U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–736 PDF 2016

DISCUSSION DRAFT, H.R. ____, 

‘‘NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CENTENNIAL ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 

Serial No. 114–24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

NIKI TSONGAS, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 ................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 9 

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

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 4 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, Washington, DC ..... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 13 

MacDonald, David, President, Friends of Acadia, Bar Harbor, Maine ........ 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Nau, John L., III, Vice Chairman (2012–2013), National Park 

Foundation, Houston, Texas ........................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Association of Partners for Public Lands, December 1, 2015, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 57 

Crandall, Derrick, Counselor, National Park Hospitality Association, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 53 

National Parks Second Century Action Coalition, December 3, 2015, 

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 62 

The Corps Network, December 1, 2015, Letter submitted for the record .... 61 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DISCUSSION 

DRAFT, H.R. ____, TO PREPARE THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR ITS CENTENNIAL IN 2016 AND FOR A SECOND CENTURY 

OF PROMOTING AND PROTECTING THE 

NATURAL, HISTORIC, AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS FOR 

THE ENJOYMENT OF PRESENT AND 

FUTURE GENERATIONS, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES, ‘‘NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CENTENNIAL ACT’’ 

Wednesday, December 2, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Gohmert, Lummis, 

Westerman, Hice, Hardy, LaHood, Bishop; Tsongas, Beyer, 

Huffman, Lowenthal, Dingell, Capps, and Grijalva. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The hour of 10:00 having arrived, the Federal 

Lands Subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee meets 

today to hear testimony on a discussion draft of the ‘‘National Park 

Service Centennial Act.’’ We will begin with 5-minute opening 

statements by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the Ranking 

Member, the Chairman of the Full Committee, and the Ranking 

Member of the Full Committee, if he would like to join us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the 

National Park Service. This year-long celebration of the national 

parks affords us a unique opportunity to reflect on the past, assess 

the present, and make adjustments for the future. 

The Centennial pays tribute to the uniquely American notion 

that our most beautiful and historic lands should be set aside for 

the use and enjoyment of the people of the United States. In the 

words of the Organic Act of 1916, ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same. . .’’ 

Yet, as we approach the Centennial, the Park Service faces considerable challenges to achieving the goals set forth in the Organic 

2 

Act, chief among them being a massive $11.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog. As the Park Service has gradually taken on new 

responsibilities, and Congress has voted to add new units to the 

system, the Park Service has fallen behind on necessary projects. 

With 409 units now included in the system, the Park Service is 

spread thin. 

In addition to deferred maintenance projects, the Park Service 

also faces challenges with fee collection, technological upgrades, 

management of concessions contracts for visitor services, and, most 

disturbingly, a decrease in overnight stays at our parks. We have 

been told that visitation is at an all-time high, but this is an illusion created by new memorials in Washington, DC. In fact, per capita visitation to our parks has steadily declined since the peaks of 

the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

From their all-time highs, in-park concessioner lodging is down 

by 722,000 persons annually, or about 17 percent. Tent campers 

are down by about 1.37 million overnights, about 26 percent. The 

decline in visitation has been particularly high among young people. In fact, most ominously, recent reports indicate that visits to 

parks by those 15 and younger fell by 50 percent in the last decade. 

Meanwhile, RV camper overnight stays are down by 2.6 million 

camper nights, about 56 percent, despite the fact that RV ownership and RV stays at private campgrounds has grown dramatically. 

This subcommittee is especially concerned over policies that are 

actively removing traditional tourist amenities from our national 

parks. 

Two years ago, the National Park Service proposed removing 

long-standing tourist facilities from Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, gift shops, horseback riding 

rentals, the iconic ice skating rink at Curry Village, the art center, 

the grocery store, swimming pools, and even the Valley’s landmark 

and historic stone bridges. 

Their current plan locks in a 30 percent reduction in campsites 

and lodging, compared to historic highs, including loss of prime 

sites close to the river. Funds appropriated by Congress to restore 

campsite levels after the 1997 flood were not spent as Congress 

instructed. 

I cannot think of a better way to approach the next century of 

our National Park Service than to restore the vision of its founders. 

Our national parks should be open to the public for all recreational 

pursuits: hiking, biking, fishing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, 

skiing, rafting, skating, RVing, camping, or staying in a historic 

lodge. These are the priceless memories our parks are there to create for succeeding generations of Americans. 

The discussion draft before the subcommittee today helps the 

Park Service to prepare for its nationwide celebration in 2016, as 

well as better equipping the Service for the next century of promoting and protecting our parks. Provisions in the bill help reduce 

the Service’s deferred maintenance backlog by creating new sources 

of revenue to pay for needed improvements. Other provisions will 

help the Service expand its Volunteers-In-Parks and Public Land 

Corps programs, as well as making needed changes to the National 

Park Foundation Board of Directors. 

3 

Our witnesses today have come to share their views on how to 

best prepare the Park Service for its Centennial, and how we can 

improve park management and visitation. I thank each of them for 

their willingness to testify before this subcommittee today, and for 

their dedication to ensuring that our national parks are on a path 

toward greater sustainability. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON FEDERAL LANDS

Today, the Federal Lands Subcommittee meets to hear testimony on a discussion 

draft of the National Park Service Centennial Act. 

Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. This yearlong celebration of our National Parks affords us a unique opportunity to reflect on 

the past, assess the present, and make adjustments for the future. 

The Centennial pays tribute to the uniquely American notion that our most beautiful and historic lands should be set aside for the use and enjoyment of the people 

of the United States. In the words of the Organic Act of 1916, ‘‘to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same.’’ 

Yet, as we approach the Centennial, the Park Service faces considerable challenges to achieving the goals sets forth in the Organic Act, chief among them being 

the massive 11.5 billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog. As the Park Service 

has gradually taken on new responsibilities and Congress has voted to add new 

units to the system, the Park Service has fallen behind on necessary projects. With 

409 units now included in the system, the Park Service is spread thin. 

In addition to deferred maintenance projects, the Park Service also faces 

challenges with fee collection, technological upgrades, management of concessions 

contracts for visitor services, and most disturbingly, a decrease in overnight stays 

at our parks. We have been told that visitation is at an all-time high, but this is 

an illusion created by new memorials in Washington, DC. In fact, per capita visitation to our parks has steadily declined since the peaks of the late 1980s and early 

1990s. 

From their all-time highs, in-park concessioner lodging is down by 722,000 

persons annually, or about 17 percent. Tent campers are down by 1.37 million overnights, about 26 percent. The decline in visitation has been particularly high among 

young people. 

RV camper overnight stays are down by 2.6 million camper nights—about 

56 percent, despite the fact that RV ownership and RV stays at private campgrounds has grown dramatically. 

Most ominously, recent reports indicate that visits to parks by those 15 and 

younger fell by 50 percent in the last decade. 

This subcommittee is especially concerned over policies that are actively removing 

traditional tourist amenities from our national parks. 

Two years ago, the National Park Service proposed removing long-standing tourist 

facilities from Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, 

gift shops, horseback riding rentals, the iconic ice-skating rink at Curry Village, the 

art center, the grocery store, swimming pools, and even the Valley’s landmark and 

historic stone bridges. 

Their current plan locks in a 30 percent reduction in campsites and lodging compared to historic highs, including loss of prime sites close to the river. Funds appropriated by Congress to restore campsite levels after the 1997 flood were not spent 

as Congress instructed. 

I can’t think of a better way to approach the next century of our National Park 

Service than to restore the vision of its founders. Our national parks should be open 

to the public for all recreational pursuits—hiking, biking, fishing, snowmobiling, 

horseback riding, skiing, rafting, skating, RVing, camping, staying in a historic 

lodge—these are the priceless memories our parks are there to create for succeeding 

generations of Americans. 

The discussion draft before the subcommittee today helps the Park Service to prepare for its nationwide celebration in 2016, as well as better equips the Service for 

the next century of promoting and protecting our parks. Provisions in the bill help 

reduce the Service’s deferred maintenance backlog by creating new sources of revenue to pay for needed improvements. Other provisions will help the Service expand 

4 

its Volunteers-in-Parks and Public Lands Corps programs, as well as making 

needed changes to the National Park Foundation Board of Directors. 

Our witnesses today have come to share their views on how to best prepare the 

Park Service for its Centennial, and how we can improve park management and visitation. I thank each of them for their willingness to testify before this subcommittee today and for their dedication to ensuring that our national parks are 

on a path toward greater sustainability. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And, with that, I recognize the Ranking 

Member for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we prepare for next 

year’s centennial anniversary of the National Park Service, I am 

reminded of something Stephen Mather, that agency’s very first director, once said. Reflecting on the new agency, he remarked that, 

‘‘The parks do not belong to one state or to one section. . . . The 

Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has a vested interest; they belong as 

much to the man’’—and I would add, woman—‘‘of Massachusetts, 

of Michigan, of Florida, as they do to the people of California, of 

Wyoming, and of Arizona.’’ 

These words are a powerful reminder in this era of political division and disagreement: national parks cut across party lines and 

geographic boundaries; they enjoy bipartisan support; and they 

bring people together, something we seem to need now, more than 

ever, to celebrate in our Nation’s great traditions, history, and 

natural legacy. 

For almost 100 years, generation after generation of Americans 

have made the commitment that our most significant historical, 

cultural, and natural sites should be preserved in perpetuity for future generations. Our national parks have been famously called 

‘‘America’s best idea,’’ and have become ingrained in our national 

identity—places like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Ellis Island, 

and, in my own district, Minute Man National Historical Park, 

which commemorates the ‘‘shot heard ’round the world,’’ and the 

very beginnings of our country. These parks protect, celebrate, and 

give access to the many places that have shaped and defined who 

we are, as a people and a country; and it is important to remember 

that these places would not have been protected, absent support 

from the Federal Government. 

And investments in our parks make economic sense. Nationally, 

the parks generate nearly $30 billion in economic activity, and support 250,000 private sector jobs. When people visit our national 

parks, they also support nearby restaurants, hotels, and local outfitters and guides, and bring attention to the unique attributes of 

a hosting community. According to a recent economic study conducted by the National Park Service, every Federal dollar invested 

in our parks contributes $10 in economic activity. 

Despite its significant and multi-faceted contributions, however, 

the Park Service budget has been shrinking. In just the past 10 

years, the Park Service has had its budget decreased by 22 percent, 

compromising its ability to ensure the long-term protection of our 

5 

treasured national heritage. This dramatic reduction in funding 

has occurred, despite widespread support for Federal investment in 

the National Park Service. In fact, a recent poll commissioned by 

the National Parks Conservation Association found that 9 in 10 

Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—support 

sustained funding for national parks. 

The discussion draft we are considering today could be an important first step to commemorate the 2016 Centennial. Many of the 

provisions in the bill before us today have bipartisan support, and 

were also included in H.R. 3556, also called the ‘‘National Park 

Service Centennial Act,’’ which was introduced by Ranking Member 

Grijalva. 

For example, the draft legislation makes a commitment to the 

Centennial Challenge, a matching grant program that leverages 

Federal dollars to encourage private investments to support signature centennial projects identified by the National Park Service. 

The draft legislation also establishes an endowment at the 

National Park Foundation to support the missions and goals of the 

Park Service, and makes improvements to the Volunteers-In-Parks 

program. 

While I am thankful to be discussing this draft legislation, I fear 

that it is an exercise in wishful thinking. I agree with the Majority 

that we must address the maintenance backlog in order to enhance 

visitor experiences and preserve our parks for the next generation. 

But making a dent in the maintenance backlog is going to require 

significant investment, and this legislation does not authorize any 

new Federal dollars for our national parks in their centennial year. 

New revenue generated by fees will not solve this problem. 

H.R. 3556, introduced by Ranking Member Grijalva, provides $300 million for a new Second Century Infrastructure Investment 

Fund to address critical maintenance backlog needs. It also provides $100 million to establish the Public Land Centennial 

Investment Program, a competitive fund open to our four land 

management agencies for top-priority visitor services, outdoor 

recreation, land and water restoration, and energy efficiency 

projects. 

Mr. Grijalva’s legislation also fully funds the Centennial 

Challenge at $100 million, maximizing our opportunity to generate 

private matching funds. And it authorizes these new programs only 

through 2018, demonstrating a clear commitment to projects that 

can have an immediate impact on our parks, and quickly address 

some of the deferred maintenance backlog. 

Next year, all eyes will be on our national parks and the 

expected influx of visitors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reach a bipartisan compromise on the two proposals for 

the ‘‘National Park Service Centennial Act.’’ 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tsongas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

As we prepare for next year’s Centennial Anniversary of the National Park 

Service, I’m reminded of something Stephen Mather, that agency’s very first director, once said. Reflecting on the new agency, he remarked that ‘‘the parks do not 

belong to one state or to one section . . . The Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand 

6 

Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has a vested interest; they 

belong as much to the man (and I would add, women) of Massachusetts, of 

Michigan, of Florida, as they do to the people of California, of Wyoming, and of 

Arizona.’’ 

Those words are a powerful reminder in this era of political division and disagreement: national parks cut across party lines and geographic boundaries; they enjoy 

bipartisan support, and they bring people together, something we seem to need now 

more than ever. 

For almost 100 years, generation after generation of Americans have made the 

commitment that our most significant historical, cultural, and natural sites should 

be preserved in perpetuity for future generations. Our national parks have been famously called ‘‘American’s best idea’’ and have become ingrained in our national 

identity—places like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Ellis Island, and in my own 

District, Minute Man National Historical Park, which commemorates the shot heard 

‘round the world’ and the very beginnings of our country. These parks protect, celebrate, and give access to the many places that have shaped and defined who we are, 

as a people and a country, and it is important to remember that these places would 

not have been protected, absent support from the Federal Government. 

And investments in our parks make economic sense. Nationally, the parks generate nearly $30 billion in economic activity and support 250,000 private sector jobs. 

When people visit our national parks, they also support nearby restaurants, hotels, 

and local outfitters and guides. According to a recent economic study conducted by 

the National Park Service, every Federal dollar invested in our parks contributes 

$10 in economic activity. 

Despite its significant and multi-faceted contributions, however, the Park Service 

budget has been shrinking. In just the past 10 years, the Park Service has had its 

budget decreased by 22 percent, compromising its ability to ensure the long-term 

protection of our treasured national heritage. This dramatic reduction in funding 

has occurred, despite widespread support for Federal investment in the National 

Park Service. In fact, a recent poll commissioned by the National Parks 

Conservation Association found that 9 in 10 Americans—Republicans and 

Democrats—support sustained funding for national parks. 

The discussion draft we are considering today could be an important first step to 

commemorate the 2016 Centennial. Many of the provisions in the bill before us 

today have bipartisan support, and were also included in H.R. 3556, also called the 

National Park Service Centennial Act, which was introduced by Ranking Member 

Grijalva. 

For example, the draft legislation makes a commitment to the Centennial 

Challenge, a matching grant program that leverages Federal dollars to encourage 

private investments to support signature Centennial projects identified by the 

National Park Service. The draft legislation also establishes an endowment at the 

National Park Foundation to support the missions and goals of the Park Service, 

and makes improvements to the Volunteers-in-Parks program. 

While I am thankful to be discussing this draft legislation, I fear that it is an exercise in wishful thinking. I agree with the Majority that we must address the 

maintenance backlog in order to enhance visitor experiences and preserve our parks 

for the next generation. But making a dent in the maintenance backlog is going to 

require significant investment and this legislation doesn’t authorize any new 

Federal dollars for our national parks in their Centennial year. New revenue generated by fees will not solve this problem. 

H.R. 3556, introduced by Ranking Member Grijalva, provides $300 million for a 

new Second Century Infrastructure Investment Fund to address critical maintenance backlog needs. It also provides $100 million to establish the Public Land 

Centennial Investment Program, a competitive fund open to our four land management agencies for top priority visitor services, outdoor recreation, land and water 

restoration, and energy efficiency projects. 

Mr. Grijalva’s legislation also fully funds the Centennial Challenge at 

$100 million, maximizing our opportunity to generate private matching funds. And 

it authorizes these new programs only through 2018, demonstrating a clear commitment to projects that can have an immediate impact on our parks and quickly address some of the deferred maintenance backlog. 

Next year, all eyes will be on our national parks and the expected influx of 

visitors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reach a bipartisan compromise on the two proposals for the National Park Service Centennial Act. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

7 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. I am now pleased to 

recognize the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee—— 

Mr. BISHOP. The Ranking Member first? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You want to go? OK. At the Chairman’s 

request, we will go to the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for 

5 minutes. 

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Chairman 

Bishop. 

Let me associate myself with the Ranking Member’s comments, 

essentially the comments that I intended to make and will not repeat. In Chairman Bishop’s proposed draft that we are going to be 

discussing today, there are two glaring issues. One of the glaring 

omissions is the fact that we are not dealing with the issue of funding and resources. 

Given the fact that the Park Service has lost 16 percent of its 

funding over the last 10 years, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, 

it has added to the backlog of deferred maintenance in the Park 

System. It has added to the reduction of staff, and has hurt our 

outreach efforts and our ability to enhance the experience by having qualified staff at our parks to be able to work with the public 

and lead them through the experience, as we know it. 

So, there are all these contributing factors—the backlog, 

visitorship drop, and rewriting the concessionaire relationship between the Park Service, essentially taking the Park Service out of 

the equation in terms of what is appropriate in any given unit. I 

think these factors are all part of a draft discussion that merits 

much more work, and also an opportunity, as Ms. Tsongas said, to 

work on something bipartisan. 

It has to be an investment. The legislation that the 

Administration and the agency sent over became H.R. 3556, and 

essentially talks about a $900 million investment. Ms. Tsongas outlined some of the critical areas there. But, the glaring omission of 

no funding, no resources, and the self-fulfilling prophecy that we 

continue to cut at the agency and then blame the agency for backlogs, for not being able to respond to changing times and needs, 

and for not having the ability to attract more visitorship. This is 

not the way to walk into celebrating 100 years of our National 

Park System. 

I would suggest that, as we go forward, the omission of funding 

and looking closely at what those cuts have done to the Park 

Service is a good use of our time; and I look forward to working 

with the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

and the Chairman of the Full Committee, on possible areas in 

which there can be some agreement and some compromise. 

But, essential to celebrating the Centennial is also America’s 

investment in its parks, a legacy that is 100 years old. Many of us, 

although we will not be around, would like to see that celebrated 

another 100 years from now, with the proper direction and the 

proper investment on the part of Congress. 

With that, I yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service and 

Congress has the responsibility to invest in our national parks, ensuring that they 

will endure another century and continue to represent the diverse voices and communities that make up our great country. That’s why I decided to introduce the 

Administration’s version of the National Park Service Centennial Act when they 

sent it to Congress. After 100 years of safeguarding our most treasured places—from 

Grand Canyon and Saguaro National Parks in my home state of Arizona to Lowell 

and Minute Man National Historical Parks in Ranking Member Tsongas’ district— 

it seemed only appropriate to work with and introduce the agency’s proposal. 

My bill, H.R. 3556, is very similar to the discussion draft shared by Chairman 

Bishop, except for one main difference: my bill invests $900 million over the next 

3 years. The Chairman’s bill does not include any new Federal spending. 

