[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCIENCE AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
RESEARCH OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS TO DETERMINE THEIR CONDITION, TO ADDRESS
ANY THREATS TO PARK RESOURCES, AND DETERMINE THE BEST SCIENCE AND
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POSSIBLE
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-698 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held February 27, 1997................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from Virgin
Islands.................................................... 5
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming...... 36
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa.. 3
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from Nevada......... 5
Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.. 1
Hill, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Representative from Montana.......... 4
Statements of witnesses:
Boyce, Mark S., Professor, University of Wisconsin........... 33
Prepared statement....................................... 87
Fowler, Cliff, Assistant Director, National Parks Issues,
General Accounting Office.................................. 6
Hill, Barry T., Associate Director, Energy, Resources &
Science Issues, Resources, Community & Economic Development
Division, GAO.............................................. 6
Prepared statement....................................... 69
Kay, Charles E., Adjunct Assistant Professor, Utah State
University................................................. 34
Prepared statement....................................... 95
Keigley, Richard B., U.S. Geological Survey.................. 38
Prepared statement....................................... 90
Kennedy, Roger G., Director, National Park Service........... 53
Prepared statement....................................... 100
Linn, Robert M., Executive Director, The George Wright
Society.................................................... 21
Prepared statement....................................... 85
Policansky, David, Associate Director, National Research
Council.................................................... 20
Prepared statement....................................... 83
Pritchard, Paul C., President, National Parks and
Conservation Association (prepared statement).............. 72
Schaefer, Mark, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, Department of the Interior........................ 56
Prepared statement....................................... 103
Wagner, Frederic H., Associate Dean, Utah State University... 39
Prepared statement....................................... 92
Additional material supplied:
DOI:
Biological Resources Division scientists................. 59
NPS Budget in constant 1983 dollars...................... 107
Working Relationships Between The National Biological
Service and the National Park Service: A Survey of
Managers and Scientists................................ 135
Hill, Barry: National Park Units GAO Visited in 1995 and
Studied in 1996............................................ 105
Kay, Charles: Attachment A--Do livestock or wild ungulates
have a greater impact on riparian areas?................... 108
Pritchard, Paul: Summary of Recommendations.................. 78
Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks
(review), by W.L. Halvorson and G.E. Davis................. 129
SCIENCE AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:05 p.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 AND PUBLIC
LANDS
Mr. Hansen. I welcome my new ranking member, Eni
Faleomavaega, from American Samoa. He is a good man even though
he did go to BYU. We will not hold that against him. And we are
grateful to have all of you here with us. We welcome you to the
first hearing by the National Parks and Public Lands
Subcommittee for the 105th Congress. I look forward to another
productive, and bipartisan session of the Subcommittee.
While we were able to finish work on a number of important
bills pending before the Subcommittee last session, we will
have a number of major issues unresolved to work on in the
105th Congress. I only said that because the University of Utah
and BYU are rivals and I went to U. of Utah.
I cannot think of a more important task for this
Subcommittee than ensuring our natural and cultural heritage,
as contained in our parks, is properly managed and protected.
In order to accomplish those lofty goals, a strong
interdisciplinary program of research is essential. Without
research, it is simply impossible to determine the condition of
our parks, or to address any threats to park resources.
It is well documented that the National Park Service has
never had a strong research program. Over the last three
decades, there have been no less than 15 major reports
recommending an increased role for research in parks. Authors
of several of those reports are here today.
For that reason, most observers were shocked in 1994 when
Secretary Babbitt abolished the research function of the
National Park Service after his legislative initiative to
create a new agency to survey everything which ``walks, crawls,
flies or swims'' blew up on Capitol Hill.
The Secretary moved about $20 million and 168 scientists
and technicians from NPS to the new National Biological Survey.
Today we will examine the aftermath of that reorganization.
Of course, the research program represents only a small
portion of the overall funds available to the National Park
Service to carry out its resource stewardship responsibilities.
Over the last five years, Congress has appropriated over $900
million to the NPS for resource stewardship. Yet, according to
GAO, NPS knows precious little about the resources entrusted to
it by the American people.
Only 86 parks have complete lists of animal species, only
11 parks have complete vegetation maps, and not a single major
park has a comprehensive resource monitoring program. As a
result, NPS cannot determine the health of the parks, can only
sporadically address threats to park health, and park managers
are not held accountable for the condition of resources they
manage.
These problems are not new, and not the sole responsibility
of the current Administration. We realize that. But this
Administration does not have a responsibility to correct these
problems. Instead, the Administration has attempted to
undermine the oversight efforts of this Subcommittee. The
Administration refused to permit U.S. Biological Research
Division employee, Dr. Richard Keigley, to appear as a witness
as requested by the Subcommittee.
I believe that his testimony is critical to help members
understand the importance of protecting the independent voice
of research, as well as ensuring that park superintendents are
not empowered to arbitrarily prevent research simply because
they fear it may lead to conclusions inconsistent with their
park policies. For this reason, the Committee was compelled to
subpoena, and pay for the appearance of Dr. Keigley today.
Similarly, the Department's testimony is filled with
hyperbole about the wonderful new research agency and how well
it supports the research mission of the Interior bureaus.
However, the testimony of park superintendents presents a very
different picture. In a 1996 survey of park superintendents
conducted by the NPS, the vast majority reported that creation
of the new agency has hindered their access to science, and
that many former NPS scientists have been discouraged from
supporting parks they previously worked for.
I ask unanimous consent that this survey be made part of
the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. NPS personnel are
also concerned about the overhead of up to 50 percent they will
have to pay in order to get research help from the U.S.
Geological Survey. For these reasons and others, the NPS is
already beginning to backfill research positions vacated by the
establishment of the new research program.
The Administration budget request includes $2.5 million to
establish cooperative park study units which duplicate the role
of USGS field stations in 45 States. One of the primary
justifications for establishing this new research agency,
avoiding duplication among bureaus, is already being
undermined. Over time, I expect that we will see complete
duplication, just as the NPS already has established its own
water resource division, with substantially duplicates another
USGS program.
Finally, I must mention that we have taken an opportunity
to read some of the statements that will be presented today. It
is not the place in this committee for any witness to take on
any other witness. You can have your own opinions. You can say
what you want to say. But I have noticed in the statements by a
few of you that you are trying to personally attack other
witnesses. That is not tolerated in this Committee or any
committee around here. And as I head the Ethics Committee, I
can tell you that is part of our rule.
And so if you have got that in your report, take it out or
you are going to be called on it. I recognize that there is not
a consensus among all scientists in regard to Yellowstone Park
management. I welcome witnesses to provide evidence in support
of their positions but please avoid any personal attacks on one
or the other. This is not the arena to do that.
There are many questions here and a great deal of concern
on behalf of this Member and most members of the committee. In
the coming weeks, I will be seeking to work with others to
address these very serious deficiencies of research in the
National Park System.
Our witness list is made up of very distinguished people
and I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the
time and effort to be here, and I know a lot of work has gone
into your reports.
Mr. Hansen. Now I will turn to my ranking Member, the
gentleman from American Samoa.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your kind comments. The fact that I am a graduate of Brigham
Young University, it is interesting to note that the University
of Utah now has more Polynesian football players than BYU so
you must be doing something better than BYU these days.
Mr. Hansen. They are all related to you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think we probably export more sumo
wrestlers than football players and rugby players probably than
any other region of the country. But, Mr. Chairman, let me say
at the outset that as the new ranking Democratic Member of the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I do look
forward to working with you and other members of the
Subcommittee here of the 105th Congress.
Today's oversight hearing deals with an important topic.
All of us love our national parks and we want to see the best
possible care for them. The development and use of science and
research are important matters to the management of the
National Park System. It does not matter whether the scientific
information is developed by the National Park Service, the
Biological Research Division, or independent scientists.
What is important is that the National Park Service has
available to it scientific information relating to the national
parks and makes use of such information in developing and
implementing management decisions affecting the National Park
System.
As is so often the case different people can draw different
conclusions from the same information. I hope we do not get
into a debate of one scientific theory versus another. That I
do not believe would be very productive. Instead, I do hope
that we can focus on the need for the good science of our
national parks and the use of that research in the management
of our National Park System.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon
and certainly welcome the members of our Subcommittee as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that all
members of the committee may be given the opportunity to have
an opening statement. Is there objection? Hearing none, the
gentleman from Montana, our new member, Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MONTANA
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing today on the nature of the current
National Park Service science research program. This is an
important opportunity to address the very serious problem that
has been facing Montana for a very long time. Along the land
bordering Yellowstone Park, we are seeing the results of poor
scientific research in the form of bison being slaughtered as
they attempt to escape an over-grazed Yellowstone Park.
The time is both right for good science and corrective
action. Montana has received an undeserved black eye as the
result of poor management practices within Yellowstone Park.
Based on testimony we will hear today, I believe this committee
will reach the conclusion that the bison slaughter is just a
symptom of a much larger wildlife management problem within our
park system.
It appears that the ``let-it-burn policy'' that led to the
disastrous 1988 Yellowstone fire is now being repeated in the
current ``let-them-starve policy'' regarding wildlife. For over
30 years Yellowstone Park has adopted a philosophy of natural
regulation that in effect has resulted in a hands-off policy
toward the growth in bison population and of coincident
deterioration of our park resources.
This type of voodoo environmentalism has resulted in
serious degradation of habitat within the park. It is troubling
that an acknowledged expert in this field was not given full
support by the Department of Interior in his desire to testify
here today. This raises concerns as to whether the Department
is interested in truly objective studies within the park.
I want to call on the park director to seek an independent
review of the environmental conditions within our parks. I hope
this hearing can be the beginning of a more cooperative
atmosphere between the Park Service, the States, and the
Congress. We need to work together to preserve the
environmental beauty of our national parks.
I for one plan to devote as much time and resources as
needed to see that the quality of our parks are maintained for
all visitors. Mr. Chairman, we cannot leave these national
treasures to the whimsy of chance. I look forward to listening
to the panel today and trust we will find this effort a new
responsible policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christian-Green. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I really
do not have an opening statement. I would just like to welcome
the witnesses and say how glad I am to have this opportunity to
sit on the Subcommittee. With the parks in the Virgin Islands,
parks are very important and dear to me and with a science
background I know the importance of good solid research in
helping us to make the kind of decisions that are necessary for
proper management of our parks.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from
Wyoming.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening
statement at this time.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Oregon.
Mrs. Linda Smith. No opening statement, thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I am just very interested in hearing the testimony. I
found some of the preliminary information quite interesting.
Mr. Hansen. I apologize for moving you from Washington to
Oregon.
Mrs. Linda Smith. But I knew where I was from. Thank you.
Let us get to the hearing. I am anxious to hear the testimony.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. No.
Mr. Hansen.. No opening statement. The gentleman from
Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a freshman
colleague at this end of the bench, I know you are glad when it
always reaches this end to find that our opening statements are
very short. However, I do look forward with a great deal of
interest to serving on this committee and hearing the testimony
we are about to receive today.
I want to thank you for your interest in bringing this
issue forward. As many of you know, Nevada has a great interest
in what goes on in this country with regard to our government
interest. We have over 87 percent of our land publicly owned
land and it drastically affects how we in Nevada conduct our
lives.
So we share with Montana and other western States the
concerns about how government is managing our public lands and
I look forward to hearing the testimony from those people in
the audience today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Our first panel is Mr. Barry T.
Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources & Science Issues,
Resources, Community & Economic Development Division, General
Accounting Office. Mr. Hill, we welcome you here. We are
grateful for your presence. Mr. Hill, may I ask you how much
time you need?
Mr. Barry Hill. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will
submit my formal statement for the record and just briefly
summarize my remarks in four or five minutes.
Mr. Hansen. Four or five minutes, all right. Mr. Hill, you
will notice in front of you is a traffic light. When it goes on
it is green and you start. When it turns yellow wind up, and if
it turns red then you have to wind it up. So we would
appreciate it if you would adhere to that.
Now I am going to ask all the witnesses to please adhere to
that. Now on the other side of the coin if you have something
that just has to be said and you need an additional minute or
two, please let me know and I will give you the minute or two.
Thank you, Mr. Hill. It is very kind of you to be here. We will
turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENERGY,
RESOURCES & SCIENCE ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION; ACCOMPANIED BY CLIFF FOWLER, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Barry Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here. Before I begin, let
me quickly introduce my colleague. With me today is Mr. Cliff
Fowler, who is assistant director for national parks issues.
Cliff has primarily responsible for much of the work that we
will be discussing today in our testimony.
We are pleased to be here today to discuss our views on the
National Park Service's knowledge of resource conditions within
the park system. My testimony today is based primarily on
reports that GAO has issued in response to a variety of
resource management concerns raised by this and other
Congressional committees over the years.
I will direct my remarks specifically to the following four
points. First, sound scientific information about park
resources is essential for effective resource management.
Second, data on the inventory and current condition of many
park resources are insufficient. Third, information on the
extent and severity of threats to park resources is also
limited. And, fourth, enhancing knowledge about resources will
involve difficult choices about funding and management
priorities.
Let me start by briefly discussing the importance of sound
information on park resources. The Park Service is caretaker of
many of the nation's most precious, natural, and cultural
resources, ranging from the natural areas of Yellowstone and
Yosemite National Parks to the urban areas of Gateway National
Recreation Area in New York.
Over the past 30 years more than a dozen major studies of
the park system have pointed out the importance of guiding the
management of these resources through sound scientific
knowledge. The recurring theme of these studies has been that
to manage parks effectively managers need baseline data on the
current condition of resources and information that allows for
the detection and mitigation of threats and damaging changes to
resources.
Without these data, the Park Service cannot adequately
perform its mission of preserving and protecting these
resources. Our work has shown that while acknowledging the
importance of such information the Park Service has made only
limited progress in developing it. Frequently, baseline
information about natural and cultural resources is incomplete
or nonexistent, making it difficult for park managers to have
clear knowledge about what condition the resources are in and
whether the condition of those resources is deteriorating,
improving, or staying the same.
At the same time, many of the parks face significant known
threats to their resources. These threats range from air and
water pollution to vandalism and the development of nearby
land. However, our studies have found that sound scientific
information on the extent and severity of these threats and
their impact on effective resources is limited, yet preventing
or mitigating these threats and their impact is at the core of
the Park Service's mission to preserve and protect park
resources.
As you mentioned, these concerns are not new to the Park
Service and in fact the agency has taken steps to improve the
situation. However, because of many competing needs that must
be addressed, the Park Service has made relatively limited
progress to correct this information deficiency.
Our '95 study found that recent Park Service funding
increases have been mainly used to accommodate upgraded
compensation for park rangers and to deal with additional park
operating requirements such as safety and environmental
regulations. In addition, we found that to some extent these
funds were used to cope with higher number of park visitors.
Making more substantial progress in improving the knowledge
base about resources in the park system will cost money.
However, the park system continues to grow with 37 new units
having been added since 1985. In addition, the Park Service
faces an estimated multi-billion dollar backlog of costs
relating to just maintaining existing park infrastructure such
as roads, trails, and visitor facilities.
We believe that to improve the knowledge about our national
park resources, the Park Service, the Administration, and the
Congress will have to make difficult choices involving how
national parks are funded and managed. Given today's tight
fiscal climate and the unlikelihood of substantially increased
Federal appropriations, our work has shown that the choices for
addressing these conditions include the following.
One, increasing the amount of financial resources made
available to parks are increasing opportunities for parks to
generate more revenue; two, limiting or reducing the number of
units in the park system; or, three, reducing the level of
visitor services. Regardless of which, if any, of these choices
is made, without an improvement to the Park Service's ability
to collect the data needed to properly inventory park resources
and monitor their condition over time, the agency cannot
adequately perform its mission of preserving and protecting the
resources entrusted to it.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be more
than happy to respond to any questions that you or others
members of the Subcommittee may have.
[Statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
statement. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Just a minute. I want my colleagues to realize
on the questions we will recognize you for five minutes and you
are going to do the same thing when you see the lights come on.
If you would stay within your time, I would appreciate it. The
gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Hill, you mentioned in
your statement that in your best opinion you feel that the Park
Service has not adequately addressed those issues that you
raised. How do you suppose that the Park Service was not able
to fulfill its commitment to those things that you have
addressed in your statement?
Mr. Barry Hill. How was it they were not able to?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Barry Hill. Well, the Park Service, I am sure that Mr.
Kennedy who will come up here will tell you that it is
basically because of the competing demands that they have had
to face with the budgets they have been operating under. Over
the years the park system has had generally an increase in
visitation to some extent.
That is somewhat debatable based on whose numbers you are
looking at, but certainly the parks that we audited during our
recent studies about two-thirds of the parks that we were at,
there was an increase in visitation and along with that
increase in visitation comes a rise in costs of operating the
parks and maintaining the types of things that the visitors
need while they are there.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So you would agree basically it is not
the fault of the Park Service at all, it is the fact that you
have limited resources to try to meet the high demands of the
number of visitors that have made visitations to our National
Park System.
Mr. Barry Hill. I would say that is a contributing factor.
I would not say that the Park Service is totally not without
fault. I think our position has been that this is a real
problem and this really gets to the essence of the mission of
the Park Service to preserve and protect the resource as well
as to allow the public to enjoy them.
It is really their responsibility. They have to find a way
to manage their budget and to direct enough resources into this
area to address the situation. And, quite frankly, with the
situation they have it is nothing that they are going to
resolve overnight. This will take them some time to do but we
would like to see a more concerted effort on their part in
terms of focusing and directing staff and financial resources
in to getting better scientific information.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I note in your report that you say there
is approximately a $4 billion backlog of costs. Do you suppose
that perhaps this $4 billion reporting--in the first place,
does the Park Service agree with your assessment that there is
approximately a $4 billion backlog of needful appropriations or
funds for them in order for them to accomplish their mission?
Mr. Barry Hill. Let me clarify that. That $4 billion
estimate is not ours. That is the Park Service's estimate. We
have never done any work that validates or refutes that that is
the correct amount. There is no doubt there is a backlog of
maintenance but that basically is their estimate.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Has the GAO made an approximate
assessment of the needed funds that the Park Service would need
in order to complete its----
Mr. Barry Hill. We have not made a system wide estimate of
the total expenses but I will say based on the work we have
done at individual parks, we have seen the problem of
backlogged maintenance at those parks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, the fact that now you have corrected
the situation the $4 billion figure that we have was the figure
developed by the National Park Service. Has GAO made an
assessment or analysis of this $4 billion assessment?
Mr. Fowler. We have not but we would like to do that work.
I think that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How soon do you think GAO might be able
to be helpful to this Subcommittee by conducting this analysis
or assessment? Well, you know, gentlemen, I am serious, it is
very easy for us to be pointing fingers at the Park Service for
whatever deficiencies that they may have but it would also be
helpful, I am sure, to the members of the Subcommittee if we
know whether or not this $4 billion is truly an accurate figure
if the Congress is to look forward in authorizing and
appropriating more funds for the Park Service to complete its
assignment or whatever.
Mr. Barry Hill. May I interject something here? I think you
are raising a legitimate point in terms of the Park Service and
the Congress needs to get a handle on just to what extent there
is a problem with maintenance. In terms of funds that are
available, I might point out that the Congress in the past five
years have appropriated funds specifically for the resource
information stewardship effort.
So they may have a problem in terms of in their estimation
of having sufficient funds to manage their backlog problem but
I think it was the intent and the direction of the Congress in
authorizing those additional funds that the greater level of
effort be directed toward developing the scientific information
needed to manage and provide stewardship over the resources.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Has your recommendation included
recommendations to the National Park Service on how to improve
its ability to collect scientific data?
Mr. Barry Hill. The recommendations we made to them back
in, I believe it was in our '95 report, focused on the need for
them to incorporate into their resource management plans more
effort and more attention toward identifying the specific
internal and external threats that parks are facing and in turn
by using that information to get a better handle on the
condition of the resources which would then allow them to
better prioritize the limited funds they do have into the areas
demanding and requiring the greatest attention.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Hill and Mr. Chairman, my
time is up.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana, Mr.
Hill.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question: in your report you make reference to the lack of a
benchmark that would help us determine whether the park is
deteriorating or improving.
Would you say that establishing a benchmark should be the
priority if we are going to invest additional dollars on
research? Is it your judgment that this effort should be a
funding priority?
Mr. Barry Hill. Your question is if additional funds were
invested should it go there. I think a greater level of
emphasis should be going there. To what extent that would
require additional funds and how much that would be, I really
cannot address. Our point is that there is not sufficient
emphasis going into developing that baseline scientific data
and information to really get a good handle on just what
threats are being imposed upon the resources at parks, what are
the conditions of our natural and cultural resources at the
parks, which ones are being threatened, why are they being
threatened, and what do we do about preserving and protecting
them for future generations.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Mrs. Christian-Green. I have no questions at this time, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
brief questions. Over the last seven years, I believe it is,
the Congress has increased funding to the National Park Service
by 69 percent. Yellowstone's share of that has been about 21
percent approximately.
Did you look in your study at how the funds were allocated
to different park entities because some parks got a lot more
obviously and usually it is the smaller parks and they need
more. You cannot compare on a dollar for dollar basis, I
understand that. But I just wondered if you looked at the
allocations between the different park units.
Mr. Barry Hill. We did not look at the relative parks.
Mrs. Cubin. OK. Due to the good staff work of Subcommittee
staff member, Mr. Hodapp, last year, he went to Yellowstone and
looked at the books and brought back a study for us and then I
went to Yellowstone, met with the superintendent and all of the
heads of the different divisions over there and had a lot of
questions answered.
I am not making a judgment on this particular issue whether
or not the Park Service was right because I discovered that I
think if they are not right at least their actions were
defensible. And the action I am talking about is we had
appropriated money for certain services and the money was not
used in the way we had instructed it to be used.
And as I said when I questioned specifically about those
issues, I did not agree but they were defensible. It was not my
decision to make and so I did not think it was something I
could scream about terribly a lot. But do you think that runs
rampant through the Park Service, and if you do, do you think
the Congress needs to do something about fixing that?
Mr. Fowler. We run into that quite a bit. The park
managers, park superintendents, are given a lot of discretion,
intentionally so, by the Park Service on how they spend the
money that flows down to the parks. And day to day, week to
week they are making priority decisions on where to best spend
that money to meet the goals of the park.
They have a lot of things to balance and it is a tough job.
As we have thought about that issue the gap seems to be not
that they have a lot of discretion and sometimes do not spend
the money where others think perhaps they should spend the
money, but more making them accountable for how the money is
spent.
What are they doing with the money, what are we as
taxpayers getting for the money that they are spending and
holding them responsible for that. That is the piece to us that
seems to be missing.
I might say on that point a recent congressional initiative
as we all know, I think, is the law called the GPRA, Government
Performance Results Act. As that proceeds, and the Park Service
is now implementing that as other Executive Branch agencies
are, that is certainly a tool that will afford the opportunity
to address this kind of thing. The nature of that legislation
and what it is about is to hold agencies accountable for how
the money is spent and more importantly what they are
accomplishing with that money.
And in the case of the Park Service it is going to flow
down to the park level where most of the action occurs. So
there is a tool there and there is potential there and in
theory that could work.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing
further.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington, Mrs.
Smith. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich,
has no questions. Oh, I know the next gentleman will have a
question. The gentleman from Minnesota, the distinguished
gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Vento. I would not want to disappoint you, Mr.
Chairman. I have not had a chance to read the entire GAO
statement but a lot of the questions being asked by the GAO are
based on some of the requests that we had previously made in
past Congresses.
I think it is very good a basis to talk about the need for
information. The point is, in terms of the discretion of the
Park Service, that the individual superintendent I think is a
good thing that all of the decisions are being made in
Washington as we look at increases.
In the Park Service we have to recognize that some of that
is earmarked money for various projects. And so there may be
some units that receive more or less. I guess you would have to
know what the assessment is. I think that there has been an
outstanding request for information with regards to--on the
Park Service information regarding the Alaska lands and the
vast increase in terms of parks that occurred in Alaska, as an
example, in terms of getting baseline data so that the Park
Service and Congress could make assessments of the current
situation as they move forward.
Now the issues that are raised in places like the
Everglades. We have a lot of crisis situations going on in
terms of information gathering, don't we, Mr. Hill? We have a
lot of crisis funding for information going on, for instance,
in the Everglades or in the Dry Tortugas or in Alaska?
Mr. Barry Hill. Yes, there have been a number of special
appropriations made to those types of things, yes.
Mr. Vento. And so that money has, I guess, generally been
expended properly to get the baseline data. Do you have a
separate--since you are talking about baseline data here and
getting information on everything from biological to cultural
to the other physical resources that make up these magnificent
landscapes, did you come up with any type of a budget or any
assessment? What is the Park Service's estimate for dollars
they need to bring this information system up to speed?
Mr. Fowler. I have not seen any such figures, sir. I do not
have an estimate.
Mr. Vento. Is that included in the $4 billion backlog?
Mr. Fowler. No.
Mr. Vento. It is not.
Mr. Fowler. It is separate. That is a separate issue.
Mr. Vento. The backlog really deals with certain capital
projects and so forth, doesn't it?
Mr. Fowler. It includes a lot of things.
Mr. Vento. The Director is saying yes. Let the record show
the Director is saying yes. In fact, almost half that backlog I
think is roads or something.
Mr. Fowler. I am sorry? Roads, a lot is roads.
Mr. Vento. Rehabilitation and new construction.
Mr. Fowler. Right.
Mr. Vento. So I think it is important for the committee
members that went back and worked on this backlog at one time,
Mr. Chairman, if you recall, someone suggested it was $7
billion. Part of it is for purchase of in holdings, I know
something that is near and dear to our hearts, and filling out
and purchasing those lands.
But the information base, have you looked at this since the
National Biological Survey or the Biological Research Division
was instituted?
Mr. Fowler. In terms of the impact they have had on this?
Mr. Vento. Yes.
Mr. Fowler. We have not.
Mr. Vento. Because many of the questions raised in your
testimony seem to indicate a biological focus which would
obviously now be a responsibility that would flow to the
Biological Research Division.
Mr. Fowler. As I understand it, sir, it is the
responsibility of the Park Service to do this with the advice
and consultation from the people from Biological----
Mr. Vento. I do not know, maybe they can describe that more
fully. I would just make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that I
do not know that the witnesses are going to come forth to talk
about this, but of the land management agencies, in terms of
those committed to science, the Park Service probably had the
smallest corps before the Biological Resources Survey or
Biological Survey was instituted.
They have the smallest number of individuals. One of the
issues here, of course, is in the preservation of landscapes
you embrace a lot of different qualities in terms of fauna,
flora, geologic and other features and cultural resources that
make up these units.
And the consequences, if you understood it all perfectly in
preservation of that entire landscape is you hopefully embrace
and protect most of it until you can further understand it. I
suppose if we want to allocate a lot of dollars we could
probably get--we need that baseline information but how far we
go, I guess, is always an open question.
I know you have got other witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and I
know the focus today is apparently on Yellowstone which is one
of our most magnificent units so let me just yield back the
time. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple
of brief questions. I know not all parks have the same
attendance. Did you look at attendance at individual parks and
the rise or the change in attendance levels at parks when you
did your assessment?
Mr. Barry Hill. Yes. And here again I mentioned earlier I
think the visitation figures are much debatable in terms of
what figures are being used, what has been happening, but the
specific parks we went to, I would say about two-thirds of them
were experiencing increases. For example, for eight of the 12
parks we went to during the '95 review eight of the 12 parks
experienced increases. The average increase was about 26
percent in those eight parks.
It ranged up to 54 percent of an increase. Individual
parks, some individual parks, are showing quite dramatic
increases. For example, Mr. Hansen, the Arches National Park
has become very popular with an increase of about 130 percent
since 1985. So I think what you are finding is there are some
very, very popular parks that have experienced some dramatic
increases.
Mr. Gibbons. Of course some new parks are also going to
experience a dramatic increase in their visitation simply
because they are new to the scene, aren't they? Great Basin
National Park in Nevada. That has only been around for what,
ten years? As soon as people find out about it the visitation
numbers start rising. But not all parks are rising, are they?
Mr. Fowler. No, sir, they are not.
Mr. Gibbons. And the other one-third, what about the third
we did not talk about?
Mr. Fowler. The visitation has gone down.
Mr. Gibbons. It has gone down? So overall across the board
in America's park system, has visitation dramatically risen,
stayed average, slightly decreased? What is your opinion?
Mr. Fowler. According to Park Service figures that I have
seen most recently it has pretty much stabilized in the last
few years.
Mr. Gibbons. So it has.
Mr. Fowler. But there is difficulty with that figure and it
has been a source of a lot of discussion and the Park Service
constantly sort of revises its counting methodology and
improves its counting methodology and revises the figures.
Mr. Gibbons. It counts people who have gone into the park
and not come out twice?
Mr. Gibbons. Maybe, I do not know.
Mr. Gibbons. When you look at rising population or rising
attendance figures of national parks, did you compare the fees
assessed for those parks with the needs of the park system
based on the demand or the utilization of the park?
Mr. Fowler. The entrance fees?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes.
Mr. Fowler. We had some numbers on those on what it would
take, for example, to cover the operating costs of the park in
terms of fees.
Mr. Gibbons. Was there any relationship that you found in
terms of the fees, were they adequate to sustain the operation
of the park?
Mr. Fowler. No sir.
Mr. Gibbons. Is there any fee that would be adequate at
this time that America would be settling or would be satisfied
with to visit a park?
Mr. Barry Hill. You would have to ask the Americans that.
Certainly the Park Service is now experimenting in 100 parks
with increased entrance fees, essentially doubling the fees.
Whether that amount that they are charging is too much, not
enough, we cannot say, but certainly for the next three years
they will be experimenting with increased entrance fees and a
portion of those fees would be staying within the park which is
certainly different than has been happening in the past and
that should really help them, I think, in terms of fulfilling
some more of their needs but it will not cover the deficit.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Regarding your last question, we are
still working on park fee legislation. NPS was given the right
to collect fees at a few select parks which they have done. I
think it is a healthy step forward. I think we will have to
come up with a park fee bill. I think it has got to be. I do
not know how else we can avoid that.
Mr. Hill, as I look at your testimony it just seems to come
down that they need--the parks need this information and we
just do not know the current condition of the parks. That seems
to be the problem. We just do not seem to know where they are.
And in the current year NPS has been allocated about $200
million for resource stewardship, is that correct?
Mr. Barry Hill. That is correct.
Mr. Hansen. And I do not know if Congress has placed any
limits on the expenditure of these fund. To me if I may
respectfully say so it is a matter of priorities with the Park
Service and they really have not made a priority of using it
for that area, therefore, they probably do not know the
condition of the parks.
Now in relation to the gentleman from Minnesota he talked
about the Biological Survey, doing reasearch in lieu of the
NPS. Our studies indicate the Park Service is back filling
themselves coming up with park people so they would have a
better handle on this rather than having the Biological Survey
do it. I personally have not seen the Biological Survey be a
real successful situation and I think it was better when the
National Park Service conducted their own research.
Your testimony, and this is just kind of a statement on my
part, but your testimony indicates the national park visitation
has increased. Well, this comes right from the Park Service.
Here is their own facts on this, their own figures, and you
notice that in '88 was the high point, much higher than it is
from '89 up through '95.
Mr. Barry Hill. Mr. Chairman, and correct me, Cliff, if
this is not correct, but I believe they made an adjustment to
the way they calculate the visitation around that period so it
really is difficult to say what the trend has been.
Mr. Hansen. Would not it be a more correct statement to say
that it has kind of flattened out over the last four or five
years? Now here is the thing that bothers this committee. We
see the amount of money going in increasing but we do not see
visitation, I mean the lines do not go together. They do not
parallel each other. One stays flat and the other goes up.
On the other hand, as everyone has pointed out, we got some
tremendous problems with the park. As the gentleman from
Minnesota said, we do have a road problem. We have problems
with in holdings. All these thing we have not squared away. A
lot of that is the reason for this hearing so we can find out
exactly the condition of the parks and where the money really
ought to go. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Barry Hill. I agree with that and I also point out that
the work we have done has shown that since '85 there has been a
real increase in their operations budget of 52 percent. That is
adjusted after inflation. And certainly regardless of what
figures you use visitation would not be keeping pace with that
rate so I think your assessment in terms of the Congress has
been providing additional funds compared to the increase in
visitation is a correct one.
Mr. Hansen. We are concerned about additional funds for the
parks so we find ourselves in a situation where Mr. Kennedy, if
we wanted to drill him, he could tell us all kind of horror
stories and he could be right. It is the idea of using the
money smarter, I guess, but we will get into that at another
time and probably additional hearings.
I notice that the gentlelady from Idaho has joined us. Does
the gentlelady from Idaho have any questions for the witness?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no
questions.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hill, gentlemen, we
appreciate you being here. Oh, the gentleman from--hand on just
a minute. The ranking member has another question.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just have one more question. And, Mr.
Chairman, I do like to particularly note the presence of our
distinguished friend and gentleman from Minnesota certainly
having served as the Chairman for the Subcommittee for ten
years I certainly trust and have a confidence in his opinion in
our operations here of the Subcommittee.
I do want to follow up on a question that was raised by the
gentlelady from Wyoming, as well as the gentleman from
Minnesota, and that is on the question of whether or not as a
matter of public policy and law to continue the authorization
of some 350 park superintendents, authorizing them the
discretion of basically how to reprogram or reassess the
priorities once the funding is given for the usage of that
particular park.
And I would like to ask Mr. Hill if that is still good
public policy or do you wish to allow Washington to set the
priorities. I think that seems to be one of the basic
fundamental problems that some of the members have is that when
money is given to that particular park the superintendent turns
around and says, no, I have a different set of priorities
because the circumstances have changed.
Do you think we should continue to allow that policy to be
in force, give discretion to the park superintendents and let
us not hassle with it in terms of how he can best utilize the
use of those funds for that park?
Mr. Barry Hill. I will not totally agree with that. I do
believe that the park supervisors--we have to allow the park
supervisors to manage the parks. They know their park better
than anybody. They know what the needs are and what the daily
challenges and demands that they face.
What we are concerned about is the lack of accountability
in terms of the park supervisor reporting back how he is
managing that park, and let me give you an example. The $200
million that has been authorized for the past few--on a yearly
basis for the past few years to do the resource stewardship
work, when that gets translated down to the park level those
funds are intermingled with other park resources. They are not
kept separate.
We cannot track just to what extent those resources which
the Congress intended to go toward the resource stewardship
area, how much of that is actually going there and how much is
being used for other demands that the park supervisor is facing
on a daily basis. So we would like to see a little more
accountability in the process.
I think the Park Service supervisors need to manage the
parks but they have to be accountable to how they are managing
it and report that back both to the Washington Park Service
headquarters, as well as to the Congress.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think it might be more practical
that perhaps by executive order for the Secretary of Interior
to do it or do you need legislation from the Congress to do the
very thing that you suggest? I mean point well taken.
