[Senate Hearing 109-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-84
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S FUNDING NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S FUNDING NEEDS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
__________
MAY 10, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-740 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Arnberger, Robert, on behalf of the Coalition of National Park
Services Retirees, Tucson, AZ.................................. 29
Mainella, Fran P., Director, National Park Service; accompanied
by Steve Martin, Deputy Director, National Park Service, and
Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 4
Moore, Greg, Executive Director, Golden Gaste National Parks
Conservancy, San Francisco, CA................................. 20
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 4
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Werst, Lee, President, Association of National Park Rangers,
Orem, UT....................................................... 24
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S
FUNDING NEEDS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. We had a little confusion today in terms
of--had a little cancellation in the meeting and then brought
it back together. So in any event, we are here and I am sure
some more of our folks will be here a little bit later.
At any rate, good afternoon. I want to welcome Director
Fran Mainella, from the National Park Service, and other
witnesses to the subcommittee hearing today.
Our purpose for this hearing is to receive testimony on the
National Park Service funding needs for administration and
management of the National Park System. And, of course, this is
an appropriate time to talk about that in that the
appropriations are being made now.
This hearing came about at the request of several of my
colleagues on the subcommittee who are not here yet. Despite
budget hearings, members made it clear they would like to hear
more about the National Park Service budget and have an
opportunity to ask questions.
During these fiscally restrictive times, many Federal
budgets have been facing, of course, tough budgetary
constraints. The National Park Service is no exception.
A number of factors have added to the budgetary challenge,
such as additional security requirements placed on the parks
since 2001, keeping pace with the mandatory cost of living
adjustments, backlogged maintenance projects, and increased
utility costs. These and other demands, of course, have all
taken a toll on the effectiveness of the budget and--and making
it more difficult sometimes.
The National Park Service consists of 388 units, with
23,546 employees, with a budget of $2.6 billion in 2004. That
equates to more funds per employee per acre and per visitor
than any time in the history of the National Park Service.
The National Park Service has requested a total
discretionary budget authority of $2.249 billion for 2006, a
small reduction from the other one, a net increase of $50
million, however, compared to last year's appropriation.
This includes $1.7 billion for operations. The
administration has implemented an inventory and data system for
the maintenance of the park infrastructure. The system allows
managers to prioritize maintenance requirements and track
progress toward addressing the maintenance backlog. They have
also implemented organizational changes with a goal of
improving efficiency, reducing overhead, lowering operating
costs at the administrative level.
We are here today to learn more about these changes and the
potential savings and the potential needs in the future. Again,
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and look
forward to your testimony. Welcome.
Senator, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
happy to be here to join you, and thank you for scheduling this
hearing to review the funding needs for the National Park
Service.
An article in The New York Times stated, and I quote,
``America's national parks expect record crowds this summer
amid a widening debate over complaints that a lack of money is
causing a growing and permanent deterioration of the parks.''
The article notes that although the administration proposed a
2-percent cut in the Park Service's budget, administration
officials stated that--and I quote, ``While efforts to limit
the Federal deficit have limited spending and required some
projects to be deferred, they contend that park services have
not been shortchanged.''
The article I quoted from was printed on May 1, 1988, just
over 17 years ago. More than anything, it highlights the
ongoing funding problem that the National Park Service and most
other Federal land management agencies have been facing for
several years now.
This year the President is proposing to cut the National
Park Service appropriation by about 2 percent, with most of the
cut reflected in the proposal to zero out funding for the land
and water conservation fund State grant program.
The administration is continuing to propose modest
increases in the primary operating account for the Park Service
but even those increases will not keep up with inflation and
other mandatory costs, such as annual cost of living
adjustments and security needs.
Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to join you in a letter this
week to the Appropriations Committee seeking an increase of
$100 million in the Park Service's operating account above the
President's request.
We are all aware of the difficulty in trying to overcome
the deferred maintenance backlog. In addition, there are other
unmet funding needs that, in my opinion, are even more
critical, including resource protection, visitor interpretation
and educational programs, and unfilled staff positions.
As we said in our letter to the Appropriations Committee,
the proposed budget leaves no room for new programmatic needs
at any of the 388 units of the National Park System, nor is it
likely to cover the entirety of the cost of living salary
adjustments.
As a result, this budget will not sufficiently meet the
operating needs of the parks for the coming year. I hope that a
hearing such as this will help to draw attention to some of the
more pressing issues for the Park Service. This is an important
first step for ensuring that in another 18 years, we are not
discussing these same problems.
I would like to quickly highlight a few additional concerns
I have about the budget. Since September 2001, the Park Service
has had heightened Homeland Security responsibilities. I am
told that these additional security costs, which now total
almost $40 million each year, are not reimbursed by the
Department of Homeland Security and are having a significant
impact on other Park Service funding needs.
I am also concerned about the level of funding for park
roads in the surface transportation authorization bill
currently under consideration in the Senate. Both the House and
Senate versions of that bill provide funding for park roads far
below the amount proposed by the administration.
Since the road money constitutes a significant portion of
the proposed funding to address the maintenance backlog, more
resources will be required to ensure that parks have the
necessary infrastructure to meet the demands placed on them by
visitors.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have run through my statement here
only to come to this point where I would want to extend my warm
welcome and aloha----
Ms. Mainella. Aloha.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. To Fran Mainella, the director
of the National Park Service, as well as to our other
distinguished witnesses who will testify this afternoon.
Fran, it is good to see you here again. And there are so
many good memories that we started with when you first came on,
and I cherish that. I look forward to continuing to work with
you.
Unfortunately, I have a scheduling conflict, Mr. Chairman,
this afternoon and will not be able to stay for the full
hearing. But I will submit my questions for the record.
But, Fran, I want to wish you well.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. You look so good.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you. And you are such a supporter of
parks. We really appreciate it.
Senator Akaka. Yes. And thank you for what you have been
doing. What I said, too, tells you that we have challenges
ahead that we will have to deal with. And together we will do
the best we can on this in helping the parks and the people of
our country.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
I guess I do not know how to welcome you. We do not say
aloha much in Wyoming.
Ms. Mainella. Aloha.
Senator Thomas. Howdy, maybe.
Ms. Mainella. Howdy.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Thomas and Senator
Akaka. I just want to congratulate you. I have followed your
history over a long time.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Salazar. I have had the opportunity of working with
you on parks issues in my State, in Colorado, and around the
country.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. And I am delighted that you are at the
helm.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Thank you.
Ms. Mainella. You have done wonderful in Colorado. Thank
you.
Senator Thomas. Well, Madam Director, your statement will
be in full in the record.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. And if you would like to go ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF FRAN P. MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY STEVE MARTIN, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND BRUCE SHEAFFER,
COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. And thank
you, members of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing, and
particularly because you are focusing on funding needs and for
the management of the National Park Service.
But I do want to thank you right off the bat for the
support that you have given through not only your efforts from
authorizing areas, but also in support of the budget,
particularly the 2005 budget that went through that the
President and you, as Congress, have supported.
You gave us the largest operational increase in the history
of the National Park Service in the 2005 budget, and I just
want to thank you for that effort.
And also you have continued to help us sustain ourselves at
a 96 percent satisfaction level, and this is what the visitors
are telling us about our parks.
Also, I think it also is reflective of our visitor
satisfaction in the sense that our visitation last year went up
4 percent, which is substantial. And that is 277 million
visitors visiting annually in our national parks.
Another area I think that is very important is our
volunteers. We have had volunteers in the national parks since
their very beginning. And we were very proud that we had an
increase of 14 percent last year in our volunteerism. So we now
have 140,000 of those volunteers out there. Senator, you saw
some just recently in one of our parks when you were able to be
out there to visit.
Also, our national parks provide annual economic benefits
to this Nation of $11 billion annually and creation of 226,000
jobs.
The President has encouraged us to continue to work for
better care of the resources, but also to make sure our
visitors have a wonderful experience.
One of the things that we have been working on in this past
year has been, as mentioned earlier, operations, sustaining
operations.
That is the cost of what it takes to put those rangers out
there to greet visitors, to clean those restrooms, to make sure
that the parks are open, and for day-to-day operational needs
of the Park Service. And again, the 2005 budget stepped us
forward substantially.
And the 2006 budget, what it has meant for us is an
increase of about $51 million additionally again in the
operations, and it covers the salaries, benefits, and fixed
costs of all the employees of the National Park Service. That
has been one of our challenges in the past. We have not always
had that. And by the President stepping forward, and we ask you
to help support that effort, you will be able to help make sure
that our staff are out there able to provide the opportunities
for resource protection and also visitor enjoyment.
And as you are probably aware, the majority of our funding
goes directly to the parks. And we are very proud of that. We
have a very small amount that ever goes--that covers the
Washington or regional offices.
Also, this budget continues to help us improve on the
condition of our assets. For example, it is--with this budget
request, assuming that the transportation funding of $320
million for roads in national parks are met, we will then be
able to achieve the $4.9 billion that the President indicated
he would like to see us spend to address the maintenance
issues.
As you all know, maintenance is dynamic. It is always
underway. There are always issues that are out there for us, so
it is a continued effort for us. But we are making a huge step
forward with this budget.
Also, in the 2004 budget we are continuing to--through the
2004 budget, we have been able to achieve over 4,000 facility
improvements, including trails, roads, et cetera. But through
2005, and now as in our request for 2006, we are continuing to
further enhance that by requesting $1.1 billion to help us on
all that maintenance improvements.
Through the maintenance history of what we have been able
to do through 2005--excuse me, through 2004, has been to, for
the first time ever, know where all the facilities are that we
have in our national parks. When I came on as director in 2001,
we did not know that.
We also did not know what condition they were in. And we
now have that information, and we are able to make better
management decisions of where do we place our money and how do
we move forward.
And what I am probably the most proud about in the
maintenance is we have tripled since 2001 the amount we are
spending to do what is called cyclic maintenance, which is the
preventive maintenance so we hope we will not be in the
positions of having a large backlog in the future.
Another area, though, that we continue to work on is making
sure that we are doing all the management improvements at home
that we can do so within our National Park Service.
One of the areas that we have been working on, of course,
is one I know very close to this committee's heart, which is
the concession backlog. We are working and will have achieved
at the end of this calendar year 477 of the 600 contracts will
have been addressed. We still have another 100 ahead of us, but
we will be working on that over the next year. But we are
moving forward.
Other things that we have done, we have created a park
scorecard, where we actually score our parks, not only in
need--what their needs are--but what are they doing in terms of
using the tools that we provided, the management facility
assessments, but also what are they doing to leverage dollars.
We want to reward parks that are being creative and innovative.
We are also working on our core operations analysis so that
we actually know and it will help our funds group. And I think
you will hear from some of those folks in a little while, to
better understand what is core to the operations of the park in
order to--the basic interpretation in all of the things that we
do, resource protection, but what is also necessary for us to
maybe make it an even greater experience. And our funds groups
can help us with that.
The third area we have worked on is partnership projects,
being able to do more in partnership and making sure that those
are done in a way that is friendly to the resource and friendly
to the partners, as well as to the park. And we had to put some
high level systems in place to better help us manage them.
What we look forward to in the future is we are going to
continue to be able to work well and serve these resources and
make sure that we are doing the business of the national parks
in a way that you can all be proud.
I know my time has come to an end. So in closing I just
would like to say that even with record funding and responsible
stewardship, challenges always remain.
But you can see what we are trying to do. We are trying to
work smarter and work more efficiently in meeting those
challenges. With your help, the budget that you helped us with
in 2005 and with hopefully your concurrence with the present
budget of 2006, we will continue to move forward.
I have great employees, great volunteers, great partners.
They are there to help us, assist in all that we do.
And we are moving forward toward our vision for 2016, which
is our 100th anniversary, so we are beginning to prepare
ourselves for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have Steve Martin, my new
deputy, with me and also Bruce Sheaffer to help in answering
any questions, if they may join me?
Senator Thomas. Fine. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. We appreciate your being here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today at this oversight hearing on the National Park Service's funding
needs for administration and management of the National Park System.
This system consists of 388 national parks and other designated units,
covering 88 million acres of land throughout the United States and its
territories, and conserving a broad and diverse array of natural and
cultural resources. Last year, visitation increased at national park
units to 277 million.
The fundamental approach that President Bush has taken toward the
administration of the National Park System has been to promote better
care of the resources under our stewardship while slowing the growth of
responsibilities of the National Park Service so that the demand for
funds does not grow faster than the available monies. In taking this
approach, the Administration has focused on reducing the deferred
maintenance backlog in our parks, assuring sufficient operating funds
for parks, and instituting a range of management improvements to enable
the National Park Service to do more with available resources.
overview of funding
The priorities of the Administration for the National Park Service
are expressed in the FY 2006 budget request, which totals about $2.2
billion in Department of the Interior appropriations and $320 million
in Department of Transportation appropriations. More than 70 percent of
that funding is devoted to managing the National Park System, not
including the cost of undertaking major construction or rehabilitation
projects or acquiring land. For FY 2005, Congress provided a net
increase of about $64 million for the operation of the National Park
System, which resulted in an average increase to park base budgets this
year of approximately 6 percent. The FY 2006 budget request would build
on last year's substantial growth by increasing operations funding by
$50.5 million above the FY 2005 enacted level, allowing for, among
other things, increases for pay, benefits, and other fixed costs.
One of the major challenges the National Park Service has faced in
recent years has been the need for more security. After the September
11 attacks, the National Park Service began focusing more law
enforcement and security resources on icon parks, parks along the U.S.
border, and NPS units that include infrastructure such as dams and
reservoirs. Since 2001, the overall operational base level of funding
for NPS law enforcement and security has increased 25 percent.
Additional sums are being spent to improve the physical security of the
parks that are considered more vulnerable to terrorist activity.
The operation of the National Park System is enhanced substantially
through non-appropriated funds and non-governmental services. In FY
2006, we anticipate receiving about $160 million in revenue from
recreation fees, National Park Pass fees, and transportation fees, and
about $38 million from concessions fees. The NPS also receives a great
deal of financial and in-kind support from cooperating associations,
friends' groups, and other partnership entities. Many parks benefit
tremendously from the work done by volunteers, which increased by 14
percent in 2004, when we saw 140,000 Americans serving as volunteers in
our parks.
maintenance backlog
The FY 2006 budget request meets the President's goal of investing
$4.9 billion over five years to address the deferred maintenance
backlog in our parks. The FY 2006 amount toward this goal is $1.1
billion. It includes $717 million for facility maintenance and
construction in NPS appropriations, $320 million for park roads within
the Department of Transportation's Federal Lands Highway Program, and
an estimated $108 million in funding dedicated to maintenance from
recreational fees. Park roads funding, which would bring 80 percent of
park roads into good or excellent condition, depends upon full funding
of the President's request and enactment of the Administration's
proposed reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21).
Through 2004, with the funding requested by the Administration and
provided by Congress, NPS has undertaken over 4,000 infrastructure and
facility improvement projects nationwide. As a result, visitors are
seeing improved trails, more accessible campgrounds, rehabilitated
visitor centers, better roads, stabilized historic structures, and
reduced environmental threats through improved drinking water and
sewage processing systems. An increased focus on cyclic maintenance
will help ensure that recent improvements will be adequately
maintained.
In addition to promoting more funding for maintenance, the
Administration has also focused on the management of facilities. The
NPS has developed a comprehensive asset management strategy that has
enabled the NPS, for the first time in its history, to inventory its
assets and measure the condition of its facilities. During the past
three years, NPS has produced a comprehensive asset inventory and
established a NPS-wide baseline for facility conditions. We now have
preliminary condition assessments for all 388 units, and we anticipate
having comprehensive condition assessments for all of them by the end
of 2006. This management tool will enable NPS to establish performance
goals using a Facility Condition Index and target funds to the highest
priority needs.
other management improvements
The high priority that the Administration has placed on improving
management of the National Park System is helping us meet the needs we
face in administering this system. In addition to improving facility
management, as described above, we have been implementing other changes
that will have a huge, long-term positive impact on our ability to
continue to provide good customer service to our visitors.
One area in which we have made improvement is in our concessions
program. Passage of the Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998,
which introduced more competition into the concessions contracting
process, generated a dramatic change in the way in which the
concessions program is conducted.
Five years ago, the NPS concessions program was in poor shape. The
program had been criticized in numerous reports by the Department's
Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and outside
auditors, and it faced a huge backlog of expired or soon-to-be-expired
contracts. For the first time in NPS history, the NPS needed to award
almost all of the approximately 600 concession contracts.
In response, we conducted a top-to-bottom review and engaged
PricewaterhouseCoopers to bring best practices to our efforts and
develop protocols for contracting and contract oversight. We began to
professionalize our workforce by hiring staff with graduate business
degrees and developing training courses for NPS personnel. Since 2001,
with the assistance of four top business consultants, we have awarded
322 contracts and expect to award another 125 by the end of this year,
bringing the total to 447. This will reduce our backlog to
approximately 100 contracts.
The change has not been easy for concessioners or for NPS
personnel, and there are still issues that remain unresolved, but we
now have a much more business-like program. We are beginning to see a
real improvement in visitor services and a better return to the Federal
government from concession franchise fees as well as improved
maintenance of facilities often required in concession contracts.
The NPS has also improved the way we manage partnership
construction projects. For the last several years, we faced a growing
problem of well-meaning organizations that wanted to partner with us on
building new facilities in parks, usually visitor centers that would
ultimately require a larger Federal contribution not only for the
project's construction, but also for the cost of maintaining the new
facility. Over the last year, the NPS has undertaken a complete
inventory of all partnership construction projects of more than $1
million and implemented a comprehensive project review process that
will ensure that projects are mission-essential and achievable. As
elements of this process, the NPS has instituted service-wide training,
a project tracking system, and an accountability system that will be
incorporated into the performance plans of regional directors and
superintendents.
The NPS has identified projects valued at $5 million or more at all
stages of planning, the level that requires Congressional concurrence.
The NPS will move ahead on projects only after the NPS leadership has
determined that: (1) the proposed projects address NPS priorities and
are consistent with park general management plans, (2) partners have
the capability to raise promised funding, (3) any expected capital
contributions from the NPS have been prioritized in the five-year
capital plan, and (4) ongoing operation and maintenance costs are known
and can be sustained over time. Additionally, the NPS has initiated a
standard policy of including language in all agreements with partners
that specifically prohibits the solicitation of funding from Congress
outside of the budget process.
The NPS is also working toward innovation and reform in the way it
manages natural and cultural resources. The NPS Natural Resource
Challenge (NRC) continues to make progress towards its goal of
developing a scientific base of knowledge about park resources. The NRC
is an initiative that has expanded existing inventory programs and
developed efficient ways to monitor the vital signs of natural systems,
enlisted others in the scientific community to help, and expanded
natural resource conservation activities in parks. The FY 2006 budget
proposal includes a $1 million net increase for the NRC, and includes
sufficient funding for the monitoring of park vital signs and water
quality in all 32 multi-park networks for the first time. This
monitoring provides park managers with key information on the status
and trends in park ecosystem health, defines normal limits of variation
in measurable features, provides early warning of situations that
require management intervention, suggests remedial treatments and
frames research hypotheses, and in some cases determines compliance
with laws and regulations.
In an attempt to move toward greater levels of budget and
performance accountability, the NPS continues to expand the use of the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) activity-based costing, and
preliminary planning efforts associated with competitive reviews. PART
evaluations and recommendations continue to inform both budget
formulation and program management decisions.
We have been working to improve our budget formulation process,
particularly related to park specifics, by making it more transparent.
We have initiated two new processes to meet this requirement. First, we
have developed a park scorecard. The scorecard is an indicator of park
financial, operational, and managerial health used to aid in the
identification and evaluation of base budget increases for park units.
It provides an overarching snapshot of each park's current situation by
offering a way to analyze individual park needs and to compare these
needs with those of other parks.
Second, we have developed a core operations analysis process that
integrates management tools to improve park efficiency. The process is
designed to assist park management in making fully informed decisions
on staffing and funding alternatives that tie to core mission goals.
This will ensure that: funds are spent in support of a park's purpose;
funds are spent in an efficient manner; a park's request for funding is
credible; and there are adequate funds and staff to conserve and
protect the resources for which parks are responsible. The
Intermountain Region has been successfully using these analyses and we
are already taking steps to implement the process throughout the NPS.
