SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
47–404 CC
1998
HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS—SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 26, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–73
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hearing held February 26, 1998
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of
Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio
Prepared statement of
Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Statements of witnesses:
Bachrach, John Christopher, Treasurer and Board Member, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association
Prepared statement of
Berry, John M., Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, Department of the Interior; accompanied by Henry Rodger Schmitt, Group Manager, Recreation Group, Bureau of Land Management
Prepared statement of Mr. Berry
Coyne, Alasdair, Conservation Director, Keep the Sespe Wild
Prepared statement of
Crandall, Derrick, President, American Recreation Coalition
Prepared statement of
Dingman, Robert, American Motorcyclist Association, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fretwell, Holly, Research Associate, Political Economy Research Center
Prepared statement of
Johnson, Myrna, Director of Government Affairs, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, prepared statement of
Laverty, Lyle, Former Director, Recreation Programs, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. Forest Service; accompanied by Greg Super, National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service; Linda Feldman and Floyd Thompson
Prepared statement of Mr. Laverty
Mackey, Craig, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound
Prepared statement of
Santini, James D., Washington DC Representative, National Tour Association and former Member of Congress
Prepared statement of
Sloan, Mary Margaret, Conservation Director, American Hiking Society
Prepared statement of
Stavely, Gaylord, Vice President, National Forest Recreation Association
Prepared statement of
Voorhees, Philip David, Associate Director of Policy and Development, National Parks and Conservation Area
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Andersen, Heide, Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain Club, prepared statement of
Colby, Wendy, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of
Neubauer, Dale, Bend, Oregon, prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Spohn, Isabell, Twisp, Washington, prepared statement of
U.S. Dept. of the Interior and the Dept. of Agriculture, ''Recreational Fee Demonstration Program''
Vaughan, Ray, Executive Director, Wildlaw, Montgomery, Alabama
Waldheim, Edward H., President, Calfornia Off Road Vehicle Assoc., Glendale California
HEARING ON FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS—SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 132, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] I've scheduled this hearing today to continue the longstanding involvement of the members of this Subcommittee in examining the issues of recreation fees on Federal lands.
As many of you are aware, this Subcommittee held several hearings on recreation fee proposals during the first session of the 10th Congress. Several members of the Subcommittee and several of the witnesses today will have fond memories of our discussion during 1995. However, today we will review the successes and failures of the recreational fee demonstration program that the Congress authorized in the Omnibus Consolidation Rescissions Act of 1996 and amended in subsequent legislation during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Currently, this recreational fee demonstration program authorizes the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service to establish fee collection programs at up to 100 sites for each agency. The fee demonstration program allows these agencies to retain 80 percent of the fee at the collecting unit, and the remaining 20 percent is available to the collecting agency at management discretion.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The agencies are collecting a variety of entrance and user fees to test the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for operation and maintenance costs, and to address the backlog repair and maintenance of infrastructure. The fees are also being used for interpretation, facility enhancement, and resource management projects. However, I am concerned that some fees are being spent on items that do not fit within these areas.
I am pleased to note that, generally, public awareness and acceptance of the fee demonstration program has been positive. I have long held the view that if the fees are fair and reasonable, and the funds are retained at the site to enhance the visitor experience, that the American public will support a fee program. However, we will hear testimony today that will show that not all of the public is totally convinced of the rationale for charging cost-recovery fees on the public lands.
This hearing will serve to provide necessary information for this Subcommittee to consider legislation that would provide permanent authorization for the recreational fee demonstration program under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. I believe that the recreational fee program is the most fair and realistic way to address the backlog problems of the Federal land used by the American people. I fully realize there's some problems with the current recreation fee program; however, this hearing will help us to make decisions that will correct these deficiencies, explain this program to the public, and enhance outdoor recreation experiences for everyone. I look forward to the testimony we will receive today, and appreciate the efforts of all of you to be present and express your views on this important program.
I hope you folks realize there's a dozen hearings going on all over the Hill, most of them on CIA and Iraq and things such as that, so it's, I don't know why, but anyway you will see members dribble in and out, and I apologize that not everyone's here right now, but I've been assured that many will come. Normally, at usual congressional time, which is twenty minutes after we start.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that in mind, I am very happy to recognize, I'd recognize the gentlelady, but I don't know if she wants to be recognized right now. I'll then turn to—see, I told you they'd all start coming. We'll start then with the Honorable Wally Herger, the gentleman from California who works so diligently on these programs. It's always a pleasure to have you, Mr. Herger. We'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the fee demonstration program currently being implemented by our National Park Service and our United States Forest Service. I represent all or part of nine national forests, and one national park, and one national recreation area. The fee demonstration program is severely impacting the people of my district. I am strongly opposed to any extension or continuation of this program for three main reasons.
First, this program is another unnecessary tax on families who are already overburdened by taxes. Second, the fee program places additional burden on recreational access and as a result is highly detrimental to local economies, such as mine in Northern California, which are dependent on tourism and recreation. And third, this fee program only perpetuates misuse of existing funding and natural resources by land management agencies.
First issue of the tax burden. In 1997, Federal, State, and local taxes combined are projected to claim 38.2 percent of the median income of two-earner families—up from 37.3 percent in 1996. This means families are now taxed at a level higher than any other time in our Nation's history, excluding the years of 1944 and 1945, during World War II. Imposing an additional tax burden in the form of fees on the already overburdened American family is considered unconscionable.
One unintended and unfortunate result of this tax is that the average American family may no longer be able to afford a visit to our national parks and forests. Families who once simply drove through these areas now have an added financial burden. The impact of fewer citizens visiting our National parks and forests would negatively impact local economies. Imposing fees is not the answer.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the heart of this issues are Federal agencies that have mismanaged their funding. These agencies claim significant backlogs in maintenance and upkeep for basic services, while continuing to receive annual appropriations that are not adequately accounted for. For example, according to a report by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Interior's Inspector General, the National Park Service lacks (1) necessary financial and program data on its operations; (2) adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent; and (3) that the agency lacks performance measures on what is being accomplished with the money being spent.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's recreational needs will not be met by throwing more money into the Federal Government's insatiable hands. Before we give the National Park Service or the United States Forest Service a permanent, revenue-generating program such as the fee demonstration program, we should require a proper accounting for the resources already at their disposal.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my firsthand experience, this program is not working. There has been a substantial amount of animosity generated by local communities who have had to deal with implementation of this program. This ill-conceived program needs to be discontinued. Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for hearing my testimony, and I request that when this Subcommittee takes up any action on this issue, it will consider the negative impact suffered by local communities such as mine. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding the fee demonstration program currently being implemented by our National Park Service and our United States Forest Service. I represent all or part of nine national forests, one national park, and one national recreation area. The fee demonstration program is severely impacting the people of my district. I am strongly opposed to any extension or continuation of this program for three main reasons: first this program is another, unnecessary tax on families who are already over-burdened by taxes; second the fee program places additional burdens on recreational access and as a result is highly detrimental to local economies, such as mine in northern California, which are dependent on tourism and recreation; and third, this fee program only perpetuates misuse of existing funding and natural resources by land management agencies.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First the issue of the tax burden. In 1997 Federal, state and local taxes combined are projected to claim 38.2 percent of the median income two-earner family, up from 37.3 percent in 1996. This means families are now taxed at a level higher than any other time in our history, excluding the years of 1944 and 1945 during World War II. Imposing an additional tax burden in the form of fees on the already overburdened American family is considered unconscionable. One unintended and unfortunate result of this tax is that the average American family may no longer be able to afford a visit to our national parks and forests. Families who once simply drove through these areas, now have an added financial burden. The impact of fewer citizens visiting our national parks and forests would negatively impact local economies.
Imposing fees is not the answer. At the heart of this issue are Federal agencies that have mismanaged their funding. These agencies claim significant backlogs in maintenance and upkeep for basic services while continuing to receive annual appropriations that are not adequately accounted for. For example, according to a report by the General Accounting Office and the Department of the Interior's Inspector General, the National Park Service lacks: 1. necessary financial and program data on its operations; 2. adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent; and 3. that the agency lacks performance measures on what is being accomplished with the money being spent.
Mr. Chairman, our nation's recreational needs will not be met by throwing more money into the Federal Government's insatiable hands. Before we give the National Park Service or the United States Forest Service a permanent revenue generating program such as the fee demonstration program we should require a proper accounting for the resources already at their disposal.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, from my first hand experience this program is not working. There has been a substantial amount of animosity generated by local communities who have had to deal with implementation of this program. This ill conceived program needs to be discontinued. Again I want to thank the Subcommittee for hearing my testimony and I request that when this Subcommittee takes up any action on this issue it will consider the negative impact suffered by local communities. Thank you.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Herger. We appreciate you being with us, and if you stay with us just a minute, we may have some questions for you.
Let me state that we're very pleased to have Ralph Regula, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of Interior with us. It's always a pleasure to have Ralph with us. We work very closely on matters pertaining to public lands, Interior issues. I'll turn to Mr. Regula for any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a formal statement, but I want to re-emphasize what Congressman Wally Herger said about accountability, and we've built that into the pilot programs. Accountability for the money that's collected and accountability for the management. This was instituted as part of our Appropriations Committee, as a demonstration as to what could be done. Not all units are using the fee program, but I will say that in talking with people that have both experienced paying the relatively small fees, as well as the superintendents and managers of our recreation systems in the parks, forests, and Fish and Wildlife Service, and BLM, that I get very positive reaction. A little footnote to it is that they find that vandalism is down, lessened because people, when they pay a little bit, have a stake in the facility. Visitation is up, so I don't believe people are being restricted in usage.
