59

Mr. SUNUNU. I can’t imagine it would be much super private in-
formation, even if you didn’t want to include names, but the detail
about how many responses you're getting through the mail, the
pros and cons, and the nature of the concerns. And I would empha-
size the point that Congressman Bass made about the demo-
graphics: How many local residents are paying or not paying, not
willing to support the fee system, and again, how many out-of-
Staters are willing to support it.

Ned, you mentioned hunting and fishing, and I think someone
mentioned that maybe 3 percent of the respondents or users of the
forest were hunters and fishermen. And my question is, given that
fact, if there were an exemption provided for those hunting or fish-
ing on forest land with a valid State license, if an exemption were
provided in the program, would you believe that would create a sig-
nificant financial impact?

Ms. Hepp. At this point, from the surveys that we have, it is
about 8 percent of those surveyed that focused in on either wildlife
observation—not necessarily hunting licenses. It is a little difficult
because we're just getting into hunting season now. That level will
be higher.

Mr. SUNUNU. Good point.

Does the Forest Service have the flexibility, if you chose today,
to say, well, one way that we would want to restructure this is to
provide an exemption for anyone who was hunting or fishing on the
Federal forest land with a valid State license? Would you have the
authority to make that kind of a change under the way the dem-
onstration project is currently structured?

Mr. LAVERTY. Congressman, I think we would have the flexibility
to do that, but the question would come in how you would facilitate
the implementation of the fee. Making that kind of an exemption
could add costs in terms of how you actually implement the pro-
gram. So we would need to look at that, I guess, in that broader
context, but the answer is yes.

Mr. SUNUNU. Clearly, any change in the program, for good or for
ill, is obviously subject to the law of unintended consequences. But
you do have, under the current law, the 3-year demonstration pro-
gram, the flexibility to make a change to that?

Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. What about providing an exemption for residents,
residents of towns with forest land or residents of a county that in-
cludes national forest land? Do you have the authority to make an
exemption on a residential basis?

Mr. Laverty. I think the fact that it is a demonstration project,
we have a lot of latitude. As we work with the appropriations in
both the House and the Senate to implement this, we have the op-
portunity to do that.

I think the other part of it is, as we listen to the committee in
terms of their intentions and directions, we are viewing this as a
test of how can we begin to generate some receipts that can help
ys rovide the type of quality services and facilities that people are
Cy for.

Tve listened with interest last night and again today about the
strong desire for travel and tourism, and I can tell you that one of
the factors supporting the industry is going to be quality facilities.


123

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ZINK, TAMWORTH, NH, OFFICER OF
THE WONALANCET OUTDOOR CLUB

Mr. ZINK. Thank you. My name is George Zink. I’m a resident
of Tamworth, NH, and I am an officer of the Wonalancet Outdoor
Club, a club similar to the Appalachian Mountain Club but much
smaller. We have about 600 members, and we do maintain 55 miles
of trails on the White Mountain National Forest and three shelters.
The club has maintained those since 1891, many years before there
was any White Mountain National Forest.

First, I didn’t come prepared to say a thing. This is extempo-
raneous. I want to say that I was very impressed by the meeting
this morning. It gives a balance to the problems which the White
Mountain National Forest faces and also, I hope, problems which
the U.S. Congress will face. I have been concerned that the news-
papers in the north country have given a grave misrepresentation
of this whole parking fee project program. There has been an at-
tack on the Forest Service. The Forest Service is the bad guy for
imposing this unfair parking fee.

I would like to say that I think that is very misleading. It fails
to give credence to what has been said here over and over this
morning. The major failure is the failure of Congress to adequately
provide the funds which are needed to operate the White Mountain
National Forest and other forests and other national parks. I think
that for citizens to attack the Forest Service for coming up with a
fee to try to operate the facilities at White Mountain National For-
est is a great misrepresentation of the problem.

I think it is also important to say that the parking system project
is a test. The Forest Service has said from the very beginning that
it would welcome comments as to how it can be more equitable in
raising funds to support White Mountain National Forest. It is
looking for input from the citizens, and the comments made this
morning I think were largely very helpful.

Just one last comment. We pride ourselves on the fact that there
are 7 million people who enter the White Mountain National Forest
a year. Seven million people enter it; then on the basis of $1 per
person who enters, there would be plenty of money. When you un-
derstand that today this parking fee is raising, what, $300,000, $1
per person would not be great. The Wonalancet Outdoor Club fa-
vors some sort of user fee to help the Forest Service and Congress
manage our national forests and our national parks more equi-
tably.

Thank you.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, if I might, based on this testimony, I
would ask for what I usually ask for in hearings with particular
agencies.

No. 1: have the staff pursue with the chief of Forest Service how
much money did they ask for to operate the Forest Service, what
did the Secretary of Agriculture recommend to the Office of Man-
agement and Budget, which serves as the President’s budget arm,
and did the Secretary appeal any cuts by the Office of Management
and Budget?

No. 2: what did the Office of Management and Budget send to
the President, what did he recommend to Congress, and what did


25

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much. Let me move to Ned for
comments, and then we will have questions. Thank you for coming,

led.

Mr. THERRIEN. My name is Ned Therrien. Thank you for inviting
me here this morning. I am a professional photographer, T live in
Gilford, NH. Prior to owning my own business, I was the public
and legislative affairs officer of the White Mountain National For-
est for 25 years. During that period of time, I handled the public
involvement for two forest plans, Blue Mountain Ski area, and a
number of other issues on forests. I worked with many of those
agents, some of which are here today, in trying to understand how
and why they used these public lands.

I support the current parking fee experiment on the White
Mountain National Forest because it will provide needed funds for
maintaining facilities and continuation of some essential programs
during a period of declining budgets. However, the main benefit of
this experiment is that it brings the attention of the public to the
funding predicament that this national forest faces. And the very
fact that we’re having this hearing here this morning I think is in-
dicative of this.

The national forests have traditionally been open to hikers, back-
packers, hunters, bird watchers, and snowmobilers without direct
cost. In a very complicated world, the national forests are still
places where people can go and get away from it all and find some
freedom. To many, the parking fees are an intrusion on that free-

lom.

The public lands belong to all of us and over the long run, wheth-
er we use them directly or not, they should be largely public fund-
ed. And I guess my concern here is that we collect fees and, basi-
cally, now the fees will go to recreation uses. There are many uses
of the national forest, all of which are important. And I am con-
cerned about the amount of money we collect and the balance of
the funding, and to where and how those funds are used.

This Nation’s public lands are our crown jewels. They are the
vestiges of the wilderness from which our character was formed,
and they are a resource which we are literally loving to death. I
think that anyone who has noticed the predicament of the national
parks understands that we are, in fact, loving them to death. This
is also true of the national forests, although most people aren’t
aware of the predicament; the fact that there is more recreation
use that takes place on the national forests than on the national
parks.

I was the one that, I think everybody seems to be quoting this
now, said that there is more use on this national forest than there
is in Yosemite and Yellowstone combined. So we face a real di-
lemma here. Without proper management, the American public will
lose a valuable resource and an emotional and economic resource.

In 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act, named after John
Weeks, a native of New Hampshire and Congressman from Massa-
chusetts. A coalition of New England organizations, formed under
the auspices of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests, fought for 10 years to pass that legislation, the Weeks
Law. Then Speaker of the House Joe Cannon, the main protago-
nist, rallied his forces against using public funds for creating na-


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E, KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California

JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia Dc

DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E, CUMMINGS, Maryland

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey —

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director
DanieL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
WiLuiaM MoscHELtA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
dupitH McCoy, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman

PETE SESSIONS, Texas CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
Carolina DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois.

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
JouN Hynes, Professional Staff Member
ANDREA MILLER, Clerk

ap


119

To: Rep. John Sununu
Rep. Charles Bass
Senator Bob Suuith
Senator Judd Gregg
State Representative Gene Chandler,
cc: USFS - White Mountain National Forest , Laconia

Dear Representatives, October 19, 1997

T am writing (and speaking ) to voice my strong opposition to the USFS
mandatory parking permit fee system. I believe that the current permit system is flawed in its
design, implementation and process for collecting user fees for recreation programs in the White
Mountain National Forest. I will briefly address some of the flaws an¢ thea offer some possible
solutions.

‘When citizen input was sought last year on how to formulate a permit fee system,
there was overwhelming support for a phased in process that would have at its core a voluntary
user fee system. Many questions were asked about the process of the fee system - How much
money would be needed to support recreation programs, what would be the administrative costs,
how would it be implemented, etc., etc, There were no concrete answers from the Forest Service
at the planning session that I attended regarding these questions. The only firm answers we
received were that “these decisions were being made on a national level”. This left very little
room for innovative approaches or regional solutions to the finding gap. lf this were the case,
why hold the public forum on user fees at all? And if this were not the case, why were the
overwhelming opinions of the participants not heeded regarding a phased in, voluntary fee
system? In any event, the mandated permit fee system was implemented.

As a resident and taxpayer of the town of Jackson, which is 74% National Forest
Land, I would like to know how nmich has been taken in under the current fee system. I keep
hearing that almost $400,000 has been collected to date, but I assume that this is the gross figure,
not the net. I would like to know what the cost of implementation and enforcement has been.
‘This would bring us to the true net figure. As a resident taxpayer, I feel that I am paying nmltiple
times for public land. In addition to federal taxes, my town tax bill is higher because of the failure
of the USES to reimburse my town under the PILT program. The PILT reimbursement would be
far more than $20 per resident in my town. Finally, I pay to subsidize for municipal services on
the National Forest such as fire, police and ambulance services. All of these services are provided
while the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program is delinquent in paying back to the towns.

T oppose the mandatory permit fee system for stronger reasons than delinquent payments
and higher taxes. The current system is flawed for many reasons:

1. The system is not equitable for all user groups and places an undue burden on car based
trdvelers, There are many user groups who will not be affected by the permit fee system, and
as a result, will not need a permit.

2. The system is not well publicized and many visitors do not know or are not capable of
obtaining a permit at the last minute or for a very short visit.


68

and the local communities, it can’t continue to operate the way it
has been. This has caused a serious rift with the citizens of this
area, and I am afraid that the support is not going to be there. It
is going to take time to get the trust back. When you look at what
services are provided by the communities and what could be with-
held, and what I see coming will be withheld by votes at different
fown meetings on different services, it is going to cause a real prob-
lem.

We need a voluntary fee system. I think it will work. The Appa-
lachian Mountain Club has long promoted the voluntary fee sys-
tem. Just rough figures, it would seem like even if you collected a
third of the money voluntarily without the cost associated, the net
result would be the same.

I support cuts. We need to balance the Federal budget. But I
think the Forest Service can continue and it should be a voluntary

‘ype system,
‘ith that, I will conclude. Thank you.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Chandler follows:]


19

Is the cost of timber sale appeals by these special interest groups being factorad into
the bottom line cost, the alleged deficit, of the timber sales? If so, in our opinion, this
is not tair. Court costs should not be charged against timber sales and Forest
Service man-hours required for preparing the documentation for these appeals should
be accounted for separately.

We have just read RSA 219, the New Hampshire regulations on Public Forest Lands.
Although we realize Congress is not obliged to abide by state laws, we think that the
following might be considered by Congress when deliberating the fee pilot program
and other national forest/park-related issues:

219:6 Donation of Funds. The state treasurer is hereby authorized to receive
at any time such sums of money as may be donated for the purpose of
purchasing, maintaining, and improving state forests or state reserva-
tions and buildings thereon, or any other forestry project, and money so
received shall be converted into a continuous fund or funds from which
payments shall be made in accordance with the stipulations of the donor
upon warrant of the governor for such purposes as are approved by the
department of resources and economic development.

219:14 Forest Improvement Fund.

|. All revenue derived from rentals and sales of forest products from
federal lands placed under the jurisdiction of the department of
resources and economic development shall be kant by the state

ii separate account as a contil iS d to be known as the
irom which the expenses of forest manage-
ment and silvicultural operations on these federal lands may be paid.
‘Such funds may be used interchangeably between the various federal
lands under the jurisdiction of the department, with the approval of the
concerned federal agency or agencies.

Ill, At the close of each fiscal year the unexpended balance of moneys
in the forest improvement fund shal} not lapse but shall be carried
forward and be made available for use in subsequent years for said
purposes.

The activities on the WMNF generate income from timber harvesting and recreation.
Perhaps some of the restrictive federal regulations on the forest service should be
relaxed so that, as suggested in RSA 219:14, the money earned on the forest is kept
‘on the forest and not turned into the general fund of the federal government.

There is no need for the National Forest Foundation! It's just another Foundation
competing for taxpayers money! The NFF is now in direct competition with the many
existing foundations that could provide funds for special projects on the national
forest. We still question whether or not the creation of this Foundation by Congress
for the purpose of soliciting funds for the national forest is ethical. If Congress can
create a Foundation to solicit funds for projects on the national forest, why can't
Forest Service personnel solicit funds themselves? They are familiar with the
various foundations and know their immediate needs!

Perhaps Congress should look at the rationale for their own spending in various areas
such as $330,000 on a "state-of-the-art" composting outhouse in a remote area of


15

Mr. SUNUNU. Without objection.

Mr. Cooney. Thank you Congressman Bass and Congressman
Sununu for letting me join you up here.

Mr. SUNUNU. Welcome.

Mr. Cooney. It is nice to see that little kid that used to live
down the street doing such a great job in Washington.

Mr. Bass. If the gentleman would yield, I would just like to say
that Representative Cooney is at 1 Samoset Drive, and the Sununu
family lives where?

Mr. Sununu. At 24. Our families have been neighbors for 27
years.

Mr. Cooney. That is a long time.

Anyhow, my comments are from someone that lives in Salem,
which is as about as far as you can get away from here in New
Hampshire, and from somebody who values the national parks
enough that I spent my 8 months in a vacation home up here, in-
cluding much time spent around the corner in the town of Albany.
So I would like to see the national forest flourish.

I am a member of the Appalachian Mountain Club, where that
membership also contributes to what they help do in the national
forest. I also support the Inlands and Outdoor Club, which does a
lot of good work on the trails of the national forest. So there is a
lot of voluntarism from people in this area and from as far away
as Salem who help the national forest.

From that perspective, I think it is a shame that we have to have
a user fee which I think is pretty inefficient and hard to collect. All
to generate what I think is, in terms of the national budget, a mod-
est amount of money. So I would like to see no user fee and leave
it like it used to be. Let us hike the trails and live free.

In any case, if the powers that be decide that a user fee is nec-
essary to keep the national forests in good shape, I, for one, feel
it would be a mistake to give exemptions to certain towns based
on their proximity to it. Salem is not very close to it, and I know
our town would be glad to see a national forest on our borders. We
would provide these services free of charge if you would take over
our adjacent towns and make a national forest of them. People
from Salem like to come here on occasion, maybe once or twice a
year, and they would have to purchase the $20 parking permit and
maybe get 1 or 2 days’ use of it over the course of the year, where
natives would get to use it much more often.

Also, from a vacation home perspective, if you exempt residents,
I do not qualify as a resident. Yet I pay all the property taxes that
my neighbor who is a resident pays, yet will not get that exemp-
tion, so there is a certain amount of unfairness about it. So, while
I agree that national parks should pay the towns for the services
they require, and I think they are trying to do that, I think they
fall short.

So I am impressed by all these people from around the country
that come up here in New Hampshire to contribute to the main-
taining of the national parks. I also want to mention, I serve on
the Resources Recreation Development Committee in_the State,
and we are struggling with similar problems in our State parks
and historic sites and the fees we charge, trying to balance our


128

I think that’s all I have to say. I see I’m out of time. Thank you
for letting me say, what could I get into my mind straight.

Mr. SuNUNU. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the
time to come, and more so, taking the time to speak.

STATEMENT OF BILL BROWNELL, DANBURY, NH, PAST
PRESIDENT, TIMBERLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. BROWNELL. Good morning. I’m not going to say gentlemen of
the jury because that wouldn’t sound very good. I am from Dan-
bury, and I am a New Hampshire hillbilly and native. I own a
3,000-acre tract of land. Lumber has been my business for 40
years. I am also past president of the Timberland Owners Associa-
tion, which I think you are familiar with. I am also on the board
of directors of New Hampshire Land Alliance.

T came up today to tell you that I am for the fee to be paid by
the people who use White Mountain National Forest but not the
residents of New Hampshire. That is our forest. And what comes
into my mind in regard to your problem, the Forest Service, in my
opinion, has done a wonderful job over the years in managing the

ite Mountain National Forest. Now, you picked on them because
they have run out of money and you want to sort of balance the
books, which you have to do in a business, and they came up with
this $5 parking fee. Well, I think that’s sort of infantile, personally.

They need money. Congress won't give it to them. One of the rea-
sons I understand that they don’t have the money is because of
being sued. They pulled out of timber sales. They have been sued,
and the sales have been stopped. They are only cutting now about
one-third of the timber that they originally cut on the White Moun-
tain National Forest because of suits.

Well, probably that money that they did get from limited timber
sales was used to manage the forest and trails and so on, but now
they don’t have it, but they have got to get money from somewhere
if Congress won’t appropriate it. To me, the gentleman just said
here there are 7 million visitors that come to the forest each year.
He said $1 dollar would bring in the money, but I say make them
pay a fee of $10 and call it a recreational fee for nonresidents who
use the forest. The residents should be exempt. You say you can’t
do that. Why is that?

The fish and game department over the years, every department
in the State has a special fee for nonresident users, snowmobilers,
ATV riders, hunting, and fishing. You name it, they pay. The non-
resident pays a special fee to use the facilities that we provide in
the State of New Hampshire, with the exception of the White
Mountain National Forest.

Now, we have only got a population of 1 million people, you tell
me. You've got 7 million people. That is 6 million people using the
forest every year who can’t be residents, or maybe they count them
twice. I don’t know. But to me it would make good sense to have
a recreation fee for nonresidents to use our forest.

Maybe this is out of context, but you have an organization now,
the Appalachian Mountain Club, that is running a multimillion-
dollar operation on the White Mountain National Forest. They pay
a $20 fee to join. Then they have all the benefits of the national
forest, which includes the huts up there, and I understand they do


4

Enclosed are comments from two Albany residents who live
surrounded by the White Mountain National Forest.

Although the impact of the Fee Pilot Program and other forest-related
issues vary from town to town, their opinions offer a good insight
into one smatl community's ls and tribulations while trying
to co-exist with the White Mountain National Forest.



32

‘Thank you for the opportunity to further respond to the Subcommittee and to
clarify for the record the testimony given by the Forest Service at that time.

Please call Thelma Strong at 202-205-0580 if you have further questions on this information.
Sincerely,

Jo Te Mhet-—~

TIM DE COSTER:
Director
Legislative Affairs



103

ease
100

reat

eG]
wrinvel

Aore|

661
bese
ose
co

asi

a6

a8

vse B

oses
usb
aust

Lee
sues
$261

966}-0L61 SIFI.1 57 tig JoNEIBIED IsNNy pus Aine
weiloud JNeUS UIEIUNOW SUNN OHV

J HByD BeYS IsnBiry pus Air

Pik

tush
us
bee

sub vosied


39

Table 4 -- FY96 Summary of Permits on the White Mountain National Forest
(Based on the Forest Land Use Reporting (FLUR) system)

3 organization camp permits Work in tieu of
free

7 backcountry shelters Free
10 cabins $2,750
5 recreation or group events

(temporary permits that vary by year) $195
114 outfitter guide permits

(temporary permits that vary by year) $33,178
2 vendor peddier

(firewood permits at campgrounds) $675
6 winter recreation resorts (alpine) $565,000
2 winter recreation resorts (nordic) $10,000
2 orchards (maple sap) $50
1 fish hatchery Free
10 monuments and markers Free

2 signs $25
14 pipelines $300

1 site survey and testing

(temporary permit for geophysical

testing for WV Pond EIS) $25
6 research and experimental Free
1 weather station Free
2 military training permits Free

6 commercial still photography,
motion picture and/or television

(temporary permits that vary by year) $1,600
3 sand and gravel sales permits $25
68 powerline, utilities $6,573
1 designated communication site $3,733
5 communication uses

(small facilities located on existing towers) $6,585
7 dam, reservoir Free
14 miscellaneous

(wells, springs, storage yard, etc.) $2,195

13. P53,L1154 “And I would ask and ensure that it [fact sheet on the White
Mountain National Forest rec fee demo program] be included as
part of the record.

FS Response: The fact sheet made available at the hearing bas been


64

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Councilor.

Representative Henry Mock of Jackson. I am going to scramble
your credentials, I’m sure. But former head of law enforcement for
the Fish and Game Department, I believe, and long-time activist
and supporter of the State’s natural resource system, Mr. Mock.

Mr. Mocx. That is true. Mr. Chairman, members of the commit-
tee, for the record, my name is Henry Mock. I have resided in this
Mt. Washington Valley for the past 32 years. I was employed for
26¥2 years as a New Hampshire conservation officer, which fol-
lowed a brief career as a high school biology teacher.

During half of my law enforcement career, I was closely allied
with and worked within the White Mountain National Forest. I
later served the last half of my career as the chief of law enforce-
ment for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, as well
as its legislative liaison. Consequently, I've been involved in gov-
ernment, a sort of mini bureaucrat all of my life, and I think that
means a lot to what I have to say today.

Following my retirement, I have served in the New Hampshire
House of Representatives, representing most all the towns of the
Mt. Washington Valley. Presently, I am chairman of the Wildlife
and Marine Resources Committee. And I want to tell you right up
front, in public, Donna, I do not have my permit yet, but I do prom.
ise that Pewill have one before November 12th, the opening day of
deer season. And I have stayed out of the forest. I haven’t parked.

Because of these various positions I’ve been involved in, most of
the forest plans—and I want to state for the record that I am an
enthusiastic supporter of the White Mountain National Forest and
its employees. However, just as emphatically, I must take exception
to what I consider to be an ill-conceived concept of a parking fee.

I heard people today sit here on both sides of the aisle and talk
about a user fee. This is not a user fee. This is a parking fee. We
have 7 million users, and so far we have sold 20,000 parking per-
mits. So a bus with 40 people parks for $5. It takes some people
$20 to park one car, at least for a year.

I oppose the fee concept for basically three reasons and I would
not sit here today and give you any opposition to this if I didn’t
have what I think is a solution which is in my last paragraph. So
let me give you my first three real reasons for opposing this thing.

First, the program just sort of appeared. I know there were meet-
ings held here and meetings held there. And everything I read in
the newspaper said a volunteer parking fee being proposed. Well,
that seemed fairly reasonable if, in fact, it helped with Washing-
ton’s fiscal troubles.

What we, the public, should have been made to understand is
that the only volunteering being done was volunteering by the ad-
ministrators of the forest to accept this assignment of testing this
concept. The next thing I knew, the program was in place. Because
we thought it was voluntary, we didn’t get too excited about it. I
do have to commend supervisor Donna Hepp and her associates for
the way that they have tried to convince us and tried to handle this
program, because it is a touchy one.

Second, I oppose it because for the Government to ask the tax-
payers of these towns located in the White Mountain National For-
est to pay a tax to use the land or park their vehicle, when the


mn
a

Rhode Island 31 1,274
South Carotina 1 2
South Dakota 0 5
Tennessee 3 n
Texas 3 217
Utah 0 3
‘Vermont 290 735
Virgini 2 268
Washington 5 69
West Virginia 3 46
Wisconsin i 103
Wyoming 4 8
‘Canada 68 1124
Other* 963
‘Unknown** 18 ns
Totals 13,254 32,915

“Includes Europe, Africa, Caribbean, Middle East, and Far East
**Purchaser may not have left license plate or it was illegible

Rep. Horn

4, P45, L950 “Do you know what percent of the forest is being logged at any one

time? I don’t know how you work that out, but J would like to get
a feel for the percent of annual lumber sales, timber sales by the
forest and the percent, whether that is national policy as to
percent or whether the eastern forests put their own policy
it. Ifyou could give us a little paragraph on that, we would be
most grateful.

FS Response: Since 1987, the White Mountain NF has averaged
approximately 4,000 acres/year in harvest activities. This amounts to
‘one half of one percent of the Forest acres. There is no

national, regional, or forest policy dictating a percentage to be
harvested

5. P45,L971 “What I'd like is roughly the figures of what was sold, how much
did it bring fas the cost to the Forest Service of
ing that timber in both personnel, road building, anything

:: These timber program details are documented in the Timber
Sale Revenues and Expenses tables of the annual TSPIRS Reports, for
‘which fiscal years 1993 through 1996 are available. On average, during
this time period, 23.6 MMBF was sold and 22.3 MMBF was harvested.
Timber revenues averaged $1,096,029, while timber expenses were



67

pulls in on a motorbike and parks with two people on it beside that
car, they are not getting one. The response of the people that con-
tacted me, they were told they thought it would be too difficult to
enforce and this year they were not going to do that.

So I think these are some of the problems that have come about
from this fee where if, as Representative Mock had said, we had
gone on a voluntary basis to begin with, some of these kinks could
have been worked out.

We've been told, those of us that have been working on this for
some time, that one leading reason against the voluntary fee sys-
tem was that the Forest Service couldn’t solicit private funds for
programs. That I guess was addressed a little differently today.

But yet, at the same time we talked about what I consider to be
a public relations disaster. At the same time we’re charging these
fees to supposedly upgrade these programs because the Forest
Service doesn’t have enough money, we get a fancy brochure and
letters on the Kanc campaign, which is being funded through pri-
vate organizations with a conduit, using that to go to the Forest
Service for new programs. A $300,000 campaign. And we've gotten
letters asking us to help contribute to build interpretive sites and
things like that.

Well, now, on one hand we can’t maintain or we’ve been told we
can’t maintain the infrastructure we have, so we need a parking
system, and we can’t solicit funds to help that privately. Yet, on the
other hand, we have a private organization working in concert with
the Forest Service to promote new programs.

Not only that, someone spent a considerable amount of money
promoting this festival and, on top of that, hired a public relations
person to promote it. Now you get to the worst part. We’re going
to have all these people come, hopefully, which I guess the turnout
wasn’t that great, to this Kanc festival, so the Forest Service
wanves its own fee, so you don’t have to pay the fee that weekend
to park.

Now, I think we would have a little bit of a problem if those of
us that are public officials out there said, well, perhaps on Labor
Day weekend we want to encourage a lot of tourists to come, so
we'll just waive our traffic laws that weekend. I can’t understand
how they can get away with waiving their own fee. So from a pub-
lic relations standpoint, I think that is really a problem. I will tell
you, as I say, the biggest reason I think it has happened is because
of this program.

The communities that have dealt with the national forest and
White Mountain National Forest for years have a tremendous trust
in the national forest and the spirit of cooperation. We have had
disagreements. We sat down with the various rangers over the
years and we've worked them all out. We've been supportive of
their programs. But White Mountain National Forest simply can-
not exist without the support of the local communities. We're pro-
viding the fire protection. We’re providing the police protection.
We're providing the ambulance and search and rescue protection.
We're providing, in most cases, the access to the timber sales over
our town roads. They can’t exist without us.

Other national forests may be different. The White Mountain Na-
tional Forest is unique. And without the support of the local people


104

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much.

Mr. Niebling.

Mr. NIEBLING. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man and members of the committee. My name is Charles Niebling.
I’m senior policy director for the Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests, a 10,000-member organization founded in 1901
to protect the State’s most important landscapes and promote wise
use of its renewable natural resources.

The Forest Society’s history is inextricably linked to that of the
White Mountain National Forest. The organization was founded to
conserve forests and watersheds of the White Mountains, then rav-
aged by indiscriminate and excessive timber harvesting. Ten years
later, the persistent efforts of the Forest Society, the Appalachian
Mountain Club, and others led to the passage of the Weeks Act,
which as you know authorized the Federal Government to acquire
privately owned lands in the Eastern United States for inclusion in
the national forest system.

As former Forest Service Chief F. Dale Robertson remarked at a
celebration in New Hampshire of the 75th anniversary of the
Weeks Act in 1986, for this persistence, “the rest of the Nation, and
particularly those of us in the Forest Service, are thankful and in-
debted to the people and early conservation leaders here in New
England. The roots of the Forest Service and the conservation
movement run deep to this part of the country.”

Today we have a national forest restored to health, that, while
not without its share of occasional controversy, stands as a model
of what a national forest is and should be. I really believe that. I
think we have done about as well as anyone could do in this part
of the country.

The Forest Society has been cautiously supportive of the fee pilot
program as a pilot. We articulated two concerns prior to implemen-
tation last spring. The first is that we will reserve final judgment
on whether the program should become permanent when we can be
convinced that the funds raised are, in fact, being used to improve
services and protect natural resources on the White Mountain and
not just replace budget shortfalls. And second, that a system of fees
can be used to better manage the increasing numbers that want to
recreate on this forest. Control of recreational use will most cer-
tainly be addressed in the upcoming forest plan revision.

Mr. Chairman, my remaining remarks today focus not so much
on the mechanics of the fee pilot and the very important local
issues and concerns expressed by the previous panel members, but
instead on the much larger and more critical nationwide issues
that necessitated the fee pilot in the first place.

In the absence of increased Federal funding for our natural for-
ests, the Forest Society is prepared to concede that some form of
permanent fee access program is necessary. However, we are not
yet willing to concede that the citizens of the United States and
their elected Representatives in Congress will not eventually recog-
nize the basic responsibilities of land ownership, which is to be a
good neighbor and a good steward. That means providing funds
necessary to implement each forest’s land and resource manage-
ment plan and fully fund Payments in Lieu of Taxes.


