U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–790 PDF 2016

MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CONCESSION PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCGRATH, Interior Subcommittee Staff Director 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming, Chairman 

Ken Buck, Colorado, Vice Chair 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Ranking 

Member 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 23, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Lena McDowall, Chief Financial Officer, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Terry MacRae, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hornblower, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Mr. Alex Klein, Vice President and General Manager, Grand Teton Lodge 

Company and Flagg Ranch Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Christopher C. Belland, Chief Executive Officer, Historic Tours of America 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

APPENDIX 

Statement by John Garder, Director of Budget and Appropriations at the 

National Parks Conservation Association .......................................................... 44 

Statement by David Woodside, President of the Acadia Corporation ................. 50 

Statement by John King, Regional Vice President of Forever Resorts ............... 53 

Statement by Pamela Pitts, Secretary of the California Parks Company .......... 55 

Statement by Tim Rout, CEO of Dyno Ventures .................................................. 57 

Statement of Forever Resorts ................................................................................. 59 

Statement of Gettysburg Tours and TRF Concession Specialists of Florida ...... 62 

Responses from NPS to questions for the record .................................................. 63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CONCESSION PROGRAM 

Thursday, July 23, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lummis, Gosar, Buck, Palmer, and 

Lawrence. 

Also Present: Representative Norton. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The Subcommittee on the Interior will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Well, good morning. We are so happy to have you. This hearing 

is going to be forward-looking and informative and interesting, and 

I am pleased you are here. 

The Subcommittee on the Interior today will be examining the 

concession program at the National Park Service. As we approach 

next year’s 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, we are 

in an ideal position to look at how this agency, which is custodian 

of our greatest natural resources, is functioning. 

Stephen Mather, the first Director of the National Park Service, 

once said, ‘‘Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets 

out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful 

night’s sleep on an impossible bed.’’ That sounds like that statement was made after personal experience. Director Mather’s sentiment, though, is spot-on. For the vast majority of Americans to 

enjoy these majestic attractions that belong to them, they need food 

and lodging and other amenities. 

The Park Service has a long history of working with private companies to make sure that visitors receive the concession services 

they need. In fact, concessionaires have provided these services and 

promoted the parks since Yellowstone National Park in my home 

State of Wyoming was designated the Nation’s first national park, 

back in 1872. 

Oddly, though, in our parks, visitation is stagnating. National 

park attendance has not significantly increased over the last 25 

years—this is nationwide rather than a park-by-park basis—despite a national population increase of over 30 percent, a spike in 

international visitors, and the addition of dozens of new park units. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Currently, the typical park visitor is a baby-boomer. Millennials 

and younger visitors are not coming to the parks in the numbers 

that we expected. Much of this can be traced to the increase in 

competition from other tourism opportunities and the Park Service’s failure, perhaps, to keep up with the changing tastes of new 

generations. 

Concessioners can serve a pivotal role in reversing this. Our national parks and their concessioners must keep up with changing 

times. Younger visitors and contemporary families want access to 

tech amenities, such as Internet access and WiFi. They want comfortable and modern places to stay. 

Concessioners want to provide these services, and we, both in 

Congress and at the National Park Service, need to make sure that 

they are able to offer these things. More visitors using more services results in more money for concessioners and more money for 

the National Park Service. 

Today, we will be receiving testimony from three concessioners 

about ways that we can update and modernize the park visiting experience. In addition to these witnesses present, we also have received written testimony from half a dozen other concessioners, 

representing park operations from all over the country. 

Now, the issues that were brought up include, first of all, the 

complexity of the Park Service bid applications. For example, the 

recently considered Denali National Park prospectus was 1,629 

pages long. I mean, that is how long legislation is around here that 

affects 20 percent of our economy, that is just sweepingly gamechanging. One small single park concession company spent over 

2,500 company management hours and more than $90,000 preparing their application. 

Expanding the operating season is another issue that was identified. In some cases, lodging, such as camp grounds, is very popular 

at certain parks and actually sells out. Though these parks are 

open year-round, their concessions operations are seasonal. Grand 

Canyon National Park, for example, is affected by this circumstance. 

Another is a lack of a rating system. The Park Service does not 

employ any way in which to recognize excellence among its concessioners. California, for instance, uses an awards bonus point system in State park bid submittals for achieving extraordinary ratings 3 years in a row. Perhaps a good model for us to look at. 

There are many other ways we can modernize the National Park 

concession system, and I hope we can talk about many of these 

today. I very much look forward to the hearing, and I want to hear 

suggestions on your ideas for improving National Park Service concession services and visitor experiences. 

We are very fortunate also today to have Ms. Lena McDowall, 

the Chief Financial Officer for the National Park Service, with us 

here this morning. 

Welcome. We thank you and all of our witnesses for taking the 

time to appear. 

I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence, ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, for her opening statement. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Good morning. I thank all the witnesses who 

are here. And, Madam Chair, I really thank you for holding this 

important hearing. 

I appreciate the National Park Service’s protection and care of 

our Nation’s cherished natural and cultural resources and for the 

important educational or recreational opportunities that they provide for all Americans. As the Park Service prepares for its centennial celebration in 2016, we must ensure that the very best services 

are provided for the 280 million visitors that our national parks attract each year. 

Vendors play a key role in providing visitor services. They offer 

a wide range of recreational and retail services, while helping to 

generate more than $1.2 billion annually in revenue for the Federal 

Government. Vendors also employ—and this is an important key— 

more than 25,000 workers and are major drivers in the growth of 

communities that surround parks. 

I understand that the public is demanding more recreational and 

cultural opportunities during their visits to the national parks. I 

also understand the vendors are ready, willing, and able to provide 

these additional visitor services, but they have encountered some 

barriers. 

Today we will examine some of the challenges faced by the National Park Service and vendors in providing the best visitor experience to our parks. These challenges include a rigid contracting 

process, contracts which create negative cash flow for vendors, and 

the Park Service’s failure to meet public demand for more services. 

Although the Park Service has made great improvements in its 

contracting processes in recent years, more work is needed and 

more work should be done. We can always work to improve the 

contracting process, with greater cooperation between the government and the industry. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses here today as we explore possible solutions that can drive 

progress on this issue and help create a memorable centennial celebration that all Americans can take pride in and enjoy. 

I yield back my time, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the ranking member. 

And the chair notes the presence of the gentlelady of the District 

of Columbia. Thank you for your interest. We welcome you to participate in today’s hearing. Some of our most notable and recognizable National Park Service properties are right here under your 

nose, and we appreciate your stewardship and fine work on their 

behalf. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any member 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. 

