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

The 1968 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendment

The Land and Water Conservation Fund was supposed to realize an average $65 million a year over the first ten years from visitor fees, assuming the Golden Eagle permit were priced at only $5. With the permit actually priced 40 percent higher, revenues should have been significantly greater. Instead, they were less-much less, with no prospect of rising anywhere near the forecasted figure.

In 1967 the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation hired a consulting firm, Arthur D. Little, Inc., to study the problem and come forth with recommendations. The Little report, submitted that December, advocated greater emphasis on advance sales of the Golden Eagle and greater availability of the permit at commercial outlets and post offices, with a major advertising campaign to promote its sale. It proposed a complicated system of permits for single areas and single day visits costing insignificantly less than $7, the object being to encourage general purchase of the Golden Eagle in advance. Heavy enforcement, including "impounding of vehicles improperly present in Federal recreation areas," would further compliance. If its recommendations were adopted, the Little report suggested that annual fee income could be raised from an estimated $12 million in 1969 to $33 million--still far short of what was predicted at the outset of the program. [1]

In February 1968 the House and Senate Interior committees held hearings on bills amending the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Their primary objective was to bring new revenue into the shaky fund; Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing receipts were earmarked for this purpose. During the legislative process there was much discussion of the inadequacies of the visitor fee system that had originally been envisioned as the fund's major revenue source. Of the several fee collecting bureaus, only the National Park Service had produced enough money to justify its participation; the Corps of Engineers was least supportive of the major recreation area managers.

"I just do not believe it is equitable for the National Park Service...to have to use its moneys that it collects, and believes in collecting them, to help finance operations by the Corps of Engineers," said Representative Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado, chairman of the House Interior Committee, at the House hearing. He opposed pooling the fee revenues, proposing instead that each agency's receipts be kept in a separate account for its exclusive benefit. Spencer M. Smith of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources dissented, fearing that such an arrangement would exacerbate interagency competition. Representative Roy A. Taylor, now chairman of the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee, reiterated his general opposition to entrance fees while complaining, with Representative James A. McClure of Idaho, that the universal $7 permit was too great a bargain from a revenue standpoint. At the corresponding Senate hearings, Senators A. S. Mike Monroney and Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma were especially negative about fees for Corps of Engineers reservoir access and facilities. [2]

Asked to comment on the proposed abolition of the interagency fee system after the hearings, the National Park Service straddled the issue:

We prefer the present provision of law with respect to fees. In particular we believe that a single sticker admitting the public to recreation areas without regard to administrative jurisdiction is desirable and in the best interest of the public. However, we would not object to the amendment in question inasmuch as a [Service] fee system could still be instituted... It would be our intent that fees ear marked under this provision be used to finance State and Federal planning assistance and for National Park System and wilderness planning which relate directly to the improvement and enhancement of outdoor recreation. [3]

The Interior Department, to which the Service's comment was addressed, took a less equivocal stand in officially responding to Chairman Aspinall on the House committee's proposed amendments:

This Department strongly believes that the present language of the land and water conservation fund, which encourages uniform inter-agency approach, as exemplified by the "Golden Eagle" program, be allowed to continue for at least 2 more years until it has had a 5-year trial period, and that it then be reassessed...

This administration is philosophically committed to reasonable user charges for Government services as evidenced by the President's memorandum to heads of departments and agencies of May 17, 1966, entitled "User Charges for Government Service"...

If the uniform system were to be deauthorized, Interior requested language requiring all agencies to charge recreation fees whenever economically feasible:

Unless this is done, the private sector would be seriously discouraged from providing recreational facilities such as private camp, picnic, trailer, and similar facilities if they must compete with free Federal facilities. It is most important in our opinion that the Federal fees be set at a rate that does not disadvantage the private operator or States and local public agencies which charge for recreation areas under their jurisdiction. [4]

In a simultaneous communication to Aspinall, the Bureau of the Budget conceded that visitor fee revenues had fallen short of expectations and that experience had shown the impracticality of collecting at some areas. "Because of both these factors," it wrote, "we are asking the Federal agencies, under the leadership of the Department of the Interior, to reevaluate the present fee system with the objective of devising a revised system" that would be internally consistent, widely applicable, and more profitable. The Budget Bureau supported Interior's request for a two-year extension of the present system while this review was in process. [5]

