Fees at Cades Creek and other frontcountry campgrounds at Great Smoky Mountains National Park would increase under a new proposal/NPS
Three years ago, Great Smoky Mountains National Park didn’t open some campgrounds and picnic areas due to funding shortfalls. Now, the park is proposing fee increases of up to 30 percent at all frontcountry campgrounds and picnic pavilions to meet the rising costs of operations, reduce a backlog of maintenance requirements on park facilities, and initiate needed improvements.
The park operates nine campgrounds, seven group campgrounds, and five horse campgrounds. Additionally, the park maintains six picnic pavilions, which are available for reservation through Recreation.gov. The fees have not been increased since 2006 or earlier at any facility aside from Cataloochee Campground, which had an increase when it was added to the reservation system in 2011. Unlike most large national parks, Great Smoky Mountains does not charge an entrance fee and therefore has limited means for increasing revenue.
“In recent years, the park has compensated for budget imbalances due to inflation by reducing visitor services, delaying maintenance repairs, and, in some cases, reducing the length of time facilities are open, which particularly affects visitors during the shoulder seasons,” park Superintendent Cassius Cash said in a release. “While we recognize that fee increases are often unpopular, we are committed to maintaining this ‘crown jewel’ of the National Park Service where visitors can create lasting memories through camping and picnicking in the Smokies.”
In addition to the fee increases, the park is proposing to add Abrams Creek, Balsam Mountain and Big Creek campgrounds to the National Recreation Reservation System. As proposed, all sites would require advanced reservation and payment prior to arrival through Recreation.gov either online or by phone. By placing these three remote campgrounds on the reservation system, the park can reduce campground operation costs by eliminating the need for staff time for fee collection. The reservation system also provides a more efficient process for visitors to secure an overnight stay without traveling to the remote locations to check for vacancies.
The proposal is open to public comment through June 27, and the park will host open houses June 20 at the Oconaluftee Visitor Center Administration Building near Cherokee, North Carolina, and June 23 at Park Headquarters near Gatlinburg, Tennessee. A detailed breakdown of the proposed fees for specific campgrounds and pavilions can be found in an information sheet posted online. If approved, all changes could take effect as early as Oct. 1, 2016; however, implementation of some changes may be deferred until the 2017 season.
There are no proposed changes to backcountry camping fees.
Look Rock Campground and picnic area, which were closed in 2013 due to funding shortfalls and a deteriorating water system, will remain closed. It was one of the least-used campgrounds in the park and is the only one detached from the main body of the park.
By law, the park maintains 100 percent of the camping and pavilion fees to reinvest in facility maintenance, including routine maintenance and infrastructure improvements, and provide services that benefit park visitors. In 2015, park revenue from camping and pavilion fees totaled about $1.6 million. The proposed fee increases are expected to generate approximately $400,000. In recent years, recreation fee money has been used to support a variety of projects, including daily maintenance and utility costs along with rehabilitation projects such as the replacement of picnic tables and grills.
National Park Service policy maintains that fees for services like camping and pavilions are set so as not to create unfair competition with private sector facilities in the area or put them at a disadvantage. A 2016 study by the park revealed that, while camping fees in Smokies have remained largely constant since 2006, campground fees in the surrounding communities have continued to rise. Even with the increases, park campgrounds would remain among the least expensive in the area.
The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Interagency Senior or Access Pass holders receive a 50 percent discount in camping fees for frontcountry individual and horse campsites. There is no plan to increase the price of these national passes, which is $10 for lifetime Senior Pass and free for the Access pass. Passes are available at Smokemont, Elkmont, and Cades Cove campgrounds, and park visitor centers.
The park will host two informational open houses where the general public, partners, and stakeholder representatives are invited to learn more about the proposal and submit written comments:
- 5 to 7 p.m. June 20, Oconaluftee Visitor Center Administration Building, 1194 Newfound Gap Road, Cherokee, NC
- 5 to 7 p.m. June 23, Park Headquarters Lobby, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN
To comment
- Deadline: June 27, 2016
- Online: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=65450
- Mail: Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Attn: Proposal to Increase Fees, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 37738
- E-mail: [email protected]
Note that comments submitted anonymously will not be accepted. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, know that your entire comment (including your personal information) is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and may be made publicly available. While you may request in your comment to withhold your personal identifying from public review, the park cannot guarantee that it will legally be able to do so.
