[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT LAND ACQUISITION HAS ON THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG, PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES, AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Saturday, September 27, 2003, in Sherman Oaks, California
__________
Serial No. 108-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-566 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Saturday, September 27, 2003..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bloom, Matt, Owner, Kennedy Meadows Resort and Pack Station,
Sonora, California......................................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Cuff, Courtney, Pacific Region Director, National Park
Conservation Association................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Cushman, Chuck, Executive Director, American Land Rights
Association, Battle Ground, Washington..................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC............. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Hillier, Gerald, Executive Director, QuadState County
Government Coalition, San Bernardino, California........... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Lewis, Michael W., Policy Director, Santa Monica Mountains
Inholder Association, West Covina, California.............. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Reynolds, J.T., Superintendent, Death Valley National Park,
Death Valley, California................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE IMPACT LAND ACQUISITION HAS ON THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG, PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES,
AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES''
----------
Saturday, September 27, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Sherman Oaks, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
the Sunkist Building, 14130 Riverside Drive, Sherman Oaks,
California, Hon. George P. Radanovich [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representative Radanovich.
Staff present: Robert Howarth, Senior Legislative Staff.
Mr. Radanovich. The Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will come to order, and I'm going
to ask a question. Can people hear through this mike system at
all? Is that better? I think that the mike system comes in, but
it's kind of scratchy.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. OK, good morning. My name is George
Radanovich, and I'm from Mariposa, California. I'm here as
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Land, and today the Subcommittee is
conducting an oversight hearing to examine the impact that land
acquisition has on the National Park Service maintenance
backlog, the priorities of the Park Service and on local
communities.
I'd like to remind everybody here today that this is not a
town hall meeting, but rather a formal congressional hearing
where issues are discussed and placed into the public record.
Therefore, I would ask for everybody's cooperation in
maintaining order in the room.
I would also like to remind anyone here today that they may
submit a written statement for the record. If you'd like to do
that you need a contact, I have Casey Hammond over here, Casey,
raise your hand high, high, higher. There you go. Casey is the
guy to talk to if you want to get your statement into the
public record. Thanks, Casey, and you can do that at the end of
the hearing, and he'll make sure that your comments are placed
into the record.
The hearing record also will remain open for 2 weeks, so
you do have time to submit anything that you'd want to be into
the record.
Today, we will hear from invited witnesses who represent
county government, private land holders, and the recreation
community, the conservation community, and the General
Accounting Office and the National Park Service.
As many in the audience are aware, the maintenance backlog
for the National Park Service was estimated to be $5 billion
when President Bush took office in January of 2001. Today,
according to the Department of the Interior, the amount is
about half of that original figure.
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and National Park
Service Director Fran Mainella have made eliminating the
deferred maintenance backlog their number one priority for the
park system.
According to the General Accounting Office, the 388 units
of the park system include 18,000 permanent structures, 8,000
miles of road, 4,400 housing units, 700 water and wastewater
treatment systems, and 200 solid waste operations. The Service
has to manage this infrastructure throughout 84 million acres,
which in 2002 experienced over 276 million visitors. In spite
of this tremendous responsibility, there are many throughout
the country who believe that the Service should continue to
acquire more land, either by expanding existing units or by
establishing new units, all of which have consequences, both
locally and within the Service.
As Chairman of the House Subcommittee that has jurisdiction
over all legislation to expand existing park units, establish
new park units, or direct the Secretary to study the
suitabilities of establishing a new park unit, I continue to
face the increasingly difficult situation in Congress with many
of my colleagues and the public who come before the
Subcommittee favoring such legislation. Each time I have to
conduct hearings on the bills to add land to the system or
authorize a study to add land the Administration requests that
I delay action until the backlog issue is addressed.
If I agree to move the legislation and it were to become
law, it would undermine the efforts of the Park Service to
eliminate the maintenance backlog and prevent the Service from
managing the 388 units existing today in such a way as to meet
the public's expectations.
For example in California, there is legislation before this
Subcommittee to expand the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
by 5,000 acres at a cost of $15 million. And locally, there is
legislation to authorize the Park Service to study a 500,000
acre area known as the ``Rim of the Valley,'' to determine its
feasibility of being added to the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area.
Much of the proposed expansion includes private property.
Outside of California, there is legislation to expand the
Cumberland Gap National Historic Area in Kentucky by 5,000
acres, the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan, and the
list goes on and on, including adding land to the National
Trail System and the Wild and Scenic River System.
While each acquisition may have merit, the fact is, taken
altogether these acquisitions may, and do, have an effect on
the Park Service and local community.
I appreciate the time the witnesses have made to come
before this Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Mark
Lewis, the Sunkist Building Service Manager, for his assistance
and tremendous hospitality in hosting the Subcommittee here
today. Thank you very much, Mark.
If you are not aware of how a public hearing works, we will
have our guests address the Committee. We do it for about 5
minutes. We keep the timing lights on. They start out green
which means go, it's like a traffic light, yellow means speed
up, and red means stop. So, we'll give you 5 minutes, and I
would ask, since this is a pretty comfortable setting, I would
ask if you could keep within those 5 minutes. And, what we'll
do is hear from each person before us, and then I'll be able to
ask them questions. Since I'm the only one who made it for this
hearing today, I'll be asking all the questions, so I'll make
sure I get all the right ones asked so all the information is
in the record.
And then, we'll go to our next panel, which is a five-
member panel, and let everybody speak and then go to questions
there, and that will wrap up the hearing itself.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Good morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
Public lands will come to order.
My name is George Radanovich. I am from Mariposa, California, and
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
Public Lands. Today, the Subcommittee is conducting an oversight
hearing to examine the impact land acquisition has on the National Park
Service maintenance backlog, the priorities of the National Park
Service, and on local communities.
I would like to remind everyone here today that this is not a town
hall meeting, but rather a formal congressional hearing where issues
discussed are placed on the record. Therefore, I would ask for
everyone's cooperation in maintaining order in the room. I would also
remind everyone that this is indeed a public hearing and therefore
anyone here today may submit a written statement for the record. Please
see our clerk, Casey (Casey, please raise your hand.) at the end of the
hearing and he will make sure your comments are placed in the record.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks.
Today, we will hear from invited witnesses who represent county
government, private inholders, the recreation community, the
conservation community, the General Accounting Office and the National
Park Service.
As many in the audience are aware, the maintenance backlog for the
National Park Service was estimated to be $5 billion when President
Bush took office in January 2001. Today, according to the Department of
the Interior, the amount is about half the original figure. Secretary
of the Interior Gale Norton and National Park Service Director Fran
Mainella have made eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog their
number one priority for the Park System. According to the General
Accounting Office, the 388 units of the Park System include 18,000
permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 4,400 housing units, 700
water and wastewater systems, and 200 solid waste operations. The
Service has to manage this infrastructure throughout 84 million acres,
which in 2002 experienced over 276 million visitors. In spite of this
tremendous responsibility, there are many throughout the country who
believe the Service should continue to acquire more land, either by
expanding existing units or by establishing new units--all of which
have consequences both locally and within the Service.
As Chairman of the House Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over
all legislation to expand existing Park Units, establish new Park
Units, or direct the Secretary to study the suitability of establishing
a new Park Unit, I continue to face the increasingly difficult
situation in this Congress with many of my colleagues and the public
who come before the Subcommittee favoring such legislation. Each time I
have conducted a hearing on bills to add land to the system or
authorize a study to add land, the Administration requests that I delay
action until the backlog is addressed. If I agree to move their
legislation and it were to become law, it could undermine the efforts
of the Park Service to eliminate the maintenance backlog, and prevent
the Service from managing the 388 existing units in such a way as to
meet the public's expectation.
For example, in California, there is legislation before the
Subcommittee to expand the Golden Gate National Recreation Area by
5,000 acres at a cost of $15 million, and locally there is legislation
to authorize the Park Service to study a 500,000 acre area known as
``Rim of the Valley'' to determine its feasibility of being added to
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Much of the
proposed expansion includes private property. Outside of California,
there is legislation to expand the Cumberland Gap National Historic
Area in Kentucky by 5,000 acres, Petrified Forest National Park in
Arizona, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan and the
list goes on, including adding land to the National Trail System and
the Wild and Scenic River System. While each acquisition may have
merit, the fact is, taken together, these acquisitions may and do have
an effect on the Service and local communities.
I appreciate the time the witnesses have made to come before the
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank Mark Lewis, the
Sunkist Building Service Manager, for his assistance and tremendous
hospitality in hosting the Subcommittee today.
______
Mr. Radanovich. So, with that, I want to welcome Mr. J.T.
Reynolds, who is the Superintendent of the Death Valley
National Park, and also Mr. Barry Hill with the General
Accounting Office, who is to speak on this issue.
Mr. Reynolds, I'd like you to begin, if you would, and
again, welcome, and please begin.
STATEMENT OF J.T. REYNOLDS, SUPERINTENDENT, DEATH VALLEY
NATIONAL PARK, DEATH VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before your Subcommittee on this issue of land
acquisition on the National Park Service backlog maintenance.
President Bush has placed a high priority on reducing the
deferred maintenance backlog of the National Park Service. This
Administration is committed to taking better care on these
areas. We also see that there is a balance between acquiring
new lands and meeting our operational and maintenance needs.
The authorization of new park units and expanding existing
ones not only can necessitate spending money on land
acquisition, but it also requires us to devote more money to
operation and maintenance of these parks, and can often require
hiring additional staff. But, because of these budget
constraints under which we are operating, every property that
is added to the National Park Service can have negative impacts
on our ability to address our deferred maintenance backlog.
As an indication of the cost that is entailed by expanding
the National Park System, the operating budgets for the 34
units established during the last 12 years totaled about $25.6
million. Some of these units are not yet fully operational, so
the costs of running these parks will likely grow. For these
units, the National Park Service has identified $30 million in
recurring unfunded operational needs and $265 million in
unfunded one-time projects. While all of these items will not
likely be funded any time soon, they do represent demands on
the National Park Service that were not there 12 years ago.
In addressing the deferred maintenance backlog, this is a
key component of this Administration's National Parks Legacy
Project. The project was initiated to ensure proper care of our
National Park System and is designed to enhance ecosystems,
improve outdoor opportunities, address infrastructure needs,
and establish accountability through performance goals.
Secretary Norton and Director Mainella have issued a report
entitled, ``National Park Service Partnering and Managing for
Excellence,'' that highlights the progress toward fulfilling
the goals of the Legacy Project.
President Bush has also made a commitment to provide at
least $4.9 billion in funding over 5 years for NPS to address
the deferred maintenance backlog. And, over a 5-year period,
the President has proposed spending more than $760 million
annually, to pay for non-road maintenance and construction, and
nearly $1.26 billion during the same period for roads through
the Federal Highway Administration.
Funds provided to date are achieving some tangible results,
and the Service has begun to improve the condition of hundreds
of park assets using the increased funding Congress and the
President has appropriated.
In the past 2 years, we have tackled approximately 900
repair and rehab projects, and will tackle another 500
projects, and approximately 400 or more of those projects will
continue in 2004.
Here in the Los Angeles area, the Santa Monica Mountains
has been a beneficiary to this Administration's emphasis, and
this funding was used to improve the condition of a number of
assets to a safe and acceptable condition.
As part of the Legacy Project, park roads are being brought
into good condition. Under the proposed highway transportation
bill, which would provide $1.89 billion over 6 years for park
roads, over 80 percent of the park roads would be brought into
good or excellent condition.
An essential component of the Legacy Project is to prevent
future backlogs, by bringing in state-of-the-art facility
management practices to the parks through the Asset Management
Program. As part of this program, the Park Service is
conducting system-wide inventory and identifying deficiencies,
estimating costs to repair, current replacement value, and also
the Service is accelerating its effort to complete these
condition assessments.
The Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, incidentally,
sir, is one of the first units of the National Park System to
complete a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of
all of its facilities.
The Asset Management Program includes the implementation of
the Facility Management Software System, which is an off-the-
shelf system to monitor and prioritize ongoing maintenance
needs that will allow NPS to manage the backlog and prevent a
recurrence of maintenance backlogs in the future. Most
importantly, through the establishment of this program, the
Service will be able to measure performance in improving
facility conditions through the Facility Condition Index.
Professional facility management also requires the Park
Service regular maintenance to prevent facilities from
gradually falling into disrepair. In Fiscal Year 04 and out
years, the Park Service should be looking at reducing our
maintenance backlog.
Another component of the President's Legacy Project and the
Park Service's Accomplishments Report, the Services special
connection to American people and its unique ability to engage
the public, which establishes partnerships and promotes
volunteerism. The NPS is serving as a catalyst. The President
is also encouraging the American people to participate in the
protection of natural and cultural resources through such
programs, and our goal is to create a seamless national park
network, historic places, and open spaces, and as part of the
effort the Department will be sponsoring a major conference on
partnerships here in Los Angeles in November, the second week
of November to be exact.
The President's Legacy Project also seeks to improve
visitor service and keep the parks safe. The September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks and world events require increased
security for our national parks and monuments throughout the
system. We have assigned nearly 200 additional protection
rangers to meet this increased need. Secretary Norton has
issued directives to improve the management of the law
enforcement of law enforcement programs and the Service, across
the Department of Interior, the NPS has also developed a
comprehensive Emergency Preparedness and Response plan to
protect public health in the unique settings of the national
parks and is coordinating with other bureaus and agencies to
ensure complete communications integration.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Statement of J. T. Reynolds, Superintendent, Death Valley National
Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Subcommittee at this oversight field hearing to discuss the impact of
land acquisitions on the National Park Service (NPS) maintenance
backlog and other priorities.
President Bush has placed a high priority on reducing the deferred
maintenance backlog in our national parks. The Administration is
committed to taking better care of what we have, while ensuring that
new acquisitions truly meet strategic needs of the NPS. There must be a
balance between acquiring new lands and meeting the operational,
maintenance, and restoration requirements for the resources already in
public ownership. In keeping with this priority and other priorities
such as improving security at our parks, we have often opposed, or
asked for the deferral of action on, legislation introduced in Congress
that would create new park units or expand existing parks.
Authorizing new national park units and expanding existing ones not
only can necessitate spending money on land acquisition, it may also
require us to devote more money to operation and maintenance of parks,
and it can often require hiring additional staff. Some acquisitions,
even if by donation, add to the deferred maintenance backlog if they
contain assets that are not in good condition. Because of the overall
budget constraints under which we are operating, every property that is
added to the National Park System negatively impacts our ability to
address the deferred maintenance backlog.
As an indication of the cost that is entailed by expanding the
National Park System, the operating budgets for the 34 units
established during the last 12 years (1991-2002) total $25.6 million
during FY 03. Some of these units are not yet fully operational, so the
costs of running these parks will likely grow. For these units, NPS has
identified $30 million in recurring unfunded operational needs and over
$265 million in unfunded one-time projects. While all of these items
will not likely be funded anytime soon, they represent new demands on
the National Park System that were not there 12 years ago. About 30
percent of programmatic funding increases in recent years have resulted
from the authorization of new units and boundary expansions.
Addressing the deferred maintenance backlog is the key component of
President Bush's National Parks Legacy Project. The Legacy Project was
initiated to ensure proper care of our National Park System and is
designed to enhance ecosystems, improve outdoor opportunities, address
infrastructure needs, and establish accountability through performance
goals.
On July 2, 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and NPS Director
Fran Mainella issued a report entitled ``National Park Service:
Partnering and Managing for Excellence'' (NPS Accomplishments Report)
that highlights the progress toward fulfilling the goals of the Legacy
Project. A major focus of the report is the progress NPS has made in
addressing the deferred maintenance backlog.
President Bush has made a commitment to provide at least $4.9
billion in funding over five years for NPS to address the deferred
maintenance backlog. This figure comes from a May 1998 General
Accounting Office report to Congress. The Administration is on a path
to meet that goal. To put the funding increases in perspective, the
more than $1 billion requested for FY 04 is nearly 45 percent more than
was provided in FY 00 and more than double what was provided in FY 97.
Over a five-year period, the President has proposed spending more than
$760 million annually, for a total of $3.81 billion, to pay for non-
road maintenance and construction, and nearly $1.26 billion during the
same period for roads through the Federal Highway Administration.
Funds provided to date are achieving tangible results, and the NPS
has begun to improve the condition of hundreds of park assets using the
increased funding Congress has appropriated at President Bush's
request. For example:
$16.5 million has gone to Federal Hall National Memorial
to repair cracks in the building;
$4.1 million is being used at Everglades National Park to
repair a 135,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treatment system;
$4.1 million has gone to Lava Beds National Monument to
relocate the visitor center away from fragile underground resources;
and
$2.1 million is being used at Yellowstone National Park
to replace a wastewater treatment plan and relocate the sewer line in
the Old Faithful area.
In the past two years, NPS has tackled approximately 900 repair and
rehabilitation projects. These projects, including 60 fire safety
projects, have enhanced visitor and employee safety. They have improved
health protection by upgrading and repairing 186 water, wastewater, and
sewer facilities. They have made buildings better and safer for
visitors through over 325 general building and safety rehabilitation
projects. Another 500 projects are underway in 2003 and approximately
400 more are programmed for 2004.
Here in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area has been one of the beneficiaries of
the Administration's emphasis on addressing the maintenance backlog.
Between FY 01 and FY 03, the park received $2.4 million to repair
facilities. This was about three times as much as the park had received
during the three previous fiscal years. This funding was used to
improve the condition of a number of assets to a safe and acceptable
condition.
As part of the President's Legacy Project, park roads, too, are
being brought into good condition. In 2001, just 35 percent of park
roads were in good condition. Under the proposed highway transportation
bill, which would provide $1.89 billion over six years for the Park
Roads and Parkways Program, over 80 percent of paved park roads would
be brought into good or excellent condition, and virtually no paved
road would be in poor condition.
An essential component of the National Parks Legacy Project is to
prevent future backlogs by bringing state-of-the-art facility
management in as part of this program. NPS is conducting a system-widen
inventory, identifying deficiencies, and estimating the cost of repair
and current replacement value of park assets. NPS is accelerating its
efforts to complete these facility condition assessments at all 388
park units and has completed the facility condition assessments on all
but the nine most asset-intensive parks this fiscal year. NPS is
accelerating its efforts to complete these facility condition
assessments at all 388 park units and has completed the assessments on
all but four of the largest this year, with the balance to be completed
by the end of FY 04.
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, incidentally,
was one of the first units of the National Park System to complete a
comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of all of its
facilities. That inventory includes 11 miles of paved and unpaved
roads, 33 paved and unpaved public parking areas, 104 miles of
recreation trails, 62 public buildings, 10 water systems, 8 wastewater
systems, and other assets. The total replacement value of all
facilities at the park is $26 million. This is the kind of information
we will soon have for the entire National Park System.
The Asset Management Program includes the implementation of the
Facility Management Software System (FMSS), an off-the-shelf system to
monitor and prioritize ongoing maintenance needs that will allow NPS to
manage the backlog and prevent a recurrence of maintenance backlogs in
the future. Most importantly, through the establishment of this
program, NPS will be able to measure performance in improving facility
conditions through a Facility Condition Index (FCI). This will allow us
to track progress in achieving results, rather than just counting
dollars or projects.
Professional facility management also requires regular maintenance
to prevent facilities from gradually falling into disrepair. In FY 03,
funding for cyclic maintenance increased from $22 million to $42
million, and in FY 04 is slated to increase to $56 million under the
President's budget. By ensuring cyclic and preventative maintenance at
regular intervals, this investment will help prevent a maintenance
backlog recurrence. While new park facility maintenance needs will
continue to emerge, the combination of increased funding and management
reforms instituted through the Asset Management Program will allow the
NPS to find the point where sustainable funding levels will cover an
asset's life cycle maintenance and capital replacement costs.
Another component of the President's Legacy Project and the NPS
Accomplishments Report recognizes NPS' special connection to the
American people and its unique ability to engage the public, establish
partnerships and promote volunteerism. The NPS is serving as a catalyst
and encouraging many individuals and organizations to leverage
resources and information, overcome organizational and procedural
barriers, and increase cooperation and consultation. The President is
encouraging the American people to participate in the protection of
natural and cultural resources through such programs as Land and Water
Conservation Fund stateside grants, the Preserve America Initiative,
Take Pride in America, and the creation of public and private
partnerships. Through these programs, our goal is to create a seamless
national network of parks, historic places, and open spaces. As part of
that effort, the Department will be sponsoring a major conference on
partnerships here in Los Angeles in November.
The President's Legacy Project also seeks to improve visitor
service and keep the parks safe. The September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the United States and the resulting world events require
increased security for our national parks and monuments throughout the
National Park System. As the principal steward of our nation's most
treasured cultural icons, the NPS has assigned nearly 200 additional
protection rangers to meet increased security needs. Secretary Norton
has issued directives to improve the management of the law enforcement
program within the NPS and across the Department of the Interior. NPS
also has developed a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness and Response
plan to protect public health in the unique settings of the national
parks and is coordinating with other bureaus and agencies to ensure
complete communications integration. NPS will continue to strengthen
security efforts through better training of personnel and improved
equipment.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Hill, welcome to the Subcommittee here representing
GAO, and please begin your statement.
STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, GAO, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to be
here today to discuss the National Park Service's maintenance
backlog. For decades, GAO, the Department of Interior and
others have reported on the Agency's efforts to develop an
effective maintenance management process that would enable the
National Park Service to provide accurate and reliable
estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance on its assets.
Over the years, the Agency's cost estimates of its deferred
maintenance backlog have varied widely, sometimes by billions
of dollars. The Agency acknowledges that it still does not have
the data needed to properly manage the broad array of historic,
cultural and natural assets places in its care. In 1998, the
Park Service initiated the design of a new asset management
process that is intended to provide the Agency with a better
overall approach to managing its assets inventory.
My testimony today summarizes our prior work regarding the
potential of the Park Service's new asset management process
and provides an update on the progress that the Park Service is
making and implementing. Let me start by briefly summarizing
our prior work.
In April 2002, we reported the Park Service had made
progress in developing a new asset management process that when
fully and properly implemented should provide the Agency with
more accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of deferred
maintenance of its assets. As currently planned, the new
process will, for the first time, enable the Agency to have a
reliable inventory of its assets, a process for reporting on
the condition of assets in its inventory, and a system-wide
methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for
assets.
Although the new process appears promising, we raised three
concerns that, while not significant enough to undermine the
overall merits of the process, we believe that addressing them
would improve the effectiveness of the process. First, the
success of the process cannot be determined until staff in each
of the Park units are trained and the process is fully and
properly implemented. Second, the Park Service has not yet
estimated what the total implementation costs of the process
would be, or developed a schedule for when full implementation
would occur. Third, two different operating divisions within
the Park Service, that being Concessions Management and
Facilities Management, are developing separate processes for
tracking and reporting deferred maintenance, and it's unclear
whether their efforts were not duplicative. And finally, only
about a third of the Park units ran complete annual condition
assessments by the end of Fiscal Year 2002, and while this
approach may have been appropriate for meeting programmatic and
financing reporting needs in the short term, without
comprehensive assessments more complex and costly problems
might be overlooked in the long term.
Now, let me update the progress we are aware of in
implementing the new process. Since our last report, I'm
pleased to report that the Park Service has made implementation
progress. The Park Service now reports it has completed its
inventory of assets for all Park units, as well as the first
round of staff training on the use of the computer software.
The Agency has also developed cost and schedule estimates for
implementing the process. According to the schedule, the
process is to be fully implemented by the end of Fiscal Year
2006, at a cost of about $90 million, including the cost of
performing condition assessments on Park assets. Thereafter,
the annual cost of sustaining the process will be about $20
million.
Also, the Park Service has developed a plan of its
implementation schedule to eliminate any duplication or
inconsistencies between the Concessions and Facility Management
organizations.
Furthermore, the Agency has completed annual condition
assessments on all but nine of the larger parks in the system,
and is currently performing a more detailed comprehensive
condition assessment on these nine parks, as well as other park
units.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that we have not had the
opportunity to verify the information provided to us on the
status of the Park Service's implementation of its new
assessment management process. However, we believe that if the
new process is fully implemented as planned, the Park Service
will be in a better position to determine the conditions of the
assets in its portfolio and to develop accurate and more
reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs.
This concludes my prepared statement. I'd be more than
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the National Park
Service's maintenance backlog. GAO, the Department of the Interior, and
others have reported on the Park Service's efforts to develop an
effective maintenance management process that would, among other
things, enable the agency to provide accurate and reliable estimates of
the amount of deferred maintenance on its assets. Over the years, the
agency's estimates of the amount of its deferred maintenance backlog
have varied widely--sometimes by billions of dollars. Currently, the
agency estimates its deferred maintenance backlog at over $5 billion.
