U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

56-648 PDF 2010

BUILDING ON AMERICA’S BEST 

IDEA: THE NEXT CENTURY OF 

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 

Serial No. 111-53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, New Mexico 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Fazio, Hon. Vic, Commissioner, National Parks Second Century 

Commission; and Senior Advisor, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 

LLP, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................. 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Galvin, Denis P., Former Deputy Director, National Park Service, 

McLean, Virginia .......................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

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

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lockhart, Stephen H., M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, 

NatureBridge, San Francisco, California .................................................... 32 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Long, Gretchen, National Parks Second Century Commission, Wilson, 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Ortega, Armand, President, Ortega Family Enterprises, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52 

Pierpont, Ruth L., President, National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers, and Director, Division for Historic Preservation, 

New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation, 

Waterford, New York .................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58 

Rife, Holly, Association of National Park Rangers, Sabillasville, 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 65 

Rogers, Jerry L., Chair, Cultural Resource & Historic Preservation 

Committee, National Parks Second Century Commission; and Member, 

Coalition of National Park Service Retirees,Santa Fe, New Mexico ........ 69 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71 

Wanner, Raymond E., Ph.D., Senior Advisor on UNESCO Issues, United 

Nations Foundation, Silver Spring, Maryland ........................................... 75 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘BUILDING ON 

AMERICA’S BEST IDEA: THE NEXT CENTURY 

OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.’’ 

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Kildee, Napolitano, Holt, 

Christensen, Kind, Capps, Inslee, Herseth Sandlin, Sarbanes, 

Tsongas, Luja ́n, Bishop, Gohmert, Lummis, and Hastings. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me call the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands to order. 

The hearing today is ‘‘Building on America’s Best Idea: The Next 

Century of the National Park System.’’ I want to thank all the panelists that we are going to have with us today and thank all of you 

for your attendance, and my colleagues for their attendance. I 

believe this is the first hearing in beginning to shape what our 

response is going to be to the upcoming centennial, which is a great 

achievement for the Nation and also a great opportunity to deal 

with some of the challenges that our park system is facing and will 

face in the future. 

Before I go into the statement, let me welcome to the Subcommittee a new member and also a member of the full Committee 

as well, Mr. Luja ́n from the Third District of New Mexico, the Land 

of Enchantment. Sir, welcome, and good to have you with us. 

On August 25th, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed into 

law the National Park Service Act, known today as the NPS Organic Act. The Act directed the newly created agency to conserve 

the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife in 

the parks and to provide for the enjoyment of the same by such a 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations. In just six years we will celebrate 

the centennial of the signing of this Act, and this hundredth anniversary is an important opportunity to review the agency’s past 

and explore the possibilities for the future. 

The challenges posed by managing a system, which includes a 

burial site for African slaves in Manhattan, a Cold War missile silo 

in South Dakota, the trails that brought European settlers to the 

frontiers, and other sites from American Samoa to Alaska are 

significant and continue to grow. Our hearing today brings together 

2 

a distinguished group of witnesses who will share with us their 

ideas regarding what lies ahead for our national parks. 

The last hundred years have set a course and built a tremendous 

foundation, but as we move into the second century, we are moving 

into a different world, and our national parks and the National 

Park Service will be tested as never before. We are grateful to our 

witnesses for their time and effort to be here today. In particular 

I am pleased to welcome National Park Service Director John 

Jarvis to our hearing for his first visit before the Subcommittee. 

Director Jarvis’ years of service to the national parks as a ranger, superintendent, and regional director are well known and greatly appreciated. And for those who do not know, Director Jarvis has 

been serving as the Interior Department’s Incident Commander 

down in the Gulf for the last three weeks helping to coordinate the 

government’s response to the oil spill. Director Jarvis, we realize 

how difficult it was for you to get away from those duties and we 

very much appreciate your presence here today and the time that 

you have afforded us. 

The stewardship of this world class National Park System 

handed to us by truly visionary pioneers is a daunting task. We 

welcome our witnesses today to help us rise to that occasion and 

to meet that challenge. Let me at this point welcome all of you. 

And, Mr. Jarvis, the time is yours, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you. 

On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the National 

Park Service Act, known today as the NPS Organic Act. The Act directed the newly 

created agency to ‘‘conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the 

wild life [in parks], and to provide for the enjoyment of the same, in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ 

In just six years, we will celebrate the centennial of the signing of that Act and 

this 100th anniversary is an important opportunity to review the agency’s past and 

explore the possibilities of its future. 

The challenges posed by managing a system, which includes a burial site for African slaves in Manhattan, a Cold War missile silo in South Dakota, the trails that 

brought European settlers to the frontier and other sites from America Samoa to 

Alaska, are significant and growing. Our hearing today brings together a distinguished group of witnesses who will share with us their ideas regarding what lies 

ahead for our national parks. The last hundred years have set the course and built 

a tremendous foundation, but as we move into the second century, we are moving 

into a different world, and our national parks and the National Park service will 

be tested as never before. 

We are grateful to our witnesses for their time and effort to be here today. In particular, I am pleased to welcome National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis to our 

hearing for his first visit before the subcommittee. Director Jarvis’ years of service 

to the nation’s parks as a ranger, superintendent, and regional director are well 

known and greatly appreciated. 

And for those who do not know, Director Jarvis has been serving as the Interior 

Department’s incident commander down in the Gulf for the last three weeks, helping to coordinate the government’s response to the oil spill. Director Jarvis, I realize 

how difficult it was for you to get away from those duties, and we very much appreciate your presence here today. Thank you. 

The stewardship of a world-class national park system, handed into our keeping 

by truly visionary pioneers, is a daunting task. We welcome our witnesses today to 

help us rise to the occasion. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, and invite him to make any 

opening remarks. 

3 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the second 

century of the National Park System. If I may, I would like to submit my full written testimony for the record and just summarize 

in the time I have allotted. 

On August 25th, 1916, President Wilson signed into law the 

National Park Service Organic Act, which gave our national parks 

a fundamental statement of purpose and created a body of dedicated professionals to care for them. Since then, the National Park 

System has grown from an initial 36 parks, monuments, and reservations to 392 units. From a handful of park wardens, our workforce has grown to 22,000. Our annual visitation has grown from 

350,000 to 285 million, so it is fitting that we consider the National 

Park Service for the next century. Our core responsibilities will remain the stewardship and care of our national parks, service to our 

visitors, and attention to our community programs, and I believe 

the National Park Service can become a more adaptive and innovative organization to better respond to the challenges of the second 

century. 

As Director, my priorities are: (1) to provide our employees with 

the resources they need to do their jobs; (2) assure continued relevancy of our parks by connecting all Americans to them; (3) rededicate the Service to the stewardship of our natural and cultural 

resources; and (4) use education to help people understand and appreciate the complexities of the natural world and our history. My 

priorities dovetail very well with the recommendations of the 

National Parks Second Century Commission led by former Senators Howard Baker and Bennett Johnston. 

Over the course of 2008 and 2009, the Commission gave serious 

consideration to what the National Park Service needs to do and 

came up with four broad recommendations. One, to advance a 21st 

Century national park idea. Two, strengthen stewardship of our 

nation’s resources and broaden citizen service. Three, build an effective, responsive, and accountable 21st Century Park Service. 

And four, ensure permanent sustainable funding for the work of 

the Service. 

I would like to just touch on a few of those recommendations 

under these broad categories. One suggestion of the Commission is 

for Congress to require the National Park System to develop a 

National Park System plan, which would identify natural and historic themes of the United States from which additions to the system are needed. It would also identify those places where the Service can best play the role of partner by assisting the efforts of others. The plan would provide a strategic approach to building a cohesive, connected, and relevant system for the next century. 

The Commission also recommends the Service reduce the number 

of more than two dozen different park titles currently used for 

units of the National Park System. We feel strongly that a 

nomenclature with fewer titles would go a great way to making the 

public more aware of the National Park System as a whole. The 

Commission calls upon the NPS to invite all Americans to build 

connections with parks and to place a high priority on engaging 

4 

diverse audiences. This ties directly to one of my four priorities, 

making sure that the parks remain relevant. 

Our nation is undergoing tremendous demographic change, and 

if the parks are to remain important to our changing populace we 

must include new areas that tell the missing pieces of our American story. We must ensure that our interpretive and education 

programs are relevant, insightful, and of the highest quality so that 

we attract diverse audiences and can provide them with meaningful experiences. We also should hire employees who reflect our 

country’s demographics. 

The National Park Service supports locally driven efforts to protect large landscapes and preserve our nation’s stories by means of 

national heritage programs. There are 49 such areas in 39 states 

but there is no clearly defined program. We support the recommendation of creating a system of national heritage areas. The 

Commission’s report emphasizes the centrality of education to the 

National Park Service’s mission, and we agree completely. Parks 

have a critical role to play in helping people understand and appreciate the complexities of the natural world and the historic events 

that have shaped our lives. 

Starting in the 1960s Congress gave the National Park Service 

responsibility for a number of community assistance programs, and 

the Commission recommends that the Service make full use of 

them, and we agree. We will continue to assist communities in conserving rivers, preserving open space, and developing trails and 

greenways and working in partnership with state and local governments in the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas. We will continue to support historic preservation efforts throughout the country. 

The Commission calls on Congress to reauthorize the National 

Park System Advisory Board, which has responsibility for national 

historic landmarks, natural landmarks, and national historic trails. 

A longer extension of that Board would help action in pending 

landmark and trail proposals. The Commission calls for substantial 

new efforts to support leadership development, and we agree the 

National Park Service must create a workplace that continues to 

attract the best and the brightest. 

We are discussing with the National Park Service how to accomplish another of the Commission’s recommendations, creating a 

center for innovation where lessons can be shared quickly throughout the organization. This center is not actually a physical place, 

but we hope it will generate creative thinking at all levels in the 

NPS. And finally, the Commission’s report states there is a need 

for international engagement by the National Park Service that 

has never been more urgent. 

We will continue to be called upon to work with foreign governments, other Federal agencies, and other public educational and 

nonprofit entities to promote the development, management, and 

protection of national parks and other protected areas around the 

world. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 

5 

Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the approaching second century of the national 

park system. 

Nearly 100 years ago—on August 25, 1916—President Woodrow Wilson signed 

into law the National Park Service Organic Act. The Organic Act brought to fruition 

years of hard work by such visionary men as President Theodore Roosevelt, John 

Muir, Frederick Law Olmsted, Stephen Mather and others who realized that our national parks—the best idea America ever had—needed a fundamental statement of 

purpose, and a body of dedicated professionals to care for them. 

Since that time, the national park system has grown from 36 parks, monuments, 

and reservations to 392 units in 49 states. The National Park Service today has a 

workforce of roughly 22,000 employees. Last year, we had 285 million visits, with 

a visitor satisfaction rate of 96 percent. As we prepare to enter our second century, 

it is highly appropriate to take a step back, to reflect, and to consider where the 

Service should be headed in the next hundred years, and the steps we should be 

taking now to get us there. 

When I was sworn in as director of the National Park Service, I told our employees that with their help, we could build a more adaptive and innovative organization 

that could better respond to the challenges we would face in our second century. 

I reiterated that my core responsibilities were the stewardship and care of our national parks, service to our visitors, and attention to our community programs found 

throughout the country. I also mentioned the four areas I wished to address first: 

providing our employees the resources they need to help them do their jobs and to 

succeed, assuring the continued relevancy of our parks by connecting the American 

people to them, rededicating ourselves to the stewardship of our natural and cultural resources, and using education to help people to understand and appreciate 

the complexities of the natural world and of the historic events that have shaped 

it and our lives. 

National Parks Second Century Commission Report 

The areas I identified as priorities, while focused on immediate needs, dovetail 

with the recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission—a 

very distinguished group of business leaders, conservationists, public servants, 

scholars, and statesmen, led by former Senators Howard Baker and J. Bennett 

Johnston. This panel was convened by the National Parks Conservation Association 

in 2008–2009 to give serious consideration to what the National Park Service needs 

to do in its next century. There is much in the commission’s report, Advancing the 

National Park Idea, that is helpful. In very broad outline, the commission’s four recommendations are to: 

• Create a 21st-century national park idea, one that will meet the needs of the 

time. 

• Strengthen stewardship of our Nation’s resources, and broaden citizen service 

to the agency’s mission. 

• Build a 21st-century National Park Service, one that is effective, responsive, 

and accountable. 

• Ensure permanent and sustainable funding for the work of the National Park 

Service. 

Each of the four general recommendations has a number of specifics associated 

with it. I would like to take this opportunity to address a few of the specific recommendations. 

21st–Century National Park Idea 

A National Park Service Plan 

One of the specific recommendations for creating a 21st-century national park 

idea is for Congress to require the National Park Service to develop a National Park 

System Plan. The plan would strategically identify natural and historic themes of 

the United States that are non-existent or underrepresented within the system from 

which additions to the system would be identified. It would also identify those 

places where the Service can best play the role of partner, assisting and advancing 

the efforts of others. Such a plan would provide a strategic approach to building a 

cohesive, connected, and relevant system. It would entail restoring the requirement 

of the plan that was in law from 1980 to 1996. The strategic vision the plan would 

provide is perhaps more necessary now than ever. There are several proposals pending in Congress to authorize the NPS to study areas as possible additions to the 

national park system, or as new national heritage areas, wild and scenic rivers, or 

6 

national trails. A National Park System Plan would help guide Congress and the 

National Park Service in determining which areas would help fill the gaps in the 

system and which would be more appropriately managed by others. 

Heightening Awareness of the National Park System 

In addition to filling any gaps in the system, we should also consider steps to 

heighten awareness of existing units, and of the system as a whole. People do not 

have a problem identifying Yosemite National Park or Yellowstone National Park 

as parts of the national park system. But many people would be surprised to learn 

that the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway are also parts of the system. One 

of the recommendations of the Second Century Commission that we believe has 

merit is to substantially reduce the more than two dozen different park titles currently used for units of the national park system. We feel strongly that a nomenclature with fewer titles would make the public more aware of the national park 

system as a whole. 

Engaging Diverse Audiences 

Another of the commission’s specific recommendations is that the National Park 

Service invite all Americans to build a personal connection with the parks, and 

place a high priority on engaging diverse audiences. The National Park Service 

wholeheartedly agrees. Our parks tell our story, the story of the American people. 

The National Park Service has begun to tell more of that story in recent years, parts 

that have been neglected or under-emphasized. Newer sites like Manzanar National 

Historic Site and Minidoka National Historic Site tell of the internment of 

Japanese-Americans during World War II, and Little Rock Central High School 

National Historic Site and Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site tell of 

the long struggle for African-American civil rights. Similarly, our civil war parks 

now seek to explain the causes of that terrible conflict, instead of focusing just on 

the battles that were fought. As such, our parks are forging connections with segments of our rich and varied populace whose stories have not always been heard. 

It is vitally important that our parks continue engaging all Americans, particularly given the changing demographics of our country. America is much larger and 

more diverse today than it was in 1916. In 1916, our population was roughly 100 

million; today it is 309 million. In 2003, for the first time, there were more 

Hispanic-Americans than African-Americans. Hispanic-Americans currently make 

up nearly 16% of the population and will make up about 25% of the population in 

2050. And nearly one out of four Americans under the age of 18 has at least one 

immigrant parent. This goes directly to one of my four priorities, namely, keeping 

the national parks relevant. 

It is clear that the Service needs a three-part strategy to ensure relevancy in our 

changing society. First, we should look to the inclusion of new areas or use existing 

areas to tell the missing pieces of our American story. Second, we should take positive steps to ensure that the interpretive and educational programs offered at our 

parks are relevant, insightful, and of the highest quality, so that we not only attract 

diverse audiences, but ensure that the parks provide meaningful experiences to all 

Americans. Third, we should hire NPS employees who reflect the demographics of 

this country. 

Creating a National Heritage Area System 

As we look to the future on how to develop strategies to preserve our natural 

areas and cultural history, we recognize that protecting critical resources does not 

necessarily mean ownership by the Federal Government. Consistent with the President’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, we will continue to support locally driven efforts to protect large landscapes. For NPS, this means preserving the collective 

stories of our Nation by means of national heritage areas. Currently, there are 49 

such areas, across 32 states, yet there is no clearly defined program. The Second 

Century Commission recommends the enactment of program legislation creating a 

system of national heritage areas, and establishing a process for studying and designating them in a uniform manner. The National Park Service agrees with this recommendation, and believes that it would strengthen the ability of the Service to provide assistance to local efforts where appropriate. 

Making Education Central 

The commission’s report repeatedly emphasizes the centrality of education to the 

National Park Service’s mission. We agree completely, and education is one of my 

four priorities. There can be no doubt that education is a primary responsibility of 

the National Park Service. Parks truly are classrooms that help people understand 

and appreciate the complexities of the natural world and of the historic events that 

7 

have shaped our lives. Service learning opportunities must be enhanced. There are 

many partners in the educational community who welcome the National Park Service, and we will continue to reach out to them. To elevate this function, I have created an Associate Director for Education and Interpretation. 

Strengthening Stewardship 

Make Full Use of Community Assistance Programs 

Under the broad heading of strengthening stewardship, the commission also recommends that the National Park Service make full use of its extensive portfolio of 

community assistance programs. Congress gave the National Park Service these responsibilities in a series of legislative enactments dating back to the early 1960s. 

Again, the Service is in complete agreement with the commission. We will continue 

to assist communities in conserving rivers, preserving open space, and developing 

trails and greenways through the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. We will continue to work in partnership with State and local governments 

in the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program. We will 

continue to staff and provide technical support for both the National Historic Landmark and National Natural Landmark programs. Through the National Register of 

Historic Places, the Service will help coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America’s historic and archeological resources. In partnership with the State Historic Preservation Offices, we will continue to administer the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program in 

conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service, to encourage private sector rehabilitation of historic buildings and thus spur community revitalization. Working with 

our State and local partners through these external programs, we can continue to 

bolster stewardship of our natural and cultural resources, another of my four priorities. 

Building a 21st-century National Park Service 

Reauthorize the National Park System Advisory Board 

The commission calls on Congress to reauthorize the National Park System Advisory Board. This body of citizen advisors was first established in the 1935 Historic 

Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Among other duties, the board makes recommendations regarding designation of both National Historic and National Natural Landmarks, and as to the national historic significance of proposed national 

historic trails. In recent years, Congress has extended the life of the board in oneyear increments only. This unduly complicates the appointment of members, and 

impedes the work of the board. A longer extension of the board would help with its 

continuity and work with the leadership of the National Park Service. It would also 

assure action on pending landmark and trail proposals. 

Support Leadership Development 

The commission calls for ‘‘substantial new efforts to support leadership development.’’ We agree that the National Park Service must create a workplace that continues to attract the brightest and best, one that values and learns from its employees. Consistently in OPM’s annual surveys of Federal employees, a large majority 

of our National Park Service workforce says that it likes the work it does, feels that 

the work is important, and derives a sense of personal accomplishment from such 

work. But, as with any organization, continued improvements must and will be 

made, and I have placed workforce at the top of my four priorities. Some recent 

positive steps the Service has taken include: 

• Creating a new superintendents’ academy, one that allows superintendents to 

tailor the 18-month program to meet their individual developmental needs. 

• Completing a year-long, comprehensive review of training and development, 

and implementing its recommendations across the Service. 

• Establishing an institutionalized effort with partnering universities to enhance our leadership development opportunities. 

• Improving our applicant pool by implementing OPM’s on-line USAStaffing 

system, making the application process easier and allowing the Service to fill 

vacancies more quickly. 

The National Park Service is committed to becoming a model employer for the 

21st-century. 

Create a Center for Innovation 

The commission recommends that the Service ‘‘establish a Center for Innovation 

to gather and share lessons learned quickly throughout the organization.’’ I am 

pleased to be able to report that the National Park Service is already working to 

8 

accomplish this. We have begun discussing how we might set up a clearinghouse 

for new ideas, best practices, and systematic ways to address organizational challenges. It is our hope that such a center would enable creative thinking at all levels 

of the National Park Service. 

International Partnerships 

Finally, the Second Century Commission report states that ‘‘the need for international engagement by the Park Service has never been more urgent.’’ The 

National Park Service encourages, facilitates, and coordinates interactions with foreign counterparts to share expertise. This helps to ensure that National Park Service resources are protected from global threats including invasive species and loss 

of habitat. 

The National Park Service has learned invaluable lessons on managing resources 

in our parks from other countries. To take an example from the Service’s earliest 

years, the concept of a ‘‘ranger naturalist’’ dates back to the 1910s, when a few 

Americans visited Switzerland and were impressed with the example of alpine 

guides bringing schoolchildren into the mountains to teach them about local flora 

and fauna. More recently, National Park Service employees have learned about 

invasive species management in South Africa, the preservation of adobe buildings 

in Mexico, and island restoration efforts in New Zealand. The National Park Service 

will continue to be called upon to work with foreign governments, other Federal 

agencies, other public entities, educational institutions, and private nonprofit organizations to promote the development, management, and protection of national 

parks, natural and cultural resource heritage sites, and other protected areas 

around the world. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you and the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Director. Before we get on the 

clock and get into the question-and-answer session, if you could 

please give the Committee an update on the situation in the Gulf, 

having the responsibility that you have, at this point? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to. As 

you mentioned, I have been serving for the last three weeks as an 

Incident Commander for the Department of the Interior, stationed 

in Mobile, Alabama, which is the Mobile sector of the Gulf response. My responsibilities are to serve with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

BP, EPA, and the state representatives for appropriate shoreline 

response and preparedness for the Gulf oil spill. My area of responsibilities stretch from the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and the 

panhandle of Florida, but I work in coordination with our other 

DOI representatives down there. 

Let me just say that the Department of the Interior, the National 

Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, principally have 

been instrumental in preparing for this unprecedented oil spill in 

the Gulf. One of our primary responsibilities is to get out in front 

of the oil spill and document the current conditions of wildlife, of 

wetlands, of sea grass, of water quality, and others so that we can 

understand what the impacts will be when the oil makes shore. 

And we are deeply concerned, of course, about those impacts, and 

it is essential that we get precondition assessments completed 

along the entire Gulf Coast. 

This is an unprecedented oil spill in that most of our incident responses were designed to deal with essentially a tanker running 

aground, sort of a point and upon which and a defined amount of 

oil. None of our systems were designed to deal with the response 

that is continuous and which oil is continually pumped into the environment, particularly over a scale as large as the Gulf of Mexico. 

And so we are reinventing the Incidence Command system as we 

9 

speak by engaging these multiple sectors in deploying boom, in deploying vessels of opportunity to assist in boom deployment and 

collecting information. 

As you I am sure know, all efforts at this point from the engineering standpoint are on the top-kill, which we are all hoping will 

suspend the flow to the Gulf, and then we will essentially have a 

defined end to this, at least in terms of the oil cleanup. At this 

point we do not have a defined end, and we are monitoring this extensively. Let me just say also, the Department of the Interior has 

been a significant contributor in the fields of science to better understand what this oil is doing both on the surface and subsurface, 

how it is breaking up subsurface, how the dispersants may be playing also in the environment, and the long-term effects both ecologically and economically and socially in the Gulf. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, and let me extend the 

thanks of the Subcommittee for the work that the National Park 

Service and yourself are doing in that very troublesome, to say the 

least, crisis that is being confronted, thank you for that. Part of the 

recommendations, Mr. Director, have to do with education, and it 

is our understanding that you are planning to appoint a permanent 

senior NPS manager to oversee educational initiatives. And maybe 

if you could elaborate a little bit on that plan as well as the fact 

that there is some consensus that we are not on the cutting edge 

technologically in order to be able to implement initiatives and outreach programs that are going to be vital to the education component. Could you speak to both those points? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to. I have created the first Associate Director for Education and Interpretation, 

it is a senior executive position in Washington that will lead the 

National Park Service in the field of education and interpretation. 

For many years, essentially from Stephen Mather’s time, we have 

had field naturalists, interpreters as we call them, that provide 

great programs for the public and help explain the natural history 

and the cultural history of these extraordinary places that are in 

our stewardship. 

And, over time, educational institutions such as the public 

schools have learned that these are great opportunities—I mean, 

where better to learn about American history than to go to those 

places like Gettysburg or the Statue of Liberty or any of these 

places when you are talking about the experiences of all Americans? But we have never really formalized that relationship. We 

have helped build curriculum, we do field trips, we are beginning 

to use technology in ways that we have never done before to bring 

kids from the classroom without necessarily physically transporting 

them and connecting them to our interpreters. 

What we need is high standards, we need evaluation just like 

any education institution to ensure that we are meeting education 

objectives, that we are closely linked with testing and standards 

throughout the education institutions. So having a senior position 

in the National Park Service that can work with the Department 

of Education, with schools, to ensure that these institutions come 

together, I think is essential. 

The use of technology to bring our interpreters into the classroom 

is essential to this. There are millions of kids out there using the 

10 

Internet to access Park Service information, but we believe there 

are opportunities to even go beyond that. We do a program called 

the Electronic Field Trip, which can reach up to 3 million kids from 

our parks to really get them engaged at a deeper level. There are 

some challenges with technology, with IT, information technology 

security, ensuring that this sort of open framework that you have 

in the network, have in the Internet, really does not work in government very well. So, we need partnerships with education institutions, with nonprofits, in order to make those kinds of linkages 

with technology to reach kids. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. What are the important tools that you 

feel are needed to increase diversity in NPS, both in the employee 

base and in the constituency visitor base? 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a lot of existing tools 

within the National Park System to reach diverse audiences, we 

just have never thought of them in terms of a strategic deployment. 

For instance, our community assistance programs, the Rivers and 

Trails Conservation Assistance Program, the tax credit programs 

that we have for historic preservation, are incredibly wonderful 

programs that help within communities to preserve their own history as well as their own riverfronts and long distance trails. 

But we have never thought about it from a strategic deployment 

standpoint. Same thing with the state side of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, which helps create and protect urban park 

lands. And urban parks are a threshold experience for so many 

families that may not have the transportation or the economic status to get out and see the big classic national parks, so these urban 

parks are essential, and we have proven this over and over again 

at places like Golden Gate, Santa Monica Mountains, Lowell, 

where we can engage individuals at the local level and perhaps attract and inspire them to explore the National Park Service and 

the National Park System at a broader level. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And if there is time for a 

second go, there will be additional questions. If not, Mr. Director, 

I will submit those in writing to you for response. Let me now turn 

to our Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Hastings, for 

any comments, questions he may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again thanks 

for your courtesy of allowing me to be here. And, Director Jarvis, 

I just want to be very, very parochial in my remarks to you and 

question. And specifically I want to talk about the B reactor at 

Hanford, which is part of the Manhattan Project National Park 

Service unit. Now there are some concerns I know that Interior had 

with this as far as governing because it is on the Department of 

Energy land, I recognize that, but Under Secretary for EM, Environmental Management, in DOE, sent you a letter on May 13th 

and encouraged you to work with her, Dr. Ine ́s Triay is her name. 

The B reactor is a very unique piece of equipment if you want 

to put it that way, because it helped us win the Second World War 

and the Cold War. And they have had tours now the last several 

years there, and these tours are sold out literally within hours because going on the Hanford reservation has some security issues. 

So, I am just simply saying I want to encourage you to work with 

Secretary Triay on this issue because there are legitimate concerns, 

11 

I do not think they are insurmountable. But the interest in the B 

reactor specifically is extremely high, not only in my area but in 

other parts of the country. So, I just want to encourage you to work 

with her on that. 

Mr. JARVIS. I will do that, I will follow up. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And let me ask Dr. Christensen for 

any questions or comments that she may have. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Director. 

Mr. JARVIS. Good morning. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And welcome. As you may know, St. Croix and 

my district looks forward to becoming a part of the National Heritage System that you envision having in the parks. If that system 

is not in place, would that preclude any new sites from being designated as National Heritage Areas? Because we anticipate introducing legislation for that probably next year. 

