[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SPENDING, PRIORITIES AND MISSIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND THE
PRESIDENT'S FY 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 10, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-120 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
Rick Healy, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 10, 2011......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Jarvis, Hon. Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``EXAMINING THE SPENDING, PRIORITIES AND MISSIONS
OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2012 BUDGET
PROPOSAL.''
----------
Thursday, March 10, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Hastings, Young, Duncan,
Lamborn, Broun, Coffman, McClintock, Rivera, Tipton, Labrador,
Noem, Johnson, Markey, Kildee, DeFazio, Holt, Grijalva,
Heinrich, Sarbanes, Sutton, Tsongas, and Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair
notes the presence of a quorum, apparently three times over.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on the spending,
priorities, and the missions of the National Park Service and
the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal.
Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so
that we can hear from our witness more quickly. However, I ask
unanimous consent to include any other Members' opening
statement in the hearing record, if submitted to the clerk by
the close of business today. And hearing no objections, it is
so ordered.
I will state that as our policy for questioning, we will do
what the full committee does, and simply go by the seniority of
those present when I bang the gavel down. And with me, you have
probably an extra four or five minutes to get here before I
actually bang the gavel down.
We will do the same thing on the Minority side, unless Mr.
Grijalva has a change in that. He will be in control of his
members.
I also, as we begin, ask unanimous consent--you are in
control.
Mr. Grijalva. You are asking too much.
Mr. Bishop. I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Holt, the
gentleman from New Jersey, join us on the dais and participate
in today's hearing. Hearing no objection. Welcome; thank you
for being with us today.
If I could, just in my opening statement, Director Jarvis,
I want to thank you for appearing before us here this morning
to present your agency's budget request. The core mission of
the Park Service is to protect the great natural and historic
components of our National Park System for the enjoyment and
use of current and future generations of Americans.
In fact, to fulfill the purpose of a park, people have to
see it. And if we don't do that, then there is no purpose for
having national parks.
But as we all know, this is a challenging time for the
Federal budget, just as it is for family budgets of millions of
Americans. And despite competing demands for limited resources,
I know that the American people want us to ensure that our
parks will be kept open, will be maintained, and will be passed
on to our children in good shape. So protecting the core
mission of the Park Service means that in a time of fiscal
constraint, we have to make choices. That means we must
distinguish between wants and needs, and cannot allow either
mission creep or a quest for expansive new programs to come at
the expense of the irreplaceable and existing national
treasures.
So I look forward to hearing your budget request, your
thoughts on how we can ensure a bright future for the Park
System while staying within a tight budget.
Before I turn to the Ranking Member for his opening
statement, I also want to express my thanks to the dedicated
people who work for the Park Service on the ground, in the
areas where their service is desperately used and needed, and
appreciated.
With that, I will close, and turn the time to the Ranking
Member for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Director Jarvis, I want to thank you for appearing before this
committee to present your agency's budget request.
As I see it, the core mission of the Park Service is to protect the
great natural and historic components of our National Park System for
the enjoyment and use of current and future generations of Americans.
But as we all know, this is a challenging time for the federal budget
just as it is for the family budgets of millions of Americans.
Despite competing demands for limited resources, I know that the
American people want us to ensure that our treasured parks will be kept
open, will be maintained and will be passed on to our children in good
shape. Protecting the core mission of the Park Service means that at a
time of fiscal constraint, we must make choices. It means we must
distinguish between wants and needs. We cannot allow ``mission creep''
or a quest for expansive new programs come at the expense of our
irreplaceable, existing national treasures.
I look forward to hearing your budget requests and your thoughts on
how we can ensure a bright future for the Park System while staying
within a tight budget. Before I turn to the Ranking member for his
opening statement, I want express my thanks to the dedicated people who
work for the Park Service for their service.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am
going to put my statement in for the record so we can expedite
the hearing, other than to thank Director Jarvis for being
here.
And these are difficult times for the Federal budget, but
the American people overwhelmingly support their parks. And
every Member of Congress will make the declaration that he or
she supports the Park. And I know the Director appreciates
those declarations. But at the same time, this is a time when
we should be also building the system. This is a time when we
need to deal with the backlog of maintenance.
And in doing so, I think even in hard times, during our
World Wars, the Depression, National Park units were added to
the Park System. So in difficult times, I think the American
people still appreciate and want that lasting legacy to be
protected for them.
And with that, let me yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
It is a pleasure to welcome Director Jarvis to the subcommittee. We
appreciate your time and effort to join us today and your service to
the country as NPS Director.
Every Member of Congress says he or she supports National Parks. I
am sure these declarations of support are appreciated by the Director
and I know they are appreciated by the American people, who support the
NPS and its work, overwhelmingly.
But to truly support National Parks we must support building a
National Park System for the future. Truly supporting National Parks
means leaving future generations a system that is even stronger, more
popular and healthier than the world-class system we inherited.
Mischaracterizing the dedicated men and women who wear the NPS
uniform as out-of-touch or uncaring is not the way to support national
parks. NPS employees care deeply about visitors and about the local
communities in which they live and work. The truth is that NPS units
generate millions in revenue and create thousands of jobs for local
economies.
Claiming that the National Park Service wants to ``grab'' federal
land or violate private property rights is not the way to support
National Parks. The NPS does not own all of the critical parcels needed
to protect and preserve our national parks, particularly in the face of
global climate change. The National Park System does not yet represent
all aspects of the American story and it does not yet attract
visitation from all segments of the American public. Federal land
acquisition, from willing sellers only, is not only an appropriate tool
to address these needs, it is critical to the future of the system.
And using the maintenance backlog or the economic downturn as
reasons to oppose expansion of the National Park System is not the way
to support National Parks. Eight units were added to the system during
World War I; dozens of units were added during the Great Depression,
and seven units were added during World War II. If the generations
before us had the wisdom to invest in national parks during some of the
most challenging periods in American history, surely we can find a way
to continue building the system during our time as its stewards.
Supporting National Parks means supporting more funding for parks
and park operations; it means supporting targeted federal land
acquisition to provide the system the resources it needs, it means
supporting more park professionals to manage our parks and it means
working diligently with non-federal partners to stop actions that might
harm national park resources.
I look forward to hearing from Director Jarvis regarding the
importance of his mission and how Members of Congress can truly be
supportive of that mission. I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. With that,
we will now hear from our witness, the Director of the National
Park Service, Jonathan B. Jarvis from the Department of the
Interior. Mr. Jarvis.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you today on the Fiscal Year 2012 President's budget
request for the National Park Service.
If I may, I would like to summarize my testimony, and
submit my entire statement for the record.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the work we do
as stewards of our nation's most cherished natural and cultural
resources. We look forward to continuing to work with you as
the National Park Service prepares for our second century of
stewardship, beginning in 2016.
As any resource manager can tell you, wise stewardship
sometimes involves making very difficult choices. The National
Park Service's 2012 budget request reflects a careful and
serious response to the need to reduce Federal spending by
supporting our highest priorities, while proposing significant
reductions to a number of worthy programs.
In addition to the program reductions, the budget request
also includes substantial management savings and efficiencies.
The National Park Service is also making significant progress
in reducing our unobligated balances.
The aim of these efforts, Mr. Chairman, is a more targeted
and focused use of funds, limited to those strategic areas we
have determined to be the highest priorities of the National
Park Service.
By focusing available resources on the areas of greatest
need, the National Park Service can maintain its existing
responsibilities while supporting important new initiatives.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposes total discretionary
spending of $2.9 billion. This is a net increase of $137.8
million above the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation. The budget
request includes an increase of $39.5 million at more than 100
parks. Those are very important operational increases at over
100 units.
This amount is intended to address operations at new parks
and other new responsibilities, improve mission-critical
operations, engage youth in employment and educational
opportunities, and protect historical assets in parks
specifically commemorating the Civil War Sesquicentennial.
Our operations budget is key to helping us continue to
protect critical and natural resources we are entrusted with,
and to serve park visitors, who number 285 million each year.
Supporting America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which
includes fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Programs at $900 million, the NPS budget request includes $160
million to acquire 98,000 acres of land within authorized
boundaries of the National Park System. The proposed
acquisitions were determined through a coordinated process that
the Department of the Interior now uses, along with the Land
Management Agencies in DOI, as well as the U.S. Forest Service.
The criteria we use emphasize opportunities to jointly
conserve important landscapes, especially river and riparian
areas, wildlife habitat, urban areas that provide needed
recreational opportunities, and those containing important
cultural and historical assets.
We also look to the ability to leverage partner funds, and
the degree of involvement with other bureaus, and the urgency
for project completion.
Also included in the NPS request is $200 million for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund State Conservation Grant--that
is the state side of LWCF--that would enable local communities
to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities. A portion of these
funds would be allocated through a competitive component
targeted at community parks, green spaces, landscape-level
conservation, and recreational waterways. These grants would
address the public's concern about the lack of open space and
outdoor recreation areas in certain urban and other areas that
were frequently conveyed to us in the listening sessions we
held for America's Great Outdoors.
In conjunction with the State Conservation Grants, the
request includes an increase of $1.1 million for the National
Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program, to better bolster technical assistance to communities.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget also maintains funding at $9.9
million for the Secretary's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Initiative. This initiative will bring networks of resource
professionals together to promote a science-based understanding
of the effects of climate change. This will produce practical
applications that have broad benefits for resource managers
across the landscape.
In order to fulfill the Service's stewardship
responsibilities and sustain key initiatives, the increases I
have described are offset by program reductions. The budget
proposes no funding for Save America's Treasures, Preserve
America Grants, or the Park Partnership Program.
The request also eliminates funding for statutory
assistance, and proposes significant reductions in the
construction accounts, as well as the National Heritage Area.
In addition, the budget calls for management savings and
efficiencies totaling $46.2 million.
I want to speak also about the Park Service effort to
restrain funding. I would also like to remind you of the
important economic value of our national parks.
National parks are drivers of economic growth, particularly
in gateway communities. They stimulate spending and job
creation. Taxpayer investments in national parks result in far
more than the obvious recreational and educational dividends.
In 2009, park visitors spent $11.9 billion, and supported
247,000 private sector jobs. Supporting the parks is not just a
matter of wise stewardship; it is also an economic investment
in the future.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would just like to say how much
I appreciate the support we have, this committee has held for
the National Park Service through many, many years, and we look
forward to working with you. And that is my summary, and I am
open for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today at this oversight hearing on the
spending, priorities, and the missions of the National Park Service
(NPS) and the President's FY 2012 budget request. We appreciate your
support for our stewardship of our nation's cherished natural and
cultural resources and for the important educational and recreational
opportunities we provide for the American people.
Introduction
Responding to the need to reduce Federal spending in a difficult
economic climate, the FY 2012 budget request for the NPS contains
strategic spending increases combined with selected program reductions
and eliminations, made only after serious and careful deliberation. The
FY 2012 budget proposes total discretionary appropriations of $2.9
billion and $394.5 million in mandatory appropriations for total budget
authority of $3.3 billion. This is a net increase of $137.8 million
above the FY 2010 discretionary appropriations and an estimated net
decrease of $13.0 million in mandatory appropriations from FY 2010.