Mr. Barry Hill. I think there has been plenty of
legislation and Mr. Fowler mentioned earlier the GPRA
requirements which will certainly strengthen that, the chief
financial officer's requirements that supposedly will
strengthen the financial management and accounting systems.
There has been plenty of legislation passed. I think what
is needed now is some additional oversight and some attention
being directed----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So in your best opinion we have 350
little kingdoms going around the country without any
accountability, neither to the Congress nor to the people. Is
that your basic assessment?
Mr. Barry Hill. I would not call them kingdoms but I would
certainly like to see like strength in accountability being
exercised throughout the system.
Mr. Vento. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would just
suggest that the process of reassessment and levying, taking
money back by the Director has not been unknown in the Park
Service. Finding a balance between the on-the-ground hands-on
superintendent and the role in terms of public policy here is a
very big task.
I am certain that whether it is in Minnesota or California
or Utah that the superintendent has to have some responsibility
on the ground. This balance is one that I would suggest you pay
a lot of attention to because it gets into concessions and a
lot of other activities.
Furthermore, of course, the issue here is one of
collaboration in terms of collecting this data. We have had--
this is not the only thing. It was not just the National
Biological Survey, now the Biological Resource Division, that
had responsibility for a certain sector of science. It is also
that the Park Service itself reorganized how they do the
science so that they do not have a scientist in the park but
they have a cluster of scientists that serve because of the
greater degrees required.
And the other aspect was that we passed legislation dealing
with the cooperative research program so that the Park Service
now is working with universities across the country, including
some in Minnesota, and I am sure some in your States. Montana,
I am certain, would have a big responsibility with the Forest
Service and the Park Service.
And so the whole issue of this data collection and baseline
data is a collaborative one with the States. We all get into
our fixation about the feds and the confrontation but there is
a lot more collaboration here and there probably needs to be
even more.
As we know, the Park Service does not manage the fish and
game within the State. They do within the parks supposedly but
not within the State. That is something the States zealously
guard and have done a pretty good job with it. I just wanted to
add that. Other than this if you look at these reports a lot of
the responsibilities of these parks are not longer de facto.
They are cutting right up to the borders of them.
We have got external threats. The reports that the GAO did
pointed out that the leading number of threats are external
threats to the park. The activities going on, the dams that are
being built, the cultivation that is going on, the pesticides
that are being used, all of this of course is dramatically
impacting the parks.
You need more than simply to do research on it. Of course,
the whole supposition here as you get information is that you
are going to do something with it. I think that most of us
probably have sort of a pause in terms of trans-boundary types
of activities in terms of what the parks are going to do with
it.
We could all ask for more information but the question is
are we going to act on that information. We are going to get it
but what are we going to do about it when we get it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The time
of the gentleman is up. Let me point out to the members of the
committee that we are going to go out of this room in two hours
and five minutes and we have got three panels ahead of us and
we are out and another group is in. It is really warm in here.
Take your coats off, it will make you more comfortable. For
some reason it is really heated up in Washington today.
Thank you, Mr. Hill, gentlemen. We appreciate so much your
being with us. We will ask our next panel: Dr. David
Policansky, Associate Director, National Research Council; Mr.
Paul C. Pritchard, President, National Parks and Conservation
Association; and Dr. Robert M. Linn, Executive Director, The
George Wright Society, if you gentlemen would please come up.
Paul, if it is OK with you, we will start with you and go
across, is that all right?
Mr. Pritchard. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Everybody knows the rules. Five minutes. Does
anybody have a strong objection to that? Hearing nothing, we
will accept the five minutes as the time period. Mr. Pritchard,
again thanks for being with us. We will turn the time to you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF PAUL C. PRITCHARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARKS AND
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Pritchard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
saying how much I appreciate the leadership that you and Mr.
Vento have long shown on this issue. If the committee and all
the people who are here and all of us who have been concerned
about this issue are not aware of it, you both have shown a
continuing commitment and concern about the need for science,
and the National Parks and Conservation Association is aware of
that and appreciates this particular role of leadership that
you have shown.
I represent 500,000 private citizens. We do not seek, we do
not accept government funds. We are a private citizen group
that was founded in 1919 to preserve the National Park System
and we are proud of that legacy. And one of our original goals
in 1919 was to thoroughly study the national parks and to make
known to the public the information gained from the national
parks.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my testimony for the
record and an appendix in detail so I would just summarize that
testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Pritchard. Thank you, sir. Over the past 35 years there
have been 15 studies that have been dealing with this issue.
Two of them funded by my association largely have dealt with
the issue of what we need to properly manage the National Park
System. The most important, I think, the most recent one for us
was in 1989. The Chair of the Yale School of Forestry, I wish
it would have been Brigham Young or one of the more western
schools, but Yale was the school renowned in forestry and Dr.
John Gordon chaired that.
And in that report which was very well done by a cross
section of historians, naturalists, all sorts of talents, they
came to a simple conclusion which I would like to suggest to
you today is paramount in your deliberation. And that is you
cannot manage what you do not understand. The Park Service does
not have the capacity today to manage what it does not
understand.
That study was followed up by another study which you will
hear about in a few minutes, a study which paralleled the
recommendations from the Gordon Commission. In 1996 the Park
Service looked at the impact of having transferred its
scientists to the National Biological Survey. I would just like
to summarize one conclusion from the Park Service's own study.
That conclusion was that managers before the transfer were
likely to have interface with scientific information in over 32
percent of the research decisions that they make with the
scientific community. Today they have less than 11 percent of
an opportunity to have any scientific input into management
decisions, a drop from 32 percent to 11 percent in just a
matter of a few years, and the details of that study are
further pointed out.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that legislation which is outlined
on page two of my testimony and in detail would clearly show
that this would be beneficial and must be established for the
Park Service; that it will help avoid conflict; it will save a
great deal of money, now wasted dollars; and that it will give
the sense to the public that there is proper management being
carried out in the national parks.
I would like to specifically refer you all to that page two
because there are six points there which we would suggest, but
they basically are highlighted, that we need a scientific
mandate, that we need a science management program, that we
need to have scientists used for decisionmaking in the Park
Service, that the public has a right to know that information,
that we need to have a continuing budget.
These are the recommendations that we would make to this
committee. And every park that we are talking about here today,
you have talked about the Everglades and the death of the
Florida Bay. Critical issues needing study. You have talked
about your home State and the problems just across the border
in Death Valley.
I was there. We have a terrible problem with the water
supply and the regime flowing into Death Valley from Nevada. We
need to know what is happening there. We need to know in a
number of other parks information on clean air. We did a study
on the status of global warming. We found that 49 of the 54
units of the National Park System are threatened by global
warming.
This study was done by NPCA in cooperation with the Climate
Institute. There is no research that we know of that is going
on in the Park Service that can clearly help us plan for this
very significant and disturbing conclusion that was found by
the scientists who worked on this study.
And finally in Yellowstone. Over 1,000 of the bison have
died, yet the Park Service's own study, which we understand is
coming out, says there is no overpopulation of bison in
Yellowstone and yet 1,000 bison have been killed, slaughtered
or have died for no logically scientifically based reason.
There is no scientific documentation that brucellosis is
transferred to cattle in the wild.
We need to know the answers to this and that is what the
American people deserve. Mr. Chairman, we believe that there is
bipartisan support for this, there is conservation support for
this. The academic, the research institutions, the American
people would support the leadership of the committee in
carrying out this mandate.
Without this, this crisis that exists in the National Park
Service will continue because the Park Service cannot manage
what it does not understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Pritchard may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. Dr. Policansky. I
hope I pronounced that right.
Mr. Policansky. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hansen. We will turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POLICANSKY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Policansky. Chairman Hansen, and members of the
Subcommittee. I am David Policansky. I am the Associate
Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
at the National Research Council. Your name tag gives me way
too much credit. And the National Research Council, as you all
know, is a private nonprofit organization which is the
operating arm of the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.
I have testimony on the report that the National Research
Council prepared ``Science and the National Parks,'' which was
published in 1992. Copies of the report are available to you. I
will briefly summarize the testimony and ask that this be put
in the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Policansky. And I would just remind you that the study
was done in the early 1990's before many of the researches at
the National Park Service were transferred to the National
Biological Service. Many people this morning have talked about
the need for science and research in the national parks so I
will not spend more time on that.
I will tell you that the National Research Committee
concluded that there was not a clearly defined science program
at the National Park Service. It was combined with the resource
management program and other aspects of the management of the
parks and so it was not separate. And this lack of a defined
science program hampered research planning, tracking of
expenditures and accountability for results.
The lack of formal structure and clear NPS leadership also
made assessing the program difficult. The National Research
Council committee spent much time deliberating on appropriate
recommendations, recognizing that so many reports had made
recommendations before without any significant changes.
One particular problem was controversial to the committee
as it had been in the past and that was the question of whether
the leadership of the Park Service's science program should be
centralized or decentralized. The committee came down on the
side of more centralization because the decentralized approach
is often inefficient and because, as Mr. Pritchard has just
alluded to in an example of this, many scientific challenges
have a broader scope than individual parks or even in the whole
NPS individual region.
The committee made three major recommendations. The first
was that there be an explicit legislative mandate for a
research mission. Others have said this many times and it seems
clear that without it, it is going to be difficult to get an
adequate scientific basis in the National Park Service for
science.
The committee made this recommendation to eliminate once
and for all any ambiguity in the scientific responsibilities of
the Park Service. In addition to needing this for understanding
the parks themselves, the national parks because of their
relative lack of human disturbance and long-term protection
provide excellent opportunities for scientific research.
Thus, the committee recommended an approach that included
what it called ``science for the parks'' and ``the parks for
science.'' Science for the parks is what a lot of people have
been talking about here today, what science do we need to
understand and manage the properties in the National Park
Service.
The parks for science was using the national parks as
wonderful, undisturbed laboratories to answer broader and
longer term scientific questions that are puzzling the
community and the globe, and our committee felt that this was a
very important opportunity that was essential to take advantage
of.
The second recommendation was that the science program
should have separate funding and reporting autonomy. The Park
Service should elevate and give substantial budgetary autonomy
to its science program. This should include both research
planning and the resources needed to conduct a comprehensive
program of both natural and social science research. The
program should be led by someone who really understands
science.
And the third recommendation was that the credibility and
quality control of the science program both need enhancement.
To achieve this, the committee recommended that the Park
Service elevate and reinvigorate the position of chief
scientist. The incumbent should be a scientist of high stature
in the scientific community and the sole responsibility of that
position should be the administration and leadership of the
science program. This should not just be one of many duties of
the individual.
The committee also recommended that the Park Service in
cooperation with other agencies establish a competitive grants
program in order to encourage more external, i.e., non-Park
Service scientists to do research in national parks. And,
finally, the committee recommended that the Park Service
establish a high-level scientific advisory board to provide
long-term guidance in planning, evaluating, and setting policy
for the science program.
The parks are national treasures. As the report pointed
out, pressures on the parks are increasing even if not
necessarily visitation. It would be a waste of a unique
resource not to use the parks with the proper safeguards to
help understand and address the scientific challenges faced
throughout the biosphere. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the Subcommittee.
[Statement of Mr. Policansky may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Linn.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. LINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE GEORGE
WRIGHT SOCIETY
Mr. Linn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have already covered
the fact, I guess, that the values of parks are outstanding and
must be somehow preserved in perpetuity. If we really expect
the Park Service to maintain these values in perpetuity, the
Park Service must be given the tools and abilities needed for
the job. At a bare minimum, the Service should have the
authorization to carry out or obtain research needed for
protection in perpetuity of lands and objects and funding
needed to do that.
Now one of the subjects I wanted to cover, perpetuitous
research, was done in the 1950's and the 1960's in Sequoia
National Park. It was proven by several researchers that the
putting out of low ground fires in Sequoia National Park would
be responsible for the eventual disappearance of the Giant
Sequoias and that was just perpetuitous research. I do not know
if it had not been done at the time or whether it has been done
since.
There are a number of things like that and it is
unfortunate. We have been seeing these things in various kinds
of words and reports for years. I think it is just simply time
we get down to making it work. I sincerely recommend that there
be an explicit legislative mandate for the National Park
Service to perform or obtain somehow necessary research to
carry out its Organic Act mandate, and supplying the National
Park Service with sufficient funds to carry out or contract for
required research.
And, three, supporting the USGS Biological Resources
Division in its important mission of strategic research in
cooperative activities with the National Park Service. That is
the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Linn may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Do you need another minute?
Mr. Linn. Pardon me?
Mr. Hansen. Did you need some more time?
Mr. Linn. No, I do not. I think everything has been said
that I wanted to say.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
American Samoa. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pritchard, I
have heard every word you mentioned earlier about the National
Park Service cannot manage what it does not understand, and I
am sure you have a wealth of experience in dealing with these
issues, and I noted in your statement that this has been an
ongoing effort on the part of your council and the association.
It seems to give me a sense that the committee has not been
listening to your recommendations or am I correct that the
committee has taken seriously some of your recommendations and
have in effect enacted legislation to accommodate those
concerns that the council has advocated for all these years?
Mr. Pritchard. Congressman, I would say that we always want
more than what we get from the committee. That is the very
nature of our business and we understand that. I think the
commitment of the committee in the 1980's was to focus on this
issue and in particular our call for greater commitment to not
the physical capital in the parks, we find these numbers to be
elusive, never have been documented, and so we would raise the
question to the committee, what is this $4 billion, $5 billion.
We have no idea what it is.
What we are concerned, sir, is for the intellectual capital
of the National Park System. The scientists, the interpreters,
the resource managers, that is the crisis in the national
parks. And we would suggest that unless there is a health and
safety issue that this Congress not spend one more dollar on
the infrastructure of the National Park System until you have
the proper science and until you have the talent in there, the
three fields that the Park Service represent. We feel very
strongly about that and we think that would lead to good public
policy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So it is your honest opinion on behalf of
the 500,000 citizens, good citizens of our country that
represents the council that the scientists, if we have any in
the national parks, you are seriously questioning the fact that
they can adequately do the job that you are suggesting here?
Mr. Pritchard. Yes, sir, I do--I am sorry.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You are suggesting that the NPS just does
not have the scientific caliber that you feel they ought to
have to provide the scientific data that the Park Service
seriously needs in order to carry out its functions.
Mr. Pritchard. Yes, sir. What happened, I think, was a move
in the right direction after the Gordon Commission and the
National Research Council's report, and the Park Service began
to build a scientific staff. When the Park Service staff were
transferred to the National Biological Survey we saw the end of
a fledgling program that really had never existed since George
Wright tried to make it happen back in the 1930's.
We would argue that it is time to carry out this
legislative mandate that all three of us have called for and
decreed a clear mandate that no decision be made in the Park
Service without well-documented science.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You are also suggesting that the Congress
should establish an independent research division or arm within
the National Park Service? I am not clear on your suggestion
here. Independent in the sense that it should be on its own and
not be subject to any supervision or administration of the Park
Service or what do you suggest?
Mr. Pritchard. No, sir. Our recommendation is that you have
the chief scientist which you had in the past and that that
scientist report directly to the Director of the National Park
Service, and that that person be accountable in an annual
report which I referred to in my testimony on how well the Park
Service is using science to make the decisions so that you, the
members of the committee, know that these dollars are being
properly invested.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How do we go about in the selection
process that you know that these scientists are not only of the
caliber of their expertise but are not taken or prejudiced by
the politicians or even by the bureaucrats, to suggest that
these people are simply going to do the instructions or, you
know, the kind of pressure that says, hey, I want you to bend
this way.
It is just like a computer, garbage in and garbage out. I
am not suggesting our scientists are a bunch of garbage but I
am suggesting how would you go about selecting a panel of
scientific persons that the Congress as well as the
Administration can feel comfortable that they truly will work
and act as an independent group giving objective and truthful
scientific information and data that is needed?
Mr. Pritchard. It is a crucial question you ask. We
recommend several solutions. First of all, another part of the
problem--I spoke with the Dean of one of the prominent research
park study programs in the country. He said you also have to
worry about today calcification just of knowledge, that many
scientists you might hire are not going to be able to keep up
on things.
I believe the universities can offer tremendous asset. I
believe they should be engaged. I believe also the private
sector should be. It must be an advisory council that oversees
this process. And, finally, I think that we should have an
annual report and all those decisions that are made should be
well documented before they are made.
I think the problems we have at Yellowstone today are
because we have not had that process in place so I am in full
agreement with the direction of your questions and I hope I
have given you some thoughts on how we would resolve it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Policansky.
Mr. Policansky. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rick Hill. You made some reference to Yellowstone Park
in your testimony and in your answer, and I would just like to
probe that whole area a little more since I represent Montana.
In your testimony you make reference, and in fact the
statements says one-third of Yellowstone National Park's
buffalo have been sacrificed because the National Park Service,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Montana----
Mr. Policansky. Excuse me, sir. I think that you are
confusing my testimony with somebody else's.
Mr. Rick Hill. I am sorry. Mr. Pritchard. I apologize.
Mr. Policansky. I would be happy to have him answer though.
Mr. Rick Hill. I apologize. Well, refused to base the
management on facts. I will finish my question. What facts have
the National Park Service and the State of Montana refused to
recognize in your opinion?
Mr. Pritchard. Sir, you are asking me that question. A
number of facts. First of all, we have no winter use plan. The
governor has called for it. We believe there should be a winter
use plan. I think that is a very important missing link.
Secondly, I think the relationship of the bison and the snow
grooming and the trails are a very important issue that has not
been fully understood, and that is what is causing a lot of the
conflict with the private property owners.
Thirdly, the whole scientific issue which is not the Park
Service's responsibility, the APHIS issue though is one that
must be looked at. I think this is a very confused and
nonscientific slaughter that is occurring today, sir, and I
think it is a disgrace. So I would be happy to go on but those
are the key facts.
Mr. Rick Hill. Yesterday Mary Meagher, who has studied the
bison for 38 years, basically said that what has occurred will
ensure the herds' future. The drop in numbers exactly is what
the system needs, she said. About half of Yellowstone's bison
herd has been decimated so far. There is no cause for any fear
of immediate extinction of the animals.
And she went on to basically support the fact that the
bison herd needs to be managed to a level of less than 2,000.
Would you agree with her comments or disagree with those
comments?
Mr. Pritchard. Dr. Meagher and I have talked several
weekends in a row. I find her opinion very important. I think
it is a shame that she is not able to be more involved in the
day to day management decisions. I am not a scientist. I am not
going to suggest to you that her opinion is right or wrong. I
think there are other scientific opinions.
For example, the interior herd has not been studied and the
death right there is phenomenal. We have no idea what is
causing it and we have no way of solving the problem. The
assumption, Congressman, that we can leave nature to itself to
manage itself today is foolhardy. I think we all realize that
mankind has had such significant intrusion in the natural parks
that we need to have more science and that is simply all we are
asking for.
But one scientist does not make a valid decision or
opinion. And what has happened is we have far exceeded the
level of death of that herd that she even agreed to so even
within those numbers we are still going to see that number drop
well below the 2,000 level.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have
a question but I want to thank the witnesses for their
testimony. I commend all of you for your steadfastness to a
mission and for coming in today to reiterate recommendations
that have been made time and time again.
And I would like to highlight the fact that in your report,
Mr. Pritchard, you point out 15 recommendations that were made
in 1988 and repeated in 1992. And of those 15 recommendations
three had some action. One actually became worse, and 11 of
those 15 no action was taken and I hope that we can change that
with this Subcommittee.
Mr. Pritchard. May I respond, Doctor? Well, first of all,
let me--I am very pleased, may I say that you have an excellent
opportunity in the Virgin Islands, some of the most leading
researchers in the whole issue of the very important park
system you have there. And I hope that we can get them the
resources to properly not only learn from the Virgin Islands
but also transfer that to the other islands.
And I am glad that you are part of this committee
especially with your personal background in this area. So thank
you for being so attentive to that issue.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you.
Mr. Policansky. May I make a brief response? I would just
like to point out, and thank you for your comments, that in the
Natural Research Council's report it identified several
researchers at the National Park Service that are considered to
be outstanding national class researchers.
And so based on the way the Park Service was in 1992
certainly there was a nucleus to be built on. It did point out
that the Park Service had a smaller proportion of its staff in
research than other land management agencies, only being about
2 percent compared with about 8 or 9 or 10 percent for others.
But it was not that there were not outstanding individuals in
the Park Service. There were.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Wyoming.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to address
Mr. Pritchard first. I represent the State of Wyoming. We have,
as you know, about 90 percent of Yellowstone National Park in
our State. And I want you to know that I agree with you, with
all three of you, much, much more than I disagree with you. But
there are a few points that I would like to clarify.
You stated earlier that the National Park Service manages
the wildlife within the park while the States manage the
wildlife outside the park. Now where did you get that
information, and the only reason I am asking that is because in
Yellowstone the management of the bison has been called natural
regulation which is nothing more than letting nature taking its
course.
And while I think it appeared from your testimony you
thought that or think that the brucellosis problem is the only
one that comes into play with those bison leaving the park, I
would submit that there is a lot bigger problem than that and
that is overpopulation. And I do not know if you have ever seen
a starving animal but I have seen those buffalo and they are
starving. They have been starving for months.
And there just is not enough resource there to sustain that
many buffalo, that many bison, in the park. So I just wondered
if that was in statute or what, where you came up with that
that the National Park Service manages all of the wildlife
within the park, and would you consider natural regulation
managing wildlife?
Mr. Pritchard. If I may, I would like to go to the second
question first. I do not believe natural regulation makes sense
today and so I agree and I think we have terrible problems that
we have not even addressed with the elk and truly probably, I
am not a scientist, but I assume with overpopulation. And I
think that is an issue which I would like to see the Park
Service look quickly at.
Regarding the bison themselves, the Park Service has done
some research. I hope it will be divulged today but their
feelings are that the bison are not overpopulating the
resource. That is what we have been told. We look forward to
seeing that study so you may wish to ask the Park Service and
possibly I was told incorrectly.
Regarding the issue of who manages wildlife in the national
parks, of course it depends on the legislation that the
Congress passes. In many park units it is in fact the State
wildlife agency that does, for example, in Alaska. We believe
the Park Service should be responsible for it and Yellowstone
is responsible for the wildlife there.
But I think the Chairman's introductory comments were very
important and that is the lack of real understanding of the
wildlife regimes, the ecosystems, the lack of monitoring that
information in the National Park System. And so really what it
comes down to is the opinion of those who are in the park and I
think that is an unfortunate assumption based upon that natural
regulation which was based upon a commission many years ago
that that was the way it was best to leave them be. I do not
believe we can go forward with that theory.
Let me also commend Wyoming. I think your approach to
brucellosis makes a lot of sense. As a cattle rancher myself
having grown up in that family knowing some, Bill Resor, and
others in the Jackson area, I have talked to them also, Wyoming
has a logical approach.
I wish that APHIS would recognize that in Montana also. I
think we could have solved this problem. And we as an
association even offered to pay for the inoculation in Montana,
so we have been trying to find solutions.
Mrs Cubin. Unfortunately, I do not know if you are aware,
the State of Alabama put a quarantine on any cattle from
Wyoming today or the announcement was today, which is kind of
ironic when Wyoming is brucellosis free and Alabama is not
brucellosis free, but they have not accepted or given credit to
the efforts that we have made in inoculating the elk and our
program has proven that it really does work.
Mr. Pritchard. May I just add, I think that that points out
what I said earlier and that is that I think the Yellowstone
brucellosis issue is one of the most confusing unscientific
actions that has ever been perpetrated on the wildlife in the
national parks and on the American people and I think it is a
shame.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, I have to take up for the State of
Montana here because the State of Montana is caught right in
the middle of two Federal agencies and on the one hand, well,
they are damned if they do and they are damned if they do not.
And I am anxious to--I hope I am here when the superintendent
of the Park Service comes up because I feel a great
responsibility for those 1,000 bison that have been killed but
I understand that we have to respect private property rights
and that when you are caught between two agencies of the
Federal Government you are just in a real tough situation. And
I hope that the Park Service can feel some sense of
responsibility about that too. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just briefly I
would provide some geographical balance here. It is interesting
to hear about Yellowstone and the issues of the bison. However,
I would be interested, and I direct this to Mr. Pritchard and
other members of the panel, in terms of the science and
resource management as it relates to our national parks, would
you or any of you, for that matter, have any observations or
comments how it relates to parks such as the National Seashore
Park on Cape Cod and in terms of our new initiative back in
Massachusetts, the Boston Harbor Islands initiative.
Mr. Policansky. Mr. Delahunt, our report mentions the Cape
Cod National Seashore as an example where science was
successful at helping bring a reasonable resolution to the
question of off-road vehicles, protection of beaches, and other
such examples, and that is an example that I think the Park
Service should be pleased with.
There are other examples both of successful application of
science and areas where more science is needed in the east.
But, as you know, sir, most of the properties in terms of the
land area are in the west so the number and scale of problems
are larger in the west for that reason.
Mr. Pritchard. May I add, sir, that one of our
recommendations is the tremendous need for more science
regarding cultural resources which of course is the backbone of
all the parks nationwide, every park. Cape Krustenstern on the
western shore of Alaska all the way to the great seashores and
all the historic sites to the Virgin Islands and Salt River
Bay. The whole system, there is very little knowledge about the
cultural resources.
It was not until Mr. Vento and the committee several years
ago called this in the case of the Park Service that we finally
had an inventory of--just a basic inventory of--the cultural
resources in the National Park System. That has been done in
the last ten years. Before that, you could literally walk into
a building across the street, the U.S. train station when it
was under the Park Service, and walk into rooms that were not
locked and pick up artifacts from Abraham Lincoln.
This is woefully and inadequately a crying need in the
National Park System. It begins with inventories and it begins
with dealing with cultural resources as much as it does natural
resources.
Mr. Delahunt. In my own experience with the National
Seashore, the National Park Service has done an extremely good
job of identifying historic and cultural artifacts and points
of interest in terms of at least that particular entity.
Mr. Policansky. Let me just mention another example, if I
may, sir. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the Cape
Hatteras lighthouse, was and is facing risk from being washed
into the sea and you from Massachusetts are familiar with that
with the older lighthouses, particularly Great Point on
Nantucket.
The Park Service did what I think it should have done. It
sought scientific advice, actually came to the National
Research Council, and we recommended that the lighthouse be
moved. Now that hasn't happened. I am not convinced that that
was the Park Service's fault, but at least there is another
example where they did use science in identifying both the
natural and the cultural resources and how to manage them.
Mr. Delahunt. I think that also happened twice on Cape Cod
in terms of Nauset Light and Highland Light.
Mr. Policansky. Highland Light was moved. Cape Poge was
moved. Many of them up there.
Mr. Delahunt. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The lady from Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the lady
from Wyoming. I appreciate your statements. I do have some
questions though that appear to be--well, I think maybe I just
better ask because I need more information. Mr. Pritchard, in
your testimony you talk about the cultural resources in the
southwest portion of our country being damaged by the Park
Service and so therefore we need more science and an
investigation into this. What has the damage been?
Mr. Pritchard. I am sorry if my testimony suggested there
has been damage by the Park Service. I certainly did not mean
to say that. What has happened is the damage has occurred by
the lack of the money, the funds to do the research to
understand the proper mortar, to do the maintenance on those
structures, and the Park Service has initiated a program in
that area to deal with those.
Those cultural resources depend on having a year round
staff of technicians who largely come from the pueblos and the
communities and many of them are retiring or leaving the Park
Service. And so this is a good example and a good question that
you ask because the need is to train the next generation of
individuals who will maintain those structures, who will
understand the very delicate nature of those structures, will
use the right implements, the tools, the mortar, all those
various items.
It is a very fine art and one in which the Park Service
cannot skip a generation. It must continue to have that
knowledge. And without that it will be lost forever.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You may want to make a correction for the
record to your testimony. It is on page nine. But specifically
what has been the damage that has occurred to these prehistoric
places?
Mr. Pritchard. Well, this is--may I ask just for a second?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is this on my time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Pritchard. Fortunately for me I have a very competent
staff and they suggest that in fact there is no need for us to
amend our testimony, that in fact in the excavation of the
archaeological resources there was damage done, that the
damages that were done were in part felt to have been done
because of improper excavation procedures. And so that is the
reason why the term ``damage'' is referred to here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. By the Park Service, right? The Park
Service did the excavation?
Mr. Pritchard. Yes. In some cases these are done by
contractors working for the Park Service under supervision of
the Park Service. I would say this is a minor--as far as I am
aware in my 25 years of working with the Park Service, I think
the issue is one which as I said before the Park Service is
very concerned about the preservation of the vanishing
treasures. The excavation is a major problem because of the
lack of tutorial facilities for the restoration and the
maintenance of that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And was this just one incident with regard
to excavation?
Mr. Pritchard. We would be happy to come back to you with
documentation on other incidents.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you. Also on page nine of your
testimony you talk about the fact that the basic research on
areas in Death Valley with regards to the area's hydrology has
not been done and if landowners and park lovers are at odds
over the allocation of water in the area that there is little
that we can do to resolve the conflict unless we have more
baseline information.
Does not the Department of Water Resources in California
have very well-qualified hydrologists who have studied the
groundwater if there is much in California, and in Death Valley
how many adjacent landowners live in Death Valley to compete
for the scarce resource, the water? How much development is
going on in Death Valley?
Mr. Pritchard. It is a very good question. There is no
development in Death Valley. Of course, it is a park that
straddles the State line. The water issue is largely to the
northwest of Las Vegas and a very important aquifer that is
being sought for water for the tremendous growth that is
threatening in the Las Vegas area.
And there are native communities that are making claims for
that water into those areas. I visited that area, met with the
Park Service scientists, and there is grave concern about the
aquifer which is largely in Nevada as it flows into California.
That is the assumption. Again, that is not well documented, but
it is needed to keep replenishing those areas of endangered
species, especially the pup fish and the other plants and
animals that are in that area.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In Death Valley?
Mr. Pritchard. In Death Valley, yes, ma'am. The water
coming from Nevada into Death Valley.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And then also you talk about the recent
informal review conducted by the NPCA has shown that 49 of our
54 national parks could lose their most significant features to
global climate change and you say this is due to global
warming. I think that--I see my red light but I think that in
the art of forming words to get ideas across that the
overstatement is something that we need to worry about.
I share with you the concern that we make good decisions
based on good science but there is so much conflict about
whether there really is global warming or not and to base an
allocation of a large amount of money on the fact that 49 of
our 54 national parks may lose their most significant features
sometimes may appear to be an overstatement. It does to me,
sir.
And I do want to work with you. I want to learn from you
what you know because you have spent so many years working with
the national parks and your association is very dedicated. But
one of your organizations that you--one of the grass roots
organizations in Yellowstone called Yellowstone Park Watchers'
Network. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Prichard. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, in their most recent newsletter they
state that Yellowstone is facing some of the greatest threats
ever to its world famous geothermal wonders including Old
Faithful that are vulnerable to development and we do want to
study that.
But they also go on to say that in the winter the air is so
polluted by snowmobilers that park rangers have to wear gas
masks and that is in their own newsletter. And it is just not
true unless Mr. Kennedy has some testimony to shed some light
on it.
Mr. Hansen. Do you want to briefly respond? We will have to
go on.
Mr. Pritchard. I think that is exactly what we are talking
about is that we need to have scientific information. The study
you refer to on global warming which we stand by was done in
cooperation with a very prestigious group, Climate Institute,
and we would be happy to share that, but we would ask the Park
Service to begin monitoring to see the impacts of global
warming.
And regarding the water use plan as we were talking about
before, and I think the governor of Montana and I are in full
agreement that there needs to be a winter use plan and until we
see that but there are pollution problems there in other parks
and they are very serious. So I welcome the opportunity to work
with you and I appreciate your questions and I think they are
appropriate ones that we will respond to.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Thank you. The air pollution problems in parks,
of course we have held hearings on ozone damage in Yosemite
Valley and so I do not know if there is any relationship
between geothermal air quality in combination with the exhaust
of snowmobiles but there are a lot of other problems, I can
tell you that.
One of the basic mandates of the Park Service is to do
research science. If you look at the Organic Act they are
supposed to. I think the issue is how far can they do it in
terms of the cutting edge. I think it should be clear to all of
us that we are going to march forward with the other planning
and management agencies who hold knowledge on how we can best
facilitate that process and then use the information.
And we have here a pretty distinguished scientist from
Wisconsin at Superior. I was a student incidentally of Dr.
Lasko at River Falls, one of your other ecologists from
Wisconsin in the State university system so we are very
pleased. The testimony that you have, I would just direct my
colleagues' attention to that on their table from pages three
through four and five. I am sure you will find it a lot more
exhaustive than his brief statement that Dr. Linn made.
He of course invites us to utilize the science of ecology.
We have for about the last three or four years run into major
battles over something called ecosystem management. And that is
going to continue because we are not just dealing with the
fauna and flora, the biological aspects of it, but I think the
many other physical aspects of what takes place.
We have been asking questions about that. I suppose if we
put it under the umbrellas of ecosystem management or eco
setting ecology that that causes problems for some of us. But
his testimony really comes before the next panel and
anticipates some of it. And since there is a focus on
Yellowstone, I guess one of the purposes today is to take an
example of how it is working, although I think that the issue
with regard to the southwest is good within the Park Service.
We understand when you take a building and expose it to the
air quality and other problems of 1997 you do end up with
problems. You are better off leaving them encased unless you
are going to use them for interpretation. In any case, he goes
on to point out, and I just want to give you an opportunity,
Dr. Linn, to explain that telling that science in the 60's is
not appropriate as it applies to the 1990's with regard to how
we manage the populations of bison, elk, bear, and
reintroduction of the wolf.
And so he points out three factors that are criticized,
that is, the vegetative modification by the various populations
in Yellowstone, principally bison and elk, the brucellosis
problem which he refers to that the preposterous uniform
methods of rules under United States Department of Agriculture,
APHIS, plus he goes on to point out the full nature--the issue
of historically what man did in Yellowstone.
So, Dr. Linn, I would like to give you a minute or so to
amplify what I have outlined here with regards to the
Yellowstone management and the concept of the necessity to
call.
Mr. Linn. If I recall, I hired Mary Meagher, Dr. Mary
Meagher, who I regard as an extremely careful and honest
scientist. In the 1960's the same brucellosis scare existed in
Montana and it was proven by Mary Meagher and one other
scientist in the Yellowstone area at the time that brucellosis
can be carried by elk or deer or even flies.
But whether it ever takes or not in cattle is another
question. I do not think there has been very much proven that
it does so that is my experience with the brucellosis thing.
Mr. Vento. Well, I appreciate your comments, the written
comments, that you have made with regard to vegetation and with
regard to that modification of vegetation and historic activity
based on paling the logical evidence with regard to pollen
studies for mud flies. It gets into a lot of details.
