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
Have to disagree with you Smokies - I have no problem making those that use the parks contribute more than those that don't. We have many services that are provided by government but still have usage fees associated with them.
Well, I'm sure other readers will be able to judge who actually passed or failed high school civics here.
Imet horoshiy den, tovarishch.
Apparently your Russian class failed you as well. LOL
Depends upon what part of Russia you come from. Down in Southern Russia, they have kind of a drawl. Or what kind of job Google Translator does . . . . .
So, cheers, comrade!
Enjoy your next hike on one of those Colorado trails that I paid for. We taxpayers here in Utah are checking to see if we can start charging toll fees for all you Colorado types who trespass on the trails we helped fund over there every time we filled our tanks.
Have a smiling day!
EDIT : Just did a little research. Apparently there really are different spellings in some areas an then there is the plural form. Here's just one source I found http://www.memidex.com/tovarisch
Gee, y'just never know what you're liable learn from Traveler!
So tell me Lee, which Colorado trail did you pay for?
So far this past year, I've paid a couple hundred dollars to sleep on bare ground in the Smokies with no amenities provided by the NPS on land donated to the federal govt by TN and NC residents, whose ancestors sorely regret the gift. So I think I have paid more than my fair share to the govt to use govt land with no amenities provided. Which is bull. So you NPS folks can whine all you want, I suspect that the Natural Resources Committee will get quite a bit of feedback from the public. I already heard what they said about backcountry camping fees in the NPS. The head of the committee derided it so they are definitely getting an earful from folks NOT AFFILIATED with the NPS like you sycophants.
Let's please try to make our points without casting insults and names about...
Well, Comrade, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has pumped about $698,000 into Summit County in Colorado. Projects cover a wide range and variety of outdoor recreation for the City of Breckenridge and the rest of the county.
I probably contributed maybe a quarter or perhaps even as much as fifty cents to your recreational facilities.
Most likely about equal to what you contributed to the Fund for use in Weber County, Utah.
Nowhere near the value of the projects to the residents of our respective communities. Believe it or not, there are some values that can't be measured in dollars simply because they are priceless.
I hope you and your grandchildren are enjoying my donation to your parks and on behalf of my neighbors here, we thank you for your assistance to us.
I will never hike a trail in your hometown, but as a proud American Patriot, I'm glad to be able to help make our nation even a little bit better for all of us.