[Senate Hearing 108-193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-193
SLEEPING BEAR DUNES; RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION; AND SCHOOLS IN
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 808
TO PROVIDE FOR EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE
S. 1107
TO ENHANCE THE RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 620
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL
FUNDING AND OTHER SERVICES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ASSIST THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA IN PROVIDING
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN THE
PARK
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
90-514 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
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
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel J., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 4
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 4
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 2
Funkhouser, Robert, President, Western Slope No-Fee Coalition,
Norwood, CO.................................................... 37
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from Michigan..................... 5
Maddy, Jim, President, National Park Foundation.................. 28
Olson, Ken, President, Friends of Acadia, Bar Harbor, ME......... 34
Radanovich, Hon. George P., U.S. Representative from California.. 7
Ring, Richard, Associate Director for Administration, Business
Practices and Workforce Development, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 19
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
and Budget, Department of the Interior......................... 11
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from Michigan................ 2
Stupak, Hon. Bart, U.S. Representative from Michigan............. 3
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 45
SLEEPING BEAR DUNES; RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION; AND SCHOOLS IN
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 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. We'll bring the committee to order, please.
Thank you for being here. I want to welcome representatives
from the Department of the Interior and other witnesses for
today's Parks Subcommittee hearing.
Our purpose is to hear testimony on three bills under
consideration by the subcommittee, S. 808, a bill for expansion
of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, in Michigan; S.
1107, a bill to enhance the recreational fee demonstration
program for the National Park Service, and H.R. 620, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide supplemental
funding and other services to schools located within Yosemite
National Park.
All three bills are important to this subcommittee. We will
devote the majority of the time to the recreational fee bill,
because it has the potential effect on the entire Park Service
and not just a single park. The collection of fees at national
parks and other federation lands has been a demonstration
program for over 5 years. The time has come, and perhaps
overdue, to consider permanent legislation and to define the
appropriate role for future fee collection and expenditures.
Currently, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program allows
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service to collect and expend
funds for visitor services, maintenance, and repair facilities,
as well as cultural natural-resource management. I believe the
collection of fees by Federal land agencies should be
restricted to improve facilities at National Parks. This is not
to slight the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management
or the Fish and Wildlife Service; it's only a beginning point.
Any fee legislation must prohibit charging for everything in
sight. There are limits to what we can fairly demand and what
our constituents are willing to pay.
The following concerns were taken into consideration when
preparing S. 1107: fees should be charged to legitimate
improved visitor services; market analysis prior to
implementation or increase of any fee; no fee or increase in
fee should take place without advanced notice to the general
public; accountability of fees collected and distributed along
with advanced notice to the Congress of specific projects that
will be in the pipeline; and expedite the obligation and
expenditure of the funds. We need to guarantee our national
treasures are available for generations to come. I believe that
Congress, the Park Service and those interested in helping the
parks should cooperate on initiatives to improve resources,
increase services, and improve management throughout the
system. So, working together, we can do this.
Again, thank you and the witnesses for being here today.
Let me turn now to the ranking member, Senator Akaka.
[The prepared statements of Senators Stabenow, Burns, and
Representative Stupak follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator From Michigan
I want to thank Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka for
holding this hearing. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of S. 808, a bill
to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and
I look forward to working with you on this important issue.
This bill is the result of long and thoughtful discussions between
the private landowners the Homestead Resorts, the National Park Service
and the local community who all worked together to reach this solution
to protect the Crystal River land from development. This bill also has
the support of the Nature Conservancy, the National Parks Conservation
Association, the Leelanau Conservancy, Friends of the Crystal River and
the Michigan Land Use Institute, as well as the members of the Senate
and the House who represent the area.
S. 808 would expand the boundaries of Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore to include the 104 acres of Crystal River property and to
authorize the National Park Service to purchase this property from the
owners of the Homestead Resort, preserving the land from development.
In fact, the Senate FY2004 Interior Appropriations bill includes $1
million for Sleeping Bear Dunes for this and other land acquisitions,
so that this purchase can move forward quickly once this bill is signed
into law.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore with its remarkable geology
and critical habitats is a true treasure for the people of Michigan,
and the Crystal River property will be a welcome addition to this
beautiful lakeshore. I look forward to working with all the members of
the Energy Committee to pass this legislation.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator From Montana
I want to thank Senator Thomas and Senator Akaka for holding this
hearing.
As most people here know, the fee demo program was started in the
Interior appropriations bill in 1995. That subcommittee--which I now
chair--has modified and extended the program several times over the
years.
With each extension, there has been increasing recognition that the
program ultimately warrants consideration and oversight by the
authorizing committees of jurisdiction. The appropriations committee,
however, has been understandably reluctant to let the program simply
expire with no guarantee that the authorizing committees will deal with
the issue. It's been a bit of a Catch-22.
But I think we're now at the point where we have enough experience
with the program for this committee to take action--one way or the
other. Senator Dorgan and I have written Senator Domenici and Senator
Bingaman asking that this committee do exactly that during this
Congress.
The program currently is slated to expire at the end of FY 2004.
The House Interior bill contains a two year extension, while the Senate
bill contains no extension. At some point this fall we'll have to
reconcile those positions. I think the further along this committee can
get in its deliberations, the easier it will be for the appropriators
to make the right decision.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note that your bill authorizes the fee
demonstration program for the National Park Service only. I know there
have been concerns about how the program has been implemented by some
of the other land management agencies. I share some of these concerns,
and perhaps we'll get into some of those issues today.
But as Chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee, I do
need to simply point out that letting the program expire will not be
without consequences. For the National Park Service, we'd be talking
about $100 million per year in funds that would no longer be available
for park projects. For the Forest Service, the amount is greater than
$30 million. The amounts for BLM and Fish and Wildlife are smaller, but
significant to those agencies.
I can't assure anyone that these funds will be replaced by
appropriated dollars. In fact, they likely won't be. While money
shouldn't be the only thing that we focus on as we consider this issue,
my colleagues need to be aware of what's at stake.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bart Stupak, U.S. Representative
From Michigan
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit my comments for the record.
Senator Levin's legislation, S. 808, would accomplish the goal of
allowing the National Park Service to acquire nearly 105 acres of land
along the Crystal River adjacent to the Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore. S. 808 would facilitate the preservation of this rare and
valuable land by allowing the National Park Service to add this
property to the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and at the same
time would fairly compensate Bayberry Mills, Inc.--a company affiliated
with The Homestead, a large and well-known resort--for their property.
I have a particular interest and a high degree of familiarity with
the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and Bayberry Mills' property
because for the last ten years it was located in my Congressional
District. It is a land of majestic beauty and is a valuable
environmental contribution to the area which lies along the pristine
Crystal River.
For more than seventeen years there has been controversy about
development along the Crystal River. Several proposals for development
by the property owners have met with bitter opposition by
environmentalists and some in the local community. There have been
plans to build a golf course and develop home sites on the property.
There was also a proposal to swap the property for lands within the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. That, too, aroused controversy.
We must be grateful to Bayberry Mills and The Homestead for not
developing this acreage and for their willingness to work with the
National Park Service and our committees to preserve this land.
However, now is time to purchase this property and allow The Homestead
to move on with their other plans.
Last year, I introduced legislation to allow the federal government
to purchase the land for inclusion into the Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore. This year, Congressman Dave Camp who now represents
the area in the House and Senator Levin in the Senate have introduced
similar legislation, which I fully support. This legislation has
garnered the support of Bayberry Mills, the Park Service, the local
community, and many of those in the environmental community who opposed
previous development plans for the property.
Mr. Bob Kuras, President of Bayberry Mills, is to be commended for
his willingness to complete this sale and Congress needs to act quickly
to take advantage of the opportunity.
I truly believe that this legislation is the only solution to a
seventeen year-old dispute and it is extremely important that the
Senate and the House act quickly so we can have closure on this issue.
The Park Service will benefit greatly by having the property included
in the Lakeshore, the local communities will support this purchase, and
Bayberry Mills will be fairly compensated for their property. This is a
win, win, win situation and I strongly urge you to pass S. 808.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to comment briefly on three bills under
consideration this afternoon.
S. 1107 is your legislation to provide the National Park
Service with permanent authority to charge visitor recreation
fees and to use the revenues from those fees for a variety of
purposes. Although the implementation of the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program has been controversial in some areas, I
believe there is general public support for its use within the
National Park System.
In Hawaii, Mr. Chairman, fee revenues now account for a
considerable portion of the budget of two of our most visited
national parks, Hawaii's volcanos and Haleakala National Parks.
Together, those two parks now collect over $5 million annually
in fee revenues, which has helped to defray costs for
maintenance needs and provide important interpretative and
visitor-safety needs.
As we consider permanent fee authority, we must ensure that
fees remain equitable. We also need to deal with the fee issue
for all affected agencies.
I understand that the chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee have written to the
committee urging that we take definitive action to either
authorize or terminate the Fee Demo program for the affected
agencies. I think they make a good point. Either we should
authorize an agency to charge fees or we should make clear that
the authority will be terminated. I hope we can avoid the
annual extension of the recreation fee program as part of the
appropriations process, for this creates uncertainty for the
affected agencies and the public and is not conducive to
responsible long-term planning.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to H.R. 620, the Yosemite school
bill, I know this is an important issue to both Senator
Feinstein and Congressman Radanovich. And I remember from last
year's hearing on this issue that the funding for schools
around Yosemite National Park is a significant problem. I
believe it is also important that the committee consider
carefully whether even a small part of the national park's
operating fund should be used for important but non-park
purposes, and whether enactment of this bill will lead to
similar requests for non-park use of revenues from other
national parks around the country.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to S. 808, the addition
of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, in Michigan,
although I'm not surprised by the administration's request to
defer action on the bill, it seems that this addition is
necessary to protect the property from development.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing more about these
bills from our witnesses, and add my welcome to the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
The ranking member of the committee, Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say a few words about a couple of the bills.
With respect to S. 1107, to authorize a permanent fee
program for the National Park Service, I would favor us doing
something by way of authorizing legislation, not only with
regard to the Park Service, but the other agencies, as well.
The Fee Demo authority was established in the appropriations
bill, and has been extended each year. I think it's appropriate
that we take action to deal with it.
I am concerned that it is unwise for us to give unlimited
authority in this area without some limitations. Public use of
the public lands could, in fact, be reduced as a result of
increased fees being imposed. I'm concerned that there may be
incentives for some of these agencies to charge fees for uses
of the land that have never been charged for before. I hope we
can deal with that.
With regard to the Yosemite National Park bill, Congressman
Radanovich's bill, this is an issue we dealt with in the last
Congress. I had some concerns then. We amended the bill then,
and sent the bill back with amendments. I gather those were not
acceptable to the House, because the bill died.
I'm still concerned with the premise of diverting a portion
of the Parks operating revenues for another purpose, even
though it's a worthy purpose. I think the notion that we would
pass an authorization, sort of, on a park-specific basis,
saying that, in this particular case, the park can go ahead and
use the funds appropriated for operation of the park for
something other than operation of the park, concerns me as a
precedent and the effect that that has. It seems to me to run
contrary to the way funds are authorized and appropriated
generally, and it also runs contrary to what I hear from the
administration all the time about how there aren't enough funds
in the Park System. They resist every effort we make to add
additional items to the Park System on the basis that we don't
have enough funds to maintain what we've got. Now here they're
saying, ``No, no. We don't need all the funds that are provided
for this park. Let's use them for education,'' which, as I say,
is a worthy purpose, but I have a real problems with the
precedent.
So, with those comments, I look forward to hearing the
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
The Senator from Montana.
Senator Burns. I have no statement.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, glad to have you here, gentlemen. And we'll go
ahead.
Senator Levin, if you'd like to begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
allowing us to present our bills this way. I will be very, very
brief, and just summarize this bill as follows.
Senator Stabenow and I have introduced a bill which would
provide that the Park Service would acquire a little over a
hundred acres of the land that is next to the Sleeping Bear
Dunes Lakeshore. It is a unique, pristine piece of land, which
has been the subject of huge contention and legal battles for
almost 20 years.
We're always struggling with trying to find the right path
between development and conservation. We all have that in our
home States constantly. That battle has been going on with this
particular piece of land, between the owner, the developer, and
many of the neighbors here who want this land to be part of the
national park. There have been various proposals--to make it
into a golf course, to have land swaps. It has been ongoing for
almost two decades.
Now the agreement has been reached with the developer that
he would offer this for sale to the national park. He would not
try to develop it, but that he would offer it for sale. This
opportunity will not last forever. He has got a vacant piece of
land. He needs to do something and wants to do something with
that land, understandably. And it is a real opportunity for us
to expand, by about a hundred acres, an extraordinary park or a
lakeshore which was created really with the leadership of
Senator Phil Hart. I happened to see Senator Riegle here in the
audience and had a chance just to say hi to him. But he was
instrumental, when he was here, in advancing the cause of this
lakeshore. And now adding a hundred acres--from a willing
seller, I emphasize--of a very contentious parcel would really
be a huge plus for this boundary of the park.
I would hope that this subcommittee would approve it.
There's a comparable, a companion, bill in the House, which
Representative Camp and Stupak have introduced, and it is a
bipartisan effort and an essential effort to finally put to
rest a very contentious debate over some very pristine property
which really belongs in this lakeshore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before the
committee about this important legislation.
For nearly 20 years, conservation groups have worked to preserve
this land. In 1986, the Homestead Resort (Bayberry Mills Properties)
announced plans to construct a golf course along the Crystal River in
Leelanau County adjacent to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The
Resort and a local conservation group, the Friends of the Crystal
River, entered into a protracted legal battle over the permitting
process. In 1996, in an effort to end this decade long controversy, it
was proposed that the Homestead Resort swap lands within Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore for property along the Crystal River. This
proposal generated strong public opposition from local conservation
groups and, as a result, never took place.
Late in 2001, the Homestead Resort approached the National Park
Service for consideration of a revised land swap proposal. This
proposal was again met with considerable public opposition and pulled
from consideration.
In an effort to resolve this long standing dispute, the Homestead
Resort entered into discussions with the Leelanau Conservancy and the
Friends of the Crystal River regarding a direct purchase of the Crystal
River property. These discussions led to Senate Bill 808. It is
important to note that S. 808 takes into consideration not only the
preservation of this pristine stretch of River, but also protects the
interests of the private property owner. The boundary of the Park will
only be changed contingent on the willing sale of the property.
I am encouraged that groups which have been in opposition for two
decades are working towards a common goal. Senate Bill 808 is not only
essential to preserving this land for generations to come, but also for
ending two decades of contention. I look forward to working with the
Committee to pass this important legislation.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Congressman Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. Could I interrupt you?
Mr. Radanovich. Oh, sure.
Senator Levin. Forgive me, Congressman, just one second.
I'm wondering if I might be excused because of a prior problem
that I must address, which I have shared with the chairman.
Senator Thomas. Does anyone have a question for the
Senator?
Yes, sir, you may be excused.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Levin. I would ask that two statements be
incorporated in the record. The former head of the National
Park Service, Mr. Ridenour, as well as the Friends of the
Crystal River have asked that these statements be made part of
the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The statements can be found in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Thomas. They will be included in the record.
Senator Levin. Thank you so much.
Senator Burns. Do you have maps of this area?
Senator Levin. We do. We will provide those to you.
Senator Thomas. Congressman.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also ranking
member Akaka. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you
to talk about my bill, H.R. 620, which would provide
supplemental financial assistance to three small schools in my
district, which are within Yosemite National Park, and they are
located in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona, all within
the National Park Service.
This is the second appearance before this subcommittee. As
Senator Bingaman had mentioned, we were here testifying last
year. The bill was amended in the Senate in three ways One, we
have reduced the amount of the request from $750,000 to
$400,000. We've reduced the length of the authority from seven
to five years, and also restricted funds from being used for
construction purposes. So I have responded to the amended
version and produced a bill that is satisfactory to the House.
I would say that Yosemite is at risk of losing what few
teachers it does have and its schools, since the flood of 1997.
And also, with the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan,
there will be less employees, both Park Service employees and
concession employees, in the park. And since California bases
its funding of schools on ADA, which is average daily
attendance, those schools suffer because of the small number of
students that are remaining there. Other California funding
mechanisms of Impact Aid and PILT are available in California,
but most is committed to other areas. And, as you well know,
PILT has always been historically underfunded. In 2001, I was
able to secure $110,000. But the schools that serve the Park
Service employees and concessionaires deserve a much more
reliable source of funding.
The question was asked, ``Should Park Service be in the
business of funding public schools?'' And I'm a big advocate of
State's rights, certainly in education, in the funding of
education, but there are a number of reasons why perhaps this
shouldn't be the case. No. 1, the children are children of
employees, Federal and park concession employees, so it's the
responsibility of the Federal Government to, I think, make sure
that their employees are provided a decent education. No. 2,
these are isolated schools, where there really is no
alternative. Many of you who come from mountain States realize
that the terrain just does not make it possible, with driving
time and roads that are sometimes hazardous in the wintertime--
makes it difficult for these students to obtain an education
outside the park.