But I think what this points out is that we need a broader
based science. We need to use the information and accept it. I
am pleased, Dr. Linn, that you follow in the footsteps of many
other from Wisconsin from Sand County and other environs in
Wisconsin, a guy by the name of Leopold. And I am very pleased
to have that association with the system as an undergraduate
and graduate student and to have your testimony today. I think
it will be very useful to us in trying to deal with the other
testimony today. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did have some
issues with regard to Mr. Pritchard's comments about the
hydrologic studies under the State of Nevada. However, in view
of the time and the effort of us to move this hearing along, I
am going to defer that and possibly personally talk to him
later, but I will yield back my time on this to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Let me point out that we are halfway
through the testimony and we are more than halfway through the
time. Let me just ask Paul Pritchard one quick one if I may, a
quick answer. Do you believe that the research function should
be returned to the National Park Service or do you think it
ought to be left with USGS?
Mr. Pritchard. Returned to the Park Service, sir.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I like good short answers and
appreciate that very much. And thank you panel for being with
us. It is very kind of all three of you to be here. We will
excuse you and ask the next panel to come up.
Mr. Pritchard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Dr. Mark Boyce, Professor, University of
Wisconsin; Dr. Charles Kay, Utah State University; Dr. Richard
B. Keigley, United State Geological Survey; and Dr. Frederic H.
Wagner, Utah State University. If you would come forward. I am
going to take you in the order that I called your name, is that
all right. So first is Dr. Boyce, then Dr. Kay, Dr. Keigley,
and Dr. Wagner.
OK, you all know the rules. There is the thing in front of
you there. I would appreciate it if you would follow it. Dr.
Boyce, are you ready to go?
STATEMENT OF MARK BOYCE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Boyce. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to comment on the important issue of----
Mr. Hansen. For some reason we do not hear that mike as
well as others. Can you pull that up a little closer? It is
like if you used to be a pilot. They used to tell you to kiss
the microphone.
Mr. Boyce. Is this better? Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to comment on the
important issue of science in our national parks. My name is
Mark Boyce. I have been conducting ecological research on large
mammals in the greater Yellowstone area for 20 years.
I am currently editor-in-chief of the Journal of Wildlife
Management, and I am on the faculty of the University of
Wisconsin, Steven's Point. I have had experience working for
the Park Service as well as independently in the greater
Yellowstone area.
For four years I was Director of the University of Wyoming-
National Park Service Research Center where I was responsible
for administering competitive research contracts in the Rocky
Mountain region. We solicited proposals from scientists for
topics selected by park resource managers. I am an advocate for
science in our national parks. I am glad to support the
objective of this hearing for a new science initiative in the
National Park Service.
At the same time I would not want my comments to detract
from the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Reducing
redundancy and increasing efficiency through the establishment
of the Biological Resources Division really made sense, and the
BRD needs your support.
I like Mark Schaefer's idea of a system of ecosystem
science centers. I like the idea of a National Park Service
research mandate. If such direction were given by Congress I
would encourage the use of a peer reviewed competition to
insure good science. Prioritizing projects for research should
involve park management, and I believe most scientists would
agree that the National Science Foundation model for funding
research insures rigor and solid methods.
Yellowstone is not bankrupt. The northern range is not
overgrazed. I do not know if there are too many elk in
Yellowstone National Park but I would prefer to let the wolves
determine if there are too many elk in Yellowstone National
Park. Park research is not bankrupt. As evidence I would cite
the vast body of scientific peer-reviewed literature that has
appeared in the last five years, largely funded by
congressionally mandated studies on overgrazing, fire research,
and in anticipation of wolf recovery.
I generally support the National Park Service resource
management policy which I call ecological-process management
allowing natural ecological processes of predation, fire,
herbivory, nutrient cycling, births and deaths to function with
minimal human intervention. I believe that the National Park
Service needs good science for solid management but perhaps
even more importantly science needs parks.
Let me reinforce this last point. Good science is paramount
to insuring sound management in our national parks but the
opposite is true as well. How our parks are managed influences
the ecologist's ability to do good science. Scientists need
parks as controls to perform the basis for evaluating what we
do with the rest of the world. We should encourage the National
Park Service to continue with its policy of managing to
minimize the influence of humans on ecological process and
function.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for
the opportunity to share my views on science in the National
Park Service. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[Statement of Dr. Mark S. Boyce may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Dr. Kay.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. KAY, ADJUNCT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UTAH
STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Kay. Yes, I will need approximately seven minutes.
Steve Hodapp wanted me to include some additional material in
my oral testimony. First, I would like to thank the Chairman
and the committee for inviting me to testify today. I will only
summarize what I have already presented in my written
testimony.
Mr. Hansen. We will give you seven minutes.
Mr. Kay. OK. I have a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology and I am
presently an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of
Political Science at Utah State University. I am the only
independent, independently funded scientist to have conducted a
detailed evaluation of Yellowstone's ``natural regulation''
management program. I have also conducted extensive ecological
research in the southern Canadian Rockies for Parks Canada.
As you know, Yellowstone is presently managed under what is
termed ``natural regulation.'' This, though, is more than
simply letting nature take its course for it entails a specific
view of how nature operates. According to the Park Service,
ungulate populations will self regulate without overgrazing the
range. Predation is not important.
The Park Service is fond of saying that it has $3 million
of research that supports ``natural regulation.''
Unfortunately, most of those studies have not directly tested
``natural regulation'' and have largely been a waste of
taxpayer's money. Furthermore, the Park Service has refused to
fund research that may prove ``natural regulation'' wrong and
they have generally awarded contracts only to people who
produce results that support agency management.
In the rare circumstance where a contractor has produced a
report critical of park management, he has never received
additional funding and his credibility has been personally
attacked by the agency. In the equally rare circumstance where
a Park Service employee has dared challenge established agency
dogma, they have been reassigned, force-transferred, or
suffered disciplinary action. The next witness will address
this latter point.
Having admitted to spending at least $3 million of
taxpayer's money on research in Yellowstone, you would think
the Park Service would have a detailed study plan of how all
that work was designed to formally test ``natural regulation.''
That, though, turns out not to be the case.
In 1989, for instance, the Department of Interior's
Inspector General conducted an audit of research in Yellowstone
and three other national parks. The Inspector General found
that Yellowstone National Park did not have study plans for 23
of 41 research studies performed by its research staff. In
addition, the study plans that existed for the other 18
research studies were generally deficient with respect to
content.
The only time the Park Service has told the public exactly
what is meant by ``natural regulation,'' and laid out a
detailed plan for its study was 1971, and the agency
subsequently never followed its own study plan.
Riparian management has recently been a hot political topic
in the West, with environmentalists blaming ranchers for
overgrazing these critical habitats. So, as an example of what
``natural regulation'' means on the ground, let us look at the
condition and trend of willow communities on Yellowstone's
northern range. Now if ``natural regulation'' management
represents the epitome of land management, as claimed by the
Park Service and various environmental groups, then surely
Yellowstone's riparian areas should be in excellent condition.
But based on 44 repeat photosets of riparian areas on the
northern range that I have made, tall willows have declined by
more than 95 percent since Yellowstone Park was established in
1872. In 28 repeat photosets that I made outside the park, tall
willows have not declined, but, if anything, have increased,
despite yearly grazing by either sheep or cattle.
That these differences are due to excessive browsing by
Yellowstone's burgeoning, naturally-regulated elk population,
not other environmental factors, as postulated by the Park
Service, is shown at the park's exclosures. On permanent plots
outside exclosures, willows averaged only 13 inches tall, had
only 14 percent canopy cover, and produced no seeds.
In contrast, protected willows averaged nearly nine feet
tall, had 95 percent canopy cover, and produced over 300,000
seeds per square meter. Not only are Yellowstone's willow
communities severely overgrazed, they are among the most
overgrazed in the entire West. Also, aspen has declined by more
than 95 percent since the park was established due to
overbrowsing, and beaver are now ecologically extinct on the
northern range for the same reason. This has also had a
dramatic impact on songbirds and other species that are
associated with those habitats.
The roots of willows, aspen, and cottonwoods are also
critical in maintaining streambank stability, and as elk have
eliminated these woody species, this has produced major
hydrologic changes. Dr. David Rosgen, one of North America's
leading hydrologists, for instance, reported 100 times more
bank erosion on Yellowstone's denuded streams than on the same
willow-lined streams outside the park.
Last summer, I took Dr. William Platts, one of the West's
leading riparian experts, and Dr. Robert Beschta, a hydrologist
at Oregon State University, on a three-day field tour of sites
inside and outside Yellowstone Park. What they saw shocked
them. And this is a quote from Dr. Beschta. ``I couldn't
believe the Lamar,'' Beschta said. ``I've seen plenty of
examples of streams degraded by domestic livestock but this is
among the worst. It boggles my mind. It's changing the entire
riparian flood-plain system. It could take centuries to repair.
I left Yellowstone feeling terrible depressed. I could not
believe that this is happening in a national park.''
What Beschta and Platts saw is the type of resource damage
occurring under ``natural regulation'' management. I submit
that not only must ``natural regulation'' management be
rejected, but that what has happened in Yellowstone Park is a
clear violation of the park's Organic Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and other Federal legislation.
Thus, I respectfully offer the following recommendations
for Congress' consideration. Congress should mandate an
independent park science program. This is the same conclusion
that has been reached by every panel that has ever reviewed
park management, as the previous witnesses have testified to.
Since the Park Service has never followed any of those
recommendations, I submit that Congress must legislate the
needed changes, for the agency has repeatedly demonstrated its
refusal to comply with anything less.
Because of the politics in Yellowstone, I also suggest that
Congress appoint an independent panel of eminent scientists to
set priorities for park research and to review/approve
competitive research proposals for funding.
In addition, I suggest that Congress appoint an independent
commission to review ``natural regulation'' management and park
science in Yellowstone, similar to what has just happened in
Canada. What I am asking is for a fair impartial hearing of the
available evidence. If we cannot straighten out Yellowstone,
Mr. Chairman, there is little hope for the rest of our national
parks.
Furthermore, I suggest that if you want independent
scientists to critically evaluate various aspects of park
management, then Congress must establish a mechanism to
directly fund that research. This need not come from new
appropriations but from a reapportionment of existing funds.
Without adequate funding there will be no independent
evaluation of park management.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I invite you and other members
of the committee, especially the representatives from Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, who are most concerned about the problem,
to personally tour Yellowstone with me this coming summer. It
is quite an educational experience to be standing on a site and
to be handed a photograph of how that area looked back in 1871.
I wager, Mr. Chairman, that you will never view park management
in the same light again.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[Statement of Mr. Kay and attachments may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Dr. Kay.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have to be
leaving. I would like to ask you----
Mr. Hansen. You want to go out of order and you just got a
question you have to----
Mrs. Cubin. No, I just want to submit a statement for the
record.
[Statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we discussed earlier, there is
currently a considerable problem with bison leaving Yellowstone
National Park.
Dr. Kay stated in his testimony that Yellowstone National
Park is currently being managed under what is termed ``natural
regulation.'' I am concerned with this type of management
practice because I believe it directly lends itself to what we
are currently witnessing in Yellowstone with mass exodus of
bison.
My educational training, Mr. Chairman, is in chemistry; not
biology or ecology, but I know enough to figure out when
wildlife are starving because of a lack of forage they will
probably migrate out of that area to look for food.
Bison are leaving Yellowstone Park in huge numbers. The
threat of brucellosis looms large because of this mass
migration into States like Montana--Wyoming has not largely
been affected by this migration.
As a result, many have been slaughtered to keep the threat
of brucellosis from spreading into neighboring States that are
currently brucellosis free; Wyoming being one of those States
that currently enjoys its brucellosis free status. Bison don't
happen to be a problem in Wyoming--the overpopulation of elk in
the northwest part of my State is the biggest threat to our
brucellosis free status.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, fine, without objection. If you want to, we
would be happy to have you to talk to--is there anything
additional?
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make it
very brief because my Subcommittee is going to always start on
time, right? Dr. Kay, does your research show or is there
evidence that suggest that there is an overpopulation of elk
and bison in Yellowstone National Park, and, if so, how does
the natural regulation management practice contribute to that
overpopulation?
Mr. Kay. ``Natural regulation'' management created the
problem. Basically what you have is a view of nature which
suggests that ungulate populations will self regulate before
they will have a significant impact on the vegetation. This is
what the park terms ecological carrying capacity and the Park
Service has said, I believe, that bison are already at
ecological carrying capacity and probably elk are too, which
means by definition, if you understand the ecological lingo
that the agency uses, that the animals are short of forage.
And also according to natural regulation, the Park Service
views the main limiting factor on the bison population as
starvation. According to the Park Service, thousands of bison
starving to death during winter and thousands of elk starving
to death is natural.
It was very interesting to hear Mark Boyce's comments about
wolves because this runs contrary to everything that has been
done as far on wolf recovery because the agency has adamantly
denied that we need wolves in Yellowstone to control elk. And
as a matter of fact, one of the contentions of the ``natural
regulation'' hypothesis is that predation is a non-essential
adjunct to the regulation of ungulates by food limitation.
According to the ``natural regulation'' view of the world,
if wolves are present they only take the elk and bison slated
by naturer to die by other causes, primarily starvation, and
thus wolves will not lower the ungulate populations. I am sure
you have read the wolf recovery plan and wolf EIS. They
adamantly deny that wolves are going to have any significant
impact on the park and especially on the ungulates outside the
park in the States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
Mrs. Cubin. Just this one last--I am going to make two
statements and if you will just agree or not just, you know, in
deference to time. Number one, would you say it is accurate for
me to state that overpopulation does cause reduced forage in
the park? And, number two, would it be correct for me to say
that typically herds that normally stay in a certain area when
they are starving to death will migrate out of that area and
feel compelled to find forage in other places?
Mr. Kay. Sometimes they will migrate, sometimes they will
not. Sometimes they will sit there and starve to death.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Dr. Keigley, you are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. KEIGLEY, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
Mr. Keigley. In 1991 I was assigned to investigate the
effect of elk on riparian ecosystems in Yellowstone. In my
position description, I was given the responsibility for
defining the research problem and I was called upon to exercise
independent and original thinking. But from 1992 to 1994, I
experienced a great deal of interference with my ability to
address the research issue.
In fact, by 1995 Yellowstone even refused to issue me a
research permit to conduct research in the park. Now this was
research that I was assigned to conduct under my NBS
performance evaluation standard. In my opinion, the reason that
I was removed from Yellowstone's research program was that I
came up with scientific evidence that would not support
Yellowstone's resource management policies.
Now I would like to ask the question: Why was this research
done? Yellowstone's resource management plan makes management
by natural regulation contingent upon there not being a
deteriorating ecosystem. My research was aimed at investigating
that possibility. What did I find? Well, I found that in
general, as far as I know, no cottonwoods are regenerating on
the northern range.
Young cottonwoods are trimmed off to a height of about a
foot. Slightly larger ones are being killed back to the ground.
And in my opinion, cottonwoods will be locally eliminated from
the northern range within a period of some decades. Now my
research found this does not correspond with a change in
climate. Cottonwoods grew in the '30's.
What would I likely have documented had I been allowed to
conduct the research? Well, I think I could have documented
that virtually every species of woody plant is in decline, and
of particular interest are the conifers because these are taken
as a last resort. These only grow to be about a foot tall, the
very youngest of the conifers.
What is the significance of this? Well, in the early '70's
it was said that the reason for the decline in woody plants was
due to fire suppression. That these were decadent communities
that needed fire. Well, we had fire in 1988 and aspen still
does not grow. It has also been suggested that climate change
is responsible.
What my research would have documented is that species that
are widely different in physiology: conifers, aspen, willow,
birch, alder, are all in decline; it is very unlikely that each
of these species would have been affected similarly by climate.
Yellowstone is losing, in my opinion, much of its component of
woody plants.
Now it has been said that Yellowstone is not overgrazed. I
ask the question: In a national park should we really be
comfortable with this proposition? And I think we can examine
that by asking ourselves if we would be willing to let BLM and
U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments look like the northern
range. I suggest that most of us would not be.
Now my research has, I think, an impact on the management
of Yellowstone in that I do not think we are allowed or have
been allowed to really aggressively look at the effect of
natural regulation. But this kind of influence also has an
impact on the credibility of all science and I think that is
unfortunate. In my prepared statement that I have not had time
to present here, I included five recommendations that I believe
need to be followed.
And I think regardless of what research organization
ultimately follows out of this, those five points that I raise
there are going to be necessary for any successful science with
respect to national parks and the surrounding areas. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Keigley may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Dr. Keigley. Dr. Wagner.
STATEMENT OF FREDERIC H. WAGNER, ASSOCIATE DEAN, UTAH STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have four points in
the time that you have allotted me in this discussion on
science and resource management in the national parks. At least
two of them have been made previously so I will just hurry past
them. The first has been said, is obvious to the committee, and
I think need not be dwelt upon, and that is that sound research
is essential to effective resource management.
The second point is that the Park Service, as has also been
stated here today, has not had a strong science tradition. It
has been repeatedly advised, as we have heard, to develop a
large and credible research program, but has not done so. There
has been no formal policy or structure for science in the Park
Service. What research has been done has been administratively
disparate. In some cases it has been administered out of
regional offices. In other cases it has been administered by
park superintendents. So it has been a small program developed
at the grass roots and not by a matter of policy from the top.
My third point is that this weak commitment to science has
resulted in spotty research and management. There has been good
science done in some of the parks. A recent book by Halvorson
and Davis has outlined 12 case studies where solid science has
been done and capable management programs based on it. The
Beard Research Center in the Everglades has turned out
excellent science for the tough management problems there.
But there has been bad science and bad management
decisions, as a result. I think the natural regulation science
in the first place and the policy that was based on it are
prime examples. And additionally, I think that what the weak
science mandate has produced is in some cases a climate for
administrators to ignore contrary evidence that was not
convenient for policy.
There have been cases that we have already heard about
where researchers have been threatened who turned up evidence
from their science that was contrary to policy or inconvenient
for managers. And some people have been threatened with their
jobs, some transferred. As we have heard, the scientist sitting
on my left has been denied access to one of the parks which is
of course public property, so there has been that problem.
So my fourth point is central to these hearings: what is
the best structure for science in the National Park System? I
think there are three points that bear on that question.
One is that in my opinion research is a service to
management in a management agency, and therefore the research
needs to be relevant to management problems. That argues for
administrative proximity. I think it is important that the
researchers understand the management problems and commit their
efforts to the solution of those problems. So that argues for
proximity.
Secondly, the managers have to trust the researchers and I
think that too is a function of administrative proximity. The
managers have to see that the researchers understand their
problems and are addressing their efforts to assist in the
solution of those problems.
But thirdly, a matter that argues for distance between
research and management is that research has to be free of
political, bureaucratic, and policy pressures to turn out
unvarnished truth, wherever the chips may fall. And so that
then argues, I think, for administrative distance. I think it
is a very bad idea to have the people who are administering
management also administer science.
So where should it then go? We are talking about some kind
of a compromise between these two considerations. When my
colleagues and I started writing our book on wildlife policies
in the national parks, we were prepared to recommend that a
division of research be established in the Park Service with
its own associate director, its own discreet budget lines, and
its own administrative lines free of management, but
nevertheless in the agency. But before we could finish our
book, the National Biological Survey was formed and so everyone
knows where that has ended up with the research now in the
Biological Resources Division.
That does meet the distance aspect. If it is decided by
this committee and the Congress that research should go back to
the national parks, I absolutely recommend that it not go back
in the structure which existed prior to the formation of the
National Biological Survey. It did not fare well there and I do
not think it will again. So I think that is something to be
avoided.
As far as leaving it in BRD, we know that it has been a
political football for three or four years now. It has been
kicked around from one place to another. That can't contribute
to productivity and high morale in the organization. We know
that it has a new director who is setting up operating
procedures for the division, so that is surely something to
consider. So that argues for leaving where it is.
If it is left in BRD, I think two things are needed. One is
some very strong liaison between BRD and the higher-level
administrators in the Park Service so that this can insure that
Park Service higher administrators can direct down to park
management that research evidence be accepted into the
management programs of those parks.
And I absolutely think there ought to be a prohibition
against forbidding biologists from BRD to do research on
national parks which are public property, doing research which
they were assigned to do by their superiors. I find that
absolutely reprehensible. Thanks, that is the end of my
comments.
[Statement of Mr. Wagner may be found at end of hearing.]
[Book review of ``Science and Ecosystem Management in the
National Parks'' may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony of all of
you gentlemen. Dr. Keigley, you did not finish your time. What
are these recommendations that you wanted to give us?
Mr. Keigley. The first one is to ask the question how
success should be measured. At the present time we have client
satisfaction as a principal measure of success for each of our
performance evaluations. I believe that what this does is that
it prohibits us from giving the bad news, which may be
necessary in some cases, to park managers.
Instead, what I propose is that scientists and managers or
research administrators be measured on one simple question:
What were the potential or actual impacts of their science on
resource management? This would let us cover the good along
with the bad. The second point is research funding. I believe
that we need to find a new procedure where we can: A, identify
cases where there are legitimate opposing points of view, and,
B, if there are, equitably allocate fiscal resources to
opposing sides.
My third point is that scientists should have a formal role
in preparing resource management plans because the park
actually does not have the expertise, or lost much of the
expertise to do that. And, secondly, park preparation may
restrict the point of view that is presented in the resource
management plan and I will touch on that in just a moment.
My fourth point is we need some procedure, a formal
procedure, for resolving conflicts. I have been involved in a
conflict for four years and I would rather not be. And if we
had some procedure that would allow us to mitigate these or
mediate these early on, we can avoid the kinds of crises that
we find ourselves in today.
My final point recommendation deals with a different kind
of bias and that is that national parks have impacts that
extend beyond the park borders, and yet the resource management
plan typically only addresses impacts that occur within the
park borders. I believe we need to expand this formal document
to include participation by State fish and game agencies,
Forest Service, BLM, and private ranchers as well so that they
can have their input into this formal document and if
necessary, present different separate points of view, to put it
all in one place so the public can look at it and evaluate it,
and I think from that we will have a much more balanced science
program.
Mr. Hansen. Do the other three of you have any heartburn
with Dr. Keigley's suggestion?
Mr. Wagner. Not at all.
Mr. Kay. No, sir.
Mr. Hansen. Dr. Boyce, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Boyce. No. I think that there are a number of possible
models for a way in which science could be administered and
structured. In the context of Dr. Keigley's last comment
regarding ecosystem management and the fact that various
populations cross park boundaries and the influences of park
management go outside the park; the opposite is true as well
and I certainly support his view that some sort of ecosystem
management administration be used to foster interactions among
these various agencies.
There are actually some fledgling structures of this sort.
For example, there is the interagency grizzly bear committee
for managing grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone
ecosystem. There is also the interagency Jackson Hole elk herd
management that involves representatives from each of the
agencies and I think these have been very useful and very
powerful structures for reducing conflicts amongst the various
agencies and insuring that priorities are balanced amongst the
various agencies.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from American
Samoa, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
commend the scientific community from the State of Utah in your
presence here and in trying to give us a better understanding
of the serious problems not only with Yellowstone but various
issues affecting the National Park System.
Perhaps our scientific communities from the University of
Wyoming and the University of Montana could also be helpful in
this regard. A couple of questions to Dr. Kay and Dr. Wagner.
If you believe there are too many bison and elk in Yellowstone
Park, how do you propose to reduce the size of the herd in the
park? I believe the NPS system was to let the wolves do the
regulating. Is this my understanding in reading your testimony,
Dr. Kay?
Mr. Kay. My understanding was that it was not the Park
Service's intention to have the wolves regulate the bison. In
fact, they adamantly denied that the wolves will control bison
numbers. Now as to what you do with this, that is a different
policy question, which we were not asked to address today.
And I personally believe, if you want my opinion on this,
that we need a new park Organic Act because there is a conflict
between use, public use, and preservation. And I would suggest
that we look to our northern borders for a model on how we
might resolve this. Canada has the strongest environmental
protection act in the world.
In 1988, the Canadian Parliament passed an amendment to
their park Organic Act that said ecological integrity will be
given first priority in all management decisions. Parks Canada
has been in the process since 1988 of trying to define
ecological integrity. Now part of the problem I have with the
request by others on the panel for additional funding to do all
this monitoring, is monitoring of what, for what?
Unless you have a model of how the ecosystem is structured
and functions, and how it was structured and functioned at
various points in the past, you have no idea what to monitor or
what the monitoring data means. Now Parks Canada is in the
process of developing those models. I have submitted reports to
Parks Canada and they have independently tested my work.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Kay, because of my time. I am trying
to get back to my basic question. If there are too many bison
and elk in Yellowstone Park, how do you propose to reduce if it
is overpopulation? If there is overpopulation, how do you
propose to reduce the----
Mr. Kay. You would have to eliminate the animals.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How do you propose----
Mr. Kay. The Park Service did it in the past. You have to
understand at one point in the past the Park Service believed
that Yellowstone was horribly overgrazed and they controlled
the animals by trapping the bison and they actually shot bison
in the park.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My point is do you support killing the
elk and the bison in the park?
Mr. Kay. If the objective is to maintain the vegetation in
the condition that existed prior to the park being established
then the bison have to be reduced. I have no problem with
shooting bison in the park, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, Dr. Wagner.
Mr. Wagner. Again, whether there are too many elk depends
on the purpose of the park and a number of authors have pointed
out that the goals and the reasons-for-being of the national
parks are not clearly enough articulated to know what their
goals are. Whether or not we should have more bison or elk or
fewer, or whether these should be controlled are arguments over
means rather than ends.
But one way of looking at this, up until 1967 the park held
the bison numbers at 400 in Yellowstone. Natural regulation
went into place in 1967 and the herd has simply increased
steadily, steadily up to the present to where at the beginning
of this winter there were somewhere in the neighborhood of
4,000.
But, again, it is not clear what the goal for managing
bison should have been. Now if it should have been something on
the order of what has been suggested, and that is preserving
the parks in roughly the condition that prevailed prior to
European contact, then Dr. Kay's research is very convincing
that large mammal populations were held at very low densities
in pre-Columbian times, probably by a combination of predation
and aboriginal hunting. And if that is the goal, then indeed
there are too many elk and bison in the park.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Kay, when you conducted this
independent research and study of the park, was this in
cooperation with the National Park Service or was this on your
own or was this from a foundation?
Mr. Kay. My research in Yellowstone was part of my
dissertation research at Utah State University and my research
in the park was funded by the Wilder Wildlife Foundation, which
is a private foundation out of Sinton, Texas. But my research
was certainly conducted under a park permit. The park knew what
I was doing all the time. I participated in annual research
meetings and I certainly kept the park staff updated on what I
was doing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And the Park Service cooperated with you
in your research?
Mr. Kay. Yes, they let me do the research in the park.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Keigley, you claim that you were
barred from research in Yellowstone two years ago. Could you
explain how that allegedly happened?
Mr. Keigley. What happened is that I filled out with my
supervisor a proposed research direction and this was
documented in the performance evaluation for 1995 and that is a
formal agreement between me and my supervisor and the NPS as to
what I am to do, and I was supposed to be able to study
conifers on the northern range.
That request which you have to have is a formal research
proposal or permit to conduct research within the park. That
was submitted to the chief of research at the Center for
Yellowstone Resources. And he refused to put it on the table
for the resource committee to consider and so as a result it
never came up for approval and it was agreed between my
supervisor and I that it probably would not be and so I was
obviously not permitted to work in Yellowstone, and furthermore
I am not even permitted to work adjacent to Yellowstone.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Sir, you are a gentleman with a
scientific background of more than 25 years in doing this type
of work which you were just simply iced out simply because of a
disagreement in your scientific opinion with your supervisors
or those who were your managers, is this basically what
happened?
Mr. Keigley. The disagreement was not with my supervisor.
The disagreement was between myself and the Yellowstone Center
for Resources, and, yes, that is true.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Kay, in your
view is the brucellosis problem compounded or complicated by
the overpopulation problem in the park?
Mr. Kay. It certainly is. When the bison herd in the past,
as Dr. Wagner mentioned, was held at 400 animals, and the elk
herd was also held at lower numbers, these animals did not
leave the park. And if the animals remained in the park, then
there would not be any conflict with domestic livestock.
Mr. Rick Hill. Some people are arguing that if we just
expand the range of the bison that we can solve the problem of
overpopulation. Could you address that?
Mr. Kay. Yes, that is not true. Under natural regulation
management, the bison population will simply increase until it
again uses the available range. For instance, sir, if you drew
the boundary halfway down the Paradise Valley, that might
temporarily solve the bison problem for five or ten years but
then at some point in time instead of having 1,000 bison come
out you might have 5,000 that were coming out heading for Great
Falls.
Mr. Rick Hill. So the concept of natural regulation is that
the animals will eventually starve to death and that is how
they are going to be regulated.
Mr. Kay. That is right, and they will do that without
having major impacts on the vegetation. That was the Park
Service's original definition of ``natural regulation.''
Mr. Rick Hill. And is that supported by your research?
Mr. Kay. No, it is not, sir.
Mr. Rick Hill. Could you explain that?
Mr. Kay. As I explained in my dissertation, you first have
to understand what is meant by ``natural regulation.'' In 1971
the Park Service produced a document by one of its research
biologists, Doug Houston, where he laid out what the
definitions of ``natural regulation'' were. And basically those
were the species I looked at, aspen and the willows.
That is to say, I measured aspen and willows to test the
Park Service's ``natural regulation'' hypothesis. Now the Park
Service has admitted that aspen has declined and willows have
declined, but they claim the elk were not primarily
responsible. Instead the decline was due to fire suppression,
climate change, and a whole host of other factors postulated by
the Park Service, but not primarily elk.
Dr. Houston said if the decline in aspen and willows was
due primarily to elk, then that would disprove ``natural
regulation.'' It would prove that the Park Service's hypothesis
was not working. And that is basically what my research showed.
I not only did that, I reviewed all the first-person historical
accounts, I looked at all the archaeological data, and I
basically looked at what you would call long-term ecosystem
states and processes.
There never were large numbers of bison in the park, sir.
For instance, I have analyzed 20 historical journals, first-
person historical accounts, because they are the most reliable.
Between 1835 and 1876, there were 20 different expeditions in
Yellowstone. They spent 765 days in the ecosystem on foot or
horseback. Yet they saw bison three times, none of which were
within the present confines of Yellowstone Park.
In addition, they only saw elk 42 times. There are now over
100,000 elk and reading Dr. Boyce's testimony he had it up to
120,000 elk in the ecosystem. Yet early explorers only saw elk
once every 18 days.
Mr. Rick Hill. One of the arguments out here is whether
what we are seeing happen now is bison migrating because of
overgrazing, lack of feed, or are these traditional migration
routes. What is your view on that? Are these traditional
migration routes we are seeing?
Mr. Kay. Well, it depends on who you listen to at what
point in time. For instance, take the park's bison expert, Dr.
Meagher. In 1973 she produced a report on the ecology of bison
and she made predictions on what would happen to the bison
population under ``natural regulation.'' She had a map in that
report that showed the historical bison migration routes in
Yellowstone.
According to that 1973 Park Service document, there were no
historical migration routes near West Yellowstone and there
were none near Gardner, two places where bison are coming out
of the park today. To the best of my knowledge, the Park
Service has not uncovered any additional historical data that
would support their reinterpretation of historical migration
routes in those particular directions.
It certainly seems ecologically feasible that if there were
some bison in the park that they may have migrated out in those
directions, but there is no evidence in the condition of the
vegetation in the earliest historical photos, there is no
evidence in the first-person historical accounts, and there is
no evidence in archaeological data that there have been large
numbers of food-limited animals in Yellowstone at any time
during the last 10,000 years or more.
Mr. Rick Hill. Dr. Kay, I just want to tell you that I for
one would welcome the opportunity to visit the park with you
next summer and I am looking forward to that opportunity. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, Dr. Boyce and
Dr. Linn, I apologize, I was reading your testimony across and
I had you in Wisconsin, Dr. Linn, where I should have had Dr.
Boyce. At least we have another Wisconsin alumni here though in
Dr. Wagner, at least 30 years ago.
I am from Minnesota actually and I want to make that clear
although everyone seems to be associating with the Christian-
Green Bay phenomena. Dr. Keigley, you stated that the park and
what happened in the park has trans-boundary effects in things
outside the park. But things outside the park also affect
things in it, don't they?
Mr. Keigley. That is correct.
Mr. Vento. I mean so it is a two-way street. You say
correct, so it is a two-way street. If they are doing research
out there maybe they want to join in. I try to play to the
collaboration aspect rather than the isolation of the Federal
Government. I do not think anyone has enough money to do all of
the research that needs to be done here.
One of the things that is sort of disturbing to all of us
is that you are suggesting that you are unwilling to
accommodate a manager. We think that scientists ought to pursue
the information and get objective data. You do a lot of review
before you start on a project. You review all the documentation
and papers. That is the way it works, I guess.
You must have reviewed all of the papers that Dr. Boyce is
talking about in his statement. You said that because you did
not accommodate the manager, that the Biological Resources
Division had no alternative but to withdraw the scientists from
the research program. In other words, was there peer review of
your work?
Mr. Keigley. My research proposal was peer reviewed at
Montana State University by two faculty.
Mr. Vento. Was this part of the described design as
described as rigorous, excellent and the approach ingenious?
Those are quotes from the memoranda that I got and the letters.
Was it reviewed by others within the Biological Resources
Division within the Department? They must have come to this
conclusion somehow.
Mr. Keigley. It was circulated through the Yellowstone
Center for Resources for quite a while and sent down to Fort
Collins. I never got any adverse comments back from either the
Yellowstone Center for Resources or Fort Collins on my research
design for 1995.
Mr. Vento. So they peer reviewed. Do you have any evidence
that backs up your statement that because you are unwilling to
accommodate the manager that there was no alternative but to
withdraw you from this?
Mr. Keigley. I am just describing what happened.
Mr. Vento. So it could have been a lot of things. It could
have been an allocation of resources question. Did they have
more money than they needed up there?
Mr. Keigley. No, sir. I did nothing that summer and that is
documented in my----
Mr. Vento. You did not do anything that summer?
Mr. Keigley. A scientist works from field season to field
season and to prepare for a field season to do research means
that you have to invest some effort in planning before that.
This came down to about June when Yellowstone refused to give
me permission to work within the park and then subsequently I
was denied permission to even work adjacent to the park. And so
I really did nothing in 1995, no field research.
Mr. Vento. You did nothing? You did not do any field
research? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Keigley. Well, I mean nothing. A scientist does field
research during the summer. You feel like you are doing
nothing.
Mr. Vento. OK. They had something for you to do, I guess.
They did not send you on vacation, I guess.
Mr. Keigley. I was not on vacation, no.
Mr. Vento. Dr. Boyce, your question here. To your
knowledge, is national parks research peer reviewed?
Mr. Boyce. The National Park Service----
Mr. Vento. Research or the research from the Bureau of
Resource Management or department----
Mr. Boyce. The National Park Service does not really do
research at the moment in view of the fact that the BRD was
off----
Mr. Vento. Well, that is just on the biological side.
Actually they have half the scientists still over there. I
guess they may be doing something. But those you are familiar
with do not do the biological research is what you are saying,
but is that research peer reviewed?
