[Senate Hearing 109-422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-422
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
__________
MARCH 14, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-080 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
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 KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, 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 KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
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
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Mainella, Fran, Director, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior................................................... 3
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey.............. 2
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 3
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 19
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 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. The time has arrived. We will go ahead and
start. Some are not here yet. Starting on time in the Senate is
usually lonely. But we are going to have some votes at 3
o'clock, so I think it is important that we get started and we
will see who is able to come.
I want to welcome our panel. Certainly, the Honorable Fran
Mainella, Director of the Park Service, I am glad to have you
here. And Mr. Sheaffer, Comptroller, and Steve Martin, Deputy
Director, thank you so much for being here.
Our purpose for the hearing is to receive testimony on the
President's proposed budget for the National Park Service for
fiscal year 2007. In addition of two new units in February of
this year, the National Park Service is responsible for 390
units in 49 States and U.S. territories. Over 23,000 employees
support a mission that brings over 270 million visitors to our
parks each year.
Beginning in 2001, the budget for the National Park Service
gradually increased from $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion in 2004.
Then it began to decline in 2005. The President's request for
2007 is $2.16 billion. This is a 5-percent or a $100 million
reduction from the 2006 appropriation.
The majority of cuts, I understand, are in construction and
I am concerned about the impact this may have on the operation
and the maintenance of our parks and ultimately the visitor
experience. Heritage areas, studies of new park units, major
maintenance, and escalating fixed costs contribute, of course,
to the funding challenges of the parks and the services that
they must deal with.
I realize, however, that for all of us there needs to be
some belt tightening to address the Federal deficit. We need to
make sure, however, that any cuts are carefully reviewed and
that we can avoid impacting the visitor experience or damaging
the resource through neglect. And that is why we are here
today.
So I want to thank you very much for being here. And, as I
said, I think really the thrust of why we are here is to get
your views of what the budget means, where the changes that may
have to be made will be made, and how in your view that will
impact services and the resources of the parks. So thank you
very much and please go right ahead with your testimony.
[The prepared statements of Senators Menendez and Salazar
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Menendez, U.S. Senator
From New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing us the chance to discuss the
budget for this very important agency of the Department of Interior,
and thank you, Director Mainella, for coming to share your expertise
with this committee.
I'm very concerned about the contradictions inherent in this budget
proposal. There was an almost $85 million cut for the operations and
maintenance of the parks in the budget, along with a $93 million
decrease in construction funding. Yet the administration insists that
it is living up to the President's campaign promise to help our
national parks by ending their decade-long maintenance backlog. To me,
this makes no sense. To make matters worse, the National Parks Service
(NPS) is pushing a revision of the 2001 Management Policies that is at
best unnecessary and at worst a sharp deviation from the principles
that caused President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim that ``there is
nothing so American as our national parks.''
The proposed change to the Management Policies threatens to shift
the entire focus of the NPS from an agency designed to protect our
parks to one designed to get the maximum use out of them. While I
wholeheartedly believe that Americans should be able to enjoy their
national parks through a wide variety of recreational activities, if we
don't put the priority on conservation and protection, there will be
nothing left for us to enjoy. This shift echoes other Interior policies
of late, such as the decrease in the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund program and zeroing out of stateside grant program,
the expansion of oil rigs along our continental shelf, and the
attempted opening of public lands out west for oil and gas drilling.
Time and time again, the administration's approach to our public lands
is to try to exploit them for maximum gain, and I fear that this
revision to the Management Policies is leading us down that road with
our national parks.
Furthermore, in spite of this administration's insistence that
their new policies are for the benefit of park managers across the
country, this revision was written and published without their
knowledge or input. The process itself rejected the very managers and
park professionals the document claims as its beneficiaries. Such a
top-down, politically motivated process is further proof of the
superfluity of these rewrites. This rewrite opens the door for
increased commercialization of the park system, more flight paths
across park boundaries, a relaxing of the limits on industrialization
in surrounding communities, and a corresponding increase in noise and
air pollution over the blue skies of our national parks.
I'm also concerned about the delays that have been holding up
proposed restoration and rehabilitation projects on Ellis Island,
unquestionably one of our nation's most important historic sites. For
several years, a dedicated group of private citizens have been working
to preserve and protect the portion of Ellis Island that belongs to New
Jersey, which although not as well known as the main building, contains
structures that are just as historic, and were just as vital for the
millions of immigrants who passed through the island seeking a better
life in this country. However, their efforts have been delayed by the
National Park Service, and I have submitted a question for the record
to try to find out why this process is taking so long. I hope we can
move forward on Ellis Island quickly to ensure that we don't lose any
of its historic structures forever.
In closing, our parks have been a source of national pride for over
100 years, and the implications of this budget proposal, when combined
with the proposed changes in the National Parks Service's Management
Policies, leave me wondering what types of spaces future generations
will be left to enjoy in another 100 years. Will my grandchildren be
spending summer days at Sandy Hook, camping in Stokes State Forest,
hiking in the Delaware Water Gap, and picnicking in local parks across
the state? Or will these spaces be destroyed by rampant development and
a federal policy that didn't adequately value conservation? I look
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the continued existence
and vibrancy of our parks and open spaces, and I once again thank
Director Mainella for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka. I want to welcome
Director Mainella.
The National Park Service manages some of Colorado's most treasured
lands and sites, including its four National Parks: Rocky Mountain,
Great Sand Dunes, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, and Mesa Verde. I
deeply appreciate the work that the Park rangers, the Park Police, the
superintendents, and all the National Park Service employees do, day in
and day out, to protect these crown jewels. You should be proud that
visitor satisfaction at the Parks is over 95%.
There are several aspects of the President's FY2007 budget for the
Park Service that are positive. As a former Attorney General for
Colorado, I appreciate the additional attention to law enforcement and
park safety. Our National Parks should never be sanctuaries for
criminals or drugs; we need the right investments in training and
personnel to uphold the law and guarantee visitor safety across our
expansive parks.
On the whole, however, this year's budget for the National Park
Service falls short in helping us meet the challenges that face our
park system.
Growing demands on Park resources are placing unprecedented
stresses on the resources and infrastructure at our Parks. Years of
neglect and underfunding have left the park system with a massive
maintenance backlog that this budget does not even begin to address. In
fact, this budget cuts construction and maintenance funding by 27%. The
maintenance backlog that this Administration promised to eliminate will
continue to grow under this budget.
I am also concerned about tax dollars being wasted in the
Department of the Interior's attempt to rewrite the Park Service's
management policies. These policies were revised just five years ago,
after a lengthy and substantive public comment process. I have yet to
hear a good explanation for why these policies must be revisited now,
given all the other pressures on the agency's budget.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this budget is the elimination
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside grants program. By
the Park Service's own standards, this is one of our most efficient,
cost-effective partnerships between the federal government and state
and local entities. Since its creation in 1964, it has provided
Americans with over 40,000 parks, trails, and open spaces in 94% of our
counties.
The LWCF stateside grants program is of particular interest to
Colorado's rural counties, many of which could not otherwise afford to
build a playground at the elementary school, a walking path near the
senior center, or a basketball court for its young people. Congress
should restore its commitment to helping Americans be active and stay
healthy by making permanent the funding for the LWCF stateside grants
program.
I look forward to discussing these issues today with Director
Mainella and I thank her for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF FRAN P. MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE SHEAFFER,
COMPTROLLER; AND STEVE MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for
holding this hearing on our fiscal year 2007 budget request for
the National Park Service. I also want to thank you for your
continued support of the work we do in our national parks. You
have been a great champion. I also would like to ask that my
prepared testimony be included for the record.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir. The National Park Service has
attained a 96 percent satisfaction level by our park visitors.
In 2004 visitation increased by nearly 4 percent, bringing it
to nearly 280 million visitors.
In addition, our volunteerism is also up by nearly 14
percent. We have basically 137,000 people volunteering in our
parks contributing a record five million hours. Our national
parks also provide an annual economic benefit of nearly $12
billion, and have created nearly 250,000 jobs. And as you have
indicated we do have 390 units in the system at this time.
This year's budget request of over $2.15 billion for the
National Park Service will assist the administration in meeting
its goal of cutting the Federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
While total proposed funding is $100.5 million below the
enacted level for fiscal year 2006, park operating funding
would increase by over $23 million. There are a number of key
programs that would also be increased and we are grateful for
that.
While there will always be challenges, as with any agency
or organization, the innovative management approaches and the
business practices we are implementing and the dedication and
creativity of the 20,000 NPS employees will help us make more
effective use of the funding we receive.
The areas of focus include, first of all, visitor services
and safety. Of approximately $1.7 billion proposed for the park
operations, nearly $1.2 billion is requested for park base
funding, a $20.6 million increase over fiscal year 2006.
The fiscal year 2007 request also proposes key investments
in visitor health and safety and law enforcement programs,
including $500,000 to enhance the investigative capabilities of
three of our park regions; $2.8 million for high priority
police operations, particularly the U.S. Park Police; and
$441,000 for NPS public health programs, including the avian
flu issues. Also $750,000 to fund the FLETC training program so
that parks will not have to pay for law enforcement training
out of their everyday operational budgets.