Over the past 10 years, the budget for the National Park Service has decreased 

by nearly 16 percent. This has led to a growing maintenance backlog of over 

$11 billion. If we don’t begin to rectify this funding shortfall, the backlog will only 

continue to grow. House Republicans like to complain that the Park Service and 

other Federal land management agencies are unable to take care of the assets under 

their management and use this as an excuse to rake agency decisionmaking procedures and personnel over the coals. The reality is that starving agencies like the 

National Park Service of the resources they need to manage our shared public heritage is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course there is an ever-expanding backlog of 

maintenance and infrastructure needs: Congress refuses to appropriate enough 

money. 

Forced austerity is not the answer. The investments we make in our public lands 

are multiplied many times over. In the case of national parks, every dollar invested 

generates $10 dollars in economic activity. Gateway communities around the country and the $600 billion outdoor recreation economy rely on Federal investments to 

enhance national economic output. 

Next year’s National Park Service Centennial Celebration provides us with an excellent opportunity to right the ship and inject much needed investment into our 

national parks. The National Park Service Centennial Act could be the perfect vehicle. Unfortunately, the discussion draft falls short. Despite all of the rhetoric about 

the need to address the maintenance backlog, funding for infrastructure and construction needs is neglected by the discussion draft. It’s my understanding that Park 

Service requires upwards of $800 million per year just to maintain the status quo 

and prevent the backlog from growing. This bill does not provide anything. 

My bill authorizes $300 million over the next 3 years for the Second Century 

Infrastructure Fund to address maintenance needs. If we are going to do something 

for the Centennial, we should do something that affirms our long-term commitment 

to national parks. My bill also provides the Centennial Challenge with $100 million 

per year for the next 3 years. 

The Centennial Challenge, a program first established under President George W. 

Bush, leverages Federal dollars with matching private donations to fund signature 

projects across the National Park System. Last year, Congress provided $10 million 

for the Centennial Challenge which was matched by $15 million in private donations. As we’ll hear from today’s witnesses, this successful program is essential to 

the support provided by Friends groups all over the county. 

While I recognize that this program is included in the discussion draft, it’s important that we provide it with consistent, sustained funding. Private donors are more 

willing to participate if they know Congress is willing to offer matching funds. Like 

with all funding for the national parks, there needs to be a long-term commitment. 

I thank the Chairman for putting forward this proposal and I look forward to 

working together to find a compromise. 

Let’s not wait until some future anniversary to make sure our national parks 

have the funding they need. We owe it to the next generation of Americans to get 

it right now. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the Natural 

Resources Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop, for 5 minutes. 

9 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity, I appreciate our witnesses being here, and look forward to 

your testimony very significantly. 

I must disagree with the Ranking Member on just one point: the 

parks are not America’s greatest idea—baseball is. The parks are 

just nice. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Parks are nice. But 100 years ago, we created the 

Park Service. There were only 35 units then. Today, there are 409, 

about 84 million acres are covered; and you do have a maintenance 

backlog of about $12 billion. 

So, we obviously have to look forward to what is going on, and 

how we move forward into the next 100 years. The Park Service, 

I admit, is spread thin. Congress is somewhat to blame for that. 

Not necessarily in what we are doing, but we keep adding units to 

the Park Service without new funding mechanisms. It is fun and 

sexy to add a new unit to the Park Service. It is not fun or sexy 

to talk about fixing a sewer system. Yet that is exactly what we 

need to do with this centennial. 

So, we can authorize anything we want to, that does not mean 

it is going to be appropriated. In this era of offsets that must be 

found for anything which we develop, an era where there are cutgo and pay-go programs identified by both parties, which may be 

an accounting technique, but it is still necessary and what we have 

to go through, it is time for us to be realistic about where we can 

go to move forward, and to realize that what we have to do is do 

something differently than what we have done in the past. 

That is why I am looking forward to coming up with new tools 

and new sources of revenue that can be used by the Park Service 

going into the next 100 years. I am looking forward to working 

with Mr. Grijalva to come up with what will, hopefully, be a bipartisan approach, which is why this is a discussion draft, which 

means, quite frankly, we are open to suggestions. 

But, I think what we need to do is make sure that the status quo 

is not acceptable, and we need to come up with new mechanisms, 

new approaches, and emphasis on that in a realistic pattern of 

what can be accomplished and where we can actually accomplish 

something, as we move forward for the next 100 years. 

With that, I look forward to the testimony and the questions that 

may be given, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now we will hear from our witnesses. I think 

you are all veterans of this committee—5 minutes for your oral 

statements, the complete statement will be printed in the record. 

We have some helpful colored lights to keep you on track, with the 

yellow light indicating you have 1 minute remaining, and the red 

light—it means, for heaven’s sakes, stop. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. With that, I am very pleased to welcome back 

to the committee the Director of the National Park Service, 

Jonathan Jarvis, for 5 minutes. 

10 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

discuss the ‘‘National Park Service Centennial Act’’ with you today. 

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

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

working hard to connect with, create, and enhance the experience 

for the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates. 

Earlier this year, in partnership with the National Park 

Foundation, we launched a campaign to encourage the next generation to experience the national parks; and we are already seeing 

those results. In 2014, we experienced record visitation with over 

292 million visitors, and we are on track to exceed that number 

this year. These visits do more than provide inspirational, educational, and recreational opportunities. In 2014, they drove $29.75 

billion in economic impact, and supported hundreds of thousands 

of jobs around the country. 

Another component of our Centennial effort is legislation to establish, clarify, or expand a number of key existing authorities to 

allow us to better serve the American people. Today, the subcommittee is considering a discussion draft bill, the ‘‘National Park 

Service Centennial Act.’’ This draft is comprised of elements of the 

Administration’s legislative proposal of the same title, which was 

transmitted by Secretary Jewell on August 31, and was subsequently introduced by Representative Grijalva as H.R. 3556. 

We appreciate the committee’s interest in acting on the Centennial legislation, and we look forward to working with you. The 

Department will provide views specifically on the draft legislation 

of today’s hearing after the bill’s introduction. 

The Administration’s proposed Centennial Act will provide new 

sources of funding and strengthen our ability to manage and operate the national parks and programs into the future. The proposal 

has 10 titles. 

Title I, the Centennial Declaration, would recognize that we have 

responsibilities not only for administering the units of the National 

Park System, but also for programs to provide financial and technical assistance to states, communities, and individuals to protect 

our Nation’s heritage. 

Title II would establish the National Park Centennial Fund, 

consisting of a mandatory appropriation of $100 million for 3 years 

to be able to use as a match for signature partnership projects. 

Title III would provide a mandatory appropriation of 

$300 million for 3 years to correct maintenance backlog deficiencies. 

Title IV would establish a Centennial Land Management 

Investment Fund consisting of a mandatory appropriation of $100 

million for 3 years to provide funding for a multi-agency competitive program. 

Title V would direct the National Park Foundation to establish 

a Second Century Endowment for projects and activities that further the mission of the Service. And, of course, the discussion draft 

bill includes the similar provision. 

11 

1 ‘‘2014 National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report,’’ National Park Service, accessed 

November 30, 2015, http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/VSE2014_Final.pdf. 

Title VI would establish a National Park Service Centennial 

Second Century Fund in the Treasury funded through lodging fees, 

and from purchases of senior passes for citizens 62 years or older. 

The discussion draft also has a similar provision. 

Title VII would provide clear authority for the interpretation and 

education work by consolidating authorities. It would raise the age 

limit for the Public Land Corps, extend the period for hiring members of the PLC, and would remove the $3.5 million authorization 

ceiling for the Volunteers-In-Parks program. And, of course, the 

discussion draft has similar provisions. 

Title VIII would establish a new Visitor Services Management 

Authority to award and manage contracts for the operation of commercial services. 

Title IX would authorize agreements for the creation of 

reproductions of museum objects. 

And Title X would redesignate the Secretary of the Interior and 

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

National Park Foundation Board, and authorize an appropriation 

of $25 million for 10 years. The discussion draft also has these 

provisions. 

We greatly appreciate the committee’s leadership on this issue, 

and your work on the discussion draft. We look forward to working 

with you on this effort, as it will assist the National Park Service 

in achieving its mission as we enter our second century of service. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the National Park Service Centennial Act. 

In 2016, the NPS will celebrate 100 years as the steward of the Nation’s most 

cherished natural and cultural resources. As outlined in our Centennial Plan, A Call 

to Action, the NPS is actively preparing for its second century of operations, and 

working hard to connect with and create the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates. Earlier this year, the NPS, in partnership with the National 

Park Foundation, launched a campaign to engage the next generation and new audiences in the life-enhancing and sometimes life-changing experiences at national 

parks. Our efforts will draw new visitors, especially Millennials and young families, 

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

292 million visitors and are on track to exceed that number in 2015. These visits 

do more than provide inspirational, educational and recreational opportunities; in 

2014, they drove $29.75 billion 1 in economic impact, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in communities around the country. We are also working with the 

National Park Foundation to leverage the interest of major corporate partners in 

engaging with this once in a lifetime anniversary. 

As we look ahead to the next century, another component of our Centennial effort 

is legislation to establish, clarify or expand a number of key existing NPS authorities to allow us to better serve the American people. Today the subcommittee is considering a discussion draft bill, The National Park Service Centennial Act. This 

draft legislation is comprised of elements of the Administration’s legislative proposal 

of the same title, which was transmitted by Secretary Jewell on behalf of the 

Administration on August 31, 2015, and was subsequently introduced by Rep. 

Grijalva as H.R. 3556. We appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in acting on 

Centennial legislation and we look forward to continued discussions with you. The 

Department will provide specific views on the legislation after the bill is introduced. 

12 

The Administration’s proposed National Park Service Centennial Act would 

provide new sources of funding and strengthen the ability of the National Park 

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

many important natural, cultural, and recreational benefits to the Nation. There are 

10 titles included in the legislation. 

Title I, the Centennial Declaration, would recognize that the NPS has responsibility not only for administering the units of the National Park System, but for programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states, communities, and 

individuals to protect our national heritage. Title I would also direct the Secretary 

of the Interior to utilize these financial and technical assistance programs to further 

the conservation and enjoyment of the natural and cultural heritage of the Nation 

for the benefit and inspiration of the public. 

Titles II–IV would implement part of the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 

Budget request to Congress. Title II would establish a National Park Centennial 

Challenge Fund, consisting of a mandatory appropriation of up to $100 million for 

FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 to be used as the Federal match for signature partnership projects that will help prepare the national parks for another century of 

conservation, preservation, and enjoyment. 

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

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

NPS infrastructure and facilities. In addition to requested discretionary appropriations, funding from Titles II and III would be directed toward NPS’ deferred maintenance backlog and would restore and maintain all high-priority non-transportation 

assets into good condition over 10 years, consistent with the FY 2016 Budget 

proposal. 

Title IV would establish the Centennial Land Management Investment Fund, consisting of a mandatory appropriation equal to $100 million for FY 2016, FY 2017, 

and FY 2018 to provide funding for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

to jointly establish a competitive program available to the four Federal land management agencies for projects that enhance visitor services and outdoor recreational 

opportunities, restore lands and waters, repair facilities or trails, or increase energy 

and water efficiency. 

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

known as the Second Century Endowment for the NPS, consisting of gifts or bequests provided for this purpose, for projects and activities that further the mission 

of the NPS. 

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

would be funded through additional lodging and camping fees and additional funds 

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

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

already conducting to allow us to better serve the American people. This includes 

providing clear authority for the interpretation and education work of the NPS by 

consolidating a number of disparate authorities currently used, and directing the 

Secretary to ensure that management of National Park System units and related 

areas is enhanced by the availability and utilization of a broad program of the highest quality interpretation and education. Title VII would also raise the age limit for 

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

authority from 120 days to 2 years, consistent with Department of the Interior resource assistant direct-hire authority. And, this title would remove the $3.5 million 

authorization ceiling for the Volunteers-In-Parks to accommodate the funding needed to support this growing program. 

Title VIII would establish the NPS Visitor Services Management Authority 

(VMSA), and authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot program to allow the 

VMSA to award and manage contracts for the operation of commercial visitor services programs and activities. 

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

of reproductions of a museum object in which the object and its intellectual property 

rights are under the control of the Secretary. 

Title X would redesignate the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the 

NPS as ex officio members of the NPF Board. It also would authorize appropriations 

of $25 million for each of FY 2016 through FY 2026 to NPF that would be used to 

leverage additional non-Federal funds to support our national parks. 

The provisions I have just outlined are the key components we believe are 

necessary to move the National Park Service into its second century. 

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you. We look forward 

to working with the Chairman and members of the subcommittee on this important 

legislative effort. 

13 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Tom McClintock 

Question 1. Could you please provide the committee with the National Park 

Service’s justification for banning bottled water in certain national parks? 

Answer. The National Park Service has not banned bottled water in national 

parks. NPS Policy Memorandum (PM) 11–03, Disposable Plastic Water Bottle 

Recycling and Reduction was published in December 2011. The policy has a fourpronged approach of encouraging water bottle recycling, reduction of disposable 

water bottle use, education regarding disposable waste bottles, and elimination of 

disposable water bottles sales within parks where appropriate. 

The policy includes an option for individual parks to eliminate sales, on a parkby-park basis, following extensive review and approval by the regional director. As 

part of this review, parks are required to evaluate the economic impacts of eliminating disposable water bottle sales on park concessioners as well as potential public health impacts on park visitors. Parks must show that they can avoid or mitigate 

any negative impacts prior to the regional director approving the elimination of 

sales. The policy is intended to reduce the environmental and cost impacts of 

disposable water bottles on parks. 

National parks spend significant amounts of money on the management of solid 

waste, including disposable plastic water bottles. Reduction of waste is a highly successful approach for the National Park Service, as it contributes to reducing the 

overall costs for parks to provide sanitary trash collection and disposal services, reducing our environmental footprint, and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with trash collection and disposal. 

Visitors to all national parks continue to have access to unlimited drinking water 

and carry bottled water in the containers of their choice, either refillable or disposable. Parks have also added water bottle refilling stations to make use of refillable 

water bottles more convenient, and will have available for purchase affordable, 

refillable water bottles that can be refilled at no cost. 

Question 2. Please provide the committee information about how the $900 million 

in 2010 was used. Why was this 35 percent increase in a single year’s budget not 

reflected in the construction fund? Where did this money go? 

Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) received $750 million in supplemental, 

one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding in FY 2009, as 

well as increases to its annual budget in FY 2009 and 2010. 

With the funding received under ARRA, projects were selected, using merit-based 

criteria. The NPS selected projects that addressed high-priority restoration and 

preservation needs, addressed deferred maintenance, and enhanced critical facilities. This included a quantifiable improvement to the condition of NPS facilities and 

a reduction of over $500 million in deferred maintenance. NPS ARRA projects also 

improved the energy efficiency of facilities and equipment, expanded the use of renewable energy in parks, and encouraged the participation of young adults in their 

national parks. The NPS completed over 780 projects at 260 park units in 48 states 

and the District of Columbia with ARRA funds. ARRA grants were also awarded 

to 20 historically black colleges and universities for 21 historic preservation projects 

within the parameters of the Historic Preservation Fund. 

The increases to its annual budget in FY 2009 and 2010 supported a wide variety 

of NPS programs, including over $14 million for LWCF State Conservation Grants, 

nearly $9 million for grants from the Historic Preservation Fund to states and 

tribes, and $3 million for grants to Japanese American Confinement Sites. The additional funding also included more than $100 million in targeted park base increases 

to address high-priority needs at units across the National Park System, including 

$3.3 million to support drug eradication efforts on park lands, $11.9 million to enhance law enforcement and icon security provided by the United States Park Police, 

and over $44 million to support maintenance and repair of facilities. 

Between FY 2010 and FY 2015, the discretionary appropriations for NPS fell by 

$138.6 million. Additionally, the NPS has either fully or partially absorbed its fixed 

costs in each fiscal year, reducing the operational flexibility and capacity of its parks 

and programs. 

14 

Questions Submitted by Representative Cynthia M. Lummis 

Question 1. Could you please provide the committee with a complete list of 

projects that the NPS was able to fund using the $10 million from the Centennial 

Challenge Fund? How were each of those projects matched with outside funding? 

Answer. See the following chart. 


97736.001.eps 97736.002.eps
15 


97736.003.eps 97736.004.eps
16 


97736.005.eps 97736.006.eps
17 

Questions Submitted by Representative Dan Newhouse 

Question 1. Whenever the cost of access to publicly-owned lands or facilities is 

increased, I believe it is essential that it comes with commensurate increases in the 

quality of the user’s experience. How will the additional revenues raised by this proposal improve the visitor’s experience at national parks? 

Answer. The additional revenues from lodging fees and the increase to the price 

of the senior pass will fund the NPS Second Century Fund. The Second Century 

Fund is a challenge program designed to match non-Federal donations to Federal 

funds on at least a 1-to-1 basis for projects and programs that improve the visitor 

experience and preserve our natural and cultural resources. The fund will include 

projects similar in nature to the types of projects that have been funded under the 

smaller Centennial Challenge program, which have included youth education programs, trail rehabilitation, overlook restoration, campground enhancements, exhibit 

replacement, accessibility improvements, and other projects that enhance the experience of park visitors. 

Question 2. As you know, visitation at National Parks has declined by about 50 

percent among youth over the past decade. How do you see this bill’s provisions 

being used to reverse that troubling trend and help younger Americans appreciate 

our rich natural heritage? 

Answer. The goal of the National Park Service Centennial is to connect with and 

create the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates. Outreach efforts are therefore aimed at reaching younger audiences. We are accomplishing this 

through several Centennial programs including the ‘‘Find Your Park’’ campaign, the 

‘‘Every Kid in a Park’’ initiative, and a multitude of other efforts that the NPS and 

our partners are engaged in. 

The proposed legislation will add to our Centennial effort by establishing, clarifying, and expanding a number of key existing NPS authorities to allow us to better 

serve the American people. Among the 10 titles are many that would support youth 

engagement and education of our cultural and natural heritage. 

The Centennial Declaration would recognize that the NPS has responsibility not 

only for administering the units of the National Park System, but for programs that 

provide financial and technical assistance to states, communities, and individuals to 

protect our national heritage. Many of these programs aid youth in local communities by building trails and playgrounds or supporting outdoor educational 

programs. 

The National Park Centennial Challenge Fund would provide a Federal match for 

signature partnership projects that will help prepare the national parks for another 

century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment. Many of the challenge 

projects funded in FY 2015 directly engaged youth through environmental or historic preservation project rehabilitation. Programs developed to engage youth are 

one of the priority considerations for future selections. 

Finally, the proposed legislation would clarify that interpretation and education 

are key functions of the National Park Service and it would encourage the use of 

current technologies and the development of educational programs that reach diverse groups. As the keeper of our Nation’s historic places and critical ecosystems, 

the NPS is an important educational resource, promoting historical and scientific 


97736.007.eps
18 

literacy and civic engagement skills. Through interpretation and education the NPS 

will continue to invite youth to connect with National Parks and their local 

communities. 

Question 3. Americans can already make donations if they wish to the National 

Park Service and the individual parks it operates. How does the proposed National 

Park Foundation Endowment improve the Park Service’s ability to develop and 

utilize private support? 