126

Honorable Steve Hors

discretionary spending. The FY 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act passed
bby both the House and Senate provided $2,505,468,000 in discretionary appropriations for the
Forest Service.

We bope you find this information helpful. If you bave additional questions, please
contact Thelma Strong of my staff at (202) 205-0580,

EY
TIMDE DE COSTER
Cagilave Affairs
Enclosure


45

to implement projects on the ground and provide visitor services.

There is an administrative cost to scan license plates if a person

chooses not to participate or respond to the 14-day purchase grace period
described in the notice to pay. This process is done with assistance from
local law enforcement officials. The cost is $16.00/100 license plates.

3. Non-Compliance/Follow-up Letter: The vehicle owner has the opportunity
to decide to purchase an annual passport or, choose to ignore the notice to

pay and take a risk that a a violation notice (non-compliance letter) will

be issued. Purchasing an annual passport provides the Forest the benefit

of using the fees for on-the-ground projects. Costs to issue the
non-compliance letter would be minor. This facet requires some
administrative time to prepare the envelope for mailing; and query the
database for addresses and deleting data from the noncompliance database
after responding with payment. These costs would be contained within the
15% administration fund.

If the owner of a vehicle chooses not to comply, a violation notice
(contained within the non-compliance letter) could be sent; and a $100.00
fine assessed (collateral forfeiture). The Forest sent five
non-compliance letters in 97; therefore, costs were nominal associated with
this facet.

Court appearance by a USFS law enforcement officer could result if the
person wishes to contest it in court; but the person has the opportunity to
avoid a court appearance and "pay" the ticket through the mail. In this
case, revenue from tickets would go to the Treasury rather than provide
revenue to the Forest. Costs associated with this facet requires postage
and personnel time to prepare the envelope. Currently, this cost is
nominal because of the very small number (5) of citations issued in FY97.
Annual enforcement costs were projected in the Business Plan at $8,000.
This cost would be contained within the 15% administration fund assuming an
annual return of $500,000 generated from the fee demo program.

Summary: Our experience indicates that the costs to administer the
compliance facet of the program and providing the invitation to pay may be
nominal and may be less than the estimated costs projected in the Business
Plan. Our experience indicates that people are generally willing to

comply. The Forest is generating a 70% compliance rate from respondents to
the invitation to pay from a short test period conducted by the Forest.

This high rate of compliance offsets the small administrative costs

associated with these facets; and may indicate a small need to issue
noncompliance letters if the Forest can communicate understanding of
program benefits.

17. P59, 1281 "...what percentage [of responses to the comment cards| roughly
were from people that didn’t pay"?
18, P59,11284 "Could you give us, for the record, a summary of the responses?"


87

ld

New Hampshire Wildlife Federation
Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation
Post Office Box 299, Concord, N.H. 03302

(009) 224-8083
Fax: (600) 226-0429

October 20, 1997

T am sorry that I cannot be here in person to address this hearing. Thank you for taking the
trae to come here and listen t0 everyone. | appreciate the opportunity to present my written
‘commonts.

‘New Hanpahire Wildlife Federation was established in 1933 as 2 non-profit onganization that
Fupreserus active ourdoors people. We have 7,000 members, many of whom hunt, fish and
‘rap in the White Mountain National Forest.

All of these people, of coane. have purchased « New Hampshire hantng,fahing o taping
license, All af these people, by vitae af pertcipating in their outdoor

tthe Fader Putman Robernon anil Ding letowon funds ie fae, we have boon para
Roce ee ee ear ca id ix Was Reworstion Act) foe 60 yeas All
of our members who register boats or Now Hampshire
conartute loo sinte'recreh and rose Rado roam ocr ale upos ae ee
contributing hikers and climbers in the White Mountain National Forest.

Sportamen and women have always been in the forefrout when asked to pay for the use and

conservation of natural resources, It is the consensus feeling among New Hampshire Wildiito
‘Federation menabers that they have supported and will continue t0 support the national forest,
‘Our license dollars and foderal excise tax money paid over many, many years should allow the
‘use of fideral lands. ‘I'hese are payment that passive receeational users do not share.

Is is the ponition of New Hampshire Wildlife Federation that sportsmen and women who are
‘hunting, fishing or trapping in the White Mountain National Forest with valid ficenses for these
‘ctivities be exempt from paying any further veer feee, We will continue to buy licenses and
‘equipment, we will continue to pay for search and rescus. Please do not ask us to pay to park
our vehicles.

“Thank you for your time and stention.

‘Sincerely, loco
a


Page Two

In developing a successful fee system it is essential that we keep several factors clearly
in mind:

First and foremost, fairness. Although many people may agree that charging fees
commensurate with resource use is an effective and appropriate method for raising
Tevenues, we must work to ensure that fees do not result in disproportionate
payments from unique groups to the exclusion of others. For example, hunters and
fishermen currently pay license fees in addition to excise taxes on equipment. We
must consider whether or not multiple user fees are being imposed on the same
{groups to achieve the same ends.

Second, preservation, The ultimate goal of any user fee system must be to preserve
and sustain the resource. Such resource preservation has traditionally been the top
priority of administrators in the White Mountain National Forest, and it is important.
that the pilot system support rather than hinder their efforts. Moreover, user fees
should not be used to offset currently budgeted federal funding. The maintenance of
our National Forest System should be shared, in part, by all Americans. Funds
generated should provide a supplement to historic operating fund levels and should be
reinvested in local infrastructure and maintenance.

And third, practicality. When developing a new program that will be administered at
the federal level, we cannot overemphasize the importance of common sense. Here in
New Hampshire we are fortunate to have a forest management team willing and able
to implement whatever Washington devises.

It is essential that the fee system be structured to minimize inconvenience, but must
also allow for reasonable enforcement. The goal of a demonstration program is to
provide valuable information and establish a foundation for continued improvement.
‘The suggestions and recommendations collected during these past months and offered
today will be taken up by a Forest staff whose goal is to provide unparalleled resource
management and service to the visitors of the White Mountain National Forest.

Specifically, the comments offered will help provide answers to the many questions
regarding the pilot's success --

+ How much revenue has been raised through the demonstration program?
+ What rate of compliance have we seen, and can we expect in the future?
+ What assurance do we have that operating funds for those in the pilot will not

be penalized?


MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE U.S. FOR-
EST SERVICE: REVIEW OF THE USER PILOT
PROGRAM

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Conway, NH.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8 a.m., in Kennett
High School, Conway, NH, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn and Sununu.

Also present: Representatives Moran of Kansas and Bass; and
State Representative Richard Cooney.

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel;
Mark Brasher, senior policy director; John Hynes, professional staff
member; Andrea Miller, clerk; and Matthew Ebert, staff assistant.

Mr. Horn. The Subcommittee on Government Management, In-
formation, and Technology will come to order. I am Stephen Horn,
Congressman from California. I will open the hearing and then call
on Mr. Sununu.

Today we will examine a pilot program of fees set for various
portions of the national forests. Obviously, like any ideas, this
proposition has its supporters and its detractors. A number of citi-
zens representing varying perspectives will shed some light on this
approach.

We are Pleased to be hosted by Congressman John Sununu, a
very capable and conscientious member of this subcommittee, one
of the faithful attenders. So we are delighted to come to this dis-
trict and are impressed by what we have seen yesterday and a few
days earlier. Yesterday some of us had an opportunity to look
around, and, John, you have chosen a beautiful site in your State.

John will be presiding over this hearing as soon as I finish the
opening statement. I am going to keep it brief, to leave as much
time as possible for questioning witnesses. And we will welcome a
number of citizens to comment after we are done with formal pan-
els.

Before we move on, however, I do want to describe one situation
which I believe has some relevance to this hearing. Last Thursday,
in California, the subcommittee examined various funding alloca-
tions for the U.S. Customs Service. The Customs Service performs
numerous functions ranging from law enforcement, including build-

a)


42

boards that were burnt through, due to a visitor building a fire
inside the shelter over the winter.

*The Sawyer Pond Shelter and Platforms were stained, the
shelter needed work done on the roof to repair leaks and replace
part of the structural supports. New boards were put on the
platforms, fire rings were reset, and signing replaced.

*The Rocky Branch #1 Shelter was repaired, damaged boards
were replaced, the shelter was stained again and graffiti
removed. The outhouse needed major repair; a new door was built
and installed, the structure was leveled, stained, and toilet

seat replaced. The platforms were leveled, new boards were put
in place in the deck surface, and new under structure components
were installed on two platforms,

*4th Iron and Baldface Shelter are two of the composter sites

on the district; 4th Iron was partially operated using the crew
funded by fee pilot money, and Baldface Shelter composter was
operated entirely by this crew.

*Russell Colbath Homestead was maintained by a seasonal crew
working dispersed recreation, and the developed recreation crew
did work to maintain this facility.

*Developed Recreation: A new bumper rail was installed in the
Cold River Overlook parking lot. The old bumper rail had
deteriorated and was a public hazard.

*Upkeep of toilet facilities, picnic facilities, day use

areas, sign maintenance, supervision of 20 community service
people who spent time working on the district in day use areas.

*

itor Center Services: More than 56,000 visitors were met by
knowledgable information assistants at the Saco Visitor Center.
They were assisted as they planned day trips, hikes, and scenic
drives.

*A costumed interpreter met almost 6,000 visitors at the

historic Russell Colbath Homestead, located on the Kancamagus
Scenic Byway. Without funding from the program this important
site would have been closed this year.

*Coordination of the Forest-wide campfire program was
possible this year because the front desk was handled by fee demo
seasonals. The district specialist was then able to work on
other programs benefitting the visitor.

*The Saco office would have been closed at least one day per
week without the program. Historically, it has been a 7-day
operation.

Il. North Half - Ammonoosue/Pemigewasset Ranger District

Basic Maintenance:
319 miles hiking trails

12


73

is to raise money for national forest projects that might otherwise
fall prey to budget cuts.

I feel that donations solicited by this foundation for funding
these projects are unethical. It is another form of taxation. The for-
est is overused and abused already. The more enhancements, the
more use. The forest should be maintained as a semi-wilderness
recreational area for those who truly appreciate the great outdoors
and prefer the rustic experience. Only basic needs should be pro-
vided. For those who desire more creature comforts, let them pa-
tronize the private campgrounds, motels, and resorts in the Mt.
Washington Valley.

Now, we hear that Congress has a conference-approved bill to
provide $2.65 million to buy 2,400 acres of land surrounding Lake
Tarleton and Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge and that this land is to
be added to the White Mountain National Forest. In addition, Con-
gress is considering the purchase of Mt. Dinsmore in the Sandwich

nge. How can Congress, in good conscience, purchase more land
for the national forest while continuing to cut their budget? How
can you no longer accept the responsibility for providing the funds
necessary for the maintenance of the lands Congress has already
acquired as a result of the Weeks Act in 1911?

in closing, Frank and I ask that you, our Representatives in Con-
gress, consider the following: First, save the forest. Restore the For-
est Service budget to $13 million so that experienced Forest Service
personnel can manage the forests. Second, assure that all funds
collected during this fee pilot program will be used to maintain the
White Mountain National Forest in its present condition only, not
to enhance it.

Three, fully fund PILT, including all increases promised since
1993. Do not discontinue these payments because of the fee pilot
program, and four, reexamine the necessity for concessionaire man-
agement of campgrounds, and compensate towns for their lost reve-
nue from the 1997 forest reserve fund.

Five, rewrite the fee pilot program so that it is fair and so that
it includes all users, and six, permanently exempt the taxpayers,
not just the residents, of the host towns in Carroll, Coos, and Graf-
ton County from any type of user fee program now or in the future.

Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe follows:]


82

to provide for this forest. | as a taxpayer support what goes on in
the infrastructure in the national forest.

I’m sure you have an idea, so I am not telling you anything, what
it would cost, what the Forest Service budget would have to be if
the communities didn’t provide all the support services to the na-
tional forest. As I stated before, they couldn’t exist, so I think that
is the tradeoff. We are providing those, and taxpayers throughout
the country are providing the services on the national forest. That’s
why we shouldn’t charge.

Mr. Horn. Let me ask you, are any of you members of the local
chamber of commerce of the city in which you live? Have any of you
ever been president of the chamber of commerce?

Mr. CHANDLER. I have been a member but never a president.

Mr. Horn. Is anybody going to testify on behalf of the chamber
of commerce that sat up here? It seems to me, having been active
in our chamber of commerce in Long Beach, CA, that we would be
taking great pride in the national forest and what it brings into the
town in terms of people that eat in the restaurants and people that
stay overnight in the motels to see the beauty of the area. People
come up here for all sorts of recreational purposes.

I am just wondering if any of you have ever seen an impact
statement the chamber has made as to what this forest means to
the community.

Mr. CHANDLER. I have not seen an actual impact statement, but
I can tell you it is probably the single most important part of our
tourism network out here, without question.

Mr. Horn. I agree. That’s why I think we should to look at that
both ways. I don’t want to see services to cities and counties not
paid for. I think they should be paid for. But, on the other hand,

think this is a major asset, just as Yosemite is for its area and
national parks throughout California.

As the point was made earlier by the chairman, if you get to the
bottom you’ve got 90 percent of the State is owned by the Federal
Government, and that is true in most of the western States. Even
California has a substantial amount of acreage, millions of acres,
because it was under the Treaty of Guadalupe, that that became
all Federal land that was parcelled out. Much of that is now de-
voted to recreation, not just feeding and grazing cows and shee;
and all the rest of the things that public land was doing. So I t!
we ought to look at it as to the impact favorably, as you agree, with
the surrounding towns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the panel-
ists. I appreciate your patience and your testimony very much.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am not going to read because I know you are
late, but I want to bring up two important points. Unfortunately,
two of our, I think, most critical people that we would have had
here today could not make it for personal reasons. That’s former
District Ranger Verland Ohlson, who has been a district ranger
here for 30 years, who has submitted a written comment, certainly
very much opposed to this fee system; and also Paul Doherty, a
well-respected writer from the north, who wrote the article “A
Northwoodsman Mad As Hell.” Both those people couldn’t be here.


MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE U.S. FOREST
SERVICE: REVIEW OF THE USER PILOT PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 20, 1997

Serial No. 105-98

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

te

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-801 WASHINGTON : 1998

For sale by the U.S. Goverment Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-056509-X



108

must be willing iv vest more local authority in determining how the national forest will
bbe managed.

Let me conclude with three specific suggestions:

1, Last year congress directed the Forest Service to implement a new internal budget
allocation process, the net effect of which was to shift funding away from forests with
heavy recreation use to forests with high natural resource attributes. Thus national
forests in the heavily populated northeast, especially the Whute Mountain, are now
anticipating significamt percemage reductions in funding for FY1998, relative to
forests in other regions of the country. I believe Congress, and your committee, must
take a hard look at the Forest Service’s internal agency budget allocation process, to
ensure the allocation is more equitable, and to a greater extent reflects the substantial
costs incurred by heavy recreation use. If serious consideration is given to this issue,
we may find that we do not need a fee pilot program in the White Mountain National
Forest.

2. The fee pilot might have gotten off to a smoother start, had the staff of the white
‘Mountain been able to legally convene a local advisory body to assist them in
developing the program. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) made this
extremely difficult I recommend that your committee consider authorizing fee pilot
demonstration forests to consider the establishment of such local advisory bodies to
assist and advise the Forest Service if the user fee program moves from pilot to
Permanent status.

. Finally, I believe that there may be some real inefficiencies in how the Forest Service.
including the White Mountain National Forest, utilizes the funds that it receives. I
know these inefficiencies exist in the timber program, and I suspect they do as well in
management of recreation use. Might it be a useful function of the fee pilot advisory
committec I’ve suggested to also periodically critique how the staff of the White
Mountain utilizes the funds that it receives? 1 think some teal innovation, savings
‘and cooperative partnering could be realized from such a process.

The Forest Society’s historical rofe in issues involving the White Mountain
‘National Forest has always been, and continues to be one of convening interests and
facilitating resolution of problems. We look forward to working with the Forest Service,
and with our Congressional delegation, on this and other issues. thank you for the
opportunity to share my comments with you, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions.


131

Iris W. Baird
11 Richardson Street
Lancaster NH 03584
October 13, 1997

To The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology
Hearing in Conway NH re PL. 104-134, and funding for the White Mountain National Forest,

‘Thanks to Rep. John E. Sununu for his invitation to me to attend this hearing. 1 am
identified in his letter as "New Hampshire Fire Lookout Association” but must emphasize that
my remarks are not to be taken as the position of that organization, which is not a lobbying
entity. However, as Historian for the (national) Forest Fire Lookout Association, the New
Hampshire fire lookout historian, and a member and past director of the Weeks State Park
Association, I have some knowledge of the work of the USPS and the WMNF and of the
history of the Weeks Act and the establishment of the eastern National Forests.

‘The question Rep. Sununu poses is: Can the National Forest service support itself, and
if it can, should we permanently institute a program that will allow it to be self-sufficient?

My answer, at least with respect to the White Mountain National Forest, must be no, it
cannot. The reasons for this answer have to do with the costs of operating the forest, and the
sources, and potential sources, of revenue. I don't have a copy of the WMNF budget, but my
involvement with various forest planning activities leads me to conclude that the WMNF has
administrative costs for managing a multi-use forest, including costs related to preservation of
endangered ecosystems, timber management, recreational programs, watershed protection,
supervision of special use permits for ski areas, the Appalachian Mountain Club system and
other users, general safety of persons using the forest, and the usual bureaucratic overhead.
Sources of income include Congressional appropriations and some user fees. It is my
understanding that the proceeds of timber sales go directly to the federal treasury and not to
the Forest, so that the costs appear on the budget, but are not offset by income from the sales.

‘The beneficiaries of the WMNF programs include recreationists, businesses in
neighboring communities, manufacturers of recreational equipment, producers of maps and
guidebooks, and downstream communities. (After all, John W. Weeks got Congress to pass
the Weeks Act on the grounds that the Forest would protect watersheds and insure a stable
and adequate water supply to the communities of southern New England.)

We purchased the "parking pass” or recreational fee when it was first available, and
paid the full price even though as senior citizens we were entitled to the 50% discount. 1
support the concept of a user fee of some sort, but have my doubts as to the effectiveness of
this program as a major funding source. A number of the arguments raised against it by local
people, including that ‘we already pay property taxes’, and ‘pay for hunting and fishing
licenses’, are not relevant since none of these taxes go to the WMNF either directly or
indirectly; these are state taxes and not federal ones.


Iv

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued
Wolfe, Frank, and Ann Wolfe, Albany, NH, prepared statement of o
Zink, George, Tamworth, NH, officer of the Wonalancet Outdoor Club,

information concerning money requested to operate the Forest Service .

74
125


109

Mr. SuNuNU. Thank you very much. I have just a couple of ques-
tions for Mr. Graff.

There was some discussion or allusion to the various facilities,
primarily parking lots, that the Appalachian Mountain Club has
and how they utilize them. And I know that the Appalachian
Mountain Club has worked a bit with the Forest Service to try and
find ways that this current fee system, as it looks today, might be
more inclusive, might be used to cover those lots, or at least might
not provide as broad an exemption as it currently does.

Could you describe those facilities, how large they are, how much
they are used, and the extent to which the Appalachian Mountain
Club has worked with the Forest Service to participate in the park-
ing fee program?

r. GRAFF. As you know, which I don’t think I mentioned in any
remarks, we called originally for a voluntary fee program. One of
the reasons for that was so it could be equitable across the board,
that you could park anywhere and there would be a fee that people
could pay voluntarily.

Pinkham Notch falls under a lot of the exemptions, it seems, of
the Forest Service. First, is that it is a visitor center and they don’t
currently charge parking for a visitor center. Second, the lot itself
is on State land and they are not allowed to charge. Third, we are
currently undexw a special-use permit, which one of the articles in
the use permit says “free and unlimited access.” Not unlimited but
free access to the forest. So we can't charge a parking fee. Those
are three of the reasons. Now, it is very heavily used.

Mr. SuNUNU. Excuse me. What do you pay for the special-use
permit?

Mr. GraFF. The special-use permit, it hasn’t been determined.
Up until 1995 we did not pay a fee for the special-use permit. Now
we are under two extensions. And our last extension, the Forest
Service is working out what the fee would be for us to pay based
on special use.

Mr. SUNUNU. So you are currently negotiating?

Mr. GraFF. So we are currently negotiating on that. We have an
expectation that the amount of work we do for the forest will offset
that fee. We have a parking lot that holds 300 people. I would say
from the beginning of July on, it has been full every day this sum-
mer. It is in the high thousands of people who use our lot.

We do, however, provide people with purchase passes, but nor-
mally they buy those to park somewhere else on that forest. That
is the only lot that we currently operate that is free. There is the
Appalachian parking lot which is on Route 2, which serves the
northern Presidential Range, which is a free lot, but that is not
under our control.

Mr. SUNUNU. Do you have the ability to find out how many mem-
bers of the Appalachian Mountain Club have purchased parking

rmits?

Pewtr, GrarF. I don’t think we do, unless we do some survey. But
one thing we have found is that we were expecting a large outcry
or we thought there might be a large outcry, and there really
hasn’t been. People have been willing to pay the fee, but we believe
it is because the Forest Service has used this light-handed ap-
proach. In a sense they’ve adopted the voluntary approach this


30

Mr. SuNUNU. Thank you, Ned. Let me begin the questioning for
any of the panelists with Congressman Bass.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
very. I just have a couple of clarifying questions to ask.

What is your title, by the way?

Ms. Hepp. Forest supervisor.

Mr. Bass. Sorry. I was trying to figure out from your testimony.
I was wondering if you could tell me how many total passport ap-
plications, if you want to call it that, were distributed this year?

Ms. Hepp. I don’t have that exact number.

Mr. Bass. Any idea?

T’ll go on to the next question, then. How many individuals re-
sponded this year?

Ms. Hepp. We've sold approximately 20,000 passports.

Mr. Bass. So the bulk of them that you collected, 386,000, were
the $20 variety. So that comes to about $18,000, is $18 apiece, is
the average received?

Ms. Hepp. Right. I think the average is closer to about one-third
are annual passports and two-thirds are weekly passports.

Mr. Bass. So you received 3,068 responses, which is about what
percent of 20,000—15 percent, which isn’t a bad return, actually,
assuming it’s voluntary.

Did they have to mail it, or did they drop it in a box, or how did
you collect it?

Ms. HEpp. They mailed it in. Not all of them included a payment.
Some of them said, “I’m not going to pay.”

Mr. Bass. Why did you not want to place any kind of demo-
graphic questions on your questionnaire? P note you have “use” and
you have “support” and “don’t support.” Did you consider at all try-
ing to find out whether any of these respondents lived in New
Hampshire versus out-of-State?

Ms. Hepp. We have addresses and license numbers for the folks
that purchase passports.

Mr. Bass. And what percent is in-State versus out-of-State?

Ms. Hepp. We have not finalized the figures on that yet.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest on the questions that
are not fully answered, there be a space left in the record at this
point where you will answer it in a formal letter to the committee.

Ms. Hepp. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Horn. On all questions. I have a whole series of questions.

[The information referred to follows:]


89

free parking areas and access points on private and public land,
and registration fees for these vehicles provide maintenance funds
as well as those for rescue and law enforcement.

All these user groups pay their fair share and should not be
charged again by Federal regulations on Federal public lands re-
garding access and parking. Most of these users do not use trails
on Federal lands except incidentally during access to hunting and
fishing areas. They do not hunt and fish from the trails. When they
occasionally do use parking areas on Federal lands for access, it is
during seasons when hiking trail use is at a minimum and there
has been no conflict due to congestion that I’m aware of. This situa-
tion is sort of traditional here in this part of the country. The only
thing new is the parking fee for these user groups.

Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Pineo follows:]


84

THE WMNF USER FEE SYSTEM

1 was employed by the United states Forest Service for
thirty years and have nothing but respect for the White Mountain
National Forest.

I am opposed to the White Mountain National Forest User Fee
System for a number of reasons. I was Forest Administrator of
the Saco District of the White Mountain National Forest from 1957
to 1980. I was responsible for two hundred thousand acres of
multiple use management that included timber management,
recreation, fire, water management, wildlife trail management,
search and rescue and personnel and finance. We operated
returning a profit to the Federal government.

The pattern of ownership of the Forest makes it difficult to
enforce. Just to park and have to pay to walk on National Forest
land destroys the reason the forests were acquired. Thousands of
tourists stop for a short stay at Rocky Gorge, Lower Falls, and
other locations and have to pay just to walk down to Swift River
to view the sites.

The Forest Service needs to sharpen up its whole operation
so it would only require a small amount of the Federal government
to operate. Legislation is needed to make it harder for
environmental groups to hold up and prevent timber harvest on the
National Forest, the one way the Forest can show a profit.

The Forest Service operated for 150 years without a fee
system. The amount of money returned to the Forest from the fee
system is only a small amount after the cost of collection. We
pay enough taxes that there should be some beneficial returns.
The White Mountain National Forest volunteered for the pilot fee
program and we should do all we can so that it does not become a
permanent program. It would destroy the feeling of freedom on
the National Forest as well as the tradition of freedom in New
Hampshire. Tourists are not using the Forest as much as a result
of the fee system and the method of collection leaves them with
regrets.

The proposed cuts in the Forest Service budget will make the
Forest more efficient and streamlining the organization
facilities will make it more efficient and economical and less
need for a fee system.

Verland Ohlson
Conway, NH


12

the national forest. Those are the individuals that live in counties
where forest land is located.

As Congressman Sununu mentioned in his opening statement, I
introduced a bill, House bill 1843, which would exempt the resi-
dents of counties that currently have outstanding obligations from
the Federal Government in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program
from having to pay these user fees until such time as those pay-
ments in lieu of taxes are fully funded.

I also introduced an amendment on the floor of the House this
year, introduced by Congressman Sanders of Vermont, which would
increase funding in the appropriations bill to more fully reflect the
obligations that the Federal Government has had to property own-
ers in the counties in which national forests are located. I believe
that this should be a very serious priority of this Congress and also
the Forest Service, to reflect upon whether citizens in counties with
national forests should be obligated to pay more than all the other
citizens of this country in order to use the resources of the national
forests.

I would point out, as has been pointed out last night and will be
today, that the towns have to provide fire, education, and all sorts
of other services—police, law enforcement and so forth—to the
areas which are covered by the national forest, and they ought to
be compensated for providing those services.

Second, I would like to suggest that an arrangement needs to be
worked out between the State Fish and Game Department and
other State departments for the providing of services in the na-
tional forest that are now provided free of charge by the State.
There may be representatives from the State that will testify to
this point. But I want to point out that we sell hunting licenses in
this State, that we stock rivers and streams in the national forest,
and State wardens, State foresters provide services that are very
important for the White Mountain National Forest. They do so free
of charge, and the State would not receive any compensation or any
portion of the user fees that are being charged.

Last, I want to make an observation that the resources that are
to be collected from the user fee should be allocated to improve-
ments in the forest. We know that 80 percent of the user fee re-
ceipts are supposed to be allocated to that forest. However, I think
we ought to look at the real numbers and assure that that really
happens. We want to see improvements in the White Mountain Na-
tional Forest and in all the other national forests around the coun-
try, and not have these funds simply offset budget reductions to the
general fund contribution to that national forest that would occur
as a result of the collection of these fees.

These are the issues that we ought to be attentive to as we re-
view this pilot program and move forward into 1998. With that, I
will terminate my prepared remarks and turn the podium over to
my colleague, Representative Cooney from Salem, if that is OK
with the chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass follows:]


54

FACT SHEET
White Mountain National Forest
Recreation Fee Demonstration Project

Implemented May 1997
Page 4

What have we learned?

We are dealing with basic values and how people relate to their experiences
on the National Forest. Many feel that they should pay for the joy they
receive when they visit. Others feel they have already paid through their tax
dollars. We have learned that communication about the program is a high

priority.

There is a great deal of acceptance once the benefits of the program are
explained.

We've learned that we need to make the purchase of the passport easier.
What will we change?
We need to increase our marketing efforts so there are fewer surprises.

Information at parking lots needs to define the program and explain that
obtaining a pass need not interfere with a visitor's trip.

Technical aspects of the program may change. For example, we are
evaluating a parking sticker instead of the current card sized passport.

Need to improve our management and general operations. We did not
anticipate all aspects of the program, but we learned as the program
developed.

We need to become more efficient and streamline the process for returning
the invitations to pay.

We need to develop a compliance system to maximize compliance with the
program meeting the intent of PL 104-134.


96

Appropriations for the WMNF have plummeted from $10.1 million in 1993 to $7.3
million in 1997. Even more frightening is the disme: state of the recreation budget
on the White Mountain National Forest, which has been slashed to nearly half of its
fiscal 1993 levels, following four years of steady decline.

‘The WMNF recreation budget eppropriations, including construction, for FY ‘97 are
$2.765 million--only about 55% of the FY '93 budget of slightly more than $5
million, Meanwhile, the total WMINF budget is down nearly 30% from '93 levels,
and is expected to fall another 15% in the coming year.

On the national level, our understanding is that the budget for the national forest
system has increased, but that funds for the forests in the Bast have been
disproportionately cut. Given the enormous popularity of the WMNF, which, we
‘understand, is the second most heavily used national forest in the country for
recreation, that balance needs to change. We rmust take a hard look at the way budget

criteria are developed.

‘The solution of the moment is the fee pilot program. As the nation’s oldest and most
‘active conservation and recreation organization, we at the AMC recognize the role
users of national forests can play in helping to fund the continued stewardship of
these lands. We called for a voluntary approech, and we're disappointed that the
Forest Service was forced to make the fee mandatory.

