U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–796 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–82 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS TO SUPPORT 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’S EFFORTS TO ADDRESS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL NEEDS 

JULY 25, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Coburn, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma ............................................... 5 

Gabrys, Gerard, Chief Executive Officer, Guest Services Inc., the National 

Park Hospitality Association, Fairfax, VA ......................................................... 41 

Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior .................................................................................................................. 20 

MacDonald, David, President, Friends of Acadia, Bar Harbor, ME .................... 53 

Murkowski, Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ........................................................ 3 

Obey, Craig D., Senior Vice President for Government Affairs, National Parks 

Conservation Association ..................................................................................... 46 

Puskar, Dan, Executive Director, Association of Partners For Public Lands, 

Wheaton, MD ........................................................................................................ 58 

Wyden, Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ............................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 69 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 77 

(1) 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OPTIONS TO 

SUPPORT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room SD– 

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

will come to order. 

In 2016, just 3 years from now, the National Park Service is 

going to celebrate its centennial anniversary. While the creation of 

our national park system is one of our country’s greatest successes, 

the Park Service faces significant funding challenges in taking care 

of the more than 400 national parks, monuments, and other sites 

that Congress and the President have entrusted to its protection. 

It now has a deferred maintenance backlog that is estimated at $11 billion, and it is perhaps higher. The backlog grows each year. 

Meanwhile, the Park Service, like every other part of the Federal 

Government, faces significant limitations on the funding that Congress appropriates for the operation and care of our national parks, 

and it is unlikely that the appropriation levels are going to increase 

any time soon, certainly not increase to the amount necessary that 

would fully address the deferred maintenance backlog. 

So, given these challenges, Senator Murkowski and I wanted to 

schedule this hearing so that the committee can explore and consider new ideas to help fund the Park Service for the next century. 

It really wouldn’t be an appropriate parks hearing if you didn’t 

refer at least once to Wallace Stegner’s famous quote that ‘‘national 

parks are the best idea we ever had.’’ They certainly continue to 

be a very popular idea. 

Despite the budgetary challenges, Senators of both political parties continue to push for new or expanded national parks in their 

home States. Already in this Congress, 7 bills calling for studies of 

new national parks have been referred to this committee; another 

7 bills would establish new national parks; and 6 bills would expand the size of existing park areas. 

These bills are evidence of the extraordinary popularity of national parks with the American people and the desire to protect 

new areas and tell new stories that are not adequately represented 

2 

in the national parks system. I support many of those efforts. In 

fact, one of the bills expanding an existing national park area is 

legislation that I proposed to expand the Oregon Caves National 

Monument. So I understand the desire and the need that Americans are expressing to protect these very special places. 

At the same time, my view is that Congress has to come up with 

fresh, creative ideas to help the Park Service make concrete, tangible headway with its maintenance backlog to ensure the longterm viability of our parks system. For example, today I’m going 

to want to explore with witnesses the idea of raising fees for nonU.S. citizens, like many other countries do. 

For example, this could apply to back-country camping permits 

that are very popular. Of course, the argument on behalf of looking 

at an idea like this is that those are individuals who use our park 

system. They don’t pay taxes to support the parks, and there is a 

very high volume and an increasing volume of foreign visitors. 

We, Senator Murkowski and I, were especially interested in having Dr. Coburn here today, because he has been persistent in advocating for the need to address this deferred maintenance backlog 

for quite some time. As Dr. Coburn does on so many issues, he 

makes it clear that you cannot just pretend the problems don’t 

exist. You’ve got to step up, and you’ve got to look, as I indicated, 

at real and creative approaches that we can build bipartisan support for to address these concerns. 

He is raising legitimate questions about how the Park Service is 

going to be able to properly care for our national parks, and how 

it will ever be able to address this immense funding backlog. So, 

Senator Murkowski and I thought it was especially appropriate 

that he lead off the hearing of this morning so we can get his perspective and consider the real issues that he has raised. We thank 

him, and we will hear from him in just a few minutes. 

The last point I wanted to make is that as the Park Service centennial gets closer, we are going to examine all of the creative ideas 

that have been proposed thus far. Certainly, there ought to be opportunities with national park partners, such as park philanthropic 

and friends groups, and I would just ask that colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle who support parks be open to considering some 

of these new approaches. 

For example, our committee recently included $50 million of 

dedicated funding in the helium bill to pay for the Federal share 

of a challenge cost-share agreement for national park deferred 

maintenance projects. In effect, through the helium legislation, 

Senator Murkowski and I said, ‘‘Here’s a chance to meet one of the 

country’s economic needs and, in the years ahead, with a specific 

timetable, really get the Government out of the helium business.’’ 

We were able to do that in a bipartisan way. 

We’ll pay special attention to some of the funding ideas that were 

proposed by the Bipartisan Policy Center, again an effort to reach 

across the aisle in a challenging area. We’re going to ask some details about that. 

While the Park Service is primarily reliant on Federal appropriations to fund deferred maintenance projects, the agency is able to 

use revenue collected from park entrance and visitor user fees to 

fund repair, maintenance, and other projects that directly improve 

3 

the enjoyment of our visitors. However, the authority to collect and 

spend fee revenues expires in December 2014, and if that law isn’t 

renewed, the Park Service would lose almost $180 million annually. So I think it’s critical that fee legislation be passed during this 

Congress so that the Park Service and other land management 

agencies do not lose that particularly important revenue source. 

We’re also looking forward to the views of National Park Service 

Director Jon Jarvis. He’s been talking with us about a number of 

different approaches. 

Let me now recognize Senator Murkowski on this matter and 

particularly thank her again for all of the bipartisan efforts that 

she has been willing to take on. It’s one of the reasons we were 

able to get 14 bills cleared in the Senate, more than anyone had 

anticipated at this early date. It wouldn’t have happened without 

Senator Murkowski, and I thank her for her bipartisan approach, 

and recognize her. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 

we’ve got an opportunity to move another perhaps as many as 14 

of these bills. So look forward to moving this process forward. But 

thank you for this very important hearing this morning. For those 

of us in Alaska, our parks are pretty special. Not that they are not 

special in other parts of the country, I think ours are just bigger 

and they take up more space, and they are a constant reminder of 

the national treasures that we have. 

I thank you, Dr. Coburn, for your interest in this issue, your interest in ensuring that we are on a path toward greater sustainability when it comes to the operation and maintenance of our national parks and our park system. 

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that we’re taking an important step 

today with this hearing. In starting this discussion about how we’re 

going to pay down the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog, which the Park Service estimates at approximately $13 billion, 

now, I’d like to be clear right away. I don’t think that this is an 

issue that should be solved through additional Federal funding. 

We all know around here that we’re facing very serious fiscal situations, and we’ve got to be looking at new and, I think, alternative ways to find funding for the park system, and also to really 

reassess, reevaluate our current funding priorities. One of those 

areas that I think we need to be looking at is, what is happening 

within the Land and Water Conservation Fund and this very significant increases that we’re seeing there? 

Coming from a State where we’ve got close to 70 percent of our 

lands that are held by the Federal Government, I always approach 

requests to purchase additional Federal land with some skepticism, 

and particularly during tough economic times. So I can’t imagine 

why purchasing more is such a priority. It strikes me as almost 

counterintuitive that we would be adding more lands to the maintenance list, when the Government already is dealing with such obstacles when it comes to the maintenance of the existing park 

lands. 

4 

I do think that this is an area where we would have potential 

for an agreement that we could update the statute, making it more 

relevant to our current reality, both from a public lands policy and 

a budgetary standpoint. I’d like to work with you, Mr. Chairman, 

Dr. Coburn, Director Jarvis, on really reforming the LWCS so that 

this can be a tool that the National Park Service, and other land 

management agencies, can use to fund deferred maintenance before 

we buy additional lands to add to the Federal burden. 

I appreciate that there are at times some sensitive, time-sensitive acquisitions that need to be made. I’d want to make sure that 

we have a process to include those. But as a general matter, I 

think that there is room here for compromise, and I look forward 

to a discussion on that topic this morning. 

The next area that I’d like to bring up is the potential for increased funding and involvement from outside group and the 

friends groups. One of the major complaints that I hear from 

friends groups are these bureaucratic obstacles that many of these 

groups face when they’re trying to donate to the National Park 

Service for specific projects. We need to be looking at this. We need 

to figure out a way to streamline the process, encourage folks to 

contribute both their resources and dollars. 

Just yesterday, we got a press release from the Park Service out 

in Wrangell—St. Elias. It is an advertisement, it’s a public advertisement for a cleanup event on August 3rd out in the Chitina area. 

It’s basically an invitation to folks in the area to come and help 

clean up. It’s going to consist of burning scrap wood, recycling and 

picking up trash that’s accumulated. Bring your sunglasses, your 

raincoats, your water bottles. The first 100 volunteers get a free Tshirt and a new water bottle. Lunch is going to be provided. Great! 

I think it’s fabulous. It gives people real ownership in their 

parks. I think that that is huge for us. These are exactly the type 

of volunteer efforts that the Park service should be using and expanding upon, not only to save money, but again to bring locals 

into their parks for a very positive experience. 

I also hear from private CEO’s who want to donate funds to the 

National Park Service and to specific parks, but they feel that their 

donations are not adequately recognized. I would hope that Director Jarvis can talk about how we can work together to improve the 

donation and the recognition procedures. 

An idea that I’d like to put forward is for donor recognition 

throughout the national park system. For example, we should have 

tasteful recognition of private donors who are willing to pay for 

specific maintenance backlogs projects, perhaps the naming of a 

room in a visitors’ center, the naming of a bench. There are dollars, 

I think we can bring into the park system, but we need to make 

it easy. We need to make it worthwhile for these donors. 

We just passed through the House and the Senate a measure 

that would allow for recognition of donors to the Vietnam Veterans 

Memorial. I think there are some ideas out there that we can look 

to. 

Another thing that I’d like to raise before we turn to Dr. Coburn 

is, looking at the current recreational fee structure. Some national 

parks charge entrance fees; others don’t. I think we need to look 

at this fee plan and ensure that there is some equity across the NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
5 

tional Park Service. I think it’s kind of unfair that my constituents 

in Alaska have to pay to visit some of their parks, but that other 

folks around the country don’t bear that same burden. 

For the parks that do not charge an entrance fee, maybe we 

should look at the idea of charging for parking within those parks. 

I’m told by the Park Service that if a National Park Service started 

charging for parking on the National Mall, this is just one example, 

they could raise an additional $2 million per year. I don’t know 

that I want to pay more parking here in Washington, D.C., but it’s 

an idea out there. You could put the money back into the maintenance on the Mall. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased that we are at this point. 

I really do hope that this is the beginning of a very constructive 

dialog that allows us to address, in a meaningful way, the maintenance backlog of our wonderful national parks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and I think, as 

usual, you offer up some ideas that certainly ought to be explored. 

We’re going to do that together. 

I also want to note, before we go to Dr. Coburn, that we have 

3 colleagues who have long, long, long histories of being advocates 

for the parks: Chairman Udall, of course, chair of our subcommittee, has brought an extraordinary amount of passion and 

expertise to this cause. We thank him. His ranking member is 

here, Senator Portman, who also both in terms of his private-sector 

involvement and service in the Senate, has a long record of supporting the parks. Then it would be fair to say that Senator Alexander is almost ‘‘Mr. Parks,’’ because he has consistently advocated 

for sensible park protection in our country. 

So I’m very grateful to colleagues for coming, and I think, I know 

Senator Udall has to leave fairly early. After Dr. Coburn has given 

his testimony, I’ll make sure that all colleagues who are under the 

gun will ask questions certainly before I do. So, Dr. Coburn, I think 

it’s pretty clear that your message is getting through, that people 

understand that this is a very, very serious challenge. You can’t 

pretend to be in denial and say it doesn’t exist. So we thank you, 

and on this issue, nobody has done more to make the point here 

about how important this challenge is. We welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I appreciate being invited before 

the committee. 

In the next month, we’ll release the 2013 Parks Report, where 

we have done an in-depth study on many of our parks, the problems they have, the financing of our parks, where the money goes, 

and following it all the way down, and list in there some recommendations of things we hope the committee will consider. But 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you. 

My background, I was born in Wyoming. I love Yellowstone. I 

love Rocky Mountain National Park. I love the Grand Tetons. I 

spend a lot of time in that part of the country when I’m not here, 

and so I’m a critic of what we’re doing because I love our parks. 

My oldest 4 grandkids just spent time at the Grand Canyon and 

at Yellowstone, enjoying and taking in those magnificent parks. 

6 

You know, the National Park Service has $3 billion, a little bit 

less than $3 billion budget, and 401 units, park units, covering 84 

million acres of land. But with that budget, they also are responsible for 27,000 historic structures, 2,461 national historic landmarks, 582 natural landmarks, 49 national heritage areas, and 84 

million acres of land. 

The budget for the parks themselves is only $1.36 billion. The remaining annual funds of their budget goes toward a multitude of 

activities, including affiliated areas, grant programs, research centers, administrative expenses, and additional land acquisition. 

Congress and multiple administrations have recognized the deferred maintenance problem for years. As a matter of fact, President Bush gave a speech in 2001, and said under his administration we were going to correct that. They did, 1 year. If you look at 

the graph over here, the deferred maintenance went down, 1 year. 

Then it has continued to climb ever since. 

I would make the point, and I think most commonsense Americans would make the point, before we add additional parks, we 

ought to be taking care of the parks we have. We ought to privatize 

what our jewels are. I mean, we all know. I mean we have, Alaska 

has wonderful jewels. Oregon has. Colorado, the Smoky Mountains, 

we have wonderful jewels. But we ought to take care of them. 

The political process to add a park is driven, one, by recognition, 

2, by commerce, because there’s always the hope that commerce 

will follow a park. But I think the mature thinking would have us 

really look at the priorities of what we have today and want to invest and keep what we have today before we make commitments 

to lessen what we have today. 

A 1997 National Park Service report, based on identified maintenance, rehabilitation, developmental needs, the National Park 

Service does not have and never has had enough funds and staff 

to care for all the resources in its custody. Yet, we keep adding 

things for them to do. 

Contributing to the fundamental problem are unrealistic expectations reflected in and furthered by park planning documents, an 

overwhelming deferred maintenance workload, and a lack of multidisciplinary focus to set and achieve realistic goals in cooperative 

efforts, recognizing the value of the aspects of separate parks. Since 

1997, we’ve added 26 park units, since 1997. 

In April 2013, the present administration said the following: ‘‘Because of the age of existing NPS assets, the capital construction 

backlog of the service continues to rapidly expand beyond the capabilities of the service to keep up with known major repair/rehabilitation needs.’’ 

Within the same month of reconfirming that the Park Service 

doesn’t have the resources to take care of what it has, they added 

3 new parks and 13,000 acres through the Antiquities Act. Not 

through us, but through the Antiquities Act. So we’re going to 

make this graph much worse just on what’s been done in the last 

year. 

The line item ‘‘construction budget’’ for the National Park Service 

was $77 million. That’s the lowest level since 1988 in 25 years, last 

year. As we climb, but their construction budget was at the lowest 

level in 25 years. Deferred maintenance is 5 times more costly than 

7 

routine preventative maintenance. We know that. The Park Service 

can give us that. We know that’s true in other areas. Yet, when we 

don’t have the resources to actually resurface a road, then what 

happens is we have to rebuild the base on the road. The cost is astronomical. 

So all these things are multipliers that are actually hurting this 

number, actually making it grow higher as we pass on cheaper 

maintenance that actually would preserve, and then have to go to 

full replacement. 

The top 10 most visited park units in 2012 had deferred maintenance backlog of $2.6 billion. So 20 percent of the deferred maintenance backlog is in our top 10 most visited parks. In 2012, the 59 

national parks representing the crown jewels hosted 65,000,000 

visitors. They have, those jewels have $5 billion of that maintenance. 

I can give you some significant examples of deferred maintenance. You’ll probably hear that from the director. But I’ll just give 

you one example. At Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, over the last 5 years, tripping hazards in the park have 

resulted in 15 tort claims filed, with claims up to $2 million a year 

paid out. What I would tell you is that, had we spent a fourth of 

that each year on maintenance, none of that would have happened. 

So it’s not just the deferred maintenance. It’s we’re spending money 

in other areas on lawsuits because of deferred maintenance. 

I appreciate what Senator Murkowski said. I think the LWCF 

fund ought to be reallocated. It’s going to continue to grow as our 

oil and gas offshore continues to grow. Those funds are going to increase. I know we’re in competition with other desires for land acquisition. But it seems to me that if we were to take 75 percent 

of that fund, by changing the requirements of that fund, and put 

it into park maintenance over the next 10 years to get us caught 

back up, that in fact, we could meet the obligations that are really 

expected of the American people, without doing anything else, and 

actually get caught back up to a place where we’re really protecting 

these national treasures that we have. 

The other point I would make is that over the last decade, Congress has appropriate over a half-billion dollars to acquire even 

more land, while the same period, the cost of the NPS lands has 

doubled, of just maintaining the National Park Service’s situation. 

Why don’t I stop there? I’ll answer any questions you have. I’d 

make one final point. Of the top 25 most visited national parks in 

2011, only 8 have been approved since 1970. In comparison, of the 

25 least visited national parks, 20 have been established since 

1970. So the priority, not only the fact that we’re establishing new 

parks when we don’t have the money to do so, but the priority of 

what we’re establishing in terms of exposure to the American public and visitation is very, very low. So what we’re doing is sacrificing our desire for new parks by putting at risk the crown jewels 

of our national park system. 

With that, I’d stop and take any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:] 

8 

1 ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014,’’ National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FYll2014llgreenbook.pdf 2 Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn, January 15, 2013. 

3 ‘‘Preservation Maintenance in the National Parks: A Guide to NPS Options and Policies,’’ 

National Parks Conservation Association, October 2012; http://www.npca.org/about-us/center-forpark-research/historic-preservation/Final-HP-report-with-HAVO.pdf 4 ‘‘The Burgeoning Backlog: A Report on the Maintenance Backlog in America’s National 

Parks,’’ National Parks Conservation Association, May 2004; http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/ 

backlog.pdf 5 ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014,’’ National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FYll2014llgreenbook.pdf. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on addressing the National Park System’s deferred maintenance backlog. 

Millions of families from around the world will visit one or more of our National 

Parks this summer. While all will be captivated by the jaw-dropping scenery or 

moved by the historical achievements and tragedies of America’s past, many will be 

inconvenienced by the closures of campgrounds, reduced hours at visitor centers, 

and piles of trash, unclean restrooms, and delayed repairs at many parks. Such unsightly conditions are being blamed on recent budget reductions, but these problems 

have been piling up long before sequestration began. 

For years, instead of addressing the urgent needs of our premier parks and memorials, Congress and multiple administrations have instead focused on establishing 

new park units and adding more lands. Every new site added to the National Park 

Service further divides the $3 billion park budget, which currently provides for 401 

park units covering over 84 million acres of land.1 We have effectively been sequestering our National Parks for decades with each new park addition. As a result, 

NPS is now being asked to do more with less. 

The consequences of the undisciplined expansion of our National Park System and 

low-priority spending can be summarized in a single value-the National Park Service’s staggering $11.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog.2 The accumulated investment needs to repair National Park assets is the nominal representation of our 

negligence of ‘‘America’s Best Idea.’’ The price tag of this backlog has more than 

doubled over the past decade, not so much due to a lack of funds as much as a lack 

of priorities. 

For decades Administrations from both parties have acknowledged the underfunding for maintenance of existing assets and the deteriorating status of the National Park System. In a 1997 document, Preserving Historic Structures in the National Park System: A Report to the President, the National Park Service stated, 

‘‘Based on identified maintenance, rehabilitation, and development needs, the NPS 

does not have and never has had enough funds or staff to care for all resources in 

its custody. Contributing to the fundamental problem are unrealistic expectations 

reflected in and furthered by park planning documents, an overwhelming deferred 

maintenance workload, and a lack of multidisciplinary focus to set and achieve realistic goals in cooperative efforts recognizing the value of all aspects of park operations.’’3 Since 1997, Congress and multiple administrations have compounded this 

problem, adding 26 more park units despite NPS lacking the ability to maintain its 

current projects. 

In a 2001 speech at Everglades National Park, President George W. Bush declared ‘‘Many parks have lacked the resources they need for their basic care and 

maintenance. My administration will restore and renew America’s national parks.’’4

Since that speech, the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog has 

more than doubled from $5.5 billion to $11.5 billion. 

In April 2013, the current administration made a similar public acknowledgement 

of the problems facing the National Park System. They said: ‘‘Because of the age 

of existing NPS assets, the capital construction backlog of the Service continues to 

rapidly expand beyond the capabilities of the Service to keep up with known major 

repair or rehabilitation needs.’’5 Within the same month of reconfirming that the 

Park Service does not have the capabilities to handle its current obligations, the Administration increased the burden of the backlog by adding three new parks units 

and 13,000 acres to the already taxed system. 

Despite decades of empty promises to fix our parks, Congress has made the steady 

growth of the deferred maintenance backlog a permanent feature of the National 

Park System. The line-item construction budget is responsible for funding some of 

the most critical rehabilitation and replacement of facilities in the National Park 

System. The funding for this account in FY2012 was $77 million, its lowest levels 

9 

6 Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn, January 15, 2013. 

7 Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn, January 15, 2013 

8 Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn, April 25, 2013 

9 ‘‘National Park Service Announces Availability of Environmental Assessment for Mule Operations and Stock Use in Grand Canyon National Park,’’ National Park Service website, accessed 

July 22, 2012; http://www.nps.gov/grca/parknews/national-park-service-announces-availability-ofenvironmental-assessment-for-mule-operations-and-stock-use-in-grand-canyon-national-park.htm 

. 10 ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014,’’ National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FYll2014llgreenbook.pdf . 11 ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014,’’ National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FYll2014llgreenbook.pdf . 12 Carol Hardy Vincent, ‘‘Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and 

Issues,’’ Congressional Research Service, March 5, 2013; 13 ‘‘National Park Service Buys 86 Acres of Wyoming Lands Surrounded by Grand Teton National Park,’’ National Parks Traveler, December 30, 2012; http:// 

www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-buys-86-acres-wyoming-lands-surrounded-grand-teton-national-park22626 . 14 Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn, April 25, 2013 . 

since 1988.6 The National Park Service directs $323 million annually towards de- ferred maintenance work. According to the National Park Service, it takes $700 million annually just to hold the current backlog steady at $11.5 billion.7 Therefore, 

we have locked in a $377 million annual growth rate of the deferred maintenance 

backlog, surrendering any chance of restoring our National Park System to the quality that the American people deserve. 

These numbers are translated into real life consequences in our beloved National Parks. For example, Grand Canyon National Park has accumulated a $405 million 

deferred maintenance backlog.8 The backlog of the trails alone total over $24 million, and ‘‘unless management actions are taken in the near future, trails will continue to fall into disrepair and deferred maintenance costs will continue to increase.’’9

At Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, ‘‘the majority of the 

park’s walkways were constructed or renovated between 1950 and 1976’’ and contain many tripping hazards. Over the last 5 years, tripping hazards in the park 

‘‘have resulted in 15 tort claims filed,’’ leading to claims ranging from $200,000 to 

$2 million per year.10

The 60 to 80 year old water system in a portion of Yellowstone National Park 

loses about 50 to 70 percent of the system’s water through leaks, with reports of 

leaks as large as ‘‘15,000 gallons per day, per joint of pipe.’’ The existing lines fail 

to ‘‘provide adequate fire protection to the facilities of the historic district,’’ while 

‘‘end lines and cross connections can create contamination or restrict disinfection in 

the drinking water system.’’11

Meanwhile, Congress has appropriated $527.4 million to acquire more land for the 

National Park Service over the last decade while during that same period the needed repairs on existing property increased by $5.4 billion.12 The Land, Water, and 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) can be used to acquire additional land for the federal 

government, but cannot be used to maintain or fix existing federal properties. No 

one builds an addition to their house when the roof is caving in. Nor should their 

government. In December 2012, the National Park Service spent $16 million to acquire 86 

acres of land in Grand Teton National Park from the state of Wyoming at a cost 

of $186,047 per acre. The National Park Service plans to continue to purchase 1280 

acres of land in two installments totaling $91 million.13 The federal government will spend $107 million in federal land acquisition to add 1,366 acres to the 310,000 acre 

Grand Teton National Park, expanding the National Park unit by one percent. The 

funding that will be used could have reduced the park’s $221.7 million deferred 

maintenance backlog by nearly 50 percent.14

The expansion of commitments to the National Park Service and the simultaneous decay of the existing sites is a microcosm of why we are quickly approaching a $17 

trillion national debt. Congress must make a commitment to properly prioritize resources by redirecting funding from low-priority projects. Congress should also seek 

common sense reforms, such as utilizing LWCF funding for maintenance, creating 

a more sensible recreational fee policy, and ensuring that federal policies do not discourage contributions from outside sources. Finally, Congress should reevaluate the 

current National Park System to ensure that our units are held up to the high 

standard set by the first Director of the National Park Service when he stated, ‘‘The 

national park system as now constituted should not be lowered in standard, dignity, 

and prestige by the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest terms 

the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent.’’ 

10 

Until Congress and the administration take action to prioritize the maintenance 

of existing national park obligations, the problem will continue to grow worse. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee and look forward to working together to accomplish these important tasks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Coburn, thank you. 

Do any colleagues have either questions or want to be recognized 

at this time for a statement on this issue? 

If not—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, before, I don’t need to go 

ahead of anybody. But if it’s appropriate, I don’t want to question 

another Senator. But I wouldn’t mind having a little colloquy with 

him about what he said. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But I’ll be glad, if he’s got time to stay, but 

I’ll be glad to go after Senator Udall or you or Lisa or anybody else. 

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody is being so collegial. 

Senator Udall, would you like to start? 

Senator UDALL. I agree with Senator Alexander. I’m not interested in questioning another Senator. I do think Senator Coburn’s 

research is worth considering. 

I do find it interesting that we have not fully funded LWCF at 

the $900 million level for many, many years. It’s been funded based 

on what appropriators have wanted to do. So I’m certainly open to 

taking a creative look at all of this, Senator Coburn, because the 

parks that you mentioned are America’s best idea. 

There have been, and I would like to get this in the record in 

some greater depth, but there have been some cases, for example, 

where LWCF has had a dual or threefold purpose. In Colorado, the 

Great Sand Dunes National Park, which I think maybe you visited, 

maybe you and I can join forces and spend some time there on the 

ground, since I know you love Colorado and spend a lot of time 

there. 

The creation of that national park, which was a national monument, but we expanded it to a national park, helped a ranching 

economy in the valley because their water supplies were threatened. It’s an example of how LWCF was creatively focused on protecting a way of life and also these marvelous natural landscapes. 

I think on a case-by-case basis, I still think LWCF has a very important role when it comes to land acquisition. One other comment 

you and I can visit about this later, as well, is a lot of the maintenance needs of buildings, roads, bridges, water systems, and the 

purchase of additional land sometimes that are in holdings to make 

a national park complete, the land trades and the like is relatively 

inexpensive and makes the management job of people like Director 

Jarvis easier. So I may have a disagreement as to the utility of the 

LWCF when it comes to additional land acquisition at times and 

in situations where it’s merited. 

Senator COBURN. But you wouldn’t deny the fact that if we don’t 

start catching up, this is going to go into an elliptical curve in 

terms of the cost. But I’d make the point, for example, we’ve had 

a recent purchase at the Grand Teton National Park. The planned 

purchase, plus the purchase that was made, although it may be totally proper, the amount of money paid for that small expanse 

would cut the backlog at Grand Teton in half. 

11 

So had you not bought the additional land, the backlog maintenance, if you could have used that money for maintenance, which 

is not a given, you would have cut it in half. So all of a sudden, 

you know, when we buy land under good intention to expand a 

park because something is available at a certain time, it is a tradeoff against the protection and the maintenance and upkeep of that 

park. 

So I think it has to be balanced. I would just make the point, 

again, is, as we expand Government ownership of private lands, 

and we expand parklands at the same time we’re not being good 

stewards of what we already have, the American people ought to 

be questioning what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. 

We all know it’s about priorities here. What I would tell you, it 

ought to be a priority to fund the maintenance of our parks. It 

ought to be a priority. Because every year we don’t do it markedly 

increases the cost of trying to catch up the next year. There’s $370 

million bucks a year we’re falling behind. 

Senator UDALL. There’s no question. Senator Coburn, it is frustrating to think about the $900 million allocation, if you will, of 

LWCF moneys. But I think last year, we actually appropriated 

something on the order of $200 million. So you could argue we’ve 

left $700 million in limbo, or we’ve left those dollars in the hands 

of the appropriators to be directed to other Federal needs. 

Senator COBURN. I agree. 

Senator UDALL. So there may be a sweet spot here that we all 

ought to continue discussing. 

Senator COBURN. That fund should grow based on our energy 

production. 

Senator UDALL. Most definitely. I think we had a hearing just recently in the committee, and there were dueling numbers to an extent. But it was somewhere between $6 and $8 billion a year generated by offshore royalties. 

I think, is that, Mr. Chairman, ranking member? I think that 

was the number we heard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. So it would be terrific to deploy these moneys to the purposes that previous Congresses thought they should 

be deployed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator Murkowski, then Senator Alexander, and Senator 

Portman, and Senator Cantwell. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Coburn, thank you for your comments. I for one will look forward, too, to the report that you and 

your staff have prepared, and appreciate the level of detail that you 

have given this issue. 

In your report and analysis, do you look at the issue of fees as 

they are applied across the park system? I mentioned in my opening comments that there is a seeming inequity, that in certain 

areas you have fees, and in certain areas that you don’t have fees. 

Do you look at that at all? Where do you come down on this issue? 

Senator COBURN. We have. We also talked about, in the deficit 

commission, for less than a quarter a visitor, you can add about 

$70 million a year to the maintenance budget. That’s at 25 cents 

12 

a visitor. So, you know, there are all sorts of ways for us to do it. 

It ought to be consistent. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. You know, I think the Park Service struggles 

with 2 things. One, how do you satisfy the local community in 

terms of this? Then how do you extract enough resources to help 

maintain? There’s all sorts of things that we can do to bring that 

up. 

As a matter of fact, we’re going to have recommendations in this 

report on how you increase the revenues coming to the park. That 

will be a part of what we’re doing. I think the other thing is to try 

to match expenses within the Park Service to revenues, rather 

than, you know, we have a lot of parks that cost 100 bucks per visitors per visit. One Hundered dollars. We ought to be saying, should 

we be putting resources there or putting resources where we have 

the highest level of visitors and the highest usage? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. Again, I will look forward, too, to the recommendations that you put forward. I do think 

that your proposal, that we need to look to LWCF and how we 

might be able to carve out some of these dollars that are directed 

to this for our parks and maintenance backlog. 

If we’re smart, it’s not a permanent carve-out. Once we can get 

on top of your curve here, then you should have some flexibility. 

Or I would hope that we would build some flexibility to move that 

elsewhere. 

