminishing the cabin program 

threatens these and other services and businesses in this community and in similar 

communities near cabin tracts nationwide. 

There is also an impact on local governments. Results from the NFH Economic 

Impact Survey also show that property taxes, special use fees and, where applicable, 

access fees total $2,390 annually for the typical cabin. This extrapolates to $34.7 

million in annual government fees and taxes nationally. Direct business expenditures for utilities and insurance cost the typical cabin owner $1,598 each year. Extended nationally, this amounts to about $23.3 million, much of which benefits local 

businesses and utility providers. 

Promoting Recreational Access to the Forests 

The Forest Service has affirmed the benefits of the Recreation Residence Program 

in their Regulations (USDA Forest Service Manual at 2721.21.33 and Handbook at 

2709.22), which identify the cabins ‘‘as an important component of the overall National Forest recreation program...[that has]...the potential of supporting a large 

number of recreation person-days...provid[ing] special recreation experiences that 

might not otherwise be available.’’ 

The Recreation Residence Program also provides recreation opportunities not only 

to the cabin owners, but to their friends and families. Based on data from the NFH 

Economic Impact Survey, there are over five million visitor days to the national forests annually related to the Cabin Program. In many cases, cabins provide the very 

young, the elderly, and people with disabilities the opportunity for forest recreation 

that might not be readily available for them otherwise. In addition, the storied traditions developed over the long years of the Cabin Program have fostered strong 

local communities that really take ownership and responsibility for themselves and 

their environment, something that we don’t see very often in more urban environments. Cindy Langley’s grandmother acquired her cabin in Sequoia National Forest 

in 1938 from earnings as a waitress in Los Angeles. Every spare cent was committed to that cabin, which remains to provide a forest environment for her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and their many visiting friends and relatives. 

For most cabin owners, the importance of the cabin revolves around family and 

the opportunities it provides to multiple generations. In particular, the experiences 

afforded by the Cabin Program go a long way towards preventing today’s children 

from being the last in the forest. We support the ‘‘Kids in the Woods’’ policy espoused by the Forest Service. A typical cabin hosts kids for 141 visitor days annually; over 68% of typical cabin visits include one or more kids and it is common for 

a cabin owner to bring two, three or four along on a cabin visit. Many cabin tracts 

provide educational and recreational activities for kids who visit, such as ecology 

walks, trail and beach cleanups, fishing contests, nature scavenger hunts, etc. These 

activities are open to all, not just visitors to cabins. 

The Importance of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 

Under the current appraisal-based methodology for setting fees, the concept of a 

fee for a use has become the concept of a fee for the land; land the cabin owner 

uses but never owns yet pays for in its entirety every 20 years. The availability of 

this valuable program to the general public is being threatened by unreasonably 

high and uncertain fees. 

Current cabin owners can’t afford these unreasonable fees. An example is the 87- 

year old widow in Arizona’s Coronado National Forest who lives on a pension. Her 

cabin fees, when fully implemented, will rise to an amount which constitutes 10% 

of her income for a residence she can only inhabit a small portion of the year. She 

will have to ‘‘let the cabin go.’’ Consider the 86-year old WW II and Korean War 

veteran who has struggled to keep his cabin on Idaho’s Sawtooth National Forest 

in the family. The new $8,000 plus fee will be beyond his means. Similar is the situation of the 67-year old widow in California’s Angeles National Forest who has tenaciously held onto her cabin to give to her son when she dies. The fee was recently 

raised from $479 to over $3400. Neither she nor her son will be able to pay such 

yearly fees and will have to leave the cabin that generations of their family have 

enjoyed. 

Worse still for the future of this program is that there will be no one willing to 

purchase these cabins from those unable to pay. We are increasingly seeing places 

where no buyers will place themselves in circumstances requiring the payment of 

such high annual fees. 

30 

A Realtor experienced in cabin sales in Wyoming reports that no cabin has sold 

since 2004 and the three cabin owners who have tried to sell have found that 

‘‘...when the buyers find out how expensive the fees are (or may be) they laugh and 

then go away.’’ (Letter attached as Exhibit 3E). Another in Idaho reports with respect to the 2008-2009 season, ‘‘With every showing, talks and negotiations faltered 

when it was disclosed to the prospective buyers that the possible new annual fee 

at Valley View might range from $4,500 to $6,200.’’ (Letter attached as Exhibit 3F). 

A collection of letters from Realtors across the country shows they uniformly report 

that the annual fees and the process to set them have had a far greater negative 

effect on the salability of cabins than the current economic downturn. In many 

places, buyers have disappeared entirely, effectively reducing the cabin value to 

zero. There is no nexus between the fee that is established and the privilege/services 

granted, and the buyers see that. 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 will ensure that the Cabin Program remains affordable, while recognizing the difference in location values throughout the forests. Further, it will save the Forest Service and the cabin owners the time and money an 

appraisal-based method costs us both. Finally, it provides for fee certainty into the 

future. 

Conclusion 

NFH and Coalition 2, a group comprised of a wide range of cabin owners and 

cabin association representatives including resource specialists, teachers, accountants, financial managers, attorneys, MBAs, business persons, appraisers, real estate 

agents, former Forest Service employees and just plain cabin owners, have worked 

hard to create a fee determination system that will allow this valuable recreation 

program to continue on the National Forests. Many potential fee setting methods 

were studied, ranging from fixed fee and alternative appraisal systems to fee calculation using various indices and short and long-term lease applications. 

The fee determination system proposed in the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 was fully 

vetted with our NFH membership. Input from cabin owners was sought through national and regional meetings, email, newsletters and our website and found to be 

the best solution. We look to this method of setting our special use fees as a way 

to preserve the Recreation Residence Program for our children, our children’s children, and for the American public. 

USDA Agriculture Secretary, Mr. Tom Vilsak, has said ‘‘By using a collaborative 

management approach with a heavy focus on restoring these natural resources, we 

can make our forests more resilient to climate change, protect water resources, and 

improve forest health while creating jobs and opportunities.’’ (USDA Department of 

Agriculture News Release #0383.09). Cabin owners, their friends and families represent the collaborators that Secretary Vilsack is seeking to restore and maintain 

forest health for future generations. 

One steadfast principle shared by the Forest Service and cabin owners is the appreciation of our natural resources and the forest environment. Our continued partnership aids in the management of our Forests, furthering the goals of the Forest 

Service and enhancing public services and recreation experiences where cabin communities exist. Cabin owners will continue to play a supportive role in the health 

of our small rural communities, too (Exhibit 3G). 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 will promote continued collaboration and provide for 

fair fees while assuring that average Americans and their families, the Federal and 

local governments, and the American public will continue to benefit from this 

unique and valuable program. Please support this bill and help preserve these treasured and historic assets for generations to come. 

Exhibit 3A 

Statement of Aileen Davis, Oakhurst, California 

My family cabin is the old ‘‘Dresser log cabin’’ at Huntington Lake, California in 

the Sierra National Forest. The cabin is in the national register of historical places 

and visitors from our tract as well as random hikers often stop by to see its historic 

features. I am 90 years old and my husband is 93. I have used the cabin since its 

construction and we consider the log cabin our family treasure. 

In the early 1900’s, my family frequently camped in the Huntington Lake vicinity, 

and my father, a skilled carpenter, helped those who were just starting to build rustic cabins in the area. In the early days it was a long trip from the San Joaquin 

Valley. In approximately 1919 while camping in the area my father was approached 

by the local ranger who seeing there were two young children urged my father to 

apply for one of the new cabin sites. We were encouraged to acquire one for $15 

31 

a year in return for a 99 year lease and the right to build and use a summer cabin. 

My father acquired the permit in 1921 and built the cabin over a two year period. 

Local Lodgepole pine was selected as the best wood and trees were felled (by permission) and hauled to the site by mule. Because our cabin is on a steep descent, 

my father built a chute down which logs were slid to a level area where the cabin 

was to be constructed. They were shaped on site and placed by hand. The cabin 

foundation is of Sierra granite, locally obtained, which was dragged to the site, 

shaped by hand drilling and blasting, then put in place. That cabin stands today 

much as it was originally constructed in 1923. It was originally a two room cabin 

enlarged in 1933. It is now approximately 900 square feet which includes a bath 

and bedroom. For years, the only authorized access to the cabin was on foot down 

the steep slope; my father built a 70 step stairway to facilitate access. I can still 

picture my mother struggling up and down that stairway until we were required 

to remove it. We now have a narrow access road which we built and must maintain, 

season permitting. 

The cabin is heated by a wood fireplace and a wood stove, the latter used for cooking-a talent passed onto me by my mother. My husband, a WW II veteran, splits 

and stacks wood virtually every day for use in the cabin, and we still open and close 

and maintain the cabin. Our use of the cabin is confined to the summer months due 

to the weather and the condition of the access roads. 

As I reflect over the almost 90 years I have been present at the cabin, I have 

many memories. I remember the goat my parents brought up to the cabin every 

summer when I was a child-our source of milk as there was no refrigeration. I remember the joy of sleeping in the outdoor porch and seeing stars even after the addition was built in 1933 and I was a young adult. I remember first my friends and 

me then my two sons, playing with other children in the surrounding forest and 

streams. My sons are skilled outdoorsmen having grown up in the forest. 

The cabin is often the center of dinners, meetings and conferences involving various groups and organizations. It has even been the site of a marriage and Golden 

Wedding Anniversary. We have tried hard to be good ‘‘stewards of the forest’’. I 

serve on the local historical society. My husband and I (as treasurer) participated 

in the successful effort to have the nearby virgin wilderness designated the federal 

Kaiser Wilderness Area. We have helped maintain forest trails and clear surrounding areas of brush and manzanita as part of fire prevention projects. 

My husband and I are pensioners and we have been given notice that the yearly 

fees for the ‘‘Dresser’’ cabin will be $5000! (We never saw the promised ‘‘99 year 

lease’’). Fee increases have prompted us to transfer the cabin to our son, a Fresno 

County employee. However, at their current level, particularly if the fees continue 

to rise as they have, our family will be unable to afford the fees and taxes associated 

with the cabin. In such a case, the future for our cabin is bleak. Who will purchase 

a 90 year old cabin with a wood stove requiring constant maintenance and usable 

only in the summer? If a wealthy purchaser could even be found I fear that the purchaser would be inclined to destroy the rustic nature of our cabin by modernizing 

and updating the systems we cherish. We are hopeful that Congress will realize the 

special nature of the recreation residence cabins and establish fair fees for permits 

that will allow cabin owners such as me and my family to enjoy the cabin for years 

to come. 

Aileen Davis 

Exhibit 3B 

Statement of Francis True, Sawtooth National Forest 

The True cabin in the Sawtooth National Forest is much the same now as when 

my father Edwin True built the cabin in 1931. My father cleared the lot himself 

and built a log cabin from logs harvested from the forest. It took an entire day to 

reach the cabin by a Model A Ford. Then as now, the cabin is a 720 square foot 

cabin with a sleeping loft. Water is obtained from a surface water collection system 

and the septic system is an outhouse. We have no electricity save what is produced 

by a small generator for lights and heat is supplied by a wood stove. 

Although we have no winter access, my wife and I, our two children and our two 

grandchildren and their guests use the cabin in the winter months. Even in the 

summer difficult access road conditions hamper our access nonetheless we endeavor 

to enjoy the summer months in a this rustic environment. I am 86, a retired WW 

II and Korean War veteran and my wife and I live on Social Security and a pension. 

We have always met our obligations to pay the yearly fee for the use permit even 

when the fee reached $3000, a struggle for us. 

32 

We have been informed that our new fee will be $8850 a year when the current 

moratorium expires. This is beyond our means; this fee is so high that we cannot 

even split it between families. I fear that I will have to transfer the permit and 

cabin but I question whether the cabin is even marketable. The cabin is old and 

rustic, subject to a high fee and I doubt anyone outside the family would take responsibility for it considering the high fee and all the restrictions imposed by the 

Forest Service. 

We currently have a one year permit due to a series of inconsistent decisions and 

rulings about the nature design of our outhouse and issues raised about the presence of a flood plain. Although we are hopeful that these issues can be resolved and 

a full 20 year permit issued, who would pay to take on this responsibility? 

My family agreed to serve as stewards of the forest when the permit was acquired 

and we have continued to do so for almost 80 years. We are hopeful Congress will 

reform the current fee system so that my family can continue to do so. 

Dated February 2010—Francis L. True 

Exhibit 3C 

Statement of Wesley Voth, Willamette National Forest 

How the Program that allowed us to build a rustic retreat cabin on Forest Service/ 

Public land in 1952 changed the course of one Oregon family’s history, but also 

have CUFFA fee structures threaten to cut its next generation off from this legacy 

My name is Wesley Voth and I am the family member currently responsible for 

the fees and permit compliance for the Devil’s Creek Cabin #24 in the Detroit Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest. I was born in North Portland in January 1952, the first grandchild of Virgil & Florence Snow who lived next door and 

who both came from Oregon pioneer families. That summer they built this cabin at 

Breitenbush beside Devil’s Creek under what they always referred to as a 99-year 

U.S. Forest Service lease. Virgil had worked for many years as a surveyor for the 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Bureau of Public Roads and had watched with concern 

what happened to ‘‘paradise’’ as roads and development came. The cabin was to be 

a legacy for me and my eventual siblings and cousins so that we wouldn’t grow up 

as ‘‘city kids.’’ It turned out to have a much larger effect than that on us all. 

We began spending summers at this cabin and as much other time as possible 

from the very beginning. My father, Elver Voth, was collage biology major, planning 

a career in medicine. Time there got him thinking about forest issues, and the environmental mindset of my mother and her parents began to rub off on him. His master’s thesis was a survey of the vertebrate animals of Jefferson Wilderness, an area 

adjacent to our cabin and necessitating spending a lot of time there. Our family 

would stay at the cabin while he backpacked through the area and did his research. 

