National Park Service Visitor Fees in the National Park System A Legislative and Administrative History

JUNE 1977

Prepared by
Office of Programming and Budget Policy Division

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

II. RECENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

III. CURRENT STATUS

IV. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

A. Entrance Fees
B. User Fees
C. Golden Eagle and Golden Age Passports

V. POTENTIAL CHANGES

A. Changes to the Existing Rate Structure
    1. Entrance Fees
    2. User Fees

B. Better Coverage of Visitors to Fee Parks

C. Potential Fees
    1. Entrance Fees
    2. User Fees

D. Covering Collection Costs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper analyzes the equity of the current fee system and the effectiveness of fee collection. Potential improvements to the fee structure are examined and recommendations are made.

Legislative History

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, authorizes the Service to charge entrance and user fees, sell annual Golden Eagle Passports, and issue free Golden Age Passports. Fees must be reasonable and equitable. All fees collected by the Service are appropriated upon request for expenditure on outdoor recreation.

Congress is considering several bills that would:

1. freeze all entrance fees as of January 1, 1977;
2. lower the minimum age to 60 for the Golden Age Passport;
3. authorize free entry to blind or disabled persons and those accompanying them; or
4. authorize a multi-day entry permit.

Results of Analysis

Analysis of the information submitted in the 1976 Fee Reports showed that 116 parks charged fees. Revenue totaled $16.9 million--a 17% increase over 1975. Of total revenue, entrance fees generated 53%, user fees 38%, and Golden Eagle Passport sales 9%.

A small number of areas collected most of the fees. Of the 66 entrance fee parks, ten accounted for 67% of the total revenue; 25 accounted for 93%. Of the 77 user fee parks, ten parks accounted for 59% of total revenue; 25 parks accounted for 81%.

Many parks do not charge fees because of:

1. legislative or legal restrictions;
2. economic or administrative limitations;
3. limited facilities; or
4. policy considerations.

Potential Changes

1. For Systemwide uniformity and equity to visitors, the Service could base entrance fee rates on specific criteria, such as the level of park operating budgets, park classifications or other Systemwide criteria. A rate structure based on the former, with fee rates of $1 to $3 per vehicle and 50¢ to $1.50 per person, would increase revenue an estimated $1.8 million. If fees were based on park classification with the previously mentioned range in rates, revenue would increase an estimated $3.9 million. These rates do not exceed the current ceilings in the CFR.

2. The Service could provide a more uniform and equitable user fee rate structure for camping, certain kinds of tours, elevator service, and backcountry use. Rate structures should be based on individual park circumstances such as the quality of the services or facilities, and fee rates for similar services and facilities provided near parks by private enterprise or an other public lands.

3. The Service could collect additional revenue with better coverage of visitors at fee parks. Extensions of collection season and hours would also resuslt in a more equitable fee system.

4. The Service could increase revenue by charging user fees for services now provided free or by establishing entrance fees where they are not now charged. These new fees would also provide for greater equity.

5. The Service could establish standards for determining collection costs and then guarantee reimbursement for all these costs. These standards would ensure that all parks use the same method when reporting fee collection costs. Guaranteeing a fair reimbursement would assure that fee collection is not a burden on the park budgets.

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper examines entrance and user fees charged at areas in the National Park System to determine whether or not they are equitable and effective. Their revenue-producing potential is also investigated. Revenues collected are returned to the Service to be used either for fee collection purposes or for outdoor recreation. Several changes to the existing fee system are analyzed and recommendations are made.

II. RECENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Recreation fees were authorized in the 1972 amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (P.L. 92-347). In those amendments, Congress set the policy that

"Entrance or admission fees shall be charged . . . at designated units of the National Park System. . . ."

"All fees established . . . shall be fair and equitable, taking into consideration the direct and indirect cost to the Government, the benefits to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, the comparable recreation fees charged by non-Federal public agencies, the economic and administrative feasibility of fee collection and other pertinent factors."

Other provisions specifically authorized included:

1. reasonable single-visit admission fees;
2. Golden Eagle Passports which cost $10 annually and allow admission to any park by the purchaser and those accompanying him or her in a single, private noncommercial vehicle;
3. Golden Age Passports which allow free entrance privileges and use fee discounts to persons over 62;
4. the appropriation of all fee revenue to the collecting agency for expenditure on any outdoor recreation function; and
5. other miscellaneous regulations on fee collection operations.

The intent of the Congress was

"Most members of the Committee believe that those people who are fortunat eenough to be able to take the time to use and enjoy these areas ought to be willing to help to some reasonable degree, to defray the cost of providing them with these opportunities. No one wants to price anyone out of these outdoor areas, but neither do they want to unduly burden those who never visit such areas--either for economic or other reasons--with all of the costs of making these areas and their related facilities available." (H. Rept. # 92-742, p. 2827).

