U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–965 2017

S. HRG. 114–492 

S. 2257, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CENTENNIAL ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 8, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Jarvis, Hon. Jonathan, Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 5 

Shafroth, Will, President & CEO, National Park Foundation ............................. 10 

Crandall, Derrick, Counselor, National Park Hospitality Association ................ 16 

Pierno, Theresa, President & CEO, National Parks Conservation Association . 35 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Chart: Recreation Fees ($ Millions) ................................................................ 48 

(The) Corps Network: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 127 

Crandall, Derrick: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 16 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 19 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 123 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 128 

Jarvis, Hon. Jonathan: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 100 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Pierno, Theresa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 35 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 37 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 125 

S. 2257, the National Park Service Centennial Act .............................................. 73 

Shafroth, Will: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 10 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 12 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 120 

(1) 

S. 2257, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CENTENNIAL ACT 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We will call the hearing to order. 

I would like to thank you all for being here with us this morning. 

We are considering legislation related to the upcoming National 

Park Service (NPS) Centennial. The bill that we have before us 

today is the Administration’s proposal titled the ‘‘National Park 

Service Centennial Act.’’ Senator Cantwell has introduced this as 

S. 2257. 

I think just about everybody in the room knows, and certainly 

the word is out, that 2016 will mark the 100th anniversary of the 

National Park Service. This is certainly a time to celebrate the 

Park Service’s stewardship of America’s most magnificent natural 

landscapes including many of our most important cultural and historical places and the public’s enjoyment of them. 

I know that I am going to be getting out to visit the parks in my 

state. This year was a great opportunity to get out to Denali and 

go into the park in the fall, which is exceptionally beautiful, particularly when you wake up and it is covered with snow. It is one 

of those opportunities that you just do not forget. 

Last year we had an opportunity in Wrangell-St. Elias to enjoy 

yet another amazing park. I want all of us to get out and visit our 

National Parks next year. That is only part of what this Centennial 

calls for. More importantly it offers us a chance to ensure that the 

National Park System operates sustainably for the next 100 years, 

and I think it is going to take a serious effort to achieve that goal. 

The National Park Service was created in 1916 to manage the 

growing number of park units established by Congress and monuments proclaimed by the President. Back then we had 35 units. 

Today the system has grown to 409 units. The Park Service administers over 80 million acres of Federal land in the United States, 

about two thirds, or 54 million acres, is located in my State of Alaska. 
2 

As the Park System has grown, so has the backlog of its maintenance projects. The National Park Service estimates its maintenance backlog at approximately $11.5 billion right now. It is anticipated that the backlog will continue to grow as the result of additional land acquisitions combined with the unavoidable effects of 

increased visitor use, inflation and asset deterioration. 

The maintenance backlog is a travesty I think we recognize must 

be addressed. To me there is little point in conserving land or allowing the Federal Government to acquire even more land if we are 

not going to take the proper care of those lands. Caring for these 

lands is as important as anything. 

I want to be very clear. I do not think that this is an instance 

where we can simply throw money at a problem and consider it 

solved. I disagree that simply providing more funding, as the Administration proposes, is the best approach for dealing with the 

maintenance backlog. 

Our nation is facing a serious fiscal crisis. We cannot simply 

spend however much we want on whatever we want, wherever we 

perceive a need. Instead we need to look at new and alternative 

ways to fund the park system, strive to be more efficient with appropriated dollars and reassess our current funding priorities. 

One area that we have discussed before and that I am encouraged to see pick up, at least in concept in this legislative proposal, 

are ideas to encourage philanthropic support and leverage private 

donations for NPS programs and projects. I think that we need to 

do a better job of encouraging folks who care about the park system 

to contribute both their resources and their dollars. 

I am particularly interested in the endowment idea that we see 

included here, as an endowment can be a great tool to ensure longterm viability if it is structured properly. 

Of course, the next 100 years are not just about maintenance 

backlogs and resource projects. As I mentioned earlier, the Park 

Service has a huge presence in Alaska. It is probably not surprising 

that there are tensions that arise when we try to reconcile the local 

needs and culture with that of a landlord that is situated almost 

4,000 miles away. 

While the issues we face in Alaska may be different from those 

faced by the neighbors of lower East Side Tenement Museum in 

Manhattan, the next century will also be about visitors and connecting the next generation to our parks. We need to enhance and 

expand visitor services to meet the demands of this next generation, and that may require some new tools. 

I am interested in learning more about the pilot program that 

this legislation seeks to establish to allow the Visitors Service Management Authority to award and manage contracts for the operation of commercial visitor services programs and activities. 

With the National Park Service Centennial upon us, it is time 

that we get serious about the future of the park system. The Administration’s proposal is a start. I know our colleague, Senator 

Portman, has also been working very, very hard on these issues, 

not just on this Committee, but for years prior to this. 

We already have proven that we can work well within the Committee, and I think that all of us drafting bipartisan legislation to 
3 

put the Park Service on a path to long-term viability would be a 

perfect gift for its 100th birthday. 

I would like to thank Director Jarvis and the other witnesses 

who have come to be with us before the Committee today. I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. 

Now I will turn to Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

scheduling this hearing and to the witnesses for being here. 

I, as you mentioned, introduced legislation on behalf of the Administration, specifically Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, 

and National Park Service Director, Jon Jarvis. And so, welcome. 

Good to have you here this morning. 

Next August will mark the 100th anniversary of when President 

Wilson signed the 1916 law creating the National Park Service. My 

state’s experience with National Parks actually goes back even further with Mount Rainier having been established in 1899, and 

Mount Olympus National Monument—which later became Olympic 

National Park—established in 1909. 

Not only are we home to some of the older National Parks, but 

the State of Washington, along with Tennessee and New Mexico, 

is also home to the newest addition to the National Park System, 

the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, which was formally dedicated just last month. 

So the upcoming Centennial provides us with a good opportunity 

to assess the state of our National Park System, so that we can determine what we need to do to improve the National Park Service 

and provide the proper level of services that will allow the American public to enjoy their National Parks. 

The Administration has recommended several new authorizations and funding proposals in its Centennial bill, and it seems to 

me that in order to evaluate these proposals we need to better understand what the Park Service’s objectives are for the future. For 

example, are we trying to increase overall visitation or improve utilization of less-visited parks? What are the aspects of the current 

Park budget that are working, and where do we need to improve 

on funding levels for their long-term viability? What are our plans 

for recognizing new additions to the Park System? 

These are some of the issues that I’d like to explore today with 

Secretary Jarvis and the other members of the panel. I would like 

to get a better understanding of how the Park Service plans to take 

advantage of new technologies to modernize its communication to 

enable more of the American public and international visitors to be 

aware of these unique and amazing natural and historic and cultural resources our country has to offer. 

I agreed to introduce the Administration’s legislation which we 

are considering this morning not because I agree with every single 

thing, but because I really thought it was important to begin the 

discussion about how to best take care of our National Parks into 

the next century. I believe the Administration’s proposal gives us 

a very good start on that discussion. 
4 

It is our responsibility to provide the Park Service with adequate 

resources for the Parks that are enjoyed by millions of Americans 

every year. I will continue to work with the Park Service so that 

it has the resources it needs to protect those national interests. 

Obviously it would be very difficult to pass a bill with the level 

of mandatory spending in the Administration’s proposal, but I hope 

that today we can hear what the priorities are of these proposals, 

and the consequences for not having funding. 

So Madam Chair, in addition to Director Jarvis, who is here with 

us this morning, we have a qualified panel of witnesses who have 

extensive background in our National Park System and the issues. 

I look forward to discussing with each of them these priorities and 

how we move forward. 

I hope that we have a very productive hearing, so that we can 

move forward to really try to do something to make sure that this 

national resource gets the attention it needs in the second century. 

Thank you all very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

With that we will turn to the panel. 

I will introduce each of you and you will then have an opportunity to present your opening statements. We ask that you keep 

your comments to about five minutes. Your full testimony will be 

incorporated as part of the record. 

We will begin the hearing this morning with Director Jon Jarvis. 

Jon is the 18th Director of the National Park Service. He began his 

career with the Park Service in 1976 as a seasonal interpreter in 

Washington, DC. He has been with the Park Service for over 30 

years now. He has served in numerous parks around the country 

including Wrangell-St. Elias in Alaska. It is good to have you back 

before the Committee, Director Jarvis. 

Mr. Will Shafroth joined the National Park Foundation as President and CEO in July of this year. He has over three decades of 

experience working in conservation and outdoor recreation. He has 

worked as a consultant, as counselor for former Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, and as Principal Deputy Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior. I would like 

to welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Shafroth. 

Mr. Derrick Crandall, welcome. Derrick is counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association which is the only national organization representing officially-recognized U.S. National Park concessionaires. He has extensive background working in conservation 

and recreation and holds numerous positions on a variety of coalitions and advisory boards. We welcome you to the Committee. 

We also have Ms. Theresa Pierno with us today. Ms. Pierno has 

been the President and the CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) since October of this year. She has a very 

impressive record working with conservation organizations, first 

joining the NPCA in 2004 and prior to that she was Vice President 

for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We welcome you to the Committee as well. 

With that we will begin with you, Director Jarvis. 

I will just note for the attention of colleagues it is my understanding that we are scheduled to have a vote at 11:30 this morning, so we will try to not only move through the testimony of the 
5 

witnesses but get through as much of the questioning as we possibly can before that time. 

Director Jarvis, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Senate bill 2257, the National Park Centennial 

Act. 

I’d like to thank Senator Cantwell for introducing the bill, the 

Administration’s legislative proposal, and thank you, Chairman, for 

holding this hearing as well. 

In 2016 the National Park Service will celebrate 100 years as the 

steward of the nation’s most cherished natural and cultural resources. We are actively preparing for our second century and 

working hard to connect with and create the next generation of 

park visitors, supporters and advocates. 

Earlier this year, in partnership with the National Park Foundation, we launched the Find Your Park campaign to encourage the 

next generation to experience the National Parks, and we are already seeing results. In 2014 we experienced record visitation with 

over 292 million visitors and we’re on track to exceed that number 

this year. 

These visits do more than provide inspirational, educational and 

recreational opportunities. In 2014 they drove $29.75 billion in economic impact that supported hundreds of thousands of jobs around 

the country. 

S. 2257 reflects another important component of our Centennial. 

The Administration developed this legislation to establish, clarify 

and expand a number of key existing National Park Service authorities to allow us to better serve the American people. This bill 

has essential provisions that we believe necessary to move the National Park Service into its second century. 

S. 2257 would provide new sources of funding and strengthen the 

ability of the NPS to manage and operate the National Parks and 

programs that provide so many important natural, cultural and 

recreational benefits to the nation. There are ten titles. 

Title I includes a Centennial declaration that would recognize 

that we have the responsibility, not only for administering the 

units of the National Park System, but for programs that provide 

financial and technical assistance to states, communities and individuals. 

Title II would establish the National Park Centennial Challenge 

Fund consisting of an appropriation of up to $100 million for three 

years to be used as a Federal match for signature partnership 

projects. 

Title III would provide an appropriation of $300 million for three 

years to correct deficiencies in our infrastructure. 

Title IV would establish a Centennial Land Management Invest- ment Fund consisting of a mandatory appropriation equal to $100 

million for three years for a multi-agency competitive program to 

enhance visitor services and restore lands and waters. 
6 

Title V would direct the National Park Foundation to establish 

a second century endowment. 

Title VI would establish the National Park Second Century Fund 

in the Treasury funded through lodging fees and from the purchases of the Senior Passes for citizens 62 years of age or older. 

Title VII would provide clear authority for our interpretation and 

educational work by consolidating our authorities. It also raised the 

age limit for participation in the Public Land Corps from 25 to 30 

and extended the direct hire authority from 120 days to two years. 

And this title would also remove a $3.5 million authorization ceiling for the Volunteers in the Parks program. 

Title VIII would establish a new Visitor Services Management 

Authority to award and manage contracts for the operation of commercial visitor service programs. 

Title IX would authorize agreements for the creation of reproductions of museum objects and we’re also developing additional language related to the protection of an intellectual property and we 

will transmit that soon. 

Title X would re-designate the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Director of the National Park Service as ex officio members of the 

National Park Foundation Board and authorize an appropriation of 

$25 million each year for ten years. 

So we appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important effort 

with you. We look forward to working with you as this bill moves 

forward. 

Madam Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2257, A BILL TO PREPARE 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR ITS CENTENNIAL IN 2016 AND FOR A 

SECOND CENTURY OF PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL PARKS' NATURAL, 

HISTORIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE 

GENERATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

December 2015 

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you to discuss S. 2257, a bill to prepare the National Park Service for its Centennial in 2016 and 

for a second century of protecting our national parks' natural, historic, and cultural resources for 

present and future generations and for other purposes. This legislation, whose short title is "The 

National Park Service Centennial Act," is comprised of the Administration's legislative proposal 

of the same title that was transmitted to Congress on August 31, 2015, by Secretary Jewell. We 

appreciate Senator Cantwell's introduction of S. 2257 and the committee's willingness to hold 

this hearing on it today. 

In 2016, the NPS will celebrate 100 years as the steward of the Nation's most cherished natural 

and cultural resources. As outlined in our Centennial Plan, A Call to Action, the NPS is actively 

preparing for its second century of operations, and working hard to connect with and create the 

next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates. Earlier this year, the NPS, in 

partnership with the National Park Foundation, launched a campaign to engage the next 

generation and new audiences in the life-enhancing and sometimes life-changing experiences at 

national parks. Our efforts will draw new visitors, especially millennials and young families, to 

experience the national parks. We experienced a record year in 2014 with over 292 million 

visitors and are on track to exceed that number in 2015. These visits do more than provide 

inspirational, educational and recreational opportunities; in 2014, they drove $29.75 billion1 in 

economic impact, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in communities around the country. 

We are also working with the National Park Foundation to leverage the interest of major 

corporate partners in engaging with this once in a lifetime anniversary. 

S. 2257 reflects another important component of our Centennial effort. The Administration 

developed this legislation to establish, clarify or expand a number of key existing National Park 

Service authorities to allow us to better serve the American people. They are the essential 

provisions we believe are necessary to move the National Park Service into its second century. 

S. 2257 would provide new sources offunding and stren~o>then the ability of the National Park 

Service to manage and operate the national parks and programs that provide so many important 

natural, cultural, and recreational benefits to the nation. There are ten titles included in the 

legislation. 

1 "20 14 National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report,., National Park Service. accessed November 30, 2015. 

http://www. nature .nps. gov /socialscience/docsNSE20 14 ~Final. pdf. 
8 

Title I, the Centennial Declaration, would recognize that the NPS has responsibility not only for 

administering the units of the National Park System, but for programs that provide financial and 

technical assistance to states, communities, and individuals to protect our national heritage. Title 

I would also direct the Secretary of the Interior to utilize these financial and technical assistance 

programs to further the conservation and enjoyment of the natural and cultural heritage of the 

Nation for the benefit and inspiration of the public. 

Titles II-IV would implement part of the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget request to 

Congress. Title II would establish a National Park Centennial Challenge Fund, consisting of a 

mandatory appropriation of up to $100 million for FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 to be used as 

the Federal match for signature partnership projects that will help prepare the national parks for 

another century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment. 

Title lli would provide a mandatory appropriation of $300 million to the NPS Construction 

Account for FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018, to correct deficiencies in NPS infrastructure and 

facilities. In addition to requested discretionary appropriations, funding from Titles II and III 

would be directed towards NPS' deferred maintenance backlog and would restore and maintain 

all high-priority non-transportation assets into good condition over ten years, consistent with the 

FY 16 Budget proposal. 

Title IV would establish the Centennial Land Management Investment Fund, consisting of a 

mandatory appropriation equal to $100 million for FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 to provide 

funding for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to jointly establish a competitive 

program available to the four Federal land management agencies for projects that enhance visitor 

services and outdoor recreational opportunities, restore lands and waters, repair facilities or 

trails, or increase energy and water efficiency. 

Title V would direct the National Park Foundation to establish a special account known as the 

Second Century Endowment for the NPS, consisting of gifts or bequests provided for this 

purpose, for projects and activities that further the mission of the NPS. 

Title VI would establish the NPS Second Century Fund in the Treasury, which would be funded 

through additional lodging and camping fees and additional funds collected from purchases of 

the lifetime pass for citizens 62 years of age or older. 

Title VII would clarify or expand authorities for activities that the NPS are already conducting to 

allow us to better serve the American people. This includes providing clear authority for the 

interpretation and education work of the NPS by consolidating a number of disparate authorities 

currently used, and directing the Secretary to ensure that management of National Park System 

units and related areas is enhanced by the availability and utilization of a broad program of the 

highest quality interpretation and education. Title VII would also raise the age limit for 

participation in the Public Lands Corp from 25 to 30 and extend the direct-hire authority from 

120 days to 2 years, consistent with Department of the Interior resource assistant direct-hire 

authority. And, this title would remove the $3.5 million authorization ceiling for the Volunteers 

in the Parks to accommodate the funding needed to support this growing program. 

2 
9 

Title VIII would establish the NPS Visitor Services Management Authority (VMSA), and 

authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot program to allow the VMSA to award and manage 

contracts for the operation of commercial visitor services programs and activities. 

Title IX would authorize the Secretary to enter into agreements for the creation of reproductions 

of a museum object in which the object and its intellectual property rights are under the control 

of the Secretary. 

Title X would redesignate the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the NPS as ex-officio 

members of the NPF board. It also would authorize appropriations of $25 million for each of FY 

2016 through FY 2026 to NPF that would be used to leverage additional non-federal funds to 

support our national parks. 

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important effort with you. The Administration 

strongly supports this legislation and looks forward to working with Congress to get this to the 

President's desk. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

or the other members of the committee may have. 
10 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Director Jarvis. 

Mr. Shafroth, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILL SHAFROTH, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify before you today regarding Senate bill 2257, 

the National Park Service Centennial Act. 

As you said, my name is Will Shafroth. I’m President and CEO 

of the National Park Foundation which is a Congressionally-chartered, philanthropic partner of the National Park Service. The 

Foundation works closely with the National Park Service to improve our National Parks and visitor experience by raising and investing philanthropic funding and corporate support throughout 

the park system. The Foundation is working hard to maximize the 

impact of the Centennial of the National Parks can have on increasing awareness of and catalyzing investments in the parks, all 

in service of preparing our parks for another century of success. 

The Centennial represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for 

Americans of all ages, races, genders, ethnicities, and political affiliations to unite behind a shared vision for the National Park System during its second century. Realizing this goal requires us to 

generate innovative, new approaches to improve the visitor experience, ramp up our private fundraising and create an improved 

funding model for our parks. 

The Foundation greatly appreciates the Committee’s efforts to 

advance the discussion by holding this hearing and we are eager 

to begin the dialog. 

There’s several aspects of Senate bill 2257 that relate to the 

Foundation’s mission that we support. 

The first is the amendment to the National Park Foundation 

charter that would transition the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Director of the Park Service to ex officio, nonvoting members of the 

Board. This is very important to us from a governance standpoint. 

The second is the authorization of $25 million to be appropriated 

annually for ten years to the Foundation to be utilized for important programs and projects throughout the National Park System. 

Both of these changes will bring the National Park Foundation in 

line with our sister foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. 

I also want to focus on the need for broader funding sources for 

our parks. And while we understand the budget restrictions facing 

the Committee, we also believe that the Centennial provides us 

with an opportunity to look at a more holistic model for the parks. 

The first piece of that is the Centennial Challenge. The Foundation strongly supports the proposed authorization of a Centennial 

Challenge Fund paired with dedicated funding and a non-Federal 

match. The Centennial Challenge would undoubtedly create a 

strong incentive for increased philanthropic contributions to park 

programs and projects. 

In the five months after Congress appropriated $10 million for 

the Centennial Challenge in the CRomnibus, the Park Service with 

partners including the Park Foundation and local friends groups, 
11 

secured an additional $16 million to fund 106 projects nationwide. 

I’m confident that the Park partners can raise substantially more 

matching funds with this program, especially the program that’s 

authorized for a number a years and increased funding is provided. 

The Foundation also strongly supports the proposed authorization of an endowment housed at the Foundation. Establishing this 

long term funding source would allow the Foundation to raise significantly more private funds for Park projects and programs as a 

part of donors’ estate planning and annual giving, especially from 

the new, from the baby boomers generation which is just maturing 

into a lot of philanthropic support. 

We recognize it will take a broad diversity of funding sources to 

ensure the success of the Centennial Challenge as well as the endowment. From a private fundraising standpoint it’s essential that 

the Federal Government have skin in the game. The first question 

I get from prospective donors is, is the Park Service invested? 

Among the ideas under consideration the Foundation supports 

utilizing the long, overdue increase in the price of the Senior Pass 

and the establishment of overnight fees at lodging throughout the 

Park System to fund these programs. Consumers are used to paying overnight fees at lodging facilities including gateway communities. Utilizing these fees can help ensure that the money is invested in the long term success of the parks. 

We’re happy to work with you all to figure out how to best divide 

these fees between the endowment and the Centennial Challenge, 

but both deserve support. Just know that these and other sources 

of funding would be leveraged with private funds to improve the 

parks. 

While the National Park Centennial isn’t officially until 2016, 

the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation and 

many others have kicked off the commemoration and celebration of 

this year with a launch of the Find Your Park public engagement 

campaign. The response has been overwhelming with increased visitation to and engagement with our National Parks. 

The Centennial of the National Park Service comes around only 

once, at least once in our lifetimes, and the focus of millions of 

Americans will be on our National Parks between now and the end 

of 2016. We have a tremendous opportunity to capitalize on this 

momentum and excitement to help prepare the National Park 

Service for a second century of success. This will require that we 

place our political and philosophical difference aside to work jointly 

on behalf of future generations so that they too can experience and 

realize the many benefits of America’s best idea. 

We look forward to working with the entire Committee to continue refining and ultimately enacting this vitally important legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I 

welcome any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shafroth follows:] 
12 

TESTIMONY OF 

WILL SHAFROTH 

PRESIDENT & CEO 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 

On S. 2257, the National Park Service Centennial Act 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the National Park Foundation. My name is Will 

Shafroth and I am the President and CEO of the National Park Foundation. 

Established by Congress in 1967, the National Park Foundation is the Congressionally chartered 

philanthropic partner of the National Park Service. NPF raises philanthropic funds that directly aid, 

support, and enrich America's 409 national parks and their programs. The Foundation plays a critical 

role in their conservation and preservation and provides equal opportunities for all Americans to 

experience, enjoy, learn from and support these treasured places. We carry on the legacy that began 

more than a century ago, when private citizens from all walks of life took action to establish and protect 

our national parks. 

Over the past five years, the National Park Foundation has contributed more than $90 million to the 

national park system through grants, programs, goods and services including more than $17 million in 

fiscal year 2015. 

2016 marks the lOO'h anniversary of the National Park Service. The Centennial represents a 'once in a 

lifetime' opportunity for Americans to come together to celebrate the achievements that have been 

realized as the result of "America's Best Idea." Most importantly, the anniversary presents an 

opportunity for Americans of all ages, races, genders, ethnicities and political affiliations to unite behind 

a shared vision for building upon the success of the National Park System during its second century. This 

is our opportunity to both celebrate the past and look to the future. 

The National Park Service (NPS) and National Park Foundation (NPF) are working closely with partners 

and stakeholders across the country to ensure that the Centennial is more than just a birthday. For 

example, earlier this year the NPF and the NPS launched the Find Your Park public education and 

engagement campaign (FindYourPark.com) to inspire all Americans to connect with, enjoy, and support 

America's national parks. The purpose of the campaign is to connect Americans to all of the 409 national 

park units, from iconic Parks such as Denali, Mt. Rainier, Yellowstone, Cuyahoga Valley, Great Smoky 

Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton, and Grand Canyon to the small historic sites in our own 

backyards like Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument and the New Orleans Jazz National 

Historic Park. Since we launched this campaign in early April, more than 28,000 Americans have 

submitted a story of finding their park including several members of Congress, there have been more 

than 140,000 uses of the Find Your Park hash tag and nearly two million shares, likes and retweets of 

Find Your Park social media posts. Most importantly, we're seeing increased visitorship to our parks. 

From April through September there were more than 201 million park visitations and from January 

through September 2015 there were more than 248 million visits, an increase of 10 million visits over 
13 

the same time in 2014. We're on pace to break the record park visitations of 292.8 million, which was 

set just last year. 

Additionally the National Park Foundation is undertaking our largest national fundraising campaign to 

fund priority projects and programs throughout the national park system. The proposed projects include 

everything from enhancing the digital experience throughout the National Park System, to trail and 

facility restoration projects. The Foundation and the Service worked together closely to develop this list 

that we believe will have great appeal to philanthropic donors. 

In addition to celebrating past accomplishments and re-connecting Americans to their parks, the 

Centennial Anniversary should also be a time to identify shortcomings and develop innovative ways to 

address them. For example, the Centennial presents an opportunity for us to generate innovative new 

approaches to addressing challenges associated with securing the needed funding to prepare and 

sustain the National Parks for another century of service. That's why I'm so pleased to have the 

opportunity to testify today. 

Generating nearly $30 billion in economic activity and more than a quarter of a million jobs annually, our 

National Parks provide among the best returns the federal government gets on investments of taxpayer 

dollars. 

However, as is well known the National Parks have a deferred maintenance backlog of approximately 

$11.5 billion. I should note that while nearly half of this total represents transportation infrastructure 

costs, it also doesn't account for the funding needed for day-to-day operations. 

While federal appropriations are likely to and should remain the largest funding source for the National 

Park Service, it is unlikely that current federal budget constraints will be reversed in the near future. 

Therefore, it is imperative that we utilize the 2016 Centennial to explore new funding models that can 

be utilized to supplement the taxpayer investments needed to prepare and sustainably fund our parks 

for another 100 years of service. Why? Because it will connect current visitors to our parks in new stateof-the-art ways and introduce a new generation to the natural beauty and grandeur of our American 

landscape through our national parks. 

This new paradigm must include finding new ways to incentivize foundations, non-profit organizations, 

individual donors, and corporate partners to make even greater investments in our parks going forward. 

Activities are already underway that prove the viability of this new, innovative approach of partnering 

with companies and corporations. For example, NPF has raised more than $30 million from corporate 

partners to support the parks, including for the Find Your Park campaign, which is being funded entirely 

through corporate partners who see the campaign as a way to simultaneously benefit the National Park 

System and the financial interests of their companies. 

Through the launch and implementation of the Find Your Park public engagement campaign and our 

national fundraising campaign we've learned a few key lessons. 

First, the Foundation and the National Park Service are developing an enhanced understanding of the 

types of projects and programs that are most and least attractive to private donors and corporate 

partners. The ability to categorize these projects is helpful to informing which projects should be 

pursued for contributions and corporate sponsorships and which should be pursued as part of the 

federal budget and appropriations processes. For example, building or restoring necessary infrastructure 

2 
14 

such as roads, restrooms and maintenance facilities are better suited to being completed with federal 

appropriations. Conversely, adding cellular service and mobile phone applications to enhance the 

experience of park visitors tend to be the types of projects that generate non-federal partner interest in 

making donations or sponsorship investments. 

Importantly we are also learning that matching federal investments provide private donors and 

corporate partners the added layer of certainty they need to make a contribution or corporate 

investment in a national park program or project. 

With all of this in mind I'd like to focus on three sections of S. 2257. 

Centennial Challenge 

The Foundation strongly supports the Centennial Challenge fund paired with 'dedicated' funding. At the 

end of 2014, Congress appropriated $10 million for this fund, which, in just five months, NPS and 

partners were able to match with an additional $16 million to fund 106 projects. 

Enactment of this provision, which would require a non-federal match, would undoubtedly create a 

strong incentive for increased philanthropic contributions to park programs and projects leading up to, 

during and beyond the Centennial. 

NPF Endowment 

We also strongly support the proposed authorization of an endowment housed at the Foundation, 

which will establish a long-term funding source for important park projects and programs. The 

endowment will allow the Foundation to raise significantly more private funding for the parks as part of 

donors' estate planning and gift giving. Endowment growth serves to build a stable long-term source of 

private resources for Parks. 

Funding 

We are cognizant of the budgetary restrictions facing this committee to fund these vital programs. 

However, for both the Centennial Challenge and the endowment to be effective the government must 

invest in them. With increased lead time and long-term funding, NPF, local friends groups and other 

partners will be able to leverage the government's Centennial Challenge investment for even greater 

impact. 

A federal investment is key to making the endowment viable to potential donors who want to know 

their donations are not the sole source of funding. Additionally, seeding the endowment will help it 

grow as the Foundation solicits philanthropic dollars. 

That's why the Foundation supports utilizing the long overdue increase in the price of the "senior citizen 

pass", which the National Park Service estimates will raise $35 million annually, and the "overnight 

fees", which NPS estimates will raise $12.7 million annually, in Section 6 of 5. 2257 to fund these 

important programs. 

NPF believes these "overnight fees", which consumers are used to paying when staying in lodging 

around the country are used most effectively to leverage significant philanthropic dollars for the longterm health of our national parks. We would also support some percentage of the fees going to 

concessionaires to alleviate the burden of collecting the fees. 

3 
15 

Additionally, we would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the Committee to identify 

additional funding sources for the Centennial Challenge and the endowment to strengthen both 

programs. 

Park Foundation Structure 

Finally, the Foundation strongly supports the legislation's inclusion of amendments to the NPF charter 

that would transition the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service to exofficio, non-voting members of the National Board of Directors. The Foundation's authorizing legislation 

names the Secretary of the Interior as the Chair of the NPF Board and the Director of the National Park 

Service as the Secretary of the NPF Board. As with any cabinet position, the Secretary of the Interior is a 

job that has turnover due to national elections and other factors. History has shown that a change in 

administration occasionally leads to a change in NPF leadership. The resulting uncertainty can be 

avoided by allowing the board to select its own leadership. 

