Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) to share with you our thoughts on the funding needs for the National Park Service.

My name is Lee Werst. I am president of ANPR and a current National Park Service employee. I am appearing before you today on behalf of the Association, and am doing so on my own time and at my own expense. As such, my statement should in no way be construed as representing the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, or any NGO other than ANPR.

The Association of National Park Rangers, formed in 1977, is a professional organization comprised of dedicated National Park Service employees from all regions, salary grades and specialties. ANPR is neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather is a volunteer association formed to advance the ranger profession and support the perpetuation of the National Park System and the National Park Service.

Funding Needs

Last November, we wrote a letter to the Congressional budget conferees for the fiscal year 2005 budget complimenting them on the generally favorable budget prospects for the National Park Service. We wrote:

"On behalf of the approximately 1,000 members of the Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR), we thank you for your leadership in the development of the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill . . . Over the years, inflation, costof- living increases, natural disasters, and more recently, homeland security have eroded park budgets to the point that we must either “lapse” vacant positions or trim park services. In many cases, parks have had to do both. . . . We hope that, within present fiscal constraints, you will give the highest priority to National Park Service funding, with special attention to the park operations account. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to our National Park Service and System."

The 2005 budget as enacted combined the interests of the conferees and the administration in its budget request, resulting in a 2% increase in total discretionary spending. Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank Congress for its continuing work and support of the National Park Service with its funding needs in these fiscally difficult times. In our testimony today, we would also like to help identify what we believe are continuing shortfalls in the field due to increasing personnel and other costs that need to be addressed for the long-term.

Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget

The fiscal year 2006 budget as submitted by the Administration provides an overall decrease of 2.8% in total discretionary appropriations from fiscal year 2005. On the surface, there are some apparent pluses, which we support, despite the overall decrease. For example, the budget category of visitor services — which includes interpretation & education, ranger law enforcement (excluding the United States Park Police), visitor use management, health and safety, and concessions — is at a 10-year high as a percentage of total NPS discretionary spending (14.1% in 1997, to 15.4% in FY06 budget request).

In addition:

• Ranger law enforcement funding and protection is at a 10-year high as percentage of total Visitor Services (33.5% in 1997, to 35.5% in 2006 request); and

• Interpretation and education is at a 10-year high as percentage of total discretionary spending (6.9% in 1997, to 7.9% in 2006 request), although as a percentage of total Visitor Services is basically flat over 10-years.

That being said, it still remains that the overall discretionary appropriation has declined in real terms since the last substantive increase in FY 2001. Discretionary spending in FY 2001 was nearly $2.3 billion. The FY 2006 budget request is $2.249 billion, for a dollar decrease of nearly 2%. Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to nearly 9% decrease in the past 5 years. When you add the annual adjustments in federal salaries, overall discretionary funding in real terms is noticeably diminished.

We are not preaching “the sky is falling” in the 2006 budget. Rather, we wish to assist policy makers and appropriators in understanding the long-term concerns of field rangers and other employees beyond a one-year budget picture.

Park Stories

In testimony over the past 15 years before this and other Congressional committees, ANPR has tried to share stories from the parks about conditions that might reflect on proposed legislation or policy. I would like to again share some of these with you. For instance, at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in California, great strides have been made to eradicate illegal cultivation of marijuana “plantations” within the park boundaries. Project funding to target eradication and interdiction efforts has helped the park, along with many cooperating agencies, to destroy much of these crops. The park greatly appreciates, and has successfully applied, the project funding it has received.

However, to fully control and completely eliminate this damaging activity, we must look beyond just project funding. The park has redirected as much internal funding as possible to continue this effort. Further redirection of funds would require the closure of some facilities or the neglect of park visitors or resources. The ranger staff is currently spread very thin, thus putting full prevention efforts beyond the ability of the current budget to accomplish. To prevent the initial planting and cultivation of this clandestine activity will take on-going investigation and apprehension of perpetrators, as well as other technical measures. To adequately undertake this mission, the park estimates a need for an additional 4.8 FTE for the long-term and a $448,000 budget increase.

The impact of this illegal activity, which takes place in many of our parks, is not only to the society at large, but also to sensitive and valuable park resources. The growers provide water for cultivation to these fields by damming park streams, laying thousands of feet of plastic irrigation pipes, and indiscriminately using fertilizer and other chemicals. This causes runoff and pollution of streams and other public resources. This disturbance of natural plants and soil opens the way for the introduction of invasive exotic plant species, thereby requiring further time and resources for their removal. Permanent funds are needed to deter the damage to park resources for the long-term.