It was mentioned during a hearing, too, last year, that
this might be an entitlement that we were giving, and I would
respond by saying that it is not. This is discretion given only
to the Yosemite National Park superintendent with appropriated
funds. And so the Park Service superintendent would have the
discretion to take care of that.
And I also would add that there is precedent for this. This
was done many, many years ago in Yellowstone National Park for
the same purpose, and that was in order to draw qualified
employees into the National Park System in these isolated
parks, somewhat isolated. And also in order to attract highly
qualified personnel for the concession services, there needed
to be the provision of a good quality education. And I think
that kind of places the burden on the Park Service to step
forward here in this case.
I might add, too, that this is a case for some of the other
more isolated parks, like Glacier and some of the others in the
park system.
I would also add, too, that this bill provides an
opportunity for the park to spend park resources outside the
park boundaries in support of park activities, including
transportation and visitor center, which is consistent with the
Yosemite Valley plan.
With that, I end my testimony, and I'm certainly available
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Radanovich,
U.S. Representative From California
Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of H.R. 620,
legislation I reintroduced this year to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide supplemental financial assistance to three small
schools located within Yosemite National Park--schools that were
established to serve the children of park and concession employees. Mr.
Chairman, as you will recall, the three schools are Yosemite Valley,
which serves 42 students K through eight with three teachers; El Portel
Elementary, which serves 53 elementary students with three teachers and
6 high school students with 2 teachers, and Wawona Elementary, which
serves 16 children in grades K though eight with only one teacher.
As you know, this is my second appearance before the National Park
Subcommittee on this important legislation. During the 107th Congress,
similar legislation passed the House, was amended by the Senate, and
then sent back to the House for consideration. Unfortunately, the House
failed to take action on the bill prior to adjournment. If you recall,
during negotiations with this Committee last year, I agreed to lower
the authorization level from $750,000 to $400,000 and reduce the number
of years for the authorization authority. I also restricted funds from
being used for new construction, construction contracts, or major
capital improvements. Thus, funds would be limited to classroom
teaching, maintenance and general upkeep. Realistically, the amount of
money that the park superintendent would be authorized to use towards
these schools would be minimal.
As I have said before, without this critical assistance the
children of park employees could lose the few teachers they have as
well as their schools. These schools are in a unique and equally
difficult situation. In California, operating funds for schools are
based on an average daily attendance. Since the 1997 devastating Merced
River flood, there has been a continued reduction in the number of park
and concession employees residing in the park, and thus fewer school
children attending schools. With fewer and fewer children attending
these schools, fewer state dollars are committed. The result is the
superintendent of Yosemite National Park and the concessionaire serving
park visitors are attracting less than qualified candidates to work in
the park because families are not provided with adequate schools.
Though other Federal funding sources such as Impact Aid and PILT are
available in Mariposa and Madera counties, where these schools exist,
the reality is that most of these funds are fully committed, and thus
very few dollars are actually make it to these schools.
In light of these realities, I was able to secure $111,000 through
the appropriations process in 2001. However, as you know Mr. Chairman,
going to appropriators every year for critical assistance is not the
most productive approach.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address perhaps the
most important issue surrounding this legislation. Should the National
Park Service ``be in the business'' of financing public schools? First,
let me say for the record, that I believe the financing of public
schools is and should remain the primacy of the states. However, in the
unique case before you, these students are children of Federal and
concession dependent employees. The employees are assigned Federal
tasks and are not state workers. Furthermore, due to the isolation of
these schools, there are no viable alternatives; transporting these
children to an alternative school over two hours away on winding
mountain roads is just not acceptable. I believe it is our
responsibility to ``step up to the plate'' now, and demonstrate that we
believe the children of park employees deserve a quality education and
that they should not be deprived of that right simply because their
parents have been assigned to work in Yosemite National Park.
In a related matter, Mr. Chairman, I know that you are very
concerned over the precedent this legislation may set with other
isolated units of the Park System such as Glacier, Big Bend and Grand
Canyon National Parks. Notwithstanding the federally funded schools in
Yellowstone National Park, there are some public schools in parks and
perhaps we ought to look at these few instances to see if we have a
Federal interest in changing the way we provide this service.
Finally, I would just like to leave the committee with this though
. . . since eliminating the Taliban from Afghanistan, millions of U.S.
taxpayer dollars have been used to re-establish schools in Afghanistan.
Surely, if we are willing to spend millions of dollars in Afghanistan,
we can support the authorization to spend a lot fewer dollars for
schools in the United States.
Again, thank you for this opportunity. I am prepared to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Thomas. Questions?
Senator Burns. How far is it to an alternative school,
should we lose those schools inside the park?
Mr. Radanovich. Wawona is about a 20-mile ride to the
nearby community of Oakhurst, over mountain roads. Yosemite and
El Portal are probably--that is over an hour ride from Yosemite
Valley to the Mariposa schools is--the longer one being
Yosemite--is about an hour and--it would be an hour-and-a-half
bus ride, one way.
And these are steep roads. I mean, the ones between
Yosemite--that comes out of Highway 140, through El Portal and
to Mariposa, although we've spent money recently upgrading the
roads, are subject to landslides. And these are landslides
with, you know, granite boulders the size of railroad boxcars.
I mean, they can be hazardous in the wintertime.
Senator Burns. Well, we know something about remote areas.
We've still got a----
Mr. Radanovich. You've got a few.
Senator Burns. Maybe you'll have to consider a boarding
school, you know. We've still got one of those, you know.
Mr. Radanovich. Is that right?
Senator Burns. When you take your kids to high school
Monday morning, you don't see them until Friday night after the
basketball game's over.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, in high school, most of----
Senator Burns. Some parents would think that was a good
thing.
Mr. Radanovich. In high school, most of the students do
travel that trip, at the high school level. There are probably
about six students in high school in El Portal. But this is K
through 8.
Senator Burns. Okay.
Senator Thomas. It's my understanding that the residents in
the park in government housing pay property tax to the State--
to the county. Is that right?
Mr. Radanovich. They pay a tax--of course, they don't pay a
tax on the land, but the improvements, if they do have housing
inside the valley, yes.
Senator Thomas. Which is designed to help support schools,
I presume.
Mr. Radanovich. True.
Senator Thomas. Among other things.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Senator Thomas. The government repays them, but I guess
that's sort of interesting, that they already pay a fee into
the school area on their property, which is government
property.
Mr. Radanovich. True. And, unfortunately, the way those
funds are allocated back to the schools is under the ADA, or
the average daily attendance rates. So the fact that there are
not a large number of students there makes it difficult for the
schools to provide that quality education.
Senator Burns. How big are those schools?
Mr. Radanovich. In Yosemite Valley, it's 42 students, K
through 8. El Portal is 53 students, K through 8, with six
students in high school. And then Wawona, it's 16 students, K
through 8.
And, again, it's difficult for the Park Service and the
concessionaires to obtain highly qualified personnel if their
kids need to be bused, you know, hour, hour-and-a-half to
schools, and so it's--I think it's upon the Park Service to
make sure that if they're going to provide a quality experience
for visitors in these parks, they've got to step up to the
plate on the education.
Senator Thomas. Do you ask them for a special appropriation
to do this? My understanding in Yellowstone it's paid out of
the parks regular funds and their demonstration fees.
Mr. Radanovich. To my knowledge, it was done the same way
that we were asking, and that was through the discretion of the
park superintendent. I could be wrong.
Senator Thomas. Well, it's not a special appropriation.
Your bill calls for appropriation, I believe.
Mr. Radanovich. No, actually it just allows--it gives the
park superintendent the flexibility to spend up to a certain
amount. Now, if the superintendent doesn't want to do this, he
doesn't have to, but this is supported by the Park Service
and----
Senator Thomas. An appropriation in 2001.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. That's what I'm trying to avoid.
That's the way we did it in the past. But, as you know, that's
something that you can or cannot get every year, and I'm trying
to make it a little bit more consistent.
Senator Thomas. So the park's willing to pay for this out
of their current amount of money.
Mr. Radanovich. The Park Service does support this, yes.
And typically the amounts would more likely be the 110,000,
somewhere around there. But it would be to the park
superintendent's discretion. He's going to be fully aware of
their other responsibilities, monetarily.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Any others? If not, thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thomas. We appreciate your participation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Our panel 1, Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy
and Management of the Budget, Department of the Interior, and
Richard Ring, Associate Director, Administration, Business
Practices, and Workforce, National Park Service.
All right. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, would you
like to go right ahead?
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY,
MANAGEMENT, AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very
much for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1107, a bill to enhance the Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program for the National Park Service.
I would like, first, to say, Mr. Chairman, that we applaud
your leadership in building the foundations of a strong
recreation fee program. The Department supports S. 1107, if
amended to provide interagency authority and to address other
issues that I will identify in this testimony. We believe the
recreation fee program is vital to our ability to manage lands
for the benefit of visitors and enhance the recreation
facilities available to them, including our ability to address
the maintenance backlog challenges in the park and other of our
land agencies.
Authorization of a permanent program would allow the
agencies, we think, to better serve visitors by making long-
term investments, by streamlining the program, and by creating
more partnerships as we implement the fee program. Federal land
programs, as we all know, have provided Americans and visitors
from around the world special places for recreation, education,
reflection, and solitude. Fulfilling this mission does require
that we have adequate and steady funding and that we're able to
invest in visitor-servicing facilities.
The Fee Demo program, we think, allows agencies to retain a
majority of recreation fees at the site collected, and,
thereby, reinvest those in enhancing visitor facilities and
services.
Our testimony today and suggested amendments result from
extensive analysis of a Recreation Fee Leadership Council,
which I chair, along with Mark Rey, from the Forest Service or
the Department of Agriculture, and all of our other assistant
secretaries and our bureau directors of our land-management
agencies. It would authorize--S. 1107 would authorize the
Secretary to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation
fees for the National Park Service, provided they meet certain
criteria.
I want to underscore that we completely agree with the
criteria. In fact, they are very similar to guiding principles
that we have worked on and proposed through our Recreation Fee
Leadership Council. We believe, according to those criteria,
that fees should be beneficial to the visiting public, they
should be fair and equitable, they should be efficiently
collected and operated, they should be consistent, they should
be implemented collaboratively across our agencies, they should
be convenient, and they should provide for accountability to
the public through transparent reporting.
S. 1107 would authorize recreation fee authority for the
National Park Service. The recreation fee program is, we
believe, a key component in the National Park Service's ability
to provide quality visitor experience.
Just to give you a flavor of how important these fees are,
in 2002 the National Park Service collected $125.7 million in
recreation fee demonstration revenue, obligated $102 million,
or 81 percent of the total, for projects that include
maintenance backlog, encouraging volunteer services, providing
accessibility to visitors with disabilities, protecting natural
resources associated with visitor use, and enhancing safety.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the strong support that this
committee has given to the Park Service. The Park Service has
built a successful program, and deserves a permanent recreation
fee program. However, we do believe that an interagency fee
program makes sense and would significantly enhance our ability
to serve the American public at recreation sites on national
public lands.
We have found, in some nine surveys and other interviews
with the public, that they don't often distinguished between
lands managed by different Federal agencies. We urge that S.
1107 be amended to provide for interagency recreation fee
authority.
Let me just give you a sense of the patterns of recreation
on our Federal lands. I have a little show-and-tell here, this
chart, which shows the percent increases in recreation. And you
see--the red line being increases in recreation on Bureau of
Land Management lands, the blue line being refuge visitors, and
the green line being the continued increase in park visitation.
Since 1985, recreation demand has increased about 65
percent on BLM lands, and 80 percent in our wildlife refuges.
Over the same time period, Bureau of Reclamation estimates an
increase of 10 million recreation visitors, for a total of 90
million visits to their 288 lakes. With this increase in
visitation is an increase in visitor demand for adequate
visitor facilities and services. We find our visitors don't
distinguish among Federal land-management agencies. They expect
to find the same amenities--hosted campgrounds, permanent
toilet facilities, potable drinking water, docking facilities,
and so forth.
We agree that the geographic and logistical characteristics
of some locations make collection of rec fees not feasible or
not desirable in some areas; but rather, in other areas they
are feasible and desirable.
But we think the relevant policy question regarding rec
fees is not the label on the unit, the particular land unit,
but rather whether there are enhanced recreation facilities at
that site. We have a number of sites, and we've got some show-
and-tell we can turn to in the questions, that show some of the
sites at BLM and the refuges where we do charge fees.
S. 1107 would also allow for modifications of the National
Park Passport. For reasons that include some of the issues I've
raised before, we propose creating a new annual interagency
pass that would consolidate all of the existing passes. We
think the National Park Passport developed, Senator, by you
some years ago, is an excellent model, and we would like to
expand on its successes.
In the Department's testimony before this committee during
the 107th Congress, we also proposed addressing one of the key
issues of concern that some visitors have raised, and that is
some confusion about types of fees. And we have proposed
creating a different type of system, moving beyond the entry
and use fees to basic and expanded fees. We think our approach
would provide clarity, and it would include restrictions to
ensure that the visiting public would not be charged if the
agency is not making certain investments in visitor services.
The Departments of the Interior, and Agriculture, based on
our experiences over the last several years through this
demonstration project, have made numerous adjustments to
standardize classification of fees to decrease visitor
confusion, remove fees from areas where they turned out not to
be feasible or effective.
Another important consideration, of course, is fee levels,
and we are committed to fair and equitable fees. Recreation
fees, of course, do represent a small percentage of out-of-
pocket costs that an average family spends on a typical
vacation. Nonetheless, we think it's important to have
processes to ensure that they remain fair and equitable.
We also think it's an opportunity as we move forward with
exploring permanent fee authorization provisions that would
allow for greater collaboration with local communities. We have
one example of a type of partnership that could flourish under
such collaboration in a permanent fee program, and that is the
Sand Flats agreement developed by BLM in the gateway community
in Moab, Utah.
S. 1107 would also authorize the Secretary to enter into
revenue-sharing agreements with States to accept their State
annual passes. While we look forward to working with States in
cooperation, we would recommend some amendments to the
provision. We think unless the pass is priced appropriately--
simply splitting total revenues, for example--collected based
on price of existing State passes might result in a net loss
for Federal and State parties. The pie would be smaller for
both.
Also, we're concerned that the provision would break the
direct link between the site of collection and the site where
the fees are expended. We have found, in all of our interviews
of the public, that this link is the key rationale that garners
public support for the recreation fee program.
The Department and the USDA, as I noted, are currently
considering many upgrades to the program, including a hologram
that would allow an upgrade to the Golden Eagle Passport to
apply to particular State parks.
I want to conclude by noting that S. 1107 would require the
Secretary to analyze certain criteria with regard to fee
levels, and transmit that that analysis to Congress, published
notice, and various other provisions. The bill would require
the Secretary to submit a report to the Congress on the status
of the recreation fee program.
I want to underscore that we strongly support the reporting
requirements. We think that transparency is critical to
success. We would, however, like to work with the subcommittee
to craft reporting and cost-of-collection provisions that we
think meet both Congress' needs and the needs of the public
while taking into account certain administration
considerations.
Establishing a permanent program does not, of course, mean
that learning ends. We support a dynamic recreation fee
program. We believe S. 1107, with the amendments suggested in
my testimony, would create such a dynamic program. A permanent
program would allow the Department to make long-term
investments, improve efficiencies, initiate more partnerships,
and serve the public.
We look forward to working with you, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Thank you.
[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 present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1107, a bill to enhance the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program for the National Park Service.
We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this very
important issue.
The Department supports S. 1107 if amended to provide interagency
authority and to address other issues identified in this testimony. The
recreation fee program is vital to our ability to provide quality
recreational facilities and services. It significantly enhances the
Department's efforts to support the President's initiative to address
the deferred maintenance backlog at our National Parks and enables us
to better manage other federal lands. Authorization of a permanent
program would allow the agencies to better serve visitors by making
long-term investments, streamlining the program, and creating more
partnerships.
Our federal lands boast scenic vistas, breathtaking landscapes, and
unique natural wonders. On these lands, many patriotic symbols,
battlefields, memorials, historic homes, and many other types of sites
tell the story of America. Federal lands have provided Americans and
visitors from around the world special places for recreation,
education, reflection and solace. The family vacation to these
destinations is an American tradition. We want to ensure that the
federal lands continue to play this important role in American life and
culture. Fulfilling this mission requires that we maintain visitor
facilities and services, preserve natural and historic resources, and
enhance visitor opportunities. Such efforts require an adequate and
steady source of funding.
