<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:35892.wais]
THE NATIONAL PARKS OF ALASKA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 14, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-241
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-892 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DAN BURTON, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Mark Pfundstien, Professional Staff Member
Kimberly Craswell, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Augsut 14, 2006.................................. 1
Statement of:
Blazsak, Marcia, Regional Director, Alaska Region, National
Park Service............................................... 7
Menge, Michael, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources; James Stratton, Regional Director for the Alaska
Office, National Park Conservation Association; Dave
Worrell, Communications Director, Alaska Travel Industry
Association; Rick Kenyon, publisher, Wrangell-St. Elias
News; and John Shively, vice president, Government and
Community Relations, Holland America....................... 38
Kenyon, Rick............................................. 78
Menge, Michael........................................... 38
Shively, John............................................ 87
Stratton, James.......................................... 45
Worrell, Dave............................................ 69
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Blazsak, Marcia, Regional Director, Alaska Region, National
Park Service, prepared statement of........................ 10
Kenyon, Rick, publisher, Wrangell-St. Elias News, prepared
statement of............................................... 81
Menge, Michael, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, prepared statement of........................... 42
Shively, John, vice president, Government and Community
Relations, Holland America, prepared statement of.......... 89
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
Stratton, James, Regional Director for the Alaska Office,
National Park Conservation Association, prepared statement
of......................................................... 49
Worrell, Dave, Communications Director, Alaska Travel
Industry Association, prepared statement of Mr. Peck....... 71
THE NATIONAL PARKS OF ALASKA
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Anchorage, AK.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
the Assembly Chamber Room, Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali
Street, Anchorage, AK, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Souder.
Staff present: Jim Kaiser, counsel; Mark Pfundstien,
professional staff member; and Kimberly Craswell, clerk.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, and thank you for joining us today. This is the ninth
in a series of hearings on the critical issues facing the
National Park Service. I would also like to welcome all the
people who are here today who care about the parks.
As I have said at many hearings, the national parks are a
unique contribution to the world. Many countries have national
parks and have preserved their historic sites. No other
country, however, has developed the same kind of park system,
with such diversity and breadth and distinctiveness, as our
system.
The national parks of Alaska contribute a vast array of
unique sites to the National Park Service. Denali National
Park, in addition to North America's tallest mountain peak,
also encompasses a complete----
Court Reporter. Sir, excuse me. I apologize. If you could,
please, slow down.
Mr. Souder. I can't. That's not going to be easy. I go
pretty fast.
Do you have a recorder, for recording it, other than
manually.
Court Reporter. I'll work with you.
Mr. Souder. Also encompasses a complete subarctic
ecosystem. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, which is the U.S.'
largest national park, includes the continent's largest
assemblage of glaciers and the greatest collection of peaks
above 16,000 feet.
Lest one think that Alaska is only a spectacular national
wonderland, Alaska also features historical sites detailing the
settlement of Alaska, the Klondike Gold Rush of the 19th
Century, and our nation's fight during World War II.
Alaska's more recent statehood and the development of the
conservation movement bring us face-to-face with challenges
that the rest of the United States faced over a century or more
ago. In Indiana, the reservation of certain lands for
educational purposes and State use was settled generations ago.
In Alaska, these issues are still being decided. The balance
between conservation and the use of vast areas of natural
resources, timber, and minerals, is still being worked out.
There is no easy solution.
Within the National Park Service as a whole, other issues
are also being worked out. The balance between visitation and
asset conservation continues to be controversial; especially as
park funding becomes further stretched. As operations and
maintenance, for example, demand more and more of the park
service budget, the quality of the Park Service is sure to
deteriorate. In many areas, we've already seen a decrease in
hours of operation, the decline of services, and the
deterioration of facilities. The pressure on the Park Service
affects its ability to conserve and protect the environment,
provide recreational opportunities, and educate the public.
I will introduce each of the witnesses, as we do the
different panels.
Let me briefly explain what this subcommittee is, as part
of the whole. The way Congress was first designed in the
Constitution was the House was in charge of appropriations.
Shortly after doing appropriations, in the original founding
republic, the oversight committees were created, and then later
on--actually, many decades later on, authorizing committees
were created.
So the way that the Park Service normally works through
something like this, is an authorizing committee would hold
hearings on additions to your land, whether there should be
that--the appropriations committee decides how (Indiscernible)
and process in the Senate.
What hasn't happened is, is that the Government Reform
Committee, the authorizing committee, hasn't really done many
oversight hearings on the Park Service.
The subcommittee that you are appearing in front of today,
and that is here, does generally speaking, negative oversight,
with some degree of positive oversight. In other words, we get
everything from, in the Clinton administration, Whitewater,
gaming, gambling regulations, the (Indiscernible)
controversies, and that type of thing.
Each witness at this hearing has to be sworn in. We
prosecute people for perjury. Mark McGuire (Indiscernible) his
testimony for 3 days, before they could serve a subpoena, so he
could come and say he didn't want to talk about the past.
That's what our committee does.
And we look to see whether what we've been doing in
Congress has been implemented in the way that we intended it to
be implemented. And secondarily, if there are new things the
Congress needs to do, then, if this committee--and as we work
through these original hearings on the Park Service--needless
to say, every authorizing committee and every appropriations
committee objects to every hearing that the government
(Indiscernible) conducts. Other Members of Congress think it's
their areas to do it. We shouldn't be doing it.
On the other hand, the reason I went through the
constitutional guidelines is, we existed before the Resources
Committee in the role of Congress. And it's our job to do that.
But ultimately, to pass legislation, generally speaking--we
don't do legislation.
The subcommittee that I chair is in charge of narcotics,
within the U.S. Government, and there we do authorizing
legislation on methamphetamine, for example. We've also
conducted 8 hearings--or 10, or however many--on
methamphetamine just this year, and we'll be doing another one
in North Carolina next week--this week. This week? No, it's
next week. So we've been focusing a lot on methamphetamine and
other problems with this committee, as well. And we do do
authorizing, on the Drug Czar, to the numerous drug laws.
But generally speaking, we're an oversight committee. So
anything we learn today has to move to another committee.
Therefore, we work with the resources committee, we work with
the appropriations committee. But the most important thing
we've learned, from doing oversight hearings, is that the
changes tend to occur in advance by the executive branch, for
the most part.
What I know and have observed is, is that when we go to
parks and ask questions--like, to use an example, the border
report. Every time I went to a border location, 4 years ago--
and we did a series on borders. Mr. Bonner, who was in charge,
then, of the combined--what's now ICBP, would go there
beforehand, because we would go there afterwards, after
(Indiscernible) start implementation of policies so that a
timely----
Court Reporter. Sir, I'm so sorry to ask you to slow down
for me.
Mr. Souder. The Federal branch needs to--the Federal
agencies make some of those changes prior to us ever proposing
or implementing the law. So I wanted to lay out--because this
is an unusual process, in the sense we're not in Washington,
we're doing field hearings. I intend to get out to the parks,
to try and do the hearings in the field, as well as in
Washington.
We started this process with a Washington hearing; we'll
probably end with a Washington hearing. We met multiple times
with Fran Nill and other--with Lynn Scarlett, before we left
Washington, and we will continue to work through it. Met with
Steve Martin multiple times about what our goals were.
We work closely with NPCA. This is a series of hearings,
where we're looking at the challenges the Park Service is
facing.
And every agency is facing huge budget challenges, and
every agency doesn't know how to deal with their own issues,
every agency doesn't know how to deal with their health care
questions, every agency doesn't know how to face the new
homeland security challenges, with their current budgets.
The good thing about the Park Service is there's been some
increases in funding. In fact, all--better than all but a
couple of agencies. But the challenges that we face are huge,
and when you look at it--and as Congress, we can't just be
faced with, ``Oh, what happened with the Park Service,'' and 10
years from now, say, ``I wonder why this happened,'' without
knowing what we're voting for, legitimately we're having to
debate here.
Does this go to education; does it go to fighting drugs;
does it go to check every piece of luggage that's going on an
airplane; does it go to, gee, do more mass transit quality and
security; does it go to fight HIV; does it go to national
parks? It's a Zero Subcommittee, in that--but we need to have
the information, when we do a Zero Subcommittee, where the
dollars are going to go and whether there are creative ways to
do it.
So I thank you for coming today. This is certainly the most
comprehensive series that have ever been done on the Park
Service. Each of these hearings comes out as a little book, so
that there will be a little book on Alaska.
I would hope, by the end of the year, to have the points,
major points from these. And we thank you for being willing to
participate in this. I need to do a couple of procedural
matters. Before we hear testimony, we need to take care of some
of the procedural matters.
First, as of today, all members, have 5 legislative days to
submit written statements and questions for the hearing record,
that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses
also be included in the record. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Second, as to technical exhibits and documents and other
materials, referred to by members of the witnesses, may be
included in the hearing record, and that all members be
permitted to provide a statement or remark. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
The unusual thing about this hearing--we didn't know until
the last minute, because I've been up here and staff's been up
here, whether Mr. Cummings was going to come. But as you can
see, from me being able to conduct this hearing and read those
statements, because (Indiscernible) hearing's being conducted
in a bipartisan manner.
We don't have a single member of our subcommittee or
committee or full committee, or (Indiscernible) or full
committee, that's objecting to the hearings. Otherwise, I could
not conduct these hearings the way we're doing it. They're, in
effect, noncontroversial hearings, with the more or less
(Indiscernible) support of our committee in a bipartisan way,
which is relatively unusual right now in Congress, even within
each party.
So I thank you very much for coming.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.002
Mr. Souder. Our first panel is composed of Ms. Marcia
Blaszak, Alaska Regional director--did I say your name, your
last name, right?
Ms. Blaszak. Blaszak.
Mr. Souder. Blaszak. All right. We've known each other for
a long time, but I'm notoriously bad with names.
Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service.
She's accompanied by--let me make sure I've got a list of
all the superintendents here. I note Tomie Lee from Glacier
National Park, Paul Anderson from Denali, Jeff Mow from Kenai
Fjords and Joel Hard from Lake Clark.
Thank you all for being here. You'll need to stand, and I
need to swear you in. As I mentioned, this committee is under
oath. And if you would stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
As has been our tradition at each of these hearings, Ms.
Blaszak will give the official testimony, that presumably has
been cleared by about 15 different people, and then we'll go to
questions.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA BLAZSAK, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ALASKA REGION,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. Blaszak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Welcome
to Alaska. We greatly appreciate the continuing support by
Congress of parks and programs in Alaska, as well as the entire
National Park System.
Your travels introduced you to the Great Land, but our
parks are as far flung as the State itself. Geographically,
there are 15 units stretched from Sitka National Historical
Park in Southeast Alaska, northwest some 1,200 miles to the
headquarters of the Western Arctic Parklands in Kotzebue. In
all, we manage 54 million acres, approximately two-thirds of
the acreage in the National Park System. This includes 33
million acres of congressionally designated wilderness,
incredible natural and cultural resources. And, significantly,
the parks we manage continue to function, for many Native and
rural Alaskans, as areas for homes, subsistence hunting,
fishing and trapping.
This year, the region will host about 2.3 million
recreational visits, more than double the number from 1986. We
believe that the principal mandates of the NPS Organic Act, to
protect park units unimpaired for future generations and to
provide for the enjoyment of parks by visitors, are being met.
In fiscal year 2005, the Alaska Region operated with a
budget of $89 million, with an additional $10.3 million for
construction, $2.4 million for roads, and $1.2 million for land
acquisition. At the height of our summer operations, we employ
about 1,000 people. We also license about 400 private
businesses to provide visitor services in Alaska's parks.
We are nearing completion of our Core Operations
Evaluations. As we examine our parks and regional operations,
the process has reinforced not only the financial realties that
we face, but also underscored quite important issues and
accomplishments, which I would like to highlight.
The majority of Alaska's park units were established after
other Federal land actions, which put millions of acres into
non-Federal ownership.
As a result, the park boundaries set in the 1980 Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act often incorporated
non-Federal acreage. In recognition of this and other facts,
the Lands Act included unique access provisions.
There are more than 1.6 million acres of non-Federal land
within the Alaska parks. The largest amount, nearly 900,000
acres is found in Wrangell-St. Elias.
The town of McCarthey is near the center of this park and
celebrated its 100th anniversary this year. Its heyday was in
the 1920's and 1930's, as the neighbor of Kennicott, then a
rich copper mine. The mine closed in 1938, but the towns hung
on, never quite ghost towns, always home to a handful of hearty
individuals and families.
Today, the mines are part of the national park and a key
visitor destination. The towns are reached by a State-owned
road which, along much of its route, is adjoined by State and
Ahtna Native Corp.
McCarthy is largely privately owned with an economy that
has evolved, in part, to cater to park visitors. The
opportunity and challenge we face is to protect the stunning
resources of the national park and to provide the necessary
access for residents and visitors, while simultaneously
ensuring that a century-old community is allowed to continue to
thrive.
A second challenge in Wrangell-St. Elias is providing
access across Federal land to inholdings. As a practical
matter, this access began in many locations prior to the
establishment of the park and continues today. In almost every
case, the access has never been legally documented.
For the past 2 years, we have worked to change that
situation. Public comment ends September 2nd on the draft of a
user's guide, which we believe will help guide both park
managers and landowners through existing law, regulation and
policy. The goal is to document access routes, establish terms
for their use that accommodate the owner and protect the public
resources, and develop a clear, consistent process for
authorizing new uses of park lands to reach non-Federal lands.
Visitation to the Alaska parks has increased from just over
1 million, in 1986, to 2.3 million in 2005, due largely to the
growth of cruise ship travel and add-on land tours. This has
focused growth on Sitka, Glacier Bay and Klondike Gold Rush, as
well as on road-accessible parks, particularly Denali and Kenai
Fjords, and most recently, Wrangell-St. Elias.
For the past 2 years, we've benefited from a partnership
with the Alaska Travel Industry Association made possible by a
$750,000 statutory aid grant. This funding has made possible
marketing of lesser-known Alaska parks through a mix of direct
mail, magazine advertising, industry and media trips, press,
and industry meeting participation.
The State of Alaska is an important partner in the managing
of resources and our working relationship has improved over the
past several years. While we sometimes disagree with the
specific application of certain laws and regulations, overall,
we have far greater areas of agreement. We're committed to
continuing to work cooperatively with the State to ensure that
difficult issues regarding access, subsistence, and resource
management issues are resolved. We appreciate the commitment of
the Governor's office and his commissioners and their staff in
working cooperatively on these legal and policy issues.
Alaska has benefited from the significant capital
investments supported by Congress: Investments made to visitor
facilities responded to growth and visitation and, to a degree,
helped guide them; some $34 million in facilities opened at
Denali in the past 3 years, providing visitors a high quality
entrance area campus; at Wrangell-St. Elias, NPS investments in
a new visitor center along the Richardson Highway, and
Kennicott, State investments on McCarthy Road, and private
investments in the region are key to the park and its gateway
communities being sustainable visitor destinations. We've also
completed land acquisition and initial designs for the $17.5
million Mary Lowell Center in Seward, which will serve as the
new visitor center and headquarters for Kenai Fjords National
Park, and will house Forest Service personnel and a city-
operated meeting facility.
This summer, we signed a record of decision advancing a
series of phased developments on the south side of Denali.
Court Reporter. I'm sorry, ma'am.
Ms. Blaszak. The $46 million----
Court Reporter. Could I ask you----
Ms. Blaszak [continuing]. Project will----
Court Reporter. I need you to slow down. I'm so sorry.
Ms. Blaszak [continuing]. Will require joint funding by the
National Park Service, the State of Alaska, the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough and others. The plan includes a visitor center,
trails, campground and other facilities.
The project has the endorsement of the visitor industry in
Alaska, and has been developed with the input of area
residents.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you have of
us.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blaszak follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.012
Mr. Souder. Let me, first off, a visitation question. You
said a pattern of growth is basically where cruise ships come
in, say, Glacier Bay and Klondike. Have they increased
substantially in the last 2 years or have they been flat, as
well?
Ms. Blaszak. The numbers coming on cruise ships, I think
it's been fairly stable, with a little bit of a bump in
travel--in visitor industry numbers.
Mr. Souder. So they've been fairly flat, the last few
years, but the bump occurred over a period of time, that the
parks have seen.
Ms. Blaszak. Yeah. This is what we talked about in the
testimony, sir. Was the 10-year increase--or excuse me--20-year
increase of 1 million visitors, in 1986, up to 2.3, in 19--or
2006--5.
Mr. Souder. Do you think the trends, in the last 3 years,
are--they were heading--or what is your kind of internal
thinking as to why it's been flat?
Ms. Blaszak. Well, I think Alaska, in general, saw, after
September 11th, as so many places did, a drop in visitation.