‘Together with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests and other
concemed citizens, the AMC was among the first to call for the creation of the
White Mountain National Forest. Our treil-building and map-making laid the
foundation for the enormous citizen effort that helped create the Eastern national


%

Representative Horn, Representative Sununu, members of the hearing committee
and distinguished state, county and municipal officials. | am Frank Wolfe from
Albany, NH. Thank you for the privilege of testifying at this hearing.

First, let me say thanks to the Forest Service personnel. They deserve the purple
heart for all their efforts in implementing the Fee Pilot Program under heavy fire.

My wife, Ann, and | have been following the Fee Pilot Program since January. As we
understood it at the Public Hearing in February, the original intent of the program was
to be a user fee. Unfortunately, it has become a parking permit system.

My main concern is that the program, as written, is not FAIR because it does not
include ALL the real users of the forest such as hikers and skiers. These users can
hike or ski from the AMC parking fot in Pinkham Notch, one of the most used
trailheads in the WMNF, and pay nothing -- although, | understand, passes are
available at the AMC huts. They can hike from many of the larger parking lots in the
forest and pay nothing because the lots are state or privately owned. Trail traffic is
very heavy from these lots.

| question whether or not this system can be monitored and administered FAIRLY
because the forest is 770,000 acres in size, users have hundreds of points of entry
and the forest service head count is down to bare bones.

Another of my concerns is the message being sent to tourists. As tourism is a major
source of income in the North Country, tourists should be able to park at any scenic
outlook or on any state or town road, such as the Kancamagus Highway or Bear
Notch Road, to take pictures, stretch their legs and take a few minutes to enjoy the
scenic beauty, without being subject to parking fees!!!

In my opinion it is untair to charge this fee to campers who already pay $14.00 per
night to use the campgrounds, and to sportsmen who already pay a hefty fee for a
license to enjoy their sport.

Changes were made. Parking signs are no longer posted at overlooks. Hikers who
want to leave a car at each end of a long trail can now purchase a second pass at a
reduced rate.

One bright spot of the program is that 80% of the fees collected stay on the forest.

The implementation of the “fee pilot” program is simply the straw that broke the
camel's back. Let's look at THE BIGGER PICTURE.

The forest service budget cuts are heavily impacting the economy of the 37 White
Mountain National Forest "host" towns and 14 Grants/Locations. Taxpayers of these
towns are paying more than their fair share to subsidize the use of forest lands within
their boundaries. They lose revenue from property taxes on town land that was
acquired by the Forest. PILT (Payment in lieu of taxes) was established in 1976 to
offset this loss but there has been no increase in PILT payments since its inception.
In 1976, 75¢ per acre was a good rate of return, in 1997 it is not.

In May 1993, New Hampshire passed enabling legislation so that the state could take
advantage of "an existing provision in the federal law" that would increase PILT


36

$2,131,004, A very detailed breakdown of timber volume harvested,
revenues, and expenses for FY93-96 is attached. A further explanation
of these can be provided on request.

Table 2 -- Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS)
‘White Mountain National Forest

Million Board Feet (MMBF): FY93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96
Timber Volume Sold 273 237 25.1 18.2
Timber Volume Harvested 278 23.4 19.9 18.5

inber Program Revenues ($) 1,274,402 1,098.25 1,032,000 979,460
iber Program Expenses ($) 1,926,084 1,939.84 2,088,259 2,569,831
Net Gain or Loss ($) (651,682) (847,950) (1,056.26) (1,590,373)

6. P49, L1053"...what is the biggest intaker of money? Is it strictly the
timber sales, or is it fees for camping? How does that match out
in the typical forest and particularly your forest?
7. P49, L1059 "Well, ean you separate them out for us? What is the largest,
then? Is it the timber receipts that are larger than the
recreation receipts?"
8. P49, L1063 “Please check it and get It for the record. Thank you very much.”

FS Response: The data below is drawn from the annual National Forest
Statement of Receipts, ASR-12-1, documenting receipts from which the
25% Fund payments to states are calculated.


48

juestion a lot when I worked with the Forest Service. Basically, my
feeling is that the Forest Service has received a lot of bad publicity
about the below-cost timber sale issue. I think in many cases it is
bogus, because I think the Forest Service does a tremendous job of
harvesting timber. The fact that we had 7 million visitors a year
here coming to view the scenery means that somebody is doin;
something right, and the fact that this forest was cut over an
burned over at the turn of the century.

Mr. Horn. Well, we don’t disagree with a lot of that. I must get
my questions out. I am limited by a 5-minute rule. I’'ll be glad for
any extension you want to make to that for the record.

What percent of the lumber and timber in New Hampshire comes
from the national forest as opposed to private forests? Do we have
those figures?

Ms. Hepp. It is approximate. It is 5 percent or less.

Mr. Horn. The national forests, 5 percent. So if you no longer
did timber sales, how much of an impact would that be on lumber
mills in New Hampshire? Has anybody figured that?

Ms. HEpp. Well, I think it is not just the amount that we provide
but the types of products provided by the national forest, and there
area number of industries that are dependent on that.

Mr. Horn. Fine. I'd like that, if you would, to broaden that an-
swer out for the record.

Has the Forest Service made a profit at all in any operations
within the forest? You say they don’t make them on timber. Do
they make any profit where more money goes back to the Treasury
than is spent, let’s say, on Forest Service personnel? Let’s take the
recreation forest services. Is that a money-maker, a break-even, or
a loss?

Ms. Hepp. It’s a loss,

Mr. Laverty. Mr. Horn, the ski area program generates signifi-
cant increase in terms of revenue versus actual expenses in terms
of the administration, multiple returns in terms of values that go
back to the Treasury versus what it costs to actually administer
the permits.

Mr. Horn. Again, I think we ought to distinguish between the
Treasury versus further use by the Forest Service.

Mr. Laverty. That’s correct. But that is a very significant part
of this discussion. As we’ve been working with the Appropriations
Committee exploring expanded authorities, in terms of how some
of those receipts may come back to help the forest in terms of the
administration of some of the programs, that is a very possible and
viable option for us in the future.

Mr. Horn. Well, I happen to be a strong advocate of that. We
should give the agencies authority to reuse that money in certain
areas.

Now, has the Forest Service with these pilot projects taken a
look at what their budget might be if they did no timber sales, if
they devoted the national forest to be essentially what the national
parks are, recreation, scenery, this type of thing? Has anybody
looked at the numbers on that, what the impact would be on the
Forest Service?

Ms. Hepp. Well, we are funded at various levels based on doing
particular work. So the funding that is available for timber man-


117

Forest Service continues the mandatory fee system, other large
landowners might soon follow.

Imagine an area such as this that relies heavily on tourism,
where you need a permit to recreate on national forest, State for-
est, various paper company lands, and lands held by private con-
servation groups. As a land manager for an international conserva-
tion organization, I am often asked why we do not charge fees to
our visitors. It is for just these reasons described above that we do
not, and that the Forest Service should repeal the mandatory fee
system.

Sixth, I question the right of the Forest Service to rescind its
own fees as it sees necessary to raise money for its own programs.
The latest example of this was the National Forest Festival. This
was a weekend of events to raise money for improvements along
the Kancamagus Highway. If the Forest Service cannot maintain
recreation facilities and services at their current level, why are
they building more improvements that will cost more money to
maintain in the future?

The newly created National Forest Foundation is an organization
that was founded to raise money for our national forests. As an em-
ployee of a nonprofit environmental organization, this puts me in
direct competition with the National Forest Foundation to solicit
funds and try and raise money from a very limited amount of peo-
ple and resources. On a local level, I cannot compete with the
USFS, whom we are all already paying taxes to. On a national
level, organizations should not even have to think of competing
with the Federal Government for members and potential funding
sources.

Seventh, I would like to know what other National Forests have
done with their permit fee system and how it has affected people.
Have there been any innovative approaches to raising money for
recreation programs, and have the concerns of the local population
been taken into account?

I believe that the White Mountain National Forest needs to re-
open their thinking on the permit system, and to truly listen to
local national forest users. The current mandatory fee system
needs to be rescinded and new, innovative thoughts need to be im-
plemented. Some innovations that I think might help the USFS
achieve their goal of raising revenue to support recreation pro-
grams in the White Mountains with a minimum of administration,
personnel, conflict, and cost are: First, establish an advisory board
of local elected officials and citizens to advise the White Mountain
National Forest with the user permit process, the PILT program,
and other public and municipal relations.

Second, rescind the mandatory car user fee system and replace
it with a voluntary system, which I fully support. A voluntary sys-
tem, coupled with good outreach, can attain some of the financial
goals with minimal cost, administration, and resentment. I think
that this was the way to begin the permit system as a phased in
approach in the first place.

With the cooperation of special use permit holders such as the
Appalachian Mountain Club, downhill and cross country ski areas,
concessionaires, guide services, et cetera, begin a recreation pro-
gram fund that would target users of these services and facilities.


53

White Mountain National Forest
Fact Sheet
Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
Implemented - May 1997

Page 3
Project Examples:
14 Shelters maintained or repaired

12 Bridges repaired or replaced
1 Bridge removed for safety reasons

1,144 miles of trail maintained/reconstructed

3 first aid caches repaired

Kearsarge Lookout Tower repaired

Russell Colbath Homestead and adjacent Rail and River trail maintained

167,755 visitors were met with a smiling face at both Forest Service and
partner visitor centers.


49

agement is focused toward that. We haven’t looked at what oppor-
tunities might be available if that funding was available for other
uses.

Mr. Horn. I am going to use a lousy analogy for the next ques-
tion, but I have spent part of my life at it. Most people say in inter-
collegiate athletics that football pays all the bills for the other ath-
letic programs. The truth is that only 10 percent of the football
powers make a profit, 90 percent is money. But using that analogy,
what is the biggest intaker of money? Is it strictly the timber sales,
or is it fees for camping? How does that match out in the typical
forest and particularly your forest?

Ms. Hepp. I think the largest income would be from fees paid by
the ski areas and from timber receipts currently.

Mr. Horn. Well, can you separate them out for us? What is the
largest, then? Is it the timber receipts that are larger than the
recreation receipts?

Ms. Hepp. I would have to check that.

Mr. Horn. Please check it and get it for the record. Thank you
very much.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Horn, on a national basis, timber receipts still
continue to be the largest single receipt element that we have. We
have a number of other areas that are rapidly approaching that.
As Donna mentioned, the ski areas are the significant generator of
revenue and recreation receipts. But probably the most rising ele-
ment is communication sites, electronic sites across the country,
just as you’re familiar with some of the areas in southern Califor-
nia. Those are going to be the ones in the future that will generate
more than anything else.

Mr. Horn. What I am obviously interested in is the Forest Serv-
ice looking at different types of model forests where they don’t real-
ly have higher timber sales and if they used them as a recreation
site, there might be even greater employment, to put it positively?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct.

Ms. Hepp. Chairman Horn, I think it is a complex issue to re-
spond to you in a short period of time. The income, I believe, from

ski areas is around $200,000 a year. So that, the timber re-
ceipts are significantly higher than that. Our timber program is
based on many benefits to wildlife habitat as well as to recreational
activities, so just looking at it in isolation doesn’t really reflect the
integration of our program for the forest.

Mr. Horn. OK. Mr. Chairman, if I might give them a last ques-
tion, which is clear-cutting: To what degree is there clear-cutting
in the White Mountain National Forest?

Ms. Hepp. Clear-cutting is one of a number of timber practices
that we have on the forest. Approximately half of the land on the
forest is available for some type of timber management. The major-
ity of our timber activity is on even-aged management. But clear-
cutting is still an important point in our program. Based on our
forest plan, it is tied to our wildlife management strategy to create
openings in the forest, and that is a key component of our wildlife
strategy for the forest.

Mr. Horn, And you’re replacing them with yearling trees or let-
ting nature do it?


18

FRANK & ANN WOLFE
P.O. BOX 2292
CONWAY, NH 03818-2292

November 18, 1997

Representative Stephen Horn
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6143

Dear Representative Horn:

We are returning our subcommittee statements which you sent us for review. We
have marked a few corrections in red as requested.

Thank you for inviting Frank and | to testify at your field hearing entitled,
“Management Practices of the U.S. Fores! Service: Review of the User Pilot
Program", held on October 20th.

We respectfully submit that Congress bought the responsibility to fund the WMNF.
The WEEKS ACT, passed in 1911, authorized the federal government to purchase
lands east of the Mississippi; it provided government a way to protect New
Hampshire's mountains and waterways from erosion, sedimentation and run-off
damage.

In 1976, payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, was legislated by Congress to alleviate the
problem of WMNF *host” towns losing revenue from property taxes on land

From 1976 to 1995, PILT towns ware receiving $0.75 an
acre. There has been no allowance for inflation since 1976!!!

On March 11, 1994, S. 455, a Congressional amendment to Title 31, United States
Code, to increase Federal payments to units of general local government for
entitlement lands, and for other purposes, became effective. Since that time PILT

1@ “host” to i ing DOWN not UPI!!! And, of course, now
% funded. These towns need this

money!!!

Rep. Horn, you zeroed in on the cost effectiveness of timbering in the WMNF. We
submit that there are many side benefits to timbering that are not being recognized
such as the creation of wildlife habitat, the construction of fire roads and hiking trails.

Further, something needs to be done to control special interest groups such as
RESTORE and radical environmentalists. They blatantly state that their main
purpose is to put the national forests out of the timbering business. The major goals,
of the various environmental groups that sprang up in the 1960s & 70s have been
largely met. Now these groups appear to be casting about for new fields to conquer.


88

Mr. SUNUNU. Would the next panel please come up to the table.
We welcome Mr. Carroll Pineo, chairman of the New Hampshire
Fish and Game Commission; Walter Graff, director, New Hamp-
shire Appalachian Mountain Club; and Charles Niebling, senior
policy director, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire For-
ests.

I'd ask that you please speak as close to the microphone as pos-
sible and do your best to remain within the 5-minute rule so that
we can retain time for public comments at the end. Thank you very
much for coming and for your time, and I will begin with Mr.

ineo.

STATEMENTS OF CARROLL PINEO, CHAIRMAN, NEW HAMP-
SHIRE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION; WALTER GRAFF, DI-
RECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB;
AND CHARLES NIEBLING, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, SOCI-
ETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS

Mr. PINEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commit-
tee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Carroll
B. Pineo. I’m chairman of the New Hampshire Fish and Game
Commission. The fish and game commission is composed of 11
members, 1 from each county of the State and an extra 1 from the
marine and coastal interests. The commission is an oversight body
that sets the fish and game department policies and, among other
things, determines which legislative initiatives will be supported or
opposed. I serve as the chairman. I have been the chairman for 342
years. We serve a 5-year term, without compensation.

The members of the fish and game commission have not acted of-
ficially on this initiative. At the time the subject was brought up
last April or May, the commission decided on a wait-and-see policy
to determine how this initiative was going to work. In preparation
for this hearing, I did conduct a poll of the commission, and cur-
rently the majority of the commission, if they voted today, would
oppose this initiative. I will give you the reasons in a short state-
ment here.

Members of the fish and game commission, as well as the sport-
ing, hunting, and fishing community, have all indicated to me their
strenuous objection to this user fee on Federal lands. Their major
objection is that of parking access for entry for their hunting, fish-
ing, and trapping grounds, which have been traditionally used only
for that purpose by these user groups.

They feel that the wildlife restoration, management, and fish
stocking on these lands located within State boundaries have been
supported by the State of New Hampshire hunting and fishing li-
cense fees and by taxes and fees on guns, ammunition, and other
sporting goods for over 60 years under the Pitman-Robertson Act.

ey feel they have been paying their fair share for many years,
and the simple possession of a hunting, fishing, or trapping license
should exempt them from any additional fee for access or parking
at Federal land locations anywhere within the State.

Private landowners within New Hampshire have allowed access
and parking on their land from the beginning without fee. Most
State access and parking locations are without fee. Snowmobile
and other off-highway recreational vehicles have many of their own


43

13.2 miles cross country ski trails

Heavy Maintenance/Reconstruction: Heavy Maintenance includes

brushing to standard, waterbar replacement or new installation,
installation of rock steps, stepstones, tumpiking, puncheons and
cribbing:

2.9 miles North Twin Trail

1.4 miles Gail River Trail

1.5 miles Little East Pond

1.0 miles Donkey Hill Cut-Off

1.2 miles Carr Mountain

0.8 miles Blueberry Mountain

0.5 miles Hubbard Brook Trail

0.5 miles Three Ponds Trail

9.8 miles; and Maintained 36 traitheads.

Facilities: Removal of a 38-foot native stringer bridge.
(Deteriorated to an unsafe condition)
Replaced gate on Zealand Road

Developed Recreation: Restained picnic tables at Beaver Brook
Maintained 15 picnic sites (toilets, trash, mowing, and bulletin boards)

IV. South Half - Ammonoosuc/Pemigewasset Ranger District

*Developed Recreation: Employed two seasonals, maximizing their
effectiveness through the use of volunteers. The two seasonal
employees supervised a total of 9.6 years of volunteer time.
*(Constructed and erected fee demo signs at 54 locations (many

of which were vandalized or stolen as many as 15 times each).
*Mowed and performed daily care on 23 day use areas

*Major entrance and information sign areas, parking lots, and
turnouts.

*Cleaned restrooms daily at major trailhead parking lots.

*Replaced 16 picnic tables

*Facilities: Maintained two large water systems.
*Maintained 91 district roadside recreation sign areas and
fire caches.
*Maintained the district gate program
*Dispersed Recreation Areas:
* Administered heavy roadside dispersed recreation use areas
Sandwich Notch Road

North South Road

Route 118

Elbow Pond

Brown Brook Falls

Forest Protection Areas on the Kancamagus


129

maintain some trails. But if the forest had a fee, they wouldn’t
have to let a private organization, which also I am a little ugly
about, they hide behind the charitable organizations, environ-
mentalists. They all are a so-called charitable organization. Some-
times I think in the lumber business I’ve been running one, too,
but I can’t deduct anything.

So for what it’s worth to you fellows, I point that out to you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much.

We'll allow these last two speakers, and that should enable us
to conclude pretty close to our initially scheduled time.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL DINSMORE, JACKSON, NH

Mr. Dinsmore. My name is Daniel Dinsmore of Jackson. I don’t
like public speaking. I will keep this short and sweet, but I’m try-
ing to summarize.

if you’ve got a skin cancer, I don’t believe putting a Band-Aid on
it to try to get rid of it, unless the roots are so deep that you can’t.
And that’s the way I feel about user fees or mandatory programs
for raising money from forests.

I've been a supporter of the volunteer system, and everybody
says, well, how are you going to make the voluntary system work?
How are you going to collect anything? Well, my idea is so simple,
and is without administrative costs, but I don’t think it will fly.
People in Washington somehow seem to have an aversion, they
have got to make things complicated.

My idea is simply this: Put up signs explaining that you need
funds to operate the forest, these trailheads where you now have
these mandatory parking signs, get a waterproof box, put some
franked envelopes in it. It isn’t going to cost anybody any postage
to mail them. Put down an address there where you want the
funds to go to, maybe several different addresses where you want
the money to go. People come back from a good day’s hiking or
whatever and they have had a good time and come back and, in
my opinion, they are willing to kick in a few bucks for the experi-
ence they’ve had. They are not being forced, coerced to do some-
thing. That rubs me automatically against the grain. It is volun-
teer. The sign says “Have a good time. How about giving us a few
bucks to improve this forest and keep things going so it can con-
tinue.”

So whoever is there, they pick up the envelope, reach in their
pocket, pull out a couple of bucks, put it in the envelope, and then
drop it off in the nearest post office. In my way of thinking, that
is going to bring in a lot more money from a voluntary, easy-to-
manage user fee than it would from any kind of mandatory fees.

you.
Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much.
Good morning and welcome.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD HATCH

Mr. HaTCH. My name is Howard Hatch. I worked for the Forest
Service for 33 years. I was born and brought up right here in this
area. The other day I was riding in Gorham and I happened to look
around and, say, here, there is your money, Wildcat, Appalachian
Mountain Club, Jackson Ski Touring Foundation, go on and on.


113

ious constituencies, it wouldn’t consciously leave anybody out that
needs to be there.

As to what constituent groups or interests ought to be rep-
resented, I think those of us who are here today can sit down with
Congressman Sununu or Bass and write up some language that
would probably make sense and really capture everyone who
should be there.

Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sununu.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Horn. And the final questions or
comments, the distinguished member of the authorizing committee,
Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have just one
question, probably to Mr. Niebling. Talking about the internal
budget reallocation process, in your estimation, is that a political
decision or is there a legitimate justification for that reallocation,
which you describe as shifting funds away from forests with recre-
ation to those with high natural resources? What was the theory?

Mr. NIEBLING. Well, I’m going to share Mr. Graff's indecisiveness
in responding to that. This has been described to me, but I have
not been able to get my hands on the actual language, the author-
izing language, or what it was within the agency that made this
determination.

My understanding, however, is that it was principally moved by
a strong coalition of Western interests to reconfigure the allocation
process in such a way that western natural forests, which tend to
have very high, the way I termed it in my testimony, high natural
resource attributes. And that is not to suggest that we don’t have
high natural resource attributes, but that those types of forests got
a disproportionately greater percentage of the allocation than they
had in previous fiscal years where the allocation was more a line
item based on specific programs of management. It is incumbent on
us to get that information, and it has proven extremely difficult for
a variety of reasons.

Mr. Moran of Kansas. I will try to raise this question when we
have Secretary Glickman from the Forest Service.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to
these panelists. I appreciate your testimony and your timeliness.
We do have approximately 25 or 30 minutes. I would like to actu-
ally take a moment, before we open the floor up to some public
comment, to thank some folks who helped put this together so that
we don’t end up offering our thanks as we are walking out the
door.

Foremost, to the staff director and chief counsel for the sub-
committee, J. Russell George; Mark Brasher, who is the senior pol-
icy director; John Hynes, professional staff member for the commit-
tee; Andrea Miller, the clerk of the subcommittee; and Matthew
Ebert, who is staff assistant for the committee and has just joined
the committee. They were enormously helpful in working with my
staff here in New Hampshire and in Washington to make this
hearing a success.

To my staff members, Craig Annis, Barbara Riley, Jeff Rose, and
Harold Parker, thanks very much, and to Ms. Chamberlain, as
well, for her work out of the Dover office.


122

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you.
Obviously, in fairness to all those that would like to speak, I
would ask everyone to try and stick to the 3-minute time limit.

STATEMENT OF GLENN D. CLARK, JR.. MOULTONBOROUGH
SNOWMOBILE CLUB

Mr. CLarkK. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to be here.
My name is Glenn D. Clark, Jr. Prior to coming to New Hamp-
shire, I resided 40 years in Hawaii. I am very happy to be here in
this great State. I was prompted by Mr. Horn’s statement about
the chamber of commerce, because I think I have some facts that
will describe what we are talking about on the use of the national
forest and also the trails and areas of landowners.

We have about 48,000 snowmobilers in New Hampshire State
that are registered. Of those about 8,000 are members of the New
Hampshire Snowmobile Association. Those 8,000 members donate
over 1,000 man-hours every year to maintaining trails on numer-
ous private landowners’ property, plus the State and in the White
Mountain Forest. There are 30 percent of those 48,000 that are
out-of-State. They pay a higher fee. That goes to the State.

The New Hampshire tourism industry has a trickle-down effect,
$1.87 for every dollar spent. The ski industry runs it up to about
$2.85. The Snowmobile Association hired Dr. Robertson, a Univer-
sity of New Hampshire professor, to do an economic study on this.
It was at no cost to the Government; it was at the cost to the Snow-
mobile Association, and from that fact, we gleaned that the New
Hampshire Snowmobile Association and its snowmobilers, besides
donating all this time and effort to maintain trails, contributed
over $387,000 to the economy of New Hampshire. Most of that was
contributed in just a 4- or 5-month period. There are many of our
snowmobilers who own second homes from the lake region all the
way up to Pittsburg, near the Errol area and so forth.

Besides all this, the other side of the factor is that the Snow-
mobile Association 27 years ago adopted the Easter Seal Society
with respect to maintaining a camp for retarded and mentally unfit

ersons, mentally retarded persons. The Snowmobile Association
last year donated its usual 366.000, and over the 25 or 26 years
that we have done so, we have donated $1,017,000 to the Easter
Seal Society for the maintenance of this camp.

I do not believe that we need to pay an extra fee to park simply
to watch the leaves change, to unload our snowmobiles, or any of
those things. I would like to ask you to all read Mr. Burton’s com-
ments, because there is a heck of a lot of places in the Government
where bureaucracy I think stinks. There are many places in the bu-
reaucracy where $3, $4, or $5 million could be put back into this
area without hurting anybody.

I mean, every time I turn around we're bailing around some
country, and I spent a lot of time in those countries before I settled
in Hawaii. Every time I turn around we are bailing out some coun-
try from its own problems, and I don’t think we should be the
guardian and savior of the whole universe.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much.

Welcome.


127
Mr. SUNUNU. Please. Welcome, and good morning.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD EASTMAN

Mr. EasTMAN. I would like to ask the lady up there, the forest
trooper, advisor, to come down here and read what it says on that
so-called voluntary parking permit.

Would you, please?

Mr. SUNUNU. Well, this really isn’t a question-and-answer period.

Mr. EASTMAN. Well, now, I would like people to understand that
I don’t believe this is voluntary. If you read the whole parking per-
mit, you get a chance to buy this parking permit. If you don’t buy
it, the user fine goes with it, plus jail time.

Now, is that voluntary? To me it isn’t.

Mr. SuNuNu. I think you are correct. And I think the Forest
Service has indicated that it is not a voluntary program. Although
they have chosen not to move harshly with enforcement, you are
correct, it is not a purely voluntary program.
ow EASTMAN. Thank you. I would like the people to understand

t.
Mr. Horn. Can we get that in the record at this point?

Mr. SUNUNU. We will include the language that is on the parking
pass as part of the record, as well.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JULIAN CZARNY, BETHLEHEM, NH

Mr. Czarny. Good morning. My name is Julian Czarny. I reside
in Bethlehem, NH with my wife, Nancy, and our dog Crawford. We
enjoy the national forest and the public lands immensely. Our
property borders the national forest for 600 feet. We take great
pride in that. My wife has a fishing license. I have a fishing license
from the State of New Hampshire. I also have a hunting license.
I pay for the right to enter the national forest and cut my firewood.

It is a tremendous resource. I understand how it draws immense
numbers of people who spend money in hotels, in lodging facilities.
It is a jewel of the north country. I love it. I hope that I spend the
rest of my life here and in my dying hours can look out over its
lands. I also, on the car dashboard, have my permit, and I appre-
ciate being able to put my $20 worth in today.

I think in Washington we need to figure out how to manage the
money that is sent in by April 15 by everyone here so that we can
fund the White Mountain National Forest and its employees to op:
erate the national forest. We’re not looking for space-age tech-
nology. We're looking for basically, I feel, the bulk of the work. Al-
though there certainly are educative positions that do analysis on
the forest and its use, the bulk of the work is labor work, people
with grub hoes, axes, and brushing equipment to maintain trails.

We are looking for wood bridges and similar engineering projects.
It is funny, you see on the news a $3 billion Stealth fighter basi-
cally doing carnival tricks at a town fair falls in pieces in midair,
yet we can’t manage to prop up a failing program. I feel we pay
our user fees every April 15. I would like to abide by the law and
pay for the permits that are required by law, so I will keep doing
that until that changes.


CONTENTS

Hearing held on October 20, 1997 ...
Statement of:
Bass, Hon. Charles F., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Hampshire, "accompanied by State Representative Richard
Cooney, Salem, NH ...
Benson, Peter, Jackson, NH
Brownell, Bill, Danbury, NH, past president, Timberland Owners Asso-
ciation
Burton, Raymond S., New Hampshire State Councilor; Henry Mock, New
Hampshire State Senator; Gene Chandler, New Hampshire State Rep-
resentative; and Frank Wolfe and Ann Woife, Albany,
Clark, Glenn D., Jr., Moultonborough Snowmobile Club
Czarny, Julian, Bethlehem,
Dinsmore, Daniel, Jackson, NH
Eastman, Richard ..
Hatch, Howard
Hepp, Donna, forest supervisor, White Mountain National Forest, accom-
panied by Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilder-
ness Resources, U.S. Forest Service; and Ned Therrien, former public
affairs officer, White Mountain National Forest
Pineo, Carroll, ‘chairman, New Hampshire Fish ai
Walter Graff, director, New Hampshire Appalachian Mountain Club:
and Charles Niebling, ‘senior policy director, Society for the Protection
of New Hampshire Forests
Teschner, Doug, New Hampshire epresen
Zink, George, ‘amworth, , officer of the Wonalancet utdoor
Letters, Statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bass, Hon. Charles F., a Representative in Congress from the State
‘of New Hampshire, prepared statement of ..
Benson, Peter, Jackson, repared statement of
Burton, Raymond S., New "Hampshire State Councilor, prepared state-
ment. of
Chandler, Gene, New Hampshire State Representative, prepared state-
ment of
Graff, Walter, director, New Hampshire Appalachian Mountain Club,
prepared statement of ..
Hepp, Donna, forest supervisor, White Mountain National Forest
comment form summary
Fact sheet .....
Prepared statement of ..
onses to followup questions .
Horn lon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement of
Niebling, Charles, senior policy director, Society for the Protection of
iampshire Forests, prepared statement of
Pineo. Carroll, chairman, New Hampshire Fish and Game Commissiot
Information concernin; ne stocking rivers and streams
Prepared statement of
Sununu, Hon. John E., a
of New Hampshire:
Prepared statement of ..
Prepared statements of Mr.
Therrien, Ned, former public affairs ofce ficer, “White Mountain National
Forest, prepared statement of .. ae

a)

Page
1

18

88.
114
123


SOCIETY
FOR THE

PROTECTION

oF

NEW HAMPSHIRE

FORESTS,

agree
pete
Bory

106

‘Testimony of Charies R. Niebling
Senior Policy Director
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

Before the

USS, House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
‘Subcommittee on Goverament Management, Information and Technulvgy

Getnber 20, 1997

‘Good Moming. My name fs Charles R. Nicbling. Iam seuiv: policy
director for the Socicty for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, a 10,000
member organization founded in 1901 to protect the state’s most important
Jandscapes and promote wise use of its renewable natural resources.

