NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 260 

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN AND A 

MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND TO 

REFORM THE PROCESS BY WIDCH AREAS ARE CONSIDERED FOR 

ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

89-593 cc 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Serial No. 104-1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sak hy the l:.S. Governmc.:nt Pri nting Onic~ 

Superintendent or Doc uments. C1mgn.:ssional Sales O ffice . Washington. DC ~04 ~ 

ISBN 0 - 16-047027 -7 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY, Califurrua 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, .Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California, 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virgirua 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, America n 

J .D. HAYWORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA COBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachus~tts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Pu<lrto 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho Rico 

LINDA SMITH, Washington NATHA."l DEAL, Georgia 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLE!'l FREEMYER, Staff Director I Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

(I!) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held February 23, 1995 ............... ................ ............................................ . Text of H.R. 260 ............................................................................................... . Statements of Members: Cremeans, Hon. Frank A., a U.S. Representative from Ohio ...................... . Cooley, Hon. Wes, a U.S. Representative from Oregon ................................ . Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Hefley, Hon. Joel, a U.S. Representative from Colorado ............................ .. Prepared statement .............................................................................. .... . Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................ .. Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a U.S. Representative from Guam ................ .. Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .......... .......... . Statements of witnesses: Gale, Rich, Board Member, Association of National Park Rangers .... ........ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kennedy, Roger, Director, National Park Service ............................ ............ . Prepared statement ......................................... .... .............................. ...... .. McPherson, Harry, Attorney, Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & 

Hand ............................................................................................................. . Prepared statement .................................... .... ......................................... .. Murphy, Don, Director, California State Parks .......................................... .. . Prepared statement ..................................... ............................................. . Pritchard, Paul, President, National Parks and Conservation Association . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Ridenour, James M., Director, Eppley Institute, University of Indiana .. .. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Winks, Robin, Professor, Yale University .................................................... .. Prepared statement ..................... ............................................................. . Additional material supplied: 

Seiberling, John F., former Representative from Ohio ................................ .. Pritchard, Paul (National Parks and Conservation Association): New 

Parks: New Promise (report containing figures requested by Mr. RichRid:~~~.a~~~ae~nKi.· ·(N~ti;~~j ··p-;~k· ··s~~~~j:··T·h~···r:;;~·~~t~;·~· R~p~·rt;:_ Thinning the Blood ............................................ .... ... ................................. .. 

(III) 

Page 

1 

107 

3 

20 

1 

4 

6 

2 

24 

8 

15 

77 

53 

98 

44 

96 

42 

88 

12 

71 

10 

63 

39 

84 

60 

122 

70 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA- TIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. We will call this meeting to order. This is a meeting of the National Parks, Forests and Land Subcommittee. The 

legislation before the subcommittee today is an important first step 

in addressing the two most pressing problems confronting the N ational Park Service today, the integrity of the Park System and 

funding. 

In the 15 years that I have served on this subcommittee, Congress has added nearly 40 areas to the National Park System. 

Without benefit of prioritization and without regard to impacts on 

the current Park System, I have watched Congress establish parks 

ranging from multimillion-acre natural areas to sites consisting of 

a single building on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. 

While some of the most outlandish proposals, such as those to establish the Tenement National Historic Park and the proposal to 

turn Wrigley Field baseball stadium into units of the Park System 

have not been enacted, many other questionable areas driven by 

the "burning in the bosom" of one or more Members of Congress 

have made it through the congressional gauntlet. My concern is simply this: the strength of our National Park System lies in its integrity. Each time we establish an area which lowers the threshold of what it takes to become a park area, we lower 

the overall park standards and quality. Without benefit of a vision 

for the agency, as provided for in Mr. Hefley's bill, the integrity of 

the National Park System remains under constant assault. I recognize that much has changed since the Park Service Organic Act in 1916. Without benefit of explicit congressional redefinition, the role of the National Park Service has evolved to reflect 

the diversity and interests of the American people. Despite the lack 

of overall congressional direction and of a defensible process for 

identifying new park areas, most of the changes to the Park System have been very positive. 

(1) 
2 

However, as we enter the next century, we must answer such 

questions as: Do we need more than 50 Civil War battlefields in 

the Park System? Is 4.5 million acres of Mojave Desert enough? Is 

it the role of the Federal Government to preserve urban open space 

or to keep open public beaches in New York City? Should we spend 

Federal dollars to preserve huge industrial plants such as steel 

mills? 

These questions and more are currently before Congress, and we 

must develop consensus answers to these questions before we act. If the answers to these questions mean that Congress should deauthorize some units of the Park System, so be it. I am interested 

in making our Park System the very best in the world. I am not 

interested in the number of parks on the books. I want to thank F>ach of our distinguished witnesses today for 

their testimony. I know that they have given much thought to 

these important issues, and I look forward to a continuing dialog 

with them as we develop this legislation. 

I want members of the committee to note we have got a vote on 

right now. I assume it is a vote on the journal. Why don't we hear 

from the ranking member, Mr. Richardson. Then let us go vote, 

and we will come back, and I will ask unanimous consent that we 

hear from Mr. Hefley, the chief sponsor of the bill, and Mr. Vento 

who sponsored the bill. Mr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by 

complimenting Mr. Vento and Mr. Hefley for the bipartisan and 

thoughtful manner in which they have approached this issue. H.R. 

260 is an important bill, and I appreciate your holding this hearing. I doubt there is anyone in this room who doesn't like our national parks. I take pride in the National Park System units in my 

own State of New Mexico, as I suspect the Chairman does for those 

in Utah. 

The National Park System, however, transcends State borders 

and any justifiable pride we may have for an individual or group 

of parks. Congress did get it right I believe in 1970 when they declared in law, and I quote, " ... these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their interrelated purposes and resources 

into one National Park System as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that, individually and collectively, these 

areas derive increased national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental quality through their inclusion jointly with 

each other in one National Park System preserved and managed 

for the benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United 

States." 

H.R. 260 is a bipartisan measure because it is aimed at enhancing the quality of our National Park System. However, there seems 

to be more and more talk of this bill as a park closure bill, with 

some viewing it as a means to close parks they believe are nonessential. 

Contrary to what some might believe, it is not easy to get an 

area designated as a unit of the National Park System, and it 

should not be easy to remove them from the system as well. Those 
3 

who think deauthorization is a panacea for whatever ails the National Park System, in my judgment, are not correct. 

We could deauthorize all of the 30-plus units designated since 

1980. Yet, we would save less than 2 percent of the National Park 

Service's annual operation and maintenance budget. Likewise, 

those who think that this bill is a means to stop additions to the 

system are wrong, in my judgment, as well. Important land forms 

and themes of American history are underrepresented or not represented at all in the current system. 

Mr. Chairman, don't get me wrong. H.R. 260 on the whole is a 

good bill that reflects a compromise of differing viewpoints on how 

to achieve a common goal. Many of us supported the bill last Congress. I hope to support it this year as well. However, I think we 

should tread very carefully on this matter. There are no quick fixes 

or easy outs to whatever problems the Park System or the Park 

Service may have. Only a balanced and fair reform process will 

achieve our goal of enhancing the National Park System. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ron. Frank A. Cremeans follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. CREMEANS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been a member of the 104th Congress for almost two months. During this time, I have participated in a number of measures to reform Congress and the Federal Government. Today's hearing is only another 

example of how big ~overnment has taken it upon itself to look out for people by 

purchasing land for 'their benefit" without asking its citizens if this was necessary. 

The United States has over a $4.8 trillion debt and seems to continually want to 

add new land to its already swelling 650-million acre inventory. Mr. Chairman, as I am sure that this hearing will demonstrate, the Federal Govenment needs to get 

out of the "real estate" business and get back to the important busines at hand. 

I would like to share with the Resources Committee an example that is currently 

taking place within the 6th Congressional District of Ohio. The Wayne National 

Forest, which currerntly owns 212,000 acres of land in 12 counties in southeast 

Ohio (30,000 acres are located in Washington County), has laid siege to the Frontier 

School District. They want to purchase an additional 789 acres of land and add it 

to the 38% of the district that they already possess. If a constituent of mine would 

purchase this land, they would have to pay a yearly tax of $3.34 per acre to the 

school district. If the Wayne National Forest is successful in purchasing this land, 

they will only have to pay $.29 an acre, a price that is subsidized through the 

"PILT'' fund. The difference is an additional loss of $1900 worth of tax revenue to 

the school district. Just imagine what this tax money could purchase for the students of the Frontier School District-new text books, new athletic equipment, or maybe just basic school supplies. It does not make much sense to me to allow this transaction to continue. In a time of belt tightening and penny pinching, how can I look in the mirror and let 

this type of travesty continue without taking a stand and put up a fight. Therefore, on February 28th, I introduced two pieces of legislation that would put a stop to 

this infringement upon the citizens of the Frontier School District. The first bill will 

place a moratorium on any additional land acquisitions until the year 2002. Maybe 

by then, with the U.S. Government's fiscal house in order, we would allow them to 

possibly "look" at additional land. The other piece will force the Federal Government 

to pay the same amount in taxes on land it acquires as that of an individual. Why 

should the Feds be any different! If they want to purchase land for whatever use, 

then let them pay a fair market value for it. It is my hope that these pieces of legislation will make the Federal Government think twice in the future with rega1ds to 

land ac_quisition. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing this hearing to take flace. I am sure that 

there are others who have had similar experiences as those o the people of Washington County, Ohio. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hefley and Mr. Vento will have the benefit of giving 
4 

their opening remarks immediately when we return. Is there any 

objection? Without objection, so ordered. We are adjourned until we 

come back on this vote. I would appreciate it if everyone would vote 

and hurry back. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee, at 10:05 a.m., was adjourned to 

vote.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I reconvene the meeting. The gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would like 

to be recorded as being present here. I have to go over to a markup 

in the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your attendance. Prior 

to going over to vote, we had unanimous consent that would allow 

the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation to give an opening 

statement and also Mr. Vento who is also an original sponsor of 

this legislation. Our rules are such that only the Chairman and the 

ranking member can give opening statements so that is why we did 

this under unanimous consent. We will recognize the gentleman 

from Colorado, Mr. Hefley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM COLORADO 

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that unanimous 

consent request and for holding a hearing on this bill, and I would 

be remiss if I didn't thank Mr. Vento, the Chairman of our committee last year on the Parks Committee. 

I think this bill is a result of a truly bipartisan effort; a conservative Republican from Colorado sits down with a more liberal Democrat from Minnesota and with the contention that these kinds of 

things shouldn't be partisan issues. Most of the things we deal with 

in this committee shouldn't be real partisan. 

We sat down and last year hacked out with the help of the Parks 

Department and a number of other people-we hacked out this bill, 

and it passed the House unanimously. The people that were there 

that day all voted for it. It got hung up in the Senate in the last 

days. But it is something that I believe we have the opportunity 

today to do some really good for the National Park System and for 

the country. In any event, I am sure today's testimony will be extremely interesting. 

Over the past few months, this bill has gotten a lot of press. 

Most of it has been surprisingly supportive. Not everyone is convinced this is the way to approach the Park Service problem, but 

most seem to agree there is a Park Service problem and that we 

should do something about it. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people have chosen-a lot of the press, as 

a matter of fact, has chosen to focus on those portions of H.R. 260 

that might entail park closing. That is not what the bill is all 

about. Therefore, I would like to give a little show and tell which 

will help us to understand what this bill is all about. 

First of all, let me give you a picture of what I regard as one of 

the jewels of the system. I will share this here-<>ne of the jewels 

of the system. This picture is Yellowstone National Park. Now, who 

could say that Yellowstone isn't a crown jewel in the Park System? 
5 

When Director Kennedy talks about rangers living in third-world 

conditions, I assume, Director Kennedy, that this is what you are 

talking about. This is not right. This shouldn't happen, and yet it 

is happening. 

Let me give you a closeup of Crater Lake. Now, Crater Lake, 

again, is one of the really beautiful, beautiful parks in our system. 

And to show you here, this is a pole holding up the roof at the 

lodge at Crater Lake. I mean, this is a timber that we have added 

on the outside of the building to hold up that roof; again, something that just should not happen in our Park System. 

Here is the interior of the bathhouse at Hot Springs National 

Park. And I don't know if you can see this or not from back there, 

but if you can, it is in absolute deplorable condition. Hot Springs 

National Park-what that is all about is bathhouses, and this is 

the interior of that which is deteriorating terribly because of damp 

conditions. 

Edison National Historical Site in New Jersey has needed rehab 

work for years, and this just illustrates a little of the condition. I 

see Director Kennedy out there shaking his head, yes, he knows 

what we are talking about. · And one more-Larry, is that it? OK. This bill is an attempt to 

deal with these kinds of problems. You can differ on the amount, 

but it is generally agreed that the backlog of between $10 billion 

to $15 billion exists for land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance in our Park System. Yet, the Park Service 

has regularly been directed to develop sites and projects which 

drew the scrutiny of this committee only after they had already 

begun. This bill is an attempt to deal with that problem. 

H.R. 260 asks the Park Service to develop a plan to carry the 

Park System into the next century. That plan should include goals 

and objectives, an inventory of parks, the criteria for selection of 

sites for national park designation, and a numerical list of priorities for both urban and nonurban parks. 

The Park Service will then take this template up against the 

Park System and see what is there, what is not there, and, in some 

cases, what doesn't belong. In these latter cases, alternative forms 

of management will be examined. In these presumably rare cases, 

soft-landing provisions would be provided for the affected communities. 

If the Park Service fails to outline how it will carry out this mandate in 1 year, a blue ribbon panel will be given 2 years to do the 

job. The bill also underlines the procedures for designating new 

parks, to make sure new units reflect national significance and not 

political clout. 

In conclusion, I would like to say that the history of this bill has 

been marked by an unusual degree of member-to-member contact 

and cooperation. We could probably go over each line of this bill 

and pinpoint which points I wanted, which Mr. Vento fought for, 

and which the Park Service put in. 

When I was lobbying for this bill last year, I said we should be 

able to discuss these kinds of issues in an atmosphere of good fellowship without undue politicizing. I think we achieved that on 

H.R. 260. Therefore, I would say that those who have questions 

about H.R. 260 need to work with us, help make this bill better, 
6 

help us make this work. You know I hold a lot of town meetings 

in my district in Colorado, and there aren't too many things that 

government does that make my constituents stand up and cheer, 

but they do like their parks. 

Many of you have heard me say this before, but I will repeat it 

in closing here. I grew up in Oklahoma before the days when air 

conditioning was quite so prevalent, and every Oklahoman wanted 

to get out of Oklahoma in the summertime for a little bit and get 

into the cool. I didn't grow up in a family that had a lot of money, but we could load the station wagon with a tent and a grub box, 

and we could go to national parks. And we visited national parks 

mostly in New Mexico and Colorado but all over the country really. 

As a child, I developed a deep affection for our National Park 

System and a feeling that this is something that government really 

does better than private industry, and there are not many things 

I would say that about. Tnat is the reason I wanted to be on Mr. 

Vento's committee last year and on Mr. Hansen's committee this 

year. I want to make the Park System better. I watched the struggle that the Park System has had with some 

of the things that we make you do that you would rather not do, 

and we are trying to find a solution to that-a rationale for how 

to strengthen and make better our National Park System. And we 

appreciate the cooperation we have had from the Park System and 

from everybody on this. We hope we can come up with a piece of 

legislation here that everybody will be very, very proud we had a 

part in. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take so long, but I wanted to set 

the stage for this, and I do appreciate this hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:) 

STATEMENT OF H ON. JOEL H EFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATfYE FROM COLORADO 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's hearing. I think we have an opportunity today to do some good for the National Park System and the country. In 

any event, I'm sure today's testimony will be extremely interesting. The bill you see before you today represents the joint efforts of Republicans, Democrats and the National Park Service. If we were forced to, I'm sure we could 

point out which sections of this bill can be traced to myself or to Mr. Vento or to 

the Park Service. It is a truly bipartisan bill that deserves your support. I believe last year's roll call vote of 412- 0 in the House proves my point. 

What would this bill do? Simply stated, H.R. 260 would amend the 1970 General 

Authorities Act and require the Park Service to prioritize and compile a list of areas that should be included for possible inclusion in the Park System, keeping in mind 

factors such as the area's natural and historic significance and the rarity of its resources. The Park Service would be directed to consult with various agencies, State 

officials, advisers, scholars and others about which aspects of the American experi- ence are inadequately represented. This final list will help guide Congress in its future decision8. H .R. 260 requires the Interior Secretary to submit to Congress, for the first time, a coherent vision statement for the Park System within 3 fiscal years. This vision 

statement would include a list of parks that might be removed from the system. In 

those cases where alternative forms of management are recommended, State, local 

and private options for management would be considered and "soft-landing" provisions included for those areas where operations are terminated. Any alten1ative 

form of management would have to be approved by Congress. Both of these later 

provisions were included at the insistence of my colleague and cosponsor, Mr. Vento. In his words, Congress authorized these parks, Congress must deauthorize them. 

If the Park Service does not submit this list to Congress within a year of completion of the overall plan, a 7 -member commission would be appointed with 2 years to carry out the charge previously given the Park Service. 
7 

The bill also establishes a numerical priority system for cultural and natural 

parks, in order that long-standing Park Service priorities do not get lost over the 

years, and directs the Park Service to submit a list of recommended new areas to 

the Congress with its annual budget submission. That is what H.R. 260 is intended to do. Now let me tell you what it will not do. 

It will not sell off the Grand Canyon. It will not turn Park Service operations over to Disney. Finally, H.R. 260 will not, in and of itself, result in the closure of a single 

park. Instead, it will set in motion a process by which we can review and strengthen 

the Park System. Will parks be closed as part of that process? Perhaps. But this 

bill will not close them nor does it, in any way, direct the Park Service to close 

parks. That is for the Park Service or, if necessary, for an independent commission 

and finally, Congress, to decide. It is because Congress has fallen down on this responsibility that we introduced this bill in the first place. 

Now, given the emotional attachment Americans have to our national parks, the 

general reaction to H.R. 260 has been encouraging. Rather than outright dismissal, 

most thoughtful observers have concluded that this is a review that needs to be 

done and have suggested ways in which the process outlined in H.R. 260 might be 

strengthened. We expect to hear some of those suggestions today. Clearly, people 

who know and love parks care deeply about them and realize something must be 

done to improve the present situation. 

Given this background of cooperation, it is unfortunate some have attempted to 

paint this legislation as a mere park-closing bill, as the carrier of a hidden agenda, 

aimed at opening the crown jewels of our public lands to development. To those people I would recommend the advice of the former chairman, ''When all else fails, read 

the bill." There is no hidden agenda here. This bill is a sincere attempt to set prior- ities, to choose quality over quantity, to make the tough choices between creating new areas which can never be adequately funded or taking care of our crown jewels. 

It is an attempt to force choices between parks and housing for rangers. It is an attempt to enforce reason on a process that is bleeding our park system dry. 

We have heard Secretary Babbitt state recently that no parks will be closed under 

his charge. I would ask the Secretary to read the bill and show me where it specifies 

parks for closure. I would ask him where he intends to get the money to pay for 

$1 billion to $2 billion backlogs in land acquisition, for the $6 billion shortfall in 

construction, for the $400 million to $800 million backlog in operations and mainte- nance. And these are figures which do not include the disclosures aired 2 weeks ago. How does he plan to pay for ranger housing at Yosemite National Park or for com- pletion of that park's general management plan? Where does he plan to get the 

money to proceed with war in the Pacific sites, largely unfunded years after their 

authorization? What will he do when billions of dollars in repairs are needed at Glacier National Park, projected repairs that are not even included in the backlog I 

cited? The Secretary's desire for new parks may well be sincere. Mter all, this is 

the man that 2 years ago said the creation of national parks was one of the finest 

expressions of the public will. But, given the present budget climate, that desire is a prescription for the continued deterioration of the Park System's infrastructure 

and for lower morale among Park Service employees. Simply put, Mr. Babbitt is 

being unrealistic. 

As I have described in this statement, this bill has been marked by an unusual 

degree of bipartisanship and cooperation. We have tried very hard to keep politics out of the end product. This is not and should not be about politics. Instead, it is a matter of quality over quantity, of realism versus wishful thinking. I would hope 

the Administration will join us in producing a bill we can all be proud of, instead 

of being obstructionist. 

Back in my Colorado district, I hold regular town meetings and, I can tell you, 

there aren't too many things the Government does that makes people stand up and 

cheer. But parks are one of the things Americans believe their Government does 

right. Yet that system grows worse for lack of sufficient funds every day. By enacting this legislation, taxpayers can be assured their tax dollars are well-spent. More 

important, we will pass on a more worthy national park legacy to future generations. 

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing today's testimony. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. We will now turn to the 

gentleman from Minnesota, the former Chairman of the committee, 

Mr. Vento. 
8 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the members 

for the opportunity to address some opening remarks to the issue 

in the measure before us. I appreciate the good faith in which Mr. Hefley and yourself have worked this last year and the continuity 

in terms of representing and presenting the measure before the 

committee and the Congress in this session as responsibilities have 

changed. The problem, though, remains similar. The issue is one between 

the execution and the actual laws and what happens in terms of 

appropriations. Trying to set up a better process certainly, I think, and building a sound foundation in terms of the consideration and 

designation of national parks is very important to finally achieving 

and obtaining the objective of protection and the designation of 

parks. As my colleague from Colorado has stated, the parks are 

very much supported by the American public. One of the British 

comments picked up by one of the witnesses today is that the parks 

are one of the best ideas America ever had. 

And as a liberal from Minnesota, but I would claim a conservationist and a conservative in the true sense of the word, on this 

committee, and I think my actions testify to that, I very much want 

this system to persist and to work. Many of the parks have been 

really provided through philanthropy from the public domain, from 

various other branches of the Federal Government, the military. And, of course, the reason we are here is because I think questions have arisen as to the integrity of the system, to the designation and to some extent the available resources to meet the chal- lenges that are inherent in the 368 units of the Park Systemsome new units, but by and large, even the photographs that my 

colleague from Colorado held up represent the long-time parks. Hot 

Springs was brought into the Park System at its inception of the 

park law in 1916-the Organic Act. So this backlog is building in terms of maintenance, in tenns of 

inholdings in the park, and they again go back to 1916. Some of 

those inholdings have been there as long as the parks have been 

designated under the Organic Act, and certainly some of the new 

units. We need to, of course, provide a better format, a better blueprint in terms of directions from the Department, from the Park 

Service, from the professionals in the field, and to the Congress. Congress, of course, is complicit in the designation because that 

is the only way that something becomes a park is if it passes Congress as an Act and is signed by the President. By and large, there 

are some monuments that can be designated without our involve- ment. I think that that is not a serious problem or at least it hasn't 

been to date. 

But the point is, it is very important that we establish a process, 

and we often have the recommendations made to us whether it was 

Steamtown, whether it was the Pinckney Historic Site, recommendations made by the Park Service as to positive or affinnative action, or Keeweet in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, one 

that doesn't get mentioned too often but I think has some of the 

same character and problems as other new units that have been 

added to the Park System. 
9 

We tried, I think, to craft those measures at the time in good 

faith and to limit and to guide the development, designation, and 

administration of those units in a way that was responsible given 

the political realities and the other pressures that we were under. 

Often, of course, many of the problems that we see here really are 

that the laws that we write with good intentions are not followed 

through in the years that follow the designation. That was evident 

last night. 

I will just call my colleagues' attention-! don't know the details-but last night, the Appropriations Committee recommended 

that $327 million be taken out of the Park Service budget for 1995. 

I don't know what that means, but I suspect what it means is that 

the backlog isn't going to make very much progress on the basis 

of that type of reduction. 

Now, I suggest that we look at the details of that. It probably is 

something that, again, strings out the responsibility in a way that 

adds additional costs. It may be that it was on a land-water conservation. I don't know where they took the money. Part of it was 

out of urban parks and some of the programs that are central 

there. 

I think the Park Service and the mandate-the challenge has 

been and is-remains one that I am committed to. I think this Act, 

getting recommendations from the Park Service rather than a 

range of options, having a specific procedure set up to reexamine 

existing units, is and can be a very positive means in terms of establishing policy and building and retaining the integrity and credibility of the Park Service. 

So I look forward to the hearings and working with members. Indeed, we have each spent a lot of time looking at this. I have 

worked very hard to try and ensure that the Park Service and the 

system would be able to meet its responsibilities and will continue 

to do so, continue to try to control the Appropriations Committees 

to give the priorities to the elements passed in law as well as to 

their own personal goals in those spending measures which, after 

all, carry forth as to what the policy is going to be, not just good 

intentions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank the members for their patience. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. We appreciate your comments. Our first panel-and as I call your name, would you come 

up and take your place-Mr. James Ridenour, former Director of 

the National Park Service, now Director of Eppley Institute at the 

University of Indiana; Mr. Paul Pritchard, President of the National Parks and Conservation Association; and Mr. Rick Gale, 

board member of the Association of National Park Rangers. Now, gentlemen, you notice there in front of you there are three 

lights. The green light is going to go on, and you can go ahead and 

talk. If the yellow light goes on, start wrapping up, and when the 

red light goes on, would you please terminate your comments. And 

I know that we are going to take your full testimony and make it 

part of the record. If you could compile your statements into 5 minutes, we would really appreciate that. That would be very helpful 

to us, and we would be very appreciative if you would do that. So, 

Mr. Ridenour. 
10 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask unanimous consent 

to place in the record a statement from former Congressman and 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, John Seiberling. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seiberling can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Ridenour, we welcome you here. We appreciate 

the great work you did when you were the Director, and it is a 

privilege and pleasure for us to have you with us today. So we will 

now turn to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES RIDENOUR, DIRECTOR, EPPLEY 

INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA 

Mr. RIDENOUR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure 

and 2 years of retrospect that I return to the halls of Congress to 

testify in favor of H.R. 260. Along the face of it, this bill is about 

parks. In the context of today's debates in Washington, H.R. 260 

takes on a deeper meaning. It flirts with the discussions of balanced budgets, line item vetoes, and unfunded mandates. 

While no one should operate under the delusion or the illusion 

that this bill solves all the problems of the parks, it does sound a 

call for a return to sanity in the way parks have been and will be 

designated. This bill will not provide the $4 billion needed to eliminate the backlog of deteriorating park infrastructure, but it will 

stop the bleeding, it will stabilize the patient, and, most critically, 

create a partnership between the Legislative and Executive Branch 

to deal with the future of the system-a partnership that has long 

been missing. I have recently written a book called, "The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics and America's Treasures." I point 

out that in a 10-year period from 1983 to 1993, the National Park 

Service received nearly $1.4 billion more than it had asked for. 

That would seem to be an agency director's dream, but it was not. 

In most cases, Congress did not direct those dollars to critical areas 

of importance in the parks. Instead, they were directed to new construction, land acquisition not high on the priority list of the National Park Service, if they appeared on the list at all. On a visit to Sequoia/Kings Canyon, I saw raw sewage running 

down the gutters in the parking lots. I visited Yosemite and found 

a badly overcrowded valley in need of infrastructure improvements 

that would allow the movement of employees to less crowded areas. 

I visited Yellowstone and found deteriorating roads and unacceptable employee housing. I visited Independence Hall and found electrical threats to the building. I must hold the record for visiting 

sewage treatment plants in the national parks. 

I pleaded my case for funds to repair badly deteriorating infrastructure and the daily operational needs of the parks, but, inst ead, 

Congress funded additions of marginal parks and more new construction. That is when I coined the term, "Thinning of the blood 

of the National Park Service," and that is exactly what has been 

happening and continues to happen. 

Additional responsibilities have been added with little thought as 

to how to care for the responsibilities we now have. We are stretch-
11 

ing the abilities of National Park Service employees and volunteers 

to care for this vast system, and we are watering down the quality 

of the properties within the system. We are "thinning the blood" of 

our national parks. 

I visited the Canadian Director of Parks because he visited me 

a few years ago and told me of a plan they had in which they were 

going to get to a point and say, "That is it. That is all the parks. 

We have done it." And I called them a week ago to see if they were 

still on that path, and they are. They have identified 39 regions of 

their country and are pushing to have a representative park in 

each of the 39, and their goal is to have this done by the year 2000. 

Then their park system would be complete. That is kind of a 

unique concept. 

I don't think we want to go that far. But, in my mind, there are 

few great "natural" parks left to create in this country that aren't 

already under some form of government ownership. An obvious exception to this statement would be the designation of a tall grass 

prairie park much of which may lay on private land. 

But as we continue to evolve historically, we will continually face 

the need to designate historical and cultural parks. For example, 

we didn't need a space park devoted to telling the story of our involvement in space until we had a space program. There will be 

other examples. 

We should continue to designate new parks, but we should do 

this very cautiously, and we should carefully consider the best 

ways to manage areas. In some cases, it may be State or local government. In other cases, it might be a nonprofit or even a for-profit 

organization that would manage an area. The Federal Government 

should not be all things to all people. 

One of the ways we proposed granting assistance and recognition 

to communities and areas desiring park status was a concept we 

called the American Heritage Area. I believe you passed legislation 

embodying this concept last year, but it didn't make it through the 

Senate. It is an idea worth further exploration. 

Our goal was to provide some form of recognition to the local 

communities without going so far as to grant a long-term Federal 

relationship. Communities are often looking for help, but they are 

not sure what they want. 

We envisioned filling this need by providing some upfront technical assistance, Federal recognition in some form, but not getting 

into the capital expenditures and the operating cost of that local 

system. You have to be careful when you do that. You don't want to get into a situation where you are giving them 

the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval so that people go to them 

thinking they are going to a national park and end up flooding 

your switchboards here in Washington saying they found rest 

rooms that weren't clean. So that is a danger in that area. 

Most people that want a park or a property are looking either for 

money, recognition, or some sort of preservation. In other words, if 

we had the money in the right place, the National Park Service 

would probably not be managing beaches in New York City or in 

San Francisco. They wouldn't be purchasing the very expensive 

tracts of land in southern California. 
12 

Why should they? These are not beaches or mountains of national significance. People don't hop on a plane in Europe to enjoy 

the great natural beaches of New York City or San Francisco. Yet, 

these beaches and mountains are important and are locally, maybe 

even regionally significant. Where should the money come from to 

support them, and why has Congress become involved? And I think 

I know. The answer is money. 

In the case of Steamtown, it is a good project. Its roots are in 

history, and its future is in tourism. It is a great place to visit especially if you are a steam engine buff, but is it a legitimate national 

park? I doubt it. Is it a good economic development project with 

tourism potential? Probably so. Would I plan a family trip from 

California to visit Steamtown? I might if I were a steam engine 

buff. 

In retrospect, Steamtown might better have been channeled 

through an economic development agency such as the Department 

of Commerce. Then we wouldn't have this confusion that exists. It 

would have had to stand the test of receiving funding as an economic development project rather than a national park site. 

I have a number of amendments that I would offer. They are 

largely technical in nature, and I see the red light is on, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I will hold my fire for questions. 

I just want it noted in conclusion that we did the J. Alden Weir 

site when I was Director-the painter's home in Connecticut. I 

asked if J. Alden Weir was really a significant painter. I got various opinions from that he was in the top 10 to he was in the bottom 20. 

Until it came time for the congressional hearings, and, obviously, 

the Connecticut congressional delegation had gotten to everyone, 

and they thought he was the greatest painter since Rembrandt. 

But I see you have got Thomas Cole on your list to consider this 

time around. Is Cole better than Weir? I don't know. But the one thing in my technical amendments I say is you may 

want to go beyond just talking about sites and talk about theme 

studies. Are you going to take any artist's home, and if you are 

going to take an artist's home, which one should you take among 

all the artists of the United States. Are you going to take any architect's home or whatever it might be? So I suggest you add a little bit about theme studies maybe before doing site studies in some 

of these instances. 

I appreciate the time to talk with you, Mr. Chairman, and get 

away from the IU basketball scene at Indiana which has not been 

particularly good this year. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridenour can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Ridenour. I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Pritchard, we will turn the time to you. 

STATE:MENT OF PAUL PRITCHARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here. I am the President of the National Parks and Conservation 

Association. I appreciate your willingness to take the testimony 
13 

and the 19 pages of specific suggestions and recommendations we 

have which we will leave with the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. 

May I say though that as we go forward with this very important 

legislation that it be looked at as probably the most important action that will be taken regarding national parks since the Organic 

Act of 1916. There is no issue of greater consequence than what 

you all are dealing with, and I commend to you the importance of 

this process. I have had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Vento and Mr. 

Hefley and I want to say how much I appreciate the nonpartisan 

approach that both have taken with respect to H.R. 260. I also appreciate the opportunity to appear today and discuss this issue 

with the subcommittee. 

Speaker Gingrich has talked about the unique American character and culture which must be preserved. There is no better repository of America's culture than our National Park System, and 

that is why we hope that the committee will follow Chairman 

Young's promise and take this process and subsequent hearings to 

the people. 

We support field hearings because we sincerely believe that they 

will contribute to the development of a fair process and an impartial piece of legislation which will carry out the intent of the sponsors of this bill. 

May I say also that we supported this bill last year and would 

hope to support this bill in the future. That is why we have come 

forward with the recommendations that I will summarize. 

It is also a privilege for me to be here with Mr. Ridenour and 

Dr. Robin Winks. Both of these individuals recently participated in 

an NPCA-sponsored day-long meeting with other prominent park 

authorities on H.R. 260. I am grateful for their time because our 

recommendations are, in part, influenced by the thoughts of the 

meeting's attendees. We have also conducted focus groups around 

the country, and we will share those comments. 

First of all, let me specifically relate to the need for a national 

park system plan. We very much support that concept. We feel 

though that the concept should be ratified by the Congress before 

the review of the existing units (Sections 102 and 103) are carried 

out. We can give you more specific thoughts on that, but our sense 

is that Congress is the appropriate body to establish and authorize 

parks. We believe you should also approve the criteria that will be 

used to determine whether existing units merit continued inclusion 

in the National Park System. 

An important recommendation relates to the NEPA exemption. We highly recommend that this bill be amended to allow for NEPA 

to do the work that it has done so effectively for over 25 years. The 

NEPA exemption is an important point and one which we believe 

could cause a great deal of acrimony and misunderstanding. NEPA 

provides for public review and comment and this bill should comply 

with NEPA. 

