[Senate Hearing 107-59]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-59
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND RECREATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO REVIEW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION OF
MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
TITLES I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, AND VIII OF THE NATIONAL PARKS
OMNIBUS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1998
__________
MARCH 22, 2001
MARCH 29, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-119 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
GORDON SMITH, Oregon CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Brian P. Malnak, Staff Director
David G. Dye, Chief Counsel
James P. Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska BOB GRAHAM, Florida
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Frank H. Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Jim O'Toole, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearings:
March 22, 2001............................................... 1
March 29, 2001............................................... 43
STATEMENTS
March 22, 2001
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 3
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 4
Cornelssen, Curt, Director, Global Hospitality and Leisure
Practice, PricewaterhouseCoopers............................... 24
Fassler, Joseph K., Director, National Park Hospitality
Association.................................................... 7
Horn, William P., Attorney at Law, Birch, Horton, Bittner, and
Cherot, on behalf of America Outdoors.......................... 21
Ring, Richard G., Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, Department of the Interior... 5
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Voorhees, Philip H., Senior Director, Park Funding and
Management, National Parks Conservation Association............ 18
March 29, 2001
Galvin, Denis P., Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 44
Jackson, Greg, Vice President, Fraternal Order of Police, Ranger
Lodge #60...................................................... 64
McElveen, Scot, Board Member for Special Concerns, Association of
National Park Rangers.......................................... 68
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 43
Vestal, Jay, Vice-President of Field Development, National Park
Foundation..................................................... 76
Ward, Peter J., Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park
Police Labor Committee......................................... 54
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 95
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Historic Preservation, and Recreation,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. It being 2:30, we will start, which is
unusual on Senate time, but thank you for being here. I would
like to welcome all of you to the subcommittee's oversight
hearing on National Park Service implementation of management
policies and procedures under the provision of title IV of the
public law last year, or 2 years ago past, otherwise known as
the concession reform.
When we first introduced the legislation which brought
about reform of the National Park Service we had, I think six
primary goals or objectives in mind. One was to improve the
management program of the National Park Service to become more
effective and more efficient, second, to achieve greater
competition between parties in bidding and awarding of
concession contracts, to improve the quality of visitor
services offered by concessionaires, to improve the maintenance
of facilities offered by concessionaires, to elevate the
operation and administration and management of concession
programs on a more business-like basis, taking ideas from the
successful private sector practices into consideration and,
finally, encouraging investment in park concession and
facilities by the private sector.
I was joined at that time by Secretary Babbitt and former
Senator Bumpers in crafting the final provisions in a
bipartisan effort to achieve meaningful and needed reform.
Throughout the negotiations, the original goals and objectives
remained generally intact. In reviewing the written testimony
from today's witnesses, I am not completely satisfied that we
have achieved the goals and the objectives of title IV of this
bill. I also realize the enactment of legislation placed a
heavy burden on the National Park Service. For years, right or
wrong, the administration chose to issue a number of 1-year
extensions to concessionaires whose contracts had expired as a
stop-gap measure until reform was attained.
Unfortunately, reform took longer than anyone anticipated.
As a result, today we face the backlog of major and minor
expired or about-to-expire contracts which require formulation,
solicitation, and award.
Formulation and solicitation of new contracts has presented
the National Park Service with some major hurdles, which are
not easy. With large contracts, the conversion of possessory
interests to leasehold surrender value has become an issue
which requires more expertise in the appraisal and arbitration
techniques than was original envisioned, I believe. Smaller
contracts, while the Congress provided the direction to
streamline the contract process, we evidently have reduced the
response to solicitation to bid on the one hand, but have
unintentionally, I think, increased the burden on the other.
There are still other areas in which we can take a lesson
from the private sector, as well as other Federal agencies. We
need not argue what is a capital expenditure and what is not.
Capital investment is well-defined in existing rules and
regulations, and used by a wide variety of other Federal
agencies. There is no reason that I can see as to the rationale
for the Park Service to have their own unique interpretation of
this already defined term of art.
There is still much to be learned and to be refined by both
the concessionaires and the management of the Park Service if
we are going to succeed in accomplishing the goals that were
set about. As most of you are aware, I have largely been
against the 1-year extension and have spoken on the issue on a
number of occasions. It becomes very apparent that the
formulation, solicitation, and ward of contracts within 1
year's time may be unrealistic given the complexities.
When we created concession reform, we envisioned the
existence of contract prospectuses that clearly spelled out the
differences and responsibilities of the respondent for the
entire term of the contract. If there was to be an increase in
franchise fees at certain periods over the term, they were to
have been addressed. In addition, costs that a new
concessionaire might have to incur in the award of a contract
were to be set forth. In other words, the playing field of
contracting was to be leveled out so that all potential players
were encouraged to participate.
It is extremely difficult to bid on an estimated value of
property, especially when the values can change drastically,
oftentimes before you can even put the pen to the paper.
Estimating certainly can discourage competition, one of the
main frames of the concession reform. It does cost a certain
amount of money to bid on a proposal, and if you are aware of
the entire scope of duties and responsibilities, that
expenditure can be justified. If they are unknown or uncertain,
the expenditures of funds may not be justified.
The bottom line is, we need additional time to do it right.
I am willing to listen and work hard with both the Park Service
and concessionaires to address issues and to address the
problems facing us in implementing this program. The record
will remain open for anyone who wishes to submit testimony, and
we are going to hear from several witnesses today to see how
they think we are doing with respect to accomplishing these
goals.
We are going to deviate a little bit from the normal
process and ask all five witnesses to come to the table at the
same time so that we can encourage some exchange as we go on
through.
I welcome the ranking member, the Senator from Hawaii.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure working with you, and I want to thank you for calling
this hearing on title IV of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act. Concessions play an important and supportive
role in the overall park experience and the 1998 National Parks
Omnibus Management Act calls for a substantial change in the
relationship between national parks and concessioners.
Looking back over the years prior to 1998, we all worked
hard to reach a compromise on this far-reaching legislation.
Senator Thomas, and I mean this, is to be congratulated on his
perseverance and leadership on forging consensus on this issue
and crafting the legislation which became law. The new law
revised one that had been in place for over 33 years, since
1965. As we worked in 1998, we were optimistic that the new law
would improve competition for concession contracts, improve the
management of concessions, and improve the quality of visitor
services. The final rules were issued in May 2000, 2 years
after the bill was signed into law.
My point is that major change, and this fits in the
category of major change, is not easy and it is not quick.
Changing the law and a way of life for concessionaires after 35
years is not easy. Although the road forward may be bumpy, we
really need to keep the overall goals in mind, improving
competition for new contracts, enhancing concessions and
visitor experience at our national parks, and at the same time
maintaining the natural and cultural values inherent in our
national parklands and sites.
Transition to the new law may not be smooth, and we need to
check the implementation along the way. That is what we are
doing today, and I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the implementation of this
legislation. As we move forward, some areas such as leasehold
surrender interests and how they work may need to be clarified.
I have received questions regarding the assessment of fair
market value. I look forward to hearing what steps are being
taken to solve problems in determining the possessory interest
or leasehold surrender interest of facilities on park lands. I
look forward to considering whether there is a way to make the
process more objective.
The determination of the value of the concessioner assets
is critical to both concessioners and the Government. The one
example that we have at Grand Canyon highlights that problem.
The great difference between concessioner and Government
valuations and the results of arbitration bring into question
whether concession contracts will be truly competitive when
issued.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have to leave shortly, but I
look forward to working with the Park Service on these issues.
Senator Thomas. Thank you so much.
Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my
statement for the record. Let me just say, I have been on this
committee 8 years, and was chairman, as you know, before you
took the gavel, and I do not think anything in my experience
has been more complicated than finding fairness in the parks
than dealing with the concessionaires, fairness for the
concessionaires, fairness for the taxpayer, getting the
appropriate amount from the concessionaires, fairness for the
park users that are not paying more than they think is fair,
and when you deal with levels of groups, everything from mom
and pop stores up to the huge national concerns that are now in
the parks, it is not an easy solution.
You have the ones that are in that want to stay in,
obviously, the ones that are not in that want to get in, the
ones that are right outside the front gate that think there is
unfair competition because the other few are in or want to get
in, and we have got letters from all of them, as you have.
So I commend you for holding this hearing and look forward
to working with you, and I hope we find some solution as we
move forward, but I know it is a very difficult question.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome all of the
panelists before the committee today and I am looking forward to the
testimony that they will be providing us shortly.
Land management is a concern that is heard from all parts of the
country and my home state of Colorado. And, concession management is a
crucial part of our National Parks. As you all know, the concession
operations vary in size from smaller, family owned operations to larger
corporate operations. Some of these mom and pop operations have been
around for a long time and are a significant part of the park, so we
have to ensure that their operations are not harmed.
I am pleased that a major portion of the fees from the contracts
are to remain in the park from which the money came. This will help to
reduce a portion of the backlog of maintenance which currently exists
in our parks. I also hope that during this hearing we can evaluate
whether or not this act is being implemented and enforced the way it
should be, and if not how we can fix the problems.
I think that we are on the correct path to improve the quality of
federal land management. I have a few questions that I will address
during the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. Okay. If our witnesses will
take their seats, please, we will get going. We have Mr.
Richard Ring, Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, Mr. Joe Fassler, consultant,
National Park Hospitality Association, Phil Voorhees, director
of park funding and management programs and member of the
National Parks Concessions Advisory Board, Mr. Bill Horn,
attorney-at-law, who represents America Outdoors, and Mr. Curt
Cornelssen, director of Pricewater-houseCoopers, the group that
did the evaluation study.
I think we will go as listed here, and as I said, we are
going to do it a little bit differently this time, and I would
ask if you can to hold your presentation to about 5 minutes, or
close to that, and then we can have a little bit of exchange,
perhaps, and your full statement will be printed in the record.
So Mr. Ring, if you would like to begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having
the opportunity to speak to you today. I am Dick Ring. I am the
Associate Director for Operations and Education of the National
Park Service. I came into the job this past fall, and
previously had been at Everglades National Park for 8\1/2\
years as the superintendent, so I am learning a range of
programs, concessions included, so I am very pleased to be
testifying here today on this issue.
Public Law 105-391 was enacted in November 1998, and it
represents a bipartisan effort over 20 years or more to try and
find a more fair and effective way to handle concessions within
the national parks, and we have been working for the last 2
years to begin to implement that and to try and achieve the
objectives of that law.
We are being assisted in implementing that by the National
Park Concessions Advisory Board, which was set up through this
act, and we believe that that board is a very effective tool.
We have worked with it and have, I believe, a good working
relationship with that board. We appreciate the outside
expertise they bring to us, and we have what I believe is a
very good working relationship with them and expect a very
productive one over the next few years.
We have also gone outside our organization and contracted
with PricewaterhouseCoopers to take a look at the concessions
management program of the agency and to make recommendations
with regard to our fiduciary responsibilities and how to more
effectively recognize them and deal with them, but also to look
at our management processes to ascertain whether or not there
are ways that we could reengineer those to make them more
effective.
Furthermore, we are also aggressively moving towards the
use of an increasing number of private consultants to get that
third party objective expertise brought into our agency, and we
can incorporate that knowledge into the improvement of our
program. We are committed to ensuring that all National Park
Service employees who have some responsibility for concessions
management are properly trained and have the necessary
knowledge and skills to perform their duties in a highly
effective manner.
Particularly, we are involved in contracting with the
Department of Defense to develop certification standards for
all concessions contracting personnel which would be comparable
to the Federal acquisitions regulation model, and the
certification standards are set up in three categories to deal
with the different levels of complexity and difficulty of
contracting in the concessions program. All levels of
certification will require specific training experience and
continuing education.
We also anticipate dealing with a great deal more
outsourcing to develop protocols in key business processes of
contracting and contract oversight, greatly enhancing the
administration of high priority and high risk contracts as
well.
We are continuing to address our efforts on the critical
backlog of expired contracts and anticipate the renewal and
award of up to 100 of them in this coming year. We are,
however, facing a significant bubble of work over the next
several years. It is a workload that is not a normal workload,
and it is one that we are struggling to make sure that we are
able to come to grips with both effectively and in a timely
manner.
We anticipate the use of private sector consultants to
assist us in this process, particularly with respect to the
smaller number of more complex and larger grossing concessions
contracts, where we need that level of expertise in a way that
we do not have adequately represented within our own ranks, and
we will be anticipating that.
We take very seriously our commitment to implementing title
IV of the law, and we believe that the steps that I have
outlined will make a significant progress in helping to
implement that.
We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the progress of the National Park Service in
implementing Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of
1998, Public Law 105-391.
Title IV of Public Law 105-391 was enacted on November 13, 1998.
This title repealed the Concessions Policy Act of 1965, Public Law 89-
249, and established a new process for concessions contracting and the
terms and conditions of those contracts. The law also established the
Concessions Management Advisory Board and directed other changes in
NPS' management of its concessions program. The law is the bipartisan
product of over 20 years of work by legislators, Departmental
officials, and interested citizens who desired to improve the
management of NPS' concession program.
One of the primary goals of the new law is to make the NPS'
administration of concession contracts more efficient and businesslike.
We are being assisted in implementing the new law in this respect by
the National Park Service Concessions Management Advisory Board,
established by Section 406 (c) of Title IV.
The law directed the board to make recommendations to the Secretary
of the Interior regarding the NPS contracting with the private sector
to conduct appropriate elements of concession management; the review
and approval of concessioner rates and charges to the public; the
nature and scope of products which qualify as Indian, Alaska native,
and Native Hawaiian handcrafts; and the allocation of concession fees.
Related to the board's mandate is the priority of the National Park
Service to develop a business strategy for the concessions management
program.
In the advisory board's first annual report to Congress,
recommendations focused on organizational realignments, research into
non-appropriated funding instrumentalities, and specific programmatic
issues such as the rate approval program. We are pleased to tell you
that this season we will be implementing a competitive market approach
to retail merchandise pricing. We will also implement the board's
recommendation to establish a ``business champion'' within the National
Park Service by recruiting a new Associate Director for Partnerships
and Business Practices once the new NPS Director is in place. In
addition, we are consulting with the private sector to find ways of
streamlining our processes further, including our quality standards and
evaluation program.
We have also contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers, from whom you
also will be hearing today, to conduct an internal analysis of the
management of our program and existing business processes.
PricewaterhouseCoopers has provided us with a number of recommendations
which will assist us in fulfilling our commitment to addressing our
fiduciary responsibility related to concession contracts, in the
reengineering of existing management processes, and in further
enhancing staff competencies and training. Furthermore, we are
aggressively moving towards the use of private consultants to assist us
in the management of our commercial visitor services.
We are also committed to ensuring that all NPS employees who are
responsible for concessions management are properly trained and have
the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their duties in a highly
professional manner. In this regard, we are contracting with the
Department of Defense and developing certification standards for all
concession contracting personnel which would be comparable to the
Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) model. The certification
standards parallel the three categories of concession contracts that
are used by the NPS.
Category III contracts are used in situations where no land or
buildings are assigned to the concessioner; consequently, the
concessioner will not be allowed to construct or install any capital
improvements and will not obtain any leasehold surrender interest.
Approximately 330 outfitter and guide operations will be authorized by
Category III contracts.
Category II contracts are used in situations where a concessioner
will operate on assigned land or in an assigned concession facility,
but will not be allowed to construct or install capital improvements.
An example might be a gift shop operation located in a portion of a
park's visitor center.
Category I is the highest level of certification and is generally
for concession contracts that require a variety of services at several
locations and include the assignment of lands and concession
facilities, as well as leasehold surrender interest compensation and
capital investment provisions.
All levels of certification require specific training, experience,
and continuing education. This program of certification will be
augmented with outsourcing of specific contracting functions.
We have also contracted with Northern Arizona University (NAU) to
develop a hospitality certification program for all NPS employees with
concessions management responsibilities and will again use the private
sector as a benchmark to develop an action plan. NAU will deliver
hospitality management training from their School of Hotel and
Restaurant Management, providing a comprehensive, multi-year course of
certification in hospitality management, including business and
financial training.
Most importantly, recognizing that we must work smarter in a
business sense, we also have outlined a strategy to implement the
provisions of the new law that facilitate open competition for
concession opportunities in the National Park Service. Through
outsourcing, we will develop protocols that focus on the key business
processes of contracting and contract oversight, greatly enhancing
administration of high-priority and high-risk contracts. In doing so,
however, we do not abdicate our responsibilities to resource protection
and preservation, but rather we will ensure that the return to the
government will be commensurate with the privilege granted by the
contract and that the government's interests will be protected.
We are continuing our efforts to address the critical backlog of
expired concession contracts, and anticipate the renewal and award of
up to one hundred of them this coming year. We are, however, facing a
significant ``bubble'' of work over the next several years, a workload
that is beyond the capabilities of our current staffing situation. We
anticipate the use of private-sector consultants to assist us in this
process, particularly with respect to the relatively small number of
complex contracts that require significant professional expertise
beyond our in-house capability. Improving the management of the
National Park Service's concessions program is one of our very highest
priorities, and we know that it is also one of yours. We take seriously
the commitment to implementing the changes that are required by Title
IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. We believe
that the actions that I have outlined here today are a further step
toward the achievement of improved management of our concessions
program.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fassler.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH K. FASSLER, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Fassler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have
been invited to your important oversight hearing on concession
policy in the national parks. I am a member of the board of
directors of the National Park Hospitality Association, and
represent that group here today. I am here at your invitation
to talk about some of the problems in the implementation of the
concessions management portion of the Public Law 105-391, which
I will refer to as the 1998 Act.
Today, to make my conversation as brief as possible, I will
go right into some of the inconsistencies between the act and
the way the act was regulated. The first area--I have six
issues to discuss. The first issue is leasehold surrender
interest. There are two parts of this. First off, businesses
and government agencies rely upon generally accepted accounting
practices, better known as GAP, to identify what constitutes a
capital improvement for accounting purposes. These standards
are used in virtually all audited financial statements, and a
company's return on investment is computed off the amount of
capital it has.
The National Park Service has, in our opinion, improperly
narrowed the definition of capital improvement and other terms
that support the determination of what is a capital
improvement. For example, the NPS capital improvements made to
existing structures must qualify as major rehabilitations, as
determined by the Director, before they would be eligible. Very
few renovation projects would pass this test.
In addition, the NPS disqualifies certain costs that would
normally be capitalized under GAP, but under the 1998 Act, if
we are not mistaken, it said all capital improvements are
entitled to leasehold surrender interest.
A second area, we believe that the 1998 Act is clear in
that a concessionaire cannot be dispossessed before value is
paid for its interest. The NPS has attempted, however, to
specify that this payment can be delayed for a period of time
after we are replaced by a new operator. This is like selling
your home and allowing the buyer to take immediate occupancy
without having to pay you until it was convenient for them to
do so.
It seems incredible that the NPS would think that
concessionaires who want and need financing for their
businesses will find banks getting in line to make a loan when
the collateral for that loan might disappear before they are
repaid. Concessionaires, I do not believe, are willing to
invest their money under those kinds of circumstances.
Another issue is the standard form contract. The National
Park Service standard form contract is as important to this
committee's review as the regulations or any other document,
since the form contract will be used for individual contracts
that govern the relationships between the NPS and each of its
concessionaires.
A standard form contract is illegal, because it
incorporates many of the illegal provisions I discuss today, as
well as in my written testimony. It also is objectionable on
its own, because it is a very one-sided document that would
never work in a private commercial setting. The NPS has
essentially no duties, the compliance by the concessionaire
with contract terms is subject to the satisfaction of the
Director without objective standards that define compliance,
and many important sections of the contract are subject to
change at the whim of the Director.
I suspect that many prospective operators will lose
interest on bidding on concession opportunities, thereby
frustrating one of the basic purposes of the 1998 Act, which
was the desire to generate more bidding interest for contracts.
Most private sector contracts define all of the obligations of
each party. Those obligations are detailed, and have
ascertainable standards, and do not permit either party to
change the terms of the contract without the agreement of the
other.
We have no problem being judged by the quality of our
service and being displaced if we fall short. We should know we
should not be displaced if we provided good service just
because an unfair and illegal form contract is forced upon us.
The assignment of concession contracts is another issue.
The act does not require the National Park Service consent for
so-called corporate control transactions where the entity
holding the contract does not change, but the transaction takes
place at the parent level. That has the effect of transferring
direct or indirect ownership of the concessionaire, often
within the same corporate family.
By trying to give itself this kind of power over
transactions at the parent level, the NPS is creating a
significant barrier to free enterprise. Most large companies
with multiple business lines would be discouraged from
competing for contracts because of the potential loss of a
valuable corporate merger, acquisition, sale, or reorganization
due to the failure or delay in obtaining NPS approval.
An example. If you were McDonald's, would you put yourself
in a position where the sale of your entire corporation
required the approval of concession personnel at the National
Park Service? But even if you were a smaller company that could
enter into a corporate restructuring worth, say, $10 million,
would you risk the possibility that holding a concession
contract through a subsidiary would prevent that transaction?
Typically, a government agency does not have such far-reaching
rights.
Another issue is the incumbency of concession contracts and
leasehold surrender interest. The act clearly states that a
concessionaire can pledge its leasehold surrender interest as
collateral for loans. Nevertheless, the NPS says a
concessionaire, once it has a loan, cannot later refinance that
loan. This defies common sense. Many contracts, particularly
those most in need of financing, offer relatively long periods,
certainly longer than the typical commercial loan.
Thus, if a concessionaire cannot refinance the concession,
it has no practical means of repayment at the end of the loan.
This position also prevents the common business practice of
refinancing loans when rates go down, thus improving the return
of the business, and making more cash available for
reinvestments right in the same park that you are operating.
The second issue is based on the NPS prohibition in the
regulations against cross-collateralization of loans, that is,
using collateral in more than one park to secure a single loan.
The benefits of doing so are obvious. Among other things, the
concessionaire can get a larger aggregate loan at a lower cost
if the risk is spread over multiple parks, such as a bad year
at one park can be offset by a better year at some other parks.
Some concessionaires now have such loans, and will be faced
with refinancing problems when those loans come due, based on
present-day regulations.
Another issue is the failure to provide direction, new
direction on rate approvals. The act requested that the rate
approval process be based on prompt and unburdensome policies,
and shall be based on market conditions, recognizing the unique
operating constraints placed on a concession operation.
The advisory board was to make recommendations on how best
to do this. Nothing to date has changed, as the board made no
positive recommendations for any change. It is our hope that
this committee does not consider that the advisory board's work
is done on the rate issue. The committee should consider giving
additional direction in this area.
The last issue is solicitation, selection, and award
procedure. The 1998 Act clearly sets forth four primary
criteria to be given the most weight by the NPS in its review
of submitted prospectuses. The regulations, however, split the
first two criteria set forth in the statute into two and
mandate a second criteria that is, in fact duplicative of the
one of the first new split criteria. As a consequence, how a
concessioner will address the park's environment program has a
weighting approximately three times as heavy as what Congress
dictated while other criteria was given most emphasis by
Congress in its committee report, that being the experience of
the operator. It takes a back seat to the first.
Concessioners have no quarrel with being good environmental
citizens. In fact, many of our members have received awards
from the NPS for our conservation efforts. Nevertheless, the
law requires the NPS to focus on each of the two equal mandates
that Congress specified when it created the National Park
Service in 1916. The first is to protect park resources. The
second is to provide for their enjoyment by the public. It is
our opinion that the NPS has largely forgotten the second
mandate, and it is our hope that the new administration
restores its former importance, because that is what we believe
the public wants and expects.
Let me conclude. We appreciate the interest of the
committee in this matter. All parties have worked too long on
this issue to allow the administrative process to frustrate the
decisions made by Congress. The National Park Hospitalities
Association believes that our recommendations are in the best
interests of the parks, the visitors, and the taxpayers, and
thank you for your time and your hard work on behalf of our
national parks and the American public.
I also want to end by saying we believe that, the National
Park Service working with us, we think we can fix these
situations, but where it is right now, we do not believe the
regulations have been written in the truest sense, or the
meaning of the 1998 Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fassler follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH K. FASSLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have been invited to your important
oversight hearing on concessions policy in our national parks. As a
member of the Board of Directors of the National Park Hospitality
Association (``NPHA''), I represent a membership that is responsible
for most of the visitor services provided by the private sector in our
National Parks. I was formerly Chairman of Glacier Park, Inc.
(``GPI''), which operates the primary visitor services facilities at
Glacier National Park. I was also formerly President and CEO of GPI's
parent, Restaura, Inc., which operates a variety of commercial
hospitality enterprises, and Restaura was a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Viad Corp., which is a large multi-national public company. When Viad
recently sold Restaura, it determined to retain ownership of GPI, and I
retired from the company but agreed to continue to oversee the GPI
operations on a consulting basis for Viad. I have substantial
experience in the hospitality industry, and have served as Chairman of
the National Restaurant Association and its educational foundation.
You invited us to discuss some of the problems we see in the
implementation of the concessions management portion of P.L. 105-391,
which is known as the National Park Service Concessions Management
Improvement Act of 1998, and which we typically refer to as the ``1998
Act''. As you know, NPHA has on a number of occasions participated in
hearings both during the years that led up to the passage of your
legislation, and last year as you conducted oversight hearings on the
regulations and form contract that had then just been issued by the
National Park Service (``NPS'') to implement that legislation.
NPHA raised numerous objections to both documents when they were
presented for public comment and still believes that many of their
provisions violate both the spirit and letter of the 1998 Act. Copies
of those comments were provided to the committee staff in the past and
so are not being submitted for the record at this time. We felt so
strongly about some of these problems that we regrettably felt
compelled to file suit against the NPS and the Department of the
Interior to ask for the court's assistance in overturning them. Three
concessioners have also filed suit and the judge has consolidated all
of these actions into one case.
For obvious reasons, I don't intend today to present our legal case
to you. That is for our lawyers to do in court, and I am not a lawyer.
Thus my testimony here should not be considered a comprehensive legal
argument. Instead, I think that it is most proper for me to point out
some of the issues (not all of which are included in our litigation)
that we believe constitute illegal detours from the law you passed,
also make very little practical sense. Thus, this committee should take
an interest in them because these NPS positions stand in the way of the
basic direction that this committee was trying to take in 1998. I think
it is instructive that in virtually every instance where the NPS chose
between drafting provisions that would encourage participation and
investment by concessioners and those that would discourage them, it
chose the latter path. Obviously, the NPS' goal must not have been a
healthy concessions system that can continue to improve service to the
public.
PASSAGE OF THE 1998 ACT
When the compromises were struck that resulted in the passage of
the 1998 Act, we believe that Congress passed a bill that balanced a
number of competing interests in a manner that would best benefit the
public.
As with all matters worked out through compromise, there are
provisions of the 1998 Act that are objectionable to the NPHA. One
concerns the discontinuance of renewal preferences that I don't intend
to address here. We also know that there were provisions that were
objectionable to the NPS, the other interest groups that were
participating and even to some of the members of Congress who supported
the bill in its final form.
On the whole, however, the NPHA supported the bill because of its
innovative approach to the valuation of our investments, its strong
statements relating to the ratemaking process and the transfer rights
of operators, and its detailed approach to the solicitation process
that established criteria that not only recognized the need for
concessioners to run their businesses in an environmentally sensitive
manner, but also stressed prior experience and the needs of visitors as
being superior to both return to the government and criteria that did
not directly relate to visitor services. It also stated as a policy
matter that it wanted the NPS to make its concessions management
function less bureaucratic, more process efficient, timelier and less
cumbersome.
The NPS is trying to undo the compromises made in 1998 by issuing
regulations and a form contract that implement the policies that
Congress chose not to accept when the compromises were made that
permitted the bill to pass. Though the NPS is charged with the
responsibility to promulgate regulations and policies that support and
serve to implement the 1998 Act, those regulations and policies must
not distort the language and intent of the law that they are bound to
support. To do otherwise is disrespectful both to Congress and the
legislative process that is a foundation of our government.
Particularly in a case such as the 1998 Act, where Congress went into
significant detail in order to make clear its intent on the primary
issues presented, it is distressing to find that the regulations and
contract terms ignore the express provisions of the new law. And,
instead of trying to simplify processes for the benefit of everyone,
they are every bit as cumbersome and bureaucratic as before, if not
more so.
LEASEHOLD SURRENDER INTEREST
The treatment of Leasehold Surrender Interest and Possessory
Interest in the 1998 Act is clear. Congress has mandated that
concessioners continue to have the right to compensation for their
investments made in park facilities when their contracts terminate.
Nevertheless, the regulations and form contract repeatedly attempt to
undermine this right.
1. Leasehold Surrender Interest Applies to All Capital
Improvements--The NPS has improperly narrowed the definition of
``capital improvement'' and other terms that support the determination
of what is a capital improvement. For example, the NPS has improperly
narrowed the definition of ``construction cost'' in a number of ways.
First, it invents a concept of ``eligible'' and ``ineligible'' costs,
with only eligible costs, as determined by the Director, included in
leasehold surrender interest. It then specifies costs that are eligible
and ineligible, based on the NPS' own opinion and without regard to
generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP'') or accepted
practices in the appraisal of real estate. The NPS also attempts to
disqualify most capital improvements made to existing structures from
leasehold surrender interest. For example, capital improvements made to
existing structures must qualify as ``major rehabilitations'' as
determined by the Director, before they would be eligible. The 1998
Act, however, is clear that all capital improvements are to be included
in leasehold surrender interest.
Any company expects to get its money back plus a return on that
money for any investment it makes. Under normal business conditions, it
measures its return on investment mathematically based on the amount it
has invested, which is based on all of its capital costs calculated in
accordance with GAAP. If the government invents its own definitions
that don't comply with common understanding and practice, this leads
only to confusion and the need to make adjustments in terms of the
return required.
Congress tried to preserve incentives for investment in the 1998
Act. However, the returns attributable to the compensation for the
facilities are constrained by the fact that a concessioner can expect
only a return of its cost, adjusted for inflation. If the definition of
cost is changed so that a concessioner does not get credit for all of
its cost, this only means that the return it requires must be generated
somewhere else. In a national park concession, the only other place to
obtain that return is from the cash generated by the business. This
creates a problem in any business, but particularly where the business
is heavily regulated. Where any significant investment is required, the
need to obtain a higher than normal operating return puts significant
upward pressure on rates and downward pressure on the amount that the
concessioner will be wiling to invest. In addition, obtaining such a
return from the business is a more-risky proposition than having it set
mathematically by the LSI provisions in the 1998 Act, and thereby would
increase the returns otherwise needed to justify the investment. It
also makes any market-based analysis of rates meaningless, because the
other market players expect to get a full return on the value of their
facilities when they sell and thus can price their goods differently.
Thus, to further attempt to constrain the returns available to
concessioners for their investments, by not giving credit for all costs
as the market would do, will only make it harder for the NPS to find
investment capital from the private sector, and will frustrate
Congress' intent to rely on concessioners as an investment source.
2. A Concessioner Must Be Compensated For Leasehold Surrender
Interest At The Time the Assets Are Surrendered to the Next Operator--
We also believe that the 1998 Act is clear that a concessioner cannot
be dispossessed before value is paid for its interests. The NPS has
attempted, however, to specify that this payment can be made as late as
one year (and possibly in two years if the money is to come directly
from the government) after the incumbent concessioner is dispossessed.
This is analogous to selling your home and allowing the buyer to take
immediate occupancy but not pay you for up to two years if it is
inconvenient for him to do so. This practice clearly violates current
law and must be changed. It seems incredible that the NPS would think
that concessioners who want or need to finance their businesses will
find banks willing to make loans at reasonable cost, if at all, when
the collateral for their loans (both the facilities themselves and the
cash flow from the business) might disappear before they get repaid.
Concessioners are not willing to invest their own money under those
circumstances either.
3. The NPS Expanded the Meaning of the Deduction for Physical
Depreciation in the 1998 Act That Will Perpetuate the Problems That
Existed Under the 1965 Act Regarding Valuation--The formula for
computing the value of leasehold surrender interest was simplified in
the 1998 Act from essentially an appraised amount to actual cost as
adjusted by the change (up or down) of the Consumer Price Index
(``CPI''), in order to eliminate both the potential upside gain and
downside risk to a concessioner's investment in improvements and to
avoid disputes as to value at contract renewal time. Congress, however,
chose to preserve language (that also appeared in the former
Concessions Policy Act of 1965 (the ``1965 Act'')) that could cause the
concessioner to realize less than the computed amount if the
concessioner did not properly maintain the facilities. This deduction,
if any, would be determined by computing the amount it would cost to
bring the improvements up to the standard required by the contract.
Nevertheless, the NPS has attempted to broaden this language to allow a
further deduction from value for ``functional obsolescence''.
