[Senate Hearing 109-11]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-11
FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL LANDS
RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT
__________
FEBRUARY 17, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-490 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Clement, Stephanie M., Conservation Director, Friends of Acadia,
Bar Harbor, ME................................................. 20
Nicoll, Hill, Acting President, National Park Foundation......... 16
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 10
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior............................. 3
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 29
FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. The committee will come to order.
Good afternoon. I want to welcome Lynn Scarlett from the
Department of the Interior and our other witnesses at today's
subcommittee hearing. Congratulations, Lynn, on your nomination
as Deputy Secretary. I look forward to working with you in that
capacity.
Our purpose for the hearing today is to have an oversight
on the National Park Service's implementation of the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. I cannot overstate the
importance of the recreation fees to the National Park Service.
Since the inception of the program, the Service has collected
over $750 million in recreation fees. With these fees, over
5,000 projects have been implemented to improve services and to
protect the resources and the visiting public.
As you know, the act was passed as part of the omnibus
appropriations bill at the end of the 108th Congress. Hearings
on the enabling legislation were never held in the Senate. The
bill authorizes recreation fees to continue for 10 years in
five bureaus, including the National Park Service. You will
recall that the Senate bill was just for the park, and when it
went to the House, then it was extended to include the other
bureaus.
The recreation fee program began as a demonstration project
in 1997. Bureaus such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management began collecting fees at locations where
fees were never charged in the past. The public questioned the
appropriateness of certain fees. At this time, I have asked
that criteria be developed to limit when and where the fees can
appropriately be collected.
The Recreation Enhancement Act includes criteria that will
be applied during the next several months to decide which fees
being collected under the demonstration program are allowed to
continue, which fees will cease, and new locations where fees
may be collected. The new law also authorizes the formation of
advisory boards to oversee the fee program and it establishes
an annual pass called the America the Beautiful Pass.
The National Park Foundation has run the annual pass
program for the National Park Service for the past 5 years. For
a one-time fee of $50, individuals could visit national parks
throughout the Nation without having to pay separate entrance
fees. For an additional $15, the pass could be upgraded to
include other public lands. The National Park Foundation has
done a very good job, providing a high quality pass program to
include a nationwide photo contest and outstanding marketing
approach, while controlling the overhead and the administrative
costs. As the National Parks Passport Pass is replaced by the
America the Beautiful Pass, I want to make sure that the same
visitor-oriented service and management efficiencies continue
during the transition.
So we thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look
forward to hearing the testimony.
Senator Akaka.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to this hearing with all of you and thank you for
scheduling this hearing to review the National Park Service's
plans to implement the new fee law enacted as part of last
year's omnibus appropriations bill.
Since only a few months have passed since that law's
enactment, I expect we will have more questions than answers at
this point, but I look forward to learning more about the Park
Service's plans on this issue.
I know the administration was eager to see the recreation
fee demonstration program enacted as quickly as possible, and
to do that, they went to the omnibus appropriations bill.
However, it is unfortunate that this language was included as a
last-minute addition by bypassing the normal legislative
process. In this case, I am concerned that the haste to get
this fee authority enacted has resulted in a confusing final
product. It is my view that had this issue gone through the
regular committee process, there would have been bipartisan
agreement on many of the fee-related issues and would have
resulted in a fee policy that would better serve the public.
Of all the Federal land management agencies, the National
Park Service's implementation of the fee policy has been
probably the most well organized, best accepted, and least
controversial. I continue to support, as I have for many years,
the Park Service's ability to charge reasonable fees and, most
importantly, to retain those fees for vital park services. I am
pleased that the new fee law maintains that authority.
However, other changes made by the new law may not be as
productive. For example, one provision would replace the
National Parks Passport that you helped created, Mr. Chairman,
and the well-established agency-wide Golden Eagle and Golden
Age Passports with a new America the Beautiful Pass. But the
new law repeals the National Parks Passport program just as the
National Park Foundation had established this very successful
program. The new law makes no reference to continuing the Park
Foundation's expertise on this issue and threatens to destroy
what, in my opinion, was one of the few success stories with
fees that the Department of the Interior had over the last few
years.
I would like to raise just one other point involving this
annual pass issue. Under the previous law, the National Parks
Passport cost $50 for unlimited park visits over a single year.
If a passholder desires, the pass can be upgraded to a system-
wide Golden Eagle Passport so they can go to National Forests
or Bureau of Land Management lands as well, for an additional
$15, or a total of $65. The new law makes clear that there can
be no other national passes other than the new America the
Beautiful Pass. It is hard to believe that the administration
will set the fee for this new pass any lower than the existing
Golden Eagle Passport at $65, which means that, in effect, it
will be an increase of 30 percent. It could be higher. This is
a significant increase in 1 year, especially for people on
limited incomes. Once this increase becomes apparent, I do not
think it will be supported by the public.
Mr. Chairman, there are clearly many questions about how
this new authority will be implemented, and I look forward to
hearing more about this from our witnesses this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
We will move on then to our first panel, which is the
Honorable Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior.
Madam Secretary, welcome.
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, and
other members of the committee, for the opportunity to discuss
the National Park Service's implementation of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act.
As you have noted, we are at the very early stages of
implementing the provisions of the new law, which was signed by
President Bush on December 8 of just last year. As we move
forward, I want to underscore that it is important that we
create a process and outcomes that the American public, public
land volunteers, and our key partners, such as the National
Park Foundation and others, embrace especially with regard to
the America the Beautiful Pass. We want to ensure that the
production and marketing of the new pass, indeed, that all
aspects of the pass meet the expectations of the public and of
partners.
Just after passage of the new law, our interagency
Recreation Fee Leadership council, which includes senior
officials from Interior's agencies, as well as from the Forest
Service, convened. The Rec Fee Council has approved an
implementation plan and formed a steering committee to oversee
day-to-day implementation of the new law. The plan sets forth
time lines and designates staff with lead responsibility in
four substantive areas. The include the national pass working
group, fee collection and fee expenditure group, a working
group focused on public participation and implementation of the
recreation advisory councils, and an outreach and
communications group. These four working groups are meeting
regularly to ensure the smooth implementation of the new law.
We are moving quickly to implement those portions of the
law that set parameters for locations where recreation fees are
permitted under the new law. This was an area of significant
concern to the Congress. All sites that charge recreation fees
must conform to the infrastructure and other requirements of
the law. We have already revised fee sites to conform to the
requirements of the new law, though this process is still in
progress.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management's Imperial Sand
Dunes has eliminated recreation fees for two overlooks and a
trailhead. The Gavin Point National Fish Hatchery no longer
charges an entrance fee, and the Forest Service's Arapaho
National Recreation Area no longer charges an entrance fee for
the entire area, though it may charge a standard amenity
recreation fee at specific localized, very developed sites. We
anticipate that more changes will occur as we review and assess
every recreation site on federally managed lands.
We are also working to ensure that the revenues generated
from fees are spent on enhancing visitor facilities and
services as called for in the new law.
Recreation fees, Senator Thomas, as you mentioned, over
recent years have provided significant revenues to our national
parks and other public lands. Under the new fee authority, we
look forward to continuing those kinds of investments.
Many of our visitors express a strong desire for seamless
opportunities to visit Federal lands and, indeed, have
expressed confusion over the proliferation of passes over
recent years. A key component of meeting this desire for
seamless visitor opportunities is the interagency national
America the Beautiful Pass established by the new law. It will
be offered as a lifetime pass to seniors for a discount and to
disabled individuals free of charge.
For the America the Beautiful Pass, we plan to provide
adequate time to create a pass that generates enthusiasm and
participation of our key partners, volunteers, and visitors to
our public lands. We do not expect to completely transition to
the America the Beautiful Pass until 2007.
During 2005 and 2006, we anticipate two parallel processes.
First, we hope to work cooperatively with the National Park
Foundation to distribute the Golden Passes and National Parks
Passport under our existing contract until issuance of the
America the Beautiful Pass. Second, we plan to discuss with the
foundation the image competition for 2007, anticipating
implementation for the America the Beautiful Pass in 2007.
I would like to commend the National Park Foundation for
its outstanding efforts over the past several years to make the
National Parks Pass successful. We would like to build on those
experiences as we move forward.
We have already held two listening sessions to provide the
public and members of the recreation community an opportunity
to share ideas prior to implementation of the America the
Beautiful Pass, one such listening session just this week.
Additional sessions are possible if the demand for such
meetings is out there.
We expect to conduct market research to gather ideas that
will inform pricing and other production and marketing
decisions. We will use that research to help refine objectives
for the program and develop potential performance metrics for
the pass, as well as to help make decisions about how to meet
our objectives. These objectives will include elements
identified directly from the act, such as creating an
interagency pass that provides for seamless visitor
experiences, but the objectives will also include less obvious
goals, such as how to help agencies build volunteerism and use
the pass to maintain and support our public lands.
One issue that is generating interest is the price of the
pass. Through our market surveys, we will examine that issue
and come forward with a figure that we think will be acceptable
to the public.
I will conclude by saying that all agencies are part of the
technical working groups that I described. The new act presents
tremendous opportunities to continue to enhance visitor
experiences on public lands. Implementation, however, of the
provisions of the act is a dynamic process. We will be
continuing to improve over time as we move forward.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we would like to
extend our thanks to you for all of your efforts through the
years to support park maintenance backlog, our national parks
and our other Federal lands.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the National
Park Service's implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (Public Law 108-447) (FLREA). Since the bill was signed
into law by President Bush on December 8, 2004, as part of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 2005, the Department of the Interior (DOI), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) and the participating
agencies--the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR), and the U.S.D.A Forest Service (Forest Service)--
have begun the implementation process. Implementation of the law is a
multi-agency, multi-Departmental effort, but the National Park Service
will play a prominent role, given its long history of building a
successful recreation fee program and its experience in administering
the National Parks Pass.
Our federal lands provide Americans and visitors from around the
world special places for recreation, education, reflection, and solace.
Ensuring that the federal lands continue to play this important role in
American life and culture requires that we maintain visitor facilities
and services and enhance visitor opportunities. Such efforts require an
adequate and steady source of funding that can quickly respond to
increases in visitor demand. Recreation fee revenues are a critical
source of such supplemental funding. FLREA will significantly enhance
the Departments' efforts to address the deferred maintenance backlog at
our National Parks and will enable us to better manage other federal
lands.
Implementation of a well-run and streamlined recreation fee program
that maximizes benefits to the visiting public is a top priority for
the Departments. On December 17, nine days after FLREA was signed into
law, the interagency Recreation Fee Leadership Council (Fee Council)
convened and approved an Implementation Plan. The Fee Council, whose
members include key officials of both Departments, was created in 2002
to facilitate coordination and consistency among agencies on recreation
fee policies. Our Implementation Plan includes the creation of a
Steering Committee to oversee day-to-day implementation, as well as
several technical working groups for each of the key areas. The Fee
Council created the following technical working groups:
National Pass Working Group
Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RAC)/Public
Participation Working Group
Communications Working Group
The Implementation Plan, a dynamic working document, sets forth
preliminary implementation timelines by identifying short-term, medium-
term, and long-term tasks and designates staff with the lead
responsibility to accomplish those tasks. The working groups are
drafting guidance, developing detailed action plans, and discussing key
issues to ensure compliance with the new law. One of the short-term
tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group is to ensure
that all sites that charge recreation fees conform to the
infrastructure and other requirements of the new law. Although this
review continues, the following are examples of sites that have made
changes to their fees under FLREA:
Gavin Point National Fish Hatchery (FWS) no longer charges
an entrance fee.
