<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:29335.wais]
NATIONAL PARKS OF CALIFORNIA
=======================================================================
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
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-162
__________
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
29-335 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON 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
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel
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
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Mark Pfundstein, Professional Staff Member
Malia Holst, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 28, 2005................................ 1
Statement of:
Jackson, Theodore, Deputy Director for Park Operations,
California State Parks; Gene Sykes, Chair, National Parks
and Conservation Association; Greg Moore, executive
director, Golden Gate Conservancy; and Daphne Kwok,
executive director, Angel Island Immigration Station
Foundation................................................. 35
Jackson, Theodore........................................ 35
Kwok, Daphne............................................. 176
Moore, Greg.............................................. 170
Sykes, Gene.............................................. 45
O'Neill, Brian, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior................................................... 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Jackson, Theodore, Deputy Director for Park Operations,
California State Parks, prepared statement of.............. 38
Kwok, Daphne, executive director, Angel Island Immigration
Station Foundation, prepared statement of.................. 179
Moore, Greg, executive director, Golden Gate Conservancy,
prepared statement of...................................... 173
O'Neill, Brian, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior, prepared statement of............................ 9
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
Sykes, Gene, Chair, National Parks and Conservation
Association, prepared statement of......................... 48
NATIONAL PARKS OF CALIFORNIA
----------
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
San Francisco, CA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m., at
the Hawthorne Room, Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, San
Francisco, CA, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Souder.
Staff present: Marc Wheat, staff director; Jim Kaiser,
counsel; and Mark Pfundstein, professional staff member.
Mr. Souder. I apologize for the delay. I had to switch
airports this morning. Fortunately, Northwest Airlines got me a
ticket after Chicago bogged down to go through Detroit. So I
appreciate your patience. I look forward to this hearing.
Let me sort out my opening statement here. Good afternoon.
I thank you all for joining us. This is the sixth in a series
of hearings on the critical issues facing the National Park
Service.
This hearing will focus on the Parks of California.
California is the home to many of our Nation's most famous
parks. Yosemite, Golden Gate, Redwood, Death Valley are
immediately recognized by Americans wherever they live.
The National Park Service is facing many challenges and
problems. The units of California are no exception. Ever
growing crowds at many of our most popular parks continue to
put pressure on park resources. Golden Gate National Recreation
Area is one of the most popular parks in the park system. As an
unusual urban unit, Golden Gate and similar parks face some of
the same problems as many other parks, but also unique
challenges unlike any other. This hearing will examine how this
park unit fits into the system as a whole.
California is also the home of some Federal and State park
partnerships. Most notable are the partnership at Redwood
National Park and the newest partnership at Angel Island
Immigration Station. At Redwood National Park, three California
State parks and the National Park Service unit represent a
cooperative management effort of the National Park Service and
California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Angel Island opens a new chapter in State and Federal
partnerships. Although a California State park, new
legislation, soon to be signed by President George Bush, would
authorize Federal funds for the restoration of the Angel Island
Immigration station. Through State and Federal coordination,
Angel Island, the ``Ellis Island of the West,'' and an
important site in American history, will help to complete the
story of immigration to the United States. I am scheduled to
visit Angel Island tomorrow with the Coast Guard and Park
Service.
On our first panel we welcome Brian O'Neill, the General
Superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. He
will be testifying on behalf of the National Park Service. He
will be joined during the question time by Don Neubacher, the
Superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore; Bill Pierce,
the Superintendent of Redwood National Park; and Michael
Tollefson, the Superintendent of Yosemite National Park.
Our second panel will be Theodore Jackson, the Deputy
Director for Park Operations of the California State Parks;
Gene Sykes, representing the National Parks Conservation
Association; Greg Moore of the Golden Gate Conservancy; and
Daphne Kwok of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation.
I welcome you all.
First, I'm going to do a couple of procedural matters and
then give a little bit of explanation of what we're doing with
the hearings beyond that. Before we hear testimony, we need to
take care of some procedural matters. I first ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit
written statements and questions for the hearing record and any
answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be
included in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits,
documents and other materials referred to by Members and
witnesses may be included in the hearing record, that all
Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.
Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all Members present
be permitted to participate in the hearing and if any other
Members show up today from the California delegation, without
objection, it is so ordered.
This is part of a series of hearings we're doing. Let me
briefly describe our subcommittee. It's part of the Government
Reform Committee. Normally, parks hearings and other hearings
are conducted through the Resources Committee. If you briefly
look at how Congress is structured, you have an authorizing
committee such as the Resources Committee that would set policy
and any legislation. So for example, my legislation that
relates to national parks would go through the Resources
Committee. We have an Appropriations Committee that then
decides how to fund inside the authorizing committee and the
Government Reform Committee then makes sure that what has been
authorized and funded is being implemented the way that
Congress intended by the executive branch.
Every time we hold hearings and this series has been no
different, other committees holler, ``hey, how did you get in
this jurisdiction? Why are you doing a national parks hearing?
You're not the Resources Committee. You're not the
Appropriations Committee.'' But in fact, the oversight
committee of Congress existed before the authorizing committee.
There was Government Reform oversight over the Park Service and
Resources prior to there ever being a Resources Committee in
congressional history.
We go into whatever basic areas that the subcommittee
chairman and the committee chairman working with the ranking
members of the other party choose to do, so probably the most
famous recent event in this year, at least, was your testimony
today and you can remember what Raphael Palmeiro forgot and
that is, you're under oath. Mark McGuire had an absent memory
and we hope none of you will have an absent memory, but you've
joined that.
We also did a variety of oversight, particularly during the
Clinton years, there was a lot of oversight. We had Waco, White
Water, all those type of things. We also just did oversight on
the bird flu.
My subcommittee spends about half its time on narcotics,
but our jurisdiction, which you do swapping among the chairmen
and so on, includes the Department of Justice, HHS, Education,
HUD, and we have one other. And then we have a whole series of
smaller things. I traded Commerce to get National Parks and we
have faith-based, National Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. But we
spend about 50 percent of our time on narcotics. Every cycle I
pick a subject that we want to focus on and this time it was
parks.
As many of you know, I've been an advocate. I've tried to
get out to as many parks as possible. And I wanted to kind of
get a comprehensive view working with NPCA, working with the
Park Service, working with the private groups in each area, to
get kind of a comprehensive overview that we'll do not only
each of these hearings, but there will be an individual book
and hearing report, but also then we'll do a 2-year summary of
the process that we've done as we've done regional field
hearings around the country, raised awareness around the
country, identified the different problems.
Now just like we did a few years ago and we did on the
Southwest border, much of what happened in the White House
Faith-based Office, many changes occurred during the process
and obviously, it's a symbiotic relationship. Ideally, some of
the concerns that we want raised in the hearings will already
have been addressed inside the Park Service because by calling
attention to something and working internally, you do that.
Some of these are really fundamental questions of how you
prioritize funding in a difficult era.
One of the things we're going to be looking at today are
things that are ways with the State and Federal cooperation and
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area of really kind of some
of the early challenges that the Park Service felt in
accommodating some of that.
And the question is is how are we going to deal with this
long term? How much can the California model be replicated? And
really looking toward the 100th birthday of the Park Service
and say where are we headed as a vision? How do we analyze,
given the pressures of limited dollars, combined with the
tradeoffs that we're making?
I was just talking on the airplane with a man who actually
has some land in West Virginia that they would like to add to
the New River area and part of our constant tradeoff is his
debate as executor of an estate is does he--he has offers for
double what the National Park Service is offering for the land.
He would rather give it to the Park Service, so in the New
River Gorge, you can canoe and not see development, but he has
a fiduciary responsibility to his estate.
How much do we say we're going to put it in land? How much
do we say we're going to put it into services? How much do we
say we're going to put it in trying to keep as much staff as
possible? And how do you do these tradeoffs? And where is the
money going to come from? And to do that we need as many
creative ideas as we can. We need to look at the system as a
whole, get the data in.
What we tend to find, as Congressmen, is that it comes to
us as a done deal and we really need to be looking at what
tradeoffs we're making, so as the elected officials, we can--
good chance, we may agree with some of it and may not agree
with some of it, but a lot of times we don't even realize
what's happening internally and this is our attempt to do so.
You could also tell from my reading the statement that
we've done this in a pretty bipartisan way, at a time when the
minority party and the majority party have to both sign off on
hearings and can object. My Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, who
was originally planning to be here today, has been very
cooperative and supporting of this as has Mr. Waxman at the
full committee level and Chairman Davis. Some preferred we
didn't have the hearings.
And I think it's important on an issue like national parks,
while we may have nuance differences, that we try to do this as
much in a bipartisan way and have the National Park Service
continue with its popularity among the general public, but also
try not to get as heavily caught up in some of the Washington
fights that we have, will have and will always have and try to
look at a broader vision of where do we want our National Park
Service to go.
Now as I mentioned our first panel, we'll take the official
testimony from Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent of Golden
Gate National Recreation Area. He's accompanied by Don
Neubacher and Bill Pierce and Michael Tollefson.
Now since I'm going to ask questions, I am going to
administer the oath to all of you as an oversight panel, all
witnesses testify under oath, so if you'll each stand and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
So we'll start with Mr. O'Neill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.001
STATEMENT OF BRIAN O'NEILL, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT, GOLDEN GATE
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Chairman, we all thank you for coming out
to our great city of San Francisco and to have a hearing
related to the National Parks of California. We love your
passion for parks and your desire to better understand the
operational challenges that we have in both stewarding our
resources as well as serving visitors from all over the world.
In addition to serving as the Superintendent for the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, I currently chair the
Partnership Advisory Committee for the Regional Leadership
Council for the Pacific West Region. This role has acquainted
me with the extensive range and variety of partnerships our
region's parks have engaged in. Also, I currently co-chair the
National Federal Interdepartmental Task Force on Partnerships
and Cooperative Conservation, and through that I've obviously
gained an understanding of what's happening on the national
basis in terms of new concepts of funding and partnering.
I'd like to summarize my testimony and submit my entire
statement for the record, given the time constraints.
There are 24 units of the National Park System in
California, almost half the total number of units that are
managed within this Pacific West Region. They represent well
the diversity of landscapes in this great State and many of the
historical events that occurred here. As you requested, our
testimony is focused on national recreation areas, State and
Federal management of park units and Yosemite National Park.
Yosemite, long recognized as one of the most stunning
places on Earth, faces the same complex operational challenges
that any large national park faces. It also has the daunting
mission of rebuilding much of the infrastructure in Yosemite
Valley, due to extensive damage from the 1997 flood. This
rebuilding is well under way, but it has faced some delays
along the way, due to the extensive planning required in a
number of lawsuits. Yosemite is engaged in some very successful
partnerships, particularly with the Yosemite Fund, which has
provided many millions of dollars for critical park projects.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area encompasses a large
expansive land in an urban area where more than half the land
within the park boundaries is owned by other entities. Because
this unit draws from large populations of residents and
tourists, our sites draw 13 million people annually. And if you
add Muir Woods and Fort Point, the number is closer to 16
million. We had over 15,000 volunteers in fiscal year 2005 and
through partnerships we leverage about 80 cents for every $1 of
appropriated funds.
The Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy is an
extraordinary partner of ours. The Conservancy headed the
fundraising effort for restoration of Crissy Field on the
Presidio waterfront here which not too long ago was a fenced-in
hazardous materials site. Not only did private funding pay for
the restoration, but thousands of volunteers, including school
children, donated countless hours cultivating native plants and
placing them in and around Crissy Field's restored dunes and
tidal marsh. This is now a very popular recreation site and
important wetlands area.
Within Golden Gate, the State operates four parks. One of
those, Angel Island, is the site of the Immigration Station
that is often referred to as the Ellis Island of the West.
Since 1997, the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
the National Park Service, and the Angel Island Immigration
Station Foundation have had a three-party agreement to work
together to preserve and restore this important historic site.
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in
metropolitan Los Angeles encompasses about 155,000 acres of
land, although one-fifth of that land is managed by the
National Park Service. The park has always worked closely with
the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy to coordinate land protection
strategies and visitor use activities.
Recently, the National Park Service has entered into a
cooperative management agreement with the two State agencies
for the joint management of public parklands. Last year,
cooperative management activities generated over $850,000 in
cost savings to these three agencies. The agencies recently
launched a recreation transit system to increase access to
parks from inner-city communities.
The National Park Service provided the capital investment
for the system and the State is providing the money to operate
it. They also work together to acquire the historic King
Gillette Ranch in the heart of the recreation area which will
serve as a one-stop information center for all of the Federal,
State and local parklands within the recreation area. This will
improve service to visitors and reduce costs for both the State
and the National Park Service.
Point Reyes National Seashore is the San Francisco Bay Area
Unit that predates Golden Gate. This park places an important
leadership role in implementing the natural resource challenge
within the San Francisco area network. And anyone who has been
to Point Reyes knows that it's a beautiful, beautiful site and
certainly rich in natural and cultural history.
The Pacific Coast Science and Learning Center, which is
located in a converted ranch house in the park, is engaged in
cutting-edge work and is a great example of exactly what NPS
hoped to accomplish when it embarked on the Natural Resource
Challenge. Through partnerships between the National Park
Service and universities, parks get the scientific research
they need with funding provided mainly by other entities.
Point Reyes and Golden Gate are part of the Golden Gate
Biosphere Reserve, the only United Nations designated
international biosphere reserve in the world that spans marine,
coastal and uplands resources. The Nature Conservancy and
Nature Serve have identified the San Francisco Bay Area
encompassing Point Reyes and Golden Gate as the epicenter of
biodiversity in the United States.
Redwood National Park in northern California is unusual
from a management standpoint because land within the boundary
is jointly managed by the National Park Service and the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Of the 106,000
acres within the boundary, about one third of the land base
consists of State park lands. Yet, management of the Federal
and State lands within the boundary is so seamless that
visitors are hardly aware of the different ownership.
Under the Redwood cooperative management agreement, the two
agencies share staff, equipment, and facilities to fulfill
common resource protection and visitor service goals. They
develop common procedures for activities such as issuing
special use permits, common programs for park operations such
as staff training and media relations, and schedules that
enable the two agencies to cover for each other and avoid
duplication.
The Federal/State management arrangement at Redwoods has
worked so well that Congress has extended the same authority to
enter into cooperative management agreements that it originally
gave only to Redwoods to all other units of the National Park
System.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. We will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Neill follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.006
Mr. Souder. I'm going to go off into a couple different
directions, but let me start with Golden Gate in particular,
because this may be our only national recreation area that we
have in this series of hearings. We're going to do Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore and we'll be at the Martin Luther King
site in Atlanta, but I don't think we're going to get Gateway
in on the East.
I want to kind of develop how to approach, when we're doing
the analysis of recreation areas, and I appreciate the time
that you and your staff spent with me a number of years ago,
and it's interesting to see the evolution of the park.
One of the things I want to mention at the outset because
there was a book written by a graduate student about the
Presidio that I picked up when I was out here before and that
was probably 6 years ago. I don't remember for sure. But this
book by Hal Rothman, the New Urban Park Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and Civic Environmentalism, I think was last
year, came out last year.