Although recreation fees date back to 1908, Congress first
established broad recreation fee authority in 1965 under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). In enacting this authority,
Congress acknowledged that the visitors to federal lands receive some
benefits that do not directly accrue to the public at large and that
charging a modest fee to that population is both equitable and fair to
the general taxpayer. In 1996, Congress took that idea one step further
when establishing the Recreation Fee Demonstration (Fee Demo) program
for the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife Service),
and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). During the 105th
Congress, a House Appropriations Committee Report noted that the Fee
Demo program was developed in direct response to the federal agencies'
concern over their growing backlog maintenance needs. Thus, the Fee
Demo program allowed participating agencies to retain a majority of
recreation fees at the site collected and reinvest those fees into
enhancing visitor facilities and services. This authority was
deliberately broad and flexible to encourage agencies to experiment
with their fee programs.
Our testimony today and suggested amendments to S. 1107 are the
result of a great deal of analysis and discussion through the
Interagency Recreation Fee Leadership Council (Fee Council), which was
created last year to facilitate coordination and consistency among high
level officials of the Department of the Interior and U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA). These concepts were developed from the lessons
we have learned in administering the Fee Demo program.
S. 1107 would authorize the Secretary to establish, modify, charge
and collect recreation fees for the National Park Service, provided
that they meet certain criteria. We agree with these criteria, as they
are similar to the guiding principles espoused by the Department.
Through the Fee Council and in testimony before this Committee last
Congress, the Department identified seven principles that are critical
to a successful fee program. These guiding principles indicate that
fees should be: 1) beneficial to the visiting public; 2) fair and
equitable; 3) efficient; 4) consistent; 5) implemented collaboratively;
6) convenient; and should 7) provide for accountability to the public.
The Department has committed to applying these guiding principles to
any administrative or legislative effort concerning the recreation fee
program.
an interagency recreation fee program
S. 1107 would authorize recreation fee authority for NPS. The
recreation fee program has been a key component in the National Park
Service's ability to provide a quality visitor experience. In FY 2002,
NPS collected $125.7 million in recreation fee demonstration revenue
and obligated $101.9 million or 81 percent of the total for projects
that include addressing the deferred maintenance backlog,
rehabilitating historic structures, encouraging volunteer services
through the Public Land Corps, providing accessibility to visitors with
disabilities, protecting natural resources, improving interpretive
exhibits, and enhancing the safety of the visitors. In addition, NPS
collected $21.7 million from the National Park Passport and other
recreation fees. Over the life of the program, NPS has approved $457
million in projects to address the deferred maintenance backlog. NPS
also has made efforts to continually improve the administration of the
recreation fee program by implementing software upgrades, automated
technologies for fee collection, and modern banking systems, and
seeking out opportunities to collaborate with other agencies. NPS is
improving its ability to target recreation fees to the highest priority
projects by monitoring and prioritizing ongoing maintenance needs
through the establishment of the Facility Management Software System.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the strong support and that this
Subcommittee has given to the National Parks. We agree that the
National Park Service has built a successful program and deserves a
permanent recreation fee program. Experience has shown us, however,
that an interagency fee program makes sense and would significantly
enhance our ability to serve the American public at recreation sites on
national public lands. We have found that the visiting public does not
distinguish between lands managed by different federal agencies.
Enhancing coordination among agencies is extraordinarily important in
creating a sensible, efficient, and coherent fee program with seamless
services that is well-understood by the public. Thus, a critical
component of the Department's support of S. 1107 is that it be amended
to provide for interagency recreation fee authority.
The basis for establishing a recreation fee program for National
Parks also exists for other federal agencies. The pattern of recreation
on our federal lands has changed dramatically. National Parks continue
to be a destination favorite for American families. However, more than
ever before, Americans also are choosing to recreate on lands managed
by other federal agencies such BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Since 1985, recreation demand has increased approximately 65 percent on
BLM lands and 80 percent on National Wildlife Refuges. Over the same
time period, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates an increase of 10
million recreation visits for a total of 90 million visits to their 288
lakes. With this increase in visitation is an increase in visitor
demand for adequate visitor facilities and services. Because our
visitors do not distinguish among federal land management agencies,
many expect to find the same amenities typically provided at National
Parks, including hosted campgrounds, permanent toilet facilities, and
potable drinking water. This increase in visitor use on these other
federal lands also creates a greater need to expend funds to protect
natural and cultural resources--the resources that are often the very
reason visitors are drawn to the particular site.
Although the geographic and logistical characteristics of some
locations make the collection of recreation fees easier than for
others, we believe that the relevant policy question of whether
recreation fee authority should be given to an agency is whether the
visiting public would benefit from enhanced recreation facilities and
other visitor services that would result from such fees being charged.
Visitors to these other Department of the Interior lands, as well as
lands managed by other agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, in
other Departments have and should continue to benefit from enhanced
facilities and services.
Through the Fee Demo program, BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service
have invested recreation fees to meet visitor demands and improve the
recreation experience. For example, the BLM's Lake Havasu Field Office
in Arizona has used recreation fees to replace 50 leaking and
deteriorating fiberglass outhouses with 36 block wall accessible
restrooms. Recreation fees also contributed to the installation of 700
feet of river bank block walls, which will help protect the newly
constructed restrooms as well as stabilize the campsites' eroding
shoreline. The Fish and Wildlife Service also has used fees to offer
some unique opportunities to visitors. At California's Modoc National
Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service used recreation fees to
benefit hunters and photographers by replacing an old hay bale blind
with a new wooden, more accessible hunting and photo blind, complete
with access ramp. At the National Elk Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife
Service collects an Elk hunt permit recreation fee of $1 per hunter at
the weekly hunter drawings in October, November, and December. These
recreation fees are used to rent a fair pavilion building from the
county to conduct refuge hunt orientation and permit drawings at the
beginning of each hunting season. Hundreds of hunters attend each year.
In addition, the modest recreation fee allows the Fish and Wildlife
Service to purchase retrieval carts and sleds for the hunters' use and
shooting sticks to encourage ethical hunting.
a new annual interagency national pass
S. 1107 would allow for modifications of the National Park
Passport. For reasons that include those above, we propose creating a
new annual interagency pass that would expand the National Parks
Passport to cover all participating agencies and would consolidate the
Golden Passes established under the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act. We believe that the National Park Passport developed by Senator
Thomas a few years ago is an excellent model for such a program. We
would like to expand on its successes--the image competition as well as
the modern marketing techniques, and innovative, administration
provisions. By consolidating these passes, the interagency pass would
decrease visitor confusion about passes and shift the emphasis to
recreation opportunities on our federal lands rather than an agency-
centric view. We envision that the interagency pass would be provided
to seniors at substantial discounts and to persons with disabilities
free of charge. The interagency pass would retain the look and program
qualities of the National Park Passport, and we would work to maintain
the stream of revenue to NPS. As relevant data are collected, the
distribution formula of interagency pass revenues would be periodically
reevaluated through the Fee Council.
standardizing recreation fees and minimizing fee layering
S. 1107 would direct the Secretary to establish the minimum number
of fees and avoid fee layering where possible. The Department supports
this goal. One problem that has led to increased fee layering is the
absence of clear definitions of what activities are covered by
``entrance'' fees and those that are covered by ``use'' fees. This
issue has been complicated by historical fee definitions in the LWCFA
and differences among agencies in legislative fee authorities. The
result has been that, at some sites, a use fee was established rather
than an entrance fee, and at other sites, an additional use fee was
charged for the primary attraction of the site when the activity should
have been covered by an already-paid entrance fee. The lack of
consistency among and within agencies has led to visitor confusion and
some expression of frustration about fee layering and the related issue
of when the Golden passes and the National Park Passport may be used.
In the Department's testimony before this Committee during the
107th Congress, we proposed addressing these concerns by creating a new
system of ``basic'' and ``expanded'' recreation fees that would be
consistently applied across all agencies and would minimize fee
layering by ensuring that the basic fee covers the primary attraction
of the site. Under this system, restrictions would be put in place to
ensure that the visiting public would not be charged if the agency is
not making a certain level of investment in visitor services. All
passes established under this system would have covered the basic
recreation fee at all sites.
The Department and USDA have moved forward to administratively
implement such a system. Although we are retaining the LWCF
terminology, the agencies are making adjustments to standardize the
classification of fees to decrease visitor confusion about the passes
and minimize fee layering. For example, the Forest Service is expanding
and clarifying the benefits of the Golden Passes to include 1800
additional sites. The previous pass policy at those sites was extremely
confusing: the Golden Eagle Pass was not accepted, Golden Age and
Access passholders were given a 50 percent discount, while a regional
pass, the Northwest Forest Pass, was accepted in full. While NPS
currently accepts passes at a majority of its fee sites, six sites that
established use fees for the primary attraction to the site now accept
passes. In addition, NPS is evaluating 14 sites where use fees should
possibly be converted to entrance fees and passes should be accepted.
The Department would like to make as many efforts as possible to
streamline the recreation fee system. However, our experience has shown
that eliminating all fee-layering or what might better be thought of as
tiered fees is neither fair nor equitable, especially for specialized
services such as camping, reservations, enhanced tours, or group
events. The notion behind charging a fee beyond the basic recreation
fee is that certain recreation activities require additional attention
by agency staff or involve costs that should not be borne by the
general public through taxpayer funds or by the rest of the visiting
public through the basic recreation fee. The system must balance
fairness and equity principles by carefully considering the
relationship between who pays and who benefits.
Another important consideration is fee levels. The Department is
committed to revaluating the recreation fees charged and their impact
on low- and middle-class visitors. First, recreation fees represent a
small percentage of the out-of-pocket costs that an average family
spends on a typical vacation. Second, recreation fees are reasonable in
comparison to those charged at other recreational activities. For
example, in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a family of four would pay $20 for a
seven day pass to both Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone
National Park. In contrast, in Jackson Hole, the family would have to
pay approximately $408 for two snowmobiles for a single day and $27.50
for 2-3 hours of entertainment at a movie theatre.
partnerships with states and gateway communities
S. 1107 would authorize the Secretary to enter into agreements with
public and private entities for visitor reservation services, fee
collection or processing services. The Department supports this
provision as it would allow us, among other things, to more vigorously
seek out opportunities to engage gateway communities through the
recreation fee program. Such efforts are consistent with Secretary
Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation, and Cooperation,
all in the service of Conservation. Given our experience with
cooperative decision-making within the Fee Demo program, we believe
that any future fee program should foster collaborative opportunities.
Through these partnerships, the Department and gateway communities
can work together to promote tourism and to better serve visitors. One
example of the type of partnership that could flourish under a
permanent recreation fee program is the Sand Flats Agreement entered
into in 1994 by BLM and the gateway community of Grand County, Utah.
Sand Flats is a 7,000-acre BLM recreational area outside Moab, Utah. It
is highly popular, particularly with mountain bikers. In the early
1990s, its popularity increased so much that the BLM was no longer able
to manage and police the area. Looking for a creative solution, BLM
entered into a cooperative agreement with the county under which the
county would collect recreation fees and use them to manage and police
the highly popular recreational area. The county and its citizens have
benefited from a more vigorous tourist trade; the BLM now has a
signature recreation area; and visitors can safely enjoy the Sand Flats
area. We believe that the Sand Flats Agreement is an excellent model of
a mutually beneficial partnership and that the opportunity to craft
these types of agreements exists across the country. With a permanent
recreation fee program, we will be better able to make the necessary
investments to identify and move forward on such opportunities.
S. 1107 would authorize the Secretary to enter into revenue sharing
agreements with states to accept their state annual passes at National
Parks and would direct that the NPS' share of the fees be distributed
equally to all NPS units in the states that are party to the revenue
sharing agreement. The Department recommends amending this provision.
While we support the creation of passes that might allow entry to both
state and federal recreation sites, the provision as drafted presents a
number of problems. To be viable from a business perspective, a
combined federal-state pass would have to be priced to capture the
appropriate level of value from both state and federal systems. Unless
the pass is priced appropriately, simply splitting the total revenues
collected based on the price of existing state passes is likely to
result in a net loss for both federal and state parties the pie will be
smaller for both federal and state parties. In addition, this provision
would break the direct link between the site of collection and the site
where a majority of the fees are expended. This link has served as the
rationale for the recreation fee program and is strongly associated
with the public's support of fees. Acceptance of a state pass to
federal lands also presents valuation complications, including impacts
on the value of federal passes, varying pricing and benefits of
different state passes and related equity concerns with regard to
residents of different states.
The Department would prefer creating partnerships with states
through a more flexible provision that would authorize cooperative
agreements for regional multi-entity passes. Providing visitors and
residents of nearby communities with a well-structured, appropriately
priced, regional multi-entity pass would avoid these problems while
allowing for benefits that could extend to other federal, state, and
private entities. Recognizing that recreation areas and the visitors
who enjoy them do not necessarily follow state boundaries, our
experience has shown that regional multi-entity passes offer greater
flexibility and can be tailored to meet identified recreational
demands. One example of a successful regional pass is the Visit Idaho
Playground (VIP) Pass, which covers all entrance and certain day-use
fees at a variety of state and federal sites including those under the
jurisdiction of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, the Idaho
Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Reclamation, USDA Forest Service,
NPS, and BLM.
Our proposed provision also could provide for another type of
cooperative pass program similar to that provided in S.1107, but with
fewer unwanted impacts to both the state and federal recreation fee
programs. The Department and USDA are currently considering a program
to develop a State Parks hologram upgrade to the Golden Eagle Passport.
Under this pilot project, visitors will be given the opportunity to
upgrade their Golden Eagle Passports to include an entire state park
system for an additional fee. As it is currently being proposed,
visitors would purchase a hologram sticker that they can affix to their
Golden Eagle Passports, upgrading it to cover a state park system. We
should note that a single interagency national pass would streamline
these types of regional arrangements. This cooperative pass program has
been complicated by the existence of four national passports--the
Golden Eagle Passport, the Golden Age Passport, the Golden Access
Passport, and the National Parks Passport. Oregon is preparing to offer
this optional upgrade for around $20 beginning in calendar year 2004.
We will keep the Subcommittee informed on the development of this
innovative pilot program.
administration of the recreation fee program
S. 1107 would require the Secretary to analyze certain criteria
with regard to fee levels, transmit the analysis to Congress, publish
notice of the fees in the Federal Register, and then wait 12 months
before establishing or changing recreation fees while, at the same
time, establish a cap on the cost of collection at 15 percent. This
bill also would require the Secretary to submit a report on the status
of the recreation fee program to Congress every three years. While we
strongly support improving Congressional reporting requirements on this
program, we are concerned that the process set forth in S. 1107 would
expend unnecessary resources by duplicating existing work that the
agencies conduct in administering the recreation fee program and that
the cost of collection cap is unrealistic. We would like to work with
the Subcommittee to craft reporting and cost of collection provisions
that meet the needs of Congress and the public while taking into
account agency experience and current efforts to administer the
recreation fee program.
administrative efforts to improve the recreation fee program
Through the Fee Council and other efforts, we are continually
evaluating and developing responses to the successes and shortcomings
of experiments agencies are conducting through the Fee Demo program.
The Department and USDA are moving forward on a number of
administrative efforts to improve the recreation fee program including:
Creating an annual interagency ``fee-free'' day on National
Public Lands Day in September;
Developing consistent application of the definitions of
``entrance'' and ``use'' fees and thus, streamlining and
clarifying the acceptance of the Golden passes, as described
earlier in this testimony;
Implementing an interagency system to award volunteers with
passes;
Establishing a single reservation system for all visitors to
most federal lands;
Improving the website www.recreation.gov to include
information about recreation fees; and
Collecting data at National Parks on pass usage to better
understand and serve the visiting public.
the future of the recreation fee program
We have learned a great deal from our experience in administering
the Fee Demo program and believe we are ready to translate that
experience into a permanent recreation fee program. Delay could result
in a lost opportunity to implement a more productive, streamlined
recreation fee system that is designed to enhance the visitor's
experience. Establishing a permanent program does not mean the learning
ends here. We support a dynamic recreation fee program that responds to
new lessons learned and builds on success stories. We believe S. 1107,
with the amendments suggested in this testimony, would create such a
dynamic program while providing the Department the certainty of a
permanent program. A permanent program would allow the Department to
make long-term investments, improve efficiencies, and initiate more
partnerships. Mr. Chairman, the Department thanks you for your
leadership on this issue and looks forward to working with the
Subcommittee as S. 1107 moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would be pleased to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ring.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
ADMINISTRATION, BUSINESS PRACTICES AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views
on two bills today, S. 808 and H.R. 620.
With your permission, I'd like to submit my statements for
the records and summarize the Department's views.
Senator Thomas. They will be in the record.
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, S. 808 is a bill to provide for the
expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, to include
selected acreage along the Crystal River. The Department
supports efforts to protect Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore; however, in order to meet the President's initiative
to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue
to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the
National Park System. Therefore, we recommend that the
committee defer action on S. 808 during the 108th Congress.