National parks are drivers of economic growth, particularly in
gateway communities. They stimulate spending and job creation. Taxpayer
investments in national parks result in far more than the obvious
recreational and educational dividends. In 2009, park visitors spent
$11.9 billion and supported 247,000 private-sector jobs. The
President's budget will ensure that national parks continue to serve
the 285 million visitors who come every year to relax in America's
great outdoors and learn about the people and places that make up
America's story.
The FY 2012 budget request supports continued stewardship of this
Nation's most cherished resources through the Administration's
America's Great Outdoors initiative--a landmark investment in engaging
people, particularly youth, in America's outdoors and conserving our
Nation's natural and cultural heritage. It also supports the
Secretary's goals of cooperative landscape conservation and engaging
America's youth in the great outdoors.
Budget Summary
The FY 2012 budget request reflects the President's commitment to
our national parks with an increase of $276.6 million over the FY 2010
enacted level, as part of the Administration's America's Great Outdoors
initiative. A key component of this initiative is bolstering
operational funding at park units that need it most. The budget
requests an increase of $39.5 million for park operations at new parks,
and to address new responsibilities, improve mission critical
operations, engage youth in employment and educational opportunities,
and protect historical assets at parks commemorating the Civil War
sesquicentennial.
Further supporting the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the NPS
budget request plays a key role in the Administration's proposal to
fully fund Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs at $900
million in FY 2012. The NPS request is critical to achieving the goals
inherent in the LWCF Act of 1965, which was designed to use revenues
generated through the depletion of natural resources for State and
Federal land acquisition and the enhancement of lands and waters for
recreational and conservation purposes. The request includes $160.0
million for Federal Land Acquisition, an increase of $73.7 million from
FY 2010, which would be used to leverage other Federal resources, along
with those of non-Federal partners, to achieve shared conservation
outcome goals in high-priority landscapes. The request also includes
$200.0 million for the State Conservation Grants program, of which
$117.0 million would be targeted to a new competitive matching grants
program for States to create and enhance outdoor recreation
opportunities.
The FY 2012 request maintains NPS funding of $9.9 million for the
Secretary's Cooperative Landscape Conservation initiative. This
initiative will bring together natural resource professionals at the
Federal, State, and local level through real and virtual connections to
facilitate the wider sharing of information. These networks of resource
professionals will be supported by science centers that translate
global scientific understanding of environmental change into solutions
at the landscape level. A science-based understanding of these issues
and their practical applications will have broad benefits for resource
managers that are wrestling with the need to find practical and cost-
effective approaches to conservation in the face of economic
challenges. With this funding, resource monitoring will increase at
more than 150 of the most vulnerable parks in high elevation, high
latitude, arid, and coastal areas, such as monitoring for melting
permafrost in Alaska and changes in salt marsh salinity along the South
Atlantic coast. Additionally, over 500 employees will be trained to
incorporate adaptation approaches into resource management.
In order to uphold our stewardship responsibilities and sustain key
initiatives, the National Park Service undertook a rigorous review of
our ongoing activities and made difficult choices. The proposed budget
eliminates funding for Save America's Treasures grants, Preserve
America grants, and the Park Partnership Projects program. Further, the
request eliminates funding for Statutory Assistance and proposes
significant reductions in the NPS Construction and National Heritage
Areas programs.
In addition to the program reductions the budget includes
management savings and efficiencies totaling $46.2 million, including
$18.4 million that will be realized in 2011. The NPS will realize the
remaining savings in 2012 by reducing $24.8 million in supplies and
material, and $3.0 million in savings for travel and transportation of
persons. In proposing the reductions and absorptions requested in the
FY 2012 request, we have been careful to protect park operations as
much as possible, and we continue to advance innovative approaches to
collaboration and cost savings. The consolidation of our workforce
management, acquisition, and contracting offices are prime examples of
strategies that will, in future years, deliver greater services at less
cost.
I would also like to mention the significant progress we have made
in responsibly reducing our unobligated balances. Over the past two
years, we implemented a number of policy and program changes, including
reducing retention percentages at larger fee-collecting parks if their
unobligated balances exceeded 35 percent of gross revenue. The result
has been a more efficient targeting of funds to where it's needed most
for the benefit of park visitors and protecting resources. It has also
allowed individual parks more independence in project selection and
expedited the approval of small fee projects. The unobligated balance
for this program was reduced from $218 million at the end of FY 2009 to
$86 million on January 1, 2011.
Operation of the National Park System
The FY 2012 budget requests $2.3 billion for the ONPS, a
programmatic increase of $72.9 million over the 2010 enacted level, but
a net increase of $35.3 million. This includes $39.5 million for park
base increases which would benefit over 100 parks. The funds would be
used to sustain and improve the condition of cultural resources;
provide for new areas and responsibilities; ensure the continuation and
improvement of mission critical operations; engage youth; and work
collaboratively with partners. These increases are also a critical
component of addressing key goals of the Administration's America's
Great Outdoors initiative and connecting the public to the Nation's
natural and cultural heritage and treasures. Other major increases
improve capacity to perform repair and rehabilitation of park assets
($7.5 million), consolidate workforce management and acquisition
offices ($6.8 million), increase baseline inventories of park cultural
resources ($4.5 million), enhance cyclic maintenance efforts ($3.2
million), expand security at park icons ($1.8 million), facilitate
information sharing and resource protection of park cultural resources
($1.5 million), and address oceans and coastal stewardship ($1.3
million).
The FY 2012 budget proposes a net increase of $5.7 million in
support of the Secretary's Youth in the Great Outdoors initiative,
which seeks to foster a life-long stewardship ethic in young people.
The NPS is dedicated to engaging America's youth in developing a life-
long awareness of, and commitment to, our national parks, and we have
proposed this investment in 27 parks as part of park base funding to
establish youth programs that provide educational experiences and
employment opportunities on a continuous basis. This increase builds
upon the $13.5 million in youth employment and engagement programs that
the NPS received in FY 2010 and the $4.4 million that was provided from
recreational fee revenues to youth projects that benefit the visitor
experience.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
The NPS FY 2012 budget proposes funding totaling $360.0 million for
Federal land acquisition and State Conservation grants funded through
the LWCF, an increase of $233.7 million from the FY 2010 enacted level.
Of the total amount, $160.0 million is available for land acquisition
projects and administration, including $10.0 million to provide grants
to States and local communities to preserve and protect Civil War
battlefield sites outside the national park system through the American
Battlefield Protection Program.
Beginning in FY 2011, the Department instituted a coordinated
process for prioritizing Federal land acquisition projects among the
three Departmental land management bureaus and the U.S. Forest Service.
The cross-bureau criteria emphasize opportunities to jointly conserve
important landscapes, especially river and riparian areas, wildlife
habitat, urban areas that provide needed recreational opportunities,
and those containing important cultural and historical assets.
Additional criteria for these projects include the ability to leverage
partner funds, the degree of involvement with other Interior bureaus
for the project, and the urgency for project completion. The FY 2012
land acquisition request totals over 98,800 acres of the highest
priority landscapes, spanning the country from Alaska and Hawaii to
Maine and Florida and the Virgin Islands. As required by law, the
proposed tracts are located within authorized park boundaries.
The request also provides $200.0 million, including administrative
costs, for State Conservation Grants funded by the LWCF, a net increase
of $160.0 million from the FY 2010 enacted level. Of this total, at
least $78.0 million would be distributed equally to States as required
by law, an increase of $40.8 million over the FY 2010 enacted level.
With the remaining funds, the 2012 budget proposes developing a
competitive component targeted at community parks and green spaces,
landscape-scale conservation, and recreational waterways. These grants
would address the public's concern about the lack of open space and
outdoor recreational areas in certain urban and other areas that was
frequently conveyed during listening sessions for the America's Great
Outdoors initiative.
The competitive component would fund ``signature projects'' that
create more outdoor recreational opportunities and conserve open space
where access to natural areas has been inhibited or is unavailable;
protect, restore, and connect open space and natural landscapes; and
provide access to waterways. The projects would be expected to be
larger in scale and would likely require and receive greater amounts of
funding than has typically been awarded. NPS estimates that 10 to 50
grants could be funded to support acquisition of open spaces and
natural areas and development of facilities for outdoor recreation
across the Nation. Under the LWCF Act, a single State cannot receive
more than 10 percent of total grant funds, so no State would receive
more than $17.9 million under this proposal. Each State would continue
to automatically receive an apportionment that would total
approximately $1.5 million. Applications would be evaluated using
standard LWCF State grant criteria, as well as new criteria, such as
the project's ability to increase and improve recreational access or
the use of science and mapping to identify valuable lands for wildlife
conservation.
National Recreation and Preservation
The National Recreation and Preservation appropriation funds
programs that support local and community efforts to preserve natural
and cultural resources. For FY 2012, $51.6 million is requested; a net
decrease of $16.9 million from the FY 2010 enacted level. The request
includes an increase of $1.1 million for the NPS Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance program to bolster technical assistance to
communities that are working to increase and improve recreational
opportunities. As a key component of the Administration's America's
Great Outdoors initiative, this increase would help provide an
important resource to local communities as they work with States to
implement projects funded from the proposed $200.0 million for the LWCF
State Assistance program.
The budget also includes a request of $2.0 million for the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails grants program. This proposal
reflects the Administration's continuing commitment to ecosystem
restoration, including stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, pursuant to
Executive Order 13508. The funds would provide technical and financial
assistance for conserving, restoring and interpreting natural, cultural
and recreational resources within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
As noted above, the budget proposal provides $19 million in savings
by not funding Statutory Assistance earmarks or Preserve America Grants
and cutting in half Heritage Partnership Program grants to encourage
self-sufficiency among well-established National Heritage Areas while
continuing support for newer areas. These reductions are proposed to
focus NPS resources on the highest priority needs within parks.
Historic Preservation Fund
The NPS plays a vital role in preserving the Nation's cultural
history through a variety of programs that address preservation needs
nationwide. The FY 2012 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is
$61.0 million, a decrease of $18.5 million from the FY 2010 enacted
level. The FY 2012 budget provides an increase of $6.5 million, of
which $3.5 million is for Grants-in-Aid to States and Territories and
$3.0 million is for Grants-in-Aid to Tribes. The total budget request
for HPF in FY 2012 is $50.0 million for Grants-in-Aid to States and
Territories and $11.0 million for Grants-in-Aid to Tribes. These key
increases were provided as part of the America's Great Outdoors
initiative to support increased State and Tribal National Historic
Preservation Act compliance requirements and an expected 25% increase
in the number of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices between 2010 and
2012. No funds are requested for the Save America's Treasures grants
program in order to focus NPS resources on the highest priority needs
within parks.
Construction
The $152.1 million requested for Construction includes $70.3
million for line-item construction projects. The line-item request,
along with recreation fee revenues and park roads funding will provide
substantial resources for protecting and maintaining existing park
assets. Funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and
previous appropriations has enabled the NPS to make significant gains
in addressing outstanding construction projects. The NPS should
complete all ARRA-funded construction projects in FY 2012. The request
funds 14 projects including continuation of ecosystem restoration at
Olympic and Everglades National Parks and critical new projects at Big
Cypress National Preserve, the National Mall, and the Flight 93
National Memorial. The budget proposes funding for the highest priority
health and safety and mission-critical projects and does not propose
funding for new facilities or deferred construction of replacement
facilities. It also includes funding for the Great Smoky Mountains
North Shore Road settlement agreement.