Mr. O'Neill. I think 2 years ago.
Mr. Souder. Two years ago. I may have, since I didn't do a
thorough review before I got in here, I may have some written
followup or one of the staffers may call you before we use some
of this. We tried at the last minute to see if he could come
today. We may see if we can get him in another hearing. He's
written a few other books too. He's obviously an opinionated
guy, but it's a very detailed analysis of the history of the
park. And I would like to use some of that in the report and I
would also, I'm not sure what in my head is from the book, what
I picked up from here and I wanted to reference that and ask
you a few direct questions.
I know you have worked at Boston Islands. Have you worked
with other areas too as they've tried to develop their
different----
Mr. O'Neill. Yes, I've been troubleshooting in a number of
areas, particularly trying to think through creative funding
strategies and partnering opportunities in a way in which
people think about joining into cooperation with others to
achieve joint goals.
Mr. Souder. So first in a broad sweep, comparing Golden
Gate to other national recreation areas that you work with, was
the biggest difference here the Presidio, and if so, can you
leave that out and then talk about how, in your opinion, this
has evolved as a parks strategy? In other words, it isn't one
big natural park. It's not one historic site. You've got a
series of different sites that aren't necessarily connected
that have multiple use. Do you view that as fairly typical in
national recreation areas? Are the challenges roughly the same
if you took out the big military base question here?
Mr. O'Neill. Yes. I should say first when you look at the
resource values, say of Golden Gate, they're extraordinary in
terms of their breadth of culture resources, as well as natural
history, but clearly, it's a group of sites that have been
integrated together under a concept of bringing the mission and
values of the national park system to an increasingly
urbanizing and demographically diverse urban setting.
And I think we needed to understand from the very start at
Golden Gate that the full potential, the park was only going to
be realized if we were able to mobilize a citizen tree that had
a sense of stewardship of those values. And that if we thought
that it was a responsibility of the Federal Government do its
own, we would had never been able to accomplish what we've
done.
So I think from the very start we evolved a concept that it
was a park that was going to have to be built on partnerships
and that we really had to understand what partnering meant and
what creating a partnership culture really involved. We had to
understand what the success factors were to successful
partnering. We needed to understand that this needed to be sort
of innovation lab for alternative financing and that Federal
Government hopefully would play its proper role in providing
support, but that we would never be able to accomplish what was
needed if we depended upon that by itself.
So we evolved from the early years, this partnership
culture that said that there's talent in the community, that if
we indeed engage them in a very deep way about the values of
the park that we could get them to join and partnership with us
to rehabilitate buildings, to maintain those buildings, to
carry out programs that advance the purposes of this park. We
also understood through an engagement process that we wanted
them to understand the resource values here so they felt a
personal sense of stakeholdership in the future stewardship of
the resources.
So interesting, from the very start, we realized that if
indeed the Park Service felt that it could or should do it
itself, it was a mistake and that the real potential of the
park was going to be realized that if we saw ourselves not as
the doer of all the work, but how we facilitated, brokered, and
help convene how the talent of the community--and that's a
very, very diverse way--could come in and join and stewardship
with us.
So I think the major concept here was that we were going to
have to develop a different model for how we were able to
manage these diverse resources and that model was going to be
dependent upon how effective we were in engaging the community
and identifying alternative ways in which the needs of the park
could be established.
So we developed what we called a stewardship investment
strategy which is a 10-module approach where funding comes from
to be able to accomplish the total needs that a park has.
Mr. Souder. In this book, they go through everything from
how you tried to work through the debates with dog owners to
bikes, to horses, to--I mean you name it, you had the variables
here. Have you seen as much of that type of--is that pretty
much true of each of the recreation areas?
Mr. O'Neill. I think we're seeing that as an essential way
of doing business. We're dealing in an era where people demand.
Their views are listened to, heard, appreciated, and dealt
with. The kind of engagement they expect today is much
different than what it was. I think we've learned it's
absolutely essential that all points of view, all perspectives
need to be part of a real civic dialog about the future of a
place and how you deal with an activity. And we found if you do
it well, facilitate it and you educate through that process, in
most cases that group will come to a sound decision.
And we're seeing this more engaged approach to community
and civic interaction is occurring across the country in the
Park Service and I think it's been helped by a recent
Director's Order on public involvement and civic engagement.
And that really sort of gets to the fact that public
involvement today needs to be much different than how we
defined it even 10 years ago. It has to be deeper, broader, and
transparent. It needs to be often facilitated by those that
don't have sort of a dog in the fight.
Mr. Souder. Internally, in the Park Service, are the urban
recreation areas, in other words, to some degree because of the
regional system, you get a mix in each regional system. Is
there any kind of view of how urban recreation areas differ
from the Reservoir at Mount Shasta and the ones north here and
the ones, Trinity Lake, and the big ones down in Texas? In
other words, we have clearly Santa Monica Gateway, Golden Gate,
Cuyahoga, big urban parks that are a totally different type of
challenge and different mix of clienteles.
Mr. O'Neill. I think the major difference is, obviously, we
have the same set of management policies. We manage all units
of the National Park Service, but I think the Park Service, one
of our greatest challenges is how relevant are we as an agency,
and how relevant is the national park system to a rapidly
changing America. If indeed the national parks and the national
units of the national park system and the service isn't
relevant to urban America, it isn't relevant to America.
You can go down into any inner city area in any major city
and ask people if they know what the national park system or do
they know what national park is in this system, it's a shocking
reality check. We realize that the Golden Gate, the Gateways,
the Santa Monicas, the Cuyahogas, the Chattahootchies are the
portal by which we introduce the national park system and the
concept of land preservation and personal responsibility for
stewardship, because this is where the people are.
This is where the diversity of America needs to have an
opportunity to be introduced to the national park system. So I
would say in some respects we carry a higher level of
expectation and obligations in the urban areas because we need
to reach those whose life is not really incorporated, land
preservation in national parks as part of their reality.
Mr. Souder. Could you briefly describe for the record a
little bit about--my personal opinion is that the marketing of
your posters and concepts of a collection of parks was an
incredible breakthrough, now being copied all over America.
It's really interesting, particularly as we see even whether
it's big, medium or small, whether it's a collection of
different parks.
I know Oregon has a whole series of posters now, some that
we're seeing in different parts of the country where it's non-
contiguous units and it's a way to kind of bind it together.
Could you describe the history of how that happened?
Because without that, I'm not sure that you would have pulled
off the concept of a coordinated park.
Mr. O'Neill. Well, it certainly made a big difference. It's
making a big difference every day. I think one of our concepts
is no matter how experienced we might think we are and whatever
it is we're doing, there are people out in the broader
community smarter than us. And this whole question of how do
you position yourself in a market place, how do you brand sites
as part of something special, how do you do visitor surveys and
understand the pulse of the community and all of its
dimensions?
We didn't have a really good understanding of that or
concepts of marketing, but we did know that there were very
bright people in the community that we could tap into. And so
we identified where the genius was in the community and we
asked them to join with us in a pro bono effort to help us
understand what we didn't know.
And so we brought experts in from the marketing
communications arena, advertising, print media, visual media,
graphic arts, and as a team, we called it our Dream Team, they
started us through the process of understanding how we needed
to start with the basic social science work, the survey work,
to understand where people were, and then they worked us
through a process, an evolutionary process of understanding how
we presented the set of national assets so that they were
understood and appreciated by all diverse elements of the
community. And it's been a work in process.
And I think we were shocked at the first surveys. It was
very difficult for those of us who had worked so hard and felt
that we had achieved something to see the results of the
survey. But we realized that it was telling us something really
important. And when we went back and resurveyed 2 years ago, it
was remarkable to see the difference. And it was because we had
to learn a whole different art of how we begin to community and
how we market and how we brand sites so they become visited and
important in people's lives.
So one of the survey instruments told us is that people
like the individual identity, they liked Alcatraz and they
could relate to that. They liked the Marin Headlands. They
liked the Presidio. They didn't know they were part of anything
bigger. And so they said you need to capture what unites all of
them, but to maintain the specialness of each place. So the
concept for the different images tied to the Golden Gate as a
broader image came out of the realization or the results of the
survey work.
Mr. Souder. Lewis and Clark is really developing that now
and other prime sites. Let me move to Mr. Pierce for some
Redwoods Park questions. I appreciated the visit this summer
and meeting with your staff and the State people there. It was
very informative.
Perhaps you could tell us for the record a brief, which is
hard to do, because it was a complicated, long-fought battle on
the Redwoods, but how it came to be a combination of the State
parks versus the Federal, how the Federal dots go around and
some of the interrelationships because it's probably the most
intertwined that I've seen around the country.
Mr. Pierce. Correct. Marilyn Murphy is here today as my
counterpart with the State parks up there. She and I have been
extremely lucky in that we followed the coattails of some
people that did some excellent work and when you look back,
you're correct. Those three State parks up there were
established in the 1920's. And then the national park didn't
come in until 1968. And along with that, because the boundary
of the national park was actually encompassing the three State
parks, there was a lot of discussion about OK, how is this
going to work?
I think over the years, many good people worked out how
that's going to work and we then were able to continue the
process. As I look back and as I look forward, probably one of
the key things occurred in 1994 when the State parks and the
National Park Service here in this region agreed that the best
way to do this was to join hands and find a common ground and
then move forward with that.
And so from that the team which included at the time all
the employees from the State parks and the national park, which
I think is a key, you've got to get right down there on the
ground and really involve all those people along with your
neighbors, like Brian said. And then where do we have common
ground? Well, that was pretty obvious that there was a lot of
good common ground. I mean the California State Parks mission
statement and the National Park mission statement are almost
identical. We took that a step further and said, so, based on
that, what's our vision of what these parks can be for the
visitors? And what are the resources?
From that one of our guiding principles developed the
guiding principles that were matched up and carried that on
down through the general plan, general management plan which
was completed in 2000 right before Marilyn and I got there,
which spells out what are the strategies of these joint parks
for the future and cultural resources, natural resources,
visitor use, lands, all of those things that are important.
That really helped us then put it where the rubber meets the
road.
We were able then to take our strategies and develop our
tactics. What do our work plans look like and we have now
annual work plans that match up. And we have made it a much
more efficient, effective operation. Our rangers, for instance,
are cross deputized, and they jointly schedule. So we get more
coverage with the same number of rangers by matching the State
and national park rangers together.
Maintenance is an outstanding example of where we match up
very well. The other thing to look at, I guess, would be that
the National Park Service was able to provide some real good
expertise in resources management. The State parks, by the
nature of where the State parks are and the campgrounds and
road systems, provide the expertise in visitor services. The
auto campgrounds, the picnic areas.
And so by weaving those together, we have come up with a
really good program that is seamless. Our interpretive program,
for instance, some night it might be a State park ranger giving
the program in the campground, some night it's a national park
ranger giving that. At our visitor centers, we have five of
them. We jointly work those five visitor centers.
So I think that's the real key is you start out with the
big picture common ground, and then you focus in on what does
that mean for us on a day to day basis.
Mr. Souder. Could you comment on two different things I
want to explore a little. And that is, first off, how we--I
think Mr. O'Neill used an interesting term, you said it's
exposing people in urban environments to the ideal of the
National Park Service, roughly is what you kind of implied.
That implies that the ideal of the National Park Service is
kind of a natural park semi-isolated wilderness would be kind
of the purist in the sense of how can you bring those values
and accommodate into variations of usage in urban centers and
the tradeoffs you have to make in an urban park versus a
totally isolated area and then Yosemite would be a semi-
isolated natural park, but also have wilderness areas and non-
wilderness areas inside that.
At what point, how do we sort through how we--will the
national park, the traditional kind of model, is it--will it
survive as it becomes the small part of the National Park
Service? Because when you go into the coastal redwood area,
it's very difficult to tell when you're in the national park,
when you're in the State park, when you're in private land.
And driving up, before I got the introduction from the Park
Service, from the south, the immediate thing is how come
they're selling cut redwood here in this open area when I
thought I was in the Federal park, no, I was in the State park,
no, I'm in private land where they're cutting down the trees.
It is hard, as an individual, to sort out what is the
ideal. I walk out within the definition of a park when you have
multiple and different types of units. Some areas you can have
your dogs, some areas you can't have your dogs. Some areas you
can do this, can't do that, which is true in a lot of parks,
but it's more pronounced in the urban parks. At what point will
we, in effect, dilute the traditional concept or is the
traditional concept, when you look at the number of units, it's
actually the minority of the number of units now?
How do we work toward this and how would you define it? One
way is to say we're working toward it. Working toward what?
Does that mean that we're going to eliminate certain things
over long term which is what some of the critics fear that
initially in an agreement you will have boats and dogs and then
they'll be eliminated toward idea? Does it mean we're going to
have gradations of these different parks? Some will reach more
people, more diverse people, but may not be as pure in the
environmental sense? Kind of talk about that a little bit in
these cooperations.
Mr. Pierce. It is a challenge. I look back on all my years
and one of the things I learned along the way was that I can
almost predict when I went to a park, by when the park was
created, what I would find in the way of boundaries and in-
holdings and those type of things. Because as you say, Mr.
Chairman, the older parks were established even before some of
the states were established and you had a land mass that
encompassed, if not an ecosystem, a number of watersheds, etc.
But the newer the parks, the more you found, like at Redwoods,
kind of the in and out of the parks and that type of thing.
I think it's a challenge that we, as managers, should
welcome, actually, because I agree with Brian that the success
of the National Park Service is our ability to have community
with the American public, the basic reason that we have parks.
And what is it that they offer? Back to that enabling
legislation of preserving those resources for future
generations and at the same time providing that visitor
experience, so the people can get that recreation and meshing
with the parks.
I think that's the great opportunity we have. And as you
saw at Redwood, the partnership has helped us to do that. We're
still making progress. I won't tell you that we're there, but
when you drive into the park at least you see the joint signage
system, so at least there's some tie there for the visitor to
realize. So I'm now in a national and a State park. All of our
wayside exhibits, all of our brochures, all of our programs,
we're trying to make sure they focus upon the very mission of
the national and State parks because they are almost one and
the same. And what does that tell the visitor about the area?
And I think that's what we need to do in all of our parks,
whether they're urban, suburban or like ours, we're in a rural
area, but we have a lot of in-holdings stretched out on that
101 corridor.
Mr. Souder. Do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. O'Neill. Well, I guess to underscore the fact that the
national park system as it's been created by Congress is
political and it represents a reflection of what Americans feel
is important to preserve. It may be about field site. It may be
to commemorate an American who made a big difference. It may be
the architecture of the military, but it's things that
Americans, that reflect the American experience and reflect the
American culture. And it's always going to be evolving.
I remember the arguments back in 1960 when Cape Cod was
first established and this was a whole different kind of park.