H.R. 620, which would authorize assistance to the State of
California for local educational agencies or educational
services for students attending schools in Yosemite National
Park and would also authorize park facilities to be established
outside the boundary of the park. This legislation, we
understand, was passed by the House in March 2003. The
Department supports H.R. 620, as we believe that the students
who attend the schools in Yosemite National Park should have
access to educational services that are comparable to those
that students elsewhere in California receive. The funding
authorized by this bill would strictly limit the provision of
assistance to address particularly the severe situation for
schools located in a national park.
The Department also supports authorizing expenditures for
facilities outside Yosemite, as this would enable the National
Park Service to contribute to the regional transportation
system being developed to serve Yosemite's visitors and
employees.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary. I'd be happy to
respond to any questions that you or any other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Ring follow:]
Prepared Statement of Richard G. Ring, Associate Director for
Administration, Business Practices, and Workforce Development, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 808
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 808, a bill to provide
for the expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to
include selected acreage along the Crystal River.
The Department supports efforts to protect Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore. However, in order to meet the
President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance
backlog, we must continue to focus our resources on caring for
existing areas in the National Park System (NPS). Therefore, we
recommend that the committee defer action on S. 808 during the
108th Congress.
The existing NPS has more demands on it than ever before.
Since 1991, 34 new units have been added to the System. These
units alone in FY 2003 add $25.6 million to the System's
operating budget, over $30 million in unfunded operational
needs, and over $265 million in unfunded one-time projects. In
addition, we have expanded a number of units over that time
period. Expansions also can bring with them increases in
operational costs and maintenance needs. These units and
expansions include important resources that we as Americans
recognize as nationally significant. Our focus now though is to
take better care of the natural, cultural, and historic
resources and visitor facilities already in the System.
S. 808 would redraw the boundary of the 71,192.60-acre
Lakeshore to include a parcel of land that is contiguous to the
existing Lakeshore. The 104.45-acre parcel encompasses 6,300
feet of frontage on the Crystal River and contains wetland,
riparian, and upland habitat for a variety of species within
mixed northern forests. The land appraisals have not been
completed, but the estimated cost of acquiring the private land
is between $7-9 million dollars.
The private landowner first proposed development, including
a golf course and homes, on the parcel in the late 1980s. To
protect the parcel from development, several land exchange
alternatives have since then been considered by the NPS and
interested parties. However, for a variety of reasons, an
agreed upon exchange could not be reached. The interested
parties wished to acquire NPS land that was not suitable for
exchange since NPS had previously acquired it through
condemnation. In addition, through the General Management Plan
scoping process, 87 percent of the 850 comments received
expressed opposition to any type of exchange involving NPS
lands. Comments were received from local entities, interested
organizations, visitors, and the general public. This
legislation was proposed as a solution for the protection of
the property.
The Department of Justice has advised that Section 1(c)(2)
of the bill, as introduced, violates the Recommendations Clause
of the Constitution. In addition, the fiscal year 2004 budget
request has already been submitted. We recommend that this
section be removed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony. I would
be happy to answer any questions you or the other members of
the subcommittee may have.
------
Prepared Statement of Richard G. Ring, Associate Director for
Administration, Business Practices, and Workforce Development, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 620
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 620, which
would authorize assistance to the State of California or local
educational agencies for educational services for students
attending schools in Yosemite National Park and would authorize
park facilities to be established outside the boundary of the
park. This legislation was passed by the House on March 25,
2003.
The Department supports H.R. 620, as we believe that
students who attend schools in Yosemite National Park should
have access to educational services that are comparable to
those that students elsewhere in California receive. The
funding authorized by this bill would be a strictly limited
provision of assistance to address a particularly severe
situation for schools located in a national park. The
Department also supports authorizing expenditures for
facilities outside Yosemite, as this would enable the National
Park Service to contribute to the regional transportation
system being developed to serve Yosemite's visitors and
employees.
Schools have been located within Yosemite National Park for
over 125 years to serve the needs of park employees and their
children. At present, two elementary schools are located within
the park, at Wawona and in Yosemite Valley. A third elementary
school and a small high school are located in El Portal, the
park's administrative site located on federal property just
outside the park boundary. Most high-school age students attend
the larger county high school in Mariposa because of the lack
of opportunity for a comprehensive program at the El Portal
school.
The Yosemite Valley School has 42 students in grades
kindergarten through eighth grade, divided into three classes.
The amount of funding from the State of California, according
to a formula based on average daily attendance, supports only
two teachers. The school principal also serves as a teacher.
The elementary school in El Portal has 53 students in seven
grades, divided into multi-graded classrooms. The Wawona school
mirrors the old ``one-room'' schoolhouse, with 16 children in
grades K-8, and one teacher. Because the current funding
formula provides for only one teacher, the school is unable to
serve more than 20 students. Consequently, in years when the
maximum teacher-student ratio is reached, parents are left with
the choice of either home-schooling their children or
transporting them on their own to schools elsewhere.
Because the schools in the park are located in remote
areas, students at the Yosemite schools lack services that are
normally available to students that attend schools elsewhere in
the state. For example, access to teachers to serve students
with special needs is very limited, and road and weather
conditions can often restrict teachers' abilities to reach the
park. Many facilities are in need of repair or do not meet
state or federal standards.
The quality of education that students receive in these
schools suffers as a result of lack of funding and staffing.
For example, because teachers in the Yosemite schools are
responsible for multiple grade levels, they are at a
disadvantage compared to teachers who are able to focus on the
curriculum and standards for one grade. In addition to their
educational duties, teachers must also tend to administrative
duties normally performed by other employees. As a result, they
are unable to give the time or attention necessary to provide
the quality of education that the students deserve.
Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National
Park is also adversely affected by the quality of the park
schools. Many highly qualified National Park Service employees
with school-age children who might otherwise be interested in
applying for jobs at Yosemite are discouraged from doing so
because of the school situation. Park employees often cite the
schools as a major factor in their decision to transfer from
Yosemite to other assignments.
H.R. 620 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
provide funds to the two school districts that administer
schools at Yosemite for educational services to students who
are dependents of park employees or who live on federal
property in or near the park. The bill prohibits funds from
being used for facility construction or major improvements, and
limits the amount of funding that may be provided to the lesser
of $400,000 annually or the amount necessary to provide
students with educational services comparable to those received
by other public school students in California. The bill allows
funding for this purpose to be derived from appropriations,
donations and fees, except that it prohibits the use of fees
collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, from
the Recreational Fee Demonstration program, and from the
National Park Passport program. The legislation also prohibits
the use of emergency appropriations for Yosemite flood recovery
for this purpose.
We want to note that the proposal to assist Yosemite
schools has been refined considerably since it was first
introduced last Congress. The initial proposal was an
indefinite authorization of funding with no limit on the dollar
amount that could be spent or restriction on the use of the
funds. During the last Congress, the Department worked closely
with this committee, the House Resources Committee, and the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees to set limits on the
amount, duration, use, and source of the funding authorized by
this legislation. The result is that the proposal in its
current form is now a tightly drawn authorization of a limited
amount of federal assistance for what is a unique educational
situation.
We strongly believe that any assistance for schools
authorized by this bill should be supplemental to Yosemite's
annual budget and should not result in a reduction of the
amount of funding available for park operations and
maintenance.
H.R. 620 also authorizes the Secretary to provide
assistance for transportation systems and facilities outside
the boundary of Yosemite National Park. It does so by extending
to Yosemite the same authority Congress provided Zion National
Park in 1996 to enter into agreements and expend funds outside
the boundaries of the park. This bill explicitly allows
appropriations to be used for ``transportation systems'' along
with other administrative and visitor use facilities.
This provision would allow the park to contribute
financially to the regional transportation system that serves
the park's visitors and employees. Developing this system has
been a goal of the park since the adoption of the 1980 General
Management Plan.
In 1999 Mariposa, Merced, and Mono counties created a Joint
Powers Authority as an entity to implement the Yosemite Area
Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with Yosemite National Park. Now in its
fourth successful year, YARTS provides an attractive
alternative for visitors and employees without having to
replace the use of private cars. In 2001, YARTS carried over
38,000 passengers, including park employees, during Yosemite's
prime visitor season (May through September). Many of these
visitors chose to leave their cars at their motels or other
locations outside the park. By choosing YARTS to access the
Yosemite Valley, over 11,000 parking places were made available
during the summer.
During the initial two years, the National Park Service
participated in the funding of this project using fee
demonstration program authority. In its third year of
operations, that funding was no longer available, and YARTS had
to reduce the number of runs it provides. The regional
transportation system is an important means to solve Yosemite's
parking and congestion issues by reducing the amount of
infrastructure development within the park, and thus
substantially reducing the funding requirements for
implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Department believes
that a small amount of federal assistance will help make YARTS
an even bigger success.
In addition, the authority provided by H.R. 620 would
enable the National Park Service to establish visitor contact
facilities in the park's gateway communities, as is called for
in the Yosemite Valley Plan.
In order to assure that the park has the ability to
contribute to YARTS through all available transportation
authorities, we suggest amendment H.R. 620 to make the
transportation fee authority provided under Title V of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391)
applicable to parks that fund transportation services through a
cooperative agreement. The existing language allows parks to
use that authority only in cases where transportation services
are provided through a service contract. The text of this
proposed amendment is attached.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or the other members of
the subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendment to H.R. 620 as Passed by the House of
Representatives
Page 6, line 6: insert ``(a)'' before ``Section''.
Page 6, after line 15, insert the following:
``(b) Section 501 of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 5981) is amended in the first
sentence by inserting `, cooperative agreement, or other
contractual arrangement' after `contract' ''.
Senator Thomas. Did you want to comment on the other bills,
or just those two?
Mr. Ring. Just those two.
Senator Thomas. Okay, very good. All right. Well, thank you
very much. Appreciate your testimony.
With respect to the school thing, what other parks do you
think are going to fall in this category, and how many do you
believe will be involved?
Mr. Ring. We believe Yosemite has a unique circumstance,
and we, right now, know of only one other park where this issue
has come up and authority has been sought and obtained, and
that is at Yellowstone. We know of no other parks that are
seeking similar kinds of authority.
Senator Thomas. Would you like to speculate whether, if
this is done, there will be more?
Mr. Ring. I guess I wouldn't speculate, Mr. Chairman, but I
think each one of them has to be looked at.
Senator Thomas. It would be a criteria, I presume, that
does that. Okay.
Your numbers over there, you show the percentage of
increase. What about the total numbers in the park, relative,
say, to BLM?
Ms. Scarlett. Current visitation levels at National Park
Service are the largest of our recreation-serving
facilities. Visitation there is about 277 million visitors per
year. The Bureau of Reclamation has about 90 million per year.
And BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, I don't have the
numbers straight on the top of my head, but could get those to
you. What we do know is that they're growing rapidly,
particularly in very specific locations.
Senator Thomas. I guess I would question a little bit that
I think there are--at least in Wyoming there are--and I
understand that you could establish a criteria, but there are
certainly a lot of places on the forest where local people just
walk in and do these things. In the very first--at the
beginning, why, one of the demonstration projects was in Sand
Dunes in the Red Desert. They had to limit--they discontinued
it because it was unable to collect the fees, and so on. So I
guess what I'm saying to you is, I don't have a particular
objection to expanding this to the other units, but there has
to be some criteria that--as you say, where there's certain
facilities, there's some reason to have a fee, other than the
fact that it's public land.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, we fully agree with that. Right
now, at the Bureau of Land Management, about 87 percent of
locations do not have fees. And for the Forest Service and the
Fish and Wildlife Service, about 94 percent, 93 percent, do not
have fees. So it's a relatively small number. And the reason
for that is that there are a relatively limited number of areas
in those units for which fees are applicable. They need to be
areas with infrastructure that is visitor-serving--parking
lots, toilet facilities, visitor centers, or other visitor-
serving kinds of infrastructure. They also need to be
accessible in a way in which you have entry locations. So we
quite agree, there need to be criteria.
The Bureau of Land Management, under the demo program, as
well as Fish and Wildlife Service, have a review process that
they go through. A local entity might propose a fee. That gets
reviewed in the context of a business plan or a fee plan. There
are public hearings and reviews, or public comment. And for the
Fish and Wildlife Service, any fee proposal actually is
reviewed and approved by the director, himself or herself. So
we quite agree, this is not just a concept that is applicable
anywhere, and we have in place, through our learning
experiences, criteria that have been developed respectively in
each bureau.
Senator Thomas. I think the demonstration program in the
parks have raised about $125 million, and BLM is $8 million.
It's a relatively smaller amount and probably won't--have you
experienced any organized opposition to the fee program in the
national parks?
Ms. Scarlett. We have not had, for the national parks, any
what I would I characterize as organized opposition. Obviously,
with any concept there are always some citizens who might have
some disagreements. Generally, because fees have been charged
at the parks of one sort or another since their inception
nearly a hundred years ago, I think there's public familiarity.
And what we find is the critical issue for public support is
whether the fees clearly are being utilized for enhancing the
visitor experience. We find that true in the parks on our
Bureau of Land Management lands and our Fish and Wildlife
Refuges. All of them, 85 or 90 percent, support if that link is
there.
Senator Thomas. It's kind of tough sometimes. There's
nothing more important to visitors than the water supply, for
example, but that doesn't show very much, and nobody recognizes
that that's visitor--near as much as a museum or something of
that nature, certainly.
Senator, questions?
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Scarlett, one of the major issues facing national
parks in Hawaii is the threat of invasive species from outside
of the park. As you know, miconia, is an aggressive tree
species and is a major problem at Haleakala National Park. Last
year when you testified on fee legislation, you told me that
you wanted to look into this issue further. But the problem was
that the National Park Service is prevented from spending any
money outside of the park boundaries. I note that the
administration is supporting another bill on today's agenda,
H.R. 620, which would allow for park funds to be used at local
schools outside of the park. Given that position, will you also
support allowing fee revenues to be used to protect the park
from imminent threats, even if that means spending some of the
money outside of the park boundary?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we have several concepts that we
have been working on and would like to see them applied,
actually, to the National Park Service. You may be aware that
in our 2003 appropriations bill we had something called our
Cooperative Conservation Challenge Cost Share. It applies to
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
parks, and, in the case of BLM and Fish and Wildlife, enables
them to engage in cost-share funding for things like invasive
removal on lands adjacent to those BLM or wildlife refuge
units.
In the case of the Park Service, there has been other
restrictions that have precluded that. We look forward,
actually, to exploring ways to overcome that restriction so
that we can work on such matters as invasives removal. Those
invasives know no jurisdictional boundaries. They move across
them, and we need to address them in a cohesive way.
Senator Akaka. Well, I'm glad there is that consideration,
and look forward to working with you on this. And, as you know,
the problem is that you have to go beyond your boundary to
protect it from the invasive species, and that's the problem
they were having.
Mr. Ring, I have a couple of questions with respect to S.
808, the Sleeping Bear Dunes bill. The administration is
requesting that the Congress defer action on the bill. Well,
for the record, is there any concern about the need to protect
this land or the appropriateness of including it within the
boundary of the National Lakeshore?
Mr. Ring. No, sir, there is not.
Senator Akaka. Based on our hearing last July, it appears
that at current funding levels, it will be several years, at
best, before there are serious reductions in the maintenance
backlog. Since the backlog is the rationale for the
administration's request to defer action on the bill, would it
be safe to assume the administration will want to continue to
defer action on this as long as there is a maintenance backlog?
Mr. Ring. Senator, I believe that the scale of the backlog,
in our understanding of it right now, has certainly led us to
this position. We review our progress on that every year. And
at some point I think we're going to believe that we have got
far enough along that we can start to consider other needful
priorities. But I wouldn't speculate on how long that will be.
I would just say that we're reviewing that annually, as we put
together a budget.
Senator Akaka. It's my understanding this land was proposed
for development and probably will be developed if is it not
included in the park. So how do you calculate the cost of
losing this land if we don't acquire it now and it's
subsequently developed?
Mr. Ring. How do we calculate it? It certainly would be
lost potential to the park, and we certainly understand that in
the context of the resource values that have been assessed on
it and the opportunity for public recreation. But beyond that,
we would have to assess a specific proposal, in terms of
whether it represented any threats to the park and to the
surrounding area.
Senator Akaka. My time has expired.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Ring, what is the appraisal of the
property? Do you know the value?
Mr. Ring. We've estimated the value at between $7 and $9
million.
Senator Thomas. $9 million.
Mr. Ring. In the range of $7 to $9 million.
Senator Thomas. For a hundred acres.
Mr. Ring. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. You could get more than that in Wyoming for
$9 million.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Have you talked about some sort of a trade?