His doctoral dissertation was on the feeding habits of an obscure little mammal that 

loggers call boomers. Later as a biology professor at George Fox College he was the 

first in the state to design a course entitled Ecology, and many of his college field 

trips used the cabin as a base. One of my most vivid memories is of him arguing 

with a Forest Service biologist in front of the cabin after the 1964 flood. The other 

man said the destruction was an act of nature, and my father said yes BUT it pointed out just why logging shouldn’t be done by clear cutting steep hillsides and next 

to streams. The logjam in front of our cabin was mostly trees that had been cut 

miles upstream—they didn’t have the length or root wads to jam up closer to where 

they started out. Much to our horror, bulldozers rechanneled the creek and parts 

of the Breitenbush River, removing all wood and ruining the best fishing our family 

had known. While they were at it, they channeled most of the creek away from our 

cabin, something we always attributed to our family’s having protested some of 

what was being done in the area. 

My most formative childhood experiences were at the cabin and the area around 

it. So it was a logical place to go just out of college, and I spent the winter of 1974 

there alone, a virtual hermitage during which I decided what I wanted to do with 

my life. The winter in the forest was healing and enlightening. I hiked throughout 

the area and came to know it from an adult perspective. By spring I emerged with 

a passion to go to graduate school, begin a family of my own, and dedicate myself 

to educating a new generation to care about the earth and other peoples and cultures. 

After graduate school one of my first jobs was in North Portland in the late 70’s, 

directing a latchkey program for black children. The first time I took the young 

teenage staff to the cabin, and then camping at Breitenbush Lake, I realized the 

severe disconnect between their lives and what I had experienced, even though we 

33 

were born in the same neighborhood. None had ever been to a national forest or 

off of paved roads. This was their land, public land, but certainly no one had ever 

informed them, they had no sense of ownership or even welcome. They asked things 

like, ‘‘What if someone finds us here?’’ I taught them to sing, ‘‘This land is your 

land, this land is my land.’’ Soon it became their passion as well as mine to take 

younger kids camping in the Cascades, lying out under a night sky with all flashlights off to gaze into the Milky Way, to quiet fears rather than tell frightening stories. To find welcome in the embrace of nature and its many voices and sounds. To 

help kids catch fish for the first time, to learn about birds beyond robins and starlings, to watch deer drinking at the edge of a fog enshrouded lake. To see wild trees 

in their natural diversity of age and species. 

I haven’t the space here to recount similar stories of my siblings and cousins, who 

all have their own experiences with the cabin, the formative events of their childhoods and wanting their own children connected to it. Or the sizeable circle of 

friends who have had a part in its upkeep and legacy. Even if the future generations 

are city dwellers, the cabin is the window to non-city life, as we have no family farm 

roots. We are all drawn to camping, outdoor pursuits and remain connected to the 

forest, enjoy eating huckleberries and wild greens, knowhow to build and put out 

a fire, keep a sanitary camp, fish, clear a rockslide or downed tree out of the road, 

not get los, clean up after themselves-lessons learned from time around the cabin. 

It is a natural classroom and testament to a bit of wisdom and we have benefitted 

from this arrangement, and I believe the nation has as well. 

There is a problem however. One of the characteristics of our family with its 

Quaker and Mennonite heritage is that it lives simply. Doesn’t go in for luxuries. 

Doesn’t spend money on vacations or travel other than to see family. We would 

never have had this transforming experience if it hadn’t been for its low cost. Our 

cabin should be send for what it is, a rustic retreat rather than a luxury holiday 

home, on land held in public trust because of intrinsic rather than commercial 

value. We have been able to cover fees to date by passing the hat among us, but 

now the amount may triple. I don’t understand appraising this land as anything 

other than forest, and forest from which the marketable timber has already been 

harvested. I don’t understand paying the full commercially appraised value over and 

over every twenty years, which would amount to three times over the nearly 60 

years we have used it. I don’t want to own this land-it is public, and should remain 

so. We are limited in the ways in which we can use it, and none of these is incompatible with trees growing back in the density it was before harvest, a time I still 

remember well. 

If the new fee structures are fully implemented our family will have to abandon 

this treasure, especially as my generation retires and the next will come to view it 

as a luxury/burden. This family and the world it touches will become more citified 

as a result. 

So thank you to those wise and foresighted enough to create and preserve public 

lands and wilderness, programs to encourage their sustainable use, the political will 

to preserve some of what has always been here so that it always will be. It is a 

truly wonderful and unique place, positioned as it is on one of the divides between 

what is left of the great western primeval forest, and former forest lands turned into 

Douglas fir farms with their rows of identical trees. Time there does transform people, as we can attest. 

So, if you have made it this far you will know this is not primarily a complaint 

but a thank you. A very opinioned but heartfelt thank you for having improved the 

quality of our lives so immeasurably. And a plea to whomever will listen to value 

and protect these lands and programs for the good of all, and not just for those who 

could afford cabins anywhere. 

So, on behalf of my grandparents, their three children and spouses, my generation-12 grandchildren and their spouses, more than 20 great grandchildren and 

their growing number of spouses and soon to be an even more sizeable next generation, plus ion-law families and more friends than we would have ever had without 

this cabin: 

In humble gratitude, 

Wesley Voth, 11796 Hwy. 36, Mapleton, OR 97453 

34 

Exhibit 3D 


56090.001.eps
35 


56090.002.eps
36 

Exhibit 3E 


56090.003.eps
37 

Exhibit 3F 


56090.004.eps
38 

Exhibit 3G 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Mr. Richard Almy, cabin owner, 

Seattle, welcome. I look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. ALMY, CABIN OWNER, 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Mr. ALMY. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

My name is Dick Almy, and my family’s cabin at Lake 

Wenatchee on the Okanogan and Wenatchee Forests in Washington State is the cabin to which Mr. Anderson referred to a moment ago. 


56090.005.eps
39 

I will be talking about how the Cabin Fee Act of 2010, or the Act, 

can remedy problems cabin owners face regarding how cabin fees 

are determined for the Recreation Residence Program. This program is a longstanding valid use of the national forest, but is being 

threatened by the fee-setting process under the Cabin Fee User Act 

of 2000, commonly referred to as CUFFA. 

The current use of fee-simple land appraisal to set value has not 

worked for over 40 years. The current use of fee-simple land— 

excuse me. Illustration 1C on page 9 of my written testimony summarizes a comprehensive recreation land-lease study, and shows 

that the fees under CUFFA far exceed the national average for 

similar uses, whereas fees set by the Act better reflect market 

rents. 

The relationship between cabin owners and the government is 

complex due to the interdependent equity interests, whereby the 

permittee owns the cabin, whereas the government owns the land. 

Both location and cabin influence market rents and sale prices. 

And separating these two influences is both difficult and subjective. 

The Act, which is supported by 93 percent of cabin owners, 

acknowledges the real nature of the program, with interdependent 

interests, and offers a new and badly needed approach. The Act 

will simplify and improve the fee-setting process. It will encourage 

better relationships with the Forest Service, and reduce administrative workload and expenses. 

The Act institutes a reasonable annual user fee that incorporates 

the influence of cabin location by establishing a transfer fee upon 

sale. The Act provides fair compensation to the U.S. taxpayer, 

while recognizing that cabin owners bring value to the land and 

the location at their expense. Cabin owners must maintain the site, 

remove dangerous trees and non-native vegetation, and they often 

provide and pay for utility infrastructure, including power, water 

systems, septic and sewer systems. 

Illustration 1D on page 9 compares the Act to the current feedetermination process as implemented through CUFFA. Our conclusions through this analysis include the following. 

The data indicates that almost 35 percent of cabin owners will 

reach their affordability break point in the current CUFFA cycle. 

When these folks can’t sell, we estimate roughly 15 percent, a comment mentioned earlier, of cabins, or roughly 2100, will have to be 

torn down or removed at the owner’s expense. U.S. Treasury revenue loss will be approximately 30 percent of total revenue, or 

around $12 million, while state governments, local governments, 

and communities will suffer. Cabin losses will also reduce donated 

labor and forced stewardship provided by cabin owners. 

The Act establishes an affordable user fee, indexed annually, 

that helps maintain cabin value, and does not destroy the ability 

to sell the cabin if the current owner chooses not, or cannot, pay 

the fee. Instead of fees ranging from $125 to an astonishing 

$76,000 annually under CUFFA, the annual user fee will range 

from $500 to $4,000 per year. 

A transfer fee will capture any value influence of the cabin lot’s 

location on the national forest, and is paid if that value is actually 

realized upon sale. This fee addresses the possibility of unwarVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

ranted profits, which is an issue you heard from Joel Holtrop just 

now. 

Cabin owners will have full knowledge of the indexed annual 

user fee, and both the seller and buyer can factor the transfer fee 

into their pricing at the time of sale. 

The Act provides comparable long-term annual revenues to the 

U.S. Treasury after consideration of cost savings by elimination of 

appraisals and revenue lost from abandoned cabins if CUFFA 

stands unchanged. Eliminating appraisal costs will save the Forest 

Service nearly $1 million annually. The complexity and expense of 

the appraisal process is replaced with a cost-effective fee system, 

and program administration will be simplified and adequately 

funded from fees retained to cover costs. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Act is a 

solution that works for all parties. 

In summary, the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 ensures the long-term viability of the Recreation Residence Program, and produces cabin 

permit fees that are affordable and determined by the cabin market; are simple, understandable, and predictable; are revenue-neutral, maintaining current revenues, and a fair return to the U.S. 

taxpayer; address complexities of independent ownership interests; 

impose fees when benefits are actually received; and maintain the 

ability to sell cabins. 

We ask for your support of this legislation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Almy follows:] 

Statement of Richard D. Almy, Past President, Lake Wenatchee 

Homeowners Association, Former Director, National Forest Homeowners, 

Member, Cabin Coalition 2 

Recreation Residence Permit Fees on the National Forest 

Introduction of the Problem 

In the late 1960’s, the Forest Service revised their rules for establishing fees for 

Recreation Residence special use permits from a flat fee to a fee based on the appraised value of the lots, multiplied by 5%. Since that time, all three intervening 

appraisal cycles have resulted in repeated problems and numerous cabin owner appeals. Congress has been approached before to address the severe impact of a flawed 

fee-setting process. 

The current process for determining a fee for the right to own and use a recreation residence on National Forest System land does not reflect the value of what 

is actually received. The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA) was drafted 

with the intent of establishing a fair fee by including the permit restrictions in the 

appraisal valuation of the lot. The sponsor of the legislation, Senator Larry Craig 

reaffirmed this in his letter to Undersecretary Mark Rey on July 2, 2008. However, 

the law, as enacted, allows for a Forest Service implementation that ignores the 

negative impact of the restrictions. In short, CUFFA fails to value the actual use. 

Senator Craig: ‘‘As original sponsor of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act, I would 

like to bring to your attention some problems in its interpretation that are having 

adverse impact on some special use permit holders. Because of the Forest Service’s 

exclusion of some property attributes, cabin lot appraisals are being made that seem 

to be much higher than the market values of such properties should be.’’ 

‘‘I believe the text of the law is clear, and it was definitely my intent, to ensure 

the fair and consistent appraisal of cabin values in order to set cabin use fees using 

relevant market factors. The lack of an open market for these special use cabins is 

an obstacle for setting an appropriate fee, but the law’s text as well as basic common sense can shed light on what market factors to consider and what the appropriate end results should be. Unfortunately, current Forest Service protocol evidently does not adequately consider the myriad restrictions in force on the appraised lots, which are market factors that would depress the valuation of these lots 

on the open market.’’ 

41 

An often heard argument, in support of the current fee determination system 

under CUFFA, takes the position that, even with very high fees, some cabin owners 

can profit enormously at the time of sale. They argue that the profits are due to 

the location of the cabin, rather than the structure. It is said that high annual fees 

compensate the U.S. Taxpayer for those sale profits. In effect, the cabin owner pays 

a higher than market annual fee to adjust for a projected future profit. This logic 

assumes that a cabin can sell regardless of the fee. However, market evidence does 

not support this conclusion. Cabins in forests across the nation are currently finding 

no buyers because of the high fees and the uncertainties about the fee setting process. The loss of cabins due to unaffordable fees and the inability to sell is real and 

the consequences are severe (Exhibit 1A, Realtor Summary). 

The many conditions and restrictions (Exhibit 1B) imposed by the permit and 

Forest Service guidelines are excluded from the appraisal valuation process and, the 

Forest Service argues, are included in the historic 5% multiplier that is applied to 

the fee simple appraised lot value to set the annual fee. The appropriateness of this 

5% multiplier to fee simple valuation remains unsupported by the Forest Service 

and does not adequately adjust for the limited term of the permit, a limited bundle 

of rights, the lack of investment risk to the U.S. government, nor the substantial 

differences between the cabin program and other public and private markets in determining a fair market value for this use. There is a vast difference between the 

bundle of rights held by an owner of property in fee title and the handful of privileges and significant liabilities a cabin owner confronts under the terms of the Special Use Permit. The Comparison of Recreational Home Site Leases, a National 

Forest Homeowners study completed in January 2010 (Exhibit 1C), clearly confirms 

this point and further demonstrates that CUFFA-determined cabin fees far exceed 

‘‘market’’ rates when compared to similar leased (or permitted) recreation land uses. 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (CFA), in contrast, would establish rates that more fairly 

reflect ‘‘average market rates and revenues’’. 

The appraisal process that was employed before CUFFA 2000 and appraisal results under CUFFA have resulted in unfairly high fees. CUFFA was purportedly the 

answer, but resulted in the same old process. It was not an improvement. Cabin 

owners are not complaining about having to pay higher, -based fees, but do object 

to unfairly high fees determined by a flawed fee-setting process under CUFFA. 

The Economic Impact Survey, Final Report, National Forest Homeowners, April 

2009, demonstrates that the vast majority of cabin owners are middle class. Survey 

data confirms that there are many cabin owners with annual CUFFA fees starting 

at $5,000 and they go up from there. These folks are not wealthy and very much 

fit the picture of average Americans. The mischaracterization of cabin owners as 

wealthy, which is sometimes heard and based on some very high profile exceptions, 

diverts the conversation away from the real issue, which is appraisal subjectivity 

and the extreme variation in annual fees under CUFFA, that range from $125 to 

$76,000 for a recreation residence permit holder’s restricted use of public lands. Furthermore, an individual’s financial status or ‘‘ability to pay’’ should not be the litmus 

test for determining a fair fee for a use, as has been often heard. In fact, such an 

argument carried to its logical conclusion, implies eventually that only the very rich 

would have access to these cabins. Illustration 1A demonstrates these concerns. 