And I think we've recovered back to the point we were prior to
that. And I think we're seeing a marginal growth every year,
but it hasn't been huge, significant growth.
Mr. Souder. If the cruise ship industry has been the No. 1
reason for increases in, say, Glacier Bay and Klondike, is it
because, in fact, unless you increase the number of cruise
ships seen, the attendance can't go up much.
Ms. Blaszak. Actually, the cruise ship industry is putting
larger vessels into the mix. And we had a projection, based on
information we got from the cruise ship industry, that the
potential increase was greater than it actually became. You
know, they're positioning ships for this market. I'm sure that
others on the next panel probably, in the industry, can better
address the actual occurrence of what is going on.
But we've also approved, for the 2007 visitation year, an
increase of 10 percent in the cruise ships that will be
authorized to access into Glacier Bay proper. And that
potentially will provide greater access and numbers to the
industry, as well as to the visitors.
Mr. Souder. So wouldn't that suggest, though, that
visitation at those parks is largely contingent upon passage on
cruise ships, not because of September 11th?
Ms. Blaszak. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. If I may ask the superintendents at Denali and
Kenai Fjords, has your attendance been relatively flat, too?
And do you attribute that to the flights?
With September 11th, we saw--is it--do you have--let me ask
this--several questions. In some parts, it's European travel
that's down. That could be related to flights and some
September 11th impact. But then there's another question,
whether energy prices are part of this. Which would also, now--
because we've seen some recovery in flights. The question is,
is energy prices really don't seem to be headed down for the
foreseeable future, which may be my lifetime, and if that's the
case, on what basis would you be projecting growth in your two
particular parks? Then we'll deal with Glacier Bay and Lake
Clark.
Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, the visitation----
Mr. Souder. Hold your mic just a little closer.
Mr. Anderson. Can you hear me now?
The visitation at Denali National Park, over the past 3 or
4 years, has been relatively flat; minor increases year to
year. Currently, the visitation overall to the park is about
400,000, a little bit over 400,000.
More than 70 percent of the people that visit Denali
National Park come as a part of a cruise tour opportunity, and
most of those folks that do come to the park arrive by bus or
by train.
I think we've seen a decrease, over the past 3 years, in
the--what we call ``the independent travel,'' the non--the
traveler that's not associated with a cruise tour opportunity,
and that's, then, been offset by the increase in cruise tour
passengers coming to the park.
Based on discussions with the industry and our own staff,
the belief is that the visitations for Denali National Park is
obviously highly dependent on the cruise tour program right
now, and will continue to be so.
Given the numbers of people that ride the park buses--and
there's three different bus systems that people can ride--what
we're seeing is an increase in demand for the tour buses that
are affiliated more closely with the package tour industry and
a decrease in demand for the visitor shuttle bus, which serves,
in large part, the independent travel.
Does the energy crisis have an influence? We thought that
it would, and I think it probably has. I don't have specific
numbers for this year. But the indications last week, from the
folks that I talked with, are that there's probably less of an
impact from this year's energy costs than people expected. And
I would project that visitation to Alaska is likely to continue
to grow into Denali, as well, at a probably small but constant
rate over the next 10 years.
Mr. Souder. You have similar----
Mr. Mow. Mr. Chairman, at Seward, I think we have a
slightly different dynamic there. I think what we're seeing at
the park, in terms of our visitation--even though there have
been some significant changes in the number of cruise ships
coming to the community--our visitation has remained stable
and/or had a small increase, actually, going on. I believe,
Kenai Fjords National Park, we see more package tours, and
particularly, the independent travelers.
And again, you know, we had one of the major cruise ship
companies cease to use Seward as their primary embarkation or
disembarkation point, a shift over to Whittier. And the actual
impact on visitation has been--isn't even perceptible. So----
Mr. Souder. Would you clarify what you just said to me,
again? You said cruise ships ``switch over toward Whittier?''
Mr. Mow. Yes. Up until recently, Princess Cruises, for
example, was using Seward as a port for embarking or
disembarking passengers. And that ceased, just in--well, I
think 2005 was the first year that they stopped using Seward.
And there was a lot of concern in the community that there'd be
significant economic impacts of that, and those impacts haven't
been borne out by the visitor numbers. The impacts have come in
other ways, but the actual visitors taking tour boats or coming
to our Exit Glacier facility, they've been pretty steady or
even a slight increase.
Mr. Souder. Would you say they're coming off a package tour
from Whittier that would include----
Mr. Mow. You know, we don't have a real good handle on
that, how that's, you know, sort of--as that vacuum was
created, if the cruise ship companies themselves have made up
that--to make up for that, offering Seward.
Generally, Seward is not a port of call for the cruise ship
industry. And I think that's kind of the significant element.
I find that our influences are much greater due to things
out of Anchorage. Being so close to Anchorage, we tend to be
almost the community--Anchorage's backyard. So we really
notice--and this year will be interesting, because the schools
in Anchorage are going back 2 weeks earlier. And I would
forecast that we will see some impact from that because, as
I've noticed, that as soon as the schools are back in session
and the State Fair begins, things change rapidly in Seward.
Mr. Souder. Has your attendance stayed fairly flat?
Mr. Mow. Excuse me?
Mr. Souder. Has your attendance stayed fairly flat in the
last 3 years?
Mr. Mow. Yeah. Actually, we've had a small increase,
overall. And I think a lot of that is due to the increases
we've seen at Exit Glacier. We've made some significant
improvements there that have really just made it more readily
available for visitors.
Mr. Souder. Would you tell me a little bit about Lake Clark
now? Do you have mostly independent travelers, that come in for
a wilderness experience? Do they (Indiscernible) come over?
Explain a little bit about that.
Mr. Hard. Sure.
Mr. Chairman, Lake Clark, I think, really epitomizes what
Alaska has to offer in terms of wilderness experience. We have
three different types of visitors really in the park itself:
Back country expeditions, sport fishermen and bear viewing. And
our visitation has remained consistent in the park. Those folks
that are looking for those experiences haven't, at least in my
mind, been impacted too much by the energy crisis or the
September 11th crisis; you know, post-September 11th.
Our visitation into the park by our residents' own
communities, however, may be diminished as a result of those
fuel costs. We have five communities that have relationships,
direct relationships with the park, and they have less capacity
to meet these energy needs to get into the park probably than
the external visitors, I would say.
Mr. Souder. Let me, for the record--I know we can--and
these just need to be rounded off for anybody to read through
this and get a comparison. How many annual visitors would you
say at Lake Clark last--2005?
Mr. Hard. We generally average around 5,000. So very, very
small numbers when you compare them to Denali, Kenai Fjords or
Glacier Bay.
Mr. Souder. That's for the year.
Mr. Hard. Yes.
Mr. Mow. At Kenai Fjords National Park, we're reporting
approximately 250,000 visitors annually, in 2005.
Mr. Souder. And Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. 2005, visitation at Denali was 403,000
visitors.
Mr. Souder. (Indiscernible) Glacier Bay.
Ms. Lee. In 2005, we had 360,000.
Mr. Souder. And, Ms. Blaszak, what--for Skagway, at Gold
Rush, I believe it was closer to 900,000, wasn't it?
Ms. Blaszak. Yeah. We're bumping up to 900,000. That's
primarily because it's a port of call for the majority of
cruise ships.
Mr. Souder. What about Sitka? Is it similar?
Ms. Blaszak. Sitka's running at 290,000.
Mr. Souder. And----
Ms. Blaszak. Much fewer of the cruise industry use it as a
port of call than the consistent stop at Skagway.
Mr. Souder. And would Kobuk Valley and the Bering Straits
be more similarly (Indiscernible).
Ms. Blaszak. Yes, they would.
Mr. Souder. Superintendent Lee, at Glacier Bay, I think--
did you tell me--I think you said around 90 percent are cruise
ships; is that correct?
Ms. Lee. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. Do the people that come to the Glacier Bay
Lodge, and come into the land and park facilities, as opposed
to just doing the experience by boat, are many of them coming
in on any kind of package, or are they more independent
travelers?
Ms. Lee. They're more independent travelers, sir. We've
seen a reduction in our independent travelers and in the small
package tours, the non-cruise passengers.
Mr. Souder. I know from past experience at Klondike that
one of the statements that I kind of heard flying to here was
that many people buy a cruise package on the ship and do the--
even the historic tour, with a cruise-based guide or cruise-
hired guide, rather than the Park Service.
Do you know if that trend's increasing, staying about the
same? What percentages there are in Skagway, out of this--the
900,000 that you say visited? That means they came through
headquarters? How many of those participated in a tour or----
Ms. Blaszak. I believe that would be the number that are
arriving at the dock in Skagway, which is adjacent to the Park
Service facilities.
And you're familiar with our----
Mr. Souder. They're not going into one of your park
buildings, because you bought a number of the old buildings. So
that assumption is there's not a fee.
Certainly--is there a fee to any of the Alaska parks?
Ms. Blaszak. At Denali, we charge entrance fees. We have
campground fees at several of the parks. And through
legislation at Glacier Bay, we charge $5 per person.
Ms. Lee. Per passenger.
Ms. Blaszak. Excuse me. Per passenger.
But we have in legislation, in ANILCA, no entrance fees in
the new parks that were established with the Lands Act.
Mr. Souder. Do you know why that was the case, other than
as a trade?
Ms. Blaszak. I think it may have been part of the
compromise.
Mr. Souder. I'd just say, for the record, every State would
have taken that deal, if it would have been offered. Because no
park, really very few parks in American history, have ever
voluntarily said, ``The State doesn't want the government to
say, `Hey, why don't we make this a park?' '' When introduced,
it was a huge battle in my home State, and there wasn't such an
agreement.
In the visitation, the reason I was kind of going through
these numbers is, because as anybody reads these hearing books,
Alaska is so dramatically different than any other State
because of the cruise ship industry impact, that what I wanted
to sort through--and I kind of touched on it there in Skagway--
but I heard Superintendent Anderson suggest a little bit of
this at Denali--that you said that the cruise ship buses were
increasing in their attendance, but the Park Service bus was
declining.
Mr. Anderson. (Nodding head.)
Mr. Souder. What about the lodging? That clearly I've
stayed in lodges owned by Princess, in my visit to Alaska; by
Holland, in hotels. I've never been to Alaska without walking
into some shop or some hotel owner reading me the riot act
about foreign firms and their deals that they make with the
stores on land. That they become subsidiaries. And it's
possible--in fact, on this particular trip to Alaska, I got
that a couple times: ``The foreigners are taking over the
ships; they buy up and get the local businesses, and now we
don't have people here in our towns, because this is all kind
of a cut deal.''
We actually, at a couple places, heard from individuals,
who were on the cruise ships, who said, ``Boy, they're hard
selling these packages, and you're better off kind of wandering
away from the dock area a little bit.''
I take it that's a fairly common tension. And would you say
that the pressure is on the hotels? At Denali, in particular,
hotel expansion? I believe two of the cruise lines have
expanded their hotel operations there. I don't know how the
gift shops are working there. But clearly, at the park
entrance, there's a lot of pressure.
And could you comment on that, a little bit, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To set the record straight, the Park Service concessioner,
Aramark Doyon Joint Venture, operates all the buses in the
park, and the cruise tours put their passengers on those buses.
And there's three different opportunities in the park, on the
park road: To attend the Wilderness Tour, a 6-hour tour into
the heart of the park; the Denali Natural History Tour, a tour
that focuses a lot on cultural history as well as natural
history, not quite as long; and then the Visitor Transportation
System, which is the low-cost shuttle system that takes people
from the park entrance to the end of the road, drops them off,
picks them up, wherever they'd like.
Mr. Souder. OK. So what you're saying is that the people
buying the package tours, that you still get a commission off
of, it's just that they're not doing an independent wander
around the park.
Mr. Anderson. The Tundra Wilderness Tour and the Denali
Natural History Tour are most popular amongst the cruise tour
visitors to the park.
Well, and there's some trends happening there that are
quite positive, I think. In days past, the cruise industry,
tour industry, has spent one night in the hotel outside Denali,
took a short tour or a long tour of 1 day, and then left and
went on to the next destination. The major operators now have
started to expand the time that people spend at Denali, to give
them a much higher quality experience and opportunity to do
more things there in the park. And then, that's the number of
hotel rooms--to accommodate the same level of visitation but
twice the time in the park--is increasing, and we expect it to
continue to increase over the next few years.
Holland America, Princess, both have expanded their
facilities there in the park, and there's several other
facilities that are projected to be constructed in the near-
term future.
Beyond those major cruise tour facilities, owned and
operated by the cruise tour companies, there are also a number
of independent facilities right outside the park, both retail
operations, in lodging and food establishments. And those are
very well used and certainly competitive, if you will, in terms
of product, price and quality, with all of the other corporate
holdings, if you will, around park headquarters.
And I guess, if there was something I didn't address, I----
Mr. Souder. And let me say, one of the reasons is, because
most of the people, when you're talking about people coming on
cruises, you're talking about most of the people who come from
my State to Alaska. That part of the reason they control the
hotels and the gift shops the way they do, is not only the
profit but consistency of. There's less variety of mattresses
at Princess Lodges than there are, I've experienced, at other
hotels, and similarly, you know, in other places.
The challenge in Alaska is how, then, to get unique
experiences. Because it's kind of like, do you eat at chain
restaurants or do you eat at local restaurants? You get more
variety at local restaurants. Sometimes really good; sometimes
not so good. Or is it going to become more of a ``vanilla''
experience. And that's the challenge that you all have. Another
huge challenge that comes in here is, it's clear, that
attendancewise, you have a lot at stake, as to how many cruise
ships there are and the capacity of the cruise ships.
I'll ask Mr. Shively, on the next panel, whether the length
of time is longer on the cruises or if they're spending less
time on the boat. That seems to be a key variable here.
But another thing is, what this means for visitor services,
and where your visitor centers are. And this is a huge
challenge. Because if the people are basically poking into the
park and coming back to Denali, then the pressure is different
for visitor services, and the question is, how do you manage
that budget?
I've been reading in the papers here about proposals
regarding around out--more outside the park, north of
Talkeetna, and a whole new visitor center. Does that mean you
would close down something in the park? How in the world do you
manage your budget when you see this kind of shift at Denali
with the visitation if they aren't, in effect, staying in the
park, when visitor services historically have been in the park
and not outside, and how do you manage that in your staffing?
I assume that you haven't increased FTEs over the last 5
years.
Mr. Anderson. We have had budget increases over the past 5
years, not every year, not consistently. The total number of
employees at the park: Approximately 260; about 100 of those
are permanent, the rest are seasonal.
And it is a challenge, and I don't have all the answers
about how we deal with this changing demographic pattern,
changing tourism interest, visitor interest in Alaska.
We're working on it, and we're working with the Alaska
Tourism Industry Association, with the cruise ship industry,
with the local operators and private owners around the park, to
help understand better what the visitors' needs are, what
they're likely to be, and then how to respond, how to adjust,
to meet those needs consistent with the park mission.
And I recall part of the last question was about the tour
companies and opportunities for further activities at the park,
and whether or not they were consolidating activities, if you
will, at the park entrance versus spreading them out. And I
don't know much about the fees that are being charged or
collected amongst the operators outside the park, since that's
not my jurisdiction, if you will.
I do know, though, that over the past 5 years, there's been
a considerable increase in the number of different--the variety
of opportunities, recreational or experiential opportunities,
provided in the Denali area by other private operators, small
operators in Healy, McKinley Village, Denali Park Headquarters
area. And I'm certain there's commissions to help make that
happen. I'm not part of that, part of the program. But there
are certainly quite a diverse range of experiences and a
diverse range of providers, and it's an increasingly larger
number, it seems, over time.
Mr. Souder. Anybody who enters the park pays a concession
fee to the park; is that correct?
Mr. Anderson. Well, they pay an entrance fee; a member of
the public that comes into the park pays an entrance fee into
the park.
Mr. Souder. If you take Talkeetna Air Taxi into--over the
park, they pay you a fee.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, they do. Well, if they land, they pay a
fee. If they fly over the park, at this point, they don't pay
any fees. At this point, if they don't land, they don't pay.
Mr. Souder. Any guiding that comes into the park would pay
a fee.
Mr. Anderson. Correct.
Mr. Souder. So if they touch the land, not the airspace.
Mr. Anderson. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. Superintendent Lee, in Glacier Bay, the
concessioner is struggling with how you update a Mission 66
facility. If the attendance is dropping, what do you see
happening, or what options do we have, to keep the
concessioneer offering overnight services in Glacier Bay.
Ms. Lee. This is one of the issues that we're struggling
with right now. And again, we're working with the local
community. We have had a number of family tours earlier this
year, thanks to ATIA. We're trying to address that now. We
don't, unfortunately, have all the answers.
