NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2025 

A Bn.L TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND 

ACT OF 1965 AS REGARDS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 2067 

A Bn.L TO FACn.ITATE IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE LANDS 

H.R. 2464 

A Bn.L TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 103-93 TO PROVIDE ADDmONAL 

LANDS WITHIN THE STATE OF UTAH FOR THE GOSHUTE INDIAN 

RESERVATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 2465 

A Bn.L TO .ESTABLISR 5-YEAR TERMS FOR, AND REQUIRE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF, 

THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND FOR 

OTBERPURPOSU . 

21~CC 

OCTOBER 26, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-42 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1998 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052176-9 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Clt4innan 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,C~onrla 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tenneaee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, C~onrla 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, C~ornia 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Ma.uachusettll 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oreaon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Wuhington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Tau 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Wuhington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, C~omia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MuAchusettll 

NICK J. RAHALL ll, West Virainia 

BRUCEF.VENTO,Mllm~~ 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Mon~ 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dako~ 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Mauachusettll 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Tezaa 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Vuginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, C~omi~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, C~onrla 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL ICJsH, Ch.U( of St4ff 

DAVID DYE, Ch.U( CouMel 

CJnusriNB KENNEDY, Chi.ef Ckrle/Adminim'IJtor 

JOHN LAwm:NCB, Dem«ratic St4ff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Clt4innan 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tenn- BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL ll, Weat VJliinia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, C~ornia BRUCE F. VENTO, Mllmeao~ 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, C~onrla PAT WILLIAMS, Mon~ 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Mauachuaettl ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Muaachusettll 

WES COOLEY, Oreaon FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Je~y 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

LINDA SMITH, Wuhington Rico 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Calit'ornia MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhoda Ialand 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director I CouMel 

S'BVB HODAPP, Pro{euWnc.l Staff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held October 26, 1995 .............................................................................. . Text: 

H.R. 2025 .......................................................................................................... . H.R. 2067 .......................................................................................................... . H.R. 2464 .......................................................................................................... . H.R. 2465 .......................................................................................................... . Statements of Members: 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Statements of witnesses: 

Harja, John, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kennedy, John Paul, Attorney, Goshute Indian Tribe ................................ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kennedy, Roger, Director, National Park Service ........................................ . 

Lewi~Wil:~.s=:~! (k;;~;~:·n~j;;rt~~~;;·~r·ih~.i~~ri~~·::::::::::::::::::::: Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Millenbach, Mat, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ..................................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Peterson, Max, Executive Vice President, International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies .......................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material supplied: Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho: 

Questions submitted to Roger Kennedy, Director, National Park 

Service ................................................................................................... . Proposal to refurnish the corridor and waiting area serving the office 

of the director of the National Park Service ...................................... .. Kennedy, John Paul, Attorney, Goshute Indian Tribe: 

Pete, Harlan, Chairman, Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes 

of the Goshute Reservation: Statement in SUJ?port of H.R. 2464 ....... Lukez, Rudy, Chair, Utah Wilderness Coalition: Letter of October 

27, 1994, to John Paul Kennedy .......................................................... . Bernini, Joseph, Commission Chairman, Juab County: Letter of July 18, 1994, to John Paul Kennedy .......................................................... . Gill, Ruland J., Jr., School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration: Resolution No. 95--02 concerning a proposed amendment to 

the Utah Schools and Land Improvement Act of 1993 ...................... . Kennedy, Roger, Director, National Park Service: 

~~:~v &fi:d~d~~~o;··&g~; .. Kc;~~~ciy;~·t;;~Wi~ti~~·~·Ifu:~;; National Park Service .......................................................................... . Response to Mrs. Chenowith's request for information on current 

status and acquisitions of Shenandoah National Park .................... .. Letter of June 9, 1992, to Martin J. Fitzgerald, General Accounting 

Office, regarding concessions in the National Park Service .............. . Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Departments of 

the Interior, Agriculture, Army .......................................................... .. Speech given by Roger Kennedy before the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 49th annual conference, October 13, 1995, as requested by Mr. Pombo ....................................................................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

62 

56 

80 

78 

1 

53 

170 

54 

172 

2 

102 

47 

128 

53 

168 

41 

114 

182 

84 

175 

176 

178 

179 

210 

181 

182 

188 

196 

202 
IV 

Additional material supplied-Continued 

Lewis, Wilma, Department of the Interior: Final audit report on special use fees, National Park Service ................................................................... 137 

Peterson, R. Max, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen- cies: Testimony before the House National Parks and Public Lands 

Subcommittee of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, 

April5, 1990 .................................................................................................. 117 
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 19915 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF BON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order. This is a meeting of the Subcommittee of National Parks, Forests and Lands. I ap- preciate the attendance of our witnesses today at our early meeting. We are having a number of important bills on the floor at this 

time. We wanted to get this one going as rapidly as we could. We 

have some important things that we would like to go over, and we 

appreciate you being here as early as you have been. I have placed 

my entire opening statement in the record; however at the sugges- tion of leadership we are going to put everybody from the Interior 

Committee from now on under oath. And I think they know why. [The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH AND 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDs 

Today we will be hearing a series of bills designated to improve the admi.Distration of the National Park Service. These bills woUld-if enacted-ensure the Director of the Agency is headed by a park profellllional, authorize the National Park 

Service to make minor boundaiy adjustments without an Act of COngress, authorize 

the Park Service to upend funaa outside of park boundaries for adriiiniatrative and 

visitor facilities, authorize challenge coat share programs and authorize the National 

Park Service to charge fees for commercial, non-recreational uses of parka. These are all importment reforms which will improve the management of the National Park Service. In particular, legislation to ensure that the Director is fully ~ed to operate this agency is a very hia:h priority. The problems facing the National Park Service are extremely serious. ThiS agency can no longer afford to play 

musical chairs with directors every four years, especially when the director spends 

the first two years getting directiona to the restroom. The morale of this agener has 

been serioual.Y impacted by a director, who, like Secretary Babbitt, is more Interested in polities than parka. 

After we succeed in ptting the right person to lead the agency, we can work on streamlining its administration throUgh the use of new tools. Just as we are working to imt~rove the land aehangt~ proceae for BLM and the Forest Service, we need 

to authonze the National Park service to make minor boundary adjustments. We 

need to authorize the National Park Service to enter into agreements to provide facilities outside parka. At Zion National Park in Utah, a private businessman has 

offered to build a park contact station on private lands with non-federal funds. This 

(1) 
2 

site will be an ideal shuttle ~ area to reduce traffic in the park. It should not 

req1Jirfl an act of Congreu to pemu.t the National Park Service to atafl' this facility. Challenge cost shale 11_rograma are another method to increase how far we can 

go with Federal dollare. The Forest Service has found this program to be extremely aucceuful and participation by the National Park Service, whlch has been limited 

in annual appropriation acts, is just starting to show promise. 

Finally, I wish to say a few words about the non-recreation fee program authorized under H.R. 2025. As moat {lerBODB in this room know, I am a strong advocate 

of increasing park fees and retaining them where they are collected. Parka are the 

beat deal in America toda>'• and we will have to ask park users to pay more if we have any hope of ad~ the backlog of outatandfug needs. However, last February we heard lengthy testimony from both the Interior Ina~r General and the 

General Accounting Office about the poor tiacal management 1n the NPS. 

Today, we will liear further testimony from the Interior IG in response to a re- quest of mine about how poorly managed the apecial use permit fee program is man- aged. I intend to give due coDsideration to tlie track record of the National Park 

Service regarding fiscal management in any fee program authorized by the subcommittee. 

I thank the witneaaea for their attendance and look forward to our hearing today. 

So our first witness is Mr. Kennedy. And let me get the oath 

here, Mr. Kennedy, and we will administer it to you. I hope you realize the consequences of this. Being an attorney, I am sure you do. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I do, sir. Mr. HANSEN. Do you have that testimony? Raise your hand. 

[Witness sworn] 

Mr. HANSEN. The bills we are looking at today are H.R. 2067, 

H.R. 2464, H.R. 2465 and H.R. 2025. 

Mr. Kennedy is Director of National Park Service and we will 

tum the time to you. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER KENNEDY, Dm.ECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hansen, I gather that you have many things 

on your mind this morning, and I will really not even summarize 

my opening statement. 

Mr. HANSEN. How much time do you need, Mr. Kennedy? Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, just a couple of minutes, really. Mr. HANSEN. We will give you ten. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, thank you, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have the floor. Mr. KENNEDY. I would like permission to flle my statement with 

respect to H.R. 2067 to provide for minor boundary revisions and 

leasing facilities outside parks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe that this is essentially a joint bill that 

has been arrived at between your staff and the staff of the National 

Park Service. If that is a correct assumption, I won't trouble you with any further remarks on it. I would be glad to amplify them 

or offer further data if that is useful to you. With respect to H.R. 2025, Section 2(k), 4 and 6 amendments to 

the Land And Water Conservation Act, I believe that this is also 

a bill in which we are in substantial agreement in that we all wish 

to make it possible for the parks to charge people who come in and 

use the parks, such as fllm makers and people who have occasional 

weddings and other celebrations, that they would pay a market 
3 

price for that use of public facilities as distinguished from just 

enough to cover the cost. I don't believe that there is any substantial disagreement about that. 

I do have with me others who can testify if you want them to 

do so or supply for the record information as to what we think the 

additional revenue could be in the primary places where that can 

take place. I should think those to be such places as the Santa 

Monica Mountains, the Death Valley and other places that are familiar to film making organizations and other activity. 

With respect to Section 4 of H.R. 2025, this is again a way in 

which the Park Service superintendents can use the money you 

give us to leverage participation from others on a cost-sharing 

basis. This is really frequently a matter of getting people to do 

work in the parks with us, often in educational activities, planting 

of trees, fencing, landscape work and that sort of thing. 

It has been limited in the past to a certain sum of money. It 

doesn't make a lot of sense to do that if you are trying to get partners to help you do the work of maintaining the parks. It is my 

understanding that this has been much discussed in the past and 

isn't controversial. I would be glad to amplify those remarks as you 

might require. 

The final section, Section 6, again seems to us to be quite selfevident and not controversial. It is that if somebody knocks a retaining wall out or creates damage in the park, that if there is an 

insurance recovery thereafter, that the money goes back to repair 

the thing you destroyed rather than going back to the general 

treasury, leaving the park in a position where it has got a damage 

and the general treasury has the benefits of the insurance, which 

isn't a very sensible way of being sure you take care of park property. I believe that too is a matter of fairly general agreement. 

With respect to H.R. 2465 to require Senate confirmation and establish a five-year term for the Director of the National Park Service, this bill, it seems to me, has the right thing in mind, which 

is to increase the likelihood of skillful, professional directorship of 

the National Park Service. That is a purpose which we share and 

certainly, personally, I share. 

There are differences about details of this matter, but I do believe that we are in concurrence both as to its purposes and its general direction. The differences among us are that the Administration feels that a five-year term for the Director is an arbitrary term 

that is not required of other Presidential appointees of Federal 

land management agencies. I understand that the other analogous 

Federal land management agencies don't have a five-year term. 

Now I understand further, though I could be mistaken about this, 

that the terms of years are generally those for people like the FBI 

Director and offices of that sort. 

The second place in which we think that there ought to be an 

adjustment, I confess, I don't fully understand the reason for the 

difference of view, but I will state it. It is this, that the position 

of the Administration is that the removal of the Director only for 

cause, which is in the bill, is not appropriate in that instead the 

Director should be able to be removed at the pleasure of the President. 
4 

Cause seems to me to be a term which is very easy to deploy, and therefore I do not personally have a very strong feeling about 

this one way or the other. The Administration's position is that the 

Director should serve at the pleasure of the President, be removable by the President at the President's own behest, as distinct 

from the language of the bill which says only for cause. 

In the fmal difference of view, they are also pretty close, I think, 

we think that the qualifications for the Director of the National 

Park Service prescribed in H.R. 1893, which were that the Director 

should have substantial experience in park management and natural or cultural resource conservation is preferable to the language 

in H.R. 2465 which says that the Director should have substantial 

experience and demonstrate competence in Federal park management and natural or cultural resource conservation. 

If you take just the language in H.R. 2465, you would exclude 

not only myself, which might not be a great loss to you, but it 

would exclude Mr. Ridenour, Mr. Mott and, I believe, the founder 

of the National Park Service, Mr. Steven Mather, Mr. Demeray 

also. So it does seem to us that with those kinds of limitations1 that 

you might want to revise them to permit that the Director snould 

have competence in management, and demonstrated competence, 

and have also some competence in natural and cultural resource 

management. 

With those differences stated, I would be delighted to try to respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, how do you envision your job title? When you were called or however you were given this responsibility, how did they explain to you what your responsibilities 

would be? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Primarily to articulate the purposes stipulated in 

the Organic Act of 1916, which provide fundamentally for the pres- ervation and protection of the places in custody of the N at1onal 

Park Service for which the Service are trustees, and the use, enjoyment and, I believe, instruction or education of the public that 

comes to those places. 

It seems to me that the Director of the National Park Service has 

two related and wholly harmonious responsibilities. They are to 

take care of these places in our trust and understand them enough 

to take care of them, to be experienced in management, if possible 

in public management, to be financially experienced and at the 

same time to have a sufficient sense of American history and the 

general circumstances in which this country unfolded so as to be 

able to make use of his office better to enhance the services provided the American people in those places in understanding their 

history and in understanding our relationship to the other species 

with which we share those places. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK,. you have an understanding of other species, understand history. You yourself, what were you doing before you 

became Director of National Parks? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I started out as a lawyer. I spent three 

years in the Eisenhower Administration, once working for Chief 

Justice Burger in the Department's litigation section, then working in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare during the period of the Salk polio vaccine and finally my last year with the Bu-
5 

reau of Economic Statistics reporting as an assistant to Secretary 

James Mitchell in the Department of Labor. 

Thereafter, I served several times with President Nixon working 

on financially related matters while I was a private banker, including the formation of the Nation's program in student loans, of 

which I am very proud. I served President Nixon again as a consultant in health, education and welfare. During that period, I was 

managing a bank of some magnitude. I went on to become the 

Chief Financial Officer of the Ford Foundation for ten years, managing a portfolio of $2 or $3 billion, diversifying it and managing 

a fairly substantial staff. 

I have been the director of four or five corporations, including insurance companies, mortgage bankers and industrial companies. During my term at the Smithsonian Institution I was a daily renewable or something contract employee, so I was free not only to 

manage the National Museum of American History, but to serve as 

a consultant and participant in a number of industrial companies, 

including a toy manufacturer and a genetic engineering firm. I 

helped to form those. I served as a consultant to five universities 

on management, and I have tried very hard to write books along 

the way, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Very impressive credentials and no one would ever 

question your enthusiasm for the parks. What about your qualifications in parks, what would they be? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I commenced my life as a guide. My family 

was in the expedition outfitting business, has been for 120-odd 

years. I have never been previously an employee of a park system. 

I have never been before an employee of a park system. I have 

worked in my life for some years in places that are now parks, but 

I would never contend to you that I am a professional park manager. I am a professional manager of large and small business concerns and of Federal institutions. 

Mr. HANSEN. Many of us have been envious of the Forest Service, 

which has run very smoothly for years; Forest Service chiefs have 

come up the ranks as career people, which has been held as an example to many. Have you examined how the Forest Service has 

done it in the past? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir, I have, and I have had considerable conversations formally and informally with Chief Thomas, whom I respect enormously. 

Mr. HANSEN. So do I. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I really want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that I personally feel very strongly that if the credentials that are necessary 

to handle this kind of job could be found in someone who is a career civil servant or had been a career servant at all, that that is 

a desirable thing to do. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, Mr. Kennedy, who are your immediate superi- ors? Who do you answer to? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I answer to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks and to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. HANSEN. And who are they? 

Mr. KENNEDY. They are Bruce Babbitt as Secretary and George 

Frampton as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Mr. HANSEN. And they are your betters, is that right? 
6 

Mr. KENNEDY. I said I reported to them, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have heard you use that expression before. I was 

just curious if that is the way you wanted to refer to them. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I wouldn't pass invidious judgment or exhortatory judgment with respect to any of my peers in government service. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is fine. We accept that. Now let me ask you this. When you outlined your duties as Park Service director, you didn't say anything about your relationship with Congress. How do 

you envision your relationship with Congress? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, to begin with, to tell the truth, I have been 

testifying in committees of Congress for 40 years or more. I have 

testified under oath and not under oath. I have striven to tell the 

truth throughout. And let us begin with that. Second, I believe that 

it is important for me to conduct my relationship with Congress in 

mutual respect. I have never at any time in my 40-odd years of experience with the Congress called any Congressman publicly or pri- vately by a derpgatory term, ever, and I don't intend to begin doing 

so. \ 

Mr. HANSEN. Have you written to Members of Congress or called 

Members of Congress? Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, frequently over the years, yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, do you understand the law regarding 

to lobb)'ing the Congress from a member of the Executive Branch? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I do indeed, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me add to that. The deimition of that was 

brought out by the Attorney General under George Bush, and that, 

unless I am mistaken, is now the criteria that we follow. Do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. HANSEN. All right, Mr. Kennedy, have you by your superiors, 

Mr. Frampton and Secretary Babbitt, ever been asked to do any- thing that you felt was not completely honest with Members of 

Congress? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. I have never been asked by anyone to do 

something_ I did not think was completely honest. And if I had been 

so asked, I would have resigned. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, you are fully aware of H.R. 260, 

aren't ypu? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Can you show me anywhere in there where it closes 

one sinBle park in America? Is there anyplace it does? · Mr. KENNEDY. No, I could illl this out a little bit if you would 

like. That bill proposes the formation of a commission which would 

establish criteria, and after thorough discussion might thereafter 

ensue ih the closing of some parks. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, wouldn't you agree that in an instance such as that on page 13, line 14 it says nothing in this act 

shall be construed as modifying or terminating any of the national 

parks without a subsequent act of Congress? Don't you interpret it 

to mean that the way it is now the orily one that can franchise a 

park is Congress and the only who can disenfranchise a park is 

Congress? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. You agree on that? 
7 

Mr. KENNEDY. I entirely do, yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. And you have never been told by Secretary Babbitt 

or Assistant Secretary Frampton anything to the contrary? 

Mr. KENNEDY. That I should state anything to the contrary? 

Mr. HANSEN. Or they would. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I really want to be clear as to what your question 

is. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me clear it up, if I may. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. We have here in front of me a list of things, This 

Land Is Our Land, here is a nice picture of Secretary Babbitt, following that is a series of pages, "Babbitt Blasts GOP Park Plan, 

Blackstone River". He talks about what is going to close-contrary 

to what you just said, he says it is going to close parks, ax U.S. 

Park System. All the way through this Babbitt warns to sell national parks. Mr. Kennedy, is there anywhere in H.R. 260 that it 

talks about selling any national parks? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, you asked me about the language 

in the bill, and I responded to you that that language stated that 

it did not. 

Mr. HANSEN. My first question, Mr. Kennedy, was does it close 

national parks. My follow-up question, does it sell national parks. 

Two distinctions there. So I am asking you the second question. 

Yes, Director of National Parks, speaking under oath, do you see 

anyplace in this bill that sells any national park, yes or no? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. "Bruce Babbitt Looks To Help To Save 

Sites, Talks About The Truman Home; Babbitt Appeals For Help 

In Saving Sites." All the way through here Babbitt blasts plans to 

sell parks. Now you are the Director of National Parks, you give 

your superiors knowledge, I am sure of that. Save Truman Home, 

Babbitt Urges. Now, Mr. Kennedy, as I read this, I read a lot of 

things about a list that is composed, and three of these headlines 

say Republicans have a list to close national parks. Would you 

please tell us where that list is? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have never seen any such list. 

Mr. HANSEN. Has the Secretary ever confided in you about this 

list that he referred to in Kansas City, in Utah, in California, in 

Washington, DC, in New York and Boston, Massachusetts? Did he 

ever tell you about this list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. So you are kept out of the loop, just Mr. Babbitt 

had this list, is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Didn't say that, sir. I just answered your question 

as to whether there had been any such confidence, and my answer 

to you was no. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, did you ever refer to a list? Give me 

that clipping. Did you ever refer to a list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. You never have? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. HANSEN. No place in public record that you referred to a list? 

Remember, you are under oath. 
8 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am well aware that I am under oath. I cannot 

recall any occasion in which I stated that you or any member of 

this committee had a list of parks to close or sell. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, in the last session of Congress we 

had a bill that came up that passed this House by 421 to nothing. 

You stood here and testified in favor of that bill, is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, we now have H.R. 260 before us. Tell 

me the difference between the two bills and why you found H.R. 

260 objectionable. Would ;vou please spell out the difference between the two pieces of legislation? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I testified before this body twice, 

and I would be glad to testify again if you would like. The first 

time I testified for the predecessor bill. The second time I testified 

for that portion of H.R. 260, and I testified emphatically for it, that 

would set up a commission that would establish standards for the 

appropriate enclosure of places within the National Park System. 

I testified for the process that was then contemplated by that 

portion of H.R. 260 that would have set up an interlocking relationship between the Congress and the National Park Service in which 

recommendations and studies by us would be heeded by you and 

that we would enter into an elaborate _process of keeping unsatisfactory properties out of the National Park System. I testified for 

that. And as you know, I testified to that extent, and I opposed for 

the Administration the retrospective elements in H.R. 260. We are 

both aware of what I testified here. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, there has been no list come from this 

park committee. There has been no list come from the Senate park committee. Mr. Babbitt goes on and on ad nauseam about a list. 

Where does he get this? You don't have to answer that, I mean, 

that would be unfair. He is not sitting here. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. HANSEN. But one of these days he damn well will be sitting there. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I say to you and to this committee that first 

of all I am grateful for your courtesy to me? 

Mr. HANSEN. I am sorry, sir, I didn't hear you. Mr. KENNEDY. I am very grateful to you for your courtesy to me 

under these circumstances. I thoroughly understand that feelings here are intense. And before anybody else beats up on me, I would 

like to say that I am grateful to you and to this committee for your 

courtesy to me personally. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kenned;v, thank you. May I ask you a question? Has there ever been a t1me that you, Secretary Babbitt, Mr. 

Frampton have sat down and decided that this was a hot button 

for the Clinton Administration and you would go out and make a 

big deal out of closing parks as Secretary Babbitt has done from 

coast to coast? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. I have never participated. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have never been part of that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. I have never participated in any efforts--

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Are you aware of anything like that 

happening? 
9 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am not aware of any meeting of that sort occurring. It wouldn't surprise me in American political life, but I do not 

know of any such gathering. Mr. HANSEN. It wouldn't surprise me either, but it would surely disappoint me, and I am frankly very disappointed in Secretary Babbitt. I can't believe he was considered for Supreme Court Justice. 

Mr. Kennedy, speaking in Lowell, Massachusetts, I guess I am 

saying that right. Am I, Peter? You refer to target sites and hit 

lists that would hit the east hard. I assume you are referring to 

the east coast. And this is unfair, and I apologize to you because 

I surely hope I am not held responsible for every quote attributed 

to me in the newspaper when I have to stand before the bar of God. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I make mistakes. I am not by any means perfect, 

but I would be immensely surprised if at any time I referred to a 

hit list. I can easily, easily understand my saying that the preferences in this committee run toward western parks. 

Mr. HANSEN. How come Mr. Babbitt-he said under his watch 

there would be no parks closed, however right in the paper, if I 

may read to you, he suggested three parks be returned to the State 

of Virginia and Maryland, right on the heels of that. Is that hypoc- risy or just a slip of the tongue? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the proposal to divest in the directions of the 

State of Virginia and Maryland of the parkway blacktop is a distinguishable act, perhaps, from the notion of divesting a park in a 

somewhat larger sense. I don't propose myself to seek to distinguish those actions. They do seem to have some corollary qualities. 

Mr. HANSEN. I can tell you were an attorney. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I guess I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, in a 

somewhat less circular way that the objective of trying to reduce 

the cost to the National Park Service of carrying functions and activities that could really readily be adopted by States and localities, 

an intention which I think you share and I think other members 

of this committee do too, the question there is what can they quick- ly absorb that they can handle in the ordinary course of their business. Parkways seemed, I am sure, to be a rational way of responding to that quickly. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, is it true that a memorandum left 

your office to the superintendents of the parks telling them to call 

Members of Congress who voted against H.R. 260 and thank them 

for the vote? Is that a true statement? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me check. No, I don't know that, and if it 

did-1 have just checked with my staff to see whether they know 

of such a thing. I don't know anything about it. I would be sort of 

surprised, but I don't think so. 1 am under oath. I don't want to 

confirm or deny something I don't know anything about. 

Mr. HANSEN. So let me refresh your memory. I will give you a 

copy of this. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. It says here United States Department of Interior, 

National Park Service, facsimile transmission from Ann Fagley, is 

that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Badgley. 

Mr. HANSEN. And who is she? 
10 

Mr. KENNEDY. She is my chief of staff. 

Mr. HANSEN. She is your chief of staff? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. This is to all field directors, subject, H.R. 260, number of pages-and it says here about this particular bill, and here 

are the Democrats who voted yes and the Republicans who voted 

yes and those who voted no. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And it instructs whom to do what? 

Mr. HANsEN. Well, we have heard from your superintendents 

that they received calls that they were told to call and thank Members of Congress. Is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. But not in that memorandum, sir. 

Mr. HANsEN. I am just telling you what the superintendents are 

saying. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, you asked me about a memorandum which 

went-I don't know what some superintendent---

Mr. HANSEN. What is the purpose of the memorandum, then? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We inform our people all the time as to what 

votes in Congress are. Let me be sure that I respond to you, since 

I am under oath here, sir, that I don't know of any instructions to 

superintendents to make phone calls to any Member of Congress 

on any subject. I don't know of any. 

Mr. HANSEN. If there was, would you feel that would be a violation of the Act as we talked about earlier, interpreted by the Attorney General under President Bush? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it that someone were to instruct a superintendent to get in touch with a Member of Congress about pending legis- lation? I should think that would not be appropriate. In fact, it 

seems to me very inappropriate. 

What is inappropriate about it is the notion that somebody's superior tells them to do something that they might not want to do. 

That is inappropriate. I would imagine that if somebody were to 

tell somebody on the telephone why don't you call up somebody and 

thank them for having done something, that would not be inappro- priate. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, did you call any Members yourself 

about how they were going to vote on H.R. 260? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Did I talk to Members about H.R. 260? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. And did you lobby them to vote against it? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I offered my views on that subject repeatedlyand they were exactly what I testified here. I spoke to Members 

privately and publicly about my views with regard to this subject, 

yes, indeed, sir. I think that is appropriate. 

Mr. HANSEN. And you made personal phone calls to Members, is 

that right? 

Mr. KENNEDY. On the subject of pending legislation, and the 

question is what is my position, yes, indeed, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, wait a minute. You just added something to 

that. You said when they requested it. Did you ever do it unsolicited? 
11 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is my view that I am free to talk to a Member 

of Congress directly at any time. If there is anything wrong with 

that, I would like to know about it. Mr. HANSEN. And lobby on legislation, that is also your view? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is my understanding of what the Attorney General said that a direct conversation with a Member of Congress about pending legislation is absolutely appropriate. 

Mr. HANSEN. So it is your view that in an unsolicited way you 

can call any Member of Congress and lobby any piece of legislation 

that you feel is appropriate, is that correct? ~ 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is extremely difficult to make a distmction between a solicited and an unsolicited conversation with a Member 

of Congress. 

Mr. HANSEN. Did you call Tony Beilenson unsolicited and tell 

him you wanted him to vote no on this bill? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I wouldn't think of telling a Member of Congress what he should or shouldn't do. I can express my view. of legislation 

any time, I think. 

Mr. HANSEN. Did you send Mr. Beilenson a letter? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I may very well have sent Mr. Beilenson a letter, 

and I would do so to express my view of any legislation. Direct discussion with a Member of Congress seems to me absolutely a part 

of my job as long as what I tell them is in accordance with what 

I have said publicly. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, I am not sure if you spoke for or 

against this bill on making a career employee the director of the 

National Park System. Would you mind telling us again in clearer 

terms did you speak for or against, and if you are for, you offered 

a caveat that you thought it should be cleaned up in some areas? 

Do you want to respond to those three quickies? 

Mr. KENNEDY. You want my personal view of this. I will give it 

to you. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have the perfect right to give your personal view. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. My personal view about this is you ought 

to go for the best person you can get. 

Mr. HANSEN. Regardless if he is in or out of the Park Service? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. lfyou can get somebody who can run 

this system, deal with you, deal with the Congress, deal with the 

press, deal with the system, cope in the city of Washington and 

have a lot of experience managing Federal or State parks, I think 

that is wonderful, but if the choice lies between somebody who has 

only been a park manager and somebody who has the rest of the 

necessary qualifications, energy and willingness, I would go for the 

latter. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Hefley. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am almost hesitant to 

follow this, and I think Roger would just as soon we didn't follow 

it. Roger, you and I have had lots of talks about H.R. 260. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HEFLEY. And you probably have as good a feeling of Mr. Vento's and my intentions with H.R. 260 as anybody, because we 

have shared this back and forth long before it was introduced. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed. 
12 

Mr. HEFLEY. In your best judgment, was there ever any indication that Mr. Vento or I or Mr. Hansen was introducing this bill 

in order to close any parks? 

Mr. KENNEDY. For the answer to your question-! am waiting for 

Mr. Richardson to show up, because I have been chastised, and Mr. 

Richardson, I know, is prepared to tell you that I have been chastised for the admiring things that I have said about you and Mr. 

Hansen with respect to this and other legislation. I don't regard 

you and Mr. Hansen as enemies to the parks and I never have, and 

I have never said you were. I don't think that you and Mr. Hansen 

and Mr. Vento had it in for the National Park System. I never 

thought so, and I don't think so now. 

I think that your endeavor, together with Mr. Miller's, was to do 

the best you could to prevent there being any properties put into 

the national parks that don't belong there. And I think that you 

were attempting to set up a system which would make that less 

likely to happen. And I think along the way it wouldn't have broken your hearts, any of you, if in the course of establishing those 

criteria, if the consequence was that some now in were to drop out 

over time after appropriate scrutiny. But the answer to your ques- tion is I immensely admire the motivation of you, Mr. Hansen, Mr. 

Vento in creating the legislation that you did. And I have never 

said anything otherwise. 

Mr. HEFLEY. You didn't have any feeling that any of the three 

of us set out, or this committee set out to damage the park system. Mr. KENNEDY. If "hell, no" is an expression appropriate in the 

committee, certainly not. I have said so with some regularity, pub- licly and privately. Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Hansen had talked to you about this list idea, 

and I think you have already answered this, and I apologize for 

asking again, but you and I never discussed a list, did we? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, never. 

Mr. HEFLEY. You didn't show me a list; I didn't show you a list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, never. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Vento and I in two or three, four years of working on this, we have never talked about a list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. Mr. HEFLEY. But Mr. Babbitt does talk about a list, and he was 

at Fort McHenry the other day making the statement that if this 

bill passed, Fort McHenry would close. He stood in a city park, had 

nothing to do with what we are talking about, but he didn't know 

that, evidently, and he said if H.R. 260 passes, the city park will 

close, too. He is going around the country making a crusade out of 

standing in parks and saying they will close if H.R. 260 passes. Evidently he has a list in his mind. 

Mr. Richardson passed out on the floor during the debate a map of the United States pointing out the parks that are going to close, 

I don't know where he got that, if H.R. 260 rassed. But in our conversations I have continually told you, have not, that I don't think 

any parks that amount to anything are going to close? Yes, something might be inappropriate and--

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hefley, that is exactly the terminology that 

you have used with me throughout our entire discourse for several 

years, just what you just stated and nothing other. 
13 

Mr. HEFLEY. Then I guess you can't answer this. Mr. Hansen 

asked it, and you can't answer it. We do need to get Mr. Babbitt 

here and fmd out where he got in his mind this list. I hate to suggest that Mr. Babbitt is just simply dumb and that he doesn't understand the legislation. He has plenty of people to help him with 

that. And I hate to imagine that he is deliberately being dishonest 

or that he is deliberately trying to politicize this for political gain. 

It is one thing maybe to beat up on Members of the other party like that, but for crying out loud, he is beating up on the guy that 

was Mr. Parks in this country for years, who led the way in parks 

for years in his own party. So I am not asking you. I guess we will 

have to get him in here. I don't want to put you in that kind of 

position. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Once again, I am very grateful for your courtesy. 

I am sitting here for myself under oath testifying what I believe 

to be true, and I would just as soon not have to testify on behalf 

of anybody else. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Surely. Well, let me ask, now as I remember your 

testimony on H.R. 260, you liked the basic concept. You did the 

first time. You did the second time. And the second time you said 

if it was prospective, if we were developing criteria prospectively about--

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HEFLEY [continuing]. you know, that this was great. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Not only that, I think we ought to get on with 

this. I hope that we can get through this current climate. You folks 

have got a lot of other things to do, but I very much hope we can 

get on with this business of taking care of this problem. The sooner 

we can get back to doing the real work, the better. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Believe me, those of us up here would like to get 

to that place as well. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I will do anything that I can administratively to get forward with the objectives that you and Mr. Vento 

and Mr. Hansen have for helping us to prevent the intrusion in the 

National Park System of places that don't belong there. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Since we admit that not much of anything is going 

to drop out anyway through this criteria development and evaluation, if we took that part out of the bill and made it strictly pro- spective, then as far as_you can tell at this point--

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hefley, the one thing I am absolutely sure 

about is that the testimony that I gave the last time round went 

through the Office of Management and Budget and a lot of other 

screens. And it said we are for the development of this process of 

making it tough to get the junk into the parks and a partnership between the Park Service and Congress in doing that. 

I am being instructed as I am sitting here that there is in the 

legislation a list-that it requires a list by the commission of the 

parks where NPS management should be terminated. If I responded earlier saying that there is no list in the legislation, I just 

want to be sure that since I am under oath I state with accuracy 

what is and isn't. I didn't know the word list appeared in the legis- lation. Let me sa;r__this, however. I know of no list or hit list or loss 

list or whatever. This is a different matter. It is just for precisional language that is there. 
14 

Mr. HEFLEY. And then this process, if we took that part out, do 

you think it would strengthen your hand in the Park Service? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I do very strongly. I think that is really necessary 

for the Congress and the Service professionally to require of each 

other that, to stand out and take a position on what does and 

doesn't belong in the National Park System, stipulating carefully 

the criteria for which those places should be selected. We all agree 

on that. 

Second, I think we agree that the people who do that selecting 

should be the best possible folks in this country that understand 

the mission of these places. They are educational institutions as 

well as places to protect. That is crucial to do and the criteria for 

their selection are very important. As you know, we have tried to 

set up a National Parks Advisory Commission, which is an administrative action. We have done that with those kinds of people on 

it. I would like to submit for the record, if it is of any use, who 

those folks are so that people can get a look at the kinds of people 

who ought to do this work. And I think we ought to get on with 

this, the sooner the better. 

[The list may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Kennedy, thank you very much. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. What I think 

was interesting there in that exchange is it says there is no list. 

It says in the bill the list will be developed. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure, exactly. 

Mr. HANSEN. There is no list, so that is quite a distinction between what was said. 

Mr. KENNEDY. There is. I didn't want to confuse this. Mr. HANSEN. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle realize 

that Mr. Kennedy under oath has stated there is no park closing 

list and this bill closes no parks whatsoever, number one. Number 

two, it does not sell any parks. And I appreciate your candor and 

honesty. I think one thing that was interesting is Mr. Kennedy was 

on C-Span with Brian Lamb and stated there, I have the tape if 

you folks would like to watch it, that he even felt a handful of 

parks should be closed, which is interesting. That is something we 

have never said. 

But I have said in this committee that I didn't think that Snee 

Farm really deserved to stay open, but that was for the benefit of 

Paul Pritchard. Let me just ask you one other thing. In regard to 

this, do you take direction from Mr. Pritchard? One of his people 

at Utah State University said nobody in the Park Service dared do 

anything without talking to them. I was offended by that remark, 

and I would like to hear your comment on it . . Mr. KENNEDY. I have taken a couple of oaths. I took one this 

morning that I have taken before, but I also took an oath of office. 

Mr. HANSEN. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I also took an oath of office, and that oath of office 

makes me beholden to the President of the United States and to 

serve the Constitutional duties for which my office is established. 

I don't report to anybody outside the government of the United 

States for anything. And that goes for anybody. 
15 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I would think that we all decided we were 

going to serve the people in these things. We weren't subjected to 

lobbying groups. Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to be really clear about that. I don't 

want to permit there to be any question as to the independence of 

the National Park Service from any group of people who have other 

positions. . Mr. HANSEN. Did they help you in any way write any of this leg- islation, like the concessions bill or your version of this one? Did 

they have to put ink to the paper on any of those? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Nothing that I have testified for, sir, no. 

Mr. HANSEN. I see, thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I am under oath. 

Mr. HANSEN. I understand that. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to be real clear. 

Mr. HANSEN. I understand that. You know, we listen to lobbyists. 

For what purpose does the gentleman ask to be recognized? 

Mr. RicHARDSON. Strike the requisite number of words. 

Mr. HANsEN. It is the rule of this committee we take people in 

order, and I have always deferred to the ranking Member, and I 

will at this time, but from this point on I am going to take people 

by how they arrived here. We have a list and the next one would 

be Mr. Pombo. However, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Allard has a budget meeting that is very important and he would like to take your time. Is 

that all right? Mr. Richardson. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I am quite disturbed by just having been here two minutes, 

and I understand that the gentleman from Colorado mentioned my 

name in the defeat of H.R. 260. Let me just make several points. Number one, I think that Roger Kennedy is an honorable public 

servant, and I think this country should be grateful to him for serving his country. And I resent the fact that he has been put under 

oath in a hearing that I don't believe has anything to do With H.R. 

260. We are talking about H.R. 2067, 2025, 2465. 

Point number two, let me just say that the reason H.R. 260 was 

defeated was beeause it was a bad bill, and there were a number 

of Members on the majority that also joined Members of the minority in defeating it. We had differences on the bill. The view of the 

majority prevailed. The lists that were prepared I will take full responsibility. The concessions bill that Mr. Kennedy was talking about is my bill. I have introduced it. I take responsibility. So I think the fact that H.R. 260 was taken out of reconciliation, 

there must be a reason. That was done by your leadership. The 

reason was that a bill like that needs more work. I am ready to 

talk about how we can deal with better park management, and I 

had an alternative. And the reason that we have this difference is 

because my alternative wasn't offered as an amendment. 

Now, I think the Chairman has run this committee very honorably, and I think this Chairman has been fair. We have disagreed frequently, but to bring this good man here and subject him to 

whether he is influenced by environmental lobbyists or whether he 

is influenced by nefarious forces, I think is just not good ~~~ernment. So I think if the gentleman from Colorado has some · g to 

say to me, I think we should settle these things here and not sub-
16 

ject Mr. Kennedy to questioning that impugns his integrity or his 

ability to run the Park Service. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish I didn't have to say this, but from what 

I understand that has transpired, at least in my absence, I would 

like to know, are we putting the other witnesses under oath in this 

hearing, too? Is it just Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. HANSEN. It is just Mr. Kennedy. Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, if so, I think that is wrong. I think every- body in this hearing should be under oath. Why should he be subjected to being under oath? And this is not a hearing on H.R. 260. 

This is a hearing on three other bills. Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is a hearing on H.R. 2464, and this is a bill to 

amend the public law on H.R. 2067 and also H.R. 2465, and the 

whole thing is about the Director of the National Parks. That is the 

whole substance of that bill. I think this is perfectly relevant to 

what we are talking about, because that is what we are discussing, 

is what this man does and what his qualifications are. I don't think 

it is fair for the gentleman to get into talking about whether or not 

leadership pulled that. 

It was really at the suggestion of myself and Mr. Hefley they J>ulled it because it doesn't pass the Byrd rule, we all know that. 

We only put it in to keep you people a little honest on a few things, 

which I appreciate, Mr. Richardson. 

The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to speak because I have to be on the floor on the Budget Reconciliation Act, 

and, I also thank Mr. Pombo, the gentleman from California, for 

allowing me to step in his time. Let me tell you a little bit about 

testimony that occurred before my committee, the Resource Conservation Committee. I asked the head of the Forest Service about 

a bypass flow issue. What he told me in committee was not true. 

I asked during the confirmation process on Dan Glickman about 

bypass water flows, and what he told in front of my committee was 

not true. 

I think that it is time that we begin to pull the Administration 

and put them under oath in front of our committee. We called for 

records that have verified that the bureaucracy below the Secretary of Agriculture not only was not being fully honest with him, but 

not being fully honest with my committee. This is not going to be 

the only witness that comes out of this Administration that is going 

to be under oath, because when they testify before my committee, 

I am going to begin to put them under oath because they simply 

have not been straightforward on the facts. 

And this is all going to become public, because I put in a reiuest 

for those memos, and it is just going to be a matter of time. am 

going to suggest to this committee that we ask for the memos that 

have been circulated in the parks department to find out what has 

been done as far as setting priorities. And this particular issue, I 

think, would serve this committee very well to make that request. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. If the gentleman would yield to me. 

Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to. Let me finish my statement, because I have a limited number of time. 
17 

Mr. RicHARDSON. I won't take your time. 

Mr. ALLARD. I will yield when I get finished, OK. Now, Mr. Kennedy, do you remember testifying, and I asked you the question specifically, that you felt that we needed to establish priorities in 

the park, that we were bringing in too many parks and as a consequence of that it was depleting from the maintenance needsparticularly in relation to Rocky Mountain National Park? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ALLARD. And yet after making that statement, were you 

aware that the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, came into Rocky 

Mountain National Park and said that that park was going to be 

closed? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Allard, I am not going to accept responsibility 

for the utterance of anyone else, anyone else. 

Mr. ALLARD. I understand that, but were you aware that he_ made that statement in the Rocky Mountain National Park? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thereafter, yes, sir. Thereafter. 

Mr. ALLARD. OK, now that you have been made aware of that, 

would you be willing to put out a press release saying that you believe the statement that you just made, that there is no list for 

park closure, that Rocky Mountain National Park will not be 

closed, out of your committee. I think that is important, because as 

somebody who is trying to provide in a professional manner to this 

committee the real facts, I think that you would be willing to want 

to make the record publicly clear as to what you said before this 

committee. Would you be willing to do that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have testified before this committee, Mr. Allard, 

and I guess I have tried to do that as directly and honestly as I 

can. 

Mr. ALLARD. So you would be willing to put out a press release. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I didn't say I would do that, Mr. Allard. 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, why wouldn't you be willing to do that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Because I don't think that testimony that is offered before a committee of Congress is the same thing as a press opportunity. I really don't. 

Mr. ALLARD. But it is clarifying the public record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I don't want to bicker with[ou at all on my views. I have tried to state those this morning, an I think you are 

pretty clear about what I think about this. 

Mr. ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't want to make promises to you that I am 

going to issue press releases, because I am just not going to do 

that. I am here testifying before a committee of Congress, and that 

is really as far as I think I have to go this morning. 

Mr. ALLARD. Have you ever issued a press release on your testimony before a committee of Congress? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Probably we have. Have we? Yes. February 22, 

1995. 

Mr. ALLARD. Sure, OK. Now, that is all I need for the record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. ALLARD. Why wouldn't you be willing to issue a press release 

on your testimony before this committee today? This is a very important issue for this country that they understand the facts. 
18 

Mr. KENNEDY. Right, they don't have to do a lot more than, I 

guess, they did on February 22, "Roger Kennedy urges careful 

study of future additions to the park system." And it goes down 

through my testimony in which I urge fairly vigorously that we undertake such a study and establish the criteria and just exactly what I said again today. I would be happy to say that again. 

Mr. ALLARD. Very good. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have got nothing to hide here. I have been stating my views all morning. 

Mr. ALLARD. OK 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I am sure prepared to do it again. 

Mr. ALLARD. OK, and you would state in that press release exactly what you stated to Mr. Hefley and the Chairman of this committee that there is no list for closure? 

Mr. KENNEDY. In his bill? No, there is no list of closure in this 

bill. I have said that. I will say it again. I will say it many times. 