Arapaho National Recreation Area (Forest Service) no longer
charges an entrance fee for the entire area, but may charge a
standard amenity recreation fee at localized developed sites.
At Imperial Sand Dunes (BLM), recreation fees for two
overlooks and a trailhead were eliminated.
Quaker Lake Visitor Center and Lewis and Clark Visitor
Center (Forest Service) no longer charge for children under 16
years of age.
Implementation efforts that will require longer timeframes to
implement include establishment of RACs and the implementation of the
America the Beautiful Pass--National Parks and Federal Recreational
Lands Pass (the America the Beautiful Pass). Successful implementation
requires that we provide opportunity for public input. The RAC Working
Group will need to closely coordinate on the nominations process with
states, counties, and the numerous recreational, tourism, and other
groups interested in serving on the RACs.
With regard to the implementation of the America the Beautiful
Pass, a number of organizations have expressed both interest and
concern. We want to ensure that the production, marketing, and
provisions of the new pass meet the expectations of the American public
and key partners such as the National Park Foundation, our wildlife
refuge associations, and others. Because of significant interest by the
public and partner organizations, the National Pass Working Group has
hosted two ``listening sessions'' to provide the public and members of
the recreation community with an opportunity to share ideas about the
implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass. Additional sessions
may be scheduled, as needed.
HIGHLIGHTS OF FLREA
FLREA provides 10-year, multi-agency authority for NPS, BLM, FWS,
BOR, and the Forest Service to charge recreation fees and reinvest a
majority of those fees into enhancing visitor services and facilities
at the site of collection. A 10-year authorization provides the
certainty needed to make long-term investments in an integrated system
and create more partnerships. Creating a multi-agency recreation fee
program allows us to provide a more streamlined recreation experience
for the visitor and is consistent with other efforts by the Departments
to integrate recreation opportunities. FLREA also is consistent with
surveys that show that visitor support of recreation fees is strong
when the fees are reinvested to enhance visitor facilities and services
at the site of collection.
The recreation fee program is not new. All of the agencies with the
exception of BOR had broad recreation fee authority under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 as well as under the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) launched in 1996. Some
important distinctions distinguish FLREA from these earlier
authorities. While recreation fees collected under LWCF went to the
U.S. Treasury, recreation fees collected under FLREA are reinvested at
the collecting site to benefit the visitor through enhanced facilities
and services. Unlike the Fee Demo program, FLREA also limits fee
authority to locations with specific kinds of infrastructure and
services. For example, the BLM, Forest Service, and BOR may only charge
fees at sites and for activities that meet certain specified criteria.
For these agencies, certain fees may not be charged for general access,
dispersed areas with low or no investment, undesignated parking, or
picnicking along roadsides or trails. FLREA also requires that the
Departments establish RACs so the local community, the recreation
community, and the general public can provide input into fees
established by BLM and Forest Service. The RAC Working Group has
developed an options paper for implementing the RACs and is exploring
how to provide interested participants an opportunity to have input
into the process.
FLREA recognizes that the recreation fee programs for the NPS and
the FWS have enjoyed widespread acceptance. Hence, the law allows for a
fee structure similar to Fee Demo to continue for these agencies. FLREA
does make some program-wide changes, such as requiring the agencies to
better communicate with the public on the establishment of fees and how
fees are being used to enhance the visitor experience. We recognize
that, through the years, inconsistent interpretation of fee authorities
has resulted in a system that can sometimes be confusing and
frustrating for the visitor. In implementing FLREA, we have an
opportunity to create a more transparent recreation fee program and
ensure that we are better addressing the expectations of the visitor.
FLREA also provides general authority to establish fee management
agreements with governmental or non-governmental entities. We believe
tremendous potential exists to develop mutually beneficial partnerships
through the recreation fee program. One example of an existing
partnership is in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. NPS currently cooperates with
other federal agencies, the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, the Grand
Teton Natural History Association, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to operate the Jackson Hole
and Greater Yellowstone Interagency Visitor Center. The partners work
together to staff the center, provide visitor services, and develop a
wide range of exhibits and interpretive programs for their 300,000
visitors. Every agency has developed a number of successful
partnerships. We look forward to working with governmental and non-
governmental entities to explore other opportunities to expand such
mutually beneficial agreements.
The primary change in the recreation fee program for the National
Park Service is the expansion of the National Parks Pass into a multi-
agency America the Beautiful Pass. The new law builds upon innovations
generated through the National Parks Pass, such as the annual image
competition, allowing private vendor sales, and requiring active
marketing of the pass. The new America the Beautiful Pass will retain
the professional look and feel of the National Parks Pass, while
creating a more streamlined pass program, reducing visitor confusion,
and emphasizing recreation opportunities on all federal lands.
Increasingly, our surveys and experiences show that more and more
visitors seek interagency recreation opportunities. Many visitors have
expressed frustration at the inability to use a National Parks Pass on
other federal lands, or they have expressed confusion about the many
different passes. The new national pass will overcome these problems.
This shift aligns with other efforts by the Departments to streamline
and integrate recreation opportunities, such as through the National
Recreation Reservation Service and Recreation One-Stop.
FLREA specifies that the America the Beautiful Pass will cover
entrance fees for NPS and FWS and standard amenity recreation fees for
the BLM, Forest Service, and BOR, generally for a period of 12 months.
Discounts for seniors and free passes to individuals with disabilities
will continue in a lifetime pass. The National Parks Pass, Golden
Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access passes will continue to be sold
until the new pass is made available, and existing passes will remain
valid under existing benefits until expired, lost, or stolen. FLREA
provides general authority to enter into fee management agreements,
described above, as well as specific authority to enter into
cooperative agreements concerning the development and implementation of
the America the Beautiful Pass.
FLREA requires agencies to develop guidelines on the price,
distribution of revenues among agencies, benefits provided by the pass,
marketing and design, documentation for age and disability discounts,
and issuance of passes to volunteers. To provide consistent visitor
services, the law requires agencies to sell passes at all units where
entrance and standard amenity fees are charged. Administrative,
overhead, and indirect costs are capped at an average of 15 percent of
total revenues for the program overall. FLREA authorizes the use of
fees collected by any of the agencies to supplement administration and
marketing costs of the America the Beautiful Pass for five-years.
Unobligated funds from the National Parks Pass also are authorized to
be used to pay any outstanding costs associated with the National Parks
Pass.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that changes to the recreation fee
program under FLREA have generated some uncertainty as well as new
hopes and expectations among federal lands visitors, partners, and
associations. We wholeheartedly welcome the comments and ideas of these
individuals and organizations. We want their involvement in helping us
implement an America the Beautiful Pass program, including its
production and marketing, which benefits the public, expands awareness
of our federal lands, and builds additional support for federal lands.
HISTORY OF THE PASSES
The purpose of recreation passes originally was to create a
convenient system of payment for entrance fees to recreation sites
managed by different federal agencies. To a certain extent, passes
offer a means of providing visitors with a consistent package of
benefits at a defined set of recreation sites. The Golden Eagle Pass,
the current annual multi-agency national pass, was created in 1965
under LWCF. The original price was $7, which has increased over the
last 40 years to its current price of $65. In 1999, prior to
introduction of the National Parks Pass, the agencies sold
approximately 224,000 Golden Eagle Passes for revenues totaling
approximately $11 million. In 2000, after the National Parks Pass was
introduced, marketing of the Golden Eagle Pass declined. As a result,
Golden Eagle Pass sales in 2000 dropped from 224,000 to 54,000 and
revenue decreased from $11 million to $3.5 million. That same year,
National Parks Pass sales totaled approximately 203,000 and brought in
$10 million in revenue. During this time, the cost of the Golden Eagle
Pass also was raised from $50 to $65 to align with price of the
National Parks Pass. The National Parks Pass was set by statute to cost
$50, and it seemed inconsistent to charge the same price for the Golden
Eagle, which provided greater benefits.
During the peak of the Golden Eagle Pass sales in 1999, the Golden
Eagle Pass provided entry to 140 NPS sites, 32 FWS sites, 7 BLM sites,
and 18 FS sites. Today, the Golden Eagle Pass provides entry to 150 NPS
sites, 32 FWS sites, 18 BLM sites, and over 1500 FS sites. This
expansion in benefits from 197 to over 1700 sites is the result of
agencies administratively reviewing all fees and finding ways to
improve visitor service by increasing the coverage of various passes.
These efforts continue. Through the creation of the America the
Beautiful Pass, FLREA provides the opportunity to combine the expanded
benefits of the Golden Eagle Pass with the professional design and
marketing of the National Parks Pass and to eliminate confusion over
the various current passes.
In 2004, in-park sales accounted for 86 percent of the sales of the
National Parks Pass, retail partners for 6 percent, internet sales for
7 percent, and call centers for 1 percent. Approximately 21 different
umbrella organizations representing over 165 on-line transaction
partnerships have promotional retail relationships, mostly consisting
of weblinks to the National Parks Pass website. Commissions ranging
from zero to 20 percent have been established based on sales volume and
marketing contributions.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL PASS
The National Pass Working Group has set a preliminary target date
for transition to the America the Beautiful Pass for 2007. Visitor
confusion over the passes may exist during this period, so we are
working to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible and
that we provide the public with adequate information on the validity of
existing passes as well as the availability of the America the
Beautiful Pass.
The National Pass Working Group has identified three broad issue
areas: Marketing and Design, Pricing Issues, and Operational Issues.
Sub-issues related to marketing and design include the creation of a
marketing plan, the details of the image competition, the design of the
pass, production of the pass, and supplementary materials that would
accompany the pass. Sub-issues related to pricing include the price of
the pass, policies for review and approval, documentation for
discounts, third party sales, refunds, group sales, fraud policies, and
pass use data collection. Sub-issues related to operations include
inventory, accountability, ordering, shipping, handling, and
destruction. Other issues related to multi-agency management of the
program, such as distribution of revenues, validation, and sales
incentives also must be addressed.
One issue that is generating interest is the price of the pass. The
National Pass Working Group will examine this issue very carefully,
taking into consideration past studies and surveys, data related to
pricing of other national passes, and the relationship to other
recreation fees and site-specific passes. Other surveys, studies, and
market analyses will be conducted as necessary. Another issue of
concern is the distribution of revenues among agencies. We understand
the distribution of revenues has a relationship to sales at sites by
agencies. A key goal will be to ensure that the revenues from the pass
are distributed fairly among agencies, based on the best available
data.
In examining these issues, the National Pass Working Group is
reviewing the timeframes, structure, role of partnerships, and
experience and the expertise of NPS and the National Park Foundation in
developing the National Parks Pass. As you know, the National Parks
Pass was created in Section 502 of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act (National Parks Omnibus), which passed in October 1998.