Is there an opportunity to----
Mr. Ring. We did explore the possibility of a land
exchange, but the property that was under consideration was
acquired by the National Park Service, specifically through
condemnation. The idea of giving it up when it maintains its
capacity to be an integral part of the park, particularly when
it was--the previous owners had it condemned, led to us making
the decision that it was not appropriate to pursue an exchange.
Equally, the public comment we received on the proposal as it
went out in draft was about 85 percent against considering such
an exchange, for the reasons I have described.
Senator Thomas. Ms. Scarlett, what you talk about in your--
and others talk about--having a single pass for all Federal
lands, possibly even State parks, do you think something could
ever work out that the States would go along with or that would
work for variations in the type of resources that are there?
Ms. Scarlett. We're very optimistic that we can have not
only some sort of an interagency national pass, but also
regional passes and ones that include States. We actually
already have several regional examples where--in the State of
Idaho, for example, we have a pass in which multiple Federal
land State agencies are working together with a single pass. We
are exploring the application of a hologram, simply a hologram
upgrade, to the Golden Eagle Pass right now, working with the
State of Oregon. So we think these concepts are not only
underway, but have a lot greater potential than has been
fulfilled to date.
Technology also is increasingly making it more possible,
through swipe cards and that sort of technology, to track where
the pass was purchased, where it's used, so that the fee-
distribution element becomes more reasonable.
Senator Thomas. I was going to ask you that. Do they get--
does somebody get the 80 percent, then?
Ms. Scarlett. What we are working on, conceptually--and, in
fact, we have a pilot project underway with the swipe-card
technology, which will help us track where fees are collected,
where they're used. We will be exploring, then, what would be
useful distribution systems.
We think one thing is key. It's important that where passes
are actually used, which is where the visitor effects are, we
do need to keep a substantial portion of the fees going back to
those locations. But right now, for example, we do have a
certain portion of the fee that goes back and is used, then,
service-wide for service-wide priorities. Setting that
percentage allocation is something that we have to work on, but
we think we now have both the background and experience to do
that, and the technology to make it feasible.
Senator Thomas. I think that's one of the things that you
find some resistance to, is if I pay a fee to go in Teton Park,
then I accept the fee because I think that the money is being
spent there. If I'm going to raise an additional fee to go in
Teton that's spent in Devil's Island or whatever it is, why,
then I'm less enthusiastic about it sometimes.
Ms. Scarlett. We agree that that is a very significant
issue, and so we want to preserve that structure whereby the
link between the fee and the investment is maintained. However,
we think there's some flexibility there. We have found visitor
satisfaction with, for example, right now, 80 percent of fees
going to that particular unit and them some service-wide. Some
of the service-wide investments really do benefit all the park
units, and I think visitors understand that.
Senator Thomas. What is the overhead cost of collection, do
you know?
Ms. Scarlett. For the Park Service right now it's hovering
at about 20 percent. That obviously varies by individual park
unit. There are many factors that go into that. But it's been
stable at around the 20/21 percent level for a couple of years
now.
Senator Thomas. In some of the parks, the demonstration fee
is not the total fee there. Is that right? They had a fee
before, and the demonstration was added to it. Is it all
managed as a demonstration fee now?
Ms. Scarlett. I guess I'd have to turn to Dick to parse out
whether that 20 percent is just the demo portion or includes
the remainder.
Mr. Ring. Most of it, the lion's share of it, is managed
under the Fee Demo authority. There are some other fees
collected--a recreation-use fee and transportation fees that
are collected oftentimes at the same point.
Senator Thomas. Is it Yellowstone has had a fee since the
1930's?
Mr. Ring. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. It's not a demonstration fee, or at least
they didn't start that way. Is it all considered now a
demonstration fee?
Mr. Ring. It is all handled as part of that program, yes,
sir.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Further questions, Senator?
Senator Akaka. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ring, the administration has consistently opposed or
recommended deferring park-related bills, even bills that
authorize studies. They do this to focus on that maintenance
backlog. H.R. 620 would authorize a new use of park revenue for
non-park purposes. And my question to you is, how is this
consistent with your opposition of all of these other bills?
Mr. Ring. The workforce in Yosemite is both large and
varied, and our ability to recruit and retain the best
workforce that can both provide service to the visitor as well
as attack that backlog is critically important. We also would
not want a workforce profile in Yosemite that did not--was not
made up of families with school-aged youngsters who are a part
of the profile of visitors. And we would want that workforce to
reflect an understanding of the visitors coming into the park,
as well as, as I said, to be able to attract the best workforce
to attack the critical problems with the park.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. One final shot. I think last year's bill on
Yosemite said they had to get a special appropriation. It could
not be taken out of the normal fund. Is that the case here?
Mr. Ring. If I could ask for some clarifications, Mr.
Chairman, are you asking, if this bill passed would they have
to seek a special appropriation? I believe that they would
either have to seek funding--either allocate funding from the
appropriation they received, seek additional funding, and there
may be some limited----
Senator Thomas. Well, that's the difference I'm asking you
about. Does it come out of their regular appropriation? Does
this just authorize them to spend it for that? Or does it
require that they have additional appropriation for this
purpose on top of their----
Mr. Ring. I believe this bill authorizes them to spend any
appropriation they have, whether they seek it specially or
whether it's part of the regular appropriation.
Senator Thomas. So it could be, if they get a million
dollars, why, it has to come out of that, they have less to
spend on the park than they did before.
Mr. Ring. That would be what the authority would allow for,
based on the judgment of the park superintendent and the
circumstances with the schools.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Well, if there's no further
questions, then we'll go on to the next panel. Thank you very
much. And we'll be in touch on some of these as we move forward
with the bill.
The next panel is Mr. Jim Maddy, president, National Park
Foundation, Mr. Ken Olson, president, Friends of Acadia, Bar
Harbor, Maine, and Robert Funkhouser, president, Western Slope
No-Fee Coalition, from Vermont.
Mr. Maddy, we'll start with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JIM MADDY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Mr. Maddy. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
My name is Jim Maddy. I'm the president of the National
Park Foundation, which was chartered by Congress in 1967 to
encourage private philanthropic support of America's national
parks. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today
before this subcommittee to comment on S. 1107 and the
Recreation Fee Program for the National Park Service.
With your permission, I'll submit this written testimony
for the official record, and summarize my remarks today.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Mr. Maddy. Thank you.
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 Pass outside of
national parks. Golden Eagle is an annual pass providing the
user with entrance to Federal lands, charging an entrance fee.
That study focused on two questions: the potential untapped
market for the past, and the potential new net income that
could be generated by selling the pass outside of the national
parks.
Senator Thomas. Is your loudspeaker on, Jim?
Mr. Maddy. I think it is.
Senator Thomas. The light showing there?
Mr. Maddy. The light's showing.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Mr. Maddy. I'll bring it up closer.
Senator Thomas. All right, thank you.
Mr. Maddy. After the historic passage of the National Park
Omnibus Management Act of 1998, the National Park Foundation
entered into an agreement with the National Park Service to
implement and operate the National Parks Passport program,
which was created in 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.
One of the key conclusions from that study, Senator, is
that there is significant domestic market potential for a
national park pass. In that potential market, there are two
possible customer approaches to purchasing a pass: a
stewardship buyer and value buyers. Stewardship buyers are
those who might expect some value from the pass but might not
expect to get a bargain or use full value. They would see the
purchase as support for national parks. While value buyers
might see a pass purchase as a bargain and would expect to use
the full value, and more. The business research suggested that
stewardship buyers potentially comprise a greater percentage of
the total market.
The business plan also concluded that with significant
investment into redesigning the pass, supporting its sale in
the partnering of qualified indirect channels, such as
specialty retailers and mass merchandisers, we could
significantly increase pass sales.
As we near the end of the fourth season of the program, I'm
happy to report significant progress and success in the
development of the National Park Passport Program. We have seen
growth in sales in each year of the program, and we have been
able to keep operating costs to 15 percent of total revenue.
Last year, over 300,000 passes were sold. And although we do
not have complete numbers yet for 2003, we predict that we're
on track for another year of growth.
In addition to the raw financial benefits that have
resulted through the creation of the National Park Passport
Program, there are significant qualitative benefits, as well.
The national park pass is a valuable communications tool to
reach new audiences about national parks, and encourage every
individual to experience these special places firsthand.
Through the pass packaging and promotional materials and all
the communications about the pass program, we emphasize the
breadth and depth of the National Park System, the ability of
every individual to have a unique national park experience, and
the benefit of purchasing a pass, and the benefit that
purchasing a pass will bring to these places.
``More than 80 percent of pass proceeds go straight into
vital park programs,'' is a powerful phrase that has proved to
be successful in reaching those potential stewardship buyers
interested in visiting as well as financially supporting the
national parks.
Operating the National Parks Passport Program has not been
without its challenges. The initial business plan for the
program included higher sales and revenue figures than we
currently enjoy today, primarily because of several key
assumptions that, at the time, included the assumption that the
pass would be sold through four key indirect channels we
anticipated at that time--mass merchandisers, specialty
retailers, specialty discounters, and also retail catalog
sales. These indirect channels were identified because of their
ability to help us reach first-time purchasers of national park
passes.
One of our current challenges is attempting to find the
balance between increasing fee revenue, in the short term,
versus increasing the number of national park stewards, in the
long-term. We've found that these two objectives often compete
with each other and have made it difficult to expand the
program to its full potential. An emphasis on maximizing short-
term fee revenue, for example, precludes us from partnering
with as many retail outlets and other indirect sales channels
as we might be able to because of the concern that retail sales
might decrease gate sales.
Because of these competing objectives, we are concerned
about the language in section 3 of the legislation that directs
50 percent of the amounts collected from the sale of the
national park pass to remain at the site where it was sold,
with the remaining amount allocated to the shared service-wide
fund.
For those most concerned about the short-term fee intake,
that is, the folks in the Park Service--this change in
allocation, which decreases the amount of funds allocated to
remain in the park where the pass was sold, may create a
powerful disincentive for individual parks to sell or promote
the sale of the national park pass.
We applaud your commitment reflected in section 2 of the
legislation to simplify the visitor experience and streamlining
the fee system by exploring the possibility of allowing
revenue-sharing agreements between State agencies and the
National Park Service, just as was the case at the beginning of
the National Park Passport Program. However, making this change
will require a significant investment in communicating to the
National Park Service field staff so that the full range of
pass options available to the visitor can be communicated
effectively on the ground.
We would welcome the opportunity, in partnership with the
National Park Service, to explore ways to increase our
communications to the public and to field staff about the fee
options available, or to otherwise streamline the system.
Another key challenge has been to harness the power of new
technology in order to make the National Park Passport Program
the most efficient program it can be. While we have made great
strides in this area, we maintain a database that allows for
renewal notices and the use of Internet and toll-free numbers
have proved value to many park visitors seeking information.
There is often dissatisfaction among consumers who have come to
expect a higher level of service with such passes. We believe
the opportunity is there to 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--for example, when visitors forget their pass--the
implementation of processes that would allow for collection of
usage data through card swipes and automatic entry points at
the national park gates.
In conclusion, when creating the National Park Passport,
you did not just create an entrance for national parks, you
created a powerful communications tool and a means for
individuals to express their support for America's national
parks. The National Park Foundation continues to be committed
to the National Park Passport program and to finding ways to
reach more and more people and connecting them to national
parks through the National Park Pass.
Senators, thank you for your ongoing support of the
national parks and the National Park Foundation. And we thank
you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maddy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Maddy, President, National Park Foundation
Thank you Senator Thomas. My name is Jim Maddy, and I am President
of the National Park Foundation, which 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 S. 1107 and the recreational fee program for
the National Park Service. With your permission, I will submit this
written testimony for the official record and summarize my remarks
today.
As you know, the National Park Foundation is governed by a
nonpartisan board of distinguished civic and business leaders committed
to supporting National Parks. Per the terms of our congressional
charter, the Secretary of the Interior serves as the Chairman of our
Board and the Director of the National Park Service serves as the
Secretary of the Board. The Chairman of the Board delegates much of the
day-to-day management of the Foundation to a citizen Vice Chair, a role
currently held by David Rockefeller, Jr. Board members receive no
compensation for their service and make substantial personal financial
contributions to fund our operations. I did not allow time for this
testimony to be reviewed by the board prior to this hearing, so the
opinions expressed are mine alone.
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 $195 million in
contributions and $175 million in total grants and program support to
National Parks across the country. The Foundation receives the majority
of its contributions from corporations, whose support is often in the
form of in-kind services such as marketing and promotional support,
contributions toward specific programs or donations of goods. The
Foundation's growth has been achieved with fundraising and
administrative costs kept to a minimum--these costs represent just 10
percent of all Foundation expenses, with 90 cents of every dollar
dedicated to National Park grants and program support.
national park foundation role in the national parks pass program
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 pass 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--at the entrance gate or by mailing a check or
money order to an agency. 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.
After the historic passage of the National Parks Omnibus Management
Act of 1998, the National Park Foundation entered into an agreement
with the National Park Service to implement and operate the National
Parks Passport program, which was created in 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.
Central components of the business plan included the following six
conclusions about the market potential for a National Parks Pass:
Significant domestic market potential
The potential market is comprised of buyers who share a love of
National Parks. Market research defined two possible customer
approaches to purchasing a Pass: stewardship buyers and value buyers.
Stewardship buyers are those who might expect some value from the Pass
but might not expect to get a bargain or use full value. They would see
the purchase as support for National Parks. Value buyers might expect
to use the full value and more of the Pass. They would see the purchase
of a Pass as a bargain. The research suggested that stewardship buyers
potentially comprise a greater percentage of the total market.
Moderate international market potential
Research suggested that the international market would be much
smaller than the domestic and much more fragmented. Given the recent
tremendous decline in international travelers, we have some data that
indicates that the market may even have shrunk more in the past several
years. Weighing these factors, that market has not been considered to
be profitable enough for us to pursue proactively. Additionally, we
were committed to ensuring that the domestic program be fully developed
and successfully operating before we undertook the task of developing a
significant international presence.
Significant potential in-Park sales
The research indicated the potential for in-Park sales to double
from what they were, but not without significant effort and substantial
investment in re-designing the Pass and supporting its sale. That
investment would include packaging and Pass design, communications with
Park staff, point of sales infrastructure, and clarification of Pass
program policies.
Qualified channel partners are interested in selling the Pass
The business plan defined both potential direct and indirect
channels that could sell the Pass. Direct channels would include mail,
1-800 number, Internet and in-Park sales, and indirect channels could
include mass merchandisers, specialty retailers, specialty discounters,
and catalogs. From the beginning we have been committed to working with
qualified channel partners--reputable organizations and businesses
whose values align with the National Park System and can ensure that
neither the Pass nor the Parks become over-commercialized. Even these
partners, though, are generally not willing to forgo significant
margins or greatly modify their standard practices in the interests of
working with the National Park Foundation or the National Park Service.
Vast reservoir of goodwill toward National Parks
All of the outside research undertaken by the National Park
Foundation indicates that the American public continues to strongly
support America's National Parks. There appears to be a distinct lack
of understanding, however, about what constitutes the National Park
System and about the opportunities these places can afford to visitors.
Comparison products provide useful lessons, but no ``silver bullet''
When studying the market for a National Parks Passport program, the
two programs analyzed as possible benchmarks were the Duck Stamp
program and the California State Parks System. Both programs provided
best practices and examples of pitfalls to avoid, but neither showed a
clear success formula that translates directly to the Pass.
national parks passport program highlights
As we near the end of the 4th full year of the program, I am happy
to report significant progress and successes in the development of the
National Parks Passport program. We have seen growth in sales in each
year of the program, and we have been able to keep operating costs to
15% of total revenue. Last year, over 300,000 Passes were sold, and
although we do not have complete numbers yet for 2003, we predict that
we are on track for another year of growth.
In addition to the raw financial benefits that have resulted
through the creation of the National Parks Passport program, there are
significant, qualitative benefits as well. The National Parks Pass is a
valuable communications tool for the National Park Foundation and the
National Park Service to reach new audiences about National Parks. In
an increasingly virtual world, in a world where we are bombarded with
high-tech, hyped inducements to head to the nearest theme park,
National Parks still represent bedrock reality. These unique places
teach us our nation's history and celebrate our heritage. They protect
millions of plant and animal species, and they preserve vast
landscapes. We must be ever vigilant in ensuring, however, that these
places are not taken for granted.
We have a responsibility to reach the newest citizens of this
country as well as those whose families have lived here for generations
and encourage every individual to connect with their National Parks.
The National Parks Pass is a powerful tool to make that connection.
Through the Pass packaging, promotional materials and all
communications about the Pass program, we emphasize the breadth and
depth of the National Park System, the ability of every individual to
have a unique National Park experience, and the benefit that purchasing
a Pass will bring to these special places. ``More than 80% of Pass
proceeds go straight into vital park programs'' is a powerful phrase
that has proved to be successful in reaching those buyers interested in
visiting as well as financially supporting their National Parks.