I know that the parks have worked out an arrangement for local folks that are in and out for various reasons, working there, or delivering materials, that they don't pay, they get a sticker. This is a pilot, or an experimental program, and the effort is being made to get the bugs out of it and make it work well. And we've made it clear in the appropriations process that we don't see this as a substitute for annual appropriations, but rather as a supplement to deal with the maintenance backlog. For example, I believe in Yellowstone, they're going to use some of their money to replace the sewer system, along with what we appropriate, to enhance the visitor experience by doing things that they normally couldn't do. And there is a high level of enthusiasm on the part of the managers, simply because of what they are able to do.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I say, it's not a substitute for the appropriations process, and I think that the way it's being worked in the various parks and forests now demonstrates that there is merit to a program of this type. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having a hearing and looking at this program and the pluses and minuses of what we've experienced in the past 2 years under the program to see what should be done, if anything, on a permanent basis. Because I think it does have a potential for giving people a sense of participation in the park responsibilities, as well as providing some additional funds to substantially enhance the visitor experience. And I believe there are a lot of pluses to it based on my conversations with people as I visit parks, and with the superintendents or the managers. There's a pretty positive reaction, all up and down the line. And I'm as interested in your comments, Mr. Herger. I think probably some of those concerns would be addressed in permanent legislation. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:]
The Hon. Ralph Regula,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN:
On behalf of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, we express our appreciation for the opportunity to improve our recreation resources through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized by section 315 of the fiscal year 1996 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Attached is a joint progress report on the status of the program, submitted by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture on behalf of the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service. This report summarizes the most recent information on visitation, revenues, and management issues that have arisen during initial implementation of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are pleased to inform you that visitor response to the new fees has been generally positive. We increased revenues substantially during the first year, and began the long process of reducing our maintenance backlogs. The program represents a significant step toward improving visitor services and facilities for those who recreate on public lands.
The agencies agree that long-term implementation of this effort is desirable. We will work with Congress to design a program that builds upon our positive experience in implementing the demonstration effort. Such a program should provide flexibility for designing fees tailored to specific situations, embody strong incentives for agencies to collect recreation fees, and provide assurance to the public that a majority of revenues raised will benefit the site where fees are collected. To that end, we will be pleased to submit draft legislation during the coming year and to work closely with your staff. However, we do believe that permanent authority should not take effect until after the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999.
A similar letter is being sent to Sidney R. Yates, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, the Honorable Slade Gorton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, and the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
| John Berry, |
| Assistant Secretary, |
| Policy, Management and Budget |
| Department of the Interior |
| James Lyons, |
| Under Secretary for Natural Resources |
| and Environment, |
| Department of Agriculture |
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Regula. Ms. Smith, do you have any statements or comments to Mr. Herger?
Mrs. LINDA SMITH OF WASHINGTON. To begin with, I've got two different groups. We have people who live close to the sites who have used those properties for many, many years for picking berries, for hiking around the Mt. Saint Helens site, which was obviously a volcano and now restored. And so we're not finding a lot of complaint, except for some of the families' having to pay 20 more dollars a year per member, and we are in an area of very large families, and a lot of stay-home moms. And it is very difficult. It appears that if we could have something for those closer. It is not just those distributing things into the site. It's those that live across the street. It's like you have to, where you used to go play and climb and hike, now you're charged. That's pretty steep for them—not for all families, but it certainly is for a significant number. And if we could find some way to get the Park Service to do something with the families that are real close, that would probably satisfy most of the complaints that I'm getting. Because I'm only getting them from those people. So if the Chairman could consider that, and possibly—both chairmen.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Vento? Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Herger, I'll address the question to you and then have a comment. You know, this legislation was authorized by the 19, well first we had the Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104–134. How would you vote on that?
Mr. HERGER. Well, my understanding——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, did you vote for or against the bill? I'm just curious.
Mr. HERGER. This was part of a large bill.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but——
Mr. HERGER. Of which I voted for.
Mr. DEFAZIO. So you voted for the bill, but you were against this part of it.
Mr. HERGER. That's correct.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Correct, OK.
Mr. HERGER. And my experience has been one that's been very much in the same line of Mrs. Smith.
Mr. DEFAZIO. All right.
Mr. HERGER. Except I could put many exclamation marks. The local people, I can tell you, are incensed with this. I have probably had as many complaints on this one issue than I've had of anything I can recall in the 11 years I've been representing the area. And I would hope that at least we could look at——
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK——
Mr. HERGER. [continuing] as Mrs. Smith mentioned, doing something for the locals.
Mr. DEFAZIO. If I, if Mr. Herger, if I could——
Mr. HERGER. Yes.
Mr. DEFAZIO. [continuing] if I could reclaim my time, because I've got limited time. And then we had the 1998 Interior Appropriations Act, which extended it. Do you recall how you voted on that?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. DeFazio, all of these bills——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, but I mean, did you vote for that too?
Mr. HERGER. I——
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, I voted it against it, you voted—OK. If I could reclaim my time—I have introduced legislation to repeal this and replace it with a modest charge on those who deplete minerals from Federal lands, a royalty charge, which is charged by all other owners of lands. Are you a co-sponsor of my bill to repeal it and replace this legislation with another form of fee?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HERGER. I believe I'd be very opposed to the latter——
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, all right, well, Mr. Herger, I would suggest that, you know, you voted for it twice, even though it was part of other legislation. There is one bill pending to repeal it, which is mine, and you're not a sponsor of it. I guess I'm looking for a little consistency here. I, you know, I'm opposed. I heard, with great interest, that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked about reductions in vandalism. Actually, we have a totally new form of vandalism in my district, which is very significant removal and vandalism of the signs for the fee areas. It's a new kind of vandalism.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DEFAZIO. So, I haven't had the experience of reductions in vandalism. You know, the kind of complaints I get are similar to those that Mrs. Smith has received, and you have received, people particularly who live in or adjacent to the forests.
There was a precedent established in Oregon which may address their concerns and the Chairman may need to take this into account. In the Federal District Court in Oregon, you know, this doesn't just apply to parks. It applies to forests, you know; apparently, I don't know if there are any BLM lands doing it yet. It applies to beaches in Oregon, and some surfers who wanted to access a beach in Oregon on the other side of the Dunes National Recreation Area were ticketed for not having paid these fees, where they had no intention of using the trails. They just wanted to access the beach and surf, as they had done traditionally. They won in court. And it was found that they could not be ticketed or charged for that use.
I'm not exactly certain of all the principles in that case, but I think that may undermine this fee program in a number of areas, and I think that the Committee ought to be looking for other, and more fair, alternatives to this tax on individuals. It flies in the face of most of the things I've heard from the majority on the Republican Contract. I mean, this is a tax on individuals who want to use public lands and, you know, I, and it's, it is inconvenient for people who live in those areas. It is burdensome for people of low incomes that live in those rural areas. It's even, I've experienced it as a pain in the butt because I bought a sticker. I put it on one car. But then I went backpacking and I took a different car, and I forgot, and I got all the way there, and then I had to drive back out again, find a place to buy one, slap it on my other car, and drive back in again. And I know that other people have had that, have had that happen.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think this is something that should come out of general funds or some other source, and not through this program. And the reason we haven't had too many complaints, also, is that it hasn't been enforced. Wait until this year, when the Forest Service starts ticketing people for money, instead of courtesy tickets, if you want to see a firestorm of protest, and/or vandalism, and/or antagonism toward the government and Federal employees. Last year, people just got courtesy tickets saying you should have a ticket. But this year they're going to get tickets for real, and it's going to be a very unpleasant experience for the Forest Service employees in my district who are issuing those tickets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from California, Mr. Gallegly. Do you have comments for Mr. Herger, or an opening statement?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it's always a pleasure to have Wally here. Wally and I have been friends for a long time. In fact we were classmates in the 100th Congress together, and we've been through a lot of battles and wars together. I think that the comments relative to those that live in the proximity certainly deserve a lot of consideration. I think Linda Smith was right on point. However, I would say that for those who are driving their $100,000 mobile homes that go across the country, and go into a park a thousand miles from home, or 1,500 miles from home, to say they can't afford five dollars to help maintain the, the integrity of the public land, I think is a little bit disingenuous. But I do think that collectively we can work on this issue. But those that are immediately living in the area, I do think that we need to address that issue a little bit. But going across the country, I'm sorry. And I do appreciate the comments of Wally and look forward to working with him on this issue as well as many others.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from Nevada has no opening statement. We'll appreciate the gentleman——
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment if I could. I know you want to get going, and I'll just be brief.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. VENTO. [continuing] I wanted to be certain that Mr. DeFazio—Mr. Herger, I didn't see your statement in my file here, but I assume the concern was about Mt. Saint Helens?
Mr. HERGER. No, that wasn't——
Mr. VENTO. Well, that was——
Mr. GALLEGLY. That's a bit north of——
Mr. VENTO. OK, what is the, what was the unit that you were concerned about?