But the Park Service continues to evolve as America evolves and
exactly what part national parks play in American life. And so
I think what we realize here is that we want people ideally to
come here and be inspired and see themselves in the history of
the site, to see themselves in the stewardship of place, to see
themselves as being inspired to be able to take what they learn
at a park and see its relevance in their own neighborhood, for
them to feel inspired to go back and to deal with a brownfield
site or to restore a little pond that's next to their home, to
be part of a neighborhood effort to preserve the street.
And so I think in the National Park Service we need to
establish the expectation of excellence in how we manage our
sites and how we represent the best of a practice. And clearly,
we aren't where we need to be, but the important thing is I
don't think, no matter how many people you'll hear from, the
national park system will continue to evolve, because it really
is a group of Americans who feel if a place is really important
to them, if it represents their culture, represents an
important chapter in the history of America and they want it
preserved. And there's going to be pressure on Congress to
continue that.
So trying to draw a fine line, rather than saying we want
the National Park Service to reflect us as an American society
and to reflect the history and evolution of this country, so
our park system has to evolve in the same way that we evolved
as an American people. What's important 10 years from now is
going to shock us in terms of what people may want to preserve,
but it does reflect a continuum of what people feel of their
culture's importance and how it can reflect, manifest itself in
the national parks.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Tollefson, let me move to Yosemite a
little. That clearly is, as most people would certainly as far
as natural scenery put Yosemite in or maybe our Indiana
expression would work here, ``You can count them on one hand
and have enough fingers left to bowl.'' That is certainly one
of the premiere scenic parks.
Can you say for the record roughly what's the visitation at
Yosemite and how many of those go to the valley?
Mr. Tollefson. Visitation at the park is about 3.5 million
a year and the vast majority go to the valley. I don't have an
exact percentage, but probably closer to 95 percent.
Mr. Souder. Would you guess anybody who didn't go to the
valley had already been to the park multiple times?
Mr. Tollefson. There's a group of folks that love Wawona
and another that love Tuolumne and spend their time in those
two areas, but they probably spent time in the past in the
valley.
Mr. Souder. In the other areas of the 3.5 million, what
percentage would you say also visit the other areas? Do you
have a percentage, it's like valley only, roughly half?
Mr. Tollefson. Actually, this summer we did a new survey to
find out that very question. It varies from time of year to
time of year, the south entrance, the 41 entrance is the second
most used entrance and that's the one that goes through Wawona.
The big trees at Mariposa Grove get large visitation. During
the summertime the Tioga Pass is a big draw for people who are
making a long summer trip. We're probably closed with snow
today. So it really varies with the season and with the
individual. But we'll have a complete study that we'll be glad
to share coming out in February.
Mr. Souder. What percentage of the park is wilderness,
roughly, or treated as wilderness?
Mr. Tollefson. I don't know that off the top of my head.
It's about 90 percent.
Mr. Souder. The vast majority of the park. You certainly
have to qualify for, if not the longest, one of the longest
period of study of how to manage the valley. Is that still on-
going or as far as transportation systems, in and out, number?
Mr. Tollefson. As you know, we were required by the Ninth
Circuit to go back and redo the Merced River plan. We finished
that plan in July and we're moving forward to implement the
final stages of the flood recovery. We're down to our last $30
million on finishing that project.
Mr. Souder. It's been an interesting kind of process to
watch. I'm sure more interesting to an outsider than being on
the inside. One of the dilemmas that we face when we look at
the Park Service is how much attention do you pay to the local
communities at the edge who are impacted by it, versus the
visitation of those at Yosemite, probably roughly may have four
markets. One is an immediate local, one would be the San
Francisco and northern California and one might be a west, and
then there would be the once or twice in a lifetime visit from
the rest of the Nation that want to see Yosemite. And they may
have a totally different view of the park than the local
residents.
How do you see kind of the tradeoffs in the priorities when
you're dealing with what everybody would agree is one of the
crown jewels and one of the goals of the United States should
be anybody, in my opinion, anybody who wants to get to Yosemite
ought to get there at least once or twice as a crown jewel.
Mr. Tollefson. One of the key elements is not looking at
the total number of people that are arriving at a park like
Yosemite, but what's their experience and what are the impacts?
And we really focused on that visitor experience and you can
mitigate and increase the number of people who have experienced
something and reduce visitor protection at the same time.
A good example this last year, we rebuilt Yosemite Falls
trail with $13.5 million of donated money and it has increased
the number of people who can go to the Falls without feeling
crowded, but it's also increased the resource protection. So
looking at that instead of at solid numbers, the shuttle bus
system that was referred to, now carries 3.5 million visitors a
summer, riders a summer. And people are parking their car and
leaving it. So that piece of the congestion by managing parking
differently than we did in the past, reduces it.
But it is hard to balance local opinion with the national
opinion on how a park should be managed. And that goes to what
Mr. Pierce and Mr. O'Neill said, educating people of the
diversity of the parks and even the different kinds of
conservation systems, like State parks is critically important
so that more people are interested and more people are
involved.
Mr. Souder. Your situation is different than the previous
two we were zeroing in on, but at the same time you have
inholdings in Yosemite as well as Sequoia, which has them, and
King's Canyon that are very historic inholdings. But as you
look at the intense use of Yosemite Valley or the evolving
diversity in Redwoods Golden Gate and some of the other park
systems, and as you watch the--and recreation uses and the
diversity and the changing National Park Service.
And as we watch the Forest Service develop wilderness
recreation and less timber cutting, and as we watch BLM get
national monument status with wilderness and recreation areas,
how do you see the Park Service as different from those two
agencies?
Mr. Tollefson. The Park Service's mission is different.
What people do when they come to the park is recreation. The
mission of conservation for future generations is much stronger
than the other agencies. And that affects the way we manage
parks and affects the uses that we have, again, making sure
that the general public understands that because many people
don't understand the difference between the National Park
Service and the State parks or in our case the Forest Service.
So educating people, helping them understand where we're
going and the challenge for us in California is it's a very
diverse State. Yosemite is now reflecting in its visitations,
in the case of California, in helping people understand where
they are, what there is to do, how they can enjoy the park and
what the value of the park is to them, is a real challenge.
Mr. Souder. So in talking toward the vision of where the
Park Service is headed, let me get into some specifics. The
Sierra National Forest, is that around you, is that correct?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Do you have snow skiing still in Yosemite?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, we do.
Mr. Souder. So that wouldn't be a difference. You have
less--do you have different restrictions, no lifts? Would that
be a difference in the snow skiing?
Mr. Tollefson. Actually, Yosemite is one of the last
remaining areas, ski areas in the national park system. Most of
them have been removed, but our ski area is the first ski area
in California and the second ski area in the country.
Mr. Souder. At the Owanee, there used to be swimming pools
and different types and you had the firefalls. Certainly in a
National Forest Service, the lodging would be regulated
differently. Is that correct in the Sierra?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes.
Mr. Souder. The wilderness is actually managed more
strictly in the Forest Service because it's a quirk of law, but
in the non-wilderness areas of the Forest Service, they tend
not to have as restrictive of covenants where you can have
inholdings and new development. Would that be a difference
between you and Sierra or Sierra being managed around you in a
way similar to the park?
Mr. Tollefson. Well, the forest is managed differently in
many, many ways.
Mr. Souder. Is there still timber cutting adjacent to the
park?
Mr. Tollefson. There is still some timber cutting adjacent
to the park.
Mr. Souder. OK, so that would be a big difference.
Mr. Tollefson. The camp grounds are managed differently. I
don't believe the Sierra has any hotels on it, but the hotels
also go back to what we've been touching on. They originally
were put in, the Owanee and the El Tovar and all the beautiful
hotels in the park system were put in to raise awareness of the
national parks. Would we do that today? No. But in the day when
they were trying to build a constituency for parks, that's why
there's more lodging, especially in the older parks than there
are today and why there's not in the forests, for the most
part. They have the occasional small facility.
Wilderness, we have an organization in the southern Sierra
called the Sierra Federal Managers and several times a year the
Forest Service supervisors and the Park Service superintendents
get together to help alleviate as many differences as we can so
that a visitor can transition, if they're backpacking, for
example, from the park on to the forest and not have to start
all over again, if you will, as they move from one to the
other. The numbers are pretty much the same. We try to keep the
fire and use limits the same and so we try to make it as easy
as possible within those areas that we manage similarly.
Mr. Souder. If you were trying to describe to somebody
using Great Smoky National Park and the forest areas around
that, how would you tell them the National Park Service
difference from the Forest Service there?
Mr. Tollefson. The National Park Service is there for
primarily two reasons. One for use and the other for
preservation. The forests around them are more multiple use. So
they have mountain bike riding. They have motorized vehicle
access on the trails where the Park Service does not.
Mr. Souder. And that would be true around the Smokies?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, that's true around the Smokies as well.
So there are quite a few differences in the way that non-
wilderness areas are managed on the Forest Service, probably
the biggest being motorized access off of roads in forests. The
other two are dogs, livestock raising, timber harvest, mining,
the list is fairly long.
Mr. Souder. But a lot of those are getting restricted in
the Forest Service and what I'm trying to figure out is if we
don't have clear lines over time, what's the vision of where
the Park Service is headed? And what I've learned in the Park
Service is there is no such thing as a role.
You kind of work it by individual park as Mr. O'Neill has
pointed out. It's a political process and that means an
Olympic--one of their big lakes is motorized and one of them
isn't. You can have dogs at Golden Gate in certain areas, but
not in another park. That isn't really a defining park image
any more of motorized/nonmotorized, clearly jet skis are
limited at more park areas than forest areas, yet Cape
Hatteras, that's one of the big debates and in the Great Lakes,
it's a big debate, and also at Apostle Islands. What I'm trying
to sort out is when we say these are Park Service values, these
are Forest Service values, these are BLM values, as we--to me,
to some degree and one of the debates we're going to have in
Congress is about Mount St. Helen's.
Here it's like Lassen. We now can see how it's developed,
how it's recovering, but Mount St. Helen's is still puffing
away out there and why isn't it a park? The man who manages
that also wonders the same thing. He's got forests. He can see
the forest part because there's still timber cutting, but
around the volcano monument, they're not. It's functioning like
a park, but it's in the Forest Service.
So it's going to be hard for the general public to unite
around well. We need to have a National Park Service with this
vision and that's why I'm trying to sort out what kind of
vision, where are we headed?
Mr. Pierce, could you describe a little bit how you see--I
know there is still timber cutting going on, obviously around
you. Do State parks and Federal parks have similar standards at
this point or are you still a little different?
Mr. Pierce. I think the State parks and the national parks
have very similar standards. I think your comments about other
agencies, like the Forest Service, certainly ring true and I
think you can see that struggle, for instance, the forests
around us, one of the big issues right now there is ATV use and
they're struggling with their multiple use concept.
In the past, if you could get on a logging road, you were
fine with your ATV. Well, now they're seeing resource impacts
and they're saying well, we need to take a step back here and
look at those impacts and I think the public struggles
sometimes with well, gee, I thought this was the Forest Service
and with the Park Service we, for years, maintained that
protection of the resource as being a primary function.
I guess personally in some ways it's a challenge, but it's
an opportunity for all Americans, I think, to look at the
bigger picture of what makes America great and what it is we're
trying to preserve. And yes, there will be differences in
missions, but just like the Wilderness Bill and the fact that
wildernesses in many agencies, management agencies'
jurisdiction, I think there's again common ground and I think
those neighbors, like the Forest Service up there around us,
how can we work with them to provide that variety of visitor
recreational experiences, but protect the resources at the same
time? As you say, Mr. Chairman, state what it is that the
National Park Service is all about, state what it is that the
Forest Service is about and then what are the commonalities.
Mr. Souder. If I can jump to Mr. Neubacher for a minute. I
have to tell you a funny story about Point Reyes, because I
haven't been there yet. I've obviously seen it and been around
it and read about it and my first knowledge of it was I was
actually a staffer at a hearing here in San Francisco years ago
that was on public housing. It was the Children and Family
Committee. And then-Congresswoman Boxer was there and I was
working for then-Congressman Dan Coats before he became a
Senator. And during the hearing she kept slipping him notes
that we needed to go up to Point Reyes afterwards because it
was such a beautiful seashore and everybody was looking very
intent on the hearing subject, but she was lobbying for us to
go up there for dinner and visit the park later. And so it
stuck in my mind. That was probably 20 years ago now that she
did that, long before she was a Senator.
Could you describe a little bit the unique challenges you
have in the seashore? You predated Golden Gate. Is that
correct?
Mr. Neubacher. Yes, we were established in legislation in
1962.
Mr. Souder. In effect, you were kind of a, tell me if I'm
describing this wrong, but almost like a wilderness zone and
you had this big military-dominated compound of space, whether
it was Crissy field and the forts and Mason and Fort Point and
a lot of this in the kind of the head where the Golden Gate
area is and you were to the north of it.
Is your visitation predominantly from the region or what
kind of visitation do you get at your site?
Mr. Neubacher. Well, over the last 5 years, every year we
exceeded over 2 million visitors and that varies from,
depending on--we're often weather dependent because we're on
the coast. We have 80 miles of coastline within the park, which
is pretty fabulous when you think that California has about
1,200 miles of coastline, so we do a lot to protect the
California coast.
But our visitation fluctuates, depending on the year,
anywhere like last year it was 2.1 million at the peak when the
economic situation here in central California was like 2.6. A
lot of people were coming out. So it just varies from year to
year and it's not growing that dramatically, just slowly, but
the park, just to get back to your question, was really, it was
almost a miracle. It was established in the 1960's because
there was a great citizen effort to put that park together.
And we're a little further north, there's a little distance
between us and the bases to the south, but we administer about
some 70,000 acres and it's pretty fabulous country. It's in
great shape. We have wilderness zones to working landscapes.
It's a diversity of landscapes and it's kind of interesting
because we're in between--clearly not Yosemite, even though we
have designated congressional wilderness a third of the park.
But we're not Golden Gate either. We're kind of an in between
park.
And I worked in Alaska, I worked back East and a lot of
places, but it's pretty special and it's very natural and if
you look at our visitation, about 70 percent comes from the
Greater Bay Area; 30 percent comes from the Nation. But we get
comments on a lot of our projects worldwide now. So I'll get a
comment on an issue from Belgium. We get written up a lot in
the New York Times and a lot of different newspapers, so it's
becoming more and more of an international destination.
If you walk Bear Valley Trail on a day during the summer
you'll hear six different languages and that's because we're so
close to this wonderful international city of San Francisco.
We're really only an hour's drive away, but you can have
everything from elk to mountain lions to coyotes really in your
background in just an hour's time. We've got 147 miles of
trail, so there's plenty of back country to explore.
Mr. Souder. And you're a seashore, right?
Mr. Neubacher. National seashore, yes.
Mr. Souder. Well, as a practical matter, what does that
mean in the name? Why would you be a national park? Is there a
distinction between it? I mean obviously a seashore is on the
water.
Mr. Neubacher. You know, it's interesting, in our
legislation, it says in the enabling legislation, it says that
we should ensure that the natural environment dominates. So
it's kind of interesting. It was a political decision back in
the 1960's with all the seashores coming on board. We were the
only one that got established on the West Coast, but as you
know, Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras, all those got established on the
East Coast.