We're hoping, of course, that some of the trends will
change: That we will start to see more independent travelers,
we'll start seeing some of the small package tours coming back;
but it seems almost across Alaska that we're seeing fewer and
fewer of the independent travelers in most of the areas.
Mr. Souder. You don't have any direct--the boats that go in
on the tours, what other concessioner fees would you get at
Kenai Fjords?
Mr. Mow. Well, Kenai Fjords, as an ANILCA park, is a very
different situation than, I think, what both Glacier Bay and
Denali have. As parks, we weren't tasked with developing our
own infrastructure, within the boundaries, we used the existing
communities. Plus, the jurisdiction at Kenai Fjords National
Park is such that it ends at mean high tide. So as long as the
tour boats aren't offloading visitors onto shore, they aren't
technically entering the park, and as a result, the tour boats
offering, you know, the tours into the fjords don't pay us a
fee. They're not concessions.
Fortunately for us, we have a wonderful partnership
agreement with them to offer interpretive services for them.
And they've found it to their benefit to be able to market
their tours with uniformed park rangers to talk about the park
resources. And at the same time, they're willing to work with
us to offset those costs of providing those additional visitor
services.
Mr. Souder. Do all the tours have guides?
Mr. Mow. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. And how much----
Mr. Mow. Well, again, the number of visitors that actually
set foot in the park, along the coast, is very, very small.
Mr. Souder. But I mean, do all the boat tours offer park
rangers?
Mr. Mow. Not quite. Probably about half of them.
Mr. Souder. How much do you get per passenger?
Mr. Mow. It's not by a per-passenger charge. We sit with
the tour boat companies and negotiate out the expenses that we
would bear in providing the services that they're asking for.
Mr. Souder. So basically, it covers the cost of the
rangers.
Mr. Mow. That's correct; the rangers, some of the
administrative overhead, and we pony up the cost of program
oversight and administration.
Mr. Souder. At Glacier Bay, you have a similar
(Indiscernible).
Ms. Lee. That is correct; and also, with our tour boats.
Mr. Souder. And what are the fees there per passenger?
Ms. Lee. The fees are $5 per passenger, by legislation. But
we also do the cost recovery, for the cost of the interpretive
services on board.
Mr. Souder. And is there anything similar at Denali?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. There is--through the NIRI Science and
Learning Center, the Alaska Natural History Institute's
operation--what we call ``fee-based education'' available to
the public, in general, but quite predominantly used by the
cruise industry for their passengers. And those fees, depending
upon the offering, may range from $40 to $70, for the given
program that they take part in. Those fees then are used to
provide the personal services, to hire the people that present
the programs, and to support science in the Science and
Learning Center.
Mr. Souder. Are there other parks in Alaska that have
similar fee arrangements with the cruise ship industry already?
Ms. Blaszak. Actually, this year, for the first time at
Wrangell-St. Elias, with the cruise ship industry, we're
offering interpreters in Yakatat. And I'm trying to think.
That's the newest and most recent. I think it's the bulk of it
in these parks.
Mr. Souder. And at Wrangell, most of the--Kennicott Lodge
is a traditional concessioneer; is that right?
Ms. Blaszak. Kennicott Lodge is a private business, on
lienhold, within the park.
Mr. Souder. Does anybody pay concession fees then?
Ms. Blaszak. We have a concessioner providing guided tours
through the mill building. We also have guided hunting in the
park, not specifically at the Kennicott area. But the only
concession operation at Kennicott proper is the guided mill
tours.
Mr. Souder. And at Lake Clark, I assume all the facilities
are private. Do you pick up any kind of fees in the park?
Mr. Hard. We only have three concessions, Mr. Chairman.
They're all sport hunting concessions. And we have about
seventy CUAs, commercial use authorizations. But they all have
their own facilities. We don't provide any facilities. And we,
perhaps, generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000
annually in the fees from all of those sources.
Mr. Souder. One of the clear challenges we have here is,
that anybody--like I mentioned earlier, every single agency
that we have in the Federal Government is looking at going off
the cliff to try to meet their health, pension, future
obligations, and Park Service is not unique. Individual parks
are not used to feeling this kind of pressure, so they feel
unique.
But (Indiscernible) Federal Government, I mean, we've known
this with Social Security for a long time. Now we're seeing it
hit Federal employees, we're seeing it (Indiscernible), we're
seeing it hit criminal justice, probation officers. We're
seeing it across the board.
But GM and Ford, and our airline industry, are all
teetering (Indiscernible) bill before we left. Every single
major company in America is having this challenge.
So the question is, in prioritizing where you put your
increasingly challenged amount of resources, even if we succeed
in getting more dollars to the parks, the question is, where is
this going to go?
The good news about visitation is, is that this is one of
these classic tradeoffs in the Park Service: If you're getting
fees, it's better because you're getting more revenue; if you
get more people to the park, they can enjoy it. I mean, that
was part of the original mission. And they can spread the word
about the (Indiscernible) of the park.
On the other hand, you're more likely to pass a resource
off better if you don't have huge increases in visitation. It
stays wild. I mean, the big challenge is about that. Is it a
(Indiscernible) simplification than a joke. But half the
rangers would just as soon no people came, and half the rangers
are disappointed if you're not doubling your visitation,
because it depends on what part of the area it is.
But one of the challenges is, if your visitation is flat,
and if you don't have an additional source of revenue coming
in, and the Federal Government doesn't suddenly become an ``old
man,'' so to speak, the question is, are you going to put, at
the big wilderness parks--I assume you have challenges for
biologists, for wildlife preservation, for all sorts of unique
opportunities.
One of my big things that I believe our national parks
ought to be doing is hooking up more, through the Internet
education systems, math and science programs, throughout the
United States. Because not everybody has to visit the park to
see the park, with today's advances in technology. I know the
Park Service is improving, and each park is working at it, but
maybe--other than people in the region, may not get to the
parks as often.
But how would we do this? Well, we see big increases at
Golden Gate--Gateway or Santa Monica, as people are staying
closer to their homes, and they're looking at visitation
figures of 14 billion in some of these parks. It's a different
mix, to the historic park system, than what we think of the
crown jewel parks, and the beautiful wild parks have flat
visitation.
The challenge here is how--which I think your ``Ranger On
Board'' programs are a great way to deal with this--is how can
you come up with visitor services that are oriented toward a
certain type of visitor, around the cruise ships, that becomes
self-perpetuating? In other words, the money for those visitor
services are paid for by those people who are coming in.
Because if you're facing a declining budget and a squeezed
budget, and you're deflecting to the same people more of your
resources, the challenge is, if you're going to build another
visitor center at Denali, how are you going to pay for it, and
if--with the rangers, without having to pull up and scatter
your rangers and have them all be doing visitation and none of
the park functions? It's a similar challenge of, how can we
keep a cruise boat not an option, in gestalts, for the Park
Service? Can some of the cruise ship money be transferred over?
Director Blaszak, have you looked at any packaging for
concessioneers? In other words, if you get something in the big
park, then you get to do something in one of the smaller parks.
Ms. Blaszak. We actually entertained discussions on that
issue, Mr. Chairman. And we're trying to work, I think,
collaboratively, with Aramark, specifically, to resolve their
losses that they're encountering at Glacier Bay. But we
currently don't have a mechanism to package Denali particularly
with Glacier Bay. But we have had those discussions.
Yet, you are aware, sir, that the proceeds from the
franchise fees collected at Denali, because of their contract,
go to the park and their infrastructure needs.
And none of us have enough to fulfill everything we would
like to accomplish in the parks, and to take from one to serve
another, at this point, would perhaps be more damaging to the
park that does have a viable concession operation than
necessary.
But we have been discussing that. We haven't reached the
solution yet.
Mr. Souder. One of the interesting things that we've
learned by the parks, about the parks is, is that people are
generally willing to give money, if they think it's going to
the park. That for all the talk about demonstration fees in the
United States, as long as you work out some kind of challenge
with a focus--because if they had to pay every time they come
into the park, that's a different ball game. But for people
coming from Indiana to Alaska, if they think the money is going
into the park, rather than to profit, there's not been a
resistance to demonstration fees, so-called.
I mean, we need to demonstrate these things for 200 years.
Are they ever going to be made permanent?
But the fact is, we hardly have any letters, on record
anywhere in the United States, of people objecting if the money
goes into the park. They don't see that as a tax, they see that
as helping the park. And the question is, is how to do this, so
Alaskans, who are used to having access to the land, don't get
hit the same way as visitors who are, in effect,
(Indiscernible) in their State and seem to be willing to put
money into improving parks, which they do in almost every major
park now, and even at little tiny stops on the highway in
Nebraska.
You know, people are getting more and more used to paying
fees to help cover the shortages, if they think it's going to
the park. They don't necessarily want to see it go to foreign
aid programs, they don't necessarily want to see it go to
programs they don't approve of, but they're willing to give to
the park, if they think the funds are going to be used in the
park.
Now, let me touch on inholdings. As someone who years ago
paid $10 to the Pilgrims' park on what turned out to be my
land, it is an interesting question of how to handle
inholdings, because almost every park in America negotiated and
approved some type of inholdings agreement inside the park.
It's hard for me to think of a park that hasn't had this
challenge. But, generally speaking, they don't have a million
acres of inholdings, because there's only one other park that's
that big, and that would be Yellowstone.
You said, in your testimony, that you're working on a draft
of a guide access. Now, I don't mean to sound this ignorant on
ANILCA or on the followups. Wasn't this very clear, from the
beginning, on how access was going to work? It looks to me that
there's a lot of checkerboard patterns. That sitting on the
Resources Committee and on the park subcommittee, I've sat on
many hearings arguing about this question. What was the thought
of picking a place--if you weren't already living there and
subsisting there--of picking a place that didn't have access?
And wasn't it discussed what the tradeoffs would be, in the
beginning, on the access? Or was that something we were just
going to discuss later on?
Ms. Blaszak. You pointed to the real, I think, issue that's
been at our fingertips for the last couple of years in Alaska,
in the parks in particular. We believe and have, I think,
attempted to better articulate our understanding of Congress'
intent, when it came to accessing inholdings in the Alaska
parks.
What we see in law, though, has not been carried out in
practice by our predecessors. There's been, basically, a
``Well, we'll get to that when we get to it'' attitude.
And it's caused, frankly, some, I think, unnecessary
conflict of intent on our part and inaction on our part in the
past.
We realize that we have an affirmative responsibility to
recognize access that ANILCA lays out for landowners within our
parks, and are attempting to get to that, based--using existing
law, policy, regulation, that takes away the unknown factor. We
have a number of inholdings that predate the park. We have a
number of new landowners, that are perhaps afraid to engage
with us, for fear that the onerous process will make it almost
impossible. And we're trying to not be at that place.
We have a number of existing access routes that we believe
we can fairly quickly document, and we're not looking at this
as a we're-giving-you-permission aspect, as much as we're
looking at it--agreeing with the landowner that he or she had--
we, the Federal Government, with responsibility to ensure
protection of park resources, can agree to.
We're making good progress. We're having a number of
meetings. And frankly, we scrapped it, after the second
version, realizing we hadn't really hit the mark, and decided
it was more important to engage and have dialog with the
landowners that were particularly affected by this, before we
spent much in something that was not going to work. And we're
continuing on those efforts, and I think you will hear from
members on the next panel, how they perceive our efforts are
going.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask, because I've tried to understand
this, And it's not that I haven't read multiple books on Alaska
and on your unusual parks. It's not that I haven't been to
multiple hearings and conferences and heard the discussion.
``Chairman Souder, I don't understand this.'' That one thing
is, when they were picked, did the parks pick first, or did the
State pick first?
Ms. Blaszak. I'm not a good historian on that aspect of it.
There----
Mr. Souder. In other words----
Ms. Blaszak. Well----
Mr. Souder [continuing]. When Wrangell-St. Elias was
picked, if you had (Indiscernible) and you owned it, and you
had a cabin there, and you were floatplaning in----
Ms. Blaszak. Uh-huh.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. But when the State of Alaska
picked multiple things all over, what's now McCarthy, was
Wrangell there first, and then the State picked, and then you
filled in Wrangell around it.
Ms. Blaszak. My understanding--and I may have to ask one of
my friends from the State to clarify this, Mr. Chairman, is
that the Native organizations were able, through the Alaska
Native Claims Act, basic--in the early 1970's, initially made
claims. But the final adjudication occurred, and is still
occurring, quite frankly, with the Bureau of Land Management
taking the lead on actual ownership and conveyance of those
parcels that were selected. The State of Alaska and the Native
corporations all had an opportunity to select acreage at the
same time that the copper mines, if you will, was being
adjudicated.
Now, I'll stop there and ask that, perhaps, Mr. Menge can
respond specifically.
Mr. Souder. I'll pursue that.
But it just seems that, at root, that some of the conflict
here--because at Wrangell, for example, the Native corporations
are all pretty much along the main road, such as it is. It's
the State and the University that has hundreds of thousands of
inholdings along McCarthy Road; there are individual landowners
there. But the pressure, when you look at whether you're going
to develop a park road, is clearly in the hundreds of thousands
when you're looking at State agencies, and in the hundreds when
you're looking at local individuals.
That on a map, which I just saw the day before yesterday--
(Indiscernible) in the office, looking at the map--it just
stands out, and every time, it's stood out to me. Furthermore,
in talking to the Native corporations, they've been more than
willing to concentrate out so they don't go in (Indiscernible).
And there obviously needs to be some understanding. So that
doesn't mean you have a right to get a bulldozer, like the
Pilgrims did. But to have access to your land, if you lived
there all your life. That was our intent in Congress. It's
always been our intent, in inholdings, to try to work that out,
in reasonable ways, to have access to your land.
But the unusual thing about Alaska is people don't live
there who bought the land and now want to try to get access
that is an upgraded access. Not historically. And the fact that
you have the State inside here--particularly when you look at
Wrangell. But it's not just Wrangell. That in working--and it's
not just the Park Service.
I went with Congressman Young, at Cordova, up into the--I
think it's the Copper River Delta, where the Chugach chose
woods, and they wanted to cut the woods.
They banked on that income for the Chugach, and they don't
have a way to get there. And so the question is, what
prompted--and how could there not have been a discussion of
``Why would you pick this area that you want to cut trees, if
you don't have access to it?'' If there wasn't an
understanding, then how could--you know, it's just really hard
for me to understand, as a business guy, how this type of thing
would have happened. Because putting this off till later--it's
the whole thing of what kind of access? Is it permanent access;
short-term access? Is it not similar to the forest folks'
argument, that we have for timber cutting, in forests all over
the country? Should they have to put in a wide road? Should the
wide road then be kept permanent, so people can camp on it, so
they can get to the forest fires and supposedly deteriorate,
and then be more a, ``wilderness,'' until the next time they
cut timber?
It's not like I'm not familiar with this. It's just I've
never seen this massive a scale. And what's unusual here is
it's government/government conflict. Because if it was just the
landowners, who have been there for a long time, you could have
a battle on a cabin, in the Rocky Mountain National park, where
a person was supposed to leave their cabin and now want to stay
there. You could have those kind of individual variations of
landowner rights type of thing. We have it in all the national
parks, but the scale here is massive.
Do you sense that you are going to resolve it? What kind of
comments are you getting on this in your report?
Ms. Blaszak. We believe we can resolve the individual
landowner access issues fairly easily. I think our greater
challenges are going to be where we have mining claims within
the park boundary, that are--for which we receive requests for
access for--potentially permanent mining access. And how----
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you a question.
Ms. Blaszak. Go ahead.
Mr. Souder. Are most of those mining requests people who
really want to mine? I mean, that's a value judgment. I'm not
trying to trick you into identifying individuals, but--let me
phrase it this way: I know people in my own district, who
bought up railroad rights to, in effect, leverage, because they
wanted to get into development.
Ms. Blaszak. I have to take at face value the requests that
we are working on. And there's a----
Mr. Souder. Has anybody tried to open a mine in the park
yet?
Ms. Blaszak. I think we've had requests for mining, plans
for operations. I'm not certain that (Indiscernible).
Mr. Souder. Oh. So they've wanted to open an actual mine.
Ms. Blaszak. Yeah. Yeah.
But back to the question at hand, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
have to respect the sincerity of the applicant, that they are
sincerely interested in doing that. And frankly, it gives you--
you know, it would be beneficial to all of us to know that was
their true desire, or if they're attempting to get a higher
value for potential mineral rights, and how we might get to a
place of agreeing on the value of the property (Indiscernible),
should they actually want to sell, and then try and buy. And
those are the conversations we need to continue to have.
Mr. Souder. And are the rules different in the preserve
park at Wrangell?
Ms. Blaszak. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And wouldn't that have been part of the
discussion as to whether it was a preserve or a park, in that
particular area?
Ms. Blaszak. Actually, the differences, I should clarify,
sir. The differences in preserve lands and park lands, for the
sake of money, is no different. For hunting, sport hunting is
allowed on preserve lands. There are differences, of course, in
wilderness.
