U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–490 PDF 2005

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

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 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

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 

(III)

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

(1)

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, 

2

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 reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
3

peals 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 naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
4

tional 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, 

5

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 workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
6

ing 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 

7

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 programwide 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, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
8

cluding 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 

9

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 noncompetitive 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, visitorfriendly 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. 

10

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. 

11

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. 

12

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 

13

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. 

14

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 

15

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. 

16

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 

17

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 creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
18

ated 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. 

19

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. 

20

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 startup 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 

21

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 

22

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. 

23

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 respon- sibly. $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 

24

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 startup 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. 

25

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 

26

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 cenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\20490.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
27

ter 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. 

28

[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.] 

(29)

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 stephanie@friendsofacadia.org. 

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? 

30

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. 

31

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 

32

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? 

33

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. 

34

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.

Æ