|
AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION POLICIES AND ISSUE SUMMARIES |
|
by ARC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS: MEETING THE CHALLENGE America’s public lands are a magnificent national recreation resource. Much of the outdoor recreation enjoyed in this country -- hiking, skiing, biking, horseback riding, four wheeling, to name just a few examples -- takes place on these public lands. Millions of Americans and visitors to this country who drive for pleasure -- one of the most popular forms of recreation -- cherish their visits to public-land sites. The economic vitality of countless communities is directly linked to recreation and tourism associated with these lands. Unfortunately, although there is widespread recognition of public lands as a priceless national resource, the system of roads that keeps them accessible and enjoyable is all too often overlooked and undervalued. As a result, the future of these roads -- and the communities they serve -- is far from assured. In 1982, the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) was created to provide funding for the public roads that serve transportation needs on federal public lands. Under FLHP, funding is provided for designing and constructing 8,000 miles of roads and parkways in National Parks, 27,000 miles of state and local roads providing access to and within the National Forest System, and nearly 50,000 miles of Indian Reservation Roads. In addition, there is a discretionary Public Lands Highway Fund for which any public road providing access to and within federal public lands is eligible. Despite increased levels of funding and administrative flexibility provided to the program by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, much of the road system on and accessing federal lands is crumbling. For example, according to the National Park Service, because of a lack of funds for road maintenance, many of the roads in Yellowstone National Park -- one of the nation’s "crown jewels" -- have deteriorated to the point that they must be rebuilt at a cost of $750,000 to $1,000,000 per mile. As another example, in a recent forum held by the Department of Transportation (DOT), representatives of the USDA Forest Service reported that only 20% of its roads are in good condition, while 60% are characterized as fair and 20% as poor. Because FLHP funds cannot be used for routine maintenance and because other sources of maintenance funding -- federal funds appropriated for the public land agencies and state and local monies -- are simply inadequate or unavailable, the system of roads that services the public lands is severely threatened. Continued access to federal lands can also be a casualty of the political wars raging between environmentalists and commodity producers. A closed road may mean no more access for logging or mining, but it may also mean no more access to lakes, campgrounds, trailheads and other cherished recreational facilities. In addition, funds once generated by industry activity on public lands -- funds which could be used to maintain roads -- are drying up without any ready source for replacement funds. The trend toward privatization also presents its own access challenges. Private partners are now being sought to develop and maintain recreation facilities on public lands. A good example is the growing number of private campgrounds on the national forests. Private entities can be expected to invest their funds in facilities and services to attract and retain an increasing number of customers. However, they are not likely to provide the substantial funding that will be needed to build and maintain roads to access these sites. The economic vigor of the West -- where 57% of the land is under federal control -- is inextricably linked to continued access to public lands. A fully funded Federal Lands Highway Program, with its mandate expanded to include maintenance, is key to that access. In 1997, as the federal highway program moves through reauthorization, the U.S. Congress must ensure that access to the nation’s public lands is protected and enhanced. Contact: POSITION OF THE AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION ON RECREATION FEES AT FEDERAL SITES Fees for use of public recreation facilities and services are not new. Fees were established early in the history of the national park system and today generate more than $100 million annually in federal receipts, collected chiefly by the National Park Service and the Forest Service through entrance fees, camping fees, ski area permit fees and assorted other recreation fees collected from recreationists and those providing recreation services on public lands. Much of the philosophical and legal basis for recreation fees is outlined in the 1964 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The act was the product of those who recognized the importance of recreation in America, and it has enriched our lives immeasurably through strategic increases to federal and state land systems. Yet a great deal has changed since the time of this act and, despite periodic amendments under the guidance of this Committee, the criteria and specific provisions for fees deserve careful review and a new clear and comprehensive strategy. The framework for a new recreation fee strategy is outlined in the 1987 report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. It argued that public recreation program spending needed to rise and that primary responsibility for the increases should fall upon those who are the direct beneficiaries of these programs. The report noted that recreation expenditures by Americans exceed $300 billion annually and represent a steadily increasing share of consumer discretionary spending. But the report also argued for accountability between fees and services provided. While our present budgetary situation does not allow us to provide a figurative "free lunch," we cannot and should not forget that after charging for lunch, we have an obligation to serve the food. ARC supports federal recreation fees if the fees meet the following principles: the fees are equitable, and aimed at recovering costs where the services and facilities provided represent significant costs to American taxpayers; the fee system is efficient, costing the least amount practical to administer; the fees are convenient for the recreationist, so that voluntary compliance is readily achievable; the fee system is coherent and integrated, so that overlapping charges are minimized and federal, state and local fees are integrated where appropriate (such as Sikes Act provisions for hunting and fishing fees on federal lands, collected as a supplement to state licenses, or the Pacific Northwest’s winter park program); and the fee revenues are returned to benefit resources, facilities