Mr. Boyce. Certainly there has been a large amount of
research done in the national parks through the National Park
Service with funds provided through Congress, for example, the
overgrazing studies, the fire research studies, and most
recently the wolf recovery efforts, and those studies have
resulted in a large number of publications that certainly have
been published in top-flight peer-reviewed periodicals.
Mr. Vento. Could you explain what it means to have it
published? Is not something that is published receiving general
agreement in terms of the scientific community? That is not
controlled by the Park Service, is it?
Mr. Boyce. No, not at all. In fact, it means that the
papers are submitted to other scientists working in the same
area for review and there has to be critique by peer reviewers
before a peer-reviewed periodical will publish a paper.
Mr. Vento. I see Dr. Kay was shaking his head. Have you had
anything published lately, Dr. Kay? Maybe you have not, I am
talking about publication, you know.
Mr. Kay. Basically what peer review is is to get two other
people to agree with your point of view because that is all
peer review is.
Mr. Vento. No, I was talking about publication, I think----
Mr. Kay. That is what I am saying. What I am saying is that
the Park Service has been able to censor peer review. In two
cases that I can prove with written documentation, when I
submitted manuscripts to scientific journals, they sent those
manuscripts to the Park Service for peer review, which I think
is unethical.
Mr. Vento. So they are controlled by the Park Service, is
that what you are saying, that the National Science Foundation
or the----
Mr. Kay. I am not saying--this was not the National Science
Foundation. This was two specific scientific journals.
Mr. Vento. And so these specific scientific journals were
controlled by the Park Service?
Mr. Kay. I am not saying they were controlled by the Park
Service, all I am saying is what they did and what happened to
me in those particular instances.
Mr. Vento. You are obviously putting fault with the Park
Service because someone did not publish your papers.
Mr. Kay. What I am saying is the peer review process is not
independent in all cases of review by the Park Service.
Mr. Vento. So are you talking about a major fundamental
flaw with the entire scientific process that we have in this
country?
Mr. Kay. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Boyce. But it is the best we have got.
Mr. Kay. No, it is not. And, in fact, may I comment on
that?
Mr. Vento. My time is what it is.
Mr. Kay. May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? There is an
alternative----
Mr. Hansen. I think we should give you a chance.
Mr. Kay. This has been tried in the social sciences because
there are various social hypotheses that are very controversial
and there have been several papers on the biases of the peer
review process, in some cases actual corruption. I can provide
that documentation for the committee.
So what some journals like ``Current Anthropology'' do once
they decide there is a potential conflict is that interested
scientists can write whatever they like on that particular
subject and then that manuscript is sent out for open peer
review. Anybody who is interested, can then write a review and
those reviews are published right in the journal. No more long
knives in the dark. Then the original authors get to rebut
their critics and this all is published together so that anyone
can read both sides of the issue. But unfortunately, science
journals do not follow this format, and I think if they
followed that format especially for controversial subjects,
then at least both sides of an issue would be given a fair
hearing.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hansen. How much time do you need?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one sentence. I just want the
Chairman of the committee to know that the next anthropologist
I catch coming to my island, I am going to shoot him.
Mr. Kay. Well, there are anthropologists, sir, and there
are anthropologists.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Idaho, I recognize you for
five minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this
with Dr. Kay. This is critically important to us. There we are
a Congress poised to anoint science to throw a lot of money at
scientific programs and if we see the interruption of the
process of even publicizing I would like to know more about it.
And, Dr. Kay, you indicated that you would get the committee
documents.
Mr. Kay. If you want that, I have this all in writing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I personally would. Mr. Hodapp, I would
very much appreciate a follow through on that. I think that is
a critically important piece of testimony for this hearing. And
I do believe that we can do better than that. We must do better
than that. We breached the trust if we cannot have open
scientific discussions and dialog without political
interruption. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kay. I agree.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to ask you, Doctor. I am fascinated
with your testimony, as well as all four of you, but have you
done much work in Yellowstone on the grizzly bear?
Mr. Kay. Yes, I have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you be willing to say that the
grizzly bear is reaching a population where we may be able to
delist the grizzly bear from the endangered species?
Mr. Kay. Unfortunately, Councilwoman, I would not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Mr. Kay. Because it is very difficult to try to estimate
what the grizzly bear population is. Also, I have an entirely
different opinion as far as what is happening with the grizzly
bear than that held by park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you go over that?
Mr. Kay. Yes, I believe that the elk are having a severe
negative impact on the bears. The bears are primarily
vegetarians and basically the elk and the bison are out
competing the bears for food. This forces the bears outside the
park where they are then being killed, but they are really
dying of ``natural regulation'' management.
For instance, Congresswoman, you know bears eat berries,
bears love berries. What you might not know is that the bears
in the Yellowstone ecosystem don't eat berries. Now, the people
who do the bear research have postulated that this is because
Yellowstone is naturally poor habitat for berry-producing
shrubs.
But, if you read the first-person historical journals,
there are accounts of Native Americans in the 1860's, excuse
me, 1869 and 1870, who were collecting choke cherries by the
bushel basket full just outside Yellowstone Park. And as part
of our research which is attached as Appendix B, I actually
measured the berry production inside and outside long-term
exclosures, these are fenced plots where the ungulates have
been excluded.
And at one exclosure, if my memory serves me correctly,
that is called West-Lamar in Yellowstone National Park, 100
serviceberry plants outside where the elk graze produced no
berries. While inside the exclosure, 100 plants produced over
111,000 berries. Chokecherries per 100 plants outside the
exclosure none, while inside the exclosure 100 plants produced
212,000 berries. The elk have also had a severe negative impact
on other foods bears prefer such as cow parsnip and other
species.
Plus riparian areas, riparian areas are critical for
grizzly bears. When you read the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and
other governments documents, they all note that riparian areas
are critical for grizzlies. But those areas have been destroyed
by the elk in Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Boyce. Grizzly bears also eat elk and the grizzly bear
population in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem has never been
higher according to all current scientific information both
based upon counts of unduplicated females with cubs of the
year, as well as the demographic data on grizzly bears in the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem. I have spent the last three
years analyzing those data and we have never had a more viable
population of grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone
ecosystem in recorded history.
Unfortunately, I would agree with Dr. Kay that it is not
time to delist the bears. We need to insure that the population
is large enough to persist for long periods of time and
expanding the range is probably a very important thing to do,
for example, into the Wind River range of Wyoming.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Boyce, I noticed you did not mention
Idaho and I really appreciate that because I--we're very proud
of Idaho. And I appreciate your comments. I do want to add, Dr.
Keigley, you said that you were barred from doing further
research in Yellowstone. I want to know specifically by whom
were you barred.
Mr. Keigley. I think I explained a moment ago that the
mechanism by which it happened----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, let me ask you this to make it
easier. Was it the superintendent who barred you?
Mr. Keigley. Let us say he failed to take steps----
Mrs. Chenoweth. To issue the permit.
Mr. Keigley. To cause the permit to be issued.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And everything else was in place for you to
do the study that you were mandated to do, right?
Mr. Keigley. That is correct. I could have done it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In other words, the park superintendent has
total control over who does what research and ultimately who
publishes what regarding the park, is that what you gentlemen
are telling me?
Mr. Keigley. Well, the permit had to be--the proposal had
to be given to the resource committee. Another individual opted
not to do that. That person is under the authority of the
superintendent and it could have been turned around but it was
not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. And I see the yellow light on,
Mr. Chairman. I am going to have to leave though and I do just
want to say, Mr. Chairman, that what I am learning and what I
am seeing in the media disappoints me so much about how the
bison are starving in Yellowstone.
Of course, Idaho borders the park and being from Utah I
know, Mr. Chairman, you can identify with my concern because
what would happen if our cattlemen allowed their cattle to
starve like this. What would the public outcry be if cattle
were starving and what if a puppy or a dog were starving? This
just cries against the Americans' human nature. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Dr. Wagner and Dr. Kay both alluded
to what the Yellowstone Park can hold as far as bison or elk
and there seems to be no question that they are well overgrazed
and there are too many there. What figure would you come up
with? I mean that is kind of a tough question, I guess. Give me
an approximate, would you?
Mr. Wagner. It is hard for the whole park but the focus has
been on the northern range which is the big herd that winters
inside the park. Most of the other major herds move outside the
park in winter. In the northern range right now there are
something over 20,000 elk.
At one point that herd had been taken down to less than
5,000, possibly as low as somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000. At
that point in time there was evidence of recovery of the
vegetation of some of the animals, and at that point in time
the biologists then in the park believed that the proper number
of elk from the northern range was on the order of 5,000.
Now, again, that depends on what the goal of the park is.
If the goal of the park is to reconstruct or to try to maintain
the conditions that prevailed at the time of the European
contact, Dr. Kay's evidence suggests that there were probably
fewer than 5,000. Dr. Keigley and I currently have a manuscript
in press where we are projecting something on the order of
5,000 or fewer elk in the northern range at the time the park
was formed, and we believe those animals migrated out of the
park during the winter down to the Yellowstone Valley. So we do
not even think that they wintered in the park even when they
were down at those low numbers.
Mr. Hansen. It amazes me that, let us see, we have about 40
units that we allow hunting in. I guess that would be just like
spitting on the flag in the eyes of some folks to allow hunting
in that area, but I am sure it would be a great hunt. You know,
Deseret Land and Livestock in my home State of Utah, if you
want to shoot an elk it costs you $5,000 to go up there and
shoot one.
Mr. Wagner. $9,000 for a bull.
Mr. Kay. $5,000, Congressman, for their management hunts,
which are the smaller bulls. Their larger bulls are $9,000.
Mr. Hansen. I just checked four or five years ago and I was
totally determined I could not afford it.
Mr. Wagner. Well, this is inflation.
Mr. Hansen. And they make money on that place and they tell
me, I do not know if this is right, but they tell me people are
standing in line to get those permits to go up into that
Deseret Land and Livestock, to the benefit of the committee,
which is a huge ranch in northern Utah, privately owned.
Now if that is the case and the Park Service did the same
thing that would be quite a shot in the arm for you to get
$9,000 a bull in that area especially when they do it in the
fall when there are not too many folks around there. They could
do the same thing with bison. Obviously, we are overstocked
with bison in the same area.
I know some people just stand aghast, especially the animal
folks and some of the anti-hunters and anti-gun people, but it
seems to me kind of a reasonable idea. I just threw that out
because I want to get some criticism from the press. But let me
just say this. On the wolf, we have put a lot of money in
trying to put the wolf back in our area.
I went out and looked at the pens and everything and I am
not taking on the theory but it just seemed to me that if you
really wanted to introduce that species that the 10 or 12 or 14
that are up there, there would have to be a whole lot more than
that to come up to balance and make the thing really work. This
is just almost like having a canine area. You have to spoon
feed each one of them constantly.
And, Dr. Kay, I understand you had some thoughts on that.
Kind of give us an opinion how many would have to be
established in there to make this thing all work out.
Mr. Kay. Well, I do not know how many we would have to
establish there to make it all work out, Congressman. What I
looked at in my publications is whether the wolf recovery goals
meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act because, as
you know, the recovery goals are for 100 wolves in Yellowstone,
and 100 in Idaho, and 100 in Montana, and then if all three
areas reach that number at the same time, the wolf would be
delisted.
However, I do not think those goals are realistic. I mean,
if 100 wolves is enough, Congressman, why can't we live with
just 100 spotted owls. There is a thing called minimum viable
population size. So in my analysis of the wolf recovery
program, I suggest that if the government tries to delist at
these low figures, then they are going to be sued by
environmentalists and the government is going to lose in court.
Based on the best available scientific evidence, mainly
from research in Canada and Alaska, a population of between
1,500 and 2,000 interbreeding wolves is needed to meet
requirements of the minimum viable population size under the
Endangered Species Act.
And if you recall, grizzly bears were part of a recent
lawsuit, which I believe was just been settled out of court. In
that case, environmentalists asked for about 1,600 or 1,800
grizzlies as one interbreeding population.
Mr. Hansen. Well, wait a minute, did everybody hear that,
1,500 to 2,000?
Mr. Kay. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. Is the statement you made?
Mr. Kay. Yes.
Mr. Boyce. And of course the expectation is that there will
be linkages with other populations of other wolves further
north eventually and that as the wolves coming down from Canada
expand further south that eventually the link between the
Yellowstone wolves and the Northern Continental Divide wolves
will be there sufficient to provide genetic exchange that would
be sufficient to alter those figures so that the number of
wolves occupying Yellowstone National Park could be
substantially lower than that figure, of course.
Mr. Kay. Spotted owls fly around a lot, Congressman, and
the Judge ruled you had to have 2,180 pairs of spotted owls to
meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Hansen. Gentlemen, this has been a very lively and
interesting discussion. We sure appreciate you being here. It
is very kind of you. We have got 17 minutes for our last panel
so we will excuse you and thank you so much for being with us.
Mr. Kay. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Roger Kennedy, Director of the National
Park Service, Dr. Mark Schaefer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Department of the Interior. Will you
gentlemen come up? Mr. Kennedy, what a privilege to see you,
sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It is always a joy to come before this
committee, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Kennedy has been the outstanding Director
of the National Park Service, a joy to work with, and a man
that has been in some really tough positions in the last few
years. We appreciate you and want you to know that.
STATEMENT OF ROGER G. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE;
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SOUKUP
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Actually I
do enjoy coming before this committee. It is a smart bunch of
Congressmen and they ask good questions. I think the best thing
I can do with the limited time I have got is try to get a few
facts on the table, just some numbers that may be useful.
I would rejoice in entering into a policy discussion on
science but I am incompetent to do that so I am going to turn
to Dr. Schaefer and to Dr. Soukup and I think Dr. Fenn is
behind me. These are a lot of folks that are scientists. Let
me, if I can, just respond to the call of the meeting which
said we are going to talk about the relationship of previous
reports on what you ought to do about science in the parks and
what the recommendations of those were and what has been done
about it.
Let me, if I may, at the outset, however, deal with just a
couple of possible misapprehensions that may be circulating
around here. The capacity to do science, and particularly we
are talking about biological sciences here, the National Park
Service has not been gutted. There are 499 people classified in
biological series in the NPS.
There are 367 with advanced degrees in the biological
sciences are working for the National Park Service. There are
312 doing work, research in the parks for the National Park
Service, and there are 215 who are doing research for the
National Park Service that are not necessarily Park Service
folks. I am just trying to deal with the question did they take
all the science out. They did not.
Second, with respect to inventory and monitoring, the fact
is that through our applications for this year, we have asked
for 15.21 million bucks to do this stuff, to do inventory and
monitoring to know what it is we have got that we are being
berated for not knowing enough about. We got $8.46. I am
including $2 million we are asking for this year.
We have been pretty consistent in asking for the dough to
do this work and, as is the case always in the Congress and in
any administration, we have to claw our way through the
administrative process and then get past you folks to get the
dough we need. Third, with respect to this marvelous
multiplication of Park Service budget that we have been hearing
some again about today and which I occasionally get asked about
on television, it just is not true. It just is not true.
Here is a graph which I want to enter into this record, if
I may, which shows the National Park Service budget in constant
1983 dollars from 1983 on and anybody can see what it looks
like. There is no big multiple increase in Park Service
funding, and in fact if you look at it in constant purchasing
power dollars from '91 through '97 it is down. If you look at
it from '83 through '97 it is down. So let us be done with that
business.
Now, if I may, let us turn to this question about funding
support for resource management. Now that breaks into three
categories. They are law enforcement. Law enforcement, it costs
us money, 37 million bucks a year to see to it that people do
not do bad things in the parks to the resources that we are
charged with protecting. We take care of things.
A little reference was made earlier to degradation of
archaeological sites. That is a hugely important subject and I
can tell you that in the State of Utah and in other western
States the destruction of the fundamental American heritage
that arises because there is not adequate law enforcement to
protect those resources is a national disgrace. It is true in
the park system, it is true out of the park system. It ought to
stop. We are losing the American heritage because people are
ripping it off.
Second, in the big numbers that you have heard, there are
80 million bucks for what is called cultural resource
management and that includes a huge amount of stuff that you do
not just naturally think about. We have more objects in the
park system that we take care of, I mean physical museum-type
objects than there are in the Smithsonian.
We have 22,000 historic buildings. We've got to take care
of those places. We take care of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act activities. That is expensive,
necessary, and absolutely a part of our obligation to this
country. We are protecting what we have, both culturally and
naturally.
Now most of our discussion today properly has been about
natural resource protection. How are we doing? How are we doing
in knowing what we are doing, and how are we doing in acting on
the basis of what we know? I think those are probably the two
questions that are before us. Now our intention was--the big
report, the report that everybody says ought to have set the
pattern for the Park Service, we agree with it, was the
National Resource Council, the American Academy of Sciences, in
1992.
Let us sort of look at it, if we can, in a real hurry what
they said because we agree with them and we ought to do some
more things to get on with this and help things. First, there
ought to be an explicit legislative mandate for research in the
National Park Service. Sure, there should.
Now lots of questions about what do you do when you are
trying to manage a park and you just had a flood? What are you
going to do you do when you have a park and the road is rubbed
out or in the Grand Canyon the water line has run out, are you
going to spend on long-term research at that moment? You are
not. And somebody has got to make those decisions on the
ground.
I am absolutely for a diversified system of management
responsibility in which superintendents have a lot of
responsibility. Now it is also true as you heard earlier that
it is a good darn thing that the government performance and
whatever it is act, the GPRA act says you better have better
accountability for those decisions made. Amen. Good thing. But
for goodness sake, let us not have the Congress set up a lot of
mini categories that deny the possibility of intelligent
management of the parks.
Now it said we need an independent budget for research. And
guess what? We got something called the Biological Resource
Division, the U.S. Geological Survey. You are looking at it on
my left. It and a whole lot of scientists. That is about as
independent budget for research as you are going to get. An
increased budget for research, that is what they recommended
before we got a 30 percent cut.
An independent research program where all scientists are
supervised by scientists, you bet, as long as one of the other
panelists--if he did. By golly, the question is: what are you
going to do with it, who are you reporting to? I thought Dr.
Wagner's four points, and I know I am running longer and I will
try to run this fast, Dr. Wagner's four points made exquisite
sense.
He said there is a tension between proximities so you know
what you are doing on the ground and long distance which means
that you have got to have a little freedom and somebody has got
to protect you so that you can get independent work done. Of
course he is right. Of course he is right.
And while I am not the initiator of the National Biological
Service, I am here to tell you that there is a strong prospect
that as a consequence of its creation, contrary to a whole lot
of orthodoxy that I hear, there is a stronger possibility that
there is going to be a generic capacity to do strategic science
because people who are doing it are scientists and have a
strong capacity to do technical science on the ground at the
same time.
That is a tension, it is a tension anywhere running
anything. How does the R&D function relate to the production
function? This is tough. And, of course, finally, there is the
problem what do you do about Yellowstone, is it overgrazed,
isn't it overgrazed, what is the appropriate level of
population? I do just want to enter two more final facts and I
am done, and thank you for your tolerance on the time.
There are fewer bison today in Yellowstone National Park
than there were in 1988. Second, we had a lot of talk about how
many elk, when was the vignette, when was the pre-Columbian, I
do not know, and I have tried to get data as far back as I
could out of these fellows to tell me what is the history of
the populations here. The fact is nobody really knows.
I was handed before I came up here because I just thought
it was interesting a report, 1921, from the Government Printing
Office that says the following: 30,000 elk, for instance, live
in the park. I do not know whether that is true. I do not know
whether somebody was right that in 1492 there were 5,000 elk in
this park. I do not think he does.
Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to try to respond to any
questions you have got.
[Statement of Mr. Kennedy may be found at end of hearing.]
[NPS Budget in 1983 dollars may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. You know, I really see some value in making you
wait till the last. His testimony wouldn't have been anywhere
near as good if you had just given your testimony and walked
out. We got that great response from what was said. We are
going to do that with all of them, we will make all the
Administration people listen to other people and then we will
get some good testimony.
Mr. Kennedy. I do not know if I would want to wish that on
my colleagues, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Dr. Schaefer, do you have some comments you
wanted to give us or are you a support actor today?
STATEMENT OF MARK SCHAEFER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Schaefer. Well, I am partly support. I guess I will
make some very, very brief comments. I know you have some
questions, Mr. Chairman. If you do not mind, I will ask that my
entire testimony be put into the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Kennedy. I should have said that too. Will you file my
formal testimony, please, Mr. Chairman? Thank you, sir.
Mr. Schaefer. Secretary Babbitt and the Department have
made outstanding science our highest priority and we are doing
everything we can to make our programs as efficient and as
effective as is possible. Consistent with Congressional
direction we took the National Biological Service, put it into
the U.S. Geological Survey, and made it the Biological
Resources Division.
They are now there with three other divisions and we think
this multidisciplinary approach that we have available to us
now to do research will pay off big time in the long run for us
and we hope that you will give us a chance to show that we can
make this arrangement work.
One reason the Secretary built the National Biological
Service originally was to provide more independence to our
scientists. They have that now in the Biological Resources
Division and we think it is going to pay off for us in the long
run. Besides the multidisciplinary research activities, I
wanted to point out that we are making a special effort to
connect these research programs with the needs of managers,
whether they are in the parks or the refuges, Bureau of Land
Management--wherever they are.
We have gone through a very careful process to develop what
we call a needs assessment activity or needs assessment
process. It is done on an annual basis. We identify priority
needs of managers and we go down the line and take the money we
have available and dedicate it to those high priority needs.
Since it is done on an annual basis, there is a lot of
opportunity to make changes over time if the managers feel like
we have to redirect resources. We are also making a special
effort to connect our programs to the needs of the States and
the tribes. We have done pretty good at that in the Geological
Survey generally over the years and BRD is going to make a
special effort to meet the needs of people in the States.
Also, we are making a special effort to try to leverage the
resources in the nation's universities. People have talked
about this earlier today. We agree there are excellent minds
throughout the country and we have to find a way of tapping
these people. We are trying to find ways of placing more of our
own scientists in the university setting so that we can
leverage those resources.
And, finally, we very much support the scientific and
technical activities that take place in the park--those near-
term activities that are directed to monitoring and inventory-
type work. We want to see those go forward. We think we have
got a good, solid program here that we can make work. We would
like to work with you. If you identify weaknesses, we will take
them seriously, we will go back and we will try to make it
better, but I think we have an excellent program in place.
Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Schaefer may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Dr. Schaefer. The gentleman from
American Samoa is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
would like to offer my sense of appreciation to the Director of
the National Park Service for he certainly, I would say, has a
mark of distinction in the service that he has rendered to our
country as Director of this very important agency and I also
sense a real sense of appreciation for your patience in
allowing the members of our community to testify before you.
As you know, the protocol that generally we allow the
highest officials of the Administration to testify first but I
am sure you gentlemen can get a sense of appreciation of what
are some of the things that we go through and hopefully that
you might be able to respond. And I do appreciate your candid
response, Mr. Kennedy, to some of the allegations and
statements that have been made earlier by members of the
scientific community.
I wanted to ask Dr. Schaefer as well as Mr. Kennedy, for
fiscal year 1996 and 1997, has the Congress given you basically
what you have asked for as far as the biological research
program is concerned with the Department of Interior? Have we
been responsive or have we just not given you sufficient
resources to do your work?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, last year we had a problem. We got a
$30 million hit in our budget and I mentioned our needs
assessment process earlier. Those are the priorities that we
try to meet for the parks and for the refuges, and because of
that cut, which we vigorously opposed but did not prevail, we
had to cut off some of our work related to the parks.
So we would like to work with you to push a little bit
harder for some additional solid funding. In FY '98 the
Administration proposes additional money for the Biological
Resources Division to support science in the parks and other
public lands.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So what you are basically saying is if
you want us to do our work, give us the money to do it with.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Kennedy, I think you probably may
have heard Dr. Kay's earlier statement that Park Service
research program is slanted and is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Can you respond to that?
Mr. Kennedy. Baloney. Baloney. There are first-rate
scientists, as the other scientists testified, who do work for
the National Park Service. This is not a university. We are not
sitting around doing abstract research. We are doing work on
the ground that serves the superintendents and the public
through those superintendents.
The hard part, and it is a hard part, every one of the
responsible scientists that testified before you pointed it
out, the hard part is connecting what you want to learn about
and what its consequences are to the management of the place.
We do first-rate science. We have a lot of people doing first-
rate science. We would like to do better science. Is it
perfect? Not a bit. But that it is no good at all is bunk.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like your precise statement in
response. Mr. Kennedy, and I think not only in fairness to Mr.
Keigley but as well as to the Park Service, and I do not want
to put you in a position if there is any sensitivity involved
with the employment of Dr. Keigley previously with the National
Park Service.
Would you prefer that we submit the question in writing or
can you respond orally to some of the allegations stated
earlier by Dr. Keigley?
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate your sensitivity and I would
prefer not to comment on the particular personnel action or an
action vis-a-vis of a person who does not currently work for
the National Park Service, works for somebody else, and
therefore I--in the first place I have tried to naturally
enough as anybody else who is going to come testify before you
fellows, I tried to find out what happened here.
And I have tried to do that and yet at the end of the day I
am not this man's boss so I am not going to comment on the
matter.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Schaefer, I think Mr. Kennedy may
have stated earlier, but I think it would be helpful to the
committee to submit for the record but say it orally, how many
biological scientists do we currently have with the National
Park Service or part of the Biological Research Division. Can
you give us a breakdown? Do we also have political scientists
that serve with the National Park Service?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. We have a social science program as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do they study the politics and----
Mr. Kennedy. Well, politics in the sense that we try to
find out what the folks, our customers, the American people, we
try scientifically to study what they want us to do and the
degree to which we are providing the services they want or not.
That is not political science exactly. That is sociology but it
is a social science.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right.
Mr. Schaefer. Do you want a response to the first part of
your question?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, please.
Mr. Schaefer. You got to kind of keep it straight because
there are the Park Service employees that are doing more of the
short-term-type work that is monitoring and inventoring in
focus, and then there is the Biological Resources Division that
is responsible for the longer term research activities.
But to answer your question, we have about 1,700 full-time
equivalents dedicated to Biological Research Division work.
That is about 600 research grade scientists.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you have a breakdown in PhD's,
Masters?
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, we will submit that for the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
[The following was submitted for the record:]
Biological Resources Division Scientists
The Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological
Survey has 519 employees in research positions with a
bachelor's degree or higher level of education. Of the 519
employees, 66 have at least a bachelor's degree but have not
obtained a master's degree, 146 have at least a master's degree
but have not obtained a doctorate degree and some of these
individuals may have completed some post-graduate education.
In addition, BRD has 259 employees in science positions
which are not research grade with at least a master's degree
and 105 employees have at least a doctorate degree. These
support positions are critical to the accomplishment of the
mission of the Biological Resources Division, and include such
activities as remote sensing, GIS technology, analytical
chemistry, biological modelling, and statistics.
Mr. Schaefer. And we have 48 permanent biologists that work
right in the parks. We have about 50 biologists that work in
Cooperative Park Study Units presently. These are university
located activities where Interior researchers work in
cooperation with universities.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, can
you tell us who makes the decision or who made the decision to
not manage wildlife in Yellowstone Park or to adopt the natural
regulation process in Yellowstone National Park?
Mr. Kennedy. 30 years ago.
Mr. Rick Hill. I was asking who, but you do not know?
Mr. Kennedy. 30 years ago because that is when that policy
became the policy of the park. I am not trying to bicker with
you. I just wanted to underline--obviously it has been there a
while and the Leopold report which undergirded it has been in
place for a long time. I think, Congressman, although I am not
sure of this and I am just offering--I think that there is a
discussion going on between your delegation maybe at this
moment and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, I think
that is this afternoon.
Mr. Rick Hill. You are correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I think so, and I think that I probably should
not walk all over that discussion by saying much more about
what they are going to be talking about. I hope it is
responsive. I believe it is responsive to your question but I
do not want to gum it up by stating something that is not in
the light of that conversation.
Mr. Rick Hill. Well, I would just like to kind of clarify
how the process works just for my own education.
Mr. Kennedy. Sure.
Mr. Rick Hill. Who then today makes this decision? Is this
a decision that is made by the park superintendent, is it made
by you, is it made by the Secretary? Who makes this decision
today?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, there is not a single decision. There is
a process in every park in which questions arise as to do we
need exotic species in or do you work to get rid of them. What
is an exotic species? Brucellosis bacteria is an exotic
species. It happens. But who decides what ought to be permitted
to proliferate and what should not. These are lots and lots of
species in all these places.
Mr. Rick Hill. But somebody, Mr. Kennedy, had to make this
decision. Are you telling me that nobody makes this decision?
Mr. Kennedy. No, not at all. It is a--there are a multitude
of decisions. There is not a single.
Mr. Rick Hill. All right, let me be more specific. With
regard to the question of bison----
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rick Hill. And the decision to not manage the herd, who
made that decision and who makes that decision today?
Mr. Kennedy. There is not a decision not to manage that
herd. There is not such a decision. It is not made by anybody.
Mr. Rick Hill. Are you saying that there is not a decision
to manage the herd through what we commonly refer to as a
natural management?
Mr. Kennedy. There is in effect management of that herd
right now in many ways including the parks being opened in the
winter. That is a management decision about the behavior of
that herd.
Mr. Rick Hill. Mr. Kennedy, let me be more specific. With
regard to the size of the bison herd and the decision to manage
its size, is there anyone that you can identify for me who has
made that decision or will make the decision with regard to how
it will manage to a size or whether it will manage at all the
size of the herd?
Mr. Kennedy. OK. The question that you are putting to me,
and I am not trying to bicker with you, I am just----
Mr. Rick Hill. I am trying to get you to not evade me. What
I want to know is there a person----
Mr. Kennedy. Who makes the decision as to whether there is
or is not a prescribed number or not.
Mr. Rick Hill. Or a decision to manage to that number.
Mr. Kennedy. OK.
Mr. Rick Hill. Is there a person? I just want to know is
there a name, is there a position?
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, sure there is but what I want to be sure
of is that the answer to your question is responsive in this
way. If that implies is there a number----
Mr. Rick Hill. No, I am asking for the name or the title of
a person.
Mr. Kennedy. Me. I am the Director of the National Park
Service.
Mr. Rick Hill. What do you think about the fact that there
have been nearly 1,000 bison destroyed?
Mr. Kennedy. It depends obviously depending who you are
talking to today, whether you like to shoot them or let them
starve.
Mr. Rick Hill. What is your opinion about----
Mr. Kennedy. I do not like watching animals suffer any more
than anybody else does. Do I have a scientific determination as
to what the carrying capacity of Yellowstone National Park is?
I do not. I will turn to Dr. Soukup for his advice on that.
Mr. Rick Hill. I was not asking that question but if I
could proceed. Do you feel any responsibility at all for what
has occurred there?
Mr. Kennedy. You bet. And have I been working on this with
your governor and others for quite a spell? Yes, sir.
Mr. Rick Hill. OK. Dr. Kay's research, and anybody that has
visited the park can see that we have seen a substantial change
in the park in the last 25 or 30 years, the aspen, the grasses
are changing, the level of grazing has changed substantially.
Does that trouble you at all?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure.
Mr. Rick Hill. Are you aware of that damage to the park?
Does it trouble you at all?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and yes.
Mr. Rick Hill. Do you think it is associated with the
decision to use natural regulation?
Mr. Kennedy. I do not know that. I do not know that and I
really do need to defer to the biological scientists who know
more than I do.
Mr. Rick Hill. One last question. We have been working,
trying to work, with the Park Service to get an environmental
impact statement to deal with this issue of what is the
carrying capacity. And, frankly, the view of many is that the
Park Service has delayed purposely to not allow that statement
to be released.
Can I have your assurance that you are going to do
everything within your power to see that the deadline of July
31 is met to have that environmental impact statement
available?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Kennedy, on behalf
of the people of the Virgin Islands for your tenure as Director
of the Park Service and for your particular interest in our
concerns and our needs at home.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Ms. Christian-Green. But I want to ask you specifically
about some of the recommendations that were made earlier by
NPCA and seem to have been supported by many other witnesses
this morning. Are you in favor of the recommendation that
Congress should enact specific legislative mandate for NPS
research?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Ms. Christian-Green. And the independent research arm that
would establish independent research?
Mr. Kennedy. I think, ma'am, we talked about what that
means really and I think we are on our way to getting now that
done. I think independent but useful is what I am for.
Independent so it would tell you something you can use.
Ms. Christian-Green. OK, and the third one that they
recommended was that Congress should establish a science
advisory board.
Mr. Kennedy. As an expiring bureaucrat I am not big on
advisory boards. I got to tell you I do not know that the
Administration's position is on advisory board but I will be
doggone if I can see a whole lot of use for a whole panoply of
specific advisory boards for archaeology, for history, for
sociology, for anthropology or for science. A lot of our people
love that stuff. I just do not. Personal view.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you for your answers.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, is not this still the
bible for wildlife management?
Mr. Kennedy. I cannot see what you got there, Mr. Chairman.
I will say yes if it is. Is it----
Mr. Hansen. It is the Wildlife Management in the National
Parks, the Leopold Report.
Mr. Kennedy. OK. Could I ask Mr. Soukup? Is that the bible
for wildlife management in the park?
Mr. Soukup. Yes, sir, it has been pretty much----
Mr. Hansen. It is still the one--this lines up perfectly
with what this last group of scientists just said as far as
Yellowstone and the others. I was just looking at it. It amazed
me. Do you still use it or is this now one of those like the
Pentagon, you know.
We do studies for the Pentagon ad nauseam and there is a
big huge room in the bottom of the Pentagon where they hold
Congressional studies and they are never looked at at that
point. I just wondered if you had a room like that at the Park
Service.
Mr. Kennedy. As I said earlier and it probably shocked my
colleagues and I will be in hot water, I thought Dr. Wagner's
formulation of four points made pretty good sense.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Kennedy, let me just say this. I want to
tell you how much we appreciate you coming up here. The time
that you have been Director has been a real privilege. I have
an appointment at 3:30 and I do not have a Republican here so I
am going to turn it over to my good friend from American Samoa.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. I
appreciate working with you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [presiding] In the spirit of
bipartisanship, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Chairman, I am more than
delighted to assist my friends on the majority side at this
instance as I am sure that this is always the problem with
committee hearings and commitments and other committees so I
will continue and ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he
has any questions.
Mr. Delahunt. No, I do not have any questions, Mr. Kennedy,
but simply a statement of the well wishes to an expiring
bureaucrat who really does not sound like a bureaucrat, by the
way.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir. It is a pleasure working with
you.
Mr. Delahunt. And, you know, during your tenure you have
clearly shepherded so well the National Seashore park on Cape
Cod, and we are eternally in your debt for your assistance and
help in terms of the initiative with the Boston Harbor Islands
and you have a proud legacy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Let me give my kudos to the Director. I think
that he has finally got us trained after four years. I think
that your statement today in terms of trying to summarize and
address and anticipate the questions was exactly what we need.
I do not know, having to sit here all day you do not get
paychecks.
I think probably having to do with shorter panels or
different panels on different days so obviously the goal to get
done in the timeframe is easily eclipsed. But we do appreciate
your service of the last four years. It has been a very bumpy
one but as I said you have done as well as anyone could have in
terms of trying to keep it together.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Vento. We are grateful for that.
