ADMINISTRATION'S RECREATION 

FEE PROPOSALS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAl"l)S 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TIDRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECREATION FEE PROPOSALS 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

APRIL 29, 1993 

Serial No. 103-24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

72-353 WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Ortlce. Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041526-8 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, 

American Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califomi11 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW, III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KisH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK JOE RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii , 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

Ranking Republican Member 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director ALExANDER <SANDYJ ScOTr, Professional Staff Member 

TONYA MITCHEM, Staff Assistant 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Republican Consultant on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: April 29, 1993 ................................................................................. . Member statement: Hon. Bruce Vento .................................................................. . Witness statements: 

Dr. G. Edward Dickey, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works) ........................................................................................................... . Panel consisting of: 

David Moffitt, Assistant Director, Visitor Services, National Park 

Service, De2artment of the Interior, accompanied by Gary Marsh, 

Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, and Michael 

Boylan, Acting Chief, Division of Planning and Public Use, Fish 

and Wildlife Service .............................................................................. . Thomas J. Mills, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................................................................................ . Panel consisting of: 

William J. Chandler, Conservation Director, National Parks and Conservation Association ............................................................................ . Kathryn Hohmann, Washington Director, Public Lands Program, Si- erra Club .............................................................................................. .. Jim Bensberg, Vice Chairman, Task Force on Recreation Fees, American Recreation Coalition, speaking for Robert Rasor, accompanied 

~=~ .~.~~: .. ~~~~~~· ... ~~~~~-.~~-.~~~~~: .. ~~~-~-.~~~~ Additional material submitted by witnesses: 

Mr. Marsh: List of proposed BLM areas where entrance fees would be char~ed .......................................................................................................... . Mr. M1lls: List of proposed Forest Service areas where entrance fees 

would be charged ......................................................................................... . Mr. Boylan: Information regarding new and increased fublic recreation 

entrance and user fees at certain units of the Nations Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................................... . Mr. Bensberg: Discussion paper on recreation fees initiative ..................... . Mr. Moffitt: 

1. Revenue generation proposal provided by the National Park Service ........................................................................................................... . 2. List of exempt parks recommended for review by the National 

Park Service ......................................................................................... .. 

APPENDIX 

APRn. 29, 1993 

Page 

1 

1 

7 

13 

23 

54 

61 

66 

33 

37 

43 

68 

75 

so 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Prepared statement of Hon. James V. Hansen .............................................. 85 

Prepared statement of Hon. Jan Meyers ........ ........ ..... ..... ...... .. ... ... ........ ..... ... 88 

Proposed legislation to amend the Land and W ~;tter Conservation Fund 

Act of 1965 in regard to recreation fees ...................................................... 91 

Fiscal Year 1994 Fee Collection Proposal....................................................... 95 

(Ill) 

THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECREATION FEE 

PROPOSALS 

THURSDAY, APRll.. 29, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m. in room 1324 of the Longworth 

House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will come to order. 

I have a long opening statement. 

I'll ask consent that all statements be placed in the record. By 

the time we get someone else here, if they have any objection, we'll 

respond to that. 

But the complete statements of witnesses and members will be 

placed in the record. 

(1) 
2 

OPENING STATEMENT 

CHAIRMAN BRUCE P. VENTO 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

ADMINISTRATION'S RECREATION FBB PROPOSALS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1993 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

WILL COME TO ORDER. 

TODAY WE WILL HEAR TESTIMONY ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S 

PROPOSALS CONCERNING ENTRANCE AND USER FEES AT NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, WILDLIFE REFUGES, RECREATION AREAS AND OTHER PUBLIC 

LANDS. THESE PROPOSALS ARE A PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET 

AND ECONOMIC PLAN. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED INCREASES IN 

ENTRANCE AND USER FEES AT DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FOREST 

SERVICE, AND ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER LANDS TOTALLING OVER $60 

MILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 AND LARGER AMOUNTS FOR THE ENSUING 

YEARS. DRAFT LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THESE FEES HAS JUST THIS 

WEEK BEEN SENT TO CONGRESS BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET. 

THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE 

HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION TO REPORT CHANGES IN LAW WHICH WOULD 

PRODUCE $131 MILLION IN INCREASED REVENUES OR REDUCED OUTLAYS IN 

FISCAL YEAR 1994. THESE CHANGES IN LAW MUST BE REPORTED BY THE 

FULL COMMITTEE BY THE MIDDLE OF MAY AND THEY WILL BECOME A PART 

OF THE OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION BILL. WHILE THE COMMITTEE MUST 

PRODUCE CHANGES IN LAW TO MEET THESE TARGETS, THERE IS NO 

REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMITTEE USE THE SPECIFIC REVENUE PROPOSALS 

OF THE ADMINISTRATION. 

BEFORE WE HEAR THE DETAILS OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S 

RECREATION FEE PROPOSALS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SEVERAL 
3 

OBSERVATIONS. FIRST, I AM PLEASED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S FEE 

PROPOSALS PROVIDE FOR RECREATION FEE REVENUES TO GO BACK INTO 

MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL 

RESOURCES OF THE PUBLIC LANDS WHERE THE FEES ARE COLLECTED. THE 

AMERICAN PEOPLE OWN THE PUBLIC LANDS AND THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING 

FOR THEM THROUGH THEIR TAXES. I BELIEVE THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY 

REASONABLE FEES FOR USE OF THESE LANDS BUT ONLY IF THERE IS A 

DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FEES COLLECTED AND THE IMPROVEMENT 

OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENJOYMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS. 

SECOND, I AM DISTURBED BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECENT 

DECISION NOT TO PURSUE GRAZING FEE AND MINING LAW REFORM AS PART 

OF THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS 

INDICATED THAT IT WILL PURSUE THESE REFORMS SEPARATELY, THE 

DECISION HAS PUT THIS COMMITTEE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION. WE ARE 

BEING ASKED TO RAISE ENTRANCE AND USER FEES ON THE AMERICAN 

PEOPLE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LETTING CONSUMPTIVE FOR-PROFIT 

ENTERPRISES THAT USE PUBLIC LANDS OFF THE HOOK. THIS IS EVEN 

MORE DIFFICULT IN LIGHT OF THE DEGRADATION OF PUBLIC LAND 

RESOURCES WHICH OFTEN OCCURS AS A RESULT OF MINING AND GRAZING 

ACTIVITIES. RECREATIONAL VISITORS ARE WILLING TO PAY THEIR FAIR 

SHARE, BUT ONLY IF COMMERCIAL USERS SHARE IN THE SACRIFICE AS 

WELL. IF THE COMMITTEE DOES PROCEED WITH INCREASED RECREATION 

FEES, IT SHOULD BE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT GRAZING AND MINING 

REFORMS WILL BE ON THE FRONT BURNER SO THAT THE "SACRIFICE" THAT 

PRESIDENT CLINTON CALLED FOR IS SHARED BY ALL USERS OF THE PUBLIC 

LANDS. 
4 

IN ADDRESSING THE MANY ISSUES INVOLVED IN RECREATION FEES, 

IT IS CRITICAL TO HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FEE COLLECTION AND 

POTENTIAL REVENUES. IN THE PAST THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN 

ABLE TO PROVIDE SOLID INFORMATION ON WHERE THE FEE DOLLARS ARE 

GOING. RECREATION FEES HAVE BEEN SWALLOWED UP IN THE BUDGET WITH 

NO CLEAR ACCOUNTING OF WHETHER THEY PROVIDE AN EXTRA MEASURE OF 

EXCELLENCE OR WHETHER THEY SIMPLY REPLACE GENERAL FUND 

APPROPRIATIONS. THE SAME GOES FOR PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE 

REVENUES. LAST MONTH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED A REPORT 

SAYING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COULD COLLECT AN ADDITIONAL $105 

MILLION IN ENTRANCE FEES WITHOUT ANY CHANGES IN EXISTING FEE 

LEGISLATION. FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN I WOULD I AGREE WITH THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THAT THIS IS A WILDLY INACCURATE PROJECTION 

BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT NUMBER SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD. I EXPECT 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND OTHER AGENCIES TO COMMENT ON HOW 

MUCH THEY THINK IMPROVED COLLECTION COULD ACCOUNT FOR. BEFORE WE 

PROCEED WITH AUTHORIZATION FOR CHARGING NEW AND HIGHER FEES, WE 

SHOULD HAVE A VERY GOOD PICTURE OF HOW MUCH MORE WE COULD GET BY 

ENHANCING THE COLLECTION OF CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED FEES. 

IN 1987 THIS SUBCOMMITTEE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL REWRITE OF THE 

LAW GOVERNING RECREATION FEE POLICY ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS. THE 

1987 AMENDMENTS WERE A BIPARTISAN EFFORT WHICH INVOLVED A NUMBER 

OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. 

AS MEMBERS WHO HAVE WORKED ON THESE ISSUES BEFORE KNOW, FEE 

ISSUES ARE COMPLEX AND SOMETIMES CONTROVERSIAL. SOME INDIVIDUALS 

AND INTEREST GROUPS HAVE URGED THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADDRESS 

RECREATION FEES IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY WITH A COHERENT FEDERAL 
5 

POLICY RATHER THAN JUGGLING NUMBERS TO REACH AN ARBITRARY REVENUE 

TARGET. OTHERS HAVE ASKED US TO TAKE RECREATION FEES OUT OF THE 

RECONCILIATION PROCESS SUCH AS WAS DONE WITH MINING AND GRAZING 

FEES AND EITHER DEAL WITH THEM SEPARATELY OR NOT DEAL WITH THEM 

AT ALL. THE SHORT TIME FRAME INVOLVED IN RECONCILIATION DOES NOT 

BODE WELL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING 

THE LACK OF FEE INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. 

AS ALWAYS, I APPROACH THE RECREATION FEE PROPOSALS WITH AN 

OPEN MIND. A GOOD CASE CAN BE MADE FOR INCREASED RECREATION FEES 

IF CERTAIN PRINCIPLES ARE UPHELD. (1) FEES SHOULD NOT BE SO HIGH 

THAT THEY DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM VISITING OUR NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS; (2) THEY MUST BE DEDICATED TO IMPROVE 

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND VISITOR SERVICES; AND (3) FEE INCREASES 

MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN A CONTEXT OF MUTUAL SACRIFICE BY OTHER 

USERS OF PUBLIC LANDS, ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMPTIVE 

USERS. 

DO OTHER MEMBERS WISH TO MAKE OPENING STATEMENTS? 
6 

Mr. VENTO. Today we're convening to consider entrance and user 

fees. These proposals are again part of the Administration's budget 

and economic plan. 

I think that looking at the different entities that collect these 

fees, including the Department of the Interior, the Department of 

Agriculture, and the Army Corps, that these, they thought, would 

amount to about $60 million. 

The Committee on Natural Resources has been directed by the 

House Budget to come up with a total of 131 for increased revenues 

and outlays in 1994. 

While the Committee must produce changes in the law to meet 

these targets, there's no requirement that the Committee use the 

specific revenue proposal of the Administration. 

Furthermore, I am pleased that the Administration's fee proposal 

provides for recreation fee revenues to go back into maintaining 

and enhancing natural, cultural and recreational resources for public lands where the fees are collected. 

Second, I am disturbed by the Administration's decision not to 

pursue a grazing fee and mining law reform as part of the reconciliation process, but I understand the strong position, especially 

of Secretary Babbitt, in terms of pursuing these independently. 

Of course we will support those efforts because these particular 

areas of utilization, in terms of grazing permits and mining activities cause great threats to, and have great consequence in terms 

of public lands. 

I would point out that the CBO numbers , in terms of dealing 

with the Administration numbers, are substantially different. In 

fact, they should be recognized as such, so that even with the proposals along the lines that they have advocated would not result 

in the type of revenue results that are anticipated or projected. 

I might note that the Inspector General issued a report saying 

that the Park Service could collect an additional $105 million in entrance fees without any changes in existing fee legislation. 

Well, I think I find that hard to accept, having worked in this 

area of public policy for the last decade. But nevertheless, it does 

point out that there are probably significant improvements that 

could be made in the existing collection of fees, entrance and user 

fees, by at least the Park Service, and probably by other agencies 

as well. 

We made a substantial rewrite of the fee legislation for parks in 

1987. The results of it, I think, are sort of mixed. It was a bipartisan effort, and it was a significant undertaking in the short time 

frame that we had. I'm concerned that in trying to deal with this 

subject anew, we would have a very difficult time. 

Of course I'm open to ideas about recreation fee proposals, and 

I know a good case can be made for increased recreation fees if certain principles are upheld. 

Usually, I think once the case is made and the law is passed and 

the money comes into Washington, the second part of that, the 

principles involved are often forgotten and the revenue ends up in 

the Treasury. 

I think fees should not be so high that they should dissuade people from visiting parks, forests or public lands. Certainly they must 
7 

be dedicated to improve the resource protection and visitors' service. 

And third, the fee increase must be carried out in the context of 

mutual sacrifice by other users of public lands. So it shouldn't be 

disproportionate only on recreation or visitors to national parks, 

forests, or BLM areas. 

I'm especially concerned about the commercial and consumptive 

uses. 

So, with that said, I wanted to provide the opportunity for those 

that are present. 

And we have a short witness list today, but some key witnesses. 

Let me, before I call the witnesses, go over and cast my vote. I 

think that we are likely to be gone for a little bit here, because 

there may be two votes in a row in terms of final passage. 

So maybe we could get started right now. 

I don't know if Mr. Dickey is present. 

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Moffitt and Mr. Mills, why don't 

you come to the witness table. 

We'll put your statements in the record. We can get that far 

done, and one of you can give your oral testimony before I have to 

leave. 

Mr. Dickey, I'd ask to have your statement placed in the record, 

so the Clerk will distribute the statements to the members present 

and staff. 

Mr. Dickey, why don't you go ahead with your oral statement. 

Feel free to summarize, or just read the relevant portions thereof. 

STATEMENT OF DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY [CIVIL WORKS] 

Dr. DICKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pleased 

to summarize my statement. 

The Corps has over 4,300 separate recreation areas that provide 

a broad range of opportunities. The Corps operates about 2,500 of 

those areas. The remainder are operated by state or local governments, or quasi-public organizations or private interests. 

There are, in addition, over 400 private concessionaires. 

Now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as 

amended, provides the Corps authority to collect user fees for the 

use of specialized sites, facilities, equipment or services furnished 

at federal expense. 

In 1992, the Corps collected $19.5 million under this authority, 

primarily from camping fees, which average $8 per night. However, 

the Corps currently lacks the authority to charge fees for most dayuse activities, and is required to provide one free campground at 

projects providing camping. 

User fee revenues are deposited in special accounts in the Treasury, from which they are subsequently appropriated to the Army 

Civil Works Program for the purposes authorized by the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act. 

The Administration's recreation user fee proposal would give the 

Corps authority to charge fees for the use of certain day-use facilities, such as picnic facilities, boat ramps, and swim beaches operated by the Corps. 
8 

These fees would range from one to three dollars. No entrance 

fees to Corps projects would be charged. 

And also no fees would be charged for wayside exhibits, overlook 

sites, general visitor information, or comfort facilities. 

The proposal would remove the current requirement for the 

Corps to provide a free campground. This authority would allow 

the Corps to increase the amount of OJ?eration and maintenance 

cost that is offset by the users of recreation facilities. It would also 

eliminate unfair competition with other recreation providers who 

must charge for their services. 

In summary, the Administration's proposal would increase user 

fees collected at Corps projects from $19 million to $37 million annually. This would reduce the share of the cost to operate and 

maintain recreation facilities at Corps projects paid by the General 

Fund collection of the Treasury. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I'll be happy to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Dickey follows:) 
9 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

(CIVIL WORKS) 

COMPLETE STATEMENT 

OF 

DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY 

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

BEF.ORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ADMINISTRATION'S RECREATION FEE PROPOSALS 

APRIL 29, 1993 
10 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased 

to be here today on behalf of the Department of the Army to 

discuss the Administration's recreation user fee proposal for 

water resources development areas administered by the Army. Your 

letter of invitation requested that we present our views 

regarding the legislative proposal. I will also cover the scope 

of our recreation program, the current recreation user fee 

collection program, and the changes that the proposed legislation 

would authorize. ' 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECREATION PROGRAM 

Before addressing the recreation user fee proposal, I would 

like to provide some background on the Corps of Engineers 

recreation program. The Corps administers 11.7 million acres of 

land and water at 460 water resources development projects in 43 

States. Although the Corps administers less than 2% of the 

Federal land estate, Corps projects account for almost 30% of the 

recreation visitation to Federal lands. The unique experiences 

that water- oriented recreation opportunities offer attract 

visitors to fish, boat, water ski, sail, swim, sightsee, hunt, 

camp, and picnic each year. In 1992, over 400 million recreation 

visits, totalling more than 2.4 billion visitor hours 0f use, 

occurred at these projects. Over 25 million individuals, or about 10% of the Nation's population, visited Corps projects at 

least once last year. 

COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIPS 

Over 4,300 separate recreation areas at Corps projects 

provide outdoor recreation opportunities ranging from primitive 

to highly developed settings. The Corps operates about 2,500 of 

these areas. These 2,500 areas provide about 53% of the 400 

million recreation visits at Corps projects. The remaining 1,800 

are operated by State or local governments, quasi-public 

organizations, or private interests. State and local governments 

often provide opportunities specifically attuned to the needs of 

local populations, as well as respond to the broader interests of 

the general public. Quasi-public organizations address the 

needs of youth organizations, civic groups, and special interest 

groups. Over 400 private concessionaires, with gross fixed 

assets of over $200 million and gross annual income of almost 

$100 million, provide marina, resort and other commercial 

services for visitors. 

CURRENT AUTHORITIES 

The Land and Water conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965, as amended, provides authority for the Corps to collect recreation user fees, for the "use of specialized sites, facilities, 

2 
11 

equipment or services furnished at federal expense." Under this 

authority, the corps collected $19.5 million in user fees in 

1992, the majority of which were derived from camping fees, which 

average $8 per site. Most camping fees are collected by 

contractors, stationed at the entrances to recreation areas. Fees are also collected for certain special-use activities, such as the reservation of group picnic shelters. However, the Corps 

currently lacks the authority to charge fees for most day-use 

activities and is required to provide one free campground at 

projects providing camping. 