Mr. HERGER. Well, I——
Mr. VENTO. Was there a specific unit? Was it a Forest Service unit or a Park Service unit? Mt. Saint Helen, of course, was a, is a Forest Service unit.
Mr. HERGER. We have nine national forests within our district—the specific, where the strongest concerns have been around Mt. Shasta.
Mr. VENTO. Does it concern user fees, or does it concern entrance fees?
Mr. HERGER. It would be, I assume that would be, entrance fees.
Mr. VENTO. I assume it's user fees.
Mr. HERGER. They're fees that are paid at such time as they enter the park.
Mr. VENTO. Well, is it for a camping reservation, or what is the purpose of it? I mean, because——
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HERGER. It's anything they do utilizing the water at, for example, Lake Shasta——
Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't want to—I mean the concern is, I think, that we've always had, the Forest Service has had, historically, authority for user fees as well as the Park Service. That would be for parking a car, for a campsite, you know, primitive and so——
Mr. HERGER. This is just for day use for going use and use, like, the water——
Mr. VENTO. Just an entrance fee, but I guess that's under the experiment. But we had authorized, I think, for BLM and for Forest Service some of the sites, you know, that are a basic monument or type of a visitor contact station, not just for entrance. And of course there's a big increase. I mean, the real question here is, you know we go to a film or something and it costs five, six, seven dollars to get into a film. You know, and you talk about people, you know. So they, you know, the issue here is, how do we sustain or support this. I appreciate your comments about those that live in close proximity, and there are, of course, accommodations where you can get an annual pass because you're going more often. It is inconvenient, it is obviously a—they're on the learning curve with regards to understanding that.
Mr. HERGER. But even on that point——
Mr. VENTO. Yes, sure——
Mr. HERGER. [continuing] even on an annual pass, say someone living in Redding, California would have to buy a pass for Lake Shasta and an additional pass for——
Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I think that——
Mr. HERGER. [continuing] the lake, which are all within, maybe three miles.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate that, because the Forest Service doesn't have a Golden Eagle, so to speak, as the Park Service. So that's something that needs to be, needs to be addressed.
Mr. HERGER. And I would like to urge the Committee, there are a number of issues of this type that I'd like to see us address. We attempted to address this point, Mrs. Smith brought it up, of perhaps having the local area, some type of discount for people who leave there.
Mr. VENTO. Well, they already—I mean, I think there are accommodations——
Mr. HERGER. They determined that was not constitutional to be able to do that——
Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, I think there probably is a better deal than that that probably they can get for going to five or six parks, in terms of a Golden Eagle, or America the Beautiful, or some other type of pass that had been recommended previously. And this, of course, was an experiment, but there are in fact annual passes that permit any type, and there are even exemptions, of course, for those that need them. So there is a process set up, and obviously, as I said, everyone's on the learning curve with regard to this process.
But I think the fundamental issue is that, the consensus is that those that use or those that visit these areas ought to at least help in sustaining them. These fees, of course, will never sustain the type of costs for maintenance for the expense of these units. So I think we, especially with our friend Mr. Regula here, we have to obviously point out that we understand the dilemma that he faces, because if we cut these back, all we're doing is adding to the backlog of costs that we have both in the Forest and in the park, and the other public land units.
Thanks. Thanks, Wally.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlemen from Montana, Mr. Hill. Do you have any opening statement? Gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, do you have an opening statement or comments for Mr. Herger?
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady is recognized.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the recreational fee demonstration program, which we enacted last year. And normally I don't make an opening statement; I just submit it for the record. But I feel very strongly about this. As I was in the district last week, the issue of fees was something that I heard a lot about. So I commend you on holding this hearing now, and, and I do minimally support the concept of having users help contribute a minimal fee, specifically for recreational area improvement.
But ultimately, I would like to see recreationalists have the best experience possible on well maintained forest campgrounds, facilities, and trail. Very small fees can play a role in that effort, but I am especially interested in this issue because a couple of areas in Idaho, most significantly the Sawtooth National Recreational Area, has been chosen as test cases for this fee program.
However, I do have concerns about how this demonstration program has been implemented, serious concerns. Generally, I do not believe that agencies have done an adequate job selling the program to the public. The common complaint I have heard is that visitors have suddenly have had to pay a fee without knowing the reason why, and most people are not aware that these fees are to go directly to the upkeep and improvement of the specific area that they are visiting.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that in our, our general fund budgeting that, to the degree fees are collected and kept within that forest, then I think that we ought to be able to save the general taxpayer money by, in a comparable manner, diminishing our appropriations to the agency. Otherwise, we just have mounting of fees as well as a continued increase in our general funding.
And my second concern, which is that there have been no noticeable improvement to campgrounds, hiking trails, boat docks, restrooms, and many other facilities and amenities that serve the general public. If there have been changes, the agencies have not done a good job of letting the people know, because evidence shows there hasn't. Just as any charity soliciting funds, the Federal Government must actively promote the benefits of fees.
I am concerned also about what appears to be a case of double and even triple taxation that this program represents to some public lands users. In some States, there are already programs in place that collect a fee for improvements, especially the fee many off-road users pay in many States, such as the green-sticker program in California, and the OHV trail fund in Idaho is one such example. So we need to make sure that we're not double-charging these people, and that we're not negatively impacting our counties and the tourism industry that so many of our States and counties have learned to lean upon with the diminishment of active natural resource industries being fees from them, and resources from them, being made available to the counties.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentlelady from Idaho. That takes care of the opening part.
Mr. Herger, you're more than welcome to join us on the dais. We appreciate having you with us, if you have the time to stay with us, and appreciate your testimony.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HERGER. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. With that in mind, let's turn to the first panel. Our two panelists will be Mr. John M. Berry, Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, Department of the Interior, and Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region. They both are accompanied by—Mr. Berry is accompanied by Henry Schmitt, Maureen Finnerty, and Dr. Roger Coleman. Mr. Laverty is accompanied by Greg Super. We appreciate these folks being with us. Mr. Berry, this is twice in one week you've had this opportunity. We appreciate you being here. Five minutes OK? You need any little extra time, let us, let us know, OK?
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BERRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY RODGER SCHMITT, GROUP MANAGER, RECREATION GROUP, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. BERRY. OK, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for appearing before us, and, Mr. Secretary, we'll start with you.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm very pleased to talk to you and the Committee about the experiences we've had with the fee demonstration program, which have been mostly positive, I would like to add, and, based on our first year-and-a-half experiment with this demonstration project.
As you know, this project has been a joint effort on the part of three bureaus within the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. These agencies manage a variety of resources under a variety of authorities, yet for this experiment they have worked very closely and have found that they have a great deal in common.
I have prepared a statement, Mr. Chairman, that, with your agreement, we would just submit for the record, and I'll try and summarize here.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
Mr. BERRY. But I would be pleased to also introduce the folks who will with me who can help us answer questions in specific detail about each of our bureau's programs. We have Maureen Finnerty, who is the Associate Director of the National Park Service for Park Operations and Education. We have Dr. Richard Coleman, Director of Refuges for the Fish and Wildlife Service. And we have Roger Schmitt, who is the Group Manager for Recreation in the Bureau of Land Management. So they'll be with us in case we have specifics that I'm unable to answer.
Visitor response to the demonstration fees program has been very positive. Both the National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service conducted surveys to assess visitor reactions during the first full year of the recreational fee demonstration program. Overall, 83 percent of National park visitors surveyed said they were either satisfied with the fees they paid, or thought the fees were too low. In the Forest Service, over 6 percent of people who completed a survey card said that the opportunities and services they experienced were at least equal to the fee that they paid.
We believe that the strong support so early in this program is primarily because the fee revenues have not been offset by reduced appropriations, and because receipts remain in the recreation areas in which they are collected, to be used to improve visitor services and to protect resources. Our visitors seem to be responding with greater care to the recreation resources, for there is increasing evidence that incidents of vandalism have decreased in areas where recreation fees have been collected.
We also believe that much of this public acceptance came about because we involved and communicated with the public in a process, in a variety of ways. At the local levels, our agencies spent a great deal of effort working with the public through formal communication plans, news releases, meeting with local community leaders, constituent groups, advisory councils, information leaflets, explanatory videos, open houses at the parks, public workshops, comment cards, and then signs, entrance signs and bulletin boards. These efforts, I believe, were important to the success of the public reception for the recreational fee demonstration program.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Interagency cooperation has blossomed under this recreational fee demonstration program. The participating agencies have established a record of cooperation that I believe is unprecedented in this, in this government. This is true not only among the Department of Interior's bureaus, but also with the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Throughout the process of implementing the program, fee managers from the four agencies held regular meetings to discuss progress, approaches, problems, and solutions. And they have developed common approaches for evaluating the fee program.
Mr. Chairman, I could go into a great deal about our accomplishments, but they're already described in a report that we have prepared for the Interior, Agriculture Committees on Appropriations, and which I believe we have made available to the Committee and to the Members. I'd just like to highlight a few of the summaries, points in that report.
First, a very large majority of visitors' levels have been sustained during the initial year of new fees. The initial data we have on visitation during the first full year of the program indicate that fees appear to have a negligible impact on visitation levels. Of course, we will not be satisfied with a single year's experience.