and programs utilized by those paying the fees. ARC believes that new and higher recreation fees must have a demonstrable positive impact on resource protection and visitor services. While it is true that recreationists today do not pay fees equivalent to the entire cost of managing recreation on federal lands, fee increases which are designed solely to replace general fund appropriations will be unpopular and difficult to implement. Moreover, recreational activities are a non-consumptive use of the American legacy of the outdoors, in contrast to certain other public land uses -- which also often fail to pay fully for the costs to the taxpayer. Recreation is also a positive force in bolstering the economies of communities which have undergone reductions in commodity industry activities, including timber, oil, gas, minerals and grazing. ARC believes that the Congress should establish which recreation program costs should be recovered through fees. Recreation-related expenditures by federal agencies include a mix of land acquisition, capital investments in facilities and operations and maintenance costs. We believe that acquisition of lands and waters should not be funded through recreation fees, since the benefits of ownership of these areas benefit future generations of Americans and not just current visitors. We do believe that it is reasonable to expect that visitors to federal recreation areas, including parks, forests, refuges and other units, can be generally expected to pay for the costs of the services provided to them and the operations and maintenance of the facilities they use. It is important to note, though, that operations and maintenance costs include many expenditures for the general protection of the natural resources of federal areas, including planning and implementation of mandates such as those under the Endangered Species Act. ARC would prefer to see recreation fees considered in a government-wide context, perhaps through a new Recreation Fees and Public Lands Enhancement Act which would replace the fee authorities now found chiefly under the Land and Water Conservation Act. Federal land and water-managing agencies have a need for consistent direction in recreation fee policy and mechanisms for collecting and utilizing those fees. ARC urges that recreation fees be used for the purpose the public believes they are being collected. Further, we support the treatment of these revenues in such a way as to make them immediately available to federal agencies. We believe that certain agency resources, including visitor services and maintenance, should be tied to marketplace changes. If visitation increases, more interpretation services will be sought and more trash will be generated -- more manpower must be made available. Similarly, if visitation drops federal officials can be expected to reduce outlays. Some units of federal land systems represent unique challenges to efforts to recover costs, including urban sites. Where possible and without creating new unfunded mandates, such costs should be underwritten through financing from local units of government and by creative public/private sector partnerships involving the recreation and tourism industries. In this process, some federal activities on federal lands might be altered. For example, National Park Service enforcement of local traffic laws on federally-managed roadways, such as the George Washington Memorial Parkway, could be transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies. ARC also calls for legislation to put in motion a program approved by the Congress in 1993: non-federal sales of Golden Eagle Passes. ARC, the catalyst for this provision, has been stymied in its efforts to implement the program by a Department of the Interior conclusion that the passes could not be provided on consignment to our members, including L.L. Bean and the Coleman Company, who would act as a consortium to dramatically increase sales of the pass plus provide the public with valuable information on recreation opportunities at lesser known sites. Although the 1993 legislation permits a deduction of up to 8% of the purchase price to cover selling costs, this "commission" will barely cover the costs of handling and order processing. The Interior demand for prepayment torpedoes the program completely, making it too costly to implement. Finally, ARC strongly supports innovative thinking on recreation fees. We urge the creation of several pilot areas where such concepts as barrier-free entry -- where those entering the park would be required to carry proof of entrance fee payment if stopped inside the park, but would not pass through a traditional "gate." This type of system is used successfully for fish and wildlife licenses in this country and for many transit programs in Europe. We encourage experimentation at individual sites to test out concepts prior to nationwide implementation; we suggest that at least one major national park where multi-day stays are common charge on departure. Currently, a single fee is charged for an entire stay -- whether a few hours or two weeks. Other concepts which might be tested include: differential pricing designed to encourage visitation during non-peak periods; fee discounts for those arriving via public conveyances to reduce parking demand or for those who volunteer their time while visiting; automated fee collection; fee waivers for those whose ability to pay is limited; and reduced fees for those who use their visits to learn by attending interpretive programs. To provide incentives to federal managers of these areas, we would suggest that a goal be established to recover 90% of the cost of visitor recreation services in the test sites. If this goal is achieved, federal support for these sites would not be reduced below 100% of the funding provided in FY94, adjusted for inflation, and all revenues above 75% of costs could be available without appropriation and supplemental to any appropriated funds. American Recreation Coalition 1) Increased fee collection efforts may be undertaken on behalf of federal agencies by state, local and private partners. Examples of such efforts include Sikes Act provisions for hunting and fishing on national forests, winter park programs in the Pacific Northwest and the California "green sticker" program for ORV's. In addition, many national forest campgrounds are now operated by concessioners and under contracts. In these instances, little or none of the operating costs for these recreation services are incorporated in the agency budgets. 2) A federal recreation fees advisory commission, comprised of three Congressional appointees and three Presidential appointees and chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, could be created to review federal agency recreation fee plans, including testing and adoption of innovative strategies and technologies. 3) Sharing of federal recreation fees with local governments under PILT and the Roads and Trails Trust Fund should be examined and altered. Defining and Creating a National