Mr. Souder. In the wilderness preserves.
Ms. Blaszak. In Wrangell's, yes.
Mr. Souder. So, in that, if there is an inholding that
allowed mining in a park, that wasn't wilderness, that there
would be usually a statement as to the risks to the park, but
would or would not be named, historically, a park of Alaska?
What kind of precedence--forget a park of Alaska for a minute.
Ms. Blaszak. We don't have good precedent. That's our
problem. In fact, Mr. Anderson might be able to address that.
At Denali National Park, there had been mining in the Kantishna
area for many years, that through, I think, the consent of
Congress, we were able to buy out the majority of those land
claims.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Anderson, I note that the other thing is
that--although, Alaska, you tend to circulate a little more in
Alaska. And you've all worked in other places, too. And I ask
the question broader. In addition, but in Alaska--could you
kind of give a little more on Denali, and on any other
experience that you know of, and any precedents we have in the
park on mining inside the park.
Mr. Anderson. Let me speak specifically to Denali for just
a minute. When when Mt. McKinley National Park was expanded by
4 million acres and renamed as Denali National Park and
Preserve, in ANILCA, it encompassed the Kantishna Mining
District, just outside the old park boundary, as well as some
other mining claims along the boundaries also in the park.
In the early 1980's, there was active mining activity going
on there, and some desire to increase access in mining at the
time. Based on a lawsuit, that occurred in the early 1980's,
the Park Service did an environmental impact statement on the
impact of mining in the Kantishna area on national parks. The
outcome of that, a preferred alternative, that was signed off
on, I think, in 1985, was that the Park Service would attempt
to buy out all of the mining claims in the National Park,
including all of those in Kantishna. And from that point
forward, we've moved in that direction to purchase mining
claims that were available for sale.
We have, in fact, approved plans of operations in Kantishna
since that time, but not very many. All of those have been very
small-scale, individual mining activity, as opposed to big
corporate, large-scale mining activity. And we continue to work
on that.
It's been a very acrimonious process, over time, and with
the help of the Congress, in the late 1990's, we were--and in
cooperation with the landowners in Kantishna, mining claim
owners, we were able to acquire the majority of claims through
a legislative taking, on a willing-participant basis; so that
the owners were allowed to put their land into a taking
situation, if they so choose, and then the courts made the
determination on the value of the claims.
That eliminated about 4,000 acres of mining claims. There's
less than 1,000 acres of private lands left in Kantishna. There
is no mining activity occurring at the present time.
Mr. Souder. Well, in sorting out how we're going to deal
with the inholdings question, long term--basically not in
dealing with many people who--native Alaskans, Alaska Natives,
either one, who have been on the land for a long period of
time, but a lot of which are, for lack of a better word,
``absentee landowner'' questions of inholdings, which is
relatively unique; the scale. The scale is certainly unique,
but even the concept is relatively unique in Alaska. Partly
because of the timing when you did it; partly the way the
process was done.
Is it the Park Service policy that you would trade land?
Ms. Blaszak. We would always be interested in considering
an exchange, particularly when we could consolidate acreage, to
make it less difficult for access.
And I'd also like to add, Mr. Chairman, that the number of
selections that were made by the Native corporations at the
time of the compromise of ANILCA, were selected for their
potential mineral or timber value, anticipating that they would
produce revenue for mature elders of those Native corporations
who made the selections.
Mr. Souder. And the challenge in the--just as an outsider
coming in--and let's plunge into another controversy.
I, for example, favor drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. I wasn't on the Alaska Delegation. I've looked
at it. Clearly, there, that area was a set-aside, consolidating
area for potential drilling. It wasn't a bunch of lots. All
through, it was set aside. It was marked on the original map
what its intent was.
I'm also a mining guy. I have the No. 1 manufacturing
congressional district in the United States. You can't make
things if you can't get things out of the ground. The question
is, is where and when and in what kind of process you do that.
That's originally BLM land. It was Bureau of Lands and
Mines. The Forest Service was created to cut the timber, not to
make it a wilderness, and this really becomes a wilderness. In
my opinion, they should move it to the Park Service. That this,
all the time, causes nightmares in the Park Service, because
everybody outside the Park Service thinks that's the ultimate
goal of the Park Service, to turn every piece of land that they
have into a wilderness.
I'm a visitation guy, too. I believe there should be
wilderness areas and visitation areas. But increasingly what
we're seeing is the Forest Service access to places. And most
parks around the United States are becoming recreational areas,
and you see the more and more lodging at the edges, the
entertainment-type things that people like me would do, that
are older and don't hike 15 miles up a mountain. We tend to
scatter around the edges of the places (Indiscernible) in.
I'd be more of a cruise ship guy, in that sense, as I get
older. Not that I was all that great a mountain climber, when I
was younger, but would be more of a cruise ship person, who are
at the edges.
But there is an orderly process, as we're trying to move
toward it, and I see you making those steps in Alaska. But the
challenges here are just so massive, compared to what we've
heard at the other parks hearings, partly because it isn't
necessarily that nice, orderly forest land abutting the park
land.
Do any of you have forest land abutting the park land where
the visitation services are, visitor services? In other words,
that's the question. That in the wild areas--you have forest
land around the back of the Kenai Fjords and elsewhere. But is
the forest abutting up, or BLM land abutting up? Do you have
any kind of buffer zone that----
Mr. Mow. Well, at Kenai Fjords, along the Exit Glacier
Road, the Chugach National Forest and the Park Service are
immediately adjacent. We've had some differences on how we
manage those lands, particularly camping issues. But we've been
working together, more and more, on specific problems that come
up, around certain times of the year, to address some of those
issues. But, you know, I think you're correct in that it's
generally rare. But, you know, this is one example on where we
do have day-to-day visitation and visitor services occurring
in----
Mr. Souder. And as I understand----
Mr. Mow [continuing]. The adjacent areas.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Part of your challenge on the
water is, is that the water around Kenai Fjords is actually
Fish and Wildlife; is that correct?
Mr. Mow. Well, the offshore islands are under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. And so, you know,
again, the tour boats, themselves, don't actually set foot on
those lands. But, you know, those choosable islands are the
most highly visited portion of that maritime refuge, and so
it's our park interpreters that provide the interpretive
services for those.
Mr. Souder. Because as you look at the maritime wildlife
refuge, it's scattered all over the place. Up near Kobuk
Valley, isn't it also there that the waters are basically Fish
and Wildlife, but the land and park is the Park Service.
Ms. Blaszak. Because of the large tracts of federally
managed land in Alaska, we abut NPRA, to the north, at Noatak
and Gates of the Arctic, and BLM manages those lands. We also,
in that part area of the country, have, I think, specific
national wildlife refuges adjacent to us, and we do
collaboratively provide visitor services at the hall, at the
Kobuk Visitor Center. So there's a number of places where we
intersect.
I think at Denali, BLM--isn't that adjacent to you, Paul,
out the Denali Highway? Maybe not directly, but----
Mr. Anderson. (Nodding head.)
Ms. Blaszak. So we do have places where we intersect.
Mr. Souder. Well, I thank you very much for your testimony.
We may have some additional followup written questions, to get
some park-specific data, and have some further followup
questions, after the second panel here. We have to be out of
the room at 1, so I want to move to the second panel.
But I thank you for your willingness to be open today to
talk about questions that are very difficult and very important
to Alaska. And I feel very awkward, as a form of presence here.
And my friend, Congressman Young, who's an impressive advocate
for Alaska--it's really a concern of a lot of us that are
asking questions about Alaska, because he thinks they're--it's
his State, and he doesn't want us to--and every time we start
to probe too much, he says, ``That's why I voted against
Statehood.''
These are huge questions, and to some degree, there is a
legitimate feeling in Alaska that--in Indiana, we just cut down
all our trees, and we, quite frankly, removed the Native
Americans. On the other hand, you learn something from your
experience, and you try to balance out how to allow a State the
actual economic growth and people growth that they have every
right to do, as people who live here.
But the national presence is a tremendous--Seward's Folly
wasn't so much of a folly, historically, when you look at it,
and it was a benefit to the United States.
And, otherwise, quite frankly, if the U.S. Government
hadn't come in, we'd be speaking Russian here today. So the
U.S. Government has been a positive presence in Alaska, from
the beginning, and an active presence, and it's a very
difficult process to work through.
And I appreciate your willingness to each have your
respective parks and all of your individual rangers to work
through this. It's a beautiful land, and we want to preserve as
much as we can and enjoy it, as well. So thank you very much
for coming today.
Ms. Blaszak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. If the second panel could come forward.
I presume all of you heard, in the first panel, our five
witnesses here are Mr. Menge; is that correct?
Mr. Menge. Menge.
Mr. Souder. Menge, OK.
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources;
Mr. James Stratton, who everybody calls ``Stratto.''
Is that an official name, or is that a----
Mr. Stratton. Nah, it's kind of an official name.
Mr. Souder. Regional director of the Alaska Office,
National Parks Conservation Association. I understand he's
going to sing his testimony today.
Ron Peck is being represented today by Dave Worrell, who's
the communications director of the Alaska Travel Industry
Association. Thank you for coming today.
Mr. Rick Kenyon, publisher, Wrangell-St. Elias News. Thank
you for coming all the way over. I just did the drive myself.
And Mr. John Shively--good to see you again--vice
president, Government and Community Relations for Holland
America. As you've heard, it's a government oversight
committee.
It's been our standard practice to swear in all our
witnesses. So if you will all stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
That probably was our most famous hearing that we've done
this congressional cycle was the steroids hearings. You're Mark
McGuire and Sammy Sosa, with the interpreter in between.
Actually, Canseco, Mark McGuire. Jim, you're in the Mark
McGuire spot. You would need an interpreter, because Sammy
wouldn't sit next to McGuire.
Then we had a few more. John, you're Rafael Palmeiro. So I
bid you say, ``And I did not do''----
Mr. Shively. Correct.
Mr. Souder. All right. ``Then retest the applicant.''
That was the most unusual hearings we've done. But we do it
on lots of different issues. And thank you for participating.
So you can see it's wide ranging. And I'm looking forward to
each of your testimony.
You heard the first panel. Your official statements go on
the record. That we have a flexible 5-minute rule here. You can
go a little over, but I'd like to have time to ask some
questions, too.
So Mr. Menge, thank you for coming.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL MENGE, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES; JAMES STRATTON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE
ALASKA OFFICE, NATIONAL PARK CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION; DAVE
WORRELL, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, ALASKA TRAVEL INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION; RICK KENYON, PUBLISHER, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NEWS;
AND JOHN SHIVELY, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY
RELATIONS, HOLLAND AMERICA
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MENGE
Mr. Menge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, my name is Michael Menge, Commissioner of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. I appreciate submitting
this testimony, for the record.
I think I will just skip across some of the major areas,
and then, based upon your previous practice, it looks like it
will be spirited questions and answers. So I look forward to
that.
I'm sure, as Congressman Young has pointed out to you on
numerous occasions--probably many more than you really
necessarily wanted--Alaska really is unique. We were
essentially frozen in amber. During the time that the rest of
the U.S. infrastructure was being built, we were essentially up
here cold.
Our transportation infrastructure system developed along
the rivers, the ocean, and there were no highways to speak of.
Air travel came along about the time when the eastern and lower
continental folks were coming out here to create economic well-
being for themselves. Air travel developed partly, at that
time, so rather than go through the costly and expensive
process of kind of jamming roads into the wilderness, we used
the airplane. So Alaska's infrastructure simply never developed
as it had across the ``Lower 48.'' And I think, in that, lies
the issues that we confront most today.
First, let me say that we really appreciate the Park
Service today. Back in 1980, when ANILCA was first passed, it
was a very uneasy relationship. There were a lot of young,
eager folks coming in from the ``Lower 48,'' who had grown up
in the traditional National Park System and brought with them a
view of how the parks worked in relationships that had been
established with the neighbors. And then that relationship grew
strained, and there were several incidents that we wish had
never occurred.
I must say, under Director Blaszak, and the rest of the
panel here, as well, it's a new Park Service that serves in
Alaska today. And while we may disagree on some things, we have
found, particularly her staff, very amenable to sitting down
and working through the problems. And I think that's really one
of the biggest issues we have to deal with.
As you've mentioned, there was probably the greatest horse-
trading session in the history of mankind that occurred back
when ANILCA was being put together. And if you were there, or
heard about it, there were a lot of people with black magic
markers and huge maps rolled out on the ground. The State was
trying to establish an economic basis to grow an economy. They
virtually had no existing infrastructure, industry or any
structured economy, other than our fishing, a little timber,
and tourism was nonexistent in those days.
Certainly, the folks that you had spoke of, in the ``Lower
48,'' who spent their lives in the conservation movement, had
watched with dismay the way resources were allocated across the
``Lower 48,'' and they realized that there was precious little
of the special places left, and they were highly motivated to
protect as much of Alaska as they could. Because you're hard-
pressed to find anywhere in this State that doesn't deserve
special recognition.
Speaking of Alaska, I admit I may come across as a little
bit overly proud. The truth of the matter is, I've had many
opportunities to walk and visit most of State, over my years
here, and every place is very special.
And I can't imagine the difficulty of trying to say that
one area deserves protection over another. Certainly, Glacier
Bay, Denali and Wrangell, those are extraordinarily special
areas. But even the run-of-the-mill areas in the State are just
spectacular in their size and grandeur.
There was quite a struggle dividing it up amongst the
Native corporations. Which was, as you recall, one of the most
daring and creative experiments, probably in the 20th Century,
was trying to figure out a way to break the chain of the
reservations and establish an economic base.
The State was doing very much the same in its selection of
lands, and there were many, many dedicated professionals, back
in D.C., who also had a vision for Alaska's park system,
wildlife system, forest system. So it was a unique experience.
And what emerged out of that--because you were talking
about an inholder access. There were a lot of fire system
lines, but there also was the concept we call ``Title 11,'' or
``access.'' And we literally did simply say, ``We'll deal with
that later.'' ANILCA said the access will be granted, and that
was good enough for the time. As we sat down and started
working through that, of course, that's the first time the
challenges emerged, and challenges that we still face today.
The largest issue that, at least during Governor
Murkowski's term, time in office, has been in Glacier Bay and
in discussions on what's the appropriate level of visitation.
And the Governor felt very strongly that two ships a day was
appropriate, and certainly the current administration is moving
up toward that number. We haven't reached there yet. But I will
say, for the record, that Superintendent Lee and Director
Blaszak have been very helpful in working toward those goals,
and that really is the biggest issue of the leading base.
The McCarthy issue and the access issue is one that
continues being a challenge. We really appreciate all the work
that's been going on in that area, because it's a tough nut to
crack. Because, as you can imagine, a road-in access is in the
eye of the beholder, and seldom does an inholder envision
access the same as a Park Service employee, and therein lies
the problem.
The uneasy truce that began in the 1980's I think has
matured, as most of us have, and as our hair has fallen out and
what little we have left is turning gray, we began to
appreciate the positive benefits of the Park Service and the
ability to grow an economy associated with that.
Mining in the parks was a tough one. There's probably a
world-class composite down in Glacier Bay, but even--it's under
a glacier. And you can imagine the challenges associated with
putting a mine in the park, under a glacier in that park. So no
question of the quality and the quantity of the ore, but the
ability to develop and bring it out, that is a challenge.
You can imagine the discussions associated with that. How
much is it worth? One person would say, ``Well, it's not worth
anything, because you can never put a mine in the park,'' and
someone else, a geologist, will stand up, red-faced, and say,
``But it's worth billions of dollar,'' and then the fight was
on.
So we still have a fair number of challenges that we have
to address. But let me say that we have come to appreciate the
contributions that the National Park Service can make to the
State. We recognize that these parks will never be the same as
the parks in the ``Lower 48.'' Each and every one has a special
and unique character that will have to be factored into any
kind of resolution. And the only way that we will be
successful, ultimately, is through the good will of the
participants on both sides.
We put together, while I served in the Senate with Senator
Murkowski, now Governor, we put together some funding to put in
an ANILCA training course, which had been taken by just about
everyone in the Federal Government. It helped to explain how
the process evolved, what the promises were, and whether those
promises are being kept.
And I think an understanding of the history--and there was
a tremendous amount of ``trust me,'' when that legislation was
passed, and that ``trust me'' only lasts so long as the people
who drafted it remember. And once they're done, and they've
gone down to The Monocle and enjoyed a few libations and
congratulated themselves, it's left to others to carry out. And
in trying to keep those promises alive, it's a challenge. But
the ANILCA course has gone a long way in doing that.
So I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman, saying that it's been a
rough road, but it's gotten a lot better in the last 13 years.