The Act specifically allowed the Secretary to enter into agreements
with the National Park Foundation to develop and implement the National
Parks Pass and permit third party vendors to collect a commission. The
NPS entered into a non-competitive contract with National Park
Foundation. Within eighteen months after enactment of the Act, in April
2000, the pass became available for sale. Unlike the statute
authorizing the National Parks Pass, which mentions the National Park
Foundation by name, FLREA does not specifically name any entities
concerning pass development. At this time, our preliminary plan is to
select an organization or organizations to develop and implement the
America the Beautiful Pass through an open competition.
The National Parks Pass program has provided useful experiences to
build upon as we implement the America the Beautiful Pass. In 2001,
McKinsey and Company, Inc. completed a study of the NPS recreation fee
program. The NPS also began collecting pass use data at select parks in
2003. Through these efforts, we have learned that:
Some data suggests that National Parks Passes are purchased
more for discounted entrance and convenience than for
stewardship.
Pricing of the pass has a direct effect on entrance fee
pricing.
A price of $50 negatively impacts revenues for higher
entrance fee parks.
Acceptance of the pass negatively impacts revenues for parks
that collect both a transportation and an entrance fee at the
time of entrance. Transportation fees are charged specifically
to fund required or optional transportation systems.
Sales, use data, and geographical use patterns should be
considered when developing a revenue distribution strategy.
Revenue incentives for field sites that sell and accept
passes are critical to a successful program.
A professionally marketed product increases sales and can
provide important visitor data.
Marketing materials should clearly identify where and when
passes are accepted to reduce visitor confusion.
Field guidance relating to protocols for ordering,
destruction, and reporting should be clearly established and
conveyed during implementation.
Contracts or agreements to produce and market the pass must
provide very specific performance parameters and administrative
guidelines for the pass.
Close coordination among agencies and with any third-party
entities involved in the image competition, design, production,
marketing, and fulfillment processes is imperative.
While the Departments plan to move as expeditiously as possible
toward implementation, our primary goal is to create a high-quality,
well-thought-out, visitor-friendly pass program that is
enthusiastically embraced by partner organizations and the public.
Creating a successful pass program will require us to address many
complex issues. We plan to carefully consider our past experiences, the
National Park Foundation's expertise in the development of the National
Parks Pass, various studies conducted by the agencies on passes and the
recreation fee program, and feedback from members of Congress, the
recreation community, and the general public. The ``listening
sessions'' sponsored by the Departments were designed to provide an
open forum for such a discussion. We look forward to continuing the
dialogue with any interested parties as the Departments move forward on
implementation.
The recreation fee program is vital to our ability to meet visitor
demands for enhanced facilities and services on our federal lands. The
Departments view the passage of FLREA as the beginning of an important
opportunity to create a sensible, visitor friendly, efficient
recreation fee program. We view FLREA as a dynamic program that
responds to lessons learned and builds on success stories. We welcome
the opportunity to work with you toward this end.
Mr. Chairman, we would like to extend our thanks to you for all of
your efforts through the years to support our National Parks and other
federal lands. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Since you are the only one on this panel,
if you need to take a little more time----
Ms. Scarlett. That is all right. It might be better just to
have the give and take of questions.
Senator Thomas. All right. Before we do that, I will call
on the Senator from Colorado to see if you have any opening
comments, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas, and
thank you, Ms. Scarlett, for appearing before the committee
today.
My concern--and maybe this will lead to an answer from
you--has to do with how we are funding access to our public
lands around the West. Where I come from in Colorado, we have
huge public land resources that we value and that we treasure.
In my former days as executive director of the Department of
Natural Resources, we had an ongoing debate in my State about
what kinds of investments we ought to be making as a State in
facilities that were owned for State parks. At that time in
Colorado, we had a division between what the general fund would
provide for our State park system, which was essentially 30
percent general fund, and then 70 percent that we would
generate from fees. Now over the last several years, because of
budgetary issues and the philosophy of my Governor and others,
that has changed. So now we have gone to a system in Colorado
where State facilities at parks are funded exclusively through
fees, and there is no support from the general fund.
The concern that I had with that process is that I thought
it limited access to public lands and to public facilities by
people who would otherwise want to use those facilities. Also,
it created an unnecessary burden on people who wanted to come
and use park facilities and simply could not afford them.
In any event, I am wondering, given the fact that these
issues are so big for us in the West, I think that we need to
be very thoughtful about how we move forward in a process that
ultimately ends up creating a fee for access to our public
facilities. Just based on the legislative history of the
America the Beautiful Pass, I am not certain that you have
gotten to the point where I am at all comfortable with where
you are and where the Department of the Interior and the
related agencies intend to proceed on this matter.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
We will take some questions now. Are you aware yet of any
specific sites where fees have been collected that were in the
demonstration project that under this program will no longer be
applicable?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator. We have asked immediately all
of our agencies to inventory their sites and look at them for
conformity with the new statute. As a result of that, the Fish
and Wildlife Service has eliminated fees at one fish hatchery.
The national forests have eliminated fees, as I mentioned, at
Arapaho National Forest, although they may be exploring having
a fee at a specific location where there is a highly developed
infrastructure. The Bureau of Land Management has eliminated
fees at two overlooks at Imperial Sand Dunes, and the Forest
Service has also eliminated some fees. They were charging fees
for students, and the new law requires that no fees be charged
for people 16 and under. So they have eliminated some of those
fees.
We expect some additional changes. The Forest Service
itself has 1,500 sites, and they are inventorying them one by
one.
Senator Thomas. They are going to be charging at 1,500
different sites?
Ms. Scarlett. There are 1,500 specific sites where the
Forest Service has some fee. Now, that could be an individual
location within a large forest.
Senator Thomas. Of course, as you know, the basis of some
of the controversy was that if anybody wanted to just walk on
the forest somewhere, that the fee was not appropriate, and we
hope that that is the case when this is finished, that there is
some kind of a visitors development, a visitors facility that
would justify the fee.
You talked quite a bit about the pass. When will the
implementation of the basic law go into place?
Ms. Scarlett. We anticipate that the new pass, the America
the Beautiful Pass, would actually start in 2007. The reason
for that time line is several-fold. First, there is a long lead
time. The law does call for the photo contest, the image
contest, and there is a long lead time, 1 year to 18 months, to
actually effectively do that. Second, as we have heard issues,
concerns, and uncertainties by the public, we felt it very
important to have a public process, and hence we have been
having listening sessions. So we will be transitioning,
continuing with the existing pass through the next year and a
half and then starting with the new pass in 2007.
Senator Thomas. But all the entrances are not by passes.
Ms. Scarlett. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. You can go in and buy one entrance fee.
When will that begin then?
Ms. Scarlett. The single entry fees are effective right
away. For the most part, those fees either are already being
charged. 60 percent of park sites have some sort of fee. To
Senator Salazar's comment, about 11 percent of BLM locations
have fees, 89 percent do not. Those will continue but we will
pull out of that any that do not conform with the law.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Ms. Scarlett. And that right away. Our goal is to do that
immediately.
Senator Thomas. I think there is a 15 percent limitation on
the use of these dollars for administrative fees. Is that
correct?
Ms. Scarlett. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. Is that a reasonable level? Can you achieve
that?
Ms. Scarlett. Right now between the different agencies,
their administrative overhead costs, if you will, range from 13
percent to 21 percent. However, as we have looked at this in
the wake of passage of the act, we find that they are counting
different things as overhead. So the first thing that we are
going to do is to do a kind of data definition on what
constitutes indirect costs, then tally up what those are. I
think at this point we feel reasonably confident that 15
percent is reasonable, but we will know a little bit more when
we finish that data process.
Senator Thomas. I suppose there are ways, as you say, to
put different things into it, but it does seem as if that is
very adequate for simply the collection of the fees.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
also welcome you here and congratulate you for what has been
happening recently with respect to your nomination.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, one of the concerns
I have is the likely increase park visitors will have to pay
for an annual pass under the new fee program. After reviewing
your written testimony, I am even more concerned that there
will be significant increases in the cost of an annual pass. Am
I correct in assuming that the administration will not set the
price of the new pass below the $65 currently charged for a
Golden Eagle Passport and, based on your testimony, may
consider an even higher annual fee?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we have not determined what the fee
for the America the Beautiful Pass will be and, in fact, are
very cognizant of the need to ensure complete accessibility and
affordability. Consequently, we will be doing some marketing
studies and research before we actually set the fee.
I will add that the new law does also provide for some
regional passes that could be very beneficial to the public and
also be available at very affordable cost. For example, if you
live right here in the metropolitan D.C. area and you want to
go to the George Washington National Forest to places that
might have infrastructure and visitor services or to
Shenandoah, one prospect would be that you would have a
regional pass at very affordable cost for that. So we envision
a spectrum of opportunities, as well as, of course, the ongoing
ability to just go to a site-specific place and have the
entrance fee.
But affordability is very much front and center stage, and
I would like to reassure you that we certainly do not want to
do anything that adversely affects visitation.
Senator Akaka. I asked that question because I was
concerned about how we would justify it to the 400,000 people
who purchased National Parks Passes last year, that they must
pay 30 percent more. But as you said, it has not been set.
Ms. Scarlett. Correct.
Senator Akaka. By almost everyone's account, the National
Parks Pass has been one of the Park Service's success stories,
as I mentioned, in recent years, with sales about double what
they were when the pass was created. Visitors who wanted the
option to access other Federal lands had the option of
upgrading to a Golden Eagle Passport, and those who were
content with visiting only parks could stay with the National
Parks Pass. Will you please explain why it is a good idea to
take away the visitor's choice in this matter and force them to
pay a higher fee, if the fee is higher?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, over the last several years, as we
have operated the recreation fee demo program, one of the
things that became increasingly clear as we did visitor surveys
was that many visitors were very confused about the
multiplicity of passes. We probably had actually more
complaints about people who would buy a National Parks Pass and
then not understand that there were different Federal agencies
that managed different lands, and they would show up at the
Forest Service and think that the Park Pass was applicable
there. So that complexity and confusion was a significant
driver behind ultimately our support for the America the
Beautiful interagency pass. We thought it would reduce that
confusion and still give a very affordable option, coupled with
some of these regional options, and then of course, site-
specific fee options.
Senator Akaka. The Park Service has indicated it spent
about $1 million to set up the National Parks Pass program. Do
you have any estimate as to what it will cost to create this
new pass program?
Ms. Scarlett. I do not have estimates at this time. Our
technical working group is just getting underway. We do hope to
build significantly from the experiences that we have had both
with the Golden Eagle Pass and the National Parks Pass so that
we do not reinvent the wheel. But at this time, I would not
have a dollar figure for you.
Senator Akaka. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Akaka.
Ms. Scarlett, let me just ask a question about how the
division of funds collected will take place among the different
four or five agencies that are actually involved in the pass.
First of all, where will the money come to? Who will be the
collecting agency? Will it be the Foundation? Will it be
Interior? And then second of all, how will the determination be
made as to how the money goes out to the various agencies?
Ms. Scarlett. I hate to sound like a broken record here,
but we have not determined those technical details yet. We have
a working group addressing specifically that issue. But let me
step back and give you some of the principles under which that
working group is moving forward.
It is absolutely imperative, we think, that as fees are
collected, they do, of course, go back on the ground where the
visitation is occurring. That has been a significant issue that
we have heard from the public. They are happy to pay fees as
long as it is getting back on the ground.