As mentioned previously, the initial market research had identified
stewardship buyers as potentially representing a greater percentage of
National Parks Pass buyers. Even among those identified as value
buyers, however, focus group research suggested that the more
prospective purchasers learn about National Parks, the more intense
stewardship benefits become. In other words, the National Parks Pass is
a means of reaching a range of potential National Park stewards who
will likely commit to supporting National Parks in a variety of ways
over the course of their lifetimes.
national parks passport program challenges & opportunities
Operating the National Parks Passport program has not been without
its challenges. One of the key conclusions drawn about the market for
the National Parks Pass was that there was no other program that could
serve as a clear comparison. Although the experiences of the federal
Duck Stamp program and the California State Park System were helpful in
shaping the National Parks Passport program, it is the case that the
National Park Foundation and the National Park Service have been
navigating through new territories and adjusting as needed as the
program has developed.
The initial business plan for the National Parks Passport program
included higher sales and revenue figures than we currently enjoy
today, primarily because of 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.
One of our current challenges is attempting to find the balance
between increasing fee revenue in the short term versus increasing the
number of National Park stewards in the long-term. We have found that
these two objectives often compete with each other and have made it
difficult to expand the program to its full potential. An emphasis on
maximizing short-term fee revenue, for example, precludes us from
partnering with as many retail outlets and other indirect sales
channels as we might be able to because of a concern that retail sales
will decrease gate sales.
Because of these competing objectives, we are concerned about the
language in Section 3 of the legislation that directs 50% of the
amounts collected from the sale of the National Parks Pass to remain at
the site where it was sold, with the remaining amount allocated to the
shared Service-wide fund. For those most concerned about the short-term
fee intake, this change in allocation, which decreases the amount of
funds allocated to remain in the Park where the Pass was sold, may
create a powerful disincentive for individual Parks to sell or promote
the sale of the National Parks Pass.
We applaud your commitment, reflected in Section 2 of the
legislation, to simplifying the visitor experience and streamlining the
fee system by exploring the possibility of allowing revenue sharing
agreements between state agencies and the National Park Service. Just
as was the case at the beginning of the National Parks Passport
program, however, making this change will require a significant
investment in communicating to National Park Service field staff so
that the full range of Pass options available to the visitor can be
communicated effectively on the ground. We would welcome the
opportunity, in partnership with the National Park Service, to explore
ways to increase our communications to the public and to field staff
about the fee options available or to otherwise streamline the fee
system.
Another key challenge has been to harness the power of new
technology in order to make the National Parks Passport program the
most efficient program it can be. While we have made great strides in
this area--we maintain a database that allows for renewal notices, and
the use of the Internet and a toll-free number have proved valuable to
many National Park visitors seeking information--there is often
dissatisfaction among consumers who have come to expect a higher level
of service with such Passes. We believe the opportunity is there to
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, the
implementation of processes that would allow for the collection of
usage data, and automatic entry points at Park gates.
conclusion
When creating the National Parks Passport, you did not just create
an entrance fee for National Parks, you created a powerful
communications tool and a means for individuals to express their
support for America's National Parks. The National Park Foundation
continues to be committed to the National Parks Passport program and to
finding ways to reach more and more people and connecting them to
National Parks through the Pass.
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.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Olson.
STATEMENT OF KEN OLSON, PRESIDENT,
FRIENDS OF ACADIA, BAR HARBOR, ME
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Senator.
I'm Ken Olson, and I'm president of Friends of Acadia,
which is in Bar Harbor, Maine. We're not going to move to
Michigan, although I understand it's a great State.
We're an independent nonprofit organization. And in the
last 3 years--well, since 1995, we've raised about $3 million
that have been donated either to the national park or to the
local communities. We are very supportive of S. 1107, to make
the fee program permanent and to make some enhancements to it.
By October 1 of this year, Acadia National Park will have
retained, we think, around $11 million in fees since 1997.
It made possible a great number of projects. And in your
packet, you'll see a list of projects that the Park Service
provided me, on page 3. Once we get beyond the year 2005,
things become critical in regard to fees in Acadia National
Park, based on the evaluation, which is quite preliminary, as
to the number of assets and the financial responsibility
associated with those assets. And the numbers appear to be
growing by hundreds of millions, surprisingly, assets that need
to be taken care of. And the backlog is estimated at many more
millions than it was before. So the fees are going to be even
more critical than they are now.
You have a bar graph, on page 4 of your packet, that I
think is pretty instructive, because it shows that as the fee
expenditures have been made, the carryover that the National
Park Service has kept is being reduced. And, in conversations
with the Park Service, I learned, for example, just the other
day, that it takes less than a year now for Acadia National
Park to spend down the few revenues that it requires. So I
think there is some pretty good efficiencies that the park is
doing with the fees, and it's regarding the fees as a public
trust and spending them well, in our opinion.
An exciting feature that I'd like to emphasize, Senator, is
that the--at Acadia National Park, we're doing something called
``revenue multiplication,'' and there are two examples of that
on pages 5 and 6 of the testimony that you have, and there are
some illustrations there that show, for example, a $4 million,
roughly, fee expenditure by Acadia National Park, largely from
entry fees, and fundraising that Friends of Acadia has done in
the arena at $9.2 million, a two-to-one match of entry fees. We
challenged our donors to match what the park was doing by two
to one, and, in fact, it worked out. So all that $13 million is
now available for the Park Service trail system at Acadia. And
Acadia became the first national park to have a privately
endowed trail system, and we owe some of that to the fact that
there was the match available right at the park level.
The other example to give you is Acadia's bus system, the
Island Explorer propane bus system, which this year has carried
its millionth passenger in under five seasons of operation.
It's rather astounding. It's contributing very little to the
atmosphere, which is wonderful. More importantly, it's a match,
again, where L.L. Bean, the famous Maine corporation, has
contributed to Friends of Acadia a million dollars. We've
raised another $170,000, and we're matching, by that amount,
the money that the Park Service is putting in as one of the
cash participants in the bus system.
The point, I think, here is that revenues are being
multiplied. The value to the national park--being returned to
the national park is tremendous. The value that's being
returned to the fee spender at the gate is tremendous; in most
cases, well over two to one on the projects that we work on.
This is very flexible funding. And when you talk with any park
officials about this, that's the key ingredient for them, how
flexible this money is.
I think your bill gives very appropriate guidelines as to
how the expenditures should ensue from here. We very much
support--Friends of Acadia supports the 80 percent formula
which has been in place and is specified now in S. 1107. We
recommend that the National Park Pass also be leveled at 80
percent, instead of the recommended 50 percent that's in the
bill at the time, and that is because the 80 percent has proven
to be such an incentive to people who increasingly understand
that the money is leveraged in favor of that national park, and
they're really willing to participate in the fee program
because of that. So we hope you'll take the same formula and
just apply it across the board.
The cost of collection, someone spoke earlier, I think we
concur that they should be fairly flexible. Acadia has a cost
of collection--by our calculations; this is not the park--but I
think they're around 25 percent that the park is spending. We
heard 20 percent from Assistant Secretary Scarlett, and we
heard another percentage from someone else. But, you know, our
park is a porous park, Senator, meaning that there are lots of
ways to get into it, and it's not very easy to control. There's
complications. And the cost of this program is a little bit
higher than in some other places. But it is a maximum return,
nonetheless.
We also support the private market being involved here in
the form of commissions to be paid to entities that sell the
National Park Pass outside, and we think that has some
important ramifications for educating people about national
parks before they get there and also streamlining their
transactions by the time that they've arrived and really would
like to visit the place or get into their lodgings.
Finally, one of the little stoppages we think that's in the
system is that the time lag, where there is one, at Acadia
National Park tends to be with contracts that needed to be let,
and there's not enough contracting staff, basically, to let
contracts efficiently. That's one hangup in the system. And if
the bill were to allow people whose jobs are related directly
to the fee program, such as contracting officers to be paid
from the fee program, I think we could eliminate that problem,
as well.
That's my summary, sir, and if you would enter that in the
record, in terms of the writing that we have in front of you,
we'd very much appreciate it.
And I would like to personally extend to you the invitation
to visit Acadia National Park and see how things are going up
there. We'd love to have you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Olson, President, Friends of Acadia,
Bar Harbor, ME
Thank you, Chairman Thomas, for the invitation to comment. My name
is Ken Olson. I'm president of Friends of Acadia, an independent
nonprofit that raises private funds for Acadia National Park in Maine.
We helped Acadia's staff establish and promote the park's recreational
fee demonstration program. Friends supports S. 1107, a bill to enhance
the program and make it permanent.
Since 1995 alone, Friends of Acadia has donated $3 million to the
park and adjacent communities, for many projects that could not have
been mounted without nonprofit funds. S. 1107 will move parks toward
financial self-sufficiency, help them plan cash flows, and enable more
private donations across the National Park System.
By October 1, Acadia will have retained about $11 million in fees
since FY 1997. Your packet (p. 3)* shows the myriad projects that fees
are making possible through 2005--road, campground and trail rehabs,
repairs to historic structures, visitor and ranger facilities, and much
more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pages 3-6 showing a table, graph, and some pictures have been
retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond 2005, fees will be yet more critical. Acadia's preliminary
evaluation puts the replacement cost of the park's more than 600 assets
at hundreds of millions and the maintenance backlog at tens of
millions. This does include not roads, bridges, or resources other than
facilities.
Also note the bar graph (p. 4) showing that fee expenditures are
rising at the same time fee carryover is being spent down. Acadia's
exceptionally proficient staff is using fees in a timely way and
creating no large surpluses that sit around unused.
An exciting feature of the Acadia fee program is revenue
multiplication (pp. 5, 6). Two examples stand out.
One, Friends of Acadia matched $4 million in park fees with $9.2
million in gifts, to fix trails. Acadia is the first national park with
a privately endowed trail system. Visitors are receiving an immediate
2-for-1 return. As the Friends endowment pays out in perpetuity, the
return will multiply geometrically. Without the fee match, the park and
Friends of Acadia could not have launched the project, ``Acadia Trails
Forever.''
The second example of revenue multiplication is Acadia's award
winning propane bus system, the Island Explorer, which will carry it
millionth passenger this week, though less than five summers old.
In 2002, L.L. Bean granted $1 million to Friends of Acadia for the
Explorer. Here a major corporate contribution to a national park again
matches various park fee expenditures, adding value to the fee program,
which is also supplemented by state, municipal and other contributions.
Discussing park funding, a veteran Acadia official said, ``The fee
demo program is the greatest thing we've got.'' That's because it's
reliable, flexible cash, allowing multiyear planning and making
possible highest priority park improvements that otherwise would
continue waiting for special funding.
S. 1107 gives a superintendent appropriate spending guidelines
(sideboards) and appropriate latitude to make allocations based on in-
park circumstances and conditions. Delegating such decisions to
executive leaders is as crucial to proper park management as it is to
the best corporate management.
Friends of Acadia supports the 80% revenue retention level
specified in S. 1107.
We also recommend that no less than 80% of National Park
Passport revenues be retained where the fees were collected,
instead of the 50% floor specified in the bill. The 80% figure
would encourage visitors to buy the Passport because it
financially favors their chosen park, a principle well
demonstrated in the fee demo program itself.
We suggest that the cost-of-collection ceiling be made
flexible based on reasonableness, instead of a fixed 15%.
Acadia is a complex, porous park, and collection costs have
averaged about 25%.
We support commissions for sellers of park entry passes
because parks will benefit financially and visitors will be
better served and informed before they arrive.
Mr. Chairman, a cause-and-effect relationship exists between
contracts issued and fee-carryover accumulated--in accounts that bear
no interest. If Acadia's severe contracting and construction bottleneck
were eliminated, more projects would get done faster, at lower cost. An
understaffed park contract office means that only a small number of
large projects can be let each short, construction year. (Maine has
nine months of winter and three months of rough sledding.)
Friends of Acadia therefore recommends that the hiring of
fulltime contracting and construction personnel, and other
fulltime personnel whose functions relate directly to managing
the fee program, be paid from fees and authorized in S. 1107.
This would minimize inflation effects and project costs,
increase the number of projects completed each year,
accelerating President Bush's backlog maintenance program. More
small projects would be accomplished alongside the larger
multiyear ones.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the original fee demonstration
experiment and for this important new legislation to improve it and
make it permanent. Let's go with a winner. I'll be happy to take
questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Your comments will be in this
record.
I had hoped to go up there later this month, and then I got
engulfed--my hometown is Cody, Wyoming, and they're having a
big event, so I, of course, had to go there.
Thank you.
Mr. Funkhouser.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT FUNKHOUSER, PRESIDENT,
WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION, NORWOOD, CO
Mr. Funkhouser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the privilege of testifying before you today regarding S. 1107
and the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
forward S. 1107. After 7 years and four extensions, as you've
commented, it's time to make the hard choices necessary
concerning the future of this controversial program.
The national parks differ greatly from the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest
Service in regards to fee collection authority. The parks,
unlike the other agencies, have a long history of charging
entrance fees. They have the existing collection
infrastructure, a higher level of development, and service that
the public expects. Above all, fee authority for the parks is
about fee retention. It's about allowing the National Park
Service to retain the fees that the agency has been collecting
for decades.
In the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest
Service, the Fee Demo program is about establishing new fees.
And it is this new authority that is so controversial and
unpopular that we are opposed to.
Although we support S. 1107, we do have serious concerns
about the incentive the authority brings with it to maximize
revenues beyond what is fair and equitable to the American
taxpayer. The National Park Service, under Fee Demo, has
doubled and sometimes tripled the entrance fees in some
national parks. On top of that, the agency now charges for such
basic services as parking and mass transportation. The agency
is also charging additional fees for such activities as back-
country hiking and trail use.
We, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including language
in this bill that discourages this multi-layering of fees and
keeps the administrative and collection costs to 15 percent.
Unlike the National Park Service, Fee Demo has proved a
failure in the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife
Service. The 550 million acres of largely unapproved land
administered by these three agencies are owned by the American
public. They are held in trust for the citizens of this Nation.
They're maintained through our taxes. Under Fee Demo, these
same citizens are being denied access to their lands unless
they are able and willing to pay additional taxes in the form
of fees. And these new fees are clearly a new tax, and they are
a double tax.
Fee Demo is also a regressive tax. It puts the burden of
public land management on the backs of rural Americans that
live adjacent to or surrounded by land managed by these three
agencies. To mandate that those local residents carry a heavier
burden of funding for a land-management agency is unjust and
unfair.
Fee Demo is also a regressive tax in the sense that it
discriminates against lower income and working Americans.
Opposition to Fee Demo in these three agencies has been
overwhelming and widespread. Across the country, Americans from
all walks of life and all political persuasions are raising
their voices against this program. Resolutions of opposition
have been sent to Congress by the State legislatures of
Colorado, Oregon, California and New Hampshire. And dozens of
resolutions have been passed by counties, cities, and towns
across the nation. Over 260 organized groups oppose this
program, and civil disobedience is rampant. In California
alone, over 200,000 notices of noncompliance and citations have
been issued.
Americans are passionate about their ownership of these
lands. They pay their taxes to maintain these lands, and they
should not be treated as customers or, worse, trespassers. Fee
Demo takes ownership of these lands out of the hands of the
public and gives ownership to the land-management agencies. It
makes trespassers out of taxpayers.
Fee Demo program changes the mission of the land-management
agencies from one of resource management and stewardship to one
of revenue generation. It allows the agencies to appropriate
their own funds without congressional oversight. The charging
of tolls on State highways and county roads, forest-wide fee
programs, fees for unapproved sites in back-country areas,
simple picnic tables and fees for parking represent some
excesses driven by these incentives.
What's more, the Fee Demo program is a financial failure.
The GAO has found that in fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service
used $10 million of appropriated funds for the administration
of the Fee Demo program and to augment collection costs. The
report also found that the agency had been under-reporting the
costs of administration, collection, and fee enforcement. The
bottom line is that the program brought in far less than $15
million, and the cost of overhead, cost of collection and
enforcement was well over 50 percent of the gross.
The amount of costs associated with the collection and the
use of appropriated funds for program management in BLM and
Fish and Wildlife Service remains unclear, but the added
revenues in these agencies are estimated to be $4 million
combined.
In conclusion, Fee Demo has been controversial since its
inception. This program has never been fully dealt with by the
authorizing committees in the seven long years that it's been
in place. It has been extended through the appropriations
process time and time again. After 7 years, it is clear what
has worked and what has not.
We urge passage of S. 1107, and we urge that the Fee Demo
program be allowed to expire next year for the U.S. Forest
Service, the BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This new
fee program in these other three land-management agencies has
proven to be extremely unpopular with the public, and it is
financially not just worth it.