The Foundation also supports the legislation's authorization of $25 million to be appropriated each year, 

over the course of ten years, to the NPF for park projects and programs. This would result in a significant 

increase in the leveraging of private funds to benefit parks and visitors similar to the successful model 

set forth in the charter of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Conclusion 

As we approach the National Parks Centennial year, it is inspiring to see a diverse and bipartisan 

coalition of lawmakers, non-profit organizations, businesses and individuals uniting behind a shared 

commitment to seizing the historic opportunity presented by the Centennial Anniversary to develop and 

execute innovative new approaches that will ensure that our National Parks achieve another century of 

success. 

It is imperative that we utilize the 2016 Centennial to explore new funding models that can be utilized to 

supplement the taxpayer investments needed to prepare and sustainably fund our parks for another 

100 years of service. Without enhancements and improvements we risk a first time visit to a national 

park becoming a one-time visit instead of a life-long love for these amazing places. 

This new paradigm must include finding new ways to incentivize even greater philanthropic and 

corporate investments in our parks going forward. We must see supporting our parks not as just the role 

of taxpayers and Congress or just private citizens or foundations. We must see it as working together in 

concert to support our parks with federal funds, private philanthropy, corporate partnerships, fees and 

volunteerism. 

The Centennial of the National Park Service comes around only once and the focus of millions of 

Americans are already on our national parks and will be there through the end of 2016. We have a 

tremendous opportunity to capitalize on this momentum and excitement to help prepare the National 

Park Service for a second century of success. This will require that we place our political and 

philosophical differences aside to work jointly on behalf of future generations so that they too can 

experience and realize the many benefits of "America's Best Idea" as we have. 

We look forward to working with the entire committee and the rest of our emerging coalition to 

continue refining and ultimately enacting this vitally important legislation. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide this testimony. 

4 
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shafroth. 

Mr. Crandall, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, COUNSELOR, NATIONAL 

PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The National Park Hospitality Association is delighted to be here 

to address such an exciting opportunity, the Centennial comes at 

a right time to keep the National Parks relevant and cherished by 

Americans of all ages, of all backgrounds. And we want to make 

sure that the concessions community continues to play a major role 

in that. 

We serve more than 100 million visitors to National Parks every year employing 25,000 people, doing approximately $1.3 billion 

worth of business, providing lodging and food and a variety of other 

kinds of activities. 

Let me begin with a statement of appreciation to the current 

Park Service leadership. 

Jon Jarvis and his team have recognized that although the parks 

have many champions the voices have been weakening and have 

grown less numerous. And through the efforts working with the 

Park Foundation and Park partners has launched a very exciting 

opportunity to enlist a new generation of park supporters. We applaud that and support so much that is now being talked about 

here. 

My written testimony goes into some more depth in terms of our 

support for a number of the elements in the suggested legislation. 

What I’d like to do, though, today is to talk about the importance 

of backing up the invitation to all Americans to come and visit our 

parks with being prepared to provide great experiences when people come to these great places. And that’s where, we think, the concessions community can play a very important role. 

An agency which is capital strapped and has a well-documented 

inability to maintain its infrastructure with appropriations needs 

help to meet visitor needs and expectations and concessioners have 

been, are, and will continue to be partners here. Concessions operate a visitor infrastructure that was built with private capital. Taxpayer dollars did not build the Ahwahnee or the El Tovar or the 

lodges in Glacier. Taxpayers did not buy the boats which take millions to the Statue of Liberty and Fort Sumter, Alcatraz and the 

Dry Tortugas. All totaled the infrastructure provided by concessioners equates to billions of dollars, and the investment in the infrastructure continues. 

In Yellowstone, Xanterra is investing nearly $200 million of its 

capital in major reconstruction and replacement of five lodges, a 

new employee housing complex which has received LEED platinum 

certification and more. There is no taxpayer funding for these improvements but these improvements will greatly benefit millions of 

park visitors. 

There’s no need to find an offset for this funding or to have this 

investment add to the Federal deficit. The investment is a significant attack on the Park’s backlog of deferred maintenance, and the 

investment will be amortized over 40 years through a straight line 

depreciation of Xanterra’s investment. Xanterra is actively using 
17 

conservation and returning veterans corps members to do much of 

the work in the Yellowstone project leveraging its spending with 

programs that provide invaluable training and assistance to young 

Americans. 

In Shenandoah, Delaware North teamed up with a corps network 

and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to rebuild on 

ACCC era equestrian center. It’s a win/win/win. A rebuilt and improved facility is once again serving the public. The project was 

completed at a cost of at least 20 percent below traditional rehabilitation and construction costs and five young African Americans 

have now acquired historic reconstruction carpentry skills and have 

become park champions riding for the first time on horses, hiking, 

camping out in a National Park. 

Pisgah Inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway, a small concessioner, has 

invested $1 million in a new sprinkler system that will safeguard 

that investment. This is the kind of investment that comes through 

LSI. 

But there are things that can and should be done by the Congress to help the concessioners continue this role of investment. 

First of all the use of the LSI tool is poorly understood. The way 

I guess we would like to have it understood is that it’s an extraordinary power to borrow capital to fund needed park construction in 

a way that requires no offset, uses no taxpayer dollars, does not 

score in CBO and OMB calculations and which, like a mortgage on 

your house, is paid off over time. 

The Congress needs to allow the agency additional contract 

length to be able to use the LSI tool effectively from the maximum 

under the current law of 20 years to 30 years. And normal concessions contracts which are now directed by the Congress to be ten 

years should in most cases be 15 years, perhaps longer in both 

cases. Remember that ski areas are permitted in National Forests 

for a period of 40 years. 

Congress needs to allow the agency to reward excellence in performance with a bonus, a contract extension which is a common 

practice in the hospitality world, to provide for these merit-based 

extensions. 

We think that the Congress did a wonderful thing in 2011 by directing the Forest Service to assist the public by making more recreational activities available at ski areas without requiring separate permits for zip lines and mountain biking and a variety of 

other kinds of things. Adding new visitor services in parks is not 

easy. We can document the instances where concessioners have 

proposed to add what visitors want to do there and found it difficult. We’d like to invite the Congress to give the Park Service the 

same encouragement you gave in 2011 to the Forest Service to look 

at that. 

Finally we think there’s a great opportunity. There are more 

than 200 national parks which are hampered by little or no visitor 

services. This is an extraordinary opportunity. The Park Service 

should solicit offers for services from current and new concessioners 

at these units and should utilize new concepts like satellite operations where an existing concessioner at a nearby unit can provide 

support during special periods and for special events. 
18 

And finally we would like to encourage this Committee to look 

seriously at working with colleagues that are running committees, 

the Environment Public Works and the Finance Committee, to look 

at a concept that we’ve labeled ‘‘Penny for Parks.’’ Working with a 

coalition of recreation, tourism, conservation and other organizations we believe that this Committee could effectively make the 

case that the next surface transportation program for this nation 

needs a new title that deals with parks and public lands. And a 

funding source for that, we believe, there is sufficient public support to move in a game changing way in that way. 

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here, look forward to any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall follows:] 
19 

Statement of Derrick Crandall, Counselor, National Park Hospitality 

Association, Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 

Senate, on Preparing the National Park Service for Its Centennial, 

December 8, 2015 

Madame Chair and Distinguished Committee Members, the National Park Hospitality 

Association (NPHA) offers this testimony regarding legislation preparing the National 

Park Service for its Centennial in 2016. NPHA is both enthusiastic about and 

actively engaged in activities associated with the Centennial of the National Park 

Service. The role of this agency in protecting and supporting the enjoyment of the 

special legacy of America's more than 400 park units is important and appreciated 

by the public. 

We applaud and share the interest of the Congress in using the Centennial as a 

time to assess and improve the tools available to protect, promote and manage 

our park units. We are proud of the role we played, in concert with the Bipartisan 

Policy Center and the National Parks Conservation Association, in hosting a 

Bridgebuilder session in March 2013 examining Sustainable Supplementary 

Funding for America's National Parks. We offered sixteen white papers for 

Congressional and agency consideration, from a new Penny for Parks increase 

in federal motorfuel taxes to provide better public access to the Great Outdoors 

to changes which would allow historic tax credits for investments in qualifying 

sites in parks. This Committee held a hearing on these ideas in July 2013. 

Concessioners have served park visitors since the 1870's and today serve some 

100 million park visitors annually in approximately 120 park units. Concessioners 

have a combined workforce of nearly 25,000 persons, mostly front-line, visitor 

contact jobs, and provide in excess of $1.3 billion in goods and services to 

visitors annually. Concessioner franchise payments to NPS are more than $100 

million annually. Concessioner marketing and promotion efforts total more than 

$20 million annually, and are coordinated with marketing and promotion efforts of 

states and gateway communities that equal that amount. Concessioners are 

leading efforts to promote the National Park System to all Americans to address 

a major problem: Visitation to parks has been flat over the past three decades, 

and has actually declined if you discount new units added to the system. Most 

importantly, concessioners are committed to meeting America's needs- needs 

for healthier lifestyles, for better and lifelong educational opportunities, for strong 

local and regional economies that can sustain and protect our parks and for 

connecting all Americans across differences in regions, ages, income and 

ethnicity. 

We applaud efforts to enact meaningful NPS Centennial legislation. We support 

with enthusiasm provisions which invite and challenge organizational and 

individual donors- by leveraging the impact of their contributions. This is a 

proven strategy for parks and philanthropy in general. Our members were 

involved in an initial, successful Centennial Challenge effort mounted under thenInterior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and help park visitors support park projects 

through the Guest Donation Program. 
20 

We further support the concept of an endowment for our parks, although we 

believe that the $11.5 billion backlog in deferred maintenance is of such urgency 

that we cannot support diversion of fees and other current funding streams away 

from critical current operational needs. 

Based upon our knowledge about visitation to America's national parks, we offer 

the following specific comments on S. 2257: 

1) We recently reviewed the Discussion Draft prepared by the House 

Committee on Natural Resources addressing the Centennial of the 

National Park Service. We urge adoption by this Committee of that House 

document's purpose statement: 

To prepare the National Park Service for its Centennial in 2016 and 

for a second century of promoting and protecting the natural, 

historic, and cultural resources of our National Parks for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations, and for other 

purposes. 

2) We recommend a replacement in the funding stream proposed for the 

National Park Service Second Century Fund. The proposed 5% tax on 

lodging within national parks should not be adopted for several important 

reasons. First, it would alter the comparability provisions for the pricing of 

lodging in parks established under the 1998 concessions law. Second, 

the tax would be paid by a very small portion of all park visitors and would 

yield no responsive benefits to those paying the tax. Third, the tax could 

be a real deterrent to efforts to attract visitors to parks during shoulder 

seasons, undermining important streams of revenue to the agency from 

entrance fees and franchise fees that are key to operations and 

maintenance. Fourth, the addition of a new federal tax on state and 

county sales and tourism taxes, utility pass-through charges and more is 

likely to have a chilling effect on the guest donation program -again, an 

important source of support for park programs and projects today and an 

important opportunity for expansion as a funding strategy once needed 

revisions are made to NPS Directors Order 21 Fifth, the collection of this 

tax will impose a new administrative burden on concessioners. 

Instead, we suggest that the Committee add a Centennial Park Entrance 

Fee Surcharge of $1 on all existing entrance fees- whether for vehicles or 

per person. We believe that this would be a fair and appropriate means to 

raise revenues of at least $10 million annually. We also believe that park 

visitors can be told about the surcharge in a way that will yield support, 

and perhaps interest in additional actions to support parks. 

3) We enthusiastically support the continuation and expansion of the 

Centennial Challenge Program. Encouraging non-profits, corporations 

and individuals to contribute toward important national park programs and 

projects is a vital part of a long-term strategy for keeping America's parks 

relevant and well-functioning. 

2 
21 

4) We support the proposal to authorize an appropriation of up to $25 million 

annually for the National Park Foundation. We strongly support the 

Foundation's Centennial efforts, including leadership of the Find Your 

Park Campaign, to make our National Park System relevant, enjoyed and 

supported. We support continuing outreach efforts after the Centennial. 

We think appropriated general funding, and other sources including 

resource mitigation and penalty funds, can dramatically increase available 

park resources. 

5) We urge the Committee to act outside of the current legislation to support 

creation of a Centennial Penny for Parks federal motorfuel excise tax 

surcharge. We are attaching our letter to the Chairman of the Committees 

on Finance and Environment and Public Works that further outlines this 

concept The significant revenues associated with this program -an 

estimated $1.5 billion annually-- would allow elimination of the large and 

growing backlog in transportation-related investment needs in national 

parks and other federally managed lands within a decade and could 

underwrite innovative ways to improve accessibility of all Americans to 

their Great Outdoors. 

6) Our greatest concern involves TITLE VIII-National Park Service Visitor 

Services Management Program. We have previously advised the 

Committee and the agency that we believe the current Concessions 

Program of the agency needs major changes. This title not only fails to 

achieve any of these changes- changes in which the agency has publicly 

expressed interest but threatens the core of more than a century of 

success in serving park visitors. In explaining this proposal, agency 

leaders have offered a vision of using management contracts as a 

replacement for the current concessions contracts. This vision is seriously 

flawed and is the antithesis of what the agency needs most today. 

The National Park Service is, has been for several decades, and will 

continue to be for many years, a capital-strapped organization with a welldocumented problem maintaining its infrastructure. A noteworthy 

exception has been the concessioner-operated buildings used for lodging, 

food service, retail and other visitor services. While serving a large portion 

of all park visitors, these structures are a minor part of the very large 

backlog of deferred maintenance. The reason is simple: these structures 

were largely built with private capital and have been maintained by 

concessioners with long-term commitment to the parks without use of 

appropriated general funds. 

This pattern continues today. In Yellowstone National Park, as part of a 

new concessions contract, Xanterra is investing nearly $200 million of its 

capital in major reconstruction and replacement of five lodges. an 

employee housing complex which has received LEED Platinum 

Certification and more. There is no taxpayer funding for these 

improvements, but these improvements will greatly benefit millions of 

visitors. There was no need to find an offset for this funding or to have 

this investment add to the Federal deficit And the investment will be 

completely amortized over 40 years, through a straight line depreciation of 

Xanterra's investment One additional and important note Xanterra is 

3 
22 

actively using conservation corps and returning veteran corps members in 

much of the Yellowstone project, leveraging its spending with programs 

that provide invaluable training and assistance to young Americans in 

need. 

The new Yellowstone contract should be the pattern of all new NPS 

concessions contracts, but it is not Until very recently, NPS has limited 

contracts to just ten years in length. And Yellowstone is a major exception 

to most concessions contracts which have sharply limited new investment 

by concessioners, despite authority provided by the 1998 Concessions 

Act The agency needs to understand that ignoring use of the Leasehold 

Surrender Interest authority reduces the quality of visitor service and 

continues the pattern criticized by former U.S. Senator Coburn during a 

July 2013 hearing before this very Committee, when he noted that failure 

to continue regular maintenance and investment typically increases 

ult1mate costs by a factor of five 

To better understand the challenge which would arise from the agency's 

advocacy of management contracts, consider the application of this idea 

to another successful public/private partnership model serving the nation's 

recreation needs on public lands: ski areas. Just like the Ahwahnee and 

El Tovar and other great park lodges, many of America's ski areas in 

national forests are world class. Ski areas rely upon 100% private 

investments made possible by permits of 40 years. Under the type of 

management contract outlined by NPS officials, taxpayer funds would be 

needed if Vail Resorts sought a new to build a new high speed detachable 

quad lift And while using the ski area comparison, NPHA would like to 

applaud the leadership of this Committee in 2011, when it directed the 

Forest Service to facilitate additional means for the public to enjoy outdoor 

fun by expanding off-peak offerings at ski areas. 

In addition to our concerns about the proposed use of management 

contracts, we believe that the National Park Service should be actively 

encouraged to increase and enhance visitor services. During the hearing 

referenced earlier before this Committee in July 2013, Senator John 

Barrasso asked the NPHA witness how concessioners could better serve 

park visitors. We responded with a listing of additional services that could 

be added quickly to make park experiences better, but which have each 

met resistance from NPS when proposed. Let me repeat that listing: 

~ Astronomy classes and telescope rentals (including computer-aided scopes) 

~ Camera rentals, including all weather cameras and GPS-coded cameras 

~ Photography classes, including use of DSLR cameras and photo editing 

~ Seminars on using the outdoors for health 

~ Healthy and sustainable foods showcase weekends 

~ Wi-Fi service, with basic service free and more robust service on a fee basis 

~ Guided mountain bike tours on trails not normally allowing biking 

~ Rental tents, yurts and simple cabins erected in existing park campgrounds 

~ Backconntry fishing trips 

~ Special interpretation activities for kids 

~ Docu-dramas about park themes, history -like the Lost Colony production 

4 
23 

.... Zip lines 

.... Trail food services (like use of beverage carts on golf courses) 

.... Kayak rentals 

.... Fishing equipment rentals and lessons from mobile as well as stationary sites 

.... Electric bike rentals where regular bikes are rented 

.... Watchable wildlife tours 

.... Rental of glass-bottom, electric boats at certain units 

.... Airport pick-ups of visitors and luggage comparable to that offered by resorts 

.... Voluntourism programs 

.... 1\dditional services to international visitors and group tours 

Our witness further noted that additions of these services would generate 

substantial new franchise fees to aid park operations. In fact, we have 

advised the National Park Service that new flexibility in concessioner 

operations could boost franchise fees by $50 million annually within two 

years. 

In March of 2015, the House Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform conducted a hearing on NPS concessions operations. Key 

testimony at that hearing included the following: 

i) Historic Tours of America CEO Chris Belland noted that a delay of 

nearly two years in approving an increase in the passengers allowed 

on the Dry Tortugas National Park concessions ferry deprived some 

10,000 visitors of an experience in the park, while causing hundreds of 

thousands of dollars in lost entrance fees and franchise fees by NPS. 

2) Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company Vice 

President and General Manager Alex Klein called for key changes in 

concession operations, saying, "A system designed to reward those 

that provide excellence in concession operations would benefit both 

incumbent concessioners as well as the National Park Service. Rather 

than challenging ourselves to innovate every time a concession 

contract comes up, it would encourage constant innovation and 

excellence in the performance of a contract." He also noted the failure 

of NPS to allow use of GAAP in assessing LSI valuation. 

3) Terry MacRae, CEO of Hornblower Cruises, applauded agency efforts 

to encourage all Americans to visit parks. He noted, though, "Stagnant 

park visitation over the past two decades reflects more competing 

leisure choices today and reduced in-park visitor activity choices -

potential visitors are choosing other destinations. There are fewer park 

campsites, fewer lodging rooms, fewer restaurant seats, fewer rangerled walks, fewer tours and outings. Visitor services eliminated by NPS 

have not been offset by new outdoor activities and special events." 

In summary, we support a replacement for this title with a Visitor 

Outreach and Experience Improvement Program. The revised title 

would correct a pejorative orientation of the current title which reflects the 

unfortunate attitude that people are the enemy of our national parks and 

must be managed. We have had an Interior Secretary and several 

leading agency officials complain publicly that "visitors are loving our parks 

to death." It is important to note that the National Park Service's first 

5 
24 

Director disagreed completely. He believed that the agency needed "to 

get people to use the parks before he could get legislation and 

appropriations." More on this is found in the article from National 

Geographic entitled "How Good Old American Marketing Saved the 

National Parks" (March 2015). 

For decades, national parks offered the leading example of use of private 

capital to support public agency efforts. Investments by concessioners 

since the early 1900's have produced a remarkable set of treasured 

structures that are world-renowned. From Yosemite Valley to the Grand 

Canyon, from Grand Teton to Glacier, from Acadia to the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, lodges and restaurants and stores and marinas have been built 

with private capital -and are now some of the most prized elements of our 

National Register of Historic Places. We now see a similar pattern of 

public/private partnerships emerging in transportation and other programs. 

The National Park Service can and should build upon this wonderful 

tradition in its second century, guided and encouraged by new 

Congressional direction in the Centennial Act. 

Specifically, we urge this new title to include direction to attract needed 

investment from concessioners to expand and improve visitor services in 

parks, including through modernization of lodges, campgrounds and 

marinas. Part of this modernization will depend upon legislative changes 

giving new flexibility to the agency, including authority to issue 

concessions contracts of up to 40 years- a provision that should permit 

eligibility for historic tax credits by concessioners and thus boost the 

attractiveness of significant investments that can permit existing and iconic 

structures to be functional and efficient and modernized to incorporate 

best practices in design. We also support repeal of a provision of the 

1998 act interpreted by the agency to limit adding and testing new visitor 

services without instituting a new concession offering. Improved visitor 

experiences will also result from extension of operating hours and 

seasons and encouragement of the transfer of existing campgrounds to 

concessioner operations, which will offer more diverse overnight options, 

serve more visitors and generate new revenues for the agency. 

We would also support experimentation with new models for public-private 

partnerships, especially for park units that now receive low visitation 

and/or have inadequate visitor services to accommodate greater visitation. 

We do support experimentation with leases and non-appropriated funding 

instrumentalities over the next decade, and support Congressional 

authority for up to ten pilot efforts which supplement, but do not compete 

with or replace, the agency's current concessions contracts and 

authorities. 

7) We ask the Congress to support revitalized NPS efforts to promote 

visitation of national parks, a core miss ion of the agency established under 

its 1916 organic act: 

6 
25 

"The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of 

the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and 

reservations ... " 

Promotion efforts of the agency flourished during its initial 50 years of 

operations, including hosting the original U.S. Travel Bureau. In order to 

revitalize this core program, we urge the Congress to specifically authorize 

the use of up to 1 0% of the franchise fees paid by national park 

concessioners annually to support NPS outreach and marketing efforts in 

partnership with states, gateway communities and concessioners. We 

believe that outreach and promotion efforts will increase collection of park 

entrance and recreation fees sufficiently to underwrite both improvements 

in visitor experiences and specific efforts, including fee-free days, to 

successfully invite non-traditional park visitors. There are numerous 

examples of isolated and successful cooperative efforts now underway, 

including shared interpretive costs and outreach to international visitors 

through Federal Row at IPW, which could be made commonplace. 

Most concessioner franchise fees are retained in the park generating 

those fees- 80% of all franchise fees are used locally. The remaining 

20% are used at the discretion of the NPS Director. We urge incorporation 

in the Centennial Act of a new National Park Outreach and Promotion 

Fund and the following funding strategy: 

"Up to 10% of the concessioner franchise fees collected by the 

agency each year may be used to support agency outreach and 

marketing programs designed to connect all Americans to their 

parks, and especially those portions of the American public underrepresented among current park visitors. Nothing in this provision, 

however, shall authorize any change in the use of concessioner 

franchise fees retained by the park generating the fees. Outreach and 

marketing programs shall be undertaken in cooperation with state 

and regional DMOs and NPS concessioners, and shall require not 

less than 1:1 matching of federal funds." 

8) We support increased use of conservation corps in national parks. 

Concessioners in Shenandoah National Park, Yellowstone National Park 

and other units are utilizing youth conservation corps to undertake 

construction, reconstruction and maintenance projects which replicate 

many of the successes of the Civilian Conservation Corps Program of the 

1930's, including connecting urban youth to parks. Pilot projects have 

shown that use of conservation corps can also actually reduce project 

costs. Direction by the Congress in the Centennial Act would aid in 

expanding use of conservation corps in parks, working cooperatively with 

The Corps Network, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and 

concessioners, reducing the barrier of current Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR) and more. 

Madam Chairman and Members, we know you would agree that we need to get 

Americans back in touch with nature, engaged in physical activities and outdoor 

7 
26 

recreation, and connected to the magnificent culture, heritage and landscapes 

that are celebrated by our National Park System. We need to reach out to youth 

to encourage them to share in the wonder and enjoyment of our national parks 

and discourage the increasingly sedentary lifestyles that are contributing to our 

health care crisis. We need to expand park visitation to encourage minorities, 

disadvantaged communities, new Americans and urban residents to see their 

national parks for themselves and to build a broader constituency for America's 

Great Outdoors. And, we need to find new and innovative ways to reinvest in the 

maintenance, restoration, and expansion of critical park infrastructure- much of 

which was built either by private investment when the national parks were first 

created, or in conjunction with the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps more 

than half a century ago. 

The National Park Hospitality Association and the National Park concessioners 

want to help you, the National Park Service, and all Americans in achieving these 

objectives. As the 1 oath Anniversary of the National Park Service shines a light 

on America's Best Idea, we hope you will help us build on our longstanding 

partnership with the NPS to find new and innovative ways to improve the parks 

and create a new generation of Americans who share in the wonder of this 

amazing legacy. 

We thank you for considering this testimony. 

Derrick A. Crandall, Counselor 

National Park Hospitality Association 

1200 G Street, NW, Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20005 

202-682-9530 

dcrandall@funoutdoors.com 

Attachments 

"How Good Old American Marketing Saved the National Parks" 

Letter to Chairmen Hatch and lnhofe on Penny for Parks 

8 
27 

NPHA 

National Park 

Hospitality Association 

GREAT EXPERIENCES IN GREAT PLACES 

December 4, 2015 

The Honorable James lnhofe, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Orrin Hatch, Chairman 

Committee on Finance 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairmen lnhofe and Hatch: 

We are writing to urge your personal support in capitalizing on important opportunities 

and national needs regarding the transportation infrastructure of our nation's national 

parks and other legacy Great Outdoors areas. The National Park Service will celebrate 

its 100th anniversary in 2016- a wonderful testimonial to bipartisan leadership to 

protect special natural and historic sites across our nation and to use these sites to tell 

some of our greatest stories. Our national parks and other public lands -including 

national forests and national wildlife refuges and more - attract more than a billion visits 

annually. But these special places are in trouble. 

Nearly one-third of our nation is managed by federal agencies ranging from the National 

Park Service to the Forest Service, from the Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. These lands are vital to the nation for many reasons and 

certainly for their importance to recreation and tourism. Recreation expenditures in this 

country total more than $650 billion annually. To demonstrate the importance of federal 

lands, consider just three numbers: 

1) national park concessioners provide more than $1.3 billion in lodging, 

food, transportation and other services to tens of millions of visitors to 

national parks annually, employing 25,000 persons; 

2) key sectors of the recreation community are especially reliant on these lands 

and waters. More than 60% of all downhill skiing occurs at ski areas in 

national forests; and 

3) the national strategy to dramatically boost tourism to the USA, essential to 

achieving a better balance of trade, relies significantly on America's Great 

Outdoors, according to Brand USA, the Congressionally-chartered corporation 

charged with growing inbound visitors from 60 million in 2011 to 100 million 

in 2021. 

1200 G Street, NW e Suite 650 e Washington, DC 20005 e 202-682-9530 
28 

Letter to Chairmen lnhofe and Hatch 

December 4, 2015, Page Two 

The condition of infrastructure on federally-managed lands is bleak. Key forest roads 

essential to reaching campgrounds, river access points and !railheads are no longer 

safe for passenger cars. Our iconic National Park System, less than a year from its 

managing agency's Centennial, has a backlog of deferred maintenance of nearly $12 

billion in road, water system, dams and structures and has virtually no plans to expand 

its capability to serve our growing population. Other key agencies, including the Forest 

Service, also have backlogs of deferred maintenance totaling in the billions of dollars, 

and are actually closing roads and reducing public access. 

Unlike virtually all other public roads in America, roads on America's public lands 

receive no support from the state motorfuel tax levied on gasoline sold at the retail 

level. For the estimated four million miles of interstates, primary and secondary routes, 

these state taxes fund 20% of road construction and reconstruction and nearly all 

maintenance and operations. Yet roads vital to Americans seeking to access 

campgrounds, !railheads, beaches and to reach rivers and lakes on federal lands 

depend upon appropriated federal dollars from the beleaguered domestic discretionary 

pot for operation and maintenance, contrasting with most public roads in the nation 

which qualify for 80% federal funding for construction and then use of state motorfuel 

revenues for operation and maintenance. 

The solution is simple. The nation needs to add a Penny for Parks to its federal 

motorfuel tax rate for the next decade, a tax which would acknowledge the federal 

responsibility for accessing our nation's parks and other public lands. This funding 

would end the competition road operations and maintenance now pose to federal 

recreation and conservation programs in the annual appropriations process. Adopting 

this supplemental tax for a ten year period would allow continued and improved safe 

access by Americans to their public lands. 

We believe that action on Penny for Parks in recognition of the National Park Service 

Centennial would enjoy broad support among the nation's recreation, tourism, 

conservation and transportation communities. We invite your leadership on this matter 

and commit to urging these communities to support your actions. 

Sincerely, 

Derrick A. Crandall 

Counselor 

1200 G Street, NW e Suite 650 e Washington, DC 20005 e 202-682-9530 
29 

1 hm (i-"''d Old Amcric::m Mnrketlng Saved the National Parks 

D NATIONAL 

GEOGRAPHIC 

How Good Old American Marketing Saved 

the National Parks 

Getting people to the parks was the mission a century ago. Now it's putting visitors to work in the 

name of science. 

A line of cars winds through Yellowstone National Park in 1966. To Stephen Mather, first director of the National Park 

Sen icc, cars were "the open sesame" to get people into the parks. PHOTOGRAPHBYANOREWH.BROWN,NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC 

By Rachel Hartigan Shea, National Geographic 

http://news.nationalgcographic.com/ ... llO\\stone--califomia-unitcd-statcs/?rptrcgcta=rcg_...ffec _np&rptrcgcampaign=2015012 j.nvitation_ro _ allf3/27/2015 6:37: IO AMI 
30 

Ho\\ GoDd Old Amcricm1 Marketing San:d the NHtiDnal Parks 

When President Ulysses S. Grant signed the bill creating Yellowstone in 1872, he 

established the first national park anywhere in the world. But 40 years later, the 

parks that exemplified "America's best idea" were a mess. 

"I am now trying to make an extensive study of the tremendous problems that have been 

coming before me," admitted Stephen Mather, who was in charge of the parks as an 

assistant to the secretary of the Department of the Interior, at a meeting he called in 

March 1915 to address the parks' troubles. 