‘the orest Society's history is inextricably linked to that of the White
‘Mountain National Forest. The organization was founded to conserve the
forests and watersheds of the White Mountains. then ravaged by
indiscriminate and excessive timber harvesting. Ten years later the persistent
efforts of the Forest Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club and others ted to
‘the passage of the Weeks Act, which as you know authorized the federal
government to acquire privately-owned lands in the eastern United States for
inclusion in the national forest system. As former Forest Service Chief F.
Dale Robertson remarked at a celebration in New Hampshire of the 75°
anniversary of the Weeks Act in 1986, for this persistence, “the rest of the
nation, and perticularty those of us in the Fures! Service, are thankful and
indebted to the people and early conservation leaders here in New England.
‘The roots of the Forest Service and the conservation movement run deep to
this part of the country.”

‘Today we have a national forest, restured tw health, that, while not without
‘its share of occasional controversy, stands as a model of what a national forest
is and should be.

So it is particularly appropriate that your committee bas convened here in
‘New Hampshire this muruing to hear the views of those of us who care deeply
about this forest, on a topic of great interest and concem. I want to especially
recognize Congressmen Sununu and Bass, whose efforts led to the scheduling
of this hearing.


66

south receives $3.4 or $3.5 billion a year, it makes me and my con-
stituents wonder just where Congress's priorities really lie.

America is not known for its crown jewels that are packed away
somewhere. But, rather, it is a million times blessed with crown
jewels of all of the jewels, our beautiful public forests and our
parks. Please don’t let a million here and a million there erode our
most precious possessions.

Thank you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you.

Selectman Gene Chandler of Bartlett. I thank you again for
working to maximize the amount of public comment that we've re-
ceived through this process. And please begin.

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee. My name is Gene Chandler. I’m a selectman
in the town of Bartlett and have been a selectman in the town of
Bartlett for 24 years. I am also a member of the New Hampshire
House of Representatives, where I spent 7 years as chairman of the
Committee on Public Works and Highways and a little over a year
as the deputy majority leader in the house of representatives.

I have lived in this valley my whole life surrounded by the na-
tional forest. I have always been a strong supporter of and continue
to be a strong supporter of the national forest. It is essential that
we have and maintain the national forest in this area. It is abso-
lutely essential.

But I do take issue with—and while I have gotten along ve
well over the years with all of the local Forest Service people,
think, and we’ve had some discussions on different matters—but
when I heard Supervisor Hepp declare that in her opinion so far
this fee system would be qualified, as a success, I must tell you in
all honesty it is a disaster and it has been a disaster from the be-
ginning. I feel very strongly about that, and I’m sure that if you
talk to the local people up here, there is no question they would
concur with that.

Some of the problems have been that when it was implemented
there really was not enough knowledge on where these parking
fees could be collected. Consequently, some of the major places, like
the Appalachian Mountain Club parking lot—through no fault of
Appalachian Mountain Club, believe me, it is not their problem—
a lot of the State right-of-ways, Crawford Notch, Pinkham Notch,
State lands that access Federal lands, these parking permits were
not able to be put out. So they have to pull back from that.

Scenic overlooks, places that are not trailheads, which the origi-
nal goal of this, apparently, was to put these at trailheads, just sce-
nic overlooks, some of them without even a picnic table, for heav-
en’s sake, have signs up. I will give credit, when this was brought
to the attention of at least the local forest officials here, some of
those have been removed, but that problem existed. Some of them
are just swimming areas. I think it is very objectionable that the
tourists even beside the road to go swimming, the law follows the
subject of this.

Motorcycles; T've had two people call me, and these are direct re-
sponses from the White Mountain National Forest, that they are
not enforcing this for motorcycles. If someone pulls a car in with
one person in it, they are going to get a parking ticket. If someone


52

White Mountain National Forest
Fact Sheet
Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
Implemented May 1997
age

Examples of Administration Activities:
Vendor payments
Office administration for sale of passports
Data entry and management.

Expected future annual operations costs
and maintenance costs (15% fund) $ 83,500.00

1997 Compliance and Enforcement
Estimated Costs $83,000.00
Citations (violation notices issued) 5

Compliance activities:
Sign placement
Invitations to Pay placed on cars
Follow-up notices and Citations

Compliance Rate:
39% of cars parked displayed passes
Approximately half of cars receiving invitations to pay returned
the invitation with payment.
Total compliance is approximately 70%

‘Actual dollars collected and returned to field projects:
Planned: $237,959
Spent (9/30/97): $211,262

How many employee days worked on project: 4,070
643 permanent (295 technician) (348 professional)

3,427 seasonal
Total passes issued: 7-Day 18,093
(pass sale records are from Annual 5,471
September) Volunteer 300

Spotter 12
Golden Age (7-day) 389
Golden Age (Annual) 572




26

tional forests in the East by ranting, “Not one cent for scenery.”
Savvy New Englanders had their way, and that scenery is drawing
millions of visitors here each year.

If you were hiking over the national forest over the last 2 week-
ends, like I was, you would realize how valuable this scenic re-
source is. I spent all last weekend, the last 2 weekends, in and
around Franconia Notch, and the parking there was up and down
the highway in every available spot. By the way, we are not collect-
ing fees, I don’t believe, for the People who are parking there, so
that’s another problem that needs to be worked out.

The White Mountain National Forest is here because people
want it here. The land had been cut over and burned over, literally
lands that nobody wanted. The foresight of the Weeks Law has led
to the eastern national forest system of 50 national forests encom-
passing 25 million acres in the East, all located east of the Mis-
sissippi River except a few in Texas. Although most of these other
forests aren’t under the intense people pressures that we have here
in the White Mountains, they all suffer from declining budgets and
staff. The fee pilot program is a symptom of our inability to ade-
quately fund the protection and management of our public lands.

I just want to digress here a second. National forests in the West
were created by Presidents signing a law that created them out of
the public domain. There were no public lands in the East. Every
acre on the White Mountain National Forest was acquired, willing
seller, willing buyer. So we acquired these lands in the East that
were cut over, burned over, grazed over. Nobody wanted them.

And now what do we have? We have gems that millions and mil-
lions of people are using. So I think that if we look back, the his-
toric nature of what the people in New England saw, and now we
have a 50-million acre resource as a result of that, and it shows
us what people in New England can do if they put their minds to
it.

The public was supportive of the White Mountain National For-
est from the beginning, and my experience is that they are still
supportive. That coalition of organizations that helped pass the
Weeks Law in 1911 is still working to support the White Mountain
National Forest and is anxious to find a solution to this funding
problem. This is New Hampshire, not Idaho, Montana, or Utah—
and we don’t forget easily. The sooner we get on with addressing
workable solutions, the better off we will ‘all be.

Managing a national forest is a complex business. The Forest
Service in New Hampshire and Maine deals with 89 different
towns, over 7 million visitors a year, more than 125 interested or-
ganizations, ski areas, timber harvest, wilderness, campgrounds,
diverse wildlife populations, and almost 800,000 acres of forest, riv-
ers, and lakes. The people that work for the Forest Service in New
England are a dedicated group, but the organization is dying from
reduced staffing and increased workloads. The lion’s share of the
funding is currently going to national forests in the Western
States. My understanding is that that is probably not going to
change anytime soon.

Cooperating private and nonprofit organizations have been work-
ing with the Forest Service to supplement existing funds for a vari-
ety of projects. An example of this cooperative funding is the re-


22

Overall, we feel the project on the White Mountain National Forest
has been a success.

We call our project a "recreation passport." Our objective was to
use funds collected from the demonstration project to maintain
recreation facilities and address the significant backlog of
recreation projects on the Forest. I will refer to the "passport"
for the remainder of my testimony.

First, allow me to explain the passport system. Our passport
program asks that all people leaving an unattended vehicle on the
Forest purchase a passport. There are two kinds of passports: a
seven-day passport for $5 and an annual passport for $20. These
can be purchased at any Forest Service office in New Hampshire and
Maine or at 45 private businesses and organizations near the
National Forest. Visitors can also purchase passports through the
mail.

Our decision to use a vehicle passport system was made after
personal contacts with local towns and recreation user groups and
comments from citizens at public sessions held in January and
February of 1997. We consulted with Boards of Selectmen for all
towns with land within the White Mountain National Forest before we
made this decision.

We felt the focus on vehicles was most fair for several reasons:

1. Vehicles on the Forest are stationary and easily monitored,
helping to keep administration costs low.

2. Any negative effect of having someone personally contacted to
verify your participation in the passport program is avoided.
Most people come to enjoy the White Mountains to relax and have
fun. Checking for a passport can detract from that experience.

3. Followup is relatively easy and not costly. License plate
numbers can be tracked and addresses obtained without interfering
with our visitors’ recreation experience.

The White Mountain National Forest is fortunate to have so many
partners who willingly donate their time to help take care of the
land and facilities they enjoy. Our passport program recognizes
the value of their contributions by providing an option where
individuals who donate at least 16 hours of their time doing
volunteer labor on the Forest receive a complimentary annual
passport for their effort. It doesn’t surprise me that although
this option is available, many of our volunteers purchase a
passport anyway because they recognize the tremendous need to
support this program and are excited about seeing the funds come
back directly to the White Mountain National Forest.

Since the passport program started, we have been monitoring
compliance. As we expected, early compliance rates were low but
steadily improved as the program progressed. We reached a
compliance rate of over 50% just after Labor Day. As of the end of
September, through this program, we have collected over $360,000.


105

Our forest plan, adopted in 1986, was a contract with the People
of this region. It has been funded at roughly 60 percent of what
was envisioned as necessary. The continued inability of Congress
to meet this need calls into question the very purpose of forest
planning. This should concern your committee and your colleagues
in Congress, as the Forest Service is about to ask the citizens of
New England to once again invest huge amounts of time in our
next forest plan. Many of us have some real apprehension about
whether this investment will be worth the time.

If the Congress is unable to meet this essential responsibility
through adequate general funding and the solution becomes more
local responsibility, then the Congress must be willing to vest more
local authority in determining how the local forest will be man-
aged.

Let me conclude with three specific suggestions. First, last year
Congress directed the Forest Service to implement a new internal
budget allocation process, the net effect of which was to shift fund-
ing away from forests with heavy recreation use to forests with
high natural resource attributes. Thus, national forests in the
heavily populated Northeast, especially the White Mountain, are
now anticipating significant percentage reductions in funding for
fiscal year 1998 relative to forests in other regions of the country.

I believe Congress and your committee must take a hard look at
the Forest Service’s internal agency budget allocation process to en-
sure the allocation is more equitable and to a greater extent re-
flects the substantial costs incurred by heavy recreation use. If se-
rious consideration is given to this issue, we may find that we do
not need a fee pilot program in the White Mountain National For-
est.

Second, the fee pilot might have gotten off to a smoother start
had the staff of the White Mountain been able to legally convene
a local advisory body to assist them in developing the program. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act made this extremely difficult. I
recommend that your committee consider authorizing fee pilot dem-
onstration forests to consider the establishment of such local advi-
sory bodies to assist and advise the Forest Service if the user fee
program moves from pilot to permanent status.

And finally, I believe there may be some real inefficiencies in
how the Forest Service, including the White Mountain National
Forest, utilizes the funds that it receives. I know these inefficien-
cies exist in the timber program, and I suspect they do as well in
management of recreation use. It may be a useful function of the
fee pilot advisory committee, I’ve suggested, to also periodically cri-
tique how the staff of the White Mountain utilizes the funds that
it receives? I think some real innovation, savings, and cooperative
partnering could be realized from such a process.

My organization’s historical role in issues involving the White
Mountain has always been and continues to be one of convening in-
terests and facilitating resolution of problems. We look forward to
working with the Forest Service and with our congressional delega-
tion on needs and other issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I would be pleased
to respond to any questions.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Niebling follows:]


State

Alabama
Alaska
‘Arizona
‘Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut

Minos
Indiana

Towa

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

‘New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania

34

Table | - Pass Purchasers’ States of Residence

(Numbers as of November 15, 1997)
‘Annual Weekly
0 32

0 4

10 32

1 B

23 444

3 8
465 1,616
0 63

4 46

16 398

3 67

) 7

0 14

2 179

3 87

3 28

0 40

1 32

0 a
1,110 1,678
19 390
3,983 11,501
0 143

2 154

0 a

) 0

0 n

0 B

1 27
6,483 6,672
95 934

4 ul

ig 1,655

3 129

0 1

30 360

0 4

1 35

62 153


115

It is sort of a quiet backwater over there, and all of a sudden,
these trucks are there, and their main purpose, of course, has been
to leaflet cars. We don’t have forest rangers anymore, we have glo-
rified meter maids. That’s what these folks have become. This has
become their principal function, to go around leafleting cars, and
people are pretty angry about it.

If you look at the cost, and I’ve been asking the national forest
for information on the cost of implementing this program, and
today I think they have come forward with some real information
for the first time, but they are projecting $500,000 in revenue.
They are claiming $175,000 has been spent.

If you look on the second page that was provided this morning
by the White Mountain National Forest, they spent 4,070 employee
days on this program. That is the equivalent of almost 16 full-time
employees. If you use $30,000 as the benchmark of county benefits,
maybe that is too high, but right there, that is $469,000.

The problem here, folks, is that this just doesn’t add up. They
are creating a lot of ill will, and they are not bringing the kind of
revenue that is going to help the forest, and I think this is the fis-
cal equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

People love the national forest. We care about the national forest.
But we feel this program is not working, and we feel that this real-
ly should be a total study of the national forest and how it oper-
ates, whether it should be fund-raising, privatization, contract serv-
ices, or whatever.

Thank you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Representative. And I ap-
preciate you providing your full written testimony, as well, for the
committee’s record.

I welcome Peter Benson.

STATEMENT OF PETER BENSON, JACKSON, NH

Mr. BENSON. Congressman Sununu, thanks for attending last
night. I spoke last night.

Iam speaking to voice my strong opposition to the USFS manda-
tory parking permit fee system. I believe that the current permit
system is flawed in its design, implementation, and process for col-
lecting user fees for recreation programs in the ite Mountain
National Forest. I will briefly address some of the flaws and then
offer some possible solutions.

When citizen input was sought last year on how to formulate a
permit fee system, there was overwhelming support for a phased-
in process that would have at its core a voluntary user fee system.
Many questions were asked about the process of the fee system:
How much money would be needed to support recreation programs,
what would be the administrative costs, how would it be imple-
mented, et cetera. There were no concrete answers from the Forest
Service at the planning session that I attended regarding these
questions. The only firm answer we received were that “these deci-
sions were being made on a national level.” This left very little
room for innovative approaches or regional solutions to the funding
gap. If this were the case, why hold the public forum on user fees
at all? And if this were not the case, why were the overwhelming
opinions of the participants not heeded regarding a phased-in, vol-


COMMENT FORM

Welcome to the White Mountain National Forest.
questions will help us determine where to allocate money collected from the

WF Fee Pilot Program.

enjoy on the National Forest.

(Numbers represent percent distribution on returned questionaire:

Answers to the following

Please check the box beside the 3 main activities you

12.3 camping 22.8 day hiking
2.5 fishing 4.1 walking for pleasure
-6 hunting 13.8 backpacking
6.7 sightseeing -9 running/jogging
3.1 picnicking 3.4 mountain biking
3.4 driving for pleasure -8 other biking
1.1 family gathering 5.0 skiing downhill
2.4 canoeing/kayaking on flat water 5.7 skiing, cross country
-1 canoeing/kayaking on white water 1.2 visit historic sites.
- rafting on white water <4 snowmobiling
-2 motorboating .7 interpretation and education
3.9 wildlife observation/photography -8 visitor information services
-5 other nature study -1 four wheel drive ATV
2.0 other

I support the collection of fees for recreation use in the White Mountain
National Forest and the on-site retention of these fees.
Yes -

72%) No - 507 (15¥) Undecided - 416 (138.

(Yes to No ratio: 83% Yes to 17% No)

‘The $20 annual pase and $5 weekly pass is a reasonable fee for recreation on the

White Mountain National Forest.

Yes - 2527 (77%) No - 483 (15%) Undecided - 278 (8%)

(Yes to No ratio: 84% Yes to 16% No)
Additional Comments: As of October 12, 1997, we had checked 44,223 cars, 17,415
displayed passports (39%). Notices to pay were placed on 26,808 cars parked
without a pass. The package also included the Comment Form and a self addressed
envelope. Very few Conment Forms were given out at Forest Service offices. of
the 26,808 notices placed, approximately half were returned. when these paid
notices are added to the cars with passes, we estimate the compliance at
approximately 70%.

As of October 16, 1997, a total of $385,949.22 has been deposited. Passports
have been sold from approximately 70 locations. Money has been collected from
these vendors on a monthly basis.



112

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Horn.

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just say first to the official reporter of debates, wherever
you see “AMC” in the transcript, please put Appalachian Mountain
Club. I was sitting here saying, “is that the motor club?” Nobody
spelled it out until we got to Mr. Graff's testimony.

Let me say that I agree with you completely, Mr. Graff. We will
be holding hearings on urban forests in different regions of the
country, to get a feel for what the needs of that region are. As I
said at the beginning, we may well have seven or eight hearings
over the next year in this area of policy.

As far as the imbalance between West and East—having just
come from my Customs hearing, which I mentioned, last Thursday
in California, where we have the two largest ports in the United
States and they are both in my district, Long Beach is one and Los
Angeles is two—what got me on this was tip-offs from Customs
that they were getting maybe 5 to 1 resources in the Port of New
York, which is not even close to us, and we're trying to change
that.

So I will be very glad to be fair, because our westerners, who are
usually the ones griping at the Federal Government, if this is true,
probably the only benefit they are getting out of the Federal Gov-
ernment is that the Forest Service gets more money in the West
than the East. But we will try to help, and since Mr. Moran is on
the authorizing committee, we will do something about that, so I’m
glad he could attend this hearing.

Let me just ask Mr. Niebling, on the advisory committee sugges-
tion, which I think is a good one, and I think there is a Federal
law on that, do you have any advice for us as to how that might
be selected and how some people are added to it and others aren’t?
I mean, we’ve tried, thanks to Mr. Sununu, to have a very broad
spectrum of people at the grassroots who don’t like the idea and
people who like the idea. That’s what we’re reaching out for, and
that’s what the advisory committee ought to reach out for.

So we welcome your suggestions as to how on the law side, which
again Mr. Moran's subcommittee can deal with, it would either be
the Secretary of Agriculture making that choice or the head of the
Forest Service or the delegation down to the supervisor of Forest
Service of a particular forest. But it would be good to have some
policy guidance as to what the different forces should be on such
a committee. Realizing that it is strictly advisory and that ulti-
mately the line officer charged by law with it will have the right
to make the decision and he, hopefully, will listen to the advice of
the advisory committee.

Mr. NIEBLING. Do you want me to provide you in written form?

Mr. Horn. Now, plus an additional letter if you’d like.

Mr. NIEBLING. I guess I have every confidence that any such ad-
visory group would be inclusive of all the interests that would need
to be represented, so long as it is not so large that it becomes un-
wieldy.

New Hampshire has, I think, a real culture and a long history
of ensuring that those kinds of bodies do appropriately represent
the interests that should be there. I know, judging from the history
of the White Mountains and its working relationship with its var-


16

payments. But, “Congress failed to fully fund the program” in 1997. And, in 1998
only 69% is proposed to be funded!!!

At the same time the fee pilot program was implemented, the National Forest
contracted with concessionaires to operate their campgrounds because the camp-
grounds needed significant reconditioning to bring them up to, and maintain,
"acceptable standards".

Towns with campgrounds received a payment trom the Forest Reserve Fund
(referred to as the 25% fund) based on campground "camper nights”, a major source
of revenue for this Fund. Albany is one of the smaller and probably one of the most
heavily impacted “host” towns. 86% of its land belongs to the National Forest and
there are 4 campgrounds in Albany!! Because of this change, Albany Selectmen
were informed that the town would lose an estimated $7,000 in 1997 from the "25%"
Fund and that they could no longer depend on this source of income. Albany, and
other “host” towns, will be torced to raise their taxes, again, to offset this loss. Why
can't the ranger districts use the "camper night" fees to manage the campgrounds the
‘same as concessionaires so that these towns do not lose this revenue?

In my opinion, this is a breach of contract between the Federal Government and the
"host" towns. What would happen to ME if | didn't honor a contract or pay my taxes!!!

Thank You.

Frank Vie

Representative Horn, Representative Sununu, members of the hearing committee
and distinguished state, county and municipal officials. | am Ann Wolfe of Albany.
Thank you for allowing ME to testify at this hearing.

| add my accolades to the Forest Service for persevering through this Fee Pilot
Program, also.

| question the wisdom of Congress authorizing the expenditure of $2M for an
assessment study ‘to enhance the experience of travelers along the Kancamagus
Highway” at the same time the forast service budget was cut!! It makes little sense
to me to tackle new projects that will require more maintenance when present
maintenance is being sorely neglected.

Proposed “enhancements” are to be paid for by partnerships, grants and/or other
funding. | wondered how that would work and | found out!! Congress created the
National Forest Foundation as the official non-profit partner of the US Forest Service.
Its purpose is to raise money for National Forest projects that might otherwise fall
prey to budget cuts. | feel that donations solicited by this Foundation for funding
these projects is unethical. It is another form of taxation.

The forest is overused and abused already. The more enhancements, the more use.
The forest should be maintained as a semi-wilderness recreational area for those
who truly appreciate the great outdoors and prefer the ‘rustic’ experience. Only
basic needs should be provided. For those who desire more "creature comforts’, let

2


28

Testimony of Ned Therrien before the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology on Monday, October 20, 1997 related to the user-fee pilot
program on the White Mountain National Forest.

I support the current parking fee experiment on the White Mountain National Forest
because it will provide needed funds for maintaining facilities and continuation of some
essential programs during a period of declining budgets. However, the main benefit of this
experiment is that it brings the attention of the public to the fiunding predicament that this
National Forest faces.

The national forests have traditionally been open to hikers, backpackers, hunters, bird
watchers, and snowmobilers without direct cost. In a very complicated world the National
Forests are still places where people can go to get away from it all and find some freedom.
To many the parking fees are an intrusion on that freedom.

The public lands belong to all of us and over the long run, whether we use them directly or
not, they should be largely publicly funded. This nations public lands are our crown
jewels, they are the vestiges of the wilderness from which our character was formed and
they are a resource which we are literally loving to death. Without proper management
the American public will lose a valuable economic and emotional resource.

In 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Law, named after John Weeks a native of New
Hampshire and congressman from Massachusetts. A coalition of New England
organizations formed under the auspices of the Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests fought for ten years to pass that legislation. Then speaker of the House
Joe Cannon, the main protagonist, rallied his forces against using public funds for creating
National Forests in the East by ranting "Not one cent for scenery”. The savvy New
Englanders had their way and that scenery is drawing millions of visitors here each year.

The White Mountain National Forest is here because people wanted it here. The land had
been cut over and bumed over, literally "lands that nobody wanted". The foresight of the
Weeks Law has led to the Eastern National Forest System of fifty National forests
encompassing twenty five million acres. Although most of these other forests aren't under
the intense people pressures we have here in the White Mountains they all suffer from
declining budgets and staff. The fee pilot is a symptom of our inability to adequately fund
the protection and management of our public lands.

The public was supportive of the White Mountain NF from the beginning and my
experience is that they are still supportive. That coalition of organizations that helped pass
the Weeks Law in 1911, is still working to support the White Mountain National Forest
and is anxious to find a solution to the funding problem. This is New Hampshire and
Maine not Idaho, Montana or Utah and we don't forget easily. The sooner we get on with
addressing workable solutions the better off we will all be.


‘Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this issue of critical importancé to
the Nottheast, to the nation, and to every citizén who cherishes our precious public

* lands.

Founded in 1876, the Appalachian Mountain Club the oldest and most active
conservation’ and recreation organization in the United States. With mote than
74,000 members, the non-profit AMC promotes the protection, enjoyment and wise
use of the mountains, rivers, and tails of the Northeast. ‘We believe that successful,
-Jong-term conservation depends upon first-hand enjoyment of the natural world.

‘After more than 20 years of introducing people to the outdoors, and to the White
Mountain National Forest, in my work as Eduéation Director arid, more recently, as
Deputy Director, of the Appalachian Mountain Ciub, Ive learned that many who
explore this wonderful forest take home with them a profound appreciation for this .”
magnificent landscape, and a willingness to support it. poe

Maia Otic § Five oy Set Ronee NACE $1752. 006/ FANE .O722

‘Pinknan Notch Visor Canter # Bos 36, Rewi 18. Gorham, SILI (03

‘Mr Crete Visitor Comer Race acer # = 280 Lamon

snc reservations FAX Wb se! pgp the PAK SOE 22
SMO CATE AB IED FAY ATES?



Page Three

+ What options are available to compensate local residents for costs incurred for
local services and revenues lost due to federal land ownership?

+ What fee structure and enforcement policies will maximize both revenue
collection and compliance?

+ How can we ensure a minimal impact to tourism and the local economy?

‘The White Mountain National Forest is one of New Hampshire's greatest treasures
attracting visitors from all over the world on a year-round basis. The forest receives
nearly seven million visitors each year. Seventy five percent of these visitors come
from out of state and approximately fifteen percent come from foreign countries.

Itis a resource enjoyed by hikers, campers, hunters, and fishermen, and one that
provides economic support to hundreds of businesses ranging from restaurants, scenic
sites, and hotels, to tour guides, timber firms, ski resorts, and equipment retailers.

New Hampshire has long recognized the importance of cooperative efforts in
managing this resource through the development of its Ten-Year Forest Plan. 1
believe that this model for an inclusive and common sense approach to environmentat
planning must be the basis for successful national policy as well. 1 know we will hear
testimony today presented in just such a spirit, and again I thank the Members of
Congress visiting with us and all of our participants.



17

them patronize the private campgrounds, motels and resorts in the Mount
Washington Valley.

Now, we find out that Congress has a “conference approved" bill to provide $2.65
million to buy 2,400 acres of land Surounging Lake ‘Tarleton and Pondicherry Wildlife

Refuge which is to be added to the WMNF.

‘eportedly, also, the purchase of Mt.

Dinsmore in the Sandwich Range is being considered. How can Congress, in good

conscience, purchase more land for the National Forest while continuing to cut their

budget??? ‘How can you no longer accept the responsibility for providing the funds

negessary for the maintenance of the lands already acquired as a result of the Weeks
ct in 19111!

In closing, Frank and | ask that you, our Representatives in Congress, consider the

following:
O)
2)

3)

(4)
6)

©)

(8)

@)

restore the Forest Service budget to $13M.

assure that all funds collected on the National Forest during this fee pilot
program will be used to maintain this forest in its present condition ONLY;
not to enhance it.

fully fund PILT, including all increases promised since 1993;
do not discontinue these payments because of the Fee Pilot Program.

re-examine the concessionaire management of campgrounds

COMPENSATE TOWNS for lost revenue in the Forest Reserve Fund due
to concessionaire management NOW.

re-write the fee pilot program so that it includes all users.
PERMANENTLY EXEMPT the taxpayers (not just the residents) of the
“host” towns in Carroll, Coos and Grafton County from any type of user
fee program, now or in the future.

Look into positive methods of reducing timber sale costs and re-instate
the full timber harvest quota in the National Forest.

STOP playing games. STOP trying to fool the American taxpayers!!!
Someone has to pay for these programs either through federal, state or

WA Susp


83

Mr. SUNUNU. Their comments will be included in the record, as
will that of Mary Shriver from the New Hampshire Wildlife Fed-
eration, who couldn’t be here.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Ohison, Mr. Doherty, and Ms.
Shriver follow:]


5

port the national forest system, enhance visitor services, and pro-
tect the wildlife.

We will hear a little bit about the different methods that are
being used, again, as we try to identify what works, what doesn’t
work, and how the system might be improved or changed. In devel-
oping the fee system, however, I think it is important that we keep
three factors in mind.

First and foremost, fairness. Although many people agree that
charging fees commensurate with the use of a resource may be an
appropriate way to raise money, we need to make sure that the
fees do not result in extracting disproportionate payments from
specific groups to the exclusion of other groups. For example, as
was raised last night, hunters and fishermen are already paying
fees, some in the guise of Federal excise taxes, to help support the
resources that they use. We want to make sure that multiple user
fees are not necessarily being imposed to achieve the same goals.

Similarly, there is a continuing issue about the Federal Govern-
ment’s role and responsibility in supporting those cities and towns
that possess a large amount of Federal land that is taken off the
tax rolls and has a financial impact on those communities. Those
communities are paying for various services, roads, bridges, secu-
rity, fire, and in some cases search and rescue support. All of that
needs to be taken into consideration in putting together the fairest
possible program.