We do have some experience both with the National Parks
Pass and the Golden Eagle Pass in trying to allocate those
national passes rather than the site-specific fees. We will be
building from that experience and probably it will be based on
a combination of where the visitation is occurring, as well as
where the pass is purchased, but the idea is to get the fees
fairly and equitably allocated primarily where the visitation
is occurring.
Senator Salazar. How will the revenue that comes in and
then goes out be divided between administrative costs and costs
of personnel and capital construction expenses within the park
facilities or other facilities that are within the list?
Ms. Scarlett. The provisions of the law actually restrict
the overhead, the administration to 15 percent of the revenues
collected. So we will be striving to conform. Well, we will
conform to those provisions. The remainder, as was the case
with the previous fee demo moneys, would be distributed 80
percent to the individual sites and then 20 percent can be
retained for distribution more broadly across the land
agencies. That is for the site-specific fees.
For the pass distribution, apart from the administration
costs, that is precisely the formula that we will be working
out, but it will be based on visitation and related kinds of
factors, where is the visiting occurring, where are the passes
being purchased, and allocating the money to those locations.
Senator Salazar. Ms. Scarlett, you are the representative
here of the Department of the Interior, and I look forward to
considering you for your new position very soon in the
confirmation process.
But in terms of the process that was used last year to get
this legislation enacted, do you have any misgivings about how
that legislation actually went through this Congress? My sense
of what happened--and I was not here at the time--but looking
back, was that not the kind of hearing that should have been
held both in this chamber and the other chamber to get the
concerns of the American taxpayer and user of public lands to
determine whether or not this was a good approach to how we pay
for facilities that we have on our public lands? I know now you
have to move forward and you have to abide by the law, but do
you have any misgivings about how the process went through last
year without it having had a full hearing in this chamber?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, of course, we are pleased ultimately
to have the law because for many years we had been hopeful of
taking the fee demo program and have it on a more permanent
footing so that we could invest in some of the technologies
that would allow us to apply the fee program better and so
forth. So on the one hand, we are certainly pleased to have
some certainty now in the fee program.
On the other hand, I think of course all of us are
champions of wide public participation. We did have a number of
hearings on the House side and also a number of public meetings
to discuss the prospect of legislation. Clearly, I know that
the authorizing committee had some concerns about the ultimate
approach of having it be passed through the appropriations
process.
Senator Salazar. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
It sounds as if the pass is going to be one of the more
difficult aspects of the administration. Who is going to
administer the pass?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, the working group that we have
underway right now is comprised of each of our agencies and
their technical experts on both fees, passes, and related types
of activities. We have not determined yet who will actually be
the administrator, whether it will reside in the Department of
the Interior, indeed, perhaps even the National Park Service
because of its significant experience, but that will be
determined over the next several months as that group moves
forward.
Senator Thomas. So I presume the National Park Foundation
will be under consideration for doing this?
Ms. Scarlett. We are very interested in continuing to work
with the National Park Foundation. We are very interested in
continuing to work with them on the photo image process. We
have a current contract with them on the National Parks Pass.
We expect that to be extended over the next year while we get
into gear with the America the Beautiful Pass, and then we very
much hope that they will participate when we have the
contracting process as we move forward.
Senator Thomas. It is my understanding the Secretary has
the authority to raise the fee under the law. What will be the
role of the Congress in that?
Ms. Scarlett. I believe that the provisions of the law do
provide for some raising of the fees. However, there are
several boundaries, if you will, on that. No. 1, the statute
does create recreation advisory councils or asks us to
establish those. And for those councils, one of their roles
would be to review both new fee area proposals as well as fee
changes. So we look forward to that public participation
process.
Second, as we currently implement our existing fee
activities, we have relied significantly on market surveys and
other processes because our fundamental goal here is to ensure
a good visitor opportunity and, as Senator Salazar mentioned,
accessibility. So we do not want to price people out of being
able to have that visitation.
Senator Thomas. You may have touched on this. If we get
into the pass and the BLM visitation is 10 percent of the
total, is there going to be a way to divide up the funding so
that they get 10 percent of the money?
Ms. Scarlett. That would be certainly our hope. One of the
things that is an opportunity, as we move forward, now that we
have a more permanent fee program, is to utilize swipe
technology and other technologies that will allow us to know
who is buying what where and where they are utilizing it. We
would hope that that enables us to tailor the flow of the
moneys.
Senator Thomas. You are not swiping the money, are you?
Ms. Scarlett. Not swiping the money, just the card.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Scarlett. But to enable us to get the moneys where
people really are utilizing the passes and paying the fees.
Senator Thomas. So, as I understand it, you will be working
on this. You will have some public hearings, some opportunity
for public input as you go through, and will really conclude
and be able to implement this in 2007.
Ms. Scarlett. That is correct. As I said, we have had two
listening sessions already with the public, and if there is
additional demand, as we move forward, we will continue to have
a very open public process.
Senator Thomas. Good. I think, obviously, there are a
couple of things that most of us are concerned about. I believe
that the taxpayers should support the main cost of the parks,
but those who visit have some additional responsibility because
they are the ones that are enjoying it. On the other hand, the
visitations of just going onto the forest or so on should not
be charged, and I hope that that will be generally the outcome
of what you do.
We have a vote, guys. How are we going to do this? Do you
want to take a break and do that? All right. Do you have any
more questions for the Secretary?
Senator Salazar. No.
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Thomas. If not, could we have a few-minute recess.
We will run and vote and come back. Then we will have our
second panel. So we stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas. We will, I think, go ahead and start. If
they show up, that will be great. I think that was the last
vote for a week, so people may disappear. So hurry.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much for being here. Jill
Nicoll, acting president of the National Park Foundation, and
Ms. Stephanie Clement, conservation director, Friends of
Acadia, from Bar Harbor, Maine. Welcome, ladies.
Jill, would you like to begin.
STATEMENT OF JILL NICOLL, ACTING PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Ms. Nicoll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jill
Nicoll, and I am the acting president of the National Park
Foundation. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
appear today before this committee to comment on the
implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
for the National Park Service.
The National Park Foundation was chartered by Congress in
1967 and our mission is to strengthen the enduring connection
between the American people and their national parks. We do
this by raising private funds, making strategic grants,
creating innovative partnerships, and increasing public
awareness. All of this is wrapped into the National Parks Pass
program that we currently operate.
Over the past 8 years, the National Park Foundation has
enjoyed substantial growth with $217 million worth of grants
and program support to national parks across the country. Our
growth has been achieved with fund raising and administrative
costs kept to a minimum. We are proud to say that Money
Magazine has just recognized the National Park Foundation as
one of eight charities best at maximizing the percentage of
donations going directly to programs supported.
I will start on the National Parks Pass by covering a brief
history of our involvement.
In January 1998, the Secretary of the Interior and the
Director of the National Park Service requested that the
National Park Foundation undertake a strategic marketing study
of the potential sale of the then Golden Eagle Passport outside
of national parks. After the historic passage of the National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, sponsored by the
honorable chairman here today, the National Park Foundation
entered into a contractual agreement with the National Park
Service to implement and operate the National Parks Passport
program. The authority for this relationship was created in
title VI, section 602 of the legislation.
Management of the program is much like operating a small
business. The National Park Foundation handles all level of
production for the pass. I will direct your attention to the
display here that shows the operational flow chart of the
National Parks Pass program, starting with the National Park
Service Recreational Fee Program Office. Here pass-related
approval decisions and payments to NPF for past services are
handled. From here the National Park Foundation handles the
marketing, banking, image selection through a contest,
fulfillment, data management, and printing, production. Much of
this work is accomplished by contracting with third party
vendors.
It is important to recognize that under the current pass
system, the National Parks Pass can be upgraded with the Golden
Eagle hologram that allows entrance to the areas managed by the
other agencies. The NPF manages this distribution with the
other agencies currently, with Bureau of Land Management, Fish
and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. All these agencies are to be included in the new
America the Beautiful Pass.
Following current marketing guidelines by the National Park
Service, we have three retail partners that market and sell the
pass directly, REI, AAA, and Eastern Mountain Sports. These are
partners from whom the consumer can purchase the pass directly
in their stores.
It should also be noted that the National Park Foundation's
management of this program does not exclude others from selling
the National Parks Pass. We cooperate with other partners, like
the Outdoor Industry Association, who through their member
companies offer co-branded websites that point consumers to the
Parks Pass purchase web page. The OIA then uses the commission
they make from the sales to benefit consumer outreach
initiatives to introduce more Americans to the benefits of
outdoor activity, a model for others that would like to sell
the National Parks Pass.
Our corporate partners at the highest level of partnership
with the National Park Foundation are our Proud Partners of
America's National Parks, like Kodak and American Airlines.
They are also involved with the pass. As you are aware, over
the past 4 years, Kodak has generously supported the contest
with a $2 million contribution to manage all aspects of the
image contest. The contest this year has attracted over 40,000
entrants.
A concern from the National Park Service that has been a
limiting factor on the pass is that partnering with retail
outlets and other indirect sales channels might decrease sales
at park gates. This perception, along with additional marketing
limitations, has directly affected the number of retail
partners engaged in directly selling the pass to date. To
better understand the issue, the National Park Service
initiated a study to track the impact of retail sales on in-
park gate sales. To date, gate sales and sales through the NPF
have both increased steadily over the years without conflict.
The National Park Foundation and Service have grown the
program to the point where now over 400,000 passes a year are
sold. While pass sales have doubled since the beginning of the
program, there is greater potential to increase pass sales if
there is a new approach to the marketing limitations currently
on the pass. We applaud the new legislation for looking at ways
to loosen some of these restrictions.
In conclusion, the National Park Foundation looks forward
to assisting with the transition to the America the Beautiful
Pass created with this new legislation and playing a central
role in the development, implementation, and marketing of the
new pass.
Together, over the past 7 years, the board of directors of
the National Park Foundation, along with the Department of the
Interior and the National Park Service, has made significant
investments in the startup and implementation of these
programs. These investments can be maximized to ensure a
successful beginning and a long-term future of the America the
Beautiful Pass that benefits national parks and all of our
public lands. The infrastructure, as indicated by this chart,
now exists for the new pass and we hope to have the opportunity
to work with the pass and this committee on the future
implementation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your ongoing support of
national parks and the National Park Foundation. Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I can
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nicoll follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jill Nicoll, Acting President,
National Park Foundation
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Jill Nicoll and I am the Acting President for the National Park
Foundation. The National Park Foundation was chartered by Congress in
1967 to encourage private philanthropic support of America's National
Parks. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this
subcommittee to comment on the implementation of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act for the National Park Service.
The mission of the National Park Foundation is to strengthen the
enduring connection between the American people and their National
Parks by raising private funds, making strategic grants, creating
innovative partnerships and increasing public awareness. Over the past
eight years NPF has enjoyed substantial growth: over $239 million in
contributions and $217 million in total grants and program support to
National Parks across the country. The Foundation's growth has been
achieved with fundraising and administrative costs kept to a minimum--
Money Magazine just recognized the NPF as one of eight charities best
at maximizing the percentage of donations going directly to programs
supported.
Before I delve into the details of my testimony I want to note that
the history and current practices of the National Parks Pass serve as
an obvious model for the new America the Beautiful--National Parks and
Federal Lands Pass created in this new legislation. The testimony I am
about to give should be seen as a way to frame the discussion around
the development of the new Pass and the NPF's role in reaching the
goals established by the new legislation.
