Page 8 - the NOISE July 2013

On June 18, 2013 the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation of the Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on “Citizen and Agency Perspectives on the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act.” Witnesses were by invi- tation only. The panel included: Pamela K. Haze, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Bud- get, Finance, Performance and Acquisition, United States Department of the Interior; Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture; Lewis Ledford, Director, North Carolina Division of Parks & Recreation; Ran- dal O’Toole, Cato Institute; Andy Stahl, Ex- ecutive Director, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics; and Kitty Benzar, President, Western Slope No-fee Coalition. The latter two witnesses represented those who oppose recreation fees on public lands and criticized the implementation of these fees by federal agencies.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation consists of 26 Members, 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Members of Congress in attendance were Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT ), Ranking Minority Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Tom Mc- Clintock (R-CA), Scott Tipton (R-CO), and Peter DeFazio (D-OR). Arizona Represen- tative Paul Gosar, whose district includes Yavapai County, is a member of the Com- mittee on Natural Resources but he is not a member of this subcommittee. Arizona Rep- resentative Ann Kirkpatrick, whose district includes Coconino County, is not a member of this committee.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhance- ment Act (FLREA) is scheduled to expire at the end of 2014. However, since many agen- cies issue annual passes, it is important that FLREA be reauthorized (and hopefully re- formed) before the end of this year. If it is not, any annual passes purchased after Decem- ber 9, 2013 may end up providing the user with less than a year’s worth of service. And, if FLREA is allowed to sunset, it is apparent that federal agencies like the USFS, BLM, and Park Service will operate from the position that no other laws exist that limit their fee
authority in any way. It will be open season for new and increased fees on public lands throughout the country.
During his opening remarks, Chairman Bishop raised a number of questions he would like to see answered as FLREA re- authorization is considered by Congress.
“There are several important issues that need to be addressed,” he said “like which agen- cies should be able to charge the fees? What types of fees should be allowed? What is the oversight mechanism of the fees? Is there a correct pricing of the fees? How should the fee revenues be used? Do the incentives for the fees promote the best policies that we have? And are there adequate requirements for transparency and efficiency?”
Mr. Grijalva, who represents Pima County, Arizona where Mount Lemmon is located, mentioned the recent court decision regard- ing that area. He called the Mt. Lemmon fees
“hugely controversial” and said he was “in- terested in hearing more from the agencies regarding their compliance with that court’s decision.” Unfortunately, no further ques- tions about compliance with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision were raised.
Mr. Grijalva empathized with the current budget restraints that agencies like the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are operating un- der. “As they begin to see less money from Congress, it’s only rational for them to seek other funding from recreation fees. But I’m not sure that this is what Congress had in mind when we provided agencies with that authority. I’m also convinced the American public should not have to pay more to ride a horse on a trail than a rancher has to pay to graze a cow.”
Ms. Haze and Ms. Weldon testified as to the efficacy and benefits of the recreation fee systems implemented by the agencies under their respective departments. Ms. Haze stated that “recreation is a significant contributor to the national economy and the economies of communities that surround the lands we manage. Of the visits to our public lands, nearly 230 million are to Rec- reation Enhancement Act sites. These visits and associated travel generate an estimated
$25 billion in economic output and 210,000 jobs. Fee revenue is largely retained at the site where it is collected to support recre- ation and visitor programs. We do not use the recreation fee income to substitute for appropriations but to complement them.”
In her testimony, Ms. Weldon indicated that “the authorities in FLREA are valuable tools that allow us to improve recreation facilities and provide quality visitor experi- ences across National Forest System lands. We provide the American public and visitors from around the world with outstanding rec- reation opportunities on federal lands. Since the enactment of FLREA in December 2004, we have made tremendous progress in ac- complishing our mission. While we acknowl- edge some challenges associated with im- plementing FLREA, we continue to address these concerns in implementing the law as it was intended.”
Mr. Ledford, also representing the Na- tional Association of State Park Directors (NASPD) said that “much has been made about public/private partnerships as a way to help solve some of the financial difficul- ties. I know of one example several years ago of a particular state that entered into a lease agreement with a private concessioner to manage and operate multiple lodges on multiple park sites. My understanding is the agreement was not renewed primarily due to considerable visitor dissatisfaction relat- ing to poorly maintained facilities.” He cau- tioned against further use of private compa- nies to run public land facilities, a practice in which the USFS has already engaged in heavily.
Mr. O’Toole promoted “market rates” for all federal land use fees and espoused the belief that this would not only improve recreation on public lands but serve as an incentive for other lands to be opened for public use.
“User fees for dispersed recreation on federal lands ... would encourage other landowners to charge such fees, thus possibly doubling the opportunities for recreation.” He criti- cized those who object to recreation fees for activities for which FLREA currently provides exemptions. “Opponents of dispersed rec- reation fees make several arguments why
they are special and should be allowed free access to public lands while all other public land users have to pay for what they use.”
Mr. O’Toole advocated a system that would allow market rates to be charged for all federal lands use whether it be recreation, grazing, timber, mining, or any other activ- ity. He argued that “instead of reducing op- portunities for dispersed recreation, fees are likely to increase them. The nation has more than 800 million acres of private forests and rangelands, many of which have scenic and other recreation values comparable to those on public lands. So long as public land recre- ation is free or priced well below market val- ue, private landowners have little reason to cater to recreationists. Once public agencies charge fees, private landowners will have in- centives to make their lands more attractive to recreation users as well.”
Finally, Ms. Benzar criticized the USFS and BLM for tactics these agencies employ to maneuver around the restrictions that FL- REA places on their fee authority. “The ‘build it and they will pay’ approach, favored by the Forest Service, has resulted in unneeded and excessive facilities being erected that add to maintenance backlogs, merely in order to justify charging a fee,” she said. Her writ- ten statement includes a photograph of a picnic table on the Coconino National For- est here in Northern Arizona that has been overgrown with weeds because it is unused at its location. It was placed at a site that serves as a trailhead parking area to access undeveloped areas – not a site that is visited primarily for picnicking.
Ms. Benzar further criticized the increasing privatization of public lands and the motives behind it. “When the Forest Service doesn’t even care to pay lip service to congressional intent, they give facilities to concessionaires to manage and then say the FLREA, i.e. con- gressional direction, no longer applies to the fees charged to the public there. The fee programs operated by the FS and BLM have excessive overhead and cost of collection expenses, they evade congressional intent as expressed in the statute, and they contrib- ute to declining visitation and to the result- ing economic harm to local and rural com-
8 • JULY 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
NEWSfeature