Functional obsolescence, where it exists, requires a deduction from
value if a given structure is not designed as efficiently the ones
commonly available in the marketplace at the time of sale.
Though it was part of their proposed regulations, the final
regulations did not include this term directly. Instead, the NPS
comments that accompanied the final regulations stealthily stated that
the NPS believed that all forms of depreciation could be deducted. This
is not what the law says. In fact, the committee report that
accompanied the bill made it clear that only a deduction for ``wear and
tear'' was contemplated. The NPS' position again frustrates the desire
to obtain investment capital from the private sector. First of all, the
concessioner has little control of the design of park facilities, since
everything is subject to NPS oversight. Second, many of these
facilities are historic and often were designed more for long-term
aesthetic appeal than functional efficiency. Thus, park facility
construction may not use state of the art design or building
techniques, even if those techniques would be cheaper or more
efficient. The risk of inappropriate deductions for obsolescence is
even more serious for a concessioner than a typical private investor,
since the concessioner does not have the right either to cure
conditions giving rise to obsolescence, nor achieve a fair market
return for its facilities as a starting point. As a consequence, and as
mentioned earlier in the context of the amount of cost the concessioner
gets credit for, the result will be a lack of willingness to make the
investments that the parks need.
4. Illegal Veto Power Over Possessory Interest Valuations--The NPS
treatment of this issue in the regulations is also seriously flawed.
Concessioners have invested large sums in park facilities in reliance
on contracts, some over 30 years old, that provide for compensation for
possessory interest as described in the 1965 Act. The 1998 Act did not
change the right to compensation for this possessory interest upon
termination of the contract (nor could it have done so), but only
included transitional provisions to convert the existing possessory
interest into a leasehold surrender interest as contracts turned over.
The NPS has tried, however, to give itself additional negotiating
leverage for the determination of possessory interest values by
imposing a level of administrative review and appeal that is illegal
and constitutes a breach of concessioners' contractual, statutory and
Constitutional rights. The fundamental unfairness to all parties of
having the NPS require private parties to negotiate, and possibly
arbitrate a value, only to have the NPS void the result after the money
has been spent and the work has been done, should be obvious. This
provision is clearly intended to benefit newcomers to the detriment of
incumbents, by intimidating the incumbents to take less than they
deserve under the threat that the government will only veto the higher
number anyway. This is not the way that government should work,
particularly when it hopes to forge relationships that are based on
trust and cooperation in order to serve the public's needs.
THE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT
The NPS' standard form contract is as important to the Committee's
review of these issues as the regulations or any other document, since
the form contract is expected to form the basis for the individual
contracts that will govern the relationship between the NPS and each of
its concessioners.
The standard form contract is illegal because it incorporates many
of the illegal provisions I discuss elsewhere in my written testimony.
It is also objectionable on its own because it is a very one-sided
document that would never work in a private commercial setting. The NPS
has essentially no duties, the compliance by the concessioner with the
contract terms is subject to the ``satisfaction of the Director''
without objective standards that define compliance, and many important
sections of the contract are subject to change at the whim of the
Director. Each of these characteristics render the standard form
contract both unlawful and unwise as a policy matter.
In light of these issues, I suspect that many prospective operators
will lose interest in bidding on park concession opportunities, thereby
frustrating one of the basic purposes of the 1998 Act--the desire to
generate more bidding interest for contracts. Since contract terms are
non-negotiable, many operators who have served the parks for many years
will be foreclosed from bidding because specific risks and
uncertainties will be too great to bear. This could create a vacuum in
visitor services and a potentially large government obligation to buy
out concessioner investments. Because there may be no viable takers for
such contracts, visitor services facilities may be closed indefinitely.
Such a result would obviously play into the hands of the groups that
want to limit park access but would not be in the public interest. Most
private sector contracts define all of the obligations of the parties
with reasonable specificity for the duration of the contract, tie those
obligations to detailed and ascertainable standards if needed, and do
not permit either party to change the terms of the contract without the
agreement of the other. All we ask is for similar protections.
Without going into detail on the many problems raised by the
standard form contract, and in addition to other issues that I
reference in other parts of my testimony, the following is a partial
list of particularly troubling features:
Vague Standards--Many requirements of the contract simply
have to be performed ``to the satisfaction of the Director'',
with no guidance whatsoever. In places where standards
presumably exist they are subject to modification by the
Director at any time.
No NPS Responsibilities--Even where the NPS is supposed to
perform, such as by providing utilities or government
improvements, it can always back out, leaving the concessioner
with few affordable alternatives.
Extremely Broad Environmental Requirements--The NPS can
arguably require environmental remediation to standards in
excess of those required by law, possibly at great expense to
the concessioner. In addition, the concessioner seems to be
responsible for the conduct of third parties, such as visitors,
former operators, and NPS personnel conducting visitor services
activities. In addition, the provisions concerning approvals
for use of certain hazardous materials are too bureaucratic. No
guidelines are attached to the contract. This also applies to
restoration of sites where buildings are demolished.
Terms Concerning Interpretation That Could Greatly Narrow
the Types of Merchandise That Can Be Sold--According to the
contract, all merchandise must be ``consistent'' with park
themes goals and objectives, and all gift items must have an
interpretive component. This gives the NPS a vehicle to divert
significant amounts of gift business to cooperating
associations and other non-profit groups who may not have such
restrictions.
Use of Reserves for Capital Replacements, Without Right to
Leasehold Surrender Interest--The reserve provisions clearly
violate the 1998 Act by disqualifying certain capital
improvement costs from leasehold surrender interest, by giving
the NPS discretion as to how funds are spent while still
imposing an absolute maintenance requirement on the
concessioner in the contract.
Very Broad Indemnification Language With Too Much Control
Over the Purchase of Insurance--The indemnity in the contract,
not surprisingly, only benefits the NPS, not the concessioner,
and arguably covers acts of third parties. The insurance
requirements are not fixed, but instead are subject to change
at the discretion of the NPS. Insurance standards should be
fixed up front so that the concessioner can properly estimate
the cost of insurance when bidding on the contract.
Broad Rights to Suspend or Partially Terminate the
Contract--Suspension of a contract should only be for limited
emergency purposes and termination should be an all-or-nothing
proposition, except for services or facilities that are to be
permanently discontinued, but the NPS reserves the right to
suspend for almost any reason. Also, the concessioner could be
forced to continue to provide services even if its contract has
terminated or expired.
Imagine a solicitation process for the renewal of a concession
contract that you have operated for decades to the satisfaction of the
NPS. Imagine then receiving a prospectus with a form contract that is
non-negotiable and completely one-sided, but in which the NPS is asking
you to invest further in facilities and personnel without any
protection whatsoever that the contract cannot be terminated or changed
at the whim of the NPS. Imagine further, contract provisions that do
not clearly set forth what the NPS wants you to do and that request you
to protect the NPS against not only your actions, but those of your
predecessors and even the visiting public. Imagine a contract that
allows the NPS to constrict the nature of your business or divert your
business to non-profit organizations that are not required to pay
taxes, invest in the parks or provide any of the infrastructure that
causes your costs to be artificially high. Finally, imagine a contract
that depends on the provision of power and water by the NPS, but that
still requires you to operate, without any recourse to the government,
if those supplies are cut off or if the NPS suddenly decides to raise
the rates to levels that are unaffordable. Would you sign such a
contract? Well, that is what the NPS is asking us to do. Our only
alternative is to lose our businesses, some of which have be built over
generations and support families who have been serving the public all
their lives.
We expect to be judged by the quality of our service and be
displaced if we fall short, but not to be displaced just because an
unfair and illegal form contract is forced upon us.
solicitation, selection and award procedure
Even though the NPHA did not agree with every provision of the 1998
Act in this area, the 1998 Act was reasonably clear and detailed in its
requirements. We find it surprising that the NPS developed language
that is so far afield from Congress' intent.
For example, the 1998 Act clearly sets forth four primary criteria
to be given the most weight by the NPS in its review of submitted
prospectuses, with the fourth criteria (the level of franchise fees)
being subordinate to the other three. The NPS' regulations, however,
establish primary criteria not provided for in the statute. In
particular, they split the first criterion set forth in the statute
into two and mandates a secondary criteria that is duplicative of one
of the new split criteria. As a consequence, how a concessioner will
address the park's environmental program has a weighting approximately
three times as heavy as Congress dictated, while the criteria that was
given most emphasis by Congress in its committee report--the experience
of the operator--takes a back seat.
Concessioners have no quarrel with being good environmental
citizens. In fact, many of our members have received awards from the
NPS for our conservation efforts. Nevertheless, the law requires the
NPS to focus on each of the two equal mandates that Congress specified
when it created the NPS in 1916. The first is to protect park resources
and the second is to provide for their enjoyment by the public. Though
our businesses must necessarily be conducted in a manner consistent
with the first mandate, we exist primarily to serve the second one. It
is our opinion that the NPS has largely forgotten this second mandate
and it is our hope that the new administration restores its former
importance, because that is what we believe the public wants and
expects. In order to properly serve the millions of visitors that come
each year, it is critical that concessioners have the experience
necessary to serve and have the financial incentives to be able to
invest in the facilities necessary to do so. As for the first mandate,
we stand ready to assist, but we believe that the thousands of NPS
employees who have been hired just for that purpose and are being paid
by the taxpayers should pull that laboring oar.
ASSIGNMENT OF CONCESSION CONTRACTS
The provisions of the 1998 Act concerning the transferability of
contracts are of vital importance to concessioners. Congress recognized
that the restrictions imposed on transferability by NPS as it had
interpreted the 1965 Act were not needed to protect the public and were
being utilized by the NPS to extract better terms from concession
contracts for the government as the price for allowing legitimate
corporate transactions to proceed. Thus, the 1998 Act presumes that a
concessioner may transfer its contract without losing the rights that
attach to that contract, and that the NPS must approve such transfer
unless the transfer would fail one of three tests set forth in the Act.
It also does not require NPS consent for so-called corporate control
transactions, where the entity holding the contract does not change but
a transaction takes place at the parent level that has the effect of
transferring direct or indirect ownership of the concessioner, often
within the same corporate family.
When the NPS contracts with a concessioner, that entity holds the
contract and is responsible for carrying out its terms. The NPS does
not have recourse to anyone else. If the ownership of the entity
changes, that does not change the obligations of the entity, nor does
it change its capability to perform. Though it is possible in some
cases that a change of ownership may cause some persons to leave the
employment of the concessioner, this could happen anyway. On the other
hand, the new shareholders have no interest in defaulting under the
contract because that is where a substantial portion of the value of
the enterprise is located. Presumably, they would take all efforts
necessary to ensure that the contract is faithfully performed. If not,
the NPS has remedies for default that include termination of the
contract.
By trying to give itself power over transactions at the parent
level, the NPS is creating a significant barrier to free enterprise.
Most large companies with multiple business lines would be discouraged
from competing for contracts because of the potential loss of a
valuable corporate merger, acquisition, sale or reorganization due to
failure or delay in obtaining NPS approval. In fact, it might be argued
that public companies would not compete solely for this reason, due to
potential fiduciary liabilities that directors might fear from the loss
of such a transaction. Typically, unless other laws, such as the
antitrust laws, are triggered, a government agency does not have such
far-reaching rights, and Congress properly decided that they should not
exist here. So long as the company obligated on the contract remains
intact and does not transfer the contract to another entity, the NPS
should not, as a public policy matter have the right to interfere with
these transactions.
ENCUMBRANCE OF CONCESSION CONTRACTS AND LEASEHOLD SURRENDER INTEREST
The 1998 Act clearly states that a concessioner can pledge its
leasehold surrender interest as collateral for loans. I have discussed
earlier why the timing of payment for leasehold surrender interest will
have a critical impact on the availability of financing. However, two
other positions that the NPS has taken in its regulations will also
greatly influence whether the rights Congress granted are real or
imagined.
The first issue is whether a concessioner, once it has a loan, can
refinance that loan later. The NPS says no, even though there is no
basis for this in the law. This position defies common sense. The first
problem is that many contracts, particularly those most in need of
financing, are for relatively long periods, certainly longer than the
typical commercial loan. Thus, the concessioner has no means of
repayment at the end of the loan, unless the operation would support
the repayment of the loan in full over the course of the loan from cash
flow. In such event, the leasehold surrender interest is really not the
collateral, because the lender is not really looking to it for
repayment. In such a case, the cost of the loan would often be
prohibitive, both on a cash flow basis due to higher than normal
interest and large principal payments and on a return on investment
basis to the concessioner. Very few significant commercial properties
are held without financing because of the positive impact that leverage
has on return on the owner's investment, and such leverage permits the
owner to diversify its holdings. If an owner is prohibited from
refinancing, as with other examples described above, the returns from
its operations will need to be higher because cash must be raised to
pay down principal in addition to interest. To accomplish this, either
rates must go up or fees must come down, or both. Chances are that
there will not be enough free cash flow to provide an adequate return
in this situation, and thus many of the investments requested will not
be forthcoming. Another issue concerns the common business practice of
refinancing loans when rates go down, thus improving the returns of the
business and making more cash available for reinvestment. Why the NPS
would think it is in its best interest to prohibit these types of cost-
saving measures is totally incomprehensible. As a business matter, it
makes no sense for the NPS to refuse to permit refinancings if the
intent of the 1998 Act is to attract competition for contracts and
additional private investments in the parks.
The second financing issue is based on the NPS prohibition in the
regulations against cross-collateralization of loans; this is, using
collateral in more than one park to secure a single loan. Again, there
is nothing in the 1998 Act that would prevent a concessioner from
obtaining one loan that covers all of its contracts. The benefits of
doing so are obvious. First, the concessioner can get a larger
aggregate loan at lower cost if the risk is spread over multiple parks,
since a bad year at one park can be offset by better years at others.
Second, the risk of default to the NPS is reduced for the same reason.
Third, administrative costs for both the NPS and the concessioner are
reduced because each party needs only address one transaction, instead
of two or more. We again find it curious and frustrating that the NPS
has taken the opposite approach without any legislative support.
LOSS OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The NPHA is concerned that through the language set forth in the
regulations, the NPS has positioned itself to employ Commercial Use
Authorizations (and, most importantly, the somewhat more ambiguous
language concerning the use of non-profit organizations to support the
NPS' interpretive function) in a manner that would lead to direct
competition with concessioners, particularly for gift items.
Concessioners have in fact been experiencing this problem in a number
of parks. This was not intended by the 1998 Act, and could, if used
aggressively, adversely impact the established businesses of
concessioners by narrowing the scope of the franchises bargained for in
their contracts.
It is not in the public interest for the government to enter into
contracts with concessioners that induce them to expend significant
sums on capital improvements and the development of their businesses,
only to siphon off the profitability of those businesses, after the
fact, to third parties who do not make such contributions. It should be
remembered that not-for-profit organizations do not pay either income
taxes or franchise fees, are not significant local employers, and do
not for the most part make significant financial contributions to park
facilities or programs. We think they are being encouraged to grow,
only because what little money they do raise for the parks is totally
under the control of park superintendents who do not need to justify
its use. Cooperating Associations and other not-for-profit
organizations are important partners of both the NPS and concessioners
in enhancing the interpretive experience of both visitors and the
communities that exist in the parks, but should not be permitted to
usurp the commercial benefits the concessioners have bargained for in
their contracts. Commercial Use Authorizations are intended to
accommodate small, short-term commercial forays into the parks, such as
guided hikes into the backcountry, not for the establishment of
permanent, competing businesses. By allowing the NPS to divert
commercial business to not-for-profit organizations from concessioners,
the attractiveness of concessions contracts will certainly decrease and
with it the level of investment and service to the public.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON RATE APPROVALS
The regulations provide no direction on the process to now be used
for the approval of rates and charges. A central theme of the 1998 Act
was Congress' desire to streamline the administrative functions of the
NPS in concessions management, make them less burdensome for
concessioners and make them more reflective of business reality. In no
area was this more evident than in the provisions dealing with the
setting of rates and charges.
A number of different provisions of the 1998 Act suggest that a
concessioner's goods and services should be provided at reasonable
rates. Section 406 of the Act clarifies what is meant by this. It
specifically states that, while rates continue to be subject to the
approval of the NPS and should be based on their comparability to
prices charged under similar conditions, recognizing the unique
operating constraints placed on concession operations, the ``approval
process utilized by the Secretary shall be as prompt and unburdensome
to the concessioner as possible and shall rely on market forces to
establish reasonableness of rates and charges to the maximum extent
practicable.'' Thus, a ``reasonable rate'' is established by the
market, as is normally true in our economy.
Section 409 of the Act established the National Park Service
Concessions Management Advisory Board, which has a broad mandate to
advise the Secretary on concessions management issues. However, the
initial focus of the Advisory Board indicated by the Act was to deal
with the rates question and to provide its recommendations within one
year after its first meeting. As you know, the Advisory Board issued
its initial report in November, 2000. We were quite disappointed to see
that the Advisory Board's recommendations did little to advance the
ball on this important issue. Instead it essentially ratified the past
NPS ratemaking practices, which were already recognized by Congress as
flawed when the 1998 Act was passed.
Though the Advisory Board conducted public meetings that encouraged
different points of view, it was apparent that it did little work
outside of those meetings and did not explore any options in depth.
This may be because the Advisory Board, is unpaid and its efforts are
for the most part unfunded. Thus it has no paid staff to develop facts
or conduct research--instead it relies on the Park Service to handle
its administrative needs. The Advisory Board is overwhelmed by NPS
participation and influence to the point that participation by others
is marginalized. In fact, NPS had over 20 participants at the meeting
that focused on rates last spring. The Advisory Board would profit from
representation by at least one existing concessioner to ensure that the
points of view of our industry were represented in the Board's
deliberations. After all, who knows more about these issues than we do?
But because the NPS has control over board membership, it can influence
the ultimate work product through its choice of members. Thus, it is
our hope that this Committee does not consider that the Advisory
Board's work is done on the rates issue, nor that the NPS is now
entitled to continue the same failed practices as before. The Committee
should consider giving additional direction in this area.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the interest of the Committee in these matters. All
parties have worked too long on these issues to allow the
administrative process to frustrate the decisions made by Congress in
1998. The NPHA believes that our recommendations are in the best
interest of the parks, the visitors and the taxpayers. Thank you for
your time and your hard work on behalf of our national parks and the
American public.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Voorhees.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. VOORHEES, SENIOR DIRECTOR, PARK FUNDING
AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Voorhees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Phil
Voorhees, and I apologize today for my voice. I have a rather
bad cold. I am the senior director of park funding and
management at the National Parks Conservation Association, but
today I am testifying as a member of the National Parks
Concessions Management Advisory Board, and I want to try to
limit my testimony to the areas we have covered in the past 18
months.
The responsibilities, as we see them, for the advisory
board as established by the 1998 Act are for contracting with
the private sector to conduct appropriate elements of
concessions management, to handle removal and review of
concessioner rates and changes to the public, or rather, review
them, to cover the nature and scope of products which qualify
as Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian handicrafts, and
the issue of allocation of concession fees.
In the past 18 months we have covered a number of topics,
and I will try to bore into some of the issues in concessions
management in the park system. We have come up with a variety
of recommendations that I believe were sent to the Hill in
November. First, the Park Service considered the creation of
something called a nonappropriated fund instrumentality to
handle concessions revenues. NAFI's, as I think Curt will
probably attest to, inasmuch as he is quite an expert on them,
provide a great deal of flexibility in terms of management of
funds, disbursement of funds, investment of funds, and even the
application.
Inasmuch as the Park Service concessions program is facing
a variety of difficult management issues, I think that the
flexibility would be very welcome. Quite frankly, if the Park
Service were to invest itself in looking at the applicability
of the concept of NAFI's in the parks in targeted areas, I
think we could see whether or not this is a viable proposal
both for the concessions program and perhaps for broader use
across the park system in a way that allows you more
flexibility and leveraging revenues. It is a methodology that
is fairly common in the Department of Defense, and is also used
in the Departments of Transportation, Veterans Affairs, NASA,
and others.
The second recommendation is that the Park Service
establish a chief financial officer position, inasmuch as it is
clear to us that there needs to be at a very senior level
accountability structure, or rather, somebody at a very senior
level at the top of the accountability structure to handle
concessions and to handle revenue matters in the Park Service.
A third issue is to elevate the management status of the
concessions program itself. It is a fairly confusing or at
least complex arrangement that the concessions program has now
inside the management structure of the Park Service, and it
does not allow for as efficient management as I think we could
find if there was some reorganization.
The specific recommendation is that there be established an
Associate Director for Concessions, inasmuch as the Park
Service concessions are big business, generating nearly $800
million in total revenue to both concessioners, to all
concessioners in the past year. There are some fairly complex
financial relationships and contracts that have to move
forward. From our perspective, it is critical that the Park
Service have the appropriate level of acumen and accountability
that allows them to be good partners both to the taxpayers and,
frankly, to the concessioners as well. We think that the
establishment of an Associate Director of Concessions would
probably provide a better level in that regard.
Finally, that the Park Service continue streamlining the
rate approval process. I think that a lot of progress has been
made recently, but they probably could go a big farther. I
think it is purposeless to have an overly burdensome rate of
approval process either from the management perspective of the
Park Service, accomplishing it, or from the perspective of the
concessioner. The issue here is trying to make sure the rates
are fair and reasonable across the board.
Finally, I want to open the door to Curt and his testimony
in just few minutes to go through some of the recommendations
that PricewaterhouseCoopers has come up with and the amount of
work they have done with the Park Service in moving through an
entire program review of the concessions program. I think they
have been doing some extremely diligent and good work.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done, but honestly
I think the Park Service is on the right track, and I think
that everybody on the board is in agreement that a lot of
progress has been made, and that the concessions program has
turned a corner, and that with a little bit of patience and
with a little bit more effort we could all expect to have
strong relationships across the board and better management
moving forward.
Thank you very much. I would be happy to entertain any
questions, as long as my voice holds out.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voorhees follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. VOORHEES, SENIOR DIRECTOR, PARK FUNDING
AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Phil
Voorhees. I am the Senior Director for Park Funding & Management of the
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), America's only private,
non-profit advocacy organization dedicated solely to protecting,
preserving, and enhancing the National Park System. I also serve as a
member of the National Park Service Concessions Management Advisory
Board, established under Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Act of
1998. I am testifying today as a member of that Board, on issues
relating to the implementation of the 1998 law.
Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Act directed the Board to
provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on a number of
different matters including:
Contracting with the private sector to conduct appropriate
elements of concession management;
Review and approval of concessioner rates and charges to the
public;
The nature and scope of products which qualify as Indian,
Alaska native and Native Hawaiian handicrafts;
Allocation of concession fees.
Since its inception nearly 18 months ago, the Board has adhered to
and pursued the mandates stated above. We submitted a report to the
Secretary of the Interior in November of 2000 with some specific
recommendations for improvement of the National Park Service's
Concessions Program. On behalf of the Board, I would like to briefly
review some of the more significant recommendations in that report.
CREATION OF A NON-APPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITY
The first recommendation was to consider the establishment of a
Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) for the deposit and
management of concession franchise fees received by NPS. In our view,
this structure would better allow NPS to institute mechanisms and
controls to account for receipt, investment, and disbursement of funds.
Our objective in making this recommendation was to allow the NPS
concessions program to operate in more businesslike environment in
their management and oversight of concessions fee proceeds, to maximize
the benefit of concessions proceeds, and to target that benefit towards
concessions management professionalization programs. Many federal
agencies have used NAFIs as an effective tool in funds management,
budgeting, accounting, capital reinvestment and procurement. Examples
include the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation,
Veteran's Affairs, NASA and numerous others. If successful with the
concessions program, the NAFI construct may have broader applications
within the Service.
ESTABLISH A CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER POSITION
Another key suggestion was for the Park Service to establish a
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position at the Deputy Director level.
Our intent was to ensure that the agency has a management
accountability structure for concessions and other fee generating
programs, as well as major business related matters within the Agency,
that rises to a very senior level. As a result of the 1998 law and the
fee demonstration, NPS is now generating close to $200 million per year
in non-appropriated funds. This number is expected to grow over time.
These funds demand a new and different management, accounting and
oversight structure within the agency. The Board feels that now is the
appropriate time for the creation of such a critical role.
ELEVATE THE MANAGEMENT STATUS OF THE CONCESSIONS PROGRAM
In our report to the Secretary, we also recommended that the
concessions program be elevated within the Park Service. This could be
accomplished by the creation of an Associate Director for Concessions.
Again, it is important to point out that park concessions is big
business. Last year, National Parks Concessions generated close to $800
million in gross revenues. The large concessions contracts are very
complex legal and financial relationships, requiring a high degree of
business acumen. We feel that expertise in this area is severely
lacking within the agency. The result is an unbalanced relationship
between the agency and the concessioner, especially as it relates to
the disposal of large contracts. Through the creation of an Associate
Director for Concessions, NPS would be making a major commitment to
increased emphasis on this business relationship and its importance to
the provision of uniformly high quality visitor services. The Board
feels that these areas are currently under-emphasized and under-
resourced.
STREAMLINE THE RATE APPROVAL PROCESS
We also recommended that the Park Service Concessions Program
simplify and streamline the rate approval process. Historically, this
process has proven to be bureaucratic and cumbersome for all parties
concerned. The Board feels that NPS has made progress in improving the
rate approval system, but should go even further in streamlining these
processes. In addition, we have recommended that the agency develop and
train a variety of in-house competency specialists to improve
consistency in the monitoring and rate approval process.
SUPPORT FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
PROGRAM REVIEW
Finally, The Board would like to note that at our most recent
meeting, we were briefed by the PricewaterhouseCoopers team regarding
their program review. I understand that they will be testifying on
these findings today. The Board was pleased with the results and has
asked the Park Service to move to implement the key recommendations.
In conclusion, the Board has made considerable progress with NPS in
working through a variety of management issues. Some changes need to be
made to increase the capacity and expertise of the concessions program
and better align the program within the agency. This year, the Board
intends to focus in addition on the management of Indian, Native
Alaskan and Native Hawaiian handicrafts as that management relates to
our charter.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions regarding my
testimony or the work of the Concessions Management Advisory Board to
date. Again Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. We will certainly stop when we
cannot hear you any longer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Mr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BIRCH, HORTON,
BITTNER, AND CHEROT, ON BEHALF OF AMERICA OUTDOORS
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Bill Horn. I
am appearing on behalf of America Outdoors. America Outdoors is
an international coalition of outfitter and guides operating
across public lands, many of whom operate within national park
units, and in contrast to the references ahead of me here, most
of these folks fall clearly in the small mom and pop category
of river floaters, canoe renters, horsebackers and such.
Let me add, too, that I present the testimony here from two
perspectives. One, of course, is from the perspective of the
guides and outfitters, and the other is from the perspective as
a former Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, and had to wrestle with the administrative
side of this program, so I appreciate what the Park Service is
going through in implementing this new statute.
Let me just add, too, we really greatly appreciate the
subcommittee's continuing leadership on this issue and, Mr.
Chairman, your commitment to recreational use and access to
public lands. When Congress enacted the 1998 Act, one of its
primary purposes was to assure management of small concessions
in a streamlined and simplified manner. The expectation of the
outfitters and guides was that this would translate into less
complicated paperwork, including less complex and less
burdensome forms, studies, reports, and surveys. Unfortunately,
somewhere along the line that vision seems to have gotten a
little bit sidetracked, and off-target.
Now, let me say that our operators really greatly
appreciate the opportunity and the privilege of providing
services to the public within park units, and we are not
looking for any form of adversarial relationship with the
service, and we are not interested in beating up the agency.
Nonetheless, we would like to try to iron out some of the
wrinkles and potholes that have cropped up in implementation of
the 1998 Act so we can move forward in some unconfused,
unfrustrated fashion.
Let me give you just a couple of the specifics that I think
highlight the source of some of the confusion and frustration
that our folks are wrestling with. The law and the draft
regulations promised a, quote, simplified, close quote,
contract for outfitters and guides, and in the last few months
we have begun to see some of the new contracts appear. A couple
of our fellows have received the simplified contract, all 27
pages of it.
One of the recipients of this 27-page contract is an
individual who rents 81 canoes. When you add up his 27-page
contract, his new 20-page operating plan, his 20-page
compendium of regulations, and his environmental management
plan that is not yet complete, he has over one page of legal
document for each canoe that he rents, and I do not think this
is exactly what this committee had in mind, and I know it is
not exactly what the guides and outfitters had in mind when we
heard the term, simplified contract.
A second issue, and it really does not arise from the
statute, is the environmental management plan. Now, this was a
Clinton administration initiative that has generated enormous
confusion among the small concessioners, and the apparent
objective, at least as I heard it explained by the past
political leadership in the agency, was to ensure that all
concessioners, large and small, employed, quote, best
environmental practices, end quote, within the units of the
park system.
Unfortunately, this term was never clearly defined. Most of
our folks do not really know what this means, and what are the
consequences if, notwithstanding the good faith effort, there
is some lack of full compliance with this admittedly subjective
standard.
Now, the majority of small guides and outfitters find
themselves being pushed into hiring consultants to prepare
these environmental management plans. Let me add that in the
new, simplified, 20-plus page contract, the single section
establishing the environmental practices program covers three
pages and goes into, I think, rather extraordinary detail about
what this plan is supposed to have.
In addition, once you get your contract, you are required
to submit to the Park Service your written EMP within 60 days
afterwards. Most of the fellows do not have the expertise, or
the manpower, or the ability to put something together that
quickly. Substantial open-ended costs are foreseen, and
frankly, we go to the local concessions officers, most of whom
are as much in the dark about this program as are the guides
and outfitters, and our people are hearing an enormous amount
of off-the-record frustration about this program from local
agency personnel.
A third issue is the preference right of renewal. Congress
expressly retained the preference right for outfitters and
guides, and notwithstanding this clear direction, some
operators seeking assurance of their preference right
eligibility are continuing to be informed, quote, our agency
lawyers are still looking at the issue, close quote.
Now I, as a practicing attorney, and having worked at the
subcommittee on that language, I cannot find any ambiguity in
the statute regarding the retention of the preference right for
small concessioners and guides and outfitters, and it is just a
continuing bone of contention and frustration that somehow this
issue is under continuing legal review. I do not know what
there is to review, and we would sure like to get that one
answered.
Let me just close by reiterating that we want a cooperative
relationship with the Park Service, and we fully understand
that any new program will have bugs to be worked out, and we
are clearly prepared to be patient. As I indicated, I am
acutely aware of the challenges that the service faces.
Nonetheless, we are looking for clarity, and we look forward to
working more closely with the service and this subcommittee on
administering the concessions program consistent with the
letter and spirit of the 1998 Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BIRCH, HORTON,
BITTNER AND CHEROT
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Horn, Washington Representative for
America Outdoors. America Outdoors is an international coalition of
outfitter and guides operating across the nation's public lands.
Established in 1990, and headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, America
Outdoors has over 550 members serving the general public from 40 states
and 60 foreign countries. America Outdoors' purposes include the
conservation and enhancement of quality outdoor experiences on
America's lands and waters. Many of its members operate within the
National Park System and are committed to the protection and
conservation of those lands. America Outdoors greatly appreciates your
continuing leadership on this issue and your commitment to recreational
use and access to our public lands.
When Congress enacted the National Park Omnibus Management Act of
1998, a primary purpose was to assure management of small concessions
in a streamlined and simplified manner. Simpler contracts and simpler
administration would enable these small businesses to focus on
providing quality recreational services to the public. The expectation
of outfitters and guides was the use of less complicated paperwork,
including forms, studies, reports, and surveys.
Somewhere along the line that vision has gotten sidetracked. For
many operators, the system has gotten more complex. This complexity is
generating a combination of bewilderment and frustration.
America Outdoors members with park concessions value their
relationship with the National Park Service. The same operators greatly
appreciate the opportunity and privilege of providing services to the
public within Park units. We do not want an adversarial relationship
with the Service and are not interested in beating up the agency. We
are concerned, however, that we are facing a concessions system which
is confusing, complex, subjective and which makes good faith compliance
difficult and costly.
Let me briefly outline some specifics that are giving rise to
confusion and frustration. Our hope is that such identification will
enable us to work cooperatively with the Service and this Subcommittee
to assure a clear, reasonable program for concessions administration.
1. Contracts--The law and draft regulations promised a
``simplified'' contract for outfitters and guides. Some of our
operators have recently been presented their simplified contract all 27
pages of it!
2. Operating Plans--In addition to the contract, most operators
must submit a detailed operating plan that can be accompanied by a
lengthy compendium of regulators. One America Outdoors member who
simply rents 81 canoes has a 20 page operating plan coupled with a 20
page compendium. This is on top of his lengthy new contract. It adds up
to almost one page for each canoe!