Although more than a dozen national parks had been designated by then. along 'A1th ~o 

national monuments, the areas functioned mth little oversight. "They were orphans," 

wrote Horace Albright, Mather's assistant and key partner in the creation of the National 

Park Service. "They were split among three departments-War, Agriculture, and 

Interior. They were anybody's business and therefore nobody's business." 

Opportunists hungry for the parks' natural resources took advantage. Poachers targeted 

the plentiful wildlife. Ranchers grazed sheep and cattle in mountain meadows. San 

Francisco boosters even convinced Congress to allow Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy Valley to 

be flooded as a reservoir for the city's residents. 

Many of these problems weren't new and national parks conferences had been held before, 

but the one in 1915, held on the Berkeley campus of the University of California, was 

different. "This meeting brought everybody together that had anything whatsoever to do 

mth parks," says Robert Sutton, chief historian of the National Park Service. 

The national parks "were anybody's business and therefore 

n0b0dy's bUSineSS.'' Horace Albright, second director of the National Park Service 

The solutions were different too. Mather, who had made his fortune marketing Borax soap 

to the masses, saw the American public as the parks' savior. 

This week, Berkeley-in partnership mth the National Park Service and the National 

Geographic Society-mll host a conference on the parks on the 100th anniversary of 

Mather's meeting. Influential thinkers like Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and 

h!tp:l/nc\\Xnationalgcogmphic.com/.. llowstonc-califOmia-unitcd-statcsl?rptrcgcta=rcg_fhx_np&rptrcgcampaign=20 !50 12 _invitation_ ro _all[ 3/27/20 l5 6:37: 10 AM] 
31 

Ho\\ Good Old Amcricm1 Marketing San:d the NHtional Parks 

biologist E. 0. Wilson will speak, and the agenda will include how to enlist the masses in 

saving the parks. This time around, though, the existential threat is more environmental 

than political. 

"True Playgrounds of the People" 

Mather first came to Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane's attention when he sent 

a fiery letter complaining about the "miserable conditions" in the parks he had 

visited, including "rundown physical aspects ... and dirty unhealthy conditions of 

lodging, food, and sanitary facilities." 

Rather than taking offense, Lane recruited Mather to head up the Interior Department's 

parks office. Albright, a young law student, became his assistant. They both pledged to 

stay one year. 

The parks needed funding and a single agency to be in charge, but according to Albright, 

Mather felt he "had to get people to use the parks before he could get legislation and 

appropriations." 

Almost immediately, Mather hired a publicist-Robert Sterling Yard, the Sunday editor of 

the New York Herald-and paid him with his own money to start selling the parks to the 

American public. "The parks must be ... much better known than they are today," said 

Mather, "if they are going to be the true playgrounds of the people that we want them to 

be." 

Within a month, Mather had summoned the park superintendents to the meeting in 

Berkeley. He also invited anyone else who had an interest in the parks, purposely 

including those whose interests were financial. 

Railroads had staked their claims to the parks early on, eager to encourage Americans to 

"See America First" rather than spend vacation dollars in Europe. Now the automobile 

associations wanted in, lobbying for good roads to smooth the way for drivers. And all 

those tourists would need decent places to stay and eat. 

One of the most influential ideas to come out of the meeting was from Mark Daniels, 

superintendent and landscape architect for the parks. Pointing out that already in 

hHp://ncws.natJOnalgcographic.com/ ... llo\,'::itonc-calil(mlia-tmitcd-statcs/'?Iplrcgcta=rcfUfcc _11p&rptrcgcampaign=20 15012 _invit<:~tion _ro _all! 3/27/2015 6:37:10 AM J 
32 

Ho\\ Good Old Amcricm1 Marketing San:d the NHtional Parks 

Yosemite Valley "there are times when there are five or six thousand people congregated 

at one time," he proposed that each park should contain a village with modern 

amenities such as "a sanitary system, a water supply system, a telephone system, an 

electric light system, and a system of patrolling." 

"Mather thought the best way for parks to develop was to get people there," says parks 

historian Sutton, "and he wanted to make it as easy as possible." 

The marketing worked. Between 1914 and 1915, the number of visitors to Yosemite alone 

more than doubled, from roughly 15,000 to 33,000. 

The New National Park Service 

It was a simple equation: More visitors equals more protection for the parks. Mather 

applied it later that year when he invited 15 influential men, including Gilbert H. 

Grosvenor, then editor of National Geographic magazine, to travel with him for two 

weeks through Sequoia National Parle 

"Just think of the vast areas of our land that should be preserved for the future," Mather 

told the saddlesore gentlemen at the end of the trip. "Unless we can protect the areas 

currently held vdth a separate government agency, we may lose them to selfish interests." 

Grosvenor and the others did their part, the editor having pledged during a hike "ith 

Mather and Albright that the National Geographic Society would "march in step." 

He produced a special issue of National Geographic on the national parks in April 

1916 

-"The Land of the Best" -which ended up on the desks of every congressman in the 

capital when it came time to vote on a bill to establish a National Park Service. 

After many failed attempts over the years, this time the bill made it through Congress. 

President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act on August 25, 

1916. Stephen Mather became the agency's first director, mth Albright as his deputy and 

later successor. 

One hundred years later, the parks are no longer a mess, although they face problems that 

would daunt even Mather. Indeed, the National Park Service reported Monday that the 

http:!/nc\\Xnationalgcographic.com/.. llo\',·stonc-calitOmin-unitcd-statcsl?rptrcgct"1=rcg_ffcc _np&rptrcgcampaign=20 15012 _invitation_ ro _all! 3/27/2{) 15 6:37: I 0 AM] 
33 

Ho\\ GoDd Old Amcricm1 Marketing San:d the NHtiDnal Parks 

cost of deferred maintenance to park infrastructure reached $11.49 billion in fiscal year 

2014. 

Men and horses sho'v the circumference of the General Shennan, a giant sequoia. The photo was taken by Gilbett H. 

GrosW'nor, then National Geographic magazine's e1litor in chief, Juring a camping trip through the Sierras organi7,cd by 

Mather in 1915 to persuade influential men to help the parks. 

PHOTOGRAPH BY GILBERT H. GROSVENOR, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 

http:/hlcws.natJ(malgcographic.com/. .. llowstonc-calitOmia-united-statcs/?rptrcgcta=rcg_ free _np&rptrcgcampaign=20 !50 12 _imitation_ro _all! 3/27/2015 ():37: 10 AM] 
34 

l lO\\ <lood Old i\mcricnn Marketing Saved the National Parks 

At this week's centennial conference, which begins on Wednesday, scientists rather than 

tourists will be front and center, and the threats they address will include invasive species, 

pollution, and climate change. Secretary Jewell will be there with Janet Napolitano, 

president of the University of California, to tie the national parks together with America's 

other "best idea" -public education. 

If the attendees at this conference are successful, park visitors will be convinced, through 

activities like BioBlitzes, to become citizen scientists who help expand knowledge of these 

protected places and become stewards of them in their own right. People are still 

considered the national parks' best hope. In the coming century, however, they may be 

asked to do more than just take in the scenery. 

Follow Rachel Hartigan Shea on Twitter. 

You Might Also Like 

Study Finds "Extreme" Climate 

Change in National Parks 

Global warming threatens visitor experience and national 

treasures, scientists say. 

U.S. Creates Largest Protected 

Area in the World 

White House announces expansion of national 

monument around remote Pacific islands. 

http://ncws natiomllgoographic.comr. llm\-stonc-calilOmia-unitcd-statcs/')rptrcgcta=rcg_ t'rcc _np&!1Jlrt.>gcmnpaign=20! 50 l2 _invitation_ro _ a\l[3/27/20 15 6:37: 10 AMJ 
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crandall. 

Ms. Pierno, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THERESA PIERNO, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. PIERNO. Thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member Cantwell and Committee members. It really is an honor to be here 

today representing the National Park Conservation Association. 

I work for the National Parks Conservation Association which as 

many of you know was established in 1919. So we’ll be celebrating 

our Centennial in just three short years after the National Park 

Service. And we are certainly a leading voice and a nonpartisan 

voice to protect and strengthen our nation’s historic and natural 

and cultural heritage. 

We appreciate the many opportunities that we’ve had to work 

with the Committee and certainly to work with the members, as 

well as our coalition partners. We just submitted an updated letter 

that is our most recent effort to support this very important legislation. 

We do believe that this bill transcends political, partisan and ideological considerations and it really is a historic opportunity with 

the Centennial to really, truly celebrate the magnificence of our 

National Parks. By enacting the Centennial you’ll help ensure that 

these places will endure with improved fiscal health for the next 

century. 

We are certainly grateful for your efforts as well as Ranking 

Member Cantwell to protect the Parks with the maintenance backlog by working to ensure that both the energy and the Sportsmen’s 

bill secure funding for high priority, deferred maintenance projects. 

We believe that is very critical. 

The funding proposed in this bill will supplement critically needed revenue in the appropriations and transportation bills, and 

we’re grateful that the transportation bill just passed and it includes an increase for park transportation infrastructure. 

While we recognize that these bills are not within your jurisdiction we would ask this Committee to encourage and to emphasize 

your support to members of those relevant committees and jurisdiction. 

We also recognize that ensuring national priorities receive the 

funding they need and deserve during these austere times is very 

difficult. The Centennial bill seeks to develop a more sustainable 

funding model for the National Parks and Congress can demonstrate that our parks are a priority for the next 100 years by 

supporting this grand and useful effort. 

We recognize that identifying offsets, particularly these days, is 

very difficult but we respectively encourage you to do your best to 

identify any permanent funding that can support the important 

proposals in this bill. There are various versions of the Centennial 

legislation now circulating and I’d like to mention just a few things 

so that we have, we believe, that they all have in common and that 

are most important. 

First is the National Park Centennial Challenge. Initially proposed by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne during the Bush Administration, this proven public/private partnership will leverage 
36 

additional public investments for needed National Park projects 

and programs including the maintenance backlog projects. As the 

Director can attest, that effort ten years ago was very successful 

and in part by providing the tremendous incentive of matching 

Federal dollars. And thanks to the support of the appropriators the 

effort this past Fiscal Year has also proven successful. Formally establishing the program for a specific period of years with a stable 

stream of funding will allow the private philanthropic sector added 

time and the certainty that they need to raise the private matching 

funds. 

In 2008 NPCA convened the Second Century Commission which 

was charged with developing the 21st century vision for the National Park System. Distinguished members included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. One of the Commission’s recommendations was the creation of the National Parks Endowment. 

So we are very pleased to see that the endowment concept has been 

included in the Centennial proposal. 

We recommend that to ensure the long term viability of an endowment that the percentage of withdrawn funds each year should 

be comparable to other endowments in the five-percent range. 

We also support provisions to enhance education and volunteerism in the parks and encourage their inclusion in any final 

bill. 

In closing, passage of a strong, bipartisan Centennial bill that 

can supplement critical investments in transportation bill and the 

Fiscal Year ’16 Omnibus and future appropriations bills can ensure 

our national parks are prepared to serve the American people and 

the world for another 100 years and beyond. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pierno follows:] 
37 

Statement of Theresa Pierno, 

President & CEO 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

On S. 2257, National Park Service Centennial Act 

December 8, 2015 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the 

committee, [am Theresa Piemo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). On behalf of our more than one 

million members and supporters across the country, [thank you for inviting me to 

testify today at this important hearing. Founded in 1919, NPCA is the leading, 

independent, private citizen voice in support of promoting, protecting and 

enhancing America's national parks for present and future generations. 

First, we would like to thank you, Senators Murkowski and Cantwell, for your 

efforts to address the National Park Service's funding needs including your 

commitment to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and create a 

new fund to address the National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog. 

Both are important to provide long term protection and enhance visitor experiences 

in America's national parks. We can't thank you enough for stepping up to address 

these critically important issues. 

We are looking forward to discussing the Administration's bill to enhance the 

National Park System just in time for the Centennial. NPCA supports S. 2257, The 

National Park Service Centennial Act, and would like this bill to be a critical 

component of the now bicameral and bipartisan effort to pass legislation that will 

address many funding needs facing the National Park Service. We sincerely hope 

Congress can agree to a set of policies to significantly address the fiscal needs of 

the parks, as well as help connect a new, diverse generation to our national 

treasures. Now is the time to reinvest in our national parks and support "America's 

best idea." 

NPCA is particularly supportive of provisions that have the potential to provide 

significant additional resources for our national parks, including the Centennial 

Challenge Fund that leverages federal dollars in order to maximize non-federal, 

private sources of funds. In addition, we support the establishment of-and 

777 6th Street, NW, Su1te 700 I Washmgton, DC 20001·3723 l P 202.223.6722 1 F 202.872.0960 npca.org 
38 

investment in-an endowment to provide a path toward improved long-term fiscal 

health of our national parks. 

NPCA is a member of the National Parks Second Century Action Coalition, a large 

and diverse coalition of conservation, tourism, business, and others, that support 

the concepts in this testimony. The coalition has weighed in with this committee 

numerous times to emphasize our strong support for this effort. 

Centennial Opportunity 

The 2016 Centennial of the National Park Service is an opportunity transcending 

partisan, regional and ideological differences for everyone in Congress to come 

together to do something very positive and historic for America that future 

generations can look back and be proud. Protecting our national investment 

requires a new dedication to the parks by Congress, and the Centennial is an 

historic opportunity for Congress to find common ground to provide needed 

resources for our national parks. 

The concept of what Wallace Stegner appropriately called "America's Best Idea" 

started with the establishment of the first national preserve for the enjoyment of the 

American people at Yosemite during the height of the Civil War. This was 

followed by the designation of Yellowstone, the world's first national park, in 

1872. In 1916, President Wilson signed the bill establishing the National Park 

Service. Now nearly 100 years later, our nation has invested in these beloved 

American treasures that are the envy of many throughout the world. Our National 

Park System includes unforgettable natural treasures and recreational resources like 

Yosemite, Denali, Olympic and the Great Smoky Mountains; hallowed ground like 

Gettysburg and Fort Sumter; important landmarks commemorating and interpreting 

our nation's triumphs and tragedies, trom the Manhattan Project to the Trail of 

Tears. 

These are all places with almost universal public support recognizing them as 

nationally significant and worthy of protection for the current and future 

generations. National parks retell the stories of our ancestors while also providing a 

space for inspiration and renewal. They also create lifetime memories for families 

and friends. 

In addition to their intrinsic benefits, national parks are also huge economic assets 

and job producers for local communities and for our national recreation and 

tourism economies. Areas within the National Park System are key contributors to 

a $646 billion outdoor recreation economy, providing nearly $30 billion in direct 

economic benefits, as well as nearly a quarter of a million jobs, annually. Our 

national parks are investments worth preserving and bolstering. 

Polling that NPCA and National Park Hospitality commissioned with Hart 

Research Associates and Northstar Opinion Research in 2012 indicated that public 

attitudes about our national parks are extraordinarily supportive. Ninety-tive 

777 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 j Washington, DC 20001~3723 I P 202.223,6722 ! F 202.872.0960 l npca.org 
39 

percent ofvoters~including 98% of Democrats, 91% of Republications, and 93% 

of Independents~ believe the protection of our national parks is an appropriate 

role for the federal government. Additionally, 92 percent of those polled also stated 

that park funding should not be cut. The polling experts indicated that national 

parks are unique in their bipartisan support and for bipartisan action. 

NPCA and our partners are enthused about this bill that is so critical to supporting 

national parks because it helps address their considerable financial challenges. 

U nderinvestment 

We would be remiss not to acknowledge that for decades now, Congress has 

largely underinvested in our national parks. In today's dollars, the funding to 

operate the National Park Service has decreased by 7% ($178 million) in five 

years, leading to insufficient rangers and other staff to educate visitors and protect 

resources. In addition, the National Park Service's construction budget has declined 

by 62% ($230 million) over the last decade in today's dollars. These reductions, as 

well as an insufficient investment in national park roads and other transportation 

infrastructure through the transportation bill, have significantly contributed to 

growing deferred maintenance backlog. 

Although funding is insufficient, the investments we have made in our parks over a 

century are quite significant. We still see the success of investments made during 

the Great Depression through the Civilian Conservation Corps with many of the 

roads, bridges, trails and other facilities in our national parks and a legacy left that 

continues to benefit millions of visitors today. To commemorate the so'h 

anniversary of the National Park Service, the Eisenhower Administration launched 

Mission 66, a commitment of $1 billion to improve visitors services through 

infrastructure projects including visitor centers, roads, utilities, and employee 

housing. The $1 billion initiative that President Eisenhower launched is worth more 

than $7 billion in today's dollars. Many of these 50-year old facilities are in need of 

repair and updating for today's visitors. 

Reinvestment in our National Parks 

The George W. Bush Administration recognized the importance of providing a 

robust core operating budget to preserve our national parks and their assets and in 

2008 proposed an additional $100 million per year in discretionary funding over 

ten years. That effmt produced important and necessary investments for the 

following three years, but then stalled. Since then, all the gains made in those three 

years have largely disappeared, which drove the Obama Administration to propose 

a budget that would begin to retake that lost financial ground. The omnibus 

appropriations bill and transportation bill currently under consideration are 

immediate opportunities to bolster the funding parks so desperately need. The 

investments proposed in this bill are critical to supplementing appropriations and 

transportation funding, but should by no means be used to supplant current funding 

streams. 

777 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 ! Washington, DC 20001~3723 ! P 202.223.6722 ! F 202.872.0960 ! npca.org 
40 

NPCA is particularly supportive of the funding provisions inS. 2257 that have the 

potential to provide significant additional resources for our national parks as well 

as provisions that clarify, strengthen and expand authorities to better connect a 

new, diverse generation to our national treasures. I would like to focus on the 

following provisions: 

Centennial Challenge Fund 

NPCA strongly supports the establishment of a Centennial Challenge Fund, an 

innovative program that offers matching federal dollars to encourage private 

individuals, foundations, businesses and others to donate funds to help restore and 

improve our national parks. The Bush Administration originally proposed this 

concept, in addition to the proposed discretionary investment above, to leverage 

private dollars with federal investments over 10 years. With the original 

announcement of the program, the Department of the Interior received pledges 

exceeding $300 million from non-federal parties, demonstrating the significant 

public interest in, and potential for, such a partnership program. The initial 

investment in the program, which stalled with the change in administration, yielded 

approximately $90 million--including nearly $40 million in federal commitments 

that leveraged nearly $50 million from nonfederal sources in fiscal years 2008 and 

20 !0. This investment-though far short of the proposed $2 billion partnershipsupported centennial projects that educated and engaged youth and restored park 

trails and historic buildings. 

As a start in FY15, Congress provided a $10 million reinvestment in the Centennial 

Challenge in discretionary funding which was matched by $16 million in private 

contributions. Over 100 projects were selected throughout the country for 

maintenance needs and to engage youth. 

Examples of projects funded by the Challenge since FY 2008 include: 

1. Grand Teton National Park: Funding helped repair a historic retaining wall, 

trail segments and two heavily used bridges in the Hidden Falls and 

Inspiration Point areas on the Jenny Lake Trail. Total cost: $206,000; 

partner match: 50%. 

2. Yosemite National Park: Funding will improve hydrology related to roads 

and trails to benetit the giant sequoias; modify the Mariposa Grove Road 

near the south entrance to enhance safety and traffic flow; add new 

accessible parking spaces; provide two miles of new pedestrian trail; and 

restore nearly four acres of giant sequoias and wetland habitats. Total cost: 

$5.1 million; partner match: 80%. 

3. Yellowstone National Park: Funding helped restore and enhance the 

original and only year-round entrance to the world's first national park by 

improving walkways, reducing traffic congestion and updating signs. Total 

cost: $2 million; partner match: 75%. 

4. Boston National Historical Park: Funding completed the critically-needed 

777 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 ! Washington, DC 20001-3723 I P 202.223.6722 ! F 202.872.0960 ! npca.org 
41 

restoration of wooden cupola sections of the Old State House, replaced 

outdated heating and cooling systems, and provided handicap accessibility 

to the building. Total cost: $1.4 million; partner match: 50%. 

5. Cuyahoga Valley National Park: Funding built the park's first off-road, 

single-track bicycle and hike traiL This trail, called the East Rim Trail, is 

part of a network of major regional bicycle and hiking trails for the public 

to enjoy. Total cost: 382,000; partner match: 52% 

The proposal being considered today would establish this program over three years. 

Providing a dedicated funding stream would allow partners additional time and 

certainty to raise the matching funds. We support using the proposed increase in 

the senior pass from a $10 lifetime pass to an $80 lifetime pass to seed the 

Centennial Challenge Fund. This is in line with the current price of the annual 

America the Beautiful Pass, but the senior pass would remain a lifetime pass. 

In addition to this funding source, we encourage the committee to continue to 

investigate additional revenue sources to more robustly invest in the Centennial 

Challenge Fund over the three years or extend the life of the Centennial Challenge 

program over ten years at a smaller amount. We recognize that these are austere 

times and that identifying offsets can be very difficult, but establishing dedicated 

funding would make a final centennial bill considerably more robust and effective. 

Based on the broad support among American voters for park funding that we cited 

earlier in this testimony, NPCA believes the public would enthusiastically support 

such funding. 

National Park Foundation Endowment 

NPCA also supports an endowment to provide long term financial support for the 

national parks by investing monetary gifts and other contribntions to be used in the 

future for projects and activities that support the national parks. In 2008, NPCA 

convened an independent, blue ribbon commission of park experts to develop a 21 "' 

century vision for the National Park System. One of the commission's 

recommendations was to create a national parks endowment. 

We recommend that to ensure the long-term viability of an endowment, the 

percentage of withdrawn funds to be used in a given year should be comparable to 

other endowments. The corpus of the endowment needs time to build, so the 

amount removed on a yearly basis should be minimal. Therefore, the endowment is 

not a viable solution to addressing the backlog in the near term. However, an 

endowment could be particularly well-suited to address other needs down the road, 

such as investments in science, education and interpretation, and resource 

protection. 

Second Century Infrastructure Fund 

777 6th Street. NW, Suite 700 l Washington. DC 20001·3723 ! P 202.223.6722 F 202.872.0960 I npca.org 
42 

NPCA also supports the proposed Second Century Infrastructure Fund, a critically 

needed mandatory investment of $300 million a year for three years to directly 

address the most critical non-transportation-related projects in the $11.5 billion 

deferred maintenance backlog. 

As this committee has recognized, an infrastructure fund is needed to more 

significantly address the backlog. In this bill, we wholeheartedly support the 

proposal to provide it with certainty through a mandatory funding stream. 

We are all aware that approximately $2 billion is needed to address the critical nontransportation projects in the National Park System. These are projects in desperate 

need of repair, as they impose a risk to public safety and health and are essential for 

resource protection and preservation. Examples are roof, water treatment 

infrastructure, and bridge repair. 

Education and Interpretation 

NPCA supports efforts to recognize the importance of national parks as places of 

learning by enhancing interpretation and education programs. The national parks 

serve as some of the best places for active learning from being engrossed in lessons 

about our nation's history as well as about our natural landscapes and ecosystems 

within. 

NPCA also supports efforts to provide additional opportunities for volunteers in 

our nation's treasures. The National Park Service depend on volunteers to help 

protect and restore our national parks. Some financial resources are needed to 

educate and manage this large and growing number of volunteers. 

Public Land Corps Amendments 

NPCA also supports amendments to The Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to 

increase the eligibility of youth, including veterans, to participate in the Public 

Lands Corp and extend non-competitive hiring status to fonner Public Land Corps 

members to two years. The National Park Service has seen significant savings from 

the use of conservation corps for various projects. Given the ability of such 

strategies to stretch scarce dollars, this will allow the national parks to foster 

additional support and engage additional young Americans to be the next 

generation of stewards to our national lands. 

Conclusion 

Today, the National Park Service budget is ll!51

h of one percent of the federal 

budget. In 1981, it was ll81

h of one percent. Congress and the Administration 

should be investing in things that produce jobs and help our economy, and enhance 

our quality of life. National parks are such investments. 

777 6th Street. NW, Suite 700 ! Washington, DC 20001~3723 ! P 202.223.6722 j F 202.872.0960 I npca.org 
43 

The Centennial of our National Park Service provides an historic opportunity for 

members of Congress to work together to provide leadership to protect the places 

that truly constitute the best that America has to offer. We appreciate the dedicated 

efforts of Senators Murkowski, Cantwell, Portman and other committee members 

and their staff to finding bipartisan solutions to address the fiscal needs of our 

national parks. 

Passage of a bipartisan centennial bill coupled with additional investments through 

appropriations and transportation bills, will ensure our parks are better prepared to 

serve another 100 years and beyond. We look forward to working with members of 

the committee and its House counterpart to ensure final passage of a bipartisan 

National Park Service Centennial Bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

777 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-3723 l P 202.223.6722 l F 202.872.0960 j npca.org 
44 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Pierno. 

Thank you all for your testimony this morning. 

I would like to start my questions off by focusing on some of the 

funding proposals and the alternatives that are contained within 

the proposal. 

Director Jarvis, as I look at this it appears that there are four new types of funds in your proposal plus the $900 million for the 

NPS construction account. I guess I am looking at them and see 

that the funds, essentially, do the same thing. They are just funded 

in slightly different ways. So the question to you to start off is why 

do we need to have so many funds? Should we be focusing in one 

area more directly? I would like to get to the issue of, for instance, 

the lodging fees and discussion about that but also the endowment. 

So again, you have four funds all taking you to the same place. 

Why do you need that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Chairwoman, that’s a great question. It 

is a little complicated the way it’s been laid out. 

I think when you look at the needs of the National Park Service, 

particularly an infrastructure standpoint, there are assets which, I 

believe, are inherently a Federal responsibility and I could probably never raise money for a waste water treatment plant or a 

water line, a potable water line, like at the Grand Canyon. I cannot 

go out and raise philanthropic dollars to fix that. 

Then there are projects like, you know, the repair of the Iwo 

Jima Memorial where David Rubenstein stepped up and gave us $5 

million to fix that. 

So you separate those out and think about there’s a set of 

projects with the Centennial Challenge where the skin in the game, 

as Will indicates, we could put up money from the Federal side and 

get a match or even better than one to one match to fix projects 

that are of high profile. 

Then there are a larger subset of projects that we are requesting 

the $300 million for multiple years that are really just, sort of, 

basic responsibilities of infrastructure needs of the National Park 

Service which we have an aging infrastructure. 

And then there’s, you know, the promotion of the Find Your Park 

campaign is impacting all of the land management agencies. So 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and BLM as well are 

all seeing increases in the recreational use on those lands as well. 

So we felt that the campaign really is a big tent for everybody. So 

there’s an opportunity there. 

And then the fourth category is really about new revenue sources 

with the increase in the Senior Pass and then a lodging tax gives 

us an opportunity to utilize those funds very effectively in, sort of, 

new ways in leveraging those. 

So you’re really looking at four different categories of funds that 

can be applied to these issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask about the lodging fees. 

Looking at how it is structured, it seems to function more like 

a Federal tax. You have a situation now where in many of our 

parks our overnight visitors are already paying local and state 

taxes as well as perhaps other fees on their lodging. It is my understanding that visitors pay an 11 percent tax on lodging in Yosemite. If you are looking at adding another five percent in certain 
45 

areas, I think you are going to have folks look at that and say that 

is a little bit more than they are willing to do. 

I will direct my next question both to you, Director Jarvis, as 

well as Ms. Pierno. What percentage of parks have local taxes and 

fees that are added on to the cost of lodging at overnight accommodations within the parks? And is this going to be something that 

is going to have an impact on individual’s desires to come and utilize our parks or is it going to be just what people accept as the 

price of using our parks? 

Director, I will start with you, and then Ms. Pierno. I would also 

welcome Mr. Shafroth or Mr. Crandall to respond. I think, Mr. 

Shafroth, you suggested that the lodging fees were reasonable but 

I would like to hear comments from all of you on it. 

Mr. JARVIS. I’ll keep my response short. 

We’ve been reaching out, sort of a data call, to all of our parks. 

We don’t have a centralized data base on this on who is collecting 

additional taxes on top of it, and I honestly don’t have the hard 

data. I’ll follow up with you on which of the individual hotels are 

collecting what would be considered a tourism tax. 

Mr. JARVIS. It’s common practice across the country for a tourism 

tax to be layered on top of a hotel. If you go to New York City, it’s 

$25 or whatever on top of existing taxes. And that money is usually 

pooled for, specifically for things like marketing. That’s our suggestion here. 

The bill says up to five percent, and I think we’d have to think 

about, you know, how to apply that percentage. It would not be a 

straight across the board. We would look at each individual hotel/ 

lodging unit to determine how appropriate that would be applied. 

If it’s already being collected obviously we wouldn’t be doing that 

as well. 

So that’s the way we would apply it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. Pierno. 

Ms. PIERNO. So those proposes of five percent lodging and camping fee be charged for each person which actually would bring in 

about or actually less than $12.5 million annually. So it’s a relatively small amount. And there are other recommendations as 

well. 

And I think it’s important for the Committee to look at all of 

these fee opportunities. There have been suggestions about increasing and creating a dollar Centennial fee at the gate because, you 

know, as you know many of the parks do not even charge an entrance fee so then there’s that issue as well. 

And it’s very difficult on the camping fee side to actually be able 

to implement this given just the structure and the camping facilities. 

But I think it is important to really analyze the fee structures 

and to look at where it makes sense and where there’s a possibility 

to increase it because I think at this point, given the severe funding needs for the National Parks, we need to look at all of these 

different areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Quick comments, Mr. Shafroth? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Yes, Madam Chair. 
46 

I would agree with Director Jarvis on this. I think we need to, 

first of all, in order to have a better understanding of exactly where 

the existing fees are already being applied. We don’t want to do 

something that’s going to drive down demand for the lodging and 

other facilities, obviously. And if they’re already being applied, as 

Jon said, that we would not want to impose an additional fee on 

top of that. 