Comments
Fee, Fee, Fee. Ca$$iu$ is fulfilling his name and raison d'etre. He is of the same cloth as Jarvis. At least now the frontcountry campers can feel the burn. In Colorado, they are charging folks to dayhike national forest trails. This is what has happened to Mather, Muir and Roosevelt's vision of public lands. Lands for which we pay taxes. Lots of them.
Smokies, you really believe you pay "lots" of taxes to support our parks?
I've asked you to do some math before, but you won't. But let's try again.
The NPS budget is something like 0.001 of the national budget. Take a look at your last tax returns. How much did you pay in Federal Income Tax?
If your income was between $75,000 and $100,000, you paid about $9000 in Federal income tax. If you multiply 9000 by 0.001, you discover that your contribution to the NPS was a whopping $9.00!
So if you are an average American who earns a middle income figure, you paid less than TEN DOLLARS in taxes to the NPS.
Somehow, your argument seems to ring very hollow. The Great American Entitlement Mentality causes unrealistic people to unrealistically expect -- nay, even DEMAND -- an ever increasing number of high quality services without having to pay for them.
I'm afraid that a lot of our fellow citizens still believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Overall, a total of $559.1 million in discretionary and $300.0 million in mandatory funds will allow NPS over ten years to make targeted, measurable, and quantifiable upgrades to all 6,735 of its highest priority non-transportation assets and restore and maintain them in good condition. The specific programs are identified in the table below.
That is from the 2016 NPS Greenbook wherein they outline the specific budget increases given by President Obama. So the NPS gets their budgets increased steadily and still whine for money. You NPS people never get enough, Lee. You are cash drunk from hard earned taxpayer money. Go work in the private sector and tell me how often you get a raise like that?
There is an 800-pound gorilla in this proposal that is easily overlooked. It's hidden in this sentence:
What that means is that even if you arrive at one of these campgrounds and there is an open, unreserved site available, you can't occupy it until you pay a reservation fee to recreation.gov of $9 if booked online or $10 by phone - and you can only pay by credit card. So that's about a 60% increase on a one-night stay at the current rate of $14/night. At the proposed increase of 25% on the base rate, it's about a 50% increase. And if you qualify for the Senior or Disabled discount, you'll pay more for the reservation than you will for the campsite!
It's the next step in the recreation.gov plan to become the gatekeeper (and collect a toll) for all recreational access to federal land.
These parks are ours! Sick of the Park Service. They market Yosemite like Disneyland all over the world. I am born in America and I can't reserve a campground, unless I do it 6 months ahead of time. The Park Service/National Forest just want to make money to feather thier pockets and fund thier benifits and retirement. We are all stupid....we can complain all we like, but everything will get worst not better.
There are three major dealers of RV vehicles within a few miles of my home. They all have at least 100 RVs in their lots waiting to be sold. Some are nearly 40 feet long. They will be purchased by Americans and will add to the already clogged campgrounds in our parks and forests. How many other similar dealerships exist nation wide? Is it the Park and Forest Services trying to "feather their pockets" or is it what Edward Abbey called "industrial tourism?"
Is it really the Park Service marketing our parks all over the world? Or could it be tour companies; chambers of commerce; or states like Utah (which spent a few million last year on an international ad campaign)? Even Utah's Senator Hatch got into the act this week: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865655337/Hatch-touts-Utahs-scenic-di...
The problem is much, much larger and complex than most of us can comprehend. But when it comes to assigning blame, it's very easy to pick the closest target instead of looking for the real causes. The agencies that operate our public recreation areas are trying desperately to catch up to a tsunami of users. Instead of casting ill-informed blame, how about providing ideas for solutions?
If YOU were the NPS director or head of BLM or USFS or even state and local parks, what would YOU do?
I have a very strong hunch the answer to that question will be almost total silence -- or more meaningless and angry tirades with no solutions.
While I am not one that is diametrically opposed to rising fees I wouldn't lobby for more parks that would further stretch the budget (North Woods) and instead would work to eliminate certain park units that either don't fit the mission or could be managed effectively by state, local or private entities.
Smoky, first you're dodging the question and failed to tell us how much YOU personally contributed to the parks in your taxes.
Second, you're misinterpreting data from the Green Book. The president proposes a budget. Congress than adds to or subtracts from the proposal. The Park Service is not assured of annual budget increases.
The Green Book is a wish list and little more.