[Audit Report on Concessions Managed by the Bureau of Reclamation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 00-I-376

Title: Audit Report on Concessions Managed by the Bureau of Reclamation
        

               Report No.      00-I-376

               Title:         Concessions Managed By the 
          Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

               Date:          MAY 2000                        



**********DISCLAIMER********** 
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No attempt has been made to
display graphic images or illustrations. Some tables may be included, but may not resemble    
those in the printed version. 

A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the Office
of Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations at (202)208-4599. 
********************************* U.S. Department of the InteriorOffice of the Inspector General
  
  
  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                              
Concessions Managed by the
Bureau of Reclamation

Report  No. 00-I-376

May 2000
  
BACKGROUND
  
  The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is responsible for overseeing or managing 310 recreation
  areas established on BOR project lands that  are visited each year by about 90 million people
  for camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, and other recreational activities.  The Congress
  has enacted legislation that requires BOR to "ensure the protection, comfort, and well-being
  of the public (including the protection of public safety) with respect to the use of
  Reclamation lands" and "ensure the protection of resource values."
  
  Historically, BOR sought Federal partners such as the National Park Service and non-Federal
  partners such as state and local governments to develop, operate, and maintain recreational
  sites and facilities for the visiting public.  In 1998, approximately 218 concessions provided
  commercial services and facilities for the public on BOR project lands, consisting of
  110 concessions operated by Federal partners, 87 concessions operated by non-Federal
  partners, and 21 concessions managed directly by BOR.
  
  Prior to 1995, BOR-managed concessions were not covered by BOR-wide policies,
  standards, and directives.  However, in 1995, BOR issued interim guidance for concessions
  management and, in 1998, formally issued policies and standards and directives to guide
  BOR officials in planning, developing, and managing concessions operations.
  
  OBJECTIVE
  
  The objective of our audit was to determine whether BOR had adequate policies and
  procedures for managing its concessions operations and protecting the public with respect
  to its use of public lands.  In addition, at BOR's request, we evaluated BOR's 21 concession
  contracts to determine whether the provisions in these contracts met BOR's newly adopted
  policies, directives, and standards and to provide recommendations to improve BOR's
  administration of current and future concession contracts.
  
  RESULTS IN BRIEF
  
  Overall, we concluded that BOR s newly adopted concession policies, directives, and
  standards will provide an adequate framework, when fully implemented, for managing its
  concessions operations and protecting the public with respect to its use of public lands.
  However, BOR had not effectively managed its existing concessions operations, primarily
  at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir and at Lake Berryessa, because of inadequate contract
  provisions, mainly in the areas of contract default and operation and maintenance plans, and
  because it had not enforced existing contract provisions in the areas of building
  improvements, health and safety inspections, and prices charged the public.  Although BOR
  has acknowledged that concessions management is a priority, it has not developed
  procedures to fully implement the new policies, directives, and standards or taken sufficient
  actions or allocated sufficient resources to address known deficiencies in its concessions
  operations.  As a result, long-standing health and safety deficiencies have not been corrected,
  and BOR land and water resources have been degraded.  Furthermore, we concluded that
  BOR will continue to be hampered in its efforts to manage its concessions effectively
  because all of BOR's 21 concession contracts did not have one or more of the key provisions
  required by BOR's new policies, directives, and standards for concessions management.
  
  RECOMMENDATION
  
  We recommend that the Commissioner, BOR, establish and implement an oversight process
  to ensure that concessioners comply with existing contract provisions; complete and issue
  detailed guidance and procedures to fully implement the new policies, directives, and
  standards; develop a formal action plan to assess and correct the health and safety
  deficiencies and degradation of land and water resources within the concessioners' areas of
  operations at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir and Lake Berryessa; establish a review process to
  ensure that all new concessions and newly issued and reissued contracts are in compliance
  with BOR's policies, directives, and standards; develop a formal action plan to bring
  BOR-managed contracts into compliance with BOR's new policies, directives, and
  standards; and obtain a Solicitor's opinion on whether the concessioners at Lake Berryessa
  have the legal authority to charge entrance fees for entering the concession area and whether
  the fees collected are due the Government.  Based on the opinion, actions should be taken
  as appropriate.
  
  AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION
  
  BOR agreed with the report's six recommendations. Based on the response, we considered
  one recommendation resolved and implemented and five recommendations resolved but not
  implemented.                                               W-IN-BOR-003-98-R
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                                                                                                    May 8, 2000
  
                                          AUDIT REPORT
  
  Memorandum
  
        To:   Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
  
        From: Roger La Rouche
        Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audits
  
        Subject:   Audit Report on Concessions Managed by the Bureau of Reclamation 
        (No. 00-I-376)
  
                                          INTRODUCTION
  
  This report presents the results of our audit of concessions managed directly by the Bureau
  of Reclamation (BOR), which was conducted in response to a request from BOR. The
  objective of our audit was to determine whether BOR had adequate policies and procedures
  for managing its concessions operations and protecting the public with respect to its use of
  public lands.  In addition, at BOR's request, we evaluated BOR's 21 concession contracts
  to determine whether the provisions in these contracts met BOR's newly adopted policies,
  directives, and standards and to provide recommendations to improve BOR's administration
  of current and future concession contracts.
  