3. Environmental Management--This Clinton Administration initiative
has sown enormous confusion and concern among small concessioners. The
apparent objective is to assure that concessioners employ ``best
environmental practices.'' However, no one really knows what this means
and what are the consequences if notwithstanding a good faith effort,
there is some lack of full compliance with this subjective standard.
The majority of small operators find themselves being pushed into
being consultants to prepare their environmental management plans. And
in the future they will be required to implement the program, monitor
it, measure its impact, make corrections to assure compliance, and
report to the National Park Service. Substantial open ended costs are
foreseen. Local National Park Service personnel know as little about
this initiative as we do and are hard pressed to answer our questions.
Our members are hearing a lot of off-the-record frustration about this
program from local agency personnel.
4. Fee Payment--Most small operators used to make their fee
payments on an annual basis. It simplified accounting, and accommodated
the cash flow realities of small businesses. Now many are being told to
pay on a 30-day schedule. That is necessitating additional accounting
(at a cost), estimated payments, and a payment schedule that cuts into
cash flow. America Outdoors would like to return to annualized
payments.
5. Preference Right of Renewal--Congress expressly retained the
preference right of renewal for outfitters and guides. Notwithstanding
this clear direction, some operators seeking assurance of their
preference right eligibility are being informed ``our agency lawyers
are still looking at the issue.'' As a practicing attorney, I can't
find any ambiguity in the statute and wonder why some of our guides and
outfitters can't get the assurances Congress intended for them.
6. Transfers--The new law was clearly designed to facilitate
transfers. It provided for the speedy approval of transfers unless the
agency determined that an unqualified entity would get the contract or
the transfer would impair park resources. I am persuaded the
regulations do not clearly reflect Congressional intent. Moreover, many
operators are facing delays of months in getting transfers approved.
One concessioner in Utah has just been informed that it could be
another six months (on top of six months gone by) before a proposed
transfer will be approved--maybe.
I want to reiterate that we want a cooperative relationship with
the National Park Service. We understand that any new program will have
bugs to be worked out and are prepared to be patient and continue to
work with the National Park Service. One fundamental concern is that
the present regulatory program reflects the anti-public use philosophy
of some previous Administration leadership. We hope that with new
leadership at the Department, we will be able to work more closely with
the National Park Service on establishing a concessions program
consistent with the letter and spirit of the 1998 Act, that facilitates
public use and enjoyment of our parks, and conserves park resources.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Horn. We are pleased that
you brought Victoria with you today. We are glad to have you
here.
Mr. Cornelssen.
STATEMENT OF CURT CORNELSSEN, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL HOSPITALITY AND
LEISURE PRACTICE, PRICEWATERHOUSE- COOPERS
Mr. Cornelssen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Curt Cornelssen. I am a director with Price-
waterhouseCoopers in the Global Hospitality and Leisure
Practice. I have been asked to testify before you today
regarding a program review that we recently completed on the
National Park Service concession program. I recognize my time
is limited. For the next few minutes I would like to provide
you with a brief synopsis of our approach, findings, and
recommendations.
Last September, the National Park Service engaged Price-
waterhouseCoopers to conduct a high-level review of the
program. The scope of this analysis focused on organizational
objectives, the structure and reporting relationships, staffing
levels and expertise, financial and budget analysis,
contracting and capital assets oversight, and technology.
The outcome of this program review was to assist the
program in developing a business-based action plan to provide
recommendations for revised organizational structure. PwC's
analysis spanned a 90-day period, and included interviews with
over 120 personnel directly and indirectly related to the
concessions program, including a number of concessioners.
Within each program area, we assessed the concession
program's strengths and weaknesses to better understand how
they affected the organization's overall performance. Following
this assessment, PwC benchmarked the National Park Service
concession program against other agencies and corporations with
similar assets and fiduciary responsibilities. From this
analysis, we were able to identify which best industry
practices the program should consider for more effective
management.
I would like to provide you with our key findings.
Obviously, you have my full testimony. I am just going to cover
a few of the key issues and key areas.
In terms of mission and objectives, our review of the laws,
regulations, and management policies indicate that the mission
of the Park Service program is well aligned with the mission of
the Park Service. That is not always the case. Furthermore, the
staff can articulate and are committed to the mission. However,
what we also found was that the program lacks clearly defined
objectives and implementation strategies, and that is a problem
in terms of consistency in application.
Organizational structure and reporting relationships. The
reporting structure from the park to the region is clearly
understood by all the staff. The biggest challenge we found
facing the program is a lack of what we call appropriate
fiduciary checkpoints for contract development and oversight,
and I can get into that in the question and answer session.
Contract oversight is one of the most important business
functions within the program. The program has over 600
contracts, with 49 what we call high value contracts, that is,
over $3 million a year in gross receipts, and these high value
contracts represent about 72 percent of the franchise fees and
about 83 percent of the revenue.
However, the program is not well-organized to manage these
key contracts. Rather, they are structured to handle the volume
versus value of contracts across the regions. As a result,
contract oversight is overburdened by contracts of lesser
economic value. Additionally, upon review of staff
competencies, it appears that the program does not have the
appropriate level of financial, hospitality/recreation and
legal expertise and experience available for oversight of the
key high value contracts.
We conducted a benchmarking in an effort to evaluate the
program against industry best practice, and we identified and
interviewed agencies and corporations that had similar areas of
asset oversight as well as fiduciary responsibilities, and we
found that in the area of asset oversight all of these
organizations rely on professionals with significant financial
and industry expertise.
Additionally staffing and resourcing for contract oversight
is focused on contracts with the largest value and risk.
Typically, a small cadre of staff will oversee key assets and
routinely draw on other internal and external resources for
additional assistance.
Finally, all of these organizations and corporations
require extensive reporting from their operating partners.
I would like to now cover a few of the program
recommendations. There are four of them. The first one is to
develop a new visions and objectives implementation strategies,
pretty basic business planning 101 type stuff. This includes
establishing a working group within the Park Service to define
the visions and objectives for the program as well as
strategies, secondly, to redefine the management processes to
address fiduciary oversight.
We are particularly concerned in this area that higher
fiduciary oversight standards and more efficient business
processes need to be established for all contracts.
Thirdly, we recommend a new organizational structure to
heighten strategic oversight on high value assets. A strategic
business oversight solution needs to be developed for ongoing
review and quality control for major concessions contracts, and
finally, putting this all into a detailed business-based action
plan. We are in the process of developing that plan right now
for the Park Service, but it is not the PwC plan, it is the
Park Service plan, so the National Park Service Working Group
will then need to be established and review the plan, and to
begin the implementation process.
In concluding my comments, I would like to note that the
study is designed to be the baseline from which the Park
Service will redesign the program, structure, and operating
procedures. We are working diligently with the National Park
Service to develop and implement a business-based action plan
modeled after commercial best practices.
I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you
or the other members have regarding our work. Again, Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornelssen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURT CORNELSSEN, DIRECTOR, HOSPITALITY AND
LEISURE PRACTICE, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Curt Cornelssen and
I am a Director in the Global Hospitality and Leisure Practice of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Our firm is well recognized as a global
leader in providing cutting-edge advice to both private and public
sector hospitality and recreation organizations.
I have been asked to testify today regarding a program review that
we recently completed for the National Park Service Concession Program.
I recognize that my time is limited. Over the next few minutes, I'd
like to provide you with a brief synopsis of our approach, findings and
recommendations.
In September 2000, the National Park Service engaged
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a high-level program review of
the Concession Program. The scope of the analysis focused on the
following six areas:
Organizational Mission and Objectives
Organizational Structure and Reporting Relationships
Staffing Levels and Expertise
Financial and Budget Analysis
Contracting and Capital Asset Oversight
Technology Review and Assessment
The outcome of this program review was to assist the NPSCP in
developing a business based action plan and to provide recommendations
for a revised organizational structure. PwC's analysis spanned a
ninety-day period and included interviews with over 120 personnel
directly and indirectly related to the Concession Program, including a
number of Concessioners.
Within each program area, we assessed the Concession Program's
strengths and weaknesses to better understand how they affected the
organization's overall performance. Following this assessment, PwC
benchmarked the National Park Service Concession Program against other
agencies/corporations with similar assets and fiduciary
responsibilities. From this analysis, we were able to identify which
best industry practices the Concession Program should consider for more
effective program management. I'd now like to provide an overview of
our key findings. In the interest of time, I will limit my comments to
the most critical areas.
Mission and Objectives: Our review of the applicable laws,
regulations and management policies indicates that the mission of
National Park Service Concession Program is well aligned with the
mission of the National Park Service. Furthermore, the Concession
Program staff can articulate and are committed to the Concession
Program mission. The current challenge for the Concession Program is
the lack of clearly defined objectives and implementation strategies.
Organizational Structure and Reporting Relationships: The reporting
structure from the park to the region is clearly understood by all
concession staff. The largest challenge facing the Concession Program
is the lack of appropriate ``fiduciary'' checkpoints for contract
development and oversight.
Core Management/Business Processes: The three core management
processes of the Concession Program are Planning, Contracting and
Contract Oversight. Each of these management processes was further
broken down into their business processes. We then proceeded to analyze
each of the business processes to assess their relevance to the
concession program and to determine if any of the processes could be
improved or eliminated. Overall, we believe the Concession Program has
properly identified their core management and business processes, but
the application of their processes is problematic. In the areas of
Planning and Contracting, the staff frequently operates in a
``reactive'' versus a ``proactive'' mode. Additionally, the Contracting
process appears to be too complex for lesser economic value contracts
and may not be rigorous enough for contracts of high economic value.
Finally, we believe that Contract Oversight needs to be enhanced for
these high-value contracts.
Contract Oversight: The Concession Program has oversight of over
600 contracts, with 49 ``high-value'' contracts (over $3 million in
gross receipts per year). These high-value contracts represent
approximately 72 percent of the Concession franchise fee revenue and 83
percent of gross concession revenue. However, the Concession Program is
not well organized to manage these key contracts. Rather, they are
structured to handle the volume versus value of contracts across
Regions. As a result, Contract Oversight is overburdened by contracts
of lesser economic value. Additionally, upon review of staff
competencies, it appears that the Concession Program does not have the
appropriate level of financial, hospitality/recreation and legal
expertise and experience available for oversight of the key high-value
contracts.
Staffing Levels and Expertise: The total staff associated with the
Concession Program is approximately 249 individuals. Over 53 percent of
this staff are collateral duty and 47 percent are full-time. Overall,
we are of the opinion that the Concession Program has a sufficient
number of staff to meet the Concession Program mission under normal
business operations. However, the current staffing levels are not
suitable for periods of intense change, such as now. It appears that no
clear NPS model exists for Concession Program business-based staffing
at the park and the region level.
Budget/Resources: Our preliminary review of the ``Corporate''
(Washington Office and Regions) concession budgets indicated that in FY
2000, the Concession Program had approximately $6.5 million dollars
available for program staffing and operations. Sixty percent of this
budget came from appropriated sources while the remaining 40 percent
were generated by the 20 percent portion of franchise fees. With the
expansion of funding to include the 20 percent fees, the ``Corporate''
concession function appears to be appropriately resourced on a steady
state basis. However, the current budget is not sufficient to deal with
the tidal wave of concession contract rollovers that NPS faces over the
next 2-3 years.
BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS
In an effort to evaluate the Concession Program against industry
best practices, PwC identified and interviewed agencies/corporations
that had similar areas of asset oversight (e.g. hospitality, retail,
and recreation) as well as fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of an
owner/landholder (e.g. ensuring service quality and reasonable
financial return).
We found that in the area of asset oversight, all of these
organizations rely on professionals with significant financial and
industry specific expertise. Additionally, staffing and resourcing for
contract oversight is focused on contracts with the largest value and
risk. Typically, a small cadre of staff will oversee key assets and
routinely draw on other internal and external resources for additional
assistance. Finally, all of these organizations/corporations require
extensive reporting from their operating partners.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
PwC has developed four key recommendations for the Concession
Program based upon our high-level program review. The recommendations
are as follows:
1. Develop New Visions, Objectives and Implementation Strategies
This will include establishing a working group to define visions
and objectives for the Concession Program, as well as implementation
strategies. This process must be inclusive and efficient.
2. Redefine Management Processes to Address Fiduciary Oversight
Higher fiduciary oversight standards and more efficient business
processes need to be established for all contracts.
3. Recommend New Organizational Structure to Heighten Strategic
Oversight on High-Value Assets
A strategic business oversight solution needs to be developed for
ongoing review and quality control for major concession contracts.
Furthermore, the Concessions Program Washington Office needs to be
reorganized and simplified along major management processes.
4. Develop a Business Based Action Plan
PwC will develop a business based action plan outline based on
study findings. A NPS working group will then need to be established to
review the plan and begin implementation. The plan will then need to be
briefed to NPS Leadership, Advisory Board and other appropriate
stakeholders.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to note that this study is
designed to be the baseline from which the Park Service will redesign
its Concession Program structure and operating procedures. We are
working diligently with the National Park Service to develop and
implement a business-based action plan, modeled after commercial best
practices.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you or the
members have regarding our work. Again Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank
you for this opportunity to testify before you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. We will split up our time here.
There are a lot of questions you could ask, I guess, the Park
Service in response to some of the things that have been
mentioned. We might start with a little broader aspect, but
first of all, when was your study completed?
Mr. Cornelssen. About a month ago, sir.
Senator Thomas. So just a month ago, so there has not been
a great deal of time to implement or consider your suggestions.
Mr. Cornelssen. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. And I presume that is true with you, Mr.
Ring, that have you had time? Have you put some priorities on
the things that Pricewaterhouse has brought to you?
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with Pricewaterhouse
all the way through the study but have just received their
final recommendations here within the last month. We were able
to have those findings presented to the advisory board and had,
I thought, a very productive discussion related to the advisory
board's recommendations and Pricewaterhouse's recommendations,
but we are also in the process of taking these reports and
obtaining review and comments back from our field personnel,
and we expect to be convening a work group to come up with an
action plan in terms of both the annual report and the
Pricewaterhouse recommendations in the next several months.
Senator Thomas. I would think you would respond pretty
positively to the idea of defining visions and objectives,
would you not?
Mr. Ring. Absolutely.
Senator Thomas. And you have not done that yet?
Mr. Ring. We have not implemented the specific
recommendations yet.
Senator Thomas. And I presume most people would agree with
the fiduciary and changing the expertise within the staff.
Mr. Ring. I think, as I commented earlier, we recognize the
need to strengthen the professional expertise within the staff
we have, but we also recognize there is a level of expertise,
particularly related to the larger contracts we deal with, that
we do not have, and frankly it is probably not cost-effective
for us to try and hire people to maintain that level of
expertise, and so we are very much focused on going to outside
consultants through contracting.
Senator Thomas. Have you done any of that?
Mr. Ring. Well, we have used Pricewaterhouse, but in the
case of the specific contract relationships, no. We are
negotiating right now to bring some teams in.
Senator Thomas. We talked about this, you know, during the
development of the bill and, in fact, had really before we came
up with the advisory committee had the notion that we would be
doing more of that, so that is not a brand new idea.
Mr. Ring. The idea of contracting out is not, and to date
on the funds that we use for the roughly $6 million that we use
on the corporate level management of the program, we are
contracting out for services for about a third of those funds,
and we anticipate doing a significant amount more.
Senator Thomas. Let me try something with all of you. There
is a number of things we could do and so on, but given the
management program we have today, what would be the most
important thing, the most important change that you think you
could do to cause to happen in this whole program of managing
the concessions?
Mr. Fassler. I would like to start--there is a number of
issues, but let us just take one. I know the advisory board was
set up for the purpose of trying to fix the problems, get a
better understanding with inside the Park Service as to some of
the elements it takes to be a concessionaire in many different
areas.
I noticed in the three meetings the advisory board had,
there is a tremendous amount of Park Service personnel at these
meetings, and I do not think any of the concessionaires--now,
we are not supposed to be part of the advisory board, but one
of my recommendations to Phil would be that concessionaires
should be invited into these meetings for the very purpose of
getting input and finding solutions, having suggestions made as
to how you could fix the situation, and in other words have an
oversight meeting not here but at the advisory board meeting,
because most of the problems that we have is in communication,
or the lack of it.
In this particular case, we believe the regulations were
written improperly. A lot of that could have been avoided if
there was input at the advisory board meeting, or even with the
National Park Service. Where concessionaires have a very good
open and honest communication with their superintendent, many
of the problems are not there. It is where you do not have good
communication, and that generally happens here at the
Washington Office, because they are so far away from the
business, and the concessionaires are far way from Washington,
except for those that are concessionaires in Washington.
Senator Thomas. I presume if you had some fiduciary people
and so on, that the policies would be made here to be adhered
to by each of the parks.
Mr. Fassler. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Voorhees, what would be the main issue
that you think?
Mr. Voorhees. First, if I can respond to the issue of
concessioners being present at the advisory board meetings, I
have been present at all the advisory board meetings, and I
cannot think of a single meeting in which there has not been
quite a strong representation from concessioners there.
Now, we have taken great pains to allow everybody to
express their voice and, in fact, usually sequester, if you
will, an entire--not sequester, but hold an entire day for
discussion and comments back and forth, not so much among the
board, but with those who were present.
Senator Thomas. Let us see if we can scoot on through. What
issue do you think----
Mr. Voorhees. I would say the most important issue at hand
here is elevating the professional capacity of the concessions
program managers so that you have a closer point of parity when
they are going through the contracting process and with all
aspects of concessions management.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. I think it is simply to reiterate that the
dominant primary goal of the concessions program is to
facilitate public use and enjoyment through the provision of
quality services. Part of the problems are that we get mixed
signals. Sometimes it is, are we making concessioners the
environmental showcases through this environmental program? Are
we supposed to be generating a lot of dollars for the Federal
Treasury? Are we supposed to be assuring additional competition
or protecting the resources?
I think what happens is, when you get the objectives
muddled the program just begins to work at cross-currents with
itself, and if we went back to that simple, this is to
facilitate public use and enjoyment through quality services, I
think once the division of the Park Service got that message
very clearly, I think the program would run much better.
Senator Thomas. The definition of vision and objectives,
then, would be high on your list?
Mr. Horn. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Cornelssen.
Mr. Cornelssen. I think the way the program is set up today
is one size fits all for all contracts, and that is a problem.
If you take the top 30 to 50 contracts, and these are complex
financial legal instruments that require a lot of expertise,
they require a different management infrastructure to deal with
that, and then if you take the remaining contract and say,
frankly, maybe these could be simplified, and maybe
streamlined----
Senator Thomas. If we said that. I understand what you are
saying, and I am sure that is exactly right. So you are talking
about the 27 pages perhaps could be simpler, and spend more
time on the huge ones.
Mr. Cornelssen. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Ring, where would you put your
priority? I mean, you are, but tell us.
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard a comment yet from
the other speakers with regards to things that need attention I
disagree with. It is hard to distinguish which one is the
single most important. Unless they are all working we do not
have a program.
I agree that communications is a key here. We are making
huge changes, and maybe through all of it we have got a long
process to go through and a new law to implement and lots of
people to train and lots of devils in the details to work out
to get it done, and if I had to give the edge to any of them, I
would give the edge to communication and making sure we are
talking to each other as we work our way through it, because
there will undoubtedly be lots of, and there are lots of
misunderstandings, good faith attempts to do things that do not
work out, and we need to be able to have enough trust in each
other to know we are all headed for the same goal.
Senator Thomas. Some of us--I might just share there has
been an awful lot of talk about partnerships and listening and
talking, but you also have to be willing to accept some of
those things and cause them to happen.
The idea that you meet with everybody does not do it. You
also have to do some of the things that are recommended. I am
not saying you do not, but I am saying, with all the talk that
goes on about public land management, let us get together and
so on, and have cooperating agencies, but then the agency has
to listen.
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more.
Talk is something that can happen a lot. Communications is not
necessarily something that always happens when you are talking,
but I very much am focused on communication.
Senator Thomas. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It will be
interesting to come back in another year, year-and-a-half, and
see what part of the Pricewaterhouse action plan has been
implemented.
I only have a couple of questions, although I might say to
Mr. Horn, do not feel too bad about park regs that define
canoes that are being a page long, as I understood you to say.
I heard one time the Defense Department has over 100 pages
dedicated to defining hamburger. That just happens to be
Government, so do not feel too bad about that.
You did say something that made me think about the mission
of the concessionaires, and I know we have to understand they
are supposed to provide a service and some quality experience
and a product, but clearly they have been put in a position in
some places where they also have to be the enforcers, and I am
not sure that should be their mission.
Let me ask Mr. Ring a question here. We have 640
concessionaires, as I understand it. When we implemented this
situation where incumbent concessionaires would not get a
preferential right to renew their contracts, do you know off-
hand how many contracts did not get renewed, how many were lost
or changed, or new concessionaires?
Mr. Ring. Senator Campbell, I do not know the answer to
that specifically. I will find out and provide it.
Senator Campbell. I was just interested, because some of
those are moms and pops, and some of them are big chains, and I
am kind of interested in knowing whether the big chains had
better opportunity, because they can buy cheaper because they
buy larger amounts of goods than a small independent, and if
you could get that information I think we would be interested.
Mr. Ring. I certainly will. I suspect at this stage we have
a number of contracts that are expired and under extensions,
and we are still early in the process of getting many of those,
the bulk of those contracts out for new contract award, and so
I rather suspect the actual number is low, but I will get that
information for you.
Senator Campbell. I appreciate that. Mr. Fassler, you made
some really interesting comments, and I would like you just to
elaborate, or just to restate them, because I am not sure I was
writing fast enough to get it down right. Did I understand you
to say if I have a big chain like McDonald's, and I have got
them all over the place, all over the country, and I have one
in a national park somewhere, that I cannot sell the whole
chain without some approval from that park, because one of them
is in the park?
Mr. Fassler. The conclusion you came to is correct, but it
is not the way you said it. What we are saying is, if a major
company like McDonald's happened to own a subsidiary that has a
concession contract in a national park, based on the way their
regulations have just recently been written, the Park Service
will dictate if McDonald's could sell one of their
subsidiaries, and that is not what the law intended it to be.
Senator Campbell. Something sounds wrong with that. I think
that might be what we call the law of unintended consequences.
Let me also ask you, if I have a business in a park and I
want to expand that business, what can I use in that business
to use as collateral for a loan? You alluded to that.
Mr. Fassler. We understand the law, which would allow us
cross-collateralization, which means you could put up assets in
a number of your facilities to gather a loan, a big loan that
you could be using to finance investments in the park. The law
allows it. The Park Service regulations wrote it and said you
cannot do it. That is one of our problems.
Senator Campbell. That sounds like something that needs to
be defined or changed, too. And Mr. Voorhees, I do not want to
tax that bad voice of yours, I apologize, but I was interested,
you are speaking here on behalf of the Concessions Advisory
Board?
Mr. Voorhees. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Campbell. Did the Concessions Advisory Board advise
these parks on handicrafts like Native American handicrafts?
Mr. Voorhees. We are going to be spending this year
focusing on the handicrafts issues, so we are just getting into
it.
Senator Campbell. Then I can tell you, you have got your
work cut out for you. It is a mess.
Mr. Voorhees. I am aware of that.
Senator Campbell. They say now it is about a $1 billion
industry. Over half is plagiarized, i.e., Chinese beadwork,
whatever, plastic in place of turquoise, Kuchinas carved in
Mexico, all that kind of stuff. Whoever has to do the defining
and the tracking, what is authentic, what is not, that is a
major job, and I know some concessionaires in the Park Service
that are trying to comply with the Indian Arts and Crafts Act
of 1988, which updated the old one, and the Indian Arts and
Crafts Board guidelines about what is and what is not. They
kind of say what is and what is not, where the 1988 Act says
who is and who is not.
It is just a complicated mess, and since some of those
crafts they call traditional but they are not, if you go back
far enough in time. Silverwork is an example. Before 1730 no
Indians did that in the United States. Weaving was basically--
rug weaving, which is now considered a traditional Navajo craft
was taught to the Navajos, as you know, and a lot of these
things were not--pottery was, of course, traditional, but slip
pottery, the hand painting on slip pottery was not traditional,
and yet it is hand-painted.
So the question can be asked, if you paint on that as a
medium, why doesn't that qualify? If you paint on a canvas
using a brush you bought down at the five and dime and a canvas
you bought at the hardware store and acrylic paints, and yet if
you are Native American you sell that, it qualifies as Native
American Art, but slip pottery does not, and you painted on
that.
So it is a real complicated thing, and I am not asking you
to try to figure it all out here, because I cannot figure it
out, and I have been an Indian my whole life, and you are just
not going to find it easy, particularly with all these
different definitions of who and what.
But I would encourage you to do the best you can. It is
just kind of a mess to try to find what the Park Service should
be accepting and what they should not, and they above all
people should be the ones that try and keep it as honest and
above-board as they can.
Mr. Voorhees. Well, Senator, the issue for us at the moment
is to try to find a way which is most constructive for us to
engage in this issue within the confines of the charter. It is
going to take a lot of thought to figure out exactly what is
the most targeted way to participate here.
Senator Campbell. Well, you may have to work with some of
the agencies that are already in place, such as the Indian Arts
and Crafts Board, the Indian Arts and Crafts Association, which
is a private association of collectors, craftsmen, and museums
and so on, but I wish you well.
I have no further questions. I think with or without the
chairman's permission I will just call a recess for a few
minutes until he gets back so I can go over and vote myself.
Thank you. We appreciate you being here.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. I am sorry, we get
interrupted by votes all the time.
Mr. Ring, how do you react to the simplified contract
versus the 27 pages?
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I know that there is, with the
guides and outfitters particularly there is a range. There are
some 300 of the 630, or 330 of the some 630 concessions
operations that are in that guide and outfitter category, but
they range in scope and scale dramatically, and while many of
them are small, we have, I believe it is 21 that have values
over $500,000 gross a year.
I believe the rules were, and the contract was put in place
to be able to do several things. One is to cover a range of
situations and leave some flexibility when we put the
prospectuses out to go with the greater or lesser requirements
based upon the scale of the particular operation we are
soliciting, certainly to gain enough information to make sure
that if there are resource or safety resource impact or safety
implications related to the operation we can assess those, and
also to create a competitive climate where we can solicit from
people who are submitting proposals an opportunity for them to
provide something very straightforward or something well-
developed in terms of their offer so that we can actually judge
and make distinctions between them when we are doing a
competitive evaluation, and so I know that is the objective.
I know that the rules set these in place to provide for the
wide range, and beyond that, I am interested in talking more
with Mr. Horn over some of the specific concerns and
applications, because we are very early on in making use of
these.
Senator Thomas. If they are over the $500,000, then they
are in a different category.
Mr. Ring. They are with regards to the guides and
outfitters, but the level of contracting we have, we have got
to make some determinations within each category in terms of
the range.
Senator Thomas. Is simplicity a part of your vision?
Mr. Ring. Yes, it is, sir.
Senator Thomas. Would you care to respond?
Mr. Horn. We look forward to working with the Service. As I
said, I think Curt probably hit the nail on the head before
that part of the problem is that we have ended up with a little
bit of a one-size-fits-all approach, and I think to the degree
that the agency can in essence stratify the system so that you
have got appropriate expertise directed at the 30 or 40 of the
big multimillion operations, and then focus a different level
of expertise and a greater degree of simplicity at the 300-plus
smaller guides and outfitters, dominantly the moms and pops, I
think that is a reasonable bifurcation in the system, that I
hope we can go in that direction. I think it will solve a lot
of the problems.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Voorhees, I have heard from a number of
the members of the advisory board that they are unpaid and so
on, and they do not have staff, and this and that, and they
really are not set up to accomplish as much as they should. Why
is that? Why don't you have staff?
Mr. Voorhees. I do not think that I have an answer for that
question. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and I am not
going to argue that it would not be helpful.
Senator Thomas. Is it not potentially possible to do that?
I believe it is authorized.
Mr. Voorhees. Honestly, I would have to ask you. I imagine
that it is. I do not have a response for you on that.
Senator Thomas. Well, I was just surprised when I heard
someone say, well, we don't get paid, this is a voluntary
thing, and we are not going to do very much, or words to that
effect.
Mr. Voorhees. You did not hear that from me.
Senator Thomas. I know, but I mean, this was the
alternative to having more professional input into the agency,
so I think the expectation there is that people with this
expertise that are on this board would work pretty hard to
cause things to happen.
Mr. Voorhees. Well, Mr. Chairman, in this regard I can
speak, I think, probably only for myself about how I feel about
this, and I take the responsibility very seriously, and am
willing to apply whatever amount of effort is required.
Certainly, it would be helpful, I think, if there was
additional support. That would probably enable us to move
farther faster.
Senator Thomas. It is pretty hard for a volunteer group to
do something without some continuity. Maybe I misunderstood. I
thought one of the areas you did not address was the concession
fees, and the process for setting those. Was that right?
Mr. Voorhees. In the last year, we covered the issue of
streamlining the rate approval process.
Senator Thomas. Is that in place?
Mr. Voorhees. I think it is in process.
Mr. Fassler. In our testimony, the National Park
Hospitality Association testimony, we are disappointed that the
advisory board did not advance any new direction on creating a
less burdensome position to come up with new rates. They did
not make any new recommendations. They kept it the way it is at
this point in time.
Senator Thomas. The policy of payment within 2 years, is
that a troublesome thing? I guess the explanation of that is,
if the Government buys the resource it takes the Congress a
long time to move, but my guess is that there is very seldom
that that is the case. Why does it take so long for an exchange
of property among owners to get the money?
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any of those
transactions that have actually occurred to date.
Senator Thomas. That is a possibility, though. It is in the
rules, right?
Mr. Ring. It is in the rules, and the provision for that is
in the law as well, that the 2-year payment, because--and I
think what has driven that is the issue associated with having
transference associated with the operation of the park to have
an orderly transference with the association of the operation
of the park and provision of service for the visitor.
Senator Thomas. I would have to check. I do not think that
is spelled out in the law. Does anyone have any better insight
into that?
Mr. Fassler. The way I read the law, it says upon
termination, if you are not the successor, you get your money
immediately.
Senator Thomas. That is what the law says, I believe. Time
to approve proposed transfer of operation. Mr. Horn, is that a
problem?
Mr. Horn. It is. That is one of the areas that, when we
filed our comments on the regulations, it was our understanding
what Congress wanted was essentially less discretion with the
agency, and putting the burden on the agency to disapprove. In
other words, that if a proposed transfer is brought to the
agency's attention, once they make a determination that the
transferee is a qualified entity and that there are no apparent
major financial problems and/or resource complications, that
the transfer process should move very, very rapidly. That has
not been the experience so far for a couple of the small
operators under the new system, and some of these people are
looking at delays of 6, 8, and 10 months.
Again, part of that, I guess, we can attribute to the
changeover that Mr. Ring and others talked about. Again, some
of the folks understand that we are in this transition period,
that there is probably a need for some patience, but there is
just a concern that this sort of strung-out process not just
become normal, not just become accepted by everybody, not be
the ordinary course of event by the agency.
Given the fact that we thought that what you all intended
was that transfers be facilitated unless something jumped up,
particularly in the small ones, that said, gee, this is not
worth going ahead, that transfers should be approved as a more
matter of course than maybe has been the experience in the
past.
Senator Thomas. This bill was passed in 1998, and it is
soon going to be 3 years. What is your prediction in terms of
implementation? I suppose you can always think of something
more, but the general themes that are there that you now have
before you, when do you think you would say, well, we have
implemented these into the regulations, or the regulations
reflect the intent of the legislation?
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, The regulations were issued this
past year in 2000, and so there was a significant process of
getting to those. Certainly we are beginning to implement under
them and train our people in the use of them, and learn the
effect of them in practice. They have also been challenged in
court, and so we are working through those issues as well.
This is a process where, when you ask--we feel the regs are
effective, or we would not have put them out and finalized
them. We are going to be in a process over several years to get
our personnel trained and familiar with them, comfortable with
them, and to get our practices settled in, and I would be loath
to predict right now that it is going to happen in a year, or
in 2 years.
Senator Thomas. Of course, the issue is that you may think
they reflect the law, but a lot of us do not. That is part of
the reason for having this hearing, and we have heard a great
deal about it. For instance, defining the environmental aspect
in a contract, was that a policy in the law?
Mr. Ring. As I understand it, it was a provision that was
provided for as a criterion to evaluate.
Senator Thomas. Sure, it was provided for. The idea, for
example, that the Park Service Director can change the contract
during the course of the contract, was that there in the law?
Mr. Ring. There are many specifics in the regulations that
are not written into the law. The implementing regulations, by
their very nature, have to get into more specifics within the
discretion provided by the law.
Senator Thomas. They also have to be in keeping with the
intent.
Mr. Ring. That is correct, sir.