Mr. JARVIS. No, actually it would provide a very logical process 

for new additions to the heritage area program to come into the 

system. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But if the system is not in place and there is 

legislation pending, someone from the Park Service will have to 

come and testify in favor or against the designation, and if the system is not in place that would not necessarily preclude new 

National Heritage Areas? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. The current system, well there really is no system right now. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Right. 

Mr. JARVIS. But there are basically new heritage areas that come 

up through Congress and are proposed and created. What our concern has been is that they are sustainable and that there is appropriate infrastructure in place and governance at the local level, 

that they will actually be successful, and that is all we are looking 

for is to create that system. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. I wanted to ask some questions also 

about diversifying not only the workforce but also the visitation. 

Has there ever been any outreach to historically black colleges and 

universities or other minority serving institutions either to bring 

employees in or specifically maybe to reach out to those institutions 

for that conservation core of students, I do not remember the exact 

name of it, that work in the parks during the summers? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes there has. We have actually had a partnership 

with historic American black colleges and the Hispanic colleges as 

well for some time. And honestly I think it has been with mixed 

success, and we are reevaluating that and to see how we can boost 

that program up to really attract young people to careers in this 

organization. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And there was a hearing on a bill H.R. 1612, 

the Public Lands Service Corps which, of course, seeks to help restore and preserve the parks while employing youth and promoting 

a culture of service. Do you think that an initiative like this could 

be helpful in helping to diversify the NPS workforce? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think public lands service corps are an essential 

component to connecting young people to the out-of-doors. I am not 

12 

familiar with specific language in that, I do not think I was here 

for that testimony, I think I was in the Gulf. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But the concept? 

Mr. JARVIS. But conceptually, absolutely. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And on the community assistance, which is 

stressed throughout the next panel, there is a gateway community 

program. Has that been working effectively? I mean we have tried 

to employ some of the principles as I remember them in St. John, 

where two thirds of the island is a national park, and while it is 

very helpful to the economy it does create some friction. Have gateway community efforts been successful in your eyes or do they have 

to be also taken another look at? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that the Gateways Community Program has 

lost some emphasis in recent years, and it is an area that I am 

very strongly interested in reemphasizing. In the audience here is 

my Deputy Director for Community Assistance and Communications, Mickey Fern. Mickey has worked in the urban parks for 

three to four decades, systems, and he brings to the National Park 

Service that kind of gateway community approach to parks. So, we 

are very interested in building our program in terms of gateway relationships. 

I think it has been, in the past my experience has been dependent upon the superintendent’s interest at the local level and how 

much they reach out and engage the local communities in promotion, in tourism, in economics, in terms of lifestyle sustainability, all of those things. And I think that is really what the Second Century Commission report in a way is all about, is reaching 

outside of the park boundaries and working with communities for 

mutual goals. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Jarvis, for being here, I appreciate 

it. I have a whole bunch of questions, so hopefully there will be a 

couple of rounds to get through them all. Mr. Jarvis, let me understand, specifically as far as the report that you have all sent to us, 

was this funded by the Park Service or by NPCA, or by a combination? 

Mr. JARVIS. The funding came from a private philanthropy organization, and it was facilitated through NPCA. The Park Service 

did not put any money into it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Did NPCA then choose the commissioners who came 

up with the report or worked on the report? 

Mr. JARVIS. The individual commissioners were chosen by the 

Executive Director of that Commission, Loran Fraser, who is a retired NPS, and in consultation with the National Park Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. You did not pick the commissioners at all nor are 

you the chief funder. Who actually put pen to paper, who wrote the 

report itself? 

Mr. JARVIS. The commissioners divided up individual sections, 

and so there are individual commissioners that drafted significant 

components of the report, and then there were consultants that 

were used as a part of that within each category, and I think the 

final writing, the final editing, well the final editing was done by 

13 

National Geographic Society and their professional editors, but the 

final content was predominantly written by Mr. Loran Fraser. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, so it is not coming from your office? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct 

Mr. BISHOP. Because we will talk about the pros in a minute, 

and I do not know if you could use any more cue words possible 

in some of the document here than was used here, but you have 

a whole lot of them that are in there. Mr. Jarvis, the inspector general has recently issued two reports that are highly criticized by 

two different groups, one is the NLCS and the other is the MMS, 

for failing to maintain an arm’s length relationship with special interest groups. 

With this report you seem to be walking right into the face of 

that as dealing specifically with special interest groups to come up 

with a report with all sorts of recommendations that are in this. 

Do you see yourself having a difficult time of aligning yourself with 

such a strong, politically ideological group as this, especially in 

light of the criticisms of doing that exact same activity, both with 

NLCS and with MMS? 

Mr. JARVIS. I cannot speak to NLCS or MMS, but in this particular case I do not see the National Park Service aligning itself 

with the organization that produced the report, but more so with 

the recommendations. I think the recommendations are the product 

of years of analysis of where the next century of the National Park 

System should go. In many ways they are very consistent with the 

centennial report that—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So, you don’t think that arm’s length requirement 

that was specifically recommended for NLCS and MMS should 

apply in this situation? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that is a different situation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does not apply. Let me talk to you about a couple 

of things that are in here. You talk about, the report says the annual operating deficit is $750 million. Do you agree with that assessment or do you support the Administration’s current budget request? 

Mr. JARVIS. I support the Administration’s current budget. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, do you have any problems with the document saying it is $750 million operating deficit? 

Mr. JARVIS. There are great needs in the National Park System. 

We have a large maintenance backlog, and we have great operating 

needs. But we are also in tough economic times, so I support the 

President’s budget. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am assuming that was a yes then. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Let me also talk about the Core Operations 

analysis. You asked that that be discontinued last fall, but the 

Comptroller said that Core Operations ensures that funds are 

spent in an efficient manner, that a park request for funding is 

credible, and that there are adequate funds and staff to preserve 

and protect the resources for which parks are responsible. In this 

report it attempts to criticize efficiency that it says has been stifled 

by the trend to centralize government functions. Doesn’t eliminating the Core Ops process exacerbate that problem and once 

again take you steps away from efficiency into centralization? 

14 

Mr. JARVIS. Some of our programs are most efficient when they 

are centralized and some of our programs are most efficient when 

they are decentralized. The Core Operations program really was 

not a very good tool in making those determinations. 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand you were the only Director of a region 

that did not use that program? 

Mr. JARVIS. Actually we did use it but we adjusted it from the 

way it was being deployed. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, sir, I appreciate that. I am only on page 

2 of a whole bunch of questions that I have here, we have a whole 

bunch of other people who are waiting in line. I will yield back and 

come back to you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Luja ́n, questions, comments? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to all the 

Committee Members, it is an honor to be part of this Committee, 

I look forward to getting to know everyone better and working with 

them closely. Quickly, I want to jump into the importance of consultation as planning is put together, the importance of making 

sure and getting your views of including consultation with tribes of 

locally impacted people. In beautiful places like New Mexico, where 

I call home, there has been traditional uses of the land that date 

back before the establishment of many of the Federal agencies, 

and, Mr. Jarvis, if you could just talk about the importance of that 

and the critical nature of making sure that a diverse group of 

people are at the table when these plans are being put together or 

looked at for amending? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. One of the things that I did just in the last 

couple of weeks is I created a new Assistant Director for American 

Indian Relations and asked Gerard Baker, who is a 35-year career 

National Park Service employee but he is also Mandan-Hidatsa 

and is highly respected in First American communities around the 

country, to serve exactly in that role, to reach out to First Americans early and work with elders in terms of traditional uses, traditional activities within National Park Service areas. So, I think I 

am absolutely deeply committed to working very cooperatively with 

early consultation on all of these kinds of activities that may or 

may not affect traditional activities within park lands. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And, Mr. Chairman, that is something that I am very 

interested in and making sure that as we look at broadening the 

diversity of the national narrative, sometimes preserving access 

and maintaining historical, cultural, and traditional activities helps 

do that on its own by making sure that the communities are included and have the ability to do that, engaging diverse audiences 

along the same lines. And, Mr. Chairman, I will close with this 

final question as to, can you just briefly talk about the importance 

of relationships between concessionaires and national park managers as we talk about the establishment of that competitive environment recognizing in some areas where NPS has not been able 

to gain the ownership of those interests, but in areas outside of 

that, if you can talk about the importance of those relationships 

and what we are doing to promote competition with some of the 

small businesses? 

Mr. JARVIS. The role of our concession program is absolutely essential in providing quality visitor experiences around the system. 

15 

They are 80 plus private businesses that operate from very large 

to small mom-and-pop operations. They produce over $1 billion 

gross, they provide a revenue stream into the National Park System from franchise fees. But I view them as a partner, not just as 

a separate sort of private entity. 

They are an essential component of providing services to the public, and I think that they are doing a great deal of good work in 

terms of the quality of their facilities, the sustainability of their facilities, in terms of sort of the green footprint that we are seeing 

some of our concessionaires really step up and do great things because that is, we need to be sort of the standard bearer in that regard. As always they are contractual concession relationships that 

we struggle with at times, and we have a large backlog in dealing 

with some of that, but nevertheless they are a great partner. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Lummis, any questions, comments? 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Jarvis, I note 

that the Commission has talked a lot about education and about 

connecting people to the parks, but I do not see a real commitment 

to the widest possible access to the parks, and access is a big issue 

in my State of Wyoming where we are proud to have the first national park, first national monument in the country and, of course, 

Grand Teton and just great national treasures. And we want to 

make sure that people have access to our parks. Access was not one 

of the top four priorities on the top four priorities list. So, how 

would you characterize the Park Service’s commitment to ensure 

that every American has access to the parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think, well one of the keys to access to our National 

Park System is our partnership with the Federal Highways Administration, and recently we also achieved $170 million in the Recovery Act to provide for road improvement to provide safe and quality 

experiences in terms of road access to the national parks. We also 

recently entered into an agreement with the International Mountain Biking Association to provide opportunities for mountain 

biking in our national parks as well. 

Also built in with our Recovery Act, as well as our Line Item 

Construction program and our Repair-Rehab program, significant 

investment in our trail systems throughout the parks, as well as 

a significant investment in our improvements in overall accessibility—meeting not only the letter but the intent of the Americans 

With Disabilities Act to ensure that we have access for all 

Americans. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. Question about your strategic plan idea. 

I notice that the Park Service supports creation of a strategic plan, 

and I think strategic plans are great, but my concern is that they 

should consider the desires and needs of local communities. So, 

who do you envision would undertake the development of the plan? 

And then I am interested also in what role you think gateway communities should have in developing the plan. 

Mr. JARVIS. The development of a National Park System plan I 

believe is inherently a National Park Service responsibility, it is 

not something to be handed off to anyone else. And we have built 

over years I think a very good capability of working with commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

nities and taking community input. This is not something that we 

should or could ever do without active engagement with the American public, both at the national scale but probably more importantly at the local scale, working with communities to hear what 

they have to say, what is important to them that should be protected that helps preserve their economy, their local life ways, their 

history. I think those are an essential component of any type of 

strategic approach. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK. Well, and I would comment on that, I have a 

bill that asks you to look at the possible designation of Heart 

Mountain in Wyoming. This was a bottom-up effort. It came from 

a community that wanted to preserve the history of the internment 

camps during World War II that held so many Japanese Americans 

and how that history should be recognized and what a great example that is. I do not know that if you are doing strategic planning 

without those kinds of grass roots organic efforts that you would 

even know that those types of facilities have been preserved so well 

by local community organizations that now want to work with the 

Park Service to have those units considered. 

So, I understand your desire to develop a strategic plan through 

the National Park Service, but I would also encourage you to find 

ways to engage in some of these grass roots efforts to identify possible units that you may not even be aware of have the kind of 

local support that Heart Mountain does. Another quick question, 

Mr. Chairman. How does the designation of a national heritage 

area differ from other national park units? And if you establish a 

uniform process, is your goal to ensure that heritage areas are not 

Federally owned? And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JARVIS. The difference right now is that national heritage 

areas are established by an act of Congress without any study or 

recommendation by the National Park Service of whether or not 

they are sustainable. The concept behind the heritage areas is that 

there is no Federal ownership and that any Federal investment is 

over a term and then it is to end. Well, these heritage areas really 

do not end when the Federal investment terminates. 

They really should be for the long term, and so, in order for that 

to be sustainable, we want to make sure that there is a local governance, a local structure, a revenue stream in order for these 

things to be maintained and to achieve their ultimate goals. So, we 

are asking, via the recommendation, that some legislation go forward that tasks the National Park Service with going in and working with the community that is proposing a heritage area. Let us 

evaluate and make a recommendation in terms of how that local 

governance would be established. 

We are not interested in any Federal ownership in this process. 

We think the heritage area program is a great program because it 

really is locally driven, locally sustainable. But we have seen some 

experience in the 40 plus that are there, those that have struggled 

to be successful. And we want them to be successful and all we are 

asking is that in order to create a program that is different is to 

give us a chance to study them first and then recommend to you 

how that structure would go forward. 

Ms. LUMMIS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas? 

17 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is nice to see 

you, Director Jarvis. As you know, we have had our discussion, I 

am from the Fifth District of Massachusetts, and I am fortunate to 

represent two really remarkable historical parks, the Minuteman 

National Park, which protects the historic legacy of the beginnings 

of the American Revolution, and the Lowell National Historical 

Park, which protects and commemorates the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in our country. 

The Lowell Park was created in 1978, and it has had a remarkable impact on the city. As you might know, it was the city that, 

when the textile industry began to decline and go south, went into 

steep decline. It was only when the National Park Service made a 

decision to come there and protect the great cultural and economic 

legacy of the city that it created a steady stream of funding that 

the Federal funding spawned, increased state and local funding, increased funding in the growth of the nonprofit sector, the educational sector, and now to date very significant private sector investment. 

And it is a park that is part of the city, it has boundaries but 

they are invisible. So, in a sense, it serves some of the purposes the 

National Park is looking at today, it is very much integrated into 

the everyday life of our citizens, we are a very diverse community 

so just by living in this city you have access and get to experience 

a national park. So, on many fronts, it has been very important, 

obviously played a pivotal role in the rebirth of this city as it now 

stands today, but I think very relevant to what the National Park 

is doing as it looks forward. So, my question really is, given the importance of an urban historic park, what the plans are for funding, 

continued funding, and how do you see it, or do you see it as a 

model going forward? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question. I had the opportunity 

to visit Lowell with the Commission, as a matter of fact. It was fascinating to watch the commissioners, and me as well, just really 

fall in love with what has occurred in Lowell in partnership with 

the private sector, the city, and the National Park Service. I think 

it is absolutely a model of how a city that was struggling economically and socially; and the investment of the National Park Service 

coming in and restoring local pride in their own history and in 

their own story, and investing economically in the city has really 

turned things around. 

And there is no way we could have done it alone. And in each 

of these cases, Lowell being a great example but there are others, 

but not enough of them frankly, of these models where the 

National Park Service brings something to the table to restore a 

piece of history, but to integrate it—not in a sort of stilted and 

dusty kind of history way but absolutely alive. And we saw that in 

Lowell and I think that Lowell stands up there with the top few 

around the country. Golden Gate National Recreation Area is another perfect one that is totally integrated into the city. And we are 

testing this model, for example at Rosie the Riveter World War II 

Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California, 

where again we are integrating the historical context with the city 

as well. 

18 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I think it is important to remember as you 

pursue this as a model the ways in which the National Park, really 

representing the Federal Government, really plays a catalytic role 

in that it really does incite expanded investment as we said 

through the state and local governments, through the private sector, and the growth of the nonprofit sector. So it has a multiplier 

effect, not by itself, as you said it could not do it, but it does spawn 

all this additional investment from many, many resources. And 

urban contexts really lend themselves to that very readily, and so 

I hope to see continued robust funding for this particular park obviously, but I do think there is a model there that is relevant and 

worth encouraging. 

I cannot see the time so I do not know if I have. Another question, this is a little more down in the weeds, but in recent years 

the National Park has begun to consolidate local offices and centralize many functions. At the same time the Park has increased 

levels of bureaucracy and changed many of the processes for officials at the park level. What were your goals in doing this? Are 

these changes having a positive impact at the park level? And how 

are you measuring the effects that these changes are having? 

Mr. JARVIS. Very good question. There are times when consolidation of offices make a lot of sense. The National Park Service is 

seeking, and I am as the Director, as much efficiency as I can possibly wring out of our appropriated funds. In many cases we pay 

rents for office space, and all of our funds, there are many demands 

for that. So, we are seeking efficiencies where we can find in terms 

of consolidation of offices, consolidation of programs. But we are 

also evaluating those against service to the public and service to 

the resources as well. 

In the Pacific, where I was the Regional Director for seven years, 

we found some great synergies in consolidation of certain functions, 

such as contracting, where they were virtually consolidated rather 

than physically consolidated, and where individuals could work for 

a central office but be field located. So, we are testing a variety of 

models right now throughout the system against some evaluation 

criteria to make sure that they are effective as well. Because at 

times there is the perception that perhaps services will be reduced 

when in reality perhaps services are actually going to be enhanced 

by this process. But we need to obviously work with our constituencies to ensure that they are still getting the services they expect. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And are you reaching back to the superintendents 

to just get a feel for how these changes are working? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So you get some sense of the reality of it all? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being here, Director Jarvis. With regard to the Oregon Pipe area 

under you supervision in Arizona, that is considered wilderness 

area, correct 

Mr. JARVIS. Portions of the park, yes, sir. 

19 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. Bordering Mexico, and yet because portions, as you say, are wilderness area, vehicles, including Border 

Patrol vehicles, are not allowed in there, correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct, at certain times under certain circumstances. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But for normal patrol ensuring that our border is 

observed, since we know there are terrorists wanting to come in 

and trying to destroy our way of life and kill people, when are 

those times when someone can come in and patrol our border 

through those wilderness areas? 

Mr. JARVIS. I had the opportunity to go down there recently and 

spend time with both Border Patrol and the National Park Service 

in Oregon Pipe to better understand exactly that question, because 

I know that that has been a significant concern, it is a concern of 

mine as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it is only for those who are worried about 

people that want to blow us up. But go ahead. 

Mr. JARVIS. I have that concern as well. So, the bottom line is 

that the Border Patrol has the right to use those vehicles when 

they determine that there are exigent circumstances. And they can 

unilaterally make that decision. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But the problem, in order to make those decisions 

about exigent circumstances they have to be in areas where they 

can see the exigent circumstances exist, and if they cannot get a 

vehicle into where people are streaming in then it is difficult to 

make those calls as to what exigent circumstances are, and so that 

is my concern. You know, we hear from people who say, we have 

to protect those wilderness areas from vehicles coming in and yet 

they do nothing about the roads that have formed through there 

from people illegally coming into the country. 

And so it just seems like we are completely at cross purposes. We 

will not allow people in there who could preserve not only the integrity of our borders in this country but also could protect those 

wilderness areas from people streaming through there and destroying this amazing landscape. So, I am quite concerned that because 

of the restrictions on the use of any kind of vehicles, as I understand helicopters can go across but they cannot land. You are saying if it is exigent circumstances they can land, correct 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But that just seems to be a real problem, and 

since time is limited, and I would urge you to please look at that 

more carefully and try to work out some agreement. Because what 

is happening is the utter destruction of these wilderness areas. But 

we have the Mojave Desert situation where there was a cross that 

was taken down, and now we saw in the news that someone had 

put up a replica because of the position that is so anti-God by the 

Park Service. It seems that not only did the Park Service have a 

problem with the cross, but I had World War II veterans up here 

last week and they were really grieving over the fact that a World 

War II memorial would not mention God. 

And when we look at the incredible memorials from the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, all these 

great old memorials that talk about our Creator and God and Providence and Laus Deo, Praise be to God, on top of the Washington 

20 

Monument, these veterans were bemoaning the fact that new memorials over the last ten or twenty years completely have hostility 

toward the mention of God, completely stripped of it. Have you 

found anything out at all about the taking of that cross? Was that 

the Park Service that took down the replica or do you know who 

did? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not have current information, but I would be absolutely glad to get back to you. I honestly just came in from the 

Gulf last night and was not briefed on the current situation at 

Mojave. But I know we are treating the stealing of the cross as a 

crime, and we are pursuing that from a law enforcement investigation standpoint. 

Mr. GOHMERT. What about the taking down of the replica? 

Mr. JARVIS. Now, again I do not know the exact situation on that 

and I will be glad to get back to you on what—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, do you understand that if the Park Service 

said, well we will treat it as a crime, but you do not allow the replacement, then it appears the Park Service would unwittingly, or 

perhaps wittingly but hopefully unwittingly, be complicit in the accomplishment of the effort of the thieves. But I see my time is up, 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Capps? 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director 

Jarvis for your good work, which I can personally speak to in my 

relationship with you in your previous position. I represent the 

Channel Islands National Park in the Pacific off the central coast 

of California. I have some questions about first two really quick 

questions. Per the court-ordered settlement agreement, whose responsibility is it for the removal of the deer and elk on Santa Rosa 

Island? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is the responsibility of Vail & Vickers. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. And what has the Park Service done to 

ensure that the terms of the court-ordered settlement agreement 

are met? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have instituted our own survey of the animals. 

We wanted to be sure they are in their court-ordered, 25-percentreduction phase now per year, and we wanted to ensure that the 

actual numbers resulted in a 25 percent reduction. We have also 

recommended to Vale & Vickers that they take specific actions to 

reduce the population as well. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. And so the Park Service has been providing guidance to Vale & Vickers? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes we have. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, I wanted to put that on the record, and 

I want to put in a good word for your excellent superintendent of 

that park, Russell Galipeau. He has gone really out of his way to 

address this particular situation with the people involved. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. CAPPS. Last year the Park Service used Recovery funds to 

install solar panels at Channel Island’s headquarters to reduce its 

carbon emissions and energy bills. As you know, the Second Century Commission report calls for Park Service operations to be carbon neutral by 2016, followed by visitor services to be carbon neutral by 2020. That is a big challenge. Are you committed to meeting 

21 

these deadlines? And what actions is NPS taking to meet some of 

these goals? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are absolutely committed to getting as close as 

we can to being carbon neutral. There are many challenges to that. 

But for instance, I believe the National Park Service and the units 

of the National Park System and the facilities that we manage, develop, and construct should be an exemplar in terms of sustainability. So, we are building facilities that meet or exceed the very 

highest standards in sustainability. 

For instance, the new visitor center at Lassen Volcanic is LEED 

Platinum, and where you not only can learn about the volcano 

itself but you can also learn about the sustainability of the physical 

facility. I have set the standard within our Development Advisory 

Board, which reviews all constructions, that they will not accept 

any project that does not meet LEED standards. We are also working cooperatively with our utilities, such as Southern California 

Edison from your part of the world, to develop large solar arrays 

in parks in partnership. 

For instance, at Joshua Tree National Park, with the assistance 

of the utility we developed a very large solar array that provides 

shade structure to our maintenance facility and produces about 65 

percent of the power demands for the headquarters area as well. 

So, we are looking for all of those kinds of opportunities. I think 

the big challenge for us is historic structures where it is not really 

yet, and we are working with the National Trust and the Advisory 

Council to develop standards for sustainability around historic 

buildings as well. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. As you know, the Channel Islands National Park is finishing up its management plan. One of 

the goals highlighted thus far is to continue monitoring and protecting kelp forests off all the islands, a project it shares with the 

adjacent National Marine Sanctuary. And I have been very supportive of this partnership and I thank you for it. My question has 

to do, even though this is quite a different scenario than the one 

my colleague Ms. Tsongas asked you about, but what are some of 

the additional ways that the Park Service can work with other Federal agencies to anticipate, to mitigate, to protect resources? And 

I am thinking particularly in our area of the strong connection between the Park Service and NOAA with respect to the Sanctuary 

which it has responsibility for. And I mentioned the kelp forests, 

are there some other areas you want to highlight either in this region or in some other regions of this kind of synergy that can come 

between Federal agencies in enhancing, multiplying the effect, if 

you will, of goals that are shared? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think the Channel Islands is a perfect example of 

that kind of collaborative relationship within a system, and absolutely the relationship we have there with NOAA and the Marine 

Sanctuary system is a great model. I also want to mention the 

State of California has been a great partner there as well in terms 

of both the protection and monitoring of the Marine Sanctuary and 

the kelp forests around Channel Islands. 

There are other examples where we work very cooperatively with 

adjacent land managers on the island of Maui in Hawaii, we are 

working very cooperatively with the state in protection and to conVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

trol the expansion of exotic species like miconia, which is a very 

invasive tree, to keep them out of the park. And so the work is very 

cooperative, all external to the park as well. And there are other 

great examples, in the Dakotas working closely with the tribes and 

the state in preserving waterfowl nesting areas, connectivity, and 

areas for bison that move in and out of the park. So, there are a 

number of those kinds of examples, and I really think that working 

collaboratively across these boundaries is the future. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Director 

Jarvis, and thank you for taking some time recently to talk with 

me and listen patiently to my obsession with Fort McHenry in my 

district, lifelong obsession. And, of course, we are working hard to 

get that ready for the bicentennial celebration that is coming up in 

2012. I wanted to ask two questions. One is, on the issue of the 

backlog, the maintenance backlog and so forth, I imagine that 

given how sizable that is that you must have some kind of a triage 

approach to it, and I was wondering if you could describe that a 

little bit. 

Does it consist of sort of triaging at each national park site to 

determine what gets done and what does not get done? Are there 

decisions made that there are certain sites where you want to 

make sure all of the backlog is addressed even if that means other 

sites maybe do not get any attention? How do you manage and balance what I imagine is a very difficult set of choices with respect 

to the backlog? 

Mr. JARVIS. One of the great things that occurred over the last 

eight years, particularly with the focus of the last Administration, 

was a quantitative analysis of our maintenance backlog. A great 

deal of investment was placed in terms of both setting priorities on 

our assets, sort of ranking where they fit—so ‘‘critical systems’’ 

versus sort of ‘‘nice to have’’—on a very quantitative scale. And 

then their current condition, and then what it would take in order 

to get them up to a good condition. 

This has been done at the asset level, then at the park level, 

then at the regional level, and then at the national level. We are 

in the process of producing what are called Park Asset Management Plans, or PAMPs. These are essentially a ranking of both condition and asset priority for the entire National Park System, so 

they are developed at the park level and then they roll up into a 

larger system. We have great analytical capability now to look at 

the critical systems in the National Park System—things like 

wastewater, water treatment, roads that provide key access, just 

really the core components—that are necessary to keep parks functional, and then other assets that sort of fall at the lower end of 

the chart, and there are some assets that, frankly, we need to get 

rid of. 

And so we are focusing also on removal of facilities or replacement of those facilities that would eliminate some of our maintenance backlog. So we are, this is actually, and I am kind of an analytical kind of person, I find this very interesting, and so we are 

trying to focus on where the best investment is going to be of our 

23 

limited dollars in these key assets. So, I think we have very much 

the analytical capability of really focusing in sort of a triage way 

on our most critical assets. 

Mr. SARBANES. The second question I had is, I think I mentioned 

to you when we met previously my interest in environmental education, getting kids outdoors. I have authored something called the 

No Child Left Inside Act, which is to try to promote outdoor education and integrate that more fully into our instructional program 

across the country. We have a lot of folks that are part of a coalition that support that. You mentioned the new position of Associate 

Director for Education and Interpretation. And I imagine that that 

would be kind of the point person, the contact person, for our efforts with No Child Left Inside and similar kinds of initiatives, and 

I just wanted to confirm that with you? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, thanks very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Kind? 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Jarvis, thank you 

so much for being here and for your testimony today. I just had a 

couple of issues I was hoping since we have such an abbreviated 

time to follow up. Maybe we can arrange a meeting at some point, 

but one is dealing with the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Park Service and Peace Corps as far as 

international park units, and what is happening there. 