  BACKGROUND
  
  BOR is responsible for overseeing or managing about 310 recreation areas established on
  BOR project lands.  These areas are visited each year by about 90 million people for
  camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, and other recreational activities.  In 1992, the
  Congress enacted the Reclamation Recreation Management Act (Public Law 102-575),
  which requires BOR to "ensure the protection, comfort, and well-being of the public
  (including the protection of public safety) with respect to the use of Reclamation lands" and
  "ensure the protection of resource values."  The Omnibus Parks and Public Land
  Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333) also emphasized the need for water-based
  recreation and established a commission appointed by the President to review the demand
  for recreation at Federally constructed lakes and reservoirs.  In addition, BOR identified
  recreation management as a significant issue in its Strategic Plan for 1997-2002.
  
  Historically, when completing water projects, BOR has sought Federal partners such as the
  National Park Service and non-Federal partners such as state and local governments to
  develop, operate, and maintain recreational sites and facilities for the visiting public.  These
  partners would then provide commercial services such as restaurants, boat ramps, docks, and
  fuel stations by contracting with concessioners.  Under these concession arrangements,
  BOR s role is limited to monitoring the activities of its partners and, in certain instances, to
  approving third-party contracts.
  
  In 1998, approximately 218 concessions provided commercial services and facilities for the
  public on BOR project lands.  Of the 218 concessions, 110 were operated by Federal
  partners, 87 were operated by non-Federal partners, and 21 were managed directly by BOR.
  For the 21 concessions managed directly by BOR, 15 contracts were developed by BOR
  personnel, and 6 contracts were developed by non-Federal partners.  The length of the term
  for the contracts ranged from 1 year to 50 years (see Appendix 3).
  
  Prior to 1995, BOR-managed concessions were not covered by BOR-wide policies,
  standards, and directives.  An April 1992 report entitled "Report of the Concessions
  Management Task Force Regarding Commercial Recreational Activities on Federal Land,"
  prepared by an interagency task force for the Secretary of the Interior, contained
  21 recommendations for improving management over concessions and other recreational
  activities on Federal lands.  In a January 13, 1993, memorandum, the Secretary directed BOR
  to implement the 21 recommendations.  As a result, in 1995, BOR issued interim guidance
  for concessions management and, in 1998, formally issued policies (LND P02) and standards
  and directives (LND 04-01) to guide BOR officials in planning, developing, and managing
  concessions operations.
  
  SCOPE OF AUDIT
  
  Our review was completed in October 1999 and included BOR's and concessioners'
  activities occurring from fiscal years 1994 through 1999 for the 21 BOR-managed
  concessions, which are located in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North
  Dakota, Oregon, and Utah.
  
  Our audit was made, as applicable, in accordance with the "Government Auditing
  Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.  Accordingly, we
  included such tests of records and other auditing procedures that were considered necessary
  under the circumstances.  To accomplish our objective, we reviewed (1) relevant laws,
  legislative histories, and legal opinions to obtain an understanding of the basis for BOR s
  past and current practices with regard to concessioners' activities; (2) correspondence and
  other documents maintained at BOR offices to identify key actions and decisions of BOR
  officials concerning the award of concession contracts and the management and oversight
  of BOR concessioners; (3) BOR's April 1998 policies (LND PO2) and directives and
  standards (LND 04-01); and (4) the contracts for the 21 BOR-managed concessions to
  determine whether the provisions in these contracts met the intent of BOR's newly adopted
  policies, directives, and standards.  We also interviewed BOR officials and employees at the
  Great Plains, Pacific Northwest, Lower Colorado, Upper Colorado, and Mid-Pacific
  Regional Offices; BOR area and field offices; and BOR's Office of Policy in Lakewood,
  Colorado.  BOR and concessioner locations that we visited or contacted are in Appendix 1.
  
  As part of our audit, we evaluated BOR s system of internal controls related to overseeing
  and managing concession contracts to the extent we considered necessary to accomplish our
  audit objective.  We found weaknesses in BOR's approval of concessioner building
  improvements, public health and safety inspections, and oversight of prices charged the
  public.  These weaknesses and the recommended corrective actions are discussed in the
  Results of Audit section of this report. We also reviewed the Departmental Reports on
  Accountability for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, which included information required by the
  Federal Managers  Financial Integrity Act of 1982, and BOR s annual assurance statements
  on management controls for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and determined that no material
  weaknesses were reported which directly related to the objective and scope of our audit.
  
  PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
  
  During the past 5 years, the General Accounting Office has not issued any audit reports on
  BOR's concessions management practices.  However, the Office of Inspector General has
  issued three reports related to concessions activities within BOR as follows:
  
     - The report "Proposed Contract No. 8-07-30-L0470 With DynaSim for the Design,
  Installation, and Operation of a Water Education Theater at Hoover Dam, Bureau of
  Reclamation" (No. 99-I-308), issued in March 1999, stated that BOR s Lower Colorado
  Region did not plan and develop the proposed concession contract for a water education
  theater in compliance with BOR s concession policies, directives, and standards.  BOR
  concurred with our two recommendations and terminated negotiations with DynaSim and
  agreed to ensure that all subsequent actions to acquire additional customer services at Hoover
  Dam would be in compliance with BOR's concession policies, directives, and standards. 
  
     - The report "Selected Concessioner Fees, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation"
  (No. 95-I-1364), issued in September 1995, stated that five of the six concessions operations
  reviewed at Lake Berryessa, California, owed additional fees of $10,389.  The report also
  stated that we were unable to determine whether gross receipts and exemptions reported by
  the remaining concessioner were computed in accordance with contract terms because of the
  lack of internal controls over revenues and inadequate record retention.  The report did not
  contain any recommendations because BOR took action to collect the additional fees due.
  
     - The report "Recreation Management Activities at Selected Sites, Bureau of
  Reclamation" (No. 95-I-870), issued in May 1995, stated that BOR had limited success in
  its attempts to eliminate or reduce private, exclusive use of the recreation lands for long-term
  mobile home sites.  BOR policy required that BOR lands be managed to benefit as many
  people as possible, and BOR and Departmental policies required that the private, exclusive
  use of public lands be phased out when the lands are needed for public recreational use.  In
  addition, these policies allowed the permittees to invest in dwellings and associated
  improvements because BOR had not established definitive guidelines for determining when
  BOR lands were needed for public use and for amortizing investments made on BOR lands.
  BOR agreed with the report's three recommendations, which were to (1) extend the
  application of BOR policies for long-term recreation management to all state and local
  government entities, (2) establish guidelines for determining when recreation lands used for
  private long-term sites are needed for public use, and (3) establish a system of amortization
  for the private improvements on BOR lands.  According to information provided by BOR,
  Recommendations 1 and 2 were considered resolved but not implemented, and
  Recommendation 3 was considered resolved and implemented.
  
                                   RESULTS OF AUDIT
  
  Overall, we concluded that BOR s newly adopted concession policies, directives, and
  standards will provide an adequate framework, when fully implemented, for managing its
  concessions operations and protecting the public with respect to its use of public lands.
  However, BOR had not effectively managed its existing concessions operations, primarily
  at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir and at Lake Berryessa, because of inadequate contract
  provisions, mainly in the areas of contract default and operation and maintenance plans, and
  because it had not enforced existing contract provisions in the areas of building
  improvements, health and safety inspections, and prices charged the public.  According to
  BOR's 1998 Annual Report, its mission is to "manage, develop and protect water and related
  resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
  American public." Also, in enacting the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992,
  the Congress requires BOR to ensure that land and water resources are protected while it
  carries out its recreation responsibilities.  Although BOR has acknowledged that concessions
  management is a priority, it has not developed procedures to fully implement the new
  policies, directives, and standards or taken sufficient actions or allocated sufficient resources
  to address known deficiencies in its concessions operations.  As a result, long-standing health
  and safety deficiencies have not been corrected, and BOR land and water resources have
  been degraded.  Furthermore, we concluded that BOR will continue to be hampered in its
  efforts to manage its concessions effectively because all of BOR's 21 concession contracts
  did not have one or more of the key provisions required by BOR's new policies, directives,
  and standards for concessions management (see Appendix 2).
  
  Inadequate Contract Provisions
  
  We found that all of BOR's 21 concession contracts did not have one or more of 10 key
  provisions for effective contract management in the areas of contractor default, operation and
  maintenance plans, building improvements, title to fixed assets, franchise fees, exclusive use,
  prices charged for services, safety program, record keeping, and operations review and
  evaluation (see section "Evaluation of Contract Provisions" and Appendix 2).  Although the
  contracts had been developed before the issuance of BOR's new policies, directives, and
  standards, we believe that the 10 provisions are essential for managing concessions
  operations in accordance with sound business practices and ensuring that the interests of the
  public and the Government are adequately protected.  We found that the lack of adequate
  contract provisions hindered BOR personnel from taking corrective actions against improper
  concession practices and from adequately overseeing the operation and maintenance actions
  performed by concessioners. 
  