First of all, once again, I am very pleased to welcome Ms. Lena 

McDowall, Chief Financial Officer of the National Park Service at 

the U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Terry MacRae, chairman 

and chief executive officer of Hornblower Tours; and Mr. Alex 

Klein, vice president and general manager of the Grand Teton 

Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company, one of my personal faVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:49 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97790.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

vorites; and Mr. Chris Belland, chairman and chief executive officer 

of Historic Tours of America. 

Welcome, one and all. 

Please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Let the record show they answered in the affirmative. 

And thank you, and please be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire statement, written statement, will be entered into the record, but we will keep you pretty close to a 5- 

minute clock during your prepared remarks as you share them 

with us. 

The chair recognizes Ms. McDowall for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF LENA MCDOWALL 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you at this hearing on modernizing the National Park Service concession program. 

In 2016, the National Park Service will celebrate 100 years as 

the steward of the Nation’s most cherished national and cultural 

treasures. We are actively preparing for our second century and 

working hard to inspire the next generation of visitors to experience and value their public lands. Concessions will play a critical 

role in providing food, lodging, and recreational services to those 

visitors. 

Today, concession contractors provide an array of services across 

the National Park System, from operating iconic lodges to guiding 

climbers and hunters to providing ferry transportation and children’s educational programs. The National Park Service administers around 500 contracts in over 100 parks. These contracts 

range from $100,000 to over $140 million in annual gross receipts 

and currently generate more than $1 billion in annual gross revenue for concessioners. 

The concessions program has been defined by two major laws: 

the Concessions Policy Act of 1965 and the National Park Service 

Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998. 

The 1965 act provided protections for incumbent concessioners, 

including a preference in the renewal of their contracts, contract 

terms of up to 30 years, and possessory interest, which recognized 

a right of compensation for improvements made by concessioners. 

By the early 1990s, Congress recognized that the concession system required reform. In many cases, visitor services lacked quality, 

facilities were not being maintained, and prices were higher than 

comparable goods and services outside the park. 

Most observers attributed these problems to a system that essentially provided a permanent contract to any concessioner that 

wished to continue operating. The desire to transform the concessions program into a more competitive, business-like operation was 

the driving force behind the 1998 act. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

The 1998 act repealed the preference in renewal, providing preference for only small concession operations; shortened the maximum contract to 20 years; and replaced possessory interest with 

leasehold surrender interest. The law also called upon the National 

Park Service to ensure reasonable prices for visitors, to implement 

more contemporary business practices, and ensure a fair return to 

the government in the form of franchise fees. 

Over the last 14 years, we have taken significant steps to meet 

those objectives, and there have been many successes. We have significantly increased franchise fee revenue, reduced the amount of 

deferred maintenance related to concessions facilities, used new 

contract requirements to better maintain concessions facilities at 

many parks, and reduced the number of contracts operating under 

continuations or extensions from nearly half the contract inventory 

in 2002 to about 17 percent today. 

From 2004 to 2014, there has been substantial growth in both 

concession gross receipts and franchise fee revenue. Concessioner 

gross receipts have grown from about $805 million to $1.3 billion 

a year, and franchise fees have grown from about $27 million to 

over $85 million. The increases are a result of more professional financial analysis; better business opportunities for concessioners; 

and higher bids from concessioners, as competition has spurred 

many prospective vendors to bid higher than the minimum required franchise fee. 

The more professional prospectus development process and more 

competition for concession contracts have also resulted in benefits 

for visitors. A few highlights include new facilities at Yellowstone, 

Badlands, Kings Canyon, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks; 

increased options for overnight accommodations by adding camper 

cabins, which combine camping and lodging, at John D. Rockefeller 

Memorial Parkway and Lassen Volcanic National Park. It has also 

resulted in a better variety of food and beverage offerings and retail options, featuring locally produced foods and regional 

handcrafted items; upgraded furnishings at many facilities; and 

frequent incorporation of park interpretive themes and messages 

throughout concession operations. 

While we have made progress since the implementation of the 

1998 law, much work remains. As the National Park Service enters 

its second century, we are exploring ideas to improve facilities and 

attract new audiences by providing a broader array of visitor services and by expanding the number of companies interested in bidding on commercial services contracts. 

The National Park Service will continue to pursue ways to modernize and improve the program and is open to new ideas that 

would provide us with an opportunity to better meet our mission. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. McDowall follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 97790.001
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 97790.002
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 97790.003
9 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. MacRae, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY MACRAE 

Mr. MACRAE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members. The National Park Hospitality Association is pleased to offer testimony 

today regarding the great opportunity we have to continue providing visitor experiences in our amazing national parks. 

My name is Terry MacRae, and I serve as the volunteer chairman of the National Park Hospitality Association, which is the organization that has members providing more than $1 billion of visitor services within national park units. 

Just a little bit about my company. We started as a concessioner 

in 2006 with the service to Alcatraz Island; added the Statue of 

Liberty and Ellis Island Immigration Museum in 2008. Since then, 

we have served over 45 million visitors to those 2 parks. We use 

a fleet of 15 different vessels and provide 250 direct jobs, many to 

professional mariners. In 2014, we paid over $19 million in franchise fees to the National Park Service. 

Hornblower and the other members of NPHA are grateful every 

day to be concession partners of the National Park Service. We 

have some amazing member companies that have have super promotional capabilities, contemporary management practices—all of 

which are intended to produce benefit to those companies but also 

more financial resources for the parks and, of course, great visitor 

services. 

My comments also reflect today the respect we have for the employees and leaders of the National Park Service. They truly have 

a complicated, challenging job to manage some of the greatest natural and cultural assets anywhere and keeping these assets relevant to the American public. And, by and large, they do an amazing job, considering their challenges. 

America’s National Parks are a unifying legacy. With the centennial coming along, it’s really an important time in the parks’ history. And the parks, frankly, should be nonpartisan. They shouldn’t 

be R’s and D’s and I’s visiting parks. They are all Americans. 

The fact that the centennial is here shouldn’t hide the reality 

that we have a few challenges within the parks. There is the need 

for new resources and new strategies. But, frankly, even during the 

worst times and the Great Depression, the parks were able to advance and move forward. And so, today, I think some of that same 

vision is important to bring to bear. 

As the chair pointed out, visitation in the parks has really been 

unchanged for the last 25 years, particularly considering that the 

population has grown and the number of new park units has been 

added. There’s fewer visitor choices in the parks, in some cases. 

There should be more opportunities to provide those visitor services. And, frankly, considering the overall budget of about $3 billion—and less than $100 million of that comes from franchise fees 

paid by the visitors through the concessioners—it seems like there 

is a huge opportunity there. 