My sense is that in some places though the demand is fairly elastic and there may be an opportunity to provide some measure of 

an increase. 

And I guess the last thing I would say is that I agree with Theresa as well that this isn’t—there isn’t a silver bullet here. We need 

to look at a broad diversity of options in order to, kind of, raise sufficient funding to meet the opportunities that the Centennial Challenge suggests. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRANDALL. Madam Chair, we are the people who collect the 

fees and we can tell you that an overwhelming majority of the hotels/lodges that are in National Parks are subject to various tourism taxes. So I think we’re going to find that this is a duplicative 

tax. 

Our worry is that it goes against the basic philosophy of trying 

to invite personal support for National Parks. And rather than find 

a situation, I’m flying to Denver. I’m going to be renting a car. I’m 

paying $10 a day for the car, but by the time I pay for all of the 

taxes I’ll be paying $32 a day for that car. 

We don’t want that to happen. We already have, I can tell you 

with the National Park Concessions, we have utility pass throughs. 

We have state and local sales taxes and we have hotel tourism 

taxes on most of these. This is not a deal breaker but I would suggest that it’s going after a small percentage of park users and that 

number of overnight stays is already down 17 percent. I’m not sure 

that’s what we want to do is focus on a declining market. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, thank you to the witnesses today. I get excited just talking about this subject because it reminds me of my own personal 

experiences and how treasured the Northwest Parks are and how 

iconic they are to, not just our state, but the nation. Anything we 

can do to enhance them, I think, is important. 

I think we could have this discussion for hours and hours and 

hours today with many of my colleagues on this Committee because 

they, too, have great outdoor environments in their state or they 

wouldn’t be sitting here and they, too, want the public to utilize 

them to the greatest extent possible. 

I guess I wanted to start with you, Secretary Jarvis. I definitely 

have a lot of questions similar to what Senator Murkowski was 

asking, particularly as it relates to concessions. But I’m trying to 

start at just a higher level here because I think one of the things 

that I see in this recent effort, if I am looking at charts and numbers correctly, is that in 2014 we really are seeing a record number 

of visitors. 
47 

[The information referred to follows:] 
Recreation Fees($ Millions) 

FY2006 136 

FY 2007 166 

FY 2008 173 

FY 2009 171 

FY2010 169 

FY2011 172 

FY 2012 179 

FY 2013 178 

FY 2014 185 

FY2015 230 

-

---····-·· 

TOTAL 1,759 
49 

That is great news. 

So this whole effort of talking more about the parks and using 

these tools and getting out there and using the Centennial as a opportunity to really advertise our parks. It has been a great asset. 

It looks to me that we’ve had somewhere between 10 to 20 more 

million users of our parks. 

If you look at your past analysis and studies, even a day visitor generates somewhere between $70 and $80 depending on whether 

they are in state local user or traveling outside the area. Someone 

who is an overnight visitor, either inside or outside the park, generates somewhere between $300 and $600 of economic impacts. 

So my fundamental question is, when we look at the vision of the 

parks for the next whatever timeframe, and clearly we want the 

next Centennial to be robust, what are we doing to really set a vision about what goals we have? 

My key focus is how do we get more, not just utilization, but how 

do we do a better job using the tools of an information age to advertise the ability of our parks and to say that, if these are the 

numbers, we are going to make a lot of impact that we can roll 

back into the improvements we see just by increasing the awareness and attention of the parks. So if we can go from 2013 to where 

we are in 2014, that is a huge, huge increase and something that 

says to me that we ought to be mindful about what our vision is. 

So, Director Jarvis, if you have some comments about park utilization and visitorship? Should that be part of our goals or should 

we at least have a target that we are interested in? And how does 

that affect what we want to do as far as revenue? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator. 

We are on a record pace. Let me put 292 million visitors in perspective, what that is. That’s more than all of Disney, all of national football, all of national basketball, all of national baseball, 

all of hockey and soccer combined. And we operate that with a 

budget that’s approximately the same as the city of Austin, Texas. 

Senator CANTWELL. I would say the mental well-being of the 

after effect of the parks versus a game, particularly if we are not 

successful. [Laughter.] 

Is much higher. 

Mr. JARVIS. So we are on a record pace as a result of the campaign. There are a lot of factors that affect visitation. The economic 

benefits, unlike so many other things that we do in this nation, 

these economic benefits are local to the gateway communities as 

people buy supplies, stay in the hotels, buy gas and other. So it’s 

a distributed economic benefit. 

In many cases communities live and die on that visitation to 

these parks and we work in partnership with the private sector 

communities as well. 

I think the future of the National Park system is going to be dependent on, somewhat of a new financial model, to be very blunt 

about it. Fees are going to be a part of that. 

As visitation increases we do get new fee monies, and we are proposing some new revenue sources as a part of our fee structure. It’s 

going to be based on philanthropy. 

And there, certainly, we can demonstrate with leverage funds 

like the Centennial Fund, to leverage philanthropic support. It’s 
50 

going to be based on corporate sponsorships. And we’ve certainly 

gone down that path, I think, very smartly with the National Park 

Foundation where we have premier sponsors that are willing to put 

up their support directly for projects as well as promotion and marketing of the National Parks. 

We’re also promoting international tourism which is brand new 

dollars to the nation, working with Brand USA. And we’ll be 

launching the new IMAX promotional film, Around the World, in 

February 2016 as a part of the Centennial as well. 

But there’s also a requirement for appropriations to cover the basics of operation and facilities. And I think this combination is really going to be the key to responding to the growth in visitation in 

our second century. 

Senator CANTWELL. Did anybody else want to comment on that? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Sure, Senator. 

Senator CANTWELL. Particularly on increasing visitors as part of 

a goal or part of a narrative of the opportunity juxtaposed to other 

sources of funding? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Yes, Senator Cantwell. 

Will Shafroth. 

We are working closely with the Park Service on something 

called the Find Your Park campaign which is an effort to engage 

the next generation of visitors to the National Parks. So it’s not 

just how but which sector. 

And we discovered, through a lot of research, that the millennial 

generation is not terribly engaged in our National Parks, the 20 to 

35 year olds. So we have developed a national campaign, public 

awareness campaign to go after, in a way, those people in our society so that as they come of age they come to appreciate and enjoy 

the National Parks just as, frankly, people in our demographic 

have. 

And so, we have had, this has been ongoing now for about a year. 

We have raised $45 million in corporate to support the Find Your 

Park campaign, and we have three and a half billion media impressions and have engaged celebrities to speak directly to the 

millennials and Latinos, African Americans and other communities 

because without their engagement of sport we will not have the increased interest and growth in visitorship and interest in the National Parks. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Portman, thank you for your leadership on not only National Parks generally and your involvement but what you are trying to do to build out the next 100 years. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your 

strong support of our efforts and this is an exciting opportunity for 

all of us. It only comes around once every hundred years, so we 

have to take advantage of it, right? 

It is a treasure, and I think everybody has agreed with that this 

morning. It is also, I think as Senator Cantwell has said, a brand 

and a darn good one. I am looking forward to working with Senator 

Cantwell on legislation that we can agree to on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to not just to celebrate 100 years but actually help 
51 

the Park Service to be able to set out on its next 100 years in better shape. 

So I am excited about this. I do think we have enormous challenges on the fiscal side, and I think the legislation that the Administration set up is not going to make any progress because it 

is just $1.5 billion. It is hardly paid for. 

I think everything we talked about here today, some tough 

things, some things Mr. Crandall said he is not even in support of 

that we are talking about is well, probably $40, $50 million out of 

the $1.5 billion. So we have a big challenge. We have to acknowledge that. 

The good news is visitation is up 4.5 percent in 2015 I am told. 

Is that about right? These numbers are amazing, 292 million visitors and what that compares to. I am glad you talked about that, 

Director Jarvis. 

But let’s face it, appropriations have gone up since 2006 to 2015 

from 2.25 to 2.61. Adjusted to inflation that is a 0.2 percent decline. During that time 18 new park units have been established 

by Congress and by the Administration through Executive action. 

We keep expanding what we are asking you to do, Director Jarvis, and yet, not providing the funding. I think that is one of the 

things we have to do as we look forward. 

I was on the Commission, as you know, to look at the Centennial, 

and that is one thing that I pushed a lot was we need to figure out 

a way to steward what we have more efficiently. If we keep adding, 

keep telling them to do more without providing more funding, then 

all of the units end up having these maintenance backlog problems 

and decline. So we have got a big challenge here. 

I am most excited, as you know, about the Centennial Challenge 

and generally the idea of matching. I am excited about the endowment idea. I am excited about using that brand that Senator Cantwell talked about to get more private sector involvement, more visitors. I think this is where we ought to be really focused, and I do 

think there is an opportunity. 

I was on B, Director, as you know, when we proposed the Centennial Challenge. People were talking about it, and the panel was 

saying this was great. We actually never enacted most of it, as you 

know. So there is an opportunity now to go back and look ten years 

ago at what were we talking about and how can we put some of 

these things in place. 

So I guess my questions would focus on that. Mr. Shafroth, you 

talked about the endowment idea, if you could talk a little about 

your proposal there? I think the Administration’s proposal would 

allow the National Park Service to expend up to 50 percent of the 

funds received in a given year. What is your opinion on the spend 

rate? How does it compare to other comparable private sector endowments? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

We actually think that this ought to be more in line with traditional university endowments and foundation endowments which 

foundation endowments only have a minimum spend of five percent 

per year. And that’s probably more in line with what we think 

would be appropriate. 
52 

I don’t know that we ought to put a floor or a ceiling on it exactly. But I think that five percent is about the right number given, 

you know, over time you might be able to earn five to eight percent 

per year and to spend five percent of that would maintain that endowment for permanent spending. So that would be our suggestion 

on that. 

Senator PORTMAN. How much money can you get from the private sector? 

I mean you guys raise private funds. We have also got the 

friends groups out there who do terrific work including in my home 

State of Ohio. We have got a lot of, as Director Jarvis said, some 

sort of, one off philanthropic efforts that are really impressive. You 

mentioned Iwo Jima. 

But how much do you expect the private sector will contribute 

to this endowment if it was able to get up and going? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. It’s a good question, Senator Portman. 

Our fundraising has gone up fairly dramatically in the last couple years averaging in the 20’s for many years. In 2014 we were 

up to more than $45 million, this last year about $80 million. We 

expect to exceed $100 million in the current Fiscal Year we’re in. 

The friends groups around the country are raising—— 

Senator PORTMAN. So you are telling me that you all are seeing 

an increase over the last—— 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Absolutely, we’re seeing a dramatic increase in 

interest by individuals, families, foundations, corporations. It’s unprecedented the level of interest in the parks right now, and I 

think largely capitalizing on the excitement around the Centennial 

and this broader, Find Your Park campaign that we have. 

Senator PORTMAN. I think you also, thanks to Director Jarvis 

and all the partners here, you kind of, reconstituted what the 

Foundation does and how it is structured. I think that has made 

a difference too. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Exactly. 

Senator PORTMAN. And we should acknowledge that. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Exactly. 

Senator PORTMAN. So I think there is great potential. 

Let me just end with one thing, if I could, and that is at our 

great park which is one of the top ten in the country in visitation, 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park. It is a suburban park in a sense 

between Akron and Cleveland. 

I was just there again this fall. It is a beautiful place. We have 

had 3,500 kids a week in these programs that are educational programs for the park. It has become a part of the core curriculum of 

most of the schools in Northeast Ohio. It has helped us reach out 

to underserved communities. It has helped us to do a lot innovative 

programs in the Cleveland area. A lot of it has been supported by 

the private sector so the philanthropic dollars have gone into this, 

and I think that is a great opportunity. 

And then second is the volunteers. I mean, you think about it, 

it is about dollars, it is also about people. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park has grown its volunteer program now to 5,900 volunteers, 200,000 hours annually and this includes some corporations 

who contribute time and effort, but it is just a lot of families and 

kids. So I think these are the kinds of things that have enormous 
53 

potential, and I have seen it work in my own State of Ohio in the 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Jarvis, I want to start by asking you to kind of put the 

park backlog that people have been talking about into context, particularly with an eye toward the lion’s share of those needs that are 

really Federal road and transportation costs that happen to cited 

in our National Parks. So can you step back a little bit and just 

give us the overall park backlog that people cite? How much of that 

is actually road and transportation costs? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

So the total maintenance backlog currently stands at a little over 

$11 billion. About half of that are roads and bridges the, sort of, 

transportation infrastructure of the National Parks. And these are 

Federal roads that go into the Sun Highway, you know, the Loop 

Road in Yellowstone, the roads in Mt. Rainier. These are Federal 

roads and the Transportation bill which we hope will be signed 

very soon will provide additional funds. 

Senator HEINRICH. That was actually my follow up was like how 

much of a dent are we going to be able to put in that roads backlog 

with the current Transportation bill? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well the good news is that it does give us continuity 

of funding for five years. It is not enough, but it’s pretty significant. 

It will make a significant dent in our transportation backlog. 

We have some what we call mega projects like Memorial Bridge 

here in Washington, DC which if you commute across you know 

you’ve lost two lanes. I commute across it every day, and it backs 

traffic up. 

We’re doing a, sort of, interim fix. That bridge is probably going to cost $200 million. So you know, our full appropriation for the 

Park Service is about $250 million in the bill, so you know, that 

would sweep at least one full year of the entire project. 

The good news is the bill, as written, will allow us to compete 

for mega projects but we’d be competing with the states so there’s 

not a set asides specifically for the Federal side of the family. But 

I think some of these projects will compete well. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Thank you for touching on that because I think it is a really important context. And certainly we have enormous backlog issues 

that are not transportation related. But when half of your backlog 

is related directly to our inability to adequately fund transportation, I think people need to understand that. 

We have some big park’s backlog issues in New Mexico. Chaco, 

Carlsbad Caverns is a very developed park because of the elevator 

and other unique sort of things that occur when you have a large 

cavern system like that that are not inexpensive to maintain, Bandelier with the flooding, but a big chunk of it, obviously is transportation. 

Mr. Shafroth, I wanted to ask you, S. 2257 calls for the establishment of an endowment to be managed by the National Park Foundation. Can you just tell me why is it important to legislatively es-
54 

tablish an endowment and what specific kinds of programs would 

you expect it to support that are not being met today? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. The importance, Senator Heinrich, for the Congress to establish an endowment officially gives the Congress an 

ability to then deposit funds into those, into that endowment. The 

Foundation can already establish an endowment for monies it 

raised privately but the purpose of this one would be so that you 

all could choose at some point to actually appropriate monies into 

that endowment. 

Then, the reasons, the purposes for which those dollars would be 

used would include things related to improvements to the parks. It 

could be expanding or building trails or renovating buildings or 

something we’re doing right now is helping to make the parks more 

sustainable through establishment of electric vehicle charging stations, for instance, or it could be improving visitor services, doing 

additional science in the parks, improving the digital nature of an 

access of those parks. So it’s a broad diversity of both programs 

and investments in the parks themselves. 

Senator HEINRICH. Do you think, given the very successful 

matches in the last few years from the private sector, that there 

is enough interest with the Centennial to potentially match the 

$100 million investment being proposed here for the course of those 

three years? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Senator Heinrich, absolutely. The combination of 

the National Park Foundation dollars and the funds already raised 

by friends groups exceeds $300 million a year at present. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is incredible. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. So the degree to which the Congress appropriates 

additional monies, my sense is that the philanthropic community 

for parks could raise a lot more money. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for 

your testimony and for your dedication to a national treasure, our 

national parks. 

Director Jarvis, I want to talk about one national park that is 

of great significance to Senator Manchin and I and the nation and 

that is Harper’s Ferry. It is obviously one of the most historically 

significant sites in the country, but it is right in the town. Many 

of you in this room have probably, I hope, visited Harper’s Ferry. 

I am sure you are aware that just recently, on July 23rd, there 

was a fire in the town where some significant buildings, a lot of 

destruction occurred. I would just like to personally thank you on 

behalf of the Park Service for the hard work that they did to try 

to get the Town of Harper’s Ferry back on their feet. 

I think it is interesting to note that Harper’s Ferry has visitors 

in the, I think, 260,000 and visitorship or visitor’s visits are up for 

this coming year. But the town of Harper’s Ferry only has 300 people, so there is a lot of strain between the town and the Park in 

terms of providing services. 

My question is not so much Harper’s Ferry, but is that a frequent model throughout the Park System or is that an unusual 
55 

kind of situation where the town and the park are basically conjoined? 

Mr. JARVIS. It’s a relatively rare model, Senator. I mean there 

are other places, Lowell, Massachusetts being an example of where 

the park is totally integrated with the city. Patterson, one of our 

newest ones, in New Jersey is another one that’s totally integrated 

with the city. I think the relationship there at Harper’s Ferry between the Park and the city is very symbiotic. 

Senator CAPITO. Good, yes. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think they really support each other. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. JARVIS. And, you know, it is a challenge when you get this 

sort of influx, but you know, it’s a good challenge to have. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. JARVIS. For, as you well know, certainly in West Virginia 

and other places there are cities that are struggling to, you know, 

maintain even a basic in terms of their economy. And I think Harper’s Ferry has the advantage that we are there in partnership with 

them. 

Senator CAPITO. Right, thank you. 

We are glad you are there. As I said, it is a crown jewel entrance 

into our state and we are very proud of the work that has done 

there. 

Let me ask another question. I noticed in the bill that we are 

considering you are asking for mandatory funding in several of 

these titles. Do you have a mandatory funding stream right now 

at all? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, we do not. 

Senator CAPITO. You do not. 

And you know, I am sure, that mandatory funding in and of 

itself presents a bit of a challenge, I think. I am on the Appropriations Committee as well so I guess that is a bold ask and I will 

congratulate you for the bold ask on that one. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well the mandatory titles are consistent with the 

Fiscal ’16 Presidential request. So they, sort of, authorized the request as requested from the President for the Park Service’s Centennial. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

A question on the philanthropy. I am kind of wondering between 

an endowment and Centennial Challenge, I know there are friends 

of all the parks, private fundraising. Do you have any concern that 

you could be fragmenting a bit with the donor or are you hoping 

to increase the number of donors by offering other opportunities? 

How do you see that? 

I guess I am worried about dilution in one segment because we 

are going to give to the Centennial Challenge, maybe we will not 

give to the Friends of Harper’s Ferry or the—have you thought 

about that in terms of any kind of conflicts? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Senator Capito, thank you for the question. 

I was actually worried about that. But it’s not been borne out; 

it’s actually been the opposite. And in fact, in the corporate sector 

feeling a whole lot of momentum of other corporate entities wanting to be a part of what’s going on. 
56 

In terms of the individual and family fundraising we’re doing 

we’re just seeing, we’re seeing an uptake across the board, across 

the country in the friends groups as well as with the Foundation. 

And we’re just beginning to build out our plan giving program 

right now. It’s something that has been not very active, but that’s 

a place where we think the endowment funds would actually land 

in most cases. 

And so I feel like, you know, as I said earlier the baby boomer 

generation is getting to the point where they can start, they’re 

going to start giving away a lot more of their money. We are very 

well positioned, at this point, to receive some of that money. And 

I think we’ll be even more, even better positioned if we can have 

some support from the Federal Government to be a match for that. 

Senator CAPITO. Just another quick question. Do you find in your 

fundraising that the givers are more apt to give to a National Park 

sort of fundraising as opposed to maybe West Virginians might 

want to give to Harper’s Ferry or some other, you know, is it a regional give, is it a national give and how do you make that distinction? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. It’s actually a both/and. I think some of the 

things that we’re raising money for, like the Find Your Park campaign, is a national campaign around public awareness. And that 

is coming to us for distribution nationwide. I would say, probably, 

three quarters of the money that is raised philanthropically for the 

National Parks is done by local friends groups. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, okay, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

I was just reminded that when we passed the Helium Stewardship bill some time ago there was mandatory funding for the first 

time, $50 million in that bill. 

Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Next year the National Park Service will be celebrating its Centennial, and I am glad that we are discussing how we can support 

our National Parks for the next 100 years. 

I think a lot of people think of the National Parks as the big 

parks out West and they are great parks, but we have truly exceptional parks in Massachusetts as well. 

My husband, Bruce, and I have hiked Cape Cod National Seashore and parts of the Appalachian Trail. We have toured Lowell’s 

textile mills, Salem’s wharfs, New Bedford’s whaling museum. We 

have taken our children for multiple trips along Boston’s Freedom 

Trail. We have gone to Concord and Lexington where the ‘‘shot 

heard around the world’’ was fired. We have walked just a few 

blocks from our house to visit the Longfellow House and General 

Washington’s Headquarters. So I know how lucky we are to live so 

close to so many national treasures. 

But as we talk about why we need long-term sustainable solutions to fund our Park System, I think it is important also to talk 

about what it would mean for our trails, our seashores, our historic 

parks, that do not always get center stage in these discussions. 

So Director Jarvis, can I start with you? Your agency has proposed a number of options for providing consistent supplemental 

funding for our parks’ needs for the coming decades. What would 
57 

this mean for parks in states like Massachusetts that are a critical 

part of the National Park System but are not the big, expensive 

National Parks out West, expensive, expansive? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator. 

The parks, you know, one of the key elements of the Find Your 

Park campaign is being relevant to all Americans. And as you all 

well know, we are in an increasingly urban society. We’re in an increasingly diverse society. And so, in my view, the parks like Lowell, like Boston Harbor Islands, Cape Cod, you know, Minuteman, 

these are the core to relevancy. They tell the American story. They, 

through place, through the actual places where, you know, the fires 

of democracy burned the hottest. 

And that is how you connect with the next generation. That’s one 

reason we do naturalization ceremonies on the deck of the Constitution and Gettysburg Battlefield. And so I actually believe that 

these parks that celebrate America’s history are some of our greatest investments. They’re also one of the greatest places that we can 

find partnerships to work as well. 

As you probably know for Boston and Harbor Islands, the National Park Service owns one lighthouse and that’s it in terms of 

actual ownership and direct responsibilities and yet we partner 

with the city and the commonwealth to bring visitors out and have 

that experience. So I think these, the parks of the East and the 

Midwest, will compete very, very well for any funding that we get. 

Senator WARREN. Good. 

Ms. Pierno, would you like to add anything to that, briefly? 

Ms. PIERNO. Yes, thank you, Senator. 

In fact an example in your own district in Cape Cod National 

Seashore is the Captain Penniman House that was recently restored with Centennial Challenge funds. And that’s an example 

where a very small unit was able to receive $115,000 and a match, 

Federal Government, and therefore able to do the work. 

What we’ve seen with the Centennial Challenge and the history 

of that has been that the small parks have fared very well. And 

certainly the historic parks are very popular with funders. And so 

we believe that by really building that up and this bill certainly begins to do that we’re going to be more successful in addressing the 

historic in certainly some of the smaller units. 

Senator WARREN. Well I am very, very glad to hear this because 

I do think it is a part of our National Park System that is just critically important. 

If I can I just want to change the subject right here at the end 

for a minute because the National Park Service’s Centennial is not 

the only important anniversary coming up. In just a couple of years 

we will be commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims 

Landing in Massachusetts, and we are already anticipating millions of visitors. Plymouth Rock is on the National Register of Historic Places and celebrations will be taking place all along Cape 

Cod National Seashore. 

Director Jarvis, can I get your commitment to work with me to 

support Plymouth and other Massachusetts communities to make 

sure that we are ready for this historic occasion? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely, Senator. 

We love the—— 
58 

Senator WARREN. That is the best possible answer, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARREN. But you can add to it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARREN. We are going to be there ready to do it? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. 

Senator WARREN. Good. 

Mr. JARVIS. I mean we cycle through these major celebrations of 

the American story. You know, we just came out of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. We had the War of 1812. The landing 

at Plymouth is going to be an incredible opportunity to really tell 

the American experience. 

Senator WARREN. Right. We have not had too many 400 year anniversaries so far yet, so this is going to be a great one. 

Mr. JARVIS. St. Augustine. 

Senator WARREN. I look forward to working with you to make 

this anniversary a special success, and I know people throughout 

Massachusetts are really excited about this upcoming opportunity 

to work with you, so, thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, 

Ranking Member Cantwell, for this very important hearing today. 

And I welcome the witnesses to the Committee and particularly 

Mr. Shafroth, welcome to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

For those of you who do not know, Mr. Shafroth’s family background, of course, is very well connected to the issues that we are 

talking about today. A former United States Senator, his great 

grandfather served in this body and also was instrumental in 

something that we have celebrated thanks to Director Jarvis and 

Mr. Shafroth, as well this past year which was the Centennial celebration for Rocky Mountain National Park. So welcome, Mr. 

Shafroth, to the Committee and Director Jarvis, certainly thank 

you for being at the—I guess we had a jump start on the Centennial celebration of the National Park System by cheating and having Rocky’s celebration this past August. 

But we have a $205 million or so backlog in Colorado’s National 

Parks through the 12 systems that we have and it is a significant 

challenge. If you look at Rocky Mountain National Park the backlog is estimated to be nearly $68 million. We have somewhere in 

the effect last year of about three and a half million visitors to 

Rocky Mountain National Park with $68 million in backlog. 

Then of course, an incredible jewel, the Mesa Verde National 

Park had about half a million visitors but still has nearly as much 

maintenance backlog as Rocky Mountain National Park at around 

$64 million. So these are significant challenges. 

Before I get into any of those challenges though, I want to, hope, 

that we can continue to express this Committee’s support for continued and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). It is legislation that we passed out of this 

Committee and I know there are a number of us who are trying 

to continue to fight for the permanent authorization of LWCF. 
59 

We have the Omnibus Appropriations bill, perhaps the last gasp 

effort this year to place the permanent reauthorization. I hope that 

members will urge leadership to continue to look at that as a possibility. LWCF, obviously, is a critical tool for protecting some of our 

nation’s most cherished lands and vital programs for the future of 

our National Parks. Again, I would just encourage our leadership 

to continue efforts on that. 

Director Jarvis, Colorado National Park properties have about 

six million visitors, and almost half of that, a little over half of 

that, is for Rocky Mountain National Park. In 2013, 5.3 million 

visitors, so we have seen a significant increase this year. They 

spent $330 million in Colorado supporting nearly 5,000 jobs, economic impact totally of about $460 million, nearly half a billion dollars. 

With the Centennial next year Senator Shaheen and I are working on legislation that would really try to get a good understanding 

of the economic benefits of the outdoor recreation economy, the sector that plays such an important role in our public lands. I am 

wondering if you could give us an idea of how a good government 

analysis would show the impact of outdoor recreation assist in correlation between government spending and deferred maintenance 

backlog for parks? How could that help? How could, keeping in 

mind that it takes the Park Service spending nearly $700 million 

per year on deferred maintenance projects to hold the backlog at 

its current level, how could this kind of information help you? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator. 

That’s a great lead in. You know there’s an old adage that says 

whoever makes the economic argument first wins, and I don’t think 

we’ve been particularly articulate about the total economic benefits 

that are derived from the parks. We’re pretty good on the visitation 

side but not great. 

There’s been a fair amount of research in that area. But your legislation with Senator Shaheen’s around being able to carve out the 

contributions of the outdoor recreation economy, being able to be 

articulate about all of the primary and secondary, tertiary benefits 

that roll through the economy as a result of, you know, the outdoor 

retail associations the, you know, travel and tourism, all of that, 

I think there are secondary aspects that we need to also suss out. 

Everything from, you know, the place like Rocky Mountain National Park in its provision for water into the area, sort of ecosystem services. 

All of those things, I think, help us make the argument that the 

National Park System is an investment. It’s not a cost. It is an investment that this country makes, and we derive extraordinary 

benefit throughout society from that investment. 

And so, you as our, you know, appropriators and authorizers 

need to see that as this is something that is worthy of your investment because it gives such great returns economically and socially 

to the nation. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Shafroth. 

Of course the National Park Foundation, if I am not mistaken, 

was a creature of legislation by Congress to create an advisory 

board, people who could look out for the National Parks and sort 

of be the stewards or the guardians of the National Park. I appre-
60 

ciate the work that you are doing with the congressionally-approved efforts for the National Park Foundation. 

We also had another Centennial this past year, by the way, and 

I did not want to forget Dinosaur National Monument as well in 

Colorado. I am starting this whole process, so thank you. 

I wanted to just talk to you a little bit about the LWCF with congressional appropriations issues, difficult budget situations, how 

does the Centennial legislation and looking at the needs of the 

Centennial legislation, how does LWCF though play a role in reducing maintenance costs by easing boundary line management 

issues? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

We’ve actually taken a fairly close look at the issues around park 

inholdings and discovered that in many cases by investing a relatively small amount of money in an inholding you can actually reduce the impact on the management cost by the National Park 

Service on that land because they don’t have to deal with the roads 

leading to and from, the potential incompatible uses that may result from that lot and frankly, the loss of integrity of the park unit 

itself. 

And so, in some cases, by again spending a relatively small 

amount of money that could be derived from LWCF you can actually reduce the cost of managing that park. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thank all 

of you for being here. I do not think that there is not one of us not 

in love with our national parks, and we all have been blessed with 

them and we are going to do all we can to support them. 

I think with that we have a responsibility, and I will start with Mr. Jarvis. How in the world do we get to $11 billion? If we are 

in charge of being good stewards of the taxpayers’ money and all 

of the contributors, how do we get that far behind? 

Mr. JARVIS. So the infrastructure of the National Park System 

was mostly built in the 50’s and 60’s with Federal appropriations. 

So the water treatment, waste water systems—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. JARVIS. All of that basic infrastructure is now pretty old and 

at beyond basically its useable life. 

