You are here

Interior Department Opposes Visitor Fee Legislation As Drafted, Communities Want Cut Of Fee Revenues

Share

A legislative attempt to revise the Federal Land Management Recreation Enhancement Act contains flaws that make the proposal untenable, according to Interior Department officials.

Among the potential outcomes outlined in the draft legislation written by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-UT: motorcyclists and snowmobilers in national parks would face the same entrance fees charged motorists; shuttle buses such as those in Zion and Acadia national parks that now are free to ride might require a paid ticket, and; "destination" visitor centers or interpretive centers on national forest lands could charge a fee for entrance.

However, if Congress does not pass the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act beyond the current law's scheduled expiration date of October 2017, fees collected by the National Park Service would go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not to the Park Service for use in the National Park System.

Part of the measure's problems, according to Olivia B. Ferriter, deputy assistant secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance and Acquisition for the Interior Department, is that it runs only seven years, with a sunset date in 2022. Another issue is that fee increases would require congressional approval, she noted.

The Obama administration believes the legislation should be made permanent, without a defined end date, she testified before the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands. As for the need for congressional approval of fee changes, the deputy assistant secretary told the committee that, "(T)his provision will negatively impact the management of the fee program and impact the recreation services that have been supported since FLREA was enacted. It is impractical to require that Congress pass a law each year to approve a myriad of small fee increases - many as little as $5 or less - at hundreds of sites for boat launches, tours and other amenities."

Interior also opposes the change from an 80-20 split to a 90-10 split of how fee revenues collected in parks are divided. The current 80-20 fee revenue split allows 80 percent to remain in the park where the fee is collected, while 20 percent is sent to Washington, D.C., for redistribution to parks that don't collect fees. A move to a 90-10 revenue split "unnecessarily limits the agencies' ability to use funds to provide enhancements at sites that do not collect fees, or to use those funds to support agency-wide initiatives, such as the recreation.gov reservation service," said Ms. Ferriter.

She also suggested that the fee for a Senior Pass, now $10 for the lifetime of the holder, be increased to $80, as proposed by Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona.

Also testifying at the hearing Wednesday was Todd Davidson, the chief executive officer of Travel Oregon who was appearing on behalf of the Western States Tourism Policy Council and Southeast Tourism Society. Among his views on the draft legislation was a suggestion that fee revenues collected by the federal land-management agencies "be used for cooperative promotional efforts with local communities."

"Many federal land managers perceive marketing and promotion as prohibited activities and are reluctant and/or unwilling to discuss cooperative programs with destination marketing organizations," he went on. "Not only is this a missed opportunity for sites to showcase their attractions and programs, but it also means that they are failing to leverage the expertise of the tourism community in targeting and attracting a new generation of visitors -- key demographics, such as Millennials, Hispanic and African-American families and driving visitation in non-peak periods."

Mr. Davidson, noting that the position of national director of tourism at the National Park Service has been vacant for more than a year, called for "the position (to be) filled and the responsibilities expanded to include providing technical assistance to park superintendents and local communities in developing public/private partnerships to preserve and maintain historic, cultural, and natural resources that create new businesses to better tell the story of a community and provide exceptional travel experiences."

Comments

". . . the responsibilities expanded to include providing technical assistance to park superintendents and local communities in developing public/private partnerships to preserve and maintain historic, cultural, and natural resources that create new businesses to better tell the story of a community and provide exceptional travel experiences."

Translated into English, that means, "We wanna tell the parks what we want 'em to do for us and how we want it done."


Lee - perhaps you can explain how filling an empty position in the NPS and giving that position expanded authority translates to  "We wanna tell the parks what we want 'em to do for us and how we want it done."  Seems to me it would strengthen the NPS's role not weaken it.  


FLREA abuses are being documented by the committee.  One of the most telling sentiments at the previous hearing was when the head commented on her concerns about varying things to include backcountry fees in the NPS.

And that makes me smile:)


Partners and citizens living near parks should be concerned about the ultimate benefit in the park from each dollar of fee collected.  My vote would be to return a portion directly to Treasury.  I would also strongly suggest that the Park Service be required to publish an annual report showing what every dollar collected paid for.  This practice would surely tighten things up.  Parks need more oversight.


 I would also strongly suggest that the Park Service be required to publish an annual report showing what every dollar collected paid for.

That was once required (1998 NPS Omnimus Bill). I have been told that requirement was resinded though noone has yet identify when and where. As to sending the money to Treasury, I trust the NPS with it more than Congress.  


I do believe the original Recreation Fee Demonstration Program that took effect in 1997 changed the money flows, EC, from the Treasury to special accounts set up for each land-management agency.

http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/feedemo/


I think the issue re the Treasury is that if this bill doesn't pass, the provision keeping the funds in the parks would expire.  


Yes. that's one of the issues. But this bill could be better.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.