U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

47–404 CC 1998

HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS—

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 26, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–73

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held February 26, 1998 ............................................................................ 1

Statements of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 10

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 153

Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio ................................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress from the

State of Oregon ............................................................................................. 62

Statements of witnesses:

Bachrach, John Christopher, Treasurer and Board Member, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association .................................................................. 41

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60

Berry, John M., Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget,

Department of the Interior; accompanied by Henry Rodger Schmitt,

Group Manager, Recreation Group, Bureau of Land Management .......... 11

Prepared statement of Mr. Berry ............................................................. 49

Coyne, Alasdair, Conservation Director, Keep the Sespe Wild .................... 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Crandall, Derrick, President, American Recreation Coalition ...................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63

Dingman, Robert, American Motorcyclist Association, Washington, DC ..... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 91

Fretwell, Holly, Research Associate, Political Economy Research Center ... 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 87

Johnson, Myrna, Director of Government Affairs, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, prepared statement of .................................................. 143

Laverty, Lyle, Former Director, Recreation Programs, Regional Forester,

Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. Forest Service; accompanied by Greg

Super, National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program Coordinator,

U.S. Forest Service; Linda Feldman and Floyd Thompson ....................... 15

Prepared statement of Mr. Laverty ......................................................... 51

Mackey, Craig, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound ................................. 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76

Santini, James D., Washington DC Representative, National Tour Association and former Member of Congress ..................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Sloan, Mary Margaret, Conservation Director, American Hiking Society ... 37

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 83

Stavely, Gaylord, Vice President, National Forest Recreation Association . 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

Voorhees, Philip David, Associate Director of Policy and Development,

National Parks and Conservation Area ...................................................... 29

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

IV

Additional material supplied:

Andersen, Heide, Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain Club, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 148

Colby, Wendy, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of .................................... 147

Neubauer, Dale, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of ................................ 155

Spohn, Isabell, Twisp, Washington, prepared statement of .......................... 160

U.S. Dept. of the Interior and the Dept. of Agriculture, ‘‘Recreational

Fee Demonstration Program’’ ...................................................................... 100

Vaughan, Ray, Executive Director, Wildlaw, Montgomery, Alabama .......... 156

Waldheim, Edward H., President, Calfornia Off Road Vehicle Assoc.,

Glendale California ....................................................................................... 158
(1)

HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION

PROGRAMS—SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA- TIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RE- SOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

132, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] I’ve scheduled this hearing today to continue the longstanding involvement of the members of this Subcommittee in examining the issues of recreation fees on Federal

lands.

As many of you are aware, this Subcommittee held several hearings on recreation fee proposals during the first session of the 10th

Congress. Several members of the Subcommittee and several of the

witnesses today will have fond memories of our discussion during

1995. However, today we will review the successes and failures of

the recreational fee demonstration program that the Congress authorized in the Omnibus Consolidation Rescissions Act of 1996 and

amended in subsequent legislation during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.

Currently, this recreational fee demonstration program authorizes the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and

Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service to establish

fee collection programs at up to 100 sites for each agency. The fee

demonstration program allows these agencies to retain 80 percent

of the fee at the collecting unit, and the remaining 20 percent is

available to the collecting agency at management discretion.

The agencies are collecting a variety of entrance and user fees to

test the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for operation and

maintenance costs, and to address the backlog repair and maintenance of infrastructure. The fees are also being used for interpretation, facility enhancement, and resource management projects.

However, I am concerned that some fees are being spent on items

that do not fit within these areas.

I am pleased to note that, generally, public awareness and acceptance of the fee demonstration program has been positive. I

have long held the view that if the fees are fair and reasonable,

and the funds are retained at the site to enhance the visitor experience, that the American public will support a fee program. How2

ever, we will hear testimony today that will show that not all of

the public is totally convinced of the rationale for charging cost-recovery fees on the public lands.

This hearing will serve to provide necessary information for this

Subcommittee to consider legislation that would provide permanent

authorization for the recreational fee demonstration program under

the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. I believe that the

recreational fee program is the most fair and realistic way to address the backlog problems of the Federal land used by the American people. I fully realize there’s some problems with the current

recreation fee program; however, this hearing will help us to make

decisions that will correct these deficiencies, explain this program

to the public, and enhance outdoor recreation experiences for everyone. I look forward to the testimony we will receive today, and appreciate the efforts of all of you to be present and express your

views on this important program.

I hope you folks realize there’s a dozen hearings going on all over

the Hill, most of them on CIA and Iraq and things such as that,

so it’s, I don’t know why, but anyway you will see members dribble

in and out, and I apologize that not everyone’s here right now, but

I’ve been assured that many will come. Normally, at usual congressional time, which is twenty minutes after we start.

With that in mind, I am very happy to recognize, I’d recognize

the gentlelady, but I don’t know if she wants to be recognized right

now. I’ll then turn to—see, I told you they’d all start coming. We’ll

start then with the Honorable Wally Herger, the gentleman from

California who works so diligently on these programs. It’s always

a pleasure to have you, Mr. Herger. We’ll turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the fee demonstration program currently being implemented by our National

Park Service and our United States Forest Service. I represent all

or part of nine national forests, and one national park, and one national recreation area. The fee demonstration program is severely

impacting the people of my district. I am strongly opposed to any

extension or continuation of this program for three main reasons.

First, this program is another unnecessary tax on families who

are already overburdened by taxes. Second, the fee program places

additional burden on recreational access and as a result is highly

detrimental to local economies, such as mine in Northern California, which are dependent on tourism and recreation. And third,

this fee program only perpetuates misuse of existing funding and

natural resources by land management agencies.

First issue of the tax burden. In 1997, Federal, State, and local

taxes combined are projected to claim 38.2 percent of the median

income of two-earner families—up from 37.3 percent in 1996. This

means families are now taxed at a level higher than any other time

in our Nation’s history, excluding the years of 1944 and 1945, during World War II. Imposing an additional tax burden in the form

of fees on the already overburdened American family is considered

unconscionable.
3

One unintended and unfortunate result of this tax is that the average American family may no longer be able to afford a visit to

our national parks and forests. Families who once simply drove

through these areas now have an added financial burden. The impact of fewer citizens visiting our National parks and forests would

negatively impact local economies. Imposing fees is not the answer.

At the heart of this issues are Federal agencies that have mismanaged their funding. These agencies claim significant backlogs

in maintenance and upkeep for basic services, while continuing to

receive annual appropriations that are not adequately accounted

for. For example, according to a report by the General Accounting

Office and the Department of Interior’s Inspector General, the National Park Service lacks (1) necessary financial and program data

on its operations; (2) adequate internal controls on how its funds

are spent; and (3) that the agency lacks performance measures on

what is being accomplished with the money being spent.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation’s recreational needs will not be met by

throwing more money into the Federal Government’s insatiable

hands. Before we give the National Park Service or the United

States Forest Service a permanent, revenue-generating program

such as the fee demonstration program, we should require a proper

accounting for the resources already at their disposal.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my firsthand experience, this

program is not working. There has been a substantial amount of

animosity generated by local communities who have had to deal

with implementation of this program. This ill-conceived program

needs to be discontinued. Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee

for hearing my testimony, and I request that when this Subcommittee takes up any action on this issue, it will consider the

negative impact suffered by local communities such as mine. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the

opportunity to speak today regarding the fee demonstration program currently being

implemented by our National Park Service and our United States Forest Service.

I represent all or part of nine national forests, one national park, and one national

recreation area. The fee demonstration program is severely impacting the people of

my district. I am strongly opposed to any extension or continuation of this program

for three main reasons: first this program is another, unnecessary tax on families

who are already over-burdened by taxes; second the fee program places additional

burdens on recreational access and as a result is highly detrimental to local economies, such as mine in northern California, which are dependent on tourism and

recreation; and third, this fee program only perpetuates misuse of existing funding

and natural resources by land management agencies.

First the issue of the tax burden. In 1997 Federal, state and local taxes combined

are projected to claim 38.2 percent of the median income two-earner family, up from

37.3 percent in 1996. This means families are now taxed at a level higher than any

other time in our history, excluding the years of 1944 and 1945 during World War

II. Imposing an additional tax burden in the form of fees on the already overburdened American family is considered unconscionable. One unintended and unfortunate result of this tax is that the average American family may no longer be able

to afford a visit to our national parks and forests. Families who once simply drove

through these areas, now have an added financial burden. The impact of fewer citizens visiting our national parks and forests would negatively impact local economies.
4

Imposing fees is not the answer. At the heart of this issue are Federal agencies

that have mismanaged their funding. These agencies claim significant backlogs in

maintenance and upkeep for basic services while continuing to receive annual appropriations that are not adequately accounted for. For example, according to a report by the General Accounting Office and the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General, the National Park Service lacks: 1. necessary financial and program

data on its operations; 2. adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent; and

3. that the agency lacks performance measures on what is being accomplished with

the money being spent.

Mr. Chairman, our nation’s recreational needs will not be met by throwing more

money into the Federal Government’s insatiable hands. Before we give the National

Park Service or the United States Forest Service a permanent revenue generating

program such as the fee demonstration program we should require a proper accounting for the resources already at their disposal.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my first hand experience this program is not

working. There has been a substantial amount of animosity generated by local communities who have had to deal with implementation of this program. This ill conceived program needs to be discontinued. Again I want to thank the Subcommittee

for hearing my testimony and I request that when this Subcommittee takes up any

action on this issue it will consider the negative impact suffered by local communities. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Herger. We appreciate you being

with us, and if you stay with us just a minute, we may have some

questions for you.

Let me state that we’re very pleased to have Ralph Regula, the

chairman of the Appropriations Committee of Interior with us. It’s

always a pleasure to have Ralph with us. We work very closely on

matters pertaining to public lands, Interior issues. I’ll turn to Mr.

Regula for any statement he may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a formal

statement, but I want to re-emphasize what Congressman Wally

Herger said about accountability, and we’ve built that into the pilot

programs. Accountability for the money that’s collected and accountability for the management. This was instituted as part of our

Appropriations Committee, as a demonstration as to what could be

done. Not all units are using the fee program, but I will say that

in talking with people that have both experienced paying the relatively small fees, as well as the superintendents and managers of

our recreation systems in the parks, forests, and Fish and Wildlife

Service, and BLM, that I get very positive reaction. A little footnote

to it is that they find that vandalism is down, lessened because

people, when they pay a little bit, have a stake in the facility. Visitation is up, so I don’t believe people are being restricted in usage.

I know that the parks have worked out an arrangement for local

folks that are in and out for various reasons, working there, or delivering materials, that they don’t pay, they get a sticker. This is

a pilot, or an experimental program, and the effort is being made

to get the bugs out of it and make it work well. And we’ve made

it clear in the appropriations process that we don’t see this as a

substitute for annual appropriations, but rather as a supplement to

deal with the maintenance backlog. For example, I believe in Yellowstone, they’re going to use some of their money to replace the

sewer system, along with what we appropriate, to enhance the visitor experience by doing things that they normally couldn’t do. And
5

there is a high level of enthusiasm on the part of the managers,

simply because of what they are able to do.

As I say, it’s not a substitute for the appropriations process, and

I think that the way it’s being worked in the various parks and forests now demonstrates that there is merit to a program of this

type. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having a hearing and

looking at this program and the pluses and minuses of what we’ve

experienced in the past 2 years under the program to see what

should be done, if anything, on a permanent basis. Because I think

it does have a potential for giving people a sense of participation

in the park responsibilities, as well as providing some additional

funds to substantially enhance the visitor experience. And I believe

there are a lot of pluses to it based on my conversations with people as I visit parks, and with the superintendents or the managers.

There’s a pretty positive reaction, all up and down the line. And

I’m as interested in your comments, Mr. Herger. I think probably

some of those concerns would be addressed in permanent legislation. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:]

The Hon. Ralph Regula,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior

and Related Agencies,

Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN:

On behalf of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, we express our appreciation for the opportunity to improve our recreation resources through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized by section 315 of the fiscal year

1996 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Attached is a joint progress

report on the status of the program, submitted by the Departments of the Interior

and Agriculture on behalf of the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service. This report summarizes the most

recent information on visitation, revenues, and management issues that have arisen

during initial implementation of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

We are pleased to inform you that visitor response to the new fees has been generally positive. We increased revenues substantially during the first year, and began

the long process of reducing our maintenance backlogs. The program represents a

significant step toward improving visitor services and facilities for those who recreate on public lands.

The agencies agree that long-term implementation of this effort is desirable. We

will work with Congress to design a program that builds upon our positive experience in implementing the demonstration effort. Such a program should provide flexibility for designing fees tailored to specific situations, embody strong incentives for

agencies to collect recreation fees, and provide assurance to the public that a majority of revenues raised will benefit the site where fees are collected. To that end, we

will be pleased to submit draft legislation during the coming year and to work closely with your staff. However, we do believe that permanent authority should not take

effect until after the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal year

1999.

A similar letter is being sent to Sidney R. Yates, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House

of Representatives, the Honorable Slade Gorton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, and the Hon6

orable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and

Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

JOHN BERRY,

Assistant Secretary,

Policy, Management and Budget

Department of the Interior

JAMES LYONS,

Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment,

Department of Agriculture

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Regula. Ms. Smith, do you have

any statements or comments to Mr. Herger?

Mrs. LINDA SMITH OF WASHINGTON. To begin with, I’ve got two different groups. We have people who live close to the sites who

have used those properties for many, many years for picking berries, for hiking around the Mt. Saint Helens site, which was obviously a volcano and now restored. And so we’re not finding a lot

of complaint, except for some of the families’ having to pay 20 more

dollars a year per member, and we are in an area of very large

families, and a lot of stay-home moms. And it is very difficult. It

appears that if we could have something for those closer. It is not

just those distributing things into the site. It’s those that live

across the street. It’s like you have to, where you used to go play

and climb and hike, now you’re charged. That’s pretty steep for

them—not for all families, but it certainly is for a significant number. And if we could find some way to get the Park Service to do

something with the families that are real close, that would probably satisfy most of the complaints that I’m getting. Because I’m

only getting them from those people. So if the Chairman could consider that, and possibly—both chairmen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Vento? Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Herger, I’ll address the question to you and then have a comment. You know, this legislation was authorized by the 19, well first we had the Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104–

134. How would you vote on that?

Mr. HERGER. Well, my understanding——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, did you vote for or against the bill? I’m just

curious.

Mr. HERGER. This was part of a large bill.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but——

Mr. HERGER. Of which I voted for.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you voted for the bill, but you were against this part of it.

Mr. HERGER. That’s correct.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Correct, OK.

Mr. HERGER. And my experience has been one that’s been very much in the same line of Mrs. Smith.

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right.

Mr. HERGER. Except I could put many exclamation marks. The

local people, I can tell you, are incensed with this. I have probably

had as many complaints on this one issue than I’ve had of anything

I can recall in the 11 years I’ve been representing the area. And

I would hope that at least we could look at——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK——
7

Mr. HERGER. [continuing] as Mrs. Smith mentioned, doing something for the locals.

Mr. DEFAZIO. If I, if Mr. Herger, if I could——

Mr. HERGER. Yes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. [continuing] if I could reclaim my time, because

I’ve got limited time. And then we had the 1998 Interior Appropriations Act, which extended it. Do you recall how you voted on that?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. DeFazio, all of these bills——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, but I mean, did you vote for that too?

Mr. HERGER. I——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, I voted it against it, you voted—OK. If I could

reclaim my time—I have introduced legislation to repeal this and

replace it with a modest charge on those who deplete minerals from

Federal lands, a royalty charge, which is charged by all other owners of lands. Are you a co-sponsor of my bill to repeal it and replace

this legislation with another form of fee?

Mr. HERGER. I believe I’d be very opposed to the latter——

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, all right, well, Mr. Herger, I would suggest

that, you know, you voted for it twice, even though it was part of

other legislation. There is one bill pending to repeal it, which is

mine, and you’re not a sponsor of it. I guess I’m looking for a little

consistency here. I, you know, I’m opposed. I heard, with great interest, that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked

about reductions in vandalism. Actually, we have a totally new

form of vandalism in my district, which is very significant removal

and vandalism of the signs for the fee areas. It’s a new kind of vandalism.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, I haven’t had the experience of reductions in

vandalism. You know, the kind of complaints I get are similar to

those that Mrs. Smith has received, and you have received, people

particularly who live in or adjacent to the forests.

There was a precedent established in Oregon which may address

their concerns and the Chairman may need to take this into account. In the Federal District Court in Oregon, you know, this

doesn’t just apply to parks. It applies to forests, you know; apparently, I don’t know if there are any BLM lands doing it yet. It applies to beaches in Oregon, and some surfers who wanted to access

a beach in Oregon on the other side of the Dunes National Recreation Area were ticketed for not having paid these fees, where they

had no intention of using the trails. They just wanted to access the

beach and surf, as they had done traditionally. They won in court.

And it was found that they could not be ticketed or charged for

that use.

I’m not exactly certain of all the principles in that case, but I

think that may undermine this fee program in a number of areas,

and I think that the Committee ought to be looking for other, and

more fair, alternatives to this tax on individuals. It flies in the face

of most of the things I’ve heard from the majority on the Republican Contract. I mean, this is a tax on individuals who want to use

public lands and, you know, I, and it’s, it is inconvenient for people

who live in those areas. It is burdensome for people of low incomes

that live in those rural areas. It’s even, I’ve experienced it as a

pain in the butt because I bought a sticker. I put it on one car. But
8

then I went backpacking and I took a different car, and I forgot,

and I got all the way there, and then I had to drive back out again,

find a place to buy one, slap it on my other car, and drive back in

again. And I know that other people have had that, have had that

happen.

I think this is something that should come out of general funds

or some other source, and not through this program. And the reason we haven’t had too many complaints, also, is that it hasn’t

been enforced. Wait until this year, when the Forest Service starts

ticketing people for money, instead of courtesy tickets, if you want

to see a firestorm of protest, and/or vandalism, and/or antagonism

toward the government and Federal employees. Last year, people

just got courtesy tickets saying you should have a ticket. But this

year they’re going to get tickets for real, and it’s going to be a very

unpleasant experience for the Forest Service employees in my district who are issuing those tickets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from California, Mr. Gallegly. Do

you have comments for Mr. Herger, or an opening statement?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it’s always a pleasure to have Wally here. Wally and I have been friends

for a long time. In fact we were classmates in the 100th Congress

together, and we’ve been through a lot of battles and wars together.

I think that the comments relative to those that live in the proximity certainly deserve a lot of consideration. I think Linda Smith

was right on point. However, I would say that for those who are

driving their $100,000 mobile homes that go across the country,

and go into a park a thousand miles from home, or 1,500 miles

from home, to say they can’t afford five dollars to help maintain

the, the integrity of the public land, I think is a little bit disingenuous. But I do think that collectively we can work on this issue.

But those that are immediately living in the area, I do think that

we need to address that issue a little bit. But going across the

country, I’m sorry. And I do appreciate the comments of Wally and

look forward to working with him on this issue as well as many

others.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from Nevada has no opening statement. We’ll appreciate the gentleman——

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment if I could. I

know you want to get going, and I’ll just be brief.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] I wanted to be certain that Mr.

DeFazio—Mr. Herger, I didn’t see your statement in my file here,

but I assume the concern was about Mt. Saint Helens?

Mr. HERGER. No, that wasn’t——

Mr. VENTO. Well, that was——

Mr. GALLEGLY. That’s a bit north of——

Mr. VENTO. OK, what is the, what was the unit that you were

concerned about?

Mr. HERGER. Well, I——

Mr. VENTO. Was there a specific unit? Was it a Forest Service

unit or a Park Service unit? Mt. Saint Helen, of course, was a, is

a Forest Service unit.
9

Mr. HERGER. We have nine national forests within our district—

the specific, where the strongest concerns have been around Mt.

Shasta.

Mr. VENTO. Does it concern user fees, or does it concern entrance

fees?

Mr. HERGER. It would be, I assume that would be, entrance fees.

Mr. VENTO. I assume it’s user fees.

Mr. HERGER. They’re fees that are paid at such time as they

enter the park.