I will say it any time anybody wants to ask me. 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, I hope that you will put out a press release, 

and in fact I request that you say affirmatively that you will do 

that, because I tliink that is important that the people in this country understand the facts. And all you are doing is helping us clarify that record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure, I am testifying as clearly as I know how, 

and I will keep on doing that. 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I just have to express my disappointment in this Administration both before my committee and 

also this committee, because you need to help us get the facts out 

there, and it is very important that there be some truth in what 

is said. It is unfortunate that we have to put you under oath. It 

is unfortunate that when they testify before my committee, the 

head of the Forest Service is going to have to be put under oath, 

but under the present circumstances it seems to be necessary because your boss is out there in our districts and he is distorting the 

facts. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALLARD. I will be glad to yield back one minute to the gen- tleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I won't take your time. I think that most witnesses that appear are considered, in essence, under oath by the 

rules unless we have changed the rules. Obviously there is the pro- cedure of actually formally swearing. Although I certainly would 

take issue with the gentleman on some issues, I just wanted to 

point out the fact that Members are considered under oath when 

they testify. 

In essence whatever is your problem; the issue you were raising earlier with the Department of Agriculture or with anyone; they can't come before us and state this. I think much of what has been 

discussed here-how you are going to deal with Superintendent 

Jones or how you are going to deal with an issue of misunderstanding between what somebody in the field is interpreting, whether 

you want to do it through a press release and communication. I assume that most often there are more efficient ways of doing that 

than through the press. 

Mr. ALLARD. Reclaiming my time, your point is well made. 
19 

Mr. VENTO. Excuse me, Mr. Allard. 

Mr. ALLARD. Reclaiming my time, your point is well made, and 

that is one reason why I am so very disturbed about the testimony 

that I received before the committee and why I have supported the 

Chairman of this committee in trying to get the truth out. And I 

would solicit in the strongest terms from Mr. Kennedy that he help 

us get the truth out. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that the point is that if we begin to swear 

everyone, then the issue, I suppose assumes that if somebody isn't 

sworn, then they are not under that particular legal obligation. I 

think the convenience of doing that at various high-profile hearings 

when we have them is probably justified, but to depreciate, in essence, the testimony or to suggest that it is less than candid, I 

mean, our standard here ought to be that it is always correct and 

that you are always responsible. 

Mr. ALLARD. Good, and reclaiming my time, I appreciate your 

comments. You have just strengthened my case for the testimony 

received in front of my committee. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, I am not sure how much time I have left. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. We have no light yet. 

Mr. ALLARD. But I will go ahead and yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Allard. I think it is unfair 

to ask the witness to issue a press release. I think, Mr. Allard, you 

could issue a press release. 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, that doesn't surprise me that you think that 

is unfair, but, reclaiming my time, what is the problem with having 

him help us get out the true facts? 

Mr. RoMERo-BARCELO. Right, but you can have somebody ask 

him and the press ask him, he will answer. One thing he is answering a question from the press and the other thing he is putting 

out a press release which puts him at odds with the Secretary of 

his department. Now, I think it is unfair to ask a person something 

like that. I think, as I said, you can have the press ask him and 

he will have to answer the press what he has told at this committee. He cannot lie to the press. 

Mr. ALLARD. Reclaiming my time, let me make this point. If anybody on this committee makes that press release, it is considered 

as self-serving. If the Secretary of the Interior makes that release, 

it is considered somebody who has a special interest. If it comes 

from the head of the Department of Parks, it is presumed to have 

some validity in that he is doing his best job and that it is supposed to be supported by sound fact. 

That is why he is testifying before this committee and that is 

why that is so very important that we get the truth out there, what 

is really happening as far as parks and that the bills and the discussion that we are having before this committee is not park closure, it is the process of establishing priorities in full cooperation 

with the Department of Parks. And I don't think that has been 

made clear, and I think it does need to be made clear. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. But you can have a press release support- ing him. 
20 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, time is the gentleman's. We are going to give 

you your own time here in just a second. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. OK. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me just say this. We are going to spend too 

much time on this. I can see that now, and I would like to move 

this thing along and put everybody on five minute&-we have a lot 

of ground to cover and we want to cover it in an hour, so we are 

going to move here if we can. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my. time to the gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me just say something. Mr. Kennedy, we would 

ask you to cooperate with us, to take H.R. 260, sit down with whoever you have to, but work out something that is a good piece of 

legislation that we can all stand up, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Vento 

and myself, and say this is a good piece of legislation, because 

frankly, you need it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. And I would like to do that. Tell Secretary Babbitt 

to stop playing politics with it. I apologize for my friends over here. 

And let us get the show on the road. If we can get this animosity 

behind us, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would, too. Mr. Hansen, may I ask you in the 

same spirit to examine the press release that I just handed to you 

and to reflect upon it for a moment? 

Mr. HANSEN. I just looked at it and just talked to Mr. Hodep 

about it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Good, thank you. I have a grave and continuing 

respect for your integrity, and I seek to preserve my own. And I 

would be most grateful for your looking at it, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, this is what we are going to do from here on. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico will be recognized. Following him, 

Mr. Pombo, Mr. Vento, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Cooley, 

Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Torkildsen, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Radanovich. And 

I see we have lost half of them already. And I am going to limit 

you to five minutes. Is that all right with everybody? Appreciate 

that. The gentleman from Puerto Rico has the floor. 

Mr. RoMERo-BARCELO. I need less than that, Mr. Chairman. I 

just wanted to add, as I said before, I think it unfair to ask the 

witness to issue a press release. The witness can answer the press 

questions and Mr. Allard or anyone here can ask a member of the 

press to ask him the questions. That is something different than 

issuing a press release which puts him at odds with the Secretary 

of his department. I think that I just want to put that for the 

record. 

And, Mr. Kennedy, I would like to ask you something about H.R. 

2025 regarding the fees that are proposed to be charged. Would I 

be correct in understanding that the proposed bill would require 

the department to charge market fees for a wedding and could not 

only charge the services, for instance? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is right. If somebody goes into a park 

facility and wants to have a wake or a wedding there, the notion 

is that you charge it whatever somebody else would, yes. 
21 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. But under the proposed bill you would 

charge them a market fee? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. At this point in time you only charge the 

cost of servicing? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, and it means, of course, that you don't pay 

forthe--

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. How much revenue does that actually 

represent? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to file with you schedules that I just 

got this morning that tell us how much we are getting and how 

much we think we can get, which is a fair sum of money. The big 

thing here is it is just unfair to the taxpayer that we are underwriting fllm makers coming into parks and paying essentially stuff 

for them that they should be paying themselves. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. That is why I asked you about weddings. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. RoMERo-BARCELO. I mean, I think that film makers, all commercial activities should be charged market price. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. I have no qualms with that. What I am 

concerned is about weddings. If you require market prices for weddings, it seems to me that a lot of the weddings that are now being 

held there will not be able to be held because some people cannot, 

will not afford the higher fees. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We can work on that with you. The notion here essentiall~ is it is a public facility that taxpayers are paying for, 

and it isn t fair for somebo9 to have a fancy wedding--

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is what I am concerned with, that 

we don't limit--

Mr. KENNEDY. No, the intention is not to force people out of these 

places. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The same thing with activities by the Boy 

Scouts or school activities. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. That if you charge them market prices, 

maybe you will be just eliminating those types of activities. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, we are very sensitive to that problem and 

will set those fees accordingly. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And would the bill allow you to do that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed, it would. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. OK, that was my concern. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. School activities are free anyway under the bill, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on 

something that Mr. Richardson said, I would have to agree with 

him that I believe that all people who testify before the committee 

should be put under oath. As my past experience with the Endangered Species Act, I would say that all people who testify should 

be put under oath and would suggest that to the Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy, just so I understand this, I have gone through lists 

of press accounts of what has happened over the past couple of 
22 

months and I understand that you do understand H.R. 260, you do 

understand the bill and what is included in it. Would there be any 

justification by what was in that bill as it passed committee to say 

that we would close the Gateway Arch in St. Louis or that we 

would close the Golden Gate Recreation Area in San Francisco or 

that we would take away the James River Park in Richmond? I 

could go on and on. 

There are literally 50 different parks that people know and recognize the name, Sleeping Bear, Dunes National Lakeshore, it goes 

on and on and on. I thought I understood that legislation, and nowhere in it did I see the ability, as quoted here, to put the Gateway 

Arch in St. Louis on the auction block. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I didn't make any such statement, as you know, 

Mr. Pombo, and I can't comment on anybody else's oratorical style. 

Mr. POMBO. I am not asking you to comment on someone else's 

oratorical style or to verify comments that someone else made. I 

am just trying to understand within that legislation. Was there 

somewhere in that legislation that it said that we would put the 

Gateway Arch in St. Louis on the auction block? 

Mr. KENNEDY. There is nothing in H.R. 260 that states that the 

arch in St. Louis will be put on the auction block. Mr. POMBO. Is there anything in there that would lead you to believe that that would be put on the auction block? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Gee, I don't want to have to argue H.R. 260 and 

its implications retrospectively here again. I have done that 

through two full hearings. 

Mr. POMBO. I am just trying to understand this because I am 

very concerned about that, the legislation itself, about the state of 

our national parks, going through the Inspector General's report 

and from past testimony that has come from the Inspector General. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. POMBO [continuing]. About what is happening about the lack 

of accountability, the lack of funds, the lack of suitable amenities 

for the public to use those parks. In many cases we have had parts 

of our national parks made off-limits to people. A number of things 

I am very concerned about. I am very concerned about statements 

that say that something that may or may not pass this body and 

be signed into law may close all of these national parks. I mean, 

these are places that people know, that they visit on a regular 

basis. 

I mean, the Golden Gate National Park in San Francisco is probably one of the most visited national parks in our country. It is 

something that is very recognizable, but there are statements that 

somehow we are going to put them on the auction block. In fact, 

I have a statement here that says you have got a river wonderland 

here, you can't take it for granted, the United States Congress is 

getting ready to take it away from us. I am very concerned about 

that, and I am just wondering where in the legislation it allowed 

us to put these sites on the auction block. 

Mr. POMBO. You are not aware of anyplace in the legislation 

where it allowed us to put the Gateway Arch on the auction block? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Pombo, at risk of extending this discussion, 

I guess I probably better say that I never found in this legislation 
23 

any list of an1 kind, and none of the places to which you refer 

could be on a list that doesn't exist. 

Mr. PoMBO. Let me ask you one thing. I think you have established in your previous statements that Mr. Hefley and Mr. Hansen 

and Mr. Vento and Mr. Richardson were honorable men and you felt that they had worked with you extensively on the development 

of this legislation over the past five years or so. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. PoMBo. You made a statement also earlier that you had 

never personally attacked any of the Members of Congress. 

Mr. KENNEDY. That is right. 

Mr. PoMBo. I was wondering, this statement, and it is in quotes, 

but as Mr. Hansen said I would hate to have to stand to anything 

that was ever written about me in t~ ~~gers over the past three 

years, but it says, "the simple fact · ests a condition on the 

part of the militant ignorant that we don't care enough to rise in 

defense of these properties." 

Mr. POMBO. Are you referring to the other 417 Members? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, and thank goodness, I have a tape of the 

speech I gave, and I would just be delighted to have any Member 

of CongressMr. PoMBo. Would you submit it for the record? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, sure, with pleasure. 

Mr. PoMBo. OK, without objection, Mr. Chairman. But could you 

comment who were the militant ignorant? Is that the rest of us? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I was :te:king at that time. I recall that passage quite clearly. I was spe · g in defense of science, in defense of the 

arts and humanities. I spent a lifetime writing history. I take it 

very seriously. 

Mr. PoMBo. I take history very seriously, as well. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I know you do. I know you do, and I have never, 

sir, nor do I intend to attack you personally or call you names. I 

don't do that. 

Mr. POMBO. Who are the militant ignorant? 

Mr. KENNEDY. May I fmish what I was speaking about at the 

time? I was talking about historic neighborhoods and the destruction or the heedlessness in this country which I feR!' has been there 

throughout its history with regard to the arts, the humanities, the 

sciences and those places, our neighborhoods and towns, which are 

the containers of our common experience. 

In the 1950's and 1960's there were people who were, in my view, 

militantly ignorant in their bulldozing of and elimination of those 

kinds of neighborhoods and places in the name of urban renewal. 

And there are people today who I think undervalue the importance of learning in this country. 

Now Mrs. Chenoweth and I have had exchanges about books we 

read. We think books are pretty important, and I remember during 

the course of this passage in the speech lifting a book up and saying that I thought that the record of human experience that is 

imbedded in literature is of great interest. I wasn't talking about 

Members of Congress who were against or for H.R. 260. That had 

nothing to do with that at all. 

Mr. POMBO. The tape verifies that you were not talking about 

H.R. 260 at the time that you-
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POMBO. OK. 

24 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Kennedy, for your response. We will tum to the gentleman from Minnesota, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. Director Kennedy and my colleagues, the 

issue is that issues have been brought before this committee in full 

committee that we have had a hearing on stripping park designa- tion and turning parks back over to the private sector and to the 

non-profit sector. I mean, that is what has happened. In fact, we 

went back home and the Chairman was kind to come back and 

hold hearings in Minnesota on that very topic. 

I think the issue here that you have to realize is that perhaps in the media's eye and the public's eye, they don't necessarily differentiate one action and one hearing from another in terms of the 

legislation, or in terms of the message that is coming out of this 

committee is to sell off the parks. The message that is coming out 

of this committee is, in fact, to pull back from what it has been 

doing, what has been going on. 

Now the issue with regards to H.R. 260 is that it has been up and down. I mean, this bill is three years old, and in fact it began with a base-closing type of commission structure a couple of years 

ago. So the history of that is that we came to the table, and we 

made some significant changes about a year and a half ago and 

moved it through the house with no opposition because we eliminated that. But obviously, the history of it and some of the statements that were made, you know, I am not like the rest of you, I 

probably criticize other Members of Congress once in a while. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is the epithets, Mr. Vento, to which I was referring. 

Mr. VENTO. I want to be the first here to witness that I am not 

quite that genteel. I think we have to admit these things to ourselves, at the very least, if not inJublic. And the fact is that many of the statements made by myse probably then and by the advocates of it as well, attempted to portray it as a very effective bill 

that was going to make a real difference in terms of shaping and 

reshaping a,nd reviewing the park system. That is the case. 

If you l~k at thi&-the misunderstandings that have been 

achieved ~d the messages that are coming out of the committeeif you don't ·like the message, then stop, you know, opening and--

Mrs. CHE~OWETH. Will the gentleman yield? 

~ 

Mr. VEN'l'O. No, not at this time. But then let us not open up t:o qii and gas de!elopment. The publi~ ~oes !lot ~ecessarily distmgu1shi and the med1a does not always distmgu1sh m terms of 

these actions. This is what has actually happened before this committee: the issue of closing parks, of turning them back over to the 

private sector, of stripping designation, of turning back to the 

States, and these are the actions. I am talking parks now specifi- cally, so, I mean, there should be no confusion, you know, at least 

with regard to the members here. 

And to drag the Park Service Director here and say well, have 

you been lobbying, have you been? The fact of the matter is that 

we all know that we demand that this man and a lot of other peo- ple offer testimony and give us their opinions with regards to these 
25 

issues. And we do so and they do so, as I said, in essence under 

oath. And so confusion has ensued here. This bill was moving forward and that was the issue and it got attached to it a lot of other 

issues. My feeling is that that wasn't the place to make the fight 

in terms of issues. That was a study bill. You know, we should be 

able to live with a study bill, but apparently that wasn't the case. 

It became the contest and became the author, the sponsor, whoever else was behind it notwithstanding the fact that, you know, 

there were some friends there behind it. And that should have 

moved through here and shouldn't have got caught up in that particular controversy, but it did. 

As far as I know, the Park Service DirectOr or other members of 

the Administration can't use a~propriated funds to lobby. We have 

had quite a debate about that m terms of the nonprofits this year. 

But there are specific laws which limit that. But clearly, they hardly have to say very much, because there is obviously a series of interest groups from the Heritage Foundation and many others that 

are out there adding fuel to the fire in terms of these particular 

issues, including the National Parks and Conservation Association. 

Incidentally, I might say, the chief officer of this association is the 

one I had tried to get appointed, as Roger Kennedy knows, to be 

the park director. I wasn't for Roger Kennedy. I was for Paul 

Pritchard being the director. 

So the point is that here I was on the other side of this issue 

with _you, Mr. Chairman. So obviously I think that in looking at 

that I am pleased with Roger Kennedy. I think he has done a pretty good job. I think that ROger Kennedy, if anything, had every reason to have questions about Paul and others so his independence should be established just by that mere fact in terms of what has 

gone on here. 

Now the bills we have before us, I don't know that there is great 

opposition to them. Whether or not that person needs to have Federal experience in terms of land management, I think that is the 

issue here. I think all of us agree that an1one that directs the Park 

Service ought to have professional expenence in terms of cultural 

resources, recreation, natural resources. I think that that is what 

the issue is with this. I don•t think there is opposition to it. 

The minor park boundal}' adjustment issue, I think most of us 

did not expect the discuss1on to evolve to H.R. 260, but I think 

what this serves notice to me and to the Chairman and others is 

that we are going to have to resolve this particular issue. It is an 

important issue. We should be able to do the study bill. I think 

that Congressmen Hefley and Hansen have gone a long way in 

terms of meeting what the objections were. I think it is a good bill. 

We need those criteria. We need to review. · The fact of the matter is when we place some units in the park 

system-1 chaired the subcommittee as my colleague Mr. Hansen 

is doin¥ now-we don•t always get accurate information. You know, 

we designated a Pinkney House in, I ~ it was, South Carolina, 

Charles Pinkney. It was built after he died, but the fact is we 

didn•t have that information here. As far as I know on the committee and within the National Park Service, there was no attempt to 

suppress information. We simpJy made a judgment based on the 

best information that we had. There was no effort. There was no 
26 

political pressure. I don't owe Fritz Hollings anything or anyone else. 

And believe me, if we had known it was inappropriate, we 

wouldn't have done it. But it was an honest mistake. It maybe 

should or should not remain in the park system for other reasons. 

That is the basis, that sometimes those types of errors occur. That 

is about as pure a one from my standpoint that I know about. But, 

I mean, those things happen. And it doesn't happen very often. 

I thank the Chairman and I thank the members for their patience. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I don't 

mean to editorialize on it, but I think this particular piece of legis- lation got turned into a political football that no one intended it to 

be turned into. No one intended to have the Secretary go out and 

say things or your friend Mr. Pritchard who went out and said 

things or people who made a lot of money on it. 

Mr. VENTO. I think he was wrong. 

Mr. HANSEN. I know you think he is wrong, and I think he was 

wrong. I was on TV with him and he wanted to keep Snee Farm 

alive. Even Mr. Kennedy and I agree on that one. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I haven't taken a position yet on Snee Farm, Mr. 

Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, anyway, I am just quoting you from the thing 

from C-span. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento just used Mr. Paul 

Pritchard's good name and I wanted to follow up on what he was 

saying, because Mr. Pritchard is president of the National Parks 

and Conservation Association whose annual budget is $9 million. 

This organization has been here testifying on behalf of the programs for the National Park Service. Mr. Pritchard said it is World 

War II for our national parks in an article entitled, "For Sale National Parks", Backpacker, October 1995. Hopefully we can counter 

it, but I fear we have heavy casualties. There is a litany of lists 

of parks. It goes on to say that even Oregon Pipe Cactus in Arizona 

a11d White Sands in New Mexico as well as national preserves like 

Big Cypress in Florida are on the auction block. In all, 314 units 

he lays out will be on the auction block. And furthermore, a woman 

by the name, Mr. Kennedy, of Holly Bundock, a western region 

spokeswoman for the Park Service stated here in quotes, "closing 

national parks leaves me with just one· question, what do we tell 

our children and their children when they ask why we didn't protect them?" You know, those are pretty dramatic statements and 

they are coming from your employees. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I know you don't mean to say that Mr. Pritchard 

is an employee of ours. He is certainly not that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But I do-l am very well aware of the close 

association. I do want to ask you, in responding to the Chairman's 

questions about lobbying, if you had a sign posted in your park 

that said no hiking on this trail and some guy was found hiking 

on that trail, it would be serious problems. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It would. 
27 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No hiking means no hiking. In an Administrative appeal if he came before a panel and said I wasn't hiking, I 

was jogging, this is just exactly like your answers to the Chairman. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, I don't think so, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Lobbying is lobbying. Mr. KENNEDY. But conversation with Congress people isn't. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think that the law is clear. I think the law 

is clear in the Reconciliation Bill from last year and in the Hatch 

Act. And I intend to pursue this in this committee. 

And also, in your answers about the list, Mr. Kennedy, you did 

say that you were aware that the bill did not contain a list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I amended that in an exchange with the Chairman just to be precise, that the word list does appear, but not in 

the sense that you are using it, a list of _parks, no. 

It is here-! am sorry, just because I am under oath, I want to 

be sure I am explicit. On page 9 of the printed text of the bill, and 

this is not a list of parks to be closed. This is not a list of parks 

to be closed, but the word list does appear in the legislation in section 3(2). This is that the commission would recommend a list of 

National Park System units where national park management should be terminated, et cetera. I am just trying to be precise as 

to what my answer here is. I want to again say that I agreed with 

the Chairman earlier that this is not a list of stipulated parks to 

be closed now. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Were you or are you aware of a list that was 

being circulated in the Interior? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know of any list that was circulated in Interior. 

Mrs. CHENoWETH. OK You know, you mentioned and the ques- tioning was rather intense, but you mentioned something about, we 

have to come before this committee and deal with you, we have to 

deal with Congress, we have to deal with living inside Washington, DC. I just want to say, you know, the taxpayers have to deal with 

you. Mr. KENNEDY. And you, all of us. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And they have to deal with the agencies. Mr. KENNEDY. Indeed. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And they have to deal with a multitude of 

rules and regulations. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Indeed. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And let me tell you, there were a lot of military families who had to deal with military bases being closed, and 

I didn't see Interior respond with regards to that. 

Let me ask you,_you said you took an oath to the President? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I took an oath of office that said that I would 

serve-I don't have the oath of office before me. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you provide that, please? Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, absolutely. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want to say that in the plain reading 

of the law, we become frustrated when the explanations of the 

plain reading of the law become tortured by the agencies. I also 

want to state that on March 9 I asked you for some information 

with regards to Shenandoah National Park. I asked you for the 

current status of the acquisitions and an accurate report on that. 
28 

You promised me that you would have it back in 30 days. We have 

not heard from you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know-eould I check on that, Mrs. 

Chenoweth? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Sure. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought it had been submitted. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK 

Mr. KENNEDY. But 1 will recheck on it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In recent years the National Park Service has 

initiated a policy of retaining all or substantial portions of concession franchise fees without submitting such funds to the treasury. 

On July 25 I asked you to provide to this committee the specific 

citation in the existing concession law which authorizes the National Park Service to spend money on non-government buildings 

without authorization or to divert franchise fees which are required 

under the terms of the existing contract to be deposited in the 

treasury. I asked you for all of the agencies involved in the memorandum of understanding that you referred to and I asked you if 

you would provide your file for each of you to the committee for 

your review. That was July 25. We have not received that information. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We will recheck that, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you provide it? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, indeed. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you provide it within 30 days? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am instructed that we have done so, but we will 

recheck that. I don't know that personally, as to whether those submissions have, as I am instructed by my staff, been submitted, but 

we will recheck that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. HANsEN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. The gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chairman. Director Kennedy, 

thanks for coming down this morning to visit with us. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. HANSEN. State your point of order. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the rules require alternating between the 

Democrat and Republican side. 

Mr. HANSEN. I realize they do. I was thinking back to the time 

of when you were Chairman of the committee and you were overburdened on that side and you would tum to me and say we will 

take two, one, two, one, and I was just following your procedure. 

Now if you would like to overrule me on that, I would be happy 

to--

Mr. VENTO. No, I just wanted to clarify. 

Mr. HANSEN. No, I am fully aware of it. 

Mr. VENTO. If Mr. Hayworth has to leave or if there is a reason 

for not doing it, I have no objections. 

Mr. HANSEN. The only reason that I can come up with, and I am 

ready to stand in error here, is that Mr. Hayworth has been here 

since the first of the committee, been waiting patiently. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to making 

an exception. 
29 

Mr. HANSEN. We are overloaded on this side and I was following 

the Vento precedent that was established. 

Mr. VENTO. I have no objection. 

Mr. HANSEN. I want to ask one thing. When you were chairman 

of the committee, I came in order as a ranking member, but I always will recognize your ranking member above everybody else, 

and I think that is proper. So if we ever switch sides again, would 

you keep that in mind? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chairman again. 

Mr. HANSEN. Who was next over here, Mr. Kildee or Mr. Hinchey? I will go to Mr. Hinchey next, and I apologize if that is 

offensive to you. Mr. Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chairman. Director Kennedy, thank 

you again for coming by. In terms of your duties as Director of the 

Park Service, would it be accurate to say that you report ultimately 

to the Secretary of the Interior as part of your duties? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would you then please report to the Secretary 

of the Interior, and I look forward to an opportunity to have the 

Secretary in to visit with us, Mr. Chairman, but in lieu of such 

time when he does appear, would you please report to the Secretary my very genuine disappointment that he has decided to take 

his department and use it as a blunt instrument in a cynical effort 

to reelect this President. I will offer you specific examples. On two 

occasions that I know of, first of all at Tufts University and then 

in Colorado, when he compared those of us who may have a different opinion on environmental legislation to those who ferpetrated the attack on Pearl Harbor. He said of those of us, my 

friends, they are guilty of the biggest sneak attack on America 

since what transpired at Pearl Harbor." When I asked the Secretary personally in an informal setting at a meeting with the 

western caucus, and the Chairman will bear me out on this, as will 

other members, he said, "Oh, come on, J.D., you know how this 

game is played." 

Let me suggest to members of this subcommittee and to you, Director Kennedy, and ultimately to the Secretary of the Interior and 

to my other friends from the Administration that may be sitting 

here, we are not engaged in a game. I used to cover games. There 

is a big difference. There may be a competition of ideas, but we are 

talking about the future of families and the future of this Nation 

and the future of our natural resources. And I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will invite the Secretary and we will put him under 

oath and we will give him the chance to respond to that outlandish 

type of criticism. 

Now points have been made earlier today, newspaper articles, 

other comments from the Secretary about this phantom hit list. 

You have been very gracious, Director Kennedy, in again disavowing any knowledge of some secret hit list, even while you were 

careful to delineate some topics within the legislation. But I also 

listened with interest when you said that you have never attacked 

personally any member of this institution or this institution collectively. My colleague who just rejoined me from Massachusetts pro-
30 

vided some articles, one from the Boston Globe. Let me quote it. 

In the article dated Thursday, June 1, the headline, "Park Service 

Chief In Lowell, Says Cuts Imperil Smaller Sites." That is the 

headline. Quoting you now, Director Kennedy, "they don't like eastem and urban. They like big and green and big sky, Kennedy said 

of Committee Chairman Don Young, Republican of Alaska, and 

other western legislators." He added, ''These folks don't like cities 

much. They don't like people who live in cities much." 

Director Kennedy, could you please elaborate on how that is not 

an attack on Members of the Congress of the United States? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is a difference of view. I stand by every word. I believe it. I believe it. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. OK, so you believe that we don't like cities? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I didn't speak of you, sir. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And other western legislators. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, OK If you want to associate yourself with an 

anti-city view, that is OK with me. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, I think the good people can disagree, Director Kennedy. I am certainly not naive enough to believe that we 

ever would divorce politics from policy. I guess the problem that I 

am having, and of course you can't begin to answer for the Secretary of the Interior, though you will report to him, I trust. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will indeed, sir. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Is this almost reflexive action to deliberately, 

through disinformation, inaccurately portray the aims of this committee to attribute to those of us on this committee in the majority 

the most base and vile of objectives in what I believe is ultimately 

political grandstanding? There is no place in polite political discourse for people who may be of two minds to ever attribute to adversaries something as heinous as the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Would ,YOU agree with me on that assessment? 

Mr. KENNEDY. With your last paragraph, l absolutely agree. I 

don't think that it is a good thing for differences of view on policy 

to degenerate into name calling, ever. We get mad, we all do that. 

Mr. Vento suggested earlier we sometimes get mad and we say 

dumb things. We all do that, but not in a way that corrupts the 

process of talking about legislation or policy. If you do it, you can 

apologize. I have, but I can't think of any time in which I have 

thought it appropriate to hang a moniker on a Member of Congress 

that su~ests that their motivation was base. I don't think that is 

necessanly useful. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank you, Director Kennedy, and I just trust 

that your superiors both in the De{lartment of Interior and ultimately the other end of Pennsylvan1a Avenue will have the same 

opinion. Thank _y_ou. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank the gentleman from Arizona. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just 

observe that rhetorical flourishes are not uncommon in pursuit of 

political objectives and, you know, they happen and we all exercise 

them in one way or another. And I don't attach too much importance to it. The important thing is the pursuit of goals and objectives. I think it is true that there are differences with regard to the 

goals and objectives of the various members of this committee, and 
31 

those goals and objectives are distinguished most clearly and succinctly by an examination of who sits on which side of the aisle. 

It is a little bit more ambiguous than that, but that, I think, is its 

most clear manifestation. 

So with regard to H.R. 260, I think that it is possible to misinterpret this bill. It is poasible to misinterpret the printed word, but 

nevertheless there are provisions in it which I find very worrisome. 

Even though I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of this 

committee, as I have for his immediate predecessor, there may be 

some of us who, in examining various pieces of legislation, are 

going to come to disagreements with regard to its objectives. I certainly disagree with some of what I perceive to be the objectives 

of this particular piece of legislation. So I think also that whatever 

the intention is here, it is also possible to destroy institutions and 

great works in more than one way. You can do it by a frontal assault. You can also destroy a great building by the removal of one 

brick and have it crumble over time. 

So there are those of us who have a great respect for the National Park System. There are those of us who have a great respect 

for the Nation's heritage. There are those of us who believe that 

the lessons of our history are in some measure most clearly and 

most significantly expressed in our national historic monuments 

and other aspects of the National Parks System. We believe that 

so strongly that we are prepared to defend them against what we 

might perceive as any kind of an attack, whether it is a frontal attack or a chipping away. In any case, there are differences between 

us and I think those differences with regard to environmental issues were clearly expressed on a number of occasions during this 

particular Congress, most recently in the debate on a bill last night 

on the floor with regard to such things as ANWR, with regard to 

such things as mining rights and mining privileges and the sale of 

mining land, such things as grazing rights and the costs of those 

grazing rights, things of that nature. Those are issues that divide 

us and probably will continue to divide us and they will be the subject of political discourse. In the context of that political discourse 

some people may get more excited on a given moment than others 

and they may use language that is discomforting to other members. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, sure. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. So in essence you would excuse the language of 

the Secretary comparing those of us with a different point of view 

to those who attacked Pearl Harbor? 

Mr. HINCHEY. You may infer from my words, sir, anything you like. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I am just simply asking. 

Mr. HINCHEY. But don't put words in my mouth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not. I am just simply asking if in terms 

of this rhetorical defense--

Mr. HINCHEY. You can infer anything you like. I am telling you 

what I believe is at issue here. And you can interpret that in any 

way you choose. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield to me on another subject if he has concluded his statement? Have you? Mr. HINCHEY. Sure. 
32 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think this whole lobbying issue, specifically with regards to comments by the members that have been made, 

is that we really have a dilemma here because at one instance it 

really deals with how we are going to micromanage and how we 

deal with it and the confidence in the Federal agencies. For instance, we write law. How specific do we become? And we need the 

type of input from a lot of 'Professionals in the field as to the consequences of the legislation 1s that we write. We need it all the way down, especially with regard to parks, down to that specific park. 

So the issue when you have budget limitations coming down on 

Rocky Mountain National Parkl when you have limitations coming down in Saguaro in terms of wnat the budget does or review processes and studies, I think one of the things we don't want to do and 

I think one of the problems with the Park Service is that it has 

been pretty much a Democratic organization in terms of those pro- fessionals being able to speak up and stand up to protect those par- ticular areas. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Democrat--

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman is yielding to me, and I would 

be happy to talk with you later, J.D., but the issue is the lobbying issue in terms of where education lobbying begins. There is a real 

problem that we have in terms of demanding information. And so 

this isn't just a matter of saying you can't get involved in legisla- tion. In fact, we insist that they get involved, on the one hand; then 

interpret their involvement as having views and having a position 

one way or the other, which we insist they have a position. In fact, one of the problems we have had with park designation 

here is that the Administrations in the past and this Administration don't always come up and give us precise support or opposition 

to a bill. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. RICHARDSON. It is Mr. Hinchey's time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I asked Mr. Hinchey if he needed time and 

he said no. Let me just point out if you go to the Attorney General's 

opinion, you get a distinction here, and the distinction is, surely we 

want information from the Park Service, no question, we should 

have, and from every other executive branch. It is when it becomes 

a political issue and when they start taking a political shot at it 

is where we draw the distinction. 

That is why if the gentleman from Minnesota had been here earlier we went into these things which we felt really not Mr. Kennedy, but more his superiors, and that was my line of questioning before that. And that is where we are talking-and that is why the 

distinction was made. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, if the Chairman would yield, a lot of the 

facts, a lot of information they provide are going to have political ramifications. Any opinion they have with regards to parlt policy, the expansion of the park, the demise of the park, how you open it over for a season, whether it is closed in the shoulders, all of 

these have political ramifications. 

Mr. HANSEN. I agree with that, but reclaiming my time, let me 

say that it goes beyond that when they start taking shots and say- ing the Republicans or the Democrats are trying to do something for political benefit. That is when they are that blatant we get into 
33 

that. Look at the armed services. I mean, those guys were sitting 

over there in the past with a huge budget, but if you really want 

to see somebody nervous, watch these generals and admirals come 

over. And I have sat on that committee for 15 years and you have 

to almost take them somewhere and they sweep the room to make 

sure there are no bugs before they will tell you if they want the 

B-2 Bomber or not, because they are so afraid of what is going to 

happen when they get before the committee. 

We have two votes coming up and I wanted to recognize Mr. 

Torkildsen who has not had an opportunity to speak. Peter, if you 

want to go right now we can take three or four minutes for your 

conversation and then we will go for votes and then we will come 

back. And I apologize to all you folks. We will hurry right back and 

get on with this thing. And I think we will be through with you 

then, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Torkildsen. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the Director for testifying today. I just want to go back and have a few 

more questions about a subject that has been talked about several 

times, and that is the existence or non-existence of a list of parks. 

Now could you say again you don't know of any such list or could 

you explain exactly what I believe you just said a few minutes ago? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I know of no list included in any legislation 

before this house that lists a set of named parks for closing, or I 

think the other portion of it was selling off or whatever. I know of 

no such list. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, do you know of any such list from the Interior Department? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, I don't. I understand, though, I am under 

oath here, 'and I just understand, because I don't know that a list 

was prepared possibly by NPCA or somebody else. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK. 

Mr. KENNEDY. But that is not anything I generated, and if it exists I am not responsible for it. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I will provide you with a copy of this article, 

but this is from the Boston Globe, and granted, newspapers certainly make mistakes, the Boston Globe included. 

[The article submitted by Mr. Torkildsen was placed in the hearing record files of the Subcommittee.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. This is the article, "Declaring America's heritage under unprecedented assault, the Chief of the National Park 

Service released a list yesterday of 200 small attractions including 

the birthplace of the late John F. Kennedy closed under budget 

cuts by Congress." 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. No, excuse me, sir. That is a whole other 

point. 

Mr. VENTO. Budget cuts? 

Mr. TOR,KILDSEN. That is why I asked about any other list. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure, good. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Are you aware of such a list now? 

Mr. KENNEDY. This is a wholly different subject. Now let me get 

this straight. This is a budgetary matter, not an H.R. 260 matter. 
34 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. That is why I asked about the list from the 'Department of the Interior. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I really want to make this clear. I have never attributed at any time a list of parks for closure to H.R. 260, ever, 

ever. 

Mr. TORKlLDSEN. Understood. My question was any list of parks. 

Mr. KENNEDY The second question is, is there a list of parks that 

would-if there had been a level of budget cuts that was earlier 

discussed and which are not now going to happen, thanks to a lot 

of you, if those budget cuts had occurred, you either could have 

achieved that amount of money by closing a number of big parks 

at the top or a lot of little ones at the bottom. And if you wanted 

to aggregate the total amount of money you would have to realize 

to get those cuts, then there was a total, not a list of but a simple totaling of the budgets of 200 parks. 

Mr. TORKlLDSEN. So you don't know of such a list or you do know 

of such a list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I know the listing of the total budgets for all the 

parks and the bottom 200 of them is certainly a matter of public record. But that had nothing to do with H.R. 260 and nothing to 

do with the argumentation about H.R. 260. 

Mr. TORKlLDSEN. Understood. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. 

Mr. TORKlLDSEN. H.R. 260 is not the point of my discussion right 

now. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. TORIOLDSEN. My question is did you know about this list, 

and I am still trying to get a straight answer. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Your question is, is there and was there a list of 

the budgets of the parks and was there a totaling that you would 

have to take 200 from the bottom to reach that level of budget cuts, 

the answer is yes. 

Mr. TORKlLDSEN. So you did release a list of parks that could be 

closed under a ten-percent budget cut? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, the Boston Globe is in error on that point? 

Mr. KENNEDY. The Boston Globe is a little bit confused about 

this. There is a difference here. Once again, I do want to get right about this. I want you to know exactly what I am trying to state. 

If you take the budgets of each of the parks and you move your 

hand up from the bottom, you get to about 200 in order to have 

that number that---

Mr. HANSEN. I don't mean to cut anybody off, but we have only 

got five minutes to vote, and maybe we better run. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure, sorry about that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kennedy, could you stay for one more question? 

We would appreciate it if you would. And again, the rest of the 

folks who are here as witnesses, we will be right to you. We want 

to resolve these things. AB you can all see, this has been the headliner todar, and we will be right back. So we stand at recess. 

[Recess 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Torkildsen wasn't finished with his comments. 

Mrs. Chenoweth had an additional question that she wanted to ask 

the Director of the National Parks, Mr. Kennedy. 
35 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hansen, I would like, if I may, to restate with 

greater precision my response to Mr. Torkildsen. I am not satisfied 

with the clarity and I want to do that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, not now. I will submit it for the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you do that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

[The information was not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Unless these other members walk in, let me ask 

staff, do we see Mr. Torkildsen and Mrs. Chenoweth coming down 

the line anywhere? Apparently not. 

Mr. Hefley from Colorado had a very interesting conversation 

with Mr. Paul Pritchard of the National Park Conservation Association, and I would like to ask Mr. Hefley for the sake of the 

record what that statement was about. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Early on in the development of H.R. 260, and we have talked about this, Roger, as well, 

Mr. Pritchard was in my office and made the statement that H.R. 

260 was the grayest haze of park legislation since the generic bill 

that created the Park Service. He also said that he had, I believe 

at that time, four or five little_problems with it. We went over those 

four or five little problems. There was nothing there that was a 

real gangbreaker at all. All could be dealt with and worked out. We 

tried to do that over a period of months and became quite surprised 

when we became the poster boy for all that is evil with the attack 

on the parks. Did he ever make that statement to you, that he thought it was 

basically a good piece of legislation? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't think he did, Mr. Hefley, but we don't consult a whole lot. We are not on very frequent communication. I see 

Mr. Pritchard, I suppose, every 90 days or so, or something like 

that, and we don't consult on policy much. I will leave it at that. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I think it shows that the request that the 

Chairman made of you that you and I and Mr. Vento sit down and 

come up with something we can all be proud of, I think it shows 

that there is room for that to happen, because even Mr. Pritchard, 

in spite of what I think has been a very disingenuous approach by his organization on this thing, but even he was saying it is a good piece of legislation. 

Mr. HANSEN. I was given to understand that that organization 

made a lot of money on this particular issue, as many people do. I remember when I was first here in 1981 there was a group say- ing, "Save the Chesapeake Bay from the ravages of Jim Watt." Mr. 

Watt came into my office, I showed it to him, he thought it was 

hilarious and he pointed out the amount of money they were putting in Chesapeake Bay. Strangely enough, I sent these people 

some money at his request and about six months later received a 

letter saying due to your generous contribution we were able to 

stop Mr. Watt from messing up Chesapeake Bay. It was all just 

kind of a tempest in a teapot and reminds me an awful lot about 

what has happened around America on Social Security that some 

people have made millions of things that have never happened. 
36 

That is just a hang-up I have got that is not Republican or Democrat. It 1s just I think people surely take advantage of what is hap- pening. 

Mr. Torkildsen had the floor. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, Director 

Kennedy, thank you for testifying. I would like to go back to sort 

out where we were talking when the vote occurred in the House. 

If I understand this correctly now, you did not release any list of 

parks to be closed totally separate from legislation? You did notrelease a list of parks to be closed, but you did release a list of parks that were less expensive to run than other parks? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Here is exact!~ what I did do. I don't know whether I did it, but it was done. When there was talk of the necessity 

to raise $108 million by cutting that much out of the National Park 

budget, a number of lists were produced that said here is what you 

would have to do if you took the least visited parks and started cutting them off the bottom or the most visited parks and cut them 

off the top or those that had the lowest budgets and you aggregated 

them up. That is how much .each of them costs per year. So there 

were probably three or four sets of lists produced. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. And how many of those did you release? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't remember releasing any myself, but it may 

very well be that my office put out one list, two lists, three lists 

or four lists as to where you would get money in one or another 

of the ways of achieving those cuts. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. So even though one major news}.laper said that 

you released a list of 200 small attractions, you don t remember releasing that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no recollection of handing a newspaper per- son-1 guess I could be a little stiffer than that. I am pretty sure 

I never gave a newspaper person ever a list of parks that lou or 

anybody else said should be closed. I don't think I ever di that. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I think it is important to have this on the 

record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Because what has been read in Massachusetts 

in the newspaper and what a lot of residents in Massachusetts accept as a given, right now you are contradicting, and so I think it 

is very important that the record clearly reflect that if indeed you 

are saying what was reported in not only the Globe but other newspapers as well, if it didn't happen, I think it is very important that 

the record reflect that. If it did happen, I think it is important that 

that be brought out as well. Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I just want to know what actually occurred up 

in Lowell when you were visiting in Massachusetts this summer. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We were discussing the budget and the consequences-the budget, once again, not H.R. 260, the budget, of 

how you could find 108 million bucks if you had to find it. In order 

to do that, there were lists of the budgets of parks and I don't know 

that it was 200. Maybe I can be helped on this. Was it 158 from 

the bottom? 190? 158 if you went by visitation, right? Is that right? 

OK, there were any number of ways that you could squeeze out 

$108 million out of the parks budget, closing the least visited, clos-
37 

ing the smallest budgets or taking the most visited and taking the 

highest budgets. You could get there any number of ways, but you 

have to get it somewhere. The question is you have got to find the 

money. So here is how you would find the money. I did not at any time give any newspaper reporter a list of parks that you or any 

member of this committee had said needed to be closed or should 

be, ever. 

Mr. ToRKILDSEN. OK, so you don't remember giving any lists at 

all? Now with these possible lists that you just mentioned that 

there could have been several lists and theoretical ways on how to 

achieve $108 million savings? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. At any time did you or the Interior Department devise any type of list on how to comply with these spending cuts 

without closing parks or sites? Was that ever considered? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. And did anyone from the Interior Department 

ever release that list to anyone at all in the media? 

Mr. KENNEDY. That I don't know. I do know this, that there were 

lots of scenarios that were developed as to how you would get the 

money. And I don't know who may have given those scenarios to 

whom. Don't know that. Oh, OK, I am told that the ten percent cut 

had to come out of operations. We are now getting back to last August sometime and who was saying what to whom at what time. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, I may have to go back into this in a second 

round of questioning. 

I want to touch upon one other area, as well. In your recent Cspan interview, I did not see all of it, but I understand that you 

did very well and I want to congratulate you, a wide-ranging interview, however according to a transcript, several times you referred 

to "enemies of the park system". Could you tell us does the Park 

Service have an enemies list? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Who do you think are the enemies of the Park 

System? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am a survivor of the enemies list period. I know 

a little about that/rocess. No, sir, never at any time have I or any- body else compile an enemies list. I don't believe in that mode of 

government. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, then who are the enemies of the Park System that you referred to? 

Mr. KENNEDY. There are sets of persons that are enemies of the 

Park Service and System. There are people who would like to have 

parts of it spun off to developers to sell off. I think that is bad. I 

am opposed to that. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Could you tell us who any of these enemies 

are? 