Corps recreation user fee revenues are deposited in a special account in the Treasury, from which they are subsequently 

appropriated to the Army Civil Works Program for any and all 

purposes authorized by the LWCF Act. These funds are included in 

Energy and Water Development Acts under the Corps of Engineers -- Civil -- Operation and Maintenance, General, Appropriation, where 

they are used to offset following year recreation program costs. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 

The Administration's recreation user fee proposal would give 

the corps of Engineers authority to charge fees for the use of 

certain day-use facilities, such as picnic facilities, boat 

ramps, and swim beaches operated by the ~orps. These fees would 

be in the range of $1 to $3, but in no case greater than $3 per 

site or activity. No entrance fees to Corps projects would be 

charged. Fees would not be charged for wayside exhibits, 

overlook sites, general visitor information, or comfort 

facilities. The proposal would remove the current requirement 

for the Corps to provide a free campground at any project having a Corps operated and developed campground. This authority would 

permit the Corps to expand its current fee collection program in 

order to increase the amount of operations and maintenance cost 

that is offset by the users of recreation facilities. It would 

also eliminate unfair competition with other recreation providers 

who must charge for their services. 

As I mentioned earlier, about 1,800 recreation areas at 

Corps projects are operated by others. Mdst of those charge 

entrance or user fees and potentially compete with the Corps 

operated areas at which the same recreation facilities are provided free. 

In summary, the Administration's proposal would increase user fees collected at Corps projects from $19 million to $37 

million annually. This would reduce the share of the cost to 

operate and maintain recreation facilities at Corps projects paid 

by General Fund collection of the Treasury from $150 million per 

year to about $132 million. 

3 
12 

Mr. VENTO. Let me just interject. I have to go for a vote shortly. I have a number of short questions for Mr. Dickey. 

I don't know what your schedule is this afternoon. 

I regret that we had to change the time of the hearing. 

But let me just ask what level of development services are there 

at the, for instance, swimming areas. 

Are there lifeguards? 

Dr. DICKEY. At our swimming areas, of course, typically at reservoirs, we have improved beaches, we have change houses and 

comfort facilities, restrooms. We do not have lifeguards at Corps 

operated beaches. 

Mr. VENTO. Is there a definition of developed recreation sites and 

facilities in your draft bill, do you know, Mr. Dickey? 

Dr. DICKEY. No, there is not. But typically our developed sites 

are ones that include not only vehicle access and parking, we have 

comfort stations, and the typical amenities that would go, for example, at picnic areas. We would have comfort facilities, grills, and so 

forth. 

Mr. VENTO. In the vision of change document, it says, fee revenues will be put into a special account to be used to offset rec program costs. 

The concern we have is, does this mean that the funds would be 

supplemental, or would they supplant the existing funding? 

Dr. DICKEY. This would supplant existing funding. In other 

words, the Corps operates its facilities out of appropriated funds. 

These funds would be available, in subsequent years, for appropria- tion for operation and maintenance of the Corps recreation facilities. 

Mr. VENTO. So there would be no new funds, it would simply 

supplant existing funding? Dr. DICKEY. I would say, in principle, that's it, but again the 

level of appropriations is typically tied, to some degree at least, to 

the availability of funds. And we found, in the cases where you do 

have trust funds and so forth, it facilitates appropriation. 

Mr. VENTO. I note the legislation that you've submitted for us is 

contained in legislation amended to the Flood Control Act, the 

LWCF. 

Is there any reason for that? 

Dr. DICKEY. It amends both Acts. 

The reason it addresses the Flood Control Act is because it's the 

Flood Control Act that requires us to provide the free campground. 

Mr. VENTO. I see. 

Isn't the authority for collection for the rec fees, though, and 

even for the camrground user fees, attached to the Land Water? 

You're saying its only attached to the Flood Control? 

Dr. DICKEY. No, it's both. 

Mr. VENTO. It's in both. Okay. 

Well, are the revenue numbers available yet regarding the elimination of the requirement of one free campground at each lake or 

reservoir? 

Dr. DICKEY. That's a relatively small part of the reservoir. It's 

about $500,000. 

Mr. VENTO. R1ght now, you have to meet eight criteria that have 

to be met. I won't go through them. 
13 

Do the Army Corps of Engineers' campsites fail under any of 

these? 

Dr. DICKEY. Virtualll: all of our campgrounds meet those criteria. 

Mr. VENTO. So there s no increased revenue that would come? 

Dr. DICKEY. We would not be able to discern the revenue differences if you changed that criteria. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas, I have not voted yet. I don't know if the 

gentleman has voted. 

Do you have any questions of Mr. Dickey from the Corps of Engineers? 

I don't know what your schedule is, Mr. Dickey, but there may 

be other members who do have questions. 

I just wanted to pursue a few with you, with the idea that perhaps he could leave, but you'll have to remain. 

We'll be back. 

We'll stand in recess. 

We have actually a vote on this amendment and on final passage, so we'll have a two vote sequence. That's why I've dragged this out a little bit. But we'll be back, hopefully within fifteen minutes. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DAVID MOFFITT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VISITOR SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY 

MARSH, RECREATION PLANNER, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND MICHAEL BOYLAND, ACTING CI:IIEF, DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PUBLIC USE, FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, AND THOMAS J. MILLS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CI:IIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. 

The good news is that we've resumed; the bad news is that we're 

going to have to leave again for another vote soon. 

So let me invite Mr. Moffitt to present his statement. 

Mr. Dickey, I have no further questions. If we have any further 

questions, we'll submit them in writing. So depending upon your schedule, you're excused. If you want to remain, you're welcome to 

do so, but if you have other pressing businessOr. DICKEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. You're welcome. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this opportunity to provide your subcommittee with 

the views of the Department of the Interior on legislation to authorize increased recreation fees and repeal the prohibition on fees 

for specific services for the National Park System and Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

We strongly recommend the enactment of the AdministTation's 

proposed legislation that was submitted to the Congress on April 

26, 1993. 

The President's economic program for fiscal year 1994 and beyond proposes the elimination or reduction of certain subsidies and 

chargmg of fees for certain services provided by the Government to 

help bring down the deficit. 
14 

In order for the President's economic program to succeed, everyone must contribute, and the increases must be fair and reasonable. 

Our goal was to increase receipts from recreation fees in fiscal 

year 1994 as follows: 

For the National Park Service, $28.65 million. 

For the Bureau of Land Management, $1 million. 

And for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $400,000. 

Our proposed legislation would achieve that result by increasing 

statutory caps on certain fees, and by expanding the facilities 

where user fees can be charged. 

In addition, the BLM would be authorized to charge admission 

fees at areas identified in Section 1 of the bill. The Fish and Wildlife Service can raise its fees sufficiently under current authority 

to meet its target. 

Therefore, they are not included in the proposed legislation. 

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that we have not recommended repeal of any prohibition that Congress has placed on charging fees 

for a specific park or classes of parks. 

If the Congress wishes to do so, and the fee is feasible, we would 

not object to removal of exemptions. 

We have made available to the Subcommittee our proposed entrance fee schedule for fiscal 1994. 

Upon enactment of our proposal, and following the required 60 

formal day notice to the legislative committees, these rates will be 

in effect in time for the calendar 1994 season. 

The BLM will submit its proposed entrance fee schedule after 

public review. 

Our proposal would increase statutory caps on the Golden Eagle 

Passport, the annual park pass, and single-visit entry permits. Within the new caps, we intend to phase in the increases over several years. 

None of the new caps would be reached in 1994. 

Specifically, in 19941 we propose to increase the Golden Eagle 

Passport from $25 to :fi35. This is an annual pass that authorizes 

entry into any park for a carload or an individual. 

We anticipate reviewing the value of the passport every three or 

four years. If these reviews reveal that thelassport is under-valued, a reasonable increase would be propose following notification 

to the Committees, of course. 

An increase in the cap could only be accomplished by an act of 

Congress. 

The annual park pass, which was created in 1986 by Congress 

to provide unlimited admission to one park for one year, would be 

increased from $15 for some parks, and $10 for others, to $20 and 

$15, respectively. 

The new ceiling of $30 will be reached in increments every three 

or four years at the higher fee areas, following appropriate notice. 

The single visit permit, which allows a carload of visitors to stay 

for seven days is capped by existing law at $10 for three parks and 

$5 for all other parks. 

The fee for entry by means other than a vehicle is capped by existing law at $5 per person for the same three parks, and $3 per 

person at all others. 
15 

The three parks with the higher statutory fee caps are Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Grand Canyon. 

Our proposal would raise the caps to $16 per vehicle and $8 per 

person for all parks. 

However, for 1994, no park would carry the maximum fee, and 

only at eleven parks would we charge $11 per vehicle and $5 per 

person. All others would carry a lesser charge in fiscal year 1994. 

Again, we anticipate reviewing the value of the single visit permit every three or four years. 

With regard to park user fees, existing law does not establish 

statutory caps on fees for such uses as camping. The act prohibits, 

however, charging a fee for drinking water, exhibits, roads, overlooks, visitors centers, toilets, picnic tables or boat ramps. 

The act also prohibits a charge for boat-launching facilities unless there are specialized facilities provided such as mechanical 

lifts. 

And it prohibits a charge for camp grounds without tent or trailer spaces, drinking water, access roads, refuse containers, toilets, 

personal collection of the fee, reasonable visitor protection, and devices for containing a camp fire. 

Our proposed legislation would repeal the prohibition on fees for 

specific services to allow us to charge for back country camping and 

boat launching ramps. 

It is not our intention to charge for every drinking fountain, but 

where several services and facilities are provided in an area, we 

would charge a user fee. 

Regarding the Bureau of Land Management, in 1992 the BLM's 

recreation fee collections were $1,671,000 derived from some 96,000 

recreation permits for camping and other uses at developed facilities, and from about 4,000 special recreation permits. 

The receipts to be collected in 1993 are expected to total $1.9 million. The expansion of areas at which the Interior Department 

agencies could collect fees is projected to increase BLM's collection 

by $1 million for a total of $2.95 million, which would meet BLM's 

goal for recreation fees. 

This level of fees is consistent with the President's policies that 

fees for use of BLM and related lands would not be increased by 

increments of more than three dollars. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have included in our proposal an 

amendment that will enable us to use part of the fees we collect 

to pay for the costs of collection. This provision will make an estimated $5 million available in fiscal year 1994 without further appropriation to help pay for fee collection costs. 

With this assured source of funds, our park managers will be 

able to hire more people to collect at the gate during early morning 

and late evening, and we can fund additional kiosks and other facilities and hardware that will make our collection program more 

efficient. 

We recognize that placing this $5 million off budget also places 

a responsibility on our managers of strict accountability for these 

funds. We accept that responsibility, and we welcome continued 

oversight by your subcommittee. 
16 

Mr. Chairman, we believe our fee proposal is a reasonable one, 

that park visitors will accept as their contribution to providing a 

Government service. 

The service, in this case, is a very special one involving access 

to and use of some of the finest and most precious real estate in 

the world. 

We think that, viewed in this light, the fees proposed represent 

an excellent value. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. We appre- ciate your scheduling this hearing this afternoon, and we urge 

early and favorable consideration of our legislative proposal. 

I'd be pleased to respond to any of your questions, and I have my colleagues here from the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM for 

specifics. 

Mr. VENTO. I'm aware of that, and I appreciate their presence. Again, I regret the sort of para pathetic in nature of my presence, 

but let me put this document in the record that you provided us, 

Mr. Moffitt. 

Without objection, that will be placed in the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Moffitt follows:] 
17 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MOFFITT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR -- VISITOR 

SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC 

LANDS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING PROPOSED 

INCREASED RECREATION FEES. 

April 29, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to provide your 

Subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interior on 

legislation to authorize increased recreation fees and repeal the 

prohibition on fees for specific services for the National Park 

System and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 

We strongly recommend the enactment of the Administration's 

proposed legislation that was submitted to the Congress on April 

26, 1993. 

The President's economic program for fiscal 1994 and beyond 

proposes the elimination or reduction of certain subsidies and 

charging of fees for certain services provided by the Government 

to help bring down the deficit. 

In order for the President's economic program to succeed, 

everyone must contribute, and the increases must be fair and 

reasonable. Our goal was to increase receipts from recreation 

fees in fiscal year 1994 as follows: for the National Park 

Service, $28.65 million; for the Bureau of Land Management, 

$1 million; and for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $400,000. Our 
18 

2 

proposed legislation would achieve that result by increasing 

statutory caps on certain fees and by expanding the facilities 

where user fees can be charged. In addition, the BLM would be 

authorized to charge admi3sion fees at areas identified in 

section 1 of the bill. The Fish and Wildlife service can raise 

its fees sufficiently under current authority to meet its target. 

Therefore, they are not included in the proposed legislation. 

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that we have not recommended repeal 

of any prohibition that Congress has placed on charging fees for 

a specific park or classes of parks. If the Congress wishes to 

do so, and the fee is feasible, we would not object to the 

removal of exemptions. 

We have made available to the Subcommittee our proposed entrance 

fee schedule for fiscal 1994. Upon enactment of our proposal, 

and following the required 60-day formal notice to the 

legislative Committees, these rates will be in effect in time for 

the calendar 1994 season. The BLM will submit its proposed 

entrance fee schedule after public review. 

our proposal would increase statutory caps on the Golden Eagle 

Passport, the annual park pass, and single-visit entry permits. 

Within the new caps, we intend to phase in the increases over 

several years. None of the new caps would be reached in 1994. 
19 

3 

Specifically, in 1994 we propose to increase the Golden Eagle 

Passport from $25 to $35. This is an annual pass that authorizes 

entry into any park for a carload or an individual. We 

anticipate reviewing the value of the passport every 3 or 4 

years. If these reviews reveal that the passport is undervalued, 

a reasonable increase would be proposed, following notification 

to the Committees. Of course, an increase in the cap could only 

be accomplished by an Act of Congress. 

The annual park pass, which was created in 1986 by Congress to 

provide unlimited admission for one park for one year, will be 

increased from $15 for some parks and $10 for others to $20 and 

$15 respectively. The new ceiling of $30 will be reached in 

increments every 3 or 4 years at the higher fee areas, following 

appropriate notice. 

The single-visit permit, which allows a carload of visitors to 

stay for seven days, is capped by existing law at $10 for three 

parks and $5 for all other parks. The fee for entry by means 

other than a vehicle is capped by existing law at $5 per person 

for the same three parks and $3 per person at all others. The 

three parks with the higher statutory fee caps are Yellowstone, 

Grand Teton, and Grand canyon. Our proposal would raise the caps 

to $16 per vehicle and $8 per person for all parks. However, for 

1994 no park would carry the maximum fee, and only at 11 parks 

would we charge $11 per vehicle and $5 per person. All others 
4 

would carry a lesser charge in fiscal 1994. Again, we anticipate 

reviewing the value of the single-visit permit every 3 or 4 

years. 

With regard to park user fees, existing law does not establish 

statutory caps on fees for such uses as camping. The Act 

prohibits, however, charging a fee for drinking water, exhibits, 

roads, overlooks, visitor's centers, toilets, picnic tables, or 

boat ramps. The Act also prohibits a charge for boat launching 

facilities unless there are specialized facilities provided such 

as mechanical lifts, and it prohibits a charge for campgrounds 

without tent or trailer spaces, drinking water, access roads, 

refuse containers, toilets, personal collection of the fee, 

reasonable visitor protection, and devices for containing a 

campfire. 

Our proposed legislation would repeal the prohibitions on fees 

for specific services, to allow us to charge for backcountry 

camping and boat launching ramps. It is not our intention to 

charge for every drinking fountain, but where several services 

and facilities are provided in an area we could charge a user 

fee. 

Regarding the Bureau of Land Management, in 1992 the BLM's 

recreation fee collections were $1,671,000 derived from some 

96,000 recreation permits for camping and other uses at developed 
21 

5 

facilities and from about 4,000 special recreation permits. The 

receipts to be collected in ~993 are expected to total $1.9 

million. The expansion of areas at which Interior Department 

agencies could collect fees is projected to increase BLM's 

collections by $1 million to a total of $2.95 million, which 

would meet BLM's goal on recreation fees. This level of fees is 

consistent with the President's policy that fees for use of BLM 

and related lands would not be increased by increments of more 

than $3. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have included in our proposal an 

amendment that will enable us to use part of the fees we collect 

to pay for the costs of collection. This provision will make an 

estimated $5 million available in fiscal year 1994, without 

further appropriation, to help pay for fee-collection costs. 

With this assured source of funds, our park managers will be able 

to hire more people to collect at the gate during early morning 

and late evening, and we can fund additional kiosks and other 

facilities and hardware that will make our collection program 

more efficient. We recognize that placing this $5 million offbudget also places a responsibility on our managers of strict 

accountability for these funds. We accept that responsibility, 

and we welcome continued oversight by your Subcommittee. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe our fee proposal is a reasonable one 

that park visitors will accept as their contribution to providing 
22 

6 

a Government service. The service in this case is a very special 

one, involving access to and use of some of the finest and most 

precious real estate in the world. We think that, viewed in this 

light, the fees proposed represent an excellent value. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate 

your scheduling this hearing today, and we urge early and 

favorable consideration of our legislative proposal. I will be 

pleased to respond to your questions. 
23 

Mr. VENTO. And let me then invite Mr. Mills, I understand neither the BLM nor the Fish and Wildlife Service have statements 

from the Department of the Interior, but ask your colleague, Associate Deputy Chief Mr. Mills to summarize his statement at this 

time. 

I note that Mr. Boylan has taken the microphone. Is this an indication that Mr. Mills isn't here, Mr. Boylan? 

Mr. MILLS. I'm Mr. Mills. 

Mr. VENTO. I'm sorry. 

Mr. MILLS. The name tags are covered up, so--

Mr. VENTO. I see, sorry. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. MILLS 

Mr. MILLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It's a pleasure to be here and testify in support of the Administration's proposal to amend the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act, and raise recreation fees on National Forests. 

The President's vision for change is a reasoned response to a difficult situation that we face. Recreation demand on National Forests, as elsewhere, is increasing. New facilities have been put in 

place, and yet we have insufficient operating and maintenance 

funds to maintain those facilities as they should, the result of 

which, Mr. Chairman, is that we not only cannot best serve the 

recreating public, but it puts a considerable capital asset in jeopardy, and it prohibits us from fully protecting the natural resource 

which in fact the recreationists are coming to see. 

This has been a long time in coming, and there's been a number 

of efforts to address this need for operation maintenance funds, 

most particularly by increased appropriations by the Congress. 

But we've also supplemented those funds with a considerable 

corps of volunteers, with private sector capital brought in through 

permits under the Granger-Thye authorities, as well as challenged 

cost shares that partners have contributed to the development of 

recreation sites and their operation and maintenance. 

