A much anticipated hearing before the House Natural Resource Committee arrives Wednesday, and the outcome could be higher fees for national park visitors.
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.
Among other provisions of the draft legislation (attached below), one would restrict permit fee charges to no more than 3 percent of the permit holder's annual gross revenue from their business. The legislation also directs the federal land-management agencies to look into technology and automation that could "increase accountability, efficiency, and the convenience of paying recreation fees." (e.g., an E-ZPass system for entering national parks).
Along with requiring the land-management agencies to seek public comment on proposed fee increases, as currently is done, the measure if enacted would require the agencies to seek comment from gateway communities as well.
Foreign visitors would no longer be able to purchase an America the Beautiful -- the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass under the legislation. Too, the cost of the passes, currently $80 for most, would be recalculated every three years to reflect changes in the Consumer Price index. Language in the measure also would give the Interior secretary the authority to provide passes free to members of the U.S. military.
In testimony it was drafting for Wednesday's hearing, National Parks Conservation Association officials were supportive of many of the provisions, yet expressed concern for many others. Among those it expressed concern with were:
* Wording that required Congressional approval for any new or increased fees.
* A change that would alter the current 80-20 fee revenue split -- 80 percent remains 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 -- to a 90-10 split.
"This proposed shift in the funding formula would likely benefit fee-collecting parks, but at the expense of the competitive account that benefits parks that cannot collect fees," NPCA's draft said. "Since less than half of park sites collect fees, we fear this formula change would reduce opportunities to enhance recreation and visitor programs and improve infrastructure in the over 200 parks that do not currently collect fees."
The legislation, would, however, reduce the amount agencies can spend on administration of fee programs from 15 percent to 5 percent.
* No consideration of increasing the Senior Pass fee from its current $10 charge, which provides for a lifetime pass.
"A modest adjustment to this fee has the potential to leverage important revenue. Today, approximately 400,000 to 500,000 Senior Passes are sold every year at national parks. The US Census Bureau projects the nation’s 65-and-older population to reach 83.7 million in the year 2050, nearly doubling the size of that population from 2012; this growth would likely lead to a growth in seniors visiting parks," said the draft testimony. "A modest modification of the Senior Pass would foster additional fee revenue that could provide additional recreation benefits to seniors, among other park visitors."
* A provision that would allow concessionaires to extend their seasons at their own discretion. In their draft NPCA officials cautioned that, "...such actions may inevitably pose a risk of unforeseen negative impacts to under-resourced park staff and/or to park resources."
The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.
Comments
No, I don't think it's at all unfair to think that taxes are not being used wisely. (I didn't mean the Park Service is using them unwisely.) When Congress insists upon production of a new fighter aircraft that the Pentagon had to be strongarmed into deploying, and that still doesn't work well at all with new problems cropping up nearly every day -- that's what I mean.
As for parks only the rich can afford -- heck, that's right in keeping with all the rest of the current economic trend. The party of Grand Old Plutocrats should be delighted. Their policies are tinkling down upon the rest of us.
..the reality of the integrity of park officials?" Like Jarvis brother who lobbies the NPS or the Supt who cut down trees for the football team or the Super who shut down the Indian trader and ruined a man's life? Yeah, tell me about integrity in the NPS, it doesn't exist at that level.
The NPS uses fee money for many things, and I believe there needs to be more accountability. Fee managers sometimes act as if they are big bankers and forget they are trusted public servants. I say send it to Treasury.
From today's Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3120399-155/rob-bishop-taking-hits-for-blocking
I would like to ask Ms. Julie Peck-Dabling why she believes that someone else should be funding her local trail or some rural park or playground.
Someone else, EC? The LWCF is funded through off-shore drilling fees, not taxpayer dollars. Seems to me the sponsors of the legislation passed back in 1965 got it right. Use those fees to help Americans from coast-to-coast enjoy recreational amenities, whether it be the Bonneville Shoreline Trail or city parks or river trails.
Would you rather the fees just went back into the general treasury for Congress to decide what to do with the money, instead of communities across the country benefiting from it?
I think/hope you'd agree putting the dollars to work for the designated purposes behind the LWCF is better than letting the whims of Congress decide how to spend the money, no?
Are those fees not paid by "someone else"? You know where those fees show up? In the price you pay for gas. I ask again, why should "someone else" pay for her local trail or some rural playground?. Where is Lee with his "entitilement" tirade?
ec, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating it. I doubt any of us who read Traveler regularly will have much trouble conjuring up visions of how loud and pathetic your wailings would be if you didn't have recreational opportunities that are certainly paid for by others.
How about making a list of all the public facilities, trails, forests, rivers, roads, sewers, water pipes, bridges, police agencies, fire departments, streetlights, city parks, and more that you will never ever use again because they are paid for by others?
It reminds me of the recent photo of the man wearing a Don't Tread on Me t-shirt who was thanking a couple of fire fighters for saving his home in one of the Washington or Oregon wildfires.