I have always believed that two of our great national treasures 

that we have, one is the Library of Congress, one is the public 

lands, the park system itself. Dr. Billington has been doing a wonderful job reaching out to other countries as far as the preservation 

of their founding documents and archives and providing assistance. 

I know we have had a wonderful program as far as helping other 

countries establish their own park system, but I know the Memorandum of Understanding expired, I am wondering what needs to 

be done if anything to bring that up to speed. 

Second, one of the best things that my wife, Tawni, and I decided 

to do when our children were at a very early age is we vowed that 

during the August break we were going to take them backpacking 

in a different national park for one week, and we have done that 

for the last six years. It has been just a wonderful opportunity. But 

kids today, and obviously we have a nature deficit with the younger generation, that is something we all should be concerned about, 

are learning differently, they are absorbing differently, they are 

being stimulated differently than maybe what you and I were when 

we were growing up at that age. 

And you had mentioned about the technology programs now trying to connect our kids and get them excited and that. And I was 

hoping to be able to pursue in a little more detail what partnerships are being established for getting our children more interested 

in the parks by using the technology that they seem to be addicted 

to today and respond to very well. But the one issue I wanted you 

to address today before the Committee is in regards the park personnel morale. I mean we were very concerned about some of the 

surveys and studies coming out showing the low level of morale 

with Park Service employees, and yet they are one of the most important resources that we have going for us in the park system. 

24 

Why is that, and what steps are being done to try to turn that 

around? If you could address that for us? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are concerned about the survey work that was 

done by the Best Places to Work that did indicate that there are 

a number of factors in National Park Service employees that raised 

concern. In order to address that, we have created a Workplace Enrichment Committee headed up by a former superintendent from 

San Francisco Maritime, and staffed it up to begin to take a deeper 

dive into the organization to understand what these issues are and 

then, under my direction, to invest in fixing those kinds of things. 

We have also, one of the Second Century Commissioners was 

Margaret Wheatley, who is an organizational consultant and author on these kinds of issues. And Meg has offered her assistance 

to the National Park Service to help us better understand these 

issues as well. The issues are complex with the National Park 

Service. Most employees love their jobs, they love what they do, 

they dedicate way beyond the normal paid hours, they volunteer, 

they travel to parks on their days off. Many of them are back in 

the park on their days off doing work, and it is a way of life, as 

it was this me, I have been in this Service for 34 years. 

But I think they also have high aspirations for the agency, and 

to a certain degree the Second Century Commission report calls 

upon those high aspirations, and they want the park system to 

achieve these broader goals. And they have felt perhaps for a while 

we have not been achieving that for a variety of reasons. And so 

we are going to invest in a lot of that over the coming years. 

Mr. KIND. So, do you think it is dealing with aspirational objectives with the personnel—and not salary, living conditions, work 

conditions, things of that nature? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is a mixed. I think some of it is workplace. I recently saw some of the worst park housing I have ever seen in my 

life, and appalling living conditions for our employees, and we are 

trying to fix that as well. They tend not to complain about these 

things and just go for it anyway. But we are going to be looking 

at that. So, I think it is a combination of aspirational and local 

issues. 

Mr. KIND. Well, I tell you from personal experience having contact with a lot of the park personnel throughout the years, they are 

tremendous, they are great resources, great advocates for the park 

system, helpful with the people visiting. And anything we can do 

as far as the Committee is concerned to help as far as turning 

those surveys around so it is heading in a positive direction again 

we are interested in engaging you on. And then hopefully we will 

have an opportunity to follow up as far as the Memorandum of Understanding and also some of the youth activities, youth programs 

specifically targeting the children of our country to get them excited, as my friend from Maryland said, being outdoors again and 

exploring the wonders of our public lands. They truly are national 

treasures. Thank you again, Director Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JARVIS. I would be glad to come by and talk to you of that 

detail. 

Mr. KIND. Great, thanks. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano? 

25 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Director Jarvis, I think most of the points have been covered except I have a 

few of my own that I thought I would bring to actually dovetailing 

in Ms. Christensen’s questions regarding the diversity of your 

workforce. And on that, dovetailing the outreach to the areas where 

there are more minorities that might be interested or beginning to 

get interested in making the Park Service a future job career, if 

you will. 

Have you or are you or will you do outreach to the Members of 

Congress in the areas where you know that you have a high concentration of minorities, could be Asian, it could be Hispanic, could 

be African American, to be able to have some kind of a program. 

Now, in California, because I am from California, the state government has allowed cable to have two access lines for every city in 

California, public access and government access. Now every city 

would be able to run any PSA that you have to promote going to 

the parks but you have to get it to them to run. 

Second, if you were going to reach to the local community colleges to provide job training, have the community colleges in those 

areas been able to put on classes, if you will, for the diverse things 

that you would handle, including a possibility of a future job? They 

do it for law enforcement, they do it for firemen, why not for the 

Park Service? And especially those of us who in hearing your response to the dejected workforce, salary, the budget, I know the 

budget has been very minimal in the past decade, am I correct? So, 

are you getting—not sufficient—it can never be sufficient—but additional funding to be able to carry out all the things that we talk 

about and to be able to better the Park Service delivery to the residents? I am sorry, that is a mouthful. 

Mr. JARVIS. That is OK, those are all good points. Let me give 

you a couple of examples of where we are doing exactly what you 

suggest. In California in particular, at the University of California 

Merced campus, the newest of the ten campuses of the University 

of California and the most diverse of all the UC system, we have 

a specific program in terms of outreach to the community. UC 

Merced is focused predominantly in the central valley, and we actually have uniformed National Park Service employees that are college students on the campus working in the student center that not 

only plan trips into Yosemite or Sequoia, King’s Canyon or other 

parks, but also recruit for seasonal positions in the parks. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I interrupt you, sir, because my time is 

limited? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you kindly maybe take that as a program to be able to transfer to LA? LA County is 12 million people, 

and while we may not have many mountains we do have Santa 

Monica close by and we also have San Gabriel Mountains. Merced 

is a beautiful area, but I do not know how many people they have. 

My county, like I said, has 12 million people. The city is 4 million. 

So, we need to be able to do maybe a little more in the areas where 

you have more density to be able to attract the children who then 

will take their families to the parks. I know mine did. 

26 

Mr. JARVIS. One of my goals is to take these programs that I 

know are successful and replicate them in places like Los Angeles, 

so yes, absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would love to be able to be some kind 

of resource to you, because I know that we have done a lot through 

the San Gabriel Mountain Conservancy. And I was interested in 

Mr. Kind’s mention to maybe find out how to get the Peace Corps 

working with you again. Would it take legislation, is it something 

that you can do without legislation? 

Mr. JARVIS. We can do it without legislation. As a matter of fact, 

I have a briefing statement on the renewal of that MOU with me 

in my briefcase. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And then my last comment is—Mr. Chair, I 

will have more questions for the record—the U.S. is working with 

Mexico for sister parks on the border. There is going to be an interparliamentary meeting in Campeche, I believe, in July. It would be 

nice to have information so that we can then begin talking to the 

Senators and the members of their state legislatures and Congress. 

I know the President is very interested in some of those things, 

President Felipe Caldero ́n, is very interested in the water aspect. 

We can maybe dovetail some of those efforts into parks, and any 

information that you may have would be ideal for us to be able to— 

at least if we cannot cover it during this session—at least provide 

them with information for them to follow up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Jarvis, and once again I do not want 

to sound totally negative, I will, that is my job. There are some 

things that you are doing of which I am very proud, especially in 

the area of historic preservation. However, in the document that 

has been presented to us, and that is why I ask who wrote it because there are so many red flags that it is hard to actually fight 

your way through it as far as cue words that are in there. For example, and I just want you quickly to respond to the one, ‘‘Today 

many of our most serious threats to our parks come from beyond 

their borders. We know that we can no longer draw a line on a map 

and declare a place protected.’’ Are you seriously recommending 

buffer zones around all national parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, we are not recommending buffer zones. 

Mr. BISHOP. Which is one of the reasons why I asked who wrote 

the language, the prose in here has problematic concepts here that 

I wish had been much more specifically directed. And especially 

when you go on to the next column and they do an actual attack 

on agriculture. Those are some problems just in the prose that you 

have given to us. Let me ask you another one, the so called park 

scorecard appears to be the successor of the Core Ops that I mentioned earlier. On February 29th of last year did you attend a 

meeting with the Park Service and the NPCA management partnership where you discussed the scorecard for budgeting? 

Mr. JARVIS. I may have, I cannot remember, and I honestly cannot remember what I did last February, but a scorecard is an important tool and we are using it. 

27 

Mr. BISHOP. So, is it appropriate to develop budgeting at a high 

level in private meetings like that one on the 24th with agendas 

that are driven by interest groups with the National Park Service? 

Mr. JARVIS. What the Center for Park Management is offering is 

consulting services to do analysis, not recommendations. But they 

provide consulting services for us to do like analysis on scorecard 

metrics. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you find that appropriate then? Obviously, you 

just said you did. Would you go back and check your records on 

February 24th? Last time I had the chance of sitting next to you 

with Congressman Hastings and a couple of Senators and the Secretary who were in the room, you had a different answer to that, 

which I think there was an effort to try and fix the record on that 

particular answer. So, I would appreciate it if you check that again 

and then get back to me and to Congressman Hastings as was 

originally implied. Let me ask you also one other thing about the 

Treasured Landscapes Initiatives. There are emails that said that 

you were involved in the Treasured Landscape Initiative and developed certain Park Service proposals. Were the projects of those proposals your own initiative or did they come from the Secretary or 

did they come from the President’s Office? 

Mr. JARVIS. The Secretary of the Interior asked the National 

Park Service to propose to him how he would approach his Treasured Landscapes agenda. So, we provided, we have had a number 

of meetings with the Secretary at his request to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So, the proposals that you came up with, were they 

from your office or were they from the Secretary or were they from 

the White House? 

Mr. JARVIS. I have no knowledge of anything from the White 

House, but they were proposals from the Secretary and from the 

National Park Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is an interesting concept. What projects did you 

actually submit then from the Treasured Landscapes Initiative? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, as I have testified here today, one is the authority to redo the National Park System plan where we would look 

at broad themes in this country, American history themes, and 

where potentially new areas could be established to tell those stories. 

Mr. BISHOP. And those were the initiatives that came from your 

office, were there others? 

Mr. JARVIS. No those are the kinds of initiatives that we requested. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have a list of the ones that you proposed 

that came from your office and will you provide that to us? 

Mr. JARVIS. All requests for that kind of information have to go 

through our Solicitor’s Office in terms of their determination of 

whether or not they are internal and deliberative that I am not in 

the position to provide that unless approved through the Solicitor’s 

Office. 

Mr. BISHOP. If the Solicitor approves that, are you willing to provide that information? 

Mr. JARVIS. If the Solicitor approves it, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Were any of those areas in areas that were developed where there could have been resources that could be develVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

oped that would make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not have any information on that, I have no 

idea. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, let me get this straight. The Treasured Landscape Initiative, which the Solicitor General at one time said was 

a process that should be involved in that, the proposals for those 

initiatives did not come from the White House—they actually came 

from the Department of the Interior—and your office presented 

some of those initiatives that were there? 

Mr. JARVIS. That would be correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you do or do not think it would be appropriate 

for Congress then to see what those listed initiatives are? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am not in the position to make that judgment, that 

judgment is made by our Solicitor’s Office. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you were in a position to make that judgment, do 

you think it would be appropriate for Congress to know what you 

have proposed in those areas? 

Mr. JARVIS. I know my position and that is the Director of the 

National Park Service and I am going to stay in that position and 

not speculate on anything beyond my position. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, that is good, maybe you should go through 

what the Solicitor General a decade ago said with the process to 

realize that when you are dealing with those types of situations 

they are supposed to come from the President first, not necessarily 

coming from your office, and if they are, then Congress should be 

a player in that particular area. Mr. Chairman, I have a whole 

bunch of other questions. I will try and, you know, you have people 

here that have other questions, I do not want to belabor this point. 

Sir, I will be coming back with other questions that I do have on 

the scorecard concept. As I said, there is some verbiage in here that 

I have some specific issues. I would love to be able to say what is 

the priority of the Park Service, you have a line in there that said 

at one time in 1960 the idea was for entertainment, now you have 

everything from saving the planet, which is actually a phrase that 

is in there, and educating children, and kids who go to parks actually are smarter than kids who do not go to parks. 

In your testimony, you gave us four priorities which, to be honest, I cannot identify outside of bureaucratese what those initiatives are. I would love to be able, at some time, just to say, I have 

read your documents and I can say this is the priority of what the 

Park Service is about and what they intend to do and have those 

specific and direct. I have some problems, some significant problems with the verbiage in this document. As I said, there are cue 

words that throw all sorts of verbal documents from the buffer zone 

question to the fact you actually did attack agricultural interests 

in the United States in this particular document should not be 

there, that is not appropriate. 

I have questions on the funding sources. I have questions on why 

you have received $750 million in the stimulus act but you have 

only spent $92. I have some significant questions of heritage areas, 

especially when the Chairman of the full Committee is so wont to 

say that the entire State of Tennessee is a heritage area, which has 

a hard part of presenting how we are going to do initiatives with 

29 

local government. We have to come up with some precise areas of 

how we move into heritage areas in the future, because those areas 

are significantly different than when Congress actually initiated 

that process. 

We have to come to those kinds of conclusions, and what I would 

like to do, Mr. Chairman, just so other people can still have a 

chance of talking to you before Mr. Jarvis has to go, is to submit 

those to the record. If I can get a response back on the questions 

I submit to the record? Not that I have had problems with the Park 

Service before in getting stuff back from you. If I could do that, I 

would be more than happy to do that to try and move this process 

along. I do want to say there are areas in which I am pleased in 

what you have done, but there are a whole lot of areas in which 

I have some significant concerns, especially if this document is 

going to be the one that guides us into the future, and I think it 

would be good to try and talk at some other place and time. 

Mr. JARVIS. I would be glad to come by. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I just want to deliver some good news. 

I was at Timpanogos National Monument in Utah a couple weekends ago and saw a young man painting a sign with nice brown 

paint, and he was doing a great job on behalf of the National Park 

System. I am an old painter so I appreciate good painting, he was 

really making it look really good. Second good news is I was impressed with the little brochure that they hand out there, it had 

a section on what Americans could do to deal with climate change, 

what you could do to reduce carbon emissions, and I thought that 

was really a good thing for the Park Service to help Americans 

have that information, and I appreciate your sharing that information with Americans at your service, so hats off to your work you 

are doing there. 

But it isn’t fully working because we are losing a lot of the ecosystems that the Park is responsible for because of climate change. 

So here is one question. The Glacier National Park is predicted not 

to have glaciers, I am told, within the next century because of climate change, and the National Science Foundation and a whole 

host of Federal agencies believe that is primarily caused by human 

activities, the release of carbon dioxide and methane. So, the question is, when all of the glaciers are gone in Glacier National Park 

because we did not deal with our energy crisis, what are we going 

to call Glacier National Park? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I hope it will still be Glacier National Park, because it was, the landscape there was carved by glaciers. You 

know, we may have to call it the park formerly known as Glacier. 

But nevertheless it is going to change, Glacier, in a variety of ways, 

and there are cascading effects that come from the loss of the glaciers, water temperature in the streams, change in vegetation, that 

will result in a warming climate. And Glacier is not alone in those 

changes that we are seeing. I think as I have stated in previous 

testimony before the Chairman that climate change is going to be 

one of the greatest challenges the National Park System faces in 

this next century. 

30 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I am afraid that is the case, and the glaciers 

are not just the ice, they are the keystone of the whole ecosystem 

there, and my parents used to work with the Student Conservation 

Association up on Mount Rainier revegetating some of those alpine 

meadows that, if there is a heaven on earth, I think that is where 

it is, and they are fed by the glaciers essentially, that is what 

keeps those whole alpine meadows healthy. And so seeing the loss 

of those is very devastating to a lot of us and my constituents who 

love those places. 

Let me suggest there is something we can do about that, which 

is to pass a clean energy bill this year to try to keep the places 

pristine and healthy that you have jurisdiction over, and I 

empathize with your position because you are responsible for these 

treasured landscapes but it is really the Energy Department and 

maybe the Interior Department that really are responsible, that we 

need to give them the tools so they can come up with clean energy 

so we can keep the national parks healthy, and I hope that that 

will happen. 

I wanted to ask you about the National Park Service’s threats 

from the oil spill, and I know there are quite a number of areas, 

the Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, 

DeSoto National Memorial, even Dry Tortugas if it gets into the 

Loop Current Everglades. Could you describe what your situation 

is with the Park Service on protecting those areas right now? Do 

you have any sort of emergency budget that you can draw on to 

deal with those challenges with your parks right now, or do you 

have an unlimited well to draw from from British Petroleum? How 

is this working for you? 

Mr. JARVIS. As I mentioned earlier, I am serving as an Incident 

Commander down there right now. And so there are seven units 

of the National Park System that are interior to the Gulf, and then 

Biscayne we are counting as the eighth just being around the turn. 

There are also 33 national wildlife refuges also potentially threatened by the oil spill. Our first step has been to deploy boom material. Gulf Islands National Seashore is the one that is closest to the 

oil spill, in many cases only less than ten miles from the slick, and 

so we have been deploying boom. 

We are at 100 percent of our planning level in terms of protection of Gulf Islands National Seashore to protect predominantly the 

wetlands and estuaries and sea grass beds that are on the back 

sides of the islands, and we have done that. We are also out with 

teams of biologists and archaeologists to document the preexisting 

conditions in all of the national parks in the gulf. Frankly we think 

that for the south Florida parks, Dry Tortugas, Big Cypress, Everglades, and Biscayne, it is predominantly going to be a tar ball 

event because and oil is weathering. 

We have been working very actively with the BP chemists and 

our own scientists to better understand what is changing in the oil 

as it moves through the Gulf and potentially into the Loop Current. 

It is in the Loop Current, but it weathers actively. This particular 

oil is a low sulfur, high volatile, sort of what they call a sweet 

crude. It does weather in the water column and on the surface and 

results in tar balls. Tar balls are problematic but they are not particularly toxic. 

31 

And so we have teams in place to gather tar balls as they appear 

anywhere within the National Park System, they go to the lab to 

determine their source, we can fingerprint them fairly closely to 

Deepwater Horizon 252 to determine if their source is coming from 

that. So, I think at least from the National Park System we are 

pretty well prepared. We are doing this under the unified command, which is being paid for by BP, for our response at this point, 

and all of that is, we do very extensive cost accounting in this process and that is all being paid for by the responsible party at this 

time. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Inslee. And in deference to the travel and the 

responsibility that you have now, if there are no other follow-up 

questions, let me thank you, Mr. Director. Ms. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very quickly. There was an indication of 

invasive species, whether it is the pine beetle in the forests in the 

parks, whether it is the tamarack being eradicated by Japanese 

beetles, which are now infecting or moving out in Utah at Mojave, 

what are you doing on those areas? Because that also is a drain 

on your budget I am sure. 

Mr. JARVIS. The advance of exotic species is a major concern for 

the National Park Service, and a lot of it is driven by climate 

change, buffelgrass in the Southwest would be another example. 

We have exotic plant management teams deployed across the system that are actively attacking the spread of these species, and obviously working very cooperatively with state agencies that control, 

weed control districts, and other agencies as well on this. So, it is 

a huge challenge but we are not taking it laying down. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. In Colorado they are using some of the 

pine beetle killed to take the oil out of the pine and then mulch 

it to give to cattle, which I thought was great. Also, if you could 

implement photovoltaic or geomass or wind power in many of your 

sites, how much money do you think you could save? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is a question I would have to get back to you 

on and calculate. I think there are places like the Mojave Desert, 

Joshua Tree and others, where we can deploy these resources. 

There are other places that we cannot, just because it is a historic 

facility—though we are finding unique ways to do it. We have a 

project on Alcatraz Island where we are going to lay solar panels 

on the central cell block where they would not be seen by the public. So, we are looking at all kinds of innovative ways to do this, 

but ultimately we probably could never deploy enough solar, wind, 

or alternative energy within the national parks to cover all of our 

energy demands. We are going to have to do that in partnership 

with others. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Lummis? 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one follow-up on 

Mrs. Napolitano’s earlier discussion with you when you were talking about the students at Merced and what a neat program that 

is. I would encourage you to incorporate Native Americans also into 

the discussion of opportunities for young people. As I look at the 

Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, its proximity to Grand 

Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, and how we might incorVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
32 

porate young people on the reservation into interactions with tourists on the park, it provides some opportunities for Native Americans. There is a Park Service director at Devils Tower who is a Native American from the Rosebud Reservation, she has been a great 

addition. And I think that those are great programs so I want to 

applaud you for it and ask you to consider Native Americans in 

those types of programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. If there are no further questions, Mr. 

Director, thank you, thank you for the job you are doing right now 

and the job that you are doing as Director. I think the Commission’s blueprint and recommendations are important, and I want to 

extend my appreciation for you working with them and as we approach that centennial down the road, looking at an implementation schedule that both involves resources, funding, and priorities, 

and I think that is where we will be going as a consequence of the 

hearing today and as a consequence of the very important report 

that is before us. So, thank you for being here today, I appreciate 

it a lot. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And let me invite the next panel up. Let me welcome and thank our panelists for your valuable time and for the 

time that you are giving this hearing, we appreciate it very much. 

Let me begin with Dr. Steve Lockhart, Chairman of the Board, 

NatureBridge, San Francisco. Welcome, sir, and thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE LOCKHART, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, NATUREBRIDGE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. LOCKHART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members, 

and thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before this 

distinguished Subcommittee. It is an honor and a privilege. In 

2016, as you are aware, the National Park Service will celebrate 

its centennial, and in 2008 the Second Century Commission was 

convened, an independent body charged with developing a vision 

that expanses the national park idea for the next 100 years. We 

are a group of distinguished private citizens including scientists, 

educators, conservationists, business people, and leaders in state 

and national government. 

We met at several national parks around the country and engaged in dialogue with citizens and experts. We are grateful for the 

leadership provided by our Co-Chairs, former Senators Bennett 

Johnston and Howard Baker. As the Co-Chair of the Commission’s 

Education and Learning Subcommittee, I will be most expansive on 

this topic. However, our report and recommendation is reflected in 

all the testimony you will hear today and I ask that my remarks 

be considered within that context. 

One of our first experiences as a Commission involved a visit to 

the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. There we 

joined a group of 5th graders involved in a program in which students adopt a designated plot of land and remove non-native plants 

and restore native species. They learn about the water cycle, soil, 

insects, and other ecological concepts. Notably, these were all children from the urban environment of Los Angeles, the majority of 

33 

whom were being introduced for the first time to this national park 

right in their own backyard. 

Whereas park visitors typically do not reflect our nation’s diversity, these students did reflect the diversity of their local communities. Due to this positive and memorable experience, many of 

these children returned to introduce their parents and family members to the park. This is a powerful example of the ability of education to engage future generations and to inspire a personal connection with our national parks. Education ranks among our nation’s highest priorities. As one of the largest providers of both informal and formal educational experiences, the national parks offer 

an opportunity to engage in place-based, lifelong learning. 

Just as the Organic Act established a framework needed to maintain the parks during the first century, education is core to the success of the parks during the next century. The Commission recommends that education be at the forefront of the National Park 

Service agenda and that Congress establish a clear legislative mandate for education as a fundamental purpose of the parks. Education is provided through the visitor experience, ranger-led interpretation, formal educational programs, and academic research. It 

is provided by the National Park Service, but in equal measure by 

partners and volunteers. 

Students who participate in park educational programs show a 

measurable improvement in academic performance and achieve 

higher test scores, all of which helps to further the primary objective of enhancing the quality of education in America. 

NatureBridge is an example of one of several partner organizations 

for which 40 years has provided week-long residential field science 

programs in national parks and currently educates 40,000 middle 

school and high school children per year. 

As Chair of the Board of NatureBridge and as a parent of a program alumnus, I can testify to the transformative nature of these 

types of park experiences. Interestingly, four current park superintendents are alumni of our programs who acknowledge that the 

seed of interest in a career was planted at that early stage. In 

order to support its human capital needs for the 21st Century, the 

Park Service must develop a pipeline creating a ladder of learning, 

including Service learning, that plants these seeds of interest and 

captures the imagination of young people. 

For the vast majority who will not pursue a career with the 

National Park Service, the benefit to society of developing leadership, stewardship, and a sense of personal responsibility for the environment cannot be overstated. Within the National Park Service, 

nodes of educational excellence exist, but have evolved inconsistently due to chronic underfunding and lack of institutional commitment to professional development for interpretation and education 

staff. Education is also a powerful tool to engage the broader American public, a public which is increasingly diverse and has struggled at times to find a personal connection with our national parks. 

We should recognize and support the vital role the National Park 

Service Education and Interpretation staff play in engaging this diverse public. Historically, important stories have been missing from 

the chronicle embedded in our parks. Which of our nation’s stories 

are told, how they are told, and by whom, are critical elements in 

34 

making a visitor experience relevant to a diverse multicultural society. The old concept of a ranger as an authority who provides education for the public must be replaced with the ranger who facilitates with audiences and engages communities and partners to provide a relevant experience. 

Finally, if we expect to maintain a vibrant system of national 

parks into the second century, it is critical for the National Park 

Service to create and foster a culture conducive to achieving workforce diversity reflective of the public it serves. We see our national 

parks as the centerpiece of a 21st Century America, which shares 

our shared national heritage. Our recommendations are designed 

to advance the national park idea, making it relevant for all Americans for generations to come. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lockhart follows:] 

Statement of Stephen H. Lockhart, MD, PhD, 

National Parks Second Century Commission 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before this distinguished subcommittee. It is an honor, a privilege and it is my sincerest hope that 

our remarks will be enlightening, informative and helpful in your consideration of 

how best to support and enhance one of our nation’s greatest treasures, our 

National Parks. 

In 2016, the National Park Service will celebrate its centennial. In 2008, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association convened the Second Century Commission, an independent body charged with developing a vision that advances the 

national park idea for the next 100 years. We are a group of distinguished private 

citizens, including scientists, educators, conservationists, business people, and leaders in state and national government. We met at National Parks around the country 

and engaged in structured dialogue with concerned citizens and experts. We are 

grateful for the wisdom and leadership provided by our co-chairs, former Senators 

Howard Baker and Bennet Johnston. To accomplish more in-depth analyses and to 

develop a deeper appreciation for the issues involved, we formed eight committees. 

As Co-chair of the Education and Learning Committee, it is on this topic that I will 

be most expansive in my testimony. However, it should be recognized that our report and recommendations are reflected in all of the testimony you will hear today 

as well as in the written materials you have received. I ask that my remarks be 

considered within that larger context. 

One of our first experiences as a Commission involved a visit to the Santa Monica 

Mountains National Recreation Area. There we joined a group of 5th graders involved in a program called SHRUB (Students Restoring Unique Biomes). Two student teams adopt a designated plot of land and remove non-native plants and restore native species. They learn about the water cycle, soils, insects, plant adaptation and other ecologic concepts. Notably, these were all children from the urban 

environment of Los Angeles, the majority being introduced for the first time to this 

national park in their own backyard. Whereas park visitors typically do not reflect 

our nation’s diversity, these school aged children did reflect the diversity of their 

local communities. Due to this positive and memorable experience, many of these 

children return to introduce their parents and family members to the park. This is 

a powerful example of the power of education to engage future generations and to 

inspire a personal connection with our National Parks. 

Education ranks among the highest of our nation’s priorities. As one of the largest 

providers of both informal and formal educational experiences, the National Parks 

offer an opportunity to engage in place-based, lifelong learning. This learning promotes a more sustainable environment, enhances dialogue about the democratic 

principles at the core of our society, and encourages stewardship. 

Just as the Organic Act established the framework needed to maintain the parks 

during the first century, education is core to the success of the parks during the 

next century. The Commission recommends that education be at the forefront of the 

National Park Service agenda, and that Congress establish a clear legislative mandate for education as a fundamental purpose of the parks. 