Second, preservation. The ultimate goal of any user fee system
must be to preserve and sustain the resource. Such resource pres-
ervation has traditionally been the top priority of administrators
here in the White Mountain National Forest, and it is important
that the forest fee system support their efforts to preserve and sus-
tain the resource.

Moreover, user fees should not be used to offset what is our cur-
rent budgeted funding. The maintenance of the forest system
should be shared, at least in part, by all Americans, and the funds
that are generated should provide a supplement to the operati
revenues or operating levels that we are seeing historically, anc
should be reinvested locally for maintenance and infrastructure.

And third, we need to ensure practicality. When developing a
new program that will be administered at the Federal level, we
cannot overemphasize the importance of common sense. Here in
New Hampshire we are fortunate to have a forest management
team that is willing to try to implement whatever Washington is
willing to devise. It is essential that we structure a fee system that
will minimize inconvenience but must also allow for reasonable en-
forcement, if that is appropriate.

The goal of the demonstration program is to provide information
and establish the foundation for continued improvement. The sug-
gestions and recommendations we have collected during the past
months, and will continue to collect today and moving forward, will
help provide the forest staff with the tools that they need to con-
tinue to give us an unparalleled management of the Forest Service
and to preserve the White Mountain National Forest.

Specifically, the comments offered today should provide answers
to a number of key questions: How much revenue has been raised
through the demonstration program? What rate of compliance have


lll

State of New Hampshire
Fish and Game Department

7 Haren Drive, Concord, NH 03301
TDD Access: Relay NH 1.800735:2964
(603) 271-3421

Wayne E Veer
Execunve Director

October 28, 197

Craig Annis

Legislative Assistant
1229 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Annis:

Carroll Pineo, Chairman of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission, provided
testimony pertaining to the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) User Fee Program
ata Congressional Meeting held in Conway. New Hampshire on October 20, 1997. In
regards to Commissioner Pineo’s testimony the question was raised as to what it costs the
‘New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) to stock trout in the WMNF.

‘The NHFG Department stocks approximately 85,300 trout in 52 waters located within the
WMNF boundaries. These trout total approximately 21,000 pounds in weight. In 1996,
it cost the NHFG Department $3.07 per pound to produce and stock trout. Therefore, the
‘estimated cost to rear and stock trout in the WMNF is approximately $64,470.00.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (603) 271-2501.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. Perry, Chi
Inland Fisheries Division

cc: Carrol Pineo, Commissioner

Discover ¥ New Hampshire


81

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much. We are running just a little
short on time, so I would ask the Members to keep their question-
ing period brief. We want to retain at least a half an hour at the
end of our session for comments from the general public. But for
the questioning of this panel, we’ll begin with Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me just
briefly inquire about your State parks, perhaps to the member of
the State legislature.

Do you have experiences here that would be helpful to the Fed-
eral Government, of how you finance your State parks, that you
utilize, as we grapple with the idea of funding national parks and
national forests?

Mr. Burton. Yes, I will respond to that, Congressman. The gov-
ernor’s council brought in I guess you could say a very hard-nosed
business person who understood how State government works, the
person of Bill Bartlett, and immediately cut the bureaucracy, fewer
people at the home office or the State office, and got more people
out into the field servicing the parks.

Mr. Moran of Kansas. Do you have a user fee? How do you fund
your parks?

Mr. BuRTON. Yes, user fees, people that come in the parks, in the
campgrounds.

Mr. CHANDLER. I think that is one of the distinctions I would like
to make, if I may. We certainly do, in the State of New Hampshire,
do a good job of managing them. We do charge in our State parks
to camp there. That is the difference, is some of the distinction
we've been trying to make. This is not a park. We have State
parks. There is no charge to go on those. I think people expect to
pay in the national parks. That is the system. Traditionally we
have not paid to use State forests or the national forests.

Mr. Moran of Kansas. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
distinction.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Horn.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chandler, I’m just curious, since you made the
distinction, if it quacks like a duck, why don’t we treat it like a
duck? In other words, if the national forest serves the national
park purpose and the State park serves the State park purpose,
why don’t we charge them? We charge one.

Mr. CHANDLER. We don’t charge in the State forest. We charge
in our State parks.

Mr. Horn. But you charge in the State parks. The use of the
State forest or the national forest is the same as it might be in a
national park or State park.

Tm willing to pay the fee. I guess the fee is about the price of
a movie or two or three movies, maybe not in New Hampshire but
Tl tell you, that’s what they will soak you in New York and south-
ern California. And for a play in New York, you can go to the forest
for about 4 years for one night at the play.

Mr. CHANDLER. I think the system, if you want to change, and
I certainly don’t encourage this, the national forest, and you in
Congress’s wisdom would like to make it a national park, I guess
we would pay. This was set up under the Weeks Act years ago; it
was set up as a national forest. The land was taken off tax rolls


107

‘The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has sparked much heated and I
believe healthy debate. For the nation, the issue boils down to this: How are
‘we going to fund the burgeoning costs of the stewardship and management of our public
lands? For the people of this region, and especially the rural communities that include
and surround the White Mountain National Forest, the issue is, Can our citizens
reasonsbly be expected to assume additional cost and burden for the right to walk and
recreate in their “big back yard?” The connections between the people, these
communities, and this forest, run very deep.

Throughout the development and implementation of the fee pilot in New
‘Hampshire, the Forest Society has taken a position neither in strong support, nor
‘vehement opposition to the program. We have been cautiously supportive of the
program, asa pilot. We articulated two concems prior to implementation last spring:
First, that we will reserve final judgment on whether the program should become
permanent when we can be convinced that the funds raised are in fact being used to
‘improve services and protect natural resources on the White Mountain, and not just
‘pblace bags! shovels And second, that a system of fees can be used to better manage

tumbers that want to recreate on this forest (an estimated seven million
besser Dispersion and contro! at recreational use will most certainly be
addressed in the upcoming forest plan revision.

‘You have already heard considerable testimony from Congressman Bass, the
Forest Service and from community leaders. Thus, my remaining comments today will
‘not focus so much on the mechanics of the fee pilot, and the very important local issues
‘and concems expressed by the previous pane! members, but instead on the much larger
‘and more critical nationwide issues thet necessitated the fee pilot in the first place.

In the ubsence of increased federal funding for recreation infrastructure needs on
our national forests, the Forest Society is prepared to concede that some form of
permaneat fee access program is necessary. And, by and large, the program has worked
well. However, we're not yet willing to concede that the citizens of the United States
and their elected representatives in Congress will not recognize the essential
responsibilities of land ownership, and that is to be a good neighbor, and a good steward.

‘That means providing the funds necessary to implement each forest’s land and
resource management plan, and fully fund the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes. Our forest plan,
adopted in 1986, was a contract with the people of this region. Ithes been funded at
roughly 60% of what was envisioned as necessary. The continued unwillingness of
Congress to meet this need calls into question the very purpose of forest planning. This
should concern your committee, as the Forest Service is about to ask the citizens of New
England to once again invest huge amounts of time in our next forest plan, and many of
us have some real apprehension about whether this investment will be worth the time.

‘Ifthe Congress is unable to meet this essential respunsibility through adequate
general funding, and the solution becomes more local responsibility, then the Congress



92

from the Western forests, as mentioned this morning. Maybe we
should separate out the Weeks area forests and fund them very dif-
ferently. Fund them for their high ecological value, high rec-
reational value, and the high economic value to these communities
in ast.

Another alternative, and I met recently about—and I don’t know,
Congressman Horn, if it’s from your area, but the forests in San
Bernardino Valley are crying also for recreational funds. They are
urban forests and there are 14 designated urban forests around the
United States. Maybe we should look at urban forests. White
Mountain National Forest is one of those forests.

Maybe we should look at different funding mechanisms. Maybe
recreation is a much higher value. The scarce land here in the
East, the scarce public lands we have here, it is clear to everyone
I think sitting in this room the numbers of people who visit these
national forests, particularly this one here in the White Mountain.
We need to take a look at that.

And finally as we mentioned time and time again here this
morning, the Congress needs to come across and support the PILT
payments. It is important for these communities. It breeds distrust
right now. We want the Government to be on the high plateau, the
high moral ground on this. Because we can’t do our work, the Ap-
palachian yuntain Club can’t do its work on this national forest
without having a strong partner, and our strong partner is the
White Mountain National Forest. They have been with us since
1911. We predated them. We've been around since 1876, but we
have a strong partnership. We want them to be able to perform the
task of protecting and managing this land and dealing with the
recreational uses.

Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]


60

The reason that we have the fee demonstration program is that
both the House and Senate appropriations folks recognized that
they are not able to deal with the level of funding that Forest Su-
pervisor Hepp needs to take care of the facilities we have. This is
one tool to help out on that.

I think it is the same situation, Congressman, that relates to the
discussion that Congress is having with PILT payments, we know
there is a level that we would like to see, but just as the Congress
has to make choices in terms of how are we going to use these lim-
ited resources, we are going to do that, as well. So this is one tool
that we are considering.

So, to answer your question, I think the authority is there, but
we also need to look at the intent and how can we make that work
so that we are returning some of the receipts to do some of the
things that make the attractions the way they are.

Mr. SUNUNU. Finally, do you have the authority to make it a vol-
unteer program?

Mr. Laverty. We were talking about that on the way up this
morning. I think there are some things that we can do without
going back to the Appropriations Committee. There may be some
flexibility on how to do that. We need to press that one back.

Mr. SUNUNU. It is my understanding, though, at least what was
offered as a concern previously was that the Forest Service cannot
solicit contributions, and that this would violate either that rule or
law Is that a valid concern, or do you think we could work around
that?

Ms. HEppP. We can take donations. The Forest Service can accept
donations, but it can’t ask for specific dollar amounts. It can re-
quest a particular level of funding for a service as a donation.

Mr. SUNUNU. Well, thank you. The committee members and you
have been very generous in letting me ask more than 5 minutes’
worth of questions. But I think what you have had to offer is im-
portant. Obviously, the committee will follow up with some of the
questions we've left open, and I appreciate your time.

Mr. LAVERTY. Congressman, just one last comment. We're work-
ing right now with both the Senate and the House Appropriations
Committee to develop an interim report that is going to be due
back January 1. I have a set of the questions, that we're getting
ready to go out in the field and ask some of these questions that
you've asked.

I would be happy to share that information with you so that if
you have some additional questions that would be available to you,
we can include those in there.

Mr. SUNUNU. If you could offer it to the committee as soon as
possible, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you.

Our next panel consists of a number of State and local officials,
as well as some residents from nearby or from Albany, not from the
town of Conway, where we are now. But I would like to call them
forward. Please make yourselves comfortable.

Executive Councilor Ray Burton, who represents the largest ex-
ecutive council district in the State, encompassing most of New
Hampshire and certainly the north country and the national forest
areas; Henry Mock, a State Representative from the town of Jack-


56

crews that are doing maintenance work, that wouldn’t be out there
without the fee pilot. So it has covered a significant amount. It has,
basically, covered all the trails work that we did this summer; a
lot of our day-use maintenance and cleanup, about 75 percent of
that work; and a tremendous amount of work on everything from
historic sites to just the cleanup work.

Mr. SUNUNU. $120,000 is shown as “capital investments planned
but not yet accomplished.” Where is that money being held now?

Ms. Hepp. We have that money available to us, and that’s one
of the areas that is an opportunity for us to work with the public
on how those funds should be distributed.

From our survey information, we know the types of activities
that the people, the 3,000 folks that give us input, we know where
those interests were. Eight percent was related to wildlife. About
60 percent was related to hiking. Those are factors that we can
look at as we start to look at how those funds should be allocated.

Mr. SuNUNU. Is that an accurate description, though? The
$120,000 is held by you now; it is sort of cash on hand, as it were?

Ms. Hepp. That’s correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Enforcement, you describe that you’ve been fairly
lax on enforcement. There was some discussion earlier on whether
tickets had been issued. You've issued five citations, correct?

Ms. HEpp. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. But your enforcement costs, I would guess because
the cost of issuing citations has not been very high, what do you
anticipate the long-range cost of enforcement will be for the pro-
gram, either in dollar terms or on percent-of-revenue terms?

Ms. Hepp. I think it is tied in with that administrative cost that
we projected. I can work on some figures to separate out what part
of that would be the compliance itself.

Mr. SUNUNU. Do you think it will be no more than 15 percent
if it is included in that administrative portion?

Ms. HEppP. It will be included within that 15 percent.

Mr. SUNUNU. So less than 15 percent.

Ms. Hepp. It will be part of that 15 percent.

Mr. SUNUNU. But if it’s part of 15 percent, it can’t be more than
15 percent, because that would be part of 16 percent or whatever.

Is. HEPP. No, I don’t know what percentage of the 15 percent
would be included.

Mr. SUNUNU. I think it would be helpful to provide the commit-
tee with as clear a summary as you can long term, you know, what.
is enforcement going to consist of? Is it full time? Are you going to
be pulling part time off of a back-country ranger to do this part of
the time?

Ms. Hepp. I think right now at this point we're evaluating. We
haven't made a final decision and we are going to take a look at
what the response was today and see what kinds of enforcement
Program we wanted to take from here.

ir. SUNUNU. Speaking of responses, you got over 3,000 re-
sponses back. You said some of those responses were not from the
people that paid the fee.

's. HEpP. That’s correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. I guess my question would be, what percentage
roughly were from people that didn’t pay?


18

STATEMENTS OF DONNA HEPP, FOREST SUPERVISOR, WHITE
MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST, ACCOMPANIED BY LYLE
LAVERTY, DIRECTOR OF RECREATION, HERITAGE AND WIL-
DERNESS RESOURCES, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; AND NED
THERRIEN, FORMER PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER, WHITE
MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST

Ms. Hepp. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
good morning. I’m Donna Hepp, forest supervisor for the White
Mountain National Forest. Assisting me today is Lyle Laverty, as
was introduced earlier, the director of recreation, heritage and wil-
derness resources for the Forest Service. He is here to cover any
aspects of our national recreation fee program.

1 want to thank you for inviting me to be with you here today
to talk about how the White Mountain National Forest is using the
authority granted through the Recreation Fee Demonstration Pro-
gram. This program brings to focus a major issue in managing pub-
lic lands today: What recreation services should be provided, and
how should the cost be shared?

The act was created to explore how recreation users can assist
in addressing the large maintenance backlog that has accumulated
for recreation facilities. That is what we have been testing through
our recreation fee pilot on the White Mountain National Forest.

After being selected as one of the first 50 Forest Service projects
in the Nation, we began to refine our project. We talked with many
local people for approximately a year prior to selecting the ap-
proach that we’ve taken. Implementation began around Memorial
Day this year. In the last 5 months we've learned a great deal and
certainly made improvements based on public feedback.

Overall, we feel the project test, this initial section of the test on
the White Mountain National Forest, has been a success. At the
same time, we do recognize that there is a significant amount of
concern and controversy related to this project, and we've been lis-
tening hard to what people have to say.

Our program asks that all people leaving an unattended vehicle
on forest land purchase a passport, similar to these, and with the
$5 passport for 7 days or a $20 passport annually. The passports
are available at Forest Service offices in New Hampshire and
Maine, as well as 45 local businesses. Visitors can also obtain a
passport through the mail. Our decision to use the vehicle passport
system was made after personal contact with the local towns and
recreation user groups and comments from local citizens at public
meetings.

The ite Mountain Forest is very fortunate to have so many
partners willing to donate their time to help care for the White
Mountain National Forest. Our passport program recognizes the
contributions that volunteers make, and offers the opportunity for
people that donate 16 hours or more to have complimentary annual
passports.

Since the passport program was started, we’ve been monitoring
compliance. As expected, early compliance rates were relatively low
but have steadily increased as the program has progressed. We
reached a compliance rate of approximately 50 percent just after
Labor Day. As of the end of last week, we’ve collected about


47

Mr. SUNUNU. That will be very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Horn. In
fact, why don’t I turn to Mr. Horn for questioning, and then I'll fol-
low up.

Mr. Horn. What is the Forest Service budget for the White
Mountain National Forest?

Ms. HEpp. For the previous fiscal year it was $7.4 million.

Mr. Horn. That is fiscal year 1997. That ended September 30th
at midnight.

Ms. Hepp. That’s correct. We don’t have a final budget.

Mr. Horn. And what is the figure on that?

Ms. Hepp. $7.4 million.

Mr. Horn. $7.4 million. And that covers all of the Forest Service
staff assigned to the forest?

Ms. Hepp. Correct.

Mr. Horn. And also equipment and roads, the whole operation?

Ms. HEpP. Correct, construction.

Mr. Horn. Now, are there sales of timber made from the White
Mountain National Forest?

Ms. Hepp. Yes, there are.

Mr. Horn. What do you bring in in sales in a given fiscal year?

Ms. Hepp. I’ll have to get that figure for you.

Mr. Horn. We'll leave the record open for that.

Do you know what percent of the forest is being logged at any
one time? I don’t know how you work that out, but I would like to
get a feel for the percent of annual lumber sales, timber sales by
the forest and the percent, whether that is a national policy as to
Percent or whether the eastern forests put their own policy on it.
ff could you give us a little paragraph on that, we would be most
grateful.

And what is the sales from the timber? What does that amount
to?

Ms. Hepp. The sales vary from year to year. I’ll have to give you
the figures.

Mr. Horn. Well, give us the latest just as a sample, and then
give us a 5-year spread.

Ms. Hepp. I'd have to check that figure for you. We sold approxi-
mately 22 million board feet of timber last year.

Mr. Horn. Did you build any roads to get in to the timber last

ear?
x Ms. Hepp. Yes. Normally, there is some reconstruction work and
some new construction. Normally, it is on the order of about 3
miles of new road a year.

Mr. Horn. What I'd like is roughly the figures of what was sold,
how much did it bring in, what was the cost to the Forest Service
of accessing that timber in both personnel, road building, and any-
thing else.

My understanding is that—and I don’t know if this is true yet
because we haven't had the national hearings, we’re going to hold
about seven of these hearings—my understanding is that it is basi-
cally a lost item within the Forest Service. You spend more to get
the timber than you earn from the timber.

Ms. Hepp. That’s correct. We are a below-cost timber forest.

Mr. THERRIEN. Could I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? I am not
a Forest Service employee, so I think maybe—I dealt with this


51

White Mountain National Forest
Fact Sheet

Recreation Fee Demonstration Project
Implemented - May 1997

Finances
Total passport fees collected as of 10/16/97 $385,945.22
Anticipated Collections first year
(May 1, 1997 through April 30, 1998) $500,000.00
Anticipated Revenue in 1998 $1,000,000.00
1997 Program start up costs as shown in Business Plan:
Start Up $ 80,000.00
Annual Operations and Maintenance $ 83,500.00
Actual Spending (9/30/97) $175,852.00

Examples of start up activities:
Printing of passports
Development of educational materials
Printing of signs
Public involvement activities
Program planning and development

$ Collected from the Fee *$385,945.22

(100% of collection to date)
Spent on (Maintenance and Visitor Services) $211,262.00 (55%)
15% Administration and Processing $ 34,643.00 (9%)
5% Return to Regional Office $ 19,297.26 (5%)
Capital Investments Planned
(not yet accomplished) $120,742.96 (31%)

“Does not include actual start up cost of $175,852 provided by the Regional
and Washington Offices. This money may need to be paid back from receipts,
or it may be possible to repay the start up from the 5% fund.


80

the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area along the New Jersey-
Pennsylvania border; the $1,000 ruler; spending $2M on the Kancamagus Highway
Enhancement Assessment, which, obviously, the forest can't afford since they don't
have the money to maintain the facilities they already have; the 2400 acres recently
acquired around Lake Tarleton and the Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge in Warren, NH;
and the proposed purchase of the Mt. Dinsmore area. This is ludicrous!!! Congress
cuts the Forest Service budget, then purchases more land or adds enhancements for
them to operate and maintain.

Mr. Horn, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Hopefully, it will provide
you with additional insight into forest-related problems in the North Country.

ee dy

Frank Wolfe

cc: Rep. John Sununu and Rep. Charles Bass
Sen. Judd Gregg and Sen. Robert Smith
Ms. Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor
Mr. Terry Clark, Saco District Ranger, WMNF
Governor Jeanne Shaheen and District 1, Executive Councilor, Ray Burton
Albany and Bartlett Board of Selectmen
Preston Gilbert, North Country Council


13

CHARLES F BASS comurneon me wu00eT
BACANNON SULDINC. ‘passron atone RPRASTAVCTURE

vwaSianaton Se 0505-1902 cone On nation
"aon 2255208,

Congress of the United States semounat noon ane aten
Wouse of Representatives courte om MEME

etna ces D486 go"

Statement of
HON. CHARLES F. BASS:
Member of Congress

before the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
United States House of Representatives

“Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot Program”
A field hearing in Conway, New Hampshire

October 20, 1997
Mr, Chairman, .

I would like to thank you and the members of your subcommittee for making the trip to
North Conway in order to hold this very important hearing, 1 would also like to thank
‘Congressman Sununu for hosting this meeting and for bringing the user fee pilot program to the
attention of the subcommittee.

Lam pleased that the subcommittee has decided to review the pilot program being run on
the White Mountain National Forest. As a former member of the Subcommittee, | am well aware
of Chairman Homn's commitment to objectively ensuring that our federal programs operate fairly
and efficiently, and | look forward to working with him on this issue.

As the members of the subcommittee may know, I have introduced legislation that would
‘exempt local residents from the fees of the pilot program. The bill, H.R. 1843, extends this
exemption to any resident of a town or county which hosts U.S. Forest Service land until the
PILT program is fully funded.

Because a community or county cannot tax federal land, they must either make up for this
lost revenue by raising local taxes or by cutting local services. The Payment in Liew of Taxes
program, known as PILT, compensates units of local government for the lost revenue they
experience because of the federal ownership of land.

in New Hampshire, where communities fund their schools, police and fire departments,
and all other basic services with revenue from local property taxes, the underfunding of PILT
payments is a significant problem. Residents of Carroll, Coos, and Grafton counties, which all
hhost the White Mountain National Forest, are forced to make up the gap in local budgets created



55

Mr. SUNUNU. First, on the top of the first page you identify
$83,500 used for annual operations and maintenance but include
that under the category of startup costs. My question is, are those
startup costs or are those costs that are anticipated to be incurred
annually on an ongoing basis?

Ms. Hepp. These were what we anticipated that would be the
level for an ongoing basis.

Mr. SUNUNU. So they are just not true startup costs, correct?

Ms. Hepp. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. OK. Let’s see, you show 5 percent return to the re-
gional office down below. Now, it was my understanding that you
would have to send 20 percent back to the region. Why do you only
show 5 percent?

Ms. Hepp. The way our program has been set up, 80 percent
must be in direct services on the ground, 15 percent can be used
for administrative purposes on the White Mountain National For-
est, and 5 percent is to be shared with other pilot programs within
our region of Forest Service.

Mr. SUNUNU. So you’re sending 5 percent back to the regional
headquarters, and then 15 percent of that is covering some of the
administrative costs. Are those being controlled by you, so to
speak?

Ms. Hepp. Yes.

Mr. SUNUNU. And are they being spent on administrative costs
that are being incurred right here in New Hampshire?

Ms. Hepp. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Now, I guess that is the 15 percent administration
and processing category, correct?

Ms. HEpP. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. But you only show 9 percent being spent on admin-
istration and processing. Is that just a sign of your efficiency?

Ms. HEppP. That’s what we’re working toward.

Mr. SuNuNU. Nothing wrong with taking credit for that. You
show $211,000 spent on maintenance and visitors services. Could
you give us a little bit more detail of what you spent that $211,000
on?

Ms. HEPP. Yes, we can. There is about an 8-page summary of
some of the types of projects that that has gone toward. I could also
identify what level funding approximately was involved with each
of those projects.

Mr. SUNUNU. I appreciate that money is fungible; if you spend
it here, you don’t have to spend it there. Is it a list of the types
of projects that it has been spent on or the specific projects?

Ms. Hepp. The specific projects.

Mr. SuNUNU. If you could provide that to the committee for the
record, though, that will be helpful.

Ms. Hepp. I would be glad to.

Mr. SUNUNU. Can you give a little description, though? Are these
maintenance? How much of it is staff and how much of it is infra-
structure maintenance?

Ms. Hepp. A good bit of it is seasonal staff, because that’s the
way we deliver the services. It is three back-country rangers. It is
ensuring half of our visitor center staff. Our seasonal visitor center
staff this year is funded by the recreational fee pilot. It is trail


2

ing cases against drug Kingpins and money launderers; promoting
trade through assessing the correct duty on imports; inspecting
passengers at airports; and ferreting out intellectual property and
trade fraud, such as fake luxury goods imported from China and
other developing countries and economies. As you can imagine, the
challenges faced by the Customs Service are enormous, given the
rapid increases in world trade in recent years.

In virtually every area, the Customs Service is reducing re-
sources as the threat has been increasing, with one exception. In
the past few years, inspectors at airports have increased by 20 to
30 percent in California and elsewhere. Meanwhile, special agents
in law enforcement and trade agents at the seaports have been re-
duced by 20 percent. Has tourism in the airports increased at a
faster rate than shipping containers? The answer is no. Rather,
there is a dedicated funding source for inspectors at the airports.
Namely, the passengers pay a fee.

As the balanced budget takes effect, it will be ever more difficult
to provide additional resources to functions needing attention in
many parts of the Federal Government. So this debate in New
Hampshire is being played out in the Federal Government and in
State and local governments across the United States.

This is an investigative committee. All witnesses, except the
Members of Congress, will affirm an oath that the information they
provide us is the truth. The statements that each of the formal wit-
nesses will make in the various panels that we have, roughly four
panels, plus citizen input after that, the minute we introduce them,
their full biography and their full statement will automatically be
put in the record. We ask them to brief us with a summary of their
statement in 5 minutes. Sometimes the Chair, and that is up to
Mr. Sununu, will let it go a little longer depending on the witness
and the background provided by the witness. That is so we can
have questions as members of the committee.

It is now a great pleasure for me to ask Representative Sununu
to chair these hearings, because I will enjoy the opportunity to be
a questioner. So, John, if you will take over, they are all yours, in-
cluding the oath and thanking everybody for helping us on this.

I would like to say, since we are at Kennett High School and the
junior high school is related, I was delighted to read in this morn-
ing’s paper that they had 90 percent voting turnout for the student
election. I just wish the United States of America was the same.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]}


72

cents per acre in 1976 to offset this loss. In 1976 that was a good
rate of return; in 1997, it is not.

In May 1993, New Hampshire passed legislation enabling the
State to take advantage of an existing provision in the Federal law
that would increase PILT payments. Albany received the first in-
crease in 1995. Congress failed to fully fund the program in 1997,
and in 1998 only 69 percent is proposed to be funded.

At the same time that the fee pilot program was implemented,
the national forest contracted with concessionaires to operate and
manage their campgrounds because the campgrounds needed sig-
nificant reconditioning to bring them up to and maintain accept-
able standards. Towns with campgrounds received a payment from
the forest reserve fund, referred to as the 25 percent fund, based
on campground “camper nights,” a major source of revenue for this
fund.

Albany is one of the smaller and probably one of the most heavily
impacted host towns. Eighty-six percent of its land belongs to the
national forest. There are four campgrounds in Albany. Because of
this change, Albany selectmen were informed that the town would
lose an estimated $7,000 in 1997 from the 25 percent fund and that
they could no longer depend on their source of income. Albany and
other host towns will be forced to raise their taxes again to offset
this loss.

Why can’t the ranger districts use the “camper night” fees to
manage the campgrounds, the same as the concessionaires will, so
that these towns do not lose this revenue? In my opinion, this is
a breach of contract between the Federal Government and the host
towns. What would happen to me if I didn’t honor a contract or pay
my taxes?

Thank you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you.

Mrs. Wolfe.

Mrs. WOLFE. Representative Sununu and members of the hear-
ing committee, I am Ann Wolfe of Albany. I am a private citizen.
Thank you for allowing me to testify at the hearing. Since I can’t
ad-lib, please excuse me for following my notes.

I, too, wish to applaud the Forest Service personnel for persever-
ing through this very difficult year while at the same time main-
taining their composure. My deepest concern is for the preservation
of the White Mountain National Forest so that my great-grand-
children will be able to enjoy the same scenic beauty that I have
enjoyed.

Now, Frank and I worked as a team and collaborated on this, so
let me pick up from where he left off. I question the wisdom of Con-
gress authorizing $2 million for an assessment study to enhance
the experience of travelers along the Kancamagus Highway, while
at the same time cutting the Forest Service budget. It makes little
sense to me to tackle new projects that will require more mainte-
nance when present maintenance is sorely being neglected.

Proposed enhancements are to be paid for by partnerships,
grants, and/or other funding. I wondered how that would work, and
then I found out. Co: ss created the National Forest Foundation
as the official nonprofit partner of the Forest Service. Its purpose


27

quirement the Forest Service has to monitor wildlife populations.
The New Hampshire Audubon Society is providing staff, training,
and dollars to the Forest Service to ensure that the monitoring of
bird life‘is being carried out in a systematic manner as required
in the National Forest Management Act.

These co-op dollars come from private foundations and contribu-
tions, but even the future of these projects are in doubt because the
Forest Service is unable to hold up its end of the bargain. Forest
Service staff is unavailable to coordinate, and adequate matching
funds have not been allocated to these projects. Needless to say, or-
ganizations providing support under these circumstances tend to
lose interest. I am not hitting on the Forest Service necessarily be-
cause of this, because they are in a very difficult position of trying
to fund for a big variety of projects.

