THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S REVISED

DRAFT MANAGEMENT POLICIES

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. The committee will come to order. We're going to have to manage ourselves a little bit this afternoon. There are a couple of votes that are going to go on here shortly, but we'll be able to work around that and I hope to continue the hearing right on until its completion.

Thank you all for being here. I want to welcome Deputy Director Steve Martin from the National Park Service and Mr. Tom Kiernan from the National Park Conservation Association to today's subcommittee hearing.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed revisions to the management policies that guide the day-today workings of the National Park Service.

I cannot emphasize the importance of management policies enough for setting a tone that influences the attitudes of park employees from the Washington headquarters to each of the seven regions and to 390 parks throughout the system. So it is a very important position.

The basic policy of maintaining national parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations was established in the 1916 Organic Act. This founding principle has been conveyed to the public and the park service employees in various directors' orders, speeches, regulations and other documents for the past 90 years. We must ensure that it remains the foundation of the National Park Service for the generations to come. This administration has set out to change the management policies in August 2005 and faced some strong public and congressional opposition to the initial draft. Specific concerns were identified in the hearing of the subcommittee last November through public comment that ended in 2006. Many comments focused on the definition of impairing, the definition of impairment and the relationship between the use of the conservation of resources.

(1)

The Secretary of the Interior, Gail Norton, settled the debate on March 17, 2006, in a letter, when she stated that when there is a conflict between the production of resources and use, conservation is predominant. Revision of the management policies got off to a rocky start, as usual, and there was great discussion about them, but in November, the Park Service has listened and responded to the concerns of the public and to Congress and I want to thank them for that. I look forward to hearing the testimony on this important issue. So, thank you,

Senator Alexander.

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

Senator ALEXANDER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an example of several people, in my opinion, doing their jobs well. And as the chairman goes out to vote, I want to say this subcommittee's work has been a good example of that, because the oversight that we've engaged in, I think, has been constructive. The Park Service could have gone about its own management policies and just done it and then we could have complained it and tried to pass a piece of legislation, which we might have done. But instead of that, Chairman Thomas held oversight hearings, and we were able to have our say, so I thank him for that. I also want to compliment Steve Martin of the National Park Service and Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. The National Park Service has proved to be a good listener and Secretary Kempthorne is there. We're off to a good start.

The earlier revisions of the Park Management Policies dramatically revised, in my judgment, the 2001 amendments and raised serious concerns about conservation and air quality, as well as visual and noise pollution in our parks, and several of us in Congress, on both political sides of the aisle, were very concerned about those amendments and said so. But the Park Service, as I said, turned out to be a good listener. They spent a lot of time, not just with us, but with—and I'm sure we'll hear more about this in testimony, but with the public and hearings all around the country. After considering our comments and those of the public, the Park Service has now produced a draft that appears to be consistent with the Federal laws that founded the national parks and, at the time, makes what appear to be necessary, common-sense improvements to the 2001 policies, which should make it easier for supervisors to manage park properties in consistent and appropriate ways. I especially appreciate the clarity of Secretary Kempthorne in his announcement yesterday when he said, as Chairman Thomas mentioned, that when there is a conflict between conserving resources unimpaired for the future generations and the use of those resources, conservation would be predominant. That's what the folks in and around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where I live, want to hear and that's what I'm glad to hear.

I also would like to extend my thanks to the National Parks Conservation Association, which has been a big help in this project. They're not elected, as we are, and they are not appointed, as Mr. Martin is, but they care about the parks and they include a great many Americans. They waved a yellow flag and a couple of red

flags, but they didn't just stop there and send out a fundraising letter, they made very constructive, specific comments and then when the National Park Service came up with a substantially improved draft, they gave them a pat on the back. As I mentioned earlier, a virtue is its own reward and a pat on the back is a nice thing to have when it's deserved and I think in this case, it is deserved. So I look forward, Mr. Martin and Mr. Kiernan, to hearing your comments today. I thank the chairman, and I think the people are better off as a result of this extensive process you've gone through. And I believe the Congress has done a pretty good job of overseeing this case.

Senator Salazar.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Alexander. I, too, want to give my compliments to Senator Thomas and to this committee and subcommittee for having worked on this issue for the last year. I also want to extend my gratitude and appreciation to the Ďepartment and to Mr. Martin and all of those who have been involved in taking a serious look at this issue.

For me, at the end of the day, I think what we have here is an example of bipartisan participation and the executive branch working with the members of the Senate and the House who had concerns about the initial drafts. And I think we ought to have more examples where we are able to find these very difficult, sometimes contentious issues and work through them to a result. That is a good result for the purpose that we are here for.

In this case, I think the purpose we are here for on this Parks Committee and the reason the parks exist is to make sure that we are passing on these crown jewels, not only for our enjoyment, but also for the enjoyment of our children and future generations. And certainly Senator Alexander has been a leader in doing it not only in Tennessee, but also around the United States. So I'm very pleased that the National Park Service has, in fact, taken into account and consideration the comments from this committee, as well as from the entire public.

I was particularly impressed yesterday, during the press conference, when Secretary Kempthorne set forth what he considered to be the principles guiding the National Park Service and its policies. Out of the ten points that he included in his press release, I think the first three of those points are worthwhile just to repeat here for the record.