Performance Integration
In formulating the FY 2012 budget request, the NPS used a variety
of tools to incorporate performance results into the decision-making
process. These tools include the Budget Cost Projection Module, the
Business Planning Initiative, and the NPS scorecard, as well as
continued program evaluations. These tools are used to develop a more
consistent approach to integrating budget and performance across NPS,
as well as to support further accountability for budget performance
integration at all levels of the organization. Given the far-reaching
responsibilities of the NPS, we must remain strategic in our thinking
and decision-making.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary of the FY 2012 budget
request for the National Park Service. We would be pleased to answer
any questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you for your testimony. At this point
we will start the questioning for the witness, as obviously a
beautiful day like today turns our attitudes and our feelings
to the great outdoors.
So we will start. As was my policy the other day, I wish to
be the last one on our side to go. So I will turn for the first
question to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Jarvis, welcome to the committee. I know you
have no surprise if I am going to ask you about the Yukon
Charley.
After I talked to you in my office about the incident on
the river, I have received 20 separate cases of abuses of the
Park Service since that case. Twenty different cases, by your
personnel. And as you recall, you made a pledge to work with me
to correct the behavior of the law enforcement rangers in the
management of the Yukon Charley Preserve.
What have you done to correct your current management and
law enforcement officers?
Mr. Jarvis. Congressman Young, we have intervened pretty
aggressively in Alaska, with both the Regional Director and the
Superintendent at Yukon Charley, to have a great discussion
around your concerns and the concerns of the local communities
in and around Yukon Charley about the level of enforcement, our
authorities in that area, and recognition that we are part of
the community up there. And I believe that there is sort of a
new-found appreciation for a working relationship in the
community.
I know that for a while there was----
Mr. Young. I haven't got all day, so I wanted to ask you,
but I am limited on time. It is ironic to me that we have a
letter here from the City Council of Eagle asking for a
replacement of those that are employed there, unanimously
signed. And actually, they say that there is no way there can
be a working relationship.
And what disturbs me, I have received a letter from your
Regional Director--Sue Masica, her name is--and she says, ``I
have strong confidence in the management and employees of the
Yukon-Charley Rivers, and do not intend to move anybody.''
Now, that is a non-starter. There is no relationship there,
sir. None. And she has got a real snotty attitude. And I have
told her that. She doesn't believe she should be working with
the local people. She won't even visit up there.
Now, have you checked to see whether she has gone and had a
meeting with them?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe she has intent to go there. I do not
know, off the top of my head, whether she has actually gone.
Mr. Young. Again, sir, you are head of this department. And
to have the attitude that they are doing--they believe it is
their park. It is not their park. This is the people's park.
And you know, I get very concerned. By the way, what
background check do you run on the people that are hired by the
Park Service?
Mr. Jarvis. We run, particularly for our law enforcement
employees, we run an extensive background check.
The two individuals that were the principals in the case,
one was born in Alaska. And----
Mr. Young. It doesn't make any difference where he was
born. Did you run a background check?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Young. You did. And what did you find on one of those
employees that did the arresting?
Mr. Jarvis. I personally not have reviewed that background
check.
Mr. Young. Would you believe that you would find out, one
has about 20 different charges against him? DUIs, impersonating
an officer, and et cetera down the line. Did you know that?
Mr. Jarvis. I did not know that.
Mr. Young. Well, I would suggest your Regional Director
start looking into that. And the attitude of pulling a shotgun
on Alaskan residents. In fact, what bothers me is, there was a
statement by your department that says that you have
jurisdiction to stop a boat on the moving water of the Yukon
River. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Young. Where did you get that jurisdiction?
Mr. Jarvis. We believe through the creation of the Yukon
Charley National Preserve, that----
Mr. Young. That is not what ANILCA says. What does ANILCA
say? Section 103[c]: ``No lands which before, on, or after
December 5 of 1980 are conveyed to the State, to any Native
corporation, or any other private party shall be subject to the
regulation applicable solely to public lands within those
units.'' That is our water.
And what gives them the authority to pull that boat over?
Mr. Jarvis. Based on our attorneys' advice to us, we do
have jurisdiction on the water.
Mr. Young. Now, that is a battle between the State and your
department.
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Young. You are trying to establish the fact that under
ANILCA--I had to fight with your secretary the other day--you
don't have that authority. We will win that in court.
But I was told by your Regional Director the Coast Guard
gave them the authority to do so, to check a boat. Is that
correct?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe we are acting in compliance with, and
in partnership with, the U.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. Young. And the Coast Guard says no. I have talked to
the Coast Guard. You don't have that authority, and we are not
going to give it to you.
So you are saying they gave it to you, and you took it
without asking them?
Mr. Jarvis. I was not involved in that discussion, so I
don't really know----
Mr. Young. Well, I would once again go back to your
Regional Director. And those people that are doing this.
Because you are not getting along in Alaska. And for a long
time you were doing a good job. And they have the attitude
right now that Alaskans don't count. It is our park.
Now, I am going to go through this again with you. Because
either you do something, or I will make sure it is not funded.
Mr. Bishop. We are going to have another round of
questioning. Thank you. Other than that, everything OK? No, I
am sorry.
Mr. Young. Don't get me started right now. I am going to
move to strike the last words.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I won't do that again. At the suggestion of the
Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Director Jarvis. It is great to see you. And I would like to
take this opportunity to thank you again for coming to Lowell,
Massachusetts as part of our Innovative Cities Conference, in
which we really wanted to highlight the very important role the
creation of a national park, the impact of that park, on the
revitalization of a post-industrial city. So I want to thank
you for that.
It is not only the tourism you generate, but the stream of
Federal dollars, the impact on further development and
investment by the state and local governments, the growth of a
nonprofit community, as well as the extraordinary private
sector investment that came about, over time, but as a result
of that initial step toward creating a national park there. So
thank you very much for joining us.
Mr. Jarvis. It was a pleasure.
Ms. Tsongas. But I wanted to ask you about the recently
released America's Great Outdoors report, which highlighted the
importance of urban parks and community green spaces. It also
established priorities for the initiatives such as creating a
new generation of accessible urban parks and community green
spaces in connecting people to the parks' green spaces, rivers,
and waterways in their communities. And I could not agree more
with these priorities.
Since I have come to Massachusetts I have been working on
these same issues, and have worked closely with one group in
particular, Groundwork Lawrence, which exists in another city
that I represent, Lawrence, Massachusetts, to accomplish these
goals.
Groundwork Lawrence is part of the Groundwork USA
Initiative, which, as you know, was launched by the National
Park Service and the EPA in 1996 to transform blighted urban
neighborhoods into parks and livable open spaces. And since its
creation, Groundwork USA has developed into a network of
extremely successful Groundwork Trusts that have a proven
record of leveraging modest amounts of public investment into
major private investments. For every one dollar of public
funding, Groundwork Trusts have leveraged over $21 in private
funding, the important partnership that can exist between the
public and private sectors.
With these investments, the Groundwork Trusts have not only
transformed their physical environments, but they have created
jobs in communities with high unemployment, and helped to
create places hospitable for economic development.
I was so inspired by the impact that Groundwork Lawrence
has had in my district--took a small, horrible, ugly site along
a modest river that goes through the city into a beautiful
public space that young people have become involved in growing
vegetables, flowers, and other things, becoming more connected
to nature, but also really very important space for the
surrounding community--that I introduced legislation last
Congress, the Groundwork USA Trust Act of 2010, that would
expand upon the existing 19 Groundwork Trusts, and centralize
the administration of the program in the National Park Service.
So as you look at the Outdoors Initiative, what is the Park
Service doing to support programs such as Groundwork USA that
seek to improve our urban landscape? And how will the America's
Great Outdoors Initiative take advantage of these types of
organizations that are already doing such great work in our
communities?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, and thank you for your great work in
Lowell. We hold that park and that community up as the perfect
example of how the National Park Service can strategically
invest and leverage the partnerships with organizations, such
as Groundwork and others, to really achieve a much, a very
vibrant city. And we are very proud of all those partnerships.
The America's Great Outdoors report is the compilation of
over 51 listening sessions around the country, and the comments
of well over 100,000 individuals, including 21 listening
sessions with young people. We specifically held gatherings of
young people under 24, into their teens, and they were led and
facilitated by young people, on my staff and on the staff of
the department, to engage in what their ideas about the future.
And these kinds of organizations, like Groundwork and the
Student Conservation Association and the California
Conservation Corps and other organizations that engage young
people in true restoration work, the development of skills and
the development of an appreciation of America's great outdoors,
as well as its cultural histories, as well, are at the center,
in many ways, of the America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
The AGO report, in sort of broad, a broad umbrella, talks
about rivers and riverways, which are integral in so many
years, particularly in the East, but I think in the West to a
certain degree, we have sort of looked at our rivers more as an
industrial asset, rather than a true asset to the social
consciousness and the recreational opportunities of
communities. So there is a lot of focus on rivers.
There is a lot of focus on urban parks. Urban parks
recognize their role in threshold experiences for the public
and getting kids for their very first time experiencing in the
outdoors. Yet we know that in some communities, kids, there are
park-deficient neighborhoods----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Jarvis, I am going to have to ask you to
finish in one simple sentence. You are over time.
Mr. Jarvis. OK. So the bottom line is, the work of AGO is
very much supportive of the work of Groundwork.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. We will have time for other
rounds later on.
Mr. Jarvis. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Coffman, the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Jarvis, for your service to our country and being here today.
Director Jarvis, thank you for appearing before this
committee today. Over the past few weeks this committee has
held budget oversight hearings for a number of agencies housed
within the Department of the Interior.
Based on your testimony today, and looking back on
information this committee has already heard from, the
Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Forest Service, and also the U.S. Geological Survey, I am
extremely concerned about the budgetary decision-making
process, and the lack of coordination between the land
management bureaus within the Department of the Interior, as
well as other administration agencies and departments.
Finally, I am shocked at the ongoing lack of transparency
by this Administration and the Department of the Interior.
An issue that has recently caught my attention is President
Obama's Great Outdoors Initiative. It appears from the
background information I have read, as well as the written and
oral testimony presented to the committee over the last several
weeks, this ``initiative'' is redirecting resources and
consuming valuable dollars, when our nation is in the middle of
a fiscal crisis.
For example, the USGS budget specifically proposes ``an
additional $12 million for the restoration of some of the
nation's most iconic ecosystems to support America's Great
Outdoors.''
The National Park Service budget is full of references to
America's Great Outdoors Initiative. Specifically, the first
line of your budget summary reads, ``The Fiscal Year 2012
budget request reflects the President's commitment to our
national parks with an increase of $276.6 million over the
Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels for part of the
Administration's Great Outdoors Initiative.''
I could go on and on with examples in your budget that
request increases or divert funds based on this initiative.
Would you explain to the committee the purpose of the
Administration's Great Outdoors Initiative?
I am also interested to learn more about how the initiative
was developed. I have read that there were 51 listening
sessions, and roughly 105,000 comments were submitted. But what
else was involved in the development? Were you or any of your
employees in the Park Service involved in the process? In what
form was your input? Meetings, how often, written documents, et
cetera.
