Summary of Fee Program Changes — Historically, general taxes supported public lands management, providing free access to all Americans, a concept reinforced by the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. It explicitly prohibited federal agencies from charging public lands access fees — with the exception of national parks.

In 1985 President Ronald Reagan established a President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors to analyze national recreation trends and develop recommendations regarding the same. PCAO recommended, among many items, establishing a closer link between those who benefit from recreation and costs paid.

In response to PCAO, the Forest Service developed a “partnerships and innovation” recreation strategy, and the BLM similarly crafted “Recreation 2000.” Many campgrounds on public lands are now operated by private entities as concessions or under subcontracts. Private reservation firms market and book federal campsites. These private businesses retain a certain percentage of public fees collected.

Likewise, congressional appropriators provide funds to federal agencies for recreation and wildlife programs only if matching funds are secured from non-federal sources — the Challenge Cost Share Program. Amid various efforts during the 1990s to privatize public functions, Congress cut public lands funding. The Forest Service recreation budget, for example, was cut by more than a third between 1994 and 1999. The National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) was created in 1996 as a three-year experiment to exam various fees on public lands.

A new recreation fee program covering five federal agencies and providing a 10-year fee authorization replaced the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The new Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, created under Section J of HR 4818, the omnibus appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 2005, is based upon legislation introduced by U.S. Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio and amended and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources. Regula played a central role in the development of the fee demo program and its extension as Congress sought to craft long-term recreation fee policy.

The new federal recreation fee program enjoys support from most recreation and tourism interests, largely because the required retention of at least 80 percent of collected fees at local sites should result in improved visitor experiences.

Other key provisions of the legislation are:

• Well-defined guidelines on where recreation fees may be imposed, specifically prohibiting fees for locations that proved most controversial during the fee demonstration program.

• The addition of the Bureau of Reclamation to the fee program.

• Clear direction to the five federal agencies to coordinate fee programs and avoid multiple or layered recreation fees.

• Creation of a two-tier daily/short-duration fee program for BLM, Forest Service and Bureau of Reclamation lands: a standard amenity recreation fee and an expanded amenity recreation fee involving the use of special facilities (including campsites) or the receipt of special services.

• Explicit requirements for public involvement in the development or changing of a recreation fee and for reporting on the use of collected fees. For the Forest Service and BLM, the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to establish Recreation Resource Advisory Committees for each state or region.

• A new interagency annual pass called the “America the Beautiful – the National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Pass.” All other national passes are prohibited, including existing, single-agency passes. The new pass may be marketed through government and non-government entities. The pass will be valid for 12 months after purchase (not for a specific calendar year) and when purchased by a citizen or person domiciled in the United States over 62 years of age, will cost $10 and be valid for the passholder’s lifetime. Details on the pass will be determined by the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior but are expected to resemble those now applying to Golden Eagle and National Park passes.

• Authority for regional, multi-entity passes that could cover areas managed by a variety of federal, other governmental and nongovernmental entities for periods up to one year — including federal agencies not under this legislation like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

• Authority to enter into fee-collection agreements with governmental and nongovernmental entities in gateway communities, including agreements that involve providing emergency medical and law enforcement services.

• Limitations on use of the funds. Generally, the fees must be used in ways directly related to visitor enjoyment, access and safety and the operations of the fee program. There are specific prohibitions on use of the funds for (a) biological monitoring under the Endangered Species Act and (b) for employee bonuses.

• A limitation of 15 percent (with some exceptions) of total collections for administration, overhead and indirect costs of the fee program.

• Reports on the fee program must be submitted to Congress on May 1, 2006, and every three years thereafter.

• Authority to use volunteers to collect fees, and to waive or discount fees in exchange for volunteer services. Further, the America the Beautiful Pass and regional passes may be issued to volunteers in exchange for “significant” volunteer services.

• Repeal of pre-existing fee authorities and general exemption from revenue-distribution provisions of other acts, which in many instances dictate that 25 percent or more of agency receipts be shared with state and local governments.

The fee program continues to be somewhat controversial in many NPS locations, and it will be interesting to see what changes will occur with the program in the next few years. I encourage you to review the legislation to become familiar with the program.

Interpretation

This issue of Ranger is largely devoted to interpretation, so columnist Rick Kendall is taking a one-issue sabbatical. His column will appear in this space in the summer issue.

Maintenance

ANPME and ANPR — For those who don’t know or have forgotten what ANPME stands for, it is the Association of National Park Maintenance Employees. Of course, ANPR is the Association of National Park Rangers. I’m telling you this because I haven’t heard much from ANPME for quite some time and I’m wondering if this great organization is still active. I attended ANPR’s Ranger Rendezvous in Rapid City last November and there seemed to be an interest in finding ways to blend or otherwise officially connect these two associations. However, no one could tell me the status of ANPME or even if it was an active organization any longer.