Within Interior, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife had expressed concern that the proposed separate bureau accounts for fee receipts would be prejudicial to regular appropriations, despite a disclaimer of such an effect in the House committee's bill. (The Park Service, whose much greater receipts could enable it to profit far more from this arrangement, was evidently willing to take this chance.) The Budget Bureau came out against the separate account provision: "[It] would seem to have little practical value and would substantially further complicate administration of the Fund." [6]

On March 29 the Senate committee reported its bill, which left the existing fee system intact. Its report restated its commitment to the concept of visitor fees, while accepting the need for a subsequent review of the system then in effect:

[T]he committee recognizes the fact that, in practice, the fee system under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has called forth public opposition and been the subject of controversy in some areas. It has been asserted that the costs of collection exceed the amount of revenues derived from them.

This assertion appears to be open to question, particularly since personnel engaged in collection of fees usually also perform other functions at Federal outdoor recreation facilities. In addition, outdoor recreation officials report that the public tends to take far better care of areas where fees are charged than where admission and use is free.

In view of the disagreements as to the facts and the controversy as to the policy, the committee believes the entire fee system under the act should be the subject of comprehensive legislative review. This bill, which is in the nature of emergency legislation to provide aid to the States and Federal agencies to save their outdoor recreation programs, is not the proper legislative vehicle for such consideration, the committee believes.

Therefore, the fee system will be given the full and careful study required in separate legislation. [7]

The bill reported by the House committee a month later provided for repeal of the interagency fee system effective April 1, 1969. The House committee's report reviewed the situation as it had developed and justified the position taken:

When the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was passed in 1964, it was expected that receipts from the sale of annual automobile permits and from admission and user fees would total nearly $60 million by the fourth year of operation of the fund.... Current indications are that they will do well to reach $10½ million, or 18 percent of this amount, in spite of the fact that the automobile permit (the so-called Golden Passport) is such a tremendous bargain that there have been complaints that some of its users spend weeks and even months in the areas to which it applies for a price of only $7 and are, therefore, not carrying a reasonable share of the costs involved.

Nearly 75 percent of the admission and user fees that are received are collected by the Department of the Interior and 20 percent by the Department of Agriculture.... In fact, two-thirds of all the fees collected come through the National Park Service alone.

This is a great disappointment to members of the committee, for it means two things -- (1) that the only real effort that is being put into carrying out the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is that of the National Park Service, notwithstanding the great recreational opportunities that are provided by installations of the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies, and (2) that a large segment of the American public is oblivious to the fact that it costs money to supply outdoor recreation facilities that every individual can enjoy and would rather see them supported entirely from public sources of revenue than contribute a small fraction of their cost. Add to this that some agencies estimate that they expend as much collecting the fees in certain areas as they take in, and it is clear that something is radically wrong.

Notwithstanding all this, however, the committee has regretfully concluded that the attempt to find a uniform Government-wide fee system should be abandoned beginning April 1, 1969; that responsibility for fixing and collecting fees should be returned to the individual agencies and departments...; and that the fees collected by each agency should be earmarked for appropriation for its own use. It is the intent of the committee that appropriations from this source shall be without prejudice to appropriations from other sources--in other words, that the agencies collecting fees shall not be punished by having their regular appropriations cut back and those which fail to collect fees shall not be rewarded by having their regular appropriations increased to make up for their failure to collect. [8]

On the House floor, Representative Aspinall chastised those who had undermined the existing fee system and spoke positively of the incentive to individual agencies provided by his committee's amendment:

I regret that it seems to be appropriate to abandon the existing fee program, but unfortunately those who enthusiastically support expansive and expensive outdoor recreation projects are apparently unwilling to make any significant effort to make this aspect of the program function as it should. The existing fee program has not worked well to date and I have no reason to believe that the future will be much brighter. I believe that, under the fee system recommended by the committee, the collecting agency would be encouraged to develop the most effective program possible if the fees collected are returned to it as a supplement to its regular appropriations.