I thank the chairman and the committee for allowing me to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Funkhouser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Funkhouser, President,
Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, Norwood, CO
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the privilege of testifying before you today regarding S. 1107
and the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. I am Robert Funkhouser,
President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition.
The Western Slope No Fee Coalition is a broad-based group
consisting of motorized recreational interests, property rights
advocates, hiking and boating interests, community groups, local and
state elected officials, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and
Democrats, and just plain citizens. We currently have members and
member groups in 33 states and are working closely with other groups of
all interests. Our mission is to end the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program (Fee Demo), to require more accountability within the land
management agencies, and to encourage Congress to adequately fund our
public lands.
I would like to thank Chairman Thomas for bringing forward S. 1107.
The Fee Demo program was begun as an appropriations rider in 1996. It
has since been extended four times through the appropriations process
and is now in its seventh year. It is time to make the hard choices
necessary concerning the future of this controversial program. At this
juncture we support S. 1107 in making the program permanent for the
National Parks and allowing the program to expire on its present
schedule expiration date of October 1st 2004 for the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service.
The National Parks differ greatly from the other three land
management agencies in regards to fee collection authority. The Parks,
unlike the other agencies, have a long history of charging entrance
fees. They have the existing collection infrastructure, a higher level
of development and service that the public expects.
Above all, fee authority for the Recreational Fee Program within
the Parks is about fee retention. It is about allowing the National
Park Service to retain the fees that the agency has been collecting for
decades. In the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Forest Service the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program is about establishing new fees and it is this new authority
that has been so controversial and unpopular that we are opposed to.
Although the Western Slope No Fee Coalition supports passage of fee
authority for the Recreational Fee Program within the Parks only, we do
have serious concerns about the incentive this authority brings with it
to maximize revenues beyond what is fair and equitable to the American
taxpayer. The National Park Service, under Fee Demo, has doubled and
sometimes tripled the entrance fees at some National Parks. On top of
that the agency now charges for such basic services as parking and mass
transportation. The agency is also charging additional fees for such
activities as backcountry hiking and trailhead use. We thank Chairman
Thomas for including language in this bill that discourages this multi-
layering of fees. It is our hope that as this program takes a more
permanent application in the National Park Service that these layered
fees can be reviewed and that in the future congressional oversight can
play an important part in keeping the National Parks affordable for the
American citizen to visit. It is largely through the taxpayer's dollars
that these national treasures are already operated and maintained.
We also urge Congress to continue supporting the National Parks
through the use of appropriated funds. Fee revenues should be used only
to augment Park budgets, not replace appropriated dollars.
This bill addresses some of the key challenges involved with
granting fee retention to the National Park Service. It limits
expenditures related to administration and cost of collection to 15
percent, in contrast to the 50 percent actual cost of administration
and collection for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2001. It limits or
eliminates the multi-layering of fees and it allows the parks to retain
the revenues from the fees that they have a long history of collecting.
As opposed to the implementation of the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program in the National Park Service, Fee Demo has proved
to be a failure in the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 550 million acres of
largely unimproved land administered by these three agencies are owned
by the American public. They are held in trust for the citizens of this
nation and are maintained through our taxes. Under Fee Demo, these same
citizens are being denied access to their lands unless they are able
and willing to pay additional taxes in the form of fees.
These new fees clearly are a new tax and they are a double tax. For
our supporters who enjoy motorized recreational interests they are
triple tax. These individuals pay sales tax for their vehicles; they
pay gas tax for their fuel; they pay registration fees; and they pay
income tax that helps to pay for land management. Now under Fee Demo
they are required to pay for accessing public lands.
Fee Demo is also a regressive tax. It puts the burden of public
land management on the backs of rural Americans that live adjacent to
or surrounded by land managed by the three agencies. The public lands
are an integral part of life in these rural communities. My county in
western Colorado is 87 percent Forest Service and BLM lands. To mandate
that those local residents carry a heavier burden of funding of our
land management agencies is unjust and unfair.
In fact, the Fee Demo program has been an economic drain on some of
these communities. Because the program is so unpopular, tourism has
been negatively affected in many areas where the program is
implemented.
Fee demo is also a regressive tax in the sense that it
discriminates against lower income and working Americans. A Forest
Service study concluded that 23 percent of lower income Americans no
longer visited our public lands due to the fees. It stated that 49
percent of all Americans regardless of income use the public lands
significantly less due to the fees. Again, many of these lower income
individuals live adjacent to or are surrounded by BLM, Forest Service
or Fish and Wildlife Service lands.
Opposition to the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has been
overwhelming and widespread. From New Hampshire to California, from
Idaho to Arizona Americans from all walks of life and all political
persuasions are raising their voices against this program. The American
public is clearly and overwhelmingly against this program in these
three land management agencies. Resolutions of opposition have been
sent to Congress by the state legislatures of Colorado, Oregon,
California, and New Hampshire. Dozens of resolutions opposing the
program have been passed by counties, cities, and towns across the
Nation. In Colorado alone, ten counties and numerous towns and cities
have passed resolutions condemning the program. Over 260 organized
groups oppose the program, and civil disobedience to it is rampant. In
California alone over 160,000 notices of noncompliance or citations
have been issued.
Americans are passionate about their ownership of these lands. They
feel that it is their heritage, as it was their parents' heritage. They
pay their taxes to maintain these lands, and they should not be treated
as customers--or worse trespassers--on their own lands. Fee Demo takes
ownership of these lands out of the hands of the public and gives
ownership to the land management agencies. It is this change in
relationship that is most disturbing. It makes trespassers out of
taxpayers. Many of those ticketed have been charged with Class B
misdemeanors punishable by up to six months in jail and a $5000 fine.
It is not just the public that suffers from this program. The
agencies themselves suffer from a strained relationship with local
communities and the public as a whole. The land management agencies are
a tentative guest in many communities to begin with. Assuming a heavy
enforcement role, particularly in counties such as mine, will continue
to erode any positive relationship that has been built. As the New
Hampshire Speaker of the House, Gene Chandler, put it, ``This program
drives a wedge between local governments and the public on one hand and
the federal land management agencies on the other.'' The longer the
wedge stays in place, the harder it will be to repair the damage.
Volunteerism suffers and community involvement suffers.
The Fee Demo program changes the mission of the land management
agencies from one of resource management and stewardship to one of
revenue generation. It allows the three agencies to appropriate their
own funds without any congressional oversight. This creates a perverse
incentive to maximize revenue at the public's expense. It is this
incentive that causes the agencies to be excessive in their
implementation and enforcement of the Fee Demo program. The charging of
tolls on state highways and county roads, the implementation of forest
wide fee programs, the charging of fees for unimproved sites and
backcountry areas, the charging for simple picnic tables, and the
charging of fees for parking represent just some of the excesses driven
by these incentives.
There are funds already allocated to the management agencies that,
with reprioritization, can be used to pay down the maintenance backlogs
in the three agencies and eliminate the very reason for this program.
Appropriated funds should be spent first for resource management,
maintenance backlogs, and day-to-day management before being used for
capital infrastructure. Yet all of the agencies continue to build new
facilities and infrastructure that only adds to the maintenance needs
of the future.
What's more, the Fee Demo program is a financial failure. The
General Accounting Office recently released the findings of an audit
concerning the Fee Demo program within the Forest Service (GAO-03-470).
The GAO found that in FY2001 the Forest Service used $10 million of
appropriated tax dollars for administration of the Fee Demo program and
to augment collection costs. This $10 million, almost one-third of
their total revenues, had been previously unreported in the agency's
annual report to Congress. The report also found that the agency had
been under-reporting the costs of administration, collection and fee
enforcement (see Appendix 1).* The Forest Service claims the program is
a success with gross revenues in FY2001 of $35 million. The bottom line
is that the program brought in far less than $15 million and the cost
of overhead, cost of collection, and enforcement was well over 50
percent (see Appendix 2). The public has rejected the notion of Fee
Demo, and financially it is of little value to the American taxpayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendixes 1 and 2 have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the General Accounting Office audits the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fee Demo programs the
amount of costs associated with collection and the use of appropriated
funds for program management in those agencies remains unclear. As it
stands, the net revenues for the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
combined are estimated to be less than $4 million in FY2001 (see
Appendix 2).
By contrast, in FY2001, the National Park Service reported gross
revenues in excess of $126 million. Of that amount $30 million was
spent on administration and collection leaving a net revenue for that
year of $96 million.
In conclusion, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has been
controversial since its inception. This program has never been fully
dealt with by the authorizing committees in the seven long years it has
been in place. It has been extended through the appropriations process
time and time again. After seven years it is clear what has worked and
what has not. We urge passage of S. 1107 and we urge that the Fee Demo
program be allowed to expire next year for the U.S. Forest Service, BLM
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This new fee program in these
other three land management agencies has proven to be extremely
unpopular with the public and it is financially just not worth it.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to thank
you for your consideration and again thank you for allowing me to
testify before you today.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you.
Thanks to all of you. We appreciate it.
Mr. Maddy, I don't quite understand how the pass that's
used all over the country fits into the demonstration thing
where 80 percent goes to the one facility. How does that work?
Mr. Maddy. Well, I believe the way it works, under the
existing law, is that if the pass is sold at a park or at an
entry station, then it's credited as a fee collection or a sale
directly to that park.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Maddy. If a pass is sold by the National Park
Foundation program through a Web site, through an 800 number,
or through the mail, then 100 percent of that $50 that's
collected goes into what would otherwise be the 20-percent pot.
Senator Thomas. The Park Service pot, I see. Okay.
I know you and your group work a lot on this in the
business plans and this and that. How would you improve the
recreation fee program if you had the opportunity?
Mr. Maddy. Well, I think one key improvement, Senator,
would be to take advantage of more opportunities to structure
strategic partnerships with retailers, with advertisers, with
media organizations, with the people in the private sector that
have the greatest facility, the greatest experience and success
in reaching the public with a value proposition of this kind
and with a product of this kind, if you will. Again, the
business planning suggested that, you know, if we were to reach
out directly to the public with more and more information about
the availability of the pass, that there's a significant
untapped market of individuals who would say, for instance,
``I'd like to have that. I enjoy the national parks, I support
the national parks. This looks attractive to me. I may or may
not get $50 of savings by my use of the parks, but I''--people
who would say they basically want to join.
Senator Thomas. Yes. So this would be a better marketing
tool, informational tool.
Mr. Maddy. And I think we've demonstrated some of that
potential. I think the Park Service is--you know, they want to
get it right. They want to be cautious, appropriately so.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Maddy. But I think the Park Service wants to work with
the Foundation to explore those. Each season we've done a
little bit more.
Senator Thomas. We also need--this is just an observation--
we also need--as Mr. Funkhouser says, we need to make sure
people understand that this is not a effort to get more money,
necessarily, for a park and so on, but that it's there to
assist in the facility to make it more acceptable to them. And
I know we need to do it.
Mr. Olson, does your matching fund just go for the Fee
Demonstration portion of it or for other revenue that they
have?
Mr. Olson. It mostly goes toward the Fee Demonstration
program. There are some other smaller revenues. It's hard to
match some of the other revenues, in part, because Congress has
to appropriate those. Since these are coming out of the park
proper, it's easier to say the match is there and challenge a
donor.
Senator Thomas. And your constituency are fairly local
people in the area.
Mr. Olson. They include a great number of local people, but
we have a membership that's nationwide and has some
international people, as well.
Senator Thomas. No kidding? That's impressive. That's
impressive.
Mr. Funkhouser, do you think it's reasonable to say,
``Look, everybody pay''--all taxpayers pay a certain amount,
but not all taxpayers visit. Should the visitors be expected to
contribute a little more than the taxpayers who do not visit?
Mr. Funkhouser. We believe that actually the public lands
are held in trust for all Americans. And I think that allowing
the agencies to retain fees creates the incentive to actually
market it and to ``commodify'' it to make it more unaffordable
for the American citizens to visit. I think if I lived in an
area that didn't have any public lands, I should certainly have
the right to go there. These, again, are largely unimproved
lands that are being built upon with the effort to be able to
justify charging fees.
Senator Thomas. I agree with you that not all the
facilities--or not all the access to BLM and Forest Service--my
State's much like yours; it works very well for the fee, but
perhaps you classified and identified, had a criteria, or there
were certain places that had substantial visitors' facilities,
would you think that would make sense?
Mr. Funkhouser. We actually do not oppose user fees for
areas that have been allowed under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act, such as improved campgrounds, with the
majority of the following amenities--mechanized boat launches,
et cetera.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Funkhouser. We feel that those are appropriate charges.
We certainly, I certainly, don't have a problem paying those
fees. I believe that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
prohibited the charging for picnic tables, roads, scenic
overlook, bathrooms, et cetera. And I think that was an
appropriate definition. In other words, you're not receiving an
added benefit from sitting at a picnic table. In other words,
does a picnic table warrant a $5 fee? Is that an amenity that
the public deserves? I think for a service such as campground,
mechanized boat launch, and the other allowed charges under the
Land and Water Conservation Act, are appropriate. And they're
also--the sideboards are already there under that scenario. So
there are already conditions set.
Senator Thomas. Senator.
Senator Akaka. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I have no questions, but I want to thank the panelists for
your thoughtful testimony. I want to commend Mr. Maddy and the
National Park Foundation for what you are doing in grants and
program support. I also want to commend Mr. Funkhouser for your
position, and thank Mr. Olson for your strong examples of how
fees work and how Friends of Acadia work to improve national
parks.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. And I agree. I agree with the
Senator. These are Federal programs, of course, parks and
others, but they really work much better when there is
volunteer work going on with them to support them, to work with
them, to give them ideas about how it works and so on.
We're very supportive of this idea of continuing the fee
program. There are some details yet, obviously, that we don't
have settled with everyone, including the Department of the
Interior, but we're going to work at it, and our hope is to get
this bill tailored however it needs to be to work best and get
it out this year.
Thank you all for being here. We really appreciate it.
Thank you for what you do for our national parks and public
lands.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of James M. Ridenour, Former Director, National Park Service
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
provide written testimony before you today. I appreciate the
opportunity.
First, let me say, as former Director of the National Park Service
and as an interested citizen, I strongly support the authorization to
expand the boundary of Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore to allow the
purchase of the land along the Crystal River. This land epitomizes the
beauty and natural character that makes Sleeping Bear Dunes and
northern Michigan such a desirable tourist destination for people from
all over the world.
The land to be acquired adjoins the Lakeshore, has an area of
approximately 105 acres and lies along both sides of the Crystal River.
There are approximately 6,300 feet of high quality river frontage and
other land forms that have been classified as ``globally rare'' by
federal resource agencies.
Notably, the reach of the river running through this land is the
single most visible and beautiful section of the river. It is highly
desirable for swimming, canoeing, sightseeing and other recreational
activities. And, it is a highly logical addition to the Lakeshore as
the NPS owns the upstream frontage from the river's headwaters to this
land.
This issue of the best use of this land did not pop up overnight.
It has been a highly debated and emotional issue for Michiganders and
others for many years. I first became aware of the issues involving
this land when I was Director of the NPS in the early 1990s.
The owner of this land--a corporation known as ``Bayberry Mills''--
purchased it in 1986 with the stated intent of building a championship
quality golf course to serve an adjoining destination resort, The
Homestead.
From day one, strong dissent from the environmental community arose
over the owner's plan. Countless meetings, hearings, lawsuits, articles
and editorials and hundreds of letters to Congress and other
governmental agencies followed.
In the mid 1990s I was asked by a local citizens' group to see if I
could help resolve this issue. Alternatives were considered. An
exchange of land between the owner and the NPS was one. A purchase by
the NPS was another. At that time, I did not find a consensus position
that would respect the owner's private property rights, satisfy the
concerns of a variety of environmental groups and be acceptable to the
National Park Service.
Although we were unable to successfully address the issues and
satisfy the personalities in the 1990's, I felt then as I feel now--
this land is a highly valuable community and national asset. The use of
this land has become much more than a local issue. Elected and
appointed leaders of the State of Michigan have become involved as have
the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service. So,
too, have a large number of entities--both local and national--which
support various alternatives to the land use issue.
Early in 2001--again, at the request of the owner and a number of
citizens--I agreed to act as a consultant and to again try to find a
way to break this long standing impasse.
A dialogue ensued among the owner, the National Park Service and
representatives of various environmental groups as to what might be
possible. The previously considered exchange concept was revisited.
Draft boundaries were drawn; public meetings were held; but strong
opposition to the exchange concept erupted--both locally and
nationally. Park support groups feared the precedent of giving up any
NPS land.
Rightfully so, the owner deserves a final decision as to park
expansion on this land. The newspaper coverage on this issue has been
voluminous; strong opinions have developed. However, there is an
opinion that most all appear to share--that this land is a beautiful
natural resource and there is great value in having it remain in open
space for public enjoyment.