Mr. VENTO. Well, is it for a camping reservation, or what is the

purpose of it? I mean, because——

Mr. HERGER. It’s anything they do utilizing the water at, for example, Lake Shasta——

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don’t want to—I mean the concern is, I think,

that we’ve always had, the Forest Service has had, historically, authority for user fees as well as the Park Service. That would be for

parking a car, for a campsite, you know, primitive and so——

Mr. HERGER. This is just for day use for going use and use, like,

the water——

Mr. VENTO. Just an entrance fee, but I guess that’s under the experiment. But we had authorized, I think, for BLM and for Forest

Service some of the sites, you know, that are a basic monument or

type of a visitor contact station, not just for entrance. And of course

there’s a big increase. I mean, the real question here is, you know

we go to a film or something and it costs five, six, seven dollars

to get into a film. You know, and you talk about people, you know.

So they, you know, the issue here is, how do we sustain or support

this. I appreciate your comments about those that live in close

proximity, and there are, of course, accommodations where you can

get an annual pass because you’re going more often. It is inconvenient, it is obviously a—they’re on the learning curve with regards

to understanding that.

Mr. HERGER. But even on that point——

Mr. VENTO. Yes, sure——

Mr. HERGER. [continuing] even on an annual pass, say someone

living in Redding, California would have to buy a pass for Lake

Shasta and an additional pass for——

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I think that——

Mr. HERGER. [continuing] the lake, which are all within, maybe

three miles.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate that, because the Forest Service

doesn’t have a Golden Eagle, so to speak, as the Park Service. So

that’s something that needs to be, needs to be addressed.

Mr. HERGER. And I would like to urge the Committee, there are

a number of issues of this type that I’d like to see us address. We

attempted to address this point, Mrs. Smith brought it up, of perhaps having the local area, some type of discount for people who

leave there.

Mr. VENTO. Well, they already—I mean, I think there are

accommodations——

Mr. HERGER. They determined that was not constitutional to be

able to do that——

Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, I think there probably is a better deal than

that that probably they can get for going to five or six parks, in
10

terms of a Golden Eagle, or America the Beautiful, or some other

type of pass that had been recommended previously. And this, of

course, was an experiment, but there are in fact annual passes that

permit any type, and there are even exemptions, of course, for

those that need them. So there is a process set up, and obviously,

as I said, everyone’s on the learning curve with regard to this process.

But I think the fundamental issue is that, the consensus is that

those that use or those that visit these areas ought to at least help

in sustaining them. These fees, of course, will never sustain the

type of costs for maintenance for the expense of these units. So I

think we, especially with our friend Mr. Regula here, we have to

obviously point out that we understand the dilemma that he faces,

because if we cut these back, all we’re doing is adding to the backlog of costs that we have both in the Forest and in the park, and

the other public land units.

Thanks. Thanks, Wally.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from Montana, Mr. Hill. Do you

have any opening statement? Gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs.

Chenoweth, do you have an opening statement or comments for Mr.

Herger?

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady is recognized.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the recreational fee demonstration program,

which we enacted last year. And normally I don’t make an opening

statement; I just submit it for the record. But I feel very strongly

about this. As I was in the district last week, the issue of fees was

something that I heard a lot about. So I commend you on holding

this hearing now, and, and I do minimally support the concept of

having users help contribute a minimal fee, specifically for recreational area improvement.

But ultimately, I would like to see recreationalists have the best

experience possible on well maintained forest campgrounds, facilities, and trail. Very small fees can play a role in that effort, but

I am especially interested in this issue because a couple of areas

in Idaho, most significantly the Sawtooth National Recreational

Area, has been chosen as test cases for this fee program.

However, I do have concerns about how this demonstration program has been implemented, serious concerns. Generally, I do not

believe that agencies have done an adequate job selling the program to the public. The common complaint I have heard is that

visitors have suddenly have had to pay a fee without knowing the

reason why, and most people are not aware that these fees are to

go directly to the upkeep and improvement of the specific area that

they are visiting.

And, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in our, our general fund

budgeting that, to the degree fees are collected and kept within

that forest, then I think that we ought to be able to save the general taxpayer money by, in a comparable manner, diminishing our
11

appropriations to the agency. Otherwise, we just have mounting of

fees as well as a continued increase in our general funding.

And my second concern, which is that there have been no noticeable improvement to campgrounds, hiking trails, boat docks, restrooms, and many other facilities and amenities that serve the general public. If there have been changes, the agencies have not done

a good job of letting the people know, because evidence shows there

hasn’t. Just as any charity soliciting funds, the Federal Government must actively promote the benefits of fees.

I am concerned also about what appears to be a case of double

and even triple taxation that this program represents to some public lands users. In some States, there are already programs in place

that collect a fee for improvements, especially the fee many off-road

users pay in many States, such as the green-sticker program in

California, and the OHV trail fund in Idaho is one such example.

So we need to make sure that we’re not double-charging these people, and that we’re not negatively impacting our counties and the

tourism industry that so many of our States and counties have

learned to lean upon with the diminishment of active natural resource industries being fees from them, and resources from them,

being made available to the counties.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you very

much for holding this hearing.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentlelady from Idaho. That takes care

of the opening part.

Mr. Herger, you’re more than welcome to join us on the dais. We

appreciate having you with us, if you have the time to stay with

us, and appreciate your testimony.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. With that in mind, let’s turn to the first panel. Our

two panelists will be Mr. John M. Berry, Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, Department of the Interior, and Lyle

Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region. They both are

accompanied by—Mr. Berry is accompanied by Henry Schmitt,

Maureen Finnerty, and Dr. Roger Coleman. Mr. Laverty is accompanied by Greg Super. We appreciate these folks being with us. Mr.

Berry, this is twice in one week you’ve had this opportunity. We

appreciate you being here. Five minutes OK? You need any little

extra time, let us, let us know, OK?

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BERRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

POLICY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY RODGER SCHMITT,

GROUP MANAGER, RECREATION GROUP, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. BERRY. OK, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for appearing before us, and, Mr. Secretary, we’ll start with you.

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I’m very pleased to talk

to you and the Committee about the experiences we’ve had with

the fee demonstration program, which have been mostly positive,

I would like to add, and, based on our first year-and-a-half experiment with this demonstration project.
12

As you know, this project has been a joint effort on the part of

three bureaus within the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. These agencies manage a variety of resources under a variety of authorities, yet for this experiment they have worked very closely and have found that they have

a great deal in common.

I have prepared a statement, Mr. Chairman, that, with your

agreement, we would just submit for the record, and I’ll try and

summarize here.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.

Mr. BERRY. But I would be pleased to also introduce the folks

who will with me who can help us answer questions in specific detail about each of our bureau’s programs. We have Maureen

Finnerty, who is the Associate Director of the National Park Service for Park Operations and Education. We have Dr. Richard Coleman, Director of Refuges for the Fish and Wildlife Service. And we

have Roger Schmitt, who is the Group Manager for Recreation in

the Bureau of Land Management. So they’ll be with us in case we

have specifics that I’m unable to answer.

Visitor response to the demonstration fees program has been

very positive. Both the National Park Service and the USDA Forest

Service conducted surveys to assess visitor reactions during the

first full year of the recreational fee demonstration program. Overall, 83 percent of National park visitors surveyed said they were either satisfied with the fees they paid, or thought the fees were too

low. In the Forest Service, over 6 percent of people who completed

a survey card said that the opportunities and services they experienced were at least equal to the fee that they paid.

We believe that the strong support so early in this program is

primarily because the fee revenues have not been offset by reduced

appropriations, and because receipts remain in the recreation areas

in which they are collected, to be used to improve visitor services

and to protect resources. Our visitors seem to be responding with

greater care to the recreation resources, for there is increasing evidence that incidents of vandalism have decreased in areas where

recreation fees have been collected.

We also believe that much of this public acceptance came about

because we involved and communicated with the public in a process, in a variety of ways. At the local levels, our agencies spent a

great deal of effort working with the public through formal communication plans, news releases, meeting with local community leaders, constituent groups, advisory councils, information leaflets, explanatory videos, open houses at the parks, public workshops, comment cards, and then signs, entrance signs and bulletin boards.

These efforts, I believe, were important to the success of the public

reception for the recreational fee demonstration program.

Interagency cooperation has blossomed under this recreational

fee demonstration program. The participating agencies have established a record of cooperation that I believe is unprecedented in

this, in this government. This is true not only among the Department of Interior’s bureaus, but also with the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Throughout the process of implementing

the program, fee managers from the four agencies held regular

meetings to discuss progress, approaches, problems, and solutions.
13

And they have developed common approaches for evaluating the fee

program.

Mr. Chairman, I could go into a great deal about our accomplishments, but they’re already described in a report that we have prepared for the Interior, Agriculture Committees on Appropriations,

and which I believe we have made available to the Committee and

to the Members. I’d just like to highlight a few of the summaries,

points in that report.

First, a very large majority of visitors’ levels have been sustained

during the initial year of new fees. The initial data we have on visitation during the first full year of the program indicate that fees

appear to have a negligible impact on visitation levels. Of course,

we will not be satisfied with a single year’s experience.

Second, recreation fee revenues have increased significantly in

all four agencies administering this program. Between 1996 and

fiscal year 1997, recreational fee revenues increased by 57 percent

in the National Park Service, 35 percent for the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and 11 percent for the Bureau of Land Management. This is good news, for it identifies a new source of revenue

in addition to public appropriations that will allow us to improve

visitor services and deal with our serious backlog of infrastructure

needs.

Third, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of different

types of fees. Some are variations of entrance fees, ranging from individual and carload fees that are typically collected at an entrance

kiosk, to the Golden Eagle Passport, unit-specific annual passes,

and also multi-unit passes that allow entry into several sites of the

same Federal agency, or several sites operated by different Federal,

State, local agencies. Too, we’re trying to address some of the concerns that Mr. Herger and some of the members of the panel have

already raised this morning. We are also evaluating several types

of user fees for such uses as parking, hunting, camping, boat

launching, dumping of sanitary waste from recreation vehicles, and

expedition fees.

Fourth, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of methods for

collecting the fees, from typical ranger in the kiosk, to automated

collection machines and collection by mail. And we are looking at

different approaches to this that will include using our employees,

partnership arrangements with other agencies, volunteers, as well

as consignment with private-sector vendors and concessionaires.

Fifth, the agencies—Mr. Chairman, if it’s OK, if I would, I see

the red light, but I——

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead, Mr. Berry. I want to hear your testimony.

Mr. BERRY. Just got a couple more minutes.

Mr. HANSEN. Don’t let the light bother you.

Mr. BERRY. Great.

Fifth, the agencies have found that some of the initial collection

costs for new fees are higher than expected, and certainly higher

than they will be over the long run. The reason for these higher

costs initially is the large startup and capital costs for instituting

some of the capital infrastructure that needs to be in place to collect the fees, such as kiosks, entrance stations, new equipment, and

supplies that have to be in, in availability to monitor.
14

The agencies will continue to look for ways to reduce the cost of

collecting these fees, but it’s also important to note that cost-effectiveness may not always be possible. In some sites, for example,

the particular mix of low visitation and multiple access points may

just make it impractical, impractical to institute any fees at all.

Finally, the agencies have begun the process of financing maintenance backlog projects. Considering that we are now only into the

second full year of the recreation fee demonstration program, and

that many of the revenues were not available to the bureaus until

the end of fiscal year 1997, the participating agencies have begun

a significant number of projects that will reduce the backlog maintenance requirements and provide public service enhancements at

recreationsites. I’d like to point out just a few.

At Yellowstone National Park, they are rehabilitating their deteriorated electronic infrastructure for safety and resource protection,

repairing utility systems, replacing deteriorated docks, rehabilitating trail and overlook, interpretative exhibits, and back country

sites. In Paria County, on the Arizona–Utah border, the Bureau of

Land Management used fee revenues to maintain and upgrade

sanitation facilities at trail heads.

The recreation fee demonstration program has been a very positive experience for participating agencies, and the agencies agree

that long-term implementation of the fee program is desirable. We

wish, however, to emphasize our strong desire that any permanent

authority should not take effect until after the current temporary

authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. The test is entering

its second full year, and our current findings and observations are

preliminary. The full evaluation of this program will not be completed until March 1999. Yet even at this early stage, we are very

pleased with the results, and we would like to work with you to

design a program that builds on that positive experience in implementing this effort.

There are a few elements which I would like to recommend for

your consideration for permanent legislation. These elements are

presented in more detail in the report that we have submitted, but

let me just touch on a few.

First, we would emphasize the need for flexibility to tailor fees

to meet specific management and visitor needs. We simply caution

that one size does not fit all.

Second, we think it is crucial to recognize the importance of incentives in the design of recreation fees. The provision in the demonstration program that fees be applied to onsite backlog maintenance projects provides a very substantial incentive for recreation

managers to collect and keep the cost of collection low. People seem

much more willing to pay fees if they know the revenues will directly benefit the resources that they are enjoying.

Third, the provision that allows agencies to utilize the revenues

over more than a single fiscal year can help agencies do better

long-range planning to approach backlog reductions, and implement reform and rehabilitation in a more systematic way.

Finally, we believe that this provision, that the provision that

sets aside some of the fee revenues for addressing broader agency

priorities would be an important element to continue in any permanent legislation. We caution that a fixed formula that returns a
15

high percentage of revenue to the collecting site could, over the

long run, and this would be long run over 5 to 10 years, could create undesirable inequities within an agency, where certain popular

facilities have more funds than they can effectively use, and others

that don’t have the public access would face continuing deterioration.

So we need to consider the possibility in determining what’s the

appropriate balance between the needs of the fee-collection site in

the long run, with the backlog maintenance needs of the entire

agency.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. That would conclude my statement,

and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Laverty.

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, FORMER DIRECTOR, RECREATION PROGRAMS, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY

GREG SUPER, NATIONAL RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR, U.S. FOREST SERVICE;

LINDA FELDMAN AND FLOYD THOMPSON

Mr. LAVERTY Mr. Chairman, it’s an honor for me to be here today

to discuss the fee demonstration program as it relates to the Forest

Service and how we have been able to implement this program. I’m

delighted to be here, because I have great interest in what is happening, and even though I have transitioned from Washington to

Colorado I had great interest, as I served in, not only the Director

of Recreation, but also in the Acting Associate Deputy Chief role

as we began to roll this out.

Many of the comments that I’ll share with you, Mr. Berry has

already captured, and I think as we have looked at the implementation of the fee demonstration project across agency lines, it truly

has brought agencies together. I’ll just summarize some of our remarks, because many of the things that we have prepared in our

statement are already captured by Mr. Berry, and I’ll zip through

that so we can engage with any questions you might have for us.

I am accompanied by Greg Super, as you mentioned, and Linda

Feldman on our staff, and Floyd Thompson, who are really the key

folks on our staff that help make this come about. For the Forest

Service, it was really an incredible journey for us as we began implementing the program, simply because in many of our sites, unlike many of the Park Service sites, we had not charged fees before.

So we embarked in a endeavor where we started essentially from

ground zero in terms of helping people understand that we were in

fact going to collect fees but, more importantly, as Mr. Herger even

pointed out, that we need to be able to let people know why and

how these fees are going to be collected, but how they’re going to

be used.

And I can share with you, as I’ve talked to folks around the country, that folks are very, very supportive of the idea of paying fees,

as long as they know those fees are going back on the site, they

can actually see some tangible results.
16

As Mrs. Chenoweth pointed out, we are just the in process now

of beginning to implement some of those fees and actually make

some of these improvements. We had projects on, in fact at Flaming Gorge, where the ranger, as soon as he started collecting fees,

began making significant improvements on boat docks right away,

even though he didn’t have all the fees in hand. And, you know,

so that people could visibly and tangibly see that these fees were

actually showing some improvements on the facilities that they

used.

Let me just capture a few points that I think are significant, and

then, I think we can answer any questions you might have. As I

look at what’s happening in the National forests, we’re just continuing to see increased demands for recreation. And, as we have

pointed out with, with the Committee in the past, the demands are

far outreaching our abilities to deliver the services, in terms of providing the basic attention to the services that people expect. But

I think, more importantly, the investment we need to be making

as we protect America’s resources, I think this is one of the significant tools that has come to us as a result of the fee demonstration

program. That it does, in fact, give us the opportunity to make not

only investments to serve people, and also to protect these resources so that future generations are going to be able to enjoy

many of the same things that we’re experiencing today.

The recreation use on the National forests, as well as all public

lands, are significant contributors to the gross domestic product,

and as we begin to rack up, across agency lines, contribution that

takes place on public lands as a result of recreation is significant.

That, that use on local economies is extremely significant. I was in

Glenwood Springs yesterday, and listened to folks from the community talking about the importance of the National forest in that

community’s economy as it relates to the use that takes place

there. And as we look at how we can invest to make sure that

those resources that draw and attract people to these lands are

sustainable. Our trails are an excellent example. If we’re not able

to sustain trails, these folks that normally would hike, are going

to make choices to go somewhere else. And that’s where I think the

value for us in being able to return these resources and funds back

to the sites to improve and maintain these systems is critically important.

I’d like to just share maybe with you a few ideas that we would

recommend that you consider long-term engagement of a fee bill.

And the values that we have learned, and we would capture that,

as we aggressively moved on implementing the fee program. Back

in 1996 when the Congress passed the opportunity for us to do this,

we moved right along. And we actually implemented projects in

1996. And we have learned a lot. We viewed this as a test, and we

have, we went through a very structured process in terms of how

we started. We required business plans, we required communication strategies, and setting up the whole financial and cash management accountability part, which I think is extremely crucial for

us as we implement the program. And if I could just take a couple

minutes, I’ll be done, and then we can start.

Mr. HANSEN. Nancy, maybe you want to turn the light off.

[Laughter.]
17

Mr. LAVERTY. This is a great conversation. We, we really viewed

this as a test, and the places where we have been successful, we

have found that that up-front communication has been absolutely

crucial. Where people could really understand why we’re collecting

the fees, but more importantly how we’re going to use those fees.

I was talking to the ranger on the Clear Creek Ranger District—

this is the Mt. Evans project. One of the ideas that he has to better

communicate with the folks on what we have actually collected in

1997, but on the other side of this little hand-out that he’s going

to distribute to the folks that actually pay the fees, is going to show

exactly how those funds are going to be used. So we have that accountability, not only internally, but also with the people that pay

those fees. And I think that’s our key for our success.

Let me just suggest there’s four elements that I would, I would

capture that you want to consider, at least as we’ve learned from

the past. The first is that, I would recognize that this, this joint

agency effort. And I would hope that as you consider long-term consideration on this bill, or permanent legislation, if you could give

us some clarity and some authorities where we could even cross

across lines, not only with Federal agencies, but even with some

States and counties. We’ve got some projects that, that we’re doing

this, but it’s been really tough because we have folks that think we

don’t have the authority to do that. That would be most helpful.

I think in terms of building a long-range planning, some of the

things that Mr. Berry spoke about, as we know that we have a

more permanent authority coming that we can carry over some of

those funds to take on larger projects than simply one year at a

time type of projects. I think the idea, perhaps, for you to consider

broadening the fee demonstration authorities, where we could expand to include the recreation-related activities, such as some of

the fees that we collect off of outfitter and guide permits. If we

were able to keep even a portion of some of the fees from some of

the ski areas, that we could put back into the administration and

improvement and enhancements. Right now, all those funds simply

go back into the Treasury.

Let me just close it off, because I know that we need to have

some conversation about some of the questions you might have.

But I would just close by saying that we aggressively and totally

endorse the concept of the fee demonstration program. It’s been a

great tool for us, and, you know, we’re just in the process right

now, I think, of beginning to demonstrate that government works,

and that government can work well. And I think this is really key.

We’ve got some bumps in a road that we’re addressing, and as we

pick these up, we’ve aggressively gone back to take care of that.

I think the piece I would just share with you, comments from the

people that are paying the fees has been very, very positive. Certainly, as Mr. Herger pointed out, we’ve got some folks that still

don’t agree with the fee, period, but I think as we begin to show

and demonstrate the results, folks are going to accept that. I appreciate just the chance to share with you, and would love to get you

out and show you some of our projects on the ground.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty may be found at end of

hearing.]
18

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Laverty. I appreciate your comments. You folks that are standing back there, if you’re so inclined,

this bottom tier, no one’s going to use it, if you’d like to sit down,

we’d be more than happy to have you do that. If you want to stand,

that’s up to you, but I’m embarrassed to see you standing there.