The second area we focus on, of course, is natural
resources and its stewardship. The 2007 budget has $1 million
additional for completing the inventory by the 32 networks
throughout the National Park System that are identifying the
vital signs of 272 natural resource parks. Also, for one of our
favorite topics, exotic plants, there is $750,000 in additional
money for enhancing our exotic plant management efforts.
The third area is cultural resource stewardship. The fiscal
year 2007 budget, if passed, would provide $1 million for our
work on cultural landscapes and historic structures. And it
includes almost $72 million for Historic Preservation Fund
matching grants and Save America's Treasures, Preserve America,
and Heritage Partnership programs, which you have been helping
with through the heritage areas program legislation.
The fourth area is enhancing the NPS asset management
program. This request includes over $393 million for facility
maintenance, including a $10 million increase for preventive/
cyclic maintenance and $229 million for construction. Included,
also, is the $210 million for park roads provided through the
Department of Transportation and their budget, and $100 million
for maintenance from visitor fees. With this request, the
administration will have committed $5.6 billion total to the
maintenance backlog during the years 2002 to 2007.
The fifth area of focus is continuing management reforms.
One of the ways we are continuing to promote management
excellence this year is through the revision of our 2001
Management Policies. As you know this topic has been a subject
of a hearing by this committee.
In addition, we are implementing a core operations analysis
which will assist park management in making effective decisions
on staffing and funding alternatives that tie to core mission
goals and ensure funds are spent efficiently. Also, our park
scorecard will be included in the regional and servicewide
budget formulation process this year.
Two areas which the committee has made suggestions about
before are included in the budget. One is for our partnership
construction process oversight. The budget includes $310,000
for that. Also, in concessions, which I know is an issue that
has come before this committee, $911,000 is for improving our
concession oversight.
I know my time has come to an end, Mr. Chairman. I am proud
to have great employees and a great leadership team that will
assist me in implementing these important strategies as we
approach the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in
2016. We would be very proud to answer any questions that you
might have. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today at this oversight hearing on the
FY 2007 budget proposal for the National Park Service (NPS). We thank
you for your continuing support of the work we do on behalf of the
American people to conserve our Nation's natural and cultural resources
and to make them accessible to the public.
The FY 2007 budget request of $2.156 billion for NPS supports goals
to protect park resources, continue improvements in asset management,
and achieve efficiencies in the management of park programs within the
context of the Administration's goal of cutting the Federal budget
deficit in half by 2009. Total funding is $100.5 million below the
enacted FY 2006 level. However, park operations funding would increase
by $23.4 million to $1.742 million. Specific increases for particular
programs would strengthen the NPS in a number of key areas, and the
innovative management approaches and business practices we are
implementing will help us make more effective use of the funding NPS
receives.
The FY 2007 budget request also contributes to the NPS Legacy
Goals, which are: management excellence, sustainability, conservation,
outdoor recreation, and 21st Century relevancy. Each goal includes a
number of specific objectives, many of which dovetail with the
priorities of this budget request. For example, the objectives of our
management excellence goal include, among other things, effective law
enforcement, improving training programs, continuing partnerships to
meet science and research needs, and addressing the concessions
backlog. Those are all activities that would be enhanced under this
request.
visitor services and safety
Of the approximately $1.7 billion proposed for park operations,
nearly $1.093 billion is requested for ``park base'' funding, a $20.6
million increase over FY 2006 that will help parks cover most of the
cost of increased Federal pay due in FY 2007. The majority of park base
funding is provided directly to park managers to pay for operating the
parks, including providing for interpretive ranger programs, staffing
at visitor centers, daily maintenance activities, and other programs
and activities that enhance visitor services and protect resources.
This request sustains and builds on the significant park base
increases of the two previous fiscal years--$25 million in FY 2006 and
$63 million in FY 2005--that NPS received due to Congress's strong
support for the National Park System. Enactment of the FY 2007 request
will result in park base funding rising by $177 million, or 19 percent,
since FY 2001. The FY 2007 request proposes key investments in visitor
health and safety and law enforcement programs, including:
$500,000 for placing special agents in parks. These park-
based special agents would provide investigative support for
ranger staffs in parks that extend over large geographic areas,
have numerous access points, and are in areas of Federal
jurisdiction where State and local agencies many not have the
authority, funding, or personnel to perform these services.
$750,000 for base funding for the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC). Centrally funding FLETC, instead of
paying for law enforcement training from individual park
budgets, will allow parks to dedicate critical law enforcement
funds to on-the-ground visitor and resource protection while
still ensuring that essential training is made available to law
enforcement personnel.
$2.8 million for high priority police operations, including
icon park security and recruitment and training for the U.S.
Park Police (USPP). This is expected to increase the force to
620 sworn officers by the end of FY 2007, up from 603 at the
start of FY 2006. A comprehensive review of USPP Force
requirements was conducted in accordance with recommendations
contained in the recent National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) report. This funding would ultimately
achieve a force strength recommended as a result of the review
that followed the NAPA report.
$441,000 for the NPS Public Health Program, allowing NPS to
adequately respond to potential outbreaks and disease
transmission issues, and to conduct routine evaluations for
safety of food, drinking water, wastewater, and vector-borne
disease risks in parks. The request also sustains $525,000
received in FY 2006 supplemental funding to address avian
influenza.
natural resources stewardship
The FY 2007 request includes some specific increases to help
address some of our most pressing natural resource protection needs,
including:
$2.4 million for funding NPS' commitments under the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, which directs the NPS
and the Federal Aviation Administration to collaborate on
developing commercial air tour management plans for all parks
where this activity occurs. These plans will help managers
prevent or minimize adverse impacts on natural soundscapes and
visitor experiences.
$1 million for completing a system of 32 networks throughout
the National Park System that are identifying the ``vital
signs'' of 272 natural resource parks. These inventory and
monitoring networks share fieldwork, staff, equipment, and
business practices leading to successful new partnerships with
universities and researchers through Cooperative Ecosystem
Studies Units and Research Learning Centers.
$750,000 for enhancing existing exotic plant management
teams to address severe damage caused by invasive species to
natural resources and the economy. These teams will operate in
three priority geo-regional areas--South Florida, the Northern
Great Plains, and the Rio Grande River Basin.
cultural resources stewardship
As part of the Administration's Preserve America initiative, the FY
2007 budget request proposes to focus resources for Preserve America
grants, Save America's Treasures grants, and the Heritage Partnership
program into a unified $32.2 million American Heritage and Preservation
Partnership. This initiative would allow for better coordination and
greater efficiencies in meeting the Administration's goals for
enhancing and expanding opportunities for cultural resource
preservation. The combining of these programs would allow local
communities to determine which strategies best suit their heritage
needs and to apply to the most appropriate programs to conserve
heritage resources and promote heritage tourism. Other cultural
resource investments in the FY 2007 request include:
$1 million to initiate an effort to provide complete,
accurate, and reliable information about cultural landscapes
and historic and prehistoric structures, enabling NPS to make
significant progress toward updating the Cultural Landscapes
Inventory and the List of Classified Structures (Historic and
Prehistoric) in FY 2007.
$39.7 million for Historic Preservation Fund matching grants
to States, Territories, and Tribes to preserve historically and
culturally significant sites.
enhancing the nps asset management program
The FY 2007 request continues the Administration's substantial
investment in reducing the NPS deferred maintenance backlog. The
request includes $393.5 million for facility maintenance, including a
$10 million increase for cyclic maintenance, and $229.3 million for
construction. Including the $210 million for park roads provided
through the Department of Transportation and $100 million for
maintenance from visitor fees, the Administration's deferred
maintenance investment from FY 2002-FY 2007 would total $5.6 billion.
Despite a reduction in line-item construction of $93 million, the $933
million effort in FY 2007 toward reducing the deferred maintenance
backlog is exactly equal to the five-year average effort from FY 2002-
FY 2006. These investments have enabled NPS to make significant
improvements in the condition of critical facilities and other assets
that serve visitors and protect park resources.
In addition, NPS is transforming the agency's approach to managing
and addressing its deferred maintenance backlog. During the past four
years, NPS has been implementing the initial phase of an innovative
asset management program focused on developing, for the first time, a
comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the agency's asset
base, which includes everything from nearly 18,000 buildings to
approximately 15,000 miles of paved and unpaved roads. Condition
assessments on eight industry-standard assets, such as buildings, water
systems, roads, and trails, will be completed at all parks by the end
of 2006. Parks also have completed, for the first time, a
prioritization of their asset inventory. This shift in emphasis for the
agency is based on management reforms and performance measures, and
features a state-of-the-art software system. These new tools will allow
NPS to have a better understanding of the true cost of owning and
operating structures. NPS also will be able to refine budget estimates
and identify maintenance needs based on the actual condition of
facilities, and identify the resources needed to bring the highest
priority assets to an acceptable condition. Because of NPS's new
approach to managing deferred maintenance, managers have a better
understanding of both the quantity and condition of park assets, and
greater accuracy when discussing park needs and accomplishments.
continuing management reform
The NPS is being innovative and working toward reform in the way it
manages natural and cultural resources, as well as in the way it
manages money and information.