     Contractor Default.  We found that all 21 concession contracts contained termination
  clauses but did not have contract provisions to require surety bonds and to collect penalties
  and administrative charges for concessioner nonperformance.  BOR could remedy
  concessioner nonperformance only by issuing letters of default and then taking expensive
  legal and administrative steps to terminate the contract. In addition, provisions addressing
  termination were inconsistent, including three contracts that allowed the concessioner 1 year
  to correct health and safety problems and seven contracts that did not specify a time frame
  for remedying performance problems, even when the problems were identified by BOR
  personnel.  For example, we noted that a concessioner at Lake Berryessa which had been
  cited for significant health and safety deficiencies related to a deficient sewer system was
  allowed 1 year to correct the deficiencies before BOR could take action to terminate the
  contract.  BOR records indicated that during this time, the deficient sewer system continued
  to degrade the land and water resources at Lake Berryessa by allowing raw sewage to flow
  untreated into the Lake.  We believe that had this contract specified a shorter time frame for
  correction, BOR may have been able to limit the degradation of its land and water resources. 
  
     Operation and Maintenance Plans.  We found that none of the 21 concession contracts
  required annual operation and maintenance plans. A concessions operation plan specifies the
  responsibilities of the concessioner, such as the types of facilities needed to provide goods
  and services requested by the public users.  In addition, an operation plan should clearly
  identify the lands assigned to the concessioner, including the boundaries for long-term
  mobile homes placed on Government land.  A maintenance plan specifies how the facilities
  and Government lands are to be maintained and delineates the maintenance responsibilities
  between the concessioner and BOR personnel. We found that the lack of operation and
  maintenance plans or incomplete plans hindered BOR personnel from effectively managing
  concessions operations. For example, at the Mid-Pacific Region's Lake Berryessa Resource
  Office, BOR personnel had difficulty resolving boundary disputes between mobile home
  owners because boundary lines were not adequately documented in an operation plan.  In
  addition, we noted that BOR personnel at the Great Plains Region and the Montana Area
  Office were not aware of all the facilities that had been constructed by concessioners at the
  three concessions on the Canyon Ferry Reservoir.  As such, BOR could not ensure that
  needed maintenance was performed.
  
  Enforcement of Contract Provisions
  
  BOR did not adequately enforce existing contract provisions in the areas of building
  improvements, health and safety inspections, and prices charged for services at its
  concessions operations, primarily at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir in western Montana and at
  Lake Berryessa in northern California.
  
     Building Improvements.  We found that all 21 contracts had general provisions
  requiring BOR to approve all building improvements made to concession facilities and
  grounds, such as new buildings, room additions to mobile homes, boat docks, toilets, and sea
  walls.  According to BOR officials, the approvals were necessary to ensure that
  improvements were in compliance with all Federal, state, and local building requirements
  and that the improvements did not adversely affect land and water resources and the visiting
  public.  We found, however, that BOR personnel had not generally enforced existing contract
  provisions related to building improvements as follows:
  
     - At the Great Plains Region, we found 43 mobile homes at Goose Bay Marina and
  Kim's Marina on the Canyon Ferry Reservoir near Helena, Montana, that had significant
  improvements made that were unauthorized.  In addition, during a visit to the Yacht Basin
  Marina, we observed that the concessioner was beginning the process of installing
  above-ground fuel tanks.  Regional and Montana Area Office personnel who accompanied
  us during the visit told us that they were unaware of this planned installation of the fuel
  tanks, and we were unable to locate any documentation indicating that the concessioner had
  submitted plans or had received BOR approval for the installation of the tanks, as required
  by the contract.
  
     - The Mid-Pacific Region's Lake Berryessa Resource Office did not adequately review
  and authorize building improvements to approximately 1,496 mobile homes and mobile
  home sites at Lake Berryessa for seven concessioners to ensure that degradation to the land
  and water resources did not occur.  Although we were unable to determine the full extent of
  unauthorized improvements because of the lack of documentation, the responsible
  concession specialist said that about one-half of the 1,496 mobile home owners had made
  unauthorized improvements to their homes and sites over the last 40 years.  During our site
  visit at the Lake, we found newly constructed improvements that BOR's concession
  specialist stated would not be allowed under its existing policy.  These improvements
  included extended decks that hung over embankments, railings and stairways that extended
  onto the Lake's shoreline, and unauthorized concrete sea walls constructed by mobile home
  owners at the Putah Creek concession. In one instance, a newly constructed concrete wall
  was crumbling, leaving broken parts of concrete lying on the shoreline.  At the Spanish Flat
  concession (see Figure 1), we found a large-scale infrastructure that had been constructed to
  allow mobile homes and decks to significantly extend over the shoreline embankments. In
  addition, stairways were constructed and attached to these decks that allowed home owners
  exclusive access to the Lake's shoreline. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
     Health and Safety Inspections.  We found that 14 of the 21 contracts had general
  provisions requiring concessioners to protect the visiting public from health and safety
  hazards.  In addition, 12 contracts authorized BOR to conduct annual inspections of the
  concessions operations and the facilities and grounds assigned to the concessioners.
  However, we found that these authorized inspections were not always conducted. For
  example, four of the six contracts at the Great Plains Region authorized annual inspections,
  but Regional personnel had conducted only one health and safety inspection since March
  1994 (the Goose Bay Marina, located on Canyon Ferry Reservoir, had been inspected in
  March 1999 just prior to our visit).  In addition, three of the seven contracts at Lake
  Berryessa authorized annual inspections, but the Mid-Pacific Region's Putah Resource
  Office had not conducted complete health and safety inspections at any of the concessions
  since October 1994.  As such, health and safety deficiencies, such as a mobile home
  extending over an eroding embankment that we found during a visit to Lake Berryessa, were
  not detected (see Figure 2). 
  
