Having bought a Senior pass which, at the time, was touted as being for entrance to all National parks, I feel being charged again falls into the 'bait and switch' category. I think it is fair to charge people who do not have a pass.

Also I feel this may be the thin end of the wedge. If one National Park can impose an entrance fee on top of what I have already paid for my Senior pass, what is to stop all the other parks doing the same? My pass may soon be worthless.

fees should never be a barrier to public lands access. Add the cashless requirements imposed by many parks and we should question what the definition of public means

As a senior citizen I already have limited income. The park pass is one of the few things that allows us to travel and enjoy life with out more headaches and fees. Why after working all my life should I have to spend more money to enjoy the great outdoors. 

It's interesting that a year ago GSMNP administration claimed they were unable to do anything about excessive roadside parking without the funds that parking permits would generate. Yet soon after they announced they were moving forward with their parking fees (still months away from collecting) such simple remedies as posts and guardrails began appearing in the few places where such problems have been common. Obviously these inexpensive steps could have been taken years ago and funded with transportation dollars. The same ploy occurred a decade earlier at GSMNP with the administration purposefully cutting the hours, and refusing offers of help, for the backcountry office. Only a tax on backpackers could cure the problem - especially an easy-to-manufacture problem.

And then there's the non-coincidental announcement on this the first day of required parking permits that visitation to GSMNP dropped by more than 1.2 million last year. Visitation was, of course, the primary justification the NPS pushed in pursuit of its parking fees, completely unverifiable and with incredible (in the word's most fundamental, not-to-be-believed sense) data. These guesstimates are available for public scrutiny (https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly...), though a majority seem willing to accept whatever numbers or assertions the NPS puts out.

Surely, if only they knew, Americans wouldn't openly support their government blatantly ignoring the law of the land. From the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA):

"(b) Basis for recreation fees

Recreation fees shall be established in a manner consistent with the following criteria:

(1) The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits and services provided to the visitor."

But NPS personnel are forced to admit there will be no limitation on visitors to GSMNP and that, as a result, parking availability cannot be guaranteed anywhere. The park owner/visitor gets nothing in return for his or her forfeited funds; it's simply a money grab by the administration at GSMNP. 

Additionally, to charge a parking fee for every parking space in GSMNP violates FLREA (d)(4) by limiting the use of recreation opportunities only to areas designated for collection of recreation fees. For this reason, arguably among others, the tax on backpackers is also illegal as there is no way - not a cross-country permit, not a walk-up permit, not an off-season permit, etc. - to avoid the fees of their backcountry reservation system.

Of course, there's also the obvious point that a simple parking space doesn't rise to the level of an "Expanded Amenity" (logically, these expanded amenities include frontcountry campgrounds, elaborate boat launches, boat rentals, dump stations, special tours, and the like) but is instead specifically mentioned in FLREA as being appropriate as a "Standard Amenity" - a fee the NPS isn't authorized to charge. And even within the freewheeling NPS, with its self-proclaimed right to charge for parking, its own Reference Manual on such things (22A) includes the following:

"There are limited circumstances where it is appropriate for a park to charge a parking fee as an expanded amenity fee. An example might be a park in an urban area that has metered or dispersed parking spaces. In this situation, local commuters could purchase a recreation pass and occupy parking spaces needed by park visitors. Another example is a contract for a concession-operated parking area that does not require the concessioner to honor passes." 

The examples given above in the NPS' own manual are, to put it bluntly, as far removed from the scenario in GSMNP as possible. 

At this point it seems very few people realize that their Federal Lands Pass won't be accepted in place of a parking permit at GSMNP, yet Reference Manual 22A states specifically that such passes must be accepted:

"Parks have been innovative in charging fees in some areas that had not previously collected fees for entrance or a particular service. For visitors with passes, parking fees have proved to be particularly confusing. For this reason, since the purpose of parking is to gain access to the park's primary resource, the park must honor entrance passes in lieu of the parking fee."

I suspect fewer still realize that GSMNP intends for its parking permits/passes to be assigned to individual vehicles, not individuals or families. Therefore, the park owner is supposed to purchase a 2nd permit/pass if he or she drives a different car into GSMNP. 

The obvious misapplication of simple parking as "Expanded Amenity" is evidenced as well by GSMNP inappropriately offering parking passes (weekly and annual). Few, if any, would expect to be able to purchase a frontcountry camping pass, a boat rental pass, or a special tour pass. But in case it's not self-evident where such expanded amenities are concerned, it's made perfectly clear in Reference Manual 22A:

"Parks may not create passes for expanded amenity fees. Parks with existing expanded amenity passes should consult with the regional office to eliminate them. Civic engagement is required because elimination of these passes may result in financial impacts to visitors."

Oops.

Meanwhile, GSMNP recently issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in its environmental assessment of a mountain biking area it intends to develop. Going with the most destructive of its proposed alternatives, the parking lot will cover 2.4 acres, the access road will extend nearly a mile, and over 25 total acres will be "disturbed" when there already exists an incredible number of mountain bike trails in the area. What's to prevent zip lining from being next? After all, the case could be made that while both are, in essence, thrill-seeking activities unconducive to contemplation and appreciation of nature, zip lining might very well leave a lighter mark on the land than constructing a 12-mile network of mountain bike trails.

Here we have another staple of the NPS's dysfunctional approach, expansion and construction while complaining endlessly of having insufficient funds to cover its already existing overdevelopment. Particularly in this case it strikes me that GSNMP is likely eager to further entrench the expectation in peoples' minds that any activity on their public lands carries with it an accompanying fee.

At the same time GSMNP has installed license tag readers at its entrances, claiming these Orwellian measures could help locate overdue hikers. Thankfully, the ACLU has actually perked up.

If the law doesn't apply to them, it certainly shouldn't come as a surprise that other regulations, restrictions, guidelines, and personal liberties are sloughed off like so much snakeskin.

Unchecked, unchallenged authority equates to impudent power which invariably expands and corrupts. 

To charge a fee to fund the decimation or nature's wonders?  Thanks E.G. for your insight!

All of this is concerning and made more so by the complete absence of public meetings. It was just ram rodded through with a sham of a virtual presentation where the superintendent appeared to be attempting to read from cue cards while his sidekick took pains to deceive the few that might have bothered to watch with what were calculated incomplete comparisons between backcountry fee structures in the Smokies vs other parks.

Where are we to suppose all the money came from for the "Park it Forward" advertising blitzkrieg?

Well said. 

I am deeply disappointed GSMNP leadership appears to have failed its true stakeholders (we the people) by not providing more transparent debate on the merits of these changes, especially given their dubious legal standing. Organizational Behavior 101: Participation fosters acceptance. Unfortunately, this decision does not appear to be a one-off; rather, it suggest an endemic problem among those we entrust as stewards of the NPS mission: "preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future generations.  To conceive a system of reveneue generation to feed amenitiies that in turn requires more revenue generation is a vicious cycle that should inspire no one. Not this generation. And certainly not future generations who will seemingly have to confront a GSMNP who now believes surveillance is a just cause. I can think of nothing less just or more antithetical to the NPS mission.  I want to believe our best and brightest in the NPS system would aspire to the high ideals of the office and to serve their fellow citizens well. Regretably, these series of decisions leaves me thinking otherwise. Where is Friends of the Smokies on this important issue? I will certainly rethink my annual contribution until I hear from them. Meanwhile, Godspeed ACLU.