mplementation of a substantial increase in National Park Service fees for non-commercial river trips and backcountry hikers continues to be a major concern to the river community. The lack of public input into the decision making process, the abruptness of implementation, and the amount of the increase are prominent arguments against the new fee structure.
Since 1989, private boaters were charged $25 to add their name to the waiting list, a $4 per person park entry fee, and $50 for the permit to launch. A standard 14 person trip for 15 days would pay about $131 in fees to the park. Although many recognized the need to increase the admittedly low fees, they were alarmed at the amount of the increase and method of implementation.
New fees stem from two different programs - cost recovery and fee demonstration. Cost recovery fees include $100 to add their name to the waiting list, $25 per year to remain on the list, and $200 to launch the trip. The increase to $10 per person to enter the park and a $4 per person per day “impact fee” are part of the fee demonstration program. The result is that the same 14 person, 15 day trip mentioned above would now cost $1,530, assuming a 10 year wait.
There are several obvious problems with the new fee structure. Those who had already obtained a launch date for 1997 were presented shortly before Christmas with a choice to give up their launch date after perhaps a nine year wait, or pay an extra $1000 or more. Their reaction was predictable. Another failing is that an intimate, single boat trip has become cost prohibitive for most. A solo kayaker could pay as much as $900 for the privilege of solitude - one of the most cherished values in Grand Canyon, and an experience which can only be found within the private permit system.
As reported in the last BQR, park service officials claimed the cost recovery fees were increased due to an audit which faulted them for not performing a cost analysis and increasing fees earlier. However, we obtained a copy of the audit and found no such language. Rather, the NPS was faulted for not implementing and accounting for fees park wide in a consistent manner. According to the audit, in 1994 the Grand Canyon special permit system actually had a surplus of approximately $6,000 after paying expenses of about $54,000. They noted, however, that this expense figure did not include overhead costs.
In a cost analysis performed in the fall of 1996, the Grand Canyon River Subdistrict Ranger estimated total costs of the private permit system at $260,000 per year. This includes just over $205,000 in salaries and training of various NPS employees which were not addressed by the audit.
The NPS has received, at last count, 80 letters of complaint and one in support of the new fees. In addition, the river permits office states that they have received an average of eight phone calls per day. NPS officials assert that, “The majority of callers are simply inquiring and after the program is explained, support the fee structure.” Susan Cherry, who has been managing the private permit system for a number of years, has left Grand Canyon National Park (see page 9); the vacancy has not yet been filled. Therefore at this point, if you have concerns about the fee structure, it would be important to express them in writing. (see box)
In an attempt to provide an explanation for the new fees and answer the most commonly asked questions, the National Park Service produced a newsletter, Below the Rim. Within this document, the NPS commits to spending all the funds within the river corridor, including expenditures for resource monitoring and management. The NPS also proposes to dramatically increase the number of ranger patrols. “During your trip, rangers will be on patrol to answer questions, enforce regulations as necessary, provide emergency medical services if needed, and to perform the numerous rescues and medical evacuations required each year.” One must wonder what processes predicated this change in management policy, as there does not appear to have been a clamoring desire for an increased level of service, nor has there been proven to be a need for increased enforcement. In addition, it seems unwise for the NPS to promise a level of protection services that cannot possibly be provided.

The NPS considers Below the Rim an adequate response to the letters of complaint they received prior to its publication. If no further response is received, the official position of the NPS is that the recalcitrant boaters have have changed their minds and now support the fee structure. If this is not the case, it is important for those people to write again.
The increased fees appear to have substantially affected the size of the waiting list. Last year, there were 1500 new applicants; this year there were less than 1/3 that number. Only about 1/2 of the 6200 people who were on the waiting list had sent in their $25 by mid-March. As of March 31, the remainder will be dropped from the list. Might this result in a decrease of the current, lengthy wait to obtain a permit? Possibly.
Obviously the $100 fee has significantly reduced the growth of the list. The wild card is the current 40% cancellation rate, which currently allows private boaters to obtain a permit with little or no wait. It could be that many of those who drop from the waiting list rather than pay an additional $25 would have ultimately given up their launch date. The fee structure, then, might reduce the opportunity for private boaters who have previously been able to obtain a canceled launch date each year. In time the full impacts of the new fee structure will become more apparent.
We have attended several meetings with various NPS officials at the South Rim, in Washington, and in Flagstaff, discussing the fee structure, the omission of public involvement in the process, and the plan for how these additional funds are to be spent. However, the NPS's official position is that the fees should not be changed again until the effects can be fully determined.
Backcountry hiking fees also present unsettling questions. On a philosophical level, imposition of these fees reflects the park increasingly being managed for the casual visitor who never strays from the pavement. For example, consider two families of 4, each visiting the South Rim for a week. Both pay a $20 entry fee.
The Smiths visit the South Rim, take a few short day hikes, and rely heavily on the infrastrcture, flush toilets and other available services. They spend their nights outside the park in a Tusayan hotel, each taking long, hot showers perhaps with water provided by future flows to Hermit Creek and Elves' Chasm. With feet remaining firmly on the pavement, they pay no additional fees to the park.
The Jonses enter the park via a remote road on the north rim. There is little signage to the trail head; the trail itself is unmaintained and rarely patrolled. So much the better; they seek a wilderness experience with as great a separation from the ever increasing clamor of rules, structure, and clamor of mankind. They carry out all their trash, and leave little trace of their having passed through. For this personal connection with the Canyon, the Jonses must pay an additional $20 permit fee, plus $4 per person per day—a total of $132.
For some this may be unaffordable; for others it may seem reasonable. However, there is an even more basic consideration. Of greater importance is the shift in what type of visitation for which the National Park Service is managing. Backcountry use, which most of us consider to be among the most appropriate and virtuous forms of visitation, is considered “special use” and requires additional fees. Shopping for a rubber tomahawk on the South Rim, on the other hand, does not. Does this policy appropriately reflect the guiding principles of the National Park Service?

Jeri Ledbetter