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION AND THE NATIONAL PARK PASSPORT
In January 1998, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of
the National Park Service requested that the National Park Foundation
undertake a strategic marketing study of the potential sale of the
Golden Eagle Passport outside of National Parks. The Golden Eagle is an
annual pass providing the user with entrance to federal lands charging
an entrance fee. The pass can only be purchased at a federal site or
from a federal office. The study focused on two questions: the
potential untapped market for the pass and the potential net new income
that could be generated by selling the pass outside of National Parks.
The study, conducted by VIA International of Chicago in close
consultation with the National Park Service and National Park
Foundation, resulted in a recommended business plan for the
implementation of a National Parks Passport program which we will
reference through this testimony.
After the historic passage of the National Parks Omnibus Management
Act of 1998, sponsored by the honorable Chairmen here today, the
National Park Foundation entered into a contractual agreement with the
National Park Service to implement and operate the National Parks
Passport program, which was created in Title VI (six), Section 602 of
that legislation. In operating the Pass program, the National Park
Foundation continues to use the findings of the initial business plan
in guiding the program's operations.
The initial business plan for the National Parks Passport program
included higher sales and revenue figures than we currently enjoy
today, primarily due to several key assumptions made at that time,
including the assumption that the Pass would be sold through four key
indirect channels--mass merchandisers, specialty retailers, specialty
discounters and catalogs. These indirect channels were identified
because of their ability to help us reach first-time purchasers of the
National Parks Pass.
It is important to note, that as part of the contract with the
National Park Service the Foundation operates under a set of marketing
rules established by the NPS. In many cases, these rules have the
effect of limiting some opportunities with channels listed above and
with other partners that could otherwise help increase Pass sales. One
particular restriction is the inability to discount the Pass,
especially in cases of high volume sales.
Another limiting factor has been a concern that partnering with
many retail outlets and other indirect sales channels might decrease
sales at Park gates. To better understand the issue, the NPS initiated
a study that would begin to track the impact of retail sales on in-park
gate sales. To date, even with the limitations on the program, gate
sales and sales through the NPF have both increased steadily over the
years. We applaud the new legislation for looking at ways to loosen
some of these restrictions and others.
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARKS PASSPORT
Management of the program is much like that of a small business;
there are many levels of operation that the National Park Foundation
handles which I will detail here. I will direct your attention to the
display here that shows the operational flowchart of the National Park
Pass program. It begins with the National Park Service and the Fee
Demonstration office. All Pass-related approval decisions and payments
to NPF for Pass services go through the Fee Demo office. From there the
NPF handles marketing, design, production, image selection, data
management, and distribution. Some of this process is handled through
third party vendors detailed here on the flow chart. The NPF has
operational procedures in place to distribute the Pass to all federal
land management agencies and other pass selling partners. Under the
current pass system, the National Parks Pass can be upgraded with the
Golden Eagle hologram that allows entrance to the areas managed by the
other agencies. The NPF manages this distribution with Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, the USDA Forest Service, and the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Following NPS guidelines, we currently partner with 3 retail
partners to market and sell the Pass. Corporate partners at the highest
level of partnership with the National Park Foundation, Proud Partners
of America's National Parks, like Kodak and American Airlines are also
involved with the Pass. As you are aware, over the past four years
Kodak has spent almost $2 million managing a photo contest to choose
the National Parks Pass image that has attracted over 40,000 entrants.
Many of the entrants go on to become donors to Parks through the NPF
while the rest get a valuable first look at private philanthropy and
how it can benefit National Parks.
It also should be noted that the National Park Foundation's
management of this program does not exclude others from selling the
National Parks Pass. We currently partner with several other
organizations like the Outdoor Industry of America, Eastern National
and others that offer co-branded websites with their partner
organizations that direct consumers to the Parks Pass purchase webpage.
The commission offered to these partners can go towards consumer
outreach initiatives to introduce more Americans other benefits of
outdoor activity. In addition to the human powered recreation partners
listed above, the NPF looks to partnering with other organizations that
share in the Park Service mission, like motorized recreational
partners.
These examples and flowcharts are intended to show the National
Park Foundation--from the Board of Directors down to the staff and
vendors--is invested in the National Parks Pass program. The Board of
Directors of the NPF made a long term commitment to the success of the
program. I will now describe in detail some of those successes.
NATIONAL PARKS PASS SUCCESS
The National Park Foundation's management of the National Parks
Pass is a thriving endeavor. There were certainly issues that prevented
an entirely smooth start to the program--The NPF made a $1 million
upfront investment for the launch of the program, which was later paid
back to the Foundation. This investment was made to keep the program
operating and while all costs have been recovered, before that time
this investment was in effect a loan to the program.
The National Park Foundation also had to twice turn to new
legislative language to improve the operation of the program. First, to
move the percentage of revenue for administrative costs from 10% to
15%, and then to ensure prompt payment of Pass related expenditures
back to the NPF from fee revenue. Previously the NPF had a $2 million
line of credit to cover the time when expenditures went out from the
NPF and fee money was available back to the Foundation.
The Pass program, in conjunction with the National Park Service,
now operates smoothly from the phone and web-based orders, to the
production and distribution of the Passes to the parks, other land
management agencies and our retail partners. The Foundation and Service
have grown the program to the point where now over 400,000 passes a
year sold. While pass sales have doubled since the beginning of the
program there is greater potential to increase pass sales if there is a
new approach to the marketing limitations on the Pass and again we
applaud this legislation for taking a fresh look at this issue.
In addition to the revenue that comes to the National Park Service
from the Pass, the National Park Foundation gains information on Pass
purchasers that very often allows the Foundation to develop them into
life long donors and stewards of the National Park Service. The NPF has
gathered over 250,000 names from those Pass holders that have
voluntarily opted in to learn more about the Foundation's role in Park
philanthropy and other opportunities to support parks through
volunteerism. The Foundation is a known quantity for many existing
donors and has a credible park-directed mission that they trust. We are
congressionally chartered, make significant grants directly to Parks
and manage donations efficiently--all of these operate as incentives to
new donors.
The goal of the National Park Foundation with regards to the Pass
program is not just donor development driven. The program is also
mission driven, a unique position that the NPF, as the national partner
of the NPS, is able to fill. The mission of the NPF, as stated in the
beginning of this testimony, is entirely consistent with the results of
the National Parks Pass. The program not only secures private funds,
but also increases public awareness of the National Park Service. The
owner's manual that accompanies the Parks Pass engages Park visitors
and encourages them to experience more of their national treasures.
Annually we are able to strengthen the connection of almost a half a
million Americans to National Parks through the purchase and use of a
National Parks Pass and as we've stated there's potential for much more
future growth.
We believe the opportunity is there to further improve the program
by implementing new technologies, such as credit card capability in
every fee booth, access to account numbers by National Park Service
personnel when visitors forget their Passes, processes that would allow
for the collection of usage data, and automatic entry points at Park
gates. Park visitors are increasingly tech savvy and expect a certain
level of customer service from the Parks Pass that can be provided in
the future.
CONCLUSION
The National Park Foundation looks forward to assisting with the
transition to the America the Beautiful Pass created with this new
legislation and playing a central role in the development,
implementation, and marketing of the new Pass. Together, over the past
seven years, the Board of Directors of the National Park Foundation
along with DOI and the NPS has made significant investments in the
start-up and implementation of this program. These investments can be
maximized to ensure a successful beginning to the America the Beautiful
Pass. The infrastructure exists now for the new Pass, and we hope to
have the opportunity to work with the Pass with this Committee, and the
DOI and the USDA.
Thank you for your ongoing support of National Parks and the
National Park Foundation, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I can answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Thomas. Fine. Thank you very much.
Stephanie.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE M. CLEMENT, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR,
FRIENDS OF ACADIA, BAR HARBOR, ME
Ms. Clement. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Stephanie Clement and I am conservation director for Friends of
Acadia, which is a nonprofit conservation organization located
in Bar Harbor. Our mission is to preserve and protect the
outstanding natural beauty, ecological vitality, and cultural
distinctiveness of Acadia National Park. We are one of
approximately 180 philanthropic organizations that support the
National Park System, and since 1995, we have contributed
approximately $4.6 million to Acadia National Park and its
surrounding communities.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment today.
We have submitted written testimony and an addendum this
afternoon to the committee with suggested legislative language
that you might use when making technical amendments to the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
We have concerns in seven general areas which I will just
briefly summarize.
The first is pricing, which has already been discussed
extensively. The National Parks Pass we believe is very
attractive to park visitors because presently it is only $10
more than an annual pass to Acadia costs right now. We are
concerned that the America the Beautiful Pass might be less
attractive to visitors at Acadia because we are more isolated
than some western parks, but we encourage market studies
overall to ensure that whatever price is set for the America
the Beautiful Pass is set such that visitors will be able to
continue to go to our national parks.
Our second concern is related to transit fees. Acadia
National Park has part of its entrance fee a transit fee that
enables support of the island explorer bus system which, since
its inception since 1999, has carried 1.5 million visitors
throughout Acadia National Park and its surrounding
communities. What we would like to see is that when folks
purchase the America the Beautiful Pass, Acadia is able to
retain, on top of the 80 percent, a portion of the price of
that to cover its transit fee, which presently they do not
retain with the National Parks Pass.
Our third concern deals with revenue losses that might
happen as a result of the America the Beautiful Pass. The place
that a person purchases an America the Beautiful Pass will
determine which agencies retain that funding. When the National
Parks Pass was first implemented, there was an effect seen out
at Zion and at Bryce Canyon National Park, whereby visitors
would often go to Zion first, purchase their National Parks
Pass there and Bryce Canyon saw a significant reduction in the
amount of fee revenues that it collected at its gates because
people were coming with their National Parks Pass. Our major
concern is that when we extend that to other Federal land
management agencies, it will increase the areas that are
covered by these passes. And also, we are crossing
jurisdictional boundaries such that if someone purchases a pass
at a national forest, the Park Service may see less of a
revenue at their entrance gates, and we are crossing USDA with
the Department of the Interior. Experiments will be required to
see how to correct some of those differences, and perhaps the
swipe card that was mentioned is a possibility for correcting
that issue.
A fifth area that we are concerned about is related to fee
collection. As you mentioned, in the bill there is a 15 percent
figure that is allowed for parks to retain for the cost of
collection. Acadia is anticipating that they will be issuing
18,000 Golden Age passes in--actually they issued that in 2004.
Acadia has multiple entrances and we want to make sure that
they do not have to issue the America the Beautiful Pass to
that level every year. They want to make sure that a pass that
is issued in 1 year will be good for multiple years, but there
are several implementation issues surrounding that that we have
documented in our testimony today.
We also want to make sure that Acadia is able to experiment
as much as possible. Because of the multiple entrances, their
cost of collection is higher than other parks, and we want to
be sure that they are able to continue to have fee revenue
collection sites at places that are accessible to visitors in
local towns and so on.
And the sixth area that we wanted to mention is the role of
the National Park Foundation. We believe that the National Park
Foundation has done a really good job in overseeing the
National Parks Pass program. The foundation has data bases,
partnerships, staff specialists, and organizational systems set
up for such a large fee program, and they understand how to
operate. So we would like to be able to see the National Park
Foundation continue in that role.