Mr. KENNEDY. You want me to give you names of persons, sir? 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Well, if you were referring to individual persons, yes. If you were referring to groups, the names of the groups 

would be sufficient. But when you say there are these enemies of 

the Park System, obviously I think we are all concerned that if 

there are enemies of the Park System out there, most Americans 

would like to know who they are. 
38 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, from the very beginnings of the National 

Park System there have been people who didn't want there to be 

national parks. There have been people who wanted and coveted 

those parks from the time that the calvary had to send people out 

of Yellowstone that were in there doing things that were not conducive to it as a national park. There have been enemies of national 

parks-I can think of several sets of people that would pollute the 

water and the air next to these parks. Those are enemies of the 

parks. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Well, could you tell us any of these polluters, then, if those were the people you were referring to? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. Sure. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Please do. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The notion that the Park System has no enemies 

is a surprise to me. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I don't know anyone who has advocated that. I am concerned that you have identified that there are enemies 

there, and I would just like to know whom you were referring to. 

Mr. KENNEDY. As a historian, for 120 years there have been enemies to the National Park System, and I believe that they are still 

there. I believe that there are people who do not believe in common 

ground, common property parks, national, State or local. There are 

people who don't like public libraries either, and there are enemies 

to the National Public Library System, too, sir. Those are people 

I oppose. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. We will deal with libraries in another hearing. Can you tell us any of these people that you identified as enemies? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not today or any other time personalize my policy views. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, well, were you referring to Members of 

Congress when you were identifying enemies which you don't 

choose to identify today? . Mr. KENNEDY. It isn't a matter of choosing, sir. You have asked 

me to identify, as I understand you, Members of Congress who are 

enemies of the National Parks. Is that what you want me to do? 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. No, I am asking who were you referring to 

when you identified enemies of the Park System. I have asked, like 

four or five times now and you have not identified, and so I ask, 

were you referring to Members of Congress? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am not going to give you the names of persons 

with whom I disagree. I am going always to try to address public policy. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. There is an enormous difference between disagreeing with somebody and labeling them as an enemy. I disagree 

with many colleagues here, sometimes colleagues in my own party. 

I don't consider them enemies because I disagree with them. That 

is part of what our system is made of. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I wholly concur. I don't regard them as personal 

enemies either, but I do regard people who are antagonistic to 

places or values or institutions that I revere, I regard them as enemies to those institutions. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. While you regard them as enemies, you choose 

not to identify any of them at all in this hearing? 
39 

Mr. KENNEDY. I choose never to personalize my policy differences 

with anybody. Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. We have 

Mr. Max Peterson, former chief of the Forest Service and Ms. 

Wilma Lewis here who we want to get to as soon as we can. So 

could we quickly wind this up? And I will tum to Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to enemies 

of the Park Service, I know I respect the question, I respect the answer. I know there are some. Anyone who would dump their refuge in my front yard I would consider that person an enemy. Anyone 

who would du~p refuge in a National Park Service I would consider enemies. There are enemies out there. The only thing I have 

learned through my church is we are told to love our enemies, we 

try to convert them, but we do love them anyway. 

Do you believe, Director Kennedy, that the last two National 

Park Service directors, Mr. Mott and Mr. Ridenour, would have 

been eligible for appointment under the provisions of H.R. 2465? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, I don't think so, sir. They hadn't managed 

Federal parks. 

Mr. KILDEE. That is how I read H.R. 2465-the Director shall 

have substantial experience and demonstrate a competence in Federal park management, so they would not have qualified? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, I don't think so. 

Mr. KlLDEE. Other than the one appointment made by President 

Nixon, haven't all the National Park Service Directors, including 

yourself, however, been professionals in the conservation field? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I think so. We have all of us, I think, been 

professional managers doing our best to serve our country. 

Mr. KlLDEE. So this bill would require that there be some experience in Federal park management, that would preclude reaching 

outside, then, to bring someone 'in who might bring a new--

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I can think of some pretty good State park 

directors out there that would be pretty good at this job, and some 

days I wish they had it. 

Mr. KILDEE. And I have discovered in my 19 years in the Congress that all wisdom doesn't reside in the Federal Government. 

There is some real great wisdom out there in the States and the 

counties. And to my mind, this is almost, with all due respect to 

the introducer, that it is almost assuming that unless you are Federal you are not quite as competent. And that is contrary to what 

your basic philosophy is. Just a point of fraternal correction, I 

would say, there. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the comment from the gentleman from 

Michigan. 

Mr. KILDEE. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Always well stated. Now when you fly to Michigan 

next week, I hope the guy has flown more than a Super Cub. 

Thank you. 

We will recognize the gentlelady from Idaho briefly as she had 

one or two questions, and we will then conclude with Mr. Kennedy 

if everyone agrees. Thank you for the agreement of the committee. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

indulgence of the Chair. I have before me a proposal to refurnish 

the corridor and waiting areas serving the Office of the Director of 
40 

the National Park Service. And you talk about having to shut down 

200-some odd parks because there isn't the money to operate them, 

and yet you proposed to spend $650 for four cushions. 

[The submission by Mrs. Chenoweth can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. $650? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. For four cushions? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. For four cushions. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You are telling me something I didn't know about. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You should know about it. You are the boss. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I am afraid I am not into the cushion business much lately, but I don't know about this proposal. $650 for 

four cushions, how big are the cushions? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is your report, sir. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Beats me, ma'am. I am unacquainted with this. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. $6,000 for ten black and white prints. 

Mr. KENNEDY. $6,000. Those are pretty good prints. I am 

unacquainted with this, too. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. $6,000. A total of $19,630 to refurnish your office, Mr. Director. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mrs. Chenoweth, I have not ordered ever any 

cushions, period. Excuse me, I have not ordered personally ever 

any prints. I have no idea what you are holding in your hand, 

ma'am, but I have personally no interest in prints or cushions. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is prepared by the Harpers Ferry Center, 

Division of Exhibits and Division of Historic Furnishings. It is a 

proposal to refurnish the corridor and waiting areas serving the Office of the Director. And this is under your letterhead, National 

Park Service. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is certainly not of the National Park Service. 

Ma'am, I have never made, I have never made any such proposal. 

I know nothing about it. In fact, so far as I know, it doesn't exist. 

If somebody wants to propose anything, that suits me fine but I 

don't want any prints and I don't want any cushions. 

Mr. VENTO. I ask for regular order. We have drifted far and wide 

with regards to a variety of issues. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, please. 

Mr. VENTO. I would ask the regular order with regards to this 

matter, because this is making a mockery of the committee process. 

We have got three or four bills here. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the courtesy that I have extended to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. HANSEN. The Chair will rule that the lady can finish her two 

questions and we will move on. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. This is relevant beca~se the gentleman, the Director, testified that the closing of parks was a budgetary issue. And I simply was bringing up the fact that there are 

some places that we could cut in the Administration. 

My second question is this. Congress is serious about ending Federal funding to organizations, as I referred to earlier, that devote 

much of their resources to litigation and lobbying. Does the National Park Service award grants, contracts or other transfer of 
41 

funds to environmental groups that engage in litigation and lobby- ing? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am unacquainted with any such activities. 

Would you name the organizations you have reference to? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. For the record, could you please provide the 

subcommittee with a detailed accounting of all the grants, contracts and other awards from the National Park Service to the following groups since 1993, the National Parks and Conservation ABsociation, the Wilderness Society, the National Audubon Society, 

the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, American Rivers Inc. and the Appalachian Trail Club. 

Mr. HANSEN. If the gentlelady would yield to me, in deference to 

the Director, would you be willing to supply the answer to that 

question in written form to this committee, to Mrs. Chenoweth, to 

myself, to Mr. Vento and others who are i,nterested in speedy response-a week or two? Would you be happy to respond to her 

question? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. We would like to have that in writing. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. We would appreciate if you do. Would that be all 

right with the gentlelady from Idaho? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit this document for the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. It will be part of the record without objection. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Above all, I submit the 

idea that we are all going to work in harmony and come up with 

the thing that is necessary to help you out as Director. And we will 

look forward to doing that with myself, Mr. Richardson and interested members like Mr. Vento and Mr. Hefley. Is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appre- ciate your courtesy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir . . Mr. HANSEN. The next J?anel is Ms. Wilma Lewis, Inspector General of the Department of Interior and Mr. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President, International ABsociation of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Mr. Peterson was chief of the Forest Service for many 

years and when I first came on board here was part of it. Now, Mr. 

Peterson, we realize ·that we have kept you both waiting awhile 

and I understand you have another obligation. I appreciate your patience. We will turn the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, my wife is in 

the ho~pital this morning possibly undergoing surgery later today. 

Mr. HANSEN. I more so, then, appreciate your patience and understanding. 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, if you would accept my entire 

statement for the record, I will try to brief it in the interest of time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered. And the same for Ms. 

Lewis. 
42 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. PETERSON. As you pointed out, I had the privilege of serving 

37-1/2 years with the Forest Service, 7-l12 years as Chief, serving under three different presidents and, I think, four different Secretaries of Agriculture during the time I was Chief. Looking at this 

committee this morning, I remember the privilege I had of testify- ing before previous chairmen, Mr. Siberling and Mr. Weaver and 

Mr. Vento. Having been through the question of who gets sworn in 

at times, I would a~e with Mr. Vento. I always figured when you appeared before this committee you were expected to be truthful 

whether you were sworn in or not. So I will do that today. 

In 1990, as you know, I testified before this committee at that 

time chaired by Congressman Vento. At that time I made some observations about natural resource agencies and the question of 

agency professionalism. Just so you recognize that I am being consistent across Administrations and there are no political motives 

here. I have included that testimony today as an attachment to my 

statement. 

I am basically in favor of the legislation that you have introduced, Mr. Chairman. I have known all of the Directors of the National Park Service going back to Conrad Worth, and I have known 

the Chiefs of the Forest Service going back to Chief Watts-I think 

that on balance, although you may be able to get somebody outside 

of one of those agencies with no experience that has superior qualifications and may be able to do a real good job, that is a rarity. 

Particularly as I note going all the way back to President Eisenhower we have had only one president since that who served two 

full terms. This means that we have turned over the Federal Executive Branch leadership in less than an eight-year cycle since the 

1950's. So what we have seen, then, is a whole array of agency heads who come and go and serve very short periods of time. Although you might get somebody who has had experience in just in 

one location who would do a good job, and I don't think we would 

want to rule that out, I think that would be a rare exception. There 

is a large number of units of the National Park System and the 

National Forest System and a great variety of problems and millions of people that are being served, as well as a large number of 

people who work in the agency. I think it is important that the 

agency head not spend a ~eat part oftheir period of time on the 

job being trained, just finding out where the real estate is and finding out what some of the problems are. 

One of the things that you haven't mentioned in this legislation 

which has been of particular interest to me for about the last 15 

years is the tendency to add assistant secretaries, under secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries and staff people at the Department 

level so that the head of the agency no longer has real live access 

to the Secretary. Going back to the Eisenhower Administration, for 

example, it has only been since then that there has been a line of 

assistant secretaries. I believe the first Assistant Secretary for 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks was Nat Reed in the 1970's. Prior to that, 

the Director of the National Park Service worked directly for the 

Secretary. Now the Director of the National Park Service or the 

Chief of the Forest Service has a whole array of people that they 
43 

have to work through to even talk to the Secretary. And I don't believe that is either an efficient way to do things or I don't believe 

it serves the American public welL 

It seems to me that what it does, it encourages moving decisions 

upward and it includes moving decisions up to people who are, 

frankly, quite inexperienced and who may be there primarily because some of their relatives gave a lot of money to a campaign. The general timeframe that they are there, Mr. Chairman, as you 

know, is about 18 months. Assistant secretaries tend to serve about 

18 months and the deputy assistant secretaries may even serve a 

shorter period of time than that. That is, unfortunately, where the 

basic decisions are being made in agencies today on personnel, on 

budgets and on all of the working things of an agency. Decisions 

are really being made in many cases in the under secretary's office, 

not by the agency head or in the field. If you want to track the 

growth, you can track that. The Secretary did have assistant secretaries before that, but they were not line assistant secretaries. 

They served certain functions like budget or legislation but they 

did not manage a particular·agency. 

Incidentally, I notice in the reinvention and the reengineering effort going on right now there is nothing happening at that level. 

There is no thinning out of that level. You remember the Volker 

report suggested that adding the big layer of political and expensive appointees had not served the President well because it provided a great layer of expensive insulation from what is going on. 

So I would recommend that in addition to looking at the qualifications of the heads of the natural resources agency, that you look 

at this whole business of proliferation of people at the department 

level, which, I would say, is not being touched in the current 

reinvention, reengineering effort to my knowledge. I think the last 

time I counted the number of assistant secretaries and deputy assistant secretaries in agencies like Energy or HEW it is an astounding number of people. 

There is another thing that I think happens when you have this 

large layer of political appointees, is that their modus operandi is 

to seek resolution in Congress or the political side of things rather 

than saying hey, my job out there is to manage parks or forests to 

serve people and make them accessible to all of the people and to 

use my budget as wisely as I can. The Director can't make that decision now. The Director ends up recommending a budget, but he 

may never get to make recommendations directl:r to the Secretary. 

Let me finally say that I have a couple of other thoughts that 

you might want to consider. I think maybe a seven-year term for 

agency heads might be a better idea than five, just to give a little 

more time. Maybe with provisions for reappointment for an additional three years or something like that. I thought about just one 

term and I thought, well, if somebody is really doing a splendid job 

after, say, five or seven years you wouldn't want the law to just say 

you have to get rid of them. Maybe with one additional appointment up to a total of seven or ten years, and that is not an arbitrary number. The Forest Service, for example, had ten chiefs in 

the first 75 years, 7-ll2 years average. I served 7-ll2 years myself. 

I think that is long enough. I thought I had been there long enough 

when I decided to move onto something else. Again, I think the 
44 

focus of the professional agency head ought to be to serve all the 

people and he or she ought to see Congress as the Board of Directors for public lands, which is provided by our Constitution. The 

Constitution gives the Congress the right to make all needful laws 

involving the public lands. I took that to mean that Members of 

Congress on both sides of the aisle here would recognize that I 

never really thought whether a Member of Congress was a Democrat or Republican when I came up to talk to them. I tried to be 

concerned about what their interests were. And I believe that is 

what you would expect from a professional agency head. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my sort of rambling summary. I 

hope it is useful to you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Peterson, excellent comments. 

I think your points are well taken and very sincere and very pragmatic. The committee realizes Mr. Peterson's wife is going in for 

surgery. We don't want to hold him here. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Peterson? Now we don't want to hold you, but thank 

you. Your point about seven years has been kind of a point we have 

wondered about, tOo. 

Mr. VENTO. Not only that, but I think his testimony really 

speaks to the one bill, not to the other fee bill that Ms. Lewis, the 

Inspector General, is going to comment on. So I think the only 

question, obviously we have gone through this limit in terms of 

Federal versus State or other professional experience for this role 

as Park Director. Obviously, Mr. Peterson, I don't know what you 

think. Former Chief Peterson, do you think there is a need to have 

only Federal experience in this particular land management role as 

a limitation? 

Mr. PETERSON. I think it would be an exceptional case where you would find somebody that has no Federal land management experience who could do a top job, but I am not sure I would want tp 

put it in the statute that they had to have that because you might find a case--

Mr. VENTO. I think in fact they misspoke. I think one, Bill Mott, 

actually had been a Park Service employee at one time. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, Bill Mott, in fact, worked for the National 

Park Service early in his career, so I think that was not a correct 

statement. I think he would have been qualified under this legisla- tion, but what you might want to do is to put something like preferably in more than one State and the national level or something 

so that there would be some breadth of experience. I would feel 

somewhat different if, let us say, somebody had been a State park 

director in the East and then was a director or something in the 

West, so they had some breadth of experience. I think we are talking more about breadth of experience. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know you want to go on and others may have 

questions. One of the other issues, of course is Senate confirmation, 

which I think I generally support, but I don't think we ought to kid 

ourselves that that can in fact become subject to political conditions. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. In fact, it could politicize the position even more 

than otherwise would be the case. I mean, just putting confirmation by the Senate in doesn't necessarily-you know, because in the 
45 

Senate the committee that might consider it may not really be 

broadly based. It may only have specific interests that they are 

concerned about. They may in fact veto someone who has an interest that varies on what they think or how they think a forest or 

a park would be managed in their own area. 

Mr. PETERSON. I thought as I looked at this legislation that 

maybe we ought to have a commission of some kind that recommends a director, maybe a bipartisan commission or something. 

I don't know, but that might be seen as a bar on the appointment 

powers of the President. I personally think that normally the Director should come from the career ranks of the agency. I think I have 

some bias there, obviously, but I think the best directors of the National Park Service have come from within the Park Service. And 

I think, generally speaking, that is going to be true. And maybe 

somewhere in the legislation and the report we should emphasize 

that there is an anticipation that there will be real, live consideration of career people within the organization and maybe even, as 

I say, some commission to provide advice. 

I know in appointment of judges they give it to the bar to look 

at qualifications. I don't know, maybe there is some kind of commission we ought to consider. But I think the whole idea would be 

to get the best person you could to be the director or chief without 

relevance to their particul~n:rlitical connections or adherence to 

any special interests. So I · we are in agreement with the basic 

idea. I am not sure we know just exactly how ]to do it. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think most of us agree. You know, the Park 

Service the way it administers law ought to be above politics, it ou~ht to be even-handed and democratic-democratic with a small 

"d' , democratized. I think that is one of the issues here with land 

units where you have superintendents in the field as the chief 

managing a vast forest. You have to delegate a certain amount of 

responsibility. Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. And all of the work, the science that we are talking about in terms of ecosystem management and landscape managements now tend to lead to the decentralization to a degree of that. 

Mr. PETERSON. Right. · Mr. VENTO. To a degree of decisionmaking. And so trying to establish or recognize what our administrative needs are and how 

they match up with landscape management across the country is 

a difficult task. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think, too, familiarity with the people of an organization and its problems out there is important, and difficult to 

get. Let us say that if I became Director of the National Park Service, I don't know the national parks nearly as well as a whole lot 

of people within the National Park Service, even though I have 

been to lots of them over time. I don't know the National Park 

Service people as well as Park Service people do. So I think knowing the problems out there, the areas they manage and knowing 

the people out there is of enormous value to somebody as Director 

of the National Park Service. As you point out, Congressman 

Vento, you simply have to delegate and knowing the people is important in doing that. Secretary Freedman once said he thought 

the esprit de corps within the Park Service and the Forest Service 
46 

at that time came much from the idea that any of them could end 

up being director or chief. So I think you look at the whole performance of the organization. I also share your thought that we have 

a double-edged sword here. If we establish a requirement that directors are presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, we 

may look back and find out that added to politicizing the jobs. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it is the atmosphere of appointment. I agree. 

I think taking people from within is really the best way to do it, 

but you obviously want to have the option to have an exceptional 

person. Roger Kennedy is such, and obviously what they do then 

is they take the John Reynolds who becomes their deputy who 

knows the system inside out, supposedly, and then they can advise 

and guide them. But, you know, the issue is that very often this 

on-the-ground immediate knowledge in that role is essentially important for the effective management of the resource. I tend to give 

the benefit of the doubt to my colleague here in terms of Senate 

confirmation, but I think that probably they may not deserve the 

benefit of the doubt. 

Mr. HANSEN. That may be. Let me just say this. We have a vote 

on passing H.R. 109, the Social Security Earnings, and then we 

have got three hours of debate on it. The lady from the Inspector 

General has been so patient. I am just embarrassed to hold you 

here. We have got a vote. We will be right back. Chief, let me again 

thank you for coming. Your depth of understanding of the Forest 

Service when you were there and others, it seems to me like it ran 

very, very well. We were all very pleased with it. In fact, that is 

really one of the reasons we are looking at the Park Service. My 

15 years on this committee I have visited literally dozens of parks, 

and every park superintendent is very courteous and complimentary toward their director, but they all say it sure takes a long time 

to teach him a few things as things come along. 

Mr. VENTO. It takes a long time to teach the Members of Congress. 

Mr. HANSEN. I know. Do you think we should have a commission 

for it? 

Mr. PETERSON. I don't think I would touch that. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Mr. HANSEN. We all hope that your wife is doing well. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. And my very best to her. And, Wilma Lewis, if you 

wouldn't mind, we will be right back. 

Ms. LEWIS. Certainly. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We will stand at recess. 

[Recess] 

Mr. HANSEN. We have some Members straggling over from the 

last vote. We surely appreciate your patience. It has been very kind 

of you to sit through all this today, but today there have been some 

strong feelings by members of the committee on a couple of issues 

which was kind of apparent, I am sure. 

Ms. LEWIS. Yes, it was. 

Mr. HANSEN. We will turn the time to you, and thank you for 

being with us. 
47 

STATEMENT OF WILMA A. LEWIS, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be 

here this afternoon to comment on that_portion of the pro~osed 

amendment to Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act of 1965 that would authorize the National Park Service to col- lect and retain fees for non-recurring commercial or non-recreational uses of park system units .. On a personal note, this is the first opportunity that I have had 

since I was confirmed in April of this year as the Inspector General 

for the Department of the Interior to appear before any committee 

or subcommittee of the Congress. And it is a real pleasure for me 

to be here. It has been an exciting six months at the Office of Inspector General, and I am delighted to be able to offer my office's 

perspective on the important issues before this subcommittee. As you know, earlier this year the subcommittee requested that 

the Office of Inspector General conduct an audit of the Park Service's implementation of its authority under the 1994 Appropriations 

Act to recover and retain fees for special use activities. We were 

asked to review a number of things: the implementation of the authority, the basis for establishing permit fee levels; how parks accounted for the revenues generated; and how the revenues were expended. Our audit of 13 parks, which accounted for about 53 percent of the approximately $3.8 million in revenues from special use 

fees for fiscal year 1994, revealed information that we believe is instructive in considering the legislation before this subcommittee. 

To summarize our findings, the common thread that we found as 

we examined each of the areas was a lack of consistency among the 

individual park units. There were inconsistencies among the parks in the types of activities for which fees were collected; the bases for 

determining the amount of the fee; and the use of the fee revenues. 

Thus, for example, some parks charged for certain activities while 

other parks did not, with. no discernible rationale for the distinc- tion. Similarly, in establishing fee levels, the parks used varying methods such as the cost approach, comparability studies, apprais- als and even the "collective judgment and experience" of personnel. They used these methods without sufficient guidance in areas such 

as which methods were proper; when to use each method; how to 

properly use each method; and the kind of documentation necessary to support fee computations. 

As to the expenditure of fee revenues, some parks used the revenues to support only the particular special use which generated the 

fees; others used the revenues to support any special use activity; and others used the revenues to support general park operations in addition to the special use activity. Further, sometimes funds 

were carried over from one fiscal year to another and other times 

not. 

In addition to these inconsistencies, we found that four of the 13 

parks were deficient in their internal control procedures for collecting and accounting for revenues generated from special use per- mits. Such deficiencies included: not ensuring that all special use 

fees were paid; not ensuring that permit fees were deposited into 

the proper account; not reconciling receipts to the permits issued 

or to deposits; and not ensuring that receipts were deposited time-
48 

ly. We concluded that these problems stemmed principally from a 

lack of clear and specific guidance by the Park Service in these 

areas. 

The findings from our audit are instructive here because they 

raise concerns regarding some very basic issues that are central to 

any fee and cost recovery program: the issues of when to charge (in 

other words what activities are covered by the legislation); how 

much to c}:large (in other words what is the appropriate fee level); 

how to ensure that the correct amount is being collected and reported (in other words proper accounting); and finally, how and 

when revenues can be expended. 

The proposed legislation is not invulnerable to some of the types 

of problems experienced by the Park Service in the context of special use fees. Key to the successful implementation of the legislation, we believe, is clear guidance from the Park Service, reliable 

accounting systems and effective program oversight. 

As to guidance, we are aware from our audit of special use fees 

that the Park Service is in the process of revising its internal 

guidelines. In response to our audit report, the Park Service has 

indicated that the revised guidelines will address and correct in detail each of the problem areas identified in the recommendations. 

By providing detailed instructions on issues such as cost determiNation, necessary support for fee computations and internal controls necessary for accountability at the individual park unit level, 

the Park Service will have gone a long way in addressing some of 

the critical issues. Similar attention will have to be paid, however, 

to additional revisions necessitated by the proposed legislation, 

such as the identification of the types of activities covered by the 

legislation and the uses to which revenues may be put. 

As to the development of reliable accounting systems, the Park 

Service has been making some progress in this area on the individual park unit level as well as on a broader Service-wide scale. It 

appears that as individual parks gain more experience with revenue collection, their accounting systems with respect to such collections have improved. Moreover, as I stated in an August 8, 1995, 

letter to you, Mr. Chairman, the Park Service has made considerable progress in addressing its more general financial accountability problems, although I must add that much work is left to be 

done. The Park Service's current commitment to the effort to clean 

up the fmancial accountability problems that have plagued it in the 

past, as demonstrated over the past eight months, must continue. 

Finally, effective program oversight is necessary. This should be 

accomplished principally through a commitment by Park Service 

senior management to a plan of action to ensure effective implementation of the fee and cost recovery program. As a final check 

on the system, we would be willing, in the Office of Inspector General, to expand our annual Chief Financial Officer's Act audits to 

include an evaluation of the internal accounting controls and testing of the accounting transactions associated with the activities 

covered by the proposed amendment. By so doing, our audit reports 

would then disclose any reportable weaknesses or deficiencies associated with these revenues. 
49 

In concluding my opening remarks I would like to have, in addition to my complete written statement, a copy of the recent special 

use fees audit report included in the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. [The prepared statement and audit of Ms. Lewis can be found at 

the end of the hearing.] · Ms. LEWIS. And I would now be happy to answer any questions that the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think you had excellent testimony and it was very good. It rather highlighted many of the problems we have. Here we 

have every park doing it the way they want to do it almost and 

also we realize there is a reduction in money going into the parks 

and somehow we have got to figure out how to do that. And of 

course, as you know, not only the part of the Richardson bill you 

are referring to, we also have a fee bill both for uses and entrance 

in ways to bring money into the parks. It doesn't do any good if 

we don't use the money wisely. You may recall under the Reagan 

years we put an awful lot of money in and we didn't see the results 

of it. So that is one of the reasons for this park reform bill, is to 

have a grace commission look at it and see how they would come 

up with it. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am being called 

on for questions, right? 

Mr. HANSEN. You are recognized for five minutes to ask the witness any questions you so desire. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Inspector, what has been the trend in 

the total amount of funding generated by the National Park Service from the special park use fees in recent years? As appropriated 

dollars become more difficult to secure it is logical to expect that 

such funding sources will become even more important. 

Ms. LEWis. As you know, the audit that we recently completed 

on special use fees focused on fiscal year 1994, and in that particu- lar year there were total revenues of $3.8 million for special use 

fees. We do not know the revenues for prior years, but I think it 

is safe to assume that the likelihood would be that the revenues 

from special use fees would be increasing. I say that because, during the course of our audit, we found that as the legal authorities 

expanded for the collection and retention of fees for various activities, more and more of the parks were starting to identify new activities that would presumably fall under the legislation. More and 

more of the parks, in addition to identifying those new activities, 

were converting other activities to special use activities in order to 

collect and retain the fees. So I would imagine that the trend would 

be an increase in revenues as the park officials grow more accustomed to the programs and as they identify more and more activities that would fall within the scope of the programs. 

With respect to the appropriated dollars becoming more scarce, 

I think it is logical to assume that that would be an added impetus 

for an increase in these types of fees and fee collection. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. ThaD:k you, Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me. Thank you for your comment. I turn to 

the gentleman from California. Are you finished, Mrs. Chenoweth? 
50 

Mr. PoMBo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your report you say that there were fees that were not collected. Did you ascertain as 

to why they were not collected? 

Ms. LEWIS. Well, it appeared that once again, going back to the 

same common thread that we found, that there was not sufficient 

guidance with respect to the types of activities that were covered. And that is why, as I indicated, what you would find is that one 

park would be collecting for certain activities, while another park 

would not-picnics, weddings, et cetera. And there are a couple of 

appendices attached to the audit report that indicate which parks 

were collecting for which activities. So my best guess on that would 

be that, if there were better guidance coming centrally from the 

Park Service headquarters, the individuals at the individual park unit level who are applying the legislation would have been better 

prepared to address the scope of activities that potentially could 

fall within the legislation. 

Mr. POMBO. So you came to the conclusion it was because in 

many cases they didn't know that they could or should collect for 

those types of activities? 

Ms. LEWIS. I wouldn't say that we came to that conclusion. I 

would say that that is probably a logical conclusion to draw. There 

was insufficient guidance. It is not clear that all of the parks knew 

the extent of the program. I think that, as I mentioned before, as 

parks become more familiar with the various programs, they are 

including more activities under those programs. I would imagine there might be particular examples at individual parks where the 

park personnel consciously decided not to charge for a particular 

activity, but generally the problem that we found was insufficient 

guidance. So I would imagine that insufficient guidance probably played a role in what may or may not have been charged under the 

particular legislation. Mr. POMBO. In reading this, there was one place in here where 

you say that some of the parks would collect for movies or film 

sites. You said that in one of the parks that they collected for some 

of them but not for others. How did you determine that the activity 

was going on? Did they have to get a permit to film and fees were 

not collected? 

Ms. LEWIS. These are all activities that are special use activities, 

and the definition of special use activities is that the activities required some form of written permission from a park official. So 

these would have been activities that required a permit, although 

there were distinctions between requiring a permit and also requiring a fee. There are many activities for which a permit was required but no fee was required. And this varied from one park to 

another. So we were able to identify from the information that the 

park gave us, which activities required a permit, and which of 

those activities they were or were not collecting for. So it was all 

from information that the park gave us with respect to whatever 

program they were putting into place at that particular park. 

Mr. POMBO. So, and I think I am correct, in one place here you talk about the Golden Gate Park and you say that in some instances they did collect and in other instances they didn't, but if 

someone didn't get the permit, by your review of this, you wouldn't 

even have known that they were there, so there could have been 
51 

other activities that occurred there that didn't even tum up in your audit? 

Ms. LEWIS. That is correct. In other words, there is no way for 

us to be certain that we captured, for example, all of the filming activities or all of the weddirigs or all of the p1cnics. I do not believe 

that the Park Service had a data base that captured that type of 

information, so it is quite \>ossible that there may well have been 

others of these types of activities that we were not made aware of 

during the course of the audit. 

Mr. PoMBO. Maybe this isn't even a correct question for you, but 

do you have an idea as a way to motivate the park superintendents 

or the park managers to collect that money? 

Ms. LEWIS. I am sorry, what would motivate them to collect it? 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. 

Ms. LEWIS. I don't know for sure, but I could certainly make a 

good guess. I think an incentive certainly could be the ability to retain the fees. Initially, for example, prior to 1991 the parks were 

only able to retain unbudgeted costs, which would be the ones over 

and above what you would normally expect to occur with respect 

to a particular activity. And then as of 1991 they were given the 

opportunity to retain not only unbudgeted but also budgeted costs-the regular costs associated with the particular activity. I 

think this certainly created an incentive for them to charge and 

collect fees for particular activities-a greater incentive, probably, than before. And that is why, as I mentioned before, oftentimes we 

found that parks converted activities that initially were not under 

the special use permit category from whatever authority they were 

collecting under before to a special use activity because of the ability to retain both unbudgeted and budgeted costs. So I think that 

the ability to retain the revenues probably would be one strong motivation for collecting the fees. 

Mr. POMBO. Tban~kou very much. 

Mr. HANsEN. Th you. Let me just ask a couple quick ques- tions if I may. Ms. LEWIS. Certainly. Mr. HANSEN. Do any other Interior bureaus have similar authorities where they have broad discretion as to when to charge and for 

what type of activities you charge fees? Do any other bureaus in 

the Department have authority to retain fees which are not subject 

to appropriation? 

Ms. LEWIS. That is a question, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think 

I can answer definitively. As I am sure you are aware, there are 

lots of different statutes that apply to the different offices and bureaus within the Department of the Interior. There are some that 

pertain to recovery of costs. There are some that go beyond the recovery of costs. I know, for example, there is a copying statute 

which allows· offices within the Department to collect fees for copy- ing materials and to retain those fees, I believe. I think that the 

answer to that question really would require a pretty exhaustive 

legal review of the different authorities-a review which I, quite 

frankly, have not undertaken. So beyond that I don't think I would 

be able to answer your question. 

Mr. HANSEN. I probably wouldn't want to put you through that 

too much, but if you could look at it without spending six months 
52 

on it just to give kind of an overview, I will give you this question 

in writing. And this other question I would also like you to respond 

to. And this is the question. Are you aware of any other Federal 

agencies who have the authority to "make money'' by retaining the 

difference between actual costs and fair market value for goods or 

services rendered without being subject to appropriation? That is 

two questions this committee would like to know because we are 

playing around with that as we massage this thing and find out 

which way we want to go. Our goal is to get more money to the 

parks to be used for their benefit. And we also want to have the 

parks retain some of that money for their own benefit subject to 

an audit of some kind. So I will submit those two to you if you 

wouldn't mind giving us some type of an answer on it. Would that 

be OK? 

Ms. LEWIS. We will do the best that we can on it, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what we probably would do is work with the Solicitor's Office on that, because as you know, the Solicitor's Office is really the 

office that is probably better equipped than we are to handle that 

kind of an issue. But we will get the question from you and work 

with them and try to respond to your question. 

Mr. HANSEN. That would be very kind of you, and I do appreciate 

your testimony. I notice the gentleman from New Jersey walked in, 

but it doesn't look to me like he is up at the dais. Do you have any 

question? No questions. OK, thank you again and I appreciate your 

patience for being with us. We appreciate it very much. 

Ms. LEWIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Our next item to be heard is H.R. 2464. We have 

three people that we would like to have come up as witnesses: Mr. 

Mat Millenbach, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior; Mr. John Haija, Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration; and Mr. John Paul Kennedy, Attorney for the Goshute Indian Tribe. I appreciate you being with 

us. 

The Utah School and Lands Improvement Act of 1993 is to add 

about 8,000 acres of Utah State trust lands to the Goshute Indian 

Reservation. The Utah School and Lands Improvement Act passed 

in 1993 is an important bill to all Utahns. After much hard work 

and the cooperation of all interested parties, we were able to pass 

legislation that was meant to help pay for the education of Utah's 

children. The bill before us would amend Public Law 103-93 to correct a boundary problem on the southern edge of the Goshute . Indian Reservation located about 60 miles south of Wendover, Utah. 

It would accomplish this by transferring nearly 8,000 acres of Utah 

State trust lands and about 400 acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to the Goshute Tribe. I know it is a 

somewhat dangerous thing to say around here, but as far as we can 

see, the transfer is non-controversial and supported by all interested parties. I received letters of support for the transfer from the 

State of Utah, Juab County, the Goshute Tribe and even the Utah 

Wilderness Coalition, which is against everything. I welcome our 

witnesses and appreciate their willingness to provide this subcommittee with their testimony. Mr. Millenbach, we will turn to 

you, sir. 
53 

STATEMENT OF MAT MILLENBACH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BU· 

REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE· 

RIOR 

Mr. MILLENBACH. Good afternoon, Mr. Chainnan, members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

H.R. 2464, which amends Public Law 103-93 to add additional 

lands to the Goshute Indian Reservation in the State of Utah. We 

support H.R. 2464 with a suggested amendment. P.L. 103-93, the Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of 

1993, authorized and directed the exchange of approximately 200,000 acres of Utah's institutional and trust lands located within 

the boundaries of national parks, national forests or Indian reservations for certain lands and interests. This exchange was to resolve Federal and State land management problems resulting from 

interspersed landownership. H.R. 2464 amends the 1993 act by 

placing approximately 8,000 acres of land within the boundaries of 

the Goshute Indian Reservation in trust for the tribe. Approximately 7,000 acres of this land are currently owned by the State 

of Utah and will become part of the reservation upon acquisition by the United States. 

The public lands to be placed in trust include four parcels of 

about 320 acres where both the surface and subsurface are managed by BLM and another 960 acres of reserved Federal minerals. 

The reserved minerals are not encumbered by any leases or claims 

of record. The four parcels under BLM surface management will be 

removed from an existing grazing allotment following passage of 

the bill. No reduction in authorized animal unit months for the 

grazing operator's permit will occur as a result of these lands being converted to trust status. 

The Secretary of the Interior must compensate the State of Utah 

for the State lands transferred to the Secretary through an equal 

value exchange of Federal lands or interests as described in Section 

7 of P.L. 103-93. This is a reasonable proposal and one which we 

support. The bill requires the Goshute Tribe to pay the appraisal 

costs of these lands and we support this position. 

I do want to comment that when Mr. Kennedy makes his comments he will be referring to a different map than the one that we 

had available to us and he is going to be talking about an additional two or three hundred acres of State land on the southern 

portion of the lands to be added. We just need to check this to 

make sure the status is accurate and that there aren't any conflicts. I don't believe there are. And we will get back with you on 

those additional acres as soon as we can. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Millenbach can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Millenbach. 

Mr. John Harja. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HARJA, UTAH SCHOOL AND 

INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. liARJA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Vice Chair of the 

Board of Trustees responsible under State law for the School and 

Institutional Trust Lands that are involved in Public Law 103-93 

and this proposed amendment. 103-93, as you recall, was one the 
54 

Trust pushed to take the trust lands found inside the national 

parks, national forests and two Indian reservations, one of which 

is the Goshutes, and exchange them in an equal value exchange for 

other Federal assets. 

I just wanted to comment here that is a very, very large project. There are 575 separate tracts involved, 200,000 acres; a whole 

army of people are swarming over the State right now trying to appraise and otherwise set values out. 

As part of that process, the Goshute Tribe back in 1993 did ask 

if we would include the lands that are subject to this amendment. 

At the time we did not because it presented different issues and 

we were trying to focus on the inholdings. These lands are technically not inholdings. They are next door to the reservation. The 

reservation will be expanded southward if these are acquired. 

The Board of Trustees has met and is willing, perfectly amenable 

to doing this. However, because they are not inholdings, we would 

not want to pay for the appraisal. As I said, this army of appraisers 

is out there. I don't think the incremental cost of adding these 

lands is very much; nonetheless, the Trust would not want to pay for that. Second, it has been two years since the Act was passed. 

We are in this difficult process that we knew we would be in of valuing and wrangling over how to pay for things. A number of issues 

have arisen on both sides that gee, I wish we had said this or said 

that. We do not believe this proposed amendment is the place to 

deal with that. If that needs to be dealt with, we would come back 

with you separately. Therefore, we would ask that this bill stay 

clean of any other type amendments and just authorize the additional acreage to be exchanged with the Goshute Tribe. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harja can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Harja. Mr. Kennedy, we will try to 

go easier on you than the last Kennedy that was in here. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Being from Utah and interested in 

family history and genealogy, I just wanted to let the committee 

know that as far as I am aware there is no relationship between 

John Paul Kennedy and Roger Kennedy. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we accept that. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have great respect for both of you, however. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL KENNEDY, ATTORNEY, GOSHUTE 

INDIAN TRIBE 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to come in today and testify on this bill that is very important to my client, the Goshute Indian Tribe. We have prepared 

a statement and I won't read it. I ask that it be included in the 

record with the exhibits that are attached. 

I think the substance of the bill has been adequately summarized 

by the Department and by the State representative, and I don't 

have anything further to say other than with respect to the exhibits that we have attached; there are actually two maps and the 

map that we are relying on is the second of the two and it includes 

this additional 250 acres or so right along the southern boundary 
55 

that if it is trust land as we believe it is, would be included. And 

as indicated by Mr. Millenbach, the Department's position on that 

will be relayed to you, as I understand it. I have nothing further 

to add. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to respond. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. No questions. 

Mr. HANSEN. No questions, Mr. Pombo. I think I am quite familiar with this. Mr. Kennedy has been our office. We understand 

where the BLM is coming from. We have talked to the State many times about it. As far as I am concerned, this should be a non-controversial bill unless we elect to tack on it something like a park bill or something to go along or maybe the BLM closing bill. They would like that, Mat. And other than that, if we keep it clean, I 

think you are all right. With that and nobody from the minority side, I would just like to read one thing into the record if I can put 

my hands on it. 

I would like to take a minute to clarify a point raised earlier here 

with regard to swearing in of witnesses. In the most general sense, 

we as a society and in our public institutions have a moral expecta- tion that everyone will tell us the unvarnished truth. However, 

human exrerience also tells U$ that varnish has proven to be a 

very usefu substance, especially in the arena of politics. 

Swearing in witnesses is a way of highlighting the boundaries of 

opinion and is a tool that has been available to Congress since the 

founding of the Republic. Administering the oath does not imply that a witness has lied in the past or that there is an expectation that a witness may lie presently. It does make explicit the expecta- tion of members that wi.tnesses should stick to the facts, and it 

makes them subject to legal sanctions if they don't. 

If you think about it, a truthful witness should welcome the oath 

because it lends credibility to his words by affirming his candor. 

Likewise, I think members should welcome the oath if it clears the 

air on issues of intense and passionate disagreement. For that reason, I will reserve my right to use the oath, as have 

all other Chairmen past and present, as the situation warrants. 

And with that, this meeting stands adjourned and thank you. [Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
56 

104THCONGRESS H R 2067 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To facilitate improved management of National Park Service lands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 1995 

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To facilitate improved management of National Park Service 

lands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

. 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 TITLE I-MINOR BOUNDARY REVISIONS 

4 Section 7 (c) of the Land and Water Conservation 

5 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-9(c)) is amended6 (1) in the first sentence by striking "Committee 

7 on Interior and Insular Affairs" and inserting 

8 . "Committee on Resources"; and 

9 (2) by striking "area: PROVIDED, HOWEVER," 

10 and all that follows through "1965;" and inserting 

11 the following: "area, except that, in all cases except 
57 

2 

1 the case of technical boundary revisions (resulting 

2 from such causes as survey error or changed road 

3 alignments), the authority of the Secretary under 

4 this clause (i) shall apply only if each of the follow5 ing conditions is met--

6 (I) the sum of the total acreage of lands, 

7 waters, and interests therein to be added to the 

8 area and the total such acreage to be deleted 

9 from the area is not more than 5 percent of the 

10 total Federal acreage authorized to be included 

11 in the area and is less than 200 acres in size; 

12 (II) the acquisition, if any, is not a major 

13 Federal action significantly affecting the quality 

14 of the human environment, as determined by 

15 · the Secretary; 

16 (ill) the sum of the total appraised value 

17 of the lands, waters, and interest therein to be 

18 added to the area and the total appraised value 

19 of the lands, waters, and interests therein to be 

20 deleted from the area does not exceed 

21 $500,000; 

22 (IV) the proposed boundary revision is not 

23 an element of a more comprehensive boundary 

24 modification proposal; and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

58 

3 

(V) the Director of the National Park 

Service obtains written support for the boundary modification from all property owners 

whose lands, water, or interests therein, or a 

portion of whose lands, water, or interests 

therein, will be added to or deleted from the 

area by the boundary modification: Provi<kd, 

8 however, that minor boundary revisions involv9 ing only deletions of acreage from an area of 

10 the national parks system may be made only by 

11 Act of Congress. 

12 TITLE II-AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN 

13 PARK FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED 

14 OUTSIDE OF UNITS OF THE NATIONAL 

15 PARK SYSTEM 

16 Section 4 of the Act entitled "An Act to improve the 

17 administration of the national park system by the Sec18 retary of the Interior, and to clarify the authorities appli19 cable to the system, and for other purposes" approved Au20 gust 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), is amended to 

21 read as follows: 

22 "SEC. 4. (a) In order to facilitate the administration 

23 of the national park system, the Secretary of the Interior 

24 is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he may 

25 deem advisable, to establish essential facilities for park ad-
59 

4 

1 ministration, visitor use, and park employee residential 

2 housing outside the boundaries, but within the vicinity, of 

3 units of the national park system for purposes of assuring 

4 conservation, visitor use, and proper management of such 

5 units. Such facilities and the use thereof shall be in con6 formity with approved plans for the unit concerned. Such 

7 facilities may only be developed by the Secretary upon 

8 finding that location of such facilities would9 "(1) avoid undue degradation of the primary 

10 natural or cultural resources within the unit; 

11 "(2) enhance service to the public; or 

12 "(3) provide a cost saving to the Federal Gov13 ernment. 