If not, why is the Forest Service budget based on this
initiative? If he says--I am sorry. Do you consider this to be
a transparent process?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congressman. America's Great
Outdoors Initiative began with the White House and the
President working with Secretary Salazar and Secretary Vilsack
in tasking us to go talk to the public, go listen to the
public; hear what they have to say about this extraordinary
legacy that we have in this country of America's great
outdoors, the public lands legacy that has been set aside in
many ways for the American public to enjoy. All of its
benefits, from recreation, from economic development.
But not to go out with any preconceived notion, but to
actually listen to the public. And that is exactly what we did.
We traveled the country for almost the entire summer, 51
listening sessions, on ranches and in homes, in community
centers across--in urban and rural parts of the country.
And all of that information was then analyzed and developed
into a set of recommendations that reflect what we heard from
the public.
Absolutely, I can't speak for the other Federal agencies in
any detail, but I can speak for the National Park Service. We
were actively involved. I have employees that work in
communities across the country, in many, many rural and urban
areas, and they were a participant in that they knew who should
be invited. And said come one, come all, and participate in
this great process.
I do believe it was quite transparent, and there was no
preconceived notion about this, other than a celebration of,
and a recognition that the public land estate, and particularly
the national parks, are an economic contributor to this
country.
Mr. Coffman. And what is your, how would you regard your
backlog of maintenance in your park areas?
Mr. Jarvis. Backlog maintenance is a serious concern for
us, sir. It is currently pegged at about $10.8 billion. We have
an old infrastructure in the National Park System, and it is
going to need a lot of investment to fix.
Mr. Coffman. So in your budget, is there monies to procure
new properties? Or to expand existing properties?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, there is money for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund--$160 million--that would be focused on
acquisition of inholdings, inside park boundaries.
Mr. Coffman. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Holt, for five minutes, give or take.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director
Jarvis. I have been impressed with your dedication to
protecting our national parks for future generations. And I
always like to quote Teddy Roosevelt, as we do in this
business, that there is nothing so American as our national
parks. The fundamental idea behind the parks is that the
country belongs to the people. I certainly agree.
And whether you live in New Jersey or California or Wyoming
or Utah, we should never forget that Yellowstone, Yosemite,
Ion, Grand Teton, to name a few, belong to all Americans.
You know, it is where Americans not only connect and
commune with nature, and go to recreate and re-create, but also
to learn the history and character of America. And the
importance to our national sense of purpose, from preserving,
presenting and interpreting battlefields and other sites, the
American Revolution cannot be over-emphasized.
I am pleased to see in your budget increases for programs
such as the Youth in the Great Outdoors, and fully funding of
the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. And I note
money toward preserving Civil War battlefield sites.
Some of the Revolutionary War sites are among the most
important, and even popular, in the Park System. But many
others are yet to be preserved, presented, and interpreted for
all Americans.
One way to do these is through the Heritage designation,
such as the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New
Jersey. Another that I hope we will have soon is through
legislation that, such as the Revolution and War of 1812
Battlefield Protection Act, which would have passed in the last
Congress but for a parliamentary fluke. So I hope we will get
that done.
Over the last several years I have worked with our
colleagues here to designate 14 counties in New Jersey as a
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area,
which became official in 2006. I can't over-emphasize the
importance of this, not just to New Jersey, but to the whole
nation. These are sites that are at great risk of being lost,
and whose significance has not been, has yet to be fully
interpreted for Americans today.
So with that, I hate to see a 30 percent cut in your
historic preservation programs. I think this is so important,
as I said, to our national sense of purpose.
And so I realize there are tough choices in front of you,
but I ask you please to find a way to do these things that need
to be done for the earlier sites.
Let me also, while I have the floor, just in a sentence,
say that Sandy Hook needs your attention. This is a jewel in
the most densely populated state in the country. Beautiful,
natural scenery that is accessible to millions. And so with
that, I would ask your comment on what can be done with, in the
face of this proposed 30 percent cut in historic preservation.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We
did try, through the budget process, to identify several
programs specific to historic preservation.
And as you indicated, you know, the National Park Service
has turned to tell America's story, you know, from the
Revolution--from settlement, Revolution, Civil War, the War of
1812, you know, right up through, you know, even our current
activities, Flight 93 and the War on Terrorism. You know, World
War II, Vietnam, all of those.
And to quote another great American, Gen. Tommy Franks said
there is nothing more patriotic than the national parks,
because we tell that story. And the Revolutionary War story is
essential to it, as well.
We did request a $1 million increase to our Battlefield
Acquisition Grants Program, which is focused broadly on
battlefield sites, including Revolutionary War sites. We did up
some funding for our State Historic Preservation Officers to
help them identify and get protection on these critical
resources that are not----
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry again, Mr. Jarvis. The red light is
on. One sentence, do it.
For everyone here, you guys don't have the opportunity of
seeing what the time is coming down here. But if you watch the
monitor there, we have been going over on every one of those by
30 seconds to 45. I am going to try to cut you off as closely
as we can. I apologize for that.
So I will cut off the next speaker, which happens to be the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, you get that.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman, you might ask if it would be
possible to put a clock back on the mantelpiece.
Mr. Bishop. We were just talking about that, and I think it
is a good idea. I would also say, though, there will be other
rounds of questioning. And also, if you want to submit
something as a question in writing, I am sure Director Jarvis,
in a very timely manner, would like to respond to it.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks, Director
Jarvis, for being here. We have a lot of national parks
obviously in Colorado.
In my Third Congressional District of Colorado, can you
give me an idea of what some of your maintenance backlogs are?
Mr. Jarvis. In those specific parks, or in general?
Mr. Tipton. Yes, just in general.
Mr. Jarvis. The biggest challenge we have is that over 60
percent of the infrastructure of the national parks were built
prior to 1970. You know, we have 68,000 assets in the National
Park System, 21,000 buildings, 16,000 miles of road. And you
know, they are well used by the American public, and old.
So over the last 10 years we have invested extensively in
understanding that, and how we need to invest strategically,
particularly in critical systems.
Mr. Tipton. What is the estimated amount of dollars that
you----
Mr. Jarvis. Ten-point-eight billion.
Mr. Tipton.--need to--pardon me?
Mr. Jarvis. The total deferred maintenance is $10.8
billion.
Mr. Tipton. Ten-point-eight billion dollars. And that
brings me really to my next question. I see that you have a
line item for $168 million, which is kind of a pimple on $10
billion. But $168 million to acquire new lands.
And I am kind of curious, in terms of your opening
statement, you were talking about the prioritization process
that you went through. When we have that big of a backlog in
terms of deferred maintenance, why are we stripping off $168
million in valuable resources now to acquire new lands?
Mr. Jarvis. The Administration set the priority to go for
full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900
million. That is money that is generated from the revenues of
Outer Continental Shelf oil leasing that comes back to the
Treasury.
And in many ways it is different money than that which is
used for our deferred maintenance program, which is the more
operational side of the house. It is a trade-off, there is no
question about that.
Mr. Tipton. Did the Administration ask for your input on
that? Because in these tough economic times, we really do need
to prioritize. And expanding the scope of the Park Service--I
happen to be a big supporter of our public lands, as I believe
everyone on this committee is. But we have some constraints
right now.
So did they seek your input? And was that your guidance to
the Administration, to acquire more lands, rather than to
correct some of the problems that we have under current
holdings?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely they did seek my input, and I did
make a strong case that our deferred maintenance is a concern.
We need to be investing on an annual basis on bringing that
deferred maintenance down, particularly in the critical
systems.
Mr. Tipton. All right. Well, I guess I didn't understand
that. You did stand up and say that you were pushing for the
deferred maintenance over acquiring new lands? Is that
accurate?
Mr. Jarvis. I pushed for an appropriate balance between
those two.
Mr. Tipton. OK. Have you run any sort of a cost benefit
analysis? Because I get a little worried in terms of
duplicative government, where we have redundancies. And we have
the EPA out now looking at climate change, and impacts that are
going to be there. And now we are again taking very precious
resources right now, in terms of many of the treasures that we
have here in our country, trying to be able to protect them all
across. Mine happens to be some of the oldest in the United
States, with Mesa Verde National Park.
But we are stripping off some of those resources, getting a
redundant program. Do you have any statistical analysis? Have
you done any cost benefit analysis in terms of the use of those
dollars? Or should we maybe be letting another agency do that,
and we get back to repairing the roads that need repaired?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, in the case of the National Park Service
in terms of the amount of money we are requesting, I don't
think that is duplicative of any other program. Ours is very
site-specific.
What we are working on is looking at the impacts directly
on the ground, within our national parks, that are a concern to
us. Such as, you know, the change in and rain on snow in the
fall, which causes extreme damage to visitor facilities in some
of our parks.
Mr. Tipton. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time. Thanks.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. The Chair will
recognize for five minutes the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms.
Sutton.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Jarvis, for being here today. The work of the national parks is
invaluable to our nation, and I thank you for your service.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you.
Ms. Sutton. As you may be aware, the Cuyahoga Valley
National Park sits in my district. And it is the only national
park in Ohio. Not only is it a critical economic asset to our
district, it also brings together corporations, individuals,
and philanthropic groups toward a common goal of preserving our
natural assets.
I want to just, at the outset, say in terms of land
acquisition, this park is a good example of why an appropriate
balance of those funds is necessary.
The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is not situated in the
same way as many of our bigger national parks is. The borders
of the park are two large metropolitan areas and countless
smaller communities, and it is a rare gem in the middle of what
people think of sometimes as a very industrialized area.
But because of the proximity to several major cities, there
are also some very special opportunities that exist, that would
not otherwise be there without that park. Countless children
from the area have been able to experience youth education
programs through the park's Environmental Education Program.
And I know that you, Mr. Jarvis, have been a champion of
youth education and involvement in the national parks, and I
want to compliment you on raising the profile of those
important programs.
Could you just discuss for a moment--as I said, I want to
just highlight the significance of this park as an economic
engine for our area that has literally kept many small
businesses afloat during these economic times that surround the
park. But also, if you could just speak to the budget for the
National Park Service in terms of the youth education programs,
because I think that is another area of extreme significance
for our park in particular.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you so much, and thank you for all your
support at Cuyahoga. It is an exemplar for us on how a park
with proximity to urban environments can really, really shine.
And John Divo, and now Stan Austin there, I think are doing
excellent jobs with that.
In particular with the focus on youth, I am going to have
my budget person pull up exactly what we are spending on
planning for youth programs. And there is a significant
investment in this budget for youth employment, youth
engagement across the system, through partners.
I think that the key to the future of youth engagement is
definitely through these partners. Groundwork is a perfect
example. The Boy Scouts, the YCC, all of those kinds of things.
So I will get back to you with the total figure here, because
there is a whole laundry list of a variety of things here.
But it is around $15.3 million service-wide for youth
programs this year. Some of them are going to be quite
innovative. So I would love to come talk to you about those in
detail.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I do think it
is important, when we think of the national parks, to think
that this national park, as I say, in a very industrialized, at
least some people consider a very industrialized area, is, I
believe last year was the sixth most visited national park in
the country.
So it is not what people traditionally necessarily think of
when they think of the national parks, but such an important,
important jump for us.