Concessioners pay almost $100 million in franchise fees, but 

there are certainly more ways that those can be improved. We have 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 

almost 25,000 employees working, serving about 100 million visitors annually. 

So, many of the parks and lodges that people enjoy in the parks 

today were built by some of the first concessioners. The maintenance of those facilities is now a challenge. There’s plenty of opportunity to consider how that should be done in the future. 

The Concession Act of 1998, I’m a poster child for that. We came 

along after that act, and we provided many of the benefits that 

Lena spoke about, arriving and working under a new system. But 

the fact of the matter is that the Concession Act needs a tune-up. 

After 15 years, there are some opportunities to make some fixes 

there to deal with things like LSI and other areas that need to be 

improved. 

You know, in fairness to the National Park Service, they have 

adjusted dramatically over the last 15 years to the new Concession 

Act, and they have built a strong new team of concession and business service leaders, and they are gathering more momentum and 

traction all the time. 

Efforts to promote the national parks are lagging, considering 

what a great opportunity that is. And, with the centennial, there 

is more and more opportunity to do that. By and large, a tune-up 

of the 1998 act that includes modernizing some of the business 

practices and adding the capability to promote the parks to the 

overall partnership between the concessioners and the Park Service 

is important. 

I’m going to introduce a great article here by National Geographic that talked about how good old marketing saved the national parks 100 years ago, when they were first trying to get traction. 

And, in our testimony, we have provided 10 important recommendations to try to advance the cause of both the concessioners 

and the National Park Service in serving the visitors. 

So I think that concludes my remarks, and I’m happy to answer 

questions and have discussion as appropriate. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. MacRae follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 97790.004
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 97790.005
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 97790.006
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 97790.007
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 97790.008
16 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. MacRae. 

I now recognize the gentleman from the beautiful, beloved State 

of Wyoming, Mr. Klein, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEX KLEIN 

Mr. KLEIN. Chairman Lummis, thank you. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Alex Klein. I’m the vice president and general manager of Grand Teton Lodge Company and Flagg Ranch Company in 

the great State of Wyoming. I’m joined by representatives from 

Delaware North Company and Forever Resorts, who also operate in 

Wyoming. 

Gentlemen, thank you for joining me. 

We operate lodging, campgrounds, restaurants, retail outlets, gas 

stations, and other visitor activities in two national park sites. 

Many of these facilities were constructed or modernized by 

RockResorts shortly after John D. Rockefeller donated the land 

that is now part of Grand Teton National Park. 

We are fortunate to have an incredible group of National Park 

Service staff to work with every day. Park Superintendent David 

Vela is to be commended for his leadership. My comments today 

are in the spirit of the continued successful partnership with the 

National Park Service. 

There are three areas I would like to focus on: improving facilities and service, implementing modern business practices, and recognizing and rewarding outstanding concessioners. 

We strive to not only maintain our facilities and services but improve them where it makes sense. In campgrounds, we have made 

significant improvements, including better ADA accessibility, more 

electronic hookups, and the addition of bear boxes. In our lodging 

facilities, we have added high-speed Internet access in most locations. 

Just in the last year, at Jackson Lake Lodge, we have expanded 

food and beverage service through the addition of an outdoor kitchen, renovated 361 guest bathrooms—in the winter in Jackson 

Hole—and made other infrastructure improvements. Last month, 

we started providing guided kayak tours at our Colter Bay Village 

Marina. 

I have two recommendations that will encourage even more improvements of facilities and additional services. Firstly, contracts 

need to allow for more flexibility to address services and improvements not anticipated at the beginning of the contract term. Secondly, all parties would benefit from a simplified process for capital 

projects. This would lead to a better and more timely use of these 

funds. 

The price approval and standards evaluation process would also 

benefit from the implementation of modern business practices used 

in the hospitality industry. In Grand Teton National Park, we have 

worked with the National Park Service to pilot the use of modern 

revenue management strategies, such as a length-of-stay restriction, and are working on proposals to introduce even more modern 

yield management practices. 

Through our online comment card system, we receive realtime 

feedback from visitors. We share access to this system with the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:49 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97790.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

tional Park Service in allowing them full review of all guest feedback. Web sites such as TripAdvisor also provide guest reviews 

that can be reviewed by consumers and park personnel alike. 

My recommendations to implement modern business practices include: consider whether or not the current NPS practice of standards and evaluation remains relevant with the wealth of other data 

available; and encourage the further testing of modern revenue 

management strategies used industrywide and consider market 

declaration pricing in parks where significant lodging is available 

in gateway communities. 

In the 60 years that we have operated in Grand Teton National 

Park, we feel our overall performance has been strong. We have 

provided high-quality visitor services, built a sustainable business, 

maintained strong community relationships, and partnered with 

the National Park Service. Unfortunately, this strong track record 

provides no assurance we will be successful in continuing our operations beyond our current contract. 

The current competitive process for concession contracts is imperfect. On one hand, the current process has done a good job of raising the bar for performance and challenges concessioners to operate 

more safely, more sustainably, and provide greater care to the assets. On the other hand, the unintended consequence has been further consolidation of concession contracts, less competition, and the 

reward of concession contracts to those that cannot only necessarily 

deliver the best operations but those that deliver the best proposal. 

I have three recommendations for the contract process: A system 

designed to reward those that do provide excellence in concession 

operations would benefit both the incumbent concessioners as well 

as the National Park Service. Such a system would encourage constant innovation and excellence in the performance of the contract. 

Longer contracts could provide the security of a return on investment where significant facility and infrastructure upgrades are required. And adding transparency wherever practicable. The current 

process lacks transparency and doesn’t allow unsuccessful bidders 

to understand their perceived shortcomings. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. Thank you 

to the men and women of the National Park Service, who steward 

the parks on behalf of the American public and future generations. 

I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 97790.009
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 97790.010
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 97790.011
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 97790.012
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 97790.013
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 97790.014
24 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Klein. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Belland for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. BELLAND 

Mr. BELLAND. Madam Chair, distinguished members, ladies and 

gentlemen, by way of introduction, my name is Chris Belland. I’m 

the CEO of Historic Tours of America. 

We’re the largest operator of themed vehicles in North America, 

hosting approximately 3 million guests each year, with operations 

in Key West, St. Augustine, Savannah, Washington, Boston, and 

San Diego, and most recently were awarded the contract for interpretive services in Arlington National Cemetery. 