Education is provided through the visitor experience, ranger led interpretation, 

formal educational programs and academic research. It is provided by the National 

Park Service, and in equal measure by partner organizations and volunteers. 

35 

Students who participate in park educational programs show measurable improvement in academic performance and achieve higher test scores. A significant 

amount of this educational programming in parks is provided by partner organizations. NatureBridge is an example of one such organization which for 40 years, has 

provided week long residential field science programs in National Parks, and currently educates 40,000 middle school and high school children per year. Program 

evaluation demonstrates a high level of student engagement, improved academic 

performance, and gender-neutral participation in scientific learning. Our programs 

also educate teachers on how to incorporate this learning into the classroom. In addition, there are professional development programs for teachers, all of which helps 

to further the primary objective of enhancing the quality of education in America. 

As both Chair of the NatureBridge Board and as a parent of a program alumnus, 

I can testify to the transformative nature of these types of experiences. Interestingly, four current park superintendents are alumni of our programs who acknowledge that the seed of interest in a career was planted at that early stage. In order 

to support its human capital needs for the 21st century, the Park Service must develop a pipeline, creating a ‘‘ladder of learning’’, including service learning, that 

plants these seeds of interest and captures the imagination of young people. 

For the vast majority who will not pursue a career with the National Park Service, the benefit to society of developing leadership, stewardship, and a sense of personal responsibility for the environment cannot be overstated 

Within the National Park Service, nodes of educational excellence exist but have 

evolved inconsistently due to chronic under-funding and lack of institutional commitment to professional development. We are heartened that, under Director Jarvis’ 

leadership, one of our recommendations, to create a senior level management position with sole responsibility to oversee educational initiatives has been accomplished. There are innovative programs within the Park Service, such as the 

Teacher-Ranger-Teacher program which offers the opportunity for teachers from 

Title 1 school districts to train and work as an interpretive ranger during the summer months prior to returning to the classroom in the fall. Important programs such 

as these integrate learning in the classroom and park environments, and are deserving of increased support. 

Another barrier to maximizing the educational impact of our parks is the failure 

of the Park Service to adapt to technologic change. The National Park Service must 

embrace technology as a means of providing place-based and distance learning. During our Commission meeting at Gettysburg, we were able to participate in a rangerled program exploring the underwater ecosystems at Cabrillo National Monument. 

Although it was exciting to learn that programs like this are possible, it was disappointing to learn that this could only be provided through partner organizations 

because the infrastructure required to offer such programs is not available within 

the National Park Service. 

Education is also a powerful tool to engage the broader American public, a public 

which is increasingly diverse and who struggle at times to find a personal connection with the parks. We should recognize and support the vital role of the National 

Park Service education and interpretation staff in engaging this diverse public. 

We also acknowledge that, historically, important stories have been missing from 

the chronicle embedded in our parks. Which of our nation’s stories are told, how 

they are told and by whom are critical elements of making a visitor experience relevant. Establishing parks such as Manzanar and the Selma to Montgomery 

National Historic Trail, dedicated to uncovering and facing some of our most difficult stories, expands the dialogue. But we have also learned that stories of the 

Buffalo soldiers in Yosemite and the Native American communities around Mt 

Rushmore enrich the cultural and historic significance of our most iconic parks. The 

old concept of the ranger as an authority who provides education for the public must 

be replaced with the ranger who facilitates with audiences, and engages communities and partners to provide a relevant experience. Finally, if we expect to maintain a vibrant system of National Parks into the second century, it is critical for 

the National Park Service to create and foster a culture conducive to achieving 

workforce diversity reflective of the public it serves. 

We see our national parks as the centerpiece of a 21st century America, enriched 

by its cultural and ethnic diversity, committed to education and public service, and 

celebrating our shared national heritage. Our recommendations are designed to advance the national park idea, making it relevant to all Americans for generations 

to come. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me turn to our next 

panelist, Ms. Gretchen Long for your comments. Thank you. 

36 

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN LONG, WILSON, WYOMING 

Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to speak. My 

name is Gretchen Long from Wilson, Wyoming, next door to Grand 

Teton National Park and Yellowstone. I have been a volunteer conservationist for the past 30 years. As such, I realize I do not have 

a title as the rest of my colleagues do, but in that rich experience 

I have been Chairman of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 

I have been Chairman of the National Outdoor Leadership School, 

NOLS, and many other wonderful organizations, and I did have the 

privilege of serving on the Second Century Commission as a volunteer conservationist, and it was an extraordinary experience of 

working with 28 other commissioners from around the country, 

many of whom did not have at the beginning of this experience 

vast knowledge of the National Park Service. 

But we came together to assess national parks today and what 

the future holds, and we concluded over a year-long deliberation 

with an exceptional unity of outlook, that was I think part of the 

amazing transformation that took place among the commissioners, 

and we felt as a whole, as a body, that not only are our national 

parks America’s best idea as Wallace Stegner has said, but they 

are positioned to be a leading force in meeting the 21st Century 

challenges of accelerated loss of nature, public disengagement, and 

youthful disconnect. 

The committee that I am particularly representing was the 

Science and Natural Resources Committee. I served under the able 

leadership of Dr. Rita Caldwell, who was the Chair and the former 

Director of the National Science Foundation and current Distinguished Professor of the University of Maryland. The Committee 

noted that our national parks, Acadia, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, 

Yellowstone, are among America’s favorite icons, and as such have 

the support of most of the people in the country. 

They are the translators of America’s great outdoors, they are 

the remaining bastions of biodiversity. But, in the 21st Century, it 

is clear that the national parks alone cannot sustain our nation’s 

ecological heritage. National parks are neither fully representative 

of our national natural systems, nor are national parks isolated islands able to accomplish their mission of keeping resources 

unimpaired for future generations up against the modern pressures 

that abound today. 

The Park Service will need to grow in a manner in which they 

operate and work within a broader context. Therefore, the Science 

and Natural Resources Committee recommends, one, that the 

President of the United States should establish a task force including the National Park Service and other Federal agencies involved 

in conservation, along with their state, local, and nonprofit partners, to [a] map a national strategy for protecting America’s natural heritage, and [b] to identify protection of the nation’s natural 

assets as a common goal of all agencies while pursuing their respective agency agendas. 

Two, national parks impacted by their surroundings cannot endure alone. The Park Service has a long history of reaching out to 

communities and establishing partnerships as well as engaging the 

visitor, often being the environmental translator. It sets a high 

standard in the way it manages its resources. Thus, it is uniquely 

37 

qualified to offer technical assistance and counsel to a larger public. The Committee recommends the creation of new legislation 

modeled after the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to enhance protection of national heritage values on non-Federal lands. 

Such legislation would provide leadership opportunities for the 

Park Service to provide technical assistance and counsel and to encourage incentives for private land conservation. It is not intended 

to convey any new management or regulatory authority. And finally, three, in recent decades, the science arm of the National 

Park Service has been weakened. To realize its promise, the Park 

Service must be a trusted scientific authority. The Committee advises that science must be strengthened within the Service to support a science-based foundation for building a 21st Century system. 

The Park Service needs to build an internally directed research 

program which takes advantage of the data in its venue, and which 

also makes ecosystem and species restoration a hallmark of its applied science capability. To conclude, our nation’s natural assets 

will only be secure if there is a coordinated, comprehensive, scientifically based approach to ensuring our natural heritage. And 

the Park Service with its outstanding system of parks is eminently 

qualified to take a leadership role in this critical endeavor. Thank 

you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Long follows:] 

Statement of Gretchen Long, National Parks Second Century Commission 

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for inviting us to speak. My name is Gretchen Long, 

from Wilson, Wyoming, next door to Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone. 

As a volunteer conservationist for the past thirty years, I had the privilege of serving on the Second Century Commission which Steve Lockhart just described. It was 

an extraordinary experience of 28 commissioners from around the country, many experts in their own field but with limited knowledge of our national parks, who came 

together to assess national parks today, and what the future holds. 

We concluded our year long deliberation with an exceptional unity of outlook: Not 

only are national parks ‘‘America’s Best Idea’’ as Wallace Stegner said, but the 

parks are positioned to be a leading force in meeting the 21st century challenges 

of accelerated loss of nature, public disengagement, and youthful disconnect. 

The role for national parks to meet society’s needs and to be a leader in broad 

scale ecosystem protection was especially evident in the discussions of the Science 

and Natural Resources Committee, on which I served under the able leadership of 

Dr. Rita Colwell, former Director of the National Science Foundation and current 

Distinguished Professor at the University of Maryland. 

The committee noted that our national parks—Acadia, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, 

Yellowstone—are America’s favorite icons, and as such have the support of most 

people in the country. As the best preserved public lands of our nation, they are 

beacons of stewardship. Traditionally the parks have been our translators of America’s great outdoors and the wonders of nature. They are much of our remaining 

bastions of biodiversity. The committee views national parks as our nation’s national heritage, an invaluable, irreplaceable part of our nation’s patrimony. 

But in the 21st century it is clear that the parks alone cannot sustain our nation’s 

ecological heritage. National parks are neither fully representational of our national 

natural systems (which Deny Galvin will speak to following), nor are national parks, 

isolated islands, able to accomplish their mission of keeping resources unimpaired 

for future generations up against the modern pressures that abound. 

The park service will need to grow in the manner in which they operate and work 

within a broader context. As one of the country’s favored agencies, respected by our 

people for maintaining our precious landscape, the National Park System is well positioned to make these changes. Accordingly, the committee stated: 

1. National parks are frequently in the fabric of multiple public lands managed 

by a number of different federal, and sometime state, lands. To combat the effects 

of habitat fragmentation, federal agencies need to work in a fashion geared to compatibility with the nation’s long-term protection of our natural heritage. The park 

38 

service will play a major role in leading this comprehensive strategy and engage 

partners across agency lines. 

The Committee recommends the President of the United States should establish 

a task force, including the National Park Service and other federal agencies involved 

in conservation, along with their state, local and non profit partners, to map a national strategy for protecting America’s natural heritage and to identify protection 

of the nation’s natural assets as a common goal for all agencies, while pursuing 

their respective agency agendas. 

2. National parks, impacted by their surroundings, cannot endure alone. Ecosystem services, water air, wildlife, are dynamic. Parks are cornerstones of a larger 

system. 

The park service has a long history in reaching out to communities and establishing partnerships, as well as engaging the visitor, often being the environmental 

translator. It sets a high standard in the way it manages its resources. Thus it is 

uniquely qualified to offer technical assistance and counsel to a larger public. 

The committee recommends the creation of new legislation, modeled after the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to enhance protection of natural heritage 

values on non federal lands. Such legislation would provide leadership opportunities 

for the National Park Service to provide technical assistance and counsel, encourage 

incentives for private land conservation, etc. It is not intended to convey any new 

management or regulatory authority. 

3. In recent decades the science arm of the National Park Service has been weakened. To realize its promise, Dr, Cowell states, ‘‘The National Park Service must be 

a trusted scientific authority.’’ 

The committee advises science must be strengthened within the service, to support a science based foundation for building a 21st century system. The park service 

needs to build an internally directed research program which takes advantage of the 

data in its venue, and which also makes ecosystem and species restoration a hallmark of its applied science capability. 

To conclude, our nation’s natural assets will only be secure if there is a coordinated, comprehensive, scientifically based approach to ensuring our natural heritage. The National Park Service, with its outstanding system of parks, is eminently 

qualified to take a leadership role in this critical endeavor. 

Thank you for your time 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me introduce The Honorable Vic Fazio for his 

comments, and thank you for being here, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VIC FAZIO, SENIOR 

ADVISOR, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member 

Bishop and Members of the Committee, for putting the time in to 

hear the recommendations of this National Parks Second Century 

Commission. I want to begin by telling you what an incredibly 

capable, diverse, and talented group of people I had the privilege 

of serving with on this Commission. You get a slice of that in the 

testimony of this panel and later on from additional testimony from 

a gentleman who sits behind us, Mr. Jerry Rogers. 

But it really was an incredibly capable and involved group of 

people who came from a variety of different perspectives and found 

that they had a common interest in the national parks and its 

further development. Of course, much of our recommendation took 

the long view. We were not focused just on the next couple of fiscal 

years. We did look down the road and determined that for the 

National Park Service to be able to meet the mission that it was 

envisioned to have by this Commission, a good deal more funding 

would be required. 

And as a former appropriator here in the Congress, I sat on the 

committee chaired by Linda Bilmes, who is the Professor of Public 

Policy at the Kennedy School at Harvard and an experienced 

39 

budgeteer. And our task was to look at what kind of infusion of 

new financial resources might be possible given the very obvious 

restraints of our current budget environment ongoing in this country for I am sure at least a decade more if not longer. Our commitment was first and foremost to increasing operational funding. 

It is absolutely critical to implementing any number of significant recommendations of this panel that we have the adequate 

operational funding to have the resources, the personnel, and the 

organizational capacity to meet the Park Service’s mission, to serve 

the public, to diversify the workforce as we have heard comment 

today, to conduct scientific research that is so needed in so many 

areas of the country, and to protect the park resources which we 

know are in many places under stress. The National Park Service budget of $2.7 billion is less than one 

tenth of one percent of the Federal budget. As you have already 

heard discussed, we have a $600 million shortfall in operating 

funding. Our backlog for maintenance is $9 billion, and there is nowhere near an amount adequate to deal with the potential acquisition of in-holdings from willing sellers. The Commission came to 

appreciate the role that Congress has played in recent years. Two 

Presidents as well have shown a willingness to attack the operational shortfall of the park system. 

But we believe the Congress must continue that effort and in- crease funding for the National Park Service by at least $100 million over the next six years beyond the fixed cost of inflation. That 

would allows us to work down this shortfall in a relatively short 

period of time. Second, we think the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund has to be more adequately spent on issues related to the 

Park Service. As you know, less than half that money is now provided to the Service. 

In addition, I think it is most important that we look down the 

road confronting these fiscal challenges to the creation of an endowment and a national campaign leading up to the centennial in 

2016. As Linda Bilmes, our Chairman, said, if we intend to protect 

the national parks in perpetuity, basic finance tells us we must 

fund them in perpetuity as well. And so we have talked about an 

endowment that could provide a perpetual revenue stream, an opportunity to enable donors to give or bequeath funds to provide for 

a range of purposes, including science and scholarship, education, 

specific Park Service projects, public-private initiatives outside 

park boundaries that serve the broader mission, and other philanthropic activity that we believe should supplement, not replace, appropriations. 

Last, we think, following along an initiative of former Secretary 

Kempthorne, that we need to build a national campaign for this 

next centennial of the Park Service. We have talked about engaging philanthropists, corporations, citizens from all walks of life, but 

we like to get the average citizen involved directly through maybe 

the purchase of coins or stamps or other things that would give average people an opportunity to help just as much as those who 

have the resources in our society. So, we are privileged to present 

these suggestions to you, knowing full well the difficulty of finding 

adequate funding going forward. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fazio follows:] 

40 

Statement of The Honorable Vic Fazio, Commissioner, 

National Parks Second Century Commission 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present the recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission. 

It was a privilege to serve as part of such a talented, diverse, committed group of 

notable Americans, and we greatly appreciate your interest in our work and findings. 

The commission made many recommendations, and took the long view. We realize 

that not every recommendation can be implemented immediately. Some will take 

years. But many, whether near- or long-term, will require a National Park System 

that is better funded to meet its mission. I served on the committee on funding and 

budget, which was ably chaired by Linda Bilmes, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. We examined a series of funding-related 

issues and opportunities, and I will highlight a few of those in my remarks. 

First and foremost, the commission found that current funding is fundamentally 

inadequate to the tasks the National Park Service has before it, and to those it must 

engage in the future. Our national financial commitment to the parks matches neither their importance to society nor the enormous franchise they have with the 

American people. 

At the top of the list is operational funding, which is absolutely critical to implementing a significant number of the commission’s recommendations. Operational 

funding is essential to ensure the Park Service has the resources, personnel, and 

organizational capacity to meet its mission, serve the public, diversify its workforce, 

conduct needed scientific research, and protect park resources. Annual Park Service 

appropriations last year were approximately $2.7 billion—less than one-tenth of one 

percent of the federal budget. The commission came to understand that such an 

amount cannot possibly stretch across the distance of public expectations and Park 

Service needs. As you know, the annual operating shortfall, while down from its 

peak a few years ago, still approaches $600 million, the maintenance backlog exceeds $9 billion, and funding to acquire inholdings from willing sellers in national 

parks is nowhere close to adequate. 

The commission came to very much appreciate the bipartisan commitment Congress and two presidents have shown the last three years to attack the operations 

funding shortfall of the National Park System, and believes adequate operations 

funding to be fundamental to the Park Service’s success in the future. The commission recommended that Congress continue that effort and ‘‘increase funding for the 

National Park Service by at least $100 million over fixed-cost inflation each year 

until 2016, to eliminate the current operations shortfall.’’ 

Second, the commission believes that the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 

a critical role to play in the future of our parks—those that already exist and future 

additions. The National Park Service has not been funded adequately to purchase 

from willing sellers the remaining private lands that are within authorized park 

boundaries. On average, only half the money placed in the LWCF trust fund has 

actually been appropriated for its intended use. We would hope that Congress will 

restore the original intent that LWCF be a mandatory program, and fund it to fully 

meet its intended purposes. 

Third, Congress and the administration should focus more on the tremendous 

leveraging power of the Park Service’s underfunded community assistance programs. Communities across the country and the citizens they serve already have experienced the value of those programs for conservation, preservation, and recreation. 

Since our fellow commissioner Jerry Rogers will focus on the various historic preservation programs, I will confine my focus to the Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. RTCA provides invaluable technical assistance to local communities, whether they are near national parks or not, to improve quality of life, provide recreational opportunities, and conserve important community resources. RTCA 

is helping the community of Caldwell, Idaho, restore a nearly half-mile-long section 

of Indian Creek, which had been buried since the 1930s. By resurrecting the stream, 

the project has improved resource protection and recreation, assisting in a multimillion-dollar revitalization of downtown Caldwell. This is a low-cost, high value 

program that merits more attention and funding than it now receives. 

The commission was very aware of the fiscal challenges that confront our nation. 

As such, we also focused on the need to identify new sources of revenue to make 

the parks everything they should be in the next century. I will focus on two: an endowment and a national campaign leading up to the 2016 centennial. 

As our commission colleague, Linda Bilmes, said, ‘‘If we intend to protect the national parks in perpetuity, basic finance tells us that we must fund them in perpetuity.’’ In fact, the commission believes that national park system financing strucVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
41 

tures should be adjusted to genuinely reflect the understanding these places are 

meant to be preserved forever. At present, short-term appropriations and supplementary donations are typically related chiefly to immediate needs. Given the volatility of this type of funding, and the ‘‘hand-to-mouth’’ nature of the annual appropriations cycle, we recommend the creation of a tax-exempt endowment. 

An endowment would provide a perpetual revenue stream for an institution with 

a mission in perpetuity, enabling donors to give or bequeath funds to provide for 

a range of purposes, including science and scholarship, education, specific Park 

Service projects, and public-private initiatives outside park boundaries that serve 

the broader mission. Philanthropic support is attracted to innovative ventures and 

long-term goals, so the endowment would supplement annual appropriations, which 

should continue to pay for core operating and infrastructure needs. The commission 

report goes into greater detail about how an endowment might be structured. 

In addition, the commission has called for a significant campaign for Americans 

to contribute to and engage with our national parks leading up to, and beyond, the 

National Park Service centennial in 2016. Such a campaign should engage philanthropists, corporations and citizens from all walks of life. It should also engage a 

new generation in full stewardship of lively, sustainable national parks and the 

ideals on which they’re built. The campaign can also give a powerful impetus to the 

long process of seeding the national parks endowment. That’s a durable accomplishment that would truly foster national pride in a job well done. 

Our commission colleague, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, observed, ‘‘There’s no 

better route to civic understanding than visiting our national parks. They’re who we 

are and where we’ve been.’’ The commission believes the parks should be funded in 

a manner that befits this status, so our children, grandchildren, and society in general, reap the full benefit the parks are intended to provide. 

We are privileged to be here today on behalf of the tremendous group of commissioners with whom we have been privileged to serve. On behalf of our colleagues, 

thank you for your commitment to our national parks, and to future generations. 

We offer our services to you as you continue to grapple with how best to carry out 

the federal government’s stewardship of this unique, treasured American institution. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Denis Galvin, former Deputy 

Director, National Park Service. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DENIS GALVIN, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, McLEAN, VIRGINIA 

Mr. GALVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the second century of 

national parks. As it happens, I have testified before this Committee for 25 years, going back to when Chairman Udall was here 

and all his successors, and I appreciate the vital support that this 

Committee gives to national parks, both in developing the growth 

of the system and in giving us policy direction for the parks’ management. We have built the best park system in the world. 

Each of us played many roles on the Commission. My focus here 

today is to report our findings on the future shape of the National 

Park System. In passing the Organic Act of August 25th, 1916, the 

Congress directed the National Park Service to adhere to the 

higher standard of preservation in our system of public institutions 

to preserve ‘‘unimpaired for future generations.’’ 

Our examination of the current system was characterized by the 

words ‘‘cornerstone’’ and ‘‘keystone.’’ National parks are part of 

larger systems that exert critical influences on the unimpairment 

mandate. To make the current and future systems work, they need 

to be embedded in a national conservation strategy. We recommended this and were heartened at the recent White House 

Conference on America’s Outdoors. Several commissioners were 

42 

among the invitees. We look forward to the conferees’ continuing 

work. 

And there is an urgency to this task. More than 1 million acres 

of open space are developed each year in this country. Based on 

that rate, we are erasing a Yellowstone every two years. By contrast, the National Park System has grown by less than 100,000 

acres in the last decade. We believe there is room for robust 

growth. National parks comprise less than 4 percent of the U.S., 

less than 2 percent of the lower 48. In our Commission meetings 

we heard support for growth. 

Future growth needs to be guided by a plan. The current system 

has many gaps. It tends toward high elevation and thin soils. It is 

not the system one would design to preserve biodiversity. Existing 

parks can be expanded. Freshwater and marine areas and grasslands are poorly represented. Cultural additions should fill out the 

nation’s story with attention to gender, race, and diversity. 

However, even a strategically growing park system must be considered part of the larger landscape. We endorse heritage areas 

and cooperative approaches. Citizens ask for help in restoring degraded areas. We propose ecological restoration areas. We envision 

an NPS that is more than a land manager, it is a convener and 

catalyst, a growing, learning organization. Our larger vision is a 

system that works for all, past, present, and future. A system that 

supports ‘‘a citizenry using its heritage to build a better nation.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin follows:] 

Statement of Denis P. Galvin, Former Deputy Director, 

National Park Service 

Mr. Chairman it is a pleasure to testify before this distinguished Subcommittee 

once again. As a former Deputy Director of the National Park Service I appeared 

here many times before your predecessors, including Mr. Udall, Seiberling, Vento, 

Hansen and Pierce. I feel privileged to have played a small part in their deliberations. The decisions arising out of this Subcommittee have built the world’s finest 

park system. 

As members of the Second Century Commission each of us served on multiple 

committees. One of my assignments was to chair the ‘‘Future Shape of the National 

Park System’’ Committee. It is the recommendations from that effort that I will concentrate on in this testimony. 

Early in our deliberations we realized that one cannot envision a future National 

Park System without placing the parks in the larger contexts that comprise the surrounding lands, the regions, and indeed, the nation and the world. We asked ourselves, in that broader picture, what role the National Parks, present and future 

should play. The words that kept recurring were ‘cornerstone’ and ‘keystone’. 

The congressional mandates that define the mission of the National Park Service 

direct it to preserve everything, ‘‘. . . the scenery and the natural and historic objects 

and the wild life’’. Those words define the highest standard of preservation in our 

system of public institutions. Paradoxically we found that this mission cannot be accomplished within the boundaries of our present system or of any imagined future 

system. In our committee report we noted, ‘‘. . . the forces affecting this network have 

grown in complexity and scope. They are the same forces that affect the places we 

live. They are regional, national, and global in their reach. The National Park Service alone cannot contain or limit their impact.’’ 

A viable system must deal with this reality. So there are two actions that form 

our primary recommendation: that the future growth of the system is guided by a 

strategic vision or plan, and that plan should be part of a national conservation 

strategy. With respect to the latter idea we are encouraged by the recent White 

House conference on America’s Outdoors. Members of the Second Century Commission, including some testifying here today, were among the invitees. We look forward to the subsequent actions, led by Interior Secretary Salazar, Agriculture SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

retary Vilsak, and Council on Environmental Quality Chair Sutley to create a grass 

roots approach to developing this national strategy. 

Before I turn to specific national park system recommendations I would like to 

share with the Subcommittee some of the facts that underline the urgency of this 

task. Our report noted that in the United States over 1,000,000 acres of open space 

are being developed each year. The President’s Conference put the figure at 

2,000,000 acres per year. To put that area in perspective we are erasing a Yellowstone every year or two. By contrast the National Park System grew by less than 

100,000 acres in the last decade. We found that 30% of the counties surrounding 

national parks are developed to the extent that they struggle to support biodiversity. On the cultural side examples abound of external development threatening 

some of our most treasured national heritage. The controversy over proposed new 

development at the Wilderness battlefield near Fredericksburg, Virginia provides a 

close to home example of a problem that is all too pervasive. 

.The Commission Report addresses the role of National Parks and the National 

Park Service as part of this vision. It is to achieve a system that works for all. Our 

‘‘Future Shape’’ committee report describes that as a system that, ‘‘. . . commemorates a past we revere and from which we learn to build a better future . . . (a) 

present defined by all who are served by the parks and those who should but are 

not . . . The future is those to whom we pass the legacy ‘unimpaired’. It is a duty 

of the present to those yet to come, who now have no voice.’’ 

We believe there is ample room for robust growth. The current system is 3.7% 

of the area of the United States. Excluding Alaska that figure drops to only 1.6%. 

In 35 states national park areas comprise less that 1% of the land and water. There 

are few areas devoted to preserving freshwater and marine environments. Grasslands and some areas of eastern and midwestern forests are not well represented. 

In general the current system is high, western, characterized by thin soils, snow and 

ice. It is not the system one would build if protecting biodiversity were a national 

goal. On the cultural side we noted the importance of stronger representation of 

race, ethnicity and gender in building a system that, ‘‘. . . represents all of our 

people’’. 

There is grassroots support for additional growth. During its deliberations the 

Commission heard from supporters of an enhanced National Park Service presence 

at Fort Monroe, Virginia, on the Chesapeake Bay, and in the Maine Woods. 

Current boundaries of existing park units should be adjusted to improve their capability to achieve the National Park Service mission. 

If one could build such a system there is still a need for cooperative approaches 

to caring for the large landscapes surrounding the parks. Heritages Areas have been 

an important Congressional initiative in this regard. There is a need for consistent 

actions by other agencies to ensure that the parks are preserved. The private sector 

has an important role to play. The vigorous growth of land trusts in the past two 

decades is illustrative of the power of private initiatives. Additional incentives to 

support private conservation should be considered. 

We propose a new program that would use the National Park Service restoration 

expertise within park boundaries to benefit local communities. Most of these Ecological Restoration Areas would be returned to local jurisdictions upon completion. 

Some might become units of the national park system. 

Managing parks in this complex mix of land practices will demand much of the 

National Park Service. Our Committee noted, ‘‘An organization designed around 

management of lands in dispersed locations must be re-shaped to reflect new roles 

as a catalyst, a convener, and cooperator with a suite of tools that extend far beyond 

park operations.’’ 

We need to recognize though, that achieving the vision of protecting our natural 

and cultural heritage cannot be solved in national parks alone. Other public land 

agencies, state and local government, and the private sector must act in a coordinated and consistent way to achieve a landscape that achieves preservation while 

providing productive, healthful, and beautiful places to live. 