But it was this big movement to really protect America's
coastline and there was a strong interest in our county to
really move it forward. And if it hadn't happened, that part of
the country probably would have 100,000 to 200,000 people
living in it now, but a lot of people in Marin County really
wanted it saved and they did a great job. It was almost
entirely carved out of private land.
Mr. Souder. It's not really a swimming beach, it's more of
a walking beach?
Mr. Neubacher. For most of us, unless you have a big thick
wet suit on, the ocean is very cold.
Mr. Souder. Do you allow dogs and beach walking with your
pets?
Mr. Neubacher. We do on leash, on leash only. We have two
or three designated areas where people can go with their dogs
on leash. And we worked that out with the community. We rarely
get complaints about dogs and dogs off leash. I wouldn't say--
it's still a little bit of an issue, but we worked it out
pretty much.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask a question of Mr. Pierce. I know I
have this data from the summer, so I have the data if you don't
remember, but is the State--clearly, everybody is under a
budget crunch and if you could provide--we'll give you a
written request with some of the dates of what your full-time
employee equivalent was for this year, this year and this year,
but I would also be interested in looking particularly at Mr.
Pierce and Mr. O'Neill where you have State park partners,
whether they've had a similar squeeze or whether it's a more
dramatic squeeze. I believe it's been a more dramatic squeeze
at the State level than the Federal level.
Certainly, the number of State parks added in America has
not kept up with the space we've added at the Federal level and
one of the challenges that we face, some say well, places like
Golden Gate should have been more of a city than a State park.
On the other hand, if they don't do it, then the space is lost.
One of the challenges that we have at the Federal level, where
can we do partnerships?
We have this in Indiana too, with Indiana Dunes. It was
there preexisting the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, but the
State simply hasn't--I think they've created one new park in 30
years that they haven't kept their funding proportionally,
they're having to close certain campgrounds and have a tighter
budget restriction than we've had at the Federal level, not
that we've had much at the Federal level, but I wonder, because
in California, you had--Indiana was one of the first major
three State park systems, early innovator, flattened out.
In California, you were way ahead and clearly from Prop.
123 on, you've had a different pressure on State property taxes
in California. And I wonder how you see this evolution playing
out in California? I mean everyone is thankful for everything
you can get and one of my particular concerns is Angel Island
because there, clearly the State wanted to keep it. There was
concerns and we did our bill that we were going to try to take
it over. On the other hand, the stuff is falling down.
Mr. Pierce. My impression from Redwood?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Pierce. We could get you the exact figures and Ted and
Marilyn may have some of that on the next panel also, but my
perception is that all the States and for sure, California is a
good example and the national parks, have filled that pressure.
An example to give you, it's not just flat budgets per se. It's
also that incremental creep of various things.
You may be aware this summer when they were up there, we're
putting together a joint maintenance facility, State and
national parks which I think is the right way to go. It's going
to be excellent where you have one carpenter shop, one plumbing
shop, all that makes a lot of sense in an efficient operation.
Well, as we go through this and didn't take quite as much time
as some of the stuff in Yosemite, I guess, but it takes years
to put a project like that together.
In 2004, when we actually went back and looked at
construction costs in California because nationally they were
looking at--well, we'll give 4 percent, Mr. Pierce. That's
about what inflation has been nationally. We went back and
actually checked. Well, in California in 2004 in construction
the inflation was about 13 percent. And it doesn't take many
years like that to where you're feeling that impact in your
budget. So it has hit California State parks and it's hit the
national parks in California.
What we're trying to do is address it with our needs and at
the same time address it with the most efficient/effective
operation we can. And so we like the partnership in that it
gives us some options and latitudes. Sometimes we can't hire
somebody that we need on the Federal side for whatever reason.
Well, I can go over to Marilyn and say, ``Marilyn, you know,
this is a real key position we need. We can't find a way to do
it. Can you work with us?'' And you bet, we can find a way to
make that a State park employee, but in actuality, they're
working in the national park as much as the State. And we've
got a lot of those examples that help both the State parks in
their struggle with budget and at the same time some of the
national parks.
Mr. Souder. And Mr. O'Neill, as you answer that question,
could you--one of the things I've wondered is whether
structurally inside the Park Service and it's kind of what I've
been hitting at the edges of. Whether part of the vision of
where we're going ought to be to say look, you have this kind
of more wilderness park image then we have, so how do we adapt
the National Park Service for the urban realities today where
we have a shortage of green space and the usages may not be the
same, but they're part toward it and do we actually, we're
doing that kind of bit by bit, but I don't sense there's kind
of a thematic approach to this.
Mr. O'Neill. I'll answer the first, the State park thing. I
think Bill hit upon the major points. I think it's a
challenging time, obviously, at both the Federal level and at
the State level. But to me, it's about--I guess the sense of
two units, two organizational units at Federal and State level
that can share a common vision about a place and understand
that they're going to have to be more resourceful in terms of
how that vision might be achieved.
I think the fact that we would rely exclusively on the
Federal Government to solve that problem or just the State
government to solve the problem is not realistic. Do the State
government and the Federal Government need to be full partners?
Yes. But I think an engagement of the American people on the
challenge can suggest any number of alternative ways in which
funds can be generated.
So I think we're seeing a reality that is sort of circular.
People support what they know and care about. If they don't
know and care about, they're going to put their support
elsewhere. If not enough people feel the national parks or the
State parks are important and convey the importance of that to
their elected officials, their elected officials have many
other priorities to fund.
So I don't think we're going to solve the Park Service
funding problem until we solve the relevance issue. Until a
greater number of Americans see relevance in the National Park
Service and their lives and they feel it's an important
priority, they're not going to convey that to their elected
officials in strong enough terms that elected official
regardless of party or ideology, how would they expect them to
go to bat?
So I think we're in very competitive times. Parks are in
competition with a lot of other worthy public good and the only
way that you change that is to bring a stimulated public behind
the importance of these places to the level that they're
willing to convey that support personally in terms of what they
give and in terms of how they convey their advocacy through
their elected officials. To me, we're not going to get where we
need to get until that's done.
Now what is our reality today? You know at the Federal
level we've had our challenging times, I think, as many people
will attest to. I think our issue at the Federal level really
is twofold and the budget challenge we have is twofold. One is
the fact that up until last year where we had a full pay raise
covered by Congress, we had to eat the pay raise and a park the
size of Golden Gate, that's $1 million a year, just to eat the
difference in the pay raise costs. That's 8 to 10 positions a
year that we were losing as a result of just that one small
issue. It seemed small, but when you get down to the park
level, it's not small. It's major.
The other thing is that in addition to that inflation
reality and not paying the pay cross is that at the park level,
I hear people saying well I don't see a green and gray uniform
out there. I never see the ranger. I never see the interpreter
ranger and at the management level we've had to absorb all
these new responsibilities without sort of funding to support
them and they're all worthy mandates. There are societal
changes and there's new mandates, so--but obviously all of us
continue to acquire important land, but there's hardly ever
funds that are appropriated to include it.
Just the public's right to know, the FOIA, the Freedom of
Information Act, at Golden Gate it takes us three quarters of
an FTE now just to respond to Freedom of Information Act. That
was a responsibility that we didn't need to deal with a number
of years ago, not to the extent at which people are demanding
that information today, but that's three quarters of an FTE, a
uniformed person that's not out in the field.
Homeland Security has brought a dramatic change in terms of
responsibilities to the national parks in terms of being able
to--I mean we never used to have to have security in the
Headquarters building. Now it takes a full FTE just to provide
the security support in the Headquarters building to deal with
the reality of a post-September 11th world.
And if you look at the Golden Gate Bridge and the
protection that's provided there, so the staggering new sort of
metric requirements that we have in reporting just continue to
compound. And not to say any of them are bad, but when you get
down to the level that is implementing the new maintenance
management system at Golden Gate requires four FTE now just to
be able to manage the complex information data management in a
park of this size. And that's immensely important because that
tells us how we're managing our asset base. But that's four
rangers that are not in the field doing interpretive work.
So I think to get an understanding of the budget, people
need to understand it's not that we make a conscious and bad
choice not to have an interpretive ranger there is we have to
make hard decisions based upon mandates that are worthy, that
are passed down, that we have to respond to that really create
more administrative work which doesn't allow us to have as many
people in the field.
So it's between those two factors, unfunded mandates and
the lack of covering inflation costs, particularly paid
increases in combination that's creating the problem.
It's not that people don't care about the Park Service.
It's just that we were very gracious for the support that
Congress gave us for the operating increase this year and to be
able to cover the pay increase. It makes a huge difference when
you get down to a park level. But I think there are some
structural issues that have to be dealt with. There are
structural issues to look at a different process and how parks
may be funded. It's an understanding that parks can't
completely rely upon appropriated funds to be able to make a
difference in the communities they serve in a more diverse-
funding base that's going to be important. And revenue
generation has to be a part of the formula, the ways that are
appropriate that don't close off people from access to the
national parks that generate funds to support their sustaining
operations.
So it's complex, but I want to convey that at least in
central California the same experience that Bill conveyed in
northern California is the case. We want to work together.
We're finding resourceful ways to work together. We're both in
challenging times and we're both taking that challenge in a
positive way to try to make a difference and Angel Island
Immigration Station is a prime example.
Mr. Souder. I know I've gone way over in this panel. I want
to ask two more questions. One is I want to give you each an
opportunity if you would like to comment on the new management
plans. I didn't think there would be a big rush, but new
management policies are being floated. Does it look like that's
going to dramatically affect any of your parks?
Mr. O'Neill. I mean I do think we've extended the deadline
sometime in February and I think a lot of us are now working on
the management policies. I went to Big Bend myself. I happen to
be the chair of the National Wilderness Steering Committee. We
went there and we went through Chapter 6 basically, 25 of us,
word by word for 3 days, so we're now getting to the point
where we're providing good feedback through the system and I
believe now that we will make--this document could be very good
in the end.
Mr. Souder. The other thing is I wanted to give each of you
a chance to react to these things, as we look ahead because if
we're going to have a 100-year vision for the big anniversary
and it's an opportunity to do a Mission 66 type thing and say
what should we focus on? Mission 66 focused on making
architecture with high ceilings so the energy costs go up, but
it did get a lot of recreational facilities in the United
States and it focused on the parks. Our legislation is out
there focusing on, ``OK, how are we going to deal with the
staffing question?'' We talk about maintenance, but what about
the people?
In the real world, in addition to this, in trying to manage
our budget because it's a zero sum game, does this go to
Medicaid? Does this go to pay for Medicare? Does this go to pay
for roads? Where does it go in our Federal budget?
Immunization? Asian bird flu? As we work this through and work
with the park dollars that part of the question is like at
Alcatraz, how many interpreters you have versus tape systems?
How Costco works versus traditional grocery store? Where are
our tradeoffs versus a preference for live human help? How much
of this should actually be in research? Do we take an
interpretive ranger, but not do the core research and who is
going to do that?
What about the inholdings in the parks that we haven't
completed? What about when we have new land opportunities or up
at Redwood where you have watershed potential problems outside
the park? Would it be better to get control of that land
outside the park on the watershed before it does damage
internally, or is this for rangers, or is this for new visitor
centers, or is it for research?
And what would help grab the public mind some kind of
combination focusing on one and maybe Mr. Neubacher, you could
start because this is your crack to kind of go on record and
all of you, the Park Service, you all work in many diverse
places and go to other parks and meet other superintendents.
How do we capture this? What should we do legislatively if
we're going to try to tackle something?
In Mission 66, it was visitation services. Are we better
off going after one thing? Mix some new and land with
personnel? I'd like to hear some comments.
Mr. Neubacher. I really think of the Park Service as being
sort of the best of the best. It really is the heart and the
soul of the Nation and that's how I would separate us from the
Forest Service. All of our sites are nationally significant and
really glorious places.
I see this 2016 date being a tremendous opportunity for us
to highlight the national park system and put a spark, put a
separate date and we lead up to generating this sort of
tremendous momentum for completing the National Park Service,
fixing the infrastructure, getting our staffing in good shape.
I mean all of the above.
And working with our partners, I see this being a public
sector, but a partnership thing. It's cooperative conservation
and we really highlight all these great things across the
Nation that are going to occur and I know that the Park Service
is, the National Leadership Council is putting together sort of
a menu of things we'd like to accomplish, but I see it's the
great date to strive for and get a lot of things completed
before 2016. And what a tremendous opportunity to really move--
--
Mr. Souder. Because you really have to start that 17
years----
Mr. Neubacher. You've got to start now. I think today. I
was coming back from Big Bend, riding back in the car with a
couple of the associates from Washington and we were trying to
portray in our minds what could we really accomplish and I
think it would be wonderful to work with Congress to put
together a package of these, whatever we want to say, 20
things. But I do think it's an opportunity and a lot of people
think the Park Service is complete. I personally don't.
I think there are a lot of gray areas that need protection
by the Park Service. I'd love to see us do that. I think--I
don't want to use the word Mission 66, but I'd love for us to
move the backlog really forward in a big way in terms of
meeting our needs and infrastructure and so that by 2016 the
Park Service, we can all say with great pride, it's really in
good shape. And not just infrastructure, in our resources, too.
I've got 30 federally listed species at Point Reyes. I
would love to say in 2016 all those are in phenomenal shape.
I've got another 50 species of concern. So I have the highest
density of spotted owls anywhere in the range, so I've got a
lot of things to take care of. I'd love to have programs in
place that ensure those in perpetuity.
Mr. Souder. Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. O'Neill. Don said it all. I think getting to this,
there has to be a compelling vision that people can buy into. I
can tell you how tired I'm getting of this whole thought of
having to dumb down the national park system to deal with
current budget realities. That's something we have to do, but
that's not a vision for the future.
I got really inspired recently in a meeting where a
prominent foundation head challenged us in the Park Service and
she said, ``Brian and John and Rob,'' we were three Park
Service people there. She said, ``help me understand
something.'' She said, ``when I visit a national park, I would
think that the best in practice is in place and I'm learning
from it and I'm being inspired by it.'' She said, ``if I went
to Yosemite National Park, I would expect the very best of
water conservation in place. And then everywhere I looked and
everywhere I went sound water conservation measures were in
place. And I was seeing them and I was trying to see how they
related to my personal life. But I was learning from it. I was
being inspired by it. And if I went to Yellowstone National
Park, I would think the very best in energy conservation was in
place. Again, I was learning from it. It was all around me, all
the new technology, and I was being inspired by it.'' And she
kept going on.
She said if I went to Rocky Mountain National Park, I think
the very best in trail systems, that trails were actually being
laid out in a way that was sensitive to the environment, that
new technology was being applied in terms of geoweb over
wetland areas. And I saw that and I could see how it applied in
my own life and my own community and I was being inspired by
it.