We also operate 10 historic attractions, including, for the State 

of Florida, the Truman Little White House; Potter’s Wax Museum, 

the first wax museum in the United States; the Boston Tea Party 

Ship and Museum; a $25 million recreation of Griffin’s Wharf, celebrating the single-most important event leading to the American 

Revolution. 

More to the point, in concert with the founding owners, we have 

operated the ferry to the Dry Tortugas National Park in Fort Jefferson, which is 70 miles west of Key West, for a number of years 

and in 2010 were awarded the sole-service contract. 

Ken Burnscharacterized the National Park System as ‘‘America’s 

best idea.’’ I submit that the dedicated members of the National 

Park Service with whom I have been able to deal and their partner 

concessioners believe that. 

I had the opportunity to hear a speech by Director Jon Jarvis entitled ‘‘Field Guide to American Values’’ and came away convinced 

that the great parks of this country are the truest and most pure 

definitions of what makes us a great Nation. 

But the National Park Service is facing enormous challenges: 

There is a backlog of billions of dollars of deferred maintenance; 

the National Park Service is mired in well-intended but archaic 

rules of engagement with its concessioners; the NPS faces almost 

routine annual budget cuts; and the parks are fighting for relevance in the new age of technology. 

So we can gnash our teeth in despair or collectively embrace the 

wisdom of the Chinese proverb, ‘‘The crisis is opportunity riding 

the dangerous wind.’’ On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the 

National Park Service, it is past time to seize the day. The concessioners represent hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue and 

tens of millions of dollars of potential infrastructure investments 

and are ready to join hands to do just that. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share for your consideration 

our individual and collective viewpoints, ideas, and hopes and 

dreams for the future. 

Our concession is bigger than most but certainly smaller than 

many. We will generate revenues this year between $9 million and 

$10 million. But I’m here as a case study to shares some lessons 

we learned over the past 3 years concerning a request to amend 

our contract. If learned from, these lessons and observations might 

make all the difference, or not—for, as we know, those who will not 

learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

The Reader’s Digest version of our background of our concession 

is: We were awarded the contract in November 2010. Previously, 

there were two operators, each allowed to carry 100 passengers, for 

a total of 200 a day, paying the park a measly few hundred dollars 

for the privilege. Our contract required the production of a brandnew, state-of-the-art, high-speed ferry, at a cost of approximately 

$6.5 million, with Coast Guard certification to carry 250 passengers. 

Here is where it gets interesting. The general management plan 

called for a maximum daily visitation of 350 from all sources, such 

as our ferry, seaplanes, and private vessels. We were now limited 

to only 150 passengers a day. Why such a large vessel? To provide 

a commodious experience for passengers and to carry camping 

gear. Fair enough. But it became immediately evident that the 

daily visitation of 350 was never achieved. In short, there was excess capacity. 

Given our new ability to work with the National Park Service to 

market a product, we were confronted almost daily with standbys 

of over 20 people and some who didn’t even show up. The market 

had spoken, and it was an ‘‘aha’’ moment. The GM capacity was 

not being met. We had the seats, and people wanted to go. Sounded 

good. Sounded good to us and also by the staff of the National Park 

Service. 

We made our initial ask for an increase of passengers of 25 each 

day in February 2013 but were to find out the path of commonsense flexibility in these contracts was not an easy one. 

I’m a businessman and would not enter a contract, especially one 

for 10 years, to someone to manage my property without a tacit or 

explicit way to adjust the agreement. Things change. Fuel goes up, 

hurricanes come, BP spills oil, world economies and travels change. 

No, the National Park Service is not a business, but it is in business and needs to respond accordingly. 

The result of our request: After 20 months, it was approved, and, 

even though everyone assured me it was a good idea, there was 

just no mechanism to get it done. There was a loss of revenue, and 

perhaps as many as 10,000 people were denied the opportunity to 

see one of America’s most unique and wonderful places. 

In just 7 months since getting permission, we paid the park an 

additional $117,000. More importantly, the National Park Service 

missions of public access and asset protection have been better 

served. And it was all done with the stroke of a pen. 

The takeaway is the National Park Service doesn’t have to do 

anything. The parks will continue to be funded at some level of 

probable diminishing amounts, but the results will be a self-fulfilling prophecy of a downward spiral of failing infrastructure and 

loss of relevance. 

I don’t speak for other concessioners, but I think what the National Park Service should do is build commonsense flexibility into 

these long-term agreements and drive the decisionmaking process 

down to the lowest level possible. The folks who run the parks 

know what needs to be done. Give them the responsibility and the 

authority. It’s appropriate to quote Teddy Roosevelt, who said, 

‘‘Find the right person to do the job, then get out of their way.’’ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Finally, I think that you should incentivize the good efforts of 

your concessioners and, frankly, your own people with a measurable format of performance and reward those efforts with contract 

extensions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be stewards of these great assets. Thank you for your kind attention. And thank you for your 

service. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Belland follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 97790.015
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 97790.016
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 97790.017
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 97790.018
31 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, gentlemen and gentlelady. 

We will now follow with questions from the members. The chair 

will recognize herself first for 5 minutes. 

Ms. McDowall, have you heard some of these suggestions before 

from concessioners, the concerns about contracting and lack of contract flexibility and complexity of contracts? And can you respond 

to those, please? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. I think many of the things that these gentlemen 

have mentioned we have heard from many concessioners on occasion, I think. Over the last number of years, we have worked within the existing law to try to deal with some of these challenges. 

I do think that there are some elements of the law, particularly 

when you look at contract rigidity, that are a result of not just 

Park Service process but are a result of the law. And I think the 

Park Service would agree that having more flexibility in the contract models would be of value. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So you would work with the committee and its 

members to bring about some changes that would augment the 

flexibility of contracting? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. I think the Park Service would be interested in 

exploring those opportunities. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

The backlog is pretty significant at some of our park properties. 

I think, in aggregate, it is over $11 billion. 

Again, Ms. McDowall, are there ways in which concessioners 

could be part of a solution to address the backlog? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Our primary avenue for financing capital improvements for concession-managed assets is leasehold surrender 

interest. 

I do think there is interest on the part of concessioners in doing 

more capital improvements. I think the difficulty from the Park 

Service perspective is we are always looking at the financial feasibility of concessions contracts. The way that leasehold surrender 

interest works, the investment grows over the life of the contract. 

So, at the end of the contract, the amount that is owed on that contract has to be paid by the next incoming concessioner if another 

concessioner is chosen. 

So the Park Service is very careful about how much LSI it approves on a particular contract, in order to make sure we don’t end 

up in a situation where a contract is—we call it upsidedown, where 

essentially the revenues that are expected over the life of that contract can’t support the burden of the LSI investment that would 

need to be made by an incoming concessioner. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I would ask the other panelists to respond to that 

concern about a contract getting upsidedown. Would anyone care to 

comment on that? 