Mr. Chairman, the Second Century Commission has defined a future for parks 

that is challenging, but filled with opportunities. Achieving this vision will not only 

build a better park system, it also has the potential to support a citizenry using its 

heritage to build a better nation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And thank you all for your comments. 

Dr. Lockhart, in your testimony you indicated that Congress and 

NPS need to do more to establish education as a fundamental purpose of our park system. 

44 

Dr. LOCKHART. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Talk a little bit about that, and why is it clear 

now that we should be doing that? 

Dr. LOCKHART. Well, I think the thing that we wanted to emphasize is that we feel that it is a core element going forward to both 

educate for the sake of education and enhancing our nation’s education agenda, but also as a way to engage young people in diverse 

communities. I think we heard in Director Jarvis’ testimony and 

the subsequent questions that there is a need to establish a pipeline that will help engage diverse communities, that will help invite them to participate in the workforce and diversifying the workforce of the National Park Service. 

And to explicitly state that education is a part of this strategic 

objective for the next 100 years we feel is important, because at 

least in our opinion it has not always been something that the 

Park Service has placed at the highest of its priorities, and there 

are times at which education has been something that has, shall 

we say, been less than the top of the list of things to either achieve 

or to fund. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ms. Long, your testimony suggested that a potential new program modeled after the Historic Preservation Act to 

allow the National Park Service to work on natural resource protection on non-Federal lands. If you could expand on the idea and 

the corresponding pitfalls that will occur and the reaction you will 

get? 

Ms. LONG. Yes, thank you. We were much impressed by the Commission and the success thus far of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 in that it is a mechanism by which the Park Service can reach out to communities and offer advice, counsel, knowledge, a leadership role in engaging the public outside of park 

boundaries in accomplishing historic preservation goals. It also involves incentives, such as in the case of natural heritage, private 

land conservation incentives. And we felt it was a model that could 

be applied effectively and well for the natural ecological goals as 

it has for the cultural and historic goals. So, we feel it is something 

that can be developed far further in enriching the Park Service’s 

leadership and collaborative role with communities. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Congressman, how would the private 

endowment work? You will get the reaction that it is privatizing 

our national parks. How would that solve the persistent problems 

in the appropriations process that, you know that the big parks get 

the big bucks? 

Mr. FAZIO. We believe there are an awful lot of Americans of all 

income levels who support the parks and want to see them enhanced and better utilized. It seems to us that if the President 

were to appoint a commission to look at how an endowment could 

be formed, could be created, that would be a good first step. And 

we would like to tie it into this reemphasis of the parks. You know, 

this is the period of stay-cations. 

People are not traveling as much as they might in the past, 

parks are getting good deal more utilization in the areas in which 

they are located. I think there are opportunities to reawaken the 

public to the parks’ needs, and we think there will be ways through 

an endowment to not only enhance the educational programs, the 

45 

scientific programs we have just discussed, but frankly to look in 

terms of funding for enhancements to existing parks, or in some 

cases where there is local support, increasing the utilization of 

parks and developing new ones. 

So often the money has been provided for these kinds of singlepurpose local purposes, but we think there are some additional 

agenda items that really transcend any one individual park that 

other elements of the community would like to contribute to 

through an endowment as well. It is not the sole answer, we continue to see appropriations as vital, as I said, but we also know 

that given the limits that we are going to be living under, we do 

have to tap the private sector and we think there are resources 

there to be tapped. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, I agree, I think that supplemental support is 

important, it cannot supplant what we should be doing regardless. 

Mr. FAZIO. We do not want a zero-sum game, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. And how would, I guess that would be part 

of the commission directive as well, how do you ensure that NPS 

is making the decisions regarding how to utilize endowment funds 

as opposed to the donor? 

Mr. FAZIO. I think that is a very pertinent question that would 

need to be addressed by this commission, just what the role of the 

Park Service is, including the Department of the Interior in general, and the effort that would be put forth to bring in the resources. Some of them would be very targeted and some of them 

would be for general purposes I am sure, but all of them need to 

be coordinated with the Park Service. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am going to go, I have gone over my time, but 

I am going to ask Mr. Galvin a question so I do not have to come 

back through and extend that courtesy to my colleagues as well. 

Mr. Galvin, you have given decades of service, as you mentioned, 

to the national parks, you have seen all these transitions that we 

have gone through as a system. If you had to pick, what would you 

identify as the three, four, five most important things Congress 

could do to further the goals that are part of this report? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, I guess my response would be to say that we 

are all in this together, that parks have become islands in a much 

larger sea of influence, so to speak. Director Jarvis mentioned the 

potential for this oil spill that occurs really quite far out in the Gulf 

of Mexico to affect a dozen national parks, and I think that is a 

metaphor for our current situation. So what we need to do, what 

we as a people and we as a Congress need to do, is to figure out 

what it is we want to save, not necessarily what we want to put 

in national parks. Some of it should go in national parks, but there 

are places, heritage areas being an example, where locals can identify things that we want to save, and then manage that toward the 

future. 

Consistency is one of the words. It is not anti-development, it is 

smart development, it is smart growth. I remember a former superintendent of Yellowstone years ago standing up in a management 

meeting and saying, you know, when we started our career—and 

he was a little bit before my generation—he said, we thought Yellowstone was big enough. He said, now we know no park is big 

enough. And it seems to me solving that problem collectively, all 

46 

of us, is the biggest problem facing the National Park System. And 

if we solve it, I think we strengthen the country, not just strengthen the National Park System but strengthen the country. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the 

guests here. I am going to ask each of you just to fill in the sentence, and it comes part because I think that some of the goals 

were convoluted. The most important purpose of a national park is. 

You get to use one dependent phrase, no clauses, and it cannot be 

a compound sentence. So, while you are thinking of that one, I do 

appreciate your testimony. You have given some very cogent remarks, and none of the platitudes that I saw in the actual report. 

That is very good. Ms. Long, next time, you write the report. And 

Congressman Fazio, as a former appropriator, so you are responsible. All right, let me go down, let us start with, is it Dr. 

Lockhart? 

Dr. LOCKHART. Dr. Lockhart, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, fill in the sentence. 

Dr. LOCKHART. Would you mind repeating the first part please 

so I can make it a complete sentence? 

Mr. BISHOP. Feel like I am on the match game again. All right, 

the most important purpose of a national park is. 

Dr. LOCKHART. To educate and engage citizens in order to further 

understand our cultural, historic, and shared national heritage. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, you got the one phrase in there, and that is 

nice. All right, Ms. Long? 

Ms. LONG. To conserve our nation’s heritage in perpetuity. 

Mr. BISHOP. Congressman? 

Mr. FAZIO. To preserve the nation’s natural resources and historic sites for the benefit of future generations. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Sir? 

Mr. GALVIN. To preserve the resources therein unimpaired for 

our future. 

Ms. LONG. Has a certain ring to it. 

Mr. FAZIO. No plagiarism. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. As we look at this entire process, 

one of the things that was interesting that was not part of any of 

the sentences was about the use of it and the purpose of individuals using the process. But that is something we can talk about in 

the future, and I think those are actually very good sentences, I appreciate you helping out with that. Thank you so much. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Dr. Christensen? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of 

our witnesses for being here today. Dr. Lockhart, would you expand 

on the connection between summer jobs on public lands and the 

pursuit of careers in resource management? Your testimony proposes a pipeline or ladder of learning. Can you expand on those 

ideas and perhaps explain what barriers may exist to establishing 

such a system? And as a physician I am sure you are very acutely 

aware of the same pipeline problems we have in developing our diverse healthcare workforce. 

Dr. LOCKHART. Correct. Thank you very much for the question 

actually, it is obviously something I am very passionate about on 

47 

a number of levels. I think that the real barriers start from the fact 

that one needs, as I was mentioning the example of the park superintendents, it is really about engaging people when they are in 

their formative years. It is when you are figuring out what do I 

want to be, what do I want to do, and then who do I see who looks 

like me, who do I see, you know, why is this something that I 

should aspire to when I am not getting the feedback that this is 

something that is common in my community? 

And I will say from personal experience, I can say that going 

through a number of national parks there are not a lot of people 

like me that you see there, or maybe Latinos or Asians or other 

members of our diverse communities. So, I think that what we 

were intending to imply with these ladders of opportunity is that 

there are many, many different programs and many, many different ways, but we need to start with children when they are 

young. 

I personally believe that using the school system and using the 

educational system as a way to engage these children, for example 

the children we talked about in Santa Monica were primarily 

Latino children who had not been to the ocean and not seen the 

ocean and not seen Santa Monica Mountains, they went and then 

they started to bring their families. And then when there are service opportunities they can come when they are young teens and 

work in the parks and do trail restoration and other things and 

come to learn to love these places. 

And then there is the opportunity at that point to interact with 

other rangers and other staff and say, you know, maybe this is 

something I would like to do. And there are actually programs that 

can be replicated throughout the national parks to engage folks 

like this, and I think that that is really the model, and that is why 

partnerships are also so important for the National Park Service, 

because this is not something that the Park Service can do alone, 

it is really a community obligation. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And we do have a summer program for not the younger kids but for high school kids at home in 

St. Croix, and it is amazing the difference it has made when the 

young people come in and do not know anything about the parks, 

do not want to do this or do some of the tasks but at the end they 

really love it. 

Dr. LOCKHART. If I might add just one other footnote just briefly, 

there is also an inspirational ranger, a woman named Betty Reid 

Soskin whom, I do not know if you are aware, she is an 87-yearold African American ranger at Rosie the Riveter National Monument and she was a Rosie herself. And so she has actually created 

YouTube videos, we talked about technology, about this, about her 

experiences and about what it was like to be a black woman in that 

environment where, you know, it was obviously very different than 

what we think of as the typically Caucasian Rosie the Riveter 

image. And at any rate, the point is that is a use of the technology 

to kind of educate and engage so when those children come out 

they see and hear those stories, which then engage them and want 

them to move forward. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Congressman Fazio, we have a 

National Park Foundation. Did the Commission discuss the FounVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
48 

dation and can that serve in the capacity of doing what the endowment would do or do you see it as being different? 

Mr. FAZIO. I think we have to be very careful that we do not 

interfere with the ongoing purpose of that organization, that commission. But I do think that is again the sort of thing that can be 

looked at by this Presidential commission that will try to integrate, 

or separate if that is required, the roles that each would have going 

forward. We do need to bring a lot more resources to the table. We 

have a broader concept of where those resources could be spent, 

and it is not all site specific, although that is important and will 

be ongoing. So, I think this needs to be looked at very carefully as 

we try to proceed to a national campaign and the endowment. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And, Mr. Galvin, you talk in your 

testimony, primary recommendation that the future growth of the 

system be guided by a strategic vision or plan. And there have 

been, since 1980 there have been many, many major studies on 

where the Park is, where it should be going, major conferences. Is 

there not that kind of a plan in place already or are you recommending that we update it? 

Mr. GALVIN. A little of both. We looked, in fact read the previous 

National Park System plans, and they come to some conclusions 

that frankly we endorse. I mean if you look at the previous natural 

history plan it indicates that there is not much in the way of conservation lands in the middle part of the country, the Mississippi 

Valley et cetera, and I think we came to the same conclusion. I 

think I would go back to the remarks that were made by the Congresswoman from Wyoming in that any strategic vision or plan has 

to be vetted in the grass roots. 

This is not entirely a scientific or technical task, it is identifying 

gaps, it is saying, for instance, nobody is protecting short grass 

prairie or inadequate protection of long grass prairie. It is not identifying a place on the map. After that, it is trying to find out if 

there is public support for such protection and whether or not that 

support indicates it ought to be a national park versus a national 

wildlife refuge or something like that. It is a comprehensive system 

based on a national conservation strategy that suggests future 

growth for the National Park System without being prescriptive. 

And obviously those remarks apply on the cultural resources 

side. I mean many of the parks that have been created recently 

under Chairman Grijalva are parks that we would not have imagined creating 20 years ago, some commemorating events that, and 

Heart Mountain was mentioned, that the country would never have 

considered adding to the National Park System. So, we see a need 

for a strategic direction but we also see a need for grass roots support in developing this vision. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A question to 

everyone here today. As the Commission was deliberating, taking 

into consideration that each park across the country is unique, that 

we all have special places that we want to make sure that we are 

providing protection to, access to, but the importance of taking into 

consideration specifically with this question Native American and 

Hispanic communities, what are your thoughts of preserving access 

for traditional uses to our beautiful lands, sustaining heritage, and 

49 

protecting cultural practices? I respect very much the response to 

our Ranking Member and the inclusion of the recommendations 

with cultural connectivity, lifelong learning, history, community assistance. And any thoughts in that area? 

Dr. LOCKHART. I might make a comment briefly about just an observation of an example in which the National Park Service can 

play a real role in engaging with cultural restoration in a Native 

American community. For example, up in Olympic National Park 

with the Elwha River dam removal project, which is an example of 

where it is a combination of working closely with the local Lower 

Elwha Klallam Tribe there and obviously restores the natural resources, the natural flow of the Elwha River, it also restores the 

salmon that the Elwha Klallam Tribe has historically had and considers their birthplace. 

And it creates an opportunity for not just that tribe but also for 

that community to learn more, be educated more about the culture 

and to understand and preserve that culture. So, it is actually 

bringing back the culture, it is educating the community, and it is 

establishing a link between the Park Service, it is preserving for 

future generations, and it is achieving all those things by really 

honoring and respecting the native practices that once existed and 

bringing them back. So, it is an opportunity to achieve all of those 

things and I think it is a wonderful example of how the Park Service as an institution can play a role in making that happen in communities. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Anyone else? 

Ms. LONG. I would only offer to look to Alaska and the way in 

which the Park Service works cooperatively with indigenous populations and the preserving of traditional usage is an example of approaches that might be appropriately used more broadly. Alaska 

has been quite successful in that regard. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I have another question I’d like to get some response 

to. We have places in New Mexico, like the Valles Caldera, which 

have fallen into different situations as we have tried to preserve 

that area. What are your thoughts along that line as well with 

maybe the inclusion of the Valles Caldera into the park system 

while at the same time recognizing that when the Valles was 

turned over into the preserve that we have today that there was 

grazing that was taking place, it was said to be turned over in pristine condition, where there was working with the community, access to hunting and fishing, wood gathering to help with keeping 

this beautiful place healthy as well. Denis, any thoughts along 

those lines? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes, Mr. Luja ́n, I had the great pleasure of living 

in New Mexico in the late 1960s and know both Bandelier and 

Valles Caldera very well. I would go back to answer your earlier 

question in this context, and that is, as Congress has created new 

units of the National Park System it has usually responded with 

recognition of local conditions. A good example in the context of 

your earlier question is Canyon de Chelly, which became a national 

park unit in the 1930s, in which the Park Service owns no land, 

the Navajo Tribe owns the land and the National Park Service was 

given the mission of interpreting and running educational programs at the sufferance of the Navajo Tribe, I might say. 

50 

So, with respect to bringing Valle Grande into the National Park 

System, which personally since I am not speaking as an Administration witness I think it is a great idea, but I think the legislation 

needs to be crafted to recognize the kind of local values that you 

are talking about, and I think it would be a great addition to the 

National Park System and I think that can be done using input 

from the local people. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me thank this panel. Your testimony has been excellent, and I appreciate it very much. I’d like to 

invite the next panel up, and thank you again. Thank you very 

much. And let me thank the panel for your time and your patience, 

and we are looking forward to your comments. First, let me ask my 

good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n, to introduce our first panelist. Sir? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And today I 

have the great pleasure of introducing two of my constituents. 

Jerry Rogers formerly of the National Park Service, and Armand 

Ortega of Ortega Enterprises. Mr. Rogers has been a vital coordinator of the National Park System community for over four decades, serving in an official capacity as Associate Director for Culture Resources and Keeper of the National Register of Historic 

Places. Mr. Rogers played a crucial role in the shaping of the 

National Park Service, he was appointed Conference Chair of Discovery 2000, the National Park Service General Conference, in 

which he worked to envision and lay the foundation for the future 

of the national parks in our nation. 

In addition to his capacity as a leader with the NPS, after retirement he continued to serve New Mexico’s national parks as a board 

member and President of the New Mexico Heritage Preservation 

Alliance. His work preserving our cultural assets while making the 

natural beauty of New Mexico more accessible for our community 

displays his deep understanding of both the national and local importance of our national parks. His unique national local background makes his contribution to this hearing invaluable. 

Alternatively, Mr. Armand Ortega has been a concessions vendor 

at the national parks since the early 1990s. As an eco-friendly vendor, Mr. Ortega has seen his business grow exponentially as he 

serves four national parks that include Bandelier Trading Company, Carlsbad Caverns Trading Company, White Sands Trading 

Company in New Mexico, and Muir Woods Trading Company in 

Northern California. Serving visitors to large parks and small 

monuments, Mr. Ortega’s small business has grown into an expansive company that employs and serves thousands every year. As 

the national parks enter their second century, small businesses will 

play a critical role in the experience of future visitors. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to welcome Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ortega, two 

outstanding New Mexicans, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me begin with our first witness, 

Mr. Ortega, Ortega Family Enterprises, and by the way thank you, 

thank you for your hospitality at Muir when we were there to visit, 

very much appreciate it, and it was a very good trip for us and we 

appreciate and in no small part due to your hospitality we appreciate it. Your comments, Mr. Ortega? 

51 

STATEMENT OF ARMAND ORTEGA, ORTEGA FAMILY 

ENTERPRISES, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. ORTEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Luja ́n, for that wonderful introduction, I could not have said it better. I want to talk about three specific things that we have done. 

I understand we need to do a lot in this next century, but we came 

in as small concessionaires and we bid against very, very large 

multi-billion-dollar concessionaires. We have managed to increase 

the attendance at all our parks. Moreover, we have managed to increase the revenues; number two, the revenues at all the parks; 

and, three, we have done that by maintaining very good relations 

with the NPS. 

Now, in spite of that, I want to point out, as wonderful as the 

Second Century report was, I think I am the only representative 

up here of the concessions and, if you look at the report, I found 

the word ‘‘concessions’’ one time. Now I understand they had bigger 

fish to fry, but let me just give you one statistic. There are 21,000 

employees of the national parks working in the national parks. 

There are 26,000 employees from the concessions. Almost all 

26,000 of those interface with all of the visitors every day and 

almost all of the park employees. 

I’ll tell you a little bit about the stores that we do have. We have 

Bandelier. Probably the reason we won Bandelier was because we 

showed the national parks how we could take the sale of Indian 

arts and crafts, Native American wares, from 10 percent to 60 percent. In White Sands, the reason we won was because we also 

showed them how they could raise Indian arts and crafts but also 

we offered to renovate a historically valuable building. The parks 

did not have the money, so we donated the money. 

Now that was not necessarily out of the goodness of my heart or 

the corporation. We understood that over the period of time we 

could make that money back, and we have. We remodeled the 

whole thing, took down the vegas, the mantias, redid it, did the old 

style Spanish floor. It was a lot of fun, a lot of work, but it is pretty 

nice. At Carlsbad, we showed the parks how we could save the ecosystem downstairs. Fortunately, I have a daughter-in-law who did 

her graduate work in science, chemistry, at Stanford and she knew 

a lot about that. 

Oh by the way, we bid at a kitchen table, and we were bidding 

against companies that have rows and rows of writers, but we are 

very, very motivated. Anyway, to Muir Woods very quickly—oh, by 

the way at all these parks we brought in, we have managed to 

bring in an increase not just in attendance and not just the revenues where we are paying literally 250 to 300 percent more than 

the previous concessioner, but we have managed to bring in minorities and younger people. 

And they are very, very simple ways. I know there are other esoteric ways and I read about them and I respect those in the report, 

but there are very simple ways to bring in minorities, very simple 

ways to bring in people, and I would like to talk about that, I do 

not think I am going to have quite the time. The other thing we 

are really happy with, with Muir Woods, is that we created a totally or almost totally food sustainable restaurant operation. Almost all of our food is sourced within a 30 to 35, about 90 percent, 

52 

is sourced within a 30 to 35-mile radius. Almost everything is recyclable, it is all natural, hormone free, all of that stuff. 

And we have won, and I apologize I do not know the names of 

all the considerable environmental and green awards we have won, 

but my son who is really heading them up has told me about them, 

and trust me there are a bunch. We are going to be on the Food 

Channel next month. I do not watch the Food Channel much, I just 

eat food, but we are going to be on it on a show called The Best 

Thing I Ever Ate. The Los Angeles Times has covered us, the New 

York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the San Francisco Chronicle and other papers. So, we are getting a lot of publicity, and that 

is free to the parks. 

The last thing I would like to say is in reading the Second Commission report, I would like to gently suggest there is one other 

area where maybe people should think about a little bit. Everything they said, or a lot of things they said, I do not agree with 

everything, is really good, but there is already a prototype, and I 

mentioned it. There was a guy named Brian O’Neal in San Francisco, brilliant guy, he just passed away, I, fortunately, got to meet 

him about a year ago, and he created the Golden Gate Conservancy. 

The great thing about Brian was he did not think just in terms, 

I hate to use the term, but he thought out of the box. He thought 

about how best to serve the parks. So, if he could work with an entrepreneur, he would do that. If he could do a traditional national 

park contract, he would do that. They were doing a $150 million 

hotel. You cannot do it on a 10 or 20-year term like the national 

parks do. You cannot advertise that generally, and certainly in this 

case, over that short period of time. So, he found a way to do a conventional commercial lease. 

He worked with nonprofits, he set up a park investment fund. By 

the way, these park investment funds might be really useful, 

especially for the smaller entrepreneurs such as myself. I do not 

mean to brag, but I think we are one of the best operations in the 

parks. If I could get the money that some of these largers had, I 

could compete with them and perhaps give them a run for their 

money and raise the bar for everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortega follows:] 

Statement of Armand Ortega, President, Ortega Family Enterprises 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Armand Ortega 

and I am President of Ortega Family Enterprises based in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

I also appear as a representative of the National Park Hospitality Association 

(NPHA). I am honored to be asked to appear before you today to discuss the future 

of the National Park System and, in particular, the role of concessioners working 

in partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) to promote park visitation and 

provide outstanding services and experiences for the millions of people who visit 

units of the National Park System each year. 

Ortega Family Enterprises is an established company operating in New Mexico, 

Arizona, and California. We operate 12 businesses, four of which are NPS concession contracts. We got started in the NPS concessions business 15 years ago when 

we were fortunate enough to be awarded the concession contract at the small but 

wonderful Bandelier National Monument near Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

We focus on finding small to medium size park operations where we can make 

a real difference. We take great pride in taking on under-performing park concessions, turning them around, and bringing them up to and beyond the expectations 

of the NPS and its visitors. Our success is in large part due to the fact that we do 

53 

not consider the National Parks just another business. We consider it a privilege 

to work as junior partners with the NPS to keep the Parks ‘‘America’s Best Idea’’. 

In 2005 we took over the White Sands National Monument concession operation. 

Years of neglect had taken a toll on the historic building housing the concession, 

the operation was not well run, and the visitor experience was poor. Upon assuming 

the concession operation we undertook a comprehensive restoration of the entire 

concession space and gifted the improvements to White Sands National Monument. 

We dramatically improved the quality of the thematic merchandising and service 

levels and created a concession worthy of the beautiful White Sands National Monument. The results have not only been good for visitors but also the NPS and us. 

Revenues have doubled since we took over and the franchise fee being returned to 

the NPS has increased by 250%! 

In 2008 we were awarded the Carlsbad Caverns National Park concession contract and worked side-by-side with the NPS to initiate major capital improvements 

to transform the outdated restaurant and retail operations. Based on the results we 

achieved at Bandelier and White Sands, the NPS understood that we could deliver 

a new vision, capital investment, and operational experience to transform the concession operation. In addition to the capital improvements, we changed the food 

service type from a full-service restaurant to a healthy quick-service concept to better serve today’s visitors and their needs. 

Newest in our portfolio is the NPS’ showcase sustainable foods operation at Muir 

Woods National Monument. We were awarded the concession contract in early 2009 

and worked hand-in-hand with the NPS to remodel the interior of the historic building to provide a fresh updated look and feel. Our tables, chairs, and retail displays 

were custom-made from reclaimed docks and we re-purposed 80-year-old redwood 

tables that we owned as part of our Carlsbad Caverns concession operation for the 

floor restoration at Muir Woods. The tables were damaging to the cave ecosystem 

and needed to be removed and we were happy to gift them to the NPS for reuse 

at Muir Woods. Finally, we designed the cafe ́ layout and procedures to eliminate 

cooking and baking, which could damage the historic building and introduce unnatural smells to the Muir Wood environment. We are currently seeking Leadership 

in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Existing Building (EB) certification. 

We are also excited about Muir Woods because the operation represents the showcase sustainable food and beverage operation within the NPS. Eighty-five percent 

of our produce is sourced within 30 miles of the operation and 90% of our menu 

items achieve a high level of sustainability and/or are organic and healthy. We have 

achieved an 85% solid waste diversion rate by using recycled and compostable materials and returning our compost to the farms where we buy our ingredients. The 

food service is a National Green Certified Restaurant, a Marin County Green Certified Business, and recently won an ‘‘Exceptional Sustainable Green Business 

Award’’ from the Marin Conservation League. It will also be featured on the Food 

Network show ‘‘The Best Thing I Ever Ate’’ set to air mid-2010. 

We are proud of the important role we play in helping people enjoy these parks. 

Visitors come to the national parks to be inspired by the intrinsic beauty of the 

parks while relaxing, recreating, learning, and having a good time—often with family and friends. What we do as concessioners has a great deal to do with the overall 

experience that the family has when they visit the park. In this regard, we’re an 

integral part of the national park experience and an important element in helping 

the NPS meet its mission. 

To my mind, parks are all about people and connecting them to nature, history, 

culture, recreation, and their heritage. In fact, I found it interesting that in a recent 

hearing on the national parks, Ken Burns, who produced the ‘‘America’s Best Idea’’ 

film about the history of the national parks, praised the first National Park Service 

Director Stephen Mather as a premier promoter, working actively with railroads 

and others to build roads to and through parks and to build visitors facilities ranging from lodges to restaurants in the expanding national park system. Mather’s motive was clear from his oft-quoted statement: ‘‘Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the 

tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night’s 

sleep on an impossible bed.’’ And Ken Burns concluded his testimony with an interesting comment, saying, ‘‘If you think you have a good park but no one knows about 

it, you don’t have a good park.’’ 

I recognize that this hearing is focused on the outstanding work of the Second 

Century Commission as it looked forward to future uses and management of the national parks. It is an honor to be part of a hearing with many of the distinguished 

commissioners who contributed to the production of their report. I have to say, 

though, that one glaring omission in the Commission’s report was the lack of reference to the important partnership that exists between concessioners and national 

park managers—a relationship that is already more than 125 years old—and neVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
54 

glects to describe the opportunities to build upon this proven relationship in the 

future. 

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

100 million park visitors annually in approximately 160 park units. NPHA members 

have a combined workforce of nearly 25,000 persons—mostly front-line, visitor contact jobs—and provide in excess of $1 billion in goods and services to visitors annually. Franchise fee payments to NPS generated from the approximately 600 concessions contracts are some $70 million annually, or about the total sum raised annually by the National Park Foundation and all members of the Friends Alliance combined. Concessioner marketing and park promotion efforts exceed $10 million, and 

are coordinated with the marketing and promotion efforts of state and gateway communities that equal that amount. Concessioners are leading efforts to find ways to 

focus promotion on the national park system and those Americans unaware of the 

great benefits available through time in our parks rather than on specific parks and 

services and traditional park visitors. Most importantly, concessioners are committed to contribute 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. 

As many of you know, park visitation by Americans has been declining for several 

decades and, while visitation to the showcase parks remains high, many smaller 

units of the national park system (including some of the parks where I operate) offer 

wonderful experiences but are highly underutilized. This is one area, in particular, 

where I believe that promotion efforts led by park concessioners can be helpful— 

in promoting increased visitation and use of the many under-visited and underutilized units of the part system. 