One of the ways we are continuing to promote management excellence
this year is through the revision of the 2001 management policies. In
response to the request of the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
the NPS has begun the process of updating the policies--which is our
guidebook for park managers to implement the NPS Organic Act--to ensure
that we conserve the resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations, while providing for their current enjoyment. After an
extensive public comment period which ended on February 25, the next
step is for the comments to be compiled, considered, and reviewed by
our career leadership team. The edited document will then be submitted
to NPS employees and the National Park Service Advisory Board before
any final product is approved by NPS and the Department. The proposed
revisions would provide greater flexibility and tools for
superintendents to make better and more informed decisions. They would
maintain our strong commitment to the fundamental mission of the NPS to
protect and allow for appropriate enjoyment of parks. One of the
primary guiding principles is that, when there is conflict between the
protection of resources and their use, conservation will be
predominant.
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. PART reviews were
conducted on four NPS program areas for the FY 2007 Budget Request:
Visitor Services, External Programs--Technical Assistance, External
Programs--Financial Assistance, and Concessions Management. The NPS has
completed ten PART reviews since FY 2002 and is planning one PART
review for the FY 2008 budget cycle.
The NPS continually works to further the integration of budget and
performance. Over the past year, efforts have focused on a new core
operations analysis process and the development of a NPS Park
Scorecard. Our Core Operations Analysis is designed to assist park
management in making fully informed decisions on staffing and funding
alternatives that are based on realistic funding projections and tie to
core mission goals. This process will ensure that funds are spent in
support of a park's purpose, that funds are spent in an efficient
manner, that a park's request for funding is based on accurate data,
and that there are adequate funds and staff to preserve and protect the
resources for which parks are responsible. The NPS goal is to integrate
management tools, such as the Budget Cost Projection Model, Business
Plans, Core Operations Analysis, and the Park Scorecard, to provide a
more qualitative basis for decision-making.
The Park Scorecard is designed to be an indicator of park
financial, operational, and managerial performance. It is used, in
conjunction with other factors, to identify and evaluate base budget
increases and potential park performance if budget increases are
received. The scorecard is used together with the Operations
Formulation System (OFS) to offer context for proposed base budget
increases and will eventually be integrated within the OFS system. In
2006, the newest version of the Park Scorecard will be tested, piloted,
and integrated into the Regional and Servicewide budget formulation
processes leading to a national priority list for park base funding
requests for use in future budgets.
Two proposed increases in the FY 2007 request that would contribute
significantly to improved management are:
$310,000 for managing and supporting the newly established
Partnership Construction Process (Building Better Partnerships
Program). The Service would secure outside expertise to assess
the capacity of partners to raise funds and evaluate business
models for economic development. The increase would also be
used to manage the Monitoring and Tracking Database System to
monitor fundraising efforts and partner construction projects,
generate reports, and maintain the partnership webpage.
$911,000 for improving concessions contracting oversight so
NPS can achieve its program goals of reducing the contracting
backlog and effectively managing the concessions program.
other programs
As part of the President's effort to cut the budget deficit in half
by 2009, the Administration had to make difficult choices in its FY
2007 budget request that resulted in reduced funding for some lower-
priority programs. Funding for LWCF State grants is not being
requested, with the exception of $1.6 million to administer prior year
grants. However, the request continues a limited amount of funding for
Federal land acquisition, of which nearly $22.7 million would be for
the NPS portion of the Federal land acquisition program, including $5
million to acquire critical land at the Flight 93 National Memorial and
$4 million to continue the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Grants
program. These Civil War grants would garner a minimum of $4 million in
matching funds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of the FY 2007 budget
request for NPS. We would be pleased to answer any questions you and
the other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Well, thank you.
Ms. Mainella. I tried to zip through that.
Senator Thomas. Good job.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. I am going to get over there to vote after
all. Well, that is great. And I think you touched on many of
the items that are there.
It is my understanding, then, that this $100 million less,
which represents 5 percent of your funding, much of that will
come out of either construction or maintenance. Is that
correct?
Ms. Mainella. It is from construction, land acquisition,
and a program that I know many of us certainly have enjoyed,
the land and water conservation fund State grants.
Senator Thomas. I see. How does construction tie in or what
is the relationship between that and backlog management?
Ms. Mainella. Well, in this budget there is $933 million
worth of maintenance backlog funding. So we continue to move
forward on that. As you know, construction does address not
only new facilities, but sometimes rehabilitation of facilities
that were in difficult condition. We do feel, though, that we
are taking major steps forward on the maintenance backlog. And,
if you remember, the President made a commitment of $4.9
billion that would be used to address the backlog. With this
budget, we will be at $5.6 billion in that effort.
Senator Thomas. The question of backlog has been there for
some time of course and you have been making some progress.
What will this do, in your view and generally, to the growth or
to the percentage of progress that you will be making?
Ms. Mainella. Well, I think that, again, we are moving very
positively. We will increase in this budget by $10 million the
focus on cyclic maintenance, which means that we will have gone
from the year 2002, I believe, where we had about $24 million,
up to now about $71 million in cyclic, which means we are
trying to get in a preventive stage.
Now we did drop the repair/rehab down by $10 million, but
we expect that through some of our fees that are coming in that
you have helped us with, we will use about 50 percent of those
fees toward maintenance. We feel that will help balance or at
least be part of that effort.
As far as measuring our maintenance backlog, no longer are
we doing that by how much money we spend. We have done 6,000
projects toward maintenance. But we do look at it under what is
called a facility condition index. And in the green book there
are charts that deal with how each area, each region, is
addressing what are called standard assets, their paved roads
and structures, and where they plan to be at the end of 2007 as
far as that facility condition index goes. It will make some
movement forward.
It is still going to be a process; as you know, there is
really never an end to the maintenance backlog. There always
will be a backlog. We just had hurricanes. I guarantee you,
even with the hope that you will all support the supplemental
for hurricanes for National Parks, $55.4 million, we will still
have damaged facilities in a ``backlog'' status because it is
going to take us a year or more to certainly work on those.
Senator Thomas. Okay. All right. Thank you. Senator
Alexander, we started right on time because we are going to
have to end here soon. Would you care to make an opening
statement?
Senator Alexander. So she has not yet----
Senator Thomas. She has.
Senator Alexander. Oh, she has.
Ms. Mainella. I zipped on through it. Sorry.
Senator Alexander. I would like to----
Senator Thomas. She referred to all of your requests in the
budget.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would it
be appropriate for me to ask a couple of questions?
Senator Thomas. Absolutely. Go right ahead.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Good. Thank you for being here.
And I will make my questions brief. First, I want to thank you
for the work you have been doing with our committee, with the
chairman and others of us who are interested in the management
policies.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Because all of us are concerned about
that. And I look forward to the hearing that, I believe, is
planned for later on down the road on that subject.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. But in a recent hearing with Secretary
Norton, I asked her questions about what would happen when
there is a conflict between the protection of resources and use
and other needs in the park. And what would be predominate. And
I noticed that you say in your testimony today that your
reforms would maintain our strong commitment to the fundamental
mission of the National Park Service to protect and allow for
appropriate enjoyment. One of the primary guiding principles is
that when there is a conflict between the protection of
resources and their use conservation will be predominate.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And I also received a letter from
Secretary Norton today making that clear. So I appreciate very
much that statement and hope that is a guiding principle in the
management policies that you are developing because I think
that will relieve a lot of the concerns that some of us had
about the direction some things were going.
Ms. Mainella. Senator, again, after our meeting with you we
had some discussion with the Secretary and as a result, you do
have a letter in front of you that she did send that does
reaffirm what both Deputy Steve Martin and I have said in our
testimonies dealing with management policies and budget, that
when there is a conflict then conservation will be predominate.
Obviously we will continue to work together to hopefully, as we
do in anything, to just avoid conflicts where possible. But,
when there is a conflict we will have conservation as
predominate. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much. Now on the
Landwater Conservation Fund, without--this is a tight budget
year. And I understand that. But, as we have discussed before
there are two opportunities that might present an opportunity
for something like a conservation royalty of the kind Wyoming
enjoys on oil on its property. That when we have offshore
drilling that we might take some of those resources and devote
them to conservation purposes. Something like a conservation
royalty to a State. I don't want to take away any other--any
existing. I just would like to see more of that. One of those
is if we were to pass Landwater, which several of us are for,
there is in the budget a reserve fund that would devote some of
the revenues, a billion dollars over 3 years, to conservation
purposes.
A second is in the discussion of Lease 181. There has been
some discussion that there might be a conservation royalty that
would go to State Landwater Conservation Fund, which is a
popular program, important program, and there is not much
controversy about the State Landwater Conservation Program.
I would hope that you and the administration, if those two
pieces of legislation make their way through Congress, will
fight to keep in the legislation the special funding for the
Landwater Conservation Fund.
Ms. Mainella. Senator, as a past administrator of the
stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund grants, we believe
that it is a very important program. We know that in the PART
review that OMB has worked with us on there are areas we need
to improve upon. But we would be very honored to work along
with you, and any other members of this committee or others, to
assist in finding a way to assist with the stateside funding.