He said and this is part of the document that was part of the press release entitled, "Key Principles Guiding the National Park Services Development of the 2006 Management Policies"-point No. 1: A key tenet of park management is preventing the impairment of national and cultural resources. Point two: When there is a conflict between the protection of resources and use, conservation will be predominant. Point No. 3: Park resources should be passed on to future generations in a better condition than currently exists. I think that in those three points, Secretary Kempthorne captured what really was a driving motivation between-for the criticisms that we were giving to the previous drafts of the policy and that

is, that we stand firmly behind the Organic Act of 1916 and the concept and doctrine that has been followed for parks management to do no harm. So I appreciate all that you have done. I appreciate Senator Alexander's and Senator Thomas' leadership on this issue as well.

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Salazar. We also should acknowledge the work of Tom Lillie and David Brooks, staff members who've worked hard on this issue.

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka. I appreciate having another opportunity to discuss proposed changes to the National Park Service's management policies.

At the end of a very long and difficult process, I am happy to see that we have returned to a draft of the Management Policies that closely resembles the 2001 Policies.

Members of the public, Park Service employees, retirees, and park advocates have been overwhelming in their support for the bedrock principles of resource protection in the Parks. People want the air, sounds, and scenic views of their Parks protected. They want uses carefully monitored to ensure they are not damaging Park resources. They want wilderness lands protected and preserved. And they want clear, consistent, and stable management of our Parks so that our children and grandchildren may enjoy the same wonders we experience today when we visit one of America's 58 National Parks.

While I am pleased that this process has ultimately restored and strengthened the management principles in the 2001 Policies, I still wonder why this process was necessary in the first place.

The Park Service has devoted a lot of time and taxpayer resources to the various drafts of these policies. In a budget climate that is forcing cuts to visitor services and neglect of park infrastructure, wouldn't taxpayer dollars have been better spent elsewhere? After all, after numerous revisions of the management policies, we have basically returned to the core principles in the 2001 Policies.

I do want to commend the Park Service for its willingness to consider public comments and make changes to previous drafts.

The steady guidance of people like Denny Galvin and Senator Alexander, along with organizations like the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, helped expose the flaws of earlier drafts and restore the "do no harm principle." Thanks to their support of the Park Service and the Parks, we have made lemonade from the lemons of Paul Hoffman's draft last year.

I would ask that as you circulate this latest draft with career Park Service employees for their feedback, that you also make it available to the public for scrutiny and comment. The more public comment we gather on these policies, it seems, the more we affirm the Park Service's mandate to protect the parks' extraordinary re

sources.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this hearing and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.

Thank you.

Senator ALEXANDER. Now, we're anxious to hear from Mr. Martin and Mr. Kiernan. Why don't we start with Mr. Martin. We have your testimony. If you would like to summarize it in 5 to 7 minutes, that would be fine. Then we'll ask questions and Chairman Thomas will be back after he votes and we'll continue the hearing. But we want to hear what you have to say, so welcome and we look forward to it.

STATEMENT OF STEVE MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. MARTIN. Well, thank you and thank for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss the revisions to the

National Park Service Management Policies. And like you brought up, I would like to just summarize my testimony and I will submit my full comments for the record.

Senator ALEXANDER. They will be included in the record.

Mr. MARTIN. On June 19, 2006, Director Fran Mainella of the National Park Service released a final review document of the management policies for all employees. We believe that the revised draft policies are a significant improvement over the draft released in 2005 and will improve upon the 2001 management policies. I want to thank you and this committee for the interest that you have shown in this issue and the support you have given for the positive resolution of this matter.

Since the last hearing before this subcommittee, we received nearly 50,000 comments on the proposed policy revisions. The public comment period ran for 127 days and the draft was reviewed by interested individuals and groups, park service employees, the Department, and Federal agencies, with a lot of support and interest from the Senate, from the House and from key groups like the National Parks Conservation Association and many others. We wanted to assure that the process of comment and evaluation was thorough. We assembled a group of National Park Service employees that included park superintendents, managers, program specialists, and the National Park Service Advisory Board, to incorporate the comments that would improve upon the 2001 policies. We believe it is very important for our employees to have a final opportunity to make sure that this document is as accurate and useful as possible. That is why it is out for an additional employee review. We anticipate making final changes in late July, and preparing the document for approval by the director in August sometime. We have also placed the draft on our website, where it can be obtained by any interested party.

It is also notable that Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne participated in the release of the final draft. His remarks included clear language on the overarching mission of the National Parks, including when there is a conflict between conserving resources unimpaired for future generations and the use of those resources, conservation will be predominant.

We would like to emphasize that the revisions were considered only if they met basic principles that were adopted by our career employees in the Park Service and other leadership. These principles are contained in the draft policies and include key points of how policies these policies were revised and how future policies should be revised and those all of those points can be found within the document itself.

But we would like to unequivocally confirm to the American people that the fundamental purpose and mission of the National Park Service as stated in the 1916 Organic Act will be upheld and we believe that the revised management policies will help the National Park Service fulfill its role as a leader of resource stewardship and in providing opportunities for visitor enjoyment and as a model for other nations in how to protect special places unimpaired for future generations.

That concludes my statement and I would look forward to answering any questions.