In summary, although the fee pilot may, in the case of the White
Mountain National Forest, raise substantial amounts of money, it
will be an inadequate substitute for balanced funding for all the re-
sources of national forests, especially where recreation national use
is heavy. The Forest Service budget is biased toward the western
national forests. That situation needs to be changed.

If we expect cooperating organizations to continue their efforts to
support natural resource management, then those groups need to
be assured that their efforts will not go to waste. The White Moun-
tain National Forest needs to have its forest plan systematically
funded. The White Mountain National Forest is a special place. It
is a citizens’ forest. We need your help to continue the stewardship
of these resources.

nk you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Therrien follows:]


10

‘One leading reason given as a Forest Service argument against a voluntary fee
system was that the Forest Service could not solicit or accept private funds for programs
Yet, a recently launched $300,000 campaign to save the Kanc was announced, and it is
being funded through private sources. Forest Service answer - The private origination is
a conduit for these funds. Uh-oh - conduit, private funds.

Even if legitimate, couldn't, the same thing have been set up for the fee system?
‘Why should the Forest Service undertake a $300,000 campaign for new programs and
sites on the Kanc when by admission they need more money to fund existing needs.
needs. Charge the public a fee to use, their land for upgrading existing infrastructure,
then go into partnerships to conduit funds for new programs. Unfortunately typical
government, but bad idea.

Now the worst, especially from a public relations stand point, Here we have the
forest service implementing a mandatory fee system on our citizens, yet when the Forest
Service holds it's own weekend festival to attract tourists etc.. to promote new
programs, they not only are thousands wasted in promotions, a publicity director is hired,
and the Forest Service waives their own fees, a Federal Law. It is now OK for towns and
or state to waive certain promotion weekends. Bad, bad, bad

These types of stories go on and on, but the point is this has been a terrible
embarrassment to the Forest Service, and to a degree, Congress who gave the authority
but forgot to check on how the beauracrats at the Forest Service desks were going about
implementation, One thing the Forest Service higher ups were not doing was listening to
their own local folks or I believe the program would have been vastly different

Hard as it may seem after reading this, I am not a Forest Service basher, in fact I
am a strong supporter of the National Forest. However I am a supporter of what it stands
for and how it should operate and this insidious fee system is not a shinning example of
Forest Service or government action.

The fee system is bad enough but it's implementation, have left the credibility of
any future co-operation between local governments and citizens in grave danger.

Please rethink this issue, direct the Forest Service to reprioritize it's goals and a
voluntary system or none at all will allow the White Mtn National Forest and our local
Forest Service personal to restore their luster to former heights.

Sincerely,

Kine H, Clrantll-

Gene G. Chandler
Deputy Majority Leader and Chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Highways
NH House of Representations


Towns in Counc District #1

CARROLL COUNTY:
‘Granar Comer to

63

Raymond S. Burton Execute Councilor, Disct One

RFD #1, Woodsvite, NH 09785 Tol. (609) 747-9662
Car Phone: (603) 461-0663

Statement of Ray Burton ~-- October 20, 1997
before Sub Cormjttee of U.S. Congress hosted by
Cong. John E, Sununu.

‘The White Mt,National Forest is here to stay,
Tt and all it has to offer is within @ few hours
drive of over 70 million people and indeed several
million set foot in the some 770,000 acres every
twelve months.

Due to cut backs in the U.S, Forestry Budket,
the local Supervisors were allowed to put in place a
user fee to make up for lost revenues. In our case,
Donna Hepp had no choice but to do something 1f
services were to continue at an acceptable level.

As you know, there is strong local objection to these

Jocal
user fees from local people. We feel we are being
taxed twice, even for the peace of going into the
fbrest during lunch hour to enjoy a quiet moment
at noon time.

Some recom ndations:

1. Stop giving the U.S. Military money for
projects they themselves didn't request
and don't want.

2. Restore the U.S. Forestry D.pt, Budget to
at least it's former level of $13million.

3. Allow local exceptions for local oitizens as
outlind in Cong. Bass' bill, but keep the user
foe concept in some form for those who want
to pay to use the forests

ly. Sm mda day with NH DRED Comm Robb Thomson ané
MH Parks Director Rich “eLeod, and our State
008 Forester Phil Bryce. Their Depts.
Soon Ganareim operate (after cutting bureacracy)
Serrano, 8 BROLLt mac {Mg SULLIVAN COUNTY.

Seater nublie park axl ween cern
SRT orast systems Severe


20

We have asked the public to work with us and give the passport
program a good test. We are eager to continue working with people
to try as hard as we can to make it work and to provide Congress
with meaningful data about this pro; +

This concludes my statement. Lyle and I will be happy to re-
spond to any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hepp follows:]


37

Table 3 -- National Forest Statement of Receipts
White Mountain National Forest

(Thousands)
FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96
Timber 882 735 651 584
Grazing 0 1 0 0
Land Uses 6 10 10 10
Recreation Special Uses 678 448 504 442
Power 5 5 5 5
Minerals 0 0 0 0
Recreation User Fees 567 492 587 736
Total NF 2,520 2,055 2,073 2,180

9. P50,L1090 “To what degree is there clearcutting in the WMNF?"

FS Response: Since 1992, The White Mountain NF has averaged around
400 acres of clearcuts each year.

‘Rep. Sununu

10. P51, L1108 "As { understand it, allowing only 50 percent of the national
forest to be made available for timber purposes is actually relatively, compared

to other national forests, a very small amount of land; is that correct? It is a low
value. To put 50 percent of the land out of the region of timber is a high amount of
acreage relative to other natural forests?

FS Response: The area of a national forest suitable for timber harvest is determined in the forest plan-
ning process, through public involvement by a variety of interest groups, consideration of legal
restrictions, and evaluation of the sustainability of the resource. The percent of a forest found suitable
for timber harvest varies widely among forests. On the White Mountain National Forest, 345,000
acres of the 751,000 acres available were found suitable for timber harvest. Other forests in the Eastern
Region are very different -- only 22.1% of the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois is suitable, but
76.4% of the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri is suitable.

11. P51, 11122 "And of the 22 million board feet that were taken off the national forest,
roughly how many acres does that translate into?”

FS Response: Using an average 5500 board foot removal per acre, 22 million board feet translates to
harvest activities on 4,000 acres.


57

Ms. Hepp. I would have to check on that.
Mr. SUNUNU. Could you give us, for the record, a summary of the
responses?
's. HEPP. I would be glad to.
[The comment form summary referred to follows:]


23

Our enforcement efforts have been deliberately light handed in this
first season of the demonstration program. We got a late start and
knew that most people coming to visit the White Mountain National
Forest this year might be caught by surprise. We developed an
information packet which we leave on windshields of vehicles that
do not display the passport. This packet contains information
about the program and provides a slip of paper to be mailed to our
Laconia office with their personal check for $5 or $20 to purchase
the passport of their choice. We also ask several questions about
the program such as "Do you support the collection of fees for use
of the White Mountain National Forest," and "Are the fees
reasonable?" The 3,068 individual responses received as of
September 30 indicate that 70% support the program and 73%

believe the fees are reasonable.

Although we view this positive response as an indication of success
for the program, we realize the depth of some people’s concerns.
Supporters see the fee system as a way for recreation users to pay
for the services they enjoy. Other people have told us the passport
system is merely another form of tax,since the National Forest is
already funded by taxes. Still others say that these lands were
meant to be open and free. We feel this debate is healthy

because the National Forest is for all people, yet the challenge we
face is to provide the best service we can to all the people. Part
of the information we have been leaving on windshields provides
visitors an opportunity to indicate their preferred use for the
passport receipts. We also plan to continue to seek public
involvement to help us improve the passport program and prioritize
how receipts should be used to reduce the backlog of maintenance
needs.

The White Mountain National Forest has an identified backlog of
recreation facility needs of over six million dollars. These needs
were identified in detail in the business plan we prepared when
seeking approval for our participation in the National Program.
During this past field season, we used a little over $250,000 of
the passport receipts to begin making a dent in that backlog, All
the trail maintenance done on the Forest this year was supported
with these funds. Additionally, half of the people working in our
visitor centers were funded by passport receipts.

Examples of sites maintained because of the availability of these
funds include 360 miles of trail that needed blowdowns removed,
waterbars repaired, signs replaced or repaired, and side brushing
done; the construction of bog bridges near Nancy Pond; and
repainting the fire tower on Kearsarge North to help preserve this
part of of our local history. A winter education program for
local school children will begin at the Lincoln Woods Visitor
Center in December which will feature moonlight ski or showshoe
trips and story telling.

In summary, we have learned much this past five months. We will
continue to learn more about the utility of user fees as we work
with the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. We want to do the


90

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE:
REVIEW OF THE PILOT PROGRAM

‘SUBMITTED BY CARBOLL B. PINEO
NEPISH AND GAMB COMMISSION

Members of the Fish and Game Commission, sporting, clubs,
hunting and fishing community have all indicated to me their
strenuous objection to a user fee on Federal Lands. The main objection
is a fee charged for access to parking for entry to fishing and hunting
grounds which are and have been traditionally used only for that
purpose by these user groups. Wildlife management and fish stocking
on these lands located within state boundaries have been supported by
the State of New Hampshire hunting and fishing license fees and by
taxes and fees on guns, ammunition and other sporting goods for over
sixty years under the Pitman-Roberteon Act. These sportamen and
sportewomen feel that they have been paying their fair share for many

land owners within New Hampshire have allowed access and parking
on their lands from the beginning without fee. Most state access and
parking locations are without charge, Snowmobile and other Off

Federal lands except incidentally during access to hunting and fishing
areas, They do not hunt and fish from the trails. When they
cocasionally do use parking areas on Federal lands for access it is
during seasons when hiking trail use is at a minimum and there has
been no conflict due to congestion. This is not a new situation it has
been traditional. The only thing new is a fee being charged to these
‘user groups who have paid their way for a hundred years.

Couratt, & Envse 10/18/97


44

Route 49

*Visitor Information Services: Hired two employees to work in

Visitor Information, these two employees also supervised

volunteers (4.3 YEARS of volunteer time).

*A total of 32,315 visitors were contacted at the Lincoln

Woods Visitor Center; 40,726 at White Mountain Attractions,

*11,200 at Waterville Valley Chamber of Commerce, 1,688 at the

*Pemigewasset District office, and 9,571 at two mobile VIS
‘stations.

IV. Summary

These direct services were provided to the public by the 40
employees hired to answer telephones, help plan hikes, clean
toilets, maintain trails, and sell passports.

* 9 were working behind front desks, answering telephone
calls, filling information requests, and helping visitors
plan their trip. Some in Forest Service offices, others
working alongside partners at their facility.

* 11 were working in day use and picnic areas cleaning toilets
and picking up trash.

* 9 were patrolling trails and Forest Protection Areas, and

* 11 were working on trail crews.

16. P59, L1267 “..provide the committee with a clear a summary as you can
long-term, you know, what is enforcement going to consist of?”

FS Response: The White Mountain National Forest collection system is
unique from other national forests participating in the fee demonstration
program. The plan provides three opportunities for a Forest visitor to
purchase a pass before the public would be in violation of the fee
demonstration public law.

1, Passport Purchase: The visitor can purchase a pass in advance by
stopping at a vendor, Forest Service office or Visitor Center, or through
the mail.

2. Notice To Pay: Prior to violation of PL 104-134, placing information
packets (notices to pay) on vehicles not displaying a passport is a nominal
program cost. This facet is a normal operating procedure conducted by
Forest personnel on their routine daily duties; therefore, costs to the
program are contained within the 80% fund that provides for seasonal hiring


85

October 14, 1997

Congress of the United States
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

My name is Paul T. Doherty, a lifelong resident, except during the years of World
War I, and employee of the the state of New Hampshire, now retired.

During the many years of service to the lew Hampshire I served as 2
chief Conservation Officer, first chief of the States Prat Bureau and finally as Director
of the State Division of Parks. During these many years, and roles, I was involved in
many ways with the White Mountain National Forest. Because of this long association
with this National Forest I wish to comment on the User Pilot Program.

Due to the White Mountain National Forest's location and easy accessibility and
wide range of uses I do not feel a special permit should be required. Not easy to enforce
and not popular with those who live around the forest and enjoy it's landscape.

Tam well aware that we now live in a "user fee” society, and that Congress has
ordered a User Pilot Program, even though many of us feel it's unnecessary. Having said
that allow me to indicate what I find wrong with that has taken place.

‘What should have been a “User Fee" turned out to be a "Parking Permit" policy,
and the way it has been managed leaves much to be desired.

Signs have been placed at the many trail heads and parking lots advising the
Tequirement of a parking permit. I find in my travels no clear policy as to where you
park for free and where you must obtain a permit, Allow me to site a few prime
examples of what I refer to.

In Pinkham Notch at the AMC Headquarters in the large parking lot no signs
were placed. This is the highest used trail head on the WMNF. Thousands of people,
year round, park here and enter the forest. When I ask why no permit is necessary I am
told because the parking lot is State property, yet the State does not plow or maintain this
lot.

‘Not far away is found a parking lot for the 19 Mile Brook Trail. This parking
area was built by the State and is plowed in the winter by the State. Here, however, one
finds the signs that indicate a permit is necessary. Not far away is found the Imp Trail
Head, here hikers park on the side of the highway, Route 16, within the road right of
way, and are required to possess a permit.

In. Randolph one finds trails parking, another high use area with hikers. A large
parking lot was constructed by the State and is plowed by the State. No signs are found
here, hundreds park for free and step onto the National Forest from their cars.

Throughout the White Mountain National Forest there are m
many, many, cases like those that I have mentioned. Something is wrong and must be
corrected. If Congress is to require all who use this forest to possess a permit I suggest
the US Forest Service develop a policy that is fair to all forest users.


62

the Northeast, Maine, Manchester, and Vermont. You should re-
store the U.S. Forestry Department budget at least to its former
level of $13 million.

Third, you should allow local exceptions for local citizens, as out-
lined in Congressman Bass’s bill. However, keeping the user fee
concept in some form so that people can participate in this user fee
if they so desire is essential.

The fourth recommendation is, I would like to invite anyone in
and around your panel and your staff to spend a day with our Com-
missioner of Resources and Economic Development, Rob Thompson,
Park Director, Rich McCloud, and State Forester, Phil Bryce. In
the past I’d say 2 or 3 years here, under the leadership of former
Commissioner Bartlett, e came in under the direction of the Gov-
ernor and executive council and was told to make the park and for-
estry system a profitable system. And they’ve done it, and it is in-
teresting to note that those sparks that are located in or around or
near the White Mountain National Forest are some of our most
profitable ones.

Those are my four recommendations. And Congressman Sununu
and the other Congressmen, we here in the Northeast and northern
New Hampshire appreciate your taking the time to come and listen
to our points of view.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]


‘Dik: Gosewr DanySou Fhuman:Seembdwens: 1007!

A Northwoodsman Mad As Hell

‘The National Forest fee system has a
{ong way to go towards equity

NORTHWOODSMAN.

rales in

Trt columa, ant ave been werting for some
48 yeu very eldom become involved nae
that are controversial refering to keep my own
‘pinion to mye. Becouse tha new petting per.
‘yh made ede dtd

Jougotatingforexample isnot being cared out
Ia ae wage And ths the pint where ave
rong felings

‘OK: you park ina parking ot bul nd maine
tained bythe US Forest erie and pay te fend

‘Now tortheaethathas my lsh up. In Paeham
etch connection wii the Appalachian Maun

"And hat abo the {you wl find one ofthe USES paring fee gos
‘shoike no andstiTuckerman vine FWebuchs to vic the lh come on, Somethin

on
very spring? don't kom ifthe AMC has gures FON.

foe el vai
do, thas abe inthe hows. trdelph

gmt wou

td out iva parking local

ngs
“Youteowehatt'ycreoneotthosthosands Tate fang Tate ae eed see see

"Hainan and Adem Tice anther

ny ign hat reads, “arkedVeticlor must poscas_ ol he high ure afheads on the WMINF No ig
‘eto Pacing era” Soyou pute” he etiars cham Neth, Te aew, "Oh
mr

te parking

to mae that you
rods ot

depen a
iS a ping onder oe sce apc fay path unre plan

‘Nee g down he ond wad Cort fom

tap. you
Ait os yu pa hae ite the
‘ral. youcar willbe whine mate highesy
oly but you py.

nat oa hou een hat pc long
side te Peabody fiver? Dally Copp, sometines
Called the Pinkham Boa, signed Bui sate

Rearend trae you

nahi.

Tow that thave mentioned Dolly Copp there's do, however, fel thin pacy ew ob re

a fine plese ares sangade Rowe 1 iouth of \iewed Wwe all areexpie apo) Tee bon

Ita hee oe two ple rer ot lorie, ak- fh or hant on forest nd re a pay

Spar in that genet location. Both have poring AS long at thone who pork at thy AMC. lik
t i

ngahont in torans Rar Rohr fog ma

riya arth cua reside iatbor of

"ea Dae
Mop amd cattunch at thee spots Ave we Scone Thmsnd Coup

people
ow telling such people they mart pay 38 to et

‘So, what are you goana
‘do about it?

A Very Special Steak House
erve a Steak Today!

Take A Ride @n The

‘Soar To The Top Of The Valley!

WILDCAT

Skyride & Recroation
Pinkcharn Motch, MM » 1-000-255-8439

Receive $1 OFF
‘an adult ticket,
up to two adults!



121

I believe that the White Mountain National Forest needs to reopen their thinking on the
permit system, and to truly listen to local National Forest users. The current mandatory fee
system needs to be rescinded and new, innovative thoughts need to be implemented. Some
innovations that I think might help the USFS achieve their goal of raising revenue to support
recreation programs in the White Mountains with a minimum of administration, personnel,
conflict and cost sre:

1, Establish an advisory board of local elected officials and citizens to advise the White Mountain
National Forest with the user permit process, the PILT program and other public and
municipal relations,

2. Rescind the mandatory car user fee system and replace it with a voluntary system, which I
fully support. A voluntary system, coupled with good outreach, can attain some of the
financial goals with minimal cost, administration and resentment. I think that this was the way
to begin the permit system as a “phased in” approach in the first place.

3. With the cooperation of special use permit holders such as the AMC, downhill and cross
country ski areas, concessionaires, guide services, etc., begin a recreation program fund that
would target users of these services and facilities. The recreation program could be explained
on a reservation form or ski ticket that “1 dollar of your hut stay or lift ticket goes to fund
recreation programs in the White Mountain National Forest” A 1 dollar fee added to every
fall service overnight and downhill ski ticket, as well as a 25 cent fee added to cross country
tickets, camping overnights and caretaker rates at the AMC buts would bring in an estimated
$500,000 without the enforcement and administrative costs. This would also eliminate
resentment toward the program.

This program, coupled with a voluntary, suggested contribution to the recreation fund by
all other user groups would eliminate the deficit in the recreation fund by targeting the widest
range of users. It would also eliminate all enforcement, personne} and administrative costs.
And most importantly, it would continue the legacy of unrestricted open space available to all
people that we have all come to treasure and enjoy. The USFS motto is “Land of Many
Uses”. Rescinding the mandatory fee system and looking toward more innovative
alternatives and solutions should allow all of us to preserve our heritage of accessible, open
space and enjoy the great gift of the White Mountain National Forest.

Sincerely,

JIN bb
Peter Benson
Jackson, NH

PO Box 224

Jackson NH 03846

603 ~ 383-9147


124

we recommend on both the House, the Senate and ultimately in the
proposed law to the President?

So I think you asked a very good question, and we'll get to the
answers.

Mr. SUNUNU. We will leave an appropriate space in the record
for the committee staff to request that information, which is all
very important to our cause. I also think it eliminates the complex-
ity of the process involved in appropriating Federal money, tax-
payer money.

ihe information referred to follows:]


31

United States Forest ‘Washington th & Independence SW
Department of Serviee Office Box 96090
Agriculture ‘Washington, DC 20090-6090

File Code: 1510

Date: DEC 22 W997

Honorable Steve Hom

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology

‘Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

B-373 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Hom:

Enclosed are responses to the questions asked by subcommittee members at the
October 20, 1997, field hearing entitled “Management Practices of the U.S.
Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot Program.”

The Forest Service offers no additional typographical or grammatical
corrections.

We do offer, however, a number of clarifications below, separate from the
‘enclosed answers to questions.

Regarding road construction related to timber harvest (P45, L970), over the
past three years (1995-1997), an average of 0.75 mile of new road was
constructed on the White Mountain National Forest, along with an average of 4.0
miles of road reconstruction.

While the Forest Service makes no determination of industry dependence on
national forest products (P47, L1008), we acknowledge that many industries and
communities in New Hampshire received a variety of benefits from the national
forest, as detailed in the response to Mr. Horn’s question at P47, L1010.

‘The income from ski areas on the White Mountain National Forest (P50, L1083;
P52, L1128) for 1995/1996 is approximately $565,000.

‘The statement by Ms. Hepp on Line 1222 should read "...it has, basically,
covered 60% of all the trails...." Please insert the 60% number.

‘Also note that the White Mountain National Forest Recreation Fee Demonstration

Project Fact Sheet distributed at the hearing has been significantly revised to
allow comparison of revenues and costs between consistent timeframes.

Caring for the Land and Serving People ‘rm on Faia Fart


JOHN E, SUNUNU

‘COMMITTEE OS GOVERNMENT

UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE

Statement of
HON. JOHN E, SUNUNU
Member of Congress

before the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
United States House of Representatives

“Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot Program”
A field hearing in Conway, New Hampshire

October 20, 1997

Good moming. It's a pleasure to be here in Conway today, as always. I want to
begin by thanking Chairman Steve Horn and the staff of the Government
‘Management Information and Technology Subcommiittee for all of their effort in
helping to put this hearing together. 1 also want to thank each of today’s witnesses
for taking the time to provide us with your views and concerns regarding this
important issue. Your testimony will help ensure that any changes to the current
demonstration program will be made with the best information available. And
finally, my thanks to all of those that have taken time to be here today to listen as we
discuss the past and future of the White Mountain National Forest. This topic is of
great importance to everyone in New Hampshire, a state tinat is proud of its
unparalleled natural heritage.

Our main objective today is to gather information that will enable us to better
understand the impact, costs, and benefits of the National Forest System Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program. This user fee program has been implemented here in
the White Mountain National Forest and in over forty other locations across the
country. These sites, from Alaska, to Florida, and from California to

New Hampshire, employ different fee structures and collection procedures to raise
revenues that will support our National Forest Svstem, enhance visitor services, and
protect wildlife habitats.


46

FS Response: The comment analysis process was not designed to record
whether the respondent was paying the fee or not. We are still

entering data into the computer and will have a complete summary of
all comments, now over 5,000 received, after the first of the year.


6

Ke seen and can we expect in the future? What assurance do we

have that operating funds for the areas in the pilot program will
not be penalized because they are part of the pilot program? What
options are available to compensate local residents for the costs
that they continue to incur for local services and revenues that are
lost because they happen to have the lands in their city or town?
What fee structure and enforcement policies maximize both reve-
nue collection and compliance, but at the same time optimally en-
sure that we do not have a negative impact on traveling and tour-
ism to the State?

Clearly, the national forest here in New Hampshire is one of our
greatest treasures. It attracts visitors from all around the world on
a year-round basis. Seventy-five percent of the visitors are coming
from out-of-State. Over 15 percent of the visitors are coming from
out of this countr . It is a resource that is enjoyed by hikers, camp-
ers, hunters, ai ‘fishermen. It supports hundreds of businesses
that range from scenic sites and hotels to tour guides, timber firms,
ski resorts, and equipment retailers. We need to respect and pro-
tect the long-term wipe of this resource.

New Hampshire has long recognized the importance of a coopera-
tive approach in managing this resource with the development of
its 10-year forest plan. I believe that this model for an inclusive
and common sense planning approach to the environment must be
the basis for a successful national policy, as well. I know we will
hear testimony today presented in just such a spirit, and again I
thank the Members of Congress that have taken the time to join
us, as well as all of our participants. Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Hon. John E. gununu follows:]


40

revised to clarify the various reporting periods used in developing
revenues and costs. The revised fact sheet is attached.

14, PS5,L1203 “Is it a list of the types of projects that it has been spent on
or the specific projects?
15. L1207 “If you could provide that to the committee for the record,
though, that will be helpful.”

FS Response:
Table 5 - Accomplished With Rec Fee Demo Revenues

I, Androscoggin Ranger District Accomplishments

*Facilities: Basic shelter maintenance at nine district
shelters/tent sites, including removal of hazard trees at or near
facilities.

*Maintained composting toilet at Spruce Brook Shelter.

*Made improvements to outhouse at Blue Brook Shelter and
removed hazard trees.

*Piers and abutments on 19 Mile Bridge were reconstructed or
repaired. This included drilling cable into ledge so the bridge
will be protected from washing down stream during high water.
*The Great Gulf Suspension Bridge needed cable maintenance
and erosion control work, as well as brush and tree removal.
*Dozens of puncheon/bog bridges were installed on numerous
district trails to provide safer travel for trail users as well

as resource protection in wet areas.

*Three first aid caches were reconditioned in both the Gulf

of Slides, Huntington Ravine, and Tuckerman Ravine. They were
stained, new roofs installed, and new piering built.

*Trails: Maintained district trail signs, with 20 new signs made
and installed.

*402 miles of district trails were maintained by the district

crew or through a Challenge Cost Share with the AMC trail crew
using Fee Demo dollars.

*Six trails were logged for proposed work for the next fiscal
year. This includes assessing what work the trail needs and what
it will cost to complete.

*A new inventory system was developed to track the trail
inventory on the district more efficiently. This will allow

easier tracking of trails needing re-construction and basic

maintenance needs.

*Implemented the National Recreation Use Monitoring program
in Evans Notch. Seasonal employees doing sample monitoring and

interviews.

*All district trail tools were reconditioned, providing a


120

|. The current system seems to be heavy on personnel and enforcement to visit trail heads and
parking areas to check permits and ticket non-compliance. How many people hours and
‘vehicles, not to mention passes, trail signs and other administrative does it take to enforce this
permit? The current system seems extremely heavy on bureaucracy.

|. The current fee system is adversarial in nature, Whenever you mandate a fee, as opposed to
making it voluntary or phased in, there is the type of resentment and backlash that many
people bere tonight are feeling.

}. Most importantly, the current fee system speaks against the history that the people of
Northem New England have shared with their land. In New Hampshire and Maine
particularly, unlike many other parts of southern New England and the rest of the country, we
have a unique land tradition thet all land is considered open until closed. People who live,
work and recreate here may take this for granted, but in other parts of the country, there is
little access to open space and nmch of'it is posted against public use. There is a unique
relationship between owners and users of land that it remain open for free public use for
recreation and education purposes. In other parts of the country, fees are charged for access.
By insplementing a user fee, the Forest Service has broken this relationship, and as the largest
land owner, opened the door for permit fees all over the state. We have a wonderful mosaic
and rich history of land ownership here of public and private land that is both working forest
and used for education and recreation purposes. If the Forest Service continues the
mandatory fee system, other large land owners might soon follow. Imagine an area, such as
this that relies heavily on tourism, where you need a permit to recreate on National Forest,
state forest, various paper company lands and lands held by private conservation groups. As #
Jand manager for an international conservation organization, I am often asked why we do not
charge fees to our visitors. It is for just these reasons described above that we do not and that
the Forest Service should repeal the mandatory fee system.

. I question the right of the Forest Service to rescind its own fees as it sees necessary to raise
money for its own programs. The latest example of this was the National Forest Festival -
‘This was a weekend of events to raise money for improvements along the Kancamaugus
Highway. If the Forest Service cannot maintain recreation facilities and services at their
current level, why are they building more “improvements” that will cost more money to
maintain in the future? The newly created National Forest Foundation is an organization that
was founded to raise money for our national forests. As an employee of a non - profit
environmental organization, this puts me in direct competition with the National Forest
Foundation to solicit funds and try and raise money from a very limited amount of people and
resources. On a local level, I cannot compete with the USFS, whom we are all already paying
taxes to. On a national level, organizations should not even have to think of competing with
the federal government for members and potential funding sources.

[would like to know what other National Forest have done with their permit fee system and
how it has affected people. Have there been any innovative approaches to raising money for
recreation programs and have the concems of the local population been taken into account?


19

$386,000 with this program, so more than 20,000 passports have
been purchased or donated to volunteers.

Our enforcement program efforts have been deliberately light-
handed with this first season in the demonstration program. Our
emphasis has really been on education. What we've done is leave
information on windshields of cars when the passport isn’t dis-
played. That shares information about the program and also gives
people an opportunity to give us some feedback about the program.

In the survey forms that we've distributed when people purchase
a passport or when we leave the information, we’ve asked several
questions. One is: “Do you support the collection of user fees on
White Mountain National Forest?” Another question we’ve asked
is: “Are the fees reasonable?” The responses that we've gotten, to
date 3,068 individual responses, indicate 70 percent of those re-
sponding support the idea of recreation user fees and 73 percent
felt that the fees that were requested, the level of funding for the
fee, was reasonable.

Although we view this positive response as some indication of
success for the program, we recognize the depth of some people’s
concerns. So to some people, the user fee is a way to support the
services they enjoy; to others, it is just another tax; and to still oth-
ers, it is a consideration related to just the freedom to use public
lands, and it is a concern to them for that reason.