Senator Thomas. So I guess my point is, I do not think
people would agree that yes, we have issued regulations and so
that is all over. I do not think it is all over. I do not think
that the regulations, in the view of many of us, are in keeping
with the intent of the legislation, and we are going to have to
keep working at this, apparently, and I assume that you are
willing to consider that.
Mr. Ring. Sir, we are entirely open.
Senator Thomas. Who is the person that is on contract that
generally does this sort of stuff for you, the Park Service?
Mr. Ring. That generally does?
Senator Thomas. The development of regulations.
Mr. Ring. We have our Solicitor's Office and our
Concessions Program Branch, and we have under contract an
individual who was a long-time employee of the National Park
Service, Lars Hanson.
Senator Thomas. Is he still there, and will he continue to
be there?
Mr. Ring. He is still under contract at this point, sir.
Senator Thomas. He is the gentleman that basically put the
regulation together, is that right?
Mr. Ring. He was very instrumental in the development of
them, yes.
Senator Thomas. He never shows up here to talk about them.
Mr. Ring. He is not the witness for the Department, no,
sir.
Senator Thomas. But we hear about him a lot, and I think he
is part of the issue here. Would you define a little more how
you would set up, Mr. Cornelssen, this fiduciary checkpoint
idea?
Mr. Cornelssen. There are a lot of analogies in other
organizations within the Federal Government. One of the things
I think we realized when we finished our work, or we were doing
our work was, we are not going to reorganize the Park Service
for concessions.
I mean, if you were to do this the way a company would do
it, you would say, we are going to stovepipe this whole thing,
and it is going to have a corporate--one person at the top,
clear directions, clear decisions, but that would require a
significant organizational change, so the idea behind the
fiduciary checkpoints is kind of like a way of--I mean, for
example, for contract size, if you have contracts in excess of
$3 million per year in gross revenues, or a possessory interest
in excess of $5 million, whatever may be the case, that cannot
be a local decision. That cannot just be a regional decision.
It requires significant review and approval at a corporate
level, not to add bureaucracy, but to ensure that it is a
business-like function, and that it is done effectively.
Senator Thomas. However, you did recommend, did you not,
that there be some additional people placed in the Park Service
to deal with these things, additional or different people?
Mr. Cornelssen. I think both insourcing and outsourcing of
the appropriate kinds of business functions that you need for
this sort of thing.
Senator Thomas. But did you not suggest a CFO kind of a
person?
Mr. Cornelssen. We did not make that recommendation.
Mr. Voorhees. That was a recommendation of the board.
Senator Thomas. In other words, you mentioned two people
that would be basically financial folks.
Mr. Voorhees. That is essentially correct.
Senator Thomas. How do you react to that?
Mr. Ring. Sir, we are evaluating the recommendations of the
advisory board very carefully in discussion within the agency.
I think the proposal to establish a new associate is one that
has been supported, and we will be discussing pursuant to the
new director.
Senator Thomas. When do you expect to have a new director?
Mr. Ring. We hope very soon, sir, but we do not know.
Senator Thomas. I guess nobody knows at this point. That
is, I suppose, part of moving forward, however, is to get some
new people in place, the Secretary and Director and so on.
Do you think--I guess, Mr. Fassler, your statement would
indicate that the regulations you think are not consistent with
the intent of the law.
Mr. Fassler. That is my position. That is our position, and
that is basically why there is a lawsuit going on right now.
With your permission, I would like to ask Dick Ring a question
that might help answer a lot of questions.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Mr. Fassler. Dick, there are two questions I would ask you.
The first one is, if we reverse roles, if you were the
concessionaire and I was you, would you sign that standard form
contract that your agency had sent out, and if the answer is
yes, where would you do it?
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman and Joe, I look forward to working
on the program and trying to make as many improvements as we
can, but I am not at liberty to get into speculation on matters
that are in litigation right now. I am really constrained, and
the Justice Department really is the spokesperson for us in
those matters.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Horn, would you sign it?
Mr. Horn. I just worked on a contract, the reexecution with
one of my clients, and after some negotiation we finally
signed, after we wrote a three-page letter in which we outlined
our understanding of a half-a-dozen or more of the contract
provisions which we thought were ambiguous, and because we were
told by the agency that they could not negotiate with us, we
said, well, great, well, here is what we mean by affixing our
signature to this provision, so I think the contract in its
current form does need some appreciable amending, and some of
its more ambiguous provisions do need to be verified fairly
significantly before I would advise anybody just to simply sign
it as is.
Senator Thomas. We kind of set this up so there could be
some informal exchange. Why, Mr. Ring, did we get--you talked
about a bubble in the course of the testimony. Why did we get
that sort of backlog to the extent we did?
Mr. Ring. Sir, my understanding is that while the new law
was being promulgated, that we were extending contracts in
anticipation of the new statute, so we have a lot of contracts
that are expired and are operating under extensions, and we
have limited authority under the new law to grant further
extensions. We have some authority, but there are time limits
on those, and so we are looking at a significant workload
effort as opposed to just a normal turnover effort.
Senator Thomas. This bubble started long before the law was
put in place.
Mr. Ring. Yes, sir. I understand that, and until last fall
I spent 30 years in parks and the last 19 as a park
superintendent, and I am well aware of the difficulty in terms
of the timeliness of dealing with turnover in contracts.
One of the other issues, though, you mentioned, sir, is the
issue of resolving the possessory interest rollover,
particularly on the larger contracts, adds a significant
workload, particularly with the larger contracts, that has to
be incorporated into the process of bringing all of the
existing concessions contracts in under the new law.
Senator Thomas. If I were going to buy a motel, which I
have done, where do you suppose I would get the assessment of
the value?
Mr. Ring. I assume, sir, you would retain your own
appraisers in that regard.
Senator Thomas. From the private sector?
Mr. Ring. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Do you do that?
Mr. Ring. We have appraisers that we use that are both in-
house, as well as contract.
Senator Thomas. But if you were going to go outside and
out-source it, why, it should not be such a stumbling block,
should it? You could hire people to do that.
Mr. Ring. Yes, sir, we can. I do not believe that is the
issue with regards to--that is part of the workload, certainly,
but in most negotiations like that, unless there are absolutely
precise guidelines with regards to how an appraisal is done and
how value is established, then you often get different
appraisals coming in.
Senator Thomas. Like the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Ring. Certainly the Grand Canyon.
Senator Thomas. What was the difference there between your
appraisal and the professional appraisal?
Mr. Ring. The difference, as I understand it, was between,
I believe, the Government view on the possessory interest value
as $85 million, and the view on the part of the concessioner
was $195 million.
Senator Thomas. Quite a difference.
Mr. Ring. Yes, sir, and when we are operating under
determining what the value is under the rules set forth in the
previous law.
Senator Thomas. It was not the previous law, though. What
we are trying to do is suggest that you go into the private
sector and have this done.
Mr. Ring. Sir, we do bring in folks from the private sector
to do those appraisals.
Senator Thomas. You did on that one? That was the private
sector, the 45?
Mr. Ring. Yes, I believe we did.
Senator Thomas. Where did you find that assessor? Anyway,
that is interesting. The whole point is, we need to be moving
towards that, and how long do you think it is going to take you
to transform this into doing more private sector work, which is
the entire intent of this section of the law?
Mr. Ring. Well, in the case of those appraisals, we were
using private sector folks to come in. You can get different
appraisals, appraisers coming in with different appraised
values regardless of whether you use in-house or private sector
folks.
I think that the bubble issue is a very significant one,
and that is, there is a significant amount of workload
associated with doing those appraisals and then reconciling
them between the concessioner and the United States, and it is
one that is going to take a significant amount of time and a
significant amount of resources to accomplish.
Senator Thomas. What is your view, Mr. Voorhees, of trying
to speed up this idea of appraisals, if that is the problem?
Mr. Voorhees. Well, I would say, as quickly as they can
reasonably be done with the appropriate expertise in hand. I
mean, with the Park Service especially on this issue, it has
been I think an issue of application of the resources in order
to get yourself through the process. It is not so much an issue
of--it is an issue of applying skills to get you across the
threshold, if you will.
Now, in terms of the bubble of the number of standing
contracts that are on extension that need to be dealt with,
many of which have substantial possessory interests, I think it
is more important that the Park Service enable itself to
execute or review those contracts, negotiate those contracts,
and value the possessory interest with the level of skill that
is required to do it. It is more important to do that, than it
is to do it right now.
In terms of how quickly does that need to be, I am not sure
to me there is a clear answer. I would have to look and see
what is reasonable case-by-case, how long is this likely to
take.
The Grand Canyon issue is a substantial issue. The
difference in the valuations was absolutely tremendous, and I
think it has sweeping implications. There are a lot of smaller
issues that are part and parcel to how that happened that I
think have to be worked through, and they ought to be worked
through before the Park Service moves ahead.
Senator Thomas. I am sure that is true. On the other hand,
there are a relatively smaller number of major contracts, and
if you are letting yourself get all wrapped up in 600 instead
of 40, it seems like that is a little out of tune.
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to move ahead on all
of them.
Senator Thomas. Well, why? Why don't you move ahead on the
ones that are most important?
Mr. Ring. We are attempting to move on the ones that are
most important, but we have limited authority in terms of how
far we can extend.
Senator Thomas. You have been doing that for years. You
have been extending it in Teton Park for at least 6 or 8 years,
1 year at a time. You did not have any authority to do that, or
less than you do now, and my point is, it looks like you have
to set some priorities.
Mr. Ring. I agree with that, sir.
Senator Thomas. And move ahead with the things that have
the most impact on the overall picture, and put your emphasis
there instead of, well, we have got a big bubble, and we are
way back there. I know that is true. We all have bubbles, and
everybody has to make decisions, and everybody has to set
priorities and move on those things, and I guess I have the
feeling that that may not be happening.
In any event, you say you cannot do it until you get some
other problems resolved, but you know, we are soon going to be
3 years into this baby, so we are hopeful we can move forward.
We have kept you about long enough. Do you have any final
comments?
Mr. Horn. We just look forward to working with you, and
appreciate your continued interest and attention to this issue.
Mr. Voorhees. I guess I would say that, understanding and
accepting your frustration, nonetheless, from the perspective
of sitting on the board, and the conversations we have had,
there is real progress. There is real progress that perhaps was
not there before, and we are pretty encouraged that some of the
frustration, although understandable, should not be felt in the
future, because I think the process is going to move quite
quickly from here on.
Senator Thomas. I hope so, and I hope that happens.
Mr. Fassler.
Mr. Fassler. I would say that number 1, the National Park
Hospitality Association appreciates the fact that we have had
an oversight meeting on the regulations at this point, and I
extend our wish to the Park Service that together, if we could
sit down and go over the differences, the differences between
the law and the regulations, level-minded, level-headed people
can fix this, and we offer you our hand in doing that.
Senator Thomas. Well, let me say that I realize it is not
easy, and I realize it is difficult to change some things, but
I do think now for some time we have been focusing on the fact
that the park has these two purposes. One is to protect the
resource, and the other is to provide a visit. It is big
business.
I have to tell you that I am not persuaded that the
management structure is there, particularly. I am not sure you
are able to utilize fully the regional offices. I am not sure
you have really contracted with some people here at the top
level that are financially, you know, experienced. I do not
expect someone who has been in the Park Service doing the whole
natural resource thing all their lives to be able to step in
and do this, and neither should anyone else, and I am sure you
are moving in the right direction.
In your statement you talk about you are committed to this
and you are going to do that and you accept this, but we have
got to get it done here pretty soon, as a matter of fact, and
so we are here to help you.
One of the things that we should talk about some more, I
suppose, and maybe perhaps in our next meeting are things that
are in the law that are a hindrance. Should we be looking at
some revising of the things, and sometimes that is the case,
and certainly we ought to look at that, so any time you have
those ideas I think we are all committed to strengthening this
national resource of ours.
I think we are all knowledgeable that there is going to be
more visitation than there has been in the past, and that we
are going to have to do a better job of management. I hope the
business plans are being developed for the whole parks. The
ones I have seen deal also with concessions. That is a good
idea, and we need to do that. They need to really be business
plans, and I am pleased with the help we are getting on that in
some places, so in any event, this is the first of several
oversights we will have, because I think we are very
interested, number 1, in implementing to the best we can the
law to result in the better operation.
We are interested in knowing if the law needs to be
changed. We could also take a look at that, if that is the
case, but most of all I think we are interested in working
together to make the National Park System an even more
effective and efficient operation, and that is what we would
like to do.
So thank all of you very much for being here. There will
be, I suspect, some additional questions for the record. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to be
reconvened on March 29, 2001.]
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Historic Preservation, and Recreation,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room SD-628, 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. Sorry we
are late. We had a vote that came at the very same time.
I welcome you all to the subcommittee's oversight hearing
on the National Park Service's implementation of the management
policies and the procedures provided in a number of titles on
the Parks Omnibus Act. Last week we dealt, as many of you know,
with the concession title, and this week we would like to look
at the remaining titles.
Title I sought to create and maintain a highly professional
organization and workforce. This was a recommendation that was
put forth in the Vail Agenda in the 1990's. We wanted to ensure
that both the employees and the supervisors have the essential
skills to do their jobs. Specifically, we directed the
Secretary to develop a comprehensive program for National Park
Service employees that would address essential training skills.
Title II directs the Secretary to establish a scientific
program for the National Park Service to ensure that park
managers have solid natural resource and scientific
information. There are a variety of ways, obviously, to meet
this need. I am anxious to hear what the agency has
accomplished, and also hear any suggestions that you might have
that may make it easier to accomplish these goals.
As you know, there are 384 units, containing natural and
cultural resources. In making additions to the system, I think
we have to ensure that the potential candidates are appropriate
for inclusion. Title III establishes a procedure for studying
those potential additions, and directs the agency to develop a
prioritized list of areas for possible inclusion. This is an
issue, by the way, that I would like to talk about further at a
later time to see if there is any way to identify where we will
be in the next 20 years with regard to the park system, and
which resources should be considered as the highest priority
for us, and so on.
Title V authorizes the Secretary to collect fees to recover
transportation costs, and the sale of Golden Eagle Passports by
private vendors. We will see how that is going. I certainly
think there is a success story in the partnership between the
foundation and the Park Service.
As you know, the foundation was created in 1967 to
cultivate support from corporations, foundations, and
individuals. In the past 5 years, the Park Foundation has
raised over $78 million. Title VII amended the Park
Foundation's enabling legislation, to allow them to work with
local nonprofits and so forth.
The last title, title VIII, addresses law enforcement,
cooperative agreements, and the leasing of building structures
and lands within the park system.
The Park Service provides law enforcement across 384 park
units for over 400 million visitors annually, across the entire
range of landscapes and settings in the United States. There
have been three ``in the line of duty'' shooting deaths of park
rangers over the past 10 years. Certainly park rangers, and
U.S. Park Police who perform law enforcement duties, are at the
same risk level as any other law enforcement agency, and we are
proud of the work they do.
This record will remain open after the hearing so if there
are questions or other testimony, they will be able to be put
in the record.
So, that is why we are here, and we are anxious to get on
with it. We are going to ask all the witnesses to come to the
table at the same time, if you will please. Of course, as
usual, anything you can do to keep your testimony relatively
short will be appreciated. Your entire statements will be
included.
Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National Park Service.
Denny, nice to have you here. Mr. Peter Ward, chairman,
Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park Police Labor Committee;
Mr. Greg Jackson, vice chairman, Fraternal Order of Police; Mr.
Scot McElveen, board member for special concerns, Association
of National Park Rangers; and Mr. Jay Vestal, vice president,
Field Department, National Park Foundation. Nice to have you
here. The order will proceed as listed, if there is no
objection. So, Mr. Galvin, if you would like to begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Galvin. Thank you, Senator Thomas. I have a prepared
statement I will submit for the record. It covers all of the
titles. I will simply summarize the information provided to
update the committee.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Galvin. The omnibus bill of 1998, Public Law 105-391,
really was a landmark piece of legislation. We thank you for
your efforts in organizing it and your leadership in providing
for its passage.
In little more than 2 years since its enactment, we have
made considerable progress and, as you mentioned, a separate
hearing developed the concessions title. I will briefly
summarize the progress in the other titles in the act.
As you mentioned in your opening statement, title I deals
with the training and development program. Our training program
focuses both on specific skills and on the broader area of
management and supervision. Examples of specific skills are
maintenance skills for preserving historic buildings and law
enforcement skills. In addition, our training program is
organized to see that employees get the professional and
technical competencies required for given career fields, and we
have developed a group of competencies for each career field.
We are in the process of developing a measurement system to
monitor the effectiveness of our training efforts.
We have also been working to revise and update our
supervisory training courses, with curriculum focusing on
skills and knowledge needed to be an effective National Park
Service manager, but we have also been working with the Office
of Personnel Management to identify skills that any manager
needs on a government-wide basis. Obviously, some of our
managerial skills must be done in the context of our resource
management responsibility.
We have begun efforts to expand our management base by
advertising key vacancies in multiple job series. This allows
more candidates to compete. New supervisors are required to
attend 80 hours of supervisory training during their first
year. All other supervisors are required to attend 40 hours of
supervisory training per year. We have supplied all supervisors
with a desk reference on aspects of supervisory responsibility,
and shortly we will launch our mid-level management development
program designed to prepare employees to assume management
responsibilities throughout the National Park Service. That was
advertised to all sources, and the advertisement closes on
Friday. So, we expect to be bringing in people as part of the
mid-level management program. We already have a good intake
management program.
Another section of this title, building on the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1992, required each park to
develop a 5-year strategic plan and annual performance plans to
make the information available to the public. All of those
things have been done. Each park each year does make available
to the public its annual performance plan and its annual
performance report. Each park does a press release, letting the
public know that that plan is available and also outlining its
major budget categories in accordance with the specifications
set forward in the bill.
Title II of the bill sets forth a scheme for natural
resource management in the national parks. It greatly benefits
the National Park Service by clarifying and emphasizing that it
is important to encourage science in parks and that effective
resource stewardship requires sound, high quality science. The
National Park Service has developed the Natural Resource
Challenge, a comprehensive strategy. Funding for the third year
of the Natural Resource Challenge is included in the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget. The first 2 years have
been nearly fully funded by the Congress.
As a result of the Natural Resource Challenge, we have
significantly accelerated the acquisition of inventories. We
have initiated monitoring in the first 5 of 32 monitoring
networks encompassing the 270 park management units that have
significant natural resources. Together, these will provide a
large piece of the information needed for science-based
decision making.
Title II also encourages us to reach out to partners and
the need to ensure that science is welcomed in parks. We have
set up a system of cooperative ecosystem study units. We are
beginning to set up a series of learning centers. We have a
Sabbatical in the Parks program that encourages academics on
their sabbaticals to do work in parks. And we have simplified
the research permit and reporting system--in fact, it is up on
the Internet--to respond to the spirit of Title II of the act.
Learning Centers focus on providing a place for researchers
and students from academia, government, and other science
groups to gather, exchange ideas, and advance the frontiers of
their scientific knowledge. These provide dormitory and office
space in existing buildings to make use of parks by outside
scientists more practical and encouraging.
The Cooperative Ecological Study Units provide a key means
by which parks actively reach into the academic and
governmental research communities to obtain scientific
information and to encourage the use of parks as places in
which to conduct research, research that is often funded by
organizations other than the National Park Service. These units
are interagency in nature. There will be 10 in place by the end
of 2001 that incorporate 70 partner organizations, some of
those historically minority colleges and universities. These
are selected, incidentally, as a result of requests for
proposals, so they are competitively evaluated. Universities
that have been successful in the first go-round include
Northern Arizona University, University of Montana, University
of Tennessee, University of Rhode Island, each concentrating on
one of the 32 monitoring networks set up in the National Park
System.
Title III codifies a system for adding new National Park
System areas. The 106th Congress authorized a total of 23
studies. These studies consider potential heritage areas and
broad themes and sites, in addition to looking at new units of
the National Park System.
In fiscal year 2001, the appropriation for studies was $1.3
million. We have funding available to begin all of the
authorized studies to date. These studies are proceeding,
applying the criteria that have been in place and clearly
identified in the omnibus bill. Currently, Mr. Chairman, we
have 41 studies ongoing. 33 of those ask us to consider
potential national park units. The historical experience is
about one-quarter of those will become national park units. I
know in passing this bill that one of the reasons for
encapsulating this in law was so that the Congress would have
better control over what is studied. I believe that the 2-year
experience has been that that has indeed been the case.
Title V of the bill authorizes transportation fees to be
charged and transportation solutions that will preserve
resources in our care, while providing a high quality
experience for all of our visitors. Four parks have established
transportation fees under this authority: Bryce Canyon, Zion,
Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park, and Rocky Mountain
National Park. Each of these do this in a slightly different
way, but it is seamless to the visitor.
Transportation fee proceeds are retained by the parks and
expended for costs associated with providing transportation
services. In fiscal year 2001, these proceeds are estimated to
be $3.2 million.
We have found that fees alone cannot fully underwrite and
sustain transportation systems. However, the fees that visitors
pay for these systems do go a considerable way towards
offsetting operating costs associated with these systems.
The second part of this title asked us to complete an
agreement to apportion the revenue generated by the vendor
sales of Golden Eagle Passports. We have not completed that
agreement. Generally the reason we have not is that the Park
Pass has considerably deflated the number of Golden Eagle
Passports that we sell. The sales of Golden Eagle Passports in
national park units have dropped from about $9.9 million to $3
million, and our estimate is that this year the revenue will
drop to $1.5 million. In the next title, I will talk about the
National Park Passport program.
But one of the things we are doing, Mr. Chairman, with the
cooperation of the Foundation is engaging a private
organization to study the entire fee structure as it has been
implemented under the fee demonstration program and under the
provisions of this act. We hope to get recommendations out of
that that will make the fee program more consistent, more
seamless to the public, and still generate the same amount of
revenues that the very successful fee program and title VI of
this bill have encouraged.
Title VI of the bill authorized the National Park Pass. It
went on sale for the first time on April 18, 2000 at more than
224 National Park System areas, 164 sites of 29 cooperating
associations, on-line, on an 800 number, and with seven on-line
retail partners, including the American Automobile Association,
L.L. Bean, REI, Kampgrounds of America, and Rand McNally. Eight
additional on-line partners have joined these original
retailers. As of January 31, about a 9-month period, 245,000
passes have been sold, generating more than $12 million in
revenue.
I know, Mr. Chairman, you have one of these of your own,
but this is the Park Pass package. It includes a map of the
National Park System and it does incorporate the art, in this
instance photography, required in the bill.
The introduction of the pass began with Today Show coverage
on April 18. Other major media outlets have contributed
advertising for the pass. We are working with the National Park
Foundation to expand the media attention for the National Park
Pass.
The new pass, the 2001 pass, was unveiled in December. It
features Acadia National Park. The first National Parks Pass
``Experience Your America'' photo contest, sponsored by the
Park Service, the National Park Foundation, and Kodak, was
announced in December. This initial contest, which ended March
15, generated more than 4,500 entries. The winning image will
be on the 2002 passport. That was also encouraged by the
Omnibus Act.
This year, we will increase the retail sales offerings of
the pass. Many of these retail outlets, because of the April
introduction, did not have time to put the pass into their
holiday catalogs. This year they will be able to put it into
their holiday catalogs. Most of these catalog sales companies
generate 75 percent of their sales through that catalog and in
the last quarter of the year. So, we anticipate increasing
sales. We are pretty close to the business plan done by a
private organization with the Foundation on the sales of the
National Park Pass.
I will not testify on title VII. Mr. Vestal will testify
with respect to the follow-up by the National Park Foundation.
I will simply say that our relationship with the Foundation
continues to expand. Revenues from donations to the Foundation
continue to grow. Many of the projects and initiatives that we
implement, including some in this act, would not be possible
without them.
Finally, title VIII is a series of miscellaneous
provisions, Mr. Chairman. The first one, to evaluate National
Park Service law enforcement programs; the second, to establish
leases for use of buildings and associated property that are
part of the park system; and the third gives us authority to
establish agreements for cooperative management of the National
Park System.
Section 801 directed the Secretary to conduct a study of
National Park Service law enforcement programs. A study team of
national park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers was
assembled in February 1999. A draft report was submitted to the
Secretary's office in October 1999. The final report was
transmitted to the committees on March 8, 2000. This is the
Park Police portion of the report. A separate report was done
for the park rangers.
U.S. Park Police have jurisdiction in three urban centers
of the National Park System: Washington, D.C., San Francisco,
and several areas in New York City. Park rangers are
responsible for performing law enforcement and other services
in all other areas of the National Park System. A ranger force
of approximately 1,600 and a Park Police force of 650 manage
the law enforcement, resource protection, and emergency needs
of both people and parks.
Since submission of the study, the U.S. Park Police have
made some progress in a number of areas. Pay schedule
simplification, external administrative pension costs, and
funding for a study of a comprehensive radio system for the
National Capitol Region have been accomplished.
As directed in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act, the
Park Police are preparing a comprehensive financial plan. The
National Academy of Public Administration is currently
reviewing the mission, staffing, and spending patterns of the
U.S. Park Police. Its report will be completed by July 2001.
Section 802 of the act authorizes the Park Service to grant
leases for the use of buildings and associated properties. In
effect, this expanded the lease authority of the National Park
Service from simply historic structures to other types of non-
historic property. This new authority makes all qualified NPS
buildings and associated property subject to lease under
certain conditions. We have received an estimated $1 million in
lease receipts in 2001, and we estimate that that amount will
increase in future years.
The proposed regulations for our leasing were published on
December 12, 2000. The public comment period closed on February
12 of this year. All comments received were supportive of the
proposed regulations. Revised regulations are being processed
by the NPS for submission to the Office of Management and
Budget for final review.
Finally, the miscellaneous provisions section authorizes
cooperative management. This is an area that began at Redwoods
National Park and adjacent State parks in California. Under the
new authority, the Intermountain Region and the Texas State
parks have signed a cooperative management agreement that
serves as an umbrella and guide for local agreements between
National Park Service units in Texas and Texas State Parks.
Specific agreements are in draft for Amistad National
Recreation Area and Seminole Canyon State Park. The agreement
focuses on seeking ways for both areas to work together to
protect and manage cultural and natural resources.
Another local agreement is expected to be completed between
Lyndon Johnson National Historical Park and Lyndon Johnson
State Historical Park. An example of the fruits of that
cooperation include a joint publication of the LBJ Newsletter,
collection and allocation of fees from bus tours, and a
revision to the folder produced by Harpers Ferry Center to
reflect the history, activities, and opportunities for both
State and national park areas.
This authority can also be used in natural resource
management activities, Mr. Chairman. The South Florida Exotic
Plant Management Team already exists as a partnership with the
State of Florida. The Lake Mead National Recreation Area exotic
plant management program includes a partnership with Clark
County, Nevada.
We believe the efforts outlined here today are a
significant start in implementing the provisions of the Omnibus
Act of 1998, Public Law 105-391. As I said in my opening
statement, we believe this is a significant addition to the
landmark legislation of the National Park System and materially
improves our ability to manage the system in a logical and
thoughtful manner.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to update you on the
National Park Service's accomplishments relating to P.L. 105-391, the
National Parks Omnibus Act of 1998. Last week we testified before this
subcommittee on our implementation of management policies and
procedures to comply with the provisions of Title IV of the Act,
National Park Service Concessions Management. At this hearing we will
update you on the remaining seven titles of the Act.
The National Park Service (NPS) is working to make progress in each
of the areas outlined in the Act. In the little more than two years
since enactment we have initiated programs and studies called for in
some titles and undertaken actions to address many of the other
provisions. Let me briefly summarize the progress we have made in
implementing each title of the Act.
TITLE I: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CAREER DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND
MANAGEMENT
The NPS has an active training and development program. Each of our
training facilities focuses on developing specific skills, such as
maintenance skills for preserving historic buildings and law
enforcement skills. Training opportunities are available to all NPS
employees in all career fields throughout the organization. The
training we provide our employees is based on the professional and
technical competencies required for given career fields.
We are expanding our employee development efforts by reworking our
training and development organization into a more flexible unit
responsive to NPS leadership and mission goals. We will be developing a
measurement system to monitor the effectiveness of our training
efforts. We will also focus on using more interdisciplinary teams that
are capable of responding to the changing needs of the NPS.
We have also been working to revise and update our supervisory
training courses with curriculum focusing on the skills and knowledge
needed to be an effective NPS manager. The courses offered in
supervision, management, and leadership are developed to provide
enhancement in competencies (basic skills and abilities) that the
Office of Personnel Management has identified for employees government-
wide. Some of these courses are NPS specific in order to enhance
managerial skills in the context of our resource management
responsibilities. Other courses focus on general management and
supervision principles and are open to applicants from other federal
agencies as they seek to improve their fundamental supervisory,
management, and leadership skills.
We have begun efforts to expand our management base by advertising
key vacancies, including superintendent positions, in multiple job
series, including the general management series. This allows more
candidates to compete and qualify for available positions and
emphasizes the management skills necessary to perform the job duties.
We are coupling that effort with expanded supervisory training. New
supervisors are required to attend 80 hours of supervisory training
during their first year. All other supervisors and managers are
required to attend 40 hours of supervisory training per year. We have
supplied all supervisors and managers with a desk reference on the
aspects of supervisor responsibilities. In Spring 2001, we are
launching our mid-level management development program, designed to
prepare a cadre of employees ready to assume management
responsibilities throughout the NPS. We also are beginning a best
practices program to identify ideas and actions in other organizations,
inside and outside government, that could be transferable to the NPS.
Each park is required to develop a five-year strategic plan and
annual performance plans consistent with the servicewide strategic
plan. We also require parks to report annual performance based on those
plans and to track performance information during the year. All of the
parks developed strategic plans in FY 2001, submitted results showing
FY 2000 actual performance and are updating FY 2002 annual performance
plans. The performance information provided by the parks is
incorporated into the NPS strategic plan, annual performance plans and
annual performance reports.
TITLE II: NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM RESOURCE INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT
This title greatly benefits the NPS by clarifying and emphasizing
that it is important to encourage science in parks and that effective
resource stewardship requires sound, high-quality science. NPS has
developed the Natural Resource Challenge, a comprehensive strategy that
actively implements the purposes and vision of Title II through a wide
range of activities designed to increase the emphasis on science in the
use, management, and protection of parks. Funding for the third year of
the Natural Resource Challenge is included in the President's FY 2002
budget.
Other activities that have been undertaken include development and
application of a benefits-sharing policy with respect to research in
parks that may lead to commercial applications and development of a
strategy to protect sensitive park resource information in compliance
with Section 207 of the Act.
To expand on the Natural Resource Challenge components designed to
implement this title, we are significantly accelerating the acquisition
of inventories servicewide and initiating monitoring in the first five
of 32 monitoring networks encompassing 270 park units. Together, these
will provide a large piece of the information needed for science-based
decision-making. Two other key tenets of Title II are also reflected in
the challenge--the need to reach out to partners and the need to ensure
that science is welcomed in parks. Learning Centers, Cooperative
Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs), the Sabbatical in the Parks Program,
and the Research Permit and Reporting System together respond to these
tenets.
The Learning Centers focus on providing a place for researchers and
students from academia, government, and other science groups to gather,
exchange ideas, and advance the frontiers of their scientific
knowledge. Providing temporary dormitory and office space also makes
use of parks by outside scientists more practical and encouraging.
The CESUs provide a key means by which parks actively reach into
the academic and governmental research communities to obtain scientific
information and to encourage the use of parks as places in which to
conduct research--research that is often funded by many organizations
other than the NPS. The interagency nature of the CESUs also
facilitates more cooperative approaches to shared research needs.
The Sabbatical in the Parks Program reaches out to university
scientists through the Internet, encouraging them to consider using
parks as research and learning places during their university
sabbaticals and providing parks with technical assistance during their
stays.
The Research Permit and Reporting System now provides an easily
accessed, Internet-based place for research scientists, resource
management scientists, interpreters, and others to obtain information
about park research needs and to learn about past results and current
research activities being conducted in parks. This system informs
research scientists about conditions associated with conducting
research in parks and provides these researchers a paperless
opportunity to both apply for specific park research and collecting
permits and also submit their required annual research progress
reports.
TITLE III: STUDY REGARDING ADDITION OF NEW NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AREAS
The 106th Congress authorized a total of 23 special resource
studies. Several of these studies consider potential heritage areas or
broad themes and sites that involve potential national historic
landmark designations rather than new units of the National Park
System.
In FY 1999, the appropriation for Special Studies was $825,000. In
FY 2000, this amount was increased by $500,000, but this increase was
identified for a study of the Vicksburg Campaign Trail that was not
authorized until November 2000. In FY 2001, the appropriation for
studies was $1,325,000 but committee reports specifically directed that
certain projects be included within the available funds, and earmarked
$300,000 to one specific study.