      Prices Charged for Goods and Services.  We found that 17 of the 21 contracts had
  general provisions requiring BOR approval of prices charged the public, but BOR personnel
  did not always review and approve these prices.  For example, at the Great Plains Region,
  we found that four of the six contracts required BOR approval but that these approvals had
  not been obtained. At the Mid-Pacific Region's Lake Berryessa Resource Office, BOR
  personnel did not review and approve prices charged for food and merchandise for its seven
  concession contracts.  Although the concession specialist told us that he had seen a
  40 percent increase in the prices charged the public over the past 5 years, he said that these
  reviews were a low priority and therefore were not conducted because of insufficient
  resources.
  
  We also found that the seven concessioners at Lake Berryessa charged the visiting public
  between $8 and $12 per automobile to enter the concession area.  Based on our review of the
  contracts and related documents, we did not find any authority for charging such fees.
  Although BOR did not have documentation showing when the concessioners began to charge
  the fees, BOR personnel told us that the fees had been charged for more than 30 years.  We
  estimated that current annual revenues from these entrance fees are approximately $180,000. 
  
  Concession Priorities and Resources
  
  BOR has addressed concessions management in its strategic planning documents.  For
  example, BOR's Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 states:
  
            Reclamation recognizes the need for placing greater emphasis on protecting
       and enhancing the environment, particularly those resources dependent upon
       Reclamation s management of water and land resources. . . .  By 2000, [BOR
       should] identify and prioritize recreation facilities directly managed by
       Reclamation which need to be improved to meet public health, safety, and
       accessability standards [and] by 2002, rehabilitate 50 percent of [the]
       facilities identified as most critical.
  
  In addition, BOR s Annual Performance Plans for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 generally
  restated the Plan's goals and added a requirement for fiscal year 2000 to prioritize 75 percent
  of the facilities identified as needing improvement.  A BOR official indicated that BOR's
  area offices were identifying the recreation facilities which will require improvements to
  meet the health and safety and accessibility standards.  However, as of October 1999, this
  identification process had not been completed.  
  
  BOR issued policies, directives, and standards for concessions management on April 3, 1998. 
  Subsequently, the Commissioner stated that recreation was one of BOR's top 10 issues and
  formed a Recreation Policy Advisory Team to help resolve recreation issues.  However, we
  found that while the policies, directives, and standards will assist BOR personnel in awarding
  more effective concession contracts and in managing concessioners' activities, BOR
  headquarters, regional, and area offices had not taken sufficient actions to improve
  management of existing concession operations and to ensure the protection of BOR's land
  and water resources and the public's health and safety.  Although an Interagency Task Force
  and other sources such as audit reports, newspaper articles, and internal documents have
  notified BOR of the serious problems at its concessions, BOR has not taken effective actions
  to remedy the deficiencies.  For example, we found that BOR officials had been aware of
  concession deficiencies at Lake Berryessa for at least 27 years. Specifically, a 1972 General
  Accounting Office report entitled "Public Recreational Facilities Not Adequately Developed
  at Lake Berryessa, California   A Bureau of Reclamation Project" (No. B174172) questioned
  the extensive development of mobile home parks by the concessioners at Lake Berryessa,
  including the improvements made to these home sites.  However, during our current review,
  we found that the same conditions existed at Lake Berryessa 27 years later.  We also found
  that mobile home owners were still making unauthorized improvements to their mobile
  homes and home sites and that these improvements had significantly degraded the Lake s
  shoreline.  In addition, we noted that BOR had not assessed the full extent of the
  unauthorized improvements so that a formal plan with definable goals and objectives could
  be developed to correct these deficiencies.
  