Senator COBURN. Right. You just sunset it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But thanks for your leadership on this, and 

we’ll work with you on it. Appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Coburn, thanks for coming. 

I’d like to make a comment and get your reaction to it. Then if 

you think there’s any sense in it, I’d like to work with you and turn 

it into some specific proposal that we might actually try to get 

done. 

Senator Udall talked about the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. I was co-chairman of the commission with his father in 1985 

and 1986, under President Reagan, that recommended full funding 

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is $900 million. 

Now, that’s for land acquisition. It’s not for maintenance of 

quotes. That’s the idea of it, is for Federal and State land acquisition. But as Senator Udall said, it only once, I think, or you didn’t 

say this, but only once I think has it been fully funded. 

The idea was that the money from offshore drilling would—I 

mean, if you impinge on the environment a little bit, you take some 

of that and improve the environment over here. It’s a nice balance. 

Except it’s never happened. We did get through, with Senator Domenici’s leadership, a little bit of funding on new drilling in the 

Gulf Coast, and 1/8 of a cent goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It’s not much money. 

So we’ve had a lot of bipartisan support for a long time for full 

funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million. 

But it’s never happened. Senator Burr, I believe, has a bill that 

would make it mandatory funding. We do have this prospect of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
13 

creased drilling for oil and gas offshore, and there’s some opportunity there. 

Now, let me localize this problem a little bit and put it into per- spective. You have said that about half of this $11 billion is roads. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It’s roads. Now, in Tennessee, here’s what 

we do with roads. We pay for them as we go. In other words, in 

the 1980s, we had 3 big road programs. We said, ‘‘Are we going to 

borrow money to build them?’’ We said, ‘‘No. We’re going to raise 

the gas tax. We’re going to charge the people who use the roads 

to build the roads.’’ Every single Republican in the legislature 

voted for that because it was a conservative pay-as-you-go policy. So we have zero road debt. We have $900 million that we collect 

every year in gas taxes. It’s one of the lower gas taxes in the country, but it all goes to build roads, and zero of it goes for interest 

on the debt. 

You go to New Jersey, for example, they spend $900 million on 

principal and interest. We’re spending it on roads. We have the 

best roads in the country, usually every year 2 or 3 roads. So I 

think it’s ridiculous for us to be borrowing money, and the Federal 

Government that is so heavily indebted, to build roads in the national parks. We shouldn’t be doing that. We should be having user 

fees of some kind to build the roads, it seems to me. 

If you want to get at the maintenance, if the deferred mainte- nance is $11 billion and $5 or $6 billion of it is roads, why don’t 

we start by figuring out how to develop a way to take care of the 

roads? Maybe the States, through their user fees, ought to take a 

share of that. I mean, Tennesseans drive on the Great Smoky 

Mountains roads, and North Carolinians do, more than anybody 

else. Or maybe we take a combination of what the 2 of you said 

and maybe Senator Murkowski said, and maybe in exchange for 

fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 10 years, 

we do that with a mandatory funding that’s derived from oil and 

gas revenues, which is sort of a user fee, since a lot of that goes 

to transportation. For at least 10 years, we use that to take care 

of the roads in the national park. That knocks off half the backlog. 

That leaves $5 million to go. 

While conservationists might be shocked at the thought because 

that money is supposed to go to acquiring new lands, Senator 

Coburn has made the point we shouldn’t be doing that when we 

can’t take care of the ones we’ve got, and you could add to that, 

we haven’t been funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

anyway. 

So if we were to say that for a period of time, we take some of 

this new money and use it for roads, that helps the parks and that 

gets at your point, and it gets us into a habit in this country of 

fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which we 

can do, maybe more with a straight face when we do a better job 

of taking care of what we’ve got now. 

So my comment, I’d be interested in your reaction. Do you think 

it’s realistic to come up with a proposal that fully funds the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund for a period of time, uses some of 

it for roads and at least get that part of it taken care of, and using 

new revenues to do it that are derived some way or another from 

14 

user fees or from energy exploration, rather than borrowing money 

by a Federal Government that’s broke? 

Senator COBURN. You know, your committee is the jurisdiction 

on the best way to approach that. But what I would say, a couple 

of things. No. 1, the Federal Government owns 640,000,000 acres 

of land right now. If you do $9 billion over the next 10 years of 

land acquisition, what’s that going to be? In other words, at what 

point does the LCFW stop? In other words, do we buy all the land 

that’s available out there? 

So what happens to land that is taken by the Federal Government, in terms of loss on the tax rolls? In other words, there’s economic benefit, but there’s also an economic loss. 

You know, I think one other thing that we ought to look at is, 

how do we endow our parks? I mean, you know, I can imagine that 

the Grand Tetons National Park, with the people that live out 

there and visit that, that if you set up a plan to endow its future 

and created a recognition of those that were involved in endowing 

it, that you could create an endowment in the Rocky Mountain National Park, the Grand Teton, and several others around this country, to where you would create an endowment that could never 

touch the principal, but would be totally dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of those parks, to where this wouldn’t even 

become a question anymore. 

Where it would be a question is the parks where people really 

don’t want to go, that don’t really match the level of pristine nature 

that we see. That’s been part of our problem, adding parks that 

don’t come to the level of what we intended when we started creating parks. 

That’s one of the reasons I’ve been aggressive in trying not to 

add parks until we take care of it because I think, you know, I can 

tell you a lot of places in Oklahoma that we’d love to have a park, 

but it doesn’t come up. No, it does not. The economic benefit would 

be great. 

So I’ll work with anybody to try to fix this backlog. But I want 

to fix it permanently. I want us to try to endow. I want us to create 

the place where we can have people come in and invest in our 

parks, get some small recognition for it, but create an endowment 

so over the next 20 years, this isn’t a problem. 

I think there’s a lot of Americans that would like to do that, to 

participate in the preservation of what are some of our greatest assets in this country. 

So I think there’s all sorts of ways you get there. I think you 

ought to use a large portion of appropriated dollars from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund to help on the backlog, rather than 

buy more land right now. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could make just one 

comment, and then I’ll—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. 

Senator ALEXANDER. If there were money in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, I think I’d agree with you. I mean, I think of 

the Great Smoky Mountain National Park has 2 or 3 times as 

many visitors every year as any Western park, has nearly 10 million visitors a year. In 2005, $110 million of the $180 million in the 

Smokies was roads. 

15 

I’m just suggesting that one way to tackle this is to get roads out 

of the picture. I mean, let’s pay for roads with user fees of one kind 

or another. Then let’s focus on the rest of it with appropriated dollars. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Chairman, could I? 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, yes. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. I want to thank Senator Alexander for his comments. I want to associate myself with his comments. I want to 

thank Senator Coburn again for his interest and passion on this 

question. 

I would point out, and Senator Alexander was there at the beginning, you were there at the genesis of this LWCF idea that—of 

course, LWCF has 4 different missions: urban forests, Stateside 

funding, Federal funding, and we have to take all of that into account. But I think Senator Alexander is on to an approach that 

really may have utility in it. It would be a hallmark of this committee if we could move something forward to really get at what 

we’re discussing here today. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Portman was next, Senator Udall’s partner. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

not going to hesitate to ask my colleague questions, because he answers them so well. 

First of all, I think this was a great discussion. I thank the chairman for asking Tom to join us, and then the great input from 2 

members who have a lot of experience, and the ranking member, 

who has got a lot of experience. 

I think, you know, this is kind of exciting because there’s an opportunity here for us to do the right thing by our parks. I think 

with Udall as the chair of the subcommittee, having not just experience, but some flexibility here in how you look at this differently, 

I think that’s really important. I’m the ranking member now. We 

probably don’t focus as much as we should here in Congress on this 

issue because the parks are our treasure, everybody loves them. 

But we’ve got to be sure that, as Tom has pointed out, that we deal 

with this backlog. 

I did serve briefly on this National Commission on the Centennial. I got off it when I got into the race for the Senate. I was on 

it, and I was sometimes the skunk at the picnic, as some will know 

who are in the group here, because my focus was on this notion of 

stewardship. I really think we make a mistake in focusing too 

much on acquisition. 

I will tell you, we need to, in my view, have some flexibility on 

this because you all made a good point. Mark talked about some 

of these in-holdings where you can’t actually, through acquisition, 

help to make a park more efficient. I will give you a good example 

of that, Cuyahoga National Park. It’s our only big park in Ohio. It’s 

top 10 in the country. It’s not the Smokies, where I was on my anniversary last weekend, and the roads were fine. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s just getting through the park. 

16 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. That’s just getting through it. We didn’t 

run into any potholes. We need a few potholes fixed at Cuyahoga, 

however. 

But anyway, it is, I think, one use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But I do think this idea of using it for backlog is 

really interesting. There is actually some precedence. Mark Udall 

talked about some of the uses of the fund. I think the fund also, 

this historic preservation fund, is really for maintenance. So that 

is some way in which we now use the Land and Water Conservation Fund, not for acquisition, but for actually maintenance of historic sites. These are non-Federal historic sites, as I understand it. 

We’ll hear more about that later, I think, from National Parks and 

Conservation Association and the National Parks Hospitality Association, as they have put together this report for us that we have 

in our material. 

But my question to you is, one, about that flexibility on the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, if we start to fund it, which we 

should and we will be able to, thanks to the new finds offshore and 

the new technology on oil and gas. But also, how do you get the 

private sector more involved? We’ll hear something about this later. 

When I was at OMB, as you may remember, Tom, we offered a 

balanced budget in fiscal year 2008, over 5 years, not 10 years, but 

5 years. But we increased funding for the parks. There’s a little bit 

of a flat line there when the Congress responded to that. It wasn’t 

a reduction, but at least we flattened it out for awhile. But Congress, frankly, didn’t take up the initiative. The initiative was really threefold. 

But the most important one I thought was the challenge and the 

match. So we went to the private sector and said, Why don’t you 

put some money in every year, 100 million bucks into the parks? 

Then we’ll get Congress to pass legislation to match it with 100 

million bucks, dollar-for-dollar match.’’ That never happened. 

The Chairman was just talking about what was done in connec- tion with this helium legislation and the $50 million challenge in 

that legislation. I just think, as you indicated earlier with regard 

to the Tetons and all the interest in preserving it, and there are 

friends groups that do a great job and philanthropic groups, and 

in a sense, they provide somewhat of an endowment. But it should 

be more connected to, what are the recognized needs of the park 

on the deferred maintenance, which as you said is 5 times more 

costly than regular preventive maintenance? 

So what do you think about that? Does the Federal Government 

have a role to play here in providing an incentive for the private 

sector to step up and maybe with some naming rights, done in a 

tasteful way, as Senator Murkowski has talked about, but to tap 

into this love of the parks, this interest in the parks, and frankly, 

the economic benefits of these parks? 

Senator COBURN. Yes, I think it has a role. What you need is a 

champion. You know, we had a champion for parks, Teddy. What 

you need is a champion that will go out and say, ‘‘Look at where 

we are.’’ Most Americans know that we’re kind of in the grips of 

some pretty tough financial prospects, going forward, in terms of 

our debt and our long-term obligations. So I can say, yeah, I think 

you could do a challenge-type grant. 

17 

But what you need is a champion, somebody to go out and say, 

to call on those with wealth in this country and say, ‘‘Come help 

us endow the parks.’’ You know? If we get ahead of the curve, 

which we never do, but if you think about an endowment, an endowment is doubly saving. It means that you have income coming 

off the endowment, which you can apply today. But it also means 

you’re not borrowing money against the future. So you’re saving because you’re performing proper maintenance, one. No. 2 is, you’re 

not paying an interest cost on it. 

Senator PORTMAN. All right. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. So it’s just smart. So I would say if we could 

develop a champion, a retired Senator, a retired Congressman, a 

retired Vice President, who would go around the country and rally 

for the parks to endow the parks so that we could actually put in 

motion a preservation for what is really a tremendous asset for our 

country. 

But I think the conflict is, everybody wants a park even when 

it doesn’t make any economic sense to have a park. But the whole 

argument is about economic benefit, and at a time when we can’t 

take care of the very critical resources that we have today. 

So like I told Senator Alexander, I’ll help do whatever I can. But 

I want us to get caught up and do it in a way—because it’s going 

to save us a ton of money if we do it on a timely fashion rather 

than a deferred fashion. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

I think we’ve had something like 10 percent of the Senate here 

now to get into this issue. I want to see what other colleagues 

would like to make comments. 

I think on this side, are there other colleagues that would like 

to comment or ask questions of Dr. Coburn? 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. I just applaud Senator Coburn’s effort on this 

bringing it to our attention. But the bottom line is that he’s absolutely correct. I don’t have the presence of State parks, I mean national parks in my State. But West Virginians use national parks 

over this country. They are so appreciative to have that opportunity. 

So we’re all in. We’re committed. We’ll do whatever we have to 

do. I agree with you. Someone needs to go out and beat the drum 

on this. 

But the deferred maintenance, just as relevant, when I was Governor, I had every time it was time to build something, you just 

would refer that to everybody wants a new park in their district. 

It’s good to go home and say, I got a national park.’’ 

I had the college system. Everybody wanted to build new buildings. So before I approved any new buildings to be built, I wanted 

to see what their deferred maintenance was. It was so pathetic that 

they didn’t even, they didn’t deserve one more penny for one new 

building because they hadn’t taken care of what they had. 

If we continue down this road and can’t take care, you can’t ask 

the taxpayers or any of these benefactors, when we’re not good 

stewards. 

18 

So I would say, to have a value cap on what our deferred maintenance should—and I’m sorry I came in late. You might have gone 

over that, Senator. I don’t know. Do we know about how much our 

deferred maintenance is on our national parks? Do we have an idea 

how much? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. It’s $12 billion. 

Senator MANCHIN. $12 billion. 

Senator COBURN. For our backlog. 

Senator MANCHIN. Just to get—— 

Senator COBURN. But remember, this is a compounding, growing 

problem. 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. 

Senator COBURN. Because every year you don’t do preventative 

maintenance, you get behind the curve. Then pretty soon now, 

you’re replacing a road rather than resurfacing. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Senator COBURN. So, you know, this has kind of flattened a little 

bit. But it’s going to accelerate, especially what we’ve done to the 

Park Service this year. 

Senator MANCHIN. The type of money we’re putting in for maintenance is equal to how much? 

Senator COBURN. It’s half of what they need. Now, they’re run- ning a $377 million deficit on maintenance every year. So every 

year, they get further and further behind. The degree of maintenance to catch back up, the cost becomes more complex because 

you’re not doing preventative maintenance, you’re doing structural 

maintenance. 

I mean, look. At the Grand Canyon, we’re dipping water out of 

the river sometimes when the water in there to run the toilets, 

Grand Canyon National Park. Are we proud of that? 

[Pause.] 

Senator MANCHIN. I’m just, I’m committed. Again, a State that 

doesn’t have an awful lot of structure in our State, we still benefit, 

all as Americans. I think we have to look at it as a whole, not just 

as what is good for my State, or do I get a park? I’ll vote for this 

is I get something for it. 

This is something that has to be done, and I appreciate and applaud you, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. Certainly, your 

problem-solving approach is going to be very useful as we try to 

take this on. 

Senator Barrasso is next. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

thank Senator Coburn for his leadership. I agree completely the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund really should be used for 

maintenance backlog, not new acquisitions. 

You know, we do have the Grand Teton National Park Foundation founded in 1997. It was a partnership with the Park Service. 

Actually, it worked to construct the Craig Thomas Visitor Center, 

which opened after and was dedicated to Craig after his death. So 

there are partnerships that exist. But I agree, actually, with your 

comments about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So thank 

you. 

19 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Any other colleagues who would like to make comments or ask 

questions with respect to Dr. Coburn? 

Senator Heinrich, Senator Baldwin, you would like to pass at 

this time? 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Very good. 

Dr. Coburn, I think you’ve seen the really extraordinary interest 

among Senators on both sides. David Brooks is sitting behind me 

and he is a guru on this whole issue of advocating for the parks. 

I asked him, ‘‘When was the last discussion in the Senate about 

these kinds of issues, looking at these kinds of questions on how 

we deal with a very real problem of the backlog?’’ 

Mr. Brooks, who is basically a repository of knowledge about 

parks, basically said he couldn’t even remember when there was a 

discussion. So it’s pretty obvious now that we have this debate underway. 

I want to tell you 2 things with respect to substance. First, you 

and I have talked about this question of trying to make sure you 

get the money where the need is. Particularly, being more creative 

about it. I want you to know I’m going to work with you on it particularly with respect to the issue I touched on earlier, because the 

fee revenue expires in December 2014. So we’ve got to do it. That 

would be one place to really look very concretely at one of the ideas 

that you’ve had in there. Apparently, there are efforts already underway. There may be more creative ways to do it. So we’re going 

to look at that. 

On this endowment issue, you basically had me at hello, because 

this is an area, I’m convinced, where there just won’t be one champion in the United States. There will be a lot of champions. We’re 

going to pursue that very vigorously. I’ve already begun some of 

that discussion. 

So, thank you. I think you’ve seen the interest among Senators. 

We’re going to be working very closely with you in the days ahead. 

OK. 

Let’s bring up the Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director of the 

Park Service. 

Mr. Jarvis, as you come up, I also would like to express my 

thanks to you for the fact that you’ve worked so closely with the 

committee. We could not possibly have gotten that Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore legislation out of the committee without your 

very valuable counsel. As you know, that went on for years and 

years. I just want the public to know that I’m particularly interested in some of the efforts that you all have made to really look 

at technology to resolve some of these conflicts that have just gone 

on and on. 

As we all know, there have been real questions in Cape Hatteras 

with respect to the turtles and how you could ensure protection for 

them and also be welcoming to visitors. You all worked very closely 

with the private sector, with companies in the private sector, to 

look at approaches, where in effect you could put tags, on these 

nests so that, through sensors, you could know when the turtles 

would hatch. You would be in a position to resolve a conflict that 

20 

had gone on and on. You could add an additional measure of protection for the turtles, while still do more to welcome visitors to 

this wonderful treasure that the North Carolina Senators felt so 

strongly about. 

So it’s those kind of fresh approaches that we need. Let’s see if 

we can come up with some on this funding issue. We’ll put your 

prepared remarks into the record in their entirety. Why don’t you 

just go ahead and make your comments? I know you’re going to get 

questions from Senators. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks all of the 

Senators that are here today. I actually really, I come up here a 

lot. But I have to say that I really appreciate this discussion, because it is critical to the future of the National Park Service. 

Congress has charged the National Park Service with protecting 

America’s special places in perpetuity. That is a fundamental responsibility of Congress, then, to provide an annual appropriation 

commensurate with the responsibilities that it has given us. 

We’ve embraced opportunities to supplement those funding 

through entrance fees, concession-generated fees, and new models 

of public—private land management. However, annual appropriations remain the primary means of addressing our deferred maintenance backlog. 

At the end of Fiscal Year 2012, the National Park Service faced 

an $11.5 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. In order to merely hold the backlog at a steady level of 11.5, we would need to 

spend nearly $700 million per year on deferred maintenance. In 

Fiscal 12, we had $444 million available for that purpose, which 

falls significantly short of the necessary $700 million. So as a result, every park must make very difficult decisions about which facilities to repair and which ones to defer. 

Managing this large deficiency with limited resources requires 

that we concentrate our efforts on correcting the most serious deficiencies in all of our assets. We systematically track asset conditions and maintenance activities, which gives us the ability to identify the most serious deficiencies. The total need to address the 

high priority non-road facilities is $4.2, and for roads, it’s $3.3 billion. 

We prioritize repairs that are more critical to protecting resources, ensuring the health and safety of our visitors, and provide 

rewarding visitor experiences. We also require that each maintenance project pass a financial sustainability test, proving that the 

park will be able to keep the asset in an acceptable condition for 

the lifespan of the replacement component. 

There have been occasions when Congress has provided a onetime boost to the funding of our backlog. The recent example, of 

course, is the $750 million the National Park Service received from 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With those 

funds, we executed 800 projects at 260 park units, the majority of 

which addressed deferred maintenance. 

We are absolutely open to ideas that supply additional funding, 

and we appreciate the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center, 

21 

MPCA, and the National Park Hospitality Association. Some of 

these ideas raised by the groups have been around for some time 

and have been pursued. We’re currently reassessing concession 

fees, promoting the use of leasing authority, engaging our volunteers, and investing in energy-saving cost-cutting technologies. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center White Paper includes 2 proposals 

that have identified new revenue sources and have no net increase 

to the Federal budget. One is to increase fee revenue, for example, 

comparative pricing of our annual pass with State annual passes, 

or using peak pricing models for our highly seasonal parks. The 

other is to establish a public—private partnership matching fund, 

with revenue offsets. 

Our experience with the $25 million Centennial Challenge Fund 

in Fiscal Year 2008, which was talked about here, makes us confident that our donors will respond to a Federal matching fund. Already, partners are stepping up to help us prepare for our second 

century. Last November, in partnership with the National Park 

Foundation, we kicked off the first phase of a centennial campaign 

that will culminate in a strategy for introducing the National Park 

Service to the next generation. 

The repairs to the Washington Monument provide a visible reminder of the effectiveness of public—private partnerships. The 

NPS received $7.5 million in appropriated funds for the earthquake 

repairs, with the understanding that a philanthropist was prepared 

to match that amount. By working with our partners and our 

friends, we will be able to reopen the monument in 2015. 

A number of the proposals from the White Paper we are already 

pursuing have practical, legal, and financial limitations. We’re exploring them in a manner that is consistent with NPS policies, regulations, and laws. In addition, we are supporting legislation to authorize a commemorative coin celebrating our Centennial in 2016. 

The White Paper also identifies some proposals that face significant challenges. One proposal is to increase the Federal gas tax by 

1 cent and use the revenues. Our roads represent $5.7 billion, or 

50 percent, of the backlog. Another proposal is to establish an endowment, which we support. There are proposals to develop a 

model for managing park concessionaires, similar to the model 

used by the Defense Department in its base exchanges and recreation facilities and to pursue bonding and revolving loans. 

I would like to mention, finally, the significant impact of sequestration from the budgetary cuts to the National Park Service and 

its related bureaus. Sequestration was designed to be inflexible, 

damaging, and indiscriminate, and it is. It is undermining the 

work that we need to do on our many fronts. It’s increasing our 

backlogs, eroding our work force, and deferring important work. 

To conclude, the National Park Service will continue to pursue 

new and creative ways to address its funding needs. I want to 

thank our many partners who are here who have come to us with 

these ideas. I appreciate the support of Congress to resolve this extraordinary challenge. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 

22 

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

appear before you today at this oversight hearing to consider supplemental funding 

options to support the National Park Service’s efforts to address deferred maintenance and operational needs. 

Today’s hearing comes three years and one month to the day before the National 

Park Service’s one hundredth anniversary. I think it is appropriate then that we 

should look back at the words that Congress used when it decided that certain 

places were so important-so essential to our national character-that they should be 

protected not for five, or ten, or even one hundred years, but for all time. 

The National Park Service’s Organic Act, signed into law on August 25, 1916, 

states: ‘‘The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal 

areas known as National Parks, monuments, and reservations.by such means and 

measures conform to [their] fundamental purpose.to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ 

These were bold and inspirational words when they were written, and they define 

the broad mission of the National Park Service. The maintenance of our facilities 

and roads is an essential part of meeting our mission, but it is only one part among 

many. Our focus and attention must be directed not only to our existing facilities, 

but also to visitor education and safety, resource protection, and wildlife management. 

Congress charged the National Park Service with protecting these special places 

in perpetuity, and it is the fundamental responsibility of Congress to provide annual 

appropriations commensurate with the responsibilities it has given us to manage 

these special places. We have embraced a number of opportunities to supplement 

funding through entrance fees, concession generated franchise fees, and new models 

of public-private land management. However, annual appropriations remain far and 

away the heart of our operation and are the primary solution for addressing our 

maintenance backlog. History does not stop, and we must continue to find a way 

to protect those areas that have already been designated without excluding those 

stories and places that matter to this and future generations. 

A variety of ideas have been proposed regarding ways the National Park Service 

could raise additional funds. Some of these ideas are realistic, but others are not. 

Except for the call for large infusions of federal funds via Federal Lands Transportation Program or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts, many proposals do not 

come close to stabilizing, let alone paying down the National Park Service maintenance backlog. Additionally, many of these proposals require legislative action or 

inter-agency coordination, and cannot be implemented by internal NPS policy 

changes or initiatives alone. In other words, these proposals are not the answer to 

the maintenance backlog. 

Resolving the backlog is the fundamental responsibility of the Federal government. The potential to raise additional funds should not be viewed as a way to supplant federal funding. Appropriated dollars should continue to serve as the primary 

means of addressing the deferred maintenance backlog. Understanding the backlog, 

its scope, and its various components is critical to identifying possible ways to address it. 

The Deferred Maintenance Backlog 

At the end of Fiscal Year 2012, the National Park Service faced an $11.5 billion 

backlog of deferred maintenance. This amount grows annually at a far greater rate 

than the Service is able to pay down. In order to merely hold the backlog at a steady 

level of $11.5 billion, the NPS would have to spend nearly $700 million per year 

on deferred maintenance projects. To place this figure in perspective, the annual operating budget of the entire National Park Service in Fiscal Year 2012 was $2.2 billion. 

The National Park Service has endured successive years of reduced appropriations, and by necessity, non-operating accounts have borne the biggest brunt of the 

reductions. In Fiscal Year 2012, the NPS had $444 million available to address deferred maintenance projects: $71 million from our repair and rehabilitation account, 

$74 million and $3 million from our construction and housing accounts respectively, 

$168 million from the Federal Highways Appropriation for park roads, $75 million 

from NPS-collected recreation fees, and $53 million from park concession franchise 

fees. Even at $444 million, the NPS falls far short of the $700 million needed to 

keep the deferred maintenance backlog from growing. At these reduced funding levVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
23 

els, every park unit must make difficult decisions to prioritize which facilities are 

repaired and which projects are deferred. 

Managing this large of a deficiency with limited resources requires that we concentrate our efforts on correcting the most serious deficiencies in the most important 

assets of the NPS. Through the Facility Management Software System (FMSS), the 

NPS tracks asset conditions and maintenance activities, giving us improved visibility into Service-wide maintenance needs and the ability to identify the most serious deficiencies. The total needed to address the highest priority non-road facilities 

is $4.2 billion and for roads is $3.3 billion. The NPS prioritizes repairs that are most 

critical to meeting our mission of protecting resources, ensuring the health and safety of our visitors, and providing rewarding visitor experiences. We also require that 

each maintenance project pass a financial sustainability test to prove that the park 

will be able to keep the asset in acceptable condition for the lifespan of the replacement component. 

There have been occasions when Congress has provided a one-time boost in funding directed towards reducing the backlog. One recent example is the $750 million 

NPS received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With 

those funds, the NPS executed over 800 projects at 260 park units located in 48 

states and the District of Columbia, and the majority of these projects addressed 

deferred maintenance needs. The NPS obligated all of the funds within 18 months 

and completed all projects within 4 years of receiving the appropriation. These 

projects restored or extended the life of roads, popular trails, and critical facilities. 

Supplemental Funding Proposals 

The National Park Service is open, of course, to ideas that could supply added 

funding and appreciates the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Park 

Conservation Association, and the National Park Hospitality Association to help 

identify and promote a wide range of ideas. Some of these ideas have been around 

for some time and have been pursued. For example, the Centennial Challenge was 

a successful matching fund through which the National Park Service was able to 

utilize the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations request to help us incentivize private donations with a Federal match. We are currently reassessing concession services for 

the 21st century, promoting the use of leasing authority, engaging our volunteers, 

and continuing to invest in energy-saving, cost-cutting technologies. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center white paper includes two proposals that identify 

new revenue sources and would have no net increase in the Federal budget deficit: 

• Increase fee revenue—There are many ideas presented in the fee proposal, some 

of which make a lot of sense, such as competitively pricing the NPS annual pass 

with state park annual passes (i.e., California’s annual state park pass is $125, 

while the America the Beautiful pass is only $80) and looking into peak pricing 

models for our highly seasonal parks. The NPS collected $177.7 million in entrance fees in Fiscal Year 2012 and already focuses much of its annual fee revenue on deferred maintenance projects. Of the funds available for projects, the 

NPS spent, on average, two thirds of its annual fee revenue on deferred maintenance projects from 2010 to 2012. 

• Establish a Public-Private Partnership matching fund with revenue offsets—As 

noted above, the experience with the $25 million Centennial Challenge fund in 

Fiscal Year 2008 makes us confident that our donors will respond to a Federal 

matching fund. Already, partners are stepping up to help us prepare for our second century. This past November, the NPS, in partnership with the congressionally-chartered National Park Foundation, kicked off the first phase of a centennial campaign that will culminate in a strategy for introducing the National 

Park Service to the next generation of Americans. This work is entirely funded 

by the National Park Foundation through its development efforts. 

The repairs currently underway on the Washington Monument provide a visible 

reminder of the importance and effectiveness of this kind of public-private partnerships. The NPS received $7.5 million in appropriated funds for earthquake repairs 

with the understanding that a private philanthropist was prepared to match the figure with a donation made through one of our partners. By working with our partners and friends, we will be able to reopen the monument to visitors by 2015. 

The white paper includes a number of other proposals that we are already pursuing. Many of these proposals have practical, legal, and financial limitations, and 

we are exploring them in a manner that is consistent with existing National Park 

Service policies, regulations, and laws. In addition, we are supporting legislation 

proposed in the white paper to authorize commemorative coins celebrating the NPS 

centennial. 

24 

Finally, the white paper identifies some proposals that face significant practical 

hurdles or would require major legislative efforts and changes. Such proposals include: 

• Penny for the Parks—This proposal would increase the federal gas tax by one 

cent and use the revenues for park transportation infrastructure. Our roads, 

highways and bridges represent some $5.7 billion, or nearly 50% of the maintenance backlog. These transportation infrastructure needs are addressed through 

Federal Highway Trust Fund allocations to the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program. Any decision on park roads funding would have to be addressed when 

the Highway bill comes up for reauthorization. 

• NPS Endowment—We support the idea of an endowment. Funding an endowment with non-Federal resources could be done now through our private partners. Funding an endowment with Federal funds would raise a number of 

issues, including a determination of the appropriate source of funds and related 

costs. 

• Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI)—The NPS could develop a 

NAFI-based model for managing concession operations, similar to the model 

used by the Department of Defense to operate its base exchanges and recreational facilities. NAFIs are organizational and fiscal entities that perform a 

government function utilizing a base of non-appropriated funds from concessionrelated revenue. The proposed NAFI would function as a governmental organization that would enjoy greater operating flexibility and access to broader financing options. The concept is interesting, and the NPS is working with subject matter experts to better understand the potential operating structure and 

legislative requirements this idea would entail. 

• Bonds, revolving loans, etc.—The National Park Service cannot issue or guarantee bonds, but if states or local municipalities choose to issue bonds to support NPS-related projects, we would obviously welcome and encourage that support. 