We, you know, we’re not a taxing authority. We have to come to 

you with our hand out for appropriations to fix those. In fact we 

get about half of what we need annually to just keep up, just to 

keep the basics. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

I can only relate as a former Governor all of my agencies would 

come to me. And they always wanted, they always found the new 

jingle, if you will, and that is where they would rally. They very 

seldom ever took care of the maintenance they had, so I shut everybody down. I said I am not building, not giving you another dime 

until you take care of what you have. And I said, how can I ask 

the people in good faith to continue to invest when you won’t take 

care of what you’ve got? But you always want to expand. 
61 

I was being very hard on them. I made everyone come back and 

make sure their budgets were included in maintenance and then 

also how we would pick up deferred maintenance. 

I would say we either had a wish list, a want list or a neglected 

needs list. I think a lot of your superintendents or your park people, supervisors, I am sure you rate different ones who are doing 

their job better. When you see some of these deficits that are building up and I see some in my parks and I do not have all that many, 

we are so proud of the ones we do have. 

But how they could get $12 or $15 million in deferred maintenance then they have neglected something, I would say. They owe 

me an answer that I can speak to the people about in my state that 

I am saying to all these donors, we need your support. They are 

going to say well we want to know how you are spending your 

money now. Why would I give you more? 

You understand that we have to build the same trust with our 

park system as we do with our government? And we have very little of either one. So I am saying do you think there is a better way? 

Are you looking at targeting something in a different way of how 

we can get more accountability and responsibility from the system 

that we have and how you rate some of your supervisors? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well Senator, I’m going to have to, kind of, strongly 

disagree with your assessment of the situation. 

We have a very robust system to understand our infrastructure. 

The National Park Service has an infrastructure that was given to 

us by this body, by Congress, that’s second only to the Department 

of Defense, in terms of physical infrastructure. We have buildings 

that were homes of Presidents. We have thousands and thousands 

of miles of road and trails. We’re not building anything new. We 

are in a triage situation. I’m not building the visitor centers. I’m 

trying to keep the roofs on the ones I have. 

If you’re park superintendent you get an annual appropriation 

from the Congress. You can’t exercise a tax on anybody. You don’t 

have any other way to generate, other than private philanthropy, 

which you can do for some kinds of projects. You can get volunteers 

but volunteers are not going to fix your waste water treatment 

plant. So these assets over time go into decline and we need to reinvest in them. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are the requests made by your park superintendents basically on what the needs are and we just neglect 

them as a legislative body here and we just neglect that completely 

but they are basically put in the request that you are making for 

the—— 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. 

At the request of this Congress about a decade ago, we put in 

a very, very sophisticated asset management plan. Every park has 

to have an asset management plan. And it takes every physical 

asset, every rest room, every trail, every building and determines 

one, its priority. Is it necessary for visitor experience or is it of historical value? 

So there’s an asset priority. We know its condition. We know 

what it needs to be to be maintained. In some cases, if it’s a low 

asset priority in a bad condition, we tear it down. We have an an-
62 

nual fund, very small, to get rid of assets because we just can’t 

maintain them. 

And we can give you, in excruciating detail, park by park, the 

condition of every asset and its needs. But really our only source 

and we’re putting the vast majority of any of our fee accounts right 

back into these high priority assets. And the priority is health and 

safety right now. We’re in a triage. 

Senator MANCHIN. I think what I am hearing is you, along with 

many citizens of this great country, are saying that we need to do 

our job, get our financial house in order which we have not done. 

I just want to make sure that the responsibility and the accountability from the Department of Parks which we all love and hold 

very dear to us is doing everything they can to continue to have 

the trust of the American people. 

Mr. JARVIS. I would agree. And I would say I’m doing everything 

that this body has asked of me which is increased your fees, increased philanthropy, increased volunteerism. We’re up, we’ve gone 

from 300,000 volunteers to 440,000 volunteers in our system. 

Looked to corporate sponsorships, that is not going to address the 

maintenance backlog. It’s only going to help but ultimately it’s a 

combination of all of those, plus appropriations to really take this 

on. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank Senator Manchin. I was going to follow that 

same line of questioning and start on the deferred maintenance. 

So thank you, Senator Manchin, for your focus on that because 

I think it is critical, $11 billion is something that we need to take 

care of. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. 

Of course, Wyoming has the first National Park in Yellowstone. 

It contributes significantly to our state’s rich heritage as well as to 

our economy. We are grateful for that. 

With this bill, as we have talked about, there are costs. There 

are investments. There is a level of mandatory spending. 

So I would ask you, Director Jarvis, the bill establishes $1.5 billion mandatory spending required to be coupled with an offset to 

make the legislation deficit neutral. Are there places that Congress 

can look within the Department’s budget to find necessary offsets? 

Mr. JARVIS. Senator, I wish I could find that. [Laughter.] 

But I am not empowered to look across the Department’s budget 

for offsets for those funding sources. 

Senator BARRASSO. Title eight of the bill calls for the creation of 

what are called Visitor Services Management Authority. It creates 

pilot programs for future management of contracts. The section 

seems to allow the Park Service unfettered discretion to determine 

the purpose and the scope of the authority. So, kind of, given what 

I believe is some ambiguous language, what does the National Park 

Service hope to achieve through this creation of this Visitor Service 

Management Authority? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Visitor Services Management Authority in this title. 
63 

So currently our commercial operations, guides and outfitters, 

lodging, food and beverage, retail, are all under the umbrella of the 

concessions law. And it has been, it was revised by the Congress 

in the mid 90’s and resolved some long-standing issues. 

We now generate additional funds. We went up from, I think, an 

average of about four percent franchise fees, I think, up to about 

seven percent franchise fees returned to the government on that. 

But unfortunately the law is a one-size-fits-all, and it applies 

unilaterally to concession contracts which are non-negotiable. 

They’re arms length, RFPs, they respond. And let’s say it works in 

some places and doesn’t work in others. 

What we’re asking for is essentially the current concessions law 

plus a new authority to give us some greater, let’s say, opportunity 

to work with the private sector to provide these services in a different way. One would be to be able to just actually negotiate a 

contract where it would make some sense. 

To be able to address and create somewhat of a revolving fund 

so that we can address the physical facilities that have gone into 

decline that provide visitor experience and services as well. 

So and we think that at some point we’re going to want to come 

back to you for amendments to the concessions law. But we don’t 

think we’re quite ready right now to do that. We would like to have 

this authority. Let us experiment with it for a few years. Test it 

out in partnership with the private sector. 

Existing concessioners would not be affected by this and none of 

the existing contracts. And when we look at new contracts that 

come available we would make a call on whether or not to go down 

the VSMA route or the current concessions law and then come back 

to you with some ideas to improve on the existing concessions program. 

The services to the American people in our parks are always 

going to be in partnership with the private sector. 

Senator BARRASSO. I wanted to get to you. I’m running low on 

time. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Crandall about that because in Wyoming, 

Yellowstone National Park is a 20-year contract with a concessioner. You made reference to it in your opening statement. Over 

the 20 years of the contract the concessionaires pledged $200 million as an investment in the park. This investment is certainly a 

welcome one given the deferred maintenance backlog that we have 

been talking about. We heard several times today about the size of 

the backlog. 

In your view should this longer Yellowstone contract serve as a 

model for concessionaire agreements in the future? 

Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, exactly. We believe that the Yellowstone contract provides 

both the incentive for Xanterra to invest in the money plus the advantage to the American public with immediate improved services 

that are amortized over the length of the contract. By the time 

Xanterra’s contract comes to a conclusion in 20 years roughly half 

of their investment will be amortized. And we believe that’s an appropriate way to move ahead. 

I would say that this investment still will only affect about 30 

percent of the available rooms in the National Parks. It will bring 
64 

us back up to the level of visitor housing that once existed in the 

park but does not expand the opportunity which we think is also 

important to consider. 

Senator BARRASSO. So the benefit would be to the visiting public 

as well as to the general taxpayer—so it would be, kind of, a double 

benefit of doing this sort of a project? 

Mr. CRANDALL. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. 

Ms. Pierno, my time is out. You started by saying it is the first 

time you testified to this important Committee. I mentioned to the 

Chairman that the next time you may want to add, consequential, 

powerful, influential and visionary. [Laughter.] 

Ms. PIERNO. Thank you. I’ll make sure I do that, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Jarvis, first I would like to thank you for all of the work 

that the National Park System has done for communities in Hawaii. And recently, of course, working with the county and state to 

build an emergency road through Volcanoes National Park due to 

lava flow that was endangering a community there and then working with the Federal Land Management agencies in selecting Hawaii’s island forests at risk, a proposal to receive the LWCF funding this year which was a really huge effort on the part of two islands in the State of Hawaii to get this proposal higher up on the 

list of priorities. You get how important Hawaii’s ecosystems are, 

and you really understand the unique challenges that we face in 

Hawaii. So thank you very much. 

I note that in the listing of all of the deferred maintenance that 

Hawaii is up there with over $100 million in deferred maintenance. 

I know that as with so many other entities Congress has not 

done its part in providing the resources necessary to keep things 

going, and I certainly understand how it is that we have an $11 

billion backlog. 

Just to clarify for me, you said that we would need something in the order of $700 to $800 million spent every year just to maintain 

the backlog at its current position. So even if we spend this kind 

of money every year, we are still going to have an $11 billion backlog? Is that what you were telling us? 

Mr. JARVIS. The proposal in the President’s Fiscal ’16 budget and 

this, the mandatory appropriation, if all authorized and appropriated for ten years we could bring our high priority, non-road assets to good condition. So we would focus on those assets in the 

parks that are directly related to the visitor experience or are high 

value from a historical standpoint, and we would invest specifically 

in those. It would not eliminate the backlog, but it would fix the 

high priority assets across, along with a multiyear appropriation. 

Senator HIRONO. And then your high priority assets that you are 

going to focus these funds on would also have a huge health and 

safety aspect to it, right, because health and safety should be the 

first priority? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. For your—— 
65 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, Ma’am, absolutely. 

Senator HIRONO. For a maintenance program. 

So this bill establishes various funds or supports various funds, 

programs and accounts. Around the time of the Centennial period 

how important is it that we enact this legislation now as opposed 

to providing these funds and programs and accounts further down 

the road? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well I think as several have said, the Centennial 

only comes once every 100 years, and it’s our opportunity to really 

set the National Parks up, the National Park System up, for its 

second century of stewardship and visitor experience. 

And I think this is the moment in time, in partnership with the 

National Park Foundation, the Hospitality Association and our 

friends groups, we’re drawing the public’s attention to the National 

Parks, to the work of the National Park Service to celebrate in 

many ways who we are as a nation. And I think that it would be 

an extraordinary missed opportunity for the Congress to not take, 

to step up and take advantage of that attention that we are bringing to, you know, there are many things in this nation that divide 

us. The National Parks are one of the things that bring us together. 

Senator HIRONO. I think that is a very good point. 

You indicated that we probably should make some changes to the 

concessions provisions of the law. I am just curious as to the, for 

example, the 20-year concession contract that, Mr. Crandall, you 

pointed to. 

I am curious as to whether or not these kind of longer-term concessions contracts allow for reopening of fee arrangements or whatever these arrangements are even in those contracts, are those— 

are there reopening provisions? 

Mr. CRANDALL. The law is quite clear that there is an opportunity to revisit contracts of that length at some point. 

But the—what we would like to have is a more robust and more 

flexible kind of a basis to regularly look at how the concessioner 

is doing, have a rating other than pass/fail which is how the current system operates, to reward excellence if a concessioner does 

more than is simply required under the contract. If, for example, 

as many of our concessioners are doing, they provide all of the city 

kids of Charleston access to Fort Sumter as part of the Every Kid 

in a Park program. Reward that with something that would extend 

their contract to allow us to focus on being better partners, longterm, investing in the needs—— 

Senator HIRONO. I am running out of time. 

Mr. Jarvis, as we focus on making some changes to the concession’s requirements would some of the things that were just pointed out, would those be areas that you would want to also address? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well I think that when the concessions law was reformed in the mid 90’s one of the things that was eliminated was 

the preferential right of renewal. And we feel that what that did 

and we support that is introduced competition which is, you know, 

a core value of this nation. And it brought new concessioners into 

the program that had not been a part of the system before. 

And I would be opposed to the reinstatement of any type of, sort 

of, preferential right to maintain a contract in perpetuity over time 
66 

that reduces competition. It results in potential, long term payment 

to these, under the current program, LSI, the lease holder interest 

grows over time and ultimately you would wind up with a contract 

that is essentially upside down where we would owe them more 

money for all of their investments over that time. 

So we propose this new VSMA, Visitor Services Management Authority, to give us some flexibility that, I think, Derrick is indicating as an alternative that then we could come back to you in the 

future with the concessioners to seek some reforms to the concessions law. 

Senator HIRONO. I encourage that effort. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Madam Chair, I understand we have a vote, 

so—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we were just about—— 

Senator KING. Oh, right. So I am going to be very brief. 

First, Mr. Jarvis, I’ve gotten to know over the last several years, 

Ed Bears, who I think should be made a National Park himself, 

your former National Park Historian, amazing guy. 

Concessions changes, we have discussed in the past. I sent you 

a letter on June 15th that suggests several, I am not talking about 

an automatic renewal, but I do think that the credit should be 

given for prior service. That should be recognized. There are several other items, local impact should be recognized. I just think 

that I hope to work with you as you talk about changing that law. 

Fees, perhaps for the record somebody could give me what percentage fees are versus public appropriations in terms of operation. 

I think of public universities which are roughly half funded by the 

public, the taxpayers, and half funded by tuition. I just want to understand what the relationship is. 

I have talked to you in the past about my lifetime park pass 

which they will have to pry out of my cold hands that I bought for 

$10 which I think is somewhat ridiculous. 

No, you cannot. [Laughter.] 

You are not 62, I do not think. 

I would like to understand better what the relationship is between fees and appropriations and are we leaving money on the 

table in terms of the collection of fees we have talked about that. 

Of course, finally part of the problem is there is no Federal capital 

budget. We account exactly the same for paying a park ranger’s 

salary as we do for building a road. There should be a capital budget, in my view, that takes account of the fact of long term assets 

as opposed to operating expenses. 

So there are no real questions buried there, but given the shortness of time I hope there are some things you can give us some on 

the record response in terms of this business of appropriations 

versus fees and look forward to working with you on concessions. 

I think your point about the longer-term contract is critical because that allows the concessionaires to make the capital investments. With a short-term contract, they have no incentive to make 

those capital investments because they are making it for potentially someone else. So I think that has to be an important part of 

this discussion as well. 
67 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. 

And to the panelists, thank you for your participation here this 

morning. 

I think Senator Cantwell is actually going to try to scoot back 

after she votes and may have one final question. 

Thank you for the discussion that we have had though on the 

legislation that is in front of us as we look to the next 100 years. 

Before I leave, Director Jarvis, I just want to bring up a couple of 

very quick issues. 

It was just a couple months ago you and I had an opportunity 

to talk about the Falls Creek hydro project in Glacier Bay National 

Park. You told me at the time that you thought it was on track for 

funding in ’17. I was told just a couple weeks ago by the Alaska 

Regional Director that the project is not going to be funded now at 

least until 2018, possibly as late as 2020. 

I view this is as absolutely unacceptable. It is just crazy to think 

that here we are powering by diesel generation through the Park 

Service when we have renewable hydro opportunities for us within 

the community right there. So I would again ask you to take a look 

at that. 

The second issue is as it relates to new wildlife regulations within Park Service as it relates to ANILCA. We had a hearing here 

in the Committee just last week on the implementation of ANILCA, 

and these wildlife regs came up. It states very clearly that the Federal agencies are to cooperate with adjacent landowners and land 

managers including native corporations, appropriate State and 

Federal agencies and other nations. 

The real concern, and it was highlighted at the hearing, was that 

Park Service has promulgated regulations that are in direct conflict 

with state hunting regulations. Again, this is an issue that is unacceptable given the parameters of ANILCA. We need to be working 

with you on that. 

I have got to go vote. I do not want to miss this. This is pretty 

important. We are finally getting some education reform done, so 

I am going to put my shoes on quickly and scoot out of here. But 

I am going to hold it open because I think that Senator Cantwell 

is coming back. So I am not going to conclude the meeting. 

I cannot get my shoes on. [Laughter.] 

But I will conclude by telling you thank you and letting you 

know that we have a lot of work to do. Senator Cantwell and I 

have discussed some of the provisions. I know her interest in working with Senator Portman and other members of the Committee as 

we work to build out, again, the future for our parks for the next 

100 years. 

With that I will thank you and I will await Senator Cantwell’s 

return. 

Thank you all. 

[RECESS] 

Senator CANTWELL [presiding]: We are back in session here, and 

I want to thank the witnesses. Thank you so much. I thought we 

were going to fill in with a few members who wanted to ask questions but apparently they got them asked while we were going back 

and forth on the vote. 
68 

I think the panel has answered a great deal of questions on a variety of issues today. And I think, for me, as I said in my first 

round of questions, I definitely want to look at the up side of visitor 

increases. I think the notion that you would increase visitation by 

ten million people—you did more than that in just one year—if you 

look at that from the economic impact of just the very basic visitor 

within a region, to a park that represents $700 million of additional revenue of economic impact, that’s very significant. 

Now not all that goes to the Park Service, but it represents a 

very significant revenue source for the things that we want to do 

to keep this asset a great asset. I know that in this proposal, Director Jarvis, you talked about this public/private partnership. One of 

the things that we want to make sure that is talked about, and 

maybe it was by my colleagues, is why this public/private partnership you think is so important in the second 100 years of the park 

and what are we getting at that we were not previously able to do? 

Is it just about revenue or is it about awareness and a variety of 

other things that we think deliver the kind of partnership that we 

want to see? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well it’s a great question, Senator. 

The Park Service has always been in partnership with the private sector even from the very earliest days with the railroads that 

built, in some cases, some of the lodges and the transportation systems to the National Parks. 

In the mid 60s we had Mission 66 and See the USA in your 

Chevrolet was a partnership with AAA and the automobile industry as well. And so I think that this next century the partnership 

is going to be about robust partnerships with the private sector and 

individuals as well. And not just for the revenue generation but 

also for the opportunities to connect with this next generation of 

park visitors and supporters. 

You know, there’s certain industries out there that, sort of, have 

the millennials and they can be great partners to the National 

Park Service. 

And you know, the comment about visitation, it’s important that 

it isn’t just raw numbers. It’s that also it reflects the diversity of 

the nation. And so we’re looking at the increase in visitation also 

to be reflective that the work of the National Park Service is relevant to all Americans as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well I guess I appreciate that it is relevant 

to all Americans but when you see these numbers, the huge numbers, then you would say that it is relevant. When you basically 

cited in your answer to my first round that it is more than all these 

other sports combined, I think it says that it is important to Americans. 

I think the question is how do we get a vision about what we are 

trying to do and how do we measure up to that as far as resources. 

Because I am one of the people on the Committee who believes that 

you might have new additions to the Park System, I also want to 

make sure that we can view it that way. 

I certainly want to fix the inventory, and you’ve all done a good 

job of mentioning that today about what we need to do. I definitely 

want to have the opportunity to do both. 
69 

So I do not know if you have any comments. I do have some, for 

the rest of the panel, but if you had any comments about new additions to the Park System that you wanted to comment on. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, thank you. 

We do grow as a system, and we grow as a result of Congress, 

who added seven new units as part of the Defense Authorization 

bill. And then we have grown as a result of the President adding 

new units as well. 

The way I view traditional growth in the system is one is to fill 

in the gaps in the historical story of our nations. So we’ve added 

places like Harriet Tubman, Colonel Charles Young, Buffalo Soldiers, Manhattan Project, one of your favorites, I know, and a great 

story. But we are doing these additions in partnership with others 

that we are not taking on the sole responsibility. 

So obviously with Manhattan Project in partnership with the Department of Energy, a great partner to work with us on all three 

sites and the communities of Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos 

as well. 

So we do, we will, continue to grow. But I think we need to grow 

very smartly and not take on too much new responsibilities that we 

really cannot afford. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, for the rest of the panelists, if you 

could just give me what you think should be priorities in looking 

at the concessionaire relationship between the Park Service and 

the concession companies. I am sure I can give examples of issues 

of length being a benefit or the ability for us to be able to make 

change a benefit. I look at this, and again, want to see what it is 

that is going to help us build attendance and utilization of the 

parks. 

So I see these incredible resources, incredible resources, and I 

see some areas where we have great concessions and then I see 

other areas where our concessions are lacking. I would just ask 

each of you three, what do you think should be the priorities with 

concessions in the Park System for this next 100 years? What 

should we be focusing on? What are the best attributes that we 

need to get out of the concessions? 

Mr. CRANDALL. Senator, thank you for the question. 

And I think I would begin by saying that the concessioners don’t 

operate exclusively in the Parks. All of the major concessioners also 

operate out of the parks. They understand America. They serve 

America in stadiums. They serve America at the Kennedy Space 

Center and others. 

I think they have a story to tell to the Park Service about who 

our client is, who the visitors to parks are. I think it’s very important for us to just understand better who is coming, who is not 

coming. Concessioners can play that role. 

I can tell you that one of the major problems we have is a sharp 

drop in the number of overnight stays in National Park Service 

campgrounds, and the answer is quite clear in terms of understanding the difference between 21st century urban Americans and 

the people who used to go to camps. The truth of the matter is that 

right now we have campgrounds that are not doing as well as the 

comparable campgrounds in state parks, in the private sector, because they don’t have the features that people are looking for. And 
70 

we think areas like that would help to provide a more robust kind 

of experience. 

The second thing I would say is that concessioners operating in 

National Parks are not like a Holiday Inn or a Marriott or anything else. In most cases they’re embedded in the community. They 

are storytellers too, and we believe that’s an important ingredient 

in the long-term relationship between businesses that are operating in the National Parks and the Park Service. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. 

Yes? 

Ms. PIERNO. Thank you for the question. 

I think that obviously what I think Director Jarvis mentioned as 

far as competition and certainly having healthy competition is 

going to be critical to improve facilities. So I would say as you continue to look at the bill and work where you can provide that opportunity for competition as well as ensure that with new contracts 

visitor services are improved. 

I think the issue of length is certainly a valid issue. And I think 

given the exceptional capital expenses that there’s an opportunity 

to look at that and do that in a way that makes sure that those 

improvements continue to happen. 

You know, I would say your point about partnerships, one thing 

that was amazing to me and Secretary Jewell just recently went 

to a dedication for Waco Mammoth and she called it a ‘‘park in a 

box.’’ And the reason I bring that up is because that was clearly 

where Baylor University, the Waco City, the foundation that was 

developed, spent millions of dollars, built it out with a visitor center, with everything and handed the key to the National Park Service. And that is a partnership where they’re going to continue to 

be funding and providing those resources. 

And so we need to continue to look at innovative ways so when 

we talk about new parks and adding to the system’s burden, this 

is an example where, you know, nobody would argue Columbian 

Mammoths aren’t critical in this only nursery herd in the world 

that’s been discovered isn’t important to save and to highlight as 

part of the National Park Service. 

So I think that as we continue to think about concessioners and 

working with partners and how we bring all this together looking 

at models like that are really important. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Senator Cantwell, with the understanding it’s not 

an area that I could consider myself to be an expert in I would just 

acknowledge that Director Jarvis’ request for additional flexibility 

is probably the most important thing. What I do know is that how 

diverse the Park System is and there is no one size fits all approach to the concessioners or almost anything else that they do. 

And so providing the Park Service with some tools to allow them 

to look at these things individually and come up with solutions that 

are going to actually, in one case it may be the duration, in another 

case it may be the flexibility on how it’s applied. 

I think that’s the most important thing you could do and then 

plan to come back in a couple years to analyze what big changes 

may need to happen. 
71 

Senator CANTWELL. Director Jarvis, I did not mean to exclude 

you from that but I wanted to make sure I got these witnesses on 

the record. 

I do not know if you have any examples right now that you think 

are working brilliantly and why they’re working so well and if you 

wanted to mention that. 

Mr. JARVIS. We do have examples. I think the example that Derrick brought up about the Yellowstone contract, that was a straight 

line depreciation that was part of the new contract and that we’re 

able to depreciate that investment by the new concessioner there 

over the life of the contract. That isn’t always the case. Not all concessioners are willing to do that. 

The problem is, as I indicated, we have, sort of, one size fits all. 

Yesterday, just as an example, we had a meeting about Franklin 

Park here in Washington, DC which is a small, green space right 

in the heart of the downtown business district. We really want to 

invest in that in relationship with the city. And we sit down with 

our authorities and we want to do a cafe. ́ It’s just a simple, outdoor 

cafe ́ And so if it was a concession we’d have to put it out for the 

concessions law and we’d have this term of contract and we looked 

at the lease. And you know, we just don’t have flexible authorities 

to take, apply and allow the commercials, a private sector to come 

in and do an operation that would work in Franklin Park, Washington, DC and also Yellowstone. That’s a problem. 

I think the second piece is that these commercial services across 

the system as we go into our second century, it’s appropriate that 

the private sector makes money off of them, but I think there is 

a greater return to the Federal Government that we can reinvest 

in these facilities also for us. And we need some more flexibilities 

to be able to be more similar to the private sector, operations particularly in the hospitality industry to create a fund that can reinvest and modernize without necessarily having to put it into a contract and then have it be an LSI issue for us down the road. 

So we’re really looking for greater flexibility, not to replace but 

to add to our abilities. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you. 

I think all the things that were mentioned—healthy competition, 

visitor service improvements, flexibilities—are all very important 

aspects. So thank you all very much, and thank you for this hearing. 

We look forward to working with all of you and particularly you, 

Director Jarvis, on this very important issue. We want the Parks 

to be a very robust tool for our nation and to those who want to 

travel to our nation to visit them as well. 

So with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(72) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
73 

l!S CUVERNM·"9 1'\IFOR./\,\ATIO"J 

(, ~·(~ 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SES8IOl\ 

II 

S.2257 

To prepare the National Park Service for its Centennial in 2016 and for 

a second centur~' of protecting· our national parks' natuml, historic, 

and cultural resources for present and future generations and for other 

purposes. 

IN TIIIiJ SliJNATE OF TilE UNI'l'ED S'l'ATES 

KOVEl\IBER 5, 2015 

1\Is. CA;-;JTWI']LL (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twiee and referred to the Committee on Energy am! Katural Resources 

A BILL 

'fo prepare the National Park Service for its Centennial 

in 2016 and for a second century of protecting our 

national parks' natural, historic, and cultural resources 

for present and future generations and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Ilouse of Representa2 tiues of the United States oflhnerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 (a) SnoRT 'fnr,E.-'fhis Act may be cited as the 

5 "National Park Senrice Centennial Act". 

6 (b) 'l'ABU~ OF CON'l'EN'l'S.-The table of contents of 

7 this Act is as follmvs: 
74 

2 

See. 1. Short title. 

TITLE I-CE?\TEl\1\'L\L DECI,ARA'l'ION 

See. 101. Centennial declan1tion. 

See. 

See. 

See. 

See. 

See. 

See. 

201. 

202. 

20:l. 

204. 

20:>. 

20G. 

Purpose. 

Definitions. 

~ntionnl Park Ce11tcnninl Chnl1m1g:e I~"~nlHl. 

Sig·natnre projeets Hnd progl~mns. 

Dmwtious l:HHI matehiug Fedel'al fnnds. 

Report to CongTcss. 

Tl'r!JE III-SECO?\D CEN'ITRY 1?\Ji'RASTRl:CTUR~~ I"\l'ESTi\fENT 

See .. 101. Second ecntnty i11frnstnwtul'e irrn_•stmcnt. 

TITLE IV-PUBLIC LAl\'DS CENTgl\?\IAL PROGllA:.VI 

See. ,101. Pnhlie r,,m<Js Centennial Pn1Hl. 

Rc<~. 402. Pnhlie Lands CcutcHniHl Program. 

See. 40:l. Re]lort. to Congress. 

'l'ITLE V-NATI0:\,\1, PARK POCl\D.\'fiOX E?\DOWMEXT 

See. :>01. Short title. 

See. :)02. Seemal Ceutnry Endowmellt for the I\'ationnl Park Sen:iee. 

TITL~~ Vl-:\ATJO:\AL P,\RK SERYICE SECOl\D CENTUHY I<'U:'>ID 

See. ()01. Second Cc•ntm~· F'nlHl. 

8e<'. H02. Colll]Htrahk' pass eost for se11im·s. 

TITLE VII-l\ATIO:\i\I, P.\Il.K !\EXT GE:-.IE:RAT!0;\1 STEWAHDS 

Se('. 701, ?\atioual Park St"lTi(•e intPl'lll'<'tHtioll and edneatio11. 

See. 702. Puhlie Land Col'p~ amendme11ts. 

Sec. 70:). Volnnteel'H in tile parks. 

TI'ff,E VIII-:\AT!Ol\Al, PARK SEIWICE YISITOR SEIWICES 

;\1;\;\JAGE:\IEl\T PHOGHAM 

See. 801. XatimHll PHt'k RerYiee Visitor Serviees l\'IntHlg'CllJent Progl'Hlll. 

TITLE IX-IN'l'r~LLEC'ITAL PROPERTY 

Sec. DOl. Intelleetnal property. 

TITLE X-NA'l'IO?\AL PARK Fot;:\DATION At:TIIOHI'l'IES 

Sec. 1001. Board of Diredors. 

See. 1002. Authorization of apJn·opriations. 

•S 2257 IS 
75 

3 

2 

TITLE I-CENTENNIAL 

DECLARATION 

3 SEC. 101. CENTENNIAL DECLARATION. 

4 Section 100::l()l of title 54, United States Code, 1s 

5 amended6 (1) by striking "There is" and inserting "(a) 

7 'l'here is", and 

8 (2) by adding the following ne>v subsection at 

9 the end: 

10 "(b) Cg:-.JTg:-J;\I'L\I, J)gcr"AHATIO:-J.-On the centen11 nial of the establishment of the Serviee in 1916, Congress 

12 declares that the Service has responsibility not only for 

13 the administration of the System, but also for programs 

14 that provide financial and teclmical assistance to States, 

15 communities, and individuals to protect natural, cultural, 

16 historieal, and recreational sites, enhancing the preserva17 tion of the nation's story, increasing access to the out18 doors, and contributing to the economic and cnviron19 mental well-being of the Unit eel States. The Congress reaf20 firms and directs that the Secretary utilize these pro21 grams, and any related programs authorized by Congress, 

22 to further the conservation and enjoyment of the natural 

23 and cultural heritage of the nation for the benefit and in24 spiration of the public.". 

