You are here

Tennessee's House Of Representatives Opposes Backcountry Fee At Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Share

Published Date

April 18, 2013

In its biggest political coup to date, a group fighting the backcountry fees charged at Great Smoky Mountains National Park has gotten the backing of the Tennessee State House of Representatives.

In a proclamation adopted April 9, the House expressed its "opposition to the imposition of any backcountry camping fees in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are not directly associated with the use of amenities or a commercial purpose and strongly urge an immediate appeal of any such imposed fee."

Previously, the Knox County (Tennessee) Commission, as well the commissions in Bradley and Blount counties in Tennessee and Swain County in North Carolina, condemned the fee and called for its repeal.

The backcountry fee of $4 per night per person, with a $20 per person cap per trip, took effect February 13. It is intended by park officials to help streamline and improve the backcountry permitting process and heighten the presence of rangers in the backcountry.

Pinched by an inadequate budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of the roughly 9 million yearly visitors, park officials say they see no way of improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging users who spend the night in the woods.

The park can't charge an entrance fee because the state of Tennessee, when it agreed to transfer land to the federal government for the park, essentially forbade it.

"By condemning and calling for a repeal of this hugely unpopular and specious tax on backcountry users, the State of Tennessee has proven its intent to provide a voice for citizens that was ignored by the National Park Service as evidenced in the public comments that tallied 18-1 in opposition to the fee," said a statement from Southern Forest Watch, a non-profit group organized to lobby for the fee's repeal.

Comments

EXPANDED AMENITY RECREATION SITES AND SERVICES FEES (Category 3)

This category includes facilities and services that provide direct benefits primarily to individuals or groups.It is thus appropriate for the individual or group that is provided a direct service or uses a specialized facility to bear a greater share of these costs.Fees may be assessed for the following facilities or services:

A.Use of developed campgrounds that provide at least a majority of the following amenities in a configuration that can be used in an integrated manner by the visitor:

i.tent or trailer space;

ii.picnic tables;

iii.drinking water;

iv.access roads;

v.collection of the fee by an employee or agent of the Forest Service*;

vi.reasonable visitor protection*;

vii.refuse containers;

viii.toilet facilities; and

ix.simple devices for containing a campfire.

OR

G. Use of reservation services.

GSMNP already required back country permits of staying overnight.They were free but still required. Now, they have added a reservation system so back country hikers and equestrians can get a permit 24/7. The fee pays for the reservation system. So, GSMNP could easily argue that the fee falls under G. Use of reservation services rather than A. developed campgrounds.


dahkota -- thank you! I now see that "G. Use of reservation services" is stated clearly in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) as a legal option for fees. See http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/16C87.txt

This is what sets the Mt. Lemmon forest service case apart from the GSMNP situation. And its why I remain dubious about the legal grounds for the GSMNP lawsuit. The GSMNP reservation system and its fees appear to me to be completely legal under FLREA.

So, I go back to my previous line of inquiry: Is the reservation service fee at GSMNP illegal? If so, what makes it illegal? Moreover, if this type of reservation system fee is illegal, why has it not already been deemed illegal in all the national parks which have had such a fee in place for quite a while now?


Mountainhiker.

Thank you or your input. It is constructive. (Keep it coming.)

The problem is Mt. Lemmon is a National Forest.

The Smoky Mountains is a National Park.

Even under FLREA, those are apples and oranges.

Most of FLREA does not apply to National Parks.


Tennessee Backpacker, I think you are incorrect. According to: Director's Order #22 (http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-22.pdf), particularly "1.3" and "5.," most of the justification for fees in the NPS is FLREA.


Mountain hiker -

Thanks for some excellent input, including your analysis for why even though a volunteer-run reservation system seems like a fine bargain, it isn't practical. Another big issue is the accountability for people's credit card numbers and other forms of payment for reservations if the system were run by volunteers.

The question about whether the amount being charged for a backcountry reservation exceeds the cost of operation is a good one, and will likely be addressed as part of the litigation.


Mtnliving -- Absolutely true. When you're dealing with the public's money, you must have a secured and standardized software system. There is no doubt in my mind the federal government would be foolish to get somebody's third cousin twice removed to develop a "free" reservations software system and then expect that person to maintain it and manage the phone calls, credit card issues, and so forth when -- hello -- there is already a proven, secure and standardized reservations system in use by the national park system.

I can't speak to whether the amount charged for the current reservation system exceeds the cost of the operation. However, if it did, would that make the reservation system illegal? Or would it simply result in an adjustment of the amount of the fee? Would it reveal that the feds didn't base their numbers on existing reservation systems at other parks? Somehow, I expect they did their homework on this since comparable numbers would be easy to glean from other parks. But I guess we'll see.

dahkota -- I agree with you. It appears to me that FLREA clearly applies to all federal recreational lands, from national forests and national parks to Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Land Management. And,clearly, several national parks have been charging a fee for their backcountry reservation systems for a time now.

So, to whomever can answer this question: Have *any* of these backcountry reservation systems and their fees in *any* of the other national parks proven to violate FLREA?


I don't believe that anyone has challenged the NPS in court over backcountry fees in light of FLREA. It has been done in the National Forest Arena but that is why this Smokies lawsuit is so important. The basis will be, did they properly follow the administrative procedures act and does the number of amenities fall within the prescribed verbiage in FLREA. If the Southern Forest Watch prevails, it will have implications for other backcountry fees in other parks. I do think that the other units in the NPS have a set number of amenities like picninc tables etc. This is clearly lacking in the Smokies.


SmokiesBackpacker - I'm not clear on the administrative procedures that GSMNP was required to follow prior to enacting the reservation system. What task did they fail to complete? Do you know?

On the backcountry fees in other parks, there are several other national parks with backcountry reservation systems in place and associated fees charged. I may have left out some, but I believe the list includes:

- Rocky Mountain National Park
- Yellowstone National Park
- Grand Teton National Park
- Glacier National Park
- Olympic National Park
- Grand Canyon National Park
- Yosemite National Park

So here's my next questions:

1. Are you saying that these other national parks with backcountry reservation systems and associated fees put picnic tables or built other man-made amenities across their wilderness areas in their backcountry campsites?

2. From looking at FLREA (thank you for introducing it to me), it appears that the fees are based on EITHER (1) Having certain amenities to qualify for charging a fee to access; OR (2) Having a reservation system. If the park has the reservation system, it can charge strictly for the service that the system provides, whether or not any amenities are involved. GSMNP apparently qualifies the fee on the second option -- which is identified as "G. Use of reservation services" in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Where you do you see that amenities must be provided *in addition to* the reservation system in order for a fee to be charged? Can you quote from FLREA on this point?

Thanks.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.