We also would suggest to you that there is a need for you to 

study another issue that H.R. 260 doesn't address, and that is the 

very management of the National Park System. We believe that a 

lot of the problems that are being addressed here, and that have 

been addressed in the past by this committee, have been brought 
14 

about by having the National Park Service in the Department of 

Interior. 

We would encourage you to use this opportunity to study the organizational structure of the National Park Service to consider if 

it merits a Board management structure similar to those of the 

Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, and the Federal 

Reserve. 

Regarding criteria for the review of existing units, we think there 

should be two tiers. The first tier should deal just with those most 

important questions as were just addressed by Mr. Ridenour, and 

that is issues of national significance, feasibility, and suitability. 

Does this particular park, existing or future, merit inclusion in the 

National Park System based on these standards? If it does not pass 

those questions, then it needs to deal with other more secondary 

considerations. We have included some recommendations in the attachment to NPCA's testimony. 

Of the criteria in the bill, the issue of cost is one that could be 

interpreted as a Trojan horse. It is mentioned several times, and 

we think that cost is an important factor and we certainly support 

a recommendation which would include that. But we are concerned 

as to how you would determine costs; for example, the cost per 

acre, the cost per visitor. How do you value where Lincoln gave the 

Gettysburg Address versus where Lincoln was assassinated? The 

cost of these factors is also very difficult to determine. We would 

encourage you that, at best, cost is a secondary criteria or part of 

a feasibility and suitability review. 

We also recommend to you that you create a Citizens Advisory 

Council consisting of national park experts who would parallel the 

work of the Park Service. They should also have the authority to 

report back to Congress and the American people without the political review and comments of the Office of Management and Budget. 

We would also recommend an exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which is often a cumbersome and bureaucratic 

obstacle to an expeditious process. 

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Ridenour's comments on the new 

areas provisions cover that subject amply. We agree with his comment and further recommend that this process will not be an effort 

to inhibit the additions of appropriate new areas. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that you consider an authorization for these processes. The bill does not include funds for 

the National Park Service to do the work that H.R. 260 would require. The National Park Service deserves these authorizations to 

do this work and they deserve an appropriation as well. 

We encourage you not to ask the National Park Service to make 

this another unfunded congressional mandate. 

Mr. Chairman, ~~w~ concludes my testimony. Thank you again 

for allowing us this privilege. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pritchard can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. We appreciate your comments. Mr. Gale. 
15 

STATEMENT OF RICK GALE, BOARD MEMBER, ASSOCIATION 

OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS 

Mr. GALE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of the Association of National Park Rangers on 

H.R. 260. Our association has long been interested in having clear 

criteria established and applied for determining the national significance of new areas to be admitted to this Park System. H.R. 

260 appears to be an effort to do this, and we commend your committee for their interest in this. 

Clear criteria for authorizing nationally significant additions to 

the Park System, coupled with appropriations sufficient to protect 

and manage a new area, we believe, are the keys to maintaining 

the integrity of the system. The danger of not applying such criteria and practices is the proliferation of new areas of less than national significance and the impact of such new areas on the integrity of the system as well as on the operating budgets and staffing 

of existing areas of the system. 

The approach in recent years has become increasingly political 

with standards for national significance which were envisioned by 

the Congress in 1916 being subverted by the need, it appears to us, 

to have some type of area with the term "national" in its title in 

every congressional district. 

This is not a new phenomena, however. William Everhart, in his 

book, "The National Park Service," recalls, and I quote, "In 1916 

alone, there were bills introduced for 16 new national parks, which 

would have doubled the number existing. Fortunately, and perhaps 

proving the system, Congress passed only two, Hawaii Volcanoes ... and Lassen Volcanic .. . ; the rest of the proposed parks were 

fairly dreadful. 

"In one 3-week period of the 1920's, bills were introduced in the 

Congress to establish High Knob National Park in Virginia, Nicolet 

National Park in Wisconsin, the Yakima National Park in Washington, Killdeer National Park in North Dakota, Wonderland National Park in South Dakota, and eight more pieces of less-thanspectacular wonders scattered around the country. Claims were 

often made for historic sites, ranging from the purely insignificant 

to the hilarious, most of which are clearly worthy of oblivion." 

Everhart also mentions that in 1922, the then Secretary of the 

Interior, Albert Fall, was quoted as saying, "Whenever in the public lands I can find a pleasant place for local people to go up and 

camp, there I shall have a national park." 

Sadly, Mr. Fall's urge to add "every pleasant place to camp" to 

the system has been replaced by the equally disturbing trend of the 

past several years to attempt to add thinly disguised revitalization 

projects in both rural and urban areas of this country. 

We are not dismissing the acute needs of this nation's urban and 

rural areas, where the NPS may have some role to play, but we 

do question attempts to use the National Park Service as an economic development agency. Each of these areas bleeds off more 

funding and further dilutes the significance of existing National 

Park System units. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that more than ever before, the National Park System is threatened with mediocrity. We think to reverse this threat two things must happen: first, we urge the Con-
16 

gress to tighten up the process by which new areas are added to 

the National Park System. And, second, we urge the Congress that 

once authorized under those new criteria those new areas are adequately funded through the appropriations process. 

Therefore, we fully support the need to establish a comprehensive study process which clearly define criteria for determining the 

suitability and feasibility of proposed additions to the system. As 

we understand it, the process outlined in Title II of this bill is similar to the processes for studying proposed additions to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and to the National Trail System. Both of 

these processes have worked well for these systems, and we believe 

they would work in a more rational approach to adding new areas 

to the Park System. 

We also believe that the legislative process must ensure that new 

areas are adequately funded for acquisition development operations 

before they become units of the system. We understand, Mr. Chairman, the distinction between authorization and appropriation. Yet, 

we believe it is vital that the link between these two processes be 

established when considering new area proposals. Otherwise, we 

will continue to see new areas authorized without additional funds 

with continuing dilution of the operational abilities of the existing 

system. 

Title I also speaks to the concern of national significance by establishing a process for identifying existing areas for possible termination or modification. We believe this process, if it is to be credible to the American public, must also be based on the same national significant criteria which clearly shows why that unit should 

not be in the system. 

Perhaps fomter Director of the Park Service, Newton Drury, captured the essence of this problem when he said, "If we are going 

to succeed in preserving the greatness of the national parks, they 

must be held inviolate. If we are going to whittle away at them, 

we should recognize at the very beginning that all such whittlings 

are cumulative, and the end result would be mediocracy." 

Mr. Chairman, we have some specific comments on the language, 

and I see my time is running out. It is in our testimony. I won't 

go through that. But we do support this legislation, and we would 

be happy to answer any questions or provide any further assistanee 

that we might to this subcommittee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gale can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gale. We appreciate the excellent 

testimony from our panel. What we will do now is we will turn to 

questions from the committee, and I would caution the members 

and the witnesses that you are included in the 5 minutes. So your 

question and response is part of the 5 minutes. We will start with 

Mr. Richardson. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. lVlr. Pritchard, let me ask you two questions. 

I think we can get the 5 minutes in. First, are there any land areas 

or historical themes that you see underrepresented or not represented at all in the Park System, and, if so, what are some examples? 

You talked about the Citizens Commission. If we had a Park Review Commission-in other words, if we were to authorize a Park 
17 

Review Commission, where would we find impartial members? 

How would you suggest that we proceed with establishing such a 

commission? Do you allow the President, majority, minority leaders? Is that the best way to do it, or do you designate conservationists or the land use movement? How do you reach an impartial 

body in such a commission? And I would like you to answer both 

questions. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Richardson, first let me say I very much appreciate your opening statement. I thought it was very sensitive 

and well thought out. Regarding new areas, Mr. Gale and I were 

talking about areas and opinions, and I think if you ask this panel, 

each of us would probably have five different areas that we might 

think should be part of the National Park System. 

That is why we think the National Park System plan should be 

ratified or codified by Congress. Then, the National Park Service 

will have clear guidance from Congress and will apply the recommendations to the review. Everyone will have an opinion, but 

the National Park Service should know Congress would be the best 

way because, unfortunately, we have identified approximately 80 

areas in a written report we published in 1987. Approximately half 

were cultural and half were natural. I think, as Director Ridenour 

was implying, America's history will continue to evolve, and we 

need to be sensitive to any new history elements. But there are 

very few natural areas absent from the National Park System, except for tall grass prairie. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Will you supply those 80 for the record? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Yes sir, we will. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would ask unanimous consent they be part of 

the hearing record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Regarding the second question, our suggestion in 

the testimony is that this citizens group be constructed similar to 

how the National Park Service Advisory Board was appointed. 

That is, a body of experts who represent geology, history, and other 

disciplines should be part of that commission. 

We would encourage you to follow that same process. Who appoints them is really a decision of the Congress. What we are most 

concerned about is these people be authorities in their field. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Mr. Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I will pass momentarily on 

my questions and give the rest of the committee a chance to ask 

questions, and then I would like a chance, if I might. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate and want 

to especially welcome the panel here. They are individuals that 

have worked on these subjects, thought about and had the responsibility for, so it is really, I think, an excellent panel that the 

Chairman has provided for us in terms of giving us insights today. 

One of the concerns, of course, is as we look at the parks, the 

Park System itself really started out in 1916 without any base of 

land. And we have, of course, agriculture, the Forest Service, and 

the BLM for public resources and many other government agencies 

like the Department of Defense. 
18 

In fact, I think the members would be surprised if they looked-

! know I was surprised at the number of units that really came 

from other Federal agencies that became units of the Park System. Isn't that likely to continue? I mean, you can say you can't have 

parks, but then we are going to back the Forest Service and the 

BLM into actually providing these same types of units. Mr. 

Ridenour? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I might respond to that by saying that I have another term called "blurring of the lines"-thinning of the blood and 

blurring of the lines. And the blurring of the lines term is my feeling that you are going to see a smudging of the lines of the responsibility between the Park Service, the Forest Service, the BLM, the 

Fish and Wildlife. And you are going to see the possibility of activities taking part on Forest Service land that traditionally had been 

on Park Service land, and I see that as a very positive attitude. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it would also go to local and State governments that have similar researches. I note Mr. Murray, a distinguished conservationist and Park Director from the State of California, is here to address this today as well. I just wanted to point 

that out, that we really don't solve the problem in a sense that if 

the money is coming out of-! mean, we have a mission here. 

I think there is some importance to having some clarity in terms 

of various functions, and I think that there are opportunities certainly for some of the same responsibilities depending upon the 

visitors. What about the visitor visitation? Doesn't the increase 

pushing to nearly 300 million visitor days imply that we need to 

make better utilization? 

For instance, you have mentioned, Director Ridenour, that you 

visited a lot of sewer plants in the Park System. I have too. I 

thought some of the tour boats would get off in the Virgin Islands. 

And some of these locations that are designated parks represent a 

tremendous responsibility for the Park System. I think the park 

rangers end up being attendants basically at rest rooms in some 

cases in these instances. I mean, how do you solve it? There is this 

tremendous pressure of people using and overutilizing some pa rks 

and probably underutilizing others. Mr. Gale, maybe you would 

like to comment about that? 

Mr. GALE. Well, some of that is due to accessibility, sir, and some 

of that just due to popularity. I mean, people are going to come to 

the Grand Canyon. 

Mr. VENTO. So America solves that problem by, you know, taking 

some of the units out. Some of the most popular units that are the 

crown jewels are really the ones that are receiving the tremendous 

pressure. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. GALE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. And so there isn't any substitute. I happily record 

here from the Director of the Park Service that the Washington 

Post number is not $327 million, it is $45 million as taken out of 

the Park Service. But, nevertheless, it is still a significant drawback in terms of meeting commitments when you look at a budget. 

It is a lot of money when you have too little. I am talking about 

the budget statement I made in my opening comments earlier. Mr. Pritchard, you comment about a variety of different things 

here, but one was the NEPA requirement. And I would just add 
19 

that that was added from last year. It is not unusual in land transactions or trades or other changes taking place to try not to get 

hung up on the legal as long as in substance or in essence we are 

completing the public participation and other elements. But I guess 

we can review that with the other sponsors. 

Mr. Ridenour, one of the concerns is, of course, you pointed out 

that the Park Service had received these extra dollars. In fact, from 

1977 to 1993, they received about $700 million more, sometimes 

more than the Park Service asked or requested. And the fact is 

that, of course, that was for operation and maintenance-the $700 

million-only for operation and maintenance, an increase of two 

and a half times-you know, three times the money that they had 

been receiving before. 

So there has been a commitment by Congress, and I might add 

that very often we were actually increasing it over and above what 

the Administration had sought. And, of course, that still has not 

kept up. I mean, everyone admits that there are problems-! guess, 

that the bigger you can make the problem, the more ridiculous it 

ends up looking. But I think that that is a mistake in and of itself 

in terms of doing that. 

But much of this infrastructure, much of what has happened 

here is due to the existing responsibility of the increased 

visitorship, Mr. Chairman and members, not necessarily just the 

fact that we have added some units. 

In fact, I would point out to my colleagues that the Park Service 

has done an extraordinary job of partnerships in terms of the State 

Historic Preservation Offices, the partnership acts, the concessions. 

I mean, they have looked at every resource they can, and they are 

certainly open and certain to look at more, to try to make these 

parks achieve the goals and to have the type of arrangement or 

governance structure that permits us to get the job done. 

I am certain many of my colleagues were surprised to come here 

and find the Park Service only had about $1.6 billion of the budget 

considering the size of the budget and the responsibilities they 

have. They do a rather remarkable job when you consider the pervasive nature and responsibility of something like the State Historic Preservation or the National Historic Preservation Act which 

has offices in every one of our States. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Doolittle from California. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Mr. Gale, I listened with interest to your testimony, and I think this is a very vital issue, and I commend the 

gentlemen here who have introduced this bill. It does seem strange 

to me though that while I have heard the National Park Service 

express great concern over the lack of resources and the problem 

with the national parks, it seems to me that they have actually officially supported during the 4 years I have been on this committee 

at least three-fourths of the new additions that have come before 

this committee. 

And I would just like to ask you, Mr. Gale, what is your recollection as to their support for that, and do you not think-! mean, 

Congress legitimately should be blamed for doing these things, but 

why has the National Park Service been a willing co-conspirator? 
20 

Mr. GALE. Well, I am not sure I can answer that, sir. I am just 

a working minion, but I think you are right. The Service has supported all of that. I guess I would answer you by saying I think 

it is resolved to the fact that there is no clear national significant 

criteria against which those areas can be measured. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. I am encouraged, based on what we are seeing 

that perhaps we will have a stronger voice raised, that when some 

congressman goes to the National Park Service to ask for you to 

support this, I hope you will turn him down. 

I realize you are not the National Park Service per se, but we 

have those who will be representing officially that organization. 

And I just find it remarkable that there has been so much willing 

complicity here on the part of the Park Service. If it has become 

a mediocre organization, they have only themselves to blame., it 

seems to me, because they have indulged in these acquisitions and 

encouraged this to go on. Somebody could have raised his voice and 

helped slow that down. If the Park Service had opposed these acquisitions, I think many of them would not have occurred. 

I think we are now faced with a situation-Mr. Vento is alluding 

to the overuse of some of the parks. I think going back even into 

the Reagan Administration, why, they were talking about trying to 

take care of the parks we have got and meet the needs of the visitors rather than constantly seeking to acquire new land. At least 

as one member, that is the approach that I would like to see followed. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Cooley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES COOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OREGON 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reconfirm what Mr. 

Doolittle has said. He said pretty much the same things I wanted 

to ask-is that you look at the Park Service, and you look at the 

expansion in the last 10 years, and you look at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars, and now we are finding out that the amount of 

properties which we are managing is being criticized as being "underfunded," not properly maintained, and maybe even the suggestion that we are having a national disgrace here on these historical 

sites. 

It is really too bad that we are at this stage. In our previous discussions with the Park Service, and we brought up these issues at 

that time, I really truly believe that if you look at this fundamentally, this is bad management, no management, not properly setting out goals, not looking at the real object that you are supposed 

to do and that is provide the services to the American people in 

these particular pieces of land that you have decided that you are 

going to manage. 

In any operation, as these units became less desirable, somebody 

in the management aspect of the Parks Department should have 

pulled back and said, "Look. We just can't continue on stretching 

ourselves thinner and thinner to the point that we are today." I 

think that we need to look at the management aspects of this all 

the way along and the appropriations of money that have been 

given to you in the past and how it has been utilized. 
21 

We asked for an accountability the last time we had a hearing 

on the Parks Department. We are still waiting for that accountability. We were told by the General Accounting Office that there had 

been suggestions in 1992, 1993, and 1994. We want to see those 

suggestions. We have not received those as of this date. I wish we 

had them so I could have brought those up at this time. 

I know that there is a lot of pressure to do many, many things, 

but in the management aspect of the Parks Department, you 

should have been more aware of what was going on and brought 

this to the attention of Congress, and that wasn't done. So now 

what we are doing is we are trying to play catchup. We should 

never have played catchup. We should have been ahead of the 

curve, and so we are behind. 

It is too bad that we do have this situation, but I hope that with 

this bill and other legislation that might come along that the Parks 

Department and Service will start to understand that there is a responsibility not only to maintain the parks and make it available 

to the citizens of the United States, but there is a management aspect of this whole situation. 

And we need to put people in management that understand management and not just merely use the excuse that these gentlemen 

and ladies are rangers. This has to be managed. This is billions of 

dollars of American public assets, and we are not managing them. 

And now we are finding out that they are disintegrating; no maintenance, no management. We are losing the asset. We are losing 

the values of the asset. This is public property. If we look at a $6.8 billion asset here, 

and we are not managing it properly, somebody is responsible. 

Now, maybe it is Congress, but I would say that we ought to turn 

back and look at the management of the Park Services all the way 

from the top down. And you should have been coming to us before 

and telling us about these problems so Congress could have done 

something, and then you could have turned and said, "We asked 

you for this, but you didn't help us." We don't see this in the past. 

Now we are seeing it, and I am really disappointed. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Cooley. Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with your testimony and with the members here who feel that maintenance of the 

parks is probably one of the greatest priorities that we have in 

front of us. What I want to ask you about is how do we in Congress 

have an oversight of the prioritization of the money? 

For example, last week in a hearing there was testimony that 

NPS developed a $600 million plan for the Presidio. Now, just because the Park Service Director or Manager dreams up something 

like that, I don't think that means that that is necessarily the way 

the money should be spent. So can you give me an idea of how the 

interchange between the Congress and the managers ought to be 

with regard to the prioritization of maintenance? 

I think we should do away with acquisition. We need to just stop 

that right now and deal with the problems that we have. But in 

terms of dealing with maintenance, what role should the Congress 

have, in assisting in those decisions, or should they have a role? 
22 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mrs. Cubin, I think that is a very important 

question. From the standpoint of our citizens group that has 

worked with the National Park Service since 1919, we find t:hat 

there are several problems. Mr. Cooley just referred to one and we 

believe they are related. 

First of all, to give the Park Service surges of money periodically 

like Mission 6G and the PRIP Program is not the best way to support the National Park Service's maintenance needs. The National 

Park Service needs to have a good plan, and Section 101 calls for 

such a plan. That plan needs to be approved by the Congress, not 

just required and developed. 

But once you have approved that, then they need to have sufficient annual appropriations to do their job-not just sporadic infusions of money. NPCA supported the PRIP Program in the early 

1980's because we felt that was the only way to catch up, but that 

is bad policy. 

My last point would be that I think what both of you are pointing out is the continuing systemic problem of the National Park 

Service being part of a multiple-use agency and not really having 

a clear sense of mission and purpose. 

We think you will have a better response to the testimony presented at last week's hearing if you can hold the Director clearly 

accountable. If the Director doesn't have to go through a lot of 

other parties that are reviewing the testimony, who delete and add 

policy statements in keeping with a particular administration, 

maybe you will get more straight and honest answers. So we would 

encourage you to include making the National Park Service an 

independent agency as part of the plan. 

I am sorry, Mr. Ridenour. May I just add that I think there is 

an issue that the committee should also address, and that is other 

funding sources. We have addressed that in other hearings, and it 

deals with the fees legislation, which we support, and the concessions reform legislation. We also would be happy to talk about that 

at some future hearing. Thank you. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. RIDENOUR. Before we all feel too bad about ourselves, both 

the Congress and the Executive Branch, and I served in the last 

Administration, one thing that I would note that what is happening to the Park Service is not unique to the Park Service. As a kid 

growing up in Indiana, our roads on the farms were gravel. As a 

teenager, they were paved over. The county commissioners paved 

them over. Now, when I go back, the pavement is crumbling, and 

they don't have the money, and they are putting gravel on top of 

the base. And so we are back to gravel roads. 

So this whole country is suffering with an infrastructure problem. Everyone has sewage treatment problems. It is just not the 

Park Service. I personally think that the Park Service ought to be 

a shining example, if anywhere in this country, that we are doing 

things right environmentally. We shouldn't be polluting streams in 

the Park Serviee with sewage for foreign visitors to see. 

So I would just say that while it is good that we target on the 

problems we have in the Park Service, this is not just a problem 

we are facing in the Park Service. We are an aging country, and 

that age is beginning to show a little bit. 
23 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Underwood. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am glad that 

you brought some balance to some of the discussion on the issue 

of the lack of infrastructure and attention to the national parks. I 

think that the proposed legislation deals with some of the issues 

attendant to this in a very intelligent way. 

Mr. Ridenour, you had the term thinning of the blood and blurring of the lines. I was wondering if you had a term for dealing 

with the problem of inholdings, especially private land inholdings? 

Basically my interest in this issue is prompted by some of the 

concerns of people on my home island, but if the intent of the legislation is to deal with the issue of how national parks are added, 

and we know that the Park Service either is not managing as well 

as perhaps it should be, and that clearly they are not getting funded at appropriate levels to deal with the infrastructure problems, 

clearly some estimates, between $1 billion and $2 billion, of funds 

needed to deal with all the inholding questions, what would your 

thoughts be relative to including some kind of timeframe or some 

kind of review process on the inholdings issue to be part of this 

kind of legislation? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. Well, it is remarkable how much you learn after 

you have been Director, and so I have had a chance to do some 

studying of other systems. And I have studied the English system, 

and I am presently under consideration to be a part-assist a 

group that would go over and create a National Park System for 

Bulgaria. So I have been studying some of the English and European systems, and essentially what they do, which I don't think we 

would tolerate here in the United States, is they create their parks 

not by ownership but largely through zoning. 

In other words, as I visited the English system and told them 

how popular the American Park System was, they laughed. And I 

said, "Why are you laughing?" and they said, "Well, because we are 

not popular. We do it through zoning." One lady told me she had 

been trying to get her door painted yellow for 10 years and couldn't 

get it passed. So, in other words, those beautiful English villages 

that I love to walk through and hike are kept that way largely 

through a zoning. And I said I don't think that is going to work 

in Idaho. 

But getting back to your specific question, you know, there are 

inholders who definitely want to no longer be inholders. And I 

think we ought to deal with that kind of a problem as we can financially, and they ought to be on a priority list, and it could be 

made a part of this study. There are people who do not want to be 

dealt with. They want to be an inholder. Obviously, let us not take 

on the hard fight unless we absolutely have to. 

For example, if an inholder's property is actually threatening a 

natural or cultural resource in some way, then I think you have to 

deal with that fairly quickly. That doesn't necessarily mean that 

you have to buy it. You could buy an easement. You could buy an 

easement which says, "We are buying away your right to develop 

it further, and here is the cash for that. But you can continue to 

live here, and you can continue to stay here under the terms of the 

easement that you and I would both agree on as a landowner." 
24 

So I think easements probably are a direction that-you know, 

every park superintendent that I have ever known really doesn't 

like to have inholders. I mean, once the line is drawn around, they 

would rather get them out. But I think that is something that 

could be dealt with in a little softer tone and probably work successfully. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I appreciate that very much-especially 

when there is apparently no interest or it is not high enough of a 

priority within the National Park Service and you can't deal with 

it from the congressional end, that some of these inholdings have 

gone on 20, 25, 30 years, and they are unable to do anything with 

their property. They conduct title searches. They can't get money. 

They can't borrow money so it is a serious problem, and it is something that I think fits in line with the kind of broader issues that 

we are trying to attack through this legislation. Thank you for your 

comments. [The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM GUAM 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, for holding this hearing today on H.R. 260, the National Park System Refonn Act of 1995. This legislation being introduced by Mr. 

Hefley along with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Vento, requires the National Park Service 

(NPS) to construct a strategic plan and detennine the agency's priorities. H.R. 260 

also increases Congress' oversight of the Park Service in obtaining more park land. 

The National Park Service has several financial backlogs of $1 billion to $2 billion 

and a construction backlog of $6 billion. For years the National Park Service has 

been criticized for those backlogs. The bill ensures that the NPS does not continue 

to increase the number of areas it manages when it already has difficulty meeting 

its current financial obligations. This legislation attempts to improve the way park 

lands are added to the NPS which have been criticized for some time. The NPS would be required to submit to Congress a National Park Service System Plan which would include among other items a statement of its goals and objectives and a list of resources to be included in the NPS. These actions will greatly 

improve the functioning of the NPS, allowing greater congressional oversight and 

providing clear priorities for the NPS. Not included in this plan is a statement of 

priority for inholdings acquisition. I believe this would more fully complete the goal 

of this legislation. Any plan outlining the future objectives of the NPS must include 

its priorities for the acquisition of inholdings. We must enable the NPS to better operate the sites it now manages. New sites 

should be added to the Park Service only after serious consideration and justification. Quality, not quantity, should be the trade mark of our National Park Service. 

In lieu of this, H.R. 260 creates a responsible procedure for new park land possession. 

In enacting this legislation we are not only ensuring a responsible process for the 

NPS, but allowing the NPS to live up to its obligations. The National Park Service 

has the opportunity under this legislation to restore its reputation and better man- age the land the people have entrusted to it. 

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Hefley, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Vento on the 

bipartisan effort which has brought this legislation before the subcommittee. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me on that? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes. Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to 

point out that the Land-Water Conservation Fund supposedly provides $900 million a year. And, of course, we have in most recent 

years, the last decade, spent only about a third of that, some years 

far less than that, in terms of trying to provide an orderly manner 

for the land management agencies, including the Park Service, to 

actually accomplish the goals. So the funds haven't been appro-
25 

priated there. It has been put on hold. Sometimes they do this 

through trades or other means than just through cash buyout. 

I would also point out that when we do an easement or something less than fee-simple if we designate, the whole issue here is 

do we designate? Are these significant? Are they important 

enough? Are we doing this through a proper study and designation? 

Of course, every issue related to parks will, obviously, manifest itself in this debate. 

But the issue of easements actually creates a much more expensive responsibility because if these parks are designated in perpetuity, then you have to administer the easement in perpetuity. 

And so you can easily look back at land prices in the Blue Ridge 

which we paid about 66 percent of what the cost would have been 

in fee-simple in the 1930's, and since the 1930's have been trying 

to manage-administer the easement. And, of course, it gets into 

the rather slippery discussion about what constitutes a taking, 

what is a proper limitation on that land. And so it is very, very expensive when we start saying we are not going to buy this. 

There are a lot of different mechanisms that are used, and my 

colleagues in this committee will quickly learn about life tenancy, 

about other types of responsibilities or options in terms of how we 

go about trying to accomplish a nonconfrontational process in terms 

of achieving or obtaining the land that we are responsible to-that 

we agree are designated like the Columbus landing site in the Salt 

River in the Virgin Islands, one, I note, that was cut $2 million by 

the Apnrorriations Committee last night. Is that important? Is the 

Columbus landing site in the Virgin Islands important? I would say 

so. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. 

Mr. VENTO. Time has elapsed. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman from Guam has expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona-Mr. Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Ridenour 

and gentlemen, I appreciate you being here. Professor, one comment in particular that piqued my interest. You advocate several 

amendments, and you outlined a couple of those for us. Could we 

revisit that concept of amending the proposed legislation and again 

have you articulate how you think the legislation might be amended? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I can go through those fairly quickly. They are 

not too long. Under Title I, 101[a][6], you use the word preservation, and I think you need to be careful using that word preservation because to a certain group of people in this country, preservation means something very, very distinct. And I think you want to 

add to that word a broader meaning. I don't think the strict interpretation is what you mean by that word. I would add conservation 

along with preservation in that area where you talk about preservation. 

Under Section 101[c], it talks about 3 years of passage of this 

bill. The Secretary would bring back a report. I don't think you 

need 3 years. I really think that is longer than you need. The public hearings will take some time, but I would suggest that 2 years 

would be more than enough time to complete the report. Much of 

the information you are asking for is already there. In fact, prob-
26 

ably a number of us, including some of you, could walk over to a 

cafeteria somewhere and have lunch and grind out a bunch of this 

report by 2 o'clock. So I don't think 3 years is what you need. 

Again, I talked about theme areas. I don't think you want to just 

talk about a specific site but maybe a theme. Are we going to protect artists' homes? Maybe we shouldn't do that at all so we never 

bring another one up. Are we going to protect-you know, certain 

theme areas, whatever they might be. So I think that is important. 

Under Title II, [c][l], there is a statement that I would change 

to read, "Possesses nationally significant natural, cultural, or recreational resources that represent one of the most important examples of a particular resource type in the country." I think the way 

it reads now, you have got it, "Nationally significant natural and 

cultural," but you leave the door open that a recreational resource 

wouldn't have to be nationally significant. And that leaves the door 

open to all kinds of beaches and things that you might pick up that 

you don't necessarily want. 

I am saying, yes, a beach might be preserved, but let us preserve 

the nationally significant beach, and that might be one beach rather than every beach that a city or local government or a State decides that they can't afford to pay for anymore, and so we will turn 

it over to the Federal Government. That has been a major problem. 

Going back to my New York example, and I am not knocking 

New York. I am not knocking the need for those beaches in New 

York. I think they are important. But those beaches are not nationally significant. None of us are probably going to plan our annual 

vacation to go to those beaches. They are outlets for recreational 

needs in New York City. The problem is the money is not in the right place at least when 

they came in the system. New York at that time was practically 

bankrupt, and so someone had to hurry up and find a way to keep 

those beaches open, and so they became Federal property. Those, 

in my mind, are local functions, and it is a matter of figuring out 

how to deal with the money rather than change the whole philosophy of the National Park Service. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Professor, thank you very much; other gentlemen. And that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenowith. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pritchard, I am 

kind of new to this process, and so I would like to know what the 

National Parks and Conservation Association is and how you are 

funded? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. We are a private citizen organization totally privately funded. We do not seek and we do not normally accept Federal money; however, we, in most instances, donate money to the 

National Park Service to do studies or other specific projects. We 

were founded in 1919, primarily by many who were involved in the 

creation of the National Park Service. Our Board of Trustees has 

40 members who are all-private citizens and are respeded park authorities, businessmen, and other leaders from around the countr;l. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. I see. And so that is the reason why you are 

answering for the agency today. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. We are answering in our opinion only. 
27 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. OK. So it is your opinion that costs are really 

a secondary factor? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Yes, ma'am. We believe that the cost criteria is 

inappropriate in determining what is America's heritage. We think 

that we need to first know what is America's heritage, what is nationally significant, and then we should decide whether we can afford to manage it. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. You mentioned in your testimony that how can 

you establish a value for Lincoln's birthplace. I want to suggest 

how appraisers would do this. How do we value a human being's 

birthplace, whether they are the President of the United States or 

whether they were an ordinary American that made this country 

great? Let me tell you how you would do it. You would take the 

exact same valuation that the Park Service paid for those residents 

at Cuyahoga Valley whose homes they took and dismantled and 

burned. That is how an appraiser would look at it. 

And, sir, with all due respect, I do want to say that if I sat before 

an Internal Revenue Service agent and said, "I can't possibly tell 

you how I have arrived at the assets that I have declared here, and 

I can't possibly give you an excuse why I have not stated properly 

what my liabilities are," do you know where I would end up? I am 

asking you a question. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. I am not sure-! would be interested in hearing 

your opinion where you would end up. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. Well, my bank accounts would be seized, and ultim~tely I would probably end up behind bars because I did not 

respond properly to the Internal Revenue Service. And whereas I 

am not an Internal Revenue Service agent and never will be, I do 

think that accountability, whether it is with the association or with 

the agency, is very necessary to the American people. And so I 

would urge you once again, as I did last week, to give us and encourage the agency to give us an accounting. Although we have 

made inquiries, we have been not successful so far. So I hope you 

would help encourage that. 

I do want to let you know, in your testimony you mentioned the 

tall grass prairie in Kansas. I am from Kansas, and 140 million 

acres of that tall grass prairie would be included. How much money 

has been spent so far in evaluating the inclusion of this into the 

National Park Service, and how much of that area is private property? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mrs. Chenowith, the proposal is for 180 acres. 

Historically, the area that was tall grass prairie in America is the 

figure that you used. That is not the area that is being proposed 

for a park unit. Currently, it is only 180 acres. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. OK. You said in your testimony, "For example, 

the tall grass prairie ecosystem which once encompassed 140 million acres is a notable missing element of the system." 

Mr. PRITCHARD. That is correct. And the proposal which will be 

submitted by Senator Kassebaum, Senator Dole, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. 

Meyers, and the Kansas delegation is for an acquisition of only 180 

acres. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. But you are still studying the 140 million 

acres? 
28 

Mr. PRITCHARD. No. That was just a figure for reference purposes. It was not at all a study, and I need to clarify one thing. 

I represent the National Parks and Conservation Association and 

not the National Park Service. I do not speak for the National Park 

Service. We, in large measure, support the concerns you have expressed-accountability and concern about procedures. So I know it 

is confusing between the two organizations, but we are a private 

citizen organization not in any way connected to the National Park 

Service. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. I see I do have a red light, but I do want to 

ask just two very quick questions. One is of Mr. Gale, and, Mr. 

Pritchard, thank you. One is of Mr. Gale. You mentioned that, "As 

we understand, the process outlined in Title II of the bill is similar 

to the process for studying proposed additions to the national wild 

and scenic rivers." 

Mr. GALE. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. Are you proposing inclusion of any wild and 

scenic rivers? 

Mr. GALE. No. We just say that that process seems to work well 

for that, and we would suggest your consideration of that as to 

helpMrs. CHENOWITH. The process? 

Mr. GALE. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. CHENOWITH. OK. You do say in your testimony, "We are not 

dismissing the acute need of the nation's urban and rural areas 

where the National Park Service may have some role to play, but 

we do question attempts to use the National Park Service as an 

economic development agency." Can you tell me how many dollars 

have been spent by the agency in promoting the parks? 