Mr. KLEIN. I would. Alex Klein, Grand Teton Lodge Company 

and Flagg Ranch. 

I agree with the conundrum, but I don’t see an obvious fix to it. 

These are large facilities. They have—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yeah. 

Mr. KLEIN. —significant infrastructure, and they require investment. And it becomes a circular problem. We can’t invest in the faVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:49 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97790.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

cilities because we don’t want to increase the LSI in order to make 

the contracts more competitive, and then that circle continues. 

And I think we need to find a way, collectively, to break that 

cycle. And, from time to time, I think embracing additional LSI 

may actually be in the best interest of both parties. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. 

Anyone else care to comment? 

Mr. Belland? 

Mr. BELLAND. Yes. Chris Belland, HTA. 

In business—and I keep, you know, talking about business and 

the National Park Service, and I don’t think they are exactly enemies or antithetical—you have what is called the return of capital 

and return on capital. And to get somebody to invest in these properties, they have to be assured of two things: A, they are going to 

have enough time to amortize those costs; and, B, there are going 

to be some profits involved to justify the risk. 

And I think that comes back to what I said before about rewarding the good efforts of your concessioners with contract extensions 

and to give them flexibility to change their business model as the 

contract proceeds. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Klein, turning specifically to Grand Teton National Park, you speak highly of the National Park Service staff 

that you deal with. 

How important is that relationship in ensuring the successful 

park operations? And how can it be improved in parks that are not 

as blessed as Grand Teton? 

Mr. KLEIN. Madam Chair, our relationship, I don’t think it’s 

unique, but I do take great pride in the relationship that we’ve had 

in Grand Teton National Park. I think on both sides we view it as 

a partnership. We have shared mutual goals. We communicate effectively. You know, from time to time, we may disagree on a certain point, but I think that’s a matter of just doing good business. 

And, you know, that local relationship, I think, is very important. 

And I think we have some people in our national park, on the concessions management staff and in administration, including the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent, that I would loosely 

term as progressive in the National Park Service, that they are 

open to new ideas. 

And I documented a few items in my testimony that I think are 

progressive in the National Park System. We have had some significant success. I would just like to see that grow. 

And I think, in some cases, the relationship is not viewed as a 

partnership. It’s viewed somewhat as adversarial and an oversight 

matter. And I think if we truly do embrace this partnership, I 

think together we can move forward. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, thank you, panel. 

The chair provided herself a very generous 5-minute clock. She 

will do the same with the ranking member. Mrs. Lawrence is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a few questions, but I just want to make the comment, 

you know, I continuously state that I was previously a mayor of a 

city, and I use the term often that a pothole does not have an ‘‘R’’ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

or ‘‘D’’ on it, it just needs to be fixed. And I like that analogy of 

our parks do not have R’s or D’s on them. 

I wanted to ask the question—and, Madam Chair, if you would 

allow me to enter into the record a statement from John Garder, 

who is the director of budget and appropriations for the National 

Parks Conservation Association. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I wanted to ask a question of Ms. McDowall. 

In the statement from Mr. Garder, he talks about those extenuating circumstances like wildfires, flooding in our national parks 

and the impact it has on our budget. 

Can you talk to me about how that is budgeted for the national 

parks, and is that a challenge? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. How the Park Service covers the cost of those 

types of events? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. One moment. 

So we do have emergency authority to deficit-spend. We don’t 

save up for those kinds of events. We don’t keep—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So it is not budgeted. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Right. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Okay. That is interesting. 

Hornblower Cruises operates boat tours to iconic destinations. 

And if you are the same cruise, I have used it in Niagara Falls. 

But we have heard complaints that the Park Service has refused 

to extend the operating hours to these monuments in spite of overwhelming public demand for change. 

Mr. MacRae, please tell me more about these issues, and discuss 

whether your company has requested an extension for your services 

to these locations. And what has been the National Park Service 

response? 

Mr. MACRAE. So, at the Statue of Liberty, we have just recently 

had some extension of our operating hours. Generally speaking, the 

last tickets are sold in midafternoon, in the city that doesn’t sleep 

at all. It’s sometimes a staffing question. It’s sometimes thought of 

as a budget question, although the payments for franchise fees will 

pretty much support any operating hours at that location. 

So there has been some movement in that. We had an evening 

program several years ago that was discontinued but not for lack 

of demand. So the park has been receptive there to some movement, although, considering how large the opportunity is, it’s a glacial pace to expand visitation that way. 

Alcatraz, we have had some opportunity to expand shoulder season definitions. We went from having three seasons to having two 

seasons. We can run 14 cruises a day during the busy season and 

10 during the winter. The fact of the matter is Alcatraz is virtually 

sold out all the time. We could probably have 50 percent more, 

maybe 100 percent more visitors there than we actually have. 

And there’s a lot of different reasons. Some, you know, can be 

overcome through change in programming and change in facilities. 

I just think, generally speaking, the parks are not as driven to find 

ways to increase visitation because they don’t operate off of that 

budget. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Belland, your company, Historic Tours of 

America, experienced similar issues, and, if I’m not mistaken, it 

was stated that it took nearly 2 years to resolve. Can you tell me 

why it took so long? What was your experience? 

Mr. BELLAND. Do we have the rest of the day? 

Well, again, this is our first concession, and our experience in 

working with the parks was rather new to the game. I worked with 

the local guy at Everglades, Dan Kimball, who is now retired, and, 

boy, he thought it was a great idea. He said, I’m going to make this 

my legacy contribution to the Dry Tortugas, because it makes 

sense. 

I mean, as I said before, the general management plan of 350 

was never met. There just weren’t enough people going out there. 

We had the capacity, and people wanted to go. So it seemed a very 

logical thing. But this thing went up to Atlanta, then it went from 

Atlanta to Washington, then back down to Everglades. And it was 

back and forth so many times, I’ve got a whole sheath of documents, you know, of letters and emails going back and forth trying 

to get this done. 

And it was something, as I said before, I think it really should 

have been delegated to a lower level than Washington, D.C. The 

people in Atlanta certainly know what to do in this regard. And I 

can tell you that the folks in Everglades did too. It was just a nobrainer thing. It had no impact on the asset and a minimal impact 

on staffing, so why not? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. If you will allow me to ask just one more question, Madam Chair. 

Ms. McDowall, you have heard the comments made from these 

two. What has the National Park Service—have you analyzed it? 