Answer. Although Americans currently have the ability to make direct donations 

to the National Park Service and individual parks, it is our experience that donors 

are often reluctant to make a gift directly to a government agency, whether at the 

national or park level. However, they are drawn to supporting our nonprofit partners, such as the National Park Foundation, whose primary mission is to enrich our 

national parks and its programs through private support. The congressionally chartered Foundation has the staff, expertise, and time to work with them to structure 

and steward their gift and explore the tax implications. The nonprofit partner is 

also able to combine their donation with other gifts for greater impact. 

We believe in the coming years that the majority of private philanthropic support 

will come from individual bequests and planned gifts. Baby boomers—the richest 

generation in American history—are currently working on their wills and planned 

giving. The proposed endowment would allow the National Park Foundation to create incentives for donors to have their gift matched or leveraged for maximum benefit to the parks. The Foundation could also seed new and more ambitious projects 

to benefit groupings of parks or parks with similar meanings and introduce new 

audiences to park philanthropy. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you very much. 

We will next hear from Mr. David MacDonald, who is the 

President of the Friends of Acadia from Bar Harbor, Maine. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MACDONALD, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF 

ACADIA, BAR HARBOR, MAINE 

Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tsongas, and 

members of the committee, thank you for including me in today’s 

discussion. My organization, and many others like it around the 

country, considers this proposed legislation an important step 

forward in funding our national parks. 

I have been lucky enough to grow up and live most of my life on 

Mount Desert Island on the coast of Maine, home to Acadia 

National Park. I currently serve as President and CEO of Friends 

of Acadia. We are a private, nonprofit organization with about 

4,500 members. We work in close partnership with Acadia National 

Park, and have since our founding in 1986. 

Our members love their park and are very proud to give back to 

the park through our organization, either through charitable donations or through volunteer service. Thousands of hours each year 

are donated to the park through our organization. 

I hope that my testimony today, and the written testimony that 

I submitted, will give some specific examples of on-the-ground 

projects in a park like Acadia that have benefited from this kind 

of model of a challenge fund that the Centennial Act proposes. 

I also hope that the examples will illustrate a handful of broader 

themes, which I will outline quickly here. 

Number one, parks do inspire philanthropy. At Acadia, we are 

finding that the Centennial in particular is resonating for people 

as an opportunity to be part of this historic legacy. 

Number two, challenge grants work, particularly when they are 

provided by the Federal Government. Our donors, from the largest, 

19 

most sophisticated donors, to the smaller donors writing their first 

check for $25, respond to these challenge opportunities. They give 

more, and they decide to give more quickly when presented with 

this kind of opportunity. 

Third and finally, our donors have consistently stressed to us 

that they do not want their philanthropy to substitute for the fundamental obligation of Congress to fund its national parks, the operations in particular. So, as we consider worthwhile mechanisms 

in legislation like this to establish new funding, please do not forget about the importance of the annual appropriations that are 

essential to our park’s operation. 

At Acadia, frankly, I feel like we are losing ground. Folks mentioned earlier some of the statistics. We basically have the same operating appropriation today that we did 7 years ago in 2009. What 

that means is we are losing ground, because visitation is increasing, public expectation for what the park will provide is increasing, 

and the cost of doing business is increasing—so we are losing 

ground. 

Acadia is a small park by Western standards; it is about 35,000 

acres. But we have more than 21⁄2 million visitors at our park. 

Visitation was up last year by 13 percent. This year it is up another 7 percent to date. As I said, people’s expectations for what 

the park provides are also growing. The park is a huge economic 

driver in our communities on the Maine coast: more than 3,000 

jobs and more than $200 million of economic activity is annually 

generated by Acadia. 

As you know, $10 million was appropriated by Congress last year 

for a version of a Centennial Challenge. At Acadia, we had three 

projects that were funded by that, a total of about $165,000. We 

were able to restore historic trails, and we were able to reclaim scenic vistas from carriage roads and motor roads that had grown in 

and been lost over time. In each case, Friends of Acadia provided 

the private match to match the Federal funding in that regard; and 

in each case the challenge component was essential to our ability 

to raise that money. 

In one case, one family had a strong feeling about a certain trail; 

they wrote the whole check. In another case, we did a campaign, 

had dozens of donors give very quickly in order to be part of the 

Centennial Challenge. So, it worked. 

A couple of things to keep in mind, going forward, for how to 

make sure this legislation accomplishes what you are hoping. It is 

very important to have a sustainable source of funding, so I commend you for including the funding sources that are not appropriations. It is very hard to respond to this kind of challenge if you do 

not know that it is coming. And that is some feedback I have heard 

from other partners around the country. 

Second, I would encourage you to consider building in more flexibility for groups like Friends of Acadia to actually implement some 

of the signature projects. I think that our groups have shown, as 

has the National Park Foundation, that private partners like ours 

can really provide nimbleness, creativity, and flexibility. So having 

all of the signature projects implemented by the Park Service may 

be something you reconsider and have partners have more of a role 

in that. 

20 

In closing, I just want to add a footnote that Acadia National 

Park also celebrates its centennial in 2016, so we have a dual centennial. There is no substitute for getting out in the parks and seeing the work we are doing. I invite any of you to come up to Acadia 

to see what we are doing for the centennial in 2016. 

Thank you again for your work on this important Act. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID MACDONALD, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF ACADIA, BAR HARBOR, MAINE

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Tsongas, and other honorable members 

of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to be part of today’s discussion regarding the proposed legislation, which I believe is an exciting development and a 

very positive step toward sustainable funding for our national parks in the coming 

centennial year and well into the future. 

My name is David MacDonald and I have lived most of my life on Mount Desert 

Island, Maine, home to Acadia National Park. I currently serve as President and 

CEO of Friends of Acadia (FOA), a private, not-for-profit organization with more 

than 4,000 members that has worked in close partnership with the National Park 

Service since our founding in 1986. Our members love Acadia and are proud to give 

back to the park through our organization with philanthropic donations and thousands of hours of volunteer work. 

One recent example from just last month is our annual Take Pride in Acadia 

community work-day, when more than 400 volunteers turned out to help rake leaves 

from the drainage ditches of Acadia’s carriage roads, and help park staff put these 

historically significant roads to bed for the winter. This one morning of volunteer 

labor saves the park tens of thousands of dollars in labor and many times that if 

preventative maintenance did not help avoid the very costly storm damage and 

winter washouts that have taken a heavy toll on these gravel roads in the past. 

So although Acadia is relatively quiet this time of year compared to summer or 

fall, the work of protecting this park continues round the clock and throughout the 

year, and FOA is very honored to be part of the partnership that accomplishes this 

work which has helped inspire some amazing accolades of late for our park, including readers of USA Today voting Acadia America’s Best National Park last year, 

as well as viewers of Good Morning America voting Acadia America’s Favorite Place. 

While I hope that my role here today will be to help provide some tangible and 

specific recent examples from the ‘‘front lines’’ of a park like Acadia of how a centennial matching program like the proposed Centennial Challenge Fund would inspire 

additional philanthropy and accomplish priority projects, I would also like to stress 

three broader messages that I hope Acadia’s on-the-ground projects convey: 

1. First, national parks are incredibly powerful settings that truly represent our 

country at its best and have the ability to inspire those who experience them 

to donate toward their maintenance and improvement. And at Acadia we are 

finding that the Centennial, in particular, is resonating as an opportunity for 

residents and visitors to be part of this historic parks legacy. 

2. Second, it has been my experience that donors absolutely respond to the 

opportunity of a challenge grant and matching funding. FOA supporters ranging from the very large, sophisticated donors to those sending a $35 check as 

an annual membership donation like to see their dollars stretched and 

leveraged. 

3. Third, throughout our 30-year history of doing this kind of work at Acadia, 

donors have consistently stressed that they do not want their contribution to 

become a substitute for the Federal Government itself continuing to invest in 

national parks. So as you pursue worthwhile legislation like this to create 

new revenue, please do not forget the critical importance of the fundamental 

congressional appropriations that are essential to maintaining these national 

treasures unimpaired for future generations to enjoy. 

Acadia National Park is a conservation gem and economic powerhouse that I am 

honored to serve. Relatively small in size, at only 35,000 acres, Acadia is within a 

day’s drive of major cities of the Northeast and therefore is one of the most heavily 

used parks in the Nation, with more than 2.6 million visitors each year. Visitation 

has been growing steadily in recent years, up 13 percent last year and another 

7 percent so far this year. 

21 

At the same time that the number of visits is growing, so is the range of services 

and experiences sought at a park like Acadia. Whether it is Internet connectivity, 

or search and rescue operations, or accommodation of activities like paddle-boarding 

or mountain-biking that Acadia’s founders could not have even dreamed of, the public is asking more of a park like Acadia than ever before. Local businesses in the 

surrounding communities also see their livelihoods closely tied to the park’s successful operations; during the government shutdown two Octobers ago, our communities 

lost more than $1 million per day in economic activity. Many of my friends and 

peers are among the restaurant owners, guides, and shopkeepers who make up 

some of the 3,000 jobs and $200 million of annual economic benefit driven by Acadia 

National Park. 

Acadia was also the first national park created entirely through private donations 

of land from neighboring landowners, when visionaries such as George B. Dorr and 

John D. Rockefeller Jr. and dozens of others assembled strategic tracts of land with 

bold Atlantic coastline, mountain-tops, remote ponds, and pristine woodlands and 

granted them to the Federal Government nearly 100 years ago. Indeed, there is a 

very long history of private initiative, philanthropy, community pride and investment, and volunteerism in our park—as these very principles will be essential to 

our ability to prepare the park for its second century. 

As you know, an initial phase of a centennial challenge program was approved 

and funded by Congress last year. $10 million was made available, and despite the 

very short notice and call for proposals for FY 2015, FOA and our partners at 

Acadia National Park submitted six projects. Three of them were ultimately selected 

to be among the 106 proposals funded nationwide that together involved 90 different 

partner organizations contributing nearly $16 million in private matching funds. 

These significant investments in our parks were stitched together with barely more 

than a couple of weeks’ notice. In looking at your proposed NPS Centennial Act, I 

believe that the number of projects, the amount of match, and the impact of the 

projects could all be enhanced with the benefit of a reliable, established program 

with lead time and dependable funding. Thank you for considering ongoing funding 

sources that will help keep this model from being a one-shot deal in the centennial 

year only. 

At Acadia, we were able to tackle a variety of projects that were part of the park’s 

maintenance backlog, but also provided tremendous opportunity for visitor engagement and public benefit. The largest project involved the restoration of historic 

scenic vistas from the park carriage roads and motor roads that had grown in with 

vegetation over time. Careful planning and documentation was done to understand 

the original scope and purpose of the vistas as planned by noted landscape architects Beatrix Farrand and Frederick Law Olmsted nearly a century ago. Skilled 

park sawyers were complemented by citizen volunteers willing to drag brush up to 

the chipping operation at the roadside. Certain plots were selected for small experimental burns thought to be more effective for some vegetation, and interpretive 

panels engaged the public in the purpose and methods of the project. 

To come up with our $85,000 share of the match for this project, given the short 

notice of the opportunity in the spring, FOA quickly decided to draw on existing reserve funds, with the hope of replenishing them with new donations raised over the 

course of the summer. This strategy paid off when by August we had raised more 

than 50 gifts toward the project ranging in size from $35 to $75,000 and shattering 

our $85,000 goal. I am confident that the fact that we were able to tell donors that 

the Federal Government was matching us dollar for dollar made all the difference 

in motivating the number and scale of donations we received in such a short time. 

Another centennial project at Acadia involved the rehabilitation of the Deer Brook 

Trail, an extremely popular hiking trail that runs west from Jordan Pond up toward 

the summits of Sargent Mountain and Penobscot Mountain. The trail had become 

severely eroded, diminishing both the hiking experience and the environmental 

health of Deer Brook as it cascades down the mountains toward Jordan Pond, one 

of the clearest ponds in the state of Maine and which serves as the public drinking 

water supply for the village of Seal Harbor. In this case, we had been in discussions 

for quite some time with a family that had expressed interest in seeing this trail 

repaired. After making an initial donation 2 years ago, the family was reluctant to 

fund further work unless the Park Service itself had ‘‘skin in the game.’’ When we 

let this family know of our ability to propose the trail work as a Centennial project 

earlier this year, this spurred them to pledge a second gift of $70,000 to cover the 

private portion of the project. The work that was done this summer involved park 

trail crews, volunteers, as well as local teens hired on to the Acadia Youth 

Conservation Corps, a joint program of FOA and the Park Service that allows us 

to hire 15 high school students each summer to tackle ambitious work projects, 

22 

while also providing the kids with opportunities to learn about and connect with 

their park. 

These recent Centennial Challenge projects build on a long history at Acadia of 

blending private philanthropy with Federal dollars to benefit the park and its visitors. In the early 1990s we undertook a public-private partnership to restore 

Acadia’s 45-mile network of gravel carriage roads following decades of government 

neglect. We worked with Congress to commit $6 million of Federal appropriations 

while agreeing to raise $4 million in private contributions that would serve as a permanent endowment held at Friends of Acadia to ensure continued maintenance of 

the roads over the long term. Friends of Acadia annually grants funds to Acadia 

under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the endowment, 

which has helped spin off a total of more than $5 million since its establishment. 

So I endorse the concept in your bill of an endowment at the National Park 

Foundation, as this is a tool that has helped greatly at Acadia in smoothing out the 

inevitable peaks and valleys of annual funding cycles. 

A decade later, Friends of Acadia undertook another campaign that similarly 

matched private donations with public funds to help restore and endow the maintenance of Acadia’s historic hiking trail system. This time, the government’s share 

came largely from revenue collected at Acadia through visitor entrance fees (and I 

know that your committee has recently taken up important work to reauthorize the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act). This campaign went on to be a model 

for other parks and Friends groups around the country. Yet I don’t believe that it 

would have been possible if we had not been able to tell our private donors that 

the Federal Government was coming to the table with a significant investment in 

the project. 

All of us at Friends of Acadia are proud of our long history and strong partnership 

with the Park Service, however we are also firm in our conviction that we, the people of the United States, through our Federal Government, have a perpetual responsibility to assure the conservation of Acadia unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. Private philanthropy has a critical role to play in the future of our 

parks, but there are limits to that role. Friends of Acadia works hard to add value 

to our national parks rather than fund core operations, which are ultimately the responsibility of Congress. 

At Acadia, it is alarming to realize that despite the park’s growing visitation, 

popularity, and expectations from the public, the congressional appropriation for 

park operations last year was basically the same as it was in 2009. Given the rising 

cost of doing business, this flat funding has meant that park staffing has inevitably 

taken the hit, and Acadia has fewer FTEs than it did 7 years ago. On top of that, 

a growing percentage of these FTEs now consist of seasonal hires, who while very 

important to visitor services, cannot be expected to tackle the longer-term planning 

and prioritizing needed to prepare the park for its second century. Viewed at the 

national level, there has been a 12 percent decrease or $370 million reduction in 

the total budget for the National Park Service over the last 5 years in today’s 

dollars. 

The concept of a centennial challenge fund has been discussed since at least 2007. 

Now is the time to build upon lessons learned from the past efforts and to create 

an opportunity for Congress and private partners to design a fund that will inspire 

private donors to look invest in the Park Service’s second century. In particular, we 

encourage a program that would be inclusive of a wide array of possible ways to 

give, and as you look to finalize this discussion draft, I am interested in working 

with other partners and colleagues to discuss how the Centennial Challenge Fund 

might be strengthened and further leveraged by enabling Friends groups like FOA 

to directly implement signature projects and programs. Friends of Acadia and other 

groups like us around the country have shown that partners to the Park Service 

can provide critical flexibility, innovation, cost effectiveness, and a trusted broker 

for donors wanting to add to our national parks legacy. Of course, we see this at 

the national level with an organization like the National Park Foundation’s great 

work. And in light of my previous comments about the importance of congressional 

appropriations to support park operations, I would urge each of you to remember 

that legislation such as that proposed today should be providing sustainable, 

supplemental funding for parks, not funds that would be considered a substitution 

for funds lost as part of sequestration or shrinking park appropriations. 

With 2016 just a few weeks off, it is important to note that Acadia National Park 

shares that same centennial year with the broader National Park Service (NPS). In 

fact, President Woodrow Wilson signed the legislation authorizing Federal protection of the initial lands within Acadia on July 8 just a few weeks before he signed 

the Organic Act establishing the NPS at the end of August, 1916. We are certainly 

prepared and motivated to bring our best thinking and resources to bear to ensure 

23 

that Acadia’s second century is launched with the same level of inspiration and 

leadership exhibited by the park’s founders 100 years ago. We are working together 

with more than 220 centennial partners from throughout the community— 

businesses, schools, libraries, art galleries, museums, gardens and more—each of 

whom will embody our centennial slogan which is ‘‘celebrate our past and inspire 

our future.’’ 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share testimony with your committee 

today, and hope that you will not hesitate to let me know if I can assist with follow 

up questions or suggestions. And in conclusion, I invite each of you to pay us a visit 

at Acadia during the coming centennial year, when you will find a communitydriven, world-welcoming celebration of our park unfolding all year long. I know that 

members of Maine’s congressional delegation including Congresswoman Pingree and 

Congressman Poliquin would be glad to join me in helping to host you or your staff 

in experiencing Acadia first-hand. In the meantime, thank you for your work on the 

National Park Service Centennial Act. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. 

Finally, we welcome back Mr. John Nau with the National Park 

Foundation from Houston, Texas to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. NAU, III, VICE CHAIRMAN (2012–2013), 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Mr. NAU. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Tsongas, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding Chairman Bishop’s 

draft, the ‘‘National Park Service Centennial Act.’’ I believe that 

my background as a businessman who has had the opportunity to 

experience how parks can serve as economic drivers is what best 

positions me to assist the subcommittee as you consider legislative 

proposals to enhance the National Park System for another century 

of service. 

The National Park Foundation is the congressionally-authorized 

charitable nonprofit charged with securing philanthropic and corporate support for national parks projects and programs, and I am 

proud to be a member of that board. In that capacity, the 

Foundation has a great deal invested in ensuring that the 

Centennial of the Service will be a catalyst for many steps necessary to prepare our parks for another century of success. 

The Centennial represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for 

Americans of all ages, races, location, genders, including Members 

of Congress, to unite behind a shared vision for building upon the 

success of the National Park System during its second century. Realizing this goal will require us to generate innovative new approaches to improve visitor experience and create a much better 

funding model to support our parks. 

We believe that the draft legislation the subcommittee is considering today has the potential to serve as that galvanizing 

mechanism needed to achieve that goal, and I am pleased to appear before you not only to offer the Foundation’s strong support 

for this discussion draft, but to share recommendations we have for 

improvements. 

The Foundation strongly supports the proposed authorization of 

a Centennial Challenge Fund, which would be paired with 

dedicated funding and require a non-Federal match. The 

Centennial Challenge would create a strong incentive for increased 

24 

philanthropic contributions to park programs and projects leading 

up to, during, and beyond the year of the centennial. 

In addition, the Foundation supports the proposed long-overdue 

increase in the purchase price of the senior citizen lifetime pass as 

a way to help pay for this important program. We would welcome 

an opportunity to work with the members of this subcommittee and 

your staff to identify additional offsets that can be utilized to 

increase the funding for the Centennial Challenge. 