The data in Illustration 1A were provided by Ted Freeman, Chief Appraiser of the 

Forest Service (Feb. 2010). They are from current CUFFA appraisals, representing 

approximately 44% of the nearly 14,000 recreation residences nationally. Of these 

completed appraisals (6,727), more than 35% have seen fee increases of 200% or 

higher. Also notable is that 19% of the new fees exceed $5,000, 8.5% exceed $7,000 

and 3.7% exceed $10,000.Over 29% are at or above the national breakpoint. These 

very high fees have resulted in cabin owners requesting and paying for second appraisals. In many cases, these second appraisals have produced results considerably 

different than the original appraisal, demonstrating the inconsistencies and subjective nature of this process. 

An example of this occurred near Wilson, Wyoming on the Black Canyon tract (Illustration 1B). The initial CUFFA appraisal resulted in an annual fee of $27,250. 

The second appraisal, paid for by the cabin owner ($4,000), resulted in a fee of 

$19,250. In this case, the District Ranger decided to average the two for the final 

fee determination of $23,250. Regardless of which appraisal is used, either of these 

fees is clearly unaffordable and has completely depressed any sale possibilities at 

Black Canyon. In this example, the consequences of the appraisal process and the 

vagaries of CUFFA are devastating to these cabin owners. 

When annual fees reach the $4,000 - $6,000 range, the affordability and desirability of the Program for many cabin owners is lost, especially considering that 

many of these cabins have limited seasonal access (some less than three months) 

and limited or no utilities. (Some cabin owners must even carry their human waste 

42 

home with them!) If an owner is forced to sell, we often find that the high fee can 

depress the sale price of the cabin. In some areas, these high fees have already 

made cabins unmarketable. The short story is, the costs outweigh the benefits and 

no buyer (however wealthy) is inclined to buy a cabin facing such fees. The May 

2007 auction at Lake Wenatchee resulted in no bidders at an opening price of 

$50,000. Also, we often hear that people of wealth did not become wealthy because 

of poor financial decision making. Furthermore, as fees keep escalating and marketability dries up, a perverse incentive is created to stop maintaining or investing in 

the cabin. This incentive is not in anyone’s interest. 

We believe that without change to the current fee-setting mechanism, that at 

least 15% of cabins (2,100) will be lost due to the inability to sell and inability to 

afford the fee. This cabin loss would lead to a 30% loss of revenue ($12M) to the 

government, because it is those cabins with ‘‘higher than market’’ fees that will be 

lost (refer to illustration 1A) and this is only in the current appraisal cycle. What 

will the consequences be in the next round of appraisals, if the flawed fee-setting 

process is allowed to continue? Will another 15% of the cabins be lost when those 

owners are unable to sell? We believe the very existence of the Recreation Residence 

Program is threatened. 

Though certainly well intended, CUFFA failed to achieve a consistent and fair fee 

determination process. Congressional action is necessary, particularly in these times 

of economic stress and strain, to correct the problem once and for all and sustain 

the opportunity for family-oriented recreation through the Recreation Residence 

Program. In the absence of such action, the Recreation Residence Program will 

dwindle and family legacies will be lost. The demonstrated Program benefits for the 

public and Forest Service will also be lost and forest stewardship by cabin owners 

eliminated. We seek Congressional support to re-evaluate the fee-setting process 

and enact the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (CFA) that comprehensively addresses these 

concerns with objective, fair and appropriate solutions and avoids the consequences 

of doing nothing. 

Deficiencies of the Appraisal Process or ‘‘Why CUFFA doesn’t work.’’ 

CUFFA attempts to define ‘‘market value’’ within the appraisal process. However, 

the process compares the permitted cabin lots to fee simple ownership of land, 

effectively ignoring the negative restrictions imposed by the permit and its inherent 

risks. This approach results in an inflated ‘‘market price’’ for such a restricted use. 

The 5% factor, said by some to appropriately adjust for the restrictions, is not sufficient. Simply changing the percentage will not produce fair results, either. The 5% 

factor results in cabin owners paying for the full fee simple value of the land every 

20 years, but never owning the land. Interestingly, we have heard field comments 

made by Forest Service appraisal staff that the 5% factor is probably too high. However, lowering it still does not solve the problem overall and would substantially reduce program revenues. 

A fee that is based on a lower percentage may be fair at the high end but unfair 

at the low end. Conversely, a fee that may be fair at the low end will result in a 

fee that is unjust at the high end. Commonly, the geographic proximity of resort 

areas unfairly results in high fees for modest cabin tracts. The Comparison of Recreational Land Lease Study clearly demonstrates that the CFA produces above ‘‘average market revenues’’ for similar leased (or permitted) recreation land use and 

that CUFFA fees far exceed ‘‘market’’ rates as depicted in Illustration 1C. 

An appraisal paradigm has many deficiencies. Below is a short list of a few of the 

more important deficiencies of the appraisal process. These deficiencies add to administrative headaches for the Forest Service and cabin owners alike. 

• It does not provide adequate adjustments for severe use restrictions that are 

imposed by the term special use permit and Regional and National FS guidelines. 

• It is a subjective process using opinions of value that vary from one appraiser 

to the next. How rigorous the process varies Forest to Forest, based on an individual’s interpretation of the data and attitude toward the Program. Upon second appraisals, District Rangers can choose the original appraisal, the second 

appraisal or something in between. We have seen examples of all these responses. 

• It fails to account fully for the limited season of use in many areas. Some cabins 

become accessible only after July 4th and heavy snow can fly in September. 

Others are adjacent to lakes with dams and face serious drawdowns beginning 

in September, resulting in a less desirable location. 

• It requires vast amounts of time and preparations both by the cabin owner and 

the Forest Service. Commonly, 20 to 40 page documents have been prepared by 

cabin owners to present to contract appraisers, as preparation for the appraisal. 

43 

Add to this that the appraisal process itself, within a given Forest, often takes 

over six months to complete. The personnel and time costs are high. 

• The process often requires repeat appraisals that lead to questionable conclusions. A glaring example just occurred on the Okanagon-Wenatchee National 

Forest, where implementation of the 1990’s appraisal has been completely withdrawn due to lack of supporting documentation. We now have cabin fees around 

the nation being based on appraisals from the 1970’s, the 1990’s and the 2000’s. 

This is not a system that is ‘‘fair’’ or ‘‘works’’. 

• The entire appraisal cycle takes five to nine years to implement and must be 

repeated every ten years. 

• The process is expensive, costing nearly $1M annually. 

The fact is that the ability to build and occupy a cabin on public land is subject 

to the requirements of a Term Special Use Permit. The cabin structure itself is the 

cabin owner’s only property interest. The land remains owned by the public under 

the management of the Forest Service. A cabin owner does not have any sort of 

leasehold interest in the underlying land. Therefore, using a land value appraisal 

process to value the use of the land is a questionable process and poor application 

of logic. 

Congress has recognized cabins as an appropriate and authorized recreational use 

since at least 1915, as one among many multiple uses of the National Forests. Most 

cabin owners are middle class and have small cabins (many are 800—1,200 sf) that 

are used as a family gathering place to pass on to children and grandchildren an 

appreciation for the outdoors, a connection to nature and good forest stewardship. 

The Recreation Residence Program provides an opportunity for members of the public to have cabins on the National Forest, but excessive and inconsistent pricing of 

this opportunity using the procedures under CUFFA is undermining the very purpose of the Program. CUFFA does nothing to further the availability of the Program 

to the general public or maintain long-term public interest and, we believe, puts the 

Program on a path to extinction. 

Over 95% of cabin owner respondents to the 2009 NFH Cabin Sales and Appraisal 

Survey said that they were dissatisfied with the appraisal process under CUFFA. 

Concerns about the failure of CUFFA are nationwide. Also recognizing the problem, 

many Forest Service representatives in the field have suggested we seek legislative 

change to address the failure of CUFFA. Mr. James Sauser, USFS Region 6 Special 

Uses, has been quoted in news articles about the failures of the appraisal process: 

‘‘The appraisals are time consuming and result in fees that are either too high or 

too low.’’ (The Seattle Times, Sept. 9, 2009.) Finally, the 10-year appraisal cycle can 

take five years or more to implement. In fact, due to Forest Service budget deficiencies, the process in Region 5 is expected to take nine years to complete according 

to the Recreation Residence Assessment provided by the Pacific Southwest Region. 

Change is needed! We believe that constructive change is exactly what the CFA is 

all about. 

Goals and Principles of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (CFA). 

The relationship between cabin owners and the government is complex due to 

interdependent equity interests; the cabin owner owns the structure and the government owns the land. When a cabin is sold, both the land (location) and the structure 

influence the selling price. Separating these two influences, or equity interests, is 

difficult and subjective. There is no simple or absolute answer. The CFA, which is 

widely supported by cabin owners, acknowledges the difficulties of setting a Program with shared interests and offers a new approach! 

The CFA institutes a predictable and affordable annual fee while addressing the 

location factor by establishing a Transfer Fee upon sale. The fee-setting process in 

the CFA acknowledges the need for fair compensation to the U.S. taxpayer. It also 

recognizes that cabin owners contribute to land and location values at their expense. 

In complying with the terms of the permit, cabin owners are responsible for removing nearby diseased or hazard trees, noxious and non-native vegetation and nearby 

wildfire fuels. Utility infrastructure, provided by the cabin owner, becomes part of 

the land, including water and sewage disposal systems. Further, on many Forests, 

cabin owner-purchased water rights are reverting to the land and government ownership! 

The goal of the CFA is to ensure the long-term viability of the Recreation Residence 

Program. 

To achieve this goal, the following basic principles guided and informed the writing of the CFA. The fee determination process for Recreation Residences on National 

Forest System Lands, as embodied in the Cabin Fee Act of 2010, must provide: 

1. For the long-term viability of the Recreation Residence Program. 

44 

2. An affordable, but ‘‘market-determined’’ fee now and in the future for average 

Americans. 

3. A simple, understandable and predictable fee determination process (fee certainty). 

4. A revenue neutral process, that maintains current government revenues and 

guarantees a fair ‘‘market’’ rate of return to the U.S. Taxpayer for the use of 

public lands. 

5. A mechanism to address the complexities of shared interests in the Program, 

both on an annual use basis and upon sale of a cabin. An understanding of 

mutual shared interests relative to ‘‘location’’ must be a central and guiding 

consideration. 

6. For fees that are imposed when actual benefits are received. This applies both 

for the annual use and upon sale, when the actual market for cabins on National Forest System lands reveals the actual market value and the financial 

wherewithal is available to pay the Transfer Fee. 

7. For maintaining the ability to sell cabins at a fair and reasonable price. 

If the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (CFA) becomes law, we submit that the following 

Program benefits will be greatly enhanced and encouraged. 

Merits of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 

1. The documented and extensive forest stewardship work of cabin owners will be 

allowed to continue and be encouraged to expand on local Forests. 

2. The opportunity for genuine partnerships with the Forest Service will be further encouraged and enhanced through collaborative dialogue, thereby improving the overall process of administration and removing a material cause of conflict between the local Forest Service and cabin owners. 

3. Program administration will be simplified and adequately funded from fees retained sufficient to cover Forest Service costs. 

4. Sorely needed revenue streams to state and local governments will continue 

unabated. 

5. Support for local businesses and local employment will flourish, as cabin owners continue their regular patronage of nearby businesses, ensuring the viability of local rural communities. 

6. The U.S. Taxpayer are guaranteed a fair market revenue stream for the limited use of their public lands. 

7. The significant time delays of implementation are avoided. 

8. The windfall profits issue is eliminated. 

Refer to Illustration 1D, Comparison of the Cabin Fee Act to the current fee determination process as defined by CUFFA. 

Comparison of CUFFA to the Cabin Fee Act 

Loss of Cabins: The Sales Data and Appraisal Survey data show almost 30% of 

cabin owners will reach their breakpoint of affordability in the current CUFFA appraisal cycle. When these folks can’t sell, we estimate roughly 15% of cabins (2,100) 

will have to be torn down or removed at the owner’s expense. U.S. Treasury revenue 

loss will be approximately 30% of the total potential fees ($12M) while local governments and communities will suffer. Cabin losses will also reduce donated labor and 

high quality forest stewardship provided by cabin owners. 

Reasonable Annual Fee: The CFA establishes a User Fee, indexed annually 

from a rank order of current market data, but sets the fee at an affordable level 

that helps maintain cabin value and does not destroy the ability to sell the cabin 

if the current owner cannot or chooses not to pay this new fee. 

Annual Fee Range: Instead of fees ranging from $125 to the astonishing $76,000 

annually, the User Fees will range from $500 to $4,000 per year. 

Transfer Fee: A Transfer Fee will capture any value influence of the cabin lot’s 

location on the National Forest and is paid if that value influence is actually realized by the sale. This fee addresses the possibility of windfall profits, which is an 

issue raised by the Forest Service. 

Predictability: Cabin owners will have full knowledge of the indexed annual 

User Fee, and both the seller and buyer can factor the Transfer Fee into their pricing at the time of sale. 

Administrative Process: The complexity and expense of the long, drawn out appraisal process is replaced with a cost effective and simple fee-setting system; and 

Program administration will be simplified and adequately funded from retained fees 

sufficient to cover Forest Service costs. 

Program Revenues: The CFA provides comparable long-term annual revenues 

to the U.S. Treasury after consideration of cost savings related to elimination of apVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

praisals and revenue not collected from cabins that will be lost from the Program 

if CUFFA stands unchanged. 

Cost Savings to Forest Service: In addition to reducing the administrative 

workload, all appraisal costs are eliminated. This will save the Forest Service nearly 

$1 million annually, plus the Forest Service will retain revenue from fees sufficient 

to cover the cost to administer the Program. 

The Act is a solution that works for all parties. 

Summary and Conclusions 

The Recreation Residence Program is threatened. Thankfully, Congress has already made the commitment to the health of the Program by recognizing it as a 

valid use of the National Forests. The failures to correct the problems with the fee 

determination system have only recently been exposed under the current appraisals. 

