[Senate Hearing 111-61]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-61
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2010 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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET FOR THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND PROPOSED EXPENDITURES UNDER THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
__________
JUNE 16, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-435 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 2
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
Wenk, Daniel N., Acting Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 25
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall The Subcommittee on Parks will come to order.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Wenk. Good afternoon.
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks meets to
discuss the President's budget proposal for the National Park
Service and park related expenditures under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is the first meeting of
this subcommittee in this Congress and my first as chairman, of
course the first meeting as the ranking member, Mr. Burr from
North Carolina.
The issues before this subcommittee which include not only
National Park issues, but also historic preservation, national
heritage areas, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wild and
scenic rivers and national trails are issues of personal
interest to me. Are ones that are important in my home State of
Colorado and to our Nation. Just as an example, the Omnibus
Public Lands Act that President Obama signed into law earlier
this year, included among its many provisions several items
within this subcommittee's jurisdiction that are of particular
interest in Colorado.
I note a couple of them.
The designation of most of Rocky Mountain National Park as
wilderness, ending a more than 30-year effort to achieve that
designation.
The establishment of three national new heritage areas.
Authority to purchase land from willing sellers along the
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
Much of the subcommittee's attention of this Congress will
be on the large number of bills introduced dealing with
National Parks and related issues. I anticipate that we will
begin legislative hearings following the July recess.
However, for our first hearing this year I thought it would
be appropriate to invite the Acting Director of the National
Park Service to discuss the Agency's proposed budget for the
upcoming year and to review what steps have been taken so far
in implementing funding under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. The Park Service has been underfunded for
many years under administrations of both parties. There remains
much that needs to be done just in terms of the maintenance
backlog.
For example in Colorado we have ongoing needs for basic
road maintenance in parks. We've also been fortunate to have
had a number of new parks created such as the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison, the Great Sand Dunes and the Sand Creek Massacre
National Historic Site, as well as the new wilderness areas in
Rocky Mountain National Park. All of these important
designations include funding the needs for facilities and
services and a host of other land, wildlife and visitor
management activities.
Keeping these and other parks in a condition that maintains
a quality visitor experience while protecting the environment
is an ongoing challenge. But one that is vitally important as
these parks compromise our national heritage. It is my hope
that this hearing will provide the subcommittee with the
opportunity to review the basic funding and policy challenges
facing the National Park Service before we begin to consider
new park related bills next month.
I'd now like to recognize the ranking member from the great
State of North Carolina, Mr. Burr, for any remarks he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you
how anxious I am to work with you in your new capacity. You
have big shoes to fill in Senator's Akaka's leadership on the
subcommittee.
Dan, welcome.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burr. We're glad to have you here. I think every
Member of Congress that has a national park truly believes that
theirs is the most visited in the country. Only one of us
though, can walk away with the prize and that's the Great
Smokies.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burr. So I do have something relative to the parks
to be engaged, concerned and excited all at the same time. I do
share that with my colleagues from Tennessee. But as I remind
them regularly, originally Tennessee was part of North
Carolina. So it was our generosity that allowed them to have a
State and to have two Senators.
I look forward to what you've got to tell us today. As I
look at the 2010 proposed budget, $433 million that's included
in 2010. It will impact various aspects of park services.
Particularly I'd like to hear more about the increases in
funding for land acquisition and State assistance programs.
Senator Udall and I led an effort this year on a letter
requesting that Congress support the administration's request
for additional funding to operate and protect our park facility
and resources. It's my hope that this funding will move forward
in the appropriations process quickly.
I'm also interested to hear from you, director, what you
foresee as it relates to the fee free weekends affecting funds
generated by the recreational fee programs and if an increase
can still be expected. I support this initiative as a way to
allow more visitors to experience our parks.
Again, I'd like to thank the director and thank the
chairman, and I ook forward to what you have to say.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member for his remarks.
We had an excellent working relation in the House of
Representatives. I look forward to working with him here on
this important subcommittee. In the meantime we will do all we
can in Colorado to increase the visitation numbers at Rocky
Mountain National Park to at least give the Great Smoky
National Park a competition.
Acting Director Daniel Wenk, we'd like to hear from you.
You've been accompanied by Bruce Sheaffer who is your
Comptroller. So, welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today on the National Park Service's fiscal year 2010 budget
request and the proposed expenditures under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like
to submit my entire statement for the record and summarize my
remarks.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Mr. Wenk. We sincerely thank you for your continuing
support of the work we do as stewards of many of our Nation's
most treasured natural and cultural resources.
For fiscal year 2009, Congress increased the National Park
Service operations budget by $100 million which will go a long
way toward helping our parks to provide better services to our
visitors.
To improve the protection and preservation of our
resources. To make them accessible to the public.
On August 15, 1916, the National Park Service was formed to
manage special places set aside to reflect the character of our
Nation and preserve them for generations to come. As the
National Park Service nears its 100th anniversary as stewards
of this Nation's most cherished natural and cultural resources
the challenge of managing these special places has grown more
complex, but no less imperative.
Through the fiscal year 2010 budget request the National
Park Service will strive to achieve the goals of the Secretary
of Interior's Protecting America's Treasured Landscapes
initiative and prepare for another century of conservation,
preservation and enjoyment.
The National Park Service will build park operational
capacity, tackle climate impacts and enhance critical
stewardship programs at our parks.
Engage our youth in conservation.
Effectively maintain National Park Service facilities.
Ensure organizational capacity in professional development.
The 2010 budget increase of 171 million for the Park
Service provides the impetus to change the National Park system
to meet the expectations of the public for a legacy that is
uniquely American. In preparation for the 100th anniversary,
the budget request provides the means to engage Americans in
getting reacquainted with nature's wonders in the Nation's
proud history and for international visitors to enjoy these
special places and the stories of the country. The fiscal year
2010 budget request reflects the President's commitment to our
national parks with a $100 million program increase in park
operations to maintain facilities, preserve cultural and
natural resources and protect the investments being made
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request safeguards the
investments made in our parks and builds upon the rich
philanthropic history of the service by including a $25 million
matching grant program for signature park projects. On the
fiscal year 2010 budget request I'd like to refer you to my
prepared statement and just touch a few of the highlights. Our
emphasis continues to be on increasing funding for park
operations.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $100 million
focused on 5 key components within the operation of the
National Park System account: $73.7 million to enhance park
operations capacity, $15.9 million in the category of
stewardship and education, $5.4 million into support the
National Park Service employee training and development, $5
million as part of the Department's creating a 21st century
Youth Conservation Corp Initiative, and $10 million as part of
the Department's initiative on tackling climate impacts for
collaboration with Interior Bureaus and other State and Federal
agencies that monitor climate change.
In addition the fiscal year 2010 budget request proposes a
multiyear incremental approach in support of the President's
commitment to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
programs at 900 million annually across the Department of
Interior and the United States Forest Service.
For the National Park Service the fiscal year 2010 budget
proposes funding totaling $98 million in discretionary
appropriations of which $68 million is available for the land
acquisition projects and administration.
Congress also made available $750 million of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for the National Park
Service directly and an additional $170 million for park roads
through the Department of Transportation.
Also, $15 million in grants will go to protecting and
restoring buildings at historically black colleges and
universities.