I am proud to say I was one of the charter members of ANPME while at the same time sad to say that I have not been an active member for many years. When the association was holding annual conferences, I remember how wonderful it was to have an opportunity to meet with other maintenance folks from across the country and talk about issues that connected all of us as National Park Service maintenance employees. It really was a great opportunity to focus on and hopefully tackle issues and topics that affected all field maintenance employees.

ANPME gave us a voice. It was an opportunity to effectively communicate our concerns, needs and issues relating to maintenance at the field level to the highest levels of NPS management. It also provided a format for those same NPS leaders to connect and relate to us, often on a personal level, away from the pressures and political realities of Washington and the regional offices. Sorry to say we seem to have lost this great resource. I was often surprised and always appreciated the candor and openness NPS leaders would bring to these conferences. Where else could you see a regional director standing with a group of maintenance workers from different parks, having a beer in the hospitality room, and talking about how funds are actually dispersed from Congress to the parks? These talks were never one-way conversations and would routinely turn into lively discussions.

My research since the Rendezvous has found there are a few folks out there who continue to keep ANPME alive, providing a valuable service to maintenance staffs everywhere. ANPME has been providing vendor coordination and management services for DOI and NPS facility management conferences across the country. In particular, Roger Dillard at Ozarks, Nancy Ward at Yellowstone and others have done an excellent job keeping the association off life support, while providing a valuable service to enhance NPS-sponsored conferences. Thanks, Roger, Nancy and the rest. However, there are no regularly scheduled member conferences, no active newsletters, and from what I can gather, no effective effort to consolidate the issues and concerns facing all NPS maintenance staff from the field level.

I could be way off base on this. It could be that each region’s facility management divisions are doing an effective job establishing and maintaining lines of communication with the field. If this is so, maybe the reasons for originally creating ANPME are no longer valid. Obviously, something is causing less and less interest in ANPME. Do folks just don’t have the time, interest or need for this type of organization? Do we need volunteers to step forward and help lead — or is it something else? I just would like to know.

I do have a suggestion. The next Ranger Rendezvous is in Charleston. I would invite anyone interested in either discussing the future of ANPME as an independent group or combining with ANPR to come to Charleston. If you can’t come, I’d still like to hear from you and your thoughts on ANPME. You can send a note to me at annlarry239@earthlink.net or to P.O. Box 6038, Helendale, CA 92342.

And please, it would be appreciated if you could pass this issue of Ranger along to your maintenance staffs. Thanks.

Protection

A Tribute to our Sister Divisions — Our mission is a complicated one, at times seemingly paradoxical in its mandates. Congress requires us to “conserve the scenery, et al” while at the same time “providing for the enjoyment of the same by future generations.”

It’s no surprise that no single division can achieve such a complex mission on its own. Our sister divisions need our help to accomplish it, and we rangers often rely on their expertise to do our jobs effectively. It boils down to teamwork, and when it’s done right, each division compliments the others.

This, then, is a salute to the exemplary work they do and the remarkable people they are. Every ranger knows firsthand the benefits of working closely with other divisions. We know, too, that the responsibilities of each division within any park are inextricably linked. What one does — or fails to do — frequently has a direct impact on the operations of others and sometimes the park as whole.

Take interp, for example. These talented, highly educated folks are the vital connection between visitor and resource. They turn on the light bulbs — they make the visitor say, “Oh, okay . . . so that’s how that works.” They serve as a liaison for the visiting public, revealing the intricate nuances of the resources that might otherwise be out of reach.

Protection rangers know that visitors who better understand our resources usually comply with regulations written to protect them. Also, well-informed visitors are less likely to need rescue later. It’s the interpreters who are diligent in conveying this necessary information . Thank you, interpreters, for long hours at the visitor centers, for designing educational media, answering ridiculous questions, stirring the soul of a future park ranger — and for everything else you do.

As resource protection officers, we absolutely depend on the knowledge and expertise of our brothers and sisters in the resource management division. First of all, they’re just plain smarter than we are. They usually have several advanced degrees in various resource-based disciplines, and as far as I’m concerned, they are genuine scientists. Not only that, but they’re not afraid to sweat. They butcher road-killed carcasses, hose down the exotics, risk electrocution wading over slippery rocks with a 45-pound shocker, study wildfire effects, snowshoe 10 miles to measure snowpack, and memorize scientific names for critters whose common names we don’t even know. Thank you, resource management, for your hard-earned wisdom and your toils that often go unnoticed.