Recreational Lakes Program America has a vast and diverse array of lakes serving the nation in many ways. One of the important uses is recreation -- from swimming to fishing, boating to wildlife viewing, windsurfing to picnicking, trails and trailheads for motorized and non-motorized enthusiasts alike and much more. Lake management involves federal, state and local agencies as well as private interests. Present public policies often do not encourage maximum recreational enjoyment of these lakes or adequately acknowledge current recreational uses of the lakes and their surroundings, despite the strong attraction Americans have to water -- and lands adjacent to the water -- for recreational activities. At many federally-managed lakes, this is attributable to purposes assigned to the agencies by the Congress decades ago, often with just minor consideration to recreation purposes. The problem at lakes with significant federal land ownership is compounded by budgetary constraints which make capital investments in needed recreation facilities ranging from campgrounds to boat launching facilities, from beach areas to trails and more very unlikely. To remedy these challenges and to stimulate consensus among public and private organizations with an interest in shaping recreational opportunities in the vicinity of these lakes, federal agencies and states would be invited to seek voluntary designation by the Secretary of the Interior as national recreational lakes. Designation would be dependent upon a management plan supported by the public and relevant public agencies. Such a plan would address such issues including: maintaining and improving access for current visitors, development of appropriate recreation facilities (typically through public/private partnerships), management of diverse uses of the lake and its surroundings (including a fisheries management plan) and special zoning and taxation policies. Emphasis would be on encouraging appropriate private sector investment in water-dependent recreational enterprises. The national recreation lakes system offers several alternatives. It might, in fact, be broadened to become a national lakes system, incorporating lakes with national-caliber assets in addition to recreation. In this way, lakes could be recognized for natural and scenic, recreational, historical or other purposes. On the other hand, the concept could be limited to only those man-made lakes now under federal control. A one year study is needed to evaluate these alternatives, to solicit the views and perspectives of all those potentially involved in or affected by a national recreational lakes program and to recommend to the Congress specific actions to be taken and clear goals for such a program. The study would be performed by an interagency team drawn from the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. Other federal agencies, including the Forest Service, BLM and the National Park Service, should also be asked to assist. An advisory committee comprised of designated federal and private sector representatives could be charged with making the final recommendations to the Congress. In addition, the study should actively involve such private sector organizations as the American Recreation Coalition, the American Sportfishing Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, representatives of appropriate state agencies, the Travel Industry Association of America and other recreation and conservation organizations with an interest in the proposed designations. The study would be modeled after that undertaken by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1990 to consider the feasibility and design of a national scenic byways program, a study which guided Congressional action creating the byways program in December 1991. In developing recommendations, the study should assess the effect of other federal designation programs on public access and agency funding priorities and suggest ways to eliminate any potential unintended consequences of the national recreational lakes designations which might reduce diverse recreational opportunities. To pursue the study and further definition of the national recreation lakes initiative, an ARC task force jointly chaired by TVA and NMMA representatives is created and shall develop a strategic plan for the initiative. April 8, 1996: Version 3 The Position of the American Recreation Coalition on the "Teaming with Wildlife" Initiative On May 14, 1996, the American Recreation Coalition’s Recreation Policy Forum considered a proposal developed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (the "International") to raise funds for state-level wildlife management, education and recreation programs through an excise tax on outdoor recreation equipment and certain other goods. Representatives of the International presented their proposal, known as "Teaming with Wildlife," to a group of approximately 30 ARC members and guests. A lengthy, broad-ranging question and answer period followed. After the presentation and questions, ARC members developed the following policy recommendation: Parks, playgrounds, public forests and preserves, wild and scenic rivers, trails, greenways, wildlife refuges and recreation centers--together they form an infrastructure to provide healthy, educational, uplifting outlets for millions of Americans’ recreational pursuits. These resources contribute to the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities. They create jobs and yield economic benefits. They bring people together, breaking down economic, racial and geographic barriers, and enhance family and community relationships. They protect species and habitat as well as precious cultural resources. They are integral threads of the American fabric. The recreation community has a responsibility to protect the invaluable legacy of our national, regional and local outdoor treasures and to add new facets. In recent years, the recreation community has established important new efforts involving trails and rivers, scenic byways and greenways, rails-to-trails conversions and heritage corridors, and improvements in access to public lands and waters. Despite these advances, the recreation and conservation needs of our nation are intense and growing. High levels of visitation and limited budgets threaten environmental damage at some of our most loved national sites. Development reduces open spaces near our cities -- places already least endowed with public lands. Lack of interpretative services squanders precious educational opportunities during the estimated