This provides the National Park Service with a unique
opportunity to make investments in projects that will achieve
long term benefits to the public. We plan to use these funds to
complete approximately 800 much needed projects that will
stimulate our economy and benefit millions of visitors that
come to our parks each year. Last week Secretary Salazar
informed President Obama that the National Park Service will
begin economic recovery projects at 107 National Parks within
the next 100 days.
These projects fall into six major categories that will
allow us to make an investment in some of our irreplaceable
assets by restoring facilities, landscapes and habitat,
spurring renewable energy retrofits in parks andcreating jobs
in park units throughout our country. These categories include:
Construction projects.
Deferred maintenance projects.
Energy efficient equipment replacement efforts.
Trails projects to restore trails for safer use and extend
the life.
Abandoned mine land safety projects to remedy serious
health and safety concerns.
Road maintenance projects to rehabilitate and preserve
deteriorated road surfaces.
Mr. Chairman, in closing may I say again how much we
appreciate your support and the support of the subcommittee for
the varied programs of the National Park Service. Our employees
are excited about the work we will be doing to prepare our
national parks for our second century of stewardship. We look
forward to working with you in meeting the challenges ahead.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. We would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Acting Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today at this oversight hearing on the
FY 2010 President's request for the National Park Service (NPS).
We appreciate the support that Congress has provided for our
continuing work as stewards of many of our Nation's most treasured
natural and cultural resources. For FY 2009, Congress increased the NPS
operations budget by $100 million, which will go a long way toward
helping our parks to provide better services to our visitors, to
improve the protection and preservation of our resources and to make
them accessible to the public. Congress also made available $750
million of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for the
National Park Service directly and an additional $170 million for park
roads through the Department of Transportation. These funds will help
us make significant, much-needed investments in facilities, equipment,
and roads to show measurable improvements in facility conditions.
Through the President's FY 2010 budget request, the National Park
Service will strive to achieve the goals of the Secretary of the
Interior's Protecting America's Treasured Landscapes initiative and
prepare for another century of conservation, preservation, and
enjoyment. The NPS will build park operational capacity, tackle climate
impacts and enhance critical stewardship programs at parks, engage our
youth in conservation, effectively maintain NPS facilities, and ensure
organizational capacity and professional development.
The 2010 budget increase of $171.0 million (+7%) for all National
Park Service programs provide the impetus to shape the national park
system to meet the expectations of the public for a legacy that is
uniquely American. This comparison excludes Recovery Act funding. In
preparation for the 100th anniversary in 2016, the budget request
provides the means to engage Americans in getting reacquainted with
nature's wonders and the Nation's proud history, and for international
visitors to enjoy these special places and the stories of the Country.
The FY 2010 budget request proposes total discretionary
appropriations of approximately $2.7 billion and includes $433 million
in mandatory appropriations for a total budget authority of $3.1
billion. This includes an increase of $171.0 million above the FY 2009
discretionary appropriations and an increase of $34.2 million in
mandatory appropriations.
The FY 2010 budget request reflects the President's commitment to
our national parks with a $100 million program increase in park
operations to maintain facilities, preserve cultural and natural
resources, and protect the investments being made through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The FY 2010 budget request
safeguards the investments made in our parks and builds upon the rich
philanthropic history of the Service by including a $25 million dollar
matching grant program for Park Partnership projects.
OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM (ONPS)
The FY 2010 budget request includes $2.6 billion for ONPS, an
increase of $134.5 million (+6%) over the 2009 enacted level. This
includes a $100 million programmatic increase and funding for increased
fixed costs of $41.0 million. The 2010 budget is focused on five key
components within the ONPS account: Park Operations, Climate Impacts,
Youth Programs, Stewardship and Education, and Professional Excellence.
1. Park Operations--The budget proposes increases totaling
$73.7 million to enhance park operations capacity. Highlights
include $57.5 million for specific park base increases at 212
parks, $8.0 million to support the restructuring of major
procurement and contracting services in parks that will allow
parks to share acquisition resources, $5.0 million to support
building the operational capacity in sworn officers and
civilian support staff for the United States Park Police, $0.5
million for park safety and regulations, $0.5 million to
improve commercial services management at parks, $1.6 million
in administrative support and public health and safety, and
$2.2 million in facility maintenance to expand emergency storm
damage coverage used to provide safe, uninterrupted visitor use
of facilities.
2. Climate Impacts--The National Park Service FY 2010 budget
request includes $10.0 million as part of the Department's
initiative on Tackling Climate Impacts for collaboration with
Interior bureaus and other State and Federal agencies that
monitor climate change. The budget request will provide $5.5
million to develop land, water and wildlife adaptation
strategies, $3.0 million to build a climate impact monitoring
system using the existing NPS natural resource network, $0.7
million to provide project seed money to the field, and $0.8
million to assemble a Climate Impact Response Office that will
develop a service-wide approach to research.
3. Youth Programs--The 2010 budget request includes an
increase of $5.0 million as part of the Department's Creating a
21st Century Youth Conservation Corps initiative to increase
youth partnership programs in the National Park Service. The
National Park Service is dedicated to engaging America's youth
in developing a life-long awareness of and commitment to
preserving our nation's exceptional natural and cultural
resources through educational, vocational and volunteer service
opportunities. The NPS Youth Internship Program will introduce
high school and college-aged youth to activities in land
conservation and interpretation of natural and cultural
resources. Internships involve students in intellectually
challenging assignments that allow them to work side-by-side
with park staff on projects that provide vocational and
educational opportunities in resource protection, research, and
the visitor experience at NPS sites.
4. Stewardship and Education--The FY 2010 President's budget
request proposes increases totaling $5.9 million for resource
stewardship and interpretive programs. The proposal includes
$2.0 million for Historical and Archeological Inventories and
$2.5 million to implement the NPS Ocean Park Stewardship plan
to enhance research, operational, and educational programs. An
increase of $1.4 million will advance the Interpretation and
Education Renaissance Action Plan and institute a web-learning
pilot program to provide information for internet visitors of
all ages.
5. Professional Excellence--The most valuable assets
available to the Park Service are its more than 20,000
dedicated employees. An efficient and effective park system
requires that NPS invest in their professional development. An
increase of $3.9 million will directly support this investment,
including $2.7 million to enhance the Service's leadership and
management succession program and $1.2 million to support the
expansion of the Superintendents Academy. Nearly $1.0 million
is proposed to automate the labor-intensive human resource
processes that are critical to achieving efficient operations
and recruiting new and diverse employees and $0.5 million is
requested to ensure acquisition employees receive adequate
training.
The FY 2010 budget request also details a restructuring that
recalibrates funding among the programs within the ONPS account. This
realignment brings budget requests in line with expenditures, providing
Congress with a more clear understanding of the needs of the Park
Service and the use of appropriated dollars to support activities.
PARK PARTNERSHIP PROJECT GRANTS
The FY 2010 budget request continues to support the partnership
aspect of the Protecting America's Treasured Landscapes initiative
through a $25.0 million Park Partnership matching grants program. The
program invites individuals, foundations, businesses, and the private
sector to contribute donations to support signature programs and
projects in our national parks. Partners in these projects are required
to match the Federal funding, at a minimum of 50 percent of the cost,
with private philanthropic donations.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The 2010 President's request includes a renewed commitment of
resources to programs funded through the LWCF and proposes a multi-year
incremental approach to fully fund these programs at $900.0 million
annually across the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service. For the National Park Service, the FY 2010 budget proposes
funding totaling $98.0 million in discretionary appropriations, of
which $68.0 million is available for land protection projects and
administration. Included within the proposal is $4.0 million to provide
grants to States and local communities to preserve and protect Civil
War battlefield sites outside the national park system. The request
also provides $30.0 million, including administrative costs, for State
Conservation Grants funded by the LWCF. An additional $10.0 million for
State Conservation grants is available from the LWCF in mandatory
appropriations.