The NPS maintains its support for the President's Management Agenda
and has funding in the FY 2006 budget for improving information
technology (IT), financial accountability, and other management
reforms. The budget proposal includes funds totaling $6 million for fee
program data analysis improvements, a dozen assorted IT initiatives,
including security upgrades and the implementation of an enterprise
server network, and reform of the Federal Land Acquisition
administrative function. The FY 2006 budget also proposes a series of
management actions, including rental space consolidation and fleet
management reforms that will bring over $4 million in savings to the
government.
In addition, we have achieved savings in our travel costs by taking
steps to ensure that all domestic and international travel by NPS
employees is an efficient and effective use of resources. Since 2002,
we have reduced travel costs by 25 percent.
In summary, the improvements we are making in administering and
managing the National Park System are enabling us to be much more
effective and efficient stewards of the magnificent parks and other
resources that we are responsible for managing. That concludes my
statement, and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other
members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. I suppose there is never sufficient money.
Where would you say are the most difficult problems? Where are
the areas in which limitations on money have the most impact in
your operations?
Ms. Mainella. Well, I think that we have found--of course,
you know, we want to make sure that we are taking the dollars
that we have and using them as effectively and efficiently. And
through our scorecard, we have been rating that--and I will ask
Mr. Sheaffer to possibly elaborate, because he created the idea
of the scorecard--is to focus on, again, how well are serving
the resource and the visitor, how well are we using all the
tools that are currently available to us, and how well are we
leveraging dollars. Those are kind of the areas that we are
focusing on at this point in time. Is that what you are looking
for?
Senator Thomas. Well, yes. I am just sort of saying where
do you think you are unable to do--are there things you are not
able to do on this budget?
Ms. Mainella. I think the challenges have been just that--I
guess the bottom line is I feel they are meeting all of the
aspects that the President has asked us to do, that you have
asked us to do through this budget.
I think the area there that we want to continue to have
help with is the road money, the road repairs. That one is
reflective again of $320 million in the roads budget for the
Federal highways bill, depending on how that proceeds. And I
know you are looking at that bill as we speak.
And anything below the $320 million will make it difficult
for us to achieve the goals.
Also, of course, one of the other areas is that we do have
Homeland Security and other areas that are--you know, that can
be challenging for us as any of those areas increase in cost.
Senator Thomas. Do you have highway money in your budget,
or is there some money in the highway budget for parks? Is
there----
Ms. Mainella. There is. The request in the President's
budget is for $320 million. We currently receive $165 million
annually. And the budget, as you are probably aware, road--
parks like in Yellowstone and others, I mean roads are such a
critical area. And the $320 million is our request.
Senator Thomas. Generally, what is the total value of fee
demo, the fee program plus the contributions that are made for
improvements and so on?
Ms. Mainella. I am going to start at the fees. That is
about $160 million a year, which has been so valuable. We thank
you for the leadership that this committee has provided with
those fees. And then also with partnerships, I think, that
comes in at about $70 million--Bruce--I believe is my memory.
So those are areas that come from fees and from partnership.
Senator Thomas. What did you say? $130 million?
Ms. Mainella. $160 million from fees.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Ms. Mainella. And $70 million coming from our partners.
Senator Thomas. I see, so----
Ms. Mainella. So we do get a lot of outside help.
Senator Thomas. That is pretty substantial. Yes. That is
good. 388 parks?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. And then you have other things, like
heritage areas and this and that.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, we do.
Senator Thomas. In terms of your budgets and so on, how
much do you think about your capacity to expand?
Ms. Mainella. Well, I think that right now our focus is on
trying to take care of the things we do have.
Heritage areas have been an area, though, that we have
found have been good partnership areas for us where they do not
have to become part of the National Park System, as far as
becoming a unit of the National Park Service and are meeting
some of the needs of resource protection if they are a national
effort.
I think, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we are all working to
look at a greater criteria through some legislation in the
heritage areas to better see that the heritage areas come in
solely as an area that recognizes the national significance of
those areas, without having to be coming in to the Park
Service.
Senator Thomas. Well, I am sure none of us wants to say we
should stop having parks. On the other hand, there needs to be
some criteria for them to meet.
Ms. Mainella. Yes.
Senator Thomas. I believe you have organized, have you not,
a business council that gives some advice, or observation and
assistance in terms of managing, particularly in the
concessions?
Ms. Mainella. Yes. We have created a concession advisory
board that works with us very closely. And they have helped us
in coming up with recommendations to better improve our
management of concessions. And we are very pleased with those.
I know that Steve Martin, our deputy, has recently testified on
that effort and could elaborate further, if you would like.
Senator Thomas. Yes. That would be fine.
Mr. Martin. Yes. I think that the advisory board is a
really important extension of the Park Service in the fact that
we are able to bring on and have consultation, close
consultation with key members of the concession and business
community on how we should manage the park programs.
And we have gotten a series of recommendations from them,
actually, very recently on some of the more controversial or
areas that need further work, either on our policies, our
regulations, or others. And we are going through those now and
feel that we are going to be able to work on those, make some
changes and perhaps change some of our policies and how we
manage things.
But we have just recently gotten those, and we should have
in the next few months some additional information on things
like possessory interest and surrender interest and some of the
other controversial components of the bill.
Senator Thomas. That is good, I think, to bring into your
staff, which basically has professionalism in other areas, this
business sense.
Mr. Martin. Yes. And we are also, on that same line just
real quickly, doing more to enhance our abilities by bringing
business people into the park service.
And we have a number of programs. Some of those Bruce is
working on, some that we are working on in the field to
increase our capacity of business professionals to help us
manage not only concessions, but our finances and human
resources as well.
Senator Thomas. Great. I see. Good.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Thomas.
Director Mainella, I have three questions for you.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. And I will give you all three of them to
give you an opportunity to respond to all three of them in one.
With respect to the law enforcement and security needs of
the park system, I know the world has changed post-9/11, lots
of money has gone into protecting the Washington Monument,
Lincoln Monument, et cetera. A comment on where you are in
terms of security needs within the National Park System in this
post-9/11 world, if you would, No. 1.
No. 2, I know that the National Parks Retiree Association
has made a recommendation on the creation of a blue ribbon
commission to look at national parks in the 21st century. Would
such a commission be something that would be helpful if it was
mandated, hopefully with your cooperation, out of this
Congress, looking ahead at the 21st century?
And, third, comment on the National Park System's efforts
with respect to ethnic, racial and gender diversity within your
employment. I know you have a long history of being a champion
of those things in Florida. I would like your perspective on
that issue within the National Park System. So those three
issues.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you. On security, one of the areas, of
course, is that has certainly increased. About 25 percent of
our budget now--or at least we have had an increase of about 25
percent in our law enforcement responsibilities since 9/11. And
that has been something that we have taken on. And I just want
to make sure everyone knows we feel our parks are very safe,
and we are--we have made great efforts in all the protection.
Our great law enforcement people, including our U.S. Park
Police, have done an excellent job. But, again, it has added an
additional financial responsibility to our budget.
The second area dealing with--let me see. What was my
second question?
Mr. Sheaffer. 21st century.
Ms. Mainella. 21st century, thank you.
Dealing with a blue ribbon commission coming on, that is
something--we have a National Park Advisory Board now that
serves as an advisory entity to me and assists in looking at
those kinds of issues.
Now, whether we would like to elaborate further on that, I
think that is--you know, we are a partnership-oriented entity,
and always like that input and involvement. I think we have to
just be clear of what we want to challenge them with, because
now the National Park Advisory Board has been helping me with
looking at benefits of health--how parks play in the health and
well being, to looking at philanthropy, to looking at many
other areas. And so we do have that entity already that exists,
and maybe we could even spin off a subsection from that.
The third area is part of my goals, which is the 21st
century relevancy of the National Park System. When I came in,
I was very concerned that we were probably not as diverse as we
needed to be. And we certainly have not achieved all those
goals yet, but we have come a huge way in being relevant in the
21st century.
If you look at my leadership team today, you will find that
the makeup is made--I have three African-American leadership
people. I have one Hispanic, the first Hispanic ever to serve
in a leadership position on the National Park Service; myself,
as the first woman to be National Park Service director, again,
a very diverse entity in leadership. So I am kind of not just
talking the talk, I am walking the walk.
And we are working to try to aggressively increase our
involvement through the Junior Ranger Program and through other
efforts to get out to young people to get them involved in the
national parks through not only coming to visit a park, but
also through what may be called the ``Web Ranger Program,''
which will reach out to communities, young people all the way
through their teens, to be involved in our national parks.
Mrs. Bush has agreed, through the National Park Foundation,
to be a chair of raising over $10 million for that effort.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Director. And on that third
point, if there is anything that I can do to be helpful, do not
hesitate to call my office.
We had a youth resources program that you might remember in
Colorado.
Ms. Mainella. I do remember that and you----
Senator Salazar. And Laurie Matthews was also involved,
too.
Ms. Mainella. Laurie Matthews, and she is a very good
friend and has been someone that has been a great leader for
us.
Senator Salazar. Well, let me know how I can help on that
point.
Back on the law enforcement point in the post-9/11 world, I
hear you telling us that there has been a significant
additional increase just in terms of resources to deal with the
real world that we live in right now.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. Have the decisions to deal with the
security needs in our park system and to implement the
resources to make sure that we have safe and secure places
affected what we are doing in other places within the National
Park System? Have we had to siphon off money, if you will, from
maintenance and other kinds of things to make sure that we are
dealing with the issue of security?
Ms. Mainella. The money that comes to--that we are using
right now--and I will ask Bruce if there is any elaboration on
that--the money that we are currently using to pay for those
programs are directly out of the normal park and--National Park
Service funding. So we have made priority decisions. And we do
feel that the safety of the visitor and the resource is high,
so we have made those value decisions. So it has, you know,
come from our coffers to make those payments.
Senator Salazar. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Mainella, it is good to see you.
I wanted to thank you for your visit to the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park, even in the midst of a big rainstorm.
The volunteers there appreciated it.
They were disappointed that the President almost got there,
but could not come. But we were glad to get him close to it,
and his remarks were appreciated.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. I also want to congratulate you for--and
the President, for getting into the budget, as I understand it,
much of the salary increase, so that we do not run into this
provision that we have heard several times before, when we
appropriate an increase in funds, and the park--the Smokies or
the Yellowstone never really see it for maintenance because it
has to go for salary increases. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that
we can be supportive of that.
And I have three questions--I think Senator Salazar set a
good example--and let me try to state them succinctly, and then
I will sit back and you may wish to just give me a response in
writing, if you want to.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alexander. I do not really need the answers now,
but they are important to me.
Question No. 1, it has to do with the Big South Fork Scenic
and Recreation area, which is--it was created in 1974 in
Kentucky and Tennessee, but it is managed by you.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. 900,000 visitors. And my question is: Is
there a way that we might, say, over the next year, take a look
at how that recreation area and the Great Smoky Mountain Park
might complement one another? They are not far away. And the
Smokies is managed as a wilderness area, which we like.
Ms. Mainella. Yes.
Senator Alexander. But in the Big South Fork, there are
125,000 acres where some hunting is allowed. There are 250
miles of trails that can be used by horses. That is an
important economy development there. So my question about that
is, No. 1, could your department, say, in a year or sometime
convenient for you, give me or this subcommittee, if the
chairman would like to have it, a briefing on how the two can
be related in your management?
And, second, would you take a look at whether a fee
demonstration program at the Big South Fork would be
worthwhile? Because their new management plan shows a number of
ideas for involving other counties nearby with visitor centers.
Some of that money could be used to staff them. And since the
Cherokee National Forest has had such a good experience with
the fee demonstration program, this might be a possibility. So
that----
Ms. Mainella. I would be very honored to look into that for
you. And, again, our parks tend to want to work together and
partner. And our new superintendent at the Smokies, Dale
Ditmanson, I know would like to look at how we might work with
South Fork.
Senator Alexander. Well, if we could have some----
Ms. Mainella. We will do a more in depth for you.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. The committee or me and----
Ms. Mainella. Right. We will do an in-depth briefing for
you.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Do some sort of feedback
sometime later, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Mainella. We will do that, sir. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. The second area has to do with cell
towers. In September 2004, there was an attempt to put three of
these big new cell towers in the Great Smokies along the scenic
route. And Congressman Duncan and I wrote to you and asked that
it not be done, and it was not done. And I thank you for that.
We now have, based on my research, about 128,000 of these
cell towers that have suddenly sprung up in the country. We all
like our Blackberries and cell phones, but they are, to put it
generously, junk piles in the sky. And they ought not to be, in
my opinion, in front of Old Faithful and in the Great Smokies
and in the Grand Canyon. And anything the Park Service could do
to discourage that or to create an alternative to that, I would
appreciate it.
And I was just--my second question is: Would you be willing
to give me a letter about what the department policy is on cell
towers in national parks and other highly scenic areas?
Ms. Mainella. I would be glad to do so, sir. Thank you. And
I will follow up on that for you.
Senator Alexander. And my last question has to do with what
I call a conservation royalty. When in States like Wyoming we
drill on Federal land for oil, there is such a thing as a State
royalty and the State of Wyoming gets 50 cents out of every
dollar, which I support and am----
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. You are supposed to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Right. But on several different
occasions, I have suggested, along with Senator Landrieu and
Senator Murkowski--several of us are interested in this--the
idea of a conservation royalty, which would take some of the
revenues from drilling for gas or oil--for example, offshore
gas or oil--and use it to fully fund conservation projects
around the country. The idea being that if we have a burden, an
environmental burden, we can create environmental benefit.
This was recommended by President Reagan's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, of which I was chairman 20 years ago----
Ms. Mainella. I remember that.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. And know very well. And we
had it. We had it in the American Outdoors Act that Senator
Landrieu and I have recommended. It was in the ANWR
legislation. I am going to keep trying to stick the concept in
lots of different places, and I would like to know what the
administration's attitude about that might be.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much. And, again, we will
respond back to you on that. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, sir. Just a couple
more fairly quick questions here.
What would you say is the--you have talked and the
President has talked about a backlog and I think had agreed to
try and fix it over a period of 4 years or whatever--what
percentage of that backlog do you think still exists?
Ms. Mainella. We have, again, tried to look at our backlog
and--because it is again a dynamic entity, and we have made so
much success. In fact, again, with this budget, it will be $4.9
billion we will have spent on this on the backlog.
What we are trying to do now is understand what our full
needs out there are, and we are doing these--the complete
comprehensive reviews to better understand that. But we have
really made huge success in being able to move forward. But,
again, the area that I mentioned earlier where we had the most
challenges is roads.
And that is the area that we are using what is called an
FCI, a facility condition index. And we are doing quite well in
scoring on that for our facilities where we are having the
most--where we are not having as much success is on our roads.
And if that road bill passes and we are able to get increased
funding, preferably up to the $320 million, that will allow us
to be able to make a huge increase in our success rate with our
roads.
And I do not know, Steve, if you have any other follow-up
on that from facilities. I know in each park you might even
give an example of something might--that you have done out
West.
Mr. Martin. Well, we have been doing a lot in a lot of
different areas. Certainly, you know, the work that you have
done in support on the fee moneys over the last number of years
really helped significantly in that regard.
And I think the other component of what we are doing with
this analysis of the buildings is what it takes to maintain
them over the long haul. And I--and really for the first time
in these last 3 or 4 years, we have made great strides. And
that is the life cycle cost. And it is one where the
initiatives of, you know, meeting the President's commitments
are really important. But then we also, over time, are going to
need to continue to look at how--you know, what is the best way
to continue to maintain these buildings. And many of them are
historical structures and take--you know, you are familiar with
the Yellowstone lodges and others that take a significant
amount of work.
And so that is sort of the next piece of this that we are
continuing to analyze: once we get them fixed up, then how do
we keep them fixed up, and what are the costs, and changing our
practices and changing our training in the field to become
better and more effective at how we do that as well.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Good.
Mr. Martin. But I agree with what Fran has said that right
now the focus is on the roads, and that is sort of one of the
next pieces that is really important to us.
Senator Thomas. Many of the things that occur in parks also
are in forests and State lands and surrounding areas and so on.
What do you--do you try to get agencies to come together, for
instance, on things like buffalo or something to where there
seems like there is a resistance among agencies to work
together to come to a solution. How do you deal with that?
Ms. Mainella. One of the things that has helped us--and I
personally believe that when the President brought me on as
director, part of the reason was because of the partnership
efforts we had done and had demonstrated in Florida. And what
we have been able to do here on a national level is we actually
had a conference recently called--this is about a year and a
half ago--called joint ventures. And it brought together all
the several land managers.
Now, lots of times our Federal land managers work well
together on the ground out in the field, but in Washington it
was not quite as successful. So now we got together again
there--in fact, we signed a pledge, a commitment that we, as
Federal land managers, as the Corps, ourselves, Fish and
Wildlife, and all the different land managers, we agreed to
work together and cooperate in efforts. And we meet basically
about three to four times a year, a non-crisis time, and talk
about issues of how we work better together.
And we have found that since then that has happened, we are
doing better on that. It is not perfect yet, but we have come
so much further, and we call it the seamless network of parks
or public lands. And we think we are getting there.
Senator Thomas. That is good. You mentioned that on the
ground sometimes it works together a little different here.
Steve, I might ask you since you have just come from being
a regional. It seems when you have this big of an operation,
then you have policy decisions made here and so on to ensure
that those are implemented in 388 different places. How do
you--do you feel like the regional people are involved enough
to oversee that and cause it to happen?
Mr. Martin. I think we are definitely getting there. And
that has been one of the charges that Fran has had to the
regional directors, is to begin to, in our working teams, make
sure that Parks understand the current policy directions and
how we work together.
And I really think that there is quite a shift taking
place. And it is not something that has been said, and I think
it has been going on for certainly the last 10 years in--with a
lot of focus. But in working together with other agencies, but
then also trying to understand the bigger picture of how we are
going to manage Parks.
It used to be in the parks, I think we had a lot of
independence in how we managed those units. And maybe for that
year, that was probably really good and--but I think we are now
at a point where being part of this bigger network, working
with the States, working with the counties, working with the
other agencies, is absolutely critical to delivering services
to the visitors and also being good at stewardship
responsibility.
And I think more and more--so we just got a great example
with some of the work that is being done on some of the
management planning in the greater Yellowstone area in working
with the State and any number of agencies.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Martin. And I think that that is becoming more of the
everyday way of doing business as opposed to the exception.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Well, that is good. And I think you
are a good one to do that. You had a good relationship in the
Tetons with the gateway communities and the others.
One very quick question and quick answer, if you can, Fran.
Ms. Mainella. I hear you.
Senator Thomas. What are you doing--how are you doing on
the competitive sourcing where you have maintenance jobs or
other kinds of jobs that are not professional? Are you using
the competitive idea, A-76?
Ms. Mainella. What we are looking at under the competitive
sourcing is a revised A-76 circular that allows us to do what
is called preliminary planning efforts where we go into parks
and we analyze and look at the staff and have them work
together to look at how we can be the most efficient and
effective possible.
Sometimes it comes out that the way they are organized is
the best way as it is today. If it is--if not, they often come
up with suggestions. And we have a consultant that works with
them, a private sector consultant to have them look at that.
Then it comes to me for review. And I decide whether it
actually goes out for a competitive sourcing true bidding
process. At this point, for example, just recently we just
announced that there are three areas that are being looked at,
but it is all preliminary planning efforts. It is not putting
them out to bid, and so I want to be clear about that, first of
all. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Do you have any further questions,
Senator?
Senator Alexander. Is there time for me to ask a couple?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
will keep them to the point.
One, what is--in the Great Smokies, as you and I have
discussed many times before, we have this terrific use, 10
million visitors a year, three times as many as Yellowstone--
that does not make it better.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. I never should have done that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. I wanted to make a point. Yellowstone
gets $6.8 million a year from fees to help maintain it, and it
has 3 million or so visitors.
The Smokies has 10 million visitors and gets $1.3 million
in fees. And the reason is of our own doing--I mean it is the
only park, as I understand, that was ever given to the National
Park Service, and by the people of North Carolina and
Tennessee. And part of the deal was no entrance fee----
Ms. Mainella. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. At least on the Tennessee
side.
Ms. Mainella. Right.