We feel that the debate is healthy. The challenge that we face
is how to provide the best possible services to the public on their
national forest. We are continuing to seek public involvement and
ideas to help us improve the passport program and prioritize how
receipts should be used.

The White Mountain National Forest has an identified backlog
of recreation facility needs of over $6 million. During this past sea-
son, we've made a significant dent in some of that backlog. I have
over 8 pages of identified improvements that we’ve made during
that period based on that program. And we are very excited about
the opportunity that is given us to address long-term backlog and
trail needs and a number of other real critical areas.

In summary, we have learned a great deal over the last 5
months, and we want to do the very best job we can providing serv-
ices to the people who use and enjoy the White Mountain National
Forest. Tourism is the second largest sector of New Hampshire’s
economy, and the White Mountain Forest is the most popular des-
ignation for visitors to the State. It’s important that we continue
to provide quality recreation opportunities and safe facilities, and
the passport program has helped us do just that.

In our effort to provide these services, we listen and respond to
the public. If there are changes in our current passport program
that should be made, we are hopeful that the results of this field
hearing will aid us in that effort.

Under the law authorizing this program, the Forest Service and
other participating agencies will be reporting to Congress on the
overall program upon completion in September 1999. Our experi-
ences with this and other projects will be provided for use in con-
gressional deliberations concerning the future of the use of this fee
authority.


4

by the combined forces of federal land ownership and an underfunded PILT program. It can be
‘easily argued that local residents are already subsidizing the forest when they cover a large
portion of the federal government's share of local property taxes. Therefore. it is only fair 10
allow these local residents an exemption from the user fees.

Congress created the PILT program to help communities avoid this situation, but the
payments are currently being funded at about half of the authorized level. Unfortunately, an
amendment | offered to increase PILT funding fell a few votes short in the House this year. The
result is that the residents of the towns and counties receiving PILT payments are currently.
forced to pay higher taxes or forgo important local services. Until this situation is rect
asking these same residents to pay the new user fee amounts to a form of double taxation that
only they are subjected to.

‘The main concem that I have heard about my bill is that it will affect the Forest Service's
ability to generate revenue. While | acknowledge that it may cost the Forest Service a few
thousand dollars a year to create the exemption, { do not think that it will adversely impact the
pilot program, which relies on the millions of tourists who visit Northern New Hampshire each
‘year. Therefore, I would ask the subcommittee to consider my argument carefully and support
the effort to make the fees more equitable by encouraging the Forest Service to exempt local
residents.

Tam sure that today’s hearing will include a discussion of how the Forest Service intends
to spend the funds they generate from the program. Another topic of discussion may be the need
for this type of program in a time of declining federal budgets. While I am sympathetic to the
‘argument that decreased federal funds may make the user fee program attractive, [ would like to
point out that funding for the operations and maintenance of the national forests will increase
significantly under this year’s Interior Appropriations bill. The House version of the Interior
‘Appropriations bill, which contains funding for the Forest Service, included an increase of
586,304,000 over last year’s level for the Forest Service.

In closing, I would like to again thank the subcommittee for visiting New Hampshire. 1
look forward to the rest of this hearing and its examination of the user fee pilot program,


ownmgen poane aor
Ea oe asoneD Armiconaness sae
eo Congress of the United States Sra om
a= House of Representatives ——
Sa CCONMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT soso
zoseemee 2187 Ravaure House OFrice BuLDING phere ty
SSS Waraoron OC 2055-043 =
eaeiad “Management Practices of the U.S, Forest Service: “oe
Review of the User Pilot Program”
‘October 20, 1997
OPENING STATEMENT

REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN HORN (R-CA)

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology

‘Today we will examine 1 pilot program of fees set for various portions of the national forests.
‘Obviously lie any idea, this proposition has its supporters and detractors. We will hear from a number of
citizens from widely varying perspectives to shed some light on this metter.

Lam pleased to be hosted by Congressman John Sununu, « capable member of the Subcommittee
on Go ‘Management, tion and Technology. Yesterday, some of us had a chance to look
tround, and you have chosen a beautiful site in New Hampshire for us.

| will keep my opening statement brief in order to leave as much time as possible for questioning
’ ‘we get on, rT do want to ‘one situation which, I believe, has some
relevance to this hearing.

Last Thursday, the Subcommittee examined various funding allocations for the U.S. Customs
Service. The Customs Service performs numerous functions ranging from law enforcement, including.
building cases against drug kingpins and money Iaunderers; promoting trade through assessing the correct
duty on imports; inspecting passengers at airports; and ferreting out trade fraud, such as fake luxury goods
imported from China and other developing economies. As you can imagine, the challenges faced by the
Customs Service are enormous, given the rapid increases in world trade in recent years.

In virtually every area, the Customs Service is reducing resources as the threat has been increasing,
with one exception. n the past few years, inspectors at airports have increased by 20 to 30 percent in
California and elsewhere. Meanwhile, special agents in law enforcement and trade agents at the seaports
hhave been reduced by 20 percent. Has tourism in the airports increased at a faster rate than shipping.
containers? The answer is no. Rather, there is a dedicated funding source for inspectors atthe airports ~
passengers pay 2 fee.

‘As the balanced bulge takes effect, it will be ever more difficult to provide additional resources to
‘functions needing attention. So this debate in New Hampshire is being played out in government across the
United States.


132

‘The problems I see with the program have to do with the large number of widely
scattered places where the fee applies, which must cost the WMINF a substantial amount of
time and effort to patrol. In addition, because of the fractured pattern of land ownership,
many of the major parking areas at trailheads are not on federal land and the Forest Service
cannot legally require a permit for them, (Among these are Pinkham Notch AMC
headquarters, Appalachia, and Lafayette Place, all of which are on state land.) It’s confusing
for people who live in New Hampshire; for visitors from out of state the pattern must be
completely baffling. We have had comments from visitors, and from the staff at the state rest
area in Canterbury, that people would be glad to pay the fee if they could figure out where to
get the pass, and where they needed it,

‘One of the problems with any kind of an entrance fee for this forest is the fact that
five major highways pass through it; of these only the Kankamaugus would be suitable for a
toll gate (which I'd favor) though I'm sure local people who use the road would want some
kind of exemption or reduced “commuter” pass. (A number of years ago there was an effort
to restrict use of certain "wilderness areas” by requiring a free permit. The project failed,
primarily because users had no way of getting the permit in a timely and convenient fashion.
‘The district offices were remote from the areas in question and opened too late in the day for
most serious hikers.)

A potential source of income to the forest would be a tax on recreational equipment,
similar to that now collected on hunting equipment, earmarked for the national forests.

It would perhaps be possible to redirect the timber sales income to the forest, and to
increase the number of special use permits and raise the fees for these. In both of these cases
there might be a temptation to maximize these uses at the expense of other forest
ies, for ecosystem protection, dispersed and low-impact recreation, and watershed

Many businesses and communities benefit financially from proximity to the WMNF.
But I know of no way in which these can be assessed directly for the support of the forest.
Some communities in and near the forest benefit more than others, and the Payment in Liew
of Taxes program was designed to ameliorate the impact of the forest users on communities
which have a large portion of their land in the forest. Congress has not funded this program
at the level which these communities had been led to expect, which has produced a negative
impact on their budgets and property taxes, and generated a great deal of anger and
frustration. These issues can be addressed, and should be addressed by our Congressional
delegation.

‘The businesses which benefit from the WMNF in a variety of ways, whether they are
near the Forest and provide goods and services to Forest visitors, or are far away and benefit,
in less direct and obvious ways, all presumably pay federal taxes. The communities benefit
indirectly through collection of property taxes or in other ways, So it doesn't seem
unreasonable for the federal government as the recipient of these taxes, and as the agent of
the citizens of these communities, to underwrite the costs of maintaining the national forest.

°


110

year, where if it becomes a mandatory approach, we’re not sure
what is going to happen.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you.

Congressman Bass.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Two quick ques-
tions.

Mr. Graff, I was interested to hear you argue that there is evi-
dence indicating that Western forests have received essentially sta-
ble funding and Northeastern forests or Eastern forests may be
subject to reductions. I was wondering if you would be kind enough
to provide me and/or the committee, if it is interested, the justifica-
tion or documentation of data that supports that point.

Mr. GraFF. I would love to be able to do that, but it has been
very difficult to find. It is only through personal interviews. I actu-
ally asked the Forest Service, even Senator Gregg’s office, to pro-
vide that data. So that’s why I said in my testimony I believe that,
because it seems to be a widely held belief that the Eastern region
is getting less and less funding.

Mr. Bass. I would suggest, then, that that should be a project
that we should work on as a delegation.

Commissioner, one quick question I don’t recall you mentioning
in your testimony. If you did, I apologize. How much money does
the State spend on stocking of our rivers and streams in the White
Mountain National Forest? Do you have that information?

Mr. PINEO. Congressman, I don’t have that information at hand.

Mr. Bass. If there is some way that the Fish and Game Depart-
ment might be able to provide that data to the committee, I think
it will be helpful to us in determining the level of State support for
those who want to fish and hunt in the national forest.

{The information referred to follows:]


69

State of New Hampshire

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Legislative Office Building. 33 North State Street
Concord, NH 03301-6328

Gene G. Chandler TEL: (603) 271.3565

‘Chairman TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2064
Leon Calawa, Ir

Vice Chairman COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS.

October 19, 1997
Subcommittee on Government, Management Information and Technology;

Thank you for listening to our concerns regarding the recently imposed fee
system on the White Mountain Forest.

While our efforts are to eliminate this fee, I think some comment should be given
on the process of it's implementation and the embarrassment to the Forest Service and
congress for allowing such a poorly planned effort. Even if one were to agree with the
fee system it's implementation has been a disaster from a public relations stand point and
can be considered nothing less than a very embarrassing situation for those involved

Starting from the beginning we can see the credibility of the program in jeopardy,
since while the local forest officials were meeting with local governments and taking
“public comment regarding a proposal fee system", the decision to implement a
mandatory, not voluntary, program had already been made at higher levels. Good start!

Next, some of our State Officials correctly pointed out that many of the parking
areas, The AMC parking lot, Crawford & Pinkham Notch parking areas. The largest lots
in the area were owned by or were in State of NH right of way and the "tickets" could not
be placed on vehicles in these areas. OOPS! Didn't think about that.

Promotions for the fee system touted the fact that only vehicles at trailheads were
going to be ticketed. ‘Then we find signs and permit information at scenic overlooks with
no trailheads, telling people that parking requires a $5 or $20 fee. What to do now!
Well, remove some of the signs was the decision

In searching throughout the north country we find many paid parking only signs
at many picnic areas, pullouts, swimming holes etc., that are neither at or near any
trailheads, well? Why? This seems to be deemed acceptable, presumably as an attempt
to bolster slumping permit fees.

Motorcycles, If a car with one person parks at the Lower Falls swimming and
picnic area, (no trailhead) they will get a ticket. If'a motorcycle with two people on
board pulis into a spot next to the car they will not. Forest service explanation; we didn’t
think it would be easy to enforce


24

best job we can to provide service to people who use and enjoy the
White Mountain National Forest. ‘Tourism is the second largest
sector of New Hampshire’s economy and the White Mountains are the
most popular destination for visitors to the state. It is
important that we continue to provide quality recreation
opportunities and safe facilities, and the passport program has
helped us do that.

In our effort to provide these services, we listen and respond to
the public. If there are changes in our current passport program
that should be made, we are hopeful that the results of this field
hearing will aid us in that effort.

Under the law authorizing the program, the Forest Service and other
participating land management agencies will be reporting to the
Congress on the overall program upon the completion of the pilot
Program in September, 1999. Our experiences with this and other
projects will be provided for use in congressional deliberations
concerning the future of fee authority for recreation programs.

We have asked the public to work with us to give the passport
program a good test. We are eager to continue working with people
to try as hard as we can to make it work and provide Congress with
meaningful data about the program.

This concludes my statement. Lyle and I will be happy to respond
to your questions.

Thank you.


10

Mr. SUNUNU. With that, I believe we are ready to begin. We will
move right to the testimony of Congressman Bass and then reserve
5 minutes for each of our members to question the witnesses.

Chairman Steve Horn has taken the time to introduce himself.
Steve is somewhat of an unsung hero in Congress. This subcommit-
tee has had more hearings on key matters of oversight and Govern-
ment operations and quality Government management than any
subcommittee in Congress this year, and he has done a stalwart job
in ensuring that record of performance.

We are also joined by Jerry Moran, Congressman of the First
District of Kansas, home to national grassland, who has taken the
time to be with us to better understand the importance of the pro-
gram. I would like to give Congressman Moran a full 5 minutes for
an opening statement if he would like, and he can take any portion
of that.

Mr. Moran. Congressman Sununu, thank you for the full 5 min-
utes. I will not take that. I am delighted to be here with you in
your district here in New Hampshire. This is my first visit to this
State. The quality of your trees is exceeded only by their numbers.

I live in a district that is very rural, 62,000 square miles, 66
counties for agriculture and prairie. We still observe trees and
their beauty, but one at a time, they are so rare. So as I go down
the highway, I will point out to my 7-year-old or 9-year-old, “What
a beautiful tree,” something that you probably get to talk about in
the broader sense than I do.

I do not serve on this subcommittee, but I am very interested in
this subject. I do serve on the Agriculture Committee and am in-
volved in the Forestry, Conservation, and Research Subcommittee.
I appreciate Chairman Horn allowing me to join his subcommittee
here today in New Hampshire.

I am here, in large part, because of the degree of respect I hold
for your Congressman, John Sununu. I want to have the knowledge
and information necessary to assist him and Congressman Bass in
their efforts to address this issue which appears to be very impor-
tant to the people in New Hampshire, and particularly this part of
New Hampshire.

I understand the importance of trying to preserve some of the
qualities of the environment. For years, before I was in the State
legislature, I was the chairman of the Governor’s Commission on
Travel and Tourism. He had a lot more to work with—I cannot say
that, I guess, I might get quoted. We have a lot to share in Kansas
and New Hampshire as we try to make our States desirable for
those tourists and travelers to visit.

Again, I thank you for your hospitality. I appreciate Mr. Sununu
and Mr. Bass allowing me to be in New Hampshire and Chairman
Horn allowing me to join the subcommittee. I look forward to your
testimony. Thank you very much.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Jerry.

Congressman Bass, good morning, and thank you for coming to
the First District.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be here. I have a statement that I would like to submit for the
record, if I could. I will use my 5 minutes to talk extemporaneously
about this subject.


29

Managing a National Forest is a complex business. The Forest Service in NH and Maine
deals with 89 different towns, over seven million visitors a year (more than Yellowstone
and Yosemite combined), more than a hundred and twenty five interested organizations,
ski areas, timber harvest, wilderness, campgrounds, diverse wildlife populations and
almost eight hundred thousand acres of forests, rivers and lakes.

The people that work for the Forest Service in New England are a dedicated group but the
organization is dying from reduced staffing and increased workloads. The lions share of
the funding is currently going to National Forests in the western states.

Cooperating private and nonprofit organizations have been working with the Forest
Service to supplement existing funds for a variety of projects. An example of this
cooperative funding is the requirement the Forest Service has to monitor wildlife
populations, The New Hampshire Audubon Society is providing staff, training and dollars
to the Forest Service to insure that the monitoring of bird life is being carried on in a
systematic manner as required in the National Forest Management Act. These coop
dollars come from private contributions and foundations. But even the future of these
projects are in doubt because the Forest Service is unable to hold up its end of the bargain.
Forest Service staff is unavailable to coordinate and adequate matching funds have not
been allocated to these projects. Needless to say, organizations providing support under
these circumstances tend to lose interest.

In summary, although the fee pilot may, in the case of the White Mountain National
Forest, raise substantial amounts of money it will be an inadequate substitute for balanced
funding for all the resources of national forests, especially where recreational use is heavy.
The Forest Service budget is biased towards the western National Forests. That situation
needs to be changed.

If we expect cooperating organizations to continue their efforts to support natural resource
management then those groups need to be assured that their efforts will not go to waste.
The White Mountain National Forest needs to have its Forest Plan systematically funded.
The White Mountain National Forest is a special place, it is a citizens forest, and we need
your help to continue the cooperative stewardship of these resources.

Thank you.
END


But let's not kid ourselves~user fees alone aren't likely to solve the budget dilemma.
‘There are at least two more pieces to that puzzle:

~The need for volunteer stewardship from recreation and conservation
organizations, such as the Appelachian Mountain Club, the Randolph Mountain
Club, the Dartmouth Outing Club, and others, will contime to grow.

‘The AMC and the US Forest Service have enjoyed a productive partnership for
decades. It's a partnership that ultimately benefits the land and the users of the
national forest, and we intend to continue and increase our commitment to help
provide needed services to national forest visitors at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer--a
service we are happy and proud to provide as a nonprofit public service organization
operating in a model public-private partnership.

~The other part of the solution lies in making sure Congress allocates adequate
funding, and ensures the appropriate use of funding, for management of public
Jands in the first place,

Based on our personal contact with tens of thousands of WMNF visitors every year,
we do not believe the American people want to cut the federal budget at the expense
of these public lands. And we do not believe taxpayers should be forced to pay @ fee
.to enjoy public lands to which they have already contributed their hard-earned tax
dollars.

In addition, we believe it is imperative that Congress fund the Payment in Lieu of
‘Taxes program at the full level promised so that towns containing national forest


91

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much.

Mr. Graff.

Mr. GraFF. Thank you all for inviting me here today. I am dep-
uty director of the Appalachian Mountain Club based out of our
Pinkham Notch office. The Appalachian Mountain Club is the old-
est and most active recreation organization in the United States.
With more than 74,000 members, the nonprofit Appalachian Moun-
tain Club promotes the protection, enjoyment, and the wise use of
the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Northeast. We believe that
successful long-term conservation depends upon firsthand enjoy-
ment of the natural world. We recognize as an organization that
stewardship of our national land is important.

The Appalachian Mountain Club itself and its many members
maintain a lot of the trails on the White Mountain National Forest.
We believe that along with the stewardship responsibility comes a
physical responsibility. We have been distur! by the -fall in
the budget of the White Mountain National Forest in the last sev-
eral years.

This concurrent free-fall of budgeting has been matched by in-
creased use among the visitors. There is now an additional 1 mil-
lion visitors in the last 10 years to the White Mountain National
Forest. The forest itself has sites that are completely full. The
campgrounds are completely full. Miles of trails that they maintain
are in disrepair. They have virtually a nonexistent environmental
education program. Their wilderness oversight is minimal at best.
These are not to put the Forest Service at fault. We believe this
is a funding issue.

I brought a large chart which I left up by my seat, but the large
chart shows how the use of our shelter sites alone in the last 10
years has doubled from 5,000 to 10,000 people. That is a big and
concomitant increase in day use. It is important to note that with
this loss in the Federal dollars here on this White Mountain Na-
tional Forest, it is our understanding that the Western forests, the
national budget—and we tried to get these figures but it is very
difficult to find them—the national budget for the forests has in-
creased over the several years or at least remained stable; whereas
the Eastern forests’ numbers have dropped significantly.

We think we need to look differently now at how we budget for
the national forest. The Appalachian Mountain Club and the Soci-
ety for the Protection of the National Forest and other groups that
work with the national forest are very concerned about the future
of this land and particularly, from the Appalachian Mountain Club
point of view, the degradation to the forest that may happen with
overuse.

We play our Fart in attracting people to the White Mountain Na-
tional Forest. We want to do our share of that work. But we also
feel the Federal Government has to live up to its commitment, as
well. We believe the American people have shown time and time
again that public land is important. Con; needs to take a hard-
er look at our forests, especially here in East.

One of the suggestions that has been mulled around by some of
the conservation leaders in this State and among others is that

haps we should separate out the Eastern forests. These are the
forests that were built on large citizen involvement, very different


1

Mr. SUNUNU. Without objection, we will include it all in the
record.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, AC-
COMPANIED BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD
COONEY, SALEM, NH

Mr. Bass. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today. I
would like to share the podium, if I could, with a vei ‘ood friend
and constituent of mine, Representative Cooney from Sal lem. Fortu-
nately, he comes from your former hometown. If he came from your
real hometown, he would be from your district, but Salem, I am
glad to say, is an important part of the Second Congressional Dis-
trict. And he, as a State representative, may want to make some
remarks when I’m through.

I would also like to thank Congressman Moran for being here
today. We have a soft spot in New Hampshire for individuals from
the State of Kansas. We know one in particular who spent quite
a bit of his career up here, Senator Dole, and he had no problems
adapting to the climate, as well as the trees.

I would also like to recognize former Congressman Bill Zeliff,
who I have had the pleasure of working with in my first term in
the 104th Congress. He served his district with tremendous distinc-
tion during the 6 years that he represented the First District of
New Hampshire in Washington.

The reason why my name tag is high tech or fancy or whatever,
is that I used to serve on the GMIT Subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on Government Reform and Oversight. And I want to thank
Congressman Horn for acting as my subcommittee chairman dur-
ing the 2 years that I was on that subcommittee, as well as being
willing to move this subcommittee up here for this field hearing on
this very important issue.

I am not here to testify in opposition to user fees. That is not the
reason I am here. I am here to make some observations, many of
which were very articulately presented by Congressman Sununu in
his opening statement, about the importance of Congress and the
executive carefully monitoring the implementation of this user fee
pilot program.

As we all know, or most of us know, the park system in this
country has always charged admission fees ever since it was estab-
lished in the early 20th century, but the effort to expand this fee
system into the national forest is very new. As we complete the
first season, at least the first summer season, of the implementa-
tion of this pilot program, I think it is very important and timely
that we hear from the general public and those of us who have ac-
cess to the general public and are able to gather their remarks, so
that we can adequately determine where we go in the next fiscal

ear.
y Let me point out or let me say, if I could, that I have three obser-
vations. The first is that, as we implement the pilot user fee pro-
gram, we take into account the fact that there are certain residents
of this State and other States over the country that are already
making a significant contribution to support the forest system and


oT

forest system in 1911. The WMNF is here because of the tremendous amount of
citizen support that helped create it. Given the long history of volunteer commitment
in this forest, we believe a voluntary user fee program could provide a model for
public lands throughout the country.

Many hikers are willing to contribute to trail maintenance and backcountry
Management, and many of them do by performing volunteer trail work in the
national forest. AMC members and volunteers contribute more than 30,000 hours a
‘year toward trail maintenance in the WMNF, along with many thousands of hours
providing informational services to forest visitors.

‘Many are willing to pay a user fee, too, as long as those funds are directly applied
toward the protection of natural resources.

As with most residents and forest visitors, our members are confused over the
inconsistencies in the administration of this program.

‘We want to be sure that any fees collected are used directly for the management of
recreational lands and are not siphoned off for other non-relevant uses. In addition,
‘we want to ensure that imposition of a fee system does not deny people of limited
means with access to the outdoors, and does not tamper with the feeling of freedom
‘one enjoys during a hike into the backcountry.

If those principles are upheld, and if people are made to feel that their support is
critical to the continued health of the national forest, we believe they will
wholeheartedly step up and voluntarily support the forest with their dollars. This
may have the added benefit of building a positive constituency for the forest.


102

wowoeiby 40-00 Sot rey
0-00 Core TeRNY vee ZOOLLVO See SGN
waaay doe 00051 wean fyrimwiog — La t0087 GUL S82 SAN
‘ruwoarBy 40-09 00051. wodey SINR $8 COUR ORG SOIT ‘Sau
wawsatby do-20 o00es, WeaRAg KTR) — $9 10087-0001 SIZ cae
Sees 10D SOMONE O89 McQ MLK scOSeRMEN Sec = vos
‘megs [50D SOVORRED OBOE! WOM REL EG ouNY — CRDSEHMERI SBI VSN
TEES 1900 SOUND 007 a somos sw = vasn
aretts BoD oOwomeE O0Lz (ones Krancces ERAIOd 610-S8-WHRE SS SAYS vosn
‘pasbou spunoas yoo ON anus 150; eOtsmEN) 0008 ‘wom pas] sneooWeRY
owoniy 60-60 0008 sta Stout! BY ae, | oe
‘swourwen ody, nowy oodind a


118

The recreation program could be explained on a reservation form
or a ski ticket that “One dollar of your hut stay or lift ticket goes
to fund recreation programs in the White Mountain National For-
est.” A $1 fee added to every full service overnight and downhill
ski ticket, as well as a 25-cent fee added to cross country tickets,
camping overnights and caretaker rates at the Appalachian Moun-
tain Club huts would bring in an estimated $500,000 without the
enforcement and administrative costs. This would also eliminate
resentment toward the program.

This program, coupled with a voluntary, suggested contribution
to the recreation fund by all other user groups, would eliminate the
deficit in the recreation fund by targeting the widest range of
users. It would also eliminate all enforcement, personnel, and ad-
ministrative costs. Most importantly, it would continue the legacy
of unrestricted open space available to all people that we have all
come to treasure and enjoy. The USFS motto is “Land of Many
Uses.” Rescinding the mandatory fee system and looking toward
more innovative alternatives and solutions should allow all of us to
preserve our heritage of accessible, open space and enjoy the great
sift of the White Mountain National Forest.

inks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:]


65

landowner hasn't paid its taxes to us, it is absolutely hypocritical.
I wonder just how long the town of Conway, the town of Jackson,
and the town of Bartlett would get away with not sending their
Federal tax dollars that they have to pay on their employees and
et cetera to Washington, how long would that go?

At this point I must tell you that, and I know I am in the minor-
ity here, that I did not support Congressman Bass’s proposal to ex-
empt the people of the three northern counties. First of all, who is
a resident and who isn’t? And I defy any one of you to prove who
is a resident and who isn’t very well. I can think of Massachusetts
people running around with New Hampshire license plates, et
cetera. Plus, what about the towns in the county that have no na-
tional forests? Why should someone in Wolfeboro, Effingham,
Tuftonboro, Ossipee, and I can go on with the other towns in the
southern part of the county, they are not affected by this PILT tax
at all. This forest belongs to everyone in America. This forest be-
longs to someone in Philadelphia just as much as it belongs to me.
Find the money somewhere else. I’ve got the solution in the last
paragraph.

Here is my third reason for opposing this. I think it is the most
serious one, and it is one I haven’t heard much about. I oppose it
because this concept is bringing to the Northeast a dangerous con-
cept of land use which we in New Hampshire have been working
hard to prevent, and that is land user fees.

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department and Depart-
ment of Resources and Economic Development have long encour-
aged private owners of lands to allow their lands to be used for
hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and many other recreational pur-
suits. This has been accomplished by cooperative posting programs
and tax-reduced benefits.

What kind of an illustration does this show our huge land own-
ers in Coos County, the paper companies? If you can do it, meaning
the Federal Government, why can’t they do it? I’m afraid that
hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling land use may become a pursuit
only for the wealthy. And look who is setting the example.

In an editorial to the press from the rangers of the three districts
in this forest, the second paragraph began with, “Please remember
that the passport system is a test.” That being the case, I would
have to conclude that the system has failed the test of public rela-
tions.

In conclusion, here it is: 1 would propose that Congress raise and
appropriate all the funds necessary to adequately operate this for-
est and all national forests and parks across this country. Depend-
ing who is speaking and who we are listening to and what fact-
sheet you are looking at, we are looking at about $3 million for the
White Mountain National Forest, $3 million. That is a pittance in
Washington. And I think we’re looking at $250, $300 million for
the whole forest system.

Please, in the name of good common sense, take a look at our for-
eign aid budget, for instance. Transfer that money out of that for-
eign aid to the national forest parks and you will all go down in
history. When I read that one country in the Middle East receives
$4 million of our tax money annually and its neighbor right to its


71

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Gene, and to all the panel-
ists, you should be aware that you should feel free to submit any
additional information.

Welcome Frank and Ann Wolfe, residents of Albany. Please feel
free to begin, and thank you for being here.

Mr. WOLFE. Representative Horn, Representative Sununu, mem-
bers of the hearing committee, and distinguished State, County,
and municipal officials, I am Frank Wolfe from Albany, NH. Thank
you for the privilege of testifying at this hearing.

First, let me say thanks to the Forest Service personnel. They de-
serve the Purple Heart for all their efforts in implementing the fee
pilot program under heavy fire. My wife, Ann, and I have been fol-
lowing the fee pilot program since January. As we understood it at
the public hearing in February, the original intent of the program
was to be a user fee. Unfortunately, it has become a parking permit
system.

My main concern is that the program as written is not fair be-
cause it does not include all the real users of the forest, such as
hikers and skiers. These users can hike or ski from the Appalach-
ian Mountain Club parking lot in Pinkham Notch, one of the most
used trailheads in the White Mountain National Forest, and pay
nothing, although I have learned that passes are available at the
Appalachian Mountain Club huts. Hikers can hike from many of
the larger parking lots in the forest and pay nothing because the
lots are State or privately owned. Trail traffic is very heavy from
many of these lots.

I question whether or not this system can be monitored and ad-
ministered fairly. Because the Forest is 770,000 acres in size, users
have hundreds of points of entry, and the Forest Service head
count is down to bare bones.

Another one of my concerns is the message being sent to tourists.
As tourism is a major source of income in the north country, tour-
ists should be able to park at any scenic outlook or on any State
or town road, such as the Kancamagus Highway or Bear Notch
Road, to take pictures, stretch their legs, and enjoy the scenic
beauty without being subject to parking fees.

In my opinion, it is unfair to charge this fee to campers who al-
ready pay $14 a night to use the campgrounds, and to sportsmen
who already pay a hefty fee for a license to enjoy their sport.