The House and Senate passed their respective bills, which were finally reconciled by a conference committee report agreed to on July 2. Another Oklahoman, Representative Ed Edmondson, spoke out against any entrance fees before the final vote, but the compromise accorded essentially with the House committee version allowing each agency to set its own fees. The repeal date for the interagency system was extended to April 1, 1970: "This will give the administration an extra year in which to satisfy its critics, if it can do so, that the Government-wide system of user and admission fees can be made to work," said Aspinall in speaking for the compromise. [10]

The resulting Public Law 90-401, approved by President Johnson July 15, 1968, rescued the Land and Water Conservation Fund by authorizing the addition of sufficient revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing to bring the fund to a total of $200 million annually. More relevant to the present study is its language on visitor fees. Although it repealed the authority for the universal fee system in the original Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, by setting the effective date more than a year and a half ahead it left open the door for reconsideration. In lieu of the repealed authority, the act provided clear support and at least theoretical incentive for fee collection by individual agencies:

It is not the intent of the Congress by this repealer to indicate that Federal agencies which have under their administrative jurisdiction areas or facilities used or useful for outdoor recreation or which furnish services related to outdoor recreation shall not exercise any authority they may have, including authority under section 501 of the Act of August 31, 1951..., or any authority they may hereafter be given to make reasonable charges for admission to such areas, for the use of such facilities, or for the furnishing of such services. Except as otherwise provided by law or as may be required by lawful contracts..., all fees so charged shall be covered into a special account under the Land and Water Conservation Fund and shall be available for appropriation, without prejudice to appropriations from other sources for the same purposes, for any authorized outdoor recreation function of the agency by which the fees were collected. [11]

For one agency, the Corps of Engineers, this provision quickly became a dead letter. Thanks to Representative Edmondson, the Flood Control Act of 1968 was enacted on August 31 with a Section 210 prohibiting entrance fees at all Corps recreation areas as of April 1, 1970. [12] On the basis of the act's legislative history and a subsequent resolution by the House Public Works Committee, the Corps discontinued user fees immediately and entrance fees that October, much to the chagrin of those still hoping for continuation of the interagency system.

The 1970 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendment

With the support of the Interior Department, legislation was introduced in the new 91st Congress in 1969 to keep the Golden Eagle program, as it was now widely known, afloat. The principal Senate bill, S. 2315, would simply repeal the repealer in Public Law 90-401. Another Senate bill, S. 2197, would limit the program to areas under the Interior and Agriculture departments and raise the authorized fee from $7 to $10.

Interior's position was expressed in a letter by Acting Secretary Russell E. Train before the Senate Interior Committee's hearings in July:

This Department has had 4 years experience with the uniform Government-wide fee program. We believe that there are a number of factors to be considered, such as whether each individual seeking admission to an area should be required to obtain an entrance permit rather than pay a single charge covering all occupants of the purchaser's automobile. An additional factor is whether the fee should be based on the use a visitor makes of specific facilities rather than a flat-rate entrance fee....

Train cited the need for a full reevaluation of the program. He suggested that in the meantime it be extended for only one more year, until April 1, 1971, with the existing $7 maximum on the Golden Eagle. [13]

At the Senate hearings, Senators Henry M. Jackson of Washington and Wallace F. Bennett and Frank E. Moss of Utah spoke for extension and introduced supporting letters from the public. Some letters were evidently inspired by a campaign employing scare tactics. "We were told to write to our congressman about the following problem," said one. "We were told that this is our last year for the Golden Eagle and that all our camp grounds were to be turned over to concessions." Senator Alan Bible of Nevada backed the Golden Eagle increase to $10. Testifying for Interior, Assistant Secretary Harrison Loesch restated the need for a full-scale fee system study before doing more than extending the status quo, but he urged the repeal of Section 210 of the 1968 Flood Control Act that had allowed the Corps of Engineers to escape the program. [14]