  We also found that BOR had not allocated sufficient resources to concessions management
  or ensured that concessions management personnel were adequately trained.  Specifically,
  BOR personnel assigned to oversee concessions operations generally were not assigned to
  work on concession issues on a full-time basis, had additional high priority work
  commitments, and were not trained as concession specialists but instead were outdoor
  recreational planners or natural resource specialists.  For example, BOR did not employ any
  concession specialists at the Upper Colorado, Lower Colorado, and Great Plains Regions. 
  At the Mid-Pacific Region, one concession specialist was responsible for overseeing seven
  major concessions at Lake Berryessa.  However, the concession specialist did not have
  adequate training in the areas of developing concession contracts and overseeing the prices
  charged the public.  The concession specialist at Lake Berryessa told us that he did not have
  time to complete all of his assigned duties.  Based on our review, we believe that one
  concession specialist could not effectively address the numerous problems associated with
  the operations of the seven concessioners and the 1,496 mobile homes.  In comparison, the
  National Park Service s Lake Mead National Recreational Area in Arizona and Nevada has
  five concession specialist positions to manage 11 major concessions with about 850 mobile
  homes.  We believe that BOR officials should ensure that BOR personnel responsible for
  managing concessions operations are provided with sufficient resources and training to help
  them (1) plan for needed concessions, including planning and developing adequate
  concession contracts; (2) oversee the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds
  assigned to the concessioner; (3) approve all building improvements made on Government
  land; and (4) oversee prices charged the public.
  
  Impact on Concessions Operations
  
  As a result of inadequate concession contracts, ineffective management of concessions, and
  inadequate resources, long-standing health and safety deficiencies at the Canyon Ferry
  Reservoir and at Lake Berryessa have not been corrected and new deficiencies have
  occurred.  At both Federally constructed lakes, we compared conditions identified in the
  1994 inspection reports with current conditions.  At the Canyon Ferry Reservoir, the Goose
  Bay Marina's 1994 inspection report cited numerous health and safety deficiencies, such as
  improper battery storage; inadequate fire protection; and decaying wooden decks, slips, and
  walkways. The March 3, 1999, inspection report, based on a health and safety inspection
  performed by the Great Plains Regional Industrial Hygienist for Goose Bay Marina, stated,
  "Overall, there are widespread problems with wiring, fire safety, slips/trips/falls [hazards],
  propane fuel [storage], housekeeping, grounds keeping, and hazardous waste [disposal]." The
  1999 inspection report further stated that lumber, lead/acid batteries, equipment, debris, and
  trash were scattered throughout the property (see Figure 3).  The report also cited
  deficiencies such as decaying and broken structural lumber on the concessioner's docks.  
    
  At Lake Berryessa, we found, based on our review of BOR planning documents and other
  documents, that degradation of the land and water resources began in about 1960 and existed
  as of October 1999.  Specifically, we noted numerous unauthorized mobile home
  improvements, such as concrete sea walls, retaining walls, and stairways, along the shoreline.
  In addition, at the Putah Creek concession, BOR documents indicated potential soil
  contamination from underground storage tanks and from the improper storage of 50 gallons
  of mixed paint, 50 gallons of used oil, and other chemicals.  Further, we observed an
  improper trash site on Federal land (see Figure 4) that included 400 to 500 used tires (see
  Figure 5), a burnt fiberglass boat, piles of wood, and abandoned mobile homes.  These items
  were on the hillsides near the sewage ponds. 
  
    The most serious deficiency we noted was the discharge of effluent from the sewage ponds
  onto a hillside adjacent to Lake Berryessa.  According to BOR documents, this discharge
  began in October 1996 and came to BOR's attention in a complaint filed with BOR about
  two sewage spills at the Putah Creek concession.  According to BOR's documents, in
  July 1997, a mobile home owner stated that sewage-contaminated soil was untreated for
  weeks.  The documents also showed that a mobile home owner near the sewer pump house
  said that concession employees caused an "unbearable stench" when they unplugged the
  large hose containing raw sewage from the sewer pump house, which allowed raw sewage
  to spill directly into Lake Berryessa.  The documents further indicated that repeated spills
  had occurred over the past 2 years.  While we did not find any studies addressing the
  degradation of water at Lake Berryessa, we noted that the Napa County Department of
  Environmental Management and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board had
  investigated these spills but that as of October 1999 had not determined whether this
  situation had been corrected. We noted that the Lake Berryessa Resource Office had
  attempted to terminate the contract with this concessioner because of these deficiencies but
  had not been successful.
  
  Evaluation of Contract Provisions
  
  Based on a request from BOR officials, we evaluated BOR's 21 concession contracts to
  determine whether the provisions contained in these contracts met BOR's April 1998
  policies, directives, and standards.  Each of the 21 contracts was developed prior to the
  formal issuance of BOR's new guidelines. Although the guidelines addressed more than
  20 contract provisions, we limited our discussion in this report to the 10 major contract
  provisions that we believe are the most significant for effective management of concessions
  operations.  These 10 contract provisions relate to contractor default, building improvements,
  operation and maintenance plans, title to fixed assets, franchise fees, exclusive use, prices
  charged for services, a safety program, record keeping, and operations review and evaluation.
  
