Page 9 - April 2016

forest Money
pit senators atteMpt to increase
wildfire budget BY cindy cole
Lisa Murkowski
Ron Wyden
dwindling Forest service budgets are often cited as reason for increasing and ever more prevalent recreation fees on national forest land. But the truth is not quite that simple. And recreation fees are still being implemented in ways that may violate federal law, including here in sedona’s Red Rock Ranger District. As Congress begins consideration of the United States Forest Service’s budget for 2017, there’s more to it than meets the eye.
In February, Chief of the Us Forest service Tom Tidwell testified before the House Committee on Appropriations’ subcommittee on the Interior, environment & Related Agencies. His testimo- ny was a broad outline of the UsFs’ budgetary needs for 2017 (the fiscal year begins in October). From grazing fees to drone technology, the subcommittee members questioned Mr. Tidwell. He appeared again before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on March 8.
One of the largest budgeting problems the UsFs has faced in recent years is in the area of fire suppression. Because the firefighting budget is often not enough to cover the expenses of a heavy fire season, the UsFs has practiced “fire borrowing.” This practice leads to other budgeted areas losing funds that are borrowed to pay for the current fire season. This means that there is less funding available for forest health and fire prevention measures including rec- reation and trail maintenance. In August 2015, with its over $1 billion budget nearly exhausted, the UsFs shifted $250 million from regular service operations to fire suppression activities. Fire borrowing has been highly criticized at both local and federal levels and much of the question- ing at the congressional hearings concerned ways to fix the practice.
senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has previously introduced the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act as a measure to end the practice of fire borrowing. This legislation would create a separate fund- ing account similar to the way other natural disasters are handled. while the legislation has garnered support in both the Us House of Representatives and the Us senate, it has failed to be enacted. The UsFs has included a similar proposal in its last two budget requests to Congress.
During the senate hearing, Mr. Tidwell said that a wildfire funding fix was “essential for the American public.” Before transfers were made, fire suppression monies in 2015 represented 52% of the forest service budget, up from only 16% just a few years ago, Mr. Tidwell said in his statement. “we are facing some of the greatest challenges in our history. Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating outbreaks of insects and disease all threaten the ability of America’s forests and grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services that Americans want and need.” Mr. Tidwell said that fixing wildfire funding would give the UsFs $237 million that would be used for recreation, roads, and other forest management practices that would help with fire prevention.
“This is about raiding the prevention fund in order to fight fire,” said Mr. wyden. “we’ve got to have active management, and we’ve also got to find a way to get this done because this makes a mockery of the Forest service budget. we’re going to do everything we can through the lead- ership on both sides of the Capitol to work with you and to get this done.”
senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) further criticized forest management policies and fire bor- rowing practices. “In addition to putting in place measures to promote active forest manage- ment, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a long-term solution that ends the practice of fire-borrowing. we need to do both, at once, because we know the wildfire problem is not just a budgeting problem – it’s also a management problem.”
But much of Ms. Murkowski’s criticism is based around timber concerns in her home state. In the past, she has supported the transfer of federal lands to states so that they could be man- aged at a more local level. Last year she submitted an amendment to the federal budget pro- posing just that. while the amendment was mostly symbolic in nature — it did not specify any particular federal lands and any implementation measures would still need both Congressional and white House approval — it was certainly an indication of the senate energy & natural Re- sources Committee Chairman’s priorities. In her statement on the senate floor, Ms. Murkowski said: “It is too difficult to drill, mine and otherwise develop energy on federal land. It’s true that it is much easier to develop certain state lands.”
On the recreation front, Mr. Tidwell also called for a further one year extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, the legislation that governs the recreation fee authority of federal land agencies. Originally set to sunset in 2014, previous extensions have set the new date to september 30, 2017. while recreation fees have been a hotly contested issue in several popular forest regions, including those that surround sedona, the UsFs has already been engaging in the practice of turning over popular recreation sites to private enti- ties for many years. In light of shrinking budgets and fire borrowing, some forests have also begun to question the use of private concessionaires to manage federal lands. For example, the Tahoe National Forest in nevada has begun taking back the management from several of
newsfeature
its campgrounds from private companies.