Senator Alexander. Now, are there other--but you do
collect--the fees you collect now come from such things as
what? Where does the $1.3 million in fees come from?
Ms. Mainella. Right now, it is camping and we are
retaining--we have been able to retain that. I think that you
have helped us be able to allow that to take place.
Mr. Martin. Camping fees.
Ms. Mainella. Camping fees, right.
Mr. Martin. Mostly.
Senator Alexander. Well, there--the fee demonstration
program has been a big success here. And I congratulate Senator
Thomas and others who had put it in long before I got here and
saw it through some--it has had some problems. But on the other
hand, it has had some pretty significant successes.
I mentioned the Cherokee Forest, right next to the Smokies,
which I think gets $2 million a year. And they do not know what
they would do without the money----
Ms. Mainella. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Because of all of the
demands on them. So I wanted to--I really look forward to
working with you as you go through your management plans and as
you consider what to do, not so much on reversing the decision
for an entrance fee, because I think that would take so long
and would be so complicated that it might not be worth doing.
But as we look at the services and other activities in the
park, if there is a way to supplement fees that are still
reasonable and that can be used 100 percent in the Smokies, I
think there would be widespread understanding of that in our
area.
And I will hope you will consider that as part of your
plans.
Ms. Mainella. I will be glad to look at that. In fact, the
superintendent had--and I had discussed when I was just out at
the Smokies about is there any way, because at this point with
the fees legislation that you have put through, 80 percent
normally stays at the parks, with the fees like at Yellowstone
or Grand Tetons. And right now we do not have that opportunity.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Ms. Mainella. We are able--through your help, we were able
to keep 100 percent of the camping fees at the Smokies, but
that has been our only use fee.
But I think we need to look at other opportunities that
would still meet the expectations of the residents of Tennessee
and North Carolina, but also help the park continue to move
forward.
Senator Alexander. And just two other quick points. I hope
you also weigh in in administration discussions about clean
air. The Smokies, of course, have--and other national parks
have clean air problems, but the work we have done with the
Environmental Protection Association shows that if the
President's Clear Skies Proposal on sulfur will reduce from 3
million tons per year permitted from power plants to 2.5
million tons a year, that it would improve the quality of the
air 10 to 15 percent.
In fact, no area of the country would benefit more from
that than would the Great Smokies/Knoxville area. And that is a
reasonable strengthening of the President's proposal. The
President's proposal is a good framework. I just thought it
does not go as far as it could, especially in the sulfur area.
And so I would--I know that when those matters are
discussed that lots--that the national parks have a role in
talking about that. And I hope you will speak up, because if
there is just one word I hope you would remember, it is sulfur.
The President deserves great credit for what he is doing with
diesel fuel and diesel engines to take effect next year. That
would help parks all over the country and the Smokies.
And the other thing is I hope you will persuade the IRS
that it can support the legislation Senator Salazar and I and
others introduced, which would allow taxpayers to have a check-
off for the National Park System. And if somebody would ask,
``Well, why single out the national parks?'' I think the answer
is, ``Because the great American outdoors is unique to this
country. It is what makes us American as much as anything
else.''
It would be the same thing--Egypt has its pyramids, Italy
has its art, England has its history, we have the great
American outdoors--and that check-off would help greatly.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you for your support.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all.
Thank you for what you do. I know it is a difficult task, but I
also know that your folks are very committed, and I know that
you are too. So, thank you.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senators.
Senator Thomas. We look forward to working together.
Okay. Our second panel will be Mr. Greg Moore, executive
director, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, San
Francisco; Mr. Lee Werst, president, Association of National
Park Rangers, Orem, Utah; and Mr. Robert Arnberger, Coalition
of National Park Services Retirees, Tucson, Arizona.
Okay. Welcome, gentlemen. Glad to have you here.
As before, your complete statements will be put in the
record. And if you will kind of go by the 5-minute rule here,
why we would appreciate it.
Why do we not start with you, Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF GREG MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOLDEN GATE
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Mr. Moore. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Vice Chairman, for the invitation to testify today about
the roles of philanthropy and volunteerism in our national
parks.
I am Greg Moore, the executive director of the Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy. We are a nonprofit organization
supporting the National Park Service's mission at the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area in the San Francisco Bay area.
Since our inception in 1981, the Parks Conservancy has
provided about $80 million of support to park projects and
programs.
But the Conservancy is just one of over 100 similar
nonprofit organizations nationally, known as cooperating
associations and friends groups, working to support the mission
of the National Park Service.
In total we provide over $100 million yearly in
philanthropic aid and help support the 140,000 volunteers who
are donating 5 million hours annually to the national parks at
an estimated value of almost $86 million.
Philanthropy has been deeply connected to our national
parks from their very beginning. Few things inspire Americans
like the immense natural and physical beauty and historical
poignancy of our parks.
And more Americans are becoming aware that the care of our
national parks not only requires the efforts of the National
Park Service, but our direct support and involvement as well.
Organizations like our Parks Conservancy work very closely
with the National Park Service to understand its priorities and
to create a strategic course working in unison.
The Conservancy helps the Service recognize which of its
priorities are likely to have donor appeal, and we work
together to ensure that donor-supported projects and programs
are operationally and financially sustainable.
Throughout the park system, friends groups, and cooperating
associations have been at work delivering programs, projects,
and volunteers that add lasting value to our national parks,
whether at Golden Gate, at Yellowstone, at the Rocky Mountain
National Park, or at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
These philanthropic results have depended upon National Park
Service leadership, commitment, professionalism, and active
staff presence in the parks.
Americans do not see their philanthropic support as a
substitute for the role of the National Park Service or as a
replacement for the funding provided through their tax dollars.
Philanthropic donors do not have the interest, the
expertise, or the capacity to substitute for vital Federal
responsibilities.
Increasingly, donors are making their contributions
contingent on the assurance that park operating budgets are
adequate to preserve and care for the gifts, the improvements
that result from their donations.
And generous contributors want to be ensured that Federal
funds are not removed or diminished as a result of donor
dollars being available. To do so would be a major disincentive
to philanthropic giving and a lethal blow to its future in the
National Park System.
David Rockefeller, Junior, philanthropist and former vice
chair of the National Park Foundation, has stressed the
important distinction between Federal and philanthropic roles
in our national parks. Our philanthropic mission, he said, is
``not to build roads or employee housing units, nor to build or
maintain infrastructure, but to create strong connections
between visitor and place.'' He called this distinction the
``Bright Line'' between Federal responsibility and private
opportunity.
To conclude, philanthropy and volunteerism are and will
continue to be essential and positive forces in achieving the
mission of the National Park Service. Over the past decade,
these forces have grown dramatically in scale and impact, and
will continue to grow if Americans are asked to share in the
vision for our parks, are given respect for their views and
involvement, are provided with clear and expeditious ways to
contribute, know that their contributions will be effectively
stewarded by the National Park Service, and are treated with
sincere appreciation as they donate time and resources.
The National Park Service policy and legislative
authorities should embrace and enhance philanthropy and
volunteerism. Federal funding and policy could better motivate
philanthropy to our parks through greater use and flexibility
with challenge grants, more efficient methods to combine
Federal and philanthropic dollars toward a desired outcome,
quicker systems to review and approve philanthropic gifts and
campaigns, more openness to donor recognition, and a general
culture of gratitude and respect to those generous enough to
give to our parks.
Our continued momentum will be greatest when leveraged from
a firm foundation of Federal funding, National Park Service
professionalism, and effective non-profit partners well aligned
to the Park Service mission.
Upon that foundation, we can and will achieve the margin of
excellence so essential for our national parks, which
collectively represent the very best of America's scenic,
natural, and historic treasures.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify, and I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Moore, Executive Director, Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, thank you for the
invitation to testify today about the roles of philanthropy and
volunteerism in our national parks. I'm Greg Moore, Executive Director
of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, a nonprofit membership
organization that works to preserve the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, to enhance the experiences of park visitors, and to engage
community members in conserving the parks for the future. The Parks
Conservancy was established in 1981, and since then it has provided the
National Park Service with nearly $80 million in support for park
projects and programs.
The Parks Conservancy is one of over 100 nonprofit organizations
nationally, working as cooperating associations and friends groups, to
support the mission of the National Park Service. These organizations,
along with the National Park Foundation, engage community members and
the private sector in philanthropy and volunteerism and help protect,
enhance and interpret park resources. Many have been active for
decades. Recently, the Yosemite Association celebrated its 80th
anniversary and the Rocky Mountain Nature Association has been serving
this national park since 1931.
In total, these organizations provide over $100 million annually in
philanthropic aid to the National Park Service and strive to make
lasting positive impacts on park resources and on the park visitor
experience. Today, I will address four key questions:
What motivates philanthropy and volunteerism in our national
parks?
How do federal funding and the work of the National Park
Service enhance philanthropy and volunteerism?
What specifically, do the American people consider the
federal responsibility to our national parks?
What can the future bring in terms of philanthropy and
volunteerism?
what motivates philanthropy and volunteerism in our national parks?
The American ethic of charity and volunteerism has made a
remarkable impact on our national parks. In addition to more than $100
million in annual philanthropic support, last year 140,000 volunteers
donated 5 million hours to the national parks at a value of $85.9
million\1\. What motivates this level of commitment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park Service, Volunteers-In-Parks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few things inspire Americans like the immense natural and physical
beauty and the historical poignancy of national parks. We understand
that national parks require not only the care and investment of the
National Park Service, but our direct support and involvement as well.
Americans entrust the National Park Service to lead the protection and
stewardship of these cherished places and, in effect, to be the
ultimate caretaker of our nation's heritage. We expect and respond to
this leadership. Throughout the National Park system, whether at Golden
Gate, Yosemite, the USS Arizona Memorial, Yellowstone, or Rocky
Mountain National Park, philanthropic projects have been inspired by
visionary Park Service leadership, implemented by effective and
eloquent nonprofit partners, and funded by generous donors.
Organizations like the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy open
direct and active channels through which Americans can contribute their
time and charitable gifts to augment the critical work of the National
Park Service. In the San Francisco Bay Area, community members share a
very strong connection to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and
recently contributed $34 million for the restoration of Crissy Field, a
former army airfield in the Presidio on the shore of San Francisco Bay.
A lead gift of $18 million by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund,
followed by a major public campaign of the Parks Conservancy, rallied
the community behind this project. Over 2,000 gifts and 3,200
volunteers transformed this national park site. Today, these donors and
volunteers retain their commitment and generosity to our parks.
To make projects like Crissy Field meaningful to the community that
supports them requires not only executing these park transformations,
but an ongoing commitment to preserve over time what has been
transformed and restored together. Federal operating funds can be
leveraged with volunteer support in this long-term stewardship. As one
example, each year close to 16,000 people donate over 350,000 hours of
volunteer time to preserve park habitat, lead interpretive tours and
support education programs for children throughout the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. This type of support is motivated throughout
the National Park system by welcoming volunteers as part of the ``park
team,'' giving them fulfilling work and expressing active appreciation.
how do federal funding and the work of the national park service
enhance philanthropy and volunteerism?
Effective partnerships depend deeply on the National Park Service
tradition, commitment, professionalism, knowledge, and active staff
presence in our parks. These capacities are essential to philanthropy
working in a dynamic and effective way. There are federal
responsibilities, resources, and talents that philanthropy would never
want to replace, and realistically, philanthropy does not have the
capacity to serve as a substitute. In fact, philanthropy depends upon
these National Park Service attributes and resources to serve as its
foundation for its positive impact in the parks.
Americans do not see their philanthropic support as a substitute
for the role of the National Park Service. Donors and volunteers are
keenly aware of the Park Service role and follow its lead in addressing
park needs and enhancements. But increasingly donors are also making
their contributions contingent on the assurance that park budgets will
be there to preserve and care for the positive park improvements
resulting from their donations. In fact, removing or diminishing
federal funds when donor dollars are available would be a fundamental
disincentive to giving and a serious, perhaps lethal blow to the future
of national park philanthropy.
A proactive and sustaining approach involves a deep partnership of
the Park Service, donors and nonprofit support groups. Organizations
like the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy work very closely with
the National Park Service to understand its priorities and to chart our
strategic course in unison. The Conservancy also helps the Park Service
understand which of its priorities are likely to have donor appeal, and
we work together to ensure that donor-supported projects and programs
are operationally and financially sustainable.
what do donors and volunteers consider the federal responsibility to
our national parks?
Speaking at a recent conference on partnerships for public lands,
David Rockefeller Jr., philanthropist and former vice chair of the
National Park Foundation, stressed the important distinction between
federal and philanthropic roles in our national parks. Our mission, he
said, is ``not to build roads or employee housing units, nor to build
or maintain infrastructure, but to create strong connections between
visitor and place.'' He called this distinction the ``Bright Line''
between federal responsibility and private opportunity.
The healthiest public-private partnerships result from a shared
vision and an appropriate balance of investment. Donors want to be
actively engaged in creating the vision for our national parks, while
respecting key federal responsibilities. What is seen as the federal
responsibility? Donors tend to see this clearly. The philanthropic
sector expects a fundamental foundation for donors to build upon--a
foundation comprised of adequate ``park base'' operational support,
basic park infrastructure, visitor safety, essential resource
management, key amenities, upkeep of National Park facilities,
expertise in interpretation, and Park Service staff in direct contact
with visitors.
Current realities pose some challenges to this view. Many park
operational budgets are stretched thin and even essential park
infrastructure improvements need to be phased in over many years. Basic
services can be heavily strained. But these are not functions that can
or should be funded through nonprofit support groups and philanthropy.
In the words of my colleague, Ken Olson, who leads Friends of Acadia,
``friends groups are here to provide the margin of excellence, not the
margin of survival.'' This margin of excellence comes through the over
$100 million in annual giving and over 140,000 volunteers across our
National Park system. It rests upon an essential foundation: the Park
Service annual budget of over $2 billion and an NPS workforce of over
20,000 permanent and seasonal employees.
what will the future bring in terms of philanthropy and volunteerism?
Philanthropy and volunteerism are, and will continue to be,
essential forces in achieving the mission of the National Park Service.
These forces will grow in scale and impact if Americans are asked to
share in the vision for our national parks, given respect for their
views and involvement, provided with clear and expeditious ways to
contribute, and treated with sincere appreciation as they donate time
and resources.
National Park Service policy and legislative authorities should
embrace and enhance philanthropy and volunteerism--and facilitate their
flourishing on behalf of our parks. Federal funding and policy could
significantly motivate philanthropy to our parks through greater use
and flexibility with challenge grants, more efficient methods to
combine federal and philanthropic dollars toward a desired outcome,
quicker systems to review and approve philanthropic campaigns and
gifts, more openness to donor recognition, and a general culture of
gratitude and respect to those generous enough to give to our parks..
Our continued momentum will be the greatest when leveraged from a
firm foundation of federal funding and national park professionalism.
This foundation can be strengthened by recognizing philanthropic
partners (the National Park Foundation, friends groups, and cooperating
associations) as strategic and valued allies in the vision for our
national parks and working with them in an open, facilitating and
collaborative manner. Upon that foundation, generous Americans and the
philanthropic sector can and will achieve the margin of excellence--a
margin so essential to our national parks, which preserve the best of
our country's natural, scenic and cultural heritage.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Werst.
STATEMENT OF LEE WERST, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK
RANGERS, OREM, UT
Mr. Werst. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the
Association of National Park Rangers to share with you our
thoughts on the funding needs for the National Park Service.
My name is Lee Werst. I am president of ANPR and a current
National Park Service employee. I am appearing before you today
on behalf of the Association, and am doing so on my own time
and at my own expense. And as such, my statement should in no
way be construed as representing the National Park Service, the
Department of the Interior, or any organization other than
ANPR.
Last November, we wrote a letter to the congressional
budget conferees for the fiscal year 2005 budget complimenting
them on the generally favorable budget prospects for the
National Park Service.
The 2005 budget, as enacted, combined the interests of the
conferees and the administration in its budget request,
resulting in a 2-percent increase in total discretionary
spending. Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank Congress for its
continuing work and support of the National Park Service.
And in our testimony today, we would also like to help
identify what we believe are continuing shortfalls in the field
due to increasing personnel and other costs that need to be
addressed for the long-term.
The fiscal year 2006 budget, as submitted by the
administration, provides an overall decrease of 2.8 percent in
total discretionary appropriations from fiscal year 2005. On
the surface, there are some apparent pluses, which we support,
despite the overall decrease. For example, the budget category
of visitor services is at a 10-year high as a percentage of
total National Park Service discretionary spending.
That being said, it still remains that the overall
discretionary appropriation has declined in real terms since
the last substantive increase in fiscal year 2001.
Discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001 was nearly $2.3
billion. The fiscal year 2006 budget request is $2.249 billion,
for a dollar decrease of nearly 2 percent.
When adjusted for inflation, that amounts to almost a 9-
percent decrease over those 5 years.
In the past 15 years, ANPR has tried to share stories from
the parks about conditions that might reflect on proposed
legislation or policy, and I would like to again share some of
these with you.
At Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in California, great
strides have been made to eradicate illegal cultivation of
marijuana ``plantations'' within the park boundaries. Project
funding to target eradication and interdiction efforts has
helped the park to destroy much of these crops.
However, to fully control and completely eliminate this
damaging activity, you must look beyond just project funding to
prevent the initial planting and cultivation which will take
ongoing investigation and apprehension of perpetrators.
To adequately undertake this mission, the park estimates a
need for an additional 4.8 FTE for the long-term and a $448,000
budget increase.
Other parks--in other parks, the impacts of budget
shortfalls can be illustrated by looking at the findings from
published business plans prepared and audited for the National
Park Service.
As one example, at Shenandoah National Park, the business
plan for fiscal year 2003 showed a need of $19.6 million to
fully fund operations, but had available only $12.8 million
from all funding sources, an operating shortfall of $6.8
million. One of the impacts of that is that although Shenandoah
has one of the worst air pollution problems of any park in the
country, its air resources specialist position has now been
vacant for nearly 2 years because of insufficient funding.
Another example is that the park offered nearly 800 fewer
ranger-led interpretive programs in fiscal year 2004, when it
offered 1,032--less than it did in fiscal year 2002, when it
offered 1,824.
Other examples, such as this, are included in our written
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, we would also like to comment on some funding
successes that we believe are taking place. One of those, of
course, is the fee demonstration program, which was replaced in
2005 by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which has
a 10-year sunset.
This has been a very successful program, and it is an
example of how Congress has really helped to support park
resources and helps to support our operations.
As one Western park superintendent recently voiced, ``Fee
demo is excellent!'' And we agree with that, and we thank
Congress and the administration in continuing this important
and critical program. But we also urge permanent legislation
prior to the 10-year sunset of the new current program in order
to continue infrastructure support, increased resources
protection, and visitor use programs.
One of the more promising ideas which we have seen recently
is the proposed National Park Centennial Act. We are encouraged
by this effort to bring the National Park Service to a
sustainable level by 2016, and we would be pleased to provide
further testimony, if desired, at any future hearings on this
bipartisan legislation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be optimistic, yet
cautious, about the next 10 years, as there is great potential
for the 2006 and future budgets to result, if not careful, in
overall deterioration in field-level staffing in parks and
important program activities.
However, we look forward to supporting National Park
Service management in its efforts to effectively implement the
budget as finally enacted, and joining with them and with
Congress in identifying the long-term needs and short-falls
facing the Service in the next 10 years, particularly at the
field park level.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the Association
of National Park Rangers to testify here today. And I will be
glad to answer any questions you may have, or assure that the
Association provides you further information on any issue that
I cannot answer to your satisfaction.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Werst follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lee Werst, President, Association of
National Park Rangers
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
the Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) to share with you our
thoughts on the funding needs for the National Park Service.
My name is Lee Werst. I am President of ANPR, and a current
National Park Service employee. I am appearing before you today on
behalf of the Association, and am doing so on my own time and at my own
expense. As such, my statement should in no way be construed as
representing the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior,
or any NGO other than ANPR.