     Contractor Default.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01, 4.D(4) to include
  provisions that address contractor default, penalties, and termination.  These provisions allow
  BOR to require a surety or performance bond, collect penalties and administrative costs for
  default and nonperformance, and terminate the contract.  As previously discussed, we
  determined that all 21 contracts contained termination clauses but did not have contract
  provisions to require surety bonds and to collect penalties and administrative charges for
  concessioner nonperformance. 
  
     Building Improvements.  All designs for construction are required by LND 04-01,
  4.D(7), to be approved by BOR and to be in compliance with applicable environmental
  regulations and building code requirements, including those for accessibility and historical
  preservation.  The directives also state that BOR may provide appropriate standards when
  no construction standards are available and that building permits when required must be
  obtained from local authorities by the concessioner prior to construction. According to a
  BOR official, the directives and standards allow BOR to ensure that all facilities are
  "harmonious" with the surrounding landscape; meet accessability, environmental, and health
  requirements; and adequately protect BOR's land and water resources and the visiting public.
  We determined that all 21 contracts contained general provisions authorizing BOR to
  approve the design and construction of new concession facilities but that 19 of the provisions
  were not in compliance with the standard because they did not have specific contract
  requirements for accessibility and environmental compliance.
  
     Operation and Maintenance Plans.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01,
  4.D(8), to contain  provisions (1) stipulating that concessioners prepare an annual operation
  and maintenance plan that has to be approved by BOR and (2) specifying what the plan will
  contain.  We found that none of the 21 contracts included provisions requiring operation and
  maintenance plans.  While we found that certain provisions in the contracts did address
  operation and maintenance requirements, the discussions were vague, did not address all
  aspects of the concessioner's operation and maintenance requirements, and did not require
  the plans.  For example, the Lower Colorado Region manages a concession on the Salton Sea
  in southern California.  Section 12 of the concession contract states, "Grantee [concessioner]
  shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in a state of good repair all improvements located on
  the leased premises." This contract provision relating to maintenance requirements does not
  describe how and when each facility at this concession, such as restrooms, will be
  maintained, nor does it describe how and when Government lands assigned to the
  concessioner will be maintained.
  
     Title to Fixed Assets.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01, 4.D(10), to
  contain provisions stipulating that (1) the title to fixed assets, such as facilities placed on the
  Federal lands, be conveyed to the United States or the facilities will be removed as directed
  by the contract; (2) concessioners have a right to compensation for existing facilities which
  remain on Federal lands when the contract is sold, transferred, or expires; and
  (3) compensation for new facilities be based on actual costs less depreciation over the life
  of the contract.  Although we found that 20 of the 21 contracts contained provisions
  addressing this requirement, we determined that provisions for 10 of the 21 contracts did not
  adequately address the disposition of title to improvements placed on Federal lands by a
  concessioner or specify the basis for compensation for these facilities.
  
     Franchise Fees.  BOR is require by LND 04-01, 4.D(13), to determine and recover fair
  compensation for the use, rights, and privileges granted under a concession contract.  The
  request for proposal is to describe the methods used to determine fair compensation such as
  a graduated scale to determine total benefits.  We determined that all 21 contracts contained
  general provisions requiring concessioners to pay a franchise fee to the Government but that
  the provisions for 3 of the 21 contracts did not require the franchise fee to be based on a
  percentage of gross receipts, which we believe when properly determined is "fair
  compensation."  The franchise fees for these three contracts were based on a predetermined
  annual fixed amount, such as $400 a year.  To illustrate, an Upper Colorado Region
  concession contract that expires in June 2036 requires a $400 annual franchise fee. Based on
  the concession's 1998 gross receipts, this fee is a return to the Government of 1/2 of 1
  percent.
  
     Exclusive Use.  Contract language is required by LND 04-01, 4.D(15), which ensures
  that new exclusive use will not occur and which stipulates that any existing exclusive use
  facility, service, or site be removed if the facility, service, or site is identified for removal in
  the request for proposal; is abandoned or not used for the purpose for which it was
  authorized; is condemned or identified as a public health or safety hazard; is destroyed by
  fire, flood, or other acts of nature; or is vandalized beyond reasonable repair.  The directives
  and standards also require a provision that prohibits the replacement or relocation of an
  exclusive use facility, service, or site.  Although we found that 9 of the 21 contracts
  contained provisions that addressed exclusive use, we determined that 19 of the 21 contracts
  did not contain provisions that prohibited the exclusive use of recreational sites or that
  required the removal of an existing exclusive use site in those circumstances identified in the
  directives.
  