Finally, let me mention the significant impact that sequestration and other budgetary cuts are having on the Department of the Interior and its bureaus, from impacts on water, to protection of species, to energy development, to the management 

of our federal lands and resources. The sequester was designed to be inflexible, damaging, and indiscriminate, and it is. The process put in place by the sequestration 

undermines the work we need to do on many fronts, and increases infrastructure 

and other backlogs across all Department of the Interior bureaus. The bureaus are 

facing funding cuts that were imposed mid-year through such measures as freezing 

hiring, eliminating seasonal positions, and cutting back on our programs and services. These steps are not sustainable, however, as these actions which are eroding 

our workforce, shrinking our summer field season, and deferring important work 

cannot be continued in future years without further severe consequences to our mission. 

Conclusion 

The NPS will continue to pursue new and creative ways to address its funding 

needs, and I want to thank those partners who have come to us with ideas on ways 

we can do things better. We will always remain open to new ideas when they provide us with an opportunity to better meet our mission. I hope that Congress, in 

turn, will remain committed to providing us the resources to meet this extraordinary mission. 

The CHAIRMAN. Director Jarvis, thank you very much. 

Because of the number of Senators here, I’m just going to ask 

one question of Director Jarvis to get us started, and then recognize colleagues. 

Director Jarvis, for decades, the Park Service has recommended 

expanding the Oregon Caves National Monument. One of the primary reasons has been because the existing site is not large 

enough to protect the site, given the volume of visitors. So in the 

case of Oregon Caves, not expanding the site could actually increase the cost of maintaining a very unique resource. 

My point is that park acquisition and maintenance costs are not 

always in conflict. Certainly, the Oregon Caves raises that issue. 

25 

Adding to the monument might actually hold down the cost of 

maintaining the site. 

So my question to you, Dr. Jarvis, is isn’t this part of the thinking that ought to go into this debate? In other words, we’re going 

to explore plenty of ideas. You saw that with a big chunk of the 

Senate. But wouldn’t you say, philosophically, that we ought to try 

to find ways to intertwine this theory that park maintenance and 

acquisition, together, can be part of an effective and a cost-effective 

approach to stewardship? 

Mr. JARVIS. I would agree completely with that, Chairman. Oregon Caves is a perfect example where the boundary addition that 

we have proposed would protect the watershed to the cave itself. 

As you know, and as I know, having been responsible for that 

great park, is that it’s an active wet cave. There is a stream that 

runs through the middle of it. The water for that stream comes 

from the surrounding lands. We have always been concerned about 

the water quality that was resulting from the activities on those 

lands. So by protecting that, adding it to the park, we would actually reduce our concerns for maintaining that water quality that 

runs through the cave and then through the chateau, as a matter. 

Yes, buying lands can save money, particularly in-holdings within our national park, which is predominantly what we’re restricted 

to with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It significantly 

can reduce our administrative costs in terms of providing access 

and maintaining critical resources. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director 

Jarvis, thank you for being here, your leadership of the parks. 

I think it is important to recognize that we have seen some innovative things coming out of our parks. I mention what they’re doing 

out in Wrangell-St. Elias just getting the neighbors involved to 

clean up. I think we need to see more of that. I think that that 

helps us, again, not only in addressing some of the issues within 

our parks, but again bringing the local people in and giving them 

ownership, giving them pride in their parks. That’s a good thing. 

Another thing that we’ve got good in Alaska right now, as you 

know, we have some very huge parks that are very inaccessible. If 

you happen to have the luxury of owning a floatplane or you can 

pay to fly into a place like Lake Clark, you’ve got beautiful opportunities within these parks. But they are very remote and very 

hard to get to. What you’re doing out in Katmai with the webcams 

that are stationed right at the falls there, so right now, as we 

speak—and I’ll do a little promo for you. But you can go to, I think 

it’s katmaipark.com, and you can watch dozens of bears munching 

on salmon. It’s better than reality TV. I’m telling you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. This is the real thing. So it’s good, because 

it brings the parks to people, when we know that far too many of 

our parks, as wonderful as they are, are very remote. So how we 

can do that, I think, is good. 

You heard the dialog going back and forth between colleagues 

here and Senator Coburn, and my concern that the Park Service 

seems to be prioritizing acquisition of land over the maintenance 

26 

backlog issues. Can you address really that issue? Why we’re seeing the level of land acquisition that we are? I think Senator 

Coburn’s statistics were really quite straightforward and, I think, 

very compelling. Why we’re putting the priority on land acquisition 

ahead of the maintenance and backlog? 

Then at the same time that you address that, the terminology 

that you used, I think, was ‘‘financial sustainability test.’’ Because 

one of the things that I need to understand is, what evaluation the 

Park Service goes through as you look to specific land acquisition 

to make sure that we are not unnecessarily adding to this maintenance backlog, that there is a process that you go through in the 

evaluation of what these acquisitions might mean. 

I fully understand what the Chairman has noted, that there are 

land acquisitions, specific in-holdings that truly do make it more efficient. But I can’t imagine that the bulk of what you’re doing with 

these land acquisitions is these smaller in-holdings. So if you can 

speak to the priority as opposed to maintenance backlog, and then 

what analysis goes into a review prior to these land acquisitions? 

Mr. JARVIS. OK. Let me just clarify that, you know, the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund is available to the 4 Federal land management agencies. The National Park Service, amongst those 4, is 

the only one that is restricted from buying lands outside of our 

park boundaries. We can do very minor boundary adjustments on 

the edges, but without your direct authority, we cannot buy lands 

outside of the park boundaries. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. With LWCF? 

Mr. JARVIS. With LWCF. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But within your existing budget you use, 

you use funds to proceed with land acquisition? 

Mr. JARVIS. Only LWCF. That’s the only money that we use for 

land acquisition, is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We do 

not use any—so we basically had got our funding in specific pockets, and we use the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land 

acquisition. Then we use our maintenance accounts for maintenance. We’re not allowed to move money between those 2. That’s 

basically up to you to have to grant us that kind of authority. We 

do not have that. 

In terms of acquisitions, because we don’t get very much money 

in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we have a very robust 

priority-setting process that are predominantly toward the, you 

know, key critical issues like threats to the resource, opportunities 

for visitor enhancement, hardship cases. We have had one in Montana recently, where an individual was on their deathbed, and they 

really wanted the park to acquire their property as well. So we go 

through a very rigorous process to determine what our priorities 

are. 

Right now, we are in the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and 

we’ve had a priority on protecting some key components of our 

Civil War battlefields. So there’s been a strong portion of that as 

well. The Park Service also allocates the State side of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, which goes out to the States to protect 

habitat and provide visitor enjoyment as well. 

Now, we also see on our maintenance side, we have an incredibly 

robust program and in determining our priorities and asset condiVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
27 

tions. So you basically take every asset, every building, every road, 

every trail, every restroom. You go in, you determine its existing 

condition and its asset priorities. So, how important is this to the 

visitor experience? Or is this, you know, a Presidential home? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is that based on the number of visitors? Is 

that how you place a priority? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s part of it, yes. Absolutely that’s part of it. But 

it also might be, you know, Independence Hall is a very important 

building. So that would be its core to your purpose of the park, as 

opposed to an old barn in Rocky Mountain National Park. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. My time has expired. But you haven’t addressed this financial sustainability test that you referenced. How 

does that work? 

Mr. JARVIS. So that means that once we elevate a building, let’s 

say, from a poor condition to a good condition, then we require that 

the park put the annual maintenance into that building to keep it 

at that condition. So they have to demonstrate that they’re going 

to make that a priority, make that investment to retain it. Because 

we do not want to fix a building up, raise its condition to a new 

level, and then watch it decline. 

So what that means is they have to make very, very hard choices 

about some other buildings that they’re going to have to defer the 

maintenance on. But we just do not want to lose the investment 

we’ve made in improving the condition of the facilities we have the 

money for. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yet, as we noted from Dr. Coburn’s chart, 

we’re clearly seeing that erode. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 

having this hearing. I got here a little bit late, so I’m not sure I’m 

correct on this next statement. But I’m not sure I’ve heard the 

word ‘‘sequester.’’ So while we’re having this big discussion, and I 

think it’s an important discussion, I look at this as an immediate 

impact that my constituents are feeling and our economy is feeling 

because of the sequester. 

So while I’m glad to have this discussion, I look at and say, we 

have 13 national parks, 3 of them crown jewels. We have visitors 

producing $261 million and thousands of jobs across our State. If 

the sequester continues, it’s something like $153 million impact 

across the country. We’ve already had over $1 million of impacts 

that we’ve had to absorb from Mount Rainier since 2010 that are 

affecting visitor impacts. 

When I look at some of these gateway towns that are part of this 

operation, everything from Port Angeles to Eatonville to the North 

Cascades, I keep thinking, What’s the economic impact of this 

going to be? Because we don’t get a budget deal. I look at the something like 227,000 jobs in Washington State that are related to the 

outdoor recreation industry. 

So for some of my colleagues, this conversation about the future 

and road maintenance and whatever is one economic question, and 

certainly one I certainly have a disagreement point on. I’ll come to 

28 

it in a second. But my immediate question is, What is the economic 

impact of all of the sequestration having on the economy of a State 

where national parks and outdoor recreation is a key part of our 

economy? 

So I don’t want to lose sight of that, and I hope you would enlighten us on what sequestration is doing now, and what will it do 

in the future to lessen really an economic impact that will be, is 

being felt and will continue to be felt? What do you think we can 

do to help get our colleagues to understand this issue? 

The second point is, my colleague, Senator Alexander, and I have 

been sponsors of the creation of a new park. It’s called the B Reactor Park. It’s celebrating the achievements of scientific excellence 

that our country achieved, and preserving that is something between DOE and the Department in creating this. Do I think we 

should stop creating national parks because somebody thinks the 

maintenance backlog? No. I want to commemorate what happened 

at Hanford and various parts of what we’ve done across the country. 

So I’m certainly not going to—oh, sorry. My colleague from New 

Mexico is here. I certainly am not going to have the attitude that 

we’re not going to do any new park until, you know, the maintenance backlog is caught up. 

You know, so I guess I’m just one that believes that our generation’s challenge is to be good stewards. These aren’t our decisions 

forever and ever. These are our decisions to be good stewards for 

the next generation. So I would just hope you would comment on, 

one, the continuation of the B Reactor Park, and 2, the economic 

impact that we are seeing from sequestration on our national 

parks, and what else we can do to help our colleagues illuminate 

that it really will impact jobs and impact small-town economies 

across our country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

So, let’s start with sequestration. The 5 percent cut that we took in March this fiscal year resulted in $130 million cut to the operations and responsibilities of the National Park Service halfway 

through the fiscal year, and just as the summer season was beginning in most of our national parks. 

So the net result of that on the ground, we had a hiring freeze. 

We withheld the hiring of 900 permanent positions and 1,000 

seasonals. So there was a direct effect. Every park in the system 

had to take a 5 percent cut. I was not given the authority to take 

that off the top or take it out of LWCF or any other account. Every 

account took a 5 percent hit. As you know, every park in the system is lined in the budget. 

So there were direct effects. There were late season openings. 

There were reduced operation hours, fewer rangers, fewer rangers 

to fight fire, fewer rangers for search and rescue. I was in the Tetons this week, talked directly to the rangers. Their visitation is 

up. Rescues are up. Numbers of seasonals and rangers are down. 

In maintenance, specifically, so I gave you the number of $444 

million that is currently available in our operating budget for 

maintenance. I didn’t mention that that was actually reduced to 

$416 million by sequestration. So all of our operating accounts that 

29 

would be applied to deferred maintenance actually were hit at the 

5 percent level as well. So it was about a $27 million direct hit 

from sequestration. 

You know, my theory on new units are that, you know, history 

doesn’t stop just because you have an economic challenge. The National Park Service has been challenged by and charged by this 

body for almost 100 years to take care of not only the extraordinary 

crown jewels, which is the Grand Canyon and the Grand Teton and 

Yosemite, but historical sites that are representative of the full 

American experience. 

That story is incomplete. The B Reactor is the perfect example 

of that, that it tells an incredibly important story about this country and its leadership in the development of the atomic bomb and 

its role in ending World War II. It is the same thing with Harriet 

Tubman or the story of Fort Monroe in Virginia. Now, what’s different about these new sites is, the National Park Service goes into 

them knowing we have extraordinary economic challenges. So we 

look for partners. 

Certainly with the B Reactor, we have the Department of Energy. We have the communities and others to work with us. We do 

in and attempt to minimize the direct responsibilities of the National Park Service that would add to our maintenance backlog, but 

recognize we also want to be a part of these stories that tell the 

American experience. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. But is 

that annual? Is that annual? I want to just point out, last time I 

visited the Grand Teton, I was so surprised walking down the 

street how little English in heard being spoken. That this is, we 

think of these as our crown jewels. But this is an international 

tourist area that supposedly generates $436 million benefit to the 

local economy. 

So these are huge economic resources. So I hope that we will 

track, as a committee, these gateway communities, the local economic impact as well, of what sequestration is doing. Because I 

think we have to be very, very smart about getting—you know, not 

saying we can’t live within our means. But as just you pointed out, 

again, sequestration’s impact is across the board and is not giving 

you the flexibility to do something that might have less impact on 

those local communities. 

So I thank the Chairman. I thank Director Jarvis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. You are making a 

number of exceptionally important points. I think we all recall 

when another Washington resident, Sally Jewell, was here at the 

committee. She pointed out that recreation now is a $646 billion 

annually boost to the American economy. This is outdoor recreation, close to $650 billion a year. This is everything from guides 

to equipment to clothing, the list goes on and on. 

So your points are well taken. One of the reasons that I asked 

about the Oregon Caves is that I think you also touch on another 

very important point that it’s not correct to say that maintenance 

and acquisition are always mutually exclusive. That in a number 

of instances, they go hand and hand, and that acquisition may, in 

fact, actually lower some of the maintenance costs. 

Senator CANTWELL. I don’t want to—— 

30 

The CHAIRMAN. So, as usual, you make a number of important 

points. 

Senator CANTWELL. I don’t want to delay my colleagues. But I 

think Director Jarvis will remember this one correctly. A land acquisition on the Carbon River basically allowed us to expand 

Mount Rainier. But why did we do it? Because it kept getting 

washed out. So the access and entry point kept getting washed out. 

We kept coming to Congress, asking for about $230,000 every 4 or 

5 years. 

So by doing that land acquisition, we were able to move the entry 

point to a higher level and solve the problem. So I certainly agree 

with your point. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would also note, by way of doing a little bit of 

advertising, as well, that Senator Cantwell’s bill on the B Reactor 

is right now part of the hotline underway. It is Senator Cantwell’s 

bill and Chairman Doc Hastings and Senator Alexander and Senator Heinrich. So urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

clear this very fine piece of legislation. 

All right. Senator Alexander, you’re next. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks for the plug for the fine piece of legislation. 

I’d like to move the discussion from the West to the Eastern 

United States, where we have—and I’d like to get the director’s 

comments on the 2 areas that we’ve been talking about. One is the 

appropriateness of even thinking about the Land and Water Conservation Fund in terms of your backlog, whether that’s appropriate or not. 

But first, I’d like to talk about roads in the parks. Now, I’ve always thought, and this goes back a long time, we don’t have any 

business using appropriated dollars to build roads, that roads are 

to be paid for by user fees. So, what you just told us that $3.3 billion of your critical backlog is roads, right? $4.2 of it is other 

things. 

What’s your annual budget for roads within the parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. We get our roads money from the transportation bill 

Senator ALEXANDER. So all your roads money comes through the 

transportation bill? 

Mr. JARVIS. Federal highways, Federal Land Highway Program. 

So the roads inside national parks, most of them, are Federal highways. So there is a separate appropriation at about $168 million 

a year, map 21 out of the transportation bill, that comes to the National Park Service. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you’re not using other appropriated dollars to build or maintain roads in the park? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. You’re just using the Federal transportation 

dollars? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Good. That would be correct. So I guess 

there’s not enough, you don’t get enough every year through the 

Federal Transportation Fund in order to maintain your roads properly? That’s what you’re telling us? 

Mr. JARVIS. Exactly. 

31 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, take another $3.3 billion, and you get 

$158 million a year? 

Mr. JARVIS. 168. 

Senator ALEXANDER. $168 million a year. So that will take about 

20 years. 

Mr. JARVIS. We won’t catch up at that rate. It’s true. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, how rapidly do you need to catch up? 

You wouldn’t do all that in 1 or 2 years. You would do it over, if 

you had the money, you’d do it over a period of time, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, we would. But we would like to see a significant 

increase to that amount of money coming to us. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. But one way to approach this backlog 

that we talk about is to get rid of the roads part of the problem, 

right? I mean, I know in the Smokies in 2005, that was 110 of the 

$180 million critical deferred maintenance were roads. 

Mr. JARVIS. Roads are a critical visitor access asset that need to 

be maintained. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. It would be true in the Great Smoky 

Mountains that a disproportionate number of the visitors to the 

park are North Carolina and Tennessee residents. Is that also true 

in other parks? What I’m getting at, is it appropriate to expect the 

States to help pay for part of these roads through their road programs? 

Mr. JARVIS. I really can’t speak to whether or not that’s a State 

responsibility. I know throughout the country, our infrastructure is 

challenged. The drop of the Skagit River bridge was a perfect example of the many eroding bridges and roads across our country. 

I really don’t know whether we could saddle the States with this 

additional responsibility. 

I believe, frankly, that the roads inside national parks are a Federal responsibility and should be appropriately funded through the 

Federal transportation program. 

Senator ALEXANDER. OK. Now, let me ask you about the discussion we had here, you heard some of it, about the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. As I hear you and as I remember the law, the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund doesn’t have much of anything 

to do with maintenance of national parks today. Right? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So if we were to try to put the two together, 

that would be a new way of thinking for a lot of people in the conservation movement and other places, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. It would. 

Senator ALEXANDER. However, it’s also true that the conservation 

community for a long time has wanted to find a way to have fully 

funded Land and Water Conservation Fund. If the Congress were 

to decide that a priority for us nationally were to fully fund that, 

and for a shorter period of time use the money to catch up on 

maintenance in national parks, what would be your comment on 

that? 

Mr. JARVIS. If I may, for a moment, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a revenue source. I mean, it’s from the Outer 

Continental Shelf, oil leasing. So, and there are many, many billions of dollars—— 

32 

Senator ALEXANDER. Except it’s not really, because it goes into 

the general pot and it’s not, it never goes directly into the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, except for that—— 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. It has to be reappropriated. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Except for that 1/8 of a cent that Senator 

Domenici got. 

Mr. JARVIS. But the point is, though, and you were one of the 

principals in the early days with the LWCF, but I want to make 

the point, though, it is not a tax on the American people. It’s a revenue source from the Outer Continental Shelf. Oil goes into the 

Treasury and then needs to be reappropriated. 

I want to also make a pitch here for the Historic Preservation 

Fund, which is another component that comes from that same 

source. The concept behind this was that you were taking a public 

asset, and you wanted to give something back to the American people for that. That’s the fundamental purpose, concept behind the 

LWCF and HPF. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that this would have to be well debated if 

you’re going to switch that concept that this funding that has been 

traditionally used for either historic preservation funding or land 

acquisition to suddenly go to maintenance. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Fair point. 

I do think, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Murkowski, that there’s 

something there that we can discuss. Senator, I was going to say 

I think there’s something there. The Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and national park maintenance have never really been in the 

same caboose. Those are 2 different thoughts. 

But I do think it’s worth thinking about that we haven’t had a 

way to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we’ve 

been trying for 40 years. We’ve got it on the books that it’s supposed to come out of the oil and gas drilling, but it doesn’t. It goes 

right into the general pot, and then we appropriate some money. 

So, maybe listening to Senator Coburn’s call for a focus on deferred maintenance and Senator Udall’s and yours that traditional 

support for Land and Water Conservation Fund and the upcoming 

celebration of the park, maybe there’s some way to do 2 things at 

once here. 

I would just urge today that we think about it. We keep in mind 

that such a big part of this is road funding. We ought not to be 

breaking out backs to find other appropriated dollars to pay to 

build roads in parks. I mean, that ought to be part of the roads system. 

So those are my thoughts about it. I very much thank you for 

having this hearing. It’s very helpful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Alexander. Consistently, because of your interest in the parks, we get these issues up for debate. That’s exactly the point of this morning’s exercise. I very 

much appreciate all the time you’ve spent today. 

Senator Heinrich is next. 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Senator Alexander for kind of making clear what the issues are here and understanding the problem and the relevance between the problem and 

what I’ve heard as some proposed solution. Because I don’t think 

33 

a moratorium on the Land and Water Conservation Fund is going 

to do anything to get at the biggest driver of the backlog at the National Park Service in terms of maintenance when you have 50 percent of that backlog tied up in transportation needs. 

We’re inadequately funding our transportation needs through the 

appropriate method of basically user fees and the gas tax. We’re 

not meeting that need every year, not just in the Park Service. 

We’re not meeting that infrastructure need nationwide when it 

comes to our roads and bridges and our interstate highways. 

That seems to me to be a very relevant part of this conversation. 

So I certainly don’t support a moratorium on the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. But it does seem to me that we need to begin 

to address this issue of the backlog at our national parks in terms 

of maintenance. I think we need to attack that head-on where the 

biggest drivers of that are. 

I do want to ask Director Jarvis, I think it’s very important that 

we’re now seeing our visitor fees plowed back into Park Service 

budget itself. That’s something that could expire, I think, next 

year. That’s a critical way that we can address some of the challenges at the Park Service. I think it’s important that we reauthorize that. 

I want to just ask your general views on how we make sure that 

our parks, which are one of the most affordable recreation and vacation opportunities for American families. Most of us grew up on 

our summer vacations going to some of those parks. How do we 

make sure that, in trying to address these challenges, we don’t 

price that park experience outside of the reach of working families? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question, Senator. I agree with 

you 100 percent. We currently collect about $170 million in recreation fees, that’s 

insurance, campground, and special-use fees, and about another 

$60 to $70 million in concession franchise fees. So you’re looking 

at about $250 million annual fees coming into the National Park 

Service. 

Frankly, we have always tried to keep the fees as a component 

of our overarching budget program. But we never wanted to get to 

the point where we were pricing our national parks to the point 

that you are excluding any component of the American public. 

There is an expectation, I want to be clear about that, by the 

American public that their tax dollars are the principal source for 

maintaining the national parks. 

We do have the great advantage from the fee legislation that we 

do retain 100 percent of the fees, and they are your fee dollars at 

work directly back in the parks. We make that very, very visible 

to the American public. The vast majority of it goes into maintenance backlog. It pays for everything from upgrading water treatment plants to improving trails and restrooms and facilities. 

So it is a delicate balance between how much you charge to gain 

entrance to the national parks and making sure the public understands that their dollars are coming right back to serve them. 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Senator 

Cantwell for bringing up the Manhattan proposed park. I think 

that’s something that I’ve heard consistently over and over again 

from the community of Los Alamos and the surrounding commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
34 

nities, how important that is to their history. I think that Director 

Jarvis will find a very willing partner in those communities to 

make sure that we do a good job of stewarding that resource and 

making sure it has, make sure the Park Service has the resources 

they need and the support in the community to create that new 

park unit. 

I want to thank Senator Cantwell, who’s left, but, for bringing 

up the issue of just how important these recreation jobs are. In 

New Mexico, it is not inconsequential to have 68,000 jobs tied directly to outdoor recreation. Certainly, the impact of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, the Petroglyph National Monument in Albuquerque, places like Bandolier, next to Bandolier National Monument next to Los Alamos. These are major draws to people from 

across the country and around the world that come to New Mexico 

and drive our local economy. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re very glad you’re on the committee, Senator 

Heinrich. One of the areas that we’re going to focus on is this question of the economic multiplier associated with outdoor recreation. 

I talked about the numbers in terms of trying to offer a big figure. When you’re talking about $646 billion, you tend to get people’s attention. But when you’re out in the rural West, in particular, and you see what this means in everything from, you know, 

gas stations to motels to people who sell equipment, and guides 

and the like, it really is extraordinary. 

So we’re glad you’re on this committee, and to have you particularly hammering away at the value of outdoor recreation is especially important. We thank you. 

Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll accept that invitation to continue on that same theme for a moment. We talk 

about the economic impact and the impact on jobs of some of the 

larger and premiere parks. I represent a State with 2 national park 

units and a scenic trail. St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is a 

park unit, and the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a park 

unit. 

The economic impact of St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is es- timated to be a little over $4 million, in excess of $12 million added 

economic value for the Apostle Islands, where I vacation every August if I can. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re going to get that vacation in this August. 

Senator BALDWIN. I have it marked on the calendar when I arrive in the Apostle Islands. 

Throughout Wisconsin, we also value the Ice Age Trail. I’ve 

hiked quite a few of those stretches. I actually want to actually 

focus in on that Ice Age National Scenic Trail. We’ve talked a little 

bit about how to create incentives for private investment to help 

with our maintenance backlog. But it was mostly focused on private investment of dollars. I’d like to dig a little deeper into private 

investment of volunteer hours. 

Let me just tell you a little bit about the experience of the Ice 

Age Trail. My constituents put in about 70,000 hours of volunteer 

work maintaining the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in calendar 

year 2012. It didn’t go unnoticed. The Ice Age Trail Alliance was 

the recipient of the Director’s Service Award last year. 

35 

But in speaking with volunteers and staff on the trail, they mentioned that sequestration has really constrained the ability of the 

Trail Alliance to provide even some of the most basic tools that one 

would use, as a volunteer, to maintain and expand the trails, axe 

handles, shovels, work gloves, trail markers, basic things like that. 

Now, we know that sequestration was never intended to occur; 

it has. But it seems to me that in this environment, we have to 

think creatively and increase the efficiency of these Federal funds. 

When you can leverage this type of volunteer activity, you know, 

we want to do everything we can to incent that and not erect barriers to that. 

How can we leverage our public investments to continue this 

type of incredible volunteer effort and expand it beyond the example of the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question, Senator. The National 

Park Service could not do what it does without the extraordinary 

support of our volunteers. The latest numbers I have from Fiscal 

2011 is, we had 229,000 volunteers in the national park system, 

working with us. They contributed 6,000,800 work hours. If you 

calculate that against, you know, standard pay rates, that’s $145 

million contribution to the work of the national park system. 

Now, volunteers require supervision. They require care and feeding and supply. That comes from the appropriated side of our organization, in order to really allow our volunteers to be the most effective as they can be. So it’s critical that we have the base funding 

for our volunteer program. 

We have volunteer coordinators. In some cases, the volunteer coordinators are volunteers. But it’s best done when the work can be 

organized by career staff. There are maintenance employees that 

help design the trail work and can supervise a crew on the ground, 

ensure that they are working with proper safety equipment. They 

get orientation. They drink their water and take care of themselves 

and, you know, the Band-aids are available for them, all of those 

things. 

So that, the base funding for our maintenance trail work, particularly our long-distance trails like Ice Age, is critical to effect the 

ability of our volunteer work force to go out and get this work done. 

Senator BALDWIN. I’d just make 2 other quick comments and observations about this one. I think it’s especially important, especially during tough economic times, that we pay close attention to 

these outdoor recreational opportunities that our, again, not necessarily just the big crown jewels in the park system, but with 

those that are close by. Families that are strapped can’t afford the 

long-distance vacations that they might at other times economically. Yet the capacity to go and enjoy with family these opportunities locally are crucial. 

Then, the other comment I would make, especially given the fact 

that I’ve picked on the example of the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail, is how important continuing with the land acquisition is, 

even in tough times. Because it’s a trail that’s not finished yet. You 

can’t start at one end and, you know, yet hike all the way through 

it. It’s in different strips. 

36 

We need to complete it and have a commitment to doing so. That 

has to be ongoing before some of those lands are developed in other 

ways and we can’t get them back. 

Mr. JARVIS. If I may make a comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. 

Mr. JARVIS. I want to echo the Senator’s comment about local assets for families and communities. Almost across the land, every 

one of those local assets was somehow enhanced through the State 

side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We often forget 

about that, that generally running at about $40 million or so to $50 

million, this is a direct grant program to local parks, to State 

parks, to city parks, to State fish and game agencies to provide access, to provide boat docks for boat launching, to provide swimming 

areas and outdoor recreationsites. 

It’s critical to the overarching American infrastructure of parks 

that provide opportunities. So we should never forget about that 

side of the LWCF. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Does that complete your question, Senator Baldwin? OK. Thank you. 

Just one question on the endowment front, Director Jarvis. I 

think you could see that a number of Senators are very interested 

in this. Dr. Coburn talked about the idea that there be a champion 

for the cause of parks. I think you can see there are going to be 

multiple champions of this kind of cause, and they are going to be 

on both sides of the aisle. 

I’ve been especially interested in following the work that you’re 

doing on endowments. I’ve talked, as you know, with David 

Rubenstein, who’s been working with you on the Washington 

Monument. One of the witnesses on the next panel, David MacDonald, from the Friends of Acadia, is also, I believe, going to talk 

a bit about the endowment that they manage and coordinate with 

you all at the Park Service to fund maintenance of the historic carriage roads at Acadia National Park. 

My question to you is, as we get into this, what id your take on 

how to generate the most appeal with respect to endowments? 

From the seat of my pants, it makes more sense to look perhaps 

at maintenance projects at individual parks, rather than to try to 

establish a large nationwide endowment. But that may well not be 

the way, you know, to proceed. Do you have a judgment on that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, I do. Let me talk about this for a moment. 

You know, the National Park Service is an institution with a perpetuity mission, but we live on an annual appropriation. If you look 

at other organizations around this country that have a perpetuity 

mission, whether it’s a major university or a major museum, 

Smithsonian, they all have endowments. The National Park Service 

does not. So, I identified as one of my centennial goals was to develop an endowment for the national park system. 

The Second Century Commission, which Senator Portman mentioned and served on, at the close of that group, and that was Sandra Day O’Connor, Howard Baker, Bennett Johnston, extraordinary individuals, all citizens who volunteered their time to think 

about the second century of the national park system, said if there 

was one thing of all of their recommendations that they felt that 

would make the greatest impact over the long term, it was an enVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
37 

dowment. That would be benefiting this agency and its mission 100 

years from now, because it would grow. 

So, how do we do that? We have engaged our partners such as 

the Friends of Acadia, but more largely, the National Park Foundation, to figure this out. How can we do this? So there are 2 components. One was, on Monday of this week, the National Park Foundation Board and I interviewed 3 organizations that could develop 

a capital campaign with an endowment component to that. So we 

will, through the foundation, not appropriated dollars, the foundation through philanthropic dollars, be hiring a company, a firm to 

provide counseling services for the development of a major capital 

campaign for the centennial for 2016. 

We are also in the next 2 months, I will be meeting with the 

foundation with 10 corporate sectors to look for large corporate 

sponsorship for the National Park Service, the automobile industry, 

the travel industry, the hotel industry, looking for relationships 

with us for the centennial campaign as well, to build public awareness, to build philanthropy. 

