Agencies Report On Recreation User Fee Demos

IMBA Trail News
Volume 11, Number 2
May-June 1998

by Gary Sprung

In its first year of operation, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program on federal lands raised new revenues and new questions, according to a report submitted January 31 of this year by the four federal land management agencies. At this point in mid-1998, there are over 200 recreation user fee projects occurring on National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service lands. Mountain bicyclists are involved in the program in several places, in both cooperation and opposition to the fees.

Congress enacted the program to begin in late 1995, but only a handful of projects began in 1996. The projects established in 1997 provided information for the recent progress report submitted by the agencies to Congress.

The program raised $53.5 million as of Sept. 30, 1997. The report states that the agencies "are beginning to apply the revenues to backlogged projects and to improving public services on the fee demonstration sites." This includes repairs to trails, along with visitor centers, kiosks, brochures, signs, trail guides, campgrounds, parking areas, safety services and environmental protection.

Gauging public support

The report reviews the limited information available about the public's opinions on the program. It does note that 67 percent of the 484 "pieces of correspondence" opposed new user fees. Many of these statements addressed specific fees, such as the very high new fees imposed on Grand Canyon rafting by the National Park Service. The agencies caution that "people who take the time to write and express their views are likely to be those holding a more extreme view of either side of the issue."

In a pre-fee survey of visitors to the four urban national forests of Southern California (the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernadino, collectively known as the Enterprise Forest), slightly less than half believed then-proposed fees for use of the national forests were reasonable. Opposition came mainly from "a general belief that government cannot be trusted to implement the program fairly."

The report argues that public opinion after implementation of fees was "generally positive." A National Park Service poll last summer in 11 parks interviewed 1,306 visitors and found that 83 percent were either satisfied or thought the fees were too low, and 96 percent of those said fees would not affect their current visit or future plans to visit the park. The support derived primarily from the fact that the new money stays local, and is used to improve the place where it is paid, rather than going to the U.S. Treasury.

In a survey conducted by USDA Forest Service, 64.4 percent of respondents said the value was at least equal to the fee they paid.

Lessons

One important outcome came at a campground on Lake Powell in Utah. Assault and various minor crimes declined dramatically after the fee was implemented, along with "a dramatic decrease in gang activity and a corresponding increase in family group usage." Littering, illegal dumping, and improper disposal of human waste declined, and reducing the water pollution which had previously forced a ban on swimming. Apparently the increased presence of Park Service personnel, on the scene to collect money, improved civic behavior.

The report devotes considerable explanation to "seamless" fees, where one payment covers several services or entrance in to several land units operated by different agencies. Seamless fees raise complex issues regarding sharing revenues, especially when the payment is for a Golden Eagle Passport, which covers entrance to every federal land unit. The agencies made significant progress in resolving this issue last year.

The report also notes that implementation of fees creates a new liability problem because most states make landowners liable for injuries to recreationists when fees are paid.

Overall, the U.S. federal land agencies are gaining valuable experience and information about a wide variety of fees and collection methods. Although it's too early to gauge the success of the program and its public acceptance, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program appears to meeting its basic goal. The agencies are experimenting with an important change and learning from the results.

However, the report and program in no way resolve the most basic issues which lead many people to oppose fees. The concerns regarding freedom, use of tax dollars, and other big issues are absent from the agency review. The political pendulum may be swinging solidly toward broad use of user fees. At least in this case the agencies appear to be proceeding carefully.