Mr. GALE. I cannot, ma'am. I can try to find that information for 

you. 

Mrs. CHENOWITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ridenour, I want to 

go back to the line that Mr. Vento was on before, and I guess we 

can use the tall prairie grass park area as an example. You seem 

to imply in your statement that it has to be government-owned 

land in order to preserve it. And with the prairie grass area, I believe that the Nature Conservancy has somewhere in the neighbor- hood of 30,000 acres that they are preserving in that area right 

now. Why does the government have to own it if you have a private 

organization that is basically accomplishing your goal of preserving 

a large area like that? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I guess my answer to you is that I don't necessarily think that the government has to own it. But let us say 

that you have a unique either piece of property or the Statue of 

Liberty or whatever you want to talk about. If it is, in fact, being 

managed appropriately, I don't necessarily feel that the government has to own it. But in something that unique, I think you have 

to be in a position at least to take it over if someone decides they 

are going to bail out of that business if they owned it as a private 

venture, for example. You have to have the ability to not allow the last acre to be destroyed, so to speak, and when I say last acre, I mean more than 
29 

the last acre of a unique facility. And the government, I think, has 

to sit in that position, but that doesn't mean they have to own necessarily or own in fee-simple. Sometimes that is the easiest way, 

but I don't think it necessarily means it has to be. 

Mr. POMBO. No. I would agree in many instances it is the easiest 

way and the correct way to do it, but I will give you another example. Last summer, I was up in northern California, and I spent the 

day with a park ranger who took me out to one of the most beautiful spots I had ever seen in my life. It was a waterfall in the middle of the Redwoods, and it was a beautiful spot. And we drove up 

within, oh, probably 100 yards of the spot. 

And as we were talking about the area and what was going on, 

he mentioned that the Park Service had recently acquired that 

area. And I said, "Well, that is really nice." You know, "I am sure 

people would love to be able to drive up here and see this." And 

he kind of laughed, and he said, ''They are not going to be able to 

do that for very much longer." And I said, ''Well, why is that?" and 

he said, "Because we are closing the roads." He said, "The nearest 

you are going to be able to come to this point is probably about 2 

miles away." 

Now, throughout history-you know, for as long as we have been 

around, that has been private property and, obviously, managed in 

such a way that it maintained its beauty and heritage. And, you 

know, the trees were still there, and it had been managed properly 

as private property with the road leading up to it. 

Now the Federal Government owned it, and they were going to 

close off the road. And, you know, I may be able to hike 2 miles 

to see it, but not very many people can do that. There are not very 

many people from our cities and older people that can walk 2 miles 

to even see that or will even attempt to do it. 

That is one of the things I fear in, you know, this whole idea that 

the government has to own all the land in order to preserve it. 

Well, you know, the private owner that had that was doing a pretty 

darn good job of preserving it, and I could have driven up there 

anytime I wanted and seen it. Now the Federal Government owns 

it, and you can't do that. And, you know, with the prairie grass, 

you know, it has been private property for a long time, and it still 

is, obviously, in good enough condition that somebody thinks it is 

worth preserving. So why does the government have to buy it to 

preserve it? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, may I respond since I am involved with this particular issue? The Nature Conservancy property is private research lands and they limit access to roughly a 

few weekends every couple of years. Part of the problem for the 

Nature Conservancy is the liability issue of having hundreds of 

thousands of people on the property. Therefore, this property that 

you are referring to in Osage County, Oklahoma, is an important 

research facility and has the kinds of prairie that the National 

Park Trust owns in Kansas. 

The property that is being proposed for addition to the National 

Park System, of the 11,000 acres, only 180 acres, the historic core 

area, would be purchased or somehow possibly donated, and that 

is still under consideration to the National Park Service. The problem is, as I mentioned, and it would apply to probably this private 

89-593 0 - 95 - 2 
30 

land you are referring to, the question of liability of having projected hundreds of thousands of visitors visit the property. 

Now, that may be somehow resolved with some other exclusion 

or protection of a nonprofit, and you may wish to address that. But 

right now nonprofits are subject to liable actions or legal suits of 

this type for problems visitors might encounter on private property. 

So the issue is access, and right now that is not something that a 

private nonprofit or a private-public agency can adequately handle 

like the Park Service. 

It also relates to law enforcement and interpretation and the cost 

of maintaining those historic structures. We have some serious 

problems, which hopefully you will hear from the State Park Director who might address these issues, and then other nonprofits who 

I am sure would be happy to answer that question. It is a very important one. 

Mr. POMBO. I can understand that, and I appreciate the problems 

in regards to access and liability. But if you get back to the original 

intent, it was to preserve a tall prairie grass site and because it 

was deemed by someone to be special and unique and something 

that we have to preserve. Before somebody made that decision, it 

was private property and was being maintained in such a way that 

it preserved whatever it is that you are trying to preserve right 

now. And there were not hundreds of thousands of people that 

went to it every year. You know, I guess the point I am trying to say is if you would 

have just left it alone, it would still be there. And, you kno'N, it 

wouldn't have changed, and I think that this attitude that the government has to come in or somebody has to come in to preserve it 

is really what has led us into this whole problem we have with the 

National Park Service right now. We are rushing out there trying to preserve everything from 

what? It has been there for hundreds of years. It is still there now. 

It wouldn't have changed. And, you know, we don't have to go in 

and buy everything. The government doesn't have to go in and buy 

everything to preserve it. 

You know, private property owners have a vested interest in preserving what they have got. It is their livelihood, and if they have 

preserved it in a good enough way that you think it is unique and 

special that it should be preserved, then maybe they are doing a 

good job of preserving it, and we don't have to step in and buy it. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. I understand your point, sir. The 1916 enabling 

legislation directed the Park Service to protect the resources and 

to provide for the public enjoyment therein. The dilemma that we 

have is that preservation is not the purpose of the National Park 

Service. Mr. POMBO. Do you believe that the intention of the 1916 Act is 

what is being carried out today with all of the new park acquisi- tions that we are having? I mean, I look at just what has gone 

through this place in the 2 years I have been here and the amount 

of money that has been obligated to purchase those properties. And 

I think that if you go back to 1916, the original intention of the 

Act, it had nothing to do with most of the stuff that we have passed 

out of this Congress since I have been here, let alone what has 

come out of here in the last 20 years. 
31 

So there is a big difference, and I am not saying there is no room 

for us to ever add anything to the park. I am not saying that. What 

I am saying is that we have gotten so far afield with all this overriding attitude that we have to come in and preserve everything 

and buy it up by the Federal Government. I think this is really 

what has led us into this problem. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. 

Mr. POMBO. I apologize. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Allard. Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Ridenour, if I may, I want to compliment you on the book that you have written, "The National 

Parks Compromise: Pork Barrel Politics and America's Treasures." 

I find in that interesting airplane reading. It is a good book. I 

would commend it all members of the committee to read that. It 

is well done, and I found it very interesting. You have come up 

with some very tantalizing questions. 

Let me ask just a couple, if I may, that I think are kind of tantalizing also but very basic. It seems like the consensus of what we 

are finding on this committee and what we are hearing from the 

Park Service is the idea that somehow we have to bring the parks 

with their infrastructure and all their problems up to where the 

American people want them. 

There doesn't seem to be too much question in my mind that the 

American people want these parks to be very nice, very clean, that 

the sewer systems work, the water system works, that the roads 

are nice, that the people are polite, that those who want to go out 

in the outback can do it, and those that want to walk through the 

lodges and look at some of the beauties there can do it, and we are 

very proud of our parks. I think that is a consensus and an opinion 

that everybody agrees on. 

Now, it is easy to go back and point fingers at who didn't do 

what, and as far as I am concerned, we are going to look ahead. 

We are going to try to do everything in our power to pick it up from 

this point, and, you know, you can blame me, blame Bruce, blame 

anybody-that is easy-but we are through with the blame game 

around here. I hope we want to say, "OK. Now, what do we do to 

take care of it?" 

One of the criteria that seems to bother me the most is there is 

just not enough money. I think the gentleman from Minnesota adequately pointed out that more money has come in; you pointed it 

out; where are we spending the money? 

Let me just hit a few very basic things, if I may. Number 1, entrance fees. I am no expert, but I maintain that the best deal in 

America is a national park. I have used the illustration many 

times. I take my wife and children to a show and dinner at $60 

or $70. I can go to Zion's, Bryce, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and I can 

plunk down in my trailer and spend a week for nowhere near that 

amount of money. I have entrance fees, and hookup fees, and 

things such as that. 

And I would like you to respond to this if you would, on entrance 

fees. If the three of you could give me a quickie on that, I would 
32 

appreciate it. And I know there is a great distinction. Mr. Vento 

and I have argued this ad nauseam of a walk-in park in the East, 

and a historical park, and one of the drive-to parks of the West. 

If we should propose rather substantial entrance fee increases, 

would you give me your response to that? A quick answer from all 

three of you. 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I agree with you. You know, there are some 

States that fund themselves operationally as much as 100 percent. 

New Hampshire is a State like that. My own home State of Indiana 

from entrance fees at their parks fund themselves somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 65 percent of operational cost. The National 

Park Service doesn't reach 10 percent. 

Mr. HANSEN. Could I stop you just a moment? Add to your comment what if we allowed the local park ranger in charge or the superintendent of the park to keep a percent of it or all of it? How 

would that respond for the upkeep of that particular park? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I think that helps because one thing it does is 

adds an incentive for the park director to make sure he has got 

someone at those gates. If he doesn't have incentive to make sure 

he has got someone at those gates and all the money is going back 

to Washington, as soon as there is a problem, the first people he 

is going to pull is pull the people off the gates that are collecting 

the funds. So I think you need to build an incentive for that park 

superintendent to keep people at the gates collecting. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Pritchard, do you have a quick comment on 

that? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman, we support the fees legislation. 

We think the money should go back to the Park Service. Currently 

it does not. The National Park Service's budget is reduced overall 

by how much money it receives so there is little incentive to collect 

fees. We think you should do a separate study on the fees issue, 

but we would be, and are now fully supportive of, fees legislation. 

We also would encourage you to consider a reservation system 

which does not limit parks to those only who can afford them. Mr. 

Hefley and I both grew up in the same area, and our families 

might not have been able to afford visiting national parks if they 

were very expensive. It was certainly not expensive when we both 

left our homes in the plains and went to Colorado. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Pritchard, all parks are not created equal. Glen 

Canyon Recreation Area was projected 200,000 people by the turn 

of the century. We have that many on July 4. I mean, it is just an 

amazing thing. The great magnet is Lake Powell-Yellowstone, Yosemite, Great Smokies. Now, compare those to some others and not 

to play down any parks. How do we make the difference? Have we 

got a voted leeway like we do in school districts and States? How 

would you make the difference? Mr. Ridenour? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. Let me respond to that. I really think that the 

only way you can logically do this, and I have thought about this 

a lot, I really think you ought to create a fee mechanism outside 

the Park Service and outside of the Congress to bring you recommendations on an annual basis. This is what we did in State 

government. Every year we changed a little something. We might 

have changed campground fees. If you are going to require a full 
33 

hookup and air conditioning and everything else, that might have 

gone up 50 cents. 

We always tried to keep the theory that somewhere in our system there was going to be campgrounds available to the guy that 

got laid off at General Motors, and he could bring his family in for 

$1.50, and if they had a tent they could rough it. But the problem 

is when you get it in the Congress-for example, I recall that Bill 

Bradley knocked off the fee for going up to see the Statue of Liberty. No one objected to paying the fee to see the Statue of Liberty, 

but he knocked that off. 

My recommendation to you would be to create-and I hate to 

talk about creating another committee-you could use the National 

Parks Advisory Committee that already exists and have them complete a complete fee structure recommendation to you on, say, an 

every 2-year basis. And so they would come to you every 2 years 

or 4 years-you pick your number-and say, "This is what we recommend for the entire system," and the Congress would approve 

or disapprove of it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Gale, would you like to quickly respond to that 

comment? 

Mr. GALE. I think both gentlemen have adequately covered the 

topics. I agree with them both, that you need that fee. You need 

to have the ability to collect fees. It needs to be a sliding scale so 

that, as former Director Ridenour has said, you are not penalizing 

the gentleman who has just been laid off work, and you have feesyou know, based on the facilities that are offered or level of facilities that are offered. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Gale, what is your response to the idea of raising fees? 

Mr. GALE. Again, I think that is OK as long as you take into consideration that we are not disenfranchising, if you will, any member of the American public to be able to come to a national park 

area. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. My time is up, but that was just one 

consideration. Maybe we would have some later time to go into 

some more detail. Other considerations for raising money is one of 

the criteria. If we are going to fix these things, let us be real honest 

about it. We have got to have a little more money within the system to do it. I think, of course, concessions-the list goes on and 

on of things we could do. That is one, and I appreciate the response 

of all of you. I will now turn to Mr. Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an outstanding 

panel, and I really appreciate all of you coming and your responses. 

Is it my understanding that you all support the legislation, H.R. 

260? You have some suggestions about how to make it better but 

that basically you support the concept. Is that correct? 

Mr. RIDENOUR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Hefley, we are concerned about the NEPA 

exclusion which is a major concern, and we have other recommendations. But we fully support the concept, as we did last 

year. 

Mr. HEFLEY. And, Mr. Gale? 

Mr. GALE. As does the Association of National Park Rangers, sir. 
34 

Mr. HEFLEY. A question, Mr. Ridenour, that Mr. Doolittle started 

on and you wanted to respond and didn't get an opportunity to, and 

that is-because it is a bit of a confusion for us on the committee 

who are trying to rationalize these things-is that the Department 

comes and supports many of these added things that we do that 

we come up with our ingenious ability to discover something that 

would be really nice back home. And since you are not there anymore, how does that mechanism work? 

For instance, the Parks Department was fully supportive of this 

last year, and Mr. Babbitt the other day says-someone puts a 

microphone in front of his face and says something about it, and 

he said, "Oh, we are not closing any parks," and so forth, and so 

this kind of changes the tone. Is that the way it happens? It kind 

of comes from the boss, whether it be the President or the head of 

the Department or something, and then you have to approve it? 

Mr. RmE::-.rOUR. Well, sometimes there is a slip of a tongue often 

regretted at a later time, but that can happen. I think he said 

something about no loss of parks on his watch. 

Mr. VEN'l'O. If the gentleman would yield to me, it is the Office 

of Management and Budget that is the actual controller of every 

position. 

Mr. HEFLEY. And I think the gentleman is right. 

Mr. RIDENOUR. But let me give you an example of how that does 

happen, and I am going to put a little blame on the National Park 

Service here because I think I am in a position to do it having been 

the Director. I had this in remarks I didn't get to-given a mandate to make a study. It is the rare National Park Service planner 

that cannot wax poetic about the wonders of the subject matter especially when goaded by the local office of the congressional staff. 

So you have got a planner-maybe they have been in the Park 

Service for 2 or 3 years. They have been assigned to look at this 

particular project in New Jersey, and the local staff of the congressman is wining and dining them. You know, they can get real enthusiastic about it, and so they get to the Director's office, and the 

Director gets a briefing about 10 minutes before it is time to come 

to the congressional hearing. 

In the meantime, that staff planning document has been surfaced-somehow it has gone underground and popped up in the 

hands of the members of the committee up here before the Director 

even sees it. So, you know, I am not suggesting that always happens, but that happens a lot. 

Mr. HEFLEY. In the mosaic of our parks in this country, and by 

mosaic, Mr. Pombo raises the issue there are some private parks. I think everyone would agree that Disneyland is a park. It is a private park. So it is part of our overall park recreational experience 

in this country. 

But in that mosaic, has it helped or hurt the fact that the Federal Government seems to be increasingly taki:.1g over either municipal parks or state parks to put it under Federal control? You 

talked about the New York beaches and so forth. Has that helped 

the overall mosaic of parks in this country, or has it actually hurt 

because we don't have the resources to maintain some of our really 

fine Federal parks as we have shown? 
35 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I think it has hurt. I think it has definitely hurt. 

And I would suggest that the only reason that happens is that the 

State and local governments don't have the printing press. I mean, 

the printing press is in Washington. That is where the printing 

press prints money. That is where deficits occur. 

Many of these State and local governments have budget amendments that don't allow them to go into debt. So when they get into 

trouble, they look up here because essentially the printing presses 

could still run and keep them going. And what it has done, it has 

taken the actual responsibility, which has always been thought of 

as local government responsibility, and they really don't want to 

lose. But they have lost, and they have lost a little bit of their dignity at the same time, and they passed it up the line to the Federal 

Government. And I think that has hurt the system. It has hurt the 

local system, and it has hurt the Federal system at the same time. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Would you agree with that, Mr. Pritchard? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Sir, I think Mr. Gale's testimony was very important. If you heard what he said, a number of the proposals, 

probably over 50 percent, have not been approved by Congress. 

They either didn't merit inclusion or Congress, for whatever reason, did not authorize those areas. I think we have to look at this in the historical perspective. The 

National Park System is comprised of less than 3 percent of the 

public land of America. The world standard is close to 10 percent. 

The National Park Service does a superb job of carrying out the 

mandate given to it by Congress, not by an Administration. So I 

think we need to be careful that we look at this in the broader perspective, and not just a sense of the last 10 years. I believe the National Park Service's role and mission is totally 

separate from other recreation operations such as Disneyland. Mr. Ridenour suggests preservation is what the law says, but I think 

it is clear that the purpose is to preserve the resources for this and 

future generations and to provide for the public enjoyment. We believe that also means education. 

I think if we give the National Park Service a job, they do a 

great job of it. I also think we are at a point where we need to 

clean up some problems that have evolved from expansion of the 

Park System since 1980. But I think in the longer term, the issues 

that are addressed in your bill are the important ones-what are 

the standards, what are the issues we need to deal with, and was 

something added a couple of years ago? I don't think we are going 

to exclude that many when we get through, and I know you feel 

that also. 

I think what is important is the plan, as you and Mr. Vento have 

said, for how we go about adding and monitoring the National Park 

System for the 21st century. So I hope we move in, as the Chairman has suggested, that positive direction, and I hope that is the 

direction of this bill. 

Mr. RIDENOUR. I think this legislation will help the Park Service 

a great deal because it will give them some direction that for lack 

of a better term they have not felt for a number of years. 

I would also say this in all candor, I think the Executive Branch 

for many years-and I am not just talking about the last 10 years, 

I am talkin5 about the Executive Branch-basically stepped away 
36 

from the responsibility of running the National Park Service. And 

it essentially became a captive of the Congress during those years 

in lack of any movement of any kind from the Executive Branch. 

So I put a fair amount of blame on the Executive Branch for not 

standing up and providing leadership in terms of direction for the 

Park Service. So the Congress kind of moved in and filled a vacuum in the 1970's and the 1980's, and that is when you see a lot 

of parks got added-the old talk about a Phil Burton's park-of-themonth club, and whatever showed up, that was fine with him. It 

was a political tool. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Gale, Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Ridenour, I really appreciate your contribution to this debate. It has been very, very 

meaningful, and I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Mr. Allard. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After the comment from 

Mr. Pritchard, I decided maybe I did have a question or two. You 

talked about your opposition to excluding the National Environmental Protection Act, NEPA, and you were concerned about that. 

If we have within the parks, we have decided the purpose there is 

preservation, why do we need to have an environmental impact 

statement on a national park? It seems to me like it is an unnecessary requirement in the fact that parks are set there with a definite preservation goal, and why do we step in and add another 

layer of bureaucracy for the local operating officers and managers? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Congressman, our concern is not with the additions which now are required and the changes in management policy, but with deauthorizing a park unit. We believe that needs to 

comply with NEPA, and we believe that the public review process 

and the documents that may not be addressed by this process should be available. The public should be assured that they were, 

in fact, addressed. 

Mr. ALLARD. So if we eliminate a park, you want to have an environmental impact statement on that? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. That would be correct, sir. That is what is required now by law and we would ask that that law be followed, and 

it would meet the criteria of NEPA. 

Mr. ALLARD. Why would that be a particular problem just because you have eliminated the designation? It seems to me that 

there are other ways to come about that. I mean, if you have a 

project or something and you are required to have that now orsee, I don't understand the logic of why you need to have that. 

Mr. PRITCHARD. The criteria for conducting an environmental impact statement is a significant Federal action that might affect the 

environment. The transferring or deauthorizing a park, we believe, 

would meet that criteria. That is our recommendation. Mr. ALLARD. For somebody to object on environmental grounds, 

all they have to do is pay $25, isn't it, to file a complaint or concern? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. I don't know what the price is, so I could not respond to that. 

Mr. ALLARD. I think that is relatively simple for anybody. I 

mean, they may not even be related to the park. They may be in 

Florida, and the park may be in the State of Washington-may not 

have any direct relationship to that park and not have a real inter-
37 

est. Why should they have an impact on what happens to that 

park? I mean--

Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, sir, I would disagree with you. I believe 

the parks belong to all the people, and, therefore, anyone should 

have the right to participate in that process. You don't have to let 

the process go on forever though. There are deadlines where they 

have to submit their comments, and the process works very effectively right now with few exceptions. 

I think, for example, for me not to have the right to comment on 

excluding a portion of Yellowstone would be a major concern and 

would occur if you have this NEPA exclusion. So we would encourage you to look at the parks as belonging to all the people and give 

all the people, as Mr. Young has suggested, an opportunity to participate in that process. Mr. ALLARD. What has been pointed out to me by a staff person 

is that actually what is in the bill, that wouldn't apply to the closing of it but would apply more to the process later on-the identification. And so, you know, I guess I have a little bit of a problem 

with your concerns. 

And one other thing I wanted to follow up is that the parks are 

available to all people. What do you do with these parks that are 

so overwhelmed with visitors? How do you limit visiting to those 

parks? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. Congressman, our recommendation is that a fee 

structure be put in place, but we don't think that should exclude 

visitors. As I mentioned before, we believe there should be a reservation system so that everyone has an opportunity to know that 

if they are planning a vacation they will be able to visit that park. 

The current situation, a first-come first-serve policy, creates quite 

a deal of concern for a lot of people. So, we recommend a reservation system for at least 75-80 percent of the visitors, with the remaining being accommodated on a first-come first-serve basis. 

Finally, we have developed a procedure called Visitor Impact 

Management, and encouraged the Park Service to do likewise. 

They are now in a review process to determine how many visitors 

should be allowed in a park given the infrastructure and the resources that are there. 

Mr. ALLARD. So in reality, it can't be available to everybody, can 

it? 

Mr. PRITCHARD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield to me? The gentleman is 

almost done. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. OK. I just would say this whole carrying capacity 

issue-! know that your time has expired-but the carrying capacity issue, I think it is a question here of is there an absolute carrying capacity or is there a funding problem? And I guess I think 

that looking at some of the busiest parks, including Yosemite and 

some of the other spots-you know, if you go to the Valley, you 

have got a problem. If you go to other-Tullery Meadows or someplace, you don't. So the issue, I think, is having adequate funding. 

I mean, the Virgin Islands-the tour ships are going to stop, and 

you have got to deal with the other problem. 
38 

Mr. ALLARD. I disagree. I am reclaiming my time. I disagree with 

the gentleman, that the issue is not funding. The issue is the fact 

that there are too many people visiting the park. There are not the 

physical capabilities there to maintain it. And many times the administrative direction of the park is such to make fewer facilities 

available to the park, and sometimes it is just too much traffi c or 

too much tourism or whatever. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would continue to yield? 

Mr. ALLARD. I will yield back to the gentleman. Mr. VENTO. Again, I don't want to end that or start that debate. I just think it is an issue that we ought to recognize in terms of 

joining, that not everybody here just agrees, and I don't. I think it 

is mostly a funding problem spreading out the use in terms of some 

of those parks. 

For instance, Mr. Pombo commented about the waterfall in the 

Redwoods Park. The issue is, can you drive right up to the rim of 

the Grand Canyon? Some people think they ought to all be able to 

take their car up there, but sometimes it means if you want to preserve what is there or you want to conserve--pardon me, I didn't 

mean to use that nasty word-if you want to conserve it, you need 

to change how you use it. Mr. Chairman, I would ask just for a minute to comment on·--

Mr. ALLARD. I reclaim my time, and yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. And I would ask the gentleman just for lminute 

to--

Mr. HANSEN. If the gentleman would suspend for just a moment? 

I am going to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for 1 minute. 

I want to thank the panel for their excellent testimony. Keep in 

mind we want to give you some questions; if you would respond. Things like Presidio and other things we wanted to get into. We 

didn't have time. We will then recess for this vote on the rule, and 

then we will excuse you and thank you, and we would ask the 

other panel if they wouldn't mind coming up and being in their 

places when we get back. We should be gone about 5 minutes. So 

I will yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have been trying to control myself throughout this hearing. I don't know. My colleagues 

may not think I have done very well, but believe me. The issue, I 

think, is one of mission between the agencies, notwithstanding 

what has been said. I think, secondly, in terms of the issue of how 

the parks came to be and the private sources today, Monticello, 

Mount Vernon are private entities. Is there any question in this 

room but that there is national significance to George Washington's 

home or to Jefferson's home? 

And that points out the second issue in terms of the growth of 

the parks here which may not be apparent to everyone that is 

present, and that is the change from not just natural sites but to 

cultural-ineluding cultural historic sites as probably most often 

we think of them. And that has happened. That was a change in terms of the mission. And that, of course, 

opens up the door to many, many other sites. And I would just sug- gest that even some of the natural parks end up with cultural sites 

in them. 
39 

In fact, one of the problems with the aging infrastructure and 

structures is that some of it actually ends up having historic value 

under the historic preservation law. So, I mean, this is the sort of 

dilemma we are getting into. And defining and setting forth that 

path is, of course, the challenge that we all face in this legislation 

and our future actions. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We will stand in recess. This gives you 

a chance for a seventh-inning stretch. We will be back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I call the committee to order. If Dr. Robin Winks, 

Professor at Yale University, Mr. Dale Murphy, Director of California State Parks, and Mr. Harry McPherson, an attorney, if they 

would please come forth, we would appreciate it. Thank you so 

much. 

You were here, I assume, during the last go. If you will notice 

that the green light-when that goes on, you have got 5 minutes. 

The yellow light tells you to wrap it up, and the red light asks you 

if you would please stop. I would appreciate it if you would abbreviate your comments. 

And let me just say this. All of the things that you are going to 

say, your prepared testimony will be in the record, and it will be 

read, believe me. So we again thank you for coming and appreciate 

your presence here. And, Dr. Winks, we will turn to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN WINKS, PROFESSOR, YALE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. WINKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the principle that my 

submitted testimony will be in the record, I intend not to read it 

but to comment on it very briefly and move on to two other points 

that are not in the testimony but, in part, arise from my listening 

to the testimony this morning. 

I am here as a private individual, not representative of any 

group. I am a member of the Board of the National Parks and Conservation Association, and I am a historian who is the Chairman 

of the Studies in the Environment Program at Yale University. I 

have also been on the National Parks Advisory Board and twice as 

Chair and on the Presidio Council. 

I suspect I am before you, however, because I have been spending some time writing a book on the evolution of the national park 

ethic. And because I know firsthand of the various changes in definitions of units and quality, and because I am the leading "national 

park groupie," as one Director of the National Park Service once 

said, in the sense that I have been to all but 14 of the 368 units 

of the National Park System. So perhaps unlike others who have 

testified before you, I have seen these problems up front. 

I support this bill in principle. I feel it has 4 grave problems with 

it, and I will conclude by indicating those in a few minutes. But 

there is no doubt that there are now units in the National Park 

System that are unworthy by whatever criteria you use. They lack 

national standards. These units lack historical integrity. These 

units often invite people for primarily recreational purposes which 

is not why the National Park Service was created. 

I could, I think, readily, having visited all of the units except 

those in Alaska, draw up a private list of as many as 20 that 

should be stricken. I will not supply that list because I think it is 
40 

irresponsible at this point to engage in "hit lists". The purpose of 

this bill clearly is for a systematic examination of the system, and 

in doing so, for inquiries into the individual units. But I can indicate the kinds of units that are inappropriate and why I think they 

are so. 

The reason I support the bill in principle-and I agree with Paul 

Pritchard that it is the most significant legislation that has come 

before Congress since the original Act of 1916 with the possible exception of the Act of 1970-the reason I support it is because I believe that the National Park System of the United States is not 

only the largest (demonstrably so), but the most elegant and the 

best managed National Park System in the world, and I wish to 

see it continue to be so. It is strapped for money, and the Park 

Service has frequently informed Congress of this. Many of the inappropriate units were produced through political 

clout by Congress. I too studied all of the proposals put before the 

National Park Service in the 1930's. There were roughly 100 such 

proposals, and the Park Service acted favorably on less than 10 

percent of them. Most of these proposals came from Congress responding to requests by Chambers of Commerce in their home 

States. 

I have also studied the enabling legislation for virtually all the 

368 units, and as you Members of Congress fully understand, several of these units were thrust upon the National Park Service contrary to its own studies. The Steamtown factor, which is often referred to, points to a unit which the Park Service itself did not 

wish to acquire and attempted to hold at arm's length through a 

process of affiliation in its initial 2 years. 

The other unit that USA Today singled out, the Charles Pinckney unit in South Carolina, was thrust upon the Park Service before the Park Service could even complete its own historical assessment. And now, of course, it has been found that the property there 

consists of a house built in 1842 after Charles Pinckney was dead, 

and, therefore, it is impossible that he lived in it. 

Therefore, I welcome this bill because I think it will discipline 

Congress, and it will help the National Park Service, which, on occasion, has accepted without protest properties it should not have 

done, to discipline itself as well. 

But consider how sweeping the bill is. There are 156 national 

parks in the States represented by the members of this committee. 

In those States, eight additional national parks have already been 

deaccessioned. There are 12 in Utah, 10 in Colorado, 5 in Minnesota. Three in Colorado were deaccessioned over the years because there were once 13. If one is going to consider at all the 

deaccessioning park units, one must do them one by one with great 

care. 

I fear elements in the bill and, therefore, would not support the 

bill as it now stands. Let me point, if I may, to just four of those 

elements. First, the title of the bill. I believe what is involved here 

is not reform, which implies that the National Park Service is disastrously in need of reshaping, but rather I believe the bill should 

be the National Park System Review Bill or Reassessment Bill. 

Second, I dislike page 4 line 14 deeply, and I fear the reference 

to "and portions of units." If this is actually held to, this will re-
41 

quire 368 boundary studies. This is impossible, and here I would 

have to take exception to what former Director Ridenour suggested. 

It is impossible to conduct such studies in the time that is being 

allowed. 

Many would fear that this provision is an opportunity to reopen 

doors over debates about boundaries that we thought were long 

closed. Certainly, if portions of units are to be examined, then the 

entire unit should be examined with respect to the necessity to add 

land as well as to subtract land to make it a wholer and more nearly perfect expression of the purpose for which it was created. There are several references in the bill to management by someone other than the National Park Service. I feel very strongly that 

if the National Park Service is not the manager, the unit is not a 

national park. I myself think that all of the so-called affiliated 

units, of which I believe there are now 22, should be disaffiliated 

or brought into the Park System because this category has created 

second-class citizens. 

I do not think that any unit that is deaccessioned should be 

thrown away, as it were. It should be passed to the State as a good 

state park or to others who would look after it because there must 

have been an important point to it when it was created. But, clearly, if the "national park" is still to be the label applied to a unit, it must be managed by those, the NPS, who do manage so well. 

Finally, I too share the objection to two of the criteria. One is 

cost and the other is access. Earlier today, we heard something 

about Rembrandts. A Rembrandt is very expensive. If one has decided one wants a Rembrandt, one does not, frankly, ask what the 

cost is. If one wants the finest example of a particular landscape 

or the best representation of a historical theme, cost cannot be an 

important criterion. Nor can access. 

After all, there are many great art galleries and museums that 

in order to protect the resource must keep people from having 

undue access to it. And to suggest that an Aniakchak National 

Monument is not worthy merely because it is extremely difficult to 

get to is to miss the point of the highly systematic National Park 

System in this country. 

Let me close by reading five sentences on the question of national significance. There seems to be a great debate over this, and 

I think national significance is capable of being defined. Before doing so, let me remind you that it is very clear that the 

Act of 1916 put protection ahead of access. I have done a legislative 

history of that Act. I think I am the only person to have done so, 

and I can assert on the basis of that legislative history that those 

two so-called contradictory mandates were listed by the legislators 

in the order of priority. If this is accepted, then the Park System 

units should be superlative examples of landscapes and historical 

experiences. 

I close, therefore, with these five sentences; Units of the National 

Park System must represent the finest possible example of a given 

landscape, natural environment, or historical or cultural resource 

in the nation. (No more regionally significant or locally significant 

parks.) A national park unit must be a place of very substantial retained integrity (no more historical reconstructions. No modified 

Disneyland.) 
42 

It must be a place capable of such interpretation as to make 

clear to the lay public why it is worth preservation; it must be a 

place that is richly unique, nonrepetitive of themes and precise 

ecologies found elsewhere. And, finally, it must be a place that is 

managed by our premier manager of such landscapes and historical 

places, the National Park Service. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee, especially to a bill that has been put forward by Congressmen Hefley 

and Vento. Having grown up in Monte Vista, Colorado, and often 

gone to Colorado Springs, it is a pleasure to be able to, I hope, help 

protect Bent's Fort, Florissant Fossil Beds, and the Great Sand 

Dunes. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winks can be founn at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Dr. Winks. Mr. Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD MURPHY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNV\. 

STATE PARKS 

Mr. MuRPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really a pleasure 

to be here. My comments will run a little bit differently. We were 

faced with a similar situation that faces the National Park Service 

now, and I wanted to share with you some of the methods that we 

used to face a similar challenge. 

Our park system is composed of 270 units, encompassing about 

1.3 million acres in the State of California, and last year 66 million 

people visited those lands. We believe we manage an eminently 

successful system which is second only to the National Park Service of the United States in its acreage and diversity. 

Three years ago, we were faced with a $20 million deficit and the 

specter of closing parks. Governor Wilson approved a plan that significantly reduced the administrative overhead, eliminating an entire layer of administration in the California Park Service and a reduction of 183 positions. This action saved California taxpayers $10 

million, and it was all accomplished without closing a single park 

unit. 