S. 2315 was reported by the committee on September 9 with amendments reflecting that body's strong support for the Government-wide fee system. The committee bill would repeal the 1968 repealer without limit, authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use a percentage of fee revenues for promoting the program (originally prohibited), enable the Golden Eagle to be sold for $10, and repeal Section 210. The accompanying report cited "thousands of letters received from citizens throughout the Nation urging reconsideration of the action terminating the golden eagle and other fee programs next March." It restated the general policy of making recipients of specific services pay a reasonable share of the costs, and it expressed agreement with the idea that the public respects more and vandalizes less what it is required to pay for. [15]

The bill passed the Senate without opposition the next day and was sent on to the House. Unfortunately, Senator Fred Harris, a leading proponent of Section 210, had not been informed of its consideration, and the bill was recalled as a courtesy to him. The Oklahoma senator then proposed an amendment striking the repeal of Section 210. In response, Senator Frank Church proposed a new amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act prohibiting entrance fees at all Federal water areas and restricting user fees at such areas to highly developed facilities (excluding picnic areas, unmechanized boat launching ramps, etc.). Harris accepted the Church substitute, and the Senate repassed the bill with it on September 24. [16]

In response to a request from the House Interior Committee for Interior's comments on the Senate-passed bill, Under Secretary Russell Train expressed general support, opposing only the Church provision restricting fee collection at lakes and reservoirs. Representative Edmondson sharpened the issue by introducing a new bill prohibiting entrance fees for all recreational lands and waters under Federal jurisdiction. [17]

The House committee took a middle course, retaining the repealer of the interagency fee system in Public Law 90-401 but extending its effective date to December 31, 1971. It kept the Senate provision raising the Golden Eagle price to $10, and it added a requirement that the Secretary of the Interior should "complete a survey as to policy to be implemented with regard to entrance and user fees and report his findings to the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs" by February 1, 1971. The Senate's publicity authorization, its repealer of Section 210, and the Church amendment were all dropped. [18]

The committee's report, submitted April 13, 1970, argued against the indefinite extension voted by the Senate on the grounds that the interagency fee program was fatally flawed and required total revision:

The bill does not extend the golden eagle program indefinitely. In stead, it provides for its termination on December 31, 1971. This ex- tension is not intended to be interpreted as a waiting period for the present program to prove its value--that time has passed--instead, it is a period to work out, in detail, a worthwhile program equitable to recreationists and meaningful to the land and water conservation fund program.

A minority on the committee, including Edmondson and Representative Phillip Burton of California, submitted separate views, urging House amendment of the bill to delete the Golden Eagle price increase and prohibit entrance fees everywhere but "at national parks where collection of such fees is found both practical and desirable." [19]

The minority amendments failed on the House floor, and the House passed the bill in the form reported by the committee. The Senate subsequently concurred in the House-passed version of its bill, and President Richard M. Nixon approved the measure on July 7, 1970, making it Public Law 91-308. [20]

Park Service Response: Camping Charges and Fee Study, 1969-1970

As this second amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was making its way through the Congress, the National Park Service was finally planning to institute camping charges and reviewing its own fee program in advance of the congressional directive.

Although camping charges could have been made as early as 1965, serious planning for them did not get underway until four years later. In April 1969 NPS Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., told the House Interior Committee that the Service would set camping fees "on the basis of what prevails locally." In a June 18 policy memorandum to the director, Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel declared, "Appropriate charges should be made for camping, except for backpack camping. " Opposition was anticipated from retirees and others who were accustomed to buying the Golden Eagle for universal access and enjoying free camping within the parks there after. But the Service finally overcame bureaucratic inertia and began to levy modest campsite fees in 1970. [21]

Mindful of the expected termination of the existing Golden Eagle program on March 31, 1970, an eight-man NPS Fee Study Task Force undertook a comprehensive review of the Service's fee system during the latter part of 1969. The group interviewed representatives of other agencies and private entities providing recreation facilities, along with organizations supporting outdoor recreation. Its report proposed three types of NPS permits: daily entrance permits at $l-2 per car, or 50¢ - $2 per person at walk-in areas; a $10 annual "Parklands Passport" for admission to all areas, also conveying a $1 credit at Type A and B campgrounds; and camp and trailer site permits at $2 for Type A sites, $1 at Type B sites, and 25¢ per person at Type C (group) areas. If the existing interagency program were extended, the Golden Eagle would continue in lieu of the Parklands Passport. [22]