We have funding available to begin all of the authorized studies to
date. These studies are proceeding, applying the criteria that have
been in place for many years and are now clearly identified in P.L.
105-391. We also will be examining the full life cycle operation and
maintenance costs that would result from a newly created or expanded
park unit or an additional NPS funding responsibility. We have not yet
had adequate experience with the process of identifying candidates for
study in advance to evaluate what impact it is having on decisions
about what action to take on the completed studies and future
directions for the National Park System.
TITLE V: FEES FOR USE OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
The NPS continues to find better transportation solutions that will
preserve the resources in our care while providing a high quality
experience for all our visitors. We currently have four parks that have
established transportation fees under the new transportation fee
authority: Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, Lyndon B.
Johnson National Historical Park and Rocky Mountain National Park.
Three parks are collecting transportation fees with their entrance
fees. Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park is collecting a
separate transportation fee. Transportation fee proceeds are retained
by the parks and expended for costs associated with providing
transportation services. In FY 2001 these proceeds are estimated to be
$3,200,000. We have discovered that transportation systems are costly
to operate and maintain. We do believe that the expense is worthwhile
but have found that user fees alone cannot fully underwrite and sustain
transportation systems. In many parks, in order to adequately operate
and maintain transportation systems and shuttles, we must rely on
multiple funding sources.
At this time we have not completed an agreement to apportion the
revenue generated by vendor sales of Golden Eagle Passports.
Historically, most Golden Eagle Passport sales have occurred in
National Parks (FY 1999 NPS Golden Eagle Sales: $9,954,794; USFS Golden
Eagle Sales $603,900). The new National Parks Pass addresses this need
and for many of our visitors has served as a replacement for the Golden
Eagle Passport. As part of our efforts to plan and implement the
National Parks Pass we developed a business plan and determined that it
would not be prudent or post effective to promote vendor sales of two
similar, competing passes. It was also anticipated, and sales data has
since confirmed, that availability of the National Parks Pass would
lead to a large decrease in sales of Golden Eagle Passports. We will
continue to determine the roles each of the passes play in our overall
fee program. Also, we will work with the other land management agencies
to market the passes in ways that will avoid confusion as much as
possible, provide the maximum flexibility to visitors, and result in
the highest level of benefits to the agencies.
TITLE VI: NATIONAL PARK PASSPORT PROGRAM
The inaugural National Parks Pass, featuring Yellowstone National
Park, went on sale on April 18, 2000, at more than 224 National Park
System gates, at 164 sites of 29 cooperating associations, on-line at
www.nationalparks.org, through 1-888-GOPARKS, and through seven online
retail partners including AAA, L L Bean, REI, KOA, and Rand McNally.
Since the initial release, eight additional online partners have joined
these original retailers. As of January 31, 2001, 245,000 passes have
been sold, generating more than $12 million in revenue.
The design of the pass, particularly the map communicating the
depth and breadth of our National Park System, immediately garnered
visitor and employee praise. The introduction of the pass began with
Today Show coverage on April 18. USA Weekend, Time Magazine, The New
York Times, and other media partners have contributed advertising for
the pass. Many National Parks generated stories within their local
media markets with activities introducing the pass to their communities
and region.
Travel and family interest stories about the pass continued
throughout the year. In the autumn and early winter, these efforts
focused on promoting the pass as a holiday gift, and resulted in more
than 100 stories.
In December, the NPS unveiled the 2001 pass, featuring Acadia
National Park. As directed by P.L. 105-391, the first National Parks
Pass ``Experience Your America'' Photo Contest, sponsored by the NPS,
National Park Foundation, and Kodak, was announced in December. This
initial contest, which ended March 15, generated more than 4,500
entries. The winning image for the 2002 pass will be announced in May,
and the 2003 Photo Contest will be launched at the end of May.
This year, we will increase the retail sales offerings of the pass.
Our retail partners' holiday catalogues were set prior to the April
2000 kick-off of the pass but we look forward to having the pass
featured this year. The NPS Reservation Service offered the pass for
sale beginning in March. In May we are planning the coordination of
pass renewals online, by mail, or by phone. We are examining expanding
retail and consignment sales for the pass. In order for such sales of
the pass to the public to be successful we must resolve issues
concerning validation, inventory, expiration, and personalization of
the pass. We have begun to investigate these issues.
In addition, our partner in managing the pass program, the National
Park Foundation, has secured commitments from its top corporate donors
to develop an array of advertising and promotional support for the
National Parks Pass, beginning this spring and continuing for the next
three years. Through these promotional efforts we will reach a
significantly larger number of American families this year than last.
TITLE VII: NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION SUPPORT
We defer to the National Park Foundation regarding this title but
we continue to recognize and deeply appreciate the support that we have
received from the Foundation in the past and look forward to continued
support in the future. Many of the projects and initiatives that we
implement, including some in this act, would not be possible without
them.
TITLE VIII: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This title includes three parts, a requirement to evaluate NPS law
enforcement programs, to establish leases for use of buildings and
associated property administered as part of the National Park System,
and to establish agreements for cooperative management of National Park
System units that are adjacent to State or local park areas.
Section 801 directs the Secretary, utilizing a multidisciplinary
analysis, to conduct a study to fully evaluate the needs, shortfalls,
and requirements of NPS law enforcement programs. A study team of
national park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers was assembled in
February 1999, and a draft report was submitted to the Secretary's
Office in October 1999. The final report was transmitted to the
committees specified in the act on March 8, 2000. Included in the study
are suggestions to address shortfalls; justifications for all
suggestions, and a statement of adverse impacts should identified needs
remain unmet.
The National Park Service Law Enforcement Programs Study was
presented to Congress in two volumes: one addressing the U.S. Park
Police program and the other addressing the field protection rangers.
The U.S. Park Police have jurisdiction in three urban centers of the
National Park System: Washington, D.C., Golden Gate National Recreation
Area in San Francisco, and Gateway National Recreation Area in New
York. Park rangers are responsible for performing law enforcement,
along with fire fighting, search and rescue, emergency medical care,
resource management, and other services in all other areas of the
National Park System. A ranger force of approximately 1,600 and Park
Police force of 650 manage the law enforcement, resource protection and
emergency needs of both people and parks.
Since submission of the study, the U.S. Park Police have made
progress in a number of areas: pay schedule simplification, external
administrative pension costs, and funding for a study for a
comprehensive radio system for the National Capitol Region. As directed
in the FY 2001 Appropriations Act, the U.S. Park Police are preparing a
comprehensive financial plan. The National Academy of Public
Administration is currently reviewing the mission, staffing
requirements, and spending patterns of the U.S. Park Police. Its report
will be completed by July 2001.
Over the last few years, land management agencies have
institutionalized firefighter and public safety as the paramount
concern in every fire situation. We now plan to establish the same
priorities for our law enforcement workforce and the visiting public.
We will continue to update Congress on actions taken to address these
issues and progress made towards reaching the goals outlined in the
reports.
Section 802 of the act authorizes the NPS to grant leases for the
use of buildings and associated property located within areas of the
National Park System and retain the receipts without further
appropriation for infrastructure needs in park units. This new
authority supplements prior NPS authority that permitted the leasing of
only historic property and limited types of non-historic property. The
new authority makes all qualified NPS buildings and associated property
subject to lease under certain conditions. We estimate receiving about
$1,000,000 in lease receipts in 2001 with that amount increasing in
future years as the leasing program is further implemented. NPS leasing
activities will be handled by a new Associate Director for Partnerships
and Business Practices, a position that will be established once the
new NPS Director is in place.
On December 12, 2000, the NPS published for public comment proposed
regulations that would implement the new leasing authority. The public
comment period closed on February 12, 2001. All comments received were
supportive of the proposed regulations, A number of technical
improvements were suggested.
On March 14, 2001, the NPS Task Force that drafted the proposed
regulations met to review the public comments and recommend final
regulations. Revised regulations are presently being processed by NPS
for submission to the Office of Management and Budget for final review.
We believe that the new regulations will provide the means for NPS to
expand its leasing activities and take greater economic advantage of
extraneous park buildings without impairing park resources.
The NPS has successfully implemented the cooperative management
authority under Section 802 in a limited number of park areas. In
December 2000, the Intermountain Region and the Texas State Parks
signed a cooperative management agreement that serves as an umbrella
and guide for local agreements between NPS units in Texas and Texas
State Parks (TPW). The agreement calls on NPS and TPW staff to work
together to develop agreements regarding collaborative opportunities
for cooperative management, training, visitor protection and public
safety, public information, resource management, and other areas. NPS
and TPW will cooperate in the operation of sites when feasible by
sharing resources, including but not limited to, vehicles, equipment
and staff.
At this time a draft agreement has been prepared between Amistad
National Recreation Area and Seminole Canyon State Park. The agreement
focuses on seeking ways for both areas to work together to protect and
manage cultural and natural resources. Panther Cave is a well-known and
valuable cultural resource that includes hundreds of petroglyphs but
can be accessed by the lake, and has been subject to periodic
vandalism. Working together, the two areas hope to use remote sensing
to enhance protection and provide for better law enforcement response
time in an effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate vandalism,
especially when accessed by boaters.
Another local agreement is expected to be completed in April
between Lyndon Johnson National Historical Park and Lyndon Johnson
State Historical Park that will ensure the continuation of the spirit
in which both parks were established, and further the wishes and
expectations of President Johnson and his family. Areas of cooperation
will include, but not be limited to, joint publication of the LBJ
newsletter, collection and allocation of fees from bus tours, and a
revision to the minifolder produced by Harpers Ferry Center to reflect
the history, activities and opportunities for both the state and
national park areas.
Another place where NPS has used cooperative management authority
is Redwoods National Park. Redwoods National Park is contiguous to
three California state parks, Del Norte State Park, Jedediah Smith
Redwoods State Park, and Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. Because
both managing entities work so closely together, there is often a need
to share resources. Critical services, such as trash pick up and road
paving, are shared between the state of California and the NPS in a
manner that is both cost-effective and protective of park resources.
In natural resource management activities, NPS is engaged in
several cooperative activities that can utilize this authority. The
South Florida Exotic Plant Management Team already exists as a
partnership with the State of Florida, currently focused on NPS lands.
Over time this partnership could expand to include state and local
parklands in ways that will benefit all parks. The Lake Mead National
Recreation Area exotic plant management program includes a partnership
with Clark County, Nevada. Through this partnership county funds and
the Lake Mead management team are employed in cooperative eradication
and restorations activities in a county nature preserve, a county
wetlands park, a Las Vegas city preserve, and with planning for
cooperation with a nearby state park.
Mr. Chairman, we have taken many steps to implement the provisions
of P.L. 105-391. We are always striving for ways to improve our ability
to manage the resources entrusted to us. We believe that the efforts we
have outlined here today will help us improve the overall management of
the National Park System.
This completes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any
questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. Your responsibility is
more broad than the others, and I appreciate your overview of
the issues.
Mr. Ward.
STATEMENT OF PETER J. WARD, CHAIRMAN, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, U.S. PARK POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE
Mr. Ward. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Peter Ward,
Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park Police
Labor Committee. Our organization represents officers,
investigators, and detectives of the U.S. Park Police. I have
been a U.S. Park Police officer for 15 years. Our organization
is grateful to you for the opportunity to testify today about
title VIII of the Omnibus Act.
The leadership provided by you, Mr. Chairman, and the
members of this committee has laid the foundation upon which a
more professional law enforcement program can be built. The
preparation of the report, commonly referred to in the Park
Service as the Thomas Report, required by the act has forced
the Park Service to confront some long-ignored problems with
its law enforcement program. As a result, there is a consensus
building within the Park Service that the problems with the
program must be fixed.
In addition to the Thomas Report, two independent reports
have been published detailing problems with the law enforcement
program. One of them is titled ``The National Park Service
Strategic Counter Terrorism Report,'' prepared by Booz, Allen
and Hamilton, and ``Policing the National Parks--21st Century
Requirements'' prepared by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police.
Last year our organization and the Fraternal Order of
Police, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, issued a joint statement
regarding the law enforcement program. In this statement, we
listed the problems and proposed some solutions to the things
going on in the law enforcement program. We came together
because we concluded that the problems confronting front-line
rangers and Park Police officers were virtually identical and
that something had to be done.
These reports come from a variety of perspectives, but they
all in one way or another identify the same problems and
propose similar remedies. Our organization supports the
conclusions and recommendations of these reports. I
respectfully request that our joint statement that the Rangers
Lodge and the Park Police Labor Committee issued be included in
the record.
Senator Thomas. Without objection.
[The joint statement of the U.S. Park Police Labor
Committee and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge follows:]
PREPARED JOINT STATEMENT OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (UNITED
STATES PARK POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE) AND THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
(UNITED STATES PARK RANGERS LODGE)
On February 5, 2000 the Fraternal Order of Police, United States
Park Rangers Lodge and the Fraternal Order of Police, United States
Park Police Labor Committee in the interest of the safety and the
welfare of our memberships Law Enforcement Rangers and United States
Park Police Officers of the National Park Service represented by our
respective organizations, as well as the millions of visitors to our
National Parks, do hereby make the following joint declarations and
statements, regarding--``The National Park Service Law Enforcement
Rangers and the United States Park Police--The Two Components of the
National Park Service Law Enforcement Program.''
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Park Service Law Enforcement Program consists of two
distinct law enforcement resources, which are: (1) The National Park
Service Law Enforcement Rangers and (2) The United States Park Police.
The National Park Service benefits from having a law enforcement
program consisting of two entities whose distinct missions and
specialties complement each other. The organizational benefit of having
these two distinct law enforcement resources is the operational
flexibility to provide law enforcement services in a park system that
has diverse operational requirements.
The National Park Service Law Enforcement Program needs to be
improved in order to provide adequate protection for the 286 million
yearly visitors, employees and the priceless cultural and natural
resources under the care of the NPS. Given the low level of operational
resources available to commissioned law enforcement rangers and United
States Park Police officers they do an outstanding job. However, the
lack of law enforcement operational resources is a formidable obstacle
that prevents frontline officers and rangers from being able to provide
an adequate level of protection. The National Park Service law
enforcement program suffers from the following operational resource
deficiencies:
Staffing shortages
Disjointed command structure
Inadequate communications systems
Inadequate Information Technology
Inadequate security and surveillance systems
Inadequate training
Inadequate rules and regulations
Inadequate facilities
Inadequate vehicles and equipment
Generally to address these operational resource deficiencies it
will be necessary to:
Provide the resources required to correct operational
resource deficiencies
Modify the command structure of the National Park Service
Law Enforcement Program
Require that the two components of National Park Service law
enforcement attain and maintain accreditation from the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc,
no later than September 30, 2001.
Establish a new office entitled, ``National Park Service Law
Enforcement Program Compliance Authority''
Modify the National Park Service budget structure
Increase ability to recruit and retain highly qualified
personnel for each law enforcement component
We hope that you take the time to review our detailed
recommendations that follow.
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve
``unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the
national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of
this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners
to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation
and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.''
(Source: IFY 2000, National Park Service, Strategic Plan) To accomplish
this mission, since its establishment in 1916, the National Park
Service has employed two distinct law enforcement resources, which are:
1. The National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers.
2. The United States Park Police.
Although each of these law enforcement entities within the National
Park Service functions independently, with distinct missions, they have
similar goals and objectives.
The law enforcement program of the National Park Service should be
guided by the following three principles:
Principle #1: The National Park Service should maintain an
effective and efficient professional law enforcement program with a
primary responsibility to protect the visitors to, and resources of,
the National Park system.
To achieve this principle the Service should employ only highly
trained and professional law enforcement officers. These officers
should have (a) the mission of preventing, investigating, and detecting
criminal activity; (b) the responsibility, when appropriate, to
apprehend violators of rules, regulations and laws; and (c) the
obligation to provide assistance of a non-enforcement nature to our
visitors and employees. All these actions should be undertaken in an
efficient and professional manner.
Principle #2: The Service should entrust law enforcement authority
only to law enforcement professionals possessing appropriate aptitude
and moral character.
To achieve this principle the Service should recruit the best
possible candidates, train these candidates appropriately, and provide
them with appropriate written guidelines and policy to effectively
perform their duties.
Principle #3: The professional law enforcement program of the
National Park Service should maintain the highest standards of honesty,
integrity, and conduct.
To achieve this principle the Service should establish and maintain
a continuous evaluation process of its law enforcement programs and
officers.
The National Park Service benefits from having a law enforcement
program consisting of two entities whose distinct missions and
specialties complement each other. The organizational benefit of this
system gives the National Park Service the operational flexibility to
provide law enforcement services in a park system that has diverse
operational requirements--from wilderness areas to urban areas. Having
two separate and equal components each with distinct specialties and
missions is the foundation upon which the future success of the
National Park Service Law Enforcement Program will be built.
The National Park Service's dual law enforcement component, with
their distinct missions reflects the organizational structure of state
and local law enforcement. State and local law enforcement have
organized themselves in numerous ways to provide professional law
enforcement services in the wide variety of geographic and demographic
areas that make up our country (i.e. sheriffs, county police, municipal
police, town police, city police, state troopers, highway patrols,
constables, state bureaus of investigation, Texas Rangers, etc.). There
is no state that has only one law enforcement agency. States have seen
the benefit of having different types of agencies organize operations
based on the needs of the communities they serve. Given the diversity
of the National Parks the mission of the National Park Service and the
citizens of the United States would not be well served by a one-size
fits all approach to law enforcement.
Nothing in this declaration should in any way be construed as
support for a melding of the two components of National Park Service
Law Enforcement constituted by the National Park Service Law
Enforcement Rangers and the United States Park Police. Additionally,
nothing in this declaration indicates support for the alteration of the
current geographic areas of responsibility of either of the two
components of NPS law enforcement. The current geographic areas of
responsibility of the two components of National Park Service Law
Enforcement fulfill the needs of the National Park Service, are
reasonable and should not be altered.
New park areas should be assigned to the law enforcement component
whose organizational structure and mission best suits the needs of the
National Park Service. Any change to the current areas of
responsibility or any decision regarding new park areas should be based
upon an evaluation system jointly developed by the National Park
Service Law Enforcement Rangers and the United States Park Police. This
evaluation system should be based on the historical missions of the two
components of National Park Service Law Enforcement, solicitation of
public comments and consideration of the following factors: acreage,
location in relationship to other park resources, geography,
demography, staffing requirements, criminal incident trends, number of
large national events, number of ``First Amendment'' events, level of
political and media activity, dignitary security mission requirements,
crowd control mission requirements, visitation--(numbers & patterns),
emergency medical/rescue/fire service structure, traffic control
requirements, terrorist threat levels, resource types and specialized
unit services required.
COMMON PROBLEMS
The safety of our respective memberships, visitors and some of our
Nation's most treasured natural and cultural resources are in peril
because the National Park Service does not administer its law
enforcement program professionally. The lack of operational resources
and inadequate administration has degraded the ability of frontline
National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers and United States Park
Police Officers to perform their vital mission. There are critical
workplace safety issues. The situation requires immediate attention.
The following operational readiness issues degrade the National
Park Service Law Enforcement Program:
Staffing (Recruitment and Retention)
The National Park Service has insufficient personnel to perform its
law enforcement mission safely. Law enforcement personnel are routinely
required to operate with fewer personnel than is safe. National Park
Service law enforcement operations do not have sufficient personnel to:
Provide backup for patrol operations
Safely police large events
Respond effectively to emergencies
Adequately patrol all park areas
The National Park Service must develop standards for staffing and
then hire the personnel needed to perform its law enforcement mission
safely.
Communication Systems
Many of the communications systems used by National Park Service
law enforcement personnel are not adequate for law enforcement use and,
in general, do not meet federally established mandates. Far too many
communications systems are not reliable enough or designed for law
enforcement use. Some law enforcement operations are not conducted
using a central dispatch operation which, is a dangerous practice. The
National Park Service must correct these problems to provide an
adequate level of safety for visitors and employees.
Information Technology
The National Park Service does not have a modern law enforcement
information technology system necessary to run a professional law
enforcement program. The first step should be to develop a servicewide
standardized incident dispatch and reporting system. This system must
be designed to generate real time statistics (based on a common
collection method). This type of data is necessary to administer a
professional law enforcement program. This system should be designed to
allow seamless reporting of criminal incidents to the United States
Justice Departments, National Incident Based Reporting System. The
National Park Service has identified the lack of integrated and
accessible databases as a general problem in the FY 2000, National Park
Service, Strategic Plan (Page 42). Integrated accessible law
enforcement (visitor safety) databases have the potential of saving
lives and preventing injuries.
Security Systems
The National Park has numerous cultural resources that are
potential targets for terrorists and deranged individuals. However, in
many instances these cultural resources are not protected by modern
security and surveillance systems that are routinely used by retailers
to protect far less valuable property. In addition, the National Park
Service does not make appropriate use of security barrier systems to
deny vehicular access to cultural facilities. In order to provide a
safe level of security in modern society the installation and effective
use of these security systems is a baseline protective measure. The
National Park Service must correct this problem expeditiously.
Training
The National Park Service needs to devote more resources to
training its law enforcement personnel. National Park Service Law
Enforcement Rangers need a more formal Basic Training Program that
includes a formal Field Training Program. Both components need
additional funds to upgrade the yearly training provided to experienced
law enforcement personnel. During a recent fiscal year, the United
States Park Police had a training budget of approximately $300.00 per
officer. Funding training at this low level is a recipe for disaster
and an increased tort claim budget.
Professional Standards (Rules and Regulations)
The National Park Service must establish mission specific
directives for all of its law enforcement operations. They must
establish consistent policies for complaint processing for law
enforcement personnel. The two components should have separate
complaint processing policies and procedures. Currently, complaints
lodged against National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers are not
handled in a consistent manner. Both components of National Park
Service Law Enforcement should have mission specific policies and
procedures that cannot be violated by a local decision/directive.
Currently, there are many instances where generally accepted law
enforcement policies and procedures are ignored, do not exist or are
forbidden by local directives/orders.
Facilities
National Park Service law enforcement personnel frequently do not
have facilities designed for law enforcement operations. The result is
that law enforcement personnel do not, in many cases, have a safe and
healthful workplace.
Vehicles and Equipment
National Park Service law enforcement personnel should be required
to wear and have access to required equipment in order to perform their
law enforcement mission while on-duty. The equipment and vehicles that
are used should be maintained properly to ensure safety. There are many
instances where law enforcement officers do not have necessary
equipment and are compelled to operate vehicles, which require
replacement or repair. The National Park Service should ensure that
this problem is addressed.
SOLUTIONS
We hereby declare the following:
The National Park Service should establish the position and office
of Chief, National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers. That the
National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers should have a separate
ranked chain of command for National Park Service Law Enforcement
Rangers starting at line Rangers and ending with the Chief of National
Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers. The Chief of the National Park
Service Law Enforcement Rangers shall be the equal of the Chief of the
United States Park Police. The Office and Position of Chief of National
Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers, should come from the ranks of
commissioned law enforcement rangers and have the authority to enact
servicewide mandatory standards for Ranger Law Enforcement that reflect
current ``best practices'' as well as, applicable laws, rules and
regulations. The Chief of National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers
shall have power and authority over the ranger force similar to that
which the Chief of the United States Park Police enjoys over the United
States Park Police. The Chief of National Park Service Law Enforcement
Rangers shall report directly to the Director of the National Park
Service.
That the United States Park Police does have and should maintain a
separate ranked chain of command for the United States Park Police
starting at line Officers and ending with the Chief of the United
States Park Police. The Chief of the United States Park Police shall be
the equal of the Chief of National Park Service Law Enforcement
Rangers. The Chief of the United States Park Police shall report
directly to the Director of the National Park Service. The Office of
the Chief of the United States Park Police should retain the authority
for maintaining and establishing mandatory standards for the United
States Park Police that reflect current ``best practices'' as well as
applicable laws, rules and regulations.
The Chief of the United States Park Police and the Chief of the
National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers should be responsible for
ensuring that each program attains accreditation from the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc, no later than
September 30, 2001. Thereafter, they should be required to maintain
that accreditation.
In each National Park Service Region there shall be a Regional
Chief of National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers. In each region
where the United States Park Police conduct law enforcement operations
the United States Park Police should have a separate and equal
position. In regions where there are Regional Chiefs for Rangers and
Regional Chiefs for United States Park Police each shall be responsible
for their respective areas. These Regional Chiefs of Law Enforcement
shall report to and be responsive to the Regional Director. However,
these positions shall be responsible for insuring that the regional law
enforcement programs are consistent with the mandatory standards
established by the Chiefs of their respective service.
Budget authority for the law enforcement programs shall be retained
at the regional level. However, in order to be authorized to conduct a
law enforcement program the regions must maintain established National
Standards. Furthermore, within each region the National Park Service
shall establish a separate line item budget for law enforcement under
the control of the Regional Director and the law enforcement chain of
command. In areas where there are United States Park Police each
Regional Chief of Law Enforcement shall have separate and equal control
over the budgets of their respective programs.
Under the authority of the Director of the National Park Service a
National Park Service Law Enforcement Program Compliance Authority
shall be formed and co-chaired by the Chief of National Park Service
Law Enforcement Rangers and the Chief of the United States Park Police.
The committee shall have a staff comprised of equal representation from
the National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers and the United States
Park Police (Numbers determined by workload). This entity will be
responsible for:
Establishing an inspection regimen and to work in
conjunction with Regional Law Enforcement Specialists to
periodically inspect every National Park Service Law
Enforcement Operation in order to ensure compliance with
National Standards.
Establishing policies and procedures for joint law
enforcement operations.
Establishing one standard for the National Park Service
incident dispatch and reporting system.
Establishing budgeting policies and procedures that ensure
safe and healthful working conditions for all law enforcement
operations.
Coordinating and ensuring the availability, reliability and
safety of law enforcement communications systems.
Ensuring that centralized dispatching systems are used in
all law enforcement operations.
Ensuring required training is budgeted for and is, in fact,
provided.
Ensuring the dual components maintain their separate
organizational focuses and specialties that give the National
Park Service the flexible law enforcement response mechanisms
required to protect a diverse system of parks.
Developing standards for staffing each components operations
in a manner that will ensure safe working conditions.
Developing a standardized method to evaluate and recommend
which component will be best suited to conduct law enforcement
operations in any new park areas.
Each region shall have two Regional Law Enforcement Specialists,
including one United States Park Police Officer and one National Park
Service Law Enforcement Ranger as representatives from the National
Park Service Law Enforcement Program Compliance Authority and advisors
to the Regional Director on law enforcement matters.
That each component of National Park Service Law Enforcement be
required to:
Have separate and mission-specific basic training for its
officers/rangers to include a mandated Field Training Program.
Have separate and mission specific yearly advanced training
for its rangers/officers.
That no law enforcement operations are permitted unless
there is a central law enforcement-specific dispatch system.
That no law enforcement operations are permitted without
staffing levels that will permit safe law enforcement
operations.
Permit only full time permanent or subject to furlough
agency trained and qualified professional officers/rangers to
perform agency law enforcement operations. Seasonal
Commissioned Rangers will be hired as full time permanent
positions subject to furlough.
Do not assign law enforcement officers to duties which
impact law enforcement program effectiveness or workplace
safety.
Maintain safe reliable modern encrypted communications
systems with radio identifiers and alarms.
Provide all equipment and uniforms necessary to safely
conduct law enforcement operations.
Establish separate supervisory and command level training
programs.
That modern Security/Surveillance Systems and Security Barriers be
installed and maintained to ensure the maximum level of protection for
all the priceless cultural resources under the control of the National
Park Service.
That the National Park Service work to establish and gain the
authority to administer a pay band for National Park Service Ranger Law
Enforcement and a pay band for the United States Park Police. These pay
bands will mandate periodic adjustment of the pay rate to an average of
the 3-5 largest uniformed police and/or sheriffs departments in each
geographic area where National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers or
United States Park Police Officers work. These pay bands would
establish a National Base Pay equaling the rate established for
Washington, DC. This system would ensure the ability to recruit and
retain high quality individuals over the long term. Furthermore, it
would facilitate the transferring of personnel for promotion or other
mission requirements.
These program changes are not radical. They reflect standards and
practices well established in state law enforcement programs. Many
states have law enforcement standards boards that establish minimum
standards for law enforcement training and operations. Localities in
these states can organize their law enforcement operations in a variety
of ways. However, local jurisdictions cannot just give anyone a badge
and a gun; and allow them to operate as a law enforcement officer.
Localities can conduct law enforcement operations based on their local
priorities but they must operate within the boundaries of established
mandatory law enforcement standards, practices and procedures. States
have seen the benefits of having restrictions on what local elected or
appointed officials can do regarding the law enforcement agencies under
their political control. States that have established this hierarchy
have found that it ensures the safety, consistency and effectiveness of
their law enforcement programs.
The National Park Service Law Enforcement Program would greatly
benefit from mirroring this hierarchy by enacting the changes outlined
in this document. Additionally, the National Park Service must realize
that more funding for law enforcement operations will be needed to
correct the dangerous operational readiness conditions that currently
exist and do what is necessary to provide that funding.
We hereby respectfully request Congress to convene oversight
hearings for the National Park Service Law Enforcement Program and pass
legislation that will compel these common sense solutions to the
problems degrading the National Park Service Law Enforcement Program.
Mr. Ward. The six problems identified in the internal
report, the Thomas Report, and these other reports are a severe
staffing shortage, unsafe communications systems, poor use of
information technology, inadequate training, inadequate
equipment, and an inadequate organizational structure. I
respectfully submit that these problems require immediate
action because they are endangering the safety of visitors,
priceless resources, and employees.
Some examples of the impacts of these problems on U.S. Park
Police operational readiness are that we are 170 or more
officers short of the number needed to safely conduct
operations. This number is established at 806 by the Park
Police management and by 820 from the Booz, Allen and Hamilton
consulting group. We currently have 630 officers as of this
month, and that is 20 less than we had in 1999.
Our concerns in this area are based on we have 20 less than
we had in 1999 and we are now hearing rumors that the region
and the Park Police managers are going to write a reprogramming
letter to Congress because they do not feel they have enough
money to make it until the end of the year, which goes back to
the financial problems that are facing the Park Police and that
are being studied by the NAPA people.
We look forward to the report that NAPA will issue for
years, every time we would go to Park Police management as the
Labor Committee of the union for Park Police officers, we would
say we have problems with radio systems, we have unsafe
vehicles because not enough are bought, we have problems with
information technology. Their answer was always the Park
Service does not give us enough money.
When we would go to the region, to summarize, their
response was, well, the Park Police do not get enough money,
but they do not spend it right either.
Then when we would go up to the Park Service leadership at
the very top, their general response was the Park Police do not
spend their money right.
I submit that it is clear that not all three of those
things can be true, which is why our Labor Committee advocated
that some sort of audit of this type be done so that we could
get to the facts because I think the facts have been somewhat
clouded, at least to us, over the years.
Some of the other problems that the Park Police has is that
we do not make use of information technology. We hand-compile
statistics. Many officers in the Washington, D.C. area do not
have e-mail. In this day and age, the backbone of the reporting
system is still carbon copies that are hand-transmitted from
stations down to the records section.
I do not think the Park Police has a uniform method of
handling reporting or analyzing law enforcement data. We feel
that this is a significant obstacle to make reasoned decisions
about law enforcement operations.
The most important problem I think the Park Service has is
one of organizational structure. We think we need to have
strong, experienced leadership at the top of the Park Service
that has experience in law enforcement. We believe that this
person should have the authority to start a law enforcement
board, similar to the law enforcement standards boards started
in many States, and they should have the ability to administer
the program in a way similar to the States.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I thank the committee
for the generous support you have shown the U.S. Park Police in
the past and for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER J. WARD, CHAIRMAN, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, U.S. PARK POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Peter
J. Ward, Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police, United States Park
Police Labor Committee, representing the officers, investigators, and
detectives of the United States Park Police. I have been a United
States Park Police Officer for 15 years. Prior to that, I served for
four years in the United States Air Force as a security police officer.
The membership of our organization is grateful for the opportunity to
testify today regarding Title VIII of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 and discuss the National Park Service Law
Enforcement Program.
The leadership provided by the Chairman and members of this
Committee has laid the foundation upon which a more professional
National Park Service Law Enforcement Program can be built. The
preparation of the report commonly referred to as ``The Thomas
Report'', that was required by the Omnibus Management Act forced, the
Park Service to confront some long-ignored problems with its law
enforcement program.
As a result, there is a consensus building inside and outside the
National Park Service that the problems with the Law Enforcement
Program must be fixed. In addition to ``The Thomas Report'', two
independent reports have been published detailing the problems with the
National Park Service Law Enforcement Program. These are the ``National
Park Service Strategic Counter Terrorism Report'' prepared by Booz,
Allen and Hamilton in 1999, that studied the United States Park Police;
and ``Policing the National Parks--21st Century Requirements'' prepared
by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in October 2000,
that studied National Park Service Ranger Law Enforcement.