We’ll start with members of the Committee to question this

panel. Mr. Hill from Montana, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HILL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of

questions about the fee structure.

Are any of the concessionaire fees retained within the park for

the purpose of the park services, or, or are they, or do they go to

the general treasury?

Mr. LAVERTY. I’ll speak on the Forest Service side. Right now,

those all go into the general treasury.

Mr. HILL. Those all go to the general treasury?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. And how do those fees compare with the other fees

that you charge directly to people who, either admittance fees or

user fees. Could you give me some indication of what that relative

amount of money is?

Mr. LAVERTY. I don’t have those figures here, but I could certainly pull that up. I used to know those figures, but I’ve forgotten

that stuff.

Mr. HILL. I mean, obviously, the concessionaire fees are indirectly fees that are charged for people who use the parks. It just

seems to me that if we’re going to be talking about trying to create

an entrepreneurial climate within the parks, we ought to consider

whether or not some portion of concessionaire fees or something

ought to be retained within the park. What do you think of that

idea?

Mr. LAVERTY. I think if we were able to keep some of those fees

in the fee demonstration program, it could go a long ways. I think

it could help us do a couple of things. We could enhance the administration that goes on right now in terms of how we administer

those special-use programs, particularly outfitter and guide programs. And if we were able to get some consistency, I think we

would find our relationship with many of the outfitters would even

improve.

Greg was just telling me that our, our special use fees that we

collect, are about $37 million. Last year, we collected about $8 million under the fee demonstration program, and we expect that to

go up significantly as we begin to implement the program. We have

40 projects underway that we actually implemented in 1996–1997,

another 5 ready to go on line in 1998 and 1999, so, I think we’ll

see that fee collection increasing to be probably comparable over

time.

Mr. HILL. Is there any relationship between the fees the concessionaires pay, and the use of infrastructure they have? For example, sewer and water costs, and those sorts of things within the

park or within the—now, I would ask any one of the three of you

to respond to that. Are those fees, do they bear any relationship to

the services that they also consume?

Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. Each concession contract in the

Park Service is an individually negotiated contract between the
19

concessionaire that accounts for opportunities and other costs that

are subject to that. In response to your last question, in the Park

Service, the general rule is that our concession funds are returned

to the Treasury, but there are instances in certain concessions in

certain parks where we have the ability to keep some of those

funds on park site. And we can get you a more detailed break-out

of that, I think, in an answer to the record.

Mr. HILL. I would appreciate having that.

Noting that, you know, a lot of the backlog is associated with infrastructure needs, and, I mean, how do you fund those infrastructure needs? Substantially, now, they’re being funded, obviously, by

the Treasury, I mean, just general taxpayers. Some of it’s going to

be funded from increase in user fees. Seems to me that, if we’re

going to address this whole issue, that we ought to look at that

again. I’m not making a case for more concessionaires’ fees; I want

to make that clear. I’m just saying, though, that there ought to be

some relationship there, and those, it seems to me, those dollars

ought to stay within the park, too.

Mr. BERRY. You raise an excellent point, Mr. Hill, and the administration, we’re working now between the departments and the

Office of Management and Budget on preparing some concession

approaches similar to what you’re talking about, so that we can

submit those for your consideration. But you, you’ve hit on a very

god point.

Mr. LAVERTY. One of the points I would also make, Mr. Hill, that

relates to outfitters and guides on the National forests is that most

of those folks do an incredible amount of volunteer work for us, just

doing basic maintenance that we would not be able to do ourselves.

That’s not part of the permit, but, you know, that’s work that’s

being contributed by the folks, you know, for, oftentimes in addition to what the fee that they pay. So that probably doesn’t cover

all that.

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

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, a

member of the Committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t make an opening

statement, but I did read yours and noted your concerns with regards this experimental program, and specifically with regard to

trying to guide the use of the entrance fee and user fee type of programs. It’s really pretty confusing for those that are not familiar

with this. And, of course, when my colleague from Montana, introduces concessions into the process, you can really, I’d suggest—and

I think that, you know, he had some very good points with it, but

that if we’re going to deal this, we try to deal with the user and

entrance issue. And what you were removed from, like, for instance, I mentioned Mr. Laverty that you actually have broad authority to implement user fees, in almost many instances. Is that

correct?

Mr. LAVERTY. That is correct, yes.

Mr. VENTO. And this, this gave you flexibility to put in more user

fees, not entrance fees, because you hadn’t had that except in the

special units that we designated in 1993. Is that correct?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct.
20

Mr. VENTO. And so the, the point is that this freed you up in

terms of not being limited by the land water conservation law, in

terms of where you could charge user fees. These user fees are generally designed to pay for what the actual use is of a campsite, and

they go directly into that site. Is that right? Or a parking lot or

some other activity?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct. We have used those for trail fees,

where those funds are going back for trail maintenance, and that’s

one of the significant——

Mr. VENTO. So none of that goes to the Treasury, does it?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct.

Mr. VENTO. That does not. I mean, it’s only these entrance fees

that the new issue. You hear, someone’s going to give you some advice now.

Mr. Berry, have you been around this a little bit so you get the

difference here?

Mr. BERRY. At the Parks and Fish and Wildlife, and Public

Lands, there is a distinction between the departments in this regard in that we generally approach it from the entrance fee approach, as opposed to the service approach.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think we have in the Park Service, I think

the others—of course BLM recently in 1993 was granted authority

for special units. I don’t really know the Fish and Wildlife Service,

but obviously it’s a small amount of revenue there. We look at

these figures, and then there’s also a county sharing in terms of

some of the type of fees that are present here, that the counties actually, under normal law, would get some share—not under the

user fee, I don’t think, but under—I don’t know if under user fees

or not. Mr. Laverty, do they get part of the user fees too?

Mr. LAVERTY. Under the fee demonstration, they do not.

Mr. VENTO. They don’t, but otherwise they would, is that right?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct.

Mr. VENTO. Well, that’s sort of problematic, especially if we want

the money to go into the purpose for which it’s intended. Of course,

it isn’t enough but, you know, I’m a little—the concern here, of

course, asking for more specificity, you know, is going to end us up

at the Appropriations Committee again. And then when you get the

revenue comes all to the government, then it gets to be an offset

in the appropriations bill. And, of course, that’s one of the problems

with this concessions policy, you know. They’re trying to find a balance between the superintendent, or the supervisor of a forest, or

the other administrator, and the OMB and appropriator type of

process. Because the money just doesn’t seem to get back once it

comes to Washington—at least not all of it.

And, of course, there are a lot of units that don’t have any collection of fee money. I notice that these ideas seem to be a better idea

in Washington than sometimes in the field.

Mr. LAVERTY. I have spent the last two-and-a-half months talking to a lot of the folks in the field, and I can tell you that there’s

a lot of enthusiasm and great support among agency people, you

know, with this, with this program. I wish we could have some of

the folks that I talked to yesterday, that were just talking about

the project that they have at Vail Pass. These folks are enthused

about it, but also, more importantly, is that they’re finding that
21

there is a great support from the public that is paying that. And,

you know, I can’t share that——

Mr. VENTO. No, no. I understand that but I think there is some,

I think as I said that the public is on the learning curve and you

have to become acquainted with this. For instance, in the case that

our colleague presented in his testimony, it looks to me there is no

pass that would be applicable. You have the authority and have exercised the authority to provide a single pass for multiple units.

Hasn’t the Forest Service done that?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, we have.

Mr. VENTO. You haven’t done it in northern California or Oregon,

I guess, is the problem.

Mr. LAVERTY. Southern California has one, and northern, the

Oregon——

Mr. VENTO. So they do have it, so it’s just a matter of misunderstanding at this point, at least in term of the pilot program?

Mr. LAVERTY. That’s correct, and I think we also share, though,

the point that I believe you’re going to make is that we’ve got 40,

maybe a hundred projects on the national forests; we’ve got 40 or

a hundred projects on the national parks and BLM. And at some

point in time, we need to begin look at, you know, should there be,

whether it’s a State pass that covers all agencies, or should it be

a Federal pass.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I hope my colleagues——

Mr. LAVERTY. I think those are some of the things that we can

learn.

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I hope my colleagues will be patient with this

and try to work it through. I think there’s nothing worse than having something start in fits and starts and maybe we can get the

insights from this, and then proceed. But to completely just pull it

back because there is a misunderstanding or political reaction to it,

I think would be the wrong thing to do. This wasn’t my baby; this

was Ralph’s, but I’ve been through this before, and I think that

there’s nothing worse than having something that goes in fits and

starts, especially on an issue like this. And I think that we should

try to build the consensus on the Committee, and to be reasonable

where we can, look at these factors more carefully, and give some

guidance, but, hopefully, keeping the money in the, in the land

management units, and with the type of flexibility. I think, obviously, the comments you made, Mr. Chairman, about what’s happened with some of the money, you know, fall right in line with

why there are the certain requirements in the Land, Water Conservation Fund. They may not be perfect, but they’re better than

nothing.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I didn’t make

myself clear in my opening statement, I want to make it clear now.

I think that for us to look at the possibility of charging fees, user

fees, in the Park Service is one thing. But for the record, I am adamantly opposed to user fees, or fees being charged by the Forest

Service and by Department of Interior for anything other than National parks, and anything other than an experimental demonstration fee program.
22

It’s creating tremendous reaction in my district. In fact, or in my

State. In Mr. Crapo’s district, there’s a little city named Salmon,

Idaho. And the mayor and the city council adopted a new vehicle

use fee test program. And the proposal is that the city of Salmon

is proposing to charge all U.S. Forest Service vehicles using city

streets to a use fee. The purpose of the fee is to replace declining

funds and to provide finances to ensure we provide quality road experiences while traveling on city streets. The current allotted funds

do not adequately cover the cost of maintaining the highly used

streets, and the U.S. Forest Service was chosen as a test group because they have established user fees on the Salmon River, and

several Forest Service-operated areas and must believe this is an

accepted method of raising funds.

They go on to say the city of Salmon will share the information

gathered from this project, and will provide, free of charge, to any

city, the procedure used and the amount of funds brought into the

city budget. The city will receive comments until May 29, but just

like the Federal Government, it doesn’t matter what you say. The

fee will begin on June 1st.

It’s a little half-serious, tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is that the

mayor of Salmon wrote to me and said this is an area where the

average family income is about $18,000 a year. And the mayor says

the fees that are being charged means that, if I’m traveling from

Boise to my home in Salmon, Idaho, and choose to stop along with

my wife and three children for a picnic under a tree, I will have

to pay $10. And if I need to stop along the road at one of the outdoor toilets, I will be expected to pay two dollars a person.

So this is the kind of thing that I’m receiving in my, in my district, Mr. Chairman. Actually, if we wanted to paint a great big,

huge sign in the name of the free market system and charge fees,

which is what we’re doing, we might as well paint a huge big ‘‘keep

out’’ sign to all of the citizens with regards to what’s happening on

our National forests. Our trails are being shut off, access to the

river is being shut off, our roads are being shut off, maintenance

is declining. And because the Federal Government, this Congress,

has failed to fence funds, which we didn’t because we trusted the

administration and the Federal Forest Service, funds are being

shifted from those areas that we have allocated moneys for to other

areas that are unauthorized, unappropriated programs such as the

American Heritage Rivers initiative, the Inner Columbia Ecosystem Management plan.

And I think that the idea of trying to utilize Ludwig von Meese’s

theory of freedom of the marketplace with a Federal agency is ludicrous. And I think we need to look in another direction to raise

funds. Now, if we charge fees for the Park Service, I think also that

we ought to reduce the general fund by an appropriate amount, by

a corresponding amount. Because we have increased funding to Interior and to the Forest Service for several years now. And we’re

seeing the services to the general public decline.

And I just want to make one final statement, and that is that

many of the user groups are willing to put forth their own effort,

and their own funds, and their own time to help improve roads and

trails and facilities. So, I just wanted to make that clear.
23

And, Mr. Chairman, I have 12 questions that I would like to ask,

especially of Mr. Laverty. My time is up, so with your indulgence,

I wonder if I might submit those to the Committee to ask the questions for me.

Mr. HANSEN. All the questions from members of the Committee,

I’m sure, our witness would be more than happy to respond to

those in correspondence. And if they do it, I wish they’d correspond

to all of us so we can all get the answers to it.

The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really

have any questions. I just wanted to make a brief statement.

St. John in my district is a very beautiful island, with some of

the more beautiful parks, but its facilities are also in very bad disrepair. We have a new superintendent, who quickly moved on coming to St. John to get the last slot, I believe, in the fee demonstration program. And so now meetings are being held in my communities, one as late as last night, and I haven’t heard how it went.

But I listened with a great deal of interest to the fact that across

the country the fee demonstration programs are being received

with broad acceptance. I’m not too sure that that’s going to happen

in St. John, because when the parks were turned over, when the

land was turned over to the National Park Service, it was with the

understanding that the residents of St. John, and I believe the entire Virgin Islands, would never be charged a fee for the parks.

And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely hearing for me. I

thank you for holding it. It’s also very informative. I really don’t

have any questions, but I do share some of the concerns that were

voiced already, that the fees that are collected be returned to the

park for maintenance and other uses in the park, and that it not

be used to replace appropriations, but be a supplement.

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentlewoman yield to me briefly?

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Sure.

Mr. VENTO. I was just going to point out that most of the units,

when they were established in terms of parks, if they had a Native

American or, in fact, an indigenous community that actually was

involved, that there are exceptions, usually, for them not to be

charged fees. In a sense, I don’t know if this particular measure

overrode that, this experiment overrode that.

But, of course, as I said before, I think the distinction between

user fees is very important, because user fees, they have general

authority always to put into effect user fees. And so the real authority here might be that they have more flexibility with regards

to what user fees, where they’re charged, and what parcels. But entrance fees would be, obviously, a different matter, and there’s a

whole list of these fees, if we’d look at this study we have, in terms

of reservation fees and other charges that are accumulating to the

cost of the Forest Service for providing recreation. And one of the

laments we often hear is that the recreational user is not carrying

his fair share, and this means that costs are being shifted in different directions.

Here we’ve got a minuscule amount of money that’s been collected so far in the Forest Service. I mean, compared to its overall

budget, it’s I think, like a $2 million increase, and we got a
24

firestorm, really, in terms of, I think a lot of misunderstanding

and, about it. But it, you know, there’s many of us that would like

to find a way to permit these units to be used and not charged. But

that is predicated on the funding. I’d be happy to yield back. But

I just wanted to point out that there is an opportunity for, many

times, from parks or other units that are created for non-charging

for certain populations.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. OK, thanks. I’d like to just reclaim my

time, and I would ask that question. Because, in talking with our

superintendent, he was saying that we could not waive the fees for

residents. Is that true, or can there be a fee but the residents, because that was the understanding when the park was created, be

exempted from the fee?

Mr. BERRY. There is flexibility with each park, Congresswoman,

so that we look into that situation with you. We do try to respond

and provide flexibility to local residents in some of the instances

that were described, when construction people have to drive

through public lands to get to work, or other things. So there is

clearly flexibility. We need to look at your specific situation, and

let me find out with you. We’ll work with the ranger and we’ll get

back to you on that.

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.

Mr. KILDEE. I see the bell has rung for a vote over in the House,

but I’d just like to indicate that, now that the President and the

Congress are balancing the budget, I hope this Committee some

time, Mr. Chairman, would have a hearing on my bill, which would

take the Land and Water Conservation Fund totally off-budget. Let

us use the Land and Water Conservation funds for what they were

originally intended. So I hope you will consider my bill on that.

Mr. HANSEN. That should be interesting.

Mr. KILDEE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate this panel. Let me just

say this: This is an experiment. We tried it out. This oversight

hearing is to try to determine if we want to continue, we want to

leave it as-is, where we want to go. You can see we’re fraught with

problems in a thing like this. You heard all the testimony.

It’s rather easy to take a park that is isolated and have an entrance fee. That’s pretty simple. We expand it to user fees that the

gentleman from Minnesota has talked about. Reservation fees,

we’re talking about. You have problems like Mr. Kildee just

brought up, drive-throughs, which we’re talking about Yosemite

right now. Zion’s National Park in my district has the same problem. One in Florida has the same problem.

We’re trying to figure out how do we work this out. You go to

the Park Service, that Mr. Laverty has pointed out. It’s probably

got bigger problems. Camping fees, you’re in that area; how do we

do user fees. Now we get into recreation areas, like we have at the

Flaming Gorge and we have a the Glen Canyon Recreation Area.

We have reclamation problems. I’ve got something here that talks

about the two dollar fee at Flaming Gorge just isn’t making it anymore. That’s two dollar vehicle per day fee.
25

So how do you make a fit-all, and I think Mr. Berry’s right.

There is no thing where you can make it fit everything. So as we

look at this, we’re going to have to be very careful in figuring out

how we do this. If we could just take what the Department of Interior has under the Park Service, and even that would be, those remote parks that you drive to.

Mr. Gallegly made an interesting point. What about these western, drive-to parks. They don’t have walk-in people in those areas.

People that go in those areas do go in with a lot of money, pulling

their Suburban with their Winnebago, and all that type of thing.

And to think that they can’t pay a few bucks is unbelievable.

Yet, on the other hand, how do you handle it in a historic park,

where there’s no way to stop anybody from coming in. Then it becomes a rather difficult situation. So I worked with Mr. Regula on

this first experiment. We may have to move along very carefully as

we do this, but the input has been very valuable today, and I would

hope we could all work together. And the next panels coming up,

of course, will have some very interesting approaches to it. And

that’s all this is, is we’re trying to figure out how to do this so it

benefits the people in America.

We hear a lot of folks say, doggone it, I pay my taxes, I shouldn’t

pay anything for these things. Well, that’s kind of hard to believe

in some instances, because other people who don’t use them say,

well why should I pay for them? So we find ourselves in kind of

this interesting position.

We do have a vote on. I do appreciate the excellent testimony

from our first panel. I’ll recess the Committee briefly. I would urge

all members to come back, and I’ll try to collect a few more, and

we’ll come right to the second panel as soon as we return. So we

stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The meeting will come to order.

We are happy that on our second panel we have Derrick

Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition, Philip

David Voorhees, Associate Director of Policy and Development, National Parks and Conservation Area, and our friend from Arizona,

Gaylord Stavely, vice president, National Forest Recreation Association.

It’s always good to have you gentlemen with us. And Derrick,

we’ll start with you. Is that all right? You have all been here many

times. You know the rules. Try to stay within 5 minutes. We want

your testimony, however.

STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

RECREATION COALITION

Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s a delight to be here to talk about a topic on which you have such a

strong and positive role. As you know, ARC represents a range of

interests that include companies and associations representing the

manufacturers of tents and motorhomes and canoes, bicycles and

much more, as well as enthusiast organizations that represent millions of Americans involved in downhill skiing and camping and

fishing and many other kinds of activities.
26

In fact, fees were catalysts for bringing the American Recreation

Coalition into existence in 1979. We’ve told you before that we

would like to continue a policy of free lunch. However, we have

learned that the free lunch comes with a price. It’s hard to demand

a great menu and top food when you are not paying the tab.

We also understood that other consequences arise. We found that

without paying we could not justify the demands for continued

recreation excellence. We found that campgrounds in our national

forests were opening later. And millions of people who came to use

those campgrounds during the shoulder seasons found locked gates.

We saw declines in the numbers of interpretive programs and declines in the quality of trails across this country.

During the time of the President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors the Nation engaged in a debate, and I believe we came

to a consensus that while we shouldn’t support the entire Federal

recreation program on the basis of recreation fees, it was legitimate

to look to the direct beneficiaries, those people who actually come

to the public lands, for a greater share of the cost of providing

those recreation programs.