CONSTRUCTION
The $206.0 million requested for Construction includes $116.8
million for line-item construction projects. This request, along with
recreation fees, park roads funding, and the funding made available
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will provide
substantial resources towards protecting and maintaining existing park
assets.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
The NPS plays a vital role in preserving the Nation's cultural
history through a variety of programs that address preservation needs
nationwide. The 2010 budget for the Historic Preservation Fund is $77.7
million, including $20.0 million for Save America's Treasures and $3.2
million for Preserve America grants. The budget requests $54.5 million
for Grants-in-Aid to States, Territories and Tribes for Historic
Preservation. The request includes an additional $4.0 million for
States and Territories and $1.0 million for Grants-in-Aid to Tribes.
NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION (NR&P)
The National Recreation and Preservation appropriation funds
programs connected with local and community efforts to preserve natural
and cultural resources. Highlights within the total request of $53.9
million include $15.7 million for National Heritage Areas and an
increase of $0.5 million to provide technical assistance to communities
through the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program.
FIXED COSTS AND OFFSETTING REDUCTIONS
The FY 2010 budget request proposes $43.2 million to fully fund
fixed costs, enabling parks to strive toward the goals of the Park
Service without absorbing non-discretionary fixed costs increases. The
proposal reflects increased costs for pay, health care, services
provided by other agencies, and the Department's Working Capital Fund.
The budget request proposes decreases in funding totaling $46.6
million. Reductions reflect the elimination of funding for non-
recurring costs such as $4.0 million for the Presidential Inauguration
and $5.8 million in congressional earmarks. An estimated $2.0 million
in savings will be gained from reduced operational costs due to energy
efficient retro-fitting of federal buildings. The budget proposes a
reduction of $32.4 million in Line-Item Construction primarily due to
reduced expenditures in Everglades (in response to available
unobligated balances) and increased commitments under the Recovery Act.
PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
In formulating the FY 2010 budget request, the National Park
Service utilized a variety of tools to incorporate performance results
into the decision-making process. These tools include the Budget Cost
Projection Module, the Core Operations Analysis, the Business Planning
Initiative, and the NPS Scorecard, as well as continued program
evaluations. These tools are used to develop a more consistent approach
to integrating budget and performance across the Service, as well as to
support further accountability for budget performance integration at
all levels of the organization.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
The National Park Service received $750 million through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This provides the
National Park Service with a unique opportunity to make investments in
projects that will achieve long-term benefits for the public. We plan
to use these funds to complete approximately 800 much-needed projects
that will stimulate our economy, provide jobs in communities across the
nation, and benefit millions of visitors that come to our parks each
year. The NPS will begin economic recovery projects at 107 national
parks in the next 100 days. Also, $15 million in grants will go to
protecting and to restoring buildings at historically black colleges
and universities.
These projects fall under six major categories that will allow us
to make investments in some of our irreplaceable assets by restoring
facilities, landscapes and habitat, spurring renewable energy retrofits
in parks, and creating jobs in park units throughout our country. These
categories include:
(1) construction projects to upgrade facilities for health,
safety, and energy efficiency, demolish those facilities that
are obsolete, and replace or repair critical infrastructure;
(2) deferred maintenance projects to replace utility, water,
and wastewater systems, restore outdated or damaged facilities,
and stabilize historical structures to extend their useful
life;
(3) energy efficient equipment replacement efforts to replace
aging vehicles, heavy equipment, and HVAC systems with next
generation energy efficient equipment;
(4) trails projects to restore trails for safer use and
extend the life of trails by controlling erosion, repairing
trail surfaces, and replacing deteriorated boardwalks;
(5) abandoned mine lands safety projects selected on their
ability to maintain access and allow for airflow at mine
openings to remedy serious health and safety concerns at the
sites and to allow mine openings to continue to be used as
wildlife habitat; and
(6) road maintenance projects to rehabilitate and preserve
deteriorated road surfaces along our 5,450 paved miles of
public park roads, 6,544 miles of unpaved roads, the equivalent
of 948 paved miles of parking areas.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary of the FY 2010 budget
request for the National Park Service. We would be pleased to answer
any questions you and the other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Director Wenk, for being to the
point and for giving us a summary of your proposals. If I might
I'd like to turn further to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. I know you're still in the early stages of
getting these funds directed into many, if not all of the
national park units.
Do you feel in general your agency has been able to meet
the goals of the Recovery Act? After you've answered that I'd
like to go to some specific questions.
Mr. Wenk. Absolutely. I believe that our projects will put
Americans to work. We will find opportunities for our youth. We
will reinvigorate our national parks.
Senator Udall. You mentioned some of the numbers. I don't
want to go back over those. But if they are of use to you as
you answer this next round of questions, please feel free to do
so.
But can you tell me how many of the funds have been spent
to date? Are you on track, do you believe, to spend your funds
by September 2010 as directed by the Recovery Act?
Mr. Wenk. We are on track to spend our funds. We intend to
obligate the entire sum that's been allocated. To date
approximately $4 million have been obligated.
Senator Udall. Out of a total of?
Mr. Wenk. Of about $750 million.
Senator Udall. Right.
Mr. Wenk. That low number is due to the time it does take
for completion of the projects once we got approval, plus going
through the contracting procedures and getting them under
contract. We expect those numbers to accelerate quickly.
Senator Udall. Can you tell me how you've gone about
deciding where to direct that funding? As I understand it, in
some regions you've met with stakeholder groups, you've
solicited input on how that recovery money should be spent. Can
you tell me how that interaction is going and your decision
process on the spending?
Mr. Wenk. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the projects that are
on our list are projects of long standing need to the National
Park Service. They are not new projects. But we've been able to
accelerate from our 5-year line item construction program, from
the repair rehabilitation program, and the cyclic maintenance
programs.
We've been able to bring those forward. Those projects that
were, if you will, shovel ready and could be obligated within
the timeframe of having all the funds obligated prior to the
end of the fiscal year--or by September 2010. Where we have had
stakeholders who have brought money to the table and could take
advantage of those opportunities, we have.
But primarily these have been from long standing programs
within the National Park Service priorities.
Senator Udall. When you say stakeholders who could bring
money to the table. These are private dollars that can match
Federal dollars? Can you give us a little bit of a sense of how
that might work?
Mr. Wenk. Actually I'm going to turn to my Comptroller. I'm
not sure if we had any of those in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. In our budget we have $25 million of
partnership money. That is where we would see a shared
opportunity.
In the Recovery Act I think we may be taking advantage of--
are we taking advantage of any multi-funding?
Mr. Sheaffer. No.
Mr. Wenk. I don't know that we are. I may have misspoke
earlier.
Senator Udall. Mr. Sheaffer, did you want to comment?