Congressional action is therefore needed. 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 offers a new approach that will simplify and improve 

the fee determination process. It will encourage local partnerships, collaboration and 

dialogue with the Forest Service while reducing the administrative burden and government expense. We are committed to a new direction and ask for your support 

of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010.’ 


56090.006.eps
46 


56090.007.eps
47 

Exhibit 1A 

Realtor Summary: Effect of CUFFA Permit Fees on the 

Health of the Recreation Residence Program 

Cabin owners in many parts of the country are having difficulty selling their cabins. It has been said that cabins are not selling due only to the current downturn 

in the real estate market. This is an easy answer with little need for justification 

because everyone knows the market is at historic lows. However, this fails to acknowledge the impact of unreasonably high fees on the Recreation Residence Program. To get an understanding of this impact, we contacted real estate professionals 

across the country to get their perspectives about cabin sales on Forest Service 

lands under the CUFFA appraisal process. Their letters are attached for your consideration. 

These letters come from Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The collective experiences clearly demonstrate that the current and anticipated high fees are unreasonable and negatively 

impact the ability to sell cabins. If current cabin owners cannot pay the fees and 

potential buyers are unwilling to pay them, cabin values and program revenues will 

decline. Long-term, these unreasonably high fees will threaten the very existence of 

this valued and valid program for family-oriented recreation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

National Forest Homeowners and Coalition 2 

Letters attached from the following real estate professionals: 

Everett J. Jones, Jr.; Everett J. Jones, Real Estate, Inc., Douglas, AZ 

Carol Butler, Broker Owner; American River Canyon Realtors, 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 

Lori Akers, Realtor; Century 21 Jeffries Lydon, Chico, CA 

Lynn Morton, Broker; Sierra Crest Real Estate, June Lake, CA 

Patty Schwartzkopf, Realtor; Coldwell Banker Mammoth Real Estate, 

Mammoth Lakes, CA 

Chucker Twining, Broker Associate; Prudential California Realty, Twain Harte, CA 

Jason T. Roth, Associate Broker; Coldwell Banker Conklin & Company, 

Ketchum, ID 

Elinor Williamson, Realtor; Clearwater Montana Properties, Inc., Seeley Lake, MT 

Marianne Pearsall, Realtor; Coldwell Banker Select Realty, Incline Village, NV 

Linda Barron, Broker; Cascade Realty at Crescent Lake, Crescent Lake, OR 

Craig E. McKern, Appraiser, P.C.; McKern Appraisal, Eugene, OR 

Barbara Bailey, Associate Broker; Puget Sound Real Estate, Tacoma, WA 

Scott McKinney, Broker; McKinney Realty, Cable, Wl 

David Veihman, Owner/Associate Broker; Jackson Hole Real Estate Associates, 

Jackson, WY 

Ellen Linn, Associate Broker; Jackson Hole Real Estate Associates, 

Jackson, WY 

48 

Exhibit IA (continued) 

Exhibit IB 

Conditions and Restrictions Affecting 

Recreation Residence Special Use Permits 

Application to all permittees: 

• The use of the cabin lot by the permittee is not exclusive. The only portion of 

the lot to which a permittee has exclusive use is the area underlying the cabin. 

The general public is free to use all land not physically occupied by the cabin. 

• Can only obtain a permit for the right to keep improvements on Forest Service 

land for a maximum term of 20 years. 

• Permit termination can be made for another use during that term, unlike a 

lease whose term is definite. 

• In the event of permit termination by the Forest Service for some other use, 

although fees are ramped down, the improvements must be entirely removed at 

the expense of the permit holder. This expense is complicated by the remote naVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

56090.004.eps
49 

ture of the cabins. As a result, loans to finance the purchase of a cabin are nearly impossible to obtain. • In the event that the Forest Service determines it needs the lot for another use, 

termination can happen in less than 10 years, resulting in a payment to the 

permittee of the ‘‘equitable’’ (determined by the Forest Service) value of improvements but avoiding the permittees’ expense to remove those improvements. • Notwithstanding the non-exclusive right to use the lot to which the cabin is connected, the permittee is responsible for both on and off-lot liabilities, such as 

the removal of hazard trees. • A cabin cannot be the permanent residence of its users. Neither can one be 

rented out except for a minimum time period, and then only after prior approval of the permit administrator. • In the event of substantial damage or destruction, rebuilding is not assured. A 

new determination is made as to whether a new cabin should exist on that site, 

and it may take years before a decision is made. Further, there is an option 

to provide an alternative location, but such option is limited and entirely left 

to the permit administrator’s philosophy about recreation residences. • The permit is never transferred. A new owner must apply to the Forest Service 

after the Bill of Sale is completed for a new permit. A cabin owner during the 

sale process cannot make binding representation that the Forest Service will reauthorize the use. 

• If the recent changes to the permit prevail, the permit will be considered a ’license’ and not a contract. In addition, all water rights held by the permittees 

are of questionable ownership. Rules are changed without notice or permittee 

input. 

• Permit fees set by capricious and unpredictable process that often create undue 

stress and render cabins unmarketable. 

• Permittees subject to O & M plan specifications that do not apply in private 

market. 

Regional and Local Forest and/or Ranger Restrictions (vary from location 

to location):** 

• Limit on size of cabin, varies region to region (900-1500 sq. ft.).* 

• Limit on size of deck, porch/patio, varies region to region.* 

• Cabin may have an open loft, but a full 2nd story is not permissible.* 

• No guest cabin or auxiliary sleeping quarters.* One outbuilding for storage allowed, limit on size & varies by region.* 

• Reconstruction or alteration of improvements requires advanced Forest Service 

approval: and all construction (including materials) must be reviewed in light 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act (flora 

and fauna), the Clean Water Act, and archeological concerns. Inspection by all 

the people responsible for these areas of concern often takes a great deal of 

time. 

• Exterior colors, including roofs, must have Forest Service approval. Location of 

and specification for materials protecting wood piles mandated. 

• Fences/gates are not permitted. Satellite dishes are not permitted. Yard lights 

by approval only on buildings, no automated safety lights. 

• No new permanent outdoor fireplaces are permitted. Fire rings of a temporary 

nature may be acceptable in some areas, while in others even a charcoal 

barbeque on a deck is prohibited.* 

• Only native plantings are permissible. Minimal lawn area allowed in some 

cases. 

• Removal of vegetation, including hazard trees only with Forest Service permission and at cabin owner’s expense. 

• Local rules often conflict with fire-safe mandates. 

• Any exterior repairs/alterations must have Forest Service approval, whether 

other governmental agencies’ requirements are needed or not, i.e. county building permits. 

• Cabin owners assume all risk of loss to their improvements resulting from acts 

of God or from a catastrophic event. The Forest Service will conduct an analysis 

and determine if rebuilding will be allowed. 

*Note: Existing improvements can currently remain if outside these guidelines. 

However, during replacement, maintenance and change of ownership of the cabin, 

and sometimes to obtain a new permit upon expiration of the prior permit, the 

Forest Service can require compliance with Forest Service standards. Requirements 

under the National Historic Preservation Act often result in limited ability to 

change the cabin in any way whatsoever. **Further Note: This listing is not all-inVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
50 

clusive, as local decisions can and often do impose additional restrictions on use, 

maintenance and exterior impacts. 

Exhibit 1C 

Comparison of Recreational Home Site Leases 

on behalf of the national forest homeowners and cabin coalition 2 

We have gathered as much lease data as we could find through the Internet, NFH 

homeowners, public and private lessors and lessees, and other contacts. At times, 

we were able to talk to both lessee and lessor of a property. We often asked for their 

best estimates of items such as average fees. We did not try to sort through leases 

but added every lease we found with adequate information. Often leads on leases 

did not result in sufficient information and those leases were not included. There 

are undoubtedly many more leases to be found. These results do not cover all leases 

for some entities such as PacifiCorp, Pacific Gas & Electric, State of Montana, etc. 

But we believe this is a representative sample of leases throughout the United 

States. 

At times we had to keep owners’ names private to obtain their information. We 

felt the gain outweighed the loss of a specific name and location. 

With the exception of CUFF A projected fees, all of the fees are for 2009. The projected average CUFFA fee at full implementation is based on current USFS appraisals and NFH’s projection of the results of future appraisals. Having said that, we 

believe the average will be somewhat less because a significant number of homeowners will be unable to sell their cabins or to pay the fees on their cabins. 

USFS cabin owners are permit holders, not lease holders, and the rights and 

privileges they enjoy are more limited and less valuable than those accorded lessees. 

Interestingly, a few public lessors were less forthcoming with information than 

private lessors. We are appreciative of all the help we received; most were generous 

with their time and energy. 

Barry & Karen Davis 

Eagles Nest Tract, Humboldt-Toiyabe NF 

40 Casper Drive, Cody, WY 82414 

USFS Retired. Former Shoshone National Forest Supervisor. 

Rob Scanland 

Thomas Canyon Tract, Humboldt-Toiyabe NF 

1300 Pinion Hills Dr., Carson City, NV 89702 

Private and public appraisal work including USFS. 

51 

Exhibit 1C (continued) 


56090.008.eps
52 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Peter Bailey, Board of Directors, National 

Forest Homeowners, welcome. 


56090.009.eps 56090.010.eps
53 

STATEMENT OF PETER D. BAILEY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name, as you said, is Pete Bailey, and my family cabin 

is located on the Olympic National Forest in the State of 

Washington. 

In my testimony today I will address the permit fee structure 

and program revenue resulting from the Cabin Fee Act. 

The proposed Act includes an annual user fee and a transfer fee 

paid when a cabin is sold or transferred. Illustration 2A on page 

8 of the written testimony explains the annual user fee. 

Five fee tiers will be established, replacing the current CUFFA 

fee structure. The user fees were determined by balancing the 

rights and privileges that all permit holders share, regardless of location, while acknowledging the location does influence the value 

of the permitted use. 

This balance of common rights and differences for location yields 

a fee structure where the highest fee is eight times the lowest fee. 

This contrasts with the fees under CUFFA, where the highest fees 

are more than 100 times greater than the lowest fees. 

The Cabin Fee Act requires the assignment of each permit to one 

of these fee tiers. Though not perfect, the rank order of current appraised values provides a basis for this assignment. 

The lowest 10 percent of appraised lot values are assigned to the $500 tier. The highest 5 percent are assigned to the $4,000 tier. 

Following this process, user fee revenue is projected to be about 

$24 million for the first year. These fees are adjusted annually by 

a rolling average of the IPD/GDP index. This broadly used Department of Commerce index provides for a reasonable, straightforward 

method of increasing fees annually, while ensuring user fees keep 

pace with the market. 

Illustration 2B explains the transfer fee. The transfer fee has two 

components. First, the $1,000 collected for all cabin sales and 

transfers. If the sale price exceeds $250,000, an additional 5 percent of the sale price exceeding 250, up to $500,000, is applied. 

Plus for sale amounts exceeding $500,000, an additional 10 percent 

is applied. 

For this fee projection, annual cabin sales and prices per range 

were determined by our survey last fall. We project transfer fee 

revenue to be approximately a million dollars for the first year. 

When we combine the annual user fee and the transfer fee, we 

project total revenue of $25 million in the first year. This compares 

favorably with Forest Service projections of $22 million under 

CUFFA this year. 

In my written testimony, a 10-year projection of program revenue 

from the Cabin Fee Act and CUFFA is illustrated. This comparison 

reflects net 10-year program revenue of $276 million, under the 

Cabin Fee Act, which compares favorably the net program revenue 

of $267 million under CUFFA for the same period. 

We can expand on this comparison of fee structures to the broader market of public and private cabin lease programs. A market 

survey concluded this fall that included over 1100 cabins compared 

programs similar in nature to the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program. We believe this survey fairly represents the market 

54 

for similar cabin programs, and further validates the use of public 

forest lands for recreation residence purposes. 

While user fees range widely due to variations in permit and 

lease terms and location considerations, the average user fee was 

less than $1,000. This is considerably less than the average fee of 

$1,700 under the Cabin Fee Act. We offer this as further evidence 

that the proposed fee structure provides a fair return to the U.S. 

Government, and is based upon sound market principles. 

With predictable and affordable fees under the Cabin Fee Act, we 

expect all 14,000 current permits to remain active, keeping the 

Forest Service program within the reach of a typical American family. 

By contrast, while CUFFA is expected to provide similar total 

revenue over time, we project the high fees and uncertainty will result in a decline in the number of permit holders under CUFFA to 

less than 12,000 over the next decade. Thus, reducing the typical 

American family’s participation in this program. 

This same pattern of permit loss is likely to be repeated in future 

appraisal cycles, further eroding the Recreation Residence Program. 

To summarize, the strength of the Cabin Fee Act is its simplicity. 

The simple and straightforward fee structure provides long-term 

predictability and affordability for the cabin program, plus provides 

significant administrative time and cost savings to the Forest Service. These cost savings allow for the redeployment of Forest Service 

resources away from managing appraisals, reappraisals, and permit fee appeals, to a more productive delivery of programs and 

public services. 

The Cabin Fee Act provides a true win-win outcome for the cabin 

owner and the Forest Service, while providing market rents for the 

U.S. taxpayer. 

We thank you for the support of this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bailey follows:] 

Statement of Peter D. Bailey, National Forest Homeowners, 

Director, Cabin Coalition 2 Steering Committee 

Permit Fee and Program Revenue Overview 

Introduction 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 (CFA) includes both an annual User Fee and a Transfer Fee that is applied when a cabin is sold or otherwise transferred. The tiered annual User Fee pays for the rights granted by the permit that every cabin owner receives, while addressing the costs to administer the Program and the relative value 

differences due to location. The Transfer Fee (percentage of the sale price) also addresses the value influence of the cabin site location and attempts to capture some 

location or site values that exceed the value of the structure alone at higher sale 

prices. We believe the location differences, site variability and the impact of the permit restrictions on value are best captured when a cabin sells, when the market determines value. This Transfer Fee also provides for payment when funds are available from the sale of the cabin. With established User Fee tiers and fixed Transfer 

Fee percentages, this approach provides future predictability and affordability for 

the Cabin Program long-term plus easy and consistent administrative procedures for 

both the Forest Service and permit holders to follow. 