I think that the American public, they may only pay 80 bucks for 

an annual pass, and they could have 10—20 national park experiences, but they want to give back. Right now, we have not created 

that opportunity for them to make a donation specifically to an endowment to the national parks. 

Now, I also agree that at the individual park level, an endowment can be created as well. I think that there are people that love 

the National Park Service, but they really love Yosemite or Acadia. 

They want to give directly to that. So, as we have been developing 

these public—private relationships and potential donations, we are 

also seeking to include an endowment for a specific thing, such as 

the Carriage Trails or one of the major developments at Yosemite 

through the Yosemite Fund. So we’re now including that in each 

of our donation agreements as we build this. 

I do believe, though, that it would be enhanced if there were 

some Federal matching component that would—the work we have 

done indicates that there would be more willingness, as we did 

with the Washington Monument, if there’s a Federal component to 

this endowment. We would love to work with you to figure out how 

that can be built. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Director. As you heard 

earlier in the discussion of the Helium Bill, we’re trying to start, 

philosophically, this kind of challenge approach. I think that there 

will always be questions of sort of how you get started and, in effect, I guess the technical lingo would be sort of funding the corpus. 

But suffice it to say the basic proposition, I think that you’re advancing in terms of trying to use this challenge concept and attracting others makes a lot of sense. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tying in with 

the concept of the endowment, recognizing that people do want to 

give back, not only with a direct donation to the parks or their own 

particular park, but also recognizing that some would be willing to 

donate land. You mentioned in your response to some of my questions that when you are looking at land acquisition, one of the 

things that is part of the prioritization is an issue of hardship, if 

38 

you have somebody dying and they want to provide their land to 

the parks. 

As we think about land acquisition, perhaps in terms of mandating, and I don’t know if we want to mandate, but have a process 

where you could certainly provide for land donations. But also, for 

future exchanges, for future land acquisitions, to provide for some 

form of an exchange. So as we are thinking about those ideas and 

how we can reduce costs and yet still continue to add to the treasures that we have, I think we need to recognize that there are 

other ways to acquire land rather than just the Federal dollars 

coming from the Treasury. I think we need to look to that. 

Director Jarvis, we do have one more panel, and I know that the 

Chairman has a hard stop here in about a half an hour. I wanted 

to ask you about the situation in Gustavus with the expiring concession contract there with Aramark. We’ve been working to try to 

find a resolve to this. Their contract runs out at the end of this 

year. The prospectus that you put out didn’t attract anybody. We’re 

hoping to find some kind of temporary extension. In the meantime, 

the people of Gustavus are notably anxious and stressed. If the 

concession doesn’t move forward, you really do have a situation 

where the town’s economy is threatened. It kind of speaks a little 

bit to what Senator Cantwell mentioned with her smaller communities. 

But I’d like to talk to you about where we are with this. I don’t 

know. I think we need to look at whether or not this might be a 

situation where facilities need to be sold by the Park Service. If you 

can’t make it work through these concession contracts, if we’re not 

getting anybody that is interested, it does make you wonder whether or not the best option here might be to sell the lodge there in 

Glacier Bay National Park to a private entity. 

We see that up in Denali with the private lodges, up there in 

Kantishna. In terms of visitor experience and based on the quality 

of the facility, I think there is clear and marked difference there. 

So I would like to talk to you about that. I would also like the 

opportunity to discuss in more detail with you a situation that has 

recently arisen. Mr. Chairman, this is a little bit outside the scope 

of today’s hearing. But it is a critically important issue to us in my 

State. 

As you know, I sent a letter to you dated July 12th about the 

Park Service’s new policy requiring that seafood that is sold by its 

vendors and concessionaires have to be certified by this non-governmental third party. They have to be certified as sustainable. Everything that I can tell is that this policy was developed without 

consultation, with NOAA, which is the Federal agency that is 

tasked with the responsibility of managing our nation’s fisheries 

sustainably. The NGO’s that you’re relying on here, in my view, 

have a troubling record of meddling with at least Alaska fishermen’s fisheries management. We’ve got some real concerns about 

this. 

So I read yesterday, I thought it was pretty good news, that this 

was in a seafood online site. I read that the Park Service is going 

to be pulling back on this and meeting with NOAA. So then when 

we called your offices to confirm whether or not this was true, 

we’re told that, no, not necessarily, in fact, that they may be an inVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
39 

accurate statement that the National Park Service spokesman 

made yesterday. So I’m trying to figure out what’s really going on 

here. But you need to understand that the implications for not only 

the State of Alaska, that has a very strong, well-managed sustainable fisheries, is really quite concerned about the implications of 

this policy. 

It is something that I have asked to speak with you directly on. 

We can save ourselves both from that conversation is you just give 

me the assurance that you’ve pulled back and the Park Service is 

not going to go down this road. So if you care to comment on that, 

I would certainly appreciate it. 

Mr. JARVIS. don’t know how much time you want to take in this 

hearing. But I’d be glad to come by your office and talk in detail 

about this. 

I’m not pulling our national healthy food sustainability standards 

over this issue, because this is implying and was developed over a 

year-long consultation process. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. With who? 

Mr. JARVIS. With the concessionaires, with every one of the concessionaires, the food service providers—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Was NOAA involved with this? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know whether NOAA was involved. But let 

me just clarify. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. NOAA is the agency that makes the determination in terms of what’s sustainable within the contract from— 

Mr. JARVIS. These are guidelines. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand that. 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s not a policy. That’s not a law. It’s not a regulation. It’s a guideline. It’s a recommendation to our concessionaires that they use sustainable. Now—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But you’re saying that they need to have 

a certain label that is applied by some NGO’s from based out of 

London that says that this—this is the label that you have to have 

on your fish. If you don’t have this, then, concessionaires, you 

shouldn’t be using it. 

Mr. JARVIS. It’s a guideline. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What kind of a message do you think that 

that sends? 

Mr. JARVIS. We drew from the industry standards for guidelines 

for sustainable foods. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What industry standards? 

Mr. JARVIS. As I said, I’d be glad to come by to your office and 

get into this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. We need to have a further discussion 

about this, because you’re giving me the very clear impression that, 

in fact, your spokesman— 

Mr. JARVIS. He was incorrect. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Kathy Cupper, spokesperson for the National Park Service, was incorrect? 

Mr. JARVIS. That’s correct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That you’re not pulling back on this? 

Mr. JARVIS. What I am willing to do is to change the guideline 

so it includes Alaska wild-caught fish. I think that’s the simple fix 

here. 

40 

The guidelines were drawn broadly to give some guidance to our 

concessionaires to—we want a park visit to be a healthy experience. The food was the key component. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I agree. I don’t have a problem with that. 

Mr. JARVIS. You have extraordinary food in Alaska. I mean, I 

lived up there; I know. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. JARVIS.I lived on the Copper River.Senator Murkowski: Yes. 

We want that Copper River seafood sold in your parks. 

Mr. JARVIS. So I want that Copper River salmon in those concessions. So this is a simple change to the guideline. It’s not a withdrawal of our guideline, to include this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think we need to have further discussion 

about this, because what I’m concerned about is that the Park 

Service and HHS doesn’t understand that when you go with one 

certification, again a certification by an NGO that is an internationally based entity coming in and saying that this is the label 

that you have to have, what that does to the Alaska fisheries, as 

you well know, is limits their ability to market the healthiest, best 

and—oh, by the way—most sustainable fishery that is out there. 

Mr. JARVIS. Agreed. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, we need to make sure that we’re not 

cross purposes on this, because it’s too important to my State and, 

quite honestly, when we’re talking about healthy sustainable fisheries, I will take second fiddle to nobody on this issue. So I want 

to make sure that we’re not locking ourselves in to a standard here 

that is simply not the right standard. 

Mr. JARVIS. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So if we can set aside some time, hopefully 

before we go on break next recess, in August, I would appreciate 

it. 

Mr. JARVIS. You had a second question. That was Gustavus? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Gustavus, yes. We’ll visit it at that, too. 

Mr. JARVIS. All right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Director, you’ve been very patient, as 

always. Again, thank you for your past cooperation. I think you 

could see there are a lot of Senators; this doesn’t often happen on 

a busy day when everybody is looking toward the wrap-up for the 

summer work period. I think it shows the level of interest among 

colleagues, and also the bipartisanship. So we thank you. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Our next panel, Mr. Gerard Gabrys, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, Guest Services, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia; Mr. David MacDonald, President, Friends of Acadia, 

Bar Harbor, Maine; Mr. Craig D. Obey, Vice President of Government Affairs for the National Park Conservation Service; and Mr. 

Dan Puskar, Executive Director of the Association of Partners for 

Public Lands in Wheaton, Maryland. 

Thank you all very much. As you could tell, there’s been really 

an extraordinary level of interest among Senators. So we are very 

much behind at this point. We’d like to get some questions in. 

We will make your prepared remarks a part of the hearing 

record in their entirety. I know that there is a near biological comVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
41 

pulsion to just read every single word on the piece of paper. If you 

all can somehow resist all that and just speak to us for about 5 

minutes or so, that would be great, and we will have some questions. 

So let’s begin with you, Mr. Gabrys. 

STATEMENT OF GERARD GABRYS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GUEST SERVICES INC., THE NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, FAIRFAX, VA 

Mr. GABRYS. Mr. Chairman and committee members, I’m Gerry 

Gabrys. I’m here on behalf of the National Park Hospitality Association, whose members collectively have about 25,000 employees 

throughout National Park Service facilities, and who make franchise fee payments to the National Park Service of about $100 million annually. 

I’m also Chief Executive Officer of Guest Services, Incorporated, 

who operates a variety of hospitality businesses around the country, including beautiful Mount Rainier National Park and the national parks of the National Capital Region here in Washington, 

DC. 

We’ve been in business for about 100 years, and we’re proud to 

have been partners with the National Park Service for about 50 of 

those years. We applaud the action of this committee. Mr. Chairman, you indicated that it’s been a long time since there’s been a 

debate about this subject. We want to pledge our support in any 

way that we can help. 

As you indicated, there’s a lot of information in my written report that I won’t talk about here regarding the deferred maintenance backlog, the importance and benefits of increasing visitation 

to our national parks, and the marketing and outreach efforts that 

NPHA has joined in in connection with the 2016 National Park 

Service Centennial. 

The message I do want to emphasize today, though, is concessionaires can play a significantly increased role in addressing this 

search for supplemental funding that the National Park Service is 

engaged in. The amount that concessionaires invest in facilities 

and pay in franchise fees could be significantly increased. We could 

do a few things to accomplish that. We need to increase the length 

of contract terms. We need to look at expanding services available 

to our visitors. We need to look at expanding the hours of operation 

in facilities, where appropriate. 

Longer contract terms give concessionaires the ability to have an 

opportunity to recover their investment and to make more payments toward decreasing that big backlog of deferred maintenance 

that we’ve heard about. It wasn’t long ago that national park contracts were typically 25 or 30 years in length. Forest Service contracts with concessionaires normally run 40-plus years. Yet the 

most recent contracts issued by the National Park Service are only 

about 15 years. 

In addition to helping increase investment and franchise fees, extending the length of contracts would help reduce the millions of 

dollars spent annually by both concessionaires in the National 

Park Service in preparing bids, reviewing bids, and going through 

that whole process. We just went through that with Mount Rainier. 

42 

We spent over a half-a-million dollars preparing a bid. I’m sure all 

the other 4 or 5 or 6 concessionaires spent a similar amount. Park 

Service spent a significant amount. We could really devote that 

money toward this backlog. 

We also need to recognize that times are changing, and we have 

to do everything we can to get visitors into our parks. We need to 

look at providing wi-fi and cell phone service in developed park 

areas, to provide ample parking, even if there needs to be a payment for it, as was suggested earlier. We need additional campgrounds and a wide array of recreational activities. 

Increasing activities, as opposed to decreasing them, as proposed 

in the Merced River Plan, would significantly go a long way in 

terms of extending the amount that concessionaires could pay in 

investment and franchise fees, as would extending the hours, 

where appropriate. Places that come to mind are the Statue of Liberty and Alcatraz. 

We can also look at ways that concessionaires can help the National Park Service pay some of their expenses. We could help with 

taking over some of the responsibilities for collection of entrance 

fees and maybe providing some of the interpretive services. Certainly, improvements could be made in the current guest donation 

program. I agree with your comments earlier, Senator Murkowski, 

about it’s so important to recognize contributions from people. People want to support this program. But we need to recognize their 

efforts. 

In my written report, there’s a lot of detailed information on all 

of these topics. So I would say, although we’re faced with a 

daunting task, we have a great opportunity. We have a tremendous 

leader of the National Park Service in Jon Jarvis, and he and his 

team should be commended for looking at ways to explore new financial models. 

I’ve been around the Park Service and concession industry for a 

long time, and I can tell you that the spirit of cooperation and partnership is at the highest level it has ever been in recent times. 

Concessionaires do what they do at national parks because of our 

love of parks, and we want to help protect parks for this generation 

and all future generations. 

We always look to support adopting healthy food standards and 

strict sustainability standards, an example of which is the 2 facilities built by Guest Services on the Mall, which include geothermal 

heating and cooling systems. 

In closing, I’d simply say, as you look for ways to solve this problem, don’t overlook the concessionaires. We want to stand there 

shoulder to shoulder with the Park Service and other friends 

groups in helping us solve this deferred maintenance backlog. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabrys follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERARD GABRYS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GUEST

SERVICES INC., THE NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, FAIRFAX, VA 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am Gerry Gabrys and I appear today on behalf 

of the National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA). NPHA is the national trade 

association of businesses that provide lodging, food services, gifts and souvenirs, 

equipment rentals, transportation and other visitor services in national parks. I 

serve on the NPHA Board of Directors and its Executive Committee. NPHA memVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
43 

bers deliver great park experiences to tens of millions annually. Our staffs drive the 

jammer buses on the Going to the Sun Highway in Glacier-and add stories about 

the construction of that amazing road. They bake the famed popovers at Jordan 

Pond House in Acadia. They operate the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite and Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And our waiters and waitresses always find time to help families take treasured pictures while dining at the edge of 

the Grand Canyon or on the banks of the Potomac River. The first Director of the 

National Park Service, Stephen T. Mather, was a strong proponent of our industry, 

explaining, ‘‘Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night’s sleep on an impossible bed.’’ 

I am also the CEO of Guest Services Inc., which operates a variety of hospitality 

businesses across the nation, including food, retail and recreation services in the 

National Park Service’s National Capital Region, and food and lodging in Mount 

Rainier National Park and at the North Cascades Lodge at Stehekin. 

NPHA applauds the action of this Committee to consider ways to provide adequate funding for park protection and visitor programs of the National Park Service. 

Our national parks are a wonderful shared legacy. They should provide outstanding 

memories and experiences for all Americans long into the future, as they have for 

many of us, but today’s federal budgetary travails make new financial strategies essential to achieving that goal. 

Concessioners have played a key role in making park visits memorable since the 

1870’s. We now serve some 100 million park visitors annually in approximately 160 

park units. NPHA members have a combined workforce of nearly 25,000 personsmostly front-line, visitor contact jobs, and provide in excess of $1 billion in goods 

and services to visitors annually. Franchise payments from concessioners to NPS 

now approach $100 million annually; that is about equal to the funds raised annually by the National Park Foundation and all members of the Friends Alliance combined. In addition, annual concessioner marketing and promotion efforts total more 

than $10 million, and are coordinated with the marketing and promotion efforts of 

state and park gateway communities that equal that amount. 

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. 

Unfortunately, the portion of Americans visiting national parks has been declining for several decades. Even as the US population has grown by 30% since the late 

1980’s, and the number of park units has grown to 401, the number of park visitors 

has declined-a decline actually masked in part by increases in international visitors. 

Especially disconcerting is a decline in visits by younger Americans who are 

choosing video screens over time enjoying active outdoor fun in America’s treasured 

landscapes. A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that, on average, America’s youth now spend 7.5 hours each day watching a screen or monitor. 

No wonder the nation’s youth are increasingly obese and at risk of Type II diabetes 

due to poor nutrition and a lack of exercise! 

Connecting all Americans to their parks is an important goal with numerous benefits - including improved health, more widespread public appreciation for the environment, economic stability for many gateway communities and a better understanding of our nation’s history. To achieve this connection, the National Park Service and its partners-including concessioner-need to undertake new outreach and 

marketing efforts. 

Recently, NPHA joined with other leading park community organizations to host 

the first-ever America’s Summit on National Parks-a remarkable gathering of conservation, recreation, tourism, health, education and historic preservation interests. 

We then joined in a survey of Americans to better understand sentiments of the 

public toward parks-and found remarkable consistency in support for our parks 

across political, geographic, demographic and age groupings-and an equally remarkable willingness to make personal commitments to support our parks. Information 

on our findings is attached to my testimony. 

We have continued to work with organizations to address long-term needs of our 

national parks, including co-sponsorship of a very important gathering in March of 

this year hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center and featuring prominent national 

leaders associated with both political parties. Most importantly, we led the development of a collection of white papers, compiled into a document entitled Sustainable 

Supplementary Funding for America’s National Parks, for that meeting. The white 

papers covered these topics: 

Enhancing Park Experiences Through Fees 

Penny for Parks and the Great Outdoors 

44 

* All attachments have been retained in committee files. 

Park Legacy Partnership Fund: A Public Private Partnership 

Expanded Visitor Services Through Concessioners 

National Park Endowment 

Expanding Use of Historic Tax Credits 

Expansion of Guest Donation Efforts 

Expanded Cooperation with Destination Marketing Organizations 

Conservation Service Corps 

Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities 

Park Zone Taxes 

Energy Savings and Utilities 

Bonds, Revolving Loans and More 

Increases in Volunteerism 

Commemorative Coins/Stamps 

Special Fundraising Events 

A copy of our paper is submitted as an attachment* to this testimony. 

This Committee has already begun action on one of the topics addressed at that 

session by identifying a possible source of matching funds for what we labeled the 

Park Legacy Partnership Fund and we express our appreciation for this. 

We must address the long list of restoration and maintenance needs affecting virtually every NPS unit and totaling an estimated $11 billion-a problem that has persisted for years and is growing. The agency centennial in 2016 should be a catalyst 

for action. 

NPHA wishes to commend Director Jon Jarvis and other NPS leaders for encouraging and exploring new financial models for the National Park Service. In addition 

to participating actively in the Summit and the Bipartisan Policy Center program 

in March, the Director has assembled an internal team to review our ideas and others. The Director has also clearly indicated that developed portions of national parks 

can and should allow visitors to utilize cell phones and to connect to the Internet 

- services which concessioners anticipate providing in ways that will generate revenues to cover all costs and produce additional franchise fees paid to the NPS. The 

agency has also established a working group to look at possible additional visitor 

services to be provided in parks, and to overcome some barriers to introducing appropriate new services. 

We support action on many of the topics raised, but I would like to address one 

of the papers from the Bipartisan Policy Center’s March session of special relevance 

to the concessions community: Expanded Visitor Services Through Concessioners. 

The visitor services we provide in national parks are often inhibited by NPS policies which limit visitor experiences and reduce our payments, called franchise fees, 

to the agency. The buildings we operate, including lodges, are federally-owned-even 

though most were originally built with private capital. They are historic in almost 

every case, and expensive to maintain and operate. They constitute a significant 

portion of the backlog of deferred maintenance reported by the National Park Service-in excess of a billion dollars. For example, the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite 

needs some $60 million in investment immediately according to the agency. Private 

capital can be attracted to reduce the need for federal appropriations-but doing so 

would require adequate contract terms and use of the Leasehold Surrender Interest 

provisions of the 1998 park concessions act. Until very recently, NPS declined to utilize the 20-year contract terms authorized by that statute. 

By contrast, 60% of our nation’s downhill skiing activity is provided at largely 

world-class facilities under agreements between business partners and the Forest 

Service that extend 40 years or more. All investments are made by the private sector. Similar-length terms for park concessions contracts would produce the needed 

investment in our lodges and other structures and open the door to another tool: 

historic investment tax credits. 

We would also note the leading role this Committee played in passage of legislation urging the Forest Service to facilitate the addition of non-winter recreational 

opportunities at ski areas - and urge consideration of similar encouragement for expanding appropriate in-park services. Parks should not add activities that are inappropriate or unrelated to parks. We do urge expansion of bike and kayak rentals 

and tours, of guided wildlife photo trips, of rentable tents and cabins in park campgrounds. These services would make park visits more memorable and enjoyable - 

and help fund park operations. And we certainly feel it is vital to not eliminate current, valued visitor services, as a recent draft plan for Yosemite operations in the 

Merced River corridor suggested. Our comments on that plan are attached. 

45 

We are confident that increases in visitor services, including lengthening operating hours at units like Alcatraz and Statue of Liberty, adding appropriate services 

and allowing dynamic pricing of services, could increase franchise fees to the NPS 

by 50% within three years. 

Let me share an example of the opportunities which exist to benefit both visitors 

and NPS. Dry Tortugas National Park in Florida adopted a General Management 

Plan (GMP) in 2001 that establishes a daily visitation cap of 330 persons. The park 

is in mid-ocean, 90 miles from Key West, and visitors can only arrive in one of three 

ways: by the high-speed ferry operated by the park concessioner; by seaplane; or by 

private vessel. The General Management Plan (GMP) specifies limits for each mode, 

including 150 via the high speed ferry. For a variety of reasons, visitor arrivals via 

seaplanes and private vessels are dramatically under quota and the park now hosts 

far fewer than the authorized 330 guests per day. Yet the concessioner must turn 

away 50 or more potential ferry passengers per day, despite having a vessel rated 

by the Coast Guard to safely transport 250. Thousands of potential visitors lose the 

chance to see this marvelous park, and the park is losing revenues in entrance fees 

and franchise fees roughly equal to the funding drop due to sequestration this year. 

Conversion of certain NPS functions to concessioner operations, including entrance fee collection in some parks, could further reduce NPS expenses. More campground operations by concessioners can add new, net revenue of more than $50 million annually, again also within three years. 

There has been a significant drop in overnight stays in national park campgrounds, and especially in RV-associated stays which have declined from more than 

4 million overnights in the 1980s to about 2 million overnights currently. RV ownership during this period has grown dramatically, now reaching 8.5% of all US households and 11% of the households headed by 35-50 year-olds, prime years for families 

with children. Private sector campground use has grown appreciably during this period-and private campgrounds have adapted to today’s campers. NPS campgrounds 

need to be upgraded to include sites with utility hook-ups, WiFi, dumpstations and 

other features that will better serve 21st Century campground users. 

There are other important opportunities for concessioner support of national 

parks. We now invite guests staying in national park lodges to contribute a dollar 

per night under the Guest Donation Program. This program will generate approximately $1 million in donations in 2013 at approximately 12 park units. It can be 

rapidly restructured and expanded with a goal of collecting at least $10 million annually by 2016, sustained indefinitely, while at the same time better connecting visitors to the national parks, the National Park Foundation and local friends and advocacy organizations. 

In order for the Guest Donation Program to flourish, however, concessioners need 

more information about the benefits from the donations to pass on to visitors. 

Guests are required to be offered the chance to ‘‘opt out’’ of the contribution, and 

with little information to pass on to guests by concessioner employees about how 

their visits were aided by prior contributions or how their donations will be used, 

the incentive for donations drops and ‘‘opting out’’ increases. The status of concessioners as ‘‘prohibited sources’’ for direct project support under Director’s Order 21 

has an adverse impact on concessioners, since they cannot directly aid park projects 

receiving guest contributions. Once a visitor has made a contribution under the program, they should be thanked and invited to connect with parks in a more robust 

fashion as a volunteer, advocate and philanthropist. Yet NPS concerns about privacy 

have limited these efforts. And proposals to solicit a national sponsor offering to 

match guest contributions have run into concerns over conflicts with provisions of 

Director’s Order 21. 

Concessioners are committed to the long-term future of our national parks and 

are excited by the focus on this future created by the upcoming centennial of the 

National Park Service in 2016. In addition to feeling a deep connection to the parks 

in which we operate, without parks, we are out of business. We are proud to develop 

and implement state-of-the-art environmental practices that reduce energy and 

water use and generation of waste and support sustainable agriculture. We are delighted to partner with NPS on Healthy Parks and Healthy People, including providing and promoting good food choices. We assume risks that many in the hospitality industry feel are too large-from fires to government shutdowns to falling rocks 

and more-because we see our work not just as a business but as a commitment to 

what some call our Nation’s best idea. We feel the challenges facing the national 

parks and the National Park Service are great, but solvable through partnership efforts of NPS, the National Park Foundation, friends and cooperating organizations 

and concessioners. 

We thank you for the attention you are giving to this important issue and pledge 

our active engagement and support. 

46 

The CHAIRMAN. First rule in the Senate. Never pass up people 

who want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Obey, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG D. OBEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Senator Murkowski. 

I’m Craig Obey. I’m Senior Vice President for Government Affairs 

with the National Parks Conservation Association. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. OBEY. It’s a privilege to be here today. We’re just thrilled 

that you’re holding this hearing on this important topic. I also 

want to acknowledge the leadership of Director Jarvis and thank 

Senator Coburn for his interest in these issues. I think it’s going 

to take all of us working to really solve what is a problem that we 

didn’t get into overnight. 

The NPCA has been around since 1919. We are the leading independent private-citizen voice for protecting our national parks. 

I just want to say a few things. You have my written remarks 

for the record. First, we know that the national parks are tremendous economic assets; that’s been discussed here today. For every 

dollar invested in them, they return 10. That’s, on average sum, 

vastly more than that. 240,000 private-sector jobs every year. We 

are not taking care of the investment we have in our national 

parks. 

I do want to thank you for your leadership on the Helium Stewardship Act. That’s an important step, obviously a small one. But 

we’re going to need to take many different kinds of steps here to 

deal with this issue. So, thank you for that. 

It’s clear that appropriated funding isn’t doing the job. That’s 

why NCPA partnered with the National Park Hospitality Association and the Bipartisan Policy Center to explore a series of potential ideas for how to address the park funding challenges for the 

Park Service. 

That was not about finding any silver bullet solution. It was 

about getting the conversation started, looking for creative ways to 

fix this issue. It’s something that has been talked about for many, 

many years, GAO reports going back to the 1990s. But nothing has 

ever really been done. So, we’re grateful for the attention here. 

Just a few things I will highlight. Senator Portman referenced 

the centennial challenge effort by the Bush administration. That 

was something that NPCA strongly supported. We thought that the 

partnership idea was absolutely right on, and coupled with a commitment to dealing with the core operating needs of the Park System. The 3 legs to the stool that the Senator referenced were, No. 

1, restoring park operations funding, which is even more critical in 

the aftermath of the sequester; 2, the commitment of $100 million 

per year that was anticipated, and then to be matched. 

We have developed a proposal based on the lessons learned from 

that endeavor. There were some appropriated funds that essentially served as a pilot project, in a sense, and taught us a lot about 

47 

what might work and what won’t. That’s something that we think 

holds some promise. 

I would say that what we’re suggesting, there’s been a lot of talk 

about the Land and Water Conservation Fund here this morning. 

The fact is there are many receipts from OCS and on-shore that 

are not assigned, if you will. We also talked about the fact that, 

the committee talked about the fact that there is—the money for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund has not been appropriated. 

In fact, there’s $18 billion on paper in a Treasury account that’s 

never been appropriated. 

So we think we should look to those kinds of sources to augment 

the funds for the parks. 

You’ve talked about the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act, the fee authority which we desperately need to reauthorize or 

we’re looking at a second sequester, in effect, for the parks. 

Then there is the transportation bill. As Senator Alexander rightly observed, there’s a user fee related to that that people pay into 

nationally. Parks are a Federal responsibility. They don’t have 

independent taxing authority like the States. So it’s solely the responsibility of the Federal Government to be funding those. Right 

now, it’s $240 million per year total. Not all that goes for roads; 

some goes for transit and the like. 

But the Park Service says they need $500 million per year to 

deal with the problem and get the roads to where they need to be 

in order to keep maintaining them as they should. 

So those are a few items that we’re focused on, as well as the 

endowment idea that the commission talked about that you spoke 

about with Senator Coburn. 

Finally, I just want to reiterate what you already know, which 

is the tremendous support that the national parks have across the 

country. These are some of the most amazing places, tremendous 

natural cathedrals, tremendously important historical sites that we 

preserve as a nation. What we preserve tells a lot about who we 

are as a nation. 

So we thank you for your attention on this. We’re confident, 

based on the polling that we’ve done with people like Geoff Garin 

and Whit Ayers and others that the American people will strongly 

support thoughtful action by this committee and by this Congress 

to address these issues. So thank you very much for the opportunity today and for focusing on this issue, and I look forward to 

any questions if there is time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Obey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG D. OBEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the committee, 

I am Craig Obey, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). On behalf of our approximately 800,000 

members and supporters across the country, I thank you for inviting me to testify 

today at this important hearing. Founded in 1919, NPCA is the leading, independent, private citizen voice in support of promoting, protecting and enhancing 

America’s national parks for present and future generations. 

We appreciate your attention to the fiscal needs of our national parks, including 

your focus on the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog, which is 

now $11.5 billion and growing; half of this is roads and bridges. Approximately $4.5 

billion of that is needed to address systems the National Park Service defines as 

48 

critical in both the roads and facilities categories. These are projects critical to 

health and safety and to essential resource protection. Examples are roof repair, replacing pavement to improve safety, and bridge repair. The Park Service has indicated that the gap between what it receives and needs in order to keep the backlog 

from growing is between $250 million and $350 million. Actually reducing the backlog would require even more. 

There is a parallel and related operations problem, with the National Park Serv- ice receiving an estimated $600 million less than it needs to most effectively operate 

the parks every year. As the parks are bled of essential operating funds, they are 

less able to serve the public and provide the cyclic maintenance and other basic protection necessary to maintain park resources. 

Years of underinvestment in maintaining and replacing important assets, which 

continues today, have compounded a situation that is unsustainable. As the Centennial of the National Park Service and System approaches in 2016, now is the time 

to reinvest in our national parks, through both traditional and creative new approaches. 

We were pleased in March of this year to partner with the National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA) and the Bipartisan Policy Center to explore 16 concepts 

that could provide additional non-appropriated funding to support the park service. 

These concepts, which represent the ideas of white paper authors and not necessarily the institutional positions of the sponsoring organizations, have been provided for the record. They are attempts to foster creative dialog about ways to create 

a multi-faceted approach to addressing the parks’ fiscal woes. 

NPCA is particularly interested in those options that have the potential to provide 

significant additional resources for our national parks, especially those that leverage 

expenditures of federal dollars in order to maximize the potential for partnerships 

with non-federal sources of funds. The examples I explore in my testimony include 

a Park Legacy Partnership that matches private and public dollars, providing a 

‘‘Penny for Parks’’ from any enhanced investment in the nation’s transportation infrastructure, establishing a national parks endowment, enhancing the use of volunteer service and stipend-supported community service work in the parks, and reauthorizing and improving entrance and recreational fee authorities. 