In 2008, Congress directed the National Park Service to
conduct evaluations of the nine National Heritage Areas,
including the Ohio and Erie Canal, which of course runs through
the 13th District, and throughout Ohio, with the goal of having
those evaluations completed in three years, before the 2012
deadline.
To date, it is my understanding that only three of the nine
National Heritage Area evaluations have been completed. So what
is the status of those evaluations, in light of the looming
deadline?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I recently met with the Alliance of
Heritage Areas to discuss that specifically, because some of
them are very concerned about the sunset dates. I will have to
get back to you on the full status of that, be glad to provide
that to your office.
As we have been doing these evaluations, we are learning,
you know, there is, some of the Heritage Areas have been very,
very successful, and are quite sophisticated in raising private
philanthropic, as well as leveraging our investment. Some not
so.
And so what we are looking to do is learn as we go along
with each one of these, so that we can assist the newer
Heritage Areas in being successful.
Ms. Sutton. I look forward to working with you. I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I recognize the gentlewoman from
South Dakota for five minutes.
Ms. Noem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director
Jarvis, for being here today, and for testifying before the
Subcommittee.
My home State of South Dakota is home to Mt. Rushmore
National Memorial and Wind Cave National Park, and the Badlands
National Park, as well. We are proud to host almost three
million visitors to our state every year, from across the
United States and across the world. It is an honor to be from a
state that hosts what has become an international symbol of
American democracy and freedom.
Many of my colleagues here today can attest to the benefit
that these national parks, monuments, historic sites, and other
lands in the National Park System have on our areas' economic
prosperity.
It is also important to preserve these areas that are
important to our nation, as well as the local communities
around them. I am happy to be a part of this Subcommittee, and
the opportunity to talk to you about that.
And I want to specifically discuss with you Mt. Rushmore,
because it has some unique challenges in front of it. It
includes around 1200 acres of forest, along which, within Black
Hills National Forest, they are struggling to fight the pine
beetles that are killing our trees.
Because of this and the potential fire hazard, Mt. Rushmore
has had to make many changes. They have had to cancel their
annual fireworks display, which is a big advantage for us in
promoting our tourism, not just on the national level, but on
the international level. And it has been very detrimental to
our state and to our country.
What is the National Parks plan to address the pine beetle
problem? I have met with the superintendent of that park
specifically, and she indicates and they indicate that they
have a real problem with funding and with resources.
So I would like to ask you, is there adequate funding to
address the pine beetle issue on Mt. Rushmore? Because it does
impact not only Mt. Rushmore, but will impact our entire Black
Hills region, the community, the economics of the area, and our
entire state. So what signs of progress have you seen, and what
requests have you made on their behalf?
Mr. Jarvis. We have made specifically a request in the 2012
budget for control of the mountain pine beetle, in coordination
with the U.S. Forest Service, where most commonly we are
adjacent to. And it really is a problem, and it has to be
addressed for Mt. Rushmore, Black Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky
Mountain, and a few others where the mountain pine beetle
infestation has really created a particularly problematic
situation, with large fuel accumulations.
We have to be very targeted in that use of those kinds of
funds, to focus on areas of greatest risk: the wildlife-urban
interfaces, the places where we have investment risk, or the
public's risk. This is such a broad problem across the West
that we have to be very specific.
And frankly, there is not enough funding to take it all on,
so we have to be very strategic in that. But we are working
very closely with the U.S. Forest Service, particularly at Mt.
Rushmore.
Ms. Noem. Can you tell me where Mt. Rushmore might be on
that priority list?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, it is part of our funding for the 2012
program, specifically for pest management in that area.
Ms. Noem. OK. So in regards to that, then, the
Administration has proposed over $160 million for land
acquisition. So while the current lands are struggling with
issues like the pine beetle situation at Mt. Rushmore, it seems
that it would be wise to make sure that our current lands are
taken care of and maintenance is taken care of, before we try
to acquire more.
I know you have talked about striking a balance. But in the
meantime, if we are not maintaining and taking care of the
lands we currently have, what is your feelings on that in
regards to acquiring more that we may not have the resources to
care for, as well?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, the National Park Service, the Land
Acquisition Program focuses on lands that are inside park
boundaries. And so actually there is an efficiency to be gained
through consolidation of land holdings.
So in many ways it is an efficiency effort, to acquire
these inholdings, from willing sellers, to provide--and the net
effect really doesn't affect us very significantly in terms of
operational increases as that.
So I do think there needs to be always an appropriate
balance between some land acquisition and a focus on our core
responsibilities of operations.
Ms. Noem. OK. So it is your understanding that the land
that the United States would consider acquiring would all be
land that is currently within or surrounded by national----
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Ms. Noem. OK.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Noem. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Bishop. I would like to recognize the gentleman, the
Ranking Member, at this time, for five minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director
Jarvis, the question I have been asking your colleagues from
the other services. A government shutdown. How would that
impact the National Park Service? And the discussions we have
been having today about needs and acquisitions and budget
priorities.
Mr. Jarvis. In anticipation of the potential for a
budgetary shutdown for Fiscal Year 2011, we have run analyses
on our national parks to look at essential personnel necessary
to protect critical resources and to keep critical systems in
place.
But if we were to go to a full shutdown, then the units of
the National Park Service would be essentially closed to public
use.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask another question, and it has to
do, again, it is a fiscal question. It is a reimbursement
question.
On the border, border protection being a critical issue,
your interface with Homeland Security and that. And as the law
enforcement portion of the service continues to expand, and we
are dealing with places like Oregon Pipe and Big Bend and other
places, you are dealing with more issues relative to security,
supplanting in some cases, and supplementing in other cases,
the efforts of Homeland Security and their law enforcement
activities.
And there is a cost attendant to that. Because I believe
you are taking that law enforcement function from visitor
issues, from resource protection, into the very critical work
that is being done on the border on overall security.
Homeland Security is one of those exempt departments in
terms of budget cuts. Is there any reimbursement from Homeland
Security for the fact that Park Service, through its law
enforcement arm primarily, is supplanting in some instances,
and supplementing very strongly those law enforcement efforts
along the border?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, there is no reimbursement for the
operational responsibilities that we have developed along the
border.
We have increased our law enforcement numbers, over 100
rangers, law enforcement rangers, particularly in the Tucson
sector where Oregon Pipe, Tohono Odom, Cabeza Prieta areas are,
to provide basically additional support to the challenges along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
The National Park Service Rangers bring a unique set of
skills to that, that do augment the responsibilities of
Homeland Security. And we have a very good working
collaborative relationship down there.
Mr. Grijalva. And I don't know how you can extrapolate
that, but if at all possible, if you could provide the
committee with those costs.
Mr. Jarvis. Certainly.
Mr. Grijalva. I think that is something that I have asked
in the past about pursuing. Because, in discussing with your
staff in those parks, they have to divert from visitor
services, from resource management, from resource protection,
to supplementing what Homeland Security is doing on the border.
And I am just curious as to cost; and if at all possible, I
would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Jarvis. We would be glad to develop that analysis and
provide that to your office.
Mr. Grijalva. And one other question. The process that is
going on right now in terms of the four options being presented
around Grand Canyon National Park, which would be used to
determine what withdrawal of lands around the park would occur.
When does that public comment period close? And how soon after
that closure do we anticipate a decision on the part of the
Park Service and the Secretary?
Mr. Jarvis. Let me just check in terms of the, when that--I
don't remember off the top of my head in terms of the Grand
Canyon uranium withdrawal.
We have a draft environmental impact statement in play
right now, which was released, let us see--yes, the DEIS
comments are due June 20. Is that correct? Yes, I think that is
over flights. That didn't sound right.
I will have to get back to you on the exact date. But we
have a DEIS that was put out in cooperation with the Bureau of
Land Management. We are in the process of getting public
comment as we speak. And I will get back to you on the date
that that is due.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And just some cursory indication of what
the participation has been up to this point, prior to the
closing. I will yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The Ranking Member gave a great
question as far as the cost. My office would like to have those
numbers, as well as his, at the same time.
I, too, have not gone first round, but Mr. Young has a
medical appointment at 11. Is it all right if I allow him to
go? And then Mr. Duncan, you will be the next one after that.
Mr. Young. Mr. Jarvis, I will get back to the same subject
I was talking about. Where the stated purpose of approaching
boats by the Park Service on the Yukon River is to conduct boat
safety checks, and to check for the State of Alaska boating
registration, did the State of Alaska give you this authority,
or ask you to enforce their boater registration requirements?
Mr. Jarvis. I am unsure of that. I will find out.
Mr. Young. Well, the answer is no, the state did not do
that. But nevertheless, you have charged Mr. Wyler for
violating state boater registration laws. I mean, this is a
rotten thing you are doing up there. I mean, there is no
justification for that. You don't have the authority, they
didn't have the authority. And yet you are charging Mr. Wyler
for boat registration. That is a state law, not yours.
So again, get into the bottom of this, and check that
superintendent of yours out. Because I am going to hound you
until something is done up there. I just want you to know.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. I kind of expect that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Duncan, as usual, I lied. Mr. Garamendi
from California has entered here; it is his turn next. And then
I promise.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Jarvis, it is a pleasure to see you once
again.
Mr. Jarvis. Great to see you.
Mr. Garamendi. I think the last time I saw you, you had not
yet assumed this position.
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. We know you have your tasks, whether it is
boat registration or not. Nonetheless, enforcing the laws and
protecting the resources of our national parks is your task.
And I suppose if somebody is inappropriately operating in a
national park, you should be, and your superintendent should be
paying attention to that.
I am concerned about your budget. As near as I can
remember, for the last 30 or 40 years, you have never had
enough money to maintain the national parks to their best
standard. You have asked for some more money on maintenance.
Could you, you may have already gone through this; if you have,
just say yes, I have gone through it already, and sorry you
weren't here earlier, Congressman.
But if you have not, could you please just talk a little
bit about the maintenance and the deferred maintenance and the
like?
Mr. Jarvis. We have asked, in the 2012 request, for an
increase of $7 million in our Cyclic Maintenance Program. And
we have also asked for an increase of $35 million or so for
operations at 100 parks, some of which would be applied to
deferred maintenance.
There are other decreases in some of our capital accounts,
such as line item, which would have an impact on, or basically
give us a reduced ability to address deferred maintenance.
Mr. Garamendi. So how far behind will we be, 30 or 40 years
behind in all of this?
Mr. Jarvis. At this rate, we could be very far behind. Our
current deferred maintenance is at $10.8 billion.
Mr. Garamendi. So the longer we go, the more behind we get.
Mr. Jarvis. It grows at about 2 percent per year.
Mr. Garamendi. My recollection, when I was involved in this
more deeply as Deputy Secretary, this was a very, very severe
problem. Not only a problem of critical national assets being
lost to decay, but also safety issues. I assume that that is
still the same situation?
Mr. Jarvis. I think in the ensuing years, we have invested
significantly in a better understanding and prioritizing what
resources we do have on critical systems, particularly those
that are concerns for safety, for water quality, those kinds of
things.
So the large number of $10.8 billion is the total. But in
reality, the critical systems--life, health, safety, those
kinds of things--are more in the $3 billion category.