Although the Park Service has spent almost two decades addressing its
maintenance backlog, it acknowledges that it still does not have the
data it needs to properly manage the broad array of historic, cultural,
and natural assets placed in its care--including accurate and reliable
data on its deferred maintenance needs. 1 In 1998, spurred
by continuing congressional concerns and new Federal accounting
standards, 2 the Park Service initiated the design of a new
asset management process that is intended to provide the agency with a
better overall approach to managing its asset inventory. A major goal
of this new process is to provide the Park Service with a reliable and
systematic method for estimating and documenting its deferred
maintenance needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of
deferred maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This maintenance includes resources and activities needed to
maintain facilities and the infrastructure in the system, such as
buildings, trails, botanical gardens, bridges, and other structures. It
does not include maintenance or restoration of natural landscapes, such
as removing non-native plant species from a meadow.
\2\ The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6,
Accounting for Plant, Property, and Equipment, issued by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board in 1996, requires that deferred
maintenance be disclosed in Federal agencies' annual financial
statements beginning in Fiscal Year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today will (1) summarize our prior work regarding the
potential of the Park Service's new asset management process to provide
maintenance data that will permit agency managers and the Congress to
monitor progress in reducing deferred maintenance and (2) update the
progress the Park Service is making in implementing its new asset
management process and realizing its potential for improved management.
For the most part, my testimony is based on a report we issued last
year. 3 At that time, the design of the new process was
complete but implementation was just beginning. In preparing for
today's hearing, we obtained updated information from the Park Service.
However, we did not have the opportunity to independently verify the
information the Park Service provided. To do so would have required
work at regional offices and parks. We conducted our work in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status
of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-568R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results in Brief
As we previously reported, the Park Service's new asset management
process is designed to address deferred maintenance, commonly referred
to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader approach to
asset management. When fully and properly implemented, the new process
is expected, for the first time, to enable the agency to have a (1)
reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for reporting on the
condition of each asset in its inventory; and (3) consistent,
systemwide methodology for estimating the deferred maintenance costs
for each asset. As a result, agency managers and the Congress should
receive much more accurate and reliable information on the extent of
deferred maintenance needs throughout the national park system.
Nonetheless, while the Park Service's current efforts are promising, we
reported on a few areas that the agency needed to address to improve
the performance of the process. These included the need to (1) develop
costs and schedules for completing the implementation of the process so
that the agency's performance could be monitored and assessed; (2)
better coordinate the tracking of the process among Park Service
headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency;
and (3) better define its approach to assessing the condition of its
assets, and determining how much the assessments will cost.
Since our report last year, I am pleased to say that the agency
appears to have made progress. While complete implementation of the
process will not occur until Fiscal Year 2006, the agency has
completed, or nearly completed, several substantial and important
steps. According to the Park Service, it has completed its asset
inventory, trained staff on the use of the required computer software,
and completed most of the on-site inspections necessary to determine
the condition and maintenance needs of inventoried assets. In addition,
the Park Service provided information indicating that it was addressing
each of the concerns identified in our prior report.
Background
The national park system contains 388 park units. These park units
have a diverse inventory of facilities and other assets, including over
18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and
tunnels, 4,400 housing units, about 700 water and wastewater systems,
over 400 dams, and 200 solid waste operations. The Park Service values
these assets at over $35 billion. Needless to say, the proper care and
maintenance of the national parks and their supporting infrastructure
is essential to the continued use and enjoyment of our national
treasures by this and future generations. However, for years Park
Service officials have highlighted the agency's inability to keep up
with its maintenance needs. In this connection, Park Service officials
and others have often cited a continuing buildup of unmet maintenance
needs as evidence of deteriorating conditions throughout the national
park system. The accumulation of these unmet needs is commonly referred
to as its ``maintenance backlog.'' Although the Park Service has spent
almost two decades and about $11 million addressing this problem, it
still does not have a reliable estimate of deferred maintenance needs
for its facilities and other assets.
In the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating and
maintaining Federal recreation sites within the National Park Service,
as well as other Federal land management agencies, led the Congress to
provide a significant new source of funds. This additional source of
funding--the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 4--was,
in part, aimed at helping the agencies address their backlogged repair
and maintenance problems. This new funding source is in addition to
annual appropriations the Park Service receives each year for
maintenance activities. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since Fiscal Year 1996, the Park Service, as well as three
other Federal land management agencies, have been authorized to have a
fee demonstration program. Under this temporary program, the agencies
are permitted to experiment with increased and/or new recreation fees.
The revenue generated from this program remains available for agency
use to address a variety of needs, including maintenance, without
further appropriation.
\5\ The House Committee on Appropriations has stressed that
recreation fees should never be used to replace appropriated funds; the
fees should be used for direct improvements on site that enhance the
recreation experience. H.R. Rep. No. 106-646 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the years of attention and funding and the well-intended
efforts of the agency and the Congress to resolve the maintenance
backlog dilemma, it has not gone away. While Congress continues to
provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to deal with the
maintenance backlog at the national parks, the Park Service still has
no reliable data on the size of the problem, raising questions about
what has been accomplished with the provided funds.
When Fully and Properly Implemented, The Park Service's New Asset
Management Process Should Provide Accurate and Reliable
Deferred Maintenance Data
As we reported in April 2002, the Park Service has made progress in
developing a new asset management process that, when fully and properly
implemented, should provide the agency with more accurate and reliable
estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance of its assets. As
currently planned, the new process will, for the first time, enable the
agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for
reporting on the condition of assets in its inventory; and (3)
systemwide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for
assets.
The new asset management process is composed of both systemwide,
integrated software to track cost and maintenance data and regular
condition assessments of Park Service assets. The cornerstone of the
new asset management process is the Facility Management Software
System. This cradle-to-grave asset and work management process will
allow park, regional office, or Park Service headquarters managers to
track when, what, and how much maintenance and related costs has been
directed at each specific asset.
In addition to using the software system, the Park Service plans to
assess the condition of its assets. These assessments will be
inspections to document the condition of an asset as measured against
applicable maintenance or condition standards. There are two types of
condition assessments--annual and comprehensive. Annual assessments are
essentially ``eyeball inspections'' of facilities to identify obvious
and apparent deficiencies. Comprehensive assessments are more in-depth
inspections to identify less obvious deficiencies, such as foundation
or structural problems. While the eye-ball assessments are annual, the
comprehensive assessments, which are much more expensive and time-
consuming, occur in 5-year cycles. The Park Service is to use the
information obtained from these condition assessments to establish the
overall condition of a facility or asset, including the resources
needed to address its deferred maintenance needs and future facility
needs. The cost of identified deferred maintenance needs will be
estimated using another computer software system that will provide a
uniform method for estimating repair and maintenance costs for each
asset in the inventory. Agency managers will use the condition
assessment information in combination with an asset priority ranking
system to set priorities for deferred maintenance projects.
While the design of the new process is complete, we reported in
April 2002 that the Park Service had just begun implementing it. For
example, at that time, the agency was still inventorying its assets and
training staff on how to use the new process at about a third of the
park units in the national park system. We reported that because
managers at each park will be required to implement this new process
using a uniform systemwide methodology, the resulting deferred
maintenance estimates should permit agency managers, as well as the
Congress, to monitor progress in reducing deferred maintenance both at
the individual park and systemwide levels. However, we noted that while
the new process is promising, its success cannot be determined until
staff in each of the park units are trained and the new asset
management process is fully and properly implemented.
In our last report, we also raised three concerns about the Park
Service's implementation of the new asset management process. While
these matters were not significant enough to undermine the overall
merit of the new process, we believed that addressing them would
improve the effectiveness of the process. First, even though the Park
Service had been developing its new process for more than 3 years, it
had not yet estimated its total implementation costs or developed a
schedule for completing implementation. While the agency had made
progress in developing schedules and costs for some components of the
process, it had not yet estimated when it will complete all the
required condition assessments or what they will cost. We noted that
monitoring and assessing performance against budgets and time frames
would be difficult without complete estimates and schedules that
include all components of the process, including the completion of
condition assessments.
Second, two different operating divisions within the Park Service
``Concessions Management and Facilities Management'' were developing
separate processes for tracking and reporting deferred maintenance,
even though both units are responsible for managing the condition of
government-owned facilities. Because both of these units have similar
responsibilities, it seemed reasonable that they would work together in
a coordinated way to ensure that their efforts are not duplicative.
Finally, the Park Service reported that about one-third of the park
units were to complete annual condition assessments by the end of
Fiscal Year 2002. We noted that this approach may be appropriate for
meeting programmatic and financial reporting needs in the short term;
however, without comprehensive assessments, this approach might result
in overlooking more complex and costly problems in the long term. As a
result, this approach could understate the extent of the deferred
maintenance problem. Park Service officials told us that the agency
eventually planned to conduct comprehensive assessments for all assets.
However, at the time they had not developed a plan detailing where,
when, and how the assessments will be done or what they will cost.
The Park Service Has Made Progress Implementing Its Asset Management
Process Since Our Last Report
Although full implementation of the new asset management process is
still years from completion, the Park Service appears to have made
progress since our last report. Also, importantly, Park Service
management has demonstrated its commitment to implementing this process
by withholding some Fiscal Year 2003 funding from parks that are not
complying with the agency's implementation goals.
The agency now reports that it has completed its inventory of
assets for all park units as well as the first round of staff training
on the use of the facilities management software. The agency also
contracted with a consulting firm to evaluate its training and
implementation efforts to help ensure that the training is effective
and that the software system is being consistently applied throughout
the park system. The Park Service has analyzed the firm's results and
is now developing a training curriculum to address the firm's
recommendations. The Park Service expects to begin implementing the
training in January or February 2004.
The agency is also addressing each of the issues raised in our last
report. Specifically, the Park Service has now developed cost and
schedule estimates for the complete implementation of the process.
According to the schedule, the process is to be fully implemented by
the end of Fiscal Year 2006, when all the comprehensive condition
assessments are complete for all park units and deferred maintenance
and other needs can be estimated on a reliable and consistent basis for
assets throughout the national park system. The Park Service estimates
now that the cost of the complete rollout and implementation, including
performing condition assessments, will be about $91 million from Fiscal
Years 1999 through 2006. Thereafter, it estimates that the annual costs
of sustaining the process once it is fully operational will be about
$20 million.
In response to our concern that two different operating divisions
within the agency ``Concessions Management and Facilities Management''
were developing separate processes for maintaining government-owned
facilities, the Park Service told us that they agreed and are committed
to implementing a single facilities management process. According to
the agency, it has developed a plan with an implementation schedule to
eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between these two
components of the organization.
The Park Service has also made progress in performing its
servicewide facility condition assessments. According to the Park
Service, it has completed annual condition assessments ``visual
inspections'' on all but nine of the larger parks in the system.
6 In addition, the Park Service is concurrently performing
the more detailed, comprehensive condition assessments on other park
units. According to the Park Service, the work done so far are
necessary steps and reflect some of the best practices of the private
sector in developing and implementing an effective facility management
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In order to expedite the condition assessments, the Park
Service decided to only complete the more comprehensive condition
assessments on the nine larger parks. These parks include Appalachian
Trail, Delaware Water Gap, Gateway, Golden Gate, Grand Canyon, Great
Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. By the end
of Fiscal Year 2003, the Park Service will have completed these
assessments for five of the nine parks with the remaining four to be
completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The Park Service has a solemn responsibility to take care of the
nation's natural, cultural and historic treasures. While it has
unfortunately taken decades to achieve the current level of focus on
maintaining these treasures, the Park Service apparently now has made
substantive progress in developing and implementing a system it can use
to determine the conditions of the assets in its portfolio and develop
accurate and reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs.
However, the agency has not yet completed the task. Determining the
assets' conditions and their maintenance costs will require years of
sustained commitment by the agency and by the Congress to ensure that
the full benefits of the agency's new facility management process are
realized.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hill, appreciate your
testimony.
I do have a number of questions that I'm going to go
through with both our guests here today.
Starting with you, Mr. Reynolds, if you may, in your
opinion what seems to be the largest hindrance to the Park
Service eliminating the maintenance backlog?
Mr. Reynolds. I can speak to it from a local standpoint,
sir, and this might even give you a sense of just how real it
is. In some cases, with Death Valley National Park, we only
have two people, and in many cases only one person, to get up
to speed on the MAXIMO, which is the Federal Maintenance
Software System, and so what we end up doing is taking an
individual from a real small staff to implement this sort of
condition assessment, which again takes away from preventive
maintenance of existing structures. So, it's kind of a balance
that we are going through right now.
However, we, at Death Valley National Park, did complete
our condition assessments this year, and it does give us an
opportunity to see, just really in true figures, what the costs
are for those assets, and then how much money we'll need to
improve them.
Mr. Radanovich. It sounds like then in your opinion that
it's a condition of having enough time for employees to
accomplish that and funding as well?
Mr. Reynolds. Absolutely.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, a combination of the two.
Can you tell me, Mr. Reynolds, in your testimony you
mentioned that, ``The Administration is committed to taking
better care of the existing units, while ensuring that the new
acquisitions meet strategic needs of the National Park
Service.'' What are those strategic needs, can you highlight
those a little bit more?
Mr. Reynolds. I think those strategic needs are looking at
the visitor service areas, looking at the areas where employees
work, and also looking at those road conditions in parks. I
mean, there are several areas where, you know, if we are going
to protect resources and at the same time allow visitors to
enjoy those areas, we kind of have to have a balance there as
well. How do we take care of the resources and at the same time
allow the public to use. So, those areas where the public go,
which are deteriorated roads, which are parking areas, which
are visitor centers, and we're trying to put some emphasis into
those areas as well.
Mr. Radanovich. You had mentioned in your testimony, and
discussed to an extent, the Secretary's report called, ``The
National Park Service Partnering and Managing for Excellence.''
Can you tell me how that study, the Legacy Project, relates to
eliminating or greatly reducing deferred maintenance backlog?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, we have a fee demonstration program,
which we use quite extensively in many parks that do collect
fees.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Reynolds. As you well know, 80 percent of those stay in
the park. And, we are putting most, if not all, of those funds
in toward our deferred maintenance, along with line item
construction that we have. We are just putting a lot of
emphasis into the deferred maintenance. That means we are
ignoring some other things, but we are putting it into the
deferred maintenance program.
Mr. Radanovich. So, it's an additional funding source in
many ways.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Can you tell me whether an increased appropriation is the
answer to eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, just by
itself?
Mr. Reynolds. No, it isn't, and the reason why, I would say
again from a local standpoint, is that funding that comes in
that can assist us in improving deferred maintenance we still
have additional things that occur with just preventive
maintenance. We don't have the operational funds for our staff
to do the preventive maintenance, structures, roads, continue
to deteriorate.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. And, I mean, you know, people talk about the
numbers changing, well they will change. If you don't take care
of something over a period of time, it eventually will start
deteriorating, and what might have cost, you know, today's
amount of money, 5 years from now those costs are going to
increase.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. So, it's really a moving target when you
begin to look at the amount of money that's necessary for
deferred maintenance, and at the same time taking care of those
assets that you have as well.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Can you tell me, is preventative maintenance, is that the
same as cyclical maintenance, or are they-
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. OK, the same thing. OK.
If Congress were not to authorize any new units, Mr.
Reynolds, say for 1 year, or authorize any expansions, do you
think that this would help the Service address the maintenance
backlog?
Mr. Reynolds. It would. I mean, from a personal standpoint,
if you don't add anymore land and assets, if you don't add
anymore land and assets which are going to require funds to
take care of them, then those assets that we presently have we
can put those funds into those assets. It's going to help us go
a long way. It will take us less time to do that with the same
amount of money if we continue to add assets.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
You mentioned the Asset Management Report, can you give me
an idea of when that might be sent to us here at this
Committee, when it might be ready?
Mr. Reynolds. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. You are not sure?
Mr. Reynolds. I mean, I can get that for you, but I don't
know, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Could you do that, if you could make sure
that you get that information to us, as to when it might show
up on our doorstep.
Mr. Reynolds, one more question. Does the National Park
Service consider the restoration of ground cover, plants, et
cetera, on the same level of importance as repairing or
replacing building and other structures used by park visitors?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, there you go.
There are certain members of our organization that would
say yes, and then there are other members of the organization
that would say, no, theirs might be more important. So again,
if we are talking about landscape, if we are talking about
restoring areas that have been designated, that's a tough one.
I mean, there is a balance.
I would say if it's a cultural resource, if it's a cultural
resource, one might put more emphasis on cultural resource. If
it is not a cultural resource in terms of a structure, one
might say, well, put it toward a cultural resource which would
be the land, the plants, the landscape and that sort of thing.
Again, it's a kind of a balance, and it's not always the
same from one park to the next.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Can you tell me from your experience at Death Valley, is
there pressure to expand the boundaries of the park or to do
any land acquisitions or things that might-
Mr. Reynolds. Well, there is a couple of issues going on.
One area south of Death Valley, between Fort Erwin and Death
Valley Proper, a particular strip of land called ``The Bowling
Alley,'' but it's BLM land. And, there is some impetus to add
that to Death Valley National Park.
Mr. Radanovich. Interesting, so you'll be addressing the
very issue in your park as well.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, I appreciate that.
Mr. Hill, again, thank you for your testimony. Can you tell
me, based on your analysis, in your report, what are the long-
term effects of land acquisition on the Park Service, or the
Park system, I should say?
Mr. Hill. Well, whenever you have land acquisition,
obviously, you are adding new assets to the inventory, and
that, as Mr. Reynolds pointed out, that's going to create a
problem in terms of maintaining that land.
Mr. Radanovich. Do you think that there could be better
coordination between the Park Service and the Congress when it
comes to land acquisition, about prioritizing what should be
brought in and what should not, and under particular
circumstances?
Mr. Hill. Most definitely, I think not only with the
Congress, but with the local public and the state as well. I
think these things have to be thought through very carefully,
and whenever Congress is going to authorize new land
acquisition I think what you need to do is consider the
operation and maintenance costs that are going to be incurred
by acquiring that land, and I think there's a tradeoff there.
You need to decide whether or not we can afford to acquire that
land or not, because if you are going to acquire it you need to
provide the funds that can properly operate it and maintain it.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Hill, in your opinion, knowing the
current state of affairs in the Park system, can the Park
Service sustain the level of expectation by the visitor while
still acquiring more land, do you think?
Mr. Hill. Well, obviously, the deferred maintenance
backlog, the way it is, the system is strained right now. I
mean, the use that these facilities are getting, the visitation
that it has, many of the facilities and the infrastructure on
the parks are aging. The more use it has, the more maintenance
you create, the more amount of money it's going to take to keep
up the facilities and the infrastructure.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you tell me, at least give me your
opinion, do you think the Congress ought to require that the
National Park Service set aside specific maintenance funds for
new land acquisitions prior to the time that this land is being
brought in?
Mr. Hill. I definitely think that those costs need to be
identified, here again, both the operating and the maintenance
costs need to be line itemed and, basically, Congress needs to
be aware of those costs.
Right now, the land is acquired and those costs are not
really fully understood, and then the Park Service, basically,
has to absorb those costs, and it really strains the entire
system.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
You mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Hill, that the
Assessment Management process that the National Park Service is
going to right now probably won't be ready until some time in
2006. Would it be your recommendation not to bring anymore land
into the system prior to the time that that--or until that
report is finished?
Mr. Hill. That's a hard call for us to make. I think each
acquisition has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
You've got to consider what the purpose would be of acquiring
that land. It might be that it's a resource that needs to be
protected immediately, and Congress has to make those
decisions, in terms of whether they want to go ahead with that
kind of thing or kind of hold off until the Park Service gets
the system fully operational.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Reynolds, I'm wondering, and this
question may not apply to Death Valley, but it could to the
Park system in general, especially those parks that are on our
Nation's borders with Canada and Mexico. Has the additional
requirements for security brought on by homeland security, is
that requirement met with additional Federal funds, or is that,
again, something that threatens the ability to eliminate this
burden in the budget?
Mr. Reynolds. At the present time, we are adding more law
enforcement personnel, also at Death Valley we have something
called ``no net loss.'' And, our idea is to try to bring our
numbers of law enforcement people back up to a better, shall I
say, a more safe condition.
And, while we are doing that with the existing funds, we
don't have additional funds to take care of those things that
we're taking the money away from. So, there's no more money
coming in, but I'm sure the Agency will come before Congress
requesting additional funds for those law enforcement
personnel.
Right now, we are absorbing those costs.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
As you know, my expertise primarily is with Yosemite
National Park because I was born and raised there, and I
understand that you worked there for 5 years, but as a general
question, a lot of people feel that the Park Service, in
particular Park Rangers, it would be nice of they spent most of
their time doing interpretive work and doing more of that to
the visitors and guests that are in the park. Do you feel that
that interpretive service, or what was very typically known to
be the Ranger who can explain what the park visitor is visiting
when they are there, does that get left and pushed back on the
back shelf for law enforcement demands and some of these other
things that occur?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I did work at Yosemite, and I spent 23
years doing law enforcement with this organization. And, often
times, the educational aspect of it does get lost. Sure, the
Rangers who are performing law enforcement, when they do have
the opportunity to educate the public about a myriad of things,
they do that. But, if they are performing, let's say, strict
law enforcement duties, they don't.
Now, the interpretive side of it, or our educational side
of that, is also, I would say, being decreased, because again,
we don't have operational funds for that part of our operation
either. So, those numbers of our educational Rangers are also
going down.
So, we have a lot of things that we are trying to do, but
without additional funding we're having to absorb all of these
things.
Right now, we are looking at the security of parks, so the
law enforcement impetus is higher right now.
Mr. Radanovich. You may not be able to consider that
education or interpretation as a maintenance backlog or a
deferred maintenance, but truly it is something that would
require more funding, or if there weren't issues like
maintenance backlogs or deferred maintenance you might be able
to expand the ability for the Park Service in education and
interpretive areas, do you agree?
Mr. Reynolds. Those funds could go to bringing our programs
up to where they should be.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Reynolds, thank you so much for being here today. I
think I'm done with my questions, and for as well, Mr. Hill,
thanks for coming to this hearing, and I appreciate it. You are
more than welcome to hear the next panel as well.
Mr. Radanovich. With that I will call up the next panel. We
have five people here today, starting with Mr. Gerald Hillier,
who is the Executive Director of Quad States County Government
Coalition, in San Bernardino, California. Also, Mr. Mike Lewis,
who is a member of the Santa Monica Mountains Inholder
Association, from West Covina, California. Mr Chuck Cushman,
who is the Executive Director of the American Land Rights
Association, from Battle Ground, Washington. Mr. Matt Bloom,
who is a constituent of mine, who is the owner of Kennedy
Meadows Resort and Pack Station, from Sonora, California, and
Ms. Courtney Cuff, she's the Pacific Region Director of the
National Park Conservation Association in Oakland, California.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the hearing, I'm glad you
are here, and again, we'll use the traffic light system for the
amount of time.
I would suggest, too, many people have brought written
statements to be used, although your written form is going to
be in the testimony anyway, if you want to take the time to
just sum up or highlight certain areas of your testimony, that
generally can be, in some ways, more informative.
And again, we'll start with Mr. Hillier and work down the
line, and then we'll open up the whole panel for my questions.
Again, welcome, Mr. Hillier, and, hopefully, the mike will
work just fine. Give it a shot.
STATEMENT OF GERALD HILLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, QUADSTATE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT COALITION, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hillier. OK, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for inviting us to participate in this hearing.
I'm Gerry Hillier, Executive Director of the QuadState
County Government Coalition. QuadState is an interstate Joint
Powers Authority, involving six counties in the four States
that encompass the Mojave Desert. Among our member counties,
there are six units in the National Park System.
There is not a simple answer to the question relating in-
holding acquisition and maintenance backlog and expansion of
park units. Federal acquisitions can be balanced or offset by
the contributions that these units may make to local economies
and tax revenues. Another aspect is personal, based on the
contact and relationships that exist between the Service and
local government officials. While government can never do
everything it might like to do, communicating needs,
establishing partnerships and working out priorities with local
people are a key to understanding and accepting shortfalls, the
problems come with what I call a double whammy, acquisitions
reducing revenues to the local government, and undone
maintenance reducing the quality of visitation.
As a result of this hearing and input, coupled with the
input that you received from Supervisors Postmus and Dorame at
th hearing in San Diego in August, we request that you:
Enact H.R. 380 to provide funding to counties, covering
Federal land acquisitions and private land.
Require that the land management agencies discuss
acquisitions with local officials prior to budgeting for such
acquisitions and in advance of acquisition initiatives by NGO's
on behalf of the agencies.
Nationally reduce acquisitions for all purposes until
needed maintenance is undertaken and the backlog eliminated.