We have a long way to go, and our success will be based
strictly on the willingness of both the State and private
parties and the Park Service to work together. Because none of
these issues are going to be easy, as was testified in the
McCarthy case. And I'm sure you're aware of the case. Those are
all just real tough nuts to crack.
But there's no clear-cut statutory authority that anoints a
winner prior to the beginning of the process. So we just have
to roll up our sleeves and dig in. And I think therein will lie
the ultimate resolution.
As you said, the Park Service has evolved significantly
across the country. And we will have the cost of energy, which
(Indiscernible), will have profound effects on the systems up
here, as it does with the Congress.
I think we'd have a whole lot of fun talking about the
horror stories of trying to get energy into our rural villages.
It's $8 a gallon now and growing. And it's a very difficult
social issue to deal with. The same pressures on those villages
will also affect the future potential growth for the parks.
We're just a long way away from any kind of established
infrastructure, and you have to have a few bucks in your pocket
to get out.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming up and visiting our
State. We appreciate your interest in the parks. And the
Governor has certainly made his pledge to work with all the
Federal agencies. Even if we bark at each other, from time to
time, it's a--we'll figure it out.
So thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menge follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.015
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I've heard new roads and bridges are
expensive to build.
Mr. Stratton, I want to thank you. First off, let me state,
for your willingness, at all these hearings, to kind of do an
overview of the status of the different parks. I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF JAMES STRATTON
Mr. Stratton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today about the national
parks in Alaska.
My name is Jim Stratton. I'm the Alaska Regional Director
for the National Parks Conservation Association; lived in
Alaska for 25 years. And just prior to joining NPCA, I spent
about 7\1/2\ years as the Director of Alaska State Parks,
actually working, for most of that time, for Mr. Shively, at
the end of the table here.
And as the chairman already knows, I also double as a disc
jockey on Saturday nights for a show called ``The Arctic Cactus
Hour.'' But my day job is with NPCA, the nonpartisan National
Parks Conservation Association. We've been the leading voice of
the American people in protecting and enhancing our National
Park System for present and future generations.
I've submitted written testimony I'm going to try and
summarize here today. In addition, I did want to point out NPCA
has submitted, for the record, testimony from two hearings that
the Congressman intended to hold, but were unfortunately
postponed, in Atlanta and Indiana Dunes. I wanted to make sure
that was recognized.
Well, as was mentioned in the Park Service panel, most
everything in Alaska is different, including our national
parks. We have a lot of them, we have more of them than
everybody else, and it was greatly expanded, in 1980, with the
passage of the Alaska Lands Act. And with all of those new
parks, 10 new parks, in 1980, this required an immediate
infusion of staff and infrastructure to support these parks,
some of which are larger than most eastern States. And this
rapid expansion in Alaska created definite growing pains, as
the Commission mentioned, as park management strategies and
policies, that worked well in the ``Lower 48,'' were found
needing improvement and modification to fit both the unique
physical environment in Alaska and the unique governing
language found in ANILCA.
It's navigating these unique challenges, to meet the intent
of Congress to provide for access and subsistence while staying
true to the Organic Act and the park protection purposes found
in ANILCA, that is the difficult situation.
In many cases, because ANILCA is still a young bill--it's
only 25 years old--the Park Service and park advocates are
still trying to determine just what Congress intended. ``What
is a `traditional activity?' How can you access inholdings and
still protect park values? How can we provide for sport and
subsistence hunting and also provide for natural and healthy
wildlife populations.''
These are not easy questions and the answers are still
emerging, and moreover, implementing this unique language,
however, has created demands on the Park Service's limited
operating budget.
Now, when reviewing the base operating budgets of the parks
in Alaska, we find a similar trend to parks in the ``Lower
48.'' There's more to do with less money, and base operating
budgets just aren't keeping track, keeping up with park needs.
So as a result, park superintendents are forced to make
difficult decisions about what programs and services to reduce;
with the additional strain in Alaska on the budget from those
unique aspects of park management that you only find here, made
so primarily because of the size and the remoteness of our 15
parks.
One impact that I want to talk about briefly is that on the
use of aircraft in our parks. Because of their vast size,
remote nature, and lack of road access, parks in Alaska are
best accessed by aircraft. Small airplanes are standard park
vehicles in Alaska, like pickup trucks would be in the ``Lower
48.'' Airplanes are used for ranger patrols, ferrying supplies
to ranger stations, search and rescue, scientific research and
monitoring, and basic transportation of staff from one side of
the park to the other.
Even Denali and Wrangell-St. Elias, which are primarily--or
are the only two natural resource parks with an appreciable
road access----
Court Reporter. [Requested the witness slow down.]
Mr. Stratton. I have the same problem as the chairman,
you'll find out--which are the two national resource parks with
any appreciable road access, require aircraft to patrol and
monitor the majority of the park's backcountry, which is not
road accessible. This is one of the big differences between
Alaska's parks and those in the lower 48 States. Because
without aircraft, all of the remote parks, including Wrangell
and St. Elias, would not benefit from the natural and cultural
resource protection provided by the park rangers.
The recent cost in aviation fuel, coupled with the overall
increasing cost of maintaining aircraft, are causing the parks
in Alaska to reduce or eliminate the amount of time that they
spend in the air, and that's not good for resources.
Now, another of ANILCA's unique programs that has budget
implications is subsistence, found in Title 8. Now, with the
exception of Katmai and Glacier Bay park lands, the original
Mt. McKinley National Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park,
Congress made it clear that residents living close to or within
boundaries of park units in Alaska would be allowed to hunt and
gather subsistence resources necessary to perpetuate a
traditional rural lifestyle. At the same time, Congress charged
the Park Service to provide for subsistence in a manner that
does not diminish the purposes and values for which the park
was originally created.
Now, providing for this balance, between perpetuating park
resources and providing for subsistence, does have budget
implications.
The Park Service has to work with local villages to
identify and meet subsistence needs, and then they need to find
out the status of those subsistence resources: How many are
being consumed and used by the residents. This takes research
and monitoring money.
Additionally, Congress also allowed for sport hunting in 19
million acres of national preserves. And though the regulating
body is different--sport hunting is regulated by the Alaska
Board of Game. The Alaska Board of Game, ensuring that sport
hunting does not negatively impact the purposes and values for
which the park was created, such as healthy wildlife
populations, has budgetary implications similar to those of
subsistence.
Now, I want to say that NPCA does not see hunting as a
distinct activity that is a threat to the resources in the
national parks. But the Park Service does need to know how many
animals live in their parks and how many are being harvested
annually, to ensure that the agency is maintaining healthy and
naturally occurring wildlife populations, in accordance with
ANILCA, the Organic Act and other management guidelines.
And according to an analysis that we've just completed, the
Park Service lacks the necessary resources to monitor wildlife
populations and harvest levels to make sure that current
wildlife harvest is not adversely impacting the ability to
perpetuate natural and healthy wildlife populations.
Now, this analysis is detailed in a report that we're just
releasing today called, ``Who's counting? How Insufficient
Support For Science Is Hindering National Park Wildlife
Management in Alaska.'' And I have a copy here that I would
like to submit, for the record.
This report demonstrates that timely and scientifically
sound population and harvest data, and the ability to analyze
the information, is not always available to park managers. Now,
the lack of data is not an indication of a lack of interest on
the part of the Park Service, but rather is indicative of the
funding shortfalls that affect the entire National Park System.
Now, currently, there are two sources of harvest data that
are available to the Park Service: One, is the Reporting Data
base, developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
where hunters send in their information; the second, is the
Community Harvest Surveys, also developed by the Department of
Fish and Game, where rural residents estimate how much has been
harvested in those villages through an interview process of
people going out to the villages and sitting down with the
individual hunters and finding out what that harvest has been.
Now, our new report examines both the population science
and the harvest data and looks at the challenges facing the
Park Service. And we have three recommendations that we are
making to the Park Service to improve this situation. Now,
clearly, each of these recommendations will take additional
resources. The quickest way to address these problems is to
provide additional funding through park operating budgets. We
think this is basic scientific data that must be collected as
part of each park's basic park operations.
The first is: The National Park should increase support for
conducting and analyzing population science in hunted species.
Research is expensive, and we recognize that, but we don't
think it's nearly as expensive as failing to maintain healthy
wildlife populations. For ecologically important and/or heavily
harvested species, park-specific plans should be completed that
identify what studies are currently provided for in park
operations budgets and other Park Service funding sources, or
are provided by partner agencies such as the University or the
State of Alaska. And then, look at the gap, where additional
wildlife population research needs to be done.
Second: The Park Service should support regularly scheduled
Community Harvest Surveys. The available data in the reporting
data base from the State of Alaska falls short of explaining
the rural harvest activities in Alaska. The Park Service needs
to make a commitment to providing additional funds and/or other
measures to efficiently conduct Community Harvest Surveys in a
timely and in a culturally sensitive manner. Any system that is
used must be respectful of rural residents and their long-term
tradition with the land. And we think that these surveys should
be done every 7 to 10 years as a baseline for the wildlife that
is being consumed in each of the 84 resident zone communities
in parks and monuments and communities in close proximity to
preserves.
Our third recommendation is: That the Park Service should
support a new position for a Statewide wildlife data manager,
because collecting data is only part of the process. The Park
Service also needs the expertise to incorporate the information
into a Statewide data base, analyze it, and interpret the
results for park managers.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for bringing the
committee to Alaska and focusing attention on the national
treasures of our State. Alaska has the biggest, the most remote
and the wildest national parks in our country. And when it
passed ANILCA, Congress intended these preserves to be
protected as intact wilderness ecosystems, while also
perpetuating the ability of Alaska's rural residents, including
those who rely on wildlife and other park resources for
subsistence, to continue their traditional way of life; and for
visitors from the ``Lower 48'' to come out, and come up to
Alaska and learn and see and experience what our national parks
have to offer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stratton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.035
Mr. Souder. And I also have a statement from the Denali
Foundation to put into the record, that we'll put in at the end
of this panel. You refer to the statements for the Atlanta and
Indiana Dunes hearings that we were going to do. We're going to
hold this record open a little longer, to see whether or not
those--the Atlanta hearing may actually occur yet this fall,
depending on how things are going down in the park, the
historic park. And some of the documents down there, at Indiana
Dunes, may actually shift up to Michigan. But depending on what
we're going to do, we'll put the statements in this record, if
those don't get confirmed, because we don't want to lose the
testimony in the parks process.
Also, because, at the very least, you and I talk so fast--
one of the things, we'll have a little longer for this process,
that when the staff gets each of the statements back, then get
them out to the individuals and do a review--because I know
it's hard to keep up with our rapid rate. But then we can
probably ask any witness that gets a statement back to--not
fundamentally change what we've said, but, at least, that would
help a little bit with the accuracy of the hearing.
Now, next, we'll move to the travel industry. Thank you for
coming today.
STATEMENT OF DAVE WORRELL
Mr. Worrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We sure do appreciate
this opportunity to participate. Ron asked me to express his
regrets. He had to leave town for a family emergency. He
prepared this presentation, and I'm going to try and follow his
notes a little bit. So I will also be brief.
The first thing I wanted to cover was a little bit of just
basic visitor numbers for the State of Alaska. And what's
interesting here is, this is a 10-year look at visitation in
Alaska.
Ten years ago, in 1996, we had a roughly equal number of
cruise visitors and what we call ``other'' or ``independent
travelers.'' As you can see, the cruise visitation has grown
substantially over the years, whereas the independent
visitation has remained roughly consistent.
Tourism is very important to Alaska's economy. We provide
roughly 31,000 jobs. And that's the State of Alaska Department
of Labor statistic. We're a big contribution to the State of
Alaska's economy: Roughly $1.6 billion, in direct and indirect
expenditures, for the industry; and a total sales, when you
include the multiplier effects, of $2.4 billion. We're just
behind the oil industry, tied with the commercial fishing
industry, and ahead of timber, mining and agriculture for the
State of Alaska.
All of our marketing for the State of Alaska is based on
research, and we did some research in 2002, following up on
previous research.
People come to Alaska for three things; mountains, glaciers
and wildlife. You can go back to 1899, to the Harriman
Expedition, and they came to Alaska for the same reasons;
mountains, glaciers and wildlife.
44 percent of our visitors indicate that they went to
Denali National Park. 76 percent of the highway travelers
mentioned visiting national parks or scenic wonders in the
State of Alaska. The national parks and park units play a vital
role to tourism in Alaska.
I want to mention a few of the challenges and obstacles the
tourism industry faces. Clearly, public lands access is a
crucial issue for the tourism industry. Infrastructure quality,
it's very important for our industry to have a quality
experience for visitors to partake in. We want to improve the
dispersal of visitors. It's important for people, to have a
good experience, to get to a variety of different locations.
And finally, we want to increase recognition of all of
Alaska's public lands throughout the State. There is 15 park
units, and people really only know of two; Denali and Glacier
Bay.
So, the last couple of years, we've had a program, that was
funded by Congress, of $750,000, to market Alaska's national
parks, particularly parks other than Denali National Park. And
the object of that program was to increase awareness of the
parks, to encourage visitation to Alaska's lesser known parks.
And we believe that was a very successful program, and it's one
we hope to use as a model for other areas.
In closing up, we've got a few priorities that we'd like
the committee to look at. And probably one of our biggest
priorities is the south side of Denali National Park,
development at Curry Ridge. There is a Record of Decision,
signed on June 30th. Now we hope that there--it's a cooperative
venture between the State of Alaska, the National Park Service
and local communities, and we think this will be a great
addition to spread the visitors to Denali National Park out of
that core-entrance area.
We think it's time for road improvements at Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park. And we are working with the State of
Alaska and the National Park Service in hope that happens
sooner rather than later.
And once again, we believe it's important to expand our
marketing efforts to market all of Alaska's park lands.
And we have established a great relationship with the Park
Service, over the past several years, and we certainly hope
that to continue, and also, incorporate other public lands
management agencies, as well.
And with that, I'll close my testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peck follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.042
Mr. Souder. And Mr. Kenyon.
STATEMENT OF RICK KENYON
Mr. Kenyon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify about the important issue of community and National
Park Service relations.
It's apparent that you have a strong desire to see our
parks become better places to visit, and that's a desire that
my wife and I share.
Before I start, I want--could I just clarify--I know you've
talked a little bit about the time we have for additional
testimony, by--this hearing was not well publicized here, in
Alaska, and I know there are some that would like to submit
testimony.
Mr. Souder. Yes. We'll take, within reason--any written
testimony will--obviously, when people--in questioning, it's
under oath and has a different meaning----
Mr. Kenyon. Sure.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Than written testimony. But as
long as it's reasonable and well thought out, I would be happy
to take written testimony from anybody who presents written
testimony.
Mr. Kenyon. Is there--the 5 days, 10 days.
Mr. Souder. Generally speaking, we do have 2 weeks. But if
it takes longer than that, we're going to leave the hearing
record open (Indiscernible).
Mr. Kenyon. Thank you very much.
My name is Rick Kenyon. My wife, Bonnie and I, have lived
full time in the McCarthy area since 1977. You might imagine,
I'm very much out of my element here today. We've been contract
weather observers for NOAA and the FAA since 1983. We operate a
bed and breakfast near McCarthy. Since 1992, we've published a
news magazine called the ``Wrangell St. Elias News. Each spring
we publish ``A Visitor's Guide to Kennicott and McCarthy,''
which is given free of charge to area visitors. We also pastor
the McCarthy-Kennicott Community Church. And finally, we're
both volunteer interpretive rangers at the Park Service,
staffing the McCarthy Road Information Station on Friday nights
from 5 to 8 p.m.
For 26 years, we've watched the interaction between the
rural Alaskan communities of McCarthy and Kennicott and the
Park Service. For the majority of those years, it must be
characterized as adversarial. Fortunately, much progress has
been made, during the past 2 years, under Director Blaszak.
When Park Service historian Jeff Bleakley wrote the
official administrative history of Wrangell-St. Elias, he
unfortunately had to title it, ``Contested Ground.''
In the spring of 1994, a hearing, similar to this one, was
held here in this same building. Anchorage Voice of the Times
Reporter Dennis Fradley summed the meeting up this way, ``One
after another, each individual told of how he or she was being
mistreated by the Park Service. They painted a picture of an
agency gone amok--a Federal bureaucracy that has become an
arrogant despot, trampling individual, property and State
rights at will.''
I wish I could tell you that things changed for the better
right after that hearing, but unfortunately, they got worse.
Nearly 10 years later, during the summer of 2003, community
relations between McCarthy and the National Park Service hit an
all-time low.
In April of that year, the Park Service suddenly and
unexpectedly posted and closed a historic mining road that the
communities of McCarthy and Kennicott had used for 80 years.
The Park Service suddenly said it did not exist.