two billion annual visits to federal recreation sites. Competing economic priorities tear at our traditional valuation of natural resource protection. Crime and environmental degradation restrict access of many urbanites, especially children, to local recreational facilities and natural areas. A fee system that fails to recognize that Americans are willing to pay for good services and facilities starves agencies financially, making them rely upon a political allocation of funding. The result is that 40% of all visitors to national forests today receive experiences below the agency’s own standards for acceptable quality -- and forces the agency to predict a growth in that percentage of poorly served visitors. And in the face of growing numbers of trail enthusiasts, the network of trails on federal lands is declining in quantity and quality. We need to be innovative, decisive and collaborative in our efforts to address these needs. The wholly compatible goals of protecting our nation’s natural resources and ensuring opportunities for our citizens to recreate in a safe and healthy manner must be integrated. Any effort to address our nation’s conservation and recreation needs must be comprehensive and balanced. We cannot approach this challenge in a piecemeal fashion. The recreation community is strongly supportive of the goal of a healthy and diverse wildlife population and habitat. In addition to the improved quality that wildlife can bring to the outdoor recreation experience, we recognize the basic conservation imperative of protecting habitat and ecosystems. Reflecting this commitment, many of America’s outdoor companies already contribute significantly to a wide variety of conservation initiatives nationally and locally. Numerous programs initiated by and/or actively supported by the recreation community enhance wildlife protection. The Conservation Reserve Program, created in the 1985 Farm Bill, has set aside millions of acres of important wildlife habitat and has boosted bird populations dramatically. The National Scenic Byway Program and the STP Enhancement Requirements, created under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, have funneled millions of dollars into easements and local land use planning efforts which will protect open space and corridors which support wildlife habitat and migration as well as human transportation needs. The Rivers and Trails Conservation Program of the National Park Service has had dramatic impact on local communities from one end of the nation to the other, shaping growth and protecting valued community features, including wildlife habitat. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has combined offshore oil and gas revenues and state and local funding to acquire more than $10 billion in new public lands, used for recreation and conservation purposes alike. The Wallop-Breaux Fund and the Pittman-Robertson Fund have also provided millions of dollars for land acquisition, habitat improvements and conservation and environmental education efforts. And presently, the recreation community is leading efforts to reform recreation fee policies in an effort to ensure an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in the operating budgets of federal land managing agencies. We realize that funding for resource protection and recreation is limited. We recognize the need to develop long-term strategic approaches to funding requirements for recreation and conservation. We participated in and support the recommendations of the 1987 President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors and the 1994 National Park Service Advisory Board’s review of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Both studies called for a national leadership role on recreation and conservation matters but emphasized the importance of state- and community-level efforts reflecting specialized needs and opportunities. Successful state level approaches like sales tax set-asides in Missouri and Texas attract our attention. The Great Outdoors Colorado program, funded through lottery proceeds, also appears to be working. We also favor, and would be willing to support through communications assistance, voluntary efforts to raise funding for wildlife and conservation programs including, but not limited to, special license plates, income tax "check-offs" and conservation stamps. ARC supports recreation use fees that are equitable, understandable to those paying, cost-efficient to administer, and dedicated to supporting the programs and facilities for which they were collected. Those charged with paying a user fee must be provided a direct and identifiable service. We support the enactment of H.R. 2107, a bill to expand greatly the collection of recreation use fees across all federal lands, because it reflects these principles. The concept of a user fee is not in question; rather the issue is what constitutes an appropriate user fee and where and how collected funds are spent. The "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal fails to meet the recreation community’s criteria for an acceptable user fee. The mechanism of levying an excise tax on a loosely-defined list of "outdoor" products is not compatible with the philosophy of a true and fair user fee. The proposed excise tax mechanism fails to link those who pay with those who use the resource. In context of the targeted "outdoor" products listed in the proposal, too often those who pay will not be the same as those who use the resource. By definition, a "user fee" becomes simply a specialized tax if a substantial portion of "users" do not pay, or do not pay proportional to the benefits they derive, and a different substantial portion of those who pay do not derive any benefits. That is the case with the proposed Teaming with Wildlife initiative. The recreation community also is troubled by an excise tax as a fee collection mechanism because too much leakage can occur. Taxes imposed at the manufacturers’ first point of sale will be marked up along the stream of commerce along with the price of goods. This means in practice that the consumer could pay considerably more out of his/her pocket than will be returned to the resource. Obviously, any mechanism will carry certain costs of collection, but the collection costs of an excise tax are likely to be particularly high. Administratively, it will be exceedingly difficult to apply the tax equitably across all the product lines to be affected. The experience of the Wallop-Breaux tax documents how imported product values may be manipulated to effect a financial disadvantage for domestic producers. Given the fluid nature of the list of taxable products, as well as the difficulty in defining some products, there will inevitably be efforts to avoid the tax through creative classification