And finally, support the Department of the Interior on the
implementation of the recordable disclaimer regulations so as
to provide for clear local government ownership of access roads
across Federal lands, particularly those within National Park
Service units.
Also, we would suggest that you review some of the NPS
units and boundaries that Congress has established in the past,
and determine if sound public policy might dictate some
alterations to them, so as to reduce or remove conflicts and
costs.
First, I'd like to talk about PILT--Payment in Lieu of
Taxes. My experience is that few government officials among any
of the Federal land management agencies understand this
program. There is a myth that when a Federal agency buys land
the county will automatically benefit from the acquisition
through increased PILT payments. For most counties this is
simply not true.
First, PILT payments seldom equal taxes collected.
Second, if counties are capped by the operation of the
formulas they get nothing. I have a Power Point presentation
handout with me today that shows PILT calculations for the six
counties making up QuadState, and I gave this map at the outset
of the hearing. Three of our six counties are capped and the
three that are not are close to the ceilings.
Federal managers overlook the loss the local tax base
revenue stream, yet county service requirements often remain
constant.
PILT formulas assess only population and Federal
``entitlement'' acreage and do not consider the assessed
valuation associated with capital improvements on the property
being acquired.
And, land acquisitions too often are characterized as
positive in by advocates, but they also assure that the private
lands will never contribute to county revenue and never
contribute to regional economies. And often, they seldom even
add to park visitation.
The specifics, my longer statement cite examples of San
Bernardino and Inyo Counties in California. San Bernardino
County has lost over 628,000 acres of private land to Federal
acquisition in the past 4 years. Over the course of this
action, in which the county has lost some $300,000 of annual
revenue, not a single official of the Department of the
Interior ever contacted county leadership, either the elected
Supervisors or the office of the County Administrator to
discuss the matter, its effect, or for input.
The Park Service regulates but does not maintain the
county's 225 mile road system, mostly paved, within the Mojave
Preserve. The county wishes to keep up the roads at no Federal
cost as a service to its remaining taxpayers in the region.
A similar pattern is in Inyo County with the Saline Valley
Road, which the county wishes to maintain, but NPS administers
and controls because the boundary of Death Valley is 50 feet to
the west of the road. The county recently received an
authorization to maintain it, but in an area so small in the
area that equipment cannot be turned. If the county sought
maintenance, NPS has verbally has indicated it would close the
access. This is wrong.
Mike Dorame, the Supervisor in Inyo County, reports that
much of the communication between Inyo County and Death Valley
is at a low level and verbal with NPS reluctant to put
directions in writing.
Congress should be concerned about having added a huge area
to a park, and then not providing funds or ability to maintain
historic public access. The county is willing, with its limited
funds, and not asking the Federal Government for financial
help, just reasonable policy. We would suggest fix the policy
or change the boundary.
NPS acquired the Rainbow Talc Mine, far from the actual
Death Valley, containing high-valued talc. The mine was taken
into the National Park boundary and wilderness area by action
of the California Desert Protection Act. San Bernardino County
engaged in correspondence, and even board resolutions, with the
Park Service on behalf of the owners. The owners appeared at a
House hearing in Washington, I think, in 1976. Over time, the
owners were simply worn down and accepted their payment. But,
the resources are now off limits to any economic use, and well
out of sight with the closed route over the Park Service, since
they also rejected all attempts by the county to make an RS2477
assertion.
The Park Service secured funds from a contingency fund
outside normal programming and budget processes and
congressional oversight, despite ongoing correspondence with
Death Valley Superintendent and resolutions by the board. Never
one did the Park Service deem it necessary to meet face to face
with any county official to discuss the issues, the impacts,
and the seeming overwhelming need for NPS to Federalize the
property.
NPS and local governments could work together in
partnership, yet the NPS, in its interpretation of its mission,
often creates an adversarial situation that should not exist
between units of government.
I do have positive reports from Mojave County in Arizona
and Washington County in Utah relative to Lake Mead National
Rec Area and Zion National Park. The Superintendents there
regularly attend Commission meetings and participate in an
organization called SUPAC, which does provide communication.
These are noteworthy. With proper sensitivity of NPS management
leadership, many of the management issues associated with the
parks can be overcome.
In preparing for this testimony, I also discussed issues
with the Commissioner from White Pine County, Nevada, an area
that includes Great Basin National Park. As with Mojave
Preserve, there seems little contact between NPS and county
officials. NPS has criticized local desires by raising a
viewshed argument and wanting to extend their influence miles
beyond the park boundaries. As the Commissioner told me, he
said, ``My God, it's a 13,000 foot peak, and how can you not
affect their viewshed.''
NPS also opposed a landing field near the park because of a
variety of issues, including managing the soundscape. Despite
assurances regarding visitation and growth when the park was
established, Baker, the gateway community, has become a virtual
ghost town.
Overall, with acquisitions, tax revenues have declined.
White Pine County is limited on PILT payments by its
population, so there are no offsets or credits for any losses
engendered by the Federal Government.
Overall, I have found and seen NPS is doing maintenance in
the region, fixing campgrounds in the Mojave Preserve and the
Great Basin, doing road maintenance to-
I have no idea where the funding comes from, but they are
getting it done. There seems to be a lot of money for
eliminating uses on private land, even those authorized to
continue in enabling legislation.
I add a final word. The Federal agencies personnel need to
be selected and trained to be responsive to local governments.
Superintendents may work with national directions, but the
concepts of local application of the Secretary's 4 Cs policy
must be inculcated in every Superintendent's vocabulary. That's
the only way to do business. Local government must be viewed as
a partner, not as invisible or an adversary.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hillier follows:]
Statement of Gerald E. Hillier, Executive Director,
QuadState County Government Coalition
I am Gerald Hillier. I serve as Executive Director of the QuadState
County Government Coalition. QuadState is an interstate Joint Powers
Authority, involving six counties in the four States that encompass the
Mojave Desert. The counties in the region organized to foster better
communication and advocacy about natural resources and public lands
issues that face their region. I can assure you that issues do not stop
at state lines particularly when agencies of the Federal Government are
concerned. We found that by organizing we were better able to deal with
and react to Federal issues than we could individually, and we could
more easily and directly call attention to issues in the Mojave Desert
region than is possible with our State organizations.
I have been asked to comment on National Parks in the region, their
land acquisitions, and the maintenance backlog. In doing that, I will
also touch upon some other issues related to National Park Service
management within the region.
Among our member counties, there are six units of the National Park
Service:
San Bernardino County CA: Death Valley NP, Joshua Tree
NP, Mojave National Preserve;
Mohave County AZ: Lake Mead NRA, Grand Canyon NP; and
Washington County AZ: Zion NP.
There is not a simple or consistent answer to the question of
relating expansion and in-holding expansion to maintenance backlog.
Part of the question relates to the degree that such Federal
expenditure is balanced or offset by the contribution that these units
make to the local economies. And part of that involves the role that
lack of maintenance may play in discouraging use of National Park
units, causing lowered contributions to local economies.
The question of relationships and effects of NPS actions may also
hinge on the contact and relationships that exist between the Service
and local government officials. Much that NPS does or does not do is
driven by their annual budget. Local government knows and appreciates
that there are many pressures on annual appropriations. Government and
its agencies can never do everything it might like to do, or even that
it sees necessary to do. Communicating needs, establishing partnerships
and explaining and working out priorities with local people are a key
to understanding and building support for shortfalls.
As a result of this hearing and input, and coupled with the input
that you received from Supervisors Postmus and Dorame at the hearing in
San Diego in August, we would like you to:
Enact H.R. 380 that would at least provide funding to
counties;
Require that the land management agencies discuss land
acquisitions with local government officials prior to budgeting for
such acquisitions, and in advance of acquisition initiatives by NGOs on
behalf of the agencies;
Reduce acquisitions for all purposes until needed
maintenance is undertaken;
Support the Department of the Interior on the
implementation of the recordable disclaimer regulations so as to
provide for clear local government ownership of access roads across all
Federal lands, particularly those within National Park Service units.
This will assure true partnerships between local and Federal officials
in resolving access issues as a minimum; and
Take a look at least of some of the NPS units and
boundaries that Congress has established and see if sound public policy
might dictate some alternations to them so as to remove conflicts and
help build partnerships. Local governments recognize the need to
maintain public services to taxpayers and constituents and are not
looking to adversely affect NPS units, but Congress and we need to
bring sensible management to the table and not allow NPS to simply
carry out its policies in a, ``We have our mission,'' arrogance.
First, I would like to talk about PILT--Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
Counties receive payments for Federal lands within their borders. This
program has existed since 1976, and supports a wide array of county
services, from law enforcement to emergency rescues to road maintenance
throughout the West. My experience is that few government officials
among any of the land management agencies understand this program, and
fewer still know its intricacies. And since the Bureau of Land
Management administers the program, few managers in the other agencies
with contributing acreage are even sensitive to it.
There is, for example, a myth that if a Federal agency buys land
the county will automatically benefit from the acquisition through
increased PILT payments. For most counties that is simply not true.
PILT is calculated first on the basis of people in the
county, not Federal acreage.
Payment for PILT cannot exceed, for FY 2003, $2.02 per
entitlement acre, less other Federal payments, or $0.27/acre without
adjustment. Either calculation is capped by the population ceiling. For
FY 2003, this amounts to a gross payment, before adjustment for
appropriation shortfall, of $2,701,000, or 1,337,129 acres. In other
words, if a county already has 1,337,129 acres of Federal holdings
among BLM, Forest Service, Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service
lands, it gets no additional PILT credit.
Within the QuadState member counties, three of six counties have
acreage in excess of 1,337,129 acres. These are Mohave in Arizona,
Lincoln in Nevada, and San Bernardino in California. Two of the three
have extensive NPS units, and one, San Bernardino, has been subject to
intense land acquisition during the past four years.
What is forgotten regarding PILT is the loss to the tax
base and local tax revenue streams. Further, often the land comes off
the tax rolls long before the actual Federal acquisition because of the
use by NPS officials of private foundation money to secure property in
advance of Federal acquisition. Since the foundations or NGOs are tax-
exempt the property becomes tax-exempt on sale to it.
What is also forgotten regarding PILT is that its formula
assesses only county population and Federal ``entitlement'' acreage and
does not consider or factor in the assessed valuation associated with
capital improvements on the property being acquired. Often when NPS
acquires mines or ranches, regarded in their parlance as ``inholdings''
or ``non-consistent'' land uses, they acquire structures, improved
pasture and houses, all of which have value above and beyond the raw
land value.
Also, land acquisitions, too often characterized as
totally positive in resource conservation terms, assure that the
liquidated Federalized private lands will never contribute to regional
economies, provide employment, or in any other way contribute to
society except to be ``preserved.'' They will not even add to Park
visitation, a factor often touted to promote NPS administration, a
promise that is too often ethereal.
In approaching this presentation, I am going to bounce from
experience with specific NPS units, and specific counties. Often
cooperation and coordination are more the result of the individual
management and outreach style of local leadership than it is responsive
to specific directives coming from Regional or National Headquarters.
Let's look first at San Bernardino County. Over the past four years
the County has lost 628,000 acres to Federal acquisition. Because its
population exceeds 50,000 and it has more than 8,000,000 entitlement
acres, it receives no additional PILT payment than it did in 2000
beyond what it received as a result of increased appropriations. These
acquisitions included purchases in NPS as well as BLM areas, for
wilderness, habitat for threatened species, mitigation, and liquidation
of the ranching industry in the Mojave National Preserve.
Over the course of all this acquisition, in which the county lost
some $300,000 of annual revenue, not a single official of the
Department of the Interior ever contacted county leadership, either the
elected Supervisors or the office of the County Administrator, to
discuss the matter, its effect, or to gain input. The facilitating
middleman, an NGO, Wildlands Conservancy, issued press releases about
the wonders of desert preservation, and did invite some county
officials to the celebration that welcomed the first sale to them by
Catellus.
The same pattern has been followed in the liquidation of cattle
ranches in the Mojave National Preserve. Again, National Park Service
used an intermediary NGO to consummate most of the purchases. The
county knew ranching was doomed from the time the Desert Protection Act
passed in 1994; despite assurances the ranchers could stay. Almost
immediately offers were floating and ultimately ranchers sold to the
NGO, who eventually recouped their money from NPS appropriated funds.
The loss in assessed value and tax revenue is accounted for in the
above $300,000. But what else was lost was a human presence in the
Mojave and non-government occupation of the lands. At times it seems
the goal of the Department of the Interior is to depopulate the rural
areas of the West.
Supervisor Postmus touched on these issues in his August 18, 2003,
testimony to this Committee at its hearing in San Diego.
The loss of ranching has also resulted in the dismantling of much
of the water systems that sustained both livestock and wildlife. NPS is
allowing the rancher to salvage the facilities' wells, tanks, troughs,
pipelines, etc. In return, NPS says they have no funds for maintenance
or replacement. Thus our hunters, who thought they too were protected
by language in the CDPA that supposedly protected hunting, are faced
with a bleak future in which wildlife may well decrease under NPS
administration because of lack of water. NPS in the GMP dialogue
defended this action in part based upon assuring naturalness. The
Mojave Preserve has been occupied by settlement for the past 130 years,
or more. Its face and heritage reflects this--historic mines and
ranches, a transcontinental railroad, and the myriad of life support
systems--utility rights-of-way--crossing the areas. How much better a
policy and program that NPS implement a program based on interpreting
this history and working with the landscape rather than attempting to
obliterate the heritage.
One other issue related to NPS coming into the country: the road
system, some 225 miles of it, mostly paved, has remained under County
ownership, but not administration. One of the first actions taken by
NPS was to post speed limits, lower, and no through commercial traffic
signs at the Preserve entrances. This was done without any formal
contact with the county at any level. Over nine years, there has been
some discussion about an MOU with low-level staff but none has ever
been consummated. NPS has objected to county use of materials sites
within the Preserve and when maintenance is undertaken, materials must
now come from outside the area. A few years ago there was an end of
fiscal year contact about NPS undertaking maintenance on what appeared
to be a one-time offer, but nothing came of it since the county was not
assured that maintenance would continue in perpetuity and it would
probably have meant the County would have had to relinquish R.S. 2477
rights-of-way under which the routes were constructed and maintained.
Because of other access issues within the Preserve plus the presence of
a few remaining residents and property owners who pay taxes, the County
has felt it prudent to maintain a lifeline to these. The County's
concern on a steady stream of funding is not without foundation: the
Inyo County experience related below bears out the lack of on-going
funding for maintenance in NPS units.
That said, how does this translate to maintenance? Actually NPS
seems to be doing well in this area. I have no idea where the funding
is coming from; perhaps other units. But they are redoing campgrounds
and providing facilities maintenance. So in a limited sense, the
maintenance job at least in the Mojave Preserve is getting done.
Whether they can take on anything additional, such as water
developments or roads is problematic. I do note that the NPS is
maintaining the road into the Desert Studies Center at Zzyzx, an action
required after flash floods this summer. The California State
University System runs the Center, and its use of the site was insured
under the CDPA. Access is only available by a road that is Federally
owned. The action by NPS is happening in a timely manner.
Turning to an issue in Death Valley National Park, but still within
San Bernardino County, is the story of the Rainbow Talc Mine. The
government now owns this mine, containing high value talc and graced
with a beautifully constructed head frame. The mine is located in the
southeast corner of the Park, not within Death Valley, but in the Ibex
Hills at the edge of a historic mining district. The mine was taken
into the National Park boundary, and Wilderness Area, by action of the
California Desert Protection Act in which Congress and its helpers drew
the line and even eliminated the access road.
Discovered in the 1950s, the owners had secured a plan of
operations for underground (tunnel) mining from BLM just as the CDPA
was passed in 1994. Started over, and with a purchaser for the talc on
line, they attempted to secure a plan of operation from NPS, but there
was always one more problem. Tortoises. (There were none.) The cost of
an Environmental Impact Statement. In the interim, NPS even wanted them
to secure a permit and notify its office with times and names to even
use the access.
San Bernardino County engaged in correspondence with the Park
Service on behalf of the owners, since the matter had some economic and
potential employment benefits. The owners also appeared at a House
hearing in Washington, I believe in 1996, in response to an inquiry
about Wilderness horror stories. Over time the owners were simply worn
down, and accepted payment from the government. Yes, they did get their
retirement nest egg. But no, the resources are now off limits to any
economic use by the American people.
My point is that, in this case, NPS secured the funds to purchase
the mine over a couple of fiscal years. Funds came from a contingency
fund that are evidently available for emergency purchases that the
agency can make outside the normal programming and budget process,
including Congressional oversight. More critically for this testimony
is the fact that, despite on-going correspondence and even resolutions
by the Board of Supervisors with the Death Valley Superintendent, never
once did the agency deem it necessary to meet with any county official.
To the contrary, correspondence received the ``we are working on it''
and ``we have our processes'' variety.
During the entire process, never once was there an attempt by the
Superintendent to directly contact any county official. We would have
thought that at some point, after letters and resolutions, he would
have at least picked up the phone, if not come to San Bernardino to
discuss the issues, the impacts and the seeming overwhelming need for
NPS to Federalize this property. And when the sale was finally
consummated, even then, NPS never let the County know.
Staying with Death Valley, but switching to Inyo County, there is
an on-going and current issue regarding the Saline Valley Road. You
heard of it in Supervisor Mike Dorame's testimony in San Diego. I
reiterate it here because it bears directly on the issue of
infrastructure maintenance.
When the California Desert Protection Act expanded Death Valley in
1994, Congress moved the boundary far west to absorb Saline Valley into
NPS administration. The County and others objected during the CDPA
battle, but to no avail. And as they say, ``The Devil is in the
details.'' Congress not only used the Saline Valley Road for the west
boundary of the Park, they drew the boundary 50 feet west of the road
so that the entire road was inside the Park. To this day we don't know
why, but we have our suspicions about the motives of the citizen groups
who guided and ``helped'' Congress draft the CDPA.
At any rate, Inyo County must now deal with maintaining a road
within the NPS administrative boundary and with NPS processes and
procedures. This includes not using historic borrow areas for
maintenance material, since ``mining'' is inappropriate within Park
units. Needless to say that County maintenance has declined in recent
years as a direct result of higher costs.
Recent summer storms have eroded and made the road difficult to use
as it enters from the north, and have made the south access impassible.
We are talking about some 50 to 75 miles of main stem road here, and
the only access to the Valley, an area embracing close to 1,000,000
acres.
After contacts, NPS did allow use of an old pit but within 25 feet
of the centerline of the road. The restrictions are such that it will
not accommodate even the turning radius of equipment.
Much of the communication with Death Valley is at low level and
verbal, with NPS reluctant to put either direction or policy in
writing. The Supervisor asked NPS what it would do if the County just
walked away from the road. The Superintendent said it would probably be
closed since NPS lacked maintenance funds to keep it open. Sadly, we
don't have this in writing, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity.
Congress should be concerned about having added a huge area to a park
unit and then not providing funds to provide public access. This is not
Alaska! Further, the area has had historic use for over 100 years based
on continuous public access.
For its part, the County does wish to keep the road and public
access. Here is an example where NPS and the local government could
work together in partnership, yet the NPS and its interpretation of its
mission create an adversarial situation that should not exist between
units of government. Just because NPS has assumed a degree of sovereign
isolation within its units it and its employees need to assure that
local government is part of its client base.
Moving east, Lake Mead National Recreation Area lies within Mohave
County, Arizona, as well as in Nevada. I cannot speak for issues that
may be associated with Clark County, Nevada. Mohave County reports that
they have little issue with Park Service administration. Over time NPS
has attended County Commission meetings and the Commissioner told me
that when he needs information the Superintendent is right on it,
returning calls or even coming to Kingman from Boulder City. The County
has had issues with BLM in the Strip to the north, but all seems to be
well.
I think it well to take note of this--with the proper sensitivity
of NPS management and leadership, many of the issues associated with
the Parks can be overcome. In fact, even NPS shortfalls in budgets to
perform maintenance activity can be understood and perhaps
cooperatively solved with the right kind of communication and
sensitivity.
Mohave County is one of those counties that has a huge Federal
acreage within its border. It is capped by virtue of having more than
50,000 people and over 6,000,000 entitlement acres. They have
experienced some land acquisition in recent years and can expect more
in the future associated with activity by all agencies: BLM, NPS and
FWS. Bureau of Reclamation is wrapping up work on a land use plan for
the Lower Colorado River that will rely in part on land acquisition for
mitigation. The Congress needs to proactively involve itself in all
facets of the agency land acquisition program to assure that parcels
acquired for any reason are really needed by the Federal administration
and that purchase and removal from tax rolls is the appropriate means
of securing them.
We have no issue with Grand Canyon NP. There is no contact as far
as Mohave County is concerned because of its remoteness and lack of
physical access.
Along the same lines, Washington County in Utah, another one of our
member counties reports that they have little issue with Zion National
Park within their jurisdictional boundary. This is a Park unit of long
standing, so many of the growing pains that may have occurred with
establishment have been overcome with the passage of time and new
generations of management and elected officials. There have been issues
related to restrictions on group size, but at least NPS seems willing
to meet with local officials and discuss the matters. There are regular
meetings among a group called SUPAC in which NPS participates regularly
and in a forum with County officials.
Perhaps that is part of the solution to these differences--provide
regional forums to build relationships. In California, the Department
of the Interior established something called the Desert Managers Group
after passage of the CDPA. That has been largely an inside group since
its inception, but its current Coordinator, headquartered in Barstow,
is making an attempt to make the meetings more open, and announced. To
date he has not met with local government leadership, to my knowledge,
limiting contacts to the staff and consultant level, but there is hope
and a structure there, but it must be nurtured and not simply be a
forum for fellowship. And agencies cannot or should not use it and then
retreat to their mission straightjacket. It should be a forum for
bringing about change when needed and overcoming institutional
barriers.
I touched on an area beyond QuadState's membership in noting issues
in Inyo County, California. In preparing for this testimony I also
discussed issues with a Commissioner from White Pine County, Nevada,
and area that includes Great Basin National Park.
Here, like in the Mojave Preserve, there seems little contact
between NPS and County officials. NPS has raised criticisms about local
desires falling back on a viewshed argument and wanting to extend their
influence for miles beyond the Park boundary. NPS opposed establishing
a landing field near the Park because of a variety of issues including
managing the soundscape. (This is an issue related to the Mojave
Preserve as well as Las Vegas attempts to create a new airport near
Jean.) Despite assurances regarding visitation and growth when the Park
was established, Baker, the gateway community, has become a virtual
ghost town.
As NPS has expanded its presence, ranching has all but disappeared
under the limitations placed on it by Park Service regulation and
closure of access. Recreation use has also diminished. While visitation
is hiking related, diversity from hunting, fishing, rockhounding and
other legal pursuits has been curtailed or disappeared. Overall, with
acquisitions, tax revenues have declined. White Pine County is limited
on PILT payments by its population, so there are no offsets or credits
for any of the losses engendered by the Federal Government.
NPS is completing a new visitor center, and has done an adequate
job of maintaining the two campgrounds in the area. We cannot say where
the funds came from.
To summarize:
Enact H.R. 380 that would at least provide funding to
counties;
Require that the land management agencies discuss land
acquisitions with local government officials prior to budgeting for
such acquisitions, and in advance of acquisition initiatives by NGOs on
behalf of the agencies;
Reduce acquisitions for all purposes until needed
maintenance is undertaken;
Support the Department of the Interior on the
implementation of the recordable disclaimer regulations so as to
provide for clear local government ownership of access roads across all
Federal lands, particularly those within National Park Service units.
This will assure true partnerships between local and Federal officials;
and
Take a look at least at some of the NPS units and
boundaries that Congress has established and see if sound public policy
might dictate some alternations to them so as to remove conflicts and
help build partnerships. Local governments recognize the need to
maintain public services to taxpayers and constituents and are not
looking to adversely affect NPS units, but Congress and we need to
bring sensible management to the table and not allow NPS to simply
carry out its policies in a, ``We have our mission,'' arrogance.
And I would add a final word--Federal agency personnel need to be
selected and trained to be responsive to local governments and local
citizens and constituents. They may work with National direction, but
if Secretary of the Interior Norton's 4 Cs policy is going to work, it
has to become inculcated in every Superintendent's vocabulary and way
of doing business. Local government should not be viewed as an
adversary, rather as a partner. But this includes full understanding on
the part of Federal management of the limitations to PILT, the fact
that local governments have budgets and priorities as well, and that
problems can be solved together. There are models for success. Let's
use them and expand them.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hillier. I appreciate your
testimony.
Next is Mr. Mike Lewis, who is a member of the Santa Monica
Mountains Inholders Association, from West Covina.
Mike, welcome to the Subcommittee and have at it.
STATEMENT OF MIKE LEWIS, MEMBER, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
INHOLDER ASSOCIATION, WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. I did submit some prepared remarks,
and I'll just go ahead and summarize those.