Congress clearly recognized that fees are a supplemental source of revenue obtained from park users.

The Congress further amended the LWCF Act in 1973 (P.L. 93-81) to provide for the following:

1. prohibitions on charging fees for areas or facilities which all visitors might reasonably be expected to utilize, such as picnic areas, drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, trails, scenic drives and toilet facilities;
2. clarification of the definition of "single visit" to entrance fee areas; and
3. specific requirements for charging campground use fees which eliminated fees at nearly all Federal campgrounds.

The revenue loss and other considerations resulted in a further amendment to the LWCF Act (P.L. 93-303). Provisions included:

1. less stringent requirements for campground fees;
2. broader coverage for the Golden Eagle and Golden Age Passports to include non-vehicle entrance; and
3. designation of the Golden Age Passport as a lifetime pass.

III. CURRENT STATUS

The Service wishes to ensure the equity of the current fee system and the effectiveness of fee collection. The Department and the OMB have also inquired into fee revenues, their relationship to visitation, and the possibility of implementing changes to increase fee revenues.

OMB also requested that the Service charge user fees experimentally for at least three visitor transportation systems (VTS) during FY 78. This summer the Service is collecting visitor use data on all VTS operations. Next summer fees will be charged for rides on three systems. The experiment will then be evaluated.

The Congress is considering several bills that propose the following changes in the fee system:

1. freezing all entrance fees as of January 1, 1977 (Byron. H.R. 5524);
2. lowering the minimum age to 60 for the Golden Age Passport (Byron, H.R. 5524; Gudger. H.R. 5248);
3. authorizing free entry to blind or disabled persons and those accompanying them; (Byron, H.R. 5524; Sisk, H.R. 5801); and
4. authorizing a multi-day entry permit (Sisk, H.R. 5802).

IV. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

In 1976, 116 parks charged fees. Revenue totaled $16.9 million--a 17% increase over the previous year. Of total revenue, entrance fees generated 53%, user fees 38%, and Golden Eagle Passport sales 9%.

The number of areas which charge fees is limited due to:

1. legislative or legal restrictions;
2. economic or administrative limitations;
3. limited facilities; and
4. policy considerations.

A. ENTRANCE FEES

Entrance fees were charged at 66 areas in the National Park System. (See Table I in the appendix). In 1976, the Service collected $9 million in revenue at an estimated cost of $2.2 million. Most revenue was collected from a small number of areas. Ten parks account for 67% of the total; 25 parks account for 93%.

Collection costs varied considerably. In general, for every $1 spent collecting entrance fees, an average of $4 was returned in revenue. The ten parks that collected the most revenue also reported the greatest net return--every dollar spent in collection costs returned an average of $5.50 in revenue.

Many parks do not collect as much entrance fee revenue as might be expected from annual visitation. This relationship was examined but several factors preclude making a valid comparison: different entrance fee rates, varying collection seasons and hours, entries by Golden Age and Golden Eagle Passport holders, and lack of control led access.

B. USER FEES

User fees were charged at 77 parks in 1976, mostly for camping. (See Table II in the appendix ). Other services or facilities for which user fees were charged included tours, elevators, use of special sites, special programs and bathhouse lockers. In 1976, the Service collected $6.4 million in user fee revenue at a cost of $2.3 million. User fee revenue in 1976 Increased 14% over 1975.

As with entrance fees, most user fee revenue was collected from a small number of parks. Ten parks accounted for 59% of total user fee revenue; 25 parks accounted for 81%. Of the ten highest parks, six were also among the ten highest entrance fee revenue producing parks. The remaining four user fee parks were Mammoth Cave NP, Great Smoky Mountains NP, and Cape Hatteras NS which did not charge entrance fees, and Glacier NP which ranked 19th In revenue among the entrance fee parks.

User fees generally returned less revenue in comparison to collection costs than did entrance fees. This difference is due largely to the number and capacity of campgrounds (lower volume, greater time spent collecting less revenue) and greater staffing requirements for personal fee collection. User fees also varied considerably, from as low as 10 cents for elevator service to $4 for campground space.

Every $1 spent collecting user fees returned an average of $2.65 in revenue. The ten highest revenue producing parks collected $3.8 million at a cost of $1.2 million. The remaining 67 areas collected $2.3 million in revenue at a cost of $1.1 million.

There is some difficulty in reporting and analyzing user fee collection costs. These costs only include operating costs, not amortization of collection facilities and equipment. Moreover, operating costs have been defined as those salaries and other expenses that result solely from fee collection efforts. However, oftentimes fees are collected at facilities that are used for other functions such as visitor information, law enforcement and park offices. Reported fee collection costs ideally should include only a pro-rated portion of the total cost of managing that facility, but staff time spent on each function varies and Is difficult to determine.