On February 5, 2000, our organization and the Fraternal Order of
Police-United States Park Rangers Lodge issued a joint statement
regarding the National Park Service Law Enforcement Program. In this
statement, we listed the problems with the Law Enforcement Program and
proposed solutions. We produced this statement because we concluded
that the problems confronting frontline rangers and United States Park
Police officers were virtually identical.
These reports come from a variety of perspectives but they all, in
one way or another, identify the same problems and propose similar
remedies. Our organization supports the conclusions and recommendations
of these reports. I respectfully request that our joint statement be
included in the record.
There are six problem areas that are identified by every one of
these reports and they are: (1) a severe staffing shortage, (2) unsafe
communications systems, (3) poor use of information technology, (4)
inadequate training, (5) inadequate equipment and (6) an inadequate
organizational structure. I respectfully submit that these problems
require immediate action because they are endangering the safety of
visitors, national resources and employees.
The first problem I will discuss is staffing shortages. The United
States Park Police has a severe staffing shortage. As of March 20,
2001, the United States Park Police has 630 serving officers. This
total is more than 170 officers short of the estimated 806 to 820
officers that the United States Park Police needs to safely perform its
mission. The staffing shortage hampers patrol operations, which will
increase the incidence of crime in our parks. In addition, the staffing
shortage decreases the security and safety of priceless cultural
resources such as: Lafayette Park, The Washington Monument, The Lincoln
Memorial and The Statue of Liberty.
Independent experts from the firm of Booz, Allen and Hamilton
concluded in a 1999 report that, ``Though the personnel of the National
Park Service do a highly professional job of preserving, protecting,
and maintaining the parks and memorials to the extent of their ability
and available resources, they do not have sufficient numbers, nor are
they adequately equipped and trained to prevent a determined terrorist
attack.'' Booz, Allen and Hamilton went on to say that, ``According to
the USPP analysis, the current force strength of 650 officers is 150
officers below the number needed to adequately meet all of their
requirements. Our analysis indicates that the Force is 170 officers
below the number needed.'' As previously stated, the current force
strength is 630 officers. We believe that additional officers are a
critical need that needs to be addressed to provide an adequate level
of safety for park visitors and resources.
The concern among our membership about staffing is increasing
because there are rumors circulating that the United States Park Police
may not have the funds needed to hire a second recruit class mandated
by the this year's appropriations bill. This concern is also driven by
the expectation that the retirement rate of officers will significantly
increase after July 2002.
The shortage of United States Park Police officers is affecting the
safety of large events on the National Mall. This was made clear during
last year's Millennium Celebration. This was the first time, in my
memory, that the operational plan had to be drastically revised to
maintain public safety because there weren't enough officers. The
shortage of officers for crowd control operations is particularly
troubling when you consider the demeanor of recent protests that have
occurred in Washington, DC concerning the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank. On a day with these kind of protests 170 officers
would make a critical difference. What is particularly troubling is the
strong probability that protests like this will occur in response to
unexpected world events. In this type of situation 170 more officers
will be critical, as we will not have the luxury of time to make
arrangements for outside assistance.
I will now address the issue of unsafe communications systems. In
general, the communications systems used by the United States Park
Police are antiquated and unreliable. None are encrypted or narrow-
banded. The radio system in Washington, DC was installed in the 1970's
and some of equipment is solid-state tube technology; which is becoming
difficult and expensive to maintain. Far too often officers in the
Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA areas are not able to clearly
transmit or receive vital information because of the poor quality of
the systems. Due to their age and design, United States Park Police
systems frequently do not interoperate with the systems of other law
enforcement and emergency service agencies. This makes coordinating
joint responses to critical incidents difficult. There seems to be
little doubt that the communications systems used by the United States
Park Police cause serious safety issues. In a 1999 study concerning the
United States Park Police by Booz, Allen and Hamilton concluded that,
``A significant deficiency of the National Park Service is inadequate
communications capability to call for a response if a terrorist attack
should occur, coordinate management of such an event, and effectively
integrate with other Law Enforcement Agencies and responders''.
We now come to the issue of Information Technology. The National
Park Service does not have a standardized computerized dispatch and
reporting system. In fact, the United States Park Police still hand
compiles some statistics to prepare the force's yearly report to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Most officers in the Washington, DC
area still do not have e-mail access, and the backbone of the United
States Park Police reporting system remains multiple copy carbon
pressure forms that are transmitted by hand from stations to the
records section.
Law enforcement operations in many parks classify and report
incidents using different criteria. There is no uniform method of
handling, reporting or analyzing data. This is significant obstacle for
anyone responsible for making reasoned decisions regarding law
enforcement operations, resources and priorities. We respectfully
submit that the fact that there are no nationally enforced reporting
standards supports the premise that the management of the National Park
Service has not paid sufficient attention to its law enforcement
function.
The fourth problem is inadequate training. The United States Park
Police has outstanding entry-level training, but has not provided
adequate training for senior officers or supervisors. For example, when
an officer graduates from United States Park Police Basic Training,
they very rarely, if ever, receive comparable emergency response or
pursuit driver training. In order to maintain professional standards it
will be important to provide more resources for training.
The fifth problem area regards inadequate equipment. The United
States Park Police frequently has trouble maintaining a safe vehicle
fleet. In the Washington, DC area, it is not uncommon for police
cruisers to have mileage in excess of 100,000 miles, far more than the
standard 65,000-mile mark when they should be replaced. United States
Park Police management has stated that to maintain a safe fleet they
need to purchase approximately 50 cruisers each year. In recent years,
the force has not purchased anywhere near 50 cruisers. It is vital that
police cruisers be reliable and safe because they are used for
emergency responses. In addition, the United States Park Police
frequently has problems procuring other types of equipment such as
ammunition and equipment for training, computers and chemical and
biological protective gear.
The last and perhaps the most important problem facing the United
States Park Police and the Rangers is the organizational structure of
the National Park Service. We believe that addressing the problems with
organizational structure will be the key to solving the other problems
plaguing the National Park Service Law Enforcement Program.
The current organizational structure has given rise to an agency
culture that has ignored the law enforcement program. This situation
has needlessly placed visitors, priceless resources and employees in
jeopardy. Currently, there is no position near the top of the command
structure of the Park Service that is solely dedicated to law
enforcement. Without strong, experienced law enforcement leadership,
positioned at the top echelons of the Park Service, the law enforcement
program will continue to drift without direction.
We strongly believe a central authority at the top of the National
Park Service possessing the power to establish and enforce law
enforcement program standards is a must. The law enforcement portion of
the Park Service mission is too important to allow it to continue to be
neglected. We agree with the recommendation of the National Commission
on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement that, ``Annual budgets
should provide a line item for each law enforcement agency, and the
President and Congress should ensure that each such agency is led by an
experienced public manager, preferably with experience in law
enforcement.''
We strongly recommend that the National Park Service should create
a position for law enforcement that reports to the Director of the
National Park Service. This new position should have the authority to
create a ``Law Enforcement Program Standards Board'' modeled after
police standards boards established in many states. This proposed
structure would correct the current agency culture that has failed to
address law enforcement problems.
These standards boards work well for the states. They address the
problems of professionally administering numerous separate law
enforcement operations over large areas. This model should enable the
National Park Service to resolve longstanding problems and insure safe,
consistent, and effective operations.
We suggest that the board consist of equal numbers of managers from
the ranks of Law Enforcement Rangers and the United States Park Police.
The board should not have direct command or control of daily law
enforcement operations, but rather, should exist to create a structure
where park managers retain some authority over law enforcement, but
would be prevented from running programs that do not meet professional
standards.
In accordance with laws, rules and regulations; taking full
consideration of the differing missions of the United States Park
Police and Law Enforcement Rangers; and having authority over all
positions and operations, this board should have the authority to:
1. Set minimum selection standards
2. Set minimum training standards
3. Set minimum staffing levels & safety procedures
4. Set minimum standards for the security of park resources
5. Set minimum standards for law enforcement operations
6. Control certification of law enforcement officers/rangers and
programs
7. Conduct research relating to NPS Law Enforcement
8. Enforce compliance by conducting unannounced yearly inspections
of NPS law enforcement operations and have the authority to enforce
corrective action based on those inspections.
9. Set budgetary standards, policies and procedures for NPS law
enforcement
10. Establish a service wide standardized computer based reporting
system
11. Establish dispatching and communications systems minimum
standards
12. Establish law enforcement program priorities
13. Establish policies and procedures for ensuring all NPS law
enforcement programs attain and maintain accreditation by the
``Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.''
This concludes my prepared testimony. I would like to thank the
committee for the generous support they have given to the United States
Park Police, and for the opportunity to testify before you today. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Jackson, Mr. Ward represents the Park Police. You
represent the rangers that do Park Police functions.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Senator Thomas. Please.
STATEMENT OF GREG JACKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, RANGER LODGE #60
Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify in front of you today. I am Greg Jackson, currently a
District Ranger at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area. I am coming today not as a representative of the Park
Service, but from our lodge, the National Park Rangers Lodge of
Fraternal Order of Police, to testify today regarding title
VIII of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act.
Specifically, I wish to offer the support of our lodge and
endorse the Park Service's report to you and your committee.
The document that the Park Service refers to as the Law
Enforcement Program Study, or as Mr. Ward said, the Thomas
Report.
Over 650 National Park Service law enforcement rangers are
members of our lodge, making us the largest such organization
in the country. We were founded 13 years ago in Yosemite
National Park when we rangers were becoming increasingly
concerned about issues affecting our safety. At that time we
were concerned because there were only 10 of us working a night
shift in Yosemite Valley, which was down from 20 several years
before, down to 12 the year before that. Last night I called to
check and there was one ranger working the night shift in
Yosemite Valley.
The problems regarding staffing are not unique to Yosemite.
They are all too common in Yosemite National Park. While Park
Service budgets have increased, the commitment to front-line
resources and visitor protection has not.
For the millions of people visiting these parks, National
Park Service rangers have made them among the safest places in
the country, but they are not so safe for the rangers. As
reported in USA Today, National Park Service rangers are more
likely to be assaulted than any other Federal law enforcement
officer.
In the history of the Park Service, park rangers have been
involved in more than 100 separate incidents involving gunfire
with suspects. Thirty rangers have died performing law
enforcement. Seven rangers have been shot and killed. Eight
other rangers have been shot and survived. The murders of the
rangers in Hawaii, Florida, and North Carolina in the last 10
years are tragic symbols of the problems facing law enforcement
in the National Park Service.
The cutbacks in the number of rangers also affect our
ability to do our job the best of protecting park resources. We
are too often forced to respond to the urgent, while neglecting
or sacrificing the time-intensive activities of anti-poaching
patrol, monitoring archaeological sites and preventing
vandalism, and educating the public that make up our core
mission of resource protection.
A recent study by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police endorsed the Thomas Report staffing recommendations
as the bare minimum to achieve a safe and effective level of
staffing in our parks. We agree. The recommendations the Park
Service has made to you are minimum. While they do not fully
provide for an effective level for backup to assure the safety
of the workforce, they are certainly better than what we have
now.
Today, over 30 management positions are assigned to
permanently oversee wildland fire in the Park Service. There
are only two positions assigned to manage the law enforcement
program. This is a formula for disaster and for a program out
of control.
The IACP report called for the Park Service to hard wire
law enforcement into its upper management so it is not
abandoned. Our lodge recommends several ways to do this.
First, we recommend that the National Park Service law
enforcement program be accredited through CALEA, the Commission
on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Second, we agree with the IACP recommendations for the
creation of an associate director to oversee law enforcement in
the NPS. We agree with this approach and with the
recommendations by our colleagues in the U.S. Park Police to
create a permanent committee on law enforcement standards to
assure that the law enforcement function is being performed
safely and effectively.
Third, we recommend the creation of an internal affairs
department within the ranger services to ensure integrity of
the law enforcement program.
Fourth, we recommend that this subcommittee oversee
implementation of the IACP's recommendations to improve the NPS
law enforcement program. It would be a tragedy if the Park
Service were given additional personnel and funding which could
then be wasted by the same poor management practices that the
IACP identified.
We urge you to continue to seek the opinions of field
rangers as the subcommittee moves forward to improve the law
enforcement program.
Our lodge has prepared a joint statement with our brethren
in the U.S. Park Police that offers solutions to many of these
common problems. I urge the subcommittee to take this statement
in hand, along with the Thomas Report and the IACP report, as
you move forward to improving the National Park Service law
enforcement program.
I thank you for your time this morning, for having me in
front of you, and would be happy to answer any questions you
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Jackson, Vice President, Fraternal Order of
Police, Ranger Lodge #60
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I'd like to thank you
for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. I am Greg
Jackson, currently a District Ranger at Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, with prior service at Lake Mead, Yosemite, Olympic and
Bryce Canyon National Parks.
I am coming to you today not as a representative of the National
Park Service, but as a member of the National Park Rangers Lodge of the
Fraternal Order of Police, to testify regarding Title VIII of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.
Specifically, I wish to offer the support of our Lodge and endorse
the Park Service's report to Congress in response to this section--a
document that the Park Service refers to as the Law Enforcement Program
Study, or the Thomas Report.
Over 650 National Park Service law enforcement rangers are members
of our Lodge, making us the largest such organization in the country.
We were founded 13 years ago in Yosemite National Park, when rangers
were becoming increasingly concerned about issues affecting their
safety.
At that time, eight rangers patrolled Yosemite Valley on a typical
night shift, and we were concerned that the number had dropped from
twenty, to twelve, to ten the year before.
Last night, there was one ranger working in Yosemite Valley. This
same staffing crisis exists in all too many parks. While Park Service
budgets have increased, the commitment to frontline visitor and
resource protection has not.
Much the same as the Capitol Police are responsible for protecting
these hallowed halls of Congress, the law enforcement Rangers of the
National Park Service are responsible for protecting millions of
visitors from around the world, in nearly 400 parks across our nation.
For the millions of people visiting these parks, the National Park
Service Rangers have made them among the safest places in the country.
But it's not so safe for the rangers.
As reported in USA Today, National Park Service Rangers are more
likely to be assaulted than officers of any other federal law
enforcement agency; often ten times more likely. This includes the DEA,
ATF, Boarder Patrol, FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
In the history of the park service, park rangers have been involved
in more than a hundred separate incidents involving gunfire with
suspects. Thirty rangers have died performing law enforcement duties.
In addition to seven rangers who have been shot and killed by suspects,
at least eight other rangers have been shot and survived.
The murders of law enforcement rangers in Hawaii, Florida and North
Carolina in the last 10 years are tragic symbols of the problems facing
law enforcement in the National Park Service.
In 1990, when Ranger Robert McGhee was murdered in Florida, he was
the only ranger on patrol. He had no backup. His body was found by park
visitors. Every law enforcement agency in the country knows that you
never send people to work without backup. But there he was.
Nine years later, staffing levels had been cut even more, when
Ranger Steve Makuakane-Jarrell contacted a man with a dog off leash who
would turn out to be his murderer. He too, was the only ranger working.
No backup, no communications. His body, too, was found hours later by
park visitors.
As rangers, we tell park visitors that for safety, its best not to
hike alone. Yet each summer day, dozens of NPS rangers hike alone,
patrolling our nation's wilderness in remote areas with inadequate
communications. The cost? In 1996, Ranger Randy Morgenson, patrolling
alone in an area of poor radio communications, in a remote and rugged
area of Kings Canyon National Park disappeared. He is still missing,
and presumed dead.
In spite of these deaths, and of everything we know about safety, I
can tell you that today, tonight, there will be rangers working alone,
without backup, in our national parks.
The cutbacks in the number of rangers also affect our ability to do
our best job of protecting park resources. We are too often forced to
respond to the urgent--the emergency law enforcement, search and
rescue, and firefighting needs of the moment as a matter of priority--
while sacrificing the time-intensive activities such as anti-poaching
patrol, monitoring archaeological sites to prevent vandalism, and
educating the public, that make up our core mission of resource
protection.
For example, from 1991 to 1997 poachers removed over 15,000
cactuses from federal land including Mojave National Preserve. In the
same time period, others stole hundreds of sponges from Biscayne
National park, looted Native American graves in Channel Islands,
desecrated graves in National Battlefields, and killed hundreds of
black bear just for their gall bladders in parks across America.
Staking out and monitoring remote resources take time. And because
rangers must deal with issues of public safety first, there is often
little time for stakeouts and surveillance. This has led to a slow but
steady depredation of our nation's treasures, and a growing number of
rangers who are paying the ultimate price in the defense of these
treasures.
Our Lodge fully endorses the recommendations of the NPS in the
Thomas Report. We are not the only organization to endorse these
recommendations.
A recent study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP) endorsed these recommendations as the bare minimum to achieve a
safe and effective level of staffing in our parks. We agree. The
recommendations the park service has made to you are a minimum. They
don't fully provide for an effective level for backup to assure the
safety of the workforce, but they are better than what we have now.
Backup at night often comes in the form of rangers being awakened
at home to respond to a call. But as the IACP noted, park housing is
not properly assigned or made available to assure a timely response to
assure the safety of rangers and the public. More rangers are a start,
but other changes are needed to achieve the critical goal of safety.
Our Lodge is also concerned that even if these staffing levels are
increased, the park service will repeat the costly mistakes of the
past. If Congress provides for 615 new ranger positions, they should
also assure that the park service doesn't take 615 other positions out
of law enforcement through attrition.
The IACP identified a lack of support for law enforcement within
the park service in its first report on the agency in 1970. Thirty
years later, the IACP identified many of the same problems.
Today, over 30 management positions are assigned to permanently
oversee wildland fire in the park service. There are only two positions
in Washington assigned to manage the law enforcement program in parks
across the country. This is a formula for disaster, and for a program
out of control.
The IACP has called on the park service to ``hard wire'' law
enforcement into its upper management, so it is not abandoned. Our
Lodge recommends several ways to do this.
First, we recommend that the National Park Service law enforcement
program be accredited through CALEA, the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies. They are the national benchmark, which
law enforcement agencies use to show the public that they meet accepted
practices in law enforcement. Agencies from the U.S. Marshals Service
to even the National Institute of Standards and Technology have used
CALEA as a standard for maintaining a quality law enforcement program.
We believe that frequent external review is essential to create and
maintain a quality law enforcement program.
Second, we agree with the IACP's recommendation for the creation of
an associate director to oversee law enforcement in the NPS. We agree
with this approach, or with recommendations by our colleagues in the
U.S. Park Police to create a permanent committee on law enforcement
standards to assure that the law enforcement function is being
performed safely and effectively. The IACP states that decentralization
has severely damaged the law enforcement function in the park service.
We agree.
They further state that, ``NPS law enforcement can justly be
described as a profusion of conditions and practices in search of a
system.''
There needs to be more than two people in Washington managing a law
enforcement program that reaches across the country. They need to have
a voice at the very top of the service, to make sure that ranger
safety, and the safety of the public and of park resources is heard.
And they need authority to see that their policies are being carried
out.
Third, we recommend the creation of an internal affairs department
within the Ranger services to ensure integrity of the law enforcement
program, and to prevent situations like that of Ranger Freddie Aledo,
at San Juan National Historic site. Aledo called for backup while being
sniped at by a suspect with an AK-47. Aledo's supervisor, and closest
backup, failed to come to his aid because the supervisor was in a
meeting. No action was taken against this supervisor. This is
unacceptable for any agency, and combined with other such incidents,
demonstrates a clear need for an internal affairs program that reports
to the Director.
Fourth, we recommend that this subcommittee oversee implementation
of the IACP's recommendations to improve the NPS law enforcement
program. It would be a tragedy if the park service were given
additional personnel and funding for law enforcement, that would be
wasted by the same poor management practices that the IACP identified.
The IACP identifies major discrepancies between the observations of
NPS management and the observations of field rangers concerning the
quality of the law enforcement program. On virtually every issue, the
IACP agrees with field rangers as to how these problems should be
fixed.
We urge you to continue to seek the opinions of field rangers as
the subcommittee moves forward to improve the law enforcement program
in the National Park Service. Our Lodge has prepared a joint statement
with our brethren in the U.S. Park Police that offers solutions to many
of our common problems. I urge the subcommittee to take this statement
in hand with the IACP report and the Thomas Report as a blueprint for
improving the National Park Service Law Enforcement Program.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be more than happy to
answer any questions that you or the members have. I sincerely thank
you for this opportunity to testify before you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. McElveen.
STATEMENT OF SCOT McELVEEN, BOARD MEMBER FOR SPECIAL CONCERNS,
ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS
Mr. McElveen. My name is Scot McElveen, and I am here as a
board member for the Association of National Park Rangers on my
own time and travel expenses. My testimony here is as an
association member and not as an employee of the National Park
Service.
The Association of National Park Rangers was formed in 1977
and is a professional, nonprofit organization comprised of
approximately 1,100 individuals who are entrusted with and
committed to the care, study, and explanation and/or protection
of those natural, cultural, and recreational resources included
in the National Park System, and persons who support these
efforts. Among our members are NPS rangers and other employees
from all regions, grade levels, and specialties. ANPR is
neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather is an
association created to advance the park ranger profession and
to support and perpetuate the National Park Service and the
National Park System.
Thank you for inviting ANPR to share our thoughts with you
on the National Park Service's implementation of management
policies and procedures to comply with provisions of title VIII
of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.
We would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, in
particular, for developing and sponsoring the act itself, and
in particular for the inventorying, monitoring, and research
mandate in title II and the law enforcement program study
requirement in title VIII. These provisions demonstrate the
committee's care for National Park Service employees and for
National Park System resources.
While most of our comments pertain to title VIII, with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like to just touch on a few
of the other titles because they tie together so well.
We believe that for preservation of park resources and park
values of any type to be successful a triangle of resource
education functions, resource management functions, and
resource protection functions must occur. All three of these
functions must be proportionately represented to adequately
preserve park resources and values in an unimpaired state for
the enjoyment of present and future generations, the NPS
mission. No one function can prevent derogation of park
resources and values from all the external and internal threats
they face.
This triangle must be applied when implementing National
Park Service career development, training, and management. Some
training has been developed to implement the act's intent.
However, many parks cannot afford the associated travel costs
or allow the operational staff to be away from the park long
enough to attend the training. And that is a problem.
Web-based training is one answer, and the Park Service is
doing some of that. But this training instruction method is not
adequate for all subjects.
Missing from the NPS training program is an intake training
program specifically for the ranger workforce. As the NPS seeks
to hire a diverse group of the best and brightest rangers in
the future, a well developed ranger intake training program is
a must.
The lack of a field training program is another shortfall
of the current NPS training system.
In addition to the Law Enforcement Program Study, written
pursuant to the Omnibus Act of 1998, the National Park Service
also commissioned an independent study of the agency's law
enforcement program by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police. This study came to the same basic conclusions that
the Law Enforcement Program Study did, notably that the
function is understaffed to meet the responsibilities given to
the NPS by Congress in this area.
In the 20 years between 1978 and 1998, the National Park
Service grew by 84 units, 28 percent. It expanded from 31.3
million acres to 83.4 million acres, an expansion of 166
percent. They experienced a rise in visitation from 283 million
visits to 435 million visits, a rise of 53 percent in total
visitation. During the same period, the number of permanent
protection rangers increased from 1,168 to 1,483, only a 27
percent increase.
This shortfall of commissioned rangers and the associated
shortfalls of higher quality radio systems and dispatch
services, adequate training in law enforcement, and resource
knowledge, adequate quantity and qualities of vehicles,
vessels, aircraft, computers, surveillance and other specialty
equipment, reporting systems, law enforcement databases,
offices and storage areas, fitness facilities and equipment,
administrative and managerial support, and planned intake and
field training programs have put park employees, resources, and
visitors at risk.
The Law Enforcement Program Study estimates that
approximately $162 million for a one-time cost and $73 million
for reoccurring costs would correct these deficiencies. Without
new appropriations from Congress or congressional direction to
the National Park Service to redirect portions of current
appropriations, it is doubtful that these deficiencies will
receive much attention.
So, what happens if these shortfalls are not addressed?
Protection rangers are resource protectors, as well as
protectors of human life, health, and property. They utilize
law enforcement, resource education, and other tools to achieve
resource stewardship and visitor enjoyment outcomes. Without an
adequate number of protection rangers to prevent resource
derogation from criminal activity, there may not be enough
intact resources left in parks to provide enjoyment for
visitors. Response-based law enforcement will never be adequate
to preserve resources because resources cannot call for help
when they are being damaged, disturbed, or removed.
With inadequate numbers of protection rangers, their core
responsibility, which is preventative resource protection at
both highly visited and remote park locations, is continually
being trumped by response-oriented emergency services and
people and property related law enforcement. As we previously
mentioned, the resource stewardship triangle cannot stand
without all three legs, resource education, resource
management, and resource protection.
Law enforcement is not the only duty performed by
protection rangers. Often there are so many other collateral
duties heaped on protection rangers that they do not really
have any discretionary time to perform the preventative
resource and visitor protection function. NPS managers need to
value protection rangers' discretionary time and defend it
zealously. One step in that regard would be to add a strategic
goal with a measurable outcome to quantify what preventative
resource protection is worth to the National Park Service.
One area that the law enforcement study did not cover is
that of NPS employee housing, especially as it relates to
protection duties and protection rangers. It is ANPR's opinion
that a modest amount of quality housing that is affordable to
rangers at the GS-9 level is an essential requirement of the
NPS law enforcement program, for the safety of rangers for
backup, and is a reasonable level of deterrent protection for
park resources and park visitors.
The Association of National Park Rangers represents a
portion of the rank and file, on-the-ground employees of the
National Park Service, and our perceptions describe conditions
where the rubber meets the road. Our perceptions are not
filtered through management or political layers, and we provide
them in an attempt to help the National Park Service meet its
obligations to the American people and to Congress.
Funding for the shortfalls we have described does not
necessarily have to come from new appropriations. It could be
from current appropriations redirected, but that would most
likely mean some other important function of the National Park
Service would suffer.
The reality, however, is just as the National Park
Service's seventh Director George Hartzog described when he
said, ``Policy without funding is just conversation.'' The same
can be said for title VIII of the Omnibus Act of 1998. It has
been nice conversation so far. ANPR is hoping for some action,
and we pledge to help in any way we can.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. That is the
end of my prepared statement. We would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McElveen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOT MCELVEEN, BOARD MEMBER FOR SPECIAL CONCERNS,
ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) to share our
thoughts with you on the National Park Service's (NPS) implementation
of management policies and procedures to comply with the provisions of
Titles I, II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998. We would also like to thank you for developing
and sponsoring the Act itself, and in particular the inventorying,
monitoring, and research mandate in Title II and the Law Enforcement
Program Study requirement in Title VIII. These provisions demonstrate
the Committee's care for NPS employees and National Park System
resources.
ANPR, formed in 1977, is a professional, non-profit organization
comprised of approximately 1,100 individuals who are entrusted with and
committed to the care, study, explanation, and/or protection of those
natural, cultural, and recreational resources included in the National
Park System, and persons who support these efforts. Among our members
are NPS rangers and other employees from all regions, grade levels, and
specialties. ANPR is neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather
is an association created to advance the park ranger profession and to
support and perpetuate the NPS and the National Park System.
I am here as a Board Member of ANPR on my own time and travel
expenses, and my testimony here is as an ANPR member and not as an NPS
employee.
ANPR provides testimony with regards to the following titles:
Title I--National Park Service Career Development, Training, and
Management
Sec. 101 Protection, Interpretation, and Research in the National Park
System
We believe that for resource preservation of any type to be
successful a triangle of resource education functions, resource
management functions, and resource protection functions must occur.
Resource education uses interpretive tools to prevent resource
derogation by working to form a sense of stewardship in park visitors
and park neighbors. Those that are aware of the threats they themselves
pose to resources, that value a park's resources, and develop a
stewardship ethic are less likely to cause harm to resources either
intentionally or unintentionally. Resource management uses scientific
methods to prevent resource derogation by researching and monitoring
all park resources, and in some cases applying corrective techniques to
resources damaged internally by park users and/or externally by
societal decisions or environmental factors. We have to know what
resources we have in parks, what condition those resources are in, and
for resources showing impairment(s), what the cause(s) of those
impairment(s) are. Resource protection uses law enforcement tools to
prevent resource derogation by monitoring resource conditions, then
focusing field time in locations where resource derogation by park
users is occurring, and then contacting or apprehending those
committing illegal acts that cause resource derogation. The goal of
course is preventative law enforcement, making the contact before the
resource derogation occurs. However, given the vast acreage of many
parks, apprehension after the fact is the more likely scenario,
especially for those that intentionally and knowingly utilize illegal
activities to remove park resources for profit or personal prestige.
This threat of apprehension and the possibility of criminal penalties
deters what would otherwise be wholesale removal and/or damage to park
resources.
So, in the vast majority of parks all three of these functions must
be proportionately represented to adequately preserve parks resources
in an unimpaired state for the enjoyment of present and future
generations, the NPS mission. No one function can prevent derogation of
park resources from all the external and internal threats noted above.
The ability of the NPS to apply state-of-the-art management,
protection, interpretation of and research on the resources of the
National Park System has not kept up with the demands placed upon the
System. Many parks are barely able to field a daily law enforcement
presence to ensure the protection of visitors and resources.
Significant portions of park education and interpretive programs are
conducted by volunteer and other unpaid staff in the absence of
adequate permanent and seasonal uniformed personnel. The establishment
of Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units has enhanced coordination with the
Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and
improved opportunities to direct investigations into park natural
resource issues, however funding to conduct park-based research has
been slow to materialize.
Sec. 102 National Park Service Employee Training
The NPS has made progress on developing mission-related web based
training for entry level employees and those in the early stages of
their career. There does not seem to be a well developed strategy for
identifying needs, developing programs and delivering them to employees
over time. Even where training has been developed, many parks cannot
afford the associated travel costs or allow operational staff to be
away from the park.
Missing from the NPS training program is an intake program
specifically for the ranger work force. As the NPS seeks to hire a
diverse group of the best and brightest rangers in the future, a well
developed intake program is a must.
Sec. 103 Management Development and Training
The NPS has released its, ``Supervisory Development and Training
Guideline'', meeting the general direction imparted by the Act. It is
too early to say with assurance that the issuance of the document will
have any significant impact on the development and delivery of training
to prepare employees for future managerial positions, including that of
Superintendent.
Sec. 104 Park Budgets and Accountability
A) Strategic plans are prepared in accordance with the Servicewide
Performance Management system. They are viewed by some managers as a
paperwork exercise and, in the judgment of many, add little to the
public's or the bureau's understanding of the unit's annual program.
One particular problem with the Servicewide goals is that there is no
goal where protection rangers' work in resource law enforcement is
measured. The only goal where protection rangers' work is measured is
in increasing visitor safety by reducing visitor accidents. This is a
disservice to the occupation. Protection rangers are primarily resource
protectors, as well as protectors of life, health, and property.
B) Unit budgets are released to the public through press releases
as soon as they are made available at the park level. Regrettably, the
timing of these releases has not met the January 1 requirements of the
Act due to delays in the approval and allocation process followed by
the Congress, the Department, and the NPS.
Funding allocations should also include maintenance,
interpretation, and law enforcement as part of resource preservation,
and not just in visitor services. All park employees should spend a
substantial part of their work time contributing to resource
preservation, either directly or indirectly. Currently funds retained
from fees collected cannot be allocated into all the categories listed
in the Act, especially for personnel in these categories. It would be
very beneficial to the NPS and the American public if they could.
Title II--National Park System Resource Inventory and Management
Thank you Senator Thomas for your leadership in pushing the NPS
towards truly integrating scientific study into park management. The
NPS is moving in that direction. While there's a still a long way to
go, the success of the Natural Resource Challenge in its first 2 fiscal
years can be linked to the passage of the 1998 act. ANPR urges
continued support for the remaining 3 years of the Natural Resource
Challenge.
Sec. 202 Research Mandate
There has been some increased attentiveness to documenting
management decisions through a complete Administrative Record. The
acquisition of data, as either basic research or monitoring during and
after a project, are expenses that have not previously been calculated
in estimating the true cost of a project or decision. There has not
been an infusion of funding to adequately ensure that either the
research needs or monitoring responsibilities are met in all instances.
Sec. 203 Cooperative Agreements
The NPS is making progress in establishing this network of CESU's,
although funding to implement it lags. At the field level it is
difficult to assess the accomplishments of the program at this early
stage, but managers are generally optimistic.
Sec. 204 Inventory and Monitoring Program
The I&M program has been a keystone of the Service's Natural
Resource Challenge initiative and nearly all parks with a natural
resource base are seeing benefits from the program. This is working
well in its initial stages and should continue to expand and garner
important basic information for park planning and decision-making
purposes.