Our National Investment in National Parks 

It is worth taking a moment to consider why the subject of today’s hearing is so 

important. Starting with Yellowstone and then, nearly 100 years ago with the creation of the National Park Service, our nation has invested in a National Park System that is beloved here at home and the envy of many throughout the world. Our 

National Park System encompasses magnificent natural cathedrals like Denali, Zion 

and Crater Lake; hallowed ground like Gettysburg and Fort Sumter; tremendous 

scientific accomplishments by innovators like Thomas Edison; triumphs, tragedies 

and moral challenges we have faced as a nation, from Fort Monroe to Minidoka to 

the Trail of Tears; and tremendous urban recreational assets across the nation, from 

Gateway to Cuyahoga Valley to Golden Gate. 

These are all places judged, with almost universal public support, to be nationally 

significant and important to protect for our children and grandchildren-as well as 

ourselves. Collectively, after a century of investment, our parks have become economic assets and job producers for local communities, many of them in rural locations, and for our national recreation and tourism economies. For example, in 2011, 

visitors spent over $50.2 million in the towns of Grand Junction and Montrose surrounding Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Curecanti National 

Recreation Area in Colorado, which support almost 700 area jobs. These places are 

educational assets, provide extensive opportunities for outdoor recreation, contribute 

to public health, and support basic community infrastructure. Our national parks 

are investments worth preserving. 

Yet, for decades now, successive congresses and administrations have put park resources at risk through underinvestment. Any homeowner knows that failing to 

maintain the roof or replace it in a timely manner has a cumulative effect, putting 

the entire structure in jeopardy. When needed investments are not made in roads 

or bridges, they deteriorate or collapse. Our national parks, representing a century 

of commitment and investment by this nation, are no different. Whether the subject 

is funding to maintain trails or visitor centers, to replace sewage treatment plants, 

or to maintain or replace roads or bridges, the problem is compounded with every 

year of insufficient investment. 

Although our current level of national investments is not sufficient, the national 

investments we have made in our parks over a century are significant, and have 

come in times of war and peace as well as economic prosperity and challenge. The 

achievements and investments during the Great Depression through the Civilian 

49 

Conservation Corps are well known: millions of trees planted, roads, bridges, trails 

and other facilities constructed; hundreds of national and state parks created; and 

a legacy left that continues to benefit millions of visitors and hundreds of communities. More than 50 years ago, the Eisenhower administration launched Mission 66, 

its commitment of $1 billion in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the National 

Park System, as part of a vision influenced by the development of the interstate 

highway system. The $1 billion initiative that President Eisenhower launched and 

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson continued is worth more than $7 billion in today’s 

dollars. 

Those cumulative investments have produced assets with enormous value-both 

psychic and economic. Collectively, our National Park System comprises assets 

worth nearly $200 billion. That figure shows the enormous financial investment that 

we have made over the years, which we should be protecting. The Blue Ridge Parkway alone has a total asset value estimated at more than $5 billion. When basic 

preventive maintenance is not conducted, that asset and local economies are put at 

risk. The park’s backlog exceeds $400 million, about 75% of which is road-related. 

The staff available for maintenance activities has been reduced to 40 from 80. The 

lack of sufficient maintenance staff makes it increasingly difficult for the parkway 

to maintain the drainages, road shoulders, and other structures necessary to prevent landslides from occurring and keep the parkway and its trails in good repair. 

Recently, a landslide occurred north of Asheville, North Carolina that likely will 

close that portion of the parkway for months, at significant cost to nearby communities, and with a repair cost that is likely to amount to millions of dollars. 

And, of course, despite their economic benefits, we preserve our national parks because they have value far beyond economics. Polling NPCA and NPHA jointly commissioned with Hart Research Associates and Northstar Opinion Research indicates 

that public attitudes about our national parks are unique as compared to virtually 

any other topic. Ninety-five percent of voters-including 98% of Democrats, 91% of 

Republications, and 93% of Independents- believe the protection of our national 

parks is an appropriate role for the federal government. And when provided with 

context about the National Park Service budget, 92 percent indicate park funding 

should not be cut. The polling experts indicated that national parks are unique in 

their bipartisan support and in the potential for public support for bipartisan action. 

In addition, the National Association of Counties and the US Conference of Mayors 

have both recently passed resolutions in support of national park funding. 

Partnership Opportunities 

The 2016 Centennial of the National Park Service is an opportunity for Congress 

to come together to help reverse the declining funding for our national parks. In an 

era when the electorate and Congress are divided on so many issues, we are hopeful 

that when it comes to our nation’s treasures-so deeply loved by the American people 

across the political spectrum-Congress can find a way to work together in a bipartisan fashion to support ‘‘America’s best idea.’’ 

Preserving our national parks for future generations and protecting our national 

investment in them requires a new dedication to the parks’ core funding as well as 

creative additions to the mix that can leverage federal investments. National park 

operations funding is down 13% in today’s dollars from where it was only three 

years ago, and the construction budget has declined by nearly 70% over the last decade in today’s dollars. Current budget rules, unless changed, likely will result in further reductions. The annual appropriations process, although an important part of 

the solution, should be complemented with some new sources of revenue. These innovations could augment the traditional funding our parks receive and preserve our 

long-term investment in them. 

Action this committee has already taken in the aftermath of the damaging budget 

sequester buoys our hopes. We greatly appreciate Chairman Wyden’s and Ranking 

Member Murkowski’s recent agreement to include national park partnership funding in the Helium Stewardship Act, which would direct $50 million in revenue generated in that bill towards the needs of our national parks, to be matched from nonfederal sources. As Chairman Wyden acknowledged, these funds are a small first 

step in addressing the need. However, this type of partnership holds promise as part 

of a diverse, multi-faced approach to address park funding needs in partnership 

with the American people. 

Varieties of potential partnerships exist and should be explored. NPCA strongly 

supported one such partnership when it was proposed by the George W. Bush administration, which recognized the extraordinary opportunity and imperative presented by the upcoming centennial. The Bush administration came to recognize the 

fundamental need to provide the core operating resources the parks needed and proposed an additional $100 million per hear. It also saw the opportunity for partnerVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
50 

ships and proposed a Centennial Challenge-an anticipated 10-year effort to leverage 

private dollars with federal investments. The Department of the Interior received 

pledges exceeding $300 million from non-federal parties when it announced the program, demonstrating the significant public interest in such a partnership. The 

downpayment on the program, which stalled upon the change in administration, 

yielded approximately $79 million-including $35 million in federal commitments 

that leveraged $44 million from nonfederal sources. This investment-far short of the 

proposed $2 billion, 10-year partnership-supported projects in the areas of stewardship, environmental leadership, recreational experience, education and professional 

excellence. Examples of completed projects under the Challenge include: 

a. Point Reyes National Seashore, California: Improved trail and extended access to the Abbotts Lagoon and North Beach areas to reduce trail impacts to 

surrounding wetland and endangered native Sonoma shortawn foxtail plant 

habitat while accommodating better visitor access to reduce erosion. Total cost: 

$100,000; partner pledge: 50%. 

b. Boston National Historical Park, Massachusetts: Completed critically-needed restoration of wooden cupola section of the Old State House, replaced outdated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, and provided handicap 

accessibility to the building. Total cost: $1,409,200; partner pledge 50%. 

c. Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, Idaho: Install a colorized cement walkway and amphitheater area at the Oregon Trail Overlook to accommodate visitors. Total cost: $39,627; partner pledge 51%. 

During its brief existence, the Challenge effectively served as a pilot project that 

yielded lessons for what could be strong new partnership opportunities leading up 

to and beyond the centennial. 

Matching federal and non-federal dollars.—As one possible new partnership approach, Peter Kiefhaber and I drafted a white paper for the Bipartisan Policy Center symposium proposing a new Park Legacy Partnership Fund that would provide 

for both core infrastructure needs where matching might be difficult, and for matching to leverage significant non-federal funds with a federal investment. Our paper 

builds on the lessons learned from the Centennial Challenge and proposes a modified partnership construct going forward. If one’s goal is to address the backlog, a 

matching partnership can provide a partial, not complete, solution. The ongoing restoration of the National Mall and the Washington Monument provides examples of 

how private money can be leveraged. At the same time, however, repairs to the sewage treatment infrastructure at Yellowstone are less likely to yield significant 

matching and will likely require a stronger federal commitment. We suggest that 

the Legacy Partnership be designed to accommodate both scenarios. 

Fee authorities.—Another partnership approach involves fees. The Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which allows national parks to retain the 

fees they collect in order to fund maintenance and other needed projects, yields 

nearly $200 million per year across the National Park System. It is scheduled to 

expire effective December 2014. 

Unless FLREA is reauthorized soon, our national parks stand to lose every penny 

they collect in entrance and recreation fees. This amount is roughly equivalent to 

the size of the damaging sequester and more than the park service’s annual construction budget in recent years. We are pleased that the House Natural Resources 

Committee has begun hearings on this issue, and encourage this committee to do 

the same. We also support the administration’s request for a short- term extension 

of FLREA while the authorizing committees work to enact a reauthorization bill. In 

addition to preserving this critical source of revenue by reauthorizing or replacing 

FLREA, there are a variety of ways that fee revenue might be enhanced, from fees 

charged for group tours to adjustments to the senior pass or differential charges for 

international visitors. 

Long-term endowment.—An endowment for our national parks is another longdiscussed partnership concept recommended by the National Parks Second Century 

Commission. We would like to see an endowment authorized before the centennial 

so it can benefit from the attention the centennial brings and grow to provide meaningful support for parks within the decade. However, we also recognize that the endowment issue is complicated and that it will likely take some time to build the corpus of the endowment to a level required to make it effective. 

An endowment should be created for the long-term, not necessarily as a solution 

to the backlog. We believe there are other solutions with more short-term impact 

on the backlog, while an endowment could be particularly well-suited to address 

other traditionally underfunded needs, such as critically-needed investments in 

science, education and interpretation, and resource protection. We suggest that the 

Congress direct the National Park Service to design an endowment, including an asVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
51 

sessment of its feasibility, with the goal of launching the endowment by January 

2016. 

A Penny for Parks Transportation.—Approximately half of the National Park 

Service’s backlog is attributable to transportation infrastructure, some of which is 

an integral part of the basic national highway infrastructure system. While the 

Park Service provides for some transportation needs through its operations account, 

the most significant source of relevant revenue is the $240 million our parks receive 

every year from the transportation bill. ′′Penny for Parks′′ would be a partnership 

with the American people to dedicate one cent from any adjustment to the federal 

gas tax index towards addressing the transportation infrastructure in national 

parks and other public lands. 

The Park Service estimates that approximately 40 percent of its 9,450 miles of 

park roads are in poor to fair condition, based upon Federal Highway Administration standards. This is a vast improvement over the truly sorry state of park roads 

in 2008 when 90 percent were rated in poor to fair condition. Thanks to an infusion 

of $318 million from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the NPS was 

able to make some short-term fixes to preserve pavement. More intensive and costly 

rehabilitation, however, will be required in the near future. 

Forty-two national park bridges have been rated as structurally deficient by Federal Highway Administration engineers using National Bridge Inventory standards. 

This includes the Memorial Bridge between Virginia and Washington, DC, that 

serves as a major commuter artery for thousands daily. The cost to rehabilitate the 

bridge is estimated to be between $125 million and $240 million, depending on if 

it is reduced to a basic bridge or if its current grand architectural design is preserved. 

Using the Federal Highway Administration’s Sound Asset Management Analysis 

System, the NPS has estimated that it will need $770 million annually over six 

years to bring its roads, bridges and transit systems into optimal condition that 

minimizes maintenance costs. As Congress begins its work to reauthorize MAP- 21, 

now scheduled to expire in October 2014, it should stop treating national parks and 

public lands as incidental or secondary assets, but rather as the core federal assets 

that they are, including significant transportation systems that serve states, communities, and park visitors. How Congress and the Administration will choose to 

fund a reauthorization is an open question. But NPCA believes Congress should devote a user fee equivalent to a penny per gallon from the gas tax for our national 

parks. The park transportation infrastructure backlog could be reduced within approximately six years to a level that can be addressed through annual DOT surface 

transportation appropriations and NPS cyclical maintenance. 

Service work.—We support the Veterans Conservation Corps Act of 2013, which 

would help our veterans transition to civilian life by employing them in a variety 

of sectors, including conservation, resource management, and historic preservation 

projects on public lands. This bill, which proposes $600 million for FY14 to FY18, 

could contribute to addressing the backlog of projects in national parks and other 

public lands, while providing important opportunities for veterans. Unemployment 

for post-9/11 veterans remains high at nearly 7.2% overall, and approaching nearly 

9 percent for female vets. At the same time, unemployment for young Americans 

under the age of 25 remains at about 16 percent. The National Park Service has 

seen significant savings from the use of conservation corps for various tasks. Given 

the ability of such strategies to stretch scarce dollars, we believe that more should 

be done to foster them among veterans, young Americans, and the many older 

Americans who are interested in deploying the skills they learned through a lifetime 

of work on behalf of our national parks. 

Historic leasing.—Although the subject was not examined in depth in the white 

papers used for the Bipartisan Policy Center discussion, historic leasing is another 

area worth greater attention. In instances where the National Park Service determines that it does not need to use particular historic buildings for interpretive programs, exhibits, or administrative means, historic leasing can provide a means to 

assure the long term care of historic structures while also taking their required 

maintenance off of the backlog. 

Park Service Backlog Investments 

A part of the growth in the deferred maintenance backlog has resulted from the 

sharp decline in the park service construction budget, with that account declining 

in today’s dollars by nearly 70% over the last decade. An account that in FY03 had 

$406 million in today’s dollars offers only $120 million in FY13, an amount that is 

insufficient to support the highest priority projects. Because this is a central account 

in addressing the $687 million per year needed to keep the backlog from growing, 

the impact of these reductions is substantial. 

52 

The cuts in FY13 went deeper than the sequester, with deep cuts to the construction budget as well as a damaging cut to park operations. The park operating budget is critical to ensure the protection of our national treasures and the enjoyment 

of the visiting public, providing for the seasonal rangers and maintenance staff critical to the day-to-day maintenance of our parks. With 1,900 fewer staff in parks this 

summer as a result of the sequester, we expect even greater challenges in keeping 

up with the deferred maintenance backlog. The Repair and Rehabilitation Program 

directs funds to high priority mission critical and mission-dependent assets but requires an investment in park operations including the staff to do the work. 

The Cyclic Maintenance Program allows for preventative maintenance work that 

ensures resources can be maintained in good or fair condition. Absent funding to 

maintain resources, degradation occurs, and problems are compounded. Investments 

in cyclic maintenance are fiscally responsible by preventing the long- term cost increases that can accompany substantial disrepair. It has not been helpful that the 

administration has been requesting decreases in the Facility Operations and Maintenance budget subactivity that funds these important programs. 

The impact of natural disasters is also adversely affecting the maintenance back- log. For example, two years ago, parks absorbed $37 million in damages stemming 

from Hurricane Irene and other natural disasters. Road and other facility closures 

from these events compromise local commerce when people are unable to visit areas 

of parks, and requiring parks to absorb such costs strains already stretched budgets.. We were deeply grateful for the investment Congress ultimately provided after 

Hurricane Sandy, which among other things recently led to the reopening of the 

Statue of Liberty on Independence Day. But disasters will continue to occur, and 

as was the case with Sandy and Irene, the National Park Service will need assistance to address resulting damage or will otherwise have to forego even more maintenance and operational activity. One particularly important issue for this committee is how to address funding for wildland fires, which over the last four years, 

have averaged $700 million in the Wildland Fire Account and $76 million in the 

FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund. This has the potential to further reduce other accounts in the Interior appropriations bill. 

The National Park Service has been working to do ‘‘more with less’’ for some time. 

Consequently, they continue to enhance efficiencies wherever possible, in order to 

use their funds wisely. We therefore found it appropriate for them to include in 

their Call to Action centennial planning document an action item calling for correcting deferred maintenance deficiencies in the top 25% of facilities most important 

to the visitor experience and resource protection. We were also pleased to see the 

focus in A Call to Action on ensuring that NPS employees receive the training they 

need to run efficient, effective national parks and on improving the cooperative 

agreements process. Additionally, since FY11, the park service has saved more than 

$46 million through management efficiencies and administrative cost savings including savings in supplies and materials, travel reductions, consolidation of IT 

services, strategic sourcing reductions and implementation of energy efficiency retrofits. 

Federal Budget Considerations 

The continuing budget impasse within Congress and with the administration is 

leading to death-by-a-thousand-cuts for our national parks. This must be resolved 

if our nation’s nationally-significant natural, historic and cultural places are to recover and serve the public for the next hundred years and beyond. Sequester cuts 

affecting maintenance have, for example, postponed maintenance on trails and roads 

at Golden Gate, delayed boat repairs at Assateague, eliminated maintenance positions at Olympic and other parks, and produced other impacts that threaten the visiting experience and the economies of gateway communities. Without a significant 

deal on the budget, it is difficult to see how either the everyday operational or longterm backlog-related needs of the parks get sufficiently addressed. 

Today, the National Park Service budget is 1/15th of one percent of the federal 

budget. In 1981, it was 1/7th of one percent. In that interval we have halved the 

share of federal revenue spent on National Parks. Our national parks are not causing our deficits. Rather, they are investments in our future. We cannot meaningfully 

address the deficit by cutting funds for national parks or the other nondefense domestic funding that comprises only 16% of the federal budget pie. 

As Congress and the Administration work to address these very important fiscal 

issues, they should be investing in things that produce jobs and help our economy, 

and enhance our quality of life. National parks are such investments. The national 

parks are core contributors to a $646 billion outdoor recreation economy and provide 

more than $30 billion in direct economic benefit annually, as well as more than a 

quarter of a million jobs. They are also magnets that attract tourists from the rest 

53 

of the world. The Administration’s 2012 National Travel and Tourism Strategy 

notes that: ‘‘Park rangers are among America’s most recognizable and beloved public 

figures.’’ The strategy also observes that: ‘‘Overseas travelers to the United States 

who visit national parks or tribal lands tend to stay longer in the United States, 

to visit more destinations within the country, and are more likely to be repeat visitors to the United States. As the manager of many of these destinations, the Federal 

government is in a unique position to reach these high-value customers.’’ 

National Park Service sites accounted for a third of the top 25 domestic travel 

destinations listed by Forbes. As this nation strives to restore jobs, great opportunities lie in marketing our national parks to attract more international visitors to invest in our recovering economy. This system of popular and inspiring lands defines 

America and is a proven economic generator. The $30 billion in annual spending our 

parks produce compares to the annual revenue of some of the top hundred Fortune 

500 companies including Google and American Express. Our national parks are 

clearly economic assets to communities around the country. 

This economic benefit is coming with a comparably small investment that is nowhere close to commensurate with what Second Century Commissioner Linda 

Bilmes has called the parks’ footprint on the American mind. Yet, we know there 

are ten dollars generated in economic activity for each dollar invested in the National Park System. 

We look forward to working with you to identify funding concepts that can augment-but do not replace-appropriated funding. We urge Congress and the Administration to identify ways to work together to support supplemental funding that can 

have purchase in a divided government and provide meaningful financial reform. 

And we want to be sure that the federal government provides its share of the investments so that private philanthropists and other national park constituents can be 

motivated by our government doing its share. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MacDonald, welcome, and I’ve commented to Senator Collins 

and Senator Snowe over the years in the past, and Senator King, 

of course, is new, how similar in many respects Bar Harbor is to 

parts of Oregon. So we welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MACDONALD, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF 

ACADIA, BAR HARBOR, ME 

Mr. MACDONALD. I appreciate it. I appreciate the chance to be 

here. I did come down from Bar Harbor last night. It felt like everyone else in the world was coming to Acadia and I was going the 

other way. 

The CHAIRMAN. But most of them are still going to Oregon. 

Mr. MACDONALD. It’s an honor to be here. My name is David 

MacDonald. I’m President of Friends of Acadia, which is a private 

non-for-profit friends group that works in support of the park. We 

were founded by just a handful of volunteers 26 years ago, and 

we’ve grown to now have 3,600 members all over the country and 

all over the world. The intent really was to create an opportunity 

for folks to give back to the park they love. That’s Acadia. 

So the message that I bring to you today from our membership 

is that Acadia is a natural gem. It’s an economic powerhouse in 

Bar Harbor and the surrounding communities. We must work together to find the appropriate balance between public and private 

funding for parks. 

I also want to convey I recognize the pressures you are under in 

this Congress and the next. The choices that you have to make, you 

hear thousands of petitions every month, and you probably can satisfy very few of them. But we speak here, as Craig said, with the 

American people behind us. Ninety-two percent of folks polled last 

year support funding for the national parks. They do not want Congress to reduce the operating funding in any way. So in addition 

54 

to considering these supplementary strategies, we do petition Congress to come up with short-term and long-term strategies to restore that operating funding that Director Jarvis was talking 

about. 

At the same time, we want to step forward and help you realize 

those goals that the American people want. Acadia was the first 

national park created out of private donations of land. It wasn’t a 

designation of existing Federal land. These were donations from 

families that created the national park. That spirit of private philanthropy continues today through Friends of Acadia. 

So, examples from the past you’ve referenced earlier were the 

carriage roads campaign. Congress appropriate $6 million; Friends 

of Acadia raised $4 million. We put that money into an endowment 

in order to spin off the annual income needed to keep up that asset 

that was restored. That endowment has grown today to over $5 

million, and in the meantime, we’ve made $5 million in grants for 

the upkeep of the roads. So that’s a sound strategy. 

A decade later, we did it with the hiking trails in Acadia, where 

this time, the Federal Government put in about $3 million to $4 

million; the Friends group raised $90 million. So I can tell that neither one of those efforts would have been successful unless the 

Government had been coming to the table with real skin in the 

game, so to speak, a real investment in the project. 

Our donors are not inspired to invest if the Government is 

disinvesting. That fundamental balance must be maintained. We 

can talk all we want about endowments or the private role, and 

people are anxious to give. But I call tell you the latest example 

through the sequester, when those kind of cuts are being made at 

Acadia, people are not inspired to invest in the park. So there’s 

that balance that really needs to be maintained. 

They also wouldn’t have contributed, I believe, if the funds had 

to be donated to the U.S. Treasury. People enjoy the option to give 

to a private organization that they know and that they trust as a 

steward of the funds. So having the ability, as we look at the kind 

of legacy fund or partnerships that Craig is talking about, to have 

gifts not have to go to the Treasury to be counted to get the Federal, match, I think that’s incredibly important to consider as you 

come up with those ideas. 

I also want to speak to the importance of the Federal Lands 

Recreation Act, the fee collection, FLREA. It must be reauthorized 

next year. At Acadia, we depend heavily on those entrance fees for 

the roads, the trails, the buildings. When we talk to people, they 

are thrilled to pay the fee, believe it or not, because they know that 

80 percent of it is staying in Acadia. They’re told that, and that 

makes them feel better about it. 

We really think that that needs to be reauthorized and that the 

Park Service is given authority to experiment with adjusting the 

fees in parks in locally appropriate ways. I think they need authority to consider raising aspects of that. But I’d like the Park Service 

to have that flexibility to do it. 

So, as you think about private Friends groups, I think they are 

an incredibly powerful example. We’re only one of about 200 

around the country, and I think we all believe we should be called 

55 

on. We’re willing to be called on as a partner as you try to tackle 

these challenges. 

I also want to make sure that all of you feel welcome to come 

up and visit Acadia. It is one of the most heavily visited parks in 

the country. It’s a very small park compared to the Western parks. 

But visitors per acre, we’re right up there. But it’s a terrific place 

to come in the summer. Friends of Acadia would be glad to give 

you or your staff a firsthand visit, because 5 minutes of testimony 

here doesn’t do it justice. But I hope—I know time is short, but if 

you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:] 

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

HARBOR, ME 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and other honorable members of 

this committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you here this morning to discuss a topic that is critically important to me and many other residents in the state 

of Maine: the future of our National Parks. 

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, a private, not-for-profit organization with 3,600 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, thousands of hours of volunteer work on the trails, and as advocates for Acadia. 

Friends of Acadia is one of nearly 200 philanthropies helping the National Park 

system and we are also an active member in a coalition of similar national park 

friends groups from around the nation, known as the Friends Alliance. We benefit 

greatly from the exchange of information and experience with dozens of other 

friends groups, and as a member of the Friends Alliance steering committee, I hope 

that my remarks will also reflect the perspective and wisdom of other peers working 

in partnership with parks around the U.S. 

My respectful message to your committee here today-coming from the front lines 

of the first national park established east of the Mississippi that operates at peak 

capacity on a beautiful July day like today on the Maine coast-is that Acadia is a 

conservation gem and economic powerhouse that we must work together to conserve. We must find the appropriate balance between public and private funding so 

that this park and others around our nation provide inspiration to all Americans 

in the years and generations to come. 

I also want to convey that I certainly do recognize the very challenging decisions 

that you must make in this Congress and the next, and I appreciate the conflicting 

pressures on legislation and appropriation that come before you every day. Senator 

Susan Collins and Senator Angus King are terrific champions of Acadia and our national parks, but also have made all of us at Friends of Acadia aware of the context 

within which the deliberations and decisions are made in Washington. 

You hear thousands of worthy petitions every month. You must decide much-but 

can satisfy few. With respect, I am here to petition with pride and confidence, because I have a mighty ally: the American people. 

Across every geographic, demographic, and political cross-section, Americans want 

Congress to strongly support our national parks. In a robust, bipartisan survey done 

last year, 92% of all respondents opposed any reduction in support for our national 

parks, and 45% called for increased funding. Some 88% of Republican voters supported level or increased funding for national parks. Americans want their national 

park heritage conserved for their children and grandchildren. On their behalf, we 

petition Congress to make no more cuts to federal funding for our parks and that 

you develop a longer-term plan to restore full federal funding for our parks. 

As we petition, we also step forward as partners prepared to help achieve what 

the American people desire. As we approach the centennial of the National Park 

Service, you and your colleagues in the House should be able to depend on park 

friends groups and the broader American conservation community as a resourceful, 

creative and cooperative force. 

I am honored to serve a glorious American treasure - Acadia National Park-that 

provides benefit and enjoyment to millions of residents and visitors each year. Relatively small in size, at only 35,000 acres, Acadia is within a day’s drive of major 

56 

cities of the northeast and therefore is one of the most heavily used parks in the 

nation, with more than 2.3 million visitors each year. 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. These founders, other public-spirited volunteers, skilled local workers, and 3,000 poor boys from Maine in the Civilian Conservation Corps all worked tirelessly over the years to create a magnificent network 

of hiking trails, carriage roads, and motor roads that enrich the park as an historic 

and cultural treasure. I share this brief Acadia history so you know that 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. 

They are also the principles upon which Friends of Acadia has based our first 

twenty five years of partnership with the federal government. In the early 1990’s 

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 nearly $5 million since its establishment. Since their renovation, Acadia’s 

carriage roads have served as the heart of the park’s recreational infrastructure; use 

by an ever-growing population of walkers, bikers, equestrians, and cross-country skiers has taken off. 

More recently, the same public-private partnership has been brought to bear on 

efforts to address vehicular congestion, air quality, and visitor experience by launching a low-emissions, fare free bus service linking Acadia to the surrounding communities. Friends of Acadia provided the original seed money to pilot the project, and 

later secured a significant sponsorship agreement with L.L.Bean that has brought 

more than $3 million to the operations of the successful bus service that has now 

carried more than 4 million passengers and removed millions of cars from our area 

roads. 

We have applied the same successful mix of federal and private funds to our work 

with neighboring landowners and our partners at Maine Coast Heritage Trust in 

helping Acadia secure key tracts of land to complete its acquisition boundary. Acadia’s irregular boundary weaves in and out of nearly a dozen surrounding villages 

and hundreds of abutting owners. We are often called upon to use FOA funds to 

pre-acquire properties when Congress and the Park Service are not able to move 

quickly enough to meet a seller’s time-frame. Completing Acadia’s boundary has 

been the top priority of current Superintendent Sheridan Steele, and Friends of Acadia has been willing to assume some risk in these transactions, but as with infrastructure and operations, our donors believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in funding these acquisitions, particularly given the dedicated revenue source in place through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We urge Congress to support full and reliable funding for the LWCF as a fiscally-sound strategy 

for conserving national parks like Acadia. 

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. 

In recent months, the federally mandated 5% cut to Acadia’s operating budget 

meant that park motor roads opened a month later than usual, visitor center hours 

have been shortened, and free ranger led interpretive programs for families have 

been cut in half this summer. Acadia now has 23 out of 110 permanent staff positions left unfilled, and the park has nearly $1.4 million less to operate in FY 13 

than it did in FY 10. The reality that park operating funds are decreasing now 

under the sequester creates a disincentive for private donors to contribute to park 

projects. These cuts do serious damage to the fundamental assets and heritage that 

our national parks represent. The cuts in federal funds also create a negative ripple 

effect in the economy of our surrounding communities. The park is estimated to genVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
57 

erate $186 million in economic activity in our region, supporting approximately 

2,970 jobs. 

Friends of Acadia is already working with partners at the local, state and federal 

level to explore options for sustainable, supplementary funding for America’s national parks. In March, I participated in a leadership conference convened by the 

National Parks Conservation Association and the National Park Hospitality Association that put forward sixteen specific proposals for such efforts. 

Confident that my colleagues from those leadership associations will give you a 

full account, I will speak briefly to two key proposals which my team at Friends 

of Acadia believe hold great promise, and which require Congressional action to advance further. 

1. The first proposal is to enhance the park visitor experience through improvements enabled through a stronger fee system. The Federal Lands Recreation Act (FLREA) must be reauthorized, preserving parks’ ability to retain a 

high majority of the fees they collect. People feel a sense of investment when 

they pay for an experience, and park entrance fees have been a very important 

source of funds for Acadia to maintain buildings, roads, trails, and more. The 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA-Title VIII of P.L. 108-447) 

enables national parks to retain up to 80% of the fees collected and use them 

for maintenance, interpretation, law enforcement, and to cover the costs of fee 

collection. At $20 for seven days or $40 for a year, the entrance fee at Acadia 

is a better bargain than taking one’s family to the movies. Visitors pay the fees 

willingly and are pleased to hear that 80% of them are retained at Acadia. It 

is critical that FLREA be renewed by 2014 with the authorization for the National Park Service to experiment with the fee structure to maximize revenues 

based on locally-appropriate solutions. Continuation of fee collection is also very 

important for the future of Acadia’s award-winning Island Explorer bus system. 

Acadia National Park adds a transit fee, seamless to the visitor, during the bus 

system’s operation. This fee generates more than half of the funding needed for 

bus system operations, so if Acadia’s authority to charge an entrance fee were 

to disappear, the Island Explorer would shrink significantly. At Acadia, nearly 

21% of the park’s annual budget comes from fee revenue. 

