Wilderness in National ParksWilderness in National Parks
Natural Resource Management Policy and Science Program
Budget and Financial Management in the National Park Service
Land and Water Conservation Fund
National Trail System Program
Historic Preservation Fund
Wilderness area designation within the boundaries of National Park units has recently become a concern and issue. In fact, an important part of the Administration's January announcement on environmental initiatives (Lands Legacy Initiative) included permanent wilderness designation in 17 National Park units totaling 5 million acres. These are park units which have undergone wilderness surveys and which were passed on by the President to the Congress in the 1970s, but have undergone no Congressional authorization since then. The units include Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks, Dinosaur, and Zion in Utah; Dinosaur, Rocky Mountain, and Colorado National Monument in Colorado; Assateague Island and Chinocteague in Maryland and Virginia; Cumberland Gap in Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee; Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina; Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; Grand Teton in Wyoming; Glacier in Montana; Crater Lake in Oregon; and Big Bend in Texas.
Of further interest in wilderness areas, there are a number of other National Park units, not part of the announced Lands Legacy, which are currently undergoing proposed wilderness designation primarily through the general management plan process. Two notable park units currently in this process are the Grand Canyon, which plans on designating 94 percent of the land area as wilderness and Isle Royale (Michigan) which plans on demolishing readily used structures and limiting access.
The Subcommittee has a keen interest on the broad wilderness issues within the National Park System and may focus other hearings on specific wilderness issues in specific parks.
Natural Resource Management Policy and Science Program
Because the National Park Service (NPS) has never had a very strong research program it was clear that major reforms were necessary and appropriate. In fact, since 1963, twelve reports have called for the development of a stronger research program within the agency. The most recent major report, completed at the request of Congress in 1992 by the National Research Council, found the science program in need of substantial revision. Yet, two years after the release of that report, the NPS science program was abolished and relocated to the U.S. Geological Survey. The effects of the elimination of the research program place park resources at risk. In successive reports in recent years, the General Accounting Office has reported that the NPS has inadequate data on the condition of resources entrusted to its management. More than one-third of threats to park resources have yet to be scientifically evaluated. The lack of sound science within the agency may lead directly to policies which threaten the resources which the agency is charged to protect. This lack of a sound science program and basic data on park resources is of greater concern because Congress has been allocating over $210 million per year to the agency for resource stewardship.
As a result of these deficiencies, the 105th Congress passed S.1693, a comprehensive National Parks package which was signed into law November 13, 1998. Title II of this package (National Park System Resource Inventory and Management) called for the Park Service to enhance management and protection of park resources by providing authority and direction to conduct scientific studies along with a resource inventory and monitoring program.
The success and implementation of this new program is of prime importance to the Subcommittee.
Budget and Financial Management in the National Park
Service
This is an ongoing issue, yet remains a high priority for the Subcommittee.
The National Park Service's (NPS) budget has increased far in excess of
inflation in recent years (52 percent above inflation from 1980-1995), the
number of park personnel has increased (22 percent in the last decade), while
visitation has remained flat. At the same time, visitor services are being
curtailed and key park resources are allegedly at risk or deteriorating. There
are repeated stories in the media and the Administration about shortfalls in
park funding. Furthermore, overspending on the construction of facilities by the
Park Service has become legendary and tragically, laughable. The construction of
the outhouse in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is one such prime
example.
The Congress has tried to address this concern, by enacting the Fee
Demonstration Program, to authorize the NPS to keep increased fees and also has
examined other programs to raise funds for the agency. However, it is critical
that the agency direct its current funding to the highest priority needs. The
General Accounting Office (GAO) and Department of the Interior Inspector General
have both testified in the past that the NPS had no process in place to ensure
that its funds are allocated to the highest priority needs.
Similarly, up until recently, the NPS has had no accurate idea of how large
the shortfall is, and, therefore, had no plan in place to address the shortfall.
For example, in 1993 when GAO visited 16 park areas to review their reported
shortfalls in funding for housing, not a single park could justify the numbers
submitted to the Washington office. In fact, NPS did not even have an accurate
financial control system in place and had failed to balance its books for three
years, until this fact was exposed through Subcommittee oversight hearings a few
years ago.
However, the NPS has worked hard to address this problem over the last year
and is examining the results of ongoing work by the GAO about the NPS budget and
priority-setting process. The refocusing of budget priorities is largely a
function of agency adherence to and implementation of the Government Performance
and Results Act.
The Subcommittee will be looking at how the NPS is setting priorities,
spending money, and if they are accomplishing established goals.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Implementation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund remains a high
priority for the Subcommittee. It has become even more important recently in
light of the Administration's Land Legacy Initiative announced by President
Clinton January 12, 1999. This initiative intends to spend over $1 billion on a
number of programs such as "Saving America's Treasures", State and Community
Greenspace Preservation, and Protecting Oceans and Coasts. As per the
Administration, much of the spending entails federal acquisition of significant
acreages of land throughout the United States. This is of major concern to the
Subcommittee.
Of further concern, the Clinton Administration has, for many years,
eliminated federal funding for the State-side Land and Water Conservation Fund
program, in favor of dedicating all funds to federal land acquisition. At a time
when the federal government already owns 30 percent of the land and cannot
adequately manage the lands under its jurisdiction, continued expansion of the
federal estate is difficult to justify. In fact, five years ago, the Interior
Inspector General recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
discontinue all land acquisition until they could properly care for the lands
already under their jurisdiction. Further, the need for public outdoor
recreation space is greatest in urban and suburban areas of this country. For
these reasons, continued exclusive focus on federal land acquisition cannot be
justified. Current law specifies that not less than 40 percent of the funds
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act must be available for
federal purposes, however, there is no cap on the amount which can be spent on
federal land acquisition.
The Subcommittee intends to keep close contact with the LWCF programs and
implementation, to focus attention on where the greatest need for outdoor
recreation opportunities lie, and to examine whether the existing funding
allocation is targeted toward meeting that need.