And she finally ended up after a series of these and she
said finally, ``I don't think I've ever had a healthy meal in a
national park.'' And she said, ``that's got to change.'' Now
we're working on that. But that's the inspiration. You've got
to have something that people can be inspired. The national
park system should represent the very best of what America is
about because it is about America. It's about the American
story, the American experience and we should be the very best
and we're going to have to find a new way to fund it, a
different way of funding it, a different combination, a way in
which we bring private philanthropy together with public
funding and new approaches.
And I think that's the inspiration that we need. We need to
see it as the best and we have to exemplify best practice and
we need to inspire people by it.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pierce, maybe that's not easy to follow.
Mr. Pierce. I was just going to say that.
Mr. Souder. Maybe because it would be--one of the things I
appreciate you taking the time and I appreciate the second
panel being patient here is I want to thank on the record the
National Park Service. As we have done these hearings there has
been more flexibility, so first of all I want to thank Jonathan
Jarvis for letting you all testify, for MNL and Steve Martin,
who have increasingly become more comfortable that I'm not
trying to run some kind of hit operation on the National Park
Service and we're actually doing an exploratory thing.
We've talked it through in core ops and business plans and
I understand the budget pressures as much as the National Park
Service does, but I believe that we need to look at our vision,
figure out how to fund this.
And so this is really the first time we've had four
superintendents up with me being able to roam freely through
this discussion. We've had them present, ask an occasional
question and so that's why I'm taking a little longer today
than I have at some other hearings with this.
One thing that a lot of people don't realize and maybe you
and Mr. Tollefson would see, a few of the other parks that
you've worked at, so you can give kind of the--and then make
your comments, to show some of the holistic approaches that
many of you bring because you've many times worked at diverse
parks and different places.
Mr. Pierce. Well, you've asked the wrong guy for the short
answer.
Mr. Souder. Because you've been to a lot----
Mr. Pierce. I've been to a lot of parks. But I agree with
you. Maybe I will preface my short remark with I have been in
Alaska, Camp Maya and Lake Clark and Aniakchak and I've been
down the Everglades and I've been to the Great Smokies and
Shenandoah and Devil's Tower and Capital Reef and Olympic and
Glacier and Grand Canyon and Crator Lake and it goes on.
But I will say this, too, that there is a common thread in
all those areas that I've worked and I guess I would want to
thank you and the other Members of Congress that have put
forward this 2016 approach because I think that's the right
approach. And my vision is that we need to keep it uncluttered
and we need to tell the American public right up front with
honesty that yes, the national parks is the best idea that we
ever gave everybody in the world, and yes, it is important and
we should in a nonpartisan way work together to make sure that
vision is followed through for our grandkids.
And of all those parks I've worked at I had my conflicts
with people. I was a ranger in law enforcement for many years,
but you know, I never met anybody that when I talked with them
about preservation of the resources and said well, what would
you like your granddaughter to see or your grandson to see when
they come here?
I never heard anybody say I don't really care what they
see. I mean, to a person they said, ``I want them to see what I
see. I want them to experience what I experience'' and you
know, that's the uncluttered message I think we need to get
across.
Now, if I had one thing to say of what to do with it from a
field person with all those parks, I'd say try to fund what you
can and trust the managers in those parks to work with their
neighbors to do what's best for those parks. One of the
problems I've had especially in the last number of years there
are so many different accounts with so many different things
attached to them, that as a manager, it's very difficult for me
to focus on what's important here. And if we could put it into
the operations of the National Park Service and then hold the
manager accountable for the best management of the parks, I
think that would go a long way to helping us do the proper
management in those areas.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Tollefson.
Mr. Tollefson. My career has spanned nine national parks
from Alaska to the Virgin Islands and Great Smoky Mountains to
Yosemite and fill in the blanks in between. And it's been a
wonderful opportunity to give back to the Nation.
Relative to the 100th anniversary of the National Park
Service and this hearing being focused predominantly on
partnerships, it's important that we recognize as I know you
know that the State of California protected of Yosemite for the
first four decades and we are moving forward to our 150th
anniversary 2 years before the 100th anniversary of the
national park system.
I think, building on what's been said, my overarching
message for that 100th anniversary is welcoming the diversity
of this country to their national parks and to their heritage,
because it is about protecting the best places in the country
and the world and the heritage of this country and making sure
we reach out and welcome people who don't normally think parks,
who didn't have the opportunity to grow up, as I did,
backpacking in the North Cascades at a very young age. And how
we do that is an interesting problem.
We need to focus on the backlog and the fee program is for
the large parks that have a fee program is a wonderful
opportunity to reach that, but it's not enough.
As Brian said, we need to find a new way of moving forward.
A fifth of our operating budget comes from donated funds and I
think there needs to be a new look at the partnership between
Congress and the national park system and with partners that
can really help us move into that new age.
We can't continue to manage the way the first half of my
career, where it was about being in the park and management of
park lands as opposed to the second half of my career, which
has been about what partners out there want to help us. Because
all of those partners are stewards of the land and the more
partners we have, the more stewards we have. And getting people
that the Park Service professionals and those who care about
parks to understand it's all of our responsibility at the 100th
anniversary, I think, is critical.
Mr. Souder. I want to thank each of you. It's a tremendous
challenge. There are a couple of things I want to make sure
that we get in followup and I don't know whether a page or two
would be helpful and we can dig some of it out, but if you
could on the Yosemite fund which is clearly one of the model
private sector. Also, I know I visited, one of the visits I had
there at Yosemite.
I'd be interested in if you could give us a little bit on
this and then we can followup with the headquarters to see
where else this is occurring, but I was there when there was
like a 2-day meeting of researchers from different universities
who wanted access to the park.
And the discussion was how can the park, how much should be
coordinated? How can you match up researchers with the needs?
How can we do better utilization of private sector research and
public sector research and matching.
And if any of you have any--I'm a big believer that some of
this extended learning in the Park Service is the No. 1,
clearly, the Presidio has more historic structures than
anywhere in the United States, but you have multi-periods of
history and not to mention the Maritime Museum.
But how to use the Internet because clearly it's the No. 1
cultural, the No. 1 wilderness, the No. 1 wildlife agency in
the United States and as the world is changing, can we keep up?
When I was here, Mary Scott Gibson helped take us around and
then she wound up down at Carlsbad for a while and she matched
up with my daughter who was doing a bat project back in
Indiana. And she got her a whole bunch of material, enabled the
kids to hook up and talk with her or arrange with her down at
Carlsbad about the bat project. Now those kids were in a rural
area. They're never going to get to Carlsbad Caverns. Or maybe
a couple of them will, but that is the place where you see
these thousands of bats.
And if you're within 50 miles of a park, often you can tap
into that, but how can we spread this through multimedia,
through Internet, to be able to tap into the tremendous
resources, and what would that do to enhance a different type
of visitation. The Internet is getting better, but how to be
created with that is a huge challenge and we're looking for
those kind of ideas and how we might blend them.
So thank you again for all your service. I thank each of
the people who work for you for that because often they don't
get to hear that and also really appreciate the State parks
partnership such as you've had. I was very impressed at Redwood
with how you seamlessly have done that. And also they have the
only tsunami-ready headquarters in the Park Service. That was
another unusual thing there. Thank you very much.
If the second panel could come forward.
[Applause.]
Mr. Souder. Mr. Theodore Jackson, deputy director for park
operations, California State Parks; Gene Sykes, Chair of the
National Parks and Conservation Association; Greg Moore,
executive director of the Golden Gate Conservancy; and Daphne
Kwok, executive director of the Angel Island Immigration
Station Foundation.
[Pause.]
Mr. Souder. Now that I have you all seated, can you stand
and raise your right hands?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
Thank you for your patience as I was late and then spent a
lot of time questioning the first panel and we'll start with
you, Mr. Jackson.
STATEMENTS OF THEODORE JACKSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PARK
OPERATIONS, CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS; GENE SYKES, CHAIR, NATIONAL
PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION; GREG MOORE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, GOLDEN GATE CONSERVANCY; AND DAPHNE KWOK, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ANGEL ISLAND IMMIGRATION STATION FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF THEODORE JACKSON
Mr. Jackson. Well, thank you very much and I want to thank
you, Chairman Souder, and the subcommittee for inviting
California State Parks here today. I am here on behalf of my
Director, Director Ruth Coleman, who unfortunately couldn't be
here today. She had a pressing engagement in Sacramento, but
she sends her regards.
I have submitted a statement, or testimony, that can be
included in the record. And so, given the lateness of the hour
and so forth, I'll try and briefly summarize those comments to
the key points.
I'm the deputy director for Park Operations. I am
responsible for the day-to-day operations for California State
Parks, the largest State park system in the world. We have 278
units that comprise the system and over 1.5 million acres. One
of the partnerships that we are most proud of in a number of
partnerships that we enjoy throughout the State is the one that
we currently have between ourselves and the National Park
Service for increased coordination and efficiencies. This
partnership encompasses seven national parks, seashores,
monuments, historic parks and recreation areas, the 16 State
parks, historic parks, beaches and recreation areas.
The one that is probably the most well known and was
alluded to in the first panel, the one that we enjoy at Redwood
National State Park is probably the most developed with an MOU
that was put in place back in 1994 and continues today.
Bill Pierce alluded to many of the important success
stories that can be attributed to both the partnership and the
MOU, the shared planning, training, coordinating of work up
there, general plan management agreement that was appropriated
in 2000. Many successes which we think has actually resulted in
improved services, service delivery to the visiting public
there.
Down here in the Greater San Francisco Bay area, we enjoy a
strong partnership with Brian O'Neill and Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and tomorrow you and members of your committee
will be going over to Angel Island State Park. Angel Island was
acquired from the U.S. military in 1955. It's a 750-acre island
park, offers world class vistas of San Francisco Bay, the
Golden Gate Bridge and Mount Tamalpais. It's alive with
history, a 3,000-year-old Coast Miwok hunting and fishing sites
can be found in close proximity to the largest collection of
American Civil War era military buildings west of the
Mississippi.
From 1910 to 1940, the island processed thousands of
immigrants and during World War II, Japanese and German
prisoners of war were held on the island, which was also used
as a processing center for American soldiers returning from the
Pacific. This is really a remarkable park and I think that
you'll find your visit tomorrow to be quite enjoyable and
stimulating.
That particular park is a great success story for a number
of partnerships that it enjoys. One of the members of the panel
here today, the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation, is
a nonprofit that has really helped out tremendously in terms of
providing resources to help with the interpretation of the park
and the development of the facilities there.
We have been able to generate significant funds. State
Parks has budgeted $400,000 from its general fund; $3 million
from a Cultural and Historical Endowment; and $15 million from
a bond act that was passed in 2000 that's known in the State as
Proposition 12. And as you probably are well aware, the Angel
Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act of
2005, which passed through the Congress and now is awaiting
signature by the President and was actively supported by our
Governor, authorizes up to an additional $15 million for the
station's preservation. Of course we're very excited about the
prospects for that bill.
There is some other stuff in my comments about our FamCamp
program which is an outreach program that we use in numerous
communities throughout the State to encourage participation
from urban park users or urban communities and low-income folks
who maybe haven't had as great an opportunity to take advantage
of open space and park-type experiences.
I also did want to briefly touch upon the Santa Monica
Mountains partnership. I was the southern division chief
located in Los Angeles up until my promotion to the deputy
director a year ago and I was very involved and actually worked
as a field ranger down in Santa Monica Mountains back in the
1990's. It's a great partnership that really is paying great
dividends again, both for the agencies that are participants in
it and for the parks going public.
Down there you have three agencies, the National Park
Service, California State Parks, and a local conservancy down
there, Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy, who have partnered
together both in terms of acquisition and in terms of planning
and in terms of day-to-day operations and absent those three
entities being down there, I think you would see the
demonstrated services down there and I don't know that the
public would be able to appreciate, have the same sorts of
resources that they have available to them as a result.
And this is no more apparent than the most recent
acquisition this past year of the Gillette Ranch, the King
Gillette Ranch, which is also known as the SOKA property, which
was long sought after, both by open space advocates and
environmentalists down in the Malibu, Lagora Hills area. It's a
spectacular piece of property with a lot of cultural resources
on it. The National Park Service, in particular, was very
interested in acquiring this property. It sits in the heart of
the Santa Monica Mountains and is really going to allow for the
three agencies to have a joint visitor center, orientation
center there, which will really enhance visitors' experience
there in the park.
It was only through the leveraging of the three agencies
and available resources were they able to make that acquisition
this past year or it may have been lost. And the National Park
Service in concert with the other two agencies had enough
funding at the end of the game to allow for planning process to
ensue, and so they're currently in a planning process to
determine the public use and the development of that site. It's
a real great story along the lines of those win-win situations.
So we really appreciate and enjoy the relationship that we
have with National Parks. It's an important relationship for
us. It's important that we try and leverage the skill sets of
the individual agencies to the benefit of all and we look
forward to those relationships continuing to grow as we move
forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.013
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Sykes, we appreciate the
leadership NPCA has shown at each of these hearings and giving
us a broad overview of the challenges and the funding
challenges, in particular, and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GENE SYKES
Mr. Sykes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Gene Sykes. I
am the current Chair of the Board of Trustees of the National
Parks Conservation Association. Since 1919, the nonpartisan
National Parks Conservation Association has been the leading
voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our
national park system for present and future generations.
On behalf of NPCA and its 300,000 members, I would like to
express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for your
determination to focus this subcommittee on the issues that
confront Americans as we strive to preserve our national parks
and historic sites for future generations.
NPCA is also grateful for your sponsorship of the National
Parks Centennial Act, a bill designed to address some of the
fiscal problems in the park system and make all parks healthy
again by the Park Service's 100th anniversary in 2016.
Mr. Chairman, as a native Californian and a neighbor of the
Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area in Los Angeles,
I'm quite proud of my State's role in the development of our
national park system.
In 1915, Steven Mather, a California native and the first
director of the National Park Service, decided to take a group
of influential people to what was then called Sequoia and
General Grant National Park to build support for the creation
of a National Park Service. Mather's ``mountain party''
included the director of the National Geographic Society, a
Congressman from Massachusetts, and vice president of the
Southern Pacific Railroad. From the first moment they entered
Sequoia, the beauty of that sublime wilderness touched their
souls. These men emerged from that trip as enthusiastic
advocates for the creation of a National Park Service to manage
an extended national park system.
Today, California encompasses the largest concentration of
National Park Service land outside of Alaska. But if Stephen
Mather were to lead his group on a 90th anniversary exploration
of our California parks, what might he find? Possibly, that
Sequoia's once beautiful clear vistas have been clouded over by
smog, confirming Sequoia's place as one of the five most
polluted parks in the United States. Venturing into the more
remote areas of the park, Mather and his company might
encounter armed thugs hired by foreign drug cartels to
cultivate illegal crops of marijuana, a threat that causes an
already poorly staffed ranger force to be pulled away from
other pressing park protection issues.