Have you identified it? And is there any movement to change the 

processing so that we can cut down that turnaround time? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So there are a number of things that the Park 

Service is doing, particularly for smaller contracts, to try to streamline the request-for-proposal process and the contracting process. 

I think when it comes to the process for trying to make changes 

in services during the life of a contract, the Park Service is trying 

to be as flexible as possible administratively within the constraints 

of the law to make changes to services. 

I think that the constraint we are operating under is that—and 

forgive me, I don’t have the clause memorized—there are some 

clauses within the law that talk about the Park Service needing to 

issue a new prospectus if they are going to expand services or add 

new services during the life of a contract. 

So the Park Service is very careful about where that line is. And 

I think some of that frustration you hear from concessioners, I 

think commercial services people in parks share those same frustrations. Ten years, 15, 20 years is a long time on a contract, and 

things do change, but we don’t have a great deal of flexibility to 

make significant changes during the term of a contract. And part 

of the back-and-forth is working with the lawyers to determine 

what is significant. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady and recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chairlady. 

Ms. McDowall, I’m going to ask you a little bit about the backlog 

that you have in deferred maintenance and some of the infrastructure issues that the Park Service now faces. 

What steps is the Park Service taking to address this backlog? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So I think we have done a number of things. I 

think the work that’s been done to get a handle on what the backlog is in the first place was the first significant move, I think. 

You’re seeing the Park Service now really focus its attention and 

resources on our high-priority, nontransportation deferred maintenance, those facilities that really are important for serving visitors, 

and working on ways to direct funding—— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me ask you—— 

Ms. MCDOWALL. —to those facilities. Yes? 

Mr. PALMER. I’m going to get to some specific things here, maybe 

even generate some ideas. 

But when you say the significant, what would those be? Would 

it be anything from a visitor facility to a road or a bridge? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So nontransportation are the—— 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. —things that I’m focusing on. So things like—— 

Mr. PALMER. Would that include a ferry? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. —visitor centers, bathrooms—— 

Mr. PALMER. But when you say nontransportation, would that 

that exclude ferries? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So the Park Service doesn’t own many ferries. 

I think we’re talking about buildings, for the most part. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Yeah. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. And trails, to a lesser extent. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. 

One of the things that, looking through the background on this, 

is the leaseholder surrender interest. Is there a possibility that 

more private investment could help address some or maybe even a 

significant portion of the infrastructure improvement needs? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. I think in some of the concession-managed assets there is certainly a role for the private sector. I think you see 

that in some of the longer concessions contracts that we have recently issued and that we’re about to issue. There’s the large lodging contract at Yellowstone that’s 15 years that has a great deal 

of private investment associated with it. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Does the Park Service own the lodge, or is 

that a private—— 

Ms. MCDOWALL. The Park Service does own the facility. 

Mr. PALMER. Is there any possibility that you could have a public-private partnership or a private entity own the lodge? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. I don’t immediately know the answer to that. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s one of the things that I would think you 

might want to consider in addressing some of the backlog. And, 

again, if you take a look at the leaseholder surrender interest—and 

we could work out some arrangement where private entities own 

the facilities, and then the contract or the agreement was structured in such a way that, over the long term, they would be able 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

to not only recover their investment but earn a profit, it might take 

some of the burden off of the Park Service. 

Mr. MacRae or Mr. Klein or Mr. Belland, do you have any—and 

this is just in the context of some ideas that might help solve some 

of these problems and make your job a little bit easier. 

Mr. MacRae? 

Mr. MACRAE. Mr. Palmer, I could speak to that for a moment. 

One of the things that the 1998 act did do is provide for the ability to do some leasing. So, from a practical standpoint, some of the 

projects and opportunities that require a much longer amortization 

period than is available under the concession contract could probably best be handled by leasing. And, frankly, it might be a nice 

bridge between figuring out what the LSI solution is, because you 

do need a long period of time to amortize some of these investments, and it’s really not provided, the capability to do that, within 

a shorter concession agreement. 

So, clearly, the leasing channel is one. And in the Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, we have two examples of that. One is 

the Argonaut Hotel, and one is Cavallo Point. So the Park Service 

does have assets that can be leased. And probably, with, you know, 

some urging and some direction, they would probably do more of 

them. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, my perspective is that, when you have a private interest in something and you basically own it, you’ve got 

more motivation to invest in it, keep it up. And I think it helps on 

the concession side. It helps in attracting visitors. 

I want to go back to Ms. McDowall on the fees. 

The inspector general’s office laid out some specific recommendations, some of which you have handled well. Where are you in the 

process of increasing the fees? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So we have finished, for the most part, the public engagement process that we go through before we make a decision to raise fees. Most parks that did engage in that conversation 

with the public have decided to raise fees, maybe not quite as much 

as they had proposed, but many of them are raising fees. I think 

we started seeing increases back in February. And most parks that 

were going to raise fees have raised them so far, usually after Memorial Day, at the beginning of the season. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So we are moving forward. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, my time has expired. I would just like to conclude with this, to encourage the Park Service to look at these public-private partnerships going forward as maybe a part of the solution. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Buck, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. 

Ms. McDowall, what law are we talking about? You have mentioned ‘‘the law’’ a number of times. Could you tell me a code section, if you have it? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. It’s the Concessions Management Improvement 

Act of 1998. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

And, specifically, you mentioned some of the parts of the law that 

are constraining you. Can you give me some more details? 

Because I think one of the things that we all want to do on this 

committee is try to help you gain that flexibility, and, if there is 

a statutory remedy, I think we all want to try to look at that. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So the way that the law lays out the requestfor-proposal process, it requires the Park Service to be very detailed at the front end about the services that should be provided 

and the structure of the contract. So there’s not really much of an 

opportunity for negotiation. 

In the private sector, you might—or even in an airport concessions process, they might have a two-part process, where they find 

qualified bidders, and then they actually negotiate with them to 

talk about what kinds of services the various offerors might provide. 

The Park Service can’t really do that under this law. We have 

to evaluate and decide at the front end what services should be offered. That goes into an RFP. And the bidders have to bid on a contract that’s almost completely set in the RFP. There’s not much 

room to maneuver after we select an offeror. 

Mr. BUCK. So you have mentioned a contract model. Is it that the 

FAA has? Or what—— 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So some of the things or some of the examples 

of more flexible models would be the types of leases that Mr. 

MacRae mentioned. Managing agreements are common in the hotel 

industry. 

