Your national park experience could get more expensive under rule changes for concessionaires being proposed by the National Park Service/NPS file, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, Dave Bruner
In a move described as a means to improving the national park experience for visitors, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is proposing to ease regulations for park concessionaires with hopes they'd add services in the parks and invest in facilities. Along the way, the changes also could make that experience more expensive.
The initiative was condemned Thursday as a giveaway to private businesses that want to profit from the National Park System.
"The Trump administration is plowing forward with a plan to give away America's national park assets to monied private concessionaires without a Senate-confirmed national parks director in the middle of a pandemic," said Jayson O’Neill, director of the Western Values Project that routinely criticizes the Trump administration's public lands management. "Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. This proposal is as wrong as it is backward.”
Last fall Interior's Subcommittee on Recreation Enhancement Through Reorganization drafted a proposal that called for some significant changes to visitor services in the park system. It recommended upgrades to park campgrounds, additional services such as Wi-Fi and possibly food trucks, and suggested that concessionaires be encouraged to tackle some of the improvements by ensuring they would be repaid by subsequent concessionaires if they ever lost, or surrendered, the campground management contract.
The proposal also suggested that holders of the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass, an $80 lifetime pass those 62 and older can buy and which provides a 50 percent discount on campground fees, face some blackout dates during busy seasons that would prevent them from that discount.
David Vela, the acting director of the National Park Service, saw the proposed changes as a benefit to the parks and their visitors.
“Concessioners have been creating lasting national park memories for more than 125 years. The proposed changes are an important step toward strengthening our public-private partnerships and expanding sustainable, high quality and contemporary visitor services in our national parks,” he said in a release.
But the changes also could increase the cost of a national park visit. For instance, a Park Service director could decide that concessionares are in the best position to decide what the market will bear for, say, a night at the Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone National Park or a stay in Housekeeping Camp at Yosemite National Park. Currently, Park Service staff help judge the fairness of rates charged visitors, although there is a pilot program at Yellowstone that allows Xanterra Parks and Resorts (aka Xanterra Travel Collection) to offer some lodging rooms at whatever the market will bear.
"Other rate approval methods would be used only when the director determines that market forces are inadequate to establish the reasonableness of rates and charges for the facilities, goods, or services. For example, this may occur for overnight stays at iconic lodges, food and beverage outlets where there are no easily accessible alternatives, guiding services for one-of-a-kind recreational experiences, and transportation to NPS units where there is only one way to access the site (e.g. ferry service to the Statue of Liberty)," reads the proposed rule.
The rule recognizes that "(T)he enhanced use of competitive market methods may result in increased rates and revenue with no change in expenses to the concessioner. These changes in the financial opportunity of the contract will be accounted for through contract requirements that would benefit the public using the concession services."
The proposed changes to the regulatory landscape concessionaires must negotiate came from the concessionaires, according to the proposed rule, which will be open to public comment once it's published in the Federal Register.
Examples of new services concessionaires and businesses would like to be able to bring to the parks include better Wi-Fi, bike rentals at Grand Canyon National Park, and parking management at Muir Woods National Monument.
Under the proposed rule, the Park Service director would be able to "issue a prospectus for a new concession opportunity when the director determines that a new concession opportunity is necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the unit and is consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the unit."
The rule changes also would allow the director to amend existing concession contracts to add new services as merited.
“We are looking at each proposed change carefully to ensure that park visitors continue to have unforgettable and affordable experiences and the change is in line with the mission of the National Park Service,” said Emily Douce, director of operations and park funding for the National Parks Conservation Association.
Comments
This is the administration's attempt to privatize parks that preserve our natural wonders for everyone to enjoy. NO!
That is simply NOT TRUE. Parks are not being privatized and it is extreemly elitist to think that parks should only be for the few that can access them without facilities. I am sure that you dont drive a car or have air conditioning in your home and that you walk to a national park only on animal tracks so I wont call you a hipocrite (of course you didnt use wifi either). Visitors want and desire things like better locally sourced foods, air conditioning in a lodge at the Grand Canyon or heat in Denali and the option to have guide led excursions in bigger parks. There are plenty of areas that are only appropriate for backcountry camping, hiking and guiding - but we also want facilities that work - bathrooms, trash pickup and places to stay that are clean, comfortable and safe. Also urban parks need better infrastructure and an ability to host groups. Rangers and interpreters want to do those things that they are especially suited to do - I dont know any who have joined NPS because they want to be Chefs or make beds and clean a room.
our parks are for future generations
Jay, it is obvious that you don't understand what we're talking about here.