It turns out, however, that even with those combined efforts, it's 

not enough. In 1992, recreation on National Forest lands totalled 

287 million recreation visitor days, approximately 40 percent of all 

the recreation visits on Federal lands. 

We expect as many as 80 million recreation visitor days on developed recreational sites alone in 1994. 

Although we've got some outstanding new facilities that Congress just funded, such as the Mt. St. Helens Visitor Center, we 

also have an aging facility infrastructure. 

According to a GAO report, over one-quarter of our developed 

recreation sites are over 40 years old, and three-quarters of them 

are over 20 years old. 

The President's 1994 budget proposes a response to this, with a 

proposed increase in recreation management funding of some $12 

million. Within those funds, we plan to devote an additional $1.2 

million to the Federal side of the challenged cost-share program 

that's been so successful in the past, and if our experience in the 

future matches the past, we'll get more than a one-to-one contribution from non-Federal sources. 
24 

But in tight times like these, when tough choices are necessary, 

it's also necessary then to go to the recreationists and ask them to 

pay more as well. 

Under current authority, we collect some $15 million in recreation fees. Under this new authority, as it would affect National 

Forests, we would collect an additional $10 million for a total of 

$25 million. 

The proposal, as it affects National Forest lands, has three major 

components. 

The first one is, provide authority to charge admission to national monuments and national volcanic monuments, national scenic areas and areas of concentrated public use, for which there are 

criteria listed in the proposal. 

The increased fees that we would expect to gain from admission 

to those areas is $5 million, or approximately half of the $10 million increase. 

It would also remove the amenity requirements that are currently in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, that would 

permit us to increase fee collections at campgrounds by approximately $2 million, and other recreation facilities, such as boat 

ramps and swimming sites, for an additional $3 million. 

The third and last provision that affects National Forest management, just as was testified to earlier, is the authority to retain the 

administrative costs of collecting these additional fees, which we 

estimate at this time would be approximately 25 percent. 

One of the questions we're often asked is what the recreationists' 

response to these fee increases would be. I'm sure you'll recall Beverly Driver's testimony on recreation fees just the last session here, 

before your subcommittee, in which he testified that there are a 

number of studies that show that a strong majority of recreation 

users are favorable to reasonable increases in fees, especially pro- viding that those fees are modest increases, that they have paid 

similar fees in the past, that they are for use of facilities, rather 

than access to areas, and particularly if they can see that those 

dollars directly relate to the recreation experience and recreation 

facilities that they are using. 

Therefore, we feel that these fees meet these criteria and that 

the recreationists will clearly understand the dilemma we face to 

provide them with the quality recreation experience. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to answer any questions 

that you have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:] 
25 

STATEMENT OF 

THO!>!AS J. MILLS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

u~ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before t.he 

Subcomrnittee on Nat.ional Parks, Forests and Publlc Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

united States House of Representatives 

April 29, 1993 

MR. CHAIPYA'I AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views in support of the 

Administration's proposal amend the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act of 1965. We are especially pleased to be testifying in 

unison with the Department of the Interior on a proposal thaL will 

benefit the ~~erican public through improvements in the recreation 

programs of both Departments. we will address the proposal as it 

relates to the operations of the Department of Agriculture, and defer 

to the Department of the Interior on the other provisions. 

We strongly recorrunend enactment of the Administration's proposed 

legislation that was submitted to the Congress on April 26, 1993. 

In his report, "A Vision of Change for America", t:he President: made 

clear his commitment to increasing revenues from users of recreation 

facilities on Federal lands. We cannot predict exact. fee levels, but 

new entrance and user fees will not exceed the $3 cap contained in the 

President's report. This conunitment is a reasoned response to a 
26 

dlfficult situation. On tbe one hand, demand for recreational 

opportunities is high and expected to grow substantially over the 

foreseeable future. On the other, ava::..lab1e resources are inadequate 

maintain even the current recreation infrastructure evidenced 

by the $449 million unfunded backlog of essential maintenance and 

repair of recreation facilities. Even so, new facilities are coming 

en line plac1ng greater stress on the operation and maintenance 

budget. 

Congress has recognized this dilemma and has responded by raising 

appropriations for the Forest Service recreation program significantly 

ln recent years. To leverage these dollars, we employee a number of 

innovative measures. For example, in 1991, volunteers contributed 

work valued at $23 million in support of the recreation program. 

Additionally, we operate certain facilities under Granger-Thye pennits 

which bring in private capital to maintain recreation facilities on 

National Forests. The estimated value of this effort for FY 1991 was 

$12 milli.on that was then available for operation and maintenance of 

other facilities. We have also developed cooperative relationships 

with over 5000 groups and organizations that contributed $15 million 

of private funds or in-kind services in 1992 for recreation management 

activities helPing to alleviate budget shortfalls. 

However] if we are to meet the demand for quality recreation 

opportunities on Federal lands and protect the natural resources front 

overuse, additional resources beyond these are a must. This 

Administration has already proposed to spend $12 million on the 

reduction of the maintenance and repair backlog through the Natural 
27 

Resource Protection and Enviror&.ental Infrascruc~ure Initiative that 

is part of the .President's 1994 budget. Also proposed an 

additional $1.2 million for the Forest Service contribution to 

recreation management projects funded under Challenge Share 

program. We continue to be l ieve these resources must be augmented by 

asking recreation users to bear a slightl:~r greater portion of program 

costs. Our proposed amendmenr:s to t::he Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act would do that. 

Demand for Recreation Experiences: 

Recreation on Federal lands provides important benefits to the 

American people. Research has clearly demonstrated the physiological 

and psychological benefits of recreation. Its economic benefits far 

rural communities are also clearly documented. Increased funding for 

the recreation program can only enhance these benefits. 

The contrlbution of the Forest Service in meeting the recreation 

demands of the American public is also well documented. In 1991, 1.6 

billion visits were recorded on Federal lands. Forest Service sites 

accommodated nearly 600 mil l ion, or 36 percent, of those visits. The 

1989 RPA Assessment projected that national demand for land- based 

recreation opportunities would rise significantly over the next 50 

years 1 from low of 30 percent for off-road activities to a high of 

193 percent for day hiking. For Fiscal Year 1994, we anticipate that 

80 million recreation visitor days will occur on Forest Service 

developed recreation sites. 
28 

Financing the Operation and Maintenance of Recreation Facilities: 

The Presj_dent's budget for FY 1994 proposes $186 million for 

!:ecreati:::-Jn management on National Forests of which an estimated $130 

million will used for operation and maintenance of developed 

recreation facilities. Under current law, fees collected by the 

Forest Service from recreationists for use of developed recreation 

facilities amount to approximately $15 million dollars, or slightly 

less than 12 percent the total cost of operation and maintenance. 

Research has consistently shown that a strong majority of users are 

willing to pay reasonable fees provided the fees go toward enhanced 

recreacion experiences Experience 1Nith Duck Stamps, Green Stlckers 

4 

and hunting and fishing licenses support this research. Of course, we 

must educate the public as to the need for 1 and use of, increased fees 

and these increases must be tailored to avoid ''sticker shock 11 • Our 

proposed amen~~ents the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 would generate approximately $10 million in new receipts. While 

users are being asked to pay more to recreate on Federal lands, more 

than 80 percent of program costs for operation and maintenance will 

continue to be borne by the Federal goverrm;ent. 

Increasing the amount of fees collected for recreational activities 

will enhance user satisfaction by making addicional resources 

available for reduction of the existing maintenance and repair 

backlog. In 1990, the General Accounting Office (GAOl reported that 

51 percent of our developed recreation sites are between 2l and 40 

years old, while another· 27 percent are more than 40 years old. That 

means that more than half of the Forest Service recreation facilities 
29 

have already outlived their estimated life. t1any of these facilities 

no longer conform to current laws and standards. GAO estimated that, 

based on conditions found in 1989, $449 million would be needed to 

eliminate our maintenance and repair backlog and internal studies 

suggest the backlog has grown since the GAO study was completed. 

Additional fees would be available for appropriation to meet a part of 

this pressing need~ 

Proposed Changes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: 

Almost all recreation user fees now collected by the Forest Service 

come from campgrounds that provide a full array of amenities. Fee 

levels for specific locations are set by regulation based on 

comparability with similar recreational facilities in the immediate 

area. Little additional revenue could be generated by raising fees at 

these campgrounds. 

In order to generate $10 million in new fees from recreation on 

National Forests, the Administration proposes several changes in the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. First, Section 4{a) would be 

amended by authorizing the Forest Service to charge admission fees at 

National Monuments, National Volcanic Monuments, National Scenic 

Areas, and areas of concentrated public use, in addition to our 

current admission fee authority for National Recreation Areas. A new 

subsection, 4(i) would define nareas of concentrated public usen as 

sites that are managed primarily for outdoor recreation purposes with 

facilities and services necessary to accommodate heavy public use and 

that contain at least one major recreation attraction such as a lake, 

72-353 0 - 93 - 2 
30 

() 

r1ver, historical sice, or geologic feature. These changes are 

expec~ed to generate ss million in new receipts. 

Secondly, Section 4{b) would be amended delete the current 

requirements that certain facilities be offered at developed 

recreation sites before recreation use fees can be charged. With this 

change, daily use fees could be charged at additional developed Sltes 

such as camp and picnic grounds, swHrutling sites, boat launch ramps and 

managed parking lets, and fees could be charged for specialized 

services at visitor centers. These sites require speclalized 

facilities and have high operatlon and maintenance costs because they 

serve large numbers of people. This change would generate additional 

receipts of $3 million from campgrounds and $2 million from other 

facilities. 

Alternatives to Proposed Legislation: 

The realities we face in providing outdoor recreation opportunities 

the American public are clear. Demand is up. New facilities are 

coming on line. At the same time, resources are inadequate to 

maintain existing recreation facilities. The user represents an 

lmportant source of added funds to address these needs. Without new 

fee authority, we would have to eliminate many substandard recreation 

facilities or, in the alternative, experience a continuing 

deterioration in their quality. Neither of these options serve the 

American public well. We believe the Adrninistration's proposal offers 

an opportunity to maintain the stream of benefits derived from the 

recreation program without adding to the Federal deficit. is an 
31 

important component of any comprehensive effort to address this 

situation. 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRAi requires that all 

revenue and d'..rect spending legislation meet a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGOI 

requirement. The Administration's proposal would increase receipts by 

approximately $10 million in FY 1994. Thus, the bill meets the PAYGO 

requirement of the OBRA. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be glad to answer 

any questions from you or the other Members of the Subcornrnittee. 
32 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I have a question. We've got to go for a vote 

here in another eight minutes or so. 

But I thought we'd get something done today before I have toretreat to mark up the Resolution Trust Corporation Funding Bill in 

the other Committee. 

My question, Mr. Mills and Mr. Moffitt, and others with the Department of the Interior-Mr. Marsh and Mr. Boylan-is, you asked, in terms of collecting fees, to have the authority to deduct 

the expense of collecting the fees. 

That would also apply to the existing user entrants, or as Mr. 

Mills referred to them, recreation fees. So you completely confused 

me. 

But, in any case, can ;you give me any estimate. I mean, for instance, Mr. Mills, you srud, combined here, you assume you can collect another $10 million if we change these criteria under LWCF, 

the eight criteria to no criteria. 

So you'd have an extra $10 million. What would we-in other 

words, you're already collecting $15 million, but we would then deduct from that what the cost of collection is, and we would deduct 

from the cost of collection, the $10 million. 

Is that $10 million the estimate of what we'd get with the deduction? 

Mr. MILLS. As I understand our proposal, Mr. Chairman, the authority is to withhold the administrative costs of collecting apply to 

the additional fees collected, therefore not to the existing $15 million approximately which we currently collect. 

Mr. VENTO. It would be quite an accounting fete. 

Mr. MILLS. It would definitely be an accounting challenge for us, 

yes. 

Mr. VENTO. How would you interpret the changed criteria for 

L WCF as being an increased fee, and therefore subject to the withholding of expenses, or not? 

Mr. MILLS. It would not be easy, Mr. Chairman, but in our attempt to make this budget neutral so it would follow the PAYGO 

requirements, we feel we've already got the administrative costs included in our regular appropriations to cover the cost of collecting the existing fee. 

Mr. VENTO. I expect what would evolve is that the fees, I think 

down the road, is there's less attention devoted to this. 

I just think probably to be realistic ri~ht off the bat to say that 

we're going to begin this policy, wouldn t it be appropriate to just 

carry it through. 

If we're going to do it, to do it and have it apply to all of the fees. 

Mr. MILLS. Yes, sir, that certainly would be much more simplified in an accounting sense. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Does anyone else have any comments on the impact 

of this on the revenues or not? 

Mr. Moffitt? You want to add a word or two? 

Mr. MOFFI'M'. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

We calculate that by being able to deduct the costs of collection, 

we will add an'additional $10 to $12 million without counting the 

new fees or the new caps. 

Mr. VENTO. Can you give me some insight as to why the deduction of this is going to be a better philosophy? 
33 

Mr. MOFFITT. Well, we feel that we can hold our managers more 

accountable if we do supply them with this money for the costs of 

collection. It will also allow us to expand our hours. At some of our 

parks, our entrance stations are only open eight hours a day, and 

we would hope that by being able to recoup the costs, we could stay 

open for 12 to 15 hours a day, which naturally then increases our 

revenue. 

Mr. VENTO. And there are ancillary benefits too. Don't forget the 

ancillary benefits. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Very definitely. 

Mr. VENTO. Of the presence of the Park Service or the land man~ 

ager at that entrance gate. The Chairman's been running around telling a story about the 

fact that he visited one of your parks, and there was no one there 

to collect it when he went in, and there was no one there-there 

was someone there to collect it when he went out, and they told 

him just to keep driving, that they'd get him next time. 

Mr. MoFFITT. Unfortunately, that's not rare. 

Mr. VENTO. Now one of the other aspects here, and I think this 

probably is applicable to Mr. Boylan or Mr. Marsh, do you have 

anything to add to that user fee or the deduction of collection expenses? 

Mr. MARsH. Only that it would help offset our base of funding in other areas. Our costs of collection are now a disincentive and 

they're running too high, probably 40 percent. So if we collected a 

million dollars at the current rate of collection, it would probably 

cost us $400,000, because of the remoteness of facilities and lack 

of people to collect those fees. 

But we probably could offset the current cost of collection if they 

were returned. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have a list of areas where you charge entrance fees at BLM areas, Mr. Marsh? 

Mr. MARsH. No, sir, I do not at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Would you supply that for us in the next few days? 

Mr. MARsH. Yes, sir. We have some data that's approximately a 

year old, I have with me, but we can, sure. 

Mr. VENTO. That would probably give us the idea of where we 

charge fees. 

I don't think you charge entrance fees? 

Mr. MARsH. No, we're not allowed to charge entrance fees. 

Mr. VENTO. You're not allowed to charge entrance fees. 

Would you give us an area where you propose to charge entrance 

fees? 

[The information follows:] 

If the Bureau of Land Management were given the authority to charge entrance 

fees, we would propose to charge entrance or admission fees where significant recre- ation services are provided the visiting public in order to cover the administrative 

and maintenance costs of these facilities. Here . are some examples of where we would charge entrance fees: 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and Visitor Center, Las Vegas, Nevada · National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center (Flagstaff Hill), Baker City, Oregon 

Yaq_uina Head Outstanding Natural Area and proposed interpretive center, Newport, Oregon Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores, Colorado 
34 

Highly developed recreation sites, such as, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Arizona; Aquirre Springs and Wild Rivers, New Mexico; Loon Lake, Wildwood, Fisherman's Bend in Oregon; and Grand Gulch, Little Sahara, ClevelandLloyd Dinosaur Quarry, Jarvie Historic Ranch in Utah. 

Mr. VENTO. You must be providing some information for the Congressional Budget Office if you're scoring the amount of revenue. 

In order to score it, we'll have to have some numbers at some point. 

You'd have to have some numbers. 

Mr. MARsH. We're currently collecting about $1.9 million in 

recreation fees this year, and we believe we could, our professional 

guesstimate, collect at least half again of that amount, with the relaxed campground criteria in the bill and the authority to charge 

entrance fees. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Boylan, in terms of the offsetting expenses being 

utilized for the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Mr. BoYLAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That could be a benefit, but 

we've already received, we're under a little bit different legislation, 

under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 30 percent of the 

fees that are collected go to defray refuge collections, and 70 percent to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Fund. 

No doubt, any other fees that would be returned to us would benefit refuges. 

Mr. VENTO. Sounds like you're getting-is that adequate to pay 

for the costs, 30 percent? 

Mr. BoYLAN. No, it's not. There's still, it defrays the expenses but 

it doesn't cover them. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, you know, I think it points out, at least, and 

there may be some unique differences here, this idea of collecting 

or reducing is interesting. 

You know, the Inspector General, as I pointed out, Mr. Moffitt, 

made a criticism of saying that the Park Service collected an extra 

$105 million if you put your mind to it here. 

Did you have any comments on that? 

Mr. MOFFITT. We have not completed our review of the Inspector 

General's report, Mr. Chairman. However, we do feel that the $105 

million is, we don't agree to $105 million. Preliminary estimates, 

we think maybe he's correct up to $60 million, which is significant, 

and a lot of that is due to lack of staffing and inefficiencies in our 

program which our proposal will help alleviate. 

Mr. VENTO. Sixty million additional dollars? 

Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. So I mean without, with simply the change in terms 

ofthe LWCF change and the deduction ofexpenses--

Mr. MOFFITT. That's not all that's involved, no, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, no. I mean, you obviously have increased fees 

in some parks too. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Some of this, the $105 million that was quoted in 

the Inspector General's report, 55 of the parks mentioned do not 

charge entrance fees now. So they would have to, a lot of those 

probably should be entrance fee parks. For some various reasons 

we don't have them, but a lot of them, most of them are probably 

more appropriately users fee parks. 
35 

Mr. VENTO. Let me just kind of accelerate things here. I have to 

leave in a few minutes, and I don't want to hold the members here, 

or the Administration witnesses. 

I regret that other members did not come back over. You might 

want to wait until I return to see what they do. It would probably 

be a good idea, because Mr. Thomas may have questions and did 

appear here earlier. 

But one question that, first of all, last year had a rather comprehensive proposal on America The Beautiful which tried to coordinate a lot of the fees and so forth. 

That isn't here today. 