Business Plan Examples

In other parks, the impacts of budget shortfalls can be illustrated by looking at the findings from published business plans prepared and audited for the National Park Service by MBAs for numerous parks across the system. Here are some of the findings for three parks:

At Gettysburg National Military Park, the business plan identified an operations and routine maintenance annual shortfall of nearly $3.6 million in the FY 2001 budget, compared to an actual budget of just over $6.1 million in that same fiscal year – a 37% shortfall. Since that time, the park’s financial situation has not improved. Although the park saw an overall increase in operations funding to $6.45 million in FY 2005, there was an estimated decline in actual purchasing power over that period of $734,900. In order to live within this shortfall, park managers have reduced staff from 141 permanent and seasonal full-time equivalent positions in FY 2002 to 122 FTEs in FY 2005.

For Shenandoah National Park, the business plan for FY 2003 showed a need of $19.6 million to fully fund operations, but had available only $12.8 million from all funding sources, an operating shortfall of $6.8 million. Although the park’s inflation-adjusted base budget increased 14% between 1992 and today, personnel costs increased by 21.3% in the same period. The impacts? — Although Shenandoah has one of the worst air pollution problems of any park in the country, it’s air resources specialist position has now been vacant for nearly two years because of insufficient funding. Another example: The park offered nearly 800 fewer ranger-led interpretive programs in FY 2004 (1,032) than it did in FY 2002 (1,824).

At Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the park’s business plan analysis for FY 2002 identified $15.9 million in needed annual operations funding and 238.4 positions needed in a full time equivalent workforce (FTE). However, the park had an $8.9 million total budget and only 134.6 FTE. Of that sum, nearly $8.5 million was obligated to personnel costs, leaving only about half a million for all other needs, including utilities, supplies, vehicle costs and materials.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples from the field. We also would like to make a few brief comments about overall NPS funding needs and funding successes.

Employee Benefit Costs

The inflation of salary and personnel costs can quickly lead to parks needing to make significant reductions in visitor services and resource protection to absorb these costs. We want to emphasize our on-going concern that these costs be fully covered in each successive budget.

One example of these increases is the fact that as more employees retire under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the percentage of remaining employees under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) will continue to grow, eventually to 100%. While saving overall federal dollars in future retirement annuities, the year-toyear cost to the NPS in covering FERS benefits as opposed to CSRS, which is the lessexpensive system to fund up-front, will only grow. For example, in 2001, nearly 68% of all federal employees were working with FERS benefits. The percentage of direct salary compensation that an agency is required to pay for these benefits grew from 28% of salary in 1990 to 35% in 2005.

This is not an argument about FERS. It simply illustrates that over the next 10 years nearly all NPS employees will require greater up-front benefit compensation under FERS, which averages 30% of base salary versus 14% under CSRS. This, combined with the fact that overall personnel costs often exceed 90% in many parks, will require an even greater budgetary support.

Fee Demo

The previous fee demo program, which was replaced in 2005 by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (with a 10-year sunset), has succeeded in providing substantial financial support to many parks for infrastructure needs, maintenance backlog, and visitor uses. This has been a very successful program of park and resources support provided over the past many years by Congress. As one western park superintendent recently voiced, “Fee demo is excellent!” We agree and thank Congress and the administration in continuing this important and critical program. We urge permanent legislation prior to the 10-year sunset to continue infrastructure support, increased resources protection, and visitor use programs.

National Park Centennial Act

One of the more promising ideas we have seen to address the NPS long-term backlog needs, and provide substantial needed funding for the natural and cultural resources challenges, is the proposed National Park Centennial Act (introduced in the Senate by Senator McCain as S.886 on April 21 and in the House by Congressman Souder as HR.1124 on March 2). Mr. Chairman, while we understand this is not a hearing on this bill, we are encouraged by this effort to bring the NPS to a sustainable level by 2016, the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the NPS in 1916. While it may not provide the ability to restore permanent staff levels lost by attrition, setting a goal for the decade makes sense. It is analogous to the very successful “Mission 66” initiated in the 1950s that looked forward over a 10-year period to identify park deficiencies, and to help bring the NPS housing, visitor centers and other facilities up to modern standards of visitor services by the 50th anniversary of the NPS in 1966. We would be pleased to provide further testimony if desired at any future hearing on this bipartisan legislation.

Conclusion

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be optimistic, yet cautious about the next 10 years or so, as there is the great potential for the 2006 and future budgets to result, if not careful, in overall deterioration in field-level staffing in parks and important program activities. However, we look forward to supporting NPS management in its efforts to effectively implement the budget as finally enacted, and joining with them and with Congress in identifying the long-term needs and shortfalls facing the Service in the next 10 years, particularly at the field park level.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the Association of National Park Rangers to testify here today. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have, or assure that the Association provides you further information on any issue that I cannot answer to your satisfaction.