Mr. Kennedy. It is my training in the fourth district of
Minnesota, Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. But a couple of the questions, just briefly,
that came to mind when you were talking about environmental
impact statement. The general plan for Yellowstone or any park
is a general management plan, which requires DIS, doesn't it?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Vento. And so there is a lot of participation by
everyone in the process and then a specific resource management
plan for a specific process in the Park Service for the
implementation of the general----
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, yeah, this is going to be a hard thing to
do. All I said was I will do my best. I will, but this is going
to be a hard thing to get out in time because there are very,
very, as you may have observed today, strong points of view
that bear upon this question.
Mr. Vento. One of the things, Dr. Schaefer, is there any
projection for individuals in the Biological Resources Division
when there is a question about the advocacy of their work for
their proposals? Do they have a basis for if they have a
proposal to put forth in this particular matter to another
agency and it is not in fact accepted. There is the suggestion
of the thought, of the notion, that management is trying to
influence the science.
What type of projection, what type of remedy is in place to
prevent that type of issue so that the science remains
inviable? Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Schaefer. As I said earlier, one reason that the
Biological Resources Division wwas formed, and the National
Biological Service prior to when it was formed, was to provide
more independence for the Department of Interior's scientists.
In a situation in which a particular scientist feels that they
have not gotten a fair shake in terms of research direction
that they would like to go in and one of the Bureau's desires
to have that research done, what you do is you start with your
supervisor and you talk with him or her about the nature of the
problem.
And then you push it up through the system if you are not
satisfied with the supervisor's response. But we are absolutely
committed to independent research. We encourage our scientists
to publish in the peer review literature. We want competition.
We want competition for funding and we want competition for
publication as well. That is why we emphasize peer review.
We will look into the concerns that Dr. Keigley----
Mr. Vento. I guess that is a specific case. But there are
remedies is what you are saying. You are saying that there are
remedies that are in place. They work.
Mr. Schaefer. I believe they work but it is my
understanding that--well, I think I would like to do what
Director Kennedy has done and not engage in specific testimony
on this issue.
Mr. Vento. No, I do not want you to. The other issue is
there was some suggestion that you are familiar with the
scientific journals and other publications and the peer review
process. Do you think it is fundamentally flawed?
Mr. Schaefer. Absolutely not. We are looked to worldwide
for the quality of our peer review system in this country. It
could always be better but it is the very best--
Mr. Vento. Post-graduate work that are Nobel prizes or----
Mr. Schaefer. Well, that is a good sign. That is often
pointed to as one of the reasons that we are so competitive
internationally.
Mr. Vento. Director Kennedy, do you have any comments
generally about this? Do you have a remedy in terms of these
sorts of problems that might occur where there are differences?
There is competition in these areas.
Mr. Kennedy. Yeah, sure, I do. Unfairness exists in the
world and when it exists it needs to be looked into by Congress
or by the Administration to be sure that things are done
fairly. With respect to peer review, of course I believe in it.
I have written eight books that have been peer reviewed and I
bought 412 peer-reviewed pieces in the course of 50 years of
writing.
I do not mind submitting my stuff for somebody else who
knows more than I do to read it over and tell me whether it is
any good or not. That sounds like a pretty good system to me
and it works in science and it does in history.
Mr. Vento. So it may not be perfect but it is the best we
have got.
Mr. Kennedy. Darn right.
Mr. Vento. I was really pleased that you, Director Kennedy,
mentioned the social sciences, the work that is done there. So
often the decisions we make in the committee with regards to
increase in park fees and the permitting systems and the whole
panoply of decisions that are made in public policy are not
backed up, for instance, by what the effect would be by doing
something like simply raising a fee will be in terms of park
visitation. I mean we cannot answer some of those fundamental
questions.
Mr. Kennedy. No. We need to know what we are doing.
Mr. Vento. Pardon?
Mr. Kennedy. We need to know what we are doing.
Mr. Vento. We need to know, yeah. And so I think that it is
not just the biological sciences that may get the attention
because the issue of bison, I note that some of the speculation
on the bison issue is that they referred to the interaction,
for instance, with snowmobiles.
In fact, they packed down snow. The bison can find a
pathway out of the park that way. If they were not able to do
that, they probably failed and nobody noticed because there was
not as much participation and utilization of the park. I do not
know that. That is conjecture.
We would like to get more answers about that. Maybe that is
an issue that has to be accepted with regards to how we are
going to use the park in the winter. Certainly I hope it does
not prevent it or limit it in any way. After all, it is an
important activity economically and other ways in that area.
But, in any event, I do very much appreciate your
testimony. The time has expired. I appreciate Mr. Hansen
permitting the hearing to go forward with his absence.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, there are a
couple of issues that I would like to clear up for the record
because I think there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings
about the shooting of the bison in Yellowstone National Park.
And I want to clear this for the record, the National Park
Service is not the one that is shooting the bison.
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Because of your policy of
natural regulation, when a bison leaves the internal boundaries
of the territories of the National Park System, that animal,
whether it is a bison, elk, or bear, what then happens? Is it
still under the responsibility of the National Park Service?
Mr. Kennedy. In the instances that most people are thinking
about which is the northside of Yellowstone, it is the State of
Montana that has been on the west side of that portion that has
been shooting the bison.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Right. And the purpose of this is the
fear by the State government officials of the State of Montana
that the bison, when it goes outside of the boundary of the
Yellowstone Park, might have problems with brucellosis?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now is there any scientific, Dr.
Schaefer, any scientific study or evidence to verify whether or
not bison does have brucellosis?
Mr. Schaefer. There are bison----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Or transmitted?
Mr. Schaefer. OK, transmission. There is no documented case
of transmission of brucellosis from wild, free-ranging bison to
cattle, no documented case.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And is it my understanding that the
National Park Service, as far as you are concerned, there is
not an overpopulation of bison currently within the Yellowstone
National Park?
Mr. Schaefer. No, sir, I do not believe there is an
overpopulation of bison in the park.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So for the record what you are saying is
that this 1,000 bison that were shot were shot not because they
were starving to death but because of fear that they might have
brucellosis, is that----
Mr. Schaefer. Not all 1,000 were shot. Some of those were
actually sent to slaughter but----
Mr. Kennedy. They are dead.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, we have lost 1,000 bison for dubious
reasons.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dubious reasons, what were those reasons,
Dr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, the belief that there is a genuine high
risk of transmission of brucellosis from the bison to the
cattle. The risk simply has not been well documented
scientifically.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Not only that, is not brucellosis really
not an inherent disease that comes out of bison, it is really
more from cattle, isn't it?
Mr. Schaefer. Well, in fact, the Yellowstone bison herd was
actually originally infected by cattle.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So as far as the National Park Service is
concerned, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to show
that even the fact that this 1,000 bison that were shot, there
was no evidence, clear evidence, of brucellosis, the presence
of brucellosis?
Mr. Schaefer. A significant proportion of the bison in
Yellowstone are infected and test positive for brucellosis.
There is no strong scientific evidence of transmission of the
disease from Yellowstone bison to cattle. There has not been a
single documented case of transmission of brucellosis from wild
bison in Yellowstone to cattle.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Am I correct that the National Park
Service does keep a very clear tab on the number of bison
within the Yellowstone National Park system? In other words,
you regulate it very closely or do you watch it very closely?
Mr. Kennedy. We observe it and count it as accurately as we
can. These are wild critters that move around but we do our
best. We fly over, for instance, and count them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, now I just want to make sure that we
are clear for this record on this. Did you have something you
wanted to add, Dr. Schaefer?
Mr. Schaefer. No. I was just debating whether or not to say
something. Someone was pressing Director Kennedy earlier to
indicate who was controlling herd size.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, please respond to that.
Mr. Schaefer. Under natural regulation it is the man
upstairs that controls herd size.
Mr. Soukup. Or the woman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The man upstairs.
Mr. Kennedy. After all, under natural circumstances all of
the combinations of enough food and enough predators and birth
rates and death rates.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I understand that some of the members of
the native American community expressed concern and I was just
curious if the National Park Service has been in consultation
with them because some of the families would have loved to have
not because necessarily they are hungry but I think for
purposes of their high respect, the cultural aspects of the
bison. Has the National Park Service closely worked with some
of these native American families who requested that this be
done?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are we going to continue to kill the
bison or is this----
Mr. Kennedy. We are not killing the bison. Somebody else is
killing the bison.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is it just the bison or does this include
the elk as well?
Mr. Kennedy. There is a hunting operation with respect to
elk in the State of Wyoming. I am nervous about testifying at
this particular moment today on this subject when I think the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary or Agriculture are
meeting with the Montana delegation as we speak, and I think I
probably better subside at this point while these great ones
make their policy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I sincerely hope that they will
come out with a resolution----
Mr. Kennedy. I hope so too.
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing]--to this serious problem
because I am sure that in the sense of the American people it
just kind of goes against the conscience of every American to
see that animals are starving; it is very, very against our
sense of conscience with what we do with animals, but I do
appreciate your response.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, could I have one question?
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. Yes. Earlier in the day another panel, one of
our colleagues, I forget whom, made the statement that there is
a quarantine in one State, I do not know if it was Montana, of
Montana's cattle. And the inference that I drew--and I just
think that this needs to be clarified--is that the quarantine
resulted from brucellosis that was transmitted by bison from
the park so that is no relationship?
Mr. Kennedy. No, I do not believe that is what the question
meant to say.
Mr. Delahunt. OK, maybe I am misrepresenting.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to say one more thing if I may. I
think this is a very, very tough situation in which there are
people with legitimately powerfully different views about how
many bison or elk there should be in this system. There is no
agreement on this subject. It is not an easy one, nor is it
easy for there to be a park which is not a zoo next to places
where people are running cattle. That is a very, very tough set
of problems for the nation.
I guess the only thing that I have resented throughout this
entire afternoon, if I may speak for myself, was any inference
that this was an easy, slam-dunk decision for any rational,
decent person to make. It is very tough and we are doing the
best we can with it. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that these
constant contacts between wild populations--whether it be
mountain sheep or in this case buffalo and cattle--I mean very
often it is the other way, it is from the outside that these
things are coming in and affecting the park.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Vento. And while the transmission problem, the
brucellosis from cattle to buffalo or bison are possible or
maybe the other, maybe, we do not know, but in these instances
it is possible to keep them off these grounds but they are
using these grazing allotments right up to the boundary of the
park and so there is the suggestion that the species or other
process might possibly be contaminated.
But the same thing could be said with regard to the elk.
Although they may share a different range, they also carry
brucellosis and they are not shooting them. They are going out
there wandering because they are game species, and so there is
not perhaps the same ground share and other factors that enter
into it because also I think some cultural values that affect
why they are not shot in those instances.
So it is important to understand. This is a problem in
terms of population, quite candidly, in all the parks. We have
a frankly much more acute, I would say, in some of the eastern
parks like Camp David.
Mr. Kennedy. Or Gettysburg.
Mr. Vento. You do not want gunshot around for other
reasons, you know. There is a population there of whitetail
deer that look pretty scrawny. Of course, then again it may not
be a natural species in some areas but I think it is in that
area frankly. Dr. Schaefer, did you have any comments?
Mr. Schaefer. I just wanted to mention that we very much
support additional research to understand the transmission
issue better. As you pointed out, a significant number of the
elk are infected with the bacterium that causes brucellosis and
we need to understand whether there is transmission between elk
and bison, and whether there is transmission in the reverse
direction.
There are other mammals in the ecosystem that can be
infected as well. It is something that we do not know a lot
about. The other point is that the key to solving the problem
may be developing a vaccine that is safe and effective in
bison. We would like to put more money, time, and effort into
the development of that particular vaccine.
Mr. Kennedy. I think the problem is, of course, this brings
us right back full circle in terms of suggesting that the Park
Service has to be at the cutting edge. I am sure that that
would be interesting or the Biological Resources Division will
be at the cutting edge in terms of doing primary research on
things like antigen and antibody reactions.
And I think that Dr. Fuchi at the National Institute of
Health might have wherever he went to these days in terms of
dealing with retro viruses and other factors might have
something to add to this in a qualitative way. So I mean I
think we are just saying we get the whole issue of science here
that we would have to advance and it is not as though
brucellosis has not received a lot of research dollars.
Across the country we deal with it in fact and so I mean it
goes without saying. I do not know what the problem is
incidentally with the Montana beef versus Alabama but if the
price of beef was a little higher maybe the problem would not
be so bad, I do not know.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I think the only positive forward
motion that I can suggest on this particular point is that it
would be a good thing for the appropriators, I know this is not
an appropriations hearing, to listen carefully when the
Department of Agriculture discusses the necessity for precise
research on the question of vaccines that might work for bison
as distinguished from vaccines that might work for cattle.
That is a thing that might actually help if we paid
attention to that. The Department of Agriculture is the
appropriate body probably for that subject but it is important.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would just like to say that there
certainly is a sense of unfairness that directing our attention
to shooting bison for fear of brucellosis and yet the same is
not done for elk, and I think not only is there a contradiction
but certainly a very, very serious problem. And then using the
name of starvation and then accusing the National Park Service
for being responsible when in fact this is not the case and
that is what I call irresponsible media coverage of really the
real story with the bison in Yellowstone.
Mr. Kennedy, thank you again, and Dr. Schaefer, and members
of your office. Thank you, the panelists who were here
previously. I know the Chairman would have stated the same
thing in expressing his appreciation for your being here this
afternoon and also the members of the committee. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development
Division, GAO
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss our views on the
National Park Service's knowledge of the condition of the
resources that the agency is entrusted to protect within our
National Park System. As you know, the Park Service is the
caretaker of many of this nation's most precious natural and
cultural resources. The agency's mission, as mandated by the
Congress, is to provide for the public's enjoyment of these
resources while, at the same time, preserving and protecting
these great treasures so they will be unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations. The 374 units that now make up
the National Park System cover over 80 million acres of land
and include an increasingly diverse mix of sites ranging from
natural areas such as Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks
to urban areas such as Gateway National Recreation Area in
Brooklyn, New York, to national battlefields, national historic
sites, national monuments, and national preserves.
Over the years, in response to a variety of concerns raised
by this Subcommittee and other congressional committees, we
have reported on several aspects of resource management within
the National Park Service. My testimony today is based
primarily on the findings of three recent reports, \1\ which
generally focused on what the Park Service knows about the
condition of the resources entrusted to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have
Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (GAO/RCED-94-59,
Jan. 3, 1994), National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About
the Future of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug. 30, 1995), and National
Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused Damage to
Resources (GAO/RCED-96-202, Aug. 23, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In brief, Mr. Chairman, our work has shown that although
the National Park Service acknowledges, and its policies
emphasize, the importance of managing parks on the basis of
sound scientific information about resources, today such
information is seriously deficient. Frequently, baseline
information about natural and cultural resources is incomplete
or nonexistent, making it difficult for park managers to have a
clear knowledge about what condition the resources are in and
whether the condition of those resources is deteriorating,
improving, or staying the same. At the same time, many of these
park resources face significant threats, ranging from air
pollution, to vandalism, to the development of nearby land.
However, even when these threats are known, the Park Service
has limited scientific knowledge about the severity of them and
their impact on affected resources. These concerns are not new
to the Park Service, and, in fact, the agency has taken steps
to improve the situation. However, because of limited funds and
other competing needs that must be completed, the Park Service
has made relatively limited progress to correct this deficiency
of information. There is no doubt that it will cost money to
make more substantial progress in improving the scientific
knowledge base about park resources. Dealing with this
challenge will require the Park Service, the administration,
and the Congress to make difficult choices involving how parks
are funded and managed. However, without such an improvement,
the Park Service will be hindered in its ability to make good
management decisions aimed at preserving and protecting the
resources entrusted to it.
information about park resources is essential for effective management
The National Park System is one of the most visible symbols
of who we are as a land and a people. As the manager of this
system, the National Park Service is caretaker of many of the
nation's most precious natural and cultural resources, ranging
from the fragile ecosystems of Arches National Park in Utah to
the historic structures of Philadelphia's Independence Hall and
the granite faces of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota.
Over the past 30 years, more than a dozen major studies of
the National Park System by independent experts as well as the
Park Service itself have pointed out the importance of guiding
resource management through the systematic collection of data-
sound scientific knowledge. The recurring theme in these
studies has been that to manage parks effectively, managers
need information that allows for the detection and mitigation
of threats and damaging changes to resources. Scientific data
can inform managers, in objective and measurable terms, of the
current condition and trends of park resources. Furthermore,
the data allow managers to make resource management decisions
based on measurable indicators rather than relying on judgment
or general impressions.
Managing with scientific data involves both collecting
baseline data about resources and monitoring their condition
over time. Park Service policy calls for managing parks on this
basis, and park officials have told us that without such
information, damage to key resources may go undetected until it
is so obvious that correcting the problem is extremely
expensive--or worse yet, impossible. Without sufficient
information depicting the condition and trends of park
resources, the Park Service cannot adequately perform its
mission of preserving and protecting these resources.
information on the condition of many park resources is insufficient
While acknowledging the importance of obtaining information
on the condition of park resources, the Park Service has made
only limited progress in developing it. Our reviews have found
that information about many cultural and natural resources is
insufficient or absent altogether. This was particularly true
for park units that feature natural resources, such as Yosemite
and Glacier National Parks. I would like to talk about a few
examples of the actual impact of not having information on the
condition of park resources, as presented in our 1995 reports.
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Appendix I lists the 12 park units we visited while conducting
this review. These units represent a cross section of the units within
the park system. However, because they are not a randomly drawn sample
of all park units, they may not be representative of the system as a
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cultural resources
Generally, managers at culturally oriented parks, such as
Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland or Hopewell Furnace
National Historic Site in Pennsylvania, have a greater
knowledge of their resources than managers of parks that
feature natural resources. Nonetheless, the location and status
of many cultural resources especially archaeological resources-
were largely unknown. For example, at Hopewell Furnace National
Historic Site, an 850-acre park that depicts a portion of the
nation's early industrial development, the Park Service has
never conducted a complete archaeological survey, though the
site has been in the park system since 1938. A park official
said that without comprehensive inventory and monitoring
information, it is difficult to determine whether the best
management decisions about resources are being made.
The situation was the same at large parks established
primarily for their scenic beauty, which often have cultural
resources as well. For example, at Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia, managers reported that the condition of more than 90
percent of the identified sites with cultural resources was
unknown. Cultural resources in this park include buildings and
industrial artifacts that existed prior to the formation of the
park. In our work, we found that many of these sites and
structures have already been damaged, and many of the remaining
structures have deteriorated into the surrounding landscape.
The tragedy of not having sufficient information about the
condition and trends of park resources is that when cultural
resources, like those at Hopewell Furnace and Shenandoah
National Park, are permanently damaged, they are lost to the
nation forever. Under these circumstances, the Park Service's
mission of preserving these resources for the enjoyment of
future generations is seriously impaired.
natural resources
Compared with the situation for cultural resources, at the
parks we visited that showcase natural resources, even less was
known about the condition and trends that are occurring to
natural resources over time. For example:
--At California's Yosemite National Park, officials told us
that virtually nothing was known about the types or numbers of
species inhabiting the park, including fish, birds, and such
mammals as badgers, river otters, wolverines, and red foxes.
--At Montana's Glacier National Park, officials said most
wildlife-monitoring efforts were limited to four species
protected under the Endangered Species Act.
--At Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, officials
said Hey lacked detailed data about such categories of wildlife
as reptiles and amphibians as well as mammals such as deer and
bobcats. Park managers told us that-except for certain
endangered species, such as sea turtles-they had inadequate
knowledge about whether the condition of wildlife was
improving, declining, or staying the same.
This lack of inventory and monitoring information affects
not only what is known about park resources, but also the
ability to assess the effect of management decisions. After 70
years of stocking nonnative fish in various lakes and waterways
in Yosemite, for example, park officials realized that more
harm than good had resulted. Nonnative fish outnumber native
rainbow trout by a 4-to-1 margin, and the stocking reduced the
numbers of at least one federally protected species (the
mountain yellow-legged frog).
information on threats to park resources is aiso limited
The Park Service's lack of information on the condition of
the vast array of resources it must manage becomes even more
significant when one considers the fact that many known threats
exist that can adversely affect these resources. Since at least
1980, the Park Service has begun to identify threats to its
resources, such as air and water pollution or vandalism, and to
develop approaches for dealing with them. \3\ However, our
recent reviews have found that sound scientific information on
the extent and severity of these threats is limited. Yet
preventing or mitigating these threats and their impact is at
the core of the agency's mission to preserve and protect the
parks' resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ State of the Parks - 1980: A Report to the Congress, U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service (May 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have conducted two recent reviews of threats to the
parks, examining external threats in 1994 and internal threats
in 1996. Threats that originate outside of a park are termed
external and include such things as off-site pollution, the
sound of airplanes flying overhead, and the sight of urban
encroachment. Protecting park resources from the damage
resulting from external threats is difficult because these
threats are, by their nature, beyond the direct control of the
Park Service. Threats that originate within a park are termed
internal and include such activities as heavy visitation, the
impact of private inholdings within park grounds, and
vandalism. In our nationwide survey of park managers, they
identified more than 600 external threats, and in a narrower
review at just eight park units, managers identified more than
100 internal threats. \4\ A dominant theme in both reports was
that managers did not have adequate information to determine
the impact of these threats and correctly identify their
source. For the most part, park managers said they relied on
judgment, coupled with limited scientific data, to make these
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Appendix II lists the eight park units we studied during this
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some types of damage, such as the defacement of
archaeological sites, observation and judgment may provide
ample information to substantiate the extent of the damage. But
for many other types of damage, Park Service officials agree
that observation and judgment are not enough. Scientific
research will generally provide better evidence about the types
and severity of damage occurring and any trends in the seventy
of the threats. Scientific research also generally provides a
more reliable guide for mitigating threats.
Two examples will help illustrate this point. In
California's Redwood National Park, scientific information
about resource damage is helping mitigation efforts. Scientists
used research data that had been collected over a period of
time to determine the extent to which damage occurring to
trees, fish, and other resources could be attributed to erosion
from logging and related road-building activities. On the basis
of this research, the park's management is now in a position to
begin reducing the threat by advising adjacent landowners on
better logging and road-building techniques that will reduce
erosion.
The second example, from Crater Lake National Park in
Oregon, shows the disadvantage of not having such information.
The park did not have access to wildlife biologists or forest
ecologists to conduct scientific research identifying the
extent of damage occurring from logging and its related
activities. For example, damage from logging, as recorded by
park staff using observation and a comparison of conditions in
logged and untagged areas, has included the loss of habitat and
migration corridors for wildlife. However, without scientific
research, park managers are not in a sound position to
negotiate with the Forest Service and the logging community to
reduce the threat.
enhancing knowledge about resources will involve difficult choices
The information that I have presented to you today is not
new to the National Park Service. Park Service managers have
long acknowledged that to improve management of the National
Park System, more sound scientific information on the condition
of resources and threats to those resources is needed. The Park
Service has taken steps to correct the situation. For example,
automated systems are in place to track illegal activities such
as looting, poaching, and vandalism, and an automated system is
being developed to collect data on deficiencies in preserving,
collecting, and documenting cultural and natural resource
museum collections. For the most part, however, relatively
limited progress has been made in gathering information on the
condition of resources. When asked why more progress is not
being made, Park Service officials generally told us that funds
are limited and competing needs must be addressed.
Our 1995 study found that funding increases for the Park
Service have mainly been used to accommodate upgraded
compensation for park rangers and deal with additional park
operating requirements, such as safety and environmental
regulations. In many cases, adequate funds are not made
available to the parks to cover the cost of complying with
additional operating requirements, so park managers have to
divert personnel and/or dollars from other activities such as
resource management to meet these needs. In addition, we found
that, to some extent, these funds were used to cope with a
higher number of park visitors.
Making more substantial progress in improving the
scientific knowledge base about resources in the park system
will cost money. At a time when federal agencies face tight
budgets, the park system continues to grow as new units are
added--37 since 1985, and the Park Service faces such pressures
as higher visitation rates and an estimated $4 billion backlog
of costs related to just maintaining existing park
infrastructures such as roads, trails, and visitor facilities.
Dealing with these challenges calls for the Park Service, the
administration, and the Congress to make difficult choices
involving how national parks are funded and managed. Given
today's tight fiscal climate and the unlikelihood of
substantially increased federal appropriations, our work has
shown that the choices for addressing these conditions involve
(1) increasing the amount of financial resources made available
to the parks by increasing opportunities for parks to generate
more revenue, (2) limiting or reducing the number of units in
the park system, and (3) reducing the level of visitor
services. Regardless of which, if any, of these choices is
made, without an improvement in the Park Service's ability to
collect the scientific data needed to properly inventory park
resources and monitor their condition over time, the agency
cannot adequately perform its mission of preserving and
protecting the resources entrusted to it.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
------
Testimony of Paul C. Pritchard, President, National Parks and
Conservation Association
Introduction:
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Paul C. Pritchard and I am the
President of the National Parks and Conservation Association
(NPCA). NPCA is America's only private, nonprofit citizen
organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and
enhancing the National Park System. An association of
``Citizens Protecting America's Parks,'' NPCA was founded in
1919, and today has more than 500,000 members.
On behalf of our association, I commend the subcommittee
for holding this hearing today. Effective research and resource
management are essential to the future of our national parks
and I am encouraged by the Committee's recognition of this
important connection. Since its founding in 1919, NPCA has
advocated understanding and protecting the national parks
through science? based management. In fact, one of the
principal goals of our founders was, ``to thoroughly study the
National Parks and make past as well as future results
available for public use.''
I am pleased to offer testimony today on the effectiveness
of the National Park Service's scientific research program in
carrying out the agency's resource protection mission. I also
appreciate the Chairman's invitation to comment on previous
reviews of that program.
Twice in the past ten years, NPCA has commissioned
significant studies of park research. The purpose of these
studies was to improve park protection through better research
and resource management. A summary of our recommendations is
appended to my testimony as Appendix 1 and I would appreciate
its inclusion in the hearing record.
I hope that the Appendix will be helpful and I would like
to take this opportunity to strongly urge the committee to
draft a bill that will mandate the following:
1. A comprehensive program of scientific research in the
parks;
2. That the scientific basis for all management decisions
be fully documented;
3.That every effort be made to utilize the scientific
talent and wealth of knowledge of our nation's universities and
that such cooperation be inclusive rather than exclusive;
4. That no research occur in the parks unless it is
authorized by the National Park Service;
5. That all findings be made know to the National Park
Service and the public and be made available on the World Wide
Web;
6. That research priorities be set according to management
needs, not solely on the basis of each researcher's personal or
institutional interests; and
7. That non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations be given
incentives to provide financial support for research in the
parks.
Legislative Authority.
The necessity for science-based management of the national
parks is not a new idea. Although there is no specific
statutory mandate for such research, at least 11 existing laws
require some kind of research in the parks They are:
--Lacey Act (1900);
--Historic Sites Act (1935);
--Wilderness Act (1964);
--Concessions Policy Act (1965);
--National Historic Preservation Act (1966);
--National Environmental Policy Act (1969);
--Endangered Species Act (1973);
--Clean Air Act (1973);
--National Parks and Recreation Act (1978);
--Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979);
--Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(1990) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park Service. Usable Knowledge: A Plan for Furthering
Social Science and the National Parks. 7 February 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissions and Reports.
Over the last 35 years, at least 15 reports or commissions
have dealt with science in the National Park System. These
include:
--The Government Accounting Office's report on NPS visitor
services (1995);
--``A Biological Survey for the Nation.'' The National
Research Council's plan for establishing a National Biological
Survey (1993);
--The National Park Service's report entitled ``Science and
the National Parks II'' (1993);
--The Ecological Society of America's report on ecological
science in the parks (1992).
--The National Research Council's report entitled ``Science
and the National Parks'' (1992).
--The National Park Service's ``Vail Agenda'' report
(1992).
--The National Park Service's ``Report of a Workshop for a
National Park Service Ecological Research Program'' (1992).
--The National Parks and Conservation Association's
Commission on Research and Resource Management Policy in the
National Park System (1988).
--The National Parks and Conservation Association's
``National Park System Plan: A Blueprint for Tomorrow'' (1988).
--A. Starker Leopold's and Durward Allen's report entitled
``A Review and Recommendations Relative to the NPS Science
Program'' (1977).
--``National Parks for the Future'' The Conservation
Foundation's report on problems facing the National Park System
(1972).
--The National Research Council's publication entitled ``A
Report by the Advisory Committee to the National Park Service
on Research'' (1963).
--A. Starker Leopold's report entitled ``Wildlife
Management in the National Parks'' (1963).
NPCA's National Park System Plan: In 1988, the National
Parks and Conservation Association released a nine volume plan
for the national parks. Volume two of this plan, entitled
``Research in the Parks: An Assessment of Needs,'' was devoted
entirely to the status of research in the parks and the
shortcomings of the research program at that time. This plan
contained 38 recommendations for improving the status of
research in the parks.
Our recommendations are still relevant. Among other things,
we concluded that:
1. Congress should enact a specific legislative mandate for
NPS research which clearly defines the role of research in
resource management and decision making and requires the
completion of standardized Service-wide inventories of natural
and cultural resources, and implementation of permanent
monitoring programs.
2. The National Park Service should establish an
independent research arm, distinct from management and
operations, to assure long-term continuity and objectivity in
the NPS research program. This arm should integrate natural,
cultural and social science divisions under an Associate
Director for Research. Regional Chiefs of Research should
report directly to the respective division chiefs at WASO. All
park researchers should report to the respective Regional Chief
of Research.
3. Congress should establish a Science Advisory Board of
demonstrably qualified experts to provide independent, balanced
and expert assessment of NPS natural, cultural, and social
science needs and programs. Regional and park-specific adhoc
science advisory boards should also be established.
4. The NPS should include in its annual budget request, and
Congress should appropriate, a separate line item for research
equivalent to 10% of the total operating budget of the National
Park Service. Congress should specify that the funds be used to
establish a servicewide projects fund; increased park and
regional base funding for research, inventory and monitoring;
and a contingency fund for emergency needs.
5. NPS should establish additional Cooperative Park Studies
Units and cooperative agreements focusing on the social
sciences, historical and archaeological research. To ensure
that the best available expertise is obtained, CPSU cooperative
agreements should require that the CPSU administrator solicit
proposals from private sector scientists with geographic and
subject matter expertise in the parks under study.
6. Each NPS region should be required to prepare an annual
report, outlining all inhouse, contract, and CPSU research that
has been completed that year, is still in progress, or is in
need of initiation.
7. The NPS should develop and implement a standardized, yet
flexible, technique for measuring visitation and visitor needs
in the parks. This should include the establishing of
``indicator'' parks that would be surveyed periodically to
provide baseline information, and show comparisons between
parks. The results of these studies should be disseminated to
concessioners and the tourism industry.
8. Funding should be provided to enable the NPS History
Division to conduct the historic theme studies which are used
to identify potential additions to the national park system,
the national historic landmarks system, and the National
Register of Historic Places. A shipwrecks theme study should be
conducted and appropriate National Register nominations
prepared. Where appropriate, national historic landmarks should
be designated.
9. The NPS should conduct a survey assessment of the
historical research function throughout the service; consider a
more stable funding source for historic resource studies for
natural and recreational areas as well as administrative
histories that analyze policy issues; and establish base
funding for cultural resource studies whose principle purpose
is to provide data for interpretation.
1a The NPS should provide additional funds for the
Submerged Cultural Resources Unit and the Maritime History
Project so that underwater archaeologists can continue to
inventory and document shipwrecks before treasure hunters strip
them of their research potential.
11. Parks with significant natural resources should develop
or expand a Geographic Information System, a computerized
mapping system that organizes data spatially, enabling park
managers to make timely, effective management decisions.
12. The development and implementation of a comprehensive
NPS natural resources inventory and monitoring program should
be a high priority. The I&M program should be conducted in
cooperation with adjacent landowners, state and federal
agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the governments
of other countries.
13. The NPS should establish technical research centers for
each major biome, using existing Cooperative Park Study Units
if possible. Topic-oriented or biome-oriented centers should be
multi-organizational to foster cooperation with other agencies
experiencing similar resource problems, and should be staged
with interdisciplinary science teams that could travel to
individual parks to assist with special research problems. The
centers could also serve as training and continuing education
centers for researchers, resource management specialists and
park managers.
The Gordon Commission In 1989, NPCA funded, in cooperation
with the National Park Service, the Commission on Research and
Resource Management Policy in the National Park System, a
``blue ribbon'' panel whose mission was to assess the roles of
research and resource management in the future of the national
parks. Also known as the ``Gordon Commission,'' after its
chairman, John C. Gordon, Dean of Yale University's School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, the Commission made
numerous recommendations for improving science and management
in the parks. The Gordon Report contains a series of
recommendations, including several that NPCA had already made
in the 1988 System Plan.
In 1991, the National Park Service followed NPCA's lead by
requesting that the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academy of Sciences review the status of science-based
management in the national parks. In 1992, the NRC concurred
with the Gordon Commission and reported that science-based
management of the parks was woefully inadequate.
The NRC made 16 major recommendations for improving park
research. A recent analysis of the NRC recommendations and
those made by NPCA in 1988 and 1989 indicates that each of the
NRC's 16 recommendations was a restatement of a Gordon
Commission recommendation.
One recommendation that appeared in all three reports was
the call for a research mandate for the NPS. In December 1993,
and again in late 1996, members of the NPS Directorate (now
National Leadership Council) circulated a draft bill that would
``provide for a program of research in the units of the
National Park System,'' \2\ but, no bill was introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Memorandum from Acting Director, NPS to Deputy Director,
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs through Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 14 December 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Biological Survey: Impact on the National Park
Service Consistent with the plans set forth in the 1994 report
entitled ``A Biological Survey for the Nation,'' the National
Park Service lost many of its researchers during the time the
research mandate bill was being circulated in draft form. These
former NPS researchers joined scientists from the Cooperative
Research Units of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
several other federal agencies to form the National Biological
Survey. \3\ The result, according to a survey of NPS managers
and former researchers, was the collapse of already inadequate
science-based management of the national parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For an exhaustive description of the National Biological
Survey, its structure and purpose, see: A Biological Survey for the
Nation. National Research Council. National Academy Press. 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of a survey conducted in early 1996 by the
office of the Associate Director for Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science are recorded in a report entitled
``Working Relationships Between The National Biological Service
and the National Park Service: A Survey of Managers and
Scientists.'' The Service described the survey results as
``...representing the opinions of selected NPS managers and
illustrating the range and diversity of view among NPS
partners within the NBS.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ United States. Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Directorate, National Park Service. Working Relationships Between The
National Biological Service and the National Park Service: A Survey
Managers and Scientists. Washington, D.C. 17 April 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This survey revealed the impact the establishment of the
NBS had done on NPS research capacity and the application of
research findings to park resources management. Survey results
included the following:
1. Before the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, 49% of
the NPS respondents reported that they had received scientific
assistance ``regularly;''
2. Since the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, only
19% of the respondents reported receiving assistance from the
transferred NPS scientists ``regularly;''
3. Since the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, the
percentage of respondents ``never'' receiving scientific
guidance had nearly tripled, from 11% to 32%; and
4. Respondents were asked whether they received research
and technical assistance from National Biological Service
scientists who were not previously with the NPS. 5% reported
receiving such assistance ``regularly,'' 24% ``occasionally,''
and 71% reported none.