Am I right in judging that the new Administration has simply 

not evaluated that thoroughly and therefore is not presenting it, 

and rather has this more modest proposal because of that, Mr. 

Moffitt? 

Mr. MOFFITT. I really am not sure where the Administration or 

the Department stands on this completely, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Park Service, in its own interests, has recommended against it to the Department. There's not unanimity 

within the Department of the Interior, and obviously we have a 

very successful program going with the Golden Eagle Passport, and 

we're looking at it rather parochially. 

Mr. VENTO. I see. That's interesting. 

Mr. Mills, any comments on that issue? 

Mr. MILLS. You are correct, sir, that what we have here is a 

more modest proposal. We do see some benefits to a passport idea, 

especially if that passport could be a vehicle for contributions to the 

management of the National Forest recreation sites. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I'm kind of concerned about, you know, for the 

types of changes being made here. 

I think in looking at the LWCF changes, Mr. Moffitt; you said 

that if we eliminated the criteria that you would not be charging 

where there is sim~ly a water fountain? 

Mr. MILLS. That s correct. 

Mr. VENTO. But why should we completely wipe them out? 

Shouldn't we expect substantial compliance with half of them, or 

more than half? 

Wouldn't that be of a significant benefit? 

Mr. MILLS. Basically what we would like, Mr. Chairman, is not 

to have a requirement that all eight are met. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me stop you at that point, because I've got to go 

vote, and we will return. 

There may be a second vote following, but in any case, it 

shouldn't take more than ten or 15 minutes, so we'll be in recess 

pending the voting on the floor. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. 

I would suggest that we could submit some questions in writing, 

but I'm concerned about the likelihood that they would not be back 

timely. 

So I would only say, I would ask permission to submit questions 

in writing, especially under the circumstances, with so many members who would like to have heard the witnesses have not been 

able to appear because of the voting on the floor. 
36 

But I would just ask that the questions must have a pretty short 

turnaround in terms of time. 

And so I don't know if you can accommodate that, Mr. Moffitt, 

Mr. Marsh, Mr. Boylan, and Mr. Mills, but I would appreciate it 

if you would try. 

Mr. MILLS. We will, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. In light of that, there are a series of questions. I'm 

reminded of one of my protege's remarks, Mr. Burton, who said 

that, you know, the people have paid for these units once, they 

shouldn't have to pay for them twice. But there is the admonition 

dealing with user fees as opposed to entrance. 

Mr. Mills, you've listed the types of areas that you would in fact 

charge fees at. Is that a specific list then, that you would, at all 

of these scenic areas, at all of these recreation areas, and so forth, 

you would be charging entrance fees? 

Is that the intention? 

Mr. MILLS. No, sir. The intention is not to charge at all those 

areas. In coming up with the $5 million estimate that I mentioned 

earlier for volcanic monuments, as well as areas of concentrated 

public use, there's some list of 41 areas, about half of which are 

designated areas, like monuments. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have such a list? Is it attached here? Have 

we received such a list? 

Mr. MILLS. We would be happy to give you a list, based upon the 

estimates that we have made at this time. 

[The information follows:] 
37 

Table 14-National Recreation Areu by State 

Stat' 

Recre.stion Art<~~ NFS Ot.htr Total 

Unit namt 4CTC<Igt IU!teag• ccreagt 

C.nfol'nia 

Smith Rlver 

Six R:ivers NF 305,169 26,060 331,229 

Whiskeytown Shasta.· Trinity 

Shasta NF 141,1~5 19,642 160,807 

Trinity NF 35,202 7,578 42,780 

State ~eta! 4&I,ne 53,280 534,1116 

Colorado 

Arapaho 

Arap:~.ho NF 30,687 4,241 34,928 

Stat~ total 30,687 4,241 34,928 

Id.aho 

Hells Canyon 

Nu Perc• NF 103,660 ~40 !04 .100 

Payette 1\F 29,211 0 2fl,2ll 

Wallowa. NF • 3,208 2,34G j ,5~4 

Sawtooth 

Iloise NF 155,984 0 155,984 

Challis NF 253,863 8,899 262,762 

Sa.wtooth NF • 319,175 17,798 337.273 

Sta.$e total S65,4D1 %t,48S 894,8$1 

Michican 

G ra.nd Isla.nd 

Ria.wa.tha. SF 12,957 0 12,957 

State total 12,t57 0 12,9S7 

Moutana. 

lta.ttlcsnm 

Lola NF b9, 119 1,881 Gl ,000 

State total 58,118 1,881 01,000 

Nebruka 

Pine Rl<let 

Nebr"'h. NF 6,600 0 6,6()0 

State total 6,800 0 6,600 

Oklahoma j 

Winding Stair Mountain 

Oua~:h.ita NF • 25,890 555 26,445 

State lotal 25,890 555 26,445 

l03 
38 

Table 14-Natioual Recreation Areas by State 

$14U 

Rtc:t'flllion Arco.r NFS 01hcr Toud 

Unit nome llCreGfC IICrtllg~ acreag~ 

Oregoa 

Hillis Canyon 

Wallow& NF • 355,109 0 3SS,l09 

Whitm~n NF 46,460 1,902 41,362 

Oregon I>un.ea 

Slusli!.w NF 25,698 6,8()8 31,566 

State total 428,287 1,110 434,037 

Pclllll:rlnnla 

Alleghouy 

Allegheny NF 23,063 0 23,063 

State total Z3,,083 0 2S ,003 

Utah 

Ba.lllin! Gorge 

Ashley 'SF • 94,308 2,10~ 96.413 

State total 04,308 2,105 90,413 

Vermont 

Whit<~ Rocks 

Grun Mountain NF 35.4()0 0 36,400 

Statt total 31,400 0 31,400 

V"ll'pnia 

Mount R.ostn 

Jetl'erson NF • 112,566 ~2.~0 154,816 

Slt.te total u2,soe 42,250 1~4,814 

Wuhhlcton 

Mount Baker 

Mt. Baker NF 8,473 0 8,473 

State total 8,(13 0 8,413 

Wat Vlrshlia 

Spruce KnoJ>.Seneca Rotlcs 

Mononphda NF 65,968 43,032 100.000 

State total 58,048 43,032 100,000 

W7oming 

Flaminc Gorge 

Ashley NF • 05,517 9,184 104,701 

State lola! 95,517 0,184 104, TO! 

Grand Iota! 2,335,752 193,781 2,529,533 
39 

Table H)-National Recreation Areas in Multipe State• 

Recrec!ion A reG 

Slou NF'S 

Unit 11ame IU!reoge 

Flaming Gorce 

Utalt 

Ashley NF • 94,308 

Wyoming 

A•hley NF • 95,517 

Total for ara 189,825 

Belli Canron 

Td&ho 

Nez Perce NF 103,860 

I'~tt. NF 29,211 

Wall~ NF • 3,208 

Oregon 

Wallowa. Nf • 3S5,109 

Whltmu NF 45,460 

Total for uea ~36,648 

Cc..s c..~ ~~~ [o~·':i) l~ ~ 19 

St LL~tQ..w ~Ur 

lOS 

Othtr To!ol 

acreage cc~ogc 

U05 96,413 

9,!84 104,701 

11,289 201,114 

440 104,100 

0 29,211 

2,346 5,554 

0 355,109 

1,902 47,362 

4,488 541,336 
40 

Table 17-National Monument Areas by State 

State 

National Monumrnt NFS Other Total 

Unit name a~re.age acrc:aqe acreage 

Alub 

Admiralty lda.nd 

Tongoss NF 955,810 32,161 987,971 

Misty Fiords 

Tong&u NF 2,293,428 1.311 2,294, 739 

State total 3,249,238 33,472 3,282. 710 

Gran<l total 3,249,238 33,472 3,282,710 

Table 18-National Volcanic Monument Areas by State 

Stale 

National Volcanic Monument , 

Unit name 

Oregon 

Newberry .. 

DescbutP.S NF 

Stale total 

Washinston 

Mou11t St. Helens •• Gifford rinchot NF 

State toW 

Grand total 

NFS 

ac~age 

54,822 

54,822 

80,498 

80,488 

135,320 

Other 

ncreag! 

678 

878 

30,530 

30,&30 

31,208 

Table 19-National Historic Areas by State 

State 

Notional Historic Area NFS Other 

Unit nome ocreoge acreage 

North Carolina 

Cra.dl• of Forestry 

Pisr;&h NF 6,540 0 

State total 8,540 0 

Grand total 5,540 0 

107 

Totnl 

acrcagt 

.)5 ,500 

55,500 

111,028 

111,028 

166,528 

Total 

4Creage 

6,540 

6,540 

G,540 
co 

MO 

M1' 

NH 

OR 

llA 

41 

~at:i.onai Foresc S·<st:em "!levelooea Recreacl.on Comoiexes·• ·~emoers of C~n~ress 

~lational ForeSt: 

Coronado 

Coronac:lo 

Angelos 

Cl.ve.i.and 

San &ernardino 

Arapaho•Roosevelt 

San Isabel 

San Lsabel 

Mark T·.'ain 

J..olo 

lthi te Mountain 

C&I:SOn 

Siu.slaw 

Siu.law 

R.or;ue River 

1Jn1t.a 

Unica. 

\lenacehu 

S•bino Canyon 

!ear C.tnyon 

Lever Salt River 

81& Tujunga Canyor. 

Conal Canyon 

Janka Lake 

llrainard Lake 

Rarpart 

Motoreyele 

Coct.onwood Lake 

0' Haver !.alee 

Chadwick 

Mot.orcycle 

Seeley Lalu 

Tuckerman Ravine 

Hopewell Lake 

Sand Lake 

All-Terrain 

Honfdl 

All·Terrain 

Apple en• 

Reaervoir 

Current Creek 

Soldier Creek 

Sc::r:awberry Bay 

take Kaehess 
42 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I would appreciate that. 

And the Fish and Wildlife Service, do you have a specific list or 

changes where you would in fact be charging fees, Mr. Boylan? 

Mr. BOYLAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're preparing a federal no~ 

tice to go out to expand our receipts, the areas that would be charging. And we would have, under the new-well, at present, we have 

61 units that are charging entrance and/or user fees including 11 

entrance fees, 37 user fees, 12 that collect both. 

In 1994, it would go up to 70 units, and we have projected which 

ones those would be and what the charges would be. And we'd be 

happy to provide those to you. 

[The information follows:] 
43 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

New And Increased Public Recreation Entrance and User Fees 

At Certain Units Of The National Wildlife Refuge System 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior 

ACTION: Notice 

SUMMARY: In order to provide additional revenues for the 

operation and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System) and the conservation of wetland resources, the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) may authorize 

the establishment and collection of public recreation entrance and user fee charges at units of the Refuge System. 

Accordingly, notice is hereby given of the intent of the Service 

to initiate new and increased public recreation entrance and user fee charges at certain units of the Refuge System effective 

October 1, 1993. 

DATES: Comments must be received within 30 days following 

publication of this Notice. 

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Assistant Director-Refuges and 

Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Room 3248, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, D.C., 20240 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Brendan Murphy, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges, 1849 C Street, 

NW., MS 670 ARLSQ, Washington, o.c., 20240; Telephone (703-

358-1786). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All (100%) of the public 

recreation fee revenues generated will be utilized to help fund 

the operation, maintenance and the expansion of the Refuge System. 

Thirty percent (30%) of the fee revenues generated will be 

utilized first to defray the cost of collection, then for the 

operation and maintenance of the collecting refuge unit, and then 

for the operation and maintenance costs of all units of the Refuge 

System. 

Seventy percent (70%) of the fee revenues generated will be 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, established 

under section 4 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (16 U.S.C.718d), and utilized by the Service to help 

expand the Refuge System. 
44 

The authority to establish and collect public recreation entrance 

and user fees at units of the Refuge System is contained in Public 

Law 99-645, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 3911) and Public Law 88-578, the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C 4601-4/4601-11). 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

NEW AND INCREASED PUBLIC RECREATION ENTRANCE FEES 

Fiscal Year 

National Wildlife Refuge !NWBl lii1 

Region 4 - Arkansas, Florida, Georgia 

Holla Bend NWR 

Russellville, Arkansas 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee 

Boynton Beach, Florida 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Hebe Sound NWR 

Boynton Beach, Florida 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Saint Marks NWR 

Saint Marks, Florida 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Okefenokee NWR 

Folkston, Georgia 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

NWR 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

Fiscal Year 

ll.ll 

$ l. 00 

$ 4.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 4.00 

$ 1.00 

$ 4.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 4 . 00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 4.00 

Region 5 - Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New 

Jersey, Virginia 

Bombay Hook NWR 

Smyrna, Delaware 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Blackwater NWR 

Cambridge, Maryland 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

$ 1.00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 2.00 

$ 4.00 

$ 2.00 

$ 4.00 
Parker River NWR 

Newburyport, Massachusetts 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Target Rock NWR 

Shirley, New York 

* Individual ~ Vehicle 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR 

Oceanville, New Jersey * Individual 

* Vehicle 

Back Bay NWR 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

Chincoteague NWR 

Chincoteague, Virginia * Individual 

* Vehicle 

Region 6 - Montana 

National Bison Range NWR 

Moiese, Montana 

* Individual 

* Vehicle 

45 

$ 1.00 

$ 5.00 

$ 1.00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1. 00 

$ 3.00 

$ 1.00 

$ 3.00 

- 0 - $ 3.00 

- 0 - - 0 -

DR4p 

$ 2.00 r 

$ 5.00 

$ 2.00 

$ 4.00 

$ 2.00 

$ 4.00 

$ 2.00 

$ 4.00 

- 0 - $ 4.00 

- 0 - $ 4.00 
46 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

NEW AND INCREASED PUBLIC RECREATION USER 

Fiscal Year 

Natio nal Wildlife Refuge INWRl ll.2.l 

Re gion 1 - California, Oregon, Washington 

Lower Klamath NWR 

Tulelake, California 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Tule Lake NWR 

Tulelake, California 

* Waterfowl Hunting Blind 

Application 

Permit 

Tule Lake NWR 

Tulelake, California 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Modoc NWR 

Alturas, California 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

McKay Creek NWR 

Pendleton, Oregon 

* Controlled Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Umatilla NWR, McCormack Slough Unit 

Umatilla, Oregon 

* Waterfowl Hunting Blind 

Application 

Permit 

McNary NWR 

Burbank, Washington 

* Waterfowl Hunting Blind 

Applic ation 

Pe rmit 

- 0 - - 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 -

- 0 -

Fiscal Year 

....ll2..i 

- 0 

$10.00 

- 0-

$10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 -

$10.00 

$ 2.00 

- 0 -

$ 2.00 

$10.00 

$ 2.00 

- 0 -
47 

Region 2 - California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 

Cibola NWR 

Blythe, California 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Havasu NWR 

Needles, California 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Salt Plains NWR 

Jet, Oklahoma 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Tishomingo NWR 

Tishomingo, Oklahoma 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Anahuac NWR 

Anahuac, Texas 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

McFaddin NWR 

Sabine Pass, Texas 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Aransas NWR 

Austwell, Texas 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

San Bernard NWR 

Brazoria, Texas 

* Controlled Waterfowl Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

- 0 - $ 5.00 

- 0 - $ 5.00 

- 0 - $15.00 

- 0 - $15.00 

- 0 - $ 5.00 

- 0 - $ 5.00 

- 0 - $15.00 

- 0 - $ 5.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $20.00 

- 0 - $20.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $20.00 

- 0 - $10.00 
Buffalo NWR 

Umbarger, Texas • Controlled Upland Game Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Hagerman NWR 

Sherman, Texas • Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Laguna Atascosa NWR 

Rio Hondo, Texas 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Region 3 - Michigan 

Shiawassee NWR 

Saginaw, Michigan * Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

48 

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 - $15.00 

- 0 - $15.00 

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $20.00 

- 0 - $20.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

Region 4 - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North 

Carolina, Mississippi 

Eufaula NWR 

Eufaula, Alabama • Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

White River NWR 

De Witt, Arkansas 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Felsenthal NWR 

Crossett, Arkansas 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Lake Woodruff NWR 

DeLeon Springs, Florida 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 
Lower Suwannee NWR 

Chiefland, Florida 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Saint Vincent NWR 

Apalachicola, Florida 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Saint Marks NWR 

Saint Marks, Florida 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Savannah Coastal NWR 

Savannah, Georgia 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Piedmont NWR 

Round Oak, Georgia 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Okefenokee NWR 

Folkston, Georgia 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Okefenokee NWR 

Folkston, Georgia 

* Developed Campsites 

Application 

Permit 

Tensas River NWR 

Tallulah, Louisiana 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Noxubee NWR 

Brooksville, Mississippi 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

49 

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 -

$ 3.00 

- 0 -

$10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

t~?~~ -F.,.1 ~..,.. 

... J 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

- 0 -

$ 4.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 
Yazoo NWR 

Hollandale, Mississippi * Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Mattamuskeet NWR 

Swanquarter, North Carolina 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Mackay Island NWR 

Knotts Island, North Carolina 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Pee Dee NWR 

Wadesboro, North Carolina 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Pocosin Lakes NWR 

Creswell, North Carolina 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Hatchie NWR 

Brownsville, Tennessee 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Reelfoot NWR 

Union City, Tennessee 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Tennessee NWR 

Paris, Tennessee 

* Controlled Deer Hunt 

Application 

Permit 

Region 7 - Alaska 

Kenai NWR 

Soldotna, Alaska 

50 

* Hidden Lake Developed Campground 

Daily Rate 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

- 0 - $10.00 

$ 6.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$ 5.00 

$10.00 

$10.00 
P:enai NWR 

Soldotna, Alaska 

51 

* Upper Skilak Developed Campground 

Daily Rates 

Walk In Sites 

Drive In Sites - 0 - - 0 -

Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

$ 6.00 

$10.00 

Date 
52 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Moffitt and the others, we're talking about extending, there's a prohibition on charging for boat launches. Can 

you explain the nuance if it is actually a mechanical boat launch, 

there is no fee charged now. 

If it's motorized and so forth, a powered boat launch, then there 

is a fee. Is that correct? 

Mr. MOFFI'IT. That's correct, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. And do you have any idea of what the impact of 

some of these changes would be, such as that boat launch issue? 

Mr. MOFFI'IT. We estimate that we could collect an additional 

$3.5 million at boat ramps that we presently do not, are prohibited 

from charging. 

Mr. VENTO. I expect this would be a big item for the Corps of 

Engineers too, who I did not pursue that question with, in the 

sense of their recreation sites. 