Neither of those are real options under the concessions law. We 

do have leasing authority, but it specifically does not allow the 

Park Service to enter into a lease when a concessions contract is 

what we should use. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Any other areas of flexibility? Obviously, you are dealing with 

lodging, you are dealing with food services, you are dealing with a 

number of different areas. I would imagine each of them needs a 

separate type of flexibility. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Right. They are all very unique. And I think 

having the ability to mix and match different contract types, 

change the way the terms are constructed for various business opportunities, would be valuable. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. We have a one-size-fits-all approach right now. 

Mr. BUCK. Who are the best people to talk to at the Park Service 

to try to deal with developing a different model or looking at different models and trying to apply them? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. It would be the Commercial Services Program 

within the Chief Financial Officer’s program of—— 

Mr. BUCK. And you know those folks well. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Very well. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

I have no further questions. I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, I thank the gentleman and would ask the 

panel if they would be willing to entertain a lightning round, where 

we each get one question and one question only and alternate. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Without objection, we will take that approach, and the chair recognizes herself for one question. 

Ms. McDowall, are these contracting—the attorneys that—or people who draft these prospectuses—for example, I have been told, at 

Denali, they even specify within the prospectus application different prices for soft drinks in different parts of the park. That 

sounds like micromanagement to such an extreme that you can visualize a 1,600-page contract. You can also visualize a less efficient 

bidding process when that kind of specificity is included in the prospectus application. 

Is that normal, and do all of them have that type of specificity? 

And doesn’t that seem—how can we ferret out that kind of micromanagement from the contracting process and really get down to 

the type of contracting that would benefit the Park Service as well 

as the applicants? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So there are things that we are doing to reduce 

the amount of specificity that’s required on those types of things. 

There is an approach called core menu, where Washington has 

been very encouraging for parks and regions who are developing 

contracts to really only look at a small subset of items on a particular menu, for example. And the Park Service would approve 

rates on those items, maybe five, six, seven items on a menu, and 

the rest of the menu items are available for the concessioner to 

price however they would wish. 

Washington does not dictate to every park and every region exactly how they should structure their contract. It’s a very decentralized organization. We leave a lot of local discretion to the field. 

And so, even though that flexibility is there, we do still have circumstances where I think there is probably more specificity than 

is required. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lawrence? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have spoken about the centennial coming up. The House is 

considering an appropriation bill that would increase the Park 

Service’s budget by roughly $50 million this year. That is a good 

start, but, given the importance of the upcoming centennial year 

and the substantial funding challenges that the Park Service is facing, is that enough? 

So my question to you, Ms. McDowall: What is the Park Service 

planning to do to make sure our parks are ready for the centennial? And—it was only supposed to be one question. What are you 

doing, and will you have the funds to do it? 

Ms. MCDOWALL. So I think you’re right, the $50 million isn’t 

going to get us all the way there. It will certainly help. Raising fees 

helps. I think having more money available for facilities will help. 

And then I think, outside the financial realm, I think there are 

a lot of—there’s a lot of work being done in the Park Service about 

the kinds of programs that we offer. I think there are certainly 

things we can do, working with our concessioners, to look at different types of visitor services that could be offered that are the 

types of services that visitors are expecting in this day and age 

that will help us be ready for what we hope is a large influx of visitors and different visitors than we’ve had in the past. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The chair recognizes Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. MacRae, in your testimony, you talked about 

that park visitation has been unchanged over 25 years despite a 

30-percent increase in the population of the United States. And you 

raised some concerns that, if you deducted the number of visitors 

to the World War II Memorial and the newer monuments, that, 

really, park visitation is down below 1987 numbers. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. MACRAE. The population of the country has grown significantly over time. The visitation to the parks have not grown over 

that same period. 

If you think of the parks as, you know, 400 units that host 300 million visitors a year, a $3 billion budget—and there’s not a chief 

marketing officer. The word ‘‘marketing’’ in the parks, frankly, 

until Director Jarvis came along and was willing to use it, you 

know, in public, was a verboten word there. ‘‘Promotion,’’ of course, 

is in the act, so they recognized the need for promotion. But the 

parks have an amazing brand, and they have amazing assets, and 

they have a huge number of visitors that want to come but don’t 

know much about it. So there’s some great opportunities to join 

with the National Parks Promotion Council and the National Park 

Foundation and BrandUSA to promote the parks. 

And, frankly, the visitation within the parks hasn’t reflected the 

change in our population either. So there’s some work that needs 

to be done there, and the Park Service, I think, has recognized 

that. And the centennial has given them some opportunity to focus 

on it and try to find a way forward there. And we really encourage 

that and support that, as concessioners. 

Within our parks, of course, we go out and promote the parks 

where we provide services, but that still leaves 300 parks that 

don’t have anybody promoting them, so—huge opportunity there, in 

our view. 

Mr. PALMER. It sounds like we need a major marketing plan. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. 

Before I close the hearing, I want to give each of our panelists 

one last question and one last chance to close. And so I like to close 

hearings by asking any of the panelists to respond to a question 

you wish you would have been asked. So the chair will recognize 

each panelist for kind of a closing statement. 

Mr. Belland, you are recognized first. 

Mr. BELLAND. Well, that’s interesting. 

You know, it’s hard to sit here in this limited amount of time and 

talk about all the things that we have experienced as concessioners. I want to reiterate the comments of my fellow panelists by 

saying that we work with an extraordinary group of people who are 

absolutely dedicated to the prospects of the National Park Service 

mission. 

They, as much as we, have our hands tied. Listening to Ms. 

McDowall’s comments about being able to change contracts, you 

know, to me, put in a more simple way, which is what I was confronted with—and it was never said to me—was that, after you get 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

a contract, after you win the award, they really can’t negotiate with 

you. 

And the reason for that is that the National Park Service is 

wary—I won’t use the word ‘‘afraid’’ because I don’t think you’re 

afraid of anything—but they’re wary of another bidder coming back 

and saying, oh, well, if you’d let me do that, you know, I could 

have—blah, blah, blah. And they’re afraid of those lawsuits, and I 

understand that. 

But I think there has to be a modicum of common sense brought 

to the National Park Service in a businesslike fashion that will 

allow it to be flexible over these contracts. Because, as I said, 

things change, big things change, and you have to be able to 

change direction as you need to. 

And, again, you have partners working for you, with you, that 

are willing to toe the line and do the right thing. I mean, it’s in 

all of our best interests to promote the parks, provide the very best 

service we can. Because we are facing right now, as Congressman 

Palmer said, we are facing a crisis of attendance, and we have got 

to find a way to make the National Park Service relevant in this 

technological age. Because they say, if a child does not go camping 

by the time he is 16, he will never go camping in his life. Now, 

that’s not the generation that I grew up with. And I grew up in 

the age of no television, and now every kid walks around with a 

television in his hand. 