As noted, the existing program was extended, but not until July 7, 1970--more than three months after the original authority expired on April 1 of that year. By then it was too late to print and sell Golden Eagles for 1970. As an interim measure, the Park Service issued a National Parklands Passport and made it interchangeable with a comparable Forest Service permit; the Golden Eagle per se would resume the following year. [23]

The 1972 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendment

The comprehensive fee study that was to be submitted to Congress by February 1, 1971, was transmitted by Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton six weeks after the deadline, Morton having just taken office on January 30. The report presented two basic alternatives: a modification of the existing system, with annual and short-term carload permits and supplemental user permits, said to be favored by the participating agencies; and a modification of a system devised by the Public Land Law Review Commission, favored by "Federal officials interested in maximizing revenue," featuring a $4 annual permit for individuals, daily individual permits, and user permits for highly developed facilities. [24]

Secretary Morton recommended and enclosed draft legislation for the individual permit system, under which revenues were estimated at "more than double the historical fee collection levels which have averaged about $10 million per year." But the difficulties portrayed in the transmittal letter suggested an effort to sabotage the proposal at the outset:

Although the recommended program is believed to be administratively feasible, some period of time will be needed to resolve problems resulting from the fact that visitors must become accustomed to individual permits and stricter enforcement authorities. Agency personnel will also have to be retrained to administer the new permit system....

There may be occasions in the administration of the individual annual recreation permit system at heavily-visited National Parks such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and Shenandoah, that it would unduly delay the entrance of vehicles into the parks. These administrative difficulties would arise from trying to verify the ages of each vehicle's passengers, whether they have an individual permit, and if not, whether they wish to buy such a permit, or in lieu thereof, purchase a daily permit. When these delays necessitate traffic backing up unreasonably, as much as 75-100 cars, it is proposed that the collection be suspended at the entrance stations and only spot checks made by rangers at visitor centers, campgrounds and other visitor concentration points within the park.

From Morton's transmittal, it also required little imagination to sense general displeasure with the recommended system among the fee collecting bureaus:

The recommended fee program is not that preferred by each agency. However, the recreation programs of the agencies vary in many respects. Thus, no one system can be optimum for all. If the proposed draft legislation is enacted, all agencies administering recreation areas where fees are collected will give their best effort to make the new program a success. [25]

Interior's draft bill was introduced as S. 1474, and the Department of Agriculture joined in supporting it. [26] But the Senate Interior Committee rejected the concept of individual annual permits, which "would further complicate, rather than simplify, the program," it said; "It would detract from the concept of 'family' which the committee endorses, and only multiply the problems of administration of a workable fee system." Instead, the committee favorably reported another bill, S. 1893, which would continue the Golden Eagle Passport (so identified in legislation for the first time) for carloads of visitors and provide for a free "Golden Age Passport" for persons 65 and over. Additional offerings were an annual "Golden Eagle Recreation Passport, " including camping, for $25, and an annual $15 camping permit for persons 65 and over. Section 210 would be repealed, and the Corps of Engineers and the other recreation-providing bureaus (Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, Forest Service, U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission) would continue in the program with the incentive of appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist them in operating their facilities. The Senate passed the committee bill on November 22. [27]

As usual, the House Interior Committee was much less supportive of the interagency fee system concept. "In general it is fair to say that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program has been a great success [following addition of the OCS leasing revenues], but it is honest to add that the contribution of the Golden Eagle Program to that success has been minimal," the committee stated in reporting a thoroughly amended version of the administration bill, H.R. 6730, in December. "Not only have the outdoor enthusiasts failed to respond as anticipated, but the agencies involved have not made a real effort to make the program effective." [28]

The committee agreed with its Senate counterpart on the individual annual permit, rejecting it as difficult to administer, potentially too expensive for many families, and uncertain of yielding greater revenue. Rather than build on the existing interagency system, however, its bill would limit entrance fees and permits ($10 annually for a carload, free for persons 65 and over for parks in state of residence) to "national parks, national monuments, national historic sites, [and] national battlefield areas " of the National Park System. This was done in the belief that entrance and user fees were insufficiently distinct outside Park System areas with well defined boundaries and gates; charges had often been administratively designated as entrance fees so that the Golden Eagle would apply, when they were really for the use of special facilities within the areas.