14 "(b) For the purpose of establishing facilities under 

15 subsection (a): 

16 "(1) The Secretary may enter into agreements 

17 permitting the Secretary to use such Federal lands 

18 as the head of a Federal agency having primary au19 thority over the administration of such land and the 

20 Secretary determine is suitable for such use. 

21 "(2) The Secretary, under such terms and con22 ditions as the Secretary determines are reasonable, 

23 may lease or acquire (from willing sellers only) by 

24 purchase or donation, real property (other than Fed25 eral land), for purposes as specified in this section. 
60 

5 

1 "(3) For real property acquired pursuant to 

2 paragraph (2), the Secretary shall establish written 

3 guidelines setting forth criteria to be used in deter4 mining whether the acquisition would5 "(A) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of 

6 the Department or any employee to carry out 

7 its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and 

8 objective manner; or 

9 "(B) would compromise the integrity or 

10 the appearance of the integrity of the Depart11 ment's programs or any official involved in 

12 those programs. 

13 "( 4) The Secretary may construct, operate, and 

14 maintain such permanent and temporary buildings 

15 and facilities as the Secretary deems appropriate on 

16 land which is in the vicinity of any unit of the na17 tional park system for which the Secretary has ac18 quired authority under this section, except that the 

19 Secretary may not begin construction, operation, or 

20 maintenance of buildings or facilities on land not 

21 owned by the United States until the owner of such 

22 lands has entered into a binding agreement with the 

23 Secretary, the terms of which assure the continued 

24 use of such buildings and facilities for a period of 
61 

6 

1 time commensurate with the level of Federal invest2 ment.". 

0 
62 

104ntCONGRESS H R 2025 1ST SESSION • • 

To amend the Land and Water Conaervatioa Fund Act ot 1965 as regards 

the Sational Park Semee, and lbr other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESE~.ATIVES 

JULY 12, 1995 

1\lr. RIC!WtDSON (by request) introduced the tollowing biD; which was 

reterred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund .Act of 

1965 as regards the National Park Service, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by tM &Mte tmd Hf1UJ/6 of &pruenta2 tiws of the United· Statu of~ in C()11{Jf"U8 CJII6mbled, 

3 SEcnON L SHORT '1T1U!. 

4 This .Act may be cited as the ''Park Renewal Fund 

s Act". 

6 SEC. 2. FEES. 

7 (a) ADMISSION FEES.--Section 4(a) of the Land ·and 

8 Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-

9 6a(a)) is amended as follows: 
63 

2 

1 {1) Delete "fee-free travel areas" and "lifetime 

2 admiS-'Jion pennit" from the title of this section. 

3 (2) In paragraph (a)(l)(A)(i) by striking the 

4 first and second sentences and inserting in lieu 

S thereof, "For admission into any such designated 

6 ·area, an annual admission pennit (to be known as 

7 the Golden Eagle Passport) shall be available for a 

8 fee and under such conditions as to be determined 

9 by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

10 of Agriculture.". 

11 (3) In paragraph (a)(l)(B) by striking the sec12 ond sentence. 

13 (4) Delete paragraph (a)(2) in its entirety and 

14 insert in lieu thereof: "Reasonable admission fees for 

15 a single visit to any designated unit shall be estab16 lished by the administering Secretary for persons 

17 who choose not to purchase the annual permit. A 

18 'single visit' means· a continuous stay within a des19 ignated unit. Payment of a single visit admission fee 

20 shall authorize exits from and reentries to a des21 ignated unit for a period to be defined for each des22 ignated unit by the administering Secretary based 

23 upon a determination of the period of time reason24 ably and ordinarily necessary for such a single 

2S visit." 
64. 

3 

1 (5} In paragraph (a)(3} by inserting the word 

2 "Great" in the third sentence before "Smoky''. 

3 (6} In paragraph (a}(3} delete the last sentence. 

4 (7) Delete paragraph (a)( 4) in its entirety and 

5 insert in lieu thereof: "The Secretary of the Interior 

6 and the Secretary of .Agriculture shall establish pro7 cedures for discounted admission fees to any citizen 

8 of, or person legally domiciled in, the United States 

9 sixty-two years of age or older, such discount to be 

10 received upon proof of age. Any such discount will 

11 be nontransferable, applied only to the individual 

12 qualifying on the basis of age, and given notwith13 standing the method of traveL No fees of any kind 

14 shall be collected from any persons who have a right 

15 of access for hunting or fishing privileges under a 

16 specific provision of law or treaty or who are en17 gaged in the conduct of official Federal, State, or 

18 local government business.". 

19 (8) Delete paragraph (a)(5) in its entirety and 

· 20 insert in lieu thereof: "The Secretary of the Interior 

21 and the Secretary of Agriculture shall. establish pro22 eedures providing for the issuance of a lif'etime ad23 mission permit to any citizen of, or person legally 

24 domiciled in, the United States, if such citizen or 

25 person applies for such pennit and is pennanently 
65 

4 

1 disabled. Such procedures shall assure that such 

2 permit shall be issued only to persons who have been 

3 medically determined to be permanently disabled. 

4 Such permit shall be nontransferable, shall be issued 

S without charge, and shall entitle the permittee and 

6 one accompanying individual to general admission 

7 into any area designated pursuant to this subsection, 

8 notwithstanding the method of travel.". 

9 (9) In paragraph (a)(6)(A) by striking "No 

10 later than 60 days after December 22, 1987" and 

11 inserting "No later than six months after enact12 ment" and striking "Interior and Insular .Affairs" 

13 and inserting "Resources". 

14 (10) Delete paragraphs (a)(9) and (a)(ll) in 

15 their entirety. Renumber current paragraph "(10)'' 

16 as "(9)" and current paragraph "(12)" as "(10)''. 

17 (b) RECREATION FEES.--Section 4(b) of the Land 

18 and Water Conservation Fond Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 

19 4601-6a(b)) is amended as follOWS: 

20 (1) Delete "FEEs FOR GoLDEN AGE PASSPORT 

21 P!R)IITTEE" from section title . . 

22 (2) Delete the following: ''personal collection of 

23 the fee by an employee or agent of the Federal agen24 cy operating the facility". 
66 

5 

1 (3) Delete ".-\ny Golden J.ge Passport permit2 tee, or'' and insert in lieu thereof "4ny". 

3 (c) CRITERIA, POSTING AND U~"'FFRliiTY OF 

4 FEES.-Section 4(d) of the Land and Water Conservation 

5 Fund .-\ct of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(d)) is amended by 

6 deleting from the first sentence "recreation fees charged 

7 by non-Federal public agencies," and inserting in lieu 

8 thereof "fees charged by other public and private enti9 ties,". 

10 (d) RULES AND REGULATIONS.-Section 4(e) of the 

11 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S. 

12 C. 460l-6a(e)) is amended by deleting "of not more than 

13 $100." and inserting in lieu thereof "as provided by law." 

14 (e) FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS UN.AFFECTED.-See15 tion 4(g) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

16 of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(g)) is amended by deleting 

17 the following in the first sentence "or fees or charges for 

18 commercial or other activities not related to recreation," 

19 and inserting ": Prwided, ~ That in those park 

20 areas under partial (if applicable) or exclusive jurisdiction 

21 of the United States where State ftshing licenses are not 

22 required, the National Park Service may charge a fee for 

23 fishing.,. 
67 

6 

1 (f) TECHNICAL .A)IE!'IDME~"TS.-Section 4(h) of the 

2 Land and Water Conservation Fund 4ct of 1965 (16 

3 U.S.C. 4601-Ga(h)) is amended4 (1) by striking "Bureau of Outdoor Recreation" 

5 and inserting in lieu thereof, "~ational Park Serv6 ice"; 

7 (2) by striking "Interior and Insular Affairs of 

8 the United States House of Representatives and 

9 United States Senate" and inserting in lieu thereof, 

10 "Resources of the United States House of Rep11 resentatives and on Energy and Natural Resources 

12 of the United States Senate"; and 

13 (3) by striking "Bureau" and inserting in lieu 

14 thereof, "National Park Service". 

15 (g) UsE OF FEEs.--Section 4(i) of the Land and 

16 Water Conservation Fund Act o£ 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-

17 6a(i)) is amended as follows: 

18 (1) .After "(i)" by inserting "USE OF 

19 FEEs.-". 

20 (2) In the first sentence of subparagraph (B) 

21 by striking "fee collection costs for that fiscal year" 

22 and inserting in lieu thereof "fee collection costs for 

23 the immediately preceding fiscal year'' and by strik24 ing "section in that fiscal year" and inserting in lieu 
68 

7 

1 thereof "section in such immediately preceding fiscal 

2 year". 

3 (3) In the second sentence of subparagraph (B) 

4 by striking "in that fiscal year". 

5 ( 4) By adding the following at the end of para6 graph (1): 

7 "(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 

8 beginning in fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal 

9 year thereafter, all additional fee revenue gen10 erated by the National Park Service through 

11 enactment of this legislation, as authorized to 

12 be collected pursuant to subsection 4 (a) and 

13 (b), shall be covered into a special fund esta}). 

14 lished in the Treasury of the United States to 

15 be known as the 'National Park Renewal 

16 Fund'. In fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year 

17 thereafter, the amount of additional fee revenue 

18 generated in the immediately preceding fiscal 

19 year by the National Park Service through en20 actment of this legislation shall be available to 

21 the Secretary of the Interior, without further 

22 provision in appropriations Acts, for infrastruc23 ture needs at parks including but not limited to 

24 facility refurbishment, repair and replacement, 

25 interpretive media and cllbit repair and re-
69 

8 

1 placeme.nt, and infrastructure projects associ2 ated with park resource protection. Such 

3 amounts shall remain available until expended. 

4 The Secretary shall develop procedures for the 

5 use of the fund that ensure accountability and 

6 demonstrated results consistent with the pur7 poses of this Act. Beginning the first full fiscal 

8 year after the creation of the 'National Park 

9 Renewal Fund', the Secretary shall submit an 

10 annual report to the Congress, on a unit-by11 unit basis, detailing the expenditures of such 

12 receipts. In fiscal year 1996 only, fees author13 ized to be collected pursuant to subsections 4 

14 (a) and (b) of this Act may be collected only to 

15 the extent provided in advance in appropria16 tions Acts.". 

17 (5) Paragraph (4)(A) is amended by striking 

18 "resource protection, research, and interpretation" 

19 and inserting in lieu thereof ''park operations". 

20 (h) SELLING OF PERlfiTS.-Section 4(k) of the Land 

21 and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16. U.S.C. 

22 4601-6a(k)) is amended by23 (1) striking "SELLING OF ANNuAL ADMISSION 

24 PEIWITS BY PuBLIC AND PRivATE ENTITIES 
70 

9 

1 U.:-."DER .ARRANGEltENTS WITH COLLECTING AGEN2 CY HEAD" from the title of this section; and 

3 (2) deleting the last two sentences, regarding 

4 the sale of Golden Eagle Passports, from this seeS tion. 

6 (i) CHARGES FOR TR.L'lSPORTATION PROVIDED BY 

7 THE N.ATION..U. PARK SERVICE.-(1) Section 4(1)(1) of 

8 the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

9 U.S.C. 4601-6a(1)) is amended by striking the word 

10 "VIEWING" from the section title and inserting in lieu 

11 thereof ''visiTING". 

12 (2) Section 4(1)(1) of the Land and Water Conserva13 tion Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(l)) is amended 

14 by deleting the word "view" and inserting in lieu thereof 

15 ''visit". 

16 (3) Section 4(1)(2) of the Land and Water Conserva17 tion Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(l)) is amended 

18 by deleting paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu thereof: 

19· "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the charges 

20 imposed under paragraph (1) shall be retained by the unit 

21 of the National Park System at which the service was pro22 vided. The amount retained shall be expended for costs 

23 associated with the transportation systems at the unit 

24 where the charge was imposed.". 
71 

10 

1 (j) COIDIERCL\L TOUR FEES.-Section 4 of the 

2 Land and Water Conservation Fund .Act of 1965 (16 

3 U.S.C. 4601-6a(n)) is amended by striking section (2) in 

4 its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof: 

S "(2) The Secretary shall establish a flat fee, per 

6 entry, for such vehicles. The amount of the said flat 

7 fee shall reflect both the commercial tour use fee 

8 rate and current admission rates.". 

9 (k) FEES FOR SPECIAL USES.-Section 4 of the 

10 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

11 U.S.C. 4601-6a) is amended by adding the following at 

12 the end thereof: 

13 "(o) FEEs FOR COMMERCIAL NONRECREATIONAL 

14 USEs.-Utilizing the criteria established in section 4(d) 

lS (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(d)), the Secretary of the Interior shall 

16 establish reasonable fees for non-recurring commercial or 

17 non-recreational uses of National Park System units that 

18 require special arrangements, including permits. At a min19 imum, such fees will cover all costs of providing necessary 

20 services associated with such use, except that at the Sec21 retary's discretion, the Secretary may waive or reduce 

22 such fees in the case of any organization using an area 

23 within the National Park System for aCtivities which fur24 ther the goals of the National Park Service. Receipts from 

2S such fees may be retained at the park unit in which the 
72 

11 

1 use takes place, and remain available, without further ap2 propriation, to cover the cost of providing such services. 

3 The portion of such fee which eueeds the cost of providing 

4 necessary services associated with such use shall be depos5 ited into the ~ational Park Renewal Fund.". 

6 (1) FEE AUTHORITY.-Section 4 of the Land and 

7 Water Conservation Fund .Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-

8 6a) is amended by adding the follo,ving new subsection 

9 at the end thereof: 

10 "(p) .ADJ\USSION OR RECREATION USE FEES.-No 

11 admission or recreation use fee of any kind shall be 

12 charged or imposed for entrance into, or use of, any feder13 ally owned area operated and maintained by a Federal 

14 agency and used for outdoor recreation purposes, except 

15 as provided for by this Act.". 

16 SEC. 3. PROBIBmON OP COllriMEBCIAL VEHICLES. DELA· 

17 WABE WATEil GAP NATIONAL RECREATION 

18 AREA. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.-E.ft'ective at noon on September 

20 30, 2005, the use of Highway 209 within the Delaware 

21 Water Gap National Recreation Area by commercial vehi· 

22 cles, when such use is not connected with the operation 

23 of the recreation area, is prohibited, except as provided 

24 in section (b). 
73 

12 

1 (b) LOCAL BUSINESS USE PROTECTED.-Subsection 

2 (a) does not apply with respect to the use of commercial 

3 vehicles to serve businesses located within or in the vicinity 

4 of the recreation area, as detennined by the Secretary. 

5 (c) CO:t-."FORliiNG PROYISIO~S.-{1) Paragraphs (1) 

6 through (3) of the third undesignated paragraph under 

7 the heading "AD:L\IINISTRATIVE PROVlSIONS" in cbapter 

8 VII of title I of Public Law 98-63 (97 Stat. 329), are 

9 repealed, effective September 30, 2005. 

10 (2) Prior to noon on September 30, 2005, the Sec11 retary shall collect and utilize a commercial use fee from 

12 commercial vehicles in accordance with paragraphs (1) 

13 through (3) of such third undesignated paragraph. Such 

14 fee shall not exceed $25 per trip. 

15 SEC."- CHALLENGE COST ..sHARE AGKEEMEN'l'S. 

16 (a) AGREEMENTS.-The Secretary of the Interior is 

17 authorized to negotiate and enter into challenge cost-share 

18 agreements with cooperators. Fo~ purposes of this section, 

19 the term20 (1) "challenge cost-share agreement" means 

21 any agreement entered into between the Secretary 

22 and any cooperator for the purpose of sharing costs 

23 or services in carrying out authorized functions and 

24 responsibilities of the Secretary with respect to any 

25 unit or program of the National Park System (as 
74 

13 

1 defined in section 2(a) of the ..!ct of .August 8, 1953 

2 (16 U.S.C. lc(a)), any affiliated area, or designated 

3 ~ ational Scenic or Historic Trail; and 

4 (2) "cooperator" means any State or local gov5 ernment, public or private agency, organization, in6 stitution, corporation, individual, or other entity. 

7 (b) USE OF FEDERAL Fmms.-In carrying out chal8 lenge cost-share agreements, the Secretary is -authorized 

9 to pro~ide the Federal funding share from any funds avail10 able to the National Park Service. 

11 SEC. 5. DONATIONS. 

12 (a) REQCESTS FOR DON.ATIONS.-In addition to the 

13 Secretary's other authorities to accept the donation of 

14 lands, buildings, other property, services, and moneys for 

15 the purposes of the National Park System, the Secretary 

16 is authorized to solicit donations of money, property, and 

17 services from · individuals, corporations, foundations and 

18 other potential donors who the Secretary believes would 

19 wish to make such donations as an expression of support 

20 for the national parks. Such donations may be ~pted 

21 and used for any authorized purpose or program of the 

22 National Park Service, and donations of money shall re23 main available for expenditure without fiscal year limita24 tion. Any employees of the Department to whom this au-
75 

14 

1 thority is delegated shall be set forth in the written guide2 lines issued by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (d). 

3 (b) EliPLOYEE PARTICIPATION.-Employees of the 

4 National Park Service may solicit donations only if the 

5 request is incidental to or in support of, and does not 

6 interfere with their primary duty of protecting and admin7 istering the parks or administering authorized programs, 

8 and only for the purpose of providing a level of resource 

9 protection, visitor facilities, or services for health and safetO ty projects, recurring maintenance activities, or for other 

11 routine activities nonnally funded through annual agency 

12 appropriations. Such requests must be in accordance with 

13 the guidelines issued pursuant to subparagraph (d). 

14 (c) PRoHIBITIONS.-(1) A donation may not be ac15 cepted in exchange for a commitment to the donor on the 

16 part of the National Park Service or which attaches condi17 tions inconsistent with applicable laws and regulations or 

18 that is conditioned upon or will require the expenditure 

19 of appropriated funds that are not available to the Depart20 ment, or which compromises a criminal or civil position 

21 of the United States or any of its departments or agencies 

22 or the administrative authority of any agency of the 

23 United States. 

24 (2) In utilizing the authorities contained in this sec25 tion employees of the National Park Service shall not di-
76 

15 

1 rectly conduct or eueute major fundraising campaigns, 

2 but may cooperate with others whom the Secretary may 

3 designate to conduct such campaigns on behalf of the Na4 tional Park Service. 

5 (d) GL"IDA..~CE.-(1) The Secretary shall issue writ6 ten guidelines setting forth those positions to which he has 

7 delegated his authority under paragraph (a) and the catS egories of employees of the National Park Service that are 

9 authorized to request donations pursuant to paragraph 

10 (b). Such guidelines shall also set forth any limitations 

11 on the types of donations that will be requested or aecept12 ed as well as the sources of those donations. 

13 (2) The Secretary shall publish guidelines which set 

14 forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the 

1S solicitation or acceptance of contributions of lands, build16 ings, other property, services, moneys, and other gifts or 

17 donations authorized by this section would reflect unfavor18 ably upon the ability of the Department of the Interior 

19 or any employee to carry out its responsibilities or official 

20 duties in a fair and objective manner, or would eom21 promise the integrity or the appearance of the integrio/ 

22 of its programs or any official involved in those programs. 

23 The Secretary shall also issue written guidance on the ex24 tent of·the cooperation that may be provided by National 

25 Park Service employees in any major fundraising cam-
77 

16 

1 paign which the Secretary has designated others to eon2 duet pursuant to paragraph (e)(2). 

3 SEC. 8. COST RECOVERY POR DAMAGE TO NATIONAL PARE 

4 RESOURCES. 

5 Public Law 101-337 is amended as follows: 

6 (a) In section 1 (16 U.S.C. 19jj), by amending 

7 subsection (d) to read as follows: 

8 "(d) 'Park system resource' means any living or non9 living resource that is located within the boundaries of a 

10 unit of the National Park System, except for resources 

11 owned by a non-Federal entity.". 

12 (b) In section 1 (16 U.S.C. 19jj) by adding at 

13 the end thereof the following: 

14 "(g) 'Marine or aquatic park system resource' means 

15 any liviJig or nonliving part of a marine or aquatic regimen 

16 within or is a living part of a marine or aquatic. regimen 

17 within the boundaries of a unit of the National Park Sys18 tem, except for resources owned by a non-Federal entity.". 

19 (e) In section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 19jj-1(b)), by 

20 striking "any park'' and inserting in lieu thereof 

21 "any marine or aquatic park". 

0 
78 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2465 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To establish 5-year terms for, and require the advice and consent of the 

Senate in the appointment of, the Director of the National Park Service, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 1995 

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To establish 5-year terms for, and require the advice and 

consent of the Senate in the appointment of, the Director 

of the National Park Service, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembkd, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "National Park Service 

5 Professionalization Act". 

6 SEC. 2. DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 

7 The first section of the Act entitled "An Act to estab8 lish a National Park Service, and for other purposes", ap9 proved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1; com.. 
79 

2 

1 monly referred to as the "National Park Service Organic 

2 Act"), is amended in the first sentence by striking "who 

3 shall be appointed by the Secretary'' and all that follows 

4 and inserting "who shall be appointed by the President, 

5 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 

6 term of five years and may be appointed to one additional 

7 term of three years. The Director may be removed by the 

8 President only for cause. The Director shall have substan9 tial experience and demonstrated competence in Federal 

10 park management and natural or cultural resource con11 servation. ". 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICATION. 

13 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

14 on February 1, 1997, and shall apply with respect to the 

15 individual (if any) serving as the Director of the National 

16 Park Service on that date. 

0 
80 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2464 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To amend Public Law 103-93 to provide additional lands within the State 

of Utah for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11 , 1995 

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 103-93 to provide additional lands 

within the State of Utah for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF CERTAIN UTAH STATE LANDS TO 

4 GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION. 

5 The Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of 

6 1993 (107 Stat. 995) is amended7 (1) by redesignating section 11 as section 12; 

8 and 

9 (2) by inserting after section 10 the following 

10 new section: 
81 

2 

1 "SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION 

2 LANDS. 

3 "(a) FURTHER ADDITIONS TO GoSHUTE RESERVA4 TION.-In addition to the lands described in section 3, for 

5 the purpose of securing in trust for the Goshute Indian 

6 Tribe certain additional public lands and lands belonging 

7 to the State of Utah, which comprise approximately 8,000 

8 acres of surface and subsurface estate, as generally de9 picted on the map entitled 'Additional Utah-Goshute Ex10 change', dated July 1, 1994, such public lands and State 

11 lands are hereby declared to be part of the Goshute Indian 

12 Reservation in the State of Utah effective upon the com13 pletion of conveyance of the State lands from the State 

14 of Utah and acceptance oftitle by the United States. 

15 "(b) AUTHORIZATION.-The Secretary of the Interior 

16 is authorized to acquire through exchange those lands and 

17 interests in land described in subsection (a) which are 

18 owned by the State of Utah, subject to valid existing 

19 rights. 

20 "(c) APPLICATION OF PRIOR PROVISIONS.-(!) Ex21 cept as provided in paragraph (2), the remaining provi22 sions of this Act which are applicable to the lands to be 

23 transferred to the Goshute Indian Tribe pursuant to sec24 tion 3 shan · also apply to the lands subject to this section. 

25 "(2) The Goshute Indian Tribe will be responsible for 

26 payment of the costs of appraisal of the lands to be ac-
82 

3 

1 quired pursuant to this section, which costs shall be paid 

2 prior to the transfer of such lands.". 

0 
83 

ROGER KENNEDY 

This Congress is serious about ending Federal funding to organizations that devote much of their resources to litigation and lobbying. 

Does the National Park Service award grants, contracts or other 

transfer of funds to environmental groups that engage in litigation and lobbying? 

IF HE GIVES A WEAK ANSWER, ASK THE FOLWWING. 

For the record, could you please provide the subcommittee with a 

detailed accounting of all grants, contracts or other awards from the 

National Park Service to the following groups since January of 

1993: 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

The Wilderness Society National Audubon Society 

National Wildlife Federation 

The Nature Conservancy 

American Rivers Inc. 

Appalachian Trail Club 

(1) 
84 

National Park Service United States Department of the Interior 

~rtfc~~~~e ~:=~f~h~hN~i:~'P:'~ s:~:g area serving the 

The following proposal responds to a desint to improve the appearance, comfort. and utility of the corridor · 

and wailing area serving tilt Ofl1ce of tilt Dlntetor of the National Park Service. , 

Tllia 1!1Q1111Y1 recommends ntpllcino the current fumitunt with period furnishings that relate to the building's ard1lilctiJlll Photographs with National Park Service themes complement wooden benches and sand jars, 

furnishings original to the Interior building. A desk of the same period has been located in the building to 

replace the modem secretary's desk at the inner end of the corridor. 

Questions or comments regarding the proposal may be directed to Cynthia Darr, Division of Exhibits, 304 535 6287, or John Brucksch, Division of Historic Furnishings, 304 535 6t 19, both of the Harpers Ferry 

Center. 

OavidG.WriQht Man,aoer. Harpers Ferry Center 

Prepared by the Harpen Ferry Center, Diviaion o(Exhibitland Diviaionof'Hiltorie Fumiahinp, Harpers Ferry, Wnt Virgini• 
85 

Fumil;hings Plan 

The following proposal for the Director's conidor provides furnishings and decor to these areas that is both 

compatable with the building's 1936 arthitecture and reflects the mission of the National Parle Service. 

The recommendations are based on the recently completed Historic Furnishings Report for the Main Interior 

Building. These furnishings, combined with photographs that create a historic ambiance, make a visual 

statement regarding the stewardship of the National Park Service. 

Nottoacok 

., 

' > 

In addition to the furniture indicated above, a series of four upholstered benches will be located along the conidor to provide seating for those waiting for appointments. Along the corridor walls will be hung framed photographic 

prints depleting National Park Service srtes from which a series of 1934 postage stamps were created. 

:tltliVJaill~IIIWIIIIII_...= ' '4t=~lettaring llldlng'Nallonal- . · jicifW'oflfleemriderwtlll lriNIJir thutyltthatlsoriginaltotht 

bulldlno 111111111 ltlllllntarllll!lrlna CIIIW ~-·• r Tltelllllllng llldlng 'Oirector!Wationai- PIIIISirva'CIIIhtOUWIIIollwouldlitrtpladllllll_.__ Replacement of the OUTER PORTAL, as suggested In ourearllerproposal, should stiR be considered if funding becomes available. A design sympathetic to 

the original interior arcMecture has been approved for use in the building. This design also allows for better 

placement of the bronze lettering. Carpelklo .. bl...,.,llllfltulldlne IIIOdlmlzltlon scheduled for the year ' 

2003. 

If funding permns. consideration should be given to replacing the name plates outside the offices wrth the bronze 

entry plaques that have been developed for use in the building, which incorporate period decorative motifs. 

P01~1 APropo«Uto&furnisANPS Dir«tor'sCorri.dorand Waitill8 Area 
Item1 

Plll/t2 

86 

Origirwl DOl Bench 

Positioned at four locations along the corridor and one in the waiting area. these benches will provide durable 

and comfortable seating for those waiting for appointments, while adding little physical and visual intrusion to the somewhat narrow space. 

The benches are a component of the building's original furnishings. 

Specifications 

-

Ono96"wide 19'~gh,2()'deep 

f<>ur72'wlde,19'high,20'deep 

Cost 

-

Medium Blutleatherette 

H-r>FmyCenterwlllperforrnlllo.-saryconseM!Ionlolllowooden-. _....,. 

:"~IrK !he six 1001 bendles 11 $125 - and one IrK the efolrt fool bencll II $150 wlllncur costs 

A Pro;xaal to !Wfu.nWh NPS Dintt:lor. CorridDra.l\d Waitin.f Arm 
Itemtl 

87 

Original Urns 

Urns are original furnishings stiU found in various areas of the building. They were Included in the furnishings 

plan for the lobbies and are recommended to coordinate with the building's decor and colors. 

Specifications 

-

Slx.lllllllondlqo,_.,._2.--

Cost 

--

Wirmi.JgiiiGfiY 

tolllloponlngol-wnto~- ::::.:::.::.:====~===-
ltem3 

88 

Desk 

Desk is apparently a 1930s original consistent with the Department of the Interior furnishings and is functional 

as well as extremely attractive with spiral turned legs and brass hardware. 

The photograph below shows a period desk of a style similar to the one proposed for use. 

Specifications 

-

appiOll&O'wldo,<IO'doop 

Cost 

·--

Rgurod Mahc>Qany 

Tho- b presently loaled i111ho OWJmtnt of lnll!lorwnhouse. I....,..........., t ............. ~ ....... 
ltem4 

89 

Photographic Prints 

A series of framed photog13phic prints are suggested for placement along corridor walls and in the waiting area. 

Historic black and white photogl3phs are images used for the 1934 commemorative stamps from National Park 

Service sites including Yosem~e. Grand Canyon, Mount Rainier. Mesa Verde, Yellowstone. Crater Lake, Acadia, Zion. Glacier, and Great Smokey Mountains. 

A total of ten prints are recommended. 

Specifications 

-

36"-.48'Ngh-- 48'-.311"Ngh-- ---

l..lgiii~ID-fllmilulltlnishol 

Cost 

liiiCAQ!f+tp,.f.J~---='--·--""'--.....-
90 

ltem4 Yosemite National Park 
91 

ltem4 Grand Canyon National Park 
92 

ltem4 Mount Rainier National Park 

A Proposal t1 • Rrfu.; msh .'liPS D1rectnr S Corndor and Waittng Artoo 
93 

Item4 Mesa VerdP National Park 

A Propo~l to Refurni-sh NPS Director:, Corridor and Waiting Area 
94 

ltem4 Yelluwstune National Park 

PG11tf0 AProposaito&furnUhNPS Director.Corridcran.d Waiti.n,gArea 
95 

Item4 Crater La"~ National Pari< 

A Proposal to Re{urmsh NPS Dinctor's Corridor and Waiting Arm 
96 

ltem4 Acadia ,\faliunal Park 

A Propo$tll to R.furrWh NPS Dirtctor:t Corridor and Waiting Ana 
97 

ltem4 Zion .Vativnal JJark 

P ... 13 A PropoJai to IU,Urrwh NPS Dv«tor:, Corridor GAd W~ Arc 
98 

-------------------------------------------------------- Item4 Glacier S atinnal i'ar/1 

A Proposal to &{urn.Uh NPS Dif'f'Ctor't CorridrJrand Waiting Ana 
99 

ltem4 Great Smoky Mountains NationaL Park 

P0i1•111 A ProfJOMJl lo &/urnUh NPS DirectorS Corridor and Waiting Arm 
ItemS 

P"'/<18 

100 

Bronze Entry Plaques 

These bronze plaques complement the overall design and original interior architector of the building. We 

recommend replacing outdated name plates outside offices with these plaques when funding permits. 

Specifications 

-

8-112"wide.&-112"hlgh 

Cost 

••"-f1MIIt.: 

Bronze 

__ .....,.. ___ .,. ___ ,...,.,._ ........... .,., 

A PropoS<J.llo lh{urn.ish NPS Dirrctor's CorridorcuuJ. Wailing Arm 
Pi¥017 

101 

Summary 

Most of the furnishings contained in this proposal are original to the Main Interior Building and require 

conservation to be performed by staff at the Harpers Feny Center. Costs Incurred to complete this project 

follow. 

ttem1 Olfoi""DOII!tnch $650.00 

ltem2 Original Urns CCWOf'lltlon Only 

ltem3 Desk Con.MtlonOnly 

ltem4 Pllo!QOraphicPrints 6.000.00 

19BronzoEntryPtaques(S95.00/oa) 1,805.00 

QWerl'llrUI 10.000.00 

BIONIIl.ttllf1ng($25.0Motter) ·1 .175.00 

Total $1t,DI.GII 

Approval 
102 

STATEMENT OF ROGER G. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITrEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES 

COMMITrEE ON H.R.l067, (TO FACILITATE IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND), H.R.l025, (TO AMEND THE LAND AND 

WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965 AS REGARDS THE NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES), H.R.l465, (A BILL TO ESTABLISH 

FIVE-YEAR TERMS FOR, AND REQUIRE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE 

SENATE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES). 

OCTOBER 26, 1995 

Mr. Chainnan, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the views of 

the Department oflnterior on three bills relating to the management of the National Park Service. 

The bills under consideration are H.R. 2067, which authorizes minor boundary revisions and 

provides leasing authority; three sections ofH.R. 2025, which authorizes the collection of fees 

for certain uses; and H.R. 2465, a bill to establish a five-year tenn limit for the Director of the 

Park Service and require that he or she be confinned by the Senate. We support H.R. 2067 with 

one technical amendment and H.R. 2025, but oppose H.R. 2465 as currently drafted for the 

reasons discussed below. 

H.R. 2067, TO PROVIDE FOR MINOR BOUNDARY REVISIONS AND 

LEASING FACILITIES OUTSIDE PARKS. 

H.R. 2067 C<imprises two titles. the first to allow minor boundary revisions of national parks, and 

the second, to authorize certain park facilities to be located outside of the National Park System. 
103 

Title I, Minor Boundary Revisions. 

Title I would amend Section 7(c) of the Land and Water ConseiVation Fund Act of 1995 to 

extend the Secretary oflnterior's authority to make minor boundary adjustments to existing park 

units, including those established prior to January 1, 1965. We support this effort to provide 

additional authority to make minor boundary adjustments administratively, and recommend 

enactment of this legislation with one minor amendment. 

We are pleased the legislation makes it clear that deletions from park boundaries are only allowed 

under this authority when additions are made simultaneously. When deletions alone are 

recommended, they require an act of Congress. We believe this distinction is critical to prevent 

an Administration from misusing this authority to gradually eliminate entire units of the park 

system without appropriate oversight by Congress. Language which makes this distinction has 

been incorporated as a proviso at the very end of Title I ofH.R. 2067. However, we believe the 

proviso should apply to the entire minor boundary adjustment authority under Section 7(cXi), not 

merely to 7(c)(i)(V). We recommend the language be adjusted to meet this intent. 

With this one clarification, we believe Title I ofH.R. 2067 will ameliorate an ongoing problem the 

National Park Service has had with minor boundary adjustments due to the limitation of the 

current language in the Land and Water Conse!Vation Fund Act of 1965. Congress in Section 

7(c)(i) gave us a tool for making minor boundary adjustments without having to go through the 

entire legislative process. Unfortunately, the Land and Water ConseiVation Fund Act, as 

currently written, does not allow the use of this authority for adjustments to park boundaries 

2 
104 

established prior to January 1, 196S. 

Through discussions with our field directors, we learned that they are spending an inordinate 

amount of time and effort on minor boundary adjustments. Our discussions with members of the 

Committee have shown an understanding of this problem and an agreement that revising all 

boundaries through the legislative process is not a wise use of time and energy. An example of a 

minor boundary adjustment would be a revision needed for enlargement of visitor facilities, such 

as parking lots. 

We conducted a brief analysis of minor boundary adjustments the National Park Service made in 

the last five years, and a~ analysis of those proposed to be made through legislation in this 

Congress. This review was done to ensure the conditions outlined in Title I of this bill were 

reasonable parameters to accomplish the desired boundary revisions. With the exception of a few 

minor boundary adjustments where property values are greater because of their proximity to 

urban areas, all criteria in Title I were generally met. 

Since 1990, there have been approximately 30 minor boundary adjustments based on notification 

in the Federal Register, some containing multiple parcels. Only three would not have met the 

conditions set forth in this legislation, primarily because of the high property value in their 

respective areas. There are at least 15 minor boundary adjustments currently pending in 

Congress. Many of these involve relatively insignificant acreage. Based on information from our 

field directors, there are at least 1 S additional minor boundary adjustment proposals which will 

3 
105 

require legislation under current law. If H.R. 2067 is enacted, many of these will be resolved 

administratively. 

Although Congress has given some park units specific boundary adjustment authority, others must 

rely on the limited generic authority in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. For 

those park units, and for units established prior to January I, 1965, Title I ofH.R. 2067 will 

provide needed expansion of that authority. We, therefore, support Title I with the clarifying 

amendment previously discussed. 

Title ll, Authorization for Certain Park Facilities to be Located Outside of the National 

Park System. 

Title II ofH.R. 2067 would amend Section 4 of what is commonly known as the National Park 

Service's General Authorities Act. It would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

facilities essential for park administration, visitor use, and park employee housing outside the 

boundaries of the National Park System. In. order to establish these facilities, the Secretary would 

be authorized to enter into a variety of arrangements and to lease or acquire property other than 

federal land. 

We support Title II ofH.R. 2067. Title II would allow NPS to lease land outside, but in the 

vicinity of, park boundaries for the development of needed visitor facilities and employee housing. 

Such development may be completed by the National Park Service or by a developer pursuant to 

agreement. This ability to establish facilities outside park boundaries will enhance resource 

4 
106 

protection by reducing further intrusive development within park boundaries. This authority also 

takes the NPS out of the position of always having to be the developer of capital projects within 

units of the National Park System. Permitting the National Parle: Service to lease private property 

outside of park boundaries for park purposes allows the land to remain in private ownership and 

stay on state and local tax rolls. Leasing also does not give the federal government permanent 

management responsibilities as does land acquisition and boundary expansions that increase park 

acreage. We believe having the authority to enter into leases outside park boundaries makes good 

management sense and provides the Service flexibility to respond to changes that may occur over 

time. For these reasons we support Title II ofH.R. 2067. 

As you are aware, the National Park Service has submitted draft legislation that includes language 

similar to Title II of H. R. 2067. That draft legislation also addresses the issue ofleasing property 

within park boundaries. We recommend that Title II be expanded to provide the National Park 

Service the authority to lease property within park boundaries, provided the leases are consistent 

with park purposes. Current authority only allows for leasing of property listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places through Section Ill of the National Preservation Act. The expanded 

authority we are recommending would allow the Service to lease park buildings that are not 

needed to administer the park and would provide a stream of revenue to take care of non-historic 

properties managed by the National Park Service. We feel this is an important authority and 

recommend that the committee add another section to Title II to permit this activity. We will be 

happy to provide the committee additional language to address this issue. 

5 
107 

B.R. 1015, SECI10NS 1(K), 4, AND 6: 

AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION Acr. 

The primary purpose ofH.R 2025 is to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act with 

regard to admission and user fees. When the National Park Service testified before the 

subcommittee in August of this year the discussion concentrated on those areas. H.R 2025 

addresses other areas of concern and we are pleased to discuss those with the committee today. 

We strongly support the adoption of these three sections ofH.R. 2025. 

Section 1(k). 

Section 2(k) ofH.R. 2025 would amend Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

by adding a new paragraph titled "Fees for Commercial Non-recreational Uses." This new 

paragraph would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to establish reasonable fees for 

non-recurring commercial or non-recreational uses ofNational Park System units that require 

special arrangements, including permits. Current authority only permits the Secretary to recover 

the costs of providing services to commercial and non-recreational users of parks through the 

issuance of special use permits. This new authority would allow the Secretary to establish a fee 

that covers not only the cost of providing services to those using the park or park facilities but 

also considers the long-term and ongoing costs of resource protection and maintenance for areas 

used by permittees. 

Non-recurring commercial and non-recreational uses of park units range from individuals 

6 
108 

requesting the use of a park area for a wedding, to private group meetings in park buildings, to 

special events at park sites, to commercial filming for product promotion, modeling, and feature 

and full-length films. The preserved and protected natural resources, historic: gardens and 

buildings, and other facilities and resources found in the National Park System attract individuals, 

organizations and companies to the national parks to undertake their particular activity or event. 

The National Park Service's costs for protecting, preserving and maintaining these resources is 

on-going and is far greater than the costs associated with law enforcement, maintenance or other 

services required at the time the particular activity oc:c:urs. 

The authority would allow the National Park Service to establish fees, for specific activities that 

are compatible uses in the national parks, higher than the cost of providing services for the 

activity. It would allow the National Park Service to establish fees comparable to those charged 

by other public and private entities for similar activities. It would allow the National Park Service 

to charge fair market fees for non-recurring commercial and non-recreational uses of park 

resources and use the revenue for reinvestment and maintenance of the National Park System. 

Section 4. 

Section 4 ofH.R. 2025 provides a permanent authorization to the National Park Service to enter 

into challenge cost-share agreements with cooperators to carry out authorized functions and 

responsibilities of the National Park Service. It also allows the National Park Service to utilize 

any funds available to it to enter into challenge cost-share agreements. 

7 
109 

The Challenge Cost-Share Program was first authorized in the National Park Service 

Appropriation for fiscal year 1993. The program allows the National Park Service to enter into 

agreements with organizations, governments and individuals outside the National Park Service to 

undertake projects related to the National Park Service's mission. The National Park Service is 

authorized to provide up to 50".4 of the project costs with the partner providing the match. 

Challenge cost-share projects cover a wide range of activities and have included trail maintenance 

and construction, interpretive display design and construction, development and application of 

computer software and programs for resource management, planting of trees, installation of 

fencing, and other landscape work, development of site plans, and writing of program curriculum 

for "Parks as Classrooms" activities. 

Challenge cost-share projects involve groups and individuals who have an expertise, interest and 

desire to work with the National Park Service to assist in canying out the Service's mission. 

Many of the groups involved are local service organizations near a park; State and local agencies 

have also participated. The goal is to extend the limited financial resources available to the 

National Park Service to accomplish its mission through cost-effective means and partnerships. 

Cost-share projects increase awareness and participation by neighboring communities and the 

public in the preservation and improvement ofNational Park Service's cultural, natural and 

recreational resources and programs. 

Section 4 ofH.R. 2025 would provide the National Park Service permanent authority for the 

Challc:nge Cost-Share Program which is currently renewed annually in appropriations. It would 

8 
110 

permit any funds available to the National Park Service through appropriations to be utilized for 

challenge cost-share programs thus allowing greater flexibility and resulting in challenge costshare projects Service-wide including maintenance and administrative type projects. Section 4 

would provide the National Park Service with authorities comparable to those of other land 

managing agencies where challenge-cost-share programs are successfully utilized on a widespread 

basis. 

A permanent, broader authority for a challenge cost-share program provides the National Park 

Service greater flexibility to carry out its mission and mandates. It allows the National Park 

Service to enter into partnerships at all levels of the organization to utilize outside expertise and 

resources to accomplish National Park Service responsibilities. It results in incredible returns to 

the National Park Service. The FY 1993 challenge cost-share appropriation of approximately $2 

million resulted in a non-federal match of approximately $4 million. The completed projects were 

extensive and included hundreds of people across the country taking an active role as partners 

with the National Park-Service in caring for the resources entrusted to the National Park Service. 

Section 6. 

Section 6 ofH.R. 2025 would amend Public Law 101-337 to allow the National Park Service to 

recover the costs of repairing any 'park system resource' that has been damaged. Current 

authority only permits the recovery of costs associated with the damage of marine resources. 

When non-marine resources are damaged the court system has authority to assess individuals for 

the cost to repair damages; however, receipts for damages do not come back to the National Park 

9 
111 

Service, they are deposited in the general fund of the U.S. treasury. Receipts from fines would 

continue to be deposited in the treasury. Expanding the existing authority to cover all park 

system resources located within the boundaries of a unit of the National Park System that are 

Federally owned would allow the National Parle Service to m:over costs for damage repair 

through a court process and allow restitution to go directly to the National Parle Service for repair 

of damages rather than to the general treasury. 

H.R. 2465, 

TO REQUIRE SENATE CONFIRMATION AND ESTABLISH A FIVE-YEAR TERM 

FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 

The third bill, H.R. 2465, establishes five-year terms for, and requires the advice and consent of 

the Senate in the appointment of the Director of the National Park Service. In addition to 

requiring that the Director of the National Park Service be appointed by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate, this bill also states the Director must have substantial experience and 

demonstrated competence in Federal park management and natural or cultural resource 

conservation. 

The Director of the National Park Service is responsible for administering more than 80 million 

acres in 369 units of the National Park System. The Director also administers matching grant 

programs for State and local historic preservation, park planning, acquisition, and development. 

10 
112 

We do not oppose the concept of requiring appointment by the President and confirmation by the 

Senate for the Director of the National Park Service as proposed by this legislation. We do, 

however, strongly oppose the provision that would impose a five-year term on the Director. 

Such arbitrary term limits are not imposed on other Presidential appointees in the Federal land 

management agencies and we do not believe such a restriction is necessary or constructive for the 

Director of the National Park Service. 

Additionally, we strongly oppose the provision that would allow the removal of a director by the 

President only for cause. We believe it is important that all members of the President's 

Administration be able to work together to advance the Administration's program. As a result, 

the Director of the NPS should serve at the pleasure of the President. The bill's removal 

restriction could impede the President's ability to discharge his constitutional duty to ensure that 

the laws are faithfully executed. 

We also have concerns about the qualifications H.R. 2465 establishes for the position of Director 

of the National Park Service. We believe the qualifications listed in the bill are too restrictive. 