Then finally, the last thing that I would like to mention
is that Friends of Acadia is pleased to be a partner of the
National Park Service. Our donors give willingly to our
programs because they see that it benefits and provides a
margin of excellence to the national parks. We would like to
make sure that the fee program that is implemented does its
absolute best to make sure that the parks are able to retain
the maximum amount of fees that they can. We do not want to see
that there are fewer fees being generated at our national parks
and retained by Acadia in exchange for any donations that we
might give. That is a disincentive to our donors.
Thank you very much for the time to provide testimony
today. We appreciate it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie M. Clement, Conservation Director,
Friends of Acadia, Bar Harbor, ME
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Stephanie Clement, and I am Conservation Director for Friends of
Acadia, an independent non-profit conservation organization in Bar
Harbor, Maine.
Friends of Acadia is one of 180 philanthropies helping the National
Park System. Since 1995 alone, Friends of Acadia has granted $4.6
million to Acadia National Park and community entities.
I want to thank you and your committee, Senator, for the former fee
demonstration program. At Acadia, as you know, Friends matched $4
million in fees with $9 million in private fundraising to create the
first privately endowed trail system in the national parks.
Thank you also for the opportunity to speak today on the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. With your permission, I will submit
written testimony for the record and summarize my remarks.
INTRODUCTION
Friends of Acadia has concerns about the America the Beautiful Pass
that we hope you will address through technical amendments before the
law is implemented.
The concerns lie in seven areas: pricing, transit fees, agency
revenue sharing, fee retention policies, fee collection costs, fee
experimentation, and the role of the National Park Foundation.
1) Pricing. The America the Beautiful Pass could be attractive for
visitors to federal lands but will be successful only if it is
thoroughly market-tested and priced accordingly. If the price is set
too high above those of some existing passes, the new pass becomes less
attractive.
Friends of Acadia would hate to see the elimination of the proven
National Parks Pass in exchange for a broader pass that is overpriced
for the public it is trying to serve.
The National Parks Pass has been popular at Acadia because it costs
$50.00, only $10.00 more than the annual entrance pass, affording
access to many parks at little marginal cost.
2) Transit Fees. We ask that 100% of the transit fee charged at
some parks, including Acadia, be added on top of the 80% of fee revenue
that parks can retain from the American the Beautiful Pass, as is the
case with the transit fee in relation to a park's standard entry fee.
3) Revenue Sharing Among Agencies. Some land management agencies
could see significant revenue losses created by the America the
Beautiful Pass. When the National Parks Pass was implemented, Bryce
Canyon National Park witnessed a decline in fees collected because
visitors often traveled to Zion National Park first, where they
purchased the National Parks Pass.
Adding other federal lands to the equation will complicate matters,
particularly where a Department of Agriculture unit affects the fee
revenues at an Interior Department site or vice versa. Predicting where
these effects will be seen and remedying them through multi-agency pass
agreements or revenue redistribution will be a difficult process,
involving multiple years of data collection and experimentation with
different scenarios.
4) Fee Retention. Friends of Acadia's fourth concern is that the
Secretary can reduce the proportion of fees retained at a federal land
unit from 80% to 60% if she deems that the unit has collected more
revenues than can be expended on site for reasonable needs in that
fiscal year.
Acadia National Park has managed its fee collection and
expenditures responsibly. $12.9 million net revenues have been retained
since the recreational fee demonstration program was initiated in 1997,
and $9.2 million has been spent on important projects, such as trail
rehabilitation, upgrades to the visitor center, handicap accessibility,
etc. Some projects require multi-year planning and allocation. The
possibility that the Secretary could reduce Acadia's fee revenues to
60% in any year will make planning complex, multi-year projects very
difficult.
Friends of Acadia recommends removal of the 60% provision. If it
must remain, we ask that a multi-year time lag be built into
implementation so that a park or other federal unit can prepare for
anticipated losses of revenue.
Regarding philanthropy, there will be a disincentive to private
donors if their charitable contributions to the park increase while the
federal government, which has the ultimate responsibility for Acadia,
reduces the amount that it appropriates or allows Acadia to retain.
5) Fee Collection Costs. The 15% overhead limitation is not
flexible enough for parks that have complex collection operations.
Acadia, for example, has multiple private entrances, and fee collection
is inherently expensive and manpower-dependent. The park is trying to
increase visitor compliance with fee requirements, but the 15%
limitation will reduce the Park Service's ability to find creative ways
to encourage compliance. The law should account for such realities.
If the America the Beautiful Pass for older people and individuals
with disabilities is re-issued annually, we think the costs to
individual parks would increase significantly. Acadia sold, or
exchanged for plastic cards, about 18,000 Golden Age passes in 2004,
which are good for a lifetime. If the park must now reissue 18,000 free
passes every year, administrative costs will skyrocket.
Also, unless the replacements for the Golden Age and Golden Access
passes are conspicuously different from one another in color and
design, fee collection will be slower and more complicated per
transaction, backing up traffic at entry stations. Also there will be
greater possibility for errors or even fraud.
6) Fee Experimentation. The old fee demo program encouraged parks
to experiment with fee structures, pricing, administration, etc. The
new law does not. This will impede parks like Acadia as they try to
adapt to change in visitor populations, travel patterns, etc. We
recommend that the spirit of experimentation be included in the new
law.
7) Role of the National Park Foundation. Our final concern is: who
will manage and market the America the Beautiful Pass?
Friends of Acadia believes that the Congressionally chartered
National Park Foundation is best suited to oversee the America the
Beautiful Pass program, and should be specifically named in the
technical language of the law. Having successfully managed the National
Parks Pass program from its initiation, the Foundation already has the
databases, partnerships, staff specialists, culture and organizational
systems for such a large national effort, and understands how to
operate within federal guidelines. The foundation has direct and
extensive managerial experience and should implement the pass. To re-
start the program from scratch with a new manager would be inherently
inefficient and an unjustifiable waste of funds and start-up time.
Friends of Acadia is proud to be among the many partners of the
National Park Service. Thanks you for the opportunity to testify. I am
happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Suggested Language Changes for Technical Amendments to the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
Friends of Acadia respectfully asks that the following the
following language changes be made in the law. In some cases we have
cited the relevant sections; in others we have merely provided language
to be placed where the Committee deems it most appropriate.
INTENT
``It is the intent of Congress that the Act shall encourage
experimentation in fee structure, pricing, administration, and related
matters, by the affected agencies and individual units or areas, to
create flexible fee schedules that are fair to the visitor and can be
efficiently administered by a unit or area.''
ADMINISTRATION
``The National Park Foundation shall administer the America the
Beautiful Pass in consultation with the Secretary. The foundation is
authorized to recover from fee revenues pits-administrative costs plus
a reasonable amount of overhead to be determined in consultation with
the Secretary.''
PRICING
``The pricing schedule of the America the Beautiful Pass shall be
set according to market rates. Test marketing shall be undertaken from
time to time to determine optimum pricing levels.''
DISTRIBUTION
Preferred action: In Section 807, strike entire paragraph (c), (1),
(B), beginning ``REDUCTION-- . . .''
Or . . .
Substitute this alternative to paragraph (B): ``REDUCTION--The
Secretary may reduce . . . but not below 70 percent, provided that the
reduction shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year in which the Secretary determines that the revenues collected at
the unit or area exceed the reasonable needs of the unit or area for
which expenditures may be made.''
FEE COLLECTION COSTS
In Section 808, paragraph (c), ``Administration, Overhead, and
Indirect Costs,'' add this language at the end of the paragraph: ``For
units or areas that the Secretary determines have complex fee
collection circumstances, the limitation shall be set at 25 percent of
total revenues collected.''
TRANSIT FEE
``At a unit or area that charges a transit fee, 100 percent of the
transit fee shall be retained in addition to the amount retained in fee
collections.''
MONITORING
``The Secretary shall annually monitor the fee programs established
under this Act and report the findings to the Committee. The
Secretary's report shall include, but not be limited to,`an analysis of
total revenues and expenses program-wide and at each affected unit or
area, an assessment of the impacts of the program on visitation,
recommendations for improving the program's effectiveness, and other
relevant information. The National Park Foundation shall annually
report to the Committee on matters relevant to the foundation's
administration of the America the Beautiful Pass program.''
Senator Thomas. Well, thank you. I thank both of you.
Jill, I do not think I am quite clear on this. The 15
percent that is administratively used is used by the park. Is
that correct?
Ms. Nicoll. Yes. All the fees collected go directly to the
parks and then the parks allocate the percentages back to us
and to the administration of the program.
Senator Thomas. I see. So the money you get out of it is
out of that administrative portion that the parks have.
Ms. Nicoll. Right, and it is just direct reimbursement for
our costs.
Senator Thomas. I see.
You have been doing this then for parks only.
Ms. Nicoll. Yes. Well, we also managed that Golden Eagle
upgrade, and so we managed the distribution of the upgrade, the
hologram sticker, to the other land management agencies. So we
do have that distribution network already in place.
Senator Thomas. How do you divide the fee among the various
participating----
Ms. Nicoll. Once again, we leave that to our partner, the
National Park Service.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. I see.
Is there a formula for that?
Ms. Nicoll. I do not know. Do you?
Ms. Moore. The hologram sales actually are kept by each of
the agencies that receive the hologram. So there is no cost to
the BLM or Forest Service for the holograms. But then when they
upgrade the passes to the visitors, $15 stays right at the
agencies where the hologram was sold.
Senator Thomas. So if I bought one at the Forest Service
for $50 or whatever, but I visited the parks 10 times and the
forest once, that still would be the distribution system.
Ms. Moore. Right now, that is the only way it is sold. So
if you purchased the National Parks Pass in the park, the
majority of the revenue stays at the park, 80/20, with 15
percent off the top that goes toward overhead costs. But let us
say you have a National Parks Pass at the Park Service and you
want to upgrade it to the Golden Eagle, wherever you go to make
the upgrade, whether it is in the park, then the $15 stays in
the Park Service. If you upgrade at a BLM site or a Forest
Service site, the $15 will then go to that agency.
Senator Thomas. Could you tell us who you are so we could--
--
Ms. Moore. I am sorry. I am Jane Moore, the Fee Program
Manager from the National Park Service.
Senator Thomas. Then, Jill, your organization would be
interested and be prepared to manage it as it applies to five
different bureaus?
Ms. Nicoll. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Thomas. You have done some of this before.
Ms. Nicoll. Yes, and we feel we can just expand the current
infrastructure to accommodate the expansion of the program.
Senator Thomas. The legislation that established the park
pass stated, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with the National Park Foundation or other
interested parties to provide for the development and
implementation. The Secretary shall take such actions as are
appropriate to actively market the passports. Would the Park
Foundation support such language for the America the Beautiful
Pass?
Ms. Nicoll. Yes, absolutely we would.
Senator Thomas. So if I understand what you are saying,
why, even though this will be expanded some and so on, that
what you have been doing is generally applicable to what you
expect to be doing in the future.
Ms. Nicoll. Yes. It is just an expansion of the current
operation, not recreating the whole operation to accommodate
this new program.
Senator Thomas. What is your reaction to trying to get some
method of distribution fairly among the agencies in terms of
where it was paid and where it was used?