•S 2257 IS 
76 

4 

1 TITLE II-NATIONAL PARK 

2 CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE FUND 

3 SEC. 201. PURPOSE. 

4 It is the purpose of this title to establish a fund in 

5 the Treasury that will be used to finance signature 

6 projects and progTams to enha.nce the National Park Sys7 tcm as it approaches its centennial in 2016 and to prepare 

8 the parks for another century of conservation, preserva9 tion, and enjoyment. 

10 SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS. 

11 In this title: 

12 (1) CIIALLl~NGE I<'UND.-'l'hc term "Challenge 

13 Fund" means the National Park Centennial Chal14 lenge Fund. 

15 (2) DrHgc·rm::,.-'l'hc term "Director" means 

16 the Direetor of the National Park Service. 

17 (3) SECRETAIW.-The term "Secretary" means 

18 the Secretary of the Interior. 

19 ( 4) SIONA'rUim PHO.mc•r OR PH.OGH,"\:\L-Thc 

20 term "signature project or program" means any 

21 project or program identified by the Secretary as 

22 one that will help prepare the national parks for an23 other century of conservation, preservation, and en24 joymcnt. 

•S 2257 IS 
77 

5 

(5) QUAI;IFIED DONATION.-The term "quali2 fied donation" means either a cash donation, or the 

3 binding- pledge of a cash donation that is guaranteed 

4 by an irrevocable letter of credit, to the National 

5 Park Service that the Director certifies is to be used 

6 for a, signature project or program. 

7 SEC. 203. NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE FUND. 

8 (a) ESTABI;ISIIMJ;;N'l'.-rrhere is hereby established in 

9 the Treasury a fund to be knmv11 as the National Park 

10 Centennial Challenge 1'\md. The Challenge Fund shall 

11 consist of: 

12 (l) Qualified donations that arc transferred 

13 from the National Park Service donation account in 

14 accordance with section 205(a) of this title. 

15 (2) Amounts appropriated from the g-eneral 

16 fund of the rrreasury in accordance with section 

17 205(b) of this title. 

18 (b) AVATioABILITY.-All amounts transferred or ap19 propriated to the Challenge :F'und shall be available to the 

20 Secretary for signature projects and programs under this 

21 title \vithout fi1rther appropriation until eJ>.1)ended. 

22 SEC. 204. SIGNATURE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS. 

23 (a) I~rsT.-The Secretary shall develop a list of signa24 ture projects and programs eligible for funding from the 

25 Challeng·e Fund. The list shall be submitted to the Com-

•S 2257 IS 
78 

6 

mittees on Appropriations and Energy and Natural Re2 sources in the United States Senate, and to the Commit3 tees on Appropriations and Natural Resources in the 

4 House of Representatives. 

5 (b) UPDA'l'BS.-'l'hc Secretary may, from time to 

6 time, as the Secretary finds appropriate, add any signa7 ture project or program to the list and provide notice of 

8 such addition as required by subsection (a). 

9 SEC. 205. DONATIONS AND MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS. 

10 (a) QUAI~IFIED Do:\fNriONS.-At any time after Oc11 toher 1, 2015, the Secretary may transfer to the Challenge 

12 Fund any qualified donation received by the National 

13 Park Serviee. 

14 (b) MATCHING AviCHJ:\fT.-There is appropriated to 

15 the Challenge Fund in each fiscal year beginning on Octo16 her 1, 2015, and ending on September 30, 2018, an 

17 amount equal to the qualified donations reeeived in the 

18 same fiscal year, not to exeeed $100 million in any one 

19 year. 

20 (e) Sor,ICITATI0:'\1.-Nothing in this title shall be con21 strued as mqmnding any authority that exists on the <late 

22 of its enactment -vvith respect to the ability of the National 

23 Park Service and its employees to receive or solicit dona24 tions. 

•S 2257 IS 
79 

7 

SEC. 206. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

2 'l'hc Secretary shall provide vvith the submission of 

3 the President's buclg·ct a report on the status of the sig11a4 ture projects and programs and their funding. 

5 TITLE III-SECOND CENTURY 

6 INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENT 

7 SEC. 301. SECOND CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE INVEST8 MENT. 

9 In addition to annual appropriations, there is hereby 

10 appropriated to the National Park Service Construction 

11 Account in each fiscal year beginning on October l, 2015, 

12 and ending on September 30, 2018, an amount equal to 

13 $300 million, to remain available until expended, to cor14 rect deficiencies in National Park Service infrastructure 

15 and facilities. 

16 TITLE IV-PUBLIC LANDS 

17 CENTENNIAL PROGRAM 

18 SEC. 401. PUBLIC LANDS CENTENNIAL FUND. 

19 (a) ESTABUSIIl\IIiJNT.-Thcre is established m the 

20 Treasury a fund to be known as the Public I~ands Ccnten21 nial Fund. 

22 (b) I<'UNDINO.-In each fiscal year beginning on Oe23 tober 1, 2015, and ending on September :10, 2018, there 

24 is hereby appropriated to the Public T,ands Centennial 

25 .F'untl an amount equal to $100 million, to remain avail26 able until expended. 

•S 2257 IS 
80 

8 

1 SEC. 402. PUBLIC LANDS CENTENNIAL PROGRAM. 

2 (a) PHOGHAl\1.-'l'he Secretary of the Interior and the 

3 Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly establish a progT<Un 

4 under ·which funds from the Public Lands Centennial 

5 F'und arc made available to F'ederal land or water man6 agement agencies, including the Bureau of I1and Manage7 ment, the Bureau of Reclamation, the I<'ish and \Vildlife 

8 Service, the Forest Service, and the National Park Sen'-

9 ice, to support prqjeets that1 0 ( 1) enhance visitor serv1ces and outdoor rec11 reational opportunities; 

12 (2) restore lands and vvaters; 

13 (3) repair facilities or trails; or 

14 ( 4) increase energy and water efficiency. 

15 (b) COMPBTITIVE PROCESS.-'l'he progTam estab16 lishcd in subsection (a) shall provide for a competitive 

17 process for the selection of eligible projects. 

18 (e) SEijEC'l'IO:--J CmTEIU,\.-In selecting projects to 

19 receive funds under the program established in subseetion 

20 (a), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of .Ag21 riculture shall consider the extent to which a proposed 

22 project23 ( 1) ranks highly within existing agency project 

24 prioritization processes; 

25 (2) delivers measurable and observable environ26 mental or community benefits; 

•S 2257 IS 
81 

9 

(:n ineludcs a role for youth and veterans; 

2 ( 4) follows best management practices and does 

3 not create significant nevv burdens for maintenance 

4 or ongoing reinvestment by the proposing land man5 agcment agency; and 

6 ( 5) involves collaboration with community part7 ners. 

8 SEC. 403. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

9 'l'he Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 

10 Agriculture shall provide with the submission of the Presi11 dent's budget a report of the prqjeets selected for funding 

12 under section 402 and the status of their funding. 

13 TITLE V-NATIONAL PARK 

14 FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT 

] 5 SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE. 

16 This title may be cited as the "National Park Poun17 dation Endowment Act". 

18 SEC. 502. SECOND CENTURY ENDOWMENT FOR THE NA19 TIONAL PARK SERVICE. 

20 Chapter 1 0 11 of title 54, U nitcd States Code, 1s 

21 amended by adding at the end the following: 

22 "§ 101121. Second Century Endowment for the Na23 tional Park Service 

24 "(a) SI'JCOND CENTCRY ENDO'vVJ\IENT.-'l'o further 

25 the mission of the Service, the N a tiona] Park I<'oundation 

•S 2257 IS 
82 

10 

1 shall establish a special account to be knovvn as the Second 

2 Century Enduwmcnt for the National Park Service (En3 dowment). 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

•S 2257 IS 

"(1) Fl'NDI:-l FOil Tim ENDOW:VIEN'l'.-

"(A) 'l'hc Endovvment shall consist of any 

gifts, devises, or bequests that arc provided to 

the National Park .F'oundation for such purpose. 

"(B) The National Park Poundation shall 

deposit any funds received for the Enduwment 

in a federally insured interest-bearing account 

or may invest funds in appropriate security obligations, as directed by the Board of Directors. 

"(C) Any accrued interest or dividends 

earned on funds received for the Endowment 

shall be added to the principal and form a part 

of the Endovvment. 

"(2) USE OF I<'UN"DS.-

"(A) The National Park l<"'onndation shall 

usc funds deposited in the Endowrnent for 

projects and activities approved by the Secretary that further the mission and purposes of 

the Service. 

"(B) Each fiscal year, the National Park 

Foundation may not expend from the Endo·w-
83 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

11 

ment more than 50 per centum of the funds rcccive(l or added to the Endowment in that fiscal 

year in accordance with subparagraph (A). 

"(C) No funds reeeived for the Endowment 

shall be used by the National Park Poundation 

for administrative expenses of the Foundation, 

7 including for salaries, travel and transportation 

8 expenses, and other overhead mqwnses. 

9 "(b) REPOHT.-Beginning two years after the cnaet10 mcnt of this title, the National Park F'onndation shall in11 elude, with its annual report, the status of the Endowment 

12 established by suhscetion (a), ineluding13 "(1) a statement of the amounts deposited in 

14 the Endowment and the balance remaining in the 

15 Endovvment at the end of the fiscal year; and 

16 "(2) a deseription of the sums and purposes of 

17 the expenditures made from the Endowment for the 

18 fiscal year.". 

19 TITLE VI-NATIONAL PARK 

20 CENTURY 

21 

SERVICE SECOND 

FUND 

22 SEC. 601. SECOND CENTURY FUND. 

23 (a) I:--~ GE:--IER.AJJ.-'l'itle 54, United States Code, Is 

24 amended by inserting the folluw:ing after chapter 1033: 

•S 2257 IS 
84 

12 

"CHAPTER 1035-NATIONAL PARK 

2 SERVICE SECOND CENTURY FUND 

"SN,. 

"!0;);)01. Estllhlishment. 

·'10:)f)02. L(l(lging awl f:<llnping; fees. 

3 "§ 103501. Establishment 

4 ''(a) l;\r GENEI'{u\I".-'t'here is established in the 

5 Treasury an account to be known as the National Park 

6 Service Second Century F'und. 

7 "(b) DEPOSITS.-All funds collected under section 

8 103502 and seetion 807(e)(:3) of the .F'ederall .. ands Hem·c9 ation Enhancement Act shall be deposited into the Second 

10 Century F'und, and shall remain available until expended. 

11 "(c) Usg OF FUNDS.-

12 "(1) F'unds deposited into the National Park 

13 Service Second Century l<und shall be used for 

14 projects or programs approved by the Secretary to 

15 further the mission of the Service and to enhance 

16 the visitor experience in System units. 

17 "(2) F'unds may only be used if matched, on a 

18 l-to-1 basis, by non-F'cdcral donations (including 

19 funds, goods or services) to the Service for specified 

20 projects or programs. 

21 "§ 103502. Lodging and camping fees 

22 "(a) PEES.-Within a System unit, the Secretary, ei23 thcr directly or through a concessions contract, lease, or 

•S 2257 IS 
85 

13 

similar instrument, may 1mposc a fee m addition to the 

2 daily cost of lodging or camping3 "(1) of not more than 5 per centum of the fee 

4 charged on each person for each night of lodging in 

5 facilities; and 

6 "(2) of not more than 5 per centum of the fcc 

7 charged on each person for each night of camping 

8 in desig11ated campgrounds. 

9 "(b) LIMI'IWl'IONS.-No fees may be charged under 

10 this section within a System unit for11 " ( 1) visitors engaged in backcountry camping 

12 at undesignated sites; 

13 "(2) employees of the System, including sea14 sonal employees or employees of concessioners, who 

15 live in housing provided in the parks due to their 

16 employment, and house guests of such employees; 

17 "un persons engaged in residential educational 

18 and interpretive programs who are lodged in park 

19 facilities while participating in these programs; and 

20 " ( 4) lodging or eamping on private property 

21 within a System unit.". 

22 (h) Com'OHl\IING Al\ml\!DMENT.-'l'itle 54, United 

23 States Code, is further amended in the matter before sub24 title I by inserting the following after chapter 1033: 

"1035. National Park Service Second Century Fund ...... 103501". 

•S 2257 IS 
86 

14 

SEC. 602. COMPARABLE PASS COST FOR SENIORS. 

2 The Federal Ijands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 6801, Public Ijaw 108-447, division ,J, title VUI) 

4 is amended5 (1) m section 805(b)(l), by striking· "of 

6 $10.00" and inserting "equal to the price of the Na7 tiona! Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass"; 

8 and 

9 (2) in section 807(c)-

10 (A) by renumbering paragraph (8) as 

11 paragTaph (4), and 

12 (B) by inserting a new paragraph (8) as 

13 follows: 

14 "(8) DISTHIBUTION 01<' AGE DISCOUNT FEI;JS 

15 J;'()R :-.JATIONAI, PARK SEHVICE.-Any amounts above 

16 $10.00 that are collected by the National Park Serv17 icc for the purchase of the lifetime pass by citizens 

18 G2 years of age or older shall be deposited in the 

19 National Park Service Seeond Century l:<"'und estab20 lishcd in ehapter 1085 of title 54, United States 

21 Code.". 

•S 2257 IS 
87 

15 

1 TITLE VII-NATIONAL PARK 

2 NEXT GENERATION STEWARDS 

3 SEC. 701. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERPRETATION AND 

4 EDUCATION. 

5 (a) IN GgNERAL.-1'itle 54, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting the following after chapter 1007: 

7 "CHAPTER 1008-EDUCATION AND 

8 INTERPRETATION 

''See. 

"1 00801. Pmvoses. 

"1 00802. DefinitionH. 

"1 0080:). Interpretntion nnd ednention rmthorit~·. 

"100804. Intcqll·ctntion awl educntimt evaluntion nnd qunlity improvement. 

"1 00805. Improved utilizntion of pmt.1wrs nnd vohmtee1·s ht intcrprctntion and 

l~{lueatimi. 

9 "§ 100801. Purposes 

I 0 "The purposes of this chapter are11 " ( 1) to more effectively achieve the mission of 

12 the Service by providing clear authority and liirec13 tion for interpretation and education programs that 

14 are carried out by the Service under separate au15 thoritics; 

16 "(2) to ensure that the public encounters a va17 riety of interpretive and educational opportunities 

18 and services in their visits to our System units; 

19 " ( 3) to recognize the Service pmvides lifelong 

20 learning opportunities and contributes to intcr21 disciplinary learning in traditional and nontradi22 tional educational settings; and 

•S 2257 IS 
88 

16 

"( 4) to provide opportunities for all people to 

2 find relevance in the System and to strengthen pub3 lie understanding of our natural and cultural herit4 age. 

5 "§ 100802. Definitions 

6 "As used in this chapter: 

7 "(1) INTEHPRI<JTA'l'IO:--J.-'l'he term 'interpreta8 tion' means providing opportunities for people to 

9 form intellectual and emotional connections to gain 

10 awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the 

11 resources of the System. 'Interpretation' may also 

12 refer to the professional career field of Service em13 ployees, volunteers, and partners who interpret the 

14 resources of the System. 

15 "{2) Il:DUCATION.-'rhe term 'education' means 

16 enhancing publie awareness, understanding, and ap17 preciation of the resources of the System through 

18 learner-centered, place-based materials, progTams, 

19 and activities that achieve specific learning objectives 

20 as identified in a curriculum. 

21 "(:3) REJ,A'l'rJD AHJ<JAS.-The term 'related 

22 areas' means: 

23 "(A) national wild and scenic rivers and 

24 national trails; 

25 "(B) national heritage areas; and 

•S 2257 IS 
89 

1 

2 

17 

"(C) affiliated areas administered m connection with the System. 

3 "§ 100803. Interpretation and education authority 

4 "The Secretary shall ensure that management of Sys5 tem units and related areas is enhanced by the availability 

6 and utilization of a broad program of the highest quality 

7 interpretation and education. 

8 "§ 100804. Interpretation and education evaluation 

9 and quality improvement 

10 "The Secretary may undertake a progTam of regular 

11 evaluation of interpretation and education prog-rams to en12 sure that thcy13 " ( 1) adjust to how people learn and eng·age 

14 with the natural world and shared heritage as em15 bodied in the System; 

16 "(2) reflect different cultural backg-rounds, 

17 ag·es, education, gender, abilities, ethnicity, and 

18 needs; 

19 " ( ~)) demonstrate innovative approaches to 

20 management and appropriately incorporate emerging 

21 learning and communications technology; and 

22 "( 4) reflect current scientific and academic rc23 search, content, methods, and audience analysis. 

•S 2257 IS 
90 

18 

"§ 100805. Improved utilization of partners and vol2 unteers in interpretation and education 

3 "The Secretary may4 "(1) coordinate with park partners and volun5 teers in the delivery of quality programs and services 

6 to supplement those provided by the Service as part 

7 of a park's Ijong Range Interpretive Plan; 

8 "{2) support interpretive partners by providing 

9 opportunities to participate in interpretive training; 

10 and 

11 "(3) collaborate with other li'ederal and non12 Federal public: or private ageneics, organizations, or 

13 institutions for the purposes of developing, pro14 moting, and making available edueational opportuni1 5 tics related to resources of the System and pro16 grams.". 

17 (b) CO:\TFORlVfiNG .. 1\ . .:"VIE:\TDJ\IENT.-'l'itle 54, United 

18 States Code, is further amended in the matter before sub19 title I by inserting the follmving between chapter 1007 and 

20 chapter 1009: 

"1008. Education and interpretation .................................... 100801". 

21 SEC. 702. PUBLIC LAND CORPS AMENDMENTS. 

22 'l'he Public hmds Corps Act of 1993 (Public Ijaw 

23 103-82; 16 U.S.C. 1721) is amended24 (1) in section 203(10)(.A), by striking "25" and 

25 inserting "aO"; 

•S 2257 IS 
91 

19 

1 (2) in section 204(b), by striking "25" and in2 serting "30"; and 

3 (3) in section 207(c)(2), by striking "120 days" 

4 and inserting "2 years". 

5 SEC. 703. VOLUNTEERS IN THE PARKS. 

6 Section 102301(d) of title 54, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking· "not more than $3,500,000" and 

8 inserting· "such sums as may be necessary". 

9 TITLE VIII-NATIONAL PARK 

10 SERVICE VISITOR SERVICES 

11 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

12 SEC. 801. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE VISITOR SERVICES 

13 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

14 (a) IN GENEI{u\I1.-Title 54, United States Code, 1s 

15 arnended by inserting the following after chapter 1019: 

16 "CHAPTER 1020-VISITOR SERVICES 

17 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 

"See. 

"1 02001. Estnhlishment. of the Visitor Serviec•s ~fanagcnw11t Anthorit~·· 

"102002. Ope1·ating Bmml. 

"1 0200:1. Duties of the Direetor. 

"1 02004. Contn1ct >mthm·it,·. 

"102005. Financ~ial mtmag-ement. 

"1 02006. Rcg11iat.ions. 

"102007. Audits of rceords. 

"102008. Annual report. 

18 "§ 102001. Establishment of the Visitor Services Man19 agement Authority 

20 "'L'be Secretary may establish a Visitor Services lVIan21 agement Authority (hereinafter, the 'VS1VIA') that may ad-

•S 2257 IS 
92 

20 

minister commercial visitor services programs and aetivi2 tics of the Service, as may be designated by the Secretary, 

3 including and \Vithout limitation, the award and adminis4 tration of commercial visitor facilities and services man5 agement contracts pursuant to section 804. 

6 "§ 102002. Operating Board 

7 "(a) APPOIN'LVIEN'l' cw 0PgRA'l'ING BoARD.-1'he 

8 VS1VL\ shall have an Operating Board of 7 members ap9 pointed by the Secretary as follows: 

10 "(1) The Director of the National Park Serviee. 

11 "(2) 'l'he Chief Finaneial Officer of the Na12 tional Park Service. 

13 "(3) The Associate Dircetor for Business Serv14 ices of the National Park Service. 

15 " ( 4) Four other National Park Service Federal 

16 employees \Vith appropriate training and expenence 

17 to provide expert guidanee to the VSJVIA. 

18 "(b) TEIUIB AND VACANCm8.-Each board member 

19 appointed under subsection (a)(4) shall serve for a term 

20 not to cxeeed four years. A board member may continue 

21 to serve upon the expiration of the term until a successor 

22 is appointed. 

23 "(c) DUTIES OF THE 0PI<JRATING BOAIW.-'l'he Op24 crating Board shall25 "(l) appoint a VSlVL\ Dircetor; 

•S 2257 IS 
93 

21 

"(2) formulate policies for the programs and 

2 activities of the VSl\IL'\; 

3 "(3) exercise general supervision over the ad4 ministration of the VSl\lA; 

5 "( 4) establish bylaws, policies, and procedures 

6 as may be necessary for the fulfillment of the duties 

7 described in this title; 

8 "(5) rcviev.r, approve, or disapprove all proposed 

9 VSlVL'\ contractual and investment programs and ac1 0 tions; and 

11 "Ul) take all actions that arc neccssai}' and ap12 propriate to carry out the duties described in this 

13 title. 

14 "§ 102003. Duties of the Director 

15 '"fhc Director of the VSMA shall be responsible, sub16 ject to the supervision and direction of the Operating 

17 Board, for carrying out the programs and activities of the 

18 VSlV1A and for appointing such other VSMA officers and 

19 employees as he deems necessary. 

20 "§ 102004. Contract authority 

21 "(a) GENimAT, Au'I'IIORITY.-rrhe VSlVlA may award 

22 and administer management contracts (and related profes23 sional services contracts) for the operation of commercial 

24 visitor faeilities and visitor services prob>Tams in areas of 

25 the System. rrhe commercial visitor facilities and visitor 

•S 2257 IS 
94 

22 

serYlces prog-rams management contraets that may be 

2 awarded shall he limited to those that are necessary and 

3 appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the unit of 

4 the System in which they a.re located and that arc conS sistent, to the highest degree possible, with the preserva6 tion and conservation of the resources and values of the 

7 unit. 

8 "(b) i\J)DITIO)l'AI, AUTIIOIUTY.-The VSlVIA may 

9 award and administer management contracts and related 

10 professional services contracts authorized under this title 

11 nohvithstanding any other provision of law. 

12 "§ 102005. Financial management 

13 "(a) VSMA REVOINING f'lJ)l'D.-'fherc is established 

14 a revolving- fund that shall be available vvithout fiscal year 

15 limitation for expenses necessary for the management, im16 provement, enhancement, operation, construction, mainte17 nance of commercial visitor services and facilities and pay18 ment of possessory interest aml leasehold surrender intcr19 est. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

"(b) COLU~CTIO)l' OF f'U)l'DS.-

"(1) :B"'unds collected by the VSlVLL\.. pursuant to 

the contracts awarded under this title shall be credited to the revohing fund. 

"(2) The Secretary is authorized to transfer to 

the revohing fund, without reimbursement, any ad-

•S 2257 IS 
95 

23 

ditional funds or revenue deemed appropriate in con2 ncction >vith the functions to be carried out under 

3 this title. 

4 "(c) USE OI<' F'lTNDS.-'l'hc revolving fund shall be 

5 available for expenditure by the VSMA in furtherance of 

6 the purposes of this title. 

7 "(d) AUTIIORI?;ATION OF APPHOPTUATIONS.-rl'hcrc 

8 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title 

9 such sums as may be necessary. 

10 "§ 102006. Regulations 

11 "A'> soon as practicable after the effective date of this 

12 title, the VSJVU\. shall promulgate regulations appropriate 

13 for its implementation. 

14 "§ 102007. Audits of records 

15 "The financial records of the VSMA shall be made 

16 available to the Comptroller General and the Inspector 

17 General of the Department of the Interior, as requested, 

18 for purposes of conducting annual audits and invcstiga19 tions as necessary. 

20 "§ 102008. Annual report 

21 "The President's annual budget submission shall in22 elude a description of the revenues and e}..1)enditures asso23 cia ted with the VSlV[A.". 

24 (b) CONI<'OlUIING AlvmNDlVIENT.-Title 54, United 

25 States Code, is further amended in the matter before sub-

•S 2257 IS 
96 

24 

title I by inserting the follmving between ehaptcr 1019 and 

2 chapter 1021: 

"1020. Visitor services management authority .... ...... 102001". 

3 TITLE IX-INTELLECTUAL 

4 PROPERTY 

5 SEC. 901. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 

6 Chapter 1025 of title 54, United States Code, 1s 

7 am("ndcd by adding the follovving new section: 

8 "§ 102505. Reproductions of museum objects 

9 "(a) AGIU<JJ<]:YIE~'l'S F'OH REPIWDUCTIO~S.-\Vith re1 0 spcct to a museum object. in which the object itself and 

11 the object's intellectual property rights, if any, arc under 

12 the control of the Secretary, the Secretary may enter into 

13 agreements for the creation of reproductions of the object 

14 with other 1<-,ederal agencies, units of State or local govcrn15 ments, for-profit corporations, public and private founda16 tions, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, 

17 and individuals. rrhc agreements may include provisions 

18 for the collection of fees or royalties. 

19 "(b) TEIUIS A~D Co~DITIONS.-Any agreement 

20 under subsection (a) shall provide for the protection of the 

21 public interest in the museum object and any other terms 

22 and conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate. 

23 "(e) HE'l'ENTION OF l~UNDS.-Any funds collected 

24 pursuant to this section shall be retained, until expended 

25 and without fi1rther appropriation, for use by the System 

•S 2257 IS 
97 

25 

unit, office, or repository where the museum object 1s 

2 held.". 

3 TITLE X-NATIONAL PARK 

4 FOUNDATION AUTHORITIES 

5 SEC. 1001. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 

6 Chapter 1011 of title 54, United States Code, IS 

7 amended8 (1) in section 101112-

9 (A) by amending· subsection (a) to read as 

10 follows: 

11 "(a) lVIEMBI~HSHIP.-'l'he National Park Poundation 

12 shall consist of a Board having as members no fewer than 

13 6 private citizens of the United States appointed by the 

14 Secretary. 'rhe Secretary and the Director shall be mem15 hers of the Board, ex officio."; and 

16 (B) by amending subsection (c) to read as 

17 follows: 

18 "(c) CIIAIHiVIA:-1.-'l'he Chairman shall be elected by 

19 the Board from its members for a two-year term."; and 

20 (2) in section 10111~{(a), by renumbering para21 graph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting the fol22 lowing new paragraph: 

23 "(2) ComtDINNriON WI'l'II sgnviCE.-Activities 

24 of the National Park Poundation under paragTaph 

25 (1) shall be undertaken after consultation with the 

•S 2257 IS 
98 

26 

Director to m;sure they are consistent with the pro2 grams and policies of the Service.". 

3 SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Chapter 1011 of title 54, United States Code, is furS ther amended by adding after section 101121 the fol6 lmving new section: 

7 "§ 101122. Authorization of appropriations 

8 "(a) IN GENEI~\J,.-'I'here are authorized to be ap9 propriated to carry out this subchapter $25 million for 

10 each of fiscal years 2016 through 2026. 

11 "(b) REQUIIlKVIENT OF AnvA,'\JCE PAY:VHJNT.-'l'he 

12 amount made available for a fiscal year under subsection 

13 (a) shall be provided to the National Park Poundation in 

14 an advance payment of the entire amount on October 1 

15 of the fiscal year, or as soon as practicable thereafter. 

16 "(c) UsE (W APPROPHIA'l'ED Ji'FNDS.-Amounts 

17 made available under subsection (a) shall be provided to 

18 the National Park Foundation for usc for matching, on 

19 a 1-to-1 basis, contributions (whether in currency, serv20 ices, or property) made to the F'oundation. 

21 "(d) PROHIBITION USE FOR ADMINISTRA.TIVE Ex22 PENSES.-No l<''ederal funds made available under suh23 section (a) shall be used by the National Park Poundation 

24 for administrative expenses of the Poundation, including 

•S 2257 IS 
99 

27 

for salaries, travel and transportation expenses, and other 

2 overhead expenses. 

3 "(e) PHOIIIBITION Usg FOH lNvgsn:mNT.-No Ped4 eral funds made available under section (a) shall be put 

5 in a fund by the National Park Poundation that will be 

6 invested or earn interest in any way.''. 

0 

•S 2257 IS 
100 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Can the National Park Service currently transfer appropriated funds, fees, or 

donations to the National Park Foundation to be used to match private dollars or to be 

placed in an interest-bearing fund, such as an endowment? If the NPS does not have the 

authority, do you think Congress should consider granting authority to the NPS to 

transfer donations, and possibly appropriated funds or fees, to the National Park 

Foundation to be used as matching funds or to be placed in an endowment? 

Answer: No, there is no authority for the NPS to transfer appropriated funds, fees, or 

donations to the Foundation to place in an interest-bearing account, such as an 

endowment. 

Also, the NPS does not believe having the authority to make direct transfers from 

existing funds to the Foundation to be used as matching funds or to be placed in an 

endowment would provide a better way to leverage private funding for park purposes. 

Such authority would not generate new funds for immediate use and, to the extent the 

authority was used, it would reduce the amount of donations, appropriated funds and fee 

revenue the NPS relies on to address critical needs. 

Question 2: When considering deferred maintenance on all non-transportation assets, 

what percentage of the maintenance backlog comes from concessioner-operated buildings 

and facilities? 

Answer: At the end of FY 2014, there were 65,047 non-transportation assets with a total 

documented deferred maintenance backlog of $5,860,326,878. Of these, 4,668 were 

concession-occupied with a total documented deferred maintenance of$326,466,469 

which was 5.57% of the above documented non-transportation deferred maintenance 

total. 