C. GOLDEN EAGLE AND GOLDEN AGE PASSPORTS

In 1976, over 157,000 Golden Eagle Passports were sold and over 270,000 Golden Age Passports were issued. There were approximately 3 million entries by passport holders. Passport purchases and use have increased modestly over the past three years.

TABLE I.

ENTRANCE FEE PARKS — 1976
(ranked by revenue)

TABLE II.

USER FEES — 1976
(ranked by revenue)

V. POTENTIAL CHANGES

A. CHANGES TO THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE

1. Entrance Fees

Entrance fee rates vary throughout indicated by the following table:

Currently, fee rates are established on a park-by-park basis. However, Systemwide criteria could be established for uniform fee rates, such as each park's operating budget or classification (national park, national monument, etc. ).

The following table indicates a possible rate structure based on the operating budget of each park:

With this rate structure and assuming that 95% of the visitors arrive by non-commercial vehicle where applicable, revenue would increase an estimated $1.8 million. Vehicle rates would increase at 24 parks and decrease at 4. Per person rates would increase at 16 parks and decrease at 1. (See Table III in the appendix for a park-by-park breakout).

If the rate structure were based on the entrance fee area's classification, rates could be established as follows:

Revenue would increase an estimated $3.9 million with this rate structure. Forty-two parks would have higher per vehicle rates. These parks are either national parks, national monuments or national seashores. Seventeen national parks would have higher per person rates. Rate decreases would occur only at Colonial NHP for entry by non-commercial vehicle and at Minute Man NHP for entry by bus, bike or on foot. (See Table IV In the appendix for individual park data).

Negative public reaction to a fee rate increase is not anticipated to be great if rate increases are reasonable. A recent study prepared for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Evaluation of Public Willingness to Pay User Charges for Use of Outdoor Recreation Areas and Facilities," concluded from a public survey that rate increases would be acceptable to most visitors at public parks.

A survey will be conducted this summer in 43 areas of the National Park System, as part of BOR's Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan. It will ask park visitors if they support some method to supplement the shrinking Federal recreation dollar, including potential entrance fee increases. Results of this survey may be useful in deciding whether a rate increase will be accepted by visitors to areas in the National Park System.

Last April the National Park Service Advisory Board voted in favor of the principle of entrance and user fees to cover a portion of park operations and maintenance costs.

In the 1976 Fee Report, park personnel strongly favored the establishment of a multi-day entrance pass. This pass would be consistent with current NPS policy which encourages private enterprise to provide food and lodging outside park boundaries and discourages construction of such facilities within the parks. As mentioned previously, Congress is considering legislation which would authorize this type of passport.

Finally, consideration should also be given to eliminate entrance fees. This action would obviously provide equal treatment to all visitors at all parks. However, if these fees are eliminated, consideration should be given to the benefits of entrance fees. The primary benefit is the revenue produced by these fees ($10.6 million in 1976). This includes revenue from Golden Eagle Passport sales. These revenues are used to fund (1) fee collection costs (for entrance and user fees), (2) visitor transportation system planning and operations, and (3) exhibit and audiovisual facilities.

An important secondary benefit of entrance fee collection has been information provided the visitor at the entrance station. Information is provided to make visitors aware of all opportunities for enjoying the park, as well as to communicate a respect for park resources and to warn of dangers that may exist. Two other "fringe" benefits of the fee program are less vandalism as well as better care of facilities and park resources by visitors.

Recommendation

For Systemwide uniformity and equity to visitors, entrance fees should be estabished on the basis of park operating budgets, park classification or some other Systemwide criteria. No general change in entrance fees has been initiated since 1972. The suggested change does not exceed the current ceiling listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which sets the single-visit vehicle entrance rate ceiling at $3.00 and the individual entrance rate ceiling at $1.50. This is solely a regulatory ceiling and does not involve legislation. Any fee change that exceeds this ceiling would require posting in the Federal Register and 30 day public review. Changes should also be discussed with the appropriate Congressional Committees beforehand.

In addition, the Service should recommend the Administration support legislation to establish a multi-day entrance pass with a reasonable fee.

2. User Fees

As stated in Section IV, there is considerable range in user fee rates. Camping fees differ the most, ranging from no charge to $4 per night. The following table indicates the number of campgrounds and campsites for which various fee rates are charged.

Average campsite fee: $2.44 per night
*Includes only family campgrounds with automobile access. No backcountry or group campgrounds.

The quality of services and facilities at campgrounds also varies widely from park to park.