And so with the resources we have, which is somewhere in
the neighborhood of $350 million a year, we are investing
predominantly in those critical systems. So I think we are
making some headway in those areas, but on the big number, no.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. A final is that in the past, and I think
this is continuing, on those icon parks, reaching out and
finding private support to be joined with public support, how
is that going?
Mr. Jarvis. For the big parks, the big iconic parks like
Yosemite, Yellowstone, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Rocky Mountain and others, we have excellent philanthropic
partnerships, friends, organizations that have been quite
successful at raising funds for them.
On the broader scale, we have the National Park Foundation,
the legislatively created philanthropic partner, which I
believe is on a very good path now to increase the
philanthropic and private sector support for our parks.
Mr. Garamendi. A final point, just a point here. I did
serve on the National Parks Foundation, and I am delighted to
see it has been significantly augmented and more robust.
We will have to rely upon private philanthropy more--well,
we have to continue that. And urge, all of us, wherever we may
be, we care about our own personal park. We ought to look at
the philanthropy and assist in that. And the National Park
Foundation is a pretty good way to do it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for the time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Now to the very patient and long-
suffering gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't have
any questions, but I do want to make a few comments.
First of all, 394 units, 84 million acres, 22,000
employees; that should be enough to satisfy almost anyone. But
it has become clear to me over the many years that I have
served in this position, that you can never satisfy
government's appetite for money or land. It is just impossible.
They always want more.
And yet, this is my 23rd year on this Subcommittee. And I
remember hearing when the maintenance backlog was $4 billion,
and then $6 billion, and then $9 billion. And now today, $10.8
billion. And I believe that over the years, the Park Service
has hired far too many chiefs and not enough Indians, far too
many Master's degree and PhD and experts and researchers and
law enforcement people and historians and press people and so
forth, when we probably should be hiring a lot more simple, but
important, laboring maintenance people, if the backlog is to
that extent.
But I know, too, that all the politicians love to create
parks. And we have created so many state and local parks across
this country, and national parks, we have so many parks now
that we can't get the use out of them unless our people somehow
figure out a way to go on permanent vacations.
And frankly, a few years ago, even as recently as five or
10 years ago, if I had said we were going to be facing deficits
of $223 billion in one month, as came out day before yesterday,
people would have thought that was ridiculous. And yet I know,
too, I know that many people still care more about what is on
television. But all the people who really follow, all the
millions who follow government and politics, they are not just
concerned now; many of them are absolutely scared about the
future of this country, and the financial condition of the
Federal government.
And I know from what I have read in the past and from
hearings, that many of these national park units have very few
visitors. They are not all Great Smoky Mountain National Parks,
or Yellowstones, or Yosemites. And many of these parks would
more appropriately be state, should more appropriately be state
or local parks. As bad a shape as the states are in or the
local governments, none of them are in as bad a shape
financially as is the Federal government, with our $14.3
trillion national debt.
And finally, I will just say that I have the greatest
respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. But I have
heard probably at least 100 or more times in this committee
about Teddy Roosevelt, as if an implication is Republicans
should be ashamed they were not all wanting to create new
national parks.
And yet, the comparison is ridiculous. Because the Federal
government was not nearly as big when Teddy Roosevelt was
around. It didn't have nearly anywhere close to as many parks.
It was not $14.3 trillion in debt. The situation is totally,
completely different.
And so it is just, that is a comparison that shouldn't be
made at all, because it is almost meaningless.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. The
gentleman from Maryland, you came in at the appropriate time.
You have five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Jarvis,
thanks for being here. We missed you last week. As you know, we
had the ribbon-cutting for the new visitor center at Fort
McHenry, which is sort of the unofficial kickoff of the
bicentennial celebration, which is coming up. And I will
apologize to my colleagues here in advance, I will be talking
about it all the time over the next couple years. Just so you
are ready for this celebration. We are really looking forward
to that in Maryland, having the eyes in the Nation and the
world upon us as we celebrate that 200th anniversary of the War
of 1812, the penning of our National Anthem, and all of the
attendant historic events.
I did just want to ask you to speak briefly to sort of how
the Park Service is getting ready for this, and the support
that I know will be forthcoming. The attention not just to Fort
McHenry, but also to the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic
Trail. Which is actually going to be the, the Star-Spangled
Banner Trail will actually be kind of the continuing legacy
after the grand celebration of the bicentennial.
So I am interested both in terms of how the Park Service is
preparing for the bicentennial, as well as its attention to the
National Historic Trail.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you for your
very strong support up there. I am sorry I missed the grand
opening. I was up there before it was opened; I plan to go
back.
We have in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget a request for $5
million for our 1812 parks, that can invest in the outreach,
exhibits, public information, program, to celebrate the
bicentennial of the War of 1812.
Dennis Reidenbach, who is the Regional Director for the
Northeast, is leading this effort. And he has got a group
around him of educators, park superintendents, and others that
are developing this whole plan for the recognition celebration
commemoration of the War of 1812.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. I don't know where the
approval or authority came from, but I want to thank you and
the Park Service for making my father an honorary park ranger
last week. He has only taken the hat off twice I think in the
last week, since he put it on.
I did want to, before my time ran out, I did want to pick
up a little bit on the theme of my colleague in terms of the
use of national parks. As you know, I think I have been a
strong proponent of legislation which we call No Child Left
Inside, which is an attempt to promote outdoor education and
engagement by our youth in the outdoors, in a more integrated
way, with instructional programming across the country.
And I would like you to speak to the fact, I assume this
will be your perspective, that our national parks, potentially
some that may be viewed by others as under-utilized, hold great
promise for that kind of a partnership with our youth and with
students, going forward. And how is the Park Service focusing
on those opportunities?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I very much support the initiative. For
the seven years prior to coming on as the director, I was the
national co-chair of the Federal No Child Left Inside Task
Force. I co-chaired with California State Park Director Ruth
Coleman to coordinate our state and Federal efforts around No
Child Left Inside.
We believe this program has enormous potential. And we see
all kinds of positive benefits for children when they are
exposed to the outdoors, in terms of it can be life-changing.
So in this 2012 budget, we have a number of programs that
focus on this, including the Let's Move Outside Initiative of
the First Lady, which was really originated with an initiative
from the National Park Service.
So we have now over 50 parks actively involved in Let's
Move Outside, as a part of this program. So I think there is a
huge potential for the National Park Service to be a
significant leader in this.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
being here today. I am honored to represent two national parks
in my district: the Big Cypress National Preserve, and the
Everglades National Park. I am just a short distance from a
third, the Biscayne National Park, and very close to a fourth,
the Dry Tortugas National Park.
Last December, the State of Florida conveyed to the Federal
government over 29,000 acres of state-owned land located
adjacent to the Big Cypress Preserve, called the Additional
Lands. We Floridians have a special place for Big Cypress
National Preserve. We appreciate the mix of landscapes, from
marshes and cypress swamps to its prairies and pinelands. We
appreciate the rich wildlife, such as the colorful wading
birds, the majestic Florida panther and, of course, our gators,
which are deeply rooted in our appreciation of these national
treasures.
Along with the Everglades, they are unique. And we share
the goals of preserving these beautiful and historic areas.
However, we also believe that this must be done in a way
that allows responsible, traditional access. I recently visited
with the Big Cypress National Preserve Superintendent, Pedro
Ramos. And I commend him for the great work he is doing. And
also, for that matter, Superintendent Dan Kimball of the
Everglades National Park, for their management plans. They
deserve much of the credit for the work being done, to go
through some difficult issues, and we are fortunate to have
their leadership.
However, I am concerned regarding the proposed Wilderness
and Primitive Back-Country Management Zone Designations in Big
Cypress, and how these designations may hinder land management
and public access.
Back-country recreation would allow for traditional uses,
such as hunting, fishing, and associated vehicular access,
which was specified by Congress when authorizing the addition
to the existing preserve.
So I am wondering, why can't the additional lands to the
Big Cypress National Preserve be designated precisely as back-
country recreation, instead of wilderness? And back-country
primitive, and Congress intended and Floridians were promised?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congressman. I, too, have been down
to visit the folks at Big Cypress specifically on this issue,
and spent time with Superintendent Ramos to discuss this.
As you well know, Big Cypress is a complicated, and often
controversial, place. And I believe that they worked through an
arduous public process that took almost 10 years to get to a
point where there is an appropriate balance. The final EIS and
record of decision designated over 130 miles ORV trails, plus
additional trails; and reduced their original proposal for
wilderness designation down to just about 50,000 acres, from
original potential of 120,000 acres.
And by the way, we are being sued by the environmental
community on that decision, that we did not make enough
wilderness. We just had two lawsuits filed in the last week on
this decision, that we were not, that we allowed too much OHV
use.
So we think that we have struck the appropriate balance of
providing great access to this extraordinary resource, while at
the same time conserving some portion of it.
Mr. Rivera. Well, I strongly urge the service to reconsider
the designation as we go forward.
I also appreciate your proposed investment of nearly $10
million to continue funding Everglades restoration and
research, as well as your proposed operations increase of half
a million dollars for Everglades National Park. Restoring the
Everglades is important for providing drinking water for
millions of Floridians, for numerous tourism and recreational
opportunities, and on-the-ground jobs that put people to work
now.
I recently observed firsthand one of these restoration
effort projects, the building of the Tamiami Trail Bridge, to
facilitate water flow. And we also learned from a recent
economic study that Everglades restoration generates four
dollars for every one dollar of investment.
So could you please explain how these funds would not just
help the Everglades ecosystem and the wildlife within it, but
how they help people and the surrounding community? And why we
should make these investments.
Mr. Jarvis. The work on the Tamiami Trail is the first step
toward, we hope, more of that. The Tamiami Trail will be raised
so that water flows can pass through.
Our economists give us very strong data that every dollar
that goes locally into that community, through the National
Park Service, results in four dollars to return to that local
economy, in terms of tourism, food sales, hotels, construction
workers. All of that is a direct benefit to that part of the
world. And we have much more detailed economic data that I
would be glad to share with you on that, how that works.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan has
joined us. Mr. Kildee, you are recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I apologize for being
late; I had another hearing.
I do want to commend the Park Service for the wonderful
parks we have in Michigan, and the maintenance of them. We all
would like having it a little better, of course; but with the
economy being what it is, I think you have--Isle Royale is just
a gem. Isle Royale became part of the United States only
because Benjamin Franklin, when he was in Paris, felt it was
probably filled with copper, and put the boundary line up a
little higher, so Isle Royale would become part of the United
States rather than Canada.
And the Sleeping Bear Dunes, Phil Hart, who was my
inspiration of getting into politics many years ago, Phil Hart
was the father of that. And I appreciate the care with which
you give those and the other responsibilities you have in the
State of Michigan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Let me finish off this first round with a couple questions of
my own. I have a whole lot here.
Let me follow up on an area that Mr. Tipton started with
you, if I could. I realize that one of the big priorities for
you has been expanding this climate change program within the
National Park System.
It is somewhat seen as duplicative, since we have
overlapping agencies that do the same thing with EPA: USGS, and
the list goes on and on.
Can I ask how much you plan to spend in this fiscal year on
climate change programs?
Mr. Jarvis. About $10 million.
Mr. Bishop. All right. With that, though, we have also
heard from people within the Park Service that there is, in
this effort, no actual work product or results that can be
shown from diverting this $10 million from infrastructure needs
at the park level.