Every since there had been a National Park Service, there have been concessionaires who have handled those kinds of functions, and usually have done a good job of it.
But the Republicans continually seek ways to provide business opportunities that will encroach on parts of the operations of our parks that rightfully belong to the NPS. And they are seeking more and more ways to open our parks to profiteering by business people and big corporations.
For example, under the administration of President Cheney and his little friend, there was a time when visitors to Bryce Canyon would not find a ranger behind the visitor center information desk. Instead, you were greeeted by a "volunteer" wearing a Ford Motor Company T-shirt. The "volunteers" actually cost the park more than a ranger.
On top of that, there were proposals for all kinds of "profitable" schemes to "increase visitor enjoyment." Such as skating rinks, zip lines and a very wide assortment of various things for which the owners could charge hefty fees. If that had been allowed to go forward, we'd have had Disneyesque entertainment venues everywhere. Although it would be a thrilling ride, can you imagine a zipline from Glacier Point down into Yosemite Valley?
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between contracting restroom cleaning or campsite management and turning over such things as interpretation in our parks to various corporations. Making decisions for park management based on political rewards for large campaign contributors is not a wise idea at all.
Lee's comment above is Spot On!
If you want an example of the impacts of this type of profiteering taking place on our National Heritage Lands, check out the numerous Forest Service Campground operations that have been privatized by previous administrations. They typically are in much worse condition, provide a sub-standard visitor experience and demand a much higher fee than those campground operations which existed prior to the privatization.
RangerR. Last week, my wife and I camped at Tunnel campground on the Arapaho Roosevelt NF. It is operated by a concessionaire. The daily fee was $22.00, half that with a geezer card. The host was great, informative, friendly and dilligent. The restrooms were spotless, cleaned a minimum of 3 times daily. The campground was full with more dispersed camping along the Laramie River than I have ever seen before.
Two other nearby FS campgrounds were closed. No concessionaire. Nearby pit toilets were locked. Closed even though campers were camping in every pullout or wide spot. They really could have used them. I have an unpleasant mental picture of the surrounding riparian and forested areas.
Where was the Forest Service? " Working from home" I suspect. I am very happy that the concessionaire was there. The CG got more attention than it ever would have under FS management. Private enterprise provided a superior product at a reasonable price. Just like it typically does. Social distancing was maintained, lots of families had a great time doing something safe and healthful, no thanks to the USFS.
Your comment is very much in error. I think the NPS could use some of the same type of management change.
As is the case with any contract, the devil is in the details. To a great extent, this proposal is already the norm for many parks. The NPS is in the business of managing ther national parks' resources with preservation and recreational enhancement as their primary missions. Their mission does not include running restaurants and retail stores. Yellowestone NP, for example, has an excellent relationship with the major consessionaire the latter of which has provided millions of dollars for facilities and other valuable assets for visitor enhancement. To the extent that national parks and consessionaires have a symbiotic relationship, it's just how large enterprises are run. Today's visitor wants the beauty of the parks along with comfort and convenience. That's just a fact of life.
The NFS has been under funded for decades. Many dispered camping areas have been closed due to slovenly campers not observing the Leave No Trace rule. NFS does not have the personnel to clean up behind these parasites, so they must close many dispersed camping areas. Utilizing concessionaires to manage these areas, would mean they would become a fee-based facility; however, that doesn't mean the camps would require dramatic improvements. The fees could be reasonably small, and the access to these lands could remain available.
The proposal imposing restrictions on the utilization of the Lifetime Senior Pass constitutes a breach of faith and a breach of contract. If this is implemented, it will cost the NPS money in the long term. There are many alternative facilities nearby national parks which provide better amenities at comparable to slightly more cost than the full price of NPS campgrounds. The RVing public will not be pleased with this betrayal of the senior supporters of our public lands. I know many would forego utilizing the NPS campgrounds, and probably the Parks on those blackout days. I have never seen a National Park close access due to too many senior visitors. Bigotry and age discrimination exist in many forms. This is just the latest.