Question 3: What is the total leasehold surrender interest (LSI) and possessory interest 

(PI) associated with concessions contracts in the National Park Service? Please also 

include a list of the 10 park units with the highest LSI or PI and how much LSI or PI each 

of those park units has. 

Answer: There are a total of 42 contracts with a total estimated PI/LSI of $466.4 

million. Of that total: 

• There are 29 LSI contracts with a total estimate of $276.4 million. 

• There are l3 PI contracts with a total estimate of$190 million. 
101 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

The 10 parks with the highest LSI or PI are listed below. Note that the PI or LSI values 

are estimates only. Technically, we consider the numbers proprietary and they are not 

normally released to the public. 

rnntro::~r"t'-' nr1th PT 

'-'VUUUV~C> HHH L .L 

Rank Park Park Name and/or LSI Estimated PI or LSI Value 

l GLCA Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 3 $]04,889,163 

2 GRCA Grand Canyon National Park 2 $98,710,222 

3 LAKE Lake Mead National Recreation Area 7 $60,628,000 

4 GRTE Grand Teton National Park $58,143,697 

NAMA National Mall and Memorial Parks 2 $26,183,053 

6 GLAC Glacier National Park 1 $22,000,000 

7 YELL Yellowstone National Park 2 $2!,503,541 

SEKI Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 2 $12,962,341 

9 OLYM Olympic National Park $10,756,931 

10 CRLA Crater Lake National Park $6,271,838 

Question 4: What percentage of hotels and other lodging accommodations located inside 

of a national park unit charge local or state taxes on lodging? 

Answer: Forty-eight out of 51, or 94%, of lodging accommodations located inside of 

national park units charge local or state taxes. 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: One of the primary concerns I have for future management of the National 

Park Service is the significant deferred maintenance backlog the agency has accrued. 

This $11.5 billion backlog, coupled with increased visitor traffic and a concessionaire 

system that may dissuade long-term private investment poses a significant threat to the 

longevity of our cherished public spaces. In Olympic National Park in Washington, the 

deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $133 million. An article last week reported 

that in the case of Grand Canyon National Park, the maintenance backlog has increased 

to $339 million. In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park faces a backlog of over $633 

million. Failure to decrease the maintenance backlog undoubtedly jeopardizes the ability 

offamilies to be able to visit and enjoy these iconic locations. Ultimately, this total is a 

threat to the future of the National Park System. Given the current budget climate and 

national deficit, what is the most effective way to reduce the maintenance backlog to 

ensure people will be able to enjoy these special places for another 100 years'7 

2 
102 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Answer: The NPS is taking a number of steps to reduce the deferred maintenance 

backlog. However, reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog will not be solved 

without significant additional federal investment. The NPS has recently issued a new 

policy requiring that 55% of recreational fees collected be spent on deferred maintenance 

projects, targeting highest priority assets. A number ofNPS partners have recently made 

donations for historic structure restoration and trail rebuilding, reducing deferred 

maintenance on these critical facilities. We are also working to expand our leasing 

program by transferring the responsibility for routine and deferred maintenance to lessees 

for facilities that are not needed for park operations. We are also engaging youth to 

accomplish deferred maintenance work while learning skills and developing an 

understanding of history and nature. However, these alternative approaches will only be 

able to address a relatively small portion of the deferred maintenance problem, and will 

not substantially reduce the backlog. Significant federal investment in park roads, 

bridges, utility systems and visitor facilities will be required to repair our park facilities. 

To focus the limited resources available toward our most important assets, the NPS 

developed and implemented the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) for Line Item 

Construction, Repair/Rehabilitation, and Recreation-Fee-funded Facility Maintenance 

projects. The CIS evaluates four elements of a project: Financial Sustainability, Visitor 

Use, Resource Protection, and Health and Safety and creates a numeric project ranking 

pool of high-priority projects. 

Question 2: When the National Park Service acquires or considers acquiring a new park 

unit, are the condition of the deferred maintenance backlog at the time of the acquisition 

and the expected future management costs of the potential unit considered as significant 

factors in the decision? 

Answer: The NPS only acquires property for a new park unit after the unit has been 

designated by Congress or by the President through use of the Antiquities Act. If the 

NPS conducts a Special Resource Study (SRS) prior to Congressional designation of a 

new park unit, which it has done for most of the recently designated new units, the NPS 

will have information about impacts to deferred maintenance (existing and forecasted 

facility conditions). In a SRS, the NPS evaluates a potential new unit against 4 criteria: 

national significance, suitability, feasibility and the need for NPS management. The 

feasibility analysis looks at the costs to manage the new unit, including the investment 

required to restore facilities in the new unit to good condition, as well as the ongoing 

maintenance costs of the facilities that would be acquired. In recent SRSs, the NPS has 

utilized a Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) analysis, estimating life cycle costs 

of physical assets, including all activities that occur over its lifetime and the 

organizational resources and capacity required to perform those activities. 

Question 3: Title II of S. 2257 creates the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund 

(NPCCF) in the Treasury, which creates an account specifically for the National Park 

Service. An additional provision in Title N creates the Public Lands Centennial Fund, 

3 
103 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

which includes an additional $100 million in mandatory appropriations over three years 

for the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies. The National Park Service seems to be 

able to seek monies from both of these funds. Why is the National Park Service included 

as a potential financial recipient of the Public Lands Centennial Fund when the bill 

creates the fund (NPCCF) dedicated solely to the Park Service? 

Answer: While the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund would be solely dedicated 

to the needs of the National Park Service, the scope and breadth ofNPS lands, 

responsibilities, and needs, including the deferred maintenance backlog, are such that any 

available additional funds are welcome in addressing them. Allowing the NPS to 

compete for funds within the Public Lands Centennial Fund would provide flexibility to 

target funds to the highest priority needs both within all public land management 

agencies, including the NPS. 

Questions from Senator Debbie Stabenow 

Ouestion 1: According to your statement, the 292 million people that visited National 

Parks in 2014 were record highs. The five parks in the State of Michigan attracted nearly 

2 million visitors, which generated $173 million in economic activity and supported 

nearly 3,000 local jobs. With the Centennial of the National Park Service in 2016, the 

expected increase in visitation will only place additional strains on the Service's already 

tight budget 

I understand that enacting the National Park Service Centennial Act would help to 

supplement, not supplant, current funding. I am particularly interested in the provisions 

in the bill that would formally establish the Centennial Challenge Fund and dedicate $100 

million for it in each of the next three years. In 2015, this program helped support youth 

crews that worked to preserve and provide maintenance of cultural landscapes and 

historic activities at Keweenaw National Historical Park and refurbish a historic log cabin 

at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Can you describe the interest from foundations, private businesses, and others to provide 

funds to match the proposed federal investment of $100 million a year? 

Answer: Throughout 2015, the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation 

tested new funding models to supplement federal discretionary appropriations and 

prepare the national parks for the next l 00 years. Through this process, we developed a 

better understanding of the types of projects that are most attractive to foundations, nonprofit organizations, individuals, and corporate partners. We saw first-hand how 

providing incentives to donors can be critical in attracting both small and large gifts. 

Matching a federal investment provides donors with a level of certainty they need to 

make a gift and motivates giving as donors can see the larger impact their gift can make. 

4 
104 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

For FY 2015, Congress appropriated $10 million for the Centennial Challenge Fund. In 

less than 6 months, the National Park Service was able to generate $15.9 million in 

commitments from more than 90 organizations to leverage the federal funds. These 

projects ranged from $5.2 million to rehabilitate and restore the Mariposa Grove of giant 

sequoias at Yosemite National Park in partnership with the Yosemite Conservancy, to 

under $10,000 to raise the sunken walks at the Raspberry Island Light Station of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore in partnership with the National Parks of Lake Superior 

Foundation. 

The proposal to create a Centennial Challenge Fund was promoted by former Secretary 

of the Interior Dirk Kempthome in 2008. Although the fund was not enacted, his 

proposal for a $100 million fund generated 210 project and program proposals and 

commitments of$215 million in non-federal support. 

The Centennial Challenge Fund is also an important tool for engaging more and diverse 

individuals and organizations in park philanthropy. For many of our smaller 

philanthropic partners, a federal match presents the opportunity to accomplish important 

park projects that would otherwise be beyond their reach. Successfully completing these 

larger projects demonstrates to other potential donors a partner's ability to tackle even 

larger and more impactful work. For our larger partners, a federal match allows them to 

work with a park to complete increasingly ambitious and challenging projects. 

Question 2: As you are well aware, funding offsets are hard to find in this difficult 

budgetary environment. The National Park Service Centennial Act provides two offsets 

from increased user fees in a fund called the National Park Service Second Century Fund. 

How much would these offsets raise, and what amount is actually necessary to address 

operations and construction shortfalls in our parks? I understand the parks in Michigan 

have a backlog totaling nearly $50 million. 

Answer: The NPS estimates the two offsets included in the Centennial Act would raise 

an additional $40 million per year depending on how the charge is calculated and 

occupancy rates in a particular year; these funds would be leveraged with matching 

private donations of funds, goods or services for a total combined benefit to the NPS of at 

least $75.2 million annually. These funds, combined with the other mandatory proposals, 

would help to ensure the NPS entered its second century of operations with the capacity 

to continue engaging a growing number of visitors and to protect the incredible natural 

and priceless cultural resources entrusted to its care. This includes addressing the 

deferred maintenance backlog, which stood at $11.5 billion as of the end ofFYl4. Of 

this backlog, $2.2 billion represents deferred maintenance on the highest priority, nontransportation assets of the NPS. 

5 
105 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Ouestion 1: I understand that at Grand Canyon National Park there is a program 

allowing certain vendor partners to sell park entrance passes as well as a contract for a 

third-party vendor to sell passes through automated fee collection machines. 

a. What other similar arrangements to sell park entrance passes exist at other parks? 

Answer: The NPS generally sells park entrance passes at entrance gates, visitor 

centers or other visitor contact stations within a park, automated fee collection 

machines and/or through third-party vendors such as local gateway community 

businesses. Some parks sell park entrance passes on-line as well. Interagency annual 

passes are available at staffed federal public lands sites, Recreation.gov, the USGS 

website, or third-party vendors such as REI and AAA. 

b. What authorities does the NPS use to allow third-party sales of park passes? 

Answer: Third-party agreements may be entered into under the authority of the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, 16 USC 6801-6814 et seq., as 

well as the following National Park Service and departmental authorities supporting 

promotion and protection of public lands: Management Policies 2006; Director's 

Order #20: Agreements; Director's Order #22: Recreation Fees; Reference Manual 

22A: Recreation Fees, Chapter 11 Fee Collection Methods, Section 11.4 Fee 

Collection and Pass Sales by Third Parties; The "America the Beautiful-the National 

Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass" Interagency Standard Operating 

Procedures. 

c. What guidance does the NPS use to establish the amount that the third-party 

vendor earns for the sale of a park pass? 

Answer: Parks may sell entrance passes and pre-printed entrance receipts to third 

parties at a 10% discount. For example, a park may sell an $80 Interagency Annual 

Pass to an authorized third-party for $72, a $30 park-specific annual pass for $27 or a 

$25 entrance receipt for $22.50. 

d. Service-wide how many of the park entrance pass sales are made through a thirdparty vendor each year? 

Answer: The NPS has third-party agreements to sell interagency annual passes with 

35 national vendors, including companies like AAA, REI, and Trailfinders Limited. 

In 2015, these vendors sold 20,015 Interagency Annual Passes that brought in 

$1,461,132 in revenue. The NPS cannot provide the number of park-specific entry 

passes sold service-wide through local third-party vendors since those arrangements 

are overseen locally at the park level. 

6 
106 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Question 2: The Park Service is evaluating potential solutions to the water pipeline 

challenges at the Grand Canyon National Park by developing a water-delivery study. In 

response to a question following the February 24 hearing on the Department of the 

Interior's FY16 budget request, Secretary Jewell indicated that the NPS intended to begin 

the NEPA process for the Grand Canyon National Park this summer and that Grand 

Canyon National Park was a member of two collaborative workgroups considering 

regional water-supply solutions. A recent E&E story ("Park's Crumbling Water System 

Tests Cash-Strapped NPS", Greenwire, December 2, 2015) highlighted regional solutions 

including a Lake Powell pipeline and a refurbishment of the Black Mesa coal slurry 

pipeline. Please provide an update on the Grand Canyon National Park's water supply 

solutions including the NPS's involvement with the various regional pipeline proposals. 

Answer: The NPS is currently conducting multiple engineering and hydrologic studies 

to establish baseline information about the water supply at Grand Canyon National Park 

that will inform the planning process. 

The NPS plans to initiate the NEPA process with public scoping in the spring of2016. 

Despite delaying initial public scoping, the NPS still expects to have a recommendation 

for a preferred alternative by late 2016 as originally planned. The preferred alternative 

will include information needed to proceed with project development and cost estimates. 

The park continues to participate as a member of the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory 

Counsel and Watershed Partnership as well as the group's technical advisory committee. 

These are regional, collaborative workgroups that include representatives from the 

county, city, state, tribal governments, and federal agencies working to address regional 

water issues. These groups have considered various options for providing water to the 

park and surrounding communities. However, replacement of Grand Canyon's water 

disttibution system is needed immediately and, to our knowledge, a viable method for 

providing water on a regional basis has not been identified at this time. The NPS will 

continue to evaluate all options to ensure the park maintains an appropriate water supply. 

Question 3: The Grand Canyon Bison Management Plan was described by Associate 

Director Knox as "a high ptiority planning project" on which the NPS "is diligently 

working with [our] partners" (June lOth hearing by Subcommittee on National Parks). 

Following the March 12th hearing on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of2015 you sent 

Chairman Murkowski a letter stating that Grand Canyon National Park expected to have 

a draft EIS for the Bison Management plan "our for public review and comment this 

fall." Please provide an update on the status of the EIS and the Service's collaboration 

with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Answer: The NPS is in the process of working with our partners- the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management- to 

focus the scope of the NEPA review on the immediate need for herd reduction and 

7 
107 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

protection of other sensitive park resources. The NPS expects to complete the NEPA 

review in 2016 and to begin implementation shortly after. We will continue to provide 

opportunities for public participation and expect to re-engage the public in early spring 

2016. The park continues to monitor the effects of bison on other park resources and will 

use these results in the planning effort. 

Question 4: As you know I have expressed opposition to any unilateral executive action 

to designate more national monuments in Arizona. Is the Department working with the 

President to prepare a monument designation for the Grand Canyon watershed? 

Answer: The Department has no current plans to propose a designation of monuments in 

Arizona under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Moreover, the Department engages in 

robust consultation with national, state, local, and tribal stakeholders prior to the 

designation of any monument, in keeping with the President's commitment. 

Questions from Senator Joe Man chin III 

Question 1: Constituents in my state have raised concerns over the ban on sales of 

bottled water within national parks. Is the NPS looking for more ways to increase the 

availability of clean and safe drinking water for all visitors? 

Answer: The NPS provides clean and safe drinking water for its visitors as a matter of 

routine in virtually all of our developed parks and is exploring options to provide greater 

access to water for visitors through the installation of more water bottle filling stations. 

Question 2: Is the NPS tracking whether the bottled water sales ban is reducing waste 

significantly? 

Answer: The National Park Service is exploring ways to quantify the waste stream 

reduction impacts that have resulted from the 2011 disposable water bottle reduction and 

recycling policy and plans to evaluate the cost and resources required to track this waste 

reduction. A major challenge in capturing the data is that, typically, disposable plastic 

water bottles placed in recycling bins at the parks are comingled with other recyclable 

containers such as bottles and cans, making it labor intensive and difficult to measure 

reductions in visitor-generated plastic containers. Additionally, there is currently no 

mechanism for monitoring the number of plastic water bottles placed into trash 

receptacles and not recycled. 

8 
108 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Ouestion 1: When we spoke a few months ago, you were candid about the realities of 

trying to authorize $1.5 billion of mandatory spending without any offsets. I asked if the 

Park Service had a backup plan in the absence of mandatory funding. We didn't have an 

opportunity to discuss that plan at the time at length. 

a. What is the Park Service's funding plan in the absence of the mandatory 

spending requests being fulfilled? 

Answer: The NPS is making every effort to leverage its federal funding to accomplish 

its Centennial goals. In 2015, for the first time since 2008, parks were authorized to 

increase their recreation fees, following extensive public engagement efforts to ensure 

that fee increases satisfied both parks and visitors. The NPS estimates these fee increases, 

when fully implemented over the next several years, could raise an additional $45 million 

annually. Recreation fee revenue is used exclusively for visitor services improvements, 

and the NPS intends to use the increased revenue to defray the growing deferred 

maintenance backlog. The NPS is also growing its partner relationships, both corporate 

and local. Beginning in 2014, the National Park Foundation embarked on the quiet phase 

of a multi-million capital campaign; the public campaign will be released in 2016. The 

NPS will also more than double the federal funds provided in FY 2015 and FY 2016 for 

the Centennial Challenge program with non-federal partner donations to accomplish 

signature projects and programs at national parks. Finally, the Centennial legislation 

includes new proposals to increase funding streams, including establishing a National 

Park Service Second Century Fund, which would be supported by increasing the cost of a 

lifetime senior pass and charging a modest fee for lodging or camping within a unit of the 

national park system. 

Question 2: In the next year and in future years, how will the Park Service balance the 

Public's right to access with the need for Park preservation and protection? 

Answer: So long as the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 remains the 

fundamental law governing the management of park resources, the NPS will be required 

to conserve the special places under our stewardship in a manner and leave them 

unimpaired for future generations. In providing for their enjoyment, the NPS will need to 

continue to place a higher priority on protection of park resources. 

That said, the NPS strives to be as welcoming to visitors as possible and to maximize 

public access to parks. We do this in multiple ways: by partnering with businesses and 

organizations that provide necessary services to visitors; by providing a variety of 

opportunities for visitors to learn about and gain a greater appreciation for park resources; 

and by attracting the public to the parks. The primary focus of our efforts around the 

NPS Centennial is getting the word out to all Americans that national parks are theirs to 

9 
109 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

experience and enjoy. We are doing that through the "Find Your Park" campaign, the 

"Every Kid in a Park" initiative, and a multitude of other efforts that the NPS and our 

partners are engaged in. We hope that long after the Centennial is over, these efforts will 

continue. 

We anticipate that in the future, as in the past, there will be situations where access and 

resource protection come into conflict. Protecting resources will continue to be of 

paramount importance, but when such cases arise, we will strive to give full 

consideration to all points of view and to resolve the conflict in a practical and fair 

manner that is well understood by the public. 

Question 3: According to the February Department oflnterior Inspector General's 

Report on the Park Service's fee structure, in 2012, 500,446 Senior Passes were issued. 

This legislation proposes to raise the Senior Pass from $10 to $80 and use that difference 

to establish a Second Century Fund. Raising the fee would yield the Park Service more 

than $35 million using the 2012 numbers. 

a. How many Senior Passes were issued by the Park Service in 2013 and 2014? 

Answer: The NPS issued 515,238 Senior Passes in 2013 and 508,648 in 2014. 

Question 4: Mr. Shafroth stated in his testimony that "adding cellular service and mobile 

phone applications to enhance the experience of park visitors tend to be the types of 

projects that generate non-federal partner interest in making donations or sponsorship 

investments". The Pope's recent visit to DC highlighted the need for enhancements in our 

telecommunications system along the Nation Mall and the potential for the kind of 

partnerships you discuss. 

People waited for hours on the Pope's anival and despite best efforts by the wireless 

caniers through installation of temporary antennas, or "Cell on Wheels", to boost 

capacity, the National Mall and the Capitol grounds were effectively a "dead zone" when 

it came to wireless coverage. The lack of cell coverage is more than merely an 

inconvenience as most Americas now rely on cell connectivity to communicate, 

download information and learn about their surroundin~s. This disruption in service 

during large scale events (Presidential Inaugurations, 411 of Julys, Pope's visit, etc.) could 

be disastrous in an emergency. The National Mall is not a remote location. The 

expectation in America's Front Yard is that the experience is able to be shared via 

connected wireless devices. 

a. With the investment of millions of dollars in the National Mall, what is the 

National Park Service's plan to bring permanent cell connectivity to the Mall? 

10 
110 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Answer: The NPS issued a Request For Information (RFI) in 2014 so that it might better 

understand the potential benefit of deploying a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) and 

the likely impact of its installation on the treasured landscape of the National Mall. The 

NPS is reviewing the multiple responses to the RFI, and it is evident that installation of a 

DAS will require an exacting design effort, substantial environmental and historic 

preservation compliance, and approvals from the Commission of Fine Arts and the 

National Capital Planning Commission. 

In concert with the technical review ofRFI submissions, the NPS is working to address 

several critical issues for the installation of a DAS, including determination of the 

appropriate method of authorization (lease, concession, permit, or commercial use 

authorization), and coordination with Mall "neighbors" (the Smithsonian Institution and 

the Architect of the Capitol). A survey of potential equipment locations on the Mall has 

been undertaken to assist in the identification of feasible locations for equipment 

installation. The NPS is also exploring cooperation with the District of Columbia 

Government to leverage the District's existing and substantial fiber optic infrastructure. 

b. How does NPS plan to solve the problem in advance of the 2017 

Presidential Inauguration? 

Answer: The NPS recognizes the complications with cellular service that arose during 

the 2009 Presidential Inauguration. In an effort to avoid lapses in service for park 

visitors, the NPS took additional steps during the 2013 Inauguration as well as during the 

Pope's visit in 2015 to ensure adequate cellular service coverage. The NPS will continue 

to use strategic placement of COWs (Cell on Wheels) as an interim strategy that can be 

used to serve park visitors until a comprehensive Distributed Antenna System (DAS) can 

be permanently installed. 

In addition, the NPS is working with multiple partners to provide free Wi-Fi service at 

several locations on the Mall, including the World War II Memorial, the Korean War 

Veterans Memorial, and the Washington Monument. The Wi-Fi systems provide less 

expansive coverage and less bandwidth than a DAS system but they require less 

substantial infrastructure and installation is virtually invisible. The first of these systems 

should be functioning within a few months. 

Question 5: In 2011 the National Park Service adopted a policy allowing national park 

units to ban the sale of bottled water in plastic containers. This policy contradicts the 

Administration's ambitious healthy foods initiative as well as the First Lady's efforts to 

encourage people to drink more water, including bottled and tap. 

You acknowledged that banning the sale of water bottles "runs counter to our healthy 

food initiative as it eliminates the healthiest choice for bottled drinks, leaving sugary 

11 
111 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

drinks as the alternative. You also said that a ban could pose challenges for diabetics and 

others with health issues who come to a park ... " 

The Park Service also admitted that parks that have bans in place do not report separately 

on their recycling quantities based on type of material, and therefore "do not have the 

data available to conduct any post-ban analysis." So it appears they are not tracking 

whether the bottled water sales ban is reducing waste or benefits visitors. 

a. Recognizing that there could be adverse health consequences from such a 

policy, why did the Park Service specifically elect to single out bottled water 

in adopting this policy? 

Answer: The NPS disposable water bottle recycling and reduction policy seeks to 

counter any potential water-need problems associated with the elimination of sales of 

bottled water by eliminating sales only in park locations where sources of public drinking 

water are available and refillable water bottles are available for purchase. 

b. The overwhelming majority of the Parks that have enacted this ban all are 

located in parts of the country with notoriously dry climates. I understand that 

visitors are free to bring their own water bottles and can likely refill it in 

different areas of the parks, but not everyone may do so. 

1. Has the Park Service had any incidents of visitors suffering from 

dehydration, heat exhaustion or needing some type of emergency 

medical care at these parks since the Park Service adopted this policy? 

Answer: No, the NPS has not observed an increased incidence of heat-related illness 

that may be associated with disposable water bottle access at parks that have adopted this 

policy. We will continue to educate our public about the risks of heat exhaustion and 

dehydration and encourage them to remain well-hydrated while enjoying our parks. 

Questions from Senator Rob Portman 

Question 1: It is my understanding that the NPS currently charges seniors $10 for a 

lifetime pass. How long has this been the price, and on average, how many senior passes 

does NPS sell a year? 

Answer: The original Senior Pass- the Golden Age Passport- was first established as a 

free annual pass in 1972. In 1974, it became a free lifetime pass. In 1994, a $10 fee was 

established for the lifetime pass. The NPS issued 508,648 senior passes in 2014. In 

recent years the average has been around 500,000. 

12 
112 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Question 2: Have you vetted an increase with senior groups like AARP? If so, what has 

been the response? 

Answer: Based on informal discussions, the AARP and various other senior groups are 

supportive of an increase. 

Question 3: With regards to the lodging fee: As you heard from Mr. Crandall, the 

National Park Hospitality Association is opposed to the new lodging fee. Mr. Crandall 

argues that the fee would: be borne by a small portion of all park visitors; be a deterrent 

to efforts to attract visitors during off-seasons; have a negative impact on guest donation 

programs; and, be an administrative burden on concessioners. What are your opinions 

regarding his concerns? 

Answer: Mr. Crandall is correct that the lodging fee would be borne by those visitors 

who choose to stay at NPS lodging facilities and not all visitors. However, these 

overnight stay visitors are more likely to spend more time in the park and use more 

facilities and infrastructure such as roads and utilities than day-use visitors and therefore 

we believe a modest fee to help address the Service's need for additional funding is 

reasonable. The fee is within the range of similar "resort" fees seen in many private 

sector resorts. Lodgings in parks traditionally experience higher than comparable 

occupancy rates even in shoulder seasons and therefore it is not anticipated that the 

additional lodging fee would be a significant deterrent to park visitation. In addition, we 

do not anticipate that the lodging surcharge would be administratively complicated as it 

would be consistently applied though the concessioner lodging systems in the same way 

that other fees such as state and local taxes are applied. 

Question 4: What is your opinion of the National Park Hospitality Association's 

alternative, a $1 Centennial surcharge on all entrance fees? 

Answer: Entrance fees are set through a process of public engagement, so the addition 

of a $1 Centennial surcharge on entrance fees without public involvement, would be 

inconsistent with NPS practices. The NPS has recently raised fees in many of its 

locations through this public process, and adding a surcharge to the entrance fee may 

cause confusion for visitors. 

Question 5: The Administration Centennial proposal includes $1.5 billion in new 

spending, but was only able to identify less than $50 million in offsets. Were you able to 

identify any other potential offsets that were not included in the proposal? 

Answer: The proposal is part of the President's Budget for FY 2017, which includes 

potential offsets that are not specific to the proposal. 

Question 6: In addition to being an incredible place to visit and spend time outdoors, the 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP) has gone to great lengths to establish a model 

13 
113 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

education program. The program has grown to become a core part of school curriculum 

in North East Ohio. The park serves over 3,500 children in week long residential 

programs and 8,000 in field trips and day camps. This has helped the park reach out to 

underserved communities and develop innovative programs to work with urban 

neighborhoods in Cleveland and Akron. Much of this work is funded via philanthropic 

support. How would the Administration's Centennial proposal support parks like CVNP 

in their efforts to provide urban outreach and education? 

Answer: The National Park Service enabling legislation specifies preserving resources 

and providing for public enjoyment as the bureau's mission. It does not specifically refer 

to the role of education as an important component of carrying out the mission. 

However, interpretation and education are critical to the long-term preservation and 

enjoyment of park resources. Through interpretation, education, and service, people form 

deep personal connections to these special places, and become stewards of the parks. As 

the keeper of our nation's historic places and critical ecosystems, the NPS is an important 

educational resource, promoting historical and scientific literacy and civic engagement 

skills. The Centennial legislation would clarify that interpretation and education are key 

functions of the National Park Service. This will ensure that park education programs 

like the one at Cuyahoga Valley National Park continue to receive management support 

into the future. 

Question 7: CVNP has grown its volunteer program, co-managed by the park and the 

Conservancy, to 5,900 volunteers and over 200,000 hours annually. Their volunteers 

include youth, families, corporations and individuals from diverse backgrounds. Would 

the Administration's Centennial proposal address policies to support philanthropy and the 

CVNP's mission to attract new volunteers? 

Answer: The legislation proposed by the Administration, S. 2257, would expand the 

Centennial Challenge, which would be an important incentive for private philanthropy at 

all levels. It would allow smaller philanthropic partners to demonstrate a greater impact 

and more established partners to take on increasingly ambitious projects. 

Also, the proposed legislation would create the Second Century Endowment that would 

provide a long-term funding source for important park projects and allow the National 

Park Service, National Park Foundation, and local partners to more successfully engage 

in longer-term projects or multi-year relationships with donors. 

Finally, the proposed legislation contains language that would eliminate the spending cap 

on the NPS Volunteer Program, which is currently set at $7 million. The Volunteer 

Program is core to the NPS mission. Volunteering is one of the best ways to form deep 

lasting bonds between people and their national parks. It is also critical for operating 

parks. In FY 2015 there were over 400,000 NPS volunteers leveraging a value of more 

than $180 million. However, volunteers require management including, recruiting, 

security vetting, supervision, and recognition. Removing the spending cap on the NPS 

14 
114 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Volunteer Program would allow parks like Cuyahoga Valley to continue to grow their 

volunteer program, engaging more people in meaningful service experiences and getting 

more work done to preserve and protect the parks' natural and cultural resources. 

Question 8: The Park Service is billions behind on projects needed just to maintain 

existing national parks. What kinds of plans does the Park Service have to address this 

shortfall? 

Answer: The NPS is taking a number of steps to reduce the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Recently, the NPS issued a new policy requiring that 55% of recreational fees 

collected be spent on deferred maintenance projects, targeting highest priority asset. A 

number ofNPS partners have recently made donations for historic structure restoration 

and trail rebuilding, reducing deferred maintenance on these critical facilities. We are 

also working to expand our leasing program by transferring the responsibility for routine 

and deferred maintenance to lessees for facilities that are unneeded for park operations. 

