UNITED FOUR WHEEL of U.S. and CANADA DAVE HANNUM 2021 South Bell Kokomo, IN 46902 June 18, 1985 Senator Malcolm Wallop, Chairman Sub Committee on Public Lands, Reserved Water, and Resource Conservation 308 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Wallop, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns over some of the various user fees being charged people using federally run recreation facilities. Some areas, most notably some of the NPS run Seashores, are charging rather large fees that provide absolutely no benefit to the area in which they are collected. Most users of national recreation areas do not have a problem paying some form of fee to use the area IF that fee goes to benefit the area where it was collected. It is extremely hard to justify collecting a $30 fee at a Seashore, putting the money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund to benefit some unknown facility. Why should the user of a recreational vehicle at a Seashore have to pay money to fund a wilderness area somewhere when the people who want the wilderness area pay absolutely nothing to use it? I would be most interested in seeing a valid justification of this theory. Where Possibly more federal agencies need to look to the Forest Service for direction on charging fees. Where they provide improved facilities, such as campgrounds with full facilities, they charge user fees. they provide minimal or no facilities, such as horseman's camps, they charge no fees. This is the theory that must prevail. On top of this, legislation must be enacted to provide for the majority of fees collected to stay at the facility where they are collected. It is highly possible that major tourist attractions such as Yellowstone may, in fact, "turn a profit" by generating more than enough income to pay for their needs. These excess funds should go to a general fund for use elsewhere. Possibly a fixed percentage of all funds should go to the general fund, but the need for funds to remain where they are collected remains. The campground, or other facility that is heavily used should be able to turn its collected fees around and use them to provide improved facilities for its patrons. Why should it support a swimming pool in downtown New York City? Thank you for this oportunity, and for your continued interest in providing Americans with the best possible recreational opportunities. I hope that your sub-committee will be able to develop improved legislation to further benefit national recreation facilities. Sincerely, David Hannu David Hannum RESPECT...PROTECT...AND ENJOY: LAND, WATER, MOUNTAINS, AND SUN RESOURCES TESTIMONY FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, RESERVED WATER I am Jeannette Fitzwilliams, the director for Planning & Development of the I should like to make a suggestion about how to tackle the problem of designing fee legislation to apply to federal agencies such as National Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Wildlife, Corps of Engineers, etc. It is based on the many discussions our Forest Service Committee has held and also on the arguments I heard at the Fee Oversight Hearing on June 27th. The suggestion is this: Treat the problem as 3 separate and distinct problems --one for each type of fee: 1) User Fees, 2) Special Event Fees 3) General Permit Fees. They can all be covered in the same act but each needs to be treated separately because the rationale for collection, citizen attitude towards collection, the how, when and where of collection and what to do with the fees when collected is different for each of the three types of fees. Let me explain further. USER FEES Examples: These are site-specific services for the exclusive use of the payor while being used by him. They include such things as a campsite, a parking space for a backpacker who expects to be away for several nights, a hot shower, a shuttle service for some one running a rapid. Ratioonale: These are amenities and facilities over and above those needed for the protection and good management of the resource. They only benefit a very small 2 fraction of the visitors to the resource and an even smaller fraction of the taxpayers but their provision is quite costly, Also, in many cases, it is necessary for the full enjoyment of the recreational potential of the area. Public Attitude: Most people expect to pay for such services. Such fees have been charged for many years without objection. The question now is: should the fees be increased, should they be extended to new campgrounds and/or facilities, how much of a service should be provided to justify a fee and should the fee vary with the quality of service. How collected: Big expensive campgrounds could collect at the entrace where space is allotted or arrangements made for the shuttle or other service. At smaller sites where collectors are not feasible, the current locked box or meter systems seem to be very satisfactory. Most people are honest and the occasional patrol will discourage freeloaders as well as providing the necessary protection and management supervision. Who Gets the Fees: The whole of the fee (less strictly controlled cost of collection) should go to the maintenance and improvement of recreational facilities. However, not necessarily to the collecting site. I should like to suggest the following: * A sliding scale of retention by the collecting "ranger district"--say 90% if occupancy is less than 50% graduated to 70% if occupancy equals 80% or greater. * The remainder to go to the "Recreation Maintenance and Operation Fund" to be described below. There is a twofold rationale for this suggestion: Once the decision has been made to furnish such services, costs are incurred irrespective of how much the service is used. Some sites, due to their location near cities or