of products. (Hiking boots could become "casual footwear," for example, or backpacks could become "bookbags.") We fear that the "Teaming" tax system would create artificial winners and losers in the marketplace, based not on economic forces but rather on governmental regulations. It is likely some, probably small, manufacturers will bear an excessive administrative burden in trying to comply with the paperwork of the tax, while other small enterprises may fall through the cracks and pay no tax. Perhaps most importantly, the government-imposed tax may serve as a disincentive for companies to continue to develop voluntary, private initiatives that are emerging in today’s marketplace. Successful cause-related marketing where portions of product sales are donated to the protection of parks, trails, rivers and other resources offer tremendous opportunities for sizable, voluntary contributions. These initiatives can be extremely flexible, targeted and attractive to customers. Customers directly see and understand the relationship between purchase of a product and support for a resource. We favor allowing potential competitive advantages within the private sector to drive innovation in attracting donated funds. Beyond the inequity and inefficiency associated with the proposed tax, ARC believes that the "Teaming" proposal inappropriately favors state-level wildlife protection to the virtual exclusion of most other basic recreation needs such as visitor services, trail construction, road access, campground maintenance and the like. While wildlife diversity is an important value, basic recreation services should not be given short shrift. Recreation use fees ultimately should benefit recreation users. The relative success of the Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux taxes make this case -- fishing and hunting opportunities have demonstrably improved with the funds provided. It is debatable how much of the "Teaming" excise taxes would actually be available to improve the recreation infrastructure, given the numerous wildlife management objectives that have been identified. The wildlife focus of "Teaming" leaves little for recreation, calling into question the applicability of the aforementioned taxes as valid "models" for this proposal. ARC does not support the Teaming with Wildlife excise tax. While perhaps noble in intent, it is flawed in design and scope, and will not accomplish our goals. It is the wrong tool for the task. The recreation community does pledge its efforts to pursuing comprehensive conservation programs which will produce quality outdoor experiences for all and which sustain the ecosystems which are vital to environmental quality. Version 3: May 28, 1996 Measuring and Rewarding Quality Operations by Recreation Businesses Operating on Public Lands and Waters The American public needs quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Budgetary realities at the federal, state and local levels strongly suggest that partnerships with the private sector will be an increasingly important means for providing these opportunities. In addition to clear definition of the objectives of the partnership at its conception, public/private partnerships need clear mechanisms for assessing the quality of the performance of both partners. On June 13, 1995, ARC members and guests met to discuss performance measurement topics, mechanisms and responses and to recommend to federal, state and local governments beneficial approaches in this important area. The recommendations follow: The public, natural resources and both parties connected with a public/private partnership serving the recreation needs of Americans on public lands and waters are all well-served by a well-designed and well-administered performance measurement and evaluation process. The process needs to focus upon objective and measurable facets of the partnership, although subjective considerations can also have a valid role in the process. Four areas require measurement: visitor/customer satisfaction; natural resource protection; financial performance; and compliance with all pertinent laws and regulations, ranging from employment practices to ADA. Current performance measurement practices are generally inadequate. In most cases, only the private partners are evaluated -- and both public and private partners can and should be. Many assessments focus on large numbers of relatively minor issues with little emphasis on the "big picture," especially the quality of visitor services. Because those performing the assessments rarely have business backgrounds or training, many financial issues are also ignored. The consequence is that most concession and permittee assessments are pro forma, yielding "satisfactory" ratings and narrative that reflects the nature of the relationship between the company and the agency personnel supervising the operations. Effective performance measurement begins with clarity in goals at the inception of the partnership. It further requires on-going communications. Potential problems should be flagged as early as possible to facilitate corrective actions. Evaluations should be conducted by those with adequate experience and training and without bias or influence arising from day-to-day operational contacts. Much of the evaluation process can be simplified by adopting self-certification procedures. Agencies and permittees can review a checklist of requirements, including health codes, employment requirements and environmental laws and regs, and certify compliance. Audits of this self-certification can be conducted on a sampled basis and where there is cause for questioning the submission. In addition, the concessioner/permittee can be expected to show proof of the existence of several processes, including (1) a system to solicit and respond to customer input on services and facilities, (2) an employee training program, including orientation of employees to the mission of the agency(ies) involved in the partnership and (3) a preventative maintenance program. The performance measurement evaluation should test to see that these processes operate effectively. In order to increase the quality and objectivity of systems to solicit and respond to customer input, major concessioner and permittee associations, including the National Park Hospitality Association, America Outdoors, National Forest Recreation Association, the National Ski Areas Association and the National Canoe Livery and Outfitters Association, should develop standardized customer survey instruments appropriate for various size and types of businesses, as well as a simple data analysis program which would allow concessioners/permittees to compile and produce reports on customer responses. In addition, performance measurement processes should document evidence that the concessioner/permittee