Promoting national park visitation is important for many reasons. Not only is it 

good for businesses like mine that depend on visitors for jobs and income, but also 

it is a way to reconnect people to nature, to provide them with an opportunity to 

recreate and get exercise, to learn, and to share quality time as a family. Today we 

live in a world that is filled with distractions—a world where we can connect with 

information and communicate with people almost instantaneously. Unfortunately, 

these alternatives seem to increase the extent to which people become disconnected 

from nature and focused on virtual connections to places and to people. A recent 

study by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that, on average, America’s youth 

spend 7.5 hours a day focused on a screen or monitor of some sort. No wonder that 

the nation’s youth are increasingly obese and at risk of Type II diabetes due to poor 

nutrition and a lack of exercise. 

Connecting Americans to their parks is an important goal with numerous benefits—including improved health, a more widespread public appreciation for the environment, and economic stability for many gateway communities and a better understanding of our nation’s history. To achieve this connection, the National Park Service and its partners—including concessioners—need to undertake new outreach and 

marketing efforts. The efforts would not be based on advertising—as if we were selling a car or a theme park. But the efforts should include outreach to schools and 

to families with children and greatly improved information on the internet. In fact, 

Secretary Salazar undertook a major outreach and marketing effort last year— 

which he is repeating again this year—creating fee-free periods at national parks. 

Many creative strategies have been devised to promote park visitation in recent 

years. For example, the New England Mountain Bike Association has developed a 

family bike ride along the route of Paul Revere’s historic journey in conjunction with 

the Minuteman National Historic Park in Boston. The ride permits parents and 

children to travel the route from Lexington to Concord, learning a bit of history and 

getting some exercise in the process. In California, the Yosemite Fund cooperated 

with the state of California to create a specialty license plate touting Yosemite 

National Park. The program—now 15 years old—generates nearly $1 million annually for park projects and reminds countless drivers of Yosemite’s attractions. In 

Virginia, the Shenandoah National Park Trust has successfully applied for a similar 

license plate that will return $15 to the Trust for every plate sold. And similar programs exist in several additional states. I am submitting to the Subcommittee the 

results of an inventory conducted recently in cooperation with the National Park 

Service Tourism Office of innovative marketing and promotion efforts by state and 

national park units. 

The newly established National Parks Promotion Council (NPPC) will help reconnect Americans to their national parks by helping the National Park Service address downward trends in park visitation that threaten future support for the parks 

and the organizations, communities, states and economies which are dependent 

upon visitors. The NPPC is a non-profit membership organization with a board of 

55 

directors comprised of representatives of national park cooperative and friends associations, the National Park Foundation, tourism/hospitality entities, state tourism 

offices, gateway communities, the National Park Service (in an ex-officio capacity), 

park advocacy organizations and others interested in national parks. The NPPC has 

already established research and marketing committees comprised of nationally respected persons, unifying many efforts now underway locally and nationally. The 

NPPC will build awareness of the entire National Park System, including all natural, historical and cultural places within it—not just those park units with concessions. The NPPC will develop promotional funding strategies, create partnerships, 

and craft campaigns that stimulate visitor appreciation and appropriate use of the 

treasured landscapes and educational resources of the National Park System. 

Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to act on several important opportunities to 

assure that the parks are able to remain relevant and loved over the next hundred 

years. First, to promote expanded visitation to the Parks and encourage more outdoor recreation and learning associated with visits to NPS units, we suggest two alternatives to fund parks outreach and marketing initiatives. Second, to help the 

National Park Service address its facilities and infrastructure needs, we encourage 

partnership-based construction of beautiful, state of the art, and enduring visitor facilities for the next century of park operations. And third, we urge you to consider 

whether the next century of the parks would be well served by a new institution 

that enables creative investments in needed infrastructure—a quasi-public agency 

that could build upon the lessons of the Presidio and more. 

Funding Sustainable Outreach and Promotion Efforts 

The NPHA believes that the National Park Service should undertake expanded 

outreach and marketing efforts—especially directed to urban Americans, Americans 

of color, new Americans and other portions of the American public with limited traditions of park visitation. To facilitate this, we offer the following alternatives. 

One option would be to provide the agency with authority to utilize franchise fees 

paid by national park concessioners annually to support NPS outreach and marketing efforts. Concessioners pay some $70 million in franchise fees. The NPHA 

urges you to consider committing 10% of the total franchise feeds paid or nearly $7 

million annually, to a new National Park Outreach and Promotion Fund. Had such 

authority existed in the current fiscal year, it could have been utilized to offset the 

significant loss of entrance fee collections at specific national park units from the 

fee-free weekends—in some cases exacerbated by higher visitor numbers and a resulting increase in operational costs to the park. 

Alternatively, 10% of the receipts from annual sales of the America the Beautiful 

Pass could be dedicated to a matching fund to support park promotion efforts. Purchase of the annual pass—permitting access to virtually all federal recreation sites 

for 12 months—should be a major component of park promotion efforts. Holders of 

passes can be reached to communicate opportunities in parks—and because they can 

enter any park without paying an entrance fee they are likely to be interested in 

learning more about when and where they can add to their park experiences. 

Current annual park pass sales are very limited, but a new promotion coalition 

can boost sales significantly, adding substantially to the current $175 million in 

park fees collected annually. If these funds could be used on a 50–50 matching basis 

with resources from private sources such as non-profit and philanthropic organizations, concessioners and other private interests, then the NPS could double its 

money and greatly expand outreach to minorities and other underserved communities, young adults, families with children, and the ever expanding number of older 

Americans with grandchildren. This effort would be good for gateway communities, 

generating jobs and added income, and could help to expand interest and awareness 

among an entire generation of Americans who, without this promotion, are likely 

to remain unaware of this wonderful legacy of National Parks. If successful, this effort could reverse recent trends in park visitation, and help generate additional income to support the parks and improve facilities and visitor services. 

New, Enduring Visitor Infrastructure 

In addition, we urge you to consider a new idea for creating new park facilities 

in the tradition of the grand, enduring structures, many predating the creation of 

the National Park Service in 1916 that are synonymous with the National Park system. Unique architecture and quality construction mark structures like the 

Ahwahnee and El Tovar Hotels, lodges in Glacier and Yellowstone and many more 

historic structures that help make 21st Century park visits lifelong memories. 

Yet not all visitor structures in our parks are grand, or even park-appropriate. 

Many of those constructed mid-20th century are quite unremarkable, are costly to 

operate and produce inferior visitor experiences. These structures fail to meet expecVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

tations of the Congress, the agency, concessioners and the public that our parks 

should serve as outstanding examples of design in harmony with nature. 

We believe that one of the greatest opportunities associated with the upcoming 

100th anniversary of the National Park Service can and should be a limited number 

of new structures that, even in 2116, will still demonstrate national park-appropriate design and operations. This would mean quality design and materials that 

meet LEED and ADA design requirements. The resulting structures would minimize 

barriers to serving all Americans well while also achieving agency-espoused goals 

in energy efficiency, reducing water use, and other environmental objectives. 

The National Park Service has undertaken some important planning in this area, 

although much of the planning has focused on buildings, which would be constructed with appropriated funds and used for visitor centers, offices and more. This 

base of knowledge, though, could be united with the knowledge of concessioners operating in the park and other companies to achieve truly outstanding results. 

One example of recent innovative thinking and action which will serve visitors 

well for generations is found in Golden Gate National Recreation Area: the restoration of historic buildings at Fort Baker and addition of complementary structures 

to create the Lodge at the Golden Gate. Although not operated as a concession— 

primarily because the needed private investment far exceeded that which could be 

justified under the maximum concession contract of 20 years—the Lodge offers an 

example of an NPS/private partner venture that serves public purposes extremely 

well. 

A New Park Visitor Facility Investment Trust 

An alternative approach might involve the establishment of a new Park Visitor 

Facility Investment Trust which is empowered to issue bonds and generate funds 

to be borrowed by concessioners to reinvest in existing but deteriorated infrastructure and add new, appropriate facilities at underutilized units at parks like Voyageurs, perhaps, or even new park units created from repurposed former military 

bases. As a further incentive to build infrastructure in new or underutilized park 

units, the rate of interest charged to concessioners for funds borrowed from this 

Trust for investments in underutilized parks could be discounted further or the 

terms of repayment extended to permit more time to recapture the return on investment associated with ‘‘growing’’ visitation in underutilized units that will come with 

the establishment of new facilities and visitor services. 

Summary 

Mr. Chairman, I know you would agree that we need to get Americans back in 

touch with nature, engaged in physical activities and outdoor 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 100th 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 these requests. We would be delighted to provide 

additional information and respond to any questions you might have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Ruth Pierpont, President, National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers. Welcome, and thank you. 

57 

STATEMENT OF RUTH L. PIERPONT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICERS, WATERFORD, NEW YORK 

Ms. PIERPONT. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 

Member Bishop, for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

am President of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and also the Director of the Division for Historic 

Preservation of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, 

and Historic Preservation. State historic preservation officers and 

countless historic preservation advocates are elated to see this report contain such a strong historic preservation component. As the 

report states, ‘‘Our nation is best armed to address the future with 

a public knowledgeable about its history, the resources, and the 

responsibilities of citizenship.’’ 

The conservation of our nation’s historic and natural resources 

occurs along a continuum. At one end, conservation occurs through 

the National Park Service’s ownership of our national parks. At the 

other end, the NPS accomplishes conservation of non-Federally 

owned historic sites through the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, hereinafter referred to as SHPOs and THPOs. The 

nation’s historic resources are best served when the Federal Government supports all components of the continuum. 

No nation has the resources to buy and maintain property in perpetuity and maintain in perpetuity every historic place. However, 

America’s conservation continuum allows us to preserve or consider 

preservation of every historic place. The Second Century report recommends, and SHPOs wholeheartedly agree, that the Historic 

Preservation Fund must have permanent and guaranteed funding 

at its authorized level of $150 million for the program to flourish 

and be executed as the original writers intended nearly a half century ago. 

Like the LWCF, HPF income derives from off-shore oil lease revenues, effectively using one nonrenewable resource to preserve others, our nation’s natural and historic resources which benefit all 

Americans enriching parks, open space, and our human habitat, 

those neighborhoods and main streets where we live, work, and 

play. A fully funded HPF would impact numerous report recommendations, but I would like to take just a few moments to 

highlight three. 

First, regarding the recommendation for increased access to historic preservation assistance tools and incentives by residents of 

high poverty areas across the country. All American experiences 

are far from the same, but they are all significant and necessary 

to tell America’s complete story. When provided the means, SHPOs 

have the infrastructure in place to assist all communities and ensure that America’s complete story can be told forever. 

I ask you, how disappointing and misleading would it be if future 

archaeologists came to study 20th Century America and found evidence of only large civic structures and commercial buildings and 

residences from a few elite communities? By not fully funding the 

HPF we are condemning future generations to American history 

memory loss. Second, regarding the recommendation to enhance 

funding for and make full use of community assistance programs. 

The Federal state partnership created through the Historic PreserVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

vation Program was designed to engage communities, and that engagement is formalized in over 1,700 municipalities through the 

certified local government program. 

Fully funding the HPF will allow SHPOs to meet the preservation needs of communities everywhere by providing financial and 

technical assistance for main street rehabilitation programs which 

support local economic development, neighborhood rehabilitation, 

historic home energy conservation assistance, educational programs 

for communities and homeowners, and recognition of local historic 

places through National Register nominations and publications 

supporting cultural tourism. Other NPS external programs that 

work with communities such as American Battlefields Protection, 

Save America’s Treasures, Preserve America, and Teaching with 

Historic Places, also complement this effort. 

And finally, regarding the recommendation to identify bold and 

achievable goals for preserving our nation’s historic resources, Mr. 

Chairman, I challenge you and the NPS to think outside the box 

and to support the entire conservation continuum by fully funding 

the HPF. In doing so you will affirm the original intent of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and will also recognize that historic preservation can and should be a goal of our nation’s sustainability, livability, and great outdoors agendas. 

Historic preservation is one of the best tools to preserve a neighborhood’s livability and sustainability by using existing infrastructure that provides a sense of place, and by leveraging that authenticity for new investment, tourism, and smart growth. By setting 

bold new goals for preserving our nation’s historic resources, we 

will invest in the health, knowledge, and quality of our nation’s 

future. 

In conclusion, as the NPS enters its second century, please remember that for nearly half a century SHPOs and THPOs have 

been saving America’s history and producing results that benefit 

all America’s citizens and communities. The combination of Federal 

leadership and state execution works. Today, with America’s natural and built environment being threatened, it is time for Congress to reaffirm this partnership that has worked so well. It is 

time to give the states and tribes the funding and tools to do the 

job that the National Historic Preservation Act’s visionary framers 

intended. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pierpont follows:] 

Statement of Ruth Pierpont, President, National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers and Director, Division for Historic 

Preservation, New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic 

Preservation 

Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the 

House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands for the opportunity to provide testimony. The National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers, and State Historic Preservation Officers around this nation were gratified 

that the National Parks Second Century Report contains a strong historic preservation component, including recommending full funding from the Historic Preservation 

Fund. As the report states, ‘‘Our nation is best armed to address the future with 

a public knowledgeable about its history, its resources and the responsibilities of 

citizenship.’’ 

We encourage the Committee to enact the recommendations, particularly authorizing full, permanent, and guaranteed funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. 

59 

Conservation continuum 

The conservation of our Nation’s historic and natural resources occurs along a 

continuum. At one end, the conservation occurs though the National Park Service 

(NPS) ownership of our national parks. At the other end, the NPS accomplishes conservation by assisting others in preservation. The NPS achieves preservation under 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The Nation’s historic resources are best served when the federal government supports all components of the continuum. Fulfilling the promise 

of fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund will balance the continuum at the 

assistance end. 

No Nation has the resources to buy and maintain in perpetuity every historic 

place. However, America’s conservation continuum does allow this Nation to preserve, or consider preservation, of every historic place. 

Conservation continuum includes economic development 

I am grateful for this chance to discuss a NPS program that is not always thought 

of when national parks are mentioned, but is one of our countries most successful 

conservation efforts as well as a prolific economic and job creation tool—the historic 

preservation program created by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. 

Through identification and designation mechanism millions of historic buildings and 

sites are preserved by their owners at no cost to the federal government. On the 

economic development side, this program has stimulated over $85 BILLION in private historic rehabilitation investment, created 1.8 million jobs (average around 

60,000 a year), i and created over 187,088 units of low and moderate income 

housing. 

SHPOs proven ability 

We are pleased to see that the Second Century commissioners agreed with the 

2007 National Academy of Public Administration’s (NAPA) report that our nation’s 

historic preservation program is a success. The 2007 NAPA report stated that the 

‘‘National Historic Preservation Program stands a successful example of effective 

federal-state partnership and is working to realize Congress original vision to a 

great extent.’’ ii The Second Century commissioners believe that the preservation 

model should also be brought to the natural resource community for its effectiveness 

in program and assistance delivery. iii

Several additional studies support NAPA and the Second Century Report recommendations. In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) gave management of our nation’s historic preservation 

programs a score of 89%, indicating exemplary performance of mandated activities. 

The 2006 Preserve America Summit’s Improving the Historic Preservation Infrastructure Committee report identified a severe need for full and permanent funding 

for the Historic Preservation Fund and for a comprehensive national inventory of 

historic properties. 

NCSHPO Comments on Six Report Recommendations: 

1. The Congress of the United States—should fully fund the historic preservation 

fund to allow the Park Service to provide financial and technical assistance to 

state, tribal, and local governments and others to ensure that America’s prehistoric and historic resources are preserved. 

WHY FULL FUNDING? 

In 1976 the National Historic Preservation Act was amended to create a funding 

stream, called the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), to implement the national historic preservation program on behalf of the Department of Interior. Currently, $150 

million is deposited annually into HPF; however, the actual appropriated amount 

is less than half the annual deposit, theoretically leaving an unappropriated balance 

of $2.7 billion in the HPF. 

Like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, HPF income derives from off shore 

oil lease revenues. A portion of these Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, from 

the depletion of non-renewable resources, should result in the creation of a permanent legacy that benefits all Americans, in EVERY zip code, in terms of enriched 

parks, recreation, open space, and human habitat—the historic neighborhoods and 

Main Streets where people live and work. 

The Second Century Report recommends permanent and consistent appropriations 

from the HPF. America’s historic places are threatened. The stewards of our entire 

patrimony, SHPOs are starved—after decades of continual increased workloads and 

responsibility. Limited HPF withdrawals have forced SHPOs to meet federal regulatory demands, rather than proactively addressing historic resource needs. SHPO 

60 

funding has yet to reach the heyday of funding when they received $137 million (inflation adjusted 2009 dollars) in 1979. 

The NHPA created a comprehensive, rational approach to historic preservation 

based on historic values and public input. States identify the historic places within 

their boundaries and, with the involvement of the public, produce a historic preservation plan to set priorities. Fully funding the HPF will allow SHPOs to raise 

matching funds and meet historic preservation needs in cooperation with local governments, nonprofit organizations, and property owners. In establishing the program, Congress understood that states are in the best position to have knowledge 

about the full range of historic properties and to make decisions in accordance with 

local needs and conditions. The mechanism is in place, but America is still waiting 

for the funding to make the mechanism work. 

What would a fully funded program look like? iv

• Finish the identification of America’s historic resources. All of America’s historic resources would be identified, surveyed and records digitized. Not only 

would this speed up the federal review process but also help communities 

properly plan for their revitalization and economic development projects. • Double National Register nominations. More historic sites in economically disadvantaged areas would be added to the National Register, bringing the Department of Interior’s community assistance program into every American 

neighborhood. SHPOs would have the staff and time needed to assist people 

in these communities with National Register nominations. • Save more commercial buildings as SHPOs have the ability to educate property owners in difficult to develop areas on the advantages (economic and 

‘‘green’’) of rehabilitation. More support would be provided to the Federal Rehabilitation Tax credit program, creating quicker project reviews and supplying much needed technical assistance. In 2009, the tax credit program created over 70,000 jobs and leveraged $4.7 billion in private investment.v

• Federal agencies would include historic preservation values in project planning from their desk tops with digitized historic data, speeding up the federal 

historic reviews and National Register nomination process. • At risk historic places would receive matching grants for restoration in every 

State in the Union. Bricks and mortar grants would be available and restoration funding would be distributed equitably and according to State priorities. • Assistance to local governments would increase tenfold from their current $4 

M set-aside. Certified Local Government (CLG) historic preservation commissions would receive funding increases, enabling CLGs to expand the program 

nationwide as well as create and expand upon their local preservation programs and protection of local resources. Project examples include a CLG 

Michigan job training program on restoring windows and a Maryland Historical Trust’s historic home audit energy efficiency initiative being conducted 

with four Maryland CLG’s communities. • Historic places would be prepared for disasters. A historic preservation disaster fund could be created eliminating the need for additional funding for 

preservation when natural disasters strike. Current climate change legislation creates a natural resources adaptation fund, a similar fund is needed for 

historic and cultural resources. 

In 1976 Congress made a promise to the American people that preserving our nation’s historic heritage was a priority and that they would provide the tools and resources to enable Americans citizens to preserve their history. In the 34 years since, 

Congress has not once fulfilled that promise. Now is the time to honor that national 

commitment and fully fund the Historic Preservation Fund. 

2. The Congress of the United States should promote access to historic preservation 

technical assistance, grants, and tax incentives by residents of high-poverty areas 

across the country. 

Everyone’s Heritage is Important 

Historic places tell of our diverse roots and our common adventure. They impart 

an indelible sense of the profound truth of the American motto: ‘‘out of many, one’’. 

As NPS’s publication—African American Historic Place vi states— 

‘‘Equally important is the history of ordinary people as recorded in churches, social institutions, schools, banks, businesses, houses, neighborhoods, 

and archeological sites. (National Register) Listing honors the property by 

recognizing its importance to a community, a state, or the nation. About 76 

percent of listed properties are privately owned and usually not open to the 

public, but many are within historic districts that can be visited; others are 

publically owned and open to the public. A visit to any of these historic 

places can illuminate the lives of countless ordinary people. Most historic 

61 

places in the National Register are recognized for their local significance 

and are especially suited for telling the grassroots story. Many minority historic sites bear witness to the strength and endurance of ordinary people 

and to their relevance for our understanding of the complex American experiences. An appreciation of our multifaceted history provides a usable, more 

recognizable past that holds relevance for the masses of Americans who 

presently do not consider themselves a part of American history. Historic 

districts and properties provide a foundation for ordinary people to rediscover portions of the American past missing from much of the history 

taught in our educational institutions.’’ 

Of the nation’s over 12,000 historic districts, comprising over a million contributing structures, 60 percent overlap census tracts in which the poverty rate is 20 

percent or greater. Currently, very limited or no assistance is available to most of 

these communities to manage their historic resources. SHPOs have the expertise 

but not the funding to provide the on the ground assistance needed to help preserve 

these important places. 

Oftentimes, the majority of historic structures in these historic districts are listed 

on the Register at the state or local levels of significance, making them ineligible 

for Save America’s Treasures restoration funding. Until SHPO funding is restored 

to a level that would allow for restoration grants, historic structures in high-poverty 

areas will continue to deteriorate and may be lost forever. 

Given adequate resources, SHPOs have the skills and ability to provide technical 

assistance, advice, and educational programs to municipalities and preservation organizations to develop preservation plans, establish local historic district ordinances, 

investigate alternatives for preserving key buildings, and explore strategies for promoting heritage tourism and commercial and neighborhood revitalization. However, 

these services are being scaled back every year as State budgets are being slashed 

and federal regulatory review requirements are continually increasing, leaving 

SHPOs unable to consistently provide preservation services and incentives to underserved communities. 

Historic rehabilitation tax credits are great but only as far as they go. The credits 

help only depreciable structures located in areas that already have a strong real estate development potential. The rehabilitation credits provide no help to archeological sites, churches, vessels, historic landscapes, house museums, not for profit 

owned buildings, historic residential homes etc. What would happen if future archeologists came back to study twentieth century America and found only commercial 

buildings from ‘‘elite’’ communities? 

Our American experiences are not all the same, but they are all significant and 

necessary to America’s complete story. When provided the means, SHPOs have the 

infrastructure in place to ensure America’s complete story can be told forever. 

3. The National Park Service should enhance funding for, and make full use of, its 

extensive portfolio of community assistance programs to better support state and 

local governments, tribal and private-sector conservation and preservation efforts. 

Fully Engage All Communities in Their Heritage 

Citizens recognize that the historic places close to home are also part of the heritage of the nation as a whole. At a time when mass media, mass production and 

mass marketing push our communities toward faceless homogeneity, historic places 

remain the signposts that distinguish one place from another. Not only are historic 

places a source of pride for community residents, they are a more fundamental 

mooring that allows us to know that where we live is not just a dot on a map, but 

a place with its own past, present, and future of which we are a part. 

The Federal-State partnership created through the historic preservation program 

was designed to engage communities in preservation. In 1980 Congress amended 

the National Historic Preservation Act requiring that each state pass through 10 

percent of its annual grant to local governments certified as having outstanding 

local historic preservation programs. Since 1980, over 1,700 local governments have 

chosen to participate, more for the recognition than for the money (CLG grants average around $8,000). Each Certified Local Government (CLG) establishes its own 

volunteer commission and enacts a preservation ordinance that defines that localities preservation program. CLGs exert control over the local National Register 

nominations and, at times, the federal preservation review process within their jurisdictions. 

In Michigan, a SHPO grant to a Certified Local Government (CLG) created a historic wood windows restoration workshop. The workshop provided specialized training to the unemployed and in the process educated individuals about the energy efficiency benefits of rehabilitating rather than replacing historic wood windows. This 

workshop, free of charge to participants, resulted in four of the fourteen students 

62 

starting their own window repair small businesses, and the program was such a 

success that more workshops are being offered in 2010. 

The federal government does not, nor should it, own all the places connected to 

our history. Mount Vernon in Virginia and the Garden District in New Orleans are 

as much a part of our heritage as Independence Hall or the Grand Canyon. The federal interest in heritage conservation is one of assistance, not one of acquisition. As 

a team effort, historic preservation reaches conservation goals with the private sector and state and local governments. Federal ownership, or acquisition, does not 

play a role in the national program. Historic preservation is based on the premise 

of offering an alternative which people may or may not choose. 

4. The National Park Service should develop a Cultural Resources Initiative that includes a multi-year strategic effort to prepare the Park Service’s heritage preservation and cultural programs to meet the challenges of the new century—both in the 

parks and in communities nationwide. 

Heritage conservation and change 

Historic preservation is not mere reverence for the past; it is a tool for managing 

change. Historic preservation means making a thoughtful effort to meet today’s 

needs in ways that also retain and use our important historic resources. SHPOs 

play a leading role in the National Park Service’s cultural programs. Any new strategic effort should include fully funding the HPF as well as a clear goal for historic 

site survey and records digitization to identify and record America’s significant historic properties. 

5. The Congress of the United States should reauthorize the national park system 

advisory board. 

Advisory Board 

The NCSHPO was pleased to see that Secretary Salazar has appointed a new 12 

member National Park System advisory board to help lead NPS preparations for the 

challenges that lie ahead and that eight of the new members served as commissioners on the Second Century Commission Report. The NCSHPO is also pleased 

that the advisory board includes Ron James, Nevada SHPO. 

6. The President of the United States should identify bold and achievable goals for 

preserving the nation’s heritage resources. 

Historic Preservation = Sustainability 

America has many stories to tell—stories about wars, inventions, disasters, expansion, politics and most importantly—stories about the American people. Some of 

these stories make us feel good; others make us want to hang our head in shame. 

Destroying the places of these stories, or ‘‘human habitat’’ ensures that future generations will be condemned to American history memory loss. Human beings are a 

part of the environment and created much of our nation’s history. Wilderness and 

park land recreation sites cannot exist unless people have places to live and work. 

Having a robust and growing national historic preservation program will ensure the 

preservation of our built and natural environments. 

Historic preservation should also be a goal of our Nation’s sustainability and livability agendas. 

Sustainability—the conservation and improvement of our built resources, including the reuse and greening of existing building stock, and reinvestment in existing 

communities is crucial in mitigating climate change. 

• In terms of waste, construction of an average 2,000-square-foot home generates 3,000 pounds of wood, 2,000 pounds of drywall and 600 pounds of cardboard. 

• Moreover, the construction of an average single-family home generates four 

pounds of waste per square foot. On average, only about 20%-30% of that 

waste is recycled or reused. 

• Additionally, it takes a lot of energy to construct a building—for example, 

building a 50,000 square foot commercial building requires the same amount 

of energy needed to drive a car 20,000 miles a year for 730 years. Construction debris accounts for 25% of the waste in the municipal waste stream each 

year. 

• Demolishing 82 billion square feet of space will create enough debris to fill 

2,500 NFL stadiums. vii

Livability—historic preservation is also proven to be one of the best tools to preserve a neighborhood’s livability by providing a sense of place and then to leverage 

that authenticity for new investment, tourism and smart growth. Historic preservation takes advantage of streets, services, infrastructure and buildings, helping to 

63 

curb sprawl and promote sustainability. Many historic neighborhoods were designed 

to provide multiple transportations for its residents such as walking, biking, and 

using public transit. 

By setting bold new goals for preserving our nation’s historic resources, the President will be investing in the health, knowledge and history of our nation’s future. 

Conclusion: Equal Support for all parts of the conservation continuum 

SHPOs and the HPF support the nation’s historic preservation infrastructure; 

knowing the location and records of historic resources; an evaluation process to determine relative significance; a formal liaison and partnership relationship with 

local governments in preservation; advice and oversight on rehabilitations encouraged through federal income tax incentives; educational programs on preservation, 

such as on the protection of archeological sites; and assistance to the private sector 

on preservation techniques. This infrastructure is maintained for the national government by the State Historic Preservation Officers. 