good roads or some special feature, will attract much use and receipts may exceed the cost of providing the service. Others will have relatively little use and costs will greatly exceed collection. By this suggestion the fees collected for the most popular sites will be used to maintain and improve the less accessible or to develop additional sites. * Each "ranger district" should be encouraged and given an incentive to maintain an attractive site but practices resulting in "over use" should be discouraged. In fact, some sites, particularly those in the back country or near wildernesses, should be encouraged to maintain low occupany by permitting the "ranger district" to retain a larger portion of the fee. 3 Guidelines: Flexibility, so that fees may fit circumtances, are essential both because of the different missions of the various agencies and because of the great differences in terrain. Guidelines provide direction while leaving it up to each agency to determine where, when and how to collect fees. I can foresee the need for 4 types of guidelines: * Those relating size of fee to degree of service provided *Those relating type of service to "primary purpose" of the area (i.e. primitive campground in the backcountry) * Those defining occupancy rates and how to estimate costs (perhaps better left to regulations) * Those dealing with competition with comparable nearby private service. SPECIAL EVENT FEES Examples: These include enduro rides, competitive and endurance horse rides, volksmarsches, weddings, clan gatherings or any other meeting involving large numbers of people and sometimes involving the trails of several agencies. Rationale: Though planning, management of the event and clean up after the event may all be done by the sponsoring organization, inevitably there are added costs to the agency or agencies where the event occurs--inspection of the route, approval of the plan, additional rangers on duty on the day of the event. In some cases, special remedial work may be needed by an agency to mitigate actual or potential impact on the terrain. Attitude of Public: Most organizations sponsoring such events expect to pay for additional costs to an agency as a result of a special event. However, they would not expect to pay for routine outings--rides or hikes--such as most trail related organizations conduct on a weekly or monthy basis. They would also expect such fees to be closely related to the additional costs involved and not used to discriminate against certain types of use. Collection and Who Gets the Fees: For certain more or less routine and frequent events such as weddings and meetings, a fee schedule should be developed for each site. For the rare or "one of a kind" event, the sponsoring organization and all the agencies involved should meet, review expected costs to each agency, agree the total fee and its allocation among agencies. Guidelines: In view of the fact certain groups are likely to oppose certain types of events on public land, Congress should provide guidelines as to when and where special events in general may be approved. It should probably also indicate whether fees may be waived when a public purpose is being met by the event. GENERAL PERMIT FEE This is the fee that is the most difficult to design and about which there is the greatest difference of opinion as to 1) whether it should be imposed at all, 2) where, when and how and 3) what should be done with it. Rationale: Parks, forests, refuges, reservoirs, etc. are created not just to preserve a resource for future generations but also, among other purposes, to provide recreational opportunities. Many say that those who benefit from those opportunities should contribute to their cost instead of expecting taxpayers to pay the total cost whether they benefit or not. And there is a cost. Access roads, trailheards, picnic areas, sanitation, safety, search and rescue all have to be provided. Trails have to be maintained. As one who has maintained trails for 30 years, I can tell you that hiking trails need as much maintence to control vegetation as any other kind of trail. While one hiker may have less impact on the land that one horseman, there are many more hikers than horsemen. Nature, even without the help of man, creates trail erosion problems that must be corrected. Backcountry and wilderness areas, because of their remoteness and relatively little use, are often the most costly areas to maintain. There are thus good grounds for arguing that general use permit fees should be collected to cover at least part of the cost of all these services. The question is: where, when, how. Public Attitudes: A small percentage of people as a matter of principle are opposed to any fees. On the whole, I believe, the majority of visitors to our parks (forests, etc) are willing to contribute to the cost of providing general recreation opportunities. However, many qualify their approval as follows: such that: The method of collection and enforcement must be realistic and must be *I am not required to carry a permit at all times and be harassed if I do not have one on me. It is not only the law abiding that pay the fee **Permits are easily obtainable (as at the point of collection). Most of my county is in the forest (park etc) and we have always had free access to it. Payments in lieu do not compensate for lack of taxes. Therefore, people near such forests (parks etc) should be exempt when using these forests. I am a volunteer. I and my club have maintained trail for years and I do not see why I should buy a permit. I approve of permit fees but not for "My Park", "my trail", "my river" "my wilderness".!!! I believe there would be general opposition if any attempt was made to turn our natural resouces into money making assets or to divert fees collected to |