The Inholders Association is a group of landowners in the
Santa Monica Mountains who, in some cases, own a few hundred
acres--in some cases, several thousand acres. It also includes
recreation enthusiasts, some equestrian organizations, and some
other outdoor advocates.
Let me quickly describe this National Recreation Area for
you. It's a 150,000 acre designated land mass, 54 percent of
which is privately owned. The other 46 percent, which is owned
by a public agency, includes lands owned by the county, the
state, some city lands, only 11 percent of the real estate is
actually owned and controlled by the National Park Service.
The National Recreation Area, I want to remind everybody,
is not a park, it's a recreation area, and virtually all of the
visitors serving recreation activities other than trails, and a
few parking lots for access are on private property.
We have a maintenance problem, as do just about all of your
other park units, but I think in part it's not because we are
not pursuing this maintenance or we don't have enough money,
it's because we've changed the definition of maintenance. What
you and I think of as maintenance, fixing parking lots,
repairing the plumbing, repairing the roof, maintaining trails
or clearing trails, I think has been succeeded by a new
definition, a much broader definition, that includes fixing
habitat, removing non-native plants, encouraging overgrowth,
planned obsolescence in fact, and some intentional
deterioration of infrastructure in order to restore a natural
condition. And, I think this change in emphasis has sort of
evolved as part of the culture of the Park Service over the
last decade, in that they've moved from an emphasis on visitor
serving priorities to visitor discouraging, if you will, by not
maintaining facilities in order to pursue a more conservation-
related agenda.
The name of the game, obviously, in this arena is to get
money for parks, and to get as much as you can, and to get it
any way that you can. The way to do that, frankly, is you need
an ongoing maintenance backlog to keep the pressure on. You
need a list of urgent acquisitions, especially hardship
acquisitions, even small business or small property owners who
have no other option but to sell to the Park Service, because
they become nice poster children for capital investment funds.
You also need a constituency who is pushing for more
facilities, trails, campgrounds, and things of that sort.
In the Santa Monica Mountains we have all of those, but we
have an NPS mission that I think conflicts with that which was
designated by Congress and that which is clearly the public
priority in southern California.
While Congress proposed recreation, biking, equestrian
trails, and the development of ranches, the homesteads, and the
movie sets in the National Recreation Area, we have a 2003
Annual Plan that says the Santa Monica Mountains exist to
conserve an ecosystem.
Let me illustrate for you how that translates in our
region. According to this 2003 plan, 12 of the 27 historic
structures in the Recreation Area are rated in fair to poor
condition. They only plan to restore one of them. Well, 14
staff members are maintenance workers, 18 are full-time
conservation biologists and ecologists. Of the 22 goals stated
in the Annual Plan, only two relate to visitor services and 20
are goals to ``restore targeted lands disturbed by prior
physical development or agricultural use.'' Among the specific
activities on which these appropriations are spent are the
removal of an avocado orchard in Yuma Canyon and the replanting
of a coastal sage scrub, containing disturbances on 29,000
acres of endemic vegetation on non-parkland, monitoring
development hearing notices for and testifying and submitting
written comments on targeted private developments, removing
exotic vegetation on 80 acres of grassland, and inventorying,
measuring, photographing, and monitoring all threatened and
endangered species. All of that takes money.
The plan goes on to dictate that ``facilities must be
maintained in a relatively primitive manner to preserve the
visitor experience.''
What would we recommend to resolve some of these issues?
First, we think the Recreation Area should be operated for
visitors, not managed like museums. Clear distinctions need to
be made between the definition and the purposes of National
Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments,
Wilderness and other Federally designated lands.
Second, there are dozens of landlocked and hardship parcels
that should be acquired from their many willing sellers. Some
funds need to be made available for this purpose. If Congress
is reluctant to specify the exact parcels to be acquired, then
funds should be directed to those areas where public agencies
already own large percentages of acreage, and they should not
be allowed to spend the dollars acquiring land in new areas.
And, I brought with me a map just to illustrate for you
some of the holdings in the Santa Monica Mountains that are
surrounded, where private small landowners have been surrounded
and have been for years unable to get the Park Service to
proceed to acquire the land.
Third, I think that the Committee should look very
carefully at the Agency maintenance budget and understand the
maintenance definitions used by the Park Service. There is a
mind set in the Park Service that conservation is also
maintenance, and I think there's competition for those funds
and they are being drained away from facility maintenance in
order to pursue other restoration and rewilding activities.
Fourth, I think we need to go slow on any NRA expansion
plans, given the difficulty in managing what we already have.
It serves no public use in the urban area to draw more
boundaries around land for which there is no acquisition,
development or maintenance dollars. I think we need to resolve
the current land acquisition issues first.
And finally, I think Congress should consider the adoption
of a recreation access bill of rights, to assure the taxpayers
that they will be able to access and enjoy the lands set aside
with their tax dollars. One component of this bill of rights
should be the mandatory development of a publicly reviewed
visitor use and access plan before each major land acquisition.
We believe that the use of public funds for purchase of private
lands demands some level of public access and use, and we
believe the public is entitled to know what that is going to be
before the funds are expended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and your interest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
Statement of Michael W. Lewis, Policy Director,
Santa Monica Mountains Inholders Association
Good morning Mr. Chairman, my name is Mike Lewis and I'm here
representing the Santa Monica Mountains Inholders Association, a group
comprised not only of landowners with property within the 150,000 acre
National Recreation Area, but also of recreation enthusiasts,
equestrians, and the businesses who provide services for these park
visitors.
My goal here today is to explain why we have a growing maintenance
backlog in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and
perhaps illustrate by example why we are facing a crises in facilities
maintenance at so many National Parks across the nation.
I also want to offer my thoughts on specific issues and policies
relating to land acquisition practices and the lack of a long-term
maintenance and acquisition plan, which in turn impacts property owners
in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
The members of our organization are very concerned that the
National Recreation Area is not doing what it was originally intended
to do. The managers of this 150,000-acre swath of real estate have
strayed in several ways from the original intent and promise to create
the world's finest urban recreation area.
First, small property owners are suffering hardship due to NPS land
acquisition practices. Within the parcels owned by the NPS are many
small privately owned parcels for which the NPS can be the only buyer.
These willing sellers are often told many things about the ``pending''
acquisition of their land. Most often, land owners are shown a land
acquisition budget and assured that funds for their transaction are
included in that pot.
Unfortunately, all landowners are shown the same pot and given the
same assurance. This shell game with the money is repeated annually.
The next trick is to send landowners to other local agencies claiming
that they have been selected to acquire their particular parcel. This
ping-ponging between agencies can delay a less sophisticated property
owner for several years in the process. A third technique is to make an
offer with no money to really back it up. Then cancel the deal at the
last minute because the money has been spent somewhere else. This cycle
can drag on for years.
Second, there is not much to maintain in the National Recreation
Area since there is little in the way of NPS facilities for public use
other than a few trails and a few buildings. Any shortage of
maintenance dollars can probably be attributed to the practice of funds
being applied to activities that you and I don't usually think of as
maintenance in the traditional sense of the word. I will elaborate on
that later in my comments.
Third, visitor numbers, and thus the justification for more
dollars, for the SMMNRA are misleading due largely to the Malibu
beaches. We are told that there is an annual increase of 12% in the 33
million visitors to the NRA. As a practical matter 32 million of those
visitors are barefoot. They are going to the beach. The NPS provides no
services and owns no land on the beach. Fewer than 1 million visitors
actually set foot in the inland portion of the park boundaries.
Fourth, the newly adopted General Management Plan envisions
``limited use'' and reductions in visitor use and intensity, not an
expansion of services and facilities. This strategy is also being
implemented through the deferred maintenance and planned obsolescence
strategies being employed by the Park Service here and elsewhere in the
system.
Fifth, the NPS staff is very aggressive in opposing private
property owner's use of their land. They frequently appear at planning
commission hearings, in uniform, to oppose projects merely on the basis
that they are inside the boundaries of the NRA. Given past practice, no
private property owner should be advocating an expansion of the
boundaries that would include his or her property.
It's important to understand the history of the National Recreation
Area and how it came about in Southern California,
The Recreation Area was created 25 years ago. It was hailed at the
time as the largest natural recreation area in any U.S. urban region.
It has sometimes been referred to as the ``lungs'' of Southern
California due to its vast open space on a map of the Los Angeles
region.
Over $200 million in local, state and Federal taxpayer dollars has
been spent on land acquisition. Add another $150 million for Ahmanson
Ranch acquisition which was announced just a few days ago.
Notwithstanding that investment, only 46% of the land inside the
boundaries is owned by public agencies. Over 54% is privately owned and
always will be. Further, the NPS only controls about 11% of the total
acreage. Inside the boundaries, are subdivisions, universities, filming
locations with sets, vineyards, cattle ranches, numerous cross-mountain
highways and portions of three or four cities.
All the visitor serving recreation facilities are provided by
private operators on private property. It is primarily trails that are
on public land. Our own survey of private facilities indicates that
twice as many people use the private facilities as use the few public
trails. Private facilities include camping, restaurants, horse stables,
fishing lakes, corporate picnic grounds, conference centers, day camps
and summer camps, religious retreats, wineries, sports camps and
training facilities, thoroughbred breeding facilities, corporate
training facilities, hotels, extensive movie filming locations and
more. Most all of these facilities predate the NRA and the NPS. This is
not a pristine open space. It is a vibrant, active, working recreation
area with considerable unrealized potential.
A recent visitor study by the NPS determined that the typical park
visitor is white, middle-aged, averaging 41 years old, college educated
and lives in the immediate area. That is hardly the profile of the
typical Los Angeles resident. It would cause one to think that we may
have spent a lot of money buying a great big back yard for a few well-
to-do local residents.
Ironically, one in seventeen Americans lives within a 1-hour drive
of this NRA. It should be a welcoming place for those millions of
Americans. Apparently it is not. We need to shift the focus from
expanding the boundaries, to making something out of what we already
have in NRA. There is no need to acquire more. Especially if it is only
going to be withheld from public use.
There is a culture in the Park Service that treats all Federally
designated lands as museum-quality properties that should be preserved
in a fashion that only allows visitors to view them from afar. There is
also a parallel effort to isolate these lands and remove them from
human contact.
The management staff of the National Park Service has apparently
rejected the mission of the Recreation Area, which was described
eloquently in the visionary 1978 Act that created the Recreation Area.
It states the goal of Congress as ``to develop recreational facilities
including picnic areas, hiking, biking and equestrian trails for public
enjoyment and to develop historic sites within the Park that represent
California's cultural vernacular including the various ranches, old
homesteads, movie sets, etc.''
If you read the mission statement for the Recreation Area taken
from the 2003 Annual Plan, it does not even include the word
``recreation''. Instead it claims ``The SMMNRA exists to conserve an
ecosystem.'' They have in effect repealed the designation approved by
Congress.
If you want to understand why we have a facilities maintenance
crises, you need to understand the role that conservation biology plays
in the Park Service. Conservation biology is a sub-discipline of
biology that focuses exclusive on preserving natural habitats and
returning them to pre-Columbian conditions. The primary goal of
conservation biologists is to remove all evidence of ``human
disturbance''.
The public policy effect of this is that any recreation facility
located in what is considered a ``sensitive area'' will not be
maintained and is intentionally scheduled for deterioration and
eventual removal.
As an illustration of this, according to the SMMNRA's 2003 Plan,
twelve of the 27 ``historic structures'' are rated in FAIR to POOR
condition. They only plan to restore one of them.
The fact that these facilities are being managed out of existence
is evidenced by the staffing and resource allocations of the same 2003
plan.
While 14 staff members are maintenance workers, 18 are full time
conservation biologists and ecologists engaged in devising ways to
remove visitors from the recreation area.
Of the 22 goals stated in the Annual Plan, only two relate to
visitor services and 20 are goals designed to ``restore targeted lands
disturbed by prior physical development or agricultural use''.
Among the specific activities on which appropriations are spent
are:
The removal of an avocado orchard in Zuma Canyon and
restoration of a coastal sage scrub plant community in its place;
Containing disturbances to 29,000 acres of endemic
vegetation on non-parkland;
Monitoring development hearing notices for and testifying
and submitting written comments on targeted private developments;
Removing ``exotic'' vegetation on 80 acres of grassland;
and
Inventorying, measuring, photographing, and monitoring
all threatened and endangered species.
The plan goes on to dictate that ``facilities must be maintained in
a relatively primitive manner to preserve the visitor experience. The
only modifications to this environment would be for the purposes of
protecting the resources from the impacts of use...'' It also says,
``trails and recreation would be relocated away from sensitive areas.''
If Congress expects to see improvements in facilities maintenance,
they are probably going to have to amend the General Management Plans
of every Park Service operating unit in the nation. Undoubtedly, they
have language similar to that contained in our local plan. The SMMNRA
plan explicitly prohibits facilities maintenance in 80% of the area, by
classifying it as ``low intensity'' in which all evidence of human
disturbance is to be removed.
Today, we have a National Recreation Area that has physically
surrounded small private property owners to lock them out of their
land. The Park Service will not follow through on efforts to acquire
the properties and they oppose the landowner's efforts to seek
approvals to develop their lands.
They have also chosen to ignore the mandate of Congress, and the
voters, who provided the land acquisition funds in the first place, to
order to withdraw those lands from public use.
For all other property owners, they are pursing a ``death-by-
regulation'' strategy to diminish the value and usefulness of their
land. They have limited the landowner's ability to clear brush for fire
purposes, imposed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat and Significant
Ecological Area designations to limit improvements, adopted view-shed
and watershed protection policies and a host of other constraints to
further limit land improvements.
The NPS also conspires with other local agencies such as State
Parks, Los Angeles County, the California Coastal Commission and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board to frustrate the efforts to
private landowners to use their land.
What would we recommend to resolve some of these issues?
First, recreation areas should be operated for visitors, not
managed like National Parks. Clear distinctions need to be made between
the definition and purposes of National Parks, National Recreation
Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness and other Federally designated
lands. We have been very disappointed in the cookie cutter approach to
our new General Management plan. NPS took the attitude that what's
needed for this park, is what they have always done elsewhere. No need
to look further. The Plan does not reflect local priorities. It didn't
mention all the private recreation facilities and never discussed
partnerships to expand those services and facilities. Many of us have
discussed the idea of transferring the NRA responsibility to another
agency that would be more comfortable with the needs of an urban
recreation area.
Second, there are dozens of landlocked and hardship parcels that
should be acquired from their many willing sellers. Some funds need to
be made available for this purpose. If Congress is reluctant to specify
the exact parcels to be acquired, then funds should be directed to
those areas where public agencies already own large percentages of the
acreage, and they should not be allowed to spend the dollars acquiring
land in new areas.
Third, this Committee should look carefully at the agency
maintenance budget and understand the ``maintenance'' definitions used
by the NPS. There is a mindset in the Service that conservation is also
maintenance. There is also an effort by some to systematically remove
existing improvements in order to ``restore'' or ``rewild'' many of
these areas. In some cases, not spending dollars on plumbing, fixing
the roof, repaving the parking lot is an intentional decision designed
to produce or hasten deterioration and planned obsolescence of existing
facilities. We don't believe that this management approach is
appropriate for an urban recreation area.
Fourth, we need to go slow on any NRA expansion plans given the
difficulty in managing that which we already have. It serves no public
use in the urban area to draw more boundaries around land for which
there are no acquisition, development or maintenance dollars. We need
to resolve the land acquisition issues first.
Finally, Congress should consider the adoption of a RECREATION
ACCESS BILL OF RIGHTS to assure the taxpayers that they will be able to
access and enjoy the lands set aside with their tax dollars. One
component of this Bill of Rights should be the mandatory development of
a publicly reviewed visitor use and access plan before each major land
acquisition. We believe that the use of public funds for purchase of
private lands demands some level of public access and use. And we
believe the public is entitled to know what that is going to be before
the funds are expended.
Thank you for your time Mr., Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that
testimony. Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Chuck Cushman, who is the Executive Director of
the American Land Rights Association, from Battle Ground,
Washington. Mr. Cushman, welcome to the Subcommittee, and
please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK CUSHMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LAND
RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, BATTLE GROUND, WASHINGTON
Mr. Cushman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify today.
Just by way of background, my father was a Ranger in
Yosemite National Park, and I grew up there and have been
associated for over 50 years. I'm also an in-holder there. I
was a volunteer as a kid in what is now Channel Islands
National Park, and also in Olympic National Park, and in
Yosemite. I was also in the first Student Conservation Corps in
1959 and a member of the Park Service Advisory Board from 1981
to 1984. I visited most parks where land acquisition takes
place.
There are lots of good people that work for the Park
Service and a lot of people striving to do good work, but I
guess I would start my testimony and say that the Park Service
thinks it is a great agency because it manages great places.
But, the record, I suspect, tells a different story.
First on maintenance. The testimony I just heard was
tremendous, and earlier from the GAO, I mean there's a stack of
GAO reports going back to 1981 documenting maintenance
shortfall and the inability of the Agency to focus enough
resources in that direction, instead of prioritizing resources
toward land acquisition or toward other things. We commend the
Administration for their trying to change the emphasis, use
some LWCF funds and other funds to try to mitigate the backlog
and work toward improving visitor services and maintaining the
wonderful crown jewels in the rest of the parks that we have
now.
And, there is a big distinction. He talked about National
Recreation Area versus National Park. If you sent a letter to
every Superintendent in the country asking if they had a copy
of the legislative history of their parks, chances are they
don't have it in the park and have never read it. So, they
manage them all the same. A guy gets transferred from Yosemite
to a National Recreation Area, he manages it just like he did
the other place, no different. So, somehow we've got to tighten
that up.
The maintenance process in this country, I've heard various
estimates from $2 billion, $5 billion, and even as high as $10
billion from the former Chairman of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee. The water, sewer, employee housing, roads,
trails, visitor service areas, there's a whole string of GAO
reports documenting this, but I think our previous testimony
has eloquently stated the shift away from visitor services and
a deliberate decline in an effort to put the money--I mean,
they do like building things, so if they can have fancy
buildings that's good, but they are not so energetic about
taking care of stuff they've already got. It's a huge problem.
And land acquisition just adds to it, and there's a
tremendous amount of money wasted in the land acquisition
process. I wish there was an audit of each park about the
appropriateness of these expenditures, because if you went and
look at the millions that are being wasted across Service wide,
and I'll give you a couple of examples in a minute, but every
time the Park Service buys an acre of ground it means
additional maintenance costs, every home, ranch, farm, added to
every new National Park or Recreation Area adds more cost. And
then they build in costs to the acquisition process in Point
Reyes National Seashore, for example, where the idea was to
maintain the pastoral ranching kind of atmosphere in Point
Reyes, yet they strangled, and they had a whole bunch of these
working ranches and dairy farms, but the Agency over the last
25 years has strangled these entitles, forced them ultimately
out of business in many cases, so that I think only one or two
operations continue out of that, and the rest of them are
rentals, if they are in shape to be rented. These people have
no incentive to invest, so in order to maintain what Congress
intended you folks have to--we have to pony up the money to
maintain these, whereas, if the original farmer was there and
he was encouraged, then he would invest and he would take care
of it as people who take care of the land do.
I'm going to-another bizarre example of this kind of
wastage, the obsessions with the Park Service to acquire land,
and they buy out the original owners, and in process destroy
the original culture. And then, somebody at the local level
figures out that they need to, in order to do what Congress
intended, or to present a good view to the public, the houses
need to be painted, the fields need to stay mowed and planted,
so they bring in renters to rent these farms. And, of course,
again they don't have the interest in investing and they don't
put the investment. So again, the cost falls back on the
taxpayer. If they let the original people in there, with
alternative agreements, easements, all kinds of things, they
would have been far better off.
In some cases, it's so bizarre, in some cases the Agency
brings back people so they can make it look what it was like
when the people used to live there. Very strange.
I'm going to give you three examples of land acquisition
abuses. Saddleback Ski Area in Maine. Here was a wonderful
facility. It was the largest employer of the local community
originally in Maine, and the Park Service spent 20 years
harassing the landowner, preventing him from upgrading his ski
area, putting improvements in, it was only through our
intervention and the intervention of both parties Senators and
Congressmen in Maine, that ultimately got it resolved. But, for
20 years, and they largely destroyed the ability of that ski
area to do what it could have been, and thus, tremendously
impacted the local economy, all over a 4-foot wide trail and
willingness to designate where that was and get off the
landowner's back.
A second example is the Pilgrim family going on in Alaska
right now. This starts out with a land acquisition case, in
which the Park Service wanted to buy the land, lost out, and so
the Park Service has since blocked them from access to their
property, and it's developing into a huge controversy. The back
of your testimony I showed you a picture of the swat teams the
Park Service has brought in, but relating to today's testimony,
the Park Service spent nearly $500,000 in the last few months
sending swat teams and special investigators up there, and they
cut a cut line through virgin country two miles long and 12
feet wide, far exceeding any damage the Pilgrims may have done
on a road that's considered RS2477 by the State of Alaska.
A final example, Donald Scott, right here in Santa Monica
Mountains. The Park Service wanted his land. He didn't want to
sell it. The Superintendent was real enthusiastic. Finally, he
claimed there were drugs on the property, got the local police
officials and the Park Service went out there with guns. Mr.
Scott was woken up in the middle of the night, he had a gun in
his hand. Apparently, they didn't identify themselves well, he
never pointed it at them, it didn't matter, they killed him in
front of his wife, and they still didn't get the property. They
had hoped to get it through asset forfeiture.
Well, that's a quick summary. I'll be glad to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cushman follows:]
Statement of Charles (Chuck) Cushman, Executive Director,
American Land Rights Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Chuck Cushman, Executive Director of the American Land Rights
Association (ALRA) since 1978. My father was a ranger for the National
Park Service and I served the Park Service in the second Student
Conservation Corps in Olympic National Park in 1959. I also served as a
volunteer with the Audubon Society at what is now known as Channel
Islands National Park. My son worked for the Park Service in the living
history center in Wawona, Yosemite National Park.
I was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Park
System Advisory Board from 1981 to 1984. I have personally visited most
Park Service areas where land acquisition has taken place. The ALRA
Website www.landrights.org contains a wealth of information,
documentation and examples of abuses by the Park Service in their
continuing land acquisition process.
The American Land Rights Association, formerly the National
Inholders Association, represents private landowners throughout the
United States. Of special interest are those people owning private land
or other interests within Federal boundaries or who are affected by
Federal statute, such as the Endangered Species Act and various
Wetlands regulations. ALRA has over 22,000 members in 50 states. There
are an estimated 1.2 million inholders nationwide.
Inholders are landowners in National Parks, refuges, forests and
other Federal areas, recreation residence cabin owners and other
special use permittees in National Forests, ranchers in areas managed
by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, small miners on
Federal lands, inholders in and adjacent to FWS Wildlife Refuges and
many other types of rights holders. They are also people who are
impacted by the management, regulation of, and access to Federal areas.
The Park Service thinks it is a great agency . . . because it manages
great places. However, the record shows something else.
Our Parks and the Park Service Are Being Damaged
The Park Service rarely undergoes real oversight into their on-the-
ground land acquisition and management activities. The loss is to the
Park Service. Because they receive little oversight, the Park Service
feels it is immune from criticism. It can get away with anything.
People who don't have to compete generally fail to be the best they can
be. Congress, the Administration and yes, even the environmental
groups, are cheating themselves and the American public out of a better
Park Service.
SUMMARY
Maintenance is a critical shortfall in managing our
National Parks and other Park Service areas. The country only has so
much in financial resources. The NPS cannot take care of what it
manages now. Land acquisition only makes the problem worse.
Reports over the past twenty years by the General
Accounting Office document an ever increasing trend of poorly
maintained National Parks. From an estimate of $2 billion in
maintenance backlog in 1981, the estimate by some seems to indicate
that the backlog may approach $10 billion or more. It does not make
sense for this country to buy more land when it cannot take care of
what it already owns.
Land acquisition has always been used as a weapon to
intimidate, regulate and control private landowners.
Land acquisition destroys the culture and history of the
U.S., often driving out old families. The Park Service is essentially
the curator of our nation's history and culture. Yet, Park Service
practice in the past has been to buy out and destroy much of our
cultural heritage. Sometimes the NPS discovers this problem at a local
level and attempts to bring renters in to make it look like it did when
the people used to live there (Cuyahoga and others). But the NPS, as a
whole, continues down the same path.
Why are inholder families targeted for acquisition and
removal? Senator Orrin Hatch once referred to this process as
``cultural genocide.'' Why cannot Federal areas be managed with
families and communities still there? Why this hysterical rush to wipe
out this cultural resource? Hundreds of small rural communities in
existing Federal areas have been damaged and some have been wiped off
the map.
