Expect an increase in the cost of enjoyment in the National Park System/NPS
As we told you last month, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has given his superintendents the OK to increase entrance and other fees in their parks once they've conducted the requisite public outreach and engagement. And now we're starting to see some of the proposals, which range from higher entrance fees to "special recreation fees" that are being proposed to help cash-strapped parks.
While many fees are likely to increase by $5 or $10, there could be more creativity into fee collections aimed at generating more money for the parks. One example has surfaced at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin, where officials are proposing a $5-per-person fee to visit the ice caves that form on the shores of Lake Superior during particularly cold winters.
'We are committed to keeping the park affordable but we also want to provide visitors with the best possible experience while not over burdening our partners," Chris Smith, the lakeshore's acting superintendent, said in a release announcing the proposal.
Director Jarvis, in a memo to his superintendents, outlined an entrance fee schedule that placed the 131 units that now charge entrance fees into four groups. The four groupings are intended to reflect the size and expense of running a park. So parks such as Yellowstone in Wyoming, Grand Canyon in Arizona, Glacier in Montana, and Yosemite in California would be in Group 4, while parks such as Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve in Idaho would be in Group 1.
Under Director Jarvis' schedule, by 2017 all parks in Group 4 would charge $30 per week for vehicle entry, $15 for someone on foot, and $25 for a motorcycle; all Group 3 parks would set their entrance fees at $25, $12 and $20; all Group 2 parks would move to $20, $10, and $15, and; all Group 1 parks would move to $15, $7 and $10.
But some other changes might also appear. For instance, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks currently share a joint entrance fee of $25 that gets you and everyone in your car or truck into both parks for seven days. During a meeting last month with academics, historians, and reporters brought together for a parks workshop sponsored by the Property and Environment Research Center Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk said he might suggest ending that relationship so all $25 that is paid to enter Yellowstone stays in his park.
Additionally, the superintendent noted that the average Yellowstone visitor spends 2.8 days in the park, so why sell a seven-day pass?
When you think of how inflation has treated park entrance fees -- that $10 fee charged in 1915 equates to $230.74 in 2014 dollars -- entrance to the parks under the existing pricing structure might literally be described as a steal. But what would you think if, en route to Yellowstone, you are asked for a $25 fee to enter Grand Teton at Moran Junction and then, 27 miles later, asked for another $25 to enter Yellowstone?
While the changes Superintendent Wenk discussed are not even proposals -- they haven't been formally floated to the public -- the current fiscal fitness of the National Park Service is forcing superintendents to be creative with the fees they are allowed to charge.
Yellowstone, for example, received and spent nearly $76 million during Fiscal 2014, which came to an end last month. A little less than half that total -- $33.8 million -- arrived via base funding from the Park Service, while the rest (roughly $42 million) came from line item construction projects, entrance fees, campground fees, fishing permit fees, concession franchise fees, donations, housing rent, and some other sources, according to Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash.
"But significant amounts of money are spent annually by others in Yellowstone on infrastructure owned by the federal government. Some examples are the money we get through the Federal Highways for road construction projects, money spent from the Concession Facilities Improvement Program and the Concession operator's repair/rehab funds," Mr. Nash continued. "This funding can vary widely from year to year... recently ranging from just under $12 million in FY11 to about $30.6 million in FY14. Again, this is money spent on government-owned infrastructure in the park but NOT directly received by the NPS or spent by the NPS. Therefore, for the fiscal year which just ended, roughly $106.3 million was spent either by the NPS or by others on NPS infrastructure in Yellowstone."
While Yellowstone likely will announce its proposed fee changes later this year, other parks are already starting to go down the road.
At Apostle Islands, officials ran up a bill of roughly $450,000 to handle the more than 135,000 people who turned out over a 10-week period to tour the ice caves.
"Park staff worked between 40 and 100 percent of their regular time on the ice caves," Julie Van Stappen, the park's chief of planning and resource management, said Wednesday. 'People were working super-long hours, so there was overtime. And we had to bring in special events team from other parks, so there was some travel involved in that.'