Five annual User Fee tiers are established under the CFA, ranging from $500 to 

$4,000, replacing the current fee structure under CUFFA. The User Fee tiers were 

determined by balancing the user rights and privileges of the permit, which are 

equally applied to all permit holders regardless of location, with the recognition that 

location and associated recreation amenities do influence the value of the permitted 

use. The CFA places the vast majority of the annual User Fees in the $1,000 to 

55 

$3,000 range, which we believe represents the fair market value of the permitted 

use. Fewer permits are assigned to the $500 and $4,000 levels which recognize those 

User Fees where location and/or recreational amenities may be substantially lower 

than, or higher than, a typical cabin site. This balance of common rights with differences for location yields a fee structure where the highest fee is eight times the 

lowest fee. This contrasts with the current fees under CUFFA where the highest 

fees are more than 100 times greater than the lowest fees. 

Converting from the CUFFA-based annual permit fees to the CFA 5-tier User 

Fees requires the assignment of each permit to one of the fee tiers. We recognize 

there is no perfect method of assigning the current permits to the User Fee levels. 

After consideration of various alternatives, we determined the use of quantifiable 

information offered the best method for dividing the 14,000 permits into the five fee 

tiers. While the current appraisal system under CUFFA is subject to much criticism, 

we believe using the permit holder’s most recent appraised lot value, ranked in 

order from the lowest appraised value to the highest appraised value provides a 

basis for assigning each permit to a fee tier. The 10% lowest appraised lots are assigned to the $500 level, the next higher 35% are assigned to the $1,000 level, the 

next higher 40% are assigned to the $2,000 level, the next higher 10% are assigned 

to the $3,000 level, with the highest 5% assigned to the $4,000 level. Because 85% 

of the permits are assigned to the affordable range of $1,000 to $3,000, the imperfections of the actual appraised values are not likely to cause major inequities with 

the assignment of permits to fee tiers. 

The following discussion refers to Illustration 2A. 

a. The fee tier assignment is made by using the relative order of the most recent 

appraised value of each permitted lot. Permitted lots with the 10% lowest appraised values will be assigned to the $500 level, while permitted lots with the 

5% highest values will be assigned to the $4,000 level. 

b. The resulting ‘‘normal distribution’’ of fee tier assignments follows the same 

general distribution of values found in the current cycle of Forest Service appraisals. 

c. The vast majority of permit holders would pay a CFA User Fee of the same 

or lesser amount compared to fully implemented CUFFA permit fees, based on 

the current appraisal cycle. A relatively small number of permit holders, those 

at the very lowest levels, would pay slightly higher fees under CFA, than under 

CUFFA. 

d. This mix of permits to fee tier levels generates sufficient annual Program revenue to the U.S. Government to replace expected net revenues under CUFFA. 

e. The annual User Fees are adjusted each year by the changes in the Implicit 

Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) index, published by the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce. 

f. Two objectives of the CFA are affordability and long-term predictability. The 

fee structure established achieves both these objectives and is annually adjusted to compensate for inflation. The CFA provides for affordable, predictable 

fees going forward, unlike the current appraisal methodology which could have 

dire impact every ten years. 

g. The User Fee total Program revenue is projected to be $23.8M for the base 

year of 2010, assuming the legislation becomes effective beginning this year. 

The following discussion refers to Illustration 2B. 

a. The projected number of cabins sold per year is 3% of the total or approximately 420 cabins. (Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report, National Forest 

Homeowners & Cabin Coalition 2, November, 2009.) 

b. The Transfer Fee projections use average sale prices from five ranges of cabin 

sales. 

c. The percentage of cabins sold per range and the average sale price within each 

range were determined from the Sales Data and Appraisal Survey, conducted 

by the NFH & Cabin Coalition 2 during the fall of 2009. 

d. A Transfer Fee of $1,000 is assessed for all cabin sales, plus an additional 

amount equal to 5% of the sale price that exceeds $250,000 up to $500,000, 

plus an additional amount equal to 10% of the sale price that exceeds 

$500,000. 

e. The $1,000 Transfer Fee is intended to cover the Forest Service administrative 

costs and provide for a ‘‘location factor’’ for cabin sales under $250,000, where 

the location factor in the sale price is considered minimal. The $250,000 

amount was arrived at by estimating reproduction costs associated with typical 

cabins. Most Forest Service Regions restrict the size of the cabin, usually within a range of 900 to 1,600 sq. ft. The cost of construction can range from $125 

to $300 per sq. ft., depending on the quality of construction, materials used, 

and the remoteness of the location. For cabins designated as historic, reproducVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

tion costs can increase substantially. Some areas provide easy access, others require long distance travel for supplies and labor and still others are accessed 

only by water, on foot or by pack animal. The cabin owner also bears the cost 

of infrastructure improvements, such as utilities. Using an average of 1,200 sq. 

ft. and an average cost of $200 per sq. ft., we arrive at a figure of $240,000 

(1,200 sf. ft. x $200), rounded up to $250,000 for site improvements. f. For a cabin selling for more than $250,000, it’s difficult to determine how much 

of the sale price may be associated with location, compared to actual and intrinsic value of the cabin property itself. The design, artistic characteristic, materials, and historic value of the cabin structures may be valued differently from 

one prospective purchaser to another. While it’s difficult to arrive at any precise 

formula, we generally believe cabins sold for very high prices are more likely 

to contain location value as a component of the sale price, thus justifying higher 

Transfer Fees above the $250,000 level. 

g. Using the Transfer Fee formula, the projected number of sales, and average cabin sale prices, the projected total Transfer Fee revenue is $1,013,750 for the 

base year 2010, which is approximately 4% of the projected total Program revenue. h. Over 50% of the annual Transfer Fee revenue will be generated from the top 

10-15% of cabin sale prices, supporting the premise that values for location are 

more likely present where sale prices are substantially higher than average or 

typical cabin sale prices. 

i. When the Transfer Fee revenue is combined with the User Fee revenue, the 

Total Program Revenue under the CFA is approximately $24.8M for the base 

year of 2010. This amount compares favorably with the Forest Service projection of $22M for 2010 under CUFFA. The Forest Service Revenue Projection 

was provided to Senator Feinstein last summer 2009 upon her request for the 

information. (Exhibit 2A) 

The following discussion refers to Illustration 2C. 

a. The annual IPD-GDP index of 2.4% used for the projections is based on the 

average of the last 25 years. 

b. The CUFFA Gross Revenue projections were provided by the Forest Service for 

years 2008-2014. The projected amount for 2016 was interpreted from the 

Forest Service statement ‘‘the agency projects $40 million in annual fees upon 

full implementation. The last appraisals will be reviewed in FY 2012 and will 

begin a 3-year phase-in in FY 2014.’’ The projected revenue amounts for 2017- 

2019 were calculated by applying the IPD-GDP index increase over the previous year fee amount. 

c. Under CUFFA, some permit fees will increase beyond the level the current or 

any prospective permit holder would be willing or able to pay. The number of 

abandoned permits is projected to increase steadily as higher fees are implemented from the current CUFFA appraisal cycle. Upon full implementation of 

CUFFA, approximately 2,100 permits, or 15% of the total, are projected to be 

lost due to high fees as determined from the Break Point analysis found in the 

Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report. (Exhibit 2B) 

d. The CUFFA Net Revenue is determined by subtracting the revenue lost due 

to abandoned permits from the gross CUFFA revenue projections. Because 

abandoned permits generally occur at higher fee ranges, the projected revenue 

loss is approximately twice the percentage of permits lost. The amount of Program revenue loss under CUFFA is projected to reach 30% by 2016, the year 

CUFFA reaches full implementation. 

e. The annual Program revenues under the CFA increase each year by the IPDGDP index of 2.4%. All 14,000 permits are expected to be retained under the 

CFA by keeping annual user fees within an affordable range. 

f. The total CFA Net 10-Year Program Revenue of $276M compares favorably 

with the projected CUFFA Net Revenues of $267M. 

g. Applying a discount rate of 3.75% (10-yr treasury rate) to the 10-year revenue 

streams of both programs yields a Net Present Value (NPV) of the CFA Program Revenues that is approximately $8M greater than the NPV of the 

CUFFA Program Revenues for the same period. 

The following discussion refers to Illustration 2D. 

a. This summary, based on the Comparison of Recreational Home Sites Leases, 

National Forest Homeowners, January, 2010, provides us with a method for 

comparing the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program to other programs 

with a similar use. While the authors make no representation that the study 

includes all such programs, we believe their best effort survey offers a reasonable representation of the market for recreation residence programs in the 

United States. 

57 

b. While no two programs are identical, a number of similarities exist. Each program provides the permit holder with the right to maintain a recreation residence on forest land in return for an annual fee. The market study focused primarily on programs using public lands, while also including several programs 

on private lands where terms were similar to the public land programs. Over 

11,000 cabin lots are represented. 

c. Several observations can be made when comparing to the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program: 

• While all programs have use limitations, some programs allow greater 

use (exclusive use of land, permanent residency, no dwelling limitations, 

etc.), while others are more restrictive. The Forest Service permitted use 

appears to be among the most restrictive when compared to other programs. 

• Some programs use appraisal methods to set annual fees while other 

programs use alternative methods to achieve the same end. Non-appraisal based user fees are found more often (>70% lots). 

• Where non-appraisal based user fees are found, most adjust (increase) 

fees annually via a price index. 

• Where appraisals are used, most programs attempt to use a fair market 

approach to value the land, then apply a rate factor to arrive at an annual user fee: 

Æ CUFFA was the only appraisal method found with specific instructions to 

exclude value adjustments for permit restrictions and limitations placed 

on land use, thus resulting in higher appraised amounts. 

Æ Rates for determining annual fees range from 2.5% to 5.5%, placing the 

Forest Service CUFFA 5% rate at the higher end of the range. 

• While a wide range of user fees is found due to variations in the permit/ 

lease terms and location considerations, the average annual user fee is 

less than $1,000 for the 11,000 lots represented by this study. If we 

limit the analysis to public lands only, the average annual user fee remains less than $1,000, considerably less than average fees under 

CUFFA or the CFA. 

Permit Fee and Program Revenue Summary 

The Cabin Fee Act of 2010 provides a permit fee structure that is affordable and 

predictable for the cabin owner, while ensuring a fair return to the U.S. Government. The total program revenue under the CFA compares favorably to the total 

program revenue under CUFFA, not only for the base year of 2010, but over a period of time as reflected in the ten-year program revenue projection. 

The annual User Fees for 2010 under the CFA range from $500 to $4,000, with 

an overall average of $1,700, over 70% higher than the national average user fee 

for a recreation residence lot with a similar use, on lands held for a similar purpose. 

We offer this as further evidence that the CFA fee structure provides more than fair 

return to the U.S. Government and is based on sound market principles. 

Under the CFA fee structure, we expect all 14,000 current permits to remain active, keeping the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program within reach of the 

typical American family. By contrast, while the CUFFA fees are expected to provide 

total program revenues similar to the CFA fees, it does so with a decline of permit 

holders to less than 12,000 over the next 5-6 years based on the current appraisal 

cycle, thus reducing the typical American family’s participation in the Recreation 

Residence Program. This same pattern of permit loss is likely to be repeated in future appraisal cycles, eroding the Recreation Residence Program still further over 

time. 

We understand that the number of second appraisals and permit fee appeals has 

risen considerably under the current CUFFA appraisal cycle, increasing administrative costs to the Forest Service, while potentially reducing services to the public. 

This increase in Forest Service Administrative costs was discussed in the Recreation 

Residence Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service, June 10, 

2009, Updated November 12, 2009. The elimination of on-going appraisals will yield 

substantial administrative cost savings to the Forest Service, potentially exceeding 

$1M annually. The proposed CFA provides the opportunity for the Forest Service 

to redeploy resources resulting from these cost savings into more productive delivery 

of programs and services to the public. 

The strength of the Cabin Fee Act of 2010 is its simplicity. The simple and 

straight forward fee structure provides future predictability and affordability for the 

Cabin Program long-term plus easy and consistent administrative procedures for 

both the Forest Service and permit holders to follow. The CFA provides a true winVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

win outcome for the cabin owners and the U.S. Forest Service. We thank you for 

your support of this legislation. 


56090.011.eps 56090.012.eps
59 


56090.013.eps 56090.014.eps
60 

Exhibit 2A 

Forest Service Revenue Projection, 

provided to Senator Feinstein by the Forest Service upon her request 

(Summer 2009). 

Cabin User Fees 

Question: What is the total annual cost to the Forest Service for administering 

the recreation residence program for each of the past five fiscal years, including projected costs for FY 2009? How many FTE does the program require? Please provide 

the basis for how the costs were calculated, and separate out direct and indirect 

costs. 

Answer: The Forest Service accounting system does not distinguish the cost of 

performing recreation residence permit administration from the cost of processing 

and administering recreational permits overall. In FY 2009, the total for the administration of recreation special use authorizations is estimated at $43.1 million and 

338 FTEs. Of that planned amount, approximately $6.7 million are indirect costs 

or about 15.5 percent. The FY 2009 estimate for administering recreation special 

uses overall is based on regions’ capability data. The indirect cost estimate is based 

on FY 2008 actual expenditures and that same indirect cost percentage is applied 

to FY 2009 planned levels. 

Question: What are the real and projected costs to the Forest Service for implementing the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 for the past five fiscal years, including FY 2009? How much is budgeted for FY 2010? Please separate direct and 

indirect costs. 

Answer: The cost of implementing the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA) is reflected in the direct appraisal costs estimated at $7 million from FY 

2007 through FY 2012 and an additional $1.3 million in indirect costs. CUFFA did 

not result in a significant increase in direct appraisal costs per appraisal cycle, but 

by requiring appraisals every ten years as opposed to the previous policy of every 

twenty years, CUFFA effectively doubled these costs. Indirectly, CUFFA resulted in 

a significant amount of time and money devoted to the writing of regulations, meeting with interested parties, and responding to the controversy generated by its implementation. However, there is no budget line item for CUFFA implementation, as 

it is part of overall recreation permit program costs. 