2. The second proposal is for a Park Legacy Partnership enabled by publicprivate cooperation. Versions of this noble concept have 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 toward the 2016 Park Service Centennial. In particular, we encourage a program that would be inclusive of a wide 

array of possible ways to give, and not require that private gifts be made to the 

Federal Treasury in order to qualify for the federal match. In my conservation 

career, I have been privileged to receive the wise counsel of some of America’s 

great philanthropic families with a deep commitment to our natural heritage. 

Under their guidance as volunteer board members or donors, Friends of Acadia 

has demonstrated that private, non-profit partners should not replace the role 

of the federal government, but we can provide critical flexibility, innovation, 

cost effectiveness, and a trusted broker for donors wanting to add to our national parks legacy. 

I will close with a final specific example from Acadia that illustrates the power 

and potential of both the fee collection and the proposed Park Legacy Partnership. 

In the year 2000, Friends of Acadia successfully completed the Acadia Trails Forever Campaign. Our organization raised $9 million in private funding to restore and 

permanently endow the maintenance of Acadia’s historic trail system. This was 

matched by $4 million in public funds-primarily from revenue collected at Acadia 

through visitor entrance fees. 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; nor would 

it have worked if we had told our private donors that their contributions would need 

to be made directly to the U.S. Treasury. Instead, Friends of Acadia holds the endowment and makes yearly grants to the park for intended uses on the trails under 

the terms of a memorandum of agreement signed by both parties. 

As we approach 2016, it is important to note that Acadia National Park shares 

that same centennial date with the broader National Park Service. We are certainly 

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

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

leadership exhibited by the park’s founders one hundred years ago. 

58 

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 along the Maine coast this summer or in the future - my words here today 

pale in comparison with a first-hand visit, and it would be our pleasure to help you 

or your staff come on up and enjoy the Acadian experience with us. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Five hours of testimony probably 

wouldn’t do justice—— 

Mr. MACDONALD. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To the good work you’re doing. We 

thank you. Very helpful. 

Mr. Puskar. 

STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF PARTNERS FOR PUBLIC LANDS, WHEATON, MD 

Mr. PUSKAR. Good morning and thank you. I’m honored to be 

here as well. My name is Dan Puskar, and I’m the Executive Director of the Association of Partners for Public Lands. The association 

is made up of 85 member organizations, many of which are the 

largest friends groups, cooperating associations, foundations, and 

educational partners of not only the national park system, but also 

other public lands. 

83 percent of our members, however, serve National Park Service 

sites and are doing a lot of the operational partnering that provides 

visitor services, that does interpretive programs, that creates educational opportunities. That really does a lot of the work of helping 

to steward our park visitors. 

In fact, many of our member organizations are the ones running 

the volunteer programs that engage people in the ways that, Senator Murkowski, you so appreciate happening in Alaska right now. 

I want to really, in the interest of time, say that I will echo many 

of the things that my colleagues have said, and instead spend a 

moment of maybe wrapping together a couple of the things I’ve 

been hearing today around how we can really increase funding and 

services for the national parks through the work of nonprofits. 

There is a baseline opportunity for creating a legislative framework 

for really unleashing what friends groups, cooperating associations, 

and others are doing today. As we think to have more sustainable 

funding, providing more of a ground floor for them would be helpful. 

A few thoughts along those lines. First, there really isn’t today 

legislative recognition of partnerships of the central piece of how 

the Park Service does it mission, particularly with nonprofits, 

something that would be valuable, I think. The opportunity for our 

nonprofits to be able to noncompetitively enter into agreements, 

long-term lasting agreements with the National Park Service would 

be incredibly valuable. Member organizations of ours, like the Yosemite Conservancy, which was founded in 1923, have certainly 

made a mark in improving that park and allowing them to have 

agreements that regularly last more than 5 years at a time, not 

only will allow them to make the investments they need, but to attract the kinds of donors that they need to do the wonderful programming that they do. 

The National Park Service is given cooperative agreement and 

challenge cost-share authorities to date. But there are ways in 

59 

which those can be strengthened to make sure that we do extend 

the value of Federal dollars that come to nonprofits to do great 

public benefits. To that end, thinking about or perhaps rethinking 

what a public benefit in a park looks like, which may be different 

than what the Federal Cooperative Agreement and Grants Act envisioned back in 1977, since so much of what happens in parks is 

truly benefiting the Nation might be worthy of consideration. 

I want to echo the sentiments expressed earlier today that there 

are things we can do to help our nonprofits when it comes to things 

like donor recognition. We want to take the already-inspired American people and organizations and corporations that want to do 

more and create the opportunities for them to feel valued by the 

value they impart. 

Certainly, we want to applaud and commend what this committee has already done in creating targeted opportunities to take 

what these kinds of authorities can do and propel them further. 

What you’ve done with the Helium Bill this summer is just one example. But certainly, as we talk about an endowment and the potential for Federal matching funds, the Park Legacy Partnership 

Fund that has been suggested, all of these would benefit a great 

deal if we have improved the rules of the road for nonprofits to 

work with the National Park Service and really unleash what that 

philanthropy and what those in-kind services can be. 

The great thing about the National Park Service and its mission 

is that there are a lot of nonprofits out there with shared missions 

that are really engaged in making sure these are the premiere 

places that all Americans, and our international visitors, can enjoy. 

So, the Association of Partners for Public Lands would be pleased 

to work with you to make sure that we can improve those rules of 

the road, invest in the kinds of strategies that have been already 

mentioned here, like the reauthorization of FLREA, the championing of certain bills like a commemorative coin, which, while it 

may seem small, is one further example of what this Congress can 

do to create those public—private matching opportunities and build 

awareness of our great national parks. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Puskar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF

PARTNERS FOR PUBLIC LANDS, WHEATON, MD 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today alongside my distinguished colleagues. 

I serve as executive director of the Association of Partners for Public Lands (APPL), 

which has a history since 1977 of cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS). 

Through its vital network of partnerships, APPL works for the day when all Americans share the joy and inspiration of our natural world and collective heritage. 

APPL represents 85 nonprofit member organizations, 83% of which are cooperating associations, friends groups, foundations and educational institutions that 

have formal partnerships with the national park system. Our members range in 

scale from the newly created, all volunteer Friends of De Soto National Memorial 

to Eastern National, a cooperating association partnering with over 150 national 

parks. Although we support the full breadth of the NPS, our members are primarily 

‘‘operational partners’’ with an on-the-ground presence in 335 of the 401 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 in 

2011 they provided more than $134 million in aid to the NPS through major 

projects, grants, programs and services that respond to the agency’s priorities. 

60 

Our member organizations epitomize the durability and strength of public-private 

partnerships. The Yosemite Conservancy, for example, was founded in 1923, and the 

average length of our public lands partnerships is 48 years. Perhaps this is not surprising as philanthropy and partnership have been essential to the creation and resiliency of many national parks, from the land donation of William and Elizabeth 

Kent to establish Muir Woods National Monument in 1906 to the recent gift by 

David Rubenstein to help restore the Washington Monument. Examples of the ongoing contributions of our member organizations and allies to the NPS include: 

• Alaska Geographic has donated over $22 million to the NPS and other federal 

lands since 1959. Alaska Geographic engages youth in science through programs like the Yellow-Billed Loon Media Project, in which Native youth survey 

breeding sites alongside NPS biologists and share their results with communities affected by a potential endangered species list change. 

• The Conservancy for Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio annually provides 

financial support for over 1,000 children from low income families to participate 

in its residential education and summer camp programs. The Conservancy also 

provides funding and staff support for key outreach programs that bring urban 

children to experience the park. 

• Discover Your Northwest, a cooperating association serving NPS units in three 

states, partnered with Polaris to provide a brand new electric vehicle for park 

rangers patrolling the Painted Hills area of John Day Fossil Beds National 

Monument in Oregon. The actions of this nonprofit partner helped the NPS fulfill its goal to make Painted Hills carbon neutral and energy self sufficient in 

housing, administration and transportation. 

• Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy has provided over $300 million in 

support to NPS projects and programs for over 30 years, manages all park visitor centers and directly serves over five million visitors per year. The Conservancy has helped develop a corps of 35,000 annual volunteers providing 500,000 

hours of service each year-the largest national park volunteer program in the 

nation. 

• Grand Teton Association is a strong financial supporter of the National Park 

Service Academy, a program to help recruit and grow future public land employees. Since 2011, this program hosted at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming has introduced diverse undergraduate and graduate students from across 

the country to career opportunities in NPS. 

• Great Smoky Mountains Association and Friends of the Smokies, both APPL 

member organizations, collectively provide approximately 8% of their park’s annual operating budget to support all aspects of the visitor experience in North 

Carolina and Tennessee. 

• Mount Rushmore Society will fund $500,000 in grants over the next five years 

for preservation and maintenance of the iconic South Dakota sculpture. These 

necessary activities will not be met by current NPS budgets. 

• NatureBridge, a non-profit education provider operating in multiple national 

parks, raises and spends $12.5 million each year to provide residential environmental science programs to over 30,000 students. These multi-day programs 

translate to over 100,000 student days of hands-on science learning in national 

parks. 

• Rocky Mountain Nature Association provides approximately $500,000 annually 

to the education programs of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, including opportunities for over 50 interns and student trail crewmembers to 

work in the park every year. 

• Western National Parks Association (WNPA) has provided over $86 million to 

support NPS projects and programs for 75 years. WNPA operates in 66 NPS 

units in 12 Western states, many of which have little budget capacity for programming, let alone staffing. WNPA’s presence at sites like Brown v. Board of 

Education National Historic Site and Port Chicago Naval Magazine National 

Memorial is essential. WNPA staff is often the only personnel encountered by 

the public, and its aid truly provides the basic interpretation of park resources 

and meets the needs of visitors. 

A vital role of APPL is to represent the interests of our members in working with 

federal agencies and Congress to ensure that all nonprofit park partners are provided the greatest opportunities to help expand visitor services, educate and inspire 

the next generation, create jobs and engage all people in public lands stewardship. 

My comments today represent the experiences of APPL and its member organizations, and I hope will reflect the insights of the National Park Friends Alliance and 

the contributions of key educational field institutes across the nation. 

61 

A Strong Federal Funding Commitment Invigorates Partnerships 

While recognizing the fiscal challenges facing our nation, APPL and its member 

organizations believe that funding for the operations of the national parks, the protection of their resources and the safety of their visitors are the responsibilities of 

the federal government. Public-private partnership, however, should be a core strategy to address the need for additive funding that provides a margin of excellence 

in parks. Recognizing the complementary roles of public and private leadership is 

particularly important at this time when NPS seeks to reach broader and more diverse audiences with more scarce federal funds. 

In the presence of a strong federal funding commitment to the NPS, APPL member organizations are ready, willing and able to mobilize their donors, retail customers, volunteers, educational resources, gateway communities and business partners to help the NPS achieve its important mission to preserve and protect America’s national parks for the enjoyment of future generations. 

INCREASING NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM FUNDING AND SERVICES 

THROUGH NONPROFIT PARTNERS 

APPL trusts that our already vibrant and rewarding relationships with the NPS 

will add greater resources and save more federal funds if our partnerships were 

fully embraced and facilitated by law, policy and procedure. With the goal of 

unleashing the nonprofit sector to enhance parks and achieve more results with tax 

dollars, I offer a few perspectives and recommendations: 

Expand Public-Nonprofit Partnership Authorities 

NPS Director Jarvis and his leadership team have been tremendous advocates for 

park partners, although the tools provided to them have not kept up with the NPS 

and its growing desire to engage meaningfully in partnerships. Additional or clarifying legislation will help the NPS to simplify and streamline its partnership policies and practices, and to meet the goals that Director Jarvis has articulated. 

• Encouraging Long Lasting Partnerships—The NPS currently does not have legislation specifically endorsing the value and necessity of partnerships as a central tenet of fulfilling its mission. This gap in authorities can often lead to the 

NPS, as well as other federal agencies, relying on familiar regulatory or transactional frameworks like contracting and procurement law to practice the art 

of partnerships. Partnerships, like most good relationships, work best when 

founded on trust and communication, and are open to the creative risk inherent 

in entrepreneurial activity and private sector ingenuity. 

New authorities that recognize the centrality of partnership in the NPS 

and provide the agency with the ability to enter into agreements noncompetitively with nonprofit partners would give greater clarity to all parties and strengthen the ability of our member organizations to engage the 

American people to support the parks. 

• Strengthening the Leverage of Public-Private Funding— The tools provided to 

the NPS for maximizing the efficiencies of public and private dollars are limited. Cooperative agreement authority, one of the few instruments available, 

was not conceived as a framework for longstanding partnerships and has presented problematic complications as parks and partners work to achieve shared 

goals. In the past, APPL members have been told by the Department of the Interior that general federal law preempts the full use of some specific NPS agreement authorities. 

Another core partnership tool, the Challenge Cost-Share Agreement Authority, has been recognized by this Committee as a valuable tool to stimulate private investment and confront looming obstacles, most recently in its 

advancement of S. 783, the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013. The Congressional Budget Office reports that S.783 would provide $50 million in federal 

dollars, matched with an additional $50 million in private funding, to the 

NPS for maintenance and infrastructure projects within national parks. 

APPL congratulates the Committee on shepherding this initiative. 

These authorities would be strengthened by identifying the unique role 

that nonprofit partners have in the history and mission of the NPS and recognizing the variety and value of public purposes inherent in preserving our 

parks and welcoming all generations of Americans to experience them. 

Modest changes to these agreement authorities would help ensure that the 

energy and expertise of nonprofit partners, especially those operating in an 

increasingly competitive philanthropic arena, will be maximized. 

62 

Improve and Streamline Partnership Policies, Agreements and Approvals 

In A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement, the NPS has expressed its desire to work with partners to help strategically 

focus its many efforts and align its existing resources on powerful actions that advance the NPS mission. APPL applauds Director Jarvis for his commitment to revise the NPS policy on donations and fundraising, known as Director’s Order 21, 

in order to meet the dynamic landscape of 21st century philanthropy. Additionally, 

APPL is encouraged by the agency’s intention to create a workable Reference Manual for Director’s Order 32, which governs NPS activities with cooperating associations, and for Director’s Order 6, which applies to educational programs. 

APPL is eager to assist Director Jarvis and his leadership team in revisiting these 

policies, and the agreements which tier from them, to focus and align the best elements of the public and private sector and unleash their combined potential. 

SUSTAINABLE SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDING FOR AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS 

Earlier this year, the National Parks Conservation Association, an APPL member 

organization, and the National Park Hospitality Association developed a series of 

white papers to outline 16 strategies that could be employed to increase non-appropriated funding for the national parks. Several of these papers identify programs 

and opportunities central to the viability and strength of nonprofit partnership and 

funding. 

Enhancing Park Experiences Through Fees 

APPL supports the reauthorization of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act (FLREA) and the continuation of its current authorization wherein the NPS retains the recreational and associated fees it collects. 

National park visitors intuitively expect that their fee dollars will support the 

places they experienced and enjoyed. APPL members are committed to creating 

great visitor experiences and are concerned that the loss of support for NPS interpretation, maintenance and protection funds will significantly decrease the agency’s 

ability to provide basic services. Additionally, several APPL member organizations 

and allies leverage these fees to create exemplary resources for park visitors including. 

• Like many cooperating associations, the Mesa Verde Museum Association and 

the NPS combine nonprofit aid with FLREA funds to print and distribute the 

park visitor guide which includes recreational, educational and safety information, which is annually distributed to over 400,000 Mesa Verde National Park 

visitors in Colorado. 

• The Schoodic Education and Research Center Institute and the NPS completed 

a $2.7 million renovation of the historic Rockefeller Hall in Acadia National 

Park earlier this month. The Center supports research for Acadia that is linked 

directly to STEM education opportunities for youth and to lifelong learning for 

all in the sciences and arts. The project cost was shared equally by philanthropic contributions and FLREA fees. 

APPL urges the Committee to reauthorize this valuable authority not only for the 

NPS, but for all federal land management agencies. We also believe this program 

would be strengthened with the inclusion of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recreation areas. APPL encourages this Committee’s collaboration with the appropriate 

committee of jurisdiction to help invest these fees in the visitor’s enjoyment of all 

public lands. 

Park Legacy Partnership Fund 

APPL strongly supports the establishment of a long term public-private philanthropic opportunity wherein federal dollars are matched one-to-one by private dollars. This model has several similarities to the National Park Service Centennial 

Challenge which was activated for one year in 2008 and provided over $50 million 

to critical NPS projects. The combination of $24.6 million in federal funds matched 

by nearly $27 million in philanthropic contributions resulted in many projects including: 

• The Friends of Big Bend leveraged a $100,000 Centennial Challenge grant to 

make something that its remote park, which encompasses 13% of the U.S. 

southern border, had never had in 75 years: a visitor center film to enhance 

public safety and encourage stewardship. Raising $177,000 in private funds, the 

Friends not only created the film but upgraded the audiovisual assets of the 

park auditorium necessary to view it. 

63 

• Lewis and Clark National Park Association leveraged a $30,000 Centennial 

Challenge grant to complete a formal education plan for the Lewis and Clark 

National Historical Park in Oregon and Washington State. The plan expanded 

what had been a curriculum focused on 4th graders to a portfolio of placedbased activities for school groups from 4th to 12th grades. 

• The Zion Natural History Association and the NPS created an initiative to significantly enhance youth education and outreach in the park by matching a 

$54,000 Centennial Challenge grant with $54,000 in private funds. This modest 

initiative increased the number of children attending programs by nearly 300% 

in the first year, and today tens of thousands of young people have been connected to the unique natural and cultural resources of Zion National Park as 

a result. 

The value of a long term federal matching program would dwarf the success of 

the one-year Centennial Challenge effort. 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 may not have high cash reserves or friends groups that lack sizeable philanthropic bases in their gateway communities. 

Commemorative Coins 

Legislation has been introduced in Congress to create a series of commemorative 

coins that will celebrate the National Park Service Centennial in 2016. Sale of the 

coins includes surcharges that provide up to $12.25 million in funds that may be 

matched by the National Park Foundation, an APPL member. This is an opportunity for the Congress to help deliver $24.5 million ′′for projects and programs that 

help preserve and protect resources under the stewardship of the National Park 

Service and promote public enjoyment and appreciation of those resources′′ without 

adding to the deficit or finding offsets. (In the interest of full transparency, I authored this white paper when I was a member of the National Park Foundation 

staff.) 

APPL encourages Senators to co-sponsor S.1158, National Park Service 100th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, as several members of the Committee have previously done, and thus add resources to and improve public awareness of the NPS 

Centennial in 2016. 

THE FUTURE OF PARK PARTNERSHIPS 

All APPL member organizations are honored to be official partners of America’s 

most treasured landscapes. Our national parks have traditionally been supported by 

both the public and private sectors, and APPL hopes that these perspectives and 

recommendations open opportunities to expand our partnerships to greater effect 

and impact. 

In summary, APPL strongly encourages the Committee to: 

• Encourage the increase of national park system funding and services through 

partnerships. This may be accomplished by adopting partnerships authorities to 

help the NPS to simplify and streamline its policies and practices and spur ever 

greater nonprofit contributions and aid. 

• Renew the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in a manner that will 

meet park visitor expectations and improve their experience and enjoyment of 

these treasured places. 

• Strongly consider new proposals, including the Park Legacy Partnership Fund 

and a commemorative coin series, which provide the leverage nonprofits need 

to further extend scarce federal dollars. 

I enthusiastically offer our services to the Committee in developing new partnership authorities and in continuing to serve as a voice for nonprofit park partners. 

Thank you for your strong interest in helping to galvanize nonprofit partnerships 

with the NPS and thereby expand the funding of national parks in the next century. 

The CHAIRMAN. You all have been very helpful, and I apologize 

for the bad manners. Senator Murkowski and I are also working 

on another bipartisan effort at this time on natural gas, and I am 

trying to be there as well. 

So let me just ask one quick question, and then Senator Murkowski has been kind enough to say she’s going to step in. Many 

of the concerns she’ll be asking about are exactly mine. 

64 

Mr. Gabrys, concessionaires obviously play a key role in maintaining park buildings. It’s an essential part of your operation. So 

you know a lot about this issue. Are there policies, in your view, 

Federal policies in particular, that ought to be changed or modified 

or removed so as to let concessionaires do more to adequately 

maintain their facilities? 

In other words, pretend you’re in our shoes, and you’re looking 

for ways to move the machinery in the Federal Government around 

so that you all can get more, in effect, for your maintenance dollar, 

and do more in the cause that we’re all talking about here, which 

is to deal with the backlog? Are there policies in that area that 

could be changed or altered? 

Mr. GABRYS. Mr. Chairman, I think in terms of the general ongoing maintenance that we’re involved with, things are working just 

fine. Part of the concessionaires responsibility, as you indicate, is 

providing that maintenance. 

Each national park has a maintenance plan developed by the 

Park Service that delineates what’s the responsibility of the Park 

Service, what’s the responsibility of the concessionaire. In recent 

years, more of that has moved toward the concessionaire, which I 

think is a good thing. 

I think where the focus needs to be, though, is on these big—deferred maintenance is almost a misnomer because it’s really these 

big costs. You look at the old structures that exist such as 

Ahwahnee, at our park in Mount Rainier, the beautiful Paradise 

Lodge. No matter how much ongoing maintenance you’re doing, the 

lodge is old. Every year, it gets buried in snow over the winter season. After awhile it just wears out, and all of a sudden it needs 

some major reshoring of the facility, and 10s of millions of dollars 

need to be spent. 

That’s where we need to find the money to do those things. So 

the things that I mentioned in my remarks, to provide additional 

sources of revenue at parks, would provide additional money for 

concessionaires. I would have concessionaires put some of that 

money into a fund so that when those items are required, there’s 

money there to pay for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator Murkowski, and again, my 

thanks that you’ll wrap this up. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony that you’ve provided 

today. I think it’s been very helpful for all of us. Know that we will 

be taking your suggestions as we evaluate how we might be a little 

bit more creative in how we’re dealing with our maintenance and 

backlog. 

Mr. Gabrys, you’ve given some very specific examples of where 

on the concessions side we can work to either create and gain efficiencies through extent and making sure that the concession contracts are longer. But again, very concrete examples, which I appreciate. 

Most of you have mentioned the FLREA and note that it is due 

to be reauthorized within this next year. Recognizing that that is 

in front of us, what suggestions might you have that we would 

tweak or enhance or pull back on, as we look to this reauthorization? I’ve mentioned that there is an inequity, if you will, between 

65 

fees that we see within different parks. Is that an issue that needs 

to be addressed? 

If I could just have your thoughts on what we might be looking 

specifically to address when we have this reauthorization come before us. I throw it out to any of you. Mr. Obey? 

Mr. OBEY. Senator, thank you for the question. There are, I 

think, a number of opportunities with the fee authorization. I 

would agree with you that one of the questions that we should be 

looking at is how to share the wealth, if you will, throughout the 

park system? Right now, 80 percent of the fees are retained in the 

park where they’re collected. But half the fees that the Park Service collects are collected in about 10 parks. So, there’s a wide disparity. 

Now, as we heard earlier today, a lot of those parks have very 

significant maintenance needs as well. So there’s a balance. But I 

think it is very legitimate to look at how to spread that out a bit 

more, maybe a higher percentage that would go throughout the 

system. 

There are some other things I think that are worth looking at, 

too. Right now in FLREA in the statute, it sets the senior pass at 

$10 for a lifetime. That’s a great deal. If it’s still there when I’m 

62, I’m going to buy one. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBEY. But I think that we might be able to look at some adjustments to things like that to get a little bit more revenue. They 

sell about 500,000 of those passes every year. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Of the senior passes? 

Mr. OBEY. Of the senior passes. So there’s potentially revenue 

there. 

Now, I’m sure they’re reselling some of those, because people lose 

them and it’s only 10 bucks, so why not get another one? But I 

think that that’s one area where we might look. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Any other suggestions? Mr. MacDonald? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, if I may. Again, the feedback we get is 

that they’re not charging enough. It costs less to come to Acadia 

for a week than it does to take your family out, you know, to one 

movie. However, what’s been most interesting to me, someone mentioned earlier the business community and striking the balance. 

The business community, up in Bar Harbor very concerned by the 

cuts of the sequester, wants the park to sell more passes. So they’re 

offering to help sell passes at their hotels. They’re on board. 

I initially felt that they might resist trying to collect more fees 

or raising the fees; they don’t. They recognize that this is a key 

source of revenue, and they’re standing right by our side at the 

chamber of commerce, trying to promote more compliance with it. 

Acadia has a very irregular boundary, so people can often enter 

without paying. The business community is a huge supporter of enhancing the collection of fees, at least up in Acadia. So I just wanted you to know that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. Mr. Puskar. 

Mr. PUSKAR. I would just add that several of our members who 

have fee recovery within their parks are able to really take advantage of being able to match those funds to achieve ends with the 

National Park Service that improve the visitor experience. So to 

66 

echo an earlier comment, finding greater ways to share those resources across the system would allow more of our nonprofit members to do more with that work as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. A lot of discussion about what we 

can do to encourage greater private donation, participation that 

way. We all recognize that when you are thanked, it goes a long 

way to feeling good about what you have done. Some people like 

the anonymity. But I think it’s fair to say that more people enjoy 

the acknowledgement that comes with some sort of formal recognition. 

So I think it is fair to talk about ways that we might be able to 

tastefully recognize our donors. I don’t want to see the new Denali 

Visitors Center named the Verizon Center, and nothing wrong with 

Verizon. But I think we expect a little bit more from our national 

parks. 

How do we do this? Mr. MacDonald, I’d appreciate your insights 

there because, as you know, Friends of Acadia have kind of led the 

way here with the volunteers and the donors. How do we give that 

appropriate recognition without really commercializing this? 

Mr. MACDONALD. It’s a great point. Honestly, in my work, when 

most of the individuals give to Friends of Acadia, naming rights are 

not as high on the list as I would have expected. Having said that, 

having a trail or a bench or, you know, a room would be a terrific 

option to have. As you know, the private philanthropies that work 

with the Park Service operate under director’s order 21, which 

gives guidelines for how private individuals can donate to an agency like the Park Service. 

Stepping back, even before we get to the thank-you, some elements of that order make it very challenging for the person to even 

consider making a gift. They have to get vetted and reviewed and, 

you know, put on hold before a gift could even consider being made. 

So we’re really pleased that—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How difficult is that? 

Mr. MACDONALD. I don’t do— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I mean, if I just want, out of the generosity 

of my heart, or my relative who’s got no kids and is getting old, 

he wants to just be able to give you 50 grand. How difficult is it? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Fifty grand, it probably isn’t too difficult. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. Let’s go higher. 

Mr. MACDONALD. At a higher level—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let’s go to a million. 

Mr. MACDONALD. I mean, the Park Service, for good reason, has 

steps in place to assure that there is no conflict of interest or 

there’s no other motive behind that gift. So they want to review it. 

They review the person who’s offering it and make sure that it’s 

a true gift, with no quid pro quo, or no strings attached. 

So I understand the reasons behind that. But I’m pleased that 

the Park Service has agreed to review that order and look for ways 

to make it more donor-friendly, more efficient, allow groups like 

ours not to miss out on opportunities; I guess I would put it that 

way. 

As you say, the naming rights are important. But so is just building a donor-friendly culture to allow us to appear grateful right 

from the outside when you have a conversation. So again, the Park 

67 

Service has been terrific about saying, in this climate in particular 

to this time, they believe it’s time to review that order. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. I think it’s something 

that we clearly need to do. People who are feeling very generous 

don’t want to feel like they have to have their whole life history 

peeled apart in order to make a gift. 

Let me ask one last question. This is reflective of many of the 

comments that I hear from folks back home, who I mentioned the 

Wrangell-St. Elias and their cleanup effort coming here in a few 

weeks, good neighbors getting out and doing good things for their 

parks. 

But what I hear is that we make it very difficult, or the park system makes it difficult for people to just come and volunteer, to 

come and help. Is this an issue or a problem from your perspective, 

where people don’t feel as welcome to just be a volunteer? Mr. MacDonald? 

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, from the front lines of Acadia, I would answer no. That is, people are treated so well. The volunteer program 

meets up at the park headquarters. They have priority parking 

places. There’s park staff there every morning to welcome them. So 

the culture of folks wanting to give back, at least at that park, it’s 

extremely receptive. 

The park staff shows up on weekends, you know, to help run 

these volunteer cleanup days. So at least at Acadia, I think the 

Park Service as a culture, at the local level, of being very, very receptive and appreciative of the volunteer efforts that have been a 

hallmark of our work since 1986. 

Mr. GABRYS. Senator, from the standpoint of the concessionaire, 

I think that has been somewhat of a concern with the Park Service. 

But I think that’s changing. I think a prime example is, for the 

first time this year, we as a concessionaire were invited to ask our 

employees if they would like to come down to the Mall the day 

after the July Fourth celebration to clean up the Mall. In past 

years, that would not have happened. 

So we at Guest Services put that out to our employees and say, 

‘‘If you’d rather go down and help out on the Mall, you can go there 

instead of coming to your normal work station tomorrow.’’ It was 

overwhelmingly supported. A lot of other groups participated, too. 

So I think there’s a movement in the right direction there within 

the Park Service. 

Mr. OBEY. Senator, if I could just add, I would agree with the 

comments of both Mr. Gabrys and Mr. MacDonald. The Park Service needs core resources in order to manage volunteers. So when 

you have something like the sequester, obviously, that can be an 

issue, and Senator Baldwin referenced some of the practical implications that can arise. 

But at the same time, I think that there’s more of an opportunity 

than maybe has yet been recognized to use volunteer service and 

service corps, whether they’re youth corps, whether there are others. AARP did a survey several years back, and the single most desired volunteer activity by a retiree was a volunteer ranger. There 

are so many people with tremendous expertise and experience from 

a lifetime of work who could bring that to bear in a creative way 

in a park setting. 

68 

So whether it’s that, whether it’s really trying to leverage the 

youth corps that are out there with the trained people who know 

how to run a crew, or whether it’s looking at returning veterans, 

who really have a desire to give back or are looking for other things 

to do. There’s still high unemployment for returning veterans, as 

well. I think those are areas that we should be looking at. 

Mr. PUSKAR. I would simply add that there are a number of nonprofit organizations that have been leading their volunteer programs because of the kinds of constraints that have been brought 

up in some parks where they might not have that internal capacity 

to date. So when you look at a group like the Golden Gate National 

Parks Conservancy that manages a force of 35,000 volunteers in 

putting in hundreds of thousands of hours annually, it’s amazing 

in that kind of partnership what you can do to mobilize that community, some of whom, through their volunteer service, may want 

to continue up a chain that ultimately leads to donations and other 

forms of contribution back to their public lands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good comments there. I was hiking 

through Klondike Gold Rush National Park some years ago. To 

come upon a group of AmeriCorps volunteers that was working 

with some youth corps folks to restore some of the trails there, recognizing that particularly in Alaska, with our remoteness and the 

size of our parks, in terms of having that trained staff that can 

then take these groups of volunteers to provide for some of the 

work that we hope for, oftentimes it can be very, very difficult. 