The Foundation strongly supports the proposed authorization of 

an endowment housed in the Foundation. Establishing this longterm funding source would allow the Foundation to raise significantly more private funding for park projects and programs as part 

of donors’ estate and philanthropic contribution planning. 

The Foundation also supports the establishment of overnight fees 

as a mechanism to provide funding for the endowment, and we 

would welcome an opportunity to work with you, your staff, and 

other interested parties to refine this proposal in a manner that 

can garner universal support within the final legislation. 

As with the Centennial Challenge, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the members of this subcommittee and the 

staff to identify any additional offsets that can be utilized to increase funding availability. 

We also strongly support the draft legislation’s inclusion of 

amendments to the NPF charter that would transition the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park 

Service to ex officio, non-voting members. 

The Foundation also supports the discussion draft’s authorization of $25 million to be appropriated each year over the course of 10 

years to the Foundation to be used for important projects. 

In conclusion, the National Park Service Centennial is not official 

until 2016. But our Find Your Park program of public engagement 

has already begun. Visitation is up, particularly in the big parks, 

and the program has only begun to be effective. 

We thank the committee, the Chairmen, and the Ranking 

Members for their work. The Foundation stands behind the effort 

to improve the National Park Service over the next 100 years. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. NAU, III, PRESIDENT & CEO, SILVER EAGLE

DISTRIBUTORS, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, HOUSTON, TEXAS

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Tsongas and members of the 

subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding 

Chairman Bishop’s draft National Parks Centennial Anniversary legislation. I have 

been a member of the National Park Foundation’s Board of Directors for more than 

7 years and I served as Vice-Chairman of the Board, the highest ranking private 

citizen position, from 2012–2013. Additionally, I am the Chairman Emeritus of the 

Civil War Trust and I also had the honor of serving as the Chairman of the 

President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation from 2002–2009. I believe 

that my background as a businessman, who has had the opportunity to experience 

how parks can serve as economic drivers beyond their borders, is what best positions me to assist the subcommittee as you legislate vital enhancements to the 

National Park System for another century of service. 

Chartered by Congress in 1967, the National Park Foundation is founded on a 

legacy that began more than a century ago, when private citizens from all walks 

of life took action to establish and protect our national parks. Today, the National 

Park Foundation carries on that tradition as the national charitable nonprofit whose 

sole mission is to directly support the National Park Service. 

25 

2016 will mark the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. The 

Centennial represents a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity for Americans to come together to celebrate the achievements that have been realized as the result of 

‘‘America’s Best Idea.’’ Most importantly, the anniversary presents an opportunity 

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

behind a shared vision for building upon the success of the National Park System 

during its second century. This is our opportunity to both celebrate the past and 

look to the future. 

In addition to celebrating past accomplishments and reconnecting Americans to 

their parks, the Centennial Anniversary presents an opportunity to generate innovative new approaches to improve the visitor experience and create a better funding 

model to support our parks. We believe that the draft legislation you are considering 

today has the potential to serve as the galvanizing mechanism needed to achieve 

that goal. 

That is why I am pleased to appear before you to testify on behalf of the National 

Park Foundation to offer our strong support for this draft legislation. I will also 

share recommendations we have for improvements to it. 

CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE

The Foundation strongly supports the discussion draft’s authorization of a 

Centennial Challenge fund paired with ‘dedicated’ funding. Enactment of these provisions, which would require a non-Federal match, would undoubtedly create a 

strong incentive for increased philanthropic contributions to park programs and 

projects leading up to, during and beyond the year of the Centennial Anniversary 

in 2016. 

In addition, the Foundation supports the proposed overdue increase in the purchase price of the ‘‘senior citizen lifetime pass’’ as a way to help pay for this important program. The Foundation and its staff would welcome the opportunity to work 

with members of the subcommittee and your staff to identify additional offsets that 

can be utilized to increase the funding available for the Centennial Challenge. 

NPF ENDOWMENT

We strongly support the proposed authorization of an endowment housed at the 

Foundation, which will establish a long-term funding source for important park 

projects and programs. The endowment will allow the Foundation to raise significantly more private funding for the parks as part of donors’ estate planning and gift 

giving. Endowment growth serves to build a stable long-term source of private resources for Parks. 

The Foundation supports the establishment of ‘bed fees’ as a mechanism to provide funding for the endowment. Currently, at many Parks, guests at hotels located 

within the boundaries of national parks do not pay the hotel occupancy taxes paid 

by park visitors staying outside the boundaries. This represents a lost opportunity 

to capture fees hotel guests are already accustomed to paying for the benefit of the 

parks. That said, we look forward to working with members of the committee and 

your staff and other interested parties to include in the legislation some accommodation to address the collection and administration of these fees. 

Finally, we would welcome the opportunity to work with members of the 

subcommittee and your staff to identify additional offsets that can be utilized to increase the funding available for this important endowment. 

PARK FOUNDATION STRUCTURE

The Foundation strongly supports the draft legislation’s inclusion of amendments 

to the NPF charter that would transition the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Director of the National Park Service to ex officio, non-voting members of the 

National Board of Directors. The Foundation’s authorizing legislation 

names the Secretary of the Interior as the Chair of the NPF Board and the 

Director of the National Park Service as the Secretary of the NPF Board. As with 

any cabinet position, the Secretary of the Interior is a job that has turnover due 

to national elections and other factors. History has shown that a change in administration occasionally leads to a change in NPF leadership. The resulting uncertainty 

can be avoided by allowing the board to select its own leadership. 

The Foundation also supports the discussion draft’s authorization of $25 million 

to be appropriated each year, over the course of 10 years, to the NPF to be utilized 

to match non-Federal contributions for park projects and programs. This would result in a significant increase in the leveraging of private funds to benefit parks and 

visitors similar to the successful model set forth in the charter of the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. 

26 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION

The Foundation also supports efforts that would diversify, strengthen and enhance interpretive programs in our national parks while also expanding the role of 

volunteers in these programs. In particular, it is our hope that these provisions will 

help generate meaningful new ways to engage Americans that historically have low 

park visitation rates, such as Hispanics, urban dwellers and Millennials. This will 

require modernizing the technology used to recruit new visitors so that we can reach 

them through social media and wherever else we need to go to engage them. In addition, we need to work harder to engage urban populations by better highlighting 

the many wonderful urban parks already in existence. 

CONCLUSION

As the National Parks Centennial Anniversary approaches, it is truly inspiring to 

see a diverse and bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, nonprofit organizations, businesses and individuals uniting behind a shared commitment to seizing the historic 

opportunity presented by the Centennial Anniversary to develop and execute innovative new approaches that will ensure that our national parks achieve another century of success. 

While Federal appropriations should remain the largest funding source for the 

National Park Service, it is unlikely that current Federal budget constraints will be 

reversed or even alleviated in the near future. Therefore, it is imperative that we 

utilize the 2016 Centennial to explore new funding models that can be utilized to 

supplement the taxpayer investments needed to prepare and sustainably fund our 

parks for another 100 years of service. Without enhancements and improvements 

we risk a first-time visit to a national park becoming a one-time visit instead of a 

life-long love for these amazing places. 

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

philanthropic and corporate investments in our parks going forward. That said, it 

is vital that our emerging coalition works together over the next 15 months to seek 

the appropriate balance between the need to avoid overcommercialization and the 

need to enhance and expand attribution for desperately needed corporate investments in our parks. 

We must see supporting our parks not as just the role of taxpayers and Congress 

or just private citizens or foundations. We must see it as working together in concert 

to support our parks with Federal funds, private philanthropy, corporate partnerships, fees and volunteerism. 

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

focus of millions of Americans will be on our national parks between now and the 

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

excitement to help prepare the National Park Service for a second century of success. This will require that we place our political and philosophical differences aside 

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

realize the many benefits of ‘‘America’s Best Idea’’ as we have. 

In closing, the National Park Foundation believes that the Chairman’s discussion 

draft National Park Service Centennial Act is an outstanding step toward achieving 

the goals I have outlined today. We look forward to working with the entire committee and the rest of our emerging coalition to continue refining and ultimately enacting this vitally important legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

this testimony. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you for your testimony. We will 

now go to questions by the Members, and we will begin with 

myself. 

I first want to get the record straight on National Park Service 

funding, because that has been mentioned on a number of occasions at a number of hearings. Over the past 10 years, the nominal 

appropriation for NPS has grown from $2.256 billion in Fiscal Year 

2006 to $2.615 billion in Fiscal Year 2015. That is a $359 million 

increase. 

Inflation adjusted, though, the Park Service budget has been relatively flat, actually down about two-tenths of 1 percent over that 

decade. But this followed the prior decade, where nominal funding 

27 

increased by 65 percent. There was also one year—in 2009, in a 

single year, the Park Service’s budget increased by 37 percent. 

Funding is an issue which this bill seeks to address, but is not 

in and of itself explanatory for the enormous deferred maintenance 

backlog that has developed, and the decline in overnight stays at 

our parks. 

Mr. Jarvis, my first question involves the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act included 

several new park units for the National Park Service to manage. 

It seems every year this committee receives requests to designate 

new national parks or national monuments to be managed by your 

agency. Do these new units add to your maintenance backlog? And 

how do you allocate resources to these areas when you are, at least 

inflation-adjusted, at a relatively flat budget? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question, Chairman. I think it is 

a very important area to explore. 

Yes, they do add to our maintenance backlog, though we try our 

best when working with Congress in the establishment of any new 

units to minimize our additional responsibilities through partnerships. For instance, the designation of the Manhattan Project 

National Historic Park is in partnership with the Department of 

Energy; and even though there are specific assets identified within 

that park that were established by Congress, we are working very 

closely with the Department of Energy to ensure that very few of 

those assets become a liability for our maintenance backlog. 

But, they are not free. Each one of these new parks that come 

into the system do have some responsibilities, both from an operational standpoint and a maintenance backlog standpoint. But, I 

can assure you we are working very, very hard to minimize the 

amount of new responsibilities that come with these new areas. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. We have heard a number of retailers would like to sell national park passes, just as, for example, 

grocery stores provide postal services now at their facilities. Why 

are annual and daily passes for the national parks so difficult to 

purchase, except at the park itself? And why won’t the Park 

Service consider these types of cooperative arrangements with 

retailers? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are exploring some new ways—technically and 

legally, you can do third-party sales. The problem is that whoever 

the third party is has to buy the passes, because they are essentially valued property, rather than us just authorizing their sale. 

But we are looking at new models, and we have a couple of experiments—Acadia being one of those—about mobile passes and other 

ways that we can use technology. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, my experience is a lot of the retailers at 

the gateway communities know as much or more about the parks 

than the park rangers themselves. A park ranger from Hawaii 

assigned to Yosemite does not know nearly as much about 

Yosemite as someone who grew up there going to the park every 

weekend for years. Those are the folks that are employed in the 

local shops. It seems to me that that is an enormous resource that 

we are simply squandering. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think the gateway communities are extraordinarily 

important to these parks. One of the areas that we have really 

28 

expanded on that is a huge opportunity is the concept of step-on 

interpretation, where locals basically can provide that kind of interpretation locally within the park. Our battlefield guides are a great 

example of that, at Gettysburg, Antietam, and Manassas, where 

local community members that live in that community are Civil 

War buffs. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am going to have to cut you off, because I 

want to get one more question in. It is about a complaint we are 

receiving a lot of, and that is the policy of individual parks to ban 

bottled water. As you can imagine, there are a lot of complaints on 

that. 

What is the justification for that, particularly when you can buy 

soda in a can, you just cannot buy bottled water? 

Mr. JARVIS. The justification is sort of threefold. One is, first of 

all, it is not just an open ban. There are about 20 parks out of the 

409 that currently have water bottle bans in place. So it is not 

broad across the system. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My time is up. But just so you know, it is a 

growing source of complaints, and I would strongly advise you to 

do something about that. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you all for 

being here. I think, from all of your testimonies, especially 

Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Nau—and I think Director Jarvis knows 

this well—that the impact of our national parks is really clear. And 

this was perhaps never more clear than when the government 

shutdown occurred. Mr. MacDonald, I think you referenced the cost 

to the gateway communities as a result of it in your written 

testimony. 

Our national parks are a great investment. Each Federal dollar invested in these parks generates $10 in economic activity. It is a 

tremendous return on investment to our local economies. But despite this economic impact, we have been chronically underfunding 

our parks, leading to a growing backlog of maintenance and infrastructure needs, as we all know. 

I know all the members of the committee are very concerned 

about this. It amounts to $11.5 billion in deferred maintenance 

costs. So today, as we consider the Centennial, I think we have to 

take into account the impact of those billions of dollars in deferred 

maintenance, and how best to address it. 

I would like to share a slide that demonstrates the serious decline in funding for the National Park Service construction account. 

[Slide] 

Ms. TSONGAS. As the slide demonstrates, the construction account, which is the primary account to address the non-roads half 

of the maintenance backlog, has gone from over $350 million in 

Fiscal Year 2005 to less than $150 million in Fiscal Year 2015. 

This is roughly a 62 percent decrease over the last 10 years—fairly 

dramatic, I would say. 

I think it shows us what the smoking gun is, what the real impact has been on our national parks as a struggle to deal with this 

maintenance backlog. 

Director Jarvis, can you talk about why the backlog has grown 

so large? And do you feel that the discussion draft before us today 

29 

can provide enough funding to make a significant dent in the 

backlog? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Congresswoman. So the maintenance 

backlog has grown because the National Park Service has, in terms 

of assets—we have road assets and non-road assets. In terms of 

physical facilities that we manage and maintain, we are second 

only to the Department of Defense in total facilities. And those facilities provide access and public enjoyment across the 409 national 

park units. 

The infrastructure is quite old. Most of it was built turn-of-thecentury, particularly in the 1960s, when there was a major investment in the National Park System with Mission 66. Those 

systems—wastewater, water treatment, sewer systems, buildings, 

infrastructure—are all now pushing 50, 60 years old. 

We have a very good inventory of our system. We know every 

asset, its current condition, and what it is going to take. We need, 

basically, twice as much money as we currently have in our construction program to just keep even with the current backlog. 

The construction budget—you are spot on there—has several 

other sources. Our recreation fee program, what we call the repair/ 

rehab program, goes into the non-road assets. And then, of course, 

Congress is working on a transportation bill that has some road 

money for us, as well. But, in the Administration’s bill, which requests $300 million in 

Title III for 3 years in a row, if we were to receive that funding 

for 10 years in a row, we could bring the non-road high-priority 

assets across the entire system, about 6,000 assets, to good 

condition. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I actually have a follow-on graph that I wanted to 

show. 

[Slide] 

Ms. TSONGAS. The top piece of it shows the discussion draft 

before us. And, thankfully, it is important that we begin this discussion and the kind of investment that would be made in the 

maintenance backlog. 

Then, the second piece of it shows what would be the investment 

that would be made under H.R. 3556, Mr. Grijalva’s bill. 

The next piece shows the annual minimum required to maintain 

the current levels. 

Then the bottom piece just shows the total maintenance backlog 

that has accumulated over time. 

So, Director Jarvis, again, how better could we help you address 

this? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I think it is—— 

Ms. TSONGAS. A leading question, I know. 

Mr. JARVIS. That is OK. I think the maintenance backlog has to 

be addressed in a number of ways. 

One, there are projects that you can raise private dollars to support. We have a subset of those, and we work with our Friends 

organization and the National Park Foundation to leverage some 

Federal skin in the game against philanthropy. 

Then, there are projects that are purely a Federal responsibility. 

No one is going to give me philanthropy to fix a wastewater treatment plant. That is a Federal responsibility. So, these cycle 

30 

through in need and investment. Unless we put up the money now, 

it is pay-me-later, as well, this backlog will grow faster than we are 

investing in it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Director Jarvis. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Jarvis, you mentioned in your last statement it would 

take two times the money to just keep even with the backlog. Can 

you explain that a little more? 

Mr. JARVIS. Roughly, to keep even with our current backlog, we would need about $800 million annually to address the non-road 

maintenance backlog. We currently, through Fiscal Year 2015, receive just a little bit over $400 million annually for non-road 

assets. So we would need about twice that, or $800 million. 

So, we parse that into the non-road, high-priority assets. Highpriority assets are the ones that directly serve the public; they are 

the historic homes that are the principal reason the park exists, or 

a road or trail that provides access to an asset. We would need to 

get annual appropriations in addition to what our current is, at 

least what has been requested in the Administration’s bill, which 

is $300 million per year. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Can you provide some examples of how the 

Centennial Challenge Fund would enable the National Park 

Service to tackle portions of that maintenance backlog through the 

partnership entities? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely, Congresswoman. David MacDonald mentioned a few projects in Acadia. I can absolutely provide the committee a full list of the kinds of projects that we have leveraged 

through the recent $10 million Centennial program. 

But, for instance, on the Blue Ridge Parkway, we have done 

trails for accessibility. We have done preservation of projects: Cape 

Cod National Seashore, we did some of the historic buildings; we 

have done rehab at Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg; the Grand 

Canyon rehab; and a variety of trails. 

Some of the larger projects: Grand Teton, in your home state; 

working on historic CCC projects that were built 75 years ago; and 

Great Smokey Mountains, increasing trail access. A big project 

here in the Chairman’s district and Yosemite National Park is rehabilitating the Mariposa Grove. It is a project where the Federal 

share was about $1.1 million; and the partner, Yosemite 

Conservancy, has put up $1.8 million. So, we are getting a major 

restoration at the Mariposa Grove. 

We literally have hundreds of projects where a one-to-one match 

has actually been leveraged more than one-to-one by our partners 

across the system. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Most of us are aware that, when the national 

parks began, it was the railroads who frequently built the beautiful 

facilities in these parks. So, the parks were founded with a longstanding history of public-private partnerships. And working with 

concessionaires, clearly, the railroads had skin in the game when 

it came to getting visitors out to the national parks. 

Do you have the authority you need to work with concessionaires 

to address the deferred maintenance backlog, and to help 

31 

underwrite rehabilitation and replacement, or even expansion of 

some of the visitors infrastructure? 

Mr. JARVIS. Not really. Let me, if you don’t mind, take a minute 

to talk about the current relationship with our concessioners. 

First of all, we have great concessioners. The companies that we 

work with provide extraordinarily great service to the American 

public. Congress reformed the concessions law in 1995. We went to 

a new concessions law, and it did several positive things. One, is 

it increased competition; it resulted in an increase of the franchise 

fees back to the National Park Service, to the Federal Government, 

that we could reinvest in facilities. 

But, there are a couple of issues that I think continue to be a 

problem. We have proposed, in the Administration’s bill, a new authority called the Visitor Services Management Authority, that 

would allow us to at least experiment with being more consistent 

with private sector practices for lodging and food services than we 

currently have under the concessions law. 

The real issue is this thing called leaseholder surrender interest 

that, under current concessions law, when a concessioner invests in 

a facility that is owned by the National Park Service to significantly improve it, to meet expectations of current visitors, that investment grows over the life of the contract. So, at the end of the 

contract, we owe the concessioner that value that it has grown. 

In the example of the Grand Canyon contract most recently re- competed, we owed the concessioner $150 million, in spite of the 

fact that they were making a profit throughout that period. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentlelady’s—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, my time has expired. 