Mr. Sheaffer. As Mr. Wenk said, these were projects that
were drawn down from long standing backlog lists, unfunded
backlog lists, if you will. To develop from scratch a new
program and get it obligated in 18 months would have been an
impractical solution. Honestly, the work, the projects we
selected had already been vetted, merit based priority set, and
passed up through the ranks from parks and regions on standing
lists, as Dan said.
So that's where the projects, I think every one, was drawn
from.
Mr. Wenk. We do have some circumstances, Mr. Chairman,
where we have selected a project from our list that we will be
doing in its entirety that perhaps will stimulate a partner to
do additional work such as Ellis Island. In some instances, we
will do a complete project that will hopefully be an impetus
for a partner organization, to raise money and to continue
further with that project. However, there's not a co-mingling
of funds.
Senator Udall. Is it fair to say your approach has been
similar to the one that the U.S. DOT and the State DOTs, that
is Departments of Transportation taken which there are plenty
of projects in the pipeline, plenty of projects that have been
approved, but lacked the funding necessary to move ahead.
You've taken that same approach in the Park Service.
Mr. Wenk. That would be a very accurate statement.
Senator Udall. If I might move quickly. You mentioned
abandoned mine clean up. I'm curious, particularly given I've
been working on this for a number of years in the House. I
brought that passion, interest, over here to the Senate.
How many abandoned mines and contaminated sites exist on
Park Service land? How much funding you're allocating to
address those sites? What funding may be needed in the best of
worlds, to address that overall need?
Mr. Wenk. I'll start with the last part of the question
first. We believe the last survey we did shows that a rough
estimate approaching $300 million would be necessary to address
the abandoned mine issues.
Senator Udall. Just on Park Service lands?
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Mr. Wenk. We think there's about 3,100 mines or excuse me,
sites that may have as many as 8,400 features which could be
multiple issues on one site. This year through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I believe we have $23 million
that we're dedicating to it funding which will work. I'm trying
to remember the exact number of mines we'll work on, 32
projects in 18 parks in 12 States that we'll address this year,
or between now and September 2010.
Senator Udall. So a start, but less than 10 percent of the
need that you've----
Mr. Wenk. Correct.
Senator Udall. Put on paper, monetarily.
Mr. Wenk. That's a rough estimate.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Mr. Wenk. I would say it's a very rough estimate. We don't
know what the appropriate mitigation approach will be on many
of those mines. Those are estimates that were developed in
response to a recent IG report.
So I think they are probably in order of magnitude.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to the Senator from North
Carolina for his questions. I think we certainly will have a
second round of questions as well.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wenk, what percentage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act do you anticipate would go to deferred
maintenance?
Mr. Wenk. Deferred maintenance, it's sort of in our strict
definition between maintenance on smaller level projects
between maintenance and trails, is almost $140 million of that
$750. But there is a lot of deferred maintenance that will be
dealt with in terms of the construction program which is about
$589 million total. But we will be working on facilities in
terms of some major rehabilitation.
We'll also be dealing with roads rehabilitation. So I don't
know that I can pull an exact number. But I would suggest that
the majority of that $750 would be on deferred maintenance.
Senator Burr. Yes. I looked very intently at the 6
categories that you listed under the American Recovery Act and
deferred maintenance projects to replace utility water, those
items that directly affected the ability for a park to
function.
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Senator Burr. Not to expand, to function, has been sort of
the annual Mecca to the Hill, number 1 thing that the Park
Service needed.
I'm trying to understand when given a pot of $750 million
than what percentage of that did you allocate to those
maintenance projects that allow that park to function for the
people walking in? Not in the future with future expansion,
with necessarily the mind peace. I mean we all agree that's got
to be done.
What percentage went to that maintenance problem which was
the number 1 issue?
Mr. Wenk. Do you have?
Mr. Sheaffer. Projects that were tagged with a deferred
maintenance element are roughly $600 million of the total.
Senator Burr. So $600 million of $750 million.
Mr. Sheaffer. Right. Would address some, all or a portion
of a deferred maintenance issue as part of their component.
Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. The amount of deferred maintenance needs
prior to the American Recovery Act was how much?
Mr. Sheaffer. The current deferred maintenance backlog is a
bit over $9 billion.
Senator Burr. In the 2010 proposed budget you listed five
categories of investment. You referred to it as five key
components within the ONPS account. Given, what did you say, $9
billion?
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Nine billion dollars in deferred maintenance
we're addressing $600 million.
Mr. Sheaffer. In the American Recovery.
Senator Burr. In the American Recovery. So you devote $10
million to climate impacts. Walk me through that. We've got a
finite amount of money. We're trying to get these parks up.
We're starting a new program, in essence, right?
Mr. Sheaffer. For us, it is our first year for putting
resources.
Senator Burr. So with a limited amount of resources and
with this backlog of maintenance needs where--walk me through
how this is a priority to start a new program.
Mr. Wenk. The priority comes from the fact that climate
change was going to have a dramatic effect on our National
Parks. Our National Parks, in many cases, in many ways, are
places where we're going to see the effects of climate change
as it affects our ability to preserve our resources and to
leave them unimpaired for future generations. There's issues in
terms of climate change especially along the coast and along
major river ways, that will affect archeological resources in
our parks.
With a $10 million expenditure, we're trying to establish
an office to look at some of the inventory and monitoring that
we need to do to understand the effects of climate change. To
look at adaptation techniques that we can use to preserve these
resources that we're entrusted to protect. If we don't take
these steps, I believe we will lose resources that we will
never be able to replace.
Senator Burr. Do you have a lack of confidence that
elsewhere in the Federal Government we're not doing the right
amount of study on climate change? That we're going to now
duplicate it within the Park Service?
Mr. Wenk. It's not a lack of confidence in the rest of the
government. It's the confidence that we, as part of the
government need to work collaboratively with the other Bureaus
within the Department of Interior to address this issue in a
manner that we will understand the impacts and address future
strategies for how best to protect the resources that we have.
Senator Burr. I raise the question because it lessens my
concern about how important the public/private partnerships are
when you divert $10 million that we could use to leverage
private money to put in the parks. It lessens the urgency, I
think, of $9 billion worth of backlogs when you're diverting
money over. There's no piece of the Federal Government that's
not looking for money to do studies on climate change.
I think at some point we can rely on other's information
once we accumulate the information we need to implement that in
a collaborative way. That's one thing. But, you know, this may
be one member's concern about how we've prioritized that $10
million.
But I look at that. That's $20 million if you leverage it
against private dollars to fund parks under the structure of
the Centennial Challenge as an example. I think a missed
opportunity in my estimation.
Let me move, if I could, to some other areas. Recently the
National Park Service received some attention regarding the
utilization of eminent domain to take the land from private
land owners for Flight 93 Memorial. Eminent demand is a tool
that should only be used when absolutely necessary.
Could you please provide an update on the legal status of
the land in question?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, I believe it was approximately 10
days ago, we met with the landowners in the area of Flight 93.
Last week, National Park Service staff met with the landowners
in Somerset County.
I'm pleased to say that we have made significant progress
on reaching a negotiated settlement with those landowners who
would in fact negotiate with us in Somerset County. I believe
that we're very close to an agreement in principle with those
land owners. We're hopeful if there is the use of eminent
domain it will only be used in agreement with the land owner to
settle some issues that we both agree need to go that route.
Senator Burr. How long have we been negotiating?
