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
First, if Rob Bishop of Utah is involved, watch out!
Second, it's almost amusing to watch as the Party of No Taxes convulses in its efforts to raise money to cover essential services without using the obscene "T-word."
But it takes money to run our parks and if this is necessary, then so be it.
Instead of requiring the NPS to take public comments, then summarily throw them in the trash, how about passing rules to require the NPS to actually incorporate public comments. Eveyone knows the NPS checks a box on the public comments then dismisses them only to march blithely on to their predetermined agendas. It is smoke and mirrors that gives free reign to Jarvis cabal of dishonest superintendents. How many times have public comments disagreed with a policy only to see that policy enacted with no change? All the time. What a bureacratic scam.
Not familiar with that party - must be another one of your strawmen.
Its almost amusing to watch as you, you have advocated for higher fees, now convulse because someone with an R after his name is proposing them.
Tax the rich.
Nope. Not convulsing at all. Fees are needed because taxes are not being used wisely. It would be far better to see Mr. Bishop and his buddies working to wisely use government funds instead of tossing them out as bait for more campaign contributions.
Why can't (or won't) they simply be honest about what they are doing?
Yup. Obvious answer. They'd probably lose the next election.
SmokiesBackpacker's level of cynicism once again distorts the reality of the integrity of park officials. Only yesterday i received a letter from the park service in response to public comments on a national park in Hawaii, at the same time news articles went out where the park service backed away from proposed boundary changes and park management changes BECAUSE of public input. Perhaps SmokiesBackpacker should consider that the reason the park service did not accept SmokiesBackpacker's comments is that they either were inconsistent with the policies governing national parks, or not good for the Great Smokies. Public comments are VERY carefully considered and even argued through before decisions are made, and a great deal of scrutiny goes into such decisions, not only by the park managers involved, but by Solicitors who do not work for the National Park Service and by the supervisors of managers and independent professional divisions. It would be so much more effective of SmokiesBackpacker to learn how to participate effectively in the rule making process than shake her/his fist at the sky, and calling names of the Director of the National Park Service and park superintendents because of her/his own inability to participate effectively.
It's unfair to say taxes are not being used wisely....there simply isn't enough in the park service budget to provide the level of services park visitors demand. The parks are being loved to death. Fees create parks that only the rich can afford to visit.
because taxes are not being used wisely
I would agree with that but I suspect we would have different views on what using them wisely would entail. Believe it or not, lke you I would allocate more to the parks. Our difference is who we would take it away from.
But in general, I have not problem with the fees. The closer we get the payment to the beneficiary, the better off we will be. And that applies to more than just the parks.