In fact, our studies show only about 26 percent of the American

public visits a Federal recreation site of any type administered by

any agency in any year. We heard that agencies had little incentive, though, to charge higher recreation fees, since the fees they

now collected disappeared into a variety of special accounts in the

black hole, and it left the Forest Service, the National Park Service, BLM managers on the ground unable to respond to a very simple question from the visitors: Where do our fees go?

This Subcommittee provided leadership that ultimately was

acted on by Chairman Regula to create the fee demonstration program that is the subject of this hearing. Its design work largely

came through your work here in 1995 on your bill H.R. 2107.

In general, we believe that the fee demonstration program which

resulted is laudable and has been successful. The report to the

Congress on the first full year of the fee demonstration program

displays a range of new approaches, which together are increasing

recreation program budgets of four key agencies by some $150 million each year.

For the first time Federal recreation program personnel now

have the incentive to go out there and listen to their customers. As

we’ve told you in the past, we support Federal recreation fee programs which meet five tests.

First, fees need to be equitable. Second, the fee system itself

needs to be efficient. Third, fees need to be convenient for the recreationist, and we’ve heard some concerns about that topic already

this morning. Fourth, the fee system needs to be coherent, flexible

and integrated. Finally, the fee revenues need to be returned to

benefit the resources, facilities and programs utilized by those paying the bill.

In general we find that the fee demonstration implemented by

the four agencies have met these goals. We are excited about the

use of the fee demonstration program, for example to preserve the

lookout towers in western national forests—that’s an exciting story

that the Washington Post recently told—and to provide new interpretation services on the Pike, Arapaho and Roosevelt National
27

Forests for families coming to cut their Christmas trees and finding

a nice surprise, people who could share with them the learning opportunities that they could find as a family on the national forest.

We find that effective fee programs will help Federal agencies become more consumer-focused, which is hard to accomplish when 95

percent of the budgets previously had been determined a year in

advance here within the beltway.

We are proud to say that ARC and the Recreation Roundtable

are actively involved in providing guidance and advice to the Federal agencies across the country. We’ve provided top marketing and

communications executives from Disney, REI and other companies

to work with the Enterprise Forests in southern California, for example, and in developing communication efforts for dozens of Forest Service fee sites across the country.

We also give our warm thanks to you and to Chairman Regula

for upholding a commitment to making the fee demonstration receipts supplemental to the general appropriations for Federal recreation programs of the four agencies.

But we can’t praise the program in its entirety. We have several

concerns. First, we believe that the program has several specific fee

flaws that need to be rectified. Most reflect poor communications,

but some have deeper roots. Second, we believe that there have

been some outstanding innovation already by the agencies involved, but far more ideas and approaches can and should be tested.

Let me just quickly run through some of our concerns. There is

an inequity in fee collections going on out there right now. Those

enjoying the services of outfitters, guides and other commercial

services end up paying more, and more consistently.

This is largely because they are already assessed a fee through

the concession’s special use permit on the agencies’ part, as opposed to the non-outfitted guest on the national forest. Second, because they are identifiable through the commercial service they are

universally assessed, whereas those coming on in a non-outfitted

way are subject to the enforcement efforts of the Federal agencies

and, frankly, oftentimes get a free ride.

Our second concern involves use of the new fee demonstration

authority in ways which undercut and jeopardize the operation of

commercial providers on public lands. We have sparked the entrepreneurial fires of Federal employees throughout the Nation. We

are finding, however, that sometimes this entrepreneurial spirit

blinds the Federal agencies to the benefits of long-term partnerships with other agencies at the state and local level or with companies, for example those who are providing concession campgrounds and other kinds of services.

We don’t believe that the Forest Service should lose sight of the

fact that even though they might be able to collect all the revenues

from a Snowbird, it would make no sense for the Forest Service to

try to operate a ski area like Snowbird directly.

We think that our concerns are largely the result of a new tool

being handed to Federal officials who are very hard-pressed to

meet growing and changing demands for recreation. They think of

it, in many cases, of fees as a universal wrench able to fix all problems, and it is not.
28

Thanks to you and to the Congress and to the agencies themselves, we know that providing high quality recreation in America

will take a number of tools, including encouragement of volunteer

efforts, use of funding from ISTEA and other kinds of Federal programs, partnerships with private sectors as concessionaires and

special permittees, partnerships with states and local agencies in

a wide variety of ways, corporate support through sponsorships and

work with non-profit organizations.

In general we believe that the fee demonstration program has already been a great success and deserves to continue for at least

two more years so we can learn through the process of the projects

underway. We think that there are some additional needs to develop a broad recreation strategy for the Federal agencies, and I

want to encourage you to recommend to the agencies to do that.

Among those lessons that still are unlearned would be use of differential pricing between peak and non-peak periods of the years,

and linkages between the rich and the poor sites. We heard today,

for example, evidence that some national park and some national

forest areas will certainly be able to bring in enough revenue to

run well the recreation programs at that site.

However, there are other sites which will never be able to implement a strong fee program. There are ways, though, to link those.

For example, to use an example here in Washington, we could reward volunteers working on the C&O Canal or on the mall here

in Washington with free access to Shenandoah National Park.

There are ways to combine this program with other mechanisms to

increase overall the opportunities for recreation in this country.

We heard repeatedly concerns about the social equity and whether local people or the economically disadvantaged are being priced

out of our public lands. Certainly we don’t want to see that occur.

However, we now, under the fee demonstration, could see enhanced

use of such devices as free access days, where we simply decide

that during certain non-peak periods families and individuals alike

could come in without a fee as a way to encourage them to use

their land.

And there are other things in our testimony that we are suggesting. We appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Finally, we would suggest just a couple of changes that you

might well be able to work either with the Chairman Regula or

through stand-alone authorization for this program coming through

the Resources Committee.

First of all, we would suggest strongly a prohibition on the use

of the authority of the fee demonstration program to ‘‘replace, disrupt or jeopardize the provision of public recreation services on

Federal lands by permittees and concessionaires.’’

Secondly, we would encourage new direction on the type of fee

strategies to be tested during the demonstration period, including

as I mentioned peak and off-peak pricing strategies to encourage

volunteerism and free access periods.

Third, a provision for modest growth in the number of sites permitted under the program. At this point the agencies are limited

to no more than 100 sites. The Park Service has shown that they

have 100 sites up and running right now and may deserve an increase beyond that.
29

Fourth, a refocusing of the use of receipts in needed, because

there is some concern about the need to show the public where

their funds are going, and we’ve suggested some language that we

think would help to encourage the visibility of use of the fees.

And finally, we specifically endorse allowing inclusion of special

use permit revenues as fee demonstration projects, and that has

been addressed in questions of the previous panel. Such things as

outfitter guide permits would be specifically allowed.

We thank you very much for the time to be with you here this

morning and look forward to working with you on this exciting program. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you Mr. Crandall. Mr. Voorhees.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP DAVID VOORHEES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARKS AND

CONSERVATION AREA

Mr. VOORHES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Again, I know NPCA was before you just 2

days ago testifying on the film fee matter. I appreciate the access

they provide us.

Since its initiation in 1996, the demonstration fee program has

proven valuable by almost any metric that you want to use. It’s

brought more revenue into the national parks, and it has begun to

educate park managers about the public acceptance of entrance

and use fees, options for fee collections and the kind of collateral

benefits that increased fee collections or fee collections of any kind

can bring.

The program has also been dynamic in raising a variety of issues

that Congress should address once the program reaches its conclusion. Some of those issues include the appropriate method of interagency revenue-sharing, the appropriateness of specific types of use

and entrance fees, the possibility of eventual fee caps and the distribution of revenues within the National Park Service.

In my testimony today I want to limit my comments to the National Park Service fee program alone, inasmuch as we concentrate

fairly closely on NPS.

First, with regard to entrance fees, I think there’s no question

but that the public has been broadly accepting of the fees that have

been raised at the 100 sites or nearly 100 sites that have been included in the demonstration fee program.

Before the program began in 1995 NPCA conducted a national

survey asking the question of the public’s acceptance of fee increase. We found that 70 percent of those surveyed responded they

were not opposed to an increase from an average, at that time, of

$5 per carload for a visit of up to 7 days.

A year later, still before the fee demonstration program began,

we conducted another survey and probed a little bit more deeply

into that, and I think the results here are telling. Based on per person rather than a per carload assessment, we asked at a variety

of different levels what is the public’s tolerance, if you will, to pay

certain increases.
30

We found that 56 percent of respondents would support an increase of $5 per person and as support gradually dropped to about

20 percent, that increase rose to about $10 per person.

I don’t think the specific dollar figures here have a tremendous

amount of relevance because we are talking about apples and oranges and per person as opposed to per carload and such, but they

do clearly show that there is a limit of public acceptance of fee increases, obviously the higher you go.

So my question would be in this form, and I implore the Committee to consider how much is too much. Now in some circumstances in some parks the fees have been doubled or even tripled. In some circumstances that may be well be warranted, but

there clearly are limits. And as the Committee considers where to

go next with regard to the fee program, I think that close consideration ought to be given to exactly what are the upper limits.

Now use fees might be in some circumstances a little bit different

kind of situation. There have been circumstances in the Park Service’s program in which use fees have met somewhat more limited

acceptance.

I think the best example is the private boater fees at the Grand

Canyon, and the Private Boaters Association is going to be here

testifying I am sure to that effect today where currently, I believe,

before you even dip an oar in the water, if you are a private boater

and waiting an average of 8 years to get on the river, you pay $200

in waiting fees, if you will, while you are waiting and then another

$100 before you get on the river. So before you ever dip an oar in

the water you’ve paid $300 for the privilege of getting on the river.

That seems a little bit excessive. I don’t necessarily want to

damn the Park Service for exploring this kind of exercise, this kind

of use fee, because I think that’s exactly the purpose of the demonstration fee program, to specifically explore the parameters of

what the public acceptance is and what kinds of fees should and

shouldn’t be charged.

I just would say that as the Committee moves forward with its

consideration of how the fee program has been moving along, they

should look closely at examples of excess and provide some moderation where it’s warranted.

Given the fact that there are clearly some hitches if you will as

the fee program progresses, I wonder if the length of time that’s

been allowed the demonstration program to lay out or to roll out

is really adequate. NPCA would ask that the Committee consider

extending the program for perhaps another 5 years and in fact

broadening the scope for the Park Service beyond the 100 units

that are now authorized to include all units.

Now that doesn’t mean that I am saying all units should charge

fees, but rather the Park Service should be given the authority to

extend it to any and all units they see might work. That way you

can develop a much more sophisticated baseline, again, of what is

and isn’t appropriate, what is and may not be the levels of public

tolerance for fees in specific circumstances before the Congress

steps in and makes the program permanent.

Another question is distribution of fees with the Park Service.

There are a limited number of sites that have had spectacular success in the fees that they’ve raised. In fact the Grand Canyon again
31

is a good example in which the fees they have collected have exceeded their operations budget. Now that’s fairly alarming notation. I think there might be others here today who would say, ‘‘Well

why not cut them free and let them float and not support them

with tax revenues?’’

I would say that for those folks who would make that argument

that they look at the purpose of the fee program which is to address the backlog. In the Canyon alone the backlog for maintenance and infrastructure exceeds $15 million, which if you never

added to the backlog would take 10 years to resolve given the current fee stream.

On the issue of additional of additional research, the Park Service constructed the program as it is essentially in going out to the

units that were charging fees now and gave them an open question

as to how they should proceed.

Before the Congress makes this a permanent program I would

implore that they ask the Park Service to do some more sophisticated analysis, which would explore what are the limits of public

acceptance but also what are the limits of fee collection at which

you start to have some demographic impacts on who can and cannot go to the national parks.

In no circumstances should we construct a fee program that

would affect the demographics and affect the willingness of anybody in America to go and use the national parks, no matter what

their economic or social mean.

Lastly, I’d like to say that public fees, use fees, entrance fees are

really only a part of the equation. The Park Service certainly is facing a broad number of financial issues and has for quite some time.

Public fees are a part of that. When the issue of raising entrance

fees and use fees was first considered in the Congress some years

ago, we came and said then that private fees have to be a part of

this. When I say ‘‘private’’ I mean concessions fees, filming fees,

which the Committee is now addressing.

In the last Congress we again came close on the issue of concessions reform, and I think—and I hope—that before the Congress

moves any further with more public fees or raising the public fees

or making the program permanent, that we would again sit down

and finally resolve the issue of concessions reform.

With that I’d like to conclude my comments with one final caveat. It has been expressed before here, and that’s that the Committee always keep a close eye on the fact that these fees should

remain supplemental and not supplant existing appropriated funds.

I think there’s broad recognition on the part of the Committee and

I believe on the part of the Congress, but I think that there’s reiteration.

With that I’ll conclude. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Voorhes may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Stavely.
32

STATEMENT OF GAYLORD STAVELY, VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. STAVELEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. The National Forest Recreation Association represents

private sector business persons who own or operate, developed sites

such as resorts, lodges, pack stations, campgrounds and marinas on

the national forests for the use and enjoyment of the public. Those

include both public and private facilities.

There are by Forest Service count some 1,700 private businesses

on the forests. Overall they have a multi-billion dollar investment

in structures, facilities and equipment used to serve the visiting

public; and they contribute millions of dollars in privilege fees to

the Federal treasurer every year.

NFRA’s interest in the recreation fee demonstration program

springs from harmful effects the program has already had on a

number of these businesses and could have on them and others in

the future. NFRA is not presently opposed to the recreation fee

demonstration idea. It may be good for a recreation-managing

agency or a unit of that agency to have more than one source of

revenue, and it’s certainly not unfair to ask a visitor to pay for the

use of a facility or an amenity on a national forest.

We do however strongly object to the use of fee demonstration

projects to harm, displace or subrogate concessioner operations.

There has for some time been a faction within the Forest Service

that advocates taking back the visitor services, both public and private, that have been concessioned out to the private sector, believing that the jobs and revenues at those sites would then go to Forest Service employees. Some in the agency now see fee demonstration as an income base for taking back those sites and have begun

using it that way.

During the first year we’ve seen fee demonsatration used to displace or subrogate concessioned operations in a number of ways

which include the following: The stripping, shortening or otherwise

changing of an existing permit (for which the Forest Service euphemism is ‘‘permit renegotiation,’’) refusing to renew a permit for

which there is a pattern of past renewals, setting a new fee and

taking the revenue from it while shifting its related maintenance

costs over to a concessioner, pressuring the concessioner to manipulate concession fees up or down so the Forest Service fee will seem

less objectionable or more affordable.

Many Forest Service field employees ignored the parameters of

the 1996 fee demonstration authorization. A year ago the Chief of

the Forest Service was finding it necessary to issue a letter to his

regional foresters prohibiting displacement of concessions based on

recreation fee demonstration projects.

The Chief’s letter notwithstanding, new instances of fee demonstration impingements on concessionaires continued to be reported throughout the summer of 1997. By September there was

sufficient concern in the Senate that in a September 18th Colloquy

on the Senate floor Senator John Kyl said that, ‘‘at some fee demonstration sites there appears to be an intent to discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of recreation goods and services.’’
33

Senator Larry Craig cited a new Heritage exhibition program

that essentially puts the Forest Service into the outfitter guide

business. Senator Slade Gorton reiterated that ‘‘concessioner displacement was not an intent of the fee demonstration program.’’

Toward the end of the last session an amendment to the 1988

Appropriations bill was being discussed, to assert the parameters

of fee demonstration. The Forest Service opposed that amendment

on the grounds that they don’t want to relinquish their authority

to take back concessions.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, not enough is yet known about how

or whether fee demonstration funds and appropriated funds can be

blended to assure the continued availability of safe, enjoyable visitor services on the Federal lands. More demonstration is needed

that the fees will be used for resource protection and maintenance

and not as a Forest Service jobs program. More assurances are

needed that the Forest Service cannot use the fee demonstration

program to damage, displace or compete with its concessionaires.

If fee demonstration were permanently authorized and then at

some point the Administration or the Congress were to renege on

earlier promises and treat locally collected fees as an appropriation

offset, we believe the Forest Service would then feel they have a

legislated license to extract as much money as possible from concessionaires without regard for the ability of the private sector to

pay those fees and still continue to provide safe facilities and quality service.

The Forest Service needs private sector business and financial

help and is likely to need them increasingly in the future. Fee demonstration was sold to the concessioner community on the basis

that it would provide new flexibility to the agencies and attract

more private investment to the improvement of recreation and visitor facilities and services on the public lands.

The effect of fee demonstration thus far has been to discourage

private investment and employee tenure at national forest recreation sites. We would like to see the fee demonstration program or

something like it succeed, but we urge that it not be permanently

authorized at this time or without legislated direction.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Staveley may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the excellent testimony

from all three of our panelists. I do have some questions, but we’ve

go two more panels to go. We may submit those to you if that’s alright. We’d appreciate a response from you. We’ll thank you and

excuse you from the front table there in terms of our next panel.

Mr. James D. Santini, a former Member of Congress from the

National Tour Association; Craig Mackey, Public Policy Liaison,

Outward Bound; Mary Margaret Sloan, Conservation Director of

the American Hiking Society and Holly Fretwell, Research Associate, Political Economy Research Center.

If you folks would like to come up and take your places, we’d appreciate it. We appreciate your being with us. Do your best to stay

within your time, I’d appreciate it if you could. We are going to run

out of time for this room, which has got me a little concerned.
34

Our former colleague, Mr. Santini, it’s good to see you. We’ll

start with you. Is that all right?

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. SANTINI, WASHINGTON DC REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TOUR ASSOCIATION AND FORMER

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Mr. SANTINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll do my best. I adhere

to the same clock that Mr. Crandall was speaking to. I offer this

testimony on behalf of the NTA, a Lexington, Kentucky-based

international package travel association of 627 companies.

Over the last 2 years—I should say probably 12 years—NTA has

been working closely with the National Park Service to make demonstration fee programs and public-private cooperation a success.

Most of our associations’ tour operator members regard the national parks, historic, heritage sites as lifetime experiences for their

group clients who are traveling together for economy, efficiency, security and social interaction. That is the basis of packaged travel.

For many of America’s senior citizens and school-aged travelers,

this is the only way they will ever be able to share the natural and

historic wonders offered by park destinations.

NTA membership also includes 850 local, state, provincial, destination marketing offices, the convention and visitor bureaus; and

2,255 tourist suppliers that include attractions, hotels, motels, restaurants, bus companies, airlines and receptive operators.

In the 1996 Davidson–Peterson Association economic study packaged travel industry generated over $11.6 billion to the U.S. economy, of which $9.6 billion was spent at the local level.

Today, Mr. Chairman, NTA will respond to your request for oversight commentary on the demonstration fee program. At the outset

we applaud the innovative attempt by the U.S. Congress to create

opportunity for public land agencies to apply on-the-ground, real

world experiences in crafting the greatly expanded entrance and

use fee program.

Since the adoption of the fee demonstration program it has been

NTA’s predominant experience that the National Park Service has

established an agency policy to do whatever it can to make the congressionally mandated fee demonstration program succeed.

Regrettably NTA cannot express the same positive experience

with the United States Forest Service during this same demonstration fee period.

At the Committee’s May 11, 1995 hearing on recreation fees on

public lands, NTA’s President, then Secretary-Treasurer, Keith

Kerfall enunciated four basic appeals to the National Park Service

in adopting any kind of fee program.

First, there should be equitable fee comparison between the individual and commercial group visitor. Second, Kerfall pressed for

adequate notice because most tour operator’s package 12 to 18

months in advance. Third, NTA urged the opportunity to be heard

for all impacted individual, group, and recreational park visitors

before the fee is adopted. And finally, Kerfall appealed for uniform

commercial and business use fee structures throughout this 370-

plus units of the national parks.

From the industry’s initial commercial fee crisis of September 19,

1994 in which the National Parks Conservation Associates inciden35

tally an ally in resolution, to the Yosemite National Park use permit panic of March 1995, the National Park Service has made constructive efforts to respond to NTA’s basic fee fairness concerns.

This ongoing communication culminated in the December 1996

announcement of the individual and commercial visitor fee program. With that fee program there was certainly an attempt to establish equity or parity as between the individual visitors and all

other users of the national parks. There was a 12-month deferred

period to enable the tour packager to catch up with the impending

increase in fee. And while all problems with demonstration fee programs have not been ironed out, all parties have experienced substantial progress toward the practical implementation of the publicprivate goal.