And how about those maintenance workers? Does anyone work harder? Rain or shine, wind chill or heat index, nine miles up the trail or right outside HQ, maintenance is out there doing what they do every day. We get called out for a tree across the road at midnight . . . so do they. We get called out to check winter road conditions . . . so do they and they’re usually already plowing. They maintain our fleet, repair our ranger stations, build trails, fight fires right there with us, handcraft park signs, keep park roads safe and call in suspicious behavior for us. Thank you, maintenance, for all your unsung labor, the irreplaceable skills you display every day, and your indomitable spirit.

I would be remiss if I failed to praise the very people who keep our parks running — administration. Stated simply, park operations would cease to function without these folks. They are the behind-the-scenes professionals who procure property, crank out training forms, TAs and personnel actions, attend meetings ad nauseum, write plans, maintain our computers, communicate with neighboring communities, and, in the case of superintendents and their assistants, oversee overall park operations. Again, many thanks, admin, for your devotion to duty, your fellow employees, and of course, the mission.

Last, but certainly not least, are our fellow ranger division personnel whose jobs, though different from ours, are equally crucial to the mission: campground and entrance station rangers, fire personnel, dispatchers and others.

Often times the first people a visitor contacts wearing green and gray are the visitor use assistants. They play a pivotal role in the vacations of so many, as well as communicating to them the purpose of the NPS. As for the fire folks, I’d need an entire column to sing their praises. Suffice it to say they have my highest respects and even some envy. Any chance we rangers have to work side-by-side with these heroes, we should take it with gusto. And of course, the dispatchers — the “Voices of Angels.” Outstanding dispatchers are truly worth their weight in gold.

I thank God every day for the magnificent setting in which I work, as well as the purposeful and noble work we do as rangers. But I am grateful also for the exceptional people I work with. You make coming to work every day a real honor.

You’re here to remind us a few good things remain.

~ Kevin Moses, Big South Fork

Resource Management

Last fall marked the 40th anniversary of passage of the Wilderness Act. In that time, Congress has designated more than 106 million acres — 677 areas in 44 states — as wilderness areas.

The National Park Service manages about 40 percent of the designated acreage, while the U.S. Forest Service manages nearly 33 percent, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about 20 percent, and the Bureau of Land Management less than 7 percent.

The NPS-designated wilderness is in 45 different park units (including Buffalo River, Craters of the Moon, Fire Island, Carlsbad Caverns, Gulf Islands, Shenandoah, Death Valley, Olympic, Mount Rainier, 10 units in California and eight units in Alaska) but none of the parks in either Utah or Wyoming. Another 39 have recommended or proposed wilderness, which under NPS management policies is to be managed so as not to preclude its eventual designation as wilderness.

In January 2005, the Wes Henry National Excellence in Wilderness Stewardship Award, including a commemorative plaque and monetary award, was presented to Dan Burgette, a recently retired ranger and wilderness manager. Throughout his career, Burgette promoted standards and ethics for managing wilderness areas in parks.

In his longest and last assignment at Grand Teton, he helped to develop a wilderness management plan for the park, served as chairman of the park’s wilderness committee and led efforts to implement a minimum tool analysis for projects in the Teton Range. He developed the park’s first backcountry campsite monitoring program in 1982, and the resultant data helped direct wilderness rehabilitation work, including reseeding and transplanting of native alpine vegetation to restore heavily used areas high on the Grand Teton.

When high-altitude human waste became a problem, Burgette helped start a “pack-it-out” system. He presented talks and papers on wilderness at various conferences and trainings, and served on the Intermountain Region Wilderness Executive Committee, advocating the value of wilderness while recognizing many different perspectives and applying a pragmatic approach to solving management issues in wild lands.

Wes Henry, former leader of the NPS wilderness program, died of cancer in December 2003. He led a quiet, persistent campaign to keep wilderness in the forefront of NPS managers’ minds and hearts. The award in his name is given annually to one or more persons and/or groups from within the agency who champion the cause of wilderness protection within parks. These outstanding contributions can involve education and interpretation, management of natural, cultural and social resources, planning, protection and/or maintenance operations.

Park and other wildland managers continue to wrestle with thorny issues such as permitting administrative uses, high-tech rescues and research; preserving cultural resources; and balancing high levels of human use with protection of natural resources in wilderness areas.

May there be more young rangers and other personnel to follow in the footsteps of Wes Henry, Dan Burgette and others by studying the history and intent of the Wilderness Act, along with the lessons learned and shared by managers and researchers across the nation.

Resources to assist interested wilderness students include the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, both in Missoula, Mt. Please check http://www.wilderness.net.

Thanks to Jackie Skaggs and Andy Fisher for providing text related to Dan Burgette’s career.

~ Sue Consolo Murphy, Grand Teton