Changes were made. Parking signs are no longer posted at over-
looks. Hikers who want to leave a car at each end of a long trail
can now purchase a second pass at a reduced rate.

One bright spot of the program is that 80 percent of the parking
fees that were collected stayed on the forest. The implementation
of the fee Pilot program is simply the straw that has broken the
camel’s back.

Let’s look at the bigger picture. The Forest Service budget cuts
are heavily impacting the economy of the 37 White Mountain Na-
tional Forest host towns and 14 grants/locations. Taxpayers of
these communities are paying more than their fair share to sub-
sidize the use of forest lands within their boundaries. They lose
revenue from property taxes on land that was acquired by the for-
est. PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, was established at a rate of 75


16

books in that regard. So my committee and I have spoken on simi-
lar issues that you people in Washington are struggling with.

Thank you.

Mr. SuNuNU. Thank you very much, Representative, and neigh-
bor.

Just a few questions, primarily for Congressman Bass. You men-
tioned Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, and that is one that
may not be familiar to some of the folks here, but I think it is an
important point to emphasize. It came up a number of times in our
broad public forum last night. Could you describe what PILT, Pay-
ment in Lieu of Taxes, is all about, and describe the amount of
money we are talking about, both nationally appropriated and au-
thorized, and the disparity, and then what kind of funds are com-
ing into New Hampshire?

Mr. Bass. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes system was established,
I would guess, about a decade ago—there may be others that know
the exact time of its establishment—in an effort to provide a mech-
anism whereby cities and towns, and in most of the country it
would be counties, could be compensated for the services that they
provide for property that is in Federal ownership in national for-
ests.

New Hampshire is somewhat unique in that I believe 18 percent
of the State is a national forest. That is unique to the Northeast.
There are States in the West where a significant percentage of the
total land area is in Federal ownerships. So this is a very impor-
tant issue and a very important program.

But like many programs at the Federal level as well, and by the
way, the same thing is true on a State basis as well, these pro-
grams are subject to appropriation, not entitlements. The PILT
program has only been funded on an annual basis at a level of ap-
proximately 60 percent of what is actually owed, so the result there
is a significant deficit. This can tally up to as much as a couple of
hundred thousand dollars a year in funds that are not remitted to
the communities, yet they still maintain the obligations that they
must provide.

This is obviously a type of unfunded Federal mandate. Even
though it is not an operating mandate, it is an ownership mandate.
But we really should, in my opinion, strive to fully fund the Pay-
ment in Lieu of Taxes Program. That issue, notwithstanding the
issue of whether or not these counties should be obligated to pay
user fees on top of that, given the fact that they are already sup-
porting through the back door more than anybody else is in this
country with the maintenance and operation of these national for-
ests, I think is unjust.

Mr. SUNUNU. Have there ever been any increases in the amount
appropriated for the payments over the last few years?

Mr. Bass. I proposed an amendment with Congressman Sanders
to try to fund PILT payments at the 1994 levels. It is my under-
standing that the Senate version, which does do that, the Interior
appropriations bill, did prevail in committee conference. So, in ef-
fect, our position prevailed ultimately, but the fact is that even that
position does not fully fund at 100 percent the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes Program, which I believe should be our ultimate objective.


99

lands receive the full amount due them. By shortchanging the communities that rely
‘on those funds for tax relief and critical public services, Congress is unwittingly
breeding distrust--and doing nothing to build needed support for our national
forests. Congress must fulfill its contractual obligations to local communities.

At the same time, the Forest Service needs to rebuild its base of citizen support in
‘the White Mountains. Adequate funding will allow the service to work with partners
and non-profits to care for these lands and build public support.

‘The American people have shown, time and time again, that public land is
important. Congress needs to take a harder look at funding for our forests. Are there
other options? Should we separate out the Easter forests created under the Weeks
Act and develop a new funding mechanism that recognizes the importance of
recreation and the value of scarce public lands in the East? Or should we look at
urban forests-~-those near large population centers--and fund them differently,
‘considering such factors as quality of life for urban populations rather than basing
‘budget decisions simply on raw acreage?

‘The AMC has a long history of parmership with the national forest. We want that
partnership to continue well into the next century, but we need an agency that is

strong, vital, and able to serve the land and the people.

Thank you.


21

Testimony of
Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor
White Mountain National Forest
Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture

Before the

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information & Technology
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Concerning

Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service:
Review of the Recreation Demonstration User Fee Pilot Program

Conway, New Hampshire

October 20, 1997

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Good morning, I am Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor of the White
Mountain National Forest since March of 1996, Assisting me today
is Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness
Resources for the Forest Service, to cover any aspects of the
national recreation fee demonstration program.

Thank you for inviting me to be here today to talk about how the
White Mountain National Forest is using the authority granted
through the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (P.L. 104-134, as
amended) .

The recreation fee demonstration program brings focus to a major
issue in managing recreation activities on public lands today:
What recreation services should be provided and how should the
costs be shared? The Act was created to explore how recreation
users can assist in answering these questions and addressing the
large maintenance backlog that has accumulated for recreation
facilities. That’s what we have been testing through our user fee
pilot project on the White Mountain National Forest.

After being selected as one of the first 50 Forest Service projects
in the Nation, we began to refine a proposal to implement a fee
system. We talked with many local people and groups for almost a
year in an effort to understand and address people’s concerns

before finalizing the approach we have taken. Actual
implementation of the program began just before Memorial Day
this year. In the five months we have worked with the pilot

project, we learned a great deal and made improvements based on
public feedback.


50

Ms. Hepp. In most cases it is natural regeneration. Trees re-
sprout here very rapidly.

Mr. Horn. Thank you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Horn.

If I could ask a few questions now and maybe pick up on that,
just for clarification. As I understand it, allowing only 50 percent
of the national forest to be made available for timber purposes is
actually relatively, compared to other national forests, a very small
amount of land; is that correct? It is a low value. To put 50 percent
of the land out of the region of timber is a high amount of acreage
relative to other natural forests?

Ms. Hepp. Well, I think it depends on the forest. In many cases
it is based on the suitability as well as the scheduled management.
areas.

Mr. SUNUNU. And correct me if I’m wrong, but there are roughly
750,000 acres in the White Mountain National Forest, correct?

Ms. HEppP. 774,000.

Mr. SUNUNU. And of the 22 million board feet that were taken
off the national forest land, roughly how many acres does that
translate into?

Ms. Hepp. I’d have to check on that figure to give you an accu-
rate figure.

Mr. SUNUNU. The special permits, skiing, you mentioned, is
roughly $200,000. Now, that goes to the Treasury, correct? You
don’t see that money?

Ms. Hepp. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. The revenues from timber are something over
$200,000?

Ms. Hepp. Correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Is that money put under your control?

Mr. LAVERTY. It goes into the Treasury.

Mr. SUNUNU. What other incomes from special permits are there
in addition to the ski industry?

Mr. LAVERTY. We have income from outfitter guide permits. Ad-
ditionally, we have income from communications site permits for
use of national forests across the country; I’m not sure specifically
on the White Mountain. But those are examples of other permits
that are issued.

Mr. SUNUNU. All go back to the Treasury?

Mr. LaveERTY. All go back to the Treasury right now.

Mr. SUNUNU. Then I would request that you give us a breakdown
of the amount for each of the special permit uses that are goin;
back to the Treasury. I think that would be helpful to get a good
feel for the value of the resource and the various activities that are
ongoing there.

‘s. Supervisor, you provided a fact sheet of the summary of the
program, I know, for members of the committee. Was that provided
as part of the record?

Ms. Hepp. Yes.

Mr. SuNUNU. And I would ask and ensure that that is included
as part of the record. It talks about the various revenues. I want
to ask some specific questions about the facts and figures that are
included in it.

{The fact sheet referred to follows:]


95

I think most people recognize that we all share the responsibility of stewardship.
‘With that responsibility comes a fiscal responsibility, too. Stewardship comes with a
cost, but stewardship of our national forests--protecting natural resources, providing,
educational programming, information services, and recreational opportunities—is a
cost to which we must be firmly committed.

We face a predicament in the WMNF. Funds available to the forest have been in
freefall, while use of the land has been steadily climbing.

—Today, the WMNF is visited by approximately 7 million

visitors—about a million more per year than a decade ago,

~The 900 sites in WMNF campgrounds are consistently full,

especially on summer weekends.

Many miles of tralls maintained by the USFS are in disrepair:

—-Forest Service environmental education is virtually non-existent.

--Wilderness oversight and protection is minimal.

—-Ovemmight use at backcountry shelter sites has doubled in the past decade.
(See chart.)

I think I can safely say that day use by of the national forest bas increased to an even
‘greater degree, as day hikers have traditionally outnumbered overnight visitors by a
significant margin.

‘Yet there's been a concurrent drop in appropriations for the WMNF. And that is
deeply troubling.


33

December 19, 1997

Foltowus ions and Answers t ‘on the House Sul
ver ment, Information and Technol it ernment Reform and
Oversight
“Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot Program”
October 20, 1997
Conway, New Hampshire

(Questions taken from transcript for the above-referenced hearing)

Rep. Bass

1, P41, L883: "...1. was wondering if you could tell me how many total passport
applications...were distributed this year?"

FS Response: From the beginning of the program last May through
November 15, 46,169 passes have been issued. See Table 1, below, for
more detail.

2. P42, L905 "Why did you not want to place any kind of demographic questions
on your questionnaire?,..Did you consider at all trying to find

‘out whether any of these respondents lived in New Hampshire

versus out-of-state?"

FS Response: We used the comment form that was approved by OMB; it
did not include any demographic questions. To modify the form would
require a review process which typically requires several months to
complete.

3. P42,L912 “And what percent is in-State versus out-of-state"?

FS Response: Table 1, below, illustrates the national distribution of

purchasers of recreation passes on the White Mountain National

Forest, The table was compiled using a half dozen sources, all

written and maintained by different collection officers, but since the

overall totals closely approximate our fiscal records, we are

satisfied with the accuracy of the data. New Hampshire residents

represent 48,9% of the annual passes purchased, and 20.3% of the weekly passes.


17

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you very much. J was pleased to lend a mod-
est amount of support on the floor of the House for that bill and
pleased that it prevailed in main conference.

To be clear, though, that takes us back to 1994 levels?

Mr. Bass. That is correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Still a long way to go.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Just to my colleague from New Hampshire, Charlie,
I am curious, did you look into the history of the aid to education
based on the number of Federal employees, particularly military,
that live on and off the base? That goes back 50 years.

Now, there might not be the critical mass provided by Forest
Service personnel in an area to really generate much revenue.
When you have a base of, say, 30,000 people, that is substantial,
and was that history in tying your idea into that legislation? Every
President, from Eisenhower up, has tried to kill it or reduce it, and
Congress consistently, from that time on, has always supported it.

Mr. Bass. And I know, as a Representative from a district that
has had in the past and may still continue to have a significant
issue with education of the military, there is definitely a parallel.
However, there is a significant difference in that national forests
generally tend to be in very sparsely populated parts of the coun-
try. The issue is a combination of not only educational burden, but
most importantly, fire control, rescue operations, maintenance of
roads, plowing, and all that sort of thing, which are very expensive
to towns in the Northeastern counties and elsewhere in the coun-
try.
I think this program, generally, is perhaps more broad because
of the nature of the type of services that are required in towns or
counties that have national forests property versus those areas that
may be developed around a military installation.

Mr. Horn. Thank you.

Mr. SuNuNU. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your time.
Congressman, I hope you will be able to join us for the balance of
the session.

Our next witnesses are Donna Hepp, the forest supervisor, White
Mountain National Forest, and Ned Therrien, who is a former pub-
lic affairs officer for the White Mountain National Forest. Please
step forward and join us.

Joining Donna is Lyle Laverty, who is joining us from Washing-
ton. He is the director of recreation, heritage, and wilderness for
the entire National Forest Service. Welcome, Lyle, as well.

If you could just stand and take the oath for me.

{Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SUNUNU. Good morning, and thank you again for taking the
time. If we could just move right forward with the testimony, and
Lyle and Donna, thank you for joining us last night, as well. We
will begin with you, Donna. Thank you for coming and welcome.


61

son; Gene Chandler, a selectman from the town of Bartlett, who
helped us put together the forum last night; and Frank and Ann
Wolfe, two residents from the town of Albany who, if I am correct
in remembering their information, 86 percent of the town is com-
prised of national forest land.

If you would. I hope we have enough room. And please make
yourselves comfortable. If you would just stand and I'll offer the
oath for you.

[Witnesses sworn.)}

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you all again for coming. Let’s begin with
each of your testimony, and then if we have any questions, the
Members will ask them.

Councilor Burton, widely recognized as the hardest working exec-
utive councilor in the State of New Hampshire. I took great pleas-
ure in getting to know Ray over the past year. He is ubiquitous;
and many would argue, under the word “ubiquitous” in the diction-
ary is a picture of Councilor Burton, and I think any of his con-
stituents will agree.

Thanks for coming. Thanks for your time, and I appreciate your
comments.

STATEMENTS OF RAYMOND S. BURTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
STATE COUNCILOR; HENRY MOCK, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE
SENATOR; GENE CHANDLER, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REP-
RESENTATIVE; AND FRANK WOLFE AND ANN WOLFE, AL-
BANY, NH

Mr. BurToN. Thank you, Congressman Sununu, Congressman
Bass, and members of the panel. I appear here as one of the elected
officials representing 98 towns and 4 cities, basically everything
north of Concord, which encompasses all of the White Mountain
National Forest. I also serve as a county commissioner in the coun-
ty of Grafton, and we from time to time participate in the PILT
program. My associate county commissioner, Mr. Paboulas, trav-
cled¢ to Washington to appear before your committee, Congressman

ass.

The White Mountain National Forest is here to stay. It has a lot
to offer to the economy, the tourism industry, and the timber in-
dustry. It is within a few hours’ drive of 70 million people here in
the Northeast. And many million, 7 or 8 million, set foot in the na-
tional forest in the course of a 12-month period.

Due to the cutbacks in the forestry budget, the local supervisor
was allowed to put in place a user fee to make up for lost revenues.
In our case, in my opinion, Donna Hepp had no choice but to do
something if services were to continue at an acceptable level.

As I’m sure you are very aware, there is strong local opposition
to this parking fee or user fee from local people. We feel we're
being taxed twice even for the peace and quiet of going into the na-
tional forest during the lunch hour to enjoy a quiet moment from
work.

I have four recommendations to the committee. First of all, you
Members of Congress, in my opinion, should stop giving the U.S.
military money for projects they don’t even request or don’t even
want If you want to do anything for the U.S. military system, you
should fully fund the veterans’ hospitals and benefits up here in


130

The ski areas, I think she mentioned $200,000 in revenue for
those areas. That is not anywhere near enough. The amount of rev-
enue that these areas are pulling in should be going back to the
general fund. If not the general fund, it should be going back into
the White Mountain National Forest.

The timber receipts—I worked there for years, I know what goes
on. Every year, maybe not as serious now, but every year they al-
ways had a budget problem. I mean, this is something that has
been going on for 30-some-odd years and probably went on before
that. Come on. The money that is generated on the White Moun-
tain National Forest, keep it here.

I don’t think the user fee is the secret. I think you got to get to
these people, you got to get these so-called nonprofit organizations.
We have ski touring outfits that are making good money, but it is
nonprofit. The Forest Service gets very little out of that. I don’t
know how much, but we couldn’t even get the percentage out of her
what exactly these nonprofits make.

There is a lot of money out there for these people if your timber
receipts could come back to the forest, your recreation receipts, and
the same thing with campgrounds. There is a difference between
parks. It is parks and the recreations. Cam unds are very direct
and they are paid for. Some parks in New Hampshire are not paid
for, but the campgrounds are paid for by State and Federal Govern-
ment. The Federal Government has put all their campgrounds out
to concession. It is someplace between 10 and 20 percent of the
take, $200,000. They are not getting much back out of that.

I think that’s all I got to say, and I appreciate you letting me
speak. Thank you.

Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you. That concludes this hearing. I appre-
ciate everyone’s time. Again, I ask those who had a chance to tes-
tify to feel free to submit their written testimony to complete the
record.

Thanks to Congressman Bass, Congressman Moran, and Chair-
man Steve Horn for being with us today. I know, having worked
on the PILT issue, on the user fee issue on behalf of the citizens
of New Hampshire, how important this is to those of you that are
here and thousands all over New Hampshire. And i know that
Steve Horn and Jerry Moran will take these thoughts and concerns
to heart as we try to build a coalition in Congress that will address
these issues with a good deal of common sense.

Thank you again.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

{Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]


114

Our court reporter today is Ryan Jackson, and Mrs. Latham here
at Kennett High was extremely helpful in helping find a good loca-
tion, and I think this worked out tremendously well, so I want to
thank everyone here at the high school.

What we would like to do now is open up the floor to public com-
ment. I think it will work best just to have anyone that would like
to offer a comment maybe to move over to the wall, and we'll allow
you to come sit down and be comfortable. Please do speak into the
microphone. I would like to limit comments initially to just 3 min-
utes, please. I know it is very difficult to get in everything you'd
like to say in 3 minutes, But if you have any prepared remarks
that you’d like to submit in full, we’d be more than happy to have
them. If we can pause just a moment, see if we can arrange the
timer.

As you begin, if you would just let us know your name and where
you are from. You need not to be from Conway to speak, by any
means, or even from New Hampshire for that matter. I know Rep-
resentative Doug Teschner, who was good enough to join us last
night, and I'll be happy to recognize him, of course, for 3 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DOUG TESCHNER, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE
REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. TESCHNER. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. I had
the opportunity to testify in Washington in favor of Congressman
Bass’ bill, H.R. 1843, and we were very disappointed that that bill
hasn’t moved forward as of yet.

I’m in the New Hampshire House, and I’m in my fifth term. I
have offered some written testimony to the committee. I represent
the other side of the mountains, the western side, in Congressman
Bass’ district, and I can tell you my constituents are very angry
about these fees to use their public lands. I think some of the com-
ments that were made earlier: we are off the beaten track; what
is the life blood of our country is hunting and fishing; we don’t
have a lot of amenities; and people have a long tradition of using
these public lands.

We are supportive of the White Mountain National Forest. I can
say I've traveled throughout the West and I am familiar with the
issues around Western lands. People are supportive of the national
forest and consider it a great resource. And people understand
where there are significant amenities, like campgrounds, where it
is perfectly justified to charge people to use them. However, to pay
to walk in the woods, to fish a stream, or to launch a canoe simply
goes too far.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a national
park and a national forest. I think there has been some discussion
about that, and I would be happy to, if we have extra time, to talk
about that more.

I want to talk about what I think is a critical issue: the econom-
ics of this program. This has been billed as something that is going
to help save the national forest. Over our way, we don't see a lot
of rangers usually, but over the summer we have a surge of ranger
presence. Those green trucks are all over the place. We never saw
them before.


116

untary fee system? In any event, the mandated permit fee system
was implemented.

As a resident and taxpayer of the town of Jackson, which is 74
percent national forest land, I would like to know how much has
been taken in under the current fee system. I keep hearing that al-
most $400,000 has been collected to date, but I assume that this
is the gross figure, not the net. I would like to know what the cost
of implementation and enforcement has been. This would bring us
to the true net figure.

As a resident taxpayer, I feel that I am paying multiple times for
public land. In addition to Federal taxes, my town tax bill is higher
because of the failure of the USFS to reimburse my town under the
PILT program. The PILT reimbursement would be far more than
$20 per resident in my town. Finally, I pay to subsidize for munici-
pal services on the national forest such as fire, police, and ambu-
lance services. All of these services are provided while the payment.
in lieu of taxes program is delinquent in paying back to the towns.

I oppose the mandatory permit fee system for stronger reasons
than delinquent payments and higher taxes. The current system is
flawed for many reasons: First, the system is not equitable for all
user groups and places an undue burden on car-based travelers.
There are many user groups who will not be affected by the permit
fee system, and as a result, will not need a permit.

Second, the system is not well publicized. Many visitors do not
know or are not capable of obtaining a permit at the last minute
or for a very short visit.

Third, the current system seems to be heavy on personnel and
enforcement to visit trailheads and parking areas to check permits
and ticket noncompliance. How many people, hours, and vehicles,
not to mention passes, trail signs, and other administrative duties
does it take to enforce this permit? The current system seems ex-
tremely heavy on bureaucracy.

Fourth, the current fee system is adversarial in nature. When-
ever you mandate a fee, as opposed to making it voluntary or
phased in, there is the type of resentment and backlash that many
people here tonight are feeling.

Fifth, most importantly, the current fee system speaks against
the history that the people of northern New England have shared
with their land. In New Hampshire and Maine particularly, unlike
many other parts of southern New England and the rest of the
country, we have a unique land tradition that all land is considered
open until closed. People who live, work, and recreate here may
take this for granted, but in other parts of the country there is lit-
tle access to open space and much of it is posted against public use.
There is a unique relationship between owners and users of land
that remains open for free public use for recreation and educational
purposes.

In other parts of the country, fees are charged for access. By im-
plementing a user fee, the Forest Service has broken this relation-
ship, and as the largest land owner, opened the door for permit fees
all over the State. We have a wonderful mosaic and rich history of
land ownership here, of public and private land that is both work-
ing forest and used for education and recreation purposes. If the


4

Mr. SuNuNU [presiding]. Thank you very much. Good morning
everyone and thank you very much for being here this morning. I
would like to begin just by giving a quick picture of how we are
going to proceed today.

As Chairman Horn mentioned, we have four panels. We are
going to begin with testimony from Congressman Bass, and then
T would ask the Congressman to join us as we listen to the other
witnesses talking about the impact and cost benefits of the forest
plan. We have a 5-minute rule for witnesses, and you will see
lights. Green means go, red means your time is up, and we will try
and obey that fairly strictly. At the same time, we want to make
sure we get everyone’s thoughts and comments.

I would like to mention at the outset, in order to maximize the
amount of input that we receive as part of this hearing process, Se-
lectman Gene Chandler was good enough to organize a public ses-
sion last night. We went for over 2 hours, heard from a few dozen
public citizens, and we also heard from the Forest Service a little
bit. That was a terrific forum. I am asking Gene to provide us with
either a summary or written testimony of those that had any notes
or information that came out of that session, so that we can pro-
vide it as part of the public record of this hearing process.

Again, I am thankful for all those that participated last night
and especially for Gene and Dave for helping to put that together.

T would also like to mention at the outset, we are joined by a rep-
resentative from Senator Gregg’s office, who continues to take an
avid interest in this effort. We are also joined by a number of State
representatives, including probably the one that has traveled far-
thest, Dick Cooney from my hometown of Salem, NH. Welcome.

It is a pleasure to be here in Conway, as always, and I am very
grateful to Chairman Steve Horn and all the staff of the Govern-
ment Management, Information, and Technology Subcornmittee for
helping to put this hearing together this morning. Thanks also to
the witnesses for agreeing to provide their valuable time and
thoughts regarding what is, I think, recognized by everyone here
in the north country as a very important issue. Your testimony will
help us understand the problems associated with this program, the
strengths of this program, and input that will make sure we have
the best information available as we move forward and have the
opportunity to change this demonstration.

Finally, my thanks to all the members of the public that have
taken the time to be here today to listen to the testimony. Clearly,
the White Mountain National Forest is a tremendous resource.
That was one of the strongest points made over and over last night.
The people of New Hampshire are proud of that terrific national
heritage that we all share.

Our main goal today is to gather information that will better en-
able us to understand the costs, benefits, and impacts of the Na-
tional Forest System Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, as it
is formally known. The user fee program has been implemented
here in the White Mountain National Forest and in over 40 loca-
tions nationwide. There are sites from Alaska to Florida and from
New Hampshire to California. They are employing different fee
structures, different methods for collection, all in an effort to sup-


93

Information for testimony for the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.

“Management Practices of the US Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot
Program”

Biographical Sketch
Walter S. Graff, Deputy Director, Appalachian Mountain Club

Walter S. Graff was appointed Deputy Director of the chian Mountain
Club in January, 1995. Prior to that he was the Club’s Education Director for
ten years. During his 23 year career with the AMC he has served on
numerous boards and committees throughout the region. During the last
White Mountain National Forest planning process in 1980, he chaired the
WMNF the North Country advisory group for the draft Forest Plan. Walter
serves as the Club’s chief Haison with the WMNF and is AMC’s senior staff
person in northern New England. The AMC has 74,000 members, with 11
chapters stretching from Washington, D. C. to Maine. The AMC was
instrumental in forming the Eastern National Forest System in 1911.


38

12, P52, L1145 ive us a breakdown of the amount for each of the special permit uses that
are going back to the Treasury.”

FS Response: The fees for outfitter guides and communication sites go back to the Treasury. Some
permits, like those to other government agencies, are free. Fees for a few of the special use permits on
‘the White Mountain National Forest stay on the Forest.

Some important examples of fees that stay on the Forest are:

‘Campground Concession Permits. These are designed so that revenues from the campground pay
the permit holder to operate the campground. This was a new program for the White Mountain NF in
FY97. The fee paid the Forest is based on the bid amount (usually a percent of gross revenue, which is
at least equal (o minimum fair market value for use of land and facilities), but this fee goes toward
maintenance and reconditioning of these federally owned campground facilities to prolong the life of the
property. The estimated revenue from the three concessions in FY97 is approximately $90,000, which
will be spent on these facilities. So, in effect, this money stays on the Forest instead of going to Trea-
sury.

Appalachian Mountain Club. Historically, AMC was given a fee waiver (1939-1995) by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture for its Special Use Permit, but beginning in 1996, AMC has been issued a Special
Use Permit without waiver of determined fees. The existing Special Use Permit is structured in such a
way that “work in lieu of payment of fees,” including yearly trail maintenance and visitor information

services performed on the White Mountain National Forest, are evaluated as valuable public ben-
efits credited toward annual assessed fees. The Boy Scouts of America Organization camp permits are
also operated under a “work in lieu of fee" system. Our authority for use of "work in lieu of fee" is lim-
ited.

Revenues from the permit fees listed below are retumed to the Treasury and are the base from which
the 25% Fund payments are made to local units of government.


125

Unlted States Forest ‘Washington 14th & Independence SW
Department of Service ‘Omce P.O. Box 96090
‘Washington, DC 20090-6080
File Code: 1510
Date:

Honorable Steve Hom

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

B.373 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC 20515

Deer Chairman Hom:

Enclosed are responses to the questions that were asked at the October 20, 1997, hearing
‘on "Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of the User Pilot Program."

Question:

‘How much money did the Forest Service ask for to operate the Agen
‘Secretary of Agriculture recommend to the Office of Management.
Secretary appeal any cuts by the Office of Management and Budget?

? What did the
id Budget? Did the

Answer:

For Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, the Forest Service requested $2,581,045,000 in discretionary
appropriations. The Secretary of Agriculture's FY 1998 request to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for the Forest Service’s discretionary appropriations was $2,637, 164,000.
‘The President's FY 1998 Budget for the Forest Service was $2,368,595,000. On behaif of the
Forest Service, the Department appealed the OMB Allowance and proposed the following:

4) Restore & $20 million reduction in the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriatis
2) Reduce the General Administration budget line item by $16.6 million: and
3) Reduce the Land Acquisition account by $25.7 million,

Question:

‘What did the Office of Management and Budget send to the President, what did he
recommend to Congress, and what did we recommend on both the House, the Senate, and
ultimately in the proposed law fo the President?

Answer:

‘The President's Budget is prepared by OMB with coordination by the Department of Agriculture

and the Agency. The President's FY 1998 Budget for the Forest Service's discretionary
appropriations was $2,368,595,000. The House recommended a discretionary spending level of

'$2,634,565,000, while the Senate recommended a spending level of $2,481,199,000 in

8 coring rt Land on Sea Fes an -)




4)

supply of tools to be used by volunteers working on Forest
trails.

*Dispersed Camping Sites: Camp sites along the Bog Dam Loop road
were maintained and cleaned on a regular basis.

*Backcountry: Fee Demo funded the activities of 3 backcountry
patrollers, one specifically assigned to the Tuckerman Ravine
area.

*Visitor Center Services: Information and assistance were
provided by fee demo information staff at the Androscoggin and
Evans Notch offices to 16,255 visitors.

Community events were partially funded by the demo. These
include: Fourth of July parade, Mollyockett Day parade and

booth, Appalachian Trail Conference booth, Common Ground Country
Fair, and a session at the College of Lifelong Learning.

Approximately 10,000 people were contacted through these events.

IL Saco Ranger District Accomplishments

*Trails: Over 400 miles of foot and cross country ski trails were
completed by the district trail crew this season.

*New benches were built along the Rail and River Trail to
replace the old ones that were rotting away, the bridge near the
river was rebuilt and re-directed, as well as part of the trail

being reworked. Erosion had resulted in part of the trail being
washed away, also many hazard trees were removed along the trail.
*A section of the Attitash Trail was repaired. Rock

structures were built to improve and stabilize a section of trail

that had become badly eroded over a period of time. This work
stabilizes the trail, provides for public safety, and helps

protect the environment.

*Over 26 trail signs were replaced, these signs were either
damaged or missing, 14 signs were stained or painted, and 10 new
sign posts were installed.

*Facilities: Six cross country ski trail bridges on the Lower

Nanamocomuck were repaired.

*Two cross country ski trail bridges were were totally

replaced to provide for public safety.

*The Mountain Pond Shelter was repaired to provide for public
safety.

*The Kearsarge Fire Tower was painted, and repairs were made

on the shed and outhouse.

*The Camp Penacook Shelter was repaired, replaced floor