We are also engaging youth to accomplish deferred maintenance work while learning 

skills and developing an understanding of history and nature. 

To focus the limited resources available toward our most important assets, the NPS 

developed and implemented the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) for Line Item 

Construction, Repair/Rehabilitation, and Recreation Fee funded Facility Maintenance 

projects. The (CIS) evaluates four elements of a project: Financial Sustainability, Visitor 

Use, Resource Protection and Health and Safety and creates a numeric project ranking 

pool of high priority projects. 

However, as helpful and useful as all of these approaches are to reducing the deferred 

maintenance backlog problem, the problem will not be solved without significant 

additional federal investment in park roads, bridges, utility systems, and visitor facilities. 

Question 9: What are the largest maintenance projects on this list? 

Please see the attached spreadsheet with examples ofNPS's largest non-transportation 

projects. Included in the spreadsheet is a list of the NPS's transportation projects valued 

at less than $4 million per project that do not have identified funding sources at this time. 

The transportation maintenance backlog is approximately the same value as the nontransportation backlog. 

Question 10: Are major maintenance projects regularly completed? 

Yes. Major maintenance projects are completed on an ongoing basis throughout the 

NPS. 

15 
115 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Question 11: Our national infrastructure is aging, and I imagine that many of our park 

facilities are as well. Is this backlog expected to grow? What is the Park Service doing 

to limit this growth? 

Yes, the NPS backlog will continue to grow as long as there remains a gap between the 

funding required to maintain the NPS facilities and the funds available to complete this 

maintenance. To lessen the impact of this growth, the NPS has developed and 

implemented a Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) to focus the limited maintenance 

funding on our highest priority assets. 

Questions from Senator Angus King, Jr. 

Question 1: What is the percentage of user fees vs. the percentage of appropriations? 

Given that percentage, are current user fees adequate in your opinion? Is there any plan 

to pursue more advanced technologies to collect park fees (such as requiring credit/debit 

card readers at each park entry station)? 

Answer: In FY 2015, recreation fees were 9.53 percent of the amount of the NPS 

Operation of the National Park System and Construction appropriations. In the fall of 

2014, the National Park Service conducted a nationwide review of entrance fees. As a 

result, implementation of a consistent pricing model by park type and grouping is 

continuing with some fee rates adjusted to better reflect the best balance between 

adequate resource supports for visitor needs at these parks while still keeping parks 

within reach of American families as an affordable recreational experience. 

Additionally, the NPS is committed to the pursuit of advanced technologies for both 

methods of payment and entry passes. The NPS already employs credit/debit card 

readers at all parks with connectivity, and the NPS recently deployed 185 new credit card 

terminals capable of reading chip cards in 86 parks. The new terminals support Google 

Wallet and Apple Pay transactions. Four parks are currently piloting Apple Pay and 

other near-field communication enabled payments; once the pilot is complete a memo 

providing instructions on processing Apple Pay transactions will be sent to all parks with 

the new equipment. 

The NPS also plans to pilot mobile entry passes at five parks across the country in the 

coming months, including Acadia National Park. The NPS released a Request for 

Information (RFI) in October of this year to seek information from the industry on what 

is currently available in the form of Electronic Entrance Passes. Over 20 companies 

responded to the RFI and the NPS is currently working with a number of the vendors in 

pursuit of additional information and plans to pilot electronic pass sales and use at pilot 

parks in the coming months. 

16 
116 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Question 2: In your opinion, what concession contract changes are necessary to make 

management more efficient? 

Answer: The 1998 concessions act mandates a one-size-fits-all contract model and a 

rigid bidding process that does not allow the NPS to use industry standard contract 

models or negotiate contracts. To address this issue, the NPS needs the flexibility to 

employ a variety of contract types rather than a single type to contract for the wide 

variety of commercial services offered to visitors. Management contracts, for example, 

are widely used to manage lodging properties in the private sector, but the NPS has no 

ability to use this type of contract under the 1998 law. Freedom to negotiate some tenns 

of the contract, which the current law does not provide, should result in more mutually 

beneficial contracts and better services for visitors. 

In addition, the 1998law provides only one financing avenue for capital improvements 

leasehold surrender interest (LSI). Under current concessions law, LSI is the method 

used to compensate concessioners for improvements they make to the facilities associated 

with a concession contract. Concessioners generally are paid the value of this LSI when 

that contract ends. Due to the statutory formula that adjusts LSI value by the change in 

CPI, the value of LSI tends to grow rather than depreciate over the life of a contract, 

leading to large balances at the end of a contract. The NPS can increase the amount of 

investment in concession-assigned facilities if it has additional tools at its disposal. The 

Administration's legislative proposal, S. 2257, authorizes a revolving fund as well as 

management contracts that would allow for investment without the need to incur LSI. 

Question 3: Is there a plan to award longer contracts to concessioners, such as 20-year 

contracts which would help promote more private investment? If so, what are the details 

of this plan? 

Answer: Prior to the 1998 concessions act, NPS awarded concession contracts for terms 

as long as 30 years, and concessioners had the right to continue operating well past the 30 

year term if they wanted to remain. This perpetual right to operate gave little incentive to 

improve performance or offer new services. Congress recognized this and resolved it in 

the 1998 act by requiring NPS to award contracts generally for a period of 10 years or 

less. Congress provided that NPS can award contracts for periods up to 20 years when the 

terms and conditions of the contract warrant a longer contract period. The NPS does 

award contracts with terms longer than 10 years when necessary to attract competition or 

when justified based on the required investment. For example, the recently awarded 

contracts at Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks are for 15 years. 

Question 4: Is the Park Service taking steps to make sure criteria used to award 

concession contracts include strong consideration for past performance evaluations, 

quality of service and administration, and the locality of concessioner as it relates to the 

impact of the local community? 1f so, how is it taking these steps? 

17 
117 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natln·al Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

Answer: The Service is currently implementing updates to the service quality evaluation 

process including new standards and evaluation methods that consider current industry 

practice and recognize superior performance. Some of these changes were informed by 

discussions with the concessions community which explored ways to enhance 

concessioner incentive and recognition practices while still providing a competitive 

environment in accordance with the 1998 Act. The Service intends to continue this 

dialog. In addition, we now require submission of past operating evaluations when 

concessioners compete for new contracts. We are working to balance an incumbent 

concessioner' s experience against a company without prior experience operating in a 

national park. 

Questions from Senator Ron Wyden 

Questions: As many of you know, access to outdoor recreation has been a priority of 

mine for many years. Not only do I support protections for some of the Nation's most 

pristine natural areas for generations of public access and enjoyment, I think it's clear 

that the outdoor recreation economy has become a sustainable economic engine in many 

parts of the country, including my horne state of Oregon. 

The recreation economy generates billions- and I'm not just talking about revenue from 

gift shops and sales of outdoor equipment- I'm talking about the tourism dollars 

generated in rural communities, at morn and pop diners, and even at local gas stations 

from folks driving to national parks, forests, and historic sites across the country to 

experience these wonders first hand. 

I was in Oregon this summer touring Oregon's Seven Wonders- including the 

unmatched Crater Lake National Park- discussing all the ways Congress can support the 

recreation economy and ensure that our special places are taken care of for our kids and 

their kids to enjoy. One of the things I heard on this tour was the importance of 

maintaining safe and functioning infrastructure, like trails, bathroom facilities, and 

campgrounds, for the benefit of the visitors. But of course, funding remains a concern 

during a time where the maintenance backlog in our parks is over $11 billion. 

Q. How will the increased funding and authority in this Centennial bill help to improve 

visitor services and increase access to our National Parks? 

Answer: Increases in funding resulting from the centennial bill will be used to 

address a variety of park needs, many of which will improve visitor services. 

Examples include addressing deferred maintenance, modernizing facilities and 

infrastructure, developing mobile interpretation and education apps, and 

developing new exhibits for visitor centers. New authorities, such as contracting 

flexibilities provided by the visitor service management authority provisions, will 

18 
118 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis 

attract new companies to business opportunities in parks. More competition in 

commercial visitor service opportunities improves services for visitors. 

I've heard from many outdoor recreation communities about the need to streamline 

recreation permitting and cut the red tape to make accessing the outdoors easier and more 

fun. Q. What are the Park Services goals for improving the visitor experience when it 

comes to the commercial permitting process for outfitters and guides and ease of public 

access to permits and informational materials like through an app or centralized website 

-and will this Centennial bill help you achieve these goals? How? 

Answer: The Park Service continually looks for ways to improve our permitting 

processes for commercial services. Over the years we have streamlined and 

standardized permitting guidance. In addition, many park units now use Pay.gov 

to pay for their commercial use authorizations (CUAs). We recognize that there 

are more opportunities to improve the permitting process. Towards that end, we 

are exploring the possibility of creating a national CUA to eliminate the need for 

multiple CUAs. We are also exploring the possibility of developing one website 

to provide information about CUAs including Service-wide infonnation and 

links to each individual park. 

The NPS does not see a need to change or modify our existing authorities at this 

time - any needed improvements can be accomplished through changes in 

administrative processes. Consequently, S. 2257 does not address modifications 

to existing CUA authorities. 

19 
Examples of Large Planned NPS Line Item Construction Projects 

(dollars in thousands) 

Park 

Dry Tortugas National Park 

Vanderbilt Mansion NHS 

Yellowstone National Park 

Golden Gate NRA Glacier National Park 

Yosemite National Park 

Grand Teton NP 

Cape Hatteras NS 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

Mount Ranier National Park 

National Mall and Memorial Parks 

Jewel Cave National Monument 

Grand Canyon National Park 

Project 

Stabilize Bastions 1, 2 and 3 at Fort Jefferson 

Rehab Mansion Foundation and Support Walls 

Rehabilitation Mammoth Hotel 

Stabilize & Repair Exterior Walls of the Cell house, Alcatraz 

Correct Health & Safety Hazards at Many Glacier Hotel 

Rehabilitate El Portal Sanitary Sewer 

Replace Water & Wastewater Systems at Moose 

Rehabilitate Wright Brothers Visitor Center Replace Electrical Infrastructure for Safety on Floyd Bennett Field 

Rehabilitate Paradise Inn Annex and Connection Snow Bridge 

Replace Washington Monument Screening Facility 

Upgrade Structures for Safe Cave Tours 

Replace North Rim Potable Water Distribution System 

FY 2016 Enacted 

6,618 

5,275 

8,668 

9,954 

7,156 

4,886 

13,948 

6,824 

Pr
120 

[]National 

Park Foundation. 

Will Shafroth 

President & CEO 

National Park Foundation 

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing to receive testimony on S. 2257, National Park Service for its Centennial in 2016, and 

for a second century of protecting our national parks' natural, historic, and cultural resources 

for present and future generations and for other purposes 

December 8, 2015 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Can the National Park Service currently transfer appropriated funds, fees, or 

donations to the National Park Foundation to be used to match private dollars or to be placed in 

an interest-bearing fund, such as an endowment? If the NPS does not have the authority, do 

you think Congress should consider granting authority to the NPS to transfer donations, and 

possibly appropriated funds or fees, to the National Park Foundation to be used as matching 

funds or to be placed in an endowment? 

Will Shafroth: 

The NPS has general cost share authority that allows it to utilize appropriated funds to match 

private donations for projects and programs throughout the National Park System. However, 

the National Park Service does not have the authority to transfer money to the National Park 

Foundation to be placed in an interest-bearing fund or to match private dollars. 

We feel that appropriated funds and fees should be utilized as they currently are to fund day to 

day operations across the system. 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: 

One of the primary concerns I have for future management of the National Park Service is the 

significant deferred maintenance backlog the agency has accrued. This $11.5 billion backlog, 

coupled with increased visitor traffic and a concessionaire system that may dissuade long-term 

private investment poses a significant threat to the longevity of our cherished public spaces. In 

Olympic National Park in Washington, the deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $133 

million. An article last week reported that in the case of Grand Canyon National Park, the 

maintenance backlog has increased to $339 million. In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park 

faces a backlog of over $633 million. Failure to decrease the maintenance backlog undoubtedly 

jeopardizes the ability of families to be able to visit and enjoy these iconic locations. Ultimately, 

this total is a threat to the future of the National Park System. Given the current budget climate 

and national deficit, what is the most effective way to reduce the maintenance backlog to ensure 

people will be able to enjoy these special places for another 100 years? 
121 

Will Shafroth: 

We share your concern with the size of the deferred maintenance backlog. Earlier this year NPS 

and NPF launched the Find Your Park public engagement campaign, which has the goal of 

bringing new audiences to our national parks, especially Millenials. We're seeing the impact on 

visitorship already. From January through September 2015 there were 248 million visits to our 

national parks- an increase of 10 million visits over the same period of 2014, which saw a 

record level of visits. 

As new visitors travel to our parks, it is vital they have a positive experience or we risk a first 

time visit being a one time visit and the state of facilities, trails and roads could certainly have a 

negative impact. 

While you are correct that the deferred maintenance backlog is $11.5 billion it is important to 

note that approximately half of the maintenance backlog consists of road and bridge projects 

under the transportation bill. 

While some of the 106 projects funded by the $26 million in Centennial Challenge money in 

FY15 tackled maintenance backlog projects the fact remains that it's very difficult to secure 

philanthropic dollars for "backlog" projects such as fixing sewer systems or HVAC units. Those 

are and must remain the responsibility of the federal government to pay for with appropriated 

dollars. The parks belong to all of us and taxpayer dollars must be used to maintain them. 

Questions from Senator Bill Cassidy 

Question 1: In your testimony you state, " ... the Foundation and National Park Service are 

developing an enhanced understanding of the types of projects and programs that are most and 

least attractive to private donors and corporate partners ... building or restoring necessary 

infrastructure such as roads, restrooms and maintenance facilities are better suited to being 

completed with federal appropriations. Conversely, adding cellular service and mobile phone 

applications to enhance the experience of park visitors tend to be the types of projects that 

generate non-federal partner interest in making donations or sponsorship investments." 

a. How has the Foundation collaborated with the Park Service to develop innovative ways 

to fund this proposed Endowment? 

Will Shafroth: 

The Foundation has collaborated at all levels of the Park Service to develop a list of projects 

and programs that will appeal to philanthropic donors for our $250 million national fund raising 

campaign. Along with raising significant resources for key projects and programs, this list is 

providing NPF and NPS with invaluable feedback on the type of initiatives that appeal to donors. 

Regarding the proposed endowment; we believe that the majority of philanthropic contributions 

will come from bequests and planned giving. Baby boomers- the richest generation in 

American history are working on their wills and planned giving currently and they are seeking 

a home that they know will be both in existence and thriving when their gift is executed. 
122 

Question 2: The Administration has proposed increasing the Senior Pass from $10 to $80. 

Since the number of baby boomers who are retiring continues to grow, would initially allocating 

the funds from the increased revenue towards both the Centennial Challenge Fund and the 

proposed Endowment provide the adequate funding needed to attract donations for the 

Endowment? 

Will Shafroth: 

NPF supports increasing the price of the "Senior Pass" and establishing overnight fees at 

lodging facilities throughout the park system to fund both the Centennial Challenge and the 

proposed endowment. These two funding sources are part of a new and necessary holistic 

funding model for our national parks and we wouldn't support legislation that didn't provide 

sufficient funding for both. That's why we believe it's necessary for both the fee increase and 

the establishment of the overnight fee to be included in the legislation. 

We believe that the inclusion of both of these funding sources would initially be sufficient to 

attract philanthropic dollars for both the Centennial Challenge and the Endowment. We would 

have concerns about the increase in the price of the "Senior Pass" being the only source of 

funding for both the Centennial Challenge and the Endowment because it could limit the amount 

of philanthropic dollars raised. 

Questions from Senator Rob Portman 

Question 1: Does your organization have any concerns with changing the senior fee? 

Will Shafroth: 

NPF does not have any concerns about changing the price of the "senior fee." The increase in 

the price will be leveraged to raise additional funds for the national parks for key projects and 

programs that will attract new demographics of visitors and ensure that they have a positive 

experience in the parks. Additionally, $70 from the increased price of each "Senior Pass" will 

leverage at minimum an additional $70 in contributions. 

Question 2: Does your organization have any opinions on the Administration proposed lodging 

fee or the NPHA suggested Centennial surcharge on all entrance fees? 

Will Shafroth: 

NPF supports the proposed lodging fees with some small changes. For example, we would 

suggest limiting the fees to lodging facilities, not campsites. NPS cannot accurately determine 

how many camping nights there are annually so they would be unable to accurately assess the 

fee. In addition, we would suggest that the fees be charged on each room night not per person, 

per night, which would be difficult to do accurately and an undue burden on park staff and 

concessionaires. 

NPF would support a Centennial surcharge on entrance fees as a way to supplement but not 

supplant the proposed overnight fees to seed the endowment provided the surcharge could be 

administered in a manner that did not negatively impact visitor experience or create 

unnecessary administrative burdens on park service staff or visitors. 
123 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: You testified that concessionaires need longer contracts so that they can invest 

more in concessioner-operated facilities and amortize the expense over the life of the 

contract. If concessionaires receive reimbursement with interest for improvements they 

have made in the form of leasehold surrender interest, why do shorter contracts pose an 

obstacle to concessionaires making investments in infrastructure they operate? 

RESPONSE: 

There are many important reasons for contract terms of greater than ten years, which 

has been the standard until very recently. First, the costs to both NPS and 

concessioners bidding on contracts are substantial - in the case of the larger contracts, 

exceeding $1M for each participant in staff time, consultants and other direct costs. 

Second, when substantial investment is required of the concessioner, the investment 

involves construction that can take a substantial period of time - several years - and 

can be delayed by NPS approvals, seriously impacting business projections by the 

concessioners on recovery of those investments. This chance of delayed recovery of 

up-front costs will discourage bidding on concessions contracts, even if the eventual 

repayment of the investment occurs. 

Third, current legislation provides for the investments by a concessioner to be 

recognized as Leasehold Surrender Interest (LSI) and allows the NPS options for 

altering the value of LSI. The option selected by NPS for most recent contracts is "a 

reduction on an annual basis, in equal portions, over the same number of years 

as the time period associated with the straight line depreciation of the initial value 

(construction cost of the capital improvement), as provided by applicable Federal 

income tax laws and regulations in effect on the day before the date of the 

enactment of this Act." In the Yellowstone contract recently awarded to Xanterra, for 

example, the LSI is reduced by 2.5% annually, or by 50% over the 20 year contract 

length. There is no provision for repayment of any interest on the investment, nor any 

credit for the increase in value of the infrastructure improved by the concessioner. 

At the end of the contract, the NPS will select a concessioner for a new contract. Then, 

either (1) the selected contractor will make a payment to Xanterra of the remaining LSI, 

or (2) NPS will make a payment for the remaining LSI to Xanterra. Should Xanterra be 

awarded the new contract, the remaining LSI could continue to be amortized at the 

2.5% per annum rate. A longer term -of 30 years, for example- would allow an 

increased portion of the LSI to be amortized and reduce burdens on NPS or a new 

concessioner. 

As I also pointed out in my testimony, contracts of more than 20 years were employed 

to encourage the development of much of the existing concessioner-operated 

infrastructure in national parks and is also used for ski areas in national forests, where 

the normal permit term is 40 years. 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: One of the primary concerns I have for future management of the National 

Park Service is the significant defened maintenance backlog the agency has accrued. This 

$11.5 billion backlog, coupled with increased visitor traffic and a concessionaire system 
124 

that may dissuade long-term private investment poses a significant threat to the longevity 

of our cherished public spaces. In Olympic National Park in Washington, the deferred 

maintenance backlog has grown to $133 million. An article last week reported that in the 

case of Grand Canyon National Park, the maintenance backlog has increased to $339 

million. In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park faces a backlog of over $633 million. 

Failure to decrease the maintenance backlog undoubtedly jeopardizes the ability of families 

to be able to visit and enjoy these iconic locations. Ultimately, this total is a threat to the 

future of the National Park System. Given the current budget climate and national deficit, 

what is the most effective way to reduce the maintenance backlog to ensure people will be 

able to enjoy these special places for another 100 years? 

We strongly agree that the deferred maintenance backlog is a deterrent to safe and 

enjoyable visitor experiences and urge Congressional and Administration actions to 

reduce the current backlog and put in place a model which will fund needed 

maintenance and operations expenses. As we noted in our testimony, the facilities 

operated by concessioners have a much lower level of deferred maintenance, since the 

maintenance and operational costs are generated through revenues from visitor 

services. We believe that this offers the right kind of tool for future park funding needsprimary reliance on revenues earned for services rather than appropriations of general 

revenues. We also urge the Congress to understand that the opportunities for visitors in 

national parks can and should be increased, especially in units now with little public 

visitation or in portions of even well-visited parks, where the right level and kind of 

services can be added utilizing private investments. As the overall US population 

grows, we believe that public policy should support allowing the number of those 

seeking national park experiences to grow. This has not been the case for several 

decades. In fact, the numbers of lodging rooms, campsites, restaurant seats and other 

visitor facilities has declined significantly since the 1980s. 

Questions from Senator Rob P01"tman 

Question 1: Does your organization have any concerns with changing the senior fee? 

We support continued encouragement of visits to national park units- and all public 

lands and waters- by America's seniors. We believe that the increase in the senior 

pass cost to a one-time $80 fee, or the substitution of a one-time fee with a 50% 

reduction in the cost of annual passes for seniors, will continue to make clear that 

America's seniors are welcomed. Companies in the hospitality industry typically 

welcome seniors with a far less generous offer of 10-20% reductions in prices and find 

those offers well received. 

Derrick A. Crandall, Counselor 

National Park Hospitality Association 

1200 G Street, N.W. Suite 650 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202-682-9530, F 202-682-9529 

www .parkpartners.org 

1/5116 
125 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Theresa Pierno 

Question from Senator John Barrasso 

Question: One of the primary concerns I have for future management of the National 

Park Service is the significant deferred maintenance backlog the agency has accrned. 

This $11.5 billion backlog, coupled with increased visitor traffic and a concessionaire 

system that may dissuade long-term private investment poses a significant threat to the 

longevity of our cherished public spaces. In Olympic National Park in Washington, the 

deferred maintenance backlog has grown to $133 million. An article last week reported 

that in the case of Grand Canyon National Park, the maintenance backlog has increased 

to $339 million. In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park faces a backlog of over $633 

million. Failure to decrease the maintenance backlog undoubtedly jeopardizes the ability 

of families to be able to visit and enjoy these iconic locations. Ultimately, this total is a 

threat to the future of the National Park System. Given the current budget climate and 

national deficit, what is the most effective way to reduce the maintenance backlog to 

ensure people will be able to enjoy these special places for another 100 years? 

Answer: NPCA appreciates this congressional concern for the backlog, as addressing it 

is a high priority for our organization. The most effective way to address the backlog is to 

begin providing a more adequate investment in national parks through annual 

appropriations and the transportation bill, and to identify offsets to support the mandatory 

funding proposals in the centennial bill. 

Half of the park service deferred maintenance backlog is transportation infrastrncture. 

Although, the recently passed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 

increases the Park Service's annual appropriation for road repairs and transportation 

systems from $268 million in Fiscal Year 2016 to $300 million by 2020, much more is 

needed. It will be important that the newly created Nationally Significant Federal Lands 

and Tribal Projects program is fully funded at $100 million each year. We also urge 

Congress to build upon this support with additional funding in the next transportation bill 

with an increase in the gas tax in which a small portion of those funds is dedicated 

towards national park transportation infrastrncture, as outlined in our "Penny for Parks" 

proposal that we have shared with this committee. 

In regard to the non-roads backlog, we urge Congress to begin reinvesting in the NPS 

Construction account, which has declined by 62% in today' s dollars over the last decade. 

A boost in this account maintained annually would make a critical difference in 

addressing backlog projects. Additional support can be provided through investments in 

the maintenance subaccounts within park operations, which address smaller maintenance 

projects and the day-to-day maintenance that keeps the backlog from growing. 

In regards to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we strongly encourage the 

enactment of a Centennial Bill that provides mandatory funding for the Centennial 

Challenge matching grants program and backlog funds. The Centennial Challenge is a 

proven, bipartisan program that matches federal dollars with philanthropic donations 
126 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Theresa Pierno 

from non-profits, foundations, corporations and others. Originally proposed by the 

George W. Bush Administration, this public-private partnership would leverage 

additional private dollars to help address the backlog and engage the next generation. 

During the Bush Administration, an initial investment of$40 million yielded $50 million 

in private donations for projects. In an effort to restart the program in 2015, Congress 

provided $10 million for the Challenge through appropriated dollars, which was matched 

with $16 million in donations. We strongly encourage this Committee to establish the 

program with a robust and stable stream of funding to allow private philanthropic 

organizations additional time and certainty for raising the match. 

In addition, we support the Second Century Fund, a necessary investment for three years 

to directly address the most critical non-road projects. We support the proposal to provide 

the backlog with a mandatory funding stream. This would help address the projects that 

are in desperate need of repair for public safety and health reasons. 

Questions from Senator Rob Portman 

Question 1: Does your organization have any concerns with changing the senior fee? 

NPCA supports an increase in the cost of the senior pass which has been set for nearly two 

decades at $10 for a lifetime pass beginning at age 62. While a discount to seniors is entirely 

appropriate, the current arrangement undermines the potential for additional, needed fee 

revenue. A modest adjustment to the senior pass would likely not be prohibitively 

burdensome to pass-holders. Current passholders should retain their passes at $10. 

A modest adjustment to this fee has the potential to leverage important revenue. Today, 

approximately 400,000 to 500,000 senior passes are sold every year at national parks. The 

US Census Bureau projects the nation's 65-and-older population to reach 83.7 million in the 

year 2050, nearly doubling the size of that population from 2012. This growth in this sector 

of the population would likely lead to a significant growth in seniors visiting parks. A modest 

adjustment of the senior pass could provide the federal investment needed to match the 

private contributions for the Centennial Challenge Fund. 

Question 2: Does your organization have any opinions on the Administration proposed 

lodging fee or the NPHA suggested Centennial surcharge on all entrance fees? 

There are a variety of proposals on potential revenue sources to seed the funding provisions 

in Centennial bill, including lodging fees and a centennial surcharge. Congress shouldn't shy 

away from these proposals, but some warrant additional conversations with the National Park 

Service on the impacts to visitors of those additional fees. Also, we highly encourage the 

committee to investigate additional, more robust funding offsets beyond direct fees to park 

visitors to support the Centennial Challenge Fund and more directly address the maintenance 

backlog. 

2 
127 

~ 

::--.. CThe N k orps etwor 

Strengthening America through 

service and conservation 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Senate Energy & 

Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washinb>ton, DC 20510 

December 7, 2015 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

www.corpsnetwork.org 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy & 

Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the hearing record on the National Park Service 

Centennial Act, S.2257. On behalf of Service & Conservation Corps (Corps) around the country, we 

appreciate the Chairman's efforts to strengthen the National Park Service (NPS) in anticipation of its 

centennial. S.2257 is a critical step for the NPS, its thousands of visitors, and partners like Corps that 

improve our parks and the visitor experience. We appreciate Ranking Member Cantwell's leadership in 

introducing the Act and the President's efforts in putting forward the drat! NPS centennial legislation. 

We particularly appreciate, and express our strong support, for inclusion of key provisions to strengthen 

Public Land Corps in Sec. 702. Through the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993, Corps work with NPS to 

"perform, in a cost-effective manner, appropriate conservation projects on eligible service lands" and 

expose Corpsmembers "to public service while furthering their understanding and appreciation of the 

Nation's natural and cultural resources." Sec. 702 will enable us to significantly improve our Corps, and 

our work for NPS and the nation, by raising the allowable age of Corpsmembers to 30 from 25 which 

will allow us to engage more veterans and by extending the federal noncompetitive hiring status to 

ensure our Corpsmembers can efficiently move on to the next step in their careers. 

The Corps Network is comprised of over 120 Corps that work in every state and engage over 20,000 

youth and veterans (Corpsmembers) each year in our Corps model which involves conservation service 

projects in local communities or on public lands. Tied to those projects, Corpsmembers receive 

educational, workforce, and supportive services. Corps work in NPS units around the country in helping 

to make improvements to trails, infrastructure, manage and improve park ecosystems, and preserve 

historic structures. ln addition, we work with NPS' concessionaires on accomplishing projects for the 

parks and visitors. Modem-day Corps descended from the Civilian Conservation Corps and continue 

that legacy by developing the next generation of diverse conservation, recreation, and resource leaders. 

Passage of this legislation along with additional investments in NPS and its partners like our Corps will 

ensure our nation's parks are ready for the next 100 years of providing "enjoyment, education, and 

inspiration of this and future generations." Thank you again for your leadership, and we look forward to 

working toward passage of a bipartisan National Park Service Centennial bill. 

Sincerely, 

'-11l~ ~JJ~uj) Mary Ellen Sprenkel 

CEO 

1275 K St. NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20005 p: 202.737.6272 f: 202.737.6277 
128 

Æ 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

December 8, 2015 Hearing: S. 2257 

Senator Daines' Statement for the Record 

Statement: My home state of Montana is home to two crown jewels of the National Park 

Service: Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park. Both places are special to 

Montanans and millions of tourists from around the world. In fact, for the last two years 

in a row, Glacier National Park has broken records for visitation, with more than 2.3 

million visitors in 2014 and almost 2.4 million in 2015 with another three weeks of the 

year left. Montana is also home to the Little Bighorn National Battlefield, Fort Union 

Trading Post National Historic Site, and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Montana's National Parks are also an important source of revenue for the state. In 2014, 

Montana saw over $432 million in economic benefit from national park tourism and the 

National Park System supported over 7,600 jobs. 

While I share the desire to make necessary improvements to the National Park System, 

any legislation regarding the Centennial must be careful not to impact public access to 

our National Parks and must have responsible offsets. 

I hope that the Park Service and this Committee will take into account the concerns my 

colleagues and I share as we consider the National Park Service Centennial Act.