How will it be possible to judge the effectiveness of this
$10 million spent in this area? What is the work product levels
for which you are seeking?
Mr. Jarvis. I can give you some specific examples,
Chairman. For instance, based on some of our climate change
models, we expect sea level to rise. The National Park Service
manages a lot of coastline in this country, and we have
critical resources along those coastlines. Let us say
archaeological sites.
Mr. Bishop. I don't want anecdotal evidence. Give me the
standards you are looking for. So sea level rising?
Mr. Jarvis. No. The standard is vulnerability assessment.
We want to assess the vulnerability of critical resources from
let us say sea level rise. So by doing--the difference that we
do in the National Park Service is, we are very place-based. We
are not theoretical. We are looking right down on the ground,
to say, you know, if the sea level rises, you know, one foot in
the next 50 years, then what resources are at risk.
Mr. Bishop. All right, but once again, the question that is
coming from people within your department is how do we know we
have actually done something. So I am asking what standard will
be used to judge that we actually have had a work product
produced by this money.
Mr. Jarvis. We are developing what we call vulnerability
assessments for all of our national----
Mr. Bishop. When will you have that finalized, and can
share it with this committee?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't have a timeline on completion of that,
but I would be glad to get back to you on that. I just don't
have that in front of me.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We would ask for that, in a timely
fashion.
I have about half my time left. Let me go to one other
element that also deals with climate change, and then I will go
to some other areas on the other rounds, which I have.
You have said if there is any silver lining, climate change
is forcing us to think and act at the landscape scale, words I
don't like to hear. ``No longer can we think of parks as
islands. We have to be planning mitigation corridors so species
can migrate northward.''
I am concerned that there is a mindset within the NPS that
believes that the mission should take you outside of the
boundaries of the National Park Service, as well. So I want you
to tell me how you envision managing a landscape scale when you
run up against impediments like simple things like private
property, or state lands? Do you actually believe your
management scale should go outside the natural boundaries of
National Park Service property?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't believe the National Park Service's
responsibilities are outside of our boundaries, but I do
believe that the Federal and state responsibilities, in
aggregate, need to look at the landscape scale. Everything that
we hear and read about climate change says that species that
normally migrate need corridors to migrate, and they need some
way to move across certain landscapes.
Mr. Bishop. So you have said, though, as far as the Park
Service, you are not looking outside the actual boundaries of
the Park Service.
Mr. Jarvis. Not for our--we are looking to participate in
those sort of large-landscapes discussions, but not to move
outside of our park boundaries, no.
Mr. Bishop. In other agencies that have played around in
the areas, like pest control, wildfire management, BLM, Forest
Service, the others, they have a record that I think is
equivalent to yours, but not necessarily worse than yours. Do
you have a record of better management in these particular
areas than any other agency, which you could name?
Mr. Jarvis. I am sorry, sir, I don't quite understand the
question.
Mr. Bishop. Are you better at managing these resources than
your fellow Federal agencies are at managing these resources?
Like forest health, pest control.
Mr. Jarvis. No. But I think these issues, like forest
health, are an issue that does cross landscapes, as we talked
about with Mt. Rushmore. We are adjacent to Forest Service. And
if we are going to treat mountain pine beetle, we have to do it
together.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I have other questions, but I have
nine seconds left, so I will go to the second round.
Ms. Tsongas from Massachusetts.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I have a question. I know you know
that I represent, as well as Lowell National Historical Park,
Minuteman National Historical Park. And as you have had the
discussion around sort of the balance between purchasing
inholdings versus deferred maintenance, I know that is a
struggle.
But just to give you an example of one of those inholdings
which I have talked about, and probably will talk about ad
nauseam, is Barrett's Farm. And I know that that is one of
those purchases that would take place with a fully funded Land
and Water Conservation Fund. So I thank you for that; it is an
important piece of American history.
But Minuteman National Park is visited by more than one
million people each year. It preserves for future generations
the important sites, including, hopefully, Barrett's Farm,
associated with the opening battle of the American Revolution,
a battle that we all know led to the founding of our country.
And visitors are able to experience the sights, sounds, and
spirit of the landscape on which the Revolutionary militia men
first fought for our nation's independence. Preserving the
soundscapes of the park is critical to achieving this goal,
when you think of the quiet place that this great drama and
important element of our history unfolded.
Nearby Hanscom Field Airport recently announced plans to
double the private jet infrastructure at the airport. These
plans represent a direct threat to the historically and
environmentally significant areas adjacent to the airport from
increased jet aviation and the resulting noise and air
pollution. Due to the severity of this threat, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation has designated the surrounding
area as one of the 11 most endangered historic places in
America.
In 2001, President Clinton established a Federal
interagency working group, composed of representatives in the
National Park Service, Department of Transportation, and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to ``promote the
long-term protection of resources of the Minuteman National
Historical Park and other historic sites in the vicinity of
Hanscom Field.''
Unfortunately, this effort did not make progress because,
among other reasons, it was created immediately prior to a
change in administrations.
This past year, a collection of historians and activists,
including David McCullough, Ken Burns, Doris Kearns-Goodwin,
and Douglas Brinkley, have advocated for reconvening the
Federal Interagency Working Group to address threats to the
park.
Understanding the ongoing concerns the expansion of the
airfield poses to the park, while also appreciating the need
for the role economic development plays in the health of our
economy, do you think it would be helpful to seek to reconvene
a group similar to the Federal Interagency Working Group
established by President Clinton, that would help make progress
in supporting economic development without adversely impacting
the surrounding national treasures?
Mr. Jarvis. I am not familiar with that specific work
group, but I do know that we have a Federal interagency work
group with FAA that addresses impacts from, you know, potential
development of new routes or overflights. And it may be
appropriate that we address it within that, but in this case it
may be more, you know, at this sort of site-specific level, it
might be advantageous to do that.
But let me look into that and see whether or not the
broader interagency work group with FAA that we are currently
working with has looked into this specific one.
We have a very good working relationship with FAA in terms
of the discussions around everything from, you know, route
alignment to approach alignment to, you know, and in the cases
of the parks themselves, you know, reduced-noise aircraft, all
kinds of things, to help reduce those kinds of impacts.
So let me follow up with you on that.
Ms. Tsongas. That would be great, thank you. I think the
fear is that it will be a death by 1,000 cuts, that without a
process that is sort of in place to deal with the need to
address the expansion, the expansion efforts at Hanscom, while
also protecting the natural landscape around which sound is
actually very important for visitors to experience that moment
in history.
So I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry our colleague
from Tennessee, my good friend Mr. Duncan, had to leave.
Because I think he was too quick to take offense, or take as a
challenge, my quotation from Theodore Roosevelt.
The point I was making was not that he was a Republican or
a Democrat or a Bull Moose, but that there is nothing so
American as our national parks. The fundamental idea behind the
parks is that the country belongs to the people. It is
something that, you know, I think was highlighted in the public
broadcast of the parks last year. It is something we mustn't
forget.
On the general question that Mr. Duncan and others had
about acquiring land at tough times, I guess I would ask
whether 1940 was a time that we faced financial stringencies,
economic stringencies here in the United States; and that we
could not possibly have afforded to preserve the Great Smoky
National Park, in what is now Mr. Duncan's district. It was
unaffordable. We certainly should not have done that, I
suppose, now, I think, still the most-visited national park in
the system.
Let me ask whether the money that you propose to spend on
land acquisition, you said it will bring some efficiencies by
acquiring some inholdings. Will it also be preserving things
that might otherwise be lost?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Holt. OK, thank you. Furthermore, let me comment on a
visit that I had to the park that one day will be known as the
park formerly known as Glacier National Park, where I had a
great lesson in the effects of climate change.
It seems to me the money that is spent there recognizing,
cataloguing, documenting the climatic changes is very valuable
work. And I think you had mentioned looking at what might
happen to seashores. But I think you would agree that looking
at what happens to glaciers is also important to be documented,
and important work of the Park Service.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, Congressman, Glacier National Park in many
ways is the poster child for us for climate change. The
disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier National Park is of a
deep concern. Besides their being the namesake, they are what
cool the streams through the summer, and are the lifeblood of
the resident trout populations, which are important for
recreational fishery and the center of the ecosystem there.
Mr. Holt. And not only cool the streams, but actually
provide a stream flow that lasts all year long----
Mr. Jarvis. That is right.
Mr. Holt.--rather than drying up in the summer. Let me ask
a completely separate question.
The Delaware River is part of the Scenic River National
Scenic River System. I am wondering whether you, whether
someone from the Park Service is taking part in interagency
discussions of the effect on the water quality of drilling and
mining activities, in particular fracking, hydraulic
fracturing, in the Delaware River watershed.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Holt. You may not have primary responsibility for
drilling, I understand. But are you taking part in interagency
discussions of this?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. We are participating actively in the
interagency work, looking at the Marcellus Shale and the
fracking proposals in the Pennsylvania-Ohio regions for the
development of these gas resources. Absolutely, we are
participating. And with concerns for protecting water quality,
in particular.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. And if I had time, I would ask you to
discuss your plans for the National Mall, America's front yard
and back yard. But I do not, so I hope maybe you can supply
more information to us for the record.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman from California is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. I will be brief. Mr. Holt covered the
climate issues; there are numerous ones, that he basically
spoke to a few.
The one other thing I would like to comment on, and just
say yes or no. My recollection is in recent decades, every
national park originated with a piece of legislation put
forward by some Member of Congress or Senate. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct. With the exception that some
national monuments are created under the Antiquities Act by the
President.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. So with regard to the growth of
the national parks, if we are concerned about that, we might
look to ourselves.
The other question that I have really deals with the issue
of the role of national parks. You have an organic law that
basically sets out the general purposes. But often each unit
has a specific law that sets out its purpose.
Mr. Jarvis. Correct.
Mr. Garamendi. So with regard to comparing a national park
unit to U.S. Forest Service and their role, or to the Bureau of
Land Management and their role, it really doesn't compare.
For example, in Yosemite timber is not managed at all. It
is natural. Whatever there is, when fires occur, they occur.
With the protection of assets, keeping that in mind. And
sometimes they are put out, and sometimes they are not.
So it is just completely different, and the comparison just
doesn't work, Mr. Chairman. And we may question whether, in a
particular unit, if the national parks, the management plan is
appropriate. And there are certainly questions in most national
parks about that. But to compare the national parks to other
Federal assets is a comparison that is not really useful.
And there are plenty of questions that I have raised, and I
am sure others have raised, about a particular unit's
management. And we have numerous examples about that. We can
talk about the management at the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area with regard to oysters, for example. And it is
appropriate for us to question those.
Mr. Jarvis, thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for what is an extremely important and fascinating
committee. I am delighted to be on it, and look forward to
working with you and the other Members.
One of our great assets are our national parks, and they
are a delightful addition to America's history and culture and
heritage. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee from Michigan, do you have another
round?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. About three
years ago I had the joyful opportunity of visiting the home of
Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site, along with
Eleanor Roosevelt's home.
I was deeply impressed by the dedication of the staff
there. They had a really feeling for the place. But you know,
Presidential libraries now, millions and millions of dollars
are raised by each president, and you can raise it in various
and sundry of ways.
