[Senate Hearing 113-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-796 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
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
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 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 long-term viability of our parks system. For
example, today I'm going to want to explore with witnesses the
idea of raising fees for non-U.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 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.
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 T-shirt 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 National 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.
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 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:]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year
2014,'' National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/
FY__2014__greenbook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Email from National Park Service to the Office of Tom Coburn,
January 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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-for-park-research/
historic-preservation/Final-HP-report-with-HAVO.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year
2014,'' National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/
FY__2014__greenbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 since
1988.\6\ The National Park Service directs $323 million annually
towards deferred 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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-
of-environmental-assessment-for-mule-operations-and-stock-use-in-grand-
canyon-national-park.htm .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal
Year 2014,'' National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/
upload/FY__2014__greenbook.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal
Year 2014,'' National Park Service, 2013; http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/
upload/FY__2014__greenbook.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Overview, Funding History, and Issues,'' Congressional Research
Service, March 5, 2013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
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.
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 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 increased 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 perspective. 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
maintenance 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 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.
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.
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
connection 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.
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.
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
running 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.
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 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 one-
time 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, 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:]
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 levels, 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.
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 concession-related 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. 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 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 conditions. 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 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 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----
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.
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----
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 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
communities, 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 estimated 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.
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.
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 endowment. 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 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 inaccurate 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.
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 compulsion 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. 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 members 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 persons-mostly 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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All attachments have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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 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 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 Service 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
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 non-federal
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
partnerships 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 long- discussed 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
assessment 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.
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 backlog. 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 long-term
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 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 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 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 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
generate $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 public-private 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 placed-
based 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.
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 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 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 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.
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.]
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.
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.
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 advance. 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 applicant. 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 communities-not 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 Service 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 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.
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.
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 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, necessitating 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 asset-for-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
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 documents\1\ and 84 million
acres of land within 401 park units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Park
Research: The State of America's National Parks, June 2011, pp. 22-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 maintenance 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 reports 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.
\3\ See 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.
\4\ The 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.
\5\ See http://www.preservationnation.org/take-action/advocacy-
center/preservation-funding/budget.
\6\ See US Department of Interior Budget Justifications and
Performance Information for Fiscal Year 2013 National Park Service, p.
13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 community\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National Park Service Leasing Program Assessment Final Report:
Finding and Recommendations by Kristen McConnell, Stephanie Hester,
Geoff Kish. November, 2010.
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, PA\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
Parks, June 2011, p. 39 for information re historic lease at Valley
Forge National Historical Park.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 2009 National Parks Conservation Association State of Parks
Report for Cumberland Island National Seashore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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 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 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 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,