Ms. Nicoll. Well, really, the only way to solve that is
with technology and to track usage. That would require an
investment in the technology itself, but that is really the
only way to fairly allocate based on usage and point of
purchase.
Senator Thomas. You have done some market analysis and so
on. The Senator expressed some concern about the additional
cost. What have you found in your market analysis?
Ms. Nicoll. We have received very few complaints at the $50
price point level, and since that is the majority of the passes
sold, obviously the consumer is comfortable with that $50 level
because it has been in place quite a long time and they are
used to it. Consumers notice when prices go up.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Do the passes generally come from local people who go to
the same park a dozen times, or can you differentiate?
Ms. Nicoll. We cannot differentiate at this time.
Senator Thomas. So people might be traveling all over the
country and going to each one once, for that matter.
Ms. Nicoll. Right.
Senator Thomas. Again in your marketing background, what
would be your anticipation in terms of the expansion if we go
into five different bureaus?
Ms. Nicoll. In what respect?
Senator Thomas. In the sale numbers.
Ms. Nicoll. It depends on the price. My understanding is
that they are purchasing the pass for national park visitation
predominantly right now. I think it would begin to be a
disincentive, as Stephanie pointed out, if suddenly the
incremental cost to the expanded pass somehow became
unreasonable, especially compared to the individual park fees
as you enter. So I think the price is a very, very important
issue in terms of the success of the new pass.
Senator Thomas. Stephanie, in your testimony, you mentioned
15 percent administrative costs might be unreasonable for some
parks. What is the cost for Acadia and what changes would you
anticipate to reduce it?
Ms. Clement. We sat down with the Park Service prior to
coming here today, and the figures that we had were that since
the inception of the fee demonstration program, they have
retained $12.9 million in fee revenues and $9.2 million of that
has been used for on-the-ground projects such as the trail
rehabilitation, visitor center upgrades, and so on. And that
leaves a figure of $3.2 million that they have used since the
very beginning for the costs of fee collection. If you look at
it overall, it comes out to almost 25 percent.
The reason why it is so high, as I mentioned, Acadia does
have multiple entrances. So they have had to find unique ways
of accessing the visitors. It is not like there are individual
gates that people can go through. There really is only one
entrance point that is on the main road where people go through
in their cars and purchase passes. The other way that Acadia
has had to sell their passes is through individual visitor
enters downtown, through working with L.L. Bean to try to sell
the National Parks Pass at the L.L. Bean retail store, which I
would say actually receives more visitation than Acadia
National Park does. So that is why the cost of collection is
much higher at Acadia.
Senator Thomas. I see.
We have talked about initiating an advisory board for the
recreation fee. I presume Friends of Acadia would be willing
and interested in serving on such a board.
Ms. Clement. Actually we feel that Acadia National Park
already has an advisory board in place that works very well. It
is called the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, which
was set up when the boundary legislation passed in 1987. We are
not a member of that. The membership is made up of
representatives from each of the border towns next to Acadia
and then also some appointed officials by the Department of the
Interior and then also the Governor has some appointees to that
commission as well. So we think that is probably the
appropriate commission for Acadia National Park.
Senator Thomas. We are talking about an advisory board for
the whole Nation.
Ms. Clement. Oh, okay.
Senator Thomas. So we would set up something that fits
Teton Park as well as it does Acadia.
Ms. Clement. Sure. Yes. I am sure we would be happy to
serve on that.
Senator Thomas. Do you believe, Jill, that you will be
ready to go implement this in 2007?
Ms. Nicoll. If we were given the opportunity and
notification soon enough. The parks pass photo contest actually
starts earlier than one would logically think it would need to
based on the production schedule. So we are currently preparing
the materials for the 2007 photo contest right now. Yes, if we
were to have the privilege to manage the America the Beautiful
Pass program moving forward, like I said, it would just be an
expansion of our current operation, a name change, additional
production, but it would not be a hardship.
Senator Thomas. The first year you could go ahead with your
park that you already started with the photo I suppose, could
you not?
Ms. Nicoll. Right, as long as the other land agencies did
not get mad.
Senator Thomas. Next year you can get BLM on there.
Ms. Nicoll. Right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. What is your projection on--well, I guess
you already responded to it. What kind of possibility of growth
in sales do you see if all these five agencies are involved? Do
you think that is going to have an impact particularly?
Ms. Nicoll. The real potential for sales growth is actually
outside the gates. I think with some additional leeway on some
of the marketing restrictions, we could increase the retail
sales. As our numbers show, people would purchase the pass
without using the full value of the pass, purchase it as a
gift, purchase it for a number of different reasons. So you
could have increased sales at the gate while really increasing
the revenue pie, if you will, by selling more in the outside
retail markets. People would purchase this just because it is a
way of showing their support for public lands. And we are still
convinced that that theory holds true.
Senator Thomas. I read something the other day. I cannot
remember specifically. I think they were some comments by
retired park employees that they thought the parks were getting
too commercial in terms of their advertising and marketing. How
do you feel about that?
Ms. Nicoll. I respectfully disagree.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Well, I certainly thank you. I think we
have a challenge before us, of course, to make this program
work as well as possible. There will be some changes in terms
of expanding it to the other agencies. There will always be
some difference of view about the level of charge, of course,
and so on, but I do think that the idea of having public
meetings, as the Secretary said they were going to have, will
be good input. Of course, you can usually tell from the sale of
things by the volume as to whether you have exceeded the price
and so on.
So we certainly thank you for being here and look forward
to working with both of you.
Ms. Nicoll. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Clement. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. We will adjourn the committee.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Friends of Acadia,
Bar Harbor, ME, March 9, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: Thank you once again for the opportunity to
testify on February 17, 2005 regarding the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act authorized in Public Law 108-447. We appreciate your
concerns and interest in the fee program, and we look forward to
working with the Subcommittee to ensure the best possible fee program
to benefit the national parks. I am writing in response to the
questions you posed for the record regarding Friends of Acadia's
testimony.
Senator Thomas, thank you again for your time and attention to
national parks and fee issues. Friends of Acadia greatly appreciates
the opportunity to provide our thoughts on the implementation of the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. If there is any way that we
can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us at (207)
288-3340 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Clement,
Conservation Director
[Enclosure.]
Question 1. In your testimony, you mention that the 15%
administrative cost may be unreasonable for some parks.What is the
administration cost for Acadia and what changes to you anticipate being
made to reduce the cost to 15%?
Answer. There are three costs associated with the fee program at
Acadia: A) the administrative cost of managing the fee program; B) the
direct cost of collection; and C) the costs of planning, design, and
supervision of projects implemented using fee revenues.
A) Administrative Costs: Acadia National Park staff estimate that
the Park's administrative costs related to the fee program are
approximately 5% of the total revenue retained. These figures are well
under the 15% figure, so the Park could maintain the present fee
program.
B) Cost of Collection: Acadia National Park's direct cost of
collection since the initiation of the recreation fee demonstration
program in 1997 has been almost 25% of the total revenue retained at
the Park. Acadia has retained approximately $12.9 million in entrance
fees since 1997, spent $9.2 million on approved projects, and expended
$3.2 million to cover the cost of collection. Fee collection costs are
higher at Acadia than at other national parks because Acadia has
multiple entrances and fee collection points. Acadia accesses visitors
at normal locations (visitor centers, campgrounds, and entrance
booths), but is also forced to be innovative in selling passes at other
locations, such as the Island Explorer bus information center. If
Acadia were required to cut the cost of collection to 15%, the Park
would either have to reduce operating hours at fee collection sites or
close some of these locations altogether, both of which would
ultimately hurt fee retention at the Park.
C) Planning, Design, and Supervision Costs: Acadia National Park
staff closely follow the guidelines for project administration
established by the National Academy of Public Administration. These
costs include items such as planning, design, and supervision for all
the construction/rehabilitation projects undertaken with the fee
demonstration program.
Question 2. How many visitors to Acadia National Park use the
annual pass to obtain entry? How many annual passes did visitors
purchase at Acadia National Park last year?
Answer. According to Kevin Langley, Fee Collection Manager at
Acadia National Park, the Park sold 3,049 National Park Passes in 2004,
3,666 annual passes specific to Acadia, and 10,066 Golden Age passes
(some of which were replacements for older paper versions of the
passes).
For the first time last year, Acadia used swipe card technology to
track how many visitors arrived at the entrance station on the Park
Loop Road with National Park Passes or Golden Age passes in hand. The
information was not retained locally, however, and has been sent to
Marge Koehler of the National Park Service in Washington, who is
reportedly tabulating the results from Acadia and other national parks.
We suggest that the Subcommittee contact her directly for more
information.
Question 3. Has the National Park Service or Department of Interior
initiated efforts to form an Advisory Board to oversee the recreation
fee program in the area of Acadia National Park? Does Friends of Acadia
have any desire to serve on such a board if asked?
Answer. Neither the National Park Service nor Department of
Interior has initiated efforts to form a local advisory board to
oversee the recreation fee program at Acadia. However, there is a
Congressionally established group, the Acadia National Park Advisory
Commission, that oversees all areas of park management, including fees.
The Acadia Advisory Commission is comprised of representatives from
each of the towns bordering the Park, as well as at large appointees of
the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Maine. Friends of
Acadia feels that this commission adequately serves all local oversight
functions. However, were a national advisory board established to
oversee implementation of the fee program for all parks, Friends of
Acadia would be honored to serve on such a board.
Question 4. Given your concerns regarding the 60% provision do you
have specific recommendations prepared to implement a time lag?
Answer. Acadia National Park has been circumspect in obligating and
expending funds from the recreation fee demonstration program. Friends
of Acadia's concerns related to the 60% provision stem from two areas--
the fact that many fee demo projects require multi-year planning and
expenditures and the possibility that reducing the amount of fees
retained at Acadia will be a disincentive for Friends of Acadia's
donors to contribute. An atmosphere of decreasing federal investment in
the Park is not conducive to charitable giving.
One of the most successful uses of fee revenues at Acadia has been
the restoration of the trail system. Friends of Acadia contributed over
$9 million in private funds to match $4 million in Park Service funds
(primarily fee demonstration monies dedicated to trail rehabilitation)
to restore and permanently endow Acadia's trails. The Park Service
methodically planned how to use fee revenues over multiple years to
match Friends' contributions. If the Secretary were to reduce the
amount of fees retained at Acadia to as low as 60% in any given year,
this would be detrimental to the Park's ability to engage in multi-year
projects such as this.
Similarly, many projects may be more costly than a national park is
able to fund out of one year's fee collection revenues. If a park were
to save fee revenues over several years to tackle these costly
projects, it may create a false appearance of collecting more fees in a
year than could be reasonably expended. Friends of Acadia is concerned
that this may trigger the provision to allow the Secretary to reduce
the park's fee retention to as low as 60%, thereby harming the ability
of that park to accomplish more costly projects.