Mr. JARVIS. OK. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. But I would mention that he volunteered to give 

us a list of those items, and I would like to ask for that. 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Director. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Dingell. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I want to continue to follow on your line of 

questioning, because I share that concern. I thank you for your recognition, Mr. Chairman. 

Next year, we are approaching an important anniversary, the 

100th anniversary of the National Park Service, which we have 

been talking about. For me, and for all of us, it is a time to celebrate the successful track record the NPS has had managing some 

of the most beautiful, iconic places in our Nation, including 

Sleeping Bear Dunes, the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, the 

River Raisin National Battlefield, et cetera. 

But, I think it is also an opportunity to give the Park Service the 

resources and authorities that they need to do their job in the 21st 

century. I do not think we should let this opportunity pass by. So, 

I want to talk about some of the differences in the discussion draft 

we are considering today and the Ranking Member’s legislation. 

Mr. Nau, why is it important to legislatively establish an endowment and provide a source of funding beyond those individual 

contributions? 

And, to continue along the lines of Mrs. Lummis, the Ranking 

Member’s bill included a section that establishes the National Park 

32 

Service’s Visitor Service Management Program. It would provide 

the National Park Service with the authority to offer new types of 

concession contracts to run facilities like hotels and restaurants. I 

think it sounds like an idea worth looking into, and it is not 

included in the discussion draft. Could you talk more about that, 

as well, building on what you were talking about? 

Mr. NAU. I can only address the issue of the endowment. If the 

endowment had been formed back on the 50th anniversary, we 

would probably be dealing with close to $1 billion, given the track 

record of many institutions, including major and small universities. 

We are about ready to have the Baby Boomer generation engage 

in long-standing estate planning. If we have a mechanism to engage that level of giving and philanthropy, it needs to come 

through an endowment. If I am going to provide that kind of substantial gift, I am going to want to know that it is going to perpetuate itself. Over a 20-year period, that is an 8 percent return a 

year, with a spending rate of probably 41⁄2–5, 51⁄2 percent. If that 

money were here, the Park Service, working with the Foundation, 

could probably have $250–$500 million a year in additional funding 

for programs and other areas of addressing the visitor experience. 

We have talked a lot here about the backlog. I think we also 

need to focus on the visitor experience of the target generations 

and demographics that are not currently visiting the parks: 

Millennials, Hispanic immigrants, and urban dwellers. That is 

what the Find Your Park program is all about, and that is what 

it targets. 

Now, I cannot speak to the concessions question, ma’am. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. 

Mr. NAU. I would have to defer to John. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I think that these public-private partnerships 

really are the wave of the future. We are not going to have enough 

time, we only have a minute and 17 seconds. So, if you could continue to build on that; and, like my colleague, Mrs. Lummis, I 

would like to follow up on these after today with more questions. 

Mr. JARVIS. I do think that public-private partnerships are the 

key. We really need and support the private sector to provide these 

kinds of services in the national parks. And the Visitor Services 

Management Authority, which is in the Administration’s bill, 

would give us a broad range of flexibility to try new tools that 

could result in significant improvement in investment in these facilities, to upgrade them, as well as the potential for bundling 

projects, commercial facilities, together to make them more attractive to the private sector, as well. 

I think that what we are asking for is essentially a new set of 

authorities to work more closely with the private sector. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. I guess I will yield back my 

23 seconds. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. MacDonald, I was reading your testimony, where you mentioned the recent community work day that attracted over 

400 volunteers to help restore roads in Acadia. I think they were 

cleaning out ditches and doing other activities. It reminded me of 

33 

work that volunteers in my district have done on both the Buffalo 

National River and Hot Springs National Park. 

What more can be done by the National Park Service to 

galvanize this type of volunteerism and community engagement? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you for the question. It has been an 

important part of our organization since its founding. We were 

founded by volunteers who wanted to give back more time. 

I think what is most meaningful to a lot of our volunteers is to 

work side by side with park staff. They take great pride in being 

alongside someone with a uniform, or someone who is working for 

these parks. They really want to see the parks well taken care of, 

well funded. 

I think that there should be greater authorities to partner with 

organizations that can provide more flexibility and nimbleness. 

Sometimes it is unbelievable the number of forms you have to sign 

to volunteer in your park. So, partnering with the nonprofits makes 

it easier for folks to give back. 

But I think most of our volunteers at Acadia just want to see the 

park well taken care of, well staffed, and feel good about their investment of volunteer time. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. You mentioned that projects were undertaken 

to reduce the maintenance backlog, but they also created a 

‘‘tremendous opportunity for visitor engagement and public benefit.’’ What impact do you believe the maintenance backlog has had 

on the visitor experience and recreation opportunities in Acadia 

National Park? I know maintenance backlogs are an issue with all 

of our parks. 

Mr. MACDONALD. In terms of the visitor experience, I would say 

the biggest impact is, as John mentioned, outdated facilities. Our 

visitor center at Acadia does come from that Mission 66 era. It is 

drastically undersized. It is hard to heat, it is hard to cool. It is 

inadequate for the 2.5 million visitors we get a year. 

We have worked over the years to structure some of these publicprivate partnerships. Through endowments formed at Friends of 

Acadia, we have been able to address some of the backlog on iconic 

things, like trails and carriage roads, as you were mentioning. 

Some maintenance is sexy, and donors are proud to give to it; 

others are not. In terms of the visitor experience now, I would say 

it is the visitor center that is the primary hole; and the Park 

Service just does not even have that on the near horizon, to be able 

to repair that and keep it up. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Following up on that, what do you think about 

trails maintenance and maybe vegetation management? What 

would you be able to complete with new money from the 

Centennial Challenge Fund? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, it would be wonderful to be able to plan 

for this kind of funding. I mean, again, this year we had to respond 

within a matter of a couple of weeks to the opportunity to compete 

for this $10 million. We landed $165,000 in Acadia. That was very 

helpful. We matched it and doubled it. That repaired less than a 

mile of a historic trail. It helped us restore a handful of scenic 

vistas. I mean this work is resource-intensive. 

So, if this were a reliable source of funding, year in and year out, 

we would be able to work with the Park Service to program this 

34 

out and plan for it, and begin to bring down that backlog. 

Certainly, the Centennial Challenge Fund is not going to solve it, 

but it is an important supplementary tool to help add to philanthropy and help add to the kind of funding that I hope would come 

from the construction fund. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Director Jarvis, I was on a flight one time and 

I sat by a lady from Coca-Cola that ran an active trails grants program. I did not know about it before then. I know there has been 

a question about public and private partnerships, but what are you 

doing specifically with the National Park Foundation to engage corporate partners in the Centennial celebrations? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question. I think we are in a 

totally new place than we have been, probably for decades, in working directly with corporate sponsorships, with the National Park 

Foundation, with the leadership of Mr. Nau, and Will Shafroth, the 

CEO at the Foundation. 

We have partnerships with Subaru, Disney, Budweiser, and 

American Express. We have new partnerships on the horizon, folks 

from major corporations like Red Bull and AirBNB coming in the 

door now to partner with the National Park Service, to help spread 

the word of Find Your Park, and support specific projects, like 

volunteerism. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you to our 

witnesses for being here today. I also was very encouraged to see 

this, the National Park Service Centennial bill, the draft proposal 

that was put forth by Chairman Bishop, really begin to help the 

NPS address the challenges of the next 100 years. I really hope 

that the Majority works with the Minority on this bill to make 

what is now a good bill an even better bill, as they have begun to 

do already, as we have worked on other issues. 

I also want to compliment, a little bit off the topic, the Majority 

for working with me and my staff on the BLM Foundation, which 

has a special mission we put in to clean up abandoned mines, as 

Mr. Hice has advocated for, and we are very pleased with them 

picking that up and wanting to work with us on it. 

I want to continue on the discussion that has been raised by a 

number of people on our side of the aisle, which really talks about 

the stark differences in the funding levels. We have this tremendous range of potential in the draft versus the proposal that was 

put forth by Ranking Member Grijalva, in what the Park Service 

says it needs, and the levels that are actually provided in 

Chairman Bishop’s bill. I know it is a draft proposal, and we are 

having that discussion. For me, it is really important to understand 

what that means, in terms of the actual backlog. 

I know we have touched on this, Director Jarvis, but I would like 

to know if we end up with the low end, in terms of the funding, 

what are you going to prioritize? What would be included in specific projects if we had more robust funding? And, could you explain 

to us a little bit about how you arrive at those priorities? 

Mr. JARVIS. The priorities are driven by life, health, and safety, 

at the very top of our priority list. We are in a triage situation, essentially, about what our priorities are with the current level of 

35 

instruction and repair/rehab funding. We go for the facilities that 

are high-priority assets. Those are the ones that are either of high 

historical significance, and/or directly related to the visitor experience. Those get the funding. Everything else goes into, essentially, 

almost a benign neglect status. 

Then, we go in and Band-Aid for a facility. In the roads category, 

a perfect example is Memorial Bridge, right here in Washington, 

DC. We are Band-Aiding the Memorial Bridge, knowing that we 

will have a $250 million bill at some point to repair the Memorial 

Bridge. So, that is the kind of triage that we are going through 

right now. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. In this discussion, it is really important for us 

to understand, and that is why I am glad you testified, just exactly 

what are the implications. 

I think all of us agree to the overall concept. Now, the question 

is how do we fund it, and how to identify what is the appropriate 

level. I think that is the discussion, and it is very, very important 

for us to have that discussion. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Hice. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity for this hearing on the ‘‘National Park Service 

Centennial Act,’’ proposed by Chairman Bishop, and I want to 

thank each of our witnesses for being here. 

Mr. Nau, I would like to direct my questions to you. Can you tell 

me specifically what the role is of the National Park Foundation in 

the Centennial? 

Mr. NAU. The Foundation was enacted back in 1966, and we 

function as the 501(c)(3) to raise funding. Over the first 45 years, 

it has been pretty much philanthropy-driven. Through Director 

Jarvis’ leadership, and the leadership of the Board of the Foundation, we have been able to expand into corporate partnerships and 

have increased the philanthropy. We work with the Park Service 

to address programmatic needs, and begin to deal with enhancing 

the visitor experience. 

Corporate funding, right now, is at about $45 million in 2015 and 

projected into 2016 is $45 million, plus what comes in the door in 

the future that did not exist just 12 months ago. 

Dr. HICE. So there is a good relationship between you and the 

Park Service? You are working well together? 

Mr. NAU. Absolutely. 

Dr. HICE. And I appreciate Mr. Westerman mentioning, and 

Director Jarvis, as well, the various corporations that are coming 

on board in an attempt to put together a public and private partnership. I understand that Coca-Cola Corporation is a major leader 

in that. And, of course, we are exceedingly honored to have CocaCola in my home state of Georgia; their leadership in so many 

ways has just been spectacular, and donating over $1 million a 

year to the Foundation, as well, is tremendous. 

But I want to jump on Director Jarvis’ comments, and to you, 

Mr. Nau, are there incentives to attract more corporations to come 

on board? 

Mr. NAU. The incentives are the visitors. If you go back and look 

at what I would consider to be the traditional funding model, 

36 

Federal funding, a little bit of philanthropy, what we are all 

addressing here today is what is the new funding model, going forward? The government has to be in—there has to be some philanthropy, there needs to be increased volunteerism, and the last one 

is corporate engagement. With the hundreds of thousands and millions of visitors that flow through these iconic parks, corporate 

America, particularly those that deal with consumer goods, are logical partners. And, as we have gone out to talk to them, they have 

responded tremendously. 

I want to address one issue that has always come up. Corporate 

America wants recognition, but they do not want to overstate it 

within a park—be subtle. They do not want to be the ones to have 

pushback for too much recognition within a park. Again, I will say 

to Director Jarvis and the Service that the recognition that they 

have authorized in the parks right now with our sponsors helps us 

go out to other sponsors. Corporate America is going to be there, 

now that they know the Service would be a good partner for them. 

Dr. HICE. You mentioned in your testimony that some people are 

concerned with the over-commercialization within some of the 

parks. Is there a way, as you just brought up, to tastefully recognize the corporations without overstepping the line of being overly 

commercialized? And, does this bill hit the balance? 

Mr. NAU. Yes. On the balance issue, the answer is yes. 

Dr. HICE. OK. 

Mr. NAU. The governor there is not just the Park Service, it is 

the corporations. We do not want to overstate. If you go into many 

of the parks today, you will see signage on Find Your Park. Along 

the bottom are corporate logos, recognizing those partners that are 

engaged. That is all we want. That is all the recognition that corporations have asked for. So, there is a really good partnership 

dynamic going on. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back 

with the comment that, with Coca-Cola’s leadership, I encourage 

everyone to go drink a Coke today. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important 

hearing. And thanks to our witnesses for the great work that you 

do for one of the great American institutions. 

Mr. Jarvis, as we think about the Centennial Challenge, I know that Congress appropriated $10 million in Fiscal Year 2015 for the 

Challenge. I wonder if you could tell us at what level the private 

sector responded and matched that investment. 

Mr. JARVIS. Way more than one-to-one. I think it turned out to 

be about almost one-to-two, in terms of the private sector match 

with these projects. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. If we were to go big, let’s say if that 

amount were raised to $100 million a year, do you think there is 

enough interest from the private sector to match that level of investment by the Federal Government? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. If you remember in 2008, Secretary 

Kempthorne asked Congress for funding for a similar centennial 

challenge, and we were able to receive pledges of over $200 million 

37 

from the private sector and partners across the system to match a 

Federal match. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would like to ask the same question to Mr. Nau. 

In your opinion, do you think there is enough private interest in 

matching at the $100 million level? 

Mr. NAU. Short answer, absolutely. And, it is not just from corporations. It is going to come from individual and corporate philanthropy. As soon as that world knows that the Federal Government 

has skin in the game, it is going to open up doors, philanthropic 

and corporate giving, that we have not touched before. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thank you. 

Director Jarvis, I want to ask you about high-speed broadband 

access as part of this important milestone for the Park Service. I 

know that you intend to install public Wi-Fi in visitor centers over 

the next year. That is a great step. Are there other goals that the 

Park Service has established for connectivity? And, I am wondering 

if there is a national or a park-specific planning process underway 

for that. 

I am also, more specifically, curious about how our parks support 

the President’s and Congress’ vision of broadband deployment and 

access. And I mean not just getting our parks connected, I mean 

possibly using parks as anchors in remote rural areas to connect 

entire communities, or neighboring Federal agencies, or Federal 

health centers—lots of folks who, under the current system, are 

sort of siloed, sometimes each of them entering into their own contracts with telecoms for T1 lines at exorbitant rates, when right 

next door to them is another Federal facility or other facility that 

could be part of a regional consortium. 

So, I am wondering if the Park Service is thinking creatively 

about breaking down those silos. I learned in a meeting a couple 

of weeks ago that there may be government contracting rules that 

prohibit the Park Service from bidding fiber contracts as part of a 

broader consortium, even with other Federal agencies, which 

makes no sense whatsoever to me. 

I am curious about your thoughts on how we can not only get our 

parks connected, but really get our rural areas and other facilities, 

including Federal ones, connected as part of a cooperative effort. 

Mr. JARVIS. I thank you for that question. Absolutely, we have 

both a goal and a plan to go forward to get connectivity into the 

primary visitor use areas of our national parks, with the target 

market being the Millennials. If they do not have connectivity, they 

are not going to come. I mean that is kind of our assessment. 

We view that connectivity as an enhancement to the experience, 

not a substitute. So, at visitor centers, hotels, primary visitor use 

areas, we hope to build this kind of connectivity; and we are going 

to need to do it in partnership with communities, with the telecom 

industry, to drive these in. Often, we are at the tail end of miles 

of a single copper line. Recently we did a project, worked with some 

of our concessioners to look at satellite uplink in partnership with 

them to provide broadband access within concession facilities, as 

well. 

I am unfamiliar with where there may be conflicts here, but that 

is definitely something I will be glad to look into to make sure that 

38 

we can work collaboratively with the other agencies and the private 

sector in some of these more remote locations. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Great, I would love to work with you on that. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Hardy. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

Chairman Bishop for putting this draft bill forward. I think it helps 

us usher in the next century of national parks. 

My district is home to some of the most distinctive units of the 

National Park System, including the Great Basin National Park, 

Death Valley National Park, as well as Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, and the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National 

Monument. Together, those all generated about 5 million tourists 

last year. 

First, a quick question that I came up with after listening for a 

minute, 5 million folks go to those parks, when Las Vegas itself 

had over 41 million visitors last year. We have dozens of other 

parks within a 100-mile radius of the Las Vegas area. 

Mr. Nau, I would ask you, are 5 million folks a reasonable 

amount of people that should be using the parks, when you have 

41 million visitors that close? You have Zion’s National Park, the 

Grand Canyon National Park, and Bryce Canyon National Park, 

along with others. Is there an avenue there that we can continue 

to work on this? 

Mr. NAU. Well, the numbers you are telling me, we have about 

a 12 percent penetration of visitors. I do not know what the specific 

standard ought to be. But the Find Your Park program is targeting 

the numbers that you just laid out. We want to be able to communicate with people and invite them to go to the parks. 

Now, in this particular case, partnering with the hotel/motel 

association, the casino association in Vegas, and have them become 

that local partner to help communicate Find Your Park and address the idea of people going out to the dam, to the parks, on day 

trips, that is what the next generation of visitors are going to experience. These 3- and 4-hour day trips are what is going to drive 

Director Jarvis’ numbers up. 

So, the Foundation could go to Las Vegas, work with the hotel/ 

motel association, and invite them to become a local partner. That 

is the way you are going to communicate with those visitors. 

Mr. HARDY. Yes. The Las Vegas Valley, in the past, it used to 

be about $.70 on every dollar was for gaming. Las Vegas has had 

to completely reinvent itself over the last 15 years. It is now less 

than $.40 on the dollar for gaming; they are trying to bring people 

for shows and other activities. So, I think there is a real opportunity here, especially with as many parks as we have within that 

area. 

Mr. NAU. Afterwards could I get the name of that convention and 

visitor’s director? And we will approach them. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. In my district, the Great Basin National 

Park has made efforts to reach out and expose new generations of 

Nevadans to our national treasures by bringing children from 

Title I schools from Clark County into the park and spending several days of experiencing the vast expanses of these one-of-a-kind 

landscapes. These students participate in the junior ranger 

39 

program, and film short videos to be included in the capsule 

commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Great Basin National 

Park and the Park Service for their Centennial. 

Great Basin is also partnering with Death Valley and the Joshua 

Tree National Park to feature videos amongst our Nation’s darkest 

areas, and you can see the Milky Way and other things out in that 

area. 

With that being said, there is this collaboration with the fourth 

grade students and trying to give them free access. There are over 

25,000 fourth graders in the Las Vegas Valley, and the Las Vegas 

Review Journal just reported only a couple hundred people have 

signed up for that program in the first quarter. Could you tell me, 

Director Jarvis, how this program is working over the rest of the 

country? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is the first year of the program. I do not have the 

hard statistics off the top of my head now. At one point, we felt 

that we had about 900,000 downloads. There are roughly 4 million 

fourth graders in the Nation today. Our goal is to reach them all 

with the Every Kid in a Park voucher, which gives them free access 

to all parks and public lands for them and their family. 