Governor Wilson also directed the California State Parks to divest itself of parks that were not of statewide significance, and we 

were able to transfer units to city and county governments and 

enter into operating agreements with others. We were further challenged to form public and private partnerships, to become more entrepreneurial in our management of California State Parks as well. 

Toward this end, we have developed an aggressive marketing 

and public relations program. The program includes the opening of 

State park stores in several locations across the State, public service announcements by State park spokesperson, Clint Eastwood, 

and development of park merchandise which is sold by catalog and 

in our stores. 

We have developed a sponsorship program patterned after the 

successful 1984 L.A. Olympics. The sponsors will pay a fee to California State Parks for being an official sponsor, and we are negotiating our first large sponsorship with a national beverage company. 

Governor Wilson also designated State parks to participate in a 

pilot program in performance based budgeting. As a result, the de-
43 

partment has developed a strategic plan with clear goals and tactics and criteria. This includes an analysis of the services we provide and to what standard. And this system of budgeting ensures 

that we clearly define our mission and that we stick to that clearly 

defined mission. 

The formation of bioregions in the State of California has also allowed the department to partner with agencies such as BLM, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These partnerships emphasize management of resources by ecological systems 

rather than by jurisdictions, and many economies have been realized as a result. Our most significant partnership that I am here 

to talk about is with the National Park Service. 

Just a brief comment. Throughout the history of California, its 

management policy, administrative philosophies, and goals have 

closely paralleled those of the National Park Service. Individuals 

imbued with the park philosophy include luminaries such as Steven Mather, who has advised both park systems at critical moments in our development. Two of my predecessors, Newton B. 

Drury and William Penn Mott, Jr., have subsequently served as Directors of the National Park Service. 

More recently, State park units such as those at the Marin 

Headlands, Stinson Beach, and our historic ship collection have 

been transferred as building blocks to create the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

In this tradition, beginning in May of 1993, discussions between 

Stanley Albright, Jr., the National Park Service's Western Region 

Director, and me led to a decision to explore potential joint operational improvements and cost savings that might be achieved between the adjacent State and national parks. In the course of conversations over the Redwood National and 

State Parks, both agencies recognized that they had units in close 

proximity in other California locations which could benefit from 

closer cooperation. To explore the potential for increased cooperation, the National Park Service and California State Parks appointed the California Coordinated Committee on Operational Efficiencies. 

A large number of the recommendations of this committee has 

been initiated and completed. But perhaps the most important part 

of this is the focus on cooperation has resulted in unforeseen opportunities which have allowed significant initiatives on the part of 

the responsible field individuals who have employed the cooperative relationship to further the public interest unforeseen by the 

original committee. 

Last April, Director Kennedy and I signed what might be termed 

the master or umbrella Memorandum of Understanding between 

my department and the western region of the National Park Service designed to carry out the recommendations of the California Coordinating Committee on Operational Efficiencies for increased co- ordination and efficiencies between our two Services. 

Specifically, this agreement adopts the recommendation of the 

committee's report, authorizes the development of interpark and 

interagency agreements. To guarantee that this program is carried 

forward in a responsible manner, a system of oversight including 

regular reports and evaluations has been initiated. In less than a 
44 

year, we have made significant progress in the implementation of 

the recommendations. In conclusion, faced with many of the problems now being addressed by the subject legislation, the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation instituted steps directed toward situation 

resolution. Employing a multifaceted approach, we entertained a 

host of ideas including improving operations to achieve increased 

efficiencies. 

The most important part of this bill, in our estimation, is really 

the fact that you have an opportunity to be strategic here. And a 

Park Closure Commission concept may have merit where all available approaches are used in evaluation of the national parks and 

which result in a multiplicity of solutions other than a single preconceived method. 

Park closure, we would like to submit, is but one part of an over- all strategy of restructuring which must include such methods as 

park transfers, internal restructuring, publidpublic and publidprivate agreements, and creative relationships with private entrepreneurs. We must look to all available solutions if we are to provide our country with viable parks, necessary resource protection, 

and recreational opportunities into the next century for future generations of all Americans. 

My testimony has been submitted in full, and I would be happy 

to answer questions when it comes time. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. McPherson. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY MCPHERSON, ATTORNEY, VERNER, 

LIIPFERT, BERNHARD, McPHERSON, & HAND 

Mr. McPHERSON. Mr. Chairman, of all those you have heard 

today, I know the least about this issue. And I am here not because 

I am familiar with the Park System and its problems, but because 

I served on the Base Closure Commission in 1993 where I think 

I had the opportunity to meet with you, sir, and particularly because I have some thoughts on the process by which the Base Closure Commission was empowered to act. 

I must say that on listening to this morning's testimony, I am 

persuaded that your legislation, insofar as it has this structure to 

it that H.R. 260 embodies, is pretty wise. But let me just make a 

couple of comments and perhaps going over old ground that you 

have already traversed since last year since your bill then. 

The Base Closure Commission idea has worked for these 4 years 

that it has been in being for three or four essential ideas. It has 

been well managed. It had a terrific Chairman, your old friend, Jim 

Courter, and it was well staffed. 

But the main reason why it worked is that the country understood, the entire government, the Congress, the Executive Branch, 

everyone who looked at the base situation in the aftermath of the 

Cold War understood that we had too many bases to be afforded, 

and that we needed to reduce those bases. 

We also understood that the Congress could not be expected to 

eliminate those bases. It was extremely hard for Congress to deal 

with that. It was a matter of macho almost for members to fight 
45 

for their base and to win it for very good reasons. It is very understandable. But those two contradictions required inventing something like the base closure process. So you had a national conviction that base closure was needed and a national belief, and certainly a congressional belief, that closure would not be accomplished by the Congress left to itself. 

And so people were willing to permit a group of outsiders, a 

group of civilians to exercise what is almost authoritarian powers 

to close bases, almost authoritarian because we were not and never 

were a trial court. We were not a petty jury to look at the issues 

in the first instance and decide which bases to close. We were an 

appellate court. We sat and looked at a list of proposed closures 

and realignments that we got from the Pentagon, and we looked at 

them in the light of eight criteria which the Congress and the Pentagon had agreed to beforehand. 

So the process was understanding that you had to have this kind 

of process, development of criteria and agreement on those criteria, 

development of a list from the Pentagon, submission of the list to 

the commission, the commission's OK of its own list, which it submitted to the President, and then went to Congress where Congress could only vote it up or down, could not pick and choose. 

There was no cherry-picking involved, and that is the way it has 

worked in 1991 and 1993 and is about to work in 1995. 

Your proposal in H.R. 260, as I understand it, is that the Interior 

Department would have the job of deciding what parks ought to be 

closed or changed, modified in some way and would then have that 

role under the criteria that you have spelled out here on page 4 

and 5. Those are really quite essential, that they be as specifically 

characterized in the report language that you use as you could possibly make it because Interior needs to have your idea of what it 

is that you are looking for in parks to be closed, and then it needs 

to do the job. 

Finally, if they don't do the job in a certain period of time, you 

give it to a commission which does not have BRAC powers, does 

not have the powers that we had in the Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Commission. This commission would merely do what 

Interior failed to do, come up with a list, and then give it to you. 

The hot potatoes would still be in your hands. 

But in light of the many political considerations that you have 

talked about here, where people have fought for national parks and 

historic areas in their districts, perhaps that is a wise way to go. 

I think it is the wise way until the country has come to the conclusion that it came to at the outset of the defense process. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McPherson can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We thank the panel for their 

excellent testimony. I hope you folks realize that Mr. McPherson 

did sit on the BRAC Commission, did an admirable job there, a terribly tough assignment; appreciate the great work you did there 

even though all of us who lost bases, of course, have a little heartburn with what happened on that particular thing, but it was necessary, and we are all holding our breath for the 1995 round of 

BRAC. 
46 

I think you have drawn a very clean comparison between the two 

approaches that we are taking to this, and the one that has bothered a lot of us is putting it back to Congress. And I don't know 

how that is all going to work out, but we are working on it. Mr. 

Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, and I too, Mr. Chairman, thought this 

was, again, an excellent panel and excellent testimony, and I thank 

each and every one of you. Mr. Winks, I thought as I was listening 

to your testimony that for a Yale professor this guy talks with a 

lot of sense, and then I find out you have excellent roots and so 

that explained it to me. 

And I do thank you for not sharing with us your hit list. That 

is the thing that the press has really wanted. "What parks are you 

talking about?" Well, we are not. We are not talking about parks, 

and you expressed that very well. We are not talking about any 

specific parks. We are talking about a system, a method to bring 

some rationale into this. 

You have expressed some concern though about the cost factor. 

You wouldn't-maybe you would. Let me ask, would you just completely discount cost? For instance, I would use your analogy a little bit about a Rembrandt. And if we talk about national defense, 

the argument can be that, well, the defense of the nation--cost 

should not be considered in the defense of the Nation because that 

is the most important thing a government does. 

But, of course, I think most of us would say, yes, you would have 

to consider the cost. Do you need heavy lift? Do you need a C-1'7? 

Or is there another way to do it? If you have a bomber force, do 

you need a B-!~, which costs a lot of money, half a billion dollars, 

or could you do it cheaper? So that comes in as a factor. So would 

you completely discount cost in our consideration? 

Mr. WINKS. Congressman Hefley, no, I wouldn't completely discount cost at all. I was at that moment in a peroration in whieh 

I was making a statement of principle, and that is that cost should 

not be a factor as important as the others, but certainly it should 

be considered without any doubt. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, I was fascinated by the innovative approach that you seemed to have taken 

in California to solve your problems out there. You actually did get 

rid of some units of the California Park System and spun them off 

to cities, counties, and so forth? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. That is correct, and I really have to put that 

in context because it is interesting what is happening in California 

now with many of the counties and cities strapped for funds. They 

also come to us and ask us will we take some of their units. And 

you can expect the same thing here with the National Park Service 

that you would find as you sought to transfer units that were not 

of national significance. As Dr. Winks has described, there are perhaps 20 or more out there. I think you would be hard-pressed to 

sometimes find takers. 

So we were able to do that in California under particular circumstances, and we had to be very strategic about it, but we were 

able to do that. It is certainly not a panacea. That is why in my 

conclusion I emphasize that it really has to be a multifaceted approach. 
47 

Mr. HEFLEY. But you didn't sell off the California Park System? 

Mr. MURPHY. Oh, not at all. 

Mr. HEFLEY. You still have a wonderful park system in California, and that is what we would hope for the Federal system. 

Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely, and not unlike the Park Service, I 

mean, we were faced with exactly the same situation where over 

the years we have acquired properties that are not of statewide significance as a result of what we in California and the legislature 

call members requests which come in late and get attached at the 

last minute onto the budget bill. And over the years we have ended 

up acquiring a considerable amount of property that way. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. McPherson, I suppose it would be 

inappropriate to talk to you about Lowery, wouldn't it? In fact, I 

will be chairing a committee on our oversight role in Armed Services on the base closure process here at 2:30 p.m., and I am glad 

to have you here to see this crossover. 

As I understood, the way we set that up, you were an appellate 

court system; it really was not designed to pick and choose other 

bases to close necessarily except mainly to review the process like 

an appellate court would and see if the Defense Department did 

the right process. 

And yet the last round of base closures, it seemed to me that you 

guys threw out a lot of bases on a list; got a lot of communities 

around the country all excited and then mostly didn't do anything 

with that except for the one situation that the Air Force still gripes 

about in New Jersey where they wanted to get rid of that metropolitan base. And could you talk about that a little because I think 

it has some implications for what we are talking about? 

Mr. McPHERSON. Sure. What Mr. Hefley is talking about is the 

commission's decision about midway through to add a lot of bases 

to look at, and it was the result of a kind of runaway logic. I mean, 

I still think we did the right thing, but the idea was that if you 

were going to close--if one base was on the list and was in a class 

with several other bases-for example, McClellan Air Force Base in 

Sacramento is an Air Force depot. There are four others. And a 

member from Sacramento made the very compelling case that, "Before you close us, at least take a look at the other four and weigh 

us in the light of the other four." 

So we put all those on the list, as you say, terrorizing half the 

country. People who thought they were OK when they had gotten 

through the Pentagon, suddenly found themselves added to the list 

because of us. I don't believe we added any bases to be closed as 

a result of that, but we made the people who were on the list perhaps feel that they had had a fairer shake because at least they 

had been compared to similar bases. 

Mr. HEFLEY. OK. Thank you very much, and I see our time is 

up, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. There will be another round if both you gentlemen 

would request it. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience. I 

know the Director is waiting, and the witnesses have done an excellent job of testimony. I paid attention especially to the last comment of Mr. McPherson's insights into this, and the fact that he 

said that Mr. Hefley was wise, I think, is very helpful in terms of 
48 

the legislation before us. We crafted it. I didn't know that we would 

use that word to describe our actions, but we are happy to have 

whatever positive input we could get, and I think it is all very constructive. 

Mr. Winks did an excellent job with his testimony, Mr. Chairman; talked about the word reform. One of my colleagues gave me 

a definition. He said the word reform is used when you are not able 

to justify on the merits what you are doing-the issue of reform. 

I think the point Mr. Winks made just to amplify the issue ofand I have tried to use it as I have considered parks, not to consider the economic impact of the park but to say, yes, that as a 

goal, if we don't have the Mojave Desert type represented in the 

Park System, then that ought to be included as such and whether 

or not it is accessible, whether there are roads; obviously, looking 

at what there is available in terms of Mojave, whether that was the 

best choice or not. Of course, I think that that is obviously an arguable point. But there are areas that have not been included that 

should, and so we should be willing to do that. 

We are sort of set here, and I might say, Mr. Murphy, I especially noted your comments as director of the California Park System, with regards to States. And it sort of brought up in my mind's 

eye the tremendous partnership that there has been between the 

States and the National Park Service in terms of establishment 

and, in fact, even some of the other land management agencies. 

You know, it is always sort of interesting to look at when the 

States actually gave deaccessioned land back to the national government, the national forest, because they were concerned about 

the protection of watersheds. And, you know, some of our parks-

! know specifically the Everglades, and you have mentioned some 

with regard to Redwoods-really came about because the States actually donated some of the corpus of what was and what became 

the Everglades National Park in the Everglades. 

So it is almost an act of design saying we have got to get this 

together. The national government has the organization. As a matter of fact, the first national government presence in some of those 

California parks was on the part of the U.S. Military to guard and 

to protect Yellowstone or Yosemite in the case of California. Obviously, they understood the protection and the capacity to do this 

was not something that necessarily lent itself to a State. And so 

this is nothing new, I guess, Mr. Chairman, and members. 

I would point out to you, in fact, that if you would look at the 

genesis of how these parks came about in terms of private philanthropy, we have had some examples of that in the recent year with 

regard to Marsh Billings and the site in Connecticut. So I think 

there is much to gain here. 

Now, as far as the whole concept of a commission, I think that, 

again, the excellent testimony of Mr. McPherson pointed this out. 

But one of the elements he didn't point out is that in the 1990's 

there seems to be this rush to judgment for Congress to give up 

responsibilities and the role. 

It is sort of curious, I mean, because some of the actions that we 

have taken, and, I mean, you can search your own conscience, my 

colleagues, do, in essence, say, "Well, Congress, this is a lousy proposal, but under the circumstances, we have to do this because it 
49 

is a bad idea whose time has come." I have heard that more than 

once in recent years with regards to constitutional amendments 

and other activities-a bad idea whose time has come. Well, I don't 

know how many bad ideas you have whose time has come, but I 

would suggest if we proceed down that path, that that is a problem. 

And so if we give up roles-I think the other issue here that we 

are faced with, and I think you perceive it properly, Mr. McPherson, a very fundamental thing. With the military, you had a different mission. What is the change in mission here? Is there a 

change in mission of what the Park Service is going to be? And 

that is why I referred to that point, and I think it is an issue in 

terms of mission. 

But, if anything, the Forest Service, BLM, other land management agencies, Fish and Wildlife, and some States, are taking part 

of the mission that usually was reserved for the Park Service. So 

I guess the question, do we need a Park Service? Are we really 

going to, you know, devolve back into these others? 

But I think the issue here is that the Park Service is so wildly 

popular, endorsed by the public and the members, that many of 

them want to get their assets under the National Park Service 

blanket. I mean, that is what the issue is. And the question is who 

are we going to let under this umbrella and who are we not going 

to? And have we brought some things in that either through one 

way or another like fallen wood in the petrified forest is being 

picked up, and it hasn't been protected? There are a lot of ways to 

end up with a problem here in terms of the basic reason it was designated. 

And so I apologize for not asking questions of you, but I did want 

to endorse your comments and amplify them, and if you had any 

comments briefly, maybe the Chairman will let you answer them. 

Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Winks, did you want to respond to Mr. Vento's 

comments? 

Mr. WINKS. Well, I would like to make two comments. I basically endorse all that Congressman Vento has said. I would like to go 

back to something I observed by Mr. McPherson that Congressman 

Vento touched upon, and that is it is my understanding that there 

were extensive public hearings relating to base closing. And I don't 

see that this bill provides, at least it certainly doesn't mandateit does have a reference to where appropriate-for such public 

hearings. 

If the closing of a base had economic impact, so too will the closing of a national park unit. I have already testified that I am not 

opposed to that. But it does seem to me that that being so, if one 

were to remove the Presidio, if one were to close Steamtown, clearly, there will have to be public hearings of the kind that followed 

upon the base closings or preceded the base closings. And I would 

hope the bill would provide for that. 

I would also just like to clarify because Mr. Murphy picked up 

my figure, I hope I said, and if I did not, I wish to say as I have 

visited these units and studied their creation, I arrived at a private 

conclusion, the list still not to be revealed, of 20 units that did not 

fulfill the criteria. 

I find the National Park Service is so adept at management, so 

good at interpretation, that it frequently turns a sow's ear into a 
50 

silk purse. And were I to return to those units today, I would not 

have a list of 20 but should be struck because five or six, though 

I thought them unworthy, have been rendered so educationally valuable that I would want to retain them. So I have no extensive list 

as such. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, did you want to respond 

to Mr. Vento's comments? 

Mr. MURPHY. The comment is Congressman Vento mentioned the 

State and national park relationship. I think it is maybe important 

to insert here and to pick up on something that Dr. Winks said earlier, and that is that those parks that are really of national significance have clearly been recognized as such by the States and especially by the State of California going back to us originally transferring Yosemite back to the Federal Government. 

I mean, I think that States recognize that certain areas are of 

national significance, and those areas should remain with the national parks. And where the State of California is concerned, we 

would certainly support the continued management of those areas 

in the State of California that are of national significance by the 

National Park Service. And we, you know, would not advocate any 

transfer of those units for management by the States. 

There is a dear distinction, I think, to be made between national 

significance and what is a State park, although the State of California uniquely has several areas and several units that are of national significance that now we manage in concert with the N ational Park Service. And that is what I was trying to emphasize 

as being one of the ways that you might want to look at finding 

economies rather than some of the more drastic measures that 

might be taken. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. McPherson. 

Mr. McPHERSON. One comment to follow up on something that 

Professor Winks mentioned. The legislation, as he says, does say 

these consultations, that is, of the Interior Department, shall also 

include appropriate opportunities for public review and comment. 

It would be hard to overstate the importance of the openness of 

the BRAC process. We were on C-SPAN at every hearing. In fact, 

several of my friends said that they got tired enough of looking at 

me on C-SPAN to almost get rid of their cable system. But it was 

really vital that the country, and particularly the affected areas, 

could see the commission that was representing them as public citizens, private citizens questioning the military on why it had come 

up with certain recommendations. 

How you do this in the Interior Department as Interior conducts 

this review and then puts parks on the list, I don't know, but I do 

feel that it is absolutely critical that the public have a lot of opportunity to see it and, in fact, to lobby. I do a lot of legislative work 

myself, but I must say I was lobbied more than probably you have 

ever been, Congressman, during that year period by groups from 

the affected areas and from areas that didn't want to be affected. 

And that was vital, that they could come in and see each one of 

us and make their case before the final action which is in 90 percent of the cases to approve what the Pentagon wants to do and 

to close the base. But before that happened, they wanted to see it 

in public. And so, anyway, that appropriate consultation needs to 
51 

be beefed up, I think, and you need to work with the Interior counsel to see how access may be had, how opportunities may be given 

to the public to make its voice known about these parks. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate the comment from each 

one of you. If I may add to the statement of my two colleagues 

here, I agree with my friend from Minnesota that there is a different mission than there was on the BRAC closing. But I think, Mr. McPherson, you really brought out an interesting point in the difference of this thing. If it comes back to Congress, then there is going to be a dogfight as to whether or not you 

could close it because everyone has that inherent burning in their 

bosom of, "If it is in my district, obviously, it is good, it is wonderful," whether it be a military base or national park. That seems to 

run into it. 

Dr. Winks brought out an interesting thing on the Snee Farm of 

Charles Pinckney who was supposedly a signer of the Constitution, 

is that correct, and he also didn't live in the house. To the best of 

our knowledge here, he never lived in the house that was constructed. Was it USA Today that put the thing out that said it 

didn't have one person visit it possibly because it is in disrepair? 

I don't know what it is, but if you were asked the question and you 

were on a quasi-park closing situation, it would be a very difficult 

time to say, ''Yes, keep that one open." 

You know, we have these blanket statements all the way across 

the United States of people saying, "Don't close any parks." It is 

kind of an inherent reaction that people have when you ask the 

question, "Do you want more or less wilderness?" When they first 

look at it, they say, "More wilderness," before they realize they 

can't drive their 4-wheel-drive vehicle in it; they can't do what they 

did in it before. Then all of a sudden once they heard the definition 

of what wilderness really is, they take another look at it. And I 

think to a certain extent we are finding that with parks right now. 

None of these bills that come out of any of our committees are 

written by God. They are just written by us puny, little fellows up 

here that do it with mistakes in them. But I do think if this one 

had more push to it, it would be more like the Base Closing Commission. And once it got to the point you were talking about, instead of coming back to Congress, it would go to an assembly of 

people picked by who I don't know, but that would try to be as objective as they possibly could. And the eight criteria that you have, the first four being military 

value, I imagine the criteria that would be established on parks 

would be visitation and historic value and the natural criteria and 

things such as that. So this bill has though, in my opinion, pushed 

us into an interesting part. 

And like my friend from Minnesota and Colorado, I guess I really 

want to comment more than I want to ask questions. But I just 

have to ask one for Mr. Murphy. Do your parks pay for themselves 

in California? 

Mr. MURPHY. No, not entirely, and let me kind of give you a very 

quick thumbnail sketch. Our fees that come into State parks go 

into a State Park and Recreation Fund, and that fund supplies, oh, 

approximately 50 percent of the cost of the operation of the parks. 

And then we get special funds and reimbursable funds as well. 
52 

And what we are doing right now under performance-based 

budgeting is working toward-in a very systematic fashion, we are 

working toward self-sufficiency through all of the programs that I 

mentioned and through a multifaceted approach. But some of the 

park units pay for themselves entirely and some don't. I think the 

most significant number you need to hear is we have gone from 80 

percent support from the general fund down to roughly 40 percent 

that comes from the general fund. No, I am sorry, that is wrong. 

It is more like 24 percent that comes from the general fund. 

Mr. HANSEN. So the balance comes from the entrance fees, whatever fees you may assess? 

Mr. MURPHY. The balance comes from entrance fees, concession 

fees, and some special reimbursable funds and some one-time funding that we get from other funds-harbors and watercraft funds 

and the like. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Murphy, as you listened to the other panel, one 

of the issues of infrastructure came up from former Director 

Ridenour that the national parks are suffering a problem with infrastructure. What about your parks? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. We have approximately, and it is going up 

every year, a $30 million backlog in what we call facility maintenance or infrastructure types of things. And this Administration 

has primarily focused on redressing that problem. The land acquisition for right now is merely concentrated on inholdings, cleaning 

up inholdings in lands that are contiguous to the State parks. And 

we are beginning to address our problems of infrastructure backlog 

in the State of California. 

Mr. HANSEN. How many State parks do you have in California, 

may I ask? 

Mr. MURPHY. There are approximately 270 individual units in 

the State of California, 1.3 million acres and 270 individual units. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is the criteria for a State park much different from 

the Federal park? 

Mr. MURPHY. No, it really isn't. In fact, some of the same criteria 

for establishing California State parks were used-we used the national park criteria in establishing the State park system as well. 

What we do that may be a little bit different, and I don't pretend 

to know all of the details of the National Park Service, we divide 

our parks into various types of units ranging from State wildernesses and State seashores all the way to State recreational areas 

as well as State parks. 

The individual classification of these units, whether it is a State 

beach, State park, State recreational area, determines the degree 

to which conservation is given precedence over, for instance, recreational use. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you be interested in taking the Presidio? 

Mr. MURPH'l. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. When you responded no, I assume there was a dollar sign right in front of your eyes? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. I just want to thank the panel. You have been excellent. Thanks, Dr. Winks, Mr. Murphy, Mr. McPherson. We appreciate your fine testimony and your patience. Director Roger 

Kennedy has been very patient with us today. We appreciate you 
53 

spending the time with us. It has been very kind of you to spend 

this much time, and we would ask you to come up and take the 

middle chair, if you would, so we can all get a shot at you here, 

figuratively speaking, of course. We have another hearing coming 

up so, Mr. Kennedy, we will tum the time to you now. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. Dennis Galvin is here with me, 

and he has some charts with some numbers on them. I would like 

to do three things, if I can, in my 5 minutes that I suspect I better 

stick with. 

First, I would just like to first of all thank you, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 

Hansen, and Mr. Vento, and the rest of you. This is a process that 

is enormously important to the National Park Service and to the 

people it serves. It seems to me this is the kind of hearing that restores your faith in the way that congressional government can 

function. We are talking about serious subjects and serious people 

trying to get an outcome which is a system that will work better 

for there to be conjoint responsibility between the administrative 

branch and the congressional branch of government. 

As I understand it, what we are trying to do is establish a system, as you have all emphasized, and I would just like to run 

through it as fast as I understand it because I think it is a very 

good system. We vigorously support the following process, which I 

understand to be in the bill, that would protect the National Park 

System in the future from intrusions and from things that 

shouldn't be in it. 

As I understand it, it would go like this: Congress would require 

the National Park Service annually to offer a priority list, not necessarily in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but in categories of what it thinks 

ought to be in the system. Congress would then decide what it is 

that is on that list that should be studied-spend money on it to 

study it. 

Congress can always add something in if it wants to, but it will 

be inhibited in doing so by its· own inhibitions. But the Congress 

would thereafter implicitly bind itself not to add units for which it 

did not authorize a study and for which the study did not clearly 

state that that park unit belongs in the system. 

Now, that says that the administrative branch, which presumably has got some folks in it that are professionals who do this 

kind of work, has got to step up and state at the beginning of every 

year what it thinks ought to be in the system, maybe things it 

thought of last year-but tell you what they think ought to be in 

the system. 

Then you go ahead and tell us that you want us to go ahead and 

study that one by one, and you step up at that point and say, "This 

is all we think you ought to study." And we come back to you, we 

have studied it, and then you say-and this gets very close to 

Brother McPherson's testimony-"OK. We have authorized, and 

now we are not going to put things into the system unless we authorize the study and unless the study shows a very strong coloration that it ought to be in the National Park System." 
54 

We think that is a splendid system. We are strongly for that. We 

think it will work, and we think it is exactly that kind of system 

to which you have drawn our attention, the absence of which has 

put us in something of the difficulties in which we currently find 

ourselves. 

If I may, I would like to turn very quickly to just getting into 

the record some fast numbers with the assistance of my friend, Mr. 

Galvin, who is going to point to the charts because I do think since 

we are trying to build a congressional record here, it may be useful 

to get some numbers in. 

Of the 78 National Park Service studies that have been funded 

since 1989, the Congress, through the appropriations process without National Park Service recommendation, started up 44 of those. 

Another 11 were put into the study process, not by the National 

Park Service but by legislation; not appropriations but by legislation. 

Eleven of those 78 got in there from the National Park Service, 

and then there is the fascinating category of other, which is 1.2, 

which is influential congresspeople by themselves or in some cases, 

and worthy ones, philanthropy which says, "We would like to have 

you study this because if you study it, we might give it to you." 

Of the 57 studies completed since 1989, the Park Service had a 

positive response for 20 of the 57 we were told to do saying they 

are qualified. In 12 instances, we said, "Nope, they don't meet the 

criteria." I am trying to respond to some of the inquiries here about 

as to whether we ever step up to our responsibilities. We rec--

ommended not for parks but for other things such as heritage 

areas, and we don't have time today to talk about that wide range 

of other options. They don't have to go in the Park Service-15. And then there is the other category which really means, "Gee 

whiz. Can't we study this some more?" which is a way of saying, 

"No thank you." 

Now, of the legislative action on studies since 1989, this I think 

is kind of an interesting graph, it says-when we did studies, what 

happened? Forty-five produced no action at all; 10 produced a new 

park service unit; two went to heritage areas and other uses. So 

it makes a difference to have us do what we are urging you to have 

us do which is to study them carefully-assign responsible people 

to do that. Now, finally, the question arises what are we doing to try to get 

ready for you if you tell us that you want us to come to you with 

a list every year. What we do is to send around to the System to 

the existing superintendents and other officials requests that they 

lob up suggestions or candidates for inclusion to the System. They 

are professionals. 

Of those, we have had candidates, 58 of them, in the last call. 

We decided just to study 22 out of those 58 maybes. We actually 

got to requesting appropriations for 16. We got 12 of them funded 

and started, and of the lot, four were completed. So there is a lot 

of winnowing that goes on right now. 

So I guess to wrap it up, and I hope I am still within my time, 

we are quite capable of doing what we are urging you to tell us to 

do. There are fine professionals in the National Park Service. There 
55 

are sufficient professionals in the Service that are willing to say 

when they don't think something qualifies. 

It would be wonderful if your system and our system interlocked 

at the point where you said, "If we don't authorize a study, you 

shouldn't study it just because somebody puts heat on you to study 

it. If we don't authorize it, don't do it. And then at the end of the 

game, after you have studied it and if you are pretty clear it 

doesn't belong after the study, we are going to pay very careful 

heed to that in the Congress, and we are not going to force it on 

you." 

I have, of course, other comments but-OK, sir. Thank you. Just 

a couple of very quick--

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All right. I think it is awfully important--

Mr. HANSEN. We will give you another 5 minutes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, I will do less if I can, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Schedule another 5 minutes for the Director. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I think it is very important to stress 

that visitation isn't the only criteria, and it is an easy thing to fall 

in to talking about visitation as the overwhelming criterion. If we 

did that, of course, we wouldn't allow for the increase in visitation 

that occurs as people get to appreciating places and that places become more accessible. There are a lot of places in Alaska that 

aren't visited much now, but one day they will be to the delight of 

the Alaska delegation which is going to find it nice to have tourists 

up there, but there is nobody yet-is an important point. 

Second, a lot of us learned about national parks when visitation 

was enormously, astonishingly less than it was. When I first went 

to my national park, when I went for the first time, there were 53 

units, and the visitorship was 3 million. That is when I first went 

to a national park. It is getting on to 300 million and 387 units. 

The visitorship if you took it and made your decisions today, you 

would make dumb decisions because visitorship shifts, and it has 

increased enormously in my lifetime. It has increased by 250 times. 

Now, finally, with respect to visitorship, I am sure everybody in 

this committee thinks that the Frederick Douglass home belongs in 

the National Park Service. Visitorship isn't huge though-400 

congresspeople might go over there and brood about black leadership for white people sometime. The Clara Barton home belongs in 

the National Park Service though its visitorship isn't huge yet because we haven't given that lady enough attention in her role in 

American society. 

Hovenweep is one of the holiest places in this nation. It belongs 

in the National Park Service. Its visitorship is 24,000 brave folks 

that struggle out across those dirt roads to get to it. Isle Royale, 

which is where many of us learned about wilderness, has a very 

small visitorship. These are places that belong because they meet 

Mr. Winks's and everybody else's necessary criteria. So it isn't just 

visitorship. 

And, finally, I just wanted to suggest that with regard to cost, 

that is a very essential question. You can't do everything. You 

should do the things you need to do, and that brings a final criterion in which I believe needs to be added to a final recommenda-
56 

tion, though not necessarily related to national significance, and 

that is the matter of threat. 

Yesterday, there were some recisions that came down. Recisions 

cannot and could not because of necessary speed take account of 

what will happen to one or two places that will not now be acquired, what will happen to them in the next 6 months or a year 

if they are not acquired. The question of real threat is a significant factor that isn't related to broad criteria but is related to a recommendation to you not 

just that studies be done, but that after studies are done that 

something belongs in or out. So threat is a part of it too. Thank 

you, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Anything else you would like to add, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. I think we have heard wonderful testimony here enormously useful to us and I think to you. We want 

to get on with the creation of the kind of system that you want to 

get on with too that is going to fix this for us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Roger, again, I want to thank you publicly with 

hopefully not getting you in trouble with your boss, but thank you 

publicly again for the enormous help that you have given in this 

process. And this is a dynamic process as we have tried to work 

through and come out with something that works, and we appreciate your support for the part of the bill that you can support. 

I guess I would love to have-and I would extend that invitation 

to your boss, to Mr. Babbitt, to come over and sit down and talk 

with us about this, not formally, but privately. I wonder if he was 

here, the question I would ask him, I think, is what would he have 

thought had Dick Cheney-was Dick Cheney the Secretary of Defense when we started the base closure or whoever was-! think 

maybe it was---

Mr. HANSEN. Carlucci, wasn't he? Wasn't it Carlucci, Mr. 

McPherson? 

Mr. HEFLEY. I think it was. If Dick Cheney had jumped up when 

we started the base closure process and said, "Not on my watch. 

We are not losing a single base on my watch," and he would have 

said-! think Mr. Babbitt's answer would be, "Well, that is ridiculous. There are some bases that don't fit the national defense picture now," and there may be some parks out there that don't fit 

the national park mosaic right now. 

In fact, in looking at your book-the wonderful little book that 

lists all the parks, one of them I have used as an example, Bruce, 

as you will recall, is Platte National Park in Oklahoma. When I 

was growing up as a kid there, even as a kid, I looked at that park, 

and I thought, "What in the world?" I had been to Glacier. I had 

been to Yellowstone and Yosemite and Grand Canyon, and this is 

a national rark. And the reason it was even there was because of 

the minera waters that were very important around the turn of 

the century. 