Question: Specifically, what are the costs of new appraisals to implement CUFFA 

in Fiscal Years 2007, 2008 and 2009? What appraisal costs are budgeted for Fiscal 

Year 2010? What is the expected total cost of an entire appraisal cycle for all forests? Please explain how the overall CUFFA implementation costs and the appraisal 

costs were determined. 

Answer: Costs of new appraisal are spread out from FY 2007 through FY 2012. 

Our accounting system does not split out these specific costs, but the agency has 

developed the following estimates based on known direct contract costs and review 

appraiser costs, and then projecting forward. An estimated additional $1.3 million 

over FY 2007—FY 2012 is estimated for indirect costs. 

Question: How much revenue did the Federal Government receive from the fees 

paid for recreation residence permits in Fiscal Year 2008? Under current law and 

policies, how much revenue is the Federal Government projected to receive from fees 

paid for recreation residence permits in each Fiscal Years from FY 2009 to FY 2014? 

Answer: In FY 2008, revenue received was $14.6 million. Assuming there is little 

change in fees from second appraisals and assuming the increase indicated from the 

completed appraisals is representative for the whole, the agency projects $40 million 


56090.015.eps
61 

in annual fees upon full implementation. The last appraisals will be reviewed in FY 

2012 and will begin a 3-year phase-in in FY 2014. Breaking out the increase over 

the intervening years would indicate the following estimates. 

FY 2009: $20 million 

FY 2010: $22 million 

FY 2011: $24 million 

FY 2012: $26 million 

FY 2013: $32 million 

FY 2014: $35 million 

Exhibit 2B 

NFH Sales and Appraisal Survey (Oct. 2009) 

Breakpoint Analysis 

The ‘‘breakpoint’’ is the financial point where cabin owners cannot pay or will not 

pay the permit fee increases that result from the current CUFFA appraisal process. 

We assume sales attempts will occur and/or folks will walk away from their cabins. 

We believe that as fees exceed cabin owner breakpoints, some cabins will be sold, 

but other cabins will be added to the list of cabins already unsalable, due to their 

high current fee and the uncertainty in the existing CUFFA appraisal process. Permits abandoned will result in lost revenue. 

In the following table the breakpoint average from the survey was $3,190, with 

a range of $200 - $20,000. This is quite a range. Please note that some cabin owners 

are willing and able to pay fees above the $5,000 level, but others are unwilling or 

unable to pay a fee that is less than $1,500. Challenges to cabin owners exist across 

the spectrum. All non-zero responses (1263) to the breakpoint survey question are 

included in the following table. 

What year will you reach your ‘‘Breakpoint’’? 

The following table suggests that at least 57.7% of cabin owners will reach the 

‘‘breakpoint’’ in this appraisal cycle when fully implemented in year 2014 or 2015. 

This percentage probably overstates the reality on the ground because most people 

will try to ride out the process and hang on in hopes of success in changing CUFFA, 

which is already occurring in tracts appraised with high values in this cycle. The 

‘‘Don’t Know’’ responses (41.1%) reflect the fact that about 40% of all cabins have 

yet to receive their CUFFA appraisals and cabin owners have no idea of the potential outcome. Uncertainty is inherent in this process. 


56090.016.eps
62 

Reasons given for reaching their Breakpoint or Walk-away point 

• 34.7% couldn’t afford the fee. 

• 51.4% indicated the fee exceeded the value of the rights and privileges granted. 

• 13.8% other 

After deeper analysis of the ‘‘other’’ comments, we conclude that approximately 

40% of cabin owners can’t afford the fee, while 60% are unwilling to pay a fee they 

believe exceeds the value received. 

Comparison of 2010 Estimated Fee to projected Breakpoint 

The following table demonstrates that as fees exceed the $4,000 level, at least 

53.8% of the cabin owners will reach a point where they are unable or unwilling 

to pay the fee, they have reached their ‘‘Breakpoint’’. Plus, if CUFFA fees become 

fully implemented, these data suggests that 35.3% of all cabin owners will reach 

this point. 


56090.017.eps
63 

Breakpoint Data Summary 

• The survey responses indicate that, without changes to CUFFA, 35% of cabin 

owners will reach their breakpoint or walk-away point in the current CUFFA 

appraisal cycle following full implementation of CUFFA. The recently passed 

temporary moratorium on fee increases greater than 25% may change this projection for 2010. 

• 60% indicated the CUFFA fee exceeds the value of the rights and privileges 

granted. This number supports the contention that cabins will be very difficult 

to sell, because a potential buyer would likely reach the same conclusion. This 

is consistent with both anecdotal and hard evidence that cabins in some highfee locations are difficult or nearly impossible to sell. 

• These comparisons are made with data that is estimated and projected. This 

must be weighed and considered in the analysis. However, the data does clearly demonstrate that we have a serious problem in the immediate future if we 

are not successful in changing CUFFA. Even if the breakpoint response data 

is discounted by 50%, the implication remains that at least a 15% loss of cabins, in this appraisal cycle, is probable. The next section further illustrates this 

point. 

Projected Impact on Revenue due to Permit Loss 

The following table illustrates the amount of fee revenue loss that occurs when 

permits are lost. The ‘‘% Lost Permits’’ percentage is arrived at by reducing the survey results by 20% for each level and rounding to the nearest 10%. This adjustment 

yields a more conservative result by attempting to reduce or eliminate any cabin 

owner bias with the survey. The permit loss ranges from 30% for permits at the 

$4,000-$5,000 level, increasing to 80% for those fees greater than $10,000. Extending the % permits lost by the average fee per range shows the revenue loss per 

level. The projected total revenue loss (38%) is approximately twice the number of 

permits lost (17%), supporting the 2-to-1 ratio of revenue loss to number of permits 

lost conclusion. Both percentages are rounded down to 15% and 30% for the CUFFA 

program revenue fee projections. 


56090.018.eps
64 

Conclusion 

• The survey ‘‘breakpoint’’ data is consistent with the cabin owner forums and 

communication received from individual cabin owners from all Forest Service 

regions. Most express concern they will be forced to sell or abandon their cabins when fees reach the $3,000-$4,000 level, which is supported by the survey 

results. 

• The Forest Service expects the current cycle of field appraisals to be completed 

by 2012. Second appraisals and appeals are likely to extend this process by 

another year or two. For fee increases exceeding 100%, a three year phase in 

of fees suggests full implementation of CUFFA fees is not expected until 2016. 

We expect permit loss will occur as higher CUFFA fees are implemented in 

the same phased-in pattern (from 2011 to 2016), reaching the full 15% permit 

loss in 2016 as CUFFA is fully implemented. The attached Ten-Year Total 

Revenue Projection factors this permit loss into the CUFFA net revenue projections. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Ms. Maureen Barile, cabin owner, 

Fresno, California. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN BARILE, CABIN OWNER, 

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. BARILE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Maureen Barile. I live in Fresno, 

California. I am a Recreation Residence permittee. My family and 

I are here today as a representation of multi-generation cabin-permittee families. 

My cabin is located at Huntington Lake in eastern Fresno 

County in the Sierra National Forest. The Sierra National Forest 

has a land mass of approximately 1.4 million acres, of which more 

than half is designated wilderness and protected activity centers. 

My family has a long history with the cabin program and the 

Forest Service. My late husband Tom’s family came to Huntington 

Lake in the early 1950s. Tom, as a young boy, worked alongside 

his father, a printer from the Fresno Bee, in building the cabin. 

The cabin was built of salvaged lumber from an old air base in 

Fresno. It was definitely a labor of love. 

Tom as a young man worked for the Forest Service in tree planting, fire, and recreation. In 1965 he was a Huntington guard, 


56090.019.eps
65 

housed in the old Forest Service guard station, now the Billie 

Creek Museum. My association with the Recreation Residence Program began in 1965, when Tom proposed. 

In 1982, Tom and I were able to purchase a tiny cabin in disrepair; and thus, our sons, Paul and David, as young teens, now 

worked alongside their dad in building the cabin. 

What do recreation permittees provide to the community and the 

public with their volunteer work and financial support? Cabin owners successfully led the Save Kaiser Ridge campaign, resulting in 

the Congressional designation of the Kaiser Wilderness. The historic Billie Creek Guard Station Museum opened its doors to the 

public on July 28, 2001. This was a partnership of cabin owners 

with the U.S. Forest Service. The museum now has three separate 

restored historical structures, which are a portrait in time of the 

socio-economic history of the Huntington Lake Basin communities. 

Tom and I were involved in this project from the onset. I proudly 

acknowledge my grandson, Thomas, who is with us here today, and 

who, at the age of eight years old, began volunteering as a junior 

docent. 

The museum is open to the public free of charge, and serves summer visitors. We were pleased to have Congressman Jim Costa 

visit the museum last year. The Huntington Lake Volunteer Fire 

Department, a 911 first responder, services 150 square miles. 

During peak times there are over 14,000 visitors to the forest. 

There is no cost to the public for these services, which are funded 

and manned by cabin owners. We sponsor campfire and historic 

programs; we partner with the U.S. Forest Service in National 

Public Land Days activities. We write grants for forest fire prevention in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service. We adopt trails. 

We participated for seven years in the Big Creek Hydropower relicensing. As stakeholders, we were able to obtain outstanding conditions and funding from the utility for the good of the public. 

Tom died suddenly on the last day of his work, after 31 years as 

an educator for the Madeira Unified School District. As part of the 

108th Congressional Record of Monday, June 16, 2003, it is stated 

that Thomas E. Barile was honored in the House of Representatives for his visionary work as an educator, and for his volunteer 

work for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department and the Sierra 

National Forest. 

Tom volunteered his services using his experience as an educator 

to teach youngsters about the forest, mountains, and their unique 

attributes. His philosophy instilled in his children was if you take 

something out, you must put something back. 

He took his role as a steward of the forest seriously, as I have. 

Tom coordinated the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department Winter 

Snowmobile Search and Rescue Team, which he served as a volunteer commander for 18 years. When asked by the Sheriff’s Department to take on this responsibility, Tom looked to our sons, Paul 

and David, and fellow cabin families for this volunteer team, donating their time, expertise, and equipment in the saving of lives. 

I have been left with the responsibility of the Recreational Residence permit and the cabin. I am very concerned about the future 

of this program. Fees have progressed, have increasingly proVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
66 

gressed, and I know many cabin owners who are of modest means, 

who will have to leave their cabins if this trend continues. 

I, too, am of modest means, living off of my husband’s teacher’s 

pension. My sons are both law enforcement officers, David a deputy 

with Fresno County, and a Paul a deputy with Merced County. We 

do not want to be driven out of the forest because of the inability 

to pay escalating fees. 

If I and my fellow cabin owners have to leave the forest, it will 

be a great personal tragedy, as well as a loss to the public of those 

many volunteer cabin families from forests throughout the nation, 

who give so much of their time, efforts, talents, and support. 

Fees that drive out the modest American will create a change in 

the national forest use. The Forest Service will have created a system that is affordable only to the very wealthy. The sense of community and partnerships will end. 

My son, Paul, my grandson, Thomas, and my daughter-in-law, 

Kim, are all here with me today. We thank you for the opportunity 

to address the Committee. We request your support of H.R. 4888, 

and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barile follows:] 

Statement of Maureen E. Barile, A California cabin owner and 

a member of National Forest Homeowners. 

My name is Maureen Barile. I live in Fresno, California. I am a Recreation Residence Permittee. My family and I are here today as representation of multi-generation cabin permittee families (accompanying statements attached as Exhibit 4A, 4B 

and 4C). 

My cabin is located at Huntington Lake in Eastern Fresno County in the Sierra 

National Forest. The Sierra National Forest is geographically located between Kings 

Canyon & Sequoia National Parks to the south and Yosemite to the north. The Sierra National Forest has a land mass of approximately 1.4 million acres of which 

750,000 acres is designated wilderness and protected activity centers. 

The first cabins permitted at Huntington Lake were in 1916. Many early cabins 

were constructed of salvaged lumber from the Big Creek Hydro Project which began 

in 1911 with the 3 dams at Huntington. Most of those cabins remain today in the 

original families. For the next 40 years the U.S. Forest Service continued to encourage and invite the public to come to the forest and build a recreation residence. 

My family has a long history with the cabin program and the Forest Service. My 

late husband Tom’s family came to Huntington Lake in the early 1950’s when the 

USFS announced a lottery for lots. They had camped at Huntington and loved the 

Sierras so they entered the lottery. My husband, as a young boy, worked alongside 

his father (a printer for the Fresno Bee) in building the cabin. The cabin was built 

of salvaged lumber from an old air base in Fresno. It was definitely a labor of love. 

Materials were hauled up the mountain in a small trailer behind the family jeep. 

My husband Tom, as a young man, worked for the Forest Service in tree planting, 

fire and recreation. In 1965 he was the Huntington Guard, housed at the old Forest 

Service guard station (now the Billy Creek museum). My association with the Recreation Residence Program began in 1965 when Tom proposed. 

In 1982 Tom and I were able to purchase a tiny cabin in disrepair, and thus our 

sons Paul & David as young teens now worked alongside their dad in building ‘‘The 

Cabin’’. They mixed the cement on site. All materials were hauled up in the family 

pick up or trailer. 

We like so many recreation residence families have a great love for the mountains 

and are eager to share with family and friends. Cabins are always buzzing with activity. While having fun, folks are always learning about the forest and how to give 

back and be good stewards. 

What do Recreation Permittees provide to the community and the public with 

their volunteer work and financial support? 

Recreation residence permittees led the ‘‘Save Kaiser Ridge’’ campaign. This volunteer work resulted in the Congressional Designation of the Kaiser Wilderness. 

*In 1989 we learned the Forest Service intended to demolish the Huntington 

Guard Station. A group of cabin owners initiated a project to restore the guard staVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:28 Sep 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56090.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
67 

tion for use as a museum. It was a 12 year process. We had to appeal the original 

decision to demolish the station, the USFS wanted new science, environmental studies had to be done, historic evaluations were required, and hours of research were 

needed. The buildings were restored, and in 2001 we were issued our permit. The 

‘‘Historic’’ Billy Creek Guard Station Museum opened its doors to the public on 

July 28, 2001. This was and continues to be a great example of volunteers working 

in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service. 