So, if you think of them as sort of a target market, we want to 

connect these kids to the outdoors through this pass. The National 

Park Foundation is key to this, in that they are raising the funding 

for transportation grants to the schools, so the kids can have a bus 

driver, a docent, and a substitute teacher to get out there, as well. 

It is a partnership program, and I think we are just sort of beginning to penetrate the broader school community around this. 

We are not going to get them all this year, but our goal is to do 

this many years in a row. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. HARDY. I know my time is up, but just one comment. These 

urban areas, and you cannot get more urban than Las Vegas, are 

the diverse areas that we need to bring people back to the parks. 

This is an important step that we have to take to get those young 

people out there. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you all very 

much for being with us today. 

Director Jarvis, we have heard a lot this year on this committee about the $11 billion infrastructure backlog for the National Park 

Service. It has come up again and again, especially in light of the 

context of, do we spend more money for land acquisition when we 

have this $11 billion backlog? 

And, when you drill down, we find that roughly half of it is related to highways and other specific transportation infrastructure. 

The good news is that it looks like we are going to have a 5-year 

highway bill before we leave, the longest since 2005, with new 

funds. How much will this new highway bill affect your transportation backlog? 

Mr. JARVIS. The transportation bill, as I understand it, that came out of conference has a National Park Service allocation of $268 

million for Fiscal Year 2016. That is going to grow to $300 million 

in Fiscal Year 2020, which is a little bit more than we sort of 

currently have in our transportation program. 

40 

The good news, though, is it did create a major infrastructure 

competitive program of which the National Park Service will be 

able to compete for large infrastructure projects. The Memorial 

Bridge is an example of a project that could cost $250 million. That 

would take our entire annual allocation for one project. 

So, this is a good thing. We could certainly use more, but we feel 

wonderfully happy that the Congress has moved on a transportation bill, and we can plan out for 5 years on our road projects. 

Mr. BEYER. Since you brought it up, Mr. Director, Arlington 

Memorial Bridge has two of the six lanes closed right now, the 

number-one access into Washington, DC. How are we making 

progress on those specific two-lane closures? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have a project underway right now. It is a temporary fix. I commute across that bridge, too, so I know the backup 

of the traffic there every day. And I cannot give you a timeline; I 

will be glad to get back to you on when we expect to have those 

two lanes back open. But keep in mind this is only a temporary fix 

to the bridge. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you very much. This bill increases the 

age applicable for the Public Land Corps from 25 to 30. Can you 

explain why that is? And should we have an exception for the 

under-30-year-old veterans coming back? 

Mr. JARVIS. There are two aspects to the Public Land Corps: 

there is the age increase, and also the longer timeline. So, it goes 

from 120 days to 2 years that would make them noncompetitively 

eligible for Federal jobs. 

A significant number of veterans are also in this program, and 

we have a number of initiatives that we work with Defense, 

Wounded Warriors, and others, to be able to reach vets as employees of the National Park Service, as well. So, they would be eligible 

under this. 

The key is to give them a little bit longer time to achieve a 

Federal job, and we love hiring out of this program. The combination of increasing the age and going from 120 days to 2 years will 

allow us to really tap veterans, and the next generation, as new 

employees in the Service. 

Mr. BEYER. I agree, thank you. One last question—in looking at 

the differences between Ranking Member Grijalva’s bill and our 

Chairman’s bill, one of the differences is in Title I, where the 

Grijalva bill talked about the Centennial Declaration giving the 

Park Service responsibility not just for the system, but for financial 

and technical assistance to states, communities, and individuals to 

protect our national heritage. 

Do you see that as an important part of the mission, going 

forward, or is it OK to omit that? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think it is a really important component. Over the 

100-year life of the National Park Service, Congress has given the 

Park Service a variety of new responsibilities that really have nothing to do with the 409 units of the National Park System. 

For instance, we manage the National Historic Landmarks 

Program, and the National Register of Historic Places Program. We 

do not manage those facilities, we do not provide them any funding, 

but we do the recognition. By recognizing that they are also part 

of the American story, this is what this Centennial Declaration 

41 

does. It says all the things that you do combine to help America 

celebrate who we are, as a Nation. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you, Director Jarvis. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank the 

witnesses for being here. 

Director Jarvis, I have three sons that are 13, 11, and 9. We 

have been to Disney World and done that experience in the last 5 

years, enjoyed that, and kind of saw how that process worked. But 

we have also done a number of trips to national parks. We have 

been to the north rim of the Grand Canyon and did a backpacking 

trip there, we did a fishing trip at Isle Royale, and we have also 

been to the Alaska Basin in the Teton National Park. 

In comparing those experiences over the last 5 or 6 years with 

my sons, and looking at the technology and the apps that were 

used at Disney World, that technology increased the experience 

and the efficiency of that visit in everything from entering the 

park, tracking your location, charging food and water, and getting 

information in an effective and efficient way. 

Looking at the statistics—Walt Disney World, in 1987, had 26 

million visitors; this year they are going to have 50.1 million. They 

have doubled in size. I think there is a direct correlation between 

technology and apps and the efficiency of information. I compare 

that to our national parks and my own experience there, and how 

we can improve that. 

I know you talked about connectivity, and I think that is part of 

it. But technology has to be a part of that, whether that is waiting 

in line for your entrance fee, getting supplies, campsite rentals, and 

lots of other issues that you can use to make that experience better 

with technology. 

I know you have talked a little bit about that, but what specifically can we do to improve that? Because I think that issue has to 

be addressed if we want to improve our visitation. 

Mr. JARVIS. I could not agree more. And I think your kids are 

a perfect example of this new generation that expects to be able to 

have that kind of access, to pay with their phones, to go a little 

deeper in. 

The Park Service has a lot of content. We have a lot of stuff. We 

have a lot of stories. We have fantastic experiences. And probably, 

for our first 100 years, we have provided that as an authentic kind 

of experience. I think, with this next generation, we have to provide a technological aspect to that, as well. But to be very blunt 

about it, we are in a triage situation, as we have indicated here, 

from an operational budget standpoint and from an infrastructure 

standpoint. These kinds of things take money to invest in. 

Now, we do have, in some cases, partnerships with the private 

sector, particularly corporate, who are interested in developing 

apps for us. One of them most recently was American Express, who 

is developing an app about volunteerism, where an individual can 

download the app and then basically participate as a volunteer, 

and then become incentivized, shall we say, to volunteer in their 

own services, as well. 

42 

What we have been trying to do is to build the content, and then 

ask the private sector to step up in developing the software, the applications, the user interfaces with our content, because, frankly, it 

is not our expertise to do that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Is there currently an application process out there? 

Are you entertaining from different technology companies somebody that can take over this process and get it going? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is more on the individual, park by park, basis. For 

instance, here on the National Mall there was private sector development of Mall applications for tourism. There were applications 

during the civil rights marches. It is not centralized. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Is it your thought that it is more efficient to do it 

that way, with each individual park doing it? Or is it better to do 

it in a more centralized approach throughout the Park Service? 

Mr. JARVIS. I have never found anything centralized back here 

to be very efficient, to be blunt about it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAHOOD. I guess what I am saying is if you gave it to a private company to outsource that and run that for the entire Park 

Service, they could give you a good idea on that. Correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have been, through the National Park 

Foundation, talking to Google, Facebook, and some of the other big 

social media organizations around these kinds of ideas. But, so far, 

we have not found sort of the right fit for this, Service-wide. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Last question, just switching subjects on the transportation bill. In terms of money, if and when this bill passes and 

gets signed by the President, has that been prioritized within the 

Park Service on where that is going to be spent? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, we—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is going to need to be a yes-or-no answer. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Such a good topic. And thank you to each of our witnesses for your 

testimony. 

My district, in the central coast of California, is home to some 

very beautiful landscapes. We all claim the fame of our areas that 

we represent. These landscapes that I represent stretch from the 

coastal mountains and the Carrizo Plain National Monument onshore to some very spectacular beaches along the coast. 

We have the Channel Islands as the jewel, and Channel Islands 

National Park, which has been designated now for 35 years as a 

national park. It continues to attract visitors from all around the 

world. It is known as the Galapagos Islands of North America. It 

has preserved both the unique natural and cultural resources found 

within its borders, and ensured access for over 11 million visitors 

since its establishment. Each year, these visitors contribute tens of 

millions of dollars to our local economy, and support hundreds of 

jobs. 

And, while visitors come to the Channel Islands for all sorts of 

reasons, there is a dedicated group that chooses to give back to the 

islands by volunteering. These volunteers staff the visitor center, 

43 

provide interpretation in the park, and conduct trail maintenance 

and preservation activities. I want to talk with a couple of you 

about our volunteers. 

I know my experience in my district is not unique. National 

parks across the country are so invaluable to their local communities, and dedicated volunteers provide similar services that I 

have described in probably each of our national parks. 

Director Jarvis, can you explain the importance of volunteers to 

the National Park Service? About how many did you have in 2015, 

if you have an idea? And why does the authorization cap of $3.5 

million need to be removed? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. We 

could not provide the services and the quality of work to the 

American public through our national parks without our volunteers. It would absolutely be impossible. We have an extraordinary 

army of volunteers out there. This year we have set a new record. 

We had 440,000 volunteers. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Wow. 

Mr. JARVIS. We had set the goal to raise it significantly from 

what the previous year was, at 300,000. So we have gone 140,000 

over our 300,000. 

In the discussion draft, and in the Administration’s bill, we are 

requesting the cap, which is currently under the appropriations 

bill, of $5 million. Under authorization, it is $3.5 million, but it was 

increased in the appropriations bill to $5 million. We would like to 

have that cap removed, because that puts a ceiling on the amount 

of dollars that we can spend on supporting our volunteers. 

The volunteers, depending on where you work, roughly cost the 

Park Service about $10 to $20 a piece to really support. They are 

not free, but they are quite inexpensive to support. And, the return 

we get is in the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of 

support, of direct work in our parks. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MacDonald, you are the Executive Director of Friends of 

Acadia, a specific national park on the East Coast, or in Maine. I 

would imagine you know a thing or two about the importance of 

volunteers in your park. How do they assist in Acadia National 

Park? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you for recognizing this important role 

that they play. They assist in a number of ways. We have a program that is fairly unique; we call it our Drop-In Program. It is on 

Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. If you are visiting Acadia 

with your family, you can drop in to volunteer. A lot of them are 

one-time volunteers, but that is over 3,000 hours a year, from the 

drop-ins. 

We also have a dedicated corps of folks that this is just what 

they do. This is their job, almost. It is where they live, and it is 

their love. After all, the parks belong to them. They do not belong 

to the Service, the Service is managing them. The volunteers represent that ethic of ownership, investment, and pride in the parks. 

It is how we were founded. It is still a very important program. 

Friends of Acadia provides some funding to match what the Park 

Service can do with a volunteer coordinator. So, it is another 

version of a public-private partnership up in Acadia. 

44 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Just a real brief point, because my 

colleague asked about the Public Lands Corps Act, and he mentioned veterans and the role that they play. 

Director Jarvis, can you say just a word about its ability to 

diversify your future work force? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The operative term being ‘‘a word.’’ 

Mrs. CAPPS. A word. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JARVIS. We are growing a new generation of supporters that 

represent the diversity of the Nation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Nau, I appreciate your input and being here. 

You have mentioned in your testimony the support of the discussion draft that would establish overnight fees at lodging within the 

park boundaries. 

In your mind, does that level the playing field between lodgings 

inside and outside, or does it skew it? 

Mr. NAU. I do not know if it would ‘‘level the field’’ on individual 

parks, but it is going to get it a lot closer. Whether it is the town, 

the county, or the state, they all have overnight fees called hot 

taxes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Mr. NAU. And I believe, from a businessman’s perspective, those 

private sector investments are at a disadvantage, compared to the 

concessionaires that are not required to charge any kind of fee. 

They are exempted. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, the Foundation would not see this as punitive 

to the lodging concessionaires? 

Mr. NAU. Not at all. No, sir. I do not believe the businesses and 

communities would, either. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me hit you up on the Second Century 

Endowment concept. Is this important, that it is seeded with new 

fees? I mean why shouldn’t we just fund it with philanthropic 

donations? 

Mr. NAU. The donor community, in this case, people that I interact with and my own family, when we are going to invest philanthropically, I want to know that the owner or the manager has skin 

in the game. It is critical, I believe, to the donor community, as 

they estate plan over the next 20 years, that there be skin in the 

game from the Federal Government. This is one way to get it done. 

Mr. BISHOP. That also hits up to the point of the idea that the 

Board of Directors of the Foundation would be in charge of investments with these funds. As the Board is presently constituted, is 

it chosen for its financial management expertise? And how do you 

ensure that these funds are going to be managed properly on behalf 

of the American people, going forward? 

Mr. NAU. Great question. I have had the honor of serving on 

boards, in universities and the private sector. And those that have 

endowments do, in fact, have an investment committee, and you 

look to recruit people with that expertise. Since we have not had 

45 

it yet, there has not been a focus on recruitment of investment 

managers. 

The irony of it is that, of the board right now, we have three of 

them. So, we could get into investment oversight. But, I would also 

say that no foundation board is going to manage its own 

investments. You are going to go out and hire an investment manager, and your board members, or the oversight committee, is going 

to work with that investment manager. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, there would need to be changes to the charter 

of the Foundation. And, can only Congress do that? 

Mr. NAU. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that it would require a 

change. A good board would see to it, itself. I do not know of any 

board on which I have been involved where it is required. I mean 

it is just good management, that you would have an investment 

oversight committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I just ask you—for battlefields, in which you 

have a passion and a concern, what apps have you been using on 

the battlefield? 

Mr. NAU. Well, I really appreciate the issue. I believe the private 

sector, over development, is important. But right now is a bridge. 

501(c)(3)’s can do it. I do not know if David’s group has done one 

in Acadia, but the Civil War Trust has done one for almost all of 

the Civil War battlefields for the National Park Service. Local 

Friends groups have the capacity and the knowledge to create 

them. So, that is an easy way to bridge it. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. As you can see, I am not a 

Millennial, and I really don’t care. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I just don’t give a damn. But I am happy that 

somebody is working on that. 

Let me say two last things. Director Jarvis, the Subcommittee 

Chair mentioned the issue of bottled water. Please do not overlook 

that. The ability of banning bottled water by allowing Gatorade 

and Coke cans and all the other stuff in there, it does not make 

a whole lot of sense, and it does not deem well for what we are 

looking at in the future. That is an issue you have to look at. I am 

sorry, this is silly. 

Second, for the future, as we go forward with this, we are looking 

for ideas for this particular bill. Please do not give me any ideas 

that would require an offset, because I cannot find them. But any 

other ideas would be extremely helpful, and I would appreciate 

that. 

I yield back; and I apologize, I am going to have to leave right 

now. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and I appreciate the witnesses being 

here, all of you, and your testimony. 

Director Jarvis, earlier, to a question on this year’s appropriations in the transportation bill, I understood you to say that the 

amount in the transportation bill is more than we ‘‘sort of currently 

have.’’ I was wondering what you meant by ‘‘sort of currently 

have.’’ 

46 

Mr. JARVIS. It is basically about $15 million more annually, if I 

remember correctly, than we currently get out of the transportation 

program. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Than you currently get? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. OK, you just threw me with ‘‘sort of have.’’ 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, but it is not a whole lot. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I was not sure what that meant. OK. Do you 

know yet how much was spent in September and October of 2013 

in renting or purchasing barricades and closing down all the facilities that the Park Service closed down? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, I do not know that number. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Nau, it is good to have you back again. I was 

curious, with your experience on the Park Board, are a board or 

board members allowed to reach out for corporate sponsors, or is 

that something that is exclusively left to the Park Service itself? 

How does that reach-out occur? 

Mr. NAU. Actually, it is the contrary. It is not the Park Service, 

it is the Foundation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Foundation. 

Mr. NAU. Both the staff and individual board members reach out. 

For example, I reached out to Anheuser-Busch and to a couple of 

the others with whom we are still negotiating. So, it is going to be 

the private sector, through the Foundation Board, working with the 

Service. But the initial contact, in most cases, is coming from the 

Foundation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I enjoy good apps. I am wondering if there 

is room for sponsors that would provide those apps. Is the Park 

Service director equipped adequately to provide those kind of apps, 

or is it just the Foundation that will be doing that? 

Mr. NAU. I would look at it near term, and then long term. Near 

term, Friends groups and others like the Civil War Trust can create a fundamental, basic app to help the visitor understand what 

they are experiencing. Long term, I believe it will require the 

Service and the Foundation to identify the large private sector people that are going to be able to come in, improve the connection, 

the connectivity, and, at the same time, provide the type of apps 

that will appeal to these Millennials. But right now, it is Friends 

groups and others that are creating these apps. 

Mr. GOHMERT. OK. Well, again, thank you for being here. 

Thanks for the work you do. 

I was curious, Mr. MacDonald, are there apps that have been 

provided for your park? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, there are a couple that have come out of 

the private sector. Friends of Acadia is a resource and a partner 

for those private companies. 

Mr. GOHMERT. When you say partner, how are they partnered? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Well, they look to us for some of the content. 

They donate some of the proceeds back to the park. So, it is housed 

in the private sector, but very much a partnership with the Park 

Service and the Friends group. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So are those apps purchased? 

Mr. MACDONALD. No, they are free. 

47 

Mr. GOHMERT. They are free. So then the proceeds come from 

advertising? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. OK, all right. Well, thank you all very much. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. We are going to do one quick 

bonus round of questions, and I want to start with Director Jarvis. 

Regarding the Centennial Challenge, could you give us some examples of projects that might be funded by that program? 

Mr. JARVIS. What we have been trying to do with the Centennial 

Challenge Fund is to spread it broadly across the system. It can 

be a range from very small projects in the $10,000, $5,000 range, 

to multi-million-dollar projects. 

Just from a process standpoint, we do a call out to the field. We 

put priorities on the maintenance backlog and on projects that help 

reduce the backlog, particularly projects that relate to connecting 

the next generation involving volunteers and youth. So, we sort of 

set a screen on that. Then, we select the partners that we know 

can produce the match on this, as well. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would these funds be used for land 

acquisition? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, not for land acquisition. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Nau, could you tell us about why there is 

a 5 percent cap on the endowment spending rate? 

Mr. NAU. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The legislation includes a 5 percent cap for 

spending of the endowment. The Park Service originally asked for 

50 percent. Why such a low cap? 

Mr. NAU. Well, the standard for endowment management is, over 

a 20-year period, there is an 8 percent return on traditionallymanaged funds. The idea of putting a 5 percent cap is that it is 

a range that goes from about 41⁄2 to 51⁄2. In emergency years, you 

might go in and pull another percent out. But a 5 percent cap is 

what the industry standard would be. You do not spend up against 

the 8 percent, 20-year level. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And, basically, that prevents the endowment 

from becoming exhausted, correct? 

Mr. NAU. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. And that is standard for endowments of 

this type? 

Mr. NAU. That is correct. By the way, you mentioned that 

50 percent. I have never seen an endowment level spending of 50 

percent. It is not an endowment any more. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. Director Jarvis, looking at the 

NPS budget, again, it is up 16 percent over the past decade in 

nominal dollars after the prior decade, where it was up 65 percent. 

Inflation-adjusted, it is about flat even for the past decade, but 

there is a huge bulge in 2009 and 2010—up $900 million in a 

single year, about a 35 percent increase. 