The Association of National Park Rangers, formed in 1977, is a
professional organization comprised of dedicated National Park Service
employees from all regions, salary grades and specialties. ANPR is
neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather is a volunteer
association formed to advance the ranger profession and support the
perpetuation of the National Park System and the National Park Service.
funding needs
Last November, we wrote a letter to the Congressional budget
conferees for the fiscal year 2005 budget complimenting them on the
generally favorable budget prospects for the National Park Service. We
wrote:
On behalf of the approximately 1,000 members of the
Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR), we thank you for
your leadership in the development of the fiscal year 2005
Interior appropriations bill . . . Over the years, inflation,
cost-of-living increases, natural disasters, and more recently,
homeland security have eroded park budgets to the point that we
must either ``lapse'' vacant positions or trim park services.
In many cases, parks have had to do both. . . . We hope that,
within present fiscal constraints, you will give the highest
priority to National Park Service funding, with special
attention to the park operations account.
Thank you for your ongoing commitment to our National Park
Service and System
The 2005 budget as enacted combined the interests of the conferees
and the administration in its budget request, resulting in a 2%
increase in total discretionary spending. Mr. Chairman, we would like
to thank Congress for its continuing work and support of the National
Park Service with its funding needs in these fiscally difficult times.
In our testimony today, we would also like to help identify what we
believe are continuing shortfalls in the field due to increasing
personnel and other costs that need to be addressed for the long-term.
fiscal year 2006 administration budget
The fiscal year 2006 budget as submitted by the Administration
provides an overall decrease of 2.8% in total discretionary
appropriations from fiscal year 2005. On the surface, there are some
apparent pluses, which we support, despite the overall decrease. For
example, the budget category of visitor services--which includes
interpretation & education, ranger law enforcement (excluding the
United States Park Police), visitor use management, health and safety,
and concessions--is at a 10-year high as a percentage of total NPS
discretionary spending (14.1% in 1997, to 15.4% in FY06 budget
request).
In addition:
Ranger law enforcement funding and protection is at a 10-
year high as% of total Visitor Services (33.5% in 1997, to
35.5% in 2006 request); and
Interpretation and education is at a 10-year high as% of
total discretionary spending (6.9% in 1997, to 7.9% in 2006
request), although as a% of total Visitor Services is basically
flat over 10-years.
That being said, it still remains that the overall discretionary
appropriation has declined in real terms since the last substantive
increase in FY 2001. Discretionary spending in FY 2001 was nearly $2.3
billion. The FY 2006 budget request is $2.249 billion, for a dollar
decrease of nearly 2%. Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to nearly
9% decrease in the past 5 years. When you add the annual adjustments in
federal salaries, overall discretionary funding in real terms is
noticeably diminished.
We are not preaching ``the sky is falling'' in the 2006 budget.
Rather, we wish to assist policy makers and appropriators in
understanding the long-term concerns of field rangers and other
employees beyond a one-year budget picture.
park stories
In testimony over the past 15 years before this and other
Congressional committees, ANPR has tried to share stories from the
parks about conditions that might reflect on proposed legislation or
policy. I would like to again share some of these with you.
For instance, at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in California,
great strides have been made to eradicate illegal cultivation of
marijuana ``plantations'' within the park boundaries. Project funding
to target eradication and interdiction efforts has helped the park,
along with many cooperating agencies, to destroy much of these crops.
The park greatly appreciates, and has successfully applied, the project
funding it has received.
However, to fully control and completely eliminate this damaging
activity, we must look beyond just project funding. The park has
redirected as much internal funding as possible to continue this
effort. Further redirection of funds would require the closure of some
facilities or the neglect of park visitors or resources. The ranger
staff is currently spread very thin, thus putting full prevention
efforts beyond the ability of the current budget to accomplish. To
prevent the initial planting and cultivation of this clandestine
activity will take on-going investigation and apprehension of
perpetrators, as well as other technical measures. To adequately
undertake this mission, the park estimates a need for an additional 4.8
FTE for the long-term and a $448,000 budget increase.
The impact of this illegal activity, which takes place in many of
our parks, is not only to the society at large, but also to sensitive
and valuable park resources. The growers provide water for cultivation
to these fields by damming park streams, laying thousands of feet of
plastic irrigation pipes, and indiscriminately using fertilizer and
other chemicals. This causes runoff and pollution of streams and other
public resources. This disturbance of natural plants and soil opens the
way for the introduction of invasive exotic plant species, thereby
requiring further time and resources for their removal. Permanent funds
are needed to deter the damage to park resources for the long-term.
business plan examples
In other parks, the impacts of budget shortfalls can be illustrated
by looking at the findings from published business plans prepared and
audited for the National Park Service by MBAs for numerous parks across
the system. Here are some of the findings for three parks:
At Gettysburg National Military Park, the business plan identified
an operations and routine maintenance annual shortfall of nearly $3.6
million in the FY 2001 budget, compared to an actual budget of just
over $6.1 million in that same fiscal year--a 37% shortfall. Since that
time, the park's financial situation has not improved. Although the
park saw an overall increase in operations funding to $6.45 million in
FY 2005, there was an estimated decline in actual purchasing power over
that period of $734,900. In order to live within this shortfall, park
managers have reduced staff from 141 permanent and seasonal full time
equivalent positions in FY 2002 to 122 FTEs in FY 2005.
For Shenandoah National Park, the business plan for FY 2003 showed
a need of $19.6 million to fully fund operations, but had available
only $12.8 million from all funding sources, an operating shortfall of
$6.8 million. Although the park's inflation-adjusted base budget
increased 14% between 1992 and today, personnel costs increased by
21.3% in the same period. The impacts?--Although Shenandoah has one of
the worst air pollution problems of any park in the country, it's air
resources specialist position has now been vacant for nearly two years
because of insufficient funding. Another example: The park offered
nearly 800 fewer ranger-led interpretive programs in FY 2004 (1,032)
than it did in FY 2002 (1,824).
At Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the park's business
plan analysis for FY 2002 identified $15.9 million in needed annual
operations funding and 238.4 positions needed in a full time equivalent
workforce (FTE). However, the park had an $8.9 million total budget and
only 134.6 FTE. Of that sum, nearly $8.5 million was obligated to
personnel costs, leaving only about half a million for all other needs,
including utilities, supplies, vehicle costs and materials.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples from the field. We also
would like to make a few brief comments about overall NPS funding needs
and funding successes.
employee benefit costs
The inflation of salary and personnel costs can quickly lead to
parks needing to make significant reductions in visitor services and
resource protection to absorb these costs. We want to emphasize our on-
going concern that these costs be fully covered in each successive
budget.
One example of these increases is the fact that as more employees
retire under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the percentage
of remaining employees under the Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS) will continue to grow, eventually to 100%. While saving overall
federal dollars in future retirement annuities, the year-to-year cost
to the NPS in covering FERS benefits as opposed to CSRS, which is the
less-expensive system to fund up-front, will only grow. For example, in
2001, nearly 68% of all federal employees were working with FERS
benefits. The percentage of direct salary compensation that an agency
is required to pay for these benefits grew from 28% of salary in 1990
to 35% in 2005.
This is not an argument about FERS. It simply illustrates that over
the next ten years nearly all NPS employees will require greater up-
front benefit compensation under FERS, which averages 30% of base
salary versus 14% under CSRS. This, combined with the fact that overall
personnel costs often exceed 90% in many parks, will require an even
greater budgetary support.
fee demo
The previous fee demo program, which was replaced in 2005 by the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (with a 10-year sunset), has
succeeded in providing substantial financial support to many parks for
infrastructure needs, maintenance backlog, and visitor uses. This has
been a very successful program of park and resources support provided
over the past many years by Congress. As one western park
superintendent recently voiced, ``Fee demo is excellent!'' We agree,
and thank Congress and the administration in continuing this important
and critical program. We urge permanent legislation prior to the 10-
year sunset to continue infrastructure support, increased resources
protection, and visitor use programs.
national park centennial act
One of the more promising ideas we have seen to address the NPS
long-term backlog needs, and provide substantial needed funding for the
natural and cultural resources challenges, is the proposed National
Park Centennial Act (introduced in the Senate by Senator McCain as S.
886 on April 21 and in the House by Congressman Souder as H.R. 1124 on
March 2). Mr. Chairman, while we understand this is not a hearing on
this bill, we are encouraged by this effort to bring the NPS to a
sustainable level by 2016, the l00th anniversary of the establishment
of the NPS in 1916. While it may not provide the ability to restore
permanent staff levels lost by attrition, setting a goal for the decade
makes sense. It is analogous to the very successful ``Mission 66''
initiated in the 1950s that looked forward over a ten-year period to
identify park deficiencies, and to help bring the NPS housing, visitor
centers, and other facilities up to modem standards of visitor services
by the 50th anniversary of the NPS in 1966. We would be pleased to
provide further testimony if desired at any future hearing on this bi-
partisan legislation.
conclusion
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be optimistic, yet
cautious about the next ten years or so, as there is the great
potential for the 2006 and future budgets to result, if not careful, in
over-all deterioration in field-level staffing in parks and important
program activities. However, we look forward to supporting NPS
management in its efforts to effectively implement the budget as
finally enacted, and joining with them and with Congress in identifying
the long-term needs and short-falls facing the Service in the next 10
years, particularly at the field park level.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the Association of
National Park Rangers to testify here today. I will be glad to answer
any questions you may have, or assure that the Association provides you
further information on any issue that I cannot answer to your
satisfaction.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Arnberger.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ARNBERGER, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
NATIONAL PARK SERVICES RETIREES, TUCSON, AZ
Mr. Arnberger. I am Robert Arnberger, recently retired from
the National Park Service in August 2003 after a 34-year career
working in ten different parks and managing one regional
office.
My last two assignments before my retirement were as the
superintendent at Grand Canyon National Park and as Alaska
regional director.
Today, I represent the 395-member Coalition of National
Park Service Retirees, former employees who have joined
together in a non-partisan group to bring their views and
expertise to the table in the national endeavor to protect our
National Park System, some 12,000 years worth of cumulative
experience.
Despite the fact that the Congress has established strong
standards of care for the units of the National Park System,
financial and political support from successive Congresses and
Democratic and Republican administrations have almost never
provided the necessary resources that the National Park Service
requires to fully carry out its mission.
Why do the headlines seem never to change? The deferred
maintenance backlog continues to grow even as we try to reduce
it. Reduction of services is real and happening, and Federal
assets are deteriorating.
This Nation's growing deficit, the war on terror, and
diminishing Federal budgets would suggest that our efforts to
properly care for our parks will never catch up to the needs.
The Coalition recognizes and greatly values some of the
gains over the years to the National Park Service budget, but
the needs have far outstripped the gains. Professional reports
that document the need for more law enforcement rangers
languish without effective action.
There are fewer educational programs, fewer resource
protection patrols, reduced visitor center hours, reduced
maintenance, and reduced seasonal employees.
I recently talked to two park superintendents who indicated
that 92 percent and 97 percent of their budgets were fixed
costs. Each year it costs more to run our parks, and those
increases have never really been covered.
A program division chief in a large Eastern national park
relates, ``Every year, the operational budgets are hit by
assessments, from Congress and the administration. In fiscal
year 2004 we incurred an across-the-board reduction; our salary
increase is not fully funded; a further .646 percent Department
of the Interior reduction; a .59 percent reduction called for
in the Omnibus Bill; a uniform assessment; an assessment for
computer software licensing; and a 2 percent assessment from
our regional office to help them help us.''
The National Park Service is caught in a self-perpetuating
downward spiral that devalues the very purposes why these
places have been set aside in a park system of global pre-
eminence. The rush to privatize and outsource devalues the
importance of the ``people's parks'' and their professional
staffs, and has wasted valuable time and money to evaluate what
park management responsibilities can compete with the private
sector.
Budget attrition forces greater reliance by parks on
additional private sources such as increasing numbers of
volunteers, interns, foundations, donations, and friends groups
being counted upon to carry out the basic functions of managing
a national park, rather than providing a ``margin of
excellence'' as they used to do.
While we celebrate and congratulate the spirit of
volunteerism, friends groups, and foundations, the inability of
the Federal Government to carry out its core responsibilities
has blurred the bright funding line that must exist between the
responsibilities of the Government and those of an assisting
partner.
Even with all that generosity of volunteerism and
philanthropy, the system is still falling behind.
In summary, rather than focus only on failures and fault--
there is plenty of it to be spread around--let us instead
celebrate the American optimism found in our National Park
System with a fresh, bold, and renewed commitment to better
care for our national legacy. The solutions to solving the
problems are not exclusively based in budget health and
increased funds, but also in developing a renewed bipartisan
political commitment to solving long-term problems with
something more than short-term solutions.
There is an annual shortfall of approximately $600 million
required to meet operational needs in the National Park
Service. A planned and phased reoccurring budget increase will
restore service vital to operational capacity.
The budget hemorrhage must be halted, because today's
deficits are tomorrow's backlog, and we doom ourselves to the
continued repetition of headlines that accentuate our failures
rather than celebrate our successes.
We recommend convening a non-partisan National Parks
Centennial Commission dedicated to restoring the values of our
National Park System by evaluating the mission and roles of a
national system of parks for the 21st century, and deriving
from that true budget and true personnel needs and the
appropriate governance models that are required.
Create a bold, multi-year plan focused upon the future of
our National Park System, returning it to greatness by the
centennial anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016.
We retirees stand ready to continue to work, as we did in
our careers, and carry that on into our retirements. We are
still involved and we still care, and we are still here to give
assistance where we can. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thomas. Good. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you very
much for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Arnberger, on Behalf of the Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this
subcommittee which is examining the management and operational capacity
of the National Park Service. I am Robert Arnberger, recently retired
from the National Park Service in August, 2003. Before my retirement I
dedicated 34 years to the protection of our national park system
working my way up the ladder from seasonal park ranger, to park
historian and interpreter, to protection ranger, Chief Ranger, to
Superintendent and finally to Regional Director. My last assignment as
a Superintendent was at Grand Canyon National Park managing one of our
nation's greatest ``crown jewels'' from 1994-2000. My last assignment,
from which I retired, was the Alaska Regional Director in charge of
over 54 million acres of our nation's wildest land. I spent virtually
my entire career in the field familiar with all aspects of operations
that are required to carry out the National Park mission.
Today, I represent The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees,
former employees who have joined together in a non-partisan group to
bring their views and expertise to the table in the national endeavor
to protect our National Park System. Many of the Coalition's 390
members were senior leaders who received awards for outstanding
stewardship of America's top natural and cultural resources and
represent more than 12,000 years of cumulative experience in managing
our nation's park system.
I congratulate you on the focus and scope of today's hearing.
America's national park system needs more champions like yourself, and
others, because without champions the system of parks as we have known
them will become an unfortunate footnote of our nation's history,
rather than a glowing example for the nation's future. Despite the fact
that the Congress has established strong standards of care for the
units of the national park system, financial and political support from
successive congresses and Democratic and Republican Administrations
have almost never provided the necessary resources so that the National
Park Service can indeed ``. . . conserve [the resources] and provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' One
former senior manager of the Park Service in the Coalition summed up
the situation this way: ``The headlines are always the same''. The
deferred maintenance backlog continues to grow and today's park
operational deficits become tomorrow's backlog. Looking in the crystal
ball of the near future considering this nation's growing deficit, the
war on terror, and diminishing federal budgets suggests that our
efforts to properly care for our national heritage found in the parks
will never catch up to the needs. The national park system does not
suffer alone in trying to carry out the grand democratic ideals of our
nation's way of life under increasingly difficult circumstances. Just
balancing the federal budget is daunting, much less coping with the
myriad other problems of leading and managing our democracy. Since
champions of the park idea are found throughout our Congress and our
society we believe that there is still an opportunity to continue the
legacy of American parks and assure their rightful place in our
American culture.
The Coalition recognizes some of the gains over the years to the
National Park Service budget but the needs have far outstripped the
gains and there is still much to do. The headlines repeat themselves
about deferred maintenance needs and operational shortfalls at parks
all across the country. Professional and objective reports that
document the need for more law enforcement rangers languish without
effective action. Budget deficits have created severe staff shortages
at all levels which have reduced abilities of parks to provide for the
enjoyment of park visitors, to protect them during their visits, assure
the roads, restrooms, sewer and water systems meet standards, basic
science and historic preservation requirements are carried out. A year
ago the Coalition released the findings of a new national survey based
in part on information from 12 representative U.S. national parks. The
Coalition report found the following: budgets were down at eight of the
12 parks; employee levels were reduced at all of the parks; six of the
12 parks already had or would cut visitor center hours; all six of the
surveyed historic parks would allow key resources to further
deteriorate without needed maintenance; nine of the 12 parks had made
cuts that would result in reduced experience for visitors; and, most
surprisingly, some parks were even cutting vital law enforcement
positions needed to protect visitors and natural and cultural
resources--even though NPS policy specifies ``no net loss'' in these
positions. In summary, the Coalition's research, speaking directly with
park managers, found that many parks were leaving permanent jobs
unfilled, reducing the hiring of needed seasonal employees, shortening
visitor seasons, curtailing visitor center hours, eliminating
interpretive programs, and cutting back on resource protection patrols.
Frankly, they have no other options. Last year the Administration
called these ``service-level reductions'' to lighten the blow of what
they really are--they are cuts, pure and simple.
Field operations have been cut to the bone and there is no room for
continued cuts. Indeed, maintaining the status quo for ``deferred
opportunities in the future'' is not sufficient either because the
status quo is already below the standard required to carry out core
mission responsibilities. I talked to one field superintendent two
weeks ago who indicated 92% of his budget was in fixed costs. Each year
it costs more to run our parks and those increases are never really
covered. A senior division chief in one of our largest eastern parks
reflects what really happens: ``year after year Congress authorizes
mandatory pay increases to federal employees without fully funding
them. In FY 04, we received a 4.1% pay increase with less than a 1%
park budget increase. As managers, we groan when we see proposed salary
increases because we know it will diminish our ability to fulfill our
mission--and at the same time we are happy for our staff who work so
hard''. Additionally, a factor sometimes forgotten relates to the
conversion of the federal retirement system from Civil Service to FERS.
This same division chief relates, ``With the federal match of
retirement accounts, overhead for employees has skyrocketed from about
11% to close to 50% in some cases and as Civil Service employees retire
replaced by FERS employees the salary overhead for parks increase. It
seems as if the budget increases we do get do not accommodate this
easily predictable demographic trend.'' The parks do not face these
issues alone. The Washington Office and Regional Offices face similar
problems. I managed a Regional Office and can accurately say that these
offices provide desperately needed technical and staff assistance to
all the parks. Yet, the operational budgets that get to the parks are
impacted by the lack of funding at all levels and this division chief
relates, ``every year the operational budgets are hit by assessments--
from Congress and the Administration. In FY 04 we incurred an across-
the board reduction; a further .646% Department of the Interior
reduction; a .59% reduction called for in the Omnibus Bill; a uniform
assessment; an assessment for computer software licensing; and a 2%
assessment from our Regional Office to help them help us''.
The National Park Service is caught in a self-perpetuating downward
spiral that devalues the very purposes why these places have been
determined to be the most significant sites of our nation's natural and
cultural heritage and set aside in a national park system of global
pre-eminence. The rush to ``privatize and outsource'' to commercial
interests devalues the importance of the ``people's parks'' and has
wasted valuable time and money to evaluate what park management
responsibilities can compete with the private sector. This has not only
devalued the importance of these national landscapes and historic
shrines as just another ``commercial enterprise'' but has sent a
similar message to stressed, under-funded and underappreciated
professional staffs who do jobs no one else in this country can do. The
reduced buying-power of budgets that actually reach the parks creates
staff attrition and inability to carry out the National Park Service
core mission. This attrition forces greater reliance by parks on
additional private sources such as increasing numbers of volunteers,
interns, foundations, donations and friends groups being counted upon
to carry out the basic functions of managing a national park, rather
than providing a ``margin of excellence'' as they used to do. While we
celebrate and congratulate the spirit of volunteerism, friends groups,
and foundations, the inability of the federal government to carry out
its core responsibilities has blurred the bright funding line that must
exist between those responsibilities of the government and those of an
assisting partner. This places a heavy burden upon the philanthropic
organizations seeking funds for parks who must answer queries about why
the government is unable to adequately fund our parks and questioning
the true commitment of this nation to adequately provide for its
national park system. And the sad truth is that all of those outside
sources combined are actually not filling the gap in the basic
functions. Even with all that generosity of volunteerism and
philanthropy, the system is still falling behind.
