OCR Text |
Show The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was created in 1962 to provide both a focal point within the Federal Government for the administration of Federal intergovernmental programs in outdoor recreation, and to coordinate the activities of other Federal agencies with the objectives of these intergovernmental efforts. Although the Bureau has made progress in improving intergovernmental working relationships in outdoor recreation, we believe its efforts to bring other Federal programs into phase with the approved roles of the states, local governments, and the private sector have not been effective. There are a number of reasons for this ineffectiveness, but we believe the principal one is BOR's relatively weak location in the executive branch structure. As just another bureau on an equal plane with many others in the Department of the Interior, it is questionable whether BOR can successfully coordinate even the policies and programs of its own sister bureaus. We have considered suggesting the repositioning of BOR's Federal coordinating responsibilities to a location in the executive branch where that work could be accomplished with more decisiveness. The Council on Environmental Quality should give a high priority to reviewing and recommending to the President the most advantageous organizational location for the coordinating functions now vested in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Alternatively, we also suggest that BOR's statutory requirements and authority to effect better coordination of Federal land administering functions should be strengthened. Because this strengthened authority would, in many respects, be a substitute for a more effective organizational placement in the executive branch, we recommend that such new and strengthened statutory coordinating authority be vested directly in the Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The Bureau's relationship to any cabinet department would then be essentially independent, with the Department of the Interior providing only administrative support services. This veto authority would not apply to Federal recreation programs in areas of national importance. General Use Fee Recommendation 81: A general recreation land use fee, collected through sale of annual permits, should be required of all public land recreation users and, where feasible, additional fees should be charged for use of facilities constructed at Federal expense. Public lands, which are administered and maintained at Federal expense, should be available for outdoor recreation use only if those using them pay for the privilege of doing so. Although the public, at one time, expected free access to the public lands for recreation use, that attitude has been changing, and we believe that participation in outdoor recreation of any kind should no longer be considered a free use of public land. Even in areas where no intensive development has taken place by the installation of recreation facilities, such as tent and trailer camp sites, boat launching ramps with mechanical or hydraulic equipment or for swimming and similar activities, there are substantial Federal investments in multipurpose roads, hiking-trail systems, and sanitation systems. In addition to the capital investments, there are increasingly large annual costs for maintenance-of both the physical improvement and of the environment-and for litter collection and trash removal. A general use fee would help defray these costs and simultaneously assure equitable treatment among all those having access to the public lands. Further, we submit that those who pay to enter or use recreation facilities will recognize the stake they have in the protection of the areas and make greater efforts, not only to take better care themselves, but also to make certain that others are more careful in their visits to the areas and their use of facilities. In addition, a general use fee would also assure equity to the operators of any competing private outdoor recreation area. Because of the widespread nature of recreation use of most wild land areas, and the general lack of control of access to such lands, it is impractical and too costly to levy and collect a fee only for entrance to areas either generally or for each use occasion. We believe a general use fee can be most efficiently collected through the sale of annual licenses or permits. Sales can be made effectively and simply through sources such as the post offices similar to the manner in which duck stamps are sold, while at the same time permitting sale at entrances to national parks, for example, where personnel are stationed. In the absence of a government-wide single annual fee for general use, the alternative would be admission or user fees for each individual class or type of recreation area. This would result in a higher total cost to persons visiting different classes of land, thereby penalizing those who can least afford the increased charge, such as retired persons living on a fixed income whose value is constantly being eroded through inflation. We recommend that general use fees should not be designed to recover all costs of providing outdoor recreation opportunities on the public lands. The general land use fee should, at the outset, be minimal ($1.00-$3.00) to assure that it is not discriminatory and to simplify its administration. We believe the revenue from such a modest fee would greatly exceed that under the present Golden Eagle 203 |