After the townspeople loudly protested, the Park Service
then modified the closure. They said that any resident could
use the road for subsistence, except for the people who
actually lived up the road, because they might be using
subsistence as an excuse to actually travel from their home to
the nearest town, which was McCarthy.
Within a few months, armed, flak-jacketed rangers were in
the family's yard, with a host of scientists, in an apparent
attempt to prove that the family had somehow damaged park
resources by using the road that served as their driveway.
We sent a reporter to the scene, a neighbor and a mother of
five. She was able to observe, unseen, from the family's home.
When she returned to McCarthy, she got off the plane and
burst into uncontrollable sobbing. She said she had never
believed that her government was capable of such actions.
It is my firm belief that only prayer and the grace of God
averted bloodshed in the Wrangells.
Fortunately, the Alaska Regional Director that allowed this
atrocity is gone. The Superintendent and the Chief Ranger who
engineered it are both gone.
Unfortunately, the Superintendent was rewarded with the
prestigious Stephen T. Mather award shortly after this
incident. There was no question but that he was being rewarded
for his attacks against inholders at Wrangell-St. Elias. Also,
unfortunately, the Chief Ranger's assistant was promoted to the
current Chief Ranger position at Wrangell-St. Elias.
Alaska's current National Park Service management has made
moves in the right direction. Director Blaszak appointed the
very capable Jed Davis as Superintendent at Wrangell-St. Elias.
Great strides toward understanding and cooperation between the
Park Service were made under Jed's leadership. Much progress
was made toward healing the wounds. Sadly, cancer claimed Jed's
life this last spring. It is hoped that the next superintendent
will display Jed's commitment to working fairly and honestly
with the communities in the park. Sadly, some of the gains made
have already eroded under interim management.
There's much to say concerning access to inholdings,
particularly the use of the National Environmental Policy Act,
which has been, in the past, used to deny access to inholdings.
However, time is short, and these things are covered in my
written testimony.
The May 8th edition of the Anchorage Daily News published
an Op-Ed by McCarthy resident and business owner Neil Darish,
who pleads for understanding of the importance of rural
communities within Alaska's national parks.
Yesterday, Sunday's New York Times reviewed Dan O'Neill's
book, ``A Land Gone Lonesome.'' This noted Alaskan historian
describes how the Park Service eliminates people from Alaska's
vast parks. New personal stories cease to be created and
tradition dies. All of this is completely unnecessary. Even at
the height of human occupancy of these areas, 100 years ago in
the gold rush, only tiny parts of these parks were ever
occupied.
And I have a copy of the book I'd like to give to you, Mr.
Chairman, if I could.
We urge the committee--excuse me.
Nature and thriving pre-existing communities are not
mutually exclusive concepts. Around the world, administrators
of protected areas have proven this. In Ohio, Cuyahoga Valley
National Park Superintendent John Debo has begun to implement
these better management concepts.
We urge the committee to look at our situation here in
Alaska's parks, and we are confident that you will see that a
break from past aggressive practices against park landowners
and communities will deliver far better value for the
government budget while maintaining resource protection and
enhancing visitor enjoyment.
We have appreciated the unprecedented outreach from
Director Blaszak and her deputy, Vic Knox these past months,
and we see commitment and leadership that can, indeed, put the
``service'' back in the National Park Service. It will,
however, not be easy.
My desire--and I believe that Marcia and Vic share that
desire--is that instead of ``contested ground,'' residents and
park managers will find ``common ground'' and learn to work
together. I believe that all Americans will benefit from this
effort.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your willingness to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kenyon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.048
Mr. Souder. Our last panelist is Mr. Shively. Thank you for
coming today.
Mr. Shively. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SHIVELY
Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having
me.
I will say, for the record, I never have used steroids, nor
do I intend to. So let's get that out of the way first.
The other thing I'll say is, going last is great, because
everybody's already said everything you wanted to say, pretty
much. And I think that there's a lot that's been said here
today that I certainly support but will not repeat for you.
I've been in Alaska over 40 years. Among other things, I
have served as--in the same position that Mr. Menge currently
holds. Also, I spent a fair amount of time in Washington, DC,
working for a Native corporation during the D2 debates. So I do
have some experience there.
What I want to talk to you about a little bit today is sort
of how the cruise industry interacts with the national parks.
And particularly, for Holland America Line, which I represent,
how important the park system is to us and to our program, and
also, to our guests. Therefore people that come to Alaska on
Holland America lines can visit a whole host of national parks.
Of course, Denali and Glacier Bay are the two that people most
often think about, but Kenai Fjords, Gates of the Arctic, the
Klondike National Historic Park in Skagway, and the Klondike
National Historic Park in Seattle, Wrangell-St. Elias, the
Sitka National Historic Park, Kenai--and would also have people
that can see the Yukon-Charley National Preserve, the Kenai
National Wildlife Preserve and Misty Fjords National Monument.
Not that you'd probably do it all in one trip, but all of those
are possible.
We have spent a fair amount of time trying to work with the
park system, particularly in places where there's a large
impact, to develop interpretive programs, so our guests have a
better understanding of the national parks and what they're
about. And we continue to grow that program.
This year alone, we started a new program in Seattle, with
the Klondike National Historic Park, where we have rangers
coming on board during the day, while the ship is loading. So
the passengers can get an idea about the Klondike park, what
role Seattle played, and how that all fits together, before
they even take off.
Also, we added an interpreter, in Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park, for those ships that visit Hubbard Glacier. I
think you had an opportunity last week to see the interpreter
program that has been developed on our ships in Glacier Bay,
something that we're particularly proud of.
We think that our working relationship in Glacier Bay, I
think, stands as a model for what can be done between what some
people refer to as the ``industrial side of tourism'' and the
national parks. And of course, our impacts on Denali have also
been talked about.
I think a couple things, just briefly.
Access will always be an issue. There's certainly been a
debate in Glacier Bay about how many cruise ships. And our
experience with the Park Service is that they have given,
certainly recently, a thoughtful consideration to that. They
are moving slowly to look at how that might be increased. There
are some people, I think, in this that believe that there
probably can be unlimited traffic there, and we don't believe
that would be good for the park or, as a matter of fact, even
good for us. But we think the process that's been set out there
is an excellent one.
Certainly, access to Denali, as the number of people that
visit Denali grows, will continue to be an issue.
We also support the south side development. And as an
Alaskan, I'm somewhat embarrassed at how long it has taken to
get even as far as we've gotten today. There have been numerous
studies on that. It's certainly something that I think most
people, that look closely at it, would agree should take place.
Education is important. I was talking to Nancy Sears this
morning. And as part of what's being done now in Seattle, at
Klondike National Park, they're asking people that are going to
Glacier Bay if they know it's a National Park. And actually,
she says it's only averaging about 5 percent. I mean, they know
they're going to see glaciers, but they don't know it's a park.
I think after they've been there, they know it's a park.
And I think that's something that's an important part of
what our industry does; it brings people to these places that
may not understand how many parks we have in Alaska and what
those parks stand for. So that's a very important part of what
we do.
I think something else that's very important, is that a
study that was done several years ago by ATIA, showed that 27
percent of the people that returned to Alaska first came on a
cruise. So we can't show the whole State, particularly in the
short time allotted that our guests are with us, but we can
give people a taste of what's here, and they can come back. And
that's when they can see some of the parks that are very
difficult to get to, or some of the ones that are easy to get
to, that they missed the first time.
We recognize that the Park Service faces funding
challenges. As you've mentioned, I think, all of government
does these days.
We're pleased that you're holding these hearings. We think
that it gives an opportunity for people to talk about specific
problems here. We think that we have a very good working
relationship with the Park Service. It's something that has not
always been a relationship where we agree on everything, but I
think we've been able to work together, to work most of our
problems out, and we look forward to making that a better
relationship as time goes on.
And we really appreciate the opportunity you've given us to
testify. Thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shively follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.050
Mr. Souder. And I appreciate the opportunity to go on
board, in Glacier Bay, to see how most people see it aboard a
ship, (Indiscernible) too, unfortunately, because I wasn't real
high. And also, the next day, was able to go out with the
rangers on some of their business and see it from a little boat
perspective and, as well as, (Indiscernible) a third
(Indiscernible) the actual environmental code. And it's real
interesting because, depending on how you look at the park, it
looks different, just as it does in the Wrangells, when you're
seeing it from the air or on the ground, or trying to drive the
road.
Each park has multiple visitations. I think part of the
reason--as someone who's visited here a number of times--that
people are confused is, is that, generally speaking, if we had
anything--I mean, I have to say, for the record, I'd rather
have glaciers retreating than advancing, because Indiana used
to all be under glaciers, and I wouldn't be here. At the same
time, if we had any sign of anything like a glacier in the
State of Indiana, it would certainly be a national park. And
people are used to seeing these dramatic features be under a
park item.
When you come into Alaska, some are national parks, whether
it's at Kenai, with Exit, or other similar State parks.
Multiple ones are State parks that I visited. Mendenhall is
Forest Service.
What's Tracy Arm?
Mr. Stratton. Forest Service.
Mr. Souder. Forest Service.
You approach it from so many different ways, as a visitor,
it's very confusing, as to what's a national park, what's a
State park, what's Forest Service, what's a hoot, in a sense,
other than you know it's pretty dramatic.
There are multiple ways to start this. But, Mr. Menge, let
me start with you in this, probably. Well, to a number of you.
I'd like to talk about Glacier Bay a little bit. That's
where I just was. One of the debates is how to get more, kind
of, land visitors there, or a way that some people would stay
at the park, in addition to staying through a ship.
This is just my personal opinion. I wouldn't put a lot of
big boats in the park part of the cove. It's already tight, and
it's (Indiscernible) in the park. But advocates that study
this--they're already having problem with their dock. Is there
any possibility that something can be worked out with their
dock, either for a marine ferry or other landings there? I know
one thing that restricts it is, is you have to fly over from
Juneau. Right? Any thoughts on it?
I know that there's some discussions going on. And don't
disclose anything you can't disclose, but maybe you can submit
it after you've worked some of these things through.
I know this has been of particular interest to Senator
Murkowski--Governor.
Mr. Menge. Yes. They have been following this, and I think
he's shared his views with the Park Service for many years now
related to this.
Alaska has a never-ending series of trying to find a way to
accomplish a task. Certainly, there are discussions on their
two State ferries (Indiscernible) trips. The residents of this
State have used part of the cove to--as a marine facility out
on the Stavis side. There is nothing specific that's being
worked out, yet we're constantly working.
I think the Governor's initiative, with Superintendent Lee,
to bring the State ferries into Glacier Bay, that was new this
year. And there are a couple of earlier sailings and a couple
of late sailings. So that was an attempt to try to make it more
affordable to get in and out of there.
We're always looking for new and better initiatives, but
it's just so expensive. It's expensive to get to Juneau, and
then it's expensive to get to the Stavis. If you want to get
into the backcountry, then it's expense upon expense upon
expense. So that's going to be our biggest challenge.
I think you pointed out earlier, the cost of energy is
making that difficult climb even more difficult. But we don't
give up. And as long as the Park Service is willing to work
with us, we have no shortage of entrepreneurs with good ideas.
And we will continue to discuss those whenever they emerge, to
see if any of them make sense and are compatible with the Park
Service.
Mr. Souder. Is there a physical reason why the Stavis dock
and harbor area is not able to take boats?
Mr. Stratton. No, not that I'm aware of. It's been a long
time since I've been there. So Tomie Lee probably has a much
better answer to that question than I do. I do know that it's a
challenge, given the marine approach there, too, to provide
those services. But since she is a resident, I would certainly
defer to her.
Mr. Souder. Do you know any physical reason why that port--
geological reasons? Is it less protected? Do storms hit it
harder? Why that would be--not work, as opposed to boat
(Indiscernible).
Ms. Lee. The dock has been there for decades, and it has
outlived its useful life. And I believe that there is--well, I
know that there is a Memorandum of Agreement that's been
signed, between the State and city of Gustavus and the National
Park Service, to look for funding and to replace the dock there
at its present location.
Mr. Souder. It's not a dock question--it's a dock question,
not a depth-of-water----
Ms. Lee. That's correct.
There are some issues with that particular location. There
is a long fetch, with the westerlies, when they're blowing.
However, those are things that have been there long before the
dock, the original dock was put in. And it's managed to
function there for, as I say, a number of decades; over 40
years. And so we don't believe that there's the issue why the
dock cannot be built there. Otherwise, we wouldn't be working
with the State and the City to put one in, sir.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Shively probably would be best for this question.
Earlier, on Denali, I was sooner going to ask, by the way,
one followup question. I wanted to ask, for Denali, that we get
into this climbing, because--if we can get data on the
climbing, pressures that climbing puts on the park, and where
that's heading--I got distracted, and I wanted to ask that.
Clearly, people are staying longer around Denali. Does that
mean people are taking longer cruises, they're staying on the
land more, that they're staying in Anchorage less? What is
exactly happening?
Mr. Shively. Basically, an Alaska cruise is a 7-day cruise.
And there are basically two different, sort of, itineraries:
One, leaves either Seattle or Vancouver and just makes a round
trip and goes back to where the people started; the other is,
leave Vancouver, go through Southeast Alaska, and come across
the gulf, and the passengers disembark at either Whittier or
Seward, and then new passengers get on and go the other
direction.
Most of the land tour business comes from cross-gulf
sailings, for the major lines. And now I've forgotten the
question.
Mr. Souder. Why would people be staying overnight----
Mr. Shively. Oh, I'm sorry; it----
Mr. Souder [continuing]. At Denali?
Mr. Shively [continuing]. Was the light.
Well, what's happened is, as a marketing tool, I think
first Princess, and now we've followed--I'm not sure about
Royal Caribbean--have gone to a 2-night Denali.
It probably, may mean a longer cruise tour, that's one
option; it also may mean less time in a place like Anchorage,
or it may mean not going to Fairbanks. I think there are a
variety of different things that happen as a result of the two
nights in Denali.
Mr. Souder. Is the travel industry looking at this to
figure out what kind of shift is occurring? Obviously, the
Fairbanks Chamber and the Anchorage Chamber are not interested
in promoting people not going to their towns and going up to
Denali longer.
And one of the debates here is, from the Federal
Government's standpoint, if we're going to invest dollars, our
dollars shouldn't be dollars that are shifting resources within
the State.
The question is, is there an issue--are people staying
longer in Alaska? Is it the man that's coming up, or citizens
around the United States, to come in and say, ``Look, we want
our tax dollars mutually shared for things in Alaska''? That's
one of the----
Mr. Worrell. Over the years, the average length of stay has
increased. I think over the last decade, we've basically
increased the length of stay for about a day, a day and a half.
You know, about 60 percent of the folks who come to Alaska
take part in a cruise, and of those about 30 percent do a land
tour. So, you know, you're looking at a large number of people
who do that circular trip up and down Southeast Alaska, and
then roughly 30 percent do the cross-gulf and then participate
in land tours.
Now, some of those are provided by the tour companies, and
other folks do something independently, whether it be taking a
day to fish the Kenai River or any number of different options.
Mr. Souder. Alaska is such a huge challenge to outsiders.
And since I'm an outsider, I can say this. I know, in Alaska,
this would be heresy, but--even if we drill in ANWR, which is
hardly a done deal, that oil revenue's going to decline. Your
figures on what's going to come from visitors is going to
increase, presumably, and continue to increase, and your amount
from oil is likely to decrease. That if you continue to give
the oil revenue to the citizens of Alaska constantly, as
opposed to having a fleeting source that wasn't reinvested.
If we had done that with our rail lands, for example, in
Indiana, I mean, instead of putting them into the universities,
had given all as rebates, we would be in a real pickle right
now. And then the rest of the taxpayers in the United States
are only going to do so much of bailing out, of Alaska not
taking charge of some of their own responsibilities here.
And that's what I say with that is, I know we get resources
out of Alaska, but we got resources out of Texas, and we got
resources out of Oklahoma, and we got resources out of Indiana.
And that now what we see is many of our young people moving out
west and moving to other States because they have more
wilderness areas, more areas to hike, and we're paying for much
of that.
Now, there--so visitor services, the travel industry, which
is obviously of huge benefit to Alaska, and is basically people
coming from my State and other States to Alaska, it's a
favorable type of thing. It seems that fishing is obviously--I
presume, you--there's two types of fishing. When you said
fishing is a--other than oil, is a huge industry for tourism,
is the commercial fishing, presumably, is declining.
Mr. Worrell. Well, basically, tourism and commercial
fishing are basically tied, in terms of economic impacts to the
State.
Mr. Souder. Canneries, as a traditional business, is that
declining?
Mr. Worrell. You know, I'm not a fish expert. I will----
Mr. Souder. (Indiscernible)----
Mr. Worrell [continuing]. Tell you that----
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Stated that commercial fishing, as
opposed to people coming up to Alaska to fish, is increasing.