Park Service staff was needed to monitor ice conditions, respond to injuries visitors sustained falling on the ice, and direct traffic. While the Park Service's Midwest Regional Office helped defray some of the expenses, that financial help is not guaranteed in the future, said Ms. Van Stappen.
Friends of Apostle Islands did provide $16,000 to cover the cost of portal toilets set up to handle the crowds, but over-time incurred by lakeshore staff over the ten-week period was significant, said Ms. Van Stappen.
"People worked not only their regular hours, they worked weekends, up to 16-hour days, and a lot of people didn't have any days off for a long period of time," she said.
Against those costs, the park collected $47,000 in fees charged at Meyers Beach. At the same time, the lure of the ice caves generated $10 million for the local communities, the park noted.
The proposed ice cave fee would be charged to visitors 12 and older. Two open houses have been scheduled near the lakeshore to discuss the fee:
* October 22, 10 a.m.-noon at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland, Wisconsin
* October 23, 4 p.m.-6 p.m. at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Headquarters, 415 Washington Ave., Bayfield, Wisconsin
You can review the proposal, and submit comments, at this website. Written comments can be sent to [email protected] or Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 415 Washington Avenue, Bayfield, Wisconsin 54814 Attn: Myra Foster.
Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park just announced a proposal to increase its entrance fees, which have remained static since 1997, from $10 to $15 for next year. The increases would continue to $20 in 2016 and $25 in 2017 unless there's strong public pushback.
"While we are committed to keeping the park affordable for everyone, we are also dedicated to providing the safest and most enjoyable experience for our visitors and community. Entrance fees are vital to support the numerous services and amenities that make the visitor experience possible,' said Superintendent Cindy Orlando.
At Hawai'i Volcanoes, some entrance fee monies are being used on a project now underway to replace the wooden boardwalk at the Pu'u Loa Petroglyphs. Other fee-funded projects include ongoing trail maintenance, cabin repairs, hike pamphlets, restrooms, and picnic tables, the park said in a release.
Eighty percent of all entrance fees stay within Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, Superintendent Orlando noted. The money also helps to "protect the Hawaiian ecosystem by funding fencing projects that prevent non-native pests like pigs and goats from devouring rare native plants."
Table of Proposed Recreational Fee Increases (in dollars) for Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park:
Annual Pass
Per-Vehicle Fee
(good for 7 days)
Per-Person Fee
(walk-ins & bicycles)
Motorcycle Rate
Current
25
10
5
5
2015
25
15
8
10
2016
25
20
10
15
2017
50
25
12
20
2018
50
25
12
20
2019
50
25
12
20
2020
50
25
12
20
2021
50
25
12
20
Under the proposed fee schedule, entrance fees would also increase for commercial tour companies. Currently, road-based tour vans carrying one to six passengers pay a $25 base fee and $5 per person to enter the park. The per-person entrance rates will increase to $8 in 2015; $10 in 2016; and $12 in 2017, through 2021. The base fee will not change. Non-road-based tour companies, i.e. hiking tour companies that are on trails more than they are touring the park by vehicle, don't pay a base rate but their per-person fees would increase under the proposed schedule.
In addition, the park will soon charge $10 per permit for all overnight backcountry and front-country camping, with a maximum of three consecutive nights at one spot. Currently, camping is free, except at NÄmakanipaio Campground, which is managed by Hawai'i Volcanoes Lodge Company, LLC. The new camping permit fees are similar to other public camping fees statewide.
You can comment on the proposed increases at Hawai'i Volcanoes at this site. You also can submit comments in writing, addressed to Superintendent, Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, P.O. Box 52, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718. The deadline for comments is Dec. 15, 2014 at 11:59 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Comment cards will also be provided at the KÄ«lauea Visitor Center seven days a week, from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Comments
ecbuck,
The cliff notes version, with editorial comments, is posted at
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR5204_WhatsInIt.pdf
Let's remember who mandated the Federal land management agencies to collect fees in the first place., the legislative arm of congress the GAO. While not opposed to higher weekly entrance fees I believe the American public needs a real Interagency federal lands pass that includes Interior, Dept. Of Agriculture and Department of a Defense lands.