So it’s these partnerships, I think, where we’re seeing real 

progress and real opportunity for good things to happen there. 

So, again, I appreciate all that you have put out on the table 

here for discussion today. I think you heard from the chairman, 

and you saw from the questioning from all of the members here, 

there is a great deal of interest in how we move forward, how we 

care for, nurture, and really highlight and showcase the national 

treasures that we have within our park system. But it takes the 

work of all of us. 

There’s been a lot of discussion today about the impact of sequester. That’s fair. But we all recognize that we were in trouble a long 

time before the decision on sequester was made. The graph that 

Senator Coburn showed us is really quite telling. This is a cumulative effect that we are seeing. The reality is we’ve got some very 

serious, I think, reform when it comes to how we handle our maintenance issues within our parks. 

I’m hopeful that we’ll use this occasion of this anniversary coming up to really galvanize the good ideas and really the hearts of 

Americans to come out and support truly national treasures. 

So thank you for what you’ve given us and your attention this 

morning. With that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(69) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF DAVID MACDONALD TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Mr. MacDonald, we have heard from the witnesses here today about 

the importance of reauthorizing the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act so 

that the respective park can retain 80% of the fees they collect. In your testimony 

you state the Act should ′′authorize the National Park Service to experiment with 

the fee structure to maximize revenues based on locally appropriate solutions.’’ 

Will you explain how an experimental fee structure may be used locally at the 

Acadia National Park? 

Answer. Thank you for your interest and questions regarding re-authorization of 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. At Acadia National Park, the ability of the National Park Service to retain 80% of the fees collected here has helped 

greatly in tackling backlogged maintenance and the improvement of public resources such as hiking trails, carriage roads, motor roads, and visitor services. If 

FLREA were not reauthorized and Acadia was to lose this funding, the Park’s maintenance backlog would grow exponentially, and public enjoyment would suffer. 

Although we cannot speak for the Park Service itself, Friends of Acadia believes 

that it is important to consider providing the authority for parks to implement experimental fee structures in order to enable incentives (or disincentives) through fee 

structure that would support and reinforce other resource management objectives. 

For example, here at Acadia National Park, we wrestle during the peak summer 

season with congestion of too many private automobiles and tour buses at the most 

popular park destinations at Acadia. This can damage natural resources and detract 

from the quality of a visitor’s experience. 

Over the last several years, we have developed an alternative transportation system, the fare free, low-emissions Island Explorer bus system. This system has 

proved very popular and effective; however, its use by the public remains voluntary. 

We believe that in order for it to be most effective at reducing congestion and preserving natural and cultural resources within the park, the public needs more incentives to ride it-or disincentives to bring their private vehicle into the park. One way 

to do so (since the bus is already free of charge for passengers) is to give Acadia 

the ability to increase the park entrance fee for those wishing to bring a private 

vehicle into the park. At present, visitors pay $20 for a week’s vehicle pass in Acadia and $5 for those visiting solo by bicycle or foot or riding the Island Explorer. 

What if Acadia had the ability to charge $20 per day for those who wish to bring 

their own vehicle in, but $20/week for those on foot, bike or using public transportation? This would likely result in more fee revenue for the Park and less vehicular 

congestion and resource degradation. Exceptions could be made for those visitors 

with physical disabilities who require their own private vehicle or local residents 

who may pass in and out of the park daily commuting to work or school (Acadia 

is unique in how its boundary weaves in and out of dozens of surrounding villages). 

I use this as only one example of how different parks may benefit from the ability 

to apply differing fee structures, based on the unique aspects of their own resource 

management and visitor experience issues. The current Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act has been successful to date in part because it already does give 

the Park Service a reasonable level of control of policy and application; even greater 

gains could be made with additional flexibility to tailor fee structures to increase 

revenue while complementing other park-specific management objectives. 

70 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify last month and to provide additional information in response to your question. I would be glad to discuss any 

of these issues further as the Committee continues work on this important topic. 

All of us at Friends of Acadia endorse efforts to reauthorize and strengthen the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

RESPONSE OF CRAIG D.OBEY TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. The Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America’s National 

Parks report, calls for ‘‘Park Zone Taxes’’ through increased sales or property taxes 

for gateway communities. The report singles out Estes Park, Colorado, Gatlinburg, 

Tennessee, and Moab, Utah. Such a proposal would also include places like Jackson, 

Wyoming and here in Washington, DC with all the national parks in the district. 

Does the National Park Conservation Association support going to cities and 

towns and asking them to increase taxes? 

Answer. The collection of discussion papers entitled Sustainable Supplementary 

Funding for America’s National Parks: Ideas for Parks Community Discussion was 

compiled by numerous individuals who represented diverse groups and views. The 

concepts contained in that piece were put forward for discussion and consideration 

at a March 19, 2013 symposium hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center. NPCA was 

a lead group organizing this event and compiling those sixteen discussion ideas, 

along with the National Parks Hospitality Association. 

In an introductory letter prefacing those discussion drafts, former NPCA president 

Tom Kiernan and National Parks Hospitality Association’s Derrick Crandall clarified: 

‘‘At the invitation of NPCA and NPHA, funding and national parks experts have drafted 16 papers outlining strategies that could be employed to 

increase non-appropriated funding for the national parks. The papers are 

rich in concepts and examples and are designed to spark conversation and 

comment. They do not represent the positions of NPCA, NPHA or any other 

organization. Each paper includes the name of those who contributed to the 

paper and who have also offered to receive and share your thoughts and 

the thoughts of others who care about America’s national parks.’’ 

As noted at the conclusion of that paper, Park Zone Taxes, NPCA was not the 

contributor of that particular paper though welcomed the concept as one among 

many worthy of discussion that were submitted. 

Some communities may elect to pursue park zone taxes that can help augment 

federal funding, as happened recently with St. Louis area residents who supported 

Proposition P, a sales tax increase to help fund trail and park improvements and 

renovations to the Gateway Arch. But NPCA has not taken a position on that concept. 

Another recommendation in the report is raising the fuel tax. 

Does the NPCA support raising the national fuel tax on fuel? 

As I noted in my written testimony for this hearing: 

Approximately half of the National Park Service’s backlog is attributable 

to transportation infrastructure, some of which is an integral part of the 

basic national highway infrastructure system. While the Park Service provides for some transportation needs through its operations account, the 

most significant source of relevant revenue is the $240 million our parks 

receive every year from the transportation bill. ‘‘Penny for Parks’’ would be 

a partnership with the American people to dedicate one cent from any adjustment to the federal gas tax index towards addressing the transportation 

infrastructure in national parks and other public lands. 

. . . As Congress begins its work to reauthorize MAP-21, now scheduled 

to expire in October 2014, it should stop treating national parks and public 

lands as incidental or secondary assets, but rather as the core federal assets that they are, including significant transportation systems that serve 

states, communities, and park visitors. How Congress and the Administration will choose to fund a reauthorization is an open question. But NPCA 

believes Congress should devote a user fee equivalent to a penny per gallon 

from the gas tax for our national parks (emphasis added). The park transportation infrastructure backlog could be reduced within approximately six 

years to a level that can be addressed through annual DOT surface transportation appropriations and NPS cyclical maintenance. 

71 

NPCA has not taken a position on raising the national fuel tax. The Highway 

Trust Fund that provides for the funding needs of roads in national parks is on the 

verge of becoming insolvent. Indexing the fuel tax is one avenue being discussed by 

lawmakers for replenishing this account. In the event Congress takes that step, 

NPCA is asking for a user fee equivalent to a penny per gallon from the gas tax 

to be applied to the park roads backlog. In the event Congress takes an alternative 

approach to replenishing that fund, we would request an equivalent amount to meet 

the needs of park roads. 

RESPONSES OF GERARD GABRYS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Mr. Gabrys, in your testimony you made reference to the Ski Area 

Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act which I cosponsored with Senator Udall 

and subsequently became law in 2011. The legislation allowed the Forest Service 

to facilitate additional recreational opportunities at ski areas. What revenue generating visitor services could park concessioners provide to the public? 

Answer. Thank you for your efforts on the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, which is already bringing better experiences to visitors to national 

forests and economic benefits to communities near ski areas on national forests as 

year-round employment increases. 

Concessioner operations in national parks face many of the same challenges your 

legislation addressed for ski area permittees in national forests. Visitor infrastructure is utilized for a small portion of the year, yet the peak visitation period has 

dominated agency thinking and prevented the use of best practices commonplace in 

the tourism field, from variable pricing and yield management to cooperative marketing efforts. Here are possible opportunities concessioners would seek to expand 

where appropriate in national parks, ideally under provisions similar to your ski 

areas bill: 

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

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

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

• Seminars on using the outdoors for health 

• Healthy and sustainable foods showcase weekends 

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

• Guided mountain bike tours on trails not normally allowing biking 

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

• Backcountry fishing trips 

• Special interpretation activities for kids 

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

• Zip lines 

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

• Kayak rentals 

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

• Electric bike rentals where regular bikes are rented 

• Watchable wildlife tours 

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

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

• Voluntourism programs 

• Additional services to international visitors and group tours 

The economic activity from these new services will generate new franchise fee receipts for the National Parks Service, 80% retained in the collecting park, and also 

provide encouragement to concessioners for investing funds in park visitor facilities. 

Question 2. In your testimony, you state that the ‘‘visitor services you provide in 

national parks are often inhibited by park policies which limit visitor experiences 

and reduce payments, or franchise fees, to the agency.’’ What park policies are deterring these types of opportunities? 

Answer. Virtually every park inhibits concessioner efforts to meet changing visitor 

needs. In the submitted testimony, we described how the limit on passengers allowed on the high speed ferry accessing Dry Tortugas National Park reduces park 

use from allowed levels by up to 10,000 visitors annually, and thus reduces potential 

revenues by $250,000 annually. Curfews on access to Alcatraz and the Statue of Liberty-constraining evening visits-cost these units hundreds of thousands of visitors 

annually-and again, lead to substantial unrealized revenues. Off-season group business and special events are subject to NPS review and denials. Price approvals are 

required, frequently burdensome and are rarely offered more than 12-18 months 

out, when travel industry marketing standards often require pricing 2-3 years in adVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
72 

vance. Integration of park, entrance fee and recreation fee pricing is rare, and creates economic barriers and visitor-unfriendly situations for such offerings as cruises 

on Lake Mead. We also believe that NPS policies such as Director’s Order 21 inhibits concessioner efforts to assist overall visitor experiences through such programs 

as the Guest Donation Program, although we are delighted to see NPS taking action 

on this policy. 

In its strategy for the next century of success outlined in A Call to Action, the 

NPS identifies a need for nimbleness and use of partners. The overall relationship 

between the agency and its concessioners, however, reflects a very different strategy: very detailed management. In one major park, the agency requires the park 

concessioner to sell cans of soda at three different prices within an easy walk-even 

though the cans of soda are purchased by the concessioner at the same price from 

the distributor. The park unit’s concessions office specifies differing selling prices at 

a snack bar, a full service restaurant and a convenience store operated by the same 

concessioner. Concessioners would like to test out new services to establish visitor 

interest-but the process to define the service and gain price approval is a significant 

barrier. 

And we must also note the consequences of lawsuits on the National Park Service. 

The courts have required management of some park agencies to meet provisions of 

laws as diverse as the Endangered Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

and the NPS has in some cases incorporated curtailment of visitor services as the 

best solution to this direction-as the agency did in its draft plan for Yosemite’s 

Merced River Corridor. 

RESPONSE OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 1. There is a proposal to establish a Mountains-to-Sound Greenway National Heritage Area in Washington state. It is the culmination of successful collaboration among local community groups, businesses, and governments at all levels, 

from the Governor to the counties and cities. 

This proposal seeks to recognize the strong connections between people and nature in the Pacific Northwest. The proposed Heritage Area includes working farms 

and forests, 1,600 miles of trails, rivers, lakes, ski areas, and much more. Over 1.4 

million people live within the boundary of the proposed Heritage Area and two 

thirds of the land within the boundary is conserved under permanent protection- including the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area which is one of the most used wilderness 

areas in the nation. The proposed area demonstrates how the interaction of communities, businesses, and nature contributes to our heritage in the Pacific Northwest 

and continues to be an economic driver for the region. 

The Greenway has a great story of community conservation that has provided national leadership in the cleanup of waterways (e.g. Lake Washington in the 1950’s), 

open space conservation (e.g. the Forward Thrust Initiative in the 1960’s), farmland 

preservation in the 1980’s, the Greenway initiative in the 1990’s, and the green 

building and sustainability movement currently underway. 

Unfortunately, the Park Service, during its initial review of the proposal as outlined in the Greenway Feasibility Study, did not find that it merits a National Heritage Area designation. I hope that the Park Service will look at all of the resources 

present in this area and think about how such a living history of this great environmental heritage really docs deserve to be recognized as a National Heritage Area. 

Director Jarvis, how do you think the National Heritage Area designation can be 

used to recognize more recent and living histories? Will you work with me and others on this widely supported proposal to designate the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway as a National Heritage Area? 

Answer. National Heritage Area (NHA) designation recognizes landscapes that 

are associated with important events, individuals, and historically significant cultural groups. Many NHAs already celebrate the living history and traditions of their 

regions. While NHA designation could certainly be used to recognize more recent 

history, contributing historic and cultural sites are a necessary component of any 

NHA. 

National Park Service staff from the Pacific West Region and Washington, D.C. 

offices have reviewed the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area 

Feasibility Study of January 2012 according to our interim guidelines. While the 

NPS does not offer an official recommendation regarding the suitability ofNHA designation until we are asked to provide testimony on a pending bill before Congress, 

based on our review, the study does not meet the evaluation criteria as outlined in 

the guidelines. Attached is a copy of our response letter that was sent to the appliVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
73 

cant. I would be glad to discuss this with you or to provide additional information 

about the review process and the feasibility study criteria. 

RESPONSES OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PORTMAN

Question 1. Director Jarvis, as you may know, when I was OMB director, I worked 

with both parties in Congress to secure support for a partnership program that provided needed financial support for the parks. When Secretary Jewell testified before 

this committee she stated the administration is planning for the park service centennial. Can you provide any further details of that plan? 

Answer. 2016 marks the 100111 anniversary of the National Park Service— a defining moment that offers the opportunity to ret1ect on and celebrate our accomplishments as we prepare for a new century of stewardship and engagement. 

In 2011, the National Park Service launched A Call to Action, a strategic plan 

for employees and partners that describes specific goals and measurable actions that 

will guide the NPS as it enters its second century. Public listening sessions and ongoing feedback from visitors and other stakeholders continue to inform planning efforts for additional special programs, commemorations, and communications strategies. 

Partnership programs that provide needed financial support to the parks are another important component of our plan. This past November, the NPS, in partnership with the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, kicked otT the 

tirst phase of a centennial campaign that will culminate in a strategy for introducing the National Park Service to the next generation of Americans. This work 

is entirely funded by the National Park Foundation through its development efforts. 

This effort, as well as our experience with the Centennial Challenge—a successful 

matching fund through which the National Park Service was able to utilize the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations request to help us incentivize private donations with 

a Federal match—makes us confident that our donors will continue to respond to 

the types of partnership programs you mentioned. 

Question 2. Do you plan to work with Congress to craft an agenda for the centennial? 

Answer. The National Park Service is committed to a broadly collaborative planning process. In addition to the valuable engagement of our constituencies in the 

early stages of developing a strategic plan, the NPS has established an external 

Centennial Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from the recreation, 

hospitality, tourism, youth and education, and local business communities. As we 

continue to move forward with our planning process, we welcome the involvement 

of Congress. We also look forward to Senators’ participation in centennial activities 

in their states and would welcome your help in inviting your constituents to visit 

national parks and take advantage of the services we offer in their communitiesnot only during the centennial, but every day. 

Question 3. The upcoming centennial will be crucial for the future of our parks, 

because in these difficult fiscal times it is especially important to recognize the need 

for new funding strategies to enhance and maintain the quality of the national park 

experience and continue preserving natural, cultural and historic resources. Do you 

agree that the upcoming centennial is an excellent opportunity to engage all of those 

who utilize and benefit from our national parks in helping prepare for their future? 

Answer. We certainly agree that the upcoming centennial is an excellent opportunity to engage the broad community of park visitors, stakeholders, and partners 

in helping prepare for their future. We also believe it is an opportunity-and our 

responsibility- to reach out beyond current visitors and partners to invite all Americans to understand, visit, cherish and support these places that belong to all Americans. 

As noted above, the National Park Service has established an external Centennial 

Advisory Committee to ensure involvement and input in our preparations from a 

wide range of stakeholders and partners. This committee is charged with assisting 

the Servicein broad engagement across our many park partner organizations, in addition to providing its advice and feedback based on its members’ unique perspectives. 

An important component of the centennial will be a broad communications strategy. With the generous support of, and in collaboration with, the National Park 

Foundation, we will launch a public outreach campaign to build greater awareness 

and deepen engagement with the public and invite their support in everything from 

volunteerism to increased private philanthropy. 

Question 4. It is important that the 2016 centennial not just focus on a single 

year, but help engage the public in a lasting commitment to supporting their National Parks. How will the Department of the Interior and the National Park ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
74 

ice utilize the momentum of the centennial to prepare the parks for their next 100 

years of service? 

Answer. The National Park Service centennial will be a celebration of the ideals 

of conservation, recreation, and heritage embodied in all of our public lands. Building upon the National Parks Second Century Commission Report and the President’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, the NPS has been engaged with a wide 

variety of stakeholders and partners to shape a vision of this celebration that celebrates the Service’s past while recommitting us to a second century of exemplary 

stewardship and public enjoyment of these special places. 

We are committed to ensuring that all of our centennial activities, outreach, and 

programs support the strategic goals articulated in the National Park Service’s A 

Call to Action-our strategic plan for the next century of stewardship and public enjoyment. With the launch of A Call to Action, there is already a great deal of energy, 

enthusiasm, and alignment within the agency and our community of partners in 

meeting the challenges of our next century. 

With the generous support of the National Park Foundation, our public outreach 

campaign will help to build engagement, raise awareness and drive support for our 

second century of stewardship on behalf of the American people. 

Question 5. In 2011, the House/Senate Conference Committee Report encouraged 

the National Park Service to use innovative solutions like historic leases to help 

mitigate the growing backlog of historic structures in need of preservation. (H.R. 

2055, 112 Cong. Comm. Rep. No. 112-33l (at 1056). Will you please provide the committee with information on how many historic leases NPS has entered in to? 

Answer. The NPS system for tracking leases does not identify which are leases 

of historic facilities and which are leases of non-historic facilities. We currently 

track the number of leases, both historic and non-historic, with terms in excess of 

one year. Nationally, there are 86 leases with terms in excess of one year. 

Question 6. Do you consider historic leases in parks to be a viable way to help 

parks mitigate the operation and maintenance backlog? 

Answer. The NPS agrees that leasing is a valuable tool and that there is a need 

to expand its leasing program. To that end, the NPS is currently assessing opportunities to broaden the application of its leasing program. Leasing generally works 

well in urban areas where favorable market fundamentals and business opportunities exist-Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a great example. The NPS is 

working to improve the use of leasing by developing a more active leasing program, 

leasing-specific training, and encouraging urban parks to reassess their commercial 

services and historic building stock for leasing opportunities. 

Leasing is one tool the NPS can use to address its maintenance backlog, but it 

is limited by market forces and the up-front investment that many structures require-an initial cost that the NPS must cover. Further, leasing cannot help with the 

large portion of deferred maintenance that is tied to park infrastructure, trails, and 

transportation assets. 

Question 7. In addition to being an incredible place to visit and spend time outdoors, the park has gone to great lengths to establish a model education program. 

The program has grown to become a core part of school curriculum in North East 

Ohio. The park serves over 3,500 children in week long residential programs and 

8,000 in field trips and day camps. This has helped the park reach out to underserved communities and develop innovative programs to work with urban neighborhoods in Cleveland and Akron. Much of this work is funded via philanthropic support. How can the National Park Service support parks like CVNP in their efforts 

in urban outreach and education? 

Answer. The National Park Service is committed to increasing opportunities for 

education in the parks and connecting urban students with the National Parks in 

their communities. Park-based education programs strengthen and complement 

classroom learning. The parks are dynamic classrooms where people interact with 

real places, landscapes, historic structures, and other tangible resources that help 

them understand the stories and concepts they learned in traditional classrooms. 

In February of2012, the National Park Service led an effort that resulted in a 

signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Education and 

the Department of the Interior to maximize the usc of federal lands and resources 

to enhance educational opportunities for the American public. The National Park 

Service has utilized this agreement to expand opportunities for park-based education to high need schools through partnerships with professional and youth organizations and programs such as teacher training and field trips. 

In addition, the National Park Foundation is working with local partners to provide resources for educators to use national parks as sources of content and active 

learning that meet state and federal standards. This has allowed parks and partners to increase teacher development opportunities including workshops, in-depth 

75 

subject matter seminars, and summer educator internships opportunities. The National Park Service is working with the National Park Foundation to secure private 

sponsorships for these and other educational opportunities delivered by partners 

and park staff. 

Question 8. CVNP has grown its volunteer program, co-managed by the park and 

the Conservancy, to 5,900 volunteers and over 200,000 hours annually. Their volunteers include youth, families, corporations and individuals from diverse backgrounds. How is the National Park Service addressing policies to support philanthropy and the park mission? 

Answer. Meeting the NPS mission requires the support of a strong community of 

citizens who are engaged in and committed to meeting the challenges and celebrating the successes of civic collaboration. Volunteerism is gaining recognition as 

a critical management tool, and through wise investment, this tool can provide an 

enormous advantage to National Parks and the communities they serve. There is 

an increasing need and opportunity for expanding NPS volunteer engagement and 

management throughout the Service by way of philanthropic and sponsorship funds. 

Volunteers-In-Parks (VII’s) are especially crucial in helping the NPS achieve its outreach, stewardship, and education goals. The NPS is also working closely with the 

National Park Foundation to engage citizens in multiple layers of stewardship and 

philanthropy, thereby creating more long- term, sustainable civic relationships. 

(77) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

JOINT STATEMENT OF ROBERT GISH, PRESIDENT, BACK COUNTRY HORSEMEN OF

WASHINGTON, ELLENSBURG, WA, AND SHERRY BAYSINGER, MEMBER, WASHINGTON

OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION, PORT ANGELES, WA 

The use of saddle and pack stock on our public lands and in our National Parks 

has been a mainstay of backcountry service on these lands back to when the nation 

assumed authority for them. John Muir was a stock user. Teddy Roosevelt was a 

stock user. Gifford Pinchot was a stock user. In Wilderness, the use of stock has 

been the only method for outfitters, guides, agencies, and volunteers to transport 

people and materials into the backcountry in order to accomplish trail maintenance 

as well as fulfill the vision of the Wilderness Act that all Americans can have access 

to our wild lands. It is not an easy life to be a packer, an outfitter, or a volunteer 

stock handler. It has though been a way of life for many past and current stockmen, 

and it is unfortunately becoming a dying art. NPS crews struggle to maintain funding for their mule strings. Outfitters, often the first to clear trails, have to battle 

social prejudices, high insurance costs, and politically motivated rules that lead to 

endless litigation and difficulties getting meaningful permits that allow for businesses to stay in business. The hardships on the land often pale when compared 

to the hardships in the constant social, legal, and political wrangling that fail to provide the substance that keeps our public lands trails open and accessible. 

We did have high hopes for the Department of Interior’s America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative until it became clear it wasn’t targeted for all Americans. It 

seemed designed for or gravitated to a specific strata of urban society that have little connection with the land or rural lifestyles. This policy to drift with social norms 

is not new. No place is this clearer than Mt Rainier National Park. Stock use was 

unnecessarily eliminated on all but one trail (plus a segment of the PCT). The result 

is that upkeep is strong along the main arterials but many of the outer more distant 

trails are falling into disrepair without stock support. Stock use was not eliminated 

because of environmental impacts but because they were simply unwanted due to 

a new social order dominated by an urban society. This same pressure to eliminate 

stock use by a culture unused to rural lifestyles is relentlessly playing out around 

the country at places like Yosemite National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, and in the Pasyaten Wilderness of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest. The public lands agencies are given up on the value of heritage and roots 

except for casting them in Ken Burns’ documentaries. Many will say it is simply 

out with the old, in with the new, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that it is the old 

that provided the cultural heritage for our nation. 

Back Country Horsemen of American is this year celebrating 40 years of providing 

volunteer service to our nation’s public lands. These were years of hard work out 

in the National Parks and National Forests. Many of these workers know well how 

to sharpen chainsaws and guide a pack string, but they couldn’t tell you the first 

thing about writing an amicus brief for a litigation proceeding or even testifying before a Senate Committee. What they can tell you is that no amount of agency funding will make a significant difference as long as hard working Americans are treated as second class citizens and subject to layers of regulations that may make sense 

in Washington DC or for courtroom gamesmanship but have little merit on the 

ground. Outfitters should not have to push for a decade to get reauthorization of 

their permits, or whether there will be adequate heartbeat allowances and service 

days to fill some of the few real jobs left in rural communities. Agency stock crews 

should not have to worry from year to year whether they there will be money available to support their working animals. Volunteers should be able to continue to use 

chainsaws to effectively clear National Park trails within Wilderness, and they 

should be able to pack their saws with stock. Yes, even once again at Mt. Rainier 

National Park. 

78 

What will keep our National Parks accessible and in good order will be a unified 

effort by agency crews, youth corps, outfitters, experienced contractors, and volunteers, all having access to the use of saddle and pack stock on trails that are kept 

open for them, legally and physically. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present some of our views, 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HARRELL, TENNESSEE RESIDENT

I would like to take this opportunity to voice my concern and opposition to the 

fees imposed by the National Park Service, specifically the Backcountry Fees in the 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

I am an avid backpacker and have been enjoying the backcountry of the GSMNP 

for many years. I have introduced my son to backpacking and he is the next generation of backpackers who will enjoy the Smokys which are right here in our backyard. Since the implementation of the fee back in February however, we have found 

that the experience is not as satisfying. There are lots of wilderness areas, State 

Parks and National Forests in the area that are free to access and the experience 

is just as satisfying. The grounds of which this fee was implemented were based on 

false information, a lack of real data, and done so with an attitude of disregard and 

lack of concern for the true stewards of the Park. The process which was in place 

was not broken, there was no need for a new system to be put in place, and the 

new system is not user as effective as the public was told. I’m sure there will be 

many specific instances brought to light as to the numerous and erroneous excuses 

this fee was forced on to the backpackers of the GSMNP. If the committee will truly 

examine the facts and numbers, then one can see that the current administration 

of the GSMNP hoodwinked us all into taxing and segregating a user group of the 

Park. After all, backpackers have less impact on the Park itself than any other user 

group, in the park including Horseback riders, who destroy the trail, day hikers, 

who require an abundance of assistance and abuse the trails and property, and auto 

tourist who are sitting with idling exhaust for hours. The backpackers and users 

of the backcountry are the ones who are paying the only fees to access and stay in 

the backcountry. 

It is with great concern, that I ask you to present this and any other concerns 

you may have gotten, to the committee as opposition to this unjust tax and fee for 

the backcountry use in the GSMNP. 

Thank you for your assistance and attention to this issue. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND COALITION

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Coalition comprises over a thousand conservation, recreation, business, and sportsmen’s groups located in every 

state working together to support all facets of the LWCF program in order to meet 

America’s conservation and recreation needs in the 21st century. The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide our views on the issue of addressing the National Park Service’s backlog of maintenance needs. 

As the Committee is aware, LWCF has its own funding source derived mainly 

from annual OCS revenues, and its currently authorized conservation activities can 

help alleviate the existing maintenance backlog while providing many other conservation and recreation benefits. The LWCF Coalition believes that there must be 

a long-term solution for both the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog and 

the continued diversion of LWCF funds away from their intended purpose. We also 

believe unequivocally that this solution must not involve the repurposing of LWCF’s 

existing funding stream, or in any way restricting or limiting the now-authorized 

use of LWCF to acquire the property interests—fee and easement, by NPS or other 

federal and nonfederal agencies-that meet conservation and recreation needs across 

the country, address pressing landowner needs, and maintain the very heart and 

soul of our national parks and other public land areas. 

History of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

LWCF has its own funding source, drawn mainly from annual OCS revenues that 

far exceed the amounts credited to the Fund. In FY2012, the last year that data 

is available, OCS revenues were over $6.8 billion, far larger than the $900 million 

slated for LWCF or the $322.8 million that all programs under the LWCF actually 

received [NOTE: NPS acquisitions are just one facet of annual LWCF investments.] 

OCS revenues are scheduled to grow in the coming years, though the allocated 

amount for LWCF—$900 million a year—has gone unchanged since the late 1970s. 

These revenues are a promise made to the many communities across America that 

79 

rely on these resource lands, and on the conservation and recreation economies they 

support. They are essentially a capital account, to be reinvested in lands of lasting 

value to all Americans-NOT an operating account to be diverted to annual upkeep 

needs. 

LWCF has a nearly 50-year history of bipartisan support and has been utilized 

in every state and county in the country as a critical tool to create state and local 

outdoor recreation opportunities, open up key areas-making public lands public - for 

hunting, fishing and other recreational access, keep working forests working, acquire inholdings and protect critical lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, wild and scenic river corridors, national scenic and historic 

trails, Civil War battlefields, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federal 

areas. 

Places such as the Columbia River Gorge, Cube Cove in the Tongass National 

Forest, the Dakota Grasslands, Mount Rainier National Park, Green Mountain National Forest, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park, Voyageurs National Park, Red 

River National Wildlife Refuge, Great Sand Dunes National Park, Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, Grand Teton National Park, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, 

Ace Basin National Wildlife Refuge, Cherokee National Forest and Cuyahoga National Park have all benefited from LWCF investments. These projects have provided enhanced recreational access to popular outdoor areas, safeguarded watersheds critical to local economies, preserved natural areas and wildlife habitat, and 

have supported local economies and jobs through increased outdoor recreation. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund can help create management savings 

The LWCF Coalition believes it is wholly inaccurate to suggest that land acquisitions add to the backlog of maintenance needs. Purchase of inholdings and properties adjacent to existing boundaries can help solve management problems and reduce costs rather than add to them. Most lands acquired with LWCF funds are 

within the existing boundaries of federal parks, refuges, forests and other recreation 

areas, and much of the rest is used for conservation easements and state grants 

which do not add to federal management costs. Agencies generally avoid acquisitions with burdensome infrastructure improvements that require significant capital 

investments. An added inholding parcel generally does not increase management 

presence; rather, management is usually just absorbed within existing stewardship 

costs. 

Consolidation of inholdings has many benefits for land management agencies and 

the public. These acquisitions reduce the costs of internal boundary line surveying, 

resolve rights-of-way conflicts, and help agencies address long-standing and costly 

management issues such as invasive species, fire management and special use permits. These benefits enhance visitor experiences and allow managers to focus their 

attention on other pressing needs. 