America’s patrimony is not owned by the National Park Service or the National 

Trust for Historic Preservation. Only the State Historic Preservation Officers have 

the entire nation’s patrimony under their purview and responsibility. As the NPS 

enters its second century, we should remember that for nearly half a century the 

SHPOs have been saving America’s treasures and producing results that benefit 

ALL of America’s citizens, communities, and States. The combination of federal 

leadership and State execution has worked well. Today, with America’s natural and 

built environment being threatened, it is time for Congress to reaffirm the partnership that has worked so well. It is time to give the States the tools to do the job 

the National Historic Preservation Act’s visionary framers intended. 

iFirst Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit. 

Rutgers University Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. 

March 2010. ii National Academy of Public Administration ‘‘Back to the Future: A Review of the 

National Historic Preservation Program’’ Findings and Recommendations. pp 1. iii National Parks Second Century Commission ‘‘Advancing the National Park Idea 

’’ pp. 29. iv A fully funded HPF, would also provide the growing number of Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers with adequate funds for staffing and programs. v 2009 National Park Service Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit annual report. 

vi African American Historic Places. Introduction by Carol Shull. National Park 

Service 1994. vii National Trust for Historic Preservation. 


56648.001.eps
64 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Ms. Rife, Association of 

National Park Rangers. Thank you for being here. I look forward 

to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF HOLLY RIFE, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL 

PARK RANGERS, SABILLASVILLE, MARYLAND 

Ms. RIFE. Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Holly Rife, a National Park Service employee for 17 years and 

currently the Chief Ranger at Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland. Today, though, I am appearing on my own time and expense 

in my capacity as a member of the Association of National Park 

Rangers, and I am pleased to present this testimony on behalf of 

ANPR. 

I thank you for holding this hearing on the future of the National 

Park Service and the National Park System. The Association of 

National Park Rangers is a nonprofit organization founded in 1977 

and today has about 1,200 members that include current, former, 

and aspiring employees of the National Park Service. We advocate 

for all employees of the National Park Service, regardless of their 

job title, and for the overall health of the National Park Service 

and the system. 

Last year in Knoxville, Tennessee, NPS Director John Jarvis 

spoke about the National Parks Second Century Commission report, comparing it to other well written NPS reports in recent decades. Director Jarvis elaborated this thought by explaining, we do 

not necessarily need another report, we need to take action. We 

agree. Subcommittee Members may be asking themselves, how 

does the NPS move from just another report to desired results and 

outcomes? If your choice is legislation, we recommend legislation 

that contains accountability measures that attach to appropriations 

at park level and individual employees annual performance appraisals. 

With regard to NPS workforce recruitment, we recommend greater emphasis in these areas. Simplify the application and hiring 

processes and utilize hiring authorities that move the best college 

students in the proper fields of study into the NPS workforce. Establish close relationships with universities and colleges with weekly communications to recruit for NPS career opportunities. With regards to NPS workforce recruitment and diversity, we believe that 

ANPR could be of assistance to the NPS under a cooperative agreement with the right set of conditions. 

This would be through ANPR’s College Chapter Program. We 

think targeting minority university and colleges with a sustained 

NPS or affiliated presence is the way to go here. We believe that 

for a better NPS future, time and energy must be invested into 

building the careers of students and seasonal employees who are 

the workforce of tomorrow. We cannot emphasize enough that getting hired into an NPS job often requires more than education and 

technical skills. It also requires an understanding of NPS application procedures and preparation techniques, and an understanding 

of how to navigate the NPS agency culture to include competitiveness and opportunities for networking within the culture. 

In the area of training, ANPR supports the current superintendent’s academy with modification and the NPS Fundamentals trainVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
65 

ing program to help new employees understand the agency’s culture. We agree that NPS should invest 4 percent of its personnel 

budget to employ professional development. This amount should be 

fairly divided among each park’s employees based on ability and 

desire and each park’s travel ceiling should be adjusted so as not 

to exclude this amount. 

We believe we can be of the most assistance to Congress and the 

NPS in increasing the diversity of applicants for NPS positions 

through our College Chapters Program and by surveying NPS employees to ascertain what types of NPS-provided training and professional development opportunities they view as lacking. Our 

members represent over 10,000 years of experience in operating 

and managing units of the National Park System. 

For many of us the national park idea is the central theme, not 

only in our professional lives, but in many cases our families’ lives 

and values, our sense of patriotism, and our very definition of what 

being an American is. We pledge to assist this Subcommittee and 

the National Park Service in whatever ways we can to assure that 

the national park idea remains relevant and accessible to our citizens today, and for the many more yet to be born. On behalf of the 

Association of National Park Rangers, I thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rife follows:] 

Statement of Holly Rife on behalf of the 

Association of National Park Rangers 

Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Holly Rife, a National Park Service employee for 17 years and currently the 

Chief Ranger at Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland. I am appearing today on my 

own time and expense in my capacity as a member of the Association of National 

Park Rangers (ANPR). I am pleased to present this testimony on behalf of ANPR. 

Thank you for holding this hearing on the future of the National Park Service and 

the National Park System. 

The Association of National Park Rangers is a non-profit organization founded in 

1977 and today comprises approximately 1,200 members that include current, 

former, and aspiring employees of the National Park Service. Our organizational 

purposes are to communicate for, about, and with National Park Service employees 

of all disciplines; to promote and enhance the professions of National Park Service 

employees and their spirit; to support management and the perpetuation of the 

National Park Service and the National Park System; and to provide a forum for 

social enrichment. ANPR provides education and other training to develop and/or 

improve knowledge and skills of National Park Service employees of all disciplines 

and those interested in these professions. ANPR provides a forum for discussion of 

common concerns of National Park Service employees and provides information to 

the public. 

As an organization that strongly supports the fundamental purpose of the 

National Park Service (NPS) defined in statutory law, we believe that the boots-onthe-ground experience in operating national parks represented by our members is 

worthy of your consideration. If you put together legislation for the agency’s future, 

please consider these thoughts: 

Just Another Report? 

Our experience with results from management and operations reports in the NPS 

is varied, but I think most of us have at one time or another in our careers encountered a situation where someone above us in the NPS hierarchy mandated that a 

plan be completed, only to have that completed plan sit on a shelf and never be 

used. Then five years later comes down the edict that the plan must be updated 

and revised by a specific date, even though the plan has not been touched in those 

intervening years. It is very frustrating to work on assignments that appear not to 

have any likely need or use, especially when your work plate is already full with 

66 

what you perceive to be real, substantive issues and assignments. ANPR does not 

particularly want to be involved with ‘‘just another report’’ if it is likely that the 

National Parks Second Century Commission Report is just one of those documents 

that sit on the shelf. 

Last year in Knoxville, Tennessee NPS Director Jon Jarvis spoke about the 

National Parks Second Century Commission Report comparing it to other well-written NPS reports in recent decades. He cited such reports as the The Vail Agenda 

Report and Recommendations to the Director (1992), the National Park Service 

Strategic Plan (1997), and the 2001 Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century Report. There were also others like the 12–Point Plan — the challenge Report 

(1985) and the NPS Business Plan Initiative in the early years of the last decade. 

Director Jarvis elaborated this thought by explaining that good reports containing 

good recommendations that can be used as park management and operational planning tools alone are not enough. He said that the NPS does not need more reports, 

and now is the time to get some of these things accomplished! We agree. 

If one reads these various reports from the last three decades one finds very similar, recurring language and recommendations. So, the real questions seem to be how 

can we move recommendations to actions and outcomes and what motivation might 

Congress apply to garner the results it desires? Would legislation codifying some of 

the recommendations in the National Parks Second Century Commission Report 

have the desired effect? Maybe, but we think any such legislation would need to include some accountability measures to be effective. These accountability measures, 

in our opinion, would need to be directed at the two areas that most quickly gain 

individual NPS employees’ attention, those being operations’ appropriations at the 

park level and the employee’s annual performance appraisal. We are not saying that 

we think NPS employees are inept or unskilled or that they are willfully non-responsive to the prerogatives of Congress. We are saying that sometimes NPS employees have difficulty prioritizing their work when often the quantity of that work 

requested by the Executive Branch, Congress, and the visiting public is greater than 

the number of work hours available to accomplish it. But available funding at the 

park level and our individual annual performance appraisal, the latter of which is 

tied to our in-agency reputation and self-esteem, gets our attention quickly. 

The following is an example of an instance where Congress passed legislation directing the NPS to accomplish something, but did not include enough accountability 

measures in the legislation. In 1976 Congress passed legislation that mandated 

General Management Plans for each unit of the National Park System be prepared 

and revised with an annual deadline of January 1 for the NPS Director to report 

back to Congress on the status of these plans [codified at Title 16 USC § 1a-7(b)]. 

However, since there was neither ‘‘a carrot nor a stick’’ included in the legislation, 

work on these plans has languished for decades for some park units, and even some 

parks that have finalized them do not routinely use them for management decision 

making and/or revise them in a timely fashion. Had greater accountability measures/incentives, both positive and negative, been included in the legislation in 1976 

perhaps Congress may have received the full results that it desired and been able 

to more adequately provide targeted legislative oversight in the following decades. 

Workforce Recruitment and Diversity 

Almost every uniformed NPS employee has at one time or another been asked by 

someone in the visiting public, ‘‘How do I get a job like yours?’’ And, quite frankly 

the path to such a job is sometimes almost unexplainable. There are certainly a 

myriad of improvements we think the NPS could make in its recruitment and hiring 

procedures. 

How does the NPS recruit a workforce of the best and brightest that is reflective 

of the America’s diversity? Step one might be working with the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) to better define what academic requirements are necessary for 

specific NPS jobs. A high percentage of the jobs in the NPS have a strong natural 

and/or cultural resource management component, yet very few of those jobs require 

a 4-year degree in a natural or cultural science or resource management. It seems 

like a mistake in recruitment not to focus on those individuals that have shown an 

academic interest and academic success at the knowledge underpinning the work. 

In particular those positions titled ‘‘Park Ranger,’’ the iconic position of the NPS 

workforce, should be included in this degree-holding group targeted for recruitment. 

The NPS can do that by working with OPM to specify the degree programs that 

would qualify. 

The National Parks Second Century Commission Report recommends: 

‘‘Build a robust internal research and scholarship capacity in the sciences and 

humanities to guide management and protection of our nation’s natural, historic, and cultural heritage.’’ 

67 

Our perception is that this robust capacity in the sciences and humanities would 

also be well-served with employees robustly educated and interested in those same 

subjects. 

A second thought is for the NPS to lobby OPM to reverse its ban on allowing selecting officials to utilize the Outstanding Scholar hiring authority. It allows noncompetitive hiring of college graduates that have proven to be academically skilled 

(must have a 3.5 GPA or higher) in fields of study directly applicable to the work 

they would perform as NPS employees. Our recollection is that this authority was 

discontinued by OPM to prevent agencies from getting around consideration of applicants with veteran’s preference. While the federal hiring process can be cumbersome, confusing, and frustrating for applicants and selecting officials, this hiring 

authority is easy to understand and apply for everyone involved. It can also be helpful to veterans that have college diplomas. Another hiring authority that can be 

highly useful for workforce recruitment is the Student Career Employment Program 

(SCEP). But this takes active recruitment efforts at universities and colleges to 

identify students in the proper fields of study and the proper temperament, skills, 

interests, and knowledge to work for the NPS. Further, there is a lack of effort to 

retain NPS employees after they graduate and lose Student Temporary Employment 

Program (STEP) status. These employees create an opportunity to hire a permanent 

employee that has experience and training in the position and with the NPS. Hiring 

officials and supervisors should actively work to provide SCEP opportunities to 

STEP employees who have career interests within the NPS. 

Here is just one example of a college graduate (Stanford University) that has now 

given up on working for the NPS: 

‘‘After a backcountry internship at Yellowstone in 2005 and some seasonal jobs 

with the Forest Service, I reluctantly got out of field work for land management 

agencies and took a permanent job at Stanford where I’ve been working . . . 3+ 

years. Eventually, I would like to go back to work for the park service, forest 

service, or BLM in resource management and/or planning . . . I mentioned that 

I think one of biggest barriers for would-be applicants is that the application 

procedure is so confusing. As an example, it took a law professor I work with 

at Stanford several days to decipher the application requirements for a GS–05 

seasonal ranger job and then to enter and upload all the pieces.’’ 

Finally in regards to recruitment, we believe that the NPS could and should form 

close relationships with universities, community colleges, and other schools specifically to advance and recruit for NPS career opportunities. This should be a primary 

job responsibility for an employee or employees in each park unit and not just a collateral assignment that someone gets around to once every few years. These relationships require nurturing and active communications to make them pay sustaining dividends in terms of interested, well-educated applicants. As we will describe in the paragraphs below ANPR has already taken the lead to form some university partnerships. All that is required of NPS is for the agency to join productively with us in this endeavor. The NPS does not need to spend a lot of money here 

or invent a new bureaucratic wheel! 

Employee diversity, especially racial diversity seems to be a goal that continues 

to elude the NPS. In our perception, the key is to create a racially diverse applicant 

pool for selecting officials to hire employees from because diversity of the NPS workforce will never increase if there are not diverse applicants on the list of selectees. 

We have watched the NPS try many different techniques over the years without 

achieving the desired results. Could it be several factors that seem to preclude a 

diverse applicant pool including confusing application processes, lack of successful 

agency recruitment methods, and failure by recruiters to explain what the internal 

culture of the NPS is about and how to navigate within it? 

Here is an area where we think ANPR could help the NPS under a cooperative 

agreement. In recent years ANPR has started an ANPR College Chapters program 

where students at a university or college that aspire to one day work for the NPS 

can form a chapter and begin to understand the NPS culture and ways in which 

they might make themselves more competitive for NPS jobs. We currently have five 

student chapters, but we have not yet been able to start up any chapters at schools 

with a high percentage of minorities. The main stumbling block seems to be, as described to us by some of the responding professors, that their students have limited 

incomes and have pretty-well stretched their financial abilities already just to be enrolled in college. They do not have the $45 necessary to join ANPR, and they certainly do not have the financial resources required to travel to ANPR’s annual professional conference to learn more about the NPS culture and to network with potential selecting officials. And, a small non-profit such as ANPR that operates only 

on the membership dues it collects cannot afford to spend more than it takes in on 

servicing members or for travel expenses for members. 

68 

We cannot emphasize enough that getting hired into a NPS job often requires 

more than an education and technical skills. It also requires an understanding of 

NPS application procedures and best application preparation techniques, as well as 

an understanding of how to navigate the NPS agency culture to increase competitiveness and opportunities for networking within that culture. The NPS does not appear to have the human resources to do much sustained mentoring, coaching, and 

networking with groups of minority students. ANPR does have that ability if some 

source of funding, such as a National Park Foundation grant, could be secured. 

The National Parks Second Century Commission Report recommends: 

‘‘The National Park Service should form partnerships with academic institutions 

to provide rigorous staff training and continuing education programs.’’ and 

‘‘use. . .other means to actively recruit a new generation of National Park Service 

leaders that reflects the diversity of the nation.’’ 

We say do not limit these partnerships to just training and continuing education. 

Use these partnerships to recruit a diverse workforce and from this diverse workforce a diverse group of new leaders will emerge as their careers progress. 

Development and Training 

In the biannual Federal Employee Satisfaction Survey in 2009 NPS employees 

ranked their agency at a score that put it 206 out of the 216 agencies surveyed with 

regards to their satisfaction with the training and development opportunities available to them. This low score is statistically unchanged for the last four of these surveys. In a less comprehensive 2007 survey of NPS employees, ANPR found that almost half of the respondents indicated that they would look to organizations such 

as ANPR to offer professional development and training opportunities. Our assumption was that these responses further indicated that these employees were not getting everything they wanted in terms of professional development and training. 

However, one answer neither of these surveys ascertains is ‘‘What specific training courses and/or professional development opportunities or categories of the same 

do you believe the agency should be providing to you?’’ Here is another area where 

ANPR could help the NPS. We have funding from a Turner Foundation grant that 

would allow us to survey NPS employees via email to determine what they think 

the NPS is missing with regard to training and professional development opportunities. However, our last attempt to survey NPS employees via email was halted by 

the agency when questions surfaced concerning the source and validity of the email. 

Should the NPS choose to partner with us to obtain such information we would need 

some advance notice to regional and park-level Information Technology Specialists 

to avoid a similar shut down. Perhaps the NPS could accomplish this survey on 

their own with existing funding, but potential respondents may more freely give this 

information to sources outside the agency such as ANPR. ANPR also offers professional development training courses to its members at our annual conference and 

such information would help us choose the best offerings. 

We certainly believe there are current NPS training courses that should be supported and enhanced where appropriations allow. One such training is the recently 

established Superintendent’s Academy. The duration of this academy may not be 

long enough to sufficiently investigate the lengthy list of responsibilities assigned 

to park superintendents. The greater flaw is that the academy is only offered to 

those that have already been selected as Superintendents. It would make more 

sense to us to make selections for this training from persons at the next lower level 

who are interesting in becoming a Superintendent. Field training and evaluation 

should be included. Those who do well would qualify for more challenging positions, 

those who do not would go to less complex parks or none at all. The NPS should 

be training professionals to perform the Superintendent assignment beforehand, not 

just selecting someone into it and hoping they will perform satisfactorily. 

Seasonal, temporary employees, the workers who most often work face to face 

with the general public, particularly suffer from a lack of development and training. 

In addition, they lack employer-provided health insurance; they do not accrue retirement benefits; they lack recognition for longevity (‘‘step increases’’); and they are 

typically laid off from government service for all but three to four months of the 

year. The agency has begun to suffer the effects of employee dissatisfaction, as seen 

in the migration of talent from NPS to other agencies such as the Bureau of Land 

Management, US Army Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, State Parks, and private 

industry. If we want to remain the premier park agency of the world, we need to 

provide our employees with more opportunities for career growth and satisfaction, 

or else they will work for someone else. It would be a shame to reach the 100th 

anniversary of the National Park Service in six years while declining in our talent 

and effectiveness as an agency due to poor investment in the futures and cares of 

seasonal and full-time employees. The inevitable result will be a decrease in the 

69 

quality of the individuals protecting and managing our national treasures. As we 

discussed earlier in the workforce recruitment and diversity section of these remarks, it can be difficult to thrive in any work situation without a full understanding of the workplace’s history and culture. Many of our longer serving members remember days in the NPS when some employees were fortunate enough to attend lengthy agency orientation courses (some as long as 12 weeks). Such training 

laid an excellent career foundation and immersed the employee (and sometimes 

their family, too) in the agency’s history and culture. While courses of this duration 

may no longer be feasible for every permanent employee of the NPS to attend, the 

current NPS Fundamentals Training Program offers a portion of those same benefits. The NPS has budgeted for the costs of this training at the national level, so 

it is not necessary to take money from parks’ individual budgets for their employees 

to attend. We believe this program should be expanded and made mandatory for 

permanent employees, especially those that wish to enter supervisory and management positions later in their careers. 

One last piece of the training and professional development puzzle that needs a 

fix is the individual park’s travel expenditures ceiling. Our recollection is that these 

ceilings were established at the insistence of Congress to curb what they considered 

to be ‘‘boondoggle-type’’ travel that was wasteful. However, if the ceilings are set too 

low then all allowable travel dollars at the park level can be eaten up by certain 

trainings and/or meetings that are mandated by law, and/or regulation, and/or NPS 

policy. In these situations employees may receive no access to professional development opportunities or training courses for years at a time and this can lead to frustration, resentment, and a workforce that is not prepared to step up to the next 

level of work through reason of natural attrition or emergency circumstances. We 

concur with the National Parks Second Century Commission Report recommendation that: 

‘‘The National Park Service should follow private sector practices by investing 

an amount equal to 4% of its annual personnel budget each year in professional 

development.’’ 

This amount should be fairly divided among that park’s employees based on ability and desire, and any portion of it spent on travel should not be counted against 

the park’s travel ceiling. 

Conclusion 

ANPR wants to join Congress and the NPS in taking actions and producing outcomes that mirror recommendations found in the National Parks Second Century 

Commission Report. We do not want this to be ‘‘just another report’’ that looks nice 

on the shelf but produces no substantive improvements or results. We believe we 

can be of the most assistance to Congress and the NPS in increasing the diversity 

of applicants for NPS positions through our College Chapters Program, and by surveying NPS employees to ascertain what types of NPS-provided training and professional development opportunities they view as lacking. 

Our members represent over 10,000 years of experience in operating and managing units of the National Park System. For many of us the National Park idea, 

its fundamental purpose as described in the act of August 25, 1916 as amended, is 

the central theme not only in our professional lives, but in many cases our families’ 

lives and values, our sense of patriotism, and our very definition of what being an 

American is. In ANPR’s 2007 survey of NPS employees 60% responded that they 

viewed their connection to the NPS as a way of life, not just a job. We pledge to 

assist this subcommittee and the National Park Service in whatever ways we can 

to assure that the National Park idea remains relevant and accessible to our citizens today and for the many, many more yet to be born. 

On behalf of the Association of National Park Rangers, I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Jerry Rogers, Former Associate Director for Cultural Resources, the National Park Service, welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY ROGERS, FORMER ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Bishop, I am 

very, very grateful for the opportunity to appear today as Chair of 

70 

the Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation Committee of the 

National Parks Second Century Commission, and also as a representative of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. 

Working among the diverse and creative minds of the Commission 

members was a wonderful capstone to a career. Working as one of 

800 members of the Coalition, the voices of experience who speak 

from unique perspectives on behalf of the parks and the Service, 

reinforces the fact that it was more a calling than a career. 

Experience teaches one to think strategically, to draw upon 

history, to analyze the present, and to look as far as possible into 

the future. That is why the Coalition members were among the 

first to advocate using the National Park Service centennial for a 

long and thoughtful look into the second century of this special 

calling. That is why the Coalition supports everything in the Commission report, advancing the national park idea, and in the reports of the Commission’s eight committees. 

My formal statement submitted for the record touches upon only 

a few of the recommendations, dealing with demographic change, 

education, employee development, and international activities, but 

we endorse them all. At the core of the Commission’s work are 

three fundamentals. One, the national parks and the historic and 

natural places preserved by others using National Park Service 

programs are America, the core of how Americans know ourselves 

as a people. 

Two, the national parks cannot be preserved by acting only inside the parks. And three, the grass roots approaches of the Service’s cultural resource and historic preservation programs provide 

guidance for how the parks can be preserved. Historic preservation 

is more nearly a citizen movement than a government program. It 

begins with owners of historic places who feel the privilege of stewardship and with neighbors who live near the places and love 

them. 

Seeking advice and help, and sometimes strength and support, 

these good citizens make use of nonprofit organizations and of their 

local governments. Countless nonprofits and more than 1,700 certified local governments are part of the movement. For further 

help, they then turn to state historic preservation officers who are 

appointed by their Governors and who run programs tailored to the 

histories and realities of their individual states. Most of the 80,000 

listings in the National Register of Historic Places got there 

through nominations initiated by local people and formalized by 

state historic preservation officers. 

Almost 90 American Indian tribes and virtually all land managing Federal agencies are part of this bottom-up process that 

works on behalf of the national park idea inside parks and beyond 

park boundaries. The National Park Service is directed by law to 

provide leadership to this network. A good way to do that would 

be to fund the full $150 million per annum from the Historic Preservation Fund to enable and to support this network that in turn 

supports the parks. 

The Service of the future can better protect the natural and other 

aspects of its parks by developing the natural resource-oriented 

programs’ counterpart to the historic preservation programs, perhaps assisted with stateside land and water conservation fund 

71 

support. There is, unfortunately, an urgent problem in the cultural 

resource and historic preservation programs that requires remediation before those programs can return to their visionary potential. 

They have suffered in recent years from repression rather than inspiration, they have undergone budget and staff reductions of 25 

percent or more, and at present they are without a senior executive 

level head. 

Recruitment of an Associate Director for Cultural Resources 

needs to be completed as quickly as possible, and the Service needs 

to support that action with a cultural resource challenge budget 

and a professional staffing initiative counterpart to the successful 

natural resource challenge of recent years. Only then can the Service return to its tradition of leadership in the cultural resource and 

historic preservation fields. 

We thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, and we 

hope this hearing will only be the beginning of a national conversation in the Congress and throughout the country on the value of 

parks and Park Service programs and on how to carry out a century of success into a second century. Whatever else we do, let us 

create and maintain a focus on vision. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 

Statement of Jerry L. Rogers, Chair, Cultural Resource & Historic 

Preservation Committee, National Parks Second Century Commission; 

Member, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jerry L. Rogers 

and I am honored to be invited to present testimony today about the National Park 

Service in its Second Century. Speaking not only as a member of the National Parks 

Second Century Commission, but also on behalf of the Coalition of National Park 

Service Retirees, I convey thanks and congratulations of other retirees to the Subcommittee for looking into this topic. It is vital to the future of our nation. We earnestly hope that other committees and members of both the House and the Senate 

will follow your lead. We also hope this will be the first of a continuing series of 

hearings, in the 111th Congress and in future Congresses on the National Park 

Service in its second century; in fact we believe that valuable hearings could be held 

on subjects revolving around each of the eight committees of the Commission. 

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is a spontaneously-generated organization of men and women who have devoted their lives and careers to the 

National Park Service, who know the Service in ways few others know it, who love 

what the Service does, who share pride in what the Service has been, and who hold 

a grand vision of what the Service should be and do in the future. Our Coalition 

began when three retired National Park Superintendents held a press conference in 

May, 2003 to emphasize concern about budgetary and policy threats to the Service. 

That event was followed by a letter to then President George W. Bush. As word 

about the letter went around the nation via the internet, other NPS retirees asked 

to be allowed to sign, and eventually 20 did so. The internet conversation continued, 

and this interaction eventually developed into a formal organization chartered as a 

non-profit corporation in June, 2006. Rapid growth ensued, and without any formal 

recruitment effort we have now come to number about 800 members. Our membership includes three former Directors or Deputy Directors of the National Park Service, twenty-three former Regional Directors or Deputy Regional Directors, twentyeight former Associate or Assistant Directors at the national or regional office level, 

seventy-four former Division Chiefs at the national or regional office level, and over 

one hundred and seventy-five former Park Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents. 

Individuals who became the initial leaders in the Coalition had as early as 2002 

advocated a 2016 National Park Service Centennial that would be more than a celebration. Tempting though it is to have a birthday cake, some speeches, and to cut 

ribbons on a few new park facilities, it was clear to these ‘‘voices of experience’’ that 

a one-hundredth anniversary was the time for a reflective examination of how far 

we have come and by what routes, and for a strategic look far as possible into the 

second century. The Coalition made its call for such a Commission official when its 

72 

Executive Council released its ‘‘Call to Action’’ report on September 21, 2004. Retired Alaska Regional Director Rob Arnberger in particular advocated development 

of a Blue Ribbon Commission of distinguished Americans to undertake this examination, as evidenced by his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Public 

Lands & Forests in May, 2005. We were, therefore, thrilled when in August of 2008 

the National Parks Conservation Association convened the National Parks Second 

Century Commission. I was profoundly honored when invited to serve as a member 

of the Commission, and as Chair of the Commission’s Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation Committee. Other Coalition members participated in all five of 

the Commission’s meetings. We are delighted with the Commission’s report, and we 

presented the Coalition’s highest honor—the George B. Hartzog Award—for 2009 to 

the Commission’s Executive Director Loran B. Fraser for his extraordinary leadership in bringing the work to a successful conclusion. 

The Commission’s recommendations, we are happy to see, track well with the vision statement the Coalition has had posted on its website since early in 2006. The 

Coalition envisions a National Park Service in its second century that does the following things. 

• Preserves and enables visitors to enjoy the truly special places of our common 

heritage—the inalienable heritage—of our nation, without confusion about its 

mission. 