Rather than focus on failures and fault--though there is much fault
to spread around in both political parties and numerous
Administrations--the Coalition believes we should celebrate the success
of the national park system to present day--and there is much success
to be shared amongst us all. Successive generations of Americans,
speaking through their elected representatives, have decided that these
places are special and merit the most special protection in perpetuity.
Let us celebrate this American optimism found in our national park
system with a bold and renewed commitment to better care for our
national legacy. The solutions to solving the problems are not
exclusively based in budget health and increased funds, but also in
developing a renewed bipartisan political commitment to solving long
term problems with something more than short-term solutions. We are in
this ``for the duration'' and we must develop better long-term support
systems that are consistent in growing the park system forward
responding to this need.
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees has offered
suggestions about how we might end this downward spiral, based upon a
report released in September 2004 titled, ``A Call To Action: Saving
Our National Park System'', a copy of which we provide to the Committee
to be submitted to the formal hearing record.
There is an annual shortfall of approximately $600 million
required to meet operational needs in the National Park
Service. A recurring budget increase will restore Service
ranger protection and education programs, fill lapsed positions
throughout the Service, provide facility managers with funds
required to care for federal assets, and continue the recent
programmatic gains in science and resources management. The
budget hemorrhage must be halted because ``today's deficits are
tomorrow's backlog''.
It is time to invigorate a national dialog to explore the
issue of governance of our national park system to determine
how our government can best carry out its role, on behalf of
the people, to preserve our system of national parks and to
pass them on unimpaired to future generations. It is time to
end the repetition of headlines about park deficits, deferred
maintenance, and reduced visitor services. We recommend
convening a non-partisan National Parks Blue Ribbon Commission
dedicated to restoring the values of our national park system
by evaluating the mission and roles of a national system of
parks for the 21st century, and deriving from that the true
budget and personnel needs and the appropriate governance
organizational models. The Commission would report to Congress,
the President and the American public. Let this effort create a
bold, multi-year ``Keeping the Promises'' plan focused upon the
future of our park system within the broader national and
international context of environmental management, the
retirement of deferred projects, and the restoration of
operational budgets returning our park system to greatness by
the Centennial Anniversary of the National Park Service in
2016.
Working with all the champions of our national park system, the
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees stands ready to continue
the work we carried out as respected career professionals on into our
retired life--to assure our parks are preserved and enjoyed by our
citizens leaving a legacy to be proud of for the generations yet to
come.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Moore, as you look at the role of
volunteers and the role of philanthropic groups, are there any
changes that you think would make the program work better or
that would be beneficial for what you are seeking to do?
Mr. Moore. Well, as we have seen, the Americans gravitate
very naturally to the national parks in terms of their giving
and generosity of time. And the changes, I think, that could
help that giving more along would be, for example, the ability
to more effectively combine donor dollars with Federal dollars
for fund raising campaigns, possibly better recognition of
donors in parks, and just kind of swifter systems of approval
of fund raising activities.
Senator Thomas. Do you think that people who visit the
parks, do they know what the volunteers have done? I remember,
for instance, a company that put in the boardwalk around Old
Faithful, and they put little signs up, not huge signs, but
little signs, so people did know and appreciate that. Is that
the case with the volunteer?
Mr. Moore. Yes. I think so. At our park, for example, we
have 16,000 volunteers, almost an entire small town of
volunteers helping the park. And they are recognized both
directly by the National Park Service staff and at times
through events and through on-site recognition of their work.
Although I think it is at times hard for the American
public, who see our parks as beautiful as they are and with the
wonderful appearances that they give, to understand that there
is a need and a call for action for them and an opportunity for
them to contribute back. But the word is getting out, obviously
when you look at the volunteer numbers.
Senator Thomas. Yes. I think so. And the Junior Ranger
program is designed to be able to get people to understand what
parks are about and so on.
Mr. Werst, what--as you operate now, what would you say is
the No. 1 issue facing park rangers?
Mr. Werst. Well, the staffing, I believe. The way things
are going right now with our budgets, as you have heard here
before, mandatory pay raises and things like that, it is just
starting to really eat away. And you can actually see that
attrition taking place in the staffing, which means you do not
have a ranger--enough rangers there to do all the programs they
might have done 5 years before. Perhaps there is not a law
enforcement ranger available to do a patrol in a certain area
that maybe 5, 10 years ago, there was--things like that.
And I really see that as probably being our most
challenging aspect right now.
Senator Thomas. Have you served where border patrol and so
on was important, like Organ Pipes or whatever?
Mr. Werst. I have not been down near one of the borders,
no, sir. I have been at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. That
would be the closest I have come to an international border,
but I have not experienced the same types of things that the
folks at Organ Pipe have.
Senator Thomas. Yes. That is pretty tough stuff. They spend
almost all of their time and energy looking--trying to take
care of illegal immigrants and drugs coming across. Of course,
they are right on the border, and that makes it a hard thing.
Obviously, most everyone does not have enough money. Are
there things from an organizational structural management
standpoint that you think could be changed that would pick up
some of the slack?
Mr. Werst. Could I get back to you, sir? I would have to
think about that for a little bit and----
Senator Thomas. Yes. But you do not sense mismanagement as
being a major function then?
Mr. Werst. I do not believe so, sir, no. You know, I
believe that the National Park Service management is honestly
trying to manage things as well as they possibly can, and we
try to help them as best as we can. So I really do not think
that mismanagement is really a major factor.
Senator Thomas. Yes. And it is tough.
Mr. Arnberger, I would certainly--as I said, there is never
enough money. I think, as a matter of fact, over the last 4 or
5 years, there has been a pretty substantial increase in park
budgets. Now, this year is at least proposed to be down. We do
not know where it will be when it is over, but is there,
again--let me ask you kind of the same question, do you think
there are major things that could be done to more efficiently
operate or changes that could be made structurally that would
make it work better?
Mr. Arnberger. First of all, I would reply that there is
always efficiencies that can be sought for and looked for.
Senator Thomas. That is right.
Mr. Arnberger. And anybody that says that something is
purely--is 100 percent efficient is lying to you, as you know.
So there is always places to find efficiencies.
So the real question is effectiveness. And I think that it
is pretty clear to our group that for several decades, the
National Park Service has been operating at much less than what
it needs. Witness the very fact that we have a deferred
maintenance budget, and witness the fact that we have
operational challenges. Those things come over a long period of
time, and not solving them on a regular and recurring basis has
led us to where we are at.
I guess, you know, there is always places where you can
make some changes and so forth, but I think I would prefer to--
and I give you this analogy not in humor, but the Park
Service--you know, treading water is a real practical short-
term strategy for staying afloat. But ultimately, in the long
term--the long term consequence and practical eventuality is
drowning.
And the story is not doom and gloom. And the story is not
one of beautiful sunsets as well. But we are in this place of
treading water. And it is our belief that it is time to strike
out, to do something different, and to see if we can retire
those vexing headlines that have been facing us for years after
years with something else.
Senator Thomas. You mentioned competitive sourcing.
Understanding that that is not designed to take the place of
rangers and interpreters and professionals, but rather to do
some of the maintenance work, some of the cleaning work, some
of those kinds of non-professional duties, do you not think it
makes sense to provide some opportunities to have a little
competition and see if there are not other ways to do things?
Mr. Arnberger. The National Park Service has had a long
history of success in contracting. We have long contracted lots
of our science in different ways with universities. We have
contracted with concessionaires who provide certain visitor
services.
Let me best answer your question with a fact--and you know
this because of your familiarity with the Service and with
Yellowstone--that up to 30 percent sometimes of an individual's
job can be in other duties, on a variety of duties.
So one day I am sitting in my office there at Grand Canyon,
and the fire alarm bell rings. And that was normal. And I
thought I would let my staff handle it. Come to find out, it
was one of our historic structures that was on fire. I roll to
it in order to give what a senior manager can give, which is
not much but standing there----
Senator Thomas. Sure.
Mr. Arnberger [continuing]. And being of some help. The
person that was on the truck running the pump was my
information technology chief. The person that was holding the
hose and the handle of the hose going in the front door was the
chief of interpretation on the South Rim, a district. He was
followed by a maintenance man that was going in, and all had
been trained. And the incident commander on the incident was a
park ranger.
And when I stood there and I watched what was going on, all
of those people had to dedicate time and energies to stay
qualified so that they did not kill themselves in trying to
save these assets.
That story sometimes gets lost in the discussion about
outsourcing and competition. And I think that in that
particular discussion, sometimes we focus too much on
efficiency and less on value and benefit. And certainly that is
a case where value and benefit was returned by having all of
those multi-disciplines there.
Senator Thomas. Sure. Yes. I do not think there is any
question. I just, as a matter of fact, yesterday had a forest
service employee in who was pointing out that he does this, and
then where there is a fire, he switches over and does that.
Mr. Arnberger. That is right.
Senator Thomas. But we are not talking about that kind of
thing. We are talking about such things as delivery of goods,
you know. At any rate, you mentioned this commission, the
commission--or who----
Mr. Arnberger. I mentioned the commission, yes.
Senator Thomas. Just generally, how would you see that
structured? How would it be composed? Who would it be and so
on?
Mr. Arnberger. I see it structured by a non-partisan
national stature group, perhaps several former presidents or
whomever that, in fact, could take an unbiased and non-partisan
look at where the national parks fit into the 21st century and
how it fits in the overall context of our--managing our
environment, not with just public lands, but how, in fact, we
manage these most special places and to look at that and look
at it in the light of the future. And then also support--delve
into and separate fact from fancy about: What are the true
needs in personnel?
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Arnberger. What are the true needs in terms of funding,
especially in the context of moving ahead?
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Arnberger. And we have had several wonderful examples
of this country stepping forward to do such things like that,
such as the CCC and such as the Mission 66 project that, in
fact, took us to another level.
And we believe that there is--it is time to do that. I have
a slight difference with the director on that. The advisory
board is a wonderful board. It has served its function and it
serves its function. But the advisory board--I think it was
2003 or 2001, somewhere right in there--came out with a truly
visionary plan.
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Arnberger. It was basically parks for the 21st century.
That plan sits on a shelf right now.
Senator Thomas. Yes. I tend to agree with you. And part of
it, as I mentioned to someone else, is this idea of where do we
go in the future and what is the criteria for additional parks
as opposed to State parks and opposed to local parks and so on,
because everything that we want to preserve is not going to be
in the scope of the national park, I do not believe.
Mr. Arnberger. That is right.
Senator Thomas. Finally, Mr. Werst, have you run across--I
think I heard this from several--because of the COLA on wages,
they have had to leave some vacancies in the staff in order to
make up that? Have you had that experience?
Mr. Werst. Yes, I have. Throughout my entire career, going
back to 1988 when I started as a seasonal ranger at Gettysburg
and that was--that first year as a seasonal, I started to hear
stories of how many staff we had at one time and just a
constant eating away of the money available just for paying
salaries, just started to get fewer and fewer people as a
result. And it has just continued on up until the present day.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Well, it is part of the problem.
Well, gentlemen, we thank you for being here, thank you for
what you do. And all of us are dedicated to making sure that
parks succeed in the future. And I hope we can work with you on
that, so thank you very much. We appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses to the follow-up
questions from the oversight hearing on the National Park Service's
funding needs for administration and management of the National Park
System held by the Subcommittee on National Parks on May 10, 2005.
These responses have been prepared by the National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on these
matters.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. What percentage of the National Park Service budget is
devoted to administration such as the Washington and Regional Offices?
Answer. About 9 percent of the total National Park Service (NPS)
operations budget about $150 million out of $1.8 billion--is spent on
the Washington office and the seven regional offices. Much of the work
done in these offices is of direct benefit to the parks, and in fact
many regional office staff spend large portions of their time working
in parks. Responsibilities that are handled in Washington and the
regional offices consist largely of administrative work, such as
payroll and benefits, which is more cost-effective to conduct centrally
than in individual parks.
Question 2. How much has the National Park Service spent on travel
each year during the past 5 years? How much of that was used for travel
by personnel in the Washington DC and Regional offices? How much was
spent on overseas travel and travel to foreign countries?
Answer. Total NPS travel costs were as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Travel Costs..................... 42.6 45.5 51.5 44.2 36.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel costs of Washington, DC and Regional office personnel were
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASO................................. 10.9 11.4 14.2 13.6 11.3
Regions.............................. 11.3 11.8 13.4 12.1 9.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International travel costs for NPS employees were as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Int. Travel........................... n/a..................... 641,000 652,000 330,000 119,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures for FY01 and FY02 provided by GAO
Total NPS travel costs were reduced by 29 percent from FY 2002 to
FY 2004. International travel costs for NPS personnel were reduced by
82 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2004.
Question 3. I have heard that some park units have had to lapse
positions, eliminate temporary and seasonal employees in order to find
sufficient funds to give full time employees authorized pay increases
and keep up with increasing utilities costs.
A. Is this true?
B. Why did it occur?
C. Which parks have done this during your tenure as Director?
D. How many lapsed positions are there currently?
E. Was the White House aware of and did they approve of this
approach to allocating the full complement of an authorized pay
increase?
Answers.
A. Yes.
B. Management frequently requires trade-offs between the number of
permanent, seasonal, and temporary employees and decisions on how and
when to fill vacant positions and meet other needs. Short-term lapses
in filling positions are a normal part of managing any organization,
since replacements are rarely found immediately once a position becomes
vacant. However, long-term lapsing of permanent positions, as well as
reductions in the number of temporary and seasonal employees also has
occurred, largely because of the need to absorb pay and pay-related
benefit costs. Congress has enacted a higher percentage pay increase
than the Administration budget proposed every year for the past four
years. In the past two years, the differences between budgeted and
enacted pay increases have been 2.0 percentage points or more.
In addition, in many parks, long-term lapses of some positions have
occurred as a result of the need to fill other types of positions. A
park manager may have had to lapse interpretive ranger positions, for
example, to help pay for additional law enforcement positions. NPS has
developed a core operations analysis process that seeks to determine
the right mix of permanent, seasonal, and temporary employees that is
efficient, sustainable, and covers all of the key functions.
C. Nearly all parks in the System have had to lapse positions.
D. The total number of lapsed positions changes daily in the System
as positions are filled. There is no readily available way to determine
on a System-wide basis which vacant positions we are actively trying to
fill and which ones we do not intend to fill due to budgetary or other
concerns.
E. The Administration is aware that agencies face difficult
budgetary decisions when Congress enacts a larger pay increase than the
rate budgeted for in the President's budget, and that lapsing positions
is a way of compensating for a higher mandated pay increase. Because
pay costs account for such a large proportion of a park's operating
expenses, lapsing positions is often the only short-term option a park
manager has available to respond to higher mandated pay increases.
Question 4. The Washington Post reported in yesterday's paper that
the cultural resources portion of the National Park Service was
undergoing a reorganization. The Post used the term ``massacre'' to
refer to the changes.
A. What changes are you making in the cultural resources
section of your organization and why?
B. Why is Carol Shull, the Keeper of the Register for more
than a decade and a National Park Service employee for over 30
years, being relieved of responsibility for the National
Register program?
C. How were people directly affected by the changes notified
of the impending changes? Were they given options for
retirement or other career opportunities?
D. What makes the new Keeper of the Register better qualified
than the individual being replaced?
Answers.
A. The NPS is proposing to restructure the cultural resource
programs in Washington, DC to establish a management arrangement that
will promote cooperation and efficiencies among related programs and
focus priorities on the core mission of the NPS. The approximately 150
employees serving under the Associate Director for Cultural Resources
and reporting directly to one assistant director will be grouped by
related programs under three assistant associate directors: one for
park cultural resources programs, another for historical documentation
programs, and a third for heritage preservation assistance programs.
Each of the assistant associate directors would be senior staff members
who are emphasizing greater cooperation and efficiencies among related
programs. This would be a more practicable and productive management
arrangement than the current one.
In addition, the restructuring highlights the importance of the
National Register of Historic Places within NPS and the Department of
the Interior. By appointing the Associate Director of Cultural
Resources to serve as Keeper of the National Register of Historic
Places, the designation of Keeper will be returned to the highest level
within the NPS Associate Director structure, where it was from the
early 1980's to 1994. The elevation of the Keeper reflects the crucial
role that the National Register has in nearly all of the NPS cultural
resources programs.
B. Carol Shull will be reassigned to the position of Chief,
Heritage Education Services, because of the importance of enhancing the
American public's understanding of the importance of our cultural
heritage. Ms. Shull has already established an important series of
lesson plans for grades K-12 and travel itineraries using National
Register properties. The proposed reorganization will utilize Ms.
Shull's leadership and expertise to develop and implement similar
heritage education programs in other cultural resource programs.
C. The people most directly affected were notified of the proposed
new organization an hour before its formal announcement. The
appropriate union officials were also notified in advance, as required
by statute, regulation, and contract. It is up to each employee to
decide whether or not to retire. Each affected employee will be
assigned to a new position, at the same pay, that is appropriate to his
or her professional background.
D. The new Keeper of the National Register, Dr. Janet Snyder
Matthews, has 30 years of experience in preparing National Register
nominations and National Register compliance documentation for work
associated with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
She has chaired the State of Florida's National Register Review board
and served as State Historic Preservation Officer of Florida, where she
oversaw the state's National Register program and compliance review
program. These state positions provide substantive experience for
understanding the National Register process from the grassroots
nominations to State review to NPS submissions. Dr. Matthews also
chaired the National Historic Landmarks Committee of the National Park
System Advisory Board prior to her competing for and being hired for
the career position of Associate Director for Cultural Resources of the
National Park Service.
The National Register of Historic Places defines the benchmark for
eligibility for Federal and State preservation grants and Federal
historic preservation tax incentives and provides consideration for
Federal Government actions that may affect resources. Raising the
Keeper title to the highest possible level within the Associate
Director organization reflects this important reality.
Question 5. The position of law enforcement ranger (GS-0025)
qualifies individuals for retirement after 20 years of service. Some
individuals that performed law enforcement ranger duties have been
denied full retirement benefits. The code that qualifies these
retirement benefits is 5 USC 8336(c), commonly referred to as 6(c)
retirement benefits. Interpretation of eligibility is determined by the
Firefighter and Law Enforcement Retirement Team (FLERT). It has come to
our attention that there are many concerns as to how these retirement
rulings are being made.
A. How many people have filed a request for 20-year
retirement under 6(c) with FLERT each year since its creation
in 1997?
B. How many of these requests have been denied each year
since 1997?
C. What would be the cost in retirement pay and benefits over
the next 20 years to cover those denied claims?
D. What is the current backlog of claims awaiting a ruling by
FLERT?
E. What is the current status of benchmark position
descriptions regarding the Law Enforcement Ranger, GS-0025
series and interpretation of this series as primary law
enforcement duties as reviewed by FLERT?
Answers.
A. We do not know how many NPS law enforcement rangers have filed
requests for 20-year retirement under 6(c). The FLERT office is only
able to provide information on the number of claims reviewed in FY 2004
and FY 2005 at this time. We do know that about 1,200 requests for 20-
year retirement were filed prior to 1997.
B. In FY 2004 and FY 2005, out of 316 claims reviewed, 99 were
fully denied, and 121 were partly denied, and 96 were approved.
C. Without knowing the number of people whose claims have been
denied since 1997, we cannot calculate the cost of covering denied
claims.
D. As of March 18, 2005, there were 135 claims pending.
E. FLERT has told NPS that they do not think NPS law enforcement
rangers (025 series) fit the definition of law enforcement personnel.
NPS is in discussion with FLERT about this matter.
Question 6. How much have your costs increased since 2001 as a
result of homeland security and have you seen an equivalent budget
increase to support the effort?
Answer. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, NPS has received
over $120 million in extra appropriations directly related to homeland
security costs. This money has gone toward security at border and icon
parks, training and recruitment, non-recurring construction projects,
and emergency funds to respond to the actual attacks. NPS also used
concessions fees to cover nearly $12 million in extra homeland security
costs at the Statue of Liberty. NPS has also absorbed over $9 million
in costs that allowed the Service to react to Code Orange threat
levels, mostly in 2003.
Question 7. What is the fixed costs percentage of park operations
service wide?
Answer. A recent analysis of NPS accounting data showed that 85
percent of total obligations in park operating accounts were for pay,
personnel benefits, and other fixed costs in 2004.
Question 8. You have been director of the NPS for four years and
have done an admirable job in that position.