Further, the National Park Service took the NTA 1995 plea for

park uniformity seriously and established the—tier structure system. Our park partnership interaction continues with meetings

that continue this last month in Phoenix—Another meeting in the

upcoming month in Phoenix—to work out some of the park fee

problems at the Grand Canyon National Park, as between the various tiers of commercial entrants.

Mr. Chairman, you asked me to address another realm of less

successful fee demonstration resolution with the ill begotten air

tour commercial fees at Grand Canyon, Haleakala and Hawaiian

volcanoes. These fees were adopted without any industry opportunity to be heard or even Park Service support testimony by the

former National Park’s authorizing committee in the 1993 budget

reconciliation Act.

I have included in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, an enumeration

of all the fees that are presently being paid as a consequence of operating an air tour to and from the Grand Canyon. The cost per

visitor is anywhere from $20.35 to $24.13, which is double the comparative cost for any other park entrant. The largest percentage, 70

percent estimate, air tours do not land and take off from NPS

ground. There is a comparative user inequity for the air tour fee.

The air tour viewer utilizes no services, receives no direct benefit

of any kind. The air tour leaves no footprints, sandwich papers or

evidence of restroom use at the Grand Park or the Hawaiian Park.

It is without a question one of the most environmentally sensitive

ways for a disabled, physically limited, time-constrained visitor to

see the aerial grandeur of both the Grand Canyon and the Hawaiian parks.

There is no precedent for an entrance fee for only visual appreciation of a national park. There is a fleeting air noise impact that

has almost been totally eliminated by Public Law 100–91 and

SFAR 50–1. This is proven by the 1993 Park Service survey in

Grand Canyon National Park. Ninety-five percent of the ground

visitors reported no aircraft noise from whatever source. Interference with their park experience in 1996—only 25 written complaints out of 5 million park visitors about aircraft noise from the

plane.

At least to date no other Federal agency has attempted to start

taxing airspace users for sound impacts. With your direction and

reinforcement, Mr. Chairman, I believe we can find a sensible resolution to the 1999 National Park authorizing legislation.
36

Finally, again, speaking to the overall program, Mr. Chairman,

the NTA applauds this unprecedented opportunity to work together

with all the land management agencies. We hope you will authorize this partnership problem-solving program for at least 2 more

years beyond the 3-year termination date for the existing program.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and recommendations with you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santini may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Mackey.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG MACKEY, PUBLIC POLICY LIAISON,

OUTWARD BOUND

Mr. MACKEY. Good afternoon. I represent Outward Bound USA,

which is a non-profit educational institution and a leader in wilderness and experiential education.

For 37 years Outward Bound has had the privilege of conducting

extended back country expeditions to teach leadership, self-reliance

and wilderness skills.

Quite simply, parks, public lands and wilderness are our classroom. The Outward Bound system in this country has five wilderness schools and two urban centers. With operations in 25 states

and on scores of Federal resource units, we witness the fully array

of agency policies, procedures and fees.

I represent a leader in wilderness education. I also speak to you

as an outfitter. Outward Bound and other leading educators such

as Wilderness Inquiry and the National Outdoor Leadership School

(NOLS) operate as full commercial users of the public land.

In my comments I will address our support for fees and Outward

Bound’s experience with fees in the fee demonstration experiment,

including the issues of multiple fees, notification on fees, consistency of fees, and the need for equitable fees.

On our support for fees I’ll be brief. Public lands, as I said, are

our classroom. Outward Bound pays fees, probably more fees on

more units than any single entity in the country. We recognize the

need for and the merits of proper administration and maintenance

of our public resources.

That is why outdoor groups such as Outward Bound, NOLS, the

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, and others supported the

fee demonstration program.

To talk about the Outward Bound experience with fees, I’ll touch

on four issues. First, multiple fees. Fee demonstration has quite

simply produced fees upon fees. The most I’ve seen paid on a given

unit is five. Four is not uncommon. The usual suspects—franchise

fees, back country and camping fees, entrance and trail head fees,

parking fees and per-head-per-day fees. For each fee the time, point

or method of collection may vary.

Also, as fees increase, we need to remember and ensure that our

Federal lands remain open to all economic classes among the public.

The second issue I would mention is notification. When you think

of outfitters, think of small business. We set budgets, establish

costs, market and advertise. At Outward Bound our catalogs go out

a year in advance. The competition is quite simply brutal.
37

In one national park we are staring at a new fee that will increase Outward Bound’s costs from $303 in 1997 to over $7,000

this summer. The fee is proposed to start in May. As of this testimony today we have no written notification from the Park Service.

In another example, both Outward Bound and NOLS have had

a van-load of students stranded outside an entry station while our

field instructors located cash to pay a new or increased fee.

The third issue is consistency within each of the agencies. The

discrepancies in how fees are calculated, assessed and paid are dizzying. One unit requires a single permit and a single fee for sea

kayaking, mountaineering and ice climbing activities. Another unit

will charge a separate fee for each of those activities.

The fourth issue I would mention is equity. And here I’ll highlight compliance. Focus on Outward Bound for a minute as a back

country user. Our students comply with fees at a rate of 100 percent. In the case of the BLM and Forest Service, other back country users typically pay no fees or only voluntary fees. This includes

the public and most institutional groups such as scouts, church

groups and university programs.

If fees are the future, will the agencies find the resources to monitor and manage dispersed recreation such as Outward Bound’s use

or will the outfitter continue to carry the load? If fees are indeed

the future, fee demonstration must answer these and other fundamental questions.

In fee demonstration there have been successes. Public acceptance is higher where fees are equitable, stay with the resource and

the results from agency-reinvestment are tangible. We know the

Park Service is issuing directive to eliminate some of the duplicative fees that I talked about, and local Forest Service staff revamped a significant per-head-per-day-fee in the boundary waters

based on public and outfitter input.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, many questions remain. Outward

Bound is here today in support of fees and in support of the fee

demonstration experiment. Outward Bound would recommend that

this experiment run its course. It’s too early to make the program

permanent based on 1-year’s performance, and we’d ask that oversight activities such as this hearing today and the report that was

submitted on January 31, continue.

And in the future at the appropriate date Outward Bound and

other members of the outfitter community would be happy to sit

down with members of this Committee and help draft permanent

fee legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mackey may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mary Margaret Sloan, you have the

floor.

STATEMENT OF MARY MARGARET SLOAN, CONSERVATION

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

Ms. SLOAN. My name is Mary Margaret Sloan, and I am the conservation director for American Hiking Society, a national nonprofit

organization serving 10,000 individual members and the more than

500,000 members of our 120 affiliated clubs.
38

American Hiking supports the current recreation fee demonstra- tion program for a number of reasons. Revenues stay in the unit,

the oft-stated intent that appropriations will not be offset by the

fees, and because the fees address the enormous need for on-theground funding. However, it is our opinion that the demonstration

program is not being implemented with uniform, good success. The purpose of the demonstration program is to encourage the land management agencies to creatively implement different fee

collection projects. Some of these projects are just now getting underway. We have not had an opportunity to adequately evaluate

the effectiveness of the fees or how the agencies are spending their

revenues. We urge the Subcommittee to let the demonstration program run its course and wait until 1999 or beyond to propose a

permanent program. In order for this Subcommittee and the Congress to create a suc- cessful and positive recreation fees program, the concerns of hikers

and other recreationists paying the fee should be carefully considered. To that end, American Hiking suggests several principles

which can contribute to a successful program, some of which are

a part of the current demonstration program and some which

should be added or changed.

First, the fees must be fair and equitable and not prohibit anyone from visiting our public lands. Second, the fee collection must

be convenient and not unduly interfere with the recreation experience sought by the park visitor. Third, any fee system must consider and encourage park volunteers, and fourth, the legislation

should clearly state that fee revenues should not offset general appropriations.

Fees which are assessed against the general public for parks and

forests must be fair and equitable. Multiple layers of fees are onerous and may discourage lower-income Americans from visiting our

public lands. I have excerpted a letter from an AHS member from

Austin, Texas, and I quote:

‘‘May 8, 1997. Perhaps you can’t be of help, but I just need to

know what can be done, if anything. During the first week of

June 1997, I’m taking my oldest daughter, her husband, and

six of their children to the Grand Canyon. My daughter is a

cafeteria aide and her husband is a porter at a local car dealership. These are obviously low-income people, and it’s because

of my determination that they’re going on this trip at all. I

have already paid $60 for two campsites at Mather Campground at the Grand Canyon, but I am hoping there is not an

additional entrance fee or per-person fee like I read. Since I’m

also planning on taking them to the Petrified Forest and Painted Desert, and possibly some other natural parks and monuments on the way there and back, including Carlsbad Caverns

and Guadalupe Mountains, this means additional entrance

fees, et cetera. At any rate, all of these entrance fees will take

a heavy toll on my daughter and her husband.

‘‘Is there anything you can advise me to do to help cut the expense of this family vacation? We had started planning this

last year, well before the demonstration fees were mentioned,

and my children were rather discouraged when they took effect.’’
39

That’s the end of the letter.

Because of the cumulative fees, this woman did not take her

grandchildren to the Grand Canyon in 1997. This letter demonstrates the need for more sensitivity to those who are less well

off. Even so, this woman’s complaints transcend income. Simplicity

and affordability should be the order of business for the Federal

agencies. Fees, particularly in popular parks like the Grand Canyon should be re-evaluated for their impact on lower-income communities.

Entrance and user fees should be reasonable and convenient and

unobtrusive into the hiking and trail experience. Fees should apply

to as wide an area as possible. Regional or statewide fees are optimal.

In November 1997, the Mountaineers, a 15,000-member outdoor

recreation and conservation group based in Washington State,

hosted its second annual user fee conference. Attendees voiced

strong support for a regional fee requirement. They also complained about the current multiplicity of user fees, with a different

sticker required for every trailhead, which leads to frustration,

makes compliance difficult, and will likely result in keeping all but

the wealthiest citizens off of public lands.

All of the land-managing agencies should actively cultivate and

pursue volunteers as one way to offset budget shortfalls and to generate public support and goodwill.

May I have one more minute to conclude?

Last year, the USDA Forest Service issued a forestwide memorandum encouraging the forests to work closely with current volunteers when implementing a new fee, and also to use fee waivers to

encourage increased volunteerism. American Hiking thinks fee

waivers for on-the-ground volunteer work will prove to be a useful

tool for the forests.

American Hiking Society feels quite strongly than any revenue

generated from the fees should not be used to offset appropriations.

We hope that this intent will be made clear and prominent in any

recreation fees legislation.

Thank you for the invitation to testify. I look forward to answering any questions the Subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sloan may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Our next, Holly Fretwell, we turn the time to you.

STATEMENT OF HOLLY FRETWELL, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE,

POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER

Ms. FRETWELL. Thank you. First, I’d like to commend Congress

for creating the fee demonstration program. It is a great step toward self-sufficiency in our popular national parks. The program

has already generated in excess of $45 million for selected national

parks. These parks have been able to keep 80 percent of the new

fee revenues. New legislation offers even greater potential for selfsufficiency by allowing participants to retain 100 percent of fee revenues.

I’m here today to urge Congress to make additional reform, so

that our popular parks can become totally self-supporting, at least
40

operationally. Why self-supporting? Requiring parks to be self-supporting will motivate managers to create more services for visitors,

maintain our parks in better condition, and importantly, to become

financially responsible in this process. Right now we have very little incentive for financial responsibility at our parks. Exorbitant

spending for our employee housing and $330,000 outhouses are

simply two examples of wasteful spending in our parks. It’s not very well-known, but our early national parks were cre- ated on the premise that they would be operationally self-sufficient.

In 1916, five of our national parks, indeed, were operationally selfsufficient, with fee revenues exceeding operating expenses. Here are some of the remaining shortfalls that stand in the way of our parks to become self-sufficient:

First, only one-fourth of our parks are now part of the fee dem- onstration program. There are a lot more parks that could be added

to this.

Second, despite the recent fee hikes, entrance fees are still unrealistically low in many parks. For example, the Golden Eagle Passport costing only $50, allows a carload of passengers to enter as

many national parks as they like, as many times ad they like in

a single year. This fee could be considerably higher. The Golden

Age Passport allows senior citizens the same right. It costs them

only $10 for an entire lifetime. Now this is a group that is being

subsidized greatly here, and I do believe they are capable of paying

at least a reasonable fee.

Entrance fees at Yellowstone and Yosemite are still fairly low, even with the fee demonstration program. It costs only $20 for a

family of four to visit Yellowstone for seven consecutive days. In

comparison, that same family would pay $40 to visit Disneyland for

a single day, and they would pay an equivalent or more than the

$20 to see a movie for a day—or for several hours at that. Changing fees in our parks to reflect market prices would not only raise

revenues in our parks, but it would also begin to address some of

the overcrowding problems that plague our national parks. Third, we need stronger incentives for park managers to spend funds wisely. Presently, managers are motivated to spend all the

funds they are allocated. We could change this motivation by allowing cost savings to remain as a future budget enhancement in our

parks.

Our State parks are a great example and show us self-supporting parks are a realistic goal. There are now 16 State parks that generate more than half of their operating costs from user fees. New

Hampshire and Vermont are 100 percent self-sufficient in their

park operations. Dramatic changes have taken place in many

parks. Texas and California, for example, have encouraged increased fee revenues and budget cost savings. State parks are becoming better stewards of the land, and they are responding to visitor demand. Many parks are making greater efforts to manage the

resource amenities.

Thanks to Congress, the National Park Service is making

progress for autonomy at selected national parks, but further

changes are, indeed, needed. I recommend the following:

Congress should begin by holding appropriations to individual

parks at current levels. Future budget increases would come from
41

higher revenues and cost savings. Congress must allow managers

to institute their own fees, taking into account rising demand and

park resources. This could address some of the facts we’ve discussed today, such as resident and nonresident fees and peak-season and shoulder fees.

Congress must also allow park managers to keep all costs savings as an enhancement for subsequent year’s budget. For responsible capital spending, each park should have a park endowment

fund. This could be spent at the discretion of park management for

capital maintenance and improvement. Funds could come from a

portion of concession receipts or user fees or private investment in

the form of bonds.

Again, I would just like to reiterate that allowing parks to be

self-supporting motivates managers to respond to park visitors and

park resources, and at the same time it encourages fiscal responsibility.

Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to speak

today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fretwell may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentlelady from Idaho.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. That was very interesting testimony.

I’d be very curious how we would work that endowment fund.

We’ve thought about that around here a few times.

I have a few questions, but I’m supposed to get out of this room

in a little while. So if it’s OK with everybody, I’ll dismiss you and

move to the next panel.

Panel No. 4: Mr. Bachrach, Mr. Dingman, and Mr. Coyne. Would

they all come forward, please?

Is that right; is it Bachrach?

STATEMENT OF JOHN CHRISTOPHER BACHRACH, TREASURER

AND BOARD MEMBER, GRAND CANYON PRIVATE BOATERS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. BACHRACH. Bachrach.

Mr. HANSEN. You’re first.

Mr. BACHRACH. I’ve heard way worse.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our

thoughts on the demonstration fee special use cost recovery programs. My name is John Bachrach, and I’ve come from Flagstaff

to represent the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. We are

a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that was formed in 1996 to give

a voice to the private, noncommercial, or self-guided river-running

population who, until now, have had no voice in Park Service policy

matters that affect the boating community.

Briefly, I will outline the fees a person must pay in order to conduct or participate in a private, self-guided river trip on the Colorado River. These fees include two different authorities: cost recovery and fee demonstration.

First, the cost recovery program: In order to be accepted onto the

Grand Canyon National Park’s wait list, you must pay $100. Then
42

to remain on this list until your turn has come up, you will have

to pay $25 per year. The current wait is likely to be 18 years.

Therefore, you will pay a total of $550 before you ever see the

river. When you’re finally able to launch, you’ll pay another $200. Second, the demonstration fees: Under this authority, you and each participant in your trip will pay $10 for entry into the park

and $4 per night for every night spent in the park. Combined,

these river-running fees constitute a 1,200 percent increase and

were implemented with no public input.

Before the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association could sup- port continued advocation or further expansion and implementation

of the fee demonstration program, we would need to be assured

that the program meets several important criteria. They are as follows:

One, fees must be applied equitably and fairly to all persons, businesses, and corporate entities engaged in similar activities on

America’s public lands.

Two, fees must not be used as a tool to limit access to America’s

public lands or waterways. Three, fees must be consistent in both their assessment and administration.

As a group, we are very concerned that the fee demonstration

program does not currently pass any of these fairness tests. In the

case of the Grand Canyon River-running, fees are not presently applied fairly to all users engaged in similar activities. Most of our

members and the private boaters we have surveyed have no objection to paying their fair share of the park’s operating costs. In contrast to the collected noncommercial fees, fees paid by the commercial outfitters are not used to recover the Park Service’s management expenses. Outfitters pay franchise fees, and in the case of the

Grand Canyon, river-runners pay—river outfitters pay into the Colorado River Fund. Neither of these is used to offset river operations

costs.

Consequently, outfitter patrons pay no fees directly to the park.

A system that provided for the commercial patrons to pay the same

fees for similar uses as the self-guided, in our view, would be a fair

system.

The imposition of fees has apparently been used as a tool to limit

access for the private boater in the Grand Canyon. The Department of Interior’s press releases assure the public that they would

be involved in the development of the fee demonstration program

process, but as far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, not one public hearing was conducted before the announcement and implementation of the new fee structure. This sudden and enormous fee increase took the boating public by surprise and resulted in slowing

the growth rate of the park’s wait list by 30 percent.

In 1998, for the first time in the history of the Colorado River

running, the total number of hopefuls on the wait list declined by

more than 1,000. This is the number of people out of 6,000 who did

not renew their names on the waiting list. If the point of raising

the price was to discourage self-guided use of the Canyon, then the

fee demonstration program has been a success.

The long wait, coupled with the high fees, has nurtured the feeling among the river community that the annual fee is actually a
43

penalty meant to discourage them from future participation. Current and former Park Service employees at the Grand Canyon have

stated that they felt fee demonstration charges were being used to

curb the growth of the park’s private boating wait list. Park staff

had calculated an attrition rate of up to 30 percent for the noncommercial boating wait list.

The current fee demonstration program is inconsistent and unfair when compared with other fee programs imposed on public

lands. Comparing the use of public lands by cows to humans would

seem ridiculous, but those of us living in the West know from simple observation that overgrazing by itself causes more damage to

the resources in question than wilderness use by most humans.

Boaters and hikers are now paying $4 per night for every night

they spend in the Grand Canyon. Presently, it costs less than $10

for a cow to spend a year in the wilderness. This comparison looks

even more extreme when fitted into the larger picture that includes

annual fees for mining, logging, and other resource-consuming activities that take place on public lands.

Additionally, we are concerned with the classification of riverrunning at Grand Canyon National Park as a special use and the

precedent that special use classification may set for other low-impact, human-powered activity on public lands. Because Grand Canyon National Park has classified noncommercial river-running as a

special park use, the park attempts to recover 100 percent of the

cost of managing this use, in contrast to other park activities,

which receive almost all their funding from the park’s general

fund.

Special park use includes activities that are outside of the normal range of activities in a park—for example, holding a wedding

ceremony or filming a movie. Historically speaking, one of the first

uses of what eventually became Grand Canyon National Park

began with river-running and a character named John Wesley Powell. A river trip on the Colorado is a special experience for sure, but

river-running is definitely not outside the normal range of activities in the park, and therefore, we feel that it is not a special use.

In closing, before private boaters can support the fee demonstration program, we need to be sure that the criteria for fairness is

in place. We once again submit the following as guidelines:

One, fees must be applied fairly to all users engaged in similar

activities.

Two, fees must not be used as a tool to limit access.

And, three, administration of fees must be consistently assessed

to all resource users.

We sincerely thank Representative Hansen’s office for this opportunity to present our perspective.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bachrach may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. That’s an interesting comparison you had there.