Special Interest Groups seek to designate hundreds of
areas of private land as new government reservations. It will never
stop. Just look at their current attempt to convert the 26 million-acre
Northern Forests of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York into new
Federal parks, refuges and other reservations of various kinds. This
means hundreds of millions of additional dollars for land acquisition
and a larger maintenance backlog.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of private land is taken
off the tax rolls, forcing local taxes up. The taxes for those people
who are not acquired will go up forcing some to sell, others not to
invest and generally place a negative push against community
development.
The basic tax base of many jurisdictions is often damaged
or destroyed by Federal land acquisition. Imagine the surprise in Maine
for county commissioners--when they went to bed they had a tax base.
They woke up the next morning to find that the Nature Conservancy had
purchased a huge easement covering most of the county from a forestry
company and the county no longer had a future. A scene repeated several
times in Maine in recent years. The goal of TNC is to ultimately buy
the land and rights from the forestry company and then sell the entire
project to the Park Service or some other agency.
The Payments-In-Lieu-of-Tax Program, PILT, has never been
fully funded by Congress. Local communities don't get near enough money
to replace the tax revenue they lost to Federal land acquisition. What
is worse, PILT is essentially a ``snapshot'' concept where future
payments are based on the value of land as of the date of acquisition.
A county that must meet the needs of 1999 gets payments based on 1976
values for example.
Federal land acquisition will help buy out new mining
ventures, a vast array of the timber supply and ranching operations all
over America. Thousands of jobs will be lost and with them a tremendous
loss in economic opportunity and vitality. Rural communities don't take
much economic upheaval to permanently damage the economic ecosystem.
Maintenance and the Parks
The American Land Rights Association supports the Bush
Administration's policy to not buy land they cannot take care of. They
should not use funds that would expand their maintenance obligations
through land acquisition. Instead, they should seek to reduce the
massive maintenance backlog that has been suggested by GAO and others
to be anywhere from 5 to 10 billion dollars.
Land Acquisition undermines and destroys communities. It often
takes away the future. It destroys the tax base. Gradually, it can, and
often does, tear apart otherwise vibrant communities. It cuts off
access to other lands.
There has been a string of reports by the General Accounting Office
over the past twenty-plus years suggesting an ever-rising maintenance
backlog in our nation's parks. Beginning in 1981 the GAO urged that
more funds be diverted to bring current many years of differed
maintenance. Everything from water systems, sewage systems, roads,
large and small safety concerns and many others go unfixed. Housing for
park personnel in some parks is well below common standards.
The GAO criticized the NPS for having pit toilets in certain areas
in Yosemite. In one example that we are familiar with, the pit toilets
at Bridal Veil Fall in Yosemite Valley were a constant source of smells
and filth at the place where most visitors come for their first stop as
they enter Yosemite.
After many years of complaints, the agency finally replaced these
pit toilets with better facilities, at least on the outside. But there
has often been little effort to maintain these facilities. As a result,
the smell is very often overpowering. The agency is always happy to get
money to buy things but not nearly as eager to keep them up.
This is true in land acquisition as well. Houses are purchased from
landowners being pressured to sell in a hurry by the Park Service and
then left standing as inducements to the drug culture and vandalism,
jeopardizing neighborhoods and creating health hazards. This situation
goes on for years. For example, now, as we speak, houses that were
purchased under threat of condemnation five years ago are being removed
in Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Even when the houses are razed,
the foundations may sit for many more years, supposedly because of the
lack of money. It appears the maintenance is not a priority to the Park
Service.
Land and Water Conservation Fund--No Money For Maintenance
The General Accounting Office, the ``non-partisan'' investigative
arm of Congress, has released several reports over the past 20 years
that say Park Service superintendents believe there is a shortfall in
maintenance funding ranging in the billions of dollars. Most of the
money for Federal agencies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
can only go for buying land. We should be able to take care of what we
already own. Congress should amend the LWCF to encourage maintenance-
related projects.
``Those That Fail to Remember History Are Bound To Repeat It''
To date, little has been done by the Federal agencies to respond to
the following reports by the General Accounting Office critical of land
acquisition policies and practices carried out by those agencies. In
large measure, the response by Congress has been to give the Park
Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land
Management less money to buy land. That greatly reduces the problem.
More money will start the problems all over again.
We're reminded of the Clinton campaign motto in 1992, ``It's the
Economy Stupid.'' In the case of land acquisition, ``It's the Money
Stupid.'' The scope and harm caused by land acquisition is simply a
function of how much money the Federal agencies get and the type of
oversight they receive.
Today there is largely a new generation of Members of Congress and
staff who do not remember the horror stories of the 60's, 70's and
80's, and even the 90's. Most Members of Congress don't remember the
days when many Members of Congress had to become a management
consultant to the Park Service because the agency was unable to solve
its conflicts. Unfortunately, some Members of Congress still must
function in a management capacity.
Two recent examples include Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in Maine
and the Pilgrim Family in Alaska. At Saddleback, for over twenty years
the landowner was unable to get the Park Service to resolve the route
of the Appalachian Trail. Without Congressional intervention, there was
no hope. The owner of the ski area was prevented from upgrading and
expanding his potentially world class facility thereby strangling a
local community because the Park Service continually refused to settle
on a trail route. The Senators from the state finally intervened and
forced a solution on the NPS.
The Pilgrim Family in the Wrangell St Elias National Park and
Preserve in Alaska is being starved out by the Park Service as we sit
here today in a controversy that started with a failed land acquisition
attempt by the Park Service the use of an RS 2477 Right-Of-Way by the
family to bring in supplies. The agency seems completely unable to be
good neighbors. They appear to want to starve the Pilgrim Family out in
order to acquire their land.
These reports are the most current reports on a problem that was
greatly reduced with the reduction in funding. Since Congress has
appeared more supportive of additional funding in recent years, these
reports must be examined carefully to try to make sure any potential
policy changes and legislation does not cause a repeat of the same
mistakes.
General Accounting Office (GAO) Reports About Land Acquisition and
Maintenance
1) ``The Federal Drive To Acquire Private Lands Should Be
Reassessed'' (CED-80-14) (December 14, 1979).
2) ``Federal Land Acquisition and Management Practice'' (CED-81-
135) (Sep. 11, 1981).
3) ``Lands In The Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Should Be
Returned To Private Ownership'' (CED-81-10) (Jan. 22, 1981).
4) ``The National Park Service Should Improve Its Land
Acquisition and Management At Fire Island'' (CED-81-78) (May 8, 1981).
5) ``Federal Protection of Wild and Scenic Rivers Has Been Slow
and Costly'' (CED-78-96) (May 22, 1978).
6) ``Federal Land Acquisitions By Condemnation--Opportunities To
Reduce Delays and Costs'' (CED-80-54) (May 14, 1980).
7) ``Limited Progress Made In Documenting and Mitigating Threats
To Parks'' (RCED-87-36) (February 1987).
8) ``New Rules for Protecting Land In The National Park System--
Consistent Compliance Needed'' (RCED-86-16) (October 16, 1985).
9) ``National Park Service: Condition of and Need for Employee
Housing'' (RCED-93-192) September 30, 1993.
10) ``National Park Service: Land Acquisitions Involving Nonprofit
Conservation Organizations''--(RCED-94-149) June 15, 1994.
11) ``Difficult Choices Need to be Made About the Future of the
Parks'' (RCED-95-238) 8/30/95
12) ``National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the
Maintenance Backlog'' (RCED-98-143) May 14, 1998.
13) ``South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan
Would Help Identify Lands That Need To Be Acquired'' (RCED-00-84) April
5, 2000.
PBS Frontline Documentary, ``For The Good Of All''
The Committee should watch the hour-long documentary, Public
Television's ``Frontline'' about the Cuyahoga Valley NRA in Ohio which
aired on June 6, 1983. The film could have been made about many other
parks. It could be made today in the Wrangell St. Elias in Alaska.
This tragic film documents the broken promises by the Congress and
the Park Service in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area
between Akron and Cleveland, Ohio. Only 29 homes were to be taken for
the park. The law even promised the use of easements. Yet the number of
homes purchased was well over 300, the small community was destroyed,
churches and schools closed, their tax base eroded by unnecessary land
acquisition. Cuyahoga Valley could have been a success without much
land acquisition.
The ``willing buyer, willing seller procedure of acquiring land
touted by park officials is `meaningless' and a more proactive method
is generally used,'' said William Kriz, chief of Land Acquisition in an
article in the Concord Journal in 1988.
SOME SPECIFIC CASE STUDIES FROM THE 70'S.
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area in Washington State--It was
created at the same time as the North Cascades National Park. Lake
Chelan was made an NRA so that the small community of Stehekin could
continue its pioneering subsistence way of life. It was necessary for
the community to have access to wood, water and power to continue.
Lake Chelan offered a unique opportunity to provide the
handicapped, elderly and children a truly wild experience at the end of
a 40-mile boat ride, the only regular method to get into Stehekin.
There were only 1,600 acres of private land. According to the GAO, the
Park Service purchased most of these, cutting off the ability of the
community to provide for many visitors.
In fact, it has been said that by 1980 there were half as many beds
available to disadvantaged recreationists as there had been in 1968
when the area was made a National Recreation Area. The Park Service had
purchased some of the facilities and closed them down.
Lake Crescent in Olympic National Park----There had been more than
fifteen recreation resorts and destinations at Lake Crescent before the
Park Service went on its land acquisition rampage. Now there are only
two. How many handicapped, elderly and children will not get that fine
experience they would have had with those facilities still operating?
The Buffalo National River in Arkansas--While preparing for a
debate on the ``Today'' show on NBC in 1988 between myself and Denis
Galvin of the Park Service, the NBC staffers found that the Park
Service had started out with 1,103 landowners. The law clearly
encouraged easements and did not intend to destroy the special cultural
communities along the river. The culture was so unique it was featured
in National Geographic. However, NBC said there were only eight
landowners left in 1988, the 20th anniversary.
I served with former Parks Committee Chairman Roy Taylor on the
National Park System Advisory Board and Council in 1982. He told me
personally that Congress never intended for the people of the Buffalo
to be destroyed.
St. Croix River in Minnesota--According to a 1978 report on rivers
by GAO, they found the Park Service had acquired 21,000 acres when they
were only supposed to acquire 1,000 acres of access sites according to
the legislative intent.
St. Croix River--Another GAO report issued in 1979 found the Park
Service had 2,100 acres under condemnation, which was 900 acres over
the legal limit. The Park Service agreed but said that when they
concluded the condemnation trials on people enough to reach the limit,
the rest would receive scenic easements.
St. Croix River--Park Service was found guilty by the Justice
Department of using project influence to pay landowners less than fair
market value. Justice planned to make the agency go back and reappraise
the land and pay for what it had taken illegally. American Land Rights
had to pressure the Justice Department to follow through.
St. Croix River--Park Service is now over its legal limit for using
condemnation to buy fee title. They are now threatening landowners with
excessively restrictive public access easements that only leave the
landowner with the right to pay taxes and liability for personal
injury.
St. Croix River--Ironically, one of the best examples of the use of
easements was not by the Park Service. The Kettle River is a tributary
under the responsibility of the State of Minnesota. The state purchased
land protection in the form of easements for a fraction of the average
cost paid by the Park Service in adjacent areas.
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota--The Forest Service used LWCF
funds to buy up and remove many resorts throughout the whole region of
Minnesota. The result was not more recreation but recreation
transferred to the young and healthy at the expense of the elderly,
handicapped and children. There was a massive loss of access to
traditional hunting and fishing areas further reducing broad-based
family recreation.
Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota--The Park Service admitted in a
1979 GAO report that they had acquired enough land for the park from
the timber companies and did not need to acquire all the private
landholdings that dotted this sparsely populated area. The agency went
on to acquire the inholders.
Fire Island National Seashore in New York--The Park Service was
found guilty by the GAO in a 1981 report of acquiring an expensive home
completely surrounded by other homes and not available for any form of
public recreation. The Park Service justified its condemnation simply
because the landowner had built his deck a little too large and had
received a zoning variance from the local town. The cost to the
taxpayer was $100,000 for nothing.
C & O Canal in Maryland--The Park Service threatened all landowners
with condemnation in the years around 1974. Even though they were
required to offer landowners a life tenancy under the 1969 Uniform
Relocation Act, the agency failed to provide each landowner notice of
his rights because park officials wanted to limit any use and occupancy
reservations to 25 years. The result is that now the landowners are
fighting to get what was fairly theirs. Their Congressman, Roscoe
Bartlett, has worked tirelessly to try to save the former landowners
from Park Service eviction.
Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area in Southwest Virginia--A Forest
Service area created in 1966. Congress had specified that the agency
should acquire 39,500 acres, 40% of them in fee title that would have
allowed the communities to stay. When questioned by congressional
investigators and the author in 1979 about how many acres they had
purchased in fee and how many easements, they responded that they had
purchased over 26,000 acres in fee and no easements. The agency thought
Congress didn't really mean what they said in the law. They viewed it
as just a suggestion. It took a surprising amount of hard work by
former Congressman Bill Wampler of Virginia to stop a massive new round
of condemnation actions planned by the Forest Service.
Yosemite National Park in California--76 year old James Downey, a
survivor of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, was threatened with
condemnation in 1971 because he wanted to add a bathroom. He had no tub
and had a double-size septic tank and there was a covered breezeway
under which the bathroom was to be built. There would be no new land
coverage. The Park Service said what he was doing was an incompatible
act and he would be condemned. They came back to him two weeks later
after realizing their political insensitivity and said that if he would
sell them his home, they would lease it back to him and then it would
be OK to build his bathroom. Was the goal to stop the bathroom or buy
the house?
Yosemite National Park--Harold Tischmacher's home burned down in
December 1977. When he tried to rebuild it on the same foundation, the
Park Service started condemnation proceedings because they said it was
an incompatible act. He was saved by congressional intervention by
Congressman Bernie Sisk (D-CA).
Unfortunately these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds
and perhaps thousands more have not been recorded. Investigators can
find these kinds of stories at nearly every park or other special
designation Federal area.
NO LAW TO PREVENT THESE ABUSES HAS BEEN PASSED.
In the 1980's condemnations went down because the Reagan
Administration opposed the use of this tool wherever possible. Offshore
oil and gas money was reassigned to other social priorities by sending
it directly to the treasury.
THERE WERE ABUSES IN THE 80'S
Foresta Fire, Yosemite National Park--In the late 80's a fire got
out of control in Yosemite National Park, roared up a canyon and wiped
out the entire village of Foresta, about 80 homes. Park Service
Superintendent Michael Findley had turned down help from the Forest
Service and the state forestry service. After the fire, Findley
requested that Congress give him immediate permission to condemn all
the home sites because he could buy them cheaply since fire insurance
would pay for the lost houses. When he was denied, he then set up as
many roadblocks as possible to prevent the landowners from rebuilding,
thereby forcing some to sell.
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming--In an important national case
a landowner had been trying to sell his 160 acres to the Park Service
for 10 years. They've had the money. The problem was the bad faith
negotiations extending all the way up the highest levels of Park
Service management. The landowner finally had to threaten to subdivide
his land in order to get them to make the purchase. The landowner did
not want to subdivide and had been a good steward. The agency condemned
him. During the next five years this case took, the landowner offered
to settle with the Park Service and it was agreed to right up to the
Directors level. William Mott overturned the agreement for $1.8
million. The case then went to trial and ultimately cost the government
over $3.2 million, far more than the agreed upon settlement. The judge
was not complimentary to the bad faith negotiating by the Park Service.
To make the case more bizarre, this piece of land was the highest
priority acquisition for the Park Service in the country and they still
could not manage to negotiate in good faith.
Santa Monica Mountains NRA in California--In the Murphy Duane case
the landowner spent years going through all the vast permitting process
and Coastal Commission approval to get to the point were he could build
his dream home. The Park Service strategy was to let him go. Only when
he had spent thousands of dollars and man-hours to get local approval,
did they say they were going to condemn his land. Intervention by
Members of Congress stopped this abusive example.
Chesboro Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains NRA in California-----The
Park Service had enough money to purchase this Trust For Public Land
Property for $8 million leaving hundreds of small landowners in another
area of the NRA laying helpless and strangling. This is the exact kind
of case that gives the impression that lots of landowners want to sell
and that there is the need for more land acquisition money.
The plain fact is that if the Park Service had used its money
wisely to buy hardships and willing sellers they knew existed, there
would be no cry for more money. It was lobbying by the Trust For Public
Land that allowed the $8 million to go for property the Park Service
did not need to purchase thereby preventing the truly needy landowners
from being paid.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sweeney Ridge in California--
The Trust For Public Land acquired an option on this property for $8.5
million. They then negotiated a sale to the Park Service for $9.6
million. The Park Service really did not want to buy the property at
all. Both the Carter and Reagan Administrations agreed that the land
was not of park quality and should not be purchased.
However, as is often the case with large land trusts, TPL
orchestrated a political campaign and forced a political confrontation.
They obtained appraisals to show that the land was valued at anywhere
from $21 million to $24 million. The landowner, part of a large oil
company, hoped to obtain a large tax deduction. Our investigation
showed the land worth from $7 to $10 million. Interior Secretary Bill
Clark ultimately negotiated a sale near the $8.5 figure, due in part to
our campaign against this unfortunate use of land acquisition funds.
The figure was 8% of the entire land acquisition budget for the Park
Service. Many other deserving landowners were left out because of this
misuse of money. The problem is not that there wasn't enough money, but
that the money was spent unwisely.
Appalachian Trail, Hanover, New Hampshire--The Park Service,
working closely with the Dartmouth Outing Club, attempted to use LWCF
funds to buy a greenway around Dartmouth College. They did this by
moving the Appalachian Trail over to make it go through the middle of
farmlands rather than along the fence lines as they were supposed to do
and using a 1,000 foot corridor to build their impact. They were found
to be lying to Washington officials about their activities when called
in to explain and ultimately had to move the trail back to the fence
line and share the impact among adjacent owners. They were forced to
use easements even though they tried to avoid using them. Only American
Land Rights intervention saved their lands.
Appalachian Trail, Sheffield, Massachusetts--Park Service ignored
the Land Protection Planning Process and ran the trail through town
without consulting local officials, holding hearings or meetings or
producing a land protection plan for the area that had been shown to
either local landowners or officials. In fact, the Park Service had
deliberately rerouted the trail at the request of the green groups to
run it through the land that was planned to be used for a high tech,
low impact recycling plant the greens wanted to stop. The Appalachian
Trail has often been used as a weapon. Park Service officials repeated
this kind of abuse over and over along the Appalachian Trail.
As in the earlier examples, this is the tip of the iceberg. When
there is little oversight there is no reason for the agency to even
attempt to obey the law. And they end up spending billions of dollars
that do not have to be spent.
HOW ABOUT THE 90'S? THE ABUSES CONTINUED.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore in Michigan--Riverside
Canoes owned by Kathy and Tom Stocklen has been serving the public well
for many years. Even the Park Service admitted they ran a good clean
recreation business. But they would not sign over an easement type
contract to the Park Service without compensation. The Park Service had
already purchased two other canoe liveries and a campground either in
condemnation or under threat of condemnation.
Finally, in 1990, the Park Service condemned the Stocklens. After
several meetings with Park Service officials in Washington, no one at
the agency could justify the condemnation, yet it went forward none the
less. Finally, in 1992 just before the election, American Land Rights
planned a huge demonstration in front of the Interior Building in
Washington, D;C. The Interior Department forced a settlement that gave
the Stocklens back their land and compensated them for their attorney's
fees prior to the demonstration.
Sleeping Bear was originally set up as a National Recreation Area.
That is what a National Lakeshore is. It is tough to have full access
to recreation when the managing agency buys out all the services
providing certain types of recreation.
Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge in Maine--The FWS wanted to expand the
refuge. They promised the local people they would only buy from willing
sellers. The others relaxed. After the willing sellers had been
purchased, the agency came back, denied they had ever said they would
only buy from willing sellers, and began threatening condemnation. This
is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again.
Little River Canyon National Preserve in Alabama--Here is an
example of pure politics at work. The former Congressman from the area
essentially told the Park Service to find him a park in his district.
He apparently needed another monument. Fortunately, the agency found
the Little River Canyon, which we consider of national significance.
The State of Alabama and the Alabama Power Company owned it. As usual,
the Park Service wanted much more. They tried to include the homes and
farms of over 500 nearby landowners. American Land Rights helped fight
the proposal, which ultimately was settled by Congress using just the
state and power company land. The cost to the Park Service was minimal.
It was totally unnecessary to include the 500 landowners. This kind of
expansionist process that is imbedded in the Park Service culture
raises the cost of parks and hurts the taxpayer.
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area--Donald Scott
killed. The Park Service had been after Scott's property for years. The
Superintendent knew he was an alcoholic and used to come visit him with
a six-pack of beer. The Park Service claimed he was growing marijuana
on his property and brought in a swat team made up of Park Service,
Ventura County Sheriff and other authorities. Whether it is true or
not, it the common belief in Southern California that the Park Service
hoped to claim Scott's property under the forfeiture laws in place at
that time. Unfortunately, the Park Service and other agencies broke
down the door, scared Scott who grabbed a gun and was holding it over
his head when he was gunned down. The Park Service eventually paid a
wrongful death payment as part of a multi-agency settlement. The
property was sold to a private party.
2000 AND BEYOND. WHEN WILL THE ABUSES END?
Appalachian Trail--Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in Maine--Time
after time, for over 20 years, the family that owns Saddleback has
tried to work out a settlement of the route for the Appalachian Trail
so that they could modernize and complete their ski area. Bad faith
followed by bad faith by the Park Service in negotiations continues to
this day. In fact, Saddleback recently offered the Park Service twice
the land they could condemn under law just to settle the matter. Yet
Saddleback sits twisting in the wind. The losers are the family, the
community that loses jobs and $40 million of much- needed economic
activity per year for the region. The recreation ski community loses
access to what would become one of the finest ski areas in America. The
greens want new National Parks in Maine. It is hard to imagine why
Maine or Congress would allow the Park Service to take over 5 to 10
million more acres in Maine when they cannot seem to solve problems and
get along on a simple trail.
Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve in Alaska--The
Pilgrim Family of a mother, father and 15 kids are living a subsistence
lifestyle in Alaska. The Park Service failed to offer enough money and
the Pilgrims were able to buy 400 acres in the Wrangells. Since failing
to buy the property, the Park Service has waged a culture war on this
family that defies description. They have cut off their access, accused
them falsely of many things, and spent more than the property cost to
survey it and investigate the Pilgrim Family. While accusing the
Pilgrims of damage while driving a bulldozer into town on a 13 mile
dirt road for supplies (a common occurrence in Alaska), the NPS
required a BLM Survey crew to destroy all vegetation within a twelve
foot wide brush line around the Pilgrim property, a scar on the
pristine landscape of Alaska two miles long.
With winter coming, the Park Service has repeatedly refused an
emergency permit to allow the Pilgrims to bring in supplies before the
road becomes impassable during the winter. Please go to
www.landrights.org for a complete review of the Pilgrim Family crisis.
Socio-Cultural Assessments--Histories
In the early 80's a series of Socio-Cultural assessments were
completed about a number of Federal land acquisition areas. These short
histories were completed by Professor Kent Anderson and funded by
several non-profit foundations. Those assessments which are really
short histories focusing on land acquisition cover the Buffalo River in
Arkansas, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Olympic National Park, Mt. Rogers
National Recreation Area (Forest Service) and the Appalachian Trail
(NPS). All of these can be viewed full text at www.landrights.org.
Trails Will Become the New Battlegrounds
Congress is creating a number of new trails across the nation. It
is trying to make sure there won't be massive land acquisition. Like
night follows day, the Appalachian Trail will be the model.
At first, each new trail is a model of cooperation with landowners.
There are no threats. Deals are struck to run the trail across the land
of willing participants. Eventually this arrangement gets too
cumbersome so the trail society (like the Appalachian Trail Conference
and all its local groups) lobby Congress to add land acquisition.
Gradually, the power of the managing agency is ratcheted up as the
lobbying intensifies. Because a trail is a long string of land, the
trail clubs have the power of many Congressional delegations supporting
them while the poor landowner only has one Congressman and two Senators
and virtually no chance to fight back. The result is generations of
anger and frustration as landowner after landowner loses his land.
Examples along the Appalachian Trail are numerous.
Another problem with trail management is that the support groups or
clubs like the Appalachian Trail Conference largely run the agency in
charge of the trail. Most park superintendents are routinely rotated
from park to park. But in a few cases they develop fiefdoms and spend
most of their careers in one place. The current management of the
Appalachian Trail is one example. The current project manager has been
at that one location for over 20 years. The Appalachian Trail
Conference wants consistent power. They constantly lobby to keep
``their'' person in charge. The result is bad management and political
nest building that damages the Park Service and strains relations with
local governments, landowners and others who must deal with trail
management.