The Park Service drew the following conclusions from the
survey results:
1. ``The perceived level of research and technical
assistance regularly provided by former NPS scientists has
declined;''
2. ``The proportion of managers receiving no assistance has
increased;''
3. One-fifth of the scientists who were transferred from
NPS to the National Biological Service were either ``not
encouraged or actively discouraged'' from assisting NPS
managers after the transfer;
4. Over 50% of the scientists who were transferred from NPS
to the National Biological Service ``felt that their support
from NPS parks had declined.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This status of research in the parks reached a new low on
October 2, 1996 when the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
announced the creation of its Biological Resources Division
(BRD) and the appointment of Dennis B. Fenn, a former National
Park Service soil scientist, as its first chief biologist. This
announcement marked the transfer of NBS scientists from the
National Biological Service (formerly Surly) to the USGS. It
meant that former park scientists, already far removed from
park managers by the bureaucracy of the NBS, had become
employees of the USGS. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ `` `New' U.S. Geological Survey Names First Chief Biologist.''
PRNewswire, America on-line News Profiles Service. 2 October 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BRD claims that it has ``...a strong commitment to
supporting the scientific needs of the other bureaus within the
Interior Department,'' according to a USGS press release.
However, based on the results of the NBS experiment, there is
no reason to believe that this will be the case.
This is particularly unfortunate, because, as the DOI
Science Board wrote in a September 9, 1996, service-wide
proposal for science-based management,
...management of the nation's lands and waters requires
skillful public service supported by sound science. The
challenges of the 21st century--and the choices they will
shape for the American people--will demand even more
skill and science. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ United States. Department of the Interior Science Board.
Science fore Management in the 21st Century: A Network of Cooperative
Ecosystem Studies Units. 9 September 1996. pg. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPCA strongly agrees with this statement.
Importance of Research-based Resource Management:
There are many reasons why we must work to improve research
and resource management in the parks. First of all, until
Congress funds research and resource management adequately, we
will continue to deal with the unresolved problems this
committee has faced in recent years. Until we base management
decisions on the best possible scientific evidence, we will
continue to be engaged in arguments based on perception and
assumption, rather than on fact.
Another important reason for encouraging science-based
management is to better protect our parks for the benefit of
the American people. The National Park Service's Organic Act
mandate requires the agency to ``...conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein...''
in perpetuity. We cannot achieve that goal without research
because we cannot protect what we do not understand.
There are many examples of how a little research, linked to
competent management, can benefit the parks.
Some examples:
1. Enhancing Visitor Experience and Resource Protection.
After NPCA developed the Visitor Impact Management framework, a
tool land managers can use to protect park resources from over
crowding and ensure visitor enjoyment of the parks, the
National Park Service began implementing a derivation of this
process as the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection
program. This is an example of how research can inform managers
and produce benefits for parks and people.
2. Protecting Air Quality. The air quality information that
has been developed through monitoring and experimentation at
Shenandoah National Park and Great Smokies National Park has
enabled the National Park Service to show that air pollution
generated miles away can and does harm plants and trees in the
parks. This information has allowed citizens to better
understand how their development decisions and pollution
control activities affect our national parks.
4. Protecting Park Ecology. Researchers from the University
of Washington have conducted studies that are helping the park
service protect the park's beautiful subalpine meadows.
5. Utilizing Partners. NPS has a cooperative agreement with
the Organization of American Historians (OAH), the largest
American History organization. In November 1995, OAH
established a National Park Committee. As a result of this
cooperation, five members of OAH spent three days at Antietam
reviewing Civil War scholarship and ways it could be integrated
into the National Park Service's resource management and
interpretation programs there. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pitcaithley, Dwight. Personal Interview. 18 July 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Studying Visitor Needs. The Visitor Service's Project
Database (VSP) provides a record of visitor characteristics and
needs. It is available to the public and is maintained by the
NPS Visitor Services Project at the University of Idaho. It
contains data collected in more than 80 units of the National
Park System since 1982. The data represent snapshots in
individual parks and there is no monitoring of these parks over
time, but the VSP is at least a step in the right direction.
While these successes are important, they need to be
multiplied many fold. There is still so much we need to know.
Until we have an adequate level of research, park resources
will remain at risk.
Failures and Shortcomings of NPS Research and Resource
Management While there have been many successes as a result of
cooperation between researchers and resource managers, there
have also been many failures. In many instances, even the most
basic resource knowledge, in the hands of well-trained
managers, could have prevented the irreversible loss of park
resources.
Some examples:
1. Everglades. The recent crisis in the Florida Everglades
has arisen in part because of a lack of basic knowledge about
the ecosystem of south Florida. Had the Park Service and other
agencies better understood the dynamics and hydrology of that
system before its alteration began, we would not need to be
devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to restoring the
system.
2. Cultural Resources in the Southwest. For decades, the
National Park Service has lacked the information needed to care
for prehistoric ruins in the southwestern United States. As a
result of this information gap, the Park Service has damaged
many irreplaceable structures and ruined others. A recent
initiative, announced in the FY 98 budget and known as
``Vanishing Treasures,'' is an attempt to begin research-based
management to these cultural treasures.
3. Transportation. The dramatic increases in visitation the
parks have experienced since the l950s has been met with a
decades old response: building more roads for single passenger
vehicles. Access to our parks will be one of the most
controversial issues in our future if we do not begin to seek
and apply knowledge to this management challenge. This presents
an opportunity to correct our course and gain adequate
knowledge before building new roads, or monorails, or funding
unknown transportation strategies.
4. Water in Death Valley. During a recent visit to Death
Valley, I learned that development of lands adjacent to the
park could dramatically drop the area's water table and dry up
already rare springs. But park managers aren't sure how
development will affect the park's few oases, because the basic
research on the area's hydrology has not been done. If
landowners and park lovers are at odds over the allocation of
water in the area, there is little we can do to resolve
conflict until we have baseline data regarding the region's
hydrology.
5. Global Climate Change. An additional and equally
daunting challenge facing our parks is global warming. A
recent, informal review conducted by NPCA has shown that 49 of
our 54 national parks could lose their most significant
features to global climate change. This much we think we know,
but we have taken little action to counter this threat. This
breakdown between knowledge and action is an additional threat
to the parks.
6. Yellowstone National Park's Buffalo Management. A final,
but especially timely, example of how current research,
science, and information are inadequate to manage park
resources is the case of the buffalo herd in Yellowstone
National Park. This winter, over 1,000 American buffalo have
been slaughtered in and around Yellowstone. This amounts to
one-third of the park's buffalo population.
Park personnel have participated in the slaughter under the
guise of ``disease prevention.'' Federal and state bureaucrats
have claimed that because the buffalo may be infected with
brucellosis, they must not be allowed to commingle with
domestic cattle. Nor must they be allowed to use their historic
wintering grounds, on public or private lands, because they
allegedly pose a threat to domestic cattle.
But the trouble is, there is no scientific evidence that
documents the transmission of brucellosis from buffalo to
domestic cattle in the wild. None.
One-third of Yellowstone National Park's buffalo have been
sacrificed because the National Park Service, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the state of Montana refuse to
base management on facts. This lack of facts can only lead us
into conflict. This is unacceptable and it must not continue.
No one wants to put domestic cattle at risk. My family has
cow-calf and dairy operations. I come from a cattle farming
family.
I implore the members of the committee to steer us out of
these troubled waters of management by supposition and innuendo
and toward a more reasonable management informed by research
results.
Conclusion.
In closing, I offer a few general recommendations for
improving park protection through research based resource
management.
1. Before investing $5 billion or more in capital
improvements for the parks, Congress should invest in
intellectual capital for the parks--the scientists and the
resource managers--that will make sure that every one of those
dollars is wisely spent. Adequate research will help us avoid
conflict and ensure that we ``...conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life...'' in
perpetuity.
2. Park research should depend upon reliable links to the
academic community through programs such as the Department of
Interior Science Board's proposed ``Cooperative Ecosystem
Studies Units.''
------
Appendix 1: Summary of Recommendations, National Parks and Conservation
Association: 1988, 1989, National Research Council: 1992
testimony of paul c. pritchard, president, national parks and
conservation association
In 1991, the National Park Service responded to the
research-related recommendations the National Parks and
Conservation Association (NPCA) made in its 1988 National Park
System Plan as follows:
In general terms, the Service supports much of the thrust
of this volume as it advocates more research funding and
personnel, better inventory and monitoring programs, enhanced
professional standards and capabilities, etc. However, the
Service maintains that it has the full authority to do whatever
research is needed and disagrees that there is a need for
additional legislative authority for research, though some
legislative clarifications be helpful.
Regarding the structure of the science/research programs of
the National Park Service, since investigation and formulation
of the NPCA recommendations on park research, the Service has
entered into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
and they are now conducting a comprehensive review of the NPS
science programs. Thus, pending the outcome of that review, the
Service will not comment on NPCA's recommendations regarding
the structure of the science programs. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ `` `NPS Review Comments on the National Parks and Conservation
Association's National Park System Plan--Investing in Park Futures -
The National Park System: A Blueprint for Tomorrow.'' Memorandum from
Acting NPS Director to Directorate, Field Directorate, WASO Division
and Office Chiefs. 18 April 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, National Academy Press published the results of
this ``comprehensive review of the NPS science'' programs as a
book entitled ``Science and the National Parks.'' NAS planned
to conduct a Service-wide peer review of research but ``soon
determined that the crucial problems in the NPS research
program are not at the level of individual projects. Instead,
they are more fundamental, rooted in the culture of the NPS and
in the structure and support it gives to research. Thus, the
committee concluded that the real need was for an assessment
more broadly focused on the research program and its place
within the agency (emphasis added).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Resource Council Science and the National Parks.
Washington: National Academy Press, 1992, pg. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report was a restatement, four years after the fact,
of NPCA's assessments of NPS science in the 1988 National Park
System Plan and the Gordon Report. The National Academy of
Sciences included the following laundry list of recommendations
for improving the NPS science program:
1. To eliminate once and for all any ambiguity in the
scientific responsibilities of the Park Service, legislation
should be enacted to establish the explicit authority, mission
and objectives of the national park science program.
Status: No Action.
As shown below, NPCA already had made this recommendation
in the 1988 National Park System Plan and again in its 1989
report entitled National Parks: From Vignettes to a Global View
(The Gordon Report).
``Congress should enact a specific legislative mandate for
NPS research which clearly defines the role of research in
resource management and decision making and requires the
completion of standardized Servicewide inventories of natural
and cultural resources, and implementation of permanent
monitoring programs.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The National Park System Plan Volume Two: Research in the
Parks. Washington: National Parks and Conservation Association, 1988,
pp. 107-111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On at least two occasions, the Park Service has drafted
such legislation, most recently at the request of Sen. Jeffords
in 1996, but no bill has been introduced.
2. The National Park Service should establish a strong,
coherent research program, including elements to characterize
and gain understanding of park resources and to aid in the
development of effective management practices.
Status: Some Improvement.
As shown below, NPCA already had made this recommendation
in the 1988 National Park System Plan.
``Park managers should be selected on the basis of their
knowledge of resource management practices, their ability to
manage and use science programs, and their ability to apply
that knowledge when formulating budget requests. Managers
should be held accountable, through performance standards, for
utilizing applicable research findings in decision making.
1Researchers should be held accountable, through
performance standards and contract stipulations. for working
closely with management and presentation of research results in
formats useful to managers, including executive summaries with
management alternatives and implications. Contracts should
provide for follow up to assist with the application of
management recommendations. Incentives and rewards should be
provided. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS has recognized this need and clearly stated its
commitment to the professionalization of the rangers assigned
to research and resource management duties. According to a 1995
NPS report, ``the ranger of the future will be required to have
academic training in the cultural or natural resource fields.''
\5\ This move toward professionalization is also evident in the
``Careers'' program, NPS Restructuring, and the new NPS
training program entitled ``Employee Training and Development
Strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States. National Park Service Natural Resources
Strategic Plan Team II. The Natural Resource Management Challenge: The
NR-NL4P Report Washington: NPS, 3 March 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. To provide a scientific basis for protecting and
managing the resources entrusted to it, the Park Service should
establish and expand where it already exists, a basic resource
information system, and it should establish inventories and
monitoring in designate park units.
Status: Some Improvement.
NPCA had made this recommendation in the 1988 National Park
System Plan.
``Congress should enact a specific legislative mandate for
NPS research which clearly defines the role of research in
resource management and decision making and requires the
completion of standardized Servicewide inventories of natural
and cultural resources, and implementation of permanent
monitoring programs. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Parks with significant natural resources should develop
or expand a Geographic Information System, a computerized
mapping system that organizes data spatially, enabling park
managers to make timely, effective management
decisions.``Congress should specify that...funds be used to
establish...increased park and regional base funding for
research, inventory and monitoring....
``The NPS should provide for effective data management by
increasing the quality and use of the COMMON data base,
including developing a standardized, systemwide inventory
methodology for the ecological modules. Cultural resource data
bases, particularly the Cultural Sites Inventory, and the List
of Classified Structures should be fully implemented. Funding
should be provided to complete the descriptive cataloging of
artifacts in the Service's museum collections.
``The development and implementation of a comprehensive NPS
natural resources inventory and monitoring program should be a
high priority. The I&M program should be conducted in
cooperation with adjacent landowners, state and federal
agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the
governments of other countries.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON no longer exists, but several new databases have
been established since 1988 and others have expanded. NPS
maintains the List of Classified Structures (LCS) database, the
Automated National Catalog System (ANCS), the Cultural
Landscapes Initiative (CLI) database, the Cultural Sites
Inventory (CSI), the National Catalog of Museum Objects (NCMO),
and the Inventory Condition Assessment Program (ICAP). These
are described below and in the Cultural Resources Database
Appendix. CSI, CLI, and ICAP are in the development stages.
4. This [basic resource information] should be obtained and
stored in ways that are comparable between park units, thereby
facilitating access, exchange, integration, and analysis
throughout the park system and with other interested research
institutions.
Status: No Action Taken.
As shown below, NPCA already had made this recommendation
in the 1988 National Park System Plan.
``Congress should enact a specific legislative mandate for
NPS research which clearly defines the role of research in
resource management and decision making and requires the
completion of standardized Servicewide inventories of natural
and cultural resources, and implementation of permanent
monitoring programs.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has not enacted such legislation. NPS has
refrained from seeking such legislation. In several fiscal
years, Congress deleted requested funds for the NPS Inventory &
Monitoring program to free up funds for unrequested
construction. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Dennis, John. Personal Interview. 8 May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The NPS should support and develop intensive long-term,
ecosystem-level research projects patterned after (and possibly
integrated with) the National Science Foundation's Long-Term
Ecological Research Program and related activities of other
Federal agencies.
Status: Action taken. but situation has worsened.
NPCA had made an essentially identical recommendation in
the 1988 National Park System Plan.
The NPS should establish technical research centers for
each major biome, using existing Cooperative Park Study Units
if possible. Topic-oriented or biome-oriented centers should
be multiorganizational to foster cooperation with other
agencies.... \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPCA repeated this recommendation in the 1989 ``Gordon
Report'' and the Natural Research Council repeated it in the
1992 ``Science and the National Parks.'' The Gordon Commission
also made many detailed recommendations regarding ecosystem-
level research. But NPS lost most of its scientists to the
National Biological Service (NBS) which was established by the
Clinton Administration. Rather than creating an ``independent
research arm,'' whose function was to establish continuity and
objectivity in NPS research, the NBS has done great damage to
NPS efforts to integrate science and management.
According to a report entitled Working Relationships
Between The National Biological Service and the National Park
Service: A Survey of Managers and Scientists, the NBS has
robbed the Park Service of scientific guidance. The National
Park Service calls the survey results ``...useful as
representing the opinions of selected NPS managers and
illustrating the range and diversity of view among NPS partners
within the NBS.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\United States. Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Directorate, National Park Service. Working Relationships Between The
National Biological Service and the National Park Service: A Survey of
Managers and Scientists. Washington, D.C. 17 April 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey results include the following:
--Before the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, 49 % of
the respondents received scientific assistance ``regularly.''
--Since the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, only 19%
of the respondents report receiving assistance from the
transferred NPS scientists ``regularly.''
--Since the transfer of NPS scientists to the NBS, the % of
respondents ``never'' receiving scientific guidance nearly
tripled, from 11% to 32%.
--Respondents were asked whether they received research and
technical assistance from National Biological Service
scientists who were not previously with the NPS. 5% reported
receiving such assistance ``regularly,'' 24% ``occasionally,''
and 71% reported none.
The Park Service drew the following conclusions from the
survey results:
--``The perceived level of research and technical
assistance regularly provided by former NPS scientists has
declined.''
--``The proportion of managers receiving no assistance has
increased.''
--One-fifth of the scientists who were transferred from NPS
to the National Biological Service were either ``not encouraged
or actively discouraged'' from assisting NPS managers after the
transfer.
--Over 50% of the scientists who were transferred from NPS
to the National Biological Service ``felt that their support
from NPS parks had declined.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service has stated that it needs research
to be connected in some way with management to ensure that the
research remains focused on the application needs. The creation
of NBS removed NPS research from the direct influence of park
management, but also made the research less relevant to
management needs. The ADNRSS (Associate Director, Natural
Resource Stewardship and Science) has responsibility for
natural and social science concerns and works closely with the
Associate Director for Cultural Resource Stewardship and
Partnership regarding cultural research. Regional chiefs of
research are gone. Park researchers are gone. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Dennis, John. Personal Interview. 8 May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the National Biological Service was created,
``...access for park managers to clear and broad avenues of
science support...declined and/or [became] more difficult,''
according to a recent NPS report. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ United States. National Park Service Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science Office of Research. A Conceptual Proposal For
Restructuring the CPSU Network. Washington, D.C. 7 May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The ways resources are used and appreciated by people
should be documented.
Status, Some Improvement
As shown below, NPCA already had made several much more
substantive recommendations which called for improved
documentation of visitor use of parks and of visitor impacts on
park resources.
The NPS should develop and implement a standardized, yet
flexible. technique for measuring visitation and visitor needs
in the parks. This should include the establishing of
``indicator'' parks that would be surveyed periodically to
provide baseline information, and show comparisons between
parks. The results of these studies should be disseminated to
concessioners and the tourism industry.
The development of a comprehensive social science program
within the NPS should be a high priority. Social science should
be integrated with natural and cultural research to facilitate
multidisciplinary problem solving and to provide a better
understanding of the relationship between visitors and
resources as well as the interrelationships of the park and its
region. A Regional Social Scientist position should be
established in each NPS region. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Visitor Service's Project Database (VSP) provides a
record of visitor characteristics and needs. It is available to
the public and is maintained by the NPS Visitor Services
Project at the University of Idaho CPSU. It contains data
collected in more than 80 units of the National Park System
since 1982. The data represent snapshots in individual parks,
but there is no monitoring of these parks over time.
On February 7, 1996 NPS released a plan, entitled Usable
Knowledge: A Plan for Furthering Social Science and the
National Parks, which describes a ``cost-effective plan for
improving the social science capability of the National Park
Service.'' In it, NPS recognizes that social science is a
necessary element of a successful Service and that as of early
1996, ``the NPS has a minimal infrastructure for conducting
social science.'' The Plan includes 11 ``key recommendations
for improving social science in the national parks'' along with
an implementation plan and a budget for FY 96-FY 99.
7. National Park Service researchers should have more input
into the development of resource management plans. Effective
interaction between research results and resource management
plans cannot take place without both a strong science program
and a strong resource management program.
Status: No Action Taken.
NPCA made this same recommendation in the 1988 National
Park System Plan.
``Researchers and resource management specialists should
participate on multi-disciplinary review teams to provide peer
review of the technical quality of resource management plans.
``Resource management specialists should serve as a key
liaison between researchers, managers and other park staff to
facilitate the integration of research results into all park
operations.
``To facilitate the integration of research into other park
functions, researchers should hold briefings and seminars on
current park research and provide periodic updates of
references and reading lists. Presentations should highlight
the interdependence of all staff functions in resource
protection.
``Managers should be held accountable, through performance
standards. for utilizing applicable research findings in
decision making.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The National Park Service should also establish and
encourage a strong ``parks for science'' program that addresses
major scientific research questions, particularly within those
parks that encompass large undisturbed natural areas and
wilderness. This effort should include NPS scientists and other
scientists in independent and cooperative activities.
Status: No Action Taken.
NPCA had already described a need for more wilderness-
oriented research in the 1988 National Park System Plan. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In National Park Service areas with proposed, recommended
and/or designated wilderness, the Service should monitor
backcountry use and impacts, and regulate visitation so as to
preserve backcountry resources and wilderness values such as
solitude.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The National Park System Plan Volume One: To Preserve
Unimpaired. Washington: National Parks and Conservation Association,
1988, pp. 183c-e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The National Park Service should revise its
organizational structure to elevate and give substantial
organizational and budgetary autonomy to the science program,
which should include both the planning of research and the
resources required to conduct a comprehensive program of
natural and social science research.
Status: No Action Taken.
As shown below, NPCA already had made this recommendation
in the 1988 National Park System Plan. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The National Park System Plan Volume Two: Research in the
Parks. Washington: National Parks and Conservation Association, 1988,
pp. 107-111. 20 Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS should include in its annual budget request, and
Congress should appropriate, a separate line item for research
equivalent to ten percent of the total operating budget of the
National Park Service. Congress should specify that the funds
be used to establish a Servicewide projects fund; increased
park and regional base funding for research, inventory and
monitoring; and a contingency fund for emergency needs. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service should establish an independent
research arm, distinct from management and operations to assure
long-term continuity and objectivity in the NPS research
program. This arm should integrate natural, cultural and social
science divisions under an Associate Director for Research.
Regional Chiefs of Research should report directly to the
respective division chiefs at WASO. All park researchers should
report to the respective Regional Chief of Research. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The science program should be led by a person with a
commitment to its objectives and a thorough understanding of
the scientific process and research procedures.
Status: No Action Taken.
NPCA had called for the creation of an Associate Director
for Research position and for managers to be held so some
standard of scientific literacy in the 1988 National Park
System Plan. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service should establish an independent
research arm, distinct from management and operations to assure
long-term continuity and objectivity in the NPS research
program. This arm should integrate natural. cultural and social
science divisions under an Associate Director for Research.
Regional Chiefs of Research should report directly to the
respective division chiefs at WASO. All park researchers should
report to the respective Regional Chief of Research. \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Park managers should be selected on the basis of their
knowledge of resource management practices, their ability to
manage and use science programs, and their ability to apply
that knowledge when formulating budget requests. Managers
should be held accountable. through performance standards. for
utilizing applicable research findings in decision making.''
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The National Park Service science program should
receive its funds through an explicit, separate (line-item)
budget.
Status: No Action Taken.
As shown below, NPCA made this recommendation in the 1988
National Park System Plan. \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The NPS should include in its annual budget request, and
Congress should appropriate, a separate line item for research
equivalent to ten percent of the total operating budget of the
National Park Service. Congress should specify that the funds
be used to establish a Servicewide projects fund; increased
park and regional base funding for research, inventory and
monitoring; and a contingency fund for emergency needs.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. A strategic increase in funding is needed, especially
to create and support the needed long-term inventories and the
monitoring of park resources.
Status. No Action Taken.
As shown above, NPCA made this recommendation in the 1988
National Park System Plan. \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. To provide leadership and direction, the NPS should
elevate and reinvigorate the position of chief scientist, who
must be a person of high stature in the scientific community
and have as his or her sole responsibilities advocacy for and
administration of the science program. The chief scientist
would work from the Washington office and report to the
Director of the NPS, provide technical direction to the science
and resource management staff at the regions and in the parks,
and foster interactions with the other research agencies and
nongovernment organizations.
Status: No Action Taken.
NPCA had called for the creation of an Associate Director
for Research and Regional Research Chiefs in the 1988 National
Park System Plan. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service should establish an independent
research arm, distinct from management and operations to assure
long-term continuity and objectivity in the NPS research
program. This arm should integrate natural. cultural and social
science divisions under an Associate Director for Research.
Regional Chiefs of Research should report directly to the
respective division chiefs at WASO. All park researchers should
report to the respective Regional Chief of Research.29
14. In addition, the chief scientist should establish a
credible program of peer review for NPS science, reaching from
the development of research plans through publication of
results. \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: No Action Taken.
As shown below, NPCA had made this recommendation in the
1988 National Park System Plan. \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS should encourage and support more active
publication in peer-reviewed, scientific and scholarly journals
by NPS researchers. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Park Service, in cooperation with other agencies,
should establish a competitive grants program to encourage more
external scientists to conduct research in the national parks.
Status: No Action Taken.
NPCA had made a nearly identical recommendation in the 1988
National Park System Plan, by focusing on improvements of the
existing Cooperative Park Study Units. \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Ibid.
``NPS should establish additional Cooperative Park Studies
Units and cooperative agreements focusing on the social
sciences, historical and archaeological research. To ensure
that the best available expertise is obtained, CPSU cooperative
agreements should require that the CPSU administrator solicit
proposals from private sector scientists with geographic and
subject matter expertise in the parks under study.''
16. The Park Service must give the science program
immediate and aggressive attention.
Status: No Action Taken.
This was the intent of NPCA's 1988 recommendations.
------
Testimony of Dr. David Policansky, Associate Director, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council
Chairman Hansen, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am
David Policansky, associate director of the National Research
Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST).
The National Research Council (NRC) is the operating arm of the
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the
Institute of Medicine. I am pleased to testify before you today
on the findings of the National Research Council report,
Science and the National Parks, published in 1992. Copies of
the report have been made available to the subcommittee's
staff. In my capacity as a member of the staff of BEST, I was
involved in the project from its inception to its conclusion,
working with a distinguished committee of experts and other NRC
staff. My testimony today, being based on the NRC report, deals
with NPS and its research as they were in the early 1990s. That
was before the establishment of the NBS, after which most of
the NPS research capability was moved into NBS, now the
Biological Resources Division of the USGS.
In 1990, James M. Ridenour, then director of the National
Park Service (NPS), stated his intention to strengthen the
research program and the role of science in park management,
and he asked the NRC for assistance. In response, the NRC's
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology convened the
Committee on Improving the Science and Technology Programs of
the National Park Service, which prepared the report.
The NRC committee found that many reviews over many years
had been prepared of NPS science. In 1963, one of them, also by
a committee of the NRC, said Research by the National Park
Service has lacked continuity, coordination, and depth. It has
been marked by expediency rather than long-term considerations.
Other reports found that NPS science lacked funding, staffing,
and influence. Another review of NPS concluded in 1989 that NPS
needed a new vision, based on sound research and on the
principles of ecosystem management, to meet the environmental
challenges of the 21st century.
At the time of its review, the NRC committee reported that
in NPS's view, the main objective of its science program was to
provide information in support of park planning, development,
management, and visitor education and enjoyment. The
disciplines needed in the research programs, determined by
NPS's responsibilities, ran the gamut of the biological,
geophysical and social sciences. NPS itself, in its 1980 Report
to Congress, estimated that 75% of the 4,34S threats to the
parks were inadequately documented by research. Indeed, the NRC
committee did not find any significant part of NPS's research
program that should be eliminated and found much to admire and
praise. But a more coherent vision and longer-term commitment
was needed.
The organization of NPS in 1992 considered research as part
of resource management. As a result, scientific research did
not have its own budget. In addition, most research was planned
and conducted by the 10 regional offices, so in effect there
were 10 separate science programs in the NPS, ``each different
in form, function, and effectiveness.'' NPS's research staff
was smaller than those in most other land-management agencies,
about 2-3% of its staff. By comparison, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service then had about 8-10% of its staff in research.
The NRC committee concluded that the lack of a dearly
defined science program hampered research planning, tracking of
expenditures, and accountability for results. The lack of
formal structure and clear NPS leadership also made assessing
the program difficult and it often was not possible to separate
resource management from law enforcement and various other
activities of park rangers. The committee concluded that the
NPS science program was unnecessarily fragmented and lacked ``a
coherent sense of direction, purpose, and utility. As the
trustee for irreplaceable samples of the nation's natural and
cultural heritage, the NPS should be among the most forward
looking and progressive resource management agencies in the
federal government, and research should be an essential element
in its mandate.''
The NRC committee spent much time deliberating on
appropriate recommendations. One long-standing question was
controversial: whether the leadership of NPS's science program
should be centralized or decentralized. The committee came down
on the side of more centralization, because the decentralized
approach is often inefficient and because many scientific
challenges have a broader scope than individual parks or even
NPS regions.
Many of the committee's findings echoed those of earlier
studies, in particular its finding that problems in NPS's
research programs were not problems of individual research
projects, but instead were more fundamental and had their base
in NPS's culture and the support it gave to research. Thus, the
important matter was the research program itself and its place
in the NPS. It conclude that additional funding alone would not
solve the problem, and ``called instead for a fundamental
metamorphosis that would stress the importance of science in
the park system and guarantee long-term financial,
administrative, and intellectual support. It recommended three
key elements of this new structure.
--An explicit legislative mandate for an NPS research
mission is needed. The committee made this recommendation to
``eliminate for once and for all any ambiguity in the
scientific responsibilities of the Park Service.'' The report
provided many examples of the importance of such research; one
example concerned NPS holdings in and near Prince William
Sound, Alaska. Because there was relatively little information
on the distribution and abundance of many animal and plant
species in the region, assessing the effects of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in 1989 was very difficult. Similar
difficulties have arisen in other, less-celebrated instances
throughout NPS holdings. In addition, the national parks,
because of their relative lack of human disturbances and long-
term protection, provide excellent opportunities for scientific
research. Thus the committee recommended an approach that
included what it called ``science for the parks and the parks
for science,'' i.e. an approach that uses science to benefit
NPS and the parks as well as using the parks as scientific
research areas and laboratories.
--The science program should have separate funding and
reporting autonomy. NPS should elevate and give substantial
budgetary autonomy to its science program. This should include
both research planning and the resources needed to conduct a
comprehensive program of natural and social science research.
The program should be led by a person committed to its
objectives and who understands the processes and procedures of
scientific research. The science program should receive funds
through an explicit, separate budget. Some increase in funding
was recommended, especially to create and support needed long-
term inventories and monitoring of park resources.
--The credibility and quality control of the science
program need enhancement. To achieve this, the committee
recommended that NPS elevate and reinvigorate the position of
chief scientist. The incumbent should be a scientist of high
stature in the scientific community and the sole responsibility
of the position should be the administration and leadership of
the science program. The committee also recommended that the
NPS, in cooperation with other agencies, establish a
competitive grants program to encourage more external (i.e.,
non-NPS) scientists to do research in national parks. Finally,
the committee recommended that the NPS establish a ``high-level
scientific advisor board to provide long-term guidance in
planning, evaluating, and setting policy for the science
program.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the parks are
national treasures. As the NRC report pointed out, the
pressures on the parks are increasing rapidly, and events since
1992 have borne out the truth of that statement. It is
important to protect these treasures by developing and
maintaining a strong science program. And, as the NRC committee
also emphasized, it would be a waste of a unique resource not
to use the parks--with the proper safeguards--to help
understand and address the scientific challenges faced
throughout the biosphere.
On behalf of the National Research Council, I thank you for
your attention and would be pleased to take questions.
------
Statement of Robert M. Linn, Executive Director, The George Wright
Society
The Importance of Research in the National Parks.
In the late 1920s, George Wright, the man whose name our
Society carries, created and personally funded the National
Park Service Office of Wildlife Biology. In the early 1930s the
National Park Service assumed financial support of this
office--about 30 biologists were hired, and some landmark
research took place, resulting in a series of seminal
publications outlining management actions needing
implementation in the parks, the ``Fauna of the National Parks
of the United States'' series. More importantly, park managers
were beginning to be able to acquire sound information about
park resources, enabling them to make better-informed
management decisions and form better, more accurate
interpretive programs. Wright was the motive force behind these
efforts. Unfortunately, after his death in an auto accident in
1936, momentum for science within NPS waned. By 1940 most of
the fledgling NPS science program had been transferred to the
Bureau of Biological Survey (now the US Fish and Wildlife
Service).
With the advent of World War II science in the parks
languished. Beginning in the 1960s, and continuing with slowly
increasing momentum, and with many ups-and-downs, in the 1970s
through the 1990s, the National Park Service worked to rebuild
its scientific capacity. These efforts were spurred by at least
12 reports produced internally and externally, including the
most recent review by the National Academy of Sciences, Science
and the National Parks, published in 1992. These reports have
unanimously recommended a stronger role for science in park
management through strengthening NPS's internal scientific
capacity. In 1977--twenty years ago--a report on the NPS
science program by the eminent scientists A. Starker Leopold
and Durward L. Allen stated:
``The National Park Service has reached a time in its
history, and in the history of the nation, when science and
research should be given a much greater and clearly recognized
responsibility in policy-making, planning, and operation. Seat-
of-the-pants guesses in resource preservation and management
are open to challenge and do not stand up well in court or in
the forum of public opinion.''
Values intrinsic in the park lands far exceed that of
tourism and having a fun vacation. Park lands include the vast
array of cultural and social histories of this nation and the
natural heritage of our planet. They are one of the greatest
hands-on educational tools we have. One thing we need in this
nation is a greater sense of who we are and how life support
systems in our biosphere work--a broadening of scope toward
understanding and appreciation of life.
During the 1950s through the 1970s, research by Drs.
Richard Hartesvelt, H. Thomas Harvey, Howard S. Shellhammer and
Ronald Stecker of San Jose State University, and Dr. Bruce M.
Kilgore of the National Park Service, proved that naturally-
occurring fire was responsible and necessary for the continued
existence of the Giant Sequoias of the Sierra Nevada. Without
fire occurrence, White Fir and other species would succeed the
Sequoia and could become a source of crown fires, forest floor
litter would become an impediment to the germination of Sequoia
seed, and the eventual disappearance of the Giant Sequoia would
occur.
At Carlsbad Caverns National Park, it became evident that
formations in the caverns were becoming discolored and that
pools of water, which harbored unique cave life forms, were
drying up. It was discovered that a large parking lot, paved
with asphalt, had been built above the caverns, thus preventing
water from percolating naturally into the caverns and the water
that did percolate through carried the discolorization from the
asphalt. Also, the visitor center in this hot? summer area was
being cooled by drawing the cool air from the caverns below as
an inexpensive cooling devise, and the elevator shafts into the
caverns were actually acting as giant chimneys, evacuating air
from the caverns, thus drying and heating the cavern air. This
has since been corrected, but only because research into causes
of the problems was carried out during the 1950s through 1960s
and 1970s.