A. What have been your priorities for the past 4 years and
what progress have you made toward accomplishing them?
B. Has the budget allowed you to implement any special
projects or programs in support of your priorities?
C. What are your priorities for the next 4 years?
Answers.
A. My priorities for the past four years have been: improving the
conditions of facilities in the National Park System, sustaining park
operations, continuing enhancement of natural resource protection, and
improving management of the National Park Service. We have made
substantial progress in each of these areas.
On facilities, if Congress approves the levels of funding
requested in the Administration's FY 2006 request, we will have
fulfilled the President's commitment to spend $4.9 billion on
the deferred maintenance backlog over five years. Since FY
2002, we have undertaken over 4,000 maintenance projects. The
comprehensive asset management strategy we have developed has
enabled us, for the first time in NPS history, to inventory our
assets and measure the condition of our facilities. We
anticipate having comprehensive condition assessments for all
388 park units by the end of FY 2006, which will enable us to
target funds to our highest priority needs. We are targeting
funding to cyclic maintenance to ensure that recent
improvements will be adequately maintained.
For park operations, NPS received the largest annual
increase in its history for FY 2005--a net increase of $64
million. The Administration's request for FY 2006 builds on
that budget with a proposed increase of $50.5 million for park
operations, a figure that fully covers salaries, benefits, and
fixed costs.
For natural resource enhancement, the Natural Resource
Challenge continues to build a scientific base of knowledge
about park resources. Funding proposed for FY 2006 will allow
us to complete the monitoring of park vital signs and water
quality in all 32 multi-park networks.
In the area of management reforms, we have made progress on
several fronts. In our concessions program, we have made the
program much more business-like, and we have begun to
professionalize our workforce. By the end of this year, we
expect that we will have awarded 447 of the almost 600 NPS
concession contracts over a four year period. Other business-
like improvements we have made include the development of a
park scorecard to aid in the evaluation of base budget
increases for park units, a core operations analysis to focus
resources toward functions that are critical to the NPS mission
more effectively and efficiently, and a partnership project
review process to ensure that only partnership construction
projects that are of the highest quality and are determined to
be feasible and sustainable are recommended to Congress for
approval.
B. Yes, the funding that NPS has received from Congress, largely
reflecting the Administration's requests, has enabled us to make
considerable progress on all of the goals discussed above.
C. My five stated goals as Director of NPS, what we refer to as
``Doing Business in the 21st Century,'' are the following:
Management Excellence: the NPS promotes management excellence
and strives to be a model of government accountability. The
improvements to concessions, the development of park
scorecards, the analysis of core operations, and the review of
partnership construction projects mentioned above are examples
of ways in which we are promoting management excellence.
Outdoor Recreation: the NPS has a critical role in helping
provide appropriate outdoor recreation, playing an important
part in the seamless network of parks and the physical and
mental health of all Americans. We are developing an effective
strategy that includes a public education campaign to integrate
park units, managed areas, and outdoor recreation programs with
the President's Healthier U.S. Initiative, and have established
a subcommittee on health and fitness of the NPS Advisory Board.
Conservation: we are working to select and implement major
restoration projects that demonstrate good science and
practical resources. The progress we have made in inventorying
and conserving natural resources in our parks through the
Natural Resource Challenge is an integral part of this work.
Sustainability: the NPS is actively pursuing sustainability
of its facilities, operations, business practices and resources
through conservation, sustainable design, fiscal
responsibility, information technology, active partnerships,
philanthropic support and positive relationships with Congress.
Our efforts to increase civic engagement to develop a seamless
network of parks are part of our pursuit of sustainability.
21st century Relevancy: to continue to be relevant to
contemporary America, programs and initiatives will emphasize
the importance of understanding the needs of all cultures and
making parks relevant to young people. One example of our
efforts in this area is promotion of the Junior Ranger program.
Question 9. What progress has the administration made toward
reducing the maintenance backlog in the national park system?
Answer. NPS has made significant progress in undertaking specific
maintenance projects throughout the National Park System as well as in
establishing and implementing a new management framework that will
guide the Service's approach to asset management. If enacted, the
President's FY 2006 budget and surface transportation reauthorization
proposal would fulfill the pledge to devote $4.9 billion over five
years towards the NPS maintenance backlog.
With the funds appropriated and collected thus far since FY 2002,
NPS has undertaken over 4,000 projects ranging from road repairs, to
historic building stabilization, to restroom rehabilitation. In
addition, NPS has completed the first-ever systematic inventory of its
assets and conducted initial condition assessments at all parks.
Comprehensive condition assessments are scheduled to be completed by
the end of FY 2006.
Question 10. How many competitive sourcing studies have been
conducted, in which disciplinary areas, and what were the findings?
Answer. Two competitive sourcing studies have been conducted. In
2003, NPS conducted a study involving archeology work, covering 43 FTE,
at the Southeast Archeological Center in Florida. The government bid
prevailed. The process had a one-time cost of $129,000 with projected
savings over five years of $4.2 million. In 2004, NPS conducted a study
involving maintenance work, covering 74 FTE, at Natchez Trace Parkway.
The government bid prevailed there as well. The process had a one-time
cost of $192,000 and is projected to save $1.105 million over five
years.
Question 11. When functions of the Heritage Conversation and
Recreation Service were ``consolidated'' by secretarial order in 1981
several policies and programs, including Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) state assistance, were assigned to the National Park
Service. It soon became widely known that many senior NPS staff viewed
the LWCF state program as competition for appropriations that might
otherwise go to the national park system, or other federal land
programs. In fact, two of the stated reasons for the President's
proposal to terminate and zero fund the LWCF partnership: we don't have
enough money, and it is no longer important to the department's
mission, appear to reinforce those perceptions. The budget document
further observes that local and state public recreation and park system
are sufficiently funded to take care of their own needs, despite the
fact LWCF is not a means tested program, but rather one of reinvestment
of Outer Continental Shelf Fund receipts. Even the Office of Management
and Budget determination of no demonstrable program values is
questioned by informed groups and individuals close to the program.
A. Executives from the Department of the Interior and
National Park Service often speak of the value to the American
people of partnerships. Why is there little or no mention of
LWCF state and local investments that collectively meet
national recreation and park goals?
B. Would you document for the subcommittee your assertion
that state and local governments are sufficiently funded to
meet present and presumably future recreation resource needs?
Answers.
A. The LWCF State grant program has a good record of contributing
to national recreation and park goals: nearly 40,000 grants, valued at
approximately $3.6 billion, have been awarded since the inception of
the program. The elimination of grant funding in the proposed budget is
due partly to the determination that the mechanism for actually
measuring performance has been inadequate, as OMB's 2003 PART review
revealed. We are working hard to remedy this problem so that we can
fully integrate the LWCF State grants program with recreation and park
performance goals in the future.
B. The Fiscal Year 2006 Interior Budget in Brief (February, 2005),
page DO-11, states that ``The LWCF State grants support State and local
parks that have alternate sources of funding through State revenues and
bonds.'' That statement does not address sufficiency of State funding;
it points to other available sources of funding for the purposes of the
program--including bonds, which are a financing mechanism that is
available to States but not the Federal government.
Question 12. The budget proposes to terminate funds for state LWCF
assistance. Would you elaborate on this? Does this suggest that the
President or the Secretary will recommend legislation to terminate the
program?
Answer. LWCF State grant funds were not included in the FY 2006
budget request for two principal reasons: One was that the
Administration is committed to the President's goal of reducing the
Federal budget deficit in half in five years; this resulted in budget
decisions aimed at meeting the most mission-critical elements of the
National Park Service. The other was that in 2003, as mentioned above,
the LWCF State grant program went through a PART review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) as they evaluated the effectiveness of
all Federal programs. OMB concluded that the program could not
adequately measure performance or demonstrate results.
The decision not to fund LWCF State grants in 2006 is not
unprecedented. This program was not funded in fiscal years 1996 through
1999. It was also not funded in 1982 and was funded at essentially
nominal levels for several years later in the 1980's.
The Administration does not plan to recommend legislation to
terminate the program. The National Park Service will continue to
process new grants from prior-year funding and administer and monitor
the projects through completion, which often take State and local
sponsors three to five years. NPS staff will also continue to
administer the provision of the LWCF Act that requires that an assisted
site remain in public outdoor recreation use in perpetuity unless the
Secretary of the Interior gives approval for converting the site to
another use. In addition, the program will continue to work with all of
its partners to enhance the use of performance information in managing
the program.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
park service restructuring
Question 1. The proposed employee restructuring in the cultural
resources division has drawn a lot of attention recently. As part of
the restructuring, your Associate Director for Cultural Resources
disallowed ``flex time'' schedules for employees at the GS-14 and GS-15
levels in the cultural resources division. Are you planning a similar
restriction on flex time employment for other Park Service employees
outside of that division? If not, please explain your rationale why
employees in one group should be treated differently from other
employees at the same grade level within the same agency. Also, will
SES and political appointees be subject to the same work time
restrictions?
Answer. The disallowance of alternative work schedules for GS-14
and GS-15 employees by the Associate Director for Cultural Resources
applies only to employees who are under her management those who work
in cultural resources programs in Washington, D.C. Each manager is
responsible for determining an effective and efficient schedule to
perform the work assigned; the Associate Director for Cultural
Resources feels that she needs her key program management officials,
all of whom but two are supervisors, to be present on a regular
schedule. Other staff remain free to work under an alternative work
schedule with the approval of their supervisor. The Associate Director
for Cultural Resources is the only SES employee in cultural resources
and there are no political appointees in this program area. The
Associate Director herself works a regular schedule.
management policies
Question 2. During your confirmation hearing in 2001 I asked about
your support for the NPS Management Policies, particularly Management
Policy 1.4.3, which states in part: ``Congress, recognizing that
enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured
only if the superb quality of park resources is left unimpaired, has
provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and
values and providing for the enjoyment of them, conservation is to be
predominant.'' You answered, ``I am advised that courts have
consistently interpreted the Organic Act this way. Therefore, I would
agree that the resource is always the primary focus.'' I would like to
follow up on your answer.
A. In September, 2003 you wrote to the Chairman of the House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on National Parks that you had begun ``a
systematic review of the NPS Management Policies of 2001.'' What is the
status of that review? Are the Management Policies being revised?
B. In the same letter, in response to a question asking you to
provide the ``legal basis for concluding that the Organic Act requires
that `when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values
and providing for the enjoyment of them, conservation is to be
predominant'' you replied ``we believe this statement is an inaccurate
interpretation of the law . . . The Act states that enjoyment by the
public should be achieved consistent with leaving resources unimpaired
for future generations. This does not mean that the mere presence of
conflict constitutes impairment or places conservation as preeminent
over enjoyment.'' Your answer to me at your confirmation hearing seems
at odds with your later answer to Congressman Radanovich. How do you
reconcile both of your responses? Has your position changed from your
testimony in 2001? Do you still agree ``that the resource is always the
primary focus'' and can you assure me that you are not seeking to
change Management Policy 1.4.3?
Answers.
A. The NPS Management Policies issued in 2001 are under review in
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Until that review is concluded, we will not make any decisions about
whether or not we plan to seek any changes in the Management Policies.
B. I do not interpret the responses you referred to as being
inconsistent. In my 2001 confirmation hearings, I gave a response that
indicated my understanding of how the courts had interpreted the
Organic Act with respect to giving priority to conserving resources. In
the 2003 letter to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National
Parks, my response took issue with that interpretation. As noted above,
until the Assistant Secretary's review is concluded, we will not make
any decisions about whether or not we plan to seek any changes in any
of the Management Policies.
maintenance backlog
Question 3. Your testimony referred to the comprehensive asset
management strategy that the Park Service has developed to inventory
and measure the condition of its facilities. I have yet to hear any
National Park Service official provide a clear answer as to the
progress being made in reducing its backlog. You have stated many times
that the FY 2006 budget meets the President's goal of spending $4.9
billion to address the deferred maintenance backlog. Aside from the
fact that the President's original goal, as stated in the FY 2002
Interior Budget in Brief (p. DH-20) was to eliminate the maintenance
backlog over five years, not simply address it, and that the majority
of the funds provided reflected a continuation of previous funding
levels, can you tell me specifically what the current estimate is of
the deferred maintenance backlog? I understand that the exact
maintenance backlog will be constantly changing as new projects are
added and others completed, but if you don't have a specific estimate,
how can you measure your progress in any meaningful way?
Answer. Trying to establish a set dollar amount for the maintenance
backlog and measuring progress in terms of dollars spent is not an
effective way to measure or evaluate performance accomplishments
relative to NPS assets. It is far more effective to measure performance
over time, which NPS can now do through the use of the Facility
Condition Index. In addition, it is important for the agency to set
priorities within its asset inventory, so that limited funds can be
applied to the most significant resources within parks. It is not
practical to assume that every asset, regardless of its priority, will
be brought to or kept at to the same level of condition. NPS has
established a framework for reducing the backlog while also managing
the asset inventory and making smart decisions so that future growth in
deferred maintenance is avoided.
homeland security funding
Question 4. Your testimony noted that one of the major challenges
that the National Park Service has faced in recent years has been the
need for more security, and that after the September 11 attacks, the
Park Service has focused more law enforcement and security resources on
icon parks and other high risk areas. I would like to better understand
the effect homeland security costs have on your budget. I have been
told that security-related operating costs for the Park Service now
total approximately $40 million in annual recurring costs, and that the
Park Service does not receive reimbursement from the Department of
Homeland Security for those costs. Is that correct?
Answer. Annual costs are about $43 million a year and those costs
are not reimbursed by the Department of Homeland Security. However, NPS
has received increased operating funding to pay for increased security
costs. Since 2001, the overall operational base level of funding for
NPS law enforcement and security has increased about 25 percent.
land and water conservation fund
Question 5. The FY 2006 budget proposes no funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund's State grant program. In the 2004 annual
report on the State LWCF program prepared by the National Park Service,
you are quoted as saying that ``the 40th anniversary [of the LWCF] is
an opportunity for us to reflect the program's enduring and ubiquitous
legacy. Parks and recreation in America depend on LWCF. Without it,
many of our nation's parks would simply not exist.'' According to the
FY 2006 Interior Budget in Brief an OMB PART review in 2003 ``found the
current program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate
results.'' Given your experience as a former State parks director, do
you agree with the OMB assessment that the LWCF State program cannot
demonstrate results? If so, how do you reconcile that with your praise
for the program in the 2004 annual report?
Answer. The 2003 PART review indicated that the LWCF State grants
program could not adequately measure performance. This does not mean
that the program itself performed poorly, but rather that we were
unable to adequately measure performance at that time. We still believe
that the LWCF State grants program is a good one and has many positive
benefits for natural recreation. However, we cannot demonstrate this
with more than qualitative and anecdotal evidence. Therefore, the
challenge before us now is to work with our State and local partners to
obtain good data and performance measures for enhanced management of
the program in the future. We are working toward this goal with OMB and
are making excellent progress.
Questions From Senator Landrieu
Quetion 1. Can you please address the recent restructuring of the
Cultural Resources division at National Park Service? The dramatic
changes have been caused great concern. Can you please outline the
changes, why they were made, and what potential negative affects they
may have on the National Park Service?
Answer. The proposed restructuring of the cultural resources
programs in Washington, D.C. is designed to promote cooperation and
efficiencies among related programs, and to enable us to focus on our
core mission and enhance the visibility and effectiveness of historic
preservation for the nation. It highlights the importance of the
National Register for Historic Places through the appointment of the
Associate Director of Cultural Resources to serve as Keeper of the
National Register.
The proposed structure groups related programs and functions under
three assistant associate directors: one for park cultural resources
programs, a second for historical documentation programs, and a third
for heritage preservation assistance programs. These changes are based
on a year-long review of the legislation and other documents related to
cultural resources, interviews with clients and customers, and comments
and suggestions from managers and staff. In the overwhelming number of
cases, employees' work and duties are unchanged.
A handful of employees will be assigned to new positions
appropriate to their professional background. For example, Carol Shull,
the Keeper of the National Register, will be reassigned to become
Chief, Heritage Education Services, in recognition of the importance of
the heritage education program that she established to enhance the
American public's understanding of the importance of our cultural
heritage and the need to preserve our Nation's history. John Robbins
will be the Chief of the Historic American Buildings Survey (he is
currently manager of the National Center for Cultural Resources, a
position proposed for abolishment.) A separate Historic Preservation
Grants division will be established because of the high visibility and
critical nature of our many preservation grant programs that administer
over $70 million in annually awarded grants.
National parks will benefit from the restructuring because the
cultural resource programs that affect parks will be grouped under one
assistant associate director. The National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
our two closest partners, have endorsed the changes involved with
establishing the other two assistant associate positions. We also have
heard from dozens of current partners in the governmental and private
sectors regarding the positive nature of the proposed changes.
Question 2. Why did NPS again zero out funding for NCPTT, the
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training program
operated in conjunction with Northwestern State University in Louisiana
after several officials have made supportive comments indicating its
importance to the National Park Service, as well as private and public
preservation organizations?
Answer. The budget proposal for NCPTT is not to eliminate the
center but to eliminate direct Federal funding for the center. NPS
recognizes that the NCPTT has provided a valuable service. However, the
NCPTT could become self sufficient by charging user fees to the
entities that directly benefit from the services. In these fiscally
tight times, the Administration is seeking to ensure that NPS resources
are aimed at the programs that most directly serve the parks. In the
past, none of these grants have been used to directly benefit NPS park
units. The NPS will continue to rely on the Historic Preservation
Center in Frederick, Maryland, for training park staff on preservation
work on historic buildings, which does provide direct assistance to
parks.
Question 3. Why did the National Park Service budget request
eliminate all funding for heritage areas after the NPS Advisory Board
concluded ``Heritage areas add new dimension to the National Park
Service providing an opportunity to conserve nationally important
living landscapes and cultures . . . the NPS has an important role as
an expert, convener and catalyst. The NPS can also provide credibility,
planning and interpretation expertise, and organizational capacity . .
.''?
Answer. We recognize that the Congressional heritage area
designation is an effective tool to bring together local communities
interests for the preservation of local heritage resources. With
designation, local communities are able to coalesce support for
important regional needs that conserve cultural and natural resources,
improve the quality of life, and help to develop sustainable self-
supporting economies. We believe, however, that Congress should enact
national heritage area legislation that would provide a clear process
and criteria by which to assess the national significance and other
relevant characteristics of proposed heritage areas.
The FY 2006 budget request does not eliminate but rather reduces
funding for the national heritage areas to $4.9 million for commissions
and grants. This reflects an emphasis on encouraging them to become
self-sufficient. However, the FY 2006 request expands opportunities and
resources that the heritage area partners can competitively apply for,
including $15 million for Save America's Treasures, $38.7 million for
historic preservation grants to States and Tribes, and $12.5 million
through the new Preserve America grants programs.
------
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees,
Tucson, AZ, June 14, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am in receipt of your letter of May 13,
2005, with further questions regarding my testimony before the
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on May 10, 2005. I apologize for the delay in
replying but I did not receive the letter until June 2, 2005. I will
reply to the six questions in the order in which you presented them.
Question 1. Based on your experience as a former Regional Director
of the National Park Service, what do you consider the highest priority
for the National Park Service at this time?
Answer. I believe the highest priority is to immediately increase
the annual recurring operational budget for the National Park Service
by at least $600 million dollars to restore the Service's ability to
manage the daily operations of our national park system. There is
respectful recognition of some of the budget gains made over recent
years but the needs have far outstripped the gains indicating the scope
of the problems that must be addressed. This recurring budget increase
will restore Service ranger protection and education programs, fill
lapsed positions throughout the Service, provide facility managers with
funds required to care for federal assets, and continue the recent
programmatic gains in science and resources management. The budget
hemorrhage must be halted, pragmatically based on the notion that
``today's budget deficit is tomorrow's backlog''. The second highest
priority is to stimulate and create a national dialog to explore and
determine the future of our national park system. It is time to end the
repetition of headlines about park deficits, deferred maintenance, and
reduced visitor services. I believe that a non-partisan Centennial
Commission on Parks should be established composed of the highest
caliber national leaders dedicated to restoring the values of our
national park system by evaluating the mission and roles of a national
system of parks for the 21St century. The work of this Commission would
create a bold, multi-year plan focused upon the future of our park
system within the broader national and international context of
environmental management.