The graph that the Ranking Member showed did not have that 

bulge reflected in the construction fund, so that raised a question. 

Where did that money go? 

Mr. JARVIS. I cannot answer that off the top of my head. But I 

would be glad to come up and show you all the numbers later. 

48 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is a lot of money that was put into the 

Park budget in a single year. When it is not reflected in the construction numbers that the Ranking Member offered, that becomes 

a big problem for me. I would really like to know where that money 

went. 

Mr. JARVIS. We would be glad to come up and show you those 

figures. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Nau, you talked about the need to engage the urban dwellers, Hispanics, and Millennials that have historically low park visitation rates. How do we do that? You have talked about, obviously, 

the connectivity for Millennials. How else do we get them into the 

parks? 

Mr. NAU. The Find Your Park program, Mr. Chairman, is really 

a marketing effort. We have reached out to national media partners, both social and traditional. We have already begun a media 

program. We have partnered with the corporations that are paying 

fees. They are, in fact, converting a lot of their media. 

If I were to name the stars that have lined up to help us, I don’t 

think anybody in this room would recognize their names, because 

I sure did not. But they have really stepped up, and we have begun 

to get social media contacts, Mr. Chairman, the likes of which I 

wish I could get in my company’s business. So it is working. And 

I believe, coming in the centennial year, we will begin to be able 

to clearly measure the impact, particularly on Millennials. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I have no idea what social media means, 

but I am told it is quite significant. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. One final question. Could we put up the 

overnight stays chart? 

[Chart] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Director Jarvis, that is the number of overnight stays at the national parks since 1979. Obviously, a significant decline from highs. In 9 seconds or less, what is driving that, 

and what are we going to do about it? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that my chart, which I have here and would 

be glad to share with you, is actually showing a turn. You can sort 

of see it there, in 2013 to 2014. But we are seeing a significant uptick in visitation, overnight stays, campground uses, starting in 

2014 and beyond. And that, I think, is a direct result of the Find 

Your Park campaign and using social media to attract a new 

audience. 

But, your point is well taken. For the last decade, it has been 

flat. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, we will leave it at my point was well 

taken. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JARVIS. But we are changing that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the complicated conversation we have had today, as we have explored the 

opportunities that come through philanthropy and private contributions, and the ways in which the draft legislation seeks to take 

advantage of that. 

49 

Looking at the way in which the Centennial Challenge has been 

structured in the draft legislation, it really will be funded by whatever dollars are raised by the increase in the senior fee. And that, 

in and of itself, there are questions around. Presuming that it goes 

forward as it is currently drafted, that could roughly generate 

about $35 million, which would then have to be met, dollar for 

dollar, by private contributions. 

My question really goes, though, more to the proposed legislation 

from Mr. Grijalva, which would put in place $100 million for 3 

years. It is a set amount for 3 years, in each year. So, it is $100 

million in each year. It is a set amount, which seems to be to maximize the opportunity to raise private dollars. You know that you 

have this set-aside from the Federal Government, and now it tasks 

you, the Park Service, to go out and raise the private match. 

My thoughts from you, Mr. Nau, for somebody who has been in 

the business of private fundraising, are we missing an opportunity 

by not setting aside a set amount, given what you have been saying 

about those of us, the Baby Boomers, who are looking at estate 

planning, your own knowledge of how private individuals give, or 

even the corporate world, as it makes decisions? 

Are we missing an opportunity by not setting aside a set amount, 

and taking advantage of the Centennial to make it larger? 

Mr. NAU. Obviously, if you put more money into any kind of a 

program, the ROI is going to increase, particularly for the local 

communities that are at the parks. 

The opportunity presented by the Centennial, ma’am, would 

allow us to craft that private sector engagement in the Centennial 

Challenge. That is the way that will help us, at the Foundation 

and the local Friends groups, to go out and begin to generate the 

kind of matches that we need to. 

The way it is crafted, the dollar level is up to you all. But the 

way it is crafted, we need to have that kind of challenge grant. 

David said that in his opening comments. That will help generate 

significant private sector and corporate money. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I appreciate Chairman Bishop’s concern with finding offsets. But, given the unique times we are in, and that we are 

celebrating 100 years, it is a missed opportunity to not maximize 

for private investment. 

But we also know that private investment cannot take the place 

of the Federal responsibility, and that we cannot use private fundraising to somehow relieve our obligation to really focus on what 

the Federal Government should be doing. 

Director Jarvis, there has been a 7 percent influx in visitors to 

the national parks in 2014. I would expect that visitation will continue to increase as the Centennial nears. I have seen the Every 

Kid in a Park program. I have seen how wonderful it is for those 

fourth graders and their families, as they are presented with this 

visitors pass, the excitement that they have that their families will 

be able to take advantage of this. 

But if that is the case, and we do confront robust increases in 

visitation, do you believe the parks are prepared to receive these 

increased numbers of visitors, given the cuts in the National Park 

Service budget over the last several years? And how does this draft 

50 

bill, and the bill introduced by Ranking Member Grijalva, help 

address the needs of the park? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think we are on pace to set a record, in terms of 

visitation for this year. I think it will be even larger next year, 

with all of the attention that is being brought to the National Park 

System. 

It is stressing out the national parks and the staffs. I have been 

out in the field throughout this year, and talking to park superintendents and rangers on the ground. We are seeing a large influx 

of new international visitors, particularly from China and that part 

of the world. We are seeing more incidents that we have to respond 

to: search and rescue, emergency medical, those kinds of things. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 budget requested operational support, as 

well as these infrastructure investments. We would hope that 

Congress would provide both, so that we can be prepared to receive 

the number of visitors we expect in 2016. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Before I ask Director Jarvis some questions, I do 

want to thank you, Mr. Nau, for your work on the Foundation 

Board, and your long-standing commitment to our national parks. 

It is exemplary. I hope there are many more clones of your work 

in the future. 

Director Jarvis, I have a question about what appears to be a difference between the Bishop discussion draft and the Grijalva bill 

related to the Visitor Service Management Authority. Is this authority meant to work alongside the 1998 concessions law, or is it 

meant to replace it? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is to work alongside the 1998 concessions law. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. I am curious about how they would interact. 

In fact, wouldn’t it be easier to just revisit the 1998 law, instead 

of creating a new authority? Why not integrate the two, instead of 

creating a parallel universe here? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think what we ultimately would like to do is to 

work with you to amend the 1998 law. But I do not think we are 

ready. We want to try some new models that are more consistent 

with the private sector models, particularly lodging and food service, and then bring to you the results of that so that we can amend 

the 1998 law in a way that would both provide an opportunity for 

the private sector to invest, which would allow the Service to upgrade its facilities, and provide the kind of experience that the public expects in our second century. But I, frankly, do not think we 

are ready to make those tweaks yet. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You see the need for a different model. Correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. I see the need for an adjustment to the existing 

model. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. 

Mr. JARVIS. Very much so. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. What would that adjustment be? 

Mr. JARVIS. So, for instance, let’s just take the leaseholder surrender interest component that is in the current 1998 law. That 

creates, essentially, upside-down contracts. It creates a contract 

where a new competitive bid coming in would have to put up a 

51 

significant amount of capital, in some cases over $100 million, in 

order to be the new concessioner. Even though the goal of the 1998 

law was to create competition, the leaseholder surrender interest 

actually creates a noncompetitive environment. 

We need a new model to allow, obviously, the private sector to 

get a return on their investment. But this model, that was created 

in 1998, really is problematic for us in the long term, and it has 

resulted in a really small group of concessioners out there that understand this enough to compete in that environment. 

It is a one-size-fits-all law. We are using the same set of parameters without any negotiation for the Grand Canyon and a very 

small lodge in Glacier Bay, or a marina in Lake Mead. We need 

a broader range of tools to be able to provide these kinds of services, work with the private sector, but also be able to upgrade them 

to meet current standards. The current law does not do that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK, thanks. That helped me understand where 

you are heading with this. 

I am going to switch to the senior pass. The price of a lifetime 

senior pass was established at $10 in 1994. Currently, you support, 

as I understand it, increasing the price of the pass to match the 

current annual parks pass. Can you explain why you support that 

increase? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I have to say, and I am a current holder of the $10 senior lifetime pass. It is about the price of a cup of coffee and 

a muffin at Starbucks. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Right, yes. 

Mr. JARVIS. I have yet to meet anyone that felt that that was an 

appropriate cost for a lifetime pass, including many, many, many 

seniors. We still think that seniors should get a lifetime pass. By 

pegging it to the current America the Beautiful Pass, which is, 

frankly, a deal itself at $80, we think we will not only generate a 

new source of revenue for us to reinvest in the national parks, but 

also make it available to a generation that can afford an $80 pass 

one time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Mr. JARVIS. And I have talked to various senior groups, including 

AARP, and they are supportive of this concept. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Hardy. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Mr. Jarvis, as you know, in October, 

Scotty’s Castle in Death Valley had a flash flood that basically has 

put the project in jeopardy of staying closed until it gets repaired. 

It generates about $550,000 a year and close to 120,000 people 

visit. This will cause $50 million in damage over the whole entire 

park. 

Can the Centennial Challenge endowment funds be used on 

those types of projects? 

Mr. JARVIS. First of all, let me just say, yes, it was extraordinary 

damage. And, by the way, the state of Nevada was an extraordinarily supportive partner there, in responding to that. 

The transportation funds that are in the transportation bill 

would definitely be used. We have, within the Park Service transportation program, as well as our line item, what we call 

52 

emergency repair funds. So, they would be the initial funds that 

would go to this. 

In terms of specific things like Scotty’s Castle and the collection, 

those are absolutely appropriate investments from the Centennial 

Fund that are in this bill. 

Mr. HARDY. OK, I am going to ask a little more difficult and 

challenging question of you. I had the experience of being a 

Director of Public Works for about 7 years for a city. I also had the 

experience of being a City Councilman for two terms. Through that 

process, whenever we created a park, opened a recreation center, 

or did anything along those lines of trying to create that better environment and better opportunity, I made sure, or my other adjoining councilmen always made sure that we had the funds. Are we 

able to finance that, and maintain that at its highest standard, 

through future budgets? 

Tell me if you go through the same analysis at this Federal level 

when you do projects. How do you maintain things if you use capital dollars to grow the project? It appears to me there is a challenge of not looking down the road to the future to see how we can 

take care of it on the existing dollars we have. You just cannot 

keep going back to the taxpayer to continue to increase taxes to 

pay for things. Is that happening at this Federal level? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, analogous to your experience with parks or 

facilities that were developed, you would have to go to the City 

Council to receive some support to do that and also use some user 

fees. That is exactly the situation we are in, as well. We are using 

our user fees to support that as much as we possibly can. At the 

same time, we need Federal support from the taxpayer, from the 

Appropriations Committee, in order to support these facilities. 

We are not building any new visitor centers. We are in a triage 

situation of basically not building new facilities across the system, 

unless somebody else is paying for it, because we just do not have 

the resources to do that. 

Mr. HARDY. There seems to be a trend over the last 30 years, 

through the Antiquities Act, that national monuments continue to 

grow and continue to be basically dumped on the Park Service 

without the funding coming forward. Has that been part of the 

challenge? Maybe some of these national monuments that we continue to create may not be able to pay for themselves? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I will say that every year there are proposals 

for new parks, both before the Congress and before the 

Administration. I would say the Park Service attempts to oppose 

a significant number of those because we cannot take care of them. 

When they are presented to us, we really work hard to minimize 

our responsibilities, make our footprint as small as possible, take 

on no new facilities, and see if there is a partner that can step up. 

Mr. HARDY. I guess what I am leading to is could that be part 

of the cause of the backlog? 

Mr. JARVIS. It adds to the backlog, but the backlog principally is 

our older infrastructure that was built in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Mr. HARDY. Because at the Federal level, in my opinion, we do 

not look forward to see what it is going to cost to take care of 

things and budget for the maintenance after you do a capital 

project. 

53 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. I want to thank all of our 

witnesses for their testimony today. As the Chairman said, this is 

labeled a draft for a reason; it is a work in progress. Now is the 

time for anyone with ideas on bolstering the parks in the 

centennial year to come forward with them. I appreciate all of the 

suggestions that you have offered today. 

We may have additional questions. We will keep the record open 

for 10 days to receive answers to those questions. 

With that, if there is no further business before the 

subcommittee, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERRICK A. CRANDALL, COUNSELOR, NATIONAL PARK

HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Chairman and Members, the National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA) 

offers this testimony regarding the discussion draft of the ‘‘National Park Service 

Centennial Act.’’ NPHA is both enthusiastic about and actively engaged in activities 

associated with the Centennial of the National Park Service. The role of this agency 

in protecting and supporting the enjoyment of the special legacy of America’s more 

than 400 park units is important and appreciated by the public. 

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

a time to assess and improve the tools available to operate our park units. We are 

especially proud of the role we played, in concert with the Bipartisan Policy Center 

and the National Parks Conservation Association, in 2013 at a Bridgebuilder session 

examining Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America’s National Parks. We 

offered 16 white papers for congressional and agency consideration, from a new 

Penny for Parks increase in Federal motorfuel taxes to provide better public access 

to the Great Outdoors to changes which would allow historic tax credits for 

investments in qualifying sites in parks. 

Concessioners have served park visitors since the 1870s and today serve some 100 

million park visitors annually in approximately 120 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. Concessioner franchise payments to NPS are more than $100 million annually. 

Concessioner marketing and promotion efforts total more than $20 million annually, 

and are coordinated with marketing and promotion efforts of states and gateway 

communities that equal that amount. Concessioners are leading efforts to promote 

the National Park System to all Americans. Visitation to parks has been flat over 

the past three decades, and has actually declined if you discount new units added 

to the system. Most importantly, concessioners are committed to meeting America’s 

needs—needs for healthier lifestyles, for better and lifelong educational opportunities, for strong local and regional economies that can sustain and protect our parks 

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

ethnicity. 

We applaud efforts to enact meaningful NPS Centennial legislation. The discussion draft provides the means to invite and challenge individual and organizational 

donors—by leveraging the impact of their contributions. This is a proven strategy 

for parks and philanthropy in general. Several of our members were involved in an 

initial and successful Centennial Challenge effort mounted under then-Interior 

Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. 

We further support the concept of an endowment for our parks, although we believe that the mammoth backlog in deferred maintenance is of such urgency that 

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

critical current operational needs. 

54 

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

the following specific suggestions: 

1. We strongly support the purpose statement of the Discussion Draft: 

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

second century of promoting and protecting the natural, historic, and cultural 

resources of our National Parks for the enjoyment of present and future generations, and for other purposes. 

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

endowment account established under the National Park Foundation. The 

proposed 5 percent tax on lodging within national parks should not be adopted for several important reasons. First, it would alter the comparability provisions for the pricing of lodging in parks established under the 1998 

concessions law. Second, the tax would be paid by a very small portion of all 

park visitors and would yield no responsive benefits to those paying the tax. 

Third, the tax could be a real deterrent to efforts to attract visitors to parks 

during shoulder seasons, undermining important streams of revenue to the 

agency from entrance fees and franchise fees that are key to operations and 

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

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

have a chilling effect on the guest donation program—again, an important 

source of support for park programs and projects today and an important opportunity for expansion as a funding strategy once needed revisions are made 

to NPS Directors Order 21. And fifth, the administration of this tax will be 

a challenge and the transfer of the tax to a non-Federal entity raises a variety 

of issues. 

Instead, we suggest that the committee add a Centennial Park Entrance Fee 

Surcharge of $1 on all existing entrance fees—whether for vehicles or per person. We believe that this would be a fair and appropriate means to raise revenues of at least $10 million annually. We also believe that park visitors can 

be told about the surcharge in a way that will yield support, and perhaps interest in additional actions to support parks. 

3. We enthusiastically support the continuation and expansion of the Centennial 

Challenge Program. Encouraging nonprofits, corporations and individuals to 

contribute toward important national park programs and projects is a vital 

part of a long-term strategy for keeping America’s parks relevant and wellfunctioning. 

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

annually for the National Park Foundation. We strongly support the 

Foundation’s Centennial efforts, including leadership of the Find Your Park 

Campaign, to make our national park system relevant, enjoyed and supported. We support continuing outreach efforts after the Centennial. We think 

appropriated general funding, and other sources including resource mitigation 

and penalty funds, can dramatically increase available park resources. 

5. We urge the committee to act outside of the discussion draft to support creation of a Centennial Penny for Parks Federal motorfuel excise tax surcharge. 

We are attaching our letter to the Chairman of the Committees on 

Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means that further outlines 

this concept. The significant revenues associated with this program would 

allow elimination of the large and growing backlog in transportation-related 

investment needs in national parks and other federally managed lands within 

a decade and could underwrite innovative ways to improve accessibility of our 

Great Outdoors to all Americans. 

6. We support the addition of a new title to the discussion draft. We suggest use 

of this description: Visitor Outreach and Experience Improvement Program. 

For decades, national parks offered the leading example of use of private capital to support public agency efforts. Investments by concessioners since the 

early 1900s have produced a remarkable set of treasured structures that are 

world-renowned. From Yosemite Valley to the Grand Canyon, from Grand 

Teton to Glacier, from Acadia to the Blue Ridge Parkway, lodges and restaurants and stores and marinas have been built with private capital—and 

are now some of the most prized elements of our National Register of Historic 

Places. We now see a similar pattern of public/private partnerships emerging 

in transportation and other programs. The National Park Service can and 

55 

should build upon this wonderful tradition in its second century, guided and 

encouraged by new congressional direction in the Centennial Act. 

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

investment from concessioners to expand and improve visitor services in 

parks, including through modernization of lodges, campgrounds and marinas. 

Part of this modernization will depend upon new flexibility by the agency, including authority to issue concessions contracts of up to 40 years—a provision 

that should permit eligibility for historic tax credits by concessioners and 

thus boost the attractiveness of significant investments that can permit existing and iconic structures to be functional and efficient and modernized to 

incorporate best practices in design. Improved visitor experiences will also result from extension of operating hours and seasons and encouragement of the 

transfer of existing campgrounds to concessioner operations which will offer 

more diverse overnight options, serve more visitors and generate new 

revenues for the agency. 

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

partnerships, especially for park units that now receive low visitation and/or 

have inadequate visitor services to accommodate greater visitation. We have 

suggested that NPS experiment with leases and nonappropriated funding instrumentalities over the next decade, and support congressional authority for 

up to 10 pilot efforts which supplement, but do not compete with or replace, 

the agency’s current concessions contracts and authorities. 

7. We ask the Congress to support NPS efforts to promote visitation of national 

parks, a core mission of the agency established under its 1916 organic act: 

‘‘The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal 

areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations . . .’’ 

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

operations, including hosting the original U.S. Travel Bureau. In order to revitalize this core program, we urge the Congress to specifically authorize the 

use of up to 10 percent of the franchise fees paid by national park concessioners annually to support NPS outreach and marketing efforts in partnership with states, gateway communities and concessioners. We believe that 

outreach and promotion efforts will increase collection of park entrance and 

recreation fees sufficiently to underwrite both improvements in visitor experiences and specific efforts, including fee-free days, to successfully invite nontraditional park visitors. There are numerous examples of isolated and 

successful cooperative efforts now underway, including shared interpretive 

costs and outreach to international visitors through Federal Row at IPW, 

which could be made commonplace. 