displayed responsiveness to changes in customer wants, visitation patterns and laws and that the concessioner/permittee provided assistance to agency in meeting its assigned mission. One significant problem in the past has been the lasting impact of even minor problems. For example, an employee of a river trip operator failed to abide by company and agency procedures, leaving trash at a camping spot. The operator had little recourse since the employee committed this act on his final trip prior to ending his employment. In fact, the operator was never notified of the problem or offered the chance to mitigate the action. Yet the violation became a major consideration at the time the operator’s permit came up for renewal. An otherwise outstanding performance did not erase this problem and resulted in the operator being viewed less favorably than an applicant with no performance record at all. This same case illustrates the need for an independent appeals process able to review evaluations and resulting decisions, including concession and permit renewals. Current arbitration and agency appeals provisions are not effective or fair. The performance measurement processes should be a major component of the public/ private partnership. The evaluation should be used to improve services to customers, as a key basis for renewal decisions, for providing the public with information on selecting a recreation service provider, as the catalyst and justification for termination for uncorrected, poor performance and to identify opportunities for new concessioner/ permittee services. 6/21/95 (Version 1) The Role of Federal Agencies in Recreation-Information Systems On November 15, 1995, members of the American Recreation Coalition and guests discussed the future of recreation-information systems and the role that the federal government should play in the management of recreation-related information. The discussion highlighted both the ways in which dramatic changes in technology are already affecting information management and the necessity of communication and cooperation within the federal government and between the public and private sectors to ensure the effective collection and use of recreation information. The discussions were the basis for the following policy statement: Information systems — the tools that allow us to collect, store, access and distribute information — are changing at a breathtaking pace. Millions of people now have access to advanced technology that can bring a world of information to their homes and businesses at the touch of a button. Communication is easy, global and practically instantaneous, but not always effective. In today’s information society — the world of the Internet and its World Wide Web, of CD-ROM’s and CNN — information providers are still faced with the challenge of being effective, of making sure that their product, information, is needed and wanted and used. Within the outdoor recreation community, the effective communication of information inevitably involves both the private and public sectors. Both provide recreational goods and services to the same customers, but the public sector has the additional responsibility of managing a massive resource base — millions of acres of public lands and waters — that are the focus of much of the American outdoor recreation experience. The American Recreation Coalition believes that it is especially important to define the information-management role that should be played by the public sector, specifically the federal land-management agencies. As part of that definition process, ARC believes that the following issues should be addressed: 1) the assessment of fees for federal recreation-information management; 2) the role of inter-agency cooperation at both the federal and state levels; and 3) the necessity for, and delineation of, private-public partnerships. First and foremost, ARC believes that the collection and distribution of information about recreation opportunities on public lands and waters is an integral part of these agencies’ primary missions, rather than a secondary, nonessential activity. Accordingly, ARC believes that information management is already supported by the American taxpayer and does not need to be justified further in terms of its revenue-raising potential. That being said, however, ARC also recognizes that in today’s difficult budgetary climate, the agencies may need additional funding sources to provide and maintain quality information about the resources they manage. ARC believes that good information management can enhance and increase recreational use of our public lands and further believes that enhanced and increased recreational use can mean higher revenues for the agencies if the equitable, efficient recreational fee systems previously endorsed by ARC are put into place. ARC also recognizes that assessment of fees for access to information that is needed and used by a relatively small population may sometimes be appropriate. ARC also believes that inter-agency cooperation is crucial to effective recreation- information management. Not only would such cooperation be more efficient from a cost basis — eliminating unnecessary tasks, technology and personnel — it would also allow the federal government to better assess the information resources that it can make available and address the information needs of its customers. It is worth noting that the federal agencies are working cooperatively to integrate the land-management information they are gathering — for example, the location of wetlands, the identification of endangered species habitat or the analysis of soil types — using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Taking the next step from sharing information on general land management to sharing information on recreation opportunities simply makes sense. ARC recognizes that full cooperation — that is, one government agency using another agency’s system — may be difficult to achieve, but steps toward this type of cooperation should be encouraged by policy makers. ARC believes that such cooperative efforts must also include state government agencies, which also play key roles in providing the public with recreation opportunities. In fact, state fish and wildlife agencies are already active partners with federal land agencies for fishing, hunting and wildlife-viewing programs; other state agencies are key to the network of roads that make federal recreation sites accessible. Such partnerships can easily form the basis for better cooperation and communication in the area of recreation-information management. Again, ARC recognizes the difficulties inherent in achieving such cooperation, but remains convinced of its importance to effective information management. ARC believes that partnerships between the private