Second, recreation fee revenues have increased significantly in all four agencies administering this program. Between 1996 and fiscal year 1997, recreational fee revenues increased by 57 percent in the National Park Service, 35 percent for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 11 percent for the Bureau of Land Management. This is good news, for it identifies a new source of revenue in addition to public appropriations that will allow us to improve visitor services and deal with our serious backlog of infrastructure needs.
Third, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of different types of fees. Some are variations of entrance fees, ranging from individual and carload fees that are typically collected at an entrance kiosk, to the Golden Eagle Passport, unit-specific annual passes, and also multi-unit passes that allow entry into several sites of the same Federal agency, or several sites operated by different Federal, State, local agencies. Too, we're trying to address some of the concerns that Mr. Herger and some of the members of the panel have already raised this morning. We are also evaluating several types of user fees for such uses as parking, hunting, camping, boat launching, dumping of sanitary waste from recreation vehicles, and expedition fees.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth, the agencies are evaluating a wide variety of methods for collecting the fees, from typical ranger in the kiosk, to automated collection machines and collection by mail. And we are looking at different approaches to this that will include using our employees, partnership arrangements with other agencies, volunteers, as well as consignment with private-sector vendors and concessionaires.
Fifth, the agencies—Mr. Chairman, if it's OK, if I would, I see the red light, but I——
Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead, Mr. Berry. I want to hear your testimony.
Mr. BERRY. Just got a couple more minutes.
Mr. HANSEN. Don't let the light bother you.
Mr. BERRY. Great.
Fifth, the agencies have found that some of the initial collection costs for new fees are higher than expected, and certainly higher than they will be over the long run. The reason for these higher costs initially is the large startup and capital costs for instituting some of the capital infrastructure that nee
ds to be in place to collect the fees, such as kiosks, entrance stations, new equipment, and supplies that have to be in, in availability to monitor.
The agencies will continue to look for ways to reduce the cost of collecting these fees, but it's also important to note that cost-effectiveness may not always be possible. In some sites, for example, the particular mix of low visitation and multiple access points may just make it impractical, impractical to institute any fees at all.
Finally, the agencies have begun the process of financing maintenance backlog projects. Considering that we are now only into the second full year of the recreation fee demonstration program, and that many of the revenues were not available to the bureaus until the end of fiscal year 1997, the participating agencies have begun a significant number of projects that will reduce the backlog maintenance requirements and provide public service enhancements at recreationsites. I'd like to point out just a few.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At Yellowstone National Park, they are rehabilitating their deteriorated electronic infrastructure for safety and resource protection, repairing utility systems, replacing deteriorated docks, rehabilitating trail and overlook, interpretative exhibits, and back country sites. In Paria County, on the Arizona–Utah border, the Bureau of Land Management used fee revenues to maintain and upgrade sanitation facilities at trail heads.
The recreation fee demonstration program has been a very positive experience for participating agencies, and the agencies agree that long-term implementation of the fee program is desirable. We wish, however, to emphasize our strong desire that any permanent authority should not take effect until after the current temporary authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. The test is entering its second full year, and our current findings and observations are preliminary. The full evaluation of this program will not be completed until March 1999. Yet even at this early stage, we are very pleased with the results, and we would like to work with you to design a program that builds on that positive experience in implementing this effort.
There are a few elements which I would like to recommend for your consideration for permanent legislation. These elements are presented in more detail in the report that we have submitted, but let me just touch on a few.
First, we would emphasize the need for flexibility to tailor fees to meet specific management and visitor needs. We simply caution that one size does not fit all.
Second, we think it is crucial to recognize the importance of incentives in the design of recreation fees. The provision in the demonstration program that fees be applied to onsite backlog maintenance projects provides a very substantial incentive for recreation managers to collect and keep the cost of collection low. People seem much more willing to pay fees if they know the revenues will directly benefit the resources that they are enjoying.
Third, the provision that allows agencies to utilize the revenues over more than a single fiscal year can help agencies do better long-range planning to approach backlog reductions, and implement reform and rehabilitation in a more systematic way.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, we believe that this provision, that the provision that sets aside some of the fee revenues for addressing broader agency priorities would be an important element to continue in any permanent legislation. We caution that a fixed formula that returns a high percentage of revenue to the collecting site could, over the long run, and this would be long run over 5 to 10 years, could create undesirable inequities within an agency, where certain popular facilities have more funds than they can effectively use, and others that don't have the public access would face continuing deterioration.
So we need to consider the possibility in determining what's the appropriate balance between the needs of the fee-collection site in the long run, with the backlog maintenance needs of the entire agency.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. That would conclude my statement, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Laverty.
STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, FORMER DIRECTOR, RECREATION PROGRAMS, REGIONAL FORESTER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY GREG SUPER, NATIONAL RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; LINDA FELDMAN AND FLOYD THOMPSON
Mr. LAVERTY Mr. Chairman, it's an honor for me to be here today to discuss the fee demonstration program as it relates to the Forest Service and how we have been able to implement this program. I'm delighted to be here, because I have great interest in what is happening, and even though I have transitioned from Washington to Colorado I had great interest, as I served in, not only the Director of Recreation, but also in the Acting Associate Deputy Chief role as we began to roll this out.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the comments that I'll share with you, Mr. Berry has already captured, and I think as we have looked at the implementation of the fee demonstration project across agency lines, it truly has brought agencies together. I'll just summarize some of our remarks, because many of the things that we have prepared in our statement are already captured by Mr. Berry, and I'll zip through that so we can engage with any questions you might have for us.
I am accompanied by Greg Super, as you mentioned, and Linda Feldman on our staff, and Floyd Thompson, who are really the key folks on our staff that help make this come about. For the Forest Service, it was really an incredible journey for us as we began implementing the program, simply because in many of our sites, unlike many of the Park Service sites, we had not charged fees before. So we embarked in a endeavor where we started essentially from ground zero in terms of helping people understand that we were in fact going to collect fees but, more importantly, as Mr. Herger even pointed out, that we need to be able to let people know why and how these fees are going to be collected, but how they're going to be used.
And I can share with you, as I've talked to folks around the country, that folks are very, very supportive of the idea of paying fees, as long as they know those fees are going back on the site, they can actually see some tangible results.
As Mrs. Chenoweth pointed out, we are just the in process now of beginning to implement some of those fees and actually make some of these improvements. We had projects on, in fact at Flaming Gorge, where the ranger, as soon as he started collecting fees, began making significant improvements on boat docks right away, even though he didn't have all the fees in hand. And, you know, so that people could visibly and tangibly see that these fees were actually showing some improvements on the facilities that they used.
Let me just capture a few points that I think are significant, and then, I think we can answer any questions you might have. As I look at what's happening in the National forests, we're just continuing to see increased demands for recreation. And, as we have pointed out with, with the Committee in the past, the demands are far outreaching our abilities to deliver the services, in terms of providing the basic attention to the services that people expect. But I think, more importantly, the investment we need to be making as we protect America's resources, I think this is one of the significant tools that has come to us as a result of the fee demonstration program. That it does, in fact, give us the opportunity to make not only investments to serve people, and also to protect these resources so that future generations are going to be able to enjoy many of the same things that we're experiencing today.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The recreation use on the National forests, as well as all public lands, are significant contributors to the gross domestic product, and as we begin to rack up, across agency lines, contribution that takes place on public lands as a result of recreation is significant. That, that use on local economies is extremely significant. I was in Glenwood Springs yesterday, and listened to folks from the community talking about the importance of the National forest in that community's economy as it relates to the use that takes place there. And as we look at how we can invest to make sure that those resources that draw and attract people to these lands are sustainable. Our trails are an excellent example. If we're not able to sustain trails, these folks that normally would hike, are going to make choices to go somewhere else. And that's where I think the value for us in being able to return these resources and funds back to the sites to improve and maintain these systems is critically important.
I'd like to just share maybe with you a few ideas that we would recommend that you consider long-term engagement of a fee bill. And the values that we have learned, and we would capture that, as we aggressively moved on implementing the fee program. Back in 1996 when the Congress passed the opportunity for us to do this, we moved right along. And we actually implemented projects in 1996. And we have learned a lot. We viewed this as a test, and we have, we went through a very structured process in terms of how we started. We required business plans, we required communication strategies, and setting up the whole financial and cash management accountability part, which I think is extremely crucial for us as we implement the program. And if I could just take a couple minutes, I'll be done, and then we can start.
Mr. HANSEN. Nancy, maybe you want to turn the light off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LAVERTY. This is a great conversation. We, we really viewed this as a test, and the places where we have been successful, we have found that that up-front communication has been absolutely crucial. Where people could really understand why we're collecting the fees, but more importantly how we're going to use those fees.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was talking to the ranger on the Clear Creek Ranger District—this is the Mt. Evans project. One of the ideas that he has to better communicate with the folks on what we have actually collected in 1997, but on the other side of this little hand-out that he's going to distribute to the folks that actually pay the fees, is going to show exactly how those funds are going to be used. So we have that accountability, not only internally, but also with the people that pay those fees. And I think that's our key for our success.
Let me just suggest there's four elements that I would, I would capture that you want to consider, at least as we've learned from the past. The first is that, I would recognize that this, this joint agency effort. And I would hope that as you consider long-term consideration on this bill, or permanent legislation, if you could give us some clarity and some authorities where we could even cross across lines, not only with Federal agencies, but even with some States and counties. We've got some projects that, that we're doing this, but it's been really tough because we have folks that think we don't have the authority to do that. That would be most helpful.