Most concessioner franchise fees are retained in the park generating those 

fees—80 percent of all franchise fees are used locally. The remaining 

20 percent are used at the discretion of the NPS Director. We urge incorporation in the Centennial Act of a new National Park Outreach and Promotion 

Fund and the following funding strategy: 

‘‘Up to 10 percent of the concessioner franchise fees collected by the agency 

each year may be used to support agency outreach and marketing programs 

designed to connect all Americans to their parks, and especially those portions 

of the American public under-represented among current park visitors. 

Nothing in this provision, however, shall authorize any change in the use of 

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

and marketing programs shall be undertaken in cooperation with state and 

regional DMOs and NPS concessioners, and shall require not less than 1:1 

matching of Federal funds.’’ 

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

Concessioners in Shenandoah National Park, Yellowstone National Park and 

other units are utilizing youth conservation corps to undertake construction, 

reconstruction and maintenance projects which replicate many of the successes of the Civilian Conservation Corps Program of the 1930s, including 

connecting urban youth to parks. Pilot projects have shown that use of conservation corps can also actually reduce project costs. Direction by the 

Congress in the Centennial Act would aid in expanding use of conservation 

corps in parks, working cooperatively with The Corps Network, the National 

Trust for Historic Preservation and concessioners, reducing the barrier of current Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and more. 

56 

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

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

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 long-standing partnership with the NPS to find new and innovative ways to improve the parks and create 

a new generation of Americans who share in the wonder of this amazing legacy. 

We thank you for considering this testimony. 

Attachment 

ATTACHMENT 

NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON, DC 

December 1, 2015 

Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman 

Committee on Ways and Means 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Brady: 

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

opportunities and national needs regarding the transportation infrastructure of our 

nation’s national parks and other legacy Great Outdoors areas. The National Park 

Service will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2016—a wonderful testimonial to bipartisan leadership to protect special natural and historic sites across our nation 

and to use these sites to tell some of our greatest stories. Our national parks and 

other public lands—including national forests and national wildlife refuges and 

more—attract more than a billion visits annually. But these special places are in 

trouble. 

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

National Park Service to the Forest Service, from the Bureau of Land Management 

to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These lands are vital to the nation for many 

reasons and certainly for their importance to recreation and tourism. Recreation expenditures in this country total more than $650 billion annually. To demonstrate 

the importance of federal lands, consider just three numbers: 

1) national park concessioners provide more than $1.4 billion in lodging, 

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

to national parks annually, employing 25,000 persons; 

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

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

in national forests; and 

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

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

Outdoors, according to Brand USA, the Congressionally chartered corporation 

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

million in 2021. 

57 

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

roads essential to reaching campgrounds, river access points and trailheads are no 

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

from its managing agency’s Centennial, has a backlog of deferred maintenance of 

nearly $12 billion in road, water system, dams and structures and has virtually no 

plans to expand its capability to serve our growing population. Other key agencies, 

including the Forest Service, also have backlogs of deferred maintenance totaling in 

the billions of dollars, and are actually closing roads and reducing public access. 

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

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

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

routes, these state taxes fund 20% of road construction and reconstruction and nearly all maintenance and operations. Yet roads vital to Americans seeking to access 

campgrounds, trailheads, beaches and to reach rivers and lakes on federal lands depend upon appropriated federal dollars from the beleaguered domestic discretionary 

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

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

motorfuel revenues for operation and maintenance. 

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

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

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

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

recreation and conservation programs in the annual appropriations process. Adopting this supplemental tax for a ten year period would allow continued and improved 

safe access by Americans to their public lands. 

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

Service Centennial would enjoy broad support among the nation’s recreation, tourism, conservation and transportation communities. We invite your leadership on 

this matter and commit to urging these communities to support your actions. 

Sincerely, 

DERRICK A. CRANDALL, 

Counselor. 

ASSOCIATION OF PARTNERS FOR PUBLIC LANDS, 

SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND. 

December 1, 2015 

Hon. TOM MCCLINTOCK, Chairman, 

Hon. NIKI TSONGAS, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCLINTOCK AND RANKING MEMBER TSONGAS: 

The National Park Service (NPS) Centennial in 2016 has the potential to be a 

catalytic moment in the history of America’s public lands and their partnerships 

with nonprofit organizations. The discussion draft of the National Park Service 

Centennial Act presented by Chairman Bishop clearly recognizes the centrality of 

private philanthropy and a vital network of nonprofit park partners in developing 

sustainable solutions for improving our parks and enhancing the visitor experience. 

Since 1977, the Association of Partners for Public Lands (APPL) has been the 

national voice for the nonprofit partners of America’s public lands, providing critical 

training to improve their effectiveness and magnify their impact. Our members are 

nearly 100 friends groups, cooperating associations, educational institutes and other 

nonprofit partners of America’s public lands. Our members range in scale from the 

all-volunteer Friends of the Klondike Gold Rush to Eastern National, a cooperating 

association partnering with over 160 national parks, and the Golden Gate National 

Parks Conservancy which has alone provided more than $350 million in park 

support. 

58 

APPL member organizations are operational partners in more than 340 of the 409 

national park units. Our members staff most visitor centers, provide interpretive 

materials, offer educational programs and give back through grants and other partnerships. Not only do APPL members save federal funds by providing these services, 

but they provide more than $150 million annually in aid to the NPS through major 

projects, grants, programs and services that respond to the agency’s priorities. 

We are grateful that you have called upon two of our member organizations—the 

Friends of Acadia and the National Park Foundation—to share how this legislation 

will positively impact efforts in the field and among national partners. In this context, we offer a few thoughts about the implications of the legislation for the broader 

community of nonprofit organizations that APPL represents. 

NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE FUND (TITLE I) 

APPL enthusiastically supports the discussion drafts creation of a permanent 

Centennial Challenge Fund with a dedicated federal funding stream. We view as a 

key strategy for enhancing America’s national parks in their second century. 

For almost 10 years, bipartisan enthusiasm for the Centennial Challenge idea has 

provided federal dollars that have been leveraged by significant private contributions to enhance our national parks. David MacDonald of the Friends of Acadia will 

speak eloquently to the ways that his organization has tackled specific deferred 

maintenance projects that could excite donors. Across the country, several APPL 

members are among the 90 private organizations demonstrating the value of the 

Centennial Challenge in 2015, contributing significantly to the almost $16 million 

in donations that are matching $10 million in federal funding. These members 

include: 

• Yosemite Conservancy is rehabilitating and restoring the Mariposa Grove of 

Sequoia Trees. The project improves hydrology related to roads and trails to 

benefit the giant sequoias, enhances safety and traffic flow, adds new accessible parking spaces and restores 3.93 acres of giant sequoia and wetland 

habitats. 

• Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation is repairing and restoring historic structures 

at Johnson Farm and making walkways in Price Pak Campground accessible 

to all visitors. 

• Grand Canyon Association is enhancing a one mile segment of the Bright 

Angel Trail, one of the most popular used by visitors to reach the Colorado 

River. 

The discussion draft importantly builds on this tradition by establishing a 

sustainable public-private philanthropic opportunity wherein federal dollars are 

matched at a minimum of one-to-one by donations. By seeding the federal commitment with a much needed increase in the price of the Senior Pass, the proposed legislation enables the NPS and its nonprofit partners to plan and think big. Nonprofit 

partners who can share the guarantee of a future federal match with their donors 

and constituents will be better positioned to attract greater philanthropy and aid— 

especially smaller organizations that lack sizable philanthropic bases in their 

gateway communities. 

The Centennial Challenge Fund is founded on the concept that parks and their 

visitors will benefit by leveraging public and private investment. Nonprofit park 

partners have resources, skills and expertise that the NPS may not have, and these 

too should be leveraged in the Challenge. We are concerned that the discussion draft 

requires all funds to flow through the federal treasury. There are times when 

dollars can be further leverages by enabling the nonprofit partner to manage or provide a signature project or program. Additionally, some foundations will not permit 

their funds to be sent to government entities. 

APPL would welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to empower 

nonprofit park partners to have a larger role in the delivery of signature projects 

and programs while maintaining the highest standards of accountability and transparency. Further, we are eager to work with the Subcommittee to identify additional 

funding streams for the Centennial Challenge Fund. 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT (TITLE II and V) 

APPL applauds the creation of a National Park Foundation Endowment as a long 

term investment in the national park system and a legacy of this Congress. The 

prospect of an endowment will provide a new avenue for philanthropic park support 

and we appreciate the National Park Foundation’s willingness to steward such an 

important effort. We also applaud the Chairman’s requirement that the endowment 

59 

function as a traditional endowment would by using only 5% of its funds annually 

for projects, thus increasing the likelihood of growing a substantial corpus. 

We join the National Park Foundation in strongly supporting the amendments to 

the organization’s Congressional charter that reconfigures its board leadership. The 

result will be a model that has been successfully employed by many nonprofit park 

partners. 

NATIONAL PARK NEXT GENERATION STEWARDS (TITLE III) 

APPL commends the inclusion of authorities that highlight the educational 

mission of the NPS, expand opportunities for millennials to join the conservation 

workforce through the National Park Service and other land management agencies, 

and increase funding available to the Volunteer-in-Parks program. Collectively, 

these authorities provide the NPS with more tools to work with their nonprofit park 

partners in serving a diverse and growing public. 

The Chairman has provided a compelling road map for Congress to consider its 

role in marking the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. APPL is eager 

to work with the Subcommittee to further refine the discussion draft so that we continue to develop new opportunities for nonprofit park partners in this second 

century of preservation and enjoyment. 

We thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendations. 

Sincerely, 

Jerryne Cole, Diana Nielsen Saathoff, 

President, APPL Board of Directors, Government Relations Committee 

Vice President, Denali National Park Chair, APPL Board of Directors, 

Wilderness Centers, AK. Executive Director, Mount Rushmore 

Society, SD. 

Dan Puskar, 

Executive Director, 

Association of Partners for Public 

Lands, MD. 

ASSOCIATION OF PARTNERS FOR PUBLIC LANDS: 

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS THAT PARTNER WITH THE NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE 

Adventures and Scientists for 

Conservation 

Great Smoky Mountains Association 

Alaska Geographic Harpers Ferry Historical Association 

Badlands Natural History 

Association 

Hawai’i Pacific Parks Association 

Big Bend Conservancy Intermountain Natural History 

Association 

Big Bend Natural History 

Association 

Isle Royale & Keweenaw Parks 

Association 

Black Hills Parks and Forests 

Association 

Jamaica Bay-Rockaway Parks 

Conservancy 

Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation Jefferson National Parks Association 

Bryce Canyon Natural History 

Association 

Joshua Tree National Park 

Association 

Cabrillo National Monument 

Foundation 

Lassen Association 

60 

Canyonlands Natural History 

Association 

Lewis & Clark National Park 

Association 

Capitol Reef Natural History 

Association 

Manzanar History Association 

Carlsbad Caverns Guadalupe 

Mountains Assoc. 

Mesa Verde Museum Association 

Carver Birthplace Association Mississippi Park Connection 

Colorado National Monument 

Association 

Mount Rushmore Society 

Conservancy for Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park 

National Association for 

Interpretation 

Crater Lake Natural History 

Association 

National First Ladies’ Library 

Craters of the Moon Natural History 

Association 

National Park Foundation 

Death Valley Natural History 

Association 

National Parks Conservation 

Association 

Devils Tower Natural History 

Association 

Ocmulgee National Monument 

Association 

Discover Your Northwest Pacific Historic Parks 

Eastern National Petrified Forest Museum Association 

Everglades Association Point Reyes National Seashore 

Association 

Fort Laramie Historical Association Protectors of Tule Springs 

Friends of Acadia Public Lands Institute, University of 

Las Vegas 

Friends of Aztec Ruins National 

Monument 

Redwood Parks Association 

Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway Rocky Mountain Conservancy 

Friends of Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park 

Rosie the Riveter Trust 

Friends of Hawaii Volcanoes 

National Park 

Santa Monica Mountains Fund 

Friends of Independence National 

Historical Park 

Sequoia Parks Conservancy 

Friends of the Klondike Corridor South Florida National Parks Trust 

The Glacier Institute Shenandoah National Park 

Association 

Glacier National Park Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Nature and 

History Assoc. 

Glen Canyon Natural History 

Association 

Western National Parks Association 

61 

Golden Gate National Parks 

Conservancy 

Yellowstone Association 

Grand Canyon Association Yosemite Conservancy 

Grand Teton Association Zion Natural History Association 

Grand Teton National Park 

Foundation 

THE CORPS NETWORK, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

December 1, 2015 

Hon. TOM MCCLINTOCK, Chairman, 

Hon. NIKI TSONGAS, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Federal Lands, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCLINTOCK AND RANKING MEMBER TSONGAS: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the hearing record on 

Chairman Bishop’s draft ‘‘National Park Service Centennial Act.’’ On behalf of 

Service & Conservation Corps (Corps) around the country, we appreciate your efforts to strengthen the National Park Service (NPS) in anticipation of its centennial. 

This draft is a strong step for the NPS, its thousands of visitors, and partners like 

Corps that improve our parks and the visitor experience. We also greatly appreciate 

Ranking Member Grijalva’s leadership in previously introducing the National Park 

Service Centennial Act, H.R. 3556 and the President’s efforts in putting forward the 

draft NPS centennial legislation. 

We particularly appreciate, and express our strong support, for inclusion of key 

provisions to strengthen Public Land Corps in Sec. 402 of the draft. Through the 

Public Lands Corps Act of 1993, Corps work with NPS to ‘‘perform, in a costeffective manner, appropriate conservation projects on eligible service lands’’ and 

expose Corpsmembers ‘‘to public service while furthering their understanding and 

appreciation of the Nation’s natural and cultural resources.’’ Sec. 402 will allow us 

to significantly improve our Corps, and our work for NPS and the nation, by raising 

the allowable age of Corpsmembers to 30 from 25 which will allow us to engage 

more veterans and by extending the federal noncompetitive hiring status to ensure 

our Corpsmembers can efficiently move on to the next step in their careers. 

The Corps Network is comprised of over 120 Corps that work in every state and 

engage over 20,000 youth and veterans (Corpsmembers) each year in our Corps 

model which involves conservation service projects in local communities or on public 

lands. Tied to those projects, Corpsmembers receive educational, workforce, and supportive services. Corps work in NPS units around the country in helping to make 

improvements to trails, infrastructure, manage and improve park ecosystems, and 

preserve historic structures. In addition we work with NPS’ concessionaires on accomplishing projects for the parks and visitors. Modern-day Corps descended from 

the Civilian Conservation Corps and continue that legacy by developing the next 

generation of diverse conservation, recreation, and resource leaders. 

Passage of this legislation along with additional investments in NPS and its 

partners like our Corps will ensure our nation’s parks are ready for the next 100 

years of providing ‘‘enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.’’ Thank you again for your leadership, and we look forward to working toward 

passage of a bipartisan National Park Service Centennial bill. 

Sincerely, 

MARY ELLEN SPRENKEL, 

CEO. 

62 

NATIONAL PARKS SECOND CENTURY ACTION COALITION, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

December 3, 2015 

Hon. TOM MCCLINTOCK, Chairman, 

Hon. NIKI TSONGAS, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCLINTOCK, RANKING MEMBER TSONGAS, AND MEMBERS OF THE

FEDERAL LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Next year, Americans will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Park 

Service. We, the National Parks Second Century Action Coalition and other partners, write in strong support of efforts underway to prepare our national parks for 

a second century of service for current and future generations. 

The National Parks Second Century Action Coalition is comprised of organizations 

supporting conservation, recreation, outdoor industry, travel and tourism and historic preservation that are dedicated to promoting the protection, restoration, and 

operation of the National Park System to benefit the health and well-being of 

current and future generations. 

We applaud Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop for developing the 

discussion draft National Park Service Centennial Act, as well as Natural Resources 

Committee Ranking Member Grijalva for introducing the administration’s 

Centennial proposal (H.R. 3556). These bills demonstrate needed congressional interest in providing a significant commemoration of—and support for—the National 

Park Service Centennial. The bills provide needed funding for programs and maintenance through the Centennial Challenge Fund as well as a path toward improved 

long-term fiscal health with the establishment and investment of an endowment. 

With an expected influx of visitors expected during and following the Centennial 

year, it would be a shame if families arrived to decaying facilities and too few rangers to greet them due to the current fiscal challenges facing national parks. On the 

eve of the National Park Service Centennial, our national parks are facing billions 

of dollars’ worth of overdue repairs. Additionally, there has been more than a 7%, 

or $178 million reduction in the account to operate national parks and more than 

a 12%, or $370 million reduction in the total budget for the National Park Service 

over the last five years in today’s dollars. These Centennial bills provide important 

support for helping relieve these significant funding shortfalls. 

We support the provisions in the proposed legislation and H.R. 3556 that formally 

establish the Centennial Challenge Fund and an endowment to help address some 

of the financial needs of our nation’s parks. We hope the committee will continue 

to investigate additional revenue sources to more robustly invest in the Centennial 

Challenge Fund and explore additional funding mechanisms for the National Park 

Service, while also more directly reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 

The Centennial Challenge is an innovative program that encourages private 

individuals, foundations, businesses and others to donate funds to help restore and 

improve our national parks by providing a federal match for the donations. Previous 

annual investments have supported valuable centennial projects throughout the 

country. If this bill were enacted, it would establish this program over three years, 

allowing partners additional time and certainty to raise the matching funds. The endowment would provide long term financial support for the national parks by investing monetary gifts and other contributions to be used in the future for projects and 

activities that support the national parks. 

We also support provisions in the bills that recognize the importance of national 

parks as places of learning by enhancing interpretation and education programs, 

and by providing additional opportunities for volunteers in our nation’s treasures. 

We also support the provisions that will help connect a new, diverse generation to 

the great outdoors and allow the National Park Service to recruit and hire more 

young and diverse Americans. 

Passage of a bipartisan centennial bill, coupled with additional investments for 

national park roads in the transportation bill and operation and construction funding in the FY16 omnibus appropriations bill, can ensure our parks are better 

prepared to serve another hundred years and beyond. 

63 

Again, we thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member Grijalva and their committee staff for offering a forum for discussion of 

strategies to keep America’s national parks relevant and cherished and for offering 

specific steps to achieve these goals. We urge other members of the committee to 

support the effort and work with the Senate to swiftly move a final Centennial Bill 

toward passage. 

Thank you for considering our views. We look forward to working with you to 

ensure final passage of a bipartisan National Park Service Centennial Bill. 

Sincerely, 

American Forests National Park Hospitality 

Association 

American Hiking Society National Parks Conservation 

Association 

American Recreation Coalition National Tour Association 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy Recreational Equipment, Inc. 

Association of Partners for Public 

Lands 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Destination Marketing Association 

International 

Student Conservation Association 

East Bay Regional Park District The Coalition to Protect America’s 

National Parks 

Friends of Acadia The Corps Network 

Friends of the Oregon Caves and 

Chateau 

The Wilderness Society 

Grand Canyon Association U.S. Travel Association 

Japanese American Citizens League United States Tour Operators 

Association 

Mississippi River Fund Western States Tourism Policy 

Council 

Mount Rushmore Society Wolf Trap Foundation for the 

Performing Arts 

Nature Bridge 

Æ