I notice in your book, I was looking at it, well, Platte is gone. It 

is out of the System. But, no, it is not really. It has changed; again, 

a dynamic park system. It was the Sulphur Springs Reservation on 
57 

July 1 of 1902. It was redesignated as Platte National Park June 

29, 1906, combined with Arbuckle National Recreation Area and 

additional lands and redesignated March 17, 1976, and then there 

were some more changes in 1940 and in 1976 and in 1991. So, you know, the park system changes too. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have plans, Mr. Hefley. I am glad that you 

raised that particular instance, and we will be delighted to talk 

with you more about that portion which Mr. Galvin tells me is now 

called Chickasaw National Recreation Area. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Chickasaw National Recreation Area? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. Good. That is an extended conversation. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, let me ask you one quick question. The time 

element that was referred to by Mr. Ridenour that maybe this 3 

years is too much time. Would you speak to the time element? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I don't think that Director Ridenour wanted 

to be taken literally on we could do it over lunch, but I think that 

many things can be done in less than 3 years. I am not commenting, of course, upon the efficacy of doing so, but I am commenting 

on the speed with which those kinds of studies can be done. Mr. 

Winks pointed out that it sort of depends on how wide an ambit 

you are talking about. If you are talking about boundary adjustments and intricate boundary adjustments, you would take more 

time. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Oh, sure. 

Mr. KENNEDY. But the general purpose to which you referred 

seems to me that that is an ample period-very ample period indeed. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I think I will stop there, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Vento, the institutional memory of 

the committee. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, you flatter me. Mr. Director, thank 

you for your testimony and pointing out the genesis of the studies. 

And I think, Mr. Chairman, it also should be pointed out that Mr. 

Winks spoke to Steamtown and to Charles Pinckney's home. The 

Park Service testified in favor of those particular measures before 

the committee. 

So, obviously, the Park Service doesn't have a fail-safe method. 

The Congress doesn't have a fail-safe method. But, you know, if we 

wrote perfect laws, there wouldn't be any job for us. So we are far 

from writing perfect laws, and so we can go back and look at these. 

I think it was true though that the study wasn't completed on 

Charles Pinckney. Almost everyone, I guess, just assumed that the 

house had been properly historically researched. So I think it was 

a mistake that was made I think in good faith on everyone's part. 

I don't think there was any effort here to, in fact, mislead as far 

as the Park Service or the Congress in terms of acting on this. 

There were plenty of other times that we have been pushed into 

things that there is more debate about. The issue here was that we 

completely missed the boat. I think that is recognized. 

But the issue with regards to studies that you were referring to, 

Director Kennedy, one of the elements of the bill that was of most 

concern to me, and I am glad that we have included it, and that 

is that the Park Service not have a series of options but that they 
58 

make a specific recommendation, a preferred alternative. So often 

we get four or five different options in terms of what can happen, 

A to D sort of options. And is it of a mind-you, obviously, are 

agreeing with this, but it hasn't been the Park Service practice in 

the last 20 years? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am adjured by my colleague and a veteran of the 

Park Service that I should be careful in my response to you at this 

point. Mr. Vento, it does seem to me that with respect to the fundamental question here is what belongs and what doesn't, there 

may be in that instance other alternatives where you say, "This is 

an important place, but this is another way to handle it," where 

you might have two or three options. But, in general, I do think 

we have to give you much stronger suggestions as to whether something belongs in or doesn't, and that is what, I think, is contemplated by the system. I think there is a lot of waffle in there, 

but--

Mr. VENTO. I think that the more clouded that that becomes, the 

more difficult the message is to decipher here. I mean, obviously, 

I understand that if it shouldn't become a park, it should remain 

as a nonprofit or there is a State alternative. I mean, what I am 

talking about is the recommendations which involve the role of the 

Park Service, and there ought to be a preferred alternative that 

you have and that you stand up and fight for. 

If you can't stand up and fight for a specific proposal, I can tell 

you which one you are going to get when the advocate of that proposal gets a hold of it, and that is the one that actually ends up 

being the highest cost, the most Park Service involvement that 

gives it the greatest degree of status, let us put it that way too. 

So it isn't just money, it is the status issue. 

Mr. KENNEDY. To be really clear about this, the language before 

us, "The letter transmitting each complete study shall contain a 

recommendation regarding the Administration's preferred management option," is just fine with us. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I hope that the interpretation of that would recognize that it is not something that has been done in the past. We 

don't want business as usual here because that is going to be a 

problem. Mr. KENNEDY. We are with you on this. 

Mr. VENTO. And you agree with the redefinition of significance 

that is in here? Obviously, you have some concerns about giving up 

the autonomy. You know, there were some suggestions about the 

length of time here, and I think there might be some-my understanding is that this is almost a 4-year process as I look at it. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I just wanted to heed Professor 

Winks's admonition that it sort of depends on what you are being 

asked to do, but 4 years is a very long time. Three years is a long 

time, and it seems to me that the period is ample and could be 

shortened some. 

Mr. VENTO. There was quite a bit of discussion between Mr. Allard and others about the NEPA process, but we go through NEPA 

whenever we do a general management plan, don't we, for the 

park--
59 

Mr. KENNEDY. Surely. I believe there may be some misunderstanding here as to what is involved. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, and I don't know that there is a· concern about 

the modification of the waiver here in terms of facilitating what 

takes place. I don't believe that there should be, but I think that, 

you know, clearly the Park Service has the expertise to deal with 

the EIS and so forth. I would just comment-one more comment, and that is some 

years ago after an extended debate, we asked for a restudy of almost all boundaries of the park other than just a general management plan. And the status of that would be of significant interest 

to me because it does, again, try to deal with the expansion and 

changing nature of parks. 

And I must say I lament the reductions last night that took place 

with regards to the Land-Water Conservation Fund. I was listening 

to Mr. Murphy talk about the fact that they had some funds that 

were set aside that were going to be used for California. Well, unfortunately, we have done the same thing, as you know, Mr. Murphy and Director Kennedy, for the National Park Service. But the 

fact is that the Congress doesn't appropriate the money out of the 

Land-Water or the Historic Preservation Fund. And, of course, the issue here has been one with the Park Service 

of an expanded mission-an expanded mission. And I think to some 

extent that needs to be redefined, and I think in this process and 

in this legislation may be the vehicle to finally bring that together 

considering the other elements like the Vail agenda and the necessity if it is being pushed by the dollar limitations. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy, and 

thanks to all of our witnesses on the panels. We appreciate your 

patience. This has taken 3 hours and 38 minutes plus two breaks 

to do this. We appreciate you being here. It was very fine testimony, and this meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee, at 1:38 p.m., was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
60 

Statement of Hon. John F. Seiberling, former 

Representative of the 14th Congressional District 

of Ohio, to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Lands of the Committee on Resources, February 23, 

1995. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to 

submit a few comments relative to H.R. 260, the 

"National Park System Reform Act of 1995". As a former 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, and still a believer in 

the importance of the National Park System, I continue 

to follow its progress and to admire its outstanding 

service to the American people. 

The National Park Service is the preeminent 

Federal agency for preserving our nation's heritage of 

natural wonders and historic places. It has been successful 

in filling this role partly because through the years it 

has had strong bipartisan support in this Subcommittee and 

the full Committee, as well as in Congress as a whole. It 

continues to have the strong support of a majority of the 

people, in every region of the country. 

Congressional action expanding the National Park 

System in the last twenty-five years almost invariably was in 

response to a strong public demand for more parks. Most, 

if not all, of the expansion was accomplished only after _ 

intensive study, public hearings, and debate both by the 

Congress and the Executive branch. That certainly was the 

practice during my fourteen years of service on this 

Subcommittee (1973-1986). 

New parks created in that pe~i o~ we=e pr~_ ncipal! y of 

two types: 

One type consisted cf g~a nd, large wild areas like 

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Wrangell-St. Elias 

Na tio nal Park in Alaska. They are trul y magnificent parts 

of our nation's heritage and have been appropriately pre se rved 

for present and future-generations to enjoy in their unspoiled 

natural state. 

The other principal type consisted of natural areas 

in or near large urban populations. Some prime examples are; 

Chattahoochee National Rec~e ation Area (Atlanta), Cuyahoga 

Valley National Re crea t! c~ Area (C!evela~d- kro~) , Ga:e day 

National Recreation Area ( NY -NJ), and Santa Monica Nationa l 

Rec~ 6a:ion Area (Los Angeles). Each of these were found to 
61 

-2 -

contain nationally significant natural, historical, or 

cultural resources. They also reflected a conscious ~ effort 

to "put parks where the people are", thereby extending the 

the benefits of the system to meet the outdoor recreation 

needs of the millions of people who rarely, if ever, will be 

able to visit the traditional national parks. That approach 

can hardly be deemed inappropriate in a democracy. 

The Act that authorized the Cuyahoga Valley NRA, the 

park I am most familiar with, was the product of many years 

of study, starting way back in the 1920's, when the famous 

landscape archite cture firm of Olmsted Brothers recommended 

that the entire valley be preserved as a park. It contains 

more National Register historic sites than any other unit of 

the National Park System. Its landscape, an unusual mix of 

wooded ravines, waterfalls, wildlife, cultivated fields, and 

19th Century Villages, simply amazes first-time visitors. 

In 1994, the 20th year since President Gerald tord signed 

the authorizing Act into law, over three million visitors 

used this park, according to the National Park Service. 

There could hardly b e a stronger affirmation of its worth. 

I recognize that the serious fiscal problems facing 

the Federal government necessitate an objective, "bottom- up" 

review of all Federal programs . It is the evident purpos e of 

H.R. 260 to provide for such a procedure. The bipartis an 

character of its coauthorship, including the Chairman and 

the immed iate past Cha i rman of this Subcommittee,strengthe ns 

this impression. 

Nevertheless, I know that I am not alone in feeling 

great unease, arising from the political climate in which 

this bill is being considered. Some of the new Members of 

the House, with voca l ~;~:~: ~=e m ~~eclagic al y dri v en 

o u tside organiz3t~ ons , a= 2 advcc ati::? ~2- 2S- ~~ ~2au~ za:~·~~ 

a n .:: .<?ven "privatization .. of Na t ional Park u nJ... tt; and o the r 

publ ic la nds. If t h at we r e t o happen, it would b e a r e al 

nationa l tragedy , made n o less s o by being a po litical 

disast e r for for some of those who brought it about. 

To ease such concerns, I hope the Subcommittee will 

build a strong l gislativ e history to the effect that t he 

proc e ss ~ b e es a blishe d by the bill i s i n t e n ded ~ be an 

objective o~e ~ ~=t a a~~ac2 ~= r ~s ~~~t~~~ s e ~~ l 

Park System. 

89-593 0 - 95 - 3 
62 

-3-

I also urge the Subcommittee to add some positive 

criteria to counterbalance the largely negative ones listed 

in subsection 102(a)(2) of H.R. 260. Examples of positive 

criteria, I suggest, would include the following: 

(1) number of visitors using the park unit; 

(2) significant natural , historical, and cultural resources in the unit; 

(3) providing ready access to the National Park 

System in a region that would not otherwise have it; 

(4) value for educating about our natural, 

historical, or cultural heritage. 

Whatever may be the significance of last year's 

Congressional elections, they most certainly were not a mandate to gut the National Park System. Americans feel 

strongly about their parks. They are not likely to forget or forgive anyone··who .takes·.them aj:lay. 

Respectfully submitted, 
63 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. RIDENOUR 

PROFESSOR Al'l> DmECI'OR, EPPLEY INSTITUTE 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY 

DIRE(.!OR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 1!189-1993 

TO THE SUBCOMMlTIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBUC I..A iDS 

CONCERNING lLR. 2GO-FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Not to be released until Feb. 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman: 

It is with pleasure and two yean of retrospect that I return to the halls of 

Cangr~ to t=stifY in favw of H. R. 2GO. While, oa the face of it, !his bill h 

ab<Nt packs, in the ~xt of today's debates in Washingtoa, H. R.. 260 takes 

on a deeper meaning. It flirts with the discussions of balanced budgets, liDe 

item vetoes and unful:lded JJWldates. 

While no one should operate under the delusion that this bill solves all the 

problems of the parks, it does sound a call for a return to sanity in the way 

parks have been and will be designated. This bill will not provide the four 

billion dollars needed to eliminate the backlog of deteriorating park 

infr~ctun:, but it will stop !he bleeding, stabilize the patient, and., most 

critically, create a partnership between the legislative and executive ~h tA: 

deal with the futw"e of the system--a paz1zlership that has been missing for a 

long time. 

In a book I have recently wriu.en called, The National Parks Compromised: 

Pork Barrel Politics and America's Treasures. I point o~.&t that in a 10 year 

period- from 1983 to 1993 -the Natiaual Pa:k Service (NPS) received .Del rly 

Sl.4 billkm dollars more tban it asked for. That would seem to be an ag~ 

direaor's dream, but it wasn't Ia most cases, Congress did not d.irect those 

dollars to critical areas of importance in the plllks. Instead, they were directc d 

to new c:oostruction tmd land acquisition not high ou the priority list of the N:?s, 

if they appeared on the list at all. 
64 

On a vi~t to Sequoia/Kings Canyon I saw raw sewage nmning down the gu;:ters 

in the parking lw. I visited Yosemite and foWld a badly over.g-owded vaJJ.::y 

in need of infrastructure improvements that would allow the movement of 

employees to le» crowded ace.as. I visited Yellowstone and foWld deteriora•in8 

roads and unaa:eptable employee housing. I visited Independence Hall and 

found electrical threati to the buildiag. I must hold the record foc visiting 

sewage treatment plants in the National Parks. 

I plea4ed my case for fundi to repair badly deteriaratmg infrastructure md t • .e 

d.aily operational needs of the parks, but instead, Congress funded adaitions >f 

margina! parks and more new construction. That is when I coined the phrase . 

"thiiUling of the blood of the national park system. • 

That is what has been happening and continues to happen. Additional 

responsibilities have been added with little thought &S to how to care for the 

responsibilities we now have. We are stretchiDg lhe abilities of NPS emplo) ~ 

and vohmteen to~ for this vast system, and we are watm.Dc dow:a 1be 

quality of \be properties witbjn the system. We are "'''biJmiDg tbe Bluod" ot, ow 

national parks. 

I visited the director of Parts Canada to swap stmies of our successes and 

fiWwes. He told me they had similar problems md had 4ecided they an: goi •lg 

to designau: a certain number of parks and then proclaim the system "done.' 

Beforo preparing this testimony I called to check if Ca.wlda was still on the 

same path. They are. They have identified 39 regions of their countty and tre 

pushing to have a representative park in all 39. Their goal is to have thia do-te: 

by tbe year 2,000. TheD their p8lk syskm would be c:omplek. That is an 

interesting coocept 

I don't think we want to go that far. But, in my mind, there are few great 

"nanual" palb left to create in this country that aren't already under some f01 m 

of government ownership. Au obvious excei>tian to this statement wooQ be be 

de$ignation of a tall grass pr.W-ie park much of which may lay on private lanlt. 

But, as we ccntinue to evolve historically, we will continually face the need D 

designate historical and cultural parks. For example, we didn't need a park 

devoted to telling the story of ow involvement with space until we had a Spa> 'e 

program. There will be other examples. 

2 
65 

We should continue to designate new park areas. We should contiuue, but 

continue ~ously and carefully consider the best way to manage areas. hl 

some cases it may be state or local government In other instances the best pian 

might call fur a twt fur profit or even a for profit organization to manage an 

area. The federal government cannot and should not tzy to be all things to 1 U 

people. 

<me of the ways we p;oposed granting assistance and recognition to 

comm~mities and areas desiring pari:: status was a concept we wleci tbe 

American Heritage Area. I believe you passed leg:isla:ioo embodying this 

CQBCept last year bl.lt it <iidn't make it through the Sclate. It is an idea woctl , 

~ exploration. 

Our goal was to provide some fonn of recognition to local community effolt : 

without going so fur as to gnwt a long term federal relAtionmip. Communiti :s 

are often looking for help, but they are not sure what they want 

We envisioned filling this need by providing some up front teclmical assistal•te 

and/or federal recognition in some form. Our idea was to help local 

comwumties in the conceptual stages of their projects, provide them a form • :.f 

federal recognition. then get ®t of the picture. Our intent was to not provid .: 

capital consauction funds or land acquisition money. 

I understand you are continuing to look at this coucept and I think the 

consi4eratioo of this idea should be a part of any study directed to the Secret uy. 

I would Ufie that this concept take a grass roots approach a:ild that the impet IS 

for such projects come from the local communities and not the federal 

government ID addition, now might be a good time to explore the meaning :and 

purpose of "affiliated areas." No one is quite sure what·affiliated status me~~ smost of all the people who visit the parks. 

I also suggest that any fonn of NPS recognition, affiliated Status or other 

arrowgem~t with 1~ ~ummunities, be designed in such a way as to not be 

taken as a ''GoiXI House Keeping Sesl. of ApprovaL" The traveling public 

should clearly be aware of who owns, operutcs and is responsible for the 

property and facilities. If you don't design this recognition carefully, the ~ 

will be overwhelmed by complaints of dirty rest rooms that are not part of th ' 

federal responsibility. Also, if this recognition is granted to everyone and 

anyone that applies, it will cheapen the NPS product Careful consideration 

must be given in defining and granting any affiliated status. 

3 

89- 593 0 - 95 - 4 
66 

When I first became director I was urged to see a property that some peopl: 

thought should be in the national system. I fiiially made the visit and found a 

very well designed and operated wild animal pazt .. Many of the animals we -e 

oon Dative and had been rehal:lilitated from injuries sutler:U in local zoos. 1 :he 

owner had put his life and fonune into this project He was justifiably prog. I of 

what he bad accomplished. He wasn't s= what he wanted frow lhc NPS, l·ut 

be wanted something. 

He wasn't looking for money although he wasn't averse to the idea. He was t't 

looking for planning help or tecbnical assistance. He was looking for 

rea>gn.it:Km, whether be realized it or not He wanted the name of his park 1·> 

show up on tbe interstate maps. He wanted it to slww up in brocllares abou •· 

.aatiooal parks. He wanted his life's wade: recognized. 

Was the property of national significance? No, not eve.n close. W~SS it an 

interesting place to spend a Sunday afternoon with the family? Most defiDitl ly 

it was.: Did the member of Congress who was twisting my ann to visit the 

place really think it belonged in the national system? I dcm't think so. This trip 

was coastituent services for him. 

The poim is that people who want a property to come under the umbrella of ,the 

NPS are usually looking for ~mething. That something they are looking f01 is 

often money, recognition, or the desire to preserve and protect. Occasiooall) . it 

is all llm:e. 

The money problem is one that fuces all levels of government In a way it 

relates to the "unfunded mandates ~ problem. We all agree that paiXs and 

reaeational programming have redeeming social values. Indeed. theSe place: 

and programs are often an answer to tiying to keep our youth involved in 

con51ructive activities rather than crime in the streets. But boW do we pay fi .r 

these parks anci sernces when other problems are so pressing? When push 

comes. to shove, the answer for local governments has been to turn to the ted ~ 

and itate governments for support. 

4 
67 

111 ocher worcis, if we had the money in the right place the NPS would probalbly 

DOl be managing beadles in the New York City area or in San Francisco. 1 :iley 

woWdn't be purchasing sbe very expensive tracts of land in SQilthem Califon.ia. 

Why sh<lWa they? These an: not beaches or mountains of national signific&J.ce. 

People don't hop on a plane iD Europe to enjoy the great natural beaches of >lew 

York City oc San F~. 

Yet, these beaches and mountains HTe important and are locally-maybe even 

regionally-significant Wbere should the money come from to support them~ 

The areas are locally significant and should be managed locally. That is our 

system of government Why has Congress become involved. I think I kno\1 . 

:U is a money problem. 

The newspapers are full of d~sioas about Steawwwn. Steamtown is a g(,od 

project. Its roots are in history and its future is in towism. It is a great plac.~ to 

visit, especially if you are a railroad or steam engine buff Is it a legitimate 

national park site? I doubt it Is it a good economic development proj~t w1.:h 

tourism potential? Probably so. Would I plan a family trip from CalifOrnia : o 

visit Steamtown? I might if I were a steam engine buff. 

1t is botb a money and retQgnition proliem. 

lA n:tros.PCC', the funding for Slt:<W~town might better have been dlanneled 

through an economic development agency such a5 the Department of Comme .:ce. 

Then we wouldn't have this confusion that exists. It would have had to staD~ . 

the test of receiving funding as an economic: development project rather than 1 

natioual park site. · 

The desire to preserve and protect is a legitimate desire. If we don!t preserve 

conserve, and protect our natural and cultural history we will fail to maintain 

our integrity. In failing to maintain our history we sow the seeds that are 

1'\laped in violence and unrest. We have had a civil war. We don't need 

another. so· the problem we face in this example is defining national 

significam:e. Wbo defines Datianal sig:cificancc and how we: do it is a major 

problem that bas plagued tbe NPS throughout its histoiy. 

5 
68 

Too often it has been defined by groups of people with a very narrow inten: :t 

in ooe project or another. On oc~:asion it bas been defined by Congress witl . the 

smack of a gavel. The NPS is not without fault Given a mandate to make a 

:;tudy, it is the rare NPS planner that cannot wax poetic about the wonders c f 

the ~bject matter-es~ially when goaded by the local office of Congressi<onal 

a.taff. 

H.R 260 is a major step in the right direction to untangle this web lUid set JC 

NPS oo a corrected course. I applaud and urge the Congress to move forwa :d 

with this bill. r would suggest a few amendments. 

1. Unlier Title 1, section 101. (a) (6), I would 11f!C caution in the use of th ; 

word "preservation.ft Ibis is a wor:d that has a very specific meaning in the 

preservation community &lld T am relatively sure that Congress has a broader 

meaning by the use of this woni than might be interpreted by many. A simtle 

fix might be to add the wotd "conservation• ill conjwc:tioa wherever the tm l 

"preiel"Vatioo ft occurs. That would allow a more usetul definition for NPS tli 

use. 

2. Under $eetion 10 l. (c), I would suggest that three years after passage of hus 

bill is DiWR time 1han is reasonably needed for tlu: Sca-ewy _to complete this 

plan. We are not t.aJlcing about unknowns here.. With the recent completion )f 

the "Vail Agenda" and with the knowledge that exists in tho NPS, this report 

can be completed relatively quickly. The public hearings will take time bl.lt :·till, 

I w(NJd suggest that two years would be more than enoup time to complete 

this report 

3. Under Title ll, section 201 (b) I would urge that you give a little more 

consideration as to what you want the Secretary to submit to you. In the 

language, yow a:;k for a list of (areas). You may want more than just areas a 1 

the list You may Want theme studies. · . 

6 
69 

For example, when I was Director there was a push to establish the home ar d 

studio of J. Alden Weir, the painter, as a national historic park site. I had n' 

idea if it was a good idea or not Was Weir the most significant painter of I is 

time? How many other states were struggling to keep a favorite son's home and 

studio alive in their state park system? If we took Weir, what son of signal 

were we sending to others? I know my home sta%e of Indiana is ~ggling to 

keep the home of Brown Coumy painter, T. C.Steele, open to the public. I 

Dotice that the home and studio of Thoma.~ Cole is now on your plate foe 

coosideratio11. Was Cole nwre important than W<:ir? I don't know, but a tlM me 

study would have helped to shed light on the subjett 

My feeling is that we sh<Nld establish certaU:l themes that we want in the syltem 

aDd then ~duct thematic st\ldies to determine which sites ofter the best 

opportwrities to imerpret the theme. If you don't perform the studies, yowarguments are wellk when dcfauiing against similM propctics coming iato tl e 

system. 

Possibly you might want the Secretary to present themes studies in addition 1 ;J 

site studies on that list of pgtential topics. 

UDder Title ll. "(c) •(I) I would'.change this to read ''possesses Datieoally 

lipificant oatlmll. cultural or RcreatioDlll ra~nu~es 1hst Rpresent 011e of tbe 

most impoi13Dt examples of a p:inicular raoun:e type iJltbe country". 

Thi3 change would make it clear thist .a reci·eatimial resoW"Ce must also be 

nationally significant in order-to be considered for NPS illclusion. · There are 

thousands of beaches that are significant but oxily a few ar~ nationally · sigil.ifi cant · · · 

Also, in the -seaioos· where y:ou require the Secretazy to .submit lists -for _possi;ne 

study as new areas, I think you should consider asking the Seaetazy fur aay 

ideas he or she might have fur delisting existing areas. The intent of the lnll 

seems to call for this exercise on a "one time" basis, Maybe it should be an 11ZU1ual process. · -

I thank you for your attention_ and congratulate you on this bipartisan effort. 

You will get lots of pressure to stray from this course, but the nation will be 

better served if you stick to this path of returning =ity and dignity to the 

nati<rnal park system. · 

7 
70 

The Director's Report 

THINNING THE BLOOD 

1 tiavo a irowinJ concertnllll we, as a nation. arc "thinrung the blood" ol our naticnal park system. In usina the u:rm. "thinning lhe blood" I am refcning to the problem of lowering our standards, 

being willi!lg to accept somellling that 

is less than nationally significant into our parlc system. These concerns grow stron~cr as I sec so many things that need to be done 10 

t~ke proper care of our present system. and how stretched our pc~onncl arc to try to accomplish their work. In shon. t :un concerned that we are spreading our limited resources over a growing base and t.hat. as J 

resul~ we may suflcr the possibility of slidtns into mediocrity rather than continuing to enjoy the 

prominence that we have long received. Obviously I am not going to name any specinc parks or p:u'k proposals here. It is not my intention to offend our Con~ressional leaders or our own NPS per>oMcl. However, 1 do hope you wiU take a few momcnLS after 

reading this to reflect on some of the additional 

paries-and the duties associated with thcm-lhal we have a' •jrcd during the past ten to fiflcen year.;. Compare , to the "crown jewels" with which we loniJ have been 

entrusted. 

In a recent meeting. my Canadian counterpart indicated 

lhal Parks Canada has a goal or completing its park S)'S!Cm 

by the year 2000. Thot is m interesting concept. What could he mean? How would you compltrt a park system? In a nutshcU, he iildicatcd lhal they have defined a number of major theme areas that should be represented in the narural parks of Canada. Cenain types of topography might be one example. Areas of unique plant diversity misht be another. Another might be ccnain types of 

complete ecosystems. The)' believe they have properly 

identified lhe theme areas to be acquired. The refore. once those requirements have been fulfilled. the plrk system or Canada would be complete. 01 course. he had to fudge a bit and admit 1hat 1hey would not ex.pcct the histOrical and cultural p~rk.s to be complete as each day puts down a new dement of history and cullure to be considered ror posSible ru1ure pa r'< 

St3lUS. 

h is an interesting concept-to com plete somcthina. I had a similar experience in my home st:ne lh:u invotvc<.! nature preserves. We had done our homcworx. inventorying the. state's natural resource~ . We became convinced that we knew what was wonh a~ ng and thJt we could accurntc1y predict which or lhcsc ... JbJ.blc 

resources would be gone if ..,.c dicn·t Jet quick.ty. Working will"' The S:1lurc 

Conserv ancy. we went to lhc 

lcg•slaturc and laid our story out. Our story was lhal "'< needed 10 

acquire cenain areas and i.hat one.;: we had acquired them our nature pn:s.;:rvc system wou ld be complete. Their 

response was disbelief. The) asked. "Do 

you mean you wouldn't be min~ bacl< to us year after year. oa sking for new arcJs as you have been?" Our answer was "yes." They were fascinated by the concc: pt Jr.d. after the mechanics of the piJ!l wcx worXcd 

out, \hey bought into it As a rc!!iult. lndiJJ'lJ hJs 

one of the finest nature preserve: systcrr.s 1:1 :.'":c 

country. 

I throw lllis idea out. not as a possible ~iPS Jpproach but as food for lhouShl. I do know, howev<r. that we can't 

continue to c•pand lhe system indcflmtcly There ' " limns. As far as I'm aware, no one has ever ru n lhc 

\00-yard dash in nothing Oat In \he same way . "'e can't transform the whole of the United States into a n31ion:ll 

par1c. 

That doesn't mean that we should quit look'r.g ror nc"' areas. It docs mean that these areas should crcdcrgo 

rigorous eX3mination prior ro be ing proposed for 

inclusion. I would not want to see our ··.: ro .... n jc~ c~s · 

suffer further deterioration at the expense of JC:dina new parks that might more readily fit into Lhc m:L'1J~cmc :tt · 

categories or state and local governments or ;:~rivatc 

mana~emcnt by individuals anct organi zations. You . at lllc 

grassroots of the NPS-whclhcr in manai:cmcnt. 

plaMing, $CiCOCC, interpretation, Of :l.t'\y O( lhc O~hl!r 

imponant areas of park responsibility---<=an play a h• S role in these tough decisions. As )'Ou talk wtth locll pc ~pl c or Congressional members and staff. give them your be st Jn~ 

most honest advice. To us falls the con!icq uc!lCC ~ o( the 

possible "thinrling of the blood." 

I 

I 

~---------------------------------------------------------------------J 

Speclol to the C 0 U R I E R Ncverr-t> c r IQYO 
71 

National Parks 

and Conservation Association 

TESTIMONY OF 

PAUL C. PRITCHARD, PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

ON 

H.R. 260, THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman , my name is Paul Pritchard and I am the President of the National Parks and 

Conservation Association. On behalf of the more than 450,000 members of the National 

Parks and Conservation Association, I thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 260, 

the National Park System Reform Act. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

I am very intrigued by Speaker Gingrich's remarks about the existence of a distinct American 

culture and conscience that must be preserved. That statement is profoundly relevant to 

today's proceedings. The National Park System is the repository of much of our heritage, 

and it is where many of the natural and cultural resources that represent our culture and 

conscience are being preserved and protected. 

NPCA believes that, if enacted, H.R. 260 will be the most important piece of national parks 

legislation since the Organic Act of 19 16. Therefore, we appear today wi th the intent of 

helping the subcommittee to develop a constructive approach to a potentially volatile issue. 

We recognize this process is likely to result in some pain, but we believe it offers an excellent opportunity to address significant problems confronting America's National Park 

System. That is why we supported a reform bill last year and why we hope to be supportive 

o f a similar bill this year. 

My testimony will touch on some of the overriding concerns that are addressed in greater 

detail in the attached statement. These more specific and more technical comments, as well 

as our broader concerns, have been discussed by an adhoc panel of park experts convened by 

NPCA. We also conducted several focus groups earlier this year on H. R. 260. For the 

record, we were pleased to have both Robin Winks, a former chair of the National Park 

Advisory Board and a trustee of NPCA, and Jim Ridenour, former Director of the National 

Park Service, participate in our workshop. 

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washingron, D.C. 20036-1904 

Telephone (202) 223-NPCA(6722) • Fax (202) 659-0650 

U '"""o "" ' " '""'' ""' 
72 

Because of the seriousness of the subject, we hope that today's hearing is one of several you 

will hold on H.R. 260. At the organizational meeting of the Resources Committee, 

Chairman Young said that the Committee would conduct field hearings and "go to the 

peopl e." Because of the monumental importance of this legislation and its need fo r extensive 

revisions, we urge the subcommittee to heed Chairman Young's call. 

THIS IS NOT A "PARK CLOSURE BILL" 

Before we begin to talk about our recommendations, let us make a candid observation about 

media characteri7.ation s that this is a "park closure bill." No matter how hard anyone tri es to 

"spin" the bill, the media will likely paint it as a "park closure bill." While we believe this 

is misleading, it is the reality we face because the media will view the possible loss of 

individual parks as th e most newsworthy aspect of H.R. 260. But it is congressional 

hearings. markups, and floor consideration that will determine whether the legislation is a 

Trojan horse for an anti-park agenda. or a valid and meaningful approach to solving 

problems. 

The media also wi ll want park "hit lists," but we should strongly resist th at temptation and 

allow the planning and review process to work. The focus should be on the only list that 

mailers: the one that results from the National Park System review required by Sections I 02 

and I 03. Congress and other inte rested parties ought to be working to ensure that that list is 

the resu lt of a fair, balanced, and objecti ve process. Such a list, we believe, will withstand 

public scrutiny and uphold the high standards of the National Park System. 

Throughout its history, the Nati onal Park System has been steadily evolving . Its un its take 

into account a wide va riety of themes and resource types. The designation of a unit itself 

can say many things about the priorities of our nation at that time. This partly explains why 

many of the early parks were natural areas and why cultural and historic si tes followed as 

we. as a society, developed our own historical trad itions and decided to preserve more of the 

places that represent important components of ou r national character. 

NATIONAL ENV IRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

A major concern of NPCA 'sis the bill 's exemption from the National Environmental Policy 

Act. This prov1sion was not in last year's version of the bill. A NEPA exemption is both a 

fundamental and philosophical issue for NPCA , and is potentially a "deal breaker." We 

want the process to succeed and its recommendations to be made in a timely manner. 

However, NEPA is the legal sa feguard ensuri ng both public participation and the collection 

and consideration of all relevant information th at will be critical to any decision to remove 

units. or portions of un its, from the National Park System. 

2 
73 

If the process is to work , it must have the faith and trust of the American people. We 

believe that will not occur if NPS or the independent commission does not have the benefit 

of the information a full NEPA review would provide. Without the removal of the NEPA 

exemption, NPCA will be forced to reconsider its support for this bill. We see the bill as an 

opportunity, and not a threat. 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN 

NPCA supports the concept that NPS should prepare a new National Park System Plan. We 

view this as an excellent opportunity to establish priorities and a vision for a NPS that will 

define its role as the steward in the protection and preservation of our natural and cultural 

heritage. However, we believe Congress should ratify this plan before NPS moves ahead 

with the review of existing units. 

NPCA believes that questions regarding multiple representation of themes and resource types 

in the system are legitimate. The role of NPS in managing these units should be examined 

and clarified. The duplication issue, however, is more properly addressed by the National 

Park System Plan, not through the review. Let us tirst determine sensible answers to 

questions regarding duplication. th en apply the results during the review process. 

Finally, we th ink that this plan should also explore removing NPS from the Department of 

the Interior and establish ing it as an independent agency. Too often, issues of park 

protection and preservation have been bogged down by the political agendas of the 

administration in power. We think this planning process offers an excellent opportunity to 

examine whether NPS would thrive if an alternative management structure -- similar to that 

of the Smithsonian Institution, Library of Congress, or Federal Reserve-- were adopted. 

CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING EXISTING UNITS 

Each of the existing units of the National Park System has been designated and/or supported 

by previous Congresses. Generally speaking , we be lieve that those decisions have been well 

considered and wisely made. We feel contident that the system will withstand the scrutiny 

proposed . Further, we helieve that the review process should begin with a strong 

presumption that each unit is a valid one, and that the "burden of proof" should be on 

showing why particular units no longer belong in the system. 

Therefore, we are concerned about the random quality and ambiguous character of the 

proposed review criteria. We believe that the criteria in the bill which will govern the 

development of the recommendations to remove units from the system should be developed 

by the Secretary as part of the plan required by Section 101. Congress should then codify 

these criteria after NPS presents them in the plan. The criteria cu rrentl y in the bill should be 

deleted because they are too numerous. too vague, and in several instances, unsound. 

3 
74 

We think that the criteria developed in the National Park System Plan shou ld narrowly focus 

on a primary set of criteria, including national significance, and feasibility and suitability of 

the resource for management by the National Park Service. These criteria may need better 

definition , but we believe that this is best accomplished by the professionals of the National 

Park Service. 

If a unit meets the primary set of criteria , then it is validated and should remain in the 

system. Those not meeting the primary criteria, would be subject to greater scrutiny using 

additional criteria, such as adequate representation of a particular theme or resource type. 

These secondary criteria shou ld also be developed by NPS as part of the National Park 

System Plan . 

We are concerned, fo r example, abou t the criterion described as "cost." Does this refer to 

the size of a unit's budget, its cost per-visitor, etc? How do you compare the significance of 

the site where Lincoln deliwred the Gettysburg Address with the site where he was 

assassinated? Further, how do you compare today's operating cost with a unit's value in 

teaching future generations about our national heritage? Finally, do we want our generation 

to be remembered for knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothi.ng? 

Congress needs to look at the larger tinancial picture. Congress could best improve the 

tinancial condition of the Nationa l Park Service by passing meaningful concessions reform 

and fee legislation that directs reven ues to the parks, and by stopping unnecessary "porkbarrel" add-ons to the construction budget in the annual Interior Appropriations bill --

recommendations we have repeatedly made to Congress. In addition , as last week's NPS 

budget hearing illustrated, NPS should prepare a more precise budget justiftcation for the 

Congress to account for their needs and expenditures. 

NPCA believes there are some other fundamental misconceptions regarding the legislation , 

especially that other federal agencies, state, local , or private entities will jump at the 

opportunity to assu me management of deauthorized units of the system . Such prospective 

managers also have serious budget constraints; most are unlikely to have the resources to 

absorb additional rr.anagement responsibilities that a deauthorized unit would bring. Without 

an adequate federal payment, the transfer of units is essentially an unfunded mandate. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF A CIT IZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL 

We strongl y recommend the creation of a Citizens Advisory Council to monitor the process 

and serve as a guardian for its integrity. This council should be consulted both on the 

development of the plan and in the review. If the process becomes overtly political, it will 

lose the faith and trust of the American people. NPS should be required to regularly consult 

with a citizens boacd comprised of members from statutorily detined academic fields and 

areas of expertise and experience. While it would have a role limited to consultation , it 

should also be empowered to vote on the approval of the reports or recommendations prior to 

their transmittal to the Congress. 
75 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 

The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act too often are cumbersome, and are a 

barrier to public participation. To expedite the consultation process and more easily open it 

for broader public participation, NPCA recommends that the bill waive the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act with regard to the bill's consultation provisions. However, we believe that 

FACA should apply to the Citizens Advisory Council that NPCA recommends be established 

to assist in the planning and review process. 

CONTINUED DESIGNATION OF NEW AREAS 

Congress must recognize that there now ellist nationally significant resources that have been 

identified as worthy additions to the National Park System. For ellample, the tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem, which once encompassed 140 million acres of land, is a notable missing 

element of the system. A site that has been studied by NPS and found nationally significant, 

suitable, and feasible for a tallgrass prairie unit is located in the Flint Hills of Kansas. 

Congress must not use this legislation as an excuse to halt consideration of worthy potential 

parks for inclusion in the National Park System. 

While the National Park Service may devise improved criteria for new areas, it will continue 

to be the responsibility of Congress to govern. It is important that Congress follow the 

process outlined in Title II with regard to candidate parks and value the independent 

judgement of NPS professionals. Members must resist the temptation to pressure NPS 

professionals into making questionable assumptions, and Congress must resist their 

colleagues who will , inevitabl y. try to circumvent the new area designation process. 

AUTHORIZATION 

Presently, H.R. 260 contains no authorization of appropriations for the purposes of carrying 

out the Act. NPCA does not believe that this process, however needed , should take money 

from current park programs. Although NPCA has no firm estimate on how much the 

process will cost, we believe that Congress should provide a separate funding authorization. 

Otherwise. this will become another unfunded congressional mandate. 

Further, should an independent commission become necessary, it will need its own budget. 

Such funding would also allow it to hire staff and retain advisors and consultants to fulfill the 

requirements of the legislation. 

5 
76 

CONCLUSION 

We have attached detailed recommendations which we hope will be beneficial to the 

subcommittee. Let me say that we believe that the American people and future generations 

will value your decisions on H.R. 260 if they are practical, bipartisan, and made in an 

atmosphere free of politics. 

The support of NPCA, all Americans, and fu ture generations will depend on the 

thoughtfulness and care given to the bill by the subcommittee. Therefore. we encourage you 

to approach this legislation with the care that the protection and preservation of America's 

heritage rightfully deserves. 

NPCA appreciates the opportunity to testify and we stand ready to assist you as you 

undertake this important task . 

6 
77 

STATEMENT OF RICK GALE, MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND PAST PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES; 

CONCERNING H.R. 260, THE "NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF 1995 . " 

February 23, 1995 

Mr . Chairman, thank y ou for the opportunity to present the v iews of 

the Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) on H. R . 260, the 

"National Park System Reform Act of 1995 . " As immediate past 

President of the Ass ociation, I continue to b e a membe r of the 

Board . I am speaki ng today on behalf of the new President of the 

Association, Deanne Adams . She asked me to pass on h e r regrets 

that she could not b e here today, and hopes to b e meeting with you 

in the near future . 

The Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR), f ormed in 1977, is 

a professional organization comprised of approximately 1,800 

National Park Service rangers and other employees from all regions, 

salary grades and specialties - including managers of many major 

national parks and c e ntral and Washington office divisions . 

ANPR is neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather is a 

volunteer associa tion formed t o advance t he ranger profess i on and 

support the National Park Sy ste m a nd the National Park Service. 

ANPR limits its acti vities to the presentation of factual, 

impartial, professional perspecti v e s. 

1 
78 

The Association of National Park Rangers has long been interested 

in having clear criteria established and applied for determining 

the "national significance" of new areas to be admitted to the 

National Park System. H. R. 260 appears to be an effort to addJ:·ess 

this issue , and we commend this Committee for its interest . 

Clear criteria for authorizing "nationally significant" additi ons 

to the National Park System, coupled with appropriations sufficient 

to protect and manage a new area, are key to maintaining the 

integrity of the System. 

The danger o f not applying such criteria and practices is the 

proliferation of new areas of less than national significance and 

the impact of such new areas on the integrity of the System as well 

as the operating budgets and staffing of existing units of the 

National Park System. 

The approach in recent years has become increasingly "politic al" 

with standards for national signi ficance envisioned by Congress 

back in 191 6 being subverted by the need, it seems, to have s ome 

type of area with the term "national" in its title established in 

every Congressional District . This is not a new phenomena. 

William Everhart, in his book, The National Park Service, recalls 

that : 

"In 1916 alone, there were bills introduced for sixteen 

new national parks, which would have doubl ed the number 

2 
79 

existing. Fortunately, and perhaps proving the system, 

Congress passed only two, Hawaii Volcanoes . . . and Lassen 

Volcanic .. . ; the rest of the proposed parks were fairly 

dreadful. In one three-week period of the 1920's, bills 

were introduced to establish High Knob National Park in 

Virginia, Nicolet National Park in Wisconsin, Yakima 

National Park in washington, Killdeer National Park in 

North Dakota, Wonderland National Park in South Dakota , 

and eight more pieces of less-than-spectacular wonders 

scattered around the country . Claims are often made for 

historic sites, ranging from the purely insignificant to 

the hilarious, most of which are clearly worthy of 

oblivion . 

Everhart also mentions that in 1922, then Secretary of the 

Interior, Albert Fall, was quoted as saying, "Whenever in the 

public lands I can find a pleasant place for local people to go up 

and camp, there I shall have a national park . " 

Sadly, Fall's urge to add "every pleasant place to camp," to the 

System has been replaced by the equally disturbing trend of the 

past several years to attempt to add thinly disguised revitalization projects in both rural and urban areas around the country . We 

are not dismissing the acute needs of the nation's urban and rural 

areas, where the NPS may have some role to play, but we do question 

attempts to use the National Park Service as an economic develop3 
80 

ment agency . Each of these areas bleeds off more funding and 

further dilutes the significance of existing National Park System 

units. 

Mr. Chairman, more than ever before, the National Park System is 

threatened with mediocrity! To reverse this threat, two things 

must happen: 

1 . Congress must tighten up the process by which new areas 

are added to the National Park System; and 

2. Congress must assure that areas, once authorized under 

clear criteria, are adequately funded through the appropriations 

process . 

Therefore , we support the need to establish a comprehensive study 

process with clearly defined criteria for determining the suitability and feasibility of proposed additions to the System. As we 

understand it, the process outlined in Title II of the bill is 

similar to the processes for studying proposed additions to t he 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails Systems. These 

processes have worked relatively well for these systems and we 

believe could result in a more rational approach to adding areas to 

the National Park System. I would add a note of caution here, 

however . Congress must be prepared to discipline itself in making 

the final d eterminations about which areas should be legislated 

into the System . 

4 
81 

We also believe that the legislative process must ensure that new 

areas are actually funded for acquisition, development and 

operation before they become new units of the National Park System . 

While we understand the distinctions between "authorization" and 

"appropriation," it is vital that the link between these two 

processes be established when considering new area proposals. 

Otherwise, we will continue to see new areas authorized without 

additional funding being provided, with continuing dilution of the 

operational abilities in the existing system. 

Title I of H. R. 260 also speaks to the concern of "national 

significance" by establishing a process for identifying existing 

areas for possible termination or modification. This process, in 

order to be credible with the American public, must also be based 

on explicit criteria and standards which would clearly show why an 

area does not belong in the National Park System. Without such a 

process and criteria, we are concerned that the review of the 

existing system could end up being based primarily on political 

influence, or on narrow or parochial issues without fair consideration of the national interest. 

Perhaps former National Park Service Director Newton B. Drury 

captured the essence of the problem when he said: 

"If we are going to succeed in preserving the greatness 

of the national parks, they must be held inviolate. 

If we are going to whittle away at them we should 

5 
82 

recognize, at the very beginning, that all such whittlings are cumulative and that the end result will be 

mediocrity." 

In this light:, we believe that the preparation of the National Park 

System Plan as outlined in Title I of H.R. 260, generally meets 

this goal. 

We do have some specific comments on the language included in H.R. 

260: 

-Sections 102(a) (2) and 201 reflect the possible pitfalls in 

establishing criteria for how resources are managed. If "lack of 

visitor accessibility" and potential for "visitor use" had been 

determining factors for inclusion in the System one hundred years 

ago, a number of our great national parks, monuments and historic 

sites might not be in the System today. What's considered 

inaccessible today may be very accessible 25 or 50 years from now. 

The same could be said for requiring some level of local and 

general public support as implied in Section 201. In the establishment of tnany existing units, local and general public support 

were at opposite ends of the spectrum, and local support was often 

negative. This doesn't mean that the areas were not nationally 

significant and today are viewed for the most part as assets to a 

community rather than a liability . 

6 
83 

- If the Commission called for in Section 103 is established, 

we believe that procedures similar to those established for 

military base closing decisions should be used by the Commission. 

Specifically, recommendations should be made to the President and 

the Congress, who would "vote up or vote down" the entire package, 

rather than vote on each component of it. 

- In Section 201, we question the realistic use of potential 

park system additions listed in numerical priority. We could agree 

with listing additions categorically (i.e., high, medium, low), but 

it would seem that there are too many unpredictable, uncontrollable 

factors involved to have a ranked listing. 

As Mr . Vento said upon introduction of similar legislation in the 

last Congress, "Considering the exceptional quality of our national 

parks, it is our obligation to ensure that only outstanding 

resources are added to the National Park System." 

Please let us know how we can be of further assistance in ensuring 

that this goal is attained. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee might 

have. 

7 
84 

STATEMENT OF 

ROBIN W. WINKS, PH.D. 

TOWNSEND PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, YALE UNIVERSITY 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

ON 

H.R. 260 

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT 

FEBRUARY 23, 1995 

Once again public events, tlnancial constraints, and the bureaucratic desire for neatness in all 

things have brought to the fore the question of whether too many national parks exist, whether some 

lack national significance, and whether the National Park Service, during this period of down-sizing, 

ought to divest itself of some of its 368 units. These concerns are retlected in H.R. 260, bearing the 

title National Park System Reform Act of 1995. The apparent intent of the bill is sound; but some of 

its provisions are not. 

The United States has the most complex and elegant system of national parks in the world. It 

has reached its present preeminence over a hundred years by experimenting, learning, and 

redefining methods and management policies. The intent of the National Park System is clear: to 

preserve and protect in perpetuity the tlnest American landscapes, the best exemplars of American 

culture, the most qualified sites at which the nation may commemorate its historical experiences. 

Whether park, historic site, or recreational seashore, a unit of the National Park System must be 

nationally significant. 

A detlnition of national signitlcance involves an understanding of the nation's history. To 

those who believe in the connectedness of all things. every plot of land, every mountain's majesty 

and, every Civil War battle site speaks of the nation's experiences, of its pride and its fears, and 

thus has signitlcance. Clearly this was not what Congress or the founders of the National Park 

Service had in mind. 
85 

But today the question, Who does history belong to?, is producing enormous problems for 

those parks that attempt to interpret the nation's cultural and historical resources. Disputes at Pearl 

Harbor, at Martin Luther King , Jr., National Historic Site, or at the Smithsonian over an exhibition 

on World War II, reveal that important sectors of the public are unwilling to accept the presumably 

dispassionate and more objective views of scholars or bureaucrats. The bill before Congress seems 

to be an attempt to deal with both the confusion arising over debates about national significance and 

to protect the park service from being the object of rampant 'pork barrel' politics. 

The National Park Service was created in 1916 by an act which often is said to have 

presented the service with a "contradictory mandate." The service was directed "to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life within each park and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations." 

There is, in fact, no contradictory mandate. I have completed a legislative history of the act, 

goi ng well beyond the customary history (which is usually limited to congressional debates, draft 

legislation, transcripts of hearings, and other congressional documents) to examine the surviving 

private papers of every member of every House and Senate committee that worked on the 

legislation. It is clear that Congress intended the dual mandate--"to conserve" and "to provide for 

the enjoyment"-- to be read in order of priorities. If the second charge came into con flict with the 

tirst, it was the protection of the resource that took precedence. 

Of course, over the years a number of different types of units have been included in the park 

system. For some, recreation is their primary purpose. All limits, however, are expected to have 

national significance. This signiticance may be quite subtle and not immediately apparent to a lessthan-informed visitor: protected fossil beds, complex and unique though not visually striking 

archaeological sites, structures and places that preserve the memory of an historical movement not 

yet completed. Through in terpretation at the site and in publications, the park service is responsible 

fo r illustrating and verifyi ng the national signiticance of the unit while protecting the resou rce. 

By and large the park service has been skilled at fending off unwonh y units. During the 

1930s. more than a hundred proposals were put forth. and dozens of bills were introduced in 

Congress by representatives who had been persuaded, often by a local chamber of commerce, that 

this or that local landmark or museum should be added to the system. Senator Alben B. Fall of New 

Mex ico strove mighti ly for the All-Year-Round National Park, a site to consist of minor recreational 

areas around his ranch. 

Over tht! years, communities eager to push a local attraction onto the federal taxpayer have 

proposed various watering holes. cemeteries, agricultural museums, fenced wildlife parks, 

abandoned short-line railroads, and even a petting zoo for inclusion in the system. With 

knowledgeable friends in Congress who understand and cherish the purposes of the National Park 

System, the service usually has been able to avoid being turned into a series of federally subsidized 

sandlots. 

2 
86 

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Since the creation of a national park flows from 

the political process, the end result of a national park is what Congress determines it to be. Some 

legislators may think the park system merely a random collection of places, and do not themselves 

full y understand the importance of the criteria for national significance. If a substantial number of 

unworthy units exists--if, as former park service Director James M. Ridenour has put it, a "thinning 

of the blood" has occurred--it is Congress that must be held responsible. 

Seldom has the Park Service sought any property that failed the national significance test. Of 

those hundred and more proposals put to it in the 1930s, only 10 percent became part of the system. 

The others most frequently were turned away with the judgment that the proposed area lacked 

national significance or that the system already contained a better "specimen"--a better cave of its 

type, a historic site that more fu ll y represented the Westward movement. In fact, as more 

appropriate examples of particular land forms and historical activities were identified, the park 

service removed several units: Shoshone Caverns in Wyc.ming; Lewis and Clark Caverns in 

Montana; Verandrye National Memorial in North Dakota; Farther Millet Cross in New York; and 

18 others. At times, with a unit thrust upon it by Congress, the Park Service even has turned a 

sow's ear into a silk purse through skilled interpretation. 

Surely, units of the park system exist today that lack national significance, have little 

historical integrity, and are hardly accessible to the public. Perhaps such places might be better 

protected by another agency of governmen t or through private enterprise. For example, few students 

of the National Park System beli eve that Steam town National Historic Site in Penn sylvania is of 

national significance or can ever be made so. 

As one commentator astu tely observed. Steamtown consists of a miscellaneous collection of 

rolling stock, much of it irrelevant to Pennsylvania's history. A weakened and almost inatten tive 

Park Service found this unit added to its responsibilities by a determined congressman who bypassed 

any historical review in order to provide within his district a potential tourist attraction that might 

help offset precipitous economic decline. 

In the 1980s, Congress brietly considered the notion that every congressional distri ct should 

con tain a park unit. Congress also has required studies with a view toward establishing a unit for 

every president of the United States. Do Chester Arthur and Millard Fillmore really rate this 

treatment? Should Charles Pinckney National Historic Site in South Carolina be retained , when it is 

now clear that Pinckney never liv: d at Snee Farm, the focus of the unit~ 

Indeed. is the category of unit represented by the Pinckney site tru ly ecessary~ The 

Pinckney NHS was created when Congress decided that, where possible, every delegate to the 

Constitutional Convention should be honored by a unit -- a clearly impossible and undesirable step 

rendered supertluous by the creation of Constitu tion Gardens in the nation's capital. 

Who is responsi ble in the end for poor un its, or badl y underfunded units? Congress seldom 

provides the needed funds when it adds a unit to the system, often against the park service's better 

JUdgment or contrary to irs own studies. 
87 

The Heney-Hansen-Yento bill can provide the means by which the American people, 

their representatives in Congress, and their stewards in the National Park Service can take a hard 

look at the criteria by which a unit joins the panoply of symbolically sacred places. It can be a time 

for declaring, once and for all , that protection of the resource stands above the pleasure principle in 

any national park. It can be time fo r revitalizing the ethic by which the nation came to have the 

world's finest, most intellectually elegant, and best protected system. It can be a time for moving 

forward in the creation of worthy new units, since the system can never be complete, as our 

understanding of ourselves and our culturally diverse development will make clear. 

But H.R. 260 contains dangers. No precedent should be set by which a national park unit is 

stripped of its status which is not so richly particular that another unit might come under the ax. 

Your unworthy unit might not be my unworthy unit. An alternative agency should always be ready 

and able to accept transfer, for if a unit is finally judged not nationall y significant, it could have 

such local significance as to become a superb state park. No one should produce a "hit list," for 

without the most careful examination of the legislation that created each unit, one cannot be certain 

of the original congressional intent. The act ought not to refer to "reform" as though it had 

prejudged the outcome; certainly what is intended is a complex reassessment. This is a process that 

can not be rushed; many voices will have to be heard, and much education will be necessary, 

sometimes of Congress itself. 

Particularly disturbing is the provision that requires the park service to complete its 

"reassessment" in only one year. which is more quickly than it can reasonably do so. If the service 

fails to meet the deadline , the bill calls for establishi ng a commission that will draw up such a list 

for moditication or termination . The commission is to consist of seven members, two appointed by 

the speaker of the House of Representatives, two by the President Pro Tern of the Senate, and three 

by the Secretary of the Interior, one of whom will be the director of the National Park Service. 

Where are the dispassionate students of the park system, individuals who have no ax to grind, and 

no desire to add a unit in their state, in this process? Should not such experts also be on the 

commission? 

Yes. this is a good moment to look again at the criteria, to seek to educate the public and its 

representatives about why it matters that a nation preserve its beauty, its historical and recreational 

heritage, its great natural landscapes. The purpose must be to protect the parks, to assist the park 

service in its efforts. already under way, to act upon the clear intent of the 19 16 act, and to identify 

and acqui re new symbols of our past. This bill, if passed, must be for constructive, not destructive 

purposes. 