Thanks.
Beachdumb--God forbid that that the employees of the NPS look like the face of America. As to LGBT sites:
Sites that commemorate the contributions of American women--Betsy Ross. Women's Rights, etc.
Sites that commemorate the contributions of Hispanics--Dry Tortugas. El Morro, etc.
Sites that commemorate the contribution of American authors--Eugene O'Neil, Longfellow, etc.
Sites that commemorate the contributions of American sculptors--Saint Gaudens
Sites that commemorate the contributions of American blacks--Martin Luther King, Tuskegee Airmen, etc.
So what's so different?--other than you apparently don't like LGBT people.
Rick
Sorry KB - can't share your outrage. And don't see why Lee is so against it except that his nemesis Bishop is involved.
While it's easy to criticize the NPS for possible fee increases, there's some interesting perspective in a comment above:
"Let's remember who mandated the Federal land management agencies to collect fees in the first place., the legislative arm of congress, the GAO."
Did the idea that parks should "pay their own way" as much as possible in order to reduce government spending originate with the agency ... or with others in government? Just asking.
It's never made much sense to me to charge by the car load. Why not by the number of actual people entering the park, using the facilities, walking the trails etc? I also wish someone would ask those in charge of budgeting just how much money is enough? Like every agency that spends other people’s money it seems like it is never enough. I don't see anywhere that these fee increases will stop the cries of not enough money or address the maintenance backlog.
As for the ice caves, I’m not sure who was responsible for marketing, but never have I read so many articles about the ice caves as last year. Had it not been for the publicity they received I suspect the number of visitors would have been manageable. So “if” it was the NPS who marketed them but now says they need more money to support it I have little sympathy. If in fact it was the city of bayfield, then I think the NPS should get the money directly from those businesses that prosper from marketing or hand over the duties of crowd control, medical support, bathrooms etx. to the city. I think in another post some time ago I said pretty soon the NPS will charge to see the sunrise or to look at a waterfall. Charging to see the ice caves is not much different.
Rick, have no problem with your LGBT community, this is still, sort of, a free country. It's the priorities of the NPS that are a problem. I still want to know how many resources and money are being spent on this initiative. I don't get trying to find more sites when the NPS can't manage what they have now.
"The cliff notes version, with editorial comments, is posted at
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR5204_WhatsInIt.pdf"
This is why I said not to use WSNF as a source. This 'paper' contains many falsehoods and mis-statements. For example:
"The agencies’ authority to declare fee-free days would be repealed." This is untrue. On WSNF's blue line, please see pg. 23, line 7-11.
"Active duty military “may” get a free annual pass." Under current FLREA, there is no provision for giving active military (or their family) a free annual pass. The additional aside by WSNF is ridiculous considering they are pointing out something that currently doesn't exist.
"Concessionaires 'shall' be required to accept federal passes but only 'to the extent reimbursement is practicable.'" Concessionaires are not currently required to accept the pass for discounts. Any move towards forcing concessionaires to accept the discount pass would be an improvement.
"Senior and Disabled passes would have to provide some discount on campground fees, but the amount of the discount is not specified. Currently they receive a 50% discount. That would likely not be continued, since the concessionaires hate having to give it, and would likely be replaced with a lesser discount..." Under current FLREA, no discount is required to be given for amenity fees to senior and disabled pass holders. There is no provision in writing for a discount. This version requires a discount to be given. And, it requires the discount be given by consessionaires.
There are many other problems with WSNF's 'analysis' of HR5204 (these were quick and easy pickings). WSNF is propigating mis-information to further their agenda. While I may agree with WSNF's goal of keeping this rewrite from passing congress, I disagree with their methods.