Friends of Acadia recommends that if the 60% provision must remain
in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, that at least a two-
year time lag be built into implementation. For example, if the
Secretary were to decide that Acadia's 2004 fee revenues were higher
than necessary, she should wait until 2006 to asses the Park the 20%
loss in the money they can expect to expend from the fee program
revenues. This will give the Park two years to adjust planned fee
projects. We also recommend that the Secretary average the fee revenues
over the two year time lag to determine the 20% loss to the Park. This
will be fairer to both the national level and the local park depending
on fluctuations in visitation and entrance fee revenues. Keep in mind
that a reduction from 80% to 60% in fee revenues represents a 25% cut
in a park's spending power for projects.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses to questions you
submitted following the February 17, 2005, hearing regarding the
``Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorized in Public Law
108-447.''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the
record.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Are you aware of any specific sites where fees have
been collected during the demonstration program, but the fee would no
longer be applicable because of criteria specified in the new law?
Answer. One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee
Expenditure Working Group is to ensure that all sites that charge
recreation fees conform to the infrastructure and other requirements of
the new law. The NPS currently has 150 parks that collect an entrance
fee and 121 parks that collect a ``use'' fee or what is now called an
``expanded amenity fee'' and 209 parks that collect both. The NPS has
only one site in Alaska that may cease collecting fees but all other
NPS collecting sites will remain in the program. There may be however,
some adjustments concerning whether a park charges an entrance fee or
an expanded amenity recreation fee. Some fees for BLM, FWS, and FS have
been eliminated or changed in scope. At some sites, the agencies are
substantially decreasing the area in which fees are required. For
example, some sites no longer charge entrance fees to an entire
national recreation area, but instead may charge a standard amenity fee
at the localized developed area with the enhanced visitor amenities. At
other sites, fees have been changed, such as eliminating fees for
children under 16 years of age.
Although the review of all sites continues, the following are
examples of sites that have made changes to their fees under FLREA:
Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery (FWS) no longer charges
an entrance fee.
Arapaho National Recreation Area (Forest Service) no longer
charges an entrance fee for the entire area, but may charge a
standard amenity recreation fee at localized developed sites.
At Imperial Sand Dunes (BLM), recreation fees for two
overlooks and a trailhead were eliminated.
Quake Lake Visitor Center and Lewis and Clark Visitor Center
(Forest Service) no longer charge for children under 16 years
of age.
Question 2. What is the timeline for implementing P.L. 108-447 and
will the public be involved in the process?
Answer. The longest time frame in the implementation process will
likely be to develop the America the Beautiful Pass. The National Pass
Working Group has set a target date of 2007, taking into consideration
many factors, including the tremendous public interest in the pass, the
potential need to conduct market surveys, and the long lead time
required for the image competition. We would like to work with the
National Park Foundation and learn from their expertise and experience
in running a successful image competition. We recognize that the long
lead time involved in administering an image competition and producing
the pass may require that decisions be made shortly in order to meet a
2007 target date. We are exploring different options to facilitate
meeting the 2007 target date.
Discussion of these and other implementation issues began almost
immediately after President Bush signed the FLREA into law on December
8, 2005. Within nine days of the law being signed, the Interagency Fee
Council convened and approved an Implementation Plan. To carry out the
implementation, a steering committee composed of high level (SES)
managers from each agency and interagency workgroups for the America
the Beautiful Pass, Fee Collection/Fee Expenditures, Recreation
Resource Advisory Committees (RACs)/Public Participation, and
Communication were formed.
The working groups are drafting guidance, developing detailed
action plans, including timelines, and discussing key issues to ensure
compliance with the new law. Because of significant interest by the
public and partner organizations, the National Pass Working Group has
hosted two ``listening sessions'' to provide the public and members of
the recreation community with an opportunity to share ideas about the
implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass. Additional sessions
may be scheduled, as needed. We will keep the Congress informed over
time as we continue to implement the new legislation.
Question 3. Is the 15% limitation on cost of administration an
achievable level or should P.L. 108-447 be amended to provide a more
reasonable level?
Answer. Over the past few years, the Departments have been working
to align reporting categories for costs and expenditures. This effort
will continue for the Congressional reports required under FLREA. Once
we better identify and align consistent definitions of cost categories,
we will be able to determine if an amendment is necessary. We look
forward to continuing to discuss this issue further with the Committee.
Question 4. Who will manage the America the Beautiful Pass? The new
law enacted with the 2005 Appropriations Bill does not specify. The old
law mentioned the National Park Foundation by name.
Answer. Decisions on who will manage the America the Beautiful Pass
will be made as part of the overall decision making on how best to
implement the pass, as described under the new law. We have set a goal
of implementing the new pass in 2007. We have created an interagency
working group comprising representatives of each bureau with expertise
in recreation fees and previously existing recreation passes, as well
as representatives with procurement and related legal expertise. Unlike
the law creating the National Parks Pass, FLREA does not identify any
particular entities by name. The preliminary plan is to select an
organization or organizations to develop and implement the America the
Beautiful Pass through an open competition. As we design that
competition, we will draw upon the National Park Pass experiences of
the National Park Foundation as we develop appropriate performance
goals to be delineated in any request for proposals. We are evaluating
what the most appropriate acquisition strategy is at this time but
anticipate that a key goal will be to include consideration of how any
proposal for administering and marketing the pass affects opportunities
for volunteerism and partnerships.
During the transition, we are interested in continuing to work with
the National Park Foundation on the development of the National Park
Pass and the annual image competition.
Question 5a. The Secretary has the authority to raise the fee under
the new law. Will the cost of the America the Beautiful Pass increase?
Answer. The price of the America the Beautiful has not been
determined. In the three months since enactment of FLREA, the National
Pass Working Group has developed draft guidance, developed action
plans, and discussed key issues to ensure compliance with the new law.
One of the three broad issue areas identified by the National Pass
Working Group involves issues associated with pricing. We would expect
to carefully evaluate price in relationship to value, impact on
visitation, and related considerations.
Question 5b. Will a market analysis be conducted prior to raising
the cost of the pass? The public may find it more economical to forego
the pass and pay the individual fees if the cost of the pass increases
substantially. A market analysis is recommended to determine public
reaction to a fee increase.
Answer. The National Pass Working Group will take into
consideration past studies and surveys, data related to pricing of
other national passes, and the relationship of the pass to other
recreation fees and site-specific passes. Other market analyses,
surveys, and studies, may be conducted as necessary.
A key goal will be to ensure that the America the Beautiful pass
remains a good value for visitors to our federal lands. We recognize
that setting the price of the pass is not an exercise to raise the
maximum amount of revenue possible. Price setting needs to take into
account the use patterns, other existing fees, and theextent to which
the pass could be used as a tool to educate and broaden the American
public's knowledge and experience about our federal recreational lands.
Based on a very preliminary analysis of National Parks Pass use
data, the price of the pass may particularly affect higher fee parks,
parks with mandatory transportation systems, and parks with significant
National Parks Pass use. We also recognize that pricing can affect
revenue generation, which is important to a specific site's motivation
to market and sell the pass. With the intensive involvement of each
bureau's fee experts, we expect to be able to identify key challenges
and address them through a consensus process among the bureaus while
also taking into account public input, market analysis, and other
relevant information.
Question 6. Will the NPS continue to receive the same level of
funding from the new pass or will the funds be distributed to other
bureaus in a manner that causes the NPS share to decrease?
Answer. The agencies are working together to determine a revenue
distribution system that is fair and is based on the best available
data. In the past, the NPS has played a substantial role in the
marketing and sales of passes. One challenge in implementing a new pass
will be to maintain appropriate incentives for individual sites and
agencies to sell the pass, while taking into account relevant visitor
use and other data. In the future, electronic swipe technology may be
developed to assist in decisions regarding how to distribute the
revenue to sites.
Question 7. The Secretary has the authority to reduce retention of
recreation fees for a given area from 80% to 60% when reasonable needs
are exceeded. Will there be criteria developed defining what exceeding
a reasonable need is?
Answer. All of the working groups are evaluating FLREA to determine
where additional guidance may be needed. To the extent possible, the
assessment of whether an area's reasonable needs are exceeded should be
evaluated using a number of existing measures within each agency,
rather than creating another layer of evaluations. For example, to
determine the condition of facilities at any given unit, the NPS has in
place a facility management system that ``grades'' facilities and other
assets based on a facility condition index (FCI). Similarly, BLM is
implementing the Facility Asset Management System (FAMS) to plan and
track facility-specific maintenance needs and costs, to prioritize and
monitor maintenance activities, and to prevent a recurrence of
maintenance backlogs in the future.
Question 8. What steps will DOI take to ensure the new pass is
implemented without confusion or loss of customer service during the
transition period?
Answer. We will take steps to ensure a smooth transition in
implementing the new pass. FLREA specifies that existing passes will
continue to be sold until the new pass is available. Existing passes
remain valid until expired, lost or stolen. As the time draws near, the
National Pass Working Group will work with the Communications Working
Group to ensure that the public is fully informed on the details of the
transition. During the coming months and years, we anticipate keeping
the public informed and seeking input on the implementation process
through additional stakeholder meetings, Congressional briefings, and
web postings.
Question 9. Does the Department anticipate promulgating regulations
through the Federal Register to implement the recreation fee program
established in P.L. 108-447?
Answer. All of the working groups are in the process of evaluating
FLREA to determine where regulations, guidelines, or additional
criteria may be needed to ensure full and consistent implementation of
the Act.
______
Responses of the National Park Foundation to Questions
From Senator Craig Thomas
Question 1. What was the single most difficult problem to overcome
when developing the national park pass program?
Answer. The most challenging aspect of developing the National
Parks Pass program was identifying and documenting all the government
agency systems, then building customized ordering (call center),
billing, and accounting systems for each of the five bureaus, as well
as Park cooperating associations. Completing this took 18 months prior
to the launch of the pass in April 2000 and is now running efficiently.
Question 2. Is your organization interested in and prepared to
manage the America the Beautiful Pass Program as it applies to five
bureaus?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. The original legislation that established the Park Pass
stated. ``The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with the
National Park Foundation and other interested parties to provide for
the development and implementation of the national park passport
program and the Secretary shall take such actions as are appropriate to
actively market national park passports and stamps.'' (Section 602(d)
National Park Passport Program). Would the National Park Foundation
support such language for the America the Beautiful Pass?
Answer. Yes.
Question 4. The current nationwide photo contest is conducted by
Kodak. Is Kodak interested in continuing to participate in a program
involving more than just the National Park Service?
Answer. The NPF consulted with Kodak on this issue, who indicated
interest in continuing to find out more about the American the
Beautiful Pass Program and its role in a photo contest to choose the
Pass image. A future commitment to the contest would continue to be
part of a larger commitment to the NPF.
Question 5. Based on market analysis conducted by the Foundation,
what is the maximum amount the general public will pay for an annual
pass?
Answer. The market analysis conducted by the NPF in 1998 focused on
visitation patterns and a price point that would maximize consumer
incentive to purchase a Parks Pass, based on existing daily park
entrance fees at that time. That price, at that time, was near $50 for
a National Parks Pass and $65 for a Golden Eagle Pass.
Question 6. How many additional passes do you anticipate selling
when the program is expanded to five bureaus?
Answer. This is largely dependent on the price of the new Pass, and
changes to the marketing guidelines. Between the National Parks Pass
and sales of the upgrade to the Golden Eagle Pass, there are
approximately 425,000 total Passes sold. The NPF has grown sales of the
Pass 100% since its inception and flexibility in existing marketing
restrictions would likely lead to a greater increase in Pass sales.