• Is deeply involved with the American people in what it means to be American 

and with the people of the world about what it means to be human. 

• Is viewed by the public and government officials not as a ‘‘land management 

agency’’ but as the steward of the primary ideas and ideals held in trust as 

the nation’s heritage. 

• Educates visitors through deeply personal experiences of profoundly important places. 

• Leads, encourages, and assists all others in our country who pursue similar 

goals; and on behalf of the United States assists all others in the world who 

pursue similar goals. 

• Is free of burdens that impede accomplishment of its mission, and has leadership that is free of inappropriate constraints and conflicting goals. 

• Is well-funded, well-staffed, sophisticated, professional, value-driven, motivated, innovative, daring, and excellent, within a context of long-term continuity. 

• Provides education, training, and career opportunities that maximize fulfillment of the professional potential of each employee. 

• Is driven by a current and constantly-renewed vision, nationally and in each 

individual park. 

• Is managed as a coherent system rather than as independent areas and programs. 

Mr. Chairman, during my time as a National Park Service Senior Executive the 

United States Government closed down, twice briefly and twice for longer periods, 

due to the lack of appropriations for its operation. During each of those times, network television news asked four questions: 

• will the country be defended, 

• will the mail be delivered, 

• will the Social Security checks be on time, and 

• will the National Parks be open? 

These four questions are powerful evidence of what the National Parks and the 

vastly larger array of places preserved by others under National Park Service programs actually mean to Americans. They are national icons almost equal to the flag 

itself. They have evolved from units of a respected national system into the combined expression of our most valuable and inalienable national heritage. They are 

the unchanging measure of a rapidly changing world, repositories of information 

against which human progress or its opposite can be gauged, touchstones of who we 

are as a people and even as members of the human species, the best hope for preserving the cultural record that defines American civilization and the global biological diversity upon which life itself depends. 

Those four questions show, appropriately, I think, that the National Parks have 

become fundamental elements of our national identification—they are the hard and 

tangible manifestation of the experiences, beliefs, and values that bond almost 300 

million people of various national and cultural origins into a single viable and coherent nation. Without them we might never have become, and certainly could not long 

remain, the ‘‘Americans’’ that we understand ourselves to be. The National Parks, 

in a very real way, are America. And we Americans are not the only ones who see 

them as such—they are as valuable to the world as they are to us here at home. 

73 

Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees strongly supports 

all of the recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission. 

Using what I have just said as background, however, I wish to focus on only a few 

of the most fundamental points made by the Commission. 

First, although the problems faced by the Service today must be addressed, and 

although the centennial provides an ideal target date for doing so, we urge the Subcommittee to keep constantly in mind what the nation and the world need after— 

long after—2016. Let’s hold fast to the long-term perspective and not allow urgent 

problems to drive out vision. 

Second, the America that the National Parks represent is changing rapidly. Demographic changes, but also changes in the ways people learn, communicate, use 

their time, assemble their enterprises, and conduct commerce create constant 

change in the very definition of America. The parks and the National Park Service 

must keep pace with that change or lose that iconic status. As just one example of 

what keeping pace means, the National Park Service must more frequently review 

and modify its criteria and the thematic categories within which it determines national significance—the benchmarks by which places are judged to be appropriate 

for addition to the system or designation as National Historic and Natural Landmarks. 

Third, parks are a special type of national university. One thing we know far 

more about now than was known in 1916 is that different cultures and different individuals learn in different ways. Whether one is devoted to books and classrooms 

or to any of the new educational methods that daily amaze us, we must not overlook 

the fact that visits to National Parks provide almost 300 million individual non-traditional educational opportunities each year. It seems obvious that we must make 

the most of these opportunities, but the experience of recent decades makes it clear 

that the educational mission of the parks and the Service needs to be established 

in law with absolute clarity. Education, in this case, includes but is greater than, 

park interpretation. Parks are and must always be vigorous centers of education, 

but it is not enough to wait for the world to come to the parks in order to learn. 

Education must be taken by the Service to the world. 

Fourth, the parks are threatened by myriad forces from outside their boundaries 

and they cannot be defended against these threats by actions taken only inside park 

boundaries. Not even the largest natural park can contain within itself everything 

its ecosystems require. No historic park can contain more than a select part of the 

historic places that embody the larger and more complete story. These outside 

threats will not be overcome by exertion of authority over people and practices outside the boundaries. They may be overcome, however, through the kind of leadership by the Service that encourages and enables others to carry out their own natural and cultural stewardship activities that are helpful to the parks. 

To deal with these problems and many others, the Commission’s Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation Committee envisioned ‘‘a century of the environment beginning August 25, 2016 in which history, nature, culture, beauty, and recreation are parts of sustainable community life and development everywhere and in 

which the National Park Service preserves and interprets selected outstanding places 

and provides leadership to all others engaged in similar work.’’ 

Fortunately, in the Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation programs the 

Service has abundant experience that should be useful in shaping a second century. 

In this experience, I believe, will be found at least some keys to National Park Service success decades into the future. 

Beginning as far back as 1933, but especially after enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its various amendments, the Service has engaged 

others, mostly private property owners, in voluntary preservation of more than 

2,400 places designated as National Historic Landmarks and almost 600 places designated as National Natural Landmarks. These nationally significant entities are 

equal in significance to the National Parks themselves. At other degrees of significance, 80,000 places have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

In many instances the National Register’s locally significant places fill out the cultural counterpart of the ecosystem concept—preserving the details of the story that 

may not be encompassed within the National Park unit or the National Historic 

Landmark. Other means the Service has used with outstanding success include the 

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Programs, and the development of community-driven interactions known as National Heritage Areas. 

More important, and not often spoken about, is the way these broadly-based, 

grass-roots driven programs gauge the national mood and tap into a national creative energy with regard to the whole mission of the National Park Service. Think 

for a moment of their inclusiveness. They encompass virtually all property-managing Federal agencies. Their backbone is a network of State Historic Preservation 

74 

Officers appointed by the Governors of 59 States and similar jurisdictions, each of 

whom runs a program shaped to deal with the realities of their own jurisdictions. 

Almost 90 American Indian Tribes have Tribal Heritage Preservation Officers who 

run programs shaped by each tribe to fit its own heritage. More than 1700 Certified 

Local Governments are parts of this network—each designed by and to suit its locality. The private sector is fully engaged, not just the great organizations like the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Archaeological Conservancy, the 

National Parks Conservation Association, and thousands of smaller non-profits, but 

an unlimited number of businesspeople and private property owners who wish to 

exercise responsible stewardship over their pieces of the national heritage and who 

often profit by doing so. All of these are energetically engaged in carrying out the 

National Park Service mission—devoting their time, treasure, and creative imagination to preserving the national heritage. The National Register of Historic Places is 

at the heart of this outpouring of grass-roots energy. 

Mr. Chairman, when the National Park Service undertakes the above-recommended review and update of thematic structures that guide growth of the 

National Park System, it should begin by analyzing the contents and the growth 

trends of the National Register and of the state, local, tribal, and agency data bases 

that are the source of Register nominations. Like the solid benchmark a surveyor 

uses to provide a known starting point for a survey, the contents of the National 

Register and related data bases should tell us much about what we as a nation believe to be our heritage and want to have preserved. The recent growth trends 

should, like a compass, tell us the direction in which we are moving whether or not 

that direction is yet apparent to everyone. More than this will be needed, of course, 

but this is the place to begin. 

One of the greatest concerns addressed by the Commission is the need to protect 

natural systems inside National Park System units by engaging managers of public 

lands and owners of private lands outside parks into some sort of positive cooperative interaction with the parks. There may be a great many ways in which this 

might be done, and a great many incentives provided to encourage cooperation. 

When the National Park Service undertakes to develop these ways it must first consider the ways in which its Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation programs; 

National Heritage Areas; Rivers, Trails, Conservation Assistance, and other community outreach programs have successfully engaged so many others in accomplishing 

the National Park Service mission. One recommendation particularly relevant to 

this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction is to enact a law patterned somewhat after the 

National Historic Preservation Act that would direct the National Park Service to 

provide leadership in preserving nature and other resources central to survival of 

the parks. Such leadership should not involve command or control, but rather it involves creating circumstances in which others can succeed in doing what needs to 

be done. By appealing to the better nature of Americans, and by encouraging, enabling, and assisting them to preserve the natural and scenic places they want to 

preserve, the National Park Service can effectively carry out this part of its mission 

beyond park boundaries. 

New and more comprehensive approaches appropriate to a new century of work 

will require new and more comprehensive concepts of budgeting and appropriations. 

We are all familiar with shortfalls in funding to operate the parks, and ways must 

be found to fill the gaps. This, however, puts the spotlight on one of the major ways 

in which new thinking must also result in new priorities. Leadership of the present 

grass-roots network in Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation depends in 

part on appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund, which the Commission 

recommends be at the full $150 million per annum level. Leadership of the proposed 

grass-roots network dealing with natural and other resources vital to success of the 

parks themselves will require not only the recommended ‘‘full funding’’ of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, but specifically will require support for some version 

of what has been called the ‘‘state side’’ of that fund. The parks must be funded 

properly in order to be operated properly, but if the parks cannot be saved from inside the parks it makes no sense to go on year after year failing to support budget 

items important to our outside partners such as Save America’s Treasures—as the 

administration’s FY 2011 budget embarrassingly fails to do. 

Mr. Chairman, we applaud—as an immediate measure and as a long-term strategic necessity—Director Jarvis’ approach to decision-making, based upon 

• impeccable fidelity to law, policy, and the mission of the Service, 

• use of the best available sound scientific and other scholarly information, and 

• acting in the best interests of the broad national public. 

No matter how spare the budget, how pressing the competing national priorities, 

nor how difficult the political circumstances, to cut any of these short is to enter 

a downward spiral. 

75 

Mr. Chairman, at least one fundamental element of the National Park Service— 

its ability to manage its own cultural resources and to create environments in which 

its Federal, state, tribal, local, and private sector partners can succeed in managing 

theirs—requires virtually ‘‘emergency room’’ level of attention. This whole set of cultural resource and historic preservation programs over the past decade has suffered 

serious damage, as reflected in more than 25% reductions in staffing and budget 

and by debilitating and unproductive changes in the organizational structure. Even 

though the Service shows new energy under Director Jarvis’ leadership, and the Department of the Interior is launching exciting initiatives for Outdoor America, these 

programs still languish with no leader or spokesperson at the Senior Executive 

level. The absence of well-informed advocacy at high levels is obvious and embarrassing. A permanent Associate Director for Cultural Resources is urgently needed 

now! And when that appointment has been completed it must be seen as a mere 

beginning. A funding and professionalization initiative—perhaps a ‘‘Cultural Resource Challenge’’ counterpart to the outstanding Natural Resource Challenge of recent years—must become one of the highest and most immediate priorities of the 

Service if any of the grand vision for the future mentioned before is to be possible. 

Over decades, the National Park Service has from time to time confronted, but 

subsequently has walked away from, the fact that it can be no better than the 

women and men who treasure and cultivate the vision and who do the work to carry 

it out. The need to value, respect, and particularly to continually train and educate 

the workforce, has received diminishing priority in recent years. This must be reversed—through formal education and training and through using methods that 

make work itself a continuous learning experience. We have done this in the historic 

preservation programs in the past and the Service can do it in virtually its entire 

operation. 

In the long journey the National Park Service has traveled in its first 94 years, 

and as it finds its path into a second century, one more thing cannot be overlooked. 

This grand mission is at once grassroots, and local, and state, and national, and 

global. Just as the mission cannot be accomplished only within the boundaries of 

the parks, neither can it be accomplished only within the boundaries of the United 

States. Natural ecosystems, tribal homelands, cultural and historical traditions, migratory species, moving air and water, immigrants, and park visitors all in obvious 

way overlap our boundaries with Mexico and Canada. Interactions with those nations need to be vastly accelerated, but the global role of the Service is yet greater. 

No part of the world now is truly isolated from any other part of the world, and 

if we want the rest of the world to behave in ways that will support what we need 

to accomplish here, the United States through its National Park Service must be 

active on a global scale. Not many years ago the United States, the first nation to 

have a national park, was often called upon to teach other nations about the concept. We can, and must, still do that; but nowadays we see the many ways in which 

the United States learns as much as it teaches. We see this, and we can gain the 

benefit of it, through international activities of the National Park Service. As the 

Subcommittee explores its own vision of a second century of the National Park Service, we urge a perspective that ranges from grassroots to global. No lesser approach 

can succeed. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. If I can answer questions or provide additional 

information I will be very happy to do so. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Dr. Raymond Wanner, United Nations Foundation, welcome, sir. I look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND WANNER, Ph.D., SENIOR ADVISOR 

ON UNESCO ISSUES, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION, SILVER 

SPRING, MARYLAND 

Dr. WANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a specialist in 

the National Park System or in conservation, but over the past 30 

years I have worked closely with the Park Service in its international outreach, first as the State Department officer responsible 

for preparing delegations to meetings of the UNESCO World 

Heritage Committee and, since retirement, on behalf of the United 

Nations Foundation on shared priorities, such as biodiversity 

protection. 

76 

But this morning I speak for myself alone and, on the basis of 

this long experience, I wish to share with you my firm conviction 

that to the degree the international outreach of the National Park 

Service can be strengthened and expanded, to that degree the national interest and the global good will be served. I say this not 

only because of the unparalleled expertise of the Park Service in 

conservation, but also because of the indispensable credibility it 

brings to the State Department in negotiating politically sensitive 

issues of heritage protection in Jerusalem, Kosovo, and the ThaiCambodian border, when they arise at meetings of the World 

Heritage Committee. 

The Park Service has for many years done the heavy lifting in 

preparing and leading our government’s participation in the World 

Heritage Convention, which over the years has identified nearly 

800 sites worldwide deemed to be of outstanding universal value. 

States’ parties to the Convention take it seriously, as does the 

international conservation community. A measure of this seriousness is that the annual Committee meeting of just 21 members 

usually draws 8 to 900 delegates even when in recent years it 

meets in such distant locations as Australia, South Africa, and 

New Zealand. 

Permit me to observe that while there is usually background 

noise during meetings of this size, a hush falls when the National 

Park Service is at the microphone, because everyone knows that 

the Park Service will speak knowledgeably and credibly about the 

conservation and preservation of these sites and how local communities can on the one hand help in their conservation and on the 

other benefit from the economic dividends they can provide. 

For many years, the Park Service under both Republican and 

Democratic Administrations has given professional credibility to 

the U.S. delegations at these meetings. There are likely many reasons for this international respect for the Park Service, and 

through it for the United States, but in large measure it appears 

to be a return on sound investments made by the U.S. Government 

in international programs such as the Park Service-Peace Corps 

partnership in 1972 that grew into the largest volunteer conservation program in the world. 

The Park Service’s international seminar on the administration 

of national parks had comparable success and continues to bring 

long-term benefits to the United States of good will and enhanced 

technical expertise. This program had at one time trained the majority of national park executives worldwide. It put the U.S. and 

the National Park Service on the map as the key conservation player internationally, and very importantly served to introduce hundreds of innovative ideas and concepts to the National Park Service 

management. 

It is noteworthy that the current Deputy Director of the World 

Heritage Center is a seminar graduate, and its Director is a former 

Fulbright Fellow. This is one reason the United States has significant policy influence at the Center. Regrettably, funding for the 

international seminar eroded, and like the National Park ServicePeace Corps agreement it was discontinued. 

But, fortunately, good things continue to happen. The National 

Park Service recently initiated the World Heritage Fellows ProVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
77 

gram. It offers training opportunities to qualified candidates who 

wish to learn from the U.S. experience in managing and protecting 

world heritage sites. The fellows work alongside National Park 

Service professionals in a variety of areas. Travel expenses are paid 

by the Park Service’s international office, while individual parks 

provide housing. 

Mr. Chairman, as we celebrate the beginning of the park system’s second century, it is increasingly clear that the forces that 

shape our future are becoming increasingly global in nature. I respectfully suggest, consequently, that it is time to provide the 

National Park Service with the means to renew and expand its 

international outreach. In particular, to renew its partnership with 

the Peace Corps and to relaunch the international seminar on the 

administration of national parks, as well as assignments of specialists to regional park and wildlife training centers in developing nations. 

I recommend also that the Committee consider support for 

emerging new programs such as global parks which, working with 

the Park Service, has the potential to mobilize retired conservation 

specialists for service abroad. These are the kinds of things our 

government does very well, and as the record shows they are investments that bring a high return. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wanner follows:] 

Statement of Raymond E. Wanner, Ph.D., 

Invited to Testify in My Personal Capacity 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Committee members for the privilege 

to testify before you. 

I am not a specialist in the National Park system or in Conservation, but over 

the past thirty years I have worked closely with the Park Service’ in its international outreach; first, as the State Department Officer responsible for preparing 

US delegations to meetings of the UNESCO world Heritage Committee and, since 

retirement, on behalf of the United Nations Foundation on shared priorities such 

as biodiversity protection. But this morning I speak for myself, alone and On the 

basis of this experience 

The Park Service’s International Office has for many years done the heavy lifting 

in preparing and leading our government’s participation in the World Heritage Convention, which over the years has identified and inscribed on the World Heritage 

List 877 sites worldwide deemed to be of outstanding universal value. States Parties 

to the Convention take it seriously because of the political and economic value they 

perceive as coming from having sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, The Convention is taken seriously also by the international conservation community because 

of the growing awareness that many World Heritage sites are not adequately managed and that there needs to be a concerted international effort to conserve and protect them. A measure of the importance given the Committee by States Parties and 

conservationists is that the annual 21-member committee meeting usually draws 

800 to 900 delegates even, in recent years, to such distant locations such as Cairns, 

Australia, Durban, South Africa and Christchurch New Zealand. 

Permit me to observe that while there is usually background noise of scores of 

whispered conversations during meeting of this size, a hush falls, when the U.S. 

takes the floor and most particularly when delegates become aware that a representative of the National Park Service at the microphone. Why? Because Everyone 

knows that the speaker will speak knowledgeably and credibly about the recognition, conservation, and preservation of these sites of outstanding universal value 

and how local communities can on the one hand help in their conservation and, on 

the other, benefit from the economic dividends they have the potential to provide. 

The Park Service, under both Republican and democratic administrations, gives 

credibility to the U.S. Delegation at these meetings. To such a degree, in fact, that 

after representing the U.S. at successiveCommittee meetings in Marrakesh and 

Cairns, Australia without Park Service representation, I recommended to the DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\56648.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
78 

partment of State that it was better for the U.S, not to attend such meeting than 

to attend without the professional expertise of the Park Service. 

There are likely many reasons for the international respect for the Park Service 

and through it for the United States. But in large measure, it appears to me to be 

a return on the sound investments over the years in international programs such 

as the National Park Service-Peace Corps partnership launched in 1961 that grew 

into the largest volunteer conservation program in the world with several thousand 

volunteers working in wildlife and forestry preservation. Beyond its primary goal of 

conservation, this partnership also enhanced staff quality at both the NPS and 

Peace corps as well as contributing to the United States government’s international 

heritage protection diplomacy. 

The International Seminar on the Administration of National Parks and Equivalent reserves had comparable success and continues to bring long-term benefits to 

the United States. The program, run, at the time in partnership with the Park Service Office of International Affairs, the Universities of Michigan, Miami and Arizona, 

Parks Canada and sometimes Mexico, had at one time trained the majority of 

National Park Executives, system directors and key managers worldwide. These 

programs created a worldwide conservation community, put the US and the 

National Park Service on the map as the key conservation player internationally 

and, very importantly, served to introduce hundreds of innovative ideas and concepts to the National Park Service management. It is noteworthy that the current 

Acting Director of the world Heritage Center, Inshore Rao, is a Seminar graduate. 

This is one reason the United States has significant influence at the Center. Regrettably, funding for the international seminar eroded and, like the National Park 

Service-Peace Corps Agreement, it was discontinued. But t Fortunately, some good 

things continue to happen! As part of a commitment on the part of the United 

States to help strengthen the conservation of World Heritage sites around the 

World, the National Park Service recently initiated the ‘‘U.S. World Heritage Fellows’’ program. It offers training opportunities to qualified candidates who wish to 

learn from the U.S. experience in managing and protecting World Heritage sites. 

The Fellows work alongside National Park Service professionals in a variety of 

areas including resource management, concessions, education, planning and law enforcement. Travel expenses are paid by the Park Services International office while 

individual parks provide housing and, in many cases, a modest living stipend. 

In 2012, the World Heritage Convention, which is a projection on the international scale of the National Parks concept, will celebrate its 40th anniversary. 

The convention was an American invention and the United States, under then 

President Nixon, was the first country to ratify it. 

With the forces that shape our future becoming increasingly global in scope, I respectfully suggest to the Committee that it is time to provide the National Park 

Service with the means to renew and expand its international outreach. In particular to renew its partnership with the Peace Corps and to relaunch the International Seminar on the Administration of National Parks. I recommend also that 

it consider support for emerging new programs such as ‘‘Global Parks’’ which, working with the Park Service, mobilizes retired conservation specialists for service 

abroad. These are the kinds of international initiatives that we do very well and, 

as the record shows, they are investments that bring a high return. There are other 

opportunities, many at low cost, such as providing administrative funds to incorporate the widely respected ‘‘World Heritage in Young Hands’’ program into schools 

and youth groups. If funds were available, the National Park Service’s International 

office could also provide valuable training to African site managers through the African World Heritage Fund, a newly created body to help sub-Saharan African nations 

to conserve their World Heritage sites and to identify and submit others for inscription. China, India, the Netherlands and Norway currently provide most of the external funding for this fund. It is a serious and well-managed program that has requested and badly needs U.S. expertise. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is my firm 

conviction, based on thirty years experience of working side by side with the 

National Park Service that to the degree the international outreach of the National 

Park Service can be strengthened and expanded, to that degree the US national interest and the global good will be served. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me begin, Mr. Ortega, you mentioned in your testimony that when you took over the concession 

at White Sands you made some much needed renovations to the 

concession space and then afterwards you gave those improvements 

to the park. 

79 

Mr. ORTEGA. Correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Following up on that, let me just talk a little bit 

about, do you have any thoughts dealing with the problem that I 

perceive in the parks where a lease hold surrender interest, basically the existing operator’s capital investment is almost, it is a 

prohibition almost, from competing concessionaires in the bidding 

process. And so that is really the point, your reaction to that? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman, what you say is absolutely true. The 

LSI, and the PI before that, are almost imaginary concepts now 

that do not have anything to do with reality, and there are a lot 

of situations, not so much in my parks except for one but particularly with the bigger concessionaires, we have a situation at the 

Grand Canyon where the LSI is now at something like, as I understand it and I am not at all an expert in this area, something like 

$250 million, OK? The return, they do about $70, $75 million a 

year there, and they are making somewhere between $7 and $8 

million as—I am not privy to their books but I am just using rule 

of thumb. There is no way that you can get anybody to bid and pay, 

if I had the $250 million, which I do not, I would not bid on the 

Grand Canyon precisely for this reason. 

I do not know, as an aside, where they got these numbers. I suspect there was a little pushing by some of the concessions, to tell 

the truth here, long ago when it was PI, to inflate those numbers. 

At any rate, that is, what you say, is definitely a problem. And I 

can put a question back to everyone here, what if the concessioner 

there looks at the numbers and realizes, this is not worth $250 million and they leave? Isn’t the government supposed to pay them 

that $250 million? I think so. Now, as I say this is not in my area, 

and so I just hear around the edges what this is about. My son 

could probably better address this, but he is obviously not here. So 

that is my answer. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Rogers, just a general idea, if you 

could, of the types of cultural and historic units that are lacking 

in the current system as you have gone through this process? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the Cultural Resource and Historic 

Preservation Committee gave attention to this during the process 

of the Commission. I would say some of the more obvious examples 

are the ones alluded to by Representative Luja ́n. I would say American Indian history for one example, American Indian history that 

does not have to reach back to antiquity into ancient times nor the 

history that is represented by Indian encounter with European civilization. You know, there is an American Indian history that is its 

own thing, and that is not very visible in the National Park System, it really ought to be there. 

About 20 years ago, this Subcommittee directed the National 

Park Service to study the theme of space exploration, and we did, 

and we listed a number of national historic landmarks based upon 

the trip to the moon and elsewhere, and not many of those are yet 

represented in the National Park System. You could probably 

change every one of the historic themes, improve the theme, by giving more attention to the roles of women and minorities. There has 

been relatively little representation of the history of labor in America. And most important perhaps, the changing definition of what 

it means to be American, as has been said earlier, that is changing 

80 

before our very eyes and very, very rapidly. We need to keep up 

with that. 20th Century history would represent some of that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And you also mentioned, Mr. Rogers, NPS, you 

talk about how NPS is exercising a leadership role in the cultural 

issues among certified local governments and private landowners. 

How does that differ from the command or regulatory role that critics of the agency seem to be so afraid of? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman, 

that is one of my favorite subjects. The whole historic preservation 

movement, as I said, is a grass roots movement. The energy comes 

from people who want something, and the various levels of government serve that energy. Probably 25, 30 years ago when I was running these programs insofar as you can run them from the 

National Park Service perspective, you know, what I came to realize that I was responsible for this wide ranging network of public 

and private individuals and I had zero authority to make anyone 

do anything. 

So, it caused me to focus on what leadership really is. One thing 

leadership is not is command, and it is not control and it is not 

even supervision. What leadership is, in a case like this, is shaping 

and maintaining a clear vision for the future, it is modeling the 

best in management of selected outstanding places, and it is creating environments in which others such as our colleagues at this 

table can succeed in doing the things that the National Park Service needs them to do. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And, Ms. Pierpont, just to thank you, 

I thought your testimony was excellent, and I think the point that 

we need to deal with is the funding point that you brought up and 

that has been brought up before, that continues to be in my mind 

an urgency that we need to deal with. And I also want to thank 

all the panelists today. Ms. Rife, thank you very much. I think the 

issue you brought up, we had talked earlier about morale issues as 

well, and you also brought up about the complexity of the culture, 

about how to end up in employment, I think your suggestions of 

who to link with and who to coordinate with are targeted and well 

represented, and thank you for that. 

And, Dr. Wanner, I think you reminded us again about the need 

to fix some permanency to the Peace Corps initiative, and also I 

think your points about diplomacy, the Park Service’s role in diplomacy and an international play that we need to be are well received and I appreciate that. I have no other follow up questions. 

Let me turn to Ranking Member Mr. Bishop for his. 

Mr. BISHOP. I also want to thank all five of you for the excellent 

presentation as well as your written comments, which we have, 

and we will continue to go through there. I appreciate your time 

and effort coming here, you have obviously outlived the rest of the 

Committee, so thank you for being here. Mr. Rogers, do not worry 

about the space exploration part, if consolation is not refunded 

there is not going to be a history anyway. Mr. Ortega, I do appreciate your reference obviously to the concept of concessions, which 

I think was one of those areas that needs to be explored once 

again. 

For some members of my family a good park is one that has a 

good gift shop, for others it depends on the kinds of bathrooms that 

81 

you have there, and for me, if you are not selling Dr. Pepper, there 

is no reason to go there in the first place. So, I want it cold and 

I want it convenient, OK? But what you are talking about, there 

are legitimate points, I especially appreciate your response to the 

Chairman’s questions as to what does entice people to stay there. 

Concessions are indeed one of those reasons why people go to parks 

or why they will return again, so thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And before adjourning the meeting, 

somebody handed me a really good quote, a former National Park 

Service Director who got into trouble for trying to stop a dam that 

was going to go into the national—to a protected area, and I 

thought it is a good quote to adjourn the meeting. ‘‘If we are going 

to succeed in preserving the greatness of the national parks, they 

must be held inviolate. They represent the last stand of primitive 

America. If we are going to whittle away at them, we should 

recognize that all such whittlings are cumulative, and that the end 

result will be mediocrity, and the greatness will be gone.’’ Thank 

you so much, and I appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