Many LWCF projects provide management savings to the individual land management agencies. For example, in Mt. Rainier National Park, an LWCF acquisition allowed the Park Service to address a costly and frequent road washout. Projects in 

the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

greatly reduce fire management costs. The Ophir Valley project in Uncompahgre 

National Forest reduced boundary maintenance costs and allowed the Forest Service 

to more effectively treat invasive species. Rocky Fork in Cherokee National Forest 

reduced wildfire costs, allowed for more effective noxious weed treatments, obviated 

the need for costly watershed restoration and reduced boundary line maintenance. 

These projects and many others reduce land management costs while providing critical conservation benefits. 

Benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Projects 

Investments in LWCF stimulate our nation’s economy, create jobs and shore up 

our infrastructure. LWCF makes a substantial contribution to these critical priorities by strategically securing the economic asset that our federal, state and local 

public lands represent. Hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor recreation activities contribute a total of $646 billion annually to the economy, supporting 6.1 

million jobs. Whether manufacturing, retail or service related, most of these jobs are 

sustainable resource or tourism-based jobs and cannot be exported, with magnified 

impacts in local and rural communities. LWCF drives local economies not just by 

helping recreation lands to keep up with population and development pressure, but 

creates and protects jobs in our working forests and on working farms and ranches. 

With changing land use and ownership patterns, historic recreational access is 

being cut off or blocked in many areas. Often, vast expanses of public land are separated from roads and towns by narrow strips that are in private ownership, necessiVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
80 

tating a 40-mile drive to access hunting or fishing grounds only a few miles away. 

Continued strategic LWCF investments protect the economic asset that is our public 

lands, preventing incompatible development and enhancing access to outdoor recreation opportunities. For example, all public access points along West Virginia’s 

Lower and Middle Gauley River, which is used by over 50,000 people annually, were 

made possible by LWCF funding. Access to Pennsylvania’s popular Youghiogheny 

River in Ohiopyle was built in the mid-1970’s with LWCF funding. Other purchases 

connect existing public lands or create expanded parking and trailhead access. 

In other cases, creation of new federal units is important to the American public 

as a way to commemorate key moments in our history. For example, LWCF funds 

allowed for the successful protection of the new Flight 93 National Memorial, dedicated to the brave Americans who gave their lives on 9/11. While these new units 

and associated LWCF acquisition authority are not the norm, they are meaningful 

additions to our uniquely American history and are made possible through the existence of the LWCF program. 

Conclusion 

While inadequate funding of the NPS operations and maintenance budget is a 

critical problem that Congress needs to address, LWCF was created nearly 50 years 

ago to serve different, diverse and equally critical needs and to provide an assetfor-asset permanent investment on behalf of the American people. Diversion of 

LWCF funds to write down the maintenance backlog would violate this time-honored concept. LWCF and maintenance investments should continue to move forward 

in tandem to safeguard our country’s natural and cultural heritage, and polls show 

that Americans do not support robbing one in order to slap a temporary bandage 

on the other. The LWCF Coalition believes that there must be a long-term solution 

for both problems but that this solution must not involve the repurposing of LWCF’s 

existing funding stream. 

We stand ready to work with the Committee to find this solution. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to present our views on this challenging issue. 

STATEMENT OF PETER WIECHERS, KERNVILLE CA 

I am writing in regard to the Senate hearing on National Park fees which will 

be held Thursday July 25. I am requesting that this note be included as part of the 

public record. 

I am especially dismayed by the idea of dynamic pricing (charging more for park 

admittance during more popular times of the year). This sort of thing might be okay 

for freeways during rush hour, but not so for ‘‘America’s Best Idea.’’ 

I don’t like the idea of supposedly upgrading National Park Campgrounds to include such things as wifi. In fact, I think the private sector is doing a fine job with 

this sort of stuff in the gateway areas just outside of our National Parks. Let’s keep 

it that way. 

In three years I will be retiring. Soon thereafter I will qualify for a discounted 

lifetime Senior Pass. I would like to still have this pass available to me when I qualify for it. 

It’s my understanding that National Parks Director Jon Jarvis will be testifying. 

It is also my understanding that he has been an advocate for removing economic 

barriers so that all Americans can have access to our parks. I would hope that he 

(and Congress) actually believe this and will not capitulate to the commercial interests who view our public lands in the same vein as the marketing of fast food and 

laundry detergent. 

Thank you. 

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, 

July 23, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

We applaud this week’s hearing ‘‘to consider supplemental funding options to support the National Park Service’s efforts to address deferred maintenance and operational needs.’’ Our organizations have worked actively for the past several years 

to explore these options and feel certain that, while continued significant general 

funding of the National Park Service is both necessary and appropriate, there are 

81 

1See National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Park Research: The State of America’s National Parks, June 2011, pp. 22-33. 2 See National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Park Research: The State of America’s National Parks, June 2011. (‘‘National park cultural resources are often ignored and consistently underfunded.’’ P. 4) (... ‘‘the Center for Park Research found that the National Park 

Service is increasingly unprepared to meet its heritage preservation management challenges 

now and during its second century.’’ P.24); National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA): 

Saving Our History: A Review of National Park Cultural Resource Programs, 2008; the National 

Parks Second Century Commission: Advancing the National Park Idea, 2009. These three reContinued 

important steps that can be taken to provide both supplementary and sustainable 

funding for the agency and its responsibilities. 

We especially ask that this letter and the accompanying document, entitled ‘‘Sustainable Supplementary Funding for America’s National Parks,’’ be made a part of 

the record of your full committee hearing on July 25, 2013. The document consists 

of sixteen white papers prepared for a session hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center in March 2013. The March session hosted by the Center generated broad and 

bipartisan interest and support. The white papers, which represent proposals by the 

authors and not necessarily by sponsoring organizations, are now the subject of 

working groups and pilot projects which, together, leave us excited and optimistic 

about the potential to find common ground on various ways to supplement funding 

for our national parks. The papers are also under review by the National Park Service. 

We would be pleased to facilitate one or more briefings for committee and member 

staff to explain ideas of interest and answer questions. 

Thank you for this opportunity to assist your important efforts regarding America’s national parks. 

Sincerely, 

THERESA PIERNO, 

Acting President, National Parks Conservation Association. 

DERRICK CRANDALL, 

Counselor, National Parks Hospitality Association. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA WHITE, SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR

I am an avid user of the park system here in Florida as well as many years when 

I lived in the western U.S. Please consider that we have a very poor tax base here 

in Florida and thus we are paid poorly for college level jobs. I have always been 

thrilled that I could use the parks and it was within my meager budget as a teacher. 

By the same token (involving money or lack of it), the problem has arisen here 

in the Ocala National Forest-it is a prime example of a lawless, sprawling area that 

most people are afraid to visit and use. This is such a shame and we all realize that 

it would take tax dollars and law enforcement to make our forest usable again. This 

is so very SAD-it (Ocala National Forest) is the worst case of misuse of public lands 

(meth labs, criminals, etc. who LIVE in the forest) that I have ever seen. I lived 

out west for years in northern Az. where they managed the parks MUCH better. 

I was never in fear for my life when I hiked out there! 

It would be ideal to keep costs very low for people like myself but also be able 

to keep the parks clean and SAFE. I know this takes money. Please do your best 

in the voting days ahead to consider and address both issues. 

Respectfully, 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. GRAVES, PRESIDENT, PARTNERS IN PRESERVATION, INC. 

The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act directs the National Park Service ‘‘to 

conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein 

and to provide for the enjoyment of same in such a manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ This directive 

presents a significant challenge for the National Park Service which currently is responsible for conserving 27,000 historic structures, 3,500 historic statutes and 

monuments, an estimated 2 million archaeological sites, 123 million museum objects 

and archival documents1 and 84 million acres of land within 401 park units. 

The National Park Service is failing to fulfill its mandate to preserve the nation’s 

historic resources.2 The National Park Service estimates that its deferred mainteVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:33 Sep 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82796.TXT WANDA
82 

ports document the dire condition of cultural resources within the National Parks. The vast majority of park units were established because of their historic and cultural significance. 3See Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for an Oversight Hearing 

to Consider Supplemental Funding Options to Support the National Park Service’s Efforts to 

Address Deferred Maintenance and Operational Needs, p. 2. 4The List of Classified Structures is a computerized inventory of all historic and prehistoric 

structures in which the NPS has, or plans to acquire, any legal interest. These structures have 

historical, architectural or engineering significance. Structures listed on LCS must either be listed individually or eligible for National Register listing or be a contributing element of a historic 

site or district that is listed or is eligible for listing on the National Register. 5See http://www.preservationnation.org/take-action/advocacy-center/preservation-funding/ 

budget. 6See US Department of Interior Budget Justifications and Performance Information for Fiscal 

Year 2013 National Park Service, p. 13 7See Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, p. 2. 

8 Advisory Council for Historic Preservation Progress Report dated September 30, 2008 and 

Report of the National Park Service Sept. 30, 2004 pursuant to Executive Order 13287 ‘‘Preserve 

America’’ Section 3 Improving Federal Agency Planning and Accountability. 9 A Report by John Hope Franklin and the National Park Service Advisory Board titled Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century: A Report of the National Park System Advisory Board issued in July, 2001 described the NPS as ‘‘a sleeping giant-beloved and respected, 

yes; but perhaps too cautious, too resistant to change, too reluctant to engage the challenges 

that must be addressed in the 21st century.’’ This assessment rings true today, especially at 

lower levels of the Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/policy/report.htm. Park Superintendents 

today have extraordinary control over what happens within a park unit. See NAPA, Saving Our 

History, 7. 

nance needs are currently $11.5 billion,3 of which $4.5 billion is for structures listed 

on the National Park Service’s List of Classified Structures.4 This staggering sum 

represents more than simply leaking rooftops; it represents the potential loss of our 

national heritage for future generations. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2,811 historic structures of national significance are in poor condition in the Park system.5 The NPS itself estimates that less than 60% of the historic structures it is responsible for maintaining are in good condition.6

Government funds alone will not resolve this crisis. In Fiscal Year 2012 the annual operating budget for the entire National Park Service was $2.2 billion.7 Clearly, private funds are needed to save the nation’s historic resources. Fiscal common 

sense requires the National Park Service to embrace public private partnerships to 

stem the loss of historic resources. 

Historic leases provide an opportunity to attract private capital and expertise to 

the challenges of the preservation of historic resources in parks. Leases offer a cost 

effective tool to preserve historic park structures that are underutilized and therefore at risk of deterioration. A historic lease shifts the burden of maintenance to the 

lessee during the duration of the lease term. In a historic lease, the lessee agrees 

to invest in the rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance of the leased structure in 

exchange for the right to use the structure. Depending on the condition of the property at the beginning of the lease term, the lessee may be required to pay rent. Because many of the historic structures available for leasing are not in pristine condition, many leases provide for lessee performed rehabilitation in lieu of rent. Historic 

leases offer a win win solution because they provide for privately funded preservation and maintenance and an opportunity for enhanced revenue for public park purposes. 

The value of historic leases is not only in the dollars generated in revenue but 

also in the value of rehabilitation, restoration and ongoing maintenance of park resources with private funds, saving taxpayer funds for other national priorities. 

Given the current federal budget restraints, the National Park Service is unlikely 

to ever have all of the funds necessary to preserve the 27,000 historic structures 

within the Park System. 

Unfortunately, the National Park Service has made only limited use of historic 

leases to date. According to the most recent information available from the Advisory 

Council of Historic Preservation 2008 Progress Report, in Fiscal Year 2007, 48 parks 

leased a total of 147 historic properties.8 This represents a small fraction of the historic properties eligible for historic leases. Bureaucratic obstacles must be overcome 

to save historic structures from demolition by neglect.9

In 2011, the House/Senate Conference Committee Report encouraged the National 

Park Service to use innovative solutions like historic leases to help mitigate the 

growing backlog of historic structures in need of preservation. (H.R. 2055, 112 Cong. 

Comm. Rep. No.112-331 (at 1056). It is not clear what actions the NPS has taken 

to expand the use of historic leases since 2011 or why the NPS has not made greater 

use of historic leases. Legislative action may be necessary to facilitate the greater 

83 

10 National Park Service Leasing Program Assessment Final Report: Finding and Recommendations by Kristen McConnell, Stephanie Hester, Geoff Kish. November, 2010. 11 Report of the National Park Service Sept. 30, 2004 pursuant to Executive Order 13287 ‘‘Preserve America’’ Section 3 Improving Federal Agency Planning and Accountability. See National 

Parks Conservation Association Center for Park Research: The State of America’s National 

Continued 

use of historic leases by the NPS. As members of the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee, you have the opportunity to direct the Park Service to pursue 

more historic leases or risk losing more of the nation’s historic assets. 

The legal framework for historic leases is well established. Leases are authorized 

by the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (16 USC 1a-2(k)) and Section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and comprehensive regulations are included in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 18. In addition, Director’s Order 38, issued on January 20, 2006 and the NPS Leasing Reference Manual, 

issued in 2005, provide substantial regulatory guidance. 

A recent report prepared by the Center for Park Management outlines the many 

benefits of historic leases. Benefits include: 

1. Underutilized park structures are restored 

2. Provides funding for historic preservation and maintenance 

3. Provides NPS with option to offer preservation tax credits 

4. NPS ownership of capital improvements made by lessee 

5.Repairs, renovation and maintenance of park facilities and infrastructure 

6.Reduces workload for park maintenance staff 

7.Reduces liability for hazardous assets 

8.Additional revenue for parks 

9.Park assets are refurbished with private sector development expertise and 

financing 

10. Assets continue to be well maintained, enhancing National Park Service 

mission 

11. Fosters economic growth in the local community 

12. Strengthens relationship between park and local business 

13. Outreach to community10

Parks that have pursued historic leases are enthusiastic about the benefits and 

believe that the program has real potential to address critical historic preservation 

needs. Historic leases have been granted in the following parks: 

Acadia National Park, ME 

Antietam National Battlefield, MD 

Appomattox Court House National Historic Park, VA 

Boston National Historical Park, MA 

Buffalo National River, AR 

Cape Cod National Seashore, MA 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historic Park, MD 

Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park, TN 

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreational Area, OH 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, PA 

Gateway National Recreation Area, NY/NJ 

Golden Gate National Recreational Area, CA 

Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, MT 

Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, IA 

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, OH 

Horse Shoe Bend National Military Park, AL 

Hot Springs National Park, AK 

Independence National Historical Park, PA 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, IN 

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, OR 

Keweenaw National Historical Park, MI 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, AK 

Lincoln Home National Historic Site, IL 

Lowell National Historic Park, MA 

Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, GA 

Pea Ridge National Military Park, AR 

San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, CA 

Shiloh National Military Park, TN 

Statue of Liberty National Monument, NY 

Valley Forge National Historic Park, PA11

84 

Parks, June 2011, p. 39 for information re historic lease at Valley Forge National Historical 

Park. 12 2009 National Parks Conservation Association State of Parks Report for Cumberland Island 

National Seashore. 

These leases include historic structures of all sizes and types and agricultural 

land. Each lease is crafted to the specific site’s needs but all of the leases require 

that any rehabilitation or restoration work meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards guaranteeing only quality work. Permitted uses include residential use, office 

space, hotels, bed & breakfasts, artist retreats and schools. Public interpretation or 

access may be required as part of the lease terms. 

Cumberland Island National Seashore offers a textbook example of how a historic 

lease could enhance the preservation of the Seashore’s historic resources. The Seashore was established in 1972 ‘‘in order to provide for public outdoor recreation, use 

and enjoyment of . shoreline, and waters... and to preserve related scenic, scientific, and historical values.’’ 16 U.S.C. 459i. The Seashore includes a myriad of 

diverse historic resources ranging from Native American shell middens to large historic mansions built by the Carnegie family. The National Park Service is responsible for the preservation of 82 individual historic structures and 47 known archeological sites. Park maintenance funds are inadequate, a fact acknowledged by park 

personnel and outside advocacy organizations.12

In December, 2010, at the conclusion of a use and occupancy agreement, the NPS 

gained control of the Grange and Beach Creek Dock House, two National Register 

listed structures. The Park Service does not have the funds to maintain these structures and they currently sit empty and unused. Partners in Preservation, Inc., a 

nonprofit organization, is willing to invest the necessary funds to preserve and 

maintain these two structures. However, the local superintendent prefers an alternative which will require over $2.5 million of appropriated funds which are not likely ever to be available. Other National Register listed structures within the Seashore have been lost to demolition by neglect due to inadequate park maintenance 

funds. A historic lease of these structures would guarantee their preservation and 

alleviate the ongoing maintenance burden on the National Park Service-a win, win, 

win for the public, the Park Service-and future generations. 

In sum, our nation’s heritage is at risk of being lost due to the lack of necessary 

public funds to preserve and protect historic resources within the National Park system. If the National Park Service embraces historic leases as a flexible, cost effective tool for public private partnerships in parks, many historic resources can be 

saved for the benefit of future generations. The time to act is now before more historic resources are lost forever. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GERSEN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, PUBLIC

LANDS SERVICE COALITION

On behalf of the Public Lands Service Coalition, I would like to provide testimony 

on the significant cost savings Conservation Corps provide the National Park Service on backlogged maintenance projects. A significant opportunity to utilize NPS 

funding more effectively is to engage conservation corps to complete backlog maintenance projects at a 50%+ savings. 

The Public Lands Service Coalition promotes youth service, jobs, and career development on public/tribal lands and waters. Each year, Coalition members engage 

more than 20,000 young people in jobs and service opportunities, and they are 

poised to expand greatly to address the record-high youth unemployment, the billions of dollars of backlogged maintenance needs on public lands, the need for a future federal public lands workforce, the national youth obesity epidemic, and the 

disengagement of youth from the great American outdoors. 

Experienced conservation corps programs engage thousands of young people on 

public and tribal lands and waters each year. Operating in all 50 states, these programs provide public and tribal land and water managers with an effective and efficient way to complete necessary and important projects and give young people opportunities to further their education and improve their career prospects, while 

building the next generation of land and water managers and resource stewards. 

Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often technical projects 

on public lands and waters. Project sponsors consistently express a high degree of 

satisfaction with the quality of work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all federal project partners (99.6%) say they would work with Corps again. Types of work 

include, but are not limited to: 

85 

• Protecting wildlife and preserving public lands and waters (ecological restoration); 

• Preparing communities for and responding to disasters, including wildfire; 

• Enhancing recreation on public lands; 

• Preserving historic structures; 

• Supporting individual placements and internships at the land and water management agencies. 

Cost Savings through Public Private Partnerships 

Corps work with the National Park Service through a fee-for-service project-based 

approach (conservation, restoration, and historic preservation) through cooperative 

agreements. 

The National Park Service (NPS) Park Facility Maintenance Division (PFMD) 

conducted a project analysis to determine how the costs of engaging a conservation 

corps to accomplish cyclic maintenance activities at national parks compares with 

the costs of using contractors or NPS crews. The project analysis determined that, 

on average, using conservation crews instead of NPS crews saved 65% with the minimum savings just 3% and the maximum savings 87%. The analysis found that the 

savings using conservation corps instead of contractor crews were even more significant with average savings of 83% and over $130,000 per project. 

Finally, it is estimated that the cost of two professional level SCA interns, is the 

same as one seasonal employee doing similar work. These public private partnerships also leverage the federal investment by bringing at least a 25% match. 

The National Park Service should expand the use of partnerships with Conservation Corps on backlogged maintenance projects in order to get more projects done 

for less while addressing pressing national needs. 

STATEMENT OF ROY R. SCHWEIKER

The National Park system is supposed to be the common heritage of all Americans, hence fees need to be kept at a level that ordinary Americans can afford. Park 

concessionaires need to be prevented from gentrifying their offerings to a level that 

excludes the working class. 

Generally, those desiring expanded services such as full-service hotels or RV 

parks with hookups should expect to find them in gateway communities not within 

the park. (Anybody remember when a bowling alley and movie theater were proposed for Yosemite Valley so all those bored people would have something to do?) 

Park camping and lodging facilities should be oriented toward those who will be exploring the park not those using them as a base for traveling outside the park. Concessionaires should be discouraged from making upgrades to increase fees and extend their contracts - instead of letting wealth determine who gets rare spaces in 

the park let them go to those who appreciate the rustic way things are. 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN BURKE, ELOY, AZ 

I would like to urge the Senate to reject the move being made by concessionaires 

to increase costs to use public services by privatizing facilities and/or raising fees 

to use public lands. 

This happened in the California State Parks years ago. The result was a significant increase in the cost to use campgrounds, no improvements to most of them, 

and former state employees were forced to take cuts in pay and benefits when they 

became employees of concessionaires. 

I also strongly object to the management model being put forward in places like 

the Tonto National Forest in Arizona. The Tonto NF has all sorts of fee areas, and 

their rational is that the fees will be used to improve access. That ‘‘improvement’’ 

is better roads and larger camps for RVs towing toy haulers full of quad runners 

and motorcycles. This is popular with gateway towns selling gas and beer, but it 

is devastating to the natural environment. 

The Park Service has already ruined the ‘‘front country’’ in places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon by making access far too easy. These popular 

parks are now giant traffic jams throughout most of the summer. I don’t even visit 

the developed areas any more. The only decent sections left are the back country, 

remote, and hard to access parts. 

Please, please don’t turn our nation’s wild lands into profit machines for concession corporations and bureaucrats that only care about the money. These lands are 

86 

far more valuable than money. No new fees and no new development! If anything, 

the management agencies should start removing more roads. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN NELSON, PH.D., NEDERLAND, CO 

I am writing in regard to your July 25th hearing on National Parks fees. I am 

a senior and a Colorado resident who frequently visits our national parks, especially 

RMNP which is within 50 miles of my home. I also am the holder of an original 

Golden Age Passport. On the passport, it reads ‘‘A LifeTime Admission Permit’’. 

I feel strongly that the National Parks are public lands and that access to these 

resources should not be limited due to increased fees and economic restrictions. I 

also feel that the lifetime promises of the interagency passes such as my Golden Age 

Passport should continue to be honored. For seniors, the guarantee of unlimited 

entry into our national parks is one of the few benefits of getting older. 

My underlying concern is the potential effect of commercialization and privatization of public lands. I’ve seen recent instances here in Colorado, where private concessionaires who manage Forest Service Recreation Areas, have raised fees and attempted to not honor interagency passes. I understand the costs of operating these 

resources and I am not at all opposed to the profit motive in business. That said, 

I believe that there are areas where profit should not be the objective. As with the 

guarantee of access to education, access to the public lands should be a right and 

not a priviledge. The operation of these public lands should be driven by the benefit 

to the public rather than the profit of private companies. I strongly urge the committee to keep access to these lands affordable to all citizens. 

Thank you for listening. 

WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION, 

Durango, CO, July 24, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U. S. Senate. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

I am deeply troubled by the article calling for boosting funding for the NPS by 

increasing fees on park visitors, as expressed in the NPHA/NPCA publication 

$ustainable $upplementary Funding For America’s National Parks. On behalf of the 

Western Slope No-Fee Coalition and the public lands supporters we represent, I 

would like to go on record as opposed to these ideas. 

The proposal for ‘‘differential pricing’’ would convert the best parks at the most 

desirable seasons into enclaves for the wealthy. Visitors of more modest resources 

would be shunted to the shoulder and off seasons. This might help fill concessionaire hotel rooms during the slower times of year, but it does nothing to nurture 

public support for the National Park system. This ′′differential pricing′′ scheme is 

driven by the commercial interests that operate in the parks and runs counter to 

the egalitarian ideals under which they were established. 

The establishment of national passes, with discounted pricing for seniors and the 

disabled, was never intended to maximize revenue. Those were policy decisions 

made by Congress meant to provide an affordable way for all Americans-and foreign 

visitors-to visit our parks because they are a defining part of our American heritage. 

While it of course takes money to operate the park system, making money should 

never be the driving factor. The provision of affordable national passes has been 

very popular with the public and must continue. 

Ideas like selling ‘‘debit’’ cards for National Parks would place them in the commercial market, on an equal footing with any other market commodity. The parks 

are not market commodities, were never intended to be run for profit, and to reduce 

them to that level would cheapen their value in the public perception. Assuming 

that people would not fully utilize the value of these ‘‘debit cards,’’ with the NPS 

keeping the unredeemed cash, is a backdoor way of cheating people into making donations. There are already numerous ways in which people can and do donate to 

the National Parks. We don’t need to be tricked into doing it. 

Charging per person per day entrance fees, instead of the current per carload per 

week, would not only dramatically increase the cost of visiting a park, it would become an enforcement nightmare. Do we really need to have Park Rangers checking 

people’s passes to make sure they haven’t overstayed their entrance fees, instead 

87 

of giving interpretive talks and protecting visitors and park resources? Because very 

few park visits last more than a week the current system is largely self-enforcing 

and very efficient to administer. It’s not broken and does not need fixing. 

The National Parks were established for the benefit of the people and the park 

resources, not as a fund-raising mechanism for the National Park Service. The best 

way to ensure the long-term financial health of the National Parks is for people of 

all ages, incomes, origins, and abilities to visit them and to feel welcome in them. 

That is how people learn to appreciate them, which leads to public support for the 

use of taxpayer funds to operate them. Treating the parks as money-makers for the 

NPS will, in the long run, reduce rather than enhance that public support. Instead 

of raising fees, Congress should be seeking ways to make the parks more affordable. 

Sincerely, 

PRESIDENT. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SILVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILD WILDERNESS, BEND, OR 

COMMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD

The following brief comments are submitted on behalf of Wild Wilderness, a conservation and recreation organization based in Bend Oregon since 1991. 

I watched today’s hearing online and have read the testimony, including the document submitted by Mr. Gabrys titled: ‘‘$ustainable $upplementary Funding For 

America’s National Parks.’’ I have long been involved with issues pertaining to the 

National Park System and have followed the work of the National Park Hospitality 

Association and the closely affiliated American Recreation Coalition. I have made 

a decade-long study of the efforts of the concessionaire industry and its various 

lobby groups to influence Federal policy and speak on this topic with uncommon experience. 

With respect to today’s hearing, I wish the following bulleted points to be available for consideration by Committee Members. 

• The National Parks are Special.—Use any superlative you wish, the National 

Parks are not just any old piece of public land. This fact is well appreciated by 

the committee and was emphasized by each of the witnesses. 

• FLREA will soon sunset and something must be done.— This too is a simple 

statement of undisputed fact. If Congress does not provide continuing fee collection and retention authority for the National Parks, there will be serious consequences. 

• With respect to recreation fees in general, the National Parks are Special.—Unlike recreation fees charged by the USFS and BLM, National Park entrance fees 

are well accepted by the public. That is not simply the result of entrance fees 

having been charged at the National Parks for nearly 100 years, while forest 

fees are a relatively new creation. It is the consequence of the parks being special. They are understood to be ‘‘National Treasures’’ and they are recognized 

and appreciated as being different than other public lands which serve other 

functions and purposes. 

• Congress should create and pass legislation to provide the NPS with its own 

authority to charge, collect and retain Entrance Fees.—FLREA has been controversial and problematic since it became law in 2004. Much of the problem 

can be attributed to trying to create a single authority which applied to both 

the ‘‘Crown Jewels’’ and to more common lands. 

• Some of the fee-related funding ideas are better than others and some are much 

worse.—The $ustainable $upplementary Funding document includes a panoply 

of fee-related suggestions, one of which is so offensive as to be the focus of the 

remainder of these comments. That offensive suggestion has to do with ‘‘differential pricing’’ or as it is sometimes called, ‘‘peak pricing’’. 

Differential Pricing is a concept the concessionaire industry has been pushing for 

the past 30 plus years. Their interest in differential pricing has little, or perhaps 

nothing, to do with funding the parks. It is a solution for a problem the concessionaires themselves have long faced. That problem is that the parks are more popular at certain times of the year than at other times. For example, people want to 

visit Death Valley in the springtime when the flowers are in bloom. People do not 

want to visit Death Valley in August when the temperature can top 120 degrees. 

No doubt, Committee Members can think of many analogous examples so I will not 

belabor this point. 

The idea of differential pricing is to raise the price of entering a National Park 

to a level where the fee itself becomes so high as to dissuade visitation. Differential 

88 

pricing works by pricing those for whom the price increase is significant, out of the 

market. When used in this way, differential pricing is exclusionary, discriminatory 

and antithetical to the vision of our National Parks famously stated by Stegner in 

the following words: 

‘‘National parks are the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst.’’ 

From the standpoint of National Park concessionaires, the value of differential 

pricing is in shifting use from those times of the year when their accommodations 

are fully rented to the slack shoulder-season when occupancy and the sale of goods 

and services is sub-optimal for profitability. 

From the standpoint of the National Parks themselves, differential pricing is unlikely to provide added revenue. When park fees increase by more than a small increment, visitation falls and usually revenues fall as well. One need only look to 

what has been happening in Washington State Parks since the introduction of its 

new ‘‘Discover Pass’’. 

Please consider the possibility that the motivations of the National Park concessionaires are not necessarily in keeping with those of the National Parks. Likewise, 

the concessionaires’ motivations may not necessarily be aimed at enhancing, or supporting, the best interests of the totality of National Park visitors. The concessionaires are in the hospitality business for the purpose of making a profit and depend upon the drawing power of these parks to attract customers. But, making 

money is not a purpose of the National Parks nor, for that matter, is attracting customers. The purpose of the parks is to protect the resource and to provide for the 

enjoyment thereof. 

That said, and as Director Jarvis reminded the committee in his testimony, for 

every one dollar spent in operating the National Parks the nation enjoys a ten dollar benefit in economic activity. This same 10 to 1 ratio holds for recreation upon 

the National Forests. 

To the extent that National Park entrance fees are over-priced or priced at exclusionary levels in an effort to dissuade visitation, the general economy will be adversely impacted. We ask that you reject the concessionaires’ oft-stated (but unsubstantiated) claim that differential pricing will shift visitation to lesser used parks 

and that the total amount of visitation will remain constant or even increase. People 

want to go to Yosemite, or Acadia, or Yellowstone or Glacier National Park. They 

want to go in the summer when the weather is good, when the kids are out of school 

and when both husband and wife can get time off work. And while it is possible 

to price families out of the market and drive them to visit Disneyland instead of 

a National Park, no amount of promotional marketing can convince them to visit 

a substitute park which is not in the same league as the park they wanted to visit. 

Marketing can not convince them to visit any National Park in the shoulder-season, 

at least not after the kids have returned to school and not after they’ve already 

spent their family vacation budget somewhere else. 

In conclusion: We ask that the Committee crafts fee authority legislation for the 

National Parks and that it deals separately with the more common lands. We also 

ask the Committee to please try and be as attentive to the input of citizens, taxpayers and park visitors as it is to the input of park concessionaires. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing, for considering these comments, 

and for doing what is necessary and appropriate to provide for sustainable National 

Park funding. 

Sincerely, 

Æ