Mr. Worrell. Prices are down for commercial catches of
salmon. So presumably, that means something. I'm not a fish
expert.
Mr. Souder. Do any of you know anything--Mr. Menge.
Mr. Menge. Mr. Chairman, I can say that commercial fishing
is increasing, and it's been through the development of
additional fisheries, and also, a huge amount of effort is now
being put into upgrading the quality of the fish. We're
competing with the farm-raised salmon around the world. So
we're shifting into a value-added market because of the
Alaska's clean waters and seas. So it has increased slightly
over the last 3 years, as commercial fishing has been
developed.
And sport fishing----
Mr. Souder. Sport fishing (Indiscernible).
Mr. Menge. Sport fishing is certainly at a steady pace, as
well.
And of course, you can imagine the conflicts between those
two. So, you know, we're working that out.
But because of the new processes and the new additional
fisheries, like the bottom fisheries, we have seen an increase.
Mr. Souder. As you look at where Alaska's going to get it's
sources of revenue, that you're going to have marginal
increases in fisheries.
Mr. Menge. That's correct. Marginal increases of the
fisheries and in forestry.
Mr. Souder. In timbering, you're not going to get a big----
Mr. Menge. No, it's not going to be significant. Of the----
Mr. Souder. Oil, there's not going to be increases.
Hopefully, it can sustain, as one declines.
Mr. Menge. We would hope to be able to lower the decline in
oil.
But one of our huge efforts right now is--I've focused,
almost all of my life, over the last 3 years on getting the gas
line built. Because the North Slope has 35 trillion cubic feet
of reserves and probably an additional 250 trillion cubic feet
in mineral resources.
So getting a gas line built is consuming almost all of our
waking time over the last 3 years.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I think it's fairly safe to assume that there would be
people who would be upset if you tried to mine in Glacier Bay
National Park. But beyond that, in mining, is that--how does
that factor into----
Mr. Menge. Mining, of course--yes, mining is a huge part of
Alaska, always has been, and I hope always will be.
In the past 3 years, we've brought the Pogo Mine into
production. We have just completed the permitting and are under
construction of another mine, the Kennington Mine, down in
Southeast Alaska. And just yesterday, Friday, I signed Alaska
State permits for the Rock Creek Mine in Nome.
So mining is always going to be a big part of the State. It
makes a significant contribution to the local economy. It does
not provide for a large inflow of cash to the State treasury.
So the real benefits from mining are going to be secondary to
(Indiscernible) associated with mining in the region.
But we're faced here with--the biggest challenge we face
here is no infrastructure. Each of these mines that's brought
on has to be so robust as to essentially be able to provide the
fuel that it needs to generate its own electricity and fly the
commodities out. So you can imagine the challenges associated
with that.
So if we had roads, other than from our mining
infrastructure, it would be significant enlargement to a huge
mineral base.
Mr. Souder. In your opinion, when you look at the
inholdings in the--do State parks have inholdings, too; I
presume.
Mr. Menge. Certainly.
Mr. Souder. When you had all these maps out, with the magic
markers, and since we have both you and Mr. Shively, and Mr.
Stratton--were all--presumably, had magic markers that day, or
were around people who did, in a variety of positions. I don't
know who was with senators or Governors, or where, but at
different times. Let me ask this question first.
Are most of the inholdings, where mining requests come, or
are likely to be mined, are they individual native Alaskans or
Alaska Natives, who were looking at smaller development of
their own land, or were these speculative corporate purchases?
And then, without even getting into the secondary question, of
should an individual have a right to sell his land for a profit
to the larger corporation.
Mr. Menge. I would start this out, but since I was always
the pretty one and John was the smart one, he was involved a
lot more in the actual process with the ANILCA lands. I was
just a young geologist looking to find oil in the ground.
Most of the inholding issues, or significant inholding
issues, were prior existing rights. They were mining claims
filed in the 1872 Mining Law and had been carried through to a
patent. So that represented a huge bulk of the inholdings.
I would say that a large majority of those inholdings are
related to the smaller placer mining operations. Everyone
recognized the challenge, even with a small placer mine. And
while the mineralization, under the national parks, is
staggering in it's proportion, I think most of the larger
companies recognize that, under the best of the circumstances,
it takes 10 to 15 years to permit of a mine. If you were to try
to permit a large world-class mine in a park, a national park,
you would find the challenges far more daunting.
So I think that, by virtue of the heighth of the hurdle,
people should move toward State land and toward Native lands.
Not that the mineral content is less on Federal land, but it's
just that the challenges associated with permitting a mine is
daunting.
And John, I'd ask you to fill in the blanks there, a little
bit.
Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, I mean, clearly, in the late
1970's, when ANILCA was being debated, people realized there
were a variety of inholdings.
And you asked earlier, you know, sort of what was the order
of things. And of course, the Statehood Act was passed first,
and so the State started selecting lands certainly before
ANILCA. Then, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act came
along, which gave the Natives the right to the title of about
44 million acres. They were able to--basically, they had to
stop the State selections, as a result of a land freeze. Then
they actually, then, sort of came ahead of the State.
But also, as part of the Claims Act, there was the
provision that the Secretary was to withdraw up to 80 million
acres. He actually withdrew considerably more for consideration
of what eventually became ANILCA. So those sort of came third
in time.
But the State, actually, I think, just kept getting pushed
aside. I mean, what they had, they had. But they couldn't get
any more until the Natives had resolved their issues. And the
parks, once the boundaries were established, if it was still
Federal land, it was going to remain Federal land.
My impression is, although I must say I've never really
looked at it, specifically, that the vast majority of the
mining claims were individual placer miners, not large
corporate stakings.
Mr. Souder. And if there was anywhere that the State
thought that major mines could be developed, with reasonable
access, would the State have claimed those areas? Like, I
assume, the oil companies were speaking up early on, in ANWR,
that would have led to a destination in that, that says,
``potential future oil development.''
Was that done for any other kind of mineral?
Mr. Shively. Well, I don't want to get into a huge debate
here about who wanted what.
I think that certainly people that were interested in the
parks and the wildlife refuges, and the other conservation
system units, looked at where they thought there was
mineralization, tried to put some of those places into the
conservation system units, and in other places, tried to block
access out.
And if you look, particularly at the Gates of the Arctic
boot, I think you can see there was a mining area near Shungnak
and Kobuk, on the upper Kobuk River. And clearly, that was
designed to make difficult mining--getting access to the ore
out difficult. It was a whole part of the debate.
On the other hand, the Red Dog Mine was originally part of
one of Secretary Morton's withdrawals. That was a result of
work done by the mining industry and by NANA, part of what I
did, that area was eventually removed from what became a
preserve and did become a mine and access issues. Those access
granted by Congress across the Krusenstern National Monument.
But I think, clearly, there were people in the conservation
movement that would have just as soon not seen any more mining.
And then the other side people, the mining industry and the
circuits at the State, tried to protect some of those
opportunities. And ANWR, of course, is the one that's the most
famous.
Mr. Souder. I have a couple other subjects, before we go
back to Wrangell and before I get into the wildlife.
Mr. Stratton, I wanted to ask you, from NPCA's perspective,
you've been State parks director. You've clearly worked with
NPCA. Well, this was an interesting--that is a very helpful
discussion. Because it wasn't just that the State said, ``Where
are the best potential mines that we might develop future
revenue,'' it's also that--you're suggesting that the--those
with environmental interests were also doing the same thing,
trying to claim the same land, to keep the mining from
occurring.
How does--given that you're an Alaskan, given the kind of
mixed picture of how the economy in Alaska has been developing,
how does the NPCA look at, one, the inholdings question; two,
where mining can be done in Alaska? How do some of these things
work through? Because that's undergirding and vague. If that
wasn't there, the whole debate would be a whole lot easier.
Mr. Stratton. I look at the national parks in Alaska as a
resource that, as the world gets smaller and as the world gets
more populated and resources get used up in other parts of the
world, our national parks are going to become scarcer and
scarcer as a representative of what the planet used to be like.
And the value of those areas, to people who want to experience
that kind of, you know, wildlife, glaciers and mountains, the
reason that people come to Alaska, Alaska is going to have a
corner on the market, if you will, on those kinds of resources.
So I see our national parks as a savings account for future
economic opportunities, and they're only going to get more
valuable, as we go out in time, as those kinds of lands in the
rest of the world disappear.
Now, recognizing there are valid existing rights within
some of these parks--and I think ANILCA made it clear that the
owners of those rights had access opportunities--then it
becomes a discussion, if you will, facilitated by the Park
Service, between the owner of the inholding and the American
people to say, ``How can we provide that access in a way that
meets the needs of the inholder and still protects the purposes
for which the park was created?'' And as you can well imagine,
that sometimes is a very lively debate.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Kenyon, let me ask one other question
before you--on that. Maybe Mr. Shively.
Wrangell is really unusual, because there's 500,000 or
700,000 State acres of inholdings inside of the national park
preserve, and like 200,000, I believe, are University of
Alaska, much of it concentrated along the McCarthy Road. Which,
in my opinion, after ANWR's over with, Wrangell's going to be
the big debate. Because there are several dynamics here that
suggest that Wrangell and Glacier Bay are too big a basis to
expand the tourism industry. The question is how do you expand
the tourism industry. That the travel association listed south
park and--are you talking about the road to McCarthy? Is that
the road you were speaking of.
That Wrangell is the biggest collection of wilderness in
the United States, inholdings are going to be as big as the
next biggest park. But that what's unusual about it, most of
the inholdings aren't individuals, they're the State. So what
does the State have, as kind of its intention of picking that?
Was it pre the park? Was it attempting to develop the road?
What was the thought, do you know?
Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, I've never looked at it. It had
to be pre the park, because if they didn't have the title, at
the time the park was established, they weren't going to get
it. So I'm positive that's where it was. And----
Mr. Souder. So much of it's so close to that road, there
had to be some kind of original----
Mr. Shively. Well, my----
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Thought. Unless it was a huge
mine, why would you have picked hundreds of thousands of acres
along that road?
Mr. Shively. My guess is it was for the mining potential.
I'm----
Mr. Souder. Do you know, Mr. Menge?
Mr. Menge. Yes. Recognize that we were working off of
almost a blank piece of paper, as related to preserves, and
particularly, hardrock. We knew about Prudhoe. We had some
ideas about Bristol Bay and natural gas. So we had a little bit
of a handle there.
On the hardrock, we were looking at historic mining
districts, and certainly, McCarthy was one of those. And I
mentioned earlier, infrastructure. That the world-class mine,
that's 300 miles of road, is not worth a whole lot.
So the combination of the road and the historical mining
district was well in the front of their minds when they made
that selection.
Mr. Souder. OK. Now I'll move to Mr. Kenyon.
It seems to me there's two kinds of questions as relating
to inholdings: How do the individual longer-time people, like
yourself, feel about, all of a sudden, developing that road,
and potentially developing all along that road.
Mr. Kenyon. Well, the inholders in the park are like human
beings everywhere. They don't agree. There's a lot of division
about whether the road should be developed, whether the park
should be developed, and there's no consensus.
Mr. Souder. In the cases that you were talking about--and
let me move to a couple in particular. In the access question,
from your perspective, and the people who have been there and
have land in the park, how would you propose to accommodate the
access question to your property? Any way you want to do it, do
it? If it's only been historic, then it stays historic?
(Indiscernible).
Mr. Kenyon. Well, most--and I don't know the percentage.
But I'm going to say 90 percent-plus of the cases established--
I mean, the access was established long ago. In most cases,
prior to the park, and so there's been ongoing use. It's really
almost a no-brainer. I mean, it's just there; it's been used;
it's not causing damage to park resources.
And I think Marcia's doing a good, good job here of trying
to put that in a document. That certainly the inholder
shouldn't be using six different routes to his house, but the
one that he's been using for 20 years shouldn't be contested
all that much.
Mr. Souder. And I'd never been to this road area until, I
think it was--this is Monday, so it must have been Sunday,
coming back. From Tok, we--I drove into that area--that's
including a couple of bed and breakfasts--before you get to the
park. It's the only place in the country where I've ever seen
park this side or this side. Once you get down on the other
side of the road, parks on both sides. So I presume it's
preserve on both sides. So it's a very unusual junction. As you
go on the road a little bit, there's a camp that's disappeared.
Is that one of the camps that you were talking about? You
suggested written testimony.
Mr. Kenyon. Uh-huh.
Mr. Souder. That there were some benefits, if you were at
the edge of the park. I presume, the ones that we've talked,
got squeezed or something, were down the road a little farther.
Mr. Kenyon. Right.
Down the road a little farther were a number of small
businesses, ``mom-and-pop businesses,'' we call them, and most
of those are gone. A few still struggle on, but there are very
few.
Mr. Souder. It was hard for me to sort out, from your
written testimony, what you felt that the prevalent reasons--it
just wasn't--obviously, you didn't feel it was enough traffic.
You felt some condition changed with the Park Service. Was it a
question of (Indiscernible).
Mr. Kenyon. Well, that's 150 miles from where I live, and
I'm not that familiar, so I based that on what people up there
told me.
Mr. Souder. When you say you're going to get some--I heard
a little bit of that, even in the brief time I was there. When
you said you were going to let a few people know, if you could
see if somebody can present that, and then I'll also try to get
a counter. And this would be good, because once the subject
gets raised in a hearing, it's good to, kind of, play it out a
little bit. Because, here, we're not trying to have a
confrontation, we're trying to allow good discussion on very,
very difficult issues.
And what was, kind of, your reaction to some of Mr.
Stratton's comments about the wildlife, difficulty in the
management? How do you feel? I mean, that's a specific proposal
to increase the number of National Park Service people who are
monitoring total animals, so----
Mr. Kenyon. This was the first I'd heard of it. I was,
frankly, quite surprised. In the Wrangell-St. Elias park--it's
basically unit, what, 13, I guess.
On the whole 13 million acres, there's less than 30 moose
taken a year. There's, what, 300 killed here, in the Mat-Su
Valley, accidentally by cars. And I would think that the State
would provide, certainly, adequate harvest reports.
I guess, I just didn't understand. It's a confusing issue
to me.
Mr. Souder. Then, Mr. Stratton, could you elaborate? How
much of that do you think is actually in some of the big parks,
and just that we don't know what's in the big parks?
I have to admit that, A, I've been here for 2 weeks, moving
around the State, and I think I've gone 2,500 miles, and some
of that in Canada, and over to Haines and Skagway. A lot of it
in Canada. In the other business here, I have to confess, that
I have seen lots of moose but I haven't seen moose in the
parks.
How do you respond to the fact that the--here, to the
challenge of the moose in the Mat-Su Valley? Does that make it
more important that we protect the moose in the park, because
we're not going to be able to do anything about the Mat-Su
Valley?
Mr. Stratton. Well, our concern that we've raised in our
moose counting report is that we don't know. We've done some
investigation into what is reported to the State of Alaska, you
know, by hunters, and then, in some of the parks, we correlated
that, then, to the amount that was reported in the same park
through the community harvest surveys, where people actually go
into the communities and ask people, ``How was hunting last
year?'' And we found a huge discrepancy. In some parks, as
little as 3 percent of what the community harvest surveys told
us was being taken was reported through the State of Alaska.
That just set off alarm bells to us. We're not saying that
there is a problem. What we're saying is that we don't have
enough funding in the Park Service to do the adequate data
collection in order to make sure that we don't ever have a
problem. Because Congress made it very clear that you can do
subsistence activities in most of the parks, you can do sport
hunting in national preserves, but at the same time, it also
said you have to protect the wildlife populations. And so that
is a balancing act.
If you're going to be doing that balancing act, it would
seem to me that you would want to have the best data available,
to make sure that the scales didn't go too far one way or too
far the other. And what we saw, in just, you know, kind of
scratching the surface on this, was that the Park Service needs
more information, to make sure that they don't get out of
balance.
So all our report is calling for is an increase in support.
We think funding is the easiest way to do it. But I know, in
discussions with Marcia, that she's looking at some other, more
creative ways to get at that problem.
We just think that data needs to be brought forth and given
to the park superintendents, in a way that they can understand
it, so that they know what's going on in the parks so that we
don't have a problem down the road.
Mr. Souder. I spent the last couple years working on the
Southwest border (Indiscernible).
Mr. Menge, do you have any comments on that or----
Mr. Menge. No, I don't. You know, a good geologist
shouldn't. Other than the fact that moose tastes pretty good
with braised potatoes, I don't really know a lot more. It's
probably never a good idea to opine before a congressional
committee on something you don't know a thing about.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for that honesty. Many people don't
feel that way. Usually, they're not in a committee, where
they're under oath, either, there's no question that if--well,
let me ask. The most fascinating difference--and one of my
friends in Congress and I got to chatting. I don't think he was
sold on what I told him, and that is: History may not repeat
itself, but often it rhymes. And in our national parks here, it
appears there's a lot of rhyming.