Mr. Wenk. I think we've been negotiating for 2 to 3 years.
I would say that the last week we probably negotiated with much
more success than we have in that past 2 to 3 years.
Senator Burr. Do we currently own land for this memorial?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, we do. The families of Flight 93 purchased
land from the PBS Coal Company. We purchased it from them. So
we do have some under our control now.
Senator Burr. That was 1,000 acres?
Mr. Wenk. Approximately.
Senator Burr. The negotiations that are currently underway
are for an additional $500?
Mr. Wenk. A little bit less than that, between 400 and 500
hundred acres, yes. There are 2 large landowners; the
negotiations on the land price in one case has been completed.
The other case we've agreed to go to eminent domain with them.
You may have heard about the agreement with the Svonavecs
in January of this year.
Senator Burr. Shed some light for me, if you can, for the
purposes of this memorial. What drives the need for 1,500 acres
for the memorial?
Mr. Wenk. A few things. There's the memorial itself. I'd be
happy to provide you with the designs that have been created
for the memorial. The memorial, will take, I believe it's in
the area of, I'm going to say, 400 plus or minus acres, and
another 300 to 400 hundred for the memorial location itself.
Plus you have the access roads and some space that you need to
protect the visual quality of that memorial.
Senator Burr. Share for us for the record the plans if you
would.
Mr. Wenk. I would be pleased to.
Senator Burr. For the total 1,500 acres.
I think most Members would agree, we want to do a memorial
there that is sufficient and is done in the best possible
fashion that we can. But I would love to understand better why
it's 1,500 acres that's required. It's pretty tough for me to
look at a situation where to complete that task we would
actually use eminent domain to take somebody's land.
I think the threshold for that has to be awfully
compelling. I would love to look at the plans and then possibly
follow up with some questions about how many alternative plans
we might have looked at that would accommodate, shy that one
last land owner. How many acres are we talking about with
eminent domain?
Mr. Wenk. I would say it's approximately 400. The one
landowner we reached agreement with in January had 274 of that
400. That was the Svonavec property that I told you about
earlier.
Senator Burr. So we're really talking about 130 acres.
Mr. Wenk. I believe so. But the acreage we're talking
about, Mr. Burr, is literally in the area of the crash site
itself.
Senator Burr. Ok. Ok. That helps me to understand a little
better. I thank you.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member for some
insightful questions. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that we have the right footprint and that we use eminent
domain only as a last resort.
If I might let me pick up on the ranking member's interest
in the climate change and what the Park Service is doing. I
know, serving on the Sites Committee on the House side we
worked on an ongoing basis to ensure that those dollars were
being used in a really cost effective way and there wasn't
duplication in some of the agencies that were charged more
broadly with studying climate change. But I do note that the
mission of the Park Service is, as is set forth in the Organic
Act is to leave our country's natural and cultural heritage
unimpaired for future generations.
Now within that context climate change seems like a
daunting challenge for your agency, for our agency. I think you
did talk a little bit about the components the Park Service's
strategy in answering Senator Burr's questions. But I don't
know if you wanted to add anything to that survey, Mr. Wenk.
Mr. Wenk. I think we believe that the climate change issue
is perhaps one of the most far reaching and challenging aspects
that we're going to face as we move forward into our next
century. What we're trying to do is we're trying to establish
the framework, if you will, in terms of how we're going to deal
with that challenge. We're trying to look at some adaptation
strategies that might work in protecting the wildlife or the
habitats that we have, that we are charged to protect.
So I believe that the $10 million initial investment, if
you will, is an investment that will really enable us to work
with our sister bureaus within the Department, with the Forest
Service, with NOAA and others to really, if you will, come to
grips with the magnitude of the change, the potential impact on
the National Park Service site and look at ways that we can
effectively deal with some of the changes that we'll be facing.
Senator Udall. For the record, I understand that there's
$133 million that's allocated among 5 agencies in the
Department of Interior at this initiative. I think you talked
generally about working with the other agencies within the
Department of Interior. Coordination is going to be critical.
Do you believe that there is that spirit of collaboration,
at least as you begin to do this work?
Mr. Wenk. Absolutely. In fact, starting tomorrow there's a
meeting within the Department of the Interior with Deputy
Secretary Hayes as well as with the Science Advisor with all
the Bureaus up at the National Conservation and Training Center
in Shepherdstown. We're literally going to be looking at how we
coordinate, how we work together, to make sure we're not
duplicating efforts, to make sure we have a solid approach to
identifying the issues and potential management strategies to
deal with it.
Senator Udall. Is it fair to suggest that some of the work,
if not most of the work, that would be undertaken in the
climate change initiative is in addition on to what you're
biologists and your scientists are already doing in
understanding ecosystems and understanding wildlife use
patterns etcetera? I think if you would respond to that.
Mr. Wenk. I think that's a fair characterization. We do
have a Natural Resource and Stewardship in Science program
within the National Park Service. That program has looked at a
variety of things.
Looking at vital signs of our national parks, for example,
is a program that links 270 parks linked together, if you will,
in 32 like equal regions. We evaluate the vital signs of those
parks so we can get some understanding of the impacts that are
going on out there even today.
Senator Udall. Let me, if I might, return to questions I
asked about abandoned mine clean up. There has been an effort
to pass Good Samaritan legislation that would provide ways in
which volunteers and non-profits could help do that work in a
very cost effective way. At the same time keep faith with
liability provisions of the Clean Water Act as well as Super
Fund considerations.
Do you believe that the Park Service could benefit from
Good Samaritan volunteers to work to clean up these sites and
in effect the agency, the Park Service that is, would benefit
from addressing these Clean Water Act liabilities that now are
in the law and make it difficult?
Mr. Wenk. I believe that that probably has. In terms of
benefiting from the Good Samaritan, I believe that we'd have to
look at individual sites. I think there probably are a number
of sites that would lend themselves to that kind of cooperative
work. I think we'd probably have to evaluate that on an
individual basis.
But we'd certainly want to that and would hope to do that.
Senator Udall. Yes. I would note that certainly the Park
Service has made increasing use of volunteers. I think there's
a greater sophistication across the board if you will, with
many, many groups that have sprung up, friends of this park,
friends of that park. I hope we can harness that excitement and
that affection, that love for these national parks that exist
in all the communities around every national park.
Mr. Wenk. I agree. Oftentimes our friend organizations are
focused on particular areas of interest within parks. It's not
uncommon for some parks to have more than one friends group
that might be focused on different kinds of initiatives.
Senator Udall. I would note that my friend Senator Barrasso
has arrived from the great State of Wyoming. I wanted to give
him an opportunity to also ask some questions of the panel.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. I was with some wonderful girl scouts from
Wyoming and visiting with them.
I'm sorry for being a little late. I had a chance to talk
to Senator Burr as he was leaving and I was coming in. I know
he raised the issue with you of the maintenance backlog.
You know, in the President's budget it's notable that the
Park Service has chosen to decrease the construction budget,
but this is accomplished by covering the construction needs
with stimulus funds. So I'm just curious it seemed to me there
was an opportunity for the Park Service to catch up on the
facilities maintenance backlog. I'm not sure that we're really
doing that.