And I do offer Comptroller Bruce Sheaffer to assist in any of
his areas of expertise to help you in that effort.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, is there time for one more question?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Did you all discuss the funding for
salary increases yet today? I wanted to ask you to make sure I
understand it. As I understand it, when we do not increase
funding enough, and we order you to pay a salary increase, you
have to take that funding out of operation funds for the park.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. So while it might seem like there is
more money for maintenance and there is more money for, well
not maintenance, but there is more money for operations of the
park, in fact there is less than one might hope because you had
to take some of that out to pay salaries. That is going to be
true with this budget, is it not? I mean you are going to have
to take some money out of operations to pay salaries of park
employees. And to what extent is that true and how does that
compare with what has happened in past years?
Ms. Mainella. Senator, in this particular budget, again,
the Secretary and others have really helped us to try to keep
as much of the focus on every day park operations as possible.
And as a result we do have coming year salaries of a little
over a $20 million increase. This will cover about 70 percent
of the salary increase as proposed in this budget, which is at
a 2.2 percentage level for both civilian and military
personnel.
Of course, if the salary increase goes any higher than that
2.2, then we would be absorbing a greater percentage than the
30 percent that is reflected here. I do want to comment though
that last year we did come to you with a request for 100
percent of our salaries to be covered. But in the end, because
of the difference between military and others, and other
things, the way the bottom line is that we still ended up
absorbing about 30 percent, because there was, as you know--
necessary because of hurricanes--an across-the-board 1 percent
cut that was assessed in the 2006 budget. So we are functioning
in the 2006 budget with about a 70 percent fixed-cost level
covered.
Also, just for your further information, from 1994 until
2004 we were running at about 60 percent coverage of our
salaries. So it has been a problem in the past in having that.
And when we do have to absorb, again, we have great employees.
They find creative ways to do that. But, it does mean that they
have to make some managerial decisions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It looks like
we may need a little truth in legislating provision for
ourselves because we are maybe making it look like we are
providing more money for the operations of parks when in effect
it might be 60 or 70 percent of what it looks like.
I have a couple of other questions. I will just submit them
to her to be answered later.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. I have a couple of more
questions, Director. As you might imagine when we talk about
reductions, then people ask are there going to be increases in
entrance fees and those kinds of things. Is that on anyone's
mind?
Ms. Mainella. Well, as you know, this committee has helped
us to move from a fee demo program to a permanent fee effort.
And those fees have been very important in all our parks. And,
again, they do not cover everyday operations. They are to cover
additional visitor services, and part of that is making sure
our facilities are in good shape.
We have gone out through civic engagement, public
involvement, to communities to find out views on increasing a
fee where our superintendents have made recommendations to us
in that regard. And there are going to be determinations, based
on working with the communities and working with our
superintendents, and the environmental community and others,
that it would probably be beneficial to some parks to have some
increases. I think we are forecasting approximately 23 units
that might be considering increases. That is out of 390. But I
think, again, our fee increases may cover up to about $10
million.
Senator Thomas. So this is sort of the normal increase.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, it is normal. And because of the
legislation, we are going to be able to look at this on a
regular basis. But, again, we always have to make sure our
parks are accessible for all economic levels. And we need to
make sure, again, that people are comfortable with any fees we
move forward with.
Senator Thomas. So these are not designed to take up
reduction?
Ms. Mainella. No, no offset at all. It is very important.
Senator Thomas. What about as we go forward? You have 390
units and there are other things. What impact does this have,
as we look in the future and here on this table there will be
some more requests for other units to be formed?
Ms. Mainella. Mr. Chairman, I think it is really important.
Our testimony will still continue to show, I would expect, that
we will be very hesitant to ever add on new units in the
National Park System, but we will do it when appropriate. There
are places that are just exceptional, as we have just seen with
the African Burial Ground in New York City where 20,000
enslaved and free Africans died there from the 1600's to the
1700's. When something like that comes to us--and this
particular opportunity came to us with moneys to operate it and
a visitor center to assist us--we are going to look at those.
Also, the Carter G. Woodson Home that is here in Washington,
D.C. just came in. It did not come with that aspect, but still,
it was so critical, I think, to the story of this country that
we have to make those value decisions. And when we do, we do it
very cautiously. And we ask that you work with us on that
effort.
Senator Thomas. We will all have to take a little closer
look at what the values are. Now, as I recall, you do get
highway funds that are outside of this budget. Is that correct?
Ms. Mainella. We do get $210 million thanks to the Federal
Highways bill that helps us. If you remember, the maintenance
backlog, when it was first defined at $4.9 billion, $2.7
billion--more than 50 percent of that--was roads, because that
is one of our big issues. And with the Federal Highways
Program, I know this is going to help us immensely. So this is
outside of our budget.
Senator Thomas. I am a little parochial. I was up, Steve,
in Teton Park last week looking at the roads. But they were all
covered up with snow so I could not really----
Mr. Martin. We got a lot of snow this year.
Senator Thomas. Yes, there really was. It was great.
Speaking of that, however, being a little parochial, we have
had a long-term transportation planning process in Teton Park.
What is the status of that, and why is it being delayed as much
as it has?
Mr. Martin. The plan, I think we are hopefully on its last
home stretch here. We had to redo the plan that was first put
together by our park, Grand Teton, recently because some of the
provisions in it were well beyond what we could reasonably
expect to fund. So whereas we still have some of that in there,
we had to characterize it in a way that emphasizes things that
we feel we can accomplish in the next 10 to 15 years.
And then, also, we wanted to take a closer look at some of
the trail provisions and make sure that we had a good viable
multi-use trail system that connected with the community, so we
sent it back. And we apologize for the delays, but we should be
in the home stretch here.
Senator Thomas. That is good. Maybe we can get more money
out from Everglades, do you suppose?
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. You have a question? More? Go right ahead.
We will go until the bell rings.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Thanks. First, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask if I could include in the record the letter
from Secretary Norton to me following up our conversation about
the predominate purpose of national parks.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: I wanted to follow up on our conversation
that occurred during the recent March 2, hearing on the Department of
the Interior 2007 budget and to assure you that our disagreement with
regard to the draft 2005 Management Policies was more a question of
semantics than substance.
I believe that current and future enjoyment of the parks depends
upon maintaining unimpaired park resources. That is our statutory
obligation. At the hearing, I quoted to you the relevant portion of the
1961 Organic Act that describes the mission of the NPS. That section
states:
``[the] purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to 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.''
The quote you cited in the hearing was from the 2001 Management
Policies, not the 1916 Organic Act. Management of parks presents
complex challenges, since park managers have to address use and impacts
consistent with the overarching mission of the parks, which is to
protect park resources and values to ensure that these resources and
values are maintained unimpaired. This statutory directive inherently
required careful evaluation of uses, scientific study, monitoring, and
other factors.
Both Director Fran Mainella and Deputy Director Steve Martin, in
public statements, including February 2006 testimony presented to the
Congress, have stated, and I agree, that when there is a conflict
between the protection of resources and use, conservation will be
predominant. This recognizes that while we welcome public use and
enjoyment in our parks, we will not allow uses that cause unacceptable
impact, are inconsistent with park purposes or values, unreasonably
interfere with park programs or activities, disrupt the operation of
park concessions or contractors, create an unsafe or unhealthful
environment for visitors or employees, result in significant conflict
with other appropriate uses, or diminish opportunities for current or
future generations to enjoy park resources and values. We recognize
that the conservation of park natural, cultural, and historic resources
provides the foundation for public enjoyment of our national parks.
Parks serve a very important function in our society. They are not
wilderness areas, unless specifically designated as such. If
``conservation'' is viewed as a wilderness standard requiring that all
resources remain in their pristine state, we would have no visitor
centers, no ranger housing, no hotels, and no roads in parks. While a
few of us would be able to enjoy these areas in their pristine state,
the classic American family vacation of loading the kids in the care
and driving through Yellowstone or the Great Smokies would not exist.
Parks fulfill an important visitor service function. They provide
education and enjoyment and an introduction to the great outdoors for
many who would otherwise miss an inspiring experience.
Over the years, since adoption of the Organic Act, our
understanding of caring for parks has evolved. In the past, park
managers erroneously allowed eradication of predators, feeding of wild
animals, and building of visitor centers in sensitive area that damaged
resources. All of these today would be considered inconsistent with the
Organic Act and the conservation of the parks. To make proper decisions
we need policies that stress sustainable cooperative conservation that
works for managing the birthplace of Dr. Martin Luther King as well as
managing the bison herd at Yellowstone, not a simple litmus test or
bumper sticker phrase that lacks practical efficacy.
The 2005 proposed Management Policies are in draft form. This is
why we have put them out for public comment and are now evaluating
those comments. I am confident that our policies, when completed by the
Director and her career staff, will accomplish this difficult task.
I believe both you and I have the same goals for our national
parks. I want Americans to love our national parks, and that love
arises when people are encouraged to visit. I want their experiences to
be thoroughly enjoyable because they see spectacular scenery, encounter
abundant wildlife, and use clean and comfortable facilities. I am
confident that our park managers will be able to achieve this in a
manner consistent with the Organic Act of 1916.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you would like to talk further
about this manner.
Sincerely,
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary.
