| USFS Goals USFS Lessons USFS Assumptions The Good The Bad The Ugly River Permit Fees |
American Whitewater has obtained a copy of the Forest Service’s draft, “Blueprint for Forest Service Recreation Fees (March 15, 2002)“, which details the agency’s thinking about future forest fees. As with so many elements of the debate over forest fees, this document includes both good and bad management ideas. The most controversial ideas for American Whitewater are the provisions for charging new fees for permits and for expanding the fee program to numerous additional sites. While the agency clearly needs funding, the momentum for this visitor fee program is heading in the wrong direction. American Whitewater wants to see aggressive proposals for fee proliferation slowed down and controlled in a careful, convenient, and affordable manner. Let us know what you think about the Agency’s ideas, and we will forward your thoughts to the Congress and Forest Service. Post your comments on the American Whitewater Forum at www.americanwhitewater.org/forum/. |
AW Analysis
of the USFS Fee Demo Blueprint (April 15, 2002)The goal of the fee program is to “retain fee revenues to supplement appropriations and other funding sources to repair, improve and maintain recreation facilities to quality standards (including elimination of recreation deferred maintenance) and to enhance the delivery of recreation services to standard.”
The agency has learned:
Fees for service and developed areas are generally acceptable;
Payment convenience, fairness, consistency, and accountability are important; and
Congressional and public support is required for an enduring program.
The agency assumes:
A national system of recreation passes, consistent and criteria-based; 5-year authorization;
Fees supplement taxes and appropriations will not meet needs alone, therefore a comprehensive strategy is required; and
Authority to retain “special use” fees will require a separate legislative effort.
The good (Ideas generally consistent with AW letter to McInnis and Bosworth):
Design fees for convenience, and to be seamless across agencies;
National and forest-wide passes will be developed with other agencies;
Fees are being moved towards a per-vehicle orientation;
Fees will not be the principle funding mechanism; but merely a slice of the pie;
Fees will only be levied where some level (unspecified) of developed infrastructure or service is readily apparent, or in defined (not actually defined) concentrated use areas where recreation use results in resource damage;
Revenue will continue to be retained on site;
Fee implementation will be based on consistent, predictable criteria;
Business plans for projects will be required;
The public will participate in fee planning and use;
Fees will not be used to control the amount of visitor use;
Fees may be used in support of volunteer projects meeting criteria (unspecified);
Fees will not be charged for: General access
Drive thru or walk thru only access
Undesignated parking along roadsides
Overlooks, scenic pullouts
Dispersed areas with low or no investment in facilities
Fees will be charged for Day use recreation facilities and services, such as visitor and interpretive centers, trailhead facilities, and boating/swimming facilities. These sites would typically have hardened-surface parking lots, public info, and an agency presence (undefined);
Specially designated areas such as National Monuments;
Concentrated Use Areas (CUAs) with high litter, vandalism, or soil compaction.
Fees will be charged for expanded recreation facilities/services: Developed camping sites;
Developed boat launch sites (winch assisted or attended, not basic self serve ramps);
Cabin and historic structure rentals;
Extended guided tours by the agency and concession services;
The bad (Ideas not meeting AW’s expectations):
The number of fee sites will not be numerically limited (i.e. to 100 sites);
The need for, and support of, volunteer maintenance is not substantively addressed;
Fees will be charged for expanded recreation facilities/services: Reservation services, including sites and activities requiring permits or reservations (including some Wilderness areas);
The ugly (Ideas without merit or support by AW):
There is a high potential for a broad range of new permits with fees for all kinds of backcountry recreational uses such as hiking, camping, climbing, skiing, kayaking, canoeing, hunting, fishing, and more. The agency has suggested that “Expanded Fees will be assessed on an individual point-of-service basis… when providing the service requires a significant extra expense on the part of the Forest Service, when the service is provided by a concessionaire, or where participation is clearly allocated by permit or other method.”
The fee blueprint is a model for fee proliferation.
Notables from AW Research on Permits and Fees:
The USFS currently requires private boater permits on 16 rivers in their domain; the average cost per person for a permit is $16.33 at the 15 sites where fees are currently charged (price range $2 to $41, median is $15.00), for a maximum 24 person group that is $392 per group. The BLM currently requires private boater permits on 17 rivers in their domain; the average cost per person for a permit is $19.80 at the 5 sites where fees are currently charged (price range $5 to $40, median is $12.50), for a maximum 25 person group that is $495 per group. The NPS currently requires private boater permits on 6 rivers in their domain; the average group cost for a permit is $338 (price range $10 to $1600, median is $140). Given the proposed language, American Whitewater expects to see more permits (and fees) being implemented on rivers passing through public lands.
The Good…The Bad…The Ugly…River Permit Fees