In other parks, Mather would find that insufficient park
operating budgets are getting eroded by high fuel costs,
unfunded mandates and other unbudgeted expenses. Increases in
the base operating budgets for California's national parks
between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 averaged only 2.6
percent. At the same time, the average rate of inflation and
mandatory staff cost of living increases were well over 3
percent, which means the personnel costs for all of these parks
are outpacing the growth of their overall budgets. This
imbalance of funding relative to cost has been frequently
experienced over the past several years and each year, this
deteriorating budget situation has very serious impacts. For
example, at Death Valley the park has only 15 law enforcement
rangers down from 23 a few years ago. They patrol an area
roughly the size of Connecticut. Only 37 percent of the
historic structures in that park are in good condition.
In Sequoia, despite a half million dollar budget increase
to stop illegal marijuana cultivation, the park still lacks the
money to restore areas damaged by drug growers. Restoration of
these areas is essential to prevent their ready-to-use by
growers in subsequent seasons.
Redwood National Park has cut its staff to half of its
required level. The park's 2000 business plan found that the
park was at 65 percent of its required staffing of 199 full
time equivalents in the year 2000. Since then, insufficient
budgets have caused the park's staffing to fall to 100 full
time equivalents and it's projected to go to 85.
There are some parks that can get assistance from partners
in private philanthropy. Golden Gate is fortunate enough to be
surrounded by a relatively wealthy and extremely supportive
community that is willing to donate money and volunteer labor
toward park needs. But Golden Gate is somewhat unique amongst
the park system. It has the opportunity to tap into a city that
is rich with philanthropists and thousands of people who
generously offer their time and talent to support the park. Few
parks in the country are situated near such great sources of
private beneficence. And while clearly Golden Gate's partners
have the potential and the will to lend the park a hand, their
generosity should not be mistaken for a desire to subsidize the
park's basic responsibilities. The Federal Government has a
duty to fund our national parks at a level that enables them to
achieve the mission of preserving the parks unimpaired future
to generations.
If the Park Service is going to engage outside groups and
philanthropies for work on park resources, it must also have
the staff and resources to meet its part of the obligations. In
addition to my own involvement with the NPCA, I'm a sitting
Board Member of The Nature Conservancy of California and I've
been quite familiar with the work the Park Service and TNC have
in partnership in Channel Islands National Park, where TNC is a
major land owner.
For over 25 years, TNC has been working with the Park
Service to restore and protect the resources at Santa Cruz
Island in Channel Islands National Park especially on habitat
restoration, essential for the survival of the endangered Santa
Cruz Island fox. Because of the Park Service's limited Federal
financial resources, TNC is bearing the brunt of the
responsibility in preserving this unique ecosystem.
While Channel Islands National Park received nearly half a
million dollars in fiscal 2002 through the Park Service's
Natural Resource Challenge to help restore the native
vegetation and wildlife on the island, this funding was not
provided in the subsequent years. Such partnerships required
that the Park Service be a strong, consistent player in such
endeavors, dedicating the financial and human resources to make
these partnerships work.
As we consider the future of our national parks, we must
concentrate on the issues of adequate funding and good
management, for it is from these core foundations that the
parks draw their ability to protect and enhance their resources
and to serve the public. Allowing our parks to be overrun by
invasive species or drug cartels or failing to provide support
for Park Service personnel, constitutes an embarrassing
abdication of our responsibility to enhance and protect the
common touchstones of our national heritage.
Both the public and the Park Service are doing their jobs.
The question before us today is can Congress find the
wherewithal to support in full measure the needs of a national
park system they had the wisdom to establish almost 90 years
ago?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sykes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.135
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF GREG MOORE
Mr. Moore. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
invitation to testify today about the work of the Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy and our role at the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
Like Many Americans, especially those of my generation, my
love of the national parks began with family visits as a child
and I was honored to begin my professional career with the
National Park Service as a park ranger in 1974. Since then I
have devoted my entire career to the national park system, both
working for the National Park Service and now as executive
director of a nonprofit support group, the Golden Gate National
Parks Conservancy.
Since our inception in 1981, we have provided nearly $80
million of support to national park projects and programs here
at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The Parks
Conservancy is 1 of over 100 similar nonprofit organizations
nationally, known as Friends groups or cooperating
associations, working to support the mission of the National
Park Service.
Among other things, the Parks Conservancy works alongside
the National Park Service and here at the Presidio with the
Presidio Trust to ensure that our Bay Area national parks are a
philanthropic priority for our community. Our role is to open
direct and active channels through which Americans can
contribute time and charitable gifts to augment the critical
work of our Federal partners. As a result, the San Francisco
Bay Area community continues to show tremendous generosity and
volunteerism to these parks.
Working here at Golden Gate, along with my three decades of
professional involvement with our national parks, I have
observed a few key factors which I think are relevant to the
committee's review of the national park system and the
Centennial Act legislation.
First, as you know, Americans love their national parks,
believe in their intrinsic value and are willing to be generous
to help preserve and enhance them.
The American ethic of charity and volunteerism has made a
remarkable impact on our national parks. In addition to the
more than $100 million provided annually in philanthropic
support, last year, 140,000 volunteers donated 5 million hours
to the national parks at a value estimated at $85 million. What
motivates this level of commitment?
Few things inspire Americans like the immense beauty and
nature and the historical poignancy of our national parks. Our
national parks are an American idea, and as you have suggested
Mr. Chairman, the ``soul of America'' where we see the inherent
beauty, nature and heritage of our country reflected. Americans
understand that national parks require not only the care and
investment of the National Park Service, but their direct
support and involvement as well.
Throughout the park system, whether at Golden Gate,
Yosemite, the Arizona Memorial, Yellowstone or Rocky Mountain,
philanthropic projects have been inspired by visionary National
Park Service leaders, implemented by effective and eloquent
nonprofit partners, and funded by generous donors.
As one example, here at the Golden Gate, our organization
worked directly with the National Park Service, to bring $34
million of support to restore Crissy Field at the Presidio. But
this generosity of time and money can only occur when a
substantial Federal foundation is in place to receive and
nurture public support and care for those investments.
Organizations like ours work closely with the National Park
Service and here with the Presidio Trust to understand the
agency's priorities and chart a strategic course in unison. The
Conservancy helps our Federal partners recognize which of their
priorities are likely to appeal to donors and we work together
to ensure that donor-supported projects and programs are
operationally and financially sustainable.
The philanthropic results depend upon Park Service
commitment, professionalism, knowledge, and active staff
presence in our parks. These capacities, and the Federal
funding to support them, are essential to philanthropy working
in a dynamic and effective way.
To make projects like Crissy Field meaningful to the
community that supports them requires not only executing these
park transformations, but also an ongoing commitment to
preserve over time what has been transformed together. To sum
up on this point, if donors give, they want to be assured that
the National Park Service can care for the very improvements
that their contributions made possible.
Finally, Americans do not what their generosity to actually
erode or replace the Federal funding commitments. Americans do
not see their philanthropic support as a substitute for the
role of the National Park Service or as a replacement for
funding provided through tax dollars. Philanthropic donors do
not have the interest, the expertise, or the capacity to
substitute for these vital Federal responsibilities.
Increasingly, donors are asking that their contributions be
contingent upon assurances that future park budgets will be
there to preserve and care for the improvements that their
gifts have made possible. So solid operating budgets and
Federal capital investment are key ingredients to our success
in bringing outside support to these parks.
The healthiest public-private partnerships are preserved
through an appropriate balance of investment. Many park budgets
are stretched, with infrastructure repairs occurring over many
years and even basic services strained. But these functions
cannot be supported solely through philanthropy. In the words
of my colleague, Ken Olson, who leads a very successful Friends
of Acadia National Park, ``Friends groups are here to provide a
margin of excellence for our parks, not the margin of
survival.''
The Centennial Act would provide vital relief to this
straining balance and set a specific timeframe for bringing
parks back in balance, bringing things back in balance for our
national parks. We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for conceiving of
and introducing this bill. By ensuring revenue streams that
help fund the needs of our national parks, the Centennial Act
can build a profound public confidence that the National Park
Service, as the steward of our Nation's heritage, will continue
to lead the way in preserving these places for future
generations.
To conclude, philanthropy and volunteerism are, and will
continue to be, essential and positive forces in achieving the
mission of the National Park Service. These forces will grow in
scale and impact if Americans know that their contributions
will be effectively stewarded by the National Park Service and
if they are treated with sincere appreciation as they donate
time and resources.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.138
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Have I been mispronouncing your name
Ms. Kwok?
Ms. Kwok. No, I think you've got it right, it's Daphne
Kwok.
Mr. Souder. OK, thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAPHNE KWOK
Ms. Kwok. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Daphne Kwok. I'm
executive director of the Angel Island Immigration Station
Foundation, and we are a nonprofit organization committed to
the preservation of the Immigration Station as a place that
honors the complex and rich cultural heritage of Pacific Coast
immigrants and their descendants. I have recently relocated to
San Francisco from Washington, DC to accept this unique
opportunity to be a part of American history.
Thank you, Chairman Souder, for the opportunity to describe
for the record the strong partnership that the Angel Island
Immigration Station Foundation has with the National Park
Service and the California State Parks in telling the story of
the ``Ellis Island of the West.'' Angel Island Immigration
Station is the ``bookend'' to Ellis Island, telling another
chapter of immigrant roots, part of the ``peopling of
America.'' We want to thank you especially for your support on
H.R. 606, the Angel Island Immigration and Restoration Act.
Since we last testified before your subcommittee in 2004,
much has happened and I'd like to submit for the record the
more detailed description.
Most Americans known the story of Ellis Island, which
processed millions of immigrants crossing the Atlantic, but the
story of Angel Island remains virtually unknown. And we are
very pleased that tomorrow we'll be able to have the
opportunity to show you the Immigration Station.
It has been 50 years since Angel Island Immigration Station
was actively used. Since then a lot of our treasures there
which are depicted in these photos here to the left have been
able to protect these historical treasures. The Angel Island
Immigration Station Foundation has worked tirelessly to raise
awareness and dollars to preserve this site and its history.
Our goal, in partnership with California State Parks and the
National Park Service, is to create a world-class visitor and
genealogical research center to ensure that the story of the
Pacific Coast immigration can be told for generations to come.
Over the past few years, Angel Island Immigration Station
Foundation and its preservation partners, CPS and NPS, have
conducted historic preservation studies with approximately half
a million in funds raised from private, State and Federal
sources. The California Park Service and Angel Island
Immigration Station Foundation have jointly completed a master
plan for the site calling for restoration for the historic
Immigration Station in three phrases. The first phase of the
restoration efforts is being funded by $15 million in
California State bonds and a half a million through the Save
America's Treasures grant. The core project overall is expected
to cost about $50 million.
Like Ellis Island, Angel Island Immigration Station's
history and legacy is important to all Americans, not just
Californians. Nearly $18.5 million of State funds have been
raised to date to support the preservation project. The
addition of Federal dollars serves to endorse the national
importance of Angel Island Immigration Station's history. And
in particular, we hope to be able to receive the $15 million
soon through the Congress to really help with the hospital
building which is rapidly deteriorating. And with each passing
of each winter, the structure faces an uncertain survival. So
funding for the hospital building, in particular, is extremely
timely.
The rare and complementary partnership between the Angel
Island Immigration Station Foundation, the National Park
Service and California State Parks has been most beneficial in
pooling our collective resources toward a common goal. Our
small staff and board of directors work diligently as stewards
of the Immigration Stationsite and history by maintaining and
building our relationships to the broader community: schools,
the press, advocating for legislation, fundraising in the
corporate and private sectors.
Through our partnership with CPS, we successfully submitted
a proposal to the California Cultural and Historical Endowment,
which resulted in a $3 million grant for the hospital
preservation and construction. When a $60,000 obstacle in the
Form A required California Environmental Quality Act study
stood in the way before the $3 million grant could be accessed,
CPS Director Ruth Coleman cleared the way by providing the
needed funds for the study. We plan to submit a second proposal
for an additional $3 million to the California Cultural and
Historical Endowment in January.
The Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation has been
invited by the California Cultural and Historical Endowment in
January. The Immigration Station Foundation has been invited by
the California Park Service to participate next week in the
interview process for a new Angel Island Superintendent. Being
a part of the hiring process underscores the importance of the
partnership.
In a fundraising update, we are continuing to seek support
of the restoration efforts. We will, as I mentioned earlier,
submit another request for another $3 million from California
State. We have also hired Signature Philanthropy to raise funds
for this effort as well. So we are currently putting together a
national board. We are currently also developing a marketing
and public relations committee to help us with the branding of
Immigration Station for our fundraising campaign and we've been
in discussion with a number of Fortune 500 companies about
their interest in supporting Immigration Station.
The enduring value of Angel Island Immigration Station lies
in the lessons that its past can teach us about our present and
our future. Immigration is a national story.
The restoration of Angel Island Immigration Station is a
prime example of how everyday Americans can work together with
private, State and Federal partners to preserve an important,
yet little known chapter of our national story. Collaboration
is the only way to make this a reality. We need a West Coast
counterpart to Ellis Island to reflect a uniquely American, yet
universal story of immigration.
Thank you for your understanding of the importance of this
project. Your support for this unique opportunity for creative,
innovative, three-way partnership with Angel Island Immigration
Station Foundation, California State Parks, and National Park
Service is critical to our ability to restore and preserve
Angel Island Immigration Station. In doing so, generations can
appreciate this site, a symbol of the perseverance of the
immigrant spirit and the diversity of this great Nation.
Thank you very much for letting us participate in today's
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kwok follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 29335.148
Mr. Souder. Thank you and everybody's full statements will
be inserted into the record and if there are additional
materials, if you want to get it to us, for the record.
Let me kind of start off with the micro and I'll move to
the macro, if I can do it that way. On Angel Island, do you
know during its years of operation were the bulk of Asian
immigrants, did they come through Angel Island? Was it for the
whole region?
Ms. Kwok. Between 1910 and 1940, 1 million immigrants came
through Immigration Station and out of that about 175,000 were
Chinese, about 60,000 were Japanese. There were South Asians,
Filipinos, Koreans and in smaller numbers Russians, individuals
from Australia, as well as Mexico as well, but still the bulk
were Asian.
Mr. Souder. And so if anybody wanted to come in legally,
they had to come through that point or were there other
stations?
Ms. Kwok. If they were coming in through the Pacific.
Mr. Souder. So it was a Pacific point.
Ms. Kwok. It was a Pacific entryway.
Mr. Souder. So in that sense, it was, in fact, like Ellis
Island.
Ms. Kwok. That's right.
Mr. Souder. It was also used for detention and other types
of operations, particularly in the Asian-American community, is
there an awareness of Angel Island today? Is it high? Is it
low? Is it negative? Is it positive?
Ms. Kwok. I would answer that in several ways. Especially
here in San Francisco, there's a lot more awareness because it
is here. I am from the East Coast and I have to say that most
of my colleagues and friends from the East Coast and throughout
the rest of the country don't particularly know about the Angel
Island story. And that's why we feel it's very, very important
and timely right now to really make this a national story since
it is a national story and to be really able to educate, not
only Asian-Americans, but the broader public about the
importance of the Immigration Station.