Mr. BACHRACH. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Dingman?
44

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DINGMAN, AMERICAN

MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DINGMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Dingman, and I’m the Washington representative of the American Motorcyclist

Association, an organization with over 222,000 motorcycle enthusiast members. I have a written statement, which I will summarize, and ask that it be included as part of the official hearing

record.

Derrick Crandall discussed five essential principles which must

be contained in any recreation fee proposal. We would like to lend

our voice to the call for a fee program which contains those elements.

Many of the fees imposed under the recreational fee demonstra- tion program, however, have not met the essential criteria that the

fees be coherent and integrated. My comments pertain specifically

to the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management,

as the other agencies don’t provide recreational opportunities for

off-highway vehicle enthusiasts. Several States have for many years had user fee programs that are funded by the payment of registration fees for off-highway vehicles, and a small percentage of State motor fuel tax, which are returned in the form of grants to various land management entities,

including Federal land management agencies, for the development,

operation, and maintenance of recreational facilities.

For example, as Mrs. Chenoweth already mentioned, the State of California has perhaps the best-known such program, which is

commonly referred to as the Green Sticker Program, named for the

registration sticker required on vehicles ridden in areas funded by

the program. Both the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are beneficiaries of the program. According to data provided

by the Off-Highway Vehicle Division of the California Department

of Parks and Recreation, over the last several years Federal land

management agencies have received an average in excess of $10

million per year in grants from the Green Sticker Program. Another such program can be found in the State of Utah. According

to Utah’s Department of State Parks and Recreation, the income

generated in 1997 from both the $12.50-per-year off-highway vehicle registration fee and a portion of the State motor fuel tax is in

excess of $1.2 million. Of this amount, $175,000 was available in

1997 to Federal agencies for grants to off-highway vehicle facilities.

The Forest Service applied for, and received, just $74,000 of this

money. The BLM didn’t even apply for any grants, leaving over

$100,000 unexpended. With this amount available to land management agencies going unexpended, it doesn’t seem necessary to impose any additional fees on the off-highway vehicle community.

When the AMA last provided testimony on the subject of the imposition of fees at public recreation facilities, we expressed a lack

of confidence in the ability and willingness of the land management

agencies to conduct a program which provided the necessary protection against the duplication of fees. We cautioned against providing the agencies the latitude to impose a redundant fee on the

user group already paying for access to a particular facility, simply

because it was easy to charge them again.
45

The progress report on the fee demonstration program has proven our concerns to be well-founded. When the Forest Service and

the BLM issued their initial proposals for areas to be included in

the fee demonstration program, both proposed to charge fees at

some of the most popular off-highway vehicle areas, ranging from

$3 to $10 per day per area, while continuing to submit grant requests from State-imposed user fee programs that amount to an average of $1 million per grant per area. That’s right; our worse fears

were realized.

Consider, if you will, the motor fuel tax and the registration fee

comprising two layers of fees. The agency has proposed to impose

what amounts to a third layer of fees on a single group of users

who has been paying their way all along. As you can imagine, the

outcry from the off-highway vehicle community was intense. As a

result of this outcry, some of the most popular areas in the California desert district, managed by the BLM, were temporarily

taken off the list. I understand, however, that they are slated to

be reproposed in the near future.

In fact, over the President’s Day weekend, fliers were apparently

distributed by the BLM which announced that fees would be imposed beginning this April at the popular off-highway vehicle area,

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. This area already receives

nearly three-quarters of a million dollars a year from the California

Green Sticker program. The Forest Service only gave the off-highway vehicle community lip service when it came to discussing the

areas they had proposed for inclusion in the pilot program, which

were already being funded with user fees. They publicly expressed

a willingness to evaluate the areas they had chosen, but never took

any areas off the list.

One good example of this is the so-called Enterprise Forest, or

the Southern Province Forest, comprised of the four national forests in southern California. The situation on the Enterprise Forest

illustrates the third layer of fees that the off-highway vehicle community has been asked to pay. Since the demonstration program,

in addition to needing a green sticker on their vehicles, off-highway

vehicle enthusiasts have needed to purchase an adventure pass in

order to park their trucks and tow vehicles in staging areas that

were built and maintained with Green Sticker dollars.

Recently, an AMA affiliate, the Central Coast Motorcycle Association, held a Sunday event in Los Padres National Forest—if I

might, I have just a little bit more—held a Sunday event in the Los

Padres National Forest, one of the Enterprise Forest units. Forest

Service agents were on hand to sell the adventure passes to early

arrivals on Saturday, but due to the popularity of the event, the

agents ran out of permits early Saturday afternoon. The Forest

Service could not find any agents willing to work on Sunday to sell

the passes, but did manage to find law enforcement officers willing

to write tickets to every attendee. Even those who had managed to

buy a pass on Saturday before the supply was depleted were not

left out. The passes were for calendar days, not for 24-hour periods.

Since they had by then spent the night camping out in the forest,

the unlucky participants were now in violation.

Neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management

has done an acceptable job of ensuring that the fees they impose
46

are coherent and integrated. The AMA would only support permit

fee authority for the land management agencies provided that safeguards were put in place to ensure that our essential criteria are

met.

Perhaps permanent fee authority could be provided in a manner

which would allow fees imposed by States and then transferred to

Federal agencies in the form of grants to be scored as a fee generated by a land management agency for the purposes of satisfying

their responsibility for developing revenue from fees.

The challenge for land management agencies, it seems to me, is

to develop innovative ways of collecting fees from visitors to the facilities they manage, who have not traditionally been asked to pay

for the privilege of visiting those facilities. Instead of meeting this

challenge to their fullest potential, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have, from our perspective, taken the

easy way out and imposed fees on individuals from whom they

have already figured out a way to get fees.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments as part

of the official hearing record today. I’d be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingman may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Coyne?

STATEMENT OF ALASDAIR COYNE, CONSERVATION

DIRECTOR, KEEP THE SESPE WILD

Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to appear before you

today, to discuss Forest Service access fees, and my responsibility

to inform you that this well-intentioned program threatens many

of the principles held dear by Congress and the Forest Service,

while eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to serve

our common good.

In several decades of civic activism, I have never seen so many

people so outraged at a government program. The program is upsetting a great number of people, far out of proportion to the minimal fees collected. Democrats are upset at the commercializing of

public land. Republicans are upset about the inefficiency of a program rooted in the idea of running government like a business.

Hunters and fishermen are incensed at an additional fee on top of

their licenses. Hikers are upset at the very principle of being forced

to pay, to enter our National Forests. As one outdoor enthusiast

was quoted in The Ventura County Star, ‘‘The Adventure Pass has

proven wildly unpopular with forest users.’’ I have always believed

that Forest Service lands belonged to all Americans. How meaningful is the land of the free, when they are charging us just to walk

in our National Forests?’’

I believe that this fee-for-access program should be abandoned

out of respect for the 100-year tradition of free and unfettered access to our National Forests. I believe that this is a principle truly

worth fighting for.

Let me make a few important points about the Progress Report

you received in January. This program is not generating nearly the

funds projected, nor does it apply the funds that are raised to For47

est maintenance, as promised. The Forest Service stated when this

program was initiated, that it would generate a wealth of new revenues and would allow ‘‘80 percent of all the fees collected to go

into the recreation maintenance budget of the National Forest

where collected.’’

The best attempt at whitewashing cannot cover the fact that this

is a tremendously inefficient program. Despite its lofty goals, a

mere third of the fees collected were available for recreation facilities in southern California, after the first summer. For Los Padres

Forest, next to my home, Forest Service documents put that figure

at only 12 percent. This is despite the fact that the costs of the program have been severely underestimated and do not include the

considerable dedication of time by district rangers, recreation officers, and Forest police, whose salaries are not subsidized by the

fees.

The Report does not indicate how much of the fee income went

to staffing and enforcement, often the largest expenditure. In fact,

the Report is not even clear on how much was collected through

these fees. The Forest Service has two sets of figures for fee receipts in 1997 in the same Report: $9.9 million and $8.7 million,

for the same period of time.

Forest Service usage figures are also inconsistent. The Report

states that fee demonstration sites totaled only 4 percent of total

1997 visitation. The Forest Service has elsewhere estimated that

California represents 22 percent of nationwide Forest recreation

use. How, then, can it be that the four participating southern California Forests, covering half of the State’s population, can comprise

only a fraction of 4 percent of total visitation? The Forest Service

simply has no idea about true usage rates, and dangerously less

about the impact of this unpopular program on those rates.

The anecdotal evidence is strong that this program is generating

distrust of the Forest Service and disuse of the Forests. Any survey

which concludes that the majority of Forest users support access

fees is a work of fiction. Evidence supposedly based on comment

cards, cannot hope to capture the opinion of most users, when the

majority of users are not estimated to be complying with the program.

The Report calls for the development of a customer communications package. Meaning the need to find a better way to sell something to the public that it clearly doesn’t want to buy. Forest Service materials now refer to us as ‘‘customers,’’ and Forest Service

Chief of Staff Francis Pandolfi says, speaking of recreation, ‘‘For

the first time, we are selling a product.’’

But the public already owns the land. We don’t want to buy it

back a la carte. We expect Congress and the Forest Service to manage it without doubly taxing us through both access fees and annual Federal income taxes.

Here the Report gives the lie to the entire fee-for-access program.

The maintenance backlog for the Forest Service is currently estimated at $1 billion. Expected contributions to this backlog from the

40 participating sites for 1998, will constitute only 0.38 percent of

the backlog. At that rate, this program will take over 250 years to

successfully replace the failed responsibility of Congress to adequately fund Forest recreation facilities.
48

Forest users are not dumb. We are willing to pay more for campground facilities, but not to surrender all Forest access while the

Forest Service loses approximately $400 million a year through

road building and below-cost timber sales to logging corporations.

It is impossible to miss the corporate interest in privatizing the

Forests and ‘‘Disneyfying’’ public lands through concessionaire

rights.

What is difficult to understand is the need to surrender the public trust to these corporations. Government should be efficient, but

it cannot hope to be a business. Forest rangers should not be meter

maids, and their Supervisors should not be PR flacks. The Forest

Service mission is, frankly, more important than any commercial

enterprise. It begins with protecting the land and ends with enabling everyday Americans to enjoy nature without commercialization. When Congressman Jim McClure of Idaho warned that people

would not want to pay to see the sun-set, he hit the nail on the

head.

Mr. Chairman, you are here today because you have demonstrated, with members of this Subcommittee, great skill in reading the public mind and responding to its will. It is my belief that

my presence before you can help serve that purpose by bearing witness to an unpopular, unsuccessful program that is unworthy of

your continued support.

I thank you for your time, and hope to commend your good judgment.

I will leave for the record these 14,500 petition signatures

against Forest access fees, collected from the San Bernardino Forest.

Thank you.

[Signatures are on file at the Committee office.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coyne may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your comments, Mr.

Coyne.

I know many of you have reduced your testimonies to stay close

to the time. We appreciate that. Feel free to submit to us, though,

whatever you may have.

It’s very difficult to come up with a way to analyze all of these

things and take care of all the needs of all the public lands, and

it’s not an easy task. So we’ll muddle our way along. Hopefully, we

can do something fairly right, and see where we go. Keep in mind

there’s 535 people up here that will have a hand in this. So we’ll

hope it comes out right and is fair to the American taxpayers.

All of you have made excellent point, and I really truly appreciate it. Thank you for coming. I know it’s sometimes frustrating

to come to these hearings. You wait while we go out for votes and

you’re cutoff on time. That’s the frustrations of Congress; we go

through the same thing.

I thank you all for being here and appreciate your testimony.

And this hearing will now stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject

to the call of the Chair.]

[Additonal material submitted for the record follows.]
49

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Thank you Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee. I am pleased to talk with you about our experiences, mostly positive I might add, as we have implemented the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program over the last year and a half.

As you know, this program has been a joint effort on the part of three bureaus within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. These agencies manage a variety of resources under a variety of authorities.

Yet, for this experiment, they have worked closely and have found that they have

a great deal in common. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement that summarizes our experience. I

will be pleased to answer any questions to the best of my ability. With me are

Maureen Finnerty, Associate Director of the National Park Service for Park Operations and Education, Dr. Richard Coleman, Director of Refuges for the Fish and

Wildlife Service, and Roger Schmitt, Group Manager for Recreation in the Bureau

of Land Management. Each of these persons has a working knowledge of the dayto-day operation of the fee demonstration program and may be able to address more

specific questions.

Quality service to the public and accountability are two primary themes for my

tenure with the Department of the Interior. Quality service to the public demands

that, when we charge a fee for the public to enjoy and recreate in our special natural and cultural areas, the value of the recreation experience is equivalent to or

exceeds the fee.

Accountability demands that we use recreation fee revenues wisely and in a way

that enhances the quality of our visitors’ experience. I am working closely with the

bureaus in the Department of the Interior to develop approaches to priority setting

so that we give priority to those projects that affect the public’s or our employees’

health and safety. I am confident that recreational fees in our Federal

recreationsites remain a ‘‘bargain’’ and I am pleased with the progress we are making in applying fee revenues to projects that reduce our maintenance backlog.

Visitor response to the demonstration fees has been positive. Both the National

Park Service and the USDA Forest Service conducted surveys to assess visitor reactions during the first full year of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

Overall, 83 percent of national park visitors surveyed said that they were either satisfied with the fees they paid or thought the fees were too low. In the Forest Service,

over 64 percent of people who completed a survey card said that the opportunities

and services they experienced were at least equal to the fee they paid.

We believe that the strong support, so early in the program, is primarily because

the fee revenues have not been offset by reduced appropriations, and because receipts remain in the recreation areas in which they were collected, to be used to improve visitor services and to protect resources. Our visitors seem to be responding

with greater care of the recreation resources, for there is increasing evidence that

incidents of vandalism have decreased in areas where we collect recreation fees.

We also believe that much of this public acceptance came about because we involved and communicated with the public early in the process in a variety of ways.

There was a lot of national press, of course, and a surprisingly large proportion of

positive and supportive editorials in the newspapers. At the local levels, our agencies spent a great deal of effort working with the public through formal communication plans, news releases, meetings with local community leaders, constituent

groups and advisory councils, information leaflets, explanatory videos, open houses,

public workshops, comment cards, and signs and bulletin boards. These efforts were

important to the success of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

Though the fee authorities under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

have for many years applied to several Federal agencies, interagency cooperation

has blossomed under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The participating agencies have established a record of cooperation that I believe is unprecedented in the arena of recreation fees. This is true not only among bureaus of the

Department of the Interior, but also with the Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Service.

Throughout the process of implementing the program, fee managers from the four

agencies held regular meetings to discuss progress, approaches, problems, and solutions. They have developed common approaches for evaluating the fee program.

They have initiated a number of joint projects with each other, and with states and

counties.

Mr. Chairman, I could go into great detail about our accomplishments, but these

are already described in the joint Interior-Agriculture progress report to the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior. Copies were made available to
50

members of this Committee. Let me simply highlight some of the findings in that

report.

First, a very large majority of visitor levels have been sustained during the initial year of the new fees. Our Federal recreation resources are truly public treasures.

Accordingly, we must be concerned that we don’t unwittingly price the American

public out of the use of their resources. The initial data that we have on visitation

during the first full year of the program indicate that fees appear to have a negligible impact on visitation levels. Of course, we will not be satisfied with the results

of a single year’s experience. We will continue to evaluate visitation as it relates

to fees. We will look at those sites where visitation increased and those where visitation went down, and try to determine why. We will also try to determine whether

certain income, ethnic or other groups are affected by the fees. Second, recreation fee revenues have increased significantly in all four agencies administering the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Between fiscal year

1996 and fiscal year 1997, recreational fee revenues increased by 57 percent in the

National Park Service, by 35 percent in the Fish and Wildlife Service, and by 11

percent in the Bureau of Land Management. We expect further revenue increases

during fiscal year 1998. The U.S. Forest Service has also experienced significant

revenue increases. This is good news, for it identifies a new source of revenue, in

addition to public appropriations, that will allow us to improve visitor services.

Third, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of types of fees. Some are vari- ations of entrance fees, ranging from the individual and carload fees that are typically collected at an entrance kiosk, to the Golden Eagle passport, unit-specific annual passes, and also multi-unit passes that allow entry into several sites of the

same Federal agency or several sites operated by different Federal, state and local

agencies. We also are evaluating several types of user fees, for such uses as parking,

hunting, camping, boat launching, dumping of sanitary wastes from recreation vehicles, and outfitter and expedition fees.

Fourth, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of methods for collecting fees, from the typical ‘‘ranger in the kiosk’’ to automated collection machines, and collection by mail. We are looking at using different parties for collecting fees, including

our own employees, partnership arrangements with other agencies, using volunteers, and consignment sales by vendors, concessionaires, and other private entities

inside and outside of the recreation area boundaries. We have many instances in

which fees are being collected under an honor system on a self-serve basis. What

we learn will help us to design efficient and effective ways of collecting fees in the

future.

Fifth, the agencies have found that some of the initial collection costs for new fees are higher than expected, and certainly higher than they will be over the long run.

The reason for these higher costs is largely the startup and capital costs for new

fees that include kiosks, entrance stations, and new equipment and supplies. The

agencies are working on approaches to amortize capital expenditures over their useful life, which will give an accurate representation of their annual impact on collection costs. In addition, the agencies will look for ways to reduce the cost of fee collection. Cost effectiveness may not always be possible. In some sites, for example, the

particular mix of low visitation and multiple access points may make it impractical

to institute any fees at all.

Finally, the agencies have begun the process of financing maintenance backlog

projects. Considering that we are only now into the second full year of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, and that many of the revenues were only

available to the demonstration sites toward the end of fiscal year 1997, the participating agencies have begun a significant number of projects that will reduce the

backlog maintenance requirements and provide public service enhancements at

their recreation sites. I refer you to the initial lists of backlog projects that are detailed in the Appendix section of our report to Congress.

I would like to highlight some examples of the types of backlog projects that are

underway using Recreational Fee Demonstration Program revenues. Yellowstone

National Park is rehabilitating deteriorated electronic infrastructure for safety and

resource protection, repairing utility systems, replacing deteriorated docks, rehabilitating trails and overlooks, interpretive exhibits and backcountry campsites, and restoring the Turbid Lake road. At Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia,

the Fish and Wildlife Service is revising and updating kiosks to facilitate better visitor orientation, constructing hands-on environmental education learning centers,

and installing photo blinds to enhance opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography. In Paria Canyon, on the Arizona-Utah border, the Bureau of Land Management used fee revenues to maintain and upgrade sanitation facilities at trailheads.

The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has been a positive experience for

the participating agencies. The agencies agree that long-term implementation of this
51

fee program is desirable. We wish, however, to emphasize our strong desire that any

permanent authority should not take effect until after the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. The test is entering its second full

year, and our current findings and observations are preliminary. The full evaluation

of the program will not be completed until March 1999. Yet, even at this early stage,

we are pleased with the results, and would like to design a program that builds on

our positive experience in implementing the demonstration effort. The Administration proposed permanent fee authority as part of the President’s fiscal year 1999

Budget, with the pay-as you-go costs offset within the overall budget, and stands

ready to work with Congress to enact this legislation.

There are several elements that we would recommend for permanent legislation.

These elements are presented in more detail in the report, but I wish to highlight

some of them. First, we would emphasize the need for flexibility to tailor fees to

meet specific management and visitor needs. Recreation facilities, resources, and

primary users are not alike from agency to agency, and even within agencies. When

it comes to designing fee programs in the face of such differences, we simply caution

that one size does not fit all. At the same time, of course, we don’t want to burden

the recreating public with a confusing array of fees. But we should have the flexibility to balance the needs of the recreation resources with those of the user.

Second, we think it is crucial to recognize the importance of incentives in the design of recreation fees. The provision in the demonstration program that fees be applied to on-site backlogged maintenance projects provides a substantial incentive for

recreation managers to collect fees and to keep the cost of fee collection down. It

also appears that the public is highly supportive of this provision. People seem

much more willing to pay the fees if they know the revenues will directly benefit

the resources that they enjoy.