There are many more examples of research projects that have
helped to save and/or understand valuable national park area
values--Atlantic coast barrier island dynamics, Isle
Royalewolf-moose ecology, the Bighorn Sheep of Death Valley and
other western areas, the Bison of Yellowstone, and on and on.
The problem is that there are so many other problems needing
attention.
One thing is certain: the national parks need more reliable
scientific research capability if these priceless heritage
lands are to be managed properly in perpetuity. The National
Academy of Sciences report, Science and the National Parks, in
its ``Recommendations,'' says it very pointedly:
``In conducting this study of science in the national
parks, the National Research Council's Committee on Improving
the Science and Technology Programs of the National Park
Service originally set out to evaluate the scope and
organization of current NPS natural and social science by
performing a peer review of NPS research activities. However,
the committee soon determined that the crucial problems in the
NPS research program are not at the level of individual
projects. Instead, they are more fundamental, rooted in the
culture of the NPS and in the structure and support it gives to
the research. Thus, the committee concluded that the real need
was for an assessment more broadly focused on the research
program and its place within the agency.
``The call for change made in this report is not new. But
given the lack of response to so many previous calls for
change, how can the present report succeed in inspiring action?
The members of the committee believe that increased funding or
incremental changes alone will not suffice, and they call
instead for a fundamental metamorphosis. It is time to move
toward a new structure--indeed, toward a new culture--that
stresses science in the national park system and guarantees
long-term financial, intellectual, and administrative support.
There are three key elements:
``There must be an explicit legislative mandate for a
research mission of the National Park Service.
``Separate funding and reporting autonomy should be
assigned to the science program.
``There must be efforts to enhance the credibility and
quality control of the science program. This will require a
chief scientist of appropriate stature to provide leadership,
cooperation with external researchers, and the formation of an
external science advisory board to provide continuing
independent oversight.''
The National Park Service has come a long way since this
report in the ``metamorphosis'' that the report calls for. Now
what is needed is congressional support for at least the
following objectives:
(1) Providing resource managers with high quality science,
technical assistance and education;
(2) Ensuring that research and technical assistance is
delivered in a timely fashion and relevant to resource
managers' needs;
(3) Ensuring the independence and objectivity of research;
(4) Creating effective partnerships between the National
Park Service and other Department of the Interior bureaus;
(5) Taking full advantage of university resources while
benefiting faculty and students;
(6) Encouraging professional development of National Park
Service employees; and
(7) Managing federal science resources efficiently.
I sincerely recommend:
(1) An explicit legislative mandate for the National Park
Service to perform (or obtain) necessary research to carry out
its organic act mandate of preservation in perpetuity;
(2) Supplying the National Park Service with sufficient
funds to carry out, or contract for, required research.
(3) Supporting the USGS Biological Resources Division in
its important mission of strategic research, and cooperative
activities with the National Park Service.
------
Testimony of Dr. Mark S. Boyce, Vallier Chair of Ecology and Wisconsin
Distinguished Professor, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored
to have the opportunity to present my thoughts on the
importance of science in shaping management decisions in our
national parks. My name is Mark S. Boyce. I hold the position
of Vallier Chair of Ecology and Wisconsin Distinguished
Professor in the College of Natural Resources at the University
of Wisconsin-Stevens Point in the largest undergraduate
wildlife program in the United States. I am currently editor-
in-chief for the Journal of Wildlife Management which is The
Wildlife Society's research periodical. During 1989-1993 I was
Director of the University of Wyoming-National Park Service
Research Center where I was responsible for managing a peer-
reviewed competitive research contracts program for the
National Park Service.
I have published about 150 scientific papers and six books
including Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable
Forest and Wildlife Resources (1997, Yale University Press),
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's
Wilderness Heritage (1991, Yale University Press), and The
Jackson Elk Herd: Intensive Wildlife Management in North
America (1989, Cambridge University Press). I have conducted
research in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) since 1977
when I began studies on elk populations. My subsequent studies
in the GYE have involved bison, grizzly bears, and wolf
recovery.
I wish to speak in favor of a renewed science initiative
for our national parks. I believe that scientifically gained
knowledge is fundamental to sound management in our parks, and
I believe that the scientific research conducted in our parks
has greatly benefited their management. Science is the basis
for ecosystem management, a new discipline of applied ecology
that attempts a comprehensive approach to natural resource
management. Ecosystems are exceedingly complex and we do not
know how to manage ecosystems well. National parks afford a key
link in the development of sound ecosystem management by
serving as ecological baselines, i.e., controls. Only with such
baseline areas can we have a basis for evaluating environmental
change in other areas.
Controversy continues over the link that should exist
between science and management.
On one extreme, sound scientific information might not be
obtained when all researchers are in the Park Superintendent's
hip pocket, i.e., at the disposal of management for solving
management problems. At the other extreme, a research team that
is not linked to management is likely to pursue basic research
that may not meet the resource management needs for the parks.
One approach to resolve such potential conflicts is to fund
contracts or grants on park-identified needs to university
scientists, e.g., as facilitated by the Cooperative Park
Studies Unit (CPSU) system. Or even better, NPS could support
research funding that is awarded competitively to university
scientists using a process of peer review such as that used by
the National Science Foundation. Such a competitive peer-review
process ensures that the quality of science is of utmost
priority while also permitting rigorous review of funding
levels.
I do not wish my comments in support of increased science
in the NPS to be misconstrued as a criticism of the Biological
Resources Division (BRD) of the US Geological Survey. I believe
that the BRD hosts many competent scientists, and with the
recent announcement that BRD will not charge overhead to parent
Interior agencies, including the NPS, there are opportunities
to enhance research in our national parks through BRD. The
initial formation of the BRD (formerly NBS) seemed like an
excellent way to reduce redundant efforts among branches of the
Department of Interior, especially involving technology such as
geographic information systems (GIS). Unfortunately, however,
BRD has not seen sufficient funding from Congress to achieve
the science needs for the parent organizations.
The role of science in park management is perhaps best
illustrated with the extensive investigations that preceded the
return of wolves to Yellowstone. Indeed, I wish to commend
Congress and especially several current and former members of
this Committee for their support of wolf recovery in
Yellowstone. Restoring wolves to the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE3 has given us a full complement of native fauna
and offered us a fantastic opportunity to document how a
complete faunal assemblage can function. One of the purported
benefits of wolf reintroduction will be the reduction of
ungulate numbers, but despite the return of this keystone
predator some scientists continue to argue that artificial
control of ungulate populations is necessary (untenable given
current knowledge). I hope that the same vision that
reestablished the wolf into Yellowstone will also ensure that
sufficient monitoring work is funded to fully document the
consequences of wolf recovery. Further, I trust that the same
vision will ensure protection of the large mammal communities
in Yellowstone from recent challenges largely emerging from
agricultural interests.
I see no reason that protection of Yellowstone cannot be
compatible with ranching operations outside the park. And I
believe that the results of scientific research conducted
during the past decade give us considerable insight into how to
accomplish compatible juxtaposition of agriculture and
ecological baseline preserves. Indeed, developing sound
ecosystem science requires that we maintain areas such as
Yellowstone with minimal human intervention to be able to
evaluate the consequences of human activities in adjacent areas
where lands are managed to meet human needs.
The successes of grizzly bear management in the GYE offer
another example of the benefits to park management from
research. Demographic research by the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Study Team identified mortality ``sinks'' where excessive bear
mortality occurred. This led to the closure of a campground at
Fishing Bridge and transfer of sheep grazing allotments to
nonconflict areas on the Targhee National Forest in Idaho and
Wyoming. Together with strict management guidelines developed
by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, estimates of grizzly
bear abundance are currently higher than ever before recorded
in the GYE.
During the past five years a large number of ecological
studies conducted in Yellowstone National Park have been
published in peer-reviewed journals. Research in Yellowstone
was stimulated by the Congressionally mandated grazing studies
beginning in the mid-1980s, resulting in several publications
that questioned the traditional wisdom that Yellowstone's
northern range was ``overgrazed.'' Before the grazing studies
were completed, an additional Congressional appropriation was
made for fire research subsequent to the 1988 fires in
Yellowstone, and most recently in the series of studies funded
in anticipation of wolf recovery. These studies have greatly
increased our understanding of ecological processes in the
Yellowstone ecosystem. A majority of the peer-reviewed research
publications were conducted by university-based scientists and
graduate students.
Part of the reason for my participation in this
Subcommittee hearing is concern over the anticipated testimony
from Frederick Wagner, Charles Kay, and Richard Keigley, all of
whom have been exceedingly critical of NPS management in
Yellowstone. Their position is a minority opinion based on the
fact that the bulk of peer-reviewed scientific literature in
contrary to their claims. The NPS has supported a number of
dedicated scientists whom I believe have helped the Park
Superintendent to make reasoned management decisions. I am also
concerned by the alarmist positions that imply a need to cull
ungulates within Yellowstone National Park because I believe
that this would be a serious mistake.
This is not to imply that controversy does not exist among
scientists about management policies for Yellowstone, but I do
not believe that Wagner, Kay, and Keigley provide a balanced
perspective on the role that science should take in
establishing resource management policy in Yellowstone National
Park. Shortly after Jerry Franklin became President of the
Ecological Society of America a couple of years ago I asked him
to consider organizing a professional society evaluation of
science and management in Yellowstone. Franklin declined my
suggestion recognizing that the issue was controversial among
ecologists and he feared that the society would not reach a
consensus. However, I am confident that ecologists would
overwhelmingly support the need to maintain national parks as
ecological baseline preserves allowing natural ecological
processes to run their course.
I support the current NPS approach to management of our
national parks which I have termed ecological-process
management. This involves allowing ecological processes of
nutrient cycling, plant succession, fire, flooding,
decomposition, competition, predation, herbivory, symbiosis,
dispersal, births and deaths to function with minimal
intervention by humans. Maintaining the integrity of ecological
processes does not imply that landscapes should match
preconceived notions, nor does it imply reconstruction of some
past condition. Current NPS management policy is often termed
natural regulation management but I believe that natural
regulation engenders semantic confusion that obscures the true
intent of NPS management policy.
The source of greatest controversy over this management
policy is management of bison and elk on Yellowstone's northern
range. During the 1960s the best available expert opinion
suggested that culling of elk and bison was necessary to
maintain herd sizes at levels consistent with proper range-
stocking levels for cattle. Economic criteria for establishing
stocking levels for cattle had little to do with the population
dynamics emerging as a consequence of plant-herbivore
interactions. Herd sizes have increased substantially in recent
years leading agriculture interests to call for the need to
reduce herds. The motivation for these proposed culling
programs are (1) perception that ungulates are ``damaging'' the
vegetation, (2) concern by livestock growers over the risk of
transmission of brucellosis to cattle from bison or elk, and
(3) Charles Kay's hypothesis that native Americans were
incredibly effective at killing wild ungulates so that they had
little influence on vegetation prior to European settlement.
Each of these attempts to justify culling of elk within the
boundaries of Yellowstone National Park is unjustified. The
first perception that ungulates ``damage'' the vegetation is
inconsistent with empirical data emerging from the northern
range ``overgrazing'' investigations. Grasses and fortes are
largely dormant underground at the time that ungulates are on
the winter range, so each spring we see lush regrowth of
herbaceous vegetation. Certain woody plants have indeed seen
heavy browsing, especially aspen and willow. But palynological
evidence (from pollen in mud cores from the bottoms of lakes)
interpreted by Dr. Whitlock from the University of Oregon
indicates that no major changes in vegetation composition have
occurred in recent years. Large numbers of ungulates will
undoubtedly influence vegetation, as they have for hundreds and
thousands of years. Dr. Whitlock's interpretation of her data
is that ungulates probably have shaped vegetation communities
in Yellowstone in the past as they do today. Range conditions
may not be those that we would desire if we were managing
livestock in Yellowstone, but such a frame of reference is
irrelevant to management of a national park.
Brucellosis is a bacterial disease introduced to ungulates
in Yellowstone from domestic livestock. The USDA's APHIS has an
aggressive program attempting to eradicate the disease from the
United States by 1998. But their target is completely
unreasonable given the widespread occurrence of the disease
among elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone. Completely
effective vaccines do not exist, and it is the professional
opinion of epidemiologists that with current technology we
cannot eradicate the disease without draconian measures such as
total depopulation of bison and elk from the GYE, i.e.,
systematic slaughter of 120,000 elk and 1,900 bison. The issue
is easily resolved by effective risk management. Transmission
of the disease is unlikely to occur except during spring and
early summer. Managing livestock to minimize contact with
wildlife during this crucial period, and vaccinating cattle can
ensure an exceedingly low probability of transmission of the
disease. The problems are not with bison and elk management but
rather the preposterous Uniform Methods and Rules of the USDA
APHIS.
The third issue of native American overkill is an
unsubstantiated hypothesis of Charles Kay in an attempt to
justify culling of bison and elk in the Park. Even if his
implausible hypothesis could be substantiated, it has no
relevance to how we should manage ungulates in Yellowstone
National Park. Understanding the history of exploitation of
natural resources by humans is interesting, but it has no
bearing on how we should manage resources in the future. Just
because previous generations of humans decimated wildlife
populations and altered natural ecosystems does not provide
justification for doing so today. Humans are relatively recent
in North America and time has been short enough that
convolution between humans and faunal elements is highly
unlikely. Instead, by minimizing human influence we most
closely approximate the ecological processes that would have
occurred in the absence of human influence. Human exploitation
of natural resources is without racial context, and I believe
that there is value in maintaining ecological baselines with
minimal human interference whether the humans are native
American or of more recent immigrant ancestry.
Choosing some arbitrary time in the past to target for
ungulate management unjustified. In recent years ecologists
universally have come to accept the principle that ecological
processes are dynamic. Natural disturbance regimes, such as
wildfire, floods, and severe winters, are fundamental to the
function of places like Yellowstone. Just because a particular
vegetation structure was documented in 1870 when early
explorations were conducted in Yellowstone does not imply that
this should constitute a target for how the vegetation should
look today.
Protection and preservation of nature are what national
parks are all about. We hunt elk in every western state
virtually everywhere that they occur. There are few places in
the United States where we can allow a population of large
ungulates like elk to achieve a balance or fluctuate with their
food resources and predators. Some range and wildlife managers
believe that we must intervene, and somehow Nature will not get
it right. Some believe that we will lose our justification for
hunting if we should discover that it is not necessary to cull
wildlife herds. I believe that these views are outdated and
contrary to what we have learned about population ecology. I
have spent my entire career studying wildlife populations
attempting to understand what determines their abundance and
distribution. We do not need to intervene to ensure a healthy
ecosystem. Yellowstone National Park is not on the verge of
ecological collapse. Indeed, to quote F. V. Hayden (1871),
``Yellowstone is the greatest scientific laboratory that nature
furnishes on the face of the globe.''
To an ecologist, national parks are much more than
recreation areas and places of scenic splendor, although we
enjoy our parks for those values. But for a scientist, national
parks serve an exceedingly important function as ecological
baselines against which we can compare ecological processes
operating in human-dominated landscapes. In addition, there is
inherent interest in learning what the long-term dynamics of
vegetation, ungulates, wolves and grizzly bears will be in
Yellowstone. With wolf recovery, we now have reconstructed all
faunal elements and have an outstanding opportunity to document
the dynamics of this large mammal community. Interfering would
destroy one of the grandest scale ecological experiments
(albeit unduplicated) in history. We stand to gain nothing by
culling ungulate populations in Yellowstone, but we would lose
a great deal.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the
opportunity to share my views on science in the National Park
Service. Good science is paramount to ensuring sound management
in our national parks. But the opposite is true as well--how
our parks are managed influences the ecologists' ability to do
good science. Scientists need parks as controls that will form
the basis for understanding what we do with the rest of the
world. We should encourage the NPS to continue with its policy
of managing to minimize the influence of humans on ecological
process and function. I will be pleased to answer any
questions.
------
Statement Richard Keigley, Biological Resource Division, USGS
My name is Richard Keigley. I am an ecologist employed by
the Biological Resource Division of the USGS. I have been
subpoenaed to appear before this subcommittee and do not
represent the Department of Interior.
From March 1991 to June 1996 I was duty stationed in
Yellowstone National Park. Prior to my assignment to NBS in
October 1993, I had a 22 year career in the NPS.
If science is to be successfully applied to controversial
issues, we must acknowledge where problems exist and correct
them if possible. I will briefly describe a problem. I will
then describe five ways in which I believe the research program
could be improved. Those five ways involve: (1) the measurement
of success, (2) the allocation of fiscal resources, (3) the
link between science and management, (4) conflict resolution,
and (5) relationships with park neighbors.
In 1991 I was assigned to investigate the effect of elk on
riparian ecosystems in Yellowstone's northern elk winter range.
In 1995 I was barred from conducting research in Yellowstone.
In my opinion, I was removed because I was finding scientific
evidence that did not support Yellowstone's resource management
policies. My removal means that one point of view will be
absent from Yellowstone's research program. This kind of bias
can jeopardize the search for scientific truth.
How can the present research program be improved? One
possible means of improvement would be a change in the way
success is measured. At the present time, ``client
satisfaction'' is an important measure of success. In some
cases, this standard may inhibit BRD from providing objective
science.
It is only natural that a park manager might prefer one
research outcome over another. But a credible science program
will provide the ``bad news'' when appropriate. Many managers
can accept a less-preferred research outcome with good grace
and remain a satisfied client. But some will not. In this case,
if a scientist is unwilling to accommodate the manager, BRD has
no alternative but to withdraw the scientist from the research
program, otherwise, client satisfaction will not be attained.
To protect the integrity of science, the standard of client
satisfaction should be reconsidered. I believe there are
alternative ways of assessing service to the client agencies.
My second point deals with how fiscal resources are
allocated to individual scientists. We have seen from previous
testimony that scientific research can become highly polarized.
If those scientific ideas are allowed to compete on a level
playing field, one point of view should come to dominate over
other points of view. But if the allocation of fiscal resources
is skewed to some point of view, the validity of an opposing
point of view may not emerge, even though it more closely
corresponds with scientific truth. BRD should develop a new
procedure to: (a) identify cases where polarization exists, and
(b) if it does, equitably allocate fiscal resources to opposing
points of view.
BRD's service to the parks could also be improved by
strengthening the link between science and management. The
management of each park is guided by its Resource Management
Plan. These plans describe resource issues, identify
recommended management alternatives, and identify and
prioritize research needs. The Resource Management Plan is a
critical link between science and management.
At the present time, the responsibility for preparing
Resource Management Plans lies with park management. The degree
of input by BRD is a matter of park discretion. In cases of
controversy, there will be a temptation to slant the
preparation or interpretation of Resource Management Plan
project statements. BRD must then live with this situation.
I believe BRD's research effectiveness could be improved by
establishing a formal partnership in Resource Management Plan
preparation and interpretation. Scientists would then have a
mandated role in describing resource issues, identifying needed
research, and prioritizing research implementation. This
partnership is too important to be left to chance.
BRD's research program could be improved by establishing
procedures for resolving unhealthy conflict. We should
recognize that conflict plays an integral role in the search
for scientific truth. Truth emerges when ideas are allowed to
compete on a level playing field.
But we also know that conflict can take directions that
inhibit productivity. I believe it would be to the Department
of Interior's advantage to develop formal procedures to resolve
conflicts among scientists and between scientists and managers.
We are all aware of current conflicts between the state of
Montana and Yellowstone National Park. To a large degree those
conflicts arise due to different resource management
objectives. The reconciliation of these kinds of conflict is
not a proper role for scientists.
But conflicts have also arisen over matters of science. For
example, what is an appropriate size for Yellowstone's northern
elk herd? Yellowstone claims that the elk herd is at a proper
size and that there is no evidence of range deterioration
within the park. As a result, the visitor to Yellowstone
believes they see a vignette of primitive America. They
especially enjoy the easy viewing of elk.
From some park neighbors' perspective the situation is
different. Elk migrate out of Yellowstone during the winter.
Private ranchers complain that their ranges deteriorate because
of excessive elk use. State and USFS lands are also impacted.
The ability to regulate the size of the northern herd when it
is outside of Yellowstone is politically limited by the
perceptions held by the American public. For that reason,
Yellowstone's neighbors have a vested interest in the BRD
science that is conducted in service to Yellowstone.
Yellowstone's Resource Management Plan limits its
discussion of ungulate impacts to those that occur within the
Park borders. In recognition that NPS issues extend beyond the
park's borders, Resource Management Plans should incorporate
those perspectives when describing resource issues.
Representatives from the State and private entities should be
involved in the development of the plan. BRD could coordinate
the identification and prioritizing of research needs. A
National Park can have an immense impact on its neighbors.
Those neighbors should have a formal way to express their
concerns.
I summarize my recommendations. The attainment of client
satisfaction does not necessarily translate to the attainment
of good science. BRD should investigate alternative methods of
measuring success. In cases where scientific opinion is
strongly polarized, there should a balanced allocation of
fiscal resources directed at the research problem. A formal
procedure should be developed to accomplish this objective.
Resource Management Plans are the critical link between science
and management. Their development should involve a formal
partnership between BRD and NPS. DOI should develop a formal
procedure to mediate unhealthy conflicts among scientists and
between scientists and managers. Finally, a park's Resource
Management Plan should address the impacts that park management
may have on its neighbors.
------
Statement of Frederic H. Wagner, Ecology Center and College of Natural
Resources, Utah State University
I am Frederic H. Wagner, Professor in the Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Associate Dean of the College of
Natural Resources, and Director of the Ecology Center, a 7-
department, lateral program that coordinates research and
graduate education in the science of ecology, all in Utah State
University.
Before moving to Utah, I was a research biologist with the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. I have been at Utah
State University over 30 years and have been professionally
involved in a number of western-U.S., public-policy issues
including a 5-year study of national parks. You may know of a
book which I and 7 colleagues wrote entitled Wildlife Policies
in U.S. National Parks, published in 1995 (Wagner et al. 1995).
Two chapters in the book deal with science in the national
parks and the National Park Service. Much of my research and
writing in the past 10-15 years has been on the role of
research in natural-resources management, the role of science
in policy formation, and science ethics.
I will address four main issues in this testimony. First,
science is, in my opinion, essential to effective management
and protection of park resources, and to informed setting of
policies that prescribe management and protection. Second,
while there has been some good research in some areas of the
agency, the Park Service has not overall had a strong tradition
or commitment to the use of science in its operations. Third,
because of this inadequate commitment, the quality of science
and its use in policy have been spotty. In some cases it has
been positive. But in others it has resulted in management
decisions that have been detrimental to park resources. Fourth,
I will comment on the pros and cons of different administrative
arrangements for research in the National Park Service.
science is essential to effective resource management and protection
I am sure the persons on this Committee are well aware that
natural-resources systems are extremely complex, involving
intricate relationships between water, soils, atmosphere,
vegetation, animals, and climate. Appropriate decisions on
effective management and protection depend on an understanding
of that complexity that can only be provided by competent
research.
A recent book by W.L. Halvorson and G.E. Davis (1996)
describes the wide range of resource problems in a number of
parks that could only be solved after years of research had
provided a knowledge base on which to carry out effective
management. Sophisticated air-quality studies showed that
particulate emissions from the Navajo Power Plant in Page,
Arizona were the main cause of the visibility problem in Grand
Canyon. Vegetation research showed that periodic, low-intensity
prescribed burns, like those set by Native Americans, rather
than complete elimination of fire, is the proper management
procedure to perpetuate the giant trees in Sequoia National
Park. Studies on underground hydrology showed that sewage and
toxic-waste pollution could be carried many miles underground
to affect the water quality of surface streams in Ozark
National Scenic Riverways and subsurface streams in Mammoth
Cave National Park in Kentucky. And long-term research on the
effects of angling on cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake
showed that heavy fishing removal not only reduced the fish
stocks, but also affected populations of osprey, white
pelicans, and grizzly bears which feed on the fish. I am
attaching my recent review of this book, now in press, to this
statement.
Now while I believe that research is indispensable to
rational policy setting and effective resource management,
science does not, in my view, set policy or prescribe
management goals. I consider these to be social and political
processes the purpose of which is to satisfy societal values. I
maintain that research in management agencies is a service to
policy setting, and to the design and evaluation of management
programs. It provides a knowledge base for informed policy
setting and effective management. It enlightens these
processes.
the national park service has not had a strong science tradition
Following passage of the Park Service Organic Act in 1916,
the agency has been heavily involved in carrying out its dual
mission: protecting the resources ``unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations'' and managing the flow of
tourists who come to see these natural wonders. In the early
decades of NPS history, simple protection was sufficient
management of the resources, and the organization was largely
staffed with landscape architects and ranger personnel who were
well suited to carry out the dual mission.
But within a few decades, as the American population grew
and developed economically, park resources began to be impacted
from the outside by air and water pollution; by invasion of
non-native plants and animals; and by encroachment of urban,
industrial, and land-use expansion. And impacts grew on the
inside by heavy tourist use, and by distortion of plant and
animal communities from their pristine conditions. A 1986
survey of NPS employees (Anon. 1986) produced reports of 101
categories of threats to park resources. And academic
researchers have published on the many external threats to
parks (cf. Coggins 1987, Freemuth 1991).
It thus became evident to many observers that mere
preservation was not sufficient management to protect the
resources, that active management was necessary in many cases,
and that a strong research program to provide a factual basis
for effective management was needed. Recommendations to this
effect began appearing in the 1 930s, and have continued up to
the present.
But with no tradition of science as an integral part of the
agency's operations, or a significant cadre of employees with
strong science training who had moved into the higher,
influential administrative positions, the response to these
recommendations has been weak at best. A 1992 National Research
Council study (Risser et al. 1992) commented that there had
been ``a dozen reviews'' of science in NPS since the early
1960s. All urged an expanded research program to provide a base
of scientific information essential for capable management. But
in the words of the NRC review, the response has been
Abysmal.''
In 1991-92, the research outlay was only 2 percent of the
NPS budget. In 1993, when research in several Interior agencies
was combined into the new National Biological Survey, the
number of scientists transferred from the Fish and Wildlife
Service was about 9 times the number from NPS even though both
agencies manage roughly the same total area of land.
As one author pointed out (Haskell 1993), the limited
research that had developed by the time it was moved to NBS was
initiated at the grass roots, and not authorized from the top
as a matter of policy. There had been no coherent research arm,
separate budgetary line, or high-level research administrator.
the weak science commitment has produced spotty research and management
decisions
The weak commitment to research and lack of formal policy
made it difficult to produce consistently high-quality
research. With no central policy and administration, research
on natural resources was administered under Natural Resource
Management with which it competed for funds. The section on
Science and Research in the chapter on Natural Resource
Management in the NPS 1988 Management Policies is only four
sentences long. At the field level, research was administered
out of the regional offices in some regions, by park
superintendents in others. Without central direction,
procedures, and standards for ensuring research quality,
persons involved in research varied from highly qualified
scientists to individuals with lesser credentials.
As a result of this lack of coherence, research quality
varied. The 12 case studies discussed in the Halvorson and
Davis book are examples of good science that has contributed to
effective management programs which protect the resources.
Research at the Beard Research Center in Everglades provided an
excellent knowledge base with which to address the daunting
management problems of that park.
But research on the ecology of elk in Yellowstone produced
faulty conclusions that were the basis of the ill-conceived,
natural-regulation management policy to which Dr. Kay has
referred. This policy is generating over populations of deer in
eastern parks and elk in the West that are ravaging the other
resources in those parks. And in my opinion, you can place the
Yellowstone bison problem that we are reading so much about in
the press these days squarely at the feet of the natural-
regulation management policy. Bad science produces bad
management.
The weak mandate for science in NPS also makes it possible
for some administrators to ignore it or act belligerently
toward it when it is inconvenient, or to use it selectively to
support policy positions. If research is to serve policy and
management effectively, it must be free of coercion to seek
truth regardless of where the chips may fall. It must have that
freedom even if at times it produces results that are contrary
to policy or indicates changes that are less comfortable than
maintaining the status quo.
Administrators must then decide whether to change
directions, or stay the course. If they apply pressures on
researchers to produce biased science that supports present
policy, or if they select only those findings that support
current positions and ignore contrary evidence, it basically
destroys the values and credibility of science.
While I don't suggest that such misuse of science has been
the norm in NPS, there have been instances of it. Yellowstone
and the natural-regulation policy has again been a case in
point. That policy was greeted with skepticism in the wildlife
profession from its inception in 1967. The skepticism was
ignored by Park officials just as they have refused to
recognize contrary evidence from recent research. And Park
researchers who generated contrary evidence were threatened
with their jobs, transferred elsewhere, or denied access to the
Park. Dr. Keigley, who has testified today with admirable
professional restraint, is one example.
So What is the Best Administrative Structure for Research
in NPS
Since research in resource-management agencies is a service
to policy setting, and to the design and evaluation of
management programs, the question arises as to what
administrative alignment with management allows it to serve
most effectively. Several considerations bear on the answer,
and these are a function of the personal and administrative
distance between research and management:
1. Research must be relevant to management needs. Since
research is a service to management, its practitioners must be
close enough to management to understand the management
problems and insure that their investigations are relevant to
the solution of those problems. This argues for relative
administrative proximity between scientists and managers.
2. Research must have the managers' trust. If managers are
to accept research results and adapt their programs according
to what is indicated by the latest findings, research must have
the managers' trust. This is earned by the managers'
recognition that the researchers understand the management
problems, and are committed to helping solve them. This is
another consideration arguing for personal and administrative
proximity of research to management. If researchers are not
known personally to managers, and/or they are situated at
considerable administrative distance, it is much easier to
ignore research recommendations.
3. Research must be free of political. policy. and
bureaucratic pressures to seek objective truth without fear of
administrative, personnel, and budgetary reprisal. There are
instances where this has occurred in NPS, Dr. Keigley's example
being one case in point. This consideration argues for
administrative distance between management and research.
Research should not be administered by the people who are
making and - administering policy.
Thus, there are arguments both for keeping research and
management close together, and for distancing them. The
question then arises as to what is the best compromise, and
more specifically what is the best arrangement for NPS. I
believe this is a major purpose of these hearings.
When we began writing our book on wildlife policies in
national parks, we were prepared to recommend putting NPS
research in its own, newly created division, with separate
budget and administrative lines, and its own associate
director. This was the structure in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and is the current situation in the U.S.D.A. Forest
Service. But in October 1993 before we had finished our book
and as everyone here knows, NPS research was moved into the new
National Biological Survey and eventually into the Biological
Resources Division of U.S.G.S.
Icertainly do not think it should go back to its previous
structure in NPS with the lack of a formal policy directing the
use of research in management programs, and the disparate
administrative status under which research operated. If it were
restored to the agency, it should be in a discrete research arm
with its own budget, administrative line, and administrator,
and independent of park operations. And it should be expanded
to provide a more adequate service to the parks than it did
prior to 1993.
Its present position in U.S.G.S. now gives it the
administrative distance it needs to allow it to seek objective
truth without policy or bureaucratic pressures. Perhaps it
should be left where it is for a while to give it a chance to
work. It has been a political football for nearly 4 years, and
to uproot it and reposition it once again would just prolong
the agony with the violence that does to the organization's
morale and productivity. It has just recruited a new director
who is moving to establish procedures and relationships.
I do think that if park research remains in the Biological
Resources Division of U.S.G.S., there is a real need to develop
formal liaison with the Park Service to insure relevance of the
research to park needs. I also think there needs to be
provision at top administrative levels in NPS to direct park
administrators to consider and adopt research results in their
management efforts.
And I agree that park superintendents should have a major
say in what research is carried out in the parks. But I think
there should be provision at the top for directing research
that superintendents might not want out of concern for results
that would challenge policy, but would clearly be relevant to
enhancing the understanding of management and policy problems.
There need to be safeguards against park superintendents
refusing access to federal scientists proposing to do research
relevant to park management problems, but for whatever reason
inconvenient for the superintendents. The parks, after all, are
public property.
Thank you very much for the invitation to present this
information, and for your attention.
Publications Cited:
Anon. 1988. Natural resources assessment and action
program. U.S. National Park Service, Office of Natural
Resources, Washington: IV + 70 pp.
Coggins, G.C. 1987. Protecting the wildlife resources of
national parks from external threats. Land and Water Law Review
22: 1-27.
Freemuth, J.C. 1991. Islands Under Siege: National Parks
and the Politics of External Threats. University Press of
Kansas, Lawrence: XIV + 186 p.
Halvorson, W.L. and G.E. Davis. 1996. Science and Ecosystem
Management in the National Parks. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson: XII + 364 pp.
Haskell, D.A. 1993. Is the U.S. National Park Service ready
for science? The George Wright Forum 10 99-104.
Risser, P.G., A.M. Bartuska, J.W. Bright, R.J. Contor, J.F.
Franklin, T.A. Heberlein, J.C. Hendee, I.L. McHarg, D.T.
Patten, R.O. Peterson, R.H. Wauer, and P.S. White. 1992.
Science and the national parks. National Academy Press,
Washington: XIV + 122 pp.
. Wagner, F. H. , R. Foresta, R. B. Gill, D. R. McCullough,
M.R. Pelton, W. F. Porter, H. Salwasser, with consultation by
J.L. Sax. 1995. Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks.
Island Press, Washington: X + 242 pp.
------
Statement of Charles E. Kay, Institute of Political Economy, Utah State
University
I would first like to thank the Chairman and the Committee
for inviting me to testify here today. I have a B.S. in
Wildlife Biology and a M.S. in Environmental Studies both from
the University of Montana, and a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology from
Utah State University. I am presently an Adjunct Assistant
Professor in the Department of Political Science and a Senior
Environmental Scholar at that University's Institute of
Political Economy. I am the only independent, independently
funded scientist to have conducted a detailed evaluation of
Yellowstone National Park's Natural regulation'' management
program. Not only have I conducted scientific research on the
elk overgrazing question, but I have also studied wolf
recovery, grizzly bear management, the bison problem, and other
key issues in that ecosystem. I have also traveled widely
throughout the West and am familiar with similar resource
management problems in other national parks. Moreover, I have
conducted extensive research on long-term ecosystem states and
processes in the southern Canadian Rockies for Parks Canada.
This included work in Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks.
My research in Yellowstone and Canada has been widely
published in books and scientific journals and I have submitted
copies of those papers to the committee's staff. In addition,
GAO is presently investigating the Yellowstone situation and I
have submitted copies of my research to that agency as well.
Moreover, I have volunteered to take GAO on a field tour of my
study sites in Yellowstone next summer.
As you know, Yellowstone is presently managed under what is
termed ``natural regulation.'' This, though, is more than
simply letting nature take its course for it entails a specific
view of how nature operates. According to the Park Service,
predation is an assisting but nonessential adjunct to the
regulation of elk and bison populations. Instead, ungulates are
limited by their available forage supply--termed resource or
food-limited. In other words, the Park Service contends that
ungulate populations will self regulate without overgrazing the
range. This means that if wolves are present, they will only
kill animals slated by nature to die from other causes and
thus, would not lower the elk population. In the debate over
wolf recovery, the Park Service has adamantly denied that
wolves are needed to control elk or bison numbers in
Yellowstone Park. Instead, under Natural regulation,'' elk and
bison die from starvation, and according to the Park Service,
thousands of animals starving to death is natural.