But here in San Francisco it is known, especially among the
Chinese community. It, unfortunately, is a very negative story
because of the detention of the Chinese and so what's one of
the sad parts of the story is that those that were detained
there and their descendants, many of them don't even want to
talk about their experience. And so for us, we're trying to
have to educate them about how important it is to really learn
about the story for those that are still living and there are
not many left.
Mr. Souder. How much of--still leaning toward public
support do you think that is?
Ms. Kwok. That the Chinese----
Mr. Souder. Yes, in the Chinese community.
Ms. Kwok. I think right now for the second generation, the
younger generation, they're extremely interested now about
their heritage, about where they came from, about their
immigrant past and so forth. A lot of them are very much
interested in their family trees and so now they are starting
to ask the questions. There are a lot of other organizations,
community organizations that are talking about the family trees
and so forth. The younger generation, now, there's a real
interest in learning more about Angel Island, the history
there, and especially those that came through there.
Mr. Souder. Was material saved, like at Ellis Island, just
to have the potential to do the family tree?
Ms. Kwok. I think as we get the word out within the Asian-
American community, very much so. The Asian-American Studies
Programs throughout the country have really galvanized and
educated and increased the awareness of this next generation of
Asian-Americans. They're extremely interested about Asian-
American history.
Mr. Souder. But there's not a repository of documents that
are remaining, like at Ellis Island?
Ms. Kwok. At the site?
Mr. Souder. Or in a general archives somewhere. It might
not be at the site any more.
Ms. Kwok. There are some materials at the site, but some of
the items are also being housed in Sacramento, but all the
paperwork, the archives of the paperwork, immigration papers
are actually at the National Archives in San Bruno.
Mr. Souder. Are there other--and pardon my ignorance on
this--are there other sites that would even approach the
significance of this in the Asian-American community?
Ms. Kwok. The only real other significant historical sites
would be the internment camps. But as a major point of entry on
immigration, there's no other major point.
Mr. Souder. In looking at gaps, I had a Peopling of America
bill that's kind of stopped right now, but as we look at not
only the immigration question, but as we look at broadening the
base of the National Park Service as well as State parks and
look at Hispanic-Americans, that's clearly going to be another
category, but in Asian-Americans, part of the reason I back
this is it's an increasing part of population and this, to me,
appears to be about the only thing out there that's of real
potential national significance.
Ms. Kwok. That's right. It really is the only site that
there is. And so that's why for us we really feel the urgency
of propelling this history forward to really educating the
community nationwide about it and really to raise the funds as
soon as possible to preserve what's left there as well.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Jackson, when you look at a park like Angel
Island which--it seems to me we're going to have a little of
the kind of debate that occurred at Alcatraz, particularly as
increasing national interest comes because as I understand it,
in reading about Alcatraz, a lot of it was is it going to be
interpreted as a prison or is it going to be interpreted as a
natural resource, beautiful vistas, should be more like a park
where people can come out and picnic. There are other uses of
that island as well before and after the prison, so to speak,
particularly before. But its national memory and significance
and its uniqueness was the prison.
Here, what you have inside this island, to some degree has
never really been publicized and to some degree people have
been kind of ashamed of the history of what happened, not only
with the Chinese, but the Japanese in World War II and others.
Yet, it is compelling when you look at the national
significance of this island and what's likely to be an
exponentially increasing Asian-American population in the
United States. How do you see management of that mission? Do
you think this site will be dominated and lead the primary
interpretation in dollars being with the immigration station in
that or how do you see it in park management this is going to
evolve?
Mr. Jackson. We continue to work closely with the
foundation and obviously their interest is in interpreting that
period, but the island is 750 acres. It offers magnificent
vistas. It has a trail system associated with it. There is
another side of the island where there are barracks. There are
a myriad of stories that have to be interpreted and told and we
would like to do all of those in concert with our partners of
the Foundation--we also have an active concession there that
leads tours. We have a volunteer program. This is a popular
place for school groups to come to and we try and tell all of
the stories there.
We're challenged on this by our resources and by time. And
to the extent that we put significant dollars in, I mean, one
of the things about Angel Island, that shouldn't be lost of you
tomorrow, is I talked about it having the greatest collection
of post civil-war buildings, on the coast here in the Western
United States. And so we have significant deferred maintenance
issues at Angel Island. So there are some things that we won't
be telling stories about because we can't either get into the
buildings or we can't prepare them in a safe manner for people
to see them.
Mr. Souder. Are the bulk of these buildings related to the
immigration or to a fort that was there?
Mr. Jackson. They're all across the board. We're getting a
significant effort of improving those buildings associated with
the immigration story, the hospital, the barracks. I have a
feeling that--and we're looking at this in phases and I have a
feeling, I'm hopeful, optimistic, that we'll be able to get a
good portion of those buildings funded to a point where we can
tell a pretty compelling story, a complete story. There seems
to be enough interest in that.
Mr. Souder. It's kind of fascinating, because from the
first time I read about this and focused on it a little bit in
the National Parks Committee in hearings, it just seems to me
that the contrast with the overwhelming awareness of Ellis
Island, that it's not understood or appreciated and it's hard
for me to sort out why that is true.
Mr. Jackson. Well, I think that gets into----
Mr. Souder. Because Ellis Island wasn't always pretty
either. In other words, the stories there that you hear the
romantic and the Statue of Liberty, but it wasn't always a
pretty picture either in any immigration--we probably won't be
doing one of these in the Southwest border. I think that's
really safe to say.
Mr. Jackson. I think it's a function of the East part of
the United States is just older and richer in history and was
more fully developed and those stories were richer and
resonated and as people migrated and moved out to the West, I
think the attention has begun to shift out here and this is one
of those stories that just didn't get a lot of widespread
attention, but that's because of the difficult subject matter.
We just really get into a lot of issues there. Probably in the
last 20, 30, 40 years it has been kind of sexy for this country
to begin to explore what happened to people of minority
persuasion. So I can't explain why that is.
I do think that the story will become--I do think the story
has gotten a lot of traction. It's got a tremendous amount of
publicity. As you have indicated, I think it will only continue
to grow in terms of the interest and the fascination and
people's desire to get out there and want to see it.
Mr. Souder. Is the State park system also looking at sites
of significance to Hispanic, particularly Mexican-Americans?
I'm not sure what that would be. Historic to that just meant
missions, which is the kind of historic attempt of Spain and
Mexico. What other reach-out things--one of the most
fascinating things for me to watch when we talk about how do we
expand the vision of the Park Service and how our parks are
going to respond to new urban populations. When I went to San
Antonio Missions, I think their official visitation is--I
forget what it is, but it's not big to see the missions.
They're beautiful missions. They're kept up. Yet, when you go
there, you realize that I think their official report is like
$1.1 million of which maybe 200,000 people go into missions and
900,000 are picnicking because it's some of the only green
space in San Antonio.
And so one of their challenges is the people who are using
park don't want to use the park the way the people running the
park want to use the park, that they're trying to decide
whether to put more parking lots in because people just pull up
on the grass and start to picnic. Now some of them are going to
drift over and see the missions and ask about the history, but
some of our challenge is that at the State and local park
level, there's just a shortage of green space and places to
picnic and other types of things.
And I'm wondering, how do you and the State park system
view this with city parks and Federal parks? Because now we're
going to meet this urban demand, particularly in the minority
populations who, generally speaking, aren't going to go to
wilderness parks.
Mr. Jackson. A couple of responses. In terms of Hispanic
parks, we're trying to do some outreach to that segment of the
population. We do have Pio Pico State Historic Park which is
down in Los Angeles area, actually in East L.A. Pio Pico was
the first Governor of Mexico California. He was actually a
Mexican of black descent. Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles, if
you're familiar with L.A., was named after Pio Pico.
There's a Pico House at a place called El Pueblo which is
the original founding for Los Angeles. And we used to,
California State Parks used to own El Pueblo, also known as
Alvaro Street. We actually in the 1990's when we were going
through difficult budget times, we sold that or gave that to
the city of Los Angeles to operate, but we do have Pio Pico. We
are actually in partnership again with the National Park
Service as a condition of one of our MOUs with them to explore
opportunities for interpreting and telling the story of Cesar
Chavez, the great labor leader of the Farm Workers Movement
back in the 1970's and 1980's and both the national parks and
State parks are looking at a way of memorializing his life as a
way of reaching out and telling a story to Hispanics and
Latinos.
We just recently as a part of the--and I'm probably missing
out on some other aspects of our system. We're going through
the whole kind of embracement of our Old Towns, like down in
Old Town San Diego which are areas that were first established
by Mexicans and so in doing that, we're trying to be much more
faithful in terms of interpreting the historic period that
those towns were found around and try to be a little more
faithful to telling an accurate story of those cultures down
there.
We just passed the two largest bonds in the history of the
State, principally for acquisition and a segment of that is
taken off of the top to go to local cities and counties,
purchase parkland in the State and so each time a bond act is
passed, a significant portion of that goes to trying to address
local park and recreation needs. Along the lines of trying to
make State parks more relevant, we spent somewhere close to $80
million of our bond acts, Prop. 12, the 2000 bond to purchase
40 acres in the heart of downtown Los Angeles, principally a
low-income area, a place where the availability of open space
is like less than an acre per 1,000 or whatever that number is.
And if you go over to the west side of town it's closer to
8 acres per 1,000. And so in trying to address that and in
trying to get the parks closer to the people, we purchased 40
acres there. We purchased 40 acres in a place called Baldwin
Hills, which is down in urban Los Angeles. We're developing our
first urban parks in both of those areas in order to try and
reach out to those communities.
The park where we developed in the area called the
``Cornfield,'' which is right in the heart of downtown, you can
see the downtown skyline from the park, that park will be a
State historic park and will tell the stories of all of the
peoples that crossed that site and really was kind of an entry
point. It's right down the street from El Pueblo. It's kind of
an entry point for a lot of Angelinos and a lot of people that
came to Los Angeles looking for a better life. And so we'll be
telling a number of stories there.
Mr. Souder. For our record and following up with Jim, and
if you can followup and get some material on the bond, how you
sold the bond issue, what some of the arguments you made, what
were some of the opposition said about the bond? I think that
would be very instructive to have in our record as we look at
how we should move forward in the Park Service and then also,
if you have any written materials on the urban park question
that you just outlined, particularly in Los Angeles. That was
very interesting.
Mr. Moore, in your--first, let me, in the conservancy
question, to try to separate, other than the Presidio, would
your organization be the primary fundraising group to support
the Golden Gate Recreation Area?
Mr. Moore. Yes, we are.
Mr. Souder. Are there other funds that do that like
Yosemite Fund or do you function----
Mr. Moore. There are other nonprofit partners providing
programs that will raise money for capital improvements in
their operating budgets, but we are the sole supporting
organization directly to the National Park Service.
Mr. Souder. So would you be, in some ways, more like the
Friends that operate the stores or are you an umbrella
organization?
Mr. Moore. We're both. We serve the role of a Friends
Organization like the Yosemite Funding Yosemite, which is
philanthropic in nature and we serve the role of a cooperating
association providing visitor services in terms of interpretive
materials and park bookstores to support the park mission.
Mr. Souder. So there was something on Sutro Baths and when
there was work on that and do you work, do you raise money for
a particular project like that to supplement?
Mr. Moore. Yes, we do. We raise money for park projects,
particularly those that have a bold public vision and a
compelling public impact and we also support volunteers in the
park and many different volunteer programs such as the native
plant nurseries or a site stewardship program.
Mr. Souder. Now I wanted to explore in some of your
principles, a couple of points. Do you believe if--and I'm
setting up for discussion with Mr. Sykes. One of our challenges
is that as we look at the budget and say OK, everybody's health
costs and pension costs are way off. There's no 3 percent
growth anywhere. If you find it, please let me know because
we'd like to implement it. That the Homeland Security costs
ideally, particularly at Golden Gate would be much higher than
other parks and I believe they should be more isolated,
particularly when they are national icons that demand huge
dollar questions.
The drug question is very difficult. I'm on the primary
committee on narcotics. It is a big debate how much of that you
want to have inside the Park Service, how much you want to have
drug agents running around in the Park Service and which way do
we want to do that and how do we do that funding because,
clearly, we're driving them with meth labs.
All you have to do is track the meth labs in the United
States, find a national forest and it's going to spill into the
parks. It's clear the borders, we have huge problems at Oregon
Pipe and anywhere along any border.
But some of those may come and go, Homeland Security and
the narcotics. The pension question and the health question are
not going to come and go. They're going get greater, not less.
How many rangers we put in what types of things, how much we
put in visitor centers, if we froze the Park Service, which
we're not going to do, in other words, I think Mr. O'Neill said
it correctly; it's basically a political system and politicians
will continue to add things.
My friend, Jim Ridenour, is going to testify at the Indiana
hearing. He was one of the leading opponents of park barreling
which, of course, started in the first four and is not likely
to end. Furthermore, he created heritage areas, partly to get
around what he called the lowering of the standards of the
National Park Service, but what's happened is east of the
Mississippi, we don't have all this huge public land, so what
we decided is we like heritage areas.
So now we're backed up like 80 heritage areas that have
passed Congress and another 100 that are introduced that
haven't gone through and I don't see this trend changing. In
other words, we're either going to have heritage areas that are
going to be recreation areas because what you have is a pent-up
demand east of the Mississippi to add to the National Park
Service.
So the land responsibility and purchases, I mean one of
what we get into in this kind of debate is at Paoli
Battlefield, it came forward that a group of Sisters had
decided to sell their land of the convent and the decision was
we either had to buy the Paoli Battlefield which they were
going to sell at a fraction of the cost of developing it, or it
was going to be developed. It becomes a zero sum game.
Unless the Nature Conservancy steps in, we're pretty well
out of options. We maybe get easements sometimes to try to do
it. The bottom line is that land is gone. Every time we do that
and protect something, it basically doesn't get added to the
Park Service, it's transfer funds. Something that was on the
cycle or backlogged gets taken off.
My opinion is even if we pass this intended act intact
which I'm hopeful of, but not holding my breath completely that
we'll have that much annual money, that with the additions and
the rising costs, we're going to get squeezed. You've raised
some challenging questions and I wanted to address some of
those.
If your donors were told that--I thought the Rockefeller
quote that you had in your written statement, but you didn't
say his name. The bright line between--things like employee
housing units and roads and maintained infrastructure should be
the function of the Federal Government and the goal of the
support groups, like the National Park Foundation, was to do
the connection between visitor and place, that kind of covers
the extremes, but a lot of this is in the murky middle.
If your donors felt that the Federal Government wasn't
going to provide the support, do you think they would have?
They would rather have the Federal Government provide the
support, but do you think that they would as an option to
giving money, let it fall down?
Mr. Moore. No. I think there is an issue in any marketplace
of just the charitable capacity, the competing demands that
people that are generous face about where to give funds. Our
experience with national parks is that because donors see their
value so clearly and many of them, particularly in our area,
enjoy them so frequently, that they gravitate toward a
responsibility of helping.