For others at the table, Mr. Mills, Mr. Boylan, Mr. Marsh, what 

would the impact of this particular boat launch change be? 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, on National Forests, we estimate that 

removing this prohibition on boat launches would generate an increase of some $350,000 to $400,000. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Boylan, do you have such figures? 

Mr. BOYLAN. We don't have the exact figures, Mr. Chairman. We 

have relatively few boat launches right now. Most of our fees, most 

of our user fees result from hunting programs. 

Mr. VENTO. You'd have the discretion, obviously, to put in these 

fees, but in other instances, where you have duplicative fees, for instance, entrance fees for entering the park and other factors, Mr. 

Moffitt, would that affect the user fees, or would they be put in 

place no matter what the situation was, in terms of how these fees 

work together cumulatively? 

Mr. MOFFITT. They'd be independent, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I'm concerned about the overall impact. For instance, 

at Glen Canyon, you have no user fee or no entrance fee charged 

there, as far as I know. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MOFFI'IT. That's correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And you have a boat launch there, ramp and parking 

for which you don't charge. The intent would be to charge there in 

that particular case. 

Is that correct. Mr. MOFFITT. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. In other areas, you might have similar types of facilities, such as at Yellowstone, and you may have a lake there, I don't 

know. 

The point is, you already have a charge of ten dollars to get in, 

and you're proposing to raise it to $16, I believe. So my point is 

that if you had already paid a $16 charge for entrance, would there 

be a consideration of whether or not you would in fact cumulatively 

then go on to charge the other fee? 

In other words, do you have the discretion to charge this in some 

areas, but not at others? At Yellowstone Lake versus at Glen Canyon? 

I'm trying to talk about the cumulative effect. You have the discretion to put the user fee in effect, not the mandate? 
53 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MOFFITT. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So you would take factors into consideration that 

might be different. 

Mr. MOFFITT. That's correct. 

Mr. VENTO. At different sites, where there is no-you understand 

what I'm saying? 

Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, sir. We would use our discretion there. 

We do, in some instances, have both now. 

Mr. VENTO. You do have both now? 

Mr. MOFFITT. In some parks, yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, of course now you're only doing it for an 

act of motorized type of a launch as opposed to a mechanical type 

where you just back up where you've got a blacktop apron that 

meets the shore of the lake. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, sir. Our intention is not to nickel and dime 

the visitor. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I'm afraid the impression that one might get, 

I can see circumstances where that would not be the impression 

that was left by virtue of this. 

In any case, I have a series of other questions, and I think other 

members may have some additional questions. 

But let me, at this time, then, excuse as witnesses, and we will 

submit some of the questions in writing. 

Thank you very much gentlemen, for your testimony. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF WILLIAM J. CHANDLER, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION; KATHRYN HOHMANN, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, 

PUBLIC LANDS PROGRAM, SIERRA CLUB; AND JIM 

BENSBERG, VICE CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON RECREATION 

FEES, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION, SPEAKING FOR 

ROBERT RASOR, ACCOMPANIED BY AMY MANN, DIRECTOR, 

SPORTS AND RECREATION, AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL 

Mr. VENTO. Let me call the remaining panel of witnesses, private 

sector witnesses. 

Mr. Bill Chandler, the Director of the Conservation Programs of 

the NPCA. 

Ms. Kathryn Hohmann, the Director of Public Lands from the Sierra Club. 

And finally, Jim Bensberg, Vice Chairman, Task Force on Recreation Fees, American Recreation Coalition, accompanied by Ms. 

Amy Mann, the Director of Sports and Recreation, American Horse 

Council. 

By previous request, the statements have been made part of the 

record, and so you can feel free to summarize. As you'll understand, 

we are under some scheduling conflicts today, both on the floor and 

other responsibilities that I happen to have. 

Mr. Chandler, your statement's in the record, and let me thank 

you all for your!atience and for rearranging your schedules today 

so that you coul be given the bum's rush this afternoon. 

I didn't mean this to happen, but it nevertheless did. 

Mr. Chandler, please proceed with your statement. 
54 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. CHANDLER 

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the troubling things about this whole issue is it seems 

that every time somebody- wants to raise more money in the national park system, refleXIve action is to reach into the user fee and 

admissions fee pot and basically charge the public higher fees of 

some kind or another. 

Over the years, unfortunately, the commercial side of the fee 

equation, in our o:rinion, has been ignored. And I would recommend, sir, that its time that maybe the two should be joined together. Because the special interests who derive income from the 

parks and from park-related businesses have shown an uncanny ability to escape paying their fair share of user fees, commercial 

user fees back to the parks. I'm talking about the concessions industry, I'm talking about 

tour operators who do not pay any commercial user fee for entering the parks now. 

I'm talking about utility companies that rights-of-way across national park lands and are supposed to be paying a fair market 

value for that right-of-way, but they are not, due to poor park service management of the program. And there are a number of other commercial users of the parks that are simply not being charged a fair fee for being in the parks 

and making revenue. 

I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that the National Park Service could 

be a lot more efficient in collecting fees under their existing authority, if they were given the ability to deduct their full cost of collection from their gross receipts. I think that would put the program, it would give you a true economic picture of what's actually been generated from the fee program, and we would highly recommend that that be done. 

The issue has arisen regarding increased collections efficiency. 

We've been told time and time again that the reason the Park 

Service does not collect all the fees that it could is because they can't deduct their costs of collection, which is another reason to let 

them do that, in my opinion. There's also the issue, Mr. Chairman, of collecting fees where 

they don't collect fees now. 

For example, at Lake Meade and Glen Canyon, the recreation 

areas there, we have 11.5 million visitors annually at those two 

areas, and the Park Service is not collecting a dime of entry fees 

at those two areas, although they have the authority right now to 

collect fees. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I did a little calculation here about 

how the Committee could come up with $26 to $113 million worth 

of additional revenue. 

That could be derived from making commercial tour operators 

pay some kind of a reasonable fee for use of the parks-$6 to $10 

million. 

Running the private utility charge program for their rights-ofway at a better and more efficient level, $2 to $3 million. 

Increasing the efficiency of the Park Service to collect the fees 

that they have the authority to collect now, anywhere from $10 to 

$50 million. 
55 

And you've heard varying estimates, Mr. Chairman, today about 

what really could be collected. You know, we're taking the number 

ten as the minimum and 50 as the maximum. 

Then, if we eliminated some of the parks that are now exempt from charging any fees, for a variety of reasons, and there are 63 

of those parks. If we reexamined those and removed from the exempt list, parks that really don't belong there, we estimate that we 

could get another $8 to $50 million in fees. 

As one example, Mr. Chairman, there are no entry fees in any of the national parks in Alaska. At Glacier Bay National Park, 

about 175,000 visitors come in on cruise boats every year. The concessioner pays a fee, but those persons on the boat are paying no 

entry fee to go into the park. 

In total, the four types of char~es that I have just laid out, Mr. 

Chairman, would generate a mimmum of $26 million and a maximum perhaps of $113 million, without any changes in existing law 

except to allow the Park Service the right to deduct its full cost of 

collection from fee receipts. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Chandler follows:] 
56 

National Parks 

;md Conservation Association 

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY 

WILLIAM J. CHANDLER 

CONSERVATION DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE TilE 

~y ~ 

',,, ·~· ihl"'·'"' 

!'''"' 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AA'D PUBLIC LAI'<'DS 

ON THE 

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S 

ADMISSIONS AND RECREATION FEE PROPOSAL 

APRIL 29, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Bill Chandler. I am Director 

of Conservation for the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), a nonprofit 

citizens' organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the National Park 

System. On behalf of the National Parks and Conservation Association's 350,000 members, I 

am pleased to present our views on the Administration's public lands entry and recreation fee 

proposals. My remarks will be focused on fee policy in the National Park System. 

Clinton Administration Proposal 

The Clinton Administration has proposed legislation to increase the amount of revenue 

derived from public land admissions and recreation use fees. This wouid be accomplished by: 

+ Authorizing admissions fees for the first time at certain sites and areas administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture. 

+ Increasing current admission fees at national parks. 

+ Raising the maximum price of the Golden Eagle Pass from $25 to $50. 

+ Establishing new recreation usc fees for boaters and backcountry campers. 

+ Providing agencies with the incentive to collect more revenue by allowing the 

collecting agency to deduct a portion of their collection costs from fee receipts. 

l 776 MassachusettS /\venue, l'\.W . \V;L,hin,~ton, D.C. 20036-!904 

Telephone· t21121-:2l-0JPC.i\(6722) • Fax 1202!65'1-0650 
57 

NPCA concurs that changes in the current fee system are in order. Although the 

Administration's proposal contains some worthy elements, it misses the mark for two 

principal reasons: 

+ First, the proposal does not address national park fee policy as a whole. Any 

discussion of fee policy should include commercial fees, as well as public user fees. 

Yet, commercial fees are ignored in the Interior Department proposal. 

+ Second, the changes recommended for admissions and recreation fees are not 

comprehensive in scope. If the goal is to raise additional fees from the public, a 

number of other defects and inequities of the current system need to be addressed. 

Commercial Fees 

Before the public is asked to pay more to enter and use our parks, it is fair to ask: What do 

commercial users of the parks pay, and do they pay their fair share? 

Historically, little attention has been paid to the commercial component of the fee equation. 

Instead, whenever initiatives arise to raise fees, policymakers reflexively target public entry 

and user fees as the revenue source of choice. 

Before the public is asked to pay more, NPCA recommends that Congress ensure that 

commercial users who profit from the parks pay reasonable use fees based on the economic 

benefits they derive. Some examples: 

(1) Park Concessions. National park concessioners as a class paid 2.9 percent of their 

total gross revenues ($618 million) to the government in 1991. Concessions fees are 

too low. A competitive bidding system for concessions contracts is the best way to 

increase concessions fees. If concessioners as a class paid a fee equal to 10 percent of 

their gross receipts, approximately $40 million in additional revenue would be 

generated. That's more than the first year receipts projected under the Clinton 

Administration's fee legislation. 

Furthermore, concessions fees should be reimbursed to the National Park Service 

(NPS). Currently, those fees go into the general fund of the Treasury. Since park 

users indirectly pay the concessions fee by patronizing park concessions, it is only fair 

that those fees go back to NPS to help care for the parks and provide visitor services. 

(2) Commercial Operators. Hundreds of air, sea, and land tour operators use the parks 

for economic gain, but pay only an annual commercial license fee -- usually a flat $50 

--to NPS. At Yosemite, an estimated 12,000 bus tours enter the park each year; these 

tour operators pay no license fee. 

The gross revenues generated by many of these tour operators are thought to be 

significant. Although NPS does not maintain statistics either at individual park units 

or system wide, commercial bus tour operations may exceed $150 million per year in 

total revenues. Cruise boat tours (operating primarily in Glacier Bay National Park, 

2 
58 

Alaska) generate an estimated $20 million during the time they spend in park waters. 

And air tours over parks may generate another $35 million. For this commercial use 

of the parks, the Park Service probably receives less than $50,000 annually in license 

and permit fees, or less than 0.02 percent of the estimated gross receipts of tour 

operators. (Actual license fee receipts are unknown due to the lack of a national data 

base.) 

Buses, airplanes, and cruise ships impose significant stresses on park resources, such 

as wearing down park roads, overburdening sanitary facilities, and causing air quality 

degradation and excess noise. Since tour operators generate their revenues by selling 

the parks as a destination, fees should be structured to enable the government to 

collect a fair return for that commercial access. 

Given the variety of tours entering parks, NPS would have to figure out a schedule of 

fees based on the nature of park use by various tour operators. For illustrative 

purposes only, NPS could raise an estimated $6 to $10 million annually if tour buses 

paid an average $100 per entry, cruise ships $500 per entry, and airplanes $25. 

(3) Private Utility Companies. NPS currently has authority to charge fair market value 

for each private utility line (e.g., telephone, cable TV, power) that crosses a national 

park unit; the guiding regulation was issued in 1980. However, NPS headquarters has 

not provided effective direction or guidance to its park units regarding the need to 

collect the fee, nor has it made fee collection a priority or held its superintendents 

accountable for results. Some parks are rigorously establishing and charging fair 

market value (e.g., Fredericksburg, Colonial). Other parks, perhaps even the 

majority, are not. 

There is no national inventory of rights-of-way use in parks, or of the number of 

permits issued for these uses of park land. Furthermore, there is no central accounting 

of the fees collected for rights-of-way permits. Fee receipts are returned to the 

general Treasury, not reimbursed to the NPS. 

The potential for additional revenue from rights-of-way fees is illustrated by rights-ofway management at Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park. There, park staff 

converted outdated, flat-fee right-of-way permits ($25 each) to right-of-way grants (at 

$0.07/linear foot). As a result, total fee revenue has increased from about $700 per 

year to $5,288 per year. More recently, the park is again upping the charge to one 

based on appraised fair market value ($0.20/linear foot). Once all grants are reissued 

at $0.20/ linear foot, revenue will be about $9,066. 

(4) Other Commercial Fees. NPS currently issues special use permits for miscellaneous 

park uses such as commercial filming and commercially sponsored special events that 

provide economic benefits to the user. The fee charged for the permit is set so as to 

enable NPS to cover its costs of issuing the permit and monitoring or supervising the 

activity. But NPS does not levy a commercial use fee based on economic value to the 

commercial user. 

3 
59 

If these types of activities lead to economic gain for the commercial user, it seems 

reasonable that NPS should charge a commercial use fee based on the benefits 

received. 

Public Admissions and Use Fees 

Once policy has been changed to require all commercial users to pay their fair share, it is 

appropriate to ask: What reforms are needed on the public use side of the fee equation? 

A short list of necessary reforms would include the following: 

+ All fees collected by NPS should be reimbursed to NPS, and the costs of collection 

should be deducted by the collecting units before net revenues are re-allocated to the 

parks. The fee system should be managed to provide an accurate picture of both 

expenses and revenue. Only then will Congress be able to determine the true 

economic benefit of the program. 

Furthermore, allowing park units to deduct their costs of collection is necessary to 

ensure that the parks operate their collection programs on a full-time basis. I am 

consistently told that the reason park fees are not collected all of the time is because 

park managers periodically need to allocate their collection staff to other tasks at 

certain times of the year. 

+ Congress should ensure that fee moneys are returned to NPS as a supplement to base 

funding. The best way to guarantee that is to permanently appropriate net fee receipts 

back to NPS. Alternatively, the committee could maintain the special fee account 

authorized now, but direct NPS to show how fee receipts will be treated as 

supplementary funds in the annual budget request. 

+ Fee revenue should be appropriated for fewer purposes than is now the case, and 

accurate accounts should be kept to show what the funds have paid for. The current 

park allocation formula is too complex, and the allowable uses of the fund are too 

many. NPCA recommends that 25 to 50 percent of net fee receipts be reallocated to 

the collecting parks. The remainder should be allocated on the basis of need as 

determined by the NPS director. 

Current law requires park entry fees to be spent on resource protection, research, and 

interpretation; user fees are to be spent on the same activities, plus "maintenance 

activities related to resource protection." 

I believe we could measure better the "results" derived from fee receipts if uses were 

concentrated on one or two programs. Visitor enjoyment of a park is determined by 

the quality of the park resource and the inter;>retation of those resources. We know 

there is a substantial backlog of natural resource and cultural resource projects in the 

parks. We know the public wants to learn about the parks. Consequently, NPCA 

favors concentrating no-year fee monies on cultural and natural resource 

rehabilitation, maintenance and protection projects, and on park interpretive 

programs. 

4 
60 

+ Comparable public areas should charge comparable fees regardless of the 

administering agency. Areas and sites that could charge fees, but do not, should be 

brought on line before fees at existing areas are increased. The Administration 

proposal moves in that direction by establishing new fees for BLM and Forest Service 

areas. 

+ Parks that are exempted from fees now should be reassessed. Fees should be charged 

at all parks except those specifically exempted as a class by Congress for sound 

reasons (e.g., "icon" parks such as Independence Hall, urban parks, etc.). There is no 

reason why certain parks now exempted from fees should necessarily remain so when 

the goal is to increase fee revenue for park purposes. Congress should review the list 

of 63 exempt parks to determine which truly merit continued exemption. 

+ NPS should be given a mandated, system-wide efficiency standard for collections, and 

be required to report annually on whether it met the goal on a park-by-park basis. 

Currently, many parks are not collecting fees at all times, and revenue is being lost. 

NPS has not held its managers accountable for their fee collection efforts. This is 

unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. 

Conclusion 

Many other changes could and should be made to public user fee policy. Because the list is 

so extensive, and because commercial fees have been ignored, NPCA believes it is time for 

Congress to consider passing comprehensive fee legislation to address, once and for all, the 

problems and issues that have been talked about for years. 

Congress can continue adjusting the present system, or it can deliberately set out to design a 

new fee system that is simple, fairly balanced between commercial and public users, and that 

produces the amount of revenue needed by the parks today. 

5 
61 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chandler, for summarizing. I think 

that that is very helpful. Obviously, there's been some discussion about some of these 

areas. I'll have a question or two in a moment. 

Ms. Hohmann. Am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Ms. HOHMANN. Yes, you are. 

Mr. VENTO. Please proceed with your testimony, and thank you for your being here. 

STATEMENT OF KATimYN HOHMANN 

Ms. HOHMANN. Thank you for allowing me to come here to testify 

on this important public lands issue. 

Sierra Club obviously has many members who get out in the 

public lands often, and discover that again, as we noted earlier, 

that fees are not always collected at collection points when we do 

indeed have that authority right now. 

Sierra Club's basic philosophy on the -collection of user fees is 

that if the area has been improved, we have no problem paying 

those fees. 

We are, however, especially troubled that fees would be instituted for undeveloped back country areas, where there are no facilities to be found. We question why the public is made to pay a 

fee to visit their own lands, to walk around and have picnics. We understand the necessity for reducing deficits and maintaining solvency. However, we don't think that this proposal has really 

taken a credible approach. We find it disturbing that while we are being asked to pay and 

shoulder more of the burden, extractive industries are getting off 

the hook. 

We find it a little troubling that a mere three weeks after the 

Administration has deleted from its budget resolution, key public lands extractive industry revenue raising measures, that we'd be 

asked to shoulder an additional burden. 

We think the Administration needs to return to its original goals, 

such as reform of the 1872 Mining Law. We find it ironic that we 

have 12,000 acres of streams in this country that are permanently degraded by mining operations, and yet we're being asked to pay 

a larger fee to visit some of those same areas, in fact, to swim in 

them. 

We're at the point where we might ironically advise our members 

to bring their mining claim stakes and not their tent stakes when 

they visit the public lands. 