All agencies were to be encouraged to levy user fees for developed facilities, however. Receipts would continue to be available for appropriation to the collecting bureau, and now at least 25 percent of each bureau's receipts during the first five years was to go for fee collection promotion and enforcement. The Park Service's annual permits were to be made available in post offices.

The House committee report included a strong statement in behalf of the principle of visitor fees that would be cited in later years when the concept came under attack:

Most members of the committee believe that those people who are fortunate enough 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.

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. [29]

The report also stressed the need for equal fee collection enforcement, stating that all should be required to pay if anyone was--a slap at the honor system approach used by some bureaus. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was urged to develop a uniform campground classification system to guide bureaus in setting equal rates for equal facilities.

On the House floor on February 7, 1972, Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio asked for the record if the committee bill would allow entrance fees to be charged in the new urban parks serving inner-city populations. Representative Roy Taylor replied that such charges could be levied only at national parks, national historic sites, national monuments, and national battlefields; because most of the urban parks were designated national recreation areas, national seashores, or national lakeshores, entrance fees there would not be permitted. The House then passed the measure. [30]

A conference committee was required to resolve the major differences between the House and Senate versions. The entrance fee issue was compromised in the resulting bill by allowing such charges "only at designated units of the National Park System administered by the Department of the Interior and National Recreation Areas administered by the Department of Agriculture" (i.e., the Forest Service). "It is the intent of this provision to limit the collection of admission fees to those areas where admission can be uniformly controlled at established and manned entrance stations where visitors are supplied with information concerning the area and where fees can be collected and explained," the conference report noted. [31] In addition to the $10 annual Golden Eagle Passport, to be sold by Interior and Agriculture and at post offices, "single visit" admission fees were continued; the authority for a "series of visits" permit in the original Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was dropped (a possible inadvertance that would cause problems and require later correction). The Senate's free Golden Age Passport was made applicable to persons 62 and over and others in the same car; holders would be entitled to a 50 percent discount on camping charges. Foreign visitors were to be admitted free to entrance fee areas for three years.

The Senate provisions for annual camping fees (the $25 Golden Eagle Recreation Passport and the $15 permit for persons 65 and over) were deleted on the grounds that user fees should remain linked to frequency of use. The Senate bill had contained language limiting the application of user fees; the conference committee struck it from the bill but incorporated its essence in the report:

It is the intent of the Conferees that special recreation use fees shall be limited to those facilities which require a substantial investment and regular maintenance and which are utilized for the personal benefit of the user for a fixed period of time. No special recreation use fee should be collected for the use of facilities which virtually all visitors might reasonably expect to utilize, such as roads, trails, overlooks, visitor centers, wayside exhibits, or picnic areas. [32]

User fees could also be charged for "group activities, recreation events, motorized recreation vehicles, and other specialized recreation uses" under a provision in the bill.

The bill elaborated somewhat on the fee criteria contained in the original act:

All fees...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.... It is the intent of this Act that comparable fees should be charged by the several Federal agencies for comparable services and facilities.

Finally, among other provisions, the conference bill incorporated the House bill's funding authority for promoting and enforcing fee collection; rather than prescribing 25 percent of an agency's receipts as a minimum figure for this purpose, however, it set 40 percent as a maximum. The conference report indicated the importance attributed to this provision:

The Conferees agreed that a strong effort should be made to inform the public about the nature and purpose of the fee collection program and that a greater effort should be made--particularly in periods of heavy use--to adequately man fee collection stations to assure the uniform collection from all visitors at admission fee areas and all users of specialized facilities. It is anticipated that a significant effort will be made to improve this aspect of the program and that a portion of the funds collected will be used to expand seasonal employment programs. [33]

Both houses agreed to the conference bill at the end of June, and it became Public Law 92-347 upon approval by the President July 11, 1972--more than six months after the interagency Golden Eagle authority had expired at the end of December. This repetition of the 1970 hiatus again caused administrative and public confusion and inconvenience. Expecting resolution of the congressional differences well before the summer season, the Park Service delayed reviving its 1970 National Parklands Passport and collected only daily entrance fees in the interim. As time passed, criticism from those who were accustomed to saving with an annual permit increased. Finally on June 28, when favorable action on the conference bill appeared assured, the Service began sale of the Parklands Passport, which again substituted for the Golden Eagle the rest of that year. [34]

¹"Marketing Study and Recommendations Concerning Federal Recreation Area Permit and Fee System," Report to Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, December 1967.