The stringent requirements of having a director with "substantial experience and demonstrated 

competence in Federal park management and natural or cultural resource conservation• would 

unduly limit the President's ability to choose the best person for the position. As you know, a bill 

introduced in the House of Representatives in the 103rd Congress also required that the Director 

of the Park Service be C:onfirmed by the Senate. The qualifications for the Director of the Park 

Service prescribed by that bill, H.R. 1893, were as follows: "The director shall have substantial 

11 
113 

experience in park management and natural or cultural resource conservation. • We believe this 

language is preferable to the qualifications required in H.R. 2465 because it would ensure that 

only highly qualified individuals would be eligible for the position, but would not be unduly 

restrictive. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. We would welcome the opportunity to work with 

members of the Committee on our recommended changes to these bills. At this time, I will be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

12 
114 

TFSTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITl'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND LANDS 

ON HR2465, THE •NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PR.OFESSIONALIZATION ACT" 

BY 1l. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESID:ENT 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF .FlSH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

OCTOBER 26, 15195 

'I1wlk you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my perspectives with you on HR2465, 

the National Park Service Professionalization Act, and, in general, on the subject of careerservice professionals in Federal agency leadership positions. As you may be aware from my 

371h years in federal civil service, including 71h years as Chief of the Forest Service, and the 

perspectives I have gained since my retirement about penonnel practices in the state and private 

sector, I have a longSianding interest in both the key role a professional agency head plays in 

carrying out the agency's mission, and in his or her ability to perform in a way that satisfies 

people's expectations, both subordinates and superiors, and the public. 

As you may also recall, Mr. Chairman, I appeared before this same subcommittee in Aprill990 

to discuss personnel problems and opportunities in natural resource agencies. I include a copy 

of my April 1990 statement before the subcommittee with my testimony today and would 

highlight one statement that I made in there that is, I believe, still very germane to today's 

subject of discussion. I said in April 1990 that "the increasing tendency to make political 

appointments within natural resource agencies has not served the American people well. • I 

repeat that today for two reasons. First, I believe that it is still a relevant observation. And, 

second, it demonstrates that this is a problem that crosses several Administrations, and is not 

unique to this one. 

I will now share some general observations with you before turning to specifics of HR2465. 

1. Heads of Federal natural resource agencies typically have responsibilities that are 

not only nationwide, but worldwide. Satisfaction of treaty obligations, facilitation of assistance 

to ~eloping countries in building sustainable natural resource programs, administration of the 

conduct of research, coordination of trans-boundary programs and other obligations of the 

agency's mission all reach beyond the borders of this nation. The individual chosen for the 

leadership position in the agency should therefore possess not only substantial educational 

background and level of experience and understanding in the disciplines represented by his/her 

agency mission, but needs a comparable level of understanding and appreciation of the workings 

of the agency and the capabilities of its people. More frequently than not, career professionals 

in an agency possess this necessary mix of skills and talents that is so critical for success in not 

just the national, but also international arena. 

2. As an historical observation, only one President since President Eisenhower has 

served two full-terms. Therefore, it has been the rule (rather than the exception) that Federal 

agency heads have turned over as frequently a every four years. 'Ibis turnover creates gieat 

instability in programs, policies and budgets of federa! ,Jatural resource agencies which typically 

must have a lone-term focus. Although virtually every facet of our lives is being driven by 
115 

shorter deadlines, turnaround times, and demand for quicker response/instant gratifu:ation, we 

must not lose sight of the fact that I§J!OIIsible stewardshiP of our natural resources J'OQllires a 

lon&-tmn pmpectiye that crosses not only &enerations but. in many caw centuries. Federal 

agencies ~sible for the conservation of fish and wildlife, public lands and other natural 

resources must ensure that their programs and policies address the perpetuity of these resources 

beyond the tenure of agency heads. Professional career-service agency heads are more likely 

to have the appreciation for their agency's role in this and sensitivity to a long-term perspective 

than a political appointee. 

3. I have observed an increasing tendency to add people at the Department and 

Under Secretary level in natural resources agencies, and. to pull ~bility llllYiiiJI rather than 

delegate it downward. 'Ibis trend more often, it appears, results in these appointees spending 

more time trying to discern what the latest "Washington" thinking or spin on policy is, rather 

than focusing on meeting the agency mission o:t the ground of !lll!Jl8Cin& Jbe natural lJ';S()nrces 

under its juris!liction for the benefit of the citiz.ens of this NatiM. I believe that career-service 

agency heads are more likely to retain their fidelity to meeting on the ground objectives rather 

than trying to figure the latest "Washington" policy nuance. · 

4. Agency heads are under increasing attention and pressure from "special interest" 

organizations that have an interest in the management of public lands. Their modus operartdi 

is more often to seek resolution in Congress or the courts, rather than trying to satisfactorily 

reconcile differences/solve problems at the local level. Agency heads who come from careerservice ranks with experience in solving problems at the local level I believe wi!l have more of 

a tendency to delegate most solutions to that level rather than elevate those decisions to higher 

levels within the Administration, the Congress or the courts. As you know, most "real" 

solutions are found at the local level as a result of active involvement of all stakeholders. 

S. Finally, as is somewhat self-evident, a political appointee is generally more 

susceptible than a career-service professional to political pressure at the national or local level. 

Successfully dealing with that pressure is obviously part of an agency head's job, but I believe 

a career-service individual's grounding in the agency better positions him or her to address this 

pressure. Obviously the focus should be on serving the entire public rather than those who can 

exert the most political influence. 

Turning specific:ally tD HR246S, Mr. Chairman, I have a longstanding interest in the 

qualifications and management skills of people who head federal natural resource agencies. I 

would strea the need for successful management skills equally as much as their professional 

education and experience since placing individuals in agency leadership positions with little or 

no managerial background is simply asking for trouble. While generally speaking, I believe that 

agency heads should come from career-service ranks, as suggested by HR246S, I don't discount 

the fact that equally qualified Candidates may exist outside of career-service. Simultaneous 

consideration of candidates from both ranks by the President is probably the most desirable 

scenario. 
116 

HR246S provides for a term of five years with opportunity for reappointment for an additional 

three years. Let me suggest that particularly in the arena of natural resouri::e management, 

where a long-perspective is so vital, that a one time appointment of between 7-10 years may 

better provide the stability so necessary to shepherd a federal natural resource agency's agenda. 

This would also provide insulation from political changes in Administrations every four years. 

A variation of that theme would be a seven year ttinn with an extension of three years being 

permitted. There is a fair universe of professional management literature to suggest that 7-10 

years gives an agency head (or CEO) the stability to build and carry out a credible and 

successful program somewhat insulated from politiCal pressures or turnover, but is not 5o long 

that it thwarts or constrains new, fresh and creative thinking that organizations and agencies 

routinely need to revitalize themselves. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspectives with you, Mr. Chairman, and I would 

be pleased to address questions. 

3 
117 

~ lntematlonal Asaaclatlon of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

~ Hall of the States 

, 4U North CapitOl St. NW, Sutle 53-t. Washtngton, OC 20001 !202) 624· 7890 

R ~ax Petei'IOn. Eaecut•we V•c• Prea.oent 

lEST !.'I()NY WORt: THE I() USC: NIH l.UNAL. PAAKS llr() ~L.!C LJWlS SL6COI..,ITit:C: Oi' Tr£ HOUSC: 

•TERI~ Al'll L'ISUI..Aii Mi-"FA~ CiloiMITTEt: ANO THe: Si.JdCQior.~ITTE<: 

Otl n£ .:IVIL SERVICE t:F Ttt: ~5£ PUS T UFF .L-..:E 

~~ll CIVIL. SERV!t:E CXJ-1MlTTEt: 

oy R. ~ol3x Peterson, Exec:Jtive Vice i'resi~nt 

International ~ssoci1tion ~f Fisn and ~ildlife ~enci~s 

~pr il 5, l99u 

Mr. Oh1irman, 1 appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 

contribute to the dia~ abOut personnel prOCll!llls ana opportunities ;_ ,-, natural resource agencies. ln doing so, I loOk oaek over J7 l/2 years in 

the federal civil service. Since my retirement three years ago, 1 nave gained some perspective about personnel practices in the state and 

privata sector. 

!Itt. Chairman, as you knOw, tne International Association of Fish aM 

Wil:llife Agencies, wnieh I represent, was founded in 1902 and is a_ quasi-governm=ntal organization of public agencies cnarged witn tne 

protection and management of North America's fiSh and wildlife resources. The Association's gove~tal ~rs incluoe the fisn and 

wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments of 

the u.s., Canada, and 14exico. All 50 states are l!ll!mOers. The 

Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in 

protecting and managing fish ana wildlife and tneir naoitats in the 

public interest. 

First, let me state l!llll)hatically that, in my view, people working in 

natural resources today in tne Federal, state and private sector are better educated lnd -t are ~Y as dedicated to their task as triey were wnen· 1 ~ work in natural resources nore than 40 years ago. ln 

saying that, t:nolq\, I do not 111e1n to ~ly that all is well. There are a nunDer of probleiiiS, as well as C~AX~rtunities to illlprove the performance 

of natural resource agencJ.n ~ illlprovea persomel policies and 

practices. l .ftr.ly belieYe that the quality of people wno work in 

natural resources lnd their dedication to that work has a strong bearing on the CJ~ality of natural resources ~~~~~nagement and therefore our long-tem well being as a nation and as a world. Let me now turn to sane specific proolals lnd CIIIIOl'tWties as I see tnem. 

Natural resource IW!!QI!!!!!nt has bee ante increasingly complex. 

There are many reasons for this increased complexity. Sene 

~lexity results fraa inc:rused recogliticn of tne interreleticnship 

between soil, water, air, vegetatian, anJmals, fisn, wildlife and 

people. Anotner factor is the rapidly increasing -uses of our natural ·resources because of both incre~ populations and increased rates of 
118 

-2-

per capita ccnsumoti~1. t t~ same time ~e ~ave experienced increase~ 

use of our natural resources, cnere is a stron~ :remana to Keep sizeJc1e 

secpents of our natural resou"rces j ust as t.'1ey ue, oreserveo fc::-

enjo'(.:1ent of tnis and future generations. Both sustai neo use ana preservation are legitimate goals of society. rne professional 

freQuently is cau~1t in the miadle when nignly organized groups clasn ave:- no~< to manage resources in a particular area. 

~is complex natural resources situation requires the i nteracti on =f 

.nany different disci:;:~lines oecause no one :liscipline can nope to 

encompass the entire natural resources fiela. lnterdisci;:llinary analysis and interdisciplinary te•ns are the norm for natural resource management or today and tne future. 

Unfortunately, into tnis more complex, i nterdisciclinary world we launCh a ne>~ college graduate. Academic training, usually in a sin~ e 

oisci pl.L-.e, is likely to be very ted:lnical and researet1 oriented. lt may 

not provide any real train.L-.g ar understanding of interdisciplinary 

processes or the fact tnat ;~ecole as well as t.'le physical and biological sciences will influence resource management decisions. If you couple 

this with ~'1e fact that ~ny natural resource graduates grow up in uroan areas ~ere there is limited opportunity to interact with naturil resourees and tnerefore gain firsthand experience, it is no wonder that 

the transition rrom academic life to a field assignment in natural resources can be rather traumatic. 

~ther tnan lament the situation, it is oovious that agencies simply 

must realize the reality lind Plll'l accordingly. This dOes not mean it is not possiole to improve academic training but doing so is not easy given 

tne di ffert:nt and sa~~etinles contr•dictory goals for training. Specific 

orientation and lllP~tice proor- for employees which provide 

appraoriate on-tne-job training, coac:ning 3'ld mentoring ars essential. ~arly experience in the interdisciPlinary process is a necessity for 

successful perfor.."~Ce. Doing this in the first few IIIOI'Itns of employment can mean the difference between prOductive, hi\1'1 perfornli.ng, long-term 

employees or 1111ny disillusioned and resentful peaole ..no wUl leave tl'le 

organization. 

It ie not ,_. to this COI!Ilittee that natural resource 11111'18gement !'l3s becallll .incnuingly controversial, particularly during the last 20 

years. thee are ..,Y reasons for tnis increase in cantroversy, 

including the inczased QIA)lic awareness or natural resOUl'CII issues. 

Tnis has causec1 1ncreaMd political invol~t into decisions wn1c:n at one time were considllncl the donlllin of the professional natural resource manager. This increased political and ~Q~lic interest in natural resources can be constructive Wid beneficial. Unfortunately, the rise or single interest groups dldic:ated to Pl'CIIDting a particular resource or interest, and who use the press, the courts, the Congress and the 

Executive ttranc:n tr.. press their case , can raise what used to be • local, 
119 

professional natural :esource decision to a ~ational level controversy. 

Sor.letimes the OPPOSing si;les attaCK tr.e oojectivity, cre<ti>:lility o: even tne •rotiv~ of tnose professi"Cnals r!!SOOnsi::lle for tne oecisio". 

Tne net result of tnis level of :ontroversy is tnat ~ny ~ell 

au~lified natural resour~ professionals do not aspire to ~ey natural :esou:ce joos. A purely teChnical. or researcn oriented joe may seem more appedin?! 

l dO not nave many suggestions as to ..nat to dO to reduCe 

controversy. First, I tniA< we simply need to reco111ize· tna: controversy 

in natural resource decision lllllkinO -..ill .apparently oe a fact of life for tne roreseeaole future. Secono, I tl'liA< it is imoortant for ~ll of us, 

includi:'lg tnose at tne political level in tl'le Congress as well as tne t:xecutive Brancn, to seek to find cannon grollld for solutions to aiffii::ult natural resource probleiiS. I Oelieve you need to cnallenge 

those .no appear before · yo.1 to suggest solutions tl'lat serve all the 

people and not just tl'le1r particular clientele. We also may nave to loOk 

for ways to snield some natural resource decisions from tl'le political 

level, including tl'le Congress and naytle even from tl'le courts, in order to :Je sure tl'lat scientifically appropriate decisions are made. Tnis would mean Sor.le type of a scientific: panel or a professional review t:Joard 

rather tnan a court or tne Congress would be a more appropriate fon.m for at least making ff.ndings and reCCIIIIIa1dations on hi!lllY controversial 

n:ttural resource probleMS. 

Tr.e interrace between career :gressianals at tne tOP levels of a federal or state resourc:e a!!II!CY pallt!Cil executives nas oeen less tnan sat!srac:to;y. 

Let me auic:kly llllke two paints. First, I am not painting tr.e finger 

in just a1e direction. Botn the career professional and tl'le political 

executive snare the responsiollity for making that interface constructive 

and effective. A diiD:rlcy oy definition requires an interface t:Jet,.een 

elected leaders and the career force. Second, I rec:og'\ize there are many reasons for the c:ueer/political interface prOI)lem, lllhicn are spelled out in tne recent Volker eo.ission report, so I wlll only touc:h on a few. 

There is an Jnevitlble difference in tiM perspective of a career ;~rofessianal in a natural resourc:es agency wno sees the importance or 

long-tllftl trends lnd tne need tor c:ontit'W.ty in natural resources mana..,._,t. the political uecutiw lilcely will want to see some specific: neults attributsDle to his or her tina in ottice. That type or tension can be c:anatructiw bec:aUH it can lead to some positive tnings 

oeing aCCCIIIPlllhed. The reverse 1.1\fortu'lately happenS Usa. The rapid turnover or political executives at tne FecJera1 level, now averaging less tnan two years, _. tnat tne political-career interface can oe in a state or constant tur!M)U. 

A second problela - is tnat a typical piOJ.itical executive is in nis or ner llliddle to late ·tnirtias witn little or no experience or training 

in natural resourc:<is. Typically sucn political executives .provide line 
120 

-4-

s;.~pervisicn ave:- progr.ams near1ee :Jy car~r peopl~ witn 20, ;;u o: ;,or~ years of ~xcerience plus ;uostantial aca~mic oac~grouno in natural resources. To put it !llil:!ly, tnis is not a recilll! for oovious succ~ss! 

l~ my view, the Assistant Secret3ry level is t~e critical level i~ 

federal aqcnc!es. People in those joDs are tne key representatives =' tne new l~i~ist~ation. From my ooservation during several feoeral 

a.,.inistrations, little appar~t tnougnt is given to the! education, 

training and experience of !lliny ~le at tne ~sistant Secretary leve! 

supervisinc;J t=eaeral natural resource prognms. Tr~ey snare one conrnon trait -- very few nave had either education or traini~ in natural resources. 

lldeguate fundS have not been available to fll'ld natural resource proiEams and funalng ?or salaries and trarntng of people nas oeen a .ser ous prooiem. 

l.hfortll'lately, the proporticn of tne Federal bUdget devot~ ~ 

natural resources nas :Jeen cut in half in tne last deCade. ~Uny state budgets have followed t.'1at trend. IN! certainly c.mot expect to enjoy 

the benefits or a resource secure future if we are not willing to provide 

the ne"cessary floflding. 

14ost people 1 know enoarked cn natural resource careers, not oecause they expected to tlecome riCh, but tlecsuse tney were attracted to the type 

of worK involved and were dedicated to tne future of natural resources. There is certainly ccntinuing evidence that those reascns still crevail 

for people now entering natural resource careers. In spite or that 

general mot1vat1cn, there are some ~stantial crooleat areas. First, 

there are saNt extremely hi"' cost areas aro..nc1 the ~try suCh as some metroi)Olitan areas and resorts wnere the cost or living is simply not witnin reascn, particularly for lower level professianal, tecnnician and 

clerical ~loy-. Sane type or locality pay- like the cnly 

reasonable soluticn to that protJl•. l.hless this is dane, we will 

ccntirue to - hi"' and costly turnover as well as inaDllity to recruit 

qualified people tor SUCh loeaticns. · 

The second put or tl'lia protJl• area is the tendlncy in recent years at both the Federal and state level to retroactively rewite salary or benefit Nl• to the disadvantage or long-tem enployees. This apparent 

breacn or faith hal eclvuM cans~, not cnly tor tnose directly 

arteeted, 11ut spills ovu to ~ger aaployees and even to tnosa wno are ccnsiderJno a Federal or state natural resource career. Let me mention 

just • caupla. In the 1986 Federal Tax Rerom Act, tne cnly retroactive 

provisicn wu arw that Chlngecl tne tax treae-"lt tor federal IIIPloyees' 

c7~tr1Dut1cn to tnei.r ntu-t plan. n. second en.nge - tne decisicn to 1111laterally 1111ea federal aaployea ..aicere eligible and 

t."'erefore S~mjec:t to a large 118dieare tax, even tnolq\ tne coverage was not needed by nttre... Third, in recent years the principle or coq:llrability bet_, .!)lAllie and private sector jabs hal sillply been 

lblrldaniCI and 1 ... than cost or living allawances have been tne rul~. 
121 

Successful perforrilanc~ ;~t UDDer levels re~uires :Jroad exoer ience 3na train~n~ ·mile opcortun~tles to orov~ae tnat ~acKgrouno ue rnore odf!cu t. 

Agency and personal costs or transfers nas orarnatically increased. ~ 

typical transfer costs $40,000. Tile typical tlOfo-career family nas i~creJsed t:-.e personal cost of rnoves and maKes tne move more difficult 

for all concer"'eO. lt is tnererore obVious tnat agencies will :-.ave :o •reet future training neeas "itn fewer transfers. In some cases temoora::y 

assigYnents, details or cross tnining tt tne same location can be usee to reduce transfers. There is no so.ilstitute for a variety of joo assignments. Tne reality or tne two-career family simply must :Je 

addressed. I believe this means assistance in job placement for tne 

spouse, as well as some rela~tion or nepotism and otner personnel rules 

to nelp ratner tnan hinder transfer or two-career families. 

High quality performance during one tdministration can become 1 

liability when the administration cnanges. 

Hi!11 performing people may actually ae suspect with ~ new administration. Career professionals are expected to be responsive to 

tne current administration. Presidents going back to Eisenhower nave ceen critical or tne lack of responsiveness by the career bureaucracy. 

Ironically, responsivenen to the policies or one administration may oe a so.ilstar-tial liability in a succeeding administration. Tnere are, of 

course, some practical realities. An incoming administration m1!1lt be 

uncomfortable with a person in a key position wno, in a previous aaninistration, actively supported a position that is different from tne one desired by tilis administration. Certainly tne career professional, as well as tne incoming administration, SllcW.d recognize those situations 

and look for constructive solutions that dO not simply assign tne cart!er 

executive to tne •turkey ram• or to early retirement. 

Tne creation of tne Senior Executive Service by tne Civil Service · Reform Act or 15179 -t, at this point, be viewed •ith some Skepticism. 

As a cnarter llaliler of the Senior Executive Service, 1 witnessed, 

firstnand, oath· tne prmlise lnCI the reality. To 111e personally, tne 

Senior Executive Service was beneficial. I ~ly received bonuses 

and did not experience the negativn reported by otherS. Even tncM;I 1 

personally benefii:ICI trill the Senior Executive Service, I reluctantly 

concluded that tnen are several things that snoul.d be elCIIIIined. For ex~e, the fixed lJaits on tne percentage of SES IIII!IIGers .no can receive ocn.es, I believe, are WWly restricti'lll ancl at times detract 

from the eea.ork the IQIIICY -t nave in its top levels to perform effectively. The pncDiinlnt practice of the private sector is to reward a IIIUd'l hi~r percentage at tne 141118r level with bonuSes, even thOu!)'l the 

amount of the ba1us ai~t vary c:onaideriDly Dy indiviClla~s. In tact, tne 

current practice 1n private inll!stry ~ars to be that if 1 ~~~~n~g~r or executive dOes not get • bonus, ne or sne snould be looking ror 1n0tner 

job. 
122 

-6-

A second Problem in the Seni or ~xecutive Service is tne creation of 3 

raN<less system ""ere ill se:~ior executi ve joos ue seen ~s equal. 

Ollt~oul,ll'l theoreti::ally p.Jtterr..ed after tne military ><itn t~e 

ra~ -in-person concept, in practice tne Seni or Executi ve Service wor s 

just the opposite. There is no differentiation. T~ oe si milar to tne 

military would require jobs to oe chssi fie'J ~t a particular grade •i:,., t~e a~ility to assign a person one level acove or one level ~elow tnat 

grade t~ ;;ne position . 

. ~cardinal theory wnen tne Senior Executive Service was createo .as the concept tnat the sl!!lior executive •auld oe better rew11rded ano " 

return would have somewhat less job security. In practice tne compression in upper level salaries n:~s meant that the senior executive 

receives less jOb security but" not really increased pay. The recent a roved increase in SES salaries althOu oeserved has createo anotner s1~1 cant protl sn. lo!ost sen or execut1ves s y cannot ar oro to re~re snort of the three years service at the higher level salary. Tnis is already affecting retirements and dll likely create a significant 

:"li atus in the upward movement of people within the federal system. A way 

to address this problem at reasonacle cost mi~t be to base retirement 

salaries on the salary tnat woulo have oeen received •ithout the salary compression. This would apply to all or those Who had an asterisk .cesioe 

their salary · level in salary tables. I recognize that to do so would 

taKe a change in the law bUt would ~e a way to de3l with the situation at 

reasonable cost. It might, in fact, save money if the cost or stagnation could be ccr.~PUted. · 

There is a clear need to s~lify, streamline ~nd make more understanaallle the r.rsomel pO des and pracb.ces tnat apply to 

PlfSCi'Viel ffiihiQI#Ii!i I • 

Since tne bulk of my experience has ~ in the federal sector, let me direct my comments to that level. I oelieve the principles will apply 

to others • 

. Ulfortunately, during my career I saw the persomel laws, regulations 

and "*luals expand to the point Where only personnel specialists could even keep UP witri thin!, let. alone understand the ramifications. At one point the Forest service Net one perscrnelist for eacn 60 I!IIIPloyees. 

Enormous IIIIIU'Its of tilll were spent in such non-ptoOJc:ti ve taSks as writing, rewriting, clasirying and reclassifying ~ary employees. Proressianal personnel people were as frustrated as anyone else by the 

need to dlltenline the ~that applied rather than what made sense. 

It mi~t be a r.l challenge if there was a real life project to 

throw out all .or the personnel direction except a fn basic laws WhiCh 

include principles tnat a llllll'lager or executive is expected to follow. We 

mi!11t be generous and say that UP to 100 pages can be used to provide 

this direction if n.:essary! The net result would certainly De · personnel 

policies that would be read by ~loyees, ID'Iilgers and executives and it 

would do nuch to •demystify• present practices. 
123 

-7-

TMre seems to !le an insati:JDle appetite oy l'ligher levels of 

management to cont.i.nue to manage the oetalls of suoor.:ti.nate parts of tne 

organization. The proliferation of single purpOse organizations wnicn l 

m!ntioned e1rlier and the information explosion nas increased tne 

tendenCy and opportl.llity for 1'11!11er levels to ti~ten tne •control noose" 

to ti1e point .-here on-tne-gr01.11d resource people spent an inordinate 

amo1.11t of tneir time reporting, justifying ana completing various process 

requirements. · 

In 15185 the Forest Service 1.1\dertook a "Pllot program• to 

deliberately give ·add1tianal respansiDility and authority to selected 

field units, including more control over now fi.IIClS were spent. cne of 

the reasons we did this on a pilot basis was that we simply could not secure broader approval. Lest you thin< I 8111 painting tne finger uPWard 

only, let me paint OJt that our experience indicated tnat many of tne 

constraints nad been placed by tl'le Forest Service itself and sometimes by 

local and regional offices. Otners were in rules of ni!11er levels sucn as tne Department, IMl, IJ'M, GSA or by the Congress. Tnose pilot efforts 

proved conclusively that it you give subordinate 1.11its more freedOIII, they 

.-w find many innovative ways to ~ve prOCU:tivity and resulting 

public service. To llllke tnis work, thoul71 1 Congress will nave to ce a partner and will nave to be willing to exercise less control and 

micromanagement over aginey activities. This does not necessarily mean less oversi~t. It mi~t .an increaSed oversi~t including field 

visitations cy the cawaittee. 

I expect tl'le ca.ittee would ce surprised ir I did not address the 

subject of POlitical IPPOintees witnin natural resaurce agencies. Let me make it clear, ~. that I • not talking about a particular 

administration or a partic:ulu political party. The trend to appoint political agency '-ell a even otner 1pcecut1ves ~ IIW18gers below tne agency '*d I'IU ~ in wtt view en 1.11fort1.11ate trend over tl'le last 20 

years. IIW'I I begin work tor the Forest Service, all of the major 

Feoeral ..s state natural raource agencies were headed by career prof-icnals. At the Fecleral level. that included tne Forest Service, 

Soil Conlervatian SuvU., National Park Service, ~reau ot l..and 

Management, Filh a Wildlife Service, u.s. Geological Survey ana Agricultural Research Service. Today only the Forest Service nas been 

consistently headed by a career professional. At the state level, the 

situation is mixed but career professional positions suctt as the director 

of fitl'l n game or the state forester may or lillY not be a prOfessional 

today. 
124 

-8-

I camot, of course, claim ccmolete oojectivity on tnis suoj ect! ... e, me at least mal<e a few points. l consill~r si·;ll'li flcant in any rationil 

ex3mination of tne question. 

There is obviously a need for 3 C3reer ~rofessional/political 

executive i~terface in puolic aQencies. At tne Feoeral level, I beli eve · it can oe ~emonstrated that the most ~onstructive interface nas oeen :Juilt over time if tne agency nas unquestioned professional orientati on and expertise out responsive to the electorate thrOIJ!1l politically 

appointed executives. The aQency tr.en is a dependable servant of all :"e people and not in advocate for a particular ;xllitical party or administration. 

Political appointments of agency heads and immediate suoordinate 

levels inevitaoly leads to political appointments throughout tne organization. This can -be demonstrated as being the net result over time. The net result is confusion, personnel reluctant to make tougn 

deci sions oecause of potential political repercussions, ana an opening of 

the agency policies and procedures to political manipulation. 

we are increasingly reco!1'1izing the importance of agency culture to its lon;~-term performance. The culture or accepteo norm in natural resource organizations for many years was that those who performed well 

could aspire to any job in the organization includino the top ones. Even 

thourl\ few people will reaCh tnat level, tne possillility remains a .positive force. 

It is tough to make difficult natural resource decisions if you are unsure of ..tlether you will receive biiCI<ing. As stated earlier in my 

testimony, n1.111erous natural resource decisions are ~ex and 

controversial. The person making the decision needs to have a conmit:nent to the best decision in the public interest, not the Olcision that "ill 

be politically popular or will oe sustained tly someone wnose primary concern is the political ranlifications. 

The long-term creditlllity of decisions made in a natural resource ag~~ney is illportMt to all tnose ccnc:emed with -tainatlle lono-term 

natural resource ..,.gllll8nt. Experiences indicau that the p~lic's 

acceptance or cllcisiona can be Si!1'11ficantly \nOIIrllined if tnose making 

the decision are lr4alified or demonstrate primary alle~iance to 

politics ratner tn.n resource r.llll&gament. 

I have dlliberately tried to address this ~tion without reference to exuples or to a particulu adllinistration. In rwy viaw this is a generic (JieStion ana does not relate to a particular acR!nistration. 

To make the 1'11C01:d COIIIPlete, I snould indicate that I dO not favor 

sUCh arrangaments as lllkinQ agency heads directly responsible to the 

President or same otner exotic arranglllllll'1t whicn, in tne long pull, rnay 

be CO\IIterproc11c:tive.. It snould t1e obvious to all that no President can supervise all the people and organizations that currently report to nim. 
125 

-~-

In tne real "arlo maKing an agency ~e30 report ::Jirect to t~e Presi oen: ·•oul:l mean some staffer in tne nhi te House •auld draw tne supervisory ~esponsl.llility . I tnir'< it is· far· prefe a~le to keep tnat ~esponsi:lil i. y 

witn a caoinet officer. 

As a positive step, I "auld sugge:;t consioeration ce given to (1) estaolis~ing stronger qualifications for top executives in natural resource agencies and ( 2) providi ng for single term appoi~t nents of, say 

7 years, for agency neaos. As you "ill recall, tne neao of tne Fai ~as • 10 year term appointment. · 

Natural resource a~cies must in tne future deal witn a mucn diverslheo workforce nterms of dlscJ.phnes, races, sex and national 

origJ.n. 

I nave seen a considerable amount of handwringing and apprenension 

about projections wnieh snow a dramatic change in the future "orKforce. 

Tnere are, dtnout doubt, some si!11ificant proolems and opportunities 

anead . 

Let me first talk about some of the opportunities. I believe a diversified workforce much more representative of our society by race, 

culture, sex ana national· origin is something we snoulo "elcome. I nave suggested early retirement to some .. no had great problems with tnis 

pending change. It will, in fact, happen. The real question is how oo •e get from here to there in a way that is constructive and reasonably 

equitable to all concerned. 

There is a long list of real life reasons why natural resource al)el'lcies have been slow in attracting, recruiting and retaining women and 

minorities, for e~e, in adequate nUiilers to make more rapio Changes 

in statistics. Realction in the total workforce of natural resource agencies during the last decade has substantially aggravated tne proolem. 

Let me further state tnat I firmly believe in progress, not excuses. The real question is now nuch progress and at what price? I would favor an honest commttment to setting S or 10 year goals f'or sustained progress 

and I would even favor providing scne additional tools to mnagers to make sucn progras. The first opportunity for progress would be existing 

eq,loyees. whO, with - training and some relaxation of qualifications, 

standardl IIICI entry levels, could move up. In many organizations 

minorities IIICI ._.. •Y be present in adequate nlftlers bUt concentrated at lower grades. An aggressive program to identify il'1d train those 

educationally disaclventaQIOUS but capable employees would be an excellent 

investlla'lt. In tl'lll IIUicet for college trained people and for promotions, 

almost every agency is lOOking tor qualified wanen and minorities but 

theoretically ue pursuing equality of I!IIIPloyt~~ent. The obvious tilt 

towirdl wanen IIICI lllinorities has made many o-ople resentful ·ana 

disillusioned. It has rnade hignly capable wanen end minorities feel tnat their ~loyment or ..U deserved promotion has been discounted or diluted by a perception that it was gained Decause of favoritis• rather 

than merit. 
126 

-loI am al•ays in fav.or of t:leing acove ooard and nonest in such 

situations. Let us searcn for .solutions rec:ogtizing tnat a diversHieo 

workforce is a desir:a:~le goal b•Jt 1 t dll tii<e some time to get tnere. If necessary, mayce assign preference points just like •e did for 

veterans? At least people would understand tne rules of tne game. 

l..et -ne end my presentation by listing a few tlli:1gs wnicn I :Jelieve are i~portant if natural resource agencies are to attract, develop ano retain top ·~uality people. 

1. Provide an organizational culture wnere professionalism, 

confidence, ll'oCilic service, integrity n nutual respect are nurtureo an::1 

recogn izeo. 

2. Give people an opportu'lity to meaningfully participate in natural resource decisions. Ideally this Should extend from tne top to tne bottan of tne organization. 

3. Encourage imovation, new ideas ~ new approacnes to · old 

proolems. Encourage delegation of resource deCisions to the lowest 

practical level wne~ the rulities of the on-the"9rould resource situation can be envisioned. Avoid second pssing those decisions or hi~er levels. 

4. ~ze contributions of !lOth J.ndiviOJals and ta- wno perform 

well. tlotn IDOI'IIItary and ~tary award systsns need to oe keot 

s~le and ~legated so tnat recogtition can be readily related in a timely way to perf~. 

5. Seek out, ~agl and COU\sel tnose whO ~strate leaderShip capa;:~llity to prepan to IICW8 up to hi!J181' levels of responsibility. 

ironically it is not necenarlly thOle who !lave the greatest capaollity 

..no seek to 1110ve up. In fiCt, it •Y be the penon wno 11 fully 

cl'lallenged and occupi.cl by the pr...,t Job lrld who 11 doing outstanding 

"'ark ..no wW be reluct1nt to IIIMI on. 

6. Interc:Nngi pecple betw.~ hea~rten lrld field levels to 

improve t-=tc and curnnt 161dentlnding of raource issues. Q..lite 

candidly, if' it 1a poeaibla to IIICMt CSi:ecUy to ~ly SOiq\t-efter jobs 

in the f'J.eld witnaut going ~ ~ 111'1111 regional or h•~arters 

usi~ta, .ny wW adopt that strategy. The net result is thet upper 

levels are dlprived of' the service of' 101111 of' its tint people lnCI 

hea~ wW bec:me ~ ~na nme insulated frail the reality of' the 

field raource situetia\. 

7. Expect and dllllnd integrity, responsiveness rtd hi~ ~llty 

pertorm~r~Ce. Poor perf'- tl\at is not CIUlt witrl ~ corrosive 

to the agency and seta a nw nora of' .adioc:rity. 1 include in this 

category the need to deal witrl ~thical, 1llegal or other perf'~ 

that is not up to nuanabla standlrdl. l.hf'artu1ately, tl'lil saf'~dl 

~'!let have oeen put in place over the lnt 2D yean to protect IIIPloyees 'ha~ been used by bOtrl ..wgers lrld eiiiPloyees as 1n eJCCUse ·not to ~al 
127 

-11-

..,itn poor performance. l oelieve tne case can oe maoe for rrucn simoler 

procedures to witnnolo witnin ·grade increases, 3!'10 to suspeno or reassign people 10110 have clearly not performed ana to remove thOse whO oo not 

respond to counseling. 

a. Ret.'1ink procec1Jres for selecting managers and executives to 

include peer 111d possioly sLbordinate ratings. Sucn systems have :J::cn 

used . for a long time in research evaluation. Herbert Kauf'llan in his 

classic OOOk on tne forest ranger PD.inted o~t that peer and sl.bor:Unate revi~ can reflect quite accurately the performance of a manager. The 

current system of evaluation :Jf managers and executives relies heavily on t~ perception of nigher level .supervisors ..no may oe separated 

geographically. I am a"are of at least some situations wnere a person managed to lOOk good to a hi111er level supervisor -nile violating most :Jf 

the basic principles for management of the group tnat he or she "as 

responsible for. 

9. The current reward systems for natural resource people is in need 

of updating to reflect t:ne current "orkforce and IIIW'agement situation. l 

believe there is increasing recognition tnat a manager or executive 

should be evitluated oased on t:ne perform.~ce of t:ne entire group rather 

than the individual perceived performance by the manager or executive. 

The manager or elCIIcutive establistles the culture of the part of the 

organization for ..nich he or she is responsible. The ability to 

establiSh and maintain a proc1Jctive culture that utilizes the best 

talents of the entire team in most cases is more important than how smart or talented the manager may be. There is increasing recc111i tion in 

medicine and · science and even in manufacturing that rewarding group perforrn."~ce tends to tlUUd an esprit de corps and teamwork -nien 

increases the productivity of a group. 

Let me, in closing, reeft!Qhasize my opening conment. t>eople entering 

natural resource careers today are better educated than they were 110 

years ago ..nen I beg~W~ work. Nltural resource professions today are more cc~licated, there is more controversy and there is less respect for the 

professional .no is dedicated to the long-term resource situation. The 

degree to which we attract; retain and utilize the skills of hi!t' quality people in natural resources will, to a large degree, deterllline our own resource future. · 

Thank you, Mr. Dlairllln for this opporb.nity to share ideas with the cam~ittee. I will be tappy to respond to questions you may have. 
128 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

. omce of Inspector General 

Testimony of 

Wilma A. Lewis, Inspector General, 

on the Audit of Special Use Fees, 

National Park Service, 

and on H.R. 2025, 

Proposed Amendmenta to the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act of 1965 

Before the 

Subcommittee on 

National Parka, Foresta, and Landa, 

Commltt .. on Reaourcea, 

U.S. House of Repreaentatlves 

October26,1995 
129 

I am pleased to be here today to comment on a proposed Amendment to Section 4 of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 .contained in H.R. 2025. I have been asked 

to provide testimony on the portion of the proposed legislation that would permit the National 

Park Service to collect and retain fees for nonrecurring commercial or nonrecreational uses 

of Park System units. The views that I will express are based principally on the results of 

audits conducted by the Office of Inspector General that address the establishment, collection, 

and accounting for fees by the, National Park Service in analogous contexts. 

In February of this year, the Chairman of this Subcommittee requested a review by the Office 

of Inspector General of the Park Service's implementation of its authority under the fiscal 

year 1994 Appropriations Act to recover and retain costs for special use activities. The 

Subcommittee requested that we review how this authority was implemented at five parks 

(Grand Canyon National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Santa 

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and Y~mite National Park); the basis used 

at each park for establishing permit fee levels; how each park accbunted for the revenues 

generated; and how the revenues were expended, including whether they were expended in 

support of the purposes for which they were collected. We expan4ed the scope of our review 

to include eight additional parks (Assateague Island National Seashore, Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area, Gateway National Recreation Area, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore, 

Statue of Liberty National Monument, and Zion National Park), which we selected based 

011 the reported revenues for special use fees for fiscal year 1994. These 13 parks reported 

about $2 million in special use fees for fiscal year 1994, which accounted for about 53 percent 

cf the approximately $3.8 million of special use fees reported by the Park Service for that 

year. 

Based on our audit, we concluded that the Park Service did not implement its authority to 

collect and retain fees for special park uses in a consistent manner. There were inconsistencies 

among the parks regarding: (1) the types of activities that were subject to a fee; (2) the bases 

for determining the amount of the fee; and (3) the use of fee revenues. In addition, we 

identified deficiencies in the controls for collecting and/or accounting for fee revenues at 

4 of the 13 parks we reviewed. Accordingly, there was no assurance that the appropriate 

amount of fees was being collected. · 

We believe that these types of problems, which also were identified in prior audits, stem 

principally from the absence of clear and specific guidance by the Park Service in these areas. 

Such guidance (which the Park Service is in the process of developing through revisions to 

its internal guidelines), relia:ble accounting systems, and effective program oversight are critical 

to the ~ccessful implementation of a fee and cost recovery program such as the one contained 

in H.R. 2025. 

iLR. ZOU - The proposed iunendn:lent to Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act, on which we were asked to comment, would add the following new section 4(o): 
130 

(o) Fees for Commercial Nonrecreational Uses.- Utilizing the 

criteria established in section 4( d) (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a( d)), the 

Secretary of the Interior sball establish reasonable fees for nonrecurring commercial or non-recreational uses of National Part 

System units that require special arrangements, including permits. 

At a minimum, such fees will cover all costs of prOviding 

necessary services associated with such use, except that at the 

Secretary's discretion, the Secretary may waive or ~educe such 

fees in the case of any organization using an area within the 

National Park System for activities which further the goals of. 

the National Part Service. Receipts from such fees may be 

retained at the part unit in which the use takes place, and remain 

available, without further appropriation, to cover the cost of 

prOviding such services. The portion of such fee which exceeds 

the cost of prOviding necessary services associated with such use 

shall be deposited into the National Part Renewal Fund. 

Our concerns with this provision are best illustrated by the problems identified in our audit 

on special use fees. Accordingly, I will highlight some of the problems cited in our audit 

report and offer suggestions designed to prevent or limit similar occ:Urrences under the fee 

program contained in the proposed legislation. 

Types of Activities Subject to Fees - The 1994 and earlier Appropriations Acts, which 

authorized the recovery and retention of special use fees, did not describe the types of 

activities subject to such fees. This approach left the Part Service responsibile for identifying 

those particular activities that fit within the scope of the general description set forth in the 

legislation. In the absence of specific guidance from the Part Service, bowever, individual 

part units were left to their own discretion to identify those activities for which fees would 

be charged. This resulted in differing interpretations among the parts. For example: 

- Six parts issued permits for backcountJy camping, but only Canyonlands National 

Park collected fees for reservations and issuance of the permits, which totaled $63,530 in 

fiscal year 1994. 

- Gateway National Recreation Area issued 3,621 parting permits for fishing that 

a.llowed access to off-road and other areas where public access is normally restricted. It did 

not collect any fees for this special use. In similar circumstances, A,ssateague Island charged 

a $40 annual fee for off-road access and collected $209,440 in fiscal year 1994. 

We see the potential for this same type of inconsistency in the proposed legislation for fees 

for commercial or nonrecreational uses. The ability of the part units to retain funds to cover 

the costs of prOviding services associated with such uses likely will result in the identifieation 

of numerous potential fee situations. To ensure consistency among the various part units, 

while allowing for the necessary flexibility to accommodate different activities among the 

2 
131 

parks, the Park Service should be required to identify the major commercial or nonrecreational 

activities for which fees would be charged, and t!> provide S!lfficiently specific guidance to 

permit individual park units to apply the guidance to related activities not identified by the 

Park Service. 

Furthermore, the proposed legislation itself requires clarification in that the heading of Section 

4(o) refers to fees for commercial nonrecreational uses wliiie the body of the Section refers 

to fees for commercial Q! nonrecreational uses. Commercial uses that are also recreational 

would qualify under the latter description, but not under the former. 

Establishing Fees- The proposed legislation identifies the criteria in Section 4( d) of the l...alld 

and Water Conservation Act as the bases upon which. the Secretary of the Interior is charged 

with establishing reasonable fees. · Section 4(d), with its proposed amendment, provides: 

All fees established pursuant to this section 'shall be fair and 

equitable, taking into consideration the direct and indirect cost 

to the Government, the benefits to the recipient, the public policy 

or interest served, the (X)Diparable fees charged by other public 

and private entities, the economic and administrative feasibility 

of fee collection and other pertinent factors . . . . 

It is the intent of this part that comparable fees should be 

charged by the several Federal agencies for comparable services 

and facilities. 

In the context of special use fees, we found that the parks varied considerably in the methods 

they used to establish fees. Specifically, 5 parks (Grand Canyon National Park, Santa Monica 

Mountains National'RecreationArea, Yosemite National Park, Statue of Liberty National 

Monument, and Zion National Park) used cost data; 3 parks (Assateague Island National 

Seashore, Gateway National Reereation Area, and .Yellowstone National Park) used 

comparability studies; 3 parks (Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area, and Point Reyes National Seashore) used appraisals; and 2 parks 

(Canyonlands National Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area) used the "collective 

judgment and experience" of their personnel. 

In addition, fees varied among the parks, and were not always set at the appropriate level 

or adequately supported, given the method selected by the park unit. For example: 

- Golden Gate cOllected daily location use fees for commercial filming and accepted 

donations ranging from $50 to $6,600 based on the specific filming location; three parks 

charged a daily monitoring fee of $300; six parks charged actual monitoring costs; and three 

parks did not charge a fee. 