But this is the only State where people have said that of
the national park visitors, the bulk are coming through the
cruise ship industry. Either they're coming directly in, like
up Glacier Bay or they're coming indirectly, through Denali or
Skagway. So this is just kind of a unique wrinkle in this.
Where do you see the best place is for the cruise ship
industry? Getting bigger boats and more in Glacier Bay, is one.
Where else do you see the extension?
Mr. Shively. Well, I think we're always looking for new
opportunities. I mean, we clearly, I think, see that the
Wrangell-St. Elias park has some spectacular scenery. It's a
great place. It has lots of land. Our sister company, Princess,
has put up a lodge in Copper Center, to sort of start that. And
so that's clearly a place.
We, this year, started a tour along the Kenai Peninsula,
that we haven't had before, that does include the Kenai Fjords
park, because a lot of the passengers that do get off in Seward
don't go to Kenai Fjords.
I think, probably, for us, going--we do take people to
Prudhoe Bay, so we do go up through Gates of the Arctic.
There's probably some opportunity for expansion there, not a
lot. And clearly we think that, you know, there's opportunity
in the two big ones, too; Denali and Glacier Bay.
Mr. Souder. It's always dangerous to ask a question you
have no clue what the answer is. How do you interact with the
Native corporations? I mean, clearly, like any other business--
some people fault this, but it's any other business.
If you have a basic rate, ``Here's the cheapest cabin,
here's the basic food,'' and then you want to upgrade your
cabin. But if you want to do some of the extras, those are
extra. And you want a (Indiscernible) quality, because of a bad
experience; it wasn't exactly on the cruise, even if it wasn't
(Indiscernible). If you contract with somebody who delivers a
bad product, they're going to complain about the whole cruise,
not about the person who delivered the bad product to you.
That's your business challenge.
Do you work with the Native corporations, on some of their
lodging, on these things? Or more particularly, for example, I
was told, when we were going to go up--it was recommended to me
strongly that I go up and see Kotzebue, and then over to Nome;
that the Native corporation there had a package, that it was
cheaper to get the package than it was to get the air flight
and then the hotel.
Do you work with Native corporations on the packages like
that? And do you see any kind of packages, or do you see
yourself, at some point, getting an air wing (Indiscernible)?
Mr. Shively. What was that, the last--I didn't get the
last--I'm sorry.
Mr. Souder. Do you have an air wing, or do you see yourself
purchasing an air wing, like the hotel business, that board or
move people to the proper points in Alaska? Are you going to
have an airwing?
Mr. Shively. No, I don't see us producing an airwing. And
actually, I don't think we would really like, all that much, to
be in the hotel business. One of the reasons we aren't is that
we found that it was very hard to find people that had enough
capital, that would risk putting up the kind of facilities we
need for hotels, for what, years ago, was about a 3\1/2\ month
business and now is 4 to 5. And that's why we're in this
business. And the same with the rail cars.
Now, to answer the original question. We interact with
Native organizations and corporations in a number of ways. We
have a relationship with the Alaska Native Heritage Center
here, where they place Native artists on our ships. We also
have a relationship with the Hoonah tribe, through the Native
Corp., where, as you saw the other day, we have a Native
interpreter in Glacier Bay. We do the same thing for our ships
that go into Hubbard Glacier, with the tribe in Yakatat. And
other lines use local Native people.
A number of the people we do business with, for shore
tours, are Native organizations; Saxman, Goldbelt, Huna Totem.
Of course, Huna Totem has developed their own venue in Hoonah.
And while Caribbean started there, and actually came to an
agreement with them about usage, we started sending a ship
there this year.
In terms of going further north, we do sell the Kotzebue-
Nome trip, as an option, as you--I think I may have mentioned
to you last week, I did work for NANA, for a number of years.
We had a relationship with the cruise industry for some time.
I think the problem for the Arctic Tour now is the expense,
combined with the fact that there are a lot of alternatives
now, in Southcentral Alaska, that didn't exist 10 or 15 years
ago, when the Arctic Tour was more popular.
Mr. Souder. Because one of the challenges is, is that
there's a slow rise in visitation to Alaska. To a degree, it's
disbursed. One of the fundamental questions is, ``Where are the
wildest areas of Alaska going to be.''
And if you move into the wildest areas, with larger
operations, much like Wrangell maybe, the next big question, do
you develop that road? Do you develop all the way along the
road? Do you change the nature of McCarthy.
You're not really going to threaten the whole park. But
you're in the, kind of the core center of the accessible part
of the park--other than the air--and you change that
experience. And how much should you change it? Similar
questions on Glacier Bay. Those are kind of in the range. If it
was disbursed more, you wouldn't have as much pressure on those
areas; on the other hand, it would be more disbursed. What kind
of a tiered structure.
Because there's always going to be a percentage of the
visitors--not only is it one of the unique places of the world
left that isn't overdeveloped, but it is increasingly rare in
Alaska. And there are going to be visitors that want to
experience it, without hearing an airplane, without hearing
other types of things. Backcountry people, who are part of your
visitation group, you know, often your younger group, who then
will come back for an older experience later on.
In fact, a number of them may be introduced through a
cruise, and then come back and want to get out into the wilder
places. There's interaction. That if you cutoff all your
wildest places, then you're not going to--it's kind of the
symbol that draws the next and that draws to the areas closest.
Let me ask a question about Curry Ridge. That clearly the
National Park Service has multiple visitor centers. And as I'm
sure the NPCA research has come up with, well, the challenge in
all the parks around the country in--there's only some money--
there isn't any money to staff that.
The cruise industry has been very creative in how to deal
with the ships, with the--Skagway, now.
Is that something that, as part of a package, if the
Federal Government--because the problem here is--the Alaska
Delegation is tremendously--Senator Stevens and Murkowski and
Congressman Young do more proportionately for getting dollars
to Alaska and arguing for Alaska than any other delegation in
the country. They're just very effective. I wish we were even
marginally that effective in Indiana.
There's everything from employability to--took us over to
being--that--been in a long time, to being very subtle in their
questioning of other members, that whole thing is very
aggressive. But they may be able to get a visitor center. But
they're not likely to get a plus out of your community
resources.
So that the challenge comes is, do you think that there are
options here, that if something was developed, that, in effect,
the interpretation of the visiting center or managing of the
visiting center--because--because, generally speaking, the
concessioneer part of the visitor center is contracted out.
There might be a little bit for food. There might be--the
Alaska History Association manages a bookstore, so it's not
like what we worked through at Gettysburg, where, in fact, the
park was able to pay, to some degree, because they managed to
work out higher concession fees with it. It's a very deep kind
of concept.
If it's very important to the travel industry, particularly
the cruise industry, to get something developed, do you think
that something might be worked out in that manner? Is that
something even worth pursuing? Or have you talked about it.
Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we've actually
talked about it. But certainly, we've tried to work on
developing and helping pay for interpretive programs. So I
certainly think we'd be more than willing to sit down with the
Park Service and discuss that. I mean, we're----
Mr. Souder. Because you've run an agency. You know the
difficulty. It often isn't building something, it's manning it.
Mr. Shively. Building is the fun; operation is the problem.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Menge, on
Curry Ridge?
Mr. Menge. I do. I----
Mr. Souder. I did, by the way, get a chance to see--I think
it was the Anchorage paper 1 day, in the time I was here, pages
on the history of this. It's just amazing how long this has
been debated.
Mr. Menge. Mr. Chairman, we----
Mr. Souder. Not to say you've experienced it at all.
Mr. Menge. The challenge we face here is, ``If you build
it, they will come.'' It requires a large, very large cash
infusion.
I think Mr. Shively talked about the capital investment in
those hotels. Those are spectacular hotels, but they would
never have been built without corporate backing and the vision
of that company to do it.
The same thing with visitor centers. We're not going to be
able to develop the clientele to support a visitor center until
a visitor center is there. And we are painfully aware,
particularly in running the State parks, the challenges with
maintenance.
Most of--I have a State legislator that--coming up all the
time, volunteering or offering to build legislation to acquire
more land, to acquire another facility. But I go back to those
same legislators a year later and try to defend a maintenance
budget, and it's a different story.
So those of us who are charged with actually running the
facilities must keep in the front of our mind the maintenance.
That's why we hope that any of these facilities would come with
an operational plan associated with it and could talk about how
it would be managed and manned and financed after. They are
critically important to--to draw the--provide the opportunity.
So those are the--that's the challenge we face.
Mr. Souder. Mount St. Helens is an area where they have
seven visitor centers, and now none of them have enough to
really support--some are private; some are State; some are
Forest. And how--how to coordinate something like that, and
have a (Indiscernible) development process and then go through
the parks. You know, the--the--around the country, there's
always this tension between when you develop a new area, what's
going to happen to the people at the old area, too, and their--
their residents and facilities.
Mr. Stratton, let me ask you this question. I appreciate
you bringing out and releasing the wildlife report today.
Clearly, Alaska is unique, in the sense of--we have
reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone, and we have some grizzly
bears in a few places that--but you have a whole ecosystem
here, including wildlife, as a--as a critical component.
As the country--and I think one of the--as we look toward
the 100th birthday of the park system, which is part of what's
behind, I think, this, ``Where should the National Park System
go?'' The Mission 66, was having visitor services supporting
it. Where are we going? How are we going to sustain the Park
Service for the future.
This is actually the 90th birthday. It's my understanding
the Park Service is wisely going to and soon announce that next
year we'll be celebrating the 90th and putting some proposals
on the table, of which I'm thrilled. It's one of the biproducts
of all the work here.
Secretary Kempthorne is taking the bull by the horns and is
hopefully about to announce a proposal that will start them on
a process toward the 100 years, here in the 90th. That as we
look at this, understanding that we have this unbelievable
resource of science, of wildlife, of fish, of all the earth, in
addition to cultural resources in the Park Service, that
ideally could be interrelated with education. I very much
appreciate that.
But beyond the wildlife, what would you say, from your
perspective, are the two other biggest challenges you think
we're going to face when we look at Alaska? As--because this
is--is it 60 percent of the Federal funding in Alaska.
Mr. Stratton. Two-thirds.
Mr. Souder. Two-thirds.
And I think I understood, from Fish and Wildlife, it's
about 70 percent of the Fish and Wildlife.
So as we move this debate beyond the better data on this
wildlife, what do you think the other two biggest challenges
are going to be?
Mr. Stratton. Well, I think the other biggest challenge, it
revolves around the larger access discussions, and access to
inholdings, whether they're driveways to people who live in
Wrangell-St. Elias, which NPCA has been supportive of resolving
that as quickly as we can, following the Park Service, in
support of the folks out along the McCarthy Road.
But the big question with access, to us, is access to
places that don't have access right now. There's still pieces
of private property in places where there is no road built to
it, or where someone might want to do that in the future. I
think that is a big discussion that we need to have down the
road.
I think the opportunity to acquire inholdings, from willing
sellers, is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of
more in Alaska. There are people, who own land inside national
parks, who will be very willing to sell to the National Park
Service, because they recognize that, you know, giving their
land to the National Park Service protects it, you know, into a
larger protected area.
But as we all know, you know, Federal funds, through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, haven't been appropriated at
quite the level they've been accumulating in that fund. And I'm
not sure how you get your arms around the fact that, you know,
you've got some authorization, in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to use primarily offshore, Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas moneys to do those kinds of inholding
acquisitions, but the money seems to be going someplace else
rather than to help WCS.
Because that number has been coming down, you know, year
after year, both for acquisitions of inholdings in national
systems, but also the land and water, that money that comes
into the State of Alaska, which when I was Director of State
Parks, we used for some of our, you know, inholding acquisition
opportunities there, again, from willing sellers.
So I think, you know, trying to figure out how you can
bring more, you know, private money, you know, more outside
interest in helping to--you know, to partner with what little
Federal money there is, to try and take care of some of those
inholding concerns. Because the easiest way to not have a fight
over how you get an access to an inholding is to have the
government acquire it, and then that discussion goes away.
Mr. Souder. I thank you all. I took us right up to 1.
I may have a couple additional questions that I didn't--
dealt fully, on the inholding question, Mr. Kenyon. And if you
could do some more talking to other people regarding that.
My own--my own position is, the Federal Government's been
appalling, in the sense of willing--willing to buy land. They
restrict the use of land and tell people they can't do this,
they can't do that, and when they say, ``OK, we'll sell it to
you,'' they go, ``Well, we wouldn't have any money.''
That has been--do you want to comment on that, Mr. Kenyon?
Mr. Kenyon. Well, yes, I would like to give you our latest
issue of our news, which has the story of the Orange Hill
property, in Wrangell-St. Elias, and how the owner, Mr.
McGregor, has been trying to work with the Park Service for 20
years to get bought out, and he's been unsuccessful. So that's
included in here.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. We'll make sure we have that.
Mr. Kenyon. I would say, however, one of--one of the fears,
I guess, of the little--little guy in the parks, is that he'd
be coerced into becoming a willing seller, by unreasonable
access regulations, by other things that diminish his, either
property value or his ability to sustain a lifestyle in the
park. Also, I read in Mr. Stratton's written report that he
would like the Federal Government to buy 700,000 acres more in
the park. And that, frankly, is very, very frightening to the
little guy in the park. Most of that land, by the way, it's my
understanding--and Marcia would correct me, maybe, but--I think
there's like 600,000 acres that are Native corporation land,
and the remainder--I don't think there's a whole lot of State
land left.
Is there, Mr. Menge?
Mr. Menge. I haven't looked at it.
Mr. Kenyon. I don't believe there's very much State land
left in the Wrangell-St. Elias.
Mr. Souder. (Indiscernible).
Mr. Kenyon. Pardon?
Mr. Souder. Other than--other than the Native lands, the
State is still the largest. But that could be a little dated.
Mr. Kenyon. Perhaps. But it's certainly less than a couple
hundred-thousand acres. I know 12,000 just went to the
University.
Mr. Souder. But we'll get that--my figures would have been
State and would account for the University.
I know a couple years ago that when there was 1.2 million
acres, nearly 800,000 of that was State and University,
together. The Native lands were, I think, 200,000 to 250,000,
and then the smaller percentage, because they're smaller lots,
were the individual.
Natives--is it Alaska Natives, as opposed to native
Alaskans; is that right? And that--that most of the native
Alaskans, historic peoples, are along the main road, which are
much easier to deal with than the pockmarked-type internal.
And how to work these questions out to--that--that--I think
that there is a sincere desire, in Congress and in the Park
Service, to try to work out things with--with--generally
speaking, with--with the isolated inholders. And that we have
those all over our parks in the United States.
And when you start to mine, which is a more complicated
question, how to do that, and what laws are going to apply,
becomes difficult. How big and what type of access is clearly
worked through. But those--I think, it's the sense of Congress
is to try to work those out.
Absentee speculative landholders is another question, And
how to work it out with the Native peoples, and can you
consolidate those around a couple areas and leave the rest
wild, with these few pockets, I think is where we're headed.
But this is--this is a huge question that we've got to work
through.
Mr. Kenyon. Well, we've been looking into it recently
because of the access question. And again, I could be wrong,
but I think that those isolated parcels that you refer to are
very few and far between in the Wrangells.
Mr. Souder. OK. We'll get that, specifically, for the
record.
Well, thank you very much for your testimony today. It's
been very informative. As we move through these hearings, as we
move to the end--and, in fact, this may be the last hearing,
other than the Washington hearing later this fall, that then
we'll move into the next cycle of Congress. That--it's been
very helpful.
Clearly, we know that the Park Service is strapped for
money, that the--that we have visitation demands here. There
aren't as many Homeland Security demands, but in many other
areas of the country, the Homeland Security demands are putting
additional pressure on the ability even to keep up roads, a
clear demand, is a huge challenge upon many of our supports
(Indiscernible). Kind of the biggest example I found in Park
Service is Glacier National Park; how to handle sewage systems
in the Park Service. That Alaska had different challenges. It's
been very helpful to get the information today.
I strongly believe that there's a reason national--a reason
park rangers are the highest rated profession. Not only are
they good people, not only are the people on vacation when they
see park rangers, but the people really value national parks.
There's not a poll taken where this doesn't rank up with what
people want us to focus on, and they want us to be able to both
use them and pass them to the future generations.
I also know that I have never met anybody from my district,
and many friends and so on, who visited Alaska--usually through
a cruise ship--ever come back and say that they had a bad
experience. That they really love the State. And how to build
on that preserve, the natural beauty, to have people see what--
at least, a form of the wild, it's like--it's a tremendous
opportunity. And hopefully, we can continue to do that.
Thank you for participating and trying to work through both
the particular details in Alaska that are different and putting
it into context, as the biggest part of the National Park
Service, ``Where am I heading in the future?''
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5892.098
<all>