Senator Alexander. And second, Madam Director, you and I
have talked before about the proposed North Shore road in the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which has been called for a
long time the road to nowhere. At least those who are against
it call it that. And the National Park Service is in the final
part of an environmental impact statement on that. It is called
that by a great many people in North Carolina and Tennessee
especially.
If I have it right, the draft environmental impact
statement suggested that fully building the road might cost up
to $600 million. Even a partial building of the road to the
Bushnell area might cost $110 million. Well, the annual road
budget for the Great Smoky Mountain Park is only about $9 or
$10 million, so the cost of this road would be three times, I
believe, the National Park Service's own annual road budget.
What I am getting around to is that all of us have
recognized for 40 years that the United States has an
obligation to Swain County, North Carolina, as a result of
agreements made when the National Park was created. And there
was a contract signed by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
State of North Carolina, Swain County, and the Department of
the Interior.
The Supreme Court said 40 years ago that in changed
circumstances it was not necessary to build a road. I support
the idea of a monetary cash settlement to Swain County. So does
the State of North Carolina, according to its Governor. So do
the elected officials of Swain County.
The third signatory to the agreement was the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and I have a letter from Chairman Bill Baxter
to Secretary Norton today which says that they agree that the--
the TVA agrees that the National Park Service's--with the
National Park Service that the alternative with the least
environmental impact is the one that does not involve any
construction.
So that only leaves the Department of the Interior of the
four signatories. Now I know there are different opinions about
this, but three of the four signatories have now said that the
road is not a good idea. The two U.S. Senators from Tennessee
agree with that. The Governor of Tennessee, as well as the
Governor of North Carolina agree with that.
I think out of fairness to the people of Swain County we
should pull together to try to see if we can come up with a
monetary settlement. And I know you do not have a solution to
that today, but I think--I would urge you, if you can, to help
bring this to a conclusion. It seems to me totally impractical,
a waste of tax money, and an environmental disaster to build a
$600 million road to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park at
this stage. And we are just failing to meet our obligation to
the people of Swain County if we do not shift gears and begin
to focus on how we can do that through a cash settlement
instead.
I would like to include, if I may, Mr. Chairman, this
letter from the Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority
dated March 10.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
[The information referred to follows:]
Tennessee Valley Authority,
March 10, 2006.
Hon. Gale A. Norton,
Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Norton: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the North Snore Road Project in Swain County, North
Carolina. In that capacity, we are currently reviewing the Draft EIS
and anticipate submitting comments as a cooperating agency at a later
date. TVA is also a party to the 1943 agreement under which
construction of the North Shore Road is contemplated. I am writing you
today to apprise you of TVA's position on this proposal.
TVA agrees with the National Park Service's (NPS) determination
that the alternative with the least environmental impact is the one
that does not involve construction; namely, the Monetary Settlement
Alternative. Accordingly, we concur in the identification of this
alternative as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for the
purposes of National Environmental Policy Act review.
The Draft EIS did not identify NPS's preferred alternative to allow
consideration of public comments on the completed environmental
analyses and revised cost estimates for the build alternatives. These
public comments and environmental analyses will also help inform the
decisions TVA may have to make about this. Based upon our preliminary
review, TVA believes the range of identified alternatives is
appropriate and that any of the action alternatives could potentially
form the basis for an agreement discharging the Department of Interior
from any remaining obligations under the 1943 agreement.
TVA has already fulfilled its obligations under the 1943 agreement
by acquiring and transferring to the U.S. Department of Interior
approximately 44,000 acres of land on the north shore of Fontana
Reservoir. Should the other parties to the 1943 agreement reach
consensus on the North Shore Road issue and decide to enter into a new
agreement, TVA would be pleased to review the proposal and determine if
we should become a party to the new agreement.
Sincerely,
Bill Baxter,
Chairman.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Senator. Also, just a comment.
Steven Martin is going to, I think for the first time, go to
the Great Smokies as he leaves here today. So, he will have a
chance to get more familiar with these issues as well. Thank
you.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you.
A proposed budget has placed funding of the National
Heritage Areas under the Historic Preservation Fund. What
authority do you have to fund National Heritage Areas in this
manner?
Ms. Mainella. I am going to ask Bruce Sheaffer, if he
would, to comment on that for me, please.
Mr. Sheaffer. We have included appropriation language that
would allow it so it would be commensurate with the passage of
the bill. We would have the authority if it is passed as now
written.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Will the use of that fund cause a
reduction in the funds for the preservation grants or other
funds for State historic preservation offices?
Mr. Sheaffer. Not specifically, no. They would not in any
way affect the use of the other funds. No. No, they would not.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Mr. Sheaffer. I gather that the intent of the question is
that we are not even requesting the full amount that is made
available in the Historic Preservation Fund this year or have
not for many years. So, no. It will minimally affect the total
amount of the unappropriated balance in the Historic
Preservation Fund, if that is the nature of your question.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Well, there are broader opportunities
to use it for other things there. And I am just wondering what
impact it would have.
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. The administration proposes an offset of a
million dollars to cut services by filming permits. Do you
anticipate an increase in the revenue from this source?
Ms. Mainella. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that we are
looking at about a $1.6 million increase as a result. Don
Murphy was not able to join us today. He is the deputy that is
overseeing those efforts. But there is, if my understanding is
correct, action that will be taking place next month to give us
the authority to be able to collect these location fees, which
we have not been able to actually do thus far. Is that correct,
Bruce?
Mr. Sheaffer. That is correct. We will be operating under
an interim plan awaiting final certification of a regulation
that would apply to all Federal land-managing agencies. And in
the interim we will be applying a rate structure that is the
equal to the BLM structure that they have posted. So, yes, we
expect additional revenues to offset this decrease.
Senator Thomas. I see. Good. It would be interesting to
note that the budget projects a $6.5 million decrease in fixed
costs for interpretation and education of rangers. Fixed costs
in this program are declining while fixed costs for other
programs are not; why is that?
Ms. Mainella. Let me just first of all start this by being
very clear. We do not cut our interpretive rangers; they are
critical. Their core mission is, as Steve Martin would call it,
to the Park Service. What we have is a budget effort that just
moves them from one place to another. And I would turn to Bruce
to help further explain that in a better way for me.
Mr. Sheaffer. It is kind of an anomaly of the budget. We
propose in this budget to shift the funding for the Harpers
Ferry Center from the ONPS account to the construction account.
And what you see is the effect of that shift. If that were not
part of the formula here, there would actually be a net
increase of about $3.8 million on that line you reference.
Senator Thomas. I see. Okay. Well as strongly as I feel
about parks and the preservation, as we all do, in this kind of
a budget setting and this sort of a deficit situation, we have
to manage a little differently and a little better. So I admire
your efforts to take a relatively small reduction and adjust
your management in such a way that you can continue to provide
the services that are there and protect the resource and do the
job that the parks are all about.
So, we have about 1 minute, Mr. Alexander.
Senator Alexander. I can do a 30 second question.
Ms. Mainella. But can I do a 30 second answer?
Senator Thomas. Let's time him and see.
Senator Alexander. Could you tell us how the Park Service
is doing to budget operational funding increases for the
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park for staff
and interpretive resources? Congress directed funding for the
Park Service to begin stabilization of the riverbank in the
Moccasin Bend Archeological Area of the Chickamauga Chattanooga
National Park last year. And if you do not have that right on
your fingertips, you could answer it in a letter.
Ms. Mainella. I am looking over to Mr. Sheaffer here
quickly. But, again, as you know, both you and Congressman Wamp
and others have played an important role in adding Moccasin
Bend to our unit, which is an important cultural resource to
us. And I know we are trying to do all we can. But I don't
know, Bruce, do we have that answer or do we need to get back
on that?
Mr. Sheaffer. Well, for a complete answer we need to get
back. We have the status report and they are making progress on
it. There will be future budget requests to finish the entire
stabilization job up. But they are advancing.
Senator Alexander. I would appreciate a report when you
have time. And I know Congressman Wamp would enjoy seeing it as
well.
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Mr. Sheaffer. By all means.
Senator Thomas. Thank you guys. I am sorry we could not
chat a little more. But I do feel comfortable with what you are
doing with this budget and certainly we will continue to work
with you as time goes by.
Ms. Mainella. I just want to thank both of you and other
members of the committee that I had a chance to visit with in
advance of this hearing. I really appreciate the time you
afforded me. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. We appreciate it. We look
forward to working with you.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Fran Mainella to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1a. Budget Decrease: The Administration's FY 2007 budget
for the National Park Service is $100 million less than FY 2006. That
represents a 5 percent decrease in funding.
Can we expect to see any reduction in park operations or visitor
services as a result of the budget cuts?
Answer. The 2007 budget request maintains the funding levels
provided in the 2006 appropriation, which included a net increase of
more than $24.6 million over 2005 park base funding. The 2007 budget
request is a net increase of $23.4 million above the 2006 enacted
level, which includes increases for salaries, benefits, and other fixed
costs.
The 2007 budget also proposes key investments in visitor services,
health and safety, and law enforcement programs that impact the visitor
experience. The budget includes an increase of $250,000 to strengthen
the Service's capability to understand opinions about parks by
expanding and refining the visitor services survey program. The budget
also includes $500,000 for park-based special agents that will provide
investigative support to park ranger staffs in parks. In addition,
$750,000 is included to centrally fund the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center. An increase of $441,000 is requested to allow NPS to
adequately respond to outbreaks and disease transmissions, as well as
conduct safety evaluations of park food, drinking water, wastewater and
vector-borne disease risks in the parks.