Sec. 205 Availability for Scientific Study
The NPS has just implemented new web-based research permit
procedures which streamline the process and make it much more
consistent across the NPS and more friendly to the scientific
community. The scientific community appears to be aware and supportive
of these efforts. Parks are properly sites for scientific research and
study.
Sec. 206 Integration of Study Results Into Management Decisions
This is the weak link. We are not aware of the NPS providing any
real useful guidance on how to ``assure the full and proper utilization
of the results of scientific study for park management decisions,'' nor
how managers are to be held accountable for the trend in resource
condition, etc. It's being done in places but not because of this law.
Accountability is lacking because the NPS doesn't know how to do it!
The NPS may not be assuring that the administrative record is
reflecting how studies are being used. The law is not the problem, but
we believe the NPS needs to develop the means to make this work. These
actions were left to Regional Directors to implement, but we believe
they need to be tackled at the national level.
Sec. 207 Confidentiality of Information
This was a wonderful addition to the NPS resource preservation
tools and it is being utilized in a number of places around the
National Park System.
Title III--Study Regarding Addition of New National Park System Areas
ANPR's membership believes there are many fine opportunities for
high value lands which may include some of the national monuments
established during the previous Administration and assigned to land
management agencies other than the NPS, to now be included in a listing
of future additions to the System. Similarly, as the significance of
events and people who shape our times become better understood, there
will certainly be opportunities for the study and addition of cultural
areas to the System. One such potential study, the Cold War Heritage
Trail, is but a single example of how our nation's recent past has
helped define its immediate future.
Title IV--National Park Service Concessions Management
Even though the Subcommittee held its oversight hearing on Title IV
previously, ANPR offers these comments. We are pleased to see that
Congress recognizes and supports the need to provide a range of
services for the proper use and appreciation of national park units.
The recently promulgated concession policy and regulations will, of
necessity, require a period of adjustment. It is critical that park
managers and collateral duty concession managers be afforded the
training and knowledge to adequately provide monitoring and oversight
of this complex and vitally important partnership. The rules have
changed and the field has not yet acquired the necessary skill to carry
out the responsibilities inherent in the Act.
Title V--Fees for Use of the National Park System
ANPR not only encourages the NPS to collect fees for transportation
systems used in parks, but we also encourage the NPS to expand the use
of transportation systems to all park units that have identified or
potential visitor use in excess of carrying capacities. By law in Title
16 United States Code, the NPS is required to establish carrying
capacities for all units of the System. We would like to see the NPS
accomplish this and to use transportation systems where they alleviate
resource derogation and improve visitors' experiences.
The collection, retention and distribution of fees collected within
the System have been used to address significant resource management,
education and operational needs. ANPR has a great deal of confidence in
the program and would encourage making the Fee Demonstration Program a
permanent authority. The public is largely supportive of the program
when they can see the end result of their fee payments. Parks are
supportive of the program when they see the direct application of fee
revenues applied to a backlog of needs that cross all program areas.
Title VI--National Park Passport Program
It is difficult to gauge the success of the Passport program from
the field perspective. The public has accepted the Passport, it seems,
although the relationship of the Passport to the Golden Eagle Pass
program is not well understood by the public and to a lesser degree, to
the employees of park units. With the greater emphasis on the Park
Passport, there is a greater expectation that it would cover all
expenses within a park. Visitors have recorded numerous complaints
because, having purchased one in lieu of paying an entrance fee, they
learn it does not cover fees such as parking or cave tours in another
park. There is also a concern raised by a few managers that the
increasing use of the internet to purchase the Passport will reduce the
amount of revenue accruing to a park that sold a high volume of Golden
Eagle Passes or more recently, Park Passports.
Title VII--National Park Foundation Support
ANPR would like to see local fundraising support developed for such
programs in parks as emergency medical services, search and rescue, and
structural fire. It is desirable to gain local community involvement in
parks' operations whenever that is possible. What better way to gain
local support than to have local involvement in such important
operations? This involvement will also reflect positively on local
communities through the visitors' eyes, and a positive image of local
communities by visitors may translate into improved economies in local
communities. We can give you some examples of how this might work upon
request.
Title VIII--Miscellaneous Provisions
Again, ANPR would like to thank the Subcommittee for its
requirement for the NPS to form a Task Force and prepare a report on
the shortfalls, needs, and requirements of the NPS' law enforcement
program. The Task Force was convened. The Law Enforcement Program Study
was completed and made available to employees, but the devil is in the
details, the implementation of the study's recommendations.
It is difficult for the NPS to come before Congress with its hand
out for more money when it has generally been the ``favorite child'' in
the Department of the Interior and received significantly greater
increases than the other bureaus. However, that seems to be a necessity
given that the NPS has not been able to prioritize spending in the
context of its mission. If the NPS puts more of its operational funding
into one specialty, which other specialty does it cut? If more
interpretive rangers are needed does the NPS do less maintenance? If
the NPS needs more protection rangers do they do without resource
managers? All work specialties add to achieving the NPS mission,
including protection rangers who perform law enforcement as their
primary duty.
In the 20 years between 1978 and 1998, the National Park System:
grew by 84 new units--28% growth.
expanded in acreage from 31.3 million acres to 83.4 million
acres--expansion of 166%.
experienced a rise in visitation from 283 million visits to
435.6 million visits--a 53% rise in total visitation.
During the same period the number of permanent protection rangers
increased from 1,168 to 1,483, only a 27% increase.
ANPR recommends that the NPS find some way to gain additional
funding or reprioritize current funding so that it can adequately hire,
train, and equip the number of protection rangers identified in the Law
Enforcement Program Study. In discussing the need for additional
protection rangers, we would like to emphasize:
Protection rangers are resource protectors, as well as
protectors of human life, health, and property. They utilize
law enforcement, resource education, and other tools to achieve
resource stewardship and visitor enjoyment outcomes. Without an
adequate number of protection rangers to prevent resource
derogation from criminal activity, there may not be enough
intact resources left in parks to provide enjoyment for
visitors. Response-based law enforcement will never be adequate
to preserve resources because resources cannot call for help
when they are being damaged, disturbed, or removed.
With inadequate numbers of protection rangers, their core
responsibility (preventative resource protection at both highly
visited and remote park locations) is continually being trumped
by response oriented emergency services and people/property
related law enforcement. As we previously mentioned, the
resource stewardship triangle cannot stand without all three
legs resource education, resource management, and resource
protection.
Law enforcement is not the only duty performed by protection
rangers. Often so many other collateral duties are heaped on
protection rangers that they have no discretionary time to
perform preventative resource and visitor protection. NPS
managers need to value protection rangers' discretionary time
and defend it zealously. One step in that regard would be to
add a strategic goal with a measurable outcome to quantify what
preventative resource protection is worth to the NPS.
Protection ranger safety is being compromised at current
staffing levels. Two ranger homicides in the last three years
have emphasized the need for back-up that responds quickly.
Recently the NPS commissioned an independent study of the
NPS Law Enforcement Program by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP). This study came to the same basic
conclusions that the Law Enforcement Program Study did, notably
that the function is understaffed to meet the responsibilities
given to the NPS by Congress.
With any increase in staffing comes increased support needs. If
more protection rangers can be funded they will need higher quality
radio systems and dispatch services, adequate training in law
enforcement and resource knowledge, adequate quality and quantities of
vehicles, vessels, aircraft, computers, surveillance and other
specialty equipment, reporting systems, law enforcement databases,
offices and storage areas, fitness facilities and equipment,
administrative and managerial support, and planned intake and field
training programs. All this costs money.
One area that the Law Enforcement Program Study did not cover is
that of NPS employee housing, especially as it relates to protection
duties and protection rangers. It is easy to understand why having
employees on-site would reduce response time to life/safety
emergencies. If the NPS could staff parks with personnel to provide
critical services 24 hours per day, then NPS housing would be
unnecessary. Because this obviously is not feasible, the only effective
option is to provide quality, affordable park housing for these
personnel in appropriate locations that would allow them to effectively
respond, in a timely manner, to threats against resources and visitors.
While life/safety emergencies can be accurately quantified in
parks, resource preservation emergencies are very seldom detected, and
are therefore hard to quantify. There is not much science applicable to
support this assertion, and what has been done is isolated to the
resource preservation emergency of wildlife poaching. One study in
remote portions of Idaho revealed that for every wildlife poaching case
investigated, 40 wildlife-poaching cases go undetected. This study also
found that in only one of every 200 known cases of wildlife poaching is
enough evidence located to prosecute and convict the violator. Similar
studies conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game
revealed that only 2% of all poaching cases were even detected by their
wardens. One can only imagine how these numbers roll up when
considering all NPS resource preservation emergencies for plants,
animals, and minerals, and cultural, archeological, and paleontological
resources. Our point here is that if resource preservation in
perpetuity is truly the overarching priority of the NPS, then a
``reasonable level of deterrent protection'' would logically have to
translate into support for NPS housing placed in strategic locations
throughout parks. Consistently defining why protection ranger housing
is necessary is critical to assuring that the NPS Housing Program is on
target to achieve our mission, and is logical, trackable, and
defendable to Congress.
It is ANPR's opinion that a modest amount of quality housing that
is affordable to rangers at the GS-9 level is an essential requirement
of the NPS Law Enforcement Program for safety to rangers (back-up) and
protection for resources and visitors.
Since the NPS reorganization in 1994, the national Ranger
Activities Office (WASO-RAD) has been grossly underfunded and
understaffed. The result of this has been piecemeal leadership
resulting in a hodgepodge of approaches at varying NPS units around the
country. The NPS Law Enforcement Program needs strong leadership at the
national level to ensure that protection rangers meet legal and policy
standards. In one glaring example of an adverse impact due to lack of
funding and/or staffing, competencies for protection rangers have been
completed in draft but are of little use because we can't find the
money to field test them and have them validated by the Office of
Personnel Management. Protection ranger competencies would be a major
improvement in accountability to ensure that park law enforcement
programs were meeting the NPS' and individual parks' mission.
In Conclusion
Since its inception in 1977 ANPR has used the professional
expertise of its members to formulate positions which support the NPS
and the National Park System. On occasion Congress has requested that
ANPR provide them with testimony concerning legislation, especially
legislation that impacts employees of the NPS and their ability to
perform as stewards of the resources encompassed within the National
Park System for the enjoyment of the American people. Our assumption is
that Congress requests our testimony because we are the rank-and-file,
on-the-ground employees of the NPS, and our perceptions represent the
reality of where the rubber meets the road. As a non-partisan,
professional organization we are free to state our opinion of
legislation or management actions without political interference or the
fear of individual career repercussions. We like to think of ourselves
as a partner and critical friend of the NPS.
The 4th Director of the NPS, Newton Drury, in the most difficult of
times surrounding World War II defended non-consumption of NPS
resources to support the war effort by saying, ``If we are going to
succeed in preserving the greatness of the national parks, they must be
held inviolate. They represent the last stand of primitive America. If
we are going to whittle away at them we should recognize, at the very
beginning, that all such whittlings are cumulative and that the end
result will be mediocrity. Greatness will be gone.''
The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 and the
recommendations of the NPS Law Enforcement Program Study are plans that
can help prevent those daily ``whittlings'' that become cumulative. But
the plans can only be effective if they are implemented. We offer our
assistance to fulfill the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998
and/or the recommendations of the NPS Law Enforcement Program Study.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vestal.
STATEMENT OF JAY VESTAL, VICE-PRESIDENT OF FIELD DEVELOPMENT,
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Mr. Vestal. Senator Thomas, thank you for the invitation to
address the subcommittee today. My name again is Jay Vestal. I
am the vice-president for field development for the National
Park Foundation, which is the congressionally chartered
nonprofit partner of the National Park Service.
I am pleased to speak with you about the efforts of the
Foundation to implement the provisions of title VII of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act. This language amended
the National Park Foundation's congressional charter and
directed the Foundation to develop programs to build
philanthropic support at the local park level.
Before talking about our specific efforts, I would like to
provide a brief overview on the Foundation.
The National Park Foundation honors, enriches, and expands
the legacy of private philanthropy that helped to create and
continues to sustain America's national parks. Last year, NPF
raised nearly $32 million in contributions to support the
national parks. Our grants fund outreach, education, visitor
services, and help enhance the national park experience and
strengthen the connection between the American public and their
national parks.
The Foundation is governed by a board of distinguished
national civic and business leaders, appointed by the Secretary
of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior chairs our
board, and the Director of the National Park Service also sits
on that board. David Rockefeller, Jr. currently serves as NPF's
vice chairman and is the citizen leader of our board. The
Foundation recently lost one of its most productive board
members in Don Rumsfeld when he became Secretary of Defense. I
have included a complete list of our current board with my
testimony.
NPF could not have accomplished all that I describe without
the support and guidance of the National Park Service, which we
greatly appreciate. We also appreciate the encouragement from
you, Senator Thomas, and other members of Congress for the work
that we do.
The American public loves the national parks and, when
given the opportunity, has demonstrated a willingness to help.
It is important to remember, however, that philanthropy for
national parks should never replace Federal appropriations.
Philanthropy will never solve the National Park Service's
backlog of infrastructure and maintenance needs which donors
see as a responsibility of the Federal Government.
Philanthropy, however, has always been a part of our
National Park System. There are a number of successful park-
based nonprofit organizations building on this proud
philanthropic tradition every day, which I describe in my
written testimony.
We have learned a lot from working with local park support
groups. Although some parks are fortunate to have successful
fund-raising partners, most parks enter the world of
philanthropy from scratch. Support for these fledgling
organizations is a focus of the National Park Foundation.
In 1998, Congress directed the National Park Foundation to
design a program to foster fund-raising at the individual
national park level. NPF has developed several models of park-
specific fund-raising that make the most of local community
enthusiasm and expertise, as well as NPF's own institutional
experience.
At Grand Teton, for example, we helped to launch an
independent nonprofit, the Grand Teton National Park
Foundation, who by the way had founding board members that
included Dick and Lynn Cheney. NPF invested significant staff
time and financial resources to help get this group started.
With the Glacier Fund, we took a different tack where the
volunteer leadership has decided to operate as a committee of
the National Park Foundation.
And the new African American Experience Fund started out as
a program owned and operated by NPF. It focuses on multiple
parks that are linked thematically and follows an
organizational structure similar to the Glacier Fund.
These examples show how NPF is carrying out this new
congressional mandate in an entrepreneurial, creative way that
provides solutions which fit the circumstances of each
particular park. My written testimony describes in greater
detail these and several other models that we have developed.
Title VII also establishes minimum requirements for NPF's
efforts to support philanthropy at the local level. The
Foundation has developed an organizational design following the
best practices in the nonprofit community. The core elements
include: one, recruiting a strong board; two, developing a
clear mission; three, securing start-up funding to underwrite
the first year's operations; and four, hiring a professional
executive director charged with the launch of the fund-raising
effort.
NPF has also developed a standard set of bylaws that any
group can use to become a committee of the National Park
Foundation. In addition, we have developed investment policies
and fund accounting procedures to ensure the wise stewardship
of donations.
The Foundation has designed a 2-day training curriculum for
new fund-raising organizations. There are some other tools that
we plan to develop to assist with local park fund-raising,
which are described in my testimony.
Senator Thomas, the National Park Foundation was very
pleased when you expanded our legislative authority in 1998. We
look forward to keeping you, your staff, and members of this
subcommittee updated on our progress with local park fund-
raising efforts in the coming months. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vestal follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAY VESTAL, VICE-PRESIDENT OF FIELD DEVELOPMENT,
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Senator Thomas, thank you for your invitation to address this
subcommittee. My name is Jay Vestal, and I am the Vice-President of
Field Development for the National Park Foundation. I am charged with
working with individual National Parks and their support groups to help
them gain access to philanthropic support. I have had a nearly 30-year
career in fund raising for non-profit organizations. For a majority of
those years, I was associated with health care philanthropy. As Vice
President of an organized fund raising effort for children's hospitals
called the Children's Miracle Network, I was able to help infuse
children's health care with an additional $600 million in private gifts
over the span of a decade.
More recently, I have served as a fund raising consultant to a
broad range of well-known and successful non-profits including the
American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, Junior Achievement and the
American Diabetes Association.
Today, I would like to speak with you and your subcommittee about
the efforts of the National Park Foundation (NPF) to implement the
provisions of Title VII of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act
(P.L. 105-391) which was signed into law in November, 1998.
This language amended the National Park Foundation's Congressional
charter (P.L. 90-209) and directed the Foundation to develop programs
and procedures to build philanthropic support at the local Park level.
We are pleased to report today that with the leadership of the NPF
Board and the support of this subcommittee, other members of Congress
and the National Park Service, the Foundation has been able to increase
the level of philanthropic support for National Parks over the last
five years. Before talking about our specific efforts to build local
Park fund-raising efforts, I would like to share some of these
successes with the subcommittee.
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
The National Park Foundation honors, enriches and expands the
legacy of private philanthropy that helped create, and continues to
sustain, America's National Parks. In 2000, NPF raised nearly $32
million in contributions and generated an additional $7 million from
other sources. For every dollar that we spent, 94.5 cents supported
National Parks through grants and other direct support and only 5.5
cents covered our administrative and fund-raising costs. Total assets
rose to $75 million.
Over the past five years NPF has enjoyed substantial growth: a
five-year total of $78 million in contributions, $106 million in total
revenue and $66 million in total grants and program support to National
Parks across the country. During the past five years, our net assets
have increased by over $30.7 million. Some of these assets funded
permanent endowments established to provide an ongoing revenue stream
for a particular program or project for the benefit of National Parks.
Other assets are still held by NPF, pending disbursements to Parks.
Our grants fund outreach, education and visitor services to help
enhance the National Park experience and strengthen the connection
between the American public and the National Parks.
The Foundation is governed by a Board of distinguished national
civic and business leaders, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior,
who are committed to supporting America's National Parks. By
Congressional charter, the Secretary of the Interior is the
Foundation's Chairman of the Board, and the Director of the National
Park Service serves as its Secretary. David Rockefeller, Jr., currently
serves as NPF's Vice Chairman and is the citizen leader of the Board.
The Foundation lost one of its most productive Board members, Don
Rumsfeld, when he became the Secretary of Defense earlier this year.
The Foundation works closely with the leadership of the National
Park Service here in Washington, in the regional offices and at the
individual Parks. NPF could not have accomplished all that I describe
in my testimony without the strong support, guidance and assistance of
the National Park Service. Our work, and the work of the other local
non-profit support organizations, is guided by Director's Order #21 on
Donations and Fundraising.
Philanthropy has always been a part of the National Park System.
Many National Parks owe their existence to philanthropists who
generously donated wondrous landscapes to the American people. Numerous
benefactors, including the first National Park Service Director,
Stephen T. Mather, have contributed their professional skills, personal
talents and energies, as well as private collections, real estate, and
financial support. I have attached a brief overview on the tradition of
philanthropic support to National Parks to my testimony to demonstrate
some of the ways private donations have made a difference in National
Parks.
There are a number of successful non-profits building on this proud
philanthropic tradition every day. For example, Acadia National Park
and the nonprofit Friends of Acadia have gone back to the roots of the
Park and asked private citizens who care passionately about the Park
and its environs to help rebuild the historic carriage road and trail
systems. For the 38 miles of carriage roads, $4 million of private
contributions were matched with more than $6 million of line item
construction funding from the National Park Service. More recently,
Friends of Acadia completed a $9 million campaign to rehabilitate 130
miles of Park trails. In a superior example of partnership, the Park
pledged $4 million, primarily from the fee demonstration program, which
was matched by private donations solicited by the Friends. In both
campaigns, endowments were established so that the benefits of the
fund-raising efforts will continue.
Another successful effort is underway in San Francisco, where the
Golden Gate National Parks have done a great job positioning the
numerous National Parks in the Bay area as deserving of philanthropic
support from the local community. Last year, the Golden Gate National
Parks Association, their support organization, raised over $11 million.
There are similar success stories with groups such as the Grand
Canyon National Park Foundation, the Yosemite Fund, Rocky Mountain
Nature Association, Friends of Virgin Islands National Park, and the
Yellowstone Park Foundation. The National Park Foundation works closely
with these and numerous other local non-profit support organizations to
increase the level of philanthropic support for National Parks.
We have learned a lot from working with these local Park-support
groups. Although some Parks are fortunate to have mature,
sophisticated, successful fund-raising partners, most National Parks
enter the world of philanthropy at the ground level. They must compete
for the attention of donors amid the appeals of 700,000 other legally
recognized non-profit organizations, many of which have been fund
raising for years. Park support organizations must start with the same
basic fund-raising principles that have created the most successful and
sustainable philanthropic institutions.
In addition, getting a fund-raising organization off the ground
takes time. Several of the successful local Park support organizations
started in the last seven years have shared their budgets for their
first several years with us. In the initial years, each group was
basically breaking even. But during these years, they were building
their board leadership, their donor base, and general awareness in the
local community--important steps which laid the groundwork for later
successes. For example, the Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park raised $140,000 in 1994, its first year of operation. In
2000, the Friends raised nearly $1.8 million.
Finally, the American public loves the National Parks, and when
given the opportunity, has demonstrated a willingness to help.
Philanthropy for National Parks, however, should never replace federal
appropriations. It will never solve the National Park Service's backlog
of infrastructure and maintenance needs, which donors see as the
responsibility of the federal government. Private philanthropy is
intended to provide additional financial support for the Parks and
should supplement, not supplant, federal appropriations.
comments on title vii--national park foundation support
In 1998, Congress directed the National Park Foundation to design a
program to foster fund-raising at the individual National Park unit
level, in addition to its broader efforts. Over the past several years,
NPF has developed several different models of Park-specific fund
raising that make the most of local community enthusiasm and expertise
as well as NPF's own institutional experience. Individual Parks or
groups of Parks that seek NPF's assistance may choose the option of
establishing a local fund-raising organization structured as a
committee of the NPF Board. Under the committee structure, NPF assists
the formation of each new fund, helping identify and recruit
influential leadership as fund trustees. NPF seeks the leadership
contributions that are essential to sustaining a start-up organization.
With the volunteer leadership in place and operational funding secure,
NPF can recruit a fund-raising professional to focus specifically on
guiding the growth of the fund.
Through these efforts, which the NPF Board directs, the Foundation
has taken a strategic approach, assessing the various opportunities and
focusing initially on a select few to ensure that we are able to
succeed with each of the efforts we launch in partnership with the
National Park Service. We continue to refine existing models and test
new ones. Since each National Park is a little different, there is not
one plan that can be applied across the entire System.
I would now like to highlight several of our efforts:
Grand Teton National Park
The National Park Foundation was already working to build local
philanthropic support for National Parks before the passage of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act. In 1997, NPF helped create the
Grand Teton National Park Foundation, which raises funds in support of
the visitor services and resources protection programs of the Park.
Working with the Park leadership, NPF recruited board members from
both the local Jackson area and around the nation, including Lynne and
Dick Cheney. The board is currently chaired by Jerry Halpin. Start up
funds for the fledgling foundation came from gifts of $150,000 from a
local couple and $100,000 from the Grand Teton Natural History
Association.
The Grand Teton National Park Foundation came together quickly from
concept to a productive, progressive volunteer board and paid staff
with over $2 million in resources in three short years. According to
Linda Olson, Executive Director of the Grand Teton National Park
Foundation, keys to success included: board members who have the
knowledge and resources to get the job done; Grand Teton's popularity
locally, regionally, and nationally, which allows the board to seek
donations from park lovers nationwide; an executive director who knows
the Park and the NPS; and advice and leadership from the National Park
Foundation.
The Glacier Fund
Over the last century, the railroads played a major role in
popularizing America's National Parks, so it seems fitting that the
first chairman of The Glacier Fund is Louis Hill, grandson and namesake
of the president of the Great Northern Railroad. In the early 1900s, it
was the first Louis Hill who conceived of a grand system of Swiss-style
hotels that would rival anything in Europe and attract Easterners to
``See America first!''
The current Louis Hill and 15 other Trustees chosen from throughout
the nation will guide fund-raising efforts to support the natural and
cultural wonders at Glacier National Park in Montana.
Between several fund-raising initiatives and gifts from the
Trustees, operating costs for the Glacier Fund have been covered so
that new contributions raised can be directed toward Park projects.
It's important to note that 100% of the Trustees are contributors.
So far, the Glacier Fund has disbursed more than $15,000 for
renovation of the Sperry Chalet, $5,000 toward the salary of a bear-
management expert, $15,000 for wildlife research projects, $2,500 for
an ecology project involving students from the Blackfeet Indian
reservation, and is putting $5,000 into renovating an historic
homestead in partnership with an Iowa hiking group. The Glacier Fund
has $90,000 in its operating account and almost $200,000 in total
assets invested with the National Park Foundation.
USS Arizona Memorial Fund
It was a day that would ``live in infamy.'' Japan's 1941 attack on
Pearl Harbor reverberated around the world, and the site--centered upon
the doomed battleship USS Arizona--even today evokes powerful emotions
in all who visit it.
Still, no one imagined when the museum and visitor center opened in
1980 that it would attract 1.5 million visitors a year. Long lines and
waiting are standard, and the museum, because of its modest size, can
exhibit only a fraction of the artifacts germane to the Park. The
National Park Foundation, in consultation with NPS staff at the Park,
has established the USS Arizona Memorial Fund to spearhead a $10
million capital campaign to expand the visitor and staff facilities in
a new Memorial Museum to enhance the Pearl Harbor experience.
NPF has identified donor prospects and important connections within
Hawaii's corporate community as we lay the ground work to begin
securing leadership gifts for the campaign. The Arizona Memorial Museum
Association provided a lead gift of $2 million to the USS Arizona
Memorial Fund, and it is providing the operating capital for the
campaign's early phases.
Outside Las Vegas Foundation
Seven million acres of spectacular natural landscapes--ranging from
the lush forested Alpine environment to dry desert landscape--surround
Las Vegas. These public lands are managed by four federal agencies--the
National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Land Management--which have come together to
empower a non-profit organization to raise private support to assist in
the protection of these special places.
In 2000, these four agencies, working with the National Park
Foundation, created the Outside Las Vegas Foundation, whose mission is
to preserve the federal public lands surrounding Las Vegas, enrich the
experience of its visitors, enhance the quality of life for local
residents, and promote community stewardship of these valuable
resources.
The National Park Foundation helped secure a $300,000 grant to fund
the first three years of operation. In addition, nearly $350,000 has
been donated or pledged for initial programs and activities.
The Outside Las Vegas Foundation has recruited prominent members of
the Las Vegas community to serve as Trustees. A few months ago, the
Foundation hired Alan O'Neill as its first Executive Director. Alan had
previously been the Superintendent of Lake Mead National Recreation
Area.
African American Experience Fund
Seventeen National Park sites are dedicated predominantly to
African American themes--from slavery to civil rights--and many other
Parks address elements of the African American experience. Yet, African
Americans account for a small fraction of National Park visitors. That
is a situation the National Park Service is working hard to reverse,
and the National Park Foundation has created a new fund in support of
that effort. To date, the African American Experience Fund (AAEF) has
secured $175,000 to operate for its first year and fund start-up
activities. The Fund was officially launched last month during Black
History Month at an event featuring Rep. John Lewis as the keynote
speaker. The Fund seeks to create a new tradition of philanthropy for
National Parks that illustrate significant moments in the African
American Experience.
Meanwhile, National Park Foundation Board member Barry Lawson
Williams is spearheading the effort to recruit Trustees for the Fund,
which is currently chaired by former National Park Service Director
Robert Stanton. NPF-AAEF personnel are meeting with National Park
Service officials of African American sites to map out goals and
strategies to further raise awareness of these important places.
Future Plans
Building off of the AAEF model of linking National Parks
thematically, this year the National Park Foundation wants to try the
model of linking National Parks geographically. The Washington National
Parks Fund, serving Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic National
Parks, was one of the first such multi-Park fund-raising organizations.
Some of the seed money to launch the Fund came from the National Park
Foundation.
NPF is close to starting a new collaborative effort among the Parks
of the Nation's Capital--including Rock Creek Park, the C&O Canal and
the monuments on the Mall--so that the people who live and work in DC,
as well as the millions who visit, know that these places that do so
much for the quality of life in this area are, in fact, National Parks
and worthy of their support.
Tools for Park-Specific Fund-Raising Efforts
Title VII also established minimum requirements for NPF's efforts
to promote philanthropic support at the local level.
As described earlier in my testimony, the Foundation has developed
an organizational design following the best practices in the non-profit
community. The core elements include recruiting a strong board,
developing a clear mission, securing start-up funding to underwrite the
first several years of operation and hiring a paid executive director
charged with the successful launch of the fund-raising effort.
As described earlier in my testimony, NPF has developed a standard
set of bylaws that any group can use to become a committee of the
National Park Foundation. In addition, we have developed investment
policies and fund accounting procedures to ensure the wise stewardship
of contributions.
The Foundation has designed a standard two-day training curriculum
for beginning fund raising organizations associated with National Parks
and other public lands. The first training session was offered earlier
this month at the Association for Partners of Public Lands Annual
Convention. We are currently working on the development of a Trustees
manual for use by the Trustees of each local Park fund.
Finally, the National Park Foundation is working closely with the
National Park Service and other Park-specific fund-raising
organizations to develop two publications. The first is a reference
guide to National Park Service Directors's Order #21 on donations and
fund raising. This document will interpret and explain in a user-
friendly style, the rules, regulations and policies governing fund
raising for National Parks for National Park Service staff and their
non-profit partners.
The second is a handbook for private-sector support. This resource
guide will provide Park Service staff and their non-profit partners
with fundamental information on how to start, build and grow a local
non-profit group to support the projects of a National Park.
The handbook will also feature case studies and success strategies
for public-private partnerships. We hope to have this handbook finished
by the end of the year.
Senator Thomas, the National Park Foundation was pleased when you
expanded our legislative authority in 1998, and we look forward to
keeping you, your staff and members of this subcommittee updated on our
progress with our local fund-raising efforts in the coming months.
Senator Thomas. Well, thanks to all of you. I appreciate
your efforts. Certainly, all of us are interested in making
things happen that will be beneficial for our parks. Also, in
addition to the implementation of the laws in this case, we
also need feedback in terms of the laws themselves. Sometimes
they need to be altered as well, in order to be as effective as
they can be.
Mr. Galvin, you talked about training, which I think is one
of the issues that always arises. Most people start managing
resources, or doing whatever they do, and are more oriented
perhaps towards bears and geysers. Then they become a park
superintendent, which is a pretty good sized business operation
in many cases. Does your training move in the direction of
enabling people to be able to be business managers as well?
Mr. Galvin. Incrementally it has I think. A couple of
things.
One is I know in the concessions hearing, we testified that
we are working with universities--Northern Arizona University
in this instance--to train our people more complementarily with
the housekeeping industry and with the recreation industry.
With respect to management and supervision training, we do
now require 80 hours of management and supervision training
when any supervisor enters on duty. So from the time they
become a foreman or a supervisory park ranger, they get 80
hours in the first year and are required to get 40 hours every
year after that.
With respect specifically to business practices, I think
you are aware of the business plan initiative, which has been
supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, which
puts business majors in the parks to analyze their operations.
We have done about 30 parks thus far. I think some of the
superintendents in those parks, having had the advantage of a
couple of M.B.A.'s in the parks for 3 or 4 months, have
followed up by hiring people with an M.B.A. background--Santa
Monica comes to mind--so that they can continue that analytical
effort and look to people with business backgrounds to make
recommendations.
I remember one of the business students said, you know, you
really need to think of a park as having a whole suite of
investors. It is not just visitors that you are looking at. It
is local communities. It is other things. That was kind of an
eye-opening thing to hear for a park manager I think.
So, we definitely need more business skills. I think we are
moving in that direction.
Senator Thomas. I hope so.
Do your plans include drafting business plans?
Mr. Galvin. Yes. I think this summer we will do probably
another 10 or 15 parks.
The business plan effort is a fairly extensive effort, and
I think it requires resources that most parks really do not
have. We have intentionally tried to do it in a variety of
parks, small, medium, and large parks. We have developed a
template of activities, as a result of that. We have integrated
the approach with the Government Performance and Results Act
and the strategic plan. In each instance, we found significant
shortfalls in park operations as a result of those plans.
What we are going to try to do this summer is to build a
template in which parks could do business plans without the
kind of expertise that they have gotten through the support of
the Foundation and the business students. This is all being
basically supported by private foundations.
The foundations are not anxious to keep funding year after
year more business plans for parks, but they are interested in
two things. One is developing a system that could be replicated
in other parks, and two is encouraging people with business
backgrounds to enter the National Park Service. We have been
talking about things like student loan pay-downs and other
things that would encourage that.
Senator Thomas. The Foundation is not drafting business
plans, are you?
