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 to you a series of principles that I believe are critical to the long-term success and viability of the Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Rec Fee Demo). In my estimation, the Rec Fee Demo is an equitable and effective means of generating direly needed financial resources to offset the growing stresses and strains associated with the increased incidence of recreational-use on our national forests. It is my considered opinion that, with carefully crafted statutory limitations on the nature and frequency of the agency's user-fee authority as well as an opportunity for periodic review of the program by Congress, the Rec Fee Demo should be lifted out of its trial phase and given a more permanent status. The principles outlined in this letter are conditions that I intend to propose as part of a long-term extension of the Forest Service user-fee program.

As you know, last year the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health was the first committee to conduct oversight hearings evaluating the merits of the Forest Service Rec Fee Demo. In the months since, I have received scores of comments, suggestions and observations from citizens, user groups and state and local officials in all parts of the country, the vast majority of which have provided well-informed and thoughtful feedback about the program and ways in which it might be improved. Those comments help form the basis of the principles for extension of fee authority that I am providing here.

Together, these principles provide a framework intended to reinforce the favorable elements of the user-pays concept, while heading-off the undesirable upshots and unintended consequences that have reared themselves during the recreation program's demonstration phase. Moreover, the principles would partially rein in the wide-open discretion that the Forest Service presently has regarding where, how and under what circumstances the agency imposes recreational user fees, in a manner that I believe serves the public's interests well.

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

1. Recreation user fees must continue to substantially stay on the site where they are collected. Existing statute mandates that 80% of all revenue generated from Rec Fee Demos be reinvested at the location where it is collected. I strongly support the continuation of this 80% allocation as part of a long-term authorization, with one caveat. As the General Accounting Office noted in a 1998 report to Congress, some mechanism is needed whereby moneys collected on high-revenue sites in excess of what is actually needed on those sites are allocated to other priority recreation-related projects. Specifically, we do not want a situation in which the 80% prioritization for on-site projects encourages unneeded expenditures on the most financially productive fee collection sites, particularly in light of the fact that the Forest Service is currently beset with a $800 million maintenance backlog. In my view, those excess moneys generated on high-revenue sites should be exclusively dedicated to recreation-related maintenance backlog needs in the Forest Service Region where the revenues were collected, as determined by the Regional Forester. This would ensure that excess revenues derived from the most productive collection stations 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 to be spend revenues beyond their needs. With your assistance, I am confident that we can create legislative standards ensuring that local recreation needs continue to be the top priority for all of our user fee sites, while seeing to it that certain surplus revenues are spent more wisely than under the present arrangement.

Finally, with respect to the 20% of fee generated revenues not staying on site, in my view all of these moneys should be dedicated solely to addressing the Forest Service maintenance backlog in the Region where the revenues were collected, based on priorities established by the Regional Forester.

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

To be true to that premise - and the spirit of the law that codified it - any long-term extension of the program should direct that revenues be principally spent in a manner that supports and enhances the recreational experience of the user public. That could mean expenditures on everything from maintenance of recreational roads and trails, to constructing and maintaining restrooms, visitor facilities, boat ramps, interpretive sites, campgrounds and other recreation related infrastructure, to resource protection and preservation. This does not mean squandering scarce financial resources on administrative overhead or excessive personnel.

In this vein, I was frustrated by a recent story in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel which reported that a lion's share of the revenue generated on an existing Forest Service Rec Fee Demo site - the Yankee Boy Basin Fee Demo, near Ouray, Colorado - is being spent on new personnel hired, in part, to enforce the Demo's fee collection requirements. This alleged self-perpetuation of the user fee program for the sake of nothing other than the program is exactly the kind of absurd expenditure that should be prohibited in user fee legislation. With more dollars apparently being spent on personnel hires than on on-the-ground improvements, it is little wonder that the Yankee Boy Basin Demo is among the most controversial in the nation.

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

3. Recreation user fees should not be levied in undeveloped, backcountry recreational settings. A recurring sentiment in the testimony and comments offered in conjunction with our hearing was that the Forest Service should not be in the business levying fees on undeveloped recreational activities, like dropping a kayak in the river or hiking in the backcountry for instance. I generally agree with this position, for reasons largely described in the foregoing principle. If a recreational activity in a given area results in only modest expenses to the Forest Service, there is no compelling reason, consistent with the purposes of the user fee program, to levy an access or use charge.

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

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

4. Users should not be "nickeled and dimed" at fee collection sites. Another recurring complaint is that, all too often, the Forest Service collects multiple-charges at its Fee Demo sites, charging visitors to enter, to park and to pay for various recreational activities. Long-term authorization of the program should end this nickeling-and-diming of the user public by requiring that recreation sites collect one fee and one fee only.

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

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

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

8. Community outreach and partnership. The Forest Service must aggressively court public input and involvement in all phases, including the selection, development and implementation of user fee sites. As decisions regarding user fees are made, the user public and the public at-large should be full partners in the decision-making process. Moreover, the Forest Service must focus on doing a better job communicating the improvements and benefits the user public realizes from user fees, whether through signage or other means of communication. This would go a long way in clearing up misconceptions and generating community support for the program.

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

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. I believe that these principles will not only make the Forest Service recreation user fee program more effective, responsive and user friendly, but these values will also help bring this growing debate to a sensible and agreeable resolution.

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

Sincerely,

x/

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