The museum now has three separate restored historical structures which are a 

portrait in time of the socio-economic history of the Huntington Lake Basin communities which encapsulate man’s historic contributions to the area along with the 

building of the Big Creek Hydro-system and recreation. Tom and I were involved 

in this project from the onset. I proudly acknowledge my grandson Thomas, who is 

with us here today and who at the age of 8 years old began volunteering as a junior 

docent. My grandsons Kristjan 14 and Matthew 9 also volunteer. The museum is 

open to the public free of charge and serves summer visitors. Most visitors are 

campers, day use visitors and other members of the general public. Congressman 

Jim Costa came and visited the museum last year. 

*In 1999 Recreation Residence Permittees recognized the need for a trained and 

well equipped volunteer fire dept. The Huntington Lake Volunteer Fire Dept. 

(HLVD) in ten years has become a 911 first responder that services 150 square 

miles. The volunteer firemen & women are cabin, resort and camp permittees. During peak times there are over 14,000 visitors to the forest whom they are ready to 

serve. There is no cost to the public for these services rendered. The Volunteer Fire 

Department operates from community donations and grants. 

*We co-sponsor campfire programs at the museum free of charge.*We provide historic programs for the public at no charge 

*We partner with the U.S. Forest Service in National Public Lands Day activities. 

*We write grants for forest fire prevention working in partnership with the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

*We save and preserve historic buildings, i.e. USFS Huntington Guard Station, 

USFS Kaiser Diggings work center, and the Pine Logging Camp. 

*We serve as winter trail patrollers. 

*We write grants in partnership with the USFS to clear trails, construct bridges, 

develop snowmobile trails and ski trails. 

*We Protect and preserve the history of the World War II B-24 bomber that 

crashed on December 6, 1943 into Huntington Lake. 

*Family heirlooms are donated to the museum. 

*Old photo collections are donated to the museum. 

*We participated for 7 years in the Big Creek Hydro Power Relicensing. As stakeholders we were able to obtain outstanding conditions and funding from the utility 

for the good of the public. 

Tom died suddenly on the last day of his work after 31 years as an educator for 

the Madera Unified School District. As part of the 108th Congressional Record of 

Monday, June 16, 2003 it is stated that Thomas C. Barile was honored in the House 

of Representatives for his visionary work as an educator and for his volunteer work 

to the Fresno County’s Sheriff’s Dept. and the Sierra National Forest. 

For most of Tom’s adult life he volunteered his services using his experience as 

an educator to teach youngsters about the forests, mountains and their unique attributes. His philosophy, and one that he instilled in his children, was ‘‘if you take 

something out you must put something back’’. He took his role as a Steward of the 

Forest seriously, as have I. Among the many volunteer projects in which Tom participated was the coordination of the Fresno County Sheriff’s Dept. winter snowmobile Search and Rescue team which he served as a volunteer Commander for 18 

years and also served on the Mountaineering Team. When asked by the Sheriff’s 

Department to take on this responsibility Tom looked to our sons, Paul & David and 

fellow cabin families for this volunteer team. A highly skilled team of volunteers donating, their time, expertise and equipment came together and assist in the saving 

of many lives. 

I have been left with the responsibility for the recreational residence permit and 

the cabin. I am very concerned about the future of this Program. Fees have progressively increased and I know many cabin owners who are of modest means who will 

have to leave their cabins if this trend continues. I too am of modest means living 

off of my husband’s teacher’s pension. My sons are both law enforcement officers, 

David a deputy with Fresno County and Paul a deputy with Merced County. We 

do not want to be driven out of the forest because of the inability to pay escalating 

fees. If I and my fellow cabin owners have to leave the forest it will be a great personal tragedy as well as a loss to the public of those many volunteer cabin families 

68 

from forests throughout the nation who give so much of their time, efforts, talents 

and support. 

Fees that drive out the modest American will create a change in National Forest 

use. The U.S. Forest Service will have created a system that is affordable only to 

the very wealthy. The sense of community and partnerships will end. 

My son Paul, grandson Thomas and daughter-in-law Kim are here with me today. 

We thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. It is my hope and belief 

that Congress will recognize the threat posed to the Recreation Residence Program 

and not let unreasonable fees force us out of our cabins. We request your support 

of H.R. 4888. 

Exhibit 4A 

Statement of Diane Dreher, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 

Our family cabin is located in Chequamegan National Forest in Wisconsin. Many 

would consider it a ‘‘rag tag’’ cabin but it is a family treasure to my family. I am 

Diane Dreher and our cabin built in 1948 has been in the family since my uncle 

acquired it in 1996. It is a rustic cabin, 750 square feet including one small bedroom 

and kitchen. Our water comes from a primitive water system and our heat from a 

propane heater and fireplace. When my uncle died my family obtained the permit 

to make certain that it was maintained and the family could continue to use it. 

Our use of the cabin is confined to the summer months due to extreme weather 

in the winter and limits on year round use imposed by our permit. My children, 

grandchildren and I use the cabin in the summer months. My 92 year old mother 

continues to regularly visit the cabin in the summer and guests are welcome despite 

the small size of the living area. 

I am a divorcee, living on social security, limited investments and income from 

a part time job at Barnes and Noble. I was working 20 hours a week but I have 

just been reduced to 5 hours a week due to hard economic times. We struggled to 

pay the yearly use fees when they were approximately $3000 per year. They now 

are $7000 a year. We cannot afford such high fees and will be forced to abandon 

the cabin. It is unlikely that anyone would purchase this cabin considering the high 

fees and many restrictions on its use especially when other privately owned residences free of many government regulations are available. 

It will be sad to leave this cabin. My children and grandchildren have grown up 

in the summer time learning about the outdoors, the quality of nature and all the 

forest has to offer, from wildflowers to the infrequent bears that visit us. The grandchildren have learned to swim in the local lake diving off a simple portable dock 

we install each summer. 

I cannot help but believe that the appraised value of our small, rustic cabin has 

been influenced by many privately owned cabins and residences in the area which 

are simply not in the same league. In fact, our cabin and others in our tract serve 

as a buffer between larger cabins and the dense forest and we believe that we are 

responsible stewards of that forest. 

It is the hope of the Dreher family and our fellow cabin owners that Congress will 

act swiftly to reform the fee system and provide for fair fees before it is too late 

for us. 

Diane Dreher 

Exhibit 4B 

Statement of Cindy Sims Langley. Clovis, California 

My name is Cindy Sims Langley. My family has owned a cabin for over 70 years 

at in the Sequoia National Forest at Hume Lake in California. The cabin was built 

in 1926. It was known as the ‘‘hunter’s shack’’ when my grandmother acquired it 

in 1938. My grandmother, Dorothy Seele, was one of the first cabin owners on the 

recreational permit side of the side of the lake, the other side being occupied by a 

public Forest Service camp. 

My grandmother was a single mother from Southern California. All her life she 

made great sacrifices first to acquire the cabin then to maintain the cabin for her 

family. She worked as waitress in the Los Angeles area arranging to hire a woman 

and her son to stay at the cabin and care for her daughters there all summer long 

while she remained in the hot valley working. This way Grandma had peace of mind 

as she worked long hours to provide for her family knowing her children were safe 

at the cabin enjoying the forest. 

69 

After working a full day my grandmother would make the arduous trip to the 

cabin. This was a 6 hour trip which she would drive alone, at night, arriving around 

11 PM Friday evening. She would wash her uniform and go to bed anticipating Saturday with the girls fishing, exploring, hiking and swimming before turning around 

and heading back to Los Angeles to work. 

Every spare cent grandma had she spent to protect that cabin for her family. As 

children, my mother and aunt spent summers with other cabin owners’ children 

playing on and around Hume Lake. They also spent their evenings at the Forest 

Service camp singing with the forest rangers and roasting marshmallows and drinking hot chocolate-they were having a grand time. When the (then) new Christian 

camp was built at Hume Lake they also participated in the fun with the residents.. 

It was a wonderful life. Over the years our cabin became the center of our life away 

from home. We learned the mysteries and value of life in the forest. My mother met 

my father frogging on Hume Lake and my uncle met and married the head Ranger 

Paul Spivey’s daughter Kathy Spivey. My father spent summers splitting fence 

posts my grandfather had logged. Everyone joined in to maintain our cabin in the 

woods. 

Eventually grandchildren came along and we grew up and roamed these mountains lakes and streams as did our cousins from all sides of the family. We all enjoyed the cabin life and sometimes there would be 14 or more sleeping on the floor 

and deck just to be together. As we grew we married and had children of our own 

who have also learned to swim fish and roam the mountains around Hume Lake. 

The cabin is only 900 square feet with a sleeping loft. It’s cozy; however we have 

always found room for the expanded family to enjoy the cabin experience. We have 

had over 30 years of family reunions at the cabin—that’s a lot of togetherness! My 

74 year old father continues to enjoy the cabin. I am not embarrassed to say that 

all three of my children were conceived at the cabin. The cabin means so much to 

my own family that we moved to Clovis, California to be several hours closer to the 

cabin. 

My grandmother understood the importance of the cabin to her family and for 

over 70 years provided a wonderful place for all of us to gather and stay close as 

a family. When she died she insisted the cabin be left in trust to her grandchildren 

and great grandchildren to keep the tradition alive. Unfortunately, the threat of 

substantial Forest Service permit fee increases threatens our ability to continue to 

keep our cherished cabin. 

We are not a wealthy family. I am disabled but receive no source of disability pension; my husband is a plumber at the local hospital, my oldest son a firefighter and 

with budget cuts his job is in jeopardy, the middle son works for delx films, which 

may sound like a high paying job but when you expect to get laid off 3 to 6 months 

out of each year it is not. Our youngest son is in college-need I say more? We are 

your average middle class family and this cabin means everything to us. Our 

‘‘wealth’’ is found in memories and our family life at the cabin is an integral part 

of that. I am hopeful that our children and grandchildren will be able to continue 

to fulfill my grandmother’s dream. We hear from fellow cabin owners and the Forest 

Service that yearly cabin permit fees under an appraisal system will likely rise by 

thousands of dollars. This will put the fee beyond our means. We urge Congress to 

change the permit fee system to assure a more affordable one for families such as 

ours. 

Cindy Sims Langley 

Exhibit 4C 

Statement of Jo Musser-Kraus Tucson, Arizona 

My name is Jo Musser-Krauss and I am a resident of Tucson, Arizona. I have a 

cabin subject to a U.S. Forest Service recreational residence special use permit. My 

cabin is a ‘‘piece of heaven’’ located in Willow Canyon in the Coronado National 

Forest in Arizona. I consider it so not because it is luxurious but because of its importance to me, my family, friends and community, as I will explain. I am submitting this statement because I am very concerned I am going to have to give up the 

cabin due to the likelihood of increased yearly fees. 

I am 87 years old, a widow and a retired educator. The lot for my cabin was originally acquired by its first owner shortly after World War II in a lottery conducted 

by the government. My husband and I purchased the cabin in 1973. The cabin is 

one room, approximately 360 square feet, plus a small bathroom, the only addition 

we have been permitted to make. Our septic system is an outhouse with a vault, 

we obtain water from rainfall or transport it in ourselves and our heat is from a 

70 

fireplace. The cabin is rustic and we access it over a 1 1/2 mile rough road which 

we have to maintain. Provisions are hauled in from the city. The Forest Service limits the days each year we can use our cabin. We use our cabin for 4 months, May 

through August. My husband and I attempted to use it one winter, a difficult experience. It is too isolated for winter use at my age, even if it were permitted. 

Mine is in every sense a family cabin available to my 3 daughters, 5 grand children and 2 great grand children. It is also a community meeting place. We have 

approximately 150 visitors to my cabin each year. Church groups regularly meet 

there and the church youth group helps me clear the land around the cabin to protect from wildfires. In fact, we have had two recent wildfires fires in the vicinity 

which destroyed several cabins. Mine survived in large part due to this effort. I am 

a docent at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson and the docents regularly 

meet at my cabin over the summer months. ‘‘Jo’s’’ cabin is the site of the yearly 4th 

of July party for my fellow cabin owners and guests. 

If I have to let my cabin go it will not only be a loss to me but to the many friends 

and groups who use it as well. The cabin has a special attachment for me. Located 

at 7000 feet in the Catalina Mountains it is a sanctuary from the heat of Tucson. 

Much of the work on it we do ourselves and its style is unique. For example, after 

we acquired the cabin my husband and I paneled the inside with scrap wood 

salvaged from wooden packing boxes. I have attached some photos of the cabin. 

I live on a pension and pay the current fee, personal and property taxes myself. 

We hear that the permit fees will soon be approximately $4000 a year which will 

be about 10% of my income. I will be unable to afford such fees and will have to 

let the cabin go. 

I am no stranger to the difficulties encountered in changing the law and implementing such changes. In the mid 1970’s I attended a meeting in California with 

2 local Board members, including then member and now Congressman Raul 

Grijalva; to address school desegregation. After that meeting we came up with a 

workable plan implemented in the Tucson Unified School District which included a 

magnet school. I was appointed Principal of Borton Primary Magnet School, one of 

the 9 schools in the desegregation plan. I know that things can be made to work 

if people work hard to make them work. I hope that Congress will make the effort 

to make certain that the yearly fees for our cabins are kept reasonable and affordable. 

February,20, 2010 

Jo Musser-Krauss, 2910 E. Malvern St., Tucson, AZ 85716 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BARILE. You are very welcome. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Just some quick questions. Mr. Anderson, since 

the implementation of CUFFA 10 years ago—and we have heard 

stories about what the fee increase is potentially doing, and the 

last panelist articulated that, as well—how many, what percentage 

of abandonments or tearing-down of cabins have you seen? Is there 

a percentage attached to it? 

Mr. ANDERSON. There hasn’t been any significant abandonment 

yet, and that is because the fees under the CUFFA system were 

so delayed that they have only recently been implemented within 

the last two years. So we haven’t quite yet seen—well, we have 

seen attempts to sell, which have been unsuccessful. But we 

haven’t seen abandonment yet. 

Many of those fees are just now becoming applicable. And I can 

tell you what I have seen and heard. And that is that I get calls, 

both I and the executive director get calls from members, saying 

I just got my new CUFFA fee bill that just came in last year or 

this year. I can’t afford it, what do I do? I can’t sell it, what do I 

do? 