4 
88 

.nns cr c.ayr:prn•ll- auCIU'on £OlNeY 

JEPARTMI!NT 01' I'AIIKS "ND RECREATION P.O . .:)J .. IHI 

SACIUMEHTO 1Cat«D1 

Teatimony 

of 

DONALD W. MURPHY 

DIRECTOR 

CALIFORNIA DEPART~~~)~:;:AND RECREATION 

;t1}!P~ ::::;~~tif'~'. 

~~~-:~~ N. • ·.fQN:A"LPARI<S; s\~~W~~K~BI :PO RESTS0!~ &. t;ANDS 

:;~~~~=- ~~F,~~ ~H~y.:j~;~-~ :;)· HOUStr dP,' ltEPRES:ENT~TfVES . ~~-=~::~~:~::~~~~i~:~;.~~ ::~~~:; :.:¥ 

February 23, U9S 
89 

The Honorable Jamu V. Hansen. Chairman and Mombars of the Subcommittee : 

On bahalf of the people of t!"le State of California . Governor Wilson and the California 

Oepartmant of Parka and ~ecrwat on . I em pleased to have the opportunity tO aubmlt to 

you tastlmony agardin>~ tne way, under Govarnor Wileen's lndership, we fac:ad 

c:hallangea similar to those fac ing the National Park Service, and the mutually beneficial 

partnership we have developed with the National Park Service . 

I am tha Director of the Callfornle Department of Perlr.s and ~ecreal on, managing 01 State 

P11r~ System which consiata of nurly 270 units encompassing nearly 1 .3 million ac:rn of 

our state. Laat year, !!B million individuals visited lands under our stewerdahip. Wa 

believe that we menage an eminently aucceaaful system which is ucor'ld only to the 

National Perks of the United Statu In lte acreage and diversity. 

Thru years 11go . fscad with a t20 million d11flcit and the specter of closln; perka. 

Governor Wilson approved a plan that algnlfleantly reduced ;~dmin st iva overhead 

eliminating an entire layer of admlnlatretlon end a reduction of 1113 positions. This action 

aaved Callfornle tax payers $10 million. All this wn accomplished without cloaing a single 

park. 

Governor Wilson also directed the Ca lifornia Stlte Parks to divest itself of perks that ara 

not of atlltewide significance. Wa were able to transfer units to city and county 

government• end entlf into operating tgr~tmenta . We wtre furtner ohellanga to form 

public and prlvilte pertnarahipa end to became more antropreneurial In our management of 

Callfcrnia's State Perkt. Toward thla end we have developed an aggreasiva merkating and 

publh: relations progrem. This program lncludea the opening of state park atorn in aovera l 

locations acron the atata, public aarvlce announcement• by a tara park apokup~raon, Clint 

eutwood, and development of park merchandi .. which ia acid by eatalo; a,d ;, our 

store a. 

We have developed a sponaorshlp program patterned after tha auccosshJIIy 1 984 Los 

Angeles Olympics. The al)onaora will PlY 1 fee to Callfornie State Perks for being an 

official aponsor. Wa are nagotlatlnQ our first large sponsorship withe national beverage 

company. 

Governor Wilson alao designated State Parks tG participate in a pilot prcgr11m in 

performanced baaed budgatlng. As a result the d11p1rtment has developed a atreta;ic plan 

with clear gcala and taoties for achieving the QO&II. This includes an analyoio of the 

sarviciiS we provide and to what 1tand1rd . This system of budgeting inaur .. that we 

clearly daflne our min ion. and thet we stick to that mission. 

The formation of bloregion• hn allowed the department to partner with a;en.:les s uch u 

BLM, the US Forest Service, 1nd the Fiah end Wildlife Service. Thue partnarahlps 

emphaaiu management of rasourc:n by ecological system& rather then by jurisdictions. 

Many economies hava been rnliud u a result. 

Our most slgnlfloant partn11rahip hu been with the Netio,al Park Service . 
90 

An Overview and History 

Throughout the history of California' a Stat• Park Sysum. Ita management policy. 

adminiatrati"e philosophy and goala havv closely p1rallaled thoso of the National Park 

Sorvlce CNPSl. Individuals imbued with tha park philosophy include luminaries such as 

Stevon Meth&r. who heYe advlud both park systems at critical momenta in our mutual 

dovelcpmant. Two of my predecauara, Nowton Drury and William Pann Mott, Jr .. have 

subaequantly 1erYad as Director of thw National Park Service. The California Dsp;utmant 

of Parka and Recreation and the National Park Sorvlce have a ton; hiatary of working 

togetl'lar. For Instance, In 1921. than Field Daputy Director of the Notional Parka, and toter 

Oirtctor. Stanley Albright adviaed tha Governor of the State of California that ha supportod 

"state 11ctlon on Crsdwood park acQUllltion whh;h) would pave the way for 11 federal 

approprittion land would constitute) tho flrat step toward the ultimate astabllahment of a nations! redwood park further north. • More recently, &tate park units such aa those et the 

Morin Headlands, Stlnaon Beach end our hiatoric ship collection have bean transferred 1111 

building blocka to cr .. te the Oolden Geta National Recreation Area . 

Redwood National and State Park• 

In thl• tradition. beginning In May 1993. dlecuasionc between Stanley Albright. Jr .• the 

Na~lonal F'ark Service'& Western Region Dlreotor, end me led to 11 decision to explore 

potential joint oparational improvemanta and cost nving• that might be achieved between 

adjacent ltete end national pari: unita. 

Thla inltletlva wn undert1kan 11 1 result of Dubllc: comment rec1lved In the spring of 

1993. during tl'le California Stet& Perk end Recr11tlon Commlt~lon'a statewide public 

workahopa on the status of California's perk and recreation needs. It wee also partially in 

raaponsa to e propoael by NPS for 1 temporary transfer of management rnponslbilities for 

the three atete park units within the Congreasionelly authorized boundlly of Redwood 

National Park. 

In 1988 whan Congrus authorlzad what ultimately has become the 106,000 acre 

Redwood National Park, it medo provisions for accaptlng by donation any e~r all of tl'la aver 

30,000 scree of Jadedieh Smith, Prairie Craek and Del Norte Coeat Redwoods Stata Parks 

within Ita boundary, envisioning the potential for lingla agency mane;ament under the 

National Perk Service. These are thrll of California's oldest parka. having been 

eatabliahad In 1929. 1923 end 1 US r .. paotivalv. In 11178, an interim management 

tllnafer of the three state parks to tha National Park Service for a 1 5 year period wee 

negotiated and readied for aignatura. but was not consummated by NPS for several 

reasons Including the sudden increase of their responsibilities In Alaslta es e result of en 

Executive Order by Pruldent Carter. In recant years, tl'le possibility of 1 five-year interim 

tranafer of management or tao owr.ershlp of tha state parka to NPS we11 again rai1ad . 

The luue of tranafar hold 1 high levvl of local lntereat In the California countiu of 

Humboldt and Del Norte. An article in Smlthsonil" at about thla tima reported. It was 

perceived locally thet the federal gc:IVtrnment hed not delivered on ita projection for 

improv•d rural economiC> growth ra•ultlng from R<>dwood National Perk creation and 

expansion . Projected attendance projections end daily vlaitor expenditures had not 

meterlell~ed IICluter, Ed,..•ln Jr .• "A New Park Saved the Tall Tree.. But at o High Cost to 

2 
91 

the Community,· Smith!onltm, p. 42, Octo bar 1 U3l. In tha feca of very tough local 

economic timn. the conaolldatlon theory had b .. n adva,ead by acme local laadar.!. w ho 

have suggBited that single IQtncy m1nagement would acc:elereto public: ec:cepttnce of the 

Redwood National Park u a destination. resulting in longer viaitl and more local apendlng . 

UnfortunltiJiy, thla discussion wu perceived by acme other park supportera 11 1 threat. 

and resulted in the creation of '" adversarial relationship betw .. n the National and State 

Parks ea well u their constituenu, end heightened uncertainty and limited conditions for 

coOillrttlva projects and management. 

In the course of conversation over tl'll Redwood National and Statll P11k iuue. both 

agencies recognized that they had unlta In close proximity In other California locations 

which could benaflt from closer cooperation. This was particularly true. not only bacause 

of racsnt budgat constraints for park managers but because park management focus in the 

National Park Service ~ad shifted in the crutlcn of newar California park unlta from a 

strictly "within the ~)ark boundary•, alngle agency management approach. to an emphasis 

on empowering intsragancy and publlc·privata partnerships both within and beyond perk 

ooundarltl. Too, tha rate of encroaching devalopmant hu created an urgency to 

coordinate agency resources to protect joint park valuu. Therefore, both agencin agrnd 

to Initiate 1n usaaamant of operational efficiencies and cost uvir~g poaalbllltiea where 

state parlt units occurred within acme Congresslonally·authcrlzed boundarlu. Besides the 

North Cent redwood parka. It wu agraad to review thl San Francisco Bay area parks 

Including Angel Island State Park and Golden Gate Natlonel Recreation Arn, and th~t 

Malibu Coast parka, composed of Malibu Creak, Point Mugu and Topanga State Par~s. Leo 

Carrlllo State BBIIch end Santa Monica Mo1.1nteins Natlonel Recreation Aru. 

To uplore the potential fer lnc:reaaed cooperation, NPS and CCPR appointed the 

"California CoordlMtlng Committee on Operational l!fficiencies". Mamoarship ccmslated of 

in-house park management prcfeuionala with matc~ed representation from COPR and 

NPS. The committee's charge was to Independently davelcl)end review the apl)rcl)riate 

factual and intanglole elemsnts rtlavant to the efficient administr;lticn, llrovlslon of 

neceaeary common support facilities, ruourca protection and visitor management within 

tho autl'laritlaa end purpaaas for wilic:h the varioua units were esttbllthtd. T~e purpose of 

this process was to objectively evaluate the management of thaaa perk groups and to 

make recommendation• for the belt m11na;emant of these unita ao •• to maximize 

efficiencies fer park administration, ruourca management, facility maintenance, lew 

enforcement. visitor Information, aharlng of lnterplltive facilitios, nrvices end ateff. 

Generally, tha committee found more aimilaritiea than differences in common problsma and 

commitment to resolution. Whlla differing levels of elCistlng cooperation ot each of the 

park cluaters were observed, the committaa agreed that greater to meet r~gulerly end map 

out programs fer joint interpretation programs, shared fa~:: llt as, goal developmvnt and 

Implementation would reault in greater trust and cooperation at all favela of tha park staff 

atructure. and would provide oetter protection for each park's natural and cultural 

raaources In a mora complete context while improving the park visitor's information and Inpark uparlence, and l)rovldlng tha bast return en the tupayer's dcllara. 

Following public review and comment, o final report wu propared. The following 

highlights ccv11r the coordinating committaa's Joint agency and perk apecific recommended 

actlona: 
92 

f. Agensy·w jdg: Tnt committee found and strongly e•prtued their belief that 

cooperation is moat syccesaf\JI when It ia formalized by written agreements betwssn 

multipla l11vels of ptrtlclpating agenoin, along with accoYntablllty measures. Agency 

luvel coord ination Ia needed to Invigorate park-to-park as wtll •• agancy-to-agency 

programmatic cooperation. From the headQYarters level. through the perk 

superintendents to the m•inunanca foreme n and the trail crew bones. all mYst be 

empowered to work. togatf'llt. 8\jt to be moat effective at successive levels, 

cooperation mY&t atlrt on iJ dly-to·day buia at the superintendent's level witf'l 

positive dlractlon and oversight from hud0uarters J:roviding incentive end 

eccoYntability. Accordingly, the following racommandationa were made: 

o The directora of the two park agencies should sign a memcrandYm of understanding 

wnich directs the ayparinteMdeMta of the thru parlr. clusters to identify &Md 

implement ecoperatlva initiatives . 

o Kay progr1m staff from both aganciea &hoyfd be brou51ht together to addrsas 

agency-wide cooperative iM!tlatlves incl"'ding: dis,atct-1 for amergenc:y response , 

1 -&00 public: parlr. information numbers, visiter orientation training, concasalona 

mena;emant. algnaga, perk vlaltor information packagiMg, visitor aafaty, control of 

exotic: apecias and feral aMimals. reaponu to ganga and graffiti. coordination with 

toYr operations, ate. 

O In an effort to &SIYTI that the 111read ypon actions are carried forth iM a timely 

manner, a sohadule of lmplemantetloM wu propcaad, with twice yearly progress 

reports. At the and of a three year period. NPS and CD PI" would conduct en 

analysis to datermina the ovarellauccua of the eoordinatfon program and malta 

recommendations fer any ccrroctiona needed. 

II. Ngrtb Cent Radwooda: Conaolidation of the throe 11a1e perks YOder the single 

management of tha National Perk Service wu considered by tha committee to be 

neither neceaury nor desirable . Tha conaen,ua of the committn waa that the 

condition of thaae parka 11 good to oYt&tandlng. with signi ficant progron having been 

made In ruource restoration and viaitor improvemeMta aych that combined pari< 

reaayrcn aMd raerntfon axperianees of all four redwood parks add up to en 

internationally algnlflcant park. However, federal and stete bydgets can fluctuate et 

different pointa ;, tfma, with federal fundfr>g levels healthier in eomo yeara and state 

funding faring better in ethers. On balance it wu ob .. rved tf'lat tha two major parlr. 

ag&ncfes operatiMg sids by side nave a larger. more effective voice in coping w ith 

threati end providing sarvicts with their combined staff expartiae and sypport besss. 

Further. tha thrtl state perk unlta almott pay their own way. largely due to entrance 

fees, hiQhar c1mpgroynd r11vanun, and sta1tln; levels. C:onseQuantly. it appeared 

there woyfd ba vary limited cost savings to COPR in tYrning over management to NPS. 

It wn concluded that tt'le f!Manclel roallty ia that park resourcae aMd visitc:>r 

.. parlancu will be best sarvad by the most cost effectlva \JIB of both NPS and COPR 

budgets . ~ether than transferring theae parks from tt'le State Perle System, the 

committee IUIIgetted that focua ahoYid ba on streMgthening partner~hips . 11'1 addition. 

It Wll rec:ommnMdad : 
93 

o That tna nationel and 1tst11 parlc auperintendents should jointly praparD a 

mamorandum of Ul'1daratanding addrnall'1g the management of theu four units. 

with detallad gcels and cparatlng principle~ fer tha joint accompllehment of specific 

tllkl lncludine assignment of raaponsibilltles for common perk functions, resource 

managatTuont, road and tllil maintenenco, Interpretive programs, slgnega, alt1rnatlve 

visitor traneportatlon , public In fo rmation, ma intenance. and additional raoreetionaf 

oppcmunitilll tuch ea coordinated trail duvalopmant and algninQ, interpretive 

programs, joint viaitcr center staffing and envircnmantal education . Cost 

efflclenclas should be ralnvtated in park operations. 

o That a atata park liaison, with management authority over the tnree etate parks, be 

located at the Radwood National Parle headc;usrtera to act as ombudsman for atate 

park matter• and to anura cloaely coordinated oparation of tne four redwood parks. 

0 That r81ource management actlvitiu of Redwood National Park ba txpandad to 

include the three 'tate redwood perks, ancompauing the entire park 1cosystam. A 

CDPR resource management lia ison position will be established to work with NPS 

an snared ruourca t~rotactlcn iaaues. 

o That un updatad park·wlde general management plan be prepared to provide an 

intagrated blueprint for all four park units end the adjacent communities. 

o That a targeted planning affort Is needed to provfda additional reoraetlonal 

opportunities and allow uee of leu aceessibla parta of the park within eocapteble 

perk ra.ourct carrying capacltln so aa to help fulfill the promiaa of the Radwood 

National Park as 1 dutlnatlon park and •timulatt the economy of the local 

communitlu. 

Ill. ~rancl cg Bay Araa Park!!: Hera the two park auperlntandents should convene 

lllnior managers and key program staff to pur~ue mutual initiatfvea with priority to 

ltilbllizlng. rehebiiltatlon and fund·raislns for historic structuru, removal techniques 

for Scotch broom and eucalyptus, and efforts to pack•ge and promote visitor urvice 

an Angel and Alcatru Islands. In addition. It waa alae recommandsd that the 

Supirinttndanta ahould uplore potential coat etficienoln between otner units in the 

Bay Ar11, Including Mount Tamalpala and Samuel P. Taylor State Parka and Muir 

Wooda National Monument. 

IV. Malibu Coa§t Pari<J: The State and Netlcnol Pork Superlntendo,ta should renew Inte r· 

park cooperative proc .. aas to ineluda program staff and the stata's Sante Monica 

Mountain• Conservancy. They should also evoluota a cantralizetion of OIS functions. 

development proposal reviewa. resource mana11ement functions, lfiaitor Information 

aarvlcea, adoption of uniform trail. brush clearance and sign 1tandarda, end 

1atabllahmant of en interagency vlaitor canter. 

In addition to the abovt rtcommendatlona, such of the six auperintendents had 

prepared specific cooperative joint efficiency and coat nvlng Initiatives u part of thei, 
94 

briefing material& for the committee ' a August/September sits visits . These Initiatives 

were recommended aa starting points for each areu'a management lntsroction . 

Ruulte 

A large number of the recommendation• of the committae hava boen Initiated or 

completed . But perhaps more importantly, tho locua on cooperation has ruulted In 

unforesun opportunities which have allowed significant :r.itiatlve on tnt part of the 

responsible field lndlviduela who hlrVO employed the cooperative relationships to further the 

public ' a Interest In ways unfcruur. by the original comm itt11. 

Leat April, I algned what might be termed a mutar or wmbralla Memorandum of 

Understanding between my ciepertmtnt and the Western Region of the National Park 

Servica (pllln au attachment) duig,.,ed to carry out tile recommendations of tha 

California Coordinating Committee on Operational Efflci•nciu for increaaed coordinotlor. 

and efflclencln batwaen cur two •ervicu. Specifically, this e;reemer.t adopts tho 

recommsndations of the Committee 's report, authorizes tile development of interpark and 

inter-agency 11greementa. To guarantee that this program is carried forward in a 

re$ponsible mannlf, a aystem of oversight including relfUiar reports and evaluations hes 

been lnatltutad. 

In ian then a year, we neva made significant pro'lres1 in the implsmentatlon of the 

recommendations. We nave bun most successful in the North Cent erea, where we 

have estebllahad a CDPA Superintendent In the headquarters of tho Redwood N1tional Park 

who Is rnpon1lble for lnterager.cy flalsor.. Aa • conttquenca. thal8 four parka are jointly 

referred to aa the Rndwood National and State Parks ar.d are so signed at their entr1.1nces . 

Thsy have developed the 1ugguted joint perk MOU and a work progr1m. Contact stations 

and vlaltor centers are jointly atelfed, which has raducod vialtor confusion and wldanod 

vlaitor opportunltiGJ . Crou training and development of a joint communicetlon• aystam 

hu enabled the establishment of "Rainbow• Rang11 patrols which allow quicker end more 

lffiolent responaa. Sharing of equipment. expertise and training hu ruulted In quicker 

end much less upensiva development and maintenance of facilities. Coordinated 

reeponae to 11 prcpoul to realign State Highway One through portions of tho parlts rnulted 

in the he nvlng of mora then 180 old growth redwoods end tha initiation of a nonimpactive solution which will save million dollars of botn state ar.d federal highway funds 

while Improving th• nfaty of then roodwaya. 

Public accaptancs of theaa changu and improvements hes been high. Public complaints, 

upreuior.a of confusion regarding the multiplicity of parks and available nrvlcas have 

r.urly caued, The l&veral local Ch1mber1 of Cornmerce seem to be pleased to have a 

single point of contact for ccordlnltion. Concerns e:rpressed by the or.vlror.mentai 

community (which had been e laadlng prcponar.t cf consoiidationJ during the publi c review 

of the ccmm tt~e'a recommendations hn been replec::ad by acceptance. 

The more disbursed nature of the parkJ within the Son Francisco Bay Area has made 

coordination more difficult, but prcgren hu nonethelus been made. Exchange of 

expertiae and treir.ing opportunities In exotic plant control which plagues both tystems haa 

been particularly successful. Progress has been made In aligning law enforcement 

procadurn, protection and sarvlct. development of a common public information ruource 
95 

booklet hat baan initiated and apeclll tvent collaboration has atarted. Exploration of 

potential cooperative uvonta to celebrete C1lilornia's upcoming Gold Discovery 

Sesquicantannlal c:elabrationa hu alto begun. 

While hampered by the flooda, firu •nd aarthQuakea of th• past year, pro;resa hu also 

been made in the Malibu Coaat cluster of perks. In acldltlon to our atata parka ancl the 

National ~acraatlon Araa, Calilornl•'• S•nta Monic• Mountain' Conaervancy Ia a full 

partner In the program'• Implementation. Btaidea many of the activities that we have 3een 

In the other l:lltk cluster araes, wa havt aeen the production of joint celend•r and evant 

programs which etretch limited funding and eliminate duplication. Particular pride ia takan 

in tha multilingual totl·tree mcHJMtalna park lnform1tlon servica which is supported by all 

threw a;anchac and is staff1d by t1'11 Mountains Education Program. This urvlce reduces 

the number Clf CCintsct pCIInta necenary for public inquiries and •xpanda opportunity for 

public use end oduoation. 

~nc!y1!pn 

Faced with many of the pre~blema ne~w being addrnaed by tha subject laiilletiCin, thB 

California Department of Parka and IIDerntion instituted stapa directed te~wards situation 

r18clutlon. Employing 1 multifaceted approach. wv entertained a heat of ideas, including 

improving ope11tlona to echlava lncrea11d efticianclu. 

A •park cloture commiuion" concept may have merit where all available approaches 1111 

used in evaluetiCin of tne National Parka end which results in 1 multiplicity of solutions 

other tllan a lingle prece~ncelvad m•thgd. Park closure is but gne part Clf an overall 

atrata;y of restructuring which muat al10 ir.elude auch mathe~ds u perle transfers, Internal 

r1111tructurin;, public/public and public/private agreements, and crutlve relationship• with 

privata antrepraneura. We must look tCI all available solutions if wa are tCI provide e~ur 

country with viable parka, nacesaary resource pre~tactlon and recreational oppe~rtunlties into 

the next r::antury for future generations of all Americans. 
96 

Statsment or Harry McPher~on 

Me~er, Oefenee Base Clo~~~e and Raaligncant Co~ission , 1993 

I a~~i~ troeee tho~;hts innocent of knowledge abo~t the 

apacitic i•s~ei that you are addressinq, an~ uncer~ain wha~~er ~Y 

•xp•rience on the !aae Clo~ure Co~ieeion i~ o~ ~~oh help to you. 

But I was st=uck, on !ini~hing my work aa a Com=isaion :e~ber in 

3uly, 1993, by hew ~any peopl e thouqnt ~,e coomission•s process vaa a good one, and eight be eculated by o~~er c~ieeiona 

appointed to do tough jobs in the puDlic intaraat. So I have 

accepted the invitati on to teati ty today to share a rev thouqhta a~out the BRAC proce~s and what it has to teach of general 

intereet. 

The ERAC idea has met with widespread acceptance in pert 

because it wee well tho~ght through at the outset, had the good 

fortune to be chairad by fo~er Rap. James Courtar, a twalve-yaar 

hiqhly raspected veteran or ~a Arced services Committee, and vas supar~ly staffed. 

Evan more importantly, the worx involved -- clcsinq and 

reali;ninq bases in the aft~ath of the ;Cold War --vas universally baliavad to be necessary, and al:oet as universally 

acknowledged to be beyond the capacity o! congress to achieve. 

So thara was a ~il inqness to vest important responsibility in a commission cf p:ivate citiz•ns, and thereby to by-pass Con9rocc 

when it came to control over specific bass closures and 

realiqncents. It is pro~aDlY rair to say that Ccnqrass vas relieved to be eo by-passed. 

It is alae important to rscoqni! e t~at the Commission was not asked to ~ bases for closure in the first instance, 

thouqh it could choose to close a different base than the one selaeted tor closure hy the Pentagon. It serve~, anQ still 

sarvas, as an appellate court. The milita~ services and tho 

Secretary o! Oe!snse pick the bases to be closed and realiqnad; 

the BRAC Commission decides vhethar they did it, in the casa o! 

each bass on ~~a list, consistent vith a sat or criteria that the 

Pentagon and Conqrese had previously aqreed ~pon. 

; 

In o~er words, the process vas an~ 1s: agreement on criteria ; selection ot bases br the military, and referral of the 

list to the Co~isaion; dater~~nation by ,the Commission whether 

VLCC01-21736.1 
97 

~ne aelection ~at the criteria; suboissicn ot the Co~ission's 

approved liat to ~~e President, and th~n to Congress for an up- or-dovn vote. ~~at the general public approved ot ~as not the Co~Misaion'a selection of oaaea to be closed, but its holding the 

military to a set o{ standards, as well as its rols in bringing a painful process to an end. 

We did our worX in public, and we were heavily and 

appropriately lobbied. Our he~rings were on C-Span. :he country 

could see and hear, if it wished, ho~ the services rationalized 

their c~oices. It could observe its ta~porary representatives, the ~e:bers of t~e Co~iasion, a~ we pressed for :oro info~ation 

and challenged ~~a :ilitary's data and rationale. 

Your legislation provides that a Co~iaeion would be 

appointed in the event ~~e Park Service faila to sub:it the 

report described 1n section 102. Within a year the commission 

wculQ itself aubait such a report to Congress, but the 

recommendations in it~ report ~ould not be salf-e!!ect~&tinq. It 

would remain ror Congress to act or not to act on ~hem. 

This is obviously different fro: the BRAC process, ~herein 

the Comcission's list becomes affective unless the conqraec votes 

it down 1n ~. I won't prssume to say which is better in this 

instance. If the procaaa envisioned by H.R. 260 had been ohoeen 

for the Dafenao Baaa Closure and Realignment process, wa should 

have been back Where we•heqan, with the hot potatoes still in 

Congress's hands, and not much prospect ?f finality. · 

I on ~e other hand, the BRAe process works because the 

country understands that bases must be closed, and that Congress 

cannot be expected to close them one by one. That anticipated qridlo~ has supplied the necessary public support tor the 

process. My guess is that such a severe -- authoritarian, if you 

will -- process would work in the case of the national park 

ayatam only it there was a aimilarly sobering appreciation of the 

need for modification or termination of ParX service management 

in many areas of the country, and a belief that Congress would be 

unable to respond to that need. Absent cuch an appreciation &nd 

naliat -- and I nave no idaa whether they are jus~irled in this case -- tha political backinq tor a commission with BRAC-lika 

powers is not likely to be found. ' 

Thank you. 

VLDCOl-2l7J6.l 

89-593 0 - 95 - 5 
98 

STATEMENT OF ROGER G. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 

260, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN AND A MANAGEMENT 

REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND TO REFORM THE PROCESS BY 

WHICH AREAS ARE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

February 23, 1995 

Mr. Chairman , I am pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 260, 

the "National Park System Reform Act of 1995." 

Nany citizens are concerned about both the integrity of our 

National Park System and the capacity of the National Park Service 

to do its :iob. The bill before us today responds to that concern 

by requiring the NPS or a "National Park System Review Commission" 

to identify parks that should be closed. There are also proposals 

to place a moratorium on the establishment of new parks. Instead, 

we favor reassessment of the criteria for the establishment of new 

parks, agreement between the Service and the Congress on those 

criteria, and concurrence that a process be put into place WhHreby 

possible ent:ries that fail to meet those criteria not be imposed 

upon the system. H.R 260 offers one approach to that objective, 

but we think it puts too much emphasis upon looking backward. For 

that reason, we oppose it. 

We support instead a forward looking measure which would give the 

NPS the opportunity to review its existing set of criteria for 

future sit:es under consideration for inclusion in the system. In 
99 

addition, we would support a provision requiring Congress to await 

completion of a special resources study for each site under 

consideration, before a Committee hearing is held leading to the 

inclusion of a unit. 

This legislation comes at an important time for the National Park 

Service. To date, there are 368 units of the National Park System 

in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Each of these units was 

established by an Act of Congress or by Presidential Proclamation 

and represents the initiative of Congress and numerous 

Administrations to preserve and protect our Nation's natural and 

cultural heritage and to provide for recreational opportunities. 

All of these units represent diverse public resources under our 

permanent stewardship for the use and enjoyment by present and 

future generations. 

Efforts to preserve America's natural and cultural resources are 

longstanding. so important was the protection of certain special 

resources that several parks and monuments had been established and 

were being administered by the Interior Department by the time the 

National Park Service was established in 1916. Examples include 

Yellowstone (1872), sequoia (1890), Yosemite (1890), and Mount 

Rainier (1899). When the NPS organic act was signed, 14 national 

parks and 21 national monuments were immediately transferred to the 

new agency where attention could be focused on these important 

2 
100 

resources. The NPS organic act provided that the conservation of 

these and future units would be the responsibility of the Nation al 

Park Service. 

Since then, the National Park System has continued to grow. 

Through the years, the NPS and Congress have taken steps to protect 

natural and cultural resources. In the early 1900's, many cultural 

resources were threatened by plunder and destruction at the hands 

of pot hunters and vandals. As a result, Congr ess passe d the 

Antiquities Act in 1906 to protect these and other valuable 

resources. Devils Tower and Petrified Forest, both established in 

1906, exemplify the success of this l egislation. Next, recognizing 

that histori cal areas were at risk, Congress passed the Historic 

sites Act in 1935 to preserve historic sites, buildings and objects 

of national significance for public use. Most recently, Congress 

passed legislation to establish the Moj a ve Nationa l Preserve in 

California to protect transitional de sert resources found only in 

the Mojave Desert. 

Without these and other laws, it is possible that many of our 

nationally s i gnificant resources would be lost forever. Many 

resources t.oday still remain at risk. Even though the first 

national p a rk was established in 1872, America still contains 

natural and cultural resources that are worthy of park status and 

in many cases, in need of this special designation . At the same 

time, however, the NPS is trying to cope with new and growing 

3 
101 

demands with limited financial resources. We recognize these 

challenges and continue to work to meet them. 

Park Closures 

Title I would require the Secretary to prepare a report which 

includes recommendations ·for closing parks. This report also would 

include recommendations regarding alternative management by an 

entity or entities other than the Service. 

During the past several months, I have read letters-to-the-editor 

from newspapers all over the country which have been written in 

response to the park closing proposal. The NPS has also received 

letters in opposition to. the closing of parks. I am sure many of 

you have received similar letters. These letters express the 

concerns of visitors about the future of their favorite park, 

whether it be a battlefield, a monument, a memorial, a lakeshore, 

a recreational area, or a ·seashore. These letters assert America's 

affection for all units of the system. Each unit is a crown jewel 

to someone. 

In 1970, Congress expressed its support for all units of the system 

as well by passing the General Authorities Act . The Act states the 

following: 

"Congress declares that the national park system, which began 

4 
102 

with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, 

has since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and 

recreation areas in every major region of the United States , 

its territories and island possessions; that these areas, 

though d istinct in character, are united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one national park system 

as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that 

individually and collectively, these areas derive increased 

national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental 

quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one 

national park system preserved and managed for t.he benefit and 

inspiration of all the people of the United States." 

This language remains as true today as in 1970. This hearing is a 

welcome oppor tunity to discuss the entire park closure issue. 

We recognize that nobody wants precipitate action, and we all wa nt 

reasoned and deliberate discourse and careful analysis. The se 

places are all important, not just to somebody, but to all of us. 

And we all agree we do not have the money to do everything. 

Visitation to the parks is rising; many parks are becoming yearround attractions. In FY 1994, parks were visited by 265 million 

people. This number is expected to grow to 276 million in FY 19 9 6. 

The entire system will continue to support hundreds of millions of 

visitors each year even if a few parks are closed or transferr ed 

out of the system. 

5 
103 

It is worth noting that attention sometimes is focused on closing 

or transferring parks where visitation seems low. The level of 

satisfaction and amount of education a person receives from 

visiting a park cannot be easily measured. Nor can the level of 

today's visitation be an appropriate test to judge a site's 

worthiness for inclusion or remaining in the system. The NPS and 

congressional leaders of the past have intended that the system be 

broadly representative of diverse natural and cultural elements of 

our Nation. 

I would now like to turn attention to what we can do to ensure that 

future parks meet well-established criteria for park status. 

New Area Establishment 

In 1976 Congress directed the NPS to monitor the welfare of areas 

that exhibit qualities of national significance and to conduct 

studies on those that have potential for inclusion in the National 

Park System. For the next several years there was a Congressional 

requirement that we study and forward a list of at least 12 

potential new parks each year. In 1981 the administration proposed 

and congress passed a bill and budget to eliminate that study 

program. Between 1981 and 1990, NPS undertook a few studies in 

response to specific instructions from Congress. Then, in 1991, 

the Service began once again to identify its own priorities, using 

a ranking system that considered significance, rarity, public use 

6 
104 

potential, educational potential, resource integrit.y frisks, public 

support, costs, availability of data, suitability, feasibility, and 

special initiatives. 

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995 are supporting 17 studies of 

potential new parks or other types of ma j or commitments by the NPS. 

Seven of these studies are of areas identified by our own 

professional evaluations as high priority while 10 are being 

prepared in response t o directions from Congress. six of those 10 

studies are in response to directions from the appropriations 

committees. 

Our files contain more than 290 studies done since the 1930s on 

areas that have not been added to the park system. Between 1970 

and 1990 only about one in every four of the 177 st.udies completed 

resulted in congress passing legisla tion to expand an existing park 

boundary or create a new park. These studies did - and should -

reflect the highest professional standards, offer clear findings on 

resource s ignificanc e, suitability a nd feasibility, and offer 

Congress a range of alternatives for protecting resources withi n or 

outside of the National Park System. Furthermore, careful 

scrutiny, analysis and tight criteria are the best defense against 

expansion of the park system into areas tha·t fail to meet 

established standards for significa nce, suitability, and 

feasibility. 

7 
105 

Another way to avoid inappropriate additions that do not fully meet 

the criteria for inclusion in the system is to continue to advance 

programs which foster alternatives. NPS today operates several 

small but vigorous programs which suggest and support alternatives 

by means ranging from honorific recognition, such as listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places; to state and local 

acquisition and development grants from the state side of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund; and direct planning help from the 

River, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program. We also 

encourage the alternative of establishing locally-controlled 

heritage partnership areas as a way to preserve specific landsc·apes 

and areas of local or regional historical importance. 

sustaining a flexible and diverse "bag of tools" to offer park 

advocates is one of the best means of maintaining the integrity of 

the national park system. 

Title II of H.R. 260 would provide a way for the National Park 

Service to work with the authorizing and the appropriation 

committees to reach a common understanding of what areas should be 

studied for potential inclusion in the park system. This approach 

has been in place and worked well for wild and scenic rivers and 

national trail system studies. Likewise it would certainly be 

appropriate for studies of potential new parks. 

Last year, I testified in support of H.R. 3709 which has been 

8 
106 

incorporated in·to H.R. 260 as Title II. We recommend that Title II 

be removed from H.R. 260 and move as stand-alone legislation. As 

such, we would support amending this new bill to require that the 

NPS quickly review its existing set of park criteria, make 

improvements in them, if · necessary, and forward them to Congress. 

These new criteria would be used to prepare the studies of areas 

for potential addition to the system, as currently proposed in 