I think in terms of building a long-range planning, some of the things that Mr. Berry spoke about, as we know that we have a more permanent authority coming that we can carry over some of those funds to take on larger projects than simply one year at a time type of projects. I think the idea, perhaps, for you to consider broadening the fee demonstration authorities, where we could expand to include the recreation-related activities, such as some of the fees that we collect off of outfitter and guide permits. If we were able to keep even a portion of some of the fees from some of the ski areas, that we could put back into the administration and improvement and enhancements. Right now, all those funds simply go back into the Treasury.
Let me just close it off, because I know that we need to have some conversation about some of the questions you might have. But I would just close by saying that we aggressively and totally endorse the concept of the fee demonstration program. It's been a great tool for us, and, you know, we're just in the process right now, I think, of beginning to demonstrate that government works, and that government can work well. And I think this is really key. We've got some bumps in a road that we're addressing, and as we pick these up, we've aggressively gone back to take care of that.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the piece I would just share with you, comments from the people that are paying the fees has been very, very positive. Certainly, as Mr. Herger pointed out, we've got some folks that still don't agree with the fee, period, but I think as we begin to show and demonstrate the results, folks are going to accept that. I appreciate just the chance to share with you, and would love to get you out and show you some of our projects on the ground.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Laverty. I appreciate your comments. You folks that are standing back there, if you're so inclined, this bottom tier, no one's going to use it, if you'd like to sit down, we'd be more than happy to have you do that. If you want to stand, that's up to you, but I'm embarrassed to see you standing there.
We'll start with members of the Committee to question this panel. Mr. Hill from Montana, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HILL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions about the fee structure.
Are any of the concessionaire fees retained within the park for the purpose of the park services, or, or are they, or do they go to the general treasury?
Mr. LAVERTY. I'll speak on the Forest Service side. Right now, those all go into the general treasury.
Mr. HILL. Those all go to the general treasury?
Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. And how do those fees compare with the other fees that you charge directly to people who, either admittance fees or user fees. Could you give me some indication of what that relative amount of money is?
Mr. LAVERTY. I don't have those figures here, but I could certainly pull that up. I used to know those figures, but I've forgotten that stuff.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. I mean, obviously, the concessionaire fees are indirectly fees that are charged for people who use the parks. It just seems to me that if we're going to be talking about trying to create an entrepreneurial climate within the parks, we ought to consider whether or not some portion of concessionaire fees or something ought to be retained within the park. What do you think of that idea?
Mr. LAVERTY. I think if we were able to keep some of those fees in the fee demonstration program, it could go a long ways. I think it could help us do a couple of things. We could enhance the administration that goes on right now in terms of how we administer those special-use programs, particularly outfitter and guide programs. And if we were able to get some consistency, I think we would find our relationship with many of the outfitters would even improve.
Greg was just telling me that our, our special use fees that we collect, are about $37 million. Last year, we collected about $8 million under the fee demonstration program, and we expect that to go up significantly as we begin to implement the program. We have 40 projects underway that we actually implemented in 1996–1997, another 5 ready to go on line in 1998 and 1999, so, I think we'll see that fee collection increasing to be probably comparable over time.
Mr. HILL. Is there any relationship between the fees the concessionaires pay, and the use of infrastructure they have? For example, sewer and water costs, and those sorts of things within the park or within the—now, I would ask any one of the three of you to respond to that. Are those fees, do they bear any relationship to the services that they also consume?
Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. Each concession contract in the Park Service is an individually negotiated contract between the concessionaire that accounts for opportunities and other costs that are subject to that. In response to your last question, in the Park Service, the general rule is that our concession funds are returned to the Treasury, but there are instances in certain concessions in certain parks where we have the ability to keep some of those funds on park site. And we can get you a more detailed break-out of that, I think, in an answer to the record.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. I would appreciate having that.
Noting that, you know, a lot of the backlog is associated with infrastructure needs, and, I mean, how do you fund those infrastructure needs? Substantially, now, they're being funded, obviously, by the Treasury, I mean, just general taxpayers. Some of it's going to be funded from increase in user fees. Seems to me that, if we're going to address this whole issue, that we ought to look at that again. I'm not making a case for more concessionaires' fees; I want to make that clear. I'm just saying, though, that there ought to be some relationship there, and those, it seems to me, those dollars ought to stay within the park, too.
Mr. BERRY. You raise an excellent point, Mr. Hill, and the administration, we're working now between the departments and the Office of Management and Budget on preparing some concession approaches similar to what you're talking about, so that we can submit those for your consideration. But you, you've hit on a very god point.
Mr. LAVERTY. One of the points I would also make, Mr. Hill, that relates to outfitters and guides on the National forests is that most of those folks do an incredible amount of volunteer work for us, just doing basic maintenance that we would not be able to do ourselves. That's not part of the permit, but, you know, that's work that's being contributed by the folks, you know, for, oftentimes in addition to what the fee that they pay. So that probably doesn't cover all that.
Mr. HILL. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, a member of the Committee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I didn't make an opening statement, but I did read yours and noted your concerns with regards this experimental program, and specifically with regard to trying to guide the use of the entrance fee and user fee type of programs. It's really pretty confusing for those that are not familiar with this. And, of course, when my colleague from Montana, introduces concessions into the process, you can really, I'd suggest—and I think that, you know, he had some very good points with it, but that if we're going to deal this, we try to deal with the user and entrance issue. And what you were removed from, like, for instance, I mentioned Mr. Laverty that you actually have broad authority to implement user fees, in almost many instances. Is that correct?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAVERTY. That is correct, yes.
Mr. VENTO. And this, this gave you flexibility to put in more user fees, not entrance fees, because you hadn't had that except in the special units that we designated in 1993. Is that correct?
Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct.
Mr. VENTO. And so the, the point is that this freed you up in terms of not being limited by the land water conservation law, in terms of where you could charge user fees. These user fees are generally designed to pay for what the actual use is of a campsite, and they go directly into that site. Is that right? Or a parking lot or some other activity?
Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct. We have used those for trail fees, where those funds are going back for trail maintenance, and that's one of the significant——
Mr. VENTO. So none of that goes to the Treasury, does it?
Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct.
Mr. VENTO. That does not. I mean, it's only these entrance fees that the new issue. You hear, someone's going to give you some advice now.
Mr. Berry, have you been around this a little bit so you get the difference here?
Mr. BERRY. At the Parks and Fish and Wildlife, and Public Lands, there is a distinction between the departments in this regard in that we generally approach it from the entrance fee approach, as opposed to the service approach.
Mr. VENTO. Well, I think we have in the Park Service, I think the others—of course BLM recently in 1993 was granted authority for special units. I don't really know the Fish and Wildlife Service, but obviously it's a small amount of revenue there. We look at these figures, and then there's also a county sharing in terms of some of the type of fees that are present here, that the counties actually, under normal law, would get some share—not under the user fee, I don't think, but under—I don't know if under user fees or not. Mr. Laverty, do they get part of the user fees too?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAVERTY. Under the fee demonstration, they do not.
Mr. VENTO. They don't, but otherwise they would, is that right?
Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct.
Mr. VENTO. Well, that's sort of problematic, especially if we want the money to go into the purpose for which it's intended. Of course, it isn't enough but, you know, I'm a little—the concern here, of course, asking for more specificity, you know, is going to end us up at the Appropriations Committee again. And then when you get the revenue comes all to the government, then it gets to be an offset in the appropriations bill. And, of course, that's one of the problems with this concessions policy, you know. They're trying to find a balance between the superintendent, or the supervisor of a forest, or the other administrator, and the OMB and appropriator type of process. Because the money just doesn't seem to get back once it comes to Washington—at least not all of it.
And, of course, there are a lot of units that don't have any collection of fee money. I notice that these ideas seem to be a better idea in Washington than sometimes in the field.
Mr. LAVERTY. I have spent the last two-and-a-half months talking to a lot of the folks in the field, and I can tell you that there's a lot of enthusiasm and great support among agency people, you know, with this, with this program. I wish we could have some of the folks that I talked to yesterday, that were just talking about the project that they have at Vail Pass. These folks are enthused about it, but also, more importantly, is that they're finding that there is a great support from the public that is paying that. And, you know, I can't share that——
Mr. VENTO. No, no. I understand that but I think there is some, I think as I said that the public is on the learning curve and you have to become acquainted with this. For instance, in the case that our colleague presented in his testimony, it looks to me there is no pass that would be applicable. You have the authority and have exercised the authority to provide a single pass for multiple units. Hasn't the Forest Service done that?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, we have.
Mr. VENTO. You haven't done it in northern California or Oregon, I guess, is the problem.
Mr. LAVERTY. Southern California has one, and northern, the Oregon——
Mr. VENTO. So they do have it, so it's just a matter of misunderstanding at this point, at least in term of the pilot program?
Mr. LAVERTY. That's correct, and I think we also share, though, the point that I believe you're going to make is that we've got 40, maybe a hundred projects on the national forests; we've got 40 or a hundred projects on the national parks and BLM. And at some point in time, we need to begin look at, you know, should there be, whether it's a State pass that covers all agencies, or should it be a Federal pass.