3 
132 

- Assateague Island considered the annual rates charged by the States of Delaware 

($50) and New Jersey ($100) in establishing its off-road vehicle permit fee of $40. YeUowstone 

performed a comparability study of the fishing license fees charged by surrounding states 

before it established its fishing permit fees. However, YeUowstone coUected $5 for a 7-day 

permit and $10 for an annual permit, whereas the comparables ranged from $13 to $24 for 

an annual fishing license. Neither park could support the basis for setting the fees at rates 

lower than those at comparable locations. · 

- Grand Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains, Yosemite, Statue of Liberty, and Zion 

charged fees that were designed to recover the direct costs of personal services, utilities, waste 

management, administrative activities, and management reviews that were aSsociated with 

the special uses. However, the parks did not have adequate support for how they computed 

the fees and did not include indirect costs for program direction and administrative support. 

Based on findings of this nature, we concluded that existing Park Service guidance did not 

provide sufficient direction to assist employees at individual park units in determining when 

to use the cost or market approach in establishing the special use fees, the types of costs 

to include in the calculation of fees, ·or the documentation necessary to support fee 

determinations. This conclusion was very similar to one reached in a November 1988 audit 

report entitled "User Charges and CoUections, National Park Service" (No. 89-22), where 

we also found that the Park Service's user fee program suffered from insufficient5ervicewide 

guidance and oversight, including a lack of guidance on fee determination and cost finding 

techniques. Further, in an analogous context, we found similar pr~lems. In our September 

1994 audit report entitled "Concessions Management, National Park Service" (No. 94-1-1211 ), 

we concluded thllt the Park Service needed to develop and implement consistent policies 

and procedures to ensure that the Federal Government was receiving fair value for 

concessions. 

In the absence of sufficient guidance from the Park Service, the proposed legislation could 

result in the same types of problems in the determination of fees for commercial or 

nonrecreational uses. Indeed, a prominent feature of the amendment at issue is that it 

requires that fees, at a m~imum, cover aU costs of providing necessary services associated 

with the uses, unless otherwise waived by the Secretary of the Interior. Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A-25, "User Fees," provides guidance for Federal agencies to use in 

determining full cost and market prices for fee situations. The Department of the Interior 

provides additional Departmental cost recovery policy and guidelines to assist its bureaus 

and offices in identifying various elements of direct and indirect costs. However, in order 

to ensure that the costs for commercial or nonrecreational uses are rec<JI(ered in a consistent 

manner among the various park units, the Park Service would need to provide detailed 

guidance through an update of its own .internal manual. Moreover, the variety and nature 

of the factors that can be taken into account in establishing fees under Section 4(d) would 

seem to make the need for Servicewide gUidance even more critical. 

4 
133 

Collecting and Accounting for Fees - Regarding internal control procedures for collecting 

and accounting for revenues generated from special use permits, 9 of the 13 parks that we 

reViewed for our audit of special use fees had implemented adequate controls. The nine 

parks deposited the receipts into special accounts established for special use revenues and 

used either prenumbered or sequentially numbered receipts or bills for collection to ensure 

that all funds were accounted for. Deficiencies identified at the remaining four parks included: 

not ensuring that all special use fees were paid; not ensuring that permit fees were actually. 

collected and deposited into the proper account; not reconciling receipts to the permits issued 

or to deposits; and not ensuring that receipts were deposited timely. 

The U.S. Treasury has issued guidance on collecting and accounting for fees. This guidance, 

which the Department of the Interior has incorporated into its Manual for Financial 

Management, provides detailed instructions and internal control procedures for collecting, 

safeguarding, and depositing public funds such as entrance fees or user fees. The 

Departmental Manual also has incorporated guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury and the 

General Accounting Office on acCounting for and reviewing the controls over public funds. 

This guidance provides detailed instructions regarding how the funds are to be recorded in 

the accounting records and requirements for periodic reviews of those records by management 

Considering the vast amount of guidance already issued on collecting and· accounting for fees, 

we do not believe that the Park Service needs to create any additional guidance in these areas. 

However, the Park Service will need to ensure that the guidance is followed by incorporating 

relevant portions into its own internal manual, ensuring that personnel at the individual park 

units receive sufficient training in the proper procedures for collecting and accounting for 

fees, and providing necessary program oversight 

Expending Fee Revenues- The Subcommittee requested that we determine how special use 

revenues were spent, including whether they were spent in support of the purposes for which 

they were collected. We identified inconsistencies among the parks in this regard. Of the 

13 parks, 6 parks (Grand Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Gateway 

National Recreation Area, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National 

Seashore, and Yosemite National Park) spent special use fee receipts to support the activity 

that generated the revenue. Of the remaining seven parks, Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area spent fee revenues from filming on any special use activity; Yellowstone 

National Park, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Zion National Park, 

Assateague Island National Seashore, and Statue of Uberty National Monument spent the 

revenues for general park purposes in addition to the special use activity; and Lake Mead 

had not spent any of the revenues collected from special use fees at the time of our review. 

In addition, we found that 11 of the 13 parks reviewed carried over unobligated revenues 

totaling $331,864 to fiscal year 1995. 

We believe that the inconsistencies among the parks regarding the types of activities on which 

special use fees could be spent were caused by the lack of specificity in the Appropriations 

Acts, which do not explicitly address how special use permit revenues can be used or whether 

unobligated funds can be carried over to the next fiscal year. The Park Service has interpreted 

5 
134 

this authority, based on the advice of the Office ofthe Solicitor, to allow the parks to use 

special use permit revenues for general park operations and to carry over unobligated funds 

to the next fiscal year. 

The proposed statutory language for fees for commercial or nonrecreational uses states that 

receipts from such fees may be retained at the park unit in which the use takes place and 

that the fees remain available, without further appropriation, to cover the cost of providing 

$UCh services. Fees in excess of what is necessary to cover the cost of services associated 

with the particular use are to be deposited into the National Park Renewal Fund to be 

expended as further defined in the statute. We believe that the increased specificity in the 

proposed legislation regarding the expenditure of fee revenues should serve to prevent the 

uncertainty and inconsistency in this area found in our audit of special use fees. 

The proposed legislation is clear that fees must be associated with the particular commercial 

or nonrecreational use that generated the fee. We caution, however, that the specificity of 

the statute, in this respect, necessitates that the park units create a separate accounting 

mechanism for each commercial or nonrecreational use. 

Overall Assessment- The issue of collecting.fees for park uses has been the subject of several 

audits by our office over the years. Our May 1988 report entided "User Fees at Three 

National Park Service Units" (No. 88-74) concluded that a favorable economic return could 

be achieved with the collection of entrance fees at Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

and Cape Hatteras.National Seashore. ·In the report, we recommended that the necessary 

action be taken to collect entrance fees at those two parks as well as fees for off-road vehicles 

at Cape Hatteras. Our November 1988 audit report entided "User Charges and Collections" 

(No. 89-22) and our March 1993 report entided "Recreation Fee Charges and Collections" 

(No. 93-1-793) also urged increased utilization of fee recovery programs by recommending 

that appropriate action be taken, including through legislative relief, to expand the collection 

of entrance fees and fees for various special use activities .. 

The proposed legislation is consistent with this Office's previously expressed recommendations 

in analogous contexts to expand the collection of fees for various park uses. We further 

!!l!l 

believe 

the 

that 

Park 

the 

Service 

fee and 

continues 

cost recovery 

its commitment 

program 

to 

can 

the 

be 

development 

successfully 

and 

implemented 

implementation 

~ 

of 

clear ~idance, reliable accounting systems, and effective program oversight. 

As to guidance, we are aware from our audii of special use fees that the Park Service is in 

the process of revising its internal guidelines, "Special Park Uses, • which were issued in 1986, 

to reflect more recent developments in this area. In response to our audit report, the Park 

Seivice has indicated that the revised guidelines will address and correct, in detail, each of 

the problem areas identified in the recommendations. By providing detailed instructions 

as recommended regarding the types of costs to be included in the fee and the documentation 

needed to support fee computations, .as well as regarding the establishment of adequate 

internal controls ove' the collection of and the accountability for special use permit revenues 

6 
135 

at the park level, the Park Service will have gone a long way in addressing some of the issues 

described above. Similar attention will have to be paid, however, to additional revisions 

necessitated by the proposed legislation, such as the need to identify the types of activities 

covered by the legislation. 

As to the development of reliable accounting systems, progress is also being made in this 

regard. In our November 1988 audit report entitled "User Charges and Collections," we 

reported that, of the 25 parks visited, none of the parks controlled the permits issued with . 

a numbering system that would facilitate reporting, auditing, and accountability. In contrast, 

in our recent audit of special use fees, we found that 9 of the 13 parks reviewed had 

implemented adequate controls for collecting and accounting for revenues generated from 

special use permits. Generally, we found that those parks with prior experience in collecting 

other types of revenues, such as entrance or recreation fees, were more effective in collecting 

and accounting for the special use fees. The Park Service will need to ensure that sufficient 

training is provided at the paTk units in the areas of assessing, collecting, and accounting for 

fees to help ensure the continuation of this positive trend. 

Moreover, a~ this Subcommittee is aware, the lack of financial accountability is a problem 

that has plagued the Park Service in the past. On February 9, 1995, the Deputy Inspector 

General testified regarding the financial accounting and reporting problems in the Park 

Service. The basis for that testimony was our audit of the Park Service's financial statements 

for fiscal years 1993 and 1994, during which we concluded that the information in the Park 

Service's financial records and statements was not accurate, reliable, or supported by the 

accounting system. We also concluded that an adequate internal control system to identify 

and correct accounting errors in a timely manner had not been implemented and that the 

usefulness of the Park Service's financial records and reports was questionable. We attributed 

these conditions to a lack of commitment by Park Service managers in ensuring adequate 

financialmanagementcontrols and accurate reporting of financial data on a Servicewide basis. 

As I stated in an August 8, 1995, letter to the Chairman of this Subcommittee, we believe 

tliat Park Service management now is committed to establishing a sound financial accounting 

control environment and to reporting accurate and reliable annual financial statements. 

Our belief in this regard is based on the close involvement we have had with the Park Service 

since the February 1995 testimony. First, a senior auditor from the Office of Inspector 

General has worked on a daily basis for the past 6 months with a team that the Park Service 

established to identify and resolve its financial accounting and reporting problems. In 

establishing this team, the Park Service sought technical assistance from our office, from the 

Department of the Interior's Office of Financial Management, and from advisors from the 

private sector. Second, the Office of Inspector General has had a team of auditors working 

in the Park Service since April 1995 doing preliminary work in preparation for an audit of 

the Park Service's fiscal year 1995 financial statements. The auditors have monitored the 

Park Service team's efforts on a regular basis and have reported that significant progress 

has been and continues to be made. 

7 
136 

A considerable amount of work remains to be done. However, we believe that, if the type 

of commitment and progress that the Park Service has demonstrated during the past 8 months 

continues, the Park Service should be able to adequately account for and report on any fees 

collected Iinder the proposed amendment 

Finally, if the proposed amendment is adopted, there would be a need for effective program 

oversight by the Park Service in order to ensure proper implementation of the fee and cost 

recovery program. The Office of Inspector General can also assist in this regard through 

our annual audits of the Park Service's financial statements conducted pursuant to the Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act For income collected pursuant to the proposed amendment, 

we would be willing to expand those audits to include an evaluation of the internal accounting 

controls and testing of the accounting transactions. Our annual CFO audit reports would 

then disclose any reportable weaknesses or deficiencies associated with these revenues. 

This concludes my prepared statement I would be happy to respond to any questions that 

the Subcommittee may have concerning my testimony. 

8 
137 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General 

AUDIT REPORT 

SPECIAL USE FEES, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

REPORT NO. 96-1-49 

OCI'OBER 1995 
138 

E-IN-NPS-004-95 

• 

United States Department of the Interior 

Memorandum 

OffiCE OF JSSPF.CTOR Gt:NF.RAI. 

Hc.•adciUOlrlt'l"!' tdi ~ 

l!i50 Wil • Roult'\'OU-d 

Suitt· .WI 

ArJinR;IOU, \ :-\ :!'".?'.!()!;• 

To: Assistant Secretary for Fish and ~ildlife and Parks 

From: JudyHa Acting~ .Qtl;, Inspector ~ General for AudiiS 

Subject: Final Audit Report on Special Use Fees, National Park Service (No. 96-I-49) 

This report preseniS the resuiiS of our audit of special use fees in the National Park 

Service. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Park Service 

established, collected, and ~nded special use fees in a consistent manner and in 

accordance with applicable laws, replations. and pidance. This audit was initiated 

at the request of the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on National Parks, ForesiS and Lands. 

We concluded that the Park Service did not implement iiS authority to collect and 

retain fees for special park uses in a consistent manner. This occurred because the 

Park Service has not completed iiS efforiS to revise the e:mting guidance (NPS-53, 

"Special Park Uses") to address the changes created by the Appropriations ACIS of 

1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. As a result, there were inconsistencies among the parks 

regarding: (1) the types of IIClivities that were subject to a fee; (2) the bases for 

determining the amount of the fee; and (3) the use of fee revenues. ln addition, we 

identified deficiencies in the controls for collecting and/or accounting for fee 

revenues at 4 of the 13 parks we reviewed and found that 11 of the parks carried 

over revenues totaling $331,864 into fiscal year 1995, although the authority to carry 

over funds was not specifiea1ly addressed in the Aet. According to Accounting 

Operations Division records, the Park Service carried over special use funds totaling 

$514,456 from all parks into fiscal year 1995. We recommended that the Director, 

National Park Service, expedite the revision of NPS-53 to address these issues. In 

that regard, we are available to consult with the Park Service on the revisions to 

NPS-53. 

Based on the Park Service's September 28, 1995, response .(see Appendix 5) to the 

draft report, we consider the recommendation resolved but not implemented. 

Accordingly, the unimplemented recommendation will be referred to the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Management and Bucl&et for tracking of implementation, and 

no further response to the Office of Inspector General is required (see ~ndix 6). 
139 

The Park Service also provided additional comments on the draft report, which were 

incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General requires 

semiannual reporting to the Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to 

implement audit recommendations, and identification of each significant 

recommendation on which conective action has not been taken. 

We appreciate the assistance of officials from the National Park Service in the 

conduct of our audit. 
140 

CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCI"ION . . .. . .. . . .......... . ..... . ..... .. . . . . ... . 

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

SPECIAL USE FEES .. .......... . ...... . ....... . . . ... ·. . . . 4 

APPENDICES 

1. SITES VISITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

2. MAJOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND REVENUES FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

3. SELECI"ED ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PERMITS 

AND FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

4. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVENUES AND 

EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

5. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

6. STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . 26 
141 

INTRODUCI10N 

BACKGROUND 

The National Park Service guidelines (NPS-53, "Special Park Uses"), which were 

issued in 1986 and were being revised as of July 1995, define special park use as "any 

activity which is proposed for, or exists within, a National Park System area which 

requires some type of written permission from a National Park Service official." 

However, according to NPS-53, permits and fees are not always mandatory for such 

activities. For example, one park unit may consider an athletic event a special use 

that requires a special use permit and a fee, whereas another park unit may consider 

the same type of event a normal activity that requires a written activity permit but 

does not require a special use permit or a fee. In -March 1995, the Park Service's 

Nationwide Special Use Coordinator, appointed in September 1994, conducted an 

informal survey ·of the Park Service's individual park units to iden.tify special use 

activities and related fees. Of the 367 individual park units, 242 park units 

responded that they had issued 146,832 special use permits during calendar year 

1994, which covered 92 special use activities. The most common special use activities 

included backcountry camping, athletic events, picnics, fishing, biking, weddings, 

agriculture, residentialleasebaclcs, 1 canoeing, rafting, and commercial filming. 

The Park Service's Appropriations Act of 1994, Public Law 103-138, gave the Park 

Service permanent authority to recover and retain all costs associated with special 

use activities. (The Park Service will address the Appropriations Act of 1994 in its 

revision to NPS-53). The Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993 

had given only 1-year authority to recover and retain all costs associated with special 

use permits, and Appropriations Acts prior to fiscal year 1991 had given 1-year 

authority to recover and retain unbudgeted costs. 2 The Park Service's Accounting 

Operations Division reported that during fiscal year 1994, park units recorded 

$3,787,347 in special use fees; spent or obligated $3,272,891; and carried over 

$514,456 for future use. Two special accounts were used to record income and 

expenses associated with special use activities: Program Work Element 456 for 

budgeted activities and Program Work Element 457 for unbudgeted activities. 

1 A residential leaseback is a transaction involvillg the sale of property, with the pun:based property 

then being leased to a private individuaL 

'Unbudgeted costs are the costs of une:zpec:ted activities (including any applicable overhead) 

associated with the extra services necessal}' to support the permittee, suclt as overtime pay, supplies, 

materials, and utility costs. Budgeted costs are the costs of planned activities (including any applicable 

overhead) associated with mra servic:es necessal}' to support the permittee, suclt as regular salaries 

and fringe benefits. 

1 
142 

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Park Service established, 

collected, accounted for, and expended special use fees in a consistent manner and 

in accordance with applicable Jaws, regulations, and guidance. The audit was 

initiated in response to a February 13, 1995, request from the Chairman of the 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

to evaluate the Park Service's implementation of its authority under the fiscal year 

1994 Appropriations Act to recover costs for special use activities. The 

Subcommittee specifically requested that we review how this authority was 

implemented at five parks (Grand Canyon National Park, Yellowstone National 

Park, Canyonlands National Park, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area, and Yosemite National Park); the basis used at each park for establishing 

permit fee levels; how each park accounted for the revenues generated; and how the 

revenues were spent, including whether they were spent in support of the purposes 

for which they were collected. We expanded the scope of our review to include eight 

additional parks, which we selected based on the reported revenues for 1994. The 

13 parks in our review reported a total of $2,022,535 in special use fees for fiscal 

year 1994 (see Appendix 4). The revenues from these parks accounted for 53 

percent of all special use permit revenues ($3,787,347) reported by the Park Service's 

Accounting Operations Division for that fiscal year. 

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. Our audit was conducted from February through 

August 1995 and included a review of financial records and interviews with Park 

Service personnel at the Division of Ranger Activities in Washington, D.C.; the 

Accounting Operations Division in Reston, Virginia; the Office of the Special Use 

Coordinator at Colonial National Park in Yorktown, Virginia; and 13 national parks, 

seashores, recreation areas, and monuments (see Appendix 1). Our audit generally 

covered activities that occurred during fiscal year 1994. 

As part of our review, we evaluated the Park Service's internal controls over the 

collection and expenditure of special use fees. We found internal control deficiencies 

in tl!e areas of policy and guidance for determining activities subject to fees, 

establishing the fees, accounting for and collecting the fees, and using fee revenues. 

Our recommendation, if implemented, should improve the controls in these areas. 

We also reviewed the Secretary's Annual Statement and Report to the President and 

the Congress for fiscal year 1994, as required by the Federal Managers' Financial 

Integrity Act of 1982, and determined that there were no rej>Orted weaknesses that 

were within the objective and scope of our audit 

2 
143 

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 

During the past 5 years, the Office of Inspector General has issued one audit report 

on selected special use fees. The March 1993 report "Recreation Fee Charges and 

Collections, National Park Service" (No. 93-1-793) stated that restrictions in the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Public Law 88-578, codified at 16 U.S.C. 

4601-4, prevented the Park Service from collecting about $8.8 million of user fees for 

certain types of camping, hunting, fishing, and boat launching activities. The report 

recommended that the Director, National Park Service, seek legislative relief from 

these restrictions. In its response to the report, the Park Service agreed to consider 

including, in future requests for legislative changes, authority to collect user fees for 

backcountry camping and boat launching from part boat ramps but not for hunting 

and fishing. During our current review, we found that the Park Service was 

collecting and retaining special use permit fees for the issuance of backcountry 

camping permits and related reservations and fishing permits under the authority of 

the Appropriations Act of 1994. 

3 
144 

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 

SPECIAL USE FEES 

The National Park Service did not implement its authority to collect and retain fees 

for special use activities in a consistent manner. The Park Service's Appropriations 

Act of 1994 provided the Park Service with permanent authority "to recover and 

retain all costs of providing necessary services associated with special use permits, 

such reimbursement to be credited to the appropriation current at that time." 

However, the Park Service has not completed its efforts to revise the existing 

guidance to address the changes created by the Appropriations Acts of 1991, 1992, 

1993, and 1994. As a result, there were inconsistencies among the parks regarding 

the types of activities on which special use fees were assessed; the methods used in 

establishing the fees; and the use of fee revenues. Thus, there was no assurance that 

the appropriate amount of fees was being collected. In addition, 4 of the 13 parks 

we reviewed bad not established adequate controls to ensure proper accountability 

of fee revenues, and 11 of the parks carried over special use revenues totaling 

$331,864 from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1995.

3 

The 1986 Park Service guidelines, NPS-53, provide general guidance on issuing 

special use permits and establishing related fees. However, NPS-53 does not provide 

clear and specific guidance on the types of activities subject to special use fees; the 

method for establishing fees, including the types of costs that should be considered; 

and the types of activities on which the revenues can be spent In addition, since 

NPS-53 is not current, it does not address the new authorities provided under the 

1994 Appropriations Act Specifically, it does not address the elimination of the 

restriction on issuing special use permits for hunting, fishing, and backcountry 

camping or the authority to retain and use fee revenues in the park. As a result, 

each park we reviewed used its own discretion in implementing the provisions of the 

Appropriations Act, which resulted in the deficiencies and inconsistencies identified 

in this report. 

Determining Activities Subject to Fees 

We found that the 13 parks reviewed had implemented changes in their special use 

activity procedures to incorporate the provisions provided under the Park Service's 

Appropriations Acts for 1991 and subsequent years to collect and retain fees. Five 

parks had instituted special use permit fees for their major activities; seven parks had 

converted existing fee activities to special use fee activities so that they could retain 

the revenues; and one park had used a combination of both methods (see 

Appendix 2). For example, prior to 1991, Yellowstone did not have the authority to 

collect fees for fishing activities, and Canyonlands did not have authority to collect 

'lbe Office of the Solicitor is amenlly preparill& a legal opillion that will address how reYe~~oes can 

be spent and whether they can be Qnjed over from one liacal year to another. 

4 
145 

fees for the issuance of backcountry camping permits and related reservations. The 

collection of fees for these activities was prohibited by the land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Both of these parks started collecting special use 

permit fees for the specified activities when the authority to do so was granted by the 

provisions of the Appropriations Acts for 1991 through 1994. Similarly, Assateague 

Island National Seashore had been collecting money from its off-road vehicle permits 

under prior existing authority. However, Assateague converted these permits to 

"special use" permits under the authority provided by the 1991 Appropriations Act 

in order to retain the funds to support its operations. 

Overall, our review identified inconsistencies among the 13 parks in determining 

which activities were subject to special use fees (see Appendix 3). For example: 

• Nine parks issued permits for weddings, but only 7 of the 9 parks charged a fee 

for the permits, which totaled $6,878 in fiscal year 1994. 

• Six parks issued permits for backcountry camping, but only Canyonlands 

collected fees for reservations and issuance of the permits, which totaled $63,530 in 

fiscal year 1994. 

• Six parks issued permits for group picnics, but only five of the six parks 

collected fees for the picnics, which totaled $10,058 in fiscal year 1994. 

• Gateway National Recreation Area issued 3,621 parking permits for fishing that 

allowed access to off-road and other areas where public access is normally restricted. 

It did not collect any fees for this special use. In similar circumstances, Assateague 

Island charged a $40 annual fee for off-road access and collected $209,440 in fiscal 

year 1994. · 

Establishing Fees 

The parks were not consistent in the methods they used for establishing special use 

fees, and the fees were not always set at the appropriate level or supported by 

adequate cost data. General cost recovery guidance, such as that contained in Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A-25, "User Charges," requires fees to be 

established based on cost or market data and provides for the recovery of both direct 

and indirect costs. However, NPS-53 does not provide park managers with sufficient 

guidance on when to use the cost or market approach in establishing the fees, the 

types of costs to include in the calculation of fees, or the documentation necessary 

to support the fee determination. The 13 parks we reviewed established rates as 

follows: 5 parks (Grand Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains, Yosemite, Statue of 

Liberty National Monument, and Zion National Park) used cost data; 3 parks 

(Assateague Island, Gateway, and Yellowstone) used comparability studies; 3 parks 

(Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, lake Mead National Recreation 

Area, and Point Reyes National Seashore) used appraisab; and 2 parks (Canyonlands 

and Golden Gate National Recreation Area) used the "collective judgment and 

5 
146 

experience" of their personnel to establish the fees (see Appendix 2). Examples of 

deficiencies and inconsistencies in the establishment of rates, which we believe were 

caused by insufficient guidance, are as follows: 

- Grand Canyon, Santa Monica Mountains, Yosemite, Statue of Liberty, and 

Zion charged fees that were designed to recover the direct costs of personal services, 

utilities, waste management, administrative activities, and management reviews that 

were associated with the special uses. However, the parks did not have adequate 

documentation to support the fee computations and did not include overhead costs 

in the fees. 

- Golden Gate established a basic fee of $25 for most permits except commercial 

filming. This amount was based on management estimates and not on the actual 

costs of providing the services or on comparable values. 

- All 13 parks issued permits for commercial filming, but the fees varied among 

the parks. Golden Gate collected daily location use fees and accepted donations 

ranging from $50 to $6,600 based on the specific filming location; three parks 

charged a daily monitoring fee of $300; six parks charged actual monitoring costs; 

and three parks did not charge a fee. 

- Delaware Water Gap used appraisals to assist in establishing fees for 18 

residential leasebacks. Although the appraised value of these leasebacks totaled 

$104;100, the fees were set at less than the appraised values for each of the 

leasebacks, resulting in revenues totaling only $76,831. There was no documentation 

to support the basis for the lower annual fees. 

- Assateague Island considered the annual rates charged by the States of 

Delaware ($50) and New Jersey ($100) in establishing its off-road vehicle permit fee 

of $40. Yellowstone performed a comparability study of the fishing license fees 

charged by surrounding states before it established its fishing permit fees. However, 

Yellowstone collected $5 for a 7-day permit and $10 for an annual permit, whereas 

the comparables ranged from $13 to $24 for an annual fishing license. Neither park 

had documentation to support the basis for setting the fees at rates lower than those 

at comparable locations. 

- In 1990, Lake Mead used a 1986 appraisal to establish fees ranging from $540 

to $765 per year for its cabin site leases. When the leases were renewed in 1995, the 

rates were expected to increase because comparable property values had increased. 

However, the rates were not increased because Lake Mead did not receive any 

re.sponses to a contract prospectus to conduct new appraisals. 

6 
147 

Collecting and Accounting For Fees 

Nine of the 13 parks in our review had implemented adequate internal control 

procedures for collecting and accounting for revenues generated from special use 

permits. Four parks (Assateague, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Canyonlands) 

used prenumbered or sequentially numbered permits that were sold at the visitor 

centers and/or entrance stations and deposited the receipts into separate accounts 

established for special use fee revenues. Five parks (Delaware Water Gap, Santa 

Monica Mountains, Yosemite, Point Reyes, and Lake Mead) issued bills for 

collection to recover the special use fees and likewise established separate accounts 

for the fees. However, the remaining four parks (Golden Gate, Gateway, Statue of 

Liberty, and Zion) did not establish'sufficient controls to ensure collection ancl/or 

proper accountability of the revenues generated from special use permits: 

- Golden Gate did not have adequate controls to ensure that permit fees were 

actually collected and deposited into the proper account. Deposit tickets usually 

included funds collected for several different accounts, and we could not determine 

whether the funds were deposited into the proper account because the permit 

number was not recorded by Golden Gate on the copy of the permittee's check and 

the permit files did not identify the deposit ticket. We also found that: (1) special 

use permit fees were not consistently charged or collected (for 19 of the 97 filming 

permits, the fees were either waived [12 at a Joss of $1,800] or the permittee paid 

Jess than the standard $150 fee [5 at a Joss of $450] or more than the standard fee 

[2 that overpaid by $300]); (2) specified fees were not always collected for permits 

issued for weddings, picnics, and athletic events (only 7 of the 35 wedding permits 

reviewed resulted in fees that met the $125 minimum fee established by Golden 

Gate, resulting in a loss of $2,450); and (3) permit fees were not always collected 

prior to the event or we could not determine whether the fees were collected at all 

(fees for 54 of the 97 film permits reviewed were either collected after the event 

occurred [32 permits totaling $4,400] or there was no cross reference or copy of the 

check to determine whether a fee was actually collected [22 permits totaling $2,975]). 

In addition, Golden Gate was not recording all special use fees into the special use 

fee accounts. Instead, location use fees for filming and fees for other uses which 

totaled $103,000 for the period October 1, 1994, through May 17, 1995, that were 

based on the location and/or the number of participants were recorded in a 

"donations" account. Unobligated funds in such an account can be carried forward 

to the following fiscal year. Golden Gate developed standard language for letters 

for permittee donations. The letters for filming stated: 

I'd like to extend my thanks for the opportunity to conduct commercial 

filming within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). As 

[vendor name] appreciates that the National Park Service seeks to maintain 

the Park's natural and urban settings, restore fragile wilderness habitats, and 

create site improvements that offer visitors new opportunities to explore and 

enjoy the Park, we are pleased to present the National Park Service with a 

7 
148 

[amount of] donation, which is to be put toward GGNRA operations and 

general maintenance. 

The vendor's name and the agreed upon "donation" amount were added by the park 

and sent to the permittee after completion of the filming activity. 

- Gateway did not implement adequate controls to ensure that all special use 

fees were paid. We found that Gateway did not always place the permit number on 

the copies of the checks received for special events. As a result, we were unable to 

reconcile receipts to the permits or deposit tickets. In addition, advance payments 

were not always received and performance bonds were not required to ensure 

payment to Gateway. As a result, Gateway officials have been required to pursue 

payments, and permittees have defaulted on bills owed to Gateway. In one instance, 

although a permittee was allowed to charge admission fees for a festival, a 

performance bond was not required, and the permittee did not pay the $3,087 owed 

to Gateway. The bill was sent to a collection agent after the issuance of a third 

delinquency notice. 

Gateway also did not ensure that sponsors of special events paid the appropriate 

fees. A permit issued for a large festival provided for Gateway to receive 50 percent 

of the revenues generated from a $5 parking fee. On the last day of the 5-day event, 

the permittee sent a check for $13,495 (apparently based on 5,398 cars) for 

Gateway's share of the parking revenues. However, the permittee did not provide 

any documentation or explanation as required by the permit to demonstrate bow the 

amount was calculated, nor did Gateway officials maintain any records (such as 

attendance or revenue totals) to ensure proper payment. According to Gateway's 

Superintendent, some of these festivals have bad an attendance of more than 100,000 

people over a period of 5 days. 

- Statue of Liberty did not record the permit number on the copies of the checks 

remitted by the permittee. Therefore, receipts could not be reconciled to the permits 

issued or to deposits. In addition, we found that Statue of Liberty was not always 

complying with the Treasury Manual, which requires that receipts be deposited once 

a month or when they total $5,000, whichever comes first. For example, a $26,969 

deposit made on June 9, 1994, included an $8,000 check held for 3 days; a $6,000 

check held for 14 days; and a $10,000 check held for 15 days. 

- At Zion, tunnel escort4 fees are collected at its entrance stations, and a cash 

register receipt is issued for verification prior to passage through the tunnel. The 

amounts recorded by the cash registe~ are traceable to the deposit and remittance 

reports, and the revenues are recorded into the appropriate accounts. However, 

without prenumbered receipts, we could not be assured that all the appropriate fees 

were collected. 

•Oversized vehicles that pass through a narrow tunnel in Zion are required to be guided by Zion 

persoiUiel for safety reasons. 

8 
149 

Expending Fee Revenues 

The Subcommittee requested that we determine how special use revenues were 

spent, including whether they were spent in support of the purposes for which they 

were collected. We identified inconsistencies among the parks in how the revenues 

were spent and found that 11 of the 13 parks reviewed carried over unobligated 

revenues totaling $331,864 to fiscal year 1995. 

Of the 13 parks, 6 parks (Grand Canyon, Canyonlands, Gateway, Golden Gate, Point 

Reyes, and Yosemite) spent special use fee receipts to support the activity that 

generated the revenue. Of the remaining seven parks, Santa Monica Mountains 

spent fee revenues from filming on any special use activity, particularly at Paramount 

and Circle X Ranches; Yellowstone and Delaware Water Gap indicated that they 

generally spent special use fee receipts to support the activity that generated the 

revenue, although our review of the parks' records indicated that some charges were 

not related to the special use activity; Zion, Assateague lsland, and Statue of uberty 

spent the revenues for general part purposes in addition to the special use activity; 

and Lake Mead had not spent any of the revenues coiJected from special use fees 

at the time of our review. During fiscal year 1994, the 13 parks spent fee revenues 

as follows: 

- Canyonlands' records indicate that it spent $47,059 of the $63,530 collected 

from the sale of backcountry permits in support of the purposes for which the fees 

were established and carried over the remaining $16,471 for use during fiscal year 

1995. The expenditures consisted of: (1) $26,591 in salary costs for two seasonal 

reservation system rangers; (2) $11,464 for backcountry office supplies ($1,139), 

service on cash registers ($125), and contract services to pump bactcountry toilets 

($10,200); (3) $8,814 for deposit safes ($389), computer support equipment ($439), 

and pumping equipment for backcountry toilets ($7,986); and ( 4) $190 in travel costs 

associated with fee collection training. 

-Grand Canyon spent $50,108, which included $10,148 in carryover funds from 

fiscal year 1993 as well as a large portion of the $44,175 collected during fiscal year 

1994, in support of the river use activity for which the fees were collected. Grand 

Canyon carried over $4,215 for use during fiscal year 1995. The expenditures 

included $24,902 for the salary costs of a full-time River Waiting List Clerk ($23, 766) 

and the partial salaries of a river use coordinator ($815), a boat inspector ($284), and 

two part-time clerks ($37). Grand Canyon also spent: (1) $13,886 for equipment 

such as outboard motors, computers, and printers; (2) $11,087 for mailings, data base 

management, and other supplies; and (3) $233 for travel and training costs associated 

with the waiting list data base. 

- Santa Monica Mountains used $200,695 of the $228,412 collected from filming 

activities in support of special use activities and carried over $27,717 for use during 

fiscal year 1995. The expenditures included $132,195 in personnel costs for: a 

full-time permit coordinator and three seasonal support staff ($108,881); 

9 
150 

maintenaoc:e petsODnel ($17,275); and administrative support ($6,039). Santa Monica 

Mountains also spent $68,500 in service!r/purchases for: administrative supplies and 

services, including data processing and communication charges ($22,466); repairs and 

maintenance ($18,805); equipment rentals ($7,824); utilities, trash removal, and 

groundskeeping ($11,089); and other expenses related to various special use activities 

($8,316). 

- Yosemite records indicate that it spent $54,745 of the $56,500 collected for 

permits issued to commercial bus operators in support of the special use activity and 

carried over $1,755 to fiscal year 1995. Expenditures consisted of $53,324 in salary 

costs for a ranger and clerical staff to support permit issuance, revenue collections, 

and bus inspections. The Park spent the remaining $1,421 to purchase office 

supplies, including a desk chair and communication equipment, and bus inspection 

supplies in direct support of the special use permits office. 

-Gateway records show that it spent $93,143 of the $106,779 collected in 

revenues from building use fees, special event activities, and a cost-sharing agreement 

in support of these activities and carried over $13,636 for use during fiscal year 1995. 

Expenditures included: the salaries of the special use permit coordinators and 

overtime incurred by protection and maintenance staff during the special events 

($53,348); the rental of trash dumpsters ($28,038) and portable toilets ($7,022); and 

the purchase of miscellaneous door locks and maintenance supplies ($4,735). 

- Golden Gate records indicate that it spent $56,662 of the $66,929 collected from 

special use permits to support filming and other special events and carried over 

$10,267 for use during fiscal year 1995. The expenditures included $15,973 in 

overtime costs incurred by rangers and Park Police employees during the filming or 

other special event activity. Golden Gate also spent $15,520 for computers 

($10,330), printers ($4,012), and software ($1,178) for the special permit use group. 

Other expenditures were: $5,108 for FfS services; $11,860 for General Services 

Administration rental costs for a passenger vehicle and a truck used by the special 

permit use group; $3,640 for materials and supplies needed to construct barricades 

for special event control; $3,000 for a lifeguard station; $977 for the rental of 

portable toilets; and $584 for miscellaneous materials and supplies for the group. 

- Point Reyes records indicate that it spent $53,611 of the $192,969 collected from 

the uazing, restoration of ranchlands, and other special uses during fiscal year 1994 

to support these activities. The $139,358 balance was deposited throughout the year 

into a general Treasury accounl It was Point Reyes policy to retain only the amount 

of funds necessary to administer the special use permits. Point Reyes records 

indicate that it spent $59,411 ($5,800 more than the amount retained) for: the salary 

costs of protection and resource management employees ($49,298); equipment rental 

($3,558); General Services Administration truck rental ($1,715); phone and modem 

installation ($1,678); office supplies ($1,051); and miscellaneous materials and 

supplies ($2,111). The additional $5,800 was from park operating funds. 

10 
151 

- Yellowstone records indicate that it spent $32S,812 of the $392,247 collected 

from fishing permits to support fishing-related and general park activities and canied 

over $66,435 to fiscal year 1995. While expenditures for travel, equipment, and other 

costs pertained exclusively to fishing-related activities, charges for salaries were for 

employees whose responsibilities included fishing, as well as other park-related 

activities. For example, Yellowstone hired additional seasonal rangers at a cost of 

$196,157 to monitor over 2,000 miles of fishable streams for permit violations. The 

Interpretation Division spent $41,601 for salaries of five new seasonal employees 

(one for each visitor center), who sold fishing permits and explained the Park's 

fishing regulations. These employees also performed duties not related to the fishing 

activities. Conversely, other Park employees who were not paid out of the special 

use permit revenue ac:c:ount also monitored fishing violations and sold fishing 

permits. 

- Delaware Water Gap records show that it spent $62,22S of the $76,831 in 

revenues collected from residential leaseback fees in support of that activity or other 

park activities and canied over $14,606 for use during fiscal year 1995. The 

expenditures consisted of $55,584 for the salary of the Management Assistant 

($42,418) and for part of the salaries for office assistants ($13,166). The 

Management Assistant was responsible not only for conducting the leaseback 

program but also for implementing Servic:ewide, regional, and park regulations and 

policies pertaining to the management of historic leases; concession operations; and 

other special park uses. The remaining $6,641 was spent on a computer for the 

leaseback program office ($3,158) and for the moving costs of an employee ($3,483). 

- Zion spent $279,744, which consisted of $11,143 in carryover funds from fiscal 

year 1993 and the $268,601 of fiscal year 1994 revenues in support of the tunnel 

escort activity as well as general park activities. For example, Zion used $2S8,818 

to pay part of the salaries of employees who served both as tunnel escorts and 

collecton of entrance and campground f~es at Zion. Because of this dual 

responsibility, the payroll and local travel expenses of the tunnel escorts and the 

entrance fee activities were not ac:c:ounted for separately. Also, most of the 

equipment ($2,080) and other charges ($9,873) against these revenues benefited 

general park activities rather than solely the tunnel program. For example, the 

$9,873 in other charges included $2,987 to repair two vehicles that were used for 

general patrol duties and $1,284 for entrance station fee collection supplies and 

mate)ials. 

- Assateague Island spent $158,533 of the $209,440 in revenues generated from 

off-road vehicle permits on general park activities. The $50,907 that remained was 

canied over to fiscal year 1995. The expenditures included $28,261 for materials, 

supplies, and equipment to construct an addition to the existing visitor center. The 

new addition serves as the audio-visual center and is not directly associated with the 

off-road vehicle permit activity. Assateague Island also charged the entire salary 

costs for the Chief of Maintenance ($42,032) for the last 9 months of the year and 

the Chief Ranger ($32, 727) for the last 7 months of the year to the special use fee 

11 
152 

account. A substantial portion of these individuals' time was spent on activities other 

than off-road vehicle activities during these periods. 

- Statue of Libeny spent $134,806 of the $139,425 in revenues generated from 

the special events for general park expenses as well as the special use activity. The 

$4,619 balance was carried over to fiscal year 1995. Statue of Libeny spent $63,644 

in direct support of the special events: $53,522 in overtime costs for park personnel; 

$3,801 for communication equipment; $2,709 for a computer for the special events 

coordinator; and $3,612 in maintenance and other costs. The remaining $71,162 was 

used to pay for expenses that benefited all park users, not just special event 

permittees. Statue of Libeny charged the special use fee account to pay the annual 

rental cost ($19,200) for a private bridge that was used by Statue of Libeny and 

concession personnel and not by special event permittees. Statue of Libeny also 

used special permit revenues to: (1) purchase a color printer ($10,577); (2) rent 

cellular telephones ($3,500); (3) purchase security devices ($1,486); (4) purchase 

visitor passes ($1,000); and (5) pay for radio repairs ($399). In addition, Statue of 

Libeny charged the special use fee account $35,000 for utilities for special events, 

which represented approximately 5 percent of the utility costs for the year. The 

allocation was not based on meter readings or supported by any other 

documentation. According to Statue of Libeny officials, the utility charges were 

based on the estimated percentage of time the park was used for special events. 

- Lake Mead did not spend any of the $80,325 in revenue collected from its land 

lease program during fiscal year 1994. At the time of our review, Lake Mead had 

not spent any of the $150,000 in revenues deposited into its special use account since 

it converted its land lease program to a special use activity in 1992. Lake Mead did 

not spend the revenue because the Park Service's Western Regional Office had not 

considered the leasing activity a special use. During fiscal year 1995, the issue was 

resolved, and the Regional Office has authorized Lake Mead to use the fees. 

Finally, we found that 11 of the 13 parks reviewed carried over special use revenues 

totaling $331,864 into fiscal year 1995. Point Reyes used only the amount of 

revenues needed to recover its costs for managing the agriculture leases and remitted 

excess revenues to the Treasury during the year. Zion spent all the revenues from 

fiscal year 1994. According to Accounting Operations Division records, the Park 

Service carried over special use funds totaling $514,456 from all parks into fiscal year 

1995< 

The Park Service's Appropriations Act of 1994 states: "Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the National Park Service may hereafter recover all costs of 

providing necessary services associated with special use permits, such reimbursements 

to be credited to the appropriation current at that time." The Park Service has 

interpreted this authority to allow the parks to use special use permit revenues to 

support any park operations and to carry over unobligated funds to the next fiscal 

year. Special use permit revenues were carried over by depositing the revenues into 

the "Construction" appropriation (Business and Qearing), which is a "no year" 

appropriation. The Office of the Solicitor, Division of Conservation and Wildlife, 

12 
153 

is preparing a legal opinion that will address how the revenues can be spent and 

whether they should be considered no year funds. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Director, National Park Service, direct appropriate officials 

to expedite the revision of NPS-53, "Special Park Uses," subject to the advice 

provided by the Solicitor's office regarding the use and retention of special use 

permit revenues. In order to ensure consistency among the parks and to provide for 

the proper assessment, collection, accounting for, and disposition of fees, the revised 

guidelines should provide detailed instructions for: 

- Identifying the types of activities that require special use permits. 

- Establishing special use permit fees, including the types of costs to include in 

the fee and the documentation needed to support the fee computation. 

- Establishing adequate internal controls over the collection of and the 

accountability for special permit use revenues at the park level. 

- Ensuring that special use fee revenues are accounted for in accordance with 

legislative authority. 

National Park Service Response 

The September 28, 1995, response (see Appendix 5) from the National Park Service 

concurred with the recommendation, stating that the draft of NPS-53, "Special Park 

Uses," Release No. 2, addresses and corrects each of the parts of the 

recommendation. The response further stated that the revised guidance will "clear 

up much of the confusion," particularly the issue of recovering overhead costs. 

The Park Service also stated the following: that our report does not state that the 

lack of training needs "immediate emphasis if NPS [National Park Service] is to 

achieve effective compliance" with the provisions of NPS-53 and that the report did 

not discuss the issue of including training as an overhead cost element; that the use 

of the word "revenues" in our report implies "profit" and that the Park Service was 

refefring to "cost recovel)', nothing more"; and that funds deposited into the special 

donation account at Golden Gate were "above and beyond" permit fees collected for 

events and films. 

Office of Inspector General Comments 

Based on the Park Service's response, we consider the recommendation resolved but 

not implemented (see Appendix 6). 