Title II. Congress should adhere to these criteria when additions 

to the system are under consideration, as they should and will 

continue to be. This process would eliminate the tendency to 

establis h parks that have not been s tudied. Furthermore, adherence 

to this process would preclude the establishment of pa rks through 

the appropriations process or through authorizing legislation that 

automatically establishes a park. My staff is available to work. 

with the Committee staff . in this effort. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks . 

pleased to respond to your questions at this time. 

9 

I would be 
1 04TH CO~GRESS 

1ST SESSJO:'\ 

107 

H. R. 260 

To provide for the dcvelopmeut of a plan and a mauagemcut review of 

the Natioual Park System ;md to reform the process by which areas 

m·e cousidercd for addition to the l\atioual Park 8ystcrn, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE I-lOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

,JA!\ !!ARY 4, 1995 

!\h. Ih:FLEY (for· himself, :\h. IlA:-.ISEi\, and i\Ir. VE!\'1'0) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committt c on Hesoun~es 

A BILL 

To provide for the development of a plan and a management 

review of the National Park System and to reform the 

process by which areas are considered for addition to 

the National Park System, and for other purpofles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represrnta2 tives ofthe United States qf"America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "National Park System 

5 Reform Act of 1995". 
108 

2 

TITLE I-NATIONAL PARK 

2 SYSTEM PLAN 

3 SEC. 101. PREPARATION OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN. 

4 (a) PHIWAI{ATIO:'\ OI<' PLA:\.-'l'he Secretary of the 

5 Interior· (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "See6 retary"), acting· through the Director of the Natiomtl Park 

7 Service, shall prepare a National Park System Plan (here8 i11after in this Aet referred to as the "plan") to guide the 

9 direction of the National Park System into the 11 cxt cen1 0 · tury. The plan shall include each of the following: 

11 ( 1) A statement of g·oals and objectives for use 

12 111 defining the mission and role of the Nati0118l 

13 Park Service in preserving our national natural and 

14 cultural heritage, relative to other efforts at the 

15 I•'edcral, State, local, and private levels. 

16 (2) Detailed criteria to be used in determining 

17 which natural and cultural resources arc appropriate 

18 for inclusion as units of the National Park System. 

19 (3) Ideutification of what constitutes adequate 

20 rcpresentatiou of a particular resource type and 

21 which aspects of the national heritage are adequately 

22 represented in the existing ational Park System or 

23 in other protected areas. 

,HR 260 IH 
109 

3 

( 4) Identification of appropriate aspects of the 

2 national heritage not currently represented in the 

3 National Park System. 

4 (5) Priorities of the themes and types of re5 sources which should be added to the National Park 

6 System in order to provide more complete represcn7 tation of our Nation's heritage. 

8 (6) A statement of the role of the National 

9 . Park Service with respect to such topics as preserva1 0 tion of natural ar·eas and ecosystems, preservation of 

11 industrial Amer·iea, preservation of nonphysical cul12 tural resources, open space preservation, and provi13 sion of outdoor recreation opportunities. 

14 (7) A statement of what areas constitute units 

15 of the National Park System and the distinction be16 tween units of the system, affiliated areas, and other 

17 areas within the system. 

18 (b) CO:\SCUJ'A'l'IO:\ .-During the preparation of the 

19 plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult ·with 

20 other Federal land manag-ing age11cies, State and local of21 ficials, the National Park System Advisory Board, re22 source management, recreation and scholarly organiza23 tions and other interested parties as the Secretary deems 

24 advisable. These consultations shall also include appro25 priate opportunities for public review and comment. 

•HR 260 1H 
110 

4 

(<') 'l'HA:\B:\JI'l"J',\L '1'0 Co:\UHE::->~.-Prior to the end 

2 of the third eomplctc fist'al year commencing- after tht• 

3 date of enaetnwnt of this Aet, tilt~ SecrC'tary shall transmit 

4 the plan developed nuder this sedion to tllf' Committee 

5 on Natural lksour<·es of the United States IIonse of l{cp6 resentatives and the Committe<~ on Energy and Natural 

7 lksoul'< cs of the U nit.ed States Senate. 

8 SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF NATIONAL PARK 

9 SYSTEM. 

10 (a) REYIEW.-(1) Using the National Park System 

11 Plan prcparecl pursuant to section 101 as a g11ide, theNce12 retar:; shall review the existing National Park !Syst<~m to 

13 determine whether there are more appropriate alternatives 

14 for managing specific units or portions of units within the 

15 system, including· partnerships or direct ma11ag-ement. by 

16 States, local governments, other agencies a11d the private 

17 seeto1·. The Se< retary shall develop a report. which contains 

18 a list of areas within the National Park System where Na19 tiona! Park Service management should be modified or 

20 terminated. 

21 (2) In developing the list under paragmph (1 ), the 

22 Secretary shall considt'r such factors as duplication within 

23 the National Park System, better representation of a par24 ticular resource type nndt'r management of another entity, 

25 lack of sig11ificanee, lack of management feasibility, cost., 

•HR. 260 IH 
111 

5 

lack of visitor accessibility, modifications that change the 

2 character of the resource, lack of collaboration to protect 

3 resources, suitability for management by another agency, 

4 and the compatibility of the resource with the present misS sion and role of the National Park Service. 

6 (3) F'or any areas for which termination of National 

7 Park Service management is recommended, the Secretary 

8 shall make recommendations regarding management by an 

9 entity or entities other than the National Park Ser-vice. 

10 For any m·ca determined to have national significance, 

II prior to including such area on the list under paragraph 

I2 (1) the Secretary shall identify feasible alternatives to 

13 Natioual Park Service management which will protect the 

I4 resources thereof and assure continued public access 

IS thereto. 

I6 (b) Co:-.-sc urA'l'IO:--:.-In developing the list referred 

I7 to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with other 

I8 Federal land managing agencies, State aud local officials, 

19 the National Park System Advisory Board, resource man20 agement, recreation and scholarly organizations and other 

2I interested parties as the Secretary deems advisable. These 

22 cowmltatious shall also include appropriate opportunities 

23 for· public review and comment. 

24 (e) TnA:-.- :\IITTAL TO CO:\GimHs.-Not later than 1 

25 year· after the Seerctary eompletes the plan refen·ed to in 

•HR 260 IH 
112 

6 

section 101 of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit the 

2 report developed under this section simultaneously to the 

3 Natural Resources Committee of the United States House 

4 of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

5 ~atur l Resources of the United States Senate. The rc6 port shall contain the recommendations of t he Secretary 

7 coHccrning modifications or termination of National Park 

8 Service management for an.v areas within the National 

9 Park System and t he recommendations regarding altcr10 native management by an entity or entities other than the 

11 National Park Service. 

12 SEC. 103. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REVIEW COMMISSION. 

13 (a) E~TABLISIDIE:'\'1' <W Cmnussro:--: .-If the Sec14 r·etary fa ils to transmit the report developed under section 

15 102 withiu the 1-year period specified in seetiou 102, a 

16 National Park System Review Commission shall be cstab17 lishcd to re\'iew existing National P ark System units to 

18 dctermiue whether there arc more appropriate altem atives 

19 fo r managing specific units or port ions thereof. Wit hin one 

20 year after the date of its establishment, the Commission 

21 shall prepare and transmit to the 1\atural Resourees Com22 mi ttec of the United Htat es House of R{)presentatiws and 

23 the Committee 0 11 Energy and Natural R{)sonr·ecs of the 

24 United States Senate a report c:outainiug· a list of National 

25 Park System units or pmt io11 s thereof \\·here National 

•HR 260 IH 
113 

7 

Park Service management should be modified or termi2 nated. In developing the list, the Commission shall con3 sider the factors referred to in section 102(a)(2). For any 

4 listed areas, the Commission shall suggest alternative 

5 management by an entity or entities other than the N a6 tiona! Park Service, and for any area determined to have 

7 national significance, prior to including such area on the 

8 list the Commission shall identify feasible alternatives to 

9 National Park Service management which will protect the 

10 resources of the area and assure conti1med public access 

11 to thereto. In developing the list , the Commission shall 

12 consult with other I<,ederal land managing agencies, State 

13 and local officials, the National Park System Advisory 

14 Board, resource manag·ement, recreation and scholarly or15 ganizations and other interested parties as the Secretary 

16 deems advisable. These consultations shall also include ap17 propriate opportunities for public review and comment. 

18 (b) lVIK\IBERSIIIP A:--<D APPOI:--<T:VmYr.-Thc Com19 mission shall consist of 7 members each of whom shall 

20 have substantial familiarity with, and understanding· of, 

21 the National Park System. Three members of the Com22 mission, one of whom shall be the Director of the N a tiona! 

23 Park Sen·iee, shall be appointed by the Secretary. Two 

24 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the United 

25 States llousc of Representatives and two shall be ap-

•HR 260 IH 
114 

8 

1 pointed by the President Pro Tern of the United States 

2 Senate. Each member shall be appointed within 3 mouths 

3 after the expiration of the 1-year period specified in sec4 tion 102(c). 

5 (e) CIL\IH.-'l'he Commission shall elect a chair from 

6 among its members. 

7 (d) VACA:\"CIE::>.-Vaeancics occurring on the Com8 mission shall not affect the authority of the remaining 

9 members of the Commission to carry out the functions of 

10 the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall be 

11 promptly filled in the same manner in which the original 

12 appointment was made. 

13 (e) Quom::v1.-A simple majority of Commission 

14 members shall constitute a quorum. 

15 (f) lVb~E'I'I:\"G~.-The Commission shall meet at least 

16 quarterly or upon the call of the chair or a majority of 

17 the members of the Commission. 

18 (g) Cmrpg:\"SA'l'IO:\".-Mcmbers of the Commission 

19 shall serve without compensation as such. Members of the 

20 Cormnission, when engaged in official Commission busi21 ness, shall be entitled to travel expenses, including per 

22 diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons 

23 employed intermittently in government service under see24 tion 5703 of title 5, United States Code. 

•lffi 260 IH 
115 

9 

(h) TgHi\11!\'ATIO\" .-The Commission established 

2 pursuant to this section shall terminate 90 days after the 

3 transmittal of the report to Congress as provided in sub4 section (a). 

5 (i) Lii\ll'l'ATIO\" 0\" NATIO\"i\1; PAHK SEHVH'E 

6 ST,.\1<'1<'.-'l'he Commission may hire staff to eaJ'J'Y out its 

7 assigned respousibilities. Not more than one-half of the 

8 professional staff of the Commission shall be made up of 

9 current employees of the National Park Ser·vice. 

10 (j) STAI~I<' OJ:<' 0TIIEH AOE:'o<CIEf;.-Upon the request 

11 of the Commission, the head of any Federal agency may 

12 detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of 

13 such agency to the Commission to assist the Commission. 

14 (k) EXPERTS AND CO;\IE>lil/l'A\"TS.-Subject to such 

15 rules as may be adopted by the Commission, the Commis16 sion may procure temporary and intermittent services to 

17 the same extent as authorized by section 3109(b) of title 

18 5, United States Code, but at rates determined by the 

19 Commission to be advisable. 

20 (I) PowEHS <W Tim CmnHSSIOl\' .-(l) The Commis21 sion shall for the purpose of carrying out this title hold 

2?. such public hearings, sit and act at such times and places, 

23 take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the 

24 Commission deems advisable. 

•HR 260 IH 
116 

10 

(2) The Commission may make such bylaws, rules, 

2 and regulations, consistent ''ith this title, as it considers 

3 uecessary to can·? out its functious under this title. 

4 (3) \Vhen so authorized by the Commission any mem5 ber or agent of the Commission may take auy action which 

6 the Commission is authorized to take by this section. 

7 (4) The Commission may use the United States mails 

8 m the same mauner aud upon the same conditions as 

9 other departrneuts and agencies of the United States. 

10 ( 5) The Secretary shall provide to the Commission 

11 auy information available to the Secretary and requested 

12 by the Commission regarding the plan refcned to in sec13 tion 101 a nd auy other information r equested by the Com14 mission which is relevaut to the duties of the Commission 

15 and available to the Secrctar:v. 

16 SEC. 104. NEPA. 

17 The provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

18 Aet of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4:321 et seq.) shall not apply to 

19 the preparation of any report pursuant to section 102 or 

20 103 of this Act. 

21 TITLE II-NEW AREA 

22 ESTABLISHMENT 

23 SEC. 201. STUDY OF NEW PARK SYSTEM AREAS. 

24 Section 8 of the Act of August 18, 1970, entitled "An 

25 Aet to improve the Administration of the National Park 

•HR 260 IH 
117 

11 

1 System by the Secretary of the Interior, and to clarit}' the 

2 authorities applicable to the system, and for other pm·-

3 poses" (16 U .S.C. 1 a-1 and foliowing) is amended as 

4 follows: 

5 (1) By inserting· "(j-g:>;EHAL ATTIIOHI'l'Y.-" 

6 after "(a)". 

7 (2) By striking the second thr·ough the sixth 

8 sentences of subsection (a). 

9 (3) By redesignating the last sentence of sub10 section (a) as subsection (e) and inserting in such 

11 seutence before the words "Fm· the purposes of car12 rying" the following·: "(e) AVI'!IOHIZA'l'IO:\ <W Al'-

13 PHOPHIATIO:\~.-". 

14 (4) By striking subsectiou (b). 

15 (5) By inserting the following after subseetion 

16 (a): 

17 "(b) STI_:nms OP AHEA:::> POH P<Yl'gl\'I'IAI; Anm18 TI0:\.-(1) At the beg-inning of each calendar year, along 

19 with the annual budget submission, the Secretary shall 

20 submit to the Committee on Natun1l Iwsources of the 

21 House of &presentatives and to the Committee on En22 ergy aud Natural Resources of the l inited States Senate 

23 a Jist of areas recommended for study for potential irtelu24 sion in the Natioual Park System. 

•HR 260 IH 
118 

12 

"(2) In developing the list to be submitted under this 

2 subsection, the Secretary shall give consideration to those 

3 areas that have the gTcatest potential to meet the estab4 lished criteria of nat.ioual siguificance, suitability, and fca5 sibility. The Secretary shall give special consideration to 

6 themes, sites, and resources not already adequately rep7 resented in the National Park System as identified in the 

8 National Park System Plan to be developed tmder section 

9 101 of the National Park System Reform Act of 1994. 

I 0 No study of the potential of an area fo r inclusion in the 

II National Park System may be initiated after the date of 

12 enactme11t of this section, except as provided by specific 

13 authorization of an Act of CongTess. Nothing in this Act 

14 shall limit the authority of the National Park Service to 

I5 conduet preliminary resou rce assessments, gather data on 

16 potential study a1·eas, provide technical and planning as17 sistanee, prepare or process uominations for administraI8 tive designations, update previous studies, or complete re19 connaissance surveys of individual areas requiring a total 

20 C).:pcuditure of less than $25,000. Nothing in this section 

21 shall be construed to apply to or to affeet or alter the 

22 study of any river segment for potential addition to the 

23 national wild and scenic rivers system or to apply to or 

24 to affect or alter the study of any trail for potential addi25 tion to the national trails system. 

•HR 260 IH 
119 

13 

"(c) REPORT.-'l'he Secretary shall complete the 

2 study for each area for potential inclusion into the Na3 tiona) Park System within 3 complete fiscal years follow4 ing the date of enactment of specific legislation providing 

5 for the study of such area. Each study under this seetion 

6 shall be prepared with appropriate opportunity for public 

7 involvement, including at least one public meeting in the 

8 vicinity of the area under study, and reasonable efforts 

9 to notify potentially affected landmvners and State and 

10 local governments. In conducting the study, the Secretary 

11 shall consider whether the area under study12 " ( 1) possesses nationally significant natural or 

13 cultural resources, or outstanding recreational op14 portunities, and that it represents one of the most 

15 important examples of a particular resource type in 

16 the country; and 

17 "(2) is a suitable and feasible addition to the 

18 system. 

19 Each study shall consider the following faetors \\1th regard 

20 to the area being studied: the rarity and iutegrity of the 

21 resources, the threats to those resources, whether similar 

22 resources are already protected in the National Park Sys23 tern or in other I<'edcral, state or private ownership, the 

24 public use potential, the interpretive and educational po25 tential, costs associated with acquisition, development and 

•HR 260 IH 
120 

14 

operation, the socioeconomic impacts of any desig11ation, 

2 the level of local and general public support and whether 

3 the unit is of appropriate configuration to ensure long4 term resource protedion and visitor use. Each such study 

5 shall also consider whether direct National Park Service 

6 management or altemative protection by other agencies or 

7 the private sector is appropriate for the area. Each such 

8 study shall identify what alternative or combination of al9 ternatives would in the professional judgment of the Di10 rector of the National Park Service, be most effective and 

11 effici ent in pr·otecting significant resources and providing 

12 for public enjoyment. gach study shall be completed in 

13 compliance with the National Environmenta l Policy Act 

14 of 1969. The letter transmitting each completed study to 

15 Congr·ess shall contain a recommendation regarding the 

16 Administration's preferred management option for the 

17 area. 

18 "(d) !JIST OF A.HEA!-5.-At the begin11ing of each cal19 enclar year, along· with the annual budget submission, the 

20 Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Re21 sources of the H ouse of Representatives and to the Com22 rnittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 

23 States Semtte a list of areas which have been previously 

24 studied which eonta in primarily cultural or historical rc25 sourees and a. list of areas which have been previously 

oHR 260 IH 
121 

15 

studied which contain primarily natural resources in nu2 merical order of priority for addition to the National Park 

3 System. In developing the list, the Secretary should con4 sider threats to resource values, cost escalation factors and 

5 other factors listed in subsection (c) of this section.". 

0 

•HR 260 IH 
122 
123 

NE~l! l:; c ;. 

-~ .. '""' .·-.She pr c~ cn·ation of nationally significant nat· Z ural and cultural areas needs to be an 

~ ongoing responsibilit y of Congress and the 

-· ~ :-.Jational Park St·rvice. Though the composi· 

.\?-. lion of the system illustrates the inallility or :;a.: government, under changing political COilditions, to follow faithfully an ideal program th rough 

many years, and though the pace of expan~i n ha::; 

slowed, the Service a nd the Congress still have an 

uns\verving hargl~ to le ad in the assessment of Il L~ \\' 

units. 

Critics of new federal land conse rvation sonH.'· 

times as k: \\'hy add new areas to the national park 

syste m'? Th ~ primary jttst ifitation should h!' to pn•· 

serve natio na lly significant CCOS)'Stcm s, landforms 

and sit es important to our history to the ma ximum 

exte nt possible. If the systf'rn is to he truly reprcsentativ(' of our diverse he ritage, it still has a long 

\vay to go. 

In 1972, at the direction of Director George B. 

Hartzog, the Park Service completed a review of 

th(' systt.'lll\ cn mpo-.; irinn \Vhichjudg('d th(' ad~·

flllaCY of n : Jlr(>sf>nlal.io rl of thf' nntion's natuml 

1·cgio n s and broad LIH .. !Illes of t\m('ri<:an hislory. This 

l\'ational Park Systfmt Pia 11 concluded that. in 

orde r to achieve representation of all facets of 

American history, a minimum of 19G additiona l 

areas sho uld hP added to the systPm. Major gaps 

\Vt.'r(' a lso identifie d in the r(• pn•s<.'tllation of natural 

regions and natural history th emes, such as pl:lin ~. 

plau au s and mesas, river systems and lakes. co ral 

islancts, rstuaries, tropical t•cosystem-.; , grasshln(is, 

a nd eastern deciduous forests. -s ponso tl 

research omplcted in H)87 on th<' system's pole u· 

{ial re p rt•sentation of major terrestrial and t~ lland 

ecosystems c.:ollcludeJ th<:1t the present i\PS das..o,;i fi · 

f'ation sy .;;tem la('ks ··enough de t<'lil to he useful f• >r 

:.l·l 

su rn·~·ing t•cosy~tPm cliv(·r~ ity'' ill thP park s. Even 

n. thi :o.; n• sc> arch .-.: Hg,t,:1'Stj·d that rlw nalitHl l_t! pa rk 

syslt'm lad;...; poh•nt i;d wpn•sPnLll inn of ~ pPITI'IIl 

o f a ll ecosystPms fit~t·d h y thf.' llH·thod employed 

in tlu· W7:1 i\.I'S l'ftw. 

wu~h tla• ~y~tl'm ~a w conlin lu'd Px:pan:;iun during t lw I !I lOs. induct ing t he 1 n•merulnus arldit.ions 

in a~k;:1 whkh atldn•ssPd s<'vera l of thesf' gaps. 

ttw \'isin n fn r tiH' composi t ion of riH• :-::y~lf' lll is now 

n.hscun•d. Sinn· I !lH!. on\~· four nt·W units an~ 

ht•Pn <Hldt•d . :Hld nne• ha~ lwt·n snlltractt.•d. A for· 

rnalizt•d !WW an·as study program has b(•en tc rminatPtl. In ID71 ). ( 'o ngn•ss tlin.·ctPtl th(• i'\PS 10 

suhmil pnrt ~ lnnwdl y o n a l ll'ast IZ po tenti<ll 

1\t' \\. an•as. hu t appropriations for l ht• tllliHJa l stmlit•s n •asl'd in l f-IH I aftl'r (Tit ivs claiuwd It led to 

tl lH'Oill roll••d t•x p ;llbi nn . 
124 

1. Fcll'l~· ·:; :-; 1\<lfltral a r••as :-: hcculc ii J<'ItnHtghl tt/\c\('1" 

thi• pri!H·<·tion of t.lt ,· natiunu l p;ll'k sy:-;1.vm as:-;ncHI 

as possible . Th~.· s< · areas an.· hut a stan.ing pt li nt 

toward n·newing th(' ~t'JYic(':-; c·ommitm~nt to 

improving reJlrt..•sent ation or na t ural n•gions and 

nawral hisu,rv lh(•tth.':... Thi.-> !i:-;t indu(ks: '[~dlJ,!ra ss 

Prairh- (OK), .it•uwz \lou m ains (\\1), Fh)rida ~Pys 

(fl.}. 1\fichig:tn Pt·n in:-;u\a(\ft), Siskiyou (01·!). <_;n•;.u 

Plains(\!>, KS, SD, or IVY), Black roc-k D<'s"n (;\\'), 

t::=.cah\1111' Canynns (l'T). A tcha falaya Hasilt (LA). 

Luquillo FcH'(•st (i'I{), CurritH('k H<1nb (~T), ~Inja\'1' 

Dest'rl (CA), Hdls Canyon (OH), llig Sur (CA), Kawli 

(III), Loess Hills (IA1 !\F.), .Sonoran Pl'sert Jlinacau• 

(AZ}, Lower A ll ama h;l. Hi vt.• r (tj:\). San .ltJ<III .\!1.111 1l· 

w i n:-; (CO), Lake Thhoe (:\\'), Owyhet~ ;~nyon l<~mh; 

(OR, JD, !'V), i\lohile--IPnsaw Bottnmland:--(A L). 

!':ip()mu Du nes (CA), SawtooLh \ lountains(ID). A rctit· \\'ildli ~ H(· f llgt.•(Ai-\). !\II. Edgt.·c.·•Hnbt•(Ah:). 

:\-lona and Monil.a h lamls(PH), T wo -Hea rtC'd Hin.•r 

(i\.11 ), r'\1 11e ri t.~an SamcH"t (An1c ritan Samc)a). (::ity <lf 

H•J<:ks (II)), Cohst·o·>k Hay {~'IE). Cnn rH.'C'I inH J<i,·C'r 

(CT, \"T, NII, \ l A), Machias Hi vt•r(~ lf: ). Kin.~' 

H.angt.~ Ca}H~ l\ltlld,,<:ino (CA), ~lississippi Hivt•r (.\1\', 

1\'J, lA, MO), Montauk (NY), Chesapeake Bay (VA, 

.\ID, DE. PA), Amicalola Rivt>r ((;.-\). (Jregon Coast 

(OH). G<nllf'y nivN (\\'V), Rub~· .\·lountains nr :\loni· 

w r \ "alley (NV), Snlith Ri\'(~ r (CA). i\cbraska Sand· 

hills (\r:). San Hafad Swt~ ll (LT). Pu rgaruin.: Hin:-r 

(CO), llla"kwat<• r Hj,-,,r (\![))or lll:rC'k Riwr (:\C), 

and Swt.'t!(W<ltcr na~in (\VY). 

2. The .\ational Park SNvi<:t:'. throuuh ils Xtf•rna l 

historit prC:-l<:' l'\' nn rog ~. t lw ~atinna lll ist.o ri c: l.tu1d mark Pr(.Jgram and din··ct managem(~nt. 

should inv igoratl' it.s historit:a l ;H IJit i1H\S. t.•spedall _\ · 

in the ar('as ()r ind11strial. !alH1r, ;,tiThitctt 1tral art 

and Clhnic hbt o ry. At. )C';_\$1 40 ill ~s or 11<.\tional sig· 

ni fi<.:<.lll<"<· shou lrllw add1•d to tiH.' S\'•'-! C'IH a:- :-;non as 

pos:-;ihlc. F:xamplt·s of key addil ior;s inrhulc: 

\V(,\I !Hit.·d Knee (Si l). Lindcn mPit.•r (CI >). 'l:llil'sin 

(Wl). Leoptlld llome:>"Leatl( \\'\). t.' .S.S. Ulympiatl~.-\) . 

Altu Island (.-\ K). \Vt.'sl. ;\IPsn. ( \:\fl. r\ nasaz i Sitt.•s 

(CO), Mark T\\'ain fknll' (< 'T ). (iray HarKh Casas 

<_;n.ln(ks Sit I.'s (.\'M). (:at!do ( :ut1un• Sit<·.-; (TX). Trill -

it~' T(•st Sil l·' (~:\ ). Pr-vt•rt y Pni nt (LA). Cah1>ki:1 

f\lounds( fL), .Jolm ('rt' llome(JI .. ). J-'nrt Hohin:->ol\ 

(\1-:). l.;\1\ding Ih· ~H'/F(~S ;HHI Airfit.•ld (Sai p;,tn ). Sal! 

Hi\'('f Bay (\'(). I lagt•rm:tll Fn:->si l Bt-ds (I I J), Hulwrt 

1-'ro ~t Farm (\T), .JCJ!tl\ .\ Jarshall llnmt' l \ '.-\).Yuma 

CrossinJJ. {.-\'l.). Sonlh Pas...; !Ji:-otrin(\\'\'). Print:ipio 

Iron \\'or!-.:~ (i\IIJ). Auh('\ISI'I' Hu•wh hre\\'h•nt:-o t• ~II l). 

sa hi Iron .\liru• (:\11 ). t-'uls(nu Silt' ( \.\1). ZuniCiiH)Ia ('IHnt>h·x (\'.\1). Truh: L agiH>It (I' .S. Trusl ·n·rrilnrks). l .f'\·i ('offi n llottSt' ( 1\). T h•HII as ( 'oh' 

llnu:-;t• (:\Y) .. )itn !ll \' ( ':t!'l t' r (I;,\). !{!(·hard .\1. ;\ix11!1 

(C.-\). Capt• 1\('JHt•'t\Y l.autwh Si H· (1-' 1.). Hu ..;hy ~un 

Battldidd (!':\), ~hnth• Island Hattldit•ld U~l). Walt 

Whillnan ll ousc:(:--.: .J ). Sh:trktoollt I Ji ll (<' .-\). \\' il ht 

C;lt lwr llo nt <' (;..;E}. :nul \\'all l>isnt·y !lnmt.· (< '.'\). 

3. Til l' \:1tion:lll':trh: St·IYin · :-:!l nulcl n·,·i:--;t• and 

l..:1't'P Ujl-(l)· d;l\1' t ll t.• Sllfiui!rt!l'•rt-J,· Sys(l'l!/ Jllllfl 

('tl!llp!l'tf•d in l !J/:2 ! 11 rc-flt•c t JH'\\' additions, pin -

point gap:->, and itl<•tHil\ pq ll ntial an·as to fi ll tll('st~ 

~a :-;. 

4. T IH' :\aticmal P;,trk St•n·il'(' :-- i lo tdd n·vi!it' lh<.• nilt•ria for judging pol<'lll ial parkland..: lo r efiP<:I the 

possibility of n•sroring naticma:ly si~nifk an t hut 

<huna!!t'd ('{·osy:-; lt' ms. 

5. Tltt' :\at ional P;,trk St' JTi<'(' ~hou d maintain an 

inn·ntory of pott•nl ial add it in r.s to 1 ht.• sys t, rn . pPI'l --

odicall y n.•port.inJ.! t.o C-ongn•ss undt~r "Section 8" 

<lllthority on o ppPrtunitif.•;-; to inc-orporate a reas. 

( 'riiPria fnr nomitwtion lo thi...; rcgislt:r should be 

hmad- hast'<l and si m ilar to t h' hl' for llw :~atimm l 

Ht•gist.(•rs of ;\atuntl l.anllm;,trks anti tii:-;toric Places. 

8. TIH' ;\nt ional Pnrk !)t.•r\'in· :ohould cxamiut.' the 

;-;raws or ·a rfili<~tl·fl an:;\S.'' All affiliat.('tl areas 

shou ld ml'<'l rlw :-<.HlH' nil\·ria for national signifinw<·<' as dn l't!gular uni1 s. Tlw \' P!' shou ld rcasst·~s 

thv :-:y:->ti'Hl to detnminP w lwtlH· r any st ng uni::s 

\\'I) Uld sen·~.~ the system hPttl:r hy be ing plac<~d in 

"affil iat.t'•d a rt'<t" :-l l <\ tus . 

1. Ttw \at ionall'ark St vk{• shon ld work with 

Congrc:-;s to establish<\ st;,u \dardizcd mE.'thod of 

assPs:->ing rlw nwri t of pwposcd addi tions, w hich 

shou ld induclt· provisions fo r :uandatory hearings 

h1•forr <tppropriaH.' Cc)llgn·ssional rommittt•cs, anrl 

an \I'S stu dy o f tt rnat in•s. w i1 h puhli<' in\·olvcIIH'nt, prior to new designations. 

8. T tw \'ati(lt1a l :-.'at u ral Landmark l'rogram.shou·~d 

l1t.' n !(IJ'ganir.t'd <11 1111 ran.-:f\: rn·d from its (.'UITt~nl 

p~1:-;it i~Hl UIHIL•r the ASSIH 'i ill e l >irt•ctt>l' fo r Cttltura1 

B<•so n·~·:-> tn ;t n(•w posir ion IIIH h.'r t ht> A ssoda"re 

llirc('tnr f\•r :--:atur~tl I!t•st~ur<·t·:-o. Buth the :\;:!I ural 

<llltl ll islt)ric Landmark l'n,gr:lmsshnl thll>cconle 

tht.' basis ftl f' ;,u l<l in~ (Jllal ifi(•t l sitt>s lt' the national 

park sy:-h·m. 

9. Thl' :\at iun;tl Park S~·ITin· sh11nld estal>lish a 

JH:w (';tl.~!go y t) f' nalitma l t· ~·,,l, _l.!ic; ll l' l'S(~t'\:C's 

lk\'l'•tt.'(.\!ll a mon• co rnp n•lwnsiv(~ app roach t o pro-

(('('1 ing hiolt,gi<-al d i \·(•rsit ,\' ;uu l !'<>.'i l.('!'ing scientific 

n•st•a n·h . 

10. T lw :\ational Park Spn·in• s hou ld 111on• \'igor· 

IHIS!y 11\Cl l l illl]' I IH' J)I'Oit'l'l i cH I CJ J' II :II icJfla JJy :-; ig1dfi · 

('anl n·:-oun·<'s. hoth nawral ;uul nlltural, unde r 

lll<JJlagt·me Jit hy o llu :r kdc'n' l agt•m·ies. st;.llC: and 

lcJ('<ll ~0\'t 'l'llllH'tll. or Jlfi\ :tl~· intt·n·sts. Su<:l1 art.•:.J:-: 

whid1 an• Jlcll 'n•ll pn>Lt.•t·t ~·d hy olll('l' ag<!ncit}S 

sllllllld lw con.--; idPn·d for inl'\usi(IJ\ inl lw naliOJWI 

pari\ ,..;~-~~ ('ll\. 

11. Til t• \'a1i11nal Park St•n·in.' :--:1\ould Sl.'t:k to iden1 il\ and inl'htdt• wit hill tlw na1 itnwl 1rk s~-- sl.t'IH 

n·preSI'IItat in· marin<' and t'SI uarine t.•coystems. 
( 't mgrl':->-.; :--hould tn and;~l\· a bi~IH'r lt·\·d of l "o.,pt·rathllll ll'l \\"l 't' l l llu• St·n·j,.,. ant i t\tl:\A <I t HI nr tl u• 

I l"<lll~ h'r o f liH' :\ la rill\' s~ uu t uar~· and ~t uaritll' 

~t·:-. ·n· · Jlnt_t!r;tnl-.; ,,ut ,,r I IH· I h·JJart nwut o f 

('nnlmt.·n·(•. 

12. TlH' .:\;ttitm:,ll 1<11"k St'l"\" it·P. ;11u l ilt lwr fl•tlt•n•l 

a~t·nc il' .s. ~hould work wi th th(• otht'r l-!llatory 

nat ion:-> t1 f ~ Antan·t it: Tn'<l l f I !}:) !.Ito establish 

an intPrnatitmal jli.lt'k 1111 A ntarctica. 

\\'ht•n tilt' \a tiP tl<ll li · L u ulmarb Program 

\\ a~ (•:-;tah! i:-;1\,•d h\· t ht' lli ri f' Sitl•s .\cl in 1 q:V>, it 

St 'I'\T d tu q11 :di!".v ~U\(1 di :-;qualif_\· histori c ~itt.•:; for 

indu:-> ion in tiH' natio na l p;trk sysiL'IIL :\atiuna l h istori<' landmarb (,\ Ill.) an• b tt ild ing.-.;. slrudun•s, 

historic <lbtrich ;uul sites that :.1n• ad-\llO\\·Iedgt•d ns 

<\!Hun~ our (·ount ry's most important historic ,; nd 

n dtunll n•sourn•:-: . < h "t'l' 1. 71)11 \HI.s t·nm nwmonll(.' 

Pl' illt~ :Hf' i mptll't;,ull tl.'Pl',·tsof ..\mcrkan histt>ry 

and c· \nu·t~ . llow<•,·t·l: tlw \IlL progr<llll iH'('ds n .·\·i -

taliza tio n . Tlu.• n• is prngr;•mmatir on·rbp hei.WL'cn 

the :\alioua ii ~Pg ~tn o f' ll b w rk Places and tlw 

\HI. progralll . Curn.•nt Jlll>nitoring and in:-iJH.'<:tion 

pn •(·t:.•dures d o llt>l adc~qll<.llc~ly <\S:->t.·ss thrt.'i.lb In 

~HL . Somt• landmarks ultim<.\1<' 1'· belong in tht• 

ll<ll io tli.ll park sy:stem. A wich• ,.,u:it•ty of \PS· 

in ithH~· d hbt o ric pn.:st•n·a tion program:-; alsc> phly a 

n it ic·a l !'t1le in ic.h.·n t ify i11g sign ifit·ant h ist <JI'i(' are:.1s 

and <.•xploringaltt•mat in·s \ cl IIH'ir inclusion in tlw 

:-:;y:-tc.·m . EfftJrts.suc h a:-, tht• lntlustriallle rit a gt.• 

Pn,jt-t ·t . " ·hit·h t'tltJI'I IiJI:IIt.'s n·gitmaiJ>IanJiing i11 

\\' t';o;t('rll Penns\"1\';lnia. w ill h(• mod l'ls fpr futt•rt• 

a vtion c\!l d \\·il!.stn•ngtllcn th l' Sl'tYiu>s mlt· a s a 

lt•w.lt'r of n~!liiHI<.tlllisturiv pn' :->!'!Tati on dfort . 

125 

Tht• .:\alinnal \at u ra l Landmark (\:\ L) Program 

h a s not rt'ilt" lll'd il:o' potPnlial. It \;u·k:-; pt•rsonnL•I and 

;uii•IJIIitl<· UJIP lr! IHOil it·s. bht•d l1y St.:<.Tt•ta r· 

ial tlrclt·r it I \! Hi:! anc\a IJH nisll·n cl by tlw :'-Jationai 

Park St·n·in•, it was t·m·isio twd ori~hnll y as a V<llttablt• :-:nurt't' of candid:t l t' an•as fort !H.' system. The 

\"\.;L progr; nn idt• n t ifi es and n •t·ogn izt·S outstand ing 

t·xamph·s 111' ll <l ltt n.tl h·atun·s. witholl t providing for 

fedt'r:l l acqui:-:.i t ion o r the areas. Un~r :},01)0 pott.•nlia l i<wdmarks ha\'(' ht>cll ith•ntifit·d a nd G8() hcl\'C' 

!we n dt~:; n;HNI. AI \past -1011 hm·t· potl'ntial as 

nalitH\al park sysl <'!ll ar<.•cts. Ifm\'t'\'l'r. t he 'r\ L prog ram is limping a long on a n undt•rfunded budget 

withotll polit-y sttppo rt at high<.·r len•ls. t.:nahlc t.o 

adeq llil lt'ly inn•nt.ory, namitor, o r proh' t l. these 

sites, t ht' program needs stJbst.Ultial in\·ignrat.ion if 

it is to play a ::H tpport.ing rol(' in tlw \'PS !lt.'\V area::; 

study pro< ·(: ~s. 

T!w wlw lP catt•gory of ''allilialed art~as," whic h 

now includf's more than :~o silt's, needs evaluation. 

Affilia.t <.·d ar<'as, t.h1n1gh usually not fcdl•rally 

o \\"llC'd . arc intende d lO he si tes of nat ional signifi-

<.'anre. hut. are not full-fledged unit ~ of the system . 

They han! a vilal role to play in the protec tion of 

smaller histori<.' sii<.'S and areas currently protected 

by ffi(•(Hl:i other t ht"l.ll fedrra l ownership and man-

<lgernl'nt. ye t lwn~ is .r.; t.i\1 no set of crit Nia for 

1\esignat ion. 

Co.nrinut.•d expansion is needt•d if the ~ys tcm is to 

et~p pact• w it h the (·on linually inc re a sing public 

1IPmand fo r new parkland. From 1050 to 198:Z, total 

\·i.sit.a tion at nat.iorwl park .syst em a rca!i inc:rcased 

mort.' thiln t c llfo ld. from :j:J million w nea rly 3:30 

mill ion. !\:uional l'ark Service ~lnti:st cs for Hl86 

indicatt• that ~C t.'at ion \·isi t s climb('d to 28 1 mil· 

linn. a I pe r('l'nt <. ast: from t. hc pn \'iou s yt~ar. 

ThP sy,..;t~·m might re<.:e iv(' 4:)0-:)00 million visits pc.~r 

year by tlw yt.>a r 20 I 0. 
Select inn (J[ new park ar<•as requin.·~ t h1.· utmost 

can.•. As the :\"ationall'ark Scn·ict• has t.•xp<uu lcd 

from managing an initiaJ con· of \·ast n;tturill areas 

in lo th e man; g~.~nw nt of a \·ariel y of silts. it h as 

faced hoth good and ha<l propos:l.\s. l {or<tt·e 

Albright, tht> :>C'tond Director of the SC'n·it.-c , \\"rote 

in I ~j:Jo t hal ··promotion o f unfit uatio rwl park:-: 

mu:-:r he h~lllenged , ~iJH."l' othf'rwis<' a spurious 

stamp or ·sterling· on local sc·entry wiThout 

national distinction wi ll qui ckly dt•prt.>tiatt:.• the 

\·alut.• of t ht.• w hu lt• ~ystl' lll ." · lndl.'l.' t.l , dt•:-igna tion as 

a ur•il of the systt.•m b to ht• lwl<l!lH'<"i4 ~~•s. since t h<~ 

\":thiP of clrsi~nal hm i:-- JIB! j nd!!Pd hy t o:• w~t quali· 

fi cd un it, but by tht.· least. 

F•:dcr·al agt•n<.·ic•s o: hPr than l hl' ~;Hiona l Park 

Sc·tYkt:.• manage natu ral area~ a nd <· ult ttral sites of 

prL't! miuent Jlal iona l value . Dozl·n::; 11f k~ignated 

,,·i!derne;s :.m .. •as, sw:h a~ 1 h(' Hoh :\la rshall iu I\ lou· 

1<111:\, th(' Stqw rsthion :\foun ta ins in Ari7.onH. a nd 

llH' Eagles :\"E.':-\1 in Colorado <lrt' of li<.Lt i( •nal park 

qu n. li 1y. Pl<wt•:-; likt' \\"hill' \lnuntain \":uional FnrPst 

in :\"P\\" ll•tlllJI:->hin· an· c·nn•monl_,. mist;tkPn for 

natitltla l park:'. ()t IH'r areas lt;;t \"t• th•sigt ta tions that 

confus1· dis! in~,_·t ions lwt ,,.t'l'll ft·<kralland S\"Stcms. 

Tlu.• ~st St·n·it"t.'. for I'Xot mplt•, 1\lal litgt~~ ~iisty 

Fio rds ami .-\dmiralt .v Isl<uHI :\al itlllal ~lonumcnts in 

.-\la::;ka, :o:;a\\"lt>tllh :\<iti,ma ll ~t'("h'ali,,n An:a in 

Ida ho, antl lll·lls Can von t\: 11 iclfl:tl Hc<T\'<11 itlll Area 

in f ln·gon:Jdaho . But:(•au of Land ~l<UI <\g(• nwnl 

lands in t.h <' Wf.'Stt' IT, l 'n il <'<I St a tt•s n11\l.;tin 

fantastic - and la rgdy unin,·t-st iga t ed - <trl'haeologica l rf'mains. Tht• l\ational o .. ·<•anic: a nd Atmospheric 1\dminist.ratiou (;\< ):\ .-\ ). ;.111 ~c'IH".V of the 

1. ' .;:\. f)epart 111CI1t of ommt~n·p, 0\'t'l':->t•t:S two 

126 

:r; 

0 

l"~'astal z,,ll\.' managt•Jllt•nl IH"ogn.tm:-> tl•at targt"·l 

nation;.t\ly ~ig nifinu\1 n•sou r<· .. •s: t lu.• i\';.Hional 

.\l<:trinc- ~a nt'tuary Program and t lw \at ional Eslua· 

ritH' Ht'Sl'a rch Hesf'n· ~ Program. The latter has IIi 

dt•sigttiltctl estuarine rt:.'SN\i-ch rt.'st·rves, the- formt:r 

~ysl.f.:'!ll <·ur-rent ly in ('!udes ~n·n cksignated marine· 

santtuarif's. 

The !'o!:ll io na l l'<trk Sc\rvin· has ;1 proper and 

important role lo play iumonitoring-and where• 

approprialc , managing-SIIf·h an•;.l:->. Though <ksig· 

na tcd wilde rness p roddt's (l high leq•l o f land ·nsc~ 

prott•<·tion. the nred f,w \"igi l:.t:lCt'lli'H•r a halt'S. 

Wlu: ~o.' Congn~ss has acktJOwkclgt>d the national ~ig · 

ni fi<:an(·f' of an area, and where ::>lH'h units arc not 

wd l protected, lh<' Park ~t·n·it·t· may be the best 

hmd manageme nt agency for the job. Si nce the 

national park system ha:-; only a few protected 

marine areas, it is critica l that the Service expand 

its t:ffons to bri ng more marine pnrks under pn.•s .. ·:·· 

\·at iot l stC"•:ardship. 

0 \·cr its history, the national park Sy!:item ~ wit · 

ncs::;ed a suhstanti a l broaden ing () f purposPs, as t.lw 

St.• r\"ice assumed responsibility for numerous hi:'i· 

torit.: sites, indud ing such rPsc.•un.:t.>s as battle-fieltl.s, 

ranches, factories and s hips, as well as urban rccrt>· 

at ion areas. Numcrou::; units east of the Mississippi 

have joined thC' original t·ore of West ern park:-;. 

Abo, Redwood, Shcnamloah and Great Smoky 

~fountain:-; national parks have demonstrated the 

ft~as hility of restoring partially damaged C('osys· 

tcms. Parks such as Cuyahoga, Gateway and 

Gold(•n Gate Nation a l Hct.:rcat ivn Areas have I eel 

the !:>en: icc into providing n ·c reational oppo rt uni ~ 

ties for millions of urba n Anwricans as well . 

The rol e of the system continues to e-volve. Gro .... ·. 

ing en vironmental awareness ha:-; made it possi blt""! 

for thC' system t.o play a pi\"O tal role in the developme nt of the CNESCO ).lan ami the Biosphere Pro · 

gra m, and in the protection uf hiol()gical di ve rsi t:y. 

In the future, the Park Scrvke shou ld take a mort• 

<ll'tivt-• role in prot ecti ng a ll s~g nifi tHnf tprrf'srrial 

and marin <.· ecosystems, rhro ugh the e~ ta hlb nwnt 

of a system of national t·•cologkal rcserYcs. 

Y:.tk historian Hobin\\'. \\'inks, u fonnn d 1ai1W.an 

of the ~ati ona l Park Se rvkt! Advi~ory Board, has 

:->a id I hat tlw ho in~ of nat ionnl park systPm sitt.)S 

rPfkcts thl! priorities of the nation: '"The true te~l 

of national r.ha ractt' r is in \'•hat pf'opte {'hoo:H .. ', hy 

("nnscions H('t, in t tw fa c·~.· nf ('nntt>ndi ng rh ict ~:--:. t:n 

prC"st•rH•. TlwsP visihll' symbol:' o f 1 ~;:• past. sun·i· 

vnrs of a fi erce com petit ion fo r nalional attentio n, 

make tangible th!' past that wnuld otherwise 

remain obseure cl .'" 

As de\"('\optm.•n t and otht>r m;m-macle imparts 

:;\\"eC'p anoss the la ntbcape, lime i:; running om to 

!'<t\"t' the rt.·maining out:$t<wding examples of natural 

:\merit"a for futun• j.!l'rWrations; the nation wi ll 

need lo move swiftly 10 idt·ntify and proi.P('l r.lw 

histori\ ht'ritage of America. It. is t•sse ntial to uff, )rd 

the i\atio na l Park Service an appro pri<He mea ns 

o f prot.('Cl ing our re maining-and t;•mergi ng-areas 

of na tional sign ifit'ance. 

ISBN 0-16-047027-7 

90000