Recommendation

A uniform and equitable rate structure, on a park-by-park basis, is needed for camping as well as for certain kinds of tours, elevator service, and backcountry use. User fee rates and services should be evaluated and recommendations for each park made for implementing a more uniform, equitable rate structure based on the cost of providing services and facilities. Fee rates for camping and certain tours should be in line with rates for similar commercial services in close proximity to parks. Fee rate increases for camping should not exceed the $4 ceiling listed in the Code of Federal Regulations without revision.

B. BETTER COVERAGE OF VISITORS TO FEE PARKS

A third of the 116 parks currently charging fees reported potential to collect more fees by extending the collection season and hours. Many noted that this would cost more in staffing dollars, but that increased revenues would more than off-set costs. Several parks also stated that new or improved collection facilities would facilitate more effective operations. Extension of collection coverage would also result in a more equitable fee system.

Recommendation

Each park's collection season and hours should be examined with regard to visitation patterns, services provided, and cost of collecting fees. Extensions of collection seasons and hours should be implemented where justified.

C. POTENTIAL FEES

The Service could increase revenue by charging user fees for services now provided free or by establishing entrance fees where they are not now charged. This would also provide greater uniformity through-outthe System.

1. Entrance Fees

In the 1976 fee reports from the parks, most reported no potential for establishing new entrance fees. Some gave reasons including inability to control access, legislative restrictions, and limited facilities. Others did not comment. Parks which reported potential for charging new entrance fees are shown in the following table:

PARKS WHICH REPORTED POTENTIAL FOR ENTRANCE FEES

Recommendation

Implementation of fees at these parks should be favorably considered. Inquiries should be made at those that did not comment to see if fee potential exists. Furthermore, the Planning Process should be re vised to include an evaluation of whether fees should be charged.

2. User Fees

In the 1976 Fee Report, the parks identified 23 potential user fees and 5 potential special recreation permits for which fees could be charged. Specifically for user fees these include:

1. Camping - 11 parks
2. Backcountry use permits - 4 parks
3. Miscellaneous user fee activities - 8 parks

Many parks reported that funds would be required to upgrade facilities and cover collection costs. Insufficient information exists to pro vide reasonable estimates of additional revenue or whether these fees would be cost-effective. (See Table V in the appendix for details).

Congress has set policy for user fees and special recreation permits. The House Report to the LWCF 1972 amendments states:

"It seems so abundantly clear as to be almost axiomatic:

That the users of Federal recreation areas should contribute more to Federal recreation programs than non-users;

That frequent users should contribute more than occasional users;

That users of more sophisticated facilities should pay more than users of modest facilities; and

That users of modest facilities should pay more than non-users of any special facilities." (p. 2827 )

Special recreation permits may also carry a user fee for "group activities, recreation events, motorized recreation vehicles, and other specialized recreation uses . . . ." (P.L. 92-347).

However, there are several legal restrictions on charging user fees. User fees may not be charged for certain facilities used by the general public. Camping fees may be charged only if certain facilities and services are provided. (See Section II for details).

Recommendation

In view of the legislative restrictions and limited data, each potential user fee and special recreation permit should be investigated separately for cost-effectiveness, additional capital investment, and staffing requirements. The potential for charging a user fee, such as parking, at those parks where access control prevents the implementation of an entrance fee should also be considered.

D. COVERING COLLECTION COSTS

The method of calculating fee collection costs vary from park to park. There are no standard guidelines used for calculating costs. This has resulted In difficulties in determining how much revenue should be returned to parks to cover costs. Thus, some parks may be receiving more than enough, others less. For those parks which receive less than enough to cover costs, fee collection is a burden.

A number of changes have been suggested which would alleviate this burden or even provide a positive incentive to collect fees. These suggestions range from covering collection costs to returning all money collected to the parks which collect it. One suggestion is that a portion (e.g., 50%) of the fees collected be returned to fee parks with the remainder to be used for Servicewide needs.

Recommendation

The Service should establish standards for determining collection costs and then guarantee reimbursement for all these costs. Such standards would ensure that all parks were using the same method when determining fee collection costs. Guaranteeing a fair reimburse ment would assure that fee collection is not a burden to other park programs.

The Service has serious reservations about the feasibility of returning fee revenue to parks on any arbitrary basis. Such a system fails to take into account several important factors:

1. It would allocate money to parks without regard to need.
2. It would favor the large parks, which now collect the most fees over the recently authorized areas where the need is greatest.
3. If fees were returned on a proportional basis, the amount returned would not necessarily cover the cost of new collection activities.

These drawbacks severely limit the usefulness of this optional method of returning fee revenue. If the policy objective is to collect more revenue equitably, then recommendations contained in this paper would accomplish that objective more effectively than would returning fees on a proportional basis.

TABLE III.

ENTRANCE FEE PARKS
(ranked by operating budget)

TABLE IV.

ENTRANCE FEE PARKS
(ranked by NPS classification)

TABLE V.

*Could be implemented as Special Recreation Permits.