Under FLReA, 95% of monies collected by a forest service district through recreation fees
stays in that unit to be reinvested in recreation and services, a practice known as “fee retention.” But there have been many questions surrounding the true results of this practice including commissions paid to fee vendors that reduce the amount of money the district receives. In sedona, the Ranger District does not sell the Red Rock Pass directly through its offices, so every pass purchase includes a 10% commission for the pass vendor. The commission allows vendors to purchase the passes from the UsFs at a reduced rate and then add the 10% back in when the pass is sold. In 2010, an independent investigation of the amount retained by fee machine vendors, which are all operated and maintained by private companies, revealed that they net nearly 50% of the monies forest visitors deposit into their machines.
The UsFs’ accounting methods have been under investigation by the US Government Ac- countability Office since at least 2003. A GAO report on recreation fees issued in April 2003 [GAO-03-470] stated: “The Forest service practice of allowing vendor discounts results in inac- curate fee revenue and expenditure reporting. Because the vendor retains the discount rather than the Forest service first collecting all fee revenues and then paying the vendor out of these revenues, the amount of fee revenues the forest receives is reduced. In addition, the vendor discounts are not included as part of fee collection costs. Thus, both fee revenues and fee col- lection costs are underreported.” In 2006, the GAO reported that “some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures over collected recreation fees” [GAO-06-1016].
In addition, as more and more fees have been allowed, general appropriations have trickled down to local forest districts less and less. As the result of allowing fees to be charged at the local level, more and more of congressionally appropriated funds to the UsFs are being spent in washington DC at the administrative level. This causes the districts to implement more user fees in an effort to raise income for the upkeep of local public lands. Once user fees are in place, it is easier for ranger districts to contract popular fee sites out to private companies to manage.
when private concessionaires enter into agreements with the UsFs to manage federal lands they do so under a fee-based “special use permit.” But the catch is that the private concessionaires are not obligated to reinvest the fees they collect into the local area. Concessionaires also operate under the Granger-Thye Act, not FLReA. This allows fees to be implemented for things the UsFs would not be able to charge for on its own, such as solely for parking and access to trailheads.
Provisions in the Granger-Thye Act also allow the concessionaire to “offset” their permit fee “in whole or in part” by the value of any “maintenance, reconditioning, renovation, and improve- ment” (known as MRRI) they perform at their own expense. so, in reality, permit fees are rarely, if ever, paid back to the UsFs or the forest district in which the fee sites are located. In this way,
the whole fee retention issue becomes a double-edged sword.
At the Crescent Moon Ranch/Red Rock Crossing day use site in sedona, a $9 entry fee is
required for each car entering the parking lot. several years ago when that location was still managed by the UsFs, that entry fee was only about $4. Of the current $9 fee, only about $1 is promised to the UsFs. However, deductions made for MRRIs can result in not one penny of that money ever being paid back to the Red Rock Ranger District. In 2009, the privately-held company known as Recreation Resource Management grossed nearly $1.4 million with its special Use Permit in sedona. The UsFs is not at all clear on how much of that money actually stayed in sedona and was used for public benefit.
And private concessionaires will only take on the most popular recreation sites in an area. In sedona, Grasshopper Point and west Fork, two of our most visited trailheads, are also run by Recreation Resource Management, in addition to Crescent Moon. It seems illogical for the UsFs to give away its most profitable sites while at the same time crying about reduced appropriations.
Kitty Benzar of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition said “we warned that charging fees for general access and undeveloped recreation was the first step on the slippery slope toward privatization of our public lands. It changes the focus of land managers from public service to revenue generation and causes them to treat us as customers, not as owners.”
“On the national Forests more than 80% of developed campgrounds are now under private, for-profit management,” Ms. Benzar stated. “Forest service concessionaires are allowed to con- trol access to backcountry by means of parking fees at trailheads, which FLReA prohibits the agency itself from doing. Concessionaires don’t have to honor federal passes or comply with many other provisions in federal law. Any parcel of federal land that is under a concessionaire permit has been converted, de facto, into private property.”
| Cindy Cole still longs for the forest without the fees. cindy@thenoise.us thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • APRIL 2016 • 9