Third, the provision that allows agencies to utilize the revenues over more than

a single fiscal year can help agencies do long-range backlog reduction planning, and

to implement these plans in a systematic way. The assurance of multi-year funding

also strengthens agencies’ ability to enter into partnership arrangements with states

or non-governmental entities so that backlog reduction becomes a community effort.

Such funding stability encourages long-term planning, including investment in more

efficient fee collection infrastructure.

Finally, we believe that the provision that sets aside some of the fee revenues for

addressing broader agency priorities would be an important element of permanent

legislation. We caution that a fixed formula that returns a high percentage of revenue to the collecting site could, over the long run, create undesirable inequities

within an agency. We need to consider this possibility in determining the appropriate balance between the needs of the fee collection site with the backlog maintenance needs of the entire agency.

In our final report at the end of March, 1999, we will be able to provide to Congress much more detailed findings on visitors, management issues, revenue potential, impact of fees on communities and the less fortunate, and other issues. I believe that this information will help the agencies in implementing permanent fee authority to maximize public service and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I or my colleagues will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today

to discuss how the Forest Service is implementing the recreational fee demonstration program. I am accompanied by Greg Super, the national Recreation Fee Demonstration Program Coordinator for the Forest Service.

Every year, almost 95 percent of all Americans engage in some sort of outdoor

recreation. As the largest single supplier of public outdoor recreation, the National

Forest System hosted over 850 million visits to its 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands in fiscal year 1997. People are drawn to national forests for a

variety of activities, including white water rafting, hiking, camping at developed

sites, skiing, sightseeing, mountain bike riding, and seeking the solitude of the

primitive backcountry.

Demands for recreation opportunities are becoming increasingly complex. Forest

visitors include more senior citizens, people of diverse ethnic backgrounds, urban

dwellers, and people with disabilities. To meet this demand, we need more specialized resources to provide the quality experiences our visitors expect. While our fiscal

year 1999 budget request increases for recreation, appropriations have remained
52

static while demand has increased. Increasingly, we must meet our recreation objectives through creative and innovative approaches, such as the recreational fee demonstration program and working jointly with our partners and through volunteers.

Outdoor recreation and tourism play a significant role in the national economy

and are key to the economies of many local communities. Spending by recreation

visitors contributes billions of dollars to the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product and

thousands of jobs. In addition to receipts from the recreation fee demonstration program, other revenues from National Forest System recreation fees exceed $45.2 million annually. Outdoor recreation provides the largest contribution to national economic activity of any National Forest System program.

From fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998, the Agency’s recreation budget averaged

$217 million annually, but total annual needs for operation, maintenance, backlog

reductions, and capital investments are much higher. We need additional resources

to meet demands for activities as diverse as managing caves and wild and scenic

rivers, providing more interpretive services, and trail maintenance. In fiscal 1997,

the recreational fee demonstration program provided a much needed $8 million to

address critical resource needs and enhance customer services. We expect the fees

collected to increase significantly this year. For these reasons, the Forest Service

strongly supports the recreation fee demonstration program (RFDP), an essential

part of meeting the increased demand for quality recreation facilities and services

to the public. It is critically important that base level appropriations funding continue in conjunction with the RFDP to demonstrate a clear added value to the public

for their fees.

Now let me turn to the implementation of the recreational fee demonstration program.

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program

Congress authorized the landmark recreational fee demonstration program in fiscal year 1996 through enactment of the Omnibus Consolidation Appropriations Act

for Fiscal Year 1996. The RFDP authorizes the USDA Forest Service, and the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new recreation admission and user fees on up to 100 projects in each

Agency. Before the RFDP, the Forest Service was limited to charging user fees at

a limited number of developed sites and none of the collections were retained for

Forest Service use. This new authority was a major positive departure from historical practice. Initially, the RFDP authority allowed agencies to retain all of the new

fees in excess of a fiscal year 1995 base figure, with 80 percent of the retained fees

to be used at the sites where they were collected, and 20 percent to be distributed

nationally to any site under the jurisdiction of the collecting agency. However, the

fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act removed the base

year requirement, thus allowing the agencies to retain all recreation fee revenues

from the fee demonstration projects, not just the revenues in excess of the fiscal

year 1995 collections, greatly increasing our ability to improve recreational sites and

services. The demonstration authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999, with

receipts being available to complete projects through September 30, 2002.

The Forest Service began to agressively implement the RFDP in June, 1996, as

indicated in the interagency report recently provided to Congress. By the end of fiscal year 1997, with 40 projects collecting funds, receipts from the RFDP grossed well

over $8 million. An additional 45 projects will begin collections in fiscal years 1998

and 1999. Projects are being tested in 28 states in all regions of the country, including Puerto Rico.

The agency is testing a variety of fees in both developed and dispersed recreation

areas. Based on survey results, public acceptance is increasing over time as people

adjust to the new fees and begin to see results.

Project Selection and Approval

As I previously mentioned, the Forest Service had 40 approved projects collecting

fees in the RFDP in fiscal year 1997; 45 additional projects have been approved and

will be operational over the next 2 years. Before we approve the projects, we develop

a business plan and a communications plan describing the project and how we plan

to use the additional fees, we evaluate local community effects, estimate the startup

costs and the cost to improve the project, explain the fee calculation rationale, involve the public in the planning process, and develop customer service feedback

mechanisms.

Along with the RFDP came more responsibility and the need for tight fiscal accountability. In order to track accurately the RFDP funds, the agency had to incorporate new collection and cash management procedures, and improve local and na53

tional accounting systems to report revenue and expenses by project, forest, and

type of recreation activity.

Recreation Backlog and Enhancements

The House Appropriations Committee directed us to use the revenues from this

program primarily to reduce the maintenance backlog and provide public service enhancements. The Forest Service currently has a deferred maintenance backlog for

recreation facilities and trails estimated at about $1 billion. This backlog continues

to grow each year with ever-increasing use pressures and insufficient operations and

maintenance resources. We spent $638,500 of RFDP collections in fiscal year 1997,

addressing less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total deferred maintenance backlog. We expect the RFDP revenues generated in fiscal year 1998 will address an additional $3.9 million of recreation and trails backlog.

Addressing the backlog component is a priority for this Administration, which is

why the President included the President’s Environmental Resources Fund for

America Initiative in his fiscal year 1999 budget. Such an initiative would help address the deferred maintenance backlog in Forest Service facilities and provide increases for such activities as restoration and replacement of water and sanitation

facilities at major recreation sites and trails. The President’s budget also proposes

making the fee authority permanent, which will help ensure that reducing the deferred maintenance backlog will continue to receive high priority.

Interagency Coordination

The RFDP has provided a unique opportunity for close coordination and collaboration between the four agencies implementing the program. National fee managers

hold regular meetings to share information and provide common guidance for collecting public feedback, so that each agency’s evaluations are comparable for implementing joint projects.

Working jointly across jurisdictional boundaries has proven to be very effective

and less burdensome and confusing to the public. All four agencies are proud that

we were able to produce a quality interagency progress report to Congress on the

RFDP in a timely manner.

Lessons Learned

Mr. Chairman, one important characteristic of the fee program is that it is a

‘‘test’’ which has allowed the Forest Service the flexibility to be innovative, while

making needed adjustments based on public concerns and experience. Since we

began testing the RFDP in June 1996, we have learned that most of our visitors

accept paying fees if the majority of those fees are returned to the local project and

visible results are evident quickly.

While we have had many successes, there have also been some challenges. An example of a problem we faced was making the distinction between admission fees and

user fees. According to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, admission fees

are fees charged for general access into a recreation site or area. User fees are

charged for use of specific facilities, programs or resources, some of which are within

a recreation site. For many of our visitors who possessed a Golden Eagle passport

or similar pass, this subtle distinction became a problem since these passports can

only be used for admission fees, but not for user fees. In response to public comments identifying this concern, the Forest Service changed its policy and began to

accept the Golden Eagle passport for admission to all national monuments, national

scenic areas and national recreation areas on national forests participating in the

RFDP. Although this reduced collections, we felt it was an important customer service improvement.

All of the participating agencies faced a number of other issues such as negotiating regional and multi-agency entrance fees; questions about reasons for collecting

recreation fees; financing startup costs for new projects; cash management and employee safety; compliance regarding payment of fees; communicating with our visitors; inequities within or among agencies; local community effects; agency liability;

project tracking systems; and gaining critical business and communications skills.

The agencies are jointly working to address these concerns as new projects are implemented.

Legislative and Management Improvements

After almost 2 years of testing the RFDP, we have a number of suggestions for

how the fee program can be improved and strengthened. The President’s fiscal year

1999 budget assumes permanent legislative authority, which we strongly encourage

the Committees to consider. I will highlight a few of the significant improvements

and refer to the progress report for the detailed list of other suggestions.
54

•Joint Agency Effort: Congress needs to clarify authority to provide for increased joint agency efforts across Federal, state, and local jurisdictions in administering the fee program. Specific statutory authorization could help clarify

the agencies’ authority to enter into multi-agency and multi-governmental fee

agreements, and how fees should be distributed under these agreements.

•Better Long Term Planning: Permanent authority could allow agencies to set

aside funds toward expensive backlog projects that could not be funded with

only 1 year’s revenue. Permanent authority would strengthen the agencies’ ability to enter into cost-sharing or other partnership arrangements that make

backlog reduction a cooperative effort.

•Base Level Appropriations: Congress should preserve the added value provided

by the fee demonstration by not offsetting appropriations with fee receipts

which would undermine local public support and agency incentives.

•Broadening the Demonstration Effort: The RFDP could be expanded to explicitly include recreation-related activities, such as ski area special use permits

and permits for outfitters and guides, which currently may be outside of the

scope of the RFDP.

Closing

Mr. Chairman, we agree that long-term implementation of the RFDP is desirable. The interagency progress report highlights many successes on the ground since we

began implementing the RFDP and also draws to your attention several areas that

need improvement.

We will continue to evaluate during the testing period so that we may further ex- plore ways to better administer this program. We are pleased that overall visitor response has been generally positive. This pro- gram represents a significant step toward improving customer services and recreation facilities for those who visit our national forests.

This concludes my statement. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. VOORHEES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY

DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Phil Voorhees. I am Associate Director for Policy Development for the National Parks and Conservation Association, America’s only private, non-profit citizens organization dedicated

solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the National Park System. NPCA appreciates the opportunity to testify today on the issue of the fee dem- onstration program. Since its initiation in 1996, the demonstration program has

proven valuable. It has brought more revenue into the national parks and has

begun to educate park managers about public acceptance of entrance and use fees,

options for fee collection, and collateral benefits and costs of increased fee collection.

The program has been dynamic in raising a variety of issues that Congress should

address once the program reaches its conclusion. Some of those issues include the

appropriate method of interagency revenue sharing, the appropriateness of specific

types of use fees, eventual fee caps, and distribution of revenues within the National

Park Service. It is our hope that between this hearing and the filing of the final

report on the progress of the program, this Committee will consider the issues identified below, adjust the program accordingly and make the authority permanent.

Public Acceptance of the Demonstration Program: Entrance Fees

The land management agencies’ Recreation Fee Demonstration Program Progress

Report to Congress notes that the demonstration program has met with generally

high levels of public acceptance for increased entrance fees to the national parks.

In 1995, prior to initiation of the program, NPCA conducted a national survey asking about the public’s acceptance of fee increases. Seventy nine percent of those surveyed responded that they were not opposed to an increase from an average (at that

time) of $5 per carload for a visit of up to 7 days. In 1996, NPCA again conducted

a survey exploring the public’s willingness to pay specific levels of fee increases.

Based on per person, rather than per carload assessments, the 1996 survey showed

that 56 percent of respondents would support an increase of $5 per person, with

support gradually dropping to 20 percent as the increase rose to $10 per person.

The 1995 survey accurately predicted the general public support for fee increases.

The 1996 survey, however, should raise some questions for the National Park Service and for Congress as the agency moves more aggressively into fee collection. The

question is how much is too much. Clearly, the public acceptance for fee increases

has limits. At many units of the park system, entrance fees have been doubled and

in some instances tripled. Yosemite’s fee, for example, climbed from $5 per car be55

fore the initiation of the program to $20 per car. If the NPCA survey is any indicator, the current fee levels may be approaching or may have already reached the

limit of what the public finds acceptable.

National Park Service fee revenues have grown under the program from $75.7 million in fiscal year 1994 to an estimated $142 million in the current fiscal year.

With 97 sites participating in the program, broadening the base of the fee program

(i.e. authorizing more units to participate) should be examined before any consideration is given to raising entrance fees even further.

Public Acceptance: Use Fees

Unlike entrance fees, the new and elevated use fees established under the demonstration program have received mixed reviews. The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, testifying today, presents perhaps the most cogent examples of

where the National Park Service has already stepped some distance across the line

of public acceptance for fee increases. At the Grand Canyon, for private boaters, the

wait to get a slot on the Colorado River is as much as 8 years. NPS has instituted

a place-holding fee of $25 per year and a $100 application fee so that, on average,

private boaters would pay $300 before ever dipping an oar in the water. Additional

use fees apply once the boaters are on the river. While it is true that charging a

fee to wait in line thins the list of those who are less serious (or less patient) about

running the river, requiring $300 up-front, before ever experiencing the Colorado

and the Grand Canyon seems a little excessive. Nonetheless, this and other examples of excess can and should be an active learning experience for the National Park Service as it explores the boundaries of public

acceptance of use fees. The demonstration program was well crafted, in that it allows NPS and the other land management agencies to explore different opportunities and occasionally fail without penalty any venues, use fees are a new concept

both for the public and for the agency. As Congress evaluates the success of the program and considers making the program permanent, it should pay careful attention

to examples like the Colorado River wait list fee and evaluate what kinds of fees

are acceptable to the public and what kinds are not.

Broadening the Scope of Fee Collection

The National Park Service is authorized to collect fees under the demonstration

program at 100 sites and currently collects at 97. Those 97 units include some that

had previously prohibited collection, like Cape Canaveral NS which now charges a

daily use fee. Other areas have discovered that, if appropriately applied, use fees

can have collateral benefits unrelated to revenue generation. When Glen Canyon

NRA established a fee at Lone Rock Campground, within 1 year assaults dropped

by 71 percent, disorderly conduct violations dropped by 88 percent, quiet hours were

enforced for the first time, littering decreased and family use of the campground increased. Although it is unfortunate that the parks experience any crime, clearly the

fees assessed here have had a beneficial impact. In addition, smaller units, like

Cape Canaveral were able to generate supplemental revenues that proved useful in

addressing backlogged park needs. In response, the Congress should consider expanding the program to all units of the National Park System and extending the demonstration period for another 5

years. This expansion would allow the Park Service to explore further both the opportunities and pitfalls of fee collection, building a more accurate record of where,

what kind and what level fees are appropriate, while at the same time providing

parks with badly needed supplemental revenue. At the conclusion of an expanded

program, Congress would have a more accurate record to guide future decisions on

where, when, how and how much the public should be asked to contribute for use

of its park lands.

Distribution of Revenues Among Agencies and Within NPS

For the land management agencies, one of the most contentious aspects of the demonstration program has been distribution of the revenues resulting from the

Golden Eagle passport. Purchase of the Golden Eagle passport allows free entry to

all fee areas across the land management agencies. Under the demonstration program, the price for the Golden Eagle passport was raised from $25 to $50 in 1997,

resulting in an increase in total NPS revenues from $5.4 million to $9.6 million.

Currently, revenue from the sale of the passport is retained by the agency making

the sale. When sale of the passport is opened to third parties the calculus will become far more complex, as none of the agencies will be directly selling at least some

portion of the passports. The fee demonstration program was specifically authorized

to spend the resulting revenues on projects visible to the fee paying public. As a

matter of equity, revenues should therefore be applied to the agencies based on their

share of fee-generating visitation.
56

Within the Park Service, the level of revenues received at some of the ‘‘crown

jewel’’ parks matches or exceeds the total annual operations budget for those units.

Grand Canyon NP is the best example, generating $19.4 million in fee revenues in

fiscal year 1997, compared with an operations budget for that year of $14.6 million.

There are not many units in this category, but all of the high visitation units participating in the program generate similarly high revenues. To advocates of a feefunded National Park Service, this presents a tempting target. Those advocates,

however, should realize that many of the most highly visited units also have the

most substantial backlog of maintenance and infrastructure needs. Not surprisingly,

visitation has a price. Grand Canyon NP alone has an infrastructure and maintenance backlog exceeding $154 million. Even with an annual contribution of an additional $15 million (the park currently retains 80 percent of the revenues), it will

take Grand Canyon 10 years to address its outstanding maintenance project needs,

assuming future maintenance budgets meet the needs of the park and the backlog

does not grow. And Grand Canyon, like many other parks has substantial cultural

and natural resource protection needs as well.

Nonetheless, as Congress considers the success of the demonstration program as

it moves forward, it should consider the equity of high levels of supplemental revenues flowing into the high visitation, crown jewel parks. Units throughout the system suffer from similar problems of decaying infrastructure and delayed maintenance. The demonstration program currently distributes 80 percent revenues to the

parks that collect the fees. The remaining 20 percent is distributed to the non-fee

demonstration units and is used to support the management of the national fee program. As the need for additional studies (discussed below) emerge, Congress should

consider evening the distribution so that the less visited and non-fee units do not,

in effect, end up supporting the additional research and management of a program

that generates revenues disproportionately benefiting the high visitation crown jewels.

Additional Research Needs

When the National Park Service finished its plan for the demonstration fee program, the Service made relatively heavy use of parks that already charged fees and

simply raised them. This avoided generating some of the controversy that the Forest

Service has experienced, but it also provided a narrower scope for the demonstration

program than could have been achieved. Before the Congress considers making the

program permanent, some additional research may be warranted to improve the

agencies’ level of understanding about the public’s willingness to pay for entry to

and use of parks supported by tax dollars.

In addition, little is known about the impact specific levels of fees have on the

inclination of people to visit the parks from specific demographic and economic

groups. The national parks are for all of us to enjoy and to learn from, no matter

the individual’s economic or social circumstance. Visitation figures since the initiation of the demonstration program indicate that the increases have had little or

no impact on the public’s willingness to visit the national parks.

But as the Congress, the agency and the public becomes more comfortable with

higher entrance and use fee levels, we must remain always cognizant of the impact

that fee increases of any and all kinds have on Americans with limited means. Additional research would help delineate at what point fees become problematic for those

visitors and begin to affect adversely the demographics of park visitation. For both

issues—willingness to pay by the general public and impact of fee levels on economic and demographic groups—the National Park Service should understand the

effect of its actions before proposing changes, rather than proposing changes and

evaluating the impacts after the fact. Acknowledging that research costs money, all

such research could be covered by the revenues generated by the existing demonstration program.

Supplementing Appropriations Beyond Public Fees

A separate, but equally important concern for NPCA is the balance between assessing fees for the public enjoyment of the national parks and collecting appropriate fees from concessioners and other private users of the national parks who

gain financial profit from their use of the parks. On Tuesday, this Committee conducted a hearing on H.R. 2993 to apply fair market value-based fees to the production of commercial photography and films in the national parks. For fifty years Hollywood and Madison Avenue have leveraged the image of the parks to improve their

bottom line and have provided very little to the parks in return. It is our hope that

this Congress will move to correct this imbalance before it adjourns next fall. Similarly, national park concessions reform has been on the agenda of each of the past

four Congresses and has yet to pass.
57

Senator Bumpers has voiced his concern for the need for reform for two decades,

repeatedly introducing legislation to accomplish that reform. On this side, Chairman

Hansen has also expressed an interest and was helpful in addressing reform proposals in the 104th Congress. Since 1965 and the passage of the Concessions Policy

Act, NPCA has been working and waiting for reform. When the last Congress was

discussing new fee authorities for the National Park Service, we were outspoken in

noting that fees should not be increased for the public before a more fair return to

the taxpayer was achieved from the businesses that profit from the park visitors

themselves. Any reform that Congress seriously attempts should increase the competition for park concession contracts, should address the standing debt to the Federal Government in the form of possessory interest held by the concessioners and

should make the resulting revenues available to the parks themselves.