We wonder if it will cost more to have a picnic than to raise a 

beef cow on those lands. 

We'd ask that the Administration review its original proposals. 

We originally went to Congress with a button that said, "earth to 

Congress, pass the Clinton prol?.osal." Now what we're saying 1s, 'Clinton, pass the Clinton proposal, 

return to your original sound revenue generating ideas." 

Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Hohmann follows:] 

72-353 0 - 93 - 3 
62 

408 C Street, N .E. Washington, 0. C. 20002 

Testimony of Kathryn Hohmann 

Washington Director 

Public Lands Program 

April 29, 1993 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

202. 547 ·1141 

"When we try to pick our anything by irsdf. we find it hirrhed ro evt:rything dsc in rhe universe . ., john .\luir 

National He-adquarters: 730 Polk S[feet, San Francisco. California94109 (41~) -;6-2211 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
63 

Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Kathryn Hohmann and I speak today on behalf of the halfmillion members of the Sierra Club. I am offering testimony regarding 

legislation to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This 

bill would increase fees for recreation on America's public lands. 

This legislation is of great concern to our 600,000 members, many of 

whom regularly use our public lands for recreation. We wish to maintain the 

ecological integrity of these lands while ensuring that entrance to these 

natural wonders remains possible for all ·who wish to enjoy them, In light of 

these goals, we cannot support this legislation in its present form. I would 

like to first outline why we do not support this strategy, Then I would like 

to offer a few comments about how this proposal has been received in light of 

changes the Administration has made in its own budget proposal. 

Let me outline our basic philosophy with regard to user fees. While we 

support fees for the use of developed facilities such as improved campgrounds, 

we do not support the imposition of entrance fees on an array of lands, 

including those under the United States Forest Service and the United States 

Department of Interior jurisdiction. Therefore, Section l(a) is not 

satisfactory to our members. 

Section l(b) would increase the maximum amount charged for an unlimited 

annual permit from not more than $25 to not more than $35, and also doubles 

the annual permit fee for single parks. In addition, the bill would increase 

the maximum paid for a single visit at designated units from not more than $5 

per vehicle to not more than $16 per vehicle. We believe these increases, 

particularly the latter provision on single visits, will have an impact on the 

number of people who are able to enjoy an outdoor experience, In today's 

highly urban, stres'sful world, the importance of these experiences cannot be 

overestimated. Sadly, the Administration' .s bill would make the most difference 

to those in our urban areas, those already disadvantaged by poor envirorunental 

quality. 
64 

In addition, the new fee system extends to use of undeveloped lands. We 

consider entrance fees significant barriers limiting the public's access to 

their own lands, but when improvements have not been made, and the user is 

seeking a back country experience, an increased fee becomes even less 

acceptable to our members. Therefore. the Sierra Club objects most strenuously 

to the section. 

Furthermore, we question the assumption that the implementation of 

public entrance fees will result in increased revenues for management of 

federal lands, In the past, such efforts were rewarded with decreased funding 

through regular appropriations channels which more than offset the additional 

funds garnered from entrance fee collection. 

We understand the necessity of reducing deficits and maintaining 

solvency. however, we do not believe that this legislation offers a credible 

solution. Instead, we would urge the Congress and this Administration to again 

consider the revenue potentials from reform of subsidies currently enjoyed by 

extractive industries on the federal domain. 

We find it more than a little disturbing that a mere three weeks after 

the Administration deleted from its own budget resolution the very items that 

would have raised revenues from use of the federal domain~ we now must comment 

on legislation that would raise two-fold the cost to the public of visiting 

their own lands . 

General reform of outdated laws. such as the 1872 Mining Law and wholescale revision of current livestock grazing schemes, would generate hefty sums 

while also preventing further environmental degradation. Yet Lhe 

Administration has backed away from these much needed reforms 1 letting us 

debate instead today the imposition of fees for swimming and picnicking. 

Though there have been encouraging press conferences on these western subsidy 

issues, the reality remains: the extractive industries still enjoy a Gravy 

Train on the federal domain while users such as recreationists are now asked 

to shoulder additional burdens. 
65 

Today, there are more than 12,000 miles of degraded streams and rivers 

on the public lands, permanently impaired by mining operations that pay no 

royalty to the federal treasury for the minerals they extract -- and some $4 

billion are extracted each year. Yet today we are debating a fee for swimming. 

Today we charge a mere $2.50 to patent a mining claim on the federal 

domain, yet are contemplating a fee for an overnight stay on the federal lands 

that exceeds this. Will it be more expensive to camp than to use the 1872 

Mining Law to gain fee title to lands outright? Are we being told to bring our 

mining claim stakes, not our tent stakes? 

Today the Administration has sent us a proposal that could make it more 

expensive to have a picnic than to graze beef cattle on the public lands. 

Thank you for your consideration and time. 
66 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Ms. Hohmann, 

And finally we have, I guess, Jim Bensberg, the Vice Chairman 

of the Task Force on Recreation Fees. 

Why don't you proceed, and I think we can get your testimony 

included, and then move along to a question or two after I come 

back from voting. 

STATEMENT OF JIM BENSBERG 

Mr. BENSBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am representing the American Recreation Coalition today. 

And as the Committee has heard, and fully recognizes, fees for 

public recreation facilities are not new. The Forest Service collects 

approximately $45 million annually in camping fees and ski area 

permit fees, as does the National Park Service. 

Much of the philosophical and legal basis for recreation fees is 

outlined in the 1964 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. That 

Act was the product of those who recognized the importance of 

recreation, and it has enriched our lives immeasurably. 

Yet, a great deal has changed since the time of this Act, and despite periodic amendments under the guidance of this Committee, 

criterion-specific provisions for fees deserve careful review and a 

clear and comprehensive strategy. 

The framework for a new recreation fee strategy was outlined in 

part by the report of the President's Commission on Americans 

Outdoors. It argued that public recreation program spending needed to rise, and that primary responsibility for the increases should 

fall upon those who are the direct beneficiaries. 

The report noted that recreation expenditures exceed $300 billion 

annually and are steadily rising, but the report also argued for accountability between fees and services provided. 

While our present budgetary situation does not allow us to provide a free lunch, so to speak, we cannot and should not forget that 

after charging for lunch, we have an obligation to serve the feast. 

We've looked at the proposals contained in the fiscal year 1994 

budget proposal to initiate and increase a variety of fees. And after 

reviewing the information made available to date, the American 

Recreation Coalition has concluded that while the concept of recreation fees is acceptable in many instances, inadequate details have 

been provided to assure us that the current proposal meets several 

essential principles. 

First, that the fees are equitable, and aimed at recovering costs 

where the services provided or the facilities used would otherwise 

represent cost to the taxpayer. 

Second, that the fee system is efficient, costing the least amount 

practical to administer. 

Third, that the fees are convenient for the recreationist so the 

voluntary compliance is readily achievable. 

And fourth, that the fee system is coherent and integrated, so 

that the charges are minimized. 

Finally, that fee revenues are returned to benefit resources, facilities and programs utilized by those paying the fees. 

The recreation community also believes that new and higher fees 

should have a demonstrable positive impact on resource protectic1 

and visitor services. 
67 

While it is true that recreationists today do not pay fees equivalent to the entire cost of the Federal Government for managing 

recreation, fee increases which are designed solely to replace general fund appropriations will be unpopular and difficult to implement. 

Moreover, recreation activities are a non-consumptive use of outdoor American federal lands, and this is in contrast to other public 

land uses. 

The recreation and related tourism are clearly positive forces in 

bolstering the economies of small communities which have often 

been strained by these tough economic times. 

The ARC urges this Committee to modify the proposal of the 

Clinton Administration in such ways as to ensure compatibility 

with these outlying principles. 

To do so, consideration should be given to the adoption of a new 

Recreation Fees and Public Lands Enhancement Act which replaces the authorities now found under the Land and Water Conservation Act. 

Further, we urge that Federal recreation fees charged to the individual visitors be considered in light of fees now charged or proposed to be charged to recreation service providers operating 

through Federal concessions and permits, and by state and local 

agencies where such monies are helping to offset Federal operating 

costs. 

To give you an example, the Committee should consider the winter parking permits paid by snowmobilers and skiers. Also the 

California system of green stickers, which permit off-highway vehicle recreation in California to be paid for by those users. 

Let me just summarize here very quickly, Mr. Chairman. I know 

we're short on time. 

Congress and the Administration need to review, if warranted, 

address a potential increase in liability arising from the collection 

of recreation fees. 

Private landowners endure much higher standards of care and liability risk once they receive any compensation for use of their 

lands. 

And there's a decision recently in Pennsylvania which cost that 

state dearly for damages to a drowning victim. We'd like to see that 

potential eliminated at the Federal level as well. 

In conclusion, the American Recreation Coalition offers its full 

support to this body in its efforts to develop a recreation fee strat- e~ that plays a role in the protection and enhancement of Americas outdoors legacy. 

We encourage the Committee to ensure that any strategy also 

provides administrative flexibility and quality services to the tens 

of thousands of visitors who visit our public lands each year. 

To aid in your efforts, we are attaching a discussion paper which 

is part of our testimony. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Discussion paper follows:] 
68 

RECREATION FEES INITIATIVE 

Concept: 

Develop amendments to provisions now applying to the collection of 

recreation fees on federal lands which meet the following objectives: 

+ they meet the revenue targets set forth by President Clinton in his FY94 

budget proposal (approximately $260 million over 4 years); 

+ they satisfy the recreation community's call for any fee legislation to be 

{1) equitable, (2) efficient and (3l convenient; and 

+ they yield a clear benefit for the natural resources managed by the federal 

land agencies ("if there is pain, there should be gain"). 

The amendments could be introduced as a package entitled The Federal 

Recreation and Outdoor Legacy Enhancement Act of 1993. 

Elements: 

Authorizes limited expansion of the sites at which entrance fees may be 

collected, including national monuments, national volcanic monuments, 

national scenic areas, and areas of concentrated use administered by USDA, 

and adds BLM as one of the agencies authorized to collect entrance fees at 

appropriate locations. 

Allows increases of entrance fees from current levels ($5 generally, except 

selected areas which may charge $10) over a ten year period, with ceilings 

on the ultimate rate and maximum year-to-year increases specified. 

Authorizes collecting agencies to withhold the cost of fee collection, either 

as a flat percentage of collection or based upon actual costs. Withheld 

funds wo.uld be available immediately without further appropriation action. 

Amends the Golden Eagle Passport in the following ways: allowable charge 

would be authorized to increase to a maximum of $50 by 2003; the current 

wallet card would be replaced with a 40-page booklet containing both a 

wallet card and a vehicle decal and providing information on sources of 

detailed opportunity information, with addresses and phone numbers, 

explanations of the recreational opportunities normally available on lands 

managed by each of the agencies and explanations of major federal area 

systems (wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, scenic byways, etc.}; permits 

private sector sales of the passport through consignment and allows a 10% 

commission to cover costs; revises the passport to cover 12 months from 

the date of purchase versus the calendar year (current provision). 
69 

PAGE TWO. RECREATION FEES INITIATIVE 

Creates annual geographic region passes costing not more than $20, with all 

revenues earmarked for the federal lands in that region. 

Revises the restrictions on recreation fee collections on federal lands, 

including campgrounds and boat launch sites, unless extensive services are 

provided. New restriction would be that fees could only be charged for sites 

where federal operational costs per capita exceed overall agency recreation 

costs per capita by at least 100%. 

Creates a "hardened account" (or trust fund) into which private sales of the 

revised Golden Eagle Passport would be deposited. Funds from the account 

would not be subject to appropriation but would be available immediately the 

fiscal year following collection for ( 1) Challenge Cost-Share Projects on 

federal lands to aid recreation and/or wildlife or (2) funding for conservation 

corps projects on federal lands. 

Places all new recreation fees, other than those arising from the private sale 

of Golden Eagle Passports, into a special account subject to appropriation 

and available solely for federal lands resource protection and visitor services 

programs. Funds from the account would be subject to appropriation, but 

would not be available for appropriation if the general funding for the 

recreation, wildlife and resource conservation programs of the federal land 

managing agencies did not exceed those for base year FY93, CPI adjusted. 

Eliminates unusual federal fee collection restrictions, including COE. 

Per Administration request: Raise the minimum age for eligibility for the free 

Golden Age Passport to 65 (from 62) -- phased in so that no existing holders 

lose their eligibility. 

Allows each federal agency to designate up to 10% of its fee collection sites 

as "fee policy experiment locations," each with the ability to recruit an 

advisory panel of government and private sector officials to help develop, 

implement and review fee strategies. Among those issues which might be 

considered are: differential pricing designed to encourage visitation during 

non-peak periods; fee discounts for those arriving via public conveyances to 

reduce parking demand or for those who contribute their time while visiting; 

automated fee collections (like Metrol; fee waivers for certain individuals 

whose ability to pay is limited; and reduced fees for those who use their 

visits to learn by attending interpretive programs. 

Scoring: 

The fiscal implications for the above proposal can be estimated in part from 

the FY94 budget proposal and in part from the OMB estimates offered as 

testimony in July 1992 on the proposed America the Beautiful Passport Act. 

4/29/93 

72-353 0 - 93 - 4 
70 

Mr. VENTO. This discussion paper which you've attached, does 

this describe your proposal or the Administration's proposal? 

Mr. BENSBERG. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, it describes 

our response to the Administration's proposal. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Mann, Amy, do you have a statement today? 

Ms. MANN. No, I don't. 

Mr. VENTO. You're just here to respond to questions. 

Well, we appreciate your presence, along with your colleague, 

Mr. Bensberg. 

I note the statement was prepared for Robert Rasor, and he obviously could not make it this afternoon. So you're filling in, is that 

correct? 

Mr. BENSBERG. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

indulgence. He had to be sent away to Columbus for a pending 

matter there. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we have a final vote here. Probably I'll come 

back again and ask some additional questions of you. 

Let's see how far we get. 

First of all, there is the proposal to change the criteria for the 

campgrounds, LWCF, from eight to compliance with the majority 

of those criteria. 

This would somewhat liberalize the opportunity to charge, although I think many of the campgrounds probably have and do 

meet all eight criteria. There are apparently some that do not. 

Any reaction to this particular proposal? 

Mr. Chandler, Ms. Hohmann, Mr. Bensberg. 

Do you understand the change in criteria? There are eight criteria that they need to meet. So if you don't, well, you might want 

to look at that. It's a technical glitch that was put in when the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund was written, to try to have the 

standard of service at that site. 

As you say, you pay for the dinner, you ought to have something 

there. 

And the question is, are these realistic, and what would the implementation, what would the effect of it be in terms of those services provided. 

On the user side, paying on the user fee side or entrance fee side, 

permitting the deductibility of expenses paid, as in the case of Fish 

and Wildlife, they said they can deduct 30 percent to pay for that. 

They said that still didn't provide an adequate return or an adequate coverage of what their expenses were. 

And the question is do you think that that gets at what the impact of that will be in terms of parks where entrance fees are 

charged, Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. We disagree, Congressman Vento, with the Administration's approach where they only want to deduct the additional costs of collecting fees under their proposal. 

We think that all costs of fee collection ought to be deducted from 

the gross, because we are told, time and time again, that people 

don't collect fees because they don't feel like they have anything to 

gain from collecting the fees. 

You know, if they can't pay for the staff to be on the gates, and 

they've got a fire or a heavy visitation situation somewhere, they 

pull the people off the gates. 
71 

We think that an honest fee system would have, you know, you would have the gross, minus the expenses, to give you the net. 

And until Congress understands what the net is, Congressman, it's really hard to know not only what the existing program is pro- ducing, but what increased fees would actually deliver. 

And so we don't support the Administration's proposal to par- tially deduct the fees. We would like to see them all deducted, to 

get this system on an honest accounting procedure. 

Mr. VENTO. That could have the effect of actual1y driving fee 

costs to a higher level. Do you understand why, Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Over the long term, it might. On the other hand, 

Mr. Congressman, I think there are a number of ways where they 

can improve efficiencies under the current system without even 

raising the current fees now for either admissions or user fees. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Hohmann, you suggested where there's no improvement, there ought not to be a fee charged. Obviously, wilderness, almost by definition, has little modification to it, so therefore 

all wilderness type of Eermits and that would not be subject to it. 

Ms. HOHMANN. That s right. 

In fact, again, we see a real cross-cutting kind of motion here 

with this Administration, that they have been loathe to really attack issues where they could raise hefty sums of revenue, and yet 

seem content to take this out of the hide of the general public. 

And so, yes, we do oppose that. 

Mr. VENTO. We'll all stand in recess until I complete my voting. 

I hope I make it this time. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. I was about to, I was asking, when we broke off, Ms. 

Hohmann, I was referring to the unimproved sort of sites. 

She's out of the room right now, okay. Mr. Bensberg, you commented on quite a number of issues here, 

and you spoke specifically about accountability for the use of the 

lunch. 

Do you agree that the funds that are in fact collected on this 

basis ought to be used to supplement the funding of the agencies 

that collect such fees? 

That they be in addition to what their base line funding is. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. BENSBERG. I believe that's the position of the ARC, Mr. 

Chairman. I will confess that I'm not as conversant on this as--

Mr. VENTO. Well, the revenues are returned to benefit the resource facilities programs utilized by those paying such fees. 

So that's I assume what-do you feel, what is your attitude with 

regards to this fee program that existed last year, under America 

the Beautiful, that they had a common passport that would be utilized for all of the different agencies? 

Mr. BENSBERG. We supported that program. 

Mr. VENTO. You sufported that. That's what I thought. 

Obviously, that isn t included here in the provisions that we have 

before us. 

I note, Mr. Chandler, that you think that the accounting problems that would exist with regards to deduction of the costs of collecting for old and new is unrealistic. 

Is that what you're telling us? 
72 

Mr. CHANDLER. I don't understand the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. The deduction of costs of collection should be of 

course across the board? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. You think the accounting problems are unrealistic 

that exist with regards to this present strategy? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Well, yes. I think it's going to be very difficult 

to separate additional monies, you know, additional costs from current costs. 

I mean, you know, you've got base costs for collection. How do 

you determine what the additional cost is? 

I think that's sort of a fiction, and what they're really saying is 

they want to deduct a certain percentage of their costs, and I believe that's $5 million out of the total $14 million or so that they 

would be spending on the program. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, I don't know how it would work, where you'd 

have an increase in the fee in a unit of the park system, if you 

somehow were able to deduct the increased amount from the-or 

the amount of the costs from the increased amount but not the 

amount that previously had been collected, as an example. 

