You are here

House Committee Poised To Rewrite National Park Fee Authority

Share

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

Well, Comrade, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has pumped about $698,000 into Summit County in Colorado

Lacking any citation, I will have to take your word for it.  So in 50 years, it has averaged $1,396 per year.  Given 100 million people are paying into the fund, your share is minute fractions of a a penny.

And here is the funny part.   The average home in Breckenridge sells for more than $850,000 and the Town (not city) of Breckenridge has an annual budget of $60 million.  $2.5 million of that goes toward acquiring and maintaining open space. (http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/index.aspx?page=1596)  The total county government spending is in excess of $100 million with even more millions going into open space.   Does Summit County need $1,396 from the LWCF? No.  And there is no reason you or anyone else should be paying for our parks and trails.

Does that mean there are no parks or trails that warrant Federal money?  No.  Multistate trails such as the PCT, Continental Divide, AT and parks of national significance (including the NPS) do warrant Federal monies because they appeal not only to the locals but to a large population of non-locals.

Local trails, parks and playgrounds are for the most part for locals and should be paid for by the locals.  Noone is entitled to have their local trails, parks and playgrounds paid for by someone else.  


Well, SmokiesBackpacker, I have spent a few thousand $$ this year recreating on public land. And ECBuck, I have spent a few thousand $$ more recreating on state and local land. Chances are I have been to parks all over the country that were funded by LWCF. I don't think I have paid more than 'my fair share' and I am grateful that all those lands with parks and hiking trails exist. For any one person to believe that they have a right to pick and choose what is worthy is ludicrous. This same argument has been going on here for the three or so years I have been a member.

Personally, I regard the parks the same way I regard the highways, police, firefighters, military, and any other 'socialist' funding - I may not use them all but I am glad they exist in case I want or need to.


 For any one person to believe that they have a right to pick and choose what is worthy is ludicrous.

Its not whether they are worthy, it is who should pay for it.  I don't expect you to pay for my police, fireman or roads either.  Now interstate highways and military are another matter because those are national, not local assets.  


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.