Park Service Has Taken the Land of Over 125,000 Landowners
Approximately 125,000 landowners have already lost their land to
the Park Service alone since 1966 because of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Land Protection Planning Process
For a while, this was a trend for the better. Mostly related to
funding. One of the true success stories of the Reagan Administration
was the Land Protection Planning Process. The fact that the planning
process is largely still in place testifies to the common sense nature
of the policy. Unfortunately, the Park Service largely ignores the
process, fails to keep up Land Protection Plans or submit them for
public comment. The South Florida case is a current example.
Responding to the severe criticism by the General Accounting Office
in previous years, the Interior Department published the Land
Protection Regulations in 1982. And many in the Park Service and Fish
and Wildlife Service have made an effort to make them work.
Land Protection Plans were supposed to help the Park Service and
other Federal agencies obtain protection for more land at less cost.
They were supposed to encourage the use of cost effective easements and
other alternatives to fee acquisition. They were supposed to buy the
least amount of an interest necessary to meet congressional objectives.
They were supposed to prioritize their acquisitions so that the most
critical were acquired first.
Congress Sometimes Requires A Willing Seller--A Good Idea
The numerous General Accounting Office reports listed above have
criticized the Park Service in particular for buying more land than
they are supposed to; creating projects with huge cost overruns; not
prioritizing their land acquisition so that they buy land they don't
need instead or lands intended by Congress; failure to use easements
and other cost effective protection alternatives; and failure to pay
attention to the needs of local communities, landowners, and local
government.
Use of eminent domain or condemnation must be severely restrained.
On the St. Croix River the Park Service exceeded its condemnation
limit. It continued to threaten to condemn overly severe easements that
include public access over a person's entire property instead of just
river access as the law intended. Otherwise unwilling sellers have
gladly sold rather than have nearly all the value of their land taken
leaving them with little resale value but the right to pay taxes and
have liability.
Land acquisition money is used as a giant regulatory umbrella. The
Niobrara River Wild and Scenic River had a provision that limited
condemnation to 5% of the land. When asked by the author how they would
use this limited condemnation power, the Park Service said they would
hold back condemnation and threaten everyone with it to keep them from
making unwanted developments to their property.
The agency pays little or no attention to the legislative history
of areas managed by them. Often these histories are not even in the
park. They have never been read. The NPS manages a National Recreation
Area and a National Park exactly the same. According to GAO, they are
just as apt to buy land they don't need as land that is critical. They
assume they will buy it all anyway so why plan. Therefore, many
condemnations take place that wouldn't have if more appropriate
easements and other alternatives were used.
A court will not examine the taking--it is assumed that if it is
for a ``public purpose'' then it is OK. The power comes with the power
to govern. Courts only ask two questions. Does the agency have the
money and the authority to spend it? They never ask if they have the
authority to spend it on that land or at that project.
Therefore, the landowners cannot contest the taking. The Park
Service uses condemnation as an abusive tool to intimidate. They know
that the only thing that can stop them is congressional oversight and
they have little to fear from that. Many landowners are squashed like
bugs without a chance to fight back. Yes, they get paid. And sometimes
they even get enough to replace what they had. But what is the price of
land you don't want to sell?
The Reagan and Bush Administrations held down condemnations and
funding for mass condemnation, but even their Justice Department would
not review the thousands of condemnations in process when they came
into office. According to a report to Senator Ted Stevens by the
Justice Department released in 1979, of 21,000 condemnations in process
nationwide by all Federal agencies that year, the Park Service had over
10,000 of them. That number is skewed somewhat by the Big Cypress
Florida condemnations.
Declarations of Taking, DT's, as they are called, are used by the
Park Service as an abusive tool to intimidate and depress opposition to
local land acquisition projects. They give the government immediate
title to the property and can be used to force the landowner off the
land in 90 days even if he has no other place to go. Small businesses
and farmers have been especially hard hit by the use of this tool. The
Park Service abuses of the Declaration of Taking process was so bad
years ago that the Congressional Committees have required the NPS to
gain approval from both authorizing committees and both appropriations
committees before going ahead with a DT.
In the past, the congressional committees have often approved a DT
without ever taking the care to ask local elected officials or
landowners whether a DT is appropriate. Some are, but most are not. The
Resources Committee years ago was often counted on by the Park Service
as an automatic sign-off to get a DT approved. It failed to investigate
the facts. As a result the Park Service often gave Congress information
that was not accurate. The Park Service did not have to tell the truth
because it knew the Committee was not likely to check.
Little motivation on the part of the Federal agencies and
particularly the Park Service to use alternatives and easements to
protect land. The GAO says that the Park Service objections to
easements are more perceived than real. For example, on the St. Croix,
(Kettle River Section) the State of Minnesota purchased hundreds of
easements at a cost of 30% or less of fee title. On the St. Croix just
a few miles away, the Park Service was condemning fee title costing far
more money for the same kind of land. The difference in management is
money. If they have enough money they don't have to negotiate. They
take the easy way out. They don't have to be a good neighbor. They
always threaten condemnation. They use condemnation. The use of a high
percentage of appropriate easements would cut land acquisition costs by
a minimum of 40% while saving valuable cultural communities. More land
could be protected at less cost if Congress enforced the use of
easements where they were appropriate.
Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Act is supposed to
protect landowners from overly aggressive bureaucracy. IT DOES NOT
WORK. Funding for more land acquisition will turn loose powerful
bureaucracies to prey on their own people. Money is the key. If the
land acquisition agencies do not have quite enough money to do their
job in the old way, they become creative and fiscally responsible. To
some extent this has happened in recent years. Without very tight
controls over land acquisition and the condemnation process, private
land in rural America will face a grave threat at the hands of its
government.
Thank you again for this opportunity to address the Committee. I'll
be glad to answer any questions.
______
[An attachment to Mr. Cushman's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9566.001
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mr. Cushman. There will be plenty
of questions, too, after we are done with everybody's
testimony.
Mr. Matt Bloom, welcome to the Subcommittee. Matt is the
owner of Kennedy Meadows Resort and Pack Station in Sonora,
California. Again, Matt, welcome, and please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MATT BLOOM, OWNER, KENNEDY MEADOWS RESORT AND PACK
STATION, SONORA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bloom. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Matt Bloom, and I've been guiding
pack trips into Yosemite National Park for 19 years. I have
owned Kennedy Meadows Pack Station for 6 years, and I've had an
incidental business permit to guide pack trips into Yosemite
National Park.
Throughout the years, I've seen a shift in priorities in
the Park Service. Originally, the Park Service used general
fund money to protect the resources of the park and to provide
a safe, quality recreational experience to the visitors.
Recently, user fees for everything possible have been levied on
visitors. The resulting problem is that more and more money is
being spent on bureaucracy and expansion, versus on ground
maintenance and improvements that benefit the payer of the fees
and the taxes. I do not think that this is what the founders of
the National Park System had in mind.
Some specific issues that concern myself, my customers, and
other visitors to the wilderness are: deferred maintenance on
the trail system, closure of historic trails, safety, and the
Park Service not doing the proper paperwork to issue the
incidental business permits, putting outfitters in jeopardy of
being sued by anti-horse groups and possibly being closed down.
Traditionally, the park has had a very good train
maintenance program, and they still do. However, the trail
maintenance takes money and there seems to be less of it
dedicated to maintenance each year. The lack of maintenance on
trails causes safety concerns, resource damage, and unnecessary
closure of historic trails. Many people can only visit these
areas with the aid of horses and guides. A safe trail system is
vital to the outfitter and guide operations. Recently, the Park
Service chose to eliminate many historic trails from their map.
After eliminating these, they made a rule that cross-country
travel is illegal for horses, but not for hikers. This closed
many areas to horseback visitors, and the justification used by
the park was lack of funds for maintenance. I feel this is more
of a preference on where to spend their money and not a lack of
money to spend.
All users, regardless of their method of travel, should be
able to visit their national park that they paid for. I suggest
that the Department of the Interior and the National Park
Service concentrate on maintaining traditional uses and not
expansion and new uses.
In the spring of 2003, I was informed by the Park Service
that my pack station would be strictly limited as to the number
of people I could take into the park. The justification given
was that the Park Service had not filled out the proper NEPA
requirements for issuing incidental business permits. They told
me that they were worried that environmental groups would sue
because they hadn't done their work, so they limited our use in
order to pacify them for the time being. This has a direct
economic effect on my business as well as limiting the number
of customers that I can take into the park. My customers are
the public also, and they pay fees and should be entitled to
visit their park.
In closing, I'd like to say that there are many good people
working for the Park Service and many doing the best they can.
However, the people who support the parks want them taken care
of and maintained and not closed off. Many people I know would
support user fees if they knew that their money would go to on-
the-ground maintenance and improvements, and not expansion and
bureaucracy.
Thank you for hearing my testimony and allowing me to do my
part in protecting the national parks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bloom follows:]
Statement of Matt Bloom, Owner and Operator,
Kennedy Meadows Pack Station and Resort
Mr. Chairman: My name is Matt Bloom and I have been guiding pack
trips into Yosemite National Park for nineteen years. I have owned
Kennedy Meadows Pack Station for six years and we have an incidental
business permit to guide pack trips into Yosemite National Park.
Throughout the years, I have seen a shift in priorities in the park
service. Originally, the park service used general park service money
only to protect the resources of the park and to provide safe, quality
recreational experiences to visitors.
Recently, user fees for everything possible have been levied on
visitors. The resulting problem is that more and more money is being
spent on bureaucracy and expansion, versus on ground maintenance and
improvements that benefit the payer of the fees and taxes. I do not
think this is what the founders of the national park system had in
mind.
Some specific issues that concern myself, my customers, and other
visitors to the wilderness are: deferred maintenance on the trail
system, closure of historic trails, safety, and the park service not
doing the proper paperwork to issue incidental business permits,
putting outfitters in jeopardy of being sued by anti-horse groups and
possibly being closed down.
Traditionally, the park has had a very good trail maintenance
program and they still do, however, trail maintenance takes money and
there seems to be less of it dedicated to maintenance each year. Lack
of maintenance on trails causes safety concerns, resource damage, and
unnecessary closure of historic trails. Many people can only visit
wilderness areas with the aid of horses and guides. A safe trail system
is vital to the outfitter and guide operations. Recently, the park
service chose to eliminate many historic trails from their map. Then
they made a rule that cross-country travel is illegal for horses, but
not for hikers. This closed many areas to horseback visitors, and the
justification used by the park was lack of funds for maintenance. I
feel this is more of a preference on where to spend money and not a
lack of money to spend.
All users, regardless of method of travel, should be able to visit
their national park that they pay for. I suggest that the Department of
the Interior and the National Park Service concentrate on maintaining
traditional uses and not on expansion and new uses.
In the spring of 2003, I was informed by the park service that my
pack station would be strictly limited as to the number of people I
could take into the park. The justification given was that the park
service had not filled out the proper N.E.P.A. requirements for issuing
incidental business permits. They told me that they were worried that
environmental groups would sue, so they limited our use in order to
pacify them for the time being. This has a direct economic effect on my
business as well as limiting the number of customers I can take into
the park. My customers are the public. They pay the fees and should be
entitled to visit their park.
In closing, I would like to say that there are many good people
working for the park service and many doing the best they can. However,
the people who support the parks want them taken care of and
maintained, not closed off. Many people I know would support user fees
if they knew that their money would go to on the ground maintenance and
improvements, not expansion and bureaucracy. Thank you for hearing my
testimony and allowing me to do my part in protecting the national
parks for generations to come.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Matt, for your testimony. I
appreciate you being here today.
Next we have Ms. Courtney Cuff, who is the Pacific Regional
Director of the National Parks Conservation Association.
Courtney, welcome to the Subcommittee, and please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF COURTNEY CUFF, PACIFIC REGION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
PARK CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Cuff. Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation
to be here, although I have to admit that on a beautiful
Saturday like this I wish we all could be out hiking in
Yosemite.
Mr. Radanovich. There you go, I'm there.
Ms. Cuff. The National Parks Conservation Association is
the largest non-profit advocacy and watchdog organization
overseeing the National Park Service and its system. We have
more than 300,000 members nationwide, approximately, 50,000
here in the State of California.
I want to, basically, touch on three areas today, and also
say that it's nice to realize that we have some areas of
agreement here, although certainly we have some disagreements
as well, just to make it interesting.
On the maintenance backlog, absolutely we've got one, I
think we all agree on that. I'm happy to see the
Administration, the Bush Administration, identifying this is a
problem and working toward resolving it. As well, I talked to
Congressman Pombo last month about it, he's concerned, glad to
see our concern as well.
The second issue, we all agree on that one, the operational
accounts are exacerbating this maintenance backlog. J.T.
Reynolds mentioned this, a couple other folks mentioned this
also. I'd like to talk a little bit about the operational
backlog.
Several years ago, the National Parks Conservation
Association and the National Park Service entered into a
partnership to create business plans. This Business Plan
Initiative Program was endorsed by Price Waterhouse Cooper and
we've done about 50 of these business plans, which involve
having business students come from the top universities across
the country, going in to the Park Service, taking a look at the
books, seeing where the dollars are going and where they are
not going. As a result of these 50 plus business plans that we
actually completed with the Park Service we see a shortfall in
those operational dollars of about 32 percent. When we look at
that, what kind of dollars we are going to need to address that
shortfall adequately, it would be an increase of $600 million
over the next 5 years to this operational account.
The good news about that is that we have a bipartisan
coalition of folks in the House and in the Senate, more than
100 members of Congress led by folks like your colleagues, Mark
Souder on the Committee and Doctor Simpson, and your
counterpart in the Senate, Chairman Thomas, who are really
pushing to encourage the appropriators to address this
operational need, since it not only exacerbates the maintenance
problem because we don't have the opportunity to really look at
and have eyes and ear staff who can, in fact, get at the
problem before it becomes too big, before the price tag becomes
too large, and again, concerning the maintenance backlog.
A few examples of this, Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, we did a business plan, came up with a number
of $6.1 million shortfall for operational accounts. What does
that mean? It means that there is a 2-year waiting list for
educational programs that want to come in and take advantage of
the interpretation that the park there provides. It also means
that there is a backlog, about 200 miles of trails that aren't
being safely maintained if we don't have the dollars to
maintain it.
Joshua Tree National Park, we are looking at a $2.6 million
operational shortfall. Again, it was a business plan initiative
that showed us those numbers, and we see the result of that an
inability for the park to adequately inventory, let alone
interpret, some of the archaeological and cultural sites there.
Again, another problem.
In Yosemite, a park again that is near and dear to both of
our hearts, we see a problem there as well. The park has not
received an operational increase since 2000. What does that
mean? It means that we have the lowest number of interpretive
rangers in Yosemite National Park that we have had for 13
years, a big problem obviously.
It also means that we've had to at Yosemite cut back on the
number of trail maintenance employees there this year. It means
that the campfire talks by rangers are a thing of the past, not
the way that I think we want to see our National Parks overseen
and our visitors hearing.
In addition to the bipartisan coalition in the House and
the Senate, we have several hundreds of organizations,
including the Girl Scouts of America, the International
Mountain Biking Association, several businesses, several
cities, several Chambers of Commerce, supporting this
initiative. It's called, ``The Americans for National Parks
Initiative.''
On top of this already existing backlog we have on the
operational side, we do see things like homeland security,
important needs we need to address. The Director has suggested
that the cost to parks would be $63,000 a day every time the
security level is raised to Code Orange, exacerbating an
already pretty clear backlog in terms of operational needs.
So, finally, the land acquisition point of the hearing.
This is where we might have a little bit of a difference with
folks, although we do actually have similarities. When we look
at the opportunities we have as a Nation to preserve some of
the most amazing cultural and historic sites, some of the most
amazing natural beauty, I think that we all can agree that many
Americans, in fact, the majority of Americans, support our
National Park System and would like to see the National Park
System and the National Park Service stay relevant to the
growing population in this country. What do I mean by that? I
mean that when we have opportunities like the Ronald Reagan
Boyhood Home we shouldn't overlook that opportunity. We
shouldn't overlook another opportunity here, Cesar Chavez,
there's a bill to study a new park unit that would be dedicated
to his life's work, and, in fact, this Administration supports
that study. They also support the study to expand Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area, which, again, legislation
was introduced by folks like David Dreier, Buck McKeown, as
well as Hilda Solis and Adam Schiff, to expand that area is
supported by many local cities. You look at the 200 businesses
that claim their livelihood is directly related to the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, there are economic
values to making sure we have a healthy and relevant National
Park System, and we don't turn our back on opportunities that
are once in a lifetime opportunities, but we do, in fact, look
at these in-holders who are willing sellers and you meet their
needs.
The CARA legislation that I'm sure you are familiar with,
that occurred a couple of years ago, more than 300 members of
the U.S. House voted to support it, this legislation looked at
the problem of the Land and Water Conservation Fund not being
fully appropriated, despite the fact that it's been authorized
and pushed to, in fact, encourage Congress to allocate more of
these dollars to acquire some of these once-in-a-lifetime
opportunities, to help out some of these in-holders, to make
sure we don't turn a blind eye again on contributing to the
greatness that is our National Park System.
PILT, I think that's an excellent idea. In fact, I've
worked in the past on legislation, on amendments, run by your
peers, like Scott McInnis, to increase that allocation. I think
it's a problem, I think we absolutely should make sure that
these counties get what they need if we are taking land and
putting it on the Federal books.
Let's not forget, however, what Gerry said, the economic
engines that these places provide, when we look visitation
levels in 2001, the University of Michigan, actually Michigan
State University, came out with the realization that these
parks contributed almost $11 billion annually to the national
economy, to state economies, to the local economies. This is a
big plus, and we should make sure these places are taken care
of, so that the money can come in from tourism and we can
ensure that the visitors have a good experience and that these
places are well maintained. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cuff follows:]
Statement of Courtney Cuff, Pacific Regional Director, National Parks
Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am Courtney Cuff, Pacific
Regional Director of the National Parks Conservation Association. NPCA
is America's only national private, nonprofit advocacy organization
dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the National
Park System. NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has approximately
300,000 members across the country that care deeply about the well-
being of our national parks.
We appreciate you soliciting our input on the backlog of unmet
needs throughout our National Park System. Our testimony focuses on the
maintenance backlog and the need to fund annual operations of the
National Park System, as well as the role that land acquisition plays
in the long-term evolution of our national parks. As you know, the
national parks also suffer from deficit in needed personnel, a subject
on which we also focus in our testimony.
Maintenance Backlog
Managing the National Park Service is an enormous undertaking. The
388 units that comprise the national park system include more than
30,000 structures and 80 million artifacts. The Park Service's
portfolio includes 8,000 miles of roads, 1,500 bridges, 5,385 housing
units, 1,500 water and wastewater systems, 200 radio systems, 400 dams
and more than 200 solid waste operations. These items are all
integrated into one of the most awe-inspiring repositories of our
collective American heritage that exists.
There is no question that the maintenance backlog in our national
parks is a problem. According to the National Park Service's recent
report, Partnering & Managing for Excellence: ``This backlog has had a
profound effect on the visitor experience and the public's ability to
appreciate and enjoy our national parks' natural, historic, and
cultural wonders.''
To better understand the backlog, one must understand its root
cause lack of sufficient funding for park operations and maintenance.
That fact led more than 100 of your colleagues this year to join a
bipartisan effort led in the House by Representatives Souder (R-IN) and
Christensen (D-VI), and in the Senate by Senators Thomas (R-WY) and
Graham (D-FL), to urge congressional appropriators to significantly
increase the operating budget for the national parks. With annual
operations for the parks underfunded by 32 percent, Congress must
address annual funding needs head-on before the backlog can ever be
eliminated.
It is important to note that ``backlog'' is not a static term, but
rather the backlog ledger is constantly changing as some maintenance
needs are met and others arise. Additionally, effectively addressing
the backlog requires an understanding about the condition of our parks.
Historically, the Park Service and the rest of us have been ill-
equipped to know the extent of the maintenance needs in parks.
According to the January 2003 GAO report Major Management Challenges
and Program Risks: Department of the Interior: ``Despite the importance
of its maintenance program, the Park Service has yet to accurately
assess or define the scope of its maintenance needs ... the agency does
not have an accurate inventory of the assets that need to be
maintained, nor accurate data on the condition of these assets.''
Since GAO issued its report, the Park Service has been engaged in a
multiyear effort to develop an accurate baseline of backlog needs. They
appear to be making progress with this important first step, and we are
encouraged by reports of their new state-of-art system to inventory,
monitor and prioritize backlog maintenance. This will be enormously
helpful to the parks, Congress, and the public in better understanding
and addressing the maintenance backlog in the parks. We also understand
that the Park Service has launched an aggressive training and
implementation plan to inventory and assess the condition of park
facilities. The Park Service's recently released document entitled
Partnering and Managing for Excellence, though it paints an overly rosy
picture of the state of our national parks, reports that assessments at
125 parks were completed by December of 2002, and that by the end of FY
2003 assessments will be completed at all but four of the largest
parks. We encourage the Park Service to share each assessment as it is
completed.
The park maintenance backlog knows no party line. It has
accumulated through Democratic and Republican administrations and
congresses. We have been encouraged by the bipartisan support for
addressing the operational funding shortfall for the parks, the root
cause of the backlog. We also believe it to be critically important to
have a highly transparent process for identifying the current unfunded
backlog and how its dollar value compares with prior estimates, so we
can collectively determine how to address the problem once and for all.
As you know, in 1998 the General Accounting Office estimated the
maintenance backlog to be approximately $6.1 billion based on Park
Service data from 1993. However, $1.2 billion of this estimate was for
the construction of new facilities, leaving approximately $4.9 billion
for existing facility maintenance and construction. GAO indicated in
January of this year that the Department of Interior estimated the
backlog to be between $4.1 and $6.8 billion.
Clearly, addressing the backlog will require a significant increase
in the rate of investment for the programs that comprise it--facility
maintenance and construction--as well as more realistic annual
operational funding for the Park Service to prevent additional backlog
from accumulating. We had high hopes at the beginning of this
Administration, but have been disappointed by the Administration's
failure to come close to increasing the rate of investment to the
extent necessary to significantly reduce and ultimately eliminate the
backlog. In fact, despite the President's pledge to eliminate the
multibillion dollar backlog, the Park Service's deputy director, Don
Murphy, made it clear in testimony before the Senate this summer that
the Administration has done little to increase the rate of investment
in our national parks, stating they have provided roughly $300 million
in new money.
Nonetheless, we gave the Administration credit for a number of its
funding-related initiatives in our recent evaluation of their efforts.
One area where the Administration deserves praise is for its proposed
increase for the park roads and parkways program. The Administration's
proposed transportation reauthorization bill would increase funding for
park roads from $165 million to $300 million in Fiscal Year 2004, $310
million in 2005 and $320 million annually thereafter. The proposal
would also dedicate $30 million for alternative transportation, but
makes several agencies eligible for the funds, leaving alternative
transportation funds substantially short of the $1.6 billion the
Department of Transportation has conservatively estimated will be
needed over the next 20 years--an issue we encourage the Subcommittee
to examine. Clearly, however, given the competing demands for funds
within the transportation reauthorization bill it will be extremely
difficult to achieve the overall funding level the Administration has
proposed, and we hope they will make this a litmus test issue as part
of the reauthorization effort.
Fee Demonstration Program
The Park Service's Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has made
important contributions to addressing a number of maintenance backlog
needs in the parks. Although NPCA has taken no position on whether to
expand that program to other agencies, we support efforts to make the
program permanent for the National Park Service. As you know, it is
enormously important that the Park Service's fees be closely monitored
and that the program supplement, not supplant Federal dollars. Since it
began in Fiscal Year 1997 the program has already provided $584 million
to the Park Service, with another estimated $250 million in FY 2003 and
2004. Public surveys have shown strong, but not unlimited, support for
entrance and use fees. The fee program is not the solution to the
backlog, but it is part of the solution.
Operational Funding
The failure of the Park Service's annual operations budget to
adequately meet the needs in the parks contributes to the backlog.
While Congress has placed a great deal of focus and attention to the
maintenance backlog, we must be equally, if not more, diligent in our
efforts to address the operational shortfall in our parks. Shortfalls
in annual operations funding create new backlog. In addition,
discussions of the backlog frequently gravitate toward bricks-and-
mortar, but as the Subcommittee knows, there is a critical backlog of
unmet resource protection needs throughout the park system. In fact,
the Park Service's business plans consistently show the most
significant funding shortfalls to be in resource protection and
interpretation.