And I can tell you that the level at which I started getting those 

calls is not at the $6,000 fee level you heard Mr. Holtrop refer to. 

People start calling in when they get these new CUFFA appraisals 

71 

now and say $3,000, $4,000, that is my limit, I am out of here. 

Help me, I can’t stay. What should I do? 

So it is just now starting to happen, if you will. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Almy, we have heard—well, first 

of all, the cabin owners, it appears from the testimony today, have 

been quite involved in creating or helping shape the legislation 

that we are talking about today. 

For background, how involved were cabin owners in the drafting 

in 2000 of the CUFFA legislation? 

Mr. ALMY. Thank you for that question. The short answer is not 

nearly as involved. One of the things that has happened in creating 

H.R. 4888 is a much more inclusive process, not just from the perspective of doing surveys and getting feedback from cabin owners, 

but more importantly, the creation of a group called Coalition II 

that was a broad amalgam of national forest homeowners in the 

lead, and a number of state organizations. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Is it the potential, is it the high fees or the 

potential for high fees that is—and this extreme, or is it this extremely difficult housing market that we are all dealing with, particularly for second homes? Which chicken and which egg? 

Mr. ALMY. Mr. Chairman, I frankly think it is the former, not 

the latter. Certainly the latter, of the condition of the residential 

market and real estate in general, has exacerbated the problem. 

But the issues that brought us to this legislation have been with 

us for 40 years. And so the concern about high fees is one element 

of it. But the other element that is equally as important is the uncertainty of the trajectory of those fees. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bailey, we have heard that fees are currently 

based on appraisals from the seventies to the 2000s. And so would 

your organization be opposed to allowing the Forest Service to complete the round of appraisals that are going on right now under 

CUFFA, so that we have determinations of where to place these 

cabins in the tiers? Or do we rely on, in some instance, of advantage or disadvantage from a seventies appraisal? And other instances, advantages or disadvantages for that cabin owner on a 

2000 appraisal? 

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a fair question to ask. 

And we agree with the Forest Service that we need to have a 

dataset upon which we make tier assignments that is uniform and 

complete. 

And the current appraisals, ranging from the late seventies to 

the CUFFA appraisals, is what is establishing fees on the ground 

today. And we agree that that is not how we want to assign the 

various permits to tiers. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So you are all for finishing, I think Mr. Holtrop 

identified 8,000 done, and a number to go to reach 14. Are you 

open to the completion of that process in order to have a base line 

to be able to deal with the legislation if it were to become law? 

Mr. BAILEY. The completion of the current appraisal cycle is 

something that we would support, but we would certainly want to 

work on what kind of transitional mechanism would be in place, 

you know, to help facilitate that. You know, how do we deal with 

individual fees today with those permits that are yet to face their 

appraisal process. 

72 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, for our last panelist, the same question. 

Finishing the appraisal process that is ongoing now, if H.R. 4888 

were to become law, finishing that appraisal process under CUFFA 

so that we would have that base line. As an owner and based on 

your testimony, how do you feel about that? 

Mr. BAILEY. Recently, within the last three weeks, I received my 

new appraisal. It was my understanding that that was going to be 

my new fee, what I am looking at for the future with the tiers, I 

already found where I would fall within that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you very much. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am going to yield to Ms. Lummis first. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Lummis. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bishop. 

First question for Mr. Bailey. 

If a cabin is abandoned, is there a penalty to the owner? 

Mr. BAILEY. There is not a formal penalty, but there is a penalty, 

in fact, that they incur the cost to remove that cabin. And in some 

areas, the county imposes hazardous waste disposal standards that 

really significantly increase the cost of doing that. 

And it has been estimated that some cabins would cost between 

$50,000 and $60,000 to remove, you know, on top of the rest of the 

circumstances. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. And a question for Mr. Almy. It sounded to me like the appraisal process is very complicated. And when 

Mr. Bailey went through and explained this process, it sounds so 

much more simple. 

I guess I am getting to that age in life where simple is better. 

So this bill just appeals to me tremendously, just because of its 

simplicity. 

Can you explain what you know about the Forest Service policy 

regarding the type and location of lots an appraiser can use as a 

comparable lot in the appraisal process under CUFFA? 

Mr. ALMY. Certainly. Let me first say that one of the underlying 

principles here really is simplicity and predictability, and I think 

that has been a theme that we have heard all morning. 

But also, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you that 

I am a licensed appraiser, and I have been practicing in real estate 

for 25 years. So I think I know whereof I speak on this issue. 

The short answer is that you go where you need to go to find 

comparables that are acceptable. I think Mr. Holtrop was correct 

in that your first and best choice is a comparable lot that is unimproved, has similar utility infrastructure, similar access, that is in 

private land. Those are few and far between because of the nature 

of this program. 

As a result of that, you have to make compromises. You have to 

go to other locations. You have to sometimes find properties that 

are improved, and figure out how to extract the value of the improvement. So it is very complicated. It is very subjective. And one 

of the difficulties with this whole appraisal system is that there 

aren’t normal metrics, like there is in income property, to figure 

out what the value really should be. It is a perception, almost. 

So it is a complicated process. It is a subjective process. And it 

is the very reason that we conclude that the appraisal process, as 

a system, is inappropriate for setting fees. 

73 

Ms. LUMMIS. And just one more comment, Mr. Chairman. I 

thank you all for your testimony. I am pleased that this bill provides the type of simplicity and predictability, and that the cabin 

owners have helped work on it. 

It sounds like CUFFA was—I am a freshman, so that is why I 

am making all these assumptions. It sounds like CUFFA was wellintentioned, and then, in its implementation, just became more unruly and complicated and unpredictable for people than is appropriate under the circumstances. 

So I just want to applaud the author of the bill, the cabin owners 

who helped work on it, and comment that I get a lot of cabin owners’ comments as well, from my home state of Wyoming, about the 

massive impacts of these new fees. And that we, as Members of 

Congress, have an opportunity to correct a situation that, you 

know, the Forest Service is honestly attempting to utilize, but that, 

in practice, has not worked very well. 

So thank you all for your testimony and your hard work on this 

issue. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop, Mr. 

Hastings. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. They are going to call us to vote in a little while. 

And if at all possible, I would like to adjourn when they call us to 

vote. But Mr. Costa, questions? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. That works for me, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask 

some of the cabin owners some questions, I want to go over I think 

for the Committee’s purposes, Congressman Hastings and I had a 

conversation when we had a separate meeting as it relates to how 

this bill is drafted and its jurisdiction. Because there are some 

issues that affect the USDA and overlapping with the Ag Committee. 

And I don’t think, if we are able to work this through, as I hope 

we are, that we want to have a situation where we have CUFFA 

in a narrow sense covering a thousand cabins or whatever, and 

then have a separate program under this tier system. 

So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to, I think at 

the time Congressman Hastings indicated he was amenable toward 

working out this overlap and this jurisdictional issue. And we actually had two staff members from the Ag Committee sit in on that 

earlier meeting. 

So I don’t know, as a colloquy or a way of, if Congressman Hastings should care to respond, and the Chairman cares to, too, so 

that we have an understanding on how we go through this? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, I will yield. As long as I have time to ask my 

three questions. 

Mr. HASTINGS. This issue, you know, really came to a head. And 

as you know, there is essentially a one-year moratorium on raising 

the fees. And that was done—— 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. HASTINGS.—and that could be renewed. I hope that we don’t 

have to go through that process. 

So when we drafted this bill, we drafted it, honestly, purposely 

very narrowly, so that we would have jurisdiction on that, and 

could have a hearing and facilitate the hearing. 

74 

Now, I recognize that there has to be a process by which we go 

through. And I am certainly open to that, and I made that observation in my opening remarks. 

But as I mentioned, this was done on purpose so we could have 

a hearing. 

Mr. COSTA. No, I understand that. And I spoke with Chairman 

Peterson, and he is aware of the issue. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Right. 

Mr. COSTA. And I think he is amenable to working with the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee here on how we can work through 

that, so that we don’t have a dual system. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes. The intent was not to exclude that. The intent was to try to get this on the front burner from a policy standpoint so that we can address it. 

Mr. COSTA. Very good. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. COSTA. Let me get to my questions here quickly. Mr. Anderson, you know that this measure that we hope will resolve the 

issue of, there was a sense, I guess, that cabin owners thought that 

CUFFA would solve the problem. But it didn’t. 

Quickly, where do you think this is different, and that it will, in 

fact, resolve the issue? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, it is easy to determine the fee. There is 

very little controversy. Once we have reached agreement on this 

and the legislation hopefully is passed, there is really no difficulty 

in determining the fee. 

The cost I think should be significantly less for the Forest Service. The costs, we will no longer have costs of appraisals. If the 

user fee levels or tiers are kept at a reasonable level, it will be 

more affordable. 

Mr. COSTA. And people will understand it, and there will be certainty. The gentleman next to you there, both Mr. Almy, who has 

experience in real estate, as you have stated, Mr. Bailey. Cabin 

owners have indicated that many owners would consider abandoning their cabins at a higher-than-$4,000 fee. 

What percentage of loss do you think there would be if we had 

the top tier in excess of $6,000? Care to comment quickly? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I would like to respond to that. Our survey in 

the fall, Mr. Congressman, looked at the financial break point. And 

on average, that number is around $4,000. 

What does that mean? That means that is the point where a 

cabin owner looks at their fee and says, you know, I can’t afford 

this, or this does not value the—this is more than what I get in 

value for the use. Some are higher than that, and some are lower 

certainly, and would pay more. 

Mr. COSTA. My time is expiring. 

Mr. BAILEY. I am sorry. 

Mr. COSTA. Could you provide that survey to the Subcommittee? 

Mr. BAILEY. Absolutely. It is part of the documents we have submitted, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. OK, very good. Finally, Ms. Barile, I think you did 

a wonderful job of explaining historically how your family and others in the Huntington Lake area have done such a tremendous job 

in maintaining that really special place in the High Sierra. 

75 

The CUFFA fee is only one of the fees the cabin owners pay to 

their cabins, part of the cabins. There are additional fees in localities for various services and costs of maintenance. Have you added 

them up in your own individual case, quickly? 

Ms. BARILE. Yes. Garbage is a huge issue. Just for those few 

months that we are there, our garbage service is $154. We have to 

pay additional fees because of bear-proofing bins, and every time 

a garbage truck driver gets out of his truck we have to pay for 

those additional costs for him unlocking a bear-proof bin. 

The insurance has almost doubled within probably the last four 

years, because of being in a forest and forest fire conditions. Our 

insurance is extremely difficult to get in the mountain areas. One 

person who recently bought a cabin in my tract called me saying 

where can I get insurance, because she could not find any insurance. She finally was able to go to a very, very limited type of coverage for her cabin. 

Another thing that I am really, really concerned about is how the 

continued increasing fees are going to affect the taxes. We are 

taxed on land that we do not own. When I get a tax bill from Fresno County, they have it broken down between my lot, and between 

my cabin. And on my tax bill for the county, for instance, during 

CUFFA, it was $30,000, my lot was appraised for $30,000. So then 

the county gave me a bill of, I pay $1,115 in taxes. Now my appraisal has gone up to $50,000. So I am just terrified what is going 

to happen when, in 2012, what is going to happen with my tax bill. 

Then, of course, you have all of your other items that you have 

in having a cabin. And there are a lot of restrictions. You have to 

make sure you keep everything really clear. My major concern with 

this increase is the taxes. I don’t know how I am going to afford 

it. 

Mr. COSTA. And you want to keep it for your grandchildren and 

for other generations. 

Ms. BARILE. I want to keep it for my grandchildren, for my children. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, we need to wrap this up because we are way 

over time. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You are welcome. Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for 

having missed your testimony, but I want to thank all of you. And 

Pete, good seeing you. I want to thank all of you for your input on 

this bill. 

Clearly, by the testimony we heard today and questions up here 

on the assessment, the challenge we are going to face as we move 

forward is going to be the benchmark that we can all agree on to 

set and establish those tiers. That is going to be the challenge that 

we are going to face. I think we all know that. 

But I am very pleased by the tone of this hearing. I think that 

we can hopefully find a solution on that. But I want to thank you 

for your input, and we will continue to seek your input as we move 

forward. 

But that is going to be the hardest part, we know that. Once we 

can get over that, then I think that this legislation hopefully can 

76 

move very quickly, and we will have some long-term certainty. And 

everybody is suggesting that is where we want to be. 

So thank you again. Good seeing you, too, Pete. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to 

emphasize the written testimony that tells us of realtors in Wyoming, for example, reporting that no cabins sold since 2004. And 

the three cabin owners who have tried to sell found that ‘‘when 

buyers find out how expensive these are or may be, that they laugh 

and then go away.’’ 

I think that speaks volumes of the unrealistic nature of the appraisal process. That is the market telling us that those appraisals 

have literally priced these properties right out of the market. 

I would also like to emphasize, you know, there are property 

rights involved in the ownership of the cabins themselves. And 

property rights include a certain stability and predictability of the 

individual being able to hold onto that property. That can’t be done 

when appraisals are going vastly above market rates. 

I think that that emphasizes just how important this legislation 

is. And again, I want to compliment the author on the bill. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me also thank you for coming here and testifying. I appreciate the testimony. It is very clear, from everything 

we have heard, that the status quo is broken, and that we need to 

do something to fix it very radically and very carefully. 

I had a series of questions. I will just, I will forgo all of those 

in the interest of time here. Except, ma’am, you said that your 

grandson was the museum docent at the age of eight? And he is 

here? 

Ms. BARILE. Yes, and in fact he is here. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have him stand up. Congratulations for being precocious and intelligent at the same time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Ma’am, thank you. Thank you all for being here. 

Ms. BARILE. You are very welcome. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me join with Mr. Bishop in 

thanking all the panelists. And I think Mr. Hastings put the challenge, the issues that need to be resolved to move this legislation. 

I agree that certainty would be very important for the owners. And 

we will be glad to work with Mr. Hastings on this as we go forward, to deal about where that base line data is going to be, and 

when it kicks in. 

So I appreciate it, and thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