And so we have to seek ways, I think, to your point—I think the 

question is, what can we do together to make the National Park 

Service relevant for the next generation. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

You are absolutely right about contracting. When I was State 

treasurer, we would issue RFPs and award external managers for 

money. And then, if there were substantial contract revisions, we 

would have disgruntled bidders after us. So you are absolutely 

right; it is difficult for government when you are dealing with big 

contracts like that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Klein? 

Mr. KLEIN. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity once 

again. 

And thank you, Mr. Belland, for giving me time to think of a 

question I would have been asked. 

Mr. BELLAND. You’re welcome. 

Mr. KLEIN. You know, I think there’s many questions. And, to 

Mr. Belland’s point, you know, we haven’t had the opportunity to 

speak at length about the many issues that I think we do need to 

address over time. 

But, representing Grand Teton Lodge Company, a company that 

was started by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., you know, really just prior 

to the formation of the park itself, the same individual that donated the land, I think about whether or not these wonderful assets that, Madam Chair, you’ve enjoyed on many occasions—Jenny 

Lake Lodge, Jackson Lake Lodge, Colter Bay Village—you know, 

whether that type of ingenuity and those types of visitor accommodations and fine dining and the wonderful trips that we provide 

to people on the Snake River and the wonderful cookout sites we 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

have on Oak Island, were the rules the same in 1955 when these 

lodges were being built and put together and the visitor services 

determined, unfortunately I think in today’s day and age that 

would not have happened, and we’d be left with a park that didn’t 

have these facilities that really enhance the visitor experience. 

To stay in a room at Jackson Lake Lodge that has a view of the 

Tetons is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. To float on the Snake 

River on one of our float trips is just an unbelievable way to see 

wildlife in its natural habitat. And I think, unfortunately, with the 

current process, that type of ingenuity and new services and new 

facilities really aren’t feasible and possible today. 

Thank you once again. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. And I never tire of that visitor experience. I have been doing it since I was a little girl and hope to, God 

willing, be able to do it until I am no longer around. 

Thank you, Mr. Klein. 

Mr. MacRae? 

Mr. MACRAE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would say a simple way to think about it is, if you put the folks 

that are responsible for preserving thousands-and-thousands-ofyear-old trees and hundreds-and-hundreds-of-year-old structures 

into the job of preserving the contracting system in the National 

Park Service, you probably won’t get it modernized. 

Getting business folks in that have some of that background and 

training, which they have been doing—so there’s some great movement in that area. You know, it’s a big ship with a small rudder, 

and you have to turn that rudder sooner and faster. 

And I believe the Park Service recognizes many of these challenges. And, frankly, if the shackles associated with either their 

culture or the laws, the things that are preventing them from moving forward, were taken off, I think the progress would be amazing. 

So, great opportunities ahead. And I think the concessioners certainly want to be a part of that and are, you know, looking at every 

possibility to find ways to collaborate with the National Park Service to do that. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. MacRae. 

And, with all eyes on the Park Service for the next year, as it 

celebrates its 100th, it really is an opportunity to address some of 

these issues, while we are all acknowledging the great pride that 

we have in the National Park Service. 

Ms. McDowall, you are our final speaker today. 

Ms. MCDOWALL. Thank you. 

I think, just in general, the Park Service, of course, is interested 

in doing anything we can to do better at accomplishing our primary 

mission, which is meeting visitor needs and protecting resources. 

And, to follow up on Mr. MacRae’s point, I think there are a lot 

of things the Park Service can do and is doing to improve business 

acumen within the Park Service, by bringing in new staff, by better 

training for the ones that exist, both to better manage parks and 

to be better partners with our private-sector contractors. 

And I would also be remiss if I did not mention a question that 

I wish I’d been asked, was what marketing campaigns is the Park 

Service running in order to prepare for its next century. And I forVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:49 Feb 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97790.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

got to mention our Find Your Park campaign that has been running with the National Park Foundation, which is a major marketing and outreach push to invite new members of the American 

public to come to parks. And I think we’re hoping that that effort 

bears a lot of fruit. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I want to thank Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Palmer, and 

other members of the committee. And I want to thank our panelists 

and guests for being here today and for sharing your experiences 

and ideas with us. 

I would also like to enter into the record statements from the following organizations: David Woodside, president of the Acadia Corporation; John King, regional vice president of Forever Resorts; 

Pamela Pitts, secretary of the California Parks Company; Tim 

Rout, CEO of Dyno Ventures, Forever Resorts, Gettysburg Tours, 

and TRF Concession Specialists of Florida; and John Garder, director of budget and appropriations at the National Park Conservation 

Association. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Again, thank you, witnesses, for taking the time 

to appear before us today. This hearing was one of the more enjoyable and enlightening and caused us to think about some opportunities legislatively and with regard to our stewardship of our great 

National Park System. So thank you kindly. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(43) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 97790.019
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 97790.020
46 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 97790.021
47 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 97790.022
48 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 97790.023
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 97790.024
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 97790.025
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 97790.026
52 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 97790.027
53 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 97790.028
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 97790.029
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 97790.030
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 97790.031
57 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 97790.032
58 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 97790.033
59 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 97790.034
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 97790.035
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 97790.036
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 97790.037
63 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 97790.038
64 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 97790.039
65 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 97790.040
66 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 97790.041
67 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 97790.042
68 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 97790.043
69 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 97790.044
70 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 97790.045
71 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 97790.046
72 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 97790.047
73 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 97790.048
74 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 97790.049
75 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 97790.050
76 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 97790.051
77 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 97790.052
78 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 97790.053
79 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 97790.054
80 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 97790.055
81 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 97790.056
82 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 97790.057
83 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 97790.058
84 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 97790.059
85 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 97790.060
86 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 97790.061
87 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 97790.062
88 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 97790.063
89 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 97790.064
90 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 97790.065
91 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 97790.066
92 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 97790.067
93 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 97790.068
94 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 97790.069
95 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 97790.070
96 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 97790.071
97 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 97790.072
98 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 97790.073
99 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 97790.074
100 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 97790.075
101 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 97790.076
102 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 97790.077
103 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 97790.078
104 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 97790.079
105 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 97790.080
106 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 97790.081
107 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 97790.082
108 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 97790.083
109 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 97790.084
110 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 97790.085
111 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 97790.086
112 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 97790.087
113 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 97790.088
114 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 97790.089
115 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 97790.090
116 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 97790.091
117 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 92 here 97790.092
118 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 93 here 97790.093
119 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 94 here 97790.094
120 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 95 here 97790.095
121 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 96 here 97790.096
122 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 97 here 97790.097
123 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 98 here 97790.098