NPCA estimates, based on the Park Service's business plans from
more than 50 parks, that national parks suffer from an annual shortfall
in operational funding of roughly 32 percent. Although Congress, with
the help and involvement of this Subcommittee, has moderately increased
the operating budget for the Park Service, this funding has not kept
pace with the needs of the parks. Furthermore, NPCA shares the concern
recently raised by the House Interior Appropriations Committee in its
report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Interior bill--the erosion of base
program budgets. According to the House appropriators, the capacity of
the Park Service to serve the American people is eroding because recent
budgets have only partially funded costs of pay increases proposed by
the Administration and approved by Congress, and have not provided
sufficient inflationary adjustments. The resulting necessity for the
National Park Service operating account to absorb fixed costs during
the last two years has been equivalent to a three percent reduction
from 2001 program levels. The end result is an erosion, not an
increase, in the operational resources available to the Park Service--a
critical issue when attempting to reduce the backlog over the long
term.
The National Park Service has a tremendous responsibility as the
caretaker for these national treasures, yet it does not have the tools
it needs to do so fully. Homeland security demands have added a new
dimension to the problem. Many parks throughout the system have shipped
critical personnel elsewhere to augment homeland security demands at
other sites, further straining resources that are already stretched to
the limit. In addition, it is estimated to cost the National Park
Service $63,000 per day every time the Department of Homeland Security
issues an orange alert. Each park has to bear the impact of these
costs, making an austere budget climate even more grim. Across the
system, the impact of these costs quickly adds up. Unfortunately, while
the Park Service has faced increased costs due to homeland security
needs, its budget has not increased correspondingly, nor is the Park
Service eligible for funding under the Department of Homeland Security.
While it is important to address the current facility maintenance
and resource protection backlog needs in the parks, if we continue to
provide insufficient operating funding for the parks, we will only be
replacing existing backlogs with new ones.
Personnel Deficit
The 2001 National Park System Advisory Board report, Rethinking the
National Parks for the 21st Century, focused important attention on the
institutional capacity of the Park Service to accomplish its evolving
mission. According to the report, ``The Park Service must have the
expertise to administer parks as educational resources, protect park
resources in landscapes that are increasingly altered by human
activity, and fashion broad collaborative relationships with academia,
the private sector, state, local, and other Federal agencies. It must
continue to provide high-quality visitor experiences, and present
America's unfolding story in a manner that connects with the nation's
increasingly diverse population.''
The employees of the National Park Service, from rangers to
maintenance workers, do a remarkable job with the resources available
to them. They are committed individuals for whom the Park Service and
public service are a way of life. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of
them to meet the significant, evolving challenges that our national
parks face.
Many of us remember how many campground programs, ranger walks, and
other casual encounters we used to have with park rangers,
interpreters, and other Park Service personnel when we were young.
Unfortunately, our children have fewer opportunities, both because
there are so many more visitors to the national parks today than there
were 20 or 30 years ago, and because Park Service staffing has not kept
pace with the need.
At Death Valley National Park, for example, public education
activities were cut by more than one-third in Fiscal Year 2002. The
park can no longer afford a staff member dedicated to public education
and outreach, including environmental education programs for school and
community groups. Today there are 1837 full time equivalent (FTE)
interpreters in the national parks and 765 FTE among the part time
ranks. That means the Park Service has roughly 1 interpreter per
100,000 park visitors. Although this is an admittedly crude measure of
capacity, it illustrates the enormous challenge the Park Service faces
in providing a quality experience to park visitors.
The Park Service also faces other staffing challenges. Several
regional directors will retire in the very near future. Many parks have
shortages in critical positions. For example, the number of
commissioned law enforcement rangers has actually decreased since 1980.
According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, there were
1,841 commissioned permanent rangers and 616 seasonal rangers in 1980.
But by 2001 the number of permanent commissioned rangers had dropped
16.4 percent, to 1,539, and the number of seasonals had dropped 23.9
percent, to 469. During the same time, visitation to the parks has
increased by nearly 60 million people and the number of units has
increased by 59.
The national parks provide incredible opportunities to connect all
Americans, but especially youth, with our collective history and to
train the next generation of scientists. As the Advisory Board report
points out, education that links classroom learning with field
experiences produces better results. When students, or adults, for that
matter, visit a Gettysburg, the battle and its historical importance
comes to life. When they visit the Adams Historic Site, figures from
their past become more tangible than when read about in textbooks. When
students participate in a paleontological dig at Petrified Forest or
hear a wolf howl at Yellowstone, these remarkable places and their
value and meaning come to life.
Unfortunately, many parks must turn away requests from schools for
on-site education programs. At Gettysburg, the Park Service must hold a
lottery for its on-site education programs, denying one out of four
schools. Petrified Forest is unable to accommodate many requests from
local schools. At Yellowstone, lack of staff requires the park to turn
away nearly 60 percent of all school groups wishing to participate in a
week-long, hands-on educational program. Joshua Tree had to turn down
approximately 75 requests for school programs in FY 2001. And these
parks are not alone.
The business plans the Park Service has been producing at many
national park units provide important information about how well
existing resources enable park managers and staff to accomplish their
mission. The Park Service deserves credit for continuing to use and
improve the business planning process. The Business Plan Initiative
helps strengthen financial management capabilities at parks and
facilitate meaningful dialogue about park needs. Every year the Park
Service's business plans get stronger, and the evolution of the program
promises to continue delivering important benefits in the coming years.
The plans examine funding and staffing trends, describe the history
and growth of the parks, provide functional analyses and identify
strategic priorities and ways to more efficiently use scarce financial
resources for the benefit of park resources and visitors. They
typically examine five program areas: (1) resource management; (2)
visitor experience and enjoyment; (3) facility operations; (4)
maintenance; and (5) management and administration.
Two of the most important functional areas throughout the national
parks are resource protection and visitor experience and enjoyment,
both of which are generally also the most underfunded. Resource
protection programs generally include collections, historic structures,
and natural resources. Visitor experience programs generally include
interpretation, education and visitor safety.
The Fiscal Year 2001 business plan for Gettysburg National Military
Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site shows a resource protection
deficit of $907,000 and 10.73 FTE on a total resource protection budget
of $2.48 million and 42.5 FTE (full time equivalent positions). The
shortfall is particularly acute in the cultural resource management
program, therefore impacting the preservation and protection of
historic structures, collections, and landscapes. Visitor experience
and enjoyment programs at the two units are $1.3 million and 13.3 FTE
short of the need, compared with total available funding of $1.5
million and 32.4 FTE. According to the plan, underfunding in this area
means the parks have too few interpretive rangers to meet the demand of
visitors and schools. Underfunding also means too few staff to orient
visitors at the visitor center and insufficient operating funds to
properly maintain, monitor and inspect the structural fire suppression
system.
According to its business plan, Bandalier National Monument in 2000
had a shortfall of $954,504 and 20 FTE for resource management compared
to available funding of $1.48 million and 22.1 FTE. The visitor
experience budget was short $461,650 and 9 FTE compared with available
funding of $646,066 and 12.8 FTE. Consequently, the park's primary
challenge in this area is insufficient staffing for interpretation. In
the case of Bandalier, the challenges the park faces in these two areas
is joined by a management and administration funding shortfall of
$632,403 and 7.7 FTE compared to a management budget of $487,270 and
7.9 FTE.
The chart below shows the business plan findings for a reasonably
illustrative group of parks, to provide the Subcommittee with an idea
for how funding and personnel shortfalls are typically distributed
within the parks. In highlighting these parks, we in no way wish to
signal that they require more or less attention than others. Rather,
they all produced quality business plans that can help the Committee
understand the resource and staffing challenges that face virtually all
units of the national park system.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9566.002
Importantly, business plans are a tool that parks put to use. For
each of the parks described above, the plans identified needs that park
managers are working to address. Their challenge, of course, is
implementing creative programs to maximize available resources and
finding the additional funds to truly meet the needs of their parks.
They have challenging jobs, which they and their staff do very well.
When evaluating these shortfalls in personnel and resources, a
question arises regarding whether they tend to be concentrated in
certain regions, among different types of park unit, or tend to be
specific to parks. The short answer is that we cannot yet be certain.
However, our preliminary analysis suggests that most of the primary
problems--particularly in interpretation (visitor experience) and
resource preservation--are evenly distributed. Nor does there appear to
be a significant difference between the national parks, historic parks,
national monuments or other units. In general, the business plans
developed with the Park Service have shown an overall shortfall ranging
between 20 and 40 percent, with a small number of parks like Fort
Stanwix National Monument, which received sufficient funds in FY 2002
to eliminate virtually its entire shortfall and is instituting
strategies identified in the business plan to address the remainder. An
analysis of the business plans developed by the Park Service thus far
indicates that funding and staffing challenges are relatively similar
across the system. The budget functions that tend to have the most
significant need generally include resource protection and visitor
experience. Overall, the ubiquitous nature of these shortfalls
illustrates the enormous challenge that continues to face the Park
Service, and calls into serious question the Administration's
aggressive effort to out source Park Service positions.
Despite these challenges, modern technology presents incredible
opportunities to bring the national parks closer to people who may be
hundreds or even thousands of miles away--opportunities the Park
Service works to provide through its Parks as Classrooms program.
Volunteers provide enormous assistance to the parks through their
dedication and devotion. In Fiscal Year 2002, 125,000 volunteers
donated 4.5 million hours (equivalent to 2,156 FTE) to the national
parks. Since 1990, the number of volunteers in the national parks has
increased by roughly 5 percent per year. But even though volunteers and
technology provide invaluable tools to help protect the parks and even
educate park visitors, they are not the entire solution.
Efforts to significantly increase volunteerism in the parks will
require that sufficient staff be made available to supervise them.
Volunteers must be trained and guided, and park staff need to determine
how to put them to use.
Land Acquisition
Since Congress created it in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) has been the principal Federal source of funding to acquire
new park and recreation lands. Similar to the Highway Trust Fund, the
LWCF account was envisioned as the primary dedicated funding source for
land conservation. Revenues generated principally from drilling on the
outer continental shelf are supposed to be allocated to land management
agencies for land acquisition and recreation. However, as the
Subcommittee is aware, Congress has not fully funded the LWCF to its
authorized $900 million annually, despite trust fund revenues that far
exceed expenditures. Through Fiscal Year 2001, the total amount that
could have been appropriated over the years was $24.5 billion, but only
$11.4 billion had been appropriated--less than half the authorized
amount.
To address this situation, in Fiscal Year 2001 Congress reached an
historic agreement to significantly increase funding for the LWCF
through a new Conservation Trust Fund. This groundbreaking bipartisan
accomplishment was intended to protect America's conservation,
recreation, wildlife, and historic resources. As members of the
Subcommittee are aware, this funding mechanism was created as a
compromise during the debate surrounding the passage of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Conservation Trust Fund
was intended to provide a dedicated level of annual funding for LWCF
and other conservation programs for Fiscal Years 2001-2006, for a total
$12 billion during this period. Unfortunately, the Conservation Trust
Fund was dramatically underfunded in Fiscal Year 2003, and appears to
face similar shortfalls in the upcoming fiscal year.
Expansions of and additions to the national park system are
necessary. Clearly, expansions of the system have had an impact on the
fiscal and personnel needs of the Park Service, but the extent to which
they have diminished the resources available for other Park Service
needs is unknowable. It is far from clear that the Park Service would
have the same financial resources or support it has today if these
expansions had not occurred.
Until the rate of investment for the Park Service has increased to
the point that is necessary to fulfill the Park Service's mission and
purpose, the Park Service will have to struggle between competing
priorities. NPCA strongly believes the operations budget should be a
significant priority, but that we cannot turn a blind eye to once-in-a-
lifetime opportunities or newly emerging threats to the very places
we're trying to preserve for future generations. If a park is
endangered and the acquisition of an inholding or adjacent land will
help protect it, that acquisition should become a priority.
Importantly, inholdings frequently create management burdens for
national park personnel. In some cases the acquisition of an inholding
or adjacent land may actually reduce those burdens and enable personnel
to focus on other needs. As the members of the Subcommittee know,
owners of ecologically, culturally or historically sensitive land
within and adjacent to parks periodically decide to sell or develop
those lands. At times, such situations pose direct threats to the
enjoyment of park visitors and the well-being of the parks, themselves.
The Park Service must have the ability to acquire these lands when
necessary to protect the integrity of a given park.
For example, Petrified Forest National Park is known worldwide as
the premier window into Triassic era paleontology, but only 6 miles of
the 22-mile-long famous, fossil-rich Chinle escarpment are within the
park. This is a priceless, rare resource that should be protected as
part of the park, particularly with the primary landowners anxious to
sell their land and with strong support from the local communities. The
park holds a time capsule of untapped scientific knowledge that can
help us unravel some of the thorniest environmental questions of our
time.
Among the select few land acquisition needs for which the
Administration requested funds in its Fiscal Year 2004 budget request
are sensitive lands in Big Thicket National Preserve and at Valley
Forge National Historical Park. Land acquisition at Big Thicket is
essential to prevent timbering on non-Federal lands at the preserve
that would endanger the fragile ecosystem of the Big Thicket area.
Timber companies are divesting themselves of 1.5 million acres in the
surrounding area. Proposed development at Valley Forge National
Historical Park threatens an area that once was occupied by the
Continental Army during its encampment at Valley Forge in 1777-1778.
In addition, at congressional initiative, the National Park Service
recently acquired 1,406 acres of state lands and mineral interests
within the boundary of Grand Teton National Park. In holdings like
those in Grand Teton exist throughout the National Park System, and
their acquisition by the parks when owners wish to sell them is
generally in the strong interest of long-term park preservation.
Los Angeles is home to the largest urban unit of the National Park
System, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, comprising
more than 150,000 acres and providing critically needed open space and
recreational opportunities to the residents of the Los Angeles area and
to approximately 530,000 visitors annually. During the 25 years since
Congress authorized the national recreation area, this unit has become
a model of collaboration of many local, state, and Federal public land
managers, as well as many private property owners.
There are hundreds of acres of land in the Los Angeles basin, known
as the ``Rim of the Valley Corridor,'' which many in Congress and the
surrounding communities believe should be protected and added to the
recreation area. To this end, bipartisan legislation has been
introduced in the House by Representatives Schiff, Dreier, Berman and
McKeon, among others, and by Senator Feinstein in the Senate, to study
the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley
Corridor as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area. Protection of the Rim of the Valley represents a partnership that
includes the State of California, surrounding communities and the Santa
Monica Mountain Conservancy. As our populations grow, along with the
need for open space, we must seize opportunities like the one presented
by the Rim of the Valley proposal to protect them for access and
enjoyment by the public.
Serving the New Face of America
History is not static, but is made every day. The national park
system must evolve to remain the ``best idea America ever had'' and to
serve the rapidly changing population of our nation. Unfortunately,
America's ``ethnic minorities'' still remain largely absent from our
parks as visitors, employees, contractors, subjects of interpretation
and political champions. In 2003, the year that confirmed Hispanics as
the largest-growing minority in the country, not one of the 388 units
that currently make up the national park system honors the legacy of an
individual contemporary Latino. The same can be said for Asian-
Americans and American Indians. For its failure to embrace diversity,
this great American idea is at risk of becoming largely irrelevant to
half the population at a time when our national parks need the broadest
possible constituency to ensure their preservation unimpaired for
future generations.
This worst-case scenario, however, need not come to pass. Surveys
demonstrate that Asian, Latino, African-American and American Indian
people have a great regard for the natural wonders celebrated and
preserved in large national parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone. The
Park Service, for its part, is one of the largest curators of Asian,
Latino, Indian and African-American history and culture. These existing
links need to be reinforced and better publicized in order that these
natural allies fully support and appreciate one another.
Thoughtful and judicious expansion of the park system to include
new units commemorating our diverse history and culture would provide
an even greater opportunity to overcome the relevancy gap that exists
between the Park Service and many people of color. The addition of
sites commemorating the groundbreaking work of Africa-American scholar
Carter G. Woodson and labor rights activist Cesar E. Chavez would be an
excellent first step toward better engaging people of color as national
park advocates. It's also the right thing to do if we are truly
interested in having a national park system that accurately and
adequately reflects the many faces of America.
Some argue that no new national parks should be added until the
backlog maintenance concerns currently plaguing the system have been
addressed. Furthermore, some have stated the cost of these outstanding
concerns is so great that resolving them will prevent us from funding
any new units for the national system. The truth is that, over time,
adequate funding would enable the Park Service to handle its backlog
maintenance and operational needs, serve park visitors, and make
prudent additions to the system that celebrate the cultural diversity
and honor our common heritage as Americans. In a time where everyone,
from NASCAR to Major League Baseball to the Elk's Club, is embracing
diversity as a way to remain socially relevant, political effective,
and economically viable, we cannot afford to tell 47 percent of the
population there's no more room in the national park system for your
heroes and leaders. Diversity is the strength of our nation and should
also be a strength of our national park system.
Conclusion
Thank you for focusing attention on this important issue today.
When national parks are created, most Americans would like to assume
they are protected. As you know, the park system faces constant
pressure and a significant struggle for resources. NPCA is pleased to
be of assistance to the Subcommittee as you examine how best to address
these challenges and protect our beloved national parks for future
generations.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Cuff.
Since I'm the only one up here today and there are a lot of
questions to ask, please forgive me, but, you know, I want to
make sure that we get everything in the record here, and I'll
just be firing out questions to you guys until I get through
them all. It seems to be a little more flowing when you have
more members up here, but it's my job to make sure that all
these questions get answered and into the record.
So, Mr. Hillier, I'm going to start with you, and I
appreciate your discussion on PILT and the effects of the lack
of full funding for PILT and how it affects local communities
when land is taken out and brought into the Federal system. It
has been a constant battle in Congress because it's
appropriated every year to try to get the funding level, PILT
funding level, up to where it should be.
Well, we appreciate your efforts with 380 there, which is a
parallel effort, and really not comparative with the full
funding there, but would get into the issue of how particularly
the rural counties are adversely affected by these
acquisitions, since they are capped with population, and so
they don't get anymore PILT even though they lose the private
land.
Mr. Radanovich. Exactly.
One other thing, too, that I want to make you aware of is
that we are trying to push a bill through called the Gateway
Communities Act, which requires the Park Service and other
Federal land managers to elevate communities to cooperative
agency status for Federal land managers when they go in. The
idea is to use the satellite communities, or communities that
are near Federal lands, in ways that will help establish the
goals of that particular management plan for that piece of
Federal land.
But, let me have you answer this question. Is it your
opinion that before Congress authorizes the Service to acquire
land for any park unit that the county be guaranteed its PILT
payment in advance?
Mr. Hillier. That would be our-either a PILT payment or as
your bill H.R. 380 would propose, is that the Federal
Government simply put enough money in the bank so the interest
would pay the equivalent of the property taxes.
One way or another, see, what we found out in looking at
the PILT formula and balancing that against the acquisitions,
is that PILT as it is currently structured and authorized is a
zero-sum gain. And so, if you tinker with the formula to
provide more payment to counties that suffer from acquisitions,
then you take away from other counties that may not be
suffering, but you may make them hurt then because they are
having to forego their money to offset acquisitions in another
county.
That's why we came up with the approach in H.R. 380 which
would simply provide for the payment as part of the acquisition
funding and not as part of the PILT authorization. That's why I
say they are parallel, on parallel tracks, and not competing
proposals.
But, in some way, the Federal Government needs to look at
that, and as I put in my testimony, one of the things that's
really important is that the Park Service, and the same applies
for the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, that those
people come in and actually talk to the county officials.
San Bernardino County, I can tell you nationally, has lost
more acreage in the last 4 years, 628,000 acres, I mean that's
bigger than a lot of counties, and never once has any official
ever sat down with the Board of Supervisors and said, this is,
you know, the public interest. This is why it's in your
interest. And, frankly, because of Prop 13 savings and
assessment the county has only lost 300,000, it was on full/
fair market value, it would have been a whole lot more than
that.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Hillier. So, this can be, these acquisitions can be a
major hit, and, you know, while my colleague at the other end
of the table talks about, you know, the economic growth and the
economic engine that some of these units add to local
economies, in many instances this doesn't happen, this doesn't
materialize, and in many of the units the visitation probably
isn't going to greatly increase from what it was when it was
under Forest Service or BLM Administration before it changed to
the Park Service. And so, the economic engine does have to be
looked at and whether, in fact, it's even real.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hillier.
Mr. Bloom, I want to ask a couple questions of you. After
reading your testimony, I get the impression that you believe
that the Park Service is taking steps to reduce your access,
rather than repair and maintain the trails. Is that a correct
statement, in your view?
Mr. Bloom. Yes. What they did was, they went through, took
the map, erased sections of trail on the map that they didn't
feel that they wanted to maintain anymore, so they took like
little sections of trails to different lakes and stuff like
that, took them off the map, and then they said, anything that
isn't on our map is considered cross country, even though there
are still trails on the ground that you can see, you are not
allowed to ride there. You can walk there, but you can't ride
there.
Mr. Radanovich. If the excuse is the inability to repair
and maintain trails is given, do you believe that there's other
motives or other things going on, or are they deliberately
limiting access?
Mr. Bloom. Yes, I think there's some definite personal
opinions in the Park Service that wouldn't mind eliminating
horses from a lot of areas.
Mr. Radanovich. Right, even though it's multiple use
considered.
Mr. Bloom. And historic use, and by doing this they've
eliminated a lot of access for us in certain areas, like Merry
Lake and Tilden Lake, stuff like that.
Mr. Radanovich. Matt, when would you say that the condition
of the trails began to deteriorate, and has the deterioration
of the trails affected your business?
Mr. Bloom. I think just the last few years it seems like
they haven't done as much work as previously. And, the trails
in some areas are fine, in some areas they haven't had
attention in 20 years. You know, it kind of depends on which
area you are in. Of course, the areas closer to Gleno and High
Sierra Camps, stuff like that, are pretty well maintained. When
you get toward the northern end of the park things kind of fall
off, I guess because there's not as many people that go there,
which makes sense in one way.
Mr. Radanovich. I guess it was in spring of, what was it,
1993, that the Park Service began to limit the number of people
that you could take into the park, you know, the trail head
number. Has this affected your business?
Mr. Bloom. Well, we weren't subject, on our trail head, to
the trail head quota numbers. This thing I was talking about
just recently happened, and, apparently, the High Sierra Hikers
Association, and I think there's some other groups involved,
kind of told the Park Service in Yosemite that you haven't been
doing the proper NEPA work on issuing these outfitter guide
permits, and talking about suing them, which they've been
successful, as you know.
So, what they did was, they called and just told us that
we're going to impose these limits on visitor days and
overnight use. They didn't give us any chance to appeal this,
nothing, it was just--and then what they did was, they said
we're going to base this on your historic numbers.
Well, in the past they never kept numbers on incidental
business permits. It wasn't very important, because it was a
flat fee. We pay a flat fee no matter how much use we have.
They didn't do a very good job of keeping numbers.
So, they had like one or 2 years worth of numbers that they
just kind of came up with, and they used those numbers for the
limit. And, the problem with a business like mine is, some
years we do a lot more business than other years in the park,
depending on the amount of snowfall for that year, all kinds of
limiting factors, you know, maybe just-it's now to the point
like if you had a big Sierra Club trip that wanted their stuff
packed and it was a 14-day trip, it would use a lot of my user
days.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Cushman, hang on here, I've got a slew
of questions for you, too, assuming that the Subcommittee
approves an acquisition for an existing--oh, I do want to
mention something, too, this Subcommittee is the busiest
subcommittee in the entire Congress. More legislation comes
through this Subcommittee than in any subcommittee in the
Congress. And, I thought of that when you had mentioned that
the Park Service, when it comes to the acquisition of land, or
the desire to do that, it goes far beyond the Park Service. A
lot of my colleagues in Congress have constantly come up and
have some idea that they've got for their area, or want a piece
of the National Park System or Federal Land System in their
area.
So, I just wanted you to know that that's really where it
comes.
Mr. Cushman. You may remember the story about former
Congressman Phil Burton who used marks as a tool for park
expansion, and it was a saying about Congressman Burton that
the only tool he had was a hammer, everything he saw began to
look like a nail.
Mr. Radanovich. Exactly, I mean, that's truly the way it
is.
Tell me, though, assuming that the Subcommittee approves an
acquisition for an existing park unit, what assurance do you
believe would be necessary to make it work for the community
and for the Park Service?
Mr. Cushman. Well, frankly, I mean, the Park Service
doesn't work with the local community. I mean, as you know, I
work with a number of communities around Yosemite, but I've had
experience with communities all over the country, so they don't
talk to them.
And, as a result, if you go to the local community and say-
you can pretty much take a poster on the wall of all the
National Parks, throw a dart at it, and go to the communities
around it and ask if they feel the Park Service is a good
neighbor. Most of them will tell you no.