Mr. VENTO. Well, I hope my colleagues——
Mr. LAVERTY. I think those are some of the things that we can learn.
Mr. VENTO. Yes. I hope my colleagues will be patient with this and try to work it through. I think there's nothing worse than having something start in fits and starts and maybe we can get the insights from this, and then proceed. But to completely just pull it back because there is a misunderstanding or political reaction to it, I think would be the wrong thing to do. This wasn't my baby; this was Ralph's, but I've been through this before, and I think that there's nothing worse than having something that goes in fits and starts, especially on an issue like this. And I think that we should try to build the consensus on the Committee, and to be reasonable where we can, look at these factors more carefully, and give some guidance, but, hopefully, keeping the money in the, in the land management units, and with the type of flexibility. I think, obviously, the comments you made, Mr. Chairman, about what's happened with some of the money, you know, fall right in line with why there are the certain requirements in the Land, Water Conservation Fund. They may not be perfect, but they're better than nothing.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I didn't make myself clear in my opening statement, I want to make it clear now. I think that for us to look at the possibility of charging fees, user fees, in the Park Service is one thing. But for the record, I am adamantly opposed to user fees, or fees being charged by the Forest Service and by Department of Interior for anything other than National parks, and anything other than an experimental demonstration fee program.
It's creating tremendous reaction in my district. In fact, or in my State. In Mr. Crapo's district, there's a little city named Salmon, Idaho. And the mayor and the city council adopted a new vehicle use fee test program. And the proposal is that the city of Salmon is proposing to charge all U.S. Forest Service vehicles using city streets to a use fee. The purpose of the fee is to replace declining funds and to provide finances to ensure we provide quality road experiences while traveling on city streets. The current allotted funds do not adequately cover the cost of maintaining the highly used streets, and the U.S. Forest Service was chosen as a test group because they have established user fees on the Salmon River, and several Forest Service-operated areas and must believe this is an accepted method of raising funds.
They go on to say the city of Salmon will share the information gathered from this project, and will provide, free of charge, to any city, the procedure used and the amount of funds brought into the city budget. The city will receive comments until May 29, but just like the Federal Government, it doesn't matter what you say. The fee will begin on June 1st.
It's a little half-serious, tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is that the mayor of Salmon wrote to me and said this is an area where the average family income is about $18,000 a year. And the mayor says the fees that are being charged means that, if I'm traveling from Boise to my home in Salmon, Idaho, and choose to stop along with my wife and three children for a picnic under a tree, I will have to pay $10. And if I need to stop along the road at one of the outdoor toilets, I will be expected to pay two dollars a person.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So this is the kind of thing that I'm receiving in my, in my district, Mr. Chairman. Actually, if we wanted to paint a great big, huge sign in the name of the free market system and charge fees, which is what we're doing, we might as well paint a huge big ''keep out'' sign to all of the citizens with regards to what's happening on our National forests. Our trails are being shut off, access to the river is being shut off, our roads are being shut off, maintenance is declining. And because the Federal Government, this Congress, has failed to fence funds, which we didn't because we trusted the administration and the Federal Forest Service, funds are being shifted from those areas that we have allocated moneys for to other areas that are unauthorized, unappropriated programs such as the American Heritage Rivers initiative, the Inner Columbia Ecosystem Management plan.
And I think that the idea of trying to utilize Ludwig von Meese's theory of freedom of the marketplace with a Federal agency is ludicrous. And I think we need to look in another direction to raise funds. Now, if we charge fees for the Park Service, I think also that we ought to reduce the general fund by an appropriate amount, by a corresponding amount. Because we have increased funding to Interior and to the Forest Service for several years now. And we're seeing the services to the general public decline.
And I just want to make one final statement, and that is that many of the user groups are willing to put forth their own effort, and their own funds, and their own time to help improve roads and trails and facilities. So, I just wanted to make that clear.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have 12 questions that I would like to ask, especially of Mr. Laverty. My time is up, so with your indulgence, I wonder if I might submit those to the Committee to ask the questions for me.
Mr. HANSEN. All the questions from members of the Committee, I'm sure, our witness would be more than happy to respond to those in correspondence. And if they do it, I wish they'd correspond to all of us so we can all get the answers to it.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have any questions. I just wanted to make a brief statement.
St. John in my district is a very beautiful island, with some of the more beautiful parks, but its facilities are also in very bad disrepair. We have a new superintendent, who quickly moved on coming to St. John to get the last slot, I believe, in the fee demonstration program. And so now meetings are being held in my communities, one as late as last night, and I haven't heard how it went. But I listened with a great deal of interest to the fact that across the country the fee demonstration programs are being received with broad acceptance. I'm not too sure that that's going to happen in St. John, because when the parks were turned over, when the land was turned over to the National Park Service, it was with the understanding that the residents of St. John, and I believe the entire Virgin Islands, would never be charged a fee for the parks.
And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely hearing for me. I thank you for holding it. It's also very informative. I really don't have any questions, but I do share some of the concerns that were voiced already, that the fees that are collected be returned to the park for maintenance and other uses in the park, and that it not be used to replace appropriations, but be a supplement.
Mr. VENTO. Will the gentlewoman yield to me briefly?
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Sure.
Mr. VENTO. I was just going to point out that most of the units, when they were established in terms of parks, if they had a Native American or, in fact, an indigenous community that actually was involved, that there are exceptions, usually, for them not to be charged fees. In a sense, I don't know if this particular measure overrode that, this experiment overrode that.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But, of course, as I said before, I think the distinction between user fees is very important, because user fees, they have general authority always to put into effect user fees. And so the real authority here might be that they have more flexibility with regards to what user fees, where they're charged, and what parcels. But entrance fees would be, obviously, a different matter, and there's a whole list of these fees, if we'd look at this study we have, in terms of reservation fees and other charges that are accumulating to the cost of the Forest Service for providing recreation. And one of the laments we often hear is that the recreational user is not carrying his fair share, and this means that costs are being shifted in different directions.
Here we've got a minuscule amount of money that's been collected so far in the Forest Service. I mean, compared to its overall budget, it's I think, like a $2 million increase, and we got a
firestorm, really, in terms of, I think a lot of misunderstanding and, about it. But it, you know, there's many of us that would like to find a way to permit these units to be used and not charged. But that is predicated on the funding. I'd be happy to yield back. But I just wanted to point out that there is an opportunity for, many times, from parks or other units that are created for non-charging for certain populations.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. OK, thanks. I'd like to just reclaim my time, and I would ask that question. Because, in talking with our superintendent, he was saying that we could not waive the fees for residents. Is that true, or can there be a fee but the residents, because that was the understanding when the park was created, be exempted from the fee?
Mr. BERRY. There is flexibility with each park, Congresswoman, so that we look into that situation with you. We do try to respond and provide flexibility to local residents in some of the instances that were described, when construction people have to drive through public lands to get to work, or other things. So there is clearly flexibility. We need to look at your specific situation, and let me find out with you. We'll work with the ranger and we'll get back to you on that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. KILDEE. I see the bell has rung for a vote over in the House, but I'd just like to indicate that, now that the President and the Congress are balancing the budget, I hope this Committee some time, Mr. Chairman, would have a hearing on my bill, which would take the Land and Water Conservation Fund totally off-budget. Let us use the Land and Water Conservation funds for what they were originally intended. So I hope you will consider my bill on that.
Mr. HANSEN. That should be interesting.
Mr. KILDEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate this panel. Let me just say this: This is an experiment. We tried it out. This oversight hearing is to try to determine if we want to continue, we want to leave it as-is, where we want to go. You can see we're fraught with problems in a thing like this. You heard all the testimony.
It's rather easy to take a park that is isolated and have an entrance fee. That's pretty simple. We expand it to user fees that the gentleman from Minnesota has talked about. Reservation fees, we're talking about. You have problems like Mr. Kildee just brought up, drive-throughs, which we're talking about Yosemite right now. Zion's National Park in my district has the same problem. One in Florida has the same problem.
We're trying to figure out how do we work this out. You go to the Park Service, that Mr. Laverty has pointed out. It's probably got bigger problems. Camping fees, you're in that area; how do we do user fees. Now we get into recreation areas, like we have at the Flaming Gorge and we have a the Glen Canyon Recreation Area. We have reclamation problems. I've got something here that talks about the two dollar fee at Flaming Gorge just isn't making it anymore. That's two dollar vehicle per day fee.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So how do you make a fit-all, and I think Mr. Berry's right. There is no thing where you can make it fit everything. So as we look at this, we're going to have to be very careful in figuring out how we do this. If we could just take what the Department of Interior has under the Park Service, and even that would be, those remote parks that you drive to.
Mr. Gallegly made an interesting point. What about these western, drive-to parks. They don't have walk-in people in those areas. People that go in those areas do go in with a lot of money, pulling their Suburban with their Winnebago, and all that type of thing. And to think that they can't pay a few bucks is unbelievable.
Yet, on the other hand, how do you handle it in a historic park, where there's no way to stop anybody from coming in. Then it becomes a rather difficult situation. So I worked with Mr. Regula on this first experiment. We may have to move along very carefully as we do this, but the input has been very valuable today, and I would hope we could all work together. And the next panels coming up, of course, will have some very interesting approaches to it. And that's all this is, is we're trying to figure out how to do this so it benefits the people in America.