Mr. Wenk. There is a capacity issue that we have within the
National Park Service in terms of managing the planning, design
and construction process with the vast majority of that $750
million going to those construction contracting, if you will,
requirements for management. The reduction of the line item
construction program in 2010 is, we certainly hope, a temporary
reduction. But it really gets to a capacity issue. We still
have the need for a robust construction program.
Senator Barrasso. I'm wondering about acquisition too. I
mean some of the money is being spent now on land acquisition
or new Federal employees in 2010. So if we acquire more acres
and more employees in 2010, how are we going to keep up those
acres and the employees in 2011 when the need for construction
funding returns and there isn't the stimulus money.
Mr. Wenk. I'm not sure I fully understand your question,
Mr. Barrasso. The moneys that are being spent under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are being accomplished
almost totally through contracts. They are not being spent on
hiring government employees.
If I'm not answering your question, I'm sorry. So it's not
an issue of trying to find additional employees to take that
place. They'll come in. Do that work. They will leave the park
area.
Senator Barrasso. But some money is used on acquiring more
lands. Is that correct?
Mr. Wenk. No.
Senator Barrasso. No money at all from the President's
budget is being used?
Mr. Sheaffer. In the President's budget, yes.
Senator Barrasso. Yes. So that's the concern that I have.
If we're spending more money in the President's budget to
acquire land and we don't have some of this additional funding.
Aren't we just going to be compounding our problem by having
more land to manage without the resources put into that land.
We have a backlog right now of what we need to do. Isn't that
just going to compound the problem?
Mr. Wenk. I don't think it has to compound the problem at
all, Mr. Barrasso. There's some cases where the land we would
purchase are in holdings within National Parks where we
actually may have a higher management cost to manage that land
as an in holding than we would as a continuous park area.
Senator Barrasso. So you're saying it's going to cost less
to manage more?
Mr. Wenk. In some cases.
Senator Barrasso. Because of what you're able to pick up
some areas, you're not going to have go around.
Mr. Wenk. Or you're not going to have to manage for those
special park uses that take place within the park.
Senator Barrasso. Ok. I just want to make sure we're not
putting quantity ahead of quality. We have two jewels of the
Park System in Wyoming with Yellowstone National Park, Grand
Teton National Park.
I have significant concerns with upkeep and with backlog of
projects that need to be done. I want to make sure that we can
focus what we have on getting that done.
I am encouraged by what I read about in the statement:
``Sylvan Pass is to be kept open and requires funding for
avalanche management,'' which is critical to us in Wyoming. It
has been an area of discussion and contention. I'm delighted to
see that this has been included because management of the pass
and of the East entrance to Yellowstone have both been very
important to the local communities.
I know you have an issue about the $716,000 and 2.7 full
time equivalents who are going to be utilized to implement the
winter use decision in Yellowstone National Park. Can you talk
a little bit about that?
Mr. Wenk. The winter use at Yellowstone National Park, I
believe, probably relates directly to the Sylvan Pass and the
activities that it would take to keep Sylvan Pass open for
access.
Senator Barrasso. I was going to submit some questions, but
I'm fine with this. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Would you be able to stay for another round
of questions?
Senator Barrasso. Yes.
Senator Udall. Or would you like to continue?
Senator Barrasso. No, no. That would be alright.
Senator Udall. Why don't we have another round? I'll do my
best to stick to a 5-minute timeframe. I think it's good to
have a Senator from Wyoming here.
I would like to ask that the LWCF questions or land
acquisition questions more broadly that Senator Barrasso
mentioned be submitted for the record. You may have already
started this process, through acquisitions that are in the
pipeline and plans that you have. I know even, I would assume,
although I could be wrong, that in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
there may still be in holdings. There still may be boundary
adjustments that we're trying to fix in some cases through the
LWCF funds or acquisition funds.
Let me turn to bark beetle. We're experiencing a major
infestation in Colorado. You don't have to go very far from
Denver to the West to see it.
I think Senator Barrasso's State, the same situation is
unfolding. They, the beetles, are not only killing trees on
Forest Service lands, they are also having a meal on park
lands. What are you doing to address the threat? How much are
you spending on it? Tell us a little bit about your proposal in
the budget and how much additional funding could you use?
Mr. Wenk. First of all, we're trying to understand the
extent of the problem by mapping the outbreaks of Mountain Pine
beetle within our units. That's actually now going on in all
our Western States except for North Dakota. Fifty-seven of our
park units have reported elevated populations of beetle
infestations.
We're not addressing the problem from a specific fund
source. Our Park Superintendents are reprioritizing some of
their monies within the natural resources program to address
the problem. We will treat trees as it becomes necessary.
For example, there might be trees in campgrounds or
developed areas that we want to make sure are protected. Where
we're not successful and where trees pose a safety issue we
will literally remove those trees through hazard tree removal
programs. But we have not yet identified a special fund source
to deal with that.
So we're dealing with it out of park base budgets.
Mr. Sheaffer. We do get a small amount of money from the
Forest Service for forest pest control, $800,000 to $1 million
a year in that year, have for many years.
Senator Udall. So you do have a cooperative relationship
with the Forest Service.
Mr. Sheaffer. BLM, Forest Service.
Senator Udall. The BLM as well.
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wenk. To give you an idea of cost, at Rocky Mountain
National Park, which obviously you're very familiar with, sir,
there's the belief that there will be a need to remove almost
one million trees at a cost of about $7 million.
Senator Udall. Not insignificant. Why we continue to look
into this issue. Colorado is, I think, citizens in Wyoming as
well, looking to find ways that the market might add value to
these trees and therefore help us remove them and reduce fuel
loads are necessary.
In some cases, of course, the trees will stay in place.
They may serve an ecological purpose. They may be difficult to
reach. But it certainly is an increasing threat, one that
concerns a lot of us.
Let me turn to the budget again. Talk to you about the
funding for public and private partnerships that are
particularly directed at repairing and improving of the Park
Service facilities for the 100th anniversary which will be a
wonderful event. Can you tell me how the money will be spent?
In other words what's your process for selecting projects and
how will it differ, if at all, from previous years?
Mr. Wenk. The 2008 budget appropriated $25 million for that
purpose. We did not have it in the 2009 budget. We're pleased
that it is in the 2010 budget.
We initiated a process in 2008 where we went out to our
park areas, into our friends organizations. At that time we had
commitments from friends groups and organizations, I believe
for projects that were in an excess of $300 million that they
said they had funding available and ready to go.
Through our prioritization process, we will try to look
at--we'll have to re-ask the question. As you know some of the
economic landscape has changed since that time. Friends groups
may or may not be in the same position they were in 2008.
So we will go out with a call once again to our park areas.
We will ask for those projects that have funding available,
where all the design and environmental compliance work has been
done.
In the cases where there are projects, programs, excuse me,
and not projects in terms of educational programs, we have many
requests. We funded many of those as well. We will have the
opportunity to go through and prioritize again.
We will set the criteria, which would be very much the same
criteria as for 2010. We will identify those highest priority
projects that are ready to go with moneys ready to be spent by
the friends to match our funds and we'll move forward.
Senator Udall. So this is $300 million of private money
ready to be matched with $300 million of public money to
upgrade and construct facilities?
Mr. Wenk. There was a commitment. There was a statement by
our friends group that those funds were available. In not all
cases were the projects ready to go at the same time.
But they were saying that the level of funding was
available. That if it could be that would have been the source
for matching funds. We have cases where some partners have said
they will give us more than a one-to-one match.