Our view on this issue has not changed with the passage of the fee demonstration

program. Before the conclusion of the demonstration program and the consideration

of implementing the experimental program on a permanent basis, Congress must

address and resolve the issue of concessions reform. Failing to do so would be profoundly unfair to the park visitor and to the American taxpayer.

Conclusion

Thus far, the fee demonstration program has proven to be a success by almost

any metric. Fee revenues have increased 88 percent since fiscal year 1994; the application of fees has shown some collateral benefits; and the participating parks have

begun to address their backlog of maintenance and infrastructure needs through the

new revenues, albeit at a very measured pace. But the program is still relatively

new and a broad variety of questions remain unanswered.

When fee proposals were discussed in the 104th Congress, many comparisons

were made between the cost of a visit to the fee collecting parks and the cost of

a variety of other forms of public entertainment. The comparisons provided an interesting diversion but avoided addressing the central question of what defines an appropriate fee for visiting the national parks and using the legally available resources. National parks are not entertainment outlets comparable to Disney World

or the latest Hollywood blockbuster film. They serve a very different purpose, focused on education, inspiration and preservation for the future.

Given those differences, before the Congress moves toward permanent authority

for the National Park Service to set and adjust fees on its own judgment, it should

require a full analysis of how the NPS expects to use and develop its authority, how

it sees that fees will need to be adjusted in the next 10 years, and where (if anywhere) it intends to draw the line on fee collections for the National Park System.

Before Congress provides permanent authority similar to the demonstration program, whether next year at the conclusion of the demonstration program, or after

an additional 5 year extension, the National Park Service should be asked to provide a coherent plan for the fee program, detailing where and when fees will be applied, at what level fees will be applied, how quickly and to what level fees will be

increased over time, and if there are any program types or areas that NPS or the

other agencies have learned from experience should remain free to the public.

Above all, when Congress moves to extend the demonstration program or make

the authorities permanent, it must reaffirm its intent that the resulting revenues

be provided to the parks and public lands as supplemental revenues, in addition to

the annual appropriations that the National Park Service and the other agencies

currently receive. Despite the impressive revenue performance of a small collection

of high visitation parks, the National Park System as a whole will never and should

never be asked to support itself with fee revenues. In the same 1995 survey, NPCA

asked respondents about their willingness to pay more in taxes to support the national parks. Overwhelmingly—79 percent—said they would. This is a strong indication of the value that Americans place on their tax-based financial support for the

national parks.

STATEMENT OF GAYLORD STAVELEY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION

ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, my name is Gaylord Staveley. I’m Vice President of the National

Forest Recreation Association. In our view, this oversight hearing on the Recreation

Fee Demonstration Program is much-needed and very timely. We thank you for the

opportunity to testify.

Our comments deal almost entirely with the Fee Demo program as it is operated

by the USDA Forest Service. NFRA, established in 1948, is a national association

of private-sector business owners or companies who construct and/or operate resorts,
58

lodges, campgrounds, marinas, and pack stations for the use and enjoyment of the

public, under permits from the Forest Service. There are, by Forest Service count,

some 1,700 such businesses serving the National Forest system nationwide. Overall,

these businesses have a multi-billion dollar investment in structures, facilities and

equipment used to serve the visiting public. They contribute millions of dollars in

privilege fees to the Federal treasury every year. NFRA’s interest in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program springs from harmful effects the program has, in its very first year, had on a number of those

private sector businesses, and our concern that those effects will continue if not

curbed.

We are also concerned about the effects of a permanently authorized Fee Demo program on the safety and quality of national forest recreational experiences. When in late 1996, Congress authorized the selection of Recreation Fee Dem- onstration Program, it was as a three-year pilot project during which Federal land

management agencies could test new access and user fees at certain sites of their

choosing, to learn more about possible ways of reducing the size and scope of government while continuing to provide for the use and enjoyment of Federal lands. By February 1997 even before the fee demo program had been implemented in many locations, some proponents were describing it as being ‘‘highly successful.’’ At that same time, some wild interpretations and applications of the fee demo

concept were occurring in the field. Many Forest Service employees clearly considered the newer and higher fees ‘‘found money.’’ Despite the guidance provided with

the initial authorization, it appeared there was little consideration for what the

market would bear, or the effect of higher fees on local communities. Moreover, the

program impinged heavily on a number of private-sector businesses to whom the

Forest Service had issued concession permits.

At this point I want to emphasize that NFRA is not opposed to the Recreation

Fee Demonstration Area Program. In this time of limited appropriations, it may be

good for the agency to have more than one source of revenue. And certainly it is

not unfair to ask visitors to pay something for the use of a facility or amenity on

a national forest. What we object to are the abuses of this the program and the potential for future abuses.

Fee Demo is being used to displace and subrogate concessioner oper- ations, and in the absence of top-down administration and oversight, we

believe it will continue to be use that way. There has, for some time, been a faction within the Forest Service that advocates

taking back the visitor services that have been concessioned out to the private sector, so those facilities could be operated directly by Forest Service personnel. The notion of taking back the concessions initially arose from resentment at see- ing private sector employees beginning to do forest-based jobs that had traditionally

been done by ‘‘green shirts,’’ i.e. Forest Service employees. Some of those Forest

Service employees continue to view Fee Demo as an income base for regaining those

jobs by taking back the job sites, and have begun using it that way. During Fee Demo’s first year, we have seen it used as a take-back device in the following ways:

The peremptory modification of current permits. The Forest Service euphemism for this is ‘‘renegotiation.’’ When Forest Service officials withdrew the

Trinity Lake Recreation Area in California from an established campground

concession program, and indicated they intended to do the same thing at Lake

Shasta—and were stopped from carrying out that plan the Forest informed the

concessioner that the terms of the concession permit will be ‘‘renegotiated.’’

Other concessioners who questioned Forest Service interpretations of Fee Demo

have been told they are going to have the number of one-year renewals reduced

as a consequence, or that ‘‘if they make waves, they will be eliminated from the

forest.’’

Refusal to renew a permit that had in the past always been renewed.

Several months ago the permitter who had operated the Table Mountain Campground for many years simply disappeared. When we couldn’t find her we telephoned the Forest Office administering her permit to ask how she might be contacted. The Forest Service person on the other end of the line said ‘‘oh, we have

that campground now—fee demo, I think it’s called.’’ This occurred in a fourforest complex the Forest Service calls the Enterprise Forest project where they

are doing what we consider to be ‘‘cherry picking’’ concessioned sites on four

urban national forests, taking back the higher-revenue sites.

Setting a new fee and taking the revenue from it, while shifting its related maintenance cost to a concessioner. In one situation we observed, the

Forest Service began charging visitors a fee for parking in a lot that has historically been free, while requiring a nearby concessioner—as a condition of a per59

mit at a totally different location—to pay the costs of cleaning this Forest Service parking lot, its toilets and trailhead.

Pressuring the concessioner to lower its fees so the Forest Service fee

will be more affordable. An alternate tactic has been to ask the concessioner

to raise its fees so a new or higher Forest Service fee will seem less drastic to visitors. These tactics were used in connection with parking and boat launching.

Refusing for several years to allow a concessioner to raise prices, so

that he or she will abandon the permit; the Forest Service can then take

over the business ‘‘in the public interest.’’ One such situation has been going

on for 9 years. A year ago, even as Fee Demo was being hailed a success, the Chief of the Forest Service was finding it necessary to issue a letter to his Regional Foresters under

the subject: ‘‘Prohibition Against Displacement of Concessions Based on Recreation

Fee Demonstration Projects.’’ However, many Forest Service field employees ignore the Washington office. The Chief’s letter notwithstanding, new instances of fee demo impingements on concessioners continued to be reported throughout the summer of 1997. By September, there was so much concern in the Senate that in a September 18, 1997, colloquy on the Senate floor, Senator Jon Kyl, a member of the Forests and

Public Land Management Subcommittee, noted that ‘‘as private permit terms expire, it appears that at some fee demo sites there is an intent to discontinue reliance

on the private sector for delivery of recreation goods and services.’’

Senator Larry Craig, also a member of that Subcommittee, then noted that Senator Kyl had identified a serious problem that is also occurring in Idaho. He noted

the development of a new Forest Service ‘‘Heritage Expedition’’ program that essentially puts the agency into the outfitter-guide business.

Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, then stated that concessioner displacement was not

an intent of the fee demo program.

Near the end of the first session of the lO5th Congress, the 1998 Appropriations

Bill was nearly amended to reassert the parameters of fee demo. The Forest Service

opposed that amendment, on the grounds that ‘‘they don’t want to relinquish their

authority to take back concessions.’’

The Fee Demonstration Project is too new to receive permanent authorization.

Not enough is yet known about the extent or manner that fee demo funds and

appropriated funds can be blended to assure the continued availability of safe enjoyable visitor services on the Federal lands. It may be that the fee demo concept

works better where there are gated chokepoints, as in national parks, than where

entry in predominantly uncontrolled, as in the national forests.

We need to learn more about what level of fees are reasonable: Clearly, the Forest

Service has a different view of reasonability than does the public—as evidenced by

the fact that in many instances the public objected to demonstration fees called

‘‘fair,’’ but did not object to them when they were lowered.

We need more assurance that demonstration fees will be used for resource protection and maintenance, and that they will not become a source of income for a Forest

Service ‘‘jobs program.’’

Demonstration fees on a per-vehicle basis fall unfairly on escorted groups, especially those in partially filled coaches and vans. When transportation, tour, or

ecotour companies must bypass national forests because of excessive fees, the public,

the tour companies, the forest based concessioners, and the adjoining rural economies are all adversely affected.

If the Administration was to renege on earlier promises and treat locally collected

fees as an appropriation offset, the Forest Service would be left with no other funding source for recreation and maintenance backlog reduction. We believe they would

then use Fee Demo authority as a license to extract as much money as possible from

visitors and concessioners, without regard for the effect on resource protection or the

ability of the private sector to afford quality service.

If Forest Service recreation management—under which the concession permit system is administered—were required to operate solely on revenue from the Fee Demo

program, we are certain the number and type of Forest Service demands on its private-sector permitters, already substantial, would increase further.

Many forest-based businesses are already being subjected to extraordinary financial or labor requirements as a condition for favorable consideration on issuance or

renewal of a permit. For the most part these requirements are not commensurate

with the term of the permit; they would have to be amortized against a longer permit or a renewed permit—neither of which can be relied on.
60

CONCLUSION

NFRA would like to see the Fee Demo program succeed, but we urge that it not be permanently authorized at this time or without legislated direction. The Forest Service is experiencing financial and staffing problems as well as a huge maintenance backlog. More than ever, help from the private sector is needed.

The Fee Demo project was sold to the concessioner community on the basis that it

would provide new flexibility to the agencies and attract more private investment

to the improvement of recreational and visitor facilities and services on the public

lands. The effect thus far has been to discourage private investment at national forest permitted sites.

The Forest Service continues to compete against and undercut its concessioners whenever and wherever it chooses to do so. The charge to be ‘‘entrepreneurial,’’ fed

by the fee demo program, is encouraging Forest Service employees to free-lance. One

Forest Service field officer told a concessioner ‘‘we don’t care what Washington says,

we’re going to do (fee demo) any way we choose.’’ The program needs more time to mature, and during that time it needs the over- sight of Congress and the people who will be affected by it. Late in 1997, consideration was given to amending the 1988 Appropriations Bill to provide that:

Projects undertaken under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program

shall not result in:

(a) the modification of a current concessioner authorization without willing consent of the holder of such authorization;

(b) failure to renew, to extend, or to offer a new prospectus for an

existing concession authorization; or

(c) the displacement of an authorized concessioner operation.

We urge the adoption of that language, along with legislation that standardizes and codifies the forest Service developed-site permit system and its developed-site

concessions policies and practices.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this very important matter.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BACHRACH, GRAND CANYON PRIVATE BOATERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on the Fee Demonstration/Cost Recovery program implemented in 1997. We recognize the importance of this issue to the huge population of people who cherish and seek to access our public lands.

My name is John Bachrach and I have come from Flagstaff, Arizona to represent the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association. The boating public is one component

of the outdoor community. We are a 501C3 non-profit corporation that was formed

in 1996 to give a voice to private/non-commercial or self-guided river running population who, until now have had no voice in NPS policy matters that affect the boating community. Briefly I will outline the fees a person must pay in order to conduct or participate in a private, self-guided river trip on the Colorado River. First, in order to be accepted onto the Grand Canyon National Park’s wait list and secure a position on that

list you have to pay $100. Then to remain on this list until your turn has come up

you will have to pay $25 per year. The current wait is eighteen years so you will

pay a total of $450. When you are able to launch you will pay another $200 for that

privilege. You, and each participant in your trip will then pay $10 for entry into

the park, additionally each of you will be assessed $4 per night for every night you

spend in the park.

The current structure was implemented after the December 1996 Fee Demonstration and Cost Recovery Programs were authorized by Congress. River running fees

were raised 1200 percent with no public input.

The concept of paying fees at Grand Canyon National Park to recreate is not new

to non-commercial river runners, however the new fee program at Grand Canyon

National Park is inconsistent with other recreation and use fees on public lands. Before the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association could support continued application or further expansion and implementation of the fee demonstration program, we

would need to be assured that the program meets several important criteria. They

are as follows:

(1) Fees must be applied equitably and fairly to all persons, businesses and corporate entities engaged in similar activities on America’s public lands

(2) Fees must not be used as a tool to limit access to Americas public lands or

waterways
61

(3) Fees must be consistent in both their assessment and administration

As a group we are very concerned that the fee demonstration program does not

currently pass any of these fairness tests.

(1) In the case of Grand Canyon river running, fees are not presently applied fairly

to all users engaged in similar activities.

Most of our members, and private boaters that we have surveyed have no objection to paying their fair share of the parks operating costs, but in contrast to the

collected non-commercial fees, fees paid by commercial outfitters are not used to recover the NPS’ management expenses. Outfitters pay franchise fees, and in the case

of the Grand Canyon, river outfitters pay into the Colorado River Fund. Neither of

these fees are used to offset river operations costs. Consequently, outfitted patrons

pay no fees directly to the park, thereby being insulated from the increased awareness generated by direct contact with park staff and park needs.

Policy should be crafted that brings to all users greater awareness of the costs

involved with our public lands operations and would help instill a sense of participation, ownership and preservation among all users. Making sure commercial patrons

paid the same fees for the same kinds of uses as the self-guided could help to raise

awareness and would be fair.

(2) The imposition of fees apparently has been used as a tool to limit access for the

private boater in the Grand Canyon.

The Department of Interior’s press releases assured the public that they would

be involved in development of the fee demonstration program process, but, as far

as the Grand Canyon is concerned, not one public hearing was conducted before the

announcement and implementation of the new fee structure.

The sudden and enormous fee increase to the boating public by surprise and resulted in slowing the growth rate of the parks wait list by 30 percent. In 1998, for

the first time in the history of Colorado river running, the total number of hopefuls

on the wait list declined by more than 1000 people out of 6000 did not renew their

names on the waiting list. If the point of raising the price was to discourage selfguided use of the canyon, then the fee demo program has been a big success. The

long wait coupled with the high fees has nurtured the feeling amongst the river

community that the annual fee is actually a penalty meant to discourage them from

future participation.

Current and former NPS employees at Grand Canyon stated they felt fee demonstration charges were being used to curb the growth of the Park’s private boating

wait list, and that park staff calculated an attrition rate of up to 30 percent for the

non-commercial boating wait list.

(3) The current fee demonstration program is inconsistent and unfair when compared

with other fee programs imposed upon public lands.

Comparing the use of public lands by cows to humans would seem ridiculous, but

everyone of us living in the west knows from simple observation that cows do far

more damage to public lands than do humans. Over grazing, by itself causes more

damage to the resources in question, than wilderness use by humans. And let’s not

forget the cows trampling of archeological sites. Boaters and hikers presently pay

$4 per night for every night they spend in the Grand Canyon, contrast that to the

cost of grazing a cow for a year on public lands. If grazing were to be assessed at

the same rate people are, it would cost $1460 to graze a cow for a year. Presently

it costs less than $10 for a cow to spend a year in the wilderness. Hikers and boaters would be better off if they were treated equally to cows!

This comparison looks even more extreme when fitted into the larger picture that

includes annual fees for mining, logging and other resource consuming activities

that take place on public lands.

Additionally we are concerned with the classification of river running at GCNP

as a ‘‘special use,’’ and the precedent that ‘‘special use classification’’ may set for

other low impact, human-powered activities on public lands.

Because GCNP has classified non-commercial river running as a ‘‘special park

use’’ the park attempts to recover 100 percent of the costs of managing this use,

in contrast to other park activities which receive almost all their funding from the

parks general funds. ‘‘Special park uses’’ include activities that are outside of the

normal range of activities in a park, for example holding a wedding ceremony, or

filming a movie. Historically speaking, the first use of what eventually became

GCNP began with river running and a character named John Wesley Powell. A

river trip on the Colorado is a special experience, for sure, but, river running is definitely not outside the ‘‘normal range of activities’’ in the park, it is most definitely

not a special use.
62

The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association would like to encourage the distinguished members of this Committee and Congress to reexamine Federal funding

policies that make it necessary for our National Park system to resort to drastic and

sudden measures like the Cost Recovery/Fee Demonstration program imposed upon

non-commercial boaters and hikers at GCNP in order to survive and continue to

provide American’s and our visitors from all over the world access to these natural

treasures.

In closing before private boaters can support the fee demonstration program, we

need to be sure that a criteria for fairness is in place, we once again submit the

following as guidelines:

(1) Fees must be applied fairly to all users engaged in similar activities.

(2) Fees must not be used as a tool to limit access.

(3) Administration of fees must be consistently assessed across all resource

users.

We sincerely thank Rep. Hansen’s office for this opportunity present our perspective and we are sure you will give our thoughts consideration.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman:

The Endangered Species Act is the most powerful law in the country today. Its

impact on private property, economic production, and our standard of living is unprecedented; because of its power, the enforcement of this law must be carefully

scrutinized. I commend you on your decision to hold this important hearing.

The total impact of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act is sometimes difficult to ascertain. We do know, however, that it has led to a greater reliance on imported wood products, higher energy costs, restrictions on the use of our

nation’s waterways, and more rigid regulations on the use of private land. Ultimately, my biggest concern about the Act is the emotional burden it places on hardworking farmers who have been forced to deal with a question fundamental to their

very existence: will they have enough water to grow their crops and provide for their

families?

This is a critical aspect of the law that is too often overlooked. As Federal agencies focus on the rigid regulations written to implement the Act, they often lose

sight of the fact that we are placing people’s livelihoods at stake over a biologist’s

judgment. This is an awesome responsibility. Do we cut off water to a farmer and

ruin his crops because one biologist believes that a lake ought to have six additional

inches of water in it? Or for an additional 50 cubic feet per second of flow in a river?

If such a decision is made, Federal agencies bear the burden of proof. Solid scientific

evidence must be driving these issues; too often it does not.

The listing of a species must contain two key components. First, we ought to have

rigid standards placed on the scientific evidence being used to support the listing.

The data should be collected using commonly-held scientific practices, peer reviewed

by a broad array of experts in the field, and closely scrutinized by agencies and affected interests before being adopted. If the Federal agencies rush to judgment

under the threat of a lawsuit, the burden of proof to delist then falls on landowners.

This is wrong. It should be the agencies’ burden to prove that a species merits listing, not a landowners’ burden to prove it does not. Second, there must be a comprehensive plan adopted that specifies realistic numerical targets for species recovery. Without such a common understanding of the goals, how can landowners participate in the species recovery? If they are forced to comply with an ever-expanding

list of Federal requirements and shifting standards, the Federal Government will

lose the most effective partner they have in the effort to save legitimately threatened species.

When the Federal Government’s efforts degenerate into incrementalism and loosely defined goals, the recovery of species will never be successful. If, however, we can

adopt a common understanding of the key issues that lay before us—principally, the

adherence to strictly scrutinized and peer reviewed science, and a detailed recovery

plan—we can make progress. The need to provide more stability to the victims of

misguided agency decisions requirethat we act to make this law better. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to achieve this goal.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this very important hearing, and I look

forward to discussing this matter in greater detail with our witnesses.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161