     Prices Charged for Goods and Services.  Prices charged by concessioners for services,
  food, lodging, and merchandise are required by LND 04-01, 4.D(16), to be comparable to
  those prices charged by the private sector in similar situations.  The directives and standards
  further state that approved rates will ensure a fair return to the concessioner and a reasonable
  cost to the public and that BOR will approve such rates or rate schedules on an annual basis.
  Although we found that 17 of the 21 contracts contained provisions that addressed this
  requirement, we determined that 16 of the 21 contracts were not in compliance with the
  standard, in that the contracts did not require BOR to approve the rates on an annual basis.
  
     Safety Program.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01, 4.D(17), to contain
  provisions that hold concessioners responsible for ensuring a safe and healthy environment
  by developing, implementing, and administering health, safety, and hazardous materials
  programs that are approved and periodically reviewed by BOR.  Although 14 of the
  21 contracts contained general provisions addressing the public s health and safety, we
  determined that 19 of the 21 contracts did not meet BOR's standard because they did not
  require the concessioner to implement a safety program.
  
     Record Keeping.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01, 4.D(19), to contain
  provisions that require concessioners to establish and maintain a system for record keeping
  that uses generally accepted accounting principles and an acceptable system of account
  classification codes.  The standard also requires each concessioner to (1) complete and
  submit BOR's annual financial report forms, (2) have a financial review completed by an
  independent certified public accountant when a concessioner's annual gross revenues are
  more than $250,000 but less than $1,000,000, and (3) have a financial audit conducted by
  an independent certified public accountant when a concessioner's annual gross revenues
  exceed $1,000,000.  Although 20 of the 21 contracts contained general provisions addressing
  these record-keeping requirements, we determined that provisions for 12 of the 21 contracts
  did not require the concessioners to obtain a financial review or audit.
  
     Operations Review and Evaluation.  Concession contracts are required by LND 04-01,
  4.D(23), to contain a provision requiring the local BOR office to conduct and document an
  evaluation of the concessioner's operations on an annual basis, prepare a performance rating
  for the concessioner, and send a copy of the completed annual review and rating to the
  regional office and the concessioner.  The standard further states that in-depth reviews will
  be conducted and documented by an integrated team of specialists from BOR offices other
  than the local BOR office directly responsible for oversight of the concessions.  In addition,
  the in-depth review will be conducted at least once for contracts with a term of 5 years or
  less, while the in-depth review will be conducted at least once every 5 years for contracts
  with a term of 5 years or more. Also, a copy of the review will be sent to the area and
  regional offices and the concessioner.  We determined that provisions for 15 of the
  21 contracts did not require complete evaluations of the concessions operations and facilities
  by the local office. 
  
  While we concluded that the BOR's newly adopted concession policies, directives, and
  standards will provide an adequate framework, when fully implemented, for managing its
  concession operations, we believe that detailed guidance and procedures should be
  completed to assist BOR employees in implementing the new policies, directives, and
  standards.  In addition, a formal action plan should be completed to bring BOR's 21
  concession contracts into compliance with this new guidance, and a review process should
  be established to ensure that new and reissued concession contracts are in compliance with
  the new policies, directives, and standards.
  
  Recommendations
  
  We recommend that the Commissioner, BOR:
  
     1.   Establish and implement an oversight process to ensure that concessioners comply
  with existing contract provisions, especially in the areas of building improvements, annual
  inspections, and prices charged the public by the concessioners.
  
     2.   Complete and issue detailed guidance and procedures to fully implement the new
  policies, directives, and standards.   
  
     3.   Develop a formal action plan to assess and correct the health and safety deficiencies
  and degradation of land and water resources within the concessioners' areas of operations
  at the Canyon Ferry Reservoir and Lake Berryessa.
  
     4.   Establish a review process to ensure that all new concessions and newly issued and
  reissued contracts are in compliance with BOR's policies, directives, and standards. 
  
     5.   Develop a formal action plan to bring the 21 BOR-managed contracts into
  compliance with BOR's new policies, directives, and standards.
  
     6.   Obtain a Solicitor's opinion on whether the concessioners at Lake Berryessa have the
  legal authority to charge entrance fees for entering the concession area and whether the fees
  collected are due the Government.  Based on the opinion, actions should be taken as
  appropriate.
  
  BOR Response and Office of Inspector General Reply
  
  In the April 3, 2000, response (Appendix 4) to the draft report from BOR's Commissioner,
  BOR concurred with the report's six recommendations.  Based on the response, we consider
  Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 resolved but not implemented and Recommendation 5
  resolved and implemented.  Accordingly, the unimplemented recommendations will be
  referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for tracking of
  implementation.
  
  Since the report's recommendations are considered resolved, no further response to the
  Office of Inspector General is required (see Appendix 5).
  
  Section 5(a) of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. app. 3) requires the Office of Inspector
  General to list this report in its semiannual report to the Congress.  In addition, the Office of
  Inspector General provides audit reports to the Congress.