We hear a lot of folks say, doggone it, I pay my taxes, I shouldn't pay anything for these things. Well, that's kind of hard to believe in some instances, because other people who don't use them say, well why should I pay for them? So we find ourselves in kind of this interesting position.
We do have a vote on. I do appreciate the excellent testimony from our first panel. I'll recess the Committee briefly. I would urge all members to come back, and I'll try to collect a few more, and we'll come right to the second panel as soon as we return. So we stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The meeting will come to order.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are happy that on our second panel we have Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition, Philip David Voorhees, Associate Director of Policy and Development, National Parks and Conservation Area, and our friend from Arizona, Gaylord Stavely, vice president, National Forest Recreation Association.
It's always good to have you gentlemen with us. And Derrick, we'll start with you. Is that all right? You have all been here many times. You know the rules. Try to stay within 5 minutes. We want your testimony, however.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION
Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a delight to be here to talk about a topic on which you have such a strong and positive role. As you know, ARC represents a range of interests that include companies and associations representing the manufacturers of tents and motorhomes and canoes, bicycles and much more, as well as enthusiast organizations that represent millions of Americans involved in downhill skiing and camping and fishing and many other kinds of activities.
In fact, fees were catalysts for bringing the American Recreation Coalition into existence in 1979. We've told you before that we would like to continue a policy of free lunch. However, we have learned that the free lunch comes with a price. It's hard to demand a great menu and top food when you are not paying the tab.
We also understood that other consequences arise. We found that without paying we could not justify the demands for continued recreation excellence. We found that campgrounds in our national forests were opening later. And millions of people who came to use those campgrounds during the shoulder seasons found locked gates. We saw declines in the numbers of interpretive programs and declines in the quality of trails across this country.
During the time of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors the Nation engaged in a debate, and I believe we came to a consensus that while we shouldn't support the entire Federal recreation program on the basis of recreation fees, it was legitimate to look to the direct beneficiaries, those people who actually come to the public lands, for a greater share of the cost of providing those recreation programs.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In fact, our studies show only about 26 percent of the American public visits a Federal recreation site of any type administered by any agency in any year. We heard that agencies had little incentive, though, to charge higher recreation fees, since the fees they now collected disappeared into a variety of special accounts in the black hole, and it left the Forest Service, the National Park Service, BLM managers on the ground unable to respond to a very simple question from the visitors: Where do our fees go?
This Subcommittee provided leadership that ultimately was acted on by Chairman Regula to create the fee demonstration program that is the subject of this hearing. Its design work largely came through your work here in 1995 on your bill H.R. 2107.
In general, we believe that the fee demonstration program which resulted is laudable and has been successful. The report to the Congress on the first full year of the fee demonstration program displays a range of new approaches, which together are increasing recreation program budgets of four key agencies by some $150 million each year.
For the first time Federal recreation program personnel now have the incentive to go out there and listen to their customers. As we've told you in the past, we support Federal recreation fee programs which meet five tests.
First, fees need to be equitable. Second, the fee system itself needs to be efficient. Third, fees need to be convenient for the recreationist, and we've heard some concerns about that topic already this morning. Fourth, the fee system needs to be coherent, flexible and integrated. Finally, the fee revenues need to be returned to benefit the resources, facilities and programs utilized by those paying the bill.
In general we find that the fee demonstration implemented by the four agencies have met these goals. We are excited about the use of the fee demonstration program, for example to preserve the lookout towers in western national forests—that's an exciting story that the Washington Post recently told—and to provide new interpretation services on the Pike, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests for families coming to cut their Christmas trees and finding a nice surprise, people who could share with them the learning opportunities that they could find as a family on the national forest.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We find that effective fee programs will help Federal agencies become more consumer-focused, which is hard to accomplish when 95 percent of the budgets previously had been determined a year in advance here within the beltway.
We are proud to say that ARC and the Recreation Roundtable are actively involved in providing guidance and advice to the Federal agencies across the country. We've provided top marketing and communications executives from Disney, REI and other companies to work with the Enterprise Forests in southern California, for example, and in developing communication efforts for dozens of Forest Service fee sites across the country.
We also give our warm thanks to you and to Chairman Regula for upholding a commitment to making the fee demonstration receipts supplemental to the general appropriations for Federal recreation programs of the four agencies.
But we can't praise the program in its entirety. We have several concerns. First, we believe that the program has several specific fee flaws that need to be rectified. Most reflect poor communications, but some have deeper roots. Second, we believe that there have been some outstanding innovation already by the agencies involved, but far more ideas and approaches can and should be tested.
Let me just quickly run through some of our concerns. There is an inequity in fee collections going on out there right now. Those enjoying the services of outfitters, guides and other commercial services end up paying more, and more consistently.
This is largely because they are already assessed a fee through the concession's special use permit on the agencies' part, as opposed to the non-outfitted guest on the national forest. Second, because they are identifiable through the commercial service they are universally assessed, whereas those coming on in a non-outfitted way are subject to the enforcement efforts of the Federal agencies and, frankly, oftentimes get a free ride.
Our second concern involves use of the new fee demonstration authority in ways which undercut and jeopardize the operation of commercial providers on public lands. We have sparked the entrepreneurial fires of Federal employees throughout the Nation. We are finding, however, that sometimes this entrepreneurial spirit blinds the Federal agencies to the benefits of long-term partnerships with other agencies at the state and local level or with companies, for example those who are providing concession campgrounds and other kinds of services.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We don't believe that the Forest Service should lose sight of the fact that even though they might be able to collect all the revenues from a Snowbird, it would make no sense for the Forest Service to try to operate a ski area like Snowbird directly.
We think that our concerns are largely the result of a new tool being handed to Federal officials who are very hard-pressed to meet growing and changing demands for recreation. They think of it, in many cases, of fees as a universal wrench able to fix all problems, and it is not.
Thanks to you and to the Congress and to the agencies themselves, we know that providing high quality recreation in America will take a number of tools, including encouragement of volunteer efforts, use of funding from ISTEA and other kinds of Federal programs, partnerships with private sectors as concessionaires and special permittees, partnerships with states and local agencies in a wide variety of ways, corporate support through sponsorships and work with non-profit organizations.
In general we believe that the fee demonstration program has already been a great success and deserves to continue for at least two more years so we can learn through the process of the projects underway. We think that there are some additional needs to develop a broad recreation strategy for the Federal agencies, and I want to encourage you to recommend to the agencies to do that.
Among those lessons that still are unlearned would be use of differential pricing between peak and non-peak periods of the years, and linkages between the rich and the poor sites. We heard today, for example, evidence that some national park and some national forest areas will certainly be able to bring in enough revenue to run well the recreation programs at that site.
However, there are other sites which will never be able to implement a strong fee program. There are ways, though, to link those. For example, to use an example here in Washington, we could reward volunteers working on the C&O Canal or on the mall here in Washington with free access to Shenandoah National Park. There are ways to combine this program with other mechanisms to increase overall the opportunities for recreation in this country.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We heard repeatedly concerns about the social equity and whether local people or the economically disadvantaged are being priced out of our public lands. Certainly we don't want to see that occur. However, we now, under the fee demonstration, could see enhanced use of such devices as free access days, where we simply decide that during certain non-peak periods families and individuals alike could come in without a fee as a way to encourage them to use their land.
And there are other things in our testimony that we are suggesting. We appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Finally, we would suggest just a couple of changes that you might well be able to work either with the Chairman Regula or through stand-alone authorization for this program coming through the Resources Committee.
First of all, we would suggest strongly a prohibition on the use of the authority of the fee demonstration program to ''replace, disrupt or jeopardize the provision of public recreation services on Federal lands by permittees and concessionaires.''
Secondly, we would encourage new direction on the type of fee strategies to be tested during the demonstration period, including as I mentioned peak and off-peak pricing strategies to encourage volunteerism and free access periods.
Third, a provision for modest growth in the number of sites permitted under the program. At this point the agencies are limited to no more than 100 sites. The Park Service has shown that they have 100 sites up and running right now and may deserve an increase beyond that.
Fourth, a refocusing of the use of receipts in needed, because there is some concern about the need to show the public where their funds are going, and we've suggested some language that we think would help to encourage the visibility of use of the fees.
And finally, we specifically endorse allowing inclusion of special use permit revenues as fee demonstration projects, and that has been addressed in questions of the previous panel. Such things as outfitter guide permits would be specifically allowed.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We thank you very much for the time to be with you here this morning and look forward to working with you on this exciting program. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you Mr. Crandall. Mr. Voorhees.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP DAVID VOORHEES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION AREA
Mr. VOORHES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Again, I know NPCA was before you just 2 days ago testifying on the film fee matter. I appreciate the access they provide us.
Since its initiation in 1996, the demonstration fee program has proven valuable by almost any metric that you want to use. It's brought more revenue into the national parks, and it has begun to educate park managers about the public acceptance of entrance and use fees, options for fee collections and the kind of collateral benefits that increased fee collections or fee collections of any kind can bring.
The program has also been dynamic in raising a variety of issues that Congress should address once the program reaches its conclusion. Some of those issues include the appropriate method of interagency revenue-sharing, the appropriateness of specific types of use and entrance fees, the possibility of eventual fee caps and the distribution of revenues within the National Park Service.