Question 2. What area of park operations and management is in
greatest need of budget adjustment?
Answer. I believe there are two critical operational areas that
must be addressed quickly. The first is resource and visitor protection
programs. The promise made to the people of the United States to
protect resources and people in our parks is in jeopardy. The crisis is
acute, as revealed in no less than six formal reports over the past six
years. These reports have ranged from a Report to Congress, to an
internal report by the Departmental Office of Inspector General, to
reports by nationally accredited institutions such as the International
Chiefs of Police and National Association of Professional
Administrators. There is absolute unanimity in all the reports in
characterizing the crisis that faces the National Park Service to
assure resource protection, public safety and the welfare of our ranger
force engaged in law enforcement, search and rescue, and emergency
medicine. No new studies are required. What is required is a strategic
plan to implement the studies already completed. Where required,
effective budget strategies in collaboration with the Department of the
Interior and Congress must be developed to achieve staffing and
equipment solutions in balance with other important operational
requirements in parks. The figures for personnel additions vary from
615 new rangers (28% increase over existing) to 1295 new rangers
identified by the NPS pursuant to requirements in Title 8 of P.L. 105-
391, the National Park System Omnibus Management Act of March 2000. As
background for your consideration I attach, for the record, a draft
White Paper titled, Our Heritage Protection: A Promise to the People,
written for the consideration of the Service's National Leadership
Council (9/6/02) to be considered as a potential strategy for engaging
the issue at the national level.
The second area requiring increased emphasis is Education and
Interpretation. The core mission of the National Park Service has
always included and been defined through protection of resources and
providing visitor experience. Education is a required role of the
agency in order to preserve resources and provide visitor enjoyment.
Education as a component of the NPS mission is not new. The NPS must
better connect stewardship education with resources research and
science. Education can serve as the connection between the public who
own the resources and those invested with the responsibility to manage
them. The existing education and interpretation program in the NPS,
while not in perfect health, is vibrantly alive at different, isolated
parks across the System. These programs have inspired millions of
people about the importance of parks to the global community. However,
the program languishes. It is under-funded and under-lead. It is a
program that suffers budgetary cuts the first. Connections to outside
educational institutions are sporadic or not in place. Working with
schools in curriculum development, innovative distance learning
opportunities and site-based school opportunities must be a key focus
of national park service educational programs in concert with improved
conventional visitor use programs. Several NPS Regions were innovative
in seeking new approaches but were consistently hampered by lack of
funds and national leadership. One such approach, A Contract With The
Future (3/02) is attached, for the record, as one example of the
unrealized potentials of this program.
Question 3. Does the National Park Service allocate sufficient
funds for administrative functions such as travel and headquarters and
regional duties?
Answer. The regional offices and other headquarters offices suffer
at least the same levels of operational needs as parks do. These
offices have successfully transitioned into more effective ``support''
and ``oversight'' institutions where a collection of trained
professionals can meet the technical needs of groupings of parks. It is
often more efficient and effective to centrally locate a cadre of
technical professionals to meet the wide range of needs from a variety
of parks. Often, the effectiveness of these professionals to offer
assistance to parks is compromised by the lack of staffing to meet the
diversity of needs and by lack of travel money to get to the parks to
assist them. There are frequent cases where a field superintendent must
tackle an issue or develop a plan that exceeds the capacity of the park
to engage. In requesting assistance from support offices their pleas
for help frequently go unanswered because the support office does not
have the capacity either--they are stretched too thin. These technical
support offices sincerely attempt to assist but their capacity to do so
is frequently compromised. Frequently, the only way a support office
can provide assistance is to assess the field units of a percentage of
their field budgets. It is common practice, and a necessary one, to
assess all field units from both a Headquarters Office level and a
Regional Office level, to develop the contingency funds necessary to
assist the field units. Incidentally, the Department of the Interior
makes the same kinds of assessments of the Bureaus in order to fund
Departmental initiatives, some of which have merit and some don't.
Question 4. I have heard that some park units have had to lapse
positions, eliminate temporary and seasonal employees in order to find
sufficient funds to give full time employees authorized pay increases
and keep up with increasing utilities costs. Did this occur while you
were a manager in the NPS? Is this a widely practiced management option
to make ends meet?
Answer. The answer to both of these questions is YES. This is a
common management practice to meet the budget realities that park
managers at all levels face on a daily basis. I would refer you to my
testimony and the personal anecdote of a senior park manager that
reflected upon this issue. That manager stated, ``year after year
Congress authorizes mandatory pay increases to federal employees
without fully funding them. In FY 04, we received a 4.1% pay increase
with less than a 1% park budget increase. As managers, we groan when we
see proposed salary increases because we know it will diminish our
ability to fulfill our mission--and at the same time we are happy for
our staffs who work so hard''. Further, the problem is exacerbated by
the higher cost of benefits ``with the federal match of retirement
accounts, overhead for employees has skyrocketed from about 11% to
close to 50% in some cases and as Civil Service employees retire
replaced by FERS employees the salary overhead for parks increase.''
Further, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees released a
report of a survey conducted in May 2004 of 12 representative parks
across the nation. Relative to your question the following findings are
important:
Eight of the 12 National Parks are operating with 2004
budgets that went down--not up.
All of the 12 national parks have 2004 employee levels that
are down--not up.
Six of the 12 national parks already have or will cut
visitor center hours or days.
All of the six historic parks reported further deterioration
of key facilities.
Nine of the 12 national parks reported circumstances that
will diminish in a material way the ability of visitors to
enjoy the national parks.
Some parks will see less visitor and resources protection
and reduced emergency response capability.
This survey is found at www.npsretirees.org in a press release
dated May 27, 2004. Specific anecdotes from individual park managers
eloquently describe the severe budget restrictions they face and the
necessary management decisions they must take to balance the budget.
Question 5. In your testimony you referred to a survey of 12 parks.
Was the survey conducted by mail, e-mail, or internet? How many
individuals responded to the survey? What steps did you take to prevent
the results from being skewed by having multiple responses from the
same individual?
Answer. Again, I would direct you to the website,
www.npsretirees.org to a press release dated May 27, 2004, which listed
the contacted parks and survey methodology. The Coalition went behind
the scenes in May 2004 in an attempt to get the facts about two dozen
representative national parks across America. Coalition researchers
went directly to their colleagues still serving in the national parks
and asked them to tell the ``real story'' about what is going on in
terms of cutbacks in key services and personnel. The same questions
were asked of all park managers. Many of those reporting acknowledged
that the information was public or could be made available through FOIA
request or under the authority of the NPS Director's Orders on civil
engagement and public involvement. However, some of those who declined
to participate cited fears of possible retribution. From its original
focus on about two dozen parks, the Coalition ended up getting full
reports back on 12 representative parks from across the nation. The
survey, with common questions, was conducted by phone and through
personal discussion. All two dozen park managers responded. However,
some requested their responses not be used. The park manager was
contacted only once by one Coalition researcher to avoid multiple
responses from the same individual. There is no reason to believe
conditions have measurably improved in FY 05. Before I presented my
formal testimony to the Subcommittee I personally interviewed 2
different park superintendents. As I stated in my oral testimony, these
two superintendents reflected that 92% and 97% of their budgets were in
fixed costs.
Question 6. Your testimony refers to the promise of a National
Parks Blue Ribbon Commission focused on determining the role of the NPS
in the 21st Century. How would your organization assist in this panel
were it to become reality? What are some of the visionary insights the
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees can offer?
Answer. The Coalition represents a valuable source group for this
panel. Today, over 400 retirees have joined the Coalition in efforts to
better protect our national park system. Many Coalition members were
senior NPS leaders who received awards for stewardship of America's top
natural and cultural resources. The Coalition ranks include 5 former
directors and deputy directors of the National Park Service, 23 former
regional directors or deputy regional directors, 25 former associate or
assistant directors at the national or regional level, 53 former
division chiefs at the national or regional level, and over 100 former
park superintendents or assistant superintendents. Collectively, the
Coalition represents over 12,000 years of cumulative experience in
managing our nation's park system. Bringing this level of experience
and commitment to the work of the commission would add significant
value to the work carried out and to the recommendations the commission
might make. Coalition members would seek to assist in any way that
would contribute to the success of the commission's work. Our members
can serve as staff to assist the work of the panel ``interpreting'' the
culture of the NPS and the rich legislative framework that has been
developed to create and protect parks. Our members are equipped to
participate with national stature panelists in the work of the
Commission. Our organization would seek to provide input and testimony
before the commission on a wide range of topics. Our organization would
place great value in helping to shape the commission's mission, goals
and objectives.
The fundamental principles of our national park system as
``cumulative expressions of a single national heritage'' must be
nationally invigorated by citizens, organizations, our politicians, and
our government as a concerted national endeavor led and fed by
enlightened leaders in all communities and in all segments of our
society. It is time to restore the great idea to the prominence it has
always enjoyed in our national community, insulated from the
divisiveness of partisan politics and destructive political ideology
not practiced in the public interest. It is time to invigorate a
national dialog to explore the issue of governance of our national park
system, identifying the problems that prevent long-term strategies and
long-term sustainability of our parks and determine if we can ``find a
better way'' to manage our natural and cultural legacy within the
context of our national and international environmental efforts.
Enlightened national leadership must create the circumstances to begin
this dialog on behalf of the broadest public interest. We believe that
endorsing and creating a ``Blue Ribbon Commission on Parks'' or a
``Centennial Commission on Parks'' is timely given that the Centennial
Anniversary of the National Park Service approaches in 2016. What
better way to commemorate past successes than through a bold,
responsive and innovative plan for the 21st century assuring our
precious parks are passed on, unimpaired, to future generations?
Models exist for such an effort. The Civilian Conservation Corps
program of the 1930's and the Mission 66 Program from 1956--1966, well
demonstrate the commitment and national capacity that can come to bear
on the work of the commission. We also commend to your attention two
insightful reports that attempted to gain the national attention the
parks deserve. National Parks for the 21st century--the Vail Agenda,
(1991) developed in response to the National Park Service's 75
anniversary was a bold attempt to look forward and fashion a national
system of parks for the future. Recently, the National Park System
Advisory Board Report, Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st
century, (2001), provided thoughtful guidance for the National Park
Service in meeting the 21st century future.
In all these efforts the Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees stands ready to assist and participate in any meaningful way.
Even in our retirements our commitment to this great idea remains
unabated.
Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions and further
elaborate on the testimony provided to you.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Arnberger,
[Enclosures.]
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
OUR HERITAGE PROTECTION: A PROMISE TO THE PEOPLE
white paper draft 9-6-02 by robert arnberger
``In support of the National Park Service mission, Law Enforcement
serves the public interest to protect resources and people, prevent
crime, conduct investigations, apprehend criminals, and serve the needs
of the visitors.''
Director Fran Mainella
The National Leadership Council has renewed its commitment to the
ranger profession to develop an effective and efficient law enforcement
program that is well managed and adequate to fulfill the mission,
vision, and values of the National Park Service and the Department of
the Interior. The promise made to the people of the United States to
protect resources and people in our parks is in jeopardy unless we
begin to affirmatively respond to defined failures with a new future.
The crisis is acute, as revealed in no less than six formal reports
over the past four years. These reports ranged from a Report to
Congress, to an internal report by the Departmental Office of Inspector
General, to reports by nationally accredited institutions such as the
International Chiefs of Police and the National Association of
Professional Administrators. There is absolute unanimity in all the
reports in characterizing the crisis that faces the National Park
Service and it's programs necessary to assure resource protection,
public safety and the welfare of our ranger force engaged in law
enforcement Undeniably, there have been failures in seeking and
defining a cohesive and responsive strategy to meet this crisis that
has been well understood at the field operational level for at least a
decade while being less than fully understood and embraced by National
Park Service headquarters leadership over the same period of time. A
new opportunity to craft a sustainable strategy that effectively
engages this crisis stands before us. Lives depend upon it.
Irreplaceable resources, which could be lost to future generations,
rely upon it. The promise to the people must be honored through
effective and coordinated action taken by all those who share in these
fundamental responsibilities.
Organizationally, the National Park Service is already making
necessary decisions by creating a new senior leadership position (SES
level) titled Associate Director for Resource and Visitor Protection.
The incumbent in this position will also be considered the Chief Ranger
of the National Park Service and, in collaboration with the Chief, U.S.
Park Police, will provide leadership, focus and policy direction for
the important cadre of professionals in the Service who carry out the
multi-specialist Park Ranger functions of law enforcement, emergency
services, wildland and structural fire protection, and a variety of
other protection program management duties.
The National Leadership Council has endorsed this organizational
alignment and endorses the focused professionalism that will be gained
to more affirmatively and strategically respond to the resource and
visitor protection crisis before us. This first organizational decision
is:
A recognition of the significant complexity and inherent
hazards associated with the Park Ranger and law enforcement
profession that demands technical skill, exceptional good
judgment, and professionalism in carrying out the demanding
requirements of these important functions.
Support for a dedicated cadre of Park Rangers and
enforcement specialists who professionally carry out the
highest ideals of resource stewardship and public service in
furtherance of the National Park Service mission.
A ratification of the intent of the variety of professional
reports and investigations commissioned by Congress, the
Department of the Interior, and the National Park Service that
have provided direction and guidance required for program
improvement.
A statement of clear intentions to implement changes to meet
the highest standards of program excellence as a Pledge of
Excellence to our employees and a Promise to the People of this
nation.
a strategy is required . . .
The National Park Service leadership has commissioned a Law
Enforcement Task Force to focus strategic actions and articulate
implementation of recommendations made in six major reports.
Expectations of the Task Force were to identify a road map to a phased
plan or blueprint that logically and constructively achieved compelling
support for renewed vigor of our resource and visitor protection
programs and implementation of the essential program improvement
recommendations. No new studies are required. What is required is a
strategic plan to implement the studies already completed. Where
required, effective budget strategies in collaboration with the
Department of the Interior and the Congress must be developed to
achieve staffing and equipment solutions in balance with other
important operational requirements in parks.
In March 2000, in accordance with Title 8 of Public Law 105-391,
the National Park System Omnibus Management Act, the National Park
Service conducted a study of the law enforcement needs of both the
United States Park Police and National Park Service Rangers. The report
was provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
consideration in the formation of coming budgets presented by the
President. Yet, as we now prepare for the 2004 and 2005 budgets little
of the focused recommendations made to Congress in this report or in
the five others, including one by the DOI, have found their way into
formal budget planning for the President. The lack of action on the
budget front is occurring at the exact same time that our agency is
confronted with demands for protection far in excess of any time in our
nation's history. Rangers are engaged in a war against drugs along 1019
miles of international border and 2357 miles of coastline. The National
Park Service has assigned 1658 person-resources and dedicated 47,826
person days in direct support of the Department of the Interior and
National Park Service homeland security priorities during the period 9-
11-01 to 8-14-02. The number of rangers dedicated to homeland security
assignments has ranged as high as 300 out of a permanent workforce of
1360. Over 500 different National Park Service rangers have pulled
homeland security duties. While the limited ranger workforce is engaged
off-site, protection needs in the parks are simply not being addressed
and the risks to resources and to people is acute. The National Park
Service response to the September 11, 2001 attack, coupled with the
tragic reality that two park rangers and one park policeman have lost
their lives while performing their enforcement duties just since this
March 2000 Report to Congress was completed, underlines in very human
terms the crisis before us and the human toll we will pay for
hesitation and lack of action.
The Service's Law Enforcement Task Force needs to develop:
A comprehensive budget strategy to be developed in
partnership with the Department of the Interior and the Office
of Management and Budget.
A comprehensive informational and educational campaign to be
developed to connect constituencies, employees, the public and
members of Congress to the issues and solutions. A committee of
the Task Force should be commissioned to carry out these tasks.
Budget Strategy elements to consider:
1. The National Park Service Comptroller and Chief of Budget, Bruce
Sheaffer must lead and formulate the budget approach. His long history
in the organization and respected credibility on the Hill and in the
Department will be essential in order to succeed. A funding baseline
must be established to account for increases in law enforcement
appropriations since and including the Ranger Careers initiative and
effectively portray the constructive impacts they have had on the
organization as the first of many required investments this agency
requires. The NPS must also articulate the internal organizational,
training, and operational investments that have already been made in
response to the various reports.
2. The two most important reports that articulate the needs of the
agency relative to the National Park Ranger are the NPS Law Enforcement
Program Study: Park Protection Rangers pursuant to P.L. 105-391, the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 and the report, Policing
the National Parks 21st century Requirements completed by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police in October 2000. These
two reports need to be embraced as the definitive reports that
articulate the needs and resolutions. They need to be updated and
integrated in order to strategically use the information in them. They
do not need to be validated further. They need to be embraced and
effectively portrayed as providing the ``road map to the future''.
Flexibility will be required in responding to issues that were not on
the table when these reports were finished, but the agency is
incredibly fortunate to have these two baseline reports available for
use in establishing the case record of need.
3. The two most important reports that articulate the needs of the
agency relative to the Park Police are NFS Law Enforcement Program
Study: United States Park Police pursuant to P.L. 105-391, the National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, and U.S. Park Police: Focusing
Priorities, Capabilities, and Resources for the Future completed by the
National Academy of Public Administration in August 2001. Similar
updating and integration is required in these reports.
4. Strategic guidance from the U.S. DOI Office of Inspector General
made in its report, Disquieting State of Disorder: An Assessment of
Department of the Interior Law Enforcement must be evaluated.
5. Prepare a multi-year phased budget approach consistent with
recommendations in the above reports. The first phase should maximize
the greatest gains to compensate for probable shifts in political
support that can occur over long term, phased approaches. Targets for
personnel and support increases should be closely tied to
recommendations made in the two most important reports mentioned above.
The figures for personnel additions vary from 615 new rangers (28%
increase over existing) in the IACP report to 1295 new rangers in the
Omnibus Act report. A strategy might be employed that merges the two
report personnel recommendations into one package adding a total of
1000 new rangers in a 10 year period, with 700 personnel to be added in
the first five years of increases. A rough review of figures already
presented in several reports would place the approximate costs of the
program near the 80-100 million dollar mark The NPS must decide how to
strategically portray Park Police and Park Ranger increases, whether in
separate initiatives or a single initiative. A Business Plan approach
should be taken to articulate the budget. A budget step-up plan might
look like the following
Phase One
FY 2004-50 ranger recruit intake program established at
FLETC including personnel, training and support costs; funding
a Case Incident Management System for required national
reporting requirements; communication system funding meeting
Narrowbanding requirements; specific park base increases for
protection and law enforcement. Focus of this year is creating
an organizational capacity to begin to handle increased
recruits and necessary support and infrastructure costs.
FY2005--100 new ranger recruits including personnel,
training and support costs.
FY 2006--150 new ranger recruits including personnel,
training and support costs.
FY 2007--200 new ranger recruits including all costs.
FY 2008--200 new ranger recruits including all costs.
FY 2009--150 new ranger recruits including all costs. A
program assessment will be made to determine phase one capacity
relative to phase two needs.
Phase Two
Add 300 or more new enforcement personnel as assessment dictates
over a period of five more years (or less as the needs dictate). The
assessment will look at emergent national law enforcement trends and
needs coupled with trends and requirement faced by the parks at this
critical mid-point in the phased program. Successes may dictate fewer
personnel requirements and increased equipment requirements or
situational analysis may indicate increased personnel requirements than
originally predicted.
Elements to consider in a Comprehensive Informational and Educational
Strategy
1. Obviously, a campaign to meet these needs must be accomplished
in concert with the Department of the Interior and OMB. They must be
integrated into all aspects of the campaign.
2. The strategy must focus on education about the extent of the
problem and the values at risk as the fundamental component of gaining
support.
3. Champions must be found within the Administration, Congress and
constituencies.
4. We must present a balanced approach, able to articulate the
relative priorities of how we balance this effort relative to the other
operational requirements of parks.
5. We need accurate and effective marketing documents that better
represent our role in protecting the nation's heritage, of responding
to a Promise to the People. These should include brochures and
attractive presentation of all pertinent reports, updated and accurate.
Key aspects of the reports should be reproduced in attractive booklet
form that portrays the ranger's important role in protecting our
nation's heritage.
6. We need an effective external and internal messaging system to
maintain momentum and to focus on success.
7. We might explore the use of video in a variety of ways to
portray the important work that rangers do and more effectively use
them in our national educational programs and our informational
campaign.
8. Most importantly, the agency must develop sustainable momentum
and focused leadership over the entire phase in period that is not
susceptible to the ever-constant reality of ``new programs'' and ``new
initiatives''. Organizational discipline will be hard to develop, and
even harder to maintain.
Immediate Next Steps
The work of the Task Force and the budget proposal concept
must be taken to the NLC. This Task Force must carry its work
out for the NLC instead of apart from it. It is time to bring
the leadership and the Task Force together. Agenda item at NLC
meeting September 16-19.
Deputy Director Don Murphy coupled with the Regional
Directors and their Deputies should invite several key
representatives from the Regional Chief Ranger's Council to
present before them and to clearly articulate a ``sense of the
field ranger'' about the critical need to accelerate progress
and accomplish some measurable products. Agenda item at RD/DRD
meeting held in conjunction with NLC meeting September 18.
A communique should be prepared and sent to the field
articulating the most recent outcomes of the Yosemite Task
Force meeting, approval to move ahead to create an Associate
level position, and to lay out a general budget strategy. The
field is exceptionally restless with, what appears to be lack
of substantial progress by the Task Force--especially when
considered in light of the tragic murder of Ranger Kris Eggle.
Recommend release no later than September 5.
Deputy Director Don Murphy needs to make preliminary
contacts with the Department about conceptual approaches we are
considering and seeking some level of DOI engagement in early
planning. Recommend no later than September 13 to allow
discussion at NLC meeting.
Comptroller Sheaffer begin to prepare early budget
approaches, collecting information, and establishing
documentation of law enforcement budget expenditures since
Ranger Careers that will be foundational to our work. Recommend
no later than November 1.
Deputy Director Murphy, Regional Director Arnberger, and
other subcommittee members as needed, attend the IMR Chief
Ranger's Conference in Salt Lake City, the week of November 4-8
in order to present status and listen to concerns. Similar
visits should be made to other regional conferences. November
4-8.
Full budget subcommittee meets at Reno, Nevada just prior to
the annual meeting of the Association of National Park Rangers
to formulate and advance the national budget strategy. November
14-15.
Deputy Director Murphy and possibly the new AD/R&VP address
ANPR and provide forum for discussion, input etc. Week of
November 18.
Subcommittee reports on progress to the NLC at their meeting
held jointly with ANPR in Reno. November 20-21.
______
A CONTRACT WITH THE FUTURE
by robert l. arnberger, national park service
regional director, alaska region
march 2002
``The act of creating a park is really an act of faith in all of
the grand possibilities of the future. It is a contract with the
future.''
Dr. Shirley Malcom, National Park Advisory Board
proud traditions
The National Park Service has a tremendous untapped power to
contribute to a more perfect American Union, a more perfect society,
and a loftier vision of what the power of person and society can
accomplish. Parks can serve as a foundation of civic inspiration that
it is important to care for all special places, no matter where they
are, for they serve as the most basic underpinning of our way of life.
They translate into place and living idea what freedom and equality
represent in our society.
The American people have chosen their best places for their parks
because they have felt their best in them. These places are landscapes
and historic shrines in which we feel wonder, reverence, respect--and
maybe responsibility. Americans take pride in those things that
demonstrate America at its best. We lake patriotic pride that we live
in a land where such places exist and that we are a people capable of
reserving this natural and cultural patrimony for future generations
and ours. As our society evolves, their parks mirror the interests of
the people. Americans are proud of distinctly American ideas and
values, and in response, protecting living ideas is gaining prominence.
The National Park Service is not just an organization that protects
place, but also ideas.
Parks can not be saved by only protecting parks. The greatest
dreamers of the greatest National Park System have never envisioned a
system that might include every place they thought should be preserved.
Thus, even an imagined core mission of saving parks can only be
achieved through, and with others who share in the greater mission of
carrying out the patriotic mission of stewardship of our nations best
places and ideas wherever they may be and whoever may own them.
Herein is the ultimate and undeniable obligation to provide--and
accept--leadership. The National Park Service must be a principled
leader, with others, in everything it does. We must vision an
organization that carries out national service on behalf of the people
by providing inspiration and leadership, with and through partners,
that can extend to all corners of every community and to all levels of
our society. This requires the National Park Service to be the very
best it can be at everything it does. We must set goals of quality
performance and strive to improve upon them with every success or
failure. We must involve our citizens to whom the benefits pass. We
must respect others, the variety of their opinions and roles, as one of
the distinctly American ideas that we protect.
Leadership is the capacity to create the circumstances where the
larger collective community can shape the future of the parks and their
programs. Effective leadership with others who share common endeavors
and interests can only be achieved by finding common cause on common
ground with common idea. Success will only be realized through
management and resolution of differences, by helping others to succeed
in their parts of the greater mission, and seizing opportunity to
succeed when it is presented.
The core mission of the National Park Service has always included
and been defined through protection of resources and providing visitor
experience. These two values are passed to generations yet to be born--
a contract with the future. Implicit in the mission, lodged in the fine
print of this contract, understood by those who sign and implement the
contract, and expected by those who benefit is that education is a
required role of the agency in order to preserve resources and provide
visitor enjoyment. Education as a component of the National Park
Service mission is not new. Weary employees tired of new initiatives
that seemingly arrive in mystery and disappear with boredom should not
suspiciously view it as a new ``initiative''. As well, those ``watch-
dogs'' concerned with appropriate roles and functions of federal
agencies should not view focusing and refuting National Park Service
education efforts as ``mission-creep''. Instead, education is an
expression of who we are, what we stand for and always have, and what
the potentials of the future can be. It is a validation of future
purpose. It is more than a ``tool'' that is used to achieve our mission
which limits potentials to short term strategies and transient gains
and makes the effort susceptible to claims and allegations that our
education programs are nothing more than ``agency propaganda'', self
serving and highly suspect.
pathways to learning
The National Park Service must better connect stewardship education
with resources research and science. Education can serve as the bridge
between knowledge and responsibility. Education can serve as the
connection between the public who own the resources and those invested
with the responsibility to manage them on behalf of the national
interest. The National Park System has been called ``America's greatest
university without walls'', yet what the parks offer to strengthen our
common ties and to contribute to the overall sustainability of our
planet are not well known. The overall benefits of almost 400 System
sites in this ``university'' system, represented by a superbly talented
work force, can wonderfully enrich the educational offerings provided
to the citizens of this nation. This potential must be engaged more
effectively, be more deeply embraced by those who labor in the Service,
better understood and appreciated by the citizens for whom the parks
are set aside.
The existing education program in the National Park Service, while
not in perfect health, is vibrantly alive at different parks across the
System. It is a program tracing its traditions to the very formation of
the Service through a long history of excellence in interpersonal
interpretation provided by ranger-naturalists and ``park
interpreters''. Exciting youth environmental education camps, teacher
education laboratories, natural history institutes, and classroom
visits by uniformed educators continue to demonstrate the excellence of
the program. National Park Service education efforts have been emulated
across the world in an international park system modeled after the
American Park system. Programs have served to inspire millions of
people about the importance of parks to the global community.
Justifiably proud in what we do, the Service must also rise to
higher levels to do what we do, better. Dr. Shirley Malcom,
professional educator and member of the National Park System Advisory
Board answers the question of ``what then is better?'' ``Better is more
focused, more coherent and cohesive, and more connected. Better is
creating bridges with the systems around us in both formal and informal
education''. Creating these bridges presents incredible challenges
because the National Park Service is not organized nor staffed
effectively to connect with the national educational institution. Dr.
Malcom observes that ``we do well at educating in parks, but are not
organized to effectively bridge with other educational systems or to
understand what those systems require.
Parks can also be inspirational and inspiration can be part of
learning at parks, but on its own, inspiration is only a pathway to
something else. The synthesis of whatever action inspiration causes
will be through and because of education. Reflecting on the importance
of parks in providing inspiration and the connection to education Dr.
Malcom states, ``these places are great and I am usually inspired--but
what is next? Inspiration is an aspect of motivation--but it is not
education. Provocation is an aspect of motivation--but it is not
education. Education is the ``what next?''. Our parks must provide
inspiration and offer motivation, but we also can not lose the
opportunity to connect to the ``what next?''--and that is education.
Education connects the sense of place and idea, with inspirational,
learning, and enjoyment values, to actions and outcomes accepted and
acted upon.
Perhaps, our real challenge lies in not trying to teach, but more
importantly, to create opportunities to learn. We must focus on
connections--connecting parks and people through education, connecting
parks to other parks and special places, and connecting with larger
educational themes across the country provides the glue of common
purpose. Doing better requires the National Park Service to go beyond
where we are. Doing better requires us to go further than inspiration
alone. Doing better requires us to better utilize the individual pieces
of our present effort creating an ``educational mosaic'' of conceived
design envisioned to accomplish conceived outcome. Doing better will
require improved levels of innovation and educational scholarship.
Strategic leadership embracing and enhancing the full connection
between the science of protecting parks and the science of educating
about parks will be required. Innovation presently fermenting
throughout the System must bubble upwards to senior leadership that can
begin to strategically remake and focus the entire agency's educational
efforts. Programs and people that are stagnant must be challenged to
new heights. Educational managers across the System must take hold of
their own career disciplines and seek higher scholarship in fields of
education and science. A new era of thought and experiment must
compliment Freeman Tilden's, age-tested ``Interpreting our Heritage'',
written in 1957. New thought and action must build upon Bill Browns
respected ``Islands of Hope''. It is sad to reflect that these
remarkable volumes that have guided generations of National Park
Service educators were written before computers, distance education,
cell phones, VCR's and CD's! Indeed, one of the most exciting
innovations to appear on the scene, Learning Centers associated with
the Natural Resource Challenge, was a concept originated by innovative
resource managers and senior superintendents--not the Service's
interpreters. Scholarship into what should constitute Service education
and how it might differ from the art of Service interpretation is
needed to better connect site-based visitor interpretive efforts with
site-based educational programs with standards-based curriculum
education. The professions of ``ranger interpreter'' and ``education
specialist'' must be more cohesively linked to a more full
understanding of what we want National Park Service education to be and
the most effective niche it can fill. Through more effective
scholarship we can link innovation to strategy. We need to do better
``asset mapping'', linking what we do well with what others do well.
Then, by linking multi-sector educational assets we can create bridges
of opportunity. Strategic focus will be the principal product of
scholarship and asset linkages.
setting the national course
Collectively, with partners and participants, we must continue ``to
bubble excellence to the top'' and set a strategic course to take our
efforts to higher levels of success. A framework for those
considerations might include the following:
Reconfigure the education organization within the National
Park Service so the Service can begin to create an
``operational landscape'' of renewed vigor, scholarship and
strategic leadership required to do ``better'' as challenged by
Dr. Malcom. Until the organization positions itself for
leadership and success it will not be able to embrace a renewed
focus on excellence and innovation. I believe a position of
Associate Director of Education, Strategic Communications, and
Partnerships must be established. This senior level leader
should manage Harpers Ferry Center as a ``center of educational
excellence'' replete with the agency's leading technical
experts in media, exhibitory, publications, and communication.
Present dispersed offices overseeing interpretation, messaging,
tourism, public affairs, and partnership work with a wide
variety of foundations, cooperating associations, and friends
organizations would be placed in this Directorate and will
enhance the importance of education and its strategic linkages.
I believe this realignment can be accomplished without major
organizational dysfunction or displacement at very little cost.
Of course, there are other viewpoints and potential
organizational models of merit that deserve consideration.
Create a tighter agency educational mission and strategic
plan that more effectively creates the climate of educational
service and leadership. Clarify roles and functions to
differentiate service to the nation through education from more
narrow, value-laden environmental activism that can be highly
problematic to a public agency.
Undertake a comprehensive System-wide identification of
significant natural, cultural and recreational heritage themes
represented in the System of parks that can begin the
connection to the nation's broader educational institutions.
These themes begin to link to the variety of educational assets
available to connect our efforts. National themes can be
represented by regional and demographic based themes that
continue to link each piece of the ``mosaic'' into a
``conceived design and outcome''.
Undertake asset mapping to determine potentials for
partnerships and methodologies to accomplish goals in order to
improve visitor interpretation, place-based education,
standard-based curriculum development, and distance education.
Seek ``deep partnerships'' that are long-term collaborative
relationships, more beneficial than short-term associations
without true program longevity.
Determine specific education program niches most effective
and appropriate for the National Park Service educational
program at national, regional, and local levels. Determine
standards of excellence, professionalism, and scholarship.
Develop the partnerships, both informally and formally, to
carry out the program. Define what program success is and how
it might be measured.
Change the face of the workforce and build the spirit of
excellence to carry out an invigorated, empowered, and
constantly evolving educational program. Hire more professional
educators into the education workforce. Focus on program depth
and long term sustainability rather than on program breadth and
numbers of different programs.
inspiring places inspiring people . . . setting the course in alaska
The Pacific West and Alaska Regions of the National Park Service
have sought to model the leadership that must be required to move an
improved program forward. A strategic plan titled, Inspiring Places
Inspiring People--2000-2004, ``provides the framework for people inside
and outside the agency to collaborate on educational efforts that
connect people, parks, and natural and cultural resources. It is a
comprehensive strategy, embracing all activities used by the National
Park Service and its partners, to inform and educate the public about
park resources and issues. It is interdisciplinary in approach,
recognizing that all employees contribute to the education mission. It
declares the Service's commitment to build and maintain lasting
relationships with the education community as well as the broadest of
constituencies, the American people and visitors to the parks from
around the world.'' Further, this bold and energetic plan clarifies
that the term education ``includes formal education (i.e., curriculum-
based programs), as well as traditional interpretive services such as
ranger-led talks, publications and other informational media. It also
refers to media relations, community outreach, volunteer programs,
international cooperation, and youth programs. National Parks serve as
the material and the means to teach, inform, inspire and motivate the
people that we and our partners serve.''
We must invigorate our efforts to better achieve the vision of this
extraordinary plan. We must activate energies throughout the region to
put into action the goals and objectives articulated in the plan. I
propose we consider a 5-point approach that may focus our efforts:
1. Execute Leadership
Strategic implementation of Inspiring Places Inspiring People must
be better coordinated and collectively embraced by all regional staff.
The energy of this strategy is ``drawn from its reliance on a park-
based approach to realizing its purpose''. To this end, park
superintendents and senior program managers across all levels of the
organization are expected to implement these objectives by
incorporating measurable goals and actions, appropriate to each park or
program, into their organization strategic plans. Everyone is part of
our educational effort and all programs must consider an educational
component in their efforts and deliberations.
In FY 03 we will commit to an additional position within the
regional office funded through existing regional
appropriations. This position will establish the ``landscape of
success'' for this program by working with parks, programs and
partners in a collaborative leadership role.
2. Integration of Education Effort
The variety of efforts presently underway needs to be coordinated
and integrated into a single, comprehensive program. Natural Resource
programs, including research being performed across the region needs to
be published for the employee, the public and for other scientists
brought under the educational banner. The impressive Cultural Resource
publications program needs to join under the same banner. The wealth of
knowledge in such areas as design and sustainability, visitor and
resource protection, and community-assistance programs by the Rivers,
Trails, Conservation Assistance program similarly need to be better
integrated. Key to this, will be an inventory of existing efforts and
asset mapping to determine publics and partners.
In FY 02 the region completed a comprehensive assessment of
curriculum based educational efforts being carried out in the
parks.
In FY 02 the region will undertake another assessment to
determine the full range of programs being carried out at parks
and all levels of the program. With this information more
effective integration is possible.
In FY 03 the region will undertake focused work with
employees and partners to develop educational themes that fit
within the national framework and resonate with Alaska people
and places.
In FY 02 the region committed to the development of a
science publication printed twice annually that will focus on
``NFS Research in Alaska''.
3. Create Deep Partnerships
We must better develop long-term collaborative relationships with
assets that share common vision and common goals. We must expand and
deepen the obvious relationship with the Alaska Natural History
Association and the National Park Foundation. We need relationships
with other Alaska environmental organizations, Alaska business
organizations, and State and local governments. We need to establish
partnering relationships with primary and secondary schools that show
interest in seeking opportunities for collaboration. We need more
effective connection with statewide Alaska Native organizations that
also seek educative goals for their people that are so deeply linked
with the resources we jointly care for. We need to create continued
opportunities that maximize challenge cost share funds and be more
opportunistic in recognizing great ideas and finding a way to make them
happen. We must create partner excitement and synergy.
In FY 02 Challenge Cost Share Funds will be exclusively
dedicated to innovative efforts that advance natural and
cultural resource management proposals that have specific
educational focus and to educational efforts that push the
regional strategy forward. We will seek new and innovative
partnerships.
In FY 02 the region will commit to filling a vacancy in the
Information and Technology Branch with a person skilled and
exclusively dedicated to better developing our web-based
education and information systems for the entire region.
In FY 03 the region will commit to either a position or
contract that will provide the technical skills required to
work with school districts on curriculum development.
In FY 02 we will expand Park Wise, the highly successful
web-based curriculum developed with the Anchorage School
District and GCI, by adding additional components to the
curriculum.
In FY 02 & 03 we will support the critical Learning Center
initiatives at Kenai Fjords and Denali as tremendously
important opportunities to be centers of research activities
that address research needs of parks and make information about
park resources available to the public. These centers will be
multi-park, theme-oriented, multi-disciplinary, governmental -
non-governmental partnerships. They will utilize existing
facilities to enable parks and their partners to facilitate the
use of parks as libraries of knowledge and as places that
support visiting researchers. The Centers will coordinate
interpretation and education programs, transfer information
about park resources to park-based interpreters and the public
at large, provided outreach to schools, and encourage
development of web sites that enable long distance learning.
4. Organizational Alignments
The organization must better align itself to meet the vision and
goals of the program. The organization must better model the 5 points
of our effort. We must find better ways to link efforts, to incorporate
the Messaging Project, to guide and oversee efforts--and most
importantly to hold ourselves accountable.
In FY 02 the Directorate level of the Regional Office
reorganized its Natural and Cultural Resource Management and
Education Program efforts into a single Associate Regional
Director office reporting directly to the Regional Director.
The incumbent in this position directly supervises Support
Office natural and cultural resource staff, interpretation, and
educational program staff increasing the opportunity for
program integration. To our knowledge the Alaska Region is the
only region that has established leadership and oversight
linkage of resources management, research and education into
the same office.
In FY 03 program leadership of Inspiring Places Inspiring
People will be staffed by a new program leader, assisted by
curriculum specialist, and will report directly to the
Associate Regional Director as a ``stand-alone'' organizational
component, with obvious collaborative linkages to the other
components within this Directorate.
In FY 03 the Alaska Public Lands Information Centers (APLIC)
located in Anchorage and Fairbanks will come under the
management of a single Center Superintendent that will report
directly to the Associate Director, utilizing saved positions
as APLIC education specialists. The APLIC primary grades
education program managed by these highly skilled education
specialists will be further focused, refined and enhanced to be
more effective in the communities of Anchorage and Fairbanks.
In FY 03 an Inspiring Places Inspiring People Advisory
Council reporting to the Associate Regional Director composed
of senior leaders from the parks, regional office, key partners
and Native Organizations will provide the insights and energy
required to move this strategy forward with all the players.
In FY 03 a glossy brochure available to partners and to be
used as a marketing tool for our work with non-profits and
friend-raising efforts will be published that brings all the
elements of the program into single focus.
5. Priorities
Commitment must be backed by human and fiscal resource allocation
throughout the entire region. Superintendents must look at existing
educational and interpretive programs with critical eye to assure they
meet the strategic vision articulated in Inspiring Places Inspiring
People and to assure the efforts in place are effective and efficient
Much of what we do needs to be better linked to the strategic vision
and more cohesively managed and coordinated. This effort may not
require funding, instead using existing staff more effectively. Our
efforts will be managed as long-term investments that require staged
and thoughtful work. Some priorities, out of many more to be developed,
lie within the other 4 points of this plan.
Our priorities will be placed in the hands of our leaders, our
employees and our partners. Only through concerted and committed action
can each one of us make a difference. In the end, it will be our
Inspiring Places that will Inspire People to make a difference.