Funding these increases, in conjunction with the combined
implementation of ongoing management improvements, will ensure the
continuation of enhancements to visitors and other services provided in
2006.
Question 1b. Do you anticipate raising entrance fees or other user
fees to overcome budget shortfalls as a result of the proposed cuts in
2007?
Answer. About 14 park units are considering raising entrance fees
in 2007 based on a pricing model proposed in 2006 to provide
consistency and meet park visitor needs. In addition, some parks are
likely to request changes to some expanded amenity fees (user fees) for
2007 based on comparability studies. However, there is no direct link
between the prospective fee increases and the proposed budget
reductions. The largest part of the $100.5 million reduction in the NPS
budget ($84.5 million) is in the Construction account. That reduction
will not be offset by fee revenues. NPS plans to use $95 million in fee
revenue for maintenance projects in FY 2006 and $100 million in FY
2007. The second largest proposed decrease is the $28 million reduction
for Land and Water Conservation Fund state grants. NPS is not
authorized to use fee revenue to fund that program.
Question 2a. Maintenance Backlog: The construction portion of the
budget has decreased by $84.5 million from the 2006 appropriation. This
is the lowest amount requested for NPS construction projects in the
past 5 years.
Will this decrease come solely from new construction project funds
or will it also eliminate some maintenance projects required to reduce
the backlog?
Answer. The 2007 budget request focuses on protecting and
maintaining existing assets rather than funding new construction
projects. Assuming the President's budget request is funded, NPS
intends to sustain the progress made in the asset management program,
as measured by the facility condition index.
Question 2b. By looking closely at project data sheets in the green
books for FY06 and FY07, it appears that the majority of the cut in
construction funding (over $74 million) is from major maintenance (see
chart). Does this mean that the Administration has achieved the
President's goal of fixing the maintenance backlog and is now shifting
it's priorities to other areas?
Answer. The proposed $84.5 million reduction in construction will
reduce the number of projects overall, but the majority of the
reduction will be in new construction projects. According to the
Department's classifications, of the $121.9 million requested for line-
item construction, $39.3 million, or 32 percent, of the funding is for
new construction. In 2006, $104.9 million, or 53 percent, of the line-
item construction dollars were programmed for new park facilities. The
Administration still considers addressing the NPS deferred maintenance
backlog a priority. The FY 2007 budget request includes $933 million in
deferred maintenance funding for FY 2007--an amount equal to the
average annual amount of funding provided from FY 2002 to FY 2006, but
distributed differently among the various facility-related accounts
from previous years.
Question 2c. What type of long range program have you implemented
to track the maintenance backlog and prioritize future maintenance
requirements?
Answer. The NPS is transforming the agency's approach to managing
its facilities. During the past four years, NPS has been implementing
an asset management program focused on developing, for the first time,
a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the agency's
asset base. Parks have completed, for the first time, a prioritization
of their asset inventory. Condition assessments on eight industry-
standard assets (such as buildings, water systems, roads and trails)
will be completed at all parks by the end of 2006. This shift in
emphasis for the agency is based on management reforms and performance
measures, and features a state-of-the-art software system. These new
tools will allow NPS to have a better understanding of the true cost of
ownership, including recurring operational costs of the facilities
found in parks. Once condition assessments are completed, NPS will have
a better understanding of the current deferred maintenance needs.
Question 3a. Grand Teton National Park Transportation Plan: Several
years ago, Grand Teton National Park began a long term transportation
planning process. We still do not have a plan completed.
What is causing the delay?
Answer. The Grand Teton transportation plan has taken a long time,
but NPS is in the final stages of completing it. Part of the delay is
attributable to restarting the plan in 2004 after a decision was made
to focus on actions that are achievable within a 5-10 year period.
The draft plan was released for public comment in the summer of
2005, and the park is now analyzing and developing responses to the
more than 2,600 comments it received. We anticipate releasing the final
plan/EIS in the fall of 2006, and signing a record of decision in the
winter of 2006/2007.
Question 3b. How much funding do you estimate it will take to
complete the plan?
Answer. We estimate that it will cost $75,000 to complete the plan
and related compliance. NPS has spent $684,000 on the plan since 2001
using a combination of park entrance fee revenue, NPS alternative
transportation program funds, and Teton County funds.
Question 3c. Will this budget provide enough to finish the Teton
transportation planning process?
Answer. We plan to use $75,000 in park entrance fee revenue, not
appropriated funds, to complete the plan.
Question 4a. The proposed budget has placed funding for National
Heritage Areas under the Historic Preservation Fund.
What authority do you have to fund National Heritage Areas in this
manner?
Answer. We believe that the appropriation language submitted with
the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request would provide
sufficient authority to fund the National Heritage Area program under
the Historic Preservation Fund.
Question 4b. Will the use of the Historic Preservation Fund for
National Heritage Areas cause a reduction in funds for preservation
grants and other funds provided to State Historic Preservation Offices?
Answer. No. The amount proposed in the FY 2007 request for
preservation grants and other funds provided to State Historic
Preservation Offices is not affected by the inclusion of funding for
National Heritage Areas in the Historic Preservation Fund account.
Question 5. Visitor Services: The Administration proposes to offset
a $1.6 million cut in visitor services with revenue from filming
permits. This law has been in place for many years. Why do you
anticipate an increase in revenue from this source in 2007?
Answer. We expect parks to have the ability to begin collecting
fees for commercial filming and certain still photography well before
the start of FY 2007. As a temporary measure, to expedite
implementation of the NPS commercial filming law (P.L. 106-206), a rule
will be published very shortly to revoke the portion of 43 CFR 5.1 that
prohibits NPS from collecting fees for filming. Thirty days after that
rule is published, if no significant negative comments are received,
parks will have the ability to collect commercial filming fees based on
the fee schedule currently being used by the Nevada office of the
Bureau of Land Management and in accordance with procedures explained
in a guidance memo from the Director.
As a long-term measure, the Department expects to publish this year
a revised version of 43 CFR 5.1 that has been approved by the NPS, the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That
proposal will have a 60-day public comment period. It will be followed
by publication of a proposed location fee schedule, which will also
have a public comment period.
Question 6. Visitor Services: The Administration's budget projects
a $6.5 million decrease in fixed costs for interpretation and education
Rangers. Why are fixed costs for this program declining while fixed
costs for other programs are increasing?
Answer. The $6.6 million reduction in the ``fixed costs and related
changes'' column of the Interpretation and Education program in the NPS
Budget Justifications reflects a shift of funding for one entity from
one account to another. Funding for the Harpers Ferry Center ($10.4
million) was moved from Interpretation and Education to the
Construction account, in order to place the NPS interpretive design
center in the same account as the construction design center (Denver
Service Center). Had the Harpers Ferry Center remained in
Interpretation and Education, the funding for that program would have
shown a $3.8 million increase for FY 2007.
Question 7a. Personal Watercraft: The NPS has been bogged down with
a personal watercraft rulemaking for over six years.
What is the reason for the delays, and what, if any, additional
resources would help get this process back on track and the rulemakings
completed?
Answer. In 2000, when the NPS reached a settlement agreement with
the Bluewater Network, the NPS committed to evaluating eight resource
topics through the NEPA process for each affected park unit. The
analyses to fully consider these topics were more involved than
anticipated. While the NEPA analyses and promulgation of rules has
taken a long time, at this point, rulemaking has been completed for all
but five units. The status of those are as follows:
The final rule for Gulf Islands National Seashore is
currently under final signature review and should be published
in the Federal Register in the very near future.
The final rules for Cape Lookout National Seashore should be
published before the summer season.
The final rules for Gateway National Recreation Area and
Curecanti National Recreation Area should be published during
mid-summer of 2006.
Big Thicket National Preserve is finishing its NEPA work.
Question 7b. Since the NPS has completed 15 of 15 favorable
environmental assessments regarding the use of personal watercraft--
Will the NPS consider revisiting this PWC rule system wide--
Particularly to allow the use of PWCs in the parks that are still mired
in the rulemaking process?
Answer. At this time, the NPS has no plans to revisit the use of
PWCs system-wide. Determination for PWC use at any park is based on an
assessment of a unit's legislative history, regulatory authorities, and
analysis of sound, air quality, wildlife safety concerns, visitor use,
and the purpose for the park as described in its authorizing
legislation. Each determination is made with public participation,
including public meetings and participation by advisory commissions and
State and local governments. As noted above, we are close to finishing
work on the five remaining park units where PWC rulemaking has not been
completed.
Responses of Fran Mainella to Questions From Senator Talent
Thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is important that we
look in to the budget for the Park Service and I thank the witness for
appearing before this committee.
Question 1. I am a supporter of Heritage Areas--and I am hoping to
get heritage area designations in Missouri because I believe that they
are a good way to bring interested parties under the umbrella of one
advisory board to make decisions about a site or region. Please respond
to the following questions regarding Heritage Areas and the impact on
property rights.
