Chairman McInnis Proposes Modifying Fee Demo

January 25, 2002

 

Dale Bosworth

Chief

USDA Forest Service

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090

 

Dear Chief Bosworth:

 

I am writing to communicate toyou a series of principles that I believe are critical to the long-term successand viability of the Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (RecFee Demo). In my estimation, the Rec Fee Demo is an equitable and effectivemeans of generating direly needed financial resources to offset the growingstresses and strains associated with the increased incidence ofrecreational-use on our national forests. It is my considered opinion that,with carefully crafted statutory limitations on the nature and frequency of theagency’s user-feeauthority as well as an opportunity for periodic review of the program byCongress, the Rec Fee Demo should be lifted out of its trial phase and given amore permanent status. The principles outlined in this letter are conditionsthat I intend to propose as part of a long-term extension of the Forest Serviceuser-fee program.

As you know, last year the HouseSubcommittee on Forests and Forest Health was the first committee to conductoversight hearings evaluating the merits of the Forest Service Rec Fee Demo. Inthe months since, I have received scores of comments, suggestions andobservations from citizens, user groups and state and local officials in allparts of the country, the vast majority of which have provided well-informedand thoughtful feedback about the program and ways in which it might beimproved. Those comments help form the basis of the principles for extension offee authority that I am providing here.

Together, these principlesprovide a framework intended to reinforce the favorable elements of theuser-pays concept, while heading-off the undesirable upshots and unintendedconsequences that have reared themselves during the recreation program’s demonstration phase.Moreover, the principles would partially rein in the wide-open discretion thatthe Forest Service presently has regarding where, how and under whatcircumstances the agency imposes recreational user fees, in a manner that Ibelieve serves the public’sinterests well.

I look forward to working withyou to put the general principles outlined in this letter into legislation inthe coming weeks.

1. Recreation user feesmust continue to substantially stay on the site where they are collected.Existing statute mandates that 80% of all revenue generated from Rec Fee Demosbe reinvested at the location where it is collected. I strongly support thecontinuation of this 80% allocation as part of a long-term authorization, withone caveat. As the General Accounting Office noted in a 1998 report toCongress, some mechanism is needed whereby moneys collected on high-revenuesites in excess of what is actually needed on those sites are allocated toother priority recreation-related projects. Specifically, we do not want asituation in which the 80% prioritization for on-site projects encouragesunneeded expenditures on the most financially productive fee collection sites,particularly in light of the fact that the Forest Service is currently besetwith a $800 million maintenance backlog. In my view, those excess moneysgenerated on high-revenue sites should be exclusively dedicated torecreation-related maintenance backlog needs in the Forest Service Region wherethe revenues were collected, as determined by the Regional Forester. This wouldensure that excess revenues derived from the most productive collectionstations are spent on-the-ground in the general area where they are collected,while avoiding a situation in which high-dollar collection sites are forced tobe spend revenues beyond their needs. With your assistance, I am confident thatwe can create legislative standards ensuring that local recreation needscontinue to be the top priority for all of our user fee sites, whileseeing to it that certain surplus revenues are spent more wisely than under thepresent arrangement.

 Finally, with respect to the 20% of fee generated revenues notstaying on site, in my view all of these moneys should be dedicated solely toaddressing the Forest Service maintenance backlog in the Region where therevenues were collected, based on priorities established by the RegionalForester.

2. Recreation user feesshould be allocated to projects and services that directly benefit the userpublic to the maximum extent possible; expenditures on administrative overheadand personnel should be significantly limited. In addition to substantiallystaying on-site, recreation user-fees should be reinvested in a manner thatdirectly and measurably benefits the user public. The program is premised onthe notion that with heavy recreational use comes corresponding pressures onthe land and recreational infrastructure that supports it. As such, theargument goes, the user public should bear an additional, modest expense inmitigating these pressures.

 To be true to that premise –and the spirit of the law that codified it – any long-term extension ofthe program should direct that revenues be principally spent in a manner thatsupports and enhances the recreational experience of the user public. Thatcould mean expenditures on everything from maintenance of recreational roadsand trails, to constructing and maintaining restrooms, visitor facilities, boatramps, interpretive sites, campgrounds and other recreation relatedinfrastructure, to resource protection and preservation. This does notmean squandering scarce financial resources on administrative overhead orexcessive personnel.

 In this vein, I was frustrated by a recent story in the GrandJunction Daily Sentinel which reported that a lion’s share of the revenue generated on anexisting Forest Service Rec Fee Demo site – the Yankee Boy Basin Fee Demo, nearOuray, Colorado – is being spent on new personnel hired, in part, to enforcethe Demo’s feecollection requirements. This alleged self-perpetuation of the user fee programfor the sake of nothing other than the program is exactly the kind of absurdexpenditure that should be prohibited in user fee legislation. With moredollars apparently being spent on personnel hires than on on-the-groundimprovements, it is little wonder that the Yankee Boy Basin Demo is among themost controversial in the nation.