In my testimony today I want to limit my comments to the National Park Service fee program alone, inasmuch as we concentrate fairly closely on NPS.
First, with regard to entrance fees, I think there's no question but that the public has been broadly accepting of the fees that have been raised at the 100 sites or nearly 100 sites that have been included in the demonstration fee program.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before the program began in 1995 NPCA conducted a national survey asking the question of the public's acceptance of fee increase. We found that 70 percent of those surveyed responded they were not opposed to an increase from an average, at that time, of $5 per carload for a visit of up to 7 days.
A year later, still before the fee demonstration program began, we conducted another survey and probed a little bit more deeply into that, and I think the results here are telling. Based on per person rather than a per carload assessment, we asked at a variety of different levels what is the public's tolerance, if you will, to pay certain increases.
We found that 56 percent of respondents would support an increase of $5 per person and as support gradually dropped to about 20 percent, that increase rose to about $10 per person.
I don't think the specific dollar figures here have a tremendous amount of relevance because we are talking about apples and oranges and per person as opposed to per carload and such, but they do clearly show that there is a limit of public acceptance of fee increases, obviously the higher you go.
So my question would be in this form, and I implore the Committee to consider how much is too much. Now in some circumstances in some parks the fees have been doubled or even tripled. In some circumstances that may be well be warranted, but there clearly are limits. And as the Committee considers where to go next with regard to the fee program, I think that close consideration ought to be given to exactly what are the upper limits.
Now use fees might be in some circumstances a little bit different kind of situation. There have been circumstances in the Park Service's program in which use fees have met somewhat more limited acceptance.
I think the best example is the private boater fees at the Grand Canyon, and the Private Boaters Association is going to be here testifying I am sure to that effect today where currently, I believe, before you even dip an oar in the water, if you are a private boater and waiting an average of 8 years to get on the river, you pay $200 in waiting fees, if you will, while you are waiting and then another $100 before you get on the river. So before you ever dip an oar in the water you've paid $300 for the privilege of getting on the river.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That seems a little bit excessive. I don't necessarily want to damn the Park Service for exploring this kind of exercise, this kind of use fee, because I think that's exactly the purpose of the demonstration fee program, to specifically explore the parameters of what the public acceptance is and what kinds of fees should and shouldn't be charged.
I just would say that as the Committee moves forward with its consideration of how the fee program has been moving along, they should look closely at examples of excess and provide some moderation where it's warranted.
Given the fact that there are clearly some hitches if you will as the fee program progresses, I wonder if the length of time that's been allowed the demonstration program to lay out or to roll out is really adequate. NPCA would ask that the Committee consider extending the program for perhaps another 5 years and in fact broadening the scope for the Park Service beyond the 100 units that are now authorized to include all units.
Now that doesn't mean that I am saying all units should charge fees, but rather the Park Service should be given the authority to extend it to any and all units they see might work. That way you can develop a much more sophisticated baseline, again, of what is and isn't appropriate, what is and may not be the levels of public tolerance for fees in specific circumstances before the Congress steps in and makes the program permanent.
Another question is distribution of fees with the Park Service. There are a limited number of sites that have had spectacular success in the fees that they've raised. In fact the Grand Canyon again is a good example in which the fees they have collected have exceeded their operations budget. Now that's fairly alarming notation. I think there might be others here today who would say, ''Well why not cut them free and let them float and not support them with tax revenues?''
I would say that for those folks who would make that argument that they look at the purpose of the fee program which is to address the backlog. In the Canyon alone the backlog for maintenance and infrastructure exceeds $15 million, which if you never added to the backlog would take 10 years to resolve given the current fee stream.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the issue of additional of additional research, the Park Service constructed the program as it is essentially in going out to the units that were charging fees now and gave them an open question as to how they should proceed.
Before the Congress makes this a permanent program I would implore that they ask the Park Service to do some more sophisticated analysis, which would explore what are the limits of public acceptance but also what are the limits of fee collection at which you start to have some demographic impacts on who can and cannot go to the national parks.
In no circumstances should we construct a fee program that would affect the demographics and affect the willingness of anybody in America to go and use the national parks, no matter what their economic or social mean.
Lastly, I'd like to say that public fees, use fees, entrance fees are really only a part of the equation. The Park Service certainly is facing a broad number of financial issues and has for quite some time. Public fees are a part of that. When the issue of raising entrance fees and use fees was first considered in the Congress some years ago, we came and said then that private fees have to be a part of this. When I say ''private'' I mean concessions fees, filming fees, which the Committee is now addressing.
In the last Congress we again came close on the issue of concessions reform, and I think—and I hope—that before the Congress moves any further with more public fees or raising the public fees or making the program permanent, that we would again sit down and finally resolve the issue of concessions reform.
With that I'd like to conclude my comments with one final caveat. It has been expressed before here, and that's that the Committee always keep a close eye on the fact that these fees should remain supplemental and not supplant existing appropriated funds. I think there's broad recognition on the part of the Committee and I believe on the part of the Congress, but I think that there's reiteration.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that I'll conclude. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voorhes may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Stavely.
STATEMENT OF GAYLORD STAVELY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOREST RECREATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. STAVELEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. The National Forest Recreation Association represents private sector business persons who own or operate, developed sites such as resorts, lodges, pack stations, campgrounds and marinas on the national forests for the use and enjoyment of the public. Those include both public and private facilities.
There are by Forest Service count some 1,700 private businesses on the forests. Overall they have a multi-billion dollar investment in structures, facilities and equipment used to serve the visiting public; and they contribute millions of dollars in privilege fees to the Federal treasurer every year.
NFRA's interest in the recreation fee demonstration program springs from harmful effects the program has already had on a number of these businesses and could have on them and others in the future. NFRA is not presently opposed to the recreation fee demonstration idea. It may be good for a recreation-managing agency or a unit of that agency to have more than one source of revenue, and it's certainly not unfair to ask a visitor to pay for the use of a facility or an amenity on a national forest.
We do however strongly object to the use of fee demonstration projects to harm, displace or subrogate concessioner operations. There has for some time been a faction within the Forest Service that advocates taking back the visitor services, both public and private, that have been concessioned out to the private sector, believing that the jobs and revenues at those sites would then go to Forest Service employees. Some in the agency now see fee demonstration as an income base for taking back those sites and have begun using it that way.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the first year we've seen fee demonsatration used to displace or subrogate concessioned operations in a number of ways which include the following: The stripping, shortening or otherwise changing of an existing permit (for which the Forest Service euphemism is ''permit renegotiation,'') refusing to renew a permit for which there is a pattern of past renewals, setting a new fee and taking the revenue from it while shifting its related maintenance costs over to a concessioner, pressuring the concessioner to manipulate concession fees up or down so the Forest Service fee will seem less objectionable or more affordable.
Many Forest Service field employees ignored the parameters of the 1996 fee demonstration authorization. A year ago the Chief of the Forest Service was finding it necessary to issue a letter to his regional foresters prohibiting displacement of concessions based on recreation fee demonstration projects.
The Chief's letter notwithstanding, new instances of fee demonstration impingements on concessionaires continued to be reported throughout the summer of 1997. By September there was sufficient concern in the Senate that in a September 18th Colloquy on the Senate floor Senator John Kyl said that, ''at some fee demonstration sites there appears to be an intent to discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of recreation goods and services.''
Senator Larry Craig cited a new Heritage exhibition program that essentially puts the Forest Service into the outfitter guide business. Senator Slade Gorton reiterated that ''concessioner displacement was not an intent of the fee demonstration program.''
Toward the end of the last session an amendment to the 1988 Appropriations bill was being discussed, to assert the parameters of fee demonstration. The Forest Service opposed that amendment on the grounds that they don't want to relinquish their authority to take back concessions.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, not enough is yet known about how or whether fee demonstration funds and appropriated funds can be blended to assure the continued availability of safe, enjoyable visitor services on the Federal lands. More demonstration is needed that the fees will be used for resource protection and maintenance and not as a Forest Service jobs program. More assurances are needed that the Forest Service cannot use the fee demonstration program to damage, displace or compete with its concessionaires.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If fee demonstration were permanently authorized and then at some point the Administration or the Congress were to renege on earlier promises and treat locally collected fees as an appropriation offset, we believe the Forest Service would then feel they have a legislated license to extract as much money as possible from concessionaires without regard for the ability of the private sector to pay those fees and still continue to provide safe facilities and quality service.
The Forest Service needs private sector business and financial help and is likely to need them increasingly in the future. Fee demonstration was sold to the concessioner community on the basis that it would provide new flexibility to the agencies and attract more private investment to the improvement of recreation and visitor facilities and services on the public lands.
The effect of fee demonstration thus far has been to discourage private investment and employee tenure at national forest recreation sites. We would like to see the fee demonstration program or something like it succeed, but we urge that it not be permanently authorized at this time or without legislated direction.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Staveley may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the excellent testimony from all three of our panelists. I do have some questions, but we've go two more panels to go. We may submit those to you if that's alright. We'd appreciate a response from you. We'll thank you and excuse you from the front table there in terms of our next panel.
Mr. James D. Santini, a former Member of Congress from the National Tour Association; Craig Mackey, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound; Mary Margaret Sloan, Conservation Director of the American Hiking Society and Holly Fretwell, Research Associate, Political Economy Research Center.