Have the boundaries of heritage areas expanded after the original
designation?
Answer. There have been at least two National Heritage Areas that
have added counties to their boundaries at the request of the local
coordinating entity who manages the area, based on public support,
relationship to the themes of the heritage area, and action by
Congress. Because a feasibility study is required to be completed prior
to designation, the boundaries of a National Heritage Area are normally
drawn to include all the appropriate resources that relate to the
national story and do not need to be revised after designation.
Question 2. What percentage of heritage areas have non profits on
their boards?
Answer. Of the 27 National Heritage Areas, 12 have non-profit
organizations as the local coordinating entity that are responsible for
preparing a management plan for the area and implementing the
initiatives identified in the plan. One area, Hudson River Valley
National Heritage Area, is jointly coordinated by a State agency and
non-profit while another, the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway,
is coordinated by a Federal Commission that is staffed by a non-profit
corporation. In addition, several that are coordinated by Federal
Commissions also have non-profit groups represented on their boards.
Question 3. What oversight does the park service have over the
funding? Could that be written into legislation at the time of
designation?
Answer. Generally, funds are appropriated through the National Park
Service budget to the National Heritage Area. The NPS develops a
cooperative agreement to provide the funding to the National Heritage
Area and to provide oversight on how the funds are spent. Each area is
required to hire an independent auditor who provides the NPS with an
annual audit relating to Federal expenditures by the local coordinating
entity.
National Heritage Areas program legislation, currently pending in
Congress, would also require each area to prepare an annual report to
be submitted to the Secretary for each fiscal year that Federal funds
are received. This report would specify performance goals and
accomplishments, expenditures, grants made to other entities, amounts
and sources of matching funds, and other funds leveraged by Federal
dollars.
Question 4. Does a heritage designation limit landowners access to
their private lands?
Answer. No. Designation as a National Heritage Area places no
restrictions on the use, development, or access of private lands
located within the area's boundary. In addition, authorizing
legislation for all recently designated National Heritage Areas
protects private property owners by specifically forbidding public
access to private property without owner consent.
Question 5. Missourians have shared with me three specific
instances where heritage areas have resulted in infringements on
property rights--inverse condemnation of property owned by individuals
for the Appalachian Trail in Virginia; efforts in the Buffalo National
River area to eliminate 1,000-1,100 homes; and efforts to purchase land
in the Cuyahoga Valley near Akron, Ohio. Please comment on these
situations and their relationships to heritage areas.
Answer. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the Buffalo National
River, and Cuyahoga Valley National Park are units of the National Park
System, not National Heritage Areas. Each one has individual authority
from Congress to acquire property under specified terms. The NPS has
followed Congress' direction in both authorizing legislation and
appropriations in acquiring property for those units. National Heritage
Areas do not have Federal land acquisition authority except in rare
cases where Congress has provided such authority.
National Heritage Area designation places no restrictions on owners
of private property including zoning and land use regulations. The
legislation for each designated area provides protection for private
property rights tailored to the specific needs of the region.
Question 6. Do heritage areas pose a threat to private property
rights in the area?
Answer. No. National Heritage Area designation places no
restrictions on owners of private property including zoning and land
use regulations. All recently established National Heritage Areas have
language in their authorizing legislation that explicitly protects the
rights of private property owners. National Heritage Areas are based on
the principle of collaborative conservation and have no regulatory
elements. It should be noted that almost 49 million people live in the
27 designated National Heritage Areas. To date, we have found no
examples of private property complaints stemming from a heritage area
designation. A 2004 GAO report on National Heritage Areas concluded
that the designation of a site as a National Heritage Area does not
appear to directly affect the rights of private property owners.
Question 7. Does the advisory board, created by a heritage area
have any authority over city, county, or state governments?
Answer. No. For each National Heritage Area designated by Congress,
the authorizing legislation identifies the local coordinating entity
that will be responsible for preparing a management plan for the area
and implementing the initiatives identified in the plan. Participation
in any project or activity associated with the National Heritage Area
is voluntary. These management plans are developed with extensive
public involvement including coordination with city, county and State
governments. The establishment of a coordinating entity for the
National Heritage Area does not impact any existing authorities held by
any unit of state or local government; in fact, all recently
established National Heritage Areas include language in their
authorizing legislation stating this.
Question 8. Does the advisory board created by a heritage area have
any authority over decisions made by a property owner?
Answer. No. The local coordinating entity has no authority over
property owners on how they use their land, nor does it impose any
additional burdens on any property owner. All recently established
National Heritage Areas have included language in their authorizing
legislation that explicitly protects the rights of private property
owners.
Question 9. Does a heritage area lead to additional land purchases
by the federal government?
Answer. The designation of a National Heritage Area is not meant to
lead to land purchases by the Federal Government and in fact, most
recently established National Heritage Areas have included language in
their authorizing legislation that explicitly bar the local
coordinating entity from using appropriated Federal dollars for
acquiring real property or any interest in real property. Designation
as a National Heritage Area does not affect who owns the land within
the area. If it is privately owned before designation, then it
privately owned after designation; the same applies to publicly owned
land.
Responses of Fran Mainella to Questions From Senator Salazar
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Question 1. Director Mainella, the National Park Service recently
published its 2005 State Land and Water Conservation Fund Annual
Report, in which it concludes that the LWCF stateside grants program
delivers excellent results. Your report says: ``nearly 55 million
visits at 44 state parks represents only a small sampling of visitor
use at the estimated 40, 000 state and local park sites assisted by the
program. Year in and year out, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
works in partnership with states and communities to deliver and protect
opportunities for outdoor recreation.'' Does the National Park Service
stand by this endorsement of the LWCF stateside grants program?
Answer. Yes, the NPS stands by the statements in the report quoted
above. For over four decades, NPS and its predecessor agencies have
partnered with States and local units of government to provide public
recreation opportunities through the 40,000 matching grants awarded
through this program.
Question 2. Given the Park Service's own assessment of the
efficiency and effectiveness of the LWCF stateside grant program can
you explain why it is being eliminated in this year's budget?
Answer. The FY 2007 budget request does not include funding for
Land and Water Conservation Fund State grants. As the Administration
strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core Federal agency
responsibilities is imperative. Many of these grants support State and
local parks that have alternative sources of funding through State
revenues or bonds. In addition, a 2003 PART review found the current
program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate
results. While the report you referenced includes some worthwhile
information as to how the grants were used, the Administration remains
committed to utilizing performance measures consistent with the
Government Performance and Results Act.
Question 3. Has the National Park Service evaluated the effects
that cutting the LWCF stateside grants program will have on projects
currently being built in rural communities?
Answer. Regardless of where it is located, any project currently
approved and being built should be completed. A project is not approved
for a grant by NPS unless there are sufficient Federal funds in the
grant award and an adequate local match to complete the project.
Question 4. How many of LWCF stateside projects are currently
underway in rural communities?
Answer. There are currently 1,900 projects that have been approved
but not yet completed throughout the nation. We have not determined how
many of those are located in rural areas.
Question 5. How do you propose finding funding to complete them, if
the stateside grants program is eliminated?
Answer. A project is not approved for a grant by NPS unless there
are sufficient Federal funds in the grant award and an adequate local
match to complete the project.
maintenance backlog
Question 1. In 2000, the President promised to provide enough
funding over five years to eliminate Park Service's maintenance
backlog, which was estimated at the time to be $4.9 billion. It is now
five years since that commitment and I am hearing estimates that place
the NPS maintenance backlog somewhere between $4.5 billion to $9.69
billion. That is to say that the maintenance backlog at the Parks seems
to have increased over the past five years. Is that right?
Answer. The estimated $4.9 billion maintenance backlog figure was
identified in a 1998 General Accounting Office report (``Efforts to
Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog'' GAO/RCED-98-143). That
figure represented a compilation of desired projects in parks that had
not been validated by systematic, comprehensive assessments of the true
asset conditions or prioritized by NPS.
We now know that the deferred maintenance backlog cannot be stated
as a single, static dollar figure. What is important is the improved
condition over time and knowing that the dollars spent made a
difference in improving the condition of the asset. Our approach is to
focus on what it will take to bring our assets to acceptable condition
as measured by the facility condition index. For this reason, NPS is
transforming the agency's approach to managing its facilities. Parks
have completed, for the first time, a comprehensive inventory and
prioritization of its asset base. NPS is also on track to complete
comprehensive condition assessments on eight industry-standard assets
(such as buildings, water systems, roads, and trails) by the end of
2006. Once these condition assessments are completed, NPS will have a
better understanding of its current deferred maintenance needs. Our
goal is to bring the portfolio of assets up to acceptable condition,
with performance measures used to prioritize investments.
Question 2. What is the Department of the Interior's most recent
estimate of the maintenance backlog at the Parks?
Answer. Please see the answer above.
Question 3. Do you have any projections of how the proposed budget
for the National Parks will affect the total maintenance backlog,
considering it will cut the construction and maintenance budget by
$84.6 million, 27 percent?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to reducing the
maintenance backlog within the National Park Service, and the NPS
continues to make significant progress in completing the numerous
projects necessary to improve the condition of park infrastructure.
Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken and
approximately $4.7 billion have been invested using line-item
construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway
dollars. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the Administration's past
investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management
program to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these
resources from slipping to poor condition.
The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly
scheduled preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques
into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular
asset. The proposed increase in cyclic project funding would assist in
preventing the continued deterioration of NPS assets. Increasing the
project funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets on a
predictive cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and
ultimately adding to the backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic
maintenance program would target those assets that are mission critical
and still in maintainable condition, but could fall into poor condition
without the proper application of life cycle maintenance. With the
proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance program now
totals $71.5 million.
The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and
Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been
allocated for this program. In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize
projects that address critical health and safety, resource protection,
compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues.
The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional
recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, the
Department estimates that $100 million in recreation fees will be used
for deferred maintenance projects.
Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction
projects are funded at $121.9 million. The budget request focuses on
protecting and maintaining existing assets rather than funding new
construction projects. Assuming the President's budget request is
funded, NPS intends to sustain the progress made in the asset
management program, as measured by the facility condition index.
revisions to park service policies
Question 1. I and many of my colleagues have repeatedly expressed
our opposition to the proposed changes to the National Park Service's
policies. We feel that they undermine the core mission of the Park
Service and are, quite frankly, unnecessary. Visitor satisfaction at
our parks, after all, is over 95%, and the public seems quite satisfied
with the existing policies, which were updated just five years ago. I
appreciate you agreeing to extend your consideration of the policy
changes another six months, but I do wonder how much this whole
exercise is costing the taxpayer. What has been the cost--to date--in
staff time, resources, etc., of your efforts to revise the current
management policies?
Answer. Periodic review and development of all types of management
and policy documents are included within the duties of NPS employees
and are not calculated separately.
The NPS has a special web site programmed to efficiently process
the large volume of comments they sometimes receive on documents that
are released for public review. A contractor has been retained at a
cost of approximately $39,000 to help sort and organize the Management
Policies comments that have been submitted through this web site.
Question 2. What do you expect the cost to be over the next year if
you continue to consider revising these policies?
Answer. The only additional expense associated with this effort
that we currently anticipate is the cost of printing the revised
policies. At this time, we do not have an estimate of that cost.
Question 3. Considering that these policies were revised just five
years ago, and given all the other needs in the Parks, is this really
the best use of the Park Service's energy and resources at this time?
Answer. We believe that revised and improved policies are needed
because managers face continuing challenges as we preserve the parks
while striving to serve our visitors and partner with our local
communities. Every day, without fail, we are tested when we make
decisions on what to do or what not to do; what to build or what not to
build; what to allow or what not to allow. From these challenges, we
learn and improve our practices.
national heritage areas
Question 1. According to the National Park Service, National
Heritage Areas ``preserve and celebrate many of America's defining
landscapes.'' I find this to be true in Colorado--the Cache La Poudre
NHA empowers local communities to work collaboratively with the state
and federal governments to craft solutions that protect their natural
landscape. The program is so effective in spurring collaborative
conservation that I, with the support of the local communities, have
introduced legislation to designate the South Park National Heritage
Area and the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area in Colorado. These
are two crown jewels of the American landscape and are worthy of NHA
protection.
Many of the existing national heritage areas are in their early
phases and need Park Service expertise and support to get on their
feet. If the Administration is in fact committed to supporting
collaborative conservation, why is the Administration cutting funding
for these great partnerships?
Answer. The Administration is committed to supporting National
Heritage Areas. The Administration's request for FY 2007 for Heritage
Partnership Programs is $2.374 million more than the Administration's
request for FY 2006. The Heritage Partnership Programs are a critical
component of the Department's new umbrella activity, America's Heritage
and Preservation Partnership Program, which will also include Save
America's Treasures and Preserve America. Even after Federal funding
for a National Heritage Area reaches its authorized limit, the NPS
continues to provide technical support to the area indefinitely.
Question 2. I also find it puzzling that the Administration is
proposing to shift funding for this program from National Recreation
and Preservation and into the Historic Preservation Fund. In the West,
our heritage areas are about far more than historic resources. They are
about protecting the land, culture, and resources that underpin our way
of life. Do you agree that heritage areas are about protecting more
than the historic resources of a place?
Answer. Yes, we agree that National Heritage Areas are about
preserving natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources as
well as historic resources.
Question 3. Why, then, is the funding being shifted to Historic
Preservation?
Answer. Funding for National Heritage Areas is being shifted to the
Historic Preservation Fund as part of the America's Heritage and
Preservation Partnership Program, which also encompasses two Historic
Preservation Fund grants programs (Save America's Treasures and
Preserve America). The combination of these three programs represents a
more seamless approach to supporting locally focused historic
preservation and heritage tourism programs that will allow local
communities to determine which strategies best suit their heritage
needs; apply to the most appropriate programs to conserve heritage
resources and promote heritage tourism; and better and more efficiently
coordinate cultural resource preservation.
Question 4. Does this shift in funding sources imply that the
National Park Service is changing the mission of national heritage
areas so that they focus primarily on historic resources?
Answer. No, the mission of the Heritage Partnership Programs
remains the same, to preserve nationally important natural, cultural,
historic, scenic and recreational resources through locally driven
partnership efforts.
Responses of Fran Mainella to Questions From Senator Menendez
Question 1. Could you explain why the Management Policies needed to
be rewritten?
Answer. At an April 25, 2002, hearing called by the House
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands,
Congressman Radanovich, who was then chairman of the subcommittee,
requested that Director Mainella initiate a comprehensive review of the
2001 edition of Management Policies. Among other things, the chairman
perceived that the policies did not adequately reflect the Service's
responsibilities under the 1916 Organic Act to provide for enjoyment of
the parks. Chairman Radanovich again inquired about a review in a June
6, 2002, letter to the Director. In a September 24, 2003 letter to
Chairman Radanovich, the Director stated that the NPS had begun a
systematic review.
In response to this continuing congressional interest, and since
management of the national park system is always a matter of general
concern to the Department of the Interior, a Departmental goal was
adopted to ``Improve the NPS Management Policies.'' Deputy Assistant
Secretary Paul Hoffman, who provides policy guidance to the NPS, was
tasked with lead responsibility on behalf of the Department. In July
2005, Mr. Hoffman presented for the NPS's review his initial
recommendations for updates to the policies. This was an internal
document intended only to be a starting point for discussion.
At a December 14, 2005, House Subcommittee hearing on the NPS
Organic Act, Congressman Pearce, the new chairman of the subcommittee,
acknowledged the controversy over the Management Policies review. He
reaffirmed that ``it was this subcommittee in April 2002--not Deputy
Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman--that initiated an evaluation of the
2001 NPS Management Policies . . . .'' Upon receiving Deputy Assistant
Secretary Hoffman's preliminary rough draft, the Director assigned NPS
career employees to review and evaluate the suggestions. The
suggestions were to be considered along with other NPS policy
initiatives that would improve the 2001 Management Policies. For
example, the Service already had an acknowledged need to: place more
emphasis on civic engagement and public involvement; update the
planning procedures in Chapter 2; correct some aspects of the
wilderness stewardship procedures in Chapter 6; and discourage
construction projects that are excessive in size or cost, or too
expensive to operate. Also, this was an opportunity to also address any
new laws, executive orders, and regulations that had not already been
addressed in the 2001 edition.
Several other factors came into play in seeing this as a positive
opportunity for the NPS. For example, the update would take into
account: the NPS's increased responsibilities for protecting our
borders and icon parks against terrorists; changes in the demographics
of visitors; rapid population growth around parks; improvements in
technology that provide new ways to enjoy parks or reduce adverse
impacts on resources; and a new focus on cooperative conservation.
Question 2. Could you describe the latest situation with Ellis
Island, and why it has taken so long to approve a plan for the site?
Answer. At the urging of Congress, the NPS and the Department over
that past few years have applied a great deal of oversight to the type
of partnership projects called for in the Ellis Island plan. This
review and consultation is necessary to assure that realistic and
achievable expectations result from NPS planning documents and
partnership agreements. NPS is making final revisions to the
Development Concept Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Ellis
Island and is preparing to integrate the plan's concepts into the
Partnership Construction Process.
Question 3. Under the draft Management Policies, would the Park
Service allow off-road vehicle use at the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area? Would it be considered an ``appropriate use?'' What
guidelines would regulate the use of vehicles around the park? How
would we measure the impact on the park's guests, the wildlife, and the
preservation mandate of the NPS? What steps would be taken to maintain
a balance between off-road vehicle use and other forms of park
recreation?
Answer. The draft Management Policies would not change the process
by which off-road vehicle (ORV) use is determined or regulated at
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area or at any other unit of the
National Park System. The draft policies are clear that ORV use in
national park units is governed by the same Executive Orders and
regulations that govern ORV use currently. The proposed change for the
section on ORV use in the draft policies is new wording that is simpler
and less negative in tone. And, the draft policies are subject to
further change as we go through the revision process.
ORV use is not allowed at Delaware Water Gap NRA at present. Under
the draft policies, as under the current Management Policies, a special
regulation would have to be promulgated for that purpose. Among other
things, developing a special regulation would require a full
environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act,
which would include public review of the process.