²U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendments, Hearings on H.R. 8578 et al., 90th Congress, 2d Session, Feb. 6, 7, 21 and Mar. 4, 1968, pp. 162-63, 168, 175, 183-84; U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendments, Hearings on S. 1401 et al., 90th Congress, 2d Session, Feb. 5, 6, and 21, 1968, pp. 16-31.

³Memorandum, Assistant to the Director Frank E. Harrison to Legislative Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, Mar. 21, 1968, in Legislative History, P.L. 90-401, Interior Law Library.

⁴Letter, Assistant Secretary Harry R. Anderson to Aspinall, Mar. 26, 1968, in House Report 1313, 90th Congress, Apr. 24, 1968.

⁵Letter, Assistant Director Wilfred H. Rommel to Aspinall, Mar. 26, 1968, in House Report 1313.

⁶Memorandum, Acting, BSFW, to Legislative Counsel, Mar. 22, 1968, in Legislative History, P.L. 90-401; Rommel to Aspinall, Mar. 26, 1968.

⁷Senate Report 1071, 90th Congress.

⁸House Report 1313.

⁹Congressional Record, May 23, 1968, p. H4190.

¹⁰Ibid., July 2, 1968, p. H5898.

¹¹82 Stat. 354.

¹²82 Stat. 746.

¹³Letter, Train to Sen. Henry M. Jackson, July 16, 1969, in U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Golden Eagle Program, Hearings on S. 2315 et al., 91st Congress, 1st Session, July 17-18, 1969, pp. 2-3.

¹⁴Senate Golden Eagle Program Hearings, pp. 20-28.

¹⁵Senate Report 91-395.

¹⁶115 Congressional Record 24996-99, 25180, 25237, 25348-49, 26811.

¹⁷Letter, Train to Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall, Jan. 30, 1970, in House Report 91-1000, Apr. 13, 1970; H.R. 15745, 91st Congress, Feb. 5, 1970.

¹⁸House Report 91-1000.

¹⁹Ibid.

²⁰116 Congressional Record 20652-53; 84 Stat. 410.

²¹Memorandum, Luis A. Gastellum to George B. Hartzog, Jr., Sept. 26, 1969, NPS Ranger Activities and Protection Division, Washington, D.C. (hereinafter cited as WASO-535).

²²"Fee Study Report," Dec. 26, 1969, WASO-535.

²³116 Congressional Record 20641.

²⁴Letters, Morton to Sen. Henry M. Jackson and Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall, Mar. 12, 1971, and report, "Federal Recreation Fees," in House Report 92-742, Dec. 10, 1971, pp. 11-26.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶Letter, Under Secretary of Agriculture J. Phil Campbell to Sen. Henry M. Jackson, Sept. 30, 1971, in Senate Report 92-490, Nov. 17, 1971. The reference to "Federal officials interested in maximizing revenue," the distaste for the individual permit system manifest in Interior's letter to Congress supporting it, and Agriculture's otherwise inexplicable support all point to the Office of Management and Budget as the force behind the administration's position.

²⁷Senate Report 92-490; 117 Congressional Record 42578.

²⁸House Report 92-742, p. 4.

²⁹Ibid., p. 7.

³⁰118 Congressional Record 2891-92.

³¹House Report 92-1164, June 22, 1972, p. 6.

³²Ibid., p. 7.

³³Ibid., p. 8.

³⁴86 Stat. 459; "$10 Annual Passport Issued by National Park Service," press release, June 28, 1972, WASO-535; letter, Assistant Director Lawrence C. Hadley to Rep. J. Kenneth Robinson, Aug. 24, 1972, WASO-535.