 With this understanding, I would like to work with you inestablishing criteria and benchmarks for the allocation of user fee revenues aspart of a long-term extension of the program. While I am open to discussion, itseems to me to be altogether reasonable to require that 75% of all revenuesstaying on site be reinvested in recreational infrastructure and other servicesthat directly benefit the user public, leaving 25% of on site receipts tooffset incidental expenses associated with the administration of the program.Certainly, it is important to preserve as much flexibility as possible so thatthe agency can tailor each fee site to local needs, but it is also importantthat these scarce dollars are targeted to the areas of primary need.

3. Recreation user feesshould not be levied in undeveloped, backcountry recreational settings. Arecurring sentiment in the testimony and comments offered in conjunction withour hearing was that the Forest Service should not be in the business levyingfees on undeveloped recreational activities, like dropping a kayak in the riveror hiking in the backcountry for instance. I generally agree with thisposition, for reasons largely described in the foregoing principle. If arecreational activity in a given area results in only modest expenses to theForest Service, there is no compelling reason, consistent with the purposes ofthe user fee program, to levy an access or use charge.

 Moreover, there is a concern with many in the environmentalcommunity that, as a general proposition, user fees might encourage the ForestService to manage wild and undeveloped places with a for profit motivation.While I am not totally persuaded by this contention, limiting user feeauthority to more developed, infrastructure intensive sites nonetheless comeswith the added value of obviating the concern that long-term user fee authoritymight lead to the commercial exploitation of pristine lands.

 For these reasons, it is my view that long-term authorization ofthe user fee program should include a provision generally barring user feerequirements in undeveloped, primitive areas where there is unlikely to besubstantial infrastructure related expenses.

4. Users should not be“nickeled and dimed” at fee collection sites. Another recurring complaintis that, all too often, the Forest Service collects multiple-charges at its FeeDemo sites, charging visitors to enter, to park and to pay for variousrecreational activities. Long-term authorization of the program should end thisnickeling-and-diming of the user public by requiring that recreation sitescollect one fee and one fee only.

5. User fees should never beused as a management tool to deter use. It is my understanding that, in atleast one instance, the Forest Service has implemented a Fee Demo in the hopesthat the fee would reduce public use of an area that has become overcrowdedovertime. This is a totally inappropriate application of the spirit of the FeeDemo program and should be prohibited in a long-term authorization.

6. A reasonable limit must beplaced on the number of recreational user fee collection sites. Last year,Congress removed the cap on the number of Recreation Fee Demonstration sites inthe Interior Appropriations bill, giving the Forest Service and other affectedagencies maximum latitude in deciding how many user fee sites to implement. Iwas and continue to be uncomfortable with this provision. In my view, theForest Service should not have unchecked authority to collect fees on everycampground, trail and scenic overlook on every national forest in the nation.In crafting long-term authorization legislation, the onus is on the ForestService to demonstrate that it needs more than the 100 fee sites originallyauthorized by Congress. Whatever the level, I intend to include a fixed andreasonable limit on the number of recreation fee sites so that fee authority isproperly focused on the places it is legitimately needed.

7. Innovation and monitoringof the program should continue on an on-going basis. While the multi-yeardemonstration phase has provided solid data about which approaches are workingand which are not, the Forest Service should continue to test, monitor andinnovate in all phases of the user fee program.

8. Community outreach andpartnership. The Forest Service must aggressively court public input andinvolvement in all phases, including the selection, development andimplementation of user fee sites. As decisions regarding user fees are made,the user public and the public at-large should be full partners in thedecision-making process. Moreover, the Forest Service must focus on doing abetter job communicating the improvements and benefits the user public realizesfrom user fees, whether through signage or other means of communication. Thiswould go a long way in clearing up misconceptions and generating communitysupport for the program.

9. Long-term authorization ofthe recreation user-fee program should be sunseted after 5-years, givingCongress and the interested public an opportunity to reassess and, as needed,modify the program in the future. While giving the program greaterpermanence than it enjoys under its present demonstration status, my proposalfor sunseting the program after 5 years will ensure that an interested andengaged user public has a meaningful opportunity to shape and modify the userfee program through the legislative process as needed in the future.

 

Thank you for your considerationof these recommendations. I believe that these principles will not only makethe Forest Service recreation user fee program more effective, responsive anduser friendly, but these values will also help bring this growing debate to asensible and agreeable resolution.

I look forward to working withyou and your agency in placing these principles into legislation.

 

Sincerely,

x/

Scott McInnis
Chairman
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources