[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL VS. STATE MANAGEMENT OF PARKS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-042 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
P. Daniel Smith, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 10, 1997....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of American Samoa................................ 3
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Montana, prepared statement of.......................... 15
Statements of witnesses:
Jones, Kenneth B., Deputy Director for Park Stewardship,
California Department of Parks and Recreation.............. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Leal, Donald R., Senior Associate, Political Economy Research
Center..................................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional material supplied:
PERC, Bozeman, Montana, ``Parks in Transition; A Look at
State Parks''.............................................. 28
PERC Policy Series, ``Back to the Future to Save Our
Parks''................................................ 72
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL VS. STATE MANAGEMENT OF PARKS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands will come to order. I have scheduled
this hearing as a continuation of this Subcommittee's
longstanding interest in the issue of recreational fees on
Federal lands, especially in the National Park System.
This issue has been a major concern for the Congress for
the past 10 years. And this subcommittee, as well as the
Committee on Resources, have worked closely with the Budget
Committee and the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the
American public has the opportunity to enjoy the federally
managed lands by paying fair and reasonable recreation fees.
During 1996, Congress authorized a Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program providing the Federal land management
agencies far-reaching discretion in creating recreation fee
programs during the next 3 years. This Fee Demonstration
Program allows the agencies to retain 80 percent of the revenue
collected in excess of the amount collected in 1995, with 20
percent returning to the General Treasury.
Currently, language contained in the fiscal year 1998
Interior Appropriations bill would allow the agencies to retain
80 percent of the revenue in the unit collecting the fee, and
the remaining 20 percent to the Federal land management agency.
This subcommittee will continue to oversight the progress of
this Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. And today's hearing
will add valuable insight into the future success of National
Park Service recreation fee program.
As in many instances, the States are in the forefront of
implementing new and creative solutions to old problems. Today,
we will hear detailed and interesting testimony concerning how
States are addressing the issue of tight fiscal constraints in
park budgets by moving from general tax support to user fees to
operate and maintain their State parks.
Although I do not believe that the National Park System
should ever reach total self-sufficiency in its operation
budget, I do believe that there are many comparisons that can
be made from the success of the States in operating and
maintaining their parks.
I welcome Mr. Don Leal, Senior Associate of the Political
Economy Research Center, Bozeman, Montana, who will present
findings from his recently published policy paper entitled,
``Back to the Future to Save Our Parks.'' I believe that many
of us will be surprised to learn that 16 State park systems
currently obtain more than one-half of their operating costs
from recreation fees, and that many others are heading in that
direction.
Furthermore, I believe that this paper demonstrates that if
fees are reasonable and the public is informed that their fees
are utilized in the park where collected, there is broad-based
support for recreation user fees.
I also welcome Kenneth B. Jones, Deputy Director for Park
Stewardship, California Department of Parks and Recreation, who
will provide testimony on the tremendously successful
transition the State of California park system is undertaking
to address budgetary and management issues.
The California park system is unique, consisting of 264
parks covering 1.3 million acres, including 11,000 picnic
sites, 17,500 campsites, 280 miles of coastline, and 3,000
miles of trails. With over 70 million visitors enjoying this
State system each year, it provides a true benchmark by which
to measure our efforts on the Federal level.
I will let both of our distinguished panelists make their
presentations so that we have their ideas and concepts on the
table, and then I will recognize members for their questions.
But prior to that, I recognize my good friend and colleague
from American Samoa, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from American Samoa.
[Statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
Good Morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands will come to order.
I have scheduled this hearing as a continuation of this
Subcommittee's longstanding interest in the issue of
recreational fees on Federal lands, especially in the National
Park System. This issue has been a major concern for the
Congress for the past 10 years, and this Subcommittee, as well
as the Committee on Resources, have worked closely with the
Appropriations Committee to insure that the American public has
the opportunity to enjoy federally managed lands by paying fair
and reasonable recreation fees.
During 1996, Congress authorized a Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program providing the Federal land management
agencies far-reaching discretion in creating recreation fee
programs during the next three years. This Fee Demonstration
Program allows the agencies to retain 80 percent of the revenue
collected in excess of the amount collected in 1995, with 20
percent returning to the General Treasury. Currently, language
contained in the fical year 1998 Interior Appropriations bill
will allow the agencies to retain 80 percent of the revenue in
the unit collecting the fee, and the remaining 20 percent to
the Federal land management agency. This Subcommittee will
continue it's oversight role to monitor the progress of this
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, and today's hearing will
add valuable insight into the future success of National Park
Service recreation fee programs.
As in many instances, the States are in the forefront of
implementing new and creative solutions to old problems. Today,
we will hear detailed and interesting testimony concerning how
States are addressing the issue of tight fiscal constraints in
park budgets by moving from general tax support to user fees to
operate and maintain their State parks. Although, I do not
believe that the National Park System should ever reach total
self-sufficiency in its operations budget, I do believe that
there are comparisons that can be made from the success of the
States in operating and maintaining their parks.
I welcome Mr. Don Leal, Senior Associate of the Political
Economy Research Center (PERC), Bozeman, Montana, who will
present findings from his recently published policy paper
entitled, ``Back to the Future to Save our Parks.'' I believe
that many of us will be surprised to learn that sixteen State
park systems currently obtain more than one-half of their
operating costs from recreation fees, and that many others are
heading in that direction.
Furthermore, I believe that this paper demonstrates that if
user fees are reasonable, and that the public is informed that
their fees are utilized in the park where collected, there is
broad based support for recreation user fees.
I also welcome, Kenneth B. Jones, Deputy Director for Park
Stewardship, California Department of Parks and Recreation, who
will provide testimony on the tremendously successful
transition the State of California park system is undertaking
to address budgetary and management issues. The California park
system is unique, consisting of 264 parks covering 1.3 million
acres, including 11,000 picnic sites, 17,500 campsites, 280
miles of coastline, and 3,000 miles of trails. With over 70
million visitors enjoying this State system each year, it
provides a true benchmark by which to measure our efforts at
the Federal level.
I will let both of our distinguished panelists make their
presentations so that we have their ideas and concepts on the
table, and then I will recognize Members for their questions,
but prior to that, I recognize my good friend and colleague
from American Samoa, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, I understand one of the focuses of today's hearing
will be on a report issued by a private organization known as
the Political Economy Research Center, otherwise known as PERC.
The report entitled, ``Back to the Future to Save Our
Parks,'' is based on the premise that, to use PERC's own words,
popular parks can and should pay their own way. I believe this
is a seriously flawed premise. We do not operate our national
parks like Walt Disney charging what the market will bear.
Our national parks have value to the Nation whether they
are visited by one or 1 million persons. Many members support
reasonable fees for visiting national parks with the
understanding that the money collected will remain in the
parks. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this was the subject of
considerable debate in the subcommittee last Congress. The key
to fee collection is that is it fair, reasonable, and
equitable?
If we were to follow PERC's recommendation, there would
have to be a sevenfold increase in what is currently collected.
This is not to say there is not room for improvement, and I
will certainly approach today's hearing in that light. If there
are ways we can ease the financial problems of our parks in a
manner that is fair, reasonable, and equitable, then I am
certain that we are willing to consider those options.
And, Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to welcome
our witnesses this morning, and I am looking forward to hearing
their testimonies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We are grateful to our panelists for
being here. Thanks so much for coming. We will start with you,
Mr. Leal, and then Mr. Jones. Is that all right? And, Mr. Leal,
as we say in our business, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DONALD R. LEAL, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, POLITICAL
ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Leal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to
present the case for returning our popular national parks to
the self-supporting parks they originally were intended to be.
It is not widely known, but the intent of our early national
parks was that they would be self-supporting parks.
Congressional appropriations were to be limited to the Initial
investments in roads and visitor facilities.
In 1916, when Congress authorized the creation of the
National Park Service, Interior Secretary Franklin Lane
appointed Stephen Mather, a successful businessman and
millionaire, to run the 14 existing national parks on a self-
supporting basis.
In Mather's first report on parks to the Secretary, he
states, ``It has been your desire that ultimately the revenues
of several parks might be sufficient to cover the cost of
administration and protection, and that Congress should only be
requested to appropriate funds for their improvement. It
appears at least five parks have a proven earning capacity
sufficiently large to make their operation both feasible and
practible.'' The five parks were Yellowstone, Yosemite, Mount
Rainier, Sequoia, and what is now called Kings Canyon-Sequoia
National Parks.
Importantly, at this time, park revenues were held in a
special account accessible to the Park Service without
congressional appropriation. Mather, the Director of the Park
Service, considered this important for responsible management
because, from the Park Service's perspective, there was a clear
link between serving park visitors and having the funds
necessary to manage the parks.
Unfortunately, Congress took control of all financing for
parks in 1918 by requiring that all park fees be returned to
the Federal Treasury, and this critical link between serving
visitors and generating funds for managing the parks was
broken. With revenues going to the Treasury and the lion's
share of the funding coming from tax dollars, the Park Service
has had little economic incentive to serve park visitors.
Moreover, park budgets have become political footballs.
Raising money via allocations from the Treasury has been a
matter of first denying customer service or letting park
facilities run down in order to provide the necessary political
impetus to free up more money for parks.
I can give you a great illustration of the political
problems in our financing. The Superintendent of Yellowstone
Park last year announced the closing of two museums in a
popular campground called Norris Campground in order to save
$70,000, the cost in operating these facilities. And he was
right. He would save $70,000 in operating costs.
But the problem was those three facilities or, excuse me,
just the campground alone generated $114,000. In other words,
revenue from that operation alone actually surpassed the costs
of operating the three facilities. From the Superintendent's
perspective, he didn't see the revenue. It all went to the
Federal Treasury. So it was rational for him to try to save
money by closing the popular campground and the two museums.
Contrary to the view that tax-supported parks guarantees
long-term protection, our national parks have suffered from
poor incentives to maintain themselves. The Park Service says
it has a $4.5 billion backlog of construction improvements and
a $800 million backlog of major maintenance.
Are we to assume that our parks have fallen victim to a
budget-conscious Congress? The evidence says no. From 1980 to
1995, the total budget of the Park Service nearly doubled from
almost $700 million to $1.3 billion. Spending on operation,
which includes staffing and wage increases, grew at a healthy
inflation-adjusted annual rate of 3.1 percent, and full-time
staff increased from 15,836 to 17,216 employees, more than
enough to handle visitation which grew by less than 1.5 percent
per year. While spending on the agency itself increased,
spending for major park repairs and renovations fell at an
inflation-adjusted annual rate of 1.5 percent.
The healthy increase in annual operating expenses has not
led to better service in Yellowstone, Yosemite, and other
popular parks. According to a recent Consumer's Report survey,
the two most frequent complaints were crowded conditions and
the lack of adequate visitor servcies. This sad state of
affairs is brought about because most of the money to support
parks is not earned from park visitors.
States, however, are showing us that as tax support for
their parks declined, State park agencies generated more
revenue from users. Spurred by nearly a 41 percent decline in
real terms in general tax support for all State parks in the
country, user fees collected at all State parks went from $182
million in 1980 or about 17 percent of the total State park
spending, to $513 million in 1994 or one-third of total park
spending.
In contrast, the Park Service collected $94 million
representing about 7 percent of total spending by the agency.
Like national parks, State parks have increased fees, but they
have also raised revenue by being innovative in creating more
services for park visitors.
Moreover, a number of State park systems are showing us
that the idea of self-supporting parks, at least operationally,
is a feasible goal when heavy reliance on tax support for park
operations is no longer a viable option. Faced with dramatic
declines in general tax support, 16 State park systems now
regularly obtain more than half of their operating costs from
user fees.
New Hampshire State Park System funds its entire $5 million
operating budget out of entrance and camping fees, not out of
condos or golf courses, but from just entrance and camping
fees. In 1991, in the midst of a growing general fund crisis,
the legislature required the park system to rely solely on
park-generated revenue.
Park revenue has actually exceeded operating expenditure
for three consecutive years prior to passage of the Act, but
park receipts have been handed over to the State treasury. The
1991 Act let receipts flow into a park fund that carries over
unspent park moneys from year to year. This encourages self-
sufficiency because park officials know that they have a
reliable source of money dedicated to parks over the long-term.
Texas is another great example of a State that is weaning
itself from public funding. In the early 1980's, the Texas
State Park Sys-
tem got almost 60 percent of its operating funding from general
State taxes. It now gets 67 percent of its operating funding
from user fees.
It has also devised institutional reforms to raise revenue
and save money. The Texas park management developed the
entrepreneurial budget system. This innovative, market based
financing system rewards individual parks with larger operating
budgets if they surpass their revenue or cost savings targets
for the year.
With financial self-sufficiency as a goal, we can expect
better service and greater efficiencies in running our parks.
Comparing adjacent State and national parks in Texas,
California, and South Dakota where the attractions and the
natural amenities are about the same and the market areas are
about the same, State parks, relying heavily on user support
earn more revenues per acre, spend less per acre, and offer
more services than the nearby national parks. And I include
those examples in my Exhibits A, B, C, and D in this.
And now, thanks to Congress, the National Park Service is
testing the waters of greater user support. Congress recently
authorized a 3-year demonstration program that raises fees and
allows greater fee retention. However, I think we need to even
go further.
I think Congress should establish a fixed schedule that
gradually reduces annual appropriations for park operations
over a 10-year period until it reaches zero like they did in
Texas and New Hampshire. Removing the heavy dependency on
general funds spurred Texas, New Hampshire, and other State
park systems to respond with greater revenue. The Park Service
has to face the same reality.
Congress should allow park managers to institute their own
fee-based services as long as these services are compatible
with the protection of natural amenities. Most of the fees
collected in these parks--95 percent at least--should remain in
the park system. A small amount, perhaps 5 percent, could be
used to fund the systemwise administration.
I also recommend that parks managers should be allowed to
keep all cost savings and apply them to the budget for
subsequent years. And, finally, each park should have a special
park endowment fund for capital improvements. Capital
allocations from the Treasury have a way of going to the
creation of new parks instead of maintaining the existing ones.
Giving park managers a capital fund dedicated to the
individual park and the wherewithal to finance it with road
tolls, surpluses from the operating revenues, as well as other
avenues will help them generate the needed capital to support
the park.
Of course, some parks will not attract enough visitors or
have enough commercially valued assets to be self-supporting.
If these parks are to remain in the public domain, they should
be funded separately out of general funds and not be subsidized
by the high-use parks because this would weaken the incentives
for revenue generation. These parks could also be turned over
to private nonprofit groups with a one-time endowment to fund
maintenance.
Requiring popular parks to be self-supporting, at least
operationally, is the surest way of spurring responsible
management and financial accountability. The idea of self-
supporting parks is what early park supporters had in mind near
the turn of the century when we were a much poorer Nation.
Surely, with our higher incomes today, we as users of parks can
afford to pay these amenities and help make our parks the
treasures they should be. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Leal may be found at end of hearing.]
[PERC Policy Series may be found at end of hearing.]
[Park report may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Leal; appreciate your excellent
testimony. Mr. Jones, we will turn the time to you, sir, and
thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PARK
STEWARDSHIP, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Mr. Jones. You are welcome. Thank you. Good morning, Mr.
Chair, members. On behalf of Governor Pete Wilson and the
California State Parks Director, Donald Murphy, who has
testified before this committee before, it is a privilege to be
here today to talk about the many changes California State
Parks has gone through over the past several years and the
bright prospect for our future.
Earlier this year, our system's creative efforts in raising
revenue and decreasing dependence on taxpayers was praised as
pioneering by the Wall Street Journal. We are proud of our work
in this field, but we are especially proud that our work in
this area has not detracted from our mission and values, but it
has been wholly consistent with them. In fact, we have become
better stewards of California's most cherished natural and
cultural resources.
Let me begin by giving you an overview of the system we
manage today. California State Parks manages 264 parks and
other properties covering 1.3 million acres. Each year, 70
million visitors enjoy our 11,000 picnic sites, 17,500
campsites, 280 miles of coastline, and 3,000 miles of trail.
We are a system as diverse as the National Parks, with
historic sites such as Hearst Castle and Old Town San Diego;
magnificent deserts such as Anza-Borrego; mighty redwood parks
such as Big Basin, Humboldt, and Prairie Creek; special
reserves such as Point Lobos and Torrey Pines; and expansive
recreation-oriented beaches such as Huntington and Doheny.
To pay for all this, our operating budget for the 1996-97
fiscal year was about $181 million, 36 percent of which came
from the State's general fund, and another 35 percent from
revenues, which include user fees and concession rentals. The
remainder comes from a number of other places such as grants,
special fuel taxes, and an off-highway vehicle trust fund that
supports our off-highway vehicle program.
As a percentage of our budget, tax-based support for State
Parks has diminished over the years, from nearly 80 percent in
the early 1980's to 36 percent this past year. As that has
happened, we at California State Parks have become more
creative in raising revenues.
The recession of the early 1990's led to a wholesale
restructuring of the Department to put the focus back in the
field, not behind the desk. We reduced the number of park
districts from 55 to 23, abol-
ished five regional offices, and we gave superintendents more
authority to make important decisions such as adjusting user
fees.
This reorganization removed about 180 positions by
attrition and saved the State taxpayers more than $10 million.
Our reorganization also allowed us to become more efficient,
and this efficiency is also demonstrated in terms of our
excellent working relationship with the National Park Service.
In three parts of the State--the North Coast Redwoods, the
San Francisco Bay Area, and the Santa Monica Mountains--
California parks and National Park Service have signed an
agreement to work together for greater cost savings, improved
resource management, and enhanced public service. Now, we are
working with the National Park Service to expand the same
partnership for our parks in the Mojave Desert and Marin
County.
Our recession-created reforms were one step. Another step
toward more self-sufficiency and greater accountability took
place 2 years ago when, with the active support of Governor
Wilson, we took on a 5-year initiative to further decrease our
dependence on the general fund by more than $19 million. We are
doing this in a number of ways and have already reduced this
figure by $3.5 million.
For example, we are exploring other alternatives such as
the privatization of selected parks and operations. And we are
revising our fee structure to make fees simpler and more
reflective of the use visitors get from their parks. After
analyzing how our annual pass holders are using their passes,
we are considering annual passes that are park-specific, for
example. We expect to have a modified fee structure in place by
the end of this year.
One of our most successful endeavors in encouraging greater
self-sufficiency has been our Revenue Allocation Program, which
we instituted last year. This program is designed to encourage
our park districts to increase revenue by providing incentives
that allow them to retain much of the new revenue.
Each fiscal year a district is given a guaranteed minimum
allocation, referred to as its Tier One [base] allocation.
While this is not tied to revenue, each district is expected to
raise an agreed-to base revenue.
As the district's revenue rises above the base, it is
authorized to spend up to a level defined as its Tier-Two
allocation, and that is a specified maximum. When a district
exceeds this maximum and enters a third tier, these revenues
are then applied against the general fund reduction. Following
the first year of revenue allocation, revenue at State parks
has increased about $3 million representing a 6 percent
increase. And our conclusion is simple, that the incentives to
the districts work.
Our new Division of Marketing and Revenue Generation has
provided the field with entrepreneurial expertise, and many of
our superintendents and other field staff have found unique
ways to raise revenues, something they would not have been able
to do if everything was controlled through headquarters in
Sacramento.
For example, our superintendent in the Salton Sea Sector
used targeted advertising and discount coupons to increase
visitation at a unit named Picacho State Recreation Area off
the Colorado River near the Mexican border. In 1 month, we saw
a 65 percent increase in visitation and a 40 percent overall
increase for the fiscal year.
Several other parks and districts are offering value-added
services such as special tour programs. Our Department's
outdoor programs are aimed at introducing people to the skills
they need to camp and enjoy California's great outdoors. Our
districts have used their flexibility in altering fees to
attract more visitors.
In the area of concessions, we have had the opportunity to
renegotiate contracts and receive higher payments in a number
of key park units. Concession rental revenue has increased each
year and for the 1997-98 fiscal year is projected to be $2
million above the previous year.
But just as we are finding ways to be creative and
entrepreneurial, we are getting more and more Californians
involved in their parks. For example, we have an active
volunteer program. In 1995, nearly 12,000 volunteers logged in
886,000 hours for the Department, saving the taxpayers $11.5
million. We have more than 80 cooperating associations raising
millions to support our park programs.
The support of our volunteers and our stakeholders is
mirrored in the high level of regard Californians have for
their State parks. Last summer, we commissioned a statewide
survey that yielded results that shocked the pollsters. They
were not used to such a positive reaction.
Ninety-four percent of those polled said that despite the
current shortfall of available revenues, parks must be properly
maintained for present and future generations to enjoy.
Seventy-five percent supported government funding for parks.
Interestingly, when we asked our respondents what they felt
were the most appropriate ways for State parks to raise money,
corporate sponsorship, fee increases, and merchandising were at
the top of the list.
Besides this survey, we regularly track how our guests feel
about the parks they visited. And satisfaction is ranked high
in a number of areas such as facilities, public safety,
interpretation, even fees. We have discovered that our visitors
and all Californians support the direction in which we are
headed.
California State Parks is proof that we can make
entrepreneurial changes and improve public service and resource
management at the same time. We are a long way from self-
sufficiency, nor do we ever want to or expect to achieve this.
But we know that we are taking the right steps to be
responsible without jeopardy to the stewardship of the natural
and cultural resources placed under our care. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Jones may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. It was an interesting and
informative testimony from both of our witnesses, and we
appreciate that. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff informs me
that the annual budget of our whole National Park System--our
operating budget at least runs for about $700 million. Can you
hear me on this?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And that annually we collect fees or at
least the generation of that of approximately $100 million.
There is no question that there is a problem here in meeting
the care and the maintenance and of this sort. And I want to
ask, Mr. Leal, if it is your organization's position that
eventually all our national parks should be given to the States
to operate and that the Federal Government perhaps should get
away from the business of running parks?
Mr. Leal. No, it is not my or my organization's position
that the National Park System should be Federalized or turned
over to the States. It is our position, again, that the
national parks only learn from what the States are doing.
Because there are 50 State parks systems and they approach the
problem of financing somewhat differently, they do provide
laboratories from which we can examine different policy
approaches and see what the results are.
That is the reason I examined the State Parks System was to
get an idea of how well parks could be operated with revenues--
i.e., more revenues and less taxes--and what the outcomes would
be.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, if I may make an observation here
of what your statement is, why is it that it costs less for a
State to build a road through a park system, and when the Feds
do it it costs 10 times more? I mean, this doesn't make sense.
Can you share any observations on that, why the difference?
Because the Federal Government has a higher standard of
building a road than it is for a State or------
Mr. Leal. That is one possibility, but I think it is more
likely that the Federal Government has deeper pockets and it is
not as frugal, if you will, about spending tax money. When you
have to generate the money or earn the money on your own, there
is a tendency to be more frugal in the building of roads or any
of the infrastructure for the parks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You indicated in your testimony earlier
about the five national parks that are very popular I guess in
the sense that they are able to pretty much generate revenues
to the extent that they become self-sufficient in that sense.
What is your suggestion, that these parks should be turned over
to the States to operate?
Mr. Leal. No. I mean that the Park Service should price
services more realistically and be more diligient in fee
collection. In actuality, Yellowstone Park is very close to
self-sufficiency. In 1997 Yellowstone Park will generate on the
order of $8.5 million in revenues, representing 44 percent of
the budget.
All Yellowstone Park would have to do to be 80 percent
self-sufficient would be to charge people with Grand Teton
passes a $20 entrance fee. They would generate another $7
million or $15 million total in revenue if they took that
loophole away.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You don't feel that grandmother and
grandfather should deserve some kind of a special treatment
like a senior pass to go through Yellowstone, and they should
not be given a discount of some sort for our senior citizens?
Mr. Leal. I don't have a problem with a discount. I have a
problem with the size of the current discount. A $10 lifetime
pass to a national park is a pretty big discount compared to
the $20 regular entrance fee for Yellowstone Park.
I think we need to reconsider the size of all discounts.
Let's face it, in studies of national park visitors, the
average income for an entrant in the national park is almost
twice as high as the median income of the United States. There
are not a lot of poor people entering the park.
If you want to subsidize the poor so more can visit, we
better think seriously about subsidizing their transportation
and lodging expense because that is the lion's share of total
expenses of visiting parks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So you believe that perhaps the way that
we are doing this for our senior citizens is that there should
be a better way of--arrangement. If you are a rich senior
citizen------
Mr. Leal. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing] you should pay the 40 bucks?
Mr. Leal. I really do because when I see the elderly
driving in an RV that cost $90,000 to enter the park, I am not
sure that we are being realistic with our charges.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Of course, at the same time, the elderly
that drives an RV of $90,000, they feel that they are paying
taxes, and they should be given a break once in a while, don't
you think?
Mr. Leal. I guess. But making parks tax dependent does not
generate the necessary incentives for quality park services and
also park upkeep.
We have given a lot of tax money to the parks--the National
Park System--since 1980. We have stayed ahead of inflation and
that, but most of the money was spent on the agency itself and
not on the parks.
Look at the operating budget of the National Park Service--
the operating budget alone is $1.1 billion now.
If you add up all the operating budgets of the national
park units, it totals out to $668 million. In other words, $432
million goes to the DC and regional offices. You know, that is
a pretty top-heavy organization.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think the National Park Service
bureaucracy--they are just sitting on their butts doing
nothing?
Mr. Leal. I think that there is a lot of room to reduce
operating expenses of the Park Service and devoting the savings
to park infrastucture.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How about our friend from California, who
seems to have the most parks than any other State? Do you agree
with Mr. Leal's assessment?
Mr. Jones. That is a pretty broad question. A couple of
things that I would say I would not agree with is that there is
no absolutes in these kind of policy decisions as to, for
example, the level of funding. Self-sufficiency--working toward
self-sufficiency or a target toward self-sufficiency is a
worthwhile and noble objective. One hundred percent self-
sufficiency for an organization like National Parks is just not
in anyone's best interests, and it is likely not doable, in my
opinion.
I feel very strongly that where you have these lands that
are high public trust lands, such as considerable and
significant natural resource values and cultural values, that
it is not a sin to provide public funding to support those
programs. The core values that are necessary to maintain the
stewardship year after year after year takes precedent over
everything. But by the same token, it is not wrong to have
these reasonable objectives toward more and improved self-
sufficiency. I would say that is probably where California
State Parks would disagree with one of the premises.
The other aspect that I made a notation of is that I think
there is a caution in comparing or picking a State and looking
at that as being a potential direct application to Federal
lands. The scale--for example, a 40 acre set-aside piece of
land in the State of Oregon for campsites is not comparable to
a Yellowstone and $9 million.
And we have lots of examples in California that we could
use that same comparison. So everyone's program I think needs
to be tailored to the needs of that particular organization.
California State Parks I think does happen to come as close as
any to a National Park Service, and even our scale is out of
whack when you compare it to a Federal level.
And as far as the--I found with great interest, and I
wasn't aware of this until I heard the testimony from PERC,
that our movers and leaders of the Park System, Stephen Mather
and Horace Albright and others, who thought self-sufficiency
was very doable, I don't think possibly could have understood
and forecasted what we might be in for in the 1990's and moving
into the year 2000 with our national parks and millions and
millions of visitors. It just wasn't possible to foresee. Those
are some random thoughts I had.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. We
have talked a lot about Yellowstone, Yosemite, Mount Rainier,
and these are the biggies. What about the little parks I feel
that are just as important, but maybe they don't generate as
many visitors? What would be Mr. Leal's recommendations to that
kind of a situation?
Mr. Leal. Again, I think that the motivation is for the
popular parks not to suffer the rewards of generating revenue
on their own. Therefore, I think it is important that those
little parks that aren't tourist-attractors should be financed
different. If you want to keep them in the public domain, then,
by all means, use the general funds to support them, but don't
penalize Yellowstone Park by taking money away from it and
giving it to the little park.
Take money out of the General Treasury and give it to the
little park. It stands to reason they are not going to be that
expensive to run so fund them out of tax funds.
If you are really serious about paring down the size of the
National Park System, which I think people ought to consider
especially when you look at some units that really don't fit
into the mission of the National Park Service and that--like
Steamtown--we ought to give serious attention to turning those
over to the private sector, to private land trusts, whatever.
They probably would be taken care of better.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I appreciate your comments, Mr.
Leal, but the problem that I have observed here while being
here in the Congress is that we are always robbing Paul to give
to--to say don't do it to us, but this is constantly how we
seem to be juggling our Federal budget every year, you know--
take it from Paul to give it to someone else. But, at any rate,
thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. You know, it is always interesting--
the gentleman from American Samoa brought up some interesting
things about seniors. We always go through that little flap. I
was wondering about why we let seniors, especially through our
big drive-in parks--they come in.
I have spent a lot of time in my many years back here
stumbling through the parks and walking into the camp areas.
And it always bothers me when I see a guy in one of these
$80,000 Winnebago and pulling a $30,000 Suburban--retired CEO--
comes in with his Golden Eagle free--hooks into the sewer or
the water, electricity, and camps. He is given a limit of seven
or 8 days. He just sits there, and he gets a freebie.
And you see the kid in law school coming along, and he is
in an old beatup car with two little kids, and he has got a
little dome tent, and he pays the limit, and they kick him out
in a short time. He has got to be back. So the equity of this
thing always bothers me.
And I have often tried--I remember when Ronald Reagan was
in, in 1981 I tried to change that around. I was creamed on the
floor. But people didn't make the distinction between our big
drive-in parks, whether they be State or Federal, and our walk-
in parks.
Now, it is very difficult to take a walk in a park. Like
right here, how do you do it? You can't do it. Mr. Jones, is
the State experiencing anything like that? I know you have got
some beautiful, beautiful State parks. We have got 41 State
parks in the State of Utah, and I have talked ad nauseam to the
guys here, and everyone wrings their hands on how do you do it.
And this trend toward a park fee, how is that acceptable?
Is that acceptable at all to your park superintendents? How is
that selling? I mean, your State is kind of a pilot State. You
probably have got more than anybody else. You have got some
gorgeous areas out there. What seems to be the trend with the
guy on the ground who has to administer this program?
Mr. Jones. I think generally the acceptance when the public
understands the value they are receiving is close to 100
percent, a reasonable price for a campsite in a beautiful park
is absolutely accepted. And we have found that in our last 3
years of surveys of our users where we have asked directly
related questions to that satisfaction level.
Where it becomes highly criticized and publicized, two
points come to mind. It is where that value is not understood
and the public is scrambling in their own minds to rationalize,
``Why do I have to pay $5 to enter a beach which should be a
God-given right to enter a beach?''
Mr. Hansen. Well, don't they think that they are getting
the best deal in America? I mean, I think the public should be
made aware where is a better deal than a park? I mean, you take
your wife and your children to dinner and to a movie on the
weekend, like many American families do. You drop 100 bucks.
And they walk into a park--you take Yellowstone, for
example, in 1915 it cost $10. In 1996, it costs $10 or is it
$15? I can't recall. It is $20 now, but up to this point,
before we gave Mike Findley a little more latitude, it was--you
could walk in there for almost 80 years and drive into that
park and see the granddaddy of all parks for almost zilch.
And people write me letters and say, ``Oh, gee. I hate the
idea of doing it.'' A guy drives in. He has got $100,000 he is
taking in there. Then he belly aches about a $15, now $20, fee
to go in a park. My answer to him is, ``Tough. You are getting
the best deal in America.'' And most people respond and say--
most of them say, ``Yes, it is a good deal.'' In fact, we get
money sent to us all the time saying, ``I ripped you off.''
They go down to what we call the Golden Circle in Utah
where they can go to Zion, Bryce, Canyonlands, Arches, and Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, and now they can go to a place
called the Grand Escalante-Staircase National Monument, which
is nothing but rolling hills of sagebrush, and half the people
that go there keep looking for the monument but don't know that
they are in it because there is nothing there.
But they love it, they think, because the President
preserved something, where he really didn't. He opened it up
for all kinds of development but didn't understand that he shot
himself in the foot, but the environmentalists are soon finding
that out. And they get the best deal in America. It kind of
bothers me, the attitude of the public, not knowing that this
is the best gift they have got since we started buying F-16's
to defend them.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we wrestle with those same kinds
of, ``How could they not be buying into this?'' And there is a
certain segment of the population--I am speaking for California
and not for the United States--that clearly believes because it
is public lands that they should be used. They already paid for
it once, they don't want to continue to pay for it, and they
aren't willing to recognize that it costs money to maintain
facilities, maintain roads, maintain rest rooms, all the
behind-the-scenes stuff that it takes to keep a park going.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jones, where did they pay for it once? You
mean in their income tax?
Mr. Jones. Well, they rationalize I think in the
acquisition and------
Mr. Hansen. The taxes they paid through other means. They
feel, ``Yes, I have already paid for this, and the legislature
should be smart enough to take care of it''?
Mr. Jones. But I do believe that that is actually a small
percentage of our users. I think, by and large, again, the
users in California that can make a simple connection to the
value that they are getting by using their parks really don't
have any problem with them, and our survey demonstrates that.
I think there is another segment of the population, the
naysayers, that don't want any fees, that tend to promote scare
tactics of commercialization and sponsorships and all those
kinds of things as tools to not increase fees or not have any
fees. And we are always sometimes frustrated by that because
the banner argument sometimes stand in the way of doing
something reasonable like a reasonable increase to an annual
pass or something of that nature.
But there is a balancing act, and I think one of the
greatest challenges for both the Feds and States like
California is finding the framework that the decisionmakers
have to make as public policy decisions and delegations to the
respective departments that carry these out. And in a way, that
does take care of the little, tiny battlefield in Kentucky
versus the Yellowstone.
It is very difficult to set policy from the top, and that
applies to the California legislature or anywhere else. And
that is a real challenge for public agencies that manage these
important lands.
Mr. Hansen. You probably heard those bells, and back there
are two lights on which means we have a vote on. I have
questions for both Mr. Leal and some more for you, Mr. Jones. I
am going to ask you--here are a series of questions. Could I
ask you to write to Dan here and me and give us a copy of your
answers? We would be very curious as to how you would respond
to these. If you would give us that courtesy, we would really
appreciate it.
I want to recognize Mr. Hill from Montana, and then we are
going to adjourn this because we have got a vote on, and I
don't want to keep you here if we come back for two questions.
The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for
being late. And I do have a statement. If I could have that
entered into the record?
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
[Statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Statement of Hon. Rick Hill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
oversight hearing.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming our
distinguished witnesses. I want to particularly thank Don Leal
of Bozeman, Montana for traveling at great lengths to present
his research on 27 State park systems.
Mr. Chairman, the subject we will be discussing today is an
important one for the long-term health of our National Park
System and the people who want to enjoy it. For too long, our
national parks have faced enormous and unhealthy financial
backlogs in operations and maintenance, construction and land
acquisition. In Yellowstone National Park, for example, visitor
facilities are in a state of serious disrepair, compromising
our environment and visitor enjoyment of one of our national
treasures.
Congress passed a Fee Demonstration program last year which
is helping certain parks fill their financial needs. However,
this is not the only answer, nor are unlimited amounts of
taxpayer's dollars appropriated by Congress.
Washington doesn't have all the answers to help funding
disparities in our parks and that's why we are here to listen
to experts who have devoted themselves to finding ways to
address these problems on a State level. I look forward to
hearing from them on this important discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I again commend you on your leadership on
protecting our national park system.
Mr. Hill. I am just going to ask one question at this
point. First I want to thank Mr. Leal for being here from
Montana. You have a very outstanding organization that you are
part of that is constantly thinking about natural resource
issues and public land management and how we can be more
efficient and more effective in how we do that. I want to
welcome you here, and I want to thank you for being here.
We have two outstanding, wonderful parks--Glacier Park and
Yellowstone Park that border Montana. But one of the things
that it seems to me and it concerns me is the gateway
communities. One of the important things I think in helping
enhance the experience of parks and attracting people to
experience the parks is how gateway communities broaden the
scope of services that can be offered to the people.
And we have had a lot of controversy, and I guess I would
ask both of you to respond to this. Where there is greater
cooperation with the park managers and the businesses in those
gateway communities, do we have more successful parks?
Mr. Leal. I think from my observation I can use State parks
as an example. I think in Montana one of the most successful
State park units is the Lewis and Clark Caverns, which, by the
way, it cost $260,000 to operate, and it generates $350,000.
People pay $7 each, children free, to enter that system. And it
is not far away from Three Forks, Montana. Some of the local
restaurants and that, they do benefit from the operation of
that well-run operation of the Lewis and Clark Cavern.
At the national level we have not had a lot of cooperation.
It was an interesting thing when Superintendent Mike Findley
from Yellowstone Park urged the local businesses around the
gateway communities, ``Don't promote Yellowstone Park because
we don't have the money to operate it.'' That didn't go over
too well, naturally, with the local businesses.
When Superintendent Findley said he was going to close down
Norris Campground and the two museums in an effort to save
$70,000, despite the fact that the campgrounds have generated
$114,000 is another example of conflict between local
businesses in the gateway communities and what goes on in the
park itself.
I think if we do have more self-sufficient park units and
that, you will see more cooperation with the gateway businesses
and that. In fact, you will probably see a lot more
cooperation.
Mr. Hill. How about in California? Do the managers of the
park work in a real cooperative fashion with the gateway
communities?
Mr. Jones. Yes. And we have several examples of that. I
would like to give you two real briefly. First of all, to
answer your basic question, yes, where there is greater
cooperation, and that translates many ways, but improved
communication, for one, we have much greater success, and the
public gets a better shot, a better experience for that two or
3 day, or whatever it is, venture.
The whole Yosemite and an organization that is a pilot
program in California acronymed YADI deals with gateway
community and its relationship to national parks. And the only
reason I happen to know about that is we have a forum in
California that is an ad hoc group--that is the California
Round Table on Recreation, Parks, and Tourism. And it wrestles
with these very kind of issues that you are talking about.
We have only been in existence for 1 year, but we have
already made great strides in moving, branching much further
out than just what we have as an expectation of one of our
superintendents, for example. We are able to use that forum to
combine all kinds of regional planning. The Tahoe Basin is a
phenomenal example of the kind of thing I think you are talking
about.
The biggest potential tension points I feel are where you
have those high resource-value parks, and there are carrying
capacities and limitations during peak periods. And everybody
wants to make hay when the sun shines, and there has got to be
a balance there. But if you don't have communication and the
forum in place to deal and wrestle and explain and rationalize
and compromise, it doesn't work very effectively, and everybody
stays angry with everyone.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Leal.
Mr. Hansen. We thank our witnesses for excellent testimony;
appreciate you taking the time to be here. And we will look
forward to the response to some of our additional questions. I
see in the audience Dr. Randy Simmons from Utah State
University, a great resource to this committee, and I was
tempted to pull you up, Randy, and ask you a few questions, but
we are running out of time.
Thank you so very much for your time. We will look forward
to using you as a resource if you don't mind because we surely
realize that most of the questions come or good answers don't
necessarily come from Washington, contrary to popular belief.
And this committee now will adjourn. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5042.094