Commercial Permit Fees Permits are also issued for commercial recreational uses of public lands and waters to accommodate the demand for special services and facility-dependent types of activities which are best provided by the private sector. The public lands, with a diversity of landscape types, can readily accommodate a variety of commercial uses. The most popular are outfitting and guiding the public on whitewater float trips and hunting and fishing trips. The fee schedule was designed to recover the costs of issuing and monitoring the permits and to provide a return for the privilege of using Federal resources for commercial It is based on the purposes. amount the commercial permittees charge their clients adjusted to allow deductions for certain offsite transportation and lodging expenses. Phasing in over a 3-year period, the fees for a commercial use permit are: Adjusted daily charge collected by permittee from each participant $ 8.00 or less 8.01 to 20.00 20.01 to 35.00 In addition to the return to the Federal Government from commercial permittees, the outfitting and guiding industry generates significant revenue to local economies. For example, a 1980 study done in Teton County, Wyoming, showed the outfitted hunter spent an average of $150 per day, generating $2.4 million for the year. Another 1980 study in Colorado showed the total economic impact of whitewater boating was estimated to be $22.7 million. Commercial river trip passengers contributed the majority of this amount. Special Fee Provisions All fees for recreational uses must be paid in advance and are nonrefundable. The exception is when cancellation is made in sufficient time to issue the permit to others. Also, permits may be required, but fees are not charged, for uses primarily educational or scientific in nature. Documentation of academic accreditation may be required. In some particular cases the fee schedule may be adjusted to accommodate joint management agreements with other agencies. When joint permits are issued, one fee will be charged and revenues split accordingly between agencies. For example, the Rogue Wild and Scenic River in Oregon is jointly managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. BLM issues all commercial permits and the Forest Service issues all private permits. The total revenues are shared by both agencies. Challenges for the Future During the development of and subsequent to the adoption of the special recreation permit policy and fees on February 10, 1984, there have been considerable comments on the subject of recreation use fees. As could be expected, there was a resistance to fee increases. However, the public seems to have accepted their responsibility as beneficial users paying for special privileges and services. A common concern voiced among all types of users is that fees should be returned to the area where the fees were collected. Since fiscal year 1981, all fees collected for recreational uses on the public lands are deposited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to be available for appropriation for any purposes authorized by the LWCF without regard to the source of the revenues. Prior to fiscal year 1981, the fees were deposited in a special account separate from the LWCF to be appropriated, without prejudice to other appropriations, for any authorized outdoor recreation function of BLM. Now revenues cannot be earmarked to support the activities that generated them. As the demand for special activities continues to increase, more areas will reach their maximum allowable capacity, requiring more direct allocation and rationing of use. Noncommercial, individual use seems to be increasing at a faster rate than commercial, outfitted use. Decisions will be made on who gets the privileged use, initiating some type of reservation system requiring permits and fees. When commercial use becomes limited, we could expect to see some changes in the prices charged to clients reflecting a greater value of the limited use. To make this allocation process more efficient, we are automating our reservation systems and revising our permit application forms. An interagency reservation system may be well worth exploring. Another challenge is to meet the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act which says that comparable fees should be charged by the several Federal agencies for comparable services and facilities. In some cases not all Federal agencies are authorized to charge for the same types of services and facilities. By law, entrance fees may only be charged at certain National Park System areas administered by the Department of the Interior and national recreation areas administered by the Department of Agriculture. However, other recreation user and permit fees differ only because of established policy or past practices of the various agencies. Attempts have been made to unify fee policies. During the development of BLM's special recreation permit policy, the fee schedule for commercial use was closely coordinated with the Forest Service. Both bureaus adopted the same schedule. Similar efforts need to be done for other recreation fees. Multiple ownership and joint management responsibilities also present challenging issues. Some areas may best be managed as a unit, but could contain property owned by several entities. Access, fees, and enforcement are some of the issues which must be resolved. For example, several State governments have established licensing boards to issue and administer outfitting and guiding licenses. In addition to determining who gets a license, some states even delineate an outfitters area of operation which may contain Federal lands. The suitability of Federal lands for this purpose and any requirements for authorization and conditions of use should be coordinated with Federal land managing agencies. During this first year of implementing the special recreation permit policy, the BLM is evaluating field experiences and alternative approaches. Our goal is to consistently apply the policy and fees across BLM lands and be as consistent as possible with other Federal land managing agencies. In subsequent years, we will review the fee policy and make necessary adjustments within applicable policy and laws. Meanwhile, the agency is exploring ways to manage special recreation areas more efficiently to reduce costs to the general public. Cooperative agreements are being developed with state and local governments and private