For example, they would provide $2 for every $1 of our
dollars. We would look at all those different opportunities.
Mr. Sheaffer. In some cases that match would come from a
State or local government. It's not all private.
Senator Udall. It's not all. That sounds exciting as long
as those moneys don't all go to Yellowstone or Grand Teton
National Park.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. I object, Mr. Chairman. I think it should
all go to Wyoming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I've got a couple of quick
last questions. In 1988 the Park Service sold dead timber from
Yellowstone. Now we're looking at this environment with the
bark beetle.
Can we do that in this insect event with the bark beetles
in terms of selling some of the timber or harvesting?
Mr. Wenk. I think once again it would be situational. We
would look at how we would remove timber from, for example,
campground areas or developed areas and see what might be
appropriate. I think we'd have to look at each case
individually and determine what our policies, regulations, and
laws would allow in each individual case.
Senator Barrasso. Alright. If you had some additional
thoughts, I may put a couple of these questions into writing as
well.
There have been new regulations in terms of the National
Park Service. I'm wondering how you're moving forward to meet
the deadline to allow gun owners to carry weapons in the parks?
Mr. Wenk. We are working very hard to literally understand
how the new law affects each park individually. Looking at the
State law in the political subdivision, if you will, of a
county or a city requires us to look at every park, every
location and understand the laws for that political
subdivision.
So we are going through that process right now. As you
might imagine in a place like Yellowstone National Park which
is in three States and probably four or five different
counties, the potential would be there to have that law
enforced in different ways. I don't think that necessarily the
case in Wyoming. But that's just an example of what we have to
go through for every park area.
Senator Barrasso. Then a final question. I'm wondering what
you've encountered in terms of have there been any delays in
implementation of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
due to NEPA compliance, NEPA regulations? What, you know, has
there been money available that you were not able to spend
because of complying with NEPA?
Mr. Wenk. Not yet. One of the criteria that we had going
into this in terms of identifying the projects was to look at
those projects that were shovel ready or that we were very
confident would be shovel ready within that timeframe. That
included completion of the necessary environmental compliance.
We actually have placed on our list projects in excess of
the amount of money available so if we do run into an obstacle
we can remove that project and substitute another high priority
project in the Service.
Senator Barrasso. So you don't see a delay in your ability
to go to shovel ready projects? There are enough shovel ready
projects available to handle the available funds?
Mr. Wenk. I believe there's enough shovel ready projects to
handle the available funds.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No other
questions.
Senator Udall. I Thank the Senator from Wyoming for taking
the time to attend this, I think, very important hearing in the
Subcommittee on National Parks. I look forward to working with
him. Perhaps he and I could exchange visits to some of the best
park units in the whole country.
Although Senator Burr was here earlier bragging about the
visitation levels at the Great Smokies National Park.
Senator Burr. He's left. So let's stick it to the roof with
the Rocky Mountains then.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. If I might, let me turn to your programs for
youth. I know you've committed increasing the number and
availability of the work programs for our young citizens. Your
budget documents indicate that the Park Service's goals employ
nearly 10,000 young people through the Recovery Act funds.
I assume that's a big increase in the number of young
people working in the parks. What sort of capacity do you have
to support that effort, lodging, transportation, supervision? I
have a couple of teenagers. Actually my son will say he's not a
teenager, he's in his early twenties.
But what sort of capacity do you have to manage all those
groups?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, one of the great opportunities we
have is to provide employment opportunities in our parks for
youth. By working with organizations such as the Student
Conservation Association and others, we do not have to provide
as much of the administration and housing as we would if we had
hired them directly. I would ask Mr. Sheaffer if he would add
some of our capacity issues and programs.
Mr. Sheaffer. The youth programs we employ in an area are
mostly using organizations like the Student Conservation
Association.
Senator Udall. SCA.
Mr. Sheaffer. Other public land corps like organizations do
provide that sort of logistical support, administrative support
and the like. We also do use Youth Conservation, YCC youth. We
hire directly. In some of those cases, we are limited by our
capacity.
Getting the largest number working through these other
organizations is the thing we found most successful.
Senator Udall. My understanding is, and I support this if
this is in fact the case, that you undertake this mission in
part to recruit potential future employees. Also it's a part of
the outreach to communities across America. What do you do to
ensure that you reach to underrepresented youth, communities in
urban areas, for example?
Do you have a conscious approach to drawing those kinds of
young people into work with the park service?
Mr. Sheaffer. The organizations, Mr. Chairman, that we deal
with, do an excellent job. YCC is particularly diverse with
only just a bit over 50 percent, a bit under 50 percent
minority representation. The Conservation Corps do well too and
have been doing better recently with our encouragement.
So I'd say our diversity numbers have been improving
substantially. The numbers that you mentioned, the numbers that
we will be dealing with hopefully over the next 2 years as a
result of the Recovery Act is kind of unprecedented ground for
us. So there's a number of things we're going to learn in the
next 2 years.
I can assure that the administration, the Secretary is
interested in seeing that kind of momentum stay with us over
the next few years and building to even larger numbers. So
we're going to be learning a lot. We're learning a lot in terms
of how we actually conduct ourselves with them.
The agreements that we have are probably going to expand
the number of groups we deal with in the next few years and
error is going to be telling us a lot about how we're going go
to about successfully doing that.
Senator Udall. Many traditional programs of this type are
fairly long in the time commitment demand, often at 12 weeks.
Sometimes, I think with particular shorter summer vacation
timeframes, it's hard for young adults to be able to generate
that kind of time. Do you have alternative programs where you
work with shorter duration or varied levels of commitment for
these potential volunteers and interns?
Mr. Sheaffer. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. The
SCA, for example, tend to run 12- to 14-week programs. But some
of the other corps groups that we work with have much shorter
duration programs, as little as 3 to 6 weeks, sometimes
dictated by the project that we bring to them, and the nature
of the duration of the project we bring to them.
So again I think that we'll probably be tapping those kinds
of sources far greater in the next 18 months than we have in
the past. So----
Senator Udall. Is it fair to say that some of the work that
is done is really project directed and driven? That's my memory
of how the SCA works. There are other jobs and other employment
opportunities where it's more general in nature. So do you have
that mix of reasons that you have the access to these workers?
Mr. Sheaffer. That is true. In this particular case the
Recovery Act effort is principally job/project oriented. A lot
of it is, you know, trail work for example, prevalent.
But you're right. There are some particularly working
through SCA where you have some college age folks who can do
other work and in terms of resource management.
Senator Udall. Interpretation.
Mr. Sheaffer. Exotic weed removal and the like. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Education.
Mr. Sheaffer. That's right. That's right. Our normal
programs do conduct a number of those things.
We have a highly successful program; we work through SCA
hiring business students, graduate business students to come in
and help the National Park Service. An extraordinary program
that ultimately, in many cases, leads to employment with the
Park Service in business activities.
Senator Udall. I need to do my own homework. But I've long
followed SCA although in the last few years I haven't directly
analyzed their balance sheet and their activity. But you're
implying that SCA still a strong and active and engaged
organization. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheaffer. Absolutely, without question.
Senator Udall. It has a long time partnership with the Park
Service?
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. I think it'd be fair to have the record show
that Secretary Salazar has a deep commitment to youth
activities and to youth recruitment. He built a record in
Colorado when he headed the Department of Natural Resources in
this area. There are some successful programs in Colorado that
we look to as an example.