13 
154 

Regarding training, we agree that training is needed, particularly at the park level, 

and that such training should be provided once the revised NPS-53 has been issued. 

In addition, our audit did not address the types of costs to be included in the 

overhead accounts, and we did not agree at the exit conference to address the issue 

of "including training as an overhead cost element" 

Regarding the term "revenues," we used this term because it was used by the Park 

Service's Accounting Operations Division in accounting for the amount of special use 

fees collected. 

Regarding the donations account at Golden Gate, we are aware that donations did 

not include permit fees or salary recovery for Golden Gate personnel. However, the 

donations did include location fees developed by Golden Gate for film permits. 

These fees should be recorded in the special use account because they represent fair 

market va1ue for use of lands and buildings. The fees were developed by comparing 

like fees in the surrounding park areas. 

14 
155 

APPENDIX 1 

SITES VISITED 

Office and Parks 

Accounting Operations Division 

Division of Ranger Activities 

Office of Special Use Coordinator, 

Colonial National Part 

Assateague Island National 

Seashore 

Canyonlands National Part 

Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area 

Grand Canyon National Part 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

Point Reyes National Seashore 

Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area 

Statue of Liberty National Monument 

Yellowstone National Part 

Yosemite National Park 

Zion National Part 

15 

Location 

Reston, Virginia 

Washington, D.C. 

Yorktown, Virginia 

Berlin, Maryland 

Moab, Utah 

Bushkill, Pennsylvania 

New York, New York 

San Francisco, California 

Grand Canyon, Arizona 

Boulder City, Nevada 

Point Reyes Station, California 

Agoura Hills, California 

New York, New York 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 

Yosemite National Park, California 

Springdale, Utah 
..... 

0\ 

Park 

Assateague Island NS 

Canyonlands NP 

Delaware Water Gap NRA 

GatewayNRA 

Golden Gate NRA 

Grand Canyon NP 

Lake Mead NRA 

Point Reyes NS 

MAJOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND REVENU

FISCAL YEAR 1994 

Established 

Jllle of S11ecial Use Prior to 1221 Permit 

Off-Road Vehicle Yes $40 per year; based on c

Backcountry Permits No $S per day; based on ma

$10 for backcountry; ba

$2S for 4-wheel drive ca

Agriculture Yes $6S to 4,924 per acre pe

Residential Leaseback Yes $3,060 to $7,446 per yea

Building Rental Yes $12S to $1,000 per day; 

Filming Yes $ISO plus location fee; b

All Other Events No $2S-$SOO per number of 

estimates. 

River Use Yes $SO river fee; based on c

$2S to be included on w

conducted in 1989 

Cabin Site Leases Yes $S40-$76S per year; base

Agriculture Yes $2.63-$3.S7 per animal u

Santa Monica Mountains NRA Filming No $120-$1S4,879 per film; 
~ 

Parle 

Statue of Liberty NM 

Yellowstone NP 

Yoaetnite NP 

Zion NP 

Legend: 

NS • National Seuhore 

NP ,. Nalional Park 

Establlabed 

1'yRe of Special UJe Prior to 1991 Permit 

Eveainc Events No $1,000 to $8,000 per DiJ

FishinJ No SS for a 7-day permit; ba

$10 annually; baled on c

eo.n-dal 8111 No S2SO per year per compa

ToDJNI Elcort Yea $10 per round-trip; base

NRA "' National Recreation Area 

National Monument 
00 

-

SELECTED ACTMTIES REQUIRING PERMITS A

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 

Weddings Backcountry Fi

Permit Fee Permit Fee Permit 

Assateague Island NS Yes No Yes No Yes 

Canyonlands NP N/A Yes Yes Yes 

Delaware Water Gap NRA Yes Yes N/A Yes 

Gateway NRA Yes Yes N/A Yes 

Golden Gate NRA Yes Yes N/A Yes 

Grand Canyon NP Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Lake Mead NRA N/A N/A Yes 

Point Reyes NS N/A N/A Yes 

Santa Monica Mountains NRA Yes Yes N/A Yes 

Statue of Liberty NM N/A N/A Yes 

Yellowstone NP Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Yosemite NP Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Zion NP Yes No Yes No Yes 

Legeod: 

NS • Natiooal Seashore 

NP • Natiooal Park 

NRA • Natiooal Rec:reatioa Area 

NM • Natiooal Mooumeot 

N/A • No permit or fee required for this activity. 
.... 

00 

PARK 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVENUES AND EX

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 

Account 456 {~udatedl Account 457 (Unbud

&!!A!! Expeaditpm ~ · Rneaue Expeaditurea ~ 

Aaateague Island NS $136,346 S138,99S $(2,649) ,$73,094 $19,S38 S

CanyoDl!Dda NP 72,930 SS,668 17,262 3,079 1,700 

Delaware Water. Gap NRA 76 831 , 6Z.22S 14,606 S9,122 48,126 

Gat-yNRA 106,779 93,143 

GoldeD Gate NRA SS,449 32,020 23,429 11,480 24,642 (

GraDd CaD)'OD NP 60,483 S3,798 

Lake Mead NRA - 8Z,37S 

Poillt Reyea NS - S3,611 S9,411 

Suta Moaica MouataiD! NRA 91,934 76,689 1S,24S 137,488 12Z,32S 

Statue of Liberty NM 139,42S 134,806 

Yellowstoue NP 447,618 355,074 92,544 

YoaemlteNP 100,688 98,317 2,371 2S,926 2S,926 

ZiouNP m.m ~ aJm ~ ~ 

Totals WWfZ ~ ~ ~ $586,451 W

•The amouala iu the total ooluma !Delude aU special use fees ooUected by the parks. However, the r

·.aM tiel for each park, aad as such, the amouuts may differ. 

Lececd: 

NS = Natioual Seashore 

NP - Natioaal Part 

NRA • Natioaal Recreatlou Area 

NM . a Natioual Mouumeut 
• . 

' 1'0 at:M.'f1ll:n :a TU· 

160 

United States Department of the Interior 

:-IATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

r.o. Rux. J71~ i' 

\\'tlshinRton. U.<:. :.•ooJ:)..i \27 

SEP 28 1996 

APPENDIX 5 

Page 1 of 6 

september 28, 1995 

'fOI 

Via a 

u.s. Departaent of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General 

NPS Manaq-nt Officer~ 

Chris 

National 

Andreas 

Park t?~ service ~ 

co ... nta on Draft Audit Report on Special Use Fees 

E-IN-MPS-004-95 

'l'be follovincJ is a •-tion of the c-nta prepared by the 

National Park Service concerninq the Draft Audit Report froa your office on Special Uae Pees, Aaaiqn .. nt llo. E-IN-IIPS-004-95. 

1. The cover -· aeconcl paraqrapll: Per our discussion on 9/18/95, •carry-over• should not be used in the .... sentence with · "clef lciency• since there is not concurrence that these funcla can or cannot be carried over. 'l'tle Depart.ant of Interior Solicitor's 

Office is currently re ... rchinq the topic ancl an opinion will be 

fortbcoainq. Back in 1988 the Solicitor'• staff counaelled the liPS 

Bud9et Oiviaion to tell the parka to carry over such aoniea on the 

accounts of parka, which practice the draft audit report cliaputea. The liPS will aqree to abide by the Solicitor'• deteraination, or any future revisions thereof. 

Also, durinq the 9/18/95 exit conference with OIG, it was aqreed that the report would discuss the issue of includinq traininq as an overhead coat el ... nt. We feel that traininq needs i-ediate 

eaphaaia if liPS is to achieve effective coapliance with published policy and with future policy revisions which are already in draft. 

2. 'l'be folloviiiCJ three co ... nta deal alaoat exclusively with the reco ... nclationa section of the report: 

a . 'l'be last recoa.andation dealiiiCJ with unobliqated funds 

still aaauaea that the Solicitor's Office will rule this as annual 

20 
161 

APPENDIX 5 

Page 2 c;>f 6 

money instead of no-year money. Should such a ruling take place, 

there will not BE any unobligated money at year end. This would be a great disruption to the proqram, should such a ruling take place, 

because it would suspend the use of monies collected during the 

latter portion of the fiscal year. Also, it would prevent the 

accUJDulation of .funds needed for large purchases necessary to 

adequately operate 'the p'roqram (e.g. additional patrol craft for 

fishing - YELL; off-road vehicles at Assateague; etc.) 

b. We have a continuing problem with the use of the word 

"revenues" in the report. In our minds, this implies "profit" and 

everything we are talking about is cost recovery, nothing more. 

c. The remainder of the recommendations are mostly correct. 

The main point being, that the already circulating draft of NPS-53 

(Special Park Uses), Release No. 2, addresses and corrects each of 

these points in detail and will clear up much of the confusion, 

especially the issue of recovering overhead costs. 

d . The main problem with the special park uses program is 

the lack of training and we are disappointed that this report does 

not point that out, since more emphasis on training would help achieve better compliance with the provisions of NPS-53. Good 

training can even displace an out-of-date guideline. The National 

Park Service will be addressing this specific issue through 

Servicewide training on the revision to NPS-53. 

3. The Superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

offered the following comments regarding their portion of the OIG 

report: 

a. On the whole, we find the information in the report to be 

accurate statements of the conditions at GOGA in 1994. However, we were just getting started in the proqram at that time, and 

everything that was found has been or is bei ng corrected, 

especially the administrative deficiencies noted regarding collection and deposit of permit fees. 

b. Re: page 11, the funds deposited in the donation account 

(the most damning point made by the OIG against GOGA - DY) were, in 

all cases, above and beyond permit fees that were collected for 

events or filming . The development of standard language for the 

letter tendering donations from filming activities was done after we had received a number of requests to provide guidance to donors 

The donations were not a part of negotiated fees or cost 

recovery of park expenses. 

21 
182 

APPENDIX ~ 

Page 3 of 6 

Attached to these co .. ents are the co ... nts we received directly 

troa the Superintendent of Canyonlands National Park and the 

Assistant Chief Ranger of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. 

The National Park service has always operated under the long held 

belief that aoney collected troa special park uses was no-year 

aoney. This understanding is unaniaous throuCJhout the National 

Park Service, includinCJ the BUdCJet Office. This position qoes back 

to approxiutely 1988 when a Solicitor's opinion was released 

throuCJh WASO stating that aoney collected under a cost recovery 

prQCJraa is no-year aoney. we are atteapting to locate written 

docuaentation ot this position. 

It you have any questions, please feel tree to contact me at 202-

208-4874. 

22 
F4215 

MeaorandiiJl 

Septeaber 27, 1995 

163 

APPENDIX 5 

Page 4 of 6 

To: Dick s. Young, WASO Special Use coordinator 

From: superintendent, canyonlands National Park 

Subject: IG Audit Preliminary Findings -- cost Recovery Progra• 

We have had the opportunity the IG covering their audit 

canyonlands National Park. are worth .antioning. 

to exaaine the preli•inary report by 

of cost recovery proqraas at 

Several s .. ll, but i•portant, points 

At caayoa1u4a ••tloaa1 Park we 4o aot oo1leot fees for 

baokooiiJltry oaaplag &114 aever llave. While soae .. y argue the 

point, if we did not issue a backcountry per.it, visitors could 

ca•p anywhere, anytl .. and do so without paying a feel But, 

since we feel we •ust issue a per.it to regulate this activity and protect backcountry resources, we charge a fee under the cost 

recovery prograa for a baokooiiJltry reservatloa aa4 lasuaaoe of 

the peralt. we charge a reservation/per.it issuance fee and not a backcountry ca.ping fee. This vas explained repeatedly to the 

auditors While here. 

Page 4: Suggest •••• •During our current review, we found that the Park Service ~as 

collecting and retaining special use fees for fishing per.ita and 

issuance of backcountry caaping per.lta and related reservations 

under the authority of the Appropriations Act of 1994.• 

Page 6: Sugqest •••• •ror ex.-ple, prior to 1991, Yellowstone did not have the 

authority to collect teea for fishing activities, and canyonlands did not have authority to collect tees for the issuance of 

backcountry c:a.ping penita and related reservations·.• 

Page 7: SUqqest •••• • - Six parks issued penits for backcountry caaping, but only canyonlands collected tees for reservations and issuance of their 

per.it, which totaled $63,530 in fiscal year 1994.• 

These ... 11, but significant, changes will help us differentiate 

to ·othere that we were not intending to charge for ca~ing but .for the service provided by our reservation staff and rangers who 

took ti .. to explain regulations and issue a proper per.it to ensure a safe and enjoyable visit. This vas not a service that 

every visitor needed or enjoyed. Those who needed the service 

paid for it and not tor .the privilege to camp. 

23 
164 

APPENDIX 5 

Page 5 of 6 

We hope theae change• can be aade in the final report. Pleaae 

contact Chief of Interpretation, Larry Frederick if you have 

queationa (801-259-3911, x 2140). 

/aiqned/ 

Walter D. Dabney 

24 
165 

APPENDIX 5 

Page 6 of 6 

September 28, 1995 

MEMORANDUM 

To 

From 

WASO RAD Special Park Use coordinator 

Assistant Chief Ranger, Special Park Uses, Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area 

Subject ca.aents on OIG Audit Report 

The following are coaments from Lake Mead National Recreation Area on the OIG Audit Report. 

Page 10 paraqraph 2. 

Lake Mead's cabinsite leases are not a leaseback proqru. The 

lease proqram does not meet the definition contained in the 

footnote on page 1. The proqram was origionated under the 

authority of the US Bureau of Reclamation when it had 

jurisdiction over the lands and was continued by the Lake Mead 

Act (enableing legislation) . 

Lake Mead issued a contract prospectus to obtain the necessary 

appraisals prior to the expiration of the leases. No bidder 

responses were received. The prospectus is currently being readvertised at this time and will be kept updated to allow 

the anticipated increase to occur on renewal . 

Page 20 paraqraph 2 

Of the $82,375 in revenue Lake Mead collected in 1994 $80,320 was from the cabin site lease proqram. Expendature of those 

funds was not allowed until 1995 when the Regional Office 

authorized use of the fees. 

The remaining $2,055.00 revenue from Special Park Use permits was identified as funds which could be carried over according 

to directions received from WASO and WRO. The decision was made to allow this funding to accuaulate until enou9h vas available to fund significant equipment and or personal 

service costs related to the ·SPU proqram. 

sentence two of the paragraph is in error. The land lease 

proqram is not a "special use permit activity" since the 

permitting document is not a special use permit. The Field 

Solicitor in San Francisco issued an opinion in 1992 that the 

cabin site lease proqram qualified as a Special Park Use 

meeting the requirements of Public Law 101-512 . 

David E. Hoover 

25 
166 

APPENDIX6 

STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATION 

Fiodioa/Recommeodatioa 

Reference Status Actjop Required 

1 ReaoMd; Dot No further respoD&e to the Office 

implemented. of lupeetor General is required. 

26 

The rec:ommeodatioo Will be 

referred to the Assistant Secretuy 

b Policy, MaDipmeat IDd Buctaet 

for tractia& of implementation. 
167 

ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES 

SHOULD BE REPORTED TO 

THE OFFICE OF iNSPECTOR GENERAL BY: 

Sending written documents to: Calling: 

Within the Continental United States 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General 

P.O. Box 1593 

Arlington, Virginia 22210 

Our 24-hour 

Telephone HOTLINE 

1-800-424-5081 or 

(703) 235-9399 

1DD for the hearing impaired 

(703) 235-9403 or 

1-800-354-0996 

Outside the Continental United States 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General 

Caribbean Region 

Federal Building & Courthouse 

Veterans Drive, Room 207 

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 

Caribbean Area 

North Pacific Region 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Inspector General 

North Pacific Region 

238 Archbishop F.C. Flores Street 

Suite 807, PDN Building 

Agana, Guam 96910 

(809) 774-8300 

(700) 550· 7279 or 

COMM 9-011·671·472-7279 
I r l • ~ ! I J ~ I I I I E 

l · tl l ! li'~ 

J ' ~ I ' r t f i l t t ~ 

. t . . • J ' ~ 

! i r i ! ! i 1 • i I i i 

!!i s • I " ~ ;. ~ ~ . ~ l 

~ I 1 l l l I I I 

i I I • ~ i 1 1 1 i 1 i t 

· r r a· 1 ~ . ... ~ 

( I • ~ ~ . g t = ( i I ~ 

Jill tgr~~ · 1 

i a. a. l · 

lllll l;(lll~~ 

~ r . ~ § r r ' I 
169 

(AUMI) for the puiDa opaalllr's permit will occ:ur u a rault of thele llllds beiDa 

coawrted to tnllt lltalul. 

Tbe Sccnmy of the Inlaior mlllt c:ompeDIIIe the Stale of Utah for the Stale lands 

tiiiiSfened to the Secmuy tJuou&h ID equal value ezdlln&e of Pedenllallds or intaes~s u 

delcribed in leCtioa 7 of P.L. 103-93. 1bis is a rallllllble propoalllld one which we 

support. 

Tbe biD requira the Goshute Tribe to pay the ippllill1 com for tbae lallds. We support -

dlis provisioo. 

Tbe biD is sileat widl repnt to liability. We 11J11e1t that cbe biD iDclude a leCCion that 

piVYides dial, DCJtwitbltiDdiD IDJ OCber pnMsiall of law, cbe Unbed SCala lball DOt iDcur 

my lilbility for cooditioal Clisdna Clll cbe State llllds prior to the accepcanc:e of title by cbe 

United Sllliel. 
170 

Testimony of John A. Hll!ja 

Vice Chair, Board ofTrustees 

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

State of Utah 

H.R. 2464 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

October 26, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address 

you today concerning H.R. 2464, a bill to amend the "Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act 

of 1993." The Board of Trustees of the School Trust Lands Administration has passed a 

resolution in support of the concept of this bill, subject to the conditions discussed below. I 

would indicate support for the language of the bill as written. 

The "Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of 1993" is a very important piece of legislation 

to the trust and schoolchildren of Utah. The Act provided the framework for a proposed 

exchange of lands between the federal government and the school trust. The trust proposes to 

exchange approximately 575 separate tracts of lands, aggregating about 200,000 acres, to the 

federal government. In return, the trust would receive a couple of parcels of land, diversion of a 

royalty stream from mineral production in the state, and the right to produce coal until full value 

for the trust lands is received. The parties may also obtain resolution of disputes over value of 

the lands through the federal district court system. 

The Act was signed on October I, 1993. Since then, the parties have been engaged in a very 

involved process of arranging for (and paying for) the necessary appraisals of the lands. 

Obtaining "an appraisal" for the lands has turned out to be a very, very large project, involving 

the coordination of many experts. It is also, therefore, very costly, and the division of costs has 

the potential to be uneven, with the trust picking up the bulk. 

The Act is the mechanism to resolve the problem of school trust lands captured within National 

Parks, National Forests and the Navajo and Goshute Indian Reservations. It was not intended as 

a mechanism to resolve other boundary concerns of the Parks, Forests or Reservations. 

However, notwithstanding the original purpose of the Act, the Board has considered the request 

by the Goshute Tribe found in H.R. 2464, and supports the request. 

H.R. 2464 would add about 8,000 acres of trust lands found on the southern edge of the 

reservation to the process already under way for the larger exchange. The State and federal 

government would simply ask the existing team of appraisers, both surface and mineral, to look 

at the additional properties. The appraisers are already collecting comparables and the like, so 

the marginal cost of appraising these lands should be relatively small. Once appraised, and 

agreement on value reached, the trust would then be compensated out of the properties identified 

elsewhere in the Act. 
Testimony ofl'obn A. Harja 

H.R.2464 

October 26, 1995 

171 

The Board has two conditions to its support however. First, because this is not an inholding, the 

trust docs not have the same impetus to deal with its lands as in the larger exchange. Therefore, 

the trust will not expend monies to appraise or otherwise determine the value of the lands 

oovered by H.R 2464. The trust will work to get the proposed exchange done, but will not pay 

for the direct costs of the appraisal, or any other work necessary to resolve the value of these 

lands. 

Second, implementation of the Act has proven to be a bard fought exercise. There arc folks on 

both the federal and state side that might like to seek other amendments to the Act. The Board 

docs not want to see any of those other possible amendments attached to this bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY. 
172 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL KENNEDY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2464 

BEFORE THE COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS & LANDS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPkESENTATIVES 

October 26, 1995 

My name is John Kennedy. I am General Counsel for the Confederated Tnbes 

of the Gosbute Reservation, which is headquartered at Ibapah, Utah. I have served as 

the Goshute attorney for 23 years. The Tnbe has authorized me to appear today on its 

behalf in support of H.R. 2464, which is a bill amending P.L. 103-93, "the Utah Schools 

and Lands Improvement Act of 1993 (107 Stat. 995)." 

The Goshute Tnbe is a federally recognized Indian Tnbe located on the border 

of Utah and Nevada about 60 miles south of Wendover, Utah. Approximately one-half 

of the Reservation is in Nevada and the other half is in Utah. The purpose of this bill is 

to correct some boundary problems along the southern edge of the Reservation in Utah. 

H enacted, this bill would lead to the transfer to the Tnbe of about 8,000 acres of Utah 

State land and about 400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Public Law 103-93, which would be amended by this bill was enacted without 

opposition in 1993. That law ttansfen approximately 200,000 acres of Utah State land to 

the federal government in consideration for compensation in an amount equal to the 

appraised value of the transferred land. The 1993 law contemplated that Utah State 

lands within the reservations of the Navajo Tnbe and the Goshute Tnbe would be 

transferred to the United States to be held in trust for the respective Tnbes. 

1 
173 

At the time Public Law 103-93 wu beiDg considered by Congress, the Goshute 

Tnl>e asked that the southern boundaJy issued be resolved as a part of the legislation. 

To avoid slowing passage of the 1993 bill, however, the Goshute Tnl>e agreed to 

withdraw the southern boundaJy issue from consideration and concurred with the plan to 

briDg the matter up later iD the form of an amendment 

The "southern boundaJy issue" simply refers to a block of land lyiDg along the 

southern boundaJy of the Utah portion of the Reservation. That block of land consists 

of approximately 8,000 acres of land iD a very irregular shape. Because of the remote 

location and present configuration of that block of land, proper management of the land 

has been virtually impossible. The State, BLM, and the Tnbe have been unable to 

prevent problems of trespassiDg and poachiDg. Fencing and patrolliDg have been costly 

and difficult 

The result of the proposed amendment would create a boundaJy with a much 

clearer definition. The lands would be held iD trust by the United States for the benefit 

of the Goshute Tnbe, which (with the help of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) will be able 

to regulate grazing and other use of the area. 

The Tnbe has met at length with representatives of the Utah Wilderness 

Coalition and has obtaiDed the support of that group for this proposal. In addition, the 

local State county of Juab has also consented to the proposal. FiDally, the Board of 

Trustees of the School and Institutional Trust Lands AdmiDistration of the State of Utah 

has adopted a resolution (No. 95-02) iD support of this proposal. Copies of documents 

from each group are attached to this statement Also attached is a copy of a map 

2 
174 

depicting the subject area. 

The Tnbe has agreed, if this amendment passes, to be responSible for the cost of 

appraisal of the additional lands involved in this bill. Of course, the cash resources of 

the Tnbe are extremely limited, and we hope that we will be able to get the assistance of 

others in this process. 

Prior to this hearing, we have been infonned that the Department of the Interior 

does not object to this bill. With the support of the State of Utah, conservation 

interests, and the loc:al county along with that of the Tnbe, we feel that this proposed 

legislation is now in a position to be favorably considered by this subcommittee and, 

hopefully, later by the full committee. 

The Tnbal Chainnan, Harlan Pete, has prepared a short statement to be 

included in the record 

John Paul Kennedy 

1385 Yale Avenue 

Salt Lake City, Utah 8410S 

(801) 583-6170 

3 
176 

STATEMENT OF RAaiAN PETE IN SUPPORT or ILL 2464 

BEJIOU 'I1IE OOMMITI'EE ON NA1\11tAL RESOUaCES 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON NA110NAL P.uD, FOUSTS lc LANDS 

UNITED STATES HOOSE or REPUSENTA11VES 

Octoller M, Uf5 

My aame ill HarJu Pete. I am the duly elected Cbairmu of the Tn'baJ Couac:il of 

the Coafederated Tribes of the Golllute RaeJVatioD. I haYe lived alm01t my eatire life oa 

the GoUute Raervatio11. 1be Tribal CouiiCil J&u direeted me to submit this statemeat oa 

behalf of the Tribe ill support of H.R. 2464, ameadilla P.L 103-93, "the Utala Schools ud 

Lucia lmpCOft.lDellt Act cll993 (107 Stat. 995) ... 

Our Raervatioa illoc:ated ill a remoce, but beautiful valley oa the JUab deaert aoath 

ud a little west of·dae Gteat SaJt Lake. Somewltat OYW half of the 470 maaben of my 

Tribe actually live oa the RaeJVatioa. Uaaaploymeat ila major problem for u, with 70CJ& 

of tba~e eliiJ'ble to work raidiiiJ oa the Raervatioa beillJ uaemployed. Tha~e who do 

haw jobs wort for the TribalJOYerllllleat or are aeaerally iawlvecl ill raac:Uaa. 

The Tribe moaJiy IUJIPOI1I dais bm bec:ule it will help to clear-up a loa&-

ltalldiq problem with ouuoathera bouDCiary. The COI'IeCtiou CODtaiaed ill H.R. 

2464 will ~ our abilif¥ to _...oar -.. aacl to prewat problau of 

tre1pU1 boda ill aacl out of tile Raervadoa by IMitoct. Abo, - hope to be better 

able to preYeat poKliq of pate aaiaall wi6ia oar area. Thaab for JWr 

couicleratioa of thil bill. We ..,..... .. ,av llelp. 

Hoa. Harlaa Pete, Gollaute Trh, lbapU, Utala 114034 

1 
176 

The Utah Wddemess Coa&tion 

The Foundation for the 

Utah Wilderneaa Coalition 

PO Box 520974 

Salt Lake City, IJT 84152.()974 

Tolophono: 

Fu: eol•4tl•3111 

IOI04ti042U 

MlMIIlll OIIGAN1ZAT1DNS 

Amen.., Hii<Jng Soolety 

-... - ----

Arizone WNt•wet., Auooia&ion 

AmON Wlldet- Coei- AIIOddon f01 the T- of Ufo 

Colorodo ErMr........,... Cool1lon 

C-odo OutwftaounolOofOftdoro of Wlllllfo 

Oonrt l'rotoollw Could 

fottlololenoflnotltYto 

ForHtTtud 

,.., eo.-.•-- Wcwtohop 

Friondo 

Frioodo of 

of tho tho lottlo 

DUM He-- Frio-oflhe~O<odol'lotoou 

GrOftd ~ TNOt 

ldoho Conoww- l.ooguo 

N..SONI Outdoor Lood........, School 

NotioNI I'..U Oftd c--Aooec!o- Notur"' N..,odoOu Arch __ 

Oftd ltldgo loolety ........,_ 

New MeDoo Wl&derMM Coaldoft 

Oregon Naturtl O..rt AIMdadOft 

l'rojoot UghOhowk 

Sllckr- Country Counoll 

Southern lll.eh w.w.,.,_.. Aa.Nt 

S'I'I.OIIE CSPHiol i'opulotl- '--"'ng 

Outdoor IIOCIMtlon Oftd lducodonl 

Ulntoh Mcuntoln a .. Uteh c.._,., lien• Oub 

Utth Meuntalft Ilk• AeeoclackN\ 

WoootchMouAulftCiub 

Tho Wlldomooo looloty 

FOUNDED IN 1185 

Ato IllS IOI(c)(3lorgorilotlon 

l'~ntod on llooyclod r-r 

John P. llenne4y General cowwel, 

Goshute Tribe 

1385 Yale Avenue 

Salt Lake City, UT 84105 

Dear Mr. :Kennedy: 

October 27, 1994 

The Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) 

has been holdinq discussions with 

representatives of the Goshute Business 

Council concerninq the manaqeaent of 

lends adjacent to the southern boundary of their reservation in western Utah. 

The coalition understands that the tribe 

is concerned about the occurrence of 

trespass from adjacent Utah state lands. 

It is further understood that the tribe 

seeks to resolve the uncertainty associated with the southern boundary of 

its reservation and improve its ability 

to control and protect tribal lands. The 

state lands in question are located in 

Ranqe 19W, Township 125, includinq all or part of Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36. and Section 2 

of. Township 13.5, · · 

The Utah Wilderness Coalition has 

proposed federal wilderness desiqnation 

for 90,200 acres of federal lands in the 

Deep Creek Ranqe borderinq the Goshute 

Reservation. The OWC proposal for the 

Deep Creeks also includes so- of the 

state lands which the Goshute Tribe seeks 

to acquire. The Goshute Business council 

has expressed its support for the owe wilderness proposal for the Deep Creak 

Ranqe. Purtheraore, the Goshute Business 

council has resolved •to maintain, 

aanaqe, and preserve• the wilderness 

character of the Utah state lands it 

seeks to acquire adjacent ~o the southern 

border· or its -reservation .. (Confederated 

'l'ribes··of the Goshute Reservation, 

Resol"Qtion. Jlo.- 93-G-16, JW~e .9. l!lq3) .• 

5. 7 Million Acres orBLM Wildemesa for ·utah 

-
177 

The Utah Wilderness coalition appreciates the Goahute 

Business council's recognition of the value of wilderness 

preservation for the lands an4 resources of the Deep Creek Ranqe. Having considered the purpo- and intent of the Goahute Tribe in 

acquiring the state lands in queation, the Board of Directors of 

the Utah Wilderness Coalition baa voted to support the tribe'• 

efforts to do so. 

Any questions about the Coalition'• position in this aatter 

should · directed to Lawson LeGate, Southwest Regional Reprea , Sierra Club at 801/467-9294. 
Juab County Center 

146NortbMain 

Nephi, Utlh 84648 

Board of 

Commiuioaen: 

Jay M. "Ike" LuDt,· Chairman 

Gordon:M. YOUIII 

Joaepb A. BmWU Tole. (101) 82S-1107 

Fox (801) 82&-4IOt 

AdmiDiatrator 

Randy L. Freaton Tole. (101) 82S-1107 

Aueuor 

Norman L. Alldenon T•'·· (101) 82S-1428 

Attorney 

Donald J. Eyre Jr. Tole. (801) 128-1141 

Clerk/Auditor 

Pat P. Greenwood Tole. (801) 128-01'11 

Economic DevelopDIUit Glenn W. GneDIWeh Tole. (101) 82S-S.ll 

JuaticeCou:ttJudp 

Nephi Precinct 

Sbirla T. William• Tole.(101)-

Juatice Court Judie 

Eureka Precinct 

Charlea H. Blouch Tole. (101) .,_.. 

Recorder 

CreirJ. Sperry Tole. (101) 82S-1480 

Road DepartllleDt Sbermazi 0. PetenoD Tolo. (101) 82S-1181 

Shorilf 

David H. Cuter Tole. (801) 121-1 ... 

Treuurer : Joyce C. Pay Tole. (101)-.-

178 

Juab County 

The "Key" County of Utah 

John Paul Kennedy 

1385 Yale Avenue 

July, 18 1994 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 

Re: Goshute Lands 

Dear Mr. Kennedy: 

You have sent to the Juab County Attorney a copy o! the proposed amendment to the Utah Schools 

and Land Improvement Act o! 1993 (PUb. L. 103-93) 

along with a map showing the area o! lands which 

would be transferred !rom the state to the federal 

government in trust !or the Goshute Tribe. 

Having reviewed these .. tters, Juab county has no object-ion to the proposed .amendment. 

Very truly yours, 

(};.w,J)J~ 

[o~~ ';ernini 

Commission Chairman 

.. cc: . Kevin ·s. · cU:ter; · Assiat;.nt Director Divisi~n · ot· ~tate ~a : an!S forestry 

state ·ot Utah·; .. »apartment ~! Natural Resources 

3 Triad canter, Su'ite 400 

355 Weat .North Temple Salt Lake 'City; Utah 84180-1204 
n1u u1 1 1:n It

~ 'I ~~ ~ ~~ a

lJ ~ g !ir tl a ,~

I rif~ ~:1 tFi2 rillt t

·1 '~~r J o. I rtf ~ .. ~1 os 

!'" a- Jl ·gf If ~ f 1 

bhn ·~a rr~ fib 

._.so ~~ Bll!t -~~a 

Bf( i~ a ~ : lli' 

ft.thJ 

f ;!. ftl fill 

~·~·r i¥ ~~~ f'r 

li'•!f r' i"l '(1 

'- lhn rf !~: II e.l 
180 

1. 1'lle COlla t:ltbe......, llpJIIIIilll of the 1Nit laDda to be Clllthqecllblll be borDe 

by the Gol!ute IDdia Tribe 111/J/or the fedenJ pauma4. 

2. 1lalt the lmeadll"'ll priiMICed to Coapa IbiD be ill eacmially 

the 111111 i1rm ., put beftn thia BoiRIIDII wiJIDOt be ftlrtber IZIIMided to illcludo lilY IUblcamiYe 

c:lw!pt to the proaealllll ~ CCIIItaiDid ia. Pub. L. 103-93. 
181 

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS 

pirftctor, NntignaJ Pnrk Service 

Interior NPS 

I, __ _,R.,o:<;g"'e"'r:....,.G.o.,_.,K>lie~n~nu;eOl:d!..ly'-----------· do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatA. OATH OF OFFICE 

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental 

reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office 

on which 1' am about to enter. So help me God. 

8. AFFIDAVIT AS TO STRIKING AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, 

and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the Ullited States or any agency 

thereof. 

C. AFFIDAVIT AS TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF OFFICE 

I have not, nor has anyone acting In my behal!, given, transferred, promised or paid any consideration 

for or in expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing this appointment. 

at vlashington, D.C. 

/Ci<W) 

[SEAL) 

Commission expires 

(If by a Nawy Public, !he elate of u:pitatlon of hialller CouurUooion ohould be shown) 
182 

The following information is· provided in response to Mrs. Chenoweth's questions regarding 

Shenandoah National Park and an August 9, 1988, letter between Superintendent Wade and Joe 

Davis of the Conservation Fund. 

The letter in question was in direct response to a letter dated August 3, 1988, from Mr. Davis, in 

which Mr. Davis requested such information as was provided in the August 9, 1988 reply. The 

response, and actions related thereto, are consistent with provisions of Shenandoah National 

Park's General Management Plan (GMP), which states, in part: 

"Donations ofland and easements will require many separate, voluntary, private 

actions. As a form of encouragement, a general informational program will be 

undertaken to let adjacent landowners, park neighbors, conservation organizations, 

corporations, philanthropic foundations, and any other interested individuals and 

groups know of Shenandoah's mission and needs. Such a program will describe 

how donors can assist the park's long-range conservation. .. " 

Attached are pages 55-61 of the GMP, from which this was taken. The Plan was approved in 

1983 and went through all compliance and public participation and review requirements prior to 

approval. 

Consistent with. the GMP, it is appropriate to identify areas where there are conflicts and critical 

needs, to make that public information, and to pass such information on to interested parties. 

Providing information that might come to the National Parle Service from "behind the scenes" to 

interested parties regarding the availability of adjacent lands, is what is intended by the GMP. As 

properties in areas of concern become available for acquisition we work with the landowners and 

other groups to try and resolve the problems. 

Access and resource protection are critical issues on all sides of Shenandoah National Parle. The 

areas identified in the August 9letter involved both access and resource protection issues. To 

date, no property has been acquired by the National Park Service at any of the areas identified in 

the August 9, 1988, letter. The issues associated with these areas are still of concern and interest 

to the Parle, however some are of a lesser priority today than when they were identified in 1988. 

In the case of Old Rag the situation has gotten worse since 1988. We are actively working with a 

number of groups and individuals at Old Rag to resolve the conflicts between adjacent property 

owners and park visitors. 

The properties identified in the August 9, 1988, letter remain in private ownership. At Old Rag 

we are actively working to resolve the access problem. Other areas have been identified since 

1988 where access is a problem and we are working with interested parties to resolve those 

problems. At Shenandoah National Park, the National Parle Service has no authority to 

condemn private property nor the authority to purchase land, even from willing sellers. Land can 

be added to the park only through donation. Therefore, where access and resource protection 

problems occur and private property is involved we must work with interested parties, which 

includes both private landowners and third parties to resolve problems. 

184 

LAND PROTECTION 

As stated earlier, Shenandoah's land base includes only 37. 5 percent of 

the acreage originally authorized by Congress. Since the current boundary is long, irregular, and unrelated to topographc features, 

problems have developed and are expected to continue. 

The park does not have authority to address these issues by purchasing 

private land . This plan, based on public response, focuses on continuing use of existing voluntary tools of donation and equal-value exchange 

within the authorized donation boundary. This approach is not expected to increase the amount of land in federal ownl!rship to any significant extent. The emphasis will be on improving situations around the current perimeter of NPS ownership. Shenandoah's land base will continue to consist of lands owned in fee, reserved rights-of-way, and scenic and access easements on adjacent private land as shown on the Land ·Protection map . The boundary within which donations may be accepted 

will remain at 521,000 acres (210,800 ha), as authorized by the Congress 

in 1926. 

Because donation and exchange programs depend on voluntary action by 

landowners, it is not possible to predict when and where transactions will occur. However, the purpose of accepting donations and arranging 

exchanges of land would be, to the greatest extent possible, to 

protect water quality, vegetation, and wildlife 

provide · the land base needed for direct visitor use, recreation, 

administrative facilities, and resource protection 

maintain or relocate trails, trail accesses, and trail resources avoid where possible degradation of scenic vistas within the 

authorized boundary of the park and contribute to scenic 

values in the region 

improve the relationship of the land base to topographic 

features and public roads 

improve ability to maintain and manage perimeter public facilities 

While donation and exchange can help solve problems anywhere within the 

authorized boundary 1 the following map indicates those points around the current perimeter where special efforts will be directed to accomplish the 

objectives of this plan. The National Park Service will consult with local 

governments on proposed donations/exchanges of private land. Land or specific interests In l•nd can be donated to the United States. Donations are gifts and may be considered as charitable contributions providing 

significant tax benefits for property owners. On donations of land in fee 

simple the National Park Service may permit landowners to continue their use and occupancy of the land and facilities for a specific period of 

years, or possibly their lifetimes. Provisions will be drawn concerning 

the appropriate reserved use and any permissible alteration to existing 

improvements on the property. In this way the quality of the property 

may be assurea until it comes Into complete federal custody. 

55 
185 

Although donations may be accepted anywhere within the authorized · boundary, emphasis will be placed on tracts adjacent to land now under 

NPS jurisdiction. Such transactions will be primarily to Improve 

efficiency in management, provide for public recreational use, or generally improve protection of park. resources. Nonadjacent tracts within 

the authorized boundary also may be accepted to protect Important resources or to be used in future exchanges. Proposed donations will not be accepted If they would place unreasonable burdens on administration, 

management, and enforcement. 

Exchanges will involve the equal-value trade of properties in fee. Where 

possible and appropriate, restrictions on development and use will be 

placed in the deed conveying land out of federal ownership. Such 

restrictions will" be designed to protect historic, natural, and scenic: 

values and protect adjacent landowners from lntompatlble uses. 

Equal-value exchange will be undertaken to complete and/or improve resources currently protected and to improve the relationship of the 

perimeter to existing features and. nearby private use. Proposed 

exchanges that could place undue administrative and protection burdens 

upon park management will not be undertaken. 

It is remotely possible that easements may be exchanged; this will occur only on single-owner property. As land uses and development patterns 

continue to change within the Blue Ridge Mountains, either the National 

Park Service or a property owner may desire to change the actual 

configuration of easement coverage, providing protection to a different area or relocating an existing or future access. 

In order to simplify administration and reduce operational difficulties for 

the National Park Service and local governments in the area, three 

situations may be resolved by deleting some park lands. The first action 

would be the trade of small parcels of land with the Virginia Department 

of Highways to Improve maintenance and jurisdiction of state roads 

through or at the perimeter of the park. The second would be to reassign approximately 10 acres of park land currently used by the U.S . 

Custom Service, Canine Enforcement Training Center (under a special use permit) to the Department of Treasury, U.S. Custom Service. The third 

would be the· transfer of land along and under Crlser Road to the city of 

Front Royal. Federal legislation would be required before any of these 

transactions can be undertaken. 

Shenandoah National Park currently leases 2 acres (0.81 . ha) of land for 

visitor parking in Weakly Hollow. The policy of extremely limited leasing 

will continue wherever and whenever It Is advantageous but only as a temporary measure for small amounts of land and for limited periods of 

time. 

Donations of land and easements will require. many separate, voluntary, 

private actions. As a form of encouragement, a general informational 

program will be undertaken to let adjacent landowners, park neighbors, 

conservation organizations, corporations, philanthropic foundations, and 

any other interested Individuals and groups know of Shenandoah's mission 

and needs. Such a program will describe how donors can assist the 

59 
186 

LAND PROTECTION 

(a) 

(b) 

(c)(d) 

Shenandoah is well known for its spectacular views from Skyline 

Drive. Much of what is seen is beyond the park boundary. 

Nearby development of second homes threatens to encroach 

upon views . The plan identifies the most urgent problem points 

where views need to be protected and encourages existing 

voluntary tools of donation and land exchange. 

Public trail access from the perimeter of the park is not 

guaranteed at many popular trailheads. The plan identifies 

these problem points and encourages voluntary cooperation or 

donation of access easements from park neighbors. 

60 
187 

park's long-range conservation of the Blue Ridge Mountains and improve 

visitor use. Reserved use end occupancy and possible tax advantages for 

donors will also be outlined (see appendix H) . 

While emphasis will continue to focus on problem points, cooperation with 

the local surrounding communities will continue. The National Park 

Service will encourage the consideration of scenic, naturill, cultural, and 

public use values and opportunities through comment on specific 

community proposals and general regional concerns. · 

Payments in lieu of taxes, depending on appropriations, will continue to 

be provided to local counties for Shenandoah's existing lend base and will 

be extended to cover any new lands acquired by donation or exchange. 

The amount of payment will be In accordance with public laws 94-565 and 

95-469 . . 

Surveys for endangered or threatened plant or wildlife species will be 

conducted on all deleted lands. Similarly, surveys and other actions will 

be taken to comply with historic preservation policies and laws. 

Relocation of people whose land is donated or exchanged is governed by 

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act of 1970, PL 91-646 . 

Summarily, the program established for Shenandoah's land base over SO 

years ago will continue . Expansion and modification within the donation 

boundary and the protection of the Blue. Ridge Mountains will depend 

heavily upon the concern and goodwill of citizens, groups, and public 

agencies of the local area, state, and outside Virginia. The National Park 

Service will protect · Its existing land, easements, end new donations. 

Most of the land between the existing perimeter and the authorized 

donation boundary will remain outside federal ownership or easement protection, and the National Park Service will work cooperatively with 

local communities to help maintain the values shared by all. 

61 
188 

• 

United States Department of the Interior 

Mr. Hartin J. Fi tzgeralc! 

OmCE OF 'Ill£ SOUCITOR 

Wuhil\ctoll. D.C. 20240 

Special Assistant to the General Counsel 

General Accaunting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20546 

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald~ 

This responds to your letter of May 8, 1992, to Secretary Lujan in 

which you ask the secretary to provide you with a discussion of the 

legal autbority for a particular provision contained: in the 

National Park Service . (Nl'S) concession contract· for Sequoia and 

Kings canyon National Parks '(NPS concession contract No. CC-WAS0-

002-72, as · amended, the "Contract)," entered into with Guest 

Services, Xnc. t the "Concessioner") . 

The provision in question is contained in subsections 2(b)(2)-(9) 

which ) calls for the Concessioner to establish a "Fund for 

'Improvements" ("Concessioner Fund provision") for the repair, 

maintenance and improvement ("improvements") by the Concessicner 

of certaia Government buildings. The Concessioner Fund provision was added to the Contract by its Amendment No. 1 dated October 3, 

1989. Your letter particularly a~ks us to address the implications of 16 u.s.c. §452 ("§452"), 40 .u.s.c . . §303b §303b'~), and 16 

U.S . C. §20f in connection with the legal authority for the 

Concessianer Fund provision . · 

Before c1a1119 sp, however, we would like to point out that the 

concessi9Der FuniS provision is not unique among NPS concession 

contracta.- A number of other NPS concession contracts contain 

similazo provisions. Although not directly bearing ~pen the 

authorit:r for such provisions, we alae · note that several Nl'S 

concessian contract .. which contain similar provisions·. have been 

submitted to the Congress for a sixty day: review period prior ·to .NPS exacuUOD as ~equired by 16 u..s.c. §17b-1 . 