A responsibility of helping is different than a
responsibility of totally taking care. And we have not tried to
direct them to a different position because we believe, even if
we tried to get them to a responsibility of totally taking care
of that amount of charitable giving would be so big for the
whole system that it would in some ways collapse in on itself.
There are institutions that are totally charitable,
charity-driven, but they are completely nonprofit managed with
their own board taking care of it, not Government entities.
We've looked at schools. Public schools have fundraisings,
support groups. Public hospitals have fundraising support
groups. Those models show that people are willing to
contribute, but appropriately, when there is some form of
public foundation that is in place that they are adding value
to as opposed to replacing a fundamental public foundation.
Mr. Souder. Of course, the problem we face with the
taxpayers is roughly the same thing.
Mr. Moore. Yes, it is.
Mr. Souder. In other words, they're willing to buy Paoli
Battlefield, but they don't want to pay to keep it up. In
trying to do a vision of how to capture the imagination, like
Mission 66, this is a very tough tradeoff. How can you be
visionary and how can you do maintenance? Everybody wants to
pay for the new, but not the old. Everybody wants a new car,
but not have to do the maintenance on their car.
Clearly, the Federal Government has to bear the bulk of it
in that thanks to NCPA, each year we've done additional, tried
to get the funding boosted up some. We get some, quite frankly,
national parks are one of the only discretionary agencies
that's consistently been flat or increased funded as opposed to
cut, that I just--I'm trying to sort through because on the
Education Committee we're facing the same thing.
Like you say, the public schools are getting squeezed,
extra curricular arts programs, music programs, and I'm
wondering where this line is and it's a similar thing we just
did in Katrina. Where is the line in Katrina? What's the
Federal Government versus the private sector and let me ask
this question. With the Centennial Act, I believe at a minimum,
what I'm hoping at a maximum, what we'd like to have is what
doesn't come from charitable is covered by the Federal
Government.
I'm not sure at the end of the day as quite frankly people
understand what precisely that means in Congress and our
escalating variable, that's financially doable. It depends on
the economy and how we're coming.
But at the very least, I'd like to see a match and that at
a minimum standard, a match and then plus the budget, that it
would be a match that's additional, over and above a fixed
amount to go up and whatever else we can get beyond that as
part of a visionary kind of shot toward 2016.
Do you believe that the donors that--you said a key word,
you said they see it here in San Francisco and they're willing
to give to San Francisco. Will they feel that same giving if
they see the National Park Service and will they give it if
they thought the Federal Government was going to match for the
Park Service as a whole and what kind of vision would they have
to see to be willing to do that?
Mr. Moore. I think a match could be a strong set up,
particularly if the vision showed that match produced something
that was durable, that it wasn't a fixed 3 years, but actually
had some lasting power and impact.
Many of our donors give to the National Park Foundation.
Many give to the National Park Foundation and then discover us
and give to us. Many give to us first and then give to the
entire system, so I believe that there are people who have come
to love national parks in different ways, but if properly
cultivated and engaged in their future, are clearly willing to
donate, provided they see durability to their gift.
As one example, returning to your earlier question, Mr.
Chairman, there is one place where donors did step up to
maintenance needs and that's at Acadia National Park. One of
the Friends Group there presented a program called Trails
Forever. Now the formula there was that if the Park Service
could provide the resources to rehab and restore the trail
system, the capital side, private philanthropy would develop an
endowment to care for it in perpetuity, so that there are
limited examples where if properly leveraged and the donors
properly cultivated, you can see different formulas that work.
Mr. Souder. Do you think that if we tinkered with something
like the Centennial Act, now we're talking visionary than
specific legislation because this committee doesn't do
legislation, but looking at how would we do this? If there was
something that gave incentive, because the orientation of this
is how do we get a national parks vision and people giving
charitable, giving to that and then the Federal Government
putting in money, that had a component that was more
regionalized, that if you did at national, you got 100 percent
match, but if you did regionally, you got a 25, you get a tax
deduction now. But you actually saw additional public funds go
in, but at a lesser rate than if you gave at national.
Do you think that would increase the total pool or would
you be cherry picking off of the same donors?
Mr. Moore. I think it has the possibility of increasing the
total pool. Our experience has been that the philanthropic
asset of our national park system is that people clearly see
that it is here for future generations and they can see that
their impact today is a gift to the future.
Cultivating that story with people who have experienced
national parks on their own, whether in a local park like this
or many people here, of course, go to Yosemite or Grand Canyon
or other places, there's a real love and affection for the
national park system.
The Friends organizations and the Park Foundations are
really at the early stages of tapping into that and incentives
as you suggest I think could be quite powerful in helping the
growth.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Sykes, I appreciate as always at these
hearings the kind of the detail by park to show what exactly
has happened, rather than just in theory when we're looking at
37 percent reductions and 50 percent reductions and really
dramatic shifts. Some of that would occur naturally.
We're all getting squeezed in the budget, but this is not
just a little, it's a major squeeze in that it's happening and
most people don't realize it's happening because it's been over
a number of years and then the cumulative impact of these type
of decisions has certainly had a big reduction in the number of
rangers you see. That's probably the most visible part of the
changes, but for everyone you don't see in front of you, that
means there's probably something behind that's changing as
well.
In looking at the Acadia example is a tremendous example of
having an endowment and clearly Acadia, like to some degree San
Francisco has the luxury and Ken Olson and his people have been
extraordinary about tapping wealthy people who live on that
island or visit that island to put that money in. But the
endowment thing is really intriguing because normally you don't
see people willing to give to an endowment.
How do you feel in working this region and having worked
with Nature Conservancy, if we tinkered with this some, because
I can say to Republicans being able to sell an endowment idea
related to certain projects has some sizzle to it. We toyed
around with this, with the National Endowment for the Arts of
rather than having the debates about whether Federal Government
should regulate the arts and how much could you set aside
certain types of programs where you, in effect, fund an
endowment that's matched.
In this case, the Park Service isn't going to turn over
control of the parks, but for certain additional projects, you
might tinker with match increased percentage donations. I'm
trying to brainstorm and I just wonder what your reaction to
some of this kind of thing is.
Mr. Sykes. I think as part of the National Parks
Conservation Association, I would say we would welcome all
ideas that have the benefit of creating an increased funding
foundation for the parks, whether that comes through private
philanthropy, through a match approach which I think is quite a
good approach, actually. I think it will bring new donors to
the table who are not there today or don't have the ability to
see themselves as philanthropists for a government agency. So I
think things of that nature are things we would look at and be
quite supportive conceptually and it's hard given the magnitude
of the challenge not to be very open minded and creative and
somewhat aggressive about trying to generate good ideas that
have a positive benefit.
It's easy to say we want to be a purist about this and we
want it to be ideal and then work toward the ideal and end up
with something in the mean time that isn't very good. I think
from our standpoint we probably would say we have to fight to
fight every single year for funding through authorization and
legislation, but we also have to do everything else we possibly
can because there are other sources of funding that need to be
potentially approached and brought to the table and if we can
determine other ways of trying to attract that, that would be
good.
Mr. Souder. The Nature Conservancy to some degree, other
State and local trusts play a huge role in protecting land
before the Park Service can often get that, yet it's not very
highlighted in many ways.
Do you see, as somebody who is actually working both
organizations to some degree here, do you see a way to
capitalize that as we go toward the 90th year and the 100th to
look at how we work with this whole land acquisitions and
easement question because what I'm sending underneath this is
to get over the hump in the funding. Clearly, we have these
huge shortages that we've been documenting in personnel.
Clearly, there are research reductions, law enforcement
pressures and the individual park rangers still rate highest in
public esteem of any profession, at least in popularity. But
I'm not sure that has enough, when we actually get down to the
dollar tradeoffs and Members of Congress, enough sizzle to put
us over the top like land acquisition does, like new visitor
centers do, like hotels and restaurants at a park, but possibly
combined with some of the support groups that are providing
some of those functions of whether it be easements near parks,
the process of how we do inholdings and land acquisitions.
I'm trying to figure out where we could put some of that
around it because basically our huge challenge is our
infrastructure is falling apart. But that's, as a politician,
me going out there and trying to sell my district that the
infrastructure is falling apart in California when I don't have
many--I have zero Federal lands in my District--is not the
easiest sell. Maybe for Yosemite, but Vallen Islands is not on
their top 10 list. That's the realistic political problem.
Mr. Sykes. Yes. There are sort of two issues here. One is
that there's always the ability in some local areas to generate
a lot of local political support and financial support. Golden
Gate National Recreation Area and the Conservancy's work are
examples of that. There are countless units of the national
park system that don't have the opportunity to generate the
significant sort of funding and support locally because they're
in desolate regions or they're in places that don't have urban
centers nearby. And yet they have tremendous resource benefits
and attributes that make them treasures in the same way that
this Golden Gate area is.
So the idea is how do you match the need for a system-wide
concept and approach here which is valid and generally accepted
by people?
Wearing my Nature Conservancy hat as opposed to my NPCA
hat, I'd say that having some approach to planning that is
generally accepted is a very good foundation for that. The
Nature Conservancy has gone through a very rigorous process of
identifying which places they believe need to be preserved
because of the values they represent from a biodiversity
perspective and they have a very ambitious goal about how much
they want to protect different habitat types of land and earth
populations around the world, not just in the United States.
That approach, I think, has been very important in allowing
them to manage the complexity of dealing with local areas and
different State interests, because they've got chapters in
every State in the country and they're trying to carry on
global activities outside of the country at the same time.
So perhaps when you look at the national park system and
some of the congressional challenges, being able to do some of
this overall planning, relying on a science foundation, what
are we trying to do? You asked several good questions earlier
with the first panel about the values of the national park
system and in terms of preservation of unique places, what are
the overall objectives.
It strikes me that you can build more of a national
consensus if you're able to say we have a national set of
values that the national park system is there to protect and
enhance and that seems clear. There's a scientific foundation
for it and then use that to create more opportunities for local
support in places that can sustain all the support. I think
you're going to have to have both concepts addressed at the
same time.
Mr. Souder. The greatest explosion of wealth in the United
States has been in the entertainment industry and in some
degree service, but certainly Internet-related type, both of
which have had the Internet boom and bust here in California,
but clearly the entertainment wealth is huge. They seem to
adopt all kinds of causes. Do you think as somebody who
represents this region, there's a chance or how would we tap
into it?
I could think of several potential romantic hooks. One
would be a wildlife subgroup where they adopt the preservation
of at-risk species, endangered and at-risk. Another sub could
be how we bring the cultural and natural resources through the
education system in the United States, tapping into the
National Park Service and you could have several channels of
fundraising.
California has the celebrities that would let you do that,
and many of the assets which would let you do that and to
capture that, because normally we think in kind of traditional
kind of lanes of the Park Service, yet those are two that
potentially have a lot of marketing sizzle to them.
Do you think that those kind of things would play? Have you
ever tried to tap into that industry to promote the supplement
and expansion, assuming that this was tied with Government
match type questions?
Mr. Sykes. A couple of things there. First of all,
entertainment and media and communications and technology
perhaps those are all sort of in the same converged area.
There's been tremendous wealth created and it's relatively
youthful wealth creation.
I know that the Moore Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation which is based here in the Bay Area is a foundation
that is made up of that kind of wealth. It comes out of the
great success that Intel has had over the past 40 years. But
that Foundation has an ambition to do things for the
environment globally and that Foundation is making great
strides in providing some support for things such as what we're
seeing in Golden Gate and in some of the national parks.
We're seeing them do work in Alaska with the Nature
Conservancy, for example, but that is just the tip of the
iceberg and I think a number of the sources and very
significant wealth that will ultimately move toward some sort
of philanthropic activity, have not yet been addressed and I
think they generally overlook the national park system because
they make a simplistic assumption that the national park system
has to be OK, after all, it's already in stewardship provided
by the Government. It's the best of the best, we ought to be
worrying about everything else.
And I think the thing that we reveal here is national park
system, maybe it is the best of the best, many people would say
that, but it actually needs more support than anybody imagines
it needs, so I think there is a great opportunity to connect
the mission to this new source of wealth that frankly hasn't
attached itself to the cause as much as it should.
Mr. Souder. Because to me, part of the challenge is
something from a business background and marketing background
is that we have two things simultaneously occurring. What you
documented in your testimony a gradually rising resources to
meet exponentially rising costs which then result in reduction
in services and more things being added and structures falling
down because you can't keep up with the demands of that which
is basic operating type things. Then the second thing is is
even in the glory days of the best funding years of the Park
Service, you still were basically not tapping in and part of my
discussions even years ago were never taking advantage of the
educational opportunities.
In other words, the thought was you come to the park, you
visit the park, you maintain the park in front of you, not take
the park to the people. And that one of the marketing
opportunities here is to come up with a vision that's beyond, I
know Dick Ring was trying to address some of this kind of stuff
in the Park Service, but how you can take this down to the
schools. I mean the kids coming up there are health conscious.
They want to hike. They want to bike. They want to do this,
they want to learn more about nature. How do we get that out
because that has never been tapped, even when the money was
flush in the Park Service.
A second thing is that there has always been research going
and the research is sometimes uncoordinated, sometimes it's
coordinated, but there is no better incubation lab in the
United States for tracking frogs and toads. There's some
romance around grizzly bears and wolves, but it's everything.
If you wanted to study bees or flies or mosquitos, you're going
to find in our Park Service which is a whole pitch toward
science and how you interrelate.
As I go to schools all over, they're getting ponds there
and interrelating and trying to do more hands on science and
relate it to the math class and here we have the biggest labs
in the whole United States with the most unique type things in
our Park Service. To me, those are kind of visionary things
that are different that might appeal to a group that hasn't
been connected. If they think it's yeah, which is Mr. Moore's
point, if they think it's yeah, we're going to basically
replace--we're going to pay for the interpretive ranger or make
sure the pothole gets out of the road or put a new visitor
center in, that's what they think the Federal Government does.
But if we gave them new horizons and a new vision to supplement
the National Park Service and ideally the State and local parks
would pick up a similar type thing.
But we're looking at the National Park Service from the
Federal level. How do we put some imagination into this?
Otherwise, because our attendance is quite frankly flat and
aging. It's a challenge.
Mr. Sykes. I think there's a great opportunity in that.
We're seeing it in the Nature Conservancy, we see it in the
National Parks Conservation Association when we do partnerships
with people who want to do specific park partnerships which we
do selectively. We found a tremendous amount of potential
philanthropic donor enthusiasm for doing things in partnership
with the parks, but I would reinforce everything Mr. Moore.
Private donors expect the Government to be a ready partner
which means they really expect the Government to take part of
the responsibility and be consistent and be there over the long
term because I think most people in private philanthropy
presume that they can create opportunities for new initiatives,
but the initiatives then have to be responsively managed by the
Government which is the long-term steward.
Mr. Souder. Thank you all for your patience. Anything else
any of you want to add on any of the various subjects? Well,
thank you very much for participating in the hearing today and
if you think of other things you want to give us and we'll be
doing followup questions with each of you.
I thank everyone for attending. The subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>