interest groups to assist in management and operational responsibilities. Volunteers are being used to assist in issuing permits, constructing and maintaining trails, acting as campground hosts, and providing informational services to visitors. A donation program similar to the National Park Service's "Gift Catalog," whereby facilities and/or services may be donated, is also being explored. The whole planning and decision process is open and dynamic, and BLM constantly seeks public involvement. One apparent beneficial result of the new special recreation permit policy is that it has strengthened the common bonds among all recreational user groups and broadened participation. New groups have formed and existing ones expanded. Common goals were discovered and communications among the user groups and Federal managing agencies increased significantly. We hope this continues as we all face new challenges requiring cooperative management solutions to protect our public land resources and provide for enjoyable outdoor recreation experiences. Bruce R. Brown is on the BLM's Headquarters Office staff, Division of Recreation, Cultural, and Wilderness Resources, and is the principal author of BLM's special recreation permit policy. lower income populations, they can be a barrier. Fortunately, there are a number of ways in which public agencies at all levels can effectively meet both agendas of generating revenue and providing service to all income levels: • Establish a base level of service that is "free" to all and tax supported without user fees • Waive fees for special events or activities on an • Schedule free days or free • Reduce rates for off-season • Have local citizens, busi- • Adjust fee structure ac- • Provide opportunities to work in exchange for fees • Offer discount passes to • Approach the park's non- • Give self-addressed envelopes to the visitors unable to pay with a request that they send in their fee when they have it, and waive them through for the day. While there are some people who cannot afford to pay even nominal fees, most park managers and rangers who were interviewed for this article did not feel that the charging of entrance fees was the prime reason for lower attendance among the low income populations. For low income people there are many barriers to recreation participation other than fees, including lack of transportation, cost of transportation, distance to outlying parks, lack of information on available recreation opportunities, cultural or language differences, and discomfort and lack of awareness of unfamiliar parks. While many of these barriers are shared by most Americans, they are understandably harder for low income people to overcome. Given these interacting, often overwhelming barriers, what can park staff do to minimize fee impacts on low income users and encourage them to visit and enjoy the many national and state parks that are available? There are many park staff who have already accepted this challenge and are implementing new programs and approaches with great success. Here are some examples of what is already being done to encourage more low income people to visit parks and participate in recreation activities: • The California Department of Parks and Recreation held a workshop in Southern California called "Reaching New Horizons" which was aimed at recreation leaders serving low income, inner city communities. The purpose was to provide information to the recreation leaders to enable them to plan outings for their communities to nearby state parks. The National Park Service does not charge entrance fees at the urban National Recreation Areas. Many state park systems, including California's, have a similar policy. • Reduced rates are available at national parks for seniors and the disabled by • The Chicago Institute of • The Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis waives the entrance fee before noon, one day a week. This policy is aimed primarily at senior citizens with limited ability to pay. 50-792 0-85--9 • John Muir National His toric Site applied to the California Office of Environmental Education for a $5000 grant to expand their Environmental Living Program. If the grant is received, special programs will be designed for economically disadvantaged children, gifted children, and children with learning disabilities. • The gift catalog for the City of Sacramento, California, gives community members and businesses the opportunity to sponsor individuals or groups in a number of recreation and cultural activities, for instance: -$15 would sponsor a -$150 would provide a -$250 would sponsor a -$1000 would provide transportation, admission, insurance and supervision for 40 youngsters on a field trip • At Chamizal National Memorial a group of disadvantaged minority boys, ages 8-11, who frequent the grounds on weekends, have been organized into a "Junior Ranger" group to • Padre Island National Sea- • Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area brought in 10,000 visitors (many community groups from low income areas) in 11 weeks through their Recreation Transit Program that was funded with a grant from the California Coastal Commission. Park staff scheduled pre-trip visits to members of many of the communities who were to visit the mountains to dispel misconceptions and pave the way for a safe and fun visit. • Gateway National Recreation Area, and their friends groups, have worked with New York City Transit Authority to ensure express bus service from Brooklyn to Jacob Riis Park, serving 30,000 riders per year, many autoless, who might otherwise be unable to visit the park. An increase in bus fare from 75 cents to 90 cents, did not affect ridership. • At Gateway, Santa Monica Mountains and Golden Gate National Recreation Areas a variety of cultural and art events are offered (geared to the ethnic groups of the areas). Private sector support is often sought to keep costs at a minimum and attract as many people as possible. As you can see, there are a multitude of options to consider and implement to minimize the impact of fees on low income people. We must also recognize that there may be other barriers to resolve. We need to comprehensively address how we can reach out, attract and continue to serve low income users as public managers. Heather Fargo and Lynne Nakata are Outdoor Recreation Planners with the National Park Service's Division of Park and Recreation Technical Services in San Francisco, California. |