TurninCJ to the Contract, ita Concessioner Fund provision in c;aneral te~s prov;ldes that the Ccncessicner is to create and mana9e a fund 

in a sep~ate bank account the monies of which are to be used by the conce.ssioner to ·· ~ndertake . improvements to . Government 

Xmprovements (i.e., NPS constructed buildinga aasi-c;ned to the 

Concessioaer ~or use in its concession operations. ) The 

Ocncessianer is to deposit into the account on a monthly b~is an amount equal to the fair rental value of the buildinqs as 
189 

prov~ous~y estab~~shod by tho contract. Concom~tant~y, tho ob~~gat~on under the Contract for the Concessioner to pay build:l.ng .use fees (JDOney rent) Ui this amount was exUni'\1-i&hed by Am•ndlnent 

No. · 1. The Concossioner t. to ~mdertake particul.a:r p:lr:'o;iects 

regarding assigned Government buildings with f~mds from the acco~mt 

at the direction of NPS and is to account for such expenditures 

with copies of receipts, billings and other documen~ation 

satisfactory to HPS. The Concessioner may charge the account up to 

10t of project costs for reasonable administrative costs directly 

associated with carrying out individual projects. At the 

termination or expiration of the Contract, or in other specified 

circwutances; the balanc:e remaining in the account is to be 

expended for projects at the· diz-ection of NPS or is to be 

transferred to a successoz- concessioner, if any! or otherwise 

liquidated at tho direction of NPS. 

To s~a:rize, the Fund provision provides an accounting mechanism 

whereby funds of the Concessioner necessary for the Concessioner 

to provide non-monet&ry compensation in the form of required 

improvements to assigned Government buildings are segregated and 

expended by the Concessioner subject to NPS appz-oval on a project 

by project basis. In this regard, we believe that your letter to us contains a technical error as it states . that the account 

contains the "monthly fee ·paid by (the Concessioner) foz- ~he use of government-owned park improvements." Rather, the Concessioner 

Fund provision relieved the Concessioner of paying building use fees ,in consideration of assuming non-monetary_ obliqations-. In 

other'vords, the Concessioner is not paying "rent" into the Fund, 

but, rather, is depositing into the account its ovn money· which is 

needed .to fulfill its non-monetary obligations und~r the Contract: 

The authority for the Conc.essioner Fund provision is contained in 

16 u.s c. §20 et seq., the Concessions Policies Act of 1965 (the 

"Act".) Under the A.ct, the Secreto!.ry is authorized "to take 1uch 

action as . may be appropriate to encourage and enable 

concessionAires to provide and operate facilities and services 

which he deems desirable for ·the accommodation of visitors" in az-ea• of the natioruil. park system. 16 u.s.c. §:ZOa. Among other 

matters-, ._ the Act contampl.ates that concessionaires will .provide 

from their own funds "investment in structures, improvements, 

equipment, supplies, and other tangible property" in c:onnec:tion 

with ·such facilities and services. 16 u.-s.c. §20b. In addition, a conceaaioner is entitled to obtain a .. "possessory interest" (compensab~e . interest) in ca·rtain structures, f~xtU:Ir:'e 'or 

improvements it makes within park areas . 16 u.s.c. §20e. Finally, 

Section 7 of the ·Act, 16 u.s;c. §20f ("Section 7"), ·spec:ifieally autho~izes the Secretary, as discussed in detail below, to lease 

gov•rnment-owned buildings or lands to concesaionaires in 

connection with concession contz-acta for non-monetary consideration 

by making inapplicab~e to such le&ses the provisions of §303b. 

In summary, the Secretary is authorized ' by tho Act to enter into 

concession contract& which provide for, among other· matters, 

expenditure of concessioner funds for park improvemen t.s and, 
190 

specifically, 11on-110netary consideration tor the use ot govern~~~entOIIIied buildings and lands by the conceuioner. We consider that the 

CODceasioner .Fund provision of the Contract represents an eppropriate eechanisa to iJSplement thi s authority as discussed 

further below. 

Your letter asks us to discuss several particular legal issues 

regarding the Concessioner Fund provision. As a means to address 

tb .. e .issues and others, we have d~veloped the following questions Bad responses. · 

Question 1: Does Section 7 provide Con9ressional authorization 

for the use of non-moDetary consideration with respect to buildings and lands assigned to NPS concessi onaires? 

Response: Yes. Section 7 was included in the Act by Congress for the specific: purpose of making c:lear that NPS c:ould obtain non- manetary consideration for use ot buildings and lands assigned to 

concessionaires. (The United States Code title for this provision is "Use of non-monetary consideration in leases of Government 

l'roperty. "l In fact. inclusion of the provision was prompted by the 

Comptroller General in 49 Comp . Gen. 493 (1982) in which the 

CC.ptroller General held that NPS was not authorized to include in 

concession contracts provisions calling for the repair and 

JSaintenance of Government property by concessionaires because of 

the prohibitions of §303b . The Comptroller General concluded his 

opiniqn by stating that if the Secretary wished to have "the costs 

of repairs and improvements financed by concessionaires under such 

caatraetual arrangements rather than through direct appropriations by Congrese , speci(ie statutory authority therefor . should be 

obtained by Congress .-• contel!lplated by 40 u.s.c. §303b." 

This is just what occurred in the form of Section 7 of the Act. The 

legislative history of the Act is replete with statements to the 

effect that Section 7. was intended to authorize NPS to continue its 

practice of accepting building improvements from concessionaires 

in lieu of cash rent in response to the 1962 Comptroller General 

opinion, See. e.q. 89 Con9. Rec . 22787 (1965); s. 1\~p. No. 765, 9th Cong-., 1st Seas. 5 ( 1965 l . The COmptroller General commented 

upon this fact in a letter of April 22, 1964, to the Committee on :Interior and Insular Affairs, which waa considering the legislation vhlch beca111e the Act. H.R. Rep. No. 1426, 88th COn~ , 2d Seas. 

( 1964). 'l'he Colaptroller General stated that. Section 7 'would exempt concession contracts fro• the provisions of ••• 40 u.s.c. §303b. ,' ., and thereby permit the Par.lc; Service t .o continue its practice of 

reducing franchise fees charged concessionaires upon the condition 

tbat they construct or mAke other capital iaprovements on CoYe:rm~~ent OWDed property." 14... at 20. The Comptroller Qeneral was opposed to NPS having t;his authority but nonetheless .certainly recognizee! 'it as such. · .. 
191 

Qgestion a: Assuminq that Section 7 authorizes NPS to contract 

vith concessionaires for non-r~onetary consideration for the use of 

Government buildinqs in the forlll of impzoovements to the l)uild:Lngs, 

is the Concessioner Fund provision a proper implementation of this 

authorization ? 

Response: Yes. As discussed above, the Concessioner Fund 

provision is an accountinq mechanism whereby Concessioner funds 

necessary for the Concessioner · to provide · non-monetary 

consideration in the form of improvements to Government bu:l.ldin9a are segre9ated by the concessioner in a Conceasioner bank account 

and expended by the Concess:l.oner for such purpose• at the direction 

of HPS. Section 7, as it does not prescribe or limit the manner in 

wh:l.cb its authorization is to be implemented, provides NPS 

reasonable administrative discretion in this regard and authorizes use of contract provisions · which .. assure proper procedures for 

accountability. (~, e.g., 42 Comp. Gen 467 (1_963)). An obvious concern with non-monetary consideration is the possibility that the 

consideration will not in fact be forthcoming in whole, or part 

because of the lack of precise fundinq mechanisms or reviewable 

accounting procedures. NPS, we believe, through the Conceaaioner 

Fund provision, has effectively dealt with this potential problem 

in a manner consistent with its administrative authority under 

Section 7. 

In this regard, your letter notes that e~penditures from the accoun't are at the direction of NPS. 'l'hi:; is necessarily the case. NPS (acting for the Secretary of the Interior) is mandated to 

preserve the resources of the national park system. 16 u.s.c . §1 

et seq. This mandate extends to all construction activitiea in areas of the national park system. including repairs, maintenance 

and improvements made to Government-owned buildings even when those 

buildings are util1:ted by a third party. 16 u.s.c. §20. NPS 

concessionaires have constructed and improved thous·ands of 

buildings in areas of the national park system with their own funds as authorized by . the Act. Nonetheless, no such construction or improvements are undertaken without the specif;!.c approval of NPS as necessary and appropriate for accommodation of park Yisitors. 

The Contract (in Section 4(bl l, in fact, contains these 

requirements independent of the concessioner Fund provision. We 

consider it legally mandatory that NPS have contract authority to 

decide what improvements are 111ade .to buildings or landa in · park 

areas, irrespective of ownership of buildinqs or the source of the 

funda. 16 U . S .C . §la-1.. · 

Question 3: Does §303b, §452 or 31 u.s.c. §3302(b) ("§'3302(bl"l 

require that amounts paid into the account eatabliahed purauant to 

the Concessioner .Fund provision by the Concessioner be de~aited 

instead in the United States Treasury as miacellaneous receipts of 

the United states? · 
192 

ReQoaae: Ro. §303b zoequir .. that, uplo11 otboryiu lptPC:ifisaUv ArQ!&4t4 by 1aw, the le .. ing of properties of the Unite~ States 

ahall be tozo DOAey consideration only and that the .oney dezoived 

fZ'Cil aucb le .. es . shall be deposited into the 'l're .. ury as aiacell1111eous receipts. AI disC:Wited ~ve,· however,. Section 7 .of 

the Act apecifically exempts NPS concession contract• from the 

appllcation of t:h.i• .law. 

With respect to §452, it provide• that all revenue• of the national 

pub shall be covered into the Treaaury to the· credit of 

IIUc:eUa-. receipt•. §330:Z(b) (fo&"aerly 31 u.s.c. §484) provide• 

that an official of the Gove:maent receiving 110ney for the 

Govcnment from any source ahall 4epoait the money in the 'freaaury .. aoon as practicable without deduction for any Ch&%9e or claim. 

Both these statutes require that money received by the Unitec 

Stat- be deposited in the Treaaury unless the aqency ha4 ltatutory authority to retain the funds. 62 Comp. Gen. 678 (1983). 

In this r4t9ard, we consider "that the Section 7 exemption from §303b 

provides by implication a specific statutory exemption from §452 

and §3302(b) as well. Congresa hardly could have intended to qrant 

NPS an exemption from the §303b requirement for · depo•iting lease 

payments in the Treasury (in. circumstances where non-monetary consideration is rec•ivea instead of cash) while at the same time 

intending that such payments be deposited in the 'l'reasury by virtue 

of th~ operation of other statutes. Put another way, if the Fun~ 

provision is a proper implementation of the non-monetary consideration authority· provided by Section 7, it must be 

considered as consistent with § ·452 and §3302~bl to the extent 

otherwise applicable. 

We vou.ld also note, however, that under the Concessioner Fune 

provi1ion, the Govern~~~ent does not in fact "receive" any money from 

the Concessioner (thereby not triqgering , even if otherwise 

applicable, §452 and §3302(b)). Rather, the Concessioner provides 

non-IIIOII.etary corusideration to the Government . in the form of 

improvements to Government buildings. NPS under· the Contract (as 

amanded)- has no right to receive from the Concessioner ca1h f•nt ~or t:he use of Goverruaent t>uilcUngs. The fact that func!s of ·the 

Concessioner necessary ~o fulfill its non-monetazoy obligations are segregated by the conces•ioner in a Concessioner bank account c!oes 

not -an that the Govenuaent "receives" or 'is entitled to "receive" 

cash from 'the Concessioner. ·'l'he money fr0111 th;e account -y only be 

spent by the Concessioner to -ke improvement• to Government 

buildings utilized by the Conceasioner. NPS has no ri9ht ·under the Con~~ to take· -aney from .the account or to direct that money be 

deposited elsewhere than. into the account (except upon contract te~tion or in o~er limited circumstances.) Neither §452 nor §3302(b)~ of course, ·requires, or could require, NPS to deposit into the Treatury funds to which it has no legal ri9ht. (We would 

consider, . however, that. in circumatances where NPS has authority 

under the Concessioner Fund provision to direct the balance of 

monies in the account to unspecified disposition, i.e., upon 
193 

Contract t~t:i.on, NPS would. be required. by .§4:52 and/or §3302(b) 

to cause tbe ~- to be deposited . in the Treasury. ) 

Quest:ion c: Bow is the concessioner Fund _provision 

d.ist:inguishable from -the circumstances at issue in 35 Comp. Gen. 

813 0955) and 6( Caaap: .Gen. 217 (1985)? 

aespon~~e: zn 35 eomp. Gen. 813 (1955) ("GSA I:"), the Comptroller 

General. rev:iewed a "aese~e for lquipJDant Account" contained in a General. Serv:i.ces Adain:istratli.on ("GSA") contract for fo04 ••rvic:es 

for ·governmeDt e-ployees. IJnder this reserve account, the 

contractor wae required to deposit into a bank account ppone4 by 

the Cgntract:ipq Officer (GSA) certain percentages of tbe 

contractor's gross receipts. The funds in the reserve account were used tor the :replacement or major repair of c;overft111ent-owned 

equipment and tbe purchase of additional equipment with the 

approval of GSA. 

The Comptroller General held the reserve account to be in violation 

of 40 u.s. c . §484 and §303b. However, GSA did not have a·etatutory exemption such aa that contained in Section '7. The opinion, 

accorc:!inqly, was premised upon the proposition that a reserve account mecbani.s111 cannot be used as means to avoid otherwise 

applicable requirements to deposit. c;overnment receipts into the 

Treasury. This, of course, makes the opinion's reasoninc; c;enerally 

inapplicable to the Concessioner Fund provision. We also note, 

howevo;r, as discussed further below, that the GSA I res•rve account was opened by GSA rather than by the -contractor in contrast to the 

Concessioner Fund provision. The comptroller General c!ic5 not 

suggest in G~A I tbat even this type of reserve account would be 

improper i~ GSA had a statutory exe111ption from §303b. We therefore 

do not consider that GSA 1 .&Ufiqesh in any manner that a contractor 

opened rese~e account such as the one called for by the 

Concessioner Fund provision is i111proper where a statutory exemption 

to §303b exists. 

In 64 Comp. Gen . 217 (19851 ("GSA II"), the Comptroller General revie~o~ecl a GSA contract clause under which a food services 

contrac-tor (coincidentally, ·Guest Services, Inc. l was to credit a certain percentac;e of its income to a "Reserve for Purchase and 

Replacement of Gove%DIIIent-owned Equip111ent." ~his reserve ac:C:ount, 

however, was not established as a separate bank account but rather as a ":reserve in the accounting syste111" of •the contractor to which 

funds of the contractor ware to be credited but not deposited 

formall.y. RonetheleBa, funds credited to this ·account could only 

be expezulea by the contractor . with the approval of GSA for 

replac-ent o~ govermaant-owned equipment which was to be the 

property of GSA. Upon the termi~ation of tJ'Ie contract, the balance 

in the res~rve ac~t was to be paid to GSA :l.n cash or· assets. 

The Comptrol~er Gelaeral in GSA II. concluded that th1• :reserve ac::count "clid not violate f.3302(b) (formerly 31 u.s.c. §452) because 

the account constitutes 'a mer• book-keeping entry in the internal .accounts" of the contractor as opposed to the "actual transfer .of 
194 

funds into a bank account for th6 : future use of the Government" 

which GSA II suggests was found unacceptable in the circumstances 

of GSA I. GSA II alae holds that the GSA II reserve account did not 

violate §303b because of the "unique nature of the GSA-GSI 

agreement·" and a ccaclusion in a pr,l.or GAO audit to the effect that 

the ·agreement was a license not a lease subject to §303b. · 

10 summarize, in GSA I the Comptroller General held as unlawful a ~ special account where there was no exemption from §303b. In GSA 

II:, however, the CCmptroller General held as lawful an account 

which vas a book-keeping entry of the contractor rather than a separate bank account (and found that §303b· did not apply). 

The Concessioner · .Fund provision account may be describea as a hybrid of the GSA I and II accounts a.s it is a separate bank 

account rather than a book-keeping entry but is an account of the 

Concessioner, not the Government . As such, it does not directly fall vi thin the analysis of either GS,\ I or GSA II. The other 

significant distinction between the Fund provision and t.he GSA I 

and II accounts is. of course, the affirmative exemption to §303b 

provided by Section 7 for NPS concession contracts but not present in either GSA I or GS,\ II. In other substantive respects, ali three 

accounts are the same, that is. they are mechanisms whereby a contractor segregates· a portion of its funds in an account which 

is to be used by the contractor, subject to Governmental approval, 

to provide funds to pay for non-monetary contract consideration to 

the go:ternment in the form of improvements to Government property. 'I'he monetary consequencelS of the three- types of accounts insofar as they relate to the Government's interest in the money involved are the same. 

For these reasons, ·we do not .interpret GSA II as precluding the 

Concessioner . Funa provlsl.on, that is, as precluding the 

establishment of a bank account by a contractor for segregation of 

contractor funds to be drawn on by the contractor to pay for non- monetary lease consideration ~ the . federal agency has a specif~c statutory exemption from §303b. 

We alSC?- point . out that an opposite .conclusion would lead to an cnomalous result. NPS; if GSA II was interpreted to preclude the 

Fund provision, w'ould ·be required . to seek amendment of the 

Coneessioner Fund provision to make the Concessioner' e bank ac:count 

merely an account:l.nq entry on the books of the Concessioner. Other 

aspects of the Fund ·provision would remain as consistent with what vas allowed in GSA II, but, the Government would lose what appears 

to us to be a significant benefit, the added accountability for 

auciit and· oversight of non-monetary consideration provided by a separate bank account. In thi• connection, ·we suggest that rnere ·book-.keeping entries of a government contractor are · far more susceptible to improper manipul~tion or abuse· by a contractor than 

is a separate bank account and that tracing and auditing deposits ·to and expenditures from a separate bank account would be 

substantially more effective than with mere book-keeping entries. 
195 

iD oth.:!r uorc!s, an O'!'ed)' broad interpretation of GSA u: as appl:i.ed 1:c the Fund provis:I.Qn, woull!, in our opinion, result in the anomaly 

of iDcreased prospects for fraud and abuse in connection with NPS 

coaeession contracts with no offsetting benefit to the Government. 

Xn thLB regard, we note a May 21, 1992, letter to the Secretary 

rra.. t:he comptroller General which, a~~~ong other aiatters, recommends 

increased RPS scrutiny and overlight of conceasioner set-aside 

account (such a~ the conceasioner Fund provision), a goal which, 

ta our opinion, would be frustrated by limiting auch accounts to mere boOk-keeping entries. · 

Question 5: AasUIIIing that there is legal authority for the 

eoncusioner Fund provision in general, vhat is the legal authority 

for its particular provision which authorizes payment from the 

accouat to the Concessioner of up to 1 Ot of project costs for 

administrative expensea of the Concusioner? 

Response: We consider that the authority of NPS to contract for 

non-monetary consideration in concession ~ontracts, specifically, 

to obtain improvements to government buildings in consideration of use of assigned buildinglii, authorizes NPS to rec09fti&e in computing 

the amount of such non-monetary consideration the related 

administrative costs of the concessioner. It is beyond aispute, we believe, that when an NPS concessioner undertakes an improvement 

project it incurs not only hard expenses tor construction (brick 

and JROrtar, engineering, etc .l, .but · also necessarily incurs 

expenses related to the administration of the construction work 

(management time, office overhead, etc.) .. In short, ·· such 

administrative costs ere part of any cons~ruction project and we see no reason why they should not be recoqni:&ed in calculating non- monetary consideratio~ to the Government, and, accordingly, why 

they should not be included in the Concessioner fund provision. The same result could be achieved by simply reducing the Concessioner' s deposits into · the account by an appropriate amount, thereby 

indirectly incorporatin'iJ administrative expenses into. project 

costs. This, however, would be less desirable from an audit 

perspective for generally the salle reasons set forth above in 

connection with the b"enefits of a special bank account as opposed 

to •ere ~k-keepinq entries. 

Your consideration is appreciated. If .there are any questions or if ve 111ay be of further a•sistance, please· call Mr. Lars Hansl.in 

of my staff at 308-795?. 

Sincerely yours, 

·::::~:~.n-....QJi_~· ~iel G. Shillito 

Associate Solicitor 

Conservation and Wildlife 
196 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

the 

THE UNITED ST~TES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC\JL11JRE 

FOI'elt Senic:e 

the 

THE UNJTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

u.s. Army Corps or EqiDeers 

ud the 

THE UNJTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TBE INTERIOR 

Bureau or Lllad Maaapmeat 

Bureau of Redusatiou 

Flsb ud WDdlife Senic:e 

Natioaal Park SenJc:e 

On 

CONCESSIONS' MANAGEMENI' 

This Memorandum of Understandina (MOU) is entered inlo by and amona the United StaleS 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the United States Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Eogineers; and tbe United StaleS Department of lbc Interior. Bureau of l...and 

Manaaemem. Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Parle Service. 

Collectively, the parties to this MOU sball be rcfemd to u Cooperators. 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this MOU is to promote in~er&gency consisteocy and cooperation in 

concessions managemeot. Tbe Cooperators sba1l worlt together to achieve common goals. 

Tbese goals ioclude: 

1 For the purposes of this Memorandum Of Understanding, a concession is lbc privilege 

of operating a business for lbc provision of recreation services, facilities, or activities on Federal 

lands or waters. 
197 

I. Introducing nue ~on imJ cooc:cssions projp"II1B first 10 ~ 1he quality of 

services provided 10 1he public and !JCCOQd 10 cmlR a &ir return 10 1he Fcdcnl ~ 

2. 1Jl1)r0ving tuincss relations and fostaing intcragax:y ooopention by malcing ooncessions 

policies JnOre Wlifam; IIJd 

3. Making ooncessions pogranB 1lD"C IIDCilllble 10 IUdit. 

In achieving these p1s, 1he Coqlcnlas nn wmtc togll:lber 10 adlkas tbc rcamnmdations 

fa- oonccssions mmaga.ncrt rcfmn p-eviously idcnificd by the Congress, the ~ of the 

Inspcc:toc Gcnenl. 1he GovcmmciJl ~ om~ IIJd the Dcpartrnett of the Imcria's 

1992, "Rqxlrt of the Cooccssions Mlmagemcm Task Faa: R.cprding Comrnm:ial 

R.ecttational Activities on Federal Lands. • These rcCIOnanendations include the foUowing: 

I. Fonn an lrucrajJcncy Cooccssions Managcmc:m Comiinating Grol,lp consisting of agency 

cooccssions management specialists and appq:riate policy officials 10 review oonccssions 

management operations. 

2. Each agency should establish and maintain a conocssioncr dalabase, using a common set 

of data elements. The dala clements for each data base should include, at a mininun, 

information on the (I) type of agreancnt; (2) lcnglh of agrcc.rnem; (3) expiration date; ( 4) 

services provided; (5) IIDJ8l 8JOSS receipts; (6) fees paid; (7) value of in-kind payments made 

in lieu of fees; (8) dates of audits; and (9) dates of review.. and C\laluations. 

3. Each agency should establish and maintain staff skilled in concessions ~ 

4. To the extent pcnniued by law and 10 the cxrcnt p11Cticable, develop consistent provisions 

for concession irmumcnts for the same types of uses. 

5. Develop cooperative procedlrcs 10 facilitale au!horilation of ~boundary conccssioner uses. 

6. To the c:xlcnt pcrmiued by law, develop consistc:nl policies for setting fees for similar 

types of conocssions. 

7. [.)evelop and apply an acanre valuation systan and reasooable controls for in-kind 

payments made in lieu of fees. 

8. Develop clig~bility and pcrforn&ICC standards fer all cmcasions prograrm. 

2 
198 

D. GUIDING PIUNCJI'IES: 

The Coopc:ralors shall use the following pinciplcs ~ a guide in ilq:llemcning the 

rcccmmcndcd refmm: 

l. Who'e pcnniucd by law, fees fir all cmcessioo insaummts should be based oo fair 

market value. 

2. Using a market-based~ cSibli3h a budiDc fcc ir ~ mp:sa f<r 

proposals, and ncgotilticm. . 

3. Who'e pcrmiuA:d by law, recoup lldministndive casts fir all cmcessioo insaummts. 

4. Who'e pcrmiuA:d by law, c:hqe a fee baed oo fair market value for cmcessioo 

instruments with State and local pranmcniS that have • subordinle instrument with third 

parties. 

S. Where permitted by law, each agency should limit the length of r¥:W. cooccssioo 

agreements to the shortest practical period, unless a longer tcnn is dctcrmincd to be in the 

public interest. 

6. Require agency review lnd lllfX'OYal for trmlfcrs of 0\WCI'Ship or oontrol of the 

conccssioo opcmi<n All cmcessioo in5lrumcnts should provide that ~, such transfers 

occur, the tcnns of the authoriDtiooaR 500jcct to rmcgotialicn 

7. Agencies having ~itive cmcessioo opportunities, including rcoffcrinJP, should 

advertise widely in llpJli'Op'iiK media. 

8. Unless required by law, agencies should not 8J8nl Jrefercntial rights of rc:newal in 

concession instruments. 

9. Unless required by law, qmcies should not am a possessory inlcrest in improvancnts 

covered by conccssioo imtn.anmls. 

10. Where pcrmiuA:d by law, OOIJliCI'SMKn for a posscssay irmest in~ covered 

by a concessi~ instrument shoold be based ~ book value. 

The guiding pinciples are not to be <XlllSidered biDdirJa agmcy policy Wltil such time ~ 

~ by the agencies, ....... 10 my ncoeswy ~ wm the Administrative 

Procedure Act . 

3 
199 

Dl SfA'IlMFNT OF MliTUAL BDIID'JI'S AND IN"''mEST 

The Cooperators have a common interest in providing quality visitor services and safe 

reaeational experiences. Customer service and resource stewardship, aloog with ensuring a fair return to the Fcdc:ral govcmmcnl, shall guide the Coopcralors' efforts. Differences in 

concessions managed by the Cooperators, m:h as size and awlicable legal requirements, are 

recognized, and shall be takt.n imo <XXlSidenlboo. A brief summary of each party's 

concessions program follows: 

Bweau of I NUl ManaiQDRll - As a result of the Reclamation Project Act, BLM inherited 

recreational concession leases and their associated sites from the Bufc:au of Reclamation. 

BLM initiated a concession policy of its own in 1989. 

Burta~.~ of Rcclamatioo - Of the approximately 250 conunercial concessions on Bureau of 

Reclamation lands, the bureau manages 16 directly. The remainder are managed by other 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

U S, Army Oxps of Fn&]ncm - The primary objective of the Corps' concessions program is 

to provide services and facilities to meet public recreational demands at reasonable prices. 

Forest Sgyjce - A large number and variety of commercial reaeation concessions operate in 

the National Forests. Some of these conunercial operations include ski areas, outfitting and 

guiding, and campgrounds. 

Fish and Wildlife Smice - Twmty concession entcprises are authorized to utilize land<;, 

waters and facilities managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

National Park Service- The Concessions Policy Act of 1965 codifies virtually all aspects of 

concessions management in the National Park Service. Conunercial Use Licenses, not under 

the purview of the Act, are USfd for services with minor impact on park resources. 

IV. IN <XJNSIDERATI<JII OF 1HE ABOVE, IT IS MUTUAlLY AGRDD BY 1HE 

PARmSlHAT: 

The Cooperators shall endeavor to meet at a fu:qucncy necessary to achieve the goals and 

recornrnendations outlined in Ibis MOU. In doing so, they shall share information and 

cooperate in prornobng grcarcr cotlsdcncy in their respective concessions managcm:nt 

programs. The following cmsidcrations are recognized in implementing Ibis MOU: 

I. The public interest shall be the primary consideration of the agencies implementing this 

MOU. 

2. In implementing Ibis MOU, each agency shall be operating under its O'MI laws and 

4 
200 

regUlations. 

3. Nothing in this MOU is intended to alter, limit, or expand the statutory and regulatory 

authority of the Cooperators. 

4. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving 

reimbursement or cOntribution of funds between the panics to this MOU shall be bandied in 

accordance with applicable laws, regulatioiiS, and procedures, including those for 

Gove~nt procurement and printing. Such endeavors shall be outlined in separate written 

agreements between parties and shall be independently authorized by statute. This MOU 

does not provide such authority. Specifically, this MOU does ·not establish authority for 

noncompetitive award · of any contract or other agreement. Any contract or agreement for 

training or other services must fully comply with all applicable requirements for competition. 

4. This MOU in no way restricts the parties from participating in similar activities with 

other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals. 

5. No member of or delegate to Congress shall benefit from this MOU either directly or 

indirectly. 

6. Any party, in writing, may terminate this MOU in whole or in part at any time before its 

expiration when the other party has failed to comply with the conditions of this MOU. 

7. Modifications to this MOU shall be made in writing and with the consent of the 

Cooperators and shall be signed and dated by the Cooperators. 

8. This MOU shall expire no later than September 30, 1999, at which. time it shall be 

subject to review and renewal or expiration. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the last date 

written below. 

5 
201 

1ltl. CJJm,LJ Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

l - A . ........_( / h,,) 

CommissioDCr Date 

Bureau of Reclamation 

~~·~ D' or 

. h and Wlidhfe Semce 

Date 

6 
202 

NATIONAL TRUST POR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

ROGER KENNEDY 

49TH ANNUAL CONPBRBNCB 

PLENARY SESSION II 

PORT WORTH, TEXAS 

OCTOBER 13, 1995 

We are very fonunate to have with us the Director of the National Park Service, which is 

also a cosponsor of this conference. Roger Kennedy is well known to us. I have here a 

page and half of very impressive things that he's done; very impressive positions that he's 

held; wonderful books that he's written. You're just gonna take my word for it that they're 

all wonderful. 

Let me tell you what Roger Kennedy means to me, because I feel very strongly about this. 

This is a point of which cultural resources all over America are at risk. Many of those 

cultural resources -- and many of the most important of those cultural resources -- are in our 

National Park Service and our National Park System. We all are concerned about the lack of 

funding to adequately take care of them. But the thing that gives me the greatest hope is the 

fact that we have such a wonderful supporter of historic preservation and of protecting and 

caring for these wonderful resources, in Roger Kennedy. He knows this business better than 

anybody. 

He has been on our Board of Trustees since 1988. He is, more than any of his predecessors, 

devoted to the care of the cultural resources in his stewardship. It gives me a great deal of 

pleasure to welcome our friend, Roger Kennedy, Director of the National Park Service. 

MR. KENNEDY: Good morning. Can I take you all back again please to the spirit of that 
203 

wonderful rendering of • Amazing Grace", a hymn that calls us all together again in this 

specific place? 

My ftrst text comes from John Donne and my second from Thomas Jefferson. And I've got 

a total of 10 minutes, so you're safe. 

"No man is an island entire of itself. Every man and woman is part of a continent; a part of 

the main. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in all Illllllkind. And, 

therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. " 

And, from Thomas Jefferson ... whose interest in endangered species might not instantly 

come to mind. Thomas Jefferson, spealcing of the other species with which we share this 

Earth -- b~t he might be speaking just as well of the other places for which we care and the 

other members of our communities. 

"If one link in nature's chain be lost- another and another might be lost, 'till this whole 

system of things should vanish by piecemeal. • 

I come to speak to you this morning about this place; about place as a custodian and 

container of memory ... of community ... and of continuity. I come to speak with you this 

morning about a struggle in which we are all engaged to preserve memory and the artifacts 

of human achievement. 

2 
204 

In this place at the borderland between the East and the West; between Dallas and Ft. Worth 

... between a place of lakes and big thickets of big trees ... and water and fields .. . and a 

landscape so indetenninate that if required stakes so that you didn't lose your way -- the 

staked plains. Between the place to which, not far from here, DeSoto's band reached in 

1542, having come from Tampa .. . and came within 400 miles of where Coronado in that 

same year arrived from Santa Fe. The East and the West come together here. And we 

recall that in this specific place, though the Spaniards in 1542 did not leave a link of body 

annor or the stirrup of a horse . . . this church tells us that -- so to speak -- John Wesley 

came here looking southward to where St. Anthony - San Antonio -- and the brown robes of 

St. Francis look back upon us. 

This is the meeting place, but most specifically it is a place. It is a physical structure in 

which we humans differentiate ourselves from many other species, in that we can take 

memory and make it tangible and auditory. We made memory auditory this morning in 

"Amazing Grace. " This is an artifact of our species and our species alone. We can take our 

recollections in the ebb and flow of life ... in the midst of birth and death, decay and 

creation ... and we can make something last --. be it a melody ... Beethoven is dust, but the 

9th Symphony exists. Be it a piece of sculpture ... Michelangelo is gone, but his sculpture 

lives. Be it a painting; be it a building, which is a container of experience, an embodiment 

of it ... and a landmark where we can find ourselves again. 

We stop time. We arrest it. We make a mark. We call ourselves together in the presence of 

3 
205 

place. We do it in the presence of a piece of music. Abraham and Isaac ... Peter and Paul 

.. . are gone, but this book, this miracle of writing, is here ... this mode of making 

continuous human achievement. 

I speak this morning for the continuing care of those places in which we humans come 

together and record ourselves as a responsible species. It is true that when any of the 

artifacts of human achievement are destroyed - whether "Amazing Grace" or the 9th 

Symphony .. . whether a work of sculpture or a national park ... whether Independence Hall 

or the San Antonio missions ... or a great or a small house ... or a neighborhood in 

Savannah or Charleston or Ft. Worth or Pittsburgh or Chicago ... When a neighborhood 

goes, we are, each of us, diminished - each of us, each of us is the less. Every morning in 

a rainforest something new appears ... some new sprig appears, while the rest of it decays 

and it goes on for millennia. But with humans, with humans we say "This place exists to 

remind us of the people who were here before ... sharing a faith. • 

It is, therefore, true that all of us, all of us who care for the consequences of human 

achievement -- in all these forms -- are bound together in a common veneration for the 

conservative virtues of continuity ... the long life of communities as adumbrated in thing and 

sound. And we are held together in the memory and the emphasis upon community. Small 

town in Iowa; big town in New York- but community that holds together and finds itself in 

physical place. 

4 
206 

Now, ladies and gentleman, it is true -- as others have said more politely than I shall -- it is 

true that this commitment to the artifacts of human achievement ... in the arts, in the 

humanities, in music, in dance, in sculpture, in parks, and preserved places .. . that 

veneration, that r..ommitment, that belief, that pride in human achievement -- especially 

American pride in American achievement - that is in peril. There are those who do not care 

about those achievements. There are those who don't believe that we care as much for that as 

we do for cash. As we share these commitments to the arts, the living embodiments of 

achievement . .. the humanities, the written, the memorials of achievement ... and the places 

that call us together to meet together for common concerns ... there are those who say we 

are neither numerous enough, nor do we care enough, to resist the attack on any one of 

them. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the time is long past for any of us to 

think that we were an island unto ourselves. 

When the National Endowment for the Arts is diminished, I am diminished. When the 

National Institute of Museum Services, sustaining enumerable small museums across this 

country that will die without that sustenance -- not the Metropolitan, the little folks. When 

that is cut or eliminated, each of you is diminished. When the National Park Service is told 

that it shall set a price on every park and monument that it currently possesses for the people 

-- and that, indeed, by the Senate of the United States that we shall find $700 million by 

selling that off .. . and that there is a list of 300 parks and places and monuments not thought 

suffiCiently significant to be exempted from the possibility of forced divesture ... 300! That 

5 
207 

simple fact manifests a conviction on the part of militant ignorance that we don't care enough 

to rise in defense. 

Now let me tell you some of the places on the "hit list. " And Jet me commence telling you 

that by giving you a simple exchange from a very recent legislative hearing. I said, "Surely, 

you do not wish us to put· an ap~91isal upon Lincoln's home, do you?" To which the answer 

was, "Exactly just as you'd appraise anybody else's. • 

Now let me tell you the places we have been asked to appraise; The San Antonio missions; 

Ellis Island; Gettysburg; Antietam; Concord and Lexington; Valley Forge; Saratoga; Chaco 

Canyon. Some of these places mean more to some of you than to others. Manzanar; Martin 

Luther King, How do you feel about that? How do you like the idea that the National Park 

Service is supposed to put a price on that and 300 other places? I don't feel very good about 

it. But I'll tell you what makes me feel just fme. We're in this fight together. Everybody 

in this room who cares for a neighborhood or a house or a great symphony or piece of 

sculpture -- we are in this together in defense of the places that mark and keep and sustain 

and embody the highest reaches of the American tradition. 

We are together in patriotic service - every one of us, whether or not we go back and just 

take care of the old house. We are here to serve a composite of interests and commitments 

and beliefs that humans matter; that humans can outlive death; that humans can make 

beautiful things that have continuity; and that we care about that .. . that we care about our 

6 
208 

communities ... that we care about the continuity of the American tradition .. . and we're 

going to beat the forces of militant ignorance. 

I promised you'd be out here in 10 minutes. I've got a minute and half to go. 

If you have any doubts that what I have said to you is serious, just look at what's happened 

to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. We're celebrating today that Dick Moe and 

the other members of this group have seen to it that it got back half its traditional support. 

We're celebrating that by the prowess of extraordinary skill, we got half of it. How about the 

other half? We are celebrating how nice it is that the Congress of the United States has 

vouched safe to insulate from appraisal and selling off, 45 out of 369 sacred places in this 

country that are put into our trust. It's very nice of them ... they've said, "Don't worry 

about that 45. Just worry about the other places that I suggested to you -- all the battlefields, 

all the national monuments, everything having to do with recent history or with the diversity 

of American life; because the 45 don't. 

This is a struggle that has nothing -- nothing -- to do with party. I myself was reared as an 

Adams and Burken conservative. That's where my ideological heritage lies. I believe in the 

long continuity of institutions. I believe in architecture as the holder of continuity. I believe 

in community -- that it's a web of relationship that you tinker with and destroy at great peril. 

Those are conservative principles ... they are the conservative principles. That's what it's 

about. And the radicals are the people who don't care or don't know about how intricate and 

7 
209 

subtle the fabric of community is. They don't understand or they don't care if you rip one 

part -- in Mr. Jefferson's terms, eliminate one part of it ... "take out" one neighborhood, 

blast out one building, bulldoze one place ... the rest of it is never again going to be the 

same. 

And that's true of the other species as well. We make jokes-- we make jokes -- about 

salmon don't matter ... you get 'em from a can. I've heard that said by Congresspeople. 

Well, salmon connect to water and water with air and air with trees ... entire landscapes. 

And salmon tell us how healthy we are. 

All of which is to say, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for being there. I thank you for 

manning your part of the barricades. I thank you for being alert to the nature of this struggle 

... to sustain traditional American values in place. I thank you for that. We're going to need 

every one of you and everyone else that you can recruit .. . and we're going to need them all 

for a decade. 

Let me say quickly and in fmality to my liberal friends -- it is the bane of American 

liberalism to be satisfied with brief righteousness and a swift proceeding to a new cause. But 

now we are at a point where liberals and conservatives are going to have to be beside each 

other in caring for, over a long period of time, the American humane tradition. 

Titanic you 

8 
210 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTE.'\f ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS 

Ramon A. Gutierrez received a Ph.D. in hisrory from the Ullivenity of Wisconsin with an 

emphasis in Chicano and cui tun! history. He is a PresideDlial appoinlee on the National 

Elldowment for the Humanities, a gram refen:c for the Ford Foundation Minority Fellowships and a 

joumal referee for the Jourjla! of Alperjcan Historv. Dr. Gutierrez presently teaches at the 

University of California at San Diego. 

James 0. Horton received a Ph.D. in history from Brandeis Univenily in 1973 and was a 

Fulbright Professor of American Smdies. Currcmiy, Dr. Hor:t011 teaches history at George 

Washington University and is Dizector of the Afro-Alnerican Communities Project of the National 

Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Iastimtion. He was appointed to the NPS 

Advisory Board in 1993 by Secretary Babbitt. 

Holly An&lin Robinson received a Ph.D. in historY from Rutgers University. She served on the 

NPS StceriDg Commi~ for the Vail Agenda and was Chairperson and Historian for the NPS 

Advisory BoaM:. Dr. Robinson is active in IIIJIIlerous preservation associations and chaired the Civil 

War Advisory Commission. 

Paul G. Risser holds a Ph.D. in botany IUld soils from the University of Wiscoilsin at Madison. He 

is currently the President of Miami University (Ohio), and a Professor of Botany at the school. Dr. 

Risser's expertise includes grassland and forest ecosystems, environmem:al planning, landscape 

ecology, and global c;hange. He serVes on numerous State and oational boards and c;ommittees 

including the National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Committee on Man and the 

Biosphere. Dr. Risser CUimllly resides in Ohio. 

Dave Warren earned his Ph.D. in Latin American history at the UDivenity of New Mexico in 

1971. He is a~mntly the Vice President of Media Resource Associates, Inc. His expertise is in 

Latin and Native American Srudies and film production. Dr. Warren serves as an appointee to 

President Clinton's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Dr. Warren resides in New Mexico. 

Boyd Erisoa is a retired, second generation NPS employee. His career with the NPS includes posts 

as Associate Director in the Washington Office; Regional Director, Alasb.; and Deputy Director, 

Rocky Molllltaiu Region. He ·was superintendent of Grand Canyon, Scquoia-Kinis Canyon and 

Great Smoley Mountains National Parks, and Manager of the Albright Training Center. 

Mike Hayden holds a Bachelor's degree in wildlife conservation and a Master's degree in biology. 

He was Governor of Kansas from 1987-1991 and Assistant Secretary of the Interior !or Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks from 1991-1992. Mr. Hayden serves as a board member for the _League of 

. Conservation Voters and is currently President of the Ameriean Spontishing Association. 

Chip Deuuerleln is tbe A1aslca Regional Director fcX. tbe National Pula and Conservation 

Association. He has primary responsibility for oversiibt of 13 Dllional park units, comprising more 

than 65 percent of the national park ac:re&Je. Mr. Demlcrlein, with 20 years of experience in the 

field of narural resources in Alaska, has been responsible for managc:mcnt of the State and local 

park system. 
211 

James Ho5t bas professioual marketillg and tourism expenise. He is Chairman and CEO of Host 

Communications, Inc. He is also Viu President of the National TQUI" Association and a member of 

the White House Confermc:e on Travel and Tourism. Mr. Host was appointed Commissioner of the 

Kentuclcy Depanment or Parks in 1m. 

Jane Lubcheac:o is a distinpisbed Professor and dlain tbe Deparanem of Zoology at Oregon State 

University. Sbc holds a ~or of A1tS degree from Colorado College; a Master or Science 

degRe from the Ulliversily of Washington; aud a Pb.D. from Harvud University. Dr. Lubc:henco 

is the recipient of two Honorary Doctoral dcpces from Dmtel University and Colorado College. 

She has received IIIIDJerous honors, awmls and rcseuch gRillS, served on various boards and 

commissions, and aurboR:d many articles aud publkations. 

Peter J>ancermond is the President of Dangermond aud Associates, Inc., which be fowxled in 

1993. He brings to his c:onsu1tiDg pnctice a life-loq professioual career ~voted to parks aud 

recreation and allied fields of wildlife c:onservation aDd open space preservation. Mr. Dangermond 

served as Director of the California State Dc:par1lnent of Pules and Recreation from 1980-1982. He 

holds a Bachelor of ScieDce degree in I.and!cape Architeclllre from California Polytechni<: .. 

University. He Is ODe or the foundiDg ·dlrecton ot the Yosemite Restoration Trust, a non-profit 

organization formed in 1990 to scclt improvemeniS to visitor services at the parlc in ways tbat will 

enhance appn:ciation ml eqjoymenl Of natural values aDd will accommoclate growth in visitation 

with minimal impacts on the pule's aaiUral rcaourtes. 

Parker Westbrook is in his simemh YQr as a full-time vohml.l:er in heritage and historic 

preservation for the Pioneer Washington Resulration Fouu:lation in Washington, AR, where he bas 

served as Euanive Director, Restoration Advi.!or, aud cumutly as Praidcm. He Is active in 

llllJIICrOIIS other prcservalion USCIQations includiq tbe ArlcaDSas Territorial Restoration Commission 

and the ArbDSas Stam Review Board, His1Dric Preservation Propam. PreViously, be served as a 

Special Assistant and Administrative Aide to Members of Cooaress and a Special Assistant for four 

years to Arkansas Governor David Pryor. 

-NPS-
ISBN 0-16-052176-9 

90000 

9 80160 521768