Mr. CHANDLER. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, I expect the reason this came about is because of one of the bean counters at OMB or some place decided 

that they didn't want to lose that any further, but I think the net 

effect is going to be the same, no matter what. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Well, if they really had any confidence in their 

projections, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what they could get from increased efficiency in collection, one would think that they would 

have some idea that they would take in a lot more money and still 

come out ahead, so to speak, by spending a little bit more money 

to fully collect the fees. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that probably is the probable cause in 

any case. 

You specifically pointed out Glen Canyon and Glacier Bay. Glacier Bay, of course, under the Alaska provision for no fee collection. 

I suspect that most parks in Alaska would be excluded anyway because of the low visitation and the remoteness of such sites. 

There may be some at Denali or other places where revenue could 

be generated. 

There's certainly destination parks for most that use them. 

In any event, the fee collection at Glacier Bay tour ship, that fee 

that could actually itself be increased to reflect any type of increased visitation or costs associated with such tour ships. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, there are any number of locations where 

we have tour ships that visit national parks. 

I'm reminded of those sites in the Virgin Islands, as well. 

Do you generally think that the fees associated with such tour 

ships, and I know that you also included bus tour vehicles, are generally not adequate considering the benefit that is attributed to the 

tour ship line ownership or to the visitors that are using that resource in that manner? 

Mr. CHANDLER. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. 
73 

These people in effect pay no fee now. They pay a license fee 

maybe, $50 to $100, depending upon what region of the Park Service they're in, but they pay no economic user fee for the economic 

revenues that they're generating using the parks as a tour destination. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think sometimes I have the impression in 

some sites that I've visited that the Park Service ends up being basically the lavatory attendants too often for the tour ships and 

other types of intensive use patterns in parks, which is really disappointing. 

Ms. Hohmann, when we departed for the last vote, I was attempting to solicit a response based on the idea that an unimproved site should not have a fee, was your suggestion. 

Is there any fee that you could accept? For instance, in many instances in wilderness areas, we now have established permit systems to regulate the use and to reduce the impact, campsite permits and so forth. 

Are those, are there any fees associated with those today, Ms. 

Hohmann? 

As far as I know, there is not. 

Ms. HOHMANN. There is not, no. No. And our members would 

prefer that there not be a fee when there hadn't been improvements made on the public lands. 

The Administration has suggested that lands, back country 

lands, such as BLM back country, have a fee attached to them, and 

our members doMr. VENTO. Yes. I understand that they do not favor that. But 

I mean, in the sense of issuing the permit and the administrative 

costs of it, wouldn't that, in terms of maintaining that software 

pro¥I'am and whatever else they do, wouldn't that be a justifiable 

bas1s for having some sort of fee associated? The costs of mailing? 

Ms. HOHMANN. Our public lands people, volunteers have talked 

about bearing the burden of those kinds of costs. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it's something to keep in mind. I don't 

think there's any suggestion being made by others to do that in 

this instance, but I think it is something to bear in mind, to look 

at. 

Obviously the improvement issue is one factor. In many instances there are trails, sort of a mixed result in terms of what 

goes on. 

I think that as we look more at wilderness management, we find 

that it is not necessarily because the resource appears not to be 

modified, even trying to keep it in that manner is sometimes difficult for the Park Service. 

In other words, going to extraordinary lengths not to use motorized use in those areas, is an example, but it does necessitate additional costs to maintain that. 

Ms. HOHMANN. Right. We have sought additional funding for 

trails maintenance and building in the past, through the authorizing, or rather, the appropriations channel. 

We haven't met with the kind of success we would have liked. 

Mr. VENTO. And even where you do meet with it, the money 

doesn't always get spent where it's supposed to be spent, let me remind you. 
74 

Ms. HOHMANN. That's right. Mr. VENTO. AB a result of some work that we did. 

I do think though that some reflective and deliberate consideration of that ought to be a part of the package. Actually, what the Administration's proposed this year turns out 

to be rather modest. After CBO did its work, we found that while 

they were projecting $60 million, actually the result of what they 

propose as changes would be about $41 million, so that's really 

what we have to come up with in terms of the overall recommendation to the Budget Committee. 

I have really no further questions, unless you have further comments yourself, that you wanted to add. 

I'm urgently needed in the Banking Committee to spend some 

billions of dollars more for the S&Ls. 

I would much rather stay here with you all, but they need my 

presence. 

And so with that said, and with no further comments, I hope 

that we would have Mr. Moffitt up. We're especially interested in 

some of these fair market value questions. 

Let me just ask Mr. Moffitt to return to the table and excuse the 

remaining witnesses. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for the insertion into 

the record of four revenue-generation proposals that would derive 

that $26 to $100 million I said could be derived. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. We don't want to keep that a secret. We want 

that in the record. 

[The information follows:] 
75 

REVENUE GENERATION PROPOSAL 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Source: Commercial Use Fee 

Payor: Commercial Tour Operators 

Existing/New: New 

~: Replace existing flat-fee commercial use licenses for commercial tour operators 

with a commercial tour vehicle entrance fee which more closely reflects the true value of the 

national parks as a destination for commercial tours. Direct the National Park Service (!'iPS) 

to establish a reasonable charge for tour operators, baserl on their economic use of the park. 

Estimated Additional Revenue: $6 to $10 million system-wide. 

Comments: Under the current system, individual park units decide how to manage and track 

the number of commercial tours operating in the park. Many parks impose no commercial 

use license fee on these users, despite very heavy bus visitation; some parks charge $50 per 

year for a license or permit; some parks charge $100 per year. Annual permit fees (where 

applied) are imposed on a flat-fee basis, and do not reflect the licensee's frequency of park 

usage, the physical size of the vehicle, or the number of tour passengers aboard. 

The gross revenues generated by many of these tour operators may be significant. Although 

the National Park Service (NPS) does not maintain statistics either at individual park units or 

system wide, commercial bus tour operations may exceed $150 million per year in total 

revenues. Cruise boat tours (operating primarily in Glacier Bay) generate more than $20 

million during the time they spend in park waters, and air tours may generate another $35 

million. Of this, the Park Service in all likelihood receives less than $50,000 annually in 

license and permit fees, less than 0.003 percent of the estimated gross receipts of tour 

operators. 

Buses, airplanes and cruise ships impose significant impacts on park resources, including 

erosion of park roads, overburdening of sanitary facilities, erosion of visible air quality, and 

excess noise. Since tour operators generate their revenues by selling the parks as a 

destination, fees should be structured to enable the government to collect a fair return for 

that commercial access. 

Given the variety of tours entering parks, NPS will have to figure out a schedule of fees 

based on the nature of park use by various tour operators. For illustrative purposes only, 

NPS could raise $6 to $10 million annually if tour buses paid an average $100 per entry, 

cruise ships $500 per entry, and airplanes $25. 
76 

FEE GENERATION PROPOSAL 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Source: Commercial Use Fee 

Payor: Private Utility Companies 

Existin~/New: Existing 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5, 79; 23 U.S.C. 317; 36 CFR Part 14 

Proposal: (a) Direct NPS to establish a national data base on all utility rights-of-way 

in each park by the end of FY 1994, the fee charged for their use, and 

the expiration date of the right-of-way permit(s). 

(b) Direct NPS to charge fair market value for all rights-of-way permits 

issued or renewed in FY 1994 and thereafter. 

(c) Revise existing law to require that fee revenue be reimbursed to the 

NPS (instead of the Federal Treasury). 

Estimated Additional Revenue: $2 to $3 million 

Comments: NPS currently has authority to charge fair market value for each private utility 

line (e.g., telephone, cable TV, power) that crosses a national park unit; the guiding 

regulation was issued in 1980. However, NPS headquarters has not provided effective 

direction or guidance to its park units regarding the need to collect the fee, nor has it made 

fee collection a priority and held its superintendents accountable for collecting it. Some parks 

are rigorously establishing and charging fair market value (e.g., Fredericksburg, Colonial). 

Other parks (perhaps even the majority) are not. 

There is no national inventory of park rights-of-way use in parks, or the number of permits 

issued for these uses of park land. Furthermore, there is no central accounting of the fees 

collected for rights-of-way permits. Fee receipts are returned to the Treasury, not reimbursed 

to the NPS. 

Potential for additional revenue is illustrated by right-of-way management at Fredericksburg 

National Battlefield Park. There, park staff converted dated, flat-fee right-of-way permits 

($25 each) to more current right-of-way grants (at $0.07/linear foot), and the park is again 

upping the charge to one based on appraised fair market value ($0.20/linear foot). As a 

result, total fee revenue has increased from about $700 per year to $5,288 per year. Once all 

grants are reissued at $0.20/ linear foot, revenue will be about $9,066. 
77 

REVENUE GENERATION PROPOSAL 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Source: Entry and Recreation Use Fees 

~:Park Users 

Existing/New: Existing 

Proposal: Improve National Park Service collection efficiency for existing entry and 

recreation use fees by authorizing parks to subtract the cost of collection from the gross fee 

receipts to provide an incentive for enhanced collections. 

Estimated Additional Revenue: $10 to $50 million 

Comments: Because of operations budget shortages, many entrance fee-collecting parks leave 

entrance stations unmanned for significant periods during days when visitation may be heavy. 

The severity of this problem varies with each park. Some parks collect fees as little as 25 

percent of available time, others about 80 percent of the time. However, if fee collection 

activities were operating at 75 percent efficiency (collecting fees 75 percent of the available 

time) across the system, entrance and user fees would generate an additional $30 million per 

year, say NPS rangers. 

Both the National Park Service Budget Office and the Interior Department Inspector General 

have explored this fee shortfall and have arrived at significantly different estimates of the 

amount of revenue available from increased collection efficiency. The estimate above reflects 

the range of this uncertainty. 

At a minimum, an additional $10 million could be generated within the existing structure of 

the fee collection system, and without raising entry or use fees, if the fee-collecting parks 

were able to provide for more collection staff, and fund their collection costs from gross fee 

receipts. 
78 

REVENUE GENERATION PROPOSAL 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

~: Park Entrance Fee 

Payor: General Public 

Existing/New: Existing 

Proposal: Reduce the number of parks prohibited from charging entry fees by transferring 

authority to designate fees at all parks to the Secretary of the Interior. Congress would retaln 

the power to review and assent to secretarial recommendations. 

Estimated Additional Revenue: $8 to $50 million 

Comments: Currently, 63 national park areas are exempt from entrance fees under the 

provisions of the LWCF amendments, many of them due to the political interests extant at 

the time the areas were included in the National Park System. This approach may need 

revision in light of current budget concerns. W'"hile retaining the powers of review and assent 

with Congress, transferring the authority for designating which parks should have entry fees 

to the Secretary of the Interior would allow more thorough consideration of both the needs 

and the abilities of parks to provide entrance fee revenue. 

The potential amount of additional revenues generated will depend on the number of 

previously designated no--fee areas the Secretary (with Congressional approval) designates to 

charge fees. Clearly, some "icon" parks such as Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall, 

should not charge fees. However, there is no good reason for exempting certain other parks 

from entry fees. At a minimum, if only Canaveral National Seashore, Virgin fslands National 

Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and 

Denali National Park and Preserve were to impose nominal fees, all thoroughly discussed in 

recent years, the Park Service would realize an additional $8 million, according to the 

Inspector General. 
79 

Mr. MOFFITT. Could I also ask to insert in the record, Mr. Chairman, a list of the 63 exempt parks right now, which we recommend 

be reviewed to see if they really merit exemption. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that would really be helpful. Is that a document from the National Park Service? 

Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, it is, sir. It's taken out of NPS-22. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. As long as you have the proper citations for 

it, without objection, we'll permit that to be added to the record. 

[The information follows:] 
RECBEATI:ON FEE 

~ 

RECREATI:ON FEES 

80 

GUIDELINE 

Chapter 3 

Page 11 

2) This fee applies to a family wishing to pay the single 

visit entrance fee. 

NOTE: A family traveling together on multiple vehicles or horses may use one Golden Eagle Pass or Annual Park 

Pass or Golden Age Passport or Golden Access Passport, as applicable, to gain entry. 

3) A family must be traveling together to qualify for the 

family entrance fee. A "family" is defined as including a person's spouse. children and parents. 

This definition is taken from senate Report No. 93-745, 

dated March 22, 1974 that became part of the 

administrative history for P.L. 93-303 (see Chapter 2). 

4) At those parks with a vehicle fee, a family shall pay 

NO MORE THAN the vehicle fee at the park, e.g. $3, $5 or $10. 

5) At those parks with ONLY a per person fee, a family 

shall pay NO MORE THAN the equivalent vehicle fee, e.g. 

$3 or $5. 

3. Department of the Interior Lifetime pass 

This pass is not authorized by the LWCFA and has been 

discontinued. However, any retiree now holding a lifetime pass is allowed free entry when displaying the 

pass. This pass does not provide a discount on Daily 

Recreation Use or Special Recreation Permit fees. 

Individuals bearing this pass may be eligible to receive a Golden Age Passport. 

4. Non-fee permits 

a. The LWCFA mandates that a recreation fee shall not be 

charged for a non-recreation visit. 

b. Non-fee permits may be established by the park 

Superintendent for issuance ONLY to persons entering 

the park for a non-recreational purpose, e.g., 

concession personnel, NPS employees assigned to the 

park, persons conducting regular business for State, 

local or Federal government agencies, persons engaged 

in First Amendment activity, or native Americans 

engaged in religious and related activities. 

Amendment No. 1 February 1991 
RECREATION FEE 

NPS-22 

RECREATION FEES 

81 

GUIDELINE 

chapter 3 

Page 12 

o. The park Superintendent is responsible for the design 

(decal or window card suggested), production and cost. 

d. Accountability control and justification shall be 

provided for each permit. 

s. Statutory Prohibitions 

a. Sixty-three national park areas are exempted from 

entrance fees. 

b. Areas 1 through 18 are exempted by Public Law 100-203, 

December 22, 1987: 

1. Alaska - 14 Parks (Denali not included) 

2. District of Columbia - 15 Parks 

3. Canaveral NS 

4. uss Arizona Memorial 

5. Independence NHP 

6. San Juan NHS 

7. Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial 

8. Fort Sumter NM * 

9. Isle Royale NP * 

10. Cumberland Island NS * 

11. Chattahoochee River NRA ** 

12. Chickasaw NRA ** 

13. Cuyahoga Valley NRA ** 

14. Gateway NRA ** 

15. Golden Gate NRA (also P.L 95-625) 

16. Greenbelt Park •• 

17. Indiana Dunes ** 

18. santa Monica Mountains ** 

Parks 19 through 24 are exempted by 16 USC 460l-6a(a)(3): 

19. Great smoky Mountains NP 

20. Blue Ridge Parkway 

21. Natchez Trace Parkway 

22. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway 

23. George Washington Memorial Parkway 

24. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania NMP 

Amendment No. 1 February 1991 
RECREATION FEE 

~ 

RECREATION FEES 

82 

GUIDELINE 

Chapter 3 

Page 13 

INCLUDES: Baltimore-washington Parkway; a unit of 

Catoctin Mountain Park and Colonial Parkway at colonial 

NHP 

25. Point Reyes NS (P.L. 96-199) 

26. James A. Garfield NHS (P.L. 96-607) 

27. Statue of Liberty NM (P.L. 100-55, 6-19-87) 

28. Mount Rushmore NM (Sec. 3, Act of 6-15-38; 52 Stat 

694) . 

29. Channel Islands NP (P.L. 96-199) 

30. Martin Luther King NHS (P.L. 96-428) 

31. Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHS (16 USC 211) 

32. Virgin Islands NP (96-348) 

33. War In The Pacific NHP (P.L. 95-348) 

34. Fort Jefferson NM (P.L. 96-287) 

35. Biscayne NP (96-287) 

36. Lincoln Home NHS (Solicitor Opinion based on deed 

reservation) 

• - Concessioner provides primary public access to park; 

combined concession fee and authorized park entrance fee 

would EXCEED maximum amount of the authorized entrance 

fee (P.L. 100-203). 

** - Park provides significant outdoor recreation 

opportunities in an urban environment and to which access 

is publicly available at multiple locations (P.L. 100-

203). 

DAILY RECREATION USE FEE 

1. These fees, when established, are paid in addition to entrance fees. The most common use fees are for camping 

(individual 1 group), guided tours and parking. 

NOTE - Foreign visitors shall pay the applicable use fee 

unless they meet criteria established for granting an 

educational fee waiver - refer to Fee Waiver section in this 

chapter. 

Foreign visitors are NOT eligible for a Golden Age or Golden 

Access Passport and the 50 per cent use fee discount, unless 

domiciled in this country - refer to Golden Age and Golden 

Access sections in this chapter. 

2. The LWCFA identified the following 18 specific facilities or 

services that are eligible for recreation use fees: 

AJnendment No. 1 February 1991 
RECREATION FEE 

NPS-22 

RECREATION FEES 

83 

a. Tent, trailer and recreation vehicle sites 

GUIDELINE 

Chapter 3 

Page 14 

~. specialized boat launching facilities and services c. Lockers 

d. Boat storage and handling facilities e. Elevators 

f. Ferries and other means of transportation 

g. Bathhouses 

h. Swimming pools 

i. Overnight shelters 

j. Guided tours 

k. Electrical hook-ups 

1. Vehicle and trailer storage facilities m. Rental of non-motorized boats n. Rental of motorized boats o. Rental of hunting blinds 

p. Reservation services 

q. Specialized sites (highly developed) r. Group camping sites 

3. The LWCFA provides that a use fee shall be charged if at 

least ONE of the following criteria exist: 

a. A substantial Federal investment has been made in the 

facility. 

~. The facility requires regular maintenance. 

c. The facility is characterized by the presence of agency 

personnel. 

d. The facility is utilized for the personal benefit of 

the user for a fixed period of time. 

ALL of the following criteria are satisfied: 

e. The facility is developed, administered or provided by 

any bureau of the Department. 

t. The facility is provided at Federal expense. 

g. The nature of the facility is such that fee collection 

1§_ administratively and economically practical. 

Amendment No. 1 February 19 91 
84 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Moffitt, what about the issue, and I had meant 

to ask this question, and I appreciate your return to the witness 

table. 

With regards to the fair market question governing the rights-ofway across parks, could you give us any response as to the present, the current status of those types of fees? 

Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

We recognize that our rights-of-way program is deficient, has 

been. Over the past several years, we have been taking steps to improve. We will be submitting new regulations, within the next couple of months, covering rights-of-way. 