The owner has agreed to consider a purchase in order to get this
longstanding issue off the table; Environmental groups believe this
land should be made a part of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore. The NPS Regional Office in Omaha concurs and has made this
land the number one candidate for acquisition in the Midwest Region.
After years of studying this area and after years of interacting
with citizen groups, environmental groups, the National Park Service
and the owner, I have come to the conclusion that the best course of
action--indeed, the only prudent course of action--is to expand the
boundaries of the Lakeshore and direct the NPS to purchase this land
for the benefit of the public.
I am reasonably confident that most all of the engaged parties,
including the state, the NPS, the citizen groups, the environmental
groups and the owner are in agreement with this conclusion and are
anxious to draw this matter to an end. I ask you to approve Senate 808
so this matter might finally be resolved in the best interests of all.
______
Statement of Alan Aronson, Fee Demo Subcommittee Chair,
National Recreational Issues Committee, Sierra Club
The Sierra Club wishes to thank the Chairman and the members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to comment on S. 1107: regarding the
Fee Demonstration Program for the National Park Service. While the
Sierra Club has not taken a position on this bill, we are concerned
about some of the proposals made during testimony on September 9, 2003.
The Sierra Club has long recognized that certain fees may be
necessary for our National Parks to function in an orderly manner.
However we view recent increases in and the multiplication of fees in
the Parks as counterproductive to the reasons we created National
Parks.
Our National Parks are first and foremost a part of America's
heritage; a trust for future generations. They were never intended to
function as profit centers. Therefore we note with gratitude, language
within the bill that recognizes the desirability of avoiding the
multiplication and layering of fees.
We are however, opposed to making the Fee Demonstration program
permanent in the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fee Demo Program should be terminated in
these agencies and they should return to the LWCF guidelines.
The Sierra Club has opposed Fee Demo since its inception because we
believed that a proposal that fundamentally altered the relationship of
the American people to their public lands needed the scrutiny that
could only come with separate legislation. Instead Fee Demo was imposed
as a rider on an Interior appropriations bill in 1995.
Had the proposal received the attention in 1995 that carrying it as
a rider avoided, many of the problems associated with Fee Demo would
have been apparent.
Certainly the local unpopularity that has greeted most of the
demonstration sites would have manifested itself. This local opposition
is truly grassroots and cuts across normal political and ideological
lines. We were concerned that even modest fees would negatively impact
the ability of lower income families to continue with accustomed usages
of our public lands. Forest Service studies have validated these
concerns.
The inherent differences between National Parks which are discrete
entities that function as destinations and often attract large numbers
of visitors as opposed the hundreds of millions of acres that comprise
the bulk of our public lands and where usage is light and diffuse, also
would have been apparent.
The paucity of successful examples in Secretary Scarlett's
testimony demonstrates these differences. The overwhelming majority of
the revenue in the program has come from the National Parks. Based on
the amount collected and the costs of collecting them, the program has
to be rated a failure in the Forest Service.
The amounts collected by projects in the BLM and FWS are likewise
insignificant and, given the nature of those department's holdings, are
unlikely to improve. Viewed in the light of the unpopularity of the
program, the amounts collected pale even more.
We find it problematic that the Interior Department sees a fifteen
percent cap on collection costs as a barrier to successful
implementation of the Fee Demo program. Even a cost of collections at
that level hardly seems the mark of a successful program.
It would be interesting to know what level the Interior Department
would consider excessive. It is hard to see how regional and
interagency passes can improve things. Setting the fees at a level that
would collect meaningful revenues without that level being a barrier to
public usage does not seem possible. For every unit like the 7,000 acre
Sand Flats in Utah, we have millions of acres of public land that serve
best as watershed, habitat and open space. Usage of these areas is best
accomplished at low densities and low impact.
Hiking is one of the fastest growing activities of choice on our
public lands. The opportunity for solitude is one of the attractions
these lands offer.
The primary goal of our public land agencies should be the
stewardship of the land over the long term. That goal cannot be
accomplished if the funding of these agencies is tied to recreational
development. This does not mean that all higher impact uses should be
automatically excluded, just that the need for revenue should not be
the driving force in a land use decision.
Fee Demo has had several years to prove itself. While there may
have been some limited successes, taken as a whole and, as the GAO
reports clearly demonstrate, Fee Demo has been a failure. Based on
public acceptance, funds collected and the usages of those funds
permanence should not be granted to Fee Demo in the Forest Service, BLM
or FWS.
The present maintenance backlog on our public lands is largely the
result of the various agencies being starved of appropriate funding
over the past twenty years. It is at a level that, while quite small
compared to the overall federal budget and the size of our economy, is
clearly not going to be solved by user fees.
Given the widespread use of our public lands by relatively low
impact uses, the most efficient means of funding them is through the
general budget process. We therefore urge the Subcommittee to keep S.
1107 focused on the National Parks. The Fee Demonstration program
should be ended in the other agencies.
______
Statement of Barbara Gilmore Weber, Friends of the Crystal River,
Glen Arbor, MI
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands, it is my great pleasure to offer this
written support for H.R. 408.
Friends of the Crystal River, a 750 member grassroots 501c3
organization, was formed 17 years ago, in response to a threat of a
golf course/residential development being constructed along the river.
Our mission was clear. We would explore ways and means of preserving
the natural, ecological, historic, recreational, aesthetic and
educational values of the Crystal River and its adjacent lands.
Expanding Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore boundaries to include
the Crystal riverine land offered to the National Park for purchase by
the Homestead Resort accomplishes our goal and benefits the resort. The
Friends, with sheer joy, enthusiasm and relief, support H.R. 408.
Friends, joined by other environmental groups, has truly struggled
and fought diligently to have the Crystal preserved. Sierra Club,
Michigan Environmental Council, Northern Michigan Environmental Action
Council, Trout Unlimited, Michigan United Conservation Club, Friends of
the Cedar River, National Wildlife Foundation, Lake Michigan
Federation, Izaak Walton League, National Parks and Conservation,
Michigan Land Use Institute and the Leelanau Conservancy have joined
with us in our mission. Citizens, from nearly every state, as well as
citizens living abroad have written to the Friends or to Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore urging the Park Service to purchase the
Crystal River land that is presently for sale.
It has been a long and circuitous journey to finally reach an
agreement on the controversial land use. Friends group has been in
Michigan's District, Appellate and Supreme Court with our contested
case. The Federal Court placed our case under the jurisdiction of the
Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife evaluated the
Homestead's proposed golf course/residential development and found a
golf course to be an inappropriate use of the river land. Residential
construction, within the confines of local and state permits, would be
allowed. Last year, The Homestead Resort, publicly stated they would no
longer consider constructing a golf course. Instead, other options
would be investigated: The resort could build on the land, they could
sell the property or they could exchange publicly owned park land for a
portion of the Crystal River land. The last option met with a loud
public outcry. Now, a rare opportunity is ours: The Homestead Resort
has offered to sell this exquisite natural resource to the National
Park Service. The land parcel contains an internationally and
nationally rare dune and swale land formation. The Natural Features
Inventory authored for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
describes the essence of the Crystal River. Perhaps, a comment offered
by a park visitor canoeing the river, best describes the Crystal;
``Look at this . . . you can see right down to the bottom of the river.
. . . I've never seen a river so crystal clear.''
Thank you for allowing Friends of the Crystal River to offer our
support for H.R. 408. We urge you to approve this legislation in a most
timely manner. Including the Crystal River parcel within the park
boundaries will be a wonderful gift to the citizens of the United
States. In turn, the Crystal River will be professionally managed by
the Park Service and preserved in perpetuity.
______
Statement of Gary A. Reese, Ecologist and Michael R. Penskar, Botanist,
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
introduction
The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) maintains a
comprehensive and continually updated database on all state occurrences
of threatened and endangered plants and animals, as well as lands
qualifying as natural areas. In addition to maintaining the database,
the program surveys federal, state and private lands for additional
occurrences of these entities. MNFI is a join venture of The Nature
Conservancy and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR),
under contract to the latter agency.
In February, 1989, MNFI conducted a survey of the Crystal River
basin in Glen Arbor Township, Leelanau County, Michigan. This survey
included lands owned by both The Homestead and the National Park
Service. This is the site of a proposed golf course and homesite
development to which The Homestead has applied for a wetlands permit to
the MDNR under provisions of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection
Act, P.A. 203 (1979). This act calls for a review of ``the probable
impact on recognized . . . ecological . . . values'' of proposed
wetlands projects and a determination of ``whether the activity is in
the public interest.'' To this end, the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory wishes to have its findings on the ecological values of this
project area considered along with other available evidence.
methods
The Crystal River area was photointerpreted by the senior author
from photos taken August 18, 1938 (USDA B&W BEA-3R-113 and 114), July
26, 1952 (USDA B&W IR BEA-1K-67 and 68), June 19, 1978 (MDNR Color IR
13-33-222 and 223), April 30, 1985 (MDNR Color 36-636 and 637), and
June 15, 1987 (MDNR B&W IR 320- 19-104 and 105). Multiple imagery
allowed for a more accurate determination of wetland/upland boundaries
and provided information on past land use which was necessary for
judging the natural area boundaries. These boundaries are shown on the
accompanying maps titled ``Homestead Golf Course, Location and
Generalized Vegetation/Topography'' and ``Homestead Golf Course,
Natural Communities and Natural Area.''
The presettlement vegetation of this site was determined from U.S.
General Land Office survey records. A map entitled ``Homestead Golf
Course, Presettlement Vegetation'' shows the locations and nature of
the surveyor's observations in 1850.
Accuracy of the interpretation was field checked on February 5,
1989. Peat depths were taken in each major palustrine plant community
type and soil textures determined in the terrestrial types. Plant
species composition (primarily of the woody vegetation) was determined
for four major topographic zones: ridge, swale, river flats, and swamp.
Tree ages were obtained by reading rings on recently cut stumps and
increment cores from breast height on live trees. Diameter measurements
were also taken to determine size-class distribution of the trees by
species.
results
Site Characterization
The Crystal River area is characterized by conifer-dominated forest
on glacial lakeplain representing an old lake embayment. Meandering
through this area is the Crystal River (also known as Crystal Run). As
this river approaches Lake Michigan, it meanders through swales lying
between a repeating series of sand ridges. These sand ridges represent
former beach ridges formed during the receding of higher lake levels
immediately following glaciation. These ridges are most pronounced
approximately one-half mile from the present Lake Michigan shoreline
and can be easily viewed from along Highway M-22, near the junction
with County Highway 675. Toward the southeast, these ridges become
progressively less pronounced, eventually grading into an extensive
cedar swamp. This combination of former dune and swale topography
associated with a meandering river is unique to at least the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan. Further study is needed to determine if a
similar occurs in the Upper Peninsula.
The dune ridges are comprised of medium to coarse sand and
dominated by conifers in areas which have not had recent logging or
clearing. The coniferous trees include northern white-cedar (Thuja
occidentalis), white pine (Pinus strobus), balsam fir (Abies balsamea),
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and tamarack (Larix laricina), listed in
their relative order of dominance. Where white pine has been logged, or
where human activities have disturbed the ground, hardwoods are common.
These include white oak (Ouercus alba), trembling aspen (Populus
tremuloides), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (A. rubrum), and
paper birch (Betula papyrifera).
The swales have organic soils (peat and muck) from 2.5 to over 4
feet deep. In general, the less pronounced the topographic gradient
between ridge and swale, the shallower the peat depth. The slopes
between the ridges and swales tend to have a muck and sand mix. The
swales are dominated by speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) and silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), with northern white-cedar, white pine, tamarack, sweet
gale (Myrica gale), shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa), and
Bebb's Willow (Salix bebbiana) as abundant. The latter three species
tend to dominate in the more open swales. Where the swales open to the
Crystal River, a floodplain shrub-herb community occurs. Swamp rose
(Rosa palustris), speckled alder and sweet gale dominate, with other
swale species as associates. The ground layer in this community is
dominated by marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), blue-joint grass
(calamagrostis canadensis), and marsh wild-timothy (Muhlenbergia
glomerata).
Approximately one-half mile southeast of M-22 and south of Co. Hwy.
675, the ridge and swale topography becomes much less pronounced and
has mostly organic soils. This swamp is dominated by northern white-
cedar with areas of hemlock, underlain by shallow peat over medium to
coarse sand. Other important species in the swamp include hemlock,
black spruce (Picea mariana), tamarack, balsam fir, and paper birch.
Old stumps of white pine, many of which display fire scars, are found
occasionally throughout the swamp, but few cedar stumps were noted.
This is undoubtedly due to repeated windthrows in the swamp, which has
prevented attainment of old-growth cedars since presettlement survey
time. It must be emphasized that old-growth cedar does not imply large
diameter trees. The size and structure of trees that currently dominate
the swamp appear to be a good facsimile of the swamp forest that was
extant prior to settlement of the area. The many wind throws observed
during the site survey also indicate a disturbance regime similar to
that mentioned and recorded by the early land surveyors.
Size-class distribution with selected tree aging revealed a
primarily second-growth nature of the forest communities. White pines
present on the ridges range in size from 18 to 23.5" diameter (at
breast height) and are essentially equal to the stump diameter of the
trees present when the site was initially logged (prior to the turn of
the century). In general, good to excellent regeneration has occurred
on ridges which have not received a second cutting in modern times.
Northern white cedar on both the ridges and in the swales range from 4
to 8 (up to 13") diameter, representing 40 to 85 years old trees. Cedar
and balsam fir (average 7" diameter) have likely become more abundant
following logging.
Within the cedar swamp, northern white cedar is extremely dense,
windthrown, and predominately even-aged with 7.8" diameters. This
corresponds closely to the presettlement character of the swamp. Since
the present trees are approximately 65 years old, it is likely that the
site was catastrophically windthrown in the 1920's. Presettlement
surveyors noted a similar wind thrown nature in 1850. White pine stumps
within the swamp are approximately 24" stump diameter, with only minor,
local regeneration of white pine.
The site was also examined for the presence of potential habitat
for the Michigan monkey-flower, (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis
(Pennell) Fassett), a taxon wholly endemic to Michigan and known to be
extant at approximately 10 sites. Michigan monkey-flower, currently a
candidate for Federal listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Category 2 candidate, Federal Register, Feb. 27, 1985), is known to
occur on the shore of Glen Lake, and thus the potential exists for its
occurrence in the immediate region. Its habitat is primarily springy
seepages on forest edges, cedar swamps, and in small openings along
streams and lakeshores. The presence of ice and a snow cover (although
relatively shallow) prevented a reasonable assessment of the site for
the presence of this specific habitat. However, since populations of
this species are well-known to be associated with ancient or modern
shorelines of the Great Lakes, the glacial topography of the area, as
well as the natural community composition, suggest that potential
habitat for this species does exist, but cannot be assessed until
spring. Both the river corridor and cedar swamp areas should be closely
examined by an experienced, knowledgeable botanist.
Natural Area Significance
The identified natural area is comprised of two natural community
types recognized by MNFI, a Wooded Dune and Swale Complex and a Rich
Conifer Swamp. There is a total of forty occurrences of the Wooded Dune
and Swale Complex in the Lower Peninsula and this community type has
provisionally been ranked as ``rare'' by MNFI. Very few of these
occurrences have been surveyed for natural area significance. However,
it is the opinion of the authors, based on considerable field
experience in Michigan and a cursory examination of historical aerial
photos for each occurrence, that this community type has been heavily
impacted by logging throughout the state and that few, if any, higher
quality and less impacted examples than the Crystal River site exist.
The Crystal River occurrence is slightly smaller than average in size,
but is well recovered from early human disturbances (e.g., it has good
to excellent conifer regeneration following historic logging, has
attained essentially similar age structure to that present at logging,
and has a tree species composition similar to that reported by land
surveyors in 1850). Furthermore, it is unique among occurrences in the
Lower Peninsula by virtue of its association with an exemplary aquatic
feature, the Crystal River, which courses through some of the
interdunal troughs. We consider this occurrence to be important for
protection as a natural area under county or regional government
jurisdiction. This occurrence is possibly significant for state or
federal government jurisdiction pending further study of the type in
Michigan.
The Rich Conifer Swamp type is provisionally ranked between
``rare'' and ``secure'' within Michigan, with comparatively more
pristine or near pristine examples known than for the Wooded Dune and
Swale Complex. The Crystal River occurrence of this community type is
relatively undisturbed by humans, having had only local cutting of
white pine (and possibly hemlock) at the turn of the century.There is
no evidence of cedar cutting, probably because the swamp was severely
windthrown. Present tree species composition and structure is like that
reported in the 1850 land survey. Alone, the Rich Conifer Swamp is of
significance as a natural area under county or regional jurisdiction.
Upon additional study of Michigan's other Wooded Dune and Swale
Complex occurrences, it is possible that this site could qualify as a
federal Research National Area.