Presidio Trust Act Revisions Heard by Subcommittee
H. R. 6305 was reviewed this morning by the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. I listened to the hearing via audio webcast from the subcommittee website.
Initial discussion was directed towards the renaming of the “Golden Gate National Recreation Area” to the Golden Gate National Park. There seemed to be a lot of support for this idea. But the idea goes even further:
We would then recommend including in the same section of the park’s law, a separate provision stating that Golden Gate National Park, Muir Woods National Monument, Ft. Point National Historic Site, and the Presidio, each of which have their own governing laws, shall collectively be known as the Golden Gate National Parks. Finally, we would recommend the Secretary be given the authority to use this collective name for public relations and other administrative purposes, similar to how we use the name and reference similar groupings of park resources such as the National Parks of New York Harbor, or Redwood National and State Parks.
The current version of the bill, H.R. 6305 also contains “Technical Corrections” to the Presidio Trust Act.
Craig Middleton, Executive Director of the Presidio Trust, left the Main Post Meeting last night at around 9:30 p.m. PST, caught the red eye for Washington D.C., and provided testimony at the subcommittee hearing this morning. The hearing began at 7:00 a.m. PST. I salute you, Craig.
Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director of the National Park Service also provided comments on the entire bill and specifically the Presidio Trust technical corrections, as well.
The Trust and Park Service are trying to work out funding for law enforcement at the Presidio, as the costs are increasing.
With regard to expanding the role of the Trust in interpretive services and education the Park Service welcomed the Trust’s assistance. The Park Service wishes to retain overall responsibility for oversight of the programs and wanted all programs to be conducted in accordance with National Park Service Standards for interpretation and education.
The Park Service also wanted to retain jurisidiction of Building 102 until a mutually agreeable alternate site is selected. The Park Service wishes for the Presidio to be retained within the National Park system. The NPS was supportive of Fort Scott Task Force and wanted to ensure that the Park Service’s interests were represented on the Task Force.
When asked about the Park Service requests, Craig Middleton seemed to indicate that these items could be worked out. He did indicate that he would like clarification on the National Park Service Standards for Interpretation and Education.
–Doug Kern
Tags: Craig Middleton, Legislation, National Park Service, Presidio Trust, Presidio Trust Act