In many instances, in the Park System, the charges are the minimum for rights-of-way, $25 to-we do have extremes, up to 

$4,000-but we are implementing the fair market value costs for 

rights-of-way. It varies from park to park, of how we've been able 

to. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that reflected in the current budget submission, 

change in revenue that might be associated with such a fair market implementation? 

Mr. MOFFITT. No, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think we may be looking very strongly at 

that. 

What about the issue limitations in terms of the tour boats and 

the tour bus operations which pay either a minimal or no fee? 

Mr. MOFFITT. Well, there's two aspects to this question, Mr. 

Chairman. 

In some instances, the tour operators, the people on the tour 

buses are paying an entrance fee. In the park which I was last superintendent of, the Rangers would get on the bus and count the 

number of people and collect the entrance fee. 

In other areas, this is not the case. 

Congressman Synar has raised a question about commercial use 

licenses that we issue in the parks. We are working on this. 

As we speak, there's a task force meeting developing criteria and 

guidelines for our park managers so that we can improve in that 

area. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you need additional authority? 

Mr. MOFFITT. I do not believe so, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we would be especially interested in that, if we 

were to look at requiring or seek.irig additional equity in terms of 

these sorts of actions on collection of entrance fees, meeting the objectives, if not the specific requests. If you need additional authority, we'd be especially interested in 

learning of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Moffitt. 

And with that, let me call this meeting to an adjournment. 

Mr. MOFFITT. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55p.m., Thursday, Aj>ril29, 1993, the Committee was adjourned, subJect to call of the Chair.] 
APPENDIX 

APRIL 29, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

OPENING STATEMENT FOR 

THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS & PUBLIC LANDS 

HEARING ON RECREATION FEES 

APRIL 29, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you scheduling a hearing 

on the topic of recreational user fees today. I note that 

this is a subject included within our overall budget target 

under the reconciliation measure procedures which we will 

be taking up in the near future, and therefore this hearing 

is very timely. 

I believe that it is especially timely for this Committee 

to take up this matter since we have been spending a lot of 

time reviewing various activities on Federal lands from a 

cost perspective. Just last week, we had another lengthy 

(85) 
86 

-2-

hearing on the issue of grazing on federal lands and how 

the grazing industry is subsidized to the extent of about $20 

million per year. 

For comparison purposes, I requested staff to 

undertake a similar analysis of recreational program cost 

recovery. According to budget submittals by the various 

agencies as displayed on the chart, you can see that the 

recreational users of our Federal lands will be subsidized in 

the amount of about $1.4 billion this year. Just last month, 

the Interior Department Inspector General reported that 

the National Park Service failed to collect about $123 

million in recreation use fees in 1991. 
87 

-3-

For these reasons, and because I find that the current 

fee of $10 for a family to visit Yellowstone National Park 

for a week is ridiculously low, I must express my support 

for the Clinton Administration in following the lead of the 

Bush Administration which sought revision of the 

recreational fee program last Congress. 

On the other hand, I must express the caveats that 

(1) increased recreational fees must be only for the use of 

developed recreation sites and not for general access to 

Federal lands and (2) that the fees recreational users pay 

must return to their benefit on the ground. I know that the 

Chairman has worked toward these same goals in the past 

and I would hope to work with him in this upcoming effort. 
1;:-, ::_HS 

: })1 H.><1'-'~" "'Cu~< ()HK1 

;201! 115-111~5 

88 

((ongresl) of tbe ~nitell ~tatts 

~oust of ~eprestntatibt!S 

51!airt}onllfon, ~«: 20515-1603 

SM4l.t IHJSIN£SS COMM!n££ 

II.Aii*in(,JH;I'JSIJCA"' 

·,:oCfU•.o 'M"""'" 

iN\iiRO'< .. I'<f .>.lAND Hfi:I\GV ->Hi~~ (()MM•T"'H 

A!-O.;>;IIU¥t,.!ll"' 

"'t~u vCA"l OUC'f COMMIPH 

Statement of congresswoman Jan Meyers (R-Kansas) 

before the 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands 

April 29, 1993 

!1c. Chain1Lin and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate 

havin'J opportunity to submit a statement on President 

Clinton 1 s bndgct proposal to raise recreation fees, including 

those for National Park Service units. 

I commend President Clinton and Secretary of Interior Bruce 

Babbitt for their commitment to tackle the $2.2 billion backlog 

of infrastructure repair and maintenance in our national park 

system. However, am concerned that the President's proposal to 

fund these much-needed repairs is based exclusively on raising 

recreation f~es. 

I don't believe park visitors should be required to shoulder 

the full cost of this massive repair bill. To a family watching 

every dollar, h.:i.kcrs 1 outdoor enthusiasts, and especially to 

family groups, be a big deal. Even a modest increase may 

make the difference whether a park experience is possible or 

not. 
89 

Today I offer an alternative funding mechanism to raise 

funds for national park system repairs and maintenance. My 

suggestion matches the revenue raised by the President's proposal 

without forcing park visitors to foot the bill. 

A couple of weeks ago, I introduced H.R. 1493, the National 

Park service Concessions Policy Reform Act. I know National Park 

Service concessions reform is not the issue today--I hope it soon 

will be--but I think H.R. 1493 provides an excellent mechanism to 

finance these necessary national park repairs. My bill 

authorizes the secretary of Interior to set minimum franchise 

fees for concessions contracts, either new or up for renewal. 

under my bill, these franchise fees will no longer be 

deposited in general revenue and subject to an administration's 

budget folly, but directed solely to a special trust fund 

devoted to park repair and maintenance. Presently, on average, 

concessioners are paying franchise fees to the federal government 

of about three percent, and these revenues are not being 

reinvested in the national park infrastructure. However, if 

more equitable franchise fees are imposed on concession 

contracts, funding could be generated for repairs. For example, 

if franchise fees were to average 10 percent, $53 million would 

be raised and used for national park system repairs and 

maintenance. The revenue intake from my proposal would match the 

revenue estimate President Clinton hopes to raise by increasing 
90 

recreational fees. 

Mr. Chairman, rather than raise recreational fees, which 

could make national parks less accessible to all our poor 

citizens, I would recommend that Congress take a look at my 

proposal. I think it is a much better alternative. If a dollar 

or two increase in entrance fees begins driving away national 

park visitors, it will not only reduce concessioners' profits, 

but also the meager return the federal government currently 

receives in franchise fees. 

I want to assure the Subcommittee that it is not my intent 

to disparage the President's proposal, but merely bring forth my 

own proposal as another means to pay for national park repairs. 

Finally, although concessions reform has not yet reached the 

top of the Subcommittee's agenda, I hope you will take a close 

look at H.R. 1493. I would be more than glad to discuss this 

bill with you, and I welcome your support for it. I would also 

ask that the Subcommittee hold hearings on this issue. 

Thank you for th·e opportunity to discuss my bill with you. 
91 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 

to provide for an increase in recreation fees, and for other 

purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SEC. 1. ADMISSION AND SPECIAL RECREATION USB FEES. 

Section 4(a) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 {16 u.s.c. 460l--6a(a)), is amended: 

{a) by inserting in the first sentence of the first 

paragraph after the words "National Park System" the words "and 

the Bureau of Land Management" and by inserting after the words 

"National Recreation Areas" the words "• National Monlll!lents, 

National Volcanic Monuments, National Scenic Areas, and areas of 

concentrated public use"; 

{b) in paragraph (1) (A) by striking out "$25" and inserting 

in lieu thereof "$50"; 

(c) in paragraph (1} (B) by striking out "$15" and inserting 

in lieu thereof "$30"; 

(d) by adding at the end of paragraph (i) the following new 

subparagraph: 

"(C) For purposes of this subsection, •areas of 

concentrated public use' shall meet each of the following 

criteria: 

(i) be managed primarily for outdoor recreation 

purposes; 
92 

{ii) provide racilities and services necessary to 

accommodate heavy public use; 

(iii) contain at least one major recreation 

attraction including, but not limited to, a 

lake, river, historical site, or geologic 

feature; and 

(iv) provide public access such that admission 

fees can be efficiently collected at one or 

more centralized locations.•; 

(e) in paragraph (2) by striking out "$5 per vehicle" in the 

fourth sentence and "$3 per person" in the sixth sentence and 

inserting in lieu thereof "$16 per vehicle" and "$8 per person" 

respectively; and 

FEES. 

(f) in paragraph {11) by striking out the first sentence. 

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MINIMUM FACILITIES FOR RECREATION USE 

The first sentence of section 4(b) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 u.s.c. 460l--6a(b)), is amended 

by replacing the first colon with a period and striking out the 

remainder of the sentence. 

SEC. 3. COSTS OF COLLECTION. 

Section 4(i)(1) of the Land and Water conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 (16 u.s.c. 460l--6a(i) (1)), is amended by replacing the 

period at the end of the first sentence with a colon and 

inserting thereafter the following: 

"Provided, That the collecting agency may withhold from 

the special account and retain an amount equal to the 
93 

additional costs directly associated with the 

collection of such fees, and amounts so retained are 

hereby made available without further appropriation 

until the end of each fiscal year, subsequent to the 

date of enactment, to be expended only for additional 

personnel and infrastructure directly required to carry 

out the purposes of this section. Any unobligated 

amounts so retained remaining available in such account 

at the end of each fiscal year, will be deposited in 

the special account established pursuant to 

title V, section 5201, of Public Law 100-203." 
94 

A BILL 

To authorize the imposition of recreation user fees at water resources development areas administered by the Department of 

the Army, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

2 Representatives of tbe United States of America in Congress 

3 assembled, That the second sentence of section 210 of the 

4 Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 746; 16 u.s.c. 460d-3) 

5 is amended to read: 

6 "Notwithstanding section 4(b) of the Land and Water 

7 Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (78 Stat. 897: 

8 16 U.s.c. 460l-6a(b)), the Secretary of the Army is 

9 authorized to charge fees for the use of developed 

10 recreation sites and facilities, including, but not 

11 limited to, campsites, swimming beaches, and 

12 boat launching ramps; however, the Secretary shall not 

13 charge fees for the use or provision of drinking water, 

14 wayside exhibits, general purpose roads, overlook sites, 

15 toilet facilities, or general visitor information. The 

16 fees shall be deposited into the special Treasury 

17 account for the Corps of Engineers that was established 

18 by section 4(i) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

19 Act of 1965, as amended (16 u.s.c. 460l-6a(i)) .". 

20 SEC. 2. Section 4 of the Land and water Conservation 

21 Fund Act of 1965, as amended, (78 Stat. 897; 16 u.s.c. 

22 460l-6a) is further amended by deleting the next to the last 

23 sentence of subsection (b). 
95 

FY 94 Fee Collection Proposal ($ mil) 

FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 

(Actual) 

DAILY ENTRANCE 38.6 43.6 65.45 

ANNUAL PARK PASS 1.5 1.5 1.7 

GOLDEN EAGLE 4.0 4.0 5.6 

44:1:- "4'9.1 72.75 

USER 21.9 22.9 32.9 

66.0 7"2."0 105.65 

THE FY 94 RATES WILL INCREASE AS FOLLOWS: 

THE 

GOLDEN EAGLE 

ANNUAL PARK PASS 

RAISE SINGLE VISIT 

THREE FEE 

Vehicle 

$10 

5 

4 

FY 

Total 

RATE TIERS 

93 

Person 

$4 

3 

2 

ENTRANCE FEES 

ARE 

1 park 8 parks 

16 parks 

__;)_ parks 

28 parks 

RETAINED 

Vehicle 

$11 

8 

4 

FY 

FROM 

$25 

$10 & $15 

AT: 

vehicle/person 

AS 

94 

$5 

$5 

$10 

FOLLOWS: 

Person 

$5 

4 

2 

$3 

$3 

$3 

$4 

+Ove~;: FY93 

21.85 

. 2 

1.6 

23.65 

10.0 

33.65 

TO 

$35 

$15 & $20 

I veh per 

$4 

$11 $5 

$ 8 $4 

$11 $5 
96 

3-17-93 

Proposed Legislative Maximums of $16 Vehicle J $8 Person 

(gradual implementation beginning 1994) 

BOLD .. ighlight denotes fee increase 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - ENTRANCE FEE RATES 

ACADIA NP 

ADAMS NHS 

ANDREW JOHNSON NHS 

ANTIETAM NB 

APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE NHP 

ARCHES NP 

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND NS 

AZTEC RUINS NM 

BADLANDS NP 

BANDELIER NM 

BENT'S OLD FORT 

BIG BEND NP 

BIG HOLE NB 

BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NM 

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NM 

BRYCE CANYON NP 

CABRILLO NM 

CANYONLANDS NP 

CAPE COD NS 

CAPITOL REEF NP 

CAPULIN VOLCANO :JM 

CARL SANDBURG NliS 

CASA GRANDE NM 

CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NM 

CEDAR BREAKS NM 

CHACO CULTURE NHP 

C & 0 CANAL (Great Falls, Md) 

CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA NMP 

CHIRICAHUA NM 

CHRISTIANSTED NHS 

COLONIAL NHP 

COLORADO NM 

CRATER LAKE NP 

CRATERS OF THE MOON NM 

DEATH VALLEY NM 

DENALI NP 

DEVILS TOWER NM 

DINOSAUR NM 

EDISON NHS 

EFFIGY MOUNDS NM 

EISENHOWER NHS 

EL MORRO NM 

EVERGLADES NP 

FY 1993 

YEH PER 

$5.00 

4.00 

4.00 

s.oo 

5.00 

5.00 

4.00 

4.00 

5.00 

4.00 

4.00 

5.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.CO 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

5.00 

4.00 

5.00 

4.00 

5.00 

5.00 

$3.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

3.00 

3.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 

3.00 

3.00 

2.00 

3.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

2.00 

3.00 

FY 1994 

VEH PER 

$8.00 

a.oo 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

a.oo 

8.00 

8.00 

a.oo 

11.00 

$4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

5.00 
97 

FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS NM 2.00 

FORT CLATSOP NMEM 2.00 

FORT DAVIS NHS 2.00 

FORT FREDERICA NM 4.00 2.00 

FORT LARAMIE NHS 2.00 

FORT LARNED NHS 2.00 

FORT MCHENRY NM 2.00 

FORT NECESSITY NB 2.00 

FORT PULASKI NM 4.00 2.00 

FORT SCOTT NHS 2.00 

FORT SMITH NHS 2.00 

FORT STANWIX 2.00 

FORT UNION NM 2.00 

FORT VANCOUVER NHS 2.00 

FORT WASHINGTON 4.00 2.00 

GEORGE ROGERS CLARK NHP 2.00 

GEORGE WASHINGTON BIRTHPLACE NH 2.00 

GEORGE 1ASHINGTON CARVER NM 2.00 

GLACIER NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 5.00 

GOLDEN SPIKE NHS 4.00 2.00 

GRAND CANYON NP 10.00 4.00 11.00 5.00 

GRAND PORTAGE NM 2.00 

GRAND TETON NP 10.00 4.00 11.00 s.oo 

GRANT-KOHRS RANCH NHS 2.00 

GREAT FALLS PARK (Va) 4.00 2.00 

GREAT SAND DUNES NM 4.00 2.00 

GULF ISLANDS NS 4.00 2.00 

HALEAKALA NP 4.00 2.00 

HARPERS FERRY NHP 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

HARRY S. TRUMAN NHS 2.00 

HAWAII VOLCANOES HP 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

HERBERT HOOVER NHS 2.00 

HOME OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT 2.00 

HOPEWELL CULTURE NHP * 2.00 

HOPEWELL FURNACE NHS 2.00 

JEFFERSON NAT'L EXPANSION MEM 2.00 

JOHN F. KENNEDY NHS 2.00 

JOHN MUIR HOUSE NHS 2.00 

JOSHUA TREE NM 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

KINGS CANYON NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 s.oo 

LASSEN VOLCANIC NP 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

LAVA BEDS NM 4..00 2.00 

LINCOLN BOYHOOD NMEN 2.00 

LITTLE BIGHORN BATTLEFIELD •• 4.00 2.00 

LONGFELLOW NHS 2.00 

MANASSAS NBP 2.00 

MARTIN VAN BUREN NHS 2.00 

MESA VERDE NP 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

MINUTE MAN NHP 2.00 

~!ONTEZUMA CASTLE NM .2.00 

MORRISTOWN NHP .2.00 

MOUNT RAINIER NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 5.00 

NATURAL BRIDGES NM 4.00 2.00 

OLYMPIC NP 4.00 2.00 
98 

ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NM 4.00 2.00 

PADRE ISLAND NS 4.00 2.00 

PEA RIDGE NMP 4.00 2.00 

PECOS NM 2.00 

PERRY'S VICTORY & IPM 2.00 

PETERSBURG NB 4.00 2.00 

PETRIFIED FOREST NP 5.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 

PINNACLES NM 4.00 2.00 

PIPE SPRING NM 2.00 

PIPESTONE NM 2.00 

PRINCE WILLIAM FOREST PARK 4.00 2.00 

PU'UHONUA 0 HONAUNAU NHP 2.00 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 s.oo 

SAGAMOPE HILL NHS 2.00 

SAGUARO NM 4.00 2.00 

SAINT-GAUDENS NHS 2.00 

SARATOGA NHP 4.00 2.00 

SCOTTS BLUFF NM 4.00 2.00 

SEQUOIA 5.00 3.00 11.00 s.oo 

SHENANDOAH NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 s.oo 

SHILOH NMP 2.00 

SUNSET CRATER NM 4.00 2.00 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT BIRTHPLACE 2.00 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NP 4.00 2.00 

TONTO NM 2.00 

TUMACACORI NM 2.00 

TUZIGOOT NM 2.00 

VALLEY FORGE NHP 4.00 2.00 

VANDERBILT MANSION NHS 2.00 

VICKSBURG NMP 4.00 2.00 

WALNUT CANYON NM 2.00 

WHITE SANDS NM 4.00 2.00 

WHITMAN MISSION NHS 2.00 

WILSON'S CREEK NB 4.00 2.00 

WRIGHT BROTHERS NMEM 4.00 2.00 

WUPATKI NM 4.00 2.00 

YELLOWSTONE NP 10.00 4.00 11.00 s.oo 

YOSEMITE NP 5.00 3.00 11.00 s.oo 

ZION NP 5.00 3.00 a.oo 4.00 

• 1992 name change - formerly Mound City Group 

•• 1992 name change - formerly Custer Battlefield 

0 

72-353 0 - 93 (104) 

ISBN 0-16-041526-8 

90000