and public sectors can greatly enhance recreation-information management and thus should be actively encouraged. As a start, to avoid hampering legitimate partnership initiatives, ARC believes that the federal government should relax overly strict interpretations of the ban on federal endorsement of products and services. In the past, such interpretations have effectively discouraged private-sector partners — who were not interested in endorsements but did expect some credit for their roles — from helping to share the cost of distributing recreation information. ARC also believes that the public and private sectors’ most effective information-management roles are essentially complementary. ARC recognizes that the federal resource-management agencies have unique access to data on recreation opportunities and attractions. In contrast, private entities, which are less constrained by procedure and precedent, are uniquely positioned to package, deliver — and even personalize — that information for their customers, especially those whose inquiries are likely to lead directly to financial transactions, from reserving a campsite to signing up for a rafting trip. At the same time, ARC believes that the public sector should remain as objective as possible in its information management while the private sector should be responsible for providing the kinds of subjective judgments — like evaluating the merits of different campgrounds or assessing the peak times for viewing foliage — that enhance the value of basic recreation information. ARC further recognizes that the effective distribution of information today requires much more than the fact-filled brochures and helpful staffers traditionally provided by both the public and private sectors. ARC believes that the implementation of new information- delivery technologies, whether involving on-line computer services, interactive cable television, voice mail or some other medium, does require investment flexibility more characteristic of the private sector than the public sector. As a result, ARC believes that private enterprise in the area of information management and delivery should be actively encouraged and that the public sector should work closely with the private sector to ensure that its data-collection efforts produce information that their joint customers will consider both useful and timely. For example, recreation travelers not only are interested in having basic information about the public-land site they may be visiting, but they also need information about the current conditions of the roads they will be using. The public sector is clearly qualified to be the source of such information. In contrast, ARC believes that the private sector should focus its efforts on organizing that information, adding to it as appropriate — for example, by including information on special events being held on or near public-land sites — and delivering it to the public, using the best "open-architecture" technology available. [3/13:7] Analysis of NEXTEA Proposes an 11% increase in spending over ISTEA ($175 billion over 6 years, versus $157 billion over 6 years) Up to $5 billion per year would be spent on AMTRAK Section 1001 of the proposed legislation authorizes funding for specific programs: 1) the National Highway System ($4.466 billion in 1998; $4.391 billion in 1999; $4.378 billion for 2000; $4.405 billion in 2001, 2002, 2003) 2) the Interstate System ($4.48 billion in 1998; $4.405 billion in 1999; $4.392 billion in 2000; $4.419 billion in 2001, 2002, 2003) 3) the Surface Transportation Program (including enhancements and providing that enhancement projects must have a direct link to surface transportation) ($5.874 billion in 1998; $5.785 billion in 1999; $5.723 billion in 2000; $5.728 billion in 2001; $5.684 billion in 2002; $6.192 billion for 2003 4) congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program ($1.3 billion annually) 5) highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation ($2.694 billion in 1998; $2.653 billion in 1999; $2.646 billion in 2000; $2.661 billion for 2001, 2002, 2003) 6) the Federal Lands Highway Program (Indian roads: $200 million annually; Park roads: $161 million annually; Public land highways $50 million annually; Forest highways: $114 million annually) 7) an infrastructure safety program (railway crossings: $165 million annually; hazard elimination: $335 million in 1998; $360 million in 1999; $385 million in 2000, 2001, 2002; $410 million in 2003) 8) integrated safety fund ($50 million annually) 9) the Recreational Trails Program ($7 million annually) 10) university transportation centers ($12 million annually) Section 1004 provides for apportionment of funds 1) for the NHS, funds to each state will be based upon 3 factors: 75% according to that state’s
contribution to the Highway Trust Fund BUT each state is guaranteed at least .5% of all funds distributed 2) for the STP, funds to each state will be based upon 3 factors: 70% according to that state’s
contribution to the Highway Trust Fund BUT each state is guaranteed at least .5% of all funds distributed 3) for the RTP: deduct cost of administration,
research and advisory committee (up to 3%)(note: reference to advisory
committee is an oversight; it was abolished elsewhere in the bill) Equity Adjustments, including minimum allocation provisions, are changed and will not be affected by grants to states for scenic byways (or recreational trails) Davis-Bacon provisions are specifically waived for transportation enhancement and recreational trails program projects Section 1023: the National Scenic Byways Program (Title 23, Chapter 1, new Section 163 (A) directs the Secretary to carry out the program and continue designations (B) provides for grants to the states and establishes priorities for those grants: on routes designated as All-American Roads and National Scenic Byways; for projects which would make routes eligible for designation; for projects which assist states in developing scenic byways programs (C) lists 8 categories of eligible projects (D) defines the federal share and allows other federal agencies to use other federal funds to meet the non-federal matching requirements on federal lands and Indian country (E) funding is provided at $15 million annually (F) restricts the use of funding to projects that protect the intrinsic values of a highway and its adjacent areas Section 1026: Federal Lands Highway Program New definitions Provides for 100% federal share
in certain instances Section 1028: Recreational Trails Program Moves program from Title 16 to
Title 23, thus assuring contract authority Title VII — Revenue Extends taxes and transfers of