Franklin Roosevelt basically built that himself, the
library attached to his home. And there was a fire in the home
at one time, which required some restoration.
But when I went through there, it must be lack of funding
for that. Because here we have letters of Franklin D. Roosevelt
about the Depression, World War II. I read a letter from
Franklin Roosevelt written in 1934 to John Dingle's dad, who
the son is still serving here in the Congress. He is the
longest-serving--and this is a handwritten letter about a post
office.
And yet I looked around, and the humidifiers were what you
would buy at Sears for your home. The electrical system is
really antiquated, and I think there could be a disaster. And I
know it is not for lack of devotion, of yourself and the staff,
but for lack of dollars.
But what are we planning to do to update that, at least so
we don't jeopardize those valuable papers and all the other
artifacts associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Mr. Jarvis. The National Park Service has more items in its
museum collection than the Smithsonian. And it is a concern, in
terms of protection and preservation of those items. Because we
have inherited places like Roosevelt's home, other places that
come with extraordinary historic resources that are invaluable
and irreplaceable.
And with the money we have, we do the best we can. If we
can't buy the state-of-the-art, we go to Walmart and buy the
latest we can afford.
We have invested over the years to consolidate collections
and put them in state-of-the-art. I believe at the Eleanor
Roosevelt facility, we do have a museum-quality facility that
was developed a number of years ago. But in some of these other
places, we do not. And part of it has been funding issues for
us.
Mr. Kildee. Since that, because I can just tell the
dedication of the staff in talking to some of the people here
in Washington, their concern about that. But perhaps Congress
has to, even while we try to balance the budget, to realize
that those papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt are just absolutely
priceless, and that we should do something.
Certainly Eisenhower's library and Richard Nixon's library
and Bill Clinton's library, they are going to be absolutely,
probably the latest state-of-the-art for safety and
preservation. And here we have something built when Franklin
Roosevelt was still alive, and by the standards of that day.
Mr. Jarvis. We do have a request in for an out-year budget
for the development, protection, and renovation there that
would provide that kind of museum quality. But it is not in the
2012 budget.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am sure Sears and Walmart
appreciate the shout-outs, as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Ranking Member for a second round.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Mr. Jarvis, about half of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund is going to go to the states in
competitive grants. Explain the importance of that.
Mr. Jarvis. OK. The state side of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund has been a program that the National Park
Service has administered in direct association and cooperation
with the states for, since its inception. Though it has been a
small amount of money in recent years.
The approach that is proposed in the Fiscal Year 2012
budget is that 40 percent of the state side of money will still
go directly to the states, based on population. That is a pro
rata formula that has been traditional.
But 60 percent of that money would be developed into a
competitive grant program that is focused on sort of three
broad areas. But let me say in terms of getting down to the
specifics of the state criteria, we are going to directly
engage the states in that discussion. And we have the first
meeting of that next week, for the National Recreation and Park
Association, the National Association of State Park Directors,
and the National Association of State Liaison Officers are all
coming in with representatives, to sit down with us and help
develop that criteria.
So once we do that, then we would assist the states in
making necessary amendments to their Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plans, their SCORPs. And the focus would be
principally on access to rivers for recreation purposes along
waterways. It would be on urban parks, and on pieces of land
that provide really connectivity. You know, public access to
public lands, investment to these portals that provide sort of
this connectivity that we have been looking for, that really
allow the public to get to these public lands and use them for
recreation.
So that is kind of the focus area. But we really need to
work with the states over this next year to develop that
criteria.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, and I appreciate the criteria. Because
that 60 percent does allow an opportunity for urban park
development and activity, and some preservation that is
particularly, in New Mexico and Arizona, where historic and
cultural resource protection is important as part of the whole
visitorship.
Is it realistic to say that we could simply freeze
expansion of the National Park Service while we take the
backlog, maintenance backlog, from $10.78 billion to zero? I
say that with about, the second part of that question is what
would the impact be? We just froze all acquisition, and would
we ever reach zero?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, to a certain degree it is different kinds
of money, in terms of the operational deferred maintenance
versus the Land and Water Conservation funding, which comes
from the revenue side. But let me just say in order to drive
down deferred maintenance, we would need somewhere in the
neighborhood of an annual appropriation specific to deferred
maintenance in the $450 million class. And that would just be
on critical systems. Over a period of about 10 years, we could
drive DM down to zero. So it is not really an offset in that
way.
Let me just say about history doesn't stop in this country.
History continues. And the American people always turn to the
National Park Service to help tell the story of this country,
which is constantly evolving.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
presence and look forward to continuing to work with you,
Director. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me pick up where the Ranking
Member was. I think he asked some very good questions in both
of his rounds.
You mentioned also, not only to him but also to Mr. Tipton,
that $160 million of the fund he was talking about is for
Federal land acquisition. And I was appreciative that you said
that, in exchange for construction and maintenance, was
something with which you argued with the Administration. And
that you tried to find--you argued for a balance. I guess the
question is, was the balance met, in your opinion?
Mr. Jarvis. The Administration set the priority for full
funding at $900 million.
Mr. Bishop. Do I take that as a yes or a no?
Mr. Jarvis. I support the President's budget. We internally
fought a variety of----
Mr. Bishop. That is probably the right answer. You are safe
with that one.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I do want you to talk to me, though, about some
of the line items in there. I notice that you have $66 million
in a line item for construction and management; yet three
different line items have $60 million for planning and
management. Can you tell me why those numbers are so equal, and
why planning is almost as high as the construction on the line
items?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't understand the----
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. It is construction and maintenance
with the $66 million, planning and management with $60 million.
I apologize. If you add the three line items together to deal
with planning and management, they come to $60 million.
Mr. Jarvis. OK. I would assume that that number, and I
would have to look at the hard numbers on that, what the $60
million is.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, OK. Then maybe if you can answer that later
in writing.
Mr. Jarvis. We would be glad to analyze that.
Mr. Bishop. At your pleasure, thank you. Can I ask you, and
once again going back to some very good questions by Mr.
Grijalva, how much has the National Park Service received in
the form of mitigation payments from the Department of Homeland
Security?
Mr. Jarvis. The total for the department is around $10
million. But I can't tell you off the top of my head how much
is specifically to the Park Service, because it is not just for
NPS.
Mr. Bishop. Good, thank you. And maybe that goes to the
second part. How are those funds counted? And how do we track
their spending of those funds?
Mr. Jarvis. It is a reimbursable account. So we have to
expend, devise the project, execute, and then get reimbursed by
Homeland Security from the account that was identified.
Mr. Bishop. So you tell them prior to any reimbursement
what you want, and then they reimburse you for a specific?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Could you give me, say, the last year's
specifics, what they are?
Mr. Jarvis. Certainly.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that, as well. If I
could also ask you why does the Park Service have a policy to
mow Jimmy Carter's lawn and home? It does not appear to be
required in legislation that gave it title. And it is different
than any other living situation in which somebody granted their
property after they left this earthly existence. Why are we
taking care of that property right now?
Mr. Jarvis. I am going to have to get back to you on that
one. That is pretty site-specific, and I don't really know the
details.
Mr. Bishop. Well, it has been in the news, first of all;
and it is truly unique, obviously, in NPS. So I would like a
response to that one, as well.
Mr. Jarvis. OK.
Mr. Bishop. I notice that your budget reduces funds for
National Heritage Areas. And I encourage that, as you are
making a criteria for how to judge those in the future, I think
that is very wise.
You also said that you encourage them to be self-
sufficient. Have we ever had a heritage area that has become
self-sufficient?
Mr. Jarvis. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask two more, if I may.
Snowmobile access continues to be a problem at Yellowstone, or
Sunkist Yellowstone if we go to the future. And I would like to
know if the Park Service is open to crafting an approach that
would allow private-license guides to take groups into the
park, rather than only allowing commercial guided tours? This
would I think allow more access, and perhaps be more
affordable.
Are you open to some kind of pilot program similar to that?
Mr. Jarvis. I think the key to our success thus far in
Yellowstone has been that all trips in are guided, of some way.
I think the key is that whoever is guiding the group has to be
approved by the Park Service, to understand that there are
responsibilities for speed, protection of wildlife, all those
kinds of things.
We are in the middle of an environmental impact statement,
as you well know, for winter use in Yellowstone. And I would be
glad to discuss that with the team of some way that--because I
think guiding of snow machines is essential to that type of
protection. Right now it is all commercial, but I would be glad
to talk to them about that.
Mr. Bishop. I would be interested in that. Now, Mr.
Grijalva, I do have one other personal question. My time is
about to expire. Do you have something else you wanted?
Mr. Grijalva. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee, if you have another question, I
don't want to go in front of you if you do.
Mr. Kildee. No, I am all set. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Then let me ask this last one. I was watching
the local news two nights ago, in which, without giving a
shout-out to Channel 9, but it was Channel 9 news, in which
they were talking about a woman who, back in--do you remember
Carmageddon, back in January? Especially on the parkway; that
is your responsibility. She was stuck on that parkway, with a
five-year-old, she being somewhat diabetic. And in an effort to
try and get out of that parkway, she went across the median,
and your Park Service ticketed her for $150.
Now, one of the reasons why I bring this up is I was on
that same, I can't say damn, can I? That parkway, from roughly
4:00 until 11:30 that same night. And I recognize what had gone
through there. It was a very frustrating experience, where the
Park Service closed the only off ramp in both directions, and
everyone sat there.
I am sorry, back in my home state, when you close a road,
you try and keep people off the road, not try and keep people
from leaving that particular road. Even though on the roadway
going back to Washington, it was all clear at three different
times, even though you didn't allow any cars to go on it. But
it was nicely cleared, anyway.
Can I ask why you were ticketing that woman? Especially
because, in all sincerity, I went across the median as well, to
try and get out of that mess. Three different times you had
emergency vehicles go past us, and they didn't clear it off to
let people out. And in the morning at 7:00, when I woke up and
turned on the news, it was still closed, with over 50 cars
having run out of gas and been abandoned there.
I am very much concerned about those tickets for that
particular night, especially this woman. It illustrates the
situation. I am going to have to tell you, I would appreciate
if you would look into that situation.
Mr. Jarvis. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Because indeed, if she has to pay $150 for
trying to get out of that mess, and others have to pay that,
you will be back here again.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely.
Mr. Grijalva. Could you look into why Mr. Bishop didn't get
a ticket?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I was thinking of mailing him one, but
no.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Fortunately, I was on official business. And
the other six drivers that helped push everybody over so we
could finally get off that. It was a horrible night, I
recognize that. But it is not that uncommon in other areas. And
even though there was a whole lot of snow that came down, there
were hours and hours in which that was not open to people who
were stuck there.
And I was very concerned, especially with that woman.
Because, let us face it, there were no cars coming the other
direction to inhibit her coming across and getting back to D.C.
Mr. Jarvis. We will look into it, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. For her sake.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And mine. I would appreciate you doing that.
With that, unless there are any other additional questions
or comments for the witnesses, I want to thank you for being
with us and sitting here for this time.
Members of the Subcommittee, if they have additional
questions for the witness, they will provide them to you, I
hope. And the hearing record will be open for 10 days to
receive those type of responses.
With that, I appreciate your attendance here. Mr. Jarvis, I
appreciate you spending the time with us.
Meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]