Now, the Park Service is fond of saying that it has 3
million dollars worth of research which supports ``natural
regulation.'' Unfortunately, most of those studies have not
directly tested ``natural regulation'' and have largely been a
waste of taxpayer's money. Furthermore, the Park Service has
refused to fund research that may prove ``natural regulation''
wrong and they have generally awarded contracts only to people
who produce results that support agency management. In the rare
circumstance where a contractor has produced a report critical
of park management, he has never received additional funding
and his credibility has been attacked by the agency. In the
equally rare circumstance where Park Service employees have
dared challenge established agency dogma, they have been
reassigned, force transferred, or suffered disciplinary action.
The next witness, Dr. Richard Keigley, can address these points
in detail since he has been the subject of internal agency
harassment.
There is also the question of how the Park Service has
awarded contracts to non-agency, supposedly independent
biologists. Information on who applied for these contracts and
how they were awarded is supposed to be available to the
public. But when an associate and I filed a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request on three specific contracts, we
were told the information was not available for public review,
because the agency had given that money to the University of
Wyoming and then the University, not the agency, technically
awarded those contracts. And as we were told by a University
Vice-President, the University does not have to comply with
FOIA requests. This raises the question of why the Park Service
chose to follow a procedure that hid the awarding of these
research contracts from public review. At least two of the
biologists who received those contracts have been repeatedly
funded by the Park Service, and have since produced a series of
reports favorable to the agency. In my opinion, this certainly
does not qualify as an independent test of ``natural
regulation'' management.
The Park Service's data supporting Natural regulation'' is
suspect because it cannot be replicated. A case in point is
aspen, which has declined by more than 95% since Yellowstone
Park was established. The Park Service has attributed that
decline to the lack of lightning-caused fires which the agency
claims are necessary to regenerate aspen--fire kills the old
trees but then the aspen clone's roots send up a profusion of
suckers, a process termed root suckering (aspen clones have not
regenerated from seed for several thousand years due to the
species' demanding seed bed requirements).
According to the Park Service, Yellowstone's aspen would
successfully regenerate-defined as producing new stems greater
that 6 feet tall--if those stands were bumed. In fact, agency
scientists have claimed for twenty years that their data proves
burned aspen will regenerate in the park despite repeated elk
browsing. They claimed to be stating a proven fact, not a
hypothesis.
An independent test of the Park Service's claims was
provided when Yellowstone's 1988 wildfires burned approximately
one-third of the aspen on the park's northern range. After the
fires, I established 765 permanent plots in burned aspen
stands. Despite initial aspen sucker densities of over 50,000
stems per acre, I found that elk and other ungulates repeatedly
browsed all those stems to within inches of the ground and
prevented height growth. In fact, several clones have now been
completely killed-out by repeated browsing. How then, could it
be a ``proven fact'' for nearly twenty years that, if burned,
Yellowstone's aspen would successfully regenerate despite
abnormally high elk numbers? Clearly, there was something wrong
with the agency's earlier ``data.'' As it turns out, burning
plus grazing are the worst things that can happen to the park's
aspen.
The Park Service has not responded by rejecting ``natural
regulations even though it is now clear an underlying part of
that hypothesis has been falsified. Instead, the agency has
proposed a new hypothesis. They now claim that aspen was
historically rare in the park so the decline of aspen is
evidence that ``natural regulation'' is returning the park to
its natural state.
Iand my co-workers tested this new hypothesis last summer.
We used the same procedures the Park Service reported it had
used to collect samples from aspen clones and we collected our
samples in the same areas used by the agency. We then sent our
samples to an independent laboratory for analysis in a blind
test. That is, the laboratory did not know where the samples
had been collected or the hypothesis being tested. Thus, this
was a truly scientific test of the Park Service's new
hypothesis. We were unable to confirm the Park Service's new
hypothesis. In fact, our data produced results entirely
different from those obtained by the agency. Simply put, we
could not replicate the data reported by the agency even though
we used the same methods and techniques in the same study
areas.
In science, if the same experiment or test is repeated, all
the various data sets must support the same conclusion or the
hypothesis must be discarded. Our data suggest that the Park
Service's new hypothesis is, at best, suspect and does not
absolve Natural management of aspen's continued decline in the
park.
The Park Service has also systematically attempted to
suppress the publication of research that does not conform to
the agency's ``natural regulation'' management of the park.
After the U.S. Forest Service and other public agencies spent
several hundred thousand dollars on a moose study inside and
outside Yellowstone Park, the publication of that research was
blocked. The official explanation is that the Forest Service
does not have sufficient funds to publish the final report, but
I suspect the real reason is that work does not support Natural
regulations management--please see Attachment B for details.
After I published an article critical of park management,
representatives of the Department of Interior repeatedly called
the University and asked them to fire me. They also repeatedly
called Parks Canada, for whom I was conducting ecological
research at the time, and asked them to fire me. Both refused.
Then they called my Department Chairman and informed him that
my research was endangering the lives of their people in the
field because, and this is an exact quote, based on what I had
written ``those neo-Nazis in Montana were going to start
shooting government officials.'' My ``crime'' Mr. Chairman, was
to have published an independent analysis of wolf recovery in
the park and other areas of the northern Rockies.
Having admitted to spending at least 3 million dollars of
taxpayer's money on research in Yellowstone, you would think
that the Park Service would have a detailed study plan of how
all that work was designed to formally test ``natural
regulation'' management. That, though, turns out not to be the
case. In 1989, for instance, the Department of Interior's
Inspector General conducted an audit of natural resource
research in Yellowstone and three other national parks. The
Inspector General found that ``Yellowstone National Park did
not have study plans for 23 of 41 research studies performed by
its research staff. In addition, the study plans that existed
for the other 18 research studies were generally deficient with
respect to content.'' As the Inspector General pointed out,
study plans are needed to ensure that research is conducted
efficiently.. The only time the Park Service has told the
public exactly what is meant by Natural regulation,'' and laid
out a detailed plan for its study, was 1971, and the agency
subsequently never followed its own study plan. Instead, I am
the only scientist who has systematically tested ``natural
regulation'' management.
Alston Chase has called ``natural regulation'' a scientific
fraud and from my own detailed measurement of vegetation in
Yellowstone Park, I can say that I have found no evidence to
support the ``natural regulation'' paradigm. Instead, all my
data indicate that Natural regulation'' must be rejected as a
valid scientific explanation of the natural world.
As you know, riparian management has recently been a hot
political topic in the West, with environmentalists blaming
ranchers for overgrazing these critical habitats. So, as an
example of what ``natural regulation'' means on the ground, let
us look at the condition and trend of willow communities on
Yellowstone's northern range--please see Attachment A for
additional details and references. Now if Natural regulation''
management represents the epitome of land management, as
claimed by the Park Service and various environmental groups,
then surely Yellowstone's riparian areas should be in excellent
condition.
To test this part of the ``natural regulation'' paradigm, I
(a) measured willows inside and outside the park; (b) measured
willows inside and outside long-term ungulate-proof fenced
plots, called enclosures, on Yellowstone's northern range; (c)
measured willow seed production inside and outside park
enclosures; and (d) compiled repeat-photographs to measure
long-term vegetation change.
Based on 44 repeat photosets of riparian areas on the
northern range, tall willows have declined by more than 95%
since Yellowstone Park was established in 1872. In 28 repeat
photosets outside the park, tall willows had not declined, but,
if anything, had increased. That these differences are due to
excessive browsing by Yellowstone's burgeoning ``naturally
regulated'' elk population, not other environmental factors as
postulated by the Park Service, is shown at the park's
enclosures.
On permanent plots outside enclosures, willows averaged
only 13 inches tall, had only 14% canopy cover, and produced no
seeds. In contrast, protected willows averaged nearly 9 feet
tall, had 95% canopy cover, and produced over 300,000 seeds per
square meter of female canopy cover--in willows there are
separate male and female plants. Not only are Yellowstone's
willow communities severely overgrazed, but they are among the
most overgrazed in the entire West. This has had a devastating
effect on riparian songbirds and other animals.
Beaver, for instance, were once common in the park but that
species is now ecologically extinct on the northern range
because overgrazing by an unnaturally large elk population has
eliminated the aspen, willows, and cottonwoods beaver need for
food and dam building materials. Without beaver in the system,
park streams have down cut, which has lowered water tables and
destroyed more riparian vegetation. Beaver is also a critical
keystone species whose loss has seriously reduced park
biodiversity.
The roots of willows, aspen, and cottonwoods are also
critical in maintaining streambank stability, and as elk have
eliminated these woody species, this has produced major
hydrologic changes. Dr. David Rosgen, one of North America's
leading hydrologists, for instance, reported 100 times more
bank erosion on Yellowstone's denuded streams than on the same
willow-lined streams outside the park.
Last summer, I took Dr. William Platts, one of the West's
leading riparian experts, and Dr. Robert Beschta, a hydrologist
at Oregon State University on a three? day field tour of sites
inside and outside Yellowstone Park. What they saw shocked
them. After looking at one stream that had blown out and eroded
down to Pleistocene gravels, something that has not happened in
12,000 years--all because the elk had destroyed the woody
vegetation that once protected the stream banks, these experts
declared that if you gave them a billion dollars they could not
put the system back together again. This then is the type of
resource damage that has occurred under ``natural regulation''
management. I submit that not only must ``natural regulation''
be rejected, but that what has happened in Yellowstone is a
clear violation of the park's Organic Act, the Endangered
Species Act (see Attachment B), and other federal legislation.
The Park Service, however, has responded by producing a
series of research studies that blame these problems on factors
other than Natural regulation'' management. However, bad
science leads to bad policy, and if you do not follow proper
scientific procedures, or don't measure the correct variables,
or don't have a large enough sample size, what you invariably
get is junk science.
Elk-induced soil erosion has long been a concern in
Yellowstone, but the agency claims recent research has proven
that the park's burgeoning ungulate populations have not caused
accelerated soil erosion. A careful review of the Park
Service's data, however, shows that not to be true.
In their work, the Park Service used a simulated rainfall
machine to measure soil erosion inside and outside
Yellowstone's long-term grasslands enclosures. The rainfall
simulator was set at the rate of one inch per hour and was run
for 15 minutes on a 26X26 inch square plot. This automatically
biased the study, though, because it is standard scientific
practice to use a rate of 2.5 inches per hour for 15 minutes. A
lower simulated rainfall rate automatically guarantees less
soil erosion.
The Park Service then measured soil erosion on five outside
plots and five inside plots per enclosure and found that there
was more erosion on outside plots, which have a long history of
heavy elk use, than on inside plots, but reported that
difference was not statistically significant. Yellowstone's
superintendent then publicly proclaimed the agency's research
had proven there was no accelerated erosion in the park. That,
though, is incorrect, as the Park Service grossly
misrepresented the results of their research.
To statistically compare the average amount of soil eroded
from inside versus outside plots, the samples' variances are
used. If those variances are high, as they invariable are in
soil work, and sample size is low, like say only five samples,
then God himself could not generate statistical significance.
So while it is true that statistically the agency's data showed
no increased soil erosion on grazed plots at each enclosure,
that does not mean elk have not caused widespread soil erosion
in the ecosystem.
This is what mathematicians call a Type 11 error--
concluding that there is no significant difference, when in
fact there is. To correct for this problem, the Park Service
should have measured more plots inside and outside each
enclosure, but it did not--I suspect because those data would
have embarrassed the agency. However, if you combine that
study's original data inside and outside all the enclosures
that were measured, which effectively increases sample size,
then the agency's data shows significantly more soil erosion
from heavily grazed sites. When it rains, I have watched mud
flow off Yellowstone's hillsides and it is not uncommon to find
exposed tree roots in the park.
The Park Service, however, continues to deny that
Yellowstone is overgrazed, or that if it is, ``natural
regulation'' is to blame. The agency, though, has not been
receptive to independent review of its ``natural regulation''
program. In the early 1990s, the Society for Range Management,
the Ecological Society of America, the American Fisheries
Society, and the Wildlife Society asked the Park Service for
approval to conduct an independent review of the Yellowstone
situation, but they failed to obtain permission. More recently,
a group of preeminent ecologists informed the Secretary of
Interior that they would be willing to sews, without pay, on a
panel to review the entire Yellowstone matter, but the
Secretary declined.
Now if the Park Service has nothing to hide, and actually
has the research to support its claims regarding ``natural
regulation,'' why then have they not welcomed an independent
review of Yellowstone's management? If, on the other hand, as I
have argued, ``natural regulation'' is the greatest threat to
Yellowstone Park, then it is easy to see why the agency
attempts to prevent Congress and the American public from
knowing the truth. In my opinion ``natural regulation'' is also
a failed environmental philosophy, which explains why
environmental groups such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
have largely ignored the resource damage that has occurred in
the park (please see Attachment A for details).
Moreover, this problem is not confined to Yellowstone but
is endemic throughout our National Parks System. Dr. Carl Hess,
for instance, has documented how ``naturally regulated'' elk
have overgrazed Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park, while
Dr. William Bradley documented the negative impacts abnormally
large elk populations are having on subalpine meadows in
Washington's Mount Rainier National Park. Similarly,
``naturally regulated'' elk populations have had a dramatic
impact on understory species composition and tree regeneration
in Washington's Olympia National Park. While in New Mexico's
Bandolier National Monument, elk-induced soil erosion is
threatening that park's archaeological resources.
The simple truth is that ungulate populations will not
internally self-regulate before those animal's have had a
serious impact on the vegetation. Now, wildlife biologists
often cite Africa's Serengeti as an example of how North
America must have looked before it was despoiled by Europeans.
The Park Service, in fact, has not only claimed that
Yellowstone National Park is the last remnant of North
America's Serengeti, but the agency has actively recruited
Serengeti scientists to support ``natural regulation''
management. Today's Serengeti, however, is not a natural
ecosystem, nor is it a vignette of Wilderness'' Africa.
Instead, the Serengeti is a romantic, European, racist view of
how ``primitive'' Africa should have looked, for one of the
first things that Europeans did when they created Serengeti and
other African national parks was to forcefully remove all the
indigenous peoples. For various reasons, colonial governments
did not want black Africans in their white national parks.
Now, there have been hominoid predators in Africa for at
least 3.5 million years, and our species, Homo sapiens, evolved
in Africa 100,000+ years ago. Thus, I submit that there is
nothing more unnatural than an African ecosystem without
hominoid predators and the Serengeti, therefore, is not a
``natural'' ecosystem nor is it an example of how North America
teemed with wildlife before the arrival of Columbus.
In all the ecological studies that have been done on the
Serengeti, native people have generally not even been
mentioned, or if they have, it has invariably been as
``poachers,'' in the pejorative sense. Based on recent
modeling, it has been suggested that Serengeti's wildlife
populations will collapse if present levels of ``poaching''
increase by as little as 10%. While others may view this as
``poaching,'' I suggest that this is a case of native people,
who are simply exercising their aboriginal rights.
As I have documented elsewhere, elk and bison never
historically overgrazed Yellowstone or other National Parks
because native hunting kept ungulate numbers low. That is to
say, hunting by Native Americans actually promoted
biodiversity. Giving Yellowstone's bison additional areas to
roam outside the park, for instance, will never solve the bison
problem. For under ``natural regulation,'' bison numbers will
simply increase until the starving animals again move beyond
whatever boundary has been set.
Thus, I respectfully offer the following recommendation for
Congress' consideration:
(1) Congress should mandate an independent park science
program. This is the same conclusion that has been reached by
every panel that has ever reviewed Park Management. Since the
Park Service has never followed any of those recommendations, I
submit that Congress must legislate the needed changes, for the
agency has repeatedly demonstrated its refusal to comply with
anything less. Because of the politics in Yellowstone, I also
suggest that Congress appoint an independent panel of eminent
scientists to set priorities for park research and to review/
approve competitive research proposals for funding, similar to
what the Bureau of Land Management did with wild horse and
burro research.
(2) In addition, I suggest that Congress appoint an
independent commission to review ``natural regulation''
management and park science in Yellowstone. What I am asking is
for a fair impartial hearing of the available evidence, which
after all is the American way. If we cannot straighten out
Yellowstone, Mr. Chairman, there is little hope for the rest of
our national parks.
(3) Furthermore, I would suggest that if you want
independent scientists to critically evaluate various aspects
of park management then Congress must establish a mechanism to
directly fund that research. This need not come from new
appropriations but from a reapportionment of existing funds.
Money, after all, may be the root of all evil, but it is also
the root of all science. Without adequate funding there will be
no independent evaluation of park management.
(4) And finally, I invite you Mr. Chairman and others on
your committee to personally tour Yellowstone with me this
coming summer. At least one U.S. Senator has already asked me
to accompany him on a fact finding tour of the park's northern
range. It is quite an educational experience to be standing on
a site and to be handed a photograph of how that area looked
back in 1871. I wager, Mr. Chairman, that you will never view
park management in the same light again.
We simply need an impartial review of the available
evidence. For Mr. Chairman, if we can not agree on the science,
then we surely can never reach agreement on how our National
Parks should be managed to insure that they will be unimpaired
for future generations of Americans.
Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, based on what I know about
``natural regulation'' management, if I wanted to protect an
area, the last thing I would do would be to make it a national
park, and the next to last thing I would do would be to turn it
into a wilderness area. I believe that our natural resources
should be protected and America's heritage presented, but that
management should be based on the best available science, not
on romantic, often religious, views of nature.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
------
Statement by Roger G. Kennedy, Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony, and we appreciate
the attention you are paying to the role of research and
resource management in the National Park Service by convening
this hearing.
The National Park Service was established to manage some of
the nation's most impressive and important natural and cultural
features. The ``Organic Act'' of 1916 directs the National Park
Service to conserve the scenery, and natural and historic
objects and wild life, of National Parks for future
generations. In 1916 the task was largely one of protecting
spectacular examples of isolated scenery and wildlife from
poaching, lumbering and mining. The accompanying task was to
provide access to these resources for enjoyment in a way that
left them unimpaired for all future generations of Americans.
When Congress provided this dual mission in the NPS Organic
Act of 1916, no one could know then exactly what these tasks
would entail in the years to come. Today the 374 units of the
park system that cover 83 million-acres are often set in
economically developing regions. Many are subject to the
impacts of urban and suburban encroachment, which affects
watersheds, airsheds, viewsheds, and plant and animal pathways.
In this modern landscape most parks are like islands.
The 275 million visits from the public to parks each year
also impact park resources. To meet the challenge of managing
visitation and other impacts, a strong scientific effort is
needed to understand the best ways to protect the resources.
Congress has recognized the fragility of our nation's
natural resources by enacting over the past 30 years such
important legislation as The National Environmental Policy Act,
The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, and The Endangered
Species Act. These acts help protect the nation's resources,
including those of the national parks. The implementation of
these acts requires a high degree of technical expertise,
analysis, and documentation from public land management
agencies. To do the job right we need to provide the public
with an excellent science program.
Our understanding of ecology has progressed a great deal
since 1916. We have learned how complex are the important
relationships within natural systems and we have learned about
the points of vulnerability that require the most vigilance and
care. We agree that it is fundamentally important to bring our
understanding of natural systems into the management of our
National Parks, objectively and professionally. The public is
entitled to a science program that will provide it with useful
and accurate information about park resources.
Sound factual information, the essence of science, must be
the foundation for any prudent land management decision.
Because NPS must make many controversial decisions--by
definition decisions that do not please everyone--the science
that underpins those decisions will be constantly in question.
Decisions based on science have been, are, and will be
controversial both within and outside the Service. All
scientists do not agree on everything. It is essential for
Congress and the NPS to have an ongoing dialogue about our
successes and our failures in living up to the expectations of
the American public.
Over the years many individuals and a number of outside
review panels have proposed policies for the NPS science
program. The origin of the NPS science program is usually
traced to the 1930's and George Wright. Wright identified the
need for inventorying the system's resources and for making
science a necessary basis for good stewardship of its wildlife.
Wright started the program with his own money for the first two
years and died in a car accident in 1936. After a period of
Civilian Conservation Corps funding the entire effort dwindled
to 3 scientists by the end of World War II. The program
sputtered until the 1960's and the issuance of two reports: the
Leopold Report (1963) on wildlife management and the Robbins
Report (1963) on research in the National Parks. These reports
were issued as a result of controversy over the NPS culling of
the elk herd in the northern range of Yellowstone NP. These
reports spurred the creation in 1967 of the Office of Natural
Science Studies and a period of slow growth of both research
and resource management programs through the early 1990's.
Under many administrations some progress was made, but not
enough. Parks now have Resource Management Plans with lists of
research and resource management projects in stated priorities
that are needed to understand and address resource threats. We
have completed Natural and Cultural Resources Assessments that
are essentially servicewide resource management work-load
analyses. These data bases can be used to report on our
problems and needs within a park, regional, or servicewide
perspective. We have a strong Natural Resource Inventory and
Monitoring program that is efficient and effective in providing
the basic information that identifies what we manage and in
developing methodology to tell how they are faring.
Inventorying and monitoring is not flashy science nor
inexpensive, but it is important.
Our science training program is getting better. In the last
two decades we have created the professional resource manager
position and developed a Natural Resource Management trainee
program that provided 1-2 years of training for 145 new park
resource managers. Recently the basic park resource manager
position was re-evaluated in order to enhance the
professionalism and career opportunities of these valuable
resource stewards .
Our Natural Resource Management Program also seeks private
sponsorship for resource management projects ($2 million in the
last two years) and we have just announced 4 National Park
Science/Canon Legacy Scholarships for dissertations on science
topics specific to national park issues.
The effort to better our science program is not limited to
our natural resources program. Last year the Service adopted a
Social Science Plan in order to better understand all aspects
of park visitation, economics, and visitor expectations and
satisfaction. The new visiting Chief Social Scientist reports
to our Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and
Science. Dr. Machlis, a professor at the University of Idaho,
will serve a 3-year term. He will then be replaced by another
academic leader in social science.
We have established a record of major scientific
contribution in areas such as the role of fire in natural
ecosystems, coastal barrier island dynamics, and the influence
of exotic species in natural systems. There are many examples
of NPS science determining issues important to park
preservation: air quality impacts at Grand Canyon, the
restoration of water quality and quantity in the Everglades,
the management of off-road vehicles at Cape Cod and Fire Island
National Seashores, and the removal of exotic species such as
burros at several Southwestern parks, to name a few.
Lets tall: about reports from governmental and private
sources that show the need for greater scientific underpinning
of the management of park resources and visitor services. It's
a matter of priorities. The press of increased visitation to
parks and our corresponding focus on visitor services competes
for limited resources. The cost of new construction of
facilities as well as the corresponding maintenance necessary
for large infrastructure often leads Superintendents to divert
resources away from science, toward other pressing needs. At
the park level we often have ``brushfires'' of the moment; as a
result we neglect investment in science until a crisis
develops. Good science cannot be a ``brushfire'' activity.
Science has never been an explicit mission of the National
Park Service, although various reviews have recommended that
research become an integral mandate for park management. In
1993, the Secretary of the Interior created the National
Biological Survey (NBS), in part to consolidate all Interior
research programs into one research agency, and in part to
answer some of the criticism that had been directed at the NPS
science program. One of these criticisms was that the research
of scientists was managed by park superintendents. The creation
of NBS solved this problem as it resulted in the transfer--not
the eradication--of roughly $20 million and 168 researchers and
technicians, or roughly 1.6% of the NPS operational budget to
NBS. Resource management programs (roughly 6-8% of the
operational budget) remained with NPS, as did our resource
managers--those who apply science to park programs and make
recommendations to management.
NBS, now the Biological Resources Division (13RD) of the US
Geological Survey (USGS), is pledged to continue both research
and extension services in direct support of national parks. In
concert with the three other programmatic divisions (geology,
water, mapping), the USGS has a broad range of scientific
resources which can be brought to bear on NPS issues. USGS/BAD
has already established an Ombudsman Panel to help address NPS
concerns. In addition, we have an agreement with USGS/BAD to
share funding for technicians, and an annual needs assessment
process has been set up to determine how USGS/BAD can best
service NPS's needs.
Nevertheless, NPS science needs to go far beyond the
available government? conducted research. To provide a larger
program of applied science for its managers, NPS has worked
with USGS/BAD to initiate a national network of 16 university-
based units, called Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units
(CESU's), which build on the former NPS Cooperative Park
Studies Units and augment the Cooperative Research Units. USGS/
BAD research scientists at cooperating universities will
shortly be joined by a NPS senior scientist who will serve not
as a practicing researcher but as a broker, contracting
officer's representative, and liaison, to find the best source
of technical support for park management in a wide array of
disciplines (from archaeology to education, to communications,
to zoology). This individual will also serve as a bridge
between park management, USGS/BAD, and university scientists.
When suitable units do not exist, competitive awards will be
used to jointly establish new CESUs. Other land-management and
science-related agencies will join these units. By joining
together in our regional research efforts we believe that
federal agencies will, over time, work more efficiently by
jointly planning and providing information relevant to their
needs.
We are confident that these steps will provide a science
program that meets our needs. They will also solve many of the
problems found by reviews of the NPS science program.
Over the years, the NPS has adopted increasingly science-
driven policies toward management of the most significant
biological components of national park ecosystems. NPS
Management Policies (1988) calls for maintaining ``natural
environments evolving through natural processes minimally
influenced by human actions.'' This means managing for native
(generally, pre-European contact) ecosystem components and
functions ``evolving'' through time. While the policy tends
away from both the earlier mistake of predator control and the
problems associated with the culling of prey species, NPS
policy allows for management intervention to correct for
disturbing human influences. Because of the pervasiveness of
human influences in today's world, few true cases of natural
process regulation (or as some see it ``hands off '')
management are practical.
This policy appears most controversial for the management
of large mammals, especially predators and ungulates, as these
species can have very significant impacts beyond park
boundaries. These mammals can proliferate or decline rapidly
depending on the changing ecosystem conditions. Their fate
stirs very strong emotions among the various publics. Because
of the controversy of any management action--either controlling
animal herd numbers as at Gettysburg National Military Park
currently, or in maintaining free-roaming herds of elk and
bison as at Yellowstone, cooperative efforts with state and
other federal agencies are common, and full public involvement
(via the NEPA process) is the rule.
There is a lot of disagreement among researchers about
whether Yellowstone's northern range is overgrazed. My
colleagues are prepared to participate in the debate as
scientists. Some, like Professor Sam McNaughton of Syracuse
University, who recently reviewed Wildlife Policies in the US
National Parks by Dr. Fred Wagner and others, say it isn't.
Indeed there are many scientists who believe that the elk herd
and the habitat are healthy and productive--despite high
numbers of elk resulting from nearly a decade of mild winters.
We would be happy to provide you with copies of their work.
In addition, we recently completed a report on a 5-year
research program on conditions in the northern range. The
findings presented in these peer-reviewed articles suggest that
the issue is not the disaster that our critics would contend.
We welcome a rigorous and continuous review of these articles
and would be happy to provide you with a copy of this report.
We believe that current debate is warranted and healthy,
and we have moved to bring new perspectives into the science
issues. Last August we hosted a session at the Ecological
Society of America on this issue, inviting a new generation of
ecologists to consider the appropriate approach to managing
this incredible biological resource. In March we will present
this issue at the 62nd North American Wildlife and Natural
Resource Conference of the Wildlife Management Institute.
In September of this year we are inviting both sides of the
debate to present their cases to the judgment of their peers at
the annual meeting of the Wildlife Society. We believe that
this effort will lead to a scientific consensus on the probable
outcomes of the alternatives available for the management of
the Northern range.
Beyond science, what many are actively questioning in the
elk and bison issues at Yellowstone NP (including the
Brucellosis issue) is the park's interpretation and
implementation of the natural process regulation policy. We
believe our mission, our policies, and our values reflect the
overall expressed interests of the American public. In fact,
the public strongly supported our management policies for
Yellowstone when we put the policies out for public comment in
1988. We will continue to seek public guidance in the
application of these policies and values in Yellowstone
National Park. In cooperation with other state and federal
agencies, we are committed to completing a Draft long-term
Bison Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement this
summer.
We also understand the need to be in the forefront of
utilizing the best science for the basis of our management
decisions in what we believe to be the world's best system of
natural and cultural parks in the world. We are confident that
we are taking steps to make this a reality.
I appreciate your close interest and support to reach this
goal. I will be happy to respond to your questions.
------
Testimony of Dr. Mark Schaefer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
Science and Resource Management in the National Park
System.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to join Director Roger Kennedy to present
testimony on science and resource management in the National
Park System. For the past year I have assisted Secretary
Babbitt with scientific issues at the Department of the
Interior, including science and the National Parks. I am
accompanied by Dr. Denny Penn, Chief Biologist of the new
Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS).
Consistent with congressional direction, the Secretary
transferred the National Biological Service to the USGS on
October 1, 1996. The Biological Resources Division became the
fourth USGS division, joining the Geologic, Mapping, and Water
Resources Divisions already in existence. This arrangement
places most of the physical and biological research activities
of the Department of the Interior within one organization, an
arrangement that will be advantageous in addressing a broad
range of scientific needs of the department, including those of
the National Park Service.
Ensuring the Highest Quality Science.
The Department of the Interior is committed to ensuring
that the highest quality science underpins resource management
decisions. Over the last four years the Secretary has made the
pursuit of this goal one of his highest departmental
priorities. I would like to point to just a few of the
initiatives directed toward this goal:
(1) Independence of research programs. Research should be
conducted in a way that ensures its objectivity and
independence from influence by those who have a stake in the
outcome of a research effort. Therefore, the Secretary moved
the Department's biological research activities out of the
bureaus that have resource management and regulatory
responsibilities. At the same time he established stronger
linkages to the bureaus to ensure that the research needs of
managers are identified and met.
(2) Multidisciplinary research activities. By consolidating
Department of the Interior research programs in the U.S.
Geological Survey, the physical and biological sciences are
housed within the same institution. This fosters the kind of
multidisciplinary studies that are key to addressing resource
management questions. It also allows biological scientists to
benefit from the advanced mapping and geographic information
systems technologies available at USGS.
The considerable scientific strength of all USGS divisions
will move ecosystem science forward in the National Parks and
elsewhere. For example, the High-Priority Digital Base Data
Program, which USGS initiated in 1994, helps support park and
ecosystem management by providing digital map products required
for habitat assessment, archaeological site monitoring, and
fire management.
(3) Connecting research programs to the needs of resource
managers and others. Through a needs assessment program
conducted by the USGS Biological Resources Division the
research needs of managers are identified and prioritized on an
annual basis. Available funding is then matched to these needs.
In addition, the Department of the Interior Science Board,
chaired by the Secretary, brings senior department managers and
scientists together on a regular basis to discuss needs,
capabilities, and priorities as they relate to the department's
mission responsibilities.
(4) Connecting research programs to the needs of states and
tribes. The department is continually working to strengthen the
connection between USGS research and the needs of states and
tribes. The USGS already cooperates with approximately 1100
state and local governments in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
In addition, the Biological Resources Division has conducted an
extensive survey of the needs of state natural resources
managers. More than 250 senior agency leaders in 50 states,
including fish and game, parks, natural resources, and related
agencies, were interviewed. The results, which are now in the
analysis and report-writing stage, will be used by USGS to
guide future activities.
To strengthen ties with the states and tribes, we are
considering the establishment of informal regional Natural
Resources Science Forums. These Forums would be designed to
facilitate communication and coordination of research needs
among land and resource managers. The Forums would also foster
additional collaborative programs with state, tribal,
university, nongovernmental, and industry scientists.
(5) Taking advantage of talent in the nation's universities
and leveraging limited funds through research collaborations.
We are working to broaden and strengthen the Department's
existing Cooperative Park Study Unit (CPSU) program. Under the
new name of Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units (CESUs), the
program will work to include scientists from other Department
of the Interior bureaus and perhaps other federal agencies and
collocate them in a university setting. The program will
undertake cooperative research activities pertaining to the
parks as well as other public lands. The CESU program is
designed to build on and interconnect existing federal and
university research activities. CESUs will undertake
multidisciplinary studies, foster information and technology
transfer, and aid in the training of university and government
scientists. This arrangement will allow selected government
scientists to rotate in and out of a university setting, a
cycle that supports career advancement. Collaboration with the
Water Resource Institutes, often located at the same
universities will also facilitate multidisciplinary study.
(6) Ensuring viable technical support activities. The Park
Service maintains scientific and technical, but largely non-
research, staff to assist park superintendents in meeting near-
and long-term need scientific needs. This includes inventory
and monitoring activities to assess the status and trends of
natural resources. These activities need to continue to receive
financial support and to grow when budget priorities allow.
Science for the Parks.
The National Park Service is charged with protecting the
nation's natural and cultural treasures. Among these treasures
is Yellowstone National Park, the nation's first National Park,
established by the 42nd Congress on March 1, 1872--125 years
ago this Saturday. Since that time the system has grown to
include more than 375 sites nationwide. It is interesting to
note that Yellowstone was established as a direct result of the
scientific expeditions led by geologist Ferdinand Hayden who
reported on the great physical and biological diversity of this
area.
Another geologist, John Wesley Powell surveyed vast areas
of the arid West, including a famous expedition down the
Colorado River. Powell's observations led to the establishment
of Grand Canyon National Park. I mention these historical facts
to underscore the close connection between science--and more
specifically USGS--and the National Parks. John Wesley Powell
was the second Director of the USGS. Exploration and science
are behind the establishment of most of the nation's national
parks.
Today, most of the United States has been explored, and the
role of science is less one of discovering new natural assets
and more one of providing the basis for effective stewardship
of our Nation's lands and resources. As the populations of
areas surrounding the parks grow, pressure on these resources
increases, and controversy about ways to protect the parks
arise. Science provides an objective foundation for sound
natural resources management. The ``new'' USGS is dedicated to
providing this objective foundation.
A wealth of studies have provided insights as to how
science can and should contribute to the management of the
parks. Two key reports in the early 1960s, Wildlife Management
and the National Parks (the ``Leopold report'') and A Report by
the Advisory Committee to the National Park Service on Research
(the ``Robbing report''), pointed to the importance of strong
scientific programs in aiding in the management of the Parks.
The Robbins report underscored the ``distinctions between
research and administrative decision-making.'' More recently,
the National Research Council report Science and the National
Parks, published in 1992, calls for greater ``organizational
and budgetary autonomy'' of its science program, and makes a
number of other recommendations for advancing park programs. We
believe the creation of a new Biological Resources Division
within the USGS will facilitate stronger, more independent
research programs in support of park resources management.
Future Challenges.
The Secretary has made strong, objective research programs
in support of effective resource management a top priority.
With increased visitation within the national parks and
increasing population surrounding them, maintaining the
ecological integrity of these systems will be a particular
challenge. At the same time, continuing constraints on federal
funding will require the search for innovative approaches to
ensure adequate support for key research activities. We are
committed to working with you Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee to advance the department's scientific programs
generally and National Park Service programs specifically.
------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9698.038