funds by 6 years (typically from 1999 to 2005) March 18, 1997 ARC ISSUE SUMMARY Recreation Fee Demonstration Program Originally created by the FY96 Interior Appropriations, providing special fee authority to National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for three years (FY96, 97, 98)* Each agency must select 10, and may select as many as 50*, sites or projects for demonstration program At selected sites, the agencies are permitted to collect fees for admission or use of sites, facilities, visitor centers, equipment or special services, with fees based upon cost recovery or fair market value Permits contracting with other public and private entities to provide visitor services Allows volunteers to collect demonstration program fees Encourages private investments and partnerships to enhance visitor services and resource protection efforts and authorizes recognition of these efforts Provides for 100% availability of demonstration program fees in excess of 104% of FY95 collections for recreation sites and habitat enhancement projects without further appropriation; 80% of the fees at the administrative unit in which the fees are collected and 20% of the fees within the specific system, determined by agency Excludes fees collected under the demonstration program from any revenue sharing provisions normally applying to recreation fee income Requires clear accounting of fee revenue and a report to Congress on the results of the demonstration efforts Limits the use of demonstration program fees to: "backlogged repair and maintenance projects ... and for interpretation, signage, habitat or facility enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation (including fee collection), maintenance and law enforcement relating to public use" Funds collected under the demonstration program remain available until September 30, 2001 *Amended through FY97 Interior Appropriations to allow up to 100 sites/projects per agency and extended one fiscal year (FY99) The ARC ISSUE SUMMARY is produced by the American Recreation Coalition, 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 682-9530, Fax (202) 682-9529 ARC ISSUE SUMMARY National Recreational Trails Fund The program was established by a provision of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; Public Law 102-240). The legislation applied the "user-pay" philosophy of the Highway Trust Fund to return monies to the states to pay for the maintenance and construction of trails for the benefit of those who pay the federal motorfuel tax for nonhighway uses, such as off-road motorcycling, all-terrain- vehicle riding, snowmobiling, and four-wheel driving. A Congressionally mandated study, conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Federal Highway Administration, supports an estimate of $167 million in Highway Trust Fund receipts attributable to these nonhighway sources annually. Funding authorized for the program was not to exceed $30 million annually over the six years covered by ISTEA. Amounts actually appropriated over the program’s six-year history amounted to $37.5 million ($7.5 million in FY 1993, $15 million in both FY 1996 and 1997). Eligible projects include: development of urban trails near homes and workplaces; maintenance of existing trails; restoration of areas damaged by trail use; development of trailside and trailhead facilities; provision of handicapped access; acquisition of easements or corridors for trails identified in a state trails plan; construction of new trails where needed. States encouraged to give priority consideration to environmental-mitigation projects. To be eligible for funds, states must have a state trails advisory board composed of representatives of both motorized and nonmotorized trail users. Unless the state trails advisory board decides otherwise, at least 30% of the funds are to be earmarked for nonmotorized projects, at least 30% for motorized, and 40% for diversified projects, which accommodate multiple uses that may be either or both motorized and nonmotorized. The federal share of a project’s cost can be no more than 50%. A 12-member National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee was established to: review utilization of funds by states; recommend changes in the program as needed; and set and review criteria for eligible facilities. The ARC ISSUE SUMMARY is produced by the American Recreation Coalition, 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 682-9530, Fax (202) 682-9529 ARC ISSUE SUMMARY National Recreational Lakes Study The National Recreational Lakes Study was created as part of H.R. 4236, "Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996," approved by the Congress in early October and was signed by the President on November 12, 1996 (Public Law 104-333). The study will be conducted by a nine-member commission. Its task is to review current and anticipated recreation demand at federally-managed manmade lakes and reservoirs and to develop recommendations for enhancing recreational use of these facilities. The members will be appointed by the President, who will also designate the Chairman. Members will include: the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and the Army (or their designees); Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority (or his designee); a person nominated by the National Governors’ Association; and four persons familiar with recreation, tourism, conservation, Indian tribes and local government, including at least one person familiar with the development of recreation-related infrastructure. The Secretary of the Interior is to provide financial, administrative and staffing requirements, including office space and equipment. Other federal agency heads are authorized to provide information and personnel, in keeping with the law and available funding, as requested by the Commission. The Commission may hold hearings and take testimony but is encouraged to use existing data and research to the maximum extent possible. A report is to be submitted within one year (October 1997) to the President, the Senate Committee on Energy and Resources and the House Committees on Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure. In developing its report, the Commission is directed to review four topics: 1. the extent to which individual federal manmade lakes and reservoirs have provided authorized recreation facilities and services; 2. the feasibility of enhancing recreation opportunities at these lakes and reservoirs under existing statutes; 3. legislative changes that would enhance recreational opportunities consistent with the lakes’ and reservoirs’ authorized purposes; and 4. alternative ways of enhancing recreational opportunities, including the establishment of a National Recreational Lakes System which would feature innovative partnership-based agreements between federal agencies, State and local units of government, and the private sector. Last updated on 11/13/2002 12:37:49.
|