Now, the answer, in terms of land acquisition and existing
parcels, one of the problems that they have is, back in the
Reagan Administration they established a policy called the Land
Protection Planning Policy, and that policy required--and it's
actually a partial solution for some of the money problems we
have in other areas, because what they were trying to get the
Park Service to do, and other agencies, was to prioritize their
acquisitions, look at which were the most needed acquisitions,
and then examine what interest would be necessary to acquiring
that parcel that would meet the needs of Congress.
So, the goal was, of course, to get the Agency to, in a
programmatic way, to examine whether they wanted fee
acquisition, which in some cases is appropriate, whether they
wanted to use certain kinds of easements, whether they wanted
to use alternatives or cooperative agreements. Well, the Agency
has pretty much let the Land Protection Planning process go.
They don't work with the local communities, they were supposed
to update this plan every couple of years, they were supposed
to involve the local communities in that process, they are
supposed to hold public hearings, virtually none of them do it.
If they did do it, then they'd get the response from the
community in an automatic way on how they feel about that
acquisition or how they feel generally, but the Agency has
stayed away from that kind of public contact with the local
community.
So, I would say, you know, reinstituting the Land
Protection Planning process policy, which to my knowledge, by
the way, is still in place, they are just ignoring it.
Mr. Radanovich. That was my second question: Do you have
any specific cases where the Park Service is not using the Land
Protection Planning Process?
Mr. Cushman. Well, I could go through and look at my
records, but----
Mr. Radanovich. Do me a favor, if you would, give us some
examples at a later date.
Mr. Cushman. Oh, yes, but I commend GAO, who just did a GAO
report on South Florida, looking at the acquisition process
involving a multitude of agencies, but in the Park Service
element there's no Land Protection Planning Process there.
There's no Land Protection Planning Process for the Big Cypress
or the Everglades, which are part of the restoration process
there.
Frankly, I mean, I think it's a case of most parks do not
have a Land Acquisition Plan. Somebody once said, if you don't
know where you are going, you are probably going to get there.
And, if they had a Land Acquisition Plan, and they prioritized
the use, and Congress kind of enforced this and put pressure on
them to do it, you'd free up a huge amount of money to be able
to help toward maintenance and other things.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Chuck, do you think that the National Park Service, if they
were to acquire land for a park unit, that it would be
prohibited from acquiring any land with an inholding?
Mr. Cushman. Well, you know, that's hard to say. I mean,
Mike talked about hardship cases, there certainly are hardship
cases. Ms. Cuff referred to willing sellers, well, any image
that most people are willing sellers they are not willing
sellers.
I lost my train of thought in terms of your question. Would
you repeat it again?
Mr. Radanovich. It's if the Park Service acquires land,
should you require that there not be any inholding in that
purchase?
Mr. Cushman. Well, you know, that would be the simplest way
to solve the problem, and, in fact, it would be unwritten
policy with respect to the parks created prior to 1960. In
general, Congress should try to draw lines around these areas,
even if the Park Service doesn't have land acquisition
authority, they use all kinds of other methods to try to
control that area.
I guess I'd have to say it would have to be case by case.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Cushman. But, in general, try to exclude the
inholdings, or make it very clear to the Agency--I mean,
Staheken is an example and Lake Shalan, where the intent of
Congress is clearly to preserve a community, clearly to resume
the homestead rural culture there, and the Park Service has
systematically dismembered that community, stopped any building
on any developed lots, and strangled the community, cut off all
kinds of kind of unique--they don't have electricity there,
they don't have telephones there, the only access is by boat or
by float plane. So, a very important culture was preserved,
until the Park Service got it, and they destroyed it over time,
because of this unrestrained need to buy land.
Mr. Radanovich. Tell me, in addition to the willing seller
standard, which sounds like it would be something that you
would automatically approve of, you know, for any type of NPS
land acquisition, what other requirements might you recommend
to the land acquisition itself? I mean, getting a willing
seller is a big step.
Mr. Cushman. Well, if you required willing sellers that's
good. I'm trying to think off the top of my head, that's the
most important thing, but clearly writing in the language of
the bill instructions on what is to be--going back to Lake
Shalan, it was amazing that when North Cascades complex was
made a part of the National Park System it was divided up into
three sections, because there were three predominant uses.
There was the North Cascades National Park, then there was the
Lake Ross National Recreation Area, which encumbered the power
light system for the City of Seattle, and then you had the Lake
Shalan National Recreation Area--no place is there a more
dramatic difference in one complex between the upper end, real
strict management of the Park Service--National Parks--and the
lower management, more people-friendly National Recreation
Areas, and yet the Agency just ignored that.
So, somehow, we have to be stronger in instructing them and
hold them accountable and willing to put their, you know, step
on their foot a little bit if they are not willing to
cooperate.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis, Mike, thanks for being here, was it today's L.A.
Times that showed hikers in San Francisco that were using the
Pacific Coast Trail and, if that's the case, does part of that
go through the Santa Monica National Recreation Area, do you
know?
Mr. Lewis. There are a number of trails that traverse the
Recreation Area. The most, I think, significant of which is,
they refer to it as the Backbone Trail, because it runs along
the ridge from end to end. And, that has been the subject of a
number of land acquisition efforts. And, it's also one of the
reasons why we have a problem with hardship cases, because
they've acquired parcels, there are segments of trails, there
were segments that couldn't be built because they didn't have
the real estate. And then, there's numerous trails that go
north/south, I guess.
Mr. Radanovich. None of that particular trail goes through
any private property?
Mr. Lewis. There are trail easements on a lot of private
parcels. In fact, it's almost a condition nowadays in the Santa
Monica Mountains, and a lot of southern California communities,
if you have acreage that you plan to develop you've got to
dedicate some to open space and, in many cases, you have to
construct trails across it. We actually have a state law in
California that relieves property owners of liability if they
have a trail on their property.
Mr. Radanovich. What would be some specific points that
would be included within the Recreation Act Bill of Rights, can
you give me an idea of some things you'd like to have in that?
Mr. Lewis. Well, I think one of the problems that we have
is that, when the parcel is identified for acquisition, and
I'll give you an example, the Omison Ranch, which had
entitlements approved for development, they were going to
dedicate thousands of acres of the ranch for open space. They
were going to provide for endowment to maintain the red-legged
frog, they were going to restore the spine flower habitat, as a
part of the development project.
The more strident advocates wanted all of the land. Omison
finally gave up the effort and agreed to sell the land in the
last few days, and now the folks involved in the acquisition
are saying, well, you know, the state doesn't have any money to
maintain this frog, and we don't know how we are going to
maintain the spine flower, and we just may have to prohibit
anybody from being able to access this property in order to
preserve it.
And, I think there's $150 million worth of public funds
going into this acquisition, and it's money that's being taken
from acquisitions throughout the southern California community,
and now not only do these communities not have a park in their
own neighborhood, the one big park that their funds were used
to acquire they may well be denied access to as a consequence.
So, part of, I think, what we are advocating is, we want to
know up front what we are really going to be allowed to do,
because a lot of things get dangled in front of us, and then
once the land is acquired there's all kinds of reasons why the
public isn't allowed to access, or trails can't be constructed,
or, you know, parking facilities aren't going to be provided.
And that, I think, everybody should know up front,
including the people who live adjacent to these land
acquisitions who may have their own reasons as to why they
don't want to have people tromping on the property next door.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Lewis, based on your knowledge and involvement with the
Santa Monica Mountains NRA, is there truly a need for the Park
Service to acquire more land for that unit, do you think?
Mr. Lewis. I guess the question would be for what purpose.
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is, indeed,
unique. I mean, it has campgrounds, fishing facilities,
equestrian stables, movie filming facilities. There are day
camps, summer camps, conference facilities. We have the 27
miles of the Malibu coastline. We have hotels, restaurants,
just about every form of recreation activity you can imagine.
All of it is privately owned, and all of it predates the NRA.
So, the bulk of the purchases that the Park Service has
pursued, and given that they only own 11 percent of the area
within the 150,000 acres, has been for preservation,
conservation, and in order to get to be able to link trail
access.
I think what we'd like to see the bigger partnership
between the Park Service and these private providers, and that
they would support the expansion of recreation activities on
the private land, because they've not done that if a private
developer tries to, or a private landowner wants to develop a
recreation facility he's likely to encounter his first line of
resistance is going to be the Park Service not wanting his
property to be developed, and they'll have a whole host of
reasons that could be viewshed, watershed, you know, or some
other sort of conservation issue as to why that shouldn't
happen.
Mr. Radanovich. Now, what would be your solution to the
inholder situation in the Santa Mountains NRA?
Mr. Lewis. Well, I think in terms of the small hardship
cases, I think a special effort should be made to clean those
up. There are cases where large tracks of land have either been
acquired or donated as part of development projects, and within
those are small parcels that might be five, ten, 20 or 40
acres. Those folks really have no alternative, because--and
I'll give you an example, one of the gentleman here today has
some parcels inside the Yuma Canyon area, he's completely
surrounded by Park Service ownership. At one time, while that
was all privately owned, all the private owners agreed that
they would maintain the road so they would all have access. As
the Park Service bought up those lands, they stopped
maintaining the roads, so he could maintain the road himself if
the Park Service would let him, which they won't. If he tries
to drive down the road to get to his property he usually
encounters a Ranger asking him what he's doing there, because
they just presume it's all theirs.
And, he has spent years trying to get them to acquire it.
They've agreed on a price, but every time the Park Service gets
some money there's always some new area that is a little more
attractive to them than trying to take care of his problem.
He's trapped. No one is going to buy his land, they know that
it's scheduled for acquisition.
Mr. Radanovich. Doomed.
Mr. Lewis. He's doomed. He can't develop it. You know, he's
stuck, because if he tries to pursue a development, you know,
assuming he's got all the utilities and other things that he
needs, or he can get them, the Park Service is not going to let
that happen. So, he's in limbo and really no where to go.
And, there's a lot of those in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Over the years, we've been able to bring enough pressure to
bear to get those cleaned up, but I think, as I said, I think
if they are not going to present a specific list of parcels to
be acquired and the amounts of money that are needed to do
that, then Congress should at least direct them to focus the
monies on the parcels that are inside their existing holdings
and not let them go and start acquiring in a new area and make
strategic acquisitions that are going to just exacerbate the
problem in another park that they haven't been acquiring land
for previously.
Mr. Radanovich. You had mentioned in your statements and
your testimony too that there's a lot of private recreation in
the private property that's inholders around the National
Recreation Area, being that's the case is it hard for the Park
Service, if they have or would be making the case for
additional recreational use, kind of makes it a moot point
because that recreation availability is there?
Mr. Lewis. I don't think they know it exists. We have a new
general management plan that, until we brought the issue to
them, never even mentioned the private recreation facilities in
the Santa Monica Mountains.
And, when we pushed them on the fact that all these
facilities exist and they should at least acknowledge them,
they finally said to us, well, can you give us some information
about them?
So, we went out and did our own survey. We put together a
list of 130 that we were able to pull from camp directories and
things of that sort. We sent them a questionnaire, and from the
response that we got we did some extrapolation and we believe
that those private facilities service twice as many people as
the Park Service facilities do. They generate millions of
dollars in revenue on those facilities, and I think, in fact,
most of the people-obviously, most of the people coming to the
area are going to the private facilities and not using the Park
Service facilities.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mr. Lewis.
Ms. Cuff, you are next.
Ms. Cuff. All right.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you tell me which might be--if you were
to give a priority one over the other that MPCA believes in,
would it be making an end to backlog and deferred maintenance,
or acquiring more land in the system?
Ms. Cuff. Well, we believe in all of the above.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks for that great response.
Ms. Cuff. It depends, there is an important case to be made
for this, and I appreciate the representation of my colleagues
here, but there are millions of Americans who use our National
Park System, and those numbers have grown over the past 20
years to almost double. We need to account for that kind of
notation. We need to recognize that we have opportunities to
continue to make the system relevant to the diverse population,
the increasingly diverse and growing population, that wants to
use these lands.
So, I feel especially because when you look at the revenue
source that can acquire inholding and additional park units,
coming from a land of water conservation, the fact that that
has not been fully funded with the exception of two times in
its history since 1964, we've got the money there to acquire
this land, and considering the great demands the American
people have for the National Park System I think it would be a
disservice if we did not meet those requests.
Do we need to go out and wholesale buy all this land? No,
let's be reasonable. Let's look at some priorities, and let's
try to acquire where it makes sense to acquire.
Mr. Radanovich. Tell me, though, this seems to be, if I
went to the, and this is the oldest story in the world, but it
seems like I've said it so many times, I've gone to, there was
a guy from New York that was proposing to add some land into
the Park System for some lands in the West, and I pointed out
to him that, you know, the country's, I think the largest park
is the Adirondack State Park, a land area, almost a land area,
but at any rate New York has this great State Park System that
they have developed. And, I said, well, you know, why don't you
let this place in the West, whether it be California or
Colorado, wherever it was, you know--no, I guess my question to
him was, ``Well, why don't we put this Adirondack State
National Park into the Federal Park System.''
And, he says, ``Well, we like to think that we can manage
things better at the state level, our land, at least in our
state.''
Why isn't it the case for some of these large requests? I
mean, you've only got so many Yosemites out there; there's got
to be some end to your justification, or Yellowstone for that
matter, national treasures. Don't you think there's a limit to
what you can bring in, based on what a national park is?
Ms. Cuff. There are criteria that we need to meet, in terms
of priorities of land acquisition. We shouldn't just buy up any
land, if it doesn't meet those criteria set by the U.S.
Congress. In fact, something that's very heartening to me is
the shared responsibility we are seeing taking place in places
like Redwood National Park, between the state agencies and the
Federal Agency working together. The same is true in the Santa
Monica Mountains. I think that there are more of those
partnerships taking place, and we can continue to work toward
that end.
Mr. Lewis. Can I elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. I think, I mean one thought that you might want
to consider is, why do you have to keep the land? Why don't you
turn it back to some other local public agency?
In the case of the Santa Monica Mountains, we have the
State, we have the County, we have the City and we have the
Conservancy, all of whom own land here. All you are adding is
one more agency that everybody has to deal with.
You know, if you were a private property owner in the
mountains, and you have a development proposal, you are going
to build a house on your property, and you've got a planning
commission hearing coming up, in all likelihood you are going
to have, you know, the State Park Director, or somebody from
State Parks, somebody from the Conservancy, and somebody from
the National Park System show up, and they are going to be in
their uniforms, and they are going to have the Smoky The Bear
hats on, and we've affectionately referred to them as the three
bears when you see them show up.
And, given the circumstances here, there's no reason, most
of the land that the Federal Government owns here, they didn't
buy, it was bought by one of the other agencies and resold to
them, because your, frankly, land purchasing procedures are
just too cumbersome, you can't move well enough for the
Southern California real estate market. So, the Park Service
says to the Conservancy, we want that. Here's the money for it.
The Conservancy buys it, sells it to them, and as part of the
deal the money that the Conservancy got for the land is to be
held for the next Federal priority acquisition.
And then they'll say, OK, now take that money and buy that.
So, they buy that, then they resell it to them and they take
that money. So, the money loses a little of the Federal patina
when it trades hands, so that the Conservancy has much more
latitude in terms of how they use it or how they shuffle it
around, as the case may be.
But, in our case, I don't know, necessarily, what is added
by having the National Park Service here, just to take land
that someone else has bought for them, when we already have
plenty of public land ownership.
Mr. Radanovich. We had one member of Congress come up to me
and wanted to put, it was a study that actually got passed, to
study the San Gabriel Watershed here in the valley, and part of
it included the Los Angeles River, a study bringing it into the
National Park System. This is the cemented part of the Los
Angeles River. I mean, how far do we have to go to say no, that
this is, you know, something that might not be good for the
Park System?
Mr. Lewis. They are also trying to get--
Mr. Radanovich. I mean, this is the stuff we get a lot.
Mr. Lewis. --they also want to restore the salmon to that
river.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Cushman. One place you are wasting, you may be wasting
money is on these planning for new parks, because, you know,
you ask the Park Service to see if it qualifies as a park, and,
boy, I wonder how many fingers it would take to count on the
time the Park Service comes back and says this wouldn't
qualify. I mean, all they want is more land, more power, more
money, and, you know, it just builds the bureaucracy.
Now, there are periods where they've backed away from that,
but, in general, you know, if it adds more it's great, if
there's more acquisition it's great, and that, of course, adds
to the maintenance backlog.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Ms. Cuff. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I just wanted to add a
little comment.
Mr. Radanovich. Go ahead then, do your comments, and then
I've got more questions for you.
Ms. Cuff. OK, great.
I think that studies are not about saying when we are
talking about trying to involve more people and make sure that
we hear the concerns from as many people as we can, because
that's an important thing that we all agree upon, I do feel
that the Park Service is working toward that end. They are not
perfect, trust me, sometimes I have to slap them around too,
but I do think that we are overlooking some pieces that
actually Mr. Hillier after mentioned, where the Park Service is
doing right by their neighbors. In fact, I have a letter here
from a number of different people around Joshua Tree, the
President of the 29th Holmes Chamber of Commerce, the City
Manager of 29th Holmes, real estate agents, so that, you know,
represent Copper Mountain College, the Joshua Tree Chamber of
Commerce, a number of people, Lake-Fish and Game Club, who are
saying, we are appreciating this park, there are good things
happening. We want to make sure it's taken well care of.
And, just to another point that was raised and my name
invoked, I just want to say that I don't think we can throw
much doubt on the economic additions these parks give to the
local communities. In Yosemite you are looking at about $320
million that come in because of Yosemite National Park. I was
even looking in my hotel room today, Best Western directory
lists Yosemite and Sequoia Kings in a hotel that's as far as 90
miles away from those places.
So, these parks are not only part of our history as a
Nation, our natural and cultural history, but they do provide
economic engines for local communities.
Just a couple quick things and then I'll be quiet. Gerry
mentioned the PILT not wanting to meet, you know, people from
the Park Service haven't gone to meet with local Board of
Supervisor folks. We actually have folks on the ground in the
desert working to do just that, to build relationships with the
Board of Supervisors, to look at and hopefully address things
like this PILT problem. And, I would love to take you up on the
offer to meet with some of the Board of Supervisor members to
try to figure this problem out. I think it's a real one, and
I'd like for us to be able to work together to figure these
kinds of problems out.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Cuff, you mentioned in your testimony
that the NPCA believes that the root cause of the current state
of affairs of the Park System is a lack of sufficient funding
for operations and maintenance. Knowing how much of a priority
this Administration has placed on eliminating the backlog, and
how much money it has asked Congress for, does the NPCA believe
that the Park Service is now on the right path?
Ms. Cuff. I believe that the operational backlog is one of
the root causes of the maintenance backlog. I do think that
it's an exciting time with the President of the United States
talking about the maintenance backlog needs, with chairmen like
yourself looking at, and with folks coming to the table and
saying, wait, we need to figure this problem out.
We haven't figured it out yet, and I think, frankly, with
the GAO looking as recently as earlier this spring at a backlog
number and to maintenance of close to $7 billion, it's not
going to be easy to eliminate that ever, frankly. We need to
work toward that end, but that's a big problem, especially when
you've got the operational problems that are exacerbating the
maintenance backlog.
Mr. Radanovich. It's no secret that the National Parks
Conservation Association or NPCA believes that the current
Administration is not doing enough for the Park System, and you
can correct me if that's wrong, but do you believe the recent
report issued by the Secretary this July is bold and
unprecedented in terms of eliminating maintenance backlog?
Ms. Cuff. Again, I feel that-you are asking two questions
there, so let me address the first one.
Mr. Radanovich. Go right ahead.
Ms. Cuff. President Bush and First Lady Bush visit the
National Parks, I think they care about these places, and as I
mentioned, frankly, one of the reasons that I came to work for
National Parks Conservation Association is because I was
excited about the President when he was a candidate and then
when he became President talking about these problems, because
it gave me hope that we can work together in a bipartisan way
to solve them.
I wish that the President's current administration was
doing more and doing a few things differently, but they are
moving in the right direction in some areas, and that can't go
unnoticed. In other areas, I feel they are overturning
important laws and passing certain regulations that will harm
some of our Nation's greatest treasures.
Your second question was? I want to make sure I answered it
all, the report that came out, I believe, whether or not I
think that's the panacea.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Ms. Cuff. Again, it's important to get a handle on where
these maintenance backlog problems are, but the rubber meets
the road when we realize that the appropriators are going to be
able to work with the rest of Congress to meet those
maintenance backlog needs, and if the National Park Service is
going to be prudent in its expenditure of those funds, and if
people like myself and my organization are going to try to work
against waste, fraud and abuse, so I think that that's an
important document, but it's again not the only answer to the
question.
Mr. Radanovich. In your testimony, you mentioned the impact
of land acquisitions into the Park Service is unknown. Would
you not agree that if the Service has to use millions of
dollars in a specific year to acquire land that the funding for
the maintenance backlog would take a hit and that the system as
a whole would suffer? Would you agree with that statement?
Ms. Cuff. Well, what I said just in terms of clarifying my
remarks, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as you know, is
the vehicle that helps us acquire land as a Nation. In
addition, we've seen a lot of public/private partnerships
happening, where millions of dollars have been raised from
private monies to help acquire some of these lands.
I do feel that it would be ignorant of me to say, oh, well,
if we acquire the lands we are not going to have new costs
associated with that. However, I think that, I know that, when
I look at a Worthman's poll that we did a year ago, two-thirds
of the American public are saying, we need to invest in these
lands, we need to invest in once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.
Again, not looking at wholesale buying up of land, not an
imminent domain situation, willing sellers and opportunities
that really can't be missed if we are going to preserve the
fabric of this Nation.
Mr. Radanovich. I've enjoyed your comment about working
with local communities when there's issues like this coming up.
I think it's also important that the Federal Government work
with local communities as well, and that's why I drew up this
Gateways Community Act, which would require the Federal Land
Managers to work with local communities before any action is
taken. And, the NPCA has so far not agreed to get on this
legislation, and I think, after hearing the testimony of these
people today and some of their concerns I think it would be
wise, you'd develop better plans, I think that you'd end up
reducing, in an indirect way, backlog maintenance and other
things if the expertise and ability of nearby communities were
used to develop these plans.
I think for that reason NPCA want to think about getting on
that bill.
Ms. Cuff. Thank you, Chairman, I will advise my
counterparts in Washington, D.C. I know that there are aspects
of the bill that my Government Affairs Department in D.C.
actually likes, and that they have, in fact, endorsed
Congressman Christensen's counterpart legislation. And, I know
that there is an interest in trying to bridge those gaps.
So, thank you for the invitation and I will certainly pass
it on.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome.
Anybody want to make a closing statement or something, and
we have to be brief because we are winding this thing down,
but, Mr. Hillier, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cushman?
Mr. Cushman. Just one comment on the visitor issue, that so
often it is touted as an economic boom in these areas.
Mr. Radanovich. No, it's not, in Yosemite it is, but----
Mr. Cushman. Yes, but Voyagers National Park, they promised
$1.4 million visitor use, they got something like $250,000. In
Redwood, it was $2 million, and it was $256,000 in the first
few years. And, Canyon Land, they promised a million and they
got $100,000. All of that meant that the local community gave
up economic enterprises, grazing, other things, and they didn't
get back the economic stimulus that they were hoping for.
Mr. Radanovich. You are exactly right. I mean, the idea
that you can acquire Federal lands and take away the multiple
use and the income that's generated off the multiple use of
that asset and replace it by tourism is just not true.
It is for the Crown Jewels, but not for National Recreation
Areas, especially when the desire is to not have any multiple
use on those lands once they become public anyway.
Mr. Cushman. And, just adding to Gerry's comments on PILT,
PILT is a freeze in place law, so even if you get to the area
where what the property taxes at the acquisition 20 years later
those aren't even remotely coming close to what would have been
generated from that property as it grew naturally in the
economic ecosystem. Thus, the expenses all around have
escalated, but the money to take care of it.
So, PILT is even farther behind than we see on paper.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being
here today. I appreciate your testimony. It's of value.
Does anybody else have any closing statement or anything?
Are you all OK now?
Mr. Lewis. May I make one comment?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. I would suggest that maybe as one way to free up
some dollars for other areas would be to consider an exit
strategy in Santa Monica Mountains. After all, we do have a
number of land management agencies, public agencies that
control land and, frankly, you know, we've got a lot of
recreation that developed just fine before the National Park
Service arrived, and we'll be doing just fine long after they
are gone, if that's the case.
Mr. Radanovich. So, get rid of Santa Monica Recreation Area
and meet all the needs for backlog maintenance.
Mr. Lewis. No, it's a wonderful city park.
Mr. Radanovich. All right, ladies and gentlemen, thank you
again for being here. This is very valuable testimony you've
given us today, and with that the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]