Mr. Vestal. No, sir.
Senator Thomas. It is NPCA.
Mr. Galvin. I am sorry. It is NPCA. That is right. NPCA
through Foundation funding. I am sorry.
Senator Thomas. Well, I hope we can move in that direction.
Of course, there is outsourcing. We can also bring people in on
contracts, and so on.
Mr. Galvin. Yes.
Senator Thomas. One of the problems these gentlemen talked
about, the allocation of funds, has a great deal to do with
plans and business management. All those things, obviously,
tend to go together.
Mr. Ward, you state, I think in your testimony, that there
is a rumor that there is inadequate funding to hire a second
recruiting class. Do you think there is any substance to that
rumor?
Mr. Ward. We have a fairly open sharing of information
between our Labor Committee and the management. They state that
there is a conflict between the regional budget people and the
Park Police budget people regarding when they are going to run
out of money before the end of this fiscal year. The Park
Police believe, if nothing is done, it will happen sometime in
the June-July period. The regional people have evidently not
stated a position, but they also are now preparing to write a
reprogramming request and the recruit class. So, I would say
that probably indicates that they have decided that they are
going to run out of money unless something is done.
One of the fears that was expressed to me by management was
that even if they canceled the class and got it reprogrammed,
that there still would not be enough money in the budget plan
between now and the end of the year.
This seems to go to the region prepared the budget plan for
the Park Police this year. The Park Police have told the region
they saw problems with it and probably would run out of money.
But the region and evidently the higher-ups in the budget in
the Park Service said it would be fine and it was perfectly
adequate.
Like I said, that is why we were appreciative of a
requirement for a NAPA audit because this ties into the
problems that have been ongoing for quite some number of years.
Senator Thomas. Obviously, particularly for the police, law
enforcement is not a unique issue. Do you work with others in
law enforcement to get the latest information, the latest
techniques and so on? You are not just independent from all
other law enforcement agencies, are you?
Mr. Ward. The Park Police in Washington, D.C. work with the
Metropolitan Police, the FBI on the Counter-terrorism Task
Force that they have.
Senator Thomas. I am talking about planning and management,
not just carrying out policing tasks.
Mr. Ward. Well, I for years, as the head of our
organization and our union, have advocated that the budget
should be something that everybody in the organization should
be able to look at, see, feel, and touch. And then rumors and
the facts can be known. The way the budget has been run within
the Park Service, the Park Police, is that no one ever sees
anything that is written down. Different people say different
things.
For instance, I was at a meeting last year.
I have no budgetary experience, but I looked around and I
looked at Montgomery County police, San Francisco police, New
York City police, and I looked for all the money that is listed
in their budgets. I am not sure I found it all, but I found
what I could find on the Internet. I added up all the budgets.
Then I divided it by the number of sworn officer positions that
they say they have or they say they need. Like New York City
says we have 39,000 and we should have 42,000, and Montgomery
County, Maryland says, we need 1,100 and we have 1,000.
What I found was that the Park Police, if they removed the
retirement payments for the D.C. retirement system out of the
Park Police budget--because no other police budget has that
sort of thing in it--and divide the total by the number of
sworn officer positions, the Park Police has about $72,000 per
officer. MPD in D.C. has about $82,000 and $90,000, and then
the suburbs get into $100,000 and $200,000.
The Park Police managers are saying, well, we do not get
enough money. Maybe there is some truth to that, but it could
be more complicated than that.
So, I went to a meeting where former Assistant Secretary
Berry, the Comptroller of the Park Service was there, and I
sort of laid this out. I said, does anybody wish to dispute
this information and say that the Park Police is a very well-
funded police organization. I looked right at the Comptroller
when I said this. And nobody said anything. Maybe it is because
they did not want to argue with me.
But subsequent to that, we have gone out and I have heard
that the argument has been made that the Park Police is a very
well-funded police agency.
Senator Thomas. Were you able to make a comparison of
expenditure per officer compared to these others?
Mr. Ward. Yes.
Senator Thomas. What were they?
Mr. Ward. For D.C. city police, it was about $82,000. The
Capitol Police was about $92,000. The New York City police was
a little bit ahead of MPD, but with 40,000 some odd officers,
there is probably some economy of scale in there.
Senator Thomas. So, at least the Park Police is in the ball
park.
Mr. Ward. Well, we are at $72,000. We are $10,000 behind
MPD.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I thought you said $92,000.
Mr. Ward. We are the lowest of the ones I looked at in the
geographic areas we work. We are $10,000 behind MPD, which is
the next higher one, and it ranges upwards of $100,000 and
something.
Senator Thomas. It might be a reasonable thing to look at.
Mr. Ward. Subsequent to that meeting, to sum up the point,
I have heard that the Park Service has said through the
Comptroller's office that the Park Police is a very well-funded
agency and has made arguments for that. All I had to say is,
well, those arguments may be true, but I have not heard them.
But it is not an open atmosphere that leads to the solving of
problems when contrary arguments are made and not disputed in a
meeting you would think was being held to solve the problem.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson, do you think it would be appropriate to have
people in top management positions of the Park Service with a
background and knowledge of law enforcement?
Mr. Jackson. I think it is important. The Park Service does
have a training program. That training program is improving,
but it is possible to become a chief ranger of a national park
with no advanced training whatsoever in administering law
enforcement or to become a superintendent without more than a
1-week class in administering law enforcement programs. There
are no requirements beyond basic Federal Law Enforcement Center
training classes, plus generally 40 hours a year, and that is
it. But there is no concise development program for that within
the ranger ranks.
Senator Thomas. Well, it is unique in some ways. You also
have fire fighters and building inspectors and other kinds of
people who have specific tasks that are difficult, I suppose,
who could work on that.
Is there anyone in the management team who specifically
deals with law enforcement, Denis?
Mr. Galvin. Generally, central offices in the Park Service
are organized the same way that parks are, and there is a
division of operations that includes a variety of functions,
which include law enforcement. In a park, the principal law
enforcement spokesman would be the chief ranger. In the
Washington office, it is the head of ranger activities who
reports to the Associate Director for Operations. Now, the
Associate Director for Operations might or might not have a law
enforcement background. Usually they have a ranger background.
Senator Thomas. Scot, you mentioned that as well, did you
not, about the idea of an associate director for law
enforcement?
Mr. McElveen. I did in my written testimony, anyway. We
would support that effort. As Greg said, the Washington office
certainly could be beefed up some so that the law enforcement
function part of that office gets more--``attention'' is not
the word I am looking for--exposure so that the entire realm of
National Park Service employees understand that law enforcement
is an important function to meeting the mission of the National
Park Service. It is not something that we just do because we
have to.
Senator Thomas. For instance, in Yellowstone the U.S.
Marshal has people there, do they not? Are they there all the
time, or are they just on the premises when there is a felony
they have to deal with?
Mr. Galvin. It would be unusual for a marshal to be in
residence. Frequently in big parks, we have magistrate systems
there.
Senator Thomas. You do, but there has to be somebody to
work with the magistrate.
Mr. Galvin. Normally that is done by the rangers or by the
Park Police in the areas where they have responsibilities. I am
not aware of any place where there are permanently assigned
U.S. marshals.
Senator Thomas. No. I guess I did not expect that, but you
can call on other enforcement agencies, can you not, when you
have felonies?
Mr. Galvin. Yes. And frequently we have written cooperative
agreements with other agencies.
Senator Thomas. I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Vestal, I agree with you entirely that, as we have
other sources for funding, the thing we have to be very careful
about is that they are not used to supplant and take the place
of appropriations, which can easily happen. On the other hand,
there is a limit. Almost every agency that comes up here will
say we need more money, and they probably do. Also, we have to
find better ways to use the money. So, that has something to do
with it, I am sure.
You mentioned, I think again in your written testimony,
about visitor complaints on the various fees and suggested that
there be one entry fee and that be the only charge. Is that
your point of view?
Mr. McElveen. In some cases. Visitors get confused when
they pay an entrance fee and either they do not hear the full
explanation of that or they do not get it, one of the two. When
they get to an activity that also requires a use fee, they are
confused as to why did I pay the entrance fee and now that I
want to go on this walk or I want to go on this canoe trip, I
also have to pay another fee. They do not get that in many
cases.
Perhaps there is a way, in parks that are going to have
those types of use fees, to incorporate the two together,
although I am not sure how that would work because not every
person that enters a national park unit that has an entrance
fee goes on to do one of the special uses that the special use
fees are charged for.
Mr. Galvin. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the areas that we
are going to be working with the Foundation and a private firm
to study. The principal focus of that study will not be revenue
enhancement, but rather it will be trying to rationalize the
fee system so that when people pay for one thing at Bryce, they
pay the same amount for the same thing at Zion, and to look at
things like the difference between entrance fees and user fees,
and see if there is a way that you can simplify the system
without affecting the amount of revenue that is brought in.
Senator Thomas. It is not an easy issue, of course.
Do you favor extending the fee demonstration program?
Mr. Vestal. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Do you think that has been well received
among visitors?
Mr. Vestal. From our perspective, yes.
Senator Thomas. Do you think the distribution of funding is
properly done?
Mr. Vestal. Well, I will have to defer to Mr. Galvin on
that one.
Senator Thomas. I thought you might have a prejudice on
that some way or another.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. What do you think will be the impact of the
Golden Eagle Pass? Does that have any impact on the kinds of
things you are doing?
Mr. Vestal. One of the interesting things about the new
National Park Pass is the ability to begin to engage in a
dialogue with people who purchase the pass not just for the
financial benefit but for the opportunity for them to
demonstrate their stewardship of national parks. That program
is now just beginning because the pass has just been in place
for a year. But it is already beginning to show benefit in
terms of people expressing their interest and support for
parks. We are very pleased with it.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Could you briefly describe how that $12 million has been
invested?
Mr. Galvin. Eighty percent of it stays right in the park
where it is collected, and virtually all of it goes into the
infrastructure. We do not use any of it for operations or to
pay permanent salaries. So, most of it is going to rehabilitate
structures in the park. I was just reading a newsletter from
Rocky Mountain this morning where they are rehabilitating
campgrounds, providing new picnic tables, rehabilitating the
rest room at their administration building.
A couple of parks, Grand Canyon being the notable one, have
made proposals to use a fair amount of their money to implement
a transportation system, and that is still under review. But
most of it goes to rehabilitate infrastructure.
Senator Thomas. I have heard that that does need to be
reviewed.
Mr. Galvin. In fact, it is being reviewed at the direction
of the Congress, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. That is very nice.
Again, I know it is always difficult. We have been dealing
in the last several weeks with all kinds of people coming in,
many of them concerning research. But your research on
science--what could you say has been the accomplishment of
that?
Mr. Galvin. Well, first, I think that we feel that the
National Park Service is not a research organization in the
sense that we should do the research ourselves. One of the
things that the Cooperative Ecological Study Units opens to us
is the ability to use universities to do our research along
with the Sabbatical in the Parks program, and the Learning
Centers. And BRD is still an important contributor to the
knowledge gained in individual parks. What we do with that
information is use it as research managers.
Now, in many instances, that means we need people with
scientific background in parks so that they can manage the
science done in the parks, and they may be Ph.D.'s, but we do
not see--a person like Dave Graber at Sequoia who is a Ph.D.
but manages science in Channel Islands and Sequoia and other
places and makes sense out of the research so that he can
translate it to managers for sound management decisions.
The codification that is in this omnibus bill has been
extremely useful, both in terms of setting up major areas of
science and research, but also in encouraging outside
researchers to do research in parks. One of the things that is
mentioned in my testimony that I did not highlight is the
research permit system is now up on the Internet. So, a
researcher who is interested in doing research in a particular
park or in a unit of the National Park System can look at a
particular park. Say, somebody is interested in doing research
on Channel Island. See what the research needs are of the park,
apply, do the permit application on the Internet and get a
response on the Internet. So, we are trying to make the system
easier for researchers to get into.
I was just in a Learning Center 2 weeks ago in Point Reyes.
We are rehabilitating buildings in parks, in this instance a
ranch, to provide working space for researchers, dormitory
space, office space, computer terminals, laboratory space. That
alone encourages researchers to do work in parks and is a very
cost beneficial way to do it.
Senator Thomas. I guess I am not quite clear. It seemed to
me that what I had heard from the Park Service is that the
research and science--and I understand that all the visitors
and all the infrastructure, and so on, has taken away from
that--was basically oriented at managing those resources----
Mr. Galvin. That is right.
Senator Thomas [continuing]. Not just at random research.
Mr. Galvin. No. They work off a list of park needs. On this
Internet system, there was a list of research needs in the
parks that researchers work off of.
Senator Thomas. Needs for what?
Mr. Galvin. Needs for management.
Senator Thomas. How to manage the resource.
Mr. Galvin. Exactly, right.
I was with one of the BRD biologists last week, and they
are doing extensive surveys on the animals in the parks.
Interestingly enough, amphibians in Point Reyes are in great
shape. Now, generally throughout California, amphibians are in
decline. In fact, the BRD researcher who is resident in Point
Reyes is an expert on amphibians in California. So, one of the
unique opportunities that Point Reyes offers is to figure out
why are these populations in good shape in Point Reyes and not
in such good shape on the western face of the Sierras and maybe
to be able to solve a much bigger problem, but using the
information that they found in the park.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Ward, just thinking out loud, in
Washington, for example, where the parks' resources are strung
out all over the place, why would it not make more sense to
contract with the D.C. police to do some of this work, as
opposed to having the Park Service do it all?
Mr. Ward. That goes back to the National Commission for the
Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement. Sort of one of the
things they were tasked with was why is there Capitol Police
and FBI? I think that is reflective of the way the United
States of America is. Most States have State police, they have
city police or county sheriffs and different sort of things
like that. I think the Federal Government sort of reflects that
State sort of thing.
Why is there a Park Police? Because I think the President
who lives in the White House and the Federal Government and the
executive branch have an interest in the law enforcement that
occurs on the National Mall and in and around the White House.
Senator Thomas. That is why all the Secret Service guys are
standing around there.
Mr. Ward. Well, their mission is to protect the President.
Senator Thomas. I understand, and I am not promoting this
idea.
When you talk about Yellowstone Park, are they the only
police agency with jurisdiction in the park?
Mr. Ward. Right.
Senator Thomas. When you talk about the parkway over here,
that is right in the middle of a county in Virginia, and you
begin to wonder why do we have to do it that way. I do not know
the answer. I am not suggesting it be changed, but it does
raise a question.
Mr. Ward. From our perspective and from what I thought the
Government's perspective was, it would be a good thing to have
the people that control the areas around the White House that
handle the demonstrations to be somewhat removed from directly
being associated with the President.
Senator Thomas. I know, but when you have a ball park
across the river over here that you are responsible for, that
is a little different matter.
Mr. Ward. Well, yes, it is. But in order to have a force of
the size to be able to handle the large demonstrations on the
Mall, there has to be a mission ongoing. The way it has
developed is that the Park Police have responsibility for the
Park Service stuff that is around D.C., and our core mission of
handling the demonstrations and the large public events on the
National Mall are part of that.
Senator Thomas. I understand. Maybe the Mall is a different
matter from some of the others. I think it might be interesting
to think about it sometime. Times do change and sometimes you
have to change the way you do things. I do not know that that
is appropriate, but I see the Washington, D.C. role quite
differently than the other roles played in the other parks, or
maybe even in New York at the Statue of Liberty. I do not know.
Just a thought.
Mr. Ward. Well, I would suggest in the parks where the Park
Police are at it is an exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in
urban areas which have a mission that requires a more urban
type organized police force, which is what the Park Police
provide for the Park Service. And I think it is important issue
for the executive branch and the President to have control of
the department.
We believe that NAPA will be addressing this issue in the
audit that is going on.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Scot, you talked about the various functions in the parks
and so on. Do you feel comfortable with the allocation of
dollars? Sure, everybody wants more dollars and I understand
that.
But one of the other issues is the management plan and how
you allocate the dollars that are available. Do you have a
feeling about this?
Mr. McElveen. I think the other disciplines other than
protection would again make the same arguments to you that in
resource management we do not have enough employees, and from
the 1998 Act, the natural resource challenge sprang from that
and some new funding has come into that. But there are a number
of visitor centers around the National Park Service that are
primarily operated by volunteers that, while assisting the
Government and we are happy have them, do not necessarily have
the resource based knowledge to answer visitors' questions
fully and completely so that they get the connection between
the resource and themselves.
So, I would be hard-pressed to say that we need somebody
else's money, we need other people's money allocated in the
protection division. I just reiterate our statement that all
three of those things have to occur for park resources to be
preserved and people to be able to enjoy them.
I think the feeling that we get in the protection ranks in
the field sometimes is that, again, you are good when we need
you, but other than that, the work that you do can be
redirected to something else until a response is needed. And
that is not good enough.
Senator Thomas. I suspect that is characteristic of
emergency services everywhere, is it not?
Mr. McElveen. I suspect so. In people and property related
emergency services, that is okay in many cases because people
can complain when something is happening to them, but resources
cannot do that.
Senator Thomas. Denis, I have heard, as we talk about the
administration's budget and the Park Service budget, early on
there was going to be, over a period of time, $5 million for
infrastructure, and so on. Is that going to be new money, or is
that going to be reallocation, for instance, of demonstration
fees?
Mr. Galvin. Some of both, I am afraid. I am not at liberty
to divulge the details. There is a very strong emphasis on
infrastructure. There is some redirection of existing funds to
infrastructure, including fees, and there is some new money to
tackle the infrastructure problem. But it is not all new money.
Senator Thomas. It goes back to our comment a moment ago.
We have been working on the fee demonstration project, but then
if you are going to add something of substance to the
infrastructure, and you take it away from something else, you
have not accomplished a hell of a lot really.
Mr. Galvin. I would agree with that statement, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thomas. We do not have an Assistant Secretary yet
to deal with that.
Mr. Galvin. Nor a Director.
Senator Thomas. Nor a Director.
Mr. Galvin. Not a Deputy Secretary yet either in terms of
Senate confirmation.
Senator Thomas. We have got one pretty close apparently.
Well, these are tough issues and I know that.
I do want to tell you all, that I think there has been
substantial movement to implement the law that went in a couple
years ago, and I am pleased about that. Just in my own opinion,
we do need to strengthen the management. I think we need
business plans in each of these parks, that are of any size at
all.
I frankly think we need, as you suggested, somebody in top
management that deals more specifically with the uniqueness,
for instance, of the policing aspect of it.
My own prejudice, which not everybody agrees with, is that
I think there ought to be more oversight at the regional level,
in terms of management. I agree that parks ought to have some
autonomy because each of them is different, but I think they
also have to have some accountability. Some of that comes from,
I think, regional oversight and so on.
I know it is not easy, and I will not take much more of
your time.
Denis, one other thing. On this leasing deal, it is my
understanding under the proposed rules, they combine historic
leasing with other leasing authorities, and this is creating
some real issues.
Mr. Galvin. We do not think so. I mentioned in my testimony
that we got all supportive comments. We did not get a lot of
comments. People seem to be pretty satisfied. The reason we
rolled the historic leasing in with the regular leasing was
because of the title that encouraged us to simplify historic
leasing which, God knows, has not been terribly simple. So, we
think by having both things combined in the regs, that we will
actually make life simpler for prospective lessees.
Senator Thomas. I guess the reason that it seems difficult
to combine the two is that you do not have competition for
historic leasing. You do not have fair market values for
historic leasing. They are not profit-producing items that you
can come back to a business aspect. To roll the two together
seems to make it mighty difficult.
Mr. Galvin. They might be profit-making in some instances,
bed and breakfasts and other things. However, I believe the
historic leasing regulations do require fair market value
adjusted.
Senator Thomas. Yes, but there are some things that are
historic that do not have any profitability motive at all.
Mr. Galvin. Well, they are turned into private residences
or something like that. Yes, that is right. I do not think that
the combination of the historic leasing and regular leasing
programs is going to complicate life. I hope it is going to
simplify things.
Senator Thomas. I hope so.
Mr. Galvin. It needs to be simplified. The legislation was
right on in that respect.
Senator Thomas. Some of the rules we went through last week
in my opinion do not simplify and, indeed, make some of them
more difficult. I agree with you that simplification and
fairness ought to be our goal.
Very quickly, as we all depart, other than just more money,
what would each of you say was the one thing that you would
like to see happen that would make your job more effective?
Mr. Vestal. Well, sir, we have been very pleased with our
new authority that you have granted us. I would only emphasize
that it takes time to build up the local grassroots fund-
raising that we are working on. I would just suggest you give
us some time to do the work that you have given us the
challenge to meet, and I think we will meet it for you.
Senator Thomas. Very good.
Scot.
Mr. McElveen. The law required a law enforcement study.
That study was done. There are very good recommendations in it,
and we would just like to see some implementation strategies.
If more new money is not the answer, then what is the answer?
Let us see how we are going to get these recommendations done,
or are they, in fact, not correct recommendations? I think they
are, but let us implement them.
Senator Thomas. Very good.
Greg?
Mr. Jackson. I would agree with Scot. Implementing the
proposals from the IACP study is important, and probably
amongst that is getting someone up at the top with experience
in managing a law enforcement program to see that, if there is
no money or no new positions, at least what we have is being
used most effectively.
Senator Thomas. Very good.
Pete?
Mr. Ward. I would concur with that and just say staffing
pretty much throughout the whole Park Service of the law
enforcement portion.
Senator Thomas. Is it fair to say from you three guys,
basically, that the study has produced some recommendations
that would be useful, if implemented?
Mr. Ward. Yes. Our joint statement, if you read it, is like
a short version of the two reports.
Senator Thomas. That is good. Sometimes studies do not
produce anything very useful. I am glad to hear they did.
Denis?
Mr. Galvin. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank all
the members of this subcommittee, both present and past, for
passing this legislation. As I said at the beginning, I think
it is an important addition to our ability to manage the
National Park System.
I think especially I would like to single out its impetus
towards a better natural resource management program and better
information for managing parks. I believe in the long run that
is going to be the most significant contribution, and I believe
over the past 3 years, as a result of this act codifying our
role in resource management, we have made significant strides
in finding out what is really going on at parks. I think that
is going to be of great benefit to managing parks, but I also
think it is going to be of great benefit in understanding what
goes on on the land generally, to all our benefits.
Senator Thomas. Good. I think--and you would agree I
believe--that the main purpose of a park is to preserve the
resource and then let the owners enjoy it.
Mr. Galvin. Absolutely.
Senator Thomas. Unfortunately, often ruts in the road, or
the bathrooms not being up-to-date and so on, get more
attention than some of the things you are talking about. So, we
have to be careful that we have a balance between protecting
those resources and making the visit useful.
We are hopeful that we can do more on the visitors' side,
Jay, with the kinds of things you are doing and that with the
kinds of contributions you are collecting, we can implement
some of these programs.
So, in any event, I feel good about it. I hope we can
continue to make progress and we appreciate all of you being
here and appreciate your input. Thank you so much.
We will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
Hon. Gale Norton,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, c/o The Office of
Congressional Relations, Washington, DC.
Re: Additional questions regarding the Subcommittee Oversight Hearing
on the National Park Service's implementation of management policies
and procedures in conformance with the provisions of Title IV of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1888--Thursday, March 22,
2001.
Dear Secretary Norton: In order to complete the record on the above
referenced hearing the following questions are submitted for your
response:
It is my intention to close out this phase of the hearing record
within thirty days of the date of this letter of request. I also
realize that some questions will be subject to review by the Department
of Justice, given the state of litigation on these same concession
issues. Should additional time be required for your response, please
feel free to contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff to arrange
for a reasonable alternate deadline.
Thank you in advance to your attention to this request, and I look
forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Craig Thomas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National
Parks,
Historic Preservation, and
Recreation.
[Responses to the following questions from the Department
of the Interior were not received at the time this hearing went
to press.]
Question 1. Describe what specific progress the National Park
Service has achieved in the implementation of management policies and
procedures in conformance with the provisions of Title IV of the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998?
Question 2. Are there issues or problems that the Congress did not
anticipate in1998 which require supplemental legislation in order for
the National Park Service to effectively and efficiently carry-out the
intent of this legislation?
Question 3. Today under the new standard contracts park
concessionaires, or their parent companies, will not be able to
refinance their various commercial loans without approval of the
National Park Service. For many businesses such provisions are
considered to be an unreasonable encumbrance on a contract;
a) what is the rational behind this policy;
b) why is the policy necessary;
c) would you provide examples of similar practices which are
incorporated into standard contracts commonly issued in private sector
business transactions, and
d) considering your response to question ``3(b)'' describe any
acceptable reasonable or viable alternative provision which might be
incorporated into the standard contract language.
Question 4. The standard language for contracts appears to indicate
that if the National Park Service Director changes a policy or
promulgates a new rule changing the terms and conditions of a signed
contract, the concessionaire has no recourse but to absorb the cost of
change, and/or accept new contract conditions. A business entity
responding to an opened-ended contract, the provisions of which could
change at any time, is not offered any opportunity to adjust management
options, fees, and/or practices to absorb the cost of conducting
business activities;
a) why did the National Park Service ignore standard private-sector
business practices which would provide provisions for contract
renegotiation or recalculation should the terms and conditions of a
specific contract change prior to the contract termination date;
b) how will the open-ended contract provision affect competition,
and
c) is the National Park Service going to implement changes in their
rules and procedures to rectify this oversight?
Question 5. The National Park Service written testimony states that
many of the recommendations from the annual report issued by the
Concessions Advisory Committee, as well as those recommendations issued
by Price-Waterhouse-Cooper will be incorporated into the concessions
management program:
a) what specific recommendations are you considering? How and when
will you incorporate the recommendations into the concessions
management program; and
b) how long will it take to implement the recommendations and what
effect will that have on the contracts that will be issued prior to the
implementation of such recommendations?
Question 6. Does the National Park Service require more time to
formulate, solicit and award the backlog of contracts (if so, how much
time will the National Park Service require)?
Question 7. Contracts now provide the National Park Service the
opportunity to take two years to purchase the value of a concessioners
possessor interest or lease-hold surrender value if the current
operator is unsuccessful in his or her bid process--or if the current
operator decides to refrain from participating in another contract:
a) how often do you believe that a current concession operator's
interests will not be purchased by another successful bidder; and
b) given the time it will take to 1) study, analyze and evaluate
the financial condition of a current concession operation, and 2) issue
a proper, well-defined prospectus--is it feasible that sufficient time
will be available to predict that Congress may be required to off-set a
purchase of a concession operation through the appropriations process;
c) are there other alternatives to the two-year hiatus for payment
of interest that may be incurred, and
d) given the fact that individuals or companies in the private
business sector do not normally enter into concession type contracts
which would unduly delay a return on their investment, do you believe
that the ``two-year wait provision'' will have a dampening affect on
the number of prospective bidders that will be willing to participate
in contract negotiations with the National Park Service given a choice,
a business could for seeably invest his or her money in a program that
would yield a higher return than that received at the interest rate
offered by the National Park Service?
Question 8. Congress directed the National Park Service to
streamline the contracting process for the smaller operator. On one
hand, you have reduced the literal size of the proposal; on the other
hand, you have doubled the workload and manpower necessary to fully
respond to a prospectus by the inclusion of your additional
requirements:
a) what is the National Park Service going to do to ease the
excessive paperwork, accounting, and time that the smaller operator now
finds himself or herself under the new bidding procedures, and
b) what is the National Park Service going to do to ensure that the
individual units of the System can respond to concession operator
inquiries concerning the meaning and scope of information required by
the issued prospectus?
Question 9. What is the National Park Service prepared to do to
ensure that they have access to the expertise necessary to issue a well
prepared prospectus and contract; efficiently and effectively analyze
current concession operations, and effectively negotiate and arbitrate
concession issues?
a) What does the National Park Service plan to do in the interim,
and
b) will the ``apparent lack of expertise'' delay contracts and
negotiations with concession operators whose contracts have, or are
about to expire?
Question 10. In the legislation Congress provided the Secretary
with the authority to add criteria to be considered in the selection of
the ``best offer''. Are responses under ``environmental practices''
given more weight, the same weight, or less weight in the selection
process?
Question 11. The National Park Service has issued (under the new
rules and regulations) its own unique criteria for what can be
considered a ``capital expenditure or capital improvement''. In doing
so, the National Park Service has ignored the definitions of capital
expenditures / capital improvements provided by ``GAAP'' (General
Accepted Accounting Principals). GAAP is used by the majority of all
other federal agencies:
a) why did the National Park Service ignore the definitions, rules
and procedures as defined by GAAP;
b) what is unique to National Park Service concessions operations
which would justify using their own definitions, rules and procedures?
c) The National Park Service also chose to ignore the rules,
regulations and procedures as set forth by FAR (Federal Acquisition
Regulations) which cover federal contracting and are used by the
majority of the rest of the federal government agencies. Why did the
National Park Service ignore what has appeared to be acceptable to the
rest of the government?
Question 12. Mr. Horn, stated in his written testimony that some
operators seeking assurance of the preference right eligibility are
being informed ``our agency lawyers are still looking at the issue:
a) the legislation is clear that specific that certain operators
are entitled to the `renewal preference'--what specifically remains
unclear or uncertain, and
b) what are you doing about new contracts while this issue is being
reviewed, in light of the legal theory that ``. . . even if it is the
law, if it is not specifically written in the contract you are not
entitled to the preference . . .''?
Question 13. It is apparent that it will take some time for the
National Park Service to formulate, solicit and award some of the
larger contracts:
a) have you thought about providing extensions of two or three
years so that at least the government can receive some enhanced
services or facility maintenance during this interim period; and
b) what benefits does the government receive under a series of one
year extensions as opposed to a multiple year extension?
Question 14. In your opinion does the Advisory Board require
assistance i.e. office space, staff, etc., and has such assistance been
offered?
Question 15. A great deal of time and energy was spent on the
``right to transfer ownership of a concession operation'' and the
National Park Service's limited roll and function in the authorization
process.
a) Please survey a random number of concession operators and
identify any problems that may appear to deviate from the intent of
Congress and provide the Subcommittee with any remedies that you be
able to issue in this regard.
Question 16. The new National Park Service rules and regulations
policy precludes the agency from consulting with the existing
concessionaire even during the initial or early stages of prospectus
development. Why would the National Park Service preclude itself from
obtaining information which could render specifics details about an
operation that could ultimately lead to a more thorough and
comprehensive prospectus?
Question 17. The form contract requires the concessioner to use
``best management practices''. This essentially means that the
concessioner must employ cutting edge technology to address
environmental issues or any other operating issues. There is no concern
shown for the economic impact of requiring such practices, even if they
were defined; and, as the definition of ``best management practices''
changes over time, there is no way for the concessionaire to assess the
financial risk with future National Park Service mandates under this
rubric. Is there any way to further define ``best management
practices'' while achieving the desired results desired by the National
Park Service, without such a potential financial impact to the
prospective concession operator?
Question 18. The standard contract states that the concessionaire
shall operate and maintain the property ``in a manner considered
satisfactory by the Director''.
a) What is considered ``in a manner considered satisfactory by the
Director'', and
b) what can be done in the rules and regulations and/or prospectus
to clarify the terms and conditions of this terminology?
Question 19. You have placed strict time limitations on the
concession operation to request an adjustment of his or her fees as a
result of ``extraordinary unforeseen circumstances''. The legislation
provides this opportunity, but the legislation does not require time
specific actions. What happens if the actual financial impact of
``extraordinary unforeseen circumstances'' is not fully realized for a
period of 6 to 9 months after the ``extraordinary'' circumstance. In
other words a concession may not immediately understand the total
financial effect of a particular event. Can this time limit be
extended, if not, why not?
Question 20. The NPS has required a very broad indemnity from the
concessioner. The policy, arguably, could be interpreted to include
actions of park visitors or even National Park Service personnel. The
language is obviously very vague as issued through the rules and
regulations. Can you find a way to specifically define the extent of
indemnity that would clearly fall under the obligation of the
concession operator?
Senator Graham has also submitted the following questions
for the record:
Question 1. What is the current status of contract actions in the
Service?
Question 2. Number of concessions contracts?
a) Number operating under extensions?
b) Contracts currently in the bidding process? and
c) What is the anticipated time requirement to prepare contract
documents, receive bids and negotiate final contract terms?
Question 3. What is your time period for completing contracts
currently operating under extension or expiring prior to the end of
December 2002?
a) Large contracts in excess of $3 million gross revenue?
b) Contracts under $3 million?
Question 4. What steps are you taking to determine the possessory
interest or leasehold surrender interest prior to advertising contract
opportunities?
Question 5. How and at what stage of the contract process will
disputes over the possessory interest with concessioners be resolved?
Question 6. Has the National Park Service established procedures to
track leasehold surrender interest over the contract term to not repeat
this process under new contracts?