I know that's been one of his passions. It's a passion of
his now as Interior Secretary. I assume you both would nod and
say, yes, that's very, very true. But I wanted to make that
clear, too.
Mr. Sheaffer. Made clear to us.
Senator Udall. Yes. He's made that clear to all of us. Let
me keep pursuing this area of interest, youth involvement
particularly in regards to the Recovery Act.
There was a provision that encouraged the Secretary to use
the Youth Conservation Corps or the Public Land Corps while
carrying out Recovery Act projects. We've been talking to that
point. But recently we've heard that some of your non-Federal
partners are struggling to come up with a 25 percent non-
Federal match required under these programs.
Do both the YCC and the Public Lands Corps require a 25
percent match?
Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, they do. The authority by which we
engage with these people, with these groups is the Public Land
Corps Act which requires the 25 percent match. It's not new to
them.
The volume of projects we're sending their way and to some
degree the lateness with which we're dealing with them this
season has, I think, caused some problems. But we've heard that
there may be some difficulties in the----
Senator Udall. You've heard this concern. Do you think this
is limiting your ability to engage youth? Do you have any
flexibility to decrease the amount of this non Federal match?
Mr. Sheaffer. I don't believe there's any flexibility in
the current law. I do believe that there are some revisions to
Public Land Corps Act that are under consideration that would
give us some flexibility to reduce it. But it is fixed at 25
percent in the current law, I believe.
Senator Udall. Any potential that these non Federal youth
corps entities might be able to use in kind contributions?
Mr. Sheaffer. In kind is commonly used in that match. Yes,
sir. Commonly used.
Senator Udall. I would very much like to work with you all
as you look at how you can create additional flexibility or
working within the provisions that are in place. Because we
have heard those concerns expressed as well.
Let me, if I might, we're going to adjourn the hearing here
shortly. But I want to just go back to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund conversation we had earlier. I know there are
concerns about whether we purchase additional land, whether we
have the capacity to manage that land. Do we have the personnel
to manage it?
In some cases those are important questions, legitimate
questions. In other cases, you purchase in holdings or you have
long planned boundary line adjustments which aren't going to
demand additional personnel. In fact, the purchase may make it
easier for the Park Service, Dr. Wenk, to do the work it has to
do.
By way of a little historical background the Land and Water
Conservation Fund was established to help finance important
land acquisitions on Federal lands including parks. It also has
a State side element to it. I'm very familiar with this because
of my family's involvement in the LWCF. I'm also, for the
record, would like to be known, I'm frustrated that we rarely,
if ever, actually direct all those Land and Water Conservation
Funds into the purposes for which they were originally
designed.
So those flows, allocation flows, ebb and flow. Can you
tell me if there's a backlog of land acquisition needs that are
not being met by LWCF allocations for the parks?
Dr. Wenk.
Mr. Wenk. We have a prioritized list of approximately $2
billion worth of lands that need to be purchased.
Senator Udall. That's not insignificant.
Mr. Wenk. That's not insignificant.
Senator Udall. I think it calls for a--and I'm
editorializing, but for direct funding. We've done some work
through the years. We got very close early in this decade if my
memory serves me right, very early in this decade.
The good work of Congressman Young and Congressman Miller
in the House side and there were Senators over here in a
bipartisan way to really work to try to find a solution. But we
fell short. But I think this is something we can't let continue
to just bounce along because of the needs you outlined.
Of course, there are tremendous opportunities at the State
side level. There are also additional provisions in LWCF that
draw people of all backgrounds and all ages into the out of
doors. So I'm deeply committed to continue to see if we can't
find a way to do that.
Mr. Wenk. We have identified just and sort of the order of
magnitude, Mr. Chairman, that's the priority list. We believe
there's about another $2 billion that has not yet been
prioritized.
Senator Udall. That's excellent--thank you for taking the
time to come over today for the first hearing on this
subcommittee on National Parks. I want to in particular, Mr.
Wenk, Mr. Sheaffer, thank you for your service to a unique and
special American institution, the National Park Service.
It's long been said and I think it will long be said that
the National Parks may be America's best idea. Thank you for
the leadership you provide. I look forward to working with you
and the Secretary to really give the National Park Service the
support and the resources it needs as we approach the 100th
anniversary of the Park Service's founding.
We'll leave the record open for 2 weeks for additional
statements and questions for the record.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Daniel N. Wenk to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. How much of the stimulus spending for the National Park
Service is going to be for projects not on Park Service lands?
Answer. Of the $750 million appropriated under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the National Park Service (NPS), $15
million is designated for grants to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, which are not NPS properties. Of the remaining $735
million funded for work in NPS units, $363,000 is targeted for work on
two affiliated properties which are not owned by the NPS but for which
the NPS has authority and responsibilities to perform capital
improvement work. These two merit-based, high-priority projects are at
the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in Wisconsin and the Thomas Cole
National Historic Site in New York.
Question 2. Earlier this year Director Wenk sent out notice that
lead ammunition and fishing tackle would be prohibited in park units.
The statement was later modified to indicate that the ban only applied
to park employees. However, this clarification does not clarify your
earlier statement that you will ``eliminate'' the use of lead ``by the
end of 2010.'' How do you reconcile these conflicting statements and
what should sportsmen expect from the park service in the future?
Answer. On March 4 2009, Acting Director Dan Wenk issued an
internal memo regarding the NPS intent to remove lead from a variety of
natural resource-related activities within NPS units. The memo stated
that the NPS will first work towards cessation of lead use for in-house
activities by (1) implementing non-lead ammunition use in NPS wildlife
culling operations so that meat can be safely donated, (2) dispatching
sick or wounded wildlife in parks with non-lead ammunition where
carcasses are left in the field for scavengers, and (3) continuing to
clean up firing ranges within NPS boundaries. These reduction efforts
are currently underway.
A clarifying statement was released on March 18, shortly after the
original press release. It stated that the NPS will look at the
potential for transition to non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle by
working with our policy office and appropriate stakeholders and other
interested groups. This process will require public involvement,
comment, and review. Currently, our staff is working on a careful
analysis of the law and policy that addresses the use of lead and ways
they may apply to activities in national parks. Once the analysis is
finished, a strategy for completing the next steps in the process will
be developed.
Current regulations pertaining to hunting or fishing in NPS units
still apply and have not been changed. Some state wildlife management
agencies and sportsmen's groups are concerned that this is a move to
reduce hunting and fishing in national park units. It is not. It is a
proactive initiative to ensure that the NPS is a leader in
environmental conservation and that park units and resources are
preserved and managed to the high standards that the American public
expects of the agency.
Question 3. What plans are being made to facilitate the restoration
of 2nd Amendment rights in National Parks? Have you considered
consulting with the BLM or the Forest Service on this issue? Has
Secretary Salazar given you any indication that he will seek to impede
the clear will of the Senate on this matter?
Answer. The National Park Service will follow Congress's directive
and implement the new firearms law, which states that its provisions
will take effect nine months from the date of enactment. On BLM land
generally, state and local agencies enforce laws related to firearms.
We consulted with the U.S. Forest